advertisement

Anti-jihad ads considered constitutional

By | September 24, 2012 | Opinion, Top Opinion Story

Liana Whitehead

New York City is the center of a public uproar as Internet blogger Pamela Gellar rises with an “anti-jihad” ad campaign.

As of Monday, 10 of the city’s subway stations will be home to a silent protest in the form of bold white text and an even bolder statement:

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, Defeat Jihad.”

Gellar and members of American Freedom Defense Initiative submitted the ad in response to ongoing propaganda in the subway system urging America to cease aid to Israel.

Gellar’s protests, however, were initially muffled by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, according to the Associated Press.

Gellar won the right to distribute the ad after District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer later declared it covered by the First Amendment.

There is a multitude – and I mean multitude – of arguments for and against AFDI’s protest.

On one hand, the posters are covered by freedom of speech, and rightfully so. On the same hand, it makes room for backfire with “pro-jihad” speech, if desired.

Does anybody else feel we would be running in circles? Does this benefit or unite us against terrorism, arguing back-and-forth via subway tunnels?

On a second hand, a religious war is at bay and America is a direct target. Will these protests encourage its continuance?

On Saturday, a Pakistan minister, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, personally offered $100,000 to whoever assassinates the creator of the film, “Innocence of Muslims,” according to CNN.

The filmmaker and his family have left their California home and are officially in hiding — this is scary stuff.

Although I refuse to place the blame on that poorly made anti-Islamic video, the opposition has made its offense atrociously clear.

Drawing attention to any fearlessness or challenging them may result in more unnecessary injury and death. At this rate, I do not doubt that the extremists would accept any “challenges” sent their way.

The anti-Israeli group Stop $30 Billion to Israel hung its wall art in protest of U.S. funding — specifically military — to Israel.

A separate organization, The Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine, hung its own ads which suggested that Palestinian land was slowly decreasing and morphing into Israeli land.

The group urges people to “be on their side.” But this is a coalition for peace between the Palestine and Israel — why is an anti-war organization encouraging further separation between the two?

Within this conflict lies a deeper battle. One that existed since the early 20th century: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Monday, passersby will take in a new message — one that, on the surface, seems harsher than its rival’s.

According to The New York Times, Pamela Gellar said she would not sacrifice her freedom in fear of offending “savages.”

“If it’s not a film, it’s a cartoon,” Gellar said. “If it’s not a cartoon, it’s a teddy bear. What are you going to do? Are you going to reward Islamic extremism?”

I agree. And, Gellar was careful in the words she used. She did not say that Muslims are savages, or that she was referring to Muslims around the globe.

Gellar and her group are protesting the Jihad, which in definition is the religious duty of Muslims.

According to the Dictionary of Islam, jihad is defined as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad . . . enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims.”

The literal meaning of jihad, according to the British Broadcasting Network, “is struggle or effort, and it means much more than holy war.”

The word jihad describes three different struggles, including “a believer’s internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible, the struggle to build a good Muslim society and Holy war — the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

My politically incorrect nature wants to applaud the American Freedom Defense group for not softening the blow in their anti-jihad campaign.

The anti-Israeli ads show side-by-side photos of two smiling men — an Israeli social worker and a Palestinian designer — each holding a child on their lap.

What a utopian ideal. No poster in the world can change the actuality of it all.

Why do these ads urge the United States to discontinue military aid to Israel? Israel is our mutual and strategic ally.

The Israeli and Palestinian nations’ need for personal sovereignty is commendable, but one less country on our side means one more country in support of our enemies.

It is impossible for me to grasp the concept of anti-war or anti-support when we are targeted in the name of religion – or peace. The goal seems to change every day.

What some refuse to see is the imminent danger that lingers with current events.

Our desires are honorable — to feel carefree and live under the laws of peace and hope — but we cannot act obliviously when real harm is knocking at our door.

Now is not the time to lose whatever support we have.

[Correction] The organization StandWithUs was misrepresented. The actual organization is called Stop $30 Billion to Israel.

A verified e-mail address is required to post a comment.Views expressed in the comments section are not representative of The Collegian unless so specified. Comments must be approved by a moderator before they are published. Comments that are inflammatory, profane, libellous and/or posted under a false name may be removed at the discretion of The Collegian. Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.

7 Responses to Anti-jihad ads considered constitutional

  1. William S. says:

    This is a very good article, perhaps one that president Obama should read slowly and repeatedly. What is at stake is freedom.

  2. manal says:

    the only savage is america israel and france for they are the true savages muslim will win the war and whether the like it or not jihad is our strength do they even know what it means learn it and then come to face islam long live muslims around the world keep on going for you will surely emerge victorious

  3. Nicole H. says:

    @ Manal:

    So you support the murders and deaths of thousands upon thousands of non Muslims? Any god who is in charge of that brigade is not the God of our universe.

  4. StandWithUs is the only organization that has countered ads that call for the end of military aid to Israel wherever they’ve appeared throughout the U.S. since 2007. This includes four times in San Francisco BART just this past year. http://www.standwithus.com

    We placed ads in direct response to the NY Metro ads from the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine. Here is a direct link to the press release which displays our pro-Israel ads and lists every anti-military aid to Israel ad SWU has countered since 2007.
    http://standwithus.com/app/iNews/view_n.asp?ID=2383

    Thank you,
    Roz Rothstein
    CEO, StandWithUs

  5. Please sign my petition. I believe it is the only way to stop this at the current moment. Please sign and send it to others.
    http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ny-stop-the-posting-of-anti-islamic-advertisements-on-nyc-subways

  6. William S. says:

    “Israel is but one ally and they certainly will never determine our freedom.”

    I feel obligated to respond to this comment posted by Nonsense.

    It reminds me of Mr. Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 when he stated “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela these countries are tiny… they don’t pose a serious threat to us..”

    The absurdity of this thinking distorts reality. Russian bombers now fly into Venezuela. Iran is in mad pursuit of a nuclear bomb to usher in the 12th Imam.

    Did FDR call Japan a tiny country? That tiny country gave the U.S. a serious beating.

    Israel is the link pin to WW III. If countries like Iran move forward on their threats, Israel could easily be overrun. One nuclear weapon would decimate half the country. That would require a reaction by the United States,and if Syria is any indicator, Russia would side with Islam, placing global freedom at grave risk.

    However, the best time for Iran to attack Israel is now, with the current president we have in the White House. He certainly wouldn’t intervene beyond sanctions and tough talk, as he has stated on multiple occasions that Israel can “defend itself by itself.” What kind of statement is this? It certainly does not promote an alliance, and explains why the president hasn’t been tough with Iran beyond sanctions that Iran scoffs at.

    Time for America to wake up, before our sons and daughters are drawn into a global war touching America’s shores.

  7. Arafat says:

    What an excellent article and what a courageous author.

    It’s rare to read the truth anymore particularly in the PC-controlled Californian journalism world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

advertisement