So few people have written books about the Uighurs that the handful who have are immediately sought out as experts, even if what they say shows an indifference to the effect of Islam on the minds of Muslims, in China as elsewhere.The Los Angeles Times reporter has gone to one such putative expert, a Professor Gladney, whose study's title betrays his understanding: he describes the Uighurs as engaged in "ethnic nationalism." No, they are engaged in the same fight that, for example, the Musliims in the southen Philippines are engaged in: Jihad against rule by non-Muslims. In the Chinese scheme of things, the Uighurs were treated not badly. They are the only group, in all of China, for example, that were not required to adhere to the one-child policy -- thus allowing their relative numbers to increase. That is not a minor concession. But what they could not abide is being part of a non-Muslim polity, in effect being directed by non-Muslim Hand Chinese. They know that it is not just, it is not right, for non-Muslims anywhere to rule over Musliims, anywhere, thoiugh the reverse -- rule by Muslims over non-Muslims -- is not only acceptable but energetically to be pursued.
Putin, according to Rubin is the consummate zero sum geo -politician. Diplomacy for the Kremlin thugacracy pales in comparison to unleashing military adventurism to recreate the former Soviet empire. Witness Georgia in 2008 with the severance of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and even the Kremlin support for Russian speaking breakaway state of Transnistria between the Ukraine and Moldavia. Remember Putin abhors NATO presence anywhere near the Russian sphere of influence. See the prescient title of a piece I wrote back in August 2008, Georgia: "Moscow Rules" and the West Wimps Out. We had Bush and Condoleezza Rice back then.
The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (STARTI) witnessed the transfer of nearly 2000 nuclear missiles to Russia followed by 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by the UK, US and Russia that guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty including the rights of Russian citizens who chose to live there. Recently Russia negotiated the extension of the lease on the Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol from 2017 to 2042. The move was heavily criticized by the opposition forces now in power in Kiev. By seizing the Crimea province from Ukraine, the Russian guarantee of Ukrainian sovereignty has been breached. Russian military exercises near Finland and the Ukraine are clear demonstrations of military force to send a message to the EU and the Obama White House West Wing not to dare send NATO forces to the Polish Ukrainian border. Thus, while there will be lots of economic sanctions and isolation rattling by Washington and Brussels, it is up to the G-8 and G-20 groups to consider ejection of Moscow, which will doubtless come up short.
Sochi may lose tourist revenues from the upcoming Paralympics, followed by the loss of the G-8 Summit in June and even the inaugural Russian Formula 1 race scheduled for August 2014. Meanwhile the Moscow Stock Exchange and Ruble were punished in trading today. Whether that continues will be influenced by Putin's contempt for the West and the threats by Obama that "there will be consequences". So, while Obama's Russian reset strategy like his pivot to Asia and push for a Final Status agreement between Israel and the PA have been potential failures.
Just look at the interview with Obama by Bloomberg's Jeffrey Goldberg about the President's entreaties to Netanyahu to "seize the moment and make peace". This included a veiled no veto threat by the US should the PA, as suggested in the Oxford Union remarks of PA negotiator Saeb Erekat on Al Jazeera'sHead to Head program of last Friday, (watch it here), might opt for accession to the UN Security Council for statehood. This would let 5 million Palestinian UNWRA refugees file for compensation against Israel. Further, the PA could file a case for crimes against humanity brought before the International Criminal Court at The Hague the day after the April 29 deadline is passed for an agreement set by Secretary of State Kerry. Even the brief comments by Obama and Netanyahu in the Oval Office about "tough choices" versus non helpful Palestinian moves sent a chilling message. (See this CBS news report, here).
Tomorrow, we shall see what happens when Netanyahu speaks to 14,000 delegates at the AIPAC Policy Conference following Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) speech. They would urge the delegates to scamper up Capitol Hill to convince their Senators and Representatives to pass the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act, S. 1881 co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Menendez. Problem is that Iran may already have its nukes given a decade long cooperative weapons development and ICBM program with North Korea. Read my article; Has Iran Developed Nuclear Weapons in North Korea? As to Israel's capabilities, realize that it already has ICBMs - the nuclear equipped Jericho III. Yes, as the ancient Chinese curse goes, "may you live in interesting times”.
“Politics has lost its ability to manage … Half of the country consists of the jobless or those who risk losing their jobs … Business is groaning under one of the world’s heaviest tax regimes … Everyone is seeking immigration … The judiciary is less trusted than even the mafia … The country is a wreck … The democratic regime is noisily cracking … Politics is in a quagmire of chaos, society is in pain … The compass-less country skids from one hell to another … A country lost. Pure tragedy...”
No, not Turkey. That was a portrayal, in a newspaper column, of Italy by one of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an’s most prominent cheerleaders who was telling the Turks how lucky they were to have a “stable government,” while poor Italians were condemned to Dante’s nine circles of Inferno.
Goebbels would have horribly envied the euphemism a la Turca. But facts are facts.
Italy’s per capita income is three times greater than Turkey’s; its GDP, about twice as great. But, of course, money is not everything. There are 23 Italian universities in the world’s top 500, and two Turkish. There are four times as many areas under environmental protection in Italy as there are in Turkey. Italy’s forested area as percentage of land area is 157 percent larger than in Turkey.
Infant mortality rate in Italy is 3 percent versus12 percent in Turkey and life expectancy is 13 percent longer (hey, dear Islamists; by the way, per capita alcohol consumption is 10 times more in Italy!).
There is no child labor in Italy, while children account for 3 percent of the labor market in Turkey. Italy has 88 percent more hospital beds per 1,000 people than Turkey; health spending per person is 10 times more than in Turkey; total health spending as percentage of GDP is 31 percent higher in Italy; while obesity in Turkey is 41 percent more than in Italy.
It may be a coincidence that Italy has 14 Nobel laureates, and Turkey has one. But Italians consume 3.5 times more oil, 2.1 times more electricity; have 78 percent less chance of dying in infancy and 48 percent more chance of being employed. In terms of total crimes, G-7 member Italy is the world’s 9th safest country, and G-20 member Turkey, the 32nd. Manslaughter, for instance, is five times more frequent in Turkey. Not good enough?
There are more decent indicators, too. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report, Italy ranks 71st; while, in a list of 136 countries, Turkey ranks 120th. Turkey, according to Freedom House’s world map, falls into the yellow zone of “partly free” countries while Italy belongs to the green zone of “free” countries. And the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders puts Italy’s world ranking at 49 vs. Turkey’s at 154th.
But there is one globally credible index that sums up all. The UNDP’s Human Development Report, a comparative measure of life expectancy, education, standards of living and quality of life, demonstrates whether a country is developed, developing or underdeveloped. On that index, Italy ranks 25th, and Turkey, 90th.
Needless to say, Italy is a member of the club Turkey has been striving to join over the last half a century. In fact, one may not need to recall any of these numbers to understand what is what. There is an increasing rate of legal and illegal immigration of Muslims into Christian Europe, including Italy, not to Muslim Turkey (except the Syrian force majeure).
The nearly 7 million Turks who live in “the wreck called Europe” are not doing so because they are masochists. Neither are younger Turks. An international survey showed last year that the most preferred destinations of the Turkish youth for higher education are, respectively, Britain and the United States; Germany; Canada; France and Italy; Spain; Australia and Switzerland; and Sweden.
These 10 overwhelmingly Christian countries account for 85 percent of Turkish students’ preferred destinations for university education.
Sadly, there is no research that reveals the percentage of desperate Italian youth dreaming of studying in glittering Turkey. But my guess, based on the thousands of column inches written by Goebbels’ Turkish reincarnations, would be that Italians may soon make up the second largest immigrant community in Turkey, after the Syrians
The NCCL and PIE affiliation - part of a much bigger master plan
I have been following with interest the news bringing to the forefront of public attention again the efforts of certain left-wing politicians to bring down traditional British society.
It started with the Daily Mail last month reminding the public (which some of us had never quite forgotten, hence our mis-trust of them) that back in the 1970s the organisation the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL, now known as Liberty – and they are indeed a diabolical liberty, to use the old Cockney phrase) having successfully campaigned for the homosexual rights moved on to other sexual minorities, in particular the desire of paedophiles to have sex with children. Most notable are:
Harriet Harman MP, former leader of the Labour Party, de factor deputy Prime minister under Gordon Brown, Cabinet minister under both Blair and Brown
Jack Dromey MP husband of Harman, former Deputy General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, Labour Party Treasurer
Patricia Hewitt Godmother to the Dromey-Harman children, former Secretary of State for Health, watched for years by MI5 for her communist sympathies, suspended from the Labour Party for corruption. She has had the grace to apologise and this, coupled with her no longer being in any position of power means that the main concern is about the position of Harman and Dromey.
Other notable persons who had a tentacle in the slime are Margaret Hodge MP for Barking, and her late husband Mr Justice Henry Hodge. I want to set down some thoughts, less about the specific individuals than their motives, and the motives of the circles on the left in which they moved.
I was a student in the early 70s and a very lowly Civil Servant by the late 70s. We admired the NCCL, going to the extent of engaging Tess Gill (a lawyer on the NCCL team, who with Anna Coote wrote a very useful handbook) to speak at our college on the subject of the proposed bill which eventually became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Homosexual activity ‘between consenting adults in private’ was now legal. At that time we were aware of opportunities opening up which our mothers might only have dreamed of. We thought sex had only been invented in 1963 and that jealous adults wanted to spoil our fun.
Looking back at the scandals at the BBC from 40 years ago (not the career and crimes of Jimmy Saville which were and always will be abhorrent) but the free behaviour of some of the DJ’s around women and girls the emphasis and horror now is on the ‘under-age’ aspect of the activity. It must be remembered that then any sexual activity before marriage was considered wrong. What was wrong aged 15 years and 10 months did not suddenly become OK and acceptable 4 months later once the young person had reached the ripe old age of 16 years and 2 months old. It was wrong at 14, at 15, at 16 and at 17. Public opinion was (about those incidents that featured in the newspapers – there were a couple) disapproving regardless of the age. Therefore the liberals at the BBC, in pushing the boundaries in the direction of ‘free love’, to use the idiom of the 1960s, were also unconcerned about the official legal age of consent. Being aged 16 didn’t make it right; being under 16 didn’t make it even more wrong. It was just wrong.
The activities of the NCCL which have been revived are their championing of a rather nasty organisation called the PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, who (I believe) came out of a Homosexual rights organisation, possibly via NAMBLA. (the North American Man Boy Love Association)
There is plenty of information in the news this last few weeks about their campaign to lower the age of consent to 14, or 10 or even 4. My recollection at the time was distaste. My mother had been a great admirer of Mary Whitehouse and I was starting to think that lady had a point. To my relief the PIE campaign never seriously came to anything overtly, and I was able to turn my mind to family matters and my job.
10 years later in the court system, suddenly we were in the centre of enormous concern about child sexual abuse, child porn, child protection and the rest, culminating in the Cleveland Scandal of 1987. Bit by bit, with frequently the best of intentions, regulations to protect children grew, until now we have a situation where decent men are terrified to speak to any child who is not their own, lest they be accused of being a child molester. Anybody over the age of 18 who may encounter a child in a public situation has to have a police check certificate to prove their probity. That’s a certificate for every work or voluntary job they may have. An individual may hold one for the Guides, one for Sunday school, one for helping in their child’s school and one for the summer holiday club at the local sports centre. With so much regulation and scrutiny you might be forgiven for thinking that every child in the UK was as safe as houses and never suffers anything worse than cotton wool allergy.
So how did Female Genital Mutilation come to flourish, when it is illegal? Or so many girls be groomed for prostitution by gangs of Muslim men? Why are those in positions of power and influence so silent on the treatment of gay men and women in Islamic controlled areas like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Tower Hamlets?
In this Telegraph article from the weekend a letter from Philip McGuinness a housemaster of St Paul’s School dated 1976 asked
“I cannot help but think that you do not support civil liberties at all. Your aim is questionable in the extreme. Are you aiming for the destruction of society, for the enslavement of the individual, for the destruction of family life? Is your object to shatter prospective individual happiness at an early stage?”
Mr McGuinness concluded: “Your title is a shame and a masquerade. There must be some very twisted minds and pernicious malcontents behind your organisation if this is the sort of thing you advocate.”
Because the laws and changes in attitude they enforced were not for the wellbeing of children (or gays). Children were merely a means to an end. The end being the disintegration of traditional British, secular but Judeo-Christian based society. This wasn’t confined to the UK – similar things were happening in Western Europe, the US, Canada.
One of the factors which modified my under 20 enthusiasm for left wing politics (I blame George Orwell) was the arguments I had with fellow students about the nature of the family and working class values. Family at its best, extending to the warm network of grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, within which I grew up is (was then) the bedrock, the mainstay, of working class life. My argument was that as the proletariat, the working class, were the good guys in the revolution, emulating working class institutions was the way to go. Not so said some of my associates. The family was too patriarchal, too much a means of oppressing women, an enemy of female freedom. It was quite obvious now (but I didn’t realise it at the time) that they wanted it destroyed.
If the family is destroyed then individuals become depended on the state for support. This gives the state eventual ultimate control. Of behaviour, speech, view, even diet; 1984 was supposed to be a warning not a blueprint.
At some point between 1982 and 1984 (when I first noticed child sexual abuse cases hitting the courts in any numbers) the focus changed. I don’t know if this was a conscious or unconscious decision on the left. But I believe the thinking went something like this.
Homosexuality is now legal and women have easy access to contraception, and increasing access to abortion.
We are not going to get very far with reducing the age of consent. However the sexualisation of children as a way of undermining the family will happen gradually anyway as a result of the more liberal sexual mores set in motion.
We can do more damage, more quickly, by demonising all heterosexual men as potential rapists and child abusers, via this new programme of mass hysteria around the genuine need for child protection.
And then when mass immigration happened, and the left formed their unholy alliance with Islam, the tiger they will regret trying to ride, overlooking grooming, FGM, forced marriage, wife beating and the rest was a natural consequence.
So for Jamie Doward to write in the Guardian, blaming paedophiles for ‘infiltrating’ the NCCL is disingenuous in my opinion. Although he does set out the atmosphere of the period quite well albeit with more approval than I retain of those times.
I don’t know how this will end, but we do live in interesting times.
BBC Finds A Former Al-Qaeda Member's Analysis Worthy Of Taking Seriously
Read here.Note toward the end Malcolm Rifkind vaporing on about "perverted" interpretations of Islam (on what textual or other basis does Malcolm Rifkind make this claim?).
But then consider the point of the whole thing. The "ex-Al Qaeda" member -- this presumably means he's now not only entirely trustworthy, but a keen analyst of how Muslims, "moderate" Muslims like himself think, has been taken seriously by the BBC, and his views on what the British (and by extension the rest of the West) "must do" to win Muslim favor, or at least not infuriate those (unfortunately quick to rage and commit attacks) Muslims. And thus the BBC appears to take seriously what he prescribes.
And what he prescribes is that the West feel that it must apologize and explain itself to the world's Muslims for not, always and everywhere, coming to their rescue, taking their side, doing what they want. But isn't it clear by now that Muslims feel no gratitude, none at all, for the Western and especially American efforts to remove despots, and then to pour in money for "reconstruction"? In Afghanistan the Americans alone --there was also great expense incurred by fellow NATO members -- spent more than $1 trillion and have incurred thousands of casualties. And have tried to buiild schools, hospitals, and so on. What has been the result? The ceaseless attacks by Karzai and others in his administration, the palpable lack of any heartfelt gratitude, the continued strength and appeal of the Taliban -- that is the result. And in Iraq, an even greater folly, where the Americans spent two trillion dollars, lost far more men, and kept trying to transform the country not only by pouring money into every kind of public works, but by preventing Arabs and Kurds, and Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs, from being at each others' throats, what was the result? What was the gratitude? The Shi'a were rescued by the Americans from Saddam's massacring Sunni-officered army, but have any of the Shi'a politicians or religious leaders ever mentioned this, suggested that America had done well?
And in Libya where hysterical and naive enthusiasm led NATO to conduct 6,000 sorties, in order to depose Qaddafy, what was the result? And where is the gratitude toward the West? There is nothing the West can do to make Muslims not continue to blame others -- the Infidels - for their problems. And their problems -- the violence and aggression and hysteria and illogic and mental impoverishment and economic stasis -- are of their own making, that is of Islam's making, and Islam is the one thing they dare not examine, dare not analyze what it is about Islam that makes for their own mess.
What the "ex-Al Qaeda" member continues to express is what he shares with Muslims of all kinds -- those who are in Al Qaeda, those who left Al Qaeda, those who would never join Al Qaeda -- that is, a need to make absurd demands upon non-Muslims, and to find them perfectly legitimate.
What he says is absurd. But it wasn't too absurd for those who currently call the shots at the BBC. For them, nothing that helps explain away Muslim behavior and Muslim attitudes, without any examination of what Islam itself inculcates, is too absurd
Every so often in the newspaper a letter to the editor appears that sums up a matter, and offers, or speaks, home truths (and not only to Samantha Power). It is these letters, and not the contributions of regular journalists (even if those who do not sink to the level of Tom Friedman or Nicholas Kristof) are what one now looks for, in order to stay sane.
Here is one by Brent White of San Jose, California. It appeared in The Wall Street Journal on February 15, 2014:
We went from a population of 200 million people and a GDP of about $4.5 trillion in 1968 to today's population of 315 million people and GDP of $15-plus trillion, and I see absolutely no corresponding improvement in our lot that could be attributed to population growth. In fact, our situation seems to me much worse. Looking at our packed and crumbling roads and groaning infrastructure, I shudder to think of life here when we've become 500 million souls.
All our stupendous World War II achievements were the product of just 135 million Americans and a Depression-ravaged economy. What is it that we must do that will require 400 million people, then 500 million? Shouldn't we, as we mature, strive to become better rather than continuously bigger?
Richard Falk’s wife is top nominee for a post on the Human Rights Council Post.
UN investigator Richard Falk. Photo: Reuters
GENEVA – As UN chief Ban Ki-moon today joins foreign ministers from around the world in Geneva to inaugurate a month-long session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, he should tell the 47-nation body to stop a controversial appointment that will expose itself to ridicule.
The secretary-general is surely looking forward to the upcoming exit of Richard Falk, the council’s pro-Hamas investigator of “Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law.”
More than once, Ban had to take the extraordinary step of condemning one of his organization’s own human rights experts -- Falk -- for spreading “preposterous” 9/11 conspiracy theories. After six years, term limits finally require Falk to go.
Yet it turns out that Falk may not really be leaving after all: the Human Rights Council is set to appoint his wife and closest collaborator to a similar post at the end of the month, days after Falk makes his final presentation to the plenary.
According to a UN document circulated in Geneva, Hilal Elver -- a Turkish academic on law and climate change who has been married to Falk for the past 18 years, co-authoring many of his articles -- is rated first among three nominees to become the council’s next “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.”
The troubled history of this UN mandate suggests the practices Elver would likely follow.
Despite its lofty title, the position was created by Cuba in 2000 as a political tool to attack the West, one of several UNHRC mandates created by third world dictatorships to disguise themselves as victims of human rights violations committed by Western capitalism, imperialism and racism.
The first right-to-food expert was Swiss socialist politician Jean Ziegler, a long-time shill for Havana’s Castro regime, and the shameless co-founder (and 2002 recipient) of the Muamar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize.
Turning a blind eye to genuine starvation in places like Burundi, Ziegler spent much of his time finding imaginative pretexts to use his UN mandate on hunger to attack America and Israel. He condemned the Jewish state so often that journalists began to describe him, mistakenly, as the council’s investigator on Palestine.
Sadly, there are many reasons to suspect that Elver would follow in this politicized and prejudiced path.
First, although Elver and Falk own a million-dollar Santa Barbara home by the Pacific Ocean, she devotes much of her writing to condemning America, and the West.
Like Falk, Elver is explicitly acknowledged in the world’s leading 9/11 conspiracy book, “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin, for the help she provided the author.
In turn, Elver’s academic work cites to Griffin’s conspiracy book, which argues that the Bush Administration helped orchestrate the attacks on the World Trade Center to justify wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Elver’s words are more cautious, but hint in the same direction. In a 2012 law journal article citing to Griffin’s notorious conspiracy tract, Elver compares 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, saying that both incidents “gave permission to the government to unleash the war power” and “invade countries”, “create new hegemonies”, and “racially discriminate against and segregate the people inside the United States.”
According to Elver, the “American establishment” – she singles out the media and Hollywood -- is guilty of “hostility towards Islam.”
Second, like her husband, Elver’s work is infused with dogmatism and tendentiousness, with sloppy attention to facts.
In June 2011, after the Economist advised Turkish voters to vote against the party of Recip Tayyip Erdogan, Elver and Falk published an article on the Al Jazeera website accusing the British magazine of a “Eurocentric virus,” because it “never did venture such an opinion on the eve of the election of such reactionary and militarist figures as George W. Bush, Stephen Harper, or Binyamin Netanyahu.”
The magazine, they wrote, revealed “a mentality that has not shaken itself free from the paternalism and entitlements of the bygone colonialist days.”
The only thing was that the Economist indeed had advised American, Canadian and Israeli citizens how to cast their votes. “Don't professors do any homework nowadays?” asked the magazine in response.
Similarly, Elver’s very application for the UN post underscores her unprofessionalism. Her form is replete with spelling mistakes, non-sequiturs, and even self-disqualifying answers. Asked if she satisfied the job’s conflict-of-interest rules, she replied “No.”
Third, there is every indication that Elver would, like Ziegler, twist the hunger post to go after Israel.
In 2007, Elver accused the Jewish state of “genocide” and compared Israelis to “Nazis.”
As UN food expert, we know exactly what her first charge will be. At a December conference in Qatar, she gave a lecture on Israel entitled “Water Apartheid.”
Like Erdogan, Elver is obsessed with what she calls in her Turkish articles the “Yahudi lobisini” -- “the Jewish lobby.”
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Elver wrote that “the Jewish lobby” is “manipulating American politics” to ensure unlimited support for Israel.
In 2012, she warned about “the strong Zionist lobby” in the United States. Indeed, “many Muslim organizations are being controlled” in the American political arena by “pro-Israel lobbyist groups.”
Appointing Elver will be like appointing Falk. They travel, work and write together. She is not only his “constant companion,” says Falk, but also his “deepest collaborator.”
When in 2012 I urged Human Rights Watch director Ken Roth to finally remove Falk from one his organization’s influential committees, after he was condemned by the UK and other countries for anti-Semitism, they did so. Yet Falk’s wife remained on, allowing the couple to continue hosting HRW events in their home.
It seems like the UN is now trying to pull the same trick.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, will address the AIPAC Policy Conference today in Washington, DC.
To Caroline Glick, senior contributing editor at theJerusalem Post, the concept of a "two-state solution," carving an invented state of Palestine from the tiny body of Israel and hopefully expecting the two resulting entities to live in harmony is, at best, a "chimera." Worse, it is a "humiliating, dangerous nightmare"; and worst of all, it spells the end of Israel.
What Glick proposes in her provocative new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (available March 4) is to brush away the web of mischief, ignorance, deceit and hatred that surrounds the "peace plan," and with newfound clarity, get rid of the misbegotten thing entirely. In its place, she proposes a one-state plan, the one state being Israel.
In Glick's own words:
The Israeli one-state plan entails the application of Israeli law-- and through it, Israeli sovereignty-- over the west bank of the Jordan River: the area that, from biblical times through the 1950s, was known to the world as Judea and Samaria. In Israel, Judea and Samaria remain the terms used to refer to the territory….
Judea and Samaria are the terms she uses throughout. Israel having withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, Glick does not include Gaza in her plan, nor does she believe, for legal and strategic reasons, that it should be reabsorbed into Israel. Her one-state solution, the application of Israeli law and sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, which is "based on actual Israeli rights rather than fictitious Israeli culpability,"
would liberate Israel to craft coherent strategies for contending with the…evolving regional threat and the international assault on its right to exist….Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will increase the security of all. It will transform the region from one governed alternatively by a military government and a terrorist kleptocracy into one governed by a unified, liberal rule of law.
The sine qua non of her plan, of course, is the understanding that the Jewish people are the indigenous Palestinians, not "colonial usurpers" or "occupying powers." "At no time," she reminds us, "have there been no Jews in the Land of Israel." She gives us census figures from the Roman holocaust of the first century CE and the subsequent Bar Kochba rebellion up to the 19th century "dawn of modern Zionism," when Jews again were the majority in Jerusalem. And she touches on some of the archeological finds that suggest a significant Jewish presence as early as 1050 BCE. Considering that the Palestinians have been trying to erase all vestiges of Jewish presence in Israel,
[T]he reconstitution of the Jewish state in the Land of Israel is an unprecedented historic accomplishment. No other indigenous people has preserved its national identity for so long and against such great odds, only to repatriate itself to its historic homeland….
But Glick stresses that her one-state plan is not intended as punishment of the Palestinians. On the contrary, she repeatedly demonstrates that Israeli rule has always been and will continue to be of great benefit to the Palestinians. After the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, for instance, Israel's recapture of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria was, for the Palestinian Arabs, "an economic and civil rights boon." The entire population of 65,000 "lined up to receive Israeli identification cards that granted them permanent residency status in Israel." Among the positive results of "Israel's benign rule," she cites impressive statistics on improved Arab living standards, employment, GDP, literacy, schools and universities, life expectancy (48 in 1967, 72 in 2000), infant mortality, clinics, sewage, electricity and health insurance. Equally important,
[U]nder Israeli rule, the Palestinians of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza exercised political freedoms that were nonexistent in the rest of the Arab world. These included freedom of association, freedom of the press, enfranchisement of women, and the ability to seek the protection of the Israeli court system.
Keep in mind that during the illegal Jordanian occupation of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, not only were Jews prohibited from buying land, but any Arab accused of selling land to Jews faced the death penalty, and in many cases, still may.
Moving us to the present impasse requires Glick, of course, to provide a look at the historical background and context. In her necessarily condensed summary, Glick draws an inexorable line from European anti-Semitism through the treacheries of the British, with their Peel Commission and infamous White Paper, and the murderous antics of their Nazi sidekick Haj Amin El-Husseini, inventor of the Palestinians. Then come the spawn of El-Husseini, Arafat and now Abbas. There was the insanity of the Oslo Accords, which led in turn to the American "bipartisan pipe dream," currently embodied in the tragicomic farce that is John Kerry.
This is a history of heroes, villains and dupes, including numerous Israelis. But when it comes to American involvement, no one escapes whipping. In the face of continuous and open Palestinian calls for the complete destruction of the Jewish state, American administrations from Nixon's to Obama's have committed themselves to some version of a plan to establish a Palestinian state on all or most of the land won by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.
The story of American pro-Palestinianism does not make for pleasant reading. It is difficult to be reminded of the slippery words of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama; to confront again the loony obsession with Israel while the entire world is ablaze; to have to face, as Glick forces us to do, that were it not for America's feckless policy, the PLO would probably have self-destructed. To add to the irony, the Arab world would not have cared: Witness King Hussein of Jordan's 1970 slaughter of thousands of Palestinians. Or recall that in 1982, when Israel forced the PLO out of Lebanon, "no Arab regime offered to host them. It took U.S. pressure to persuade Tunisia to accept them. It would seem, says Glick, that the "wider Arab world's assessment of Arafat was voiced by Jordan's King Hussein, who reportedly remarked, 'Arafat never came to a bridge that he didn't double-cross.'" But successive American administrations were snookered.
Stabbings in China, and Yet Another Stabbing In Israel: as Muslims At Opposite Ends of Asia "Strike At Their Necks"
This is not the first time, this year, that a Muslim has attempted to murder a Jew by ambushing him and stabbing him. It's just one more in the dismal litany of such attacks that take placde in Israel every year. And as such it forms part of the global war waged by Muslims upon non-Muslims, everywhere.
Not that the Israeli papers seem to understand that any better, at the moment, than all those who have been reporting on another Muslim frenzy of murderous stabbings, in the Kunming railway station, in China, at the very opposite end of Asia from Israel.
Here's Jerusalem Post, to begin with, as the story broke. Ben Hartman reporting.
'Assailant stabs, wounds haredi man in Petah Tikva'.
That is: a visibly Jewish man was targeted. One may note, too, that the haredi do not usually serve in the IDF (though this may be about to change, with a proposed revision of the laws on military service); and they do not go armed. The Muslim bully chose a "soft" target, as always. - CM
"A man sprung upon a group of ultra-Orthodox men [on] Sunday and stabbed one walking on Jabotinsky Street in Petah Tikva next [to] the Geha interchange, police said. The assailant then fled the scene on foot.
'The victim was moderately wounded and evacuated to Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva.
At least the would-be murderer failed of his object. - CM
'Police were combing the area for the suspect, and said the motives behind the attack were so far unclear."
And so to Gil Ronen's slightly more detailed account in Israel National News.
'Stabbing in Bnei Brak: Terror Suspected, 8 Arrested'.
'Eight people have been arrested as suspects in a stabbing that took place in Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv, Sunday evening.
'The background for the attack is suspected to be nationalistic.
'Nationalistic'. No. "Religious". Or "cult-driven". Motivated by Islam. By Muslim Jew-hatred, which is a subset of orthodox Quran-Sira-Hadith-driven Muslim hatred of and desire to domineer over, subjugate and destroy the najis kuffar, the filthy Infidels. - CM
'A man aged 31 was stabbed on Jabotinsky Street, next to the Dor Alon gas station.
'Medics and paramedics from Magen David Adom emergency services evacuated the victim to Beilinson Hospital.
'He was in moderate condition, with stab wounds in the upper body.
"Strike at their necks", the Quran commands. - CM
'An initial investigation by police determined that an Arab man (and I doubt he was a Christian Arab, or a nonreligious Arab; I'd bet my bottom dollar he was a Muslim - CM) pounced on a group of hareidim near the Geha bridge, stabbing one of them with a sharp object. The police set up roadblocks throughout the area and arrested eight suspects."
'Police arrest Palestinian suspected in Petah Tikva stabbing.
"Palestinian". Please, Times of Israel...and Jerusalem Post...and Israel National News...stop calling the murderers and would-be murderers this. Instead, call a spade a spade. Say, 'Arab Muslim'. Say, 'local Arab Muslim'. Or just cut right to the chase, to the one thing that explains it all, and say 'Muslim'. - CM
'Police arrested a Palestinian man (that is: a local Muslim man; he is sure to be a Muslim - CM) from Nablus [on] Sunday on suspicion that he stabbed a man near Tel Aviv in what police suspect was a terror attack.
He carried out a would-be murderous ghazi raid, aimed at Jews, whom Muslims are taught to hate and have been taught to hate for 1400 years. - CM
'The victim, a 31 ydear old resident of Bnei Brak, was moderately wounded after his upper body was slashed with a knife by another young man, according to witnesses at the scene. The attack took place under a bridge on a highway at the border of Bnei Brak and Petah Tikva.
'The assailant fled from the scene after the attack.
He ambushed and tried to murder a man whom he knew would be unarmed and unable to fight back; and then, like the cowardly mohammedan bully and jackal that he is, he ran away. - CM
'During questioning, the 34 year old suspect in custody told police that the attack was in retaliation for the actions of Israeli security forces, and was arrested, police said
Muslims always tell the Infidels that they are taking revenge for or retaliating for this or that. They always have an excuse du jour. But the real, fundamental grievance here is that the dirty Jews, as a nation, have in general been refusing to lie down meekly and allow the Mohammedan mob to stomp all over them as it fondly believes it is entitled to do. This Mohammedthug didn't attack Israeli soldiers, or police; he attacked a haredi Jew, an unarmed man. Likewise, the swarming mob of knife-wielding mohammedthugs in China attacked unarmed travellers. - CM
'In the aftermath of the attack, police had opened a widespread search for the assailant, detaining and questioning numerous people who fit witness descriptions.
'The injured man was rushed to Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva for emergency medical treatment.
That is what was required for what another of the reports, above, called a "moderate" injury. I think the Israeli meaning of 'moderate' might cover something a bit more drastic than what the average naive westerner thinks of when they hear the phrase 'moderately injured'.
And now to the Jerusalem Post, still evading the real issue.
'IDF troops, along with Shabak forces, arrested overnight Sunday an Arab terrorist (that is: an Arab Muslim terrorist - CM) from Shechem, who stabbed a Jewish man in Bnei Brak earlier Sunday night.
Full marks to Israel National News for reminding us that the Arab Muslim town of "Nablus" (which is in fact an Arabisation of the Greek phrase Nea Polis, "new town") sits atop of or very close to the much more ancient Israelite town of Shechem. - CM
'The 31 year old man was stabbed on Jabotinsky street...Police arrested 8 suspects in the stabbing, rounding up suspects who were in the area.
'Under interrogation, the suspects led police to the identity of the terrorist, who was rounded up later Sunday night.
'The terrorist (that is: the Muslim would-be murderer and ghazi raider - CM) admitted carrying out the attack, and was identified by witnesses as being the perpetrator.
'The terrorist told security officials that he had attacked a group of hareidi pedestrians near the Geha Junction, stabbing one with a blunt instrument. He did this, he told investigators, "as revenge for what the IDF is doing to Palestinians"...
In other words, he's furious because the IDF has been quite effectively resisting the ferocious Muslim Jihad against the Jews. Infidels are not supposed to resist Muslim attack; Infidels are supposed to either convert to Islam, and join the Mob, or else accept the misery of dhimmi status, under the so-called "protection" of Muslims, paying exorbitant jizya in order to be - just sometimes - grudgingly allowed to remain alive. And one should never, never forget that murderous mohammedan attacks upon Jews occurred periodically from the very beginnings of Islam, during the centuries when there was no Jewish state of Israel at all, and Jews unlucky enough to live in lands overrrun by Muslims eked out an existence as despised, exploited, degraded and perpetually-imperilled dhimmis. - CM
Radicalisation is a form of child abuse, and the authorities must have the power to intervene
This is Boris Johnson in the Telegraph, still insisting that terrorism, jihad and a desire to reinstall the caliphate are a 'distortion of islam' but also recognising that islamic principles are a form of child abuse.
Every day in London and other big cities, there are thousands of counter-terrorism officers doing a fantastic job of keeping us safe. They have to work out who are the most vulnerable young people, who are the most susceptible – and they have to stop the infection of radicalisation before it is too late. That will sometimes mean taking a view about what is happening to them in their homes and families – and I worry that their work is being hampered by what I am obliged to call political correctness.
There is built in to the British system a reluctance to be judgmental about someone else’s culture, even if that reluctance places children at risk. . . look at the appalling failure of this country to tackle the evil of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This practice is utter savagery. It involves the excision of the female exterior genital organs, including the clitoris, so as to minimise the possibility of sexual pleasure. The mutilation can cause infection, death, or constant pain.
There are still Left-wing academics protesting that the war on FGM is a form of imperialism, and that we are wrong to impose our Western norms.
I say that is utter rubbish, and a monstrous inversion of what I mean by liberalism. On the contrary: we need to be stronger and clearer in asserting our understanding of British values. That is nowhere more apparent in the daily job of those who protect us all from terror – and who are engaged in tackling the spread of extremist and radical Islam.
We are familiar by now with the threat posed by the preachers of hate, the extremist clerics who can sow the seeds of madness in the minds of impressionable young people. We are watching like hawks to see who comes back from Syria, and the ideas they may have picked up.
We know that the problem of radicalisation is not getting conspicuously worse – but nor is it going away. There are a few thousand people in London – the “low thousands”, they say – who are of interest to the security services; and a huge amount of work goes into monitoring those people, and into making sure that their ranks are not swelled by new victims of radicalisation.
What has been less widely understood is that some young people are now being radicalised at home, by their parents or by their step-parents. It is estimated that there could be hundreds of children – especially those who come within the orbit of the banned extremist group Al-Muhajiroun – who are being taught crazy stuff: the kind of mad yearning for murder and death that we heard from Lee Rigby’s killers.
At present, there is a reluctance by the social services to intervene, even when they and the police have clear evidence of what is going on, because it is not clear that the “safeguarding law” would support such action. A child may be taken into care if he or she is being exposed to pornography, or is being abused – but not if the child is being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic view of the world that could lead them to become murderers. I have been told of at least one case where the younger siblings of a convicted terrorist are well on the road to radicalisation – and it is simply not clear that the law would support intervention.
This is absurd. The law should obviously treat radicalisation as a form of child abuse. It is the strong view of many of those involved in counter-terrorism that there should be a clearer legal position, so that those children who are being turned into potential killers or suicide bombers can be removed into care – for their own safety and for the safety of the public.
That must surely be right. We need to be less phobic of intrusion into the ways of minority groups and less nervous of passing judgment on other cultures. We can have a great, glorious, polychromatic society, but we must be firm to the point of ruthlessness in opposing behaviour that undermines our values. Paedophilia, FGM, Islamic radicalisation – to some extent, at some stage, we have tiptoed round them all for fear of offending this or that minority. It is children who have suffered.
There is no facility for commments which is a shame. Leaving aside his not seeing/unable to state the true picture about the NCCL and/or Islam he is right that the tip-toeing must cease.