Sunday, September 15, 2019

National elections in Israel!

Israel goes to the polls: on September 17, 2019, we will vote for a new national leader. 

The current leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has already won a national election this year, just five months ago, in April, 2019. But we now have an upcoming follow-up second election because after winning that April election, Netanyahu couldn't "form a majority governing coalition", something an election-winner in Israel needs to do to become Prime Minister. 

You see, after winning a national Israel election, the winner must convince enough political party leaders who (typically but not necessarily) share his basic philosophy to partner with him--to agree to form a 61-seat majority in Israel's 120-seat Parliament, the Knesset. 

An Israeli election winner goes nowhere without first demonstrating that he has packaged--through agreements--a minimum 61-seat majority in the Knesset. 

This is a peculiar system Israel has, much closer to the English election model that the American. In America, a Presidential election winner wins--subject only to a final vote in the US Electoral College. In Israel, there's no Electoral College. There's just this need for the election-winner to put together a 'coalition' of partners who promise (on paper) to help the winner create a 61-seat majority. 

In Israel, if an election winner can't attract enough 'partners' to get those 61 seats, the runner-up gets the chance to do it. But this year, because the sitting Prime Minister (PM) won the election, he was the one to get first crack at forming a coalition. When he failed to do that, he used his power as PM to shut down the government so that the runner-up couldn't get the opportunity to see if he could gather the 'seats' he needed to rule. That 'shut-down' forced this new election.

For all this is worth, few complained when Netanyahu shut down the government because the runner-up in that April election--former Army Chief-of-Staff Benny Gantz--had fewer options that Netanyahu to form a government. Therefore, a new election was the only option--at least, that's what most here believe. 

So what are we going to be doing in two days' time? We're going to voting booths again--and we hope this time to get a different result.

From all the pre-election polls taken during the current election season, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. From those polls, neither of the two front-runners in this new election (who are again projected to be Netanyahu and Gantz) looks to be able to win and get those required 61 seats. 

Either one could win this election. The polling is that close. But neither looks able to form a 61-seat coalition, given how this process traditionally works.

Ordinarily, Netanyahu would win this election. Ordinarily, he'd have few difficulties forming a government. But after more than 13 years in power, Netanyahu will struggle to win this election. 

It's not that Gantz--or anyone else running--is so formidable.  No one against Netanyahu is. No one can match Netanyahu's appeal or campaign style. But Netanyahu is fighting an uphill battle right now against the most formidable opponent he's ever faced--Netanyahu himself.

As in America, the Left here in Israel hates the national leader. Many more voters in what we call the 'Center-Left' feel the same way. They want Netanyahu out. They want him gone. They simply can't stand his politics or his policies.

His enemies say he favors the religious too much (unless you actually ask the religious). His enemies claim he won't negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority. 

His enemies hate that he keeps winning. They simply can't beat him at the ballot box. They hate him for that alone.

So they seek, as some have argued, to remove him through Israel's criminal justice system. If they can't get him ousted through the ballot box, they'll do it with accusations of bribery and 'corruption'. 

They'll destroy his name. They'll destroy his family. They'll destroy his reputation.

Or, better yet, they'll get him sent to jail.

They're almost there. The accusations against him have muscle. The police--who have a sordid history of acting corruptly to oust political enemies--have investigated Netanyahu and--some say, no surprise here--have put forward formal charges. The country's Attorney General thinks the police investigations are compelling--strong enough to put the Prime Minister on trial for bribery, corruption and something in Israel called, 'breach of trust'. 

For Netanyahu, this means that, on September 17, 2019, he will try to get re-elected. Then, less than three weeks later, he will try to stay out of jail by appearing at a pre-indictment hearing. If he loses at this hearing, he will go on trial. 

Rafters all over Israel will shake with calls for Netanyahu to step down while on trial. The chandeliers of the Knesset will rattle with calls for him to be forced out of office while on trial.

How would you like to run for office with a sword like that hanging over your head?

Normally, when a politician is this close to being indicted, his political career tanks, if only because he could spend more time with his lawyers preparing his case than campaigning. Then again, there's voter sentiment: why would a voter vote for someone this close to going to jail? 

But Netanyahu is no ordinary politician. He hasn't become Israel's longest-serving elected leader in Israel's history for  nothing. He isn't going to go down without a fight. He might even complete some heretofore unanticipated agreement(s) with other political Parties on the Right just before the election that could drive him across the finish line in first place. 

What will happen in this election? Will Netanyahu be trounced? Will he win despite the pending court appearance? If he actually wins, will he be able to form a government (with those required 61 seats)?

Or,  will we end up as stale-mated as in the April election? 

Stay tuned. We'll have all the answers soon.

If you live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship, go vote. This election is important. Your vote could decide our near-term political future.

The election could be that close.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Here's the real reason there's no peace in the Arab-Israel conflict

Last updated: September 12, 2019

If you want to understand why there's no peace in the Arab-Israel conflict--and why there's never been any chance of peace--you would do well to look at some short videos. Together, they illustrate how, despite the fact that so many say our Arab neighbors dream only of peace, our Arab neighbors actually dream of something else entirely.  

By the way, be forewarned. None of the videos you're about to be exposed to are Politically Correct. They're Politically Incorrect.

You know about Political Correctness, right? That's the set of rules which declare that, in the Arab-Israel conflict, the Arab is a victim. The individual Arab is innocent. The politically correct mantra is that these poor, innocent individuals want peace--if only the Nazi-like Jew of Israel would listen to them. 

That's the politically correct view. But the videos below allow you to see and listen to several of those "innocent individual victims". These individuals reveal with their own words what they really seek. 

These videos are important because the Palestinian Authority (PA)'s Mahmoud Abbas has been going around telling people he wants peace. Indeed, he says his PA works at "spreading a culture of peace" (here). 

But in these videos, you won't see or hear a Palestinian talking of peace. You will see and hear Palestinians "speaking their mind". Rest assured, these individuals aren't alone (see below). 

The first video for you is the most interesting because it could mislead you. It's less than 3 minutes long.

This video teaches an illusive lesson--because this woman is old, and looks confused. You might well ask, can one build a case for anti-peace attitudes among Arabs from one so apparently confused? 

The illusive answer is, yes--because she isn't alone. She is simply the tip of an iceberg.

We often see videos like this that appear to be one-off videos. From what we see, we often conclude that, well, that's just one person or one incident. We give the rest of the population the benefit of the doubt. They can't all be this way, right?

That's true. Not 100% of the Palestinian Authority population think and speak this way. But Arab leadership works very hard to get everyone on the same Jew-hate/kill-the-Jew page. 

Want proof? Check it out yourself: the Palestinian Authority, through its education system and TV programming, teaches and celebrates terror suicide (Shaid/Shahadad), Jew-hate and the killing of Jews. See it all herehereherehere            hereherehere (most of these videos run less than 2 minutes).

There are hundreds of these same-themed video-excerpts from Palestinian Authority TV archived here. They do not reveal a Palestinian "culture of peace". They speak of a "culture of war, death and hate".  

The very first video you saw above (of the old woman) speaks of a bloody massacre of Jews 90 years ago in Hevron. But as these more recent videos suggest, you can see that many in the PA today speak similar sentiments because that is what they see on TV and hear in their classrooms. As you can see here, that old woman's hate still lives within the Palestinian culture.

Mahmoud Abbas says he spreads a "culture of peace" (here). He does no such thing. 

Abbas is no partner for peace. He wants no peace with the Jew. 

He rarely speaks of peace. Instead, he speaks almost always of conquest and destruction (here). If you go here, you'll see that for yourself.

Abbas is obsessed. He wants Israel gone.  This obsession is the sole reason there is no peace between Arab and Jew in the  Middle East.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

For peace, apply the Golden Rule to Gaza and the Palestinian Authority

While surfing the internet one day last week--something I occasionally do to hunt down new opinions (either interesting or outrageous)--I came across a youtube video that attracted my attention. It was an excerpt from a presentation by US Conservative political personality Dinesh D'Souza. It was titled, "What's at stake". It was dated September 3, 2019 (here).

D'Souza tells a story in this video about US President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln served between 1861 and April 1865, when he was assassinated one evening while attending a theatre performance in Washington, DC. This Lincoln story is the basis for a modest proposal I present to you regarding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), both of which are dedicated to the elimination of the Jewish state--Israel (or, as they put it, 'the Zionist entity'). 

D'Souza's story is about the US Civil war. This war, 1861-1865, is considered by many to be the bloodiest war in American history. This is to say that more US soldiers died in this war than in any other war in which US soldiers participated (here). Indeed, it may be possible to argue (depending upon whose numbers you use) that more US soldiers died in this war than in all other US wars combined (ibid). 

It was a war fought over the issue of black slavery. There were of course other issues pertinent to this conflict, but it seems safe to suggest that four of the important questions that brought about this war might be phrased this way: (1) was slavery moral? (2) do the economics of slavery justify its use? (3) who has the political right--and authority--to decide 'yes' or 'no' about slavery in a state? and (4) should newly forming Western territories be allowed to have slavery (here)?  

Southern states said, slavery was fine. The federal government, situated in the North, disagreed. 

Passions flared for years over these questions. By 1861, Southern states had had enough: key Southern states seceded from the United States. The war soon began.

D'Souza's story was set into this context. I can't verify the story.  However, the idea within this brief tale nonetheless serves as the foundation for my proposal because it speaks to what I believe is a universal truth about what a civilized, supposedly democratic nation must sometimes do to deal with the barbaric behavior of an enemy: apply the Golden Rule (or, at least, one version of that rule), and do unto the barbaric what they do to you--or seek to do to you). 

During the Civil War, D'Souza related, the Northern States began to deploy black soldiers to battlefields in the fight against the South. The South resented the use of blacks to fight the South. It deployed its own counter-policy: any black soldier captured by the South's (Confederate) army would be shot.  

This was not the case for white soldiers captured by the Confederacy.  But this [blacks fighting against the South] was such an affront to Southern sensibilities, the Confederacy decided to take this action. 

When this anti-black decision of the Confederacy came to the attention of President Lincoln, he issued an Executive Order. It is not very well know, but--D'Souza said--it was the most severe order (in his opinion) to come out of the Northern side during the war: for every black Union soldier executed by the Confederacy, Lincoln declared, one Confederate (Southern soldier) captive [held by the North] will be shot.

D'Souza asked, why would a moderate man [Lincoln] do such a barbaric thing?  The answer is, D'Souza said, Lincoln realized that you have to do to them what they are doing to you if you ever want them to stop--you have to do it [emphasis  mine]. 

My modest proposal is very simple: what Hamas and the PLO do to Israel, Israel should do to them. For example, Hamas captured two wounded or already-killed Israeli soldiers during the 2014 Gaza-Israel war. Contrary to all international laws regarding the treatment and return of wounded and deceased enemy soldiers, Hamas will absolutely not return what Israel now assumes are the bodies of these two men. 

Well, we should do to them what they do to us. Israel should announce that, from this moment forward, the bodies of all Arab terrorists killed by Israel--anytime, anywhere--will not be returned to their homes until all missing bodies of Israelis are returned. 

Israel should then announce that, from this moment forward, any rocket or shell randomly fired into Israeli communities from, say, a Gaza neighborhood, will be answered not by Israeli air strikes on pre-selected targets (which are often empty buildings). Instead, such random attacks on Israeli civilians will be answered by a rocket or shell fired randomly by Israel directly into that Gaza neighborhood from which each rocket or shell was fired. 

 The same should be true for terror coming out of the Palestinian Authority (PA): every murder of a Jew by an Arab terrorist from the PA should be matched by the execution of one PA terrorist (already convicted of murdering a Jew) currently held in an Israeli prison. 

Why should a supposedly modern democratic nation do such a barbaric thing? The answer is simple: it may well be the most convincing way to persuade a barbaric enemy to stop behaving barbarically.

In Judaism, this might be called, measure-for-measure. But it also echoes the Jewish Golden Rule which tells us, in at least one version, to do unto others what they do to you. Such a Rule seems especially appropriate in a region like the Arab Middle East where brutality and barbarity reign--and where there are few if any laws forbidding the killing of Jews.

Remember Lincoln's order. It offset the South's brutal decision to execute blacks. It also helped the North protect blacks in combat because, according to D'Souza, once Lincoln's Order went out, the South cancelled its decision to execute captured blacks.

My proposal, like Lincoln's order, redefines the terms of combat. It establishes clearly what Israel will do when attacked: it will do to the entity behind an attacker what that entity incited the attacker to do to Israel.

This is not rocket science. It's simple. In the brutal world of the Middle East, if Hamas and the PA want peace, the Golden Rule will give them peace. If they don't want peace, the Golden Rule will kill them.

Thursday, August 29, 2019

On August 26, 2019, no one in Israel mentioned the significance of the date

On August 26, 2014, the 2014 Hamas-Israel war ended. But when August 26, 2019 came--the fifth anniversary of the end of that war--no one in Israel thought to mention that fact. No one in Israel said, 'Hey, look! it's been five years since the fighting ended!'

Part of the reason for this silence is that many in Israel consider that that war never ended. Certainly, Hamas never surrendered. It never gave up its calls to destroy Israel. It never stopped its calls to kill Jews. It never stopped firing rockets at us. 

Look at the facts. For the 40 months between August 27, 2014-December 31, 2017, Hamas continued to fire rockets into Israel. A month hardly went by without at least something being fired from Gaza into Israel. 

Granted, the total number of rockets fired at Israel was low--perhaps 100 over those 40 months (here). But to those living in the targeted areas, those rockets meant remaining on a war footing. 

Those citizens were not in  a 'peace' situation. They still had to run for their lives into shelters every time a siren went off.  

Then, in 2018, everything changed. During that year alone, Hamas and its Israel-hating "friends" in Gaza fired over 1,000 rockets and mortars into Israel (here).

In 2019, Hamas and its 'partners' in Gaza have continued to fire at us--some 600 rockets into Israel in May alone (here). Most of these 600 rockets fell in less than a single 48 hour period in early May. At that moment, it certainly felt to many like war with Gaza had suddenly re-erupted.

Then again, since March, 2018, Hamas has organized riots and violence at Gaza-Israel border points almost every week-end. Those riots involved as many as 30,000 Gazans burning tires, using slingshots to shoot stones, and throwing fire-bombs and hand grenades into Israel. 

That violence also included a new weapon: lofting fire-balloons into Israel. These fire-balloons have destroyed thousands of acres of farmland and nature preserves in Israel. They are weapons of war that constitute a war crime (here)--one that has been persistently ignored by the UN (ibid).

To many in Israel, these border riots, along with the rockets and continuing terror attacks against Jews in Israel all have the look and feel of a low-burning (no pun intended) but continuing war against Israel. It's a dangerously irresponsible strategy that has the potential to flare up to the real thing at a moment's notice.

Hamas doesn't care. It attacks despite the risk of greater conflict with Israel.

This is exactly why nobody in Israel sees reason  to comment on "the five-year anniversary date of the 2014 ceasefire" between Hamas and Israel. That war hasn't really ended. To borrow a 21st-century phrase, the feeling here in Israel is that that  2014 "ceasefire" has been nothing more than 'fake news'.

Instead, there is the feel in Israel today of a war-about-to-break-out. For example, instead of reading this week in Israel's news outlets about the fifth-year anniversary of the 2014 ceasefire, the only talk here is about how the fear of war now "skyrockets" (here).

Israel's headlines for this anniversary moment (August 25-26, 2018) didn't speak of peace. They spoke of 'escalation' (here), forest fires of unknown origin (here)--many suspected Arab terror--and about even more rocket launches from Gaza landing in Israel (here). Our headlines were about anti-Jewish terror (here) and about those who suffer from that terror (here). Our headlines weren't about 'peace' or peace-talks or 'ongoing calm' at the Israel and Gaza border. 

In addition, during this same 'anniversary news cycle', the President of Lebanon called Israeli actions to defend itself a 'declaration of war' (here). Iran yet again rattled its anti-Israel war-sabre (here). Politicians running for the upcoming September 17, 2019 national elections talked openly of 'escalation', not peace (here).

Five years after the last Gaza-Israel war, no one talks of putting that conflict behind us. Instead, the talk is about war. With such talk, why would anyone feel inclined to remark upon something (the supposed end of fighting five years ago) that never happened? 

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Seems that former US Pres Obama doesn't believe in Global Warming after all

I try not to write about what happens in the US. My focus is Israel.

But every once in awhile, I do get caught up in US 'events'. This tends to happen to me especially when those 'events'--always serious and often threatening--become laughable.

These days, so filled with antisemitism and I-hate-Israel rhetoric, there are often days when I feel we could all use a good laugh. Well, the essay below could get you to laugh. I certainly did.

Take a look. It's about Global Warming, former US President Barack Obama and a $15 million estate the Obamas have just purchased on Martha's Vineyard, an exclusive resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The essay appeared just yesterday here. It suggests that Obama's own actions--investing $15 million into a large home in such a watery place--proves that he voted with his feet to say that Global Warming is a hoax.

How did Obama do that, if unintentionally? It's all here:

Nolte: Martha’s Vineyard Home Proves Obama Knows Global Warming’s a Hoax


Barack and Michelle Obama are proving with the purchase of a $15 million home on Martha’s Vineyard that they know Global Warming is a hoax.

Do you want to know the very last thing a true believer in Global Warming would ever do…?
Move to an island and invest $15 million in a home with a — no joke — ocean view. But…
According to various news reports, Barry and Michelle are doing exactly that, and I do mean exactly that
Here’s a photo of the estate, all 7,000 square feet of the mansion and the surrounding property…

You see all that blue stuff off to the right…? That’s the Atlantic Ocean, y’all…
Now, some might see an awful lot of hypocrisy in a Global Warming believer like Obama purchasing a massive estate that will create an equally massive carbon footprint.
Fair enough.
But that only proves Barry’s a hypocrite, not that he’s a Global Warming Denier.
Investing some $15 million to live on an island home that sits right on the Atlantic Ocean…? You want to know what this is… That is not just the actions of a hypocrite; what we have here is a full-blown Global Warming Denier, a Climate Denier, someone who is so sure the sea levels will never rise, he’s backing up that certainty with $15 million.
Hey, who said this…?
No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.
Barry said that about ten years before he spent $15 million for a home on … the coastline.
Hey, who said this…?
The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking.
Barry said that about ten years before he spent $15 million for a home on … the coastline.
Hey, who said this…?
[W]e’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods.
Barry said that about seven years before he spent $15 million for a home on  … the ocean.
The Obamas are literally investing $15 million in the fact that Global Warming is a hoax.
What’s more, he is only 58 years old. He’s got at least another 25 to 30 years.
Regardless of his age, if Global Warming were real, this would be a terrible investment under any circumstance. As this dumb 12-year deadline counts down, it should be property along the coastlines that lose the most value, while inland property rates skyrocket due to overcrowding by leftists fleeing to safety… right?
But leftists are not leaving the coast, and the value of coastline property continues to rise.
If you want to know what people truly believe, don’t listen to what they say they believe… No, you have to watch what they actually do… And the very same people who are bullying us to give up our cars and beef and grills — because if we don’t, the oceans will rise and destroy the coasts!! —  are the very same people living on … the coast.
Maybe they would rather drown, rather lose everything than live among us deplorables, but there are plenty of blue cities in flyover country… Why don’t these bigots move there?
Because they know it’s all [bulls**it]. And Obama knows it’s [bulls**t]. And the media surely know it’s bulls**t because the media are doing the exact same thing Obama’s doing…
While far-left CNN dehumanizes anyone who doesn’t believe in Global Warming, the fake news network is moving its primary base of operations from inland Atlanta to right on — again, no joke — the water in Manhattan, the very same Manhattan the media said would be underwater already.
If Barry and Michelle Obama don’t believe in Global Warming, why should I?
Why should anyone?
If you question the mockery of this essay, take the following test by asking yourself a simple question: if you really, really, really believed in Global Warming, and have in fact already warned others about rising ocean levels, why would you spend so much money for a home so close to one of those threatening oceans?
In my book, there's only one reason you'd spend that kind of money for something so close to the ocean: you believe you're safe to do so.

What does that say about Global Warming--and it's most public advocates? 

Monday, August 19, 2019

What we learn from Israel banning two anti-Israel US Congresswomen

(Last update: August 20, 2019)

Last week, Israel decided to prohibit two US Congresswomen from entering Israel to work at a 'fact-gathering' tour (here). The two were Rashida Tlaib and Illhan Omar, both Muslim, both anti-Israel and both active supporters of the viciously anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) Movement. 

BDS is often portrayed by its advocates as a non-violent Movement. But its goal is the complete destruction of the State of Israel. Indeed, the jerusalempost reminds us that BDS has been ruled "antisemitic and tied to terror" (here). 

Illhan Omar doesn't care. She openly states that she "believes in and supports the BDS Movement" (ibid). Tlaib, meanwhile, made her pro-BDS beliefs known almost as soon as she got to Washington (here).

Both Omar and Tlaib have been called "vehemently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" (here). Although Members of the US House of Representatives for less than two years, these two women have arguably established themselves as the most aggressively anti-Israel advocates in Congress. 

One manifestation of this anti-Israel aggressiveness occurred on July 17, 2019, when Omar introduced a Bill in the US House of Representatives (with Tlaib a cosponsor) to assure that any American who chose to boycott Israel would be protected by US law (here). 

The Bill flew in the face of recent Federal and State efforts to blunt BDS in America, not support it. This widespread effort has so far resulted in a series of successful anti-BDS bills being passed (here).  While the Omar-Tlaib Bill doesn't explicitly mention BDS, Omar herself has linked it directly to the BDS Movement (here). 

The Bill went nowhere.

These two women are the first two Muslim women ever to be elected to Congress (in the 2018 mid-term US election) (here). They are also the first two Members of Congress to call openly to support the anti-Israel BDS Movement (ibid). They are serious about their anti-Israelism, which is perhaps exactly why Israel decided to ban them.

Of course, Israel has been hammered for this decision. This decision has been termed (more or less) a strike against Israel's democracy; it proves Israel really is an Apartheid state; it will harm US-Israel relations; it will cause many in America, especially Israel's long-term Democratic friends (?), to question Israel's commitment to democracy; it was a gift to the BDS Movement in America; it has given fresh wind to America's anti-Israel Democrats (here); it hurts Israel more than the Congresswomen, etc.

But are these criticisms truly valid? Was Israel harming its commitment to democracy by banning these two? Does Israel harm itself?

Take a look now at a different view of this banning--written, interestingly enough, by someone who has himself been banned from entering another democratic country--England.

This essay comes from here. It was written by one who knows how it feels to be demonized, banned and reviled:


Should a country ban people who oppose its policies from entering?

The vehemently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been banned from entering Israel, and Leftists are furious. Surely Israel, and its ally in the Oval Office, have made a major blunder, no? Not necessarily.
Rep. Justin Amash fumed: “Israel should stand up to President Trump and allow our colleagues to visit. Nobody has to agree with their opinions, but it will inevitably harm U.S.-Israel relations if members of Congress are banned from the country. We must find ways to come together; there’s enough division.” 
Sure, but would Omar and Tlaib touring around Israel, providing grist for the mill of the Palestinian propaganda jihad and calling for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) measures against the Jewish state really help us “come together”?
After all, they were banned due to “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS.” And there is certainly no doubt that they would have promoted the genuinely neo-Nazi BDS movement while in Israel. Is Israel, or any other state, really obligated to allow entry to anyone who is its implacable foe, dedicated to its ultimate destruction?
Rep. David Cicilline think so. “This is a grave mistake by the Israeli government,” he thundered. “Democracy is about accepting that others don’t always share your views and respecting the right to disagree.” Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren also cast aspersions on Israeli democracy, tut-tutting that “Israel doesn't advance its case as a tolerant democracy or unwavering US ally by barring elected members of Congress from visiting because of their political views.”
Did Cicilline, Warren, or anyone else question Britain’s commitment to democracy when the British Home Office banned Pamela Geller and me from entering that country? Of course not. Have they ever questioned the ever-lengthening line of foes of jihad terror that Britain has banned? Not at all.
When Geller and I were banned from Britain in 2013, I received an official letter from the British Home Office, notifying me that I would not be allowed to enter the country on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” The letter to me said:
You are reported to have stated the following:
[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.
I said no such thing, of course. I generally speak and write in coherent English. But the point is clear enough. I certainly have pointed out that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. This is not really a controversial point to anyone who has studied Islam at all. No one who is honest can actually deny that Islam has doctrines of warfare against unbelievers.
But the British government is committed to ignoring and denying that Islam teaches violence, and so I was banned. This was a parallel act to the present-day banning of Tlaib and Omar from entering Israel, isn’t it? I opposed the British government, and so was banned, and they oppose the Israeli government, and so they were banned. Thus I can’t consistently support the banning of Tlaib and Omar without endorsing my own banning from Britain, right?
Wrong. Here is the difference: Tlaib and Omar support a movement that is trying to bring about Israel’s destruction. They have both surrounded themselves with individuals who have advocated and are working toward that destruction. Israel is under no obligation to welcome its enemies, any more than any other country is.
In contrast, Pamela Geller [and] I opposed the mass Muslim migration that is destroying the British national character and the willful ignorance regarding the motivating ideology behind the jihad terror threat that has made all British citizens more vulnerable than they used to be or need to be. Geller and I wanted to work toward the protection and defense of Britain, not its destruction.
The British government did not and does not see it that way. As far as it is concerned, Pamela Geller and I are potentially threatening to its continued peace and harmony, just as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are to the peace and harmony of Israel.
But the truth cannot be suppressed forever, and can be discovered in this case by a simple pair of hypotheticals. Imagine if both the British government and the Israeli government continue on the paths they’re on: the British continuing to ignore the genuine root causes of jihad terror and turning the other way as Muslim rape gangs operate, and the Israelis continuing to fight back against BDS and Palestinian propaganda. Which state is likely to be healthier in five years, or ten?
The answer is clear in both cases. Britain has chosen the path of national suicide, banning its friends and admitting all too many of its foes (numerous jihadis have been admitted into the country with no questions asked). Israel, by contrast, is determined to survive. Without the will to live, what will become of Britain?

What do you think? Will this ban of Illhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib be as bad for Israel as so many say? Will it, as some argue, show that Israel is weak, not strong? Or, does it send the simple message that Israel is a democracy that, like the US (see below) and Britain, will act to protect itself from what it perceives to be hostile elements?  

Personally, I think all this criticism is disingenuous. The outrage seems like, well, just more anti-Israel fakery (here). 

Think about what these two women are doing: they want you to boycott Israel. They want you to feel good about boycotting. Then, when Israel turns around and boycotts them instead, they cry 'FOUL!!!!!"? 

How dare Israel boycott them!

Over the years, several Israelis--mostly entertainers, politicians and artists--have been banned from entering the US--often, with little or no justification (here). When those bannings happened, no one in the US or Israel cried, 'US democracy threatened', or 'US-Israel relations will be damaged', or 'banning artists/politicians/Israeli-citizens is bad diplomacy', or 'this ban is an inexcusable abandonment of diplomacy', or, 'this ban' will harm the US'.

Instead, when these Israelis were banned, there was complete silence. The people who now denounce Israel for a ban in 2019 said nothing whenever, over the last 20 years,  the US chose to ban Israelis. 

What we learn from Israel banning these two women is that  democracies do 'ban' people when they decide they need to. It's not as uncommon as you think--and no one throws a fit when a democracy 'bans' someone.

Except if that country is Israel. 

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

The next World War

(Last update: August 11, 2019)

For some, World War Two represented the ultimate clash of ideologies (here). It pitted an aggressive and supremacist Nazism against such traditional Western values as freedom, equality and democracy. For World War Two, there was no compromise. Only one ideology survived--democracy.

It was that kind of war.

Today, the world faces another clash of ideologies. As with World War Two, this modern clash is also between an aggressive, militant ideology that sees itself as supreme against the same Western values that were threatened in World War Two. 

But this modern war doesn't pit two political/cultural ideologies against one another. This time, the clash is, so far as I can tell, between Islam and the West.

Once again, democracy is at risk. Make no mistake, the rise of today's anti-democracy Koran-based Islamic Jihad shares much with the defeated anti-democracy Nazis. Both militant Islam and Nazism are supremacist. Both promote the notion that daily life is best managed by them because they are better than you. For both the Nazi and the Jihadi, individualism, exceptionalism freedom of choice, speech and religion are forbidden. 

Supremacist ideologies are like that. They hate freedom.

Such ideologies are typically racist, anti-democracy and driven by hate. They are especially focused on Jews. They are anti-Semitic. They call for the killing of the Jews.  

For Supremacist ideologies, there is no room for debate or  respect for differences. There is room only for surrender. 

All must be the same. All must be strictly controlled by a supreme elite. All must comply or, potentially, face death. 

This is the face of Nazism and Islamic Jihad: comply or die.

Nazism and Jihad believe in conquest. They revel in conquest. It is,  they believe, their unique destiny. 

They believe that, through aggression, they can create a grand Utopia. They would create their Utopias with the blood of the sword. 

Because of Nazi aggression, more than 50 million people died in  World War Two. Perhaps as many as 100 million more--though probably less than that number--were displaced. Cities were obliterated. 

In the end, however, while the war crushed the Nazi dream, millions nonetheless became enslaved. After having been enslaved by the Nazis, millions in Eastern Europe became trapped by Communism. Indeed, one might be able to argue that the biggest winner of that war was actually Stalin--because he used the utter destruction of that War to establish in Eastern Europe, unchallenged, his own dictatorial supremacist utopia--behind an enslaving iron curtain. 

The West was simply too exhausted to fight him. The West sighed. After freeing Europe from the Nazis, it surrendered to the Communist enslavement of Europe's East. 

The West's war against Islamic Jihad has its own dangers. You may not remember this, but Iong ago in the 16th century, Islam stood at the gates of Vienna, ready to conquer the European infidel (here). The Islamic Ottoman Empire of the 16th century, like the Nazis of the 20th century, desired to rule all of Europe. In 1529, the Islamic dream of conquering Europe was about to be fulfilled. Its supremacist utopia was about to become a reality.

But then, on September 11,1529, the Ottoman army at the gates of Vienna was defeated (here) by Austrian-Hapsburg forces representing what was called, the Holy Roman Empire. On 9-11-1529, the Islamic dream of conquering Europe is said to have ended.

But it didn't end. Islamic Jihad is patient, much more patient than the West. While the West forgot about the war at the gates of Vienna, Jihad remembered--and waited.  

The Islamic dream of conquest never fades. It burns ever-bright--and the sting of defeat by the accursed infidel never fades--never. That is why, on 9-11-2001, the Islamic Jihadi dream of conquering the West awakened once again, this time in America, the new center of Western power. 

On the 2001 anniversary of that 1529 defeat, Jihadists hijacked four commercial airliners in the US and used them in suicide attacks against American targets on American soil (here). Those Jihadists killed more than 2,990 people that day. Islamic Jihad against the West's power-center, that attack suggested, was now "on" once again.

By 2014, Islamic Jihad became bold enough to remind the West that the 1529 Islamic defeat by the Holy Roman Empire would now be reversed. ISIS, the so-called 'Islamic State', announced that, now, Rome will be conquered by Islam. ISIS declared that, already, it had sent thousands of extremists into Europe. 

In 2015, the Islamic State even bragged that Islam would defeat the birthplace of Western culture. The migration crisis in Europe caused by Muslim migrants flooding into Europe at an unprecedented rate would, ISIS declared, be the means by which Islam would conquer Europe without firing a shot

Now, 2019, we can see that Islamic Jihad has infiltrated into America--quietly, under most everyone's 'radar' (here). In Western Europe, that attack against the infidel is no longer hidden. As militant, anti-West Islamic migrants have spread into Europe, the sounds of this clash grow louder each month. 

This is no simple migration. It's become part of a World War against the accursed infidel -- and it may well prove the undoing of freedom and democracy for many of today's Western democracies. Read about France (here), Sweden (here) and Germany (here and here), and you'll begin to see the potential horror the West faces, both directly and indirectly, from Islam. 

Islam begins to reshape Europe (here). Yes, it's a process that's indeed controversial (ibid). But even as Western Leftists defend this reshaping by thinking of it as a celebration of multiculturalism and Progressivism, that celebration does nothing to blunt a growing anti-West Muslim hostility that threatens Europe's sense of peace and order. 

Will America be next (here)? 

Stay tuned. A new World War has begun. It will not be a war of words. It is a war designed to bring darkness to the Western infidel--you. 

It could  be the last war the West fights.