La financiación de Hamas

Me entero a través del blog Big Pharaoh de que la Hermandad Musulmana va a financiar a Hamas:

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood announced that they would raise funds for Hamas after the international community pledged to cut aid. This will cause a very complicated problem. Muslim Brotherhood supporters are all over the world including the US. Now any money donated to the Palestinians would be considered to be directed towards a terrorist organization because Hamas is now in control of Palestine’s economy and finances.

I admit I haven’t given the issue much thought. I don’t want Hamas to get hundreds of millions of dollars, yet I don’t want to see more suffering on the average Palestinian who just wants to put food on the table. It’s a dilema. I’ll think about it and post about it later.

Well, wait a minute. I have a short term solution. Yasser Arafat left around $200 million (according to Forbes Magazine’s estimate). Why can’t Soha Arafat loosen up the bank accounts a little bit? Well, I don’t think she’ll do that. Why would she? Her husband didn’t do it to his own people.

El comentario dejado por uno de los lectores es buenísimo:

I have a solution. Suppose they work on developing industry instead of a generation of suicide bombers? There are a lot of countries in this world that need help. Why would we support one whose main export to the world is terror? Concentrate on feeding your people and building your homes instead of funneling money to bombs.
You get what you sow.

Mientras Israel ha cancelado la transferencia de fondos (via Atlas Shrugs):

Israel’s Cabinet on Sunday approved an immediate freeze on the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to the Palestinians in its first response to the takeover of the Palestinian parliament by the militant group Hamas.

The decision came a day after a new Hamas-dominated Palestinian legislature was sworn into office and tapped to form the next government. Israel had promised that relations with the Palestinians would suffer the moment that happened. More here

Lo cual es lógico si consideramos que Ehud Olmert ya ha calificado a la autoridad palestina de organización terrorista de hecho:

«Il est clair qu’avec une majorité du Hamas au parlement palestinien et la formation d’un gouvernement avec une direction du Hamas, l’Autorité palestinienne devient de facto une autorité terroriste et Israël ne l’acceptera pas«, a affirmé le Premier ministre israélien par intérim, Ehud Olmert , dimanche au début de la séance hebdomadaire de son cabinet, selon des propos diffusés par la radio publique israélienne.

«Israël ne fera pas de concession au terrorisme et continuera à agir contre lui avec toute la puissance nécessaire», a-t-il poursuivi, précisant que son gouvernement «ne mènera pas de contacts avec un pouvoir dont le Hamas est partie prenante, que se soit de façon limitée ou déterminante».

Como consecuencia de la victoria de Hamas:

L’Autorité palestinienne fait face à une «grave crise financière» depuis le début du mois, à la suite d’une réduction des transferts d’argent après la victoire du mouvement islamiste Hamas aux législatives, a déclaré dimanche le leader palestinien Mahmoud Abbas.

En el «fil news» de France 1 aparece esto:

19h21 Proche-Orient : l’UE va continuer dans l’immédiat à soutenir financièrement l’Autorité palestinienne (Javier Solana)

La Unión Europea va a continuar en los momentos inmediatos sosteniendo financieramente a la Autoridad Palestina. Javier Solana.

Andrew Sullivan sobre las caricaturas en The Times

Leo en el blog de Bruce Chang la siguiente conclusión sobre Andrew Sullivan sobre las caricaturas:

The fundamental job of journalists is to give you as much information as possible to make sense of the world around you. And in this story, where the entire controversy revolves around drawings, the press is suddenly coy. You can see Saddam Hussein in his underwear and members of the royal family in compromising positions. You can see Andres Serrano’s famously blasphemous photograph of a crucifix in urine, called Piss Christ. But a political cartoon that deals with Islam? Not our job, guv. Move right along. Nothing to see here.

If you think that’s damning, you haven’t read his conclusion:

Yes, in this new war of freedom versus fundamentalism I always anticipated appeasement. I just didn’t expect the press to be among the first to wave the white flag.

«En esta nueva guerra de la libertad contra el fundamentalismo, siempre preví el apaciguamiento.» Toda la razón….

John Howard critica el Islam

El Presidente de Australia critica el Islam en su nuevo libro (via Australian Politics):

John Howard has strongly criticised aspects of Muslim culture, warning they pose an unprecedented challenge for Australia’s immigration program. While he remained confident that the overwhelming majority of Muslims would be successfully integrated, the Prime Minister said there were two unique problems that previous intakes of migrants from Europe and Asia did not have. «I do think there is this particular complication because there is a fragment which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society, and that is a difficulty,» Mr Howard told The Australian. «You can’t find any equivalent in Italian, or Greek, or [Christian] Lebanese, or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem.»

The Prime Minister also expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women. «I think some of the associated attitudes towards women (are) a problem,» he said. «For all the conservatism towards women and so forth within some of the Mediterranean cultures, it’s as nothing compared with some of the more extreme attitudes. «The second one of those things is a broader problem, but to be fair to them, it’s an attitude that is changing with the younger ones.»

(READ MORE).

Leedlo entero -sólo he puesto el principio- es muy interesante.

El 40% de los musulmanes quieren la sharia

Me entero en IBA:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the «feelings and motives» of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

50pc said interracial relations were worsening.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

The results of the poll, conducted for the Sunday Telegraph, came as thousands of Muslims staged a fresh protest in London yesterday against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed. In Libya, at least 10 people died in protests linked to the caricatures.

[…]Mr Khan, the MP for Tooting, said: «We must redouble our efforts to bring Muslims on board with the mainstream community. For all the efforts made since last July, things do not have appear to have got better.»

He agreed with Sir Iqbal that the poll showed Muslims still had a «big gripe» about foreign policy, particularly over the war on terror and Iraq.

4 de cada 10 quieren que se aplique la sharia en determinadas partes del Reino Unido.

1 de cada 5 comparten los «sentimientos y los motivos» de los terroristas suicidas del 7/J aunque el 99% piensan que los terroristas se equivocaron al llevar a cabo la atrocidad. ¿Realmente si queremos criticar a alguien que ha cometido algo tan horrendo lo que decimos es que se «equivocó»?

50% dice que las relaciones interraciales estaban empeorando. Ejem, volvemos a lo mismo: ¿ser musulmán es una raza? Vale que la mayoría de los musulmanes en Gran Bretaña pertenecen a etnias concretas, pero ¿la causa realmente es la etnia o es la consideración demasiado blanda de los terroristas suicidas -incluso en algunos casos el abierto apoyo– lo que es la causa del empeoramiento de las relaciones sociales? A mí me da igual que sea blanco, negro, chino, aborígen australiano, etc, el que cometa un delito o apoya a los que lo cometan. Lo que me interesa es que lo cometa o lo apoye. Y si efectivamente, lo comete o lo apoya, debe ser juzgado y, si resulta culpable, que cumpla la pena que le corresponda.

«La encuesta muestra una comunidad musulmana cada vez más radical» -no, ¿quién podía suponerlo?- «y cada vez más alienada» -pero, ¿alguien creía que Abu Hamza y los que le escuchaban en la mezquita de Finsbury Park estaban integrados?- «incluso cuando el 91% dice que todavía es fiel a Gran Bretaña». Si el 40% quiere la sharia ya NO son fieles a Gran Bretaña. Ser fiel a un país implica ser fiel a sus principios, a su historia y a su futuro. No creo que sea ser fiel al futuro de Gran Bretaña ni a su presente considerar buenos los motivos y los sentimientos que llevaron a 4 asesinos sin escrúpulos a cargarse a 52 personas, por mucho que no apoyen la forma en la que lo hicieron.

UPDATE/ACTUALIZACIÓN: Leo en A Western Heart:

The Muslims have won: «For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries. «They think they have won the debate,» he says with a sigh. «They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not. «The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that’s a clear victory. «It’s confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call ‘adverse consequences’ – violence to the rest of us – then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent.» Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that «in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law«.