The Solid Surfer.com

Rabbi Hecht on Muslims, Airports, and Profiling

It's been only a couple weeks since his most recent guest contribution, but Rabbi Shea Hecht is back with another excellent article that I'm pleased to feature on TheSolidSurfer.com.

Little is needed by way of introduction; the essay is on a controversial topic, but very clearly speaks for itself:

Is Racial Profiling Necessary?
by Rabbi Shea Hecht

Recently, some of Britain's 1.7 million Muslims have accused police of using tough anti- terrorism laws that target their communities. In what I find to be a fascinating little news piece, now 10 British Muslims are considering suing the British government for racial profiling of young Muslim men. This hasn't stopped British police chief John Stevens from calling for more checks of "young Muslim men" saying similar methods have been effective in Israel.

Being that the Muslim population is complaining that they don’t want to be singled out, my question is this: Is racial profiling necessary?

Let’s take a look at the facts and work from there.

The fact is that many young Muslim men say that their religion requires them to force their way of life onto the rest of the world’s population under the threat of death.

The fact is that many young Muslim men have been trying to do just that creating chaos in many countries and continents all over the world.

The fact is that all the young school children shot to death in Beslan, Russia were killed by young Muslim men.

The fact is that the railroad bombs in London and Spain that killed hundreds of people were detonated by young Muslim men.

The fact is that young Muslim men flew the airplanes into the twin towers killing thousands of people.

The fact is that the 12 people caught planning to blow up airplanes en route from Great Britain to the USA were young Muslim men.

The fact is that if you know there is a group of young Jewish men or young Christian men flying on the same aircraft as you, you know you are safe and have nothing to fear.

The fact is that if you know there is a group of young Muslim men flying on the same airplane as you, you will reconsider flying and be thankful that the airline security does a very thorough job.

The fact is that young Muslim men are threatening the peace and stability of so many countries all around the world.

The fact is that every person regardless of nationality or race has a will to live and a right to live in serenity without being threatened.

The fact is, that as John Stevens the British police chief pointed out, the Israelis do use racial profiling of Muslims quite successfully - and they’ve lowered the rate of deaths in their country due to homicide bombers.

The fact is that El Al was the only airline to fly on September 11, 2001 when every other airline was grounded.

The fact is, that after the recent fright in England, El Al’s security measures didn’t change.

The fact is that every country has a right to defend itself both in and out of its borders.

The fact is that - with an apology to all peaceful male Muslims that don’t plan on forcing their way of life onto others or killing them out because of their heretical beliefs - the logical conclusion to all of this is that if a person wants to live in peace and freedom they are best to keep an eye on young male Muslims.

The fact is that racial profiling is wrong when it’s based on anything other than hard fact - but unfortunately in today’s day and age the facts call for it - and not just in England.

The fact is that most people are happy with the extra security - peaceful Muslims included - because they are not interested in becoming a memory and a statistic.

The fact is that if racial profiling of young Muslim men hurts, I’m sorry. I, for one, would like to be able to live and practice my religion - in peace.

The SolidSurfer.com responds: Rabbi, thank you again for such an excellent thoughtful piece. Any sort of profiling should never be undertaken lightly, but as unfortunate as it is, the facts of terrorism simply require it.

Just to add my two cents - profiling actually occurs far more frequently than many may realize. For example, police officers regularly conduct age- and sex-related profiling on young men, because statistically young men are far more likely than other demographic groups to commit crimes. Most young men, of course, are not criminals. But at the same time, most criminals are by far young men. Just the same, most young Muslim men are not terrorists. But virtually all terrorists are young Muslim men, and so profiling the overall Muslim male demographic clearly makes sense.

Yes, it's true that this will inconvenience many innocent Muslims. But that's a small price for the thousands of lives it will likely save, Muslims and everyone else.

David Warren on the West, Islam, and Liberalism

Real Clear Politics has published an excellent piece by writer David Warren arguing that Islam's threat to the Western world has been realized not due to Islamic strength, but because of the West's moral and intellectual decline. (i.e. because the West has become too leftist.)

I don't know much about Mr. Warren, but he has really hit the nail on the head. The West has the power to thoroughly defeat jihadism this very moment, but restrains out of a supposed moral "sensitivity" that resultingly allows our evil enemies to fight another day. In order to win the war, we must shed this ultra-liberalism and return to the principles that allowed us to win World War II and the Cold War. As Warren concludes,

It is the recovery of our own sense of what we are, what we believe, and what we are about, that would defeat Afghan cave-dwellers and shrieking ayatollahs fairly quickly.

I agree, and let's hope this happens soon.

Coming up on TheSolidSurfer.com: Look for new site features, plus a brand new report from our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", who will keep us up-to-date on the political, military, and cultural winds from our nation's capital.

British Poll on Islam, Israel, Wal-Mart's Critics, more

Plenty of interesting news heading into the weekend:

According to a new poll, 53% of the British public considers Islam a threat to the West. That's a big jump from after 9/11, when only 33% felt endangered by the "religion of peace". It's good to hear people are finally waking up to the problem, but a bigger question is - what the heck are the other 47% thinking? Ignoring a problem never makes it go away.

At the same time, the Israeli public has also awoken to recent events: Polls indicate that a majority believe their government failed in handling the Hezbollah war and that Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz should resign. I agree. American Thinker, meanwhile, outlines a similar argument. Ideally, of course, it's always preferable that a nation's leadership learns from mistakes and changes its positions. But failing that, replacement is often a necessary measure.

And speaking of the war, take a look at HonestReporting.com's compendium (courtesy of Front Page Magazine) of blatant media bias against Israel. By and large, the mainstream media simply supported the terrorists, and that's exactly why it can't whatsoever be trusted. Visit alternative media such as talk radio and blogs (many fine examples of which are listed on the Blogroll at left) for much more generally honest coverage.

Meanwhile, on the domestic front, National Review's Rich Lowry slams Democratic party opponents of Wal-Mart. The megaretailer's critics, Lowry states, have no reason to complain simply because Wal-Mart performs better than the competition.

A couple great columns appeared in the news as well. Thomas Sowell explains how leftist policies have caused major crime rate increases in Britain, while Victor Davis Hanson declares that President Bush has a communiction problem and offers solutions. Both editorials offer fascinating insights, and I highly recommend them.

Blog of the Day: Hugh Hewitt. Hugh often writes excellent posts, while Dean Barnett of Soxblog fame is his new guest blogger.

Pluto's Demotion and the Flaws in Speculative Science

A major flaw in the world of science was unexpectedly but blatantly uncovered yesterday. For apparently astronomers have decided that Pluto is no longer a planet.

Are they incorrect? Perhaps, perhaps not; frankly I have no idea. But the flaw involved has nothing to do with Pluto's actual classification. Rather, the error is in the height of the pedestal on which so many people place scientific judgement. The Pluto decision demonstrates that accepted scientific conventions are not always set in stone and can even be flat-out wrong.

For the past 76 years, leading astronomers have proclaimed Pluto a planet. Now they don't. Clearly both views cannot be correct. How different is this from debates in the 1600s over the shape of the earth? At one point scientists thought the earth was flat. Then they realized it's round.

The point is, even the most brilliant groups of scientists can make mistakes. They can also, as we see, quickly change their minds. We should hence recognize that many standard scientific views are not necessarily correct merely because intelligent scientists say so.

So when groups of scientists declare, purely on speculation, that global warming is the world's greatest threat, that intelligent design is bunk, and that DDT is dangerous, we should resist the impulse to believe them simply because they are scientists. Scientific conclusions need true evidence, not majority opinions.

Thanks to a 76-year old scientific misjudgement (if, at least, you believe in the new solar system categorization), our former ninth planet may have lost its hierarchy in the cosmos. But it has actually done the world a great favor, by providing a promiment demonstration that scientific paradigms are not automatically sacred and that scientists do commit mistakes and disagree.

Regardless of how the debate over Pluto concludes, the process involved appears to be the most revealing portion. Science is a powerful tool, but like all fields, it relies heavily on a human element which we must consider when examining its findings.

Defeating Iran No Matter What Ahmadinejad Thinks

August 22 has come and gone (well, it's still the 22nd here, but already the 23rd in the Middle East), and much of the Western world appears to be sighing in relief. Many promiment Iran watchers had speculated that the Mullahs, in response to a UN offer of incentives for ending its nuclear program, intended to cataclysmically attack the West to coincide with a Muslim holy day. But instead Ahmadinejad merely stalled for more time. (I can't fully verify this news since it's from China's state-run Xinhua outlet, but even a Communist mouthpiece is probably more accurate than al-Reuters these days.)

Iran's hesitation is welcome news, but by no means does it diminish Tehran's nuclear threat. Ahamdinejad clearly still intends to develop the weapons and has continued his evil genocidal threats against Israel.

But I'm beginning to wonder, contrary to popular opinion, just whether Ahmadinejad is as undeterrable as believed. Yes, he's still a jihadist fanatic, happy to kill millions of his own people to bring back the 12th century Mahdi. But is he willing to sacrifice himself or his family? I'm not so sure.

Plenty of terrorist groups spout self-sacrificial rhetoric, and indeed often follow through by dispatching suicide bombers. But do the terror leaders ever volunteer for such missions, or send their own children? No, virtually never. Rather, they maintain power and force others to do the dirty work. The leaders never admit it, but they value their own lives much more highly than they let on. Chances are, Iran's prime minister feels this way too.

This insight, assuming it's accurate, reminds us that we still retain the full opportunity to defeat Iran. Like his mentor Hitler, Ahmadinejad may sacrifice himself if cornered. But as long as he maintains his confidence in Iran's ultimate aims, he likely wants to live and won't risk an attack bold enough to provoke an American response until he feels sufficiently strong to counter it. This should occur only if he develops nuclear armaments.

Therefore, Western powers must destroy Iran's nuclear program immediately. The Mullahs are determined to ignore the UN Security Council, brush aside sanctions, and partner with Russia and China in order to complete its weaponry. Diplomacy has already failed, and we must take action before it's too late. Any negative consequences from doing so (i.e. France and Saudi Arabia giving us lectures on "proper morality") are peanuts compared to the problems we'll face if we let Iran continue.

Iran's nuclear feet-dragging has granted the Western world a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Now we must take advantage and use it.

Amazing - Hollywood Comes Out Against Terrorism

There are many things in the world I thought would never occur. The Red Sox winning the World Series. Democratic governments in former Soviet states. A live action movie of the Transformers. And yet while these have all, indeed, recently taken place (or, in the Transformers case, soon to take place), nothing - nothing - could have prepared me for the shock of seeing what appeared in the news yesterday.

Ready? A host of Hollywood stars, including some names you'd never expect like Nicole Kidman, Michael Douglas, Don Johnson and Danny DeVito (plus some you would expect - Sly Stallone, Bruce Willis, Dennis Hopper), took out a full-page advertisement in the Los Angeles Times supporting democracy and strongly condemning the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

Wow. Just wow. I'm still astounded. Even Hollywood is finally starting to get it. There's still a long way to go, of course, but this is quite a refreshing blast of air. If such a bastion of far-leftism can recognize the dangers of Islamic terrorism, then America's future looks a lot sunnier.

Now Tinseltown just needs to convince its comrades in the media, academia, and (especially) the judiciary to do the same thing. If that occurs, perhaps we won't even have to refer to them as comrades anymore.

Outrageous: The ACLU's Attack on Terror Prevention

Does leftist idiocy have no end? A mere week after surveillance and wiretapping greatly contributed to the thwarting of a major terrorist attack, a federal judge ruled against America's conducting such methods. The ACLU, which brought the suit, argued that wiretapping without a warrant violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

Well, guess what - that's exactly the point. Wiretapping certainly does violate privacy, and that's precisely what's needed against would-be terrorists. These aren't ordinary Americans; they are jihadists who wish to destroy this nation and replace it with a Taliban-style theocracy. Anyone holding these aims deserves to be expelled from the country, much less have their privacy respected. The ACLU's disgusting lawsuit does nothing but aid America's genocial enemies.

Don't get me wrong - government wiretapping powers must always be watched to ensure that bounds aren't overstepped; the warrantless taps should certainly be limited only to jihadist terrorists. But to eliminate it entirely is idiocy bordering on treason. The ACLU should be deeply ashamed of themselves, and the suit thrown out immediately. (The U.S. government has appealed it to a higher court, with the outcome to be determined.)

For anyone who opposes wiretapping, imagine the privacy constraints the government would impose if another massive terror attack (one which likely could be prevented by surveillance) occurs. Suddenly, wiretapping doesn't seem so bad after all.

Rabbi Hecht on the Folly of Israel's Ceasefire

In recent weeks, this blog has focused very primarily on the Israel-Lebanon war. I certainly plan to continue such coverage, but with so many pertinent political, cultural, and economic events also occurring in the world, I do intend to accordingly re-expand this site's scope. Look for such content to appear in the upcoming days.

Meanwhile, though, guest contributor Rabbi Shea Hecht checks in with his thoughts about Israel's ceasefire:

Accepting Defeat Over Victory
by Rabbi Shea Hecht

I am pained by the recent events in the Middle East. Truly so. The Israelis were provoked to go to war against Hezbollah and did so with a purpose. Missiles were routinely fired on Israeli towns indiscriminately. Their land was invaded, their soldiers were kidnaped and they fought back to make a point that they are a country that cannot be invaded. They wanted to disable the terrorists from being able to carry out these provocations and send a clear message to the citizens of surrounding countries that they shouldn’t think they could attack Israel, kill and kidnap their soldiers and get away with it.

Yet, against all logic and to the dismay of a public that was staunchly behind its government and hoping that the Hezbollah would be wiped out, Israel accepted a cease-fire before all the stated goals of the war were met - especially the return of the soldiers. This is embarrassing and it hurts. If Israel could not disarm Hezbollah, I’m not sure anyone could or would hold it against them. The USA didn’t disarm the terrorists in Iraq in the years since they entered and they are working at it diligently. But to leave the protection of the Israeli public in the hands of a UN peacekeeping force without the return of their soldiers - that hurts.

To add fuel to that fire, the rest of the residents of the Middle East are overjoyed at Israel’s acceptance of the UN cease-fire, calling it an Israeli "surrender” which can further encourage the Arab states to attack Israel.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamida-Reza said, “After one month of war against Lebanon's resistance, Israelis are the absolute losers and Hezbollah is the absolute winner of the war. The occupiers of Jerusalem failed, despite their military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic backings.”

Hezbollah central council member, Ahmed Barakat, told Qatari newspaper, al-Watan, that Hezbollah’s attack was a success. None of Hezbollah’s leadership was injured in the scuffle and the group still possesses thousands of rockets and other weapons for use in the days following the UN cease-fire. He added that those weapons will allow Hezbollah to hit Israel from further away so Hezbollah will not have to be near Israel’s border.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Nasrallah seems quite happy, boasting that Hezbollah has earned a “strategic, historic victory ... We came out victorious in a war in which big Arab armies were defeated.” In what can’t be called a very big surprise, Nasrallah showed very little enthusiasm for disarming his group, declaring that to do so would be “immoral, incorrect and inappropriate. It is wrong timing on the psychological and moral level.”

Incredibly, Hezbollah’s Nassrallah feels so confident from this attack on Israel that he said he is now ready to take on the USA, too.

A few weeks ago, the talk was of what would happen if Hezbollah was crushed by Israel, its military capacity demolished and its supply lines destroyed. Some said that it would lead to a civil war in which rival militias tried to cut into Hezbollah turf and continue their fight. Today, the same people are talking about the problems posed for the other Arab nations because of Hezbollah's increased popularity. Other Arab states have their own armed Islamic groups and they are afraid of the problems that can come if the rebels in their own countries become emboldened by what is perceived as Hezbollah’s success.

Pictures of Hezbollah-leader Hassan Nasrallah “hang everywhere in Ramallah,” according to Al- Jazeera, “covering the walls and shop fronts and plastered across T-shirts and demonstration banners. Secularists, Christians and Muslims alike refer to the Hezbollah leader as Palestine's newest and truest hero.”

Before the war, or even in its early days, people paid Sheik Nasrallah scant attention. But after weeks of fighting, the leader has won over new supporters, far from his usual power base among Lebanon's poor and rural Shi'ite Muslims.

It’s frightening that Israel accepted a cease-fire before crushing Hezbollah; it’s sad that it was before their soldiers were freed. It’s common knowledge that this permanent cease fire will not hold up - in fact it has shown signs of crumbling before it was signed. It has just become another opportunity for the terrorists to declare victory. By accepting it, Israel has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Only crushing the terrorists would have been an acceptable end and if Israel couldn’t do that the least they could have done is negotiated the return of our soldiers - which is why they went to war in the first place. Honestly, what pains me most about the cease-fire that Israel accepted is this: I wonder if loss of the Israeli soldiers who gave up their lives so their brethren can be freed was worth it.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Rabbi, thank you for contributing this insightful piece. It's always a pleasure to feature your words of wisdom on this site. I am very pained as well by Israel's disastrous handling of this war. Thousands of soldiers risked their lives (and sadly, as you mentioned, dozens gave their lives entirely) to defend the Jewish people, and Olmert's government seemingly did everything possible to reduce their heroic efforts to naught. Allowing a ceasefire without completely defeating Hezbollah is the absolute wrong move; Israel cannot, under any circumstances, tolerate next door a terrorist group committed to its destruction, and I fully agree that Hezbollah plans to attack the Jewish state yet again.

I am optimistic, though, that Israel will turn the tide. Hezbollah may consider merely surviving to be a "victory", but in reality Israel damaged them quite greatly. This, I believe, will greatly benefit the IDF in the next round, as long as the government no longer restrains it. If Israel can achieve this objective, it should be in far better shape next time.

Thanks again for the essay, and look forward to posting more of your work in the future!

Israel's Path To Victory Still Exists

What is Israel's government possibly thinking? The ceasefire with Lebanon and Hezbollah is just not going to work. Sure, there might be a few weeks of peace and quiet, but terrorists commited to Israel's destruction don't just roll over and decide to go home. Heck, they've already started firing again at IDF troops.

No, Hezbollah will quite predictably exploit the quiet and re-arm with the help of Iran and Syria. Then, when the UN "peacemaking" force arrives, they'll attack Israel again while the UN troops glance the other way.

Of course the ceasefire would be wonderful if it actually worked. But the history, actions, and openly declared objectives of Iran, Hezbollah, and the UN virtually guarantee that the war will continue. These entities all wish to destroy Israel, and Prime Minister Olmert and his government are playing right into their hands. Barring any shocking developments, Hezbollah will almost certainly mount another offensive, and this time the newly emboldened Iranian and Syrian armies may also enter the mix. If Israel continues its hands-off military strategy, it could be in serious trouble.

So how can the Jewish state extract itself from this mess? First, there is some good news. While Western analysts consider Israel to have lost the battle by not defeating Hezbollah entirely, Iran apparently believes the IDF won by destroying the terrorists' weapons capabilities. It took Iran six long years to arm Hezbollah, and now the terror group's function as a deterrent to Israel (and/or the U.S.) attacking Iran's nuclear plants has been seriously degraded. Hezbollah won't return to its former strength anytime soon.

But that said, it still plans to re-attack Israel as soon as possible. And to properly defend itself, Israel needs new leadership immediately. Olmert has proved himself unwilling to change, and a stronger PM must take over. (At the very least, someone who will allow the IDF to operate unencumbered.) Israel also must capitalize on Iran's difficulties and quickly destroy its nuclear facilities. This is an absolute must - Iran will likely attack Israel conventionally as a result, but its troops are no match for a non-restrained IDF, and Israel cannot allow the alternative, a nuclear Iran, to occur.

Furthermore, Israel must remember that it draws great strength from its Jewish nationhood and identity. Appeasing the "world community" is unnecessary and often dangerous. Rather, the Jewish state should look to its own political and spiritual leaders, such as Natan Sharansky and Rabbi Lazer Brody (whose website is a TheSolidSurfer.com blogroll link), for far better guidance.

This war is very winnable. Israel only needs to be up for the task.

Advice To PM Olmert: Time To Step Down

Ehud Olmert has got to go. He had a chance to correct earlier mistakes, but instead capitulated completely into the hands of Hezbollah and the U.N. Israel must boot him from office immediately, and replace him with someone who can properly lead.

Advocating the removal of a prime minister is no light matter, but Israel is fighting an existential war and cannot afford governmental weakness. Olmert has restrained the IDF from crushing Hezbollah and has failed to protect the Israeli people. This cannot continue, and if Olmert won't change (and he hasn't despite ample opportunity), then he simply isn't the right man for the job.

Hopefully the Prime Minister will recognize this and step down (which would, in my opinion, actually bolster his career, similar to corporate cases like eBay and Google, where the novice company founders relinquished the CEO post to more experienced executives so to grow the business past the startup phase); otherwise the government parties should vote him out. Israel desperately needs a stronger leader who can guide the nation to victory immediately.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: Check out this short video clip exposing Reuters' outrageous photo frauds of the conflict. Just unbelievable.