Kenneth Timmerman is a journalist who has spent most of his life covering the news in the Middle East. In Preachers of Hate he traces the roots of anti-Semitism and how it is growing around the world, especially in the Middle East. He covers much of the same ground as other books I have read recently, but he uses a lot of primary source materials, interviews, and quotes to illustrate first-hand the hatred and racism of leaders and major figures not only in the Middle East but around the world.
One of the main sources of modern anti-Semitism is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fictional document published by the secret police in Russia around 1890 to 1900 to stir up hatred toward the Jews. The book pretends to be the minutes of secret meetings by Jewish leaders where they plot to take over the world. This document has been published in many languages and spread around the world. Even today, the lie that there is a worldwide conspiracy of Jews to take over the world is rampant in many countries.
Every fanatical Islamic radical is familiar with this document and they believe it is true. Islamic religious leaders use this work to indoctrinate young men and stir up in them a hatred for the Jews. Millions of copies are available in Arabic in every Arabic language bookstore around the world. It is one of the primary texts used to stir up animosity towards Israel and all Jews living around the world.
Another interesting fact is the alliance between Hitler and radical Islamists before and during World War II. Because of their mutual hatred of the Jews, an agreement was made to work together to eradicate the Jews from the earth. Prominent Nazi leaders had high level meetings with Arab leaders in order to facilitate the murder of millions of Jews not only in Europe, but throughout the Middle East during the war.
I also found the story behind how Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize in 1994. The prize was shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in order to quell public outrage. How any of these men could be considered candidates for a peace prize is beyond belief, especially Arafat. Yasser Arafat was adept at manipulating public opinion, mainly by promoting peace in English to the Western press and then turning around in Arabic and promoting the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. If his statements in English were taken at face value without any consideration of his actions or true beliefs, it might be possible for him to be seen as a peacemaker. However, his actions and undeniable public statements leave no doubt that he had no intention of making peace with Israel. Instead, he worked tirelessly for Israel’s destruction and would settle for nothing less than complete annihilation of the Jews.
Here are some quotes from the book that clearly illustrate this point.
Here is a quote that clearly shows the message Arafat publicly declared he wanted to send to Palestinian children:
In an interview with Arafat broadcast on TV he was asked what message he wanted to share with the Palestinian children he quickly replied, “A Child who is grasping a stone, facing a tank, is it not the greatest message to the world when that child becomes a martyr. We are proud of him. Such a child will be given a new life.”
In addition to this, children are taught how to achieve martyrdom. One of the main roles of religious clerics is to educate young children in the art of suicide bombing. In Palestine, religious leaders are not men called by God but appointed by Arafat. They have no interest in religious education unless it is useful for stirring up hatred for the Jews. They are commanded to preach Jihad against Israel or be damned as the very word of God. This is a direct call to murder Jews for no other reason than hate. Killing Jews is not a political need but a religious requirement, and it is not an order from Arafat but the word of God Himself.
This is the message that has been pounded into them at the mosques week after week, year after year; if they want to be good Muslims they have to kill Jews. This is an important lesson we in the west have to heed. The enmity being preached against America and the West has nothing to do with politics or support for Israel but the simple fact that we are not Muslims.
Arafat’s top appointed cleric in Gaza preached: “The Jews are the allies of the Americans and the Americans are the allies of the Jews, and they are against you, Oh Muslims. Wherever you are, kill the Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them. They are all in one trench against the Arabs and the Muslims.
At the end of a video for children urging them to become martyrs, the official seal of the Palestinian Authority comes on at the end with a written message in Arabic and English: “Ask for death; the life will be given to you.”
Timmerman points out that not even Hitler’s youth were urged to commit suicide; they were taught to kill, not be killed. This is the ultimate in child abuse. That young children are being indoctrinated to hate Israel and the West and commit suicide in order to murder them still hasn’t been fully understood by the West.
Another important distinction to be made is that the present political conflict in Israel today is not the cause of the hatred of the Jews. Rather, it is the hatred of the Jews that is causing all the violence in the Middle East. It is not a matter of Israel’s political policies or defensive measures. No matter what Israel does, the only solution for the radical Muslim extremists is the total annihilation of Israel and the death of all Jews.
What Arafat and other Muslim leaders have done is take a minor border conflict in Palestine and have transformed it into a global conflict between Islam and non-Muslims, an eternal battle between Good and Evil. The Muslims have taken the position of no peace, no accommodation, no compromise, no coexistence. Muslims are being taught that the conflict between Muslims and Jews is total and eternal, and it will end only when the Muslims have murdered the last Jew hiding behind a tree or a stone.
Timmerman also gives some important information on Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Saudi support of global terrorism through the takeover of mosques around the world by radical Wahhabi teachers.
Osama bin Laden boasted about his terrorist training camps, saying that “the only expense for a new trainee is the cost of travel to the camp. Everything else is paid for by Al Qaeda. We are building an international army, Mohammed’s army, to combat occupying governments. There are 26 million Muslims in Europe, and in the United Kingdom we have over 385 Islamic fundamentalist organizations, 1,200 mosques, and 800 fundraising organizations. We form a fifth column and we will create chaos. We won’t stop until we see the Muslim flag flying over Number 10 Downing Street.”
According to CIA former head George Tenet, “Al Qaeda’s terrorist network is present in over 60 countries. An estimated 20,000 men have received military and intelligence training in their camps before returning to their home countries. They form the backbone of a deadly worldwide Jihad.”
Friday, March 9, 2007
Preachers of Hate
Labels:
Al Qaeda,
Anti-Semitism,
Islam,
Israel,
Osama bin Laden,
Saudi Arabia,
Terrorism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Osama bin Laden was very outspoken against the Saudi government in the early 1990s, criticizing them for their corruption, lack of religious purity, misuse of oil revenue, and the use of U.S. troops to protect the kingdom. He personally offered his troops to protect the kingdom agaist Iraq after it attacked Kuwait in 1990, but they refused. Bin Laden retaliated by bombing the Saudi National Guard headquarters and other targets. Finally, he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia and he went to Sudan. Around 1995 he made a deal with the Saudi government that he would stop public criticism of the government and attack only targets outside kingdom in exchange for their support.
In fact, the Saudi government has made similar deals with the Wahhabis, agreeing to support the worldwide building of mosques and supporting radical Islamic teachers around the world. The royal family is walking a tightrope in order to maintain its power and control over the kingdom. The Saudi government relies heavily on U.S. arms and troops to maintain control. This is one of the primary reasons for the attacks on 9/11.
If bin Laden were to overthrow the Saudi government, it would create havoc in the Middle East. It is conceivable that he would attempt this but he would most certainly have to fight the U.S. if he did. The first Gulf War was not so much to liberate Kuwait as it was to protect Saudi Arabia, and I’m sure that the Saudis had a hand in getting America to attack Iraq. Even though the Saudis are surely behind much of the terrorist attacks on America, they are still considered our ally and would be defended by the U.S. if bin Laden were to attempt to overthrow them.
I agree that most of the economies of Europe would collapse if bin Laden were to be successful. That is one reason why the U.S. is Iraq right now, to ensure a stable oil economy for the west. While many do not like the current war in Iraq, most of us would not like the economic and political ramifications if we failed to secure our interests in the region. Right and wrong become terribly mixed and there is no simple solution to the problem. Greed, power, influence and control fuel fear, hate and anger, creating a volatile situation pushing the world to the brink of a global conflict.
The Palestinian conflict was not bin Laden’s original concern, though he used it later on for political capital. Resolving the Palestinian problem would not solve the other problems we are facing in the Middle East, though we probably won’t be able to solve these other problems without also solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. The two are interconnected but not the same problem.
As far as Iran getting its nuclear program infrastructure from Iraq, I think you are right on target. And from where did Iraq get it? France. So now we have a fanatical government bent on spreading global terror with the ability to unleash nuclear weapons. This is like throwing gasoline on the fire.
I appreciate your comments and questions, but honestly, I am not sure what you are getting at. Please rephrase your comments and questions so I can respond accurately to them.
From reading the passages you have given, my best guess is that you are saying that Ishmael is the rightful heir of Abraham and that the land of Palestine belongs to him. Please let me know if that is the correct understanding of your comment. Thanks.
Hagar and Ishmael
Your question seems to hinge on the meaning of Genesis 21:14. You quote the Contemporary English Version, which is the ONLY English version that has Abraham placing the BOY on her shoulders. However, ALL the other English versions have Abraham placing the WATER and FOOD on her shoulders, NOT the boy. The Hebrew text clearly reads: “Arose Abraham early and took bread and a jar of water and placed them on Hagar.” Clearly, the CEV has made a mistake in translation and to argue a point from a paraphrase version of the Bible and not one based on a scholarly interpretation of the original languages is problematic.
In Genesis 16 Sarai abuses Hagar and she runs away while still pregnant. The angel tells her to return and submit to Sarai. Hagar obeys and returns so that Ishmael is born in Abraham’s house. Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16) and 99 years old when God renewed his promise that an heir would be born to him (Genesis 16:17ff), so that he would be 100 years old when Isaac is born (Genesis 17:17; 21:5). Later, in Genesis 21, at a feast to celebrate the weaning of Isaac, Ishmael torments Isaac and Sarah becomes angry and forces Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. The celebration of weaning usually took place when a child was about two years old, making Ishmael about 16-17 years old.
Abraham reluctantly agrees and sends them away with provisions that he places on Hagar’s shoulders. In the desert, after the provisions have run out, Hagar cries and an angel hears her, showing her an oasis. She fills her water jug and the two are saved from death, so that Ishmael grows up to become the father of a great nation.
The events in Genesis 16 foreshadow the events in Genesis 21. This type of foreshadowing and pairing of events happens frequently in the book of Genesis, so these two events are different and should not be confused. There is also no textual evidence that would suggest that the text has been altered in any way. The fact that God has chosen Isaac over Ishmael is integral to the rest of the Pentateuch and is clearly the central fact of this story. Anyone wishing to make a change in the text would have to completely rewrite the whole book of Genesis and then fabricate the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy from scratch. It is very unlikely that anything like you suggest could have happened.
Post a Comment