Re: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I was truly surprised by the great amount of plain ignorance displayed by Sabella Abidde in his article on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Punch  Nov 21, 2012, back page.).

First, Abidde avoids mentioning the fact that it was the Palestinian terrorist organization, Hamas, that first started raining down rockets targeting Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv.  And killing innocent civilians in the process.  Of course, Hamas is banking heavily on people like Abidde to try to whip up popular sentiments against Israel, so that rather than reply Hamas rocket for rocket, she should rather be seeking for terms of conciliation.  Howevr, Benyamin Netanyahu had made it clear that  that would not happen.  Even Obama’s unabashedly pro-Palestinian USA could not but agree that Israel had the right to defend her citizens from unprovoked aggression. Reading the mood, Hamas and her supporters have decided on the current Egypt-mediated ceasefire.

Sabella Abidde no doubt is much aware of the above point; which is why  he stridently avoided making any mention of the cause of the flying rockets.  What I find quite amazing is his apparently honest prescription for solving the crisis.  He went on and on about how the Palestinians have a right to their own state, existing side-by-side a Jewish state.  In fact he wrote somewhere: “Palestinians should be granted independence.  One hundred years is such a long time to be under the shadow of another country.  And in fact, Israel should have agreed to a Palestinian Statehood a long time ago.  What’s the point “holding on” to Palestine? “ bla, bla, bla.

What crass nonsense!

The state of Israel came into existence only 64 years ago in 1948.  How then have the Palestinians been under the shadow of that country for 100 years?

And Israel has made it clear over and over again that she has no problem with a Palestinian state existing side-by-side her.  It is the Arabs who have sworn never to allow the state of Israel to exist side-by-side their Arab state!  This is pure easily verifiable fact.

In his 2009 speech, soon after coming into office, Benyamin Netanyahu made it abundantly clear to the whole world that he was ready to discuss a two-state solution with the Palestinians any time anywhere. He described the real roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

 “the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland”.

It is a matter of plain history that it was the Arabs that rejected the UN partition plan of 1947 mandating the creation of two separate states – A Jewish State and an Arab State.  Israel of course embraced the idea, and based largely on that mandate announced the creation of Israel on May 14 1948.  The Arabs, far more militarily established than Israel at that time, threatened to liquidate the new state within a week. They are still trying till today to save face and attempt to carry out their boasting.

This simple and incontrovertible fact is further plainly demonstrated by current developments in Gaza.  Israel vacated Gaza on her own volition some seven years ago - without any conditions whatsoever.  But what happened?  Hamas quickly over-ran the legitimate Palestinian puppet government, took over the land, and began to use it (based on its proximity to Israel) as a base to send thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.  Israel’s response has been to target Hamas infrastructure, taking great pains and efforts to minimize damage to the civilians;  but everybody knows that Hamas uses her own people as human shields, choosing to locate her rocket launchers and strategic infrastructure in the neighbourhood of mosques, schools and hospitals (for instance, see http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e028.pdf).  To minimize even further the possibilities of these rockets being smuggled into Gaza in their thousands in the first place, Israel rescinded her original policy of total non-intervention in the affairs of Gaza, pronouncing a naval blockade which will necessitate that items being imported into the region will be inspected to ensure that rockets and ammunition are not packaged together with food and drugs.  Nigerians will remember the cache of weapons seized at Apapa the other time (October, 2010), which Israel identified as destined for Gaza enroute Nigeria.  (http://www.nairaland.com/541157/seized-bombs-meant-gaza-strip)

Thus, the situation in Gaza is a mini-version of the whole Arab-Israel conflict story.  Israel has announced over and over again that she has no problem lying side-by-side with a prosperous Palestinian state.  But her appeal to the world is that there should be some guarantee in place that such a State will not become the launch pad for those who have sworn that the only reason they are alive is to seek the annihilation of Israel.  Hamas, for example, is one organization that has this goal boldly and proudly inscribed in her charter.  It’s there today for all to see ( http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm).

       Addressing the Knesset on the occasion of his 100^th day in office in 2009, Netanyahu, for the sake of US President Obama,  clearly summarized Israeli’s position on a Palestinian state:

“I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem.  And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

  “If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state. ”

How can a regular back page columnist in a national newspaper like the Punch claim ignorance of these open facts, and spend a whole article writing prescriptions for minor skin rashes while leprosy festers!

 I’ll like to refer readers to an article by Benjamin Netanyahu on Lessons from Sudentenland to further  provide details of the conflict and where, (with corroboration  from Bible prophecies written thousands of years before this time),  it will eventually all end (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/11/

Re: Jail is too good for Nigerian Pastors (Punch Newspaper, November 22, 2012)

In the article under reference, Adelakun Abimbola rants off idiotically with names of pastors, just because she  considers their claims to be incredible.  No crime, no complaints….not even a gossip to cite, other than the musing of some “undercover journalist” of Daily Mail – of all newspapers.  Yes, that’s the same newspapers that sent journalists to hound down their own country’s future king; using high zoom cameras, took his nude picture, and despite all reasonable entreaties, splashed the picture on their front page.  A feature article about Nigerian pastors in such a journal is the inspiration for Adelakun’s back page article in the Punch, and the basis for heaping abuses and insults on these honorable hardworking citizens – by name.  Even many that did not feature in the Daily Mail’s article were not spared.

Thank God Abimbola was not around when Elijah was meeting the widow of Zarephath!  If this lady-writer has problem believing in a God that works miracles, or that millions of we apparently naïve people do, does that now give her the liberty to start insulting people far more endowed and infinitely more honorable than her?

In any case, this is not to defend the men of God maliciously slandered by Abimbola.  I  guess if they are truly men of God, in the mould of Elijah, say, God knows exactly what to do.

My simple question however is could Ms Adelakun have dared to write such an article on Moslem clergies?  No, we are not talking Boko Haram leaders here; but even regular Islamic clergy, could she have written one percent of her imprudent article citing the name of one notable Islamic clergy?

The last time some Islamic mob beat up a local masquerade at Ibadan, killing the handler in the process, Adelakun still managed to turn her comment on the incident into an insulting piece on Christianity! (see Punch, July 12, 2012) The only mention of the word “Muslim” in the entire article was tucked in somewhere in the 5th paragraph and was quickly followed by the qualifier “youths” – suggesting the  problem was  more of youthful exuberance than an Islamic thing.  Of course the earlier paragraphs had much to say about paranoid Christians, who would embrace Santa Claus and Barney but resist any interaction with even just the children masquerade,Tombolo.

It’s really a shame that a national newspaper like the Punch will offer itself as a platform for someone who is quite obviously out on a personal vendetta against the Church.  Abimbola would applaud those trying to infest our land with homosexuality and such core humanist values.  She knows that the Church is the mortal enemy of such satanic ideas, and the loser that she is, vents off her frustration in rabid attacks on the Christian clergy.

Very soon, reasonable people will learn they could use their time better than continue reading Abimbola’s thrash.

Israel Will Continue to Take Whatever Action is Necessary, Says Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this afternoon (Thursday, 15
November 2012), issued the following statement to the foreign press:

"In recent days and weeks, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations
in Gaza have made normal life impossible for over one million
Israelis. No government would tolerate a situation where nearly a
fifth of its people live under a constant barrage of rockets and
missile fire, and Israel will not tolerate this situation. This is why
my government has instructed the Israeli Defense Forces to conduct
surgical strikes
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6U2ZQ0EhN4&feature=youtu.be>
 against the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. And this is why /Israel
will continue to take whatever action is necessary to defend our
people/.

 <http://www.idf.il/1283-17570-EN/Dover.aspx>
I want to remind you that, seven years ago, Israel withdrew from every
square inch of Gaza. Now, Hamas took over the areas we vacated. What
did it do? Rather than build a better future for the residents of
Gaza, the Hamas leadership, backed by Iran, turned Gaza into a
terrorist stronghold. They fired thousand of rockets at our cities, at
our towns, at our civilians, at our children. They've smuggled
thousands of rockets and missiles into Gaza, and they deliberately
place these rockets and missiles in civilian areas: in homes, in
schools, near hospitals. This year alone, they fired over one thousand
rockets and missiles at Israel, including close to 200 rockets in the
last 24 hours.

I'm stressing this because it's important to understand one simple
point. There is no moral symmetry; there is no moral equivalence,
between Israel and the terrorist organizations in Gaza. The terrorists
are committing a double war crime. They fire at Israeli civilians, and
they hide behind Palestinian civilians. And, by contrast, Israel takes
every measure to avoid civilian casualties. 

I saw today a picture of a bleeding Israeli baby. This picture says it
all: Hamas deliberately targets our children, and they deliberately
place their rockets next to their children. Despite this reality - and
it's a very difficult reality - Israel will continue to do everything
in its power to avoid civilian casualties. 

I have to say that from my talks with world leaders, I have the clear
understanding that they have a clear understanding of this. Yesterday
I spoke to President Obama and I briefed him on Israel's operations. I
want to express my appreciation once again to President Obama for his
unequivocal support for Israel's right to defend itself. I also want
to express my appreciation to the other world leaders I've had a
chance to speak to in the last 24 hours: to President Hollande of
France, to UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, to EU Foreign Minister Catherine
Ashton and to Quartet representative Tony Blair. I want to thank them
for their understanding of Israel's need to defend itself, and
Israel's right to defend itself. 

In the past 24 hours Israel has made it clear that it will not
tolerate rocket and missile attacks on its civilians. I hope that
Hamas and the other terror organizations in Gaza got the message. If
not, Israel is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to defend
our people."

Punch newspaper calls President’s comment on Boko Haram an Outburst.

Punch newspaper makes little efforts to disguise its contempt for the President.  From the editorial team to the featured columnists, the refrain is that Goodluck Jonathan is nothing but a lucky incompetent in a high office.  Common experience has shown however that,  often, people who resort to uncouth insulting language when reviewing the performance of others are themselves utter failure in even more basic tasks.  For instance, people who have problems running personal lives or  families,  heap insults, not on policies, but on the persons of people far more endowed than them, occupying offices whose requirements and challenges, these critics can just not fanthom to start with. 

 Indeed, government officials need to be criticized - if only to put them on their toes; but those who do so with invective personal insults, often are only venting out their personal frustrations.

With Boko Haram now calling for dialogue – in far away moslem enclave of Saudi Arabia; with one of the most rabid opponents of the President being requested to be the chief negotiator, the Punch apparently believes these are minor points and the country should simply jump up in joy – that peace has finally come!  Yes, “Boko Haram” is no longer demanding upfront that all of us, starting from the President, must convert to Islam before they will allow peace, or that several states of the federation be Islamised.  All they are asking for, upfront, is that heavy financial compensation should be paid to them – presumably for the hundreds of innocent Christian lives they have claimed responsibility for snuffing out.  

It goes without saying also, that there must be a blanket amnesty for the killers.  All the talk about Boko Haram not being opposed to prosecution of the criminal aspects of their operation does not make any sense at all.  Which of their actions is not criminal – bombing of churches; raiding of banks, police stations, prisons; the shootings, etc?

With all these realities,  President Jonathan is still going ahead to play game with Boko Haram; but his description of the sect and their obvious political sponsors as “uncivilized” is what has most caught the attention of Punch editorial team.  See front page on Wednesday Nov 7, 2012.  In the full write-up on page 2, the Punch describes the president’s comment as an “outburst” that could possibly derail negotiations.  “Before the President’s outburst” the Punch wrote, “there had been indications that the government was already considering paying the compensation demanded and that it had began preparing for the talk with the sect”.  Punch must be seriously bothered that the compensation and talk might be in jeopardy, hence its labeling the president’s comment as an outburst. 

As for “Boko Haram”, what is the meaning of this new tactic?  Obviously with preparations for the 2015 presidential election in high gear, it’s obviously time to play conciliation and strengthen the hand of the man who publicly promised to make Nigeria ungovernable unless he is the one in power.  By nominating his arch rival from the North to play negotiation with the FG, Atiku is obviously trying to use one stone to kill two birds. Buhari will surely be politically weakened after serving as the chief negotiator in a Boko Haram – Government parley to benefit personally from the deal.  And even a baby can predict what the major, non-negotiable demand from a Boko Haram parley in Saudi Arabia will be:  nothing other than an agreement that Jonathan will not stand for re-election in 2015!  It’s so plain that only the Punch newspapers can’t figure that one out.

It’s amazing and sad to see Christians gullibly gulp in silly stories rolled out by organizations such as the Punch newspapers, with clear-cut mischievous agenda.

Strange world of Islamists – sodomy, sex-slaves, endorsed by religious faithfuls

Sodomy for the sake of the jihad, sex-slaves to provide a technical way to side-track the quoran, and plain general sexual debaucheries when no one is looking are recent issues that should bother most muslims who consider these concepts as disgusting. 

First, the case of sodomy-for–the- sake –of-jihad….

More light is being thrown in the 2009 attempt by a suicide bomber, Abdulla Hassan al-Asiri to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef.  In that failed bid, al-Asiri had loaded one pound of PETN plastic explosives in his anus.  As shown by Raymond Ibrahim , an Islamic cleric named Abu al-Dema al-Qasab had introduced a number of young wanna-be Jihadis to the innovative possibilities of hiding explosives inside the anus for “martyrdom operations”.  However, to facilitate this, the anus needed to be widened.  Sodomy to the rescue!

When the young jihadis asked for formal fatwas from Sheik al-Qasab to confirm they would still qualify for their 70 virgins if they engaged in homosexuality before their “martyrdom operation”, he obliged with one.  Raymond Ibrahim gives the details:

“After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam.  However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it.”

The cleric further backed up this stupendous statement with two principles which Christians will do well to note.  He said:

“For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that 'necessity makes permissible the prohibited.' And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you”

For  details see  http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11985/sodomy-for-the-sake-of-islam; and also http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/sodomy-jihad-fatwa-strange-and-disgusting-but-true.html  for Raymond’s answer to those who tried to discredit the report as inaccurate.

How come people could be so confused in their spirituality?  Whereas the Bible warns, “How can we do evil so that good may come, God forbid (Rom **); and “Don’t be overcome with evil, rather overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). Christians who advocate interfaithism should think twice and understand what exactly they are calling for.  Indeed they themselves are practicing a form of the “do minor evil to achieve greater good” doctrine!

Furthermore, are these not pointers to the fact that the ssin question is beyond mere religion or rhetoric?  Moslem or Christian or whatever spirituality you claim, if the lust-sin question has not been settled in your life, then you surely should know you have a big problem that could easily lock the door of heaven against you.  Only Jesus can save you from your sins – that’s exactly why He came (Mat. 1:21)!

…..And then the advocacy for Sex Slave Marriage

As reported by Raymond Ibrahim, On Monday July 2, Wael al-Ibrashi had a special guest on his Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"). The guest was Abd al-Rauf Awn, a man who had just “married” his “slave” and has come on air to justify and promote such sex slave marriage for other Islamic faithfuls.

                    A video-clip of the marriage showed the woman kissing his groom and telling him, in front of an applauding audience: “I enslave myself to you” rather than the customary “I marry myself to you”  Thereafter, the new owner-husband commanded the slave-bride to remove her hijab, declaring her forbidden from such trappings, lest she break Allah’s laws! The video-clip can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHrUDAVn--s&feature=related&noredirect=1

                    On the show, Abd al-Rauf Awn,identified himself as an Islamic scholar and expert at Islamic jurisprudence who had studied at Al Azhar.  He gave several Islamic explanations to justify his "marriage," including citing Islamic prophet Muhammad's "sunna" or practice of "marrying" enslaved captive women.

He further justified the stripping of his sex-slave of her hijab.  Citing Islamic jurisprudence and Caliph Omar, al-Rauf Awn claimed that whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to be veiled behind a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees--with everything else exposed. 

                    Thereafter,  Awn explained that sex-slave marriage is ideal for today's Egyptian society. Male Islamic faithfuls, he argued, don’t have to waste their prime trying to amass enough money to marry a woman officially as they could easily buy a slave; while the female faithful who is bought would be excused from wearing the Hijab – which Awn says many Egyptian women don’t want to wear in public.

                    These positions of al-Rauf Awn were passionately attacked by the other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar. He called on Awn and his slave-wife to "repent" and stop dishonoring Islam, arguing that "there is no longer sex-slavery".  Awn responded by sarcastically asking, "Who said sex-slavery is over? What--because the UN said so?"

                    Raymond cites other modern advocates of sex-slave marriage as including Egyptian Sheikh Huwaini, who declared that, in an ideal Muslim society, "when I want a sex-slave," he should be able to go "to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her." Another major proponent cited was a Kuwaiti female politician who suggested that Muslims should bring female captives of war--specifically Russian women from the Chechnya war--and sell them to Muslim men in the markets of Kuwait. (story from http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11952/egypt-sex-slave-marriage)

                    Of course sex slaves will not count of the maximum four wives a pious muslim is allowed to marry! The truth of the matter is probably that no amount of women will be sufficient to sexually satisfy a man who has decided that he can’t be satisfied by only one woman.  The various rotten stories of sexual debaucheries involving so called men of God from virtually every religious setting confirm that it takes more than “religion” to set man free from sexual lusts.  A question every religious person ought to ask him/herself is this: if my religion cannot save me from sexual lust, how can I be sure it can take me to Paradise? 

“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” 1 John 5:5