By way of explanation Since my ‘unofficial’ visit to Cuba years ago (the State Department’s rep negotiated with me, after I was caught on my return, for a fine of a ‘mere’ $2600; it could have been fifteen times that much), I have marveled at the politics that continue to maintain our country’s ridiculous embargo. Although I don’t side with Castro (nor defend the land grab, etc. many suffered due to his revolution), I think it’s time for America to allow Cuba to become, again, our trading partner.
In a real sense, that has been happening for a while; Cuba’s currency of choice is our American dollar. Indeed, the summation of an AP article, Cuban president's daughter gets US visa by Andrea Rodriguez,makes it clear:
"It's a very positive thing they give her the visa," said Wayne Smith, America's former top diplomat in Cuba and a critic of the U.S. embargo on the island. "You have to consider the source, where the criticism is coming from. They don't want dialogue."
I agree. Not wanting dialog runs counter to democracy. When it takes the form of well-reasoned debate, dialog can prompt progress. Even when it’s less formal, it promotes the airing of ideas and often can lead to deeper understandings and enhanced perspectives.
That said, many resent my stance on Cuba (“How can I ignore that it’s a Communist country?” they ask). Seldom does that bother me; at least their resentment is a result of having heard my point of view. Although I don’t resent them for theirs, I often gain an insight into their perspective and how it is formed.
Perhaps that’s why I relish controversy. It’s also why I often foster discussions that seem to be emotional trip wires. What I often get to see is where reason stops and emotion takes over. When emotions take charge, often a reader feels they have been insulted.
That’s never my intent. Indeed, I intend to challenge rather than offend. Often I make that point (or reflect on it) when I write about (radical) Islam. In the few sentences that follow, I will do that for the sole purpose of clarifying my support of Israel when it comes to the absolute necessity of the measures that country takes when it comes to self defense.
Regarding the danger posed by Hamas controlled Gaza to Israel, the facts are clear. If read closely, Article 13 of Hamas’ charter offers absolute clarity about its (Islamic) attitude towards having Israel as a neighbor.
What follows is from an article by a most remarkable man about the gist of that document, its twisted view of the world according to Sunni Islam [please see: The Really Weird Ideas of the Muslim Terrorist Group Hamas]:
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that:
1.The land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection
2.No one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.
3.No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.
Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a.”
Then it refers to the Countries that are now Ex-Muslim:
“And it is similar:
1.To all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest
2.For all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.
2.This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth;
but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.”
The European Countries that were Formerly under Muslim Rule
3.The South of France
7.Half of Ukraine.
10.Bosnia ( the majority there are still non-Muslim,like 60% )
Plus including Kossovo (almost 90% Muslim) and Albania (70% Mulsim) that means that more than 50% of Europe should now be under Muslim rule.Once Muslim always Muslim,according to Hamas.For example,under the Ottomans,no less than 33% of all Europe was under Muslim rule,under the Sultan of Istanbul.
The Other Countries that were once also under Islamic Rule:
Chances are that, like me, you’ll find this to be truly amazing.
B. Koplen 5/18/12