Le 17 novembre 1796, célèbre victoire d’Arcole remportée par l’armée française sous les ordres du jeune Bonaparte, sur les Autrichiens, point de départ de la carrière fulminante de celui qui deviendra NAPOLÉON.

Le 17 novembre 1796, célèbre victoire d’Arcole remportée par l’armée française sous les ordres du jeune Bonaparte, sur les Autrichiens, point de départ de la carrière fulminante de celui qui deviendra NAPOLÉON.

Eine Glosse von Narcisse Caméléon, Ressortleiter Deppologie der HIRAM7 REVIEW
In einem klischeebehafteten Artikel erschienen im Wirtschaftsteil der Tageszeitung Die Welt phantasiert Anette Dowideit im besten Boulevardstil über die bis dato von der Medienverblödung verschonten Freimaurerei. Pünktlich zur Erscheinung der neuen Dan Browns Massenverblödungswaffe – Symbol – musste ja eine Zeitung die Massen mit Verschwörungswahn futtern, um den grausigen Alltag in Zeiten der globalen Finanzkrise erträglicher zu machen und gleichzeitig ein entsprechendes Erklärungsmuster zur Verfügung zu stellen.
Das Springer-Blatt meldete sich freiwillig und schickte eine bis dahin unbekannte Redakteurin. Eine Praktikantin hätte in diesem Fall gereicht.
Dieser Artikel ist überflüssig und noch schlimmer: er verstärkt die bereits vorhandenen Vorurteile gegenüber der Freimaurerei und Freimaurern. Zudem hat dieser Artikel im Wirtschaftsteil nichts zu suchen.
Man sollte diesen Artikel mit den Worten von Sir Winston Churchill zur Kenntnis nehmen und ad acta legen: “Die Freiheit der Rede hat den Nachteil, daß immer wieder Dummes, Häßliches und Bösartiges gesagt wird. Wenn wir aber alles in allem nehmen, sind wir doch eher bereit, uns damit abzufinden, als sie abzuschaffen.”
Lesenswert ist dieser Artikel dennoch: um zu erfahren wie dämmlich und ahnungslos Leserkommentare sein können.
Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.

„Nicolas Sarkozy hatte damals schon diesen Willen, sich unentbehrlich zu machen und immer dabei zu sein, war hibbelig, übereifrig und begierig, zu handeln“, schreibt Jacques Chirac in seinen Memoiren, aus denen die französische Tageszeitung Le Parisien Auszüge veröffentlichte.
Der junge Sarkozy sei stets ein Meister der medialen Inszenierung gewesen.
„Er war immer mehr als ein einfacher Mitarbeiter“, schreibt Jacques Chirac. Sarkozys Unterstützung von Biedermann des bürgerlichen Lagers Edouard Balladur (im Hintergrund von Chiracs Erzfeind Valéry Giscard d’Estaing manövriert worden) bei der Präsidentschaftswahl gegen ihn habe ihn verletzt, gesteht der einstige politische Ziehvater von Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac.
Der erste Band der Memoiren, der von Donnerstag an im Handel erhältlich ist, beschreibt den Beginn von Chiracs politischer Karriere bis zur Präsidentschaftswahl 1995.
Externer Link (französisch): Avec ses Mémoires, Jacques Chirac règle ses comptes, Artikel in der französischen Tageszeitung Le Parisien.
Une tribune de Narcisse Caméléon
Le renvoi de Jacques Chirac devant la justice pour “détournements de biens publics” et “abus de confiance” dans le cadre de l’affaire des chargés de mission de la Ville de Paris est non seulement superflu, mais aussi et surtout moralement douteux, eu égard au fait que les délits reprochés remontent à plus de vingt ans et que tous les partis politiques ont eu recours à ces pratiques.
La justice devrait faire le procès de la classe politique entière au lieu de s’acharner sur un homme qui a servi la France de manière exemplaire pendant plus de quarante ans.
C’est une constante bien française, la nation décapite le Père, celui qui incarne le mieux ce qu’elle est, en érigeant l’échafaud en place publique; observez la chose, elle est invariablement la même: la tête du monarque, bon, débonnaire, doit être donnée aux chacals qui n’en feront qu’une bouchée : Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Comme le disait le Général De Gaulle: “Les Français sont des veaux”. Jacques Chirac s’en sortira, c’est une question d’honneur pour la France. Souvenons-nous des années Mitterrand, des suicides, des scandales personnels et des dépenses royales, corruption et république bananière à tire-larigot… Oui, il ira devant les juges, il passera quelques nuits blanches, mais il se relèvera, tête haute.
L’ancien président de la République et maire de Paris Jacques Chirac s’exprimait il y a près de deux ans sur tous les chefs d’accusation calomnieuse lancés à son encontre. Sa tribune parue dans le quotidien Le Monde peut être lue ici.
NDLR: Les textes et essais publiés sur HIRAM7 REVIEW n’engagent que leurs auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement l’opinion de la rédaction.
Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century. He introduced the beat to everything, music, language, clothes, it’s a whole new social revolution — the 60’s comes from it. (Leonard Bernstein)
Elvis was an instinctive actor…He was quite bright…he was very intelligent…He was not a punk. He was very elegant, sedate, and refined, and sophisticated. (Walter Matthau)
Fuck those people of the Scientology Church! There’s no way I’ll ever get involved with that son-of-a-bitchin’ group. All they want is my name and my money. (Elvis Aaron Presley)


Lyrics
(words & music by Troy Seals)
A water glass full of whiskey
And women that I never knew too well
Lord, the things I’ve seen and done
Most of which I’d be ashamed to tell
I don’t know how it started
But that’s what makes a man a man, I guess
Now I’m holdin’ on to nothing’
Tryin’ to forget the rest
I’m lookin’ back on my life
To see if I can find the pieces
I know that some were stolen
And some just blew away
Well, I’ve found the bad parts
Found all the sad parts
But I guess I threw the best parts away
Lord away, away
Playing the bars, playing like a star
Anything to get a name
Carryin’ on, living on songs
My friends wrote to me to sing
I’m lookin’ back on my life
To see if I can find the pieces
I know that some were stolen
And some just blew away
Well, I’ve found the bad parts
Found all the sad parts
But I guess I threw the best parts away
Away, away
Lord, the pieces of my life
They’re everywhere, they’re everywhere
And the one I miss most of all
Is you and you know who
Lookin’ back on my life, Lord
To see if I can find the pieces
Lookin’ back on my life, today
To see if I can find the pieces
Lookin’ back on my life
God help me find the pieces

Good Evening Europe Tour 2009:
December 2, 2009: Hamburg, Germany – Color Line Arena
December 3, 2009: Berlin, Germany – O2 World
December 9, 2009: Arnhem, Holland – Gelredome
December 10, 2009: Paris, France – Bercy
December 16, 2009: Cologne, Germany – Koln Arena
December 20, 2009: Dublin, Ireland – The O2
December 22, 2009: London, England – The O2 Arena

“The West needs innovation; Israel’s got it,” write Dan Senor and Saul Singer, authors of Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. They argue that the Israeli economic model, based on innovation, can help the West, in particular, “get out of its economic hole.”
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel – a country of 7.1 million people, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, with no natural resources – produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the United Kingdom?
Drawing on examples from the country’s foremost inventors and investors, geopolitical experts Dan Senor and Saul Singer describe how Israel’s adversity-driven culture fosters a unique combination of innovative and entrepreneurial intensity.
As the authors argue, Israel is not just a country but a comprehensive state of mind. Whereas Americans emphasize decorum and exhaustive preparation, Israelis put chutzpah first. “When an Israeli entrepreneur has a business idea, he will start it that week,” one analyst put it. At the geopolitical level, Senor and Singer dig in deeper to show why Israel’s policies on immigration, R&D, and military service have been key factors in the country’s rise – providing insight into why Israel has more companies on the NASDAQ than those from all of Europe, Korea, Japan, Singapore, China, and India combined.
So much has been written about the Middle East, but surprisingly little is understood about the story and strategy behind Israel’s economic growth. As Start-Up Nation shows, there are lessons in Israel’s example that apply not only to other nations, but also to individuals seeking to build a thriving organization. As the U.S. economy seeks to reboot its can-do spirit, there’s never been a better time to look at this remarkable and resilient nation for some impressive, surprising clues.
Reviews & Endorsements
“An eye-opening look at a side of Israel that most people never think about.” (The Week)
“There is a great deal for America to learn from the very impressive Israeli entrepreneurial model—beginning with a culture of leadership and risk management. Start-Up Nation is a playbook for every CEO who wants to develop the next generation of corporate leaders.” Tom Brokaw, special correspondent for NBC News, author of The Greatest Generation
“Senor and Singer’s experience in government, in business, and in journalism—and especially on the ground in the Middle East—come to life in their illuminating, timely, and often surprising analysis.” George Stephanopoulos, host of This Week, ABC News
“In the midst of the chaos of the Middle East, there’s a remarkable story of innovation. Start-Up Nation is filled with inspiring insights into what’s behind Israel’s dynamic economy. It is a timely book and a much-needed celebration of the entrepreneurial spirit.” Meg Whitman, former president and CEO of eBay
“Senor and Singer highlight some important lessons and sound instruction for countries struggling to enter the 21st century. An edifying, cogent report, as apolitical as reasonably possible, about homemade nation building.” Kirkus Reviews
“The authors ground their analysis in case studies and interviews with some of Israel’s most brilliant innovators to make this a rich and insightful read not just for business leaders and policymakers but for anyone curious about contemporary Israeli culture.” Publishers Weekly

Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war. (1938, Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons, after the Munich accords)
An Open Letter to His Excellency Ambassador Thomas Matussek
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Nations
by Narcisse Caméléon, Deputy Chief Editor HIRAM7 REVIEW
Excellency,
The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has announced his intention to attend the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York later this month.
We are writing to express our concern that President Ahmadinejad be allowed to abuse the platform of the UN to propagate hate, to spread false accusations against other members of the UN, and to hijack the agenda of the UN, as he has done recently at other UN conferences.
The government of Iran is in defiance of several sets of UN sanctions, has failed to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and might soon be capable of building an atomic bomb.
The Iranian government is also defying the will of its own people. People are imprisoned for their political beliefs, and women and religious minorities are being oppressed and persecuted. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, spread anti-Semitic libels, and threatened to wipe Israel off the map. He regularly incites to genocide.
Should President Ahmadinejad once again show complete disregard for the UN Charter we would respectfully ask that Germany’s delegation absent itself from the meeting for the duration of his address, in order not to dignify his remarks with the presence of a modern and liberal democracy like Germany.
Remember Munich 1938. No apeasement with ennemies of democracy!
Yours sincerely,
Narcisse Caméléon
Memorial services in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. Eight years ago, al-Qaeda terrorists from Hamburg, Germany, hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center tower, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 2,752 people.
The New York Times notes “the fortress city,” many New Yorkers feared to protect against a future attacks, never came to pass.
In an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami, adjunct fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, discusses the relationship between 9/11 and the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009) has authored more than 2,500 bills throughout his career since 1962 in the United States Senate. Of those bills, several hundred have become Public Law.
Here is a sample of some of those laws, which have made a significant difference in the quality of life for the American people.

Scotland’s parliament has been recalled for an emergency session today amid mounting international outrage over last week’s release of terrorist Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, convicted for the Lockerbie plane bombing.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will address the meeting to defend his decision to free al-Megrahi on “compassionate” grounds. Al-Megrahi was serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and received a hero’s welcome on return to his home country Libya.
Several news reports say Britain will release from a Scottish prison Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan secret service agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people. Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill denied the reports that a decision has already been made, but said he is taking into consideration whether al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, should be freed on compassionate grounds.

The reports that al-Megrahi would be released aroused ardent debate between family members of the Lockerbie victims. Al-Megrahi is serving a life sentence for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Most of the victims were U.S. citizens.
Reuters considers the implications of al-Megrahi’s release for Libya.
The Times of London looks at divisions between U.S. and British relatives of Lockerbie victims over the news that al-Megrahi may be freed, noting that many British family members have long doubted his guilt and are supporting his release.
The BBC has an audio slideshow of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Guardian profiles al-Megrahi.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy shaking hands with teenager Bill Clinton.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to North Korea to try to convince the government to liberate two imprisoned U.S. journalists.
The journalists – Euna Lee and Laura Ling, of U.S. media outlet Current TV – were arrested on the North Korea-China border in March. The women were sentenced to twelve years of hard labour for entering the country illegally and for “hostile acts.”
Bill Clinton is well respected in North Korea, as he almost visited Pyongyang toward the end of his presidency, and because he met with North Korea’s top military commander, Jo Myong-rok, in Washington in 2000. North Korea and the United States also made a deal to freeze plutonium-based nuclear reactor at Yongbyon under the Clinton administration.
Former South Korean government official Park Chan-bong tells the Wall Street Journal the talks will probably serve as a launching point for bilateral discussions between the two countries.
The world’s media have given scant coverage lately to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and – despite extensive reporting on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict – they have likewise offered little on the continuing campaign of genocidal incitement against Israel by her enemies.
While seeming very separate issues, the two campaigns, and the choice by media and world leaders largely to ignore both, are, in fact, connected.
On one level, of course, the connection is obvious. Israel-hatred is spearheaded by the Arab world; in virtually every Arab nation, demonizing and delegitimizing of Israel, and often of Jews, is a staple of government-controlled media, schools and mosques. This is true even of the Arab states with which Israel is formally at peace. At the same time, the Arab world is the chief support of fellow Arab leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Sudanese regime’s genocidal assault on the Muslim blacks of Darfur. Illustrative was the Arab League’s unanimous, effusive embrace and defense of al-Bashir at its meeting in Doha, Qatar, in March, shortly after his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Efforts at mass murder directed at Israel and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur flow from the same mindset.
Tunisian human rights activist Mohammed Bechri several years ago argued that to understand Arab support for the genocide in Darfur, one has to recognize the “twin fascisms” – Bechri’s term – that dominate the Arab world: Islamism and Pan-Arabism. The first rejects the legitimacy of any non-Muslim group within what the Arabs perceive as their proper domain; the latter takes the same view towards any non-Arab group. The genocidal rhetoric, and efforts at mass murder, directed at Israel, and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur follow from this mindset. (Bechri’s “twin fascisms” also account for the besiegement of Christians across the Arab world and backing for Sudan’s murder of some two million Christian and animist blacks in the south of the country. They help explain as well broad Arab support for the mass murder of Kurds – a Muslim but non-Arab people – in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and for the besiegement of the Kurds of Syria and the Berbers – another non-Arab Muslim group – in Algeria.)
But the connection between animosity towards Israel and coldness towards the victims in Darfur extends beyond the Arab world. It embraces, for example, all those European leaders who bend their consciences to accommodate Arab power – in oil, money and strategic territories – and who may pay lip service to recognizing the murderous incitement and related threats faced by Israel or to deploring the crimes suffered by Darfur but refuse to take serious steps to curb either.
Nor are American leaders entirely free of similar predilections. President Bush (43) was certainly sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. But he sought to assuage Arab opinion by pushing for rapid movement towards a Palestinian state and endorsing Machmoud Abbas as Israel’s “peace” partner, even as Abbas refused to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consistently praised anti-Israel terror and stood fast in demanding a “right of return” that would turn Israel into yet another Arab-dominated entity. (On Darfur, the “moderate” Abbas responded to the ICC indictment by declaring, “We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.”) Regarding Darfur, President Bush led the way in condemning Sudan’s campaign of mass murder and rape and first calling it a genocide. But — already attacked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — he was not prepared to act aggressively against a third Muslim nation, even though doing so would have been aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.
President Obama has adopted winning over Arab and broader Muslim opinion as a foreign policy priority and he has shown little interest in according more than verbal acknowledgment to the threats facing Israel. At the same time, those in the Muslim world whose good opinion he is most seeking to win are not the Muslims of Darfur but rather Darfur’s oppressors and their supporters. Some of President Obama’s ardent backers have expressed dismay, and have been openly critical of him, for what they see as his reneging on campaign pledges to put Darfur at the top of his agenda. (For example, Kirsten Powers, “Bam’s Darfur Sins,” in the New York Post, May 11, 2009). But given his focus on appeasing Muslims hostile to America, his inaction on Darfur should not surprise.
In major Western media as well, deference to Arab opinion vis-a-vis Israel has generally been accompanied by silence on the central role of the Arab world in providing support for Sudan’s actions in Darfur. While the Arab League’s embrace in Doha of Sudanese President al-Bashir was widely reported, few major outlets offered editorial criticism of the Arab stance — The Washington Post being a notable exception. The New York Times, which for decades has used both “news stories” and editorials to argue that Israeli concessions are the key to peace and has refused to cover the genocidal incitement against Israel and Jews endemic in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools, offered no editorial opinion on the Doha meeting.
Kristoff generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide.
Several years ago, the Times‘ Nicholas Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed coverage of the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof is a constant critic of Israel and, like his bosses, avoids the issue of rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and promotion of genocidal hatred towards the Jewish state, by its Arab neighbors. In a similar vein, for all his extensive writing on Darfur, he generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide. In some forty op-eds on Darfur published between March, 2004, and April, 2006, shortly after he won the Pulitzer, Kristof devoted only five sentences to Arab backing of the Sudanese regime, and that in an article focused on China’s shameful complicity in Darfur.
But if all this not is very surprising, there are also more curious aspects to the convergence of animosity, often of murderous dimensions, towards Israel and sympathy for, or at least indulgence of, those who perpetrate the genocide in Darfur.
For example, while Egypt has not overtly broken with the unanimous Arab League support for al-Bashir, Egyptian President Mubarak chose not to attend the Doha conference, and he and some other Arab leaders have been worried about the Islamist Sudanese regime’s close ties to Iran and to Iran’s radical Arab allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet a number of Western leaders, who advocate “dialogue” with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, prefer to ignore their genocidal agenda towards Israel and their leading role in aiding Sudan’s genocidal government – in effect, outpacing Egyptian backing of al-Bashir by soft-pedaling the role in Sudan of those most supportive of al-Bashir’s murderous regime.
Iran has long given extensive financial assistance to the Sudanese government, has provided its forces with weapons and training and has underwritten Chinese provision of arms to al-Bashir. Sudan, again with Iran serving as financier and mid-wife, has also been a training ground for Hamas, fostering as well an ongoing cross-fertilization between Hamas and the militias responsible for the Darfur genocide. Hezbollah and Syria have likewise been in the forefront of Sudan’s supporters and enablers.
Following the International Criminal Court’s action against al-Bashir, a delegation of his radical allies quickly arrived in Khartoum in a show of solidarity with their indicted brother. It included the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, Syrian parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash and an official of Hezbollah. Hamas also sponsored a large pro-Sudan march in Gaza.
But inevitably, Khartoum’s allies’ contributions to the Darfur genocide, like their promotion of genocide vis-a-vis Israel, are ignored by those eager for diplomatic engagement with them.
Also in early March, around the time of the ICC indictment, the British Foreign Office, led by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, announced its agreement to talks with Hezbollah. More recently, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner have met with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah head Nasrallah’s commitment to the murder of all Jews – as in his 2002 statement that “if [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” (in the past Hezbollah has gone after them as far afield as in Argentina) – was hardly something Miliband and the Foreign Office, or the Quai D’Orsay, or Solana and the European Union, or those British and continental media sympathetic to Hezbollah, were about to note. Nor were they going to note Hezbollah’s support for Sudan’s policies in Darfur.
Similarly, those many European leaders promoting engagement with Hamas typically avoid acknowledging Hamas’s call in its charter for the slaughter of all Jews, its teaching Palestinian children – in its schools and on children’s television – that Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and must be annihilated, and its other purveying of genocidal Jew-hatred. In April, the Dutch Labor party demanded that the European Union sanction Israel if it refuses to accept Hamas as a negotiating partner. Dutch Labor party leaders and like-minded European politicians, in their efforts to push acceptance of Hamas, soft-pedal its aims regarding Israelis and Jews and likewise say little about Hamas’s support of and contributions to Sudan’s genocidal assault on the blacks of Darfur.
European media that are hostile to Israel also virtually ignore Hamas’s genocidal policies and actions regarding both Israel and Darfur. British news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent, which had barely covered years of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities, or Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for its attacks, but excoriated Israel when it responded with its assault on Hamas beginning in December, 2008, are likewise essentially silent regarding Hamas’s promotion of mass murder in Israel and support for mass murder in Darfur. The same is true for myriad news outlets on the Continent.
Most American political leaders have shunned Hamas for its commitment — in words and deeds – to Israel’s destruction and for its genocidal agenda. (There are some notable exceptions such as Jimmy Carter, who has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and urged including Hamas in “peace” talks.) But many American media organizations, particularly those, like the New York Times, most committed to portraying Israeli policy as the major obstacle to peace, have followed their European counterparts in saying little of Hamas’s genocidal policies regarding Jews or of its support for Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.
Even people whom one might expect to identify most closely with the victims of the Darfur genocide often do nothing, or limit their actions to words, or actually lend support to the perpetrators, in large part because of pro-Arab sympathies or hostility to Israel. Congress has one Muslim black representative, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and Ellison has at times spoken out against the Darfur genocide. In April, for example, he joined a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington and was arrested along with other demonstrators. But Ellison has consistently supported pro-Hamas groups in America. He also aggressively embraced the Hamas line in last winter’s Gaza War in terms of alleged civilian casualties and Israeli misdeeds while remaining silent on Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for attacks on Israel. Ellison has likewise never publicly addressed Hamas’s alliance with Sudan and its backing of Sudanese policies in Darfur. Alignment with those arrayed against Israel seems to trump criticism of those arrayed against Darfur for the Minnesota congressman.
The major force driving genocidal agendas toward Israel and Darfur is, again, Arab supremacism. It is abetted in the wider world by power politics, as well as by, in many quarters, a twisted ideological allegiance whose credo requires that hostility to the Jewish state and consequent sympathy for, or prettifying of, those dedicated to her destruction trumps sympathy for Darfur and criticism of those participating in its people’s annihilation. The overall result is that powerful links between murderous hatred towards Israel and support for, or at least accommodation of, genocide in Darfur are a fixture of today’s geopolitics and go largely unchallenged.
A longer version of this article originally appeared on www.frontpagemag.com.
Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.
In memory of Dr. Martin Luther King (1929-1968)

Take My Hand, Precious Lord – sung by Elvis Aaron Presley
Precious Lord, take my hand
Lead me on, let me stand
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn
Through the storm, through the night
Lead me on to the light
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
When my way grows drear
Precious Lord linger near
When my light is almost gone
Hear my cry, hear my call
Hold my hand lest I fall
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
When the darkness appears
And the night draws near
And the day is past and gone
At the river I stand
Guide my feet, hold my hand
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
Precious Lord, take my hand
Lead me on, let me stand
I’m tired, I’m weak, I’m lone
Through the storm, through the night
Lead me on to the light
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
A new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project finds that global public opinion about the United States of America has improved obviously since President Barack Obama took office.
Still, the poll shows Muslims, particularly in Turkey, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories, remain sceptical of Barack Obama and the United States.