Was CNN's "God's Warriors" Fair?





Mr. Furnish, Ph.D (Islamic History), is Assistant Professor, History, Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody, GA 30338. Mr. Furnish is the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads and Osama bin Laden (Praeger, 2005). He is the proprietor of www.mahdiwatch.org.

On August 21-23, 2007, CNN ran a series entitled “God’s Warriors,” hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The two-hour segments dealt, in nightly order, with Jews (and Israelis), Muslims and Christians. I watched all three, but since my areas of expertise are Islamic and Christian history (as well as being a Christian myself), my commentary will not encompass the first night.

As is usually the case with CNN, powerful images from exotic locales are interspersed with seemingly hard-hitting interviews and spiced with almost subliminal commentary from the host—in this case, Amanpour. She began the segment on “God’s Muslim Warriors” by talking to “Ed” Hussein, a Brit and former member of Hizb al-Tahrir who has written a book—The Islamist—on his journey into and out of that organization dedicated to establishing a global caliphate transcending national borders. This was followed by a brief, and useful, description of Sayyid Qutb and his writings. Qutb was the Egyptian intellectual who is, in many ways, the most important proximate influence on modern jihadist thought, especially in his contention that Western civilization is corrupt and godless and its influences must be replaced by Islamic ones, especially law.

Amanpour interviewed the usually-knowlegable Fawaz Gerges on Qutb, then jumped to the topic of Iran, where we got our first clip of the ubiquitous Karen Armstrong. Armstrong has somehow gained the status of an expert on Islam, despite the fact that she works only in secondary sources or in sources in translation; furthermore, Armstrong never met a Pollyannish view of Islamic history that she didn’t totally accept. This was followed by a recap of 1979’s Iranian Revolution, then of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and the role that Shi`i views of martyrdom played in Iran’s being able to eventually repel Saddam Hussein’s invasion. Amanpour, in one of several clips from Qom—Iran’s ayatollah central—then talked to Grand Ayatollah Saanei who, when asked about terrorism, replied (at least according to the translator—my Farsi is not that good) “terrorists should go to hell—but we have the right to defend ourselves.” Amanpour, as usual (at least with Islamic interviewees—she behaves rather differently when talking to Christian evangelicals), did not press the ayatollah to explicate that curious statement. Perhaps we might have learned that one ayatollah’s terrorist might be another ayatollah’s martyr?

From here Amanpour took us to Cairo and briefly reviewed why and how Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981. However, in explaining the ideological roots of the folks who riddled him with bullets, Amanpour noted the undeniable influence of Qutb on groups like Takfir wa-al-Hijra, but then opined that Qutb had “redefined jihad”—the clear implication being that jihad was nonviolent until Qutb weaponized the concept. This is a politically-correct absurdity, for as I (and other writers) have demonstrated, jihad’s primary meaning has been “conquest of the Dar al-Harb [non-Muslim territory] by the Dar al-Islam [Muslim world]” since at least the 9th c. CE, if not going back to Muhammad himself.

Amanpour then finally launched into a segment on Usama bin Ladin, describing him (rightly) as “ultra-strict, devout” and “wanting to create a global caliphate.” She does a good job on the Egyptian roots of Bin Ladin’s thought, especially of course the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in this regard (al-Zawahiri, for example, is Egyptian and got his start in the MB). However, she once again allows political correctness to trump reality, in describing the Muslim Brotherhood as having “renounced violence” and allowing to go unquestioned Fawaz Gerges’s contention that the MB is now “mainstream…[and] moderate”—a myth that research by Patrick Poole has superbly exploded.

Amanpour next turns back to Iran and explores Mahdism (although without ever uttering that term), describing President Ahmadinezhad accurately as “waiting for the return of the Shi`ite messiah.” Of course, the returned Hidden Imam in his role as Mahdi is NOT a “messiah,” at least not as Christians—the largest group to use the concept—understand it. The Mahdi is quite unlike Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected Christian messiah, in that his role is more that of a global warlord who will take over the world and create a just planetary caliphate. Granted, that may be a bit much to explain in a CNN special. But would it have been too much for Amanpour to explore the fact that belief in the Mahdi is NOT just the province of Shi`i Islam—that most Mahdist claimants throughout Islamic history have been Sunni?! Indeed, as I have pointed out in my writings and on my website (www.mahdiwatch.org) , Mahdi claims in the Sunni world are not just part of history—several have been made this year alone. But to give Amanpour credit, she did travel to the Bright Future Institute in Qom, an organization founded under Ahmadinezhad’s adminstration which is dedicated to teaching about, and preparing for, the re-emergence of the Hidden Imam. She also used her difficulties in getting her chador on properly to segue into a discussion of the status of women in Iran under Islamic law today. However, I’m not all that reassured in this regard by the interview with a prominent female Iranian politician, who said that the Qur’an mandates stoning for adultery but that “we’ve only had 3 or 4 cases of stoning in the last 28 years.”

And what would be a discussion of women in the Muslim world without Karen Armstrong’s opinion? “Not a single one of the world’s great religions has been good for women,” and “the Qur’an gives women rights” that the other two [monotheistic] religions don’t. The first is a blanket statement that it would seem to owe more to Ms. Armstrong’s sour grapes, as a former nun, toward the Catholic Church than to any reasonable historical assessment of Christianity, since it is rather ahistorical to detach the fact that women’s rights developed in Western civilization from, at least in part, the Christian foundations of the West. As for the latter, Armstrong is correct that the legal status of women was raised from virtually non-existent to second-class by Muhammad. However, I am puzzled as to exactly how “send your wives to beds apart and beat them” (Surah al-Nisa’:34ff) give women rights. Of course, Amanpour did not press Armstrong on such issues.

Amanpour then moved to the status of Muslim women in the U.S. I was quite surprised that she stated there are “approximately 2 million Muslims in the U.S.,” drawing upon the latest data by the Pew Center, rather than simply repeating CAIR-esque propaganda about the “7-10 million Muslims” here. But she quickly reverted to politically correct (or perhaps just ignorant) type, in allowing a Muslim-American woman to state that “jihad means struggle. Holy War? Who made that up? That’s a very bad translation.” If I hadn’t already been on the floor, I’d have fallen out of my chair, amazed that any Muslim is that ignorant of her own history while only slightly less amazed that CNN’s Islam expert allowed such massive ignorance (or mendacity) to go unchallenged. Who made up the idea that jihad means holy war? Off the top of my head I can think of al-Bukhari, Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. One might even quite plausibly argue the Islamic prophet Muhammad himself. It’s not the definition of jihad as “holy war” that is novel; rather, it is the revisionist definition of jihad solely as a peaceful struggle to be a good Muslim and/or to propagate Islam. The world would be well-served if the latter version were to win out—but the violent definition of jihad is neither new nor artificial. No doubt Homeland Security will breathe a collective sigh of relief if jihad indeed comes to mean something as anodyne as “wearing the hijab”—which this same American Muslimah claimed. But she has an uphill struggle, since as Amanpour pointed out—using the same aforementioned Pew data—26% of American Muslims under 30 think that suicide bombing is sometimes justified. (See my 7 Myths About Islam.)

Yet more Karen Armstong came next: analogizing the habit she used to wear as a nun to the hijab or chador that allegedly increasing numbers of Muslim women are adopting, Armstrong said both were liberating in that neither is “man-pleasing.” By that logic, the Taliban with their full-length burkas have the most liberating take on women’s dress.

Amanpour talked to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross at some length, a quite informative segment from a fellow who converted from Judaism to radical Islam, then found his way out. From here she jumped to the Netherlands and discussed the Islamic killing of Theo Van Gogh and the threats against Islamic reformer Ayaan Hirsi Ali which forced her to move to the U.S. However, Amanpour made a ridiculous stab at moral equivalence by juxtaposing an interview of a Dutch Muslim cleric who had openly prayed for Hirsi Ali to “get cancer and die” with one of a Dutch politician who calls Islam a threat and for a ban on Muslim immigration to Holland.

The penultimate segment was on Palestinian suicide bombers. The mother of one such young man told Amanpour that “according to the Qur’an he’s in heaven.” If the Qur’an itself—said to have been written in the 7th c. CE—says this, then how can suicide bombing and jihad be modern ideas, twisted by modern ideologues? Amanpour ended the night on Islam by stating categorically that people who kill in the name of Islam adhere to “a twisted version of Islam.” I wonder if she would include Muhammad in that category?

On Thursday, August 23, CNN went after “God’s Christian Warriors.” Let me state at the outset, in the name of full disclosure, that while I am a rather conservative Christian, I am in no way, shape or form an evangelical or “fundamentalist” Christian (yes, my liberal readers, there IS a difference).

Amanpour began by observing that “religion has exploded as a political force” in the last 30 years but blames it on the Religious Right: “[Jerry] Falwell thrust religion into politics.” Has Christiane, or any producer or editor at CNN, never had a class in American history? Religion has been part and parcel of American politics going back to the founding of the Republic, as Jon Meacham demonstrates in his recent book American Gospel. Many Americans who don’t work at CNN know that the 19th century fight to emancipate black American slaves was led by the churches. And even within Amanpour’s lifetime, we have had the example of the civil rights struggle—incubated in black and white churches and led, more often than not, by ministers. How she gets away with stating on TV that Falwell religionized politics is beyond me.

She did a good job summarizing the catalyzing effect of 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision on evangelical Christians—but for some reason totally ignored its similar effect on the 70 million strong Catholic community in the U.S., other than to briefly observe that Falwell’s movement “transcended denomination, including Roman Catholics and Mormons.” Amanpour spent quite a bit of time talking about the law school at Liberty University (the school Falwell founded in 1971) and how it’s training conservative Christian attorneys not only to fight Roe but also to change the society. At this point my attorney wife, who had been watching the series with me, remarked: “isn’t it amazing that these Christian ‘warriors’ are using the legal system to try to effect change—rather than flying airplanes into buildings?” Indeed. Why does CNN seem obsessed with equating Christian fundamentalists with Muslim ones? Despite some surface simlarities, the two are quite different. But for CNN, as for much of the mainstream media, ANY strong religious belief is ipso facto frightening and irrational.

Of course, being based at CNN with its Atlanta headquarters, Amanpour had to interview former President Carter, who said a few years ago—upon his formal departure from the Southern Baptist Convention—that “like Moslems [sic] and orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists restrict the role of women.” Could someone explain how a man with a degree in nuclear engineering from the Naval Academy could be so—well, asinine? The SBC did decide to stop ordaining women as ministers. However, I have yet to meet a Baptist woman wearing a burka, walking behind her husband, prevented from working outside the home or prohibited from driving. Oh, and while Baptists are no doubt not immune from domestic violence, I have never—and I spent the first quarter-century of my life as a Southern Baptist, and attended a SBC college as an undergraduate—heard or read a Baptist minister or theologian advocate beating one’s wife, much less one’s wives. I used to think Carter lost to Reagan because of the hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but now I realize he lost because of his inability to reason or to make clear moral distinctions.

Amanpour spent some time interviewing one of the leaders of the “Christian Zionist” movement, John Hagee. As a Middle East historian and non-fundamentalist Christian, I do not subscribe to Hagee’s view of unbridled American support for Israel as part of God’s plan. However, is Hagee really a wild-eyed fanatic to state that “Iran…is a threat to both the U.S. and Israel?” Hell, he should be working at the State Department.

She also dealt quite critically and sarcastically with Pastor Rich Scarborough, who is on a mission to get Americans to vote (presumably Republican, although he never said as much). Amanpour described Scarborough as “getting really riled up” and showed numerous clips of his quite animated preaching—all the while clucking disapprovingly. Yet Scarborough could not even hold a candle in the “riled up” department to most black ministers—who, by the way, have been known to inject politics now and then into THEIR sermons. But since they tend to advise their flocks to vote Democrat, it seems CNN finds that unworthy of analysis, or even coverage. On this topic, I lost count of how many times Amanpour used the adjective “right-wing” to describe ideas and people—yet not once did I hear her utter the term “left-wing.”

Amanpour’s take on the large and growing home school movement strongly implied that parents taught their kids at home solely because the public schools taught the evil philosphy of evolution. However, the home schooling folks I know are more concerned about the moral decay of public schools than they are with Darwinism. She is right that many evangelical Christians are adamant that one cannot believe in both God and evolution—a view inexplicable to me, since this conservative Christian happens to accept both—but clearly leaves the impression that any conservative brand of Christianity shares this philosopy. Yet the Catholic Church officially sees no contradiction in seeing evolution as guided by God. And in a short segment on a conservative Christian college that requires women to wear long skirts, Amanpour opined that this was the same as the Taliban in Afghanistan forcing women to wear full-length burkas! The final segment in the night on “God’s Christian Warriors” dealt with a Christian group which went to San Francisco to preach and confront the gay and lesbian community there with the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality. While Amanpour said “some say your message is divisive, not inclusive,” almost no coverage was provided of the vile obscenities and death threats screamed at these Christian teen-agers by some of San Francisco crowd. Perhaps we can look forward to a CNN special on “God’s Secular/Atheist Warriors?” Don’t hold your breath.

Amanpour ended the series, in Jerusalem, stating that “God’s warriors” in Judaism, Christianity and Islam all think their religions have been pushed to the side and that they have the answers to cure their respective society’s ills. That is true. But God’s Christian warriors, even by CNN’s own evidence, think their answers should be enacted legally and peacefully within the United States (and why didn’t Amanpour cover Christian movements anywhere else?)—whereas many, but not all, of God’s Muslim warriors think the entire world should be run by their religious rules, even if it takes violence to impose them. All of Amanpour’s attempts at moral equivalence failed to hide that fact.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

I certainly understood what you wrote. I also understand full well that what is written is incorrect.

For argument's sake, let us say you are correct and that such an order were issued in 1974. That would be objectionable and should be exposed.

Let us also note that the world is full of peculiar orders. Not so very long ago - at the beginning of WWI -, the Sheik-ul Islam proclaimed a jihad to kill all infidel, other than Germans, wherever they could be found. Such, you will note, was widely reported all over the world and led to complaints by the US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

A lot of killing is, unfortunately taking place all over the world.
In the Middle East Israeli occupation forces are killing Palestinians resisting or SUSPECTED of resisting, Israeli occupation.
American and "allies" and American subcontractors are killing Iraqis resisting or SUSPECTED of resisting American occupation.

Iraqis are also killing Iraqis at an unprecedented rate after the USA and allies put an end to the rule of law and order in Iraq to attain exactly the present sad state of affairs of lawlessness by disbanding ALL IRAQI SECURITY forces .
However what is paramount in this respect is to underline the basic "legal " and "moral" principles of KILLING.
Of particular interest , and of ever lasting pertinence, is to know what conservative Judaism has to say on the subject.

The late Professor Israel Shahak states:

(http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis5.htm#The%20Laws%20Against%20Non-Jews)

"MURDER and GENOCIDE
ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.5

All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.

Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:



When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7



The same doctrine is expounded in the following exchange of letters between a young Israeli soldier and his rabbi, published in the yearbook of one of the country's most prestigious religious colleges, Midrashiyyat No'am, where many leaders and activists of the National Religious Party and Gush Emunim have been educated.8"

CHAPTER 5
The Laws Against Non-Jews
From: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years"
by Professor Israel Shahak

in his extremely interesting book:

Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
by Professor Israel Shahak
:
(http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis1.htm#Jewish%20History,%20Jewish%20Religion:)







omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
You state:


For argument's sake, let us say you are correct and that such an order were issued in 1974. That would be objectionable and should be exposed.

Let us also note that the world is full of peculiar orders."

If we discard the " For arguments sake", as we should, since it is Friedman's only remainig refuge,
and Friedman simply could NOT deny it ( The Halkaha unambigious command to KILL ibdiscriminately all enemy civilians )outright he resorted to "For arguments sake" the only conclusion is and the undeniable facts of the matter:

THIS IS an UNQUALIFIED ADMISSION that an official command of the Israeli army adopted and issued the BARBARIC orders of the Halkaha which COMMANDS the KILLING of CIVILIANS, women, children and oldesters in wartime and peace time in the year 1974 AD!!

That:

"...the world is full of peculiar orders."

is as silly and moronic a justification as could be imagined ; not even Eckstein would use such an inane excuse.

However it is revealing that the ,presumably, more sober Friedman should use such a lame, idiotic excuse .
THis admission came after more than a dozen posts in which he, Friedman ( let us forget about side kick Eckstein) tried all tricks of prevarication and obfuscation to obscure the issue, the FACTS and the TRUTH.

It is revealing in that it shows that even the more "moderate" and sober of the Zionist herd, E Friedman, is as liable to resort to all tricks of their ancient trade to HIDE the ugly and heinous TRUTH about the BARBARIC injunctions of the Halakaha which commands the indiscriminate KILLING of CIVILIANS by the Israeli army in the year
1974 AD!
( that is AD NOT BC).

Now the case is CLOSED with this belated ADMISSION about the veracity of the injunctions issued by an Israeli army command chief Chaplain to KILL indiscriminately all enemy Civilians.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
You state:
(Re: Case Closed Indeed. (#113119)
by N. Friedman on September 8, 2007 at 10:37 AM)


"For argument's sake, let us say you are correct and that such an order were issued in 1974. That would be objectionable and should be exposed.

Let us also note that the world is full of peculiar orders."

If we discard the " For arguments sake", as we should, since it is Friedman's only remainig refuge,
and Friedman simply could NOT deny it ( The Halkaha unambigious command to KILL ibdiscriminately all enemy civilians )outright he resorted to "For arguments sake" the only conclusion is and the undeniable facts of the matter:

THIS IS an UNQUALIFIED ADMISSION that an official command of the Israeli army adopted and issued the BARBARIC orders of the Halkaha which COMMANDS the KILLING of CIVILIANS, women, children and oldesters in wartime and peace time in the year 1974 AD!!

That:

"...the world is full of peculiar orders."

is as silly and moronic a justification as could be imagined ; not even Eckstein would use such an inane excuse.

However it is revealing that the ,presumably, more sober Friedman should use such a lame, idiotic excuse .
THis admission came after more than a dozen posts in which he, Friedman ( let us forget about side kick Eckstein) tried all tricks of prevarication and obfuscation to obscure the issue, the FACTS and the TRUTH.

It is revealing in that it shows that even the more "moderate" and sober of the Zionist herd, E Friedman, is as liable to resort to all tricks of their ancient trade to HIDE the ugly and heinous TRUTH about the BARBARIC injunctions of the Halakaha which commands the indiscriminate KILLING of CIVILIANS by the Israeli army in the year
1974 AD!
( that is AD NOT BC).

Now the case is CLOSED with this belated ADMISSION about the veracity of the injunctions issued by an Israeli army command chief Chaplain to KILL indiscriminately all enemy Civilians


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

The Moslems inter war(s) and bloody conflicts, regrettable and abominable as they may be and are, are neither unique nor restricted to them as Eckstein, Green and the rest of the herd have been insinuating .
That dismal state of affairs is neither an indication of their superiority nor of any inferiority; it is simply an indication of a common human frailty.
Many nations , cultures, religions and denominations have trodden that painful path in the past and recently which makes them all neither superior nor inferior; just, mostly, humanly stupid!
Many will, alas, do in the future...that sad human condition persists.

However what is intriguing is to note how Judaism, a “religion" and as such a presumed fountain of piety and mercy, deals with the subject of murder and genocide.
Therein lays the seeds of pernicious Zionism and the unabashed racism that marks it and its aggressive offspring Israel.

To understand the real roots of Zionism, and Israeli policies and practices, there is nothing better than that noble scholar, Israel Shahak.
Shahak has had the exceptional scholarship and courage to denude and reveal the "legal" and "moral" foundations of Zionism; the driving force and intellectual inspiration of the Ecksteins, Greens and Simons of this world who shamelessly point out the failing of others while totally ignoring the huge "moral" decrepitude of their own alma matter.
.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Professor Eckstein states above:

"Omar, no other religion is engaged in the murder of thousands of innocent civilians IN THE NAME OF GOD.

NONE. "

Professor your ignorance overwhelms me!
What about "religious wars" through out history???

Religions have been used by many to justify killing
However Judaism stands out as the only one that foments, encourages and glorifies, the killing knowingly, of civilians!
Let us all look together at this gem of MODERN Jewish humanism:

"Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7 "

This is MODERN, post 1967, and OFFICIAL by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In the booklet by the Command's Chief Chaplain !

A modern Israeli pious rabbi has this other gem of piety and humanism in his reply to a querryby an Israeli soldier;also worthy of consideration:

“'The non-Jewish nations have a custom according to which war has its own rules, like those of a game, like the rules of football or basketball. But according to the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, [ ... ] war for us is not a game but a vital necessity, and only by this standard must we decide how to wage it. On the one hand .... ] we seem to learn that if a Jew murders a Gentile, he is regarded as a murderer and, except for the fact that no court has the right to punish him, the gravity of the deed is like that of any other murder. But we find in the very same authorities in another place [ ... that Rabbi Shim'on used to say: "The best of Gentiles - kill him; the best of snakes dash out its brains”

(All from the invaluable book of Professor Israel Shahak cited above.
A MUST reading for understanding Zionism and revealing the hypocrisy of the Ecksteins of this world)




omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
DO you DENY that injunctions were issued by the chief Chaplain of an Israeli army command to kill CIVILIANS indiscriminately in 1974 according to the commands of the Halakaha??
Eckstein, for once more sober than yourself, concedes as much then goes on to claim they were rescinded etc etc.
"For arguments sake" was your deceptive last refuge, no more, no less!


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Re: Friedman ADMITS the BATBARIC ORDERS OF THE ISRAELI ARMY/Re Friedman's comment (#113183)
by omar ibrahim baker on September 10, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Mr Friedman
DO you DENY that injunctions were issued by the chief Chaplain of an Israeli army command to kill CIVILIANS indiscriminately in 1974 according to the commands of the Halakaha??
Eckstein, for once more sober than yourself, concedes as much then goes on to claim they were rescinded etc etc.
"For arguments sake" was your deceptive last refuge, no more, no less!


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Prof
You claim:
"You know very well that the IDF goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties Omar."

That, Professor, is a naked LIE, a perversion of reality and a fabrication and fot you to claim that I "know (it) very well" is a figament of your imagination.

Interestingly you have taken it upon your self now to determine what I know ; which is a new version of your old style of interpolation and extrapolation, of others' words, that have degenarated into outright FABRICATION.

However I note with pleasure that like always you avoid the main point.

I have included in my post above the OFFICIAL Israeli army and Jewish Religious policy re the killing of CIVILIANS as formulated by " the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In the booklet by the Command's Chief Chaplain !"

The exact reference is in Professor Israel Shahak's book, footnote (7) of Chapter Three.

That is an OFFICIALY adopted Israeli army policy as formulated by the Chief Chaplain of the said command.
And ALL you have to say about that is a baseless statement except for the rediculous "THIS WAS ADMITTED TO ME BY THE MUSLIM MIDDLE EASTERN EXPERT IN MY OWN HISTORY DEPARTMENT"

So all that we have here is the alleged "admission" by the Muslim Middle East "expert" in, of all places, your "own History Department" to bolster your FABRICATION!


Verbosity and demagogy is no substitute for documented referenced facts.

You can go on posting your baseless allegations based on your fertile imagination such as the worthless substantiation by your "expert" noted above.
(Or is it that you first came to know of it in a TV show by ,say, Fox TV????
Was it, per chance, also confirmed to you by a Broadway musical or a Hollywood movie or MAD magazine??
With you nobody can tell for sure!)

Dare you address the specific point I made about OFFICIAL ISRAELI ARMY POLICY re THE KILLING, KNOWINGLY, OF CIVILIANS???


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

I note, Prof, that you assiduously avoid any mentioning of the OFFICIAL Israeli army and Jewish Religious policy re the killing of CIVILIANS as formulated by " the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In the booklet by the Command's Chief Chaplain!" quoted by Professor Shahak that I have included in my post above.

What about Shahak’s documented and clearly referenced contention that you avoid????

It is as clear and unambiguous as could be and runs contrary to your, unreferenced, quote!

Does Shahak’s quote reflect,represent, the outlook of the RELIGIOUS establishment in the Israeli army while yours reflects the "ethics” committee‘s?

The two quotes are totally contradictory and irreconcilable and an explanation is needed?

Your persistent no comment on Shahak’s quote, patently the one reflecting the real life every day behaviour of the Israeli army, is intriguing?

Is Shahak’s the real life document for internal guidance and every day application by the Israeli army while the version you quote is the PR generated version for external, PR, use only ???


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

According to Shahak, quoting Rubinstein( footnote 7/chapter 5 affixed hereunder) the booklet was subsequently withdrawn for the reasons noted therein.

My guess is that it was withdrawn for PR reasons no more and no less.

However to try to play on words by creating a false impression that it was a "pamphlet" and NOT an "order" is no less childish than Friedman's "peculiar reasons"!
Do you mean that the Israeli army is a debating society in which conflicting opinions are aired at will??
One can rightly accuse the Israeli army command of many heinous crimes and shortcomings but being stupid is certainly NOT one of them.

Another point neglected hitherto ,due to your belated admission that had to be virtually extracted and the fracas that caused, is that the Israeli army command that adopted and issued the barbaric injunctions of the Halkaha to KILL indiscriminately all enemy CIVILIANS is that it was adopted and issued in 1974.

1974 is only one year past the 1973 war in which the Israeli army was pounded to the ground untill Uncle Sam came to its rescue.
The near defeat of Israel in that war must have been the reason for Israel to abandon all semblance of civilized behaviour and revert to its basic Halakahic doctrine.

However, certainly, for PR reasons no more, no less the Israeli army had to "withdraw" that barbaric set of official instructions.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -- pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -- military or civil -- taken exception to what he had written.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Inspite of your, and your "expert's", worthless assurances I still note, Professor, that you go on avoiding Shahak's highly substantiated essay re the treatment, that is the KILLING, of CIVILIANS called for by the Jewish religious authorities in the Israeli army.

It seems according to Shahak ,a highly learned and decent scholar by any standard, that KILLING of CIVILIANS by a Jewish army is NOT only tolerated but IS actively fomented , encouraged and glorified by Jewish religious law and its chaplains in the Israeli army and in its predecessor the Haganah etc.

Experience, as in Deir Yassin and others ;lately in Qanaa and the Southern Residential district in Beirut, tend to support his position.

It is Shahak's meticulously substantiated and documented assertions that you have to refute.
Therein you have hitherto failed miserably as always; with your verbosity and demagogy...Professor Eckstein you achieve NOTHING....NOTHING.

FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, Professor ECKSTEIN, I post the references of Professor SHAHAK’S assertions:

Chapter 5:
The Laws Against Non-Jews
1 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.
2 R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).
3 R. David Halevi (Poland, 17th century), Turey Zahav" on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158.
5 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Ger' (= convert to Judaism).
6 For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh.
7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -- pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -- military or civil -- taken exception to what he had written.
8 R. Shim'on Weiser, 'Purity of weapons -- an exchange of letters' in Niv" Hammidrashiyyah Yearbook of Midrashiyyat No'am, 1974, pp.29-31. The yearbook is in Hebrew, English and French, but the material quoted here is printed in Hebrew only.
9 Psalms, 42:2.
10 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven', Deuteronomy, 25:19. Cf. also I Samuel, 15:3: 'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
11 We spare the reader most of these rather convoluted references and quotes from talmudic and rabbinical sources. Such omissions are marked [. . .]. The rabbi's own conclusions are reproduced in full.
12 The Tosafot (literally, Addenda) are a body of scholia to the Talmud, dating from the 1 lth-13th centuries.
13 Persons guilty of such crimes are even allowed to rise to high public positions. An illustration of this is the case of Shmu'el Lahis, who was responsible for the massacre of between 50 and 75 Arab peasants imprisoned in a mosque after their village had been conquered by the Israeli army during the 1948-9 war. Following a pro forma trial, he was granted complete amnesty, thanks to Ben-Gurion's intercession. The man went on to become a respected lawyer and in the late 1970s was appointed Director General of the Jewish Agency (which is, in effect, the executive of the zionist movement). In early 1978 the facts concerning his past were widely discussed in the Israeli press, but no rabbi or rabbinical scholar questioned either the amnesty or his fitness for his new office. His appointment was not revoked.
14 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 426.
15 Tractate 'Avodah Zarah', p. 26b.
16 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Murderer' 4, 11.
17 Leviticus, 19:16. Concerning the rendering 'thy fellow', see note 14 to Chapter 3.
18 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 1-2.
19 In both cases in section 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The Shulhan 'Arukh repeats the same doctrine in 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.
20 Moses Rivkes, Be'er Haggolah on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.
21 Thus Professor Jacob Katz, in his Hebrew book Between Jews and Gentiles as well as in its more apologetic English version Exclusiveness and Tolerance, quotes only this passage verbatim and draws the amazing conclusion that 'regarding the obligation to save life no discrimination should be made between Jew and Christian'. He does not quote any of the authoritative views I have cited above or in the next section.
22 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Sabbath' 2, 20-21; Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orab Hayyim' 329.
23 R 'Aqiva Eiger, commentary on Shulhan 'Arukh, ibid. He also adds that if a baby is found abandoned in a town inhabited mainly by Gentiles, a rabbi should be consulted as to whether the baby should be saved.
24 Tractate Avodah Zarah, p. 26.
25 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Sabbath' 2, 12; Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330. The latter text says 'heathen' rather than 'Gentile' but some of the commentators, such as Turey Zahav, stress that this ruling applies 'even to Ishmaelites', that is, to Muslims, 'who are not idolators'. Christians are not mentioned explicitly in this connection, but the ruling must a fortiori apply to them, since -- as we shall see below -- Islam is regarded in a more favorable light than Christianity. See also the responsa of Hatam Sofer quoted below.
26 These two examples, from Poland and France, are reported by Rabbi I.Z. Cahana (afterwards professor of Talmud in the religious Bar-Ilan University, Israel), 'Medicine in the Halachic post-Talmudic Literature', Sinai, vol 27, 1950, p.221. He also reports the following case from 19th century Italy. Until 1848, a special law in the Papal States banned Jewish doctors from treating Gentiles. The Roman Republic established in 1848 abolished this law along with all other discriminatory law against Jews. But in 1849 an expeditionary force sent by France's President Louis Napoleon (afterwards Emperor Napoleon III) defeated the Republic and restored Pope Pius Ix, who in 1850 revived the anti-Jewish laws. The commanders of the French garrison, disgusted with this extreme reaction, ignored the papal law and hired some Jewish doctors to treat their soldiers. The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Moshe Hazan, who was himself a doctor, was asked whether a pupil of his, also a doctor, could take a job in a French military hospital despite the risk of having to desecrate the sabbath. The rabbi replied that if the conditions of employment expressly mention work on the sabbath, he should refuse. But if they do not, he could take the job and employ 'the great cleverness of God-fearing Jews.' For example, he could repeat on Saturday the prescription given on Friday, by simply telling this to the dispenser. R. Cahana's rather frank article, which contains many other examples, is mentioned in the bibliography of a book by the former Chief Rabbi of Britain, R. Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics, Bloch, New York, 1962; but in the book itself nothing is said on this matter.
27 Hokhmat Shlomoh on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330, 2.
28 R. Unterman, Ha'aretz, 4 April 1966. The only qualification he makes -- after having been subjected to continual pressure -- is that in our times any refusal to give medical assistance to a Gentile could cause such hostility as might endanger Jewish lives.
29 Hatam Sofer, Response on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 131.
30 Op. cit., on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 194. 31 R. B. Knobelovitz in The Jewish Review (Journal of the Mizrachi Party in Great Britain), 8 June 1966.
32 R. Yisra'el Me'ir Kagan -- better known as the 'Hafetz Hayyim' -- complains in his Mishnah Berurah, written in Poland in 1907: 'And know ye that most doctors, even the most religious, do not take any heed whatsoever of this law; for they work on the sabbath and do travel several parasangs to treat a heathen, and they grind medicaments with their own hands. And there is no authority for them to do so. For although we may find it permissible, because of the fear of hostility, to violate bans imposed by the sages -- and even this is not clear; yet in bans imposed by the Torah itself it must certainly be forbidden for any Jew to do so, and those who transgress this prohibition violate the sabbath utterly and may God have mercy on them for their sacrilege.' (Commentary on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330.) The author is generally regarded as the greatest rabbinical authority of his time.
33 Avraham Steinberg MD (ed.), Jewish Medical Law, compiled from Tzitz Eli 'ezer (Responsa of R. Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg), translated by David B. Simons MD, Gefen & Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem and California, 1980.
34 Op. cit., p. 39. Ibid., p.41.
35 Ibid., p. 41.
36 The phrase 'between Jew and gentile' is a euphemism. The dispensation is designed to prevent hostility of Gentiles towards Jews, not the other way around.
37 Ibid.,p.412; my emphasis.
38 Dr Falk Schlesinger Institute for Medical Halakhic Research at Sha'arey Tzedeq Hospital, Sefer Asya (The Physician's Book), Reuben Mass, Jerusalem, 1979.
39 By myself in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 30 May 1979 and by Shullamit Aloni, Member of Knesset, in Ha'aretz, 17 June 1980.
40 Ezekiel, 23:20.
41 Tractate Berakhot, p. 78a.
42 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Eshet Ish' ('Married Woman').
43 Exodus, 20:17.
44 Genesis, 2:24.
45 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse' 12; 10; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.
46 Maimonides, op. cit., ibid., 12, 1-3. As a matter of fact, every Gentile woman is regarded as N.Sh.G.Z. -- acronym for the Hebrew words niddah, shifhah, goyah, zonah (unpurified from menses, slave, Gentile, prostitute). Upon conversion to Judaism, she ceases indeed to be niddah, shifhah, goyah but is still considered zonah (prostitute) for the rest of her life, simply by virtue of having been born of a Gentile mother. In a special category is a woman 'conceived not in holiness but born in holiness', that is born to a mother who had converted to Judaism while pregnant. In order to make quite sure that there are no mix-ups, the rabbis insist that a married couple who convert to Judaism together must abstain from marital relations for three months.
47 Characteristically, an exception to this generalization is made with respect to Gentiles holding legal office relating to financial transactions: notaries, debt collectors, bailiff and the like. No similar exception is made regarding ordinary decent Gentiles, not even if they are friendly towards Jews.
48 Some very early (1st century BC) rabbis called this law 'barbaric' and actually returned lost property belonging to Gentiles. But the law nevertheless remained.
49 Leviticus, 25:14. This is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The King James Version renders this as 'ye shall not oppress one another'; 'oppress' is imprecise but 'one another' is a correct rendering of the biblical idiom 'each man his brother'. As pointed out in Chapter 3, the Halakhah interprets all such idioms as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew.
50 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 227.
51 This view is advocated by H. Bar-Droma, Wezeh Gvul Ha'aretz (And This Is the Border of the Land), Jerusalem, 1958. In recent years this book is much used by the Israeli army in indoctrinating its officers.
52 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 3-4.
53 See note 2.
54 Exodus, 23:33.
55 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 6.
56 Deuteronomy, 20:16. See also the verses quoted in note 10.
57 Numbers 31:13-20; note in particular verse 17: 'Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.'
58 R. Sha'ul Yisra'eli, 'Taqrit Qibbiya Le'or Hahalakhah' (The Qibbiya incident in the light of the Halakhah'), in Hattorab Wehammedinah, vol 5, 1953/4.
59 This is followed by a blessing 'for not making me a slave'. Next, a male must add a blessing 'for not making me a woman', and a female 'for making me as He pleased'.
60 In eastern Europe it was until recent times a universal custom among Jews to spit on the floor at this point, as an expression of scorn. This was not however a strict obligation, and today the custom is kept only by the most pious.
61 The Hebrew word is meshummadim, which in rabbinical usage refers to Jews who become 'idolators', that is either pagan or Christians, but not to Jewish converts to Islam.
62 The Hebrew word is minim, whose precise meaning is 'disbelievers in the uniqueness of God'.
63 Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b.
64 According to many rabbinical authorities the original rule still applies in full in the Land of Israel.
65 This custom gave rise to many incidents in the history of European Jewry. One of the most famous, whose consequence is still visible today, occurred in 14th century Prague. King Charles IV of Bohemia (who was also Holy Roman Emperor) had a magnificent crucifix erected in the middle of a stone bridge which he had built and which still exists today. It was then reported to him that the Jews of Prague are in the habit of spitting whenever they pass next to the crucifix. Being a famous protector of the Jews, he did not institute persecution against them, but simply sentenced the Jewish community to pay for the Hebrew word Adonay (Lord) to be inscribed on the crucifix in golden letters. This word is one of the seven holiest names of God, and no mark of disrespect is allowed in front of it. The spitting ceased. Other incidents connected with the same custom were much less amusing.
66 The verses most commonly used for this purpose contain words derived from the Hebrew root shaqetz which means 'abominate, detest', as in Deuteronomy, 7:26: 'thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.' It seems that the insulting term sheqetz, used to refer to all Gentiles (Chapter 2), originated from this custom.
67 Talmud, Tractate Beytzah, p. 21a, b; Mishnah Berurah on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 512. Another commentary (Magen Avraham) also excludes Karaites.
68 According to the Halakha, a Gentile slave bought by a Jew should be converted to Judaism, but does not thereby become a proper Jew.
69 Leviticus, 25:46.
70 The Hebrew form of the name Jesus -- Yeshu -- was interpreted as an acronym for the curse may his name and memory be wiped out', which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as 'Nasser Jesus' and more recently 'Arafat Jesus.'



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Professor Eckstein...it will take you ages,several life times, if ever at all, to have 1/100 of Shahak's learning and knowledge.
On the other hand you will never, ever, have a millioneth of his moral courage and scientific objectivity!
Shahak was a great scholar and a decent man.(May God have mercy on his soul.)


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Inspite of your, and your "expert's", worthless assurances I still note, Professor, that you go on avoiding Shahak's highly substantiated essay re the treatment, that is the KILLING, of CIVILIANS called for by the Jewish religious authorities in the Israeli army.

It seems according to Shahak ,a highly learned and decent scholar by any standard, that KILLING of CIVILIANS by a Jewish army is NOT only tolerated but IS actively fomented , encouraged and glorified by Jewish religious law and its chaplains in the Israeli army and in its predecessor the Haganah etc.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
It is Shahak's meticulously substantiated and documented assertions that you have to refute.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"I don't see any difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists."
(god's warriors (#112659)
by W Cramer on August 27, 2007 at 12:23 AM)

This is a fundamentally flawed statement in that it ignores the glaring contemporary difference between the the two fundamentalisms.

Whereas Muslim fundamentalism was primarily conceived and principally applied as a DEFENSIVE strategy/ tool in, then and now , Palestine (always anti Zionist) , in Afghanistan (first anti Soviet then anti US and followers)and now in Iraq (anti US)etc ; Christian fundamentalism has been primarily conceived and applied as OFFENSIVE/AGGRESSIVE ( the Bush/Wolfowitz conquest of Iraq.)

Another important difference is that Muslim Fundamentalism has NOT been adopted or followed by any major or minot Muslim state as a guiding political factor Christian Fundamentalism has been all but officially adopted as a guiding factor by the most major Christian state; the USA of President Bush.

(Failure to note and accept these glaring differences will only lead to more of the dialogue of the deaf.)


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
You state:

"Those who might actually make policy based on what literally appears in Jewish law basically all refuse to fight in the IDF"

which means, I presume:

a-Shahak's quote re the KILLING of CIVILIANS from Jewish law, which actually calls for, encourages and glorifies the KILLING of CIVILIANS is "literally" coorect and accurate!

b-Army chaplains do endorse and try to apply those laws in the Israeli army.

c-However because these chaplains, and followers ,"refuse to fight" Jewish religious laws which call for and encourage the KILLING of CIVILIANS are not applied by the Israeli army!

d-Were they , the chaplains and followers, willing to fight or if and when they fight they would and do APPLY these Jewish religious law which actually calls for, encourages and glorifies the KILLING of CIVILIANS

Is that what you mean Mr Friedman in your sentence above?

If not would you care to elaborate!

(Stay out Eckstein , now that your master is back, let us have it from somebody who, patently, "knows" much more than you do , find it harder to deny the obvious and is more adept at justifying the unjustifiable! OK)


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Opting for brevity I had singled out what I consider to be the paramount difference between the two!

However I have grave reservations re your "both groups want to force others to live by their religious dogma ".
I do not believe that is the case, neither in principle nor in practice, with the Moslem variety.

In principle Moslem missionary effort is directed at unbelievers not to the People of the Book".
The little Moslem proselytizing that takes place, mainly in Africa, is the work of established official regimes, mainly Saudi Arabia.
I do not know of any by the Moslem Brotherhood or other so called “Moslem Fundamentalists”.

Outside of Moslem countries the MB , and practically all the "serious" others, dwell on Moslems; as you might have noticed.(Should you know of any thing of importance in this domain ,kindly advise where to read about it.)


In practice it is not only because, in its basically defensive attitude, that is bound to be a secondary consideration with Mosllem Fundamentalists but mainly because their call is primarily made to Moslems and their major advocacy is for a RETURN to Moslem shariaa in Moslem countries.

I urge you to reconsider the motives behind the Bush/Wolfowitz conquest of Iraq in particular.
!
I believe it does include that as a major factor although I rank it as third in importance; after the empowering of Israel as the regional super power (1) and oil (2)!

Are you aware of the numbers, the professional variety and the confessional allegiance of the Christian missionary “battalions" that followed on the heels of US occupation forces into both Afghanistan and Iraq ?

Re professional variety they were primarily "intelligence", mainly the Mossad which went in WITH US forces into Iraq

The religious "missionaries" had, still have, a preponderance of Evangelist, including Korean, (read carefully the Taliban /Korea agreement re hostages) and, as planned by the Bush/Wolfowitz administration, Judo/Evangelist presence.

Does NOT God tell President Bush, according to President Bush, what to do??


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

The Amanpour show at CNN is to be commended.
It is a serious attempt at a multivision, multi angled look at an important subject with potentially carastrophic impact on more than one pary.

It should be doubly lauded being NOT totally biased and being done by and aired on a major US TV station that makes it precious income from US advertisers keen on retaining their good standing with major US businesses and their advertising agencies in a substantially apolitical market, except for a
highly engaged, politically and economicaly, component !

An objective overall assessment for accuracy, pertinence, comprehensibilty , fairness, choice of speakers , time allocation etc, all being the essence of
scientific objectivity would be asking for the impossible from a major US TV station and its "star".

The star of the "show", who admitedly was quite frank where her heart was, understandably wishes nothing more than enhancing, to say nothing about preserving ,her stardom.

Any evaluation of the "show" should, however, take that into consideration or fall into the pit of unrealized expectations for an outright condemnation into which Professor Furnish, also understandably, fell!

That being said I have two points to make, for now!
1-The show failed to point out the pivotal influence Dr Azzam had on the theological cum political development of Osama bin Laden.
Dr Azzam, an ex professor of Shariaa at the University of Jordan, being a Jordanian of PALESTINIAN origin whose own formation was formed first and foremost by the Zionist colonization of his homeland Palestine, the Palestian Naqba, must have been the reason for that major omission.
That is something NOT to dwell on US major commercial TV station...for obvious reasons .

2-The "show" also failed to look seriously at the Jewish/Zionist influence on fundamental Christianity and at its inherent interest in alienating the Moslems from the Christians and Christianity from Islam as admirably achieved by the ascendancy of the neocons in US politics and the rise to US power by the Bush/Wolfowitz administration.

That both these points tied together to produce 9/11 and the US conquest of Iraq ( both being equally criminal acts of wanton aggression with very unequal overall,but mainly human loss)is NOT a coincidence since both served Israeli interests beyond Israel's wildest ambitions and go on fueling Arab/Moslem-American/Judeo Evangelist Christian animosity.
Had Fox TV done this "show" it would not have had that semblance of objectivity that star Amanpour tried but, understandably, failed to achieve with the veneer it used .


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that these official Israeli army instructions, to kill enemy CIVILIANS indiscriminately according to the injunctions of the Halakahah, were:" IMMEDIATELY rescinded. "
That is your word and unless you can substantiate it it is no good.
Shahak, quoting Rubinstein, states "Subsequently withdrawn" .
However “rescind” in the sense to “annul” and “repeal” is different than “withdraw”

Still it is beyond belief and credibility that such a document would have been issued by an official command of the Israeli army without first being scrutinized, vetted then issued and published for the "guidance" of Israeli soldiers.
(I do wish that could be true.)
It is the Israeli army we are talking about not a few boy scouts in an elementary school !

This BARBARIC document, which reflects the inner convictions of the Israeli army command, must have been examined, approved then issued until somebody became aware of the PR catastrophe it will lead to when it becomes public knowledge ordered its "withdrawal"!

That this BARBARIC document reflects and embodies the Inner convictions of the Israeli army is further proven when we note that its injunctions and commands were applied, literally, in DEIR YASSIN by the predecessors of the Israeli army.

With your belated admission Shahak is vindicated and the true nature of the Israeli army is unveiled for all to see.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"Re: THE IDF IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY--EXACTLY! (#113246)
by N. Friedman on September 10, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Now the case truly is closed and Omar is hunting for a cave."

Well ,well Mr Friedman if any body should be looking for a cave it must be YOU.

Let us recall that:
a-You have prevaricated for almost two weeks before you admitted, indirectly, the truth of the Barbaric injunctions of the document

b-You have reverted to all kind of idiotic excuses and attempts at justification

c-Your belated admission was actually extracted from you, kicking and screaming, when Eckstein forced your hand and you were forced to yield or "shut up"!

d-Now that you cease to prevaricate and implicitly admit the horror and utter criminality of the HALAKAHA injunctions for Jewish soldiers to Kill indiscriminately all enemy Civilians , as adoted and issued by an Israeli army command Chief Chaplain, you pretend that you were vindicated.

Nothing of the sort.

If any thing you lost your cool , unmasked your true nature and stood out for what you really are: another truth denying cheap Zionist mouthpiece!

For once Eckstein, for being the first to implicitly then explicitly admitting the truth about these criminally obscene Halakaic injunctions issued by an Israeli army command Chief Chaplain bettered you !
That is going LOW...very LOW!


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"was immediately rescinded and suppressed (that's what "withdrawn" means"
(Re: THE IDF IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY--EXACTLY! (#113260)
by art eckstein on September 11, 2007 at 3:26 AM}.

WRONG, WRONG and consciously DECEPTIVE that "withdrawn" means "immediately rescinded"!

I note, however, that aside from your consciously deceptive attempt to imbue "withdraw" with a time scale that DOES NOT exist you fail to comment on whether it was
"annuled" or just replaced with a better looking , PR wise, set of instructions.

According to Webster the only COMMON meaning of the two words is "remove".
Witness:
"Rescind":
1 : to take away : REMOVE
"Withdraw":
"1 a : to take back or away :REMOVE .

For all that we know the criminally obnoxious injunctions of the Halakaha adopted by the Israeli army were "removed" from public gaze and circulation for obvious PR reasons!

On the other hand how do you support your contention of an "immediate" action?

According to Shahak's footnote (7) the thing could have dragged from 1974 to 1975;that is NOT "immediate".

However the undeniable historical facts of the matter is that the predecessors, the nucleus, of the Israeli army was true to those barbaric Halakaic commands and DID apply those heinous injunctions by the indiscriminately killing of Palestinian Arab civilians; women, children and oldesters in Deir Yassin.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

THIS LAST RANT OF YOURS, Professor, NEITHER ADDRESSES NOR ANSWERS THE QUESTION RAISED;
1-Was it , the heinous document from the Halakaha, ever annulled or just removed and classified .
If annulled provide chapter and verse.

2-What about " immediately", another figment of your imagination ??

Re the nucleus of the Israeli army;
I note that you develop LIES, attributing to me things I did NOT say, then refute them! Childish, childish !
You should recall, Professor, that one of your unfortunate students could be reading what you write.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
I did read you carefully as to "correctly" that of course depends on what you wanted to convey and what you wanted to hide and whether you succeeded or NOT in that devious endeavour.

Apparently you did NOT succeed in hiding what you are ashamed of declaring .

I guess what you mean but do not dare declare is that Jewish Law have changed over the years from what it was, as documented by Shahak, to a modern more "liberal" version.

Nevertheless Shahak was quoting from a very modern, post 1973 AD, booklet “published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes”:
The exact quotation runs as follows:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
“Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.
Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX( END OF QUOTE)

From the above quotation whose veracity you DO NOT DISPUTE, we notice and conclude the following:
a-THAT it is made by ”Orthdox rabbi” addressing, presumably, Orthodox Jews only (?)
However it is “the Command's Chief Chaplain” and NOT a wayward rabbi carried away by his fanatic lunacy!
A “Chief Chaplain” is a position of authority and responsibility carefully vetted and chosen .
(Obviously with this “ CHIEF CHAPLAIN” religious and doctrinaire "correctness" overrides diplomacy and PR!)
b-“Orthodox Jews”, to the best of my knowledge, are a substantial portion of Israeli, and other, Jews ( 35% ??? of Israeli Jews).

c-Not ALL -“Orthodox Jews” refuse to enroll in the Israeli army; some, a small minority do, the majority DOES NOT refuse to serve in the Israeli army and DOES SERVE.

d-That this “doctrine”, “guidance”?, was officially adopted by an official command of the Israeli army; “the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank.” no less .To be exact.
(That this command area includes the WEST BANK is NOT a coincidence.)

e-That this declaration is a contemporary position , a post 1973 stand and policy, dating, at least, since 1973 AD.
Footnote (7) above with exact dates reads as follows:
(7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -- pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -- military or civil -- taken exception to what he had written. )
(End of footnote 7)
f-The fact that it was latter officially withdrawn, obviously for PR reasons, does NOT nullify the fact that it was earlier adopted by a major “official” command of the Israeli
army.
h- Presumably it was “subsequently withdrawn” for the very same reasons that inspire your own stand: an unwillingness to face the ugly truth, and most importantly, that this ugly truth should be withheld from the general public and should remain unknown to All particularly the GENTILES of this world.

Post script: Once again I notice that you dare NOT address directly, refute so to speak, what the late Professor Shahak wrote and prefer to give your own interpretation of things.
Obviously what he had to say is much more authorative,correct, faithful to the exact religious texts and accurate than your attempts to gloss over this highly controversial (!) aspect of Judaism!



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Not for you Friedman to accuse others of stupidity!

Do you recall your "peculiar orders” argument???

Your justification for the adoption and issue by an Israeli army command the ORDERS of the Halakaha to kill indiscriminately, that is women ,children and old people, all enemy civilians in war time and peace time was::

“Let us also note that the world is full of peculiar orders”
(Re: Case Closed Indeed. (#113119)
by N. Friedman on September 8, 2007 at 10:37 AM)

That was the apex, the summit or the bottomest of stupidity incarnate!
I, for one, was surprised how silly and moronic you can be !
The only explanation is the "blindness" that pervades your mind when confronted with the utter BARBARISM of your culture .
It, the blindness , controls you even when you write in the defense of that heinous culture.

"“Let us also note that the world is full of peculiar orders” you wrote.






omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman

Since you failed to address, to say nothing about refute, any of
Shahak’s substantiated and well documented allegations what the whole thing boils down to now is that Shahak’s statements are CORRECT, TRUE and ACCURATE.

That you have a different interpretation of things does NOT change that fact.

Despite your prevarications the inescapable conclusion is that the practical implications of Jewish Law boils down to :

That the military officially sanctioned Orthodox Jewish religious injunctions to its followers in the army are a truly savage and criminally racist infusions into the "fighting doctrine" of the Israeli army that has molded its "spirit" and guided its action" in war time as much as in "peace time" particularly during the occupation. of Palestinian territories..


This mind-set of the Israeli army is also highly relevant and pertinent in that::

a- It is a MODERN, contemporary position.

b-It is an officially adopted position until, obviously for PR reasons, it was withdrawn.

c-It is unambiguous in its utter inhumanity, brutality and RACIST CRIMINALITY.
Witness the religious directives to the troops (verbatim) :

"When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7 "

d-It establishes and confirms, more than any other thing I have come across, the built in discrimination ordained by Jewish Law between Jew and Gentile in Judaism ; an irrefutable proof of an intrinsic and inherent RACISM.

e-It establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Zionism , being the political doctrine based on these "spiritual " doctrinaire foundations is as CRIMINALLY RACIST as its fountainhead.

f-It indicates conclusively that the crimes committed by the Israeli Army and the Zionist movement in general are not only religiously
"sanctioned" but are actually specifically “ordained” by Jewish Law .




omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007







With due respect for al AZHAR I, and many others do NOT believe that Souaad Kamel, if what is attributed to her is correct and accurate (Always a big IF with some people)speaks for all or most Moslems nor for that matter for Islam re conversion to Christianity.

Several more much more knowledgeable, and possibly more pious, Islamic thinkers have said the exact opposite.
They base their fatwa on the indisputable Islamic principle that :" la ikraha bil din= no coercion in religion)

Foremost among these is Fahmi al Houeidi and Ali(?) Al Awwa.

One thing to note carefully about al Azhar, and what comes out of it, is that its main governing body and its "grand sheik" are no longer elected by its faculty, as was the norm for centuries past, but are appointed by the Government of Egypt.

AS such al Azhar lost a great deal of its past high MORAL standing within enlighted Moslems circles.

Fortunately for sunni Islam there is NO clergy nor an ecclesial hierarchy and no matter what their "positions" are these people, the Dean and the sheik, carry no more weight than al Houeidi or al Awwa.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Poor ,Poor Eckstein you state:
"N.F. has totally refuted Shahak. Shahak has nothing to do with the real Judaism of the past TWO THOUSAND YEARS. "
However;
2007-1974=33!

1974 is only 33 years ago NOT 2000!!!

I advised you to stay quiet when your master Friedman speaks; he is far too inteligent than to use figures!
Stay quiet when your elders talk!
You are a liability to your pernicious cause.
That is perfectly OK by me.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Poor ,Poor Eckstein you state:
"N.F. has totally refuted Shahak. Shahak has nothing to do with the real Judaism of the past TWO THOUSAND YEARS. "
However;
2007-1974=33!

1974 is only 33 years ago NOT 2000!!!


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

DAY DREAMING and WISHFUL THINKING!
If that makes you feel better, Prof, that is OK with me.
You certainly need some day dreaming to support you!


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Back to your old tricks Prof Eckstein??
Putting words in my mouth and interpolating and extrapolating, totally out of context, what I write.
That is cheap prof...very cheap!

1-I do not dispute that 8 Moslem countries have that punishment for conversion. That is , to me and many others, lamentable and
UNacceptable and is a perversion of what many believe to be the true message of Islam.
You imply that I accept or defend that...another of your many insinuations.
2-I never disputed the fact that Christian countries do NOT have such a punishment.
There is no argument that Christian nations are much more liberal re religious conversion and many other aspects of life than Moslem countries.
3-The widespread "misinterpretation” of Islam is a major cause of friction between
so called Islamic regimes and the scholars I named among many others.
To very many they are the faithful interpreters of true Islam. Not someone at al Azhar or elsewhere.
4-Islam, as with all religions, has had its darker days and practices.
All religions were used for nonreligious motives by evil or ignorant interpreters of their respective religions.
The Ottoman episode you refer to is as much of an " Islamic" practice as was, say, the Spanish Inquisition a "Christian " practice; both inane contentions and absurd allegations that you seem to adopt heartily.

5- The Taliban practiced their own interpretation of Islam that many Moslems rejected as unIslamic.Many of their practices were condemned by concerned Moslem as scholars as “GHULOU=extreme and erroneous interpretation”

6-To contend that an incident here or an incident there represents the religion of whoever was its perpetrator is CHILDISH at best and demagogic at worst Professor!
You should know that by now!

Demagogy, that historically has well served your cause, has its limits that you should be aware of.

“That A Moslem man abducted a Coptic girl and forced her to convert is proof positive that Islam is .......” (fill in the gap to your heart's satisfaction Prof!)
Is that what and how you teach your unfortunate students?

Except that others might be reading this I would NOT have bothered to reply to the third class demagogue that you are, Prof Eckstein!!!


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Hitherto you have made two main points re the injunctions of the Halakah about the treatment, actually the killing, of enemy civilians:
1- That it mainly concerns Orthodox Jews
2-That it is old , obsolete and discarded.

However the booklet which included these injunctions was published in 1974 which makes it far from an old , discarded doctrine
and was issued by an official command of the Israeli army which implies a good number of Orthodox soldiers in the army for whose guidance it was issued.

How do you reconcile that with your allegations 1 and 2 above.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

a-" Millions of Muslims support the murder of the 500 Yazidis, and the 33,500 other Muslim civilians ALL MURDERED IN THE NAME OF GOD. That other Muslilms don't support this hyperviolence does NOT change the problem posed by the milions of Muslims who DO support this hyperviolence."

b-"and the 33,500 other Muslim civilians ALL MURDERED IN THE NAME OF GOD. "

These statements are typical of third class demagogue Art Eckstein style of analysis .
How can he ,shamelessly as a Professor, assert that the figure is "Millions of Muslims....etc " and NOT, say, "hundreds of thousands..etc "?
Did he, or anydody else, count them for him?
Where, how did he arrive at the figure "Millions.." ?

However if "millions" is to be construed as very many; how about "33500" that is much more precise authorative.
It is neither 33000 nor 34000, it is 33500 an indication of an objective count!
Why it is NOT, say, 33476 I do NOT know !
That would have been much more impressive as figures go!
He is a Professor no less, amazing!

Should he NOT, at least for being a Professor, be more responsible in the use of figures?
Figures are a precise entity and should be an honest reflection, quantification, of the truth !

But the truth is the last worry of Professoe Eckstein.

However being a cheap demagogue he can not do any better .


"To contend that an incident here or an incident there represents the religion of whoever was its perpetrator is CHILDISH at best and demagogic at worst Professor!
You should know that by now!"



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Green
Accuracy demanded;
you state:
"In a recent response to something that I said on hnn Baker described the Holocaust as divinely ordained and providential."

Can you be more specific Mr Green?
Where and when was that?
That is a very serious charge you are making.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"Rabbi Goren was Chief Chaplain of the IDF from 1948 until

1968, "

On the other hand :
"Mr Friedman
Hitherto you have made two main points re the injunctions of the Halakah about the treatment, actually the killing, of enemy civilians:
1- That it mainly concerns Orthodox Jews
2-That it is old , obsolete and discarded.

However the booklet which included these injunctions was published in

1974

which makes it far from an old , discarded doctrine
and was issued by an official command of the Israeli army which implies a good number of Orthodox soldiers in the army for whose guidance it was issued."

How do you reconcile that with your allegations 1 and 2 above."

Does NOT that indicate that Goren was later

superseded

and the Israeli army reverted to the Halkaic ? injunction about the systematic ,indiscriminate killing of CIVILAINS , women, children, oldesters during wartime and peacetime etc as commanded by the TORAH ??



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
1-Assuming that such an "evolution" did take place, I have no doubt that it did with some decent Jews (Shahak, Chomsky , Finkelstein,Koestler etc etc etc to name only a few) the fact remains that it did NOT affect main stream Judaism since an official command of the Israeli army chose to adopt the barbaric Halaiac commands in 1974!

Obviously those touched by this "evolution" remain a very small minority with no influence in the Israeli army or the Israeli ruling and guiding establishment in which the Israeli army is a major pillar.

2-Your statement:
. "The only group of Jews who might even in theory follow the views of the very early Jews on treatment of non-Jews are the ultra-Orthodox. ............those who hold such views refuse all military service .... "
Is hardly plausible, actually it can not possibly be true at all since an official command of the Israeli army chose to adopt that Halakaic postion and publish its injunctions in 1974 !

Did it, the official army command, adopt and publish those barbaric commands to NON EXISTANT , hypothetical soldiers who refuse to serve!

I can easily and justifiably accuse the Israeli army command of many crimes and shortcomings, however, stupidity would NOT be one them.

You must admit that those "ultra-Orthodox Jews" must have and do form an important part of the Israeli army since an official army command found it necessary to cater to their "religious" and "spiritual" needs by adopting and publishing in 1974 these atrocious and barbaric commands for the indiscriminate killing of CIVILIANS during wartime and peacetime.
As I have pointed out earlier I believe that that particular Israeli army command was in charge of occupied Palestinian territories, the WEST BANK, IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!




omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Eckstein and Green;

This is exactly what I have written, inter alia, about the Holocaust:

1-Quote (A):
"Re: Reflections on Jewish Uniqueness/Cheap , cheap Green! (#112344)
by omar ibrahim baker on August 17, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Mr Smith
Re

"And what about Omar's sympathy for the divinely sent Holocaust? "!

( (#112335)by Elliott Aron Green on August 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM)


That I, Omar, in any way sympathize with the Holocaust is a LIE.
It is NOT though an innocent LIE ; it is a conscious , deliberate and well thought out lie and fabrication.

In its own very small way it is the very same old LIE ; namely: "A land with no people for a people with no land"!Which paid off handsomely in the near past.

Green's insinuation is A pure ,unmitigated conscious LIE , deliberately designed , formulated, to pervert the truth and create sympathy for a criminal act; the criminal act being, in this case, the establishment of the Zionist racist colony of Israel in Palestine.

I deem any defense ,or even any attempt at an explanation or justification, of the horrendous holocaust to be a major moral crime ; irrespective of who committed it and who were its victims.

That they were predominantly Jews does NOT reduce the criminality of the act nor the viciousness of the deed.
Nor does the fact that others than Jews also suffered, as so often conveniently "forgotten" by the Jews , in the same criminal campaign make it less or more of a crime.

However the fact that its victims were predominantly Jews does NOT make it a bigger crime than it is .


That is being said out of basic respect for human life and out of abhorrence of racial/racist acts of discrimination; and out of a firm belief that there is NO "chosen people" with transcendental, God given, priviliges that justify and glorify crime, usurpation and stealth.

A crime is a crime is a crime irrespective!

I will NOT go into the question of who ultimately paid for, and who ultimately benefited from this heinous crime , in spite of the huge capital the Zionists made out of it and their endless ploys to milk it.

That would put us at par with those who trade in the blood and lives of their brethren .


Unfortunately Green turned out to be as cheap as an Art Eckstein who resorts to fabrications and putting words in other people's mouth to serve his purposes ; sad but NOT unexpected considering that both are disciples, and beneficiaries, from the same school of the BIG LIE!"
END of Quote (A)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2-However, Prof, the quotation you include above,
Quote (B)namely:


"Re: Reflections on Jewish Uniqueness (#112307)
by omar ibrahim baker on August 16, 2007 at 9:03 AM:

"The Holocaust , in a sense, was timely GOD sent to the rescue of the "Jewish Homeland" GB/Zionist colonialist plan at a stage at which GB seems to have had second thoughts.

Objectively , it was the best thing that could possibly happen, to decriminalize (, to humanize?, ) the ugly racist and aggressive Zionist colonialist doctrine.

In that sense few things ever served that pernicious , racist doctrine as well as the Holocaust served Zionism!

I will NOT be overly surprised if some researcher comes out , sometime in the future, with evidence of tacit Zionist support( collusion ? ), of the whole criminal and genocidal enterprise that was the Holocaust."
End of Quote (B):
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This last quote,(B), if contrasted and considered in conjunction with with my basic position as in quote (A) above, and many other posts, is a better example than any I could have fallen upon to demonstrate that you ALWAYS quote OUT of CONTEXT and manipulate words in a manner to serve your purpoposes.
For that I thank you!!

However I do agree that this last quote,(B), is liable to be misinterpreted particularly with the ill will that pervades your attitude.
Although the expression ", in a sense, " in the sentence which runs as:
"The Holocaust , in a sense, was timely GOD sent to the rescue of the "Jewish Homeland" GB/Zionist colonialist plan at a stage at which GB seems to have had second thoughts."

should make it clear that if the Holocaust was "GOD sent" at all , it would have been "sent" by a "Jew friendly God", so to speak, to the rescue of the Zionist project and definetly not by any other "GOD".

LAST but NOT LEAST; my position re the HOLOCAUST IS:

"I deem any defense ,or even any attempt at an explanation or justification, of the horrendous holocaust to be a major moral crime ; irrespective of who committed it and who were its victims.

That they were predominantly Jews does NOT reduce the criminality of the act nor the viciousness of the deed.
Nor does the fact that others than Jews also suffered, as so often conveniently "forgotten" by the Jews , in the same criminal campaign make it less or more of a crime.

However the fact that its victims were predominantly Jews does NOT make it a bigger crime than it is ."
That is being said out of basic respect for human life and out of abhorrence of racial/racist acts of discrimination; and out of a firm belief that there is NO "chosen people" with transcendental, God given, privileges that justify and glorify crime, usurpation and stealth.”

Re Hajj Amin al Husseini I stand by and behind every word I wrote about him!(May GOD have mercy on his soul.)




omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Your and Eckstein's eagerness to close the case is understandable!

Having failed to prove any thing re Shahak's meticulously researched and documented statements re the KILLING, during wartime and peacetime, of enemy CIVILIANS as ordained and commanded by the Halakha you have reverted to prevarication, obfuscation and outright failure to address specific points and challenges.

The unchallengeable facts remain that
(Quoting the late Professor Shahak ):

CHAPTER 5
The Laws Against Non-Jews
From: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years"
by Professor Israel Shahak

“Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

“When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7 “”

Shahak’s statements being supported by the following references noted in footnotes 6 &7 posted below:

Foot notes to Chapter 5:

“6 For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh.

7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -- pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -- military or civil -- taken exception to what he had written:”


Most NOTEWORTHY in this respect is that this directive to the soldiers of the Israeli army was:
1- adopted and issued by the” Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank”
2-was written by ” the Command's Chief Chaplain”
3-In the year 1974 AD

The case is closed indeed and very little doubt remains about the intrinsic RACIST barbarism of the guiding spirit of the Israeli army which faithfully echoes the aggressive RACIST barbarism of its founding doctrine Zionism.

(“The Laws Against Non-Jews
From: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years"
by Professor Israel Shahak
(http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis5.htm#The%20Laws%20Against%20Non-Jews))





omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

The case is closed indeed as noted in my post"Case Closed Indeed" # 113092 posred below.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Your unusually uncivil post must reflect your frustration at failing to deceive through your constant prevarication .

Your attempt to confuse Orthodox with ultra Orthodox and use the two terms interchangeably in a manner to support your argument that since ultra Orthodox Jews do NOT serve in the Israeli the whole thing is immaterial has failed and have been seen through;
Since Orthodox Jews DO SERVE in the Israeli army .

However had any thing idiotic been claimed here it would surely be your contention that the Israeli army adopted and issued that barbaric document for soldiers that DO NOT serve in it; ie soldiers that DO NOT exist in its ranks!!
(that moronic contention is more Eckstein's style than yours)

Your unusual impertinence must also reflect your anger and dismay at the exposure of the barbaric Jewish religious doctrine that guide Jewish soldiers in wartime and peace time !

Once again I note that you have failed to address the major point that that shameful religious document that ordains, commands the indiscriminate killing of ALL CIVILIANS, children, women, oldesters in wartime and peacetime was adopted and issued by an official command of the Israeli army in the year 1974 AD .
To non existant (Ulta Orthodox)
soldiers ??

(The year is 1974 AD not BC.ie only 33 years ago )
The key words to address being:
a- "was adopted and issued by an official command of the Israeli army" and
b- "in the year 1974 AD"


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"Unfortunately Green turned out to be as cheap as an Art Eckstein who resorts to fabrications and putting words in other people's mouth to serve his purposes ; sad but NOT unexpected considering that both are disciples, and beneficiaries, from the same school of the BIG LIE!"
END of Quote (A)"

"This last quote,(B), if contrasted and considered in conjunction with with my basic position as in quote (A) above, and many other posts, is a better example than any I could have fallen upon to demonstrate that you ALWAYS quote OUT of CONTEXT and manipulate words in a manner to serve your purpoposes.
For that I thank you!!"




omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"But then you claim about the Holocaust that your statements have been "misinterpreted."
(Re: Here's where you said it, Omar (#112827)
by A. M. Eckstein on August 30, 2007 at 1:49 PM)

XX
"However I do agree that this last quote,(B), is liable to be misinterpreted particularly with the ill will that pervades your attitude.
Although the expression ", in a sense, " in the sentence which runs as:
"The Holocaust , in a sense, was timely GOD sent to the rescue of the "Jewish Homeland" GB/Zionist colonialist plan at a stage at which GB seems to have had second thoughts."

should make it clear that if the Holocaust was "GOD sent" at all , it would have been "sent" by a "Jew friendly God", so to speak, to the rescue of the Zionist project and definetly not by any other "GOD"."
(Re: Here's where you said it, Omar (#112826)
by omar ibrahim baker on August 30, 2007 at 12:36 PM)




omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

However if "millions" is to be construed as very many; how about "33500" that is much more precise authorative.
It is neither 33000 nor 34000, it is 33500 an indication of an objective count!
Why it is NOT, say, 33476 I do NOT know !
That would have been much more impressive as figures go!
He is a Professor no less, amazing!

Should he NOT, at least for being a Professor, be more responsible in the use of figures?
Figures are a precise entity and should be an honest reflection, quantification, of the truth !

But the truth is the last worry of Professoe Eckstein.

However being a cheap demagogue he can not do any better .


"To contend that an incident here or an incident there represents the religion of whoever was its perpetrator is CHILDISH at best and demagogic at worst Professor!
You should know that by now!"


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Everything and anything that falls outside dogmatic obsessions is incoherent to a closed mind!
There is nothing to do about it except, possibly, wonder how to save students from the closed mind of a so called Professor!
That is the real problem :open minded students exposed, or rather subjected, to the closed mind of a "Professor"!
At one time the title used to command, nay to impose, respect...with you the title has lost a great deal..."Professor Eckstein"!


art eckstein - 9/12/2007

Omar has been buried under a mountain of evidence, a HUGE mountain of evidence, none of which he can address. All he can do is reiterate what he has downloaded from an antisemitic website. Shameful. Case closed.


art eckstein - 9/11/2007

The simple fact is that Friedman and I aare historically and factually correct. Omar is wrong, and, worse, now he looks like a fool. He would, in addition, be foolish to ever bring up this topic of the withdrawn pamphlet again (though no doubt he will try to bring it up). If he does dare to bring it up, Friedman and I will no doubt smack him down hard again and make him look like a fool to the entire world again.

It's as simple as that. Case closed.


N. Friedman - 9/11/2007

Omar,

Let us get to the point.

Were the policy to exist, it would be known to the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, groups which note every Israeli sin, real or imagined. How do you explain their failure to comment on this alleged policy?


A. M. Eckstein - 9/11/2007

It was a pamphlet, not orders. It as called "Meditations".

The pamphlet went against the entire Code of Ethics of the IDF and was immediately withdrawn and suppressed by the IDF HIGH COMMAND. The high command wanted its ORDERS--traditional orders to treaty enemy civilians humanely--OBEYED. AND THE IDF IS NO DEBATING SOCIETY, AS YOU SAID OMAR. The crazy rabbi who issued the pamphlet had no further career in the IDF.

The ACTUAL Code of Ethics of the IDF and the RIGOROUS ethical training of IDF soldiers, before 1974 as after, have been described by me in detail here and they are now well known to Omar and therefore he cannot plead ignorance, Yet he won't face it won't discuss it, and implies that somehow the withdrawn pamphlet is the REAL doctrine. He keeps trying to pretend that none of the ACTUAL IDF doctrine or intensive training in ethics exists. Except IT DOES. So it's either a certain kind of mental rigidity or a certain mental lack or perhaps it is outright insanity that leads Omar to come back to this issue. In any case it makes him look like a fool.

The person who drew up that IDF Code of Ethics was Chief Rabbi of Israel in 1974. I have urged Omar to read the scholarly article that has a detailed discussion of this crucial person. NF has urged Omar to read the detailed scholarly article on the evolution of Jewish thinking over the past 2,000 years. He refuses, preferring to download filth from anti-semitic websites.

That's his level.


N. Friedman - 9/11/2007

Omar,

Not only is what you write wrong, it is stupid. Were the policy to exist, it would be known to the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, groups which note every Israeli sin, real or imagined. How do you explain their failure to comment on this alleged policy?


N. Friedman - 9/11/2007

Omar,

Post my post in its entirety and show how I have admitted anything that you now claim I admit. You are lying.


art eckstein - 9/11/2007

1. I hope some of my students are reading this. I know that some of my university colleagues are--and they are enjoying your discomfiture.

2. You really ARE claiming that somehow this crazy pamphlet is still in effect! It was withdrawn BY ORDER OF THE ISRAELI HIGH COMMAND. THAT MEANS THAT NO IDF SOLDIER EVER SEES IT. INSTEAD TO THIS DAY THEY GET THE INTENSE ETHICAL TRAINING IN THE HUMANE AND ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS WHICH I HAVE DESCRIBED, AN INTENSE TRAINING WHICH ANNULS COMPLETELY WHATEVER THAT MEANINGLESS AND SUPPRESSED PAMPHLET SAID, AND THEY GET THAT ETHICAL TRAINING BY ORDER OF THE IDF HIGH COMMAND.

If you give such enormous weight to that pamphlet by one crazy rabbie, then how much MORE weight must you give to actual and traditional IDF ethical training. Yet you continue to pretend that it doesn't exist.

3. You depend on Shahak. SHAHAK himself says that the pamphlet was withdrawn--and you know it happened very quickly. Shahak doesn't say that the pamphlet was withdrawn for pr reasons, does he? No, not even Shahak says that. SHAHAK's interpretation is that the HIGH COMMAND DIDN'T WANT SOLDIERS DISOBEYING ITS ORDERS. And, Omar, what orders WERE those, that reading this crazy pamphlet that syas killing civilians is okay might undermine? THINK ABOUT IT, you ignoramus!


art eckstein - 9/11/2007

Omar, you make yourself look ridiculous.

1. The Irgun, which did Deir Yassin, was NOT the nucleus of the Israeli Army or its predecessor. I repeat: it was NOT. The Palmach was. You reveal your historical ignorance once more.

2. You make so much of this pamphlet by a sub-rabbi which was immediately withdrawn. And now you're seeking to imply that it is somehow still in place! But his pamphlet was indeed withdrawn--don't play with words, it was rescinded BY THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COMMAND AND THE IDF IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY, AS YOU SAY. Moreover, the principles in this one crazy pamphlet ARE CONTINUOUSLY ANNULLED AND INDEED ANNIHILATED DAILY IN IDF TRAINING WHICH EVERY IDF SOLDIER MUST SUBMIT TO, as the enormously detailed example of the latest video-based training in human rights of enemy civilians, detailed by me above, DEMONSTRATES. That training is based on the IDF code of ethics drawn up by Chief Chaplain and Major General Rabbi Shlomo Goren. If one crazy pamphlet that was immediately withdrawn 33 years ago is so important as a fac to you, then logically the CONTINUOUS ISRAELI DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE WHICH MILLIONS OF IDF SOLDIERS HAVE UNDERGONE OVER 60 YEARS, NCLUDING THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE THAT LED TO THE PAMPHLET'S SUPPRESSION should be a HUGELY more important and HUGELY MORE WEIGHTLY FACT for you. Yet you pretend this is isn't important? You make yourself look intellectually ridiculous.

If you are trying to imply that the pamphlet somehow is still valid, that's just a lie.

If you cannot accept the GIGANTIC MOUNTAIN of evidence about IDF training in ethics, it is because you are an intellectual coward or a rigid ideologue to whom the huge weight of facts mean nothing or because you're just plain crazy, or maybe all three. In any case, you make yourself look ridiculous.

And inn any case, if you ever DARE to bring up this anti-semitic trash again, you can be sure that N.F. and myself will be around to make sure to make you look like a total fool in front of the entire world again.

Meanwhile, in comparison to the ethics training in humane and respectful handling of civilians to which ALL IDF SOLDIERS MUST SUBMIT UNDER ORDERS, we have the "We'll drink your blood, Jews" of Hamas, and the intentional murder of civilians--men, women, children--in conformity (not violation) of the Hamas Charter; and the murder of 3,000 civilians in New York by Muslims flying planes filled with screaming civilians and women and children into buildings filled with peaceful officeworkers; and the Muslim murder of 150 children in a school in Russia; and the murder of 34,000 civilians in Iraq last year; ALL OF THESE ACTS EXPLICIT ACTS IN THE WORSHIP OF ALLAH.

if you remain obsessed with a single pamphlet by a sub-rabbi that was immediately suppressed by the IDF High Command and whose principles were a violation of standing IDF orders at that time, and whose principles are annulled every single day in the ethical training that IDF soldiers receive, shouldn't you be infinitely MORE obsessed with these REA atrocities?

But, sadly, evidently you are not.

My advice? If you want to debate with Friedman and me, you'll have to do better than downloading for us the obsessions of anti-semitic websites. Go back to your cave.


art eckstein - 9/11/2007

Since 1948, several million Israelis over a 60 year period have had to read and take a course in the Code of Ethics of the IDF which I posted above, which mandates the protection of enemy civilians and treating them with respect. SEVERAL MILLION. They do it because they are ORDERED to do it, this is IDF POLICY, and that's the end of it--the IDF isn't a debating society. The point is that they have to follow those rules of conduct. Those are the rules mandated by the IDF High Command. PERIOD. And you are right, Omar--he IDF is not a debating society.

An obscure pamphlet that was immediately rescinded and suppressed (that's what "withdrawn" means)--as even Shahak admits!--cannot stand against the MASSIVE evidence the other way for 60 years.

Putting several MILLION soldiers (over a period of 60 years) through this indoctination in ethical treatment of civilians is obviously NOT done for pr purposes. Omar has no argument.

For instance in 2005-2006. the Israel Defense Forces created a video program on ethics in combat by using two- to three-minute clips from relevant Hollywood movies that would be familiar to most of the target audience and presenting eleven"codes of conduct." Following each simulation with its attendant dilemmas, the soldier is given a battery of questions involving legal and moral issues. The video was prepared by the IDF School of Military Law.

It was decided to teach the Code of Ethics of the IDF by using two- to three-minute clips from relevant Hollywood movies that would be familiar to most of our "clients." The use of the word client is intentional, since an educational mission that is not client oriented is a guaranteed failure.

The eleven codes that were developed and the attendant movies are:

1. Military Objectives/Targets - Apocalypse Now
2. Necessary Force and Collateral Damage - Rules of Engagement
3. Weapons and Ammunition - Three Kings
4. Human Dignity - Platoon
5. Religious and Cultural Property - The Eagle Has Landed
6. Pillage - Kelly's Heroes
7. POWs, Detainees, Surrendered and Arrested Persons - The Siege
8. The Wounded and the Sick - Apocalypse Now
9. Foreign Representatives and International Workers - The English Patient
10. Persons with Unique Status - The Year of Living Dangerously
11. Reporting Violations - Casualties of War

The overriding motif is the absolute requirement that the soldier treat the Palestinian civilian population with the utmost dignity and respect.

The segment shown from the movie Platoon, which depicts a My Lai-like incident, is powerful in its images and sounds. Soldiers are seen burning huts and throwing grenades into dug holes that may well be hiding places. Children cling to their parents and beg that they not be taken from them. Against this harsh background, the camera focuses on the commander walking away deep in thought.

The graphic that complements this clip emphasizes the imperative of maintaining the dignity of the Palestinian population. Using voice-over, it addresses the issues of: Palestinians at checkpoints; house demolitions and who may authorize them; the absolute illegality of sexual assaults and the absolute requirement of protecting innocent civilians.

EVERY IDF SOLDIER MUST GO THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

Omar, this is NOT a pamphlet by a crazy rabbi in 1974 that was immediately withdrawn BY ORDER OF THE IDF HIGH COMMAND--NO BACKTALK, NO DEBATE, THAT WAS AN ORDER. The sort of thing described above is, rather, the type of training that has been going on since 1948, for 60 years.


Only cowards will fail to recognize the truth here.


N. Friedman - 9/11/2007

Now the case truly is closed and Omar is hunting for a cave.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/10/2007

OMAR, YOU ADMIT THAT THE CRAZY PAMPHLET WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED. SINCE THAT IS THE CASE, YOU CANNOT MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT.

The pamphlet was entitled "Meditations" (it was NOT an order). The author of the pamphlet had no further career in the IDF.

The IDF is NOT a debating society, that is correct, Omar--the HIGH COMMAND OF THE IDF ORDERED THE PAMPHLET RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED. END OF STORY. IT JUDGED THE SUB-RABBI WAS WRONG. THE PAMPHLET WAS WITHDRAWN AND SUPPRESSED IMMEDIATELY. BY ORDER OF THE HIGH COMMAND. NO DEBATE--THIS WAS AN ORDER AND IT WAS OBEYED.

THAT IS, THE HIGH COMMAND OF THE IDF INSISTED ON FOLLOWING THE CODE OF ETHICS DRAWN UP BY RABBI SHLOMO GOREN WHEN HE WAS A MAJOR GENERAL AND CHIEF RABBI (NOT SOME SUB-RABBI) OF THE IDF. AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT IN 1974, GOREN WAS CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL. DO YOU THINK HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS? THE HIGH COMMAND GAVE ORDERS TO RESCIND THIS PAMPHLET IMMEDIATELY--ORDERS, OMAR, ORDERS. THAT CODE OF ETHICS IS REQUIRED OF EVERY IDF SOLDIER TO THIS VERY DAY,--TO THIS VERY DAY, OMAR-- AND IT REQUIRES HUMANE AND RESPECTFUL TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS. YOU CANNOT DENY IT.

Omar you make yourself look like an idiot by focusing on one crazy pamphlet that was immediately suppressed by the IDF, while simultaneously ignoring the MOUNTAIN of repetitions of the Ethical Code of the IDF THAT ENDURES TO THIS DAY, AND THAT EVERY IDF SOLDIER MUST OBEY. NO DEBATE, OMAR--YOU'RE RIGHT. NO DEBATE. THESE ARE THE ORDERS OF THE IDF HIGH COMMAND, THEN, IN 1974, AND NOW, IN 2007. SOLDIERS MUST OBEY THESE ORDERS.

You are reduced to arguing that this is all pr. But I gave you a specific example where IDF soldiers, including a girl I know, held their fire against civilians in a very provocative situation, BECAUSE OF THE IDF CODE OF ETHICS.

IT IS REAL. AND IT IS MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE REAL THAN A CRAZY PAMPHLET THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESSED AND RESCINDED BY ORDER OF THE IDF HIGH COMMAND.

If you don't wish to look totally foolish, YOU WILL NEVER BRING THIS SUBJECT UP AGAIN.

But NF is right--WE HOPE YOU DO. Because then you will look like a fool and an idiot in front of the entire world.

Meanwhile, compare the IDF Code of Ethics--WHICH, YOU ARE RIGHT, THE IDF IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY AND THESE ARE ORDERS-- with the disgusting and disgraceful encouragement of attacks on innocents that is so prevalent in the Muslim world.


art eckstein - 9/10/2007

YES OR NO?

DO YOU DENY THAT THIS PAMPHLET (NOT AN ORDER) , ISSUED BY ONE SUB-RABBI IN ONE AREA, WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE IDF HIGH COMMAND?

THAT IS, THE OFFICIAL ETHICAL CODE OF THE IDF ON THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS REMAINED AND REMAINS THE ETHICAL CODE OF THE IDF?

YES OR NO?

YOU MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION? ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED? ARE YOU SAYING MARIV NEWSPAPER WAS LYING?


art eckstein - 9/10/2007

Omar, Omar, do you DENY THAT THIS PAMPHLET (NOT AN ORDER) WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED BY THE ISRAELI HIGH COMMAND?

YES OR NO?

AND if you make so much of this ONE pamphlet THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESSED AS CONTRARY TO IDF DOCTRINE, how can you simultaneously IGNORE THE MOUNTAIN OF OTHER PAMPHLETS AND THE CONTINUOUS ETHICAL CODE THAT IN THE IDF EMPHASIZES PROTECTIVE AND RESPECTFUL TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS?

If ONE immediately suppressed pamphlet counts so much to you, then logic DEMANDS the MOUNTAIN of other evidence that POINTS THE OTHER WAY is hugely hugely HUGELY MORE IMPORTANT in discussing the IDF.

BUT...OMAR...DO YOU DENY THAT THIS PAMPHLET (NOT AN ORDER) WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE IDF HIGH COMMAND?

YES OR NO?


art eckstein - 9/10/2007

Omar, Omar, do you DENY THAT THIS PAMPHLET (NOT AN ORDER) WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED BY THE ISRAELI HIGH COMMAND?

YES OR NO?

AND if you make so much of this ONE pamphlet THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESSED AS CONTRARY TO IDF DOCTRINE, how can you simultaneously IGNORE THE MOUNTAIN OF OTHER PAMPHLETS AND THE CONTINUOUS ETHICAL CODE THAT IN THE IDF EMPHASIZES PROTECTIVE AND RESPECTFUL TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS?

If ONE immediately suppressed pamphlet counts so much to you, then logic DEMANDS the MOUNTAIN of other evidence that POINTS THE OTHER WAY is hugely hugely HUGELY MORE IMPORTANT in discussing the IDF.

BUT...OMAR...DO YOU DENY THAT THIS PAMPHLET (NOT AN ORDER) WAS IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE IDF HIGH COMMAND?

YES OR NO?


N. Friedman - 9/9/2007

Omar,

If you actually understand the meaning of the phrase "for argument's sake," then you are a dishonest person with no scruples. If not, you are ignorant. Please confirm, since I said nothing which would remotely allow the conclusion you reached. Also, see my comment which explains the meaning of "for argument's sake.


N. Friedman - 9/9/2007

Omar,

Do you know what the phrase "For argument's sake" means? Evidently not. That phrase is something that cannot properly be ignored in a sentence. It means that I expressly chose to address a different point which is not impacted by whether or not your argument or statement is correct, which it is not.

In other words, I admitted absolutely nothing.

No offense, Omar, but before you continue to make a complete fool of yourself - which you are doing -, you might consider learning about what it means to play the advocatus diaboli. Then again, as I have been saying: keep it up. You are helping my case.


art eckstein - 9/9/2007

1, Omar, you simply cannot take one crazy pamphlet that was immediately SUPPRESSED and RESCINDED as CONTRARY to the ethos of Israel and the IDF and treat it as if if it WERE the prevailing IDF and Israeli doctrine and ethos, while simultaneously IGNORING AS IF THEY DO NOT EXIST the ENDLESSLY REPEATED ethos of the IDF to this day which MANDATES THE PROTECTION OF ENEMY CIVILIANS AND THEIR BEING TREATED WITH RESPECT.

But that IS the endlessly repeated ethos of the IDF regarding the treatment of enemy civilians--to protect them and (even) treat them with respect. It's that simple.

2, By contrast, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbelloh, etc. etc. etc. all intentionally TARGET civilians--any Jew will do to kill: young, old, children, women, no matter what their poltiics. Or even (as with George Khoury) anybody who even happens to LOOK Jewish will do to kill. Just LOOK at the transcript of that utterly disgraceful Hamas suicide-bomber--you can't get more racist than that: "We want to drink your blood, Jews!" And this is of a piece of the proclamation of Jihad--a proclamation NEVER rescinded--by the religious authorities in Istanbul that led to the real deaths of ONE MILLION non-Muslim civilians. Only MUSLIMS fly airplanes filled with screaming civilians, including many women and children, into office-buildings filled with peaceful ciivilians. ONLY MUSLIMS intentionally blow up schools filled with 150 children.

It's all of a piece, and you should be ashamed both of your own ignorant conduct of historical research and the barbaric conduct of your co-religionists.


art eckstein - 9/9/2007

Omar thought this so important that he posted it twice. I therefore post the absolutely crushing response twice: here and below.

1. OMAR, THE PAMPHLET OF WHICH YOU HAVE MADE SO MUCH FOR SO LONG WAS IMMEDIATELY ORDERED RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE IDF AS CONTRARY TO DOCTRINE. (The rabbi responsible also appears to have left the army.)

At that time, in 1974, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, whose authority was immense, and who was someone very VERYconcerned with the ethics of the IDF, was the same SHLOMO GOREN who, as a Major General and Chief Chaplain of the IDF, had drawn up the code of ethics which MANDATED NOT MERELY THE PROTECTION OF ENEMY CIVILIANS BUT TREATING THEM WITH RESPECT. That code remains the code of ethics TO THIS DAY.

2. If you look above, I gave you an example of this IDF code of ethics AT WORK TODAY, in the face of a significant PROVOCATION.

3. Instead of downloading filth from anti-semitic websites, why don't you actually READ the two scholarly articles which Friedman and I have cited to you, and learn the actual facts?

4. BY CONTRAST to this pamphlet of which you make so much and which was IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESSED BY THE IDF CHIEF OF STAFF, AND THUS NEVER HAD AND DOES NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST VALIDITY, the barbaric order from the Muslim religious leaders in Constantinople resulted in ONE MILLION REAL DEATHS OF NON-MUSLIM, CIVILIANS IN 1915-1917, CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF ALLAH.

You should be ashamed


art eckstein - 9/9/2007

1. OMAR, THE PAMPHLET OF WHICH YOU HAVE MADE SO MUCH FOR SO LONG WAS IMMEDIATELY ORDERED RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE IDF AS CONTRARY TO DOCTRINE. (The rabbi responsible also appears to have left the army.)

At that time, in 1974, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, whose authority was immense, and who was someone very VERYconcerned with the ethics of the IDF, was the same SHLOMO GOREN who, as a Major General and Chief Chaplain of the IDF, had drawn up the code of ethics which MANDATED NOT MERELY THE PROTECTION OF ENEMY CIVILIANS BUT TREATING THEM WITH RESPECT. That code remains the code of ethics TO THIS DAY.

2. If you look above, I gave you an example of this IDF code of ethics AT WORK TODAY, in the face of a significant PROVOCATION.

3. Instead of downloading filth from anti-semitic websites, why don't you actually READ the two scholarly articles which Friedman and I have cited to you, and learn the actual facts?

4. BY CONTRAST to this pamphlet of which you make so much and which was IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESSED BY THE IDF CHIEF OF STAFF, AND THUS NEVER HAD AND DOES NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST VALIDITY, the barbaric order from the Muslim religious leaders in Constantinople resulted in ONE MILLION REAL DEATHS OF NON-MUSLIM, CIVILIANS IN 1915-1917, CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF ALLAH.

You should be ashamed.


art eckstein - 9/9/2007

OMAR, THE PAMPHLET OF WHICH YOU HAVE MADE SO MUCH FOR SO LONG WAS IMMEDIATELY ORDERED RESCINDED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE IDF AS CONTRARY TO DOCTRINE. (The rabbi responsible also appears to have left the army.)

At that time, in 1974, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, whose authority was immense, and who was someone very VERYconcerned with the ethics of the IDF, was the same Shlomo Goren who, as a Major General and Chief Chaplain of the IDF, had drawn up the code of ethics which MANDATED NOT MERELY THE PROTECTION OF ENEMY CIVILIANS BUT TREATING THEM WITH RESPECT. That code remains the code of ethics TO THIS DAY.

CASE CLOSED.


N. Friedman - 9/8/2007

Professor,

Omar does not let facts get in his way. He will, no doubt, now deny what was reported in the paper.

I think we should keep encouraging him to post his filthy trash. He is making our case for all here to see.


art eckstein - 9/8/2007

I wonder if Omar realizes that this so-called booklet issued by a sub-Rabbi, on which he has hung his case in the face of a MOUNTAIN of contrary evidence, was RECALLED IMMEDIATELY BY THE IDF COMMAND. So, Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975: Rubinstein reports that the booklet by the rabbi in the Central Command was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff.


Squash Duncan - 9/8/2007

Why mar this article with a gratuitus irrelevant attack against Christian black ministers that is not only uncalled for but actually weakens the thesis of the overall article? A defense against the condescending characterization of Mr. Scarborough by charging that, well black ministers are even more riled up? Charging CNN with bias against American Christians with a side swipe at other Christians because you don't like their presumed political viewpoints does not help the case.Contrary to Furnish's statement, after more than 45 years experience w with black ministers their tendency is definitely to stay out of advising their flock on what politicians to vote for


N. Friedman - 9/8/2007

It is one of those books which, as you read it, makes you want to cry. Unlike, for example, Dadrian brilliant book The History of the Armenian Genocide, Balakian goes into great detail about the killing so that it can be seen how one group is able actually to commit massacres on an unimaginable scale. And, the book is fair in distinguishing what is and is not religion in the whole horrible thing. Unfortunately, religion did play a very significant role.


art eckstein - 9/8/2007

I will do so, N.F. Thanks.


N. Friedman - 9/8/2007

Professor,

Have you read Balakian's book? If not, it is definitely worth the effort.


art eckstein - 9/8/2007

A colleague of mine has a daughter who serves in the IDF. She and a fellow-soldier were guarding the border near Eilat. They saw, approaching them in the distance, an Arab family group of father, mother and 10-year-old boy. The boy held a rifle. He aimed it at the two soldiers. The soldiers ordered the family group to stop. They did not stop, but continued toward the soldiers with the child continuing to aim the rifle--an M-16-- at them.

The IDF soldiers did not shoot. They did not shoot because of the Code of Ethics of the IDF. They shouted at the civilian group to stop.

The story has a happy ending; the family finally stopped; the rifle turned out to be a toy, though one should repeat that this group approached a border post with a child aiming what looked like a weapon at them and did not put the weapon down. But given the increasing Muslim habit of using CHILDREN to cover suicide attacks, the two IDF soldiers might have had a case for shooting the family. They did not, because of the Ethical Code of the IDF regarding harm to civilians.

This is a true story, told me by a PROUD father.

If Israelis, or Jews in general, were the way Omar described them, if this obscure order was the reality of the IDF--instead of the REALITY of the IDF being the principles to which Shlomo Goren, the Chief Chaplain, devoted his entire life (including during the period when this order was supposedly issued)--that Arab family would be dead without a second thought, and no Israeli would care.

Omar, you don't know what you are talking about. You only have something downloaded from some anti-semitic website, and it has been buried under a mountain of contrary evidence. To which I have just added some more.

Compare with Islamic Jihad targetting a day-school as the children were arriving. That happened LAST WEEK. It was done in the NAME OF ALLAH.

Shahak, as was abundantly proven last summer, was dreadfully wrong in his accusations against Israeli doctors not treating non-Jews. I proved this last summer with A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. Shahak is equally abundantly wrong on this matter. And once again, he has been proven wrong with A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE.

The longer Omar refuses to accept that Shahak is wrong and irrelevant, and that Omar himself is wrong to keep returning to this alleged order which he believes rules the IDF, the worse and more dishonorable and shameful he looks.


N. Friedman - 9/8/2007

Omar,

I certainly understood what you wrote. I also understand full well that what is written is incorrect.

For argument's sake, let us say you are correct and that such an order were issued in 1974. That would be objectionable and should be exposed.

Let us also note that the world is full of peculiar orders. Not so very long ago - at the beginning of WWI -, the Sheik-ul Islam proclaimed a jihad to kill all infidel, other than Germans, wherever they could be found. Such, you will note, was widely reported all over the world and led to complaints by the US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. So there is no doubt at all that the event occurred. In any event, such fatwa was taken very seriously by quite a large number of Muslims. So that you get a picture about the impact of this, below is from a recent book about the Armenian genocide:

In the chapter "The Confessions of a Slayer Captain," about the Yozgat massacres, in his memoir Armenian Golgotha, Krikoris Balakian echoes and corroborates what was confessed at the Yozgat hearings. About a year after his arrest on April 24, 1915, in Constantinople, Balakian found himself on a deportation trail that had taken him from the prison at Chankiri, east to Chorum, and then south to Yozgat. On the road to Yozgat, Balakian became friendly with a Turkish captain named Shükri, with whom he rode for a couple of hours on horseback. Shükri, feeling certain that Balakian would soon be killed, answered the priest's questions candidly and even with a bit of braggadocio.

When Balakian asked Captain Shükri where "all these human bones along this road of ours" had come from, the captain replied: "These are the bones of the Armenians who were massacred" during August and September 1915. He went on to explain that Talaat Pasha ordered the bodies to be gathered and buried immediately, but that winter floods had washed up the corpses from their shallow graves and scattered them everywhere. When the priest asked him if the remains were of the local Armenian population or of Armenians from far away, Shükri told him that they were all from the local region.

He went on to say that "this order was carried out most severely by district governor Kemal." Balakian kept bantering with the Turkish captain, pretending to be an opponent of Armenian "extremists" and a Turcophile, and in this way kept the conversation going.

When Balakian asked Captain Shükri if the women were also massacred (because he thought the young ones might be spared and sent to harems), he was told that Kemal (the kaymakam of Boghazlyan) had the women and children massacred, including infants. Kemal even told the captain that he had "made a vow on the honor of the prophet: I shall not leave a single Armenian alive in the sanjak of Yozgat," a statement that was confirmed at the fifth sitting of the trial on February 12 by Maj. Memhet Salim, the military commandant of Yozgat.

Shükri went on to tell Balakian how he and District Governor Kemal lured the Armenian women, children, and elderly on to the death march by having the town crier announce that they would be going to meet their husbands in Aleppo and ordering them to bring as much of their valuables and possessions as possible. The naive women even made baklavas and coffee cakes to celebrate the reunion with their husbands. About sixty-four hundred women and children were sent out on foot or in carriages or oxcarts and taken on a five-hour journey to a place known as Three Mills, where they were fleeced of all their valuables by a group of Turkish women, who were sent in to find all the gold and jewels they had hid on and in their bodies. The women were then massacred with "axes, hatchets, scythes, sickles, clubs, pickaxes, and shovels," Captain Shükri admitted, "in the name of holy jihad" and by "order of the government."

As a priest Balakian was particularly interested in the role of religion in the massacres and asked Captain Shükri how a religious Muslim could order the murder of innocent women and not be accountable to God and his conscience. The Turkish captain told him that "a jihad was proclaimed . . . the Sheikh-ul-Islam had issued a fatwa to annihilate the Armenians as traitors to our state, and the Caliph ratified the fatwa." When the Armenian priest continued by asking him how he would "atone for his sins" in the "other world," the captain answered: "I have already atoned for them as I've always done after such killings. . . . I spread out my prayer rug and pray, giving glory to Allah and the Prophet who made me worthy of personally participating in the holy jihad in these days of my old age." The captain's confessions not only corroborate the testimony given at the Yozgat trials, but also disclose something profound about how deeply the ideology of Islamic jihad was part of the psychology of the Turkish extermination program for the Armenians, as well as for the Greeks, Assyrians, and other Christians in the empire.


Source: Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris, The Armenian Genocide and America's Response, (2003) at 337 - 339.

Now, Omar, unlike your imaginary event that has no corroboration at all - only your Mr. Shahak -, the proclaimed jihad and the fatwa by the very highest officials of Islam have been preserved and no reputable source denies such. And, more than a million Armenians were killed in this insanity in which religion was used to convince people to do literally hack people to death, steal their things, rape women by the hundreds of thousands, play games of tossing woman from horses onto spikes, etc., etc..

Now, you claim that there was a policy in the IDF, back in 1974, about which no one other than Shahak knows. Why did it not make it into the newspaper? Why were there no complaints by the large non-religious group in Israel? What is your explanation?


N. Friedman - 9/7/2007

Omar,

I never talked about opening or closing a case. I have no eagerness, one way or the other. In fact, the more you post idiotic rants that no person with a first grade education would believe, the less you help your case.

So, please make my day. Please continue to post things that make you look insane and irrational. You are supporting what Professor Eckstein and I have been saying about present day Arab Muslim society.

That said, I do note that you previously indicated that you do not know whether Judaism has evolved. Without that knowledge, you cannot possible say whether Shahak is correct. That suggests that you do not care if what you say is so. As the saying goes, brutes yoke unlikes together in haste.

And, I do note that you have failed to address my point that ultra-Orthodox refuse all IDF service, as anyone with any familiarity with Israel knows. And, you fail to explain your love of the evolved Koestler and Chomsky, neither of whom are anti-Zionists, with Chomsky being a Zionist, albeit a Zionist who wants to have things all ways at the same time.

My reaction is that you lack the knowledge to have an opinion. To paraphrase Wittgenstein: about which we do not know, we must be silent. Consider that a word to the wise.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2007

Reciting irrelevant and mistaken material downloaded from anti-semitic websites does not change the fact that Shlomo Goren, Major General in the IDF and CHIEF CHAPLAIN of the IDF explicitly DENIED that this material Shahak cites was relevant to modern war, denied that it was applicable to IDF actions--"HEAVEN FORBID!"--and 'that this was NEVER overturned as IDF policy (and certainly NOT during 1973-1983, when GOREN WAS CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL!!!), that Goren's statements are the basis of the IDF Code of Ethics to this very day, that those ethics regarding reluctance to inflict violence on civilians are recognized even by vile enemies such as Hezbollah.

Reasserting mistakes and lies only makes you look ridiculous, Omar.

It is clear what the truth is.

And it is clear who the racists are--IJ, which attacks children going to dayschool, Fatah, which attacks people peacefully jogging (such as George Khoury) because they LOOK Jewish.

If you want to see the racist, look in the mirror.

I find your refusal to look at the massive evidence that Friedman and I have given you, the evidence that you are stimply wrong, wrong, wrong, shocking even for you, Omar. You look terrible.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2007

I posted this below, but I'm also putting it here, in case Omar manages to miss it.

Omar, Rabbi Shlomo Goren didn't retire in 1968; he went on from being Chief Chaplain of the IDF to being CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL ITSELF IN THE PERIOD 1973-1984--which is PRECISELY the period from which your crazy quotation is drawn. As Chief Rabbi of Israel, Goren's authority would have been immense, and HIS position would be the ruling position in Israeli government and society. And this is proven by the IDF Ethics Code, where protection of enemy civilians is reiterated as a duty three times in the top five principles of how to deal with the enemy, and which remains in effect to this very day.

You can't escape the totally foolish situation you now find yourself in by arguing that somehow Goren's rulings were superseded!! It never happened. You just don't know what you're talking about. And your insistence on your ever weakening position makes you look ever more foolish and dishonorable.

You are simply and factually ignorant and wrong. And all those Islamic anti-semitic websites which draw on Shahak are also factually ignorant and wrong.

Case closed.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2007

Omar, Goren didn't retire in 1968; he went on from being Chief Chaplain of the IDF to being CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL ITSELF IN THE PERIOD 1973-1984--which is PRECISELY the period from which your crazy quotation is drawn. As Chief Rabbi of Israel, Goren's authority would have been immense, and HIS position would be the ruling position in Israeli government and society. As is proven by the IDF Ethics Code, where protection of enemy civilians is reiterated as a duty three times in the top five principles of how to deal with the enemy, and which is enforced to this day.

You can't escape the totally foolish situation you now find yourself in by arguing that somehow Goren's rulings were superseded. It never happened. You just don't know what you are talking about, and your insistence on your ever weakening position makes you look ever more foolish and dishonorable.

You are simply and factually ignorant and wrong. And all those Islamic anti-semitic websites which draw on Shahak are also factually ignorant and wrong.

Case closed.


N. Friedman - 9/7/2007

Omar,

I suggest you do some more reading. Koestler was not an Anti-Zionist. He had been a Zionist but then found affinity with Communism and then became an ardent Anti-communism. His last known views on Zionism were rather clearly stated. According to him: "I believe commonsense, morality and political expediency all point to partition as a solution. If they do it quickly the damage can still be repaired, but time is running out."

Presumably, Koestler is not one of your heroes since you oppose a two state solution.

Moreover, you may admire Chomsky but he identifies himself as an ardent Zionist - and still does. He, in fact, supports a two state solution, as do most Zionists. I know his views. I have corresponded with him.

Perhaps, before you identify your heroes, you should do your homework.

Now you admit the possibility that you really do not know - and to quote you "Assuming that such an 'evolution' did take place ..." -, that there has been a change. Since you do not know, does it not behoove you first to study, then to accuse? How, Omar, can you be so sure that Shahak is correct, since you have to admit that you do not know? You do not even know the view of Chomsky or Koestler, well known polemicists with well known views.

Again: you are mistaken. Shahak is, to be charitable, mistaken. The IDF has a policy and it is not what you think it is. The most orthodox believers in Israel do not hold the views you ascribe to them. And, the most ultra-orthodox oppose Israel's existence (i.e. they are your allies - although they are non-violent by and large) and refuse to serve in the IDF. Surely, before writing you could investigate who is on your own side!!! Evidently not.


N. Friedman - 9/7/2007

Omar,

One. Why would people revert to views not held by them, most especially when there is no Jewish group on Earth which, in the last thousand years or longer, has held such views? And, since most Israelis are not all that religious to begin with, while the ultra-Orthodox most interested in Jewish law will not serve in the IDF, how do you expect anyone to take what you write seriously? Again, the ultra-Orthodox are your, not Israel's, allies since they think Israel is not a legitimate country.

Two. I think Professor Eckstein is quite correct when he points out that IDF has explicit rules regarding conduct. That is something entirely different than saying that there are individuals who break rules. And, to note, rule breakers can have their own, non-religious, reasons for breaking rules.

Three. Of course, there is always the possibility that somewhere, someplace there are some very small number of religious lunatics who hold views contrary to mainstream or even ultra-Orthodox Judaism. But, to suggest that the view of one or two religious lunatics is IDF policy - which is your allegation -, is simply contrary to fact.

One might compare the actual IDF policy to what is stated in the Hamas covenant - which appears to define Hamas' actual policy. I recall something about killing the very last Jews as a present day political project and struggling and dying in the path of the almighty as the highest honor for a Muslim and refusing negotiations as the correct course. Must I quote the language of the official Hamas covenant, as translated by Yale University?


N. Friedman - 9/7/2007

Omar,

It would help if you would read the article, which notes the evolution in thinking about great Jewish scholars over the course of several thousand years. As note, by the Middle Ages, the views you have in mind ceased to be held by those who influenced opinion. And, as noted in the article, the early views about gentiles were directed at only certain pagans, not all non-Jews and not even, as in Islam, all pagans. Since Judaism was and still is practice based, not theological or belief based, attitudes about others are determined by circumstance, not be the inherent nature of non-Jews or the fact non-Jews may have different beliefs.

In any event, you now confuse entirely Orthodox Judaism with the views of those who are sometimes called ultra-Orthodox. Ordinary Orthodox Judaism holds to the view that the law, while sacred, is subject to the evolving views of the great scholars through the ages - including their innovations and the customs and practices of the community -.

The ultra-Orthodox, by contrast, reject a considerable amount of the innovations accepted by ordinary Orthodox Jews. Even then, ultra-Orthodox do not take the view that Shahak ascribes. Which is to say, they are not a movement remotely akin to Salafists in Islam. The ultra-Orthodox merely reject the vast majority of the legal innovations accepted by modern Orthodox Jews.

I cannot say anything about Shahak's motives. However, I can say that he is mistaken.

Now, to repeat my point. The only group of Jews who might even in theory follow the views of the very early Jews on treatment of non-Jews are the ultra-Orthodox. But, even they do not take anything akin to the views ascribed to them by Shahak. And, even if they did - which they do not -, those who hold such views refuse all military service and oppose Israel's very existence. Which is to say, such people are your, not Israel's, allies.


art eckstein - 9/7/2007

Combine the consistent statements of the most famous Chief Rabbi (Chief Chaplain) of the IDF and later Chief Rabbi of Israel regarding halakhic law, combine this with the OFFICIAL POLICY ON ETHICS of the IDF on compassionate treatment of enemy civilians and the maintenance of "the purity of arms", a policy that is MANDATED for all IDF soldiers right to today, and combine THAT with actual Israeli reluctance to attack civilians (as even Hezbollah gleefully (!) recognizes), and you see the real picture.

Omar, stop downloading material from primitive anti-semitic websites and do some real research. Maybe--just maybe--you might learn something. NF and I have now given you two long articles to read on this subject.

Case closed.


art eckstein - 9/7/2007

Shlomo Goren (1917-1994) served in the Israel Defense Forces during three wars, wrote several award-winning books on Jewish law. Rabbi Goren was Chief Chaplain of the IDF from 1948 until 1968, eventually rising to the rank of Major General. He then served as Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1973- 1983. Rabbi Goren, who was—I repeat--CHIEF CHAPLAIN OF THE IDF AND THEN CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL--emphasized that the old biblical mandate to kill all combatants is NO LONGER APPLICABLE. HE writes:

"[Regarding] those obligatory wars that we were explicitly commanded by the Torah to wage in antiquity, in which 'you shall not let a soul remain alive'--one must NOT learn from them, HEAVEN FORBID, about other wars and our own time… We are commanded by the Torah to follow in God's ways and to have compassion for God's creatures, as it is written: 'God's mercy is upon all God's works' (Psalms 145:9)" (Meshiv Milhama vol. 1, p. 14)

On Goren, see Arye Edrei (2006) "Divine Spirit and Physical Power: Rabbi Shlomo Goren and the Military Ethic of the Israel Defense Forces," Theoretical Inquiries in Law: Vol. 7 : No. 1 (2006) pp. 256-197:

Sample quote, from p. 287

Rabbi Goren applied this principle [that
innocent blood, even of the enemy population, must never be shed] to military commanders with regard to areas under their control. According to the military ethic that he sought to foster, it is forbidden to harm even the enemy in an unnecessary manner. Military commanders bear a very strong ethical responsibility for any individual who is unnecessarily harmed, regardless of who harmed them. The very
responsibility over the area in which the person was injured makes the commander morally accountable for the welfare of even the enemy in that territory, whether soldier or civilian.


From p. 297:

The halakhic rulings examined in this article deal with different perspectives on the Jewish attitude towards the enemy in times of war and occupation. Rabbi Goren dealt with this problem from a variety of vantage-points over many years. It is clear that the development of an
ethical army was his primary goal and that he understood that the treatment of the enemy is the most critical and significant point in the ethical fiber of any army. Goren argued that while Jewish sovereignty and the use of force that it required necessitated a return
to earlier Jewish values that validate the use of force, it also demanded giving a more prominent position to rabbinic opposition to the use of force. He sought to build a model that legitimizes the use of force, but within the
parameters of the spiritual values of the Rabbinical Sages. Rabbi Goren’s
halakhic rulings on the treatment of the enemy represent the realization of the integration that he strove to create.


I REPEAT: THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE CHIEF RABBI OF THE IDF (1948-1968) WHO THEN BECAME CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL (1973-1983)


N. Friedman - 9/6/2007

Omar,

You may want to read a fairly definitive article which was likely written - since one of the authors of the article died in 1923 and the other in 1956 - before Zionism was the prominent it became and before current views on liberalism came to be widely accepted. You will note that Jewish views about gentiles changed considerably over time and that what Shahak writes is basically not so.


art eckstein - 9/6/2007

Omar, why not do some real reading on the tragic history of the Middle East, instead of downloading anti-semitic propaganda from Islamic websites?

Shahak's works have found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press."

Omar, READ A BOOK.


art eckstein - 9/6/2007

You miss N.F.'s point, Omar. What a surprise.

Whenever this sort of material is said, and even if it were said by somebody tomorrow, it reflects a pre-exile Judaism (as N.F. himself said--that is a 2,000 years ago Judaism), which is NOT taken seriously in modern Israel, and certainly NOT taken seriously by the IDF. The ONLY people who would take this sort of material literally today are Jews who oppose the existence of the creation of Israel to begin with, on grounds that it did not occur from a direct miracle of God, AND WHO DO NOT SERVE IN THE ISRAELI ARMED FORCES. THAT IS A FACT YOU MUST RECOGNIZE AND SO FAR HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE.

Also, you must deal with--and you have failed to deal with because you cannot deal with it--the OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE IDF ON TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS, WHICH I POSTED HERE, IN WHICH HUMANE AND RESPECTFUL TREATMENT OF ENEMY CIVILIANS IS A MAIN PRINCIPLE OF IDF SOLDIERLY CONDUCT, MANDATED AND REPEATED THREE TIMES.

AND, you must deal with the fact that Israeli reluctance to target civillians IS RECOGNIZED EVEN BY ENEMIES SUCH AS HEZBOLLAH (who attempt to take military advantage of this by hiding rocket-launchers among civilians). That is, this is PRACTICE of the IDF, not just a written and explcit ethical code that all soldiers must absorb.

Compare with your barbarous and racist friends in Hamas, Fateh, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, who intentionally target ALL JEWS, but ESPECIALLY civilians. (Or, in the case of George Khoury, a civilian out jogging peacefully who just happened to LOOK Jewish!) Compare with the Islamic fanatics who have killed 34,000 CIVILIANS in Iraq last year--each and every murder AN ACT OF WORSHIP OF ALLAH. That includes the murder of the 500 Yazidis two weeks ago--AN ACT OF WORSHIP OF ALLAH. Compare with the rocketing of a day-care center by Islamic Jihad THIS WEEK--done as the children were arriving. AN ACT OF WORSHIP OF ALLAH.
Compare flying planes filled with screaming civilians and many women and children, into office-buildings filled with civilians AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP OF ALLAH.

No religion except Islam has people who behave in this savage manner in the name of God.

You are made to look foolish, Omar, by facts and logic.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/6/2007

Friedman's case is unrefuted by you, Omar. That's because you cannot refute it.

I already demonstrated to the readership of HNN, last summer, that Shahak was totally undependable as a source on modern Israeli ideology and practice. That incident last summer had to do with his allegation about Jewish doctors refusing to treat non-Jews, a major accusation of Shahak's that was proven, or rather which I proved, to be totally false. Your ignorant trumpeting of Shahak here made you look like a fool. Yet, undeterred, you return to Shahak again this week--and again you end up looking like a fool.


art eckstein - 9/6/2007

N.F. has totally refuted Shahak. Shahak has nothing to do with the real Judaism of the past TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

Those few ultra-Orthodox Jews who might still believe the things that Shahak writes about are OPPOSED to the existence of Israel and do NOT serve in the Israeli armed forces.

Meanwhile, Omar cannot deal with (a) the actual and official policy of the IDF on not only not harming enemy civilians but even treating enemy civilians with respect, (b) the actual behavior of the IDF, which corresponds to those official policies (as even Hezbollah acknowledges, and as my colleague in Middle Eastern Studies in my own Department, who is a Muslim, acknowledges), or (c) the continual vile savagery against civilians, carried out on a HUGE scale by Omar's Muslim own co-religionists, the hideous facts on the ground which are characteristic of Muslim believers in the modern world and only Muslims.

The attack on the Jewish children's school in Sderot, delivered by the racist and terrorist Islamic Jihad as the little children were arriving for school, is only one example of Islamic practice at work. So is the official DEATH-penalty for apostasy from Islam of eight Islamic states--no other religion has anything like this grotestque totalitarianism.

This does not mean that I myself believe that this vile savagery is the only possible interpretation of Islam. But I do believe that this barbaric and totalitarian behavior is unfortunately is increasingly the default-mode of modern Islam.

Case closed. On the narrow and particular issue about Shahak, it's game, set, and match to Friedman. Omar has lost the argument once again, and made himself look ridiculous again, because he has neither facts nor logic, only hatred and insults.


N. Friedman - 9/5/2007

Omar,

Jewish law changed substantially but not recently. It changed substantially after Jews were expelled from their homeland. And, there was some change during the Middle Ages and, to some minor extent, thereafter. Such is what I referred to, if you note my writing.

Jewish law on war was a dead letter, however, for the entire time that Jews were without a homeland. And, during that period, nearly two millennia, Jewish views about war and about the sacredness of life - even the sacredness of life of infidel others - radically changed. But, that change was long before the modern, liberal age.

I do not claim that all of Jewish law is entirely humane. I claim that what Shahak claims is complete nonsense that is not remotely based on Jewish law as it is understood by any Jews, including most especially the very Orthodox group that would care most about its details. Hence, what Shahak states is nonsensical.

And, I claim that those who are most traditional about Jewish law do not support Israel's existence. Such is a major problem for Israel since there are a large group of Jews who refuse to defend the country on religious grounds. And, they are the very people who take literal views of Jewish law most seriously. Yet - and this bears repeating -, such people refuse to serve in the IDF.



art eckstein - 9/5/2007


And now we read in today's newspaper of how the Islamicist terrorists of Hamas in Gaza are intentionally targetting with rockets a school filled with Jewish children in Sderot (within the 1949 borders).

The act was done by Islamic Jihad--targetting six-year-olds-- arriving at school-- in the name of Allah and Islam. (Of course, nothing happens in Gaza nowadays without the approval of Hamas too.)

Weep for your religion and your culture, Omar. Look in the mirror, not at "the Jews"


N. Friedman - 9/5/2007

You should address this comment to Omar.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2007

And now we read in today's newspaper of how the Islamicist terrorists of Hamas in Gaza are intentionally targetting with rockets a school filled with Jewish children in Sderot (within the 1948 borders).

Weep for your religion and your culture, Omar. Look in the mirror, not at "the Jews".


A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2007

What a surprise that Omar knows nothing of this, but goes off on a typically ill-informed rant on the basis solely of his primitive ignorance and hatred, and ignoring the actual official policy of the IDF on civilians, repeated three times, which all IDF soldiers must learn, and which I quoted. I'm shocked.


N. Friedman - 9/5/2007

Omar,

If you had read what I had written correctly, I noted that Shahak's position is incorrect, meaning that it is contrary to Jewish law, as understood over the course of the last 2,000 years.

My point, instead, is that we do not need to analyze any texts. Why? Those who might hold a position based on literal application of ancient texts normally refuse all service involving the IDF, including in the chaplaincy, or even to the State of Israel. Such people generally take the view that, having not been created by a miracle performed by the Almighty, Israel is a secular state owed no allegiance at all and is thus a dead end for Jews.

By contrast, modern religious Jews who would be part of IDF hold a very different view regarding Jewish law. Such people hold to views that developed in the course of being a diaspora people living as a separate nation within other nations. Hence, they do not look at the matter as Shahak does. His view, I think, amounts to propaganda and is, in my view, contrary to fact.


art eckstein - 9/4/2007

Thanks, N.F.

I'll be around, trying to keep arguments factually-based and logical.

All best,

AE


N. Friedman - 9/4/2007

I should add, to be clear. When I said "all," what I meant was nearly all. There are always exceptions.


N. Friedman - 9/4/2007

Welcome back after a long summer!!!


A. M. Eckstein - 9/4/2007

Thank you for that information, N.F. I was elucidating for Omar the actual official policy of the actual IDF--backed by comments both from enemies like the Hezbollah leader, and from my Muslim colleague in Middle Eastern History here at my university, about the actual behavior of the IDF.

Your comments clarify things even further. Omar is simply out of his league here on this blog.


N. Friedman - 9/4/2007

Professor,

Those who might actually make policy based on what literally appears in Jewish law basically all refuse to fight in the IDF. So, to cite such supposed views as definitive is shows substantial ignorance. Which is to say, what Omar writes is basically nonsense.

And, what actually appears in Jewish law does not actually conform with the views presented by Omar. So, he is doubly wrong.

Better try next time, Omar.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/4/2007

Omar, YOU won't confront the ACTUAL IDF OFFICIAL RULES OF ACTION TOWARDS ENEMY CIVILIANS--nor the fact that IDF action on the ground matches those OFFICIAL RULES OF CONDUCT TOWARDS ENEMY CIVILIANS, as even that Hezbollah leader acknowledged, and as even my Muslim colleague who teaches the Middle East acknowledged.

You don't know wht you are talking about. Good-bye.


A. M. Eckstein - 9/4/2007

Omar, I gave you chapter and verse on the laws of war as practiced by the IDF and as written down by them, I quoted them directly, and every IDF soldier must learn them. How can you ignore them? THESE are the RULES that the IDF is supposed to follow, AND--even more importantly-- THESE are the RULES that there is every evidence that the IDF DOES follow.

Even Israel's ENEMIES recognize this face; this is precisely why the Hezbollah leader was chuckling about Israeli reluctance to hit civilian sites, which is precisely why Hezbollah places rocket launchers there.

You have no case.

Once more you have lost, and you have lost because you are ignorant, facing someone with a lot of knowledge.

Case closed. Good-bye for now.


art eckstein - 9/4/2007


The CNN television show “Warriors of God” was the SUBJECT of this thread. There is obviously no moral equivalence between the behavior of any other religion and the enormous scale and slaughter and frantic violence of Muslim terrorists. There are tens of thousands of such Muslim terrorists, and (as I have proven) they are supported by the opinion of tens of millions of Muslims. NO other religion is behaving like this.


art eckstein - 9/4/2007

Omar,

1, I have quoted to you THE OFFICIAL POLICY of the Israeli Defense Forces on the duty to protect enemy civilians from violence, and indeed to treat them with respect. THIS OFFICIAL POLICY IS ISSUED TO EVERY SOLDIER, and it is repeated three times, one after the other, and which every IDF soldier must learn.

I REPEAT THIS IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES.

2, And this chimes with the the fact that--AS MY MUSLIM COLLEAGUE WHO IS OUR EXPERT IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN MY DEPARTMENT ACKNOWLEDGES--the vast majority of casualties inflicted by the IDF have NOT BEEN CIVILIANS, but have been and are on military targets.

THE OFFICIAL IDF POLICY AND THE FACTS ON THE GROUND THUS GO TOGETHER.

3. To find the OFFICIAL CODE OF ETHICS OF THE IDF, in English and Hebrew, google “The Ethical Code of the Israeli Defense Forces.”

Do you think I AM MAKING THIS UP? With your reference to "unsourced", is that how, in your desperation at having made yet another gross and grotestque mistake, you seek to avoid the implications here, the stark moral difference between the doctrine AND the actions of the IDF on the one hand and your Palestinian and Hezbollah genocidal racist murderers on the other?

4. Of course civilians sometimes get hurt in war, especially when it is the practiced tactic of Muslim militants to hide intentionally among civilians. The practice has been condemned by international organizations as a war-crime; it is practiced regularly and by habit both by the Palestinian terrorists and by Hezbollah:

To wit:

And as one Hezbullah sheik was reported in the German newspapers as saying in early August 2006:
"Yes, of course we hide missiles, weapons, in schools, in apartment houses, wherever. If we shoot from there and the Jews don't shoot back for fear of causing civilian casualities, we win. If we shoot from there and the Jews cause lots of civilian causalties, we also win." He then laughed." LAUGHED.

5. And compare the IDF RULES OF CONDUCT with the primitive and genocidal and racist wording of this Hamas suicide video from Feb. 2006:


February 14, 2006.

?The Hamas website this week presented the parting video messages of two Hamas suicide terrorists.
Each terrorist had a separate message for Jews. This first said:
"My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no god but Allah, we will chase you everywhere! We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood. We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries."
The second terrorist said the following:
"In the name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, [and] purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country... This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."
One of the terrorists saw his death as a wedding with the Maidens of Paradise:
"I dedicate this wedding [i.e. death for Allah] to all of those who have chosen Allah as their goal, the Quran as their constitution and the Prophet [Muhammad] as their role model. Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine - all of Palestine - from the impurity of the Jews."
The message to one of the terrorist's mother was instruction for her to be joyous over his death and his "wedding" with the "Maidens of Paradise."
"My dear mother, you who have cared for me, today I sacrifice my life to be your intercessor [on Judgment Day]. O my love and soul, wipe your tears, don't be saddened. In the name of Allah, I've achieve all that I've aspired. Don't let me see you sad on my wedding day with the Maidens of Paradise. So be happy and not sad, because in the name of Allah, after death is merciful Allah's paradise."


Yes, there is everything here, from genocidal racism (the kind that led to the murder by Fateh terrorists of the Israeli Arab George Khoury simply because ‘HE LOOKED JEWISH’, followed by Fateh’s apology that THEY MEANT ONLY TO KILL JEWS, to the vision of Paradise as an adolescent boy’s dream of infinite sex as a reward FROM ALLAH FOR KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS (!).

Are you not ashamed?


CASE CLOSED, OMAR. As always, you are beaten, and you are beaten with UNAVOIDABLE FACTS. Your only and predictable response will be insults against me. It’s all you have.


art eckstein - 9/3/2007

Sorry, Omar, once more I overestimated your knowledge. My mistake.

1. The numbers speak for themselves:

Most casualties caused by the IDF are NOT civilians. Period. THE MIDDLE EASTERN EXPERT IN MY OWN DEPARTMENT, WHO IS A MUSLIM, ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. DO YOU DENY IT?...or do you think it is AN ACCIDENT?

2. It is NOT an accident. Because here is the official ethics code of the IDF:

C. When Confronting the Enemy:

19. The IDF serviceman will use the force at his disposal, in all actions in the face of the enemy, manifesting perseverance in his mission, courage and judgment, always ready to carry out his duties despite danger to his life.

20. The IDF serviceman will be ready to do whatever is required, and even to endanger his own life, to come to the aid of his comrades or to recover wounded comrades from the battlefield.

21. The IDF serviceman will act, when confronting the enemy, according to the letter and spirit of the laws of war. He will adhere strictly to the principle of purity of arms and to the ethics of combat.

22. The IDF serviceman will treat enemy troops and civilians in areas controlled by the IDF in accordance with the letter and spirit of the laws of war and will not exceed the limits of his authority.

23. The IDF serviceman will act fairly with self-control, reasonably, and professionally, in carrying out the responsibilities of his position, in all his contacts with civilians in areas controlled by the IDF, whether in the course of battle or afterward. He will show respect towards the beliefs, values, sacred and historical sites of all civilians and military personnel as they deem proper and to the extent possible, in keeping with the values and basic principles of the IDF and in accordance with military needs and the given circumstances.

That is, Omar: Protection of enemy civilians is the third, fourth, and fifth principle under Confronting the Enemy. (i.e., principles 21, 22, and 23--this principle about protection of enemy civilians is reiterated THREE TIMES.)

3. On the other hand, most casualties caused by the Palestinians and Hezbollah ARE civilians, and that is intentional. THE MIDDLE EASTERN EXPERT IN MY OWN DEPARTMENT, WHO IS A MUSLIM, ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. DO YOU DENY IT?

And THAT is not an accident, either. That is the RACIST Palestinian policy--death to ANY Jews, no matter what their age (children, old people), their politics, Army or civilian, in Israel or elsewhere. Take a look at the transcript of that Hamas suicide-bomber tape.

Remember the Khouras case--he was a Palestinian jogging peacefully in an upscale Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists because they mistook him for a Jew. Any Jew--it was enough to ensure Khouras's death that he only LOOKED Jewish. That was enough. Was he armed? No. Was he in a uniform? No. Did the murderers know his politics? No. The Fateh apologized later--they'd meant only to kill JEWS.

The difference is clear.

4. But it is also clear that this savage barbarism of the Palestinians and Hezbollah is only a SUBSET of the current Islamist way of war. Because the number of Israeli civilian dead is very small compared to the civilian dead in Iraq--EACH MURDER AN ACT DONE IN THE NAME OF ALLAH.

The suicide-bombing may have started out against Jews, but it is now used overwhelmingly by Muslims against Muslims themselves, Sunnis against Shiites, Shiites against each other, all IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. As for the murder of innocents without suicide--remember the murder of the three small children of the Fatah official, on their way home from school, by the Hamas gunmen last spring. That sort of savage barbarism did not come out of nowhere, Omar. It was first practiced against the Jews (not Israelis--Jews--read the Hamas suicide-bomber transcript). It was Muslims acting in the name of Allah who flew planes loaded with screaming women and children into the Twin Towers filled with civilians, Omar. NO other religion would countenance this.

Read these facts and weep for your people and culture, Omar.




art eckstein - 9/3/2007

And, Omar, we're not talking about the behavior of various religious fanatics (Christian and Muslim) a thousand years ago. We're talking about what Christians, Jews, and Muslims do TODAY in the NAME specifically of their religion. What Christians or Jews are killing 34,000 civilians a year (in Iraq alone) explicitly in the name of God? NONE. Only MUSLIM doctors (in Scotland) attempted to blow up an airport filled with students departing on vacation, shouting "Allah! ALLAH!", as they did it. Those are FACTS.

Now, if you want to argue that many Muslims today are engaging today in practices that Christians, for instance, have long given up as barbaric and irreligious and against the message of God--i.e., that a large part of the Muslim world is a thousand years behind, say, Christianity in moral development--well, in that case, we could have a real conversation.


art eckstein - 9/3/2007

You know very well that the IDF goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties Omar. The total number of ALL dead in ALL the wars that Israel has fought for its survival is 8,000 on BOTH sides total, and MOST of those killed by the Israelis have been soldiers or military-age men in civilian outfits who were fighting. THIS WAS ADMITTED TO ME BY THE MUSLIM MIDDLE EASTERN EXPERT IN MY OWN HISTORY DEPARTMENT, OMAR, SO STOP WITH YOUR FALSE ARGUMENTS.

The same cannot be said for the Muslim side!
In any war, civilians get hurt. That is terrible. But such tragedies happens especially when one side CHOOSES TO HIDE AMONG CIVILIANS, as your Muslims do. By contrast to the 8,000 total deaths since 1948 on both sides of Israel-Palestine, with most of those killed by israelis being soldiers, Muslim terrorists killed 34,000 CIVILIANS in Iraq last year alone. EACH DEATH AN ACT IN THE NAME OF GOD. In Darfur it is 250,000 These are civilian casualties.

Any examination of the figures from the Second Intifada show that the overwhelming percentage of casualties inflicted by the IDF have been and are on military personnel and military-aged young-man guerrillas: about 70-75% were military. The OPPOSITE ratio is true of the Second Intifada--75% of deaths were old people, women, children. That was not unintentional. That was intentional. Any Jew--young, old, whatever his or her political opinions--is good enough to kill. Didn't you read the transcript of the Hamas killer? Any Jew--in the name of God. THAT'S THE REALITY, Omar. Not Shahak.

Intentional hiding among civilians has also been condemned by Human Rights Watch; but it is THE Palestinian and Hezbollah tactic. And as one Hezbullah sheik was reported in the German newspapers as saying in early August 2006:
"Yes, of course we hide missiles, weapons, in schools, in apartment houses, wherever. If we shoot from there and the Jews don't shoot back for fear of causing civilian casualities, we win. If we shoot from there and the Jews cause lots of civilian causalties, we also win." He then laughed." LAUGHED

So, the only people happy about civilian deaths (in this situation and most other situations of terrorism) are Muslims.

You need to explain why this is, Omar. As I said, I'm willing to listen to the argument that it is all a terrible misinterpretation of Islam--though of course others on this blog, and all terrorists, believe that vicious killling of civilians like this is the CORRECT interpretation of Islam. But if it is a "terrible misinterpretation" (like the death sentences for apostasy from Islam on the books in eight Muslim countries, which you acknowledge as a fact), you need to explain WHAT IS IT in Islam that LEADS to such "misinterpretations."

But in any case the real facts that are occurring every day are killing your argument here.


art eckstein - 9/3/2007

Omar, no other religion is engaged in the murder of thousands of innocent civilians IN THE NAME OF GOD.

NONE.

Face it.

9/11 where 3,000 innocents were killed EXPLICITLY IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, was neither unique nor the largest of these atrocities. In the case of Iraq, last year it was 34,000 innocent civilians killed in the name of Allah and Islam, each murder an act done in the name of Allah and Islam. (And when you stupidly and ignorantly dared to question that 34,000 figure, desperately hoping without any knowledge that I was making that figure up, I was able to say these are the figures of the UNITED NATIONS ITSELF.) Last month alone in Iraq it was 1,800 civilians killed, each murder an act in the name of Allah and Islam. In Russia, we had Beslan, where 150 children were intentionally killed--in the name of Allah and Islam. India is ranked second in terrorism, with about 1,500 civilians killed in the name of Allah last year. Those were Hindus.

This isn't just "common human frailty." THIS IS COMING FROM THE RELIGION AND IS EXPLICITLY JUSTIFIED BY THE RELIGION.

If your argument is that Islam is being terribly misinterpreted by these fiends and the imams and mullahs who are their mentors, these Muslims who murder the innocent by the thousands in the name of God, I'm willing to accept that you may be correct. But then the question becomes: "How is it that Islam, and Islam ALONE of all religions in the modern age, is subject to such 'terrible misinterpretation'? What is it in the religion, or in Muslim culture, that allows it? That allows beheading videos to be used by terrorists as recruiting devices, where in ANY OTHER CULTURE people would be repulsed? What is it that allows entire governments, with great popular support, to DECREE DEATH FOR APOSTASY FROM ISLAM, when NO OTHER RELIGION DOES THIS?

Until you can answer all these questions, your position is terribly weak both morally and intellectually. And the point remains that given the grotesque violence committed every day in the name of Islam, and by the adherents of NO OTHER RELIGION, the cnn "Warriors of God" was utterly intellectually ridiculous to posit moral equivalence of all religions here.

As for Shahak, in your desperation you keep bringing up this tired old man who has been shown a year ago to be grotesquely factually incorrect on major points of Jewish practice. Remember his false accusations that Jewish doctors don't save the lives of Gentile patients? Remember my posting the stories about the hospital just across from Gaza that was treating Palestinian terrorists as Fatah and Hamas killed each other in the name of Allah? Or how even Baruch Goldstein treated not just Palestinians but Palestinian terrorists until he went crazy?? Have you all too conveniently forgotten these facts that were presented to you?


E. Simon - 9/3/2007

So the implication we in the West perceive - based on what we see on a daily basis, should be that the wanton violence of Muslims against other Muslims is an indication of superiority in what sense exactly? Other than that they don't apparently even value their own lives? (Hamas spokespeople regularly refer to this cultural distinction as being a military "advantage" in their fight against the existence of Israel, ironically, so it's not as if there aren't sources within the culture - while claiming its mantle, nonetheless - to reinforce the perception). How is this a better standard?

I was not aware that the IDF is a Halakhic body. More irrelevant brain droppings from Omar to tickle his curious fancy at slyly conveying subtle anti-Jewish ideas in his war of de-legitimizing their nation.


art eckstein - 9/2/2007

1. Glenn Scott Rodden on August 31, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Mr. Eckstein:

"What "pressure" has the Bush administration put on the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur? How effective has that "pressure" been and why has the Bush administration not sent troops in Sudan to stop the killing? "


2. Glenn Scott Rodden on September 2, 2007 at 6:11 PM:

I never advocated sending thousands of troops into another Arab country.

Glenn, such blatant self-contradictions make you look VERY foolish. Perhaps you were only being rhetorical in no. 1--but you'd have to demonstrate that you were being over-the-top with your suggestion, esp. since you were calling for more U.S. pressure on Sudan.

3. You admit my point (a) about US leadership at the UN seeking punishment of Sudan, and you admit (b) my point about China attempting to block punishment of Sudan.

4. Given that you admit that my information is correct, it is illogical that you then launch into an attack on my sources of information. You don't know where I get my information, but did it occur to you that as a university professor, I may actually have done a lot of READING on this topic? I have lots of FACTS at my disposal (as Greene acknowledges), do I not?

So instead of ignorant and false accusations that attempt to delegitimate my arguments and factual evidence on ground of my (alleged) sources (e.g., Fox News), how about trading in your insults for actually trying to answer my evidence and arguments?

The main point being that it is clear which religious fanaticism threatens the world, which religion is increasingly characterized by open violence in the name directly of God, and hence that in this TV program, "God's Holy Warriors" by CA, the stand of moral equivalence of all religions in regard to violence which it took was perhaps oh-so-politically correct but intellectually ridiculous.

But Glenn, I fear that, like Omar, you find that actually answering me with facts and logic is too difficult, and so it is insults based on nothing that is all you can come up with.

Now, Omar has the excuse of coming from a highly rhetorical culture, a culture where rhetoric and insult has in fact long substituted for the employment of fact and logic in debate.
But Glenn-- what is YOUR excuse?





Glenn Scott Rodden - 9/2/2007

1. I realize that the Bush administration has attempted to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government, but those sanctions have not changed anything in Darfur.

2. I never advocated sending thousands of troops into another Arab country. Ironic that a Bush supporter would finally realize that invasion and occupation of an Arab country is folly. What I was asking is what US policy is toward Sudan and the Darfur conflict and how that policy squares with your simplistic view of the world: bad Muslims vs. good Christians.

3. I agree that the Chinese have worked hard to undermine UN sanctions, but that does not explain Bush's policy. The US has close relations with the Sudanese government because the administration believes that the Sudan government is an ally in the war on terrorism. The Bush adminstration, therefore, is willing to downplay the Darfur genocide because it puts a higher priority on its own security interests.

4. Your eagerness to run from the Darfur crisis mirrors the Bush's administration's attempts to distance itself from one of its odius allies. This is nothing new. The Bush administration claims moral superiority, but is allied with some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East.

Obviously, you have your own thoughts about what you call "Muslim Rage," but most of that seems to be based on propaganda from Fox News and other Neocon sources of information.


Elliott Aron Green - 9/2/2007

We can add to the scores of thousands of Muslims slaughtered in intra-Muslim factional & sectarian fighting in Iraq the estimated 150,000 slaughtered in intra-Muslim fighting in Algeria over the last 17 years.

Thanks to Art Eckstein for quotes from Hamas mass murder suicidists. The Hamas' Judeophobia is clear in the Hamas charter which endorses the Protocols of of the Elders of Zion forgery/plagiarism [plagiarized from Maurice Joly's Dialogue aux Enfers...] and also quotes a medieval Judeophobic Muslim fable. This fable is quoted in Article 7 of the Hamas charter. It says: At Judgement Day the Muslims will fight the Jews, who will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will cry out: O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.

This clearly demonstrates that Muslim Judeophobia goes back to the Middle Ages and is not caused by anything that the modern State of Israel has done. For more on this, see, inter alia, the book by Carlo Panella: "Il Complotto Ebraico" [Torino 2005].

I agree with Rodden that the USA helped Muslim terrorists in Bosnia [& Kossovo too] in the 1990s. Far from wanting to defend Bush, I believe that his secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, is sympathetic to Hamas, which she recently described as "a resistance movement." Nevertheless, the Bosnian and Kossovan interventions of the United States were carried out by Clinton, not by Bush.

On the Sudan genocide situation, which goes back to 1956, I immodestly recommend my piece linked to below:
http://www.think-israel.org/green.sudan.html

I place most of the blame, other than that adhering to the Arab-Muslim perpetrators, on Britain.


art eckstein - 9/1/2007

More incoherent blather from Omar.




art eckstein - 9/1/2007

1. The Bush administration has led the charge to get sanctions against the Sudanese govt in the UN, and has supported (including with promises of money) the establishment of peacekeepers.

2. To ask, after Iraq, that the U.S. itself send tens of thousands of U.S. troops into another Muslim country, as you do, strikes me as extremely ill-conceived as an idea!

3. Meanwhile, the Chinese BLOCKED these UN efforts, including persistent efforts by the U.S at the U.N.--which I was I brought the Chinese up. They were PROTECTING the genocide. Only in the past few weeks have they stopped. So it's not as if the U.S. and the Chinese attitude about Darfur was about equal, and I was shifting the topic. It's that the U.S. has worked pretty hard to stop Darfur, and the Chinese have worked pretty hard to let the Sudanese govt continue its genocidal policies, because of Chinese interest in Sudanese oil.

4. But my main point remains this: one would have thought, with the murdering of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Darfur (and by other Muslims) that this was above all a problem for MUSLIM states to solve. But there has been no govt action--WHILE GENOCIDAL SUDAN REMAINS A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING OF THE ARAB LEAGUE. In part, this is because there have been no street demos against the mass slaughter, no burning of Sudanese flags, etc. What does this tell us about the real origins of such demos when the Danes publish some cartoons indicating that Mohammed condemns violence--or, even indicating that Mohammed doesn't??

"Call us violent barbarians will you? I know-- WE'LL KILL SOME NUNS!" (THAT happened in response to the Pope's comments about Muslim violence last year, as I am sure you remember.)

This "Muslim rage" clearly doesn't have to do with the actual scale of violence or suffering in any particular country. The rage has to do with who is DOING WHAT. In my view, many Muslims believe everything is permitted to them (both violence to others, and against each other), but violence against them by dhimmis is totally unacceptable, theologically undermining, and enraging (even if all the dhimmis are doing is shooting BACK!), and even verbal criticism of them by dhimmis is equally enraging. It's the dhimmis, not the disaster, that leads to the street demos. And that makes it hypocrisy as long as they claim they're upset about the disaster.


Glenn Scott Rodden - 9/1/2007

Mr. Eckstein:

What "pressure" has the Bush administration put on the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur? How effective has that "pressure" been and why has the Bush administration not sent troops in Sudan to stop the killing? Also, why depend pretend to depend on the UN when the Bush administration has openly ridiculed that body for the past six years?

You seem to be unaware that the Bush administration is working with the Sudanese intelligence service; the very architects of the genocidial campaign in Darfur. How does that relationship fit your simplistic view of the world: good Christians/Jews vs. evil Muslims? Does not our support for the Sudanese government make us complicit with Islamic genocide and terrorism?

How also do you explain America's support for Islamic terrorists during the past three decades? During the 1980s, we supported the Afghan Mujhadeen when it was fighting the Soviets. We also supported Saddam's invasion of Iran in 1980 and the Muslims in Bosnia in the 1990s.

My point is that many US administration, including the current Bush administration, have supported Islamic terror and violence and continues to do so when those groups support our policies.

And why argue that I am shifting the subject and then seek to shift the blame for Bush's policies by blaming the Chinese? The Chinese have their own policy toward Sudan, but I was asking about US policy.



art eckstein - 8/31/2007

We quoted you exactly, Omar; it was not at all out of context; and in regard to the second quote you have several times REITERATED your praise--which we quoted--for the despicable Husseini, with his SS Division.

Case closed.

You need to THINK: if Greene and I are BOTH reading you this way, maybe the problem is...you.


art eckstein - 8/31/2007

Here's what I wrote in reply. It simply is crushing against Omar; so crushing, he evidently didn't bother to read it carefully.

1. I was counting the 500 Yazidis among the estimated 34,000 civilian deaths caused by Muslim suicide bombers in Iraq during the past 12 months. This is a UNITED NATIONS estimate: to be exact, the UN says it is 34,452. I didn't make up the figure.

34,000 civilian deaths--it's hardly "an incident here or there".

According to the BBC last month, 70% of Palestinians believe suicide bombing of civilians is justifable. Among Nigerian Muslims, the figure is 45%. There are 60 million Muslims in Nigeria; this equates to 25 MILLION MUSLIM SUPPORTERS OF SUICIDE BOMBING IN NIGERIA ALONE. Among young AMERICAN Muslims support for suicide bombing is 25%. 25%!

Aside from the Palestinians, these are not majorities (though in all Muslim countries there was huge majority support for suicide bombing om 2002--this in the wake of 9/11). But, folks, these are still HUGE numbers. [I repeat, Omar: according to the Pew Survey, it's 25 MILLION Muslim supporters of suicide bombing of civilians IN NIGERIA ALONE. NO OTHER RELIGION HAS THIS.]

This is why terrrorists make beheading videos, including many beheading videos from Iraq. These disgusting items are employed as RECRUITING DEVICES. NO Western terrorist organization ever dared to make such disgusting items, because they knew their audience and knew it would alienate them from the cause. The Muslim terrorists know THEIR audience too--they know it WON"T. Otherwise, they would not use them as recruiting devices. This audience is a uniquely degraded and barbaric one. It exists only in the Muslim world. It is legitimate to ask why.

As usual, I give facts. They make Omar uncomfortable. Omar can answer only with empty slander and vituperation. So it has been for a year


art eckstein - 8/31/2007

1. Omar's response is incoherent.

2. Note, however, the sneering expression in the post above "Jew friendly God". What more needs to be said about Omar's casual anti-semitism.


A. M. Eckstein - 8/31/2007

1. The Bush admin tries to put pressure on Sudan to stop it, and has led the way in the UN

2. Even if it had NOT done these things, this would be what's called a "tu quoque" argument. WHATEVER the Bush admin does, that's just shifting the subject and does NOT take away MUSLIM responsibility for Muslim-initiated genocides.

3. The major international malefactor here is China, which is after Sudanese oil and therefore supports the genocidal Muslim Sudanese government in whatever it wishes.


Glenn Scott Rodden - 8/31/2007

TRL:

What is the Bush administrations policy toward Sudan?


art eckstein - 8/31/2007

Well said, TRL!


tobi ruth love - 8/31/2007

CNN ran a three-part series called "God's Holy Warriors." This show was not worthy of airing.

Radical Christianity is not a threat to the world. Radical Judaism is not a threat to the world. Radical Islam IS a threat to the world. Radical Islamists tell us that they intend to take over Europe, Africa and the United States and destroy Israel. Hitler also told the world what he would do and how he would do it. The world did not take Hitler at his word. We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to take the radical Islamists at their word.

In Sudan Arab Muslims are murdering Black Muslims in a genocide that must be stopped. And yet the UN will not even call it a genocide because if they do they are mandated to stop it. The Muslims do not want that to happen. Terrorism, beheadings, and executions are being committed by radical Muslims all over the world. Not only do they attack Israel on a daily basis, but they have attacked England, France, Spain, Scotland,the Netherlands, Denmark and the United States. They claim it is because these countries support Israel. But what do Thailand, India, the Philippines or Sudan have to do with Israel? Nothing. Yet the radical Muslims have attacked these countries as well. And what do the rioters and murderers get for their brutal attacks? England has put aside freedom of speech and banned a book exposing a Muslim who has ties to terrorism from being published anywhere in the world. Remember Hitler's book burnings? Arab countries print horrible, slanderous and violence inciting cartoons about Jews, Christians and Americans every day in their state run papers. But through their rioting and threats Muslims have coerced European countries to censor any cartoons relating to the Muslim religion.This is a glimpse of what is to come. Under Muslim law anything can be said about the 'unbelievers' religion but Islam is sacrosanct.

Arab children are being taught not just to hate Jews (and Americans) but to aspire to become a murderer of Jews by blowing themselves up. This is an abomination. As if murdering innocent people isn't bad enough, the Muslims are taking away their own children's childhood and sentencing them to death. Parents want their children to die. Where are the stories on this Muslim child abuse?

European countries and the United States are giving in to Muslim demands for 'religious rights' that would not be afforded to Jews or Christians. How many rights do Jews or Christians have in Muslim countries? Few, if any. Of course Jews are not even allowed in most of the Arab counties. There are people who call Israel a racist state because it is the Jewish homeland. But Israel is about 20% Arab. Muslims who are Israeli citizens have the same rights as any other Israeli. They even are in the Israeli government. This equality does not exist in Arab countries. Saudi Arabia boasts that it is 100% Muslim. But no other country, no UN Resolution has challenged the racism of the Muslim countries. It is Chamberlain's "peace in our time" all over again. And we saw where appeasement got us.

Why isn't CNN exposing any of this? There was a time when journalists reported the news, they did not invent it or evade it. What is going on at CNN, and in the media in general, is not news reporting but propaganda disseminating. Great journalists of the past were not 'politically correct'. They reported the truth and they reported both sides of the story. They put the events of today in perspective with the history that made these events happen. Without bias. If there were a complete Muslim takeover of the media do these reporters really expect to be allowed the freedom to make an unbiased news report? Try it in Gaza or Egypt or Syria or Iran. Think about it. You do have that freedom now. Use it. Live up to the standards of your profession!


art eckstein - 8/31/2007

The following is from a Hamas website showing video messages of two Hamas suicide terrorists messages from early 2006.

Readers, read it and weep.


"My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no god but Allah, we will chase you everywhere! We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood. We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries."

A second terrorist says:

"In the name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, [and] purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country... This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."


"I dedicate this wedding [i.e. death for Allah] to all of those who have chosen Allah as their goal, the Quran as their constitution and the Prophet [Muhammad] as their role model. Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine - all of Palestine - from the impurity of the Jews."

The message to one of the terrorist's mother was instruction for her to be joyous over his death and his "wedding" with the "Maidens of Paradise."

"My dear mother, you who have cared for me, today I sacrifice my life to be your intercessor [on Judgment Day]. O my love and soul, wipe your tears, don't be saddened. In the name of Allah, I've achieve all that I've aspired. Don't let me see you sad on my wedding day with the Maidens of Paradise. So be happy and not sad, because in the name of Allah, after death is merciful Allah's paradise."

Included in the clip is the farewell scene between the mother and terrorist son while she helps him don his military vest. In the background one can hear the lyrics, "My dear mother, don't cry over us."

The video can be found HERE:

http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Hamas_suicide.asx

Another way to see the video is simply to google "We are a nation that drinks blood" + Hamas.


Frankly, I do not think you find this sort of rhetoric in any other modern religion--nor the adolescent-male version of Paradise with the 72 virgins, either. That's unique as well.

Do ALL Muslims act like this and believe like this? No. Do MANY Muslims act like this and believe like this? Yes. Does any other religion have this kind of problem? No. Is this a cultural and social problem worthy of specific and very investigation as to its psycho-social causes? Yes.

And by the way. The TOTAL number of dead on BOTH sides in ALL the Arab-Israeli wars combined is only about 8,000. Yet the Muslim world is convulsed. The total number of dead inflicted by the Muslim dictator Assad on the civilian population of Homs in 1982 in JUST ONE WEEK was 20,000. Was the Muslim world convulsed? No. Did Assad lose respect? Not a bit. The total number of dead in Darfur is at least 250,000. Is the Muslim world convulsed? No. Does the Muslim Sudanese government, which is responsible for this genocide, lose respect in the Muslim world for doing this? Not a bit. The total number of dead in the Iran-Iraq War was 1,000,000. Was the Muslim world convulsed? No.

So obviously it is neither the special scale of violence inflicted nor the special intensity of suffering inflicted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that causes such rage in Islam. No, it is something else that causes the rage. Especially since we must bear in mind that the number of the Palestinian refugees is actually SMALLER than the number of Jews expelled from Middle Eastern lands between 1948 and 1960: the numbers: 700,000 vs. 850,000. Indeed, the fact is, Omar, that the MAJORITY of all Jews in contemporary Israel are refugees or descendants of from Muslim lands, not from Europe; they are from the Middle East!

I suggest that the problem here is that DHIMMIS haved dared to set up their own state in Muslim lands (either by buying the land pre-1948, or seizing it militarily in a successful counterattack when attacked by Arabs in 1948), and that they have dared defend themselves from Muslims by violence--and successful violence at that.

THIS causes unalterable dishonor to the umma. THIS challenges the "manhood" of every Muslim. THIS is a very serious social and theological challenge to Muslim superiority and the profound Muslim sense of entitlement. THIS causes real rage. (Note the bomber's reference to "purification".)




A. M. Eckstein - 8/30/2007

Greene quoted you exactly. So did I.

In fact, you say you STILL stand behind your praise of Husseini. Want to see the pictures of him with Himmler and Hitler, or inspecting the soldiers of the Bosnian Muslim SS Division, who conducted so many atrocities?

But then you claim about the Holocaust that your statements have been "misinterpreted." In general, authors who claim to have been "misinterpreted" (and in fact NO ONE, you say, has misinterpreted you regarding Husseni) face the problem that this means they have not--themselves--communicated clearly. And just whose fault is THAT?

In fact, your comments on the Holocaust will be interpreted by almost any reader as incredibly cynical and intentonally injurious, and the intimation that Zionists cooperated with it is as offensive as one can get.

Omar--in general, in Western discourse, INSULTS simply do not make up for the absence of FACTS and LOGIC. This is something you ought to learn.


art eckstein - 8/30/2007



1. The pro-Nazi al-Husseini, who visited and approved of Nazi concentration camps and built up a Muslim SS Division. Eichmann's chief deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified at his own trial that al-Husseini visited and approved of Auschwitz itself. Here is what Omar wrote:

Re: Reflections on Jewish Uniqueness (#112307)
by omar ibrahim baker on August 16, 2007 at 9:03 AM

"... a long departed Palestinian freedom, anti Zionist, fighter: Hajj Amin Al Husseini (may God have peace on his soul)."


2. On the divinely ordained Holocaust of European Jewry, here's what Omar wrote:

Re: Reflections on Jewish Uniqueness (#112307)
by omar ibrahim baker on August 16, 2007 at 9:03 AM:

"The Holocaust , in a sense, was timely GOD sent to the rescue of the "Jewish Homeland" GB/Zionist colonialist plan at a stage at which GB seems to have had second thoughts.

Objectively , it was the best thing that could possibly happen, to decriminalize (, to humanize?, ) the ugly racist and aggressive Zionist colonialist doctrine.

In that sense few things ever served that pernicious , racist doctrine as well as the Holocaust served Zionism!

I will NOT be overly surprised if some researcher comes out , sometime in the future, with evidence of tacit Zionist support( collusion ? ), of the whole criminal and genocidal enterprise that was the Holocaust."

Readers, judge for yourselves.

Omar--a good principle of behavior on this blog is NOT to call people liars, and to challenge them on facts of what you said, when what you said can be so easily found out! These charges against you ARE, as you say in your posting just above on this thread (Aug. 30 at 6:14 am) "very serious charges" Green is making. Unfortunately, he is ACCURATE, and so are the charges.


art eckstein - 8/30/2007

1. I was counting the 500 Yazidis among the estimated 34,000 civilian deaths caused by Muslim suicide bombers in Iraq during the past 12 months. This is a UNITED NATIONS estimate: to be exact, the UN says it is 34,452. I didn't make up the figure.

34,000 civilian deaths--it's hardly "an incident here or there".

According to the BBC last month, 70% of Palestinians believe suicide bombing of civilians is justifable. Among Nigerian Muslims, the figure is 45%. There are 60 million Muslims in Nigeria; this equates to 25 MILLION MUSLIM SUPPORTERS OF SUICIDE BOMBING IN NIGERIA ALONE. Among young AMERICAN Muslims support for suicide bombing is 25%. 25%!

Aside from the Palestinians, these are not majorities (though in all Muslim countries there was huge majority support for suicide bombing om 2002--this in the wake of 9/11). But, folks, these are still HUGE numbers.

This is why terrrorists make beheading videos, including many beheading videos from Iraq. These disgusting items are employed as RECRUITING DEVICES. NO Western terrorist organization ever dared to make such disgusting items, because they knew their audience and knew it would alienate them from the cause. The Muslim terrorists know THEIR audience too--they know it WON"T. Otherwise, they would not use them as recruiting devices. This audience is a uniquely degraded and barbaric one. It exists only in the Muslim world. It is legitimate to ask why.

As usual, I give facts. They make Omar uncomfortable. Omar can answer only with empty slander and vituperation. So it has been for a year.


art eckstein - 8/30/2007

1. I didn't say YOU supported any of this, Omar. That’s simply false.

2. You implied that al-Ahzar was somehow out of the Muslim mainstream in its argument of punishment by death for apostasy. But if you are a "religious liberal", then it is clear that it is YOU who are out of the Muslim mainstream. Whatever protests there might be from a few, it is clear that GOVERNMENT POLICY on apostasy in EIGHT Muslims counties is to punish it harshly. Do you think this is just an ACCIDENT? Rather, it is clearly the result of scriptural readings, and that is how it is justified. Moreover, I see LOTS of support for this in the Muslim mainstream: these govts want popular support and this is a way to get it. They are only alienating a few unimportant people by advocating this sort of harsh punishment.

THEREFORE, the question remains to you: if this IS a violent and cruel “misunderstanding” of the Koran, then WHY is this violent and cruel "misunderstanding" of the Koran so widespread? How come most Muslims DON'T accept your position? If theirs is a corrupt and ignorant position, how come so many Muslims--powerful, and intellectuals too--are so corrupt and ignorant that they are able to impose these harsh penalties without worrying about losing public support; in fact just the opposite?

3. The Ottoman practice was no fluke, as you imply; THAT'S THE PROBLEM. That's the point about the fate of the recent Coptic girls in Egypt. Like the death sentence for apostasy, forced conversion is NOT AT ALL foreign to Islam, including currently-practiced Islam. Another example: Two CNN reporters who were kidnapped in Gaza last year were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint ON PALESTINIAN TELEVISION. This was obviously done to win PUBLIC SUPPORT. WHY WOULD IT WIN PUBLIC SUPPORT? NO OTHER RELIGION DOES THIS. The widespread custom of forced conversions to Islam--in the past, in the present-- must be acknowledged.

3. You said there were no fundamentalist Islamic governments. There are several, and I enumerated them, and their barbarisms. It does no good to argue that a few intellectuals objected to Taliban practices. The Taliban are clearly deeply rooted in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and had and have significant public support among MEN. You cannot take a few marginalized intellectuals and say this REDEEMS AND CANCELLS the widespreasd barbarities now practiced by huge numbers of Muslims IN THE OVERT NAME OF ISLAM. That includes whole governments. A few squeaks from some intellectuals does NOT constitute a powerful countermovement. A single protest from some intellectual does NOT redeem Islam as it is currently practiced regarding apostasy in, say, the eight countries we have mentioned.

4. All religions have their undersides. NO religion has an underside as violent, as widespread, as ugly, as widely publicly supported as Islam currently does. That's the problem with "they all do it." No Christians supported Timothy McVeigh at Oklahoma City. Millions of Muslims support the murder of the 500 Yazidis, and the 33,500 other Muslim civilians ALL MURDERED IN THE NAME OF GOD. That other Muslilms don't support this hyperviolence does NOT change the problem posed by the milions of Muslims who DO support this hyperviolence.

This explains Muslims vs. Catholics in Indonesia; Muslims vs. Buddhists (!!) in Thailand; Musllims vs. Hindus in Hyderabad and Kashmir; Muslims vs. Protestants in Nigeria; Muslims vs. Othodox Christians and Athiests in Russia; and Muslims vs. Jews all over the world. What is the common denominator here, eh? The thing speaks for itself.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/29/2007

I have some rather ad hominem points to make about `Umar Ibrahim Baker, but I will leave them to the end.

W Cramer is simply ignorant of the history and principles of Islam compared with those of Christianity and Judaism. Cramer was right to point out that societies and religions develop over time, that is, through history. But he seems to want to flatten out the very different principles of the 3 religions named, as if they were essentially the same. The command to fight the unbelieving Peoples of the Book until they are defeat and brought low and pay tribute is found in Quran 9:29 [Pickthall trans]. This verse is significant as an early affirmation of the need for jihad and conquest by Muslims.

On the issue of women, yes, it's true that Judaism & Christianity too generally put women in an inferior status. But this inferiority in Islam goes beyond what it is in the other two religions. Further, Islam also commands husbands to beat their wives [lightly, to be sure].

The main currents of Islam have always been in favor of jihad in principle, although they recognize superior force like anybody else and this recognition permits placing the duty of jihad in abeyance until the balance of forces changes.

What is called Islamic fundamentalism, the extremely severe forms of Islam, can be traced back to Ibn Taymiyya in the Middle Ages and to Ibn Abdul-Wahab in 18th century Arabia [The latter allied with the Saudi dynasty], among others. So `Umar's aggressive, apologetic excuses are false. How does he explain the mention by Bin Laden lieutenant al-Zawahiri a few weeks ago that one of the reasons for killing Spanish troops in the UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon was that al-Andalus [= Spain, in Arabic] was "occupied territory."

In a recent response to something that I said on hnn, Baker described the Holocaust as divinely ordained and providential. He also called the chief Arab Nazi collaborator and Holocaust collaborator, Haj Amin el-Husseini, a "freedom fighter." Read his comments in that light.


art eckstein - 8/29/2007

Addendum on Bush and "Christianity":

There is every indication that Bush sought to overthrow Saddam because of (grossly mistaken) geopolitical reasons, combined with a misplaced confidence concerning American military effectiveness deriving from the alleged success in Afghanistan following 9/11.

NO attempts at Christianization of Iraq have occurred, of course, and on the contrary many Iraqi Christians have fled Iraq since 2003 because of the apocalyptic Muslim on Muslim violence, which has also included savage attacks on THEM by Muslim terrorists.

Omar has no understanding of U.S. culture; Christianity has not been used by Bush EVER to justify Iraq, OR any other governmental policy; and as I said, there is every evidence of geopolitical reasoning + misplaced operational confidence as the reasons for the Iraqi war.

I know that Omar believes that throwing slander is a good debating tool, no matter how ridiculous the accusation. We have tried for a year here on HNN to change his ways. No luck.


art eckstein - 8/29/2007


For the benefit of readers in general (and even for Omar):

1. EIGHT Muslim countries have DEATH as the LEGAL punishment for apostasy from Islam, Omar. EIGHT.

Al-Ahzar is hardly alone in its understanding of the Koran.


2. NO Christian-origin country has ANY punishment for leaving Christianity.
The difference speaks for itself, Omar.

3. IF the statement in the Koran cited by Omar is being so widely and hugely “misinterpreted” (and the context of the statement actually has to do with JEWS "forcing" Judaism on their own children, not with forbidding Muslims to force Islam on anyone), IF this is a “misinterpretation” of the Koran, one must ask WHAT is so hugely CORRUPT and diseased in modern Muslim culture that has led to this huge and so-widespread "misinterpretation." If, of course, death for apostasy is NOT a misinterpretation of the Koran at all (and I am sure Omar knows the Hadiths where Mohammed prescribed this punishment), that is another and still worse situation, isn't it?


4. Omar wrote on Aug. 28 at about 1 a.m., the following: "Another important difference is that Muslim Fundamentalism has NOT been adopted or followed by any major or minor Muslim state as a guiding political factor Christian Fundamentalism has been all but officially adopted as a guiding factor by the most major Christian state; the USA of President Bush."

Let’s see: Afganistan under the Taliban wasn't guided by Muslilm fundamentalist principles, Omar? Saudi Arabia isn't guided by Muslim fundamentalist principles, Omar? Iran isn't guided by Muslim fundamentalist principles, Omar? The Islamic Republic of Mauretainia isn’t? Pakistan—where “slander of Islam” is punishable by imprisonment and death--isn’t? What planet are you living on? Or if these are all “misinterpreting” Islam, we return to the question: how could such a huge and widespread “misinterpretation” happen?

As for the USA of Bush, Omar’s statement is perfectly ignorant and ridiculous. Whatever misguided Bush into overthrowing the tyrant Saddam, it wasn't Christian principles--and meanwhile the University of Michigan is instituting at public expense foot-baths for Muslims, so oppressive is Christianity in the USA. (Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, Christianity CANNOT be openly practiced on pain of...well, what IS the penalty, Omar?)

4. Omar worte on Aug. 28 at about 1 p.m the following: “However I have grave reservations re your "both groups want to force others to live by their religious dogma ".
I do not believe that is the case, neither in principle nor in practice, with the Moslem variety.”

If Omar has made this statement in the summer of 2006, it could have been ascribed merely to profound ignorance. But in the summer of 2006 there WAS a conversation with Omar on this idea, and it was pointed out to him that, e.g., TENS OF THOUSANDS of Christian children were ABDUCTED from their parents by the Ottoman govt and forced to convert to Islam and become soldiers. (The Janissaries.) Perhaps Omar has simply forgotten this uncomfortable fact about the oppressive history of Islamic governments (it’s very hard for him to remember UNCOMFORTABLE facts). That, of course, is the charitable interpretation.

In Egypt over the past two years, many Coptic girls have been abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Are not Copts “people of the Book”, Omar? And if you say that the perpetrators here are also “misunderstanding” the Koran, one must again ask WHY this “misinterpretation” is so huge and widespread within modern Muslim culture.

5. Finally: Muslims are involved in violent conflicts with Catholics in the Philippines, Catholics and Protestants in Indonesia, Bhuddists in Thailand, Hindus in Hyderabad (42 dead last weekend) and Hindus in Kashmir, Protestants in Nigeria, Orthodox Christians or Athiests in Chechnya, and and with Jews everywhere. In Afghanistan the Muslim fundamentalist (Taliban) government physically destroyed on religious grounds ancient Bhuddist statues valued world-wide for their artistry. Meanwhile, Sunni Muslims murder Shite Muslim innocent civilians by the thousands in the name of religion, and Shite factions murder each other by the dozens for the same reason.

The common denominator here is not Judaism or Christianity. Obviously, it is the culture of ultraviolence fostered by modern Islam.


art eckstein - 8/29/2007

For the benefit of other readers (and even for Omar himself)

1. EIGHT Muslim countries have DEATH as the LEGAL punishment for apostasy from Islam, Omar. I repeat: EIGHT.

Al-Ahzar University is therefore hardly alone in its understanding of the Koran and Muslim tradition concerning death as the punishment for apostasy.

2. NO Christian-origin country has ANY punishment for leaving Christianity.
The difference speaks for itself. Period.

3. IF the statement in the Koran cited by Omar is being so widely and hugely “misinterpreted” (and the context of the statement actually has to do with JEWS "forcing" Judaism on their own children, not with forbidding Muslims to force Islam on anyone), IF this is a “misinterpretation” of the Koran, one must ask WHAT is so hugely CORRUPT and diseased in modern Muslim culture that has led to this huge and so-widespread "misinterpretation." If, of course, death for apostasy is NOT a misinterpretation of the Koran at all (and I am sure Omar knows the Hadiths where Mohammed prescribed this punishment), that is another and still worse situation, isn't it?

4. Omar wrote on Aug. 28 at about 1 a.m., the following: "Another important difference is that Muslim Fundamentalism has NOT been adopted or followed by any major or minor Muslim state as a guiding political factor Christian Fundamentalism has been all but officially adopted as a guiding factor by the most major Christian state; the USA of President Bush."

Let’s see: Afganistan under the Taliban wasn't guided by Muslilm fundamentalist principles, Omar? Saudi Arabia isn't guided by Muslim fundamentalist principles, Omar? Iran isn't guided by Muslim fundamentalist principles, Omar? The Islamic Republic of Mauretainia isn’t? Pakistan—where “slander of Islam” is punishable by imprisonment and death--isn’t? What planet are you living on? Or if these are all “misinterpreting” Islam, we return to the question: how could such a huge and widespread “misinterpretation” happen?

As for the USA of Bush, Omar’s statement is perfectly ignorant and ridiculous. Whatever misguided Bush into overthrowing the tyrant Saddam, it wasn't Christian principles, but his crude version of geopolitics; and meanwhile the University of Michigan is instituting at public expense foot-baths for Muslims, so oppressive is Christianity in the USA. (Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, Christianity CANNOT be openly practiced on pain of...well, what IS the penalty, Omar?)

5. Omar worte on Aug. 28 at about 1 p.m the following: “However I have grave reservations re your "both groups want to force others to live by their religious dogma ".
I do not believe that is the case, neither in principle nor in practice, with the Moslem variety.”

If Omar has made this statement in the summer of 2006, it could have been ascribed merely to profound ignorance. But in the summer of 2006 there WAS a conversation with Omar on this idea, and it was pointed out to him that, e.g., TENS OF THOUSANDS of Christian children were ABDUCTED from their parents by the Ottoman govt and forced to convert to Islam and become soldiers. (The Janissaries.) Perhaps Omar has simply forgotten this uncomfortable fact about the oppressive history of Islamic governments (it’s very hard for him to remember UNCOMFORTABLE facts). That, of course, is the charitable interpretation.

In Egypt over the past two years, many Coptic girls have been abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Are not Copts “people of the Book”, Omar? And if you say that the perpetrators here are also “misunderstanding” the Koran, one must again ask WHY this “misinterpretation” is so huge and widespread within modern Muslim culture.

6. Finally: Muslims are involved in violence with Catholics in the Philippines, Catholics and Protestants in Indonesia, Hindus in Hyderabad (42 dead in the bombings last weekend) and Hindus in Kashmir, Buddhists in Thailand; Protestants in Nigeria, Orthodox Christians or Athiests in Chechnya, and with Jews everywhere. In Afghanistan the Muslim fundamentalist (Taliban) government physically attacked ancient statues of worldwide artistic importance, on grounds that they were Buddhist. Meanwhile, Sunni Muslims murder Shite Muslim innocent civilians by the thousands, and Shite factions murder each other by the dozens.

The common denominator here is clear. It is not Judaism or Christianity. It is the culture of ultraviolence fostered by modern islam.


art eckstein - 8/29/2007

Here's another example:

Another example:

On Egyptian television recently, Souaad Kamel, the outgoing Dean of Islamic Studies for Women at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, probably the leading Muslim university in the world, delcared that Muslims who converted to Christianity should be publicly beheaded.

Well, of course we see prominent Christian and Jewish clerics and intellectuals on American TV all the time stating the same thing about those who abandon Christianity or Judaism. DON'T WE?

Oh--I guess not so much.


art eckstein - 8/29/2007

Let's see: the last abortionist was murdered by a Christian fanatic in 1998: 10 years ago. None since then.

Meanwhile, 34,000 (THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND)Muslim civilians were murdered in the name of Allah in Iraq last year--each hideous car-bombing or truck-bombing (say, the 500 Yazidis murdered two weeks ago) an act of worship of Allah and made in the name of Islam.

Lets see: one innocent guy killed a decade ago; 34,000 innocents killed last year. Yup, it's all the same and each religion has the same problem with the same intensity.


Glenn Scott Rodden - 8/28/2007

I was not sure what to make of Furnish's rambling review of CNN's "God's Warriors" until he declares that Christian are morally superior to Muslims. I am not sure where he stands on Judiaism. How does Furnish support this claim. He says that:

"But God’s Christian warriors, even by CNN’s own evidence, think their answers should be enacted legally and peacefully within the United States."

Dr. Furnish cannot think of one instance in US history when Christians tried to impose their views through violence? Was not the US Civil War fought by Christian who believed in the righteousness of their cause? Did not the KKK and other other Christian Identity organizations commit acts of terrorism in the name Christianity from 1865 to the pressent? Did not Timothy McVey bomb a federal building in Oklahoma in order to spark a revolt based on his reading of Christianity?


W Cramer - 8/28/2007

Ok, I guess I should qualify my statement: "I don't see any difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists IN PRINCIPLE." As I said before, both groups want to force others to live by their religious dogma and they will use the most effective means to do so. Their methods may be different, but their goals are the same. And there is no limit to how far they would go to achieve their goals.

And as much as I despise the Bush administration and their war in Iraq, I don't agree that the motivation for the war was to force Christianity on the Middle East.


Big Red - 8/28/2007

"Publication in mainstream, or frankly even in academic, venues is no certainty of accuracy."

Maybe so, but it is a huge CLUE.


W Cramer - 8/28/2007

I also like to add one thing: according to literal interpretation of the Bible, women aren't supposed to hold teaching or other leadership positions over men. This is a good example of how Western society has progressed IN SPITE OF Christian dogma.


W Cramer - 8/28/2007

You completely missed my intended point. It's as if you were responding to a completely different post. Or, more likely, that you are attempting to reduce my argument to a straw man that you can easily attack.

It is true that women generally have more rights in Christian countries than Muslim ones. But those rights were gained by fighting against Christian dogma, which holds that women are supposed to be subordinate to men. Conditions are worse in Muslim countries because religious extremists wield more power there. Give absolute power to the extreme Christian elements in this country and you'll see things get really bad for women here as well.

And there is nothing wrong with speaking out against gay marriage or abortion (though you implied that I suggested otherwise, even though I never mentioned the subject). The problem is when you try to force your views on those who disagree with you and the only justifications that you can give are specious interpretations of an ancient, unverifiable book.


Robert Lee Gaston - 8/27/2007

It takes a strange ruler to find a parallel between how Christians are behaving in the United States and what Moslems are doing in places like Afghanistan and Iran.

We saw Afghan women being executed in a football stadium on national television. What was their crime? A few were shot for attempting to teach their daughters to read. A cursory glance of the internet will show you photos of women being publicly hanged in Iran at the behest of religious authorities.

To compare a church congregation in the United States speaking out against gay marriage or abortion, and taking these issues into the public square of political debate, with the things happening to women in Moslem societies is to trivialize incidences of human suffering that we in the West would have a hard time imagining.


N. Friedman - 8/27/2007

CORRECTION:

I have only read one of his books.


N. Friedman - 8/27/2007

Mr. Robertson,

I have read Professor Gerges' books. They are long on dialog and short on substance. He has an artificially peaceful Islamic history that is contradicted by other writers who note evidence that, as in the rest of the world, there has been under Islamic rule more than occasional violence, atrocities, war and all the other evils that afflict mankind, just like everywhere else.


Tim R. Furnish - 8/27/2007

Mr. Robertson,
Well, try reading each and see if Mr. Poole is as suspect as you imply, or Mr. Gerges is as trustworthy. Publication in mainstream, or frankly even in academic, venues is no certainty of accuracy.


John F Robertson - 8/27/2007

Hmmm, Gerges' research is published by first-rate publishers. Patrick Poole sites his piece with FrontPage magazine. Gee, whom should I take more seriously?


W Cramer - 8/27/2007

I don't see any difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. Both groups want to force others to live by their religious dogma, and they will use the most effective means to do so. The reason that Christian fundamentalists don't fly planes into buildings is because they can be more effective using the political system. Of course, you could argue that their general support for war in the Middle East is the equivalent of mass murder.

With regard to women's rights, those rights were gained by fighting against Christian dogma, not because of its support. Christina dogma may not require burkas, but it still requires women to be subordinate in every way. The prominent women who fought for the right to vote were largely secularists.

And a program on "Secular/Atheist Warriors" would be rather dull, considering that both groups have no dogma to force on others.

Subscribe to our mailing list