Blogs > HNN > WORTH READING

May 8, 2008 12:41 pm


WORTH READING



Yoram Ettinger, It's American interests, stupid (just as Clifford had predicted)

Recent congressional hearings about the destruction, by Israel’s air force, of a Syrian-North Korean nuclear facility has shed light on the mutually-beneficial nature of U.S.-Israel relations.

The September 2007 Israeli military operation in Syria dealt a setback to the Syria/North Korea/Iran/Hizbullah axis while advancing American and Israeli interests. It bolstered U.S. deterrence, extended America’s strategic arm and provided Washington with vital information concerning Russian air defense systems, which are also employed by Iran. And it served to refute the claim that U.S.-Israel relations have been shaped by political expediency."

None of this prevented Rice from following in Marshall's footsteps

Efraim Karsh, 1948 - Israel, the Palestinians, the true story

Barry Rubin, Asaf Romirowsky, and Jonathan Spyer, UNRWA: Refuge Of Rejectionism

On the surface, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) seems a humanitarian group helping Palestinian refugees. In reality, it actually helps destroy the chance of Arab-Israeli peace, promotes terrorism, and holds Palestainians back from rebuilding their lives.

Unique in history, UNRWA's job is to keep Palestinian refugees in suspended animation--and at low living standards--until they achieve the goal set for them by the PLO and Hamas: Israel's extinction. In the meantime, their suffering and anger is maintained as a weapon to encourage them toward violence and intransigence.

Mary Madigan, Columbia University""Nakba" conference.

Robert Satloff, looks at Who speaks for Islam?

. . . The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of"who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not" completely" justify 9/11 is .  .  ."moderate."




comments powered by Disqus