Read More About:

Share This Post

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10552

(Redacted from an in-depth must-read article in COMMENTARY February 2015)

The Existential Necessity of Zionism After the Paris Carnage

A COMMENTARY Editorial
By the Editors of COMMENTARY

The jihadist siege of a kosher grocery store in eastern Paris on January 9 was not the beginning of a new threat to French Jews and the Jews of Europe. Rather, it was the culmination of a decade of crisis. And it will not be the end.

The new era of deadly anti-Semitism in France began with the January 2006 murder of 23-year-old Ilan Halimi. Shortly after a Shabbat meal with his mother, he was lured to a Paris slum, where he was ambushed by a gang. They held him captive for 24 days, during which time he was beaten, stabbed, burned with acid, mutilated, lit on fire, and tortured to death. Halimi’s murderers were African and North African Muslim immigrants with ties to Islamic extremists. They called themselves the Gang of Barbarians. And they chose Halimi because he was a Jew.

France’s 5 million Muslims account for 10 to 12 percent of the country’s total population. It is the largest Muslim population in Europe; it is also the most problematic. Several factors contribute to this reality.

The first is radical Islam. Since the late-20th century, a Saudi-funded, anti-Semitic strain of Islamist radicalism has spread to all corners of the Muslim world. Many of France’s recent Muslim immigrants from North Africa have brought their Islamist and jihadist sympathies to Europe. Indeed, a 2013 poll found that a startling 27 percent of French Muslims younger than 24 support ISIS.

Second, nationalism is a foundational aspect of French life. Old nationalist allegiances have made it hard for well-meaning Muslim immigrants to integrate into society, as they have no direct ties to Metropolitan France. They live largely among themselves in banlieues, whose customs and norms closely resemble those of the inhabitants’ countries of origin—not those of their new home.

The doctrine of multiculturalism, the idée fixe of postwar Europe, has a strange relationship with French nationalism: Though it would seem nationalism’s ideological opposite, multiculturalism offers rosy-cheeked cover to France’s deep unwillingness to allow anyone without centuries-old roots to become “French.” And it allows some in France to entertain the belief that Jews, too, can never be French.

France is also home to Europe’s largest Jewish population. For decades after World War II, French Jewry thrived both as a vibrant community of co-religionists and as integral members of French society. While European anti-Semitism was far from extinguished, France seemed a living example of successful Jewish life in Europe after the Holocaust. Today, the Jewish population of France stands at approximately 478,000—the world’s second-largest population of Diaspora Jews (after America’s).

But France’s Jews are outnumbered by its Muslims 10 to 1. The unspeakable murder of Halimi in 2006 heralded a sharp turn back to Europe’s most notorious hatred, at the hands of its newest population. There have been thousands—thousands—of attacks on French Jews and Jewish sites in the years since Halimi was killed.

Muslim attacks on French Jews increased more significantly still in the summer of 2014, during and after Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. On July 13, dozens of North African immigrants stormed Paris’s Don Isaac Abravanel synagogue, chanting “Allahu Akbar” and “Death to the Jews.” The mob, wielding knives, clubs, and axes, tried for hours to get through the barricaded door to some 200 congregants on the other side. Police and representatives of France’s Jewish Community Protection Service eventually dispersed the attackers. In July and August, there were a total of eight attempts to destroy or burn various synagogues in Paris. And in Sarcelles, mobs set fire to Jewish-owned business. All told, anti-Semitic incidents in France shot up an estimated 90 percent in 2014.

From the Halimi murder to the attacks in January, the official French response has been one of sympathy for the victim and denial of the nature of the victimizer. On the afternoon of January 9, at the close of a week in which gunmen who claimed to be avenging the prophet Muhammad killed 17 French citizens, President François Hollande stood in front of television cameras and announced that the terrorists had “nothing to do with the Muslim religion.(Huh!)

The ineffectual response of Hollande and his predecessors to the Muslim problem in their midst has sent many French into the arms of the National Front (FN). This far-right party, founded in 1972 and led today by Marine Le Pen, scored its biggest victory ever in municipal elections in March 2014. Le Pen is an outspoken opponent of Muslim immigration, but the FN is ultra-nationalist in every respect, and neither the party nor its supporters can be considered friends of the Jews. Far from it. Le Pen, daughter of FN founder and unabashed anti-Semite Jean-Marie Le Pen, supports a ban on the wearing of yarmulkes in public. Working-class French are increasingly drawn to both the far right and far left, both of which have a propensity to lay blame on the Jew.

Caught between the deadly reality of radical Islam and the potential manifestation of a neo-fascist revival, what are French Jews to do? For ever greater numbers, the answer lies in Israel. Last year, a record-high 7,000 French Jews immigrated to the Jewish state—more than double the year before. The Jewish Agency, which oversees immigration of Jews to Israel, now estimates that some 15,000 French Jews will make aliyah in 2015.

II. Theodor Herzl

In 1894, the Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl was on the scene in Paris to cover the official public degradation of Alfred Dreyfus, a French officer who had been convicted of spying for Germany and sentenced to life on Devil’s Island.

Jews should “not delude ourselves,” Herzl wrote in his diary. The cause “is a lost one.” The cause of which he spoke was the effort to secure equal rights to life and liberty for Jews as a minority population living among non-Jews. For Herzl, the Dreyfus case marked the conclusion to years of rumination about the existential condition of his people.

Eighteen months later, Herzl published The Jewish State. This pamphlet, which changed the world in 23,000 words, is startling even today, not because of the power of its rhetoric but because of its unprecedented practicality. It does not advance uniquely powerful or memorably polemical arguments against anti-Semitism: “I do not wish to take up the cudgels for the Jews in this pamphlet,” Herzl wrote. “It would be useless. Everything rational and everything sentimental that can possibly be said in their defense has been said already. If one’s hearers are incapable of comprehending them, one is a preacher in a desert.

III. Vladimir Jabotinsky

Although he is now considered the founding father of the ideological right in Israel, the revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky was dedicated to a pragmatic, not a religious or historic, need for a Jewish national home in Palestine. He called it “humanitarian Zionism.” As the anti-Jewish storm clouds over Europe gathered strength once again, Jabotinsky aimed for a simple goal: the rescue of as many Jews as possible. Jabotinsky, the most literate and literary of the early Zionist leaders, grew to disdain the arguments about what a “good” Israel ought to look like—thus, he dismissively called the project of other Zionist leaders an “amusement park for Hebrew culture.” What Israel needed was not to become but to be.

The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism throughout the world continued proving the need after the state of Israel became a reality. Arab countries either expelled their Jews or made it impossible for them to survive without leaving. This resulted in an immediate refugee crisis: 850,000 Jews fled the Arab world in the years following Israel’s independence. Nearly 600,000 settled in Israel. The Jewish state’s absorption of those refugees was unprecedented; the immigrants nearly doubled Israel’s nascent population. Such a thing was only possible because of practical Zionism—the organizations and the banks and the bureaucratic systems originally envisioned in The Jewish State.

The influx from Arab lands was not the only astounding wave of immigration. Soviet Jews, desperate for relief from institutionalized totalitarian hatred in the 1970s, found a crucial ally in U.S. Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik, who successfully moved legislation restricting U.S. trade with countries, such as the Soviet Union, that did not permit oppressed minorities to emigrate. Jews began, slowly, to find their way to the other side of the Iron Curtain. The trickle became a flood with the Gorbachev government’s liberalization and finally the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Today, there are 1.2 million Jews from the former Soviet Union in Israel, the third-largest Russian-speaking Diaspora after the United States and Germany. The Jewish Agency is now led by Natan Sharansky, who spent nine years in the Gulag for the crime of wanting to live as a Jew. And it is the Jewish Agency that will be there to aid the Jews of Europe over the coming years.

IV. Zionism and Conditional Zionism

Zionism was not a utopian vision. It was a program, and remains a program—the means by which Jewry can and will survive into its fourth millennium. It is about providing Jews with a safe haven in the world and allowing them to exercise rights they have been denied almost everywhere on earth where they have been governed by others—save the astonishing exception of the United States. It is about letting Jews be. That is one of the many reasons Israel was established as a democratic state, and one that respects minority rights.

(And what is the alternative to Zionism for “Conditional” Jews who reject Israel by hiding behind unrealistic criticism that expects Israel and its citizens to be perfect?.)jsk

The conditional Zionists have a way of mistaking a lull in the waves for a permanent low tide. Consider this sentence Peter Beinart (a self hating deluded, to my mind, Jewish author) jsk wrote only three years ago: “For the most part, young American Jews don’t experience their campuses as hostile or anti-Semitic.” In fact, crude anti-Zionism is ruthlessly enforced both among the faculty and the student body across American higher education.

V. Dangerous (No, Ridiculous) Complacency

The conditions in France reveal the dangerous complacency of conditional Zionism. Israel was not established as a messianic project or a secular haven. It is not a socialist workers’ paradise. It is not a capitalist-imperialist outpost. It is, instead, a country, now 66 years of age, freer than most, fairer to minorities than most, in which 6.2 million Jews now live.

Alas, the promise Theodore Herzl offered at the conclusion of The Jewish State was dreadfully naive: “The Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies,” he wrote. In two months, Jews will gather for the Passover seder and sing: “In every generation they rise up against us to destroy us.” Anti-Semitism is a disease for which there is likely no cure.

The existential necessity of Zionism after Paris is not only a fact. It is a charge for the future.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Ambassador Yoram Ettinger

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10587

Published in the Israeli daily newspaper “Israel Hayom”
January 16, 2015

(And … Previewed by the audience at our synagogue delighted to have Ambassador Ettinger as our honored guest speaker, just the day before, Shabbat, January 17, 2015!)

The lecture:

In 539 BCE, Babylonian King Belshazzar ignored the writing on the wall – as interpreted by the Prophet Daniel – and was, therefore, annihilated by the Persians (Book of Daniel, Chapter 5).

In 2015, Western civilizations must read the writing on the wall, desist from ambiguity, denial and political correctness and embrace clarity, realism and political incorrectness, in order to survive and overcome the clear and present lethal threat of the Islamic takeover, which gathers momentum via demographic, political and terroristic means.

While medical ambiguity, and the failure to diagnose lethal disease, cause personal misfortune, policy-making ambiguity and denial could trigger national and international calamities.

History proves that Western ambiguity and the refusal to identify enemies – due to ignorance, gullibility, oversimplification, appeasement, delusion and wishful thinking – have taken root, yielding major strategic setbacks and painful economic and human loss.  When it comes to reading the writing on the wall, Western eyesight has been far from 20:20, dominated by modern day Belshazzars, ignoring modern day Prophet Daniels.

For example, during the 1930s, the writing was on the wall in glaring letters: Germany abrogated the Treaty of Versailles, which called for German disarmament, reparations and territorial concessions; German military spending skyrocketed, military conscription was reintroduced and the Rhineland was remilitarized; Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and annexed Austria. 

Still, on September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact, declaring “Peace for our time.” He refused to recognize Hitler’s strategic, global, supremacist goal, assuming that Hitler’s appetite could be satisfied with a tactical, limited gain in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland, thus signing a “peace accord” which triggered the “war of all wars.”

Hitler’s master plan was highlighted in 1925-26 by the two volumes of the supremacist, anti-Jewish Mein Kampf (My Struggle), which is currently a best seller in the Muslim world, particularly in Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

During 1977-79, President Carter did not read the writing on the wall, supporting Ayatollah Khomeini’s battle against the Shah of Iran, who was in fact the US Policeman of the Persian Gulf.  Overwhelmed by denial and wishful-thinking, and heavily influenced by the US foreign policy establishment, Carter ignored the litany of sermons delivered by Khomeini, which exposed the Iranian cleric as an enemy of Western civilization and civil liberties. He despised the US and aligned himself with the enemies of the US, while protected by a Palestinian-PLO praetorian guard.

Thus, the US betrayal of the Shah eliminated a most effective and loyal strategic partner of the US, gave rise to the most lethal, conventional and non-conventional threat to vital US interests in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and beyond and generated a robust tailwind to Islamic terrorism. 
 
In 1990, on the eve of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the US stated that an Iraq-Kuwait military clash would be an intra-Arab, rather than a US, concern.  The Bush/Baker Administration assumed that “the enemy of my enemy (Iran) is my friend (Iraq),” supplying Saddam with dual-use sensitive systems, providing him with $5bn loan guarantees and concluding a US-Iraq intelligence sharing agreement. The 1990 policy of denial triggered a conventional conflict, a $1.25 trillion cost to the US taxpayer, 4,500 US military fatalities, a surge of anti-US Islamic terrorism and a dramatic destabilization of the Persian Gulf.

Since the conclusion of the 1993 Oslo Accord, Western democracies have refrained from reading the writing on the Palestinian (Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas) wall: hate education in grades K-12; unprecedented terrorism; systematic non-compliance with agreements; naming squares, streets and tournaments after terrorists; monthly allowances for families of terrorists; responding to Israeli retreats with intensified terror.

In 2011, Western democracies denied the eruption of an Arab Tsunami, welcoming the violence on the Arab Street as an Arab Spring, transitioning the Arabs toward democracy. The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood (while turning a cold shoulder toward General Al-Sisi), refusing to recognize its well-documented intra-Arab terrorism, the offshoot of its motto: “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”

The 2015 failure to carefully read the Iranian writing on the wall could produce a nuclear conflict at a mega-trillion dollar cost to the US taxpayer, an unprecedented level of fatalities, a tidal wave of Islamic terrorism throughout the globe, including in the USA, decimation of the pro-US Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf and Jordan, an unprecedented disruption of the supply of Persian Gulf oil, further radicalization of the anti-US regime in Venezuela with ripple effects in Latin America, including Mexico, and additional tectonic eruptions of insanity throughout the globe.

At stake is not only freedom of expression and the safety of European Jewry, but the survival of Western democracies.

Solidarity demonstrations and eloquent speeches will not spare Western democracies the wrath of Islamic terrorism and domination, unless accompanied by clarity, realism and the willingness to take military, legislative and political action in order to thwart the writing on the walls of the mosques: submission of humanity to the Prophet Muhammad; submission of the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jewish Kuffar (“infidel”) to Muslims and to Sharia’ laws; Jihad – holy war on behalf of Islam – is the duty of Muslims; Waqf – Muslim land – is ordained by Allah; Dar al Salaam (the residence of the believers) must take over Dar al Harb (the residence of the Kuffar); and Islam-sanctioned Taqiyyah (dissimulation, deception and concealment of inconvenient data) aimed at shielding Islam and “believers” from “disbelievers.”

That was pretty much the excellent lecture Ambassador Ettinger gave at our synagogue. Then the usual question and answer question began and someone in the audience was brash enough to start some fireworks. The questioner contended that perhaps there was some other writing on the wall that the Ambassador failed to point out.

He stated that the writing on the wall had been placed there by the current President of the United States and that the President was, in fact, not some bungling, uninformed, ineffective, uninvolved, uninterested leader but knew exactly what he was doing and was a deliberate destroyer of the United States of America!

The dedicated Democrats and uninformed Left in the audience exploded, shouted down the questioner and he was unable to present the evidence for his claim. Obama’s writings are indeed on the wall spelled out very clearly in his book, Dreams from my Father, Random House 1995. It was later determined that the book was written, with Obama’s blessings, by domestic terrorist. revolutionary William Ayers.

This whole discussion by Dinesh D’Souza appears in the Israel Commentary article,

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=4

That article exposes Obama’s father, Obama Sr., as an anti-Colonialist – the dominant idea in the third world of the 20th Century. The simple core of this idea was that the world is divided into two – the colonizers or oppressors and the colonized or victims. The colonizers used to be Europe, Britain, France and now it is America according to this line of thought.

Furthermore, the rich got rich only by looting the colonized and even when they left, powerful economic forces remained in a position of exploitation. Banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and anyone else that happens to make money are simply now the economic wing of colonialism still into exploitation. And, who to Barack Obama, Jr. is the lead elephant and current exploiter? Why we are, of course.

This writing on the wall was what the synagogue questioner was trying to advise Ambassador Ettinger, that he had missed. But, of course, Ettinger is way too smart to have missed it or to present it and thus immediately alienate the Left wing members of the congregation.

But even politically correct speaker, Ettinger had just declared, “The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood (while turning a cold shoulder toward General Al-Sisi), refusing to recognize its well-documented intra-Arab terrorism, the offshoot of its motto: “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”

By fortuitous serendipidy, another list of facts was submitted to me just last night further supporting the concept that Americans and of course, the American media, have totally missed the writing on the wall proudly displayed by Obama in his book, Dreams from my Father. Here is the list.

Please read it below and my case rests.

“President Obama: It Was You”

This is why you did not go to France to march in the anti-Islamist Freedom Parade.

It was you who told an Islamic dinner – “I am one of you.”

It was you who on ABC News referenced – “My Muslim faith.”

It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.

It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -”I will stand with the Muslims.”

It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that – “I am a Muslim.”

It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.

It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.

It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.

It was you who purposefully omitted – “endowed by our Creator” – from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.

It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ’s Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the ‘HOLY’ Quran.

It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.

It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.

It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.

It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.

It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.

It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.

It was you who said that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim communities.” (And, in some bizarre personal fantasy bragged about the Muslim contribution to the Space program! Huh?)

It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.

It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree.

It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.

It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.

It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.

It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.

It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.

It was you who ordered the US Postal Service to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.

It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help “empower” the British Muslim community.

It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. (As per Ambassador Ettinger)

It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.

It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.

It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal White House religious events.

It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, formerly America’s strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.

It was you who appointed as your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood

Needless to say, this is only the tip of the iceberg of Obama’s perfidy against the United States of America. We have not even begun to list his lethal weakening of the US Armed Forces, Navy, coal industry, alienate our oldest and most reliable friends in the world, done everything he can to block the Canadian Keystone Pipe line, Uses the Environmental Protection Agency and his buddy Eric Holder in the Justice Dept to enhance and enforce his awful destructive polices, etc etc. The list is endless.

In fact, one would need the Great Wall of China, Mr. Ambassador Ettinger, to write down all the evidence proving Barack Obama a dedicated enemy of the United States of America. But, I have run out of paper and reader patience.

Have a good day.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10547

(A good friend of mine, conversant in Arabic, was kind enough to send me a summary, in English, of President el-Sissi’s speech, It is posted below and reads about what I have been told from other sourses. It is a bombshell, especially compared with what other Arab leaders have been willling to say. Kudos to Pres el-Sissi who has, without question, put his own life in danger.) jsk

By ISI LIEBLER

    January 12, 2015

    The ill winds that have been gathering over Europe descended with a tornado last week in Paris with the barbaric Charlie Hebdo massacre, followed by the horrific terror attack at a kosher supermarket – a total of 17 dead in three days. But alas, the horrors will in all likelihood soon recede and life will continue as usual until the next attack.

    Let me say at the outset that, while obviously condemning the murders and unequivocally defending freedom of expression, I do not associate myself with the “Je suis Charlie” movement. In condemning these barbaric acts, we are not obliged to identify with the racism and vulgarity of the victims. Charlie Hebdo was obscenely offensive to Christians and Muslims and promoted vulgar anti-Semitic satire. On the other hand, some Mormons were presumably outraged by the satirical musical “The Book of Mormon” but that did not grant them license to embark on a killing spree of the producers.

    Western governments have yet to internalize the reality that what happened in Paris was not merely another instance of “terrorism” but a classic manifestation of the “clash of civilizations.”

    Aside from murderous attacks primarily directed against Jews in Europe over recent months, there have been ongoing massacres and atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists throughout the world. To name a few: the butchering of 2,000 Nigerians this week in the wake of the Boko Haram enslavement of 300 schoolgirls; the murder of 130 schoolchildren in Peshawar, Pakistan by the Taliban; the barbaric videos broadcast of hostages being decapitated; ongoing mass murder in Syria and Iraq; oppression of women; and gruesome persecution, expulsion and murder of Christians in the Middle East.

    Today, as the global impact of Islamic fundamentalism with increasing manifestations of brutal terrorism grows exponentially, Western leaders lack the courage even to identify the enemy. It has ominous parallels to the struggle with Nazism. Then as now, Western governments initially sought to avoid conflict by appeasing the barbarians – which only served to embolden them.

    This originates in 9/11 when U.S. President George W. Bush, in his call for concerted military action against global Islamic terrorism, sought to placate his Arab allies by describing Islam as a “religion of peace.” This absurd mantra was repeatedly chanted whenever Islamic terror was mentioned and has become an overused term of the political lexicon.

    But it was President Barack Obama and his administration that, despite the dramatic mushrooming of Islamic terrorism, must be held accountable for systematically denying its existence, even avoiding the term “Islamic terrorism.”

    The same obstinate refusal to face reality and an effort to appease their increasingly radicalized Muslim communities motivated all European governments – in particular the French – to repeatedly state, despite all evidence to the contrary, that these acts of terrorism were unrelated to Islamic radicalism and were the actions of “lone wolves” or demented individuals.

    Even now, when the massacres were accompanied by calls of “Allahu akbar” and “We are avenging the Prophet Muhammad,” French President François Hollande refused to use the word “Islam,” merely referring to “obscurantist” forces. However, in stark contrast to Obama, Hollande at least condemned the kosher supermarket attack as a “dreadful anti-Semitic attack.”

    Throughout the world, jihadist mullahs and preachers promote hatred and extremism. In European cities, second-generation homegrown Muslims and converts are indoctrinated to endorse and in some cases participate in jihad and the murder of infidels. Those who convert are not necessarily from the underprivileged, but “ideologues,” many of whom belong to comfortable middle class families and are university graduates.

    But worse has been the unspoken acquiescence of most governments and the media, preventing any meaningful discussion of the threat from Islamic extremism. Apart from downplaying and often even denying the overriding Islamic element in acts of terror, governments and media have disgracefully branded as “Islamophobic” any serious effort to discuss and analyze the problem, even promoting “hate speech” legislation to stifle any such public discussion. The 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference has attempted to make blasphemy (i.e., criticism of Islam) a crime in international law.

    They have been further emboldened by the failure to immediately prosecute Islamic extremists who threaten violence against those who express criticism or dishonor Islam. What is truly ironic is that many of those on the Left who normally endorse the crudest outbursts against Christianity and Judaism, are the first to accuse any critics of Islam of Islamophobia and they display far greater concern for the sensitivities of Muslims.

    In many instances, Obama and European leaders have apologized and even groveled every time some crude outburst against Islam was expressed by individuals, many of whom were of marginal importance.

    Of course not all Muslims are terrorists. But the number of radicals is dramatically increasing and like al-Qaida in the previous decade, Islamic State is providing them with a sense of empowerment and imbuing them with a willingness to die in pursuit of their objectives. The Paris massacres exemplify what we can expect from the thousands of well-trained indigenous battle-hardened assassins imbued with a fanaticism to sacrifice their lives to promote Islam and terrorize infidels, especially Jews, after returning from Middle East conflict zones.

    While local Muslim leaders and heads of Islamic states condemned the massacres, it is chilling to witness the extent that popular public opinion, especially in the Arab world, supports terrorism. We should remind ourselves that it originated with the Iranian ayatollah’s fatwa to murder novelist Salman Rushdie, which was overwhelmingly endorsed in the Islamic world.

    Even if only 20 percent of the Muslims are considered pro-jihadist – and there are in all probability more than that – this would represent two or three hundred million potential terrorists. To persist in denying the existence of such a huge Islamic terrorist presence is utterly delusional.

    Above all, this undermines the moderate Islamic forces striving to stem or isolate this poisonous fanaticism that has arisen from within. Yet the Obama administration has mollycoddled the Muslim Brotherhood (a more nuanced but nevertheless direct extension of the terrorist network) and condemned the leader of the largest Muslim Middle Eastern country, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.

    Ironically, in a historic and critical New Year address, largely ignored by the mainstream press, Sissi publicly expressed what Obama and Western leaders have been denying. He stated explicitly that jihadism and terrorism were linked to “the corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries.” He warned that this was “antagonizing the entire world,” that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed … by our own hands,” and that “we are in need of a religious revolution.”

    Clearly, now that all parties engaged are no longer committed to democracy, this is a time to review our multicultural policies. Western governments must cease their groveling, impose draconian measures against Islamic extremists and intensify pressure on Muslim communities to purge themselves of these elements.

    Issues of civil liberties must be considered secondary when the safety of innocent civilians is at stake. If that requires special surveillance and interrogation of suspect Muslims, so be it. It is common sense, not bigotry, to racially profile and concentrate on those from whose midst 99 percent of terrorist outbreaks originate.

    It will require intensified penetration of mosques and Islamic community centers to identify and deal with those mullahs and fanatics promoting jihadism, including the Saudi financed Wahhabi outlets in the immigrant ghettoes. It will necessitate a rigorous monitoring of Muslim schools and Internet outlets to eradicate and prosecute the extremists who are transforming youngsters into beheaders.

    Failure to act will intensify the prevailing massive swing toward parties opposed to immigration and parties of the far Right like the National Front in France, whose leader, Marine Le Pen, is now the frontrunner in presidential polls.

    Jews have reassumed the role of the canary in the mine and are the first to be targeted, but the world would face the same threat if Jews did not exist. Israel has been at the frontlines confronting Islamic extremism but has received scant support. Indeed, until recently Western governments ignored the carnage in Syria, Iraq and other countries, preferring to concentrate on condemning Israeli housing construction in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and regarding Israel as the major lubricant to Islamic extremism. French support of the PA application to the U.N. Security Council on December 30, obviously designed to curry favor with local Muslims, did not deter terrorists from committing their massacres in Paris a week later.

    For Jews, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The virulence of the anti-Semitic hatred closing in on Jews in Europe (and elsewhere) is horrifying. Robert Wistrich, the world’s leading scholar on anti-Semitism, says that anti-Semitism in France is now in “an advanced stage of disease” that cannot be reversed. There were a series of anti-Semitic murders in France and Belgium preceding the Paris massacre but they failed to raise the same level of outrage as the Charlie Hebdo murders. There were no popular campaigns saying “Je suis Juif.” Indeed there seemed to be greater concern about “Islamophobia” than the targeted Jewish victims.

    Europe is today facing a crisis as serious as the confrontation with Nazism. If Western leaders continue behaving like Chamberlain and fail to stand up to this global threat, it could usher in a new Dark Age in which the Judeo-Christian culture is subsumed by primitive barbarism. The writing is on the wall.

    For Jews, the Zionist vision (The gathering of Jews into their own state of great power and dignity) has once again been tragically vindicated. If we must die with out boots on, so be it but our Hashem will protect us – of that there is no doubt)

    (Italicized notes by Jerome S. Kaufman)

    The relevant excerpt from Sisi’s speech follows (translation by Michele Antaki):

    “I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

    That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

    Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

    I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

    All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

    I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

    Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

    Twitter: @israelcomment

    Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.

    Comments

    comments

    Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

video – Dinesh D’Souza on the Islamic Terrorism in Paris

Islamic ideology driving terrorists to kill, Egypt’s president tells clerics

Redacted from an article by:
Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
January 13, 2015

The ruler of Egypt is alone among major world leaders in his willingness to go before an audience of senior Muslim clerics and tell them that parts of Islamic ideology are indeed driving terrorists to kill worldwide.

Just days before al Qaeda-linked terrorists unleashed a wave of murder in Paris, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi gave a blunt talk that some observers hope will be the beginning of a campaign within Islam to reform its preachings and exile its extremists.

Mr. el-Sissi’s message is at odds with President Obama’s view that Islam the religion has nothing to do with Muslim extremists.

On Dec. 28, Mr. el-Sissi, a former chief of the armed forces who ousted the elected Islamist president in 2013, went to Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, a leading intellectual center of Sunni Muslim thought. He stood before clerics and scholars and asserted that years of Islamic writings and sermons had created an ideology that justifies waves of violence. Now, he said, the imams have a duty to stop it.

“You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology,” he said in a speech televised to the Egyptian people. “You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion.”

Analysts cannot recall any other world leader taking such a bold public step since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda, which, like other organizations that want to unleash violence around the world, bases its doctrine on Sunni Muslim ideology.

When the smoke had cleared in Paris, French President Francois Hollande in effect broke with Mr. el-Sissi’s Dec. 28 message. He told citizens, “Those who carried out these attacks, the terrorists, the madmen, these fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”
(The poor French – led by another Obama)

At the same university and same audience makeup in 2009, Mr. Obama said, “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism. It is an important part of promoting peace.”

When the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, killed American Peter Kassig by beheading, Mr. Obama chose to refer to him by his Muslim name, apparently believing he freely became a Muslim after the violent group took him captive.

“ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith, which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own,” the president said.

Some analysts say Egypt’s Mr. el-Sissi, while not a model for democratic rule, should be applauded for his willingness to officially link parts of his religion’s ideology to violence.

U.S. political conservatives point out that there are clerics who preach violence. There are mosques used to raise terrorist money, recruit fighters and plan attacks. All are components of Islam, fringe or otherwise, they say.

“Western leaders often appear to be the great apologists for Islam,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst with the Gatestone Institute who writes on the “Islamization of France.” “How many times have I heard recently that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, or Islam is a religion of peace, or that jihadists are not true Muslims. Until the West gets over the political correctness, Islam is going to run roughshod over Western values of democracy and free speech.”

One frequent criticism from U.S. conservatives is that there is still no sustained public campaign by moderate Muslim leaders to condemn and root out extremists – 14 years after al Qaeda’s attacks on America.

“Sissi said something profound and, I think, correct,” said Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s top policy official under President George W. Bush. “The great question is whether he’ll be heeded.

Mr. el-Sissi’s pointed speech has received much more attention in the American conservative press than it has in the main liberal media, which are sensitive to charges of “Islamophobia.”

“We must take a long, hard look at the situation we are in,” Mr. el-Sissi said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world. It is inconceivable that this ideology – I am referring not to ‘religion,’ but to ‘ideology’ – the body of ideas and texts that we have sanctified in the course of centuries, to the point that challenging them has become very difficult.”

At one point, he spoke directly to Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand sheik of Al-Azhar University and its revered mosque.

“Honorable Imam,” he said, “you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”

Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian-American internist and nuclear cardiologist who has emerged in the U.S. as a major voice for countering Islamic extremism.

What Dr. Jasser said Muslim leaders are needed to declare a separation between mosque and state, in the place of Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. “When I hear a Muslim leader say that, then I will take a second look that they’re real about it,” he said. “But until then, what’s happening is these radicals are coming back to bite these oligarchs in the rear end.”

Mr. Obama’s June 2009 appearance at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University was part of his travels to majority Muslim nations. In Cairo, he portrayed Muslims as victims of colonialism, then the Cold War, then modern Western societies.

He compared women’s struggles in the male-dominated Muslim culture to a lack of rights today for American women. He said, “The struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.”

He praised Islam’s history.

“And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” he said. “And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. So let there be no doubt. Islam is a part of America.”

The president did urge the clerics to shun violence.

“The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer,” he said. “Among some Muslims, there’s a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of somebody else’s faith.”

In 2013, Mr. Obama appeared at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington to outline his strategy for combating terrorists.

He said he wanted Congress to repeal the law that in 2001 authorized war against al Qaeda and allied groups.

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he said. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Israel’s Minister Without Apologies
By Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal Jan 10-11, 2015

www.israel-commentary.org

A rising conservative star says the old formulas for pursuing peace with the Palestinians are obsolete. The two-state solution? Not anytime soon. (The politically correct answer. The real answer is an Israeli would have to be out of his mind to allow a PA State guaranteed to be just another Arab terror state in his backyard. How about putting ISIS right next door? Would that satisfy the Jew Haters of the world? You betcha.)jsk

It’s election season in Israel, and so far the most talked-about campaign ad features an Orthodox politician in an unorthodox role. In a YouTube video that quickly went viral, Naftali Bennett plays a fashionably bearded Tel Aviv hipster with a compulsion to say sorry—especially when he’s the one being wronged.

A waitress spills coffee on him: He begs her forgiveness. His car gets rear-ended: He steps out to tell the offending driver how sorry he is. He sits on a park bench and reads an editorial in a left-wing newspaper calling on Israel to apologize to Turkey for the 2010 flotilla incident, in which nine pro-Palestinian militants were killed aboard a ship after violently assaulting Israeli naval commandos. “They’re right!” he says of the editorial.

At last the fake beard comes off and the clean-shaven Mr. Bennett, who in real life is Israel’s minister of economy and heads the nationalist Jewish Home Party (in Hebrew, Habayit Hayehudi), looks at the camera and says: “Starting today, we stop apologizing. Join Habayit Hayehudi today.”

“For many years we’ve sort of apologized for everything,” Mr. Bennett explains in his Tel Aviv office. “About the fact that we are here, about the fact that this has been our land for 3,800 years, about the fact that we defend ourselves against Hamas, against Hezbollah.” It’s time, he says, “we raise our heads and say, ‘We’re here to stay, we’re proud of it, and we’re no longer apologetic.’ ”

The message has proved a potent one for the 42-year-old newbie politician, who only became a member of the Israeli Knesset in 2013 and immediately took a major ministerial post. The next parliamentary election doesn’t take place until March 17, which is a double eternity in Israeli politics. But Jewish Home is polling well, and Mr. Bennett is being talked about as a likely foreign or finance minister in the next coalition government, assuming it’s still led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party.

Should a Likud-Jewish Home government form, it could represent a tectonic shift in Israeli politics. For 25 years, between Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip …

(This should read Israeli “re-captured” since that land should always have been Israel’s. Jordan captured it from 1948 to the 1967 War and had no legitimate claim to it.)

… in the 1967 Six Day War and the 1992 election of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, every Israeli government had categorically rejected the idea of a Palestinian state.

Then came the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, after which Israeli governments of both the left and right, including Mr. Netanyahu’s, effectively committed Israel to the two-state solution.(No! Committed Israel to self-destruction via the insidious plan of the narcissist, Shimon Peres)jsk

Now the wheel is turning again. “The latest conflict in Gaza was a real earthquake for Israelis,” says Mr. Bennett, referring to last summer’s war.

“For 50 days we were incurring missiles, and they just went on and on from the very place where we did pull back to the ’67 lines. We did expel all the Jews. We did everything according to the book. The expectation might have been, we’ll get applause from the world—‘you’re OK; it’s they who are attacking you’—but what happened was the opposite. The world got angry at us for defending ourselves.”

For decades, “land-for-peace” has been the diplomatically accepted equation for solving the Israeli-Arab conflict. Experience has shown Israelis that it doesn’t always work as anticipated. Peace with Egypt, achieved after Israel agreed to return the conquered Sinai Peninsula, has proved durable. But Israel also withdrew all of its forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and what it got was a haven for Hamas, which used it to fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Doing likewise in the West Bank seems to many Israelis a surefire way of achieving the same result over a larger territorial scale.

Mr. Bennett, however, is making a deeper point. It isn’t only the land-for-peace formula that has failed Israel. The other failure is what one might call land-for-love: the notion that, even if ceding territory doesn’t lead to peace, it will nonetheless help Israel gain the world’s goodwill, and therefore diplomatic and strategic leverage. Instead, after 20 years of seeking peace and giving up land, Israel’s diplomatic isolation has only deepened. And, as he points out, it has deepened over disputes connected to Gaza—from which Israel withdrew—and not the West Bank, where Israel largely remains.

“So why would I follow the bad model,” Mr. Bennett asks, “instead of strengthening the good model?”

The “good model,” in Mr. Bennett’s view, is some version of the current arrangement in the West Bank, or what he calls, per official Israeli (and ancient Biblical) usage, Judea and Samaria.

“Judea and Samaria is imperfect,” he allows, “but it’s working. More Israelis and Palestinians are shopping together. Driving on the same roads. Working together. It’s not ideal there. But it’s working. People get up, go to work in the morning, come home alive.”

That’s a depiction that critics of Israeli policy would furiously contest, claiming that current policy gives Jewish settlers privileged access to the land while consigning nearly two million Palestinians to Bantustan-like enclaves. That, they say, risks transforming Israel from a democracy into an ethnocracy and guaranteeing international pariah status.

Mr. Bennett’s answer is that it’s the Palestinians who bear the blame for proving themselves unworthy of statehood. “They had all the opportunity in the world to build the Singapore of Gaza, he says. “They chose to turn it into Afghanistan.”He also believes that it’s better to find ways to make the best of a difficult situation than try to reach for a solution that is destined for failure. He wants a “Marshall Plan” to improve the Palestinian economy, “autonomy on steroids” for Palestinian politics—but no more.

“The truth is that no one has a good solution for what’s going on,” he says. “We have to figure out what we do over the next several decades. Trying to apply a Western full-fledged solution to a problem that is not solvable right now will bring us from an OK situation to a disastrous situation. So the first rule is, do no harm, which is the opposite of the Oslo process.”

Worse, he adds, is that successive Israeli leaders have felt obliged to go along with a commitment to a two-state solution, even as few of them believe it’s possible to achieve, at least with the current generation of Palestinians. As a result, he suggests, Israeli leaders can fairly be accused of insincerity.

“We go along with this vision that is impractical, and then, we are surprised why the world is angry with us for not fulfilling that vision. You can’t say, ‘I support a Palestinian state’ and then not execute according to that. I think people appreciate honesty.”

The comment is a not-too-subtle dig at Mr. Netanyahu, who formally embraced the idea of a Palestinian state in a landmark 2009 speech. Mr. Bennett was once the prime minister’s protégé, and served as his chief-of-staff when Mr. Netanyahu was in the political opposition.

But the relationship soured as Mr. Bennett went on to become director-general of the Yesha Council, the umbrella group for Israeli settlers, and became even more embittered when Mr. Netanyahu agreed in 2010 to a 10-month settlement freeze. Over the past year relations between the two men have alternated between threats by the prime minister to fire Mr. Bennett and threats from Mr. Bennett to quit the coalition.

Ultimately, the two men are contesting for leadership of the Israeli right. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, given how much they have in common. Like Mr. Netanyahu, who spent much of his early life in the U.S., Mr. Bennett has strong American roots: Both his parents immigrated to Israel from California, and his English is fluent and all but unaccented. Like Mr. Netanyahu, too, who served in the Israeli special forces, Mr. Bennett was a commander in Maglan, a unit that specializes in going behind enemy lines.

And like Mr. Netanyahu, who worked as a management consultant in Boston in the 1970s, Mr. Bennett lived and worked in New York City, where he founded and ran a cybersecurity company called Cyota, which he sold for a neat profit in 2005. Today, he notes with evident pride, 70% of Americans who bank online use software developed by his company.

One difference, however, is that Mr. Netanyahu is a secular Jew, whereas Mr. Bennett, who wears the knitted kippa common to the religious-nationalist camp, is observant. His belief in the importance of holding on to land is therefore more than just a military or political consideration. It’s fundamental to his world view.

“If your vision is dividing Israel, then it makes no sense in building somewhere that’s not going to be part of Israel,” he says, again drawing an implicit contrast with Mr. Netanyahu. “If your vision is that you’re not going to divide Jerusalem, then it makes all the sense in the world to build there. Because anyway it’s yours.”

Mr. Bennett is equally critical of the government’s handling of last summer’s war with Gaza. The war, he says, took much too long, partly in a misbegotten effort to curry international favor. “I’ll just remind you, there was an endless series of cease-fires with Hamas,” he notes. “And I thought it was a profound mistake to talk to Hamas down in Egypt. You don’t talk to terror organizations! We go in, do what we want to do, get out; if we need to hit them hard we keep it short and keep it very intense. Why do we talk to them?”

Lest anyone mistake Mr. Bennett for an Israeli neoconservative, however, he’s quick to disabuse the impression.

“I don’t believe in regime change, certainly not in the Middle East,” he says. “When I look at the whole arena it’s always the law of unintended consequences works. Look at Syria, look at Egypt. If you ask me how to deal with everything, and it applies here also, it’s effectively deterrence—meaning don’t mess with Israel—it’s having a strong military with a tenfold edge on all of our enemies; it’s having a powerful economy; and strengthening our Jewish character. And not giving up land anymore. If we apply these principles we’ll be fine everywhere.”

So how should Israel—and for that matter the West—conduct a sober and realistic Mideast policy? I ask about Iran.

“Iran’s goal is not to acquire a nuclear weapon today,” he says. “Its goal is to acquire a nuclear weapon tomorrow. So to say that we are postponing the breakout is not the issue. The issue is, do they have a machine that can break out within a relatively short time frame. Roughly 20,000 centrifuges can produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within about four or five weeks. That’s not enough time for the West to identify a breakout. To create a coalition and act, you need about two years. What we need is for the whole machine to be dismantled, not for them to press the pause button.”

Mr. Bennett adds the standard Israeli refrain that the government is preparing for all contingencies and will not outsource its security, but he’s quick to underscore that a nuclear Iran—with the inevitable consequent chain of Mideast nuclear proliferation—is not Israel’s problem alone. “All this will flow over very quickly to the free world,” he warns.

The same goes for the broader problem of radical Islam.

“Anyone who thinks—and I’m talking especially about Europe—that if you sell Israel you buy peace and quiet in Madrid and Paris, they’ve got it all wrong. Israel is the bastion against radical Islam hitting Paris, Madrid and London.”

I interviewed Mr. Bennett on Tuesday night. The following day, jihadists stormed the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, massacring 12 people. There will surely be more such attacks, possibly quite soon. Whatever readers think about Mr. Bennett as an Israeli politician, they might do well to heed his warning to the West:

The biggest danger for any organism is to not identify that it’s being threatened, he says. “I want to hope that people realize that the source of danger and risk in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the deep radical Islamic vision of forming a global caliphate.”

Mr. Stephens writes the Journal’s Global View column and is on its editorial board

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From: Snapshots – A Camera blog

www.israel-commentary.org

Attention US Protestant Establishment Churches – Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglicans. etc. hell-bent on destroying Israel through boycotting Israeli products and defaming Israel in their every publication. Thus their overt anti-Semitism using Israel as the fall guy outstrips their expected concern over their co-religionists.

How intense is this mindless hatred of the Jew? Aren’t they ashamed? In fact, they are planting the seeds of their own destruction, acting as an ally of Islamic fundamentalism. This is a relentless force (now in the form of ISIS) well into destroying our Western civilization fulfilling their centuries-old ambition to have one big Islamic Caliphate State under Sharia law.

I wonder how the above Protestant denominations will fare under Islam and Sharia law?

Father Gabriel Naddaf of Nazareth, Israel tells us, first hand, exactly what is awaiting them.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Father Gabriel Naddaf of Nazareth spoke before the ironically-named United Nations Human Rights Council on behalf of the watchdog group, UN Watch. He laid out the facts that many in the “international community” and the global media refuse to acknowledge:

Do you know that at the start of the 20th century, Christians comprised 20% of the population of the Middle East? Today they comprise only 4%.

Do you know that over the past years some 100,000 Christians have been killed annually? And why? Not for a crime they’ve committed, but only for believing in Christ.

In Iraq alone, more than 77% of the Christians have fled during the year 2000, in addition to thousands killed and expelled.

Some 2 million Christians lived in Syria, but today, they are less than 250,000. Christians in these countries are treated as second-class citizens; facing racial, religious, economic and social discrimination.

Why is this happening? Only due to their religion, a religion that advocates love and peace between mankind.

Christians in the Middle East are marginalized; their rights denied, their property stolen, their honor violated, their men killed, and their children displaced.

Where will they go? Who will defend them? And who will guard their property?

If we look at the Middle East, Mr. President, we realize there’s only one safe place where Christians are not persecuted. One place where they are protected, enjoying freedom of worship and expression, living in peace and not subjected to killing and genocide.

It is Israel, the country I live in. The Jewish State is the only safe place where the Christians of the Holy Land live in safety.

Does the world acknowledge Israel for protecting its Christians? No. Many in the international community have chosen instead to castigate Israel with Jews as their favorite fall guy

He went on:

I, Father Gabrial Naddaf of Nazareth, stand before you and plead: O world leaders and supporters of peace, stop those who want to destroy the only free Jewish State in the region.

It is the only refuge welcoming and protecting all of its citizens. It is the only place that does not attempt to push out Christians, forcing them to leave their land in search of security.

(Yet, have you read about this in the mainstream media? Have you seen it on the evening news? Where’s the coverage?)

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

The U.N. Vote on Palestine Was a Rehearsal

www.israel-commentary.org

An influx of new Security Council members means a likely ‘yes’ vote—and a veto dilemma for Obama.

By JOHN BOLTON
Wall Street Journal
Jan. 2, 2015

Long-standing Palestinian efforts to use the United Nations to achieve internationally recognized statehood status nearly succeeded early Wednesday. Just after midnight, the Security Council narrowly rejected a Jordanian draft resolution fixing a one-year deadline for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, requiring Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, and declaring Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine.”

Because the U.N. Charter requires nine affirmative votes from among the Security Council’s 15 members (assuming no vetoes) to pass a resolution, Jordan’s proposal failed—by one vote. There were eight in favor, two against, and five abstentions. Nonetheless, a pro-Palestinian, U.N. Charter-compliant majority may soon exist.

And absent more-effective U.S. diplomacy, the Obama administration could soon face making a choice that it would dearly like to avoid: whether to veto a biased, anti-Israel resolution. The Palestinian Authority has already significantly upped the ante by moving, later on Wednesday, to join the treaty creating the International Criminal Court.

A firmer U.S. strategy might have prevented the dilemma from arising. The White House’s opening diplomatic error was in sending strong signals to the media and U.S. allies that Mr. Obama, wary of offending Arab countries, was reluctant to veto any resolution favoring a Palestinian State. Secretary of State John Kerry took pains not to offer a view of the resolution before it was taken up. Such equivocation was a mistake because even this administration asserts that a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict requires direct negotiations and agreements among the parties themselves.

No draft resolution contrary to these precepts should be acceptable to the U.S or worth wasting time on in the diplomatic pursuit of a more moderate version. This American view, advocated for years and backed by resolute threats to veto anything that contradicted it, has previously dissuaded the Palestinians from blue-smoke-and-mirror projects in the Security Council.

It is precisely the Obama administration’s audible heart palpitations about negative Arab reactions to a possible U.S. veto that encouraged the Palestinian Authority and its supporters to plunge ahead. Mr. Obama neither prevented the resolution from going forward nor prevailed decisively enough to discourage the Palestinians from trying again within months or even weeks.

Several factors support a swift Palestinian reprise. First, they obtained a majority of the Security Council’s votes, even if not the required supermajority of nine. In today’s U.N., the eight affirmative votes constitute a moral victory that virtually demand vindication, and sooner rather than later.

Second, the text of Jordan’s resolution was wildly unbalanced even by U.N. standards—for example, it demands a solution that, “brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967,” and calls for “security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine.” A few meaningless tweaks here and there, and several countries that abstained could switch to “yes.” Third, on Jan. 1 five of the Security Council’s 10 nonpermanent members stepped down (their two-year terms ended), replaced by five new members more likely to support the Palestinian effort.

Consider how Wednesday’s vote broke down, and what the future may hold. Three of the Security Council’s five permanent members (France, China and Russia) supported Jordan’s draft. France’s stance is particularly irksome, since it provides cover for other Europeans to vote “yes.” The U.K. timidly abstained, proving that David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher ; the abstention signals that a more “moderately” worded resolution might be enough to flip London to a “yes.”

Washington cast the only permanent member’s “no” vote, which is characterized as a veto only when nine or more Security Council members vote in a draft resolution’s favor. Will President Obama now have the stomach to cast a real veto against a U.N. Charter majority backing the Palestinians? Is this the point where the “liberated” Mr. Obama allows a harsh anti-Israel resolution to pass? Happy New Year, Jerusalem.

Among the nonpermanent members, the prospects are grim. Three “yes” votes came from Jordan, Chad and Chile, which all remain Security Council members in 2015. Two additional supporters, Argentina and Luxembourg, have been replaced, respectively, by Venezuela (no suspense there) and Spain. Spain narrowly won election in October, defeating Turkey after three ballots. Madrid might be expected to support Washington, but not necessarily, given recent EU hostility to Israel and the appeasers’ argument to soothe wounded Muslim feelings about Turkey’s loss by backing the Palestinians.

Only Australia joined the U.S. in voting “no.” Its successor, New Zealand, would either have abstained or voted affirmatively, according to Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

South Korea abstained, but its replacement, Malaysia, is a certain affirmative vote. Angola, taking Rwanda’s seat, is an abstention at best. While abstainers Lithuania and Nigeria remain, Nigeria’s Boko Haram problem could easily move it to “yes” as an olive branch to the Muslim world. And Lithuania, as a new member of the euro currency union, could well succumb to arguments for EU solidarity, especially if Britain also surrenders.

Finding nine affirmative votes, and likely even more, looks decidedly easy. The Obama administration can only prevent what it dreads by openly embracing a veto strategy, hoping thereby to dissuade pro-Palestinian states from directly confronting the U.S.

And if that fails, the veto should be cast firmly and resolutely, as we normally advocate our principles, not apologetically. As so often before on Middle Eastern issues, a veto would neither surprise nor offend most Arab governments. If the administration had courage enough to make clear that a veto was inevitable, it would minimize whatever collateral damage might ensue in Arab lands. But don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

The Druze Religion

www.israel-commentary.org

The Druze community number close to 120,000 in Israel. They live primarily in the Galilee and the Golan Heights, and are classified as a separate religious group, with their own courts and their own jurisdiction in matters such as marriage, divorce, and adoption.

The Druze religion has its roots in Islam, but although some members consider themselves “Muslim,” they have been recognized as a separate religion. During the reign of the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, in the 10th and 11th centuries, the Druze religion was formed, combining tenets of Islam with the philosophy of the Greek and Hindus. The Druze do not accept converts. They believe that anyone who wanted to join the religion had a chance to do so in the first generation after it was started, and that everyone who is alive today is reincarnated from a previous generation.

The religion is heavily monotheistic, and has ties to the world’s three main religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Their prophets include Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mohammed. Their most revered religious figure is Jethro, father-in-law of Moses. A tomb built over his believed burial site, at the Horns of Hittin near the Kinneret, is a gathering place for members of the Druze faith, and every April, the Druze meet there to discuss matters pertaining to the community.

Despite a few holy sites which have become official gathering places for the Druze, the Druze generally spurn the concepts of ceremonies and rituals. There is no official liturgy or prayer book, no holy days or fast days, and no pilgrimages. They accept ‘The Seven Precepts’, which they believe are the essential components of the Pillars of Islam. The precepts, which form the core of Druze faith, include truthfulness in speech, belief in one God, protection of others, and the belief that every hour of every day is a time to reckon oneself before God. Druze believe that the various rituals and practices adopted by the three major faiths have turned those believers away from the “true faith.”

The first Druze began settling in modern-day Lebanon and northern Israel centuries ago, and the largest Druze community in the Galilee is called Daliyat el-Carmel, situated on the Carmel Mountains. During the British Mandate, the Druze purposely kept out of the Arab-Israeli conflict; when the 1948 War broke out, the Druze fought on the side of Israel. A minority of Druze who live in the Golan Heights protested when the Israelis annexed the land from Syria, following the Six Day War. Few of them have accepted full Israeli citizenship, and remain Syrian citizens.

The rest of the Druze, however, are full members of Israeli society. The Druze have mainly found employment in the fields of social work, security services, and prison personnel. A new program has been started to help the Druze gain entry into Israel’s lucrative high-tech sector. They have also become prominent members of the IDF and of the Knesset, where they hold a disproportionate number of seats relative to the size of their community. In addition to holding prominent military and political positions, the Druze are active in the realms of sports, media, the arts, and literature.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

ayala bat ruth

Dear beloved friend,

I pray that you are well-please pray for Ayala bat Rut and Avner ben Rachel who were injured Thursday from a fire bomb in the Shomron. Ayal is 11 years old and is critically injured from burns on the upper part of her body. She is the niece of our security officer from the northern Shomron

Yehudit

www.israel-commetary.org

My personal *Kishinev by Vic Rosenthal
27 Dec 2014

…Do we, civilized people, understand what it means to be in a struggle with barbarians? Do we understand that the choices are victory or the end of our state, death and dispersal? But we seem to care more about Arab rights than our own right to exist. We are at a turning point. We need to choose between victory and destruction. There are no other alternatives.

You probably heard about the 11-year old girl who was critically burned on Thursday when the car she was riding in was struck by a firebomb thrown by an Arab terrorist. And you certainly know about the attack on the Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue in Jerusalem in which four worshipers and a policeman were brutally murdered. You probably know about the several incidents in which Arabs drove their vehicles into groups of Jews, including one in which a 3-month old baby and a tourist from Ecuador were murdered, and another in which the driver got out and ran back to his not-yet-dead victim and cut her throat.

If you follow these things, you may also know that Jews are aafraid to go to the historic Mount of Olives Cemetery in Jerusalem because of continued violent attacks on buses, cars and people. You may also have heard about the daily rock-throwing attacks on the light rail in Jerusalem, against Jewish-driven cars on the roads in Judea and Samaria, the acid thrown on a Jewish family, etc. I could go on. And on.

The horror of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom was a turning point for many Jews, including Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Jew-hatred was finally seen to be implacable and a permanent feature of Diaspora life, and only a complete separation from the haters by the establishment of a Jewish State and the relocation of the Jewish people to it could be a permanent solution.

I think the firebomb incident was my own personal Kishinev experience. Now there is a Jewish state, but the problem of hatred-spawned violence against Jews has not ended, even here.

There is a simple reason for that: we allow it.

The Palestinian Arab leadership and its official media as well as their legions of social media propagandists incite murder every day. They pay the salaries of incarcerated murderers, treat released terrorists as heroes, and call for violent action against Jews, sometimes in remarkably ugly ways. We don’t stop them. We could, but we don’t.

We could stop the terror on the roads of Judea and Samaria. When an Arab village harbors terrorists, we could destroy it. But because we are afraid of being accused of ‘collective punishment’ by the less-than-objective UN, EU and Obama Administration, we don’t.

We don’t believe that Arab populations can be forced to move when they breed and support terrorism. We take seriously the idea of removing Jews from their homes — and do it, in Gush Katif and Amona — but expelling an Arab would be a violation of his human rights, another nakba. We talk about destroying the homes of terrorists, but rarely do it.

We don’t have a death penalty for terrorist murder. Instead, we keep the murderers in jail until their supporters kidnap a Jew, and then we ransom the Jew by releasing them, sometimes in a ratio of 1027 terrorists to one Jew. The terrorists go home to a victory parade and then go back to trying to kill Jews.

The Zionist imperative is to preserve the Jewish State in order to preserve the Jewish people. That is our highest priority — not to try to live up to the hypocritical and cynical double standards set by people in Brussels or Washington who would just as soon see the Jewish people gone anyway.

We need to change the way we are fighting the long war that we are in, because today we are losing. We are losing Judea and Samaria, we are losing eastern Jerusalem, and we are losing the Galilee and the Negev. Soon it will be impossible for a Jew to drive even in Kfar Saba without an armored vehicle. And after that?

The solution is not to talk to them about ‘peace’. They have given us their answer with their firebombs and meat cleavers, their cars and their knives, as well as their words. How many times do they have to show us their intentions before we get it?

Do we, civilized people, understand what it means to be in a struggle with barbarians? Do we understand that the choices are victory or the end of our state, death and dispersal? But we seem to care more about Arab rights than our own right to exist.

We are at a turning point. We need to choose between victory and destruction. There are no other alternatives.

Published by: Love of the Land
yosefandmelody@gmail.com

*The Kishinev pogroms were an anti-Jewish riot that took place in Kishinev, then the capital of the province of Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, on April 19-20, 1903.

The most popular newspaper in Kishinev, the Russian-language anti-Semitic newspaper Бессарабец published by Pavel Krushevan regularly published articles with headlines such as “Death to the Jews!” and “Crusade against the Hated Race.” When a Christian Ukrainian boy, Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town of Dubossary, about 25 miles north of Kishinev, and a girl who committed suicide by poisoning herself was declared dead in a Jewish hospital, Bessarabetz insinuated that both children had been murdered by the Jewish community for the purpose of using their blood in the preparation of matzo for Passover now known as the blood libel against Jews. These allegations, and the prompting of the town’s Russian Orthodox bishop, sparked the pogrom.

There was a well laid-out plan for the general massacre of Jews on the day following the Russian Easter. The mob was led by priests, and the general cry, “Kill the Jews,” was taken-up all over the city. The Jews were taken wholly unaware and were slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120 and the injured about 500. The scenes of horror attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob. The local police made no attempt to check the reign of terror. At sunset the streets were piled with corpses and wounded.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Additional commentary – Jerome S. Kaufman

Nonstop Appeasement
Redacted from an article BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
The Weekly Standard
Dec. 29, 2014

www.israel-commentary.org

We don’t expect much. It’s been nearly six years. We’re long past the point of hoping that Barack Obama will adopt policies that deserve our grudging approval, if not enthusiastic endorsement, particularly on foreign policy and national security. But we do expect something.

We believe that the president, whatever his ideological disposition, ought to be an unapologetic defender of America when the US is smeared or slandered. At a bare minimum, a president ought not lend credence to those who disparage the United States for imagined offenses.

This is apparently too high a standard for Barack Obama.

As Thomas Joscelyn reports elsewhere in these pages, two days before the United States transferred six Guantánamo detainees to Uruguay, President José Mujica released a statement denouncing the United States. “We have offered our hospitality for humans suffering a heinous kidnapping in Guantánamo,” it read. Because of their suffering, the detainees—all with direct ties to al Qaeda leadership—were accepted by Uruguay for “humanitarian” reasons and given refugee status.

A subsequent Defense Department statement about the transfer said nothing about these outrageous claims and simply thanked Uruguay for taking in the detainees. Did we miss the administration’s reaction to Mujica’s comments? Did the administration miss the comments? We asked the White House if the U.S. government had responded to Mujica’s statement or pushed back against it in any way. And if not, does the administration believe that Mujica’s comments are a fair characterization of how the al Qaeda members came to be detained at Guantánamo?

Patrick Ventrell, spokesman for the National Security Council, gave us this response:

We are grateful to President Mujica and Uruguay for providing to these individuals an opportunity to start anew their lives in Uruguay and to become contributing members of the Uruguayan society. However, we must refer you to the government of Uruguay for more information related to President Mujica’s comments.

There was nothing at all from the White House disputing Mujica’s calumny about a ‘heinous kidnapping’, no protest of the suggestion that al Qaeda operatives need ‘humanitarian’ relief from the United States, and not a word in defense of the U.S. military and intelligence officials who risked their lives to help bring these dangerous terrorists into U.S. custody.

It’s not just what the White House refused to say, but what it said. The administration went out of its way to articulate a belief that the freed al Qaeda terrorists—five of whom were classified as “high risk” detainees by Joint Task Force-Guantánamo—may well become productive members of society.

Critics have long complained that the Obama administration mistreats our allies and coddles our enemies. There are exceptions, of course, but does anyone seriously dispute that general tendency? In just the past few months:

The Obama administration released five senior Taliban operatives in exchange for an American soldier who walked away from his unit. The five Taliban commanders were transferred to Qatar despite warnings from top U.S. intelligence officials, including the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, that they are nearly certain to attack U.S. interests in the future. Among the stated objectives for the prisoner swap: restarting peace talks with the Taliban.

Top Obama officials promised to impose additional sanctions on Iran if the regime breached the terms of the interim deal on its nuclear program. Iran was caught violating that agreement, and the administration, rather than impose new sanctions, launched a full-scale effort to block them. As Iran’s leaders publicly mocked U.S. weakness, Obama officials insisted that negotiations must continue.

Israeli newspapers reported that the Obama administration was considering sanctions on Israel for its settlement activity. When reporters asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest about the reports, he repeatedly refused to deny them. He couldn’t. They were true.

And, of course, last week the president announced his intention to normalize relations with the despotic regime in Cuba. In exchange for two hostages whose release was sought by Washington, the Obama administration agreed to free three members of the “Cuban Five,” spies for the Castro regime who helped a Cuban Air Force MiG shoot down two small U.S. planes dropping anti-Castro leaflets, killing all four aboard. Raul Castro, who spoke to Obama at length the day before the announcement, objected to the imprisonment of the Cuban assets, admitting that they had been acting on his behalf. “I gave the order,” he told Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts who helped broker the deal, according to an account in Politico. “I’m the one responsible.”

This systematic pusillanimity is not a new phenomenon. Other examples: the refusal by the Obama administration to criticize the Iranian regime when it put down the “Green Revolution” in 2009; the administration’s eagerness to “reset” relations with an increasingly hostile Russia; its secret negotiations with the Taliban even as the group continued its attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan; the refusal to meet with any Egyptian opposition groups other than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama is hardly the first president to seek rapprochement with our adversaries and reconciliation with our enemies, of course. But his determination to make nice—even in the face of clear and repeated rejection from the other side—is unparalleled. For Obama and his team, diplomacy with rogue regimes is an end in itself, and any deal, however one-sided, is a win, especially one that the White House communications mavens think that friendly media will call a “breakthrough” or “historic.”

In that sense, Obama is America’s first postmodern president. If his predecessors tended to see the world in terms of good and evil, Obama sees the world in terms of victims and victimizers—with the United States often in the role of victimizer. In that view, long favored by the academic left that shaped a young Barack Obama, American foreign policy is one long train of abuses, marked by casual aggression and eager imperiousness.

So when a leftist leader like Mujica condemns the United States for the “heinous kidnapping” of al Qaeda operatives, Obama says nothing in protest. His silence is assent. And it’s a disgrace.

(Stephen F. Hayes expertly presents an accurate, shocking list of Obama’s misadventures and obviously detrimental moves that are hurting the US, demolishing our world standing and the deterrence factor the US always had in name along with the requisite international presence and might.

What is implied in the musings of Hayes and the entire menage of current media political commentators is that Obama is simply inept or misdirected or just a misguided ideologue or lazy or out of his job description. That is not remotely the case.

The stark awful truth is that Obama is a brilliant tactician, whose every move starting with his cleverly masked educational record and work history, from the time he sought political office, was to hurt and destroy the United States as a world power. His goal has been to diminish our great wealth, our military superiority our entire democratic political system our merit driven economy with resultant distribution of wealth, our status as a world power. This obvious truth does not seem to penetrate the commentators thinking or scribbling or, more likely, they are too politically correct or frightened to state the obvious.

The stark, awful truth is Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant, dedicated Destroyer. He knows exactly what he is doing and is master of his charge. When all these political pundits, the American public and the pathetic, inept politicians currently in office, understand this basic fact, maybe they will have the will and courage to wage war against this diabolical, pathological, arch-typical narcissistic man.

It is almost too late except he is hell bent on doing as much DESTRUCTION as he can get away with in the next two years — the balance of his term. What now! The ball is in our park and we have yet to get even a base on balls!

Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

Redacted from a review by Hillel Halkin of the book:

THE RECKONING
By Patrick Bishop
Harper, 299 pages, $26.99

Halkin’s review appeared in The Wall Street Journal
December 20-21, 2014

Freedom Fighter for Zion

Avraham Stern imagined (believed) the Jewish people compelling God to be the zealous warrior-deity of the Bible once again.

In 1942, ‘The Stern Gang’ (F.F.I. Freedom Fighters for Israel) were the most wanted men (by the colonialist-building British in Palestine). Hardly anyone talks anymore about “the Stern Gang.” In Israel, the militant group has not been known by this name for decades. It is called by the name it called itself, “The Lechi” (with the “ch” as in “Bach”), an acronym for Lochamei Cherut Yisra’el, or Freedom Fighters of Israel.

The smallest and most extreme of the three fully or partly underground Jewish military organizations that began in Palestine during the last years of the British Mandate. It accomplished little in reality but much in the realm of myth-making. To this day it lives in Israeli memory as a symbol of ardent patriotism, romantic self-sacrifice and the cult of idealistic violence—and also as a form of political lunacy that would reappear in a new guise long after the group’s demise. (again Halkin’s left wing evaluation.)

The F.F.I. was founded in 1940 when a splinter faction broke away from the Irgun, the right-wing militia affiliated with Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Party and the rival of the left-leaning Haganah. The leader of the breakaway was a young Polish-born Jew named Avraham Stern. A Hebrew poet of some talent, Stern had studied classics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and was active there in the Irgun until 1936, when he was put in charge of a military training and arms-purchasing program run by the group in Poland.

From there, he sniped at what he considered Jabotinsky’s insufficient militancy toward the British, (who had totally shut the gates of Palestine to Jewish immigration just when a haven from Hitler was most desperately needed,) Returning to Palestine in 1939, a year before Jabotinsky’s death, he led a small band of followers out of the Irgun.

From the time of this split until Stern was killed in early 1942 in a British police raid on the Tel Aviv apartment in which he was hiding, the Stern Gang, as the British labeled it, robbed a few banks, killed several British policemen and called for an anti-British uprising at a time when England was fighting a war with Nazi Germany (and allowing open Arab immigration to Palestinian while obstructing desperately needed Jewish immigration from Europe and Arab lands where they had lived for centuries)

Halkin minimizes the work of the Stern Gang as opposed to many historians present at the time, who credit the Gang with the final withdrawal of British forces who did not like their people summarily killed as the Brits did to the Jews of Palestine).

The F.F.I. also unsuccessfully attempted to make contact with Hitler’s Italian allies in the hope of enlisting their support. The group’s more intensive phase of activity, starting with the 1944 assassination in Cairo of Lord Moyne, the British minister of state in the Middle East, began only after Stern’s death and included the F.F.I.’s participation, in early 1948, in the conquest of the Arab village of Dir Yassin and the alleged massacre of some of its inhabitants. Later that year, after assassinating Count Bernadotte the first United Nations mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the organization was outlawed by the government of the new state of Israel and ceased to exist.

It is with Stern’s death, however, which the British claimed took place when he sought to flee and which his followers called an act of coldblooded murder, that Patrick Bishop’s new book, “The Reckoning” addresses. Mr. Bishop, a British military historian and novelist, has sought to determine what happened that winter day in Tel Aviv, and to relate the personal and historical events leading up to it, with the help of a tried literary technique.

Taking as his protagonists Stern and the man who shot him, British police officer Geoffrey Morton, he tells the story of each, starting with childhood and adolescence, Stern’s in the Polish-Lithuanian town of Suwalki, Morton’s in the South London neighborhood of Lambeth. “The Reckoning” shuttles back and forth between the two men and the radically different milieus that shaped them, tracing the paths that brought them to Palestine and that slowly converged there in the manhunt that ended in their fatal confrontation.

When Mr. Bishop writes about Morton he writes about someone to whose world, as a fellow Englishman, he has ready access. When he writes about Stern with no knowledge of Hebrew and little familiarity with Judaism, Eastern-European Jewish culture or the various strands of Zionist ideology, he is out of his depth.

Stern was a charismatic and driven leader who foolishly believed that Zionism could work with the Axis powers against the British colonial rulers of Palestine, and this side of him Mr. Bishop describes well. But he was also an intellectual and a poet, and while neither his thought nor his verse was of a high order, they were significant in ways Mr. Bishop overlooks.

Stern was an odd breed, a non-believing religious messianist. He rejected the Jewish God in whose faith he had been raised because this God was letting the Jews of Europe be annihilated. In a poem composed while the Holocaust was taking place, he wrote, alluding to the biblical condemnation of the futile worship of “other gods” than the God of Israel: “And you, God, are like all the others. / You have ears and You do not hear. / Eyes You have that see nothing, / A mouth that dares not speak for fear.”

But at the same time, by a bold inversion of the man/God relationship, Stern imagined the Jewish people not only taking up arms in conquest of its ancient homeland but compelling God to be the zealous warrior-deity of the Bible once again. Another poem from the same period has the stanza: “Crazed for the Kingdom, fighters for freedom, / To You, Lord of hosts and of sacred hate, / We pray while hope like leaves fallen lies faded, / With rifle, machine gun, and bomb.”

All of the discussion and total conjecture is Hillel Halkin using this opportunity to preach his anti-nationalistic Israel propaganda. Bishop’s book does not sound like much but, Halkin’s own comments are pure malice and have no business in a supposed “book review” of a book that does not truly involve politics, especially of Halkin’s variety.

The kingdom Stern had in mind was the kingdom promised by God to Israel, with a rebuilt Temple in its capital of Jerusalem. Crazed (?) this certainly was, and apart from a few eccentrics like himself, such as the far greater Hebrew poet Uri Tsvi Greenberg, by whom Stern was influenced, even the hyper-nationalists in the Zionist movement found it risible. (NOT TRUE!)

Yet within the F.F.I., which never numbered more than a few hundred active members, it had its adherents, and, seized upon by Arab propaganda, it was turned into the specter of a secret Zionist plan to seize the Temple Mount from Islam and establish a Jewish State from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates.

No such plan, of course, existed outside of Stern’s imagination. Then, however, came the Israeli conquest (not a “conquest” but a victory, in the Six Day War, over the occupying Jordanians that had seized the land from the virtually defenseless Jews coming off the boats from the concentration camps of Europe in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence.

In the later Six Day War of June 1967, The Jews simply regained Jewish land from Jordan that was supposed to have been part of the British Mandate in the first place.)

As a result, the Temple Mount came under Jewish control for the first time in thousands of years. Religious messianism returned to Israeli political life in the extreme wing of the settler movement. Lacking the poetic dialectic of Stern’s thought, it shared his belief in what is known in Jewish tradition as “forcing the end,” making God take action by setting in motion eschatological events that He cannot turn back.

Though it did not regard Stern as its prophet, he was in some ways just that, and the settler groups that plotted in the 1980s, among other things, to hasten the redemption by dynamiting the Temple Mount’s mosque could claim the largely secular Stern Gang as their forerunner. This is the part of the story that Mr. Bishop’s readable book misses.

(… and Halkin, wrongly chosen by the WSJ, also misses and instead falsely presents in this review. At least the WSJ did not ask King Hussein or Mahmoud Abbas or the British to give their interpretation of the Israeli history of those years).

For a differing view of the Stern Gang, please read:

A 2011 book by Zev Golan, “Stern: the Man and His Gang,” It brings fresh focus to the fight waged by the FFI against British policymakers and security personnel, beginning in 1940.

Halkin also, in his on-going pathetic feckless campaign of historical revisionism to discredit Israel’s nationalistic right wing, recently wrote a snide, malicious article on Israel’s greatest patriot and intellectual, Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

If you want an accurate in-depth biography of Jabotinsky, written long before Halkin’s screed on Jabotinsky, read:

“Lone Wolf: A Biography of Vladimir (Ze’Ev) Jabotinsky,” Two Volume magnificent record of the founding of the state Israel, written March 1, 1996 by Shmuel Katz, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s right hand man up until Jabotinsky’s death in 1940

Italicized commentary above by Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

If this doesn’t send shivers through your body and put tears in your eyes as a proud American, I don’t know what will?

And, I don’t care whether you believe in Christmas or not!

It Starts With a Lone Cellist… And Grows to 120 Musicians!

www.israel-commentary.org

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

Zionist Organization of America
News Release

One Freed Cuban Murdered An American!

NEW YORK, December 18, 2014

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is strongly declaring that President Barack Obama, who has this week freed three convicted spies who spied for an enemy regime, Cuba, must free Jonathan Pollard, who spied for an American ally, Israel.

The ZOA further notes that one of the convicted spies freed by President Obama was responsible for the murder of an American citizen and that all three have served only 13 years for their crimes on behalf of an enemy state, whereas Jonathan Pollard has been imprisoned for 29 years for spying for an American ally.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is remarkable that President Obama, who has been repeatedly urged by U.S. officials who held responsibility at the time for national security and intelligence matters to free Jonathan Pollard, has refused to do so.”

“Conversely, he has shown himself, this week, to be willing to free three convicted men who spied for a long-term enemy state, Cuba, including one man who was responsible for death of an American national. Where is the logic and justice in that?

“Jonathan Pollard passed on classified information to Israel, a U.S. ally, not a U.S. enemy. There was, thus, no treason involved. Pollard pled guilty to the charges and apologized for his crimes. His crimes did not lead to the death of Americans, as was once claimed, but rather the espionage activities of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, whose actions came to light only after the Pollard sentencing, were shown to be responsible for those results.”

“Despite, having pled guilty as part of a plea bargain, Pollard was shown no leniency and was given the maximum sentence, comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe, who passed critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and was found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents!”

“A host of senior past high U.S. government officials with responsibility for relevant national security, international and legal affairs, such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Schultz, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former National Security Advisor Robert C. “Bud” McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary for Defense Lawrence J. Korb, former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman David Durenberger, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann; former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former Senate Judiciary Committee Member, Dennis DeConcini, and former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel Samuel Lewis and Thomas Pickering, have all publicly and in writing stated that Jonathan Pollard’s sentence has been disproportionate and urged President Obama to pardon him.”

“Jonathan Pollard has already served nearly three decades behind bars, which is by far the harshest sentence ever meted out for the offense he committed — the average term for which is a fine or two to four years’ imprisonment.”

“If President Obama can free three spies for a hostile state like Cuba, including a murderer, he can certainly pardon Jonathan Pollard. He should do so without further delay.”

II In the meantime the US has no problem with spying on Israel!

CIA Smuggles Agents Through Ben Gurion Airport
New light on United States spying on Israel

​Hamodia [NY] – December 22, 2014

Jerusalem (Hamodia Staff) – New light was thrown on United States spying on Israel by a WikiLeaks disclosure that CIA agents are taught how to circumvent security screening at Ben Gurion International Airport.

An internal CIA document contained detailed instructions to agents for avoiding intensive secondary screening when entering or leaving Israel, Haaretz reported on Monday.

The document, titled “CIA Assessment on Surviving Secondary Screening at Airports While Maintaining Cover,” dated September 2011, has a long list of guidelines for operatives using false identities.

“Secondary screening — a potentially lengthy and detailed look by airport officials at passengers not passing initial scrutiny — can significantly stress the identities of operational travelers,” it reads.

“Referral to secondary screening can occur if irregularities or questions arise during any stage of airport processing — immigration, customs, or security — and regardless of whether the traveler is arriving, in transit, or departing. Officials may also randomly select travelers.”

Ben Gurion was one of the airports cited as being particularly thorough.

The document offers reasons that could lead to a secondary screening:

“Israel’s security personnel focus on frequent travel to Islamic countries,” the document says. “Security personnel at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, commonly refer military-aged males traveling alone with backpacks to secondary screening, regardless of their nationality or skin color.See Also:
________________________________________
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis


Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

Take your pick or charity of your choice, of course. But … what’s the bottom line for how much of the money actually goes to the cause you had intended?

A. Bad Guys

The American Red Cross
President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses

MARCH OF DIMES
It is called the March of Dimes because only a dime for every 1 dollar is given to the needy.

The United Way
President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.

UNICEF
The United Nations Children’s Fund is a United Nations Program headquartered in New York City that (THEORETICALLY!) provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. It is one of the members of the United Nations Development Group and its Executive Committee.[2]

CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE.
Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.

GOODWILL
CEO and owner Mark Curran profits $2.3 million a year.
Goodwill is a very catchy name for his business.You donate to his business and then he sells the items for PROFIT. He pays nothing for his products and pays his workers minimum wage! Nice Guy. $0.00 goes to help anyone! Stop giving to this man.

B. Good Guys

Instead, give it to ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:

The Salvation Army
Commissioner,Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year(plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization.
96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.

The American Legion
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Disabled American Veterans
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Military Order of Purple Hearts
Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Vietnam Veterans Association
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

Make a Wish: For children’s last wishes.
100% goes to funding trips or special wishes for a dying child.

St. Jude Research Hospital
100% goes towards funding and helping Children with Cancer who have no insurance and cannot afford to pay.

Ronald McDonald Houses (Sponsor: McDonald Burger Corp)
All monies go to running the houses for parents who have critically ill children in the hospital. 100% goes to housing, and feeding the families.

Lions Club International
100% of donations go to help the blind with hearing aids, support medical missions and measles vaccinations.


Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Visit Jewish.TV for more Jewish videos.

Happy Chanukah

www.israel-commentary.org Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments