web analytics
November 29, 2014 / 7 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘radical’

Report: Israeli, US, Jordanian Commandos Operating in Syria

Monday, August 26th, 2013

American, Israeli and Jordanian commandos are currently deployed on the ground in Syria, training and operating alongside the rebels trying to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the French daily Le Figaro reported on Saturday. The report has not been corroborated by any official American, Israeli or Jordanian source.

The newspaper said that according to its sources, the joint operation, led by the CIA, began on Aug. 17, when the commandos joined some 300 Syrian rebels near the southwestern city of Deraa, just north of Syria’s border with Jordan. A second group of commandos reportedly crossed into Syria two days later, en route to training camps set up by the Free Syrian Army near the Jordanian-Syrian border.

According to military sources quoted by Le Figaro, the U.S. is very reluctant to send ground troops to Syria and is also hesitant about arming the rebels, as some groups are affiliated with radical Islamists, and would prefer to train opposition fighters to hold their own.

French experts quoted by the newspaper said that Washington was interested in created a buffer zone in Syria, free of Assad’s forces, while also enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria, which would give the Free Syrian Army an advantage in their efforts to remove Assad from power.

Ax Wielding Jew Attacks Tel Aviv US Embassy Staff

Tuesday, November 20th, 2012

A security guard, was attacked by an ax wielding mentally unstable Jew from Bat Yam in front of the U.S. embassy on HaYarkon Street in Tel Aviv. Police is on its way.

Embassy guards returned fire at the attacker in response, hitting him and later arresting him.

A group of about 100 Arabs, calling itself the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement, a radical group headed by Sheikh Raed Salah, was demonstrating in front of the embassy this morning.

Embassy spokesperson Luba Samri told reporters that “a suspect came to the US embassy at 11:00 am (4 AM eastern) with a knife and an axe and attacked a security guard.” She said the guard was injured in the leg, and his fellow officers opened fire.

 

CORRECTION: The original report was that it was an Arab attacker, and that is not the case.

They Got it Right: America is Their Enemy

Thursday, October 25th, 2012

Visit Rubin Reports.

One of President Barack Obama’s main themes has been to convince Middle Eastern Islamists and Arabs generally that America is not their enemy. But the reason this strategy never works is that the radicals, be they Islamists or nationalists, know better. They see the United States as their enemy and they are right to do so.
No amount of sympathy, empathy, economic aid, apology, or appeasement will change this fact. Nor did such efforts succeed in making either Obama or the United States popular in such circles and the tens of millions of people influenced by them.  The only thing surprising about all of this is that so few “experts” and politicians seem to comprehend it.
There are a number of reasons why this is true, though many people mistakenly think they must find just one factor that explains this reality. The causes of this enmity include:
–American policies. True, the United States has supported Israel and also many Arab regimes over the years—including countries like Morocco, Tunisia, post-Qadhafi-Libya, Egypt, pre-Hizballah Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, post-Saddam Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates. The Islamists are equally unhappy with the U.S. support for the Palestinian Authority.
In short, U.S. support for any non-radical regime makes radicals angry and will always do so.
So what if the United States is nice to radical or Islamist regimes? Will that help?
No. The radicals still keep their goals—which include throwing U.S. influence out of the region and overthrowing its allies—no matter what Washington tries to do to please them. In the context of their ideology, they interpret U.S. concessions as signs of weakness which thus invite them to become even more militant and aggressive.
In Libya and Iraq, the governments have been pretty much directly installed by America. Thus, anyone who wants to overthrow those governments has a strong vested interest in hating and attacking Americans. The assassination of the ambassador to Libya wasn’t an accident or the result of a video but the inevitable and logical outcome of the political situation there.
As for Israel, giving that country less help would not change the radical view. Only if the United States had the same policy as Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood might it be forgiven. Merely putting more space between the United States and Israel, to paraphrase Obama’s stated intention, won’t do it. Even brokering a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which isn’t going to happen of course, won’t help.
On the contrary, the radicals—especially Hamas, its Egyptian backers, and Iran—would go into a frenzy of denunciation and attempts to destroy the arrangements, which would be blamed on America. In the Middle East, peacemakers aren’t blessed, they’re assassinated.
The ultimate attempt to do away with these problems would be if U.S. policy would actually help Islamist regimes into power, give them money, and whitewash their extremism. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And we can all see the results have not been good, neither in terms of U.S. interests nor even in terms of U.S. popularity.
–American values and culture. While the mere fact that a highly secular, largely hedonistic, and generally free lifestyle is practiced in the United States raises the Islamists’ ire, there is far more involved here.
The United States is the world’s leading exporter of culture regarding everything from tee-shirts, films, and democratic ideas. As such, it inevitably subverts traditional Islamic society and poses as a rival alternative to the kind of system the Islamists want to impose. There is simply no way around this conflict. It is not an imagined one and remains in effect no matter what political policy a U.S. government follows.
–America as an example to their own society. If the United States succeeds with a “Satanic” standpoint, how can Islamists persuade their people that Allah is on their side? America must be seen to fail, either through propaganda or by its actual collapse, at least in terms of the Middle East. Otherwise, the United States will remain an attractive model for many, prompting everything from immigration to political philosophy.
Many years ago in Istanbul I had dinner with the man who was the chief security officer in the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979. I asked him what he thought was the critical detail that brought the seizure of the embassy and the holding of the staff as hostages. He replied that every day the new Islamist rulers saw long lines of Iranians outside the building applying for visas to go to America or, perhaps they thought, plotting the regime’s overthrow. It was not the unpopularity but rather the popularity of the United States and its style or standard of living that frightened them. Something must be done. A break must be provoked; hatred must be stoked.
Obviously a distinction can be drawn between, on one hand, winning over the radicals and their supporters, and winning over ordinary Arabs. Yet it is also true that the masses have also been fed anti-Americanism for decades, that their worldview, news, and spin comes from a radical direction, be the source Islamists, militant Arab nationalists, traditionalist clerics, or rulers who have good relations with the United States but demagogically use anti-Americanism to shore up their reputation as militants in the Arab or Islamic causes.
In other words, no matter what the United States does it will not be interpreted—especially by the masses–based on the U.S. government’s statements or intentions but through the filter of a very different culture and worldview that has a good deal of hostility in it and is prone to xenophobia and conspiracy theories.
By the same token, to be hated the United States doesn’t have to do something wrong. It just has to be itself and pursue its own legitimate interests. This is a point that many Americans—including “experts” and leaders—seem to have great difficulty in grasping. What you say is not what someone else hears; what you do is not what someone else sees.
Finally, the radicals—which include a large portion of governments, political movements, teachers, clerics, and journalists—will deliberately do everything they can to discredit the United States and foment popular hatred against it. That includes using anything they can, be it a video, the slaying of Usama bin Ladin, accusations of atrocities, and so on, whether the specific accusations are true or false, consciously misinterpreted or misunderstood on ideological grounds.
They will never run out of reasons to hate America and ammunition for trying to convince others to do so. One conclusion from this assessment is that the traditional arsenal of diplomacy—credibility, deterrence, power—is what’s important, not courting popularity. The same principle applies to allies, of course, who must feel that their friend or patron is strong and reliable.
Such an approach has not been the one pursued during the last four years. As for the next four years, the vote count is not in yet.

Israel’s Totalitarian Left Never Sleeps

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

There is a species of radical leftist that believes the main purpose of taxpayer-funded universities is to indoctrinate students in radical left-wing ideology. Such people believe the only legitimate form of scholarly research and teaching is to force upon students the ideas and agendas of the left because only these represent correct thinking.

For them, the highest form of academic inquiry is to engage in one-sided advocacy. They believe faculty members at universities should be hired mainly, if not exclusively, on the basis of their devotion to radical leftist ideology.

They believe classrooms should be arenas in which students are immersed into leftist NewThink.

They believe student grades should reflect the extent to which the student toes the ideological line of the radical left.

They believe academic conferences and research forums should be restricted to those who advocate the left’s political agenda, while non-leftist dissident thought should be suppressed and barred.

Most important of all, they believe those who dare criticize the radical tenured left should be silenced and denounced.

The totalitarian left believes taxpayers are morally obligated to fund the teaching of extremist ideology in the classroom, including by people advocating the demise of those same taxpayers and of their country.

It is the job of citizens, insist the academic leftists, to sit back passively and pay for the far left to operate propaganda centers, while the radicals collect their cushy salaries as payment for advocating their anti-Israel agenda.

It is the job of universities, the tenured left maintains, to criticize (actually to demonize) the state of Israel – just as long as no one is permitted to criticize those critics of Israel.

Nowhere is this ideological extremism so clearly on display as in the Department of Politics at Ben-Gurion University (BGU), a pseudo-academic propaganda and indoctrination center disguised as an academic department. It is not the only such department in Israel or at BGU, but it may well be the worst.

Last year an international panel of experts appointed by the Israel Council of Higher Education (which oversees and funds universities) called for shutting down this BGU department altogether, due to the abysmally low quality of its work its having replaced serious scholarly research with one-sided advocacy.

The far left faculty members in the department denounce Israel in unison, and some call for world boycotts of Israel. In response to the CHE criticism of the departmental obsession with one-side advocacy, BGU hired three new politics faculty members in order to generate diversity and pluralism – but the three new ones are also leftist radicals.

Students in political science classes at BGU who dare to express pro-Israel opinions tell of being penalized and harassed by the faculty. The single non-leftist faculty member who taught in the department was fired a few years back for incorrect thinking.

Diversity and pluralism in the department consist of people of various ethnicities, genders, heights, and weights all advocating leftist and Marxist ideas. Diversity of thought is mercilessly suppressed, and serious academic standards are trashed.

In recent weeks, the totalitarian left has been circling its wagons in solidarity with the Department of Politics at BGU. Leftist-dominated academic associations are flooding the press and the CHE with angry demands to defend the right of the Department of Politics at BGU to engage in “advocacy” and leftist indoctrination.

Recruited by members of BGU’s politics department, foreign members of the academic left and Israeli tenured radicals have been leading the campaign to defend the BGU propagandists.

The campaigners demand that the right of BGU leftists to indoctrinate and propagandize at taxpayer expense be defended against CHE criticism and interference. The defenders of the department insist that “positivism,” i.e. actual scholarly research, is only one legitimate strand of academic activity in political science, meaning they really want ideological indoctrination to be the “alternative” function of academics.

A recent one-sided conference devoted to advocating political advocacy as the proper calling for academia was held at Ben-Gurion University. Participants were greeted by BGU President Rivka Carmi, who regularly insists she is not aware of any one-sided advocacy or indoctrination activities held at BGU. This is the same Carmi whose belief in pluralism was manifested in her firing Prof. Yeruham Leavitt because he dared express a politically incorrect opinion about children being raised by homosexual couples.

Ahmadinejad Meets With Fringe Neturei Karta (Video)

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

Members of Neturei Karta, a radical, fringe sect of Jews met with Ahmadinejad in New York to express their common hatred for Jews and their desire to see the “peaceful dismantling of the [Zionist] state”.

Ahmadinejad concluded the meeting with the hope that he will be successful, while the Neturei Karta members wished Ahmadinejad much success.

Democrat Convention Plan Shows Obama will Lose the Election

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

Visit Barry Rubin’s blog, Rubin Reports.

The Republican convention, whatever your critique of it, was designed to show that this is not a group of scary horrible people and that even if it is conservative this is also a moderate, rational group in the conservative solutions it proposes and in its broad appeal. Of course, the mass media did all it could to distort that fact but, of course, the terrible economic situation favors the opposition party.

The information released about the Democratic convention seems to show it is designed to prove how radical the party is, to play to the most limited possible sector of the population. There will be hatred and vicious character assassination. Of all the imams that could have been chosen, one with a radical background was picked to lead services while—from what I’ve read—Catholics were almost deliberately dissed. This is a convention featuring Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. There will be a lot of scary people and nasty rhetoric, sort of like a Keith Olbermann film festival.

I estimate that two-thirds of the Democrats in Congress are really moderate though they lack the courage to speak up. But will any of them be allowed to make any moderate statements that truly differ with the far-left line? No. Lots are staying away because they know this to be true; others will smile on the outside and be totally depressed knowing that the iceberg is on the way.

And the more the mass media gushes over this carnival, the more it will discredit itself and increase the cognitive dissonance (a fancy word for: What, are you guys nuts!) among a lot of Americans. When you are a wolf dressed up in a sheep suit you don’t want to unzip it, step out, and bare your teeth.

This is typical of a pattern often seen historically in democratic countries around the world, in which a party drifts so far to the left or right, is so dominated by ideologues, so arrogant in believing it is the only possible ruling party that it collapses.

I might be wrong but I think the design of the Democratic convention shows why Obama and his congressional supporters are going to lose the election big-time.

Visit Barry Rubin’s blog, Rubin Reports.

Making a Horse Look Like an Elephant

Sunday, July 15th, 2012

http://haemtza.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/making-horse-look-like-elephant.html

There is a relatively new phenomenon in Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy called the Partnership Minyan. One such Minyan, Lechu Neranena, is located in Bala Cynwyd, Pensylvania which in on the western edge of Philadelphia.

Michael Gordan who is the president of this Shul has written an article about it. Here is how he describes it:

(A Partnership Minayn is) where women are able to participate more fully than in traditional Orthodox synagogues. Though services are conducted with a mechitzah, or divider, between men and women, women may speak before the congregation, make Kiddush and lead Kabbalat Shabbat, the service of psalms and poetry welcoming the Shabbat. In those minyanim that meet on Shabbat morning, women may have aliyot, read from the Torah and lead some other parts of the service.

I am not going to go into the technicalities about the Halachic problems involved here. I believe there may in fact be such problems. But for purposes of this post I will concede that everything they do falls within the parameters of the strict letter of Halacha.

I will even concede that there may actually be a place for such Minyanim. If there is no technical violation of Halacha, it is far more preferable to attend this type of Shul than it would be to attend a non-Orthodox Shul. Or even a Traditional Shul where there is no Mechitza. So I do not support any bans against them. But that does not make me any more comfortable with the idea of such radicalism.

For those seeking a more  tailor made prayer experience – there is a lot of latitude in the way a Shul can operate and still be considered within the mainstream.

There are Modern Orthodox Shuls with Halachicly minimal Mechitzos.  There are Chasidic Shtieblach  that have women in an entirely separate room. There are high walled Mechitzos, balcony Mechitzos… One Orthodox Shul I attended in Canada has women seated in a balcony whose walls facing the men are  made out of ordinary ‘see-through’ glass!

The style of prayer is widely varied. Yeshivsh, Baalei Battish, Chasidish, Agudah, Mizrachi, Young Israel, Modern Orthodox… Some have weekly speeches by the rabbi on a wide variety of subjects – some don’t. There are singing shuls  and dancing shuls (like Carelbach). There are rabbis wearing  Shtreimlach, Hamburgs, Fedoras, and knit Kipot, suade Kipot, and velvet Kipot.

There are fast shuls and slow Shuls; Shuls with a Kiddush and Shuls without a Kiddush.There are Shuls that will have men and women together for the  Kiddush and Shuls that will sepearte them.

There are even MO Shuls that allow women to speak after Davening from the pulpit.

The point being that a very wide variety of choices are available that are well within the mainstream of Orthodoxy where the Shul experience will be relatively confortable for just about anyone. But when one begins to tamper with the essential features of a Shul to the point where it starts looking like something else altogether – that goes too far in my view. Those shuls start looking like they are prioritizing something other than prayer.

I happen to believe that these Partnership Minyanim are sourced in a culture that is foreign to Judaism -  the radical feminist ideal of equating the sexes in all areas of life. In Orthodoxy that idea is doomed to failure. The mere fact that women can never be counted towards constituting a Minyan means that equality can never be fully achieved in the sense that feminism requires it. Even if there are a hundred women and 9 men, there is no Minyan. And there are many other such impediments for Orthodox women with respect to the synagogue.

Many Orthodox feminists will counter by saying that they understand that Halacha comes first. But they insist that they should be allowed to get as close to feminist ideal of equality of the sexes as possible. They will therefore seek novel ways to do so sometimes bordering on violating Halacha  – like Rabbi Avi Weiss’s innovation of allowing women to lead  Kabalas Shabbos.

Just because Halacha has technically not been violated that doesn’t mean that you are doing the right thing. No matter how sincere those who advocate such shuls are  – the Partnership Minyan makes a priority of feminist ideals first albeit while making concessions to Halacha in the process.  It’s like taking a horse, attaching elephant ears and a trunk; painting it grey -and still calling it a horse. Yes – it’s a horse. But it sure looks like an elephant. We should not be making horses look like elephants.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/haemtza/making-a-horse-look-like-an-elephant/2012/07/15/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: