100 years ago!
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Sabtu, 02 Juni 2007
Jumat, 01 Juni 2007
'Islamophobia'-Example of Irresponsible Behavior
GS Don Morris
June 1, 2007
The process of turning a myth into reality is quite an interesting behavioral phenomenon. This occurs when one group of people wants to challenge, infuriate, demand, dictate, and control the ideas and beliefs of another group of people. The motivation is direct and to the point. The outcome is usually for political and/or social engineering reasons to determine for others how they should act, speak, and behave. One of the best examples of this is the application of the
term 'Islamophobia' directed to those of us who challenge or question practices of Islam within the Western culture. Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of 'Islamophobia' - a fear and disdain for everything Islamic. As recently as May 17 this accusation bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." Ministers from multiple countries attending the conference 'warned'- according to the Arab News - that this form of discrimination would cause millions of Muslims in Western countries, "many of whom were already underprivileged," to be "further alienated."1 How does something like this come to be?
Let us examine Islamophobia from a different perspective. Allow me to submit that a formula or a blueprint exists for those people who want to marginalize and/or invalidate someone or something. It consists of the following steps - not necessarily exactly in the order presented:
· Create a new term that describes a new behavioral phenomenon
· Within the term use descriptors that sound plausible yet are also familiar to the general population
· Ensure that identifiable behaviors are described and shroud them in a negative bent
· Enroll experts in supporting this phenomena such as university academics, psychologists, human peace activists, human watch groups, and governmental agencies along with the popular media
· Develop strategies to identify individuals who display this 'terrible human behavior' and condemn them for displaying it
· As often as is possible, in public settings , use the term as a means to alienate people from one another-begin a 'name-calling' campaign
· Use this phenomena to discredit anyone who may challenge your point of view-never respond directly to the charge, rather, reverse the situation and 'attack' the individual taking issue with your point of view
· Move to make this display of behavior illegal ; pass local/regional and national legislation that criminalizes the behavior
· Threaten legal action and/or actually take such action even though you know you do not have a case; it puts your antagonist on the defensive-right where you plan to keep him/her
This is a reasonable list of descriptors involved in the process. When one applies the preceding criteria steps to the development and implementation of Islamophobia you find it to accurately describes what has occurred particularly in the West during the last 5-10 years. Values Contrary (VC) Islamists and their non-Islamic supporters have used this to deflect criticism, deny facts, to divert attention, to defame, invalidate, and condemn anyone who challenges the practice of VC Islam2.
In order for Islamophobia to be effective the society upon which it has been thrust must operate within a 'makes me - believe' communication construct3. Without this operational construct in play, Islamophobia would have no impact upon the general population. It is because we actually believe that we can make someone feel or think something and/or that someone or something can do the same to us, the 'communication table' has been set. Afraid that one might OFFEND another person or cause someone to feel insulted or uneasy, we refrain from speaking/arguing or even questioning our antagonists. The West enemies know this and use it as a weapon against us.
We have become afraid to speak up and to challenge VC Islam and their followers. In the process we are afraid to stand for our own values, grounded within another set of beliefs. We do not defend our way of life; we acquiesce to a behavioral set that we do not belief in nor do we want to have as the basis for our social milieu. Said another way, We stand down on our long held values and meekly go forward into the future.
Allow me to provide some examples of the preceding process. Aside from the previously mentioned May 17 activity, In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of American Islamic Relations. CAIR has taken up the legal case of the "Flying Imams," the six individuals who were pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis this past November after engaging in suspicious behavior before takeoff. Not long ago, CAIR filed a "John Doe" lawsuit that would have made passengers liable
for 'malicious' complaints about suspicious Muslim passengers. In an interview at the time, CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad accused Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) of being an 'extremist' who 'encourages Islamophobia' for pointing out what most people would think is obvious, that such a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on passengers who witnessed alarming activity and wished to report it4.
An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called "Stop Islamophobia," as reported by the Sunday Times and presented by Daniel Pipes5.
Accusations of Islamophobia, Mr. Malik adds, are intended "to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities." Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: "all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."5
In Great Britain this term is used as a weapon. Hizb ut-Tahrir's manipulation of "Stop Islamophobia" betrays the fraudulence of this word. As the Sunday Times article explains, "Ostensibly the campaign's goal is to fight anti-Muslim prejudice in the wake of the London bombings," but it quotes Anthony Glees of London's Brunel University to the effect that the real agenda is to spread anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-homosexual, and anti-female attitudes, as well as to foment resentment of Western influence.5
For many people immediate credibility exists if the United Nations supports a position, term, or behavioral action. Within this international organization the term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance, to the point that the Secretary-General of the United Nations presided over a December, 2004 conference titled "Confronting Islamophobia" and in May a Council of Europe summit condemned "Islamophobia."
There are literally thousands of examples available to demonstrate the points I have presented. Does this mean that Islamophbia exists? I offer to you now that it does not-it is not real. You cannot see, touch, breathe or hold onto it. Any thinking, caring person knows that this is simply a humankind term used to describe a behavioral phenomenon that only exists because we allow it to exist. The degree to which we submit to its implementation will adversely impact the values of Western civilization and allow the emergence of a fifth column within our society whose ultimate intention is to replace our way of life with one our enemies cherish.
End Notes
1. Tawfik Hamid, How to End 'Islamophobia', posted Opinion Journal from the WSJ May 25, 2007
2. GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us, May, 2007, http://writingtw.blogspot.com/
3. GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us-Part One, April, 2007, http://writingtw.blogspot.com/
4. Tawfik Hamid, ibid
5. Daniel Pipes, Islamophobia? NY Sun, October 25, 2005
Please visit blog site: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/
GS Don Morris
June 1, 2007
The process of turning a myth into reality is quite an interesting behavioral phenomenon. This occurs when one group of people wants to challenge, infuriate, demand, dictate, and control the ideas and beliefs of another group of people. The motivation is direct and to the point. The outcome is usually for political and/or social engineering reasons to determine for others how they should act, speak, and behave. One of the best examples of this is the application of the
term 'Islamophobia' directed to those of us who challenge or question practices of Islam within the Western culture. Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of 'Islamophobia' - a fear and disdain for everything Islamic. As recently as May 17 this accusation bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." Ministers from multiple countries attending the conference 'warned'- according to the Arab News - that this form of discrimination would cause millions of Muslims in Western countries, "many of whom were already underprivileged," to be "further alienated."1 How does something like this come to be?
Let us examine Islamophobia from a different perspective. Allow me to submit that a formula or a blueprint exists for those people who want to marginalize and/or invalidate someone or something. It consists of the following steps - not necessarily exactly in the order presented:
· Create a new term that describes a new behavioral phenomenon
· Within the term use descriptors that sound plausible yet are also familiar to the general population
· Ensure that identifiable behaviors are described and shroud them in a negative bent
· Enroll experts in supporting this phenomena such as university academics, psychologists, human peace activists, human watch groups, and governmental agencies along with the popular media
· Develop strategies to identify individuals who display this 'terrible human behavior' and condemn them for displaying it
· As often as is possible, in public settings , use the term as a means to alienate people from one another-begin a 'name-calling' campaign
· Use this phenomena to discredit anyone who may challenge your point of view-never respond directly to the charge, rather, reverse the situation and 'attack' the individual taking issue with your point of view
· Move to make this display of behavior illegal ; pass local/regional and national legislation that criminalizes the behavior
· Threaten legal action and/or actually take such action even though you know you do not have a case; it puts your antagonist on the defensive-right where you plan to keep him/her
This is a reasonable list of descriptors involved in the process. When one applies the preceding criteria steps to the development and implementation of Islamophobia you find it to accurately describes what has occurred particularly in the West during the last 5-10 years. Values Contrary (VC) Islamists and their non-Islamic supporters have used this to deflect criticism, deny facts, to divert attention, to defame, invalidate, and condemn anyone who challenges the practice of VC Islam2.
In order for Islamophobia to be effective the society upon which it has been thrust must operate within a 'makes me - believe' communication construct3. Without this operational construct in play, Islamophobia would have no impact upon the general population. It is because we actually believe that we can make someone feel or think something and/or that someone or something can do the same to us, the 'communication table' has been set. Afraid that one might OFFEND another person or cause someone to feel insulted or uneasy, we refrain from speaking/arguing or even questioning our antagonists. The West enemies know this and use it as a weapon against us.
We have become afraid to speak up and to challenge VC Islam and their followers. In the process we are afraid to stand for our own values, grounded within another set of beliefs. We do not defend our way of life; we acquiesce to a behavioral set that we do not belief in nor do we want to have as the basis for our social milieu. Said another way, We stand down on our long held values and meekly go forward into the future.
Allow me to provide some examples of the preceding process. Aside from the previously mentioned May 17 activity, In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of American Islamic Relations. CAIR has taken up the legal case of the "Flying Imams," the six individuals who were pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis this past November after engaging in suspicious behavior before takeoff. Not long ago, CAIR filed a "John Doe" lawsuit that would have made passengers liable
for 'malicious' complaints about suspicious Muslim passengers. In an interview at the time, CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad accused Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) of being an 'extremist' who 'encourages Islamophobia' for pointing out what most people would think is obvious, that such a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on passengers who witnessed alarming activity and wished to report it4.
An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called "Stop Islamophobia," as reported by the Sunday Times and presented by Daniel Pipes5.
Accusations of Islamophobia, Mr. Malik adds, are intended "to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities." Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: "all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."5
In Great Britain this term is used as a weapon. Hizb ut-Tahrir's manipulation of "Stop Islamophobia" betrays the fraudulence of this word. As the Sunday Times article explains, "Ostensibly the campaign's goal is to fight anti-Muslim prejudice in the wake of the London bombings," but it quotes Anthony Glees of London's Brunel University to the effect that the real agenda is to spread anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-homosexual, and anti-female attitudes, as well as to foment resentment of Western influence.5
For many people immediate credibility exists if the United Nations supports a position, term, or behavioral action. Within this international organization the term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance, to the point that the Secretary-General of the United Nations presided over a December, 2004 conference titled "Confronting Islamophobia" and in May a Council of Europe summit condemned "Islamophobia."
There are literally thousands of examples available to demonstrate the points I have presented. Does this mean that Islamophbia exists? I offer to you now that it does not-it is not real. You cannot see, touch, breathe or hold onto it. Any thinking, caring person knows that this is simply a humankind term used to describe a behavioral phenomenon that only exists because we allow it to exist. The degree to which we submit to its implementation will adversely impact the values of Western civilization and allow the emergence of a fifth column within our society whose ultimate intention is to replace our way of life with one our enemies cherish.
End Notes
1. Tawfik Hamid, How to End 'Islamophobia', posted Opinion Journal from the WSJ May 25, 2007
2. GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us, May, 2007, http://writingtw.blogspot.com/
3. GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us-Part One, April, 2007, http://writingtw.blogspot.com/
4. Tawfik Hamid, ibid
5. Daniel Pipes, Islamophobia? NY Sun, October 25, 2005
Please visit blog site: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/
Kamis, 31 Mei 2007
Time to change course
‘Two-state solution’ irrelevant; new thinking needed to resolve conflict
Moshe Yaalon, former IDF chief of staff,
YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,3406504,00.html
It is not in vain that Michael Oren’s book “Six Days of War’” begins with Fatah’s botched terror attack under the orders of Yasser Arafat on the night of December 31st, 1964.
The attack aimed to strike at the national water carrier and to ignite the region. Its failure didn’t prevent the rising Fatah leader from publishing an official victory statement that glorified the “Jihad duty” and to set January 1st 1965 as the date marking the organization’s establishment.
Indeed, the Six Day War changed the face of the Middle East. From a historic perspective it can be viewed as marking the beginning of the end of national-secular Arab ideology, which in turn encouraged the emergence of Islamic-Jihadist ideologies; it can also be viewed as marking the beginning of the end (temporarily?) of conventional wars between armies and the shifting of the threat on the State of Israel.
However, I am of the opinion that more than anything the Six Day War influenced the way Israelis perceived themselves, it also impacted internal discourse pertaining to border conflicts and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On the one hand, Israeli self assurance, which was naturally emboldened by the shining military victory, led to complacency until the outcome of the Yom Kippur War, while on the other hand it led to the willingness for territorial concessions aimed at achieving peace.
The cornerstone of Israeli policy since the end of the war did not advocate annexation of territories nor a return to 1967 borders.
This perception, along with failed political conduct to date, has ultimately led to significant erosion in the achievements of the Six Day War and has vastly detracted from the Israeli position, while also adversely affecting the Zionist narrative and its achievements.
Israelis who sought to reach final-status agreement with the Palestinians through “land for peace” obscured the difference between resolving the conflict with Egypt via Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Those same elements went even further by obscuring the Palestinian demand for all of the Land of Israel rather then territories occupied in 1967 only, and ignored the persistent Palestinian refusal - which has been in place since the birth of Zionism - to partition the nation.
These elements vastly contributed to the erosion of Israel’s positions upon recognizing the Palestinian peoples’ right for self determination without insisting on mutual Palestinian recognition for the Jewish people and an independent Jewish State.
The self assurance that came in wake of the Six Day War created a sense of being “strong enough to take risks” - which is reminiscent of the time of the Oslo Accords. This self confidence led to the loss of the attitude associated with a society facing constant struggle.
The sincere desire to achieve peace was interpreted as fatigue and led to public willingness to accept the “golden calves” presented as hope by politicians, spin doctors and the media, but which were quickly shattered.
Those striving to return to 1967 borders, from within Israel and abroad, are taking advantage of the Six Day War triumph to argue that the problem lies in the “occupation” and that Israeli relinquishment of these territories will bring the longed-for peace.
Yet the botched terror attack on December 31, 1964 reminds us that Palestinian terror began prior to the takeover of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Since then, additional proof accumulated over time attests to the Palestinian leadership’s refusal to end the conflict based on such a solution.
Moreover, recent statements by leaders of the Israeli Arab community expressed their refusal to recognize the State of Israel’s right to exist as an independent Jewish State.
Events of the past years, the Palestinian failure to adhere to agreements and obligations within the Oslo framework, the launching of a terror war in September 2000, and the situation in Gaza following disengagement - could have served as opportunities to “reveal the true face” of the Palestinian leadership and its intentions to undermine the irrelevant concept of a “two state solution” within the ancient Land of Israel’s western borders.
Grounding the “two-state solution” discourse to a halt among the Israeli public and in the international arena is a prerequisite for encouraging a new direction of thought with regards to the conflict and possible ways of resolving it.
The key to moving away from this concept is Israel’s clear understanding of the problem, forging internal agreement around this understanding, and a willingness to struggle for it.
The shining victory of the Six Day war has paradoxically turned into the starting point of the “retrenchment and withdrawal battle” over the Zionist narrative we are currently engaged in - until we make an about face.
‘Two-state solution’ irrelevant; new thinking needed to resolve conflict
Moshe Yaalon, former IDF chief of staff,
YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,3406504,00.html
It is not in vain that Michael Oren’s book “Six Days of War’” begins with Fatah’s botched terror attack under the orders of Yasser Arafat on the night of December 31st, 1964.
The attack aimed to strike at the national water carrier and to ignite the region. Its failure didn’t prevent the rising Fatah leader from publishing an official victory statement that glorified the “Jihad duty” and to set January 1st 1965 as the date marking the organization’s establishment.
Indeed, the Six Day War changed the face of the Middle East. From a historic perspective it can be viewed as marking the beginning of the end of national-secular Arab ideology, which in turn encouraged the emergence of Islamic-Jihadist ideologies; it can also be viewed as marking the beginning of the end (temporarily?) of conventional wars between armies and the shifting of the threat on the State of Israel.
However, I am of the opinion that more than anything the Six Day War influenced the way Israelis perceived themselves, it also impacted internal discourse pertaining to border conflicts and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On the one hand, Israeli self assurance, which was naturally emboldened by the shining military victory, led to complacency until the outcome of the Yom Kippur War, while on the other hand it led to the willingness for territorial concessions aimed at achieving peace.
The cornerstone of Israeli policy since the end of the war did not advocate annexation of territories nor a return to 1967 borders.
This perception, along with failed political conduct to date, has ultimately led to significant erosion in the achievements of the Six Day War and has vastly detracted from the Israeli position, while also adversely affecting the Zionist narrative and its achievements.
Israelis who sought to reach final-status agreement with the Palestinians through “land for peace” obscured the difference between resolving the conflict with Egypt via Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Those same elements went even further by obscuring the Palestinian demand for all of the Land of Israel rather then territories occupied in 1967 only, and ignored the persistent Palestinian refusal - which has been in place since the birth of Zionism - to partition the nation.
These elements vastly contributed to the erosion of Israel’s positions upon recognizing the Palestinian peoples’ right for self determination without insisting on mutual Palestinian recognition for the Jewish people and an independent Jewish State.
The self assurance that came in wake of the Six Day War created a sense of being “strong enough to take risks” - which is reminiscent of the time of the Oslo Accords. This self confidence led to the loss of the attitude associated with a society facing constant struggle.
The sincere desire to achieve peace was interpreted as fatigue and led to public willingness to accept the “golden calves” presented as hope by politicians, spin doctors and the media, but which were quickly shattered.
Those striving to return to 1967 borders, from within Israel and abroad, are taking advantage of the Six Day War triumph to argue that the problem lies in the “occupation” and that Israeli relinquishment of these territories will bring the longed-for peace.
Yet the botched terror attack on December 31, 1964 reminds us that Palestinian terror began prior to the takeover of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Since then, additional proof accumulated over time attests to the Palestinian leadership’s refusal to end the conflict based on such a solution.
Moreover, recent statements by leaders of the Israeli Arab community expressed their refusal to recognize the State of Israel’s right to exist as an independent Jewish State.
Events of the past years, the Palestinian failure to adhere to agreements and obligations within the Oslo framework, the launching of a terror war in September 2000, and the situation in Gaza following disengagement - could have served as opportunities to “reveal the true face” of the Palestinian leadership and its intentions to undermine the irrelevant concept of a “two state solution” within the ancient Land of Israel’s western borders.
Grounding the “two-state solution” discourse to a halt among the Israeli public and in the international arena is a prerequisite for encouraging a new direction of thought with regards to the conflict and possible ways of resolving it.
The key to moving away from this concept is Israel’s clear understanding of the problem, forging internal agreement around this understanding, and a willingness to struggle for it.
The shining victory of the Six Day war has paradoxically turned into the starting point of the “retrenchment and withdrawal battle” over the Zionist narrative we are currently engaged in - until we make an about face.
Rabu, 30 Mei 2007
The Wonderland called Intellectually Lazy British Academics
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions-everyone can share those opinions within the ivory walls of Western academia-it is part of a concept we cherish, academic freedom. However, you are not entitled to make up your own facts! The disconnect between the British academic vote to boycott Israeli academics and the truth can be explained by ignorance, intellectual lazy inquiry and/or a political agenda that transcends the foundation of Western university behavior. I suspect that all three are explanations for my British colleagues behavior this day.
Allow me to suggest to Dr. Ghada Karmi, a Palestinian academic from Exeter University Speaking an event last evening that his explanation for "Why boycott Israeli Universities" was "Israel must be a pariah until they learn to be civilized." Apparently Dr. Karmi does not follow events in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria-he must have missed that “honor killings” have substantially increased in the disputed territories. He either does not know, is ill informed, does not do the proper research or he would know :
· An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis.
· An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralyzed hands.
· Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood.
· A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralize the highly contagious smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the existing vaccine.
· Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
· Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine.
· Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel
· Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by MOTOROLA which has its biggest development center in Israel. Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists
· Please know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita - 109 per 10,000 - than any other nation.
· In absolute terms, the highest number, except the US. Israel has ratio of patents filed.
· Israel has more museums per capita.
· Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita.
· Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth.
· Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world, including the Palestinians - and to you - in science, medicine, Communications, security. Pro rata for population they are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth.
Yet another brilliant thinker, Professor Rosenhead said: "The government of the US and UK are unwilling to bring effective pressure to bear on the Israeli government to cease its illegal occupation and abuse of human rights and this is coming from a civil society with individuals saying if governments aren't doing the right things we will do what we can to demonstrate how serious we take this and bring the pressure of international opinion more forcibly to bear on the Israeli government and public."
Two points: first, this “justification for abandoning academic freedom as a guiding principle, is clearly a political upset this person has with Israel. I say, you are so entitled to have an upset-however, do not confuse this with selling out yourself and your values to a set of beliefs grounded in fabrication. Two, why does this person not apply the same standard of performance to the Palestinians and ask for like demands of the major powers?
Today I feel that the British academic leadership and a majority of its members are falling down the Alice in Wonderland hole-where will they end up and what are we willing to do about it?
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
Professor
Cal Poly-Pomona-California
Zinman College, Wingate Institute-Israel
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions-everyone can share those opinions within the ivory walls of Western academia-it is part of a concept we cherish, academic freedom. However, you are not entitled to make up your own facts! The disconnect between the British academic vote to boycott Israeli academics and the truth can be explained by ignorance, intellectual lazy inquiry and/or a political agenda that transcends the foundation of Western university behavior. I suspect that all three are explanations for my British colleagues behavior this day.
Allow me to suggest to Dr. Ghada Karmi, a Palestinian academic from Exeter University Speaking an event last evening that his explanation for "Why boycott Israeli Universities" was "Israel must be a pariah until they learn to be civilized." Apparently Dr. Karmi does not follow events in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria-he must have missed that “honor killings” have substantially increased in the disputed territories. He either does not know, is ill informed, does not do the proper research or he would know :
· An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis.
· An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralyzed hands.
· Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood.
· A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralize the highly contagious smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the existing vaccine.
· Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
· Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine.
· Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel
· Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by MOTOROLA which has its biggest development center in Israel. Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists
· Please know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita - 109 per 10,000 - than any other nation.
· In absolute terms, the highest number, except the US. Israel has ratio of patents filed.
· Israel has more museums per capita.
· Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita.
· Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth.
· Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world, including the Palestinians - and to you - in science, medicine, Communications, security. Pro rata for population they are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth.
Yet another brilliant thinker, Professor Rosenhead said: "The government of the US and UK are unwilling to bring effective pressure to bear on the Israeli government to cease its illegal occupation and abuse of human rights and this is coming from a civil society with individuals saying if governments aren't doing the right things we will do what we can to demonstrate how serious we take this and bring the pressure of international opinion more forcibly to bear on the Israeli government and public."
Two points: first, this “justification for abandoning academic freedom as a guiding principle, is clearly a political upset this person has with Israel. I say, you are so entitled to have an upset-however, do not confuse this with selling out yourself and your values to a set of beliefs grounded in fabrication. Two, why does this person not apply the same standard of performance to the Palestinians and ask for like demands of the major powers?
Today I feel that the British academic leadership and a majority of its members are falling down the Alice in Wonderland hole-where will they end up and what are we willing to do about it?
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
Professor
Cal Poly-Pomona-California
Zinman College, Wingate Institute-Israel
Senin, 28 Mei 2007
Prelude to the Six Days
By Charles Krauthammer
Washingtonpost.com
There has hardly been a Middle East peace plan in the past 40 years -- including the current Saudi version -- that does not demand a return to the status quo of June 4, 1967. Why is that date so sacred? Because it was the day before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in which Israel scored one of the most stunning victories of the 20th century. The Arabs have spent four decades trying to undo its consequences.
In fact, the real anniversary should be now, three weeks earlier. On May 16, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser ordered the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force that had kept Israel and Egypt at peace for 10 years. The United Nations complied, at which point Nasser imposed a naval blockade of Israel's only outlet to the south, the port of Eilat -- an open act of war.
How Egypt came to this reckless provocation is a complicated tale (chronicled in Michael Oren's magisterial "Six Days of War") of aggressive intent compounded with miscommunication and, most fatefully, disinformation. The Soviet Union had reported urgently and falsely to its Middle East clients, Syria and Egypt, that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border for an attack. Israel desperately tried to disprove this charge by three times inviting the Soviet ambassador in Israel to visit the front. He refused. The Soviet warnings led to a cascade of intra-Arab maneuvers that in turn led Nasser, the champion of pan-Arabism, to mortally confront Israel with a remilitarized Sinai and a southern blockade.
Why is this still important? Because that three-week period between May 16 and June 5 helps explain Israel's 40-year reluctance to give up the fruits of that war -- the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza -- in return for paper guarantees of peace. Israel had similar guarantees from the 1956 Suez war, after which it evacuated the Sinai in return for that U.N. buffer force and for assurances from the Western powers of free passage through the Straits of Tiran.
All this disappeared with a wave of Nasser's hand. During those three interminable weeks, President Lyndon Johnson did try to rustle up an armada of countries to run the blockade and open Israel's south. The effort failed dismally.
It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel's every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. "We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants," declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, "and as for the survivors -- if there are any -- the boats are ready to deport them."
For Israel, the waiting was excruciating and debilitating. Israel's citizen army had to be mobilized. As its soldiers waited on the various fronts for the world to rescue the nation from its peril, Israeli society ground to a halt and its economy began bleeding to death. Army Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, later to be hailed as a war hero and even later as a martyred man of peace, had a nervous breakdown. He was incapacitated to the point of incoherence by the unbearable tension of waiting with the life of his country in the balance, knowing that waiting too long would allow the armies of 100 million Arabs to strike first his country of 3 million.
We know the rest of the story. Rabin did recover in time to lead Israel to victory. But we forget how perilous was Israel's condition. The victory hinged on a successful attack on Egypt's air force on the morning of June 5. It was a gamble of astonishing proportions. Israel sent the bulk of its 200-plane air force on the mission, fully exposed to antiaircraft fire and missiles. Had they been detected and the force destroyed, the number of planes remaining behind to defend the Israeli homeland -- its cities and civilians -- from the Arab air forces' combined 900 planes was . . . 12.
We also forget that Israel's occupation of the West Bank was entirely unsought. Israel begged King Hussein of Jordan to stay out of the conflict. Engaged in fierce combat with a numerically superior Egypt, Israel had no desire to open a new front just yards from Jewish Jerusalem and just miles from Tel Aviv. But Nasser personally told Hussein that Egypt had destroyed Israel's air force and airfields and that total victory was at hand. Hussein could not resist the temptation to join the fight. He joined. He lost.
The world will soon be awash with 40th-anniversary retrospectives of the war -- and exegeses on the peace of the ages that awaits if Israel would only to return to lines of June 4, 1967. But Israelis are cautious. They remember the terror of that June 4 and of that unbearable May when, with Israel in possession of no occupied territories whatsoever, the entire Arab world was furiously preparing Israel's imminent extinction. And the world did nothing.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Friday, May 18, 2007; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701976.html
By Charles Krauthammer
Washingtonpost.com
There has hardly been a Middle East peace plan in the past 40 years -- including the current Saudi version -- that does not demand a return to the status quo of June 4, 1967. Why is that date so sacred? Because it was the day before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in which Israel scored one of the most stunning victories of the 20th century. The Arabs have spent four decades trying to undo its consequences.
In fact, the real anniversary should be now, three weeks earlier. On May 16, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser ordered the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force that had kept Israel and Egypt at peace for 10 years. The United Nations complied, at which point Nasser imposed a naval blockade of Israel's only outlet to the south, the port of Eilat -- an open act of war.
How Egypt came to this reckless provocation is a complicated tale (chronicled in Michael Oren's magisterial "Six Days of War") of aggressive intent compounded with miscommunication and, most fatefully, disinformation. The Soviet Union had reported urgently and falsely to its Middle East clients, Syria and Egypt, that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border for an attack. Israel desperately tried to disprove this charge by three times inviting the Soviet ambassador in Israel to visit the front. He refused. The Soviet warnings led to a cascade of intra-Arab maneuvers that in turn led Nasser, the champion of pan-Arabism, to mortally confront Israel with a remilitarized Sinai and a southern blockade.
Why is this still important? Because that three-week period between May 16 and June 5 helps explain Israel's 40-year reluctance to give up the fruits of that war -- the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza -- in return for paper guarantees of peace. Israel had similar guarantees from the 1956 Suez war, after which it evacuated the Sinai in return for that U.N. buffer force and for assurances from the Western powers of free passage through the Straits of Tiran.
All this disappeared with a wave of Nasser's hand. During those three interminable weeks, President Lyndon Johnson did try to rustle up an armada of countries to run the blockade and open Israel's south. The effort failed dismally.
It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel's every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. "We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants," declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, "and as for the survivors -- if there are any -- the boats are ready to deport them."
For Israel, the waiting was excruciating and debilitating. Israel's citizen army had to be mobilized. As its soldiers waited on the various fronts for the world to rescue the nation from its peril, Israeli society ground to a halt and its economy began bleeding to death. Army Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, later to be hailed as a war hero and even later as a martyred man of peace, had a nervous breakdown. He was incapacitated to the point of incoherence by the unbearable tension of waiting with the life of his country in the balance, knowing that waiting too long would allow the armies of 100 million Arabs to strike first his country of 3 million.
We know the rest of the story. Rabin did recover in time to lead Israel to victory. But we forget how perilous was Israel's condition. The victory hinged on a successful attack on Egypt's air force on the morning of June 5. It was a gamble of astonishing proportions. Israel sent the bulk of its 200-plane air force on the mission, fully exposed to antiaircraft fire and missiles. Had they been detected and the force destroyed, the number of planes remaining behind to defend the Israeli homeland -- its cities and civilians -- from the Arab air forces' combined 900 planes was . . . 12.
We also forget that Israel's occupation of the West Bank was entirely unsought. Israel begged King Hussein of Jordan to stay out of the conflict. Engaged in fierce combat with a numerically superior Egypt, Israel had no desire to open a new front just yards from Jewish Jerusalem and just miles from Tel Aviv. But Nasser personally told Hussein that Egypt had destroyed Israel's air force and airfields and that total victory was at hand. Hussein could not resist the temptation to join the fight. He joined. He lost.
The world will soon be awash with 40th-anniversary retrospectives of the war -- and exegeses on the peace of the ages that awaits if Israel would only to return to lines of June 4, 1967. But Israelis are cautious. They remember the terror of that June 4 and of that unbearable May when, with Israel in possession of no occupied territories whatsoever, the entire Arab world was furiously preparing Israel's imminent extinction. And the world did nothing.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Friday, May 18, 2007; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701976.html
Sabtu, 26 Mei 2007
I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING IS A "MUST READ."
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two
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 fanaticism.
"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 specter 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 honor 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.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the
"silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised 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, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 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 awake 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.
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, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue
is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, can
contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two
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 fanaticism.
"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 specter 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 honor 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.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the
"silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised 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, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 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 awake 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.
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, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue
is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, can
contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Kamis, 24 Mei 2007
Does it pay to be violent?
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
May 24, 2007
Has it dawned on anyone that it pays for Abbas to continue the conflict with
Hamas? Human behavior is quite simple to understand-reinforced behavior
usually continues. Hamas receives its orders from Iran, one of its
benefactors, rains rockets into Israel proper, day after day, and monies
continue to flow to it. Although with 50,000 policemen, Abbas, cries out for more weapons and aid.
In America US Undersecretary of State David Welch said Wednesday night that the violence in the Gaza Strip highlighted the importance of the American aid program to boost Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas; of course, our recent 60 million dollar aid package is meant for
training and supplies, according to State Department sources.
It is pretty simple to understand that your actions are reinforced for A -not stopping the violence even though you possess the means to do so B -by honoring the request from your Iranian leader, you ensure more aid to flow to you, although C -you are murdering your “own people” you justify this by having them and others believe that they are martyrs for the 'cause' D -While the EU says “No” to direct aid, one sees that countries like Japan and Norway have not rescinded their announced desire to aid the Hamas
government directly, that international aid to the Palestinians still stands at record highs since Hamas' election and still 1.2 billion Euros from European sources -aka “indirect” monies - flow to the Palestinians. Thus if you are
Abbas or Hamas, your behavior of violence is continuously rewarded; there will be no change until the rein forcers are stopped, changed or re-scheduled. This is simple human behavior fact.
So, if we know and understand this, it is necessary to ask but one question.
What is in it for the EU, Fatah (Abbas) and Hamas to continue this behavior, to continue fighting Israel and never resolve the so-called 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict’? Behavior does not continue as long as a pay- off is available. The answer to this question is known and obvious! For media and world leaders to dance around the fundamental answer is reprehensible. This is why I become ill when the Western leaders either blame Israel or want to talk around the issues, never willing to address THE issue. The EU needs to protect itself, a hint as to why they really continue to send support-it is a form of extortion---ah, but even to discuss this is 'politically incorrect'.
Perhaps another time-meanwhile people on all sides continue to die and suffer. Please do not speak to me of the world’s compassion; this is nothing but anal rhetoric!
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
May 24, 2007
Has it dawned on anyone that it pays for Abbas to continue the conflict with
Hamas? Human behavior is quite simple to understand-reinforced behavior
usually continues. Hamas receives its orders from Iran, one of its
benefactors, rains rockets into Israel proper, day after day, and monies
continue to flow to it. Although with 50,000 policemen, Abbas, cries out for more weapons and aid.
In America US Undersecretary of State David Welch said Wednesday night that the violence in the Gaza Strip highlighted the importance of the American aid program to boost Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas; of course, our recent 60 million dollar aid package is meant for
training and supplies, according to State Department sources.
It is pretty simple to understand that your actions are reinforced for A -not stopping the violence even though you possess the means to do so B -by honoring the request from your Iranian leader, you ensure more aid to flow to you, although C -you are murdering your “own people” you justify this by having them and others believe that they are martyrs for the 'cause' D -While the EU says “No” to direct aid, one sees that countries like Japan and Norway have not rescinded their announced desire to aid the Hamas
government directly, that international aid to the Palestinians still stands at record highs since Hamas' election and still 1.2 billion Euros from European sources -aka “indirect” monies - flow to the Palestinians. Thus if you are
Abbas or Hamas, your behavior of violence is continuously rewarded; there will be no change until the rein forcers are stopped, changed or re-scheduled. This is simple human behavior fact.
So, if we know and understand this, it is necessary to ask but one question.
What is in it for the EU, Fatah (Abbas) and Hamas to continue this behavior, to continue fighting Israel and never resolve the so-called 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict’? Behavior does not continue as long as a pay- off is available. The answer to this question is known and obvious! For media and world leaders to dance around the fundamental answer is reprehensible. This is why I become ill when the Western leaders either blame Israel or want to talk around the issues, never willing to address THE issue. The EU needs to protect itself, a hint as to why they really continue to send support-it is a form of extortion---ah, but even to discuss this is 'politically incorrect'.
Perhaps another time-meanwhile people on all sides continue to die and suffer. Please do not speak to me of the world’s compassion; this is nothing but anal rhetoric!
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)