If you’re already familiar with The Pioneers of Tomorrow — now featuring Assud the Rabbit following the martyrdoms of Narhoul the Bee and Farfour the Mouse — you can skip the first 5 minutes of the segment below. But you should catch the rest of it:
Assud: Who will host this show if you are martyred? Will 100,000 Saraas take your place?
Saraa: Allah willing, Assud.
Assud: We’ll take them from among the Pioneers of Tomorrow, Allah willing.
Saraa: Allah willing, there are thousands of soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow.
Assud: Martyrdom for the sake of Allah is what we hope for, right?
Saraa: Right, Assud.
[snip]
Saraa: What do you have to say to the cartoonist who started all this and affronted the Prophet by drawing him?
Assud: He’s a criminal…
Saraa: Yes, a criminal.
[Tasnim, a caller to the show]: I say to him, and to all of them, that no matter how much they try to hide him, we will manage to kill him, to assassinate him.
Assud: Allah willing.
Saraa: I pray that Allah makes the earth swallow him up, so that he serves as a lesson to others like him, Tasnim.
As Geoff has said, what’s amazing about this show is that it manages to be fantastically evil while being fantastically lame at the same time. I mean, wow.
Tom posted this at 1:10 PM EST on Friday, February 29th, 2008 as Arafatistan
The members of Protectors of the Homeland practise
their song at the police headquarters in Gaza City
Hamas militants have launched a new weapon in their struggle with Israel: a troupe of honey-voiced singers known as Protectors of the Homeland.
Wearing crisply pressed fatigues in urban camouflage blue, the six band members gather each day to practise in an old office within the Gaza City police headquarters.
The small room throbbed with energy as their dusty 12-track amplifier screeched with feedback before being tamed by an engineer.
To the accompaniment of a backing track from a laptop computer, the men then started polishing their routine of songs, almost all of which have strong Islamic and militaristic content and titles like Change and Reform. Such uplifting lyrics as “By the shrouds of the dead we are inspired” are typical.
Amir Taheri gives us a glimpse of intra-Islam feuding [emphasis in original]:
Britain and a few other Western democracies are the only places on earth where Muslims of all persuasions can practice their faith in full freedom. A thick directory of Muslim institutions in Britain lists more than 300 different sects — most of them banned and persecuted in every Muslim country on earth.
A Shiite Muslim can’t build a mosque in Cairo; his Sunni brother can’t have a mosque of his own in Tehran. Editions of the Koran printed in Egypt or Saudi Arabia are seized as contraband in Iran; Egypt and most other Muslim nations in turn ban the import of Korans printed in Iran. The works of a majority of Muslim writers and philosophers are banned in most Muslim countries.
In Britain, all mosques are allowed; no Muslim author or philosopher is banned. More importantly, rival Muslim sects do not massacre each other, as is the case in half a dozen Muslim-majority countries.
The only time that the British media practice self-censorship is when an item might be seen as remotely anti-Islamic. Every British publisher has turned down at least one book proposal for fear of hurting Muslim feelings. “Taking Muslim sensibilities into account” is also the reason given for the cancellation of some art exhibitions and the selection of works on display in others.
Even the most rabid anti-West and pro-terror Islamist clerics are granted visas to come to the United Kingdom and spread their message of hatred (at times, as guests of Mayor Livingstone and his friends). Hamas and Hezbollah are strongly present in Britain; the Islamic Liberation Party, banned in all Muslim countries, has its headquarters in London.
A few thoughts and observations. First, an Islamic civil war seems to be a possibility. Should the West try to head it off? Can it?
Second, if the Islamic Liberation Party is so extreme that it’s banned in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Libya, what on earth is it doing headquartered in London?
The German foreign ministry went so far as to suggest that Hamas’ triumph necessitates increasing aid to Gaza because of the hardships Hamas rule will cause. It seems that if you choose terrorism, either at the ballot box or in the streets, the Europeans, like the good hands at Allstate, will be there to pay for the mess.
But there’s another, perhaps more important, lesson to be drawn from the Hamas ascendancy. The Bush administration pushed for democracy in the Palestinian territories and got what it wished for — in spades. The assumption behind the push for democracy in Gaza and in Iraq is that Arabs can be trusted to handle political freedom. Even the Democrats demanding an immediate pullout from Iraq hope that with democracy, the Iraqis will be able to sort out their problems themselves via some euphemistic “political solution.” That is unless the antiwar Democrats are really advocating turning all of Mesopotamia into one giant Gaza Strip — the far more likely result of U.S. withdrawal.
For many disciples of the “international peace process,” it’s a matter of faith that the Palestinians just have to want peace, because how else can you have a peace process? For many supporters of the Bush Doctrine, Iraqis have to want democracy, because if they don’t, what’s the point of having a freedom agenda? But what if these are just beloved Western fictions? We see a well-lighted path to the good life: democracy, tolerance, rule of law, markets. But what if the Arab world just isn’t interested in our path? As a believer in the freedom agenda, that’s what scares me most.
I believe that’s what Robert Malley and Aaron David Miller told each other. Otherwise, I have no explanation for this dispatch from a not quite parallel universe.
The United States and others should support Abbas and encourage progress in the West Bank, but smartly. Sticks for Gaza coupled with carrots for the West Bank will divide Palestinians, radicalize Gazans, provoke violence by those who are left out and discredit those the United States embraces.
Yes, we must at all costs avoid that situation. I shudder at the thought of a world where Gazans aren’t rational, Hamas is violent, and US wish is not law in Gaza.
Dividing Palestine geographically is no more a recipe for success than dividing Palestinians politically.
What makes these assertions so persuasive is that the authors provide not one wit of evidence for either one. A skeptical person might point out that in the lengthy history of this region, its most peaceful periods were when the Palestinians were ruled by outsiders as a small piece in a larger entity. Though I wouldn’t know where to find such a skeptic.
The diplomatic equivalent of the medical precept is do no harm.
Again, the persuasiveness of this assertion rests on its complete lack of support. That dastardly skeptic, if he should show himself in public, might point out that, aside from the fact that Henry Kissinger likes to be called “Dr. Kissinger,” diplomacy and medicine don’t really have much in common.
Since Hamas’s electoral victory, U.S. policy has helped strengthen radical forces, debilitate Palestinian institutions, undermine faith in democracy, weaken Abbas and set back the peace process.
Yes, I think any rational person would agree that it’s all America’s fault.
Added: For extra fun, check out the less-than-serious title the WaPo front page put on this:
Rejected headline: You Gaza Have Faith
Apollo posted this at 10:33 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 19th, 2007 as Arafatistan
I believe that H.L. Mencken once noted that democracy was the belief that men knew what they wanted and deserved to get it, good and hard. Hence the mess in Gaza. Cox and Forkum get it about right:
Hubbard posted this at 10:03 AM EDT on Monday, June 18th, 2007 as Arafatistan
