Thursday, May 30, 2013

Is Islam Peaceful?

Thu May 16, 2013 4:39 am (PDT) . Posted by: "Rufina Mausenbaum" bernardetti _____

From: Denese Z

German's View on Islam - worth reading. This is by far the best explanation
of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past
history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth
the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and
well-respected psychiatrist.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a
number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people
were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward

'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of
German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who
just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back
and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had
lost control, and the end of the world had come.

My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies
destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is
the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better,
and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the
globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is
the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting
wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or
tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder,
or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is
the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims
and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent
majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of
Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were
responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority
were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people..

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering
sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia
in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million
Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can
forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the
majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because
like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the
fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans,
Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have
died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public
schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord's Prayer was
removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the
time being in our country until the fanatics move in.

In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the
most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look
at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food
items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem,
just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within
the nation's shores.

In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now
dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the
police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the
Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group
that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this
email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows
the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on
and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about
it, and send it on - before it's too late.

And we are silent..

Thursday, May 2, 2013


From: Arlene Kushner
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:05 AM
To: A Kushner
Subject: From Israel: No and No!!

April 30, 2013
"No and No!!"
It gets more and more awful.  More disgusting.  More distorted.
The Times of Israel has the following headline this morning (emphasis added):
"In sea change, Arab League backs land swaps in peace talks"
A sea change is defined as a marked change or a transformation.  But what we're looking at here is nothing of the sort.
Members of the Arab League, representing seven Arab nations, met with top US officials yesterday in Washington.  The topic of discussion was the "peace process" and ways in which the Arab nations might advance it. 
After the League delegation huddled for consultations at Blair House, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani announced "the possibility of 'comparable,' mutually agreed and 'minor' land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians."  (Emphasis added)
Note that "land swamps" are not agreed to firmly in principle.  There is a "possibility" of support for this, which means at the end of the day they might say, "Sorry, we won't do this after all."  After all, only seven of 22 nations of the League were represented here.
And even if they were to agree, in any case it would be "minor" swaps only.  Piddling. Only piddling. 
Most importantly, this entire notion is predicated upon an erroneous and unacceptable concept.
Secretary of State Kerry, who seems to have staked his entire professional (sic) reputation on succeeding with the "peace process," gushed:
�We�ve had a very positive, very constructive discussion over the course of the afternoon, with positive results...�
He praised the League for the "important role it is playing, and is determined to play, in bringing about a peace in the Middle East."
A bit of background is in order here:
The Arab League "Peace Plan" had originally been advanced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, then was adopted by the League, and subsequently "re-endorsed" by the League in 2007.  It was, and is, a horror:
If Israel will surrender all lands acquired in 1967, and provide for a "just" settlement of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 -- which the Arab world interprets as giving the "refugees" "right of return," when in fact there is no such thing -- then the Arab world will "normalize" relations with Israel.  No specification of what normalization means re: diplomatic, security, economic interaction and ties.
Translation: If you will surrender the Temple Mount, and the Kotel, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and Shilo, and much more, including the Golan Heights.  And if you will return to the 1967 line [the Green Line], which, admittedly, was recognized by Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, as not providing a secure border.  And in addition, if you will take within your borders millions of so-called refugees, rendered radical and hostile by decades of UNRWA influence.  Then all 22 of the Arab states -- and not just "Palestine" -- will have some sort of ties with you.      
This was touted as a great opportunity for Israel, which would secure "normalization" with the whole Arab world in one fell blow.
There were to be no negotiations with this plan.  It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal.
Israel rejected it out of hand.  Israel has legitimate rights to Judea and Samaria, based on a heritage that is more than 3,000 years old, as well as legally binding resolutions in the twentieth century, notably the Mandate for Palestine. Israel will never return to the '67 line -- which, in addition to everything else, provides insufficient strategic depth for adequate security.  Resolution 242 says the final border of Israel must be determined by negotiations.  Agreeing to pull back without negotiations is not the way to go.
For years now, the Palestinian Authority and its supporters have promoted the idea that the '67 line is Israel's "real" border, and that everything on the other side "belongs" to the Palestinian Arabs.  It is a crock. A myth.  But unfortunately -- because successive Israeli governments have not been vigorous enough in countering this -- it has become accepted thinking in many places. 
It is this myth, this crock, upon which the Arab League fashioned its "peace proposal." 
And, more recently, it has been President Barack Obama who has advanced proposals based on the same myth.  Has he swallowed it whole, so that he really believes it?  There is no way to be certain, although there is ample reason to suspect so.  We only know what he says.
Obama's only deviation from the stipulation of return to the '67 line is the concept of "agreed-upon swaps" of land.  This means the principle of the '67 line as Israel's legitimate border is retained but if Israel wants to hold on to a community that, say, spreads over two square kilometers east of the line, then "Palestine" will be given two square kilometers of land west of the line, inside of Israel.  In the end, Israel will be defined by an area no greater than what rests within the '67 line.
No and no!!
For the record, and this is terribly important: the '67 line, or Green Line, was, with very minor adjustments, the 1949 armistice line.  It is the line that was drawn when Israel and Jordan stopped fighting, at the end of the War of Independence: Israel fought that war defensively, having been attacked by the Arab nations on the day she declared independence.  It is referred to as the "'67 line" because Israel was behind that line until June 1967, when the Six Day war was fought.
The armistice agreement signed between Jordan and Israel stipulated that the line was temporary and that the permanent line would be determined by negotiations.  Actually, this stipulation was put in at Jordan's insistence.  And, please, note that it WAS Jordan on the other side of the line -- the nation with which, it was presumed, Israel would ultimately negotiate. There was no talk of "Palestine" or a "Palestinian people" with whom Israel had to negotiate.  Whatever existed on the other side of the armistice line, it certainly wasn't a Palestinian state, or land defined as belonging to a Palestinian people. 
How Israel could be required to "return" Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Arabs is a genuine mystery.  The historical situation has been distorted:  It has morphed from the reality into what people of a certain political bent wish it to be.
You will be doing Israel an enormous service if you circulate this information -- this historical clarification -- as broadly as possible.
If you see reference in news sources to "Israel's '67 border," send a correction: It was never a border, it was an armistice line, and it was temporary; both the armistice agreement with Jordan and the subsequent UN Security Council Resolution 242, called for negotiations to determine Israel's final eastern border.
What I see is that Kerry went to these Arab League members and asked them for some flexibility so that he might move ahead with the infernal process. And, to his delight, they delivered.  Not only delivered, but stated themselves willing to go along with parameters outlined by the president.  
At a press conference, Kerry declared:
"The US and Arab League delegation here this afternoon agreed that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would advance security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. And that is a common interest for the region and the whole world..."
Well, then, it's the Arab world that sees eye-to-eye with President Obama, yes? And Israel? 
We can anticipate that the secretary will now turn to Israel with a request/a veiled demand for more "flexibility," for the sake of stability in the Middle East.  But what has been tentatively proposed is no more acceptable to Israel than the previous formulation of the Arab League plan, or only very minutely so. (Now, presumably, there would be some negotiations to determine the "minor swaps.") 
The essential premises of the plan remain as unsatisfactory, and as faulty as a basis for peace, as ever.
(With this discussion we have left aside the fact that the entire notion of Israel striking a genuine peace agreement with the PA -- a weak, totally corrupt, terrorist-supporting entity -- is nonsense.  An issue to be re-visited on another day.)
I do not, for a moment, anticipate that Israel will agree to the terms tentatively outlined by the Arab League.  But I do anticipate a huge amount of pressure coming down the road.
It never hurts to communicate to Prime Minister Netanyahu very briefly to let him know you are with him and encourage him to stand strong.

E-mail: and also (underscore after pm) use both addresses