It's Almost Supernatural

Hell Has No Fury Like The UN Scorned

I was fortunate to catch highlights of the political circus that was this year’s opening of the United Nations. With all the talk about Green Imams and Capitalist Devils from the podium of the General Assembly, one could be forgiven for thinking it was a new TV show. Something along the lines of the West Wing meets Harry Potter dubbed into English on the cheap. In the middle it even had ‘and now a few words from our sponsors’ with Chavez flogging Noam Chomsky’s unreadable books.

Besides for the laughs, this UN spectacle had very little else to offer. And that’s really the point. We don’t need the UN for comic relief. We have professional comedians for that who’s combined annual fees are nowhere near the size of the UN budget. So it’s not surprising that leading American academics, political commentators and senators are starting to call not for reform but a total overhaul.

But perhaps the best critique is Mark Steyn in his column this week in the Chicago Sun-Times (UN shows why its incapable of reform). Bitingly (as always) he set out why this organisation has finally passed its sell by date. I concur with almost everything he says except his choice for Kofi Annan’s replacement. I think John Steward for the daily show would be a far more likable secretary general then the 12th Imam. But I am open to other suggestions.

Kasrils on the Defensive. Spits.

It seems that our suspicions expressed in our previous Kasrils article that he has been forced to tow the line are true.

His recent letter to the Cape Times just about confirms that the government has indeed ordered Kasrils to start towing the line regarding their Middle East policy.

The South African government officially endorses a 2 state settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Kasrils however, has repeatedly supported and endorsed a single state settlement (AKA the destruction of Israel).

Kasrils has repeatedly leveraged his high profile position (Minister of Intelligence in South Africa) to increase the relative importance of his views, whether they appear in public discussions or in the opinion pages of our newspapers. His articles are all appended with the disclaimer that he “writes in his personal and not his official capacity”.

His latest article in the Cape Times signalled a significant departure from his previous approaches. Kasrils for the first time spoke of the “practical” motivations for a two state settlement. But only after making the case for the one state final solution.

His article read like a naughty child who has been forced by his parents to eat Broccoli. The child forces the broccoli down - but only after screaming, whinging and throwing a tantrum.

The letter by Kasrils (written this time in his official capacity) in the Cape Times confirms that he merely paid lip-service to the two state settlement following government pressure forcing him to marry his view to the official view.

As if he really were a petulant child, Kasrils personally insults the Israeli Ambassador to South Africa, Ilan Baruch.

Believing that his official position bestows upon him a monopoly on intelligence Kasrils outrageously insults the intelligence of the Israeli ambassador claiming that “he cannot follow a debate” adding that "anything other than black or white is difficult for the ambassador to grasp".

But the Israeli ambassador did follow the debate and the Ronnie Kasrils is the one lacking intelligence. As Kasril's very own letter illustrates.

ISRAELI Ambassador, Ilan Baruch, shows he cannot follow a debate ("SA can aid Middle East process", September 20). He claims that although Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, and I represent one government, we express opposing views on the possible future of the Middle East. This is because he understands that I motivated for a "one-state solution", contradicting the "two-state solution" of the South African government and Pahad. My role at the conference was as a discussant on a panel, in response to two respected academics debating the "one state" solution. Yes, I am sympathetic to the latter solution - espoused by communists and rationalists of the region in the past - but I made it clear that the "two-state" solution would be the more implementable approach - if Israel showed the willingness to give it a chance. It appears that anything other than black or white is difficult for the ambassador to grasp. RONNIE KASRILS, MP MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES

Perhaps Kasrils didn’t even bother to read the Ambassador's article. If he had then he would have realised that the ambassador acknowledged his acceptance of the two state settlement before discussing his one state solution views. The ambassador wrote:

Finally, Kasrils seems to accept the fact that there is no other option but the "two-state solution" in that Land of [Israel], and that Palestinians and Israelis should aspire to live side by side in peace, security and prosperity.

Kasrils’ talk of the ambassador not being able to follow a debate is rich coming from someone who can’t even follow a simple article.

His insults represent a personal attack from a representative of the South African government on a representative of the Israeli government.

It reeks of flippantly childish "I'm more important than you" arrogance and Kasrils has once again resigned himself to the dustbin of Middle East discourse.

Lebanese Christians Protest Hizballa

No mention of this demonstration in today's print media.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - An anti-Syrian Christian leader dismissed Hezbollah's claims of victory in its war with Israel as tens of thousands of his supporters rallied Sunday in a show of strength that highlighted Lebanon's sharp divisions. The rally north of Beirut came just two days after a massive gathering by the rival Shiite Muslim Hezbollah that attracted hundreds of thousands. The two sides have been at sharp odds over the future of the Lebanese government since this summer's Israeli-Hezbollah war. Samir Geagea, a notorious former leader of a Christian militia, scoffed at Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's declaration that his guerrillas achieved "a victory" against Israel. "I don't feel victory because the majority of the Lebanese people do not feel victory. Rather, they feel that a major catastrophe had befallen them and made their present and future uncertain," he said. Hezbollah's fight with Israel sent its support soaring among Shiites. But a large sector — particularly among Christians and Sunni Muslims — opposes Hezbollah and resents it for provoking the monthlong fight by capturing two Israeli soldiers on July 12. Geagea's supporters, waving his pictures and the white, red and green flag of his Lebanese Forces Party, arrived in buses and cars at the shrine of the Virgin Mary in the town of Harissa, about 15 miles north of Beirut. Addressing his supporters after a mass to commemorate Christian militiamen killed in the civil war, Geagea rejected Nasrallah's vow to keep his weapons, saying the guerrilla group was blocking the establishment of "a strong and capable (Lebanese) state" for which Nasrallah was calling. "When we find a solution to (the issue of Hezbollah's) weapons, then it will be possible to establish the state as it should be," he said. Geagea, who backs Hezbollah's disarmament, implicitly accused the Iranian- and Syrian-backed group of running "a state within a state" in south Lebanon. "How can a state be established while there is a mini-state (within its borders)? How can this state be established while every day arms and ammunitions are smuggled (to Hezbollah) under its (the state's) nose?" he said.

M&G Whitewash Muslim Response to Pope – Equate it with Jewish Anger

Sum: Mail & Guardian equate the Muslim anger at Pope’s comments with the Jewish anger after Pope’s visit to Auschwitz. They then launch into a one sided all out assault on the Catholic Church without a word of balancing criticism for Islam or for the disproportionate Muslim response to the Popes remarks.

In another reeking pile of Islamist advocacy the Mail & Guardian crucifiy the Pope without any criticism of the ‘disproportionate’ reaction from radical Muslims all over the world: Shrewd and ruthless Pope.

Whilst most media outlets have been criticised for submitting to the Islamist bully tactics the M&G went one step further. They completely whitewashed the Muslim reaction, equating it with the Jewish reaction to the Pope’s failure to mention anti-Semitism during his visit this May to Auschwitz.

The current anger of Muslims is comparable to the anger and disappointment felt by Jews after his visit to Auschwitz in May. He gave a long address at the site of the former concentration camp and failed to mention anti-Semitism, and offered no apology – whether on behalf of his own country, Germany, or on behalf of the Catholic Church.

Really?

• Did Jews in Israel attack churches?
• Did Rabbis frothing at the mouth publicly call for the death of the Pope?
• Did Jewish leaders call on Jews to “hunt down the Pope?”
• Did Jewish groups shoot dead; execution style, an Italian nun working at a childrens hospital?
• Did Jews call for the Pope to be crucified?
• Did Jews invent conspiracy theories alleging that the Pope is a Palestinian Muslim?
• Did Jews call for Rome to be conquered?
• Did Jews call for a complete ban on the criticism of Judaism?
• Did Jews call for attacks on countries that have nothing to do with the Pope?

It’s significant that the Guardian only find space to criticise the Pope’s remarks at Auschwitz as part of a greater discussion on how Islam has once again been victimised.

The Guardian write that the Pope has little sympathy or imagination for other religions.

But the Guardian misses the point which is excellently articulated by Clifford D May in the National Review.

These protesters — and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.” They are saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.” They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate “infidels” criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims. They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and “unbelievers” submit — or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse.

As if out of deliberate non cognisance with reality the Guardian then talk about the Catholic Church’s failure in dealing with the challenge of modernity. Does the Guardian really expect us to believe that it is the Catholic Church and not Islam that is struggling to deal with modernity? Is it Islamists or the Catholic Church that raise their children to die whilst murdering as many believers of a different faith as possible? Is it the Catholic Church or Islamists that burn the streets killing innocent bystanders after a cartoonist dares to draw one of their prophets? Is it the Catholic Church or Islam that is plagued by the scourge of killing women for ‘Honour’?

Finally, in a vein attempt to knock the nails into the crucifix that they have pinned the Pope to, the Guardian then append their article with a section detailing the Pope's views on homosexuality, Buddhism, the ordination of women, same-sex marriage and rock music. As if other monotheistic religions fare any better as judged by the Guardian’s patronising standards.

After reading this article it's worth pondering the sober views of Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post. She speaks of the taboo topics that the Guardian will never dare cover.

Nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it’s time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to “hate” Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn’t the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain’s chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them — simultaneously?

5766 The Year That Was

The ancient Chinese curse ‘may you live in interesting times’ seems to best describe 5766 for the Jewish people. There was the political big bang in Israel with the formation of Kadima; Prime Minister Sharon’s tragic stroke; Hamas’ election victory; Israeli elections; the growing threat of a nuclear Iran hell bent on Israel’s annihilation; increased international pressure for sanctions on Israel and of course a war with Hezbollah.

The Jerusalem post has put forward Mahoud Ahmadinejad as the most influential man of the year. Although I agree with their choice, I think it is an extremely sad indictment of our failure to shape events this year. If one was to tally up the annual score card, there is no doubt that the enemies of the Jewish people won on points.

Ha’aretz is running a competition for readers to vote on the most influential events of the year: Haaretz - Story of the Year Survey. My three choices were the war with Hezbollah, Hamas’ election victory and the forming of Kadima.

We encourage readers to take part in the Haaretz survey, but we would also like to know what you feel were the most influential events of 5766 and why. If you are interested in contributing please place your choices in the comments section of this post. You do not have to limit your choice to those on the Haaretz site.

We look forward to your ideas.

Kasrils Back Peddles on Israel’s Elimination

In an article last week in the Cape Times, South African Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils significantly softened his Ahmadinejad like position on Israel. Lifting most of his ideas from the befuddling book Seeking Mandela written by Heribert Adams and Kogila Moodely (which we have previously critiqued), Red Ronnie comes out in pseudo-support of a two-state solution if only for pragmatic reasons.

This would seem to contradict his previous statements that the Jewish state had no right to exist. This article is also devoid of much of the extreme anti-Israel rhetoric that Ronnie so relishes. For example he did not repeat his libellous claim that Israeli’s are behaving like Nazis. This is not to say the article was not anti-Israel (as his ever present apartheid accusations confirm). But it was considerably more measured relative to his normal standards.

So why the change? I believe that Ronnie has been brought to heal by the powers that be within the South African government. And I think that our barrage of angry letters to Mail and Guardian in no small way contributed to this. President Mbeki, for whatever reasons, has shown that he is sensitive to the sentiments of Jews generally and South African Jews in particular. The distress that those letters from all over the world demonstrated as a result of Kasrils’ extreme anti-Jewish position must have had some impact.

The official representatives of the South African Jewish community are great proponents of quiet diplomacy. But the trouble with whispers is that they are not always heard. Loudly voicing our concerns, no matter how crudely, will at least get us attention.

Steve adds:
It's rare to see Kasrils even discussing the 2 state settlement. But Red Ronnie is still Red Ronnie and before he acquiesces to what we assume are government demands for him to respect the government's support for a 2 state solution, he forces us to wade through a thick stench of single state solution dogma. Red Ronnie is not comfortable with Israel's existence and that's why he positions hateful debates on how best to destroy Israel as rational discussions on the way forward. Before he gets to discussing the "practicalities" of a two state solution he writes:

As a consequence most observers have been writing the obituaries of the two-state option. Is there a way forward? This was discussed by Middle East specialists at a recent conference in Pretoria, jointly hosted by the Friederich Ebert Foundation and the Institute for Global Dialogue. Dr Asad Ghanem, a Palestinian academic from Haifa, argued for the bi-national model. Dr Virginia Tilley, well known in South Africa, argued for the single-state solution which she said already exists, given the hopeless dismemberment of the West Bank. The difference between the single-state option and the bi-national option is that a bi-national state enshrines rights and protection for the Jewish and Palestinian people as two distinct national groups. The one-state option provides all groups with equal rights in a common democracy.

Did you get that? Hmmm...don't worry neither did we. But rest assured, Ronnie knows that this event debated one solution not two. A final solution to destroy Israel by demographic subversion.

Rosh Hashana

	Dear Readers We are delighted to tell you that a donation has been made to the welfare funds of the Chevrah Kadisha in your name by It's Almost Supernatural with best wishes for a happy, healthy & sweet New Year. This donation provides food, shelter and healthcare to over 2000 people and families. Wishing you a Shana Tovah Helping Hands an initiative of the Chevrah Kadisha to reach the younger community
Click here to make a donation

Pope Benedict Wrongly Crucified

Over the last few days, Pope Benedict has been subjected to denunciations of biblical proportion. 24 hours TV news presenters, Newspaper editors, world leaders and even the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel have all condemned him for his speech at the University of Regensburg in which he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, as saying, ‘show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached’. So enraged were some Muslims over this comment that they responded by burning effigies of the pope and firebombing churches (far worse acts of religious intolerance than those they were protesting).

This criticism of the Pope is devoid of substance. I have not seen one article or news broadcast explaining the message of the speech or the context in which this quote was used. So I decided to read the Pope’s lecture in its entirety. And I believe it presents a progressive religious response to modernity and a blue print for interfaith dialogue. Rather than condemned, the Pope should have been praised for his approach.

In his lecture, the Pope put forward the philosophical argument that violence and religion are incompatible. He chose the now infamous Manuel II Paleologus (14th century Byzantine emperor) quote not to deride Islam but because Manuel II Paleologus engaged in a lengthy debate with an Islamic scholar on this very issue.

The full quote reads as follows (full transcript of the speech):

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...

Well I couldn’t agree more. Violence in the name of God is inhuman and evil: for violence is contrary to God’s nature. The point he was making is that those Muslims who engage in violent Jihad in the name of Allah are not true believers. They have hijacked a religion in order to promote a political agenda that is contrary to the core tenets of faith. The Pope put forward a similar argument when he visited Auschwitz recently. He explained that those Christians that were involved in the Holocaust although they may have acted in the name of Christ were not true Christians for murder is contrary to the core beliefs of the Christian faith.

Rather than rioting against the pope, moderate Muslims should be rallying for him. Muslims everywhere should be declaring that those who kill in the name of Allah are not true Muslims. They should be shouting on every radio and TV program that violence and Islam are incompatible. Their silence and not the pope’s comments is the real disgrace in this whole controversy.

When the Islamists Come to Town

Somali Islamists shoot to stop English soccer viewing

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Somali Islamist militia shot in the air on Sunday to disperse hundreds of youths watching an English Premiership soccer match (Chelsea vs Liverpool), with two people injured in the melee, witnesses said. Somalis have welcomed the Islamists' pacification of their capital since they took it over in June, but they are increasingly unhappy at signs of religious extremism such as closing down public viewing of films and sport. Nearly 400 youths packed into the Duale cinema during the afternoon for the big game between Chelsea and Liverpool. But they scattered when 30 militiamen rolled up on a battlewagon and ordered them out, witnesses said. When some of the youths started throwing stones and burning tyres in protest, the militiamen opened fire. "Two youths were injured, one was shot in the thigh while the other sustained hand injuries," local resident Abdullahi Mohamed told Reuters on the scene. Critics of Somalia's Islamists, who control a southern swathe, say they plan a Taliban-style rule.

And they will get away with this as long as Muslims around the world continue to show exaggerated outrage and mass hysteria at the Pope's comments, creating the illusion of victimhood, in conformance with the worldwide Jihad strategy.

Meanwhile in Israel, the head of the Northern branch of the Islamic movement in Israel threatened that Jerusalem would soon be taken over.

Very soon, Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Moslem Khalifate, and the Khalif will dwell there.

Hands up those Israelis who support a single state settlement with the Palestinians who have elected a radical Islamic terrorist group as their leaders.

Just Imagine

...if Israel fire-bombed mosques in the Palestinian territories in response to...oh, I dont know, how about in response to Palestinian Muslims leaders stating that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs.

There would be a huge public outrcy right? And the local opinion pages would be in outrage over the intolerant and disproportionate Israeli response?

Let's wait and see how the local intelligentsia respond. Two weeks ago nothing was said when Palestinian 'militants' shot a Palestinian child for trying to go to school during one of their enforced school strikes.

Palestinians attacking Christian churches

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Assailants angry at Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on Islam targeted several churches across the Palestinian territories on the second day of attacks directed at the Christian church. In Gaza City, a group calling itself the Islamic Organization of the Swords of Righteousness claimed responsibility for unleashing a volley of gunfire on the oldest church in the city. “We carried out this shooting because of the pope’s statement, and he must apologise,” the caller, who refused to give his name, told AFP Saturday. The attack came a day after a grenade exploded outside the same church and four days after the pope criticised connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or “holy war”. In the West Bank town of Nablus, gunmen threw Molotov cocktails at four churches of different denominations, Palestinian security sources told AFP. In one incident, gunmen opened fire inside an empty Catholic church after the building’s entrance door was burnt down, the sources said.

The world keeps falling for the most important tenet of the worldwide Jihad strategy - if you make the loudest noise and display the most hysterical of reactions then you are always perceived as being the victim.

And so it goes...

Palestinian Hamas supporters chant slogans during a protest against remarks regarding Islam made by Pope Benedict XVI, in Gaza September 15, 2006. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)