| May 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Yesterday I participated in a conference call organized by the ZOA, with Professor Robert Aumann, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics. Professor Aumann discussed his views on the pullout of more of Israel's citizens, planned by Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, from the West Bank. Professor Aumann is strongly opposed to the pullout.
From my notes (not expected to be verbatim: )
Prof. Aumann: It is morally repugnant. It will make relations with our Arab neighbors worse. It is morally repugnant to throw people out of their homes on a wholesale basis.
Mort Klein: What do you think Olmert thinks is good about the expulsion?
Prof. Aumann: Some kind of situation where it would be easier to defend the borders. And sort of a consolidation - that's what you might want to call it. There would be less friction with the Arab neighbors. I think that there will not be lesss friction - there will be more friction. The Arabs will see that their policy of terror is being rewarded - it works. They're encouraged by this to engage in more terror.
People say the people who blow themselves up are acting irrationally. I don't think they're acting irrationally. It's rational as long as it works. And what we're doing is giving them the fruit of their terrorist acts. And in fact we're witnessing all over the world - there's not any letup on the pressure on us. In England they're now declaring a boycott against Israeli scientists - and this is in the wake of the expulsion from Gaza. Our enemies are encouraged by this withdrawal.
Mort Klein: Are pressures from around the world a factor on Olmert?
Prof. Aumann: Well, I really don't know the answer to that. Some people say that Bush is really opposed to be this and had to be convinced. Others say Bush pressured Olmert. I really don't know.
The following was an unpleasant surprise for me:
Prof. Aumann: The Israeli public was very much aware of Olmert's policy and they voted him in. A large part of the Israeli public supports [the pull-out]. The opposition parties don't feel very strongly against this. The Israeli public does more or less back this up. The reason is there's a lot of tiredness, of battle fatigue in Israel. We've been fighting now for 80 years and it doesn't look like the fighting is going to end. The truth is we have to go on this way and we're going to go on this way willy nilly. because this policy is not gonna help us.
[On a recent visit to Israel I was told] that people in Israel are less interested in the country these days, and more interested in themselves - in not doing reserve service and in not getting blown up.
It appears probable that the decision by the Israeli government to expel Israelis from their own homes in Gaza, and to give Gaza to the terrorists, is in large part responsible for this new loss of interest among Israelis in fighting for the state. If their own government is bent on giving away large portions of the country to their enemies, why should the average Israeli citizen fight for the state?
There is some hope that a further pull-out would give Israel more defensible borders. But this reluctance to fight back is killing Israel. They don't do terrorism and they don't wage war - all they do is get killed. The policy of targeting terrorists and picking them off whenever they can isn't working, because the Palestinian people constantly generate more of them. As the election of Hamas has shown, Israel is not at war with some small subgroup of Palestinians, it's at war with the Palestinians as a people.
Israel's policy of targeting terrorists and picking them off whenever they can, is like a policy of fighting a war by picking off a few soldiers at a time, and leaving the rest of the enemy army untouched.
The likelihood is that Israel's going to have to fight back, and it's going to have to fight this war like a war, or it's going to be destroyed - it's going to be nibbled to death, one dead citizen at a time.
During a visit to Auschwitz, Pope Benedict XVI said:
"The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the Earth," he said, standing near the demolished crematoriums where the Nazis burned the bodies of their victims.
"By destroying Israel with the Shoah, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention."
These words are relevant to Iran's current, stated, ambitions to see Israel destroyed; the Pope has said that to destroy Israel, is "to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith."
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY. And God bless our troops.
Yesterday this site posted regarding a letter from 43 NGO's (non-govenmental organizations), which called on the UN's Human Rights Council, to act to stop the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. In this follow-up post, we examine the immediate results of that letter, which has already generated a great deal of attention.
From Agence France-Presse (no link - forwarded to me by Mr. David Littman):
UN rights office takes Sudan to task over Darfur
GENEVA, May 23, 2006 (AFP) - The UN's human rights office on Tuesday took Sudan to task for doing too little to halt abuses in its troubled Darfur region.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's spokesman Jose Diaz said that the top official remained "very concerned" by the situation in the western Sudanese region.
"Our monitors have documented a situation of escalating violence in Darfur in recent months, reaching a level not seen since the flare-up in the conflict in late 2003 and 2004," Diaz told AFP.
In a report released on Tuesday, Arbour's team on site in Sudan said that the country was "falling short" on human rights.
It cited a failure to protect civilians from attacks including rape, as well as to hold people accountable for conflict-related crimes.
It also said that it was "particularly alarming" that the government had reverted to the use of helicopter gunships in the region.
In addition, it pointed to new problems caused by fighting between different factions of the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), Darfur's anti-government rebels.
The upsurge in the conflict has hit civilians hard and also worsened Darfur's humanitarian crisis because insecurity has seriously limited aid workers' operations.
Also on Tuesday, a coalition of 43 human rights groups wrote to Arbour saying that the situation in Darfur was "at a critical turning point".
They said that the role of the UN's new Human Rights Council, which will start work next month, will be "tested by the way the Darfur conflict is faced" by the new UN body.
Its predecessor, the discredited UN Human Rights Commission, was accused of doing too little to call the Sudanese government to account.
Violence and famine have killed some 300,000 people in Darfur and displaced 2.4 million since all-out fighting erupted in 2003 between ethnic minority rebels and government troops and their proxy Janjaweed militia.
Earlier this month the African Union brokered a peace accord between the government and the main part of the SLA, but two smaller rebel factions declined to sign the deal.
The AU already has 7,000 troops in Darfur, and plans are under way to deploy a UN peacekeeping mission there.
The UN response was to try to suppress all debate on the subject. From UN Watch:
Darfur Outburst Disrupts UN Human Rights Council Session
Geneva, May 23, 2006 - The first preparatory session of the UN's new Human Rights Council was disrupted today by a heated dispute over allegations of Sudanese human rights violations in its Darfur province. The meeting in Geneva of over 150 ambassadors and numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was convened by its new Chair, Mexico's Ambassador Luis De Alba, to decide details for the inaugural ceremonies of the Council's opening on June 19th. But discussions were interrupted when the representative of Sudan irately protested an organization's distribution in the assembly hall of a statement alleging "a constant pattern of human rights violations" in Darfur.
Accepting Sudan's objection, Chairman De Alba instructed the representative from the Association for World Education to cease distributing the document in the hall.
Isn't that amazing? The Chairman not only prevented debate, but ordered that the document not even be distributed!
The Chairman resorted to his gavel to further prevent the group from reading the text in a speech, ruling that neither Sudan, nor any other situation, could be raised during the procedural discussion.
And by the way, the UN doesn't let the situation be discussed elsewhere, either. See this post for details of a previous attempt in which Mr. Littman sought to discuss the issue, and to see the enormous efforts made to prevent him from doing so. But the efforts of the UN to suppress discussion on this subject, may have backfired:
[Executive Director of UN Watch, Hillel] Neuer speculated that Sudan's angry objections might have had the unintended effect of provoking greater interest among diplomats, who then rushed to obtain copies of the joint appeal. The statement describes a "violent situation in Darfur" that is at "a crucial turning point which should open the door to increased UN action." The statement called on the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to appoint "a sufficiently large team of human rights monitors and advisors" to monitor the recent cease-fire in Sudan.
Darfur may be shaping up to be a test of the legitimacy of the UN's Human Rights Council:
"It's quite clear, as UN Watch and over 40 other NGOs are saying in today's joint appeal, that the UN's new Human Rights Council will be tested by the actions it takes to stop the crimes against humanity in Darfur," said Neuer. "Let us not forget that its predecessor, the now-defunct Human Rights Commission, officially treated Darfur last year under its agenda item for 'Technical Cooperation'. If the Council perpetuates the same attitude of moral indifference, and whitewashes atrocities, then the change to a new body will have proved meaningless."
This site would like to thank Mr. Littman, for keeping us informed on these fascinating events inside the UN.
Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education, forwarded to me the following letter, in which 43 NGO's (non-govenmental organizations) called on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, to act to stop the genocide in Darfur:
The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations
Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights, Geneva
Mme Louise Arbour
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
Geneva
23 May 2006
Dear Madame High Commissioner:
DARFUR
We, the undersigned NGOs, know that you share our concern with the violent situation in Darfur, Sudan and with the constant pattern of human rights violations well documented by the dedicated staff of the United Nations system.
It is now evident to all that the situation in Darfur is at a crucial turning point which should open the door to increased UN action. There is, on the one hand, a danger that the conflicts will spread to Chad where there have already been armed attacks. On the other hand, cease-fire negotiations carried out with the help of the African Union in Nigeria have led to an agreement between the largest of the three Darfur insurgencies and the Government of Sudan.
We believe that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights has an important role to play in appointing a sufficiently large team of human rights monitors and advisors to help ensure that the cease-fire becomes really effective, that refugees and the displaced can return in safely, and that efforts for the promotion of human development in the region can be undertaken.
As you know, NGOs have been active in drawing attention to the conflicts in Darfur, in suggesting avenues for the peaceful settlement of disputes and in relief efforts. Last December the president of CONGO, Renate Bloem, conveyed to you a letter signed by 22 NGOs with regard to the General Assembly’s ‘No Action’ on Darfur vote of 23 November 2005.
We believe that the role of the new Human Rights Council will be, in part, tested by the way the Darfur conflict is faced.
We will be pleased to continue working with you on this tragic situation.
Yours respectfully,
Peter N. Prove
President, Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights, Geneva
on behalf of:
1. 3HO Foundation
2. Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization
3. Agence des cites pour la cooperation Nord Sud
4. American Humanist Association
5. Art of Living Foundation
6. Associated Country Women of the World
7. Association for World Education
8. Association of World Citizens
9. Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd
10. Defence for Children International-Canada
11. Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants
12. Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas
13. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
14. Interfaith International
15. International Alliance of Women
16. International Association for Human Values
17. International Association for Religious Freedom
18. International Association of Applied Psychology
19. International Council of Jewish Women
20. International Federation of Social Workers
21. International Federation of University Women
22. International Humanist and Ethical Union
23. International Inner Wheel
24. Lutheran World Federation
25. MRAP
26. Pax Christi International
27. Pax Romana
28. Peace Worldwide
29. Peter-Hesse-Foundation SOLIDARITY IN PARTNERSHIP for ONE world in diversity
30. Socialist International Women
31. UN Watch
32. Union for Reform Judaism
33. Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
34. Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office
35. United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
36. Women of Reform Judaism
37. Women's World Summit Foundation
38. World Federation for Mental Health
39. World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women
40. World Federation of United Nations Associations
41. World Union for Progressive Judaism
42. World Vision International
43. Worldwide Organization for Women
Obsidian Wings has an excellent report on current events showing continuing efforts today, in the 1400-year-long tradition, of Islamists using violence in an effort to impose Islam on the rest of the world. A few examples:
Read the whole thing.
This is not behavior relegated to ancient history; it is a tradition that continues to this day.
Author Shelby Steele.
The audience included luminaries such as David Horowitz, Janet Levy, and Robert Spencer.
Last Thursday author Shelby Steele spoke to the Wednesday Morning Club at the Four Seasons hotel in Los Angeles. Steele made some points that I found eye-opening.
From my hand-written notes:
The Civil Rights era was a high point of our history in this country.
...But many people in America today, feel white guilt, and should not. They are forever having to prove they are not racist.
This is true on institutional levels as well. Institutions have to prove they are not racist.
...In war we often fight against that stigma rather than achieving our goals. So we don't talk about victory -- we talk about our exit strategy. Why do we do that? We are following a pattern of white guilt. We don't use the full measure of our power, because if we do use the full measure of our power to achieve quick victory, we will be seen as oppressors.
We end up leaving a little room for the enemy to fight us - almost encouraging, eliciting an insurgency, as if they have a right to fight us back, and we're going to protect their right to fight us back.
...This causes us to fight these long term wars that never seem to come to an end, but just seem to peter out.
Steele elaborated on this in his closing remarks (transcribed from an audio recording):
White guilt makes anti-Americanism into power. The American left - the international left, for that matter - which is almost all of Europe - wields this stigma against American power and says, "well you know the truth is" - and this is I think the deep core of the American left - and says, "the truth is, that America really is at its core an evil civilization that is in fact dedicated to racism, to imperialism, to raping people of color around the world of their resources," and so forth. And we have an iconography of characters and issues that symbolize this. You say the word "Haliburton" (laughter), and such terms, as an emblem of the "true" America, the "evil" America.
And so the reward you get for that is that you get to take the moral high ground. And you then in your anti-Americanism, you're the one who gets to set the terms of legitimacy. And so the real America has to dance to your tune. And that's real power. If you can get a power as great as America to dance to your tune and you get to control the terms of legitimacy, this has got a lot to do with what you see and hear in universities today, where the left has almost completely won out. But anti-Americanism puts you in that position where you get to control the terms of legitimacy -- and you always presume the worst about America. In that presumption you find real political power. So again, if you are Al Sharpton, or if you are Jacque Chirac, that is a source of enormous power. That is a power so big that it can contain the power of America. And it's just too tempting in many ways for them to avoid it.
How do we get out of this mess? I don't know; the older I get the more, I suppose, Libertarian I am - I think bad systems sort of eventually exhaust themselves. People like David Horowitz fight against them, and point out, and keep heightening, the contradictions - to use the old Marxist term.
But I think that the important thing - I think that the new right is in many ways a kind of correction against white guilt. The new right in America is saying, "well you know, we have made an enormous amount of moral progress in the last 40 years in this society." Racism is no longer a variable in anybody's life in this society. It just isn't. You can do pretty much what you put your mind to doing. But because we're so terrorized by the stigma, we don't say that about ourselves. We never say that because it would sound as though we were being racist, and inviting the stigma. But it's a fact. And it needs to be accepted. America is a very good country. (Applause)
I know this personally. It's a very good country. And again I think the right, my explanation of why talk radio, conservative talk radio has become so popular, is because it's a white-guilt free zone. (Laughter, applause). There are so many successful people in that area now, and they believe America's good. And they're not going to be pushed around. They're not afraid of the stigma. And of course look at them. They are mainstream. They are just utterly stigmatized. If even a conservative mentions the words, "Rush Limbaugh," people's hackles go up.
But these people have accepted stigmatization as the price they pay to say what they really think. And that's what I think the new right does, and I think that's where the fight has to keep going. And in confidence, in faith in one's self, that we are in fact, a good nation.
We Americans, as a people who want others to be successful and happy, and as a people who have been raised in the beautiful Judeo-Christian tradition of caring about other people's feelings, are susceptible to accusations that we have done wrong; those opposing America have found this to be a chink in our armor, and are using it falsely to attack us. I say "falsely" because it is not true that America is a racist nation. As Steele is quoted above to have said, "Racism is no longer a variable in anybody's life in this society."
At another event, just last night, I heard a woman make the often-heard claim that America was "the root cause" of terrorism because we had at one point supported people who later became terrorists. This is a perfect example of what Steele is talking about: playing on the susceptibility Americans have to accusations of guilt, in order to control what this nation does -- in this case, to preoccupy this nation with unreasonable accusations, so that we stop defending ourselves against terrorist attacks that are surely being planned.
To conclude: the eye-opening thing, for me, about Steele's remarks, was that he pointed out that accusations that Americans are racist, and that America as a nation is an oppressor, are inaccurate based on the facts, and are made only as an attempt to gain power.
From Ramirez:
COMMENTER AST POSTS:
One of the things I learned reading Bernard Lewis is that this struggle [Islam attacking the West] isn't new. The Islamic tide reached its height in the 1400s and they have lost consistently ever since. What's new is that oil has made them feel rich and powerful again and the old Jihad snake oil is being sold. When they started losing wars back 500 years ago, they thought all they needed was western weapons and military techniques and they'd recover. It hasn't worked out that way, but they think that if they just can get a nuclear weapon they could start winning again.
They don't really understand or believe the horror of such a battle, and they mistake our desire to avoid it as a form of weakness. In some ways, they're right. A lot of the West is whistling past the graveyard, hoping that they'll be satisfied with blowing up Tel Aviv, but these letters from Ahmedinejad signal something pretty scary, if the mullahs running the show really are behind him. He's basically laying the groundwork for launching a just Jihad according to Islamic Law.
We have 1400 years of history of this, and it's still going on today.
Who can advise us better on the dangers of Islamist non-assimilation, than Libyan dictator Mu'ammar Qadhafi?
We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.
... Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.
(via JihadWatch.)
The news from Iran today is that it looks like they're going to pass a law saying that non-Muslims have to wear identifying marks on their clothes:
Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.
We know from Nazi Germany, that after a nation makes people wear identifying marks on their clothes, the next thing that can happen is a mass murder of those people.
"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."
But this is a lot worse than Nazi Germany. It's not some new development that's particular to Iran or to Iran's current government. It says in the Koran -- in the Islamic bible -- that Muslims are to wipe out non-Muslims, or convert them to Islam. Here are example verses from the Koran:
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
As long as Muslims are raised from birth to revere the Koran, there will be Islamofascists who try to do what the Koran says. This is no joke. This is really happening on planet Earth at this time. Many westerners don't want to believe it. They want to close their eyes and pretend it's not there. They want to believe that people of other cultures are raised just like we are, with a teaching to love thy neighbor. They can't imagine a culture in which everyone is raised with a reverence for a book that teaches people to kill thy neighbor if thy neighbor is a non-Muslim.
But that's what we're facing -- an enemy who wants to utterly destroy us, who wouldn't hesitate a minute to nuke all of us.
We have to wake up to the facts.
Update 5-20-06: Per Hot Air:
There’s certainly no dispute that the Majlis did pass a law this week mandating a national Islamic dress code (which is bad enough); the question is whether that law carries any special requirements for non-Muslims.
(Hat tip to commenter Rocketsbrain).
CHECK OUT this YouTube video, "The Death of The Internet?" (via Pajamas Media).
Abraham Israel of the Hazon Yeshaya Soup Kitchens
Last night at a private residence in Los Angeles, a presentation was given by Abraham Israel. Abraham was born in Egypt. His family was driven out of Egypt for being Jewish. They moved to France, where for the first time, he found out what hunger was. At soup kitchens in France, they were given their food. For three years, that's what he had to live on. He decided that if he was fortunate, he would one day do the same good for others, that was done for him, and that saved him.
He now runs the Hazon Yeshaya soup kitchens in Israel, that feed 8,000 people a day, and feed them really good food -- chicken, pasta, vegetables, fruit. There is a need for this as Israel recovers from the economic damage that was done to the tourism industry by the terrorist murders of citizens -- the so-called "intifada." We were told last night that "intifada" means "sloughing off of filth," so I don't think I'll be using the word "intifada" anymore. We saw video of the people whose lives he is saving -- they're broke, but their clothes are neat and clean. They just need food so they can go to school and learn a trade and be able to stand up for themselves on their own.
Abraham Israel is also running a vocational school that teaches them a number of trades.
The organization is amazingly well-managed. Its overhead is just 3% -- in other words, 97% of its money goes to buying the food -- only 3% goes to administration. This is unheard of in non-profit organizations. It's made possible because of the tremendous number of volunteers, including Abraham Israel.
For more information, and to donate, go to this link.
I saw a TV ad last night for gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, in which he claimed that education is underfunded. (Here's a link to an article quoting him saying the same thing.) Let me explain what blatant nonsense it is for him to say that.
LAUSD (the Los Angeles Unified School District) has over 710,000 students, and an annual budget that was $13.4 billion -- that's billion with a "b" -- in 2004. This translates into well over $18,000 -- per student -- per year!
When an answer was demanded, from School Board Member Julie Korenstein, as to why this astonishing amount was being spent per student per year by the LAUSD, she claimed that $11,000 per student was being spent on new school buildings. $11,000 per student is $7.8 billion. Evidently she's claiming that $7.8 billion per year is being spent each and every year on new school buildings -- because by law the LAUSD budget can never go down from one year to the next!
Angelides is working a scam. He wants the support of the Teacher's Union and he's bribing them with a promise of more money. There's no shortfall in education funding. There is a massive, absurd, overbudgeting in education funding. Clark Baker has observed that with a system of vouchers, schools would be able to chase that $18,000 per student by offering better service; Baker suggests that if vouchers were only $9,000 per student, a school with a mere 100 students would have a more-than-adequate budget of $900,000 per year.
A similar system is being used successfully in San Francisco right now.
I'd like to see an accounting of where that $18,000 per student per year is going, because I doubt that it is going to educating the kids. There appears to be a giant ripoff of the people of Los Angeles going on, on the part of the LAUSD.
From left to right, Kenneth Timmerman, Dr. Jerome Corsi, and Dr. Yossi Olmert
Last night I went to a major panel event on Iran's nuclear threat organized by the Israel Christian Nexus. Panelists included:
The most newsworthy part of this event was a statement, reiterated several times, by Dr. Olmert. It may be noted that Dr. Olmert is the brother of Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. Last night Dr. Yossi Olmert said, "What I have to say is not official Israeli policy; but it is not so far from official policy either." The statement he reiterated was:
Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
...They will not be allowed to come to the point where they will be able to possess the ability to destroy the state of Israel. That is something that has to be taken for granted.
I was very glad to hear this, because I take very seriously the repeated threats by Iran, to use a nuclear weapon on Israel.
Dr. Corsi told us that the radical Islamists in Iran had been very energized, because two of four prophecies made by the Ayatollah Khomeni, had come true. Khomeni had said that Russia would fall, which at the time he said it seemed unthinkable, and that Iraq would fall, which of course seemed unthinkable at the time as well. He further prophesied that Israel would cease to exist, and as a result of that, the United States would fall. Dr. Corsi stated that Iran is currently working on fulfilling these two remaining prophesies of Khomeni.
Dr. Corsi also discussed Iranian President Ahmadinejad's belief in the twelfth imam (discussed in this post). Dr. Corsi stated that Ahmadinejad believes the twelfth imam can only return when there is an apocalypse, and therefore Ahmadinejad is working to bring about that apocalypse.
Ken Timmerman discussed Iran's involvement with 9-11. This previous post on Timmerman covers some of the items he discussed last night.
