FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. — Barack Obama, Cairo, June 4, 2009

Sept. 11 -14, 2012:

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Cairo

Gaza

India

Iraq

Jordan

Lebanon

Libya

London

Pakistan

Sudan (OK, it’s a German flag…)

Yemen

Technorati Tags: anti-Americanism, Muslims, flag, riots

In Cairo yesterday: Arabic reads “Remember your black day 11 September”

Yesterday, Sept. 11, Islamist mobs attacked the American embassy in Egypt and our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In Egypt they destroyed our flag and replaced it with a black banner with the shahada written on it, described as “the flag of al-Qaeda“. In Libya, they attacked the building with RPGs or similar weapons, burned it to the ground and killed the US Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three others.

The pretext for these attacks was rage over a trailer for a film about Mohammad, dubbed into Arabic and posted on Youtube. Here is an English version of a bit of the film, ungrammatically called “Innocence of Muslims.” The creators or funders of this silly movie, which hasn’t appeared in its entirety yet, were variously described as “Jews” or “Copts,” something which inflamed the masses even more.

Do you think it was an accident that these events happened on the anniversary of 9/11? I don’t. Similar ‘provocations’ against Islam can be found 365 days a year, not just on 9/11. Barry Rubin wrote:

But note well that everyone–except the Western media–understands that holding such a demonstration at the U.S. embassy in Cairo on September 11 means supporting the September 11 attack.

Rubin is only partly correct. The Western media are not the only ones who fail to see the symbolism of raising al-Qaeda’s banner on 9/11. Our President missed it as well. In his statement about the Libyan incident, he mentioned the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks as if it were merely an unhappy coincidence:

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

Seemingly determined to get every important point wrong, he also said this:

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

While he is at pains to say that it is wrong to “denigrate the religious beliefs of others” he does not even mention our commitment to the value of free expression!

Instead of saying that we will not permit our right to free expression to be inhibited by fear of violence, he distances the US from the film-maker, whose expression we “reject.” Yes, he seems to say, insulting Islam is wrong, but you oughtn’t to kill ambassadors over it.

Radical Muslims believe that it is perfectly acceptable for them to ‘denigrate’ other faiths in the most vile way — their Imams do so regularly, in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, etc. — but they also believe that the proper response to “denigration” of their faith is violence.

There’s nothing “senseless” about it — it’s a logical consequence of their belief that Islam is superior to all religions. When infidels “denigrate” Islam, they violate the moral order of the universe, and the violent response of Muslims is demanded to put things right.

The President’s statement is a plea for Muslims to understand that we respect Islam, and a reminder for Americans to avoid expressions that could insult them. To those who sympathize with the ‘activists’, the statement is apologetic, submissive.

But he isn’t finished displaying weakness:

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

What he should have said, of course, is that the US will apply its considerable power to avenge the murders of Americans, just like we did with their hero, Bin Laden. Not “work with the Libyan government” and not “bring to justice” — avenge.

Technorati Tags: Egypt, Libya, Chris Stevens, Innocence of Muslims

Don’t miss this!

Cartoon courtesy of Elder of Ziyon

There are no deadlines:

The U.S. is “not setting deadlines” for Iran and still considers negotiations to be “by far the best approach” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Bloomberg in an interview published Monday.

Speaking to Bloomberg Radio on Sunday after the conclusion of meetings at an Asia-Pacific forum in Vladivostok, Russia, Clinton said that economic sanctions are affecting Iran and the U.S. is “watching very carefully about what [the Iranians] do, because it’s always been more about their actions than their words.”

And there are no red ones either, according to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland yesterday:

QUESTION: Toria, your closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, is quite upset with a interview that the Secretary gave, particularly when she was asked about redlines or deadlines for Iran’s nuclear program. Do you have positions or levels in Iran’s nuclear enrichment that you consider unacceptable and that would force some sort of change to the current stalemate, let’s say?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we have been saying for many months, and as was clear when the Secretary was in Jerusalem earlier this summer, we have extensive and ongoing contacts with our close ally Israel to discuss the full range of security issues, but obviously to compare notes on the challenge posed by Iran, and we will continue to do that…

QUESTION: Well it’s a very – will you agree that it’s – are you – is there a specific policy of being – of constructive ambiguity here? Because, I mean, not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon means many different things to many different people. As you know, the Israelis have one definition of what it means to have a nuclear weapon, and maybe you have another one. So could you provide any –

MS. NULAND: Among the many reasons, Elise, why these consultations with Israel need to be constant, they need to be detailed, they need to be private. …

So we are absolutely firm about the President’s commitment here, but it is not useful to be parsing it, to be setting deadlines one way or the other, redlines. It is most important that we stay intensely focused on the pressure on Iran, the opportunity for Iran to fix this situation through the diplomacy that we’ve offered, and intensive consultations with Israel and all the other regional states, as we are doing.

Nuland seems to be trying to suggest that there is more going on under the surface with Israel, but Israel Hayom quoted “senior diplomatic sources in Jerusalem” saying that,

Hillary Clinton is speeding up the Iranian centrifuges with her erroneous public comments … Without a clear red line, Iran will not halt its race for nuclear weapons.  … not only do Clinton’s comments not deter Iran, they actually appease it.

So to recap: there are sanctions, but Iran’s 20 biggest trading partners have exemptions. Iran still refuses to let IAEA inspectors into its test site at Parchin, where it appears that experiments related to weaponization have been carried out. The IAEA also reports that Iran is carrying out computer simulations of the destructive power of nuclear warheads. Iran continues to add centrifuges to bolster its enrichment capabilities.

But the US is not prepared to issue an ultimatum. It will go no further than to repeat that “we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon,” but it will not say — publicly or to Israel — how far it will allow Iran to go.

The Iranians understand this to mean that they can keep on doing what they are doing, which is putting all the pieces in place to sprint to the finish line when they choose to do so. It’s by no means clear that we will know when this is about to happen, or that we will be able to act quickly enough to stop it, even if we do know. It is also generally accepted that the ability of Israel by itself to prevent Iran from building a weapon is eroding with time.

The US has the power to issue a credible threat to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, as well as a great deal of its military assets — missiles, air defense systems, etc. Such a threat would most likely cause Iran to pull back and would not actually have to be carried out.

By not doing this, the administration leaves Israel with only one option, which is to try to destroy or delay Iran’s program itself. While an American threat carries the risk that the Iranians will call our bluff and provoke a conflict, an Israeli attack guarantees one.

Incidentally, it should be mentioned that the former Israeli security officials like Meir Dagan who are opposed to an Israeli attack in the near term do not believe that Iran should be allowed to get nuclear bombs. They simply disagree with the PM and Defense Minister about when there will be no other way to stop Iran. If the US persists in allowing Iran to proceed, then even Meir Dagan’s red line will be crossed.

If the administration wants to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, it has a strange way of showing it!

Technorati Tags: Israel, Iran, Obama Administration