It is a curious fact, by the way, that Messrs. Lumelsky and Weingarten concur with the Islamists on the key point that militant Islam equals Islam, dismissing other approaches to the religion as inauthentic, insignificant, or otherwise irrelevant. I disagree, on the simple grounds that most Muslims reject militant Islam. George Jochnowitz makes the valid observation that nearly all Muslims subscribe to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and that true moderation requires that these be tamed, if not eliminated. I agree and note that, as so often in the past, attitudes toward Jews serve as a vital touchstone of moderation and decency. In this respect, moderate Muslims have nearly as far to travel as do their Islamist coreligionists. Related Topics: Radical Islam , War on terror receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. सेमेटिक विरोध और उसकी संतान इजरायल विरोध अत्यंत शक्तिशाली है कि यह सभी सीमायें पार कर जाता है। नस्ली और मजहबी शत्रुता तो अत्यंत ही विनाशक है परंतु सेमेटिक विरोध तो विशेष रूप से खतरनाक है। यदि नरमनपंथी इस्लाम को राजनीतिक शक्ति बनना है तो इसे क्रांतिकारी इजरायलवाद विरोध से अलग करना होगा जिसके सम्बन्ध में यह शांत और नपुंसक है।
42.
Finally, the two disagree on the import of Israelis continuing to live on the West Bank. Obama placed great emphasis on the topic, commenting that if their numbers continue to grow, “we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now.” McCain acknowledged this as a major issue but quickly changed the topic to the Hamas campaign of shelling Sderot, the besieged Israeli town that he personally visited in March , and whose predicament he explicitly compares to the mainland United States coming under attack from one of its borders. अंत में दोनों इस बिन्दु पर भी असहमत थे कि पश्चिमी तट पर निवास करने वाले इजरायलियों का आयात हो। ओबामा ने इस बिन्दु पर अधिक जोर दिया और टिप्पणी की कि यदि उनकी संख्या इसी प्रकार बढ्ती रही तो “ हम उसी यथास्थिति में पहुँच जायेंगे जहाँ हम दशकों पूर्व थे”। मैक्केन ने इसका संज्ञान एक महत्वपूर्ण मुद्दे के रूप में लिया परंतु तत्काल ही विषय को बदल कर सेरोट में हमास के अभियान, घेरेबन्दी से बाहर किये गये इजरायली कस्बे की चर्चा जिसका दौरा उन्होंने स्वयं मार्च में किया था, के साथ ही इसकी तुलना अमेरिका के मुख्य भूमि पर अपनी ही सीमा से होने वाले आक्रमणों जैसे विषयों पर चर्चा आरम्भ कर दी।
43.
Also, this may the right place to record a statement made by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin weeks before his death (as reported in the Jerusalem Post , September 24, 1995), when he memorably addressed American Jews and told them that they have no right to patronize Israel. They have no right to intervene in the way the people of Israel have decided, in a very democratic way, on which direction to go when it comes to war and peace. They have the right to speak to us, but by no means to act, as Americans, against the policy of the government of Israel. . . . Whoever does not have daughters or sons who serve in the [Israeli] army has no right to intervene or act on issues of war and peace. Sep. 29, 2013 update : Schweitzer's finds that I disagree too much with the Government of Israel but David Speedie finds that I agree too much with it. For my response to Speedies see “ Do I Not Criticize Israeli Policies? ” The common theme in my responses to both of them is simple: I am an independent analyst who calls them as he sees them. Comment on this item एक और विशेष बात: स्कवीजर का दावा है कि, “ आनुपातिक आधार पर कहें तो हिज्बुल्लाह के साथ हाल का लेन देन कहीं सस्ता है। यह बहस का विषय है कि क्या कुन्तर की रिहाई से हिज्बुल्लाह को कोई नैतिक विजय मिली है” । अब यदि यह सौदा सस्ता है तो मैं कल्पना कर सकता हूँ कि मँहगा सौदा कैसा होगा? कुंतर की लेबनान में वापसी के बाद सरकार ने अपना कामकाज रोककर उत्सव मनाया और इसके बाद भी हिज्बुल्लाह की विजय से इंकार करना तो जानबूझकर आँख मूँदना है।
44.
This Abdo-army consensus has vast implications for Islam in America, suggesting that Muslims constitute a fifth column and cannot be loyal citizens. I disagree: Muslims can be patriotic Americans and exemplary soldiers. That said, the Abdo case once again points to the need for additional scrutiny of Muslims, whether serving in government or boarding aircraft . It's unfortunate, it's distasteful, but the common security demands no less. Aug. 2, 2011 update : I provide what appears to be the fullest account available of the Nasser Abdo case in “ Nasser Abdo: The Full Story ,” a 2,500-word weblog entry started a year ago. Updates will follow. Related Topics: Muslims in the United States , Radical Islam , Terrorism receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. Comment on this item इस अब्दो सेना सहमति के अमेरिका में इस्लाम को लेकर व्यापक परिणाम होते हैं इससे यही प्रतीत होता है कि मुस्लिम पाँचवा स्तम्भ हैं और वे स्वामिभक्त नागरिक नहीं हो सकते। मेरी इससे असहमति है, मुस्लिम देशभक्त अमेरिकी और औदाहरणिक सैनिक भी हो सकते हैं। अब्दो मामले से यह फिर से ध्यान में आता है कि मुसलमानों के मामले में अतिरिक्त सुरक्षा की आवश्यकता है चाहे वह सरकार में सेवा का मामला हो या फिर विमान में सवारी का मामला हो। यह दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है , अरुचिकर है लेकिन सामान्य सुरक्षा की यह माँग है।
45.
Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum's Legal Project has worked on Wilders' behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance to talk freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy. Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably enhance his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak has implications for us all. यद्यपि मैं इस्लाम के सम्बन्ध में वाइल्डर्स के साथ सहमति नहीं रखता( मैं मजहब का सम्मान करता हूँ परंतु इस्लामवादियों से पूरी शक्ति से लड्ता हूँ) हम कानूनी मामले के विरुद्ध कन्धे से कन्धे मिलाकर खडे हैं। मैं राजनीतिक मतभेद के अपराधीकरण के विरुद्ध हूँ विशेष रूप से एक जमीनी राजनीतिक आन्दोलन को न्यायालय के द्वारा बाधित किये जाने का। इसी कारण मिडिल ईस्ट फोरम के विधिक प्रकल्प ने वाइल्डर्स की ओर से कार्य करते हुए उनकी सहायता में पर्याप्त आर्थिक सहायता एकत्र की है और साथ ही अन्य प्रकार से भी सहायता की है। इसके साथ ही हम इस बात के मह्त्व को भी समझते हैं कि युद्ध के समय शत्रु के स्वरूप पर सार्वजनिक रूप से चर्चा होनी चाहिये।
46.
Sep. 25, 2012 update : After a full two weeks of embarrassing mumbo-jumbo on the matter of freedom of expression Barack Obama used his speech to the United Nations at first lengthily to lambast the Innocence of Muslims (“crude and disgusting … an insult not only to Muslims, but to America”) and then, at last, to provide a robust defense of the American way: there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views - even views that we disagree with. जहाँ तक ओबामा प्रशासन का प्रश्न है तो वह अपने तुष्टीकरण और क्षमाप्रार्थी भाव के अनुसार ही कार्रवाई कर रहा है और इसने इस्लाम के आलोचकों को दोषी ठहराया है। “ काइरो में अमेरिका के दूतावास ने कुछ दिग्भ्रमित लोगों द्वारा मुसलमानों की धार्मिक भावनाओं को भडकाने के लगातार प्रयास की निंदा की .... हम उन लोगों के कार्य को अस्वीकार करते हैं जो कि अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता के वैश्विक अधिकार का दुरूपयोग दूसरों की धार्मिक आस्था को ठेस पहुँचाने के लिये कर रहे हैं” । इसके उपरांत विदेश मंत्री हिलेरी क्लिंटन ( अमेरिका दूसरों की धार्मिक भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाने के किसी भी अन्तरराष्ट्रीय प्रयास की निंदा करता है) और बराक ओबामा( अमेरिका दूसरों की धार्मिक भावना को नीचा दिखाने के प्रयासों की निंदा करता है) ने आरम्भिक घुटने टेकने के रुझान को पुष्ट कर दिया।
47.
(2) For more along these lines, see the June 2012 study by the Quilliam Foundation , Preventing terrorism, where next for Britain? for the British government's Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT). It which argues that non-violent, apparently mainstream Muslim groups share the same ideology as violent Islamists. From an article in the Daily Telegraph (London) summarizing the report's contents: it says the ideology of non-violent Islamists is “broadly the same as that of violent Islamists” adding “they disagree only on tactics.” It produces a list of those it believes are “non-violent Islamists” and adds: “These are a selection of the various groups and institutions active in the UK which are broadly sympathetic to Islamism. ”Whilst only a small proportion will agree with al-Qaeda's tactics, many will agree with their overall goal of creating a single 'Islamic state' which would bring together all Muslims around the world under a single government and then impose on them a single interpretation of sharia as state law.“ The document adds that if the government engages with such groups ”it risks empowering proponents of the ideology, if not the methodology, that is behind terrorism.” Quilliam argues that the government needs to move beyond tackling those who advocate violent extremism to target those that espouse similar but non-violent views. … अधिक व्यापक तौर पर कहें तो इस्लामवादी तीन प्रकार से विभाजित किये जा सकते हैं: (1) सलाफी, जो कि सलाफ के काल के प्रति श्रद्धा रखते हैं ( मुसलमानों की पहली तीन पीढी) , इनका लक्ष्य इसकी पुनर्स्थापना है और इसके लिये ये अरबी वस्त्र पहनते हैं, प्राचीन परम्पराओं को अपनाते हैं तथा एक मध्ययुगीन मनसिकता अपनाते हैं जिसके चलते मजहब आधारित हिंसा का वातावरण बनता है। (2) मुस्लिम ब्रदर और उसके जैसे जिनकी आकाँक्षा आधुनिकता के इस्लामी संस्करण की है , यह परिस्थिति पर निर्भर करता है कि वे हिंसक आधार पर कार्य करते हैं या नहीं। (3) विधि आधारित इस्लामवादी जो कि व्यवस्था के अंदर कार्य करते हैं , राजनीतिक , मीडिया , विधिक तथा शिक्षा गतिविधियों में लिप्त होते हैं और परिभाषा की दृष्टि से वे हिंसा में शामिल नहीं होते ।
48.
Apr. 11, 2013 addenda : Some reflections that did not fit the main article: (1) Before this article appeared, I gave a several interviews ( here , here and here ) advocating tactical support for the Assad regime; these prompted name-calling by CAIR and some hysterical reactions about me urging genocide in Syria. No: I look forward to the day when Syria is at peace with itself and a good neighbor, when its government is democratic and law-abiding. But until that distant time, I prefer that evil forces direct their attentions against each other than against the outside world. (2) To the argument that early Western support for the rebels would have prevented the Islamists from dominating them ( which they now do ), I reply that Western powers did provide early support to rebels in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt and look what that achieved - Islamists dominate all three of those countries. The same would likely have been the case in Syria. Western assistance is not that influential in altering the course of an ideological movement. (3) I dislike advocating support for Assad and respect the intentions of those who share my goals but disagree with my means. I do, however, see them engaging in wishful, non-strategic thinking. (4) That my approach gives priority to strategic considerations marks it, in the context of modern Western politics, as conservative. Liberals enjoy a confidence in their own wellbeing that conservatives lack. Where liberals tend to worry about others (snail darters), conservatives tend to worry about themselves (a sufficient electricity supply). Consistent with this temperamental difference, the former focus on civilian welfare in Syria and the latter on Western security. (5) My advice is hardly original to me but is old-fashioned Realpolitik. Put differently, it fits into a divide-and-rule tradition that goes back to the Romans. (6) Assad's staying in power has the advantage that the regime's chemical weapons are less dangerous than if he fell. इस भावना के अनुरूप मेरा तर्क है कि अमेरिका को हारते हुए पक्ष की सहायता करनी चाहिये और वह कोई भी क्यों न हो, जैसा कि मई 1987 के विश्लेषण में मैंने कहा था, “ 1980 में जब इराक ने ईरान को धमकी दी थी तो हमारा हित कुछ मात्रा में ईरान के साथ था। परंतु 1982 की गर्मियों से इराक रक्षात्मक हो गया और अब वाशिंगटन पूरी तरह इसके साथ है..... भविष्य की ओर यदि देखें तो क्या इराक एक बार पुनः आक्रामक हो सकेगा वैसे तो यह सम्भव नहीं दिखता परंतु असम्भव भी नहीं है, अमेरिका को फिर से युद्ध में आना चाहिये और ईरान को सहायता करने के सम्बंध में सोचना चाहिये” ।
49.
When one puts this in the context of what Obama said off-mic to then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in March 2012 (“This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility”) and in the context of Obama's dislike for Netanyahu , it would be wise to assume that, if Obama wins on Nov. 6, things will “calm down” for him and he finally can “be more up front” about so-called Palestine. Then Israel's troubles will really begin. Sep. 5, 2012 update : Before the Democrats restored mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital to its party platform, Romney called the omission “very troubling” and “one more example of Israel being thrown under the bus by the president.” Sep. 16, 2012 update :Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press , Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu twice avoided answering the question of whether Obama throws Israel “under the bus” or not, finally relenting the third time. Of course, he had to deny the charge, which does not enhance Mitt Romney's credibility. Meet the Press : Governor Romney for a year, and he said it in his convention speech, has said, “President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.” Do you agree or disagree with Governor Romney's charge? It's a serious charge. Binyamin Netanyahu : Well, you're trying to get me into the American election. and I'm not going to do that. the relationship between Israel and the United States is just a very powerful bond. It was, it is, and will be. and will continue to be. and I can tell you there's no one-there's no leader in the world who's more appreciative than me of the strength of this alliance. it's very strong. There's no one in Israel who appreciates more than me the importance of American support for Israel. It's not a partisan issue. In fact, we cherish the bipartisan support of Democrats and Republicans alike. This is critical for us. Meet the Press : … It seems to me for you to remain silent on whether this administration has thrown Israel under the bus is tantamount to agreeing with the sentiment. So where do you come down on that specific charge against President Obama ? Binyamin Netanyahu : There you go again, David, trying to draw me into something that is something not the case and is not my position. my position is that we have strong cooperation and we continue to cooperate with the best of allies. And Israel is the one reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East . Meet the Press : President Obama has not thrown Israel under the bus? Binyamin Netanyahu : There's no bus, and we're not going to get into that discussion, except to say one thing. We have a strong alliance, and we're going to continue to have a strong alliance. I think the important question is where does the-the only bus that is really important is the Iranian nuclear bus. That's the one that we have to derail. And that's my interest. That's my only interest. David Gregory and Binyamin Netanyahu on “Meet the Press,” Sep. 16, 2012. Mar. 20, 2013 update :Abunimah has just posted a picture of the whole gang - himself, the Khalidis, the Obamas, and the Saids - at a Chicago dinner. Obama and his anti-Zionist friends: Abunimah, Khalidi, and Said. Related Topics: Israel & Zionism , US policy receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. Comment on this item यदि मार्च 2012 में रूस के राष्ट्रपति देमेत्री मेडडेव के साथ माइक्रोफोन से अलग जो कुछ ओबामा ने कहा ( कि यह मेरा अंतिम चुनाव है और चुनाव के उपरांत मैं अधिक लचीला हो जाऊँगा ) उसे इस संदर्भ के साथ जोडें और ओबामा द्वारा नेतन्याहू को नापसंद करने से संदर्भ से भी जोडें तो यह पूर्वानुमान लगाया जा सकता है कि यदि ओबामा 6 नवम्बर को निर्वाचित होते हैं तो उनके लिये चीजें अधिक सहज हो जायेंगी और वे तथाकथित फिलीस्तीन के लिये अधिक मुखर होंगे। इसके उपरांत इजरायल का संकट आरम्भ होगा।
