Will the politically correct wake up?

Fitna is a film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Dutch parliament. The movie offers his views on Islam and the Qur'an. The film's title comes from the Arabic word fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial". The movie was released to the Internet on 27 March 2008.

The first version from LiveLeak was removed Friday afternoon after death threats, as you can see from the message that will follow. Google and YouTube, later decided to post the video, which I am sharing below:

LiveLeak version that was removed:



FITNA full feature:

Obama - is he genuine?

One of my favorite authors is Malcolm Gladwell. He wrote Blink and The Tipping Point, and interestingly enough, there is much to learn about Obama’s presidential campaign under the light of these two books.

In fact, I would be very much interested in finding out Gladwell’s opinion of Obama.

Given that I browsed the internet trying to find anything on that regard and was not successful, I will share with you my “Blink” on Obama.

Is Barak Obama genuine, or is he telling us what we want to hear? Is he a person of principles, or is he someone that will accommodate his principles according to the direction of the wind?

A few weeks ago, I was watching TV, and prior to the primaries in Texas, a reporter interviewed a citizen who said something quite striking: “Obama is now more that a candidate. Obama is a movement.” In other words, Obama’s campaign may have reached the “tipping point,” to use Gladwell’s idea as explained in his book. For the candidate himself, this is certainly excellent, as movements have a lot of people that adhere to it driven by its “dragging forces” which are the catching phrases and opinion makers that have joined it. For the public, however, it could be either good or bad, depending on how close his electoral discourse will match his deeds, if elected.

And here is where I am concerned.

I am concerned because after watching several debates, and following everything that is going on around him, my inner feeling is not good. My “Blink” on Obama, tells me that I cannot trust him.

This week we had a very telling situation: a couple of videos by his pastor were released. I must confess that I have hardly seen a preaching more hateful, divisive and racist. For those who haven’t seen these videos, I am posting them at the bottom of this piece.

As it has been widely mentioned, this is the pastor that Obama has been following for 20 years. This is the pastor who married him and mentored him. Pressed to give his opinion on these videos, Obama said he’s like “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

But saying the above about Rev. Wright was not enough, and so, Obama was pressed to reject Wright’s hateful discourses, which Obama did, a few days after this polemics started. And the headlines went like this:

Moreover, Wright, who left his church pulpit to become Obama’s advisor, ended up leaving this advisory position this Friday:


But these are my questions: why in the first place was Wright accepted as Obama’s campaign advisor if his divisive views were nothing new? Why would Obama stay member of a church that has as its leader such a preacher of hate? Why did it take a few days for Obama to be more vehement on his criticism to Wright, and still did not reject Wright himself, but just the things that he “[doesn’t] always agree with”?

Is Obama a principled man or is he saying what we want to hear, and at times saying what he’s been pressed to say?

Let’s look at this transcript from his debate with Hillary Clinton, regarding Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama:

TIM RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?


OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy….You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

HILLARY CLINTON: There is a difference between denouncing and rejecting.


OBAMA: I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There is no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. If the word reject Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word denounce, I'm happy to concede the point. I would reject and denounce.


In the above transcript it becomes clear Obama's "three-step conversion" from accepting Farrakhan's support, to rejecting it: 
- first "I can't say that he can't say that I am a good guy"
- then "I denounce his past statements"
- finally OK, "if Hillary feels that the word reject is stronger, then I denounce and reject"

So, is this rejection really convincing? You judge.

By the way, the same New York Times section that mentions “Obama denounces statements of his pastor as inflammatory”, carries another disturbing piece of information about Obama’s character: “Obama describes developer deal as a mistake.”Here’s another “let’s say what they want to hear” statement.

If Obama truly rejects Farrakhan, if Obama truly rejects the fundamental positions of Rev. Wright, I would expect for him to come out and publicly say loudly: “Farrakhan, Wright, you are bigots, you are hate preachers, and I want everybody to know it, and to know that I am totally disassociating myself from you!”

Until this happens, my “Blink” factor tells me that Obama is someone not to be trusted.

What do you think?

The “Next Up Doctrine” – A Strategy for World Peace

Over the years, Arab leaders kept sending a message to the Western world, and we kept ignoring their message in our fight against terrorism. Their dire message: the lives of the Arab people are expendable.

Even though history has examples from other eras confirming the above, I will make my case with the Arab-Israeli conflict and will start in 1947, when the United Nations created two countries for two peoples that inhabited the same area: Jews and Arabs.

The “Next Up Doctrine” that is being introduced here, deals with the necessity of accountability for top leaders of countries that support terrorism in one way or another. While this essay will not deal with all aspects of the doctrine, it aims at explaining the basic idea and laying the ground for its need.

In 1946, according to statistics from the United Nations, there were around 600,000 Jews living under the British Mandate in Palestine, and close to 1.2 million Arabs living in the same area – including what is today the West Bank.

With the creation of Israel and Palestine in 1947, notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of the land assigned to the Jewish State was desert, and therefore unsuitable for agriculture or urbanization, Jews rejoiced with the fact that after 2000 years they would have a land of their own again. Arabs, on the other hand, would gain one more country, next to Jordan, which itself was a recently created entity. One would think that the partition would be a reasonable solution and now both peoples would live towards building prosper countries for them and their descendants. Not quite.

As soon as Israel’s independence was declared, the armies of four neighboring countries tried to annihilate it. While a good portion of the 850,000 Jews expelled from the Arab countries had to find their way to an Israel in war, and help defend it and develop a country of their own, Jordanian newspaper Falastin reported in 1949 that “…Arab states encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”

This leads us to the first situation in the context of this conflict, where Arab leaders showed that their people’s life are disposable. Of course, everybody knows that Israel was not defeated, and therefore a new strategy had to be devised. The strategy, in all Arab countries, with no exception, became to keep their “brethren” in refugee camps, in the most miserable conditions, so that they would be used as an instrument of propaganda against Israel. And so it is, that 60 years after the United Nations partition plan was approved, and despite the millions of dollars that the UNRWA poured into the refugee camps which ended up in the Swiss bank accounts of Arafat and other Palestinian leaders, despite the billions of dollars in oil revenues collected by the Presidents, Kings and Princes from the Arab countries, those 340,000 Arabs who left their homes in the late 40’s turned into the miserable millions that are called now the “Refugee Problem.”

In the meantime, the 850,000 Jews that were expelled from the Arab countries and the hundreds of thousands of survivors from the Holocaust that went to other parts of the world and Israel, prospered both individually and as a country. They refused to become refugees. They were determined to improve their lives, and the lives of others. Just look at how many scientists, intellectuals and entrepreneurs they generated.

With the “Refugee Problem” not helping to achieve their strategy, Arab leaders then decided to use them in a different way that, again, showed their total neglect to the value of human lives in general, and specifically of their people. Those leaders had an easy corps of volunteers, and an easy villain to blame. The volunteers would be the same group of Arabs that they kept in wretched conditions for decades, and the villain would be Jews, Israel and those who support them. And thus, terrorists and suicide bombers became their “contribution” to the world.

Several countries have fallen victims to this new plague, and the main strategy in tackling this phenomenon is to try and capture or kill their leadership. “Leadership” in this context is the field commanders – military or spiritual. Here is what those at the helm of Israel and the western countries are failing to understand: the “leadership” they are after, is nothing more than a sort of “middle or upper management”, which in the eyes of those who provide the infrastructure, are also disposable. They are people from refugee camps, or other Middle Eastern countries recruited or volunteering to do the “dirty” jobs. Once they are eliminated from the scene, others can take their place.

But who are those who offer the money, the armaments, the blessing and training infrastructure, if not the presidents, princes and kings of countries ranging from Iran and Syria, all the way to Saudi Arabia. In fact, going beyond the Middle East, just last week Colombia seized proof that President Chavez from Venezuela transferred $300 million to the South American terrorist group FARC.

This is where the “Next Up Doctrine” comes in. There seems to be a formal, or informal rule that protects leaders of countries from being targeted – even if they are the most evil dictators. The world should not wait until a tragedy of big proportions hits us all. The world needs to go after those who, without their support the terrorist machine can’t continue working. The ones who do think of their lives as not being expendable. The world needs in unison send the message to Assad, Ahmedinajad and even to princes in Saudi Arabia: “You are the next up. Either you do what needs to be done to stop the terrorists, or you will stop enjoying your power and wealth, because there will be no more you.” Those who know that they have nothing to fear about, should not be worried with the “Next Up Doctrine.” In addition to that, the implementation of this doctrine should substantially reduce the possibility of wars like Iraq, or large military engagements like the one between Israel and Hizbollah in south Lebanon, which ultimately cause a large number of collateral victims.

This past week, Dr. Daniel Doron, President of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress said that “Israel and Western democracies must treat the terrorists' mortal challenge as a war for survival, not as a series of skirmishes. And in war, you must fight to win, by all traditional means.”

I would add that the “Next Up Doctrine” needs to be implemented in order to eradicate terrorism. And once it achieves its goal, it needs to become a “traditional means” to preserve world peace.

What do you think?