Gradually, almost imperceptibly, the outline of a coherent Trump foreign policy is emerging and succeeding. The elements were to withdraw from the role as the default war-maker in the Middle East without creating a vacuum, render Russia less adversarial without facing it down into the arms of the Chinese, and revitalize the Western Alliance to a plausible notion of multilateral contributions and not just an American military guarantee for everyone, ex gratia and pro bono.
At the same time, there would be unrestricted war on terrorist organizations, a revival of nuclear non-proliferation by direct and overbearing threats to North Korea and Iran, and the reconstruction of America’s status as the world’s preeminent economy by tax reductions, deregulation, renegotiation of trade treaties, and encouragement of energy self-sufficiency.
There have been some unfortunate moments from a presentational standpoint, but it is a good plan and it is working.
Changing the Game in the Mideast
Turkey had attempted to masquerade as the patron of the Arabs and was sent packing in remembrance of the Arabs’ 500 years of involuntary enjoyment of Turkish occupation, and after a regional musical chairs game with ancient rivals Iran and Russia, all pretending a common cause in Syria. Turkey was left standing when the music stopped and largely has reconciled with the United States. The two countries will operate joint patrols to keep the Kurds from aggravating Kurdish discontent within Anatolia (Turkish Asia Minor).
Turkish President Erdogan is a distasteful and inconstant ally, but more manageable than the Russian leader Putin, and a Lincolnian statesman compared to the Iranian ayatollahs. The Trump Administration is not prepared to accept permanent involvement of U.S. ground forces in the Middle East. But neither will it accept the creation of vacuums there which foment terrorism, as after Obama’s petulant and abrupt departure from Iraq. This led to the swift rise of ISIS, the disintegration of Shiite Iraq, and thrust 60 percent of the country’s population into dependency on Iran. The entire American effort there: two invasions under the Bushes and Obama’s wind-down, handed Iran the greatest accretion of its influence since the height of the Parthian Empire nearly 2,000 years ago.
Now, making a partial virtue of the failings of the previous two administrations, the crumbling of Iraq and Syria, formerly two of Israel’s most fanatical enemies, strengthens Israeli security, and the encroachments of the Arabs’ ancient enemies and oppressors, the Turks and Iranians, bring Egypt and Saudi Arabia into quasi-alliance with Israel. ISIS and al-Qaeda effectively have been smashed, the United States doesn’t care if Russia has a naval base on the Mediterranean (since Russia could not challenge the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean without bankrupting itself). The Russians protect Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite faction, and the Turks and Americans protect the secular adversaries of Assad and keep the Kurds out of Turkey, protecting Kurdistan from the Turks.
Obviously, the war in Yemen has to end without an Iranian victory and the pressure on Iran must be maintained until this dismal theocracy in Teheran either repents of its ambition for an arc of influence, or collapses from internal anger at its comprehensive corruption and failure.
The Arab powers have greater concerns than continuing to try to distract the Arab masses from the misgovernment inflicted on them with the red herring of Israel, and no one cares a jot about the Palestinians, as the inexcusably delayed movement of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem demonstrated. The bedraggled and discredited PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, should soon make a deal which implicitly includes the Egyptians uprooting Hamas in Gaza with America’s and the world’s blessing. Palestine will have to accept a narrower West Bank and a deeper Gaza strip in compensation, with a secure road between them. It will settle down as another dusty, but industrious little country, and the last piece of the puzzle will be Hezbollah—one peep from it and all the neighboring forces will be pleased to dispatch it.
Given the importance of the factors in play, the Trump Administration cannot allow the fracas over purported “journalist” Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, to derail progress in the Middle East. His murder is one of the stupidest and most barbarous acts in the unenlightened history of the House of Saud, and has been hyped to the rafters by the Democrats and their media ciphers, but will be talked out effectively by Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo. It was a disgusting crime, but these are frequent in the Middle East and no significant part of the world’s future can be mortgaged to the victim.
Khashoggi was no great friend of America, despite the mournful caterwauling of the increasingly desperate Democrats, and some well-meaning Republican dupes (like Senator Lindsey Graham, who padded around the Middle East 15 years ago with John McCain demanding fair treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood).
Upending Popular Wisdom on Russia and China
The fixation of the Democrats, and of some gullible Republicans such as Marco Rubio, on the Russians, and the unutterable but now scarcely audible nonsense about collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign in 2016, has caused many Americans to forget the strategic correlation of forces in the world. But the president and his close advisors have realized that Russia could only be dangerous if it were so coldly rebuffed before the whole world that it were driven into the arms of China.
Despite the passing hubbub about his comments in Helsinki (which essentially meant that Trump had more confidence in the assertions of Russian intelligence than in the partisan fabrications of former U.S. intelligence chiefs John Brennan and James Clapper, with some reason), the president has succeeded in shifting America’s attention to the fact that China is its only rival for strategic preeminence in the world.
Trump has struck up and retained a cordial personal relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but has steadily moved to break down China’s trade surplus with the United States, encouraged China’s neighbors to join hands in resisting Chinese hegemony in the Far East, and used the preeminence of the United States Navy to assure that the Chinese effort to convert the South China Sea into Chinese territorial waters does not succeed.
The fretful assertions that China would surpass the United States as a power, economically and otherwise, in the next 20 years, have died away, as did the claims that Japan would surpass America as an economic power and the USSR as a military power. Now, it is even acknowledged by popular wisdom, Trump-haters, and the somewhat broader and more international category of anti-Americans, (though many of them are Americans), that prejudging the outcome of that contest is unwise.
As he opened relations with China and triangulated the super power rivalry with the Soviet Union in 1972, Richard Nixon said that the world’s five great centers of strategic strength (in terms of population, industry and technology) were the United States, USSR, Western Europe, Japan, and China. Now the Russians are itinerant international troublemakers, inelegantly and inconsistently trying to replicate the feat of Charles de Gaulle in reminding the world of the importance of France, but they are a crumbling custodian of vast geopolitical possibilities, awaiting the development of mature and efficient political institutions. Europe is a cocoon for the containment of Germany, paying Danegeld, for notorious historical reasons, to the working and agrarian classes, but only the British and French retain the remotest concept of how Great Powers conduct themselves. Japan is almost as reticent, but stirred to greater activity than the Europeans by their proximity to China.
Trump and Xi understand that they are the rivals, and there is no real military issue; it is economic predominance and the prestige of the nations. The Americans retain the advantage-the world’s greatest democracy and promoter of democracy. China has no institutions of any public trust except, up to a point, the armed forces. The United States, as in the times of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, is unchallenged in its hemisphere. Western Europe is slumbering quiescently and is, to an adequate extent, an American ally, and palsied Russia is waiting to begin the primordial task of trying to devise political institutions that will serve its legitimate aspirations. Japan seeks American assistance as a bulwark against resurgent China. This is a constellation that President Trump is steadily strengthening, and it is one that, with continued management, cannot fail to win, and will not try to bar China from being the first of the world’s great nations to regenerate itself. In this process, though not in some of its more jingoistic manifestations, China should not be discouraged.
No one would call Donald Trump a sophisticated geopolitician, (including Donald Trump). But in practice, he is. He is not a historian, but he is a realistic analyst of the present and is building a fine future for his country. Americans sense this, and will respond to it.
The Nobel Peace Prize Finally Goes to Someone Who Deserves It (Part Three)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
So far, Nadia Murad appears not to be pulling her punches when it comes to Islam. In 2016, she addressed the UN Security Council, describing how she had been gang raped for a failed escape attempt. All of this, she said, was considered legal under ISIS rule — which dictates that Yazidis, because they do not practice Islam, can be taken as slaves on religious grounds. “They sold girls, girls that were underage, because ISIS considered that permissible under Islamic law,” she said. “They came not just to attack certain people, but they came for all Yazidis.”
Nadia Murad has so far in her travels addressed audiences in Ireland, in France, in the U.K., in Canada, in Germany, and in the United States, telling her tale, and the tale of her people:
“Four years ago I was one of thousands of Yazidi women kidnapped by Islamic State and sold into slavery. I endured rape, torture and humiliation at the hands of these militants before I escaped.
“I was relatively lucky. Many Yazidi girls and women went through worse and for much longer.
“Over 2,000 are still missing. Many have been killed.
“In early August 2014 Islamic State invaded the Sinjar region in northern Iraq with the mission of exterminating the Yazidis. They called us a ‘pagan minority’, and because we don’t have a holy book we have been described as ‘devil worshippers.’”
“In Kocho, my village of 1,800 people, over 300 men were shot and their bodies buried in irrigation ditches. Six of them were my own brothers.
“Since then the Yazidis have received sympathy and solidarity all over the world. Rightly, many countries and the United Nations have recognised the genocide committed against us by Islamic State. But we now need concrete action to get justice and allow us to rebuild our community and homes. We have been displaced and dispersed around the world. Many countries, including Germany, Canada, and the United States have given us refuge.”
Now she has the Nobel Prize, which she can permanently use as a mighty megaphone to spread her story, and the stories of other Yazidis, across the globe. She is being helped by the world’s most mediagenic and celebrated lawyer, Amal Clooney, who has become the legal advocate for Yazidi victims of atrocities.
It will be fascinating to see how the Arab and Muslim media report on this prize to Nadia Murad, and on her campaign to describe the fate of Yazidis at Muslim hands. So far — it’s early yet — they are mostly observing radio silence, trying to figure out how to cover the story. Al Jazeera did report, in passing, that the Islamic State had tried to make her convert to Islam, without recognizing that all Muslims are supposed to try to convert Infidels.
Will the Arab media focus on the one Muslim family that helped her escape from ISIS, as if that family should make us overlook all the Muslims who were not willing to help? Furthermore, should that one decent family make us overlook all the Muslims who engaged in the mass rape of Yazidi girls, and mass killings of Yazidi men? Will Muslim reporters insist, implausibly, that just as the Arabs and Jews used to have such good relations (“we got along with them just fine until the Zionists arrived”), so too “for centuries we Muslims got along perfectly well with the Yazidis — it’s only these Islamic State extremists who have been attacking them”? In fact, for centuries, under Ottoman rule, and until today, Yazidis have been persecuted as “devil worshippers” by Muslims, both Arabs and Turks. Constant attempts have been made to force them to convert to Islam, though in the past nothing quite as bad as the atrocities they have recently endured apparently occurred.
There are now 400,000 Yazidis still living in northern Iraq. They deserve to survive. Will they be given protection, so that they can remain in their ancestral homeland? Can the Iraqi government be trusted to provide it, or will it require Western forces, having armed the Yazidis so that they can participate in their own defense, to ensure the safety of the remaining Yazidis, with some kind of cordon sanitaire? Let’s find out what Nadia Murad thinks would make the most sense. She’s not just earned her Nobel as few others have, but even more important, she’s earned the right to be listened to on the fate, both tragic and hopeful, of her tiny people.
Glenn Beck sat down with New York University professor and former Marxist Michael Rectenwald to discuss how postmodern progressives use language to control and oppress people with opinions different from their own — all in the name of social justice.
“If you think that’s nonsense, think about how you’re being dominated by using the wrong terms in today’s society,” Glenn said.
Rectenwald introduced the postmodern concept of “logocentrism,” which means to center on words.
“The idea is language as a form of domination over people. That’s why deconstruction comes in, because it wants to undo that domination of language,” he explained. “[Postmodernism] is a toolkit for dismantling all power structures without bombing the building.”
They discussed the postmodern belief that structure, organization, and establishment are “bad just by virtue of existing,” Rectenwald said, and that “everything is the white man’s fault.”
“The only evil that has ever been done on Earth, has been done by the white man, don’t you know that?” Rectenwald said sarcastically. “They have a cartoon version of history that they follow, and if you say something like, ‘Did you know that there is still slavery going on today and that it’s being undertaken by Islamists … that this is not the white man that is doing this today? In fact, the only people that ever ended slavery in history were Euro-based?’ But if you say that, they’ll say, ‘You’re just saying that because you are one of them, one of the oppressors.”
Glenn responded, “I think the enemy of civilization is chaos and people feel that they are surrounded by chaos because you get up every day and there’s a new term that you’ll be crucified if you don’t use today, even though yesterday it was a different term [It happens] literally that fast.”
To find the full episode, subscribers can tune-in to “Glenn” anytime on-demand atTheBlaze TV.
One the giants of French literature, Chateaubriand, denounced silence in the face of evil. When in the abjectness of silence, one no longer hears the chains of a slave or the voice of the denouncers, when everyone trembles before the tyrant, the historian appears. Unfortunately however, historians may be assassins of memory and one professional notorious falsifier of history that few will mourn has now disappeared.
Robert Faurisson, born in a suburb 15 miles from London of French father and Scottish mother, a dual citizen of both countries, died aged 89 on October 21, 2018 in his home in the symbolically appropriate city of Vichy where he lived.
Faurisson was a notorious hater of Jews who defended obnoxious ideas, a fountain of evil. Educated in France, he became professor at the Sorbonne until 1973 and then professor of French literature at the University of Lyon until 1991. He will hardly be remembered for his knowledge of 19th century French poetry which he taught. Concerned with nationalist politics in France, he became a public figure first for his extreme advocacy of colonialism especially in Algeria, so intense that he was thought to be a member of the extreme OAS, and then as a defender of Marshal Philippe Petain and the Vichy regime.
But his infamous place in French history results from his role as antisemitic propagandist, a Holocaust denier who propounded the falsity that insistence on Nazi gas chambers was the biggest lie of the 20th century. Faurisson is unlikely to be remembered for any contributions to French literature, but he will remain as a star of historical negativism, and his prominent role as Holocaust denier, justifying lies and fabrications. In 1980 he informed the world of the lie of the existence of gas chambers and of the myth of the genocide of Jews, explaining that these "falsehoods," opened the way to gigantic political and financial fraud of which the principal beneficiaries are the State of Isrsel and International Zionism. There were, he assured fellow historians, no gas chambers. Jews who were deported died of disease and malnutrition. One of his persistent views was that the Diary of AnneFrank was a hoax. In 1981 he was convicted by the French court of inciting hatred and racial discrimination, and for his views that the reports of the Holocaust were grossly exaggerated.
Of course Faurisson was not alone in his historical and political fantasies but he was the most prominent and influential of French negators. He was associated with the Institute for Historical Review, defended Ernest Zundel, German publisher of material inciting hatred of Jews, and the pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report of 1988 denying mass killings at Nazi extermination camps. He approved the statement by the despicable Darquier de Pellepoix, former Commissioner for Jewish Affairs in Vichy, that only lice were gassed in Auschwitz.
Faurisson followed in the footsteps of Holocaust deniers and then became the leading figure for others. Maurice Bardeche; Paul Rassinier; Roger Garaudy, once a brave war time resistance fighter and communist author, then converted to Islam and became a Holocaust denier; Henri Rocques, who asserted the Holocaust was a wartime lie, artfully maintained by the International Zionist lobby; Jean- Claude Pressac, chemist and pharmacist who for a time denied some concentration camps were extermination camps; Jean-Marie Le Pen founder of the National Front, protector of Vichy collaborators, and author of the remark that the Holocaust was a "detail of history."
Faurisson may be remembered by his friends and associates. One is the antisemitic comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala whom he embraced on the stage, and one of whose assistants gave him in 2008 an award while dressed in a striped concentration camp uniform with a yellow star. Faurisson was honored in 2012 by the then president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by an award for "courage, strength, and force," in contesting the Holocaust.
Faurisson can claim fame as the first Frenchman to be legally convicted of Holocaust denial. At the time, Le Pen defended Faurisson as a symbol of the free speech that has been criminalized in France. The state, Le Pen said, went to great lengths to silence Faurisson. This event was the result of the prosecution of Faurisson for defiance of the Gayssot Law of July 13, 1990. The law made it an offence to contest the existence or size of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter 1945 on the basis of which the Nuremberg trials were held, 1945-6.
The Gayssot Law was a response to the development of "revisionism" by writers who challenged the existence of the Shoah, a not so subtle form of contemporary antisemitism which previously could not be prosecuted. The Law dealt with the assertion that the myth of the gas chambers was a dishonest fabrication (une gredinerie) endorsed by the victorious powers in Nuremberg trials which were a sham, a "mascarade," sinister and dishonorable. The Law was based on the right to be free from incitement to racism or antisemitism. Faurisson, a forger of history, dismissed from academia in 1991, was rightfully convicted by the French court of inciting hatred and racial discrimination.
In a curious, still controversial, statement Noam Chomsky wrote a preface for one of Faurisson's writings. Chomsky said he had nothing to say about the work of Faurisson or his critics, or about the topics they address, concerning which he had no special knowledge. However, the charges that Faurisson was a rabid antisemite and fanatical pro Nazi had no bearing whatsover on the legitmacy of the defense of his civil rights. Chomsky could find no evidence to support the conclusion that Faurisson was antisemitic or neo-Nazi, rather "relatively a political liberal of some sort."
By coincidence on October 4, 2018 French culture minister Francoise Nyssen announced an award to memorialize Ilan Halimi, the first Jew to be killed in a hate crime after World War II. Halimi , a 23 year old mobile phone salesman, had been abducted, tortured and killed in 2006. The murder is depicted in a movie, 24 Days.
The intellectual and legal problem concerning Faurisson and like minded individusls continues. The argument is made that the expression "genocide" is no longer appropriate for what happened, new evaluations are needed of rigid canons of memory which we have been taught to regard as eternal. According to this line of argument, we must abandon the concept of a Nazi systematic extermination policy planned from the outset; it was a gradualizaion imposed by war which itself exercized the violent antisemitism of Hitler and his entourage.
This specious argument, derivative from Faurisson's work and influence, must be rejected as should be historical revisionism. The only praiseworthy remark that can be made of Faurisson and his ilk, is they did truth an involuntary service by making Shoah one of the best known events in modern history. The concept of revisionism should be buried with him.
Remember the Democrats’ predictions of a scorched earth in 2016?
by Conrad Black
As we enter the last two weeks of the midterm-election campaigns, the Democratic claims of a blue wave have given way to stark resignation that President Trump will add from two to five senators to the existing slender Republican majority, and that the House of Representatives will be a squeaker. This is the same trajectory that afflicted the Democratic promises of “scorched earth” and total obstruction nearly two years ago, and the following year of incessant repetitions that impeachment was imminent, and that collusion with Russia and the Trump campaign probable.
The same happened to the fatuous conjuration that we had a “constitutional crisis” because the president was clearly mentally incompetent in the terms of the 25th Amendment. Only the Democrats’ hammerlock on the traditional national political media and its uniform hostility to Trump has allowed the Democrats to remain in contention for a partially successful result in November. The justified exhilaration of breaking the nonwhite barrier in electing an African-American president in 2008 was tarnished by the failure of President Obama’s high-tax, highly regulated economic policy, preaching resignation to sluggish economic growth; and by the failure of his pacifistic, semi-isolationist foreign policy. And apart from that evanescent post-electoral exhilaration, the Democrats have had no policy since the bloom came off the Clinton rose in the Lewinsky affair, except to proclaim from the rooftops that they are neither George W. Bush nor Donald Trump.
I will not descend to the guilt by association that the Democrats have been wallowing in these many years: Obama implied that anyone who didn’t like his Iran nuclear giveaway wanted to go to war, and that any reservation about political correctness was a smokescreen for racism, homophobia, misogyny, miscellaneous bigotry, and what Kafka called “nameless crimes.” It is not fair to say that the Democrats as a party foment violence and incivility as a tactic. However, it is a reasonable observation that almost all those who incite and commit acts of political incivility prefer the Democrats to the Republicans and are generally engaged in attacking and harassing Republicans and not Democrats. From the lunatic who almost killed Republican congressman Scalise to the obnoxious idiots who heckled Henry Kissinger at New York University last week (41 years after he retired from government) and tried to disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings, to spontaneous pests who beset White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell as they attempted to eat their dinners in restaurants in the past couple of months, all the forces of incivility are anti-Republican. As Democrats are never bothered in this way (other than one outburst of intra-Democratic shouting at a Nancy Pelosi constituents’ meeting some months ago), it may safely be inferred that the partisans of the Democrats are the authors of all these infantile outrages. Hillary Clinton said as much last week when she unctuously assured viewers that the way to “restore civility” is to elect Democratic congressional majorities.
Mrs. Clinton has been so thoroughly exposed as an epochal dirty trickster over the Steele dossier and Donna Brazile’s accusations of seizing the Democratic party’s funds, she no longer has any appreciable influence over public opinion, but she probably spoke the truth when she effectively said that if the country gives the Congress back to the Democrats for the first time since 2010, these appalling demonstrations and disruptions of public meetings will cease. The ineffable Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who has not seen a race riot she didn’t like since the Watts summer festivals of violence in Los Angeles 50 years ago, has been almost self-muzzled after her calls for violence were so frequent and explicit that they embarrassed her party. Senator Cory Booker (D., N.J.), on the heels of his puerile invocation of the Hollywood version of the insurgent slave Spartacus, called upon his fellow Democrats to “get in the faces of Republicans.” The thought of the senator himself doing so, motor-mouthed public self-analysand as he is, must cause any normally social person profound disconcertion. Months of silence from the Democrats followed the Antifa ninja-vandals and arsonists’ antics preventing the appearance of invited conservative speakers at Berkeley and disrupting a licensed pro-Trump parade in Portland, Ore., last year. Even the Charlottesville claim that Antifa and the Black Lives Matter enthusiasts who killed eight policemen in Dallas and Baton Rouge were clearly preferable to their Nazi and Klansmen opponents in the disgraceful riots of August 2017 was nonsense; all these groups are despicable.
Whatever the polls or the anti-Trump media say, the country knows that unless the local candidate is a person of outstanding merit, and there are many in the Democratic party, a vote for the Democrats is an affirmation of sociopathic conduct, unlimited illegal immigration, failed public policy, the resumption of a flat-lined economy, and a diffident and ineffectual pacifism in the world, where allies lapse and vacuums are filled by terrorists; and China steps confidently toward the headship of the world’s nations. The animus against Trump is strong and tenacious, and not entirely difficult to understand; his style is that of the traditional Ugly American, the braggart and the rich bombast; but it is not the style of a yob or even an Archie Bunker. He is evidently an educated man and without a trace of racial or religious or gender bias. And, as I have astonished many by pointing out, he achieved more before he was inaugurated president than any previous holders of his great office except Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Grant, and Eisenhower. Each of these except Madison was a world historic figure before being nominated, and Madison is, with Moses, Hammurabi, Justinian, and Napoleon, among the world’s greatest law-givers.
Those repelled by Trump will not soften until he has retired as president, as with those who hated Franklin D. Roosevelt for spurious ideological or mythic reasons (such as that he gave Eastern Europe to Stalin); or those who disparaged Reagan as “an amiable dunce,” in the words of Clark Clifford, the ageless and elegant Washington fixer and an unsuccessful defense secretary. It would be at least premature, and perhaps wildly optimistic, to compare Trump to FDR and Reagan, the two greatest presidents since Lincoln, but as the voters proceed to the polls in two weeks, they will have to reflect on the indisputable fact of President Trump’s successes. He took a sluggish economy where GDP growth per capita had declined from 4.5 percent under President Reagan to 1 percent under President Obama, under whom federal debt increased by 233 percent in eight years. He has focused attention on the unutterable scandal of the steady influx of millions of illiterate peasants, including many violent criminals, across the southern border, and is the enemy of the permissiveness of “sanctuary” and the prohibition of constitutionally mandated census-takers to ask respondents’ citizenship. Trump has made himself the sole possible agent of enforcement of nuclear nonproliferation by his actions to prevent North Korea and Iran from becoming nuclear military powers, a status that his predecessors effectively conceded to them.
Obama said 2 percent economic growth is the “new normal,” as poverty, food-stamp use, and violence increased. Trump has created a full-employment economy and generated the first increases in purchasing power and job security in this millennium for the lower third of Roosevelt’s “forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.” I don’t believe that most pollsters have adjusted their techniques to allow for a higher voting turnout from what used to be the white working class, or to allow for the reluctance of many Trump voters to identify themselves. On the day, the people will endorse the administration. This president is too jangling and confrontational to sweep the country as an elegant and mellifluous chief, serenely exuding confidence and magnanimity, as Roosevelt and Reagan, and to a limited degree, Kennedy and Nixon, could. But after what he has achieved in the past 19 months, the country will not desert this president, as Lincoln said, “in the middle of the stream.”
School which taught that only Muslims were saved on Noah's Ark is first to be fined for opening illegally
An Islamic school which taught that only Muslims and animals were saved on Noah’s ark has become the first to be successfully prosecuted for operating illegally.
The Al-Istiqamah Learning Centre in west London marketed itself as a study centre where home-educated children had part-time tuition, but Ofsted inspectors found that almost 60 children of compulsory school age were regularly attending the centre during school hours.
The case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service after the centre failed to respond to Ofsted’s warning notice in November 2017.
Director Nacerdine Talbi and Headteacher Beatrix Kinga Bernhardt have now become the first people convicted of running an unregistered independent school and were each given a three-month curfew and ordered to pay a total of £970 towards costs. The school has also been fined £100. Which is a mere slapped wrist in the wider scheme of things.
While Ofsted said the centre did not solely teach religious education, photographs on the school’s website appear to reveal a focus on Islam.
One photograph of a child’s homework showed a question sheet about Noah and the ark. Noah is identified as a prophet of Allah, who built an ark and saved only Muslims and animals. A question which asked why Allah punished the people was answered: ‘they disbelieved’.
Other examples of Islamic-focused tuition include poems thanking Allah for providing grapes and a letter written by a student to a teacher in which he draws a mosque and writes: “Thank you for helping me. May Allah reward you!”
At Westminster Magistrates court, Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said: “I have no doubt from the documents exhibited that the academic year at the centre is a ten month year. The fees being charged were £230 per month for primary school age pupils and £250 for secondary school age and envisaged a ten month year.” As such the centre was "being operated as an unregistered independent educational institution providing full-time education".
The Nobel Peace Prize Finally Goes to Someone Who Deserves It (Part Two)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Listening to the radio, I heard with alarm several people on a talk show describe Nadia Murad as a “Yazidi Muslim.” She is not a Muslim. She must never be thought of as a Muslim. She is a Yazidi, a small religious sect with roots in Kurdistan and Armenia, that has always been the object of Muslim hatred. The killings of Yazidis by the Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, of the Islamic State have, during the last few years, been conducted “on an industrial scale,” as Amal Clooney, Murad’s lawyer, told the U.N.
Nadia Murad stands up not just for the Yazidis, but for all the other non-Muslim or non-Arab minorities who have been oppressed — harassed, persecuted, and often murdered — by their Muslim captors, and not just in Iraq. Over the centuries the Armenians, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Jews, Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Alawites, and orthodox Shia, have all suffered from Sunni Muslims. Nadia Murad now has her bully pulpit, for her own mistreated people, and she obviously intends to use it.
This is first time that a victim of Jihad and Islamic terrorism has been recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize. If it leads to greater attention to what has happened to the Yazidis, and to other groups of non-Muslims similarly situated, and to a greater focus on the Muslims who are responsible for the attempted genocide of the Yazidis, that would be a salutary development. Meanwhile, be on the alert when the subject of Nadia Murad comes up on any show to which listeners can call in. Make sure that she is properly identified as a Yazidi, a non-Muslim victim of Muslim mass rapes, just as her six dead brothers were victims of Muslim mass murder. Call in, especially, to correct anyone identifying her as belonging, as I have heard someone say, to “a small Muslim sect.” You could, while correcting that error, also add that Yazidis in Iraq have made contact with Israelis, and Nadia Murad herself has visited Israel, and expressed great admiration and sympathy for the country and its people, seeing an obvious parallel:
In 2017, she travelled to Israel to speak about her ordeal, where she addressed Beit Hatfutsot, the Museum of the Jewish People.
Addressing a packed lecture hall at the Museum of the Jewish People at Tel Aviv University on her last day in Israel, i24 News reported that Nadia drew strong parallels between the suffering of the Yazidi people and that of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.
“[The Jewish people’s story] is a unique story, and yet so much of it echoes my own community’s experiences. Like the Jews, the Yazidis have an ancient history thousands of years old. Despite recurring persecution, both our people have survived,” Nadia said, in remarks delivered through a translator.
“For three years, ISIS has stolen the authorship of the Yazidi story. But we will not let them write our future. My time in Israel has shown me that in the wake of oppression and genocide, a community can emerge stronger,” she said.
“About Yad Vashem, Israel’s national memorial museum to the Holocaust, she said “the message is that there are many ways to be a hero. Like Jews, the Yazidi people are showing resistance by holding onto our identity and practising our traditions, and we need the Jewish people’s mentorship to rebuild our community. Thank you for giving us hope.”
In a speech in the Knesset, she asked Israel to formally recognize the genocide of the Yazidis:
“My visit here today is to ask you to recognize the genocide being committed against my people, in light of our peoples’ common history of genocide,” The Times of Israel quoted Nadia Murad as saying on Tuesday, urging the Knesset to recognize the atrocities committed against the Yezidis of the Kurdistan Region at the hands of ISIS extremists.
“The Jews and the Yazidis share a common history of genocide that has shaped the identity of our peoples, but we must transform our pain into action. I respect how you rebuilt a global Jewish community in the wake of genocide. This is a journey that lies ahead of my community.”
Some Yazidis have requested that they be taken in by Israel. There are even reports that some Yazidis have asked if they might be allowed to train and fight with the IDF against their common enemy, fanatical Muslims.
If Nadia Murad keeps telling her own tale, what she endured in all its ghastliness, and does not leave anything out, if she describes how the members of the Islamic State would recite verses from the Qur’an both before and after raping Yazidi girls, if she goes still further and dares to discuss the Qur’anic passages and hadith stories on which the Islamic State bases its behavior, she will have performed a great service, as the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to tell unpleasant truths about Islam. Think of her Prize as a way of cancelling the embarrassment of Arafat’s award. And Muslim states would have a hard time explaining any attempts to criticize or silence such a formidable person.
From an outsider’s point of view, the two most extraordinary things about the controversy over the interpretation of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test are that it should have been performed in the first place and that anyone should have been interested in the result, including the subject of the test herself. By comparison with this, apartheid South Africa’s racial classification was rational, as was that of pre-revolutionary Saint-Domingue, the slave colony from which Haiti was later formed, with its 64 degrees of whiteness (or, of course, of blackness).
When I was in South Africa, the measure that distinguished a colored person from a black person was the pencil test: if you slid a pencil in the person’s hair and it stayed there, he or she was black; if it fell out, he or she was colored. There were ambiguities, of course. One day, the police brought me a madwoman whom they had found wandering naked in the streets of a small town. They were unsure which entrance of the office to take her into: the white entrance, because she was white, or the black entrance, because she was mad (and might frighten the whites). Doctors used a different stethoscope for blacks and whites, the one for blacks having a longer tube. All this makes perfect sense by comparison with Warren’s test.
But of course there is a significant cultural side to the whole sorry business. It demonstrates just how racialized liberal thinking—liberal in the American sense, not in the classical, Adam Smith sense—has remained in America. Once you start down the road of equality of outcome as the measure of justice, rather than equality under the law, you inevitably start dividing humans into groups, and one of the most obvious ways to do so is race. So, having spent years denying that there is any objective reality to racial classifications, liberals start sifting people into racial categories with an obsessiveness that puts South African policemen under the old regime to shame. Race, among other classifications, becomes a lens through which the whole of social life is examined. In short, there is no racist as fanatical as an anti-racist.
What was Warren trying to prove? I suppose it must have been that she was more-victimized-than-thou. If she could prove that at some time in the past, however distant, one of her ancestors belonged to what contemporary Indians—the real experts in human classification, having had millennia of practice at it—call the scheduled castes, some extra moral authority would be added unto her. It doesn’t matter whether the ancestor in question was a great-great-great-great grandfather or only a great-great-great-grandfather. As they say down in Texas, or used to say, one drop of . . . well, I won’t repeat what they used to say in Texas. In Senator Warren’s case, however, it is DNA that apparently confers moral authority—or its opposite.
The Nobel Peace Prize Finally Goes to Someone Who Deserves It (Part One)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Of all the Nobel Prizes, the one that gives rise to the most doubts is the Peace Prize. Nobels in the sciences and in economics are for achievements recognized by others in the field. The Peace Prize is political and wildly subjective, sometimes given for work that has nothing to do with “peace,” or used to promote the political side that the Norwegian judges favor. Yassir Arafat, before bin Laden the world’s foremost terrorist, shared a prize (with Rabin and Peres) for promoting peace by signing the Oslo Accords, which accords represented a stunning diplomatic victory for the “Palestinians.” The left-wing Norwegians were eager to forget all the terrorist attacks by Arafat’s men and to honor him in order that he might continue “on the path of peace.” Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” although his main diplomatic effort, that led to the Iran Nuclear Deal, also included, as is now known, all sorts of side deals favorable to Iran, that he made while keeping Congress largely in the dark.
There was Anwar Sadat, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for graciously agreeing to receive back the entire Sinai from Israel as part of a peace settlement. Sadat was later murdered by a Muslim fanatic who failed to realize what a diplomatic coup Sadat had pulled off as a veritable Prince of Peace. There was Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian female activist, who has worked for women’s rights in Iran, where Islamic misogyny is in full flower. Her Nobel hasn’t protected her; she now lives in London where, she now insists, she was wrong: she used to push for reform from within Iran, but has concluded that no reform is possible with the current regime, and women will continue to suffer in Iran until the regime is overthrown.
There was Malala Yousefzai, who worked for the right of girls in Pakistan to get an education, not something many Muslim males in that country favor, including the one who shot her through the head (she survived). There was a Nobel Peace Prize shared by Mohammed Yunus for his attempts to spread microloans, in order to help the poor start businesses. Mohammed el Baradei won for his efforts, as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which shared the prize with him, “to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that the Agency’s monitoring of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in order to make sure it is used in the safest possible way.” Some American officials believed he was engaged in communications with the Iranians who were suspect. Of course, although he was dealing mostly with weapons programs in Iran and Iraq, two very aggressive states, El Baradei has accused Israel of being the biggest threat to the Middle East because of its nuclear weapons. Israel has repeatedly said it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to any conflict, but that’s not good enough for El Baradei. He would like to force Israel to rid itself of nuclear weapons, but Israel, unsurprisingly, is not impressed with his suggestion and is not about to commit suicide to please the likes of Mohamed el Baradei.
The United States finally dropped its objections to a third term at the IAEA for El Baradei, not because it had full faith in him, but to avoid a diplomatic debacle, and the vote in his favor was unanimous. Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the atomic energy agency he headed (instead of simply awarding the prize only to the Agency) allowed the Norwegians to provide one more feel-good moment — a Nobel winner! — to the Third World, and to give Muslims a boost to their self-esteem with this additional Nobel.
This year the Norwegians have finally done themselves proud. One of the two Nobel Peace Prize winners is Nadia Murad, a Yazidi girl who was captured by fanatical Muslims belonging to the Islamic State in northern Iraq. These Muslims in ISIS have killed thousands of of defenseless Yazidis, whose only crime was that they were not Muslims. Murad was beaten and repeatedly raped. Six of her nine brothers were killed. Yet she escaped, and now perseveres, having been named by the United Nations as a “Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking of the United Nations,” in spreading her own tale and that of her people, a task which takes her around the world, telling the Yazidi story and listening to others tell of similar atrocities, about the trafficking of women prisoners who are war booty for the jihadis.
Here's the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the little hand of Muslim prevaricators, murderers and terrorists, and their fabricated and changing narratives of events and history. Irrespective of the odor, those responsible for crimes must be brought to justice and need to account for their deceptions.
First there is absurdity. On a broadcast on October 3, 2018 the official Palestine Authority TV informed all gourmets that Israel has stolen the falafel and the hummus. Moreover, this larceny is said to be part of the "brutal attack" against the entire Palestinian heritage by Israel which fabricated the falafel as it has other matters. Fortuitously or not, this latest addiction to the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood was proclaimed at a moment when a particularly brutal attack in Istanbul by citizens of Saudi Arabia and reminders of many terrorist attacks in London by Muslims occurred. Not surprisingly, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, in the fourteenth year of his four yeear term, on October 14, 2018 expressed full,"absolute," confidence in Saudi Arabia, as well as praising its leaders for their support of the Palestinians.
Chairman Abbas expressed no similar praise for the surprising generosity by British authorities towards a convicted Islamist terrorist. In London the 51 year old Islamic hate preacher Anjem Choudary was released on October 19, 2018 from prison after having served half of his sentence. He had been sentenced in 2016 to five and a half years for inviting support for ISIS to which he had taken an oath of allegiance. Considered the most dangerous extremist in the UK and the center of a web of Islamist extremists operating in London, the security costs for guiding him cost $2 million a year.
Choudary is allowed to spend the first part of his release in a probation hostel in north London where he will reside in a separate room with a single bed, refrigerator, and a mobile phone though no computer. There is a communal TV room and kitchen available. He can have meals either in a communal area or in his own room. The location of his wife and five children remains a tightly guarded secret.
What is not secret is that Israel, in addition to its other thefts, stole the comportment of "chutzpah." The jihadist Choudary reclaimed it to express his non-apologetic behavior and lack of appreciation for his freedom. Immediately on release, he declared he would launch a court action against the "strict" conditions of his release that he says breach his human rights.
Those conditions, 25 in number, include not speaking to the media, not preaching, electric tag on his right ankle, ban on travelling outside the London metropolitan area, no passport, nighttime curfew, and ability to attend only one particular mosque in the London area, one approved by the minister of justice. In any case, other Islam leaders have said Choudary would not be welcomed at other mosques.
Yet, he remains a danger as is the Islamic web at which he was at the center. He continues to support jihadism, and ISIS. He declares it is the duty of all Muslims to give allegiance to the Caliph of the Islamic Caliphate State. He took an oath agreeing to the legitimacy of the Islamic Caliphate state. He wants to convert Buckingham Palace into a mosque.
Born in London of Pakistani immigrant parents, Choudary was a failed medical student, took up law and became a solicitor, and increasingly became an extreme Muslim and Sharia believer. His record of hatred and support for terrorist activity is intimidating . Choudary called the 9/11 hijackers "magnificent martyrs," and headed extreme groups, al- Muhajiroun and Islam 5UK.
Choudary has been linked, directly or indirectly through al-Muhajiroun, to a considerable number of terrorist activities. Probably the most well known is the murder of a young Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich Barracks in 2013. Among other links to him are the following: the shoe bomber Richard Reid December 22, 2001, prepared to detonate explosives in his shoes on American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami: Siddhartha Dhar executioner for ISIS of five shackeled men in January 2016; support for dirty bomb plot, 2004 to blow up finance institutions in the U.S.; support on 7/7, July 7, 2005 for Mohammed Sidique and suicide attacks on the underground and buses in London that killed 52 and injured 700; support for the Omar Kahn Sharif who attacked people in a bar in Tel Aviv, killing three and injuring 65; a truck attack in Oxford Street, and mail bombings to London stock exchange in December 2010; Khalid Masood who ploughed a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge killing five in March 2017.
Choudary is alive but the 59 year old Jamal Khashoggi, the well known journalist critical of policies of Saudi Arabia, is not, having disappeared, been killed or murdered on October 2, 2018 in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Khashoggi, whose family was of Turkish origin, was born in and went to school in Saudi Arabia, then got an NBA at Indiana State University. He supported the fight of Saudi and CIA mujihadeen against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan in 1988, was a defender of the Saudi regime, and became a media advisor to Prince Turki al Faisal, head of Saudi general intelligence, and ambassador to the UK and the U.S., 2005-6. He was one of the most prominent journalists in the country, as well as a member of a respected family; his grandfather had been doctor to Ibn Saud, founder of Saudi Arabia.
Khashoggi took positions unacceptable to many. He expressed sympsthy for some Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood that the government classified as a terrorist organization. He became critical of the rising star, 33 year old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, MBS, and his ruling elite because of his authoritarian rule. Khashoggi regarded him as a brash young innovator, becoming increasingly despotic, calling him an old fashioned tribal leader, though MBS had proposed himself as an exponent of a moderate Islam, a reformer, a man who could minimize the religious establishment.Khashoggi was also critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen.
He fled Saudi Arabia in September 2017, and lived in Virginia, though not a U.S. citizen, and wrote article for the Washington Post. In his last article he wrote, "Arab governments have given free rein to continue silencing the media at an increasing rate."
That outspokenness cost him his life. Khashoggi entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul for personal reasons, but has never been seen since then. Explanations have been contradictory and lacking in forthrightness. Possibly, a 15 man team of security agents sent by private jet tried to convince him to return to Saudi Arabia. He had the temerity to resist and fight the 15, and was killed or murdered, or hacked to pieces with a bone saw that happened to be lying around. Some questions can be raised. Could this event have been masterminded by the deputy chief of Saudi intelligence? Did Khashoggi die in a brawl, or because of a botched interrogation, or was he beaten, drugged, and murdered? Was an actor brought in to exit the Consulate wearing Khashoggi's clothes, a fake beard, and glasses.
Once again the cover up draws attention. Meanwhile, for the U.S. and Europeans the dilemma remains. On one hand are there any guarantees that similar appaling Islamic behavior cannot and will not be repeated? On the other hand, what are the strategic interests of the U.S. and the West in the relationship with the Saudis. Is there a divorce between U.S. political and strategic policy and business interests? This remains uncertain in spite of the fact that Steve Mnuchin and leaders of prominent American companies. J.P Morgan, Uber, BlackRock, are not attending the three day conference on investment insurance conference in Riyadh, Davos in the desert, due to open on October 23, 2018. It is time to rethink the Saudi relationship.
Tommy Robinson back at the Old Bailey - adjourned to the Attorney General for a further hearing
I can't be in Central London this morning due to family commitments which will take me elsewhere later today. So like everybody else I am following the tweets of Ezra Levant of Rebel Media and the live feed of Lizzie Dearden of the Independent. She seems quite excited at the prospect of Tommy going down again.
Rebel Media have invited several reporters from other English speaking nations (including Avi Yemeni from Australia) to give their unbiased reports to the world. Geert Wilders was invited, but the British government refused the Dutch Police who are detailed by the Dutch government to protect him permits for their official issue firearms.
The trial is being heard by The Recorder of London who is the senior Judge at the Central Criminal Court. This is a criminal case as it occured at a criminal court, in connection with a criminal trial.
The Recorder of London has heard representations from both sides and has decided to refer the matter to the Attorney General.
Judge Hilliard was sent Robinson's statement yesterday by his solicitor.
"The nature and extent of the controversies to be considered emerge to my eye far more clearly from that statement than ever before," he adds. "In my judgment the proper course is now for the matter to be referred to the Attorney General and I should not after all proceed to conduct a rehearing myself."
Judge Hilliard says it may be necessary to look at the detail of Robinson's broadcast so to come to an "overall picture" of what happened. If the AG takes it forward, counsel for him would be able to lead evidence and cross examine witnesses.
Judge HIlliard says cross-examination of Robinson would be necessary for there to be a proper and very necessary resolution of the underlying facts."All the evidence must be very rigorously tested on both sides."
So more worry, and yet another hearing. Tommy's bail conditions remain the same. There is no date set; the Attorney General is being left to decide if, when and where, to hold it. Let's hope he decides that Tommy served sufficient time in custody and no further proceedings are necessary.
The Bedouin Encampment of Khan Al-Ahmar (Part Two)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
But aren’t the Bedouin being relocated “far away,” as so many seem to think? No, they will be moving less than four miles away, to become a part of the Arab village of Abu Dis. The Bedouins being moved will have permanent, solid homes built by the Israelis, given to them for free. They will for the first time in their lives have full access to running water and electricity. A real schoolhouse has been built for their children, to replace the mud-and-tire “school” they had at Khan al-Ahmar. They are being moved, as Naomi Linder Khan has written, “into an all-expenses-paid, fully developed plot of land and paid tens of thousands of dollars by the state to move in. In fact, several years ago, another branch of the Jahalin clan agreed to precisely this treatment and voluntarily relocated; the families that remained in Khan al Ahmar agreed to move as well, but were bullied or patronized by their ‘representatives’ into retracting their consent and have been dragged through Israel’s courts ever since.”
But what will happen to the shepherds and their sheep? Won’t this spell the end of a hallowed way of life?
In fact, 80% of the residents of Khan al Ahmar abandoned shepherding long ao, and now are employed in Ma’ale Adumim, Kfar Adumim and other Israeli communities in the area — and have been for many years. As Naomi Linder Kahn has noted, “shepherding is a hobby for most, a means of supplementing income and maintaining their connection to Bedouin folklore. The Bedouin of Khan al Ahmar, like Bedouin tribes throughout the Middle East, abandoned their nomadic existence generations ago; the structures (as opposed to tents) at Khan al Ahmar are a very good indication of this trend.”
They will, of course, still have their jobs in Israel, earning wages far above what they would make in the “Palestinian” parts of the West Bank. Not only that, but the Israeli government has committed itself to giving tens of thousands of dollars to these Bedouin families. Remember that all these brand-new houses, with electricity and water, this brand-new school that replaces a mud-and-tire school, are being given to the Bedouin for agreeing to move off of land that was never owned by them in the first place. This is not an example of an Israeli “threat to the two-state solution,” much less of a “war crime” (but for the predictable ill-informed outrage, see Theresa May, the E.U., the ICC, Amnesty International, etc.). Rather, it’s an example of a hugely generous settlement that legally Israel had no obligation to make to these squatters.
And what of the charge that Israel rushed this decision through, without giving the Bedouin a chance to adequately make their case? In fact, the litigation over Khan al-Ahmar has been going on for ten years. During that time the Israeli government offered six different sites to which the Bedouin could be relocated. They rejected all six, though some admitted they wanted to accept the offer, but their P.A. handlers insisted that they remain in Khan al-Ahmar, to be exploited for propaganda effect.
When they made their last offer of relocation, the Israelis said that, in case of rejection, the Bedouin would be moved four miles down the road, to the outskirts of Abu Dis, the nearest Arab village. There was again an appeal by the lawyers for the Bedouin to halt the relocation. Finally, after ten years of hearings, on September 5, 2018, the Israeli Supreme Court finally said that the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar could proceed.
The lawyers for the Bedouins argued that they did not have any of the necessary permits to build because they knew they would not be granted them, so why should they have even bothered to apply? They claimed that no Arabs in the West Bank had ever been granted building permits. It turns out that the State of Israel has authorized 14,000 separate building permits in the Arab sector during the very years when Khan al-Ahmar was submitting petitions to the Supreme Court.
It will be fascinating to see — if we are somehow allowed to — how these Bedouin react to their new homes, with electricity, water, and many modern conveniences that the Palestinian Authority never even tried to provide. Behind closed doors they will be flabbergasted at the creature comforts that are now theirs. That is how will they react when the cameras are not on them, and they are not being coached by Mahmoud Abbas’ men to exhibit feigned sadness, and a desperate longing for their former homes. It will be fascinating, too, to observe how the world’s media manage to cover this spanking-new village with its brand-new solid houses (no tents, no shacks) and schoolhouse, turning a story that shows Israel’s generosity into one that will, of course, be used to illustrate its unending villainy.
The Bedouin Encampment of Khan Al-Ahmar (Part One)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
You’ve perhaps heard about the Bedouin of Khan Al-Ahmar? The standard version of the tale presents these noble sons of the desert, members of the Jahalin tribe who for millennia have lived in their ancestral village in the West Bank, where they have been quietly raising their sheep, bothering no one, and nonetheless, are now about to be summarily kicked out, for no reason, by the quasi-fascist goose-stepping army of hegemonic Israelis. These Bedouin will have to fold their tents, take their sheep, move far away, and try to restart their lives, on whatever wretched piece of land the Israelis place them on. That, more or less, is what the “Palestinians” would like you to believe.
Many people have been up in arms about the “uprooting” (a word which presumes they had set down roots) of these Bedouin. British Prime Minister Theresa May has called the planned demolition of the Bedouin village of Khan Al-Ahmar in the West Bank by the Israeli authorities “a major blow for the prospects of a two state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital with the Palestinians.” The Prime Minister also said: “I once again call on the Israeli government not to go ahead with the demolition of the village, including its school, and displacing its residents.” So the fate of fewer than 30 families, 180 people in all, would be “a major blow” for the “prospects of a two-state solution”?
The E.U. chimed in, deploring Israel’s plan to move the Bedouin encampment, and warning that by demolishing Khan al-Ahmar, Israel would undermine the “prospects for peace,” as well as the possibility of achieving a two-state solution.
“The community of Khan al-Ahmar is located in a sensitive location in Area C, of strategic importance for preserving the contiguity of a future Palestinian state.”
But if there is “contiguity” — a land link — between the parts of “a future Palestinian state,” as the E.U. apparently wants, then it is Israel that will be cut in two. Why should Israel be split apart, and not “Palestine”? Which state has had to fight for its survival in three big wars, as well as having to fight four smaller ones? Which state will always be the victim of a permanent Jihad — a future “Palestine,” or Israel?
Not to be outdone by the E.U., the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, one Fatou Bensouda, has said that in moving the Bedouin, Israel may be “committing a war crime.”
A war crime?
Let’s go over the real, rather than the recently fabricated, history of this Bedouin encampment. It is not a village. There are tents and shacks and a rundown school made of mud and old tires. No structure in the encampment was built to last, because the Bedouin always knew that their illegal squatting, on land owned by the state, would eventually come to an end. They never requested, much less submitted, permits from the Israeli government even for the structures they did build; everything they did in Khan al-Ahmar was illegal. The 180 inhabitants even get their electricity, and water, by tapping illegally into Israeli sources of both.
The encampment came about this way. A blood feud broke out within a large Bedouin tribe in the Negev in the 1950s. As a result, the Jahalin Bedouin, an offshoot of that larger tribe, were forced to migrate north. They arrived, continuing their nomadic existence, but finally settled in their present location sometime after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Far from being an “ancient” Bedouin site, the tents and shacks they put up are at most 45 years old. The Israelis possess the evidence: dated aerial photographs showing the land before the Bedouin moved in. The Jahalin Bedouin knew they were squatting on state land belonging to Israel. They have never claimed to own the land they squatted on. They simply set up their tents, and built their shacks, on land that they knew eventually they would have to leave. They placed themselves on a cliff right next to, and overlooking, Route 1. That highway is the major link between Jerusalem, Ma’ale Adumim, and the Dead Sea. The Bedouin chose to squat in a place that is of vital importance to Israel if it is to maintain strategic control of this critical area.
It turned out to be a good place for the Bedouin to throw rocks down on Israeli cars, and they have been doing so for years. It’s also a danger for Bedouin children, who could easily slip and slide down into the traffic on the highway below. See photograph above.