A Full Circle/ Sanda's Place for Coffee and Voice

Mordechai Kedar explains how the Arabs view “peace” and why the Israeli political leadership should not keep publically announcing their desire for peace with the Pal/Arabs.

2018-03-12T11:54:00.003+02:00

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242815 http://mordechaikedar.com/a-taste-of-my-debate-on-al-jazeera-about-jerusalem/

2018-03-12T11:53:00.003+02:00

. https://youtu.be/A8E77TrxWDA

2018-03-04T21:43:00.000+02:00

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11974/leftists-islam

Watch Live Now: UN Watch's 2018 Geneva Summit for Human Rights

2018-02-20T15:30:00.001+02:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcDfswdOUqw

Federal abuses on Obama's watch represent a growing blight on his legacy

2018-02-19T11:22:00.002+02:00

During his interview, General McInerney refers to the article below by Monica Crowley. Please read

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/373379-federal-abuses-a-growing-blight-on-obamas-legacy

Federal abuses on Obama's watch represent a growing blight on his legacy

BY MONICA CROWLEY,

02/12/18 7,228

In all of the discussions about the political weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, alleged corruption at the highest echelons of those agencies and serial abuse of the secret FISA process surrounding the 2016 election, one name has been conspicuously absent: President Barack Obama.

High-ranking officials and other major players in those agencies — which Obama oversaw — are increasingly embroiled in the growing scandal: James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissmann, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr.

Given the tight control Obama exercised over every part of his administration and agenda, the idea that any of these appointees and loyalists freelanced their activities without at least his tacit approval or that of his White House strains credulity.

These kinds of abuses of power were nothing new, given the Obama team’s long history of this type of misconduct on everything from the Benghazi terror attack to the political misuse of the IRS. They weaponized the most fearsome government agencies to target, monitor and presumably illegally unmask political opponents, including members of Congress, journalists reporting unfavorable stories, Trump allies and average Americans.

These dark institutional offenses didn’t just materialize out of thin air. One of the criticisms of President Nixon was that even though he wasn’t aware of the Watergate break-in, he had created an environment in which such an action was acceptable.

Decades later, Obama created a climate in which the potentially criminal misuse of the DOJ and the FBI, as currently being unraveled, was not just acceptable but perhaps encouraged, thereby giving rise to what could be the most dangerous scandal in American history.

It’s increasingly apparent that these recently exposed abuses of power served two ostensible purposes: to secure Hillary Clinton’s candidacy by shielding her from prosecution stemming from the use of her unauthorized private server, and to derail the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump.

But something else, something more profound, drove their efforts: their urgency to preserve what Obama once called “the fundamental transformation of the nation” — a grand project much bigger than Obama himself or any other single figure. He largely fulfilled the long-held progressive ambition of changing the nation’s course, only to see Trump threaten to change it once again: not to return it to where it was pre-Obama, but to smash the corrupt existing order that had made their progressive advances possible.

Obama and the leftist movement over which he has presided could not tolerate a reversal of their gains (by Trump, no less!), so they got to work.

On the offensive side, these Obama officials — who obviously loathe Trump, as demonstrated by the glaring antipathy in the Strzok–Page texts and others’ communications — set out to damage him. Trump, they thought, gave them much material with which to work, plus they enjoyed a compliant media that stood ready to amplify spoon-fed narratives, regardless of their veracity. The acquisition of multiple FISA warrants — now known to be largely based on an unverified dossier prepared by a foreign spy, using anonymous Russian and close Clinton associates and paid for by her campaign and the Democratic National Committee — to subvert and impair Trump and his associates, succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

On the defensive side, Herculean efforts were made by the Obama DOJ and FBI to stonewall the Clinton investigation, not out of any real love for Hillary but because they needed to ensure a Democratic win and the continuance of their “transformative” agenda. Further, with Clinton at the helm, evidence of all of their previous abuses would never see the light of day.

Thus, the forward march to safeguard her.

In October 2015, Obama told “60 Minutes” that, while Clinton made a “mistake” using a private server, “this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” The signal to his law enforcement lieutenants to back off could not have been clearer.

As the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy has reported, Obama knowingly and repeatedly sent communications to Clinton via her nongovernment, unsecured email and server. One assumes those emails involved classified information, not yoga schedules. That meant if Clinton were guilty of committing felonies, so was Obama. Because they were joined at the hip over this and other toxic controversies, such as Benghazi, she required protection in order to protect him. To this day, they survive or fall together. Hence, Obama’s support of her candidacy over his preferred choice, Joe Biden, and the necessity of the email cover-up.

He and his allies have never taken their eyes off the prize. They cannot allow their progressive gains to be erased (and replaced by far more successful economic and national security policies) and their history of abuses to be exposed. Having never expected a Trump victory, the Obama and Clinton squads have been throwing the kitchen sink at him in an effort to protect themselves — and to try to backstop their hard-won “transformative” achievements.

Restoring the progressive revolution is also why loyal Obama soldiers such as Biden and Eric Holder are considering White House runs. In the meantime, they must try to destroy Trump, his agenda, and the investigations that are quickly turning against them. After all, if Trump doesn’t just endure but succeeds, Obama, Clinton, their brigades and the larger decades-long radical movement have everything to lose.

Monica Crowley is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

General Tom McInerney spells out the biggest corruption / criminal enterprise of the Obama, Clinton, and other traitors, assisted by the compliant fake media. He brilliantly and courageously dissects the facts on what Monica Crowley describes “what could be the most dangerous scandal in American history.”

2018-02-19T11:21:00.001+02:00

https://davejanda.com/audio/GeneralTomMcInerney021818.mp3

History Lessons from Years Under Islamism

2018-02-18T08:18:00.003+02:00

History Lessons from Years Under Islamism

by Majid Rafizadeh
February 17, 2018 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11889/iran-history-lessons

Share 422

My father's generation in Iran lived in an environment in which the Islamist party of the country's clergy cunningly depicted themselves as intending no harm, supportive of the people, and not interested in power. So, before the revolution, many Iranians did not think that Khomeini's party would be committing the atrocities that they are committing now or that they would have such an unrelenting hunger for power. Instead, during this time, the country thought it was on a smooth path towards democracy, with no expectation of ever returning to a barbaric era. Even the then-US President Jimmy Carter viewed Khomeini as a good religious holy man.
Iranians did not just submit to these new laws; they rose up in protest. This uprising was met with torture, rape, and death. With the regime eager to wipe any who dared to resist, the people had no choice but to surrender. Everyone's daily activities were now under the scrutiny of the Islamists.
Many will still think it is impossible for something like this to happen in their country. What they fail to understand is that Iran is an example of exactly how successful this meticulous grab for power can be. Islamists in other countries including the West are pursuing the same techniques on the path to seizing power. It is a quiet, and subtle process, until the moment you wake up with no rights, a culture of fear, and no promise that you will live in freedom or even to see the next day.

In Iran, my generation, the first after Islamism came to power, is called the Burnt Generation (Persian: Nasl-e Sukhteh). Our generation earned this name for having to endure the brutality of the Islamist and theocratic regime from the time we were born, to adulthood. This brutality included the regime's merciless efforts, such as mass executions, to establish its power, impose its barbaric and restrictive rules, and brainwash children and indoctrinate the younger generation with its extremist ideology through various methods including elementary schools, universities, state-controlled media outlets, imams and local mosques, and promoting chants such as "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Women and men were segregated. Teenagers were prevented from performing daily activities considered harmless by most of the world. Any kind of enjoyable social activities were barred, including listening to music, dancing, drinking, dating, women participating in a chess championship unless you were wearing a hijab or attending a football match or other sporting event if men were playing in it. If it made you smile, if it gave you hope, it was probably against the law, such as what could be worn, whom you were allowed to talk to, what you could listen to, and whether or not you pray or fast during Ramadan. Even the most personal and private issues became the business of the regime's forces.
The main purpose of these restrictions and the intense control of the people, especially youths, was for the regime to expand its Islamist agenda domestically and abroad. These laws were enforced with cruel and violent punishments such as public flogging along with the threat of even more dire consequences, including stoning, public hanging and amputations. My generation was raised in an atmosphere of terror. While the rest of the world became more modern and developed, we were left to grapple with following Islamist laws and restrictions that were impossible to obey.
My generation in Iran should be seen as a lesson for the West. Almost every state (and non-state actors) underestimated the power that these Islamists could wield. Warning signs were overlooked. No one believed that such a massive change could occur and be enforced. Many underestimated the crimes that these Islamists were willing to commit to maintain their power once they came into control. To this day, they continue to prove that there are no limits to the cruelty and lack of humanity that they will engage in, such as conducting mass executions, executing children and pregnant women, stoning, amputations, public hanging, flogging, torture, and rape just to maintain this power.

Jahangir Razmi's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the execution of Kurdish men and others by the Iranian Islamic regime in 1979.

Many underestimated the smooth-talking strategy that these Islamists were using for decades to seize power. The radical group of Ayatollah Khomeini deceived many Iranians and the international community into believing that they were peaceful and divine people. Once they had power, the truth was revealed; by then it was too late to prevent the abuse that unfolded.
My father's generation in Iran lived in an environment in which the Islamist party of the country's clergy cunningly depicted themselves as intending no harm, supportive of the people, and not interested in power. So, before the revolution, many Iranians did not think that Khomeini's party would be committing the atrocities that they are committing now or that they would have such an unrelenting hunger for power.
Instead, the country thought it was on a smooth path towards democracy, with no expectation of returning to a barbaric era. Even then-US President Jimmy Carter viewed Khomeini as a good religious holy man. According to recently declassified documents, the Carter administration even paved the way for Khomeini to return to Iran. Many internationally known scholars such as Michelle Foucault thought highly of the Islamic revolution. Foucault's enthusiasm can be seen in his articles in European newspapers, written right before and after the revolution.
They portrayed themselves as leaders of the people, as spiritual and peaceful. However, once the Islamists rose to the top, all hell broke loose. As soon as they had a stranglehold on the country, they shifted gears to become one of the most ruthless regimes in history. Once in power, their true face was revealed; at that point, there was no way to turn back.
Thousands upon thousands of people were executed simply for voicing their opinion. Many also died for crimes they likely did not commit. The Islamic law (sharia) of the ruling Shiite party was imposed on everyone. Women were forced to wear a hijab and were stripped of their rights. They could no longer leave the country without the permission of their husbands. A women could not work in any occupation if her husband did not agree to it. Women's testimony in court, under sharia, is worth half a man's testimony. Women are banned from pursuing certain educational fields or occupations, such as being judges. Women are prohibited from entering sports stadiums or watching men's sports. Women are entitled to receive half as much inheritance as their brothers or other male relatives.
Many were shocked that this political party, which spoke about the religion of peace, would do such things. Iranians, however, did not just submit to these new laws; they rose up in protest. This uprising was met with torture, rape, and death. With the regime eager to wipe out anyone who dared to resist, the people had no choice but to surrender. Everyone's daily activities were now under the scrutiny of the Islamists.
In a four month period, some 30,000 political prisoners were hanged simply for suspected loyalties to anti-theocratic resistance groups, mainly the PMOI -- incidents largely ignored by media outlets.
These are only few examples of the Islamists' atrocities that took hold of a once thriving and modernizing country. Information about their crimes against humanity would fill several books. As bad as you may think all this is, you must understand that the reality is far, far worse. The Islamist Republic of Iran, according to Human Rights Watch, became the world leader in executing children. The legal age for girls to marry was reduced to 9. Women needed the approval of their parents to marry, and girls could not object to their guardian's decision in marrying them off.
It may be hard to believe that such a murderous force could come into power so easily and fast. What is important to understand is that the Islamists and their followers work covertly in a society for decades to deceive the people and reach the top. Iran's was a meticulously planned takeover that no one saw coming. The Islamists' willingness to be patient to complete their control of the society cannot be underestimated.
Despite openly reading about all this, many will still think it is impossible for something like this to happen in their country. What they fail to understand is that Iran is an example of exactly how successful this meticulous grab for power can be.
Seeing these shrewd and calculating strategies, Islamists in other countries including the West are pursuing the same techniques on the path to seizing power. It is a quiet, subtle process, until the moment you wake up with no rights, a culture of fear, and no promise that you will live in freedom or even to see the next day.
Now, those Islamists, whom almost everyone made light of, have not only been in power for almost four decades; they have expanded their expansionist ideology to other nations and taken first prize as being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and among its leading executioners.
This is a history lesson that Western and non-Islamist countries cannot afford to ignore. It is not just about history; it is about what can happen at any moment, in any country. It is about what is happening right now, beneath our noses -- in East Asia, Canada, South America and Europe. The only defense is to recognize it and confront it at its roots, before it has the opportunity to woo your politicians. Once they worry more about their popularity with voters than about the future of the country you are electing them to run, you are done. Once there is control of the ballot box, there will be more and more control over every aspect of your life, destroying any future you had planned and leaving the country you once had loved in ruins.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

When Ellison Broke Bread With Farrakhan

2018-02-17T10:16:00.001+02:00

When Ellison Broke Bread With Farrakhan

Brotherhood-linked congressman publicly rejected Nation of Islam -- but it was all for show.

February 14, 2018

Matthew Vadum

After publicly repudiating his former colleagues at the Nation of Islam, DNC deputy chairman Keith Ellison dined with the group’s notorious leader Louis Farrakhan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in 2013, according to reports.
The jihadist-friendly Ellison, a Democrat congressman representing Minnesota, is a former co-chairman of the Communist-linked Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Although Ellison was not a senior Democratic Party official in 2013, now that his DNC post makes him much more than a fringe figure in his party, the meeting takes on a greater, darker significance for Democrats, putting them in bed with raging genocidal anti-Semites, Muslim terrorists, and other enemies of the United States.
The private Sept. 24, 2013, event at the One UN Hotel in Manhattan, across the street from the United Nations complex, was reported in the Oct. 2, 2013, issue of the Nation of Islam newspaper, Final Call. Rouhani was in New York for the 68th UN General Assembly. “The dialogue revolved around the Iranian president’s speech and how to move forward in regard to relations with the United States,” according to the newspaper. “Translators were included in the meeting to facilitate communications in English and Farsi.”
"Abdul Akbar Muhammad, international representative of the Nation of Islam, and Supreme Capt. Mustapha Farrakhan were part of the Nation of Islam delegation," the report stated.
Democrat lawmakers attending the event included Ellison, a Muslim, Andre Carson of Indiana, also a Muslim, and Gregory Meeks of New York. Ellison’s participation in the 2013 event was referenced by the Wall Street Journal last week, based on the Final Call article.
Rouhani is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which conducts daily “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” rallies, and maintains a repressive police-state apparatus to crush dissent. Members of religions other than Islam are persecuted in Iran and homosexuality is punishable by death. Ellison, of course, is an outspoken supporter of Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Farrakhan makes no effort to hide his racism, viewing it as an essential component of his religion and as something of which one should be proud.
He has spoken of "white devils" and of “the white man” as the “anti-Christ.” Whites are “vicious beasts” and “the skunks of the planet,” according to Farrakhan. “White people are potential humans ... they haven’t evolved yet.” In a 1997 interview on “Meet the Press,” he stated, “It is not accidental that the black male is in the condition he is in,” and he claimed there was a “conspiracy of our government against the black male.”
Farrakhan calls Jews "bloodsuckers" who in his view somehow undermine American blacks. He calls Judaism, which antedates Islam by at least 2,000 years, a "gutter religion," and describes Adolph Hitler as "a very great man."
Farrakhan is an intellectual inspiration to Ellison. Not surprisingly, Ellison has a long, well-documented history of defending Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, which have been tracked by Discover the Networks.
As early as 1989, Ellison was denying the Nation of Islam was racist. In the 1990s, he served as a spokesman for the group.

In a 1995 column, Ellison heaped praise on Farrakhan:

Minister Farrakhan is a role model for black youth”; “is not an anti-Semite”; “is a sincere, tireless, and uncompromising advocate of the black community and other oppressed people around the world”; and is regarded by “most black people” as “a role model for youth and, increasingly, a central voice for our collective aspirations.

But Ellison’s political ambitions forced him to disavow Farrakhan and his group, insincerely, as it now turns out.
In 2006 during a run for Congress, Ellison tried to distance himself from his past involvement with the Nation of Islam, writing a letter to a Jewish group. He apologized to Jewish leaders, writing, "I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam." In the letter he falsely claimed he had been involved with the group for a mere 18 months around the time of the Million Man March in 1995, when in fact the period was closer to 10 years in duration. He also claimed not to have known about the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitic views, saying he “did not adequately scrutinize” those views, and added that he had never expressed or defended such views. Around that time, he reportedly used the aliases Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad.
In 2016 while he was running for the DNC chairmanship, he tried to turn the tables on his critics, accusing them of trying to smear him by bringing up his association with Farrakhan and Nation of Islam.
Reports of his ties to Farrakhan were “bad reporting” and a distraction, Ellison said with a straight face on MSNBC. "I have a 10 year record in Congress," he said. "It is just that kind of reporting that is not quality and doesn't help people understand the real issues."
"What does he have to do with anything going on in this race?" Ellison asked about Farrakhan. "Absolutely nothing."
"We're talking about something that happened in 1995. This is a year when the Million Man March took off -- people were attacking it. I was very proud to be a part of it. But here I am having to answer questions about this, and I'm not talking about what our country needs to do and what the Democratic Party needs to do, because of this smear campaign from 20 years ago."
Left-wing radicalism, anti-Americanism, and sympathy for Islamofascism aren’t exactly new in Democrat circles, but it is unusual for someone as high in the hierarchy of the Democratic National Committee as Ellison now is to be so associated with odious racist figures such as Farrakhan and the president of a country committed not only to the extermination of Jews, but to wiping the United States and Israel off the map.
But times have changed, and not for the better. Nowadays those who urge the extinguishing of American democracy and the murder of police officers are considered legitimate activists. Over the years Ellison has defended Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael), as well as cop-killers and leftist icons Mumia Abu Jamal, Assata Shakur, and Geronimo Pratt.
Last month Ellison implicitly expressed support for the use of violence against President Trump in a tweet as he posed for a selfie with the cover of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, by Mark Bray. “I just found the book that strike[s] fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump[.]” Antifa is short for anti-fascist. Members of the movement use physical violence against conservatives and anyone else they lump in with the purported fascists they claim to oppose.
Ellison’s deficient character, as well as his ties to very bad people who want to hurt Americans, should worry patriots, especially with polling showing Democrats may be on the verge of recapturing Congress this November.

About Matthew Vadum

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."
Read More

First Jewish President ?

2016-11-22T13:21:00.000+02:00

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/20/trump-is-headed-to-white-house-did-just-elect-our-first-jewish-president.html

The Trump revolution, Israel and American Jews

2016-11-21T09:48:00.003+02:00

Nov 21, 2016

The Trump revolution, Israel and American Jews

IIsiPPho

The victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential elections will have long-term global repercussions at many levels. It represents a revolt against extreme postmodernism which has undermined the moral fiber of the West and its willingness to defend itself, facilitating the emergence of brutal Islamic terror throughout the world.
Many, if not most, of those who voted for Trump were offended by his vulgarity and aggressive language and did not support all aspects of his policies. They voted for him because they regarded him as the only opportunity to break with the status quo.
The refusal of his antagonists — the self-styled liberal guardians of democracy — to accept the outcome of the election was despicable and unprecedented and contrasts with the acquiescence of the defeated Republicans when Barack Obama won both of his elections.
Whether or not Trump will succeed in restoring America’s former global and political status remains to be seen. We should bear in mind that when Ronald Reagan was elected, the media and much of the “intelligentsia” described him as an idiot and predicted disaster. But he proved to be one of the greatest American presidents.
Trump’s victory could have dramatic ramifications for Israel. Of course, pre-election undertakings are never fully implemented, but it is historically unprecedented for Israel to enjoy such a committed pro-Israel incoming president together with massive support from both houses of Congress.
Trump, who literally gushes over Israel, has always been closely associated with Jews in business and politics. Aside from his family, his senior advisers include committed devotees of Israel.
He has repeatedly praised Israel and refers to us as America’s greatest ally; he has endorsed Israel’s position on defensible borders and stated that he has no objection to construction in the major settlement blocs and Jerusalem; he called on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and is opposed to imposed solutions, insisting that the only way to peace is by direct negotiations between the parties; and most importantly, he has made it clear that he totally repudiates President Obama’s criticism of Israel for failing to make progress in the peace talks and his application of moral equivalence between Israelis and Palestinians.
Trump committed to moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — although that is an unfulfilled pre-electoral promise made by many of his predecessors, both Democrat and Republican.
He has also undertaken to confront the Iranian terrorist regime and either terminate the bogus nuclear deal or at least pressure the Iranians to adhere to their commitments.
His vice president-elect, Mike Pence, is a passionately devoted Christian friend of Israel and a seasoned politician who Trump has announced will be his major adviser and policy formulator (see video address).
And whatever tensions exist between Trump and both of the Republican-controlled houses of Congress, the one issue that they share in common is support of Israel.
However, none of this should be misinterpreted to mean that the Trump administration will favor annexation or a one-state policy. Trump has made it clear that he still endorses a two-state policy but, in contrast to Obama, he stipulates that it cannot be imposed without providing Israel with defensible borders and all of the security guarantees it requires — an unattainable objective and at present, not even on the horizon.
For this reason, the bombastic declarations by the Israeli Right and particularly Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett’s calls for annexation in the wake of the election results are irresponsible and could be highly counterproductive. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should tell his coalition members to zip their mouths shut and enable him to move forward by engaging in silent diplomacy with Trump, who has already extended a warm invitation to meet with him.
One of the negative repercussions of the Trump victory is the accelerated erosion of bipartisanship and the growing influence of the radical anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party. Nothing exemplifies this more than the likelihood of the anti-Israel Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison — who was initially funded by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations — assuming the role of chairman of the Democratic National Committee, supported by leading Jewish Senator Chuck Schumer. The post was formerly held by pro-Israel Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Simultaneously, anti-Israel Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders is emerging as one of the most powerful forces in the defeated radicalized Democratic Party.
The most bizarre aspect of this election result is the almost hysterical reaction by liberal segments of the Jewish community. That 70% of Jews supported Hillary Clinton is not surprising and consistent with their longstanding obsession with liberalism. But the manipulation of Jewish issues as a political vehicle by some American Jewish leaders to oppose Trump will be recorded as an act of infamy.
The trailblazer was Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who shamelessly uses this once-venerable organization as a mantle to promote his radical liberal agenda. Commissioned to combat anti-Semitism, he had the chutzpah to harness the ADL to condemn the Republicans as “anti-Zionist” because they failed to relate to a two-state solution in their Middle East policy platform.
He condemned Trump for “tolerating” anti-Semites because he declined to dignify the Ku Klux Klan by responding to their expressions of support for him. In fact, thanks to the ADL’s anti-Trump hysteria, anti-Semites and scum like David Duke were brought to the forefront of the mainstream media, a goal which they had sought unsuccessfully to achieve over the past decades. It also encouraged racists and anti-Semites to emerge from their closets.
This contrasts starkly with the muted response to by liberals to Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a paranoid anti-Semite. Not only did Obama attend his sermons with his family, but Wright actually officiated at his wedding and was appointed by him in 2007 to the African American Religious Leadership Committee. He only dissociated himself from Wright’s views after media exposure but refused to disown him personally, relating to him as “an old uncle.” Not even the fiercest critics of Trump can suggest any comparable relationship with Duke or any other identifiable anti-Semite. But his critics continue defaming him as a promoter of anti-Semites.
Clearly motivated by a very partisan agenda, they take this to insane levels. A star motif used in Trump’s election propaganda was pounced upon by the ADL, claiming that it was a Star of David employed to inflame Jew-hatred. The frenzied ADL also suggested that Trump’s condemnation of the power of the international banks (also promoted by Bernie Sanders) was a subtle means of promoting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” One has to be either a paranoid delusional or an anti-Semite to genuinely believe that any reference to international banks is a reference to Jews. And to top this, a negative reference to the anti-Israel George Soros — which most Jews would endorse — was also alleged to be anti-Semitic.
Not surprisingly, the hysteria impacted on Jews at the grass roots.
Yet in the wake of the election of a most pro-Israel U.S. government, in which Jews and staunch friends of Israel are likely to assume key positions, with the president’s daughter having converted to Judaism and observing an Orthodox religious lifestyle, many Jews have simply lost the plot. A number of Reform and Conservative synagogues actually held special mourning services to bewail the advent of fascism in America. One prominent Conservative rabbi in New York even made a shocking analogy between the Trump victory and the rise of Nazism prior to the Holocaust.
The ultimate obscenity was the hysterical attack on Trump’s appointment of the controversial right-wing media executive Steve Bannon as his strategic adviser. Without any credible proof, the ADL accused him of being an anti-Semite who would pave the way for a return to anti-Semitism and white supremacy.
It so happens that Bannon is surrounded by Jews in his media company, Breitbart News. He is known for his fervent support for Israel and his condemnations of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus. One can disagree with Trump’s selection of Bannon, but for Greenblatt and the ADL to smear him as an anti-Semite is beyond the pale. The uproar following this was so great that Greenblatt was ultimately obliged to whisper a withdrawal of this false allegation.
The double standards applied by the ADL is exemplified by the fact that despite the outright anti-Semitism and promotion of BDS against Israel promoted by the Black Lives Matter movement, Greenblatt does not call for Jews to boycott the organization and still refers approvingly to the “positive” aspects of its work, suggesting that only a “small minority” imposed the anti-Semitic aspects of its program. Apparently the ADL adopt very liberal standards to real anti-Semitic groups if they come from the Left.
Greenblatt’s use of a revered body created to combat anti-Semitism to promote his own partisan political agenda and even stooping to use allegations of anti-Semitism to slander his opponents is scandalous. He has no place in a mainstream Jewish organization.
American Jewry today stands at a crossroads. Ironically, at a time when possibly the most pro-Israel U.S. administration in history is about to take office, significant sectors of the Jewish community are falsely accusing its leaders of promoting anti-Semitism. It should be noted that other mainstream Jewish bodies, like the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the American Jewish Committee, did not engage in this campaign and merely called for unity. But the Zionist Organization of America was the only significant Jewish organization protesting against this partisan defamatory campaign.
However, it is obvious that increasing numbers of Reform, Conservative and secular Jews consider Israel low among their priorities and confuse liberalism or “social justice” as a universalist basis for a Jewish commitment with no Jewish content or values. In all likelihood, they will become even more estranged from Israel as they seek to further ingratiate themselves with their liberal friends.
Fortunately, this will be compensated by the intensified support for Israel from committed Jews and Christian friends.

Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

Trump is the Best Thing That Has Happened to Israel in Years

2016-11-15T12:15:00.002+02:00

“Instead of slanders, Jews should offer up prayers of Thanksgiving.”

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/11/14/trump-is-the-best-thing-that-has-happened-to-israel-in-years/

Trump is the Best Thing That Has Happened to Israel in Years

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN

NOVEMBER 14, 2016

The hysteria in the Establishment is astonishing: today's email blast from the usually staid Financial Times begins, "Donald Trump has chosen Reince Priebus, the establishment head of the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, while naming Steve Bannon — his campaign chair who ran Breitbart News, a website associated with the alt-right and white supremacists — as his chief strategist and counsellor."

To claim that Breitbart is associated with white supremacists is a despicable lie, but the FT feels compelled to say such things because polite opinion requires ritual anathemas of Trump. And the liberal Jewish website The Forward writes, "The reaction was quick and furious from Jews and anti-hate groups. The Anti-Defamation League, which stays out of partisan politics and vowed to seek to work with Trump after his election, denounced Bannon as 'hostile to American values.'" The Forward headline asks, "Will Steve Bannon bring anti-Semitism into Trump's inner circle?"

This again is a foul slander. I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. I first met him when he approached me at a conference to tell me that he liked my writing, which is unabashedly Zionist. Steve is strongly pro-Israel, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that he is anti-Semitic.

The Establishment is floored and flummoxed. It doesn't understand what it did wrong, it doesn't understand why it has been evicted from power, and it can only explain its miserable situation as the consequence of an evil conspiracy. In short, the Establishment is having a paranoid tantrum, compounding its humiliation with a public meltdown. Sadly, that includes liberal Jews.

Trump's election is the best thing that has happened to Israel in many years. It eliminates the risk of a diplomatic stab in the back at the Security Council and sends a dire warning to Iran, the only real existential threat to the Jewish State. The security of the Jewish people in their homeland is vastly enhanced by the vote on November 8, and Jews everywhere should thank God that the head of state of the world's most powerful country is a friend of Israel with Jewish grandchildren. Instead of slanders, Jews should offer up prayers of Thanksgiving.

How is it that US liberal Jewish leadership are silent on the countless anti-Semites associated with Obama and his administration, including Muslim Brotherhood operatives? Read below for a concrete example!

This disgraceful CAIR leader calls for the overthrow of the US government and yet, according to the article,

“Ayloush is not a marginal figure but someone with access to the heights of American power, including the White House.

According to an Investigative Project on Terrorism analysis in 2012, he was a delegate to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. [and] ... attended at least two White House meetings.”

CAIR Leader: Overthrow the U.S. Government

by Daniel Pipes • Nov 11, 2016
Cross-posted from National Review Online

http://www.meforum.org/blog/2016/11/cair-leader-calls-for-overthrow-of-us-government

Tweet by CAIR's Hussam Ayloush just as Donald Trump's victory became apparent.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) successfully presents itself to the media as a benign civil rights organization, comparable to the NAACP or the ADL, a description that conservatives ineffectively rail against.
In this light, perhaps a tweet sent out just after midnight EST on Nov. 9 by Hussam Ayloush, long-time head of CAIR's Los Angeles office, will help awaken the press to CAIR's true Islamist identity.
Ayloush wrote, "Ok, repeat after me: Al-Shaab yureed isqat al-nizaam. (Arab Spring chant)."
That second line is Arabic ("الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام‎‎") for "The people wants to bring down the regime."
In other words, Ayloush unambiguously and directly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Comments:

Email from Hussam Ayloush referring to "Zionazis."

(1) Ayloush may be the most vicious of the CAIR leaders. So far as I know, for example, he's the only one of them to bandy about the term "Zionazi," as evidenced in his e-mail below, dated March 18, 2002.
(2) Ayloush is not a marginal figure but someone with access to the heights of American power, including the White House. According to an Investigative Project on Terrorism analysis in 2012, he was a delegate to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. [and] ... attended at least two White House meetings.
The logs show Ayloush met with Paul Monteiro, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement on July 8, 2011 and Amanda Brown, assistant to the White House director of political affairs Patrick Gaspard, on June 6, 2009. According to reliable sources, Monteiro was White House liaison for secret contacts with CAIR, especially with Ayloush.

CAIR-Los Angeles head Hussam Ayloush.

Further, "IPT has learned that the White House logs curiously have omitted Ayloush's three meetings with two other senior White House officials."
(3) The dawning of Donald Trump's victory was apparently a trying moment for Ayloush, so he let loose with an emotion he'd normally have kept under wraps.
In other words, he offered a rare, candid insight into the mind of one CAIR apparatchik.
(4) According to 18 U.S. Code § 2385, "Advocating overthrow of Government":
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
So, journalists, editors, and producers: do please note what CAIR stands for.
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Don't Blame the West

2016-11-10T17:00:00.002+02:00

By Michael Curtis

Everyone except barbaric jihadists will greet with delight the news that Iraqi military forces, helped by U.S. training, and allies are approaching to liberate the city of Mosul, the largest Sunni center in Iraq, that had been captured by a few thousand ISIS militants in June 2014, and been part of the Islamic Caliphate imposed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The intense fighting for the city illustrates the pivotal Middle East problem, the competing interests, the mosaic of warring religious sects and ethnic and tribal groups. Shiites from Hashed al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Units) are linked with Sunni jihadists, Kurdish peshmerga, and the Iraqi army against the ISIS force, now seemingly divided into foreign and local contingents.

Who are the true messengers? The Sunni Arab Nineveh Guards from the northern Iraqi province are trained and supported by Turkey, which sees Mosul as part of its historic zone of influence. The Christian community is divided: some Christians are linked to Iraq to fight ISIS; others are linked to Kurdish forces. Members of the Yazidi minority have ties to almost all other groups in the fighting.

Fashionable talk of a homogeneous Arab population requires suspension of disbelief. It is an arguable proposition that there is a clash of civilization between the Arab and Muslim world and Western democracies based on religious and cultural identities. But more certain is the existence of continuing relentless internal war within the Arab civilization, divided as it is, and has long been, on issues of religious and ethnic identity as well as political rivalries and struggles for supremacy.

This ought to be the first recognition of reality for the new U.S. president who must end the Obama passivity concerning Middle East issues and not be a party to the blame game. The area is vital for U.S. interests and for solutions to current problems, Islamist terrorism, human rights abuses, migration from Arab countries, nuclear proliferation, and Iran.

The U.S. role is crucial despite the assertion that the present disarray and turmoil in the area is due to Western imperialism or colonialism. This assertion became prominent on the hundreth anniversary of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement signed in May 16, 1916 and made known by the Bolsheviks in the revolution on November 23, 1917. The Agreement is blamed by Arabs for causing the ills of the area and pointed to as the illustration of Western arrogance, imperialism, and great power politics.

Sykes-Picot (S-P) was an agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, British diplomat and Conservative M.P., and a junior French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot. Contemplating during World War I and anticipating the fall of the Ottoman Empire after the War, they envisaged it should be replaced by creating a number of states with coherent borders. The two powers would therefore split the Middle East into spheres of influence.

S-P in hindsight has been criticized for ignoring the multiple realities and rivalries in the area. It drew a line between north and south, from the "e" in Acre (now in Israel) to the last "K" in Kirkuk in Iraq. One part of the area, the north, or Levant, which was to include Lebanon, the Syrian coast, and part of Turkey would be under French control, while the south, first called Mesopotamia before becoming Iraq and Palestine, would be under British control.

About the Arab resentment, envy, and rancor, three points can be made. S-P was not the villain in imposing territorial arrangements to replace the Ottoman Empire in a new Middle East. It certainly proposed but did not impose the creation of states with particular boundaries. This was done by international conferences, especially the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and the Mandate System of the League of Nations.

The city of Mosul itself is an interesting example of deference to political rivalries. At first in the British-French formula it was allocated to the new Iraq that was envisaged. Then, because of nearby oil discoveries, it became part of Syria. The problem remains even today. Turkish President Erdogan asserts, incorrectly, that Mosul has historically belonged to Turkey, and therefore his country should play a role in its future.

Two more important general criticisms arise from S-P. One is the rejection of the right of Western powers to impose borders on the Arab world or to interfere to prevent chaos. In this regard S-P did not stand alone. In addition, there were the Constantinople Agreement of March 1915 between UK, France, and Russia to give Constantinople to Russia, and the Treaty of Saint-Jean-de-Maurianne of August 1917 by which Italy and France would share control of West Anatolia.

The second crucial issue was the criticism of Western initiatives to create homogeneous countries in an area full of Shias, Sunni, Arabs, Kurds, Christians, Druze, and Alawites in the post-Ottoman Middle East. After all, the Ottoman Empire had given autonomy to the ethnic and religious groups within it. S-P and other were accused of destroying autonomy in attempts to deal with the problem of the areas under Ottoman rule. Three provinces, Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul, would correspond to boundaries of Iraq. Four others, Damascus, Beirut, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, correspond to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and a strip of southern Turkey.

It cannot be denied that the two great powers in the post-World War I world were conscious of their own economic and security interests in the Middle East. But it also true that local Arab elites played a significant role in the ruling process. Local figures and forces were responsible for political development of the region.

Key figures in this were members of the Hashemite family, headed by Hussein bin Ali, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca. As a result of pressure, two of his sons were given prominent positions. Emir Faisal, born in Mecca (Saudi Arabia) became king of Iraq, 1921-33. Abdullah became the ruler, at first emir, of Transjordan, a territory that was originally to be part of the Jewish National Home but was hived off as a separate entity by Winston Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, in 1921. No Jews would be allowed in Transjordan, which became Jordan in 1946. Abdulla ruled there as king until 1951, when he was assassinated.

The U.S. president, even when accounting for mistakes in policy, should forgo apologies. The ongoing war in Syria and Iraq indicates that international arrangements such as the 100-year-old S-P have little to do with today's problems, and the crisis of legitimacy in the area. In playing a role, the West should not be blamed for local deficiencies nor for the repressive and corrupt regimes that have been supported by abundant oil money. Instead, it should encourage Arab societies to be more open and follow the kind of reforms beginning in Tunisia and Morocco.

The new president can suggest that Kurds, deprived of a state of their own after World War I, should be given one. Above all, Western leaders should make clear that political stability in the Middle East should not depend on oppressive or arbitrary government, and that religious liberty and rights of minorities should be advanced.

Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials

2016-11-06T21:57:00.003+02:00

Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials

By: Paul Sperry

Posted By Ruth King on November 6th, 2016

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.

In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive e-mails that she may hold the secrets to E-mailgate — if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used.

Clinton entrusted far more than the care of her DC residence, known as Whitehaven, to Santos. She expected the Filipino immigrant to handle state secrets, further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.

Clinton would first receive highly sensitive e-mails from top aides at the State Department and then request that they, in turn, forward the messages and any attached documents to Santos to print out for her at the home.

Among other things, Clinton requested Santos print out drafts of her speeches, confidential memos and “call sheets” — background information and talking points prepared for the secretary of state in advance of a phone call with a foreign head of state.

“Pls ask Marina to print for me in am,” Clinton e-mailed top aide Huma Abedin regarding a redacted 2011 message marked sensitive but unclassified.

In a classified 2012 e-mail dealing with the new president of Malawi, another Clinton aide, Monica Hanley, advised Clinton, “We can ask Marina to print this.”

“Revisions to the Iran points” was the subject line of a classified April 2012 e-mail to Clinton from Hanley. In it, the text reads, “Marina is trying to print for you.”

Both classified e-mails were marked “confidential,” the tier below “secret” or “top secret.”

Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.

From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.

Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.

A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified e-mail from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”

Yet it appears Clinton was never asked by the FBI in its yearlong investigation to turn over the iMac Santos used to receive the e-mails, or the printer she used to print out the documents, or the printouts themselves.

As The Post first reported, copies of Clinton’s 33,000 allegedly destroyed e-mails still exist in other locations and could be recovered if investigators were turned loose to seize them. Higher-ups at the Justice Department reportedly have blocked them from obtaining search warrants to obtain the evidence.

It also appears the FBI did not formally interview Santos as a key witness in its investigation.

This is a major oversight: Santos may know the whereabouts of a missing Apple MacBook laptop and USB flash drive that contain all of Clinton’s e-mails archived over her four years in office.

In 2013, Hanley downloaded Clinton’s e-mails from her private server to the MacBook and flash drive.

“The two copies of the Clinton e-mail archive (one on the archive laptop and one on the thumb drive) were intended to be stored in Clinton’s Chappaqua and Whitehaven residences,” the FBI said in its case summary.

But Hanley says the devices were “lost,” and the FBI says it “does not have either item in its possession.”

In addition to Abedin, Santos worked closely with Hanley at Whitehaven and could shed light on the mystery — if only she were asked about it.

When a Post reporter confronted Santos at her DC apartment Friday, she would say only, “I don’t speak to reporters.”

According to a 2010 profile in The Philippine Star, close Clinton friend Vernon Jordan recommended Santos to the Clintons after she worked part-time for him.

Bill Clinton gave a speech in Manila as part of his foundation and took time to visit with the family of the “mayordoma [housekeeper] of his Washington, DC, home — Marina Santos.”

He was quoted as describing Santos as the “wonderful woman who runs our home in Washington, without whom Hillary will not be able to serve as secretary of state.” The article ended remarking, without a hint of irony: “Marina now runs his house so that he and his wife can better serve interests higher than their own.”

Santos could turn out to be the Betty Currie of the Clinton e-mail scandal. Currie was the secretary for President Clinton. She also came recommended by Jordan, and became famous as a central witness in the Monica Lewinsky scandal for her handling of gifts given to Clinton’s mistress.

Investigators had sought the gifts, allegedly hidden under Currie’s bed on orders from Clinton, as evidence.

The State Department and Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and a Hoover Institution media fellow, is the author of “Infiltration.”

VIRAL: 13yr. Old Trump Girl HAMMERS Hillary – ROCKS the House in Arizona!

2016-11-06T21:56:00.000+02:00

http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/viral-13yr-old-trump-girl-hammers-hillary-rocks-house-arizona/?utm_source=newsletter&utm

Guilt in An Age of Jihad

2016-08-01T20:26:00.002+03:00

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Dexter_Van_Zile/Guilt_in_An_Age_of_Jihad/

Israel’s economy – an island of stability

2016-07-29T08:55:00.003+03:00

Yoram will be in the US in September and November, available for speaking engagements.

Israel’s economy – an island of stability
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative”
Straight from the Jerusalem Boardroom #213, July 29, 2016
http://bit.ly/2atXxd8

1. According to a study conducted by the University of Lausanne, Israel is one of the top five world high-tech powers, as indicated by a 2015 $1bn investment, in Israel, by Apple, creating a hardware development center. The USA, China, Russia and India are, actively, soliciting high-tech cooperation with Israel. India and Israel negotiate a free trade zone, which would increase their current $5bn trade balance. Israel is second only to Russia in the exportation of military systems to India (Jerusalem Post, July 24, 2016).

2. $245mn raised by Israeli companies in July, 2016; $2.9bn raised, so far, in 2016 ($1.7bn in the 2^nd quarter and$1.1bn in the 1^st quarter). For example, SafeBreach (cyber) raised $15mn from HP, Deutsche Telecomm, etc.; Prospera (agricultural tech) raised $7mn from the Silicon Valley-headquartered Bessemer Venture Partners; PowerLinx (business matching) raised $7mn from Dun & Bradstreet, France; and Engie (car maintenance) raised $3.5mn from the San Francisco-based 8Partners, the San Francisco Peninsula-based Motus Ventures. (Globes Business Daily, July 27, 2016), etc..

3. Israel’s Emefcy raised $24mn from US, Chinese, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australian investors (GE Ventures was one of the initial investors), in order to advance its 44 sewage-recycling projects in the US, Israel, Latin America, Ethiopia and, mostly, in China (Globes, July 26). GuardiCore raised $20mn from Cisco, the London and Israel-based 83North, and the Silicon Valley and Israel-based Battery Ventures. SkyCure raised $16.5mn from the Silicon Valley-based Foundation Capital (Globes, July 20).

4. The Israeli gambling websites giant, 888, is negotiating a merger with the British giant, Rank, in order to acquire the $3.6bn British giant, William Hill (Globes), July 25).

5. A US-Israel cyber cooperation in the protection of financial payments from malicious hacker attacks – which could result in mega billion dollar catastrophes - was announced in Atlanta, GA. Israeli companies excel in the development of firewalls (Globes, July 3).

6. The following is a sample of vital data featured in Adam Reuter’s (Financial Immunities) and Noga Kainan’s (Company Leaders Forum) “Against all odds – Israel is an Island of success:

*Israel’s economy has expanded by 180% during the past 20 years, while the population (8.4mn) has grown by 45%;

*Israel’s GDP is in excess of $300bn compared to $1.2bn in 1949 and $155bn in 2006, GDP per capita is $35,000 (24^th in the world);

*Israel’s foreign exchange reserves reached $90bn, an indication of financial stability, bolstered by a highly diversified, high-quality commercial and defense exports, thus minimizing the impact of global slowdown;

*Israel’s ratio of public debt to GDP is systematically shrinking (64%), unlike most OECD;

*Israel’s unemployment rate is decreasing (5%), while labor force participation rate is expanding (77%);

*Israel is among the only 8 countries launching space satellites, a global co-leader with the US in the areas of research, development, manufacturing and launching mini, small and medium-size space satellites;

*Israel is the world leader in the area of per capita research & development: 140 per 10,000 employees;

*86 Israeli companies are traded on NASDAQ, third following the USA and China.

*About 300 global high-tech giants established research & development centers in Israel, leveraging Israel’s brainpower;

*Israel’s population is the youngest in the OECD – median age 31 (OECD – 42), featuring the highest fertility rate (number of births per woman), including an unprecedented surge in secular fertility.

What a Cast of Characters in Political Affairs!

2016-06-23T17:39:00.001+03:00

Thursday, 23 June 2016

What a Cast of Characters in Political Affairs!

by Michael Curtis

In 1648 the Swedish politician and diplomat Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote to his son, “Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed.” Recent events in the United States and elsewhere amply justify the aphorism. Here are a few of those events.

1. On January 1, 2016 Iran was voted for a three-year term a member of the 41 member executive board of United Nations Women (UN-Women), a body created in 2010 that is dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. Since the body works for the elimination of discrimination against women it is not obvious what contribution can be made by Iran, a country where women cannot hold some government positions, where there are no laws against domestic violence, and where adultery is punished by stoning to death. Iran is certainly familiar from its own experience with handing out punishment for women who expose parts of their body, “bad Jihab.”

The Iranian attitude starts at the top. The President of Iran himself, the supposed “moderate” Hassan Rouhani, according to reports, married his cousin when he was 20 and she was 14.

2. Interesting and fabricated history lessons have been provided by Palestinian learned authorities including Mahmoud Abbas, now in the 11^th year of his 4-year term as President of the Palestinian Authority. The Bible tells us, he says, that the Palestinians existed before Abraham. The Canaanite-Palestinian alphabet was invented more than 6,000 years ago.

His PLO colleague Mahmoud Al-Habbash, chair of the Supreme Council for Sharia Studies, differing a trifling thousand years over dates, declared that Jews were responsible for unfounded claims, myths and rumors in saying that a Jewish Temple ever existed in Jerusalem. Not so, the Palestinians have been there for the last 5000 years and Habbash’s Palestinian forefathers are the monotheist Canaanites and Jebusites.

3. The venerable Archbishop Desmond Tutu who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 and is a busy individual nominated Palestinian Marwan Barghouti for the Nobel Prize. Barghouti is admired by many Palestinians as a would be successor to Abbas whose term is endless as President of the PA.

However, the minor problem is that Barghouti is in Israeli jail, convicted for murder and three attacks that killed five people and is serving 5 consecutive life terms for terrorist murder, bus bombings and suicide attacks. His Nobel Peace Prize speech would include his qualifications, as the leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in the Intifada started by Yasser Arafat in 2000 in the West Bank, and as the founder of the Tanzim, the armed branch of Fatah.

In any case, Barghouti must await the democratic presidential call which is somewhat erratic. The Palestinian National Council, supposedly the legislative body, officially has 800 members. It last met for a special session in 2009 but the last regular session was in 1996. The PNC elects the PLO executive committee, of 18 members, representing different factions, and thus indirectly the president.

4. Abbas Zaki, member of the Central Committee of Fatah, besides glorifying Palestinian terrorists who had performed “miracles” with knives and rocks in killing Israeli civilians, has told the truth. The conflict with Israel, he asserted, is an uncompromising religious conflict over holy Islamic land (land of Ribat). A Palestinian state on the 1967 borders (sic) is only the first stage in the program of the Palestinian Authority which applies to gaining the whole of Israel. When asked about Zaki’s glorification of terrorism, the Danish Foreign Minister Kristian Jensen while admitting it was “inflammatory rhetoric,” nevertheless regarded Fatah as “moderate.”

5. With topsy-turvy logic the Palestinian leaders, in search of peace, have named at least eight streets in Palestinian cites after Abu Jihad, co-founder of Fatah and the commander of al-Assifa, the armed wing of Fatah. He was the planner of innumerable attacks inside Israel on both civilian and military targets. Another peaceful approach by Yehia Mousa of the rival PLO group Hamas was the enigmatic statement, “we found it was important to implement the death penalty rule to maintain civil peace in society and to prevent cases of murder.” In fact, since 2007 Hamas has executed 67 people.

6. Palestinian spokespeople have finally revealed the ambitious Jewish conspiracy. The immediate goal of the Zionist plans is to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, to replace it with the alleged temple in its place and to incite a religious war. But the final goal of the “children of Zion” is the military conquest of the world.

7. At the meeting of the World Health Organization on May 25, 2016, a resolution sponsored by the Arab group and the Palestinian delegation focused on one, only one, country. The resolution was carried 107-8 with 8 abstentions and 58 not in attendance: the 107 included UK, France and Germany. It declared that Israel violated the mental, physical, and environmental health of Palestinians.

The Syrian delegate called for a special WHO investigation into health conditions in the “occupied Palestinian territory” and “the occupied Syrian Golan” because Israel continues to experiment on Syrian and Arab prisoners with medicine and drugs and to inject them with pathogenic viruses. He believed Israel conducts secret medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners and poisons them.

The delegate did not explain why at that very moment Israeli hospitals were treating Syrians who had fled from the civil war in Syria and flocked to Israel. His paranoia was unlimited. His version of the world wide Jewish conspiracy was that Jewish doctors make and spread diseases because 95 per cent of the pharmaceutical industry was owned by Jews. This of course was in addition to the Rothschild family that owns more than half of the world’s wealth, including the World Bank. Did the Korean born President of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim know this?

8. Germans have surprised the world by hosting in June 2016 an auction held in Munich. Among the featured items to be sold were underpants worn by Hermann Goering and socks worn by Adolf Hitler, some dresses of Hitler’s lover Eva Braun, and a brass case that held the cyanide capsule used by Goering to commit suicide. Goering’s underpants, silk with blue monograph HG, had a starting bid of $700, and his cyanide case at $3,500.

9. On June 21, 2016 the grieving population of Orlando, Florida was given advice by Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General. She told the audience including the relatives of the 49 murdered by Omar Mateen, the Islamic terrorist, that the most effective response to terrorism was compassion, unity, and love. Lynch had already drawn attention to the words of the killer by her continuing call, then sudden withdrawal, for redaction of the exact words, especially allegiance to the major Islamic terrorist organization, that he used in his numerous messages.

Though Mateen had clearly proclaimed more than once to the Orlando police dispatcher that he had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of the Islamic State, ISIS , Lynch told the audience that she did not know if she would ever narrow the killer’s reason for his actions to one motivation. People, Lynch said, often act out of more than one motivation. Yet for most political observers, in the case of Lynch herself, it is not difficult to narrow down her behavior, and her refusal to utter the words Radical Islamist Terrorism, to one motivation.

DELUSION AND REALITY IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

2016-06-21T15:37:00.002+03:00

DELUSION AND REALITY IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

THE ICONOCLAST

Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Delusion and Reality in the Obama Administration

by Michael Curtis

It would be too unkind to say that the Obama Administration resembles the Grand that Couldn’t Shoot Straight, the appellation given by the novelist Jimmy Breslin to a story about a Brooklyn Mafia mob. Yet, even loyal supporters of the Administration are perplexed and embarrassed by the decision on June 19, 2016 of Attorney-General Loretta Lynch to redact the most important parts of the transcript of the self-described soldier of Allah, the Islamist murderer of 49 people in Orlando, Florida.

Two recent actions have illustrated the insularity of mind, the remoteness of the U.S. Administration from reality, and given the impression of a fanatical obsession with a fabricated version of affairs. One is the repeated refusal by President Barack Obama and, on June 20, 2016, Attorney-General Loretta Lynch, to acknowledge that terrorist incidents are linked to if not the result of Radical Islam. The other is an unwillingness to abide by the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 that allows anyone to request information from executive branch government agencies.

It is inexplicable why Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch still persist in refusing to utter the words Radical Islam as if they were a kind of witchcraft in referring to the terrorists in the U.S. The murderers told us who they were and explained their actions. Major Nidal Hassan who killed 13 at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 said he was linked to the notorious terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Muhammad Abdulazeez who killed 5 at Chattanooga, Tenn., on July 16, 2015 was motivated by Islamist propaganda. The couple that killed 14 in San Bernardino on June 12, 2016 were home grown terrorists inspired by Islamist groups.

Why cannot the President and the Attorney General accept the references to Islamic terrorism by the perpetrators including those made by the murderer Omar Mateen in Orlando, Florida in his calls to the police during his intervals of murdering 49 people? Mateen had clearly said he had pledged allegiance to the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and the ISIS organization. It is unrewarding that the Administration’s excuse for not speaking frankly is desire to avoid alienating supposed allies in the Muslim world.

What an extraordinary difference between the Obama Administration’s inability to speak truth to the American public and the forthrightness and clarity of French political leaders in responding to terror in their country and elsewhere in Europe. After the ghastly series of massacres starting on January 7, 2015 at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris and the nearby kosher supermarket that killed 17 people, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls stated the obvious.

The Obama administration should heed Valls’ words, “We are at war, but not against a religion, not against a civilization, but at war to defend our values. It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against Radical Islam.” After the terrorism on March 22, 2016 at the airport and metro station in Brussels, Valls repeated the reality, the existence of war against the three mentioned enemies.

President Obama correctly said that all of us have a responsibility to refute the view that groups like ISIL (ISIS) somehow represent Islam. The problem is that no serious critic of his foreign policy has suggested this is the case. All accept that the vast numbers of Muslims in the U.S. and around the world are peaceful people. But it is the height of irresponsibility to deny or overlook the fact that a part of the Muslim community can be characterized as adherents of Radical Islam, one expression, if a perverted one, of Islam.

Similarly, it is not true that addressing the terrorists correctly as Radical Islamist will in some way discourage efforts to combat them, or suggest the West is fighting a war against a religion, or even worse encouraging would be jihadists to join the terrorist groups. The statement and decision of Loretta Lynch in redacting the specific enemy, Islamic jihadists, from the transcript of the 911 calls made by the terrorist becomes incomprehensible, except as one that is politically motivated and thus politicizing the Department of Justice.

Both Lynch and Obama have spoken of the Orlando massacre as an act of terror, an act of hate. But neither mentioned it was inspired by terrorist ideology or that Mateen stated his allegiance to the world’s major terrorist group. It is a truism that Mateen was not directed by ISIS or was part of a larger operation. ISIS has fully explained its strategy of calling for lone wolf operations, rather than relying on large scale, disciplined and organized ones.

Lynch’s actions and non-actions have revealed a wider problem in the Obama Administration, the lack of transparency if not the continuing politicizing of the Department of Justice, already familiar from members of previous and present administrations, such as John Mitchell in the Nixon administration, and Eric Holder, the previous Attorney-General. On April 1, 2016 the White House was inexcusably undiplomatic by censoring a video of French President Francois Hollande and redacting his remarks that Islamist terrorism is at the root of terrorism.

On a number of occasions Obama has assured the country that his administration is the most transparent administration in history. His memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies declared that the Administration would, consistent with law and policy, disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.

Accordingly there has been some commitment to transparency. But, even admitting the growing problem because of the increase in the number of requests for information, there have been frequent departures from this noble principle. Rather, there has been secrecy, and imperfect closure of information of off the record and concealed meetings. We know the State Department edited the transcript of the journalist James Rosen. The White House spin-doctor Ben Rhodes has arrogantly revealed his deception of the media and the general public over the nuclear deal with Iran.

Censorship has been rife. It may be true as the administration argues that some information needs to be private, but the clear and frequent pronouncements, made clear in the media, by Mateen do not fall in this category.

The record of the Administration regarding secrecy and openness and transparency has been imperfect. Pertinent to the ongoing presidential campaign, a federal judge in May 2015 rebuked the State Department for not releasing the emails of Hillary Clinton, and ordered them to be released in batches every 30 days.

More broadly in 2014, the Obama administration censored or refused to release more government records than in any previous year. About 39 % of total requests for information were censored or access was denied. In about 30 % of other instances, no records could be found or the request was found unreasonable. Federal officials could not find any records for one sixth or 13,000 requests for information.

Happily, it was a severe backlash and strong public concern from American citizens about the proposed redaction by Lynch that caused the Department of Justice to change its mind and make public the seemingly whole transcript of Mateen’s remarks. The Administration’s behavior, by denying or minimizing reference to the perpetrators as Islamic or linked to ISIS in some way, is largely political in character. Its explanation that by redacting the information it is preventing spreading of Islamic propaganda is a specious one. The families of the 49 killed in Orlando deserve better from their rulers.

At 68 - is Israel isolated?

2016-05-08T22:34:00.002+03:00

Yoram will be in the US during September, 2016, available for speaking engagements (http://bit.ly/1W5CrSr).

At 68 - is Israel isolated?
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
“Israel Hayom,” May 8, 2016, http://bit.ly/1UJQcrm

Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western policy-makers - joined by the “elite” Western media - contend that 68 year-old Israel is increasingly isolated due to its defiance of global pressure to evacuate the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which tower over Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and 80% of Israel’s population, transportation, technological and business infrastructure.

Since 1948, global pressure on Israel to commit itself to dramatic concessions has been a fixture of Israel’s foreign policy and public diplomacy, accompanied by warnings that Israel was dooming itself to painful isolation. An examination of Israel’s global position – economically, militarily and diplomatically - documents that irrespective of Israel’s uphill diplomatic challenges, these warnings crashed on the rocks of reality, and resoundingly refuted by an unprecedented integration of Israel with the global street.

Thus, side-by-side with the rough diplomatic talk which has always pounded Israel, there has been an increasingly mutually-beneficial, geo-strategic walk. This is highlighted by Israel’s unprecedented civilian and military integration with the international community, in response to growing international demand for Israel’s military, economic, technological, scientific, medical, pharmaceutical and agricultural cutting-edge innovations.

Israel’s increasingly global integration is reflected by a series of developments in the last few weeks, which are consistent with Israel’s well-documented 68-year-old track record on the global scene.

For example, notwithstanding Europe’s support of the Palestinian Authority and harsh criticism of Israel, NATO does not subscribe to the “isolate Israel” theory, follows its own order of geo-strategic priorities, and therefore refuses to cut off its nose to spite its face. Hence, on May 3, 2016, NATO significantly upgraded its ties with Israel, inviting Jerusalem to establish a permanent mission at their Brussels headquarters. This upgrade will expand the surging, mutually-beneficial Israel-NATO cooperation in the areas of counter-terrorism, intelligence, battle tactics, non-conventional warfare, science, cyber and space technologies and defense industries, where Israel possesses a unique competitive edge.

While Turkey’s President, Erdogan, has blasted Israel brutally on the diplomatic field, Turkey did not block the recent agreement between NATO and Israel. Moreover, the Israel-Turkey balance of trade has catapulted from $2.5 BN in 2009 to over $5 BN in 2015. Turkey has not ignored the unique niches of Israel’s exports in the area of defense, medicine, pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

India, the seventh largest – and one of the fastest rising - economies in the world, has become one of Israel’s closest partners - second only to the USA - in the areas of defense, counter-terrorism, intelligence, manufacturing, agriculture, irrigation, information technologies, space, etc.. Oblivious of the “isolate Israel” school of thought, India has become the largest customer for Israel’s defense systems, with Israel trailing only the US and Russia in terms of military sales to India. On March 29, 2016, Israel’s Rafael Advance Defense Systems concluded a long-term agreement with India’s $15 BN Reliance Defense Systems, which is expected to produce $10 BN in sales. A year and a half ago, Rafael won a $500 MN contract for the supply of missiles to India’s ground forces.

Aiming to leverage the momentum-gaining “integrate Israel” trend, China’s $10 BN Kuang-Chi technology conglomerate is launching an Israel-based international innovation Chinese fund to invest in early, to mid-stage Israeli and global companies, reflecting the vigorous Chinese interest in mature and start-up Israeli companies. Chinese investments in Israeli companies expanded from $70 MN in 2010 to $2.7 BN in 2015, while the China-Israel trade balance surged from $30 MN in 1992 to $11 BN in 2015. The trade balance could have been dramatically larger, but for Israel’s cautious attitude, in light of China’s close ties with Israel’s enemies. China has followed in the footsteps of the Hong-Kong-based tycoon, Li Ka-Shing, whose venture capital fund, Horizons Ventures, invested in 30 Israeli companies, accounting for almost half of its portfolio.

The 250 global high-tech giants, which established research and development centers in Israel, expose the isolation of “Israel’s isolators” from the real world. For instance, on February 22, 2016, Oracle ($156 BN, 136,000 employees) – which operates four centers in Israel - acquired Israel’s five-year-old Ravello for $500 MN, its fifth Israeli acquisition. On March 3, 2016, Cisco Systems ($135 BN, 72,000 employees) acquired its 12th Israeli company, Leaba Semiconductor, for $350 MN. On March 10, 2016, Intel ($144 MN, 100,000 employees, 10,000 of them in Israel) acquired its 9th Israeli company, Replay Technologies, for $175 MN. In 2015, Intel – which is currently investing $130 MN in a new center in Israel - exported $4.1 BN from its manufacturing plant in Israel. Some 60 Israeli start-ups are included in the portfolio of Intel Capital. In 2015, global pharmaceutical giants – such as MSD, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abbvie, Janssencilag, Roche, Merck and Eli Lilly – invested $150 MN (compared to $130 MN in 2014 and $100 MN in 2012) in ground-breaking, medical research, conducted in leading Israeli hospitals.

Leading investment funds have been veteran supporters of the “integrate Israel” school-of-thought. For instance, the Silicon Valley (Menlo Park)-based Lightspeed raised $1.2 BN for its 11th fund dedicated to US and Israeli start-ups. The Israeli investment funds, FIMI, Vertex Ventures and Israel Secondary Fund-2 raised – mostly from overseas investors - $1.1 BN, $150 MN and $100 MN respectively.

Reaffirming the “integrate Israel” reality, Fitch Ratings - one of the three credit rating organizations designated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – upgraded Israel’s credit rating outlook from “stable” to “positive,” while retaining its “A” rating. The upgrade generates a robust tailwind to foreign investments in – and foreign trade with – Israel. In April, 2016, when all advanced economies are struggling, Fitch Ratings lauds Israel’s thriving economy in comparison to other OECD countries. Fitch commends Israel for its success in overcoming intense national security and homeland security challenges; reducing the ratio of government debt to GDP from 95.2% in 2000 to 64.9% in December 2015; reducing the budget deficit to 2.1%, the lowest figure since 2008; bolstering foreign exchange reserves to $90.6 BN; and sustaining the strength of the shekel.

At 68, Israel is highly integrated into the key global disciplines, in defiance of Secretary of State John Kerry’s warning that “if we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel.” The Secretary’s warning is overwhelmingly squelched by global reality, defies 71% of the US public, which considers Israel favorably according to the February, 2016 annual Gallup Poll, and is inconsistent with the US Congress’ systematic and massive support of Israel.

NEW WHITEWASH OF FDR'S FAILURE TO BOMB AUSCHWITZ

2016-05-06T09:18:00.002+03:00

As published in The Jerusalem Post - May 4, 2016

NEW WHITEWASH OF FDR'S

FAILURE TO BOMB AUSCHWITZ

by Rafael Medoff

(Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, www.WymanInstitute.org)

If only Alonzo Hamby had met George McGovern!

Hamby is the author of a new biography of President Franklin D. Roosevelt which defends FDR' s failure to bomb Auschwitz, on the grounds that it was too far away for U.S. planes to reach. McGovern, the U.S. senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, was one of the World War II pilots who actually bombed oil sites at Auschwitz--proving that it was, in fact, not out of reach at all.

Hamby is a prominent historian and the author of a biography of Harry S. Truman as well as several other well-received books. Reviewers are already heaping praise on his new FDR biography, as well. Evidently they are unaware of the colossal error he makes in his account of Roosevelt's response to the Holocaust.

"The death camps were located in areas largely beyond the reach of American military power," Hamby writes in Man of Destiny: FDR and the Making of the American Century. And: "Auschwitz was in a Soviet area of operations and at the outer limit of American bomber range."

And yet, American bombers did repeatedly bomb German oil factories that were situated in the slave labor sections of Auschwitz.

On August 7, 1944, U.S. bombers attacked the Trzebinia oil refineries, just thirteen miles from the gas chambers. On August 20, a squadron of 127 U.S. bombers, accompanied by the all-African American unit known as the Tuskegee Airmen, struck oil factories less than five miles from the gas chambers.

A teenage slave laborer named Elie Wiesel witnessed the August 20 raid. A glance at Wiesel's best-selling book 'Night' would have enlightened Hamby. Wiesel wrote: "If a bomb had fallen on the blocks [the prisoners' barracks], it alone would have claimed hundreds of victims on the spot. But we were no longer afraid of death; at any rate, not of that death. Every bomb that exploded filled us with joy and gave us new confidence in life. The raid lasted over an hour. If it could only have lasted ten times ten hours!"

There were additional Allied bombings of the Auschwitz oil factories throughout the autumn. Allied bombers also flew close to Auschwitz in 1944 to re-supply the Polish Home Army forces that were fighting the Germans in Warsaw. On August 8, British planes began air-dropping supplies to the Poles. Their flight route took them within a few miles of Auschwitz. They would fly that route twenty-two times during the two weeks to follow. In September, President Roosevelt ordered U.S. planes to take part in the Warsaw airlift.

When George McGovern first mentioned publicly, in 2004, that he had been one of the pilots who bombed the Auschwitz area in 1944, interviewers from the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies flew to South Dakota to videotape his recollections.

McGovern described to them how, at age 22, he piloted one of the B-24 "Liberator" bombers that targeted the oil factories at Auschwitz. “There is no question we should have attempted...to go after Auschwitz,” McGovern said. “There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens.”

Even if there was a danger of accidentally harming some of the prisoners, “it was certainly worth the effort, despite all the risks,” McGovern said, because the prisoners were already “doomed to death” and an Allied bombing attack might have slowed down the mass murder process, thus saving many more lives.

In one raid, several stray bombs from McGovern's squadron missed the oil factory they were targeting and accidentally killed five SS men.

McGovern noted that he remained an ardent admirer of President Roosevelt. “Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and he was my political hero,” he said in the interview. “But I think he made two great mistakes in World War Two.” One was the internment of Japanese-Americans; the other was the decision “not to go after Auschwitz...God forgive us for that tragic miscalculation.”

It's a shame Alonzo Hamby never met George McGovern--he would have disabused Hamby of the absurd notion that Auschwitz was out of America's reach.

But then again, McGovern's statements about bombing Auschwitz have been widely available on the internet for more than a decade now. Hamby could have located them with even the most cursory search of the literature on the subject. Thus one suspects that even if Hamby had known of McGovern's experiences, he would have looked for some other way to exonerate the Roosevelt administration's refusal to bomb Auschwitz.

But FDR and his administration do not deserve to be exonerated. Dropping a few bombs on Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to it would not have undermined the war effort; it simply would have conflicted with President Roosevelt's view that the war against the Jews was a sideshow which was not America's concern. The president who presented himself to the public as the champion of the “forgotten man,” as someone who embodied humane values and cared about the downtrodden, turned his back on the most compelling moral challenge of our times.

Col. Richard Kemp: Israel an ‘Outpost of Strength,’ Europe on ‘Spiral Downward to Obliteration’

2016-04-20T10:02:00.003+03:00

1. MUST WATCH VIDEO - https://youtu.be/CKkumHeJ758 - British group apologize to Israel and the Jewish people

My mother’s boat is shown on 4:11 of the video. Its name is Ha-Hagana – The Defense. My mother was on that boat when the picture was taken.

After about 3-4 months in Cyprus, she finally received a certificate to enter the Land of Israel. She was taken immediately to Kibbutz Sdeh Eliyahu where she trained in Yiddish for 3 weeks to use and shoot a rifle (she didn’t yet speak Hebrew). After training she went directly to war and fought on two fronts, near Jerusalem and in the South, during Israel’s Independence War.

Throughout the years, she frequently noted that after 4 concentration camps in Europe, (including Auschwitz and Bergen Belzen) and the British Detention camp in Cyprus, the happiest moment for her was to receive and use a weapon so she could at last defend herself as a Jew!!! Rachel

Col. Richard Kemp is the same righteous man appearing on the Video above.

2. http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/04/13/col-richard-kemp-israel-an-outpost-of-strength-europe-on-spiral-downward-to-obliteration/#

Col. Richard Kemp: Israel an ‘Outpost of Strength,’ Europe on ‘Spiral Downward to Obliteration’

April 13, 2016

Author: Ruthie Blum

Col. Richard Kemp, addressing the Gatestone Institute. Photo: Raymond Hamlin.

Discussing the challenges democracies face in confronting unconventional warfare, a retired British Army officer on Tuesday touted the Jewish state as exemplary.

Asked about the case of the IDF soldier currently under investigation for killing a subdued Palestinian terrorist who had just committed a stabbing attack against a comrade-in-arms, Colonel Richard Kemp – once the commander of UK forces in Afghanistan — said, “All people make mistakes, and soldiers are no exception, particularly since they are under immense pressure, may suffer from a lack of sleep, physical discomfort and often great fear.” The only relevant question, he added, is how an army and a country respond to violations, when they are determined as such.

Addressing the Gatestone Institute — a New York-based think tank specializing in strategy and defense issues — Kemp told The Algemeiner that the immediate public condemnation of the soldier in question by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot before all the facts of the case had even been established, was a function of their awareness of the “continual and unjust international pressure on Israel, no matter what it does.”

If the Israeli establishment had not reacted that way, said Kemp, author of the best-selling book Attack State Red, “It would have come under political assault.”

This attitude towards Israel, said Kemp, “is damaging to the West as a whole, because it constrains every army of every democracy; others do whatever they want. The perfect example of this is the war on ISIS. Though killing innocent civilians is obviously something we must avoid doing as much as we possibly can, our enemies hide among the civilian population, and sometimes we must risk the lives of civilians in order to destroy the enemy. Fear of doing this means that we will always lose.”

Kemp recounted his experience of the previous day, when he spoke at a pro-Israel event at New York University, held to counter “Israeli Apartheid Week” taking place there at the same time.

“I asked the students how many believed it was illegal to kill innocent civilians in times of war,” he said. “And I was surprised to discover their level of ignorance on that score, because all of them answered in the affirmative. In fact, it is not illegal to kill innocent civilians in times of war. It may not be nice; it may not be desirable; but it is not illegal.”

Kemp reiterated his long-standing position, based on in-depth research and numerous visits to Israel, that the IDF possesses a “unique morality” unparalleled in other militaries, where preventing civilian casualties is concerned. In addition, he said, unlike the case of other armies, “When Israel fights, it stands in isolation.”

A member of the High Level Military Group (HLMG) – comprised of top-level defense experts from Germany, Colombia, India, Spain, Australia, the US, France, the UK and Italy, which was established in early 2015 with a mandate by the Friends of Israel Initiative to examine the Gaza war – Kemp said the report it published in October will serve as a document to defend Israel in the “lawfare battle” being waged against it in the international arena. He said HLMG’s next project is to focus on “what Israel has to do to combat crazed Islamist extremists stabbing people in the streets and ramming into them with their cars.”

However, he stressed, “I don’t believe there can be a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel wants to live in peace, but what the Arabs want is its annihilation.” Kemp, a Catholic, nevertheless expressed optimism about the Jewish state’s remaining “an outpost of strength,” adding that Israel “should initiate an offensive strike on Iran, whose nuclear program it has the capability of delaying.”

This was in sharp contrast to his assessment of Europe, which is said is “on a spiral downward to being obliterated.”

http://video.slimail.com/QXIcgUVVnZU - VIDEO - Florida professor talks about the state of Islam in Europe and the US · http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/ UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’ 1602 14 GettyImages-469698190 Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty by RAHEEM KASSAM 10 Apr 2016 1,988 The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West. Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals: One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house; 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband; 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife; 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal; 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament. Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.” Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims. Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.” Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”. And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves. “It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits. “Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.” His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West. “We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.” “For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.” And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups. Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.” Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.” And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.” “Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.” In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”. Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found. What British Muslims Really Think is on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday · http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210621#.VwpgIvkrK00 - VIDEO attached to link Saudi TV host: Time to face facts, terrorists are Muslims Video attached to link Saudi journalist rips into 'hypocritical' clerics who encourage Jihad, then claim terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. By Ari Soffer

2016-04-11T16:51:00.000+03:00

http://video.slimail.com/QXIcgUVVnZU - VIDEO - Florida professor talks about the state of Islam in Europe and the US

· http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/

UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’

1602

by RAHEEM KASSAM 10 Apr 2016 1,988

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:

One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.

Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”

Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.

And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”

His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.

“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”

“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.

Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”

Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”

And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”

“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”

In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.

Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

What British Muslims Really Think is on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday

· http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210621#.VwpgIvkrK00 - VIDEO attached to link

Saudi TV host: Time to face facts, terrorists are Muslims

Video attached to link

Saudi journalist rips into 'hypocritical' clerics who encourage Jihad, then claim terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

By Ari Soffer

4/10/2016,

A Saudi Arabian TV host has urged Muslims to face up to the fact that Islamic terrorists are indeed Muslims, and do more to combat the phenomenon instead of denying it.

In a rare - and scathing - moment of introspection for an Arab TV host, Nadine Al-Budair insisted no one should be surprised that Islamist terrorists had emerged from "our schools and universities."

"Whenever terrorism massacres peaceful civilians, the smart alecks and the hypocrites vie with one another in saying that these people do not represent Islam or Muslims," she said in her monologue on Rotana Khalijiyya TV, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

"Perhaps one of them could tell us who does represent Islam and the Muslims," she suggested sardonically.

Al-Budair noted that many Islamist apologists tend to write off jihadist terrorists as "homeless alcoholics and drug addicts," in order to avoid facing up to the Islam-inspired ideology which drives them.

But there are plenty of homeless, drug- and alcohol-addicted non-Muslims too, she pointed out, "but we do not expect these addicts or criminals to even consider coming here and blowing up a mosque or a street in our city."

"Don't these perpetrators emerge from our environment?" she asked of Islamic terrorists. "After the abominable Brussels bombings, it's time for us to feel shame and stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity."

"We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab, and that they adhere to the religion of Islam," she said. "We must admit that it is the schools and universities that we established that told them that the 'others' are infidels."

She shared a complaint often made by some more moderate clerics, that the vast majority of Muslims were basing their faith and ideology on a specific set of commentaries and interpretations of the Quran, instead of the book itself, rendering them largely ignorant of the foundations of their faith and beholden to increasingly extreme ideologues.

"What makes us laugh and cry at the same time is that the people who spilled the blood walk at the dead man's funeral and cry," she concluded, referring to Islamist apologists.

"Now the old supporters (of terrorism) have the audacity to declare that they denounce bombings everywhere and that the killing of civilians is an attack on the religion (of Islam).

"Why don't they have the courage to declare that they were the ones who said that Jihad is obligatory, and who legalized political wars, using futile and disgraceful exegeses which permit killing, enslavement and destruction?"

The United Nations sanctifies evil

2016-04-06T11:29:00.001+03:00

View online

April 6, 2016

The United Nations sanctifies evil

IIsiPPho

The United Nations is an evil body dominated by Islamic nations and tyrannies.
Just last week, on March 24 in Geneva, the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) concluded its session by passing five resolutions condemning Israel. This followed a series of blood libels accusing the only democratic country, in a region surrounded by barbarism, of engaging in a policy of deliberate murder of Palestinian children.
Indeed the Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel over the past decade than all resolutions criticizing other governments combined. This, despite the fact that countries leading the charges against Israel are themselves engaged in horrific human rights violations. And despite the fact that in Syria, Israel’s neighbor, hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions are trying to flee the country as President Bashar Assad’s army and ISIS butcher entire communities.
The reality is that the United Nations, with its subsidiaries, has morphed into an evil body dominated by Islamic nations, tyrannies and rogue states whose policies it legitimizes.
Freedom House, the independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy, maintains that 80% of UNHRC members are “not free” or only “partly free.” In this degenerate body, Saudi Arabia was elected last year to chair a key human rights panel.
The UNHRC has consistently appointed fiercely biased anti-Israel rapporteurs and commissioned numerous reports to demonize Israel and accuse the Israel Defense Forces of engaging in war crimes.
Last month, it passed a resolution to boycott produce and compile a list of businesses over the Green Line - clearly a first step in the direction of sanctions and an extension of the global anti-Semitic BDS movement.
Similar outrageous bias is also prevalent in the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council where demonizing, delegitimizing and attributing all the woes of the world to the Jewish state is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda or the Middle Ages when Jews were held responsible for all the misfortunes of mankind.
The initiatives of these efforts to demonize Israel emanate from rogue states that dominate the U.N.
A few examples:

Representatives of Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya and Qatar served as presidents of the General Assembly;
A representative of Iran served as a vice president;
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who heads the world’s most virulent terror state, used the General Assembly to “condemn terror” while interspersing his statements with anti-Semitic remarks;
Iran, which stones women for adultery, was appointed to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women;
Assad’s Syria was elected to a UNESCO commission dealing with human rights and nuclear proliferation;
As recently as 2010, the UNHRC published a report praising the human rights record of Libya;
A representative of Sudan, whose president is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, was elected vice president of the Economic and Social Council, which regulates human rights;
North Korea was elected to chair the Conference on Disarmament;
UNESCO continuously condemns Israel and only once condemned Syria, and yet elected Syria to one of its human rights committees.
In 2015 the World Health Organization had the gall to pass a resolution, introduced by Syria, by a majority of 104 with 4 opposed and 6 abstentions, absurdly claiming that Israel was “targeting the health of Syrians in the Golan … injecting them with pathogenic viruses.” The WHO has never carried a single resolution condemning any other country.

Further examples abound of the hypocritical, corrupt and evil machinations of the U.N.
After the defeat of nazism, the founders of the United Nations endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They never envisaged that the organization they created would subsequently be hijacked by dictatorships and tyrannies who would exploit it as a platform to promote evil, even including the endorsement of genocide.
Israel became the canary in the mine. Two decades after having endorsed the creation of the State of Israel, the U.N. initiated a concerted effort towards its delegitimization.
We have witnessed a dramatic downward spiral at the U.N. over the last 30 years. In the 1990s, the Security Council was disgraced by its failure to quash genocide in Rwanda, despite the fact that it had peacekeeping forces in the area. Likewise, the shocking blunder in Srebrenica, Bosnia, when a U.N. battalion -- in a U.N.-declared “free zone” -- handed 8,000 Muslim civilians to the Serb military, which promptly slaughtered them all. Nor was the U.N. able to deal with the genocide in Sudan or more recently the carnage in Syria.
Instead, it intensified its anti-Israel campaigns. What is morally despicable is that the Europeans, who initially displayed token resistance to some of the more outrageous attacks on Israel, have reverted to the role they played in the 1930s when they stood aside as the forces of darkness enveloped the Jewish people.
They seem to have entirely forsaken their moral compass and rarely vote against the most extreme anti-Israel resolutions, preferring to abstain so as not to antagonize those powers seeking to delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state. They also join the obscene calls on Israel to respond “more proportionately” to Palestinians engaged in murdering their civilians.
Now they have gone one step further. In a world rampant with human rights injustices, they preceded the UNHRC with an EU demand for “labeling” Israeli products emanating from over the Green Line.
This must be seen as an extension of the ongoing campaign to rescind U.N. Resolution 242, which calls for negotiations based on defensible borders and substituting it with a demand to return to the indefensible 1949 borders unless an agreement on swaps with the Palestinians (currently inconceivable) can be achieved. In this context, the settlement blocs, the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem and even the Jewish Quarter of the Old City are regarded as occupied territories.
Until now, the Security Council was prevented from passing such a resolution because the U.S. protected Israel by employing its veto. While U.S. President Barack Obama has been at the vanguard of those demanding that Israel accept the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as future borders, until now he was inhibited by Congress and his own party from endorsing a Security Council resolution to this effect.
But in recent months there have been numerous signals and outright threats that unless Israel makes further unilateral concessions, it should no longer rely on a U.S. veto to prevent a harsh Security Council resolution which could in turn pave the way for global sanctions against the Jewish state.
Obama is unlikely to act until after the presidential elections. But there are growing concerns that in the two-month hiatus between the elections and his retirement, he could well do so.
The U.N. is intensifying its campaign against Israel. The horrendous ISIS attacks in Europe have in no way impacted on EU policy toward Israel.
The months until the presidential elections present the optimal time to influence future U.S. policy toward the U.N. and to ensure that Israel is not abandoned to the wolves.
This year, due to a mandatory rotation, the U.S. is not a member of the UNHRC. Presidential candidates should be canvassed to express their commitment to refuse to participate in the UNHRC unless it halts its obsessional anti-Israel crusades. They should also be urged to commit themselves to refute any effort to impose a solution on Israel or rescind U.N. Resolution 242.
Donald Trump has already completely written off the U.N. But the real challenge is to persuade the likely winner – Hillary Clinton – to translate the speech she made at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference expressing her love for Israel into a clear cut commitment that, if elected, she will ensure that the U.S. either enforces a modicum of morality at the U.N. – including confronting the vile hatred that portrays Israel as evil incarnate – or take appropriate action.
The U.N. today incubates evil and provides legitimacy to tyrannies. If this will not change, the U.S. and other democratic countries have an obligation to condemn these pathological actions and, if necessary, establish a global association of democracies to promote human rights and combat terrorism.
Democratic leaders would do well to recall the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian executed by the Nazis, who stated that “silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

This column was originally published in the and

Browse more articles like this at www.wordfromjerusalem.com

Stand Up and Fight Islamization of the West: an interview with Paul L. Weston of Liberty GB

2016-04-03T07:34:00.002+03:00

he
1. http://jamieglazov.com/2016/03/19/easy-meat-inside-britains-grooming-gang-scandal-on-the-glazov-gang/ - MUST WATCH video interview

This new special edition (above) of the Glazov Gang was joined by Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation. He discussed his group’s new book about the Islamic child rape gangs: Peter McLoughlin’s “Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal.”

Gavin unveils the terrifying reality — and widespread extent — of Muslim rape gangs in his country and how the Left enables their barbarity and sadism against helpless young kuffar girls.

Now read below this critical interview with Paul Weston on the very same topic – The Islamization of the West.

2. http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/63987#.Vv11bMzYhk0.yahoomail

Stand Up and Fight Islamization of the West: an interview with Paul L. Weston of Liberty GB

by Jerry Gordon NER (April 2016)

Paul L. Weston of Liberty GB at Winchester Guild Hall
April 26, 2014

On April 26, 2014, Paul L. Weston, founder of the Liberty GB party, was arrested at Winchester Guild Hall in London for reciting an excerpt from Sir Winston Churchill’s River War, attacking the barbaric Islamic Qur’anic doctrine. The River War concerned the British campaign in 1898 that defeated the Mahdi’s Jihadi army in the Sudan which had enslaved Sudanese Africans and subjected all in his conquered realm to a brutal form of Salafism.

The Mahdi’s jihadists had killed and beheaded legendary Major Gen. Sir Charles Gordon at the siege of Khartoum in 1883. Gordon who was immensely popular in Britain had been sent to the Sudan by the Khedive of Egypt to reign in the Islamic enslavement of Africans.

Paul L. Weston of Liberty GB being arrested
Winchester Guild Hall April 26, 2014
Source: Daily Mail UK

At the time, we wrote of what Weston called a “stunt" in an interview on the Lisa Benson Show both after his release from jail on April 27, 2014, and on a reprise March 20, 2016. We wrote at the time of Weston’s arrest in 2014:

At around 2:00 pm Mr. Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Reportedly a woman came out of the Winchester Guildhall and asked Mr. Weston if he had the authorization to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him “It’s disgusting!” and then called the police.

Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr. Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.

At about 3:00 pm he was arrested, charged with a violation of Section 4 for Racially Aggravated assault. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

He was briefly held overnight and released the following day.

Prior to the latest Lisa Benson Show interview with Weston, this writer shared a thought that the complicated effort by the liberal Imperialist British which led a mixed British, Egyptian and Sudanese force was a victory against the 19^th Century equivalent of the Islamic State. Weston responded that Britain today would not lead in a similar effort. Rather, it would be the US if it had the leadership with the resolve and commitment to defeat the Islamic State. Weston quoted Prime Minister Gladstone in Parliament holding a copy of the Qur’an over his head saying: “As long as there is this book [the Quran], there will be no peace in the world.” He considered it an “accursed book.”

Weston commented that his "stunt" was deliberately directed at what we and others want to bring attention to, that is, the obsessive, Orwellian political correctness of the Westminster Government of Prime Minister Cameron who has seemingly disavowed his general election promise in 2015 to combat radical Islamic extremism as illustrated by pronouncements by Home Secretary Theresa May. Soeren Kern in a Gatestone Institute cited May’s anti-Islamist proposals:

The home secretary has pledged that a future Tory government would — among other measures — ban Islamic hate preachers, shut down extremist mosques and review whether Sharia courts in England and Wales are compatible with British values.

May has also promised to crack down on Islamic extremism in British prisons, to monitor how police are responding to so-called honor crimes, female genital mutilation, and forced marriage, and to change the citizenship law to ensure that successful applicants respect British values.

It is obvious that the Cameron government has evaded May’s proposals following the May 7, election results. Moreover, he has gone on record endeavoring to make the city of London the center of Sharia finance in a 2013 speech before the World Islamic Economic Forum.

Weston left the UK Independent Party in 2010 to found Liberty GB. Like Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party at the Hague Parliament, Weston is focused on the issue of Islamization of the UK from both legal and illegal Muslim immigration. His freedom of speech and those of his fellow citizens have been muzzled by the politically correct multicultural policies of the current Cameron government. These include recognizing Sharia law and ineffective counterterrorism policies toward those homegrown Muslim rejectionists of liberal British values and laws - some of whom have committed horrendous terrorist attacks and slaughter on the streets of Great Britain, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. Then there is the abysmal history of Muslim gangs controlling prisons.

Weston noted in his interview that a leader of the anti-Islamist English Defense League, Tommy Robinson, had been purposely placed in the same cell with these jihadis in the hope he would be silenced by hands other than theirs. He was also savagely attacked by the jihadist in his home town of Luton in February 2016.

Nevertheless, Breitbart UK reported Robinson officially launched the UK branch of the pan-European Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA) movement on January 4, 2015, along with Weston and Anne Marie Waters. Weston reported the first rally of PEGIDA UK on February 6, 2016, in Birmingham to be following by another there in April.

Weston is concerned about the third generation of Pakistani communities who have succumbed to the anti-Western Deobandi Islamic and Salafist Wahabbist doctrines espoused by radical imams in Britain’s 3,000 mosques significantly funded by the Saudis. He estimated that over $800 billion has been spent by the Saudis in funding madrassas and mosques in both the Muslim ummah and the West. Despite periodic media and select Parliamentary investigative reports, he pointed out the misogynist behavior of Pakistani émigré men who continue to engage in gang rapes, sex grooming, torture and prostitution of young Hindu, Sikh and white girls in local Labor Councils throughout the country.

The sorry record of media cover-up, limited arrests, and convictions of these Muslim sex gangs is depicted in graphic detail in the recently published NER Press exposé by Peter McCloughlin, Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal. Add to that emergence of informal Sharia monitors in predominately Muslim areas in the UK like Tower Hamlets in London. Hundreds of young Muslim men and women in the UK have left to join ISIS. Some, like the late “Jihadi John,” have been prominently featured in ISIS videos beheading UK and American captives. He noted that MI-5, the national intelligence and counterterrorism force has done an effective job of preventing many mass transit attacks following the 7/7/2005 attacks in London. However, he suggested that it cannot keep up with the workload.

In the latest Lisa Benson Show interview, Weston indicated that virtually half of the more than 800,000 legal and illegal immigrants annually entering the UK are Muslims. They have entered under both fraudulent temporary marriages to EU citizens from the Balkans and Eastern Europe and subsequently via family reunification involving multiple wives. This has, according to Weston, accelerated the growth of the Muslim population, resulting an enormously increased welfare system burden and security costs.

Weston also discussed the Orwellian perversity of the British version of “countering violent extremism” campaign. He noted that two examples of Neo-Nazi propaganda cited in the “violent extremism” report were comments made by him. We conducted this latest NER interview with Weston in the midst of his tour in the US and Canada with stops in Long Island, New York, Montreal, and Toronto. He told of the police being called to the original hotel venue in Montreal because of allegations that those gathered to hear his presentation were “fascists.” Those attendees queried by the police dismissed the allegations.

Nevertheless, this was instructive that the new Trudeau government policies attempt to muzzle the free speech that had been a hallmark of the former Conservative Harper government. The attendees decamped to a private residence to hear Weston speak of the dangers of Islamization in the UK and Europe, as well as address questions about the threats to Jewish communities.

Watch the Vladtepes YouTube videos of Weston’s Montreal remarks and question and answer responses, here and here.

When asked by host Lisa Benson on her eponymous program on March 20, 2016, about what might be possible solutions, Weston responded, “put a stop to both legal and illegal Muslim immigration.”

Against this background, we interviewed Paul Weston. (READ MORE) – For FULL Interview

Not because of the 'occupation'

2016-03-25T11:58:00.001+03:00

How painful indeed when the illusion of an entire continent blows up in its face.

1. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=15585

Not because of the 'occupation'

By: Boaz Bismuth

March 23, 2016

On Nov. 14, a day after the appalling terrorist attacks in Paris, French President Francois Hollande declared that France was at war. It was precisely the last thing that the citizens of France in particular, and Europe in general, wanted to hear. Hollande also announced a state of emergency in the country following the attacks, which were likely planned in terrorist states like Syria, Iraq and Belgium.

Even before trying to understand why, the people of France, along with their European compatriots, wanted to know how long their daily lives would be disrupted. A war on terror you say? Come on, we live in Europe, not the Middle East. "When Europe opens its mouth," former French President Francois Mitterrand once famously quipped, "it is only to yawn." Thus, when living in a state of denial, the results are sure to follow. Welcome to "Brusselistan!"

How symbolic that the two horrific bombings in Brussels, which claimed the lives of at least 30 people, occurred at the airport and the "Europe" metro station, adjacent to European Union headquarters. These were not random targets chosen by the Islamic State group, which perhaps wants to show us that the capital of Europe is now a capital of terror. It is the best place from which to send a menacing message to the "infidel crusaders who have more dark days ahead." And in some type of sick competition, it is also a message to al-Qaida: We too know how to carry out coordinated attacks.

For anyone who forgot, last Friday the Belgians breathed a collective sigh of relief. Salah Abdeslam, one of the Paris terrorists, was captured in Molenbeek, a suburb of Brussels that has morphed into a "made-in-Belgium" jihadist breeding ground under the nose of the authorities. Residents of Molenbeek are Belgian born and educated, and receive social welfare benefits; and in retrospect, unofficially of course, also assume a license to kill other Belgians. The reason? Jihad. Not the occupation, not a sense of despair, not George W. Bush -- jihad. After Iraq and Syria, they are thinking to themselves in ISIS, why not expand the caliphate to Belgium as well?

The manhunt for Abdeslam took four months. A petty criminal, who in the name of Islam became an arch-terrorist. It was clear to everyone that his associates -- those who helped him carry out his attack, escape and hide -- were still walking around free. It was only logical to expect more attacks. We can even assume that after Abdeslam was caught, they realized the need to carry out their pre-planned attacks quickly, as he would likely divulge information during his interrogation. Apparently, however, the Belgian security forces were busy patting themselves on the back instead of interrogating him properly.

And while the lawyers and court were busy discussing the terms of Abdeslam's extradition to France, his pals were setting the wheels in motion for their coordinated bombings.

I lived in Europe for many years. And for many years the Europeans didn't want to listen to a word about terror. There was always a reason: It was either terror against Jews, or America, or against the imperialists. Other times it was because of the war in Algeria or the war in Iraq. The Kurds, awkwardly, were always rather forgotten.

The Europeans always found an excuse for the acts of terror on their soil. For whatever reason, it made them feel better. And when the excuses run out there is always the ultimate go-to, responsible for all the acts of terror on the continent: the Zionist occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. After all, everyone knows that Abdeslam couldn't sleep at night because of the "bitter fate" of his brethren in Gaza. Really, enough is enough already! Can the pundits in Israel please stop spewing this nonsense at every turn?

The enemy is already within

But please, ladies and gentlemen, don't stress the Europeans out with talk of war. Don't stress them out with Islamic terror. Incidentally, try not to stress U.S. President Barack Obama out either. It is too romantic and pleasant living in denial, in a world where everyone loves everyone and there are no wars; and where Muslim immigrants from Iraq and Syria integrate seamlessly without dangerous jihadist infiltrators among them.

Perhaps, despite everything, Tuesday's bomb blasts in Brussels can snap the continent out of its daydream. The horrors afflicted on Brussels were due to the laxness of the Belgian security forces and the government's blindness. And their failures came at a heavy price. How many more attacks are needed, how many more casualties, for the other foot to drop and the realization that we are not just at war, but a third world war between the enlightened world and forces of darkness. Between those who would drag us back to the seventh century, or worse, bring the seventh century to our doorstep.

We should not fault the European citizen. Europe, steered by the powers that be, is no longer built to fight wars. Its governments have downsized their military and intelligence budgets significantly. As for Europe's large, sensitive Muslim populations, their sensibilities must not be offended at all costs, even if it requires turning a blind eye. How painful indeed when the illusion of an entire continent blows up in its face. Perhaps it would be better for Europe to keep its eyes shut, or, alternatively, conclude yet again that the "reason" for their ills is none other than the "Palestinian problem."

Europe wanted to believe that those watershed years of 732, 1529 or 1638 -- when the Muslims threatened to conquer the continent -- belonged to the past. Europe, doesn't understand that the situation today is much worse. Then, as we know, the Muslim invader was blocked by walls. Today, the enemy doesn't even need to invade. He is already there, at home; he only needs to prepare a homemade bomb and step into the street. He also sees no army standing in his way.

Were we to go back in time to March 25, 1957 -- when the Treaty of Rome was signed and the EU was essentially created -- and tell the Europeans that 59 years later Britain would issue a travel warning to Belgium, we can assume we would be institutionalized. But "Belgistan" is already something else entirely. It is truly dangerous to go there. If the slumber continues and Europe loses this fight, our grandchildren will be learning the continents of North and South America, Africa, Asia and "Europstan." And I can already see some pundit explaining to the viewers how the Jews are responsible. What, you didn't know? This is all happening because the Palestinians are being oppressed. It's all good, just as long as there is a reason not to go to war.

2. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433094/brussels-terror-attack-western-willful-blindness

…we have to be clear that Muslims who endorse Islamic supremacism, who want our Constitution supplanted by sharia, are on the wrong side of this war, regardless of whether they cross the line into violence.

…it is going to take American military commitment to destroy them — not to carry out an experiment in democracy -building, but to eradicate the threat to our nation and our allies.

Brussels and Willful Blindness

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

March 22, 2016

Defense Secretary Ash Carter happened to be scheduled to testify before Congress today. Thus, he provided the government’s first reaction to the jihadist atrocity in Brussels, in which 31 are dead (the toll is expected to rise) and scores of others have been wounded. Secretary Carter called the attacks a “tragedy.”

The mass murder obviously has tragic effects for those killed and wounded, and for their families, but this is not a tragedy. It is a war crime targeting a civilian population in the course of an ongoing war, which — notwithstanding the reckless posturing by the commander-in-chief — is not close to “winding down,” much less being over. It was simply shocking this morning to watch split screens. On one, we saw President Obama spend fleeting seconds on a peremptory acknowledgement of the attacks before moving on to his long, celebratory speech about how he has put the Cold War to rest in Cuba by working with “President Castro.” On the other screen, Belgians chaotically fled fire and debris while emergency personnel rushed the wounded to ambulances and carried out the dead.

Our enemies are at war with us. They continue to execute acts of war, not tragedies, against us. We cannot “end” the war by withdrawing from it; we can only lose that way. We cannot prevail, or even adequately protect ourselves, without seeing the enemy plain: radical Islam — Islamic supremacists determined to impose sharia on the world, with jihadists as the pointy end of the spear, and ideological sympathizers as their support system.

Because the latest round of war crimes occurs in the context of our momentous decision about who will be the next commander-in-chief, it is worth observing that Ted Cruz, whom I support (and on whose advisory team I serve), has stressed a recognition that the enemy is radical Islam. This is not just campaign rhetoric. We know, nearly a quarter century after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that jihadist cells arise and thrive in ideological enclaves; that is where the radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, plotting, and injection and protection of jihadist immigrants occurs. We cannot deny reality by rationalizing that if we admit the truth we will be misunderstood as being “at war with Islam” — as in all Muslims.

What we like to think of as “radical Islam” is actually a legitimate and rabidly anti-Western interpretation of Islam that is followed by millions of Muslims. It is irrelevant to non-Muslims in the West whether theirs is a correct or incorrect construction of Muslim scripture. The remorseless fact remains that its adherents believe it — with a fervor that inspires the kinds of attacks we’ve seen today and have seen over and over again. Those adherents include Muslims who lack the commitment to carry out attacks themselves but nevertheless provide moral (and other) support to those who do, and who populate the Western immigrant enclaves in which the ideology thrives.

It’s a welcome fact that there are other ways of interpreting Islam that do not endorse war and hostility against the West; those who offer these interpretations are our allies, and we should be encouraging them rather than turning to enemies such as the Muslim Brotherhood to help us conduct “community outreach.” Still, the fact that there are pro-Western Muslims and authentically tolerant interpretations of Islam does not — and cannot be allowed to — obscure the fact that Islamic supremacism is a mainstream construction of Islam. It is not “false” Islam, or “anti-Islam.” It is Islam that competes, violently, with other constructions of Islam.

It is not our job to broker the claims these competitors make regarding what is the “true Islam.” It is our job to protect ourselves and our allies, and to crush the jihadist armies and cells that are prosecuting the war against us. If we do not acknowledge what the threat is and where it is coming from, we will continue to embrace the policies that empower the enemy. In a time of war, we cannot indulge a policy of mass immigration from countries where sharia supremacism is a significant presence.

With respect to Muslim immigrant communities that are already here, we must have sensible surveillance policies that identify and focus police attention on mosques and community centers that endorse anti-Western Islamic supremacism. That is not a dragnet against all Muslims; it is the arena where pro-American Muslims can step up and help us. No law-enforcement or intelligence agency wants to waste its time and resources investigating innocent people. But we have to be clear that Muslims who endorse Islamic supremacism, who want our Constitution supplanted by sharia, are on the wrong side of this war, regardless of whether they cross the line into violence.

Finally, we cannot tolerate jihadist safe havens anyplace on earth. The administration recently conceded that it has no strategy to deny the Islamic State — which has claimed responsibility for today’s attack — their sanctuary in Raqqa (to say nothing of their other strongholds). Let’s be clear: If ISIS is orchestrating attacks on the West from Syria and Iraq, that is an American national-security challenge, not just a civil war in a faraway place. American national-security problems cannot responsibly be delegated to other forces who will carry out our defense and war-fighting responsibilities for us. This is our problem.

There has not yet been a serious bombing campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, and it is fair enough to say that the number of troops we may have to commit hinges on how committed we are to an intense air campaign. We should not delude ourselves, however: The jihadists are planning to attack the United States as well as Europe, and it is going to take American military commitment to destroy them — not to carry out an experiment in democracy -building, but to eradicate the threat to our nation and our allies.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.