Search Results for: yj draiman
Radical Islam not ALLAH is the root of evil
This revised article is adapted from an Article by Dr. Azriel Carlebach which was published in the Israeli newspaper “Ma’ariv” on 7 October 1955.
Translated from Hebrew with Google translator, edited, modified substantially and completely re-written
“The source of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs is not borders, but the Islamic ideology. Arabs are members of Islam, and with it, according to the world views, you can not converse with it. With Islam you do not, and cannot, live side by side as neighbors in peace.”
The clear and simple truth is, that between the Islamic world and the culture of the Western world, there is not one common word, thus, there is not, will not, and cannot be any understanding.
This intention is not religion, because all religions can be good or bad. Rather, it depends what their believers will implement or neglect in its moral principles. The intention of Islam is its influence on social life and social services, on the sentiment of the world and the relationship with other human beings.
For fifty or sixty consecutive generations the Muslims have been educated and brought up in Islam to rape human nature: not to use the power of reason; and not wanting to utilize individual rights. In fact, Islam, when exposed, will actually dim, darken, and further an undefined Allah. Leadership is strict and capricious, hidden, and sick. This is the essence of Islamic religions, demanding their followers not to question. A person who undertakes Islamic belief says: “Allah il Allah”, not because he is convinced of the idea, but because he has entrusted himself to a tyrant.
Such faith by its very nature may not be distributed with intellectual persuasion or guided by a moral beacon, which would require the work of mind and body. Rather, it demands to be distributed only by knuckle and physical force. Thus, there is a requirement of constant holy war against the un-believers in order to “bring them to the bosom of the true faith by force with the sword of al-Islam Allah the lover of blood”. The danger is largely never manifest by itself, but with a finger stuck to the trigger and a small bomb carried by the crazy individual that can destroy an entire physical and ideological sect.
The danger for the West against Islam is far greater than that of communism. The Communist ideology has a multiple rationalistic nuclei lacking in the Muslim religion. With Communism one can have dialogue based on the foundations of give and take because they take into account the harsh reality of measured forces, formulating demands, weighing and considering proposals by its benefits.
All these particulars do not exist in Islam. Muslims have never agreed on anything – will be whatever will be – even among themselves. They can not bring anything to fruition – not just in matters of Israel. The whole mighty Muslim world could not come to an agreement on one common postage stamp. Their responses to anything has no relevance to common sense. Their responses are calculated on emotion, transient and baseless. You can talk about “business” with anyone, even with the devil, but not with Allah.
We created – and continue to create – inexcusable foolishness that cannot be forgiven. We are not helping the world depicting Arabs that do not exist at all, and are only the fruits of our wishful imagination. Thus we are adding insult to injury when we distort the image and narrow the conflict as only a border dispute between Israel and its neighbors. Above all, it does not correspond to reality. The issue of borders is not the real source of conflict; rather, the true source is the Islamic ideology.
If our neighbors were Westerners, for example Protestants, we would have for a long time been living in peace with them, just like the Norwegians and Swedes. Even if they were Catholics our relationship would be settled and we would get along like the French and English in Canada, and like many South American countries among themselves. However, here in Israel we have been trying for over fifty years in any and all ways possible to reach some kind of an agreement with the followers of Islam. Yet, a solution has never even appeared on the horizon with even a shadow of hope because the essence of the problem does not lie with actions, facts and fears. Rather, the problem lies only in the fact that Arabs are members of Islam. Thus, because they are Radical Muslims, as the world now knows, you cannot converse with them. It does not matter who the other party is and with what rightful claim; with Radical and extremist Islam you cannot live side by side in peace.
Consequently, presenting the dispute as a conflict between two similar people equips the Arabs-Muslim arsenal of an argument that is not theirs. If the argument with them is really political, then there are aspects to either side. Then we appear as if we came to a land that was completely Arabic, thus we conquered, occupied and put ourselves as a wedge between them and through them, and we burdened them with refugees, and our army is a danger to them, etc. etc. Is it possible that one can justify this or that party. For instance, in this presentation of a rational and political problem, it becomes understandable to the European minds to our detriment.
The Arabs-Muslims claim certain complaints that are accepted by World opinion under normal legal fight. However, even though reality proves no substance to such claims, it is the source of the hostile Worldly stance. All true political and social concepts are not in the real world of the Arabs-Muslims .
Conquest by the power of the sword, in their eyes, and the eyes of Radical Islam, is not at all an injustice. On the contrary, they believe it is a right and a crushing proof of eternal ownership.
The care for refugees and dispossessed brothers is not in the Islamic train of thought; Allah expelled them, Allah will take care of them. A Muslim politician has never been bothered or excited on aspects like this (unless calamity risked his personal status). Therefore, even without the occupation or the refugee problem, the Arabs would have opposed Israel with the same force and vengeance. Based on the criteria we are negotiating with Arab-Muslims, it seems to the World we are the savages who cloak ourselves in the gown of European justice. Thus, instead of alerting the people of the world, we anesthetize them.
This is the basis of our mistake, and in my humble opinion, the secret of our isolation and our failures:
that we, – though not crying about the sting of the stabbing into our flesh – teeter on the open mouth of the abyss in an effort for the peace of the world. We ask for bandages to bind the wounds from where we were bitten, and we do not warn: Here circling between all your feet, is a mad dog!!
Consider this, what if when Hitler came to power, we recognize and would say he was indeed an anti-Semite? However, because he is the founder of a supposed wise and respected religion that we should not be concerned about him. Rather, we should extend our hand to him for peace, and dare to resolve among ourselves any small private disagreements. Then afterwards enter into a covenant of peace with him, and thus, help him in developing and promoting his teachings and to spread his influence.
We would be committing sin not only to our struggle for the existence of our country and the lives of our sons and daughters, we would also be sinners to the world as a whole if we ignore and hide the simple truth which resides in the heart of all of us, – including government officials when they announce and declare peace – which is: the enemy is the perverse ideology of Radical Islam.
The Radical Arab-Muslim is not only our enemy because we are residing here in Israel. He is our enemy even if we were sitting at the North Pole because the Radical Arab-Muslims and the ideology of Radical Islam is the enemy of all the free world. It is the enemy of all fertile minds, any kind of initiative, and any creative ideas. The Radical Arab-Muslim is the enemy of life for every Jew, every Christian, every non-Muslim, and every Muslim. Whatever is given in his hand, whether a sword of wood or a tank of steel, he will use to become a threat to all human beings.
The Radical Arab-Muslim has never contributed, and if history holds true, will never contribute anything which is good to this world. He has not brought forth even one person who has led the world forward in any area of human existence. Without a doubt he is darkness; Radical Islam is the catalyst to all which is negative; he is the prison to 900 million people who are being tortured; he is the root, the essence and the obstacle to peace in the world. Therefore, as long as we do not make the effort to succeed to impart to the free world this knowledge, we will always be as the first victims for the lack of knowledge.
———————————————————————————————-
And that our sages said, “All that adds – subtracts”
Mention that the original unmodified article was written in 1955.
Submitted, translated, edited, modified Substantially and re-written by: YJ Draiman
Worldwide alert: the real
Muslim mission
Israel Israel Israel Holy Land ” as part of modern day Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel land of Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel September 11,
2001 . On 9/11 Arab Muslim
terrorists killed close to 3,000 innocent people, including children in America Middle East over the years. Now they are slowly but surely taking
over Europe . Rest assured if we are not careful to protect
ourselves, they will attempt to take over the United States Israel Israel Israel
YJ Draiman
YJ Draiman
"In Israel; We have to undue and reverse the decades of nonsense that the peace industry has fermented, which led us to the position where the world thinks we the Jews are occupiers in our own ancestral land.
ReplyDeleteIf something is false and it is repeated enough times it becomes sort of common wisdom.
We have to undo that."
For those not familiar with Israeli law, it may be interesting to discover that the basis for this latter policy has been British Mandate law. More specifically, Israel cited Article 119 of the 1945 British Mandate Emergency Regulations, enacted by the High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate, as justification for demolitions. Article 119 states:
ReplyDelete“(1) A Military Commander may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of any house, structure, or land from which he has reason to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or of any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offense against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offense; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military Commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything growing on the land. (2) Members of His Majesty’s forces or of the Police Force, acting under the authority of the Military Commander may seize and occupy, without compensation, any property in any such area, town, village, quarter or street as is referred to in subregulation (1), after eviction without compensation, of the previous occupiers, if any.”*
Even earlier than 1945, however, the British were implementing the policy. Demolition was widely used during the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, when it was carried out under thePalestine (Defence) Order in Council, 1937. This order authorised the High Commissionerto enact any regulations “as appear to him in his unfettered discretion to be necessary or expedient for securing public safety, the defence of Palestine, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion, and riot and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.” With the 1937 order and the 1945 Emergency Regulation, the British could take action against Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine.
The Mandate Palestine press from that period is replete with reports of demolition by British troops. For example, during the month of November, 1938 the Palestine Postreported that 29 houses and two “Arab-owned groves” were razed. The demolitions took place between 23rd October and 13th November, and were located in villages in today’s West Bank, in Gaza and also in Jaffa.
Picture 13
The Palestine Post, 1st November, 1938, 2.
The reasons given for destroying the buildings included the laying of land mines, houses having served as bases for sniper attacks, and the use of homes as a meeting place for gangs. One case of demolitions was carried out “following the shooting of two soldiers in Gaza.” Another described a raid on a village in which 600 men were detained for interrogation, the village was fined 200 Palestine Pounds, and British troops demolished houses because of “the harbouring of terrorists by the village.” The information was taken from official British reports.
The local press also reported discussions of the policy back in London. According to a small item on the front page of the Jaffa-based daily Filastin on 16th November, for example, a British member of parliament asked a question in the House of Commons about home demolitions. The newspaper asked: “Is demolition taking place by decree and agreement of ministers?”
Picture 17
From Filastin, 16th November, 1938, 1.
*For a fascinating analysis of how the 1945 law was still cited as legal justification for punitive housing demolitions, see this 1991 article by Usama R. Halabi, particularly pages 261 to 264.
Images of Palestine Post are taken from the Historical Jewish Press Archive. Image of Filastin photographed by the author at the National Library of Israel.
For those not familiar with Israeli law, it may be interesting to discover that the basis for this latter policy has been British Mandate law. More specifically, Israel cited Article 119 of the 1945 British Mandate Emergency Regulations, enacted by the High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate, as justification for demolitions. Article 119 states:
ReplyDelete“(1) A Military Commander may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of any house, structure, or land from which he has reason to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or of any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offense against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offense; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military Commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything growing on the land. (2) Members of His Majesty’s forces or of the Police Force, acting under the authority of the Military Commander may seize and occupy, without compensation, any property in any such area, town, village, quarter or street as is referred to in subregulation (1), after eviction without compensation, of the previous occupiers, if any.”*
Even earlier than 1945, however, the British were implementing the policy. Demolition was widely used during the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, when it was carried out under thePalestine (Defence) Order in Council, 1937. This order authorised the High Commissionerto enact any regulations “as appear to him in his unfettered discretion to be necessary or expedient for securing public safety, the defence of Palestine, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion, and riot and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.” With the 1937 order and the 1945 Emergency Regulation, the British could take action against Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine.
The Mandate Palestine press from that period is replete with reports of demolition by British troops. For example, during the month of November, 1938 the Palestine Postreported that 29 houses and two “Arab-owned groves” were razed. The demolitions took place between 23rd October and 13th November, and were located in villages in today’s West Bank, in Gaza and also in Jaffa.
Picture 13
The Palestine Post, 1st November, 1938, 2.
The reasons given for destroying the buildings included the laying of land mines, houses having served as bases for sniper attacks, and the use of homes as a meeting place for gangs. One case of demolitions was carried out “following the shooting of two soldiers in Gaza.” Another described a raid on a village in which 600 men were detained for interrogation, the village was fined 200 Palestine Pounds, and British troops demolished houses because of “the harbouring of terrorists by the village.” The information was taken from official British reports.
The local press also reported discussions of the policy back in London. According to a small item on the front page of the Jaffa-based daily Filastin on 16th November, for example, a British member of parliament asked a question in the House of Commons about home demolitions. The newspaper asked: “Is demolition taking place by decree and agreement of ministers?”
Picture 17
From Filastin, 16th November, 1938, 1.
*For a fascinating analysis of how the 1945 law was still cited as legal justification for punitive housing demolitions, see this 1991 article by Usama R. Halabi, particularly pages 261 to 264.
Images of Palestine Post are taken from the Historical Jewish Press Archive. Image of Filastin photographed by the author at the National Library of Israel.
For those not familiar with Israeli law, it may be interesting to discover that the basis for this latter policy has been British Mandate law. More specifically, Israel cited Article 119 of the 1945 British Mandate Emergency Regulations, enacted by the High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate, as justification for demolitions. Article 119 states:
ReplyDelete“(1) A Military Commander may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of any house, structure, or land from which he has reason to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or of any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offense against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offense; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military Commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything growing on the land. (2) Members of His Majesty’s forces or of the Police Force, acting under the authority of the Military Commander may seize and occupy, without compensation, any property in any such area, town, village, quarter or street as is referred to in subregulation (1), after eviction without compensation, of the previous occupiers, if any.”*
Even earlier than 1945, however, the British were implementing the policy. Demolition was widely used during the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, when it was carried out under thePalestine (Defence) Order in Council, 1937. This order authorised the High Commissionerto enact any regulations “as appear to him in his unfettered discretion to be necessary or expedient for securing public safety, the defence of Palestine, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion, and riot and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.” With the 1937 order and the 1945 Emergency Regulation, the British could take action against Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine.
The Mandate Palestine press from that period is replete with reports of demolition by British troops. For example, during the month of November, 1938 the Palestine Postreported that 29 houses and two “Arab-owned groves” were razed. The demolitions took place between 23rd October and 13th November, and were located in villages in today’s West Bank, in Gaza and also in Jaffa.
Picture 13
The Palestine Post, 1st November, 1938, 2.
The reasons given for destroying the buildings included the laying of land mines, houses having served as bases for sniper attacks, and the use of homes as a meeting place for gangs. One case of demolitions was carried out “following the shooting of two soldiers in Gaza.” Another described a raid on a village in which 600 men were detained for interrogation, the village was fined 200 Palestine Pounds, and British troops demolished houses because of “the harbouring of terrorists by the village.” The information was taken from official British reports.
The local press also reported discussions of the policy back in London. According to a small item on the front page of the Jaffa-based daily Filastin on 16th November, for example, a British member of parliament asked a question in the House of Commons about home demolitions. The newspaper asked: “Is demolition taking place by decree and agreement of ministers?”
Picture 17
From Filastin, 16th November, 1938, 1.
*For a fascinating analysis of how the 1945 law was still cited as legal justification for punitive housing demolitions, see this 1991 article by Usama R. Halabi, particularly pages 261 to 264.
Images of Palestine Post are taken from the Historical Jewish Press Archive. Image of Filastin photographed by the author at the National Library of Israel.
For those not familiar with Israeli law, it may be interesting to discover that the basis for this latter policy has been British Mandate law. More specifically, Israel cited Article 119 of the 1945 British Mandate Emergency Regulations, enacted by the High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate, as justification for demolitions. Article 119 states:
ReplyDelete“(1) A Military Commander may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of any house, structure, or land from which he has reason to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or of any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offense against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offense; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military Commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything growing on the land. (2) Members of His Majesty’s forces or of the Police Force, acting under the authority of the Military Commander may seize and occupy, without compensation, any property in any such area, town, village, quarter or street as is referred to in subregulation (1), after eviction without compensation, of the previous occupiers, if any.”*
Even earlier than 1945, however, the British were implementing the policy. Demolition was widely used during the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, when it was carried out under thePalestine (Defence) Order in Council, 1937. This order authorised the High Commissionerto enact any regulations “as appear to him in his unfettered discretion to be necessary or expedient for securing public safety, the defence of Palestine, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion, and riot and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.” With the 1937 order and the 1945 Emergency Regulation, the British could take action against Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine.
The Mandate Palestine press from that period is replete with reports of demolition by British troops. For example, during the month of November, 1938 the Palestine Postreported that 29 houses and two “Arab-owned groves” were razed. The demolitions took place between 23rd October and 13th November, and were located in villages in today’s West Bank, in Gaza and also in Jaffa.
Picture 13
The Palestine Post, 1st November, 1938, 2.
The reasons given for destroying the buildings included the laying of land mines, houses having served as bases for sniper attacks, and the use of homes as a meeting place for gangs. One case of demolitions was carried out “following the shooting of two soldiers in Gaza.” Another described a raid on a village in which 600 men were detained for interrogation, the village was fined 200 Palestine Pounds, and British troops demolished houses because of “the harbouring of terrorists by the village.” The information was taken from official British reports.
The local press also reported discussions of the policy back in London. According to a small item on the front page of the Jaffa-based daily Filastin on 16th November, for example, a British member of parliament asked a question in the House of Commons about home demolitions. The newspaper asked: “Is demolition taking place by decree and agreement of ministers?”
Picture 17
From Filastin, 16th November, 1938, 1.
*For a fascinating analysis of how the 1945 law was still cited as legal justification for punitive housing demolitions, see this 1991 article by Usama R. Halabi, particularly pages 261 to 264.
Images of Palestine Post are taken from the Historical Jewish Press Archive. Image of Filastin photographed by the author at the National Library of Israel.