From American Papist--
FLASH: Pope Benedict walks out on Sheikh as he attacks Israel in unplanned speech
3:30pm - update with photo, caption and bolding:
Rabby Shaer Yashuu Cohen, cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fouad Twal and Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi attend a meeting of representatives of the organizations for the interreligious dialogue in the Notre Dame Jerusalem Centre in Jerusalem on May 11, 2009. Tamimi, a senior Palestinian Muslim cleric, fiercely denounced Israeli policy in Jerusalem in the presence of Pope Benedict on Monday and appealed to the pope to help end what he called the "crimes" of the Jewish state.
From the Jerusalem Post, this just hit the wire in the last hour (bolding mine):
Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, launched a poisonous verbal attack at Israel at a Monday night gathering attended by Pope Benedict XVI.In a meeting with organizations involved in inter-religious dialogue at the Notre Dame Jerusalem Center, Tamimi called upon Muslims and Christians to unite against what he said were the murderous Israelis.Taking the podium after the pope without being on the original list of speakers scheduled for the evening, Tamimi, speaking at length in Arabic, accused Israel of murdering women and children in Gaza and making Palestinians refugees, and declared Jerusalem the eternal Palestinian capital.
Following the diatribe and before the meeting was officially over, the pope exited the premises. Army Radio reported that the pope shook Tamimi's hand before walking out.Minutes after the embarrassing occurrence, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, released a response to the incident."
The intervention of Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi was not previewed by the organizers of the interreligious meeting that took place at Notre Dame Centre in Jerusalem," the message read. "In a meeting dedicated to dialogue, this intervention was a direct negation of what [it] should be," it continued."We hope that such an incident will not damage the mission of the Holy Father aiming at promoting peace and interreligious dialogue, as he has clearly affirmed in many occasions in this pilgrimage," Father Lombardi added."We hope also that interreligious dialogue in the holy land will not be damaged by this incident," the message concluded.
Nine years ago, Tamimi caused a similar scandal when at an interfaith meeting attended by then-Pope John Paul II at the Notre Dame Jerusalem Center, the Palestinian religious leader condemned Israel for a long list of offenses.
My kibitz: Pope Benedict is a model of Catholic dialogue. Evidently there are some cases of "dialogue" that are actually "false dialogue". If Pope Benedict is willing to walk out of a dialogue he sees as unfruitful and even harmful, what should that tell us about avoiding situations of dialogue that contradict our Catholic principles?
Oh and PS ... the "Notre Dame Center"?
update 2 - a testimony from someone claiming to have been in the audience, from my combox:
I was there, In ND of Jerusalem. It was very evident how Msgr. George got nervous when Tamimi stood up and approached the microphone... He initiated sayin to the Pope: "Welcome to Jerusalem, capital of Palestine"... so you can imagine the rest of the speech. His tone was very strong, not very friendly. At some point some people (I guess the arabic speakers) started to clap hands supporting him. The Pope's "nunzio", ambassador, in Israel, when directly to the podium to ask Tamimi to end his speech. He ended and walked in front of the Pope and gave him a very distant hand greeting. After that, the Pope left the place, and in the way he stopped to say something and goodbye to Tamimi.Whispers has also published coverage.
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Bow,The Nukes and the Promised Land
It makes me sick to my stomach every time I see this video of an American president clearly BOWING before the king of Saudi Arabia.
But, now of course, the White House is denying that it was an obsequious display of grovelling before the entire world, by claiming that nono silly people, it wasn't a bow, Dear Leader is just so tall you see, he had to bend over to grasp with both hands the king of Saudi Arabia's hand. Well watch the video for yourself and note the position of Dear Leaders second hand during the bow--then make up your own mind. Why are they lying?
In the mean time, Iran has declared that Obama and the rest of the world has given up on trying to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions when they announced that over 7,000 centrifuges have been installed at its uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province.
"This has led to the acceptance of Iran's nuclear energy right by the new US president, Barack Obama."
This coming during the Passover of the Jewish people and at the beginning of the holiest time of the year for Christians. Of course, we shouldn't be concerned that Iran is going to use all that enriched uranium for anything other than supplying energy to the Iranian people, right? Of course they are not going to do exactly what they said they would do---wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Dear Leader's lack of moral clarity and political courage has placed tiny, surrounded Israel in a very undesirable spot. For Israel to have any hope of survival, they must strike Iran soon and they are going to most likely have to do it alone. I think every man, woman, and child in Israel must know their hope of America standing beside them evaporated on the night Obama took office.
If Israel is to survive, I believe that Israel only has one chance to get it right, and I am sorry to say I believe she will have to do it alone. ""Israel knows it must do take out the nuclear weapons capability of Iran. And yet, Israel will not be able to do it. Not because it doesn't have the military might to do so. And not because it lacks the will. But because Barack Obama will order the United States Air Force to stand in its way if it tries. Between the airfields of Israel and the reactors and research labs and storage facilities of Iran sit the armed forces of the United States and its hundreds of planes, missiles and radar. With our bases in Iraq and those floating in the Persian Gulf, the United States separates Israel and Iran. Obama would have to give his okay for Israel to pass. Obama will not."
But, now of course, the White House is denying that it was an obsequious display of grovelling before the entire world, by claiming that nono silly people, it wasn't a bow, Dear Leader is just so tall you see, he had to bend over to grasp with both hands the king of Saudi Arabia's hand. Well watch the video for yourself and note the position of Dear Leaders second hand during the bow--then make up your own mind. Why are they lying?
In the mean time, Iran has declared that Obama and the rest of the world has given up on trying to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions when they announced that over 7,000 centrifuges have been installed at its uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province.
"This has led to the acceptance of Iran's nuclear energy right by the new US president, Barack Obama."
This coming during the Passover of the Jewish people and at the beginning of the holiest time of the year for Christians. Of course, we shouldn't be concerned that Iran is going to use all that enriched uranium for anything other than supplying energy to the Iranian people, right? Of course they are not going to do exactly what they said they would do---wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Dear Leader's lack of moral clarity and political courage has placed tiny, surrounded Israel in a very undesirable spot. For Israel to have any hope of survival, they must strike Iran soon and they are going to most likely have to do it alone. I think every man, woman, and child in Israel must know their hope of America standing beside them evaporated on the night Obama took office.
If Israel is to survive, I believe that Israel only has one chance to get it right, and I am sorry to say I believe she will have to do it alone. ""Israel knows it must do take out the nuclear weapons capability of Iran. And yet, Israel will not be able to do it. Not because it doesn't have the military might to do so. And not because it lacks the will. But because Barack Obama will order the United States Air Force to stand in its way if it tries. Between the airfields of Israel and the reactors and research labs and storage facilities of Iran sit the armed forces of the United States and its hundreds of planes, missiles and radar. With our bases in Iraq and those floating in the Persian Gulf, the United States separates Israel and Iran. Obama would have to give his okay for Israel to pass. Obama will not."
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Speak not Ill of Thy Islamic Jihadis, Ye Infidels!
From American Thinker today
What a huge load of camel dung. If it becomes illegal to be critical of Islamic jackals, then what will I do for amusement? Heck, IBA might go out of business...nah.
It seems that using rape to "entice" women to become suicide bombers, "marrying" 9 year old girls, hacking off heads, stoning women to death, and various other activities is NOT a "serious affront to human dignity", just criticism of Islam is a "serious affront to human dignity". Stupid.
====================================
Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'By Peter C Glover
A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.
Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.
Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the "adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion".
Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing "the diplomatic battle with a vengeance" because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, "The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims." Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is "not really trying to protect individuals from harm" but is attempting "to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate."
The resolution's use of the phrase ‘defamation of religion' is also misleading. Under the terms of human rights law there is no such legal concept. Laws on defamation, in most Western countries, exist to protect the reputation of individuals, not belief systems or religions.
UN Watch's Neuer describes the resolution's text as "Orwellian" and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target "moderate Muslims" and that: "Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West." The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.'
The vote, at the end of March, comes ahead of the UN's World Conference Against Racism in Geneva, April 20-24. This conference is due to be a follow-up ‘review' of the UN's infamous Durban conference in 2001 which Islamists deteriorated into a attack on Israel which many participants viewed as antisemitic in tone.
Fears are rife that April's ‘Durban 2' will simply provide the same Arab states with yet another global platform from which to launch a similar attack on Israel. Canada has already withdrawn because of the antisemitic tone of key documents. Australia is threatening to withdraw for the same reason. Italy, France, Germany and others have all notified their misgivings to the UNCHR. The United States, which walked out with the Israelis at Durban in 2001 when a resolution compared Zionism with racism, is also threatening to withdraw. The Israelis, not surprisingly, will not be attending.
Perversely, the very forum being sponsored by the UN's Human Rights Council to work for improved human rights and against racism, has and is providing Islamic nations, many of whom have some of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, with a global platform which openly espouses perjorative and racist anti-Semitic language against Israel's Jewish population. If the UN Human Rights Council does go ahead and endorse the resolution, aimed at criminalizing ‘defamation of Islam', at the end of March and the April conference it will amount to a major blow against free speech and as a further appeasement to Islamist bigotry.
Just as good in terms of ‘promoting better global relations', how about taking up US TV commentator Lou Dobbs suggestion that we, "bulldoze the large piece of real estate on the east side of Manhattan (UN Plaza) - and build something useful". Or would that too deny Islamists their most effective weapon in the Jihad against Western free speech?
Peter C Glover is the British author of The Politics of Faith and writer on international affairs. For more go to petercglover.com.
What a huge load of camel dung. If it becomes illegal to be critical of Islamic jackals, then what will I do for amusement? Heck, IBA might go out of business...nah.
It seems that using rape to "entice" women to become suicide bombers, "marrying" 9 year old girls, hacking off heads, stoning women to death, and various other activities is NOT a "serious affront to human dignity", just criticism of Islam is a "serious affront to human dignity". Stupid.
====================================
Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'By Peter C Glover
A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.
Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.
Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the "adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion".
Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing "the diplomatic battle with a vengeance" because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, "The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims." Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is "not really trying to protect individuals from harm" but is attempting "to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate."
The resolution's use of the phrase ‘defamation of religion' is also misleading. Under the terms of human rights law there is no such legal concept. Laws on defamation, in most Western countries, exist to protect the reputation of individuals, not belief systems or religions.
UN Watch's Neuer describes the resolution's text as "Orwellian" and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target "moderate Muslims" and that: "Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West." The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.'
The vote, at the end of March, comes ahead of the UN's World Conference Against Racism in Geneva, April 20-24. This conference is due to be a follow-up ‘review' of the UN's infamous Durban conference in 2001 which Islamists deteriorated into a attack on Israel which many participants viewed as antisemitic in tone.
Fears are rife that April's ‘Durban 2' will simply provide the same Arab states with yet another global platform from which to launch a similar attack on Israel. Canada has already withdrawn because of the antisemitic tone of key documents. Australia is threatening to withdraw for the same reason. Italy, France, Germany and others have all notified their misgivings to the UNCHR. The United States, which walked out with the Israelis at Durban in 2001 when a resolution compared Zionism with racism, is also threatening to withdraw. The Israelis, not surprisingly, will not be attending.
Perversely, the very forum being sponsored by the UN's Human Rights Council to work for improved human rights and against racism, has and is providing Islamic nations, many of whom have some of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, with a global platform which openly espouses perjorative and racist anti-Semitic language against Israel's Jewish population. If the UN Human Rights Council does go ahead and endorse the resolution, aimed at criminalizing ‘defamation of Islam', at the end of March and the April conference it will amount to a major blow against free speech and as a further appeasement to Islamist bigotry.
Just as good in terms of ‘promoting better global relations', how about taking up US TV commentator Lou Dobbs suggestion that we, "bulldoze the large piece of real estate on the east side of Manhattan (UN Plaza) - and build something useful". Or would that too deny Islamists their most effective weapon in the Jihad against Western free speech?
Peter C Glover is the British author of The Politics of Faith and writer on international affairs. For more go to petercglover.com.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I'm sick of hearing "O poor Palestine"
I am so sick of hearing of how horrible it is that Hamas and company are being so badly treated by the big mean IDF. Israel isn't the ones lobbing unaimed rockets into civilian populations, Israel isn't using women and children and the elderly as human shields because they are TOO COWARDLY to come out and fight like a soldier...No, that isn't Israel.
Check out this video from Carl in Jerusalem
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/video-hamas-exploitation-of-civilians.html
and even better, see them for yourself, here protesting in Canada. I have yet to see one single Jewish man, woman or child chanting "death, death to Hamas"
Where is the world's outrage at a people who hide weapons in a schoolbuilding or a mosque? Where is the world's outrage at anyone who would scream "Go back to your oven" When the Palestinians get tired of their people being used as meat shields for these cowards, maybe then they will start to report some of them and maybe next time they get a chance to have an election they will remember the terror they live with today...and vote for true freedom.
Check out this video from Carl in Jerusalem
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/video-hamas-exploitation-of-civilians.html
and even better, see them for yourself, here protesting in Canada. I have yet to see one single Jewish man, woman or child chanting "death, death to Hamas"
Where is the world's outrage at a people who hide weapons in a schoolbuilding or a mosque? Where is the world's outrage at anyone who would scream "Go back to your oven" When the Palestinians get tired of their people being used as meat shields for these cowards, maybe then they will start to report some of them and maybe next time they get a chance to have an election they will remember the terror they live with today...and vote for true freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)