"The Abolition Of Christian Slavery For Ever": From Dey to day

Pellew's flagship at the Bombardment of Algiers, 1816

OK, let's take a little excursion into history; this blog hasn't done one of those for a while.

When Barack Obama recently described Islam as being part of the "fabric" of the United States from the beginning of American independence, it's safe to say that he was not thinking of the ransoming of American captives from enslavement in the Barbary States, though he might as well have been.

It would have made more sense than his risible, ludicrous, politically-driven invention of history.
 
Not to mention his bare-faced denial of the Islamic nature of IS.

As is well-known, the phenomenon of Europeans enslaved in the Barbary States of North Africa  had been known since Tudor times, when the Ottomans took control of the area,seafarers and travelling merchants (Jews among them) being especially vulnerable to capture, though inhabitants of certain coastal villages even as far north as Britain, the Netherlands, and Iceland were not immune to slave raids by Barbary pirates (corsairs).

We read:

"While Barbary corsairs looted the cargo of ships they captured, their primary goal was to capture people for sale as slaves or for ransom. Those who had family or friends who might ransom them were held captive but not obliged to work; the most famous of these was the author Miguel de Cervantes, who was held for almost five years. Others were sold into various types of servitude. Attractive women or boys could be used for sexual services, the traditional "fate worse than death". Captives who converted to Islam were generally freed, since enslavement of Muslims was prohibited; but this meant that they could never return to their native countries.

Historian Robert C. Davis estimated that between 1530 and 1780, 1–1.25 million Europeans were captured and taken as slaves to North Africa, principally Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, but also Constantinople and Salé.  Captives often suffered from privation on voyages to North Africa if taken at a distance. Those who survived the journeys were often forced to walk through town as they were taken to slave auctions. The slaves typically had to stand from eight in the morning until two in the afternoon while buyers viewed them. Next came the auction, where the townspeople would bid on the captives they wanted to purchase and once that was over, the governor of Algiers (the Dey) had the chance to purchase any slave he wanted for the price they were sold at the auction. During the auctions the slaves would be forced to run and jump around to show their strength and stamina. After purchase, the captives would either be held for ransom, or be put to work. Slaves were used for a wide variety of jobs, from hard manual labor to housework (the job assigned to most women slaves). At night the slaves were put into prisons called 'bagnios' (derived from the Italian word "bagno" for public bath, inspired by the Turks' use of Roman baths at Constantinople as prisons), which were often hot and overcrowded....

Enslaved Christians taken ashore at Algiers, 1706

Although the conditions in bagnios were harsh, they were better than those endured by galley slaves. Most Barbary galleys were at sea for around eighty to a hundred days a year, but when the slaves assigned to them were on land, they were forced to do hard manual labor. There were exceptions: "galley slaves of the Ottoman Sultan in Constantinople would be permanently confined to their galleys, and often served extremely long terms, averaging around nineteen years in the late seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century periods. These slaves rarely got off the galley but lived there for years." During this time, rowers were shackled and chained where they sat, and never allowed to leave. Sleeping (which was limited), eating, defecation and urination took place at the seat to which they were shackled. There were usually five or six rowers on each oar. Overseers would walk back and forth and whip slaves considered not to be working hard enough.

Barbary slaves could hope to be freed through payment of a ransom. Despite the efforts of middlemen and charities to raise money to provide ransoms, they were still very difficult to come by. As European communities increased their charity funding for ransoming slaves, North African states increased the amount of ransom required. Lack of money to pay a ransom was not the only problem. Persons taken captive needed to notify their families of their status and tell them the ransom price. Mail charges were often beyond the reach of ordinary captive slaves, and it could take several months for the mail to be delivered.

After payment of a ransom, slaves were often taken to a port to wait for the ransom to be finalized. In some cases in the 17th and 18th centuries, slaves were kept under quarantine due to fear of the plague threatening the life of the slave and payment of the ransom.

Not many Barbary slaves could depend on being ransomed by their communities. They had to be deemed worthy of it and many poor people were never ransomed...."

 Here is an extract from a letter of September 1748 from an unnamed campaigner that appeared in The Gentleman's Magazine, a monthly published in London:

(Thanks to public subscriptions, these unfortunates were ransomed, though only after two further years of captivity and torment.)

The US Navy's dashing Captain William Bainbridge (1774-1833) got a firsthand look at how Islam was part of the "fabric" of America:

"In 1800 during the months before the First Barbary War broke out, Bainbridge was given the ignominious task of carrying the tribute which the United States still paid to the Dey of Algiers to secure exemption from capture for U.S. merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Upon arrival in the 24-gun USS George Washington, he allowed the harbor pilot to guide him directly under the guns of the fort overlooking the harbor. Upon his arrival the Dey demanded that Bainbridge use his ship to ferry the Algerian ambassador and tributary gifts to Constantinople, and that he fly the Algerian flag during the journey. With the George Washington under the guns of the fort and surrounded by the Dey's warships and military personnel Bainbridge reluctantly complied for fear of imprisonment and raised the Algerian flag on his masthead and delivered gifts of animals and slaves to Constantinople.

President Jefferson found that bribing the pirate Barbary states did not work, and decided to use force. On May 21, 1803, Bainbridge was placed in command of the USS Philadelphia, tasked with enforcing a blockade of Tripoli. Bainbridge mistakenly ran the ship aground on an uncharted reef on October 21, 1803. All efforts to refloat her under five hours of cannon fire from Tripolitan gunboats and shore batteries failed, and Bainbridge decided to surrender. Before doing so he ordered all small arms thrown overboard, the powder magazine flooded and the naval signal book destroyed. Soon afterward, the ship floated free after high tide and was captured by the Pasha of Tripoli. Bainbridge and his crewmen were imprisoned in Tripoli for nineteen months"

Regular readers of this blog might recall the heart-wrenching case of a teenage enslaved American in Oran, who in 1812, escaping the attentions of his cruel taskmaster for a few moments, emotionally begged a visiting Royal Navy officer, Captain William Dillon, for help, only to be told by that regretful officer that he was powerless to intercede for a non-Briton.

In July 1815 another Royal Navy officer, Captain Walter Croker, wrote to a member of Parliament back at Westminster of the plight of Christian slaves in the Barbary states:

".... The subject and descriptions I now would treat of deserve, indeed, a more able pen, and, though I must here,fall short, yet, when I remember the few opportunities likely to offer to men of greater talent, to witness and describe the scenes of horror which I have lately seen, I humbly hope that my faithful relation of these facts will not be considered presumptuous, nor proceeding from any other motive than the fulfilment of a duty, which I feel that I owe to my poor suffering fellow-creatures, and to the honor of my country.

 ....  On inquiry [the day following my arrival at Algiers] into the purport of a paper which I saw in the hands of the vice-consul I found it to be a subscription for the relief of nearly three hundred Christian slaves, just arrived from Bona, after a journey of many days, and who after the usual ceremony of bringing them to the Dey's feet, were ordered to their different destinations.  Such as were able to go to their bani [bagnio], or prison, were sent there, but the far greater number were found objects for the hospital, which Spain, in her better days, humanely established for the relief of Christian slaves at Algiers; it is the only one in that city.

1 naturally wished to know the particulars of the capture of those wretched persons. The Christians in Algiers who are not slaves are very far from numerous, being only the consuls of the Christian states, at peace with Algiers, and their families, with very few dependents on their protection¡ on the authority of them all, I learnt that these last Christian slaves, three hundred and fifty seven in number, were taken by two Algerian pirates, which presumed to carry the English colors, and by so doing, decoyed those unhappy beings within their reach,

 They were landed at Bona, whence (hey were driven to Algiers like a herd of cattle. Those who were no longer able to walk were tied on mules, and if they became still more enfeeebled they were murdered. On their journey, 59 expired, and one youth fell dead at the very moment they brought him to the feet of the Dey. Since their arrival, an interval of only six days, near 70 more have died.

I was, on a subsequent day, at the public quarries, and saw the Christian slaves and mules driven promiscuously to the same labor, by their infidel [sic!] masters. 1 at once anxiously and patiently heard the melancholy tales of their misery.  I tasted of their bread, and I must own, I tasted of sorrow. You will conceive, air, my sad surprise, when many of them referred me to our own consul, lo prove that they were actually made slaves while under English passports, and for the very purpose of supplying our armies with grain! ...."

If you ever saw the Hornblower miniseries on television you will probably remember the prominent inclusion of a non-fictional naval personage in the storyline, Captain Edward Pellew, portrayed by actor Robert Lindsay.

Pellew (1757-1833), whose brother Israel Pellew commanded HMS Conqueror at Trafalgar, was one of the most distinguished sea officers of his generation. Islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria were named for him by Matthew Flinders, and Cape Pellew, adjacent to those islands, as well as Exmouth Gulf on Australia's north-west, commemorate him.

Already rewarded for his valour and exploits with a baronetcy, he was in 1814 made a  baron, becoming known as Lord Exmouth.  In 1816, as an admiral, he led an Anglo-Dutch fleet against the Barbary States, which were notorious for their raiding of European coasts in search of captives and for the enslavement of the infidel crews of Mediterranean vessels unlucky enough to fall into their hands.

The expedition against the Barbary States, which resulted in the Bombardment of Algiers (depicted in the above painting by George Chambers) which proved  a decisive victory for Exmouth (who narrowly escaped serious injury, even death) and his ships, features in Alexander Kent's naval yarn Relentless Pursuit.

It is described fully in a biography of Exmouth by Edward Osler, which contains the letter that Exmouth, on board his flagship, HMS Queen Charlotte in the Algiers Bay, wrote to the local potentate, the Dey of Algiers, on 28 August, the day following the triumph:

The book also contains the General Memorandum that Exmouth addressed to his victorious fleet on 30 August 1816, from aboard the Queen Charlotte in Algiers Bay:

And so on.

The listing of the national origins of the Christian slaves held makes enlightening and sobering reading:

So, there it is: almost 200 years ago, an English admiral laboured under the delusion that he had brought Muslim enslavement of Christians to an end.

And almost 200 years on, in the words of a Canadian writer, a Muslim gentleman who's friendly towards Israel:
  

Tweeted 18 October 2014

As noted in this article on Islamic slavery in our time (I've omitted the footnote numbers):

"In recent years, according to some scholars, there has been a "worrying trend" of "reopening" of the issue of slavery by some conservative Salafi Islamic scholars after its "closing" earlier in the 20th century when Muslim countries banned slavery and "most Muslim scholars" found the practice "inconsistent with Qur'anic morality."

In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” He attacked Muslim scholars who said otherwise maintaining, “They are ignorant, not scholars ... They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.” At the time of the fatwa, al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi center of learning in the country.

According to multiple sources, religious calls have also been made to capture and enslave Jewish women. As American journalist John J. Miller said, "It is hard to imagine a serious person calling for America to enslave its enemies. Yet a prominent Saudi cleric, Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, recently urged Palestinians to do exactly that with Jews: 'Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women?" [This source cited.  Emphasis added.]

Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri of Karbala expressed the view in 1993 that the enforcement of servitude can occur but is restricted to war captives and those born of slaves.

Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, has said on the subject of justifications for Islamic permission of slavery:

"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."British Muslim commentator Mo Ansar said "If slaves are treated justly, with full rights, and no oppression whatsoever… why would anyone object?". [Emphasis added.]

According to CNN and The Economist, the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq [For IS and slavery see here] and the Levant "justifies its kidnapping of women as sex slaves citing Islamic theology." An article entitled, 'The revival (of) slavery before the Hour,' (of Judgement Day), published in the ISIL online magazine, Dabiq, claimed that Yazidi women can be taken captive and forced to become sex slaves or concubines under Islamic law, "[o]ne should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law." It not only justified the taking of slave but condemned as apostates from Islam those who "deniedy or mocked" the verses of the Koran or hadith that justified it. ISIL appealed to apocalyptic beliefs and "claimed justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world." In late 2014 ISIL released a pamphlet on the treatment of female slaves.

Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram, a Nigerian Islamist group, said in an interview "I shall capture people and make them slaves" when claiming responsibility for the 2014 Chibok kidnapping.  Shekau has justified his actions by appealing to the Quran saying "[w]hat we are doing is an order from Allah, and all that we are doing is in the Book of Allah that we follow".

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen: A Clarification

The BBC's unfit for purpose Middle East editor on his Twitter account:

As "untrue and offensive" as your appalling bias against Israel, including some of your commentary on Bibi Netanyahu's speech to Congress, eh, Jezza?

 On which see Hadar Sela's excellent article (part one) ...

More here and here

Meanwhile, the BBC's former Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, now based in the United States, shows he's still every bit as capable as the incorrigible Bowen of flaunting his bias in contravention of BBC regulations:

But what, meanwhile, of the man in the White House who boycotted Bibi's speech?

And the woman who walked out before the speech was over?

 So now we know.

Bibi – Hero Of The Free World – & The Petty People

"He’s a hero not only of the Jewish People, but of people everywhere who feel themselves part of the free world, people who oppose the horrors that Islamic State is inflicting and Iran’s nuclear plans...."

So, and rightly,  Sara Netanyahu has said of her husband, in an interview with Naomi Ragen, to be carried in full by the Jerusalem Post at the weekend.

Superb, simply superb, and typically so, was the speech, punctuated by frequent sustained thunderous applause, that The Hero delivered yesterday before Congress (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRf1cdw4IAY):

As Isi Leibler predicted in the interview he gave to Mark Golub that I posted yesterday, Bibi began by acknowledging the good things that (the insultingly absent) Barack Obama has done for Israel.

He continued, inter alia, in a speech worthy of Churchill taking on the Appeasers during the Devil's Decade:

 '....  Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The six million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War Two. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, DC and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, DC.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no place for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country....'

[Emphasis added; read the entire speech here]

Little wonder that the speech prompted a score of standing ovations.

Little wonder that very many of those who have Israel's interests at heart are hoping that Bibi will still be Israel's prime minister following the forthcoming election. (Example here)

But of course there are always the petty people who put partisan rivalries ahead of what should be a common cause:

(See here)

As well as the leftist as-a-Jews and renegades who seem to deny the real and present danger:

And who denounce not only the Hero of the Free World but others determined to keep the free world free.

Jewish hard leftists.  What a frightful strange breed they are.

"The Most Thoughtful & Insightful Columnist On The Jewish Scene Today" On Netanyahu, Israeli Politics, Antisemitism & Aliya ...

That's Rabbi Mark Golub's assessment of the incomparable Isi Leibler, who for a quarter of a century bestrode the Australian Jewish communal scene like a Colossus, and who is of course also an international Jewish leader of great renown and prescience, based in Jerusalem.

In this thought-provoking interview Isi Leibler gives his views on Bibi Netanyahu's current visit to Washington (about which the previous post on my blog, by David Singer, is concerned), Obama's "humiliation" of Netanyahu, unparelleled by Obama's treatment of any "rogue state" leader, the attitude of Israeli politicians, the "demonisation" of Netanyahu and his wife in the Israeli press, the Iranian issue, and much more.

 Incidentally, prior to a deep and searching discussion of Israeli politics, parties, political leaders  (including Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman and other electoral candidates), and the rabbinate, he cautiously predicts that Netanyahu will be returned as prime minister when Israelis go to the polls on 17 March.

He also gives his views on the attainment of a Two State solution ...  on Netanyahu's attitude to peace  ... on Obama's "frightening" inability to use the phrase "Islamic fundamentalism" in relation to terrorism and his apparent support for the Muslim Brotherhood...

Isi Leibler is worried that the Obama administration will not stand by Israel over the remaining 22 months of its existence, and he fervently wishes American Jewish leaders would abandon their "silence"and publicly speak up against Obama ... He believes that American Jews have in their DNA a "liberal" unwillingness to be critical of a Democrat president and a black one at that.

He contrasts their attitude with his own as leader of the Australian Jewish community, when he was not afraid to take on prime ministers.

Viewing American support as absolutely critical for Israel, he is afraid the Obama's administration will distance itself from Israel and turn towards European initiatives...

Regarding antisemitism, he believes there will always be Jewish communities in Europe ("a cemetery for the Jewish people"), but contends that Netanyahu would have been remiss had he not reminded European Jewry that Israel exists for them, and that in a situation in which Islamic antisemitism is rising and Jews need to be guarded from violence, aliya (although ideally to be undertaken for positive rather than negative reasons) becomes an obligation, if only for the sake of the next generation.

He pours scorn on the attitude that aliya from Europe would give Hitler a posthumous victory given the fact that Jews are obliged to live fearfully and almost as pariahs.

And he also worries, in view of campus antisemitism and the dodgy attitude of some Hillel groups, that a critical situation for Jews may eventually happen there.

Israel, he points out, is "the greatest miracle of our times", a happy society despite its problems, its "crappy politicians", and its whingeing – and it awaits.

David Singer: Netanyahu Flies Into Washington On A Wing And A Prayer

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

He writes:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Washington this week is going ahead despite unsuccessful attempts from far and wide to shoot him down in flames before he was even airborne.

President Obama’s unsuccessful attempt to stop Netanyahu’s visit by claiming breach of protocol – represents an ugly attempt to deny Netanyahu his right to freely address the Congress – the very nerve centre of the world’s leading democracy.

Netanyahu has not been deterred by many Democrats threatening to boycott his speech. At least 30 House Democrats and four Democrat Senators will not be on hand to hear what Netanyahu has to say concerning the threat to world security and peace posed by Iran’s implacable march towards producing a nuclear bomb and its threat to use such a bomb to eradicate the State of Israel.

Netanyahu has ignored the entreaties of a panoply of American Jewish groups and Israel’s opposition parties pleading he cancel his visit:

“When there is something that is connected to our very existence, what do they expect the prime minister to do, bow his head and accept something that is dangerous in order to have good relations? I think the relations are strong enough to overcome the disagreements, and that Iran with an atomic bomb is much more dangerous than one disagreement or another [with the US].”

American-Israeli relations were irreversibly intertwined when the Congress – voting 407:9 – and the Senate – voting 95:3 – overwhelmingly endorsed the commitments made by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004.

Among those commitments was an unequivocal declaration that: 

“The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.” 

Netanyahu’s address will fortuitously take place on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Purim when Jews remember the foiled plot in Persia (now Iran) in the 4th century AD: “to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews, young and old, infants and women, in a single day.”

Netanyahu has observed: 

“it is the same Persia with a regime that is waving the banner of destroying the state of the Jews. The means by which they intend on implementing this threat is with many atomic bombs” 

Netanyahu will be flying into Washington accompanied by Israel’s ambassador to the United States – Ron Dermer – and all Netanyahu’s top advisors.

They will – in the words of that famous World War II song – be: 

Comin' in on a wing and a prayer
Comin' in on a wing and a prayer
With our full crew on board
And our trust in the Lord
We're comin' in on a wing and a prayer

As for trusting in the Lord,  Obama and those churlish Senators and Congressmen who don’t have the decency to listen to what Netanyahu has to say might well recall the following words from Psalm 83: 

“O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! 2 For behold, your enemies make an uproar; those who hate you have raised their heads. 3 They lay crafty plans against your people; they consult together against your treasured ones. 4 They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” 5 For they conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant" 

The Jews have long memories of past attempts over many centuries to exterminate them – as Jew-hatred once again spreads its evil roots around the globe.

The ancient Jewish Book Ecclesiastes proclaims 

“there is no new thing under the sun" 

Pray President Obama heeds Netanyahu’s message.

"The Palestinian Armed Struggle Must Be Seen In Context As A Broader Middle Eastern Effort To Destroy Israel"

The articulate Danny Ayalon tells the truth about the balance of power in the Middle East, and why Israel should be supported:

Meanwhile, a picture that's worth a thousand words:

(Hat tips: David Singer; Barry Shaw)

As Binyamin Netanyahu said on the tarmac at Ben Gurion Airport prior to flying off to the United States some hours ago:

"A few days before the Fast of Esther, I am leaving for Washington on a fateful, even historic, mission. I feel that I am the emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish People. I am deeply and genuinely concerned for the security of all Israelis, for the fate of the nation, and for the fate of our people and I will do my utmost to ensure our future."

Pro-BDS Israel-Haters Prance & Scream In London's Covent Garden

This is how some London Israel-haters have spent part of this weekend.

I wonder how many, if any, are from the toxic BDS-voting SOAS (see my previous post).

After such a "knees up" let's hope the oldies among them aren't feeling too stiff in the joints today:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl9QZjfvDKA)

Meanwhile, further north in the British Isles, Scottish PSC chief Mick and his retainers have been quick with some tosh re one Josh:

...

Rum sort of analogy, eh?

What can have caused it?

Something in the whisky, perchance? 

 Of the Kuwaiti-born Londoner claimed to be "Jihadi John" (see this troubling article in the Washington Post, btw) a friend reportedly remembers:

'A former friend of the terrorist, who met him in 1999 when they both attended Quintin Kynaston Community Academy in St John's Wood, North London, said he found out Emwazi was a Nazi sympathiser during a Year 9 lesson.

The 27-year-old told the Daily Mirror: 'The teacher told us the Nazis drew up plans to get rid of all the Jews.

'I heard Mohammed mutter "Good, they deserved it". I thought he was joking but later he told me that he hated all Jews and blamed them for the plight of Muslims.'

The school friend said that if they ever walked past a house in Golders Green that Emwazi knew was owned by a Jew, he would shout obscenities such as 'f***king pigs'.'

(Read more here)

And see Douglas Murray's article (with videos) here

Another Scots Israel-basher heard from: read about Gorgeous George's lawfare threats here