Monday, June 18, 2018

Racism--and Europe’s five-step plan for suicide

When we look back at Europe's modern history, we can see that the 9-10 million Jews of pre-World War Two Europe have for the most part been replaced by at least 25-26 million Muslims (Pew Research). This population replacement may help explain why Europe today looks like it's destroying itself. 

This European suicide appears to have developed across 5 steps. Here are those steps:

STEP ONE: Mein Kampf: this book, written by Adolph Hitler (1925/1927), describes the Nazi goal of creating a new, Jew-free, ‘greater Germany’ (here).  In speeches and in writings, Hitler was clear: destroying the Jew would make Germany healthy again (here).

Mein Kampf was the basis for Nazi ideology (here). It was the basis for the ugliest and most sophisticated form of racism the world has ever seen.

But destroying Jews had a down-side. The ideology to which it was attached destroyed Europe.

Hitler failed. He did not create a grander Germany. He did, however, kill more Jews than anyone else in history.

At the end of World War Two (1945), there were only 4 million Jews (or less) remaining in Europe. That's when Europe began Step Two. 

STEP TWO: More anti-semitism. Unlike Mein Kampf, which served as a kind of blueprint for the Nazi's anti-Jew beliefs, post-war Europe had no deliberate anti-Jew blueprint regarding Jews. Instead, Europe's post-war anti-semitism was driven by a latent, residual anti-Jew racism that had survived the war (herehere).

This step developed slowly. It remained nearly invisible. It included both polite and not-so-polite anti-Semitism. 

It worked. By 2010, the number of Jews remaining in Europe had dropped by a greater percentage than during the Hitler years. By 2010, less than 1.4 million Jews remained in Europe (here).

(There are certainly other factors that have influenced the decline of Europe's Jewish population. However, anti-semitism played a very important role in that process, even as many in Europe deny that. Indeed, for modern Europe, when it comes to Jews, denial is everywhere).

STEP THREE: Immigrants. At the same time post-war anti-Semitism pressured Jews in Europe, Europe welcomed immigrants. Over time, this influx brought with it an increasing sense of distrust/conflict between newly arriving Muslims and resident Europeans. This distrust/conflict led to Muslim complaints of unequal treatment. 

Concerned about this conflict, Europe created a plan. Europe would erase the reason for such an inter-group conflict. Since this conflict often derives from a majority group feeling of, 'I'm better than you' (referring to the minority group), Europe aimed to forestall such feelings by making everyone equal (for a description of how this idea is supposed to work, see Tuvia Brodie, "European  multiculturalism: beautiful fantasy, ugly reality". tuviabrodieblog, June 15, 2018, plus here, herehere).
This plan was called, ‘multiculturalism’.

It failed (here, here, herehere). There are many reasons for this failure. But one issue stood out: immigrant Muslims weren’t interested in becoming equals with infidels (here).

STEP FOUR: the ‘good life’. This fourth step towards Europe’s suicide also began after WW2. It, too, wasn’t planned. It simply evolved out of Europe’s delight in the increasing wealth it experienced after the war’s devastation.

Europeans after WW2 enjoyed this new wealth. But they decided they weren’t wealthy enough to afford both the benefits of wealth and children. 

They had to choose—the good life or children. They chose the good life.

Birth rates dropped. By 2012, the EU was clearly on its way to being unable to renew its population through childbirth (here). In some European places, almost three people died for every baby born (ibid).

A dropping birth-rate today means a smaller workforce tomorrow. A smaller future workforce threatens the good life: in theory, if you want your country to build a 'good life' for the future, your country needs an increasing national productivity--and to get that productivity, your country needs an increasing population that is capable of feeding the national workforce.

A dropping birth-rate short-circuits that goal.

STEP FIVE: The ‘open door’. Europe's elites understood that not having enough babies born today will hurt tomorrow's good life. So they designed another plan--which has also backfired. 

The plan was simple. If enough babies weren’t being born in Europe, Europe would import them. Simple enough, right?


The basic idea was to bring in young people who would have the babies needed to do the future’s work. This is one reason Germany was so happy to welcome Muslim immigrants in 2015 (here). It’s why the EU Parliament still wants open borders.

But while this idea seemed to work at first, the most recent migrant flood into Europe brings with it a dark side no one anticipated. The Muslim refugees who have recently entered Europe seem uninterested in integrating into Western society (here). They do not join the workforce; the employment rate among the new Muslim migrants is only 17% (Gary Chazzan, "Most refugees to be jobless for years, German Minister warns", financialtimes, June 22, 2017). These new immigrants appear uninterested in integrating into Europe's Western culture--and primarily interested in maintaining their own Islamic, non-Western culture (here).

For many Europeans, this Muslim-preferred culture is anti-West, anti-Christian, anti-woman, anti-Jew (ibid). It seems to reject all that Western Europe holds dear (ibid).

As a result of these five steps, Europe now stands at the threshold of destruction through a population substitution (here, here, here). This isn't a Muslim-Jewish substitution. That substitution is well on its way to being completed. This is a different, more destructive substitution. It’s the replacement of the West‘s liberal culture with an anti-West Islamic culture (here, here).

Here’s a statement that’s a paraphrase of what is most likely a racist, fake news story. I’ve edited the original so as to delete what’s objectionable (here). It could summarize Europe’s fate:

 “In Auschwitz, Europe burned a culture. Europe destroyed ‘chosen people’--truly chosen because what they produced changed the world for the better. The contributions of this people are felt in all areas of life: science, art, medicine and above all, as the conscience of the world [sic].

These are the people we burned. And now, because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism (that killed the chosen), we have opened our gates to millions of people who reject everything we stand for. These millions seem intent upon destroying everything the chosen people taught us”.

In 1933, European racism enabled the killing of Jews who, arguably, may have done more to help Europe thrive than any other group. Today, there's an additional, newer racism in Europe. This new racism could sweep away Europe itself (here).

This new racism is double-edged. On the one hand, an already anti-Jew racist Europe appears to behave as if it also entertains an anti-Muslim racist notion that Muslims are too stupid and/or incompetent to help themselves. They can be saved only by coming to Europe--to save Europe's workforce shortages.

But this kind of 'soft' racism brings to Europe millions who are themselves often more racist than Europeans. This new racism has little regard for Western beliefs. It prefers Sharia law, not freedoms, rights or equality. For some, it prefers to conquer Europe (here), not become a large minority in Europe.

Racism: It’s why Europe once tried to kill all its Jews. It’s why Europe now commits suicide.

Friday, June 15, 2018

European multiculturalism: beautiful fantasy, ugly reality

Did you ever see the movie, 'Harvey"? It's a James Stewart movie from 1950. It's a pleasant story about a quiet, shy man (the James Stewart character) in a small, American town whose best friend just happens to be an invisible, six-foot-three-inch tall rabbit. 

The man (James Stewart) takes his invisible best friend with him everywhere he goes. He takes his Rabbit to a bar for a drink. He gives his invisible friend a seat. He orders a drink for his Rabbit. He opens doors for his Rabbit, talks to the Rabbit, even interrupts conversations with real people to stop, then listen to what his Rabbit friend has to say.

He lives in a fantasy world. He can't tell the difference between his fantasy and reality. For him, his fantasy is  reality (the plot of the movie is to suggest that, perhaps, his fantasy really is real). He is, by at least one definition, insane (here).

By this definition, Europe itself may be insane. Europe can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.           

Europe's insanity isn't about tall rabbits. It's about multiculturalism. It's about Europe cultural elites failing to accept that multiculturalism has failed.

This inability to accept reality has pushed Europe's elites to retreat into a fantasy. This fantasy posits that, because of the new Islamic migration into Europe, everything is A-OK.  

The multicultural ideal is that all cultures are equal. In theory, this means no one is better than anyone else--and no one is lower, or worse than anyone else. Since all cultures are equal, the ideal suggests, no one culture has the right to tell another culture to change. 

This is the truest equality, how we behave with each other. By accepting this ideal, all cultures in a diverse community can coexist. Because all are treated equally, discrimination can't secure  a toe-hold. With discrimination gone, racism evaporates-- because, you see, there's no racism when everyone is equal.

That's the theory. In practice, it doesn't work.

Keep in mind that we are talking about insanity here. One aspect of that insanity is that, even as Germany's leader, Andrea Merkel, has stated that multiculturalism is dead (financialtimes,here), Germany's elites--as elites do in other European countries--still carry on the multicultural fantasy regardless (here).

Germany's elites ignore the reality. They live the fantasy. 

One might argue that it has been immigration into Europe that has killed multiculturalism. The reason is, Europe's elites are stymied. They can't account for cultural differences multiculturalism says don't exist.

When Muslims immigrate to Europe, they bring an Islamic culture that's very different from Western culture. These differences make it very, very difficult for Muslims to integrate into a Western country. These difficulties lead to problems Europe will not address. 

Multiculturalism is stubborn. It cannot accept that there's a vast "cultural gulf between rich, liberal, secular Europe and some of the countries from which recent migrants come" (theeconomist, here). Everyone is equal! Nothing else counts!

For example, look at attitudes towards women. This is an important issue because there's been a surge of sexual crimes in Europe directly attributable to the new migrants (Germany migrant rape crisis, here). 

The West believes a woman has the right be go out alone at night. She has the right to dress however she wants, subject to local standards. She has the right to feel safe in public spaces. 

Many Muslims reject those rights. Theor Islamic culture is very different. They believe any woman who goes out alone at night is 'open prey' for a sexual assault: why else would a woman go out alone at night or, why would she go out alone at night 'dressed like that?' (theeconomist, here)?

Such differences challenge the multicultural belief that all cultures are equal. This difference is a challenge because, if all cultures are equal, what right does anyone have to pressure Muslims to change how they treat European women? 

Multiculturalism in Europe fails because the cultural elite  won't accept that, if there are victims of Islam, it might be "that non-Muslim women tend to be its greatest victims" Migrant crisis: Islamic rape culture comes to Europe, here). Such a failure would suggest that the 'equality' of multicultural dogma is, as Germany's Merkel has said, a sham.

So what happens when young Muslim men go out and start to rape Western women (Germany's migrant rape crisis, here)? European culture-leaders stick their heads into the sand; or, alternately, these opinion-leaders creates a fantasy. They use that fantasy to ignore the reality. As a result, European women and children are victimized--sacrificed to the multicultural dogma (here).

The fantasy is this: the culture elites of Germany believe that the recent enormous Islamic migration into Europe is reason to celebrate (gatestoneinstitute, here). This influx, they claim, transforms Germany (ibid). 

Because of these new immigrants, Germany's ethnic and cultural homogeneity has become more open, more diverse, more balanced (ibid). Moreover, Germany has a severe worker shortage problem that, left unsolved, will limit Germany's growth potential. The migrants are the 'silver bullet' that will solve Germany's worker-shortage problems (ibid). 

That's the fantasy. The reality is quite different. It's ugly. 

These migrant newcomers may not be interested in working. Currently, some 600,000 able-bodied migrant men are on welfare (ibid). It's altogether possible that this number represents most of the able-bodied migrant men who have recently come to Germany. They're 'on the dole', and they're draining Germany's treasure, not adding to it through income tax payments.

Then, there's crime. One recent German study showed that recently arrived migrants are behind some 90% of a violent crime increase in one region of Germany--and there's reason to believe this percent will be duplicated in studies of other portions of Germany (ibid).  

Germany isn't the only place this is happening. It's a European reality. The problem is, the EU's cultural elite refuses to address this reality.  For them, it simply doesn't exist.

Europe's elite is no different than the James Stewart character in the movie, "Harvey". Neither can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

Both are insane.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Israel's security agencies: technology, integration and 'Big Data'

Some news reports appeared recently in Israel that read almost like press releases from a high-tech company. But these reports weren't about any high-tech company. They were about Israel's secret anti-terror agency, Shin Bet.

The Shin Bet's role in Israel is to prevent terror inside Israel. It's Israel's Internal Security Agency (ISA). These news reports spoke about recent Shin Bet accomplishments, the most important of which (at least, for Israeli civilians) might be that, year-to-date 2018, the Shin Bet has thwarted some 250 terror attacks (arutzsheva, here).

For us ordinary folk, that's good news. It suggests our Shin Bet hasn't been sleeping on the job. It's been working so we can sleep.  

The surprising part of these reports was how un-police-like they seemed. For example, one Shin Bet official sounded more high-tech than hound dog. He said, "As a learning, integrating, advanced, and technological organization, we've emphasized the value of integration and the value of innovation [emphasis mine]" (ibid). 

The Shin Bet was also quoted as describing how it's been able to reduce 'lone wolf' attacks. This statement wasn't about police-work. It was about using "big data abilities" (jerusalempost, here). 

The Shin Bet adapts itself to new "technological, intelligence and operational tools [emphasis mine]" (timesofisrael, here). Clearly, today's Shin Bet isn't like your father's terror-fighter. It's changed.  

This internal security agency is no stand-alone operation. The entire Israeli security apparatus has become a kind of high-tech intelligence/security cooperative. It revolutionizes the world of intelligence and surveillance. 

To get a glimpse of how Israel's intelligence community has become a high-tech, innovation-oriented organization (as suggested by the quotes above), consider what's happened at Israel's Northern border with Lebanon, where Israel's enemy Hezbollah sits like a wolf bidding its time before attacking. 

At Israel’s Northern border, IDF intelligence units have used a series of techniques to gather intelligence. To a great extent, the IDF has used individual surveillance operators, mobile surveillance resources and air resources to meet its surveillance goals.  
It appears that, before 2009, the main intelligence-gathering technique for the IDF at its Northern border was, essentially, optics-based. This meant having individual soldiers use optics to gather intelligence.

We infer from sources that, pre-2009, visually-acquired intelligence reigned supreme for the IDF at the Northern border (here). Using this elementary technology, a surveillance operator would scan a sector multiple times during his shift. Each scan took several minutes to complete, which meant that, as each point within the sector was scanned, the other points in the sector remained, by definition, un-scanned. This process created gaps in surveillance which, at least in theory, meant the enemy could catch the IDF ’blind’, and move about undetected in those temporarily un-scanned spots.

In 2009, the IDF introduced a new intelligence technology to its Northern border—a new Radar system. This technology did its surveillance more thoroughly than individual optic operatives—and faster.

Radar represented a major leap forward for surveillance. It changed the operational concept of intelligence gathering (arirusilia, ibid). It certainly made data collection more complete. It also Ieft fewer gaps in the data-gathering process. Fewer gaps meant better intelligence.

IDF radar technology has gotten better. For example, the IDF introduced radar that can see through foliage—all the better to watch Hezbollah movements.

Still more technology went to the border. This refers to something called, the MARS system. This technology uses multiple surveillance cameras for different ranges and with different resolution characteristics. It monitors a very broad sector on multiple levels.

These technologies work quickly--and are getting faster. They scoop up masses of data. So much data flooding into an intelligence HQ has the potential to confuse analysts, not help them. This is where, I suggest, the technology known as ‘Big Data ability’ comes to bear.

‘Big Data’ is relatively new. It may still be, in 2018, cutting edge. It uses a new computer science concept called, parallel programming theory. It's a way to make sense of what is called, ‘oceans of information’—and to do that quickly.  It can uncover hidden patterns and unseen correlations (searchbusinessanalytics, here), two advantages that could help terror-fighting enormously. 

The only way to make these different technologies (the ‘optical system’, radar, foliage-penetrating radar, MARS and 'Big Data', among others) work together to enhance intelligence analysis is to integrate them. This means that all of these technologies are blended together so that when, for example, a radar system finds something of interest in a sector, two things can happen quickly. First, the optical operators can be alerted to play closer attention to that sector and, second, one or more of the remaining radar systems (and other data gathering technologies) can be tuned into that part of the sector to take a series of ever-closer looks from different angles, different ranges and different levels of detail.

The IDF calls this integration process, “Intelligence in Context” (arirusila, ibid). I believe the IDF may use some form of  'Big Data' analytics to analyze data collected to create a ‘unified status picture’ (ibid). This ‘big picture’ attempts to make sense of the data. When such a single picture takes shape, battalion decision-making becomes sharper and better-informed. Indeed, even when a newly-created 'unified status picture' doesn’t tell field commanders where exactly an enemy is situated, it can guide field forces simply to ‘look over there’ (ibid). 

Sometimes that's enough. Almost always, it's better than anything that was available in 2009.

This report is just the tip of a very large intelligence 'iceberg'. But it suggests how Shin Bet can use technology, 'Big Data analytics' and the process of integration to solve its own intelligence challenges.      

The better able Shin Bet is to address its terror challenges through technology, Big Data analytics, innovation and integration, the safer we will be. That's good for Israel.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Gaza Fence deaths vs Ramadan deaths: media hypocrisy

(Last updated June 13, 2018)

Media hypocrisy continues to undercut public respect for journalism--and for the world's media. The latest new items to highlight this hypocrisy suggest that the media--in print, TV, internet-- does nothing to improve its credibility at a time when its credibility needs a boost because of an orgy of fake news reports that have demonized US President Donald Trump--and, separately, the state of Israel. 

The hypocrisy of media reporting about the two cases below suggests that the media is either in denial regarding the poor state of its reputation--or, the media has morphed into a one-sided propaganda tool for Leftist beliefs, and it doesn't give a damn if you don't like those beliefs. 

Either way, the media shoots itself in its proverbial foot. It seems to be doing everything to destroy its reputation.

The latest news items that hurt the media both popped up over the last week, one appearing June 6th, the other appearing June 11th. Both focus on how the media reports the violent deaths of Muslims--and therein lies the hypocrisy. 

In one instance, the world's media pulls your heartstrings over the loss of Muslim life (Nagham Mohanna, here). In this case (ibid), the media presents the 'culprit as a killer. The media lavishes attention on how the loss of Muslim life embitters and destroys the lives of Muslim families. It reports to you how these deaths create rage. It suggests that the rage begets a desire for revenge. It humanizes the 'Palestinians' by describing their anguish while it refers to Jews of Israel only as the impersonal Israel' (for example, here and here).

The second instance is different. Here, the media says nothing whatsoever about the loss of Muslim life. It lavishes no attention on how Muslim lives are shattered. It ignores any rage over these deaths. It says nothing about revenge. It ignores Muslim death altogether. 

To see why this difference in coverage is telling, you will want to note that both instances took place during the same time period, May 14-June 10,  2018.

Actually, that's not exactly true. The time frame of the first instance (May 14-June 10, 2018) is three days longer than the time frame of the second (May 17-June 10, 2018). 

What turns the coverage of these two instances into hypocrisy are the death tolls. Where the media cried aloud in bitter anguish over Muslim death, some 75 Muslims had died violent deaths. Where the media found no reason to say anything at all about violent Muslim deaths, the death toll was 605.

These numbers aren't typos. Where media cried bitterly, app 75 died. Where media said nothing, 605 died (Edwin Mora, here).  

If all loss of life is equally tragic, we would not have expected such silence for so many additional deaths in the second instance. After all, if the crying is so bitter for 75, what must it sound like for 605? If the pictures and stories of grieving families is so fraught with tragedy-and-loss for 75, what must those pictures and stories be like for 605?

Why won't the media report on the 605? Is their tragedy that much less than the 75?

Unfortunately for the media's reputation, there's an explanation for this disparity in reporting. There's a reason for the difference in media anguish. In the case where 75 Muslims died, Muslims were clashing with Israeli soldiers at the Gaza-Israel border. Muslims were rioting. They were calling to destroy Israel. They were stoning Israeli soldiers. Some shot at Israeli soldiers. Some threw hand grenades. Some set kites afire and sent them aloft to land in Israel, where they burned thousands of acres of Jewish farmland.  Some attached IEDs to kites and sent them aloft into Israel. 

The 75 died during riots against Israel between May 14-June 10, 2018. These Muslims were killed by (everyone assumes) soldiers who were Jewish. They were supposedly killed, in other words, by Jews.

The media's anguished outcry was very, very loud. It was heard 'round the world. 

The media expressed no such outcry in the second instance. Here, between the dates of May 17-June 10, 2018, some 605 Muslims died. They died primarily in Muslim countries. They died during the month-long Muslim holiday, Ramadan (Edwin Mora, here). They were killed by other Muslims, not Jews. Many victims were civilians, mostly on holiday, minding their own business.

Apparently, when Muslim kills Muslim, the media sees nothing newsworthy. It sees nothing tragic to report. It sees no anguish to report. It sees no violations against the rights of the dead to cry about.

When Jews kill Muslims, however, even in circumstances where Muslims are attacking Jews or the Jewish state, the media suddenly cares. It cares a lot. 

It cares about human life. It cares about grieving families. It cares about the rage of the victims.               

This kind of behavior--along with the racist attitudes that underlie it--does nothing to commend the media to the public. This behavior isn't uplifting (unless you're an anti-Jew racist yourself). This double-standard reportage--demonize Israel/ignore Muslim culprits-- doesn't demonstrate the media's commitment to honesty, equal anguish for all or to 'equal reporting for all'. It does something completely different. It inflames public disgust for mainstream media hypocrisy.

Where do you think that's going to lead?

Sunday, June 10, 2018

What is Hamas?

During the two-month long (and counting) violently anti-Israel Gaza fence riots which began March 30, 2018, the UN's Middle East Peace Envoy, Nickolay Mladenov, referred to the fence rioters as 'peaceful' (here). This was an odd reference, associating Hamas with the idea of something 'peaceful'. Such an association, especially as it applies to anything 'Israel', is entirely out of character for Hamas.

You see, Hamas and 'peace' don't go together. They're opposites. They're mutually exclusive. 'Hamas' and 'peace' having nothing in common.

Hamas is not a peace organization. It does nothing 'peaceful' towards Israel--nothing. It's a terrorist entity. Just ask the US, the EU and others (here).

If Hamas is called a terrorist entity because of how it acts out against Israel, why would a UN Peace envoy (above) believe a Hamas-sponsored 'gathering ' at the border with Israel would be peaceful? Doesn't he know that 'terrorist' and 'peaceful' don't go together?

'Terrorist' and 'peaceful', like 'Hamas' and 'peace', are mutually exclusive. They have nothing in common.

On what grounds can a UN Peace Envoy think otherwise? 

Hamas is called 'terrorist' for a reason. It rejects the right of its neighbor Israel even to exist. It cynically and brutally uses whatever means it can to kill Jews and destroy Israel. It is relentless. It doesn't matter what means it uses--suicide bombers; knife attackers; car ramming attackers; using its own people as human shields while it fires rockets from withing its own, civilian, neighborhoods; aiming its rockets and mortars almost exclusively at Israeli civilians; firing those rocket and mortars from mosques, hospitals and UN buildings (exposing those buildings--and the civilians inside them-- to return fire); inciting its young people to commit some form of 'suicide-by-cop' in exchange for pensions for the surviving family; digging attack tunnels under its own homes (converting those homes from a 'protected' civilian status to legitimate military targets); using hospitals as combat command centers; and, perhaps not finally, flying fire-kites into Israel to "Burn the Jews". It's all aimed at the same goal: to achieve a violent destruction of the Jewish state (here, under 'doctrine'). Hamas' murderous creativity seems to have no limit. 

Hamas is intoxicated with violence. It targets Israeli children. It celebrates 'martyrs' who die trying to kill Jews. It teaches its own children to kill Jews (here and here and here and here and here and here). 

When it comes to Israel, Hamas rejects all UN-established rules of war. It rejects virtually all norms established by the UN needed to establish 'peace' with a neighbor.

Hamas behaves with what can only be described as a mad obsession. It's sick--an addict. 

Like any addict, Hamas can think about--and spend enormous amounts of money on--only one thing.  But Hamas' addiction isn't to drugs. It's to the madness of ethnic murder--destroying the 'Zionist entity' and--one way or another--to remove all Jews forever from the Middle East.

Read the Hamas Charter. It's all there. It's all clearly spelled out. 

For Hamas, when it comes to Israel, there is no peace.

For Hamas, when there is peace, there can be no Israel.

For Hamas, there will only be peace when there is no Israel.

It can't get any simpler than that. Even a UN Peace Envoy should be able to understand that.

What is Hamas? It's a modern-day invader-wannabee whose potential savagery against Jews in Israel could--if you believe Hamas rhetoric--put ISIS to shame. 

Hamas has no interest in peace. Its thoughts, dreams and speeches focus only on violence. 

Nothing Hamas does vis-a-vis Israel is 'peaceful'. Everything it does regarding Israel is violent.

What is Hamas? It's the rogue barbarian. While the modern world obsesses over peace, it obsesses over war.

Where will that lead?

Friday, June 8, 2018

Friday cartoon from Israel

Today, you will see a telling cartoon from Israel. 

The cartoon comes from Israel Hayom. It  tells us something about the Gaza fence riots, which have worried Israel for something like the last 70 days ("At Gaza border tensions sky-high ahead of latest mass protests", timesofisrael, June 8, 2018, 12:00 pm). Indeed, as I write this for you, thousands of Palestinians gather at the Gaza fence for another 'Friday riot'. 

They're burning tires. They're forming into groups. They act as if they're waiting for word to start attacking the border fence. 

Already, 4pm Israel time, 100 Gazans have been reported injured. The rioters appear to be just warming up.

We'll see. The IDF expects trouble. They'e ready for it.

 As the title of the above news item suggests, Israel is very worried about what might happen at today's fence riots. One of the IDF's main concerns today is the Gazan fire-kite, hundreds of which have been setting fires in Israel. 

Approximately 60 percent of Israel's landmass is desert. Israel is, in other words, a particularly dry country under even the best of weather conditions. 

The months of May and June are not part of Israel's rainy season. They're part of our annual dry season--what we call 'summer' here. Right now, much of Israel, particularly in the south, near Gaza, is tinder-dry. 

These days, fires are easy to start. They can be difficult to put out. They can quickly become out-of-control killers.

The IDF has claimed that, using drones and other means, it has already brought down some 500 fire-kites (here,timesofisrael). By my unscientific counting, most of the  fire-kites have been lofted on perhaps 40 of the last 70 days. This suggests that the IDF has brought down some 12-13 fire-kites a day (on the 40 days the kites were sent airborne). 

Bringing down 500 fire-kites is good. But the IDF has also said that as many as 250 other kites have 'gotten through'. These kites, the IDF says, have started more than 200 fires (ibid). 

These fires have burned somewhere between 4,500 (ibid) acres and more than 6,200 acres (here)  [up to June 2, 2018]. 

Israel is a small country. With so much of its land mass already desert, this much scorched earth in the farming districts near Gaza is serious. 

The fire-kites--and the related fence riots that often shield the kite-fliers --aren't just 'peaceful resistance', as so many believe. They are part of the Palestinian effort to destroy Israel. In fact, if you think about it, burning Israel's farmland is a very good way to work at destroying Israel because, so far, there has been little to no cost to Hamas for doing so. 

It looks like a cheap and effective way to drive out the Jews. But there is another side to this story. This second side is what will happen to Hamas if it continues to fire Israel's land.

Everyone in Israel knows how the Arab-Israel war here works. An enemy can and often does take advantage of Israel. The enemy attacks using new tactics, new killing techniques. 

It happens all the time.Our enemies attack and even get away with whatever they're doing--for awhile.

We saw this with the suicide-bombings of 20-25 years ago. We saw it with the 3 wars Hamas has fought with us. We saw it with the knife intifada, the child intifada and the car intifida of a few years ago. Each took its toll on us.  

But everyone in Israel also knows something else: our enemies never get away with their attacks for very long. They attack us, all right. Then, they get hammered. 

The price our enemies pay for these attacks is far greater then the damage they do to Israel. These fire-kite attacks are no different.

Here's today's Friday cartoon. As stated above, it's from israelhayom, from cartoonist Shlomo Cohen. It comes from earlier this week. It reminds us of what, exactly, Hamas is really doing with its fire-kite strategy:

The Arab war to destroy Israel is far from over. Hamas sees to that. 

Hamas truly believes it can win this war. But the  truth is, every hostile act Hamas has ever committed against Israel has caused more harm and pain to Hamas than to Israel.  

This fire-kite business is no different. Hamas won't win by egging on its civilians and children to burn the Jews out of Israel, acre by acre. It may look today like a good idea. But Hamas will pay dearly for these acts of aggression. 

In the end, Hamas will lose. It always does. As the cartoon suggests, Hamas will start fires. Then it will lose its proverbial shirt--and more.

Monday, June 4, 2018

Why did NATO chief say NATO wouldn't defend Israel in a war against Iran?

Without any warning--and without reference to anything Israel has said or done--NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg was quoted last week saying that NATO would not defend Israel in a war between Israel and Iran (Benjamin Weinthal, Anna Ahronheim, "NATO Chief: Alliance won't defend Israel in war with Iran", jerusalempost, June 2, 2018). 

Of course, the NATO Chief is technically correct. Because Israel is not formally a part of NATO, NATO is not obligated by treaty to defend Israel should it be attacked--as NATO would be obligated should, for example, Poland be attacked. 

Still, the announcement seemed odd. What practical purpose does it serve? 

The announcement certainly doesn't tell Israel something new. Israel knows it's not formally part of NATO. Israel knows NATO has no obligation to defend the Jewish state. So why state the obvious in way that might sound to some as suspiciously anti-semitic?

You'll see in a moment why his statement might indeed sound anti-semitic.

The NATO chief's statement was odd because Israel has never asked any ally to defend it. This is an important fact because Israel has seen at least eight wars in the 70 years of its modern reincarnation. This means that, arguably, Israel has seen more war than any Western government has seen in the same time period. During each of those eight wars, Israel never once requested someone else to send troops to defend it. Why would anyone today think Israel would suddenly ask for that kind of protection?

For Israel, the question of seeking someone to help defend Israel isn't on the table. Israel knows its next potential wars--against Gaza and/or Iran-- are Israel's to fight. So, what signal does this 'we won't help you' send?

We don't know the answer to that question. But we do know this: such a statement does have a ring to it. It sounds like what one hears from anti-Israel Jew-haters.

Among anti-Israel/anti-Jew advocates, there's a simple concept: 'the Jew/Israel never lifts a finger to fight for himself because he knows he doesn't have to fight. He always connives and manipulates gentiles to fight for him'. 

This concept is false. In all of modern Israel's history, it has never once gotten anyone to 'fight for it'.

Still, the lie has legs. It spreads. The words used to tell this lie change each time it hits the internet. But the different words used just give the lie a new angle, perhaps at times, renewed strength.

For example, sometimes the Jew is, simply, 'the Jew'. But then, sometimes he's a 'Zionazi'. Sometimes, he's the 'Satanic Jew'. Sometimes, he's the 'parasite Jew'. Sometimes, he's worse--he's the 'DECEITFUL THIEVING CUNNING PARASITE INBREEDING JEW' (always in capital letters, with no punctuation) who never fights for himself, etc. 

Whatever the punctuation, spelling or word-choice, the concept of the 'evil' Jew always getting someone else to fight for him is ever-present. It's part of the Jew-hate tradition, especially these days, when Israel gets singled out so often for demonization. 

You can tell from reader comments to on-line articles that this concept is one of the mantras of the anti-semite. Is this why the NATO chief says, out-of-the-blue, that NATO won't help Israel in a war with Iran--because he agrees with the Jew-hate lie that claims the Jew always scams someone to fight for him; and he wants the world (or NATO or Israel) to know that? 

This is no idle (or evil) thought about the NATO chief. NATO is based in the European Union. This 'Union' is not pro-Israel. Quite the contrary, it is very, very anti-Israel. 

Both the EU itself, along with individual European countries, foundations and private (European) organizations send massive dollar amounts to Israel--to attack and to undermine Israel's legitimacy. The EU is part of an anti-Israel European cabal that has fed more than 500 million NIS into Israel between 2010-2016 ("Half a billion shekels to liftits organizations", arutzshevenewsbriefs, June 4, 2018, 0915am). NATO is intertwined into the EU. Its officials breathe the same air as the EU.

Approximately 125 million NIS comes into Israel each year from the EU to support 39 Israeli anti-Israel NGO's (Non-Government Organizations) (ibid). That's a lot of money entering Israel to paint the world's only Jewish state as an evil monster.

There are a lot of anti-Semites in Europe, all right. There are also a lot of Israel-haters. 

Is the NATO chief signalling to us that he's one of them?