Thursday, October 8, 2015

Sisyphus Again

What can be said about all these terror attacks that the Palestinian jihadists have been perpetrating the last 10 days?  Nothing much new.   Until the world and the Israeli government admit that this is jihad we will go on repeating everything that has already been said and do nothing  If fact, thing will just get worse as with the Iranian deal and with the hijrah into Europe especially Merkel’s Germany.

Here is an article I wrote in February, 2009:

Op-Ed: Sisyphus Starts Again

They haven't changed anything or learned anything.

A quote from the New York Times of January 21: "President Obama moved swiftly to engage on the Middle East on Wednesday, calling Israeli and Arab leaders on his first morning in office and preparing to appoint a seasoned peace negotiator and former senator, George J. Mitchell, as his special emissary to the region."

"There they go again," was my reaction. After Oslo I, Oslo II, Taba, Wye, Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, Sharm El-Sheikh, Roadmap, Annapolis, is this next flop going to be called Mitchell II? Why be so negative? Well, they have not changed anything or learned anything from previous disasters, so why would we expect a different result? 

If I were walking on a sidewalk and an ant about to be squashed by my foot would scream, "Excuse me, could you please be careful and consider the consequences of your actions?" then I would, although I am not a Jainist or Buddhist monk, definitely make sure that I watch where I was going. Is it not reasonable for us, the reluctant human guinea pigs in this experiment designed by people who know what is best for us, to request three basic conditions?

1. Accountability

Why is it that politicians who concoct these "peace processes" which blow up not in their faces, but in our faces, are never held accountable for their failures? Imagine if there were a law requiring that with every consecutive failure a monetary fine would increase and the relevant author of the failed peace plan would be held personally accountable for the debacle.

Let's say that the first three attempts are considered reasonable and therefore exempt, but that for all subsequent ones the price of failure would be $100,000, rising linearly with each attempt. A geometric progression, with the fine doubling every time, is also an idea to be considered, since it would wake up the peace dreamers much faster. I have no doubts that with the fine hovering over their pockets, politicians would either head for the libraries to educate themselves on why all previous attempts failed, or abandon experimenting with our lives altogether.

2. Knowledge 

But to help them avoid such unpleasant fines, how about demanding from "peace processors" that they go through rigorous basic training before they come up with their ideas. If I managed to read some three dozen books on jihad in the last seven years since 9/11, surely the people who decide our future should be aware of the works of Ibn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Bat Ye'or, Bernard Lewis, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer or V.S. Naipaul. No?

The Hamas Charter would be compulsory, while Churchill's The Gathering Storm would be part of the electives. 

3. Personal Experience

Nothing helps more for understanding than feeling on your own skin what the problem is. I must admit that until I started dodging falling Grads in Be'er Sheva (for two weeks) I really could not fully understand what people in Sderot had to deal with for eight years. I had written letters and articles in sympathy with their plight, but until it happened to me it just did not have the same urgency. How could they have tolerated it for eight years?

Therefore, as an elective, I suggest that peace process framers spend at least a week in similar conditions before they come up with their plan. Today, after Operation Cast Lead, there are no rockets, but based on previous experience, not for too long. Even better, the peace processors could send chosen representatives of their families to spend a week in Sderot when their plan flops. 

After campaigning and winning the elections on the slogan of "Change", surely this change in the Middle East peace initiative would be welcomed by the Obama administration. 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Rubio calls for US, allies to establish 'safe zone' for Syria rebels, refugees

Kind of sad for the American press and TV news when a scene from Homeland says more about the present situation in the Middle East than the whole American media together

BBC bias

This incident underscores the essence of Israel’s struggle.

 Foreign news purveyors tend to sanitize terrorist crimes against Jews – when they bother to report them. They also dehumanize Jewish victims when referring to them by generic designations with distinct derogatory nuances.

The heartrending tragedy of Adele Banita offers a stark case in point.

She, her husband, and two babies were attacked by a knife-wielding Arab terrorist on Jerusalem’s main Old City route to and from the Western Wall. Aharon Banita was stabbed to death and one toddler was slashed. Adele escaped the murderer’s grasp – and with his blade still stuck in her neck – ran to raise the alarm, to save her children.

It was the stuff of nightmares, of sadistic horror flicks.

The Arab merchants all around her not only failed to help, but they mocked and sneered at the profusely bleeding young woman. They spat on her. They slapped her. They jeeringly wished death upon her.

This was every bit as hideous as the Holocaust-era Ukrainians, who – if they didn’t murder with their own hands – excitedly cheered the murderers on. Not only did the homicidal assailant not regard Adele as a human being, but neither did the bystanders who unequivocally supported him.

This incident underscores the essence of Israel’s struggle.

We face bloodthirsty enemies who blatantly deny our right to be anywhere in this country, not only in Jerusalem, but Tel Aviv. They aren’t out merely to “protect al-Aksa Mosque from defilement by filthy Jewish feet” (in the words of PA chieftain Mahmoud Abbas) – they also aim to prevent Jews from praying at the Western Wall.

Indeed, any Jewish presence is per se anathema to them.

Adele’s youngsters would have been slaughtered had help not arrived in time. Indeed death would have been the fate of the four children who witnessed the brutal drive-by execution near Itamar of their parents – Naama and Eitam Henkin – had the terrorists not inadvertently shot one of their own.

But was any of this viciousness and ghastliness conveyed to news consumers abroad? Quite the reverse occurred.

The BBC website headline announced: “Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two.”

The BBC didn’t note that the murderer was shot in the midst of his killing spree. The BBC left it unclear who killed whom and who the “killed two” (mentioned in the passive voice) were. After repeated complaints, the phrasing was changed three times – yet in all the truth remained obfuscated.

Significantly, the BBC never apologized.

Its conduct was worse than al-Jazeera’s, whose re-cap was only slightly less misleading: “Palestinian shot dead after fatal stabbing in Jerusalem; 2 Israeli victims also killed.”

Clearly we expect less of the Qatar-based network than of the London one. Yet, unlike the BBC, al-Jazeera apologized and revised the headline to read, “Two Israelis killed in stabbing attack; Palestinian suspect shot dead.”

These weren’t the only offenders by a long shot.

The Washington Post’s follow-up reports aroused dismay by omitting the context in which events unfolded. As tensions grew, the tenor of the foreign media was of an Israeli- initiated escalation, divorced from any background.

Israel came out looking bad.

When the media overseas at all bothered to note who the victims were, they were mostly described as “settlers.”

Presumably that categorized them as somehow culpable.

A broad-spectrum sense of something undesirable adheres to “settlers” that makes shedding their blood semi-understandable, even if this is only tacitly hinted at.

This tactic is used regardless where victims reside. It’s an all-purpose castigation. It was even applied last year to the four elderly congregants axed to death during morning services in a west Jerusalem synagogue, well within Israel proper. It’s a non-specific unspoken insinuation of illegitimacy against all Jews in Israel.

Just as the identities of the four were never dwelled upon, so Adele’s story wasn’t told. But callous dehumanization is only the beginning. It gets lots worse when reports are skewed to the extent that a casual glance at the headline suggests Israeli wrongdoing.

Likewise suggested is that the attacker is the victim and that there is no connection between him and his actual victims. Such outrageous word-manipulations cannot be dismissed as unintentional.

Europe’s Migrant Crisis Is Simply Muslim History vs. Western Fantasy

by Raymond Ibrahim

Progressive Europe erased or rewrote its own history. Now they can't recognize an invasion by people to whom history is everything.

 The world as understood by Islamic nations varies wildly from the Western nations’ understanding of the world. Whereas Muslims see the world through the lens of history, the West has jettisoned or rewritten history to suit its ideologies.

This dichotomy of Muslim and Western thinking is evident everywhere. When the Islamic State declared that it will “conquer Rome” and “break its crosses,” few in the West realized that those are the verbatim words and goals of Islam’s founder and his companions as recorded in Muslim sources — words and goals that prompted over a thousand years of jihad on Europe.

 Most recently, the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years. Not only are Mideast and Asian regions included, but the map includes European lands: Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, parts of Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, and Cyprus.

The reason for this is simple. According to Islamic law, once a country has been conquered (or “opened,” as the euphemistic Arabic words it), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity.

This, incidentally, is the real reason Muslims despise Israel. The motivation is not sympathy for the Palestinians — if it was, neighboring Arab nations would’ve absorbed them long ago, just as they would be absorbing all of today’s Muslim refugees. No, Israel is hated because the descendants of “apes and pigs” — according to the Koran — dare to rule land that was once “opened” by jihad and therefore must be returned to Islam. (Read more about Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon to understand the source of Islamic rage.)

All of the aforementioned European nations are seen as being currently “occupied” by Christian “infidels” and in need of “liberation.” This is why jihadi organizations refer to terrorist attacks on such countries as “defensive jihads.”One rarely hears about Islamic designs on European nations because they are large and blocked together, altogether distant from the Muslim world. Conversely, tiny Israel is in the heart of the Islamic world, hence it has received most of the jihadi attention: it was a more realistic conquest. But now that the “caliphate” has been reborn and is expanding before a paralytic West, dreams of reconquering portions of Europe — if not through jihad, then through migration — are becoming more plausible, perhaps more so than conquering Israel.

Because of their historical experiences with Islam, some central and east European nations are aware of Muslim aspirations. Hungary’s prime minister even cited his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule (in the guise of the Ottoman Empire) as a reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering. But for more “enlightened” Western nations — that is, for idealistic nations that reject or rewrite history according to their subjective fantasies — Hungary’s reasoning is unjust, inhumane, and racist.

To be sure, most of Europe has experience with Islamic depredations. As late as the 17th century, even Iceland was being invaded by Muslim slave traders. Roughly 800 years earlier, in 846, Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim raiders.

Some of the Muslims migrating to Italy vow to do the same today, and Pope Francis acknowledges it — yet he still suggests that “you can take precautions, and put these people to work.”

We’ve seen this sort of thinking before: the U.S. State Department cited a lack of “job opportunities” as reason for the existence of the Islamic State.

Perhaps because the UK, Scandinavia, and North America were never conquered and occupied by the sword of Islam — unlike the southeast European nations that are rejecting Muslim refugees — they feel free to rewrite history according to their subjective ideals. Specifically, they stress that historic Christianity is bad and all other religions and people are good. Indeed, books and courses on the “sins” of Christian Europe from the Crusades to colonialism abound. (Most recently, a book traced the rise of Islamic supremacism in Egypt to the disciplining of a rude Muslim girl by a Christian nun.)

This “new history” – which claims that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians — has metastasized everywhere, from high school to college and from Hollywood to the news media, institutions which are becoming increasingly harder to distinguish from one another. When U.S. President Barack Obama condemned medieval Christians as a way to relativize Islamic State atrocities — or at best to claim that religion, any religion, isnever the driving force of violence — he was merely being representative of the mainstream way history is taught in the West.

Even good, authoritative books of history contribute to this distorted thinking. While such works may mention “Ottoman expansion” into Europe, the Islamic element is omitted. Turks are portrayed as just another competitive people, out to carve a niche for themselves in Europe with motivations no different than, say, the Austrians, their rivals. That the “Ottomans” were operating under the distinctly Islamic banner of jihad, just like the Islamic State is today, is never made clear.

Generations of this false history have led the West to think that being suspicious or judgmental of Muslims is unacceptable, and that Muslims need to be accommodated. Perhaps then, they’ll like the West.

Such is progressive wisdom.

Meanwhile, in schools across much of the Muslim world, children are being indoctrinated into glorifying and reminiscing about the jihadi conquests of yore — conquests by the sword and in the name of Allah. While the progressive West demonizes European/Christian history — when I was in elementary school, Christopher Columbus was a hero, when I got into college, he became a villain — Mehmet the Conqueror, whose atrocities against Christian Europeans make the Islamic State look like boy scouts, is praised every year in “secular” Turkey on the anniversary of the savage sack of Constantinople.

The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that today Muslims are entering the West unfettered in the guise of refugees. They refuse to assimilate with the “infidels,” and form enclaves — in Islamic terminology, ribats – that serve as frontier posts to wage jihad against the infidel one way or another.

This in not conjecture. The Islamic State is intentionally driving the refugee phenomenon, and has promised to send half a million people — mostly Muslims — into Europe. It claims that 4,000 of these refugees are its own operatives:

Just wait. … It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.

It is often said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. What happens to those who rewrite history in a way to demonize their ancestors while whitewashing the crimes of their ancestors’ enemies? The result is before us. History is not repeating itself; sword-waving Muslims are not militarily conquering Europe. Rather, they are being allowed to walk right in.


Robert Spencer explains the larger implications of the fight against the Islamic State

11: 11 into the video

 “As a matter of fact, last February they [ISIS] explained to us after the manner of Hitler in Mein Kampf, exactly what they were going to do and how they are going to do it, and they said last February, that they are going to flood Europe with 500 thousand refugees. Does that sound familiar? Do you think conceivably there can be any connection to this present refugee crisis? Of course, world leaders Barak Obama, David Cameron and Angela Merkel and all the rest of them, they all are sure that, of course, there is no possible connection between the Islamic State threatening to flood Europe with refugees, just a few months ago, and Europe being flooded with refugees now. Any connection would be inconceivable. However the Islam State, a spokesman from them recently said “we’ve already got 4000 of our men into Europe among the refugees and more are coming all the time.”

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Obama’s Orwellian switch - at the UN General Assembly he boycotts Israel and supports Iran

Breitbart News has learned that President Obama called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power into a video conference before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.

George Orwell: 1984, Part 2, Chapter 9

The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different.

Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over.

The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.

Friday, October 2, 2015



Breitbart News has learned that President Obama called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power into a video conference before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.
“Ambassador Power and Secretary Kerry were unable to attend Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before the General Assembly because they were called into a meeting with President Obama, which they participated in via video teleconference,” a State Department Official told Breitbart News.

Although they were both in New York for the United Nations General Assembly meetings, the two high-ranking U.S. officials were notably absent for the entirety of the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech.

“The United States was represented at the speech by Ambassador David Pressman, Alternate Representative of the United States to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, and Ambassador Richard Erdman, Alternate Representative to the UN General Assembly,” the official added. 

During his speech before the United Nations, the Israeli Prime Minister excoriated the international body for not condemning the Iranian regime when it calls for Israel’s destruction. 

“70 years after the murder of six-million Jews, Iran’s rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here, has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening Silence,” Netanyahu said in his condemnation of the United Nations.

Netanyahu rallied against the Iran deal, an agreement which President Obama helped facilitate between the P5+1 world powers (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany) and the regime in Tehran.

In his address, Netanyahu said that Iran’s “plan to destroy Israel will fail. Israel will not permit any force on earth to threaten its future.” 

“Israel will not allow Iran to break in, to sneak in, or to walk into the nuclear weapons club,” he pledged.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Krauthammer: Obama’s Syria debacle

The Washington Post

“Russia hits Assad’s foes, angering U.S.”
— Headline, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1

If it had the wit, the Obama administration would be not angered, but appropriately humiliated. President Obama has, once again, been totally outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin. Two days earlier at the United Nations, Obama had welcomed the return, in force, of the Russian military to the Middle East — for the first time in decades — in order to help fight the Islamic State.

The ruse was transparent from the beginning. Russia is not in Syria to fight the Islamic State. The Kremlin was sending fighter planes, air-to-air missiles and SA-22 anti-aircraft batteries. Against an Islamic State that has no air force, no planes, no helicopters?

Russia then sent reconnaissance drones over Western Idlib and Hama, where there are no Islamic State fighters. Followed by bombing attacks on Homs and other opposition strongholds that had nothing to do with the Islamic State.

Indeed, some of these bombed fighters were U.S. trained and equipped. Asked if we didn’t have an obligation to support our own allies on the ground, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter bumbled that Russia’s actions exposed its policy as self-contradictory.

Carter made it sound as if the Russian offense was to have perpetrated an oxymoron, rather than a provocation — and a direct challenge to what’s left of the U.S. policy of supporting a moderate opposition.

The whole point of Russian intervention is to maintain Assad in power. Putin has no interest in fighting the Islamic State. Indeed, the second round of Russian air attacks was on rival insurgents opposed to the Islamic State. The Islamic State is nothing but a pretense for Russian intervention. And Obama fell for it.

Just three weeks ago, Obama chided Russia for its military buildup, wagging his finger that it was “doomed to failure.” Yet by Monday he was publicly welcoming Russia to join the fight against the Islamic State. He not only acquiesced to the Russian buildup, he held an ostentatious meeting with Putin on the subject, thereby marking the ignominious collapse of Obama’s vaunted campaign to isolate Putin diplomatically over Crimea.

Putin then showed his utter contempt for Obama by launching his air campaign against our erstwhile anti-Assad allies not 48 hours after meeting Obama. Which the U.S. found out about when a Russian general knocked on the door of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and delivered a brusque demarche announcing that the attack would begin within an hour and warning the U.S. to get out of the way.

In his subsequent news conference, Carter averred that he found such Russian behavior “unprofessional.”

Good grief. Russia, with its inferior military and hemorrhaging economy, had just eaten Carter’s lunch, seizing the initiative and exposing American powerlessness — and the secretary of defense deplores what? Russia’s lack of professional etiquette.

Makes you want to weep.

Consider: When Obama became president, the surge in Iraq had succeeded and the United States had emerged as the dominant regional actor, able to project power throughout the region. Last Sunday, Iraq announced the establishment of a joint intelligence-gathering center with Iran, Syria and Russia, symbolizing the new “Shiite-crescent” alliance stretching from Iran across the northern Middle East to the Mediterranean, under the umbrella of Russia, the rising regional hegemon.

Russian planes roam free over Syria attacking Assad’s opposition as we stand by helpless. Meanwhile, the U.S. secretary of state beseeches the Russians to negotiate “de-conflict” arrangements — so that we and they can each bomb our own targets safely. It has come to this.

Why is Putin moving so quickly and so brazenly? Because he’s got only 16 more months to push on the open door that is Obama. He knows he’ll never again see an American president such as this — one who once told the General Assembly that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” and told it again Monday of “believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion.”

They cannot? Has he looked at the world around him — from Homs to Kunduz, from Sanaa to Donetsk — ablaze with conflict and coercion?

Wouldn’t you take advantage of these last 16 months if you were Putin, facing a man living in a faculty-lounge fantasy world? Where was Obama when Putin began bombing Syria? Leading a U.N. meeting on countering violent extremism.

Seminar to follow.