Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Saturday, 30 July 2016

The Goal & Nature of Islamic Warfare (must-be-heeded videos)

"Why do Western leaders not see it that way?"

"Because they refuse to.... "

We in the West ignore this Middle East expert, Dr Harold Rhode (who has a PhD in Islamic Studies and was a Pentagon adviser for a number of years), at our peril.



There are other excellent videos by The Jerusalem Center that merit watching, including those featuring Dr Rhode.

Excellent article regarding the malaise in Europe (thanks to its weaklings and Quislings), by Guilio Meotti here

Thursday, 28 July 2016

The Islamist Enemy Within, & Christians Without

On learning that 86-year-old Father Jacques Hamel had murdered in his own church in a village near Rouen by Islamist demons who stormed in during Mass and slit his throat, the president of the World Jewish Congress issued a heartfelt message of condolence:
“This morning, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of yet another atrocious attack, and with the good people of France who sadly have become so familiar with the reality of terrorism in recent months.
Alas, there is no respite. Every day, these terrorists make it abundantly clear to the world that nothing is sacred to them, that they will not shy away from any execrable affront to the most basic values of our society.
Let’s be clear: this is not a war between religions, but between good and evil. We must stand as one in the face of this great threat. We must not be intimidated, but cherish our freedom, including the freedom to worship. We must speak out and not be silent. We must defend each other, and we must look after one another: one religious community after the other, one country after the other. This evil scourge won’t be defeated unless we are united in our resolve to defeat it.”
 "Not a war between religions".

Many might disagree.

Though perhaps not this chap Sutherland.
He's one of the political elites  who wants Europe to be ever more f*cked culturally enriched.

Remember this?:


And clearly not the Pope:
'Pope Francis has warned that a recent wave of jihadist attacks in Europe is proof that "the world is at war".  However, he stressed he did not mean a war of religions, but rather a conflict over "interests, money, resources".  He was speaking ahead of his visit to Poland to reporters seeking his comments on the murder of a Catholic priest by French jihadists on Tuesday....'
 He's now at work on Polish youth, urging them to welcome "migrants".

Or the repellent Merkel, who has dug her heels in regarding her asylum policy, despite conceding the other day what should have been obvious from the start:



  Reflects Ed West, writing here
 'Fr Jacques Hamel, murdered ... by Islamists in Normandy ... in his life would have seen his country transformed, from the Occupation to the Thirty Golden Years and through to this modern unhappy age. I can’t imagine that a young priest in the age of the Piuses would have expected to end his life in such a manner, near to where Joan of Arc was martyred, but then Europeans are getting used to things that a few decades ago would have been absurd.
After the war, Europeans thought they could escape history, and retire to a secular, progressive world in which historical conflicts of identity would be a thing of the past. But instead of fascism and communism, even older, more retrograde ideologies have sprung up, and history goes on. 
Christianity might be dying of indifference in western Europe but elsewhere it remains a living part of history, and that story includes persecution. Being a priest or a religious remains a dangerous task – earlier this year four nuns in Yemen were murdered, while a number of priests and bishops have been killed in Syria; likewise in Iraq, where some 60 churches were bombed during the conflict, the worst incident being the 2010 Our Lady of Salvation massacre where 52 men, women and children were slaughtered by a then little known outfit called the Islamic State of Iraq. The survivors were given asylum in France, which has always been especially generous towards eastern Christians 
 Please read the entire article.

As well as this one ("Will Britain at last stand up for Christians?") by Tim Montgomerie, for those who can get access to The Times:
'Could the jihadists inspired by Islamic State stoop any lower? [The killing of Father Hamel proves] once again, that an evil is stalking the continent and it is willing to plumb any depths in its attempts to terrorise and enslave us.
Christians in other parts of the world will not have been surprised at the blood spilt in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, near Rouen. Some feel that we, in the West, have turned our backs on their sufferings. “We feel forgotten and isolated,” complained Louis Sako, the Chaldean Archbishop of Baghdad: “We sometimes wonder, if they kill us all, what would be the reaction of Christians in the West? Would they do something then?”
While estimates of the global scale of religious slaughter and harassment differ wildly, there is enough evidence to suggest that religious persecution is widespread and growing. The Open Doors charity is a respected and relatively cautious chronicler of persecution and it estimates that an average of 322 Christians are killed every month as a direct consequence of their faith, while 214 churches or Christian properties are demolished, burnt down or in some way destroyed. Overall, Open Doors records, Christians are subject to 772 acts of violence — including beatings, abductions, rapes, arrests or forced marriages — each month.
We are largely familiar with the problems that Christians face in the Middle East. A century ago 14 per cent of all people in the region were Christians. Today it’s just 4 per cent.....'
They should be followed up by this one, by Lawrence A. Franklin, over at the Gatestone Institute, summarised thus:
 'Jesus warned his Apostles that men of faith would kill them, thinking they had done God a favor. Pope Francis, in the Vatican, referred to this killing as "an absurd murder." He could not be more wrong. This was a purposeful act of war against Judeo-Christian civilization. The murder of Father Jacques has great meaning. Our would-be replacements are telling us, "it is time for you to leave the stage of history."
This most recent murder is additional evidence that the old France is dying.' 
This too, by Yves Michaud, also over at Gatestone, summarised this,
'Europeans have delegated to the State the exclusive right to use violence against criminals. But Europeans, especially in France and Germany, are discovering that some kind of "misunderstanding" seems actually to be at work. Their State, the one that has the monopoly on violence, does not want to be at war with its Islamist citizens and residents. 
Worse, the State gives off the feeling that it is afraid of its Muslim citizens. "The concept of the rule of law means that the citizen is protected from the arbitrariness of the State. ... Currently, the rule of law protects the attackers above all". — Yves Michaud, French author and philosopher.'
 And this one, by Raymond Ibrahim, who warns:
 '....Mere Islam ... is responsible for the ongoing terrorization of the West.
If you doubt this, simply turn to a recent study. It found that Muslims of all sects, races, and sociopolitical circumstances—not just "ISIS"—are responsible for persecuting Christians in 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in: Shia Iran is the ninth worst nation, "Wahhabi" Saudi Arabia is 14th, while "moderate" countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are ranked 30 and 43 respectively.
The common denominator in all these nations is Islam—without qualifier.
.... Ugly or not, this truth, that mere Islam—not "ISIS," "Salafism," "Wahhabism," or "Shiism"—promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims will never be remedied until those in positions of leadership first acknowledge it. And, with the notable exception of Donald Trump, they are very far from doing so.'


As Melanie McDonough observes here:
'We’ve already got self-censorship when it comes to reporting attacks by Muslim refugees [sic] ...  in Germany and Scandinavia, and an almost comical reluctance anywhere in Europe to identify Islamist attacks as such – until IS takes credit for them, even the work of freelances. Plainly we have to guard against language that would demonise an entire community, but within that reasonable limit, we must require both politicians and public service broadcasters to talk plainly. And when Muslim extremists slit the throat of a priest in his own church, we’re looking at religiously motivated murder, entirely of a piece with the same religiously motivated murder of Christians and others being carried out in the Middle East. Shall we say so?

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

"Your Future is Our Future": Bibi to the Arab citizens of Israel (plus more)


Meanwhile:


And, outside the Democratic National Convention, hate-filled ratbags screaming wretched slogans set the Israeli flag ablaze.


This must vex them:

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

David Singer on Shifting Winds: European Union Rejects PLO Call To Boycott Quartet Report

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

European Union High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini has publicly rejected PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s call for Arab nations to lobby the UN Security Council to not endorse a Quartet Report that Abbas considers biased in favour of Israel.

Addressing the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on 22 July, Mogherini declared:
“John Kerry and I sit together in quite an impressive number of different formats. Together we decided to revitalize the Middle East Quartet. The report we have come up with just a few weeks ago cannot be underestimated. For the first time ever, the US, the EU, Russia and the United Nations have agreed on a clear analysis of the situation on the ground, and also more importantly on recommendations on the way forward to turn the two states solution into reality. Together we have also agreed to engage more regularly with the key Arab states such as Saudi Arabia – the initiator of the Arab Peace Initiative – Egypt – for obvious reasons – and Jordan – for its role in the Holy places.” 
The Report certainly cannot be underestimated – condemning and identifying the PLO and Hamas as fostering and condoning terrorism, including:
* “recent acts of terrorism” against Israelis, and incitement to violence including over 250 attacks and attempted attacks by Palestinians against Israelis since October 2015 – resulting in at least 30 Israelis having been killed in stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks, and a bombing.
* Palestinians committing “terrorist attacks” being often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs”
* Some members of Fatah which Abbas heads publicly supporting attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraging violent confrontation – including a senior Fatah official referring to perpetrators as “heroes and a crown on the head of every Palestinian”.
* Palestinian leaders having not consistently and clearly condemned specific “terrorist attacks”. And streets, squares and schools having been named after Palestinians who have committed “acts of terrorism”.
* The continuing illicit arms build-up in Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian groups  including the building of tunnels, the smuggling of weapons, and the production and launching of rockets towards Israel.
Such hard-hitting language by the Quartet “for the first time ever” was ground-breaking – demolishing Arab propaganda that had for decades portrayed such conduct as being justified by the “occupation” or morally justifiable as the actions of “freedom fighters”.

The Quartet has finally made clear that the murders of innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Kiryat Arba, Jerusalem and Itamar were equally as reprehensible as those murdered in Paris, Brussels, Ankara, Nice, Wurzburg, Sydney, Orlando and San Bernardino.

Abbas’s call to boycott the Quartet Report – and Mogherini’s public rebuke – has indeed rebounded on Abbas in spectacular fashion.

Victimhood and rejectionism must now be replaced with accountability and culpability.

Mogherini’s revelation that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will now be more regularly engaged greatly diminishes the political influence of the PLO and Hamas.

Between 1948 and 1967 Egypt occupied and administered Gaza – whilst Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem. Both enjoy signed peace treaties with Israel and are indispensable parties in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict.

It is arguably no coincidence that retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki – heading a delegation of Saudi academics and business people – was meeting in Jerusalem with Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Major-General Yoav Mordechai around the same time as Mogherini was addressing the Carnegie Endowment.

Diplomatic relations renewed this week between Israel and Guinea – a Muslim country and member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – will hopefully encourage other member-countries doing likewise.

The winds of change are certainly blowing …

Monday, 25 July 2016

"The Muslim Community are the First Victims of Fanaticism"

BBC today
Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah, writing (inter alia) in the immediate wake of the Nice atrocity:
'I can only imagine jihadis and Islamists howling in laughter at the gullibility of Islamism’s liberal apologists in the West. [Among those he cites are Jeffery Goldberg and Noah Feldman]
For the inexhaustible supply of Western liberals, who Lenin described as “Useful Idiots”, allow me to share a sample of just two sharia laws, from among the tens of thousands that have sustained ruthless, unelected caliphates for centuries.
“If the husband’s body is covered with pus and blood, and if the wife licks and drinks it, her obligations to her husband will still not be fulfilled.”
“Wives enter into their husband’s slavery after marriage.”
Even if one should consider those two examples an internal matter for Muslims, here are two more illustrations of Shariah law as expounded by the founder of 20th century Islamism, the Indian-born Syed Mawdudi, in his book Call to Jihad.
 “Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their (non-Muslims’) right to administer State affairs according to a system, which in the view of Islam, is evil.”
    “If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead.”
...'  (Read the entire article here)

Meanwhile, an example of the liberal apologists' mindset here 

And here

And in this broadcast, where we are told by the narrator "The Muslim Community are the first victims of fanaticism":



Parisian academic Guy Millière, in his article "France:After the Last Jihadist Attack", makes some choice comments on the mindset, as summarised below:
'Successive French governments have built a trap; the French people, who are in it, are thinking only of how to escape. The situation is more serious than many imagine. Whole areas of France are under the control of gangs and radical imams.
 Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: "France is at war." He named an enemy, "radical Islamism," but he was quick to add that "radical Islamism" has "nothing to do with Islam." He then repeated that the French will have to get used to living with "violence and attacks."
The French are increasingly tired of attempts to exonerate Islam. They know perfectly well that all Muslims are not guilty. But they also know that all those who committed attacks in France in recent years were Muslims. The French have no desire to get used to "violence and attacks." They do not want to be on the losing side and they feel that we are losing.'
Read his article here

And, marching towards Hungary, more young men of military age refugee family groups:


(Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

Sunday, 24 July 2016

"My Late Mother Had A Passport Saying ..." (video)

A glorious day (afternoon, by the looks of it) in old London town.  Shoppers stroll past Marks & Spencer in Oxford Street.

 An Israel-hater, flanked by others if his kind, and repeating a mantra about "racism", exhorts the populace to "Boycott Marks & Spencer". 

Eventually (around 3:11) a petite female figure in a baseball cap takes the mike.  We've seen her before in footage by Alex Seymour.  And heard her too.

But this time she has a new message in her repertoire.  It's aimed at those people who claim "there was no such place as Palestine".

By which, I take it, she means all those dastardly types who point out time and time again (to all those anti-Israel ignoramuses who insist/imply/infer that there was once a sovereign entity called Palestine stolen by "the Zionists") that there was in fact no such sovereign entity.


All sorts of dodgy pieces of "evidence" have been advanced in support of the demonisers' false assumption, my personal favourite being the Palestine (Maccabi!) Football Team.  (And not only because it's an excuse to exclaim "Balls!")

Now, this little lady in the baseball cap adds one more to the murky mix:

"How come my late mother had a passport saying 'British Mandate Palestine'?"

Begorah!

To invoke a certain British comedian's catchphrase: "Some mothers do 'ave 'em!"

Bless.

Saturday, 23 July 2016

Half-Baked Humble Pie?

On 3 June this year the Australian Jewish News (AJN) carried an article by long-standing staff member Peter Kohn concerning cancellation of  one of the sessions scheduled for the two-day Limmud Oz conference occurring later in June.

The session was to feature a representative of the highly controversial Australian Jewish Democratic Society (seen by many if not most of the mainstream Jewish community as odious in its stance) and Adelaide University Professor Bassam Dally (pictured, forefront, left), an Israel-born Palestinian Arab who's vice-president of the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network.

 He, Kohn''s article (citing the website of the Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine) informed readers, is on record as declaring:
"I support support BDS because, unlike governments, the conscious [sic] of millions of people cannot be bought by rich interest groups.  Without international pressure, Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state."
Having been contacted by the AJN regarding the cancellation, Professor Dally is quoted as stating:
"It's ironic that Limmud Oz organisers have decided to disinvite me speaking in a session titled 'Fighting for Coexistence'. The session was never intended to be about BDS and, therefore, the organisers are deciding not only what, but who, their audience may be permitted to hear – in my case, an Israeli citizen of Palestinian heritage.
This shows a contempt for the maturity and intelligence of the Jewish community by preventing them from having these important discussions in an open and civilised manner."
 Kohn's article reported the Limmud Oz co-organisers as explaining:
"On publishing the program, we were alerted to the extent and tone of the position of one of the participants on BDS.  The decision was made on principle, given the goals of global BDS, the damaging effect of BDS rhetoric in the community, and the anti-engagement nature of BDS, to cancel the session in line with our programming policy."
The chairman of the B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation Commission, Dr Dvir Abramovich, was quoted as observing:
"Limmud Oz did the right thing by making it clear that it will not give its endorsement and sponsorship to the session, The BDS movement its corre, is anti-Semitic." [sic: The AJN, for reasons best known to itself, persists in spelling antisemitism the old, discredited, old-fashioned way.]
Dr Colin Rubenstein, executive chairman of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), was quoted thus:
"It is absurd to expect a Jewish community organisation, even one committed to the robust exchange of ideas, to extend the welcome mat to a supporter of the boycotting of Israel, as to do so may confer a degree of legitimacy on someone whose record and views do not further the cause of mutual coexistence, genuine peace or communal harmony."
Evidently, someone felt that the references to Professor Dally in the article reflected him in an unjustly bad light, for in the current issue (22 July), at the end of the correspondence columns, is an ungrammatical and badly-written apology which appears to have been composed in such a panic that even the date of the issue carrying Kohn's article is incorrect.
"In an article that we published on 2 June 2016,some people may have  mistakenly understood it to accuse Professor Bassam Dally of being anti-Semitic."  (Is this what passes for good journalistic English these days?!)
I would not have interpreted the Kohn article as implying that Professor Dally is personally antisemitic, but clearly my perceptions are not shared by everyone.

Certainly not by these two leftist Jewish critics of Israel, Brull and Stillman:

It's a pity, though, that the AJN did not choose a different phrasing and entitle it a "Clarification".  For the trouble with that abject apology, in that particular wording, seems to me to be that
the paper won't be able to argue that BDS is antisemitic without looking like prize shmendricks.   Why the ill-judged prose?  They've set a precedent. They can be seen as endorsing UN resolutions against Israel, however unjust such resolutions, and undermining fellow-Jews and Israel-supporters who insist that BDS is antisemitic.

That's my view, anyway.  Feel free to disagree!

Meanwhile, in the dear old Mother Country, the odious Spinning Jenny has been spreading her poison again.

See, for example, here and here.

Among those liking the Baroness's speech and subsequent defiance are a certain Andy Taylor (whose numerous posts on Facebook leave little doubt of his feelings towards da Joos), as well our old friend the vicar of Virginia Water, Stephen Sizer, as yet, since his return to Facebook following banishment by his bishop over that notorious Israel and 9/11 post of his, venting his hostility to Zionism through pressing the "Like" button on other anti-Zionists' proclamations rather than pontificating himself:

Not that Her Ladyship is getting it all her on way on her Facebook page.  Some dastardly Zionists have the temerity to be fighting back! (And how!)