Monday, 26 November 2018
Shuhada’ Sadaqat (Sinead O’Connor) Finds “White People” (Non-Muslims) “Disgusting” (Part One)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Shuhada’ Sadaqat (formerly Shuhada Davitt, who was formerly known as Magda Davitt, who was formerly known as Sinead O’Connor) has publicly, and rather noisily, announced to the world that she has now converted to Islam. Much of the Western press seemed to think this example of adult-onset Islam worthy of their attention. It’s unclear why, as Sinead O’Connor has been exhibiting signs of dementia for many years, long before she tore up a photograph of Pope John Paul on Saturday Night Live to express her disagreement with him on the question of abortion.
Now she tells us that not only is she a Muslim, but that she hates all white people. Apparently she is not herself white. Was she ever? Here is her latest crazed tweet:
“I’m terribly sorry. What I’m about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that’s what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.” — Shuhada’ Davitt (@MagdaDavitt77) November 6, 2018
But who made her “say” anything “so racist”? Why does she insist on inflicting on the world her remarkably unedifying spiritual journey from Catholic to hater of Catholicism to ordained priest in a Catholic Church not in communion with Rome, and then to Islam, and finally, as a Muslim convert, to being a hater of all “white people (if that’s what non-muslims are called),” whom she finds “disgusting”? Why must she tell the world urbi et orbi, just like one of those Popes she so deplores, the putative “feelings” of her very likely non-existent “soul”? She could just have quietly abandoned all the “white people” she knew, no fuss, no muss. One wonders if, among those “white people” who are “disgusting,” she includes all her musical collaborators, former friends, family members. Will it be possible for them to cease to be white, and thus no longer “disgusting,” if they convert to Islam? And what about her father? Is he “disgusting”? We know that Sinead was delighted, as she let the whole world know, when her mother died. Sinead was 19 at the time, and hated her mother because, she claimed, her mother Marie ran a “torture chamber” at home. That might help explain why Sinead — Shuhada — has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and has been, as it is formulaically put, “struggling with mental health issues” her whole life. I’ll say.
So her mother — clearly a “white person” — may have been awful. But are all “white people” really “disgusting”? Are all four of her siblings “disgusting”? Her brother Joseph, the novelist, who was been recognized for his contributions to Irish literature — is he now “disgusting”? Her father Sean O’Connor has loyally stuck by her during her emotional vicissitudes: “I admire and love my daughter and as far as I’m concerned she can do nothing wrong,” he said a few years ago. He’s not a Muslim. Is he disgusting? What must Shuhada think of her own former self? Was she “disgusting” during the first 50 years that she lived before she embraced Islam and ceased to be white?
She’s had a full, rich, utterly nutty life. Four husbands, four children. She now says “I am a dyke.” When did she realize that? Before her four marriages, or after? In 1999, she had herself ordained as a priest in the Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church (an Independent Catholic group not in communion with the Catholic Church). She had a hysterectomy in 2015, but she says it turned out badly: “I became very suicidal. I was a basket case.” She blamed her mental state on the hospital that had failed to give her hormone therapy. She changed her name a year ago to Magda Davitt, saying in an interview that she wished to be “free of the patriarchal slave names.” “Sinead” is a “patriarchal slave name?” Who knew?
Her version of a song written by Prince — “Nothing Compares 2U” — made it famous. She describes her meetings with him: “I did meet him a couple of times. We didn’t get on at all. In fact we had a punch-up.” She continued: “He summoned me to his house after ‘Nothing Compares 2U.’ I made it without him. I’d never met him. He summoned me to his house – and it’s foolish to do this to an Irish woman – he said he didn’t like me saying bad words in interviews. So I told him to fuck off….He got quite violent. I had to escape out of his house at 5 in the morning. He packed a bigger punch than mine.”
First published in Jihad Watch.
Posted on 11/26/2018 6:43 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 26 November 2018
Sexual exploitation of British Sikh girls by grooming gangs has been 'recklessly ignored' by police due to 'political correctness', claims report
Gangs of predominantly Pakistani men have been grooming British Sikh girls for decades, according to claims in a bombshell report. The study alleges that young Sikh women have been ‘targeted’ by Muslim men who subjected them to sexual abuse. The report by the Sikh Mediation and Rehabilitation Team charity found that police ‘recklessly ignored’ complaints – often for reasons of ‘political correctness’.
The girls would be snared by ‘fashionably dressed adult Pakistani men travelling in flamboyant vehicles to predominantly Sikh dominated areas and schools’, it claimed.
The Daily Mail has seen a copy of the report, entitled The Religiously Aggravated Sexual Exploitation of Young Sikh Women Across the UK. Described as an exploratory study, it looks at reported cases of abuse against Sikh girls – of Indian background – dating back to the 1970s.
The report said: ‘The research has found verification demonstrating a history of predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs targeting young Sikh females for over 50 years. The over representation of such perpetrators in selecting non-Muslim victims would appear to be indicative of a wider acceptability in certain sections of the community towards the targeting of young females from outside of the Pakistani community and/or Muslim faith.
...reports in the 1980s, Sikhs were complaining about Muslims ‘pestering’ their girls or that their girls were being ‘used as sex slaves’. An organisation, Shere Punjab, was formed in 1989 to combat attacks on young Sikh women by Muslims.
There was controversy in 2008 about a website ‘which appears to be run by young male Muslims and boasts about seducing Sikh women during freshers week at university’. My understanding is that because Sikh girls have been a target in the Indian subcontinent for centuries many young women were more aware of the dangers, and thus predatory young men would sometimes pretend to be a less observant Sikh, or a Hindu (a thread bracelet is a reassuring symbol). Taqiyya as a form of deceit is justified in jihad. And in 2013 a case about six men who targeted, abused and exploited a young Sikh girl in Leicester reached the courts.
Posted on 11/26/2018 5:35 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 25 November 2018
Where Can Asia Bibi Go? (Part Two)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
As for weaponry, the Pontifical Guards have the Sig P220 semi automatic pistol as their standard issue. It is made by famed firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer, and has one of the best reputations for reliability and quality. (Today, the Navy SEALs are known for their similar Sig Sauer P226 pistols). The Swiss Guard also uses Austrian-built Glock 19 pistols for deep concealment.
For heavier hitting longer-range modern firepower, the Swiss Guard has an array of Sig SG550 series assault rifles in different configurations. This includes some with short barrels and folding stocks (Sig SG552 Commando) for close-quarters battle (CQB) and vehicle carry, and others with longer barrels and scope setups for extended range engagements. They also have the Heckler & Koch MP7 personal defense weapon (PDW) that fires armor piercing small caliber rifle rounds. This weapon is extremely popular with elite units ranging from SEAL Team Six to presidential protection units around the globe. It would take too long to list all of their top-of-the-line weapons, but the point has been made: they are not relying on defending the Pope with those ceremonial halberds. They are as well-equipped as any comparable guard unit anywhere in the world. The Pope cannot claim he lacks the ability to protect Asia Bibi.
Asia Bibi is now, and will be as long as she lives, a standing reproach to the world’s Muslims, who stood by while she was first charged, and then convicted, of “blasphemy,” and who, during the past eight years of her monstrous imprisonment, have not raised the matter even once with any Pakistani official, nor at meetings of the O.I.C. Their silence signaled Islamic solidarity with the original persecutors of Asia Bibi. And her travails in not finding a final refuge are a standing reproach to the world’s non-Muslims as well.
The Pope could now do the very thing he usually calls on others to do: welcome this desperate asylum seeker. For he should be reminded of his own words, when in October 2016 he said “it is hypocritical to call yourself a Christian and to chase away a refugee, or anyone who needs your help.” He should, as both a simple Christian and as the Vicar of Christ, become the one protector who did not turn her down. The Pope could learn a lot about “authentic Christianity” from this martyr for her faith, and learn, too, about “authentic Islam” which millions of hate-filled rioters in Pakistan believe they are upholding when they bay for Bibi’s blood.
So let the request for asylum be made quite publicly by Asia Bibi to the Pope. A martyr for her faith, she might have avoided the charge of blasphemy, and saved herself from the death sentence, and the eight years in prison waiting for the sentence to be carried out, had she at the very beginning been wiling to convert to Islam. But Asia Bibi was unwilling to leave the Christian faith. The Pope will have a hard time turning her away from his door, as Christ would never have done. And if he does that, he will have lost all moral authority — for those who think he still has any to lose — and be unable to pontificate, as has been his wont, on the need for the West to welcome migrants.
So let us imagine that the Pope offers, and Asia Bibi accepts, his permission for her to live at Vatican City, under his protection. He will be subject to every sort of abuse from Muslims, including death threats — which have already been coming his way from Muslims unaware of how supportive he has been of what he calls “authentic Islam.” He will now expose him to the threats of Muslim fanatics, the very people whom he has managed to overlook so far in his incessant reproaching of the West. And Asia Bibi herself, of course, will continue to be subject to the same death threats she had been receiving in Pakistan.
Asia Bibi’s request for asylum in Vatican City would be salutary, whether that request is accepted or turned down. If the Pope turns her away, his own hypocrisy will be exposed, and he will no longer be able to lecture or hector the West for its “un-Christian” behavior toward mostly-Muslim migrants. He will be permanently shamed by his stunning failure to follow his own prescriptions.
If he grants her asylum, on the other hand, Pope Francis will be rescuing a high-profile Christian victim of Muslim persecution, putting the cruel application of Islamic “blasphemy” laws front and center on the world’s agenda, and in offering Bibi shelter, he will be taking a stand against those unjust laws himself. He will no longer be seen as the Defender of Islam that he has too often appeared to be. His own eyes might open wider as he learns more about the mistreatment of Christians and other non-Muslims, based on Qur’anic commands, and finds out about other asia-bibis, some of them imprisoned, with others martyred — put to death — for their faith, all over the Muslim-ruled lands. And if he could take in that knowledge, make sense of it, study the Qur’an and hadith — a tall order for this Pope who clearly has not felt the need — and manage to grasp how Muslims regard non-Muslims, as his more learned predecessor Pope Benedict did, he might help in the long struggle to save Europe, Christian and post-Christian, from the Jihad that now threatens it, and that so far Europe’s political and media elites have failed to recognize, out of fear of offending the tens of millions of Muslims already in their midst.
First published in Jihad Watch.
Posted on 11/25/2018 6:40 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 25 November 2018
Angela Merkel and Sovereignty
by Gary Fouse
Back in the 1930s and 40s, there was a German chancellor who didn't think much of the sovereignty of other European nations. His name was Adolf Hitler.
Today, there is another German chancellor who says that Europe's nations must be prepared to surrender their sovereignty, not to Berlin, not to Moscow, but to Brussels, the Hqs of the EU.
If Merkel had not already made that clear for the past three years as she has led the way in admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants, illegal migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees into Europe, she made it clear this week speaking in Berlin.
I don't mean to actually compare Merkel to the genocidal Hitler. Merkel is prepared to give up the sovereignty of her own country as well as the other European nations. She has not brought upon any wars, though many are predicting that her insane policies could lead to something akin to a civil war between Europeans and out of control migrants from the Middle East and Africa.
But there are parallels. In 1939, the world witnessed images of German troops dismantling the border crossings between Germany and Poland. Today, we witness migrants storming the borders of European nations as border guards stand by helplessly.
In 1945, we saw images of ruined German cities like Berlin flattened by Allied bombings. Today, we see barricades put up around the Christmas display outside the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedaechtnis Church in Berlin to protect it from Muslim terrorists like the one who struck down helpless pedestrians with a truck in 2016.
In 1945, thousands of women in Berlin were raped by marauding Red Army troops. These days, German women are attacked and raped by marauding Middle Eastern migrants, such as occurred outside the Cologne Cathedral on New Year's Eve 2016/17. Others are even less "fortunate". They are murdered senselessly by animals screaming, "Allahu Akhbar".
Rather than learning her lesson, Merkel (and her accomplices in France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other countries), Merkel keeps doubling down. She wants to punish the UK for Brexit. She wants to punish Eastern European countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland for their refusal to be invaded by millions of people from the Middle East and Africa seeking Lebensraum. Under Merkel's leadership and influence, the EU is acting like the old Soviet Union. In 1956 and 1968, Hungary and Czechoslovakia respectively were invaded by tanks from the Warsaw Pact because they dared to show some independence. Now members of the EU, they are threatened by more subtle means of persuasion, such as economic sanctions if they don't reconsider their immigration policies and accept "their fair share" of Arab and African migrants per the dictates of the EU.
In the 20th century, a madman named Hitler destroyed a great country by bringing about a horrific war that left Germany divided and in rubble. Today, a misguided woman named Merkel is threatening to destroy her country in a different manner. Like Hitler, she could take the rest of the continent down with her.
Posted on 11/25/2018 5:10 AM by Gary Fouse
Saturday, 24 November 2018
Where Can Asia Bibi Go? (Part One)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman who spent eight years on death row in a Pakistani jail, having been convicted of “blasphemy” on the testimony of Muslims, has at last been freed by a decision of the Pakistani Supreme Court. But her latest ordeal has only just begun, for she cannot possibly live safely in Pakistan, where massive crowds have been calling for her to be executed and where, during this past year, two high officials of the government who had criticized her prosecution were, as a consequence, murdered by Muslim fanatics.
The United Kingdom has refused to offer Bibi asylum, prompted by fears of violence by Muslims. The UK high commissioner in Islamabad is reported to have warned he could not protect his staff if asylum were granted by the UK. This led the Foreign Office, in turn, to ask the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi’s request. And there was another fear as well. That was the concern that if Bibi were granted asylum by Her Majesty’s Government, Muslims could well riot in the U.K. itself.
In a demonstration of widespread pusillanimity, no country has yet stepped forward to offer this woman asylum.
So where can Asia Bibi go? There are two places where she just might be safe.
The first is the United States, where she could be offered not just asylum, but a place in the Witness Protection Program. Between 1971 and 2013 (the latest year for which figures are available), that Program has successfully protected 8,500 people (“witnesses”), along with 9,900 family members. The American government is unlikely to be worried about possible Muslim unrest should Asia Bibi be given asylum. While Muslims in the UK make up 5% of the population, in the US they make up only 1%, where, likely as a consequence, they are better behaved. The U.S is also 40 times bigger than the U.K. Should Asia Bibi come here, there’s more room to disappear in, with a government that has a ready network of safe houses, new identities, and, if need be, plastic surgery.
The second place where Asia Bibi should consider requesting asylum is the Vatican. By doing so, Asia Bibi would be putting the islamophilic Pope Francis on the spot. He who has been insisting that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” would be confronted with the reality of a Christian woman who, living in a Muslim land, falsely accused by Muslim coworkers of blasphemy against Muhammad, was sentenced to death. After spending eight years of her life in prison waiting for that sentence to be carried out, she was finally acquitted by the Pakistani Supreme Court. Two high-ranking Pakistani officials who had criticized the prosecution of Asia Bibi, the Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer, and the Minority Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, were both assassinated as a result.
But how could Pope Francis, who has been endlessly critical of the West for not admitting all the migrants who want to be admitted, who has even compared those he calls “populists,” who wish ill to nobody, but only want to be able to control the number and kind of migrants admitted to their own countries, to Hitler, now turn down Asia Bibi? How could he who has insisted that Christ would have welcomed with open arms all those who might have asked him for asylum, no matter what their background or views, now turn down Asia Bibi’s request for asylum? Can he, who has claimed that a failure to welcome migrants is “rooted ultimately in self-centeredness and amplified by populist rhetoric,” now reject Asia Bibi, a genuine martyr for her faith who refused to convert to Islam, which might have ended her suffering? If the Pope were to reject her plea for asylum, could he ever again lecture those who want to limit the migration to their own countries, and especially to limit the number of Muslim migrants because of the menacing ideology that they bring with them in their mental baggage?
If the Pope were to decide to give her refuge, as a good Christian should, he would immediately be subject to a barrage of ferocious criticism from Muslims around the world, including many death threats, which might make him start to recognize, as hitherto he has not, the violence that is so essential a part of Islam.
It’s hard to know what it will take to open the Pope’s mind to the meaning, and menace, of Islam. But the case of Asia Bibi just might do it He should answer her plea by inviting her, and her family, to live in the Vatican, pop. 1000, one of the best-protected places on earth. Contrary to popular belief, the Swiss Guards are not merely ceremonial, but are carefully chosen Swiss army veterans, often in plainclothes, armed with, and highly trained in using, the latest weaponry. There are about 125 of those Guards, and the same number of Vatican Police, who together equal one-fourth of the total population of Vatican City.
First published in Jihad Watch.
Posted on 11/24/2018 5:07 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Friday, 23 November 2018
Meghan cookbook mosque linked to 19 terror suspects including 'Jihadi John' in group's investigation
From The Telegraph When I posted this story late last night, about an hour after it was first on the Telegraph website, it was NOT a Premium subscriber only story. But as it has been picked up by the Daily Mail since you can also read it there.
A community kitchen supported by the Duchess of Sussex is housed inside a mosque linked by experts to individuals connected to “terrorist acts” and run by an imam who says girls who listen to music risk becoming strippers.
Meghan visited the Al Manaar Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre on Wednesday after championing a cookbook to raise funds for the “Hubb Community Kitchen” project there to help victims of the fire at nearby Grenfell Tower.
In February it emerged the 37-year-old royal had made secret visits to the mosque in Westbourne Grove, which has also hosted Princes William and Harry, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in recent months.
The Duchess embraces one woman outside The Hubb Community Kitchen in north Kensington
An investigation by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), the anti-extremism think tank, has linked the mosque, opened by Prince Charles in 2001, to 19 jihadists, including Islamic State executioner Mohammed Emwazi, also known as Jihadi John.
Research by the HJS suggests the mosque was once attended by three of the four “Beatles”, the Isil terror cell charged with guarding, torturing and killing hostages in Syria and Iraq. As well as Emwazi, Choukri Ellekhlifi, Alexanda Kotey and Aine Davis, all from west London, also have links with Al Manaar.
Kotey would allegedly stand outside Al Manaar and preach extremist propaganda, such as arguing that suicide bombings did not violate the Koran. In 2008, Kotey became involved with the London Boys, a radical network linked to terrorist attacks in the UK, including the 7/7 bombings.
Former drug dealer Davis oversaw beheadings of British hostages, including British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines, and US journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley. He was convicted of terrorism charges in Turkey, 2017 and sentenced to seven and a half years. Davis’s wife Amal el-Wahabi, the first woman to be convicted of terrorism offences connected to Syria, formerly worked as a nursery assistant at Al Manaar.
You Tube videos show Mr Darwish, who preaches at the mosque for three and a half days a week, speaking on the Islam Channel. He ... says listening to music or dancing is haram (sinful) except as reward for memorising the Koran, adding: “Those who are uncovering up some parts of their body and you will have no control in your daughter.”
On women visiting graves, he says: “There is no harm for the women to visit the grave, but this is also conditional that she will not commit something haram, she will not cry to the extent to the point that she start screaming and stuff.”
Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, said: “The Duchess of Sussex has been poorly advised over her involvement with a mosque where many former congregants have gone on to commit terrorist acts. This is not one or two isolated cases but 19 separate individuals. A simple Google search would have highlighted concerns over these connections, and the recently expressed views of Imam Darwish.”
Abdulrahman Sayed, chief executive of the Al Manaar Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre said the mosque could not be held responsible for anything Mr Darwish said outside the mosque but added: “I’m happy to look at what he said and have a word with him about that language.”
Posted on 11/23/2018 5:26 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 23 November 2018
Asylum seeker 'schoolboy' is grown man, Home Office concludes
From the Telegraph and The Daily Mail
A Home Office investigation has found that an adult asylum seeker posed as a schoolboy and was placed in a classroom of 15-year-olds.
He was first pictured on social media by a fellow pupil with the message: “How’s there a 30-year-old man in our maths class?”
A new inquiry has been launched to try to establish how the man, described by pupils as looking 30 years old, managed to spend six weeks as a Year 11 pupil at Stoke High School in Ipswich, Suffolk. The former pupil, originally from the Middle East, now faces being deported after the official report established he was over 18.
- Investigators who looked at his case again were so confident he was over the age of 18 they didn't need a medical examination or teeth x-ray;
- Immigration officials who failed to dispute his age when he arrived in the UK face an investigation;
The man, known as Siavash, can now be identified for the first time.
Some parents were so concerned that they removed their children from school. The scandal prompted the school to remove the man, believed to be 6ft 1ins tall. His height is actually the least of the hints as to his age - I know of a few gangling 16 year olds who have reached 6ft. Its the features and the pupil's observation of his demeanour that should have been picked up immediately.
Although the Home Office refused to reveal what age he is now believed to be, it is understood from sources that he is being treated officially as an adult asylum seeker.
Rumours had been rife in Ipswich that the man was even married and had children.
The Home Office spokesman added: "When there is doubt about an individual's claim to be a child, the individual will be referred to a local authority's social services department for a careful, case law-compliant age assessment and they will be treated as a child until a decision on their age is made. . . In the absence of documentary evidence, Home Office staff are only able to treat a claimant as an adult if their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 years of age - and where two officers have reached this conclusion independently.
"The threshold is set deliberately high so that only those who are very clearly over 18 are assessed as adults."
Stoke High School, whose principal is Caroline Wilson, has also been accused of failing its children with critics saying his true age should have been 'spotted from day one'.
Desmond Newby, 51, kept his daughters Jamie, 15, and Alicia, 13, out of class while the man was there and said today: 'All I wanted in the first place was for him to be removed. I'm ashamed both for the school and the Government for allowing this to happen. They have both failed to protect our children. The teachers should be sacked . . . If the kids knew he's the age he is, how come the school didn't know? How come the school that's supposed to take care of our children have let this happen? They're supposed to safeguard them. . .
'The children are worried because being in that position, he could have been anyone. If the Home Office is supposed to be checking the immigrants when they come into the country, how come they just turn around and look at someone and say yes, they're 15 years old?
'We had to have proof to get our kids into Stoke High School. . . It took a load of children to turn around and tell the adults there was something wrong with that man.'
Mother-of-two Justyna Kujawska, 34, also from Ipswich, added: 'The teachers are to blame. He should have been told to leave as soon as he got there. At first I found it funny but then it's worrying that he managed to stay at the school for so long. How did he get away with that?'
Kelly McNamee said today: 'You can't tell me that the teachers never had any suspicion...He's clearly an adult'
A few years ago, before 'safeguarding' became such a stick with which to beat anyone working with children all the while ignoring the Rape gangs, and before I was aware of the scale of those gangs, I overheard a group of teachers chatting on the train. There were several 'over-age' pupils at their school pretending to be younger to get the free education, and they were giggling at one young man's efforts to hide his beard, and admiring what they perceived as their 'respect for the value of education'. In which case they should have been directed to one of the many colleges of Further Education who teach mature students who missed out when teenagers. I suspect the head-mistress and teachers knew full well that he was a mature adult. They have spent an entire working life around school pupils.
Posted on 11/23/2018 1:40 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 23 November 2018
A Few Questions For Mahathir Mohamed (Part Three)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Mahathir Mohamed may not know this. He reads the paper, about protests in Gaza, or tunnel-building by Hamas, or perhaps he pays too much attention to the U.N., which seems to spend half its time, and more than half of its resolutions, condemning the mighty empire of Israel. But Israel is not the only, and not even the main, source of troubles in the Middle East. Sunni-Shi’a rivalries, ethnic disputes, tribal conflicts, persecuted minorities (Copts, Chaldeans Assyrians, Yazidis), hugely corrupt rulers who continue to appropriate or steal so much of their nation’s wealth — not just the grasping ayatollahs in Iran, and the ruling families in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar, but also the leaders of oil-poor countries: Mubarak, Ben Ali, King Hussein, and even Mahmoud Abbas, who has diverted to himself and his sons $400 million dollars in aid meant for the “poor Palestinians,” and we mustn’t overlook the amazing multi-billion dollar fortunes of the leaders of Hamas, Khaled Meshlal, and Musa Abu Marzook, who have surpassed Abbas, each managing to put 2-3 billion dollars into his own pockets.
In every one of these conflicts (sectarian, ethnic, tribal, religious) and the colossal greed that despoils the Middle East, Israel has had no part. Take Israel out of the picture, hypothesize its non-existence, and what are we left with? The same conflicts, the same greed.
We might ask Mahathir Mohamed if he really thinks, as he appears to, that before Israel came into existence, the Middle East was a model of tranquillity. Has he forgotten the endless battles in Arabia between rival tribes, and especially that between the Al-Saud and the Shammar tribe, finally won by the former who created “Saudi” Arabia? Does he remember how the Hashemites were driven out of the Hejaz? Or how long the Shia and Sunni tribes in Yemen have been fighting?
He can’t have forgotten the mass killings of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey, by both Turks and Kurds, in a jihad that began in the 1890s and then was renewed in 1915. What about the Christians killed in the Aleppo Massacre of 1850, the first of many, much larger massacres that were to come to Greater Syria? Did he ever learn about the massacre of Maronite Christians, by Muslims, Druze and Arabs — while Turkish troops largely looked on approvingly, not forgetting to take their share of the property of those Christian victims — that began in 1860 in Damascus and spread throughout Syria? He must have heard about the repeated massacres of the Assyrian Christians by Turks in northern Iraq and southern Anatolia, and by Arabs, too, as during the Simele Massacre of Assyrians by the Iraqi army, a massacre which took place in 1933, just one year after the British had pulled out of Iraq, after receiving assurances that the Assyrians would be safe. The Middle East has been a cauldron of old hatreds and ancient rivalries since long before the Jewish state was established.
Finally, there is one last question for Mahathir Mohamed, as he has repeatedly declared that “the Jews rule the world” or, in another variant, “the Jews rule the world by proxy.” If that is so, please explain why those all-powerful Jews were obviously not powerful enough to prevent the murder of six million Jews by Hitler. If Jews are so powerful, why couldn’t they have prevented the British from making all of Palestine east of the Jordan off-limits to Jewish settlement, despite the express terms of the Mandate for Palestine, by which that territory was originally meant to be included in the Jewish state, and assigning it instead to the Emirate of Transjordan? If the Jews rule the world, why were they unable to convince any country in that world to take in more than a handful of Jewish refugees, with the single exception of the Dominican Republic, at the Evian Conference in 1938? If Jews rule the world, even if “by proxy,” Dr. Mohamed, why did the Israelis allow themselves to be pressured into surrendering the entire Sinai to Egypt, instead of holding onto it?
If Jews rule the world, how is it that Israel is the focus of so much hatred at the U.N General Assembly? Can’t those world-rulers put an end to it? In the last two months of 2016, for example, 24 resolutions were passed by the General Assembly. Twenty of them either condemned Israel or promoted the Palestinian cause. No other country comes close to Israel in being vilified during the discussions at the General Assembly. Why can’t the all-powerful Jews prevent that? If Jews are so powerful, why have they been unable to prevent you, Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, from repeatedly denigrating Jews?
We’ll wait right here for your answers.
First published in Jihad Watch.
Posted on 11/23/2018 7:45 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 22 November 2018
Asia Bibi family being hunted 'house to house' in Pakistan
The family of Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who spent eight years on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy before being acquitted three weeks ago, claim they are being hunted by extremists going house to house with their photographs to try to track them down.
John Pontifex, of Aid to the Church in Need UK (ACN), which has campaigned on Bibi’s behalf since she was convicted and sentenced to death in 2010, said he had been in almost daily contact with her family over the past three weeks and they were very frightened.
“They have told me that mullahs had been reported in their neighbourhood going from house to house showing photos of family members on their phones, trying to hunt them down,” he told the Guardian.
“The family have had to move from place to place to avoid detection. Sometimes they can only operate after sundown. They have had to cover their faces when they go out in public. They have had to remove the rosary that hangs from their car rear-view mirror for fear of attack.”
Pontifex said the family’s faith was “sustaining them in this time of acute danger”. He added: “They say that if they are not allowed to find a future outside Pakistan, the fear is that sooner or later something terrible might happen to them.”
The UK government has declined to answer questions about whether it is considering an offer of asylum, saying it does not want to further endanger Bibi and her family.
The former foreign secretary Boris Johnson and many other MPs and peers have called for the UK government to act. Some reports have suggested that the government fears a backlash among British Muslims of Pakistani heritage if it offers Bibi asylum.
Concerns have been raised that Britain might not be keen to offer the family asylum because of fears of triggering reprisals against its diplomatic buildings in Pakistan or sparking protests in the UK.
Outside the East London Mosque, several people told Sky News protests of some sort could be a possibility. One man said: "There are people who may support her coming but there's a risk if she comes here it could cause protests. It could be 50-50. There are some people who might not say anything and there are some people who think this is not right. There is some risk of demonstrations if she comes here."
The Muslim Council of Britain said in a tweet: “There are unfounded media reports that Pakistani national Asia Bibi is being denied asylum into the UK because of concerns from British Muslims. We find such insinuations to be as nonsensical as they are divisive. We see no reason why Asia Bibi should be denied asylum into the UK.”
Eisham Ashiq has spoken publicly for the first time since her mother Asia Bibi was acquitted of blasphemy.
Speaking from a safe house in Pakistan, Eisham said: "Thank you everybody for praying for my mother. I'd also like to thank the brave judges and the Pakistani justice system that recognise my mother's innocence. I'd also like to thank all the governments - the Italian government that are concerned about our future and safety.
"Thanks God, she (Ms Bibi) is free and I hope our entire family is finally happy and free. Thanks to all of you for praying for my mother and persecuted Christians."
Posted on 11/22/2018 4:51 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 22 November 2018
Clement Attlee, Story of Nobility
by Michael Curtis
The evil that men do lives after them, the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Clement Attlee, Lord Attlee. On November 19, 2018 a remarkable story, unknown until today, was revealed about him, leader of the Labour Party, 1935-55, member of Winston Churchill's War Cabinet, May 1940-45, deputy PM in 1942, and prime minister 1945-51. The story reveals that in 1939 Attlee, then 56 and leader of the political Opposition, sponsored a German Jewish mother from Würzburg, and her two children who wanted to leave Nazi Germany, and invited one of them, Paul Willer, aged ten, to live in his house in Stanmore, Northwest London, arriving on Easter Sunday and staying for four months.
On November 10, 2018 the Metropolitan Police Service of Greater London, Scotland Yard, opened a criminal investigation into alleged antisemitic hate crimes by members of the British Labour Party, LP. It had received a dossier of more than 80 pages of alleged antisemitic statements, including Holocaust denial, by members of the Party. One, typical, of them said, "We shall (get) rid of the Jews who are cancer on us all."
The hostile climate in the present LP towards Jews and Israel has long been evident. Luciana Berger, Jewish M.P. for Liverpool received hundreds of hate messages from members of the LP and Far-Right groups. She stated that antisemitism is very real and alive in the LP. She had in September 2018 to be given special police protection from antisemites at the LP conference. Other LP M.P.s, including the pro-Israeli activist John Mann, Bassetlaw, Yorkshire MP, have been harrassed.
It is saddening to list a few typical egregious statements.Jackie Walker, vice chair of leftist Momentum, claimed Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade. Alan Bull on Facebook told us that JFK was assassinated by Israeli intelligence. Ken Livingstone knew Adolf Hitler was a Zionist. The problem goes to the top of the party, to the leadership.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of antisemitism, and revelations of his past activities, speaking of Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends," and taking part in a commemoration ceremony for Black September murderers of 11 Israeli athletes at the assassination on September 5, 1972 at the Munich Olympic games, suggest this is credible. Corbyn associated with awowed antisemites such as Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and Paul Eisen, Holocaust denier and defender of David Irving, and was tolerant of their utterances.
Corbyn did state he wanted to "drive antisemitism out of the party," but in the same speech, he mourned the "killing of many unnamed Palestinian protestors in Gaza." He supportred an artist who had painted a mural in London's East End that depicted Jews playing monopoly on the backs of naked people. Corbyn also, through either ignorance or malice, signed a most unfortunately worded statement of 70 Labour MPs that the LP's proposed end to the Israel-Palestinian conflict was a "Final Solution."
The Labour Party, and its leader, was not always like this. Harold Wilson as prime minister fired actor-politician Andrew Faulds in 1973 as Labour spokesperson for the arts because he accused pro-Israeli Labour MPs of dual loyalties. Attlee was non-politically personal. Paul Willer had a Nazi father who left the family in 1933, and a Jewish mother, a doctor, who was troubled by Kristallnacht of November 9, 1939, and decided to escape Germany first to the Netherlands and then to UK. The family could not qualify for Kindertransport because the two children were "half-Aryan" but a solution was found. The arrangement with Attlee was made through Paul's uncle who was living in London, and the local rector of Stanmore, in whose church Attlee was a regular attendant.
In interviews in November 2018, the now 90 year old Willer, who became a sales manager of a textile company in Hertfordshire, spoke affectionately of his treatment by Attlee, in a large house and garden, a menage which involved a maid, a cook, suburban life style, and cold baths every morning. Since Willer spoke no English, conversation was in Latin which Attlee's daughter, Felicia, understood. Willer spoke of Attlee as a gentle person, a gentleman, happy and relaxed, playing games with his family of children. He could not be kinder.
All commentators on Attlee's life and career agree he was a modest man with a quiet unassuming manner. It may have been politically uncharacteristic, but Attlee never mentioned or spoke publicly about the incident, never sought to to make political gain or glorify himself in any way as a result of his benevolence. His action was unusual and estimable in one sense, he was never a Zionist nor particularly friendly or sympathetic to Jewish causes in Britain. It was President Harry Truman in a letter of August 31 ,1945 who pressed Attlee, then PM, to grant 100,000 certificates for displaced Jews who had known the horrors of concentration camps to immigrate from war torn Europe to Palestine.
But then his life was full of surprises. Attlee came from an upper middle class background, father was a solicitor, and he became a socialist through his experience working in the poor area of East London, where he became mayor of Stepney in 1919 and tackled the problem of slum landlords.
Britain has had its share of charismatic and flamboyant political leaders, above all Winston Churchill, but Clement Attlee was not one of all. In a moving tribute in the House of Lords on January 25, 1965, the day after Churchill's death, Attlee parenthetically indicated differences between the two men. He called Churchill "the greatest Englishman of our time, I think the greatest citizen of the world of our time. No one could ever disregard him, a man of genius, a man of action, a man who could could also speak and write superbly."
Attlee lacked the flamboyant personality of Winston, but he did have an honorable and distinguished career, wounded in World War I at Gallipoli and Mesopotania, becoming a Major, and then a lawyer and entered public life where he was more prone to work behind the scene and in committees rather than in the public spotlight. In World War II he was deputy minister to Churchill. Attlee had led the Labour party for twenty years. In the first post war parliamentary election in 1945 he led his party to a surprisingly victory, winning 393 seats in House of Commons to Churchill's 213, out of a total of 627. In office, Attlee remembled a largely unknown prime minister, Lord Liverpool, PM,1812-27, reticent, lacking charisma, a dignified but poor public speaker, but a competent and efficient manager. He presided over a diverse cabinet including strong, confrontational war horses, Ernest Bevin and Aneurin Bevan. His term of office brought many nationalizations, coal, electricity, gas, iron and steel, and he presided over the partition of India, and the end of the Palestinian and Jordanian mandates.
Attlee was as Margaret Thatcher said, all substance and no show. From time to time Churchill made uncomplimentary gibes about political opponent Attlee which he later regretted, but his most cutting remark hit the spot, at least in part. Attlee was, he said "a modest man with much to be modest about." Whatever the differing views of his political career and personality, Clement Attlee can be commended for his generosity toward a ten year old Jewish refugee, and for his modesty in not revealing it.
Posted on 11/22/2018 3:17 PM by Michael Curtis
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
An Open Letter
Dear USA citizen,
Man is not the problem, but the solution.
Freedom is not dangerous,
but the source of human creativity.
(First of the “13 Theses for Freedom” from the
Freiblickinstitut – Ideen für Eine Bessere Zukunft.)
I feel compelled to write this open letter to you because I come from a failing society that is rapidly abandoning democracy and freedom and has already abandoned the most important freedom – that of Free Speech. In my country the future for personal freedom is bleak and for democratic political freedom, non-existent. It seems to me that one of the duties of any rational person living in such a milieu is to warn other human beings that their societies, their countries, their systems and their political morality may be undermined and subverted in the same way that those concepts and social constructs in my country have been.
Recently I visited your country for the umpteenth time. That visit, unlike many of the others, was for pleasure and I enjoyed an almost six week tour of some small part of it. Having flown into New York and spent a little time there I travelled on to Chicago (on the Lake Shore Limited) and then on to Salt Lake City (on the California Zephyr). When I arrived in Salt Lake City I hired a car and undertook a long, sort of comma-shaped journey visiting Yellowstone, Bryce Canyon, Arches National Park, Meteor Crater, Monument Valley, The Grand Canyon, Yosemite and San Francisco, as well as many other places too numerous to mention.
On my travels in your country I have met and talked with many Americans from all walks of life and that trip was no different. I was intrigued by what the conversations on that recent journey revealed – more of that in a later post. As you might imagine I saw much beautiful and impressive scenery and a lot of wildlife different from that which I am ordinarily used to seeing in my own country. It was a fun trip further enlivened by short diversions to take in the Durango and Silverton Railroad and the Cumbres and Toltec Railroad, both narrow gauge railways through spectacular scenery. You may have gathered by now that I am something of a rail buff.
So, as the dust settles on your recent elections permit me to offer a few trenchant observations on those elections, as viewed, remember, from outside the United States by one who counts himself as a friend and supporter of your wonderful country and who is not unacquainted with you. Bear in mind, as you read on, that I have been, and will continue to be, a critic of my own country’s system of democracy – pointless though the uttering of such criticism now is – and that I retail my thoughts because I believe that there is still time for you to draw back from the edge of the abyss.
Anyway, enough shilly-shallying. Here is the word with no bark on it. The conduct of your recent elections when viewed from over here resembled nothing so much as a third world banana republic going through the motions so that it could pretend to be a country that chose its leaders and legislators in a democratic fashion. Your country was, not to put too fine a point on it, a laughing stock. That an advanced industrial democratic republic such as the USA could have, in the twenty-first century, an electoral system that is so shambolic and disorganised as well as being open to, practically inviting, every known form of abuse caused nothing but scornful merriment and disdain. In vain did I attempt to point out that many other advanced countries are in the same boat. In vain did I attempt to remonstrate with those who poured derision and contempt upon your country’s ludicrous electoral system. It is hard to defend a system so tainted by corruption and so obviously not fit for purpose.
Even among my acquaintances who are prone to support the Democrats there was sneering mockery and hilarity at that party’s shenanigans as they tried to legally “steal” election after election and as they “found” more and more “votes” that needed to be included in the final counts. Partisan judges openly and shamelessly making biased rulings further added to the disparagement that was heaped upon your system. One such progressive whom I know even reminded us about the worst excesses of the Tammany Hall political machine.
The judgement of both the right- and the left- leaning among my friends was that the conduct of your elections, and of those who stand for election, is so poor as to give rise to questions about the validity of any result that may be thrown up. It may interest you to know that both factions laid the blame for the cheating and lying firmly at the door of the Democrats. The perception is, on both the right and the left, in my country at least, that they are crooked and not to be trusted. That does not augur well for the USA’s future relationships with other countries should that party ever regain power.
There you have it. That is what one smallish, but I think broadly representative, group of people in another country actually thought about your recent attempts at an election.
I would argue that your haphazard, disorganised and scrappy electoral process is probably little different from that which pertains in many other developed democracies – my own most certainly not excluded.
The problem is that most of us expect the USA to be better than that and to lead the way in democratic matters and processes. When it comes to the conduct of elections you manifestly don’t lead by example and that, dear friends, may be a problem for us all.
However, having said all that, and bearing in mind that sometimes shambolic is the best we can do and that anything else can erode the very freedoms that we seek to protect, I must say this to my friends and my acquaintances who offered their opinions so freely and also to you, dear American citizens: keep in mind the second of the “13 Theses for Freedom” from the Freiblickinstitut – Ideen für Eine Bessere Zukunft, which reads as follows
We can decide for ourselves what is good for us
and what is not. We do not need a well-meaning state
to educate, treat or protect us from ourselves.
Brex I Teer.
Posted on 11/21/2018 7:22 PM by Brex I Teer
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
Get Ready for High Gear Compartmentalization
by Conrad Black
The controversy over acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is the inane death rattle of the Democratic addiction to the idea, pushed by the 90 percent-hostile press, that President Trump must remain handcuffed to an endless special counsel inquiry. This conviction persists, despite Robert Mueller’s failure—and the failure of his Justice Department predecessors—to turn up any reason for their investigations in two years’ worth of frenzied efforts to find something damaging about Trump.
Astounding fatuities abound at the U.S. Capitol. Departing senator Jeff Flake, as he finally takes his permanent imitation of a righteous chipmunk back to Arizona, portentously announced he would not support administration judicial nominees or a new attorney general without legislated guarantees of the safety of the Mueller inquiry. Such guarantees have no validity, as even Flake must realize, as the president can fire any employee of the executive branch, or otherwise condense his jurisdiction.
Flake, who snatched Barry Goldwater’s title Conscience of a Conservative for his own book, and was harangued by interlopers in a Capitol elevator to request the Judiciary Committee hear Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s scarcely plausible accuser, seems to be trying for a NeverTrump Indian summer. It won’t happen.
In fact, there is no reason to believe the president now pays any attention to Mueller. Trump is about to send written responses to his questions and there is no visible likelihood that Mueller is going to say or do anything that discommodes Trump at all. The sun is finally rising over the fact that there was never any excuse for this absurd investigation.
Trump-Russian collusion was the most gigantic canard in American political history. The Steele dossier on which the claim was largely based is the dirtiest trick in American political history. Now it is time to put what has recently been called “compartmentalization” into high gear. This is the ability to have a high level of investigative activity contemporaneous with a productive legislative schedule in the Congress.
The president should put forward his nominee as attorney general as soon as he can; he must have been thinking about it for many months. The new attorney general should determine which officials of the FBI, Justice Department, and Clinton campaign appear to have lied to federal officials or under oath to Congress. Apart from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose case is already before the grand jury, the attorney general should commence the enchantments of the American criminal justice process with all those who seem, on impartial examination, to be potentially guilty of criminal misstatements or withholding of facts.
He will have his hands full. There was fairly evidently a number of breaches of impartiality requirements from the intelligence services, a studious refrain from responding to untruthful answers by Hillary Clinton to the FBI (“I short-circuited the truth”), and a materially false Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant application and renewals to conduct telephone intercepts on the Trump presidential campaign. The new attorney general should subsume into his activities whatever, if anything, U.S. Attorney John Huber did for the former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to chase down the facts on Uranium One and some of the Clintons’ other derring-do.
These broad areas of suspect conduct undertaken when it was assumed the Clintons would be moving back into the White House and would sweep the activities of their over-eager helpers under the rug, were ignored or encouraged by the Obama Justice Department and delayed since then by the whale-sized red herring of the Trump-Russia collusion fable and the clumsiness and tenacity of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Sessions gave inaccurate answers at his confirmation hearing about having spoken with Russians, and atoned by recusing from any Russian matter. His recusal left the president defenseless while this steamroller of malicious defamation rampaged about for nearly two years, and Sessions implacably declined to take the hint that he should perhaps make way for someone who could do his job.
Finally, the failure of Mueller to find anything and the strengthening of the Republican control of the Senate has enabled the president to install a fully capable head of the Justice department. The process of examining, and where appropriate, indicting and convicting those in the Clinton campaign and Obama Justice department, should now begin. I am personally opposed to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders, but a good spell of community service for those who defiled the intelligence and agencies and senior justice positions would be salutary.
This will be the supreme test for compartmentalization. The U.S. government—all branches and both parties—has failed to deal effectively with healthcare, immigration, gun control, decaying infrastructure, and even abortion, though that is at least in a state of tentative resolution. (The Roe v. Wade decision was poorly reasoned and is vulnerable, which is why the pro-abortionists think any judge who has ever set foot in a Roman Catholic Church is a menace. This is not a pressing matter, though the issue will have to be addressed with more judicial or legislative distinction eventually.)
Donald Trump changed parties seven times in 13 years and is not a partisan; he is a New Yorker accustomed to dealing with whomever is there and doing whatever is sensible. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is a skillful recruiter of congressional votes and is under great pressure now to seem relevant in the storm-tossed Democratic Party. Now is the time for both of them to make the system, which has been stalled for so long, work.
The Democrats did the president little harm in taking most of the House districts that had been held by NeverTrump Republicans. The president did the Democrats a favor by intervening heavily enough in Florida, Georgia, and Texas to ensure the defeat of radical leftists Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, and Beto O’Rourke. For the first time since the rise of the democratic-socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democrats are not stampeding off the cliff on the left. There should be room for compromise, and there is certainly a need for it.
Obviously, there has to be tougher psychiatric and behavioral safeguards on the possession of guns and better security around schools and houses of worship. Obviously, the country’s roads, bridges, airports, and public utilities cannot continue to decay, and the renovation of them has to be funded properly instead of just piled onto the deficit. Obviously, there must be an end to massive illegal immigration—in some places by the construction of a wall, elsewhere by other means, but there must be a border, a resolution of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the deportation of serious criminals who are in the country unlawfully, a naturalization process for the rest of the illegals, an end to the scandal of American cities refusing to enforce federal immigration laws, and the ability of constitutionally empowered census-takers to determine how many citizens there are in the United States. And obviously, health care must be improved for the 30 percent of Americans who are inadequately served, but not by recourse to coercion, separating families from their physicians of choice, or lumbering people of modest incomes with skyrocketing medical premiums.
The last time an issue as important and complex as these was successfully addressed was African-American civil and voting rights by Lyndon Johnson and Republican Senate leader Everett Dirksen in the 1960s. All these matters have stalled and have drained the country’s faith in its political system and those who run it.
Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi have an historic opportunity. They should not squander it. And the admirable penal reform bill agreed to by the bipartisan leadership last week should be only the beginning. Prosecutors should not win 99 percent of their cases, 97 percent without a trial, and the United States should not have six to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The plea bargain system is a national shame and disgrace.
If the Congress wants its public approval numbers to rise from their present dangerously low level, they should get cracking on all of this. There will be plenty of credit to go round for everyone when the voters are consulted again in two years.
First published in American Greatness.
Posted on 11/21/2018 7:47 AM by Conrad Black
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
I dare to say, at the risk of being shamed and shunned for telling the truth, that "Palestine" is a fiction, a concept that refers to an imaginary entity, not real but socially constructed.
by Phyllis Chesler
Even as barbarians terrorize civilians everywhere, (if not, the UK and Australia would have granted Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi asylum), the world remains divinely diverted, even obsessed by the alleged “occupation” of a country that does not exist.
I am talking about “Palestine” aka the disputed territories. And yes, I dare to surround this word with quote marks because it is a fiction, a concept that refers to an imaginary entity, an entity desired by the world, the more so because it is not real but is, rather, socially constructed.
Although non-existent, “Palestine” is so sacred a concept that one risks being shamed and shunned for saying so. The world’s honor is now bound up with this falsity. And why? Because this is an idea that allows Jew haters the world over to continue their genocidal lust towards Jews, both in Israel and around the world. It is the way European Christian and non-Western Muslims can continue their gruesome history of pogroms, massacres, and the industrial-scale slaughter of Jews—and still virtue-signal their compassion for the other Semites: displaced Arab Muslims, a compassion they sadly lack for persecuted Arab and African Christians.
This imaginary Palestine is similar to other imagined and socially constructed realities. For example, Caucasian Rachel Dolezal believed she was an African-American. An increasing number of men believe they are, in truth, women trapped in men’s bodies; as such, they are seen as both victim and hero for embracing this destiny. A smaller number of women believe that they are really men trapped in women’s bodies. They, too, are seen as victim/heroes.
Arab “Palestinian” style Intifada and Jihad has gone global. Antifa activists in America are also face-masked, aggressive, verbally vulgar, and violent. They shout down anything and anyone with which they disagree and operate as a mob both on campuses and at demonstrations. No matter what their real issues are (Wall Street, police anti-Black racism, climate apocalypse, the prison system, women’s rights), “Palestine” is often signaled by the wearing of checkered Arafat-style keffiyehs and Hamas-style face masks.
Often, they also chant “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” which is the same as saying “Let’s ethnically cleanse all the Jews, not only those who live in the 'West Bank' but also those in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem.” It is a call to genocide which has been misunderstood as a call to righteous resistance.
American Women’s March leaders have encouraged the wearing of hijab as an anti-racist act even as women in Gaza and on the 'West Bank' are forcibly veiled against their will and punished for their real resistance to such sexism.
In America, some women have desecrated American flags and turned them into hijab and in 2017, non-Muslim women participated in World Hijab Day during the month of Ramadan. They donned hijab in solidarity with Muslim women.
Those who film the Antifa protests on campuses or at demonstrations are shoved, pushed, and shamed in “mean girl” style: “You have no friends. Who would want to be your friend? You are a loser, you are the fascist/white supremacist/Islamophobe. This just happened in Portland, Oregon. A friend I trust in Portland assures me that these Antifa types are a fringe group of “nutcases.” She may be right but Hitler’s Brownshirts were hardly the best advertisements for mental health.
This particular false and therefore sacred concept—about “Palestine”— is everywhere. At the United Nations, in university curricula, in the mouths of journalists, church leaders, and human rights activists. More and more books are published by self-identified “Palestinians” and those books, however flawed, or surreal, are reviewed positively in tones of reverence and given prizes.
I read Publisher’s Weekly (PW) religiously. It contains the go-to publishing industry’s early reviews of books. In their November 19th issue, on the first page of their reviews of non-fiction books, there is a tempting, colorful photo of a recipe from a book titled “Zaitoun: Recipes From the Palestinian Kitchen” by Yasmin Khan. The book claims to be a compilation of “Palestinian recipes” such as “this pudding with apricots and Rosewater.”
Really? I believe I tasted a similar pudding in Teheran long ago; certainly in Kabul. The Rosewater and pistachio pudding desserts are famed and omnipresent. The PW review is starred, and the book deemed “excellent.” Khan presents the following foods as “Palestinian:” “Mezze, hummus and falafel...roasted eggplant with spiced chickpeas...Khan also provides a helpful list of pantry staples to keep on hand (dried fruits, nuts, yoghurt, za’atar.”
Every Jewish Israeli I know has these staples on hand. Even I do. Every Israeli-American caterer whom I’ve hired to provide kosher meals for my guests, has these staples on hand. Coptic Christians in Egypt would recognize all of Khan’s dishes, including lentil soup, tabbouleh, etc. which the review describes as “tantalizing, rich, and comforting.” So would Arabs across the Middle East, in North Africa, and in parts of Central Asia.
The reviewer thanks Khan for giving us a “welcome glimpse into (Palestinian) life. Palestinians, for instance, are urged “not to buy herbs grown in Israeli settlements in the West Bank as it gives the settlement a sense of viability and permanence.”
Do most cookbooks offer similarly specific, political opinions? Must pro-“Palestine” indoctrination infiltrate every conceivable space, including culinary spaces? Yes, it must because we are dealing with an imaginary entity which the entire world wants to will into existence.
Thus, the liberal founders of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream have just selected the American Women’s March as one of four recipients who will split the proceeds of a new flavored ice cream which they’ve dubbed “Pecan Resist.” B&J were not prepared for the criticism they received given the Women’s March leaders’ unsavory track record in terms of Jew-and Zionist-hating, and their support for Sharia supremacists, “Palestinian” terrorists, and homophobes.
Of course, there are Arabs living in Gaza and in the 'West Bank' whose leaders have terrorized, tortured, starved and murdered them. They have also indoctrinated them to blame Israel for all their many sorrows. They scapegoat Israel with relentless fury. Israel is constantly on the defense.
Of course, there are twenty two Arab Muslim states that absolutely refused to allow displaced Arabs from these disputed territories to become citizens and to integrate themselves into a country in which people also speak Arabic and eat hummus, falafel, and puddings flavored with Rosewater. This historic refusal is a complete and utter tragedy that is now beyond Israel’s capacity to “fix.”
First published in Israel National News.
Posted on 11/21/2018 7:34 AM by Phyllis Chesler
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
A Few Questions For Mahathir Mohamed (Part Two)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
As to Israel, Mahathir Mohamed blames its existence for all the subsequent trouble in the Middle East. He says that before Israel was founded, there were no problems in the Middle East. Let’s just begin to examine that remark by looking at the Middle East today. The Sunni-Shia enmity, which dates back to the first century is Islam, is now on violent display in Yemen, in Iraq, in Syria, and in Lebanon. In Yemen, the Shi’a Houthis, supported by Iran, are fighting the Yemeni government, which is Sunni and supported by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. That conflict has been going on for several years. It has nothing to do with Israel.
In Iraq, the Sunnis who had been favored under the rule of Saddam Hussein, have been forced to acquiesce, most unwillingly, in the loss of their political and economic power to the Shi’a Arabs, who outnumber the Sunni Arabs by 60% to 20%, with the rest of the population being Kurds and a few Christians. The continued political maneuverings in Iraq, between Sunni and Shi’a Arabs, and between Arabs and Kurds, have nothing to do with Israel.
It is the same in Syria, where the civil war that began in 2011 as a revolt against the cruel despotism of Bashar Al-Assad, and the corruption epitomized by his uncle Rami Makhlouf, inevitably took on a sectarian cast, for the Assads and Makhloufs are Alawites, a sect considered to be a branch of Shi’a Islam. The opposition to the regime was Sunni, and both Iran and the terrorists of Hezbollah aided Assad militarily, which made the war into one of Alawites and more orthodox Shia against Sunnis. Again, this war had nothing to do with Israel.
In Lebanon, it was the same: the Hezbollah militia in recent years has became stronger than the Lebanese army, and now lords it over the other two groups that make up the Lebanese polity, the Maronites and the Sunni Arabs. In Bahrain, a Sunni ruler keeps submissive, through force, his overwhelmingly Shi’a population that has been protesting his rule; his crackdown has been enforced by thousands of Sunni troops from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia itself, there has occasionally been unrest among the minority Shi’a who live in the oil-producing Eastern Province; these protests are quickly squashed. In Egypt, the main running conflict is between the ruling despot, General Abdelfattah El-Sisi, and the diehard Muslim Brotherhood supporters of Mohamed Morsi, whom El-Sisi deposed in a coup, but Muslim fanatics don’t forget to attack Coptic churches, their priests, and their worshippers. Israel does not come into the picture except to share its intelligence with Egypt about Hamas, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, at bases in the Sinai.
In Libya, the rival governments, one in the east and one in the west, fight on for control of the country, which was dismembered by local militias after the death of Qaddafi, who held Libya together the only way he knew how, by his murderous suppression of the slightest sign of dissent. Again, Israel has had no part either in Qaddafi’s rise or rule or fall, or in any of the subsequent turmoil.
In Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, the successors to Ben Ali, a greedy despot with an even greedier wife and in-laws (the extended family has a net worth of more than $10 billion), were little better than he was. However, the current government appears determined to bring real democracy and end corruption, while keeping the country relatively secular. So far, under Beji Caid Essebsi, the government has stabilized, and the country has calmed down. Again, Israel played no role.
In Algeria, there is conflict, but now no violence, over the status of the Berbers, who feel that their culture is not sufficiently recognized. Only recently was the Berber language, Tamazight, recognized in Algeria as a national language, though it is still not taught widely in the schools. The Berbers continue to protest their economic condition as being inferior to that of the dominant Arabs, and there is a Berber movement, centered in the Kabyle region, that combines cultural nationalism with economic grievances and demands. And once more, this source of disquiet and potential conflict has nothing to do with Israel.
First published in Jihad Watch.
Posted on 11/21/2018 7:29 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
The United Nations and Cognitive Dissonance
by Michael Curtis
It seems to me I've heard that song before. It's from an old familiar score. The unholy war against the State of Israel never stops, ideologically, politically, militarily, with unceasing propaganda. On this issue the obsession is far from magnificent. Most nations in the world in discussing Israel suffer from mental disorder or discomfort, from cognitive dissonance, trying to hold two or more contradictory beliefs, both condemnation of Israel, and tolerance or support of Palestinian violence, and calls for a peaceful settlement.
Nowhere is this more evident than in demonstrations and activities and its personnel in the United Nations, the world's major international organization which has been hi-jacked in irresponsible fashion for purposes contradictory to its declared objectives of promoting and securing international cooperation and maintaining international order.
The exhibition in November 2018 on display in the visitor's lobby in the headquarters of the United Nations in New York City presents images of seventy years of the struggle for Palestinian human rights, lost in the nakba, catastrophe, the creation of Israel. In addition, the UN General Assembly on November 29, 2018, will commemorate as it has done since 1978, the Annual Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, pursuant to the Resolution of December 2, 1977, A/RES/32/40, marking the adoption of the UNGA Resolution 181 (11) of November 29, 1947, which called for partition of the disputed territory, and Jerusalem with special status. The fundamental pivotal irony in all this that the Arabs refused, while Israel accepted, that 1947 Resolution and refused to create a Palestinian state at that time.
In recent days, international attention has been focused on political problems and crisis in Israel, even turmoil, as a result of differences within the country over government action, and the cease fire, in the Gaza Strip. The government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu had agreed to a cease-fire after militants and terrorists in Gaza fired 460 rockets and mortar shells into Israel to which Israel responded with airstrikes. The government also allowed $15 million from Qatar to go to Gaza to fund salaries of Hamas personnel and ease tensions.
Government uncertainty, if not turmoil, in Israel remains, caused by a number of factors: popular anger, especially in those areas such as Sderot, affected by Hamas rockets; the resignation of Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman , leader of the nationalist party, Yisrael Beiteinu, which he withdrew with five seats from the governing coalition; the refusal of the prime minister to appoint Naftali Bennett, education minister and leader of the pro-settlement party, Jewish Home Party, with eight seats, but to appoint himself to the vacant position. In the multiparty Knesset, the result of the proportional representation system, Netanyahu now has a coalition majority of one, with 61 out of the 120 members. New elections are likely within a year or so, but are not immediate.
However, little attention has been paid in the international media to the continuing political and diplomatic attacks by international organizations, including the misnamed UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO, which should know better words, on Israel. The issue goes back to the creation of Israel in May 1948, and the animosity has never relented. On November 22, 1974, UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, independence, and sovereignty. A year later, the UN set up the UNGA Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a body which in fact is composed of all 193 UN member states. Since then this issue has been the subject of numerous Resolutions by the UN and its various organs.
On November 17, 2018, the Committee met, with Saudi Arabian Abdullah al Mouallini as vice-chair, and approved eight Resolutions on Palestinians and a ninth on the Golan Heights. No Resolutions, of course, were directed against any of the other 192 UN member states, none of whom apparently committed any violations of anything. The Committee voted in favor of four Resolutions related to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA, and four others critical of Israeli authorities actions in the Occupied Territories.
The Committee was also given a briefing by Michael Lynk, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Gaza Strip, about the poor economic conditions in the territory. The lack of neutrality on Israel by UN personnel is manifestly shown by this Canadian professor of law who among other things urged economic and travel sanctions against Israel, virtually BDS activist, to force withdrawal from the West Bank, supported Israel Apartheid Week at his university, Western U in London, Ontario,and suggested Israel should have UN membership suspended over violations of international law.
Briefly, the Resolutions, all passed with approval of 155 or more members, called for assistance to and assertion of human rights of Palestinian refugees, concern for the properties and revenues of those refugees, support for UNRWA, condemnation of Israeli settlements including in East Jerusalem and the "Occupied Golan Heights," condemnation of Israeli practices affecting the Palestinian people and other Arabs, and application of the Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949 regarding protection of civilian persons in time of war in the territories.
For the U.S., the most significant was the non-binding Resolution condemning Israeli control over the Golan Heights, which passed 15-2 (the U.S. and Israel) and 14 abstentions. Before 1967, Syria shelled Israeli communities from Golan. Israel , after briefly losing control of Golan Heights in 1973, now controls two-thirds of the area, and in 1981 applied Israeli civil law to the territory. The Resolution calls on Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the Occupied Syrian Golan, OSG, and to desist from establishment of settlements. It states that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel that alter the character and legal status of OSG are null and void, and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. It calls on Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on Syrian citizens in OSG, and "from its repressive measures against the population of the OSG."
It is also worth noting that in the Committee meeting the Syrian Ambassador, Bashar al-Jaafari, declared that Syria will regain the Golan by "peace or by war." He said nothing of the 22,000 Druze in the Golan Heights, who speak Arabic, and have families in Syria, let alone the demilitarized buffer zone or the Israeli wineries in the area.
What is important are two factors about this Resolution. The U.S. did not abstain, as it has customarly done on similar Resolutions, but voted against it, and said it will continue to vote against them. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley spoke strongly of the anti-Israeli bias in the Committee and in the UN organizations. She indicated the militarization by Syria of the Golan border, the lack of fitness of Syria, responsible for killing half a million of its own people, and the killing or expulsion of more than 3,000 Palestinian Arabs, to govern anyone.
She was also critical of a number of other factors: Russia for delivering a S-300 antiaircraft system to Syria; Iran which is establishing a permanent presence on the Syrian side of the border; the terror tunnels still being built by Hamas; and the Hamas rocket fire and violent activities against Israel. The 155 countries voting for the UN Resolutions appear myopic: they cannot recall that Hamas has already launched three wars against Israel. and that its Charter calls for control of all the territory.
The challenge is stark. The Palestinian Permanent Observer to the UN said the international community stands behind and supports the Palestinian cause despite the efforts by the U.S, to change this. The community also defies reality in supporting UNRWA which claims that the number of Palestinian refugees that began in 1948, is now five million. John Bolton, presently U.S. National Security Adviser, stated that the UNRWA aid program is the only one in history based on the assumption that refugee status is hereditary.
The second factor is an interesting display of cognitive dissonance. The Resolution reafiirms that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. In the Resolution, sponsored by Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, Israel's presence in Golan is described as illegal, but no Resolution says anything about Russia/Crimea, or other issues.
Israel faces internal and external problems, with its fragile government coalition, Iran's increasing military influence in Syria and Lebanon, and possible another war with Hamas. The UN members might note that the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Yahta Sinwar, said in future it will target Israel's major towns including Tel Aviv. There may, at present, be no good solutions to issues in Gaza, Hamas, or Syria. But the beginning of wisdom is that the international community should refrain from one-sided denunciations of Israel, and concentrate on Israeii plans for infrastracture projects in the Negev desert, and other projects such as solar power, sewage treatment, clean water, increase in jobs, improved public health, desalination plants, gas pipelines, and electricity grid.
Posted on 11/21/2018 5:16 AM by Michael Curtis