Is Boston Beginning of American Intifada?

Israel is at the front cusp of their third intifada. This one thus far could be labeled the brick, rock, block and fire bottle intifada since the attacks are being implemented using large rocks, bricks, cinderblocks, and gasoline filled bottles including a flaming cloth wick (Molotov cocktails). The mainstream media world-wide tends to refer to these attacks by completely omitting the Molotov cocktails and belittling the size of the rocks by using the terms stones or even pebbles. They also refer to those who are launching these projectiles as youths or young teens when in actuality there are young men up through age thirty-five and some are young teens. What they also tend to omit is the use of slings and that many of the road rock attacks are done by launching the large rocks from a speeding car at vehicles traveling in the opposite direction adding the speed of both vehicles to the impact providing often well over seventy miles an hour speed to the impacting rock compared to the windshield it impacts and often pierces.

 

Going back there has been two previous intifada in Israel. The first intifada was implemented by Yasser Arafat and consisted mostly on rock attacks, stabbings and shootings. The second intifada was called by Yasser Arafat and had been planned before he joined in negotiations which he entered planning on walking out and not accepting any offer even if it gave him everything he asked for. The offer he received would have returned 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, the eastern half of Jerusalem and exchanges of land to make up lands equal to the 5% of the West Bank being retained by Israel. Yasser Arafat walked out of the negotiations after hearing the offer without even giving any reason for his refusal or making any counter offer or amendment to the offer. Madeline Albright was filmed by news cameras chasing after Arafat pleading for him to please return and negotiate promising they could find an agreement he would accept no matter what he desired. He completely ignored her as if he had to accept anything he would not have been able to implement his intifada and he had already planned everything out. This second intifada was extremely violent consisting of car bombs, suicide bombers, suitcase and carrying bags left in public places containing bombs. Could such murder and mayhem actually ever come to Europe or America? That depends on certain conditions and actions that are taken in the near future and is worth an investigation.

 

The probability of Muslim terror has been found to be related to the percentage of unassimilated Muslim population within the general population. The theory is that when the unassimilated Muslim percentage grows to between ten and twenty percent and there is a potential for radicalization being fomented within the population of sufficient strength, it is likely to cause levels of terror attacks which would be perceived as a societal problem. This alone is insufficient as people do not act in such an antisocial manner without stimulus and causation. This could be initiated by sermons from radical Imams giving sermons in the Mosque or radicalized agenda being taught in the school affiliated with the Mosque. This has been witnessed in numerous locations through northern and central Africa where nations are divided with a strong Muslim centered population bordering a strong Christian or Animist population where most of the violence occurs on the border regions. So, should the population densities begin to attain levels conducive to potential, what forms would such terror take on?

 

To be completely honest, the Boston Marathon bombing is indicative of what can be expected. The targets would be more varied with any place where people congregate becoming a viable target. Such places would be restaurants on special days where there would be people waiting for a table and thus congregated in close proximity. IHOP on a Sunday morning or virtually any restaurant on Mother’s Day would be examples. Also fairs, circuses, sporting events, or grand opening events, especially new shopping malls would also be inviting targets. Targeting would often tend to be aimed toward places with ties to the community and places which people would normally frequent so as to maximize the affects at making people feel uneasy when doing normal everyday life events. This is what is behind targeting family eateries, shopping centers, sports events, and anywhere families would tend to congregate. The aim is to make life so uncertain that everyday life becomes a questionable event and thus public fears are maximized. An attentive and aware public can minimize the threats by learning the signs and indicators which should attract suspicions and then having law enforcement able to make a rapid response and determination quickly with removal or other resolving of any threat with minimal interruption to normalcy. The ability to interdict terror attempts is the best solution that can be applied as it minimizes the threat and that takes away the fear factor which is the entire motivation behind such attacks. Of course the best way to address the potential for terror is to facilitate the assimilation of all peoples making them integrate and become an accepted member of the community. The efforts of every community should assist assimilation and incorporation of all members and peoples as integrated, functioning members of an open and accepting blend of neighborhoods. Fortunately, America has a strong history of assimilation and acceptance.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Obama Succeeds Changing Palestinian Israeli Relations

During the campaign and after taking office, President Obama placed changing the environment of the stagnant Palestinian Israeli Peace Process. His initial idea of pushing the Israelis to freeze building past the Green Line, even including around Jerusalem, definitely pushed the Peace Process into virgin territory. Despite the Israeli comprehensive building freeze, against the better judgment of many in the ruling coalition, had the affect of hardening the position of the Palestinians who adopted an attitude of noncooperation holding out for additional concessions. The end result of President Obama’s radical activist intervention was new hope for the Palestinian leadership who saw the potential for their dreams to be answered, finally have an American President who was placing new pressures and demands on Israel while not requiring reciprocal concessions from them. When after almost the entire ten month freeze had expired and it became apparent that no additional demands were forthcoming on the Israelis, Mahmoud Abbas met once in Washington where there was a great shaking of hands, then refused to further meetings until the freeze was extended indefinitely.

Since the expiration of the building freeze, which the Israelis fulfilled their entire commitment despite the ineffectiveness, there has been extensive maneuvering by both sides, making moves, stipulating positions, demanding concessions, pressing Obama to impose on the other side, standing on presumptive principles, expressing disappointments and claiming intransigence by the other side. Despite more heated friction between the two sides, they have hardened their positions and none of the heat generated has warmed the possibilities for peace. The appearances of give and take has mostly turned out to be more grabbing and attempting to take than even the slightest instance of giving. All of this frantic flurry of fakes and feints has resembled the Keystone Cops more than skillful negotiations by an experienced diplomatic corps.

The latest volleys released from each side have included demands that are more posturing than actual honest expectations. The Palestinians insisted that the building freeze be extended for as long as the negotiations were continued. Israel countered with extending the freeze for a set number of months providing the Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish State. The Palestinians stood firm that such recognition was absolutely beyond the pale. The Palestinians opened the next salvo demanding that Israel guarantee the return to the Green Line 1948 armistice lines. Israel restated their intent to never again divide Jerusalem, stating it is their eternal indivisible capital. The Palestinians claimed the Temple Mount and Old City of Jerusalem, once again declaring their Muslim roots and denying the validity of any Jewish historical claims.

While this vortex of accusations and demands continued, the United Nations refused to be denied their moment in the limelight. UNESCO stepped forward declaring Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs to be Mosques with no Jewish history or significance. Not to be outdone, the Palestinians followed this up claiming the Kotel, the Western Wall, was built as part of the al-Aska Mosque further stating that there was no archeological evidence to the contrary. Then, this past week the United Nations General Assembly voted to schedule another Durban Conference to be held in New York on September 21, 2011, ten days after the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The stated agenda for the tenth anniversary of the Durban Conference is to revisit the agenda from the first Durban Conference held in Durban, South Africa where the Muslim and Arab countries supported by the non-aligned nations, numerous nations from Africa, and a plethora of NGO’s convicted Israel of responsibility for virtually every ill in the history of mankind, or at least since 1948. Also vilified at the first Durban Conference was the United States in particular, and the West in general. There was absolutely no mention of any other country having participated in any criminal activities or violence.

All in all, since President Obama took to the world stage to repair America’s image and bring peace to Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East, and end human suffering wherever it was to be found, the world sure has changed. We have Lebanon on the brink of war, North and South Korea in the initial stages of war, the world economy in a total and complete shambles, anti-Semitism reaching levels not seen since World War Two, Iran at the cusp of becoming a nuclear power, and America’s image in the world reaching all time lows. President Obama sure has succeeded at far more than simply changing Palestinian Israeli relations, but the question is are these changes heading the world in the right direction?

Beyond the Cusp

Proper Respect for Islam

The recent tumultuous rancor over the Ground Zero Mosque and the plans to burn numerous copies of the Koran on September 11th by the Florida Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center have brought to the forefront the debate of what exactly is meant when Islamic leaders demand respect be given to Islam and its Muslim practitioners. The underlying threat made against the burning of the Korans and actions that would deny the building of a Mosque in the immediate neighborhood of Ground Zero has been the riling of riotous masses of enraged Muslims worldwide due to the perceived offence against Islam. So, what exactly is considered an offence, a slight, or a degrading of Islam? That is a slightly more difficult question that it at first might appear.

For an example, let us use the Mohammed Cartoon fiasco, as most people are familiar with the general events. The first item was that since most of the cartoons of Mohammed were so inoffensive that a group of Muslim Imams actually designed a few more of their own specifically to further rile and enrage their followers. Also not covered by much of the news during the rioting was that the cartoons had been published months earlier with little fanfare or recognition. At a later date, when it was posed to make the most affect and the extra cartoon content had been created, then and only then did the Imams and other Islamic spokespeople release articles containing the cartoons, both real and Imam produced, demanding the death of those responsible for this grievous insult of the Prophet Mohammed. The rioting and violence continued for weeks with inflammatory sermons issued regularly each week at Friday Prayers kept the flames of impassioned hatred burning strong. Then, as suddenly as it began, the rioting ended coinciding with the termination of the rabble-rousing sermons.

We have seen the same response to sermons directing violence against Israel when both Imams and political leaders of the Palestinians and their supporters in the Muslim world called for a “Day of Rage” against the occupation or whatever action the violence is aimed to condemn. Often these spontaneous outbursts of anger and violence that appear to occur immediately after Friday Prayer Services, are actually in response to the Imams’ calls to violence. This instant mob behavior, just add inflammatory sermon, is so often easily predictable should one have access to hear the Imam, or other times in direct response to a political leader’s impassioned speech that calls for action. The mobs that perpetrate the violence act identical to a well-trained army in the way they can be marshaled at a moments notice and their actions respond by starting and ending directly upon cue. In many ways, this phenomenon resembles the actions of labor unions back at the start of the labor movement except with a much higher level of violence from the Muslim protesters.

The main item we must remember is that much of the reactions to what the Islamic leaders call “insults against Islam” are simple demonstrations acting upon command. The purpose of the violent demonstrations is just another form of terrorism meant to intimidate and cower a society before them to their demands. The end aim of these antics is to stealthily enact Sharia Law by steps and stages. Much of the abhorrence to perceived insult is, in truth, simply another form of al taqiyya, overt deception. If we intend to keep our society, our Constitution, our freedom, and our rights to free speech and religion, then we must bear in mind the mind game and physical intimidation and the ends they have planned and not surrender one single tick on a ruler and hold steady and strong. The only defense we have is our refusal to neither bow to violence nor bend knee in supplication to Mecca or Mohammed. We must be at least as resolute and preferably stronger in our faith and beliefs that have been the bedrock of our freedom and our society. To quote Rabbi Hillel, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Beyond the Cusp