Arab lies, continued

Here's a question: can a group claim the moral high ground and lie at the same time? Is that morally acceptable?

This shouldn't be a challenge. Either you are moral, or you are not. Yes, there is often a grey area in moral discussions. But in the examples you are about to see, there is no grey.

The pro-'Palestinian' Jew-hate industry builds its Israel-is-evil case on lies. Watch this video. See if you can figure out what I mean.

The video is 6:09 in length. It was posted on youtube on October 18, 2015. 

In my opinion, if the 'Palestinian Cause' was both just and moral, there'd be no need for the kinds of lies and misrepresentations you have just seen. What do you think?

An Israeli Apartheid photo album

Repeatedly, Jew-haters call Israel an Apartheid state. Apartheid means that a specific population has no chance to contribute to or participate in a society. It is excluded. It's locked out.

Apartheid means institutionalized discrimination. Apartheid requires that an identified population is, by law, sealed off from adequate medical care, professional careers, the right to vote, the right to serve in important positions and the right to receive promotions and professional rewards. 

According to those who call Israel 'Apartheid', the excluded class is the Arab. The Jew-hate industry claims Arabs under Israeli law are crushed. They are excluded. They are humiliated and locked out. Arabs, Israel's enemies say, suffer terribly as a second-class, disenfranchised citizens.

The Jew-hate industry wants you to believe that, in Israel-the-Apartheid, Arabs can't be doctors, college professors or scientists. Arabs can't be  judges or high-ranking government employees. They can't be ambassadors. 

Really?

Here now, for  your benefit, is a picture essay, It's an Israeli Apartheid photo album, as excerpted from the website, ElderofZyion. 

It reveals how Arabs fare under Jewish law. It also reveals a shocking, unacceptable truth about the evil called, Apartheid.

Page down now and begin your Israeli Apartheid journey:
























































































































































The shocking truth about Apartheid in the Middle East is that it isn't an Israeli problem. It's an Arab problem. 

Arabs discriminate against Jews. They create laws to lock out or harm Jews. 

Arabs also discriminate against their own--the 'Palestinians'. Arab countries treat 'Palestinians' the way South Africa once treated blacks--can't vote, can't get quality jobs, can't live in proper housing, can't get equal medical care. 

That's Apartheid. It's not acceptable. Does anyone care?

No one cares. All the Arab world wants to do is demonize and isolate Israel. Those who pander to Arab sensibility aren't going to offend their Arab friends by complaining about Apartheid against 'Palestinians'.

 In Israel, meanwhile, Arabs have more rights and opportunity than found in any Arab country. In Israel, you have the only democracy in the Middle East. In Israel, you have freedoms found nowhere else in the Arab world. 

You must choose. Either Israel is an evil, Apartheid state--or those who call Israel 'Apartheid' are liars. 

Whose side are you on?

'Palestinian' children's TV incites to attack Jews

This morning, February 9, 2016, Israel radio announced another terror attack against Jews. A short while later, Israel's online news industry posted the report (Uzi Baruch, "Two attempted stabbings thwarted this morning, Arutz Sheva, February 9, 2016). 

In Israel, these reports have been constant since September 13, 2015. That's the date the current wave of anti-Jew Arab terror is said to have begun. 

Since September 13, 2015, some 29 Jews have been killed by terrorists (plus one 'Palestinian') ("Wave of terror 2015/16", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 7, 2016). Another 344 Jews have been injured (ibid).

During the almost-five month period ending February 6, 2016, there have been 170 stabbings and attempted stabbings, 70 shootings and 30 car-ramming attacks (ibid)--all against Jews. That adds up to almost two attacks per day, every day for 146 days. 

By suppertime, we hit the two-per-day average.

There were three incidents today. The first two incidents occurred before 10 am local time. The third incident occurred after 4 pm.

The first of these three incidents might not get listed as an attack or as an attempted attack (Arutz Sheva, above). A 13-year old girl was arrested at the entrance to a Jewish community (to the south of Jerusalem) just before 10 am local time. She had appeared at the guarded entrance carrying a long knife on her person. She was taken for questioning (ibid). 

A short while later, a 16-year old girl was stopped several miles away in Jerusalem, near the Damascus Gate. She'd been acting suspiciously. When Israeli Police at that site stopped her, she drew out a knife and tried to stab the officers.  They overpowered her and arrested her. 

The third incident occurred not too far from the first incident (Cynthia Blank, "One injured in stabbing attack in Gush Etzion", Arutz Sheva, February 9, 2016). This time, an Israeli Jewish civilian was stabbed in his shoulder by an unidentified assailant. The assailant escaped. Police are looking for him.

Based on the ages of the first two Arab attackers (or, potential attackers), one might wonder why 13- and 16-year old girls--children, really--have become terrorists. Arab advocates would say, they've become frustrated by israeli occupation. But that's not correct.

Most of these children, when discussing on Facebook their intent, don't mention such 'frustration'. Instead, they speak of the glories of 'martyrdom', something they've seen often and repeatedly on TV.

The truth is, children have played a prominent role in this current terror wave. Using children for terror attacks is a 'Palestinian' innovation (Vic Rosenthal, "Terror children, the latest Palestinian innovation", abuyehuda, November 13, 2015). 

Jews in Israel innovate in science, medicine and high-tech. Arabs in the Palestinian Authority (PA) innovate in ways to kill Jews. These contrasting ways to innovate are one of the differences that separate 'Palestinians' from Jews. 

Of course, using children to kill an enemy is a war crime. It's a major Human Rights violation. But, as usual, no one in the world is interested in pointing this out because these aren't Jewish children who have been duped into becoming killers. They're Arab children.

Why would Arab children want to kill? Why don't Jewish children want to kill?

Imagine, for a moment, that you're an eight-year old Arab child living in the PA. You like watching TV. Your parents are careful, however. They only want you to watch 'age-appropriate' TV. 

Of course, you'll do as your parents say. You will watch only age-appropriate programming. You'll watch programs designed for you, an average eight-year old child.

Here's a brief video from youtube. It was captured from Arab TV in 2014 by the Israel NGO, MEMRI, which monitors Arab-only media. 

It's an excerpt from a children's program. It's 1:42 long.

What you see in this children's program is pure, Nazi-style Jew-hate propaganda. It dehumanizes Jews (Jews are called barbaric apes). It demonizes Jews (Jews are 'raised on shedding blood'). 

In Israel, those who work with the UN have recently declared that the exposure of children "to the type and intensity of incitement and violence that would lead to this kind of act [attacking a Jew to kill] is unadulterated child abuse,” ("Head of Israeli Fund for UNICEF condemns use of children as terrorists", jpupdates, February 5, 2016). 

In Israel today, 2016, we see a children's Intifada. Children attack Jews to kill. Perhaps you've wondered how children could do that.

Perhaps this brief video explains it to you.

PS. Jewish children in Israel never see this kind of TV programming. It simply doesn't exist in Israel. 

Obama, a US mosque, the nations--and Jew-hate

Here’s an interesting essay. Does it discuss Islamic propaganda—or historical fact?

The essay is called, “Islam: has it always been part of America?”

The subtitle is, Obama's mosque speech vs. history. I've printed it with no editing.

Please read my final comments.

February 9, 2016

 

Joseph Klein

 

From:   Washington Free Beacon

President Barack Obama spoke for the first time as president at a U.S. mosque on February 3, 2016. His choice was the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore mosque, where he portrayed Islam as having “always been part of America.”

The Islamic Society of Baltimore was established in 1969. If Obama had wanted to speak at “the oldest purpose-built mosque that is still in use today” in the United States, in order to try to demonstrate that Islam has “always been part of America,” he would have found it in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It would not have helped his cause, however. This mosque, known as “the Mother Mosque of America,” dates way back – drum roll, please – to 1934. The oldest mosque in the U.S. was built in North Dakota in 1929.

To provide some perspective on how short a time it has been since the first mosques in the United States were built, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, the oldest surviving Jewish synagogue building in North America, was completed in 1763.

Nevertheless, in making the case that Islam has “always been part of America,” Obama noted that Muslims were arriving on our shores as far back as colonial times.

“Starting in colonial times, many of the slaves brought here from Africa were Muslim,” Obama declared.

It is worth recalling the National Prayer Breakfast about a year ago, when Obama charged that “Slavery…all too often was justified in the name of Christ.” He evidently believes that the early waves of Muslims coming to America as slaves were entirely the victims of a Christian-based slavery system. He won’t admit the truth: that their Muslim brethren in Africa had sold some of “the slaves brought here from Africa” in the first place. These Muslim slave traders were jihadists operating in West African territories that had been forcibly taken over by Muslim warriors and turned into Islamic theocracies.

Muslims brought to America as slaves, approximately 10 to 15 percent of the overall slave population, carried with them the attitude of Islamic supremacy that they had grown up with in Africa.

“To live as a Muslim in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century West Africa was to live in an increasingly intolerant society,” Michael A. Gomez wrote in his article entitled ‘Muslims in Early America’ (Source: The Journal of Southern History).  “This was the period of the jihad, of the establishment of Muslim theocracies, of self-purification and separation from practices and beliefs that were seen as antithetical to Islam.”

Some Muslim slaves – “professors of the Mahomedan religion," as a slave owner described them - were placed in positions of authority over their fellow slaves and helped put down slave insurrections. One of these “professors of the Mahomedan religion" referred to non-Muslim slaves as "Christian dogs."

Perhaps such loathing in general for the majority Christian colonial population explains why only four or so Americans with Muslim-sounding names fought for the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. By contrast, more than 100 Jews served on the American side, 15 of whom served as officers.

In any event, America’s first war against foreign states since achieving its independence was against Muslim powers. Muslim potentates from the Barbary States - Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, and Tripolitania - were plundering American commercial vessels and holding Americans hostage for ransom in the years beginning shortly after the United States won its freedom from Great Britain. They went to war with the United States when their demand for tribute was refused by President Thomas Jefferson. It took two Barbary Wars to defeat this Muslim threat.

Both Jefferson and John Adams had confronted the theocratic ideology of Islamic jihad first-hand years earlier, when they sought to negotiate an end to attacks by the Muslim Barbary Coast pirates and the holding of American captives for ransom. While Jefferson was serving as ambassador to France and Adams was serving as ambassador to Britain, both men met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from the “Dey of Algiers.” They wanted to know why the Muslim rulers were sanctioning attacks on American merchant ships and taking Americans hostage when the young United States had done nothing to provoke any of the Muslim Barbary States.

As Jefferson and Adams described in a letter to John Jay on March 28, 1786, the Muslim ambassador explained that the conduct of the Barbary Coast pirates “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

In short, when the newly independent United States was at its most vulnerable, our country faced Muslim enemies animated by jihad.  

Nevertheless, in his remarks at the Islamic Society of Baltimore mosque, President Obama attempted to demonstrate the positive influence of Islam on the Founding Fathers. He alluded to the fact that “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran.” True, but this tells only part of the story.

For example, Obama neglected to share with his audience the unflattering opinion of Islam that appeared in thepreface of the particular edition of the Koran that John Adams chose to purchase:

“This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible...”

John Adams evidently believed what the preface commentary to his Koran had concluded. In a letter that Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, Adams lumped Napoleon, “Mahomet” and other famous warriors in history together under the label “Military Fanatic.” Adams added, as translated from Latin to English: “he denies that laws were made ​​for him, and claims everything by force of arms.”

John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, was even blunter: “The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

As for Thomas Jefferson, he studied his copy of the Koran to understand its jurisprudence. He rejected some of the harshest prescriptions of sharia law, such as the cutting off of limbs as a punishment for stealing. Such disproportionate punishments, he said, would “exhibit spectacles in execution whose moral effect would be questionable.”

After further study of the Koran and of various materials about Islam, as well as learning from his experience with the jihadist Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Jefferson concluded that there could be no negotiation or compromise with the jihadists. As president, as already noted, he launched attacks against the Muslim powers. President Madison’s follow-up attacks led ultimately to the Muslim powers’ defeat.

In his work “How Thomas Jefferson read the Quran,” Professor Kevin J. Hayes wrote: “What Jefferson found most disturbing about the Qur’an was the Islamic claims to its infallibility.”

Apparently, Obama does not share Jefferson’s concerns about rigid Islamic dogma. He continues to harp on his contention that Islam has “always been part of America.” Yet the first major wave of voluntary immigration of Muslims to the United States occurred between 1880 and 1924, while the first wave of Sephardic Jews arrived in the colonies during the seventeenth century.

Obama mentioned during the course of his remarks at the Islamic Society of Baltimore that “Muslim Americans worked on Henry Ford’s assembly line, cranking out cars.” He offered this as an example of how “Generations of Muslim Americans helped to build our nation.” Jewish immigrants joined Muslim Americans on the assembly line. But it was a Jewish architect, an immigrant from Prussia named Albert Kahn, whom Henry Ford hired to design the first factory where a continuously moving assembly line could be used to manufacture the Model T.

President Obama claimed that Muslim Americans include “scientists who win Nobel Prizes.” As of 2015, only one of the three Muslim Nobel Prize winners for science worldwide is a Muslim American, who won the award in 1999.

The first Jewish American Nobel Prize winner in science, Albert Abraham Michelson, was an immigrant from Prussia. He received the award in 1907. At least 80 Jews who won the Nobel Prize in the sciences have been from the United States.

In the field of law, it took all the way until 1981 for the first Muslim in the nation’s history to serve as a judge. That is when Adam Shakoor, an African-American Muslim, was appointed as a judge of the Common Pleas Court for Wayne County, Michigan. The jihadist Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) honored Judge Shakoor with a banquet in 2015. “I thank Allah, and I thank Allah, and I thank Allah for the service that I have been able to give,” Mr. Shakoor said in accepting CAIR’s award.

According to a recent poll of Muslim Americans, commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”     

The first-in-the nation Muslim judicial appointment of Adam Shakoor occurred 71 years after Robert Heberton Terrell, the son of slaves, became the first African-American to serve on a Federal court in 1910. Terrell had delivered a speech in 1903 entitled “A Glance at the Past and Present of the Negro,” in which he said that the descendants of the slaves who came from Africa had “acquired the language and adopted the religion of a great people.” He referred to God five times in his speech, not Allah. He referred to Christianity, not Islam, as a source of inspiration for the liberation of the slaves.

In sum, to single out Islam as an unabashedly positive force that has “always been part of America” is simply not supported by the historical record. No mosques were even built in the United States until the early twentieth century. Muslim slave traders enabled the market for slaves to grow in America. The first war that the young United States fought against foreign powers was against Muslim states. The founding fathers cited by Obama who owned copies of the Koran were not comfortable with the rigidity of Islamic doctrine and its warrior mentality. Muslim Americans’ contributions to such fields as science and jurisprudence, such as they are, did not begin in earnest until well after the middle of the twentieth century.

If Obama decides to speak at another U.S. mosque while he is president, he would do better to focus his remarks on encouraging Muslim Americans to assimilate more fully into American culture. This would include respect for the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

--

My comment: why do we discover that so many references about Islam and Muslims seem, essentially, to involve violence, misrepresentations or outright lies? Put another way, I'm confused. If Islam is the 'religion of peace', why were America's 'Founding Fathers' discovering more than 200 years ago the very same thing we see today: Muslim leaders reject Western culture, seek war against us and refuse to negotiate or compromise with us (above, ibid).

This is what Jefferson and Adams saw 200+ years ago, not peace. It's what Israel has seen for almost 100 years. it's what France, Sweden and Germany see today. It's what the US has already seen with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian Authority, Iran, Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Islamic Jihad wants to conquer the world. Who can stand up to them? Israel. ISIS has already said Israel is the only nation it fears (Lizzie Dearden, "ISIS: Israel is the only country terrorist group fears, says first Western journalist to survive 'Islamic State", theindependent, January 2, 2016).

Remember this point. ISIS is not afraid of Britain. It isn't afraid of the US. It's Israel's strength, determination and fighting competence it respects.

In the war against Jihad, the nations need Israel. Israel fights. No one else does--at least, not the way Israel fights.

The nations should support Israel. They should encourage Israel. They should gather to protect Israel.

They don't. They harden their hearts against Israel. They choose Jew-hate over self-preservation.

This behavior is suicidal. Instead of turning to Israel for help, they harden their hearts against Israel. Why?

It has to do with Jew-hate.

Study history. Jew-hate is embedded in history. It won't go away.

Well, actually, it will go away. If you want to find out how, stay tuned. This movie has just begun.

You'll have to see it to believe it.

The death of the ‘Palestinian Cause’

The ‘Palestinian’ Cause festers. It has cut out its own tongue. Its hate is so sickening, it has no taste for state-craft. Even US President Barack Obama, possibly America’s most pro-Palestinian President ever, has given up hope for anything ‘Palestinian’.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) soaks in its own blood. It thinks only of war against the Jew. Against the Jew, it loses every war.

It has lost every Intifada against Israel. It’s lost every suicide-bomb campaign.

Every hostile act it has designed to terrorize Jews has backfired. Its Intifadas, knife Intifadas, car intifadas and child Intifadas have changed nothing—except to get hundreds of Arabs killed and thousands more injured and arrested.

The PA’s terror campaigns have been successful on only one level. They’ve truly succeeded in bringing ever-more misery to the PA.

The PA’s BDS boycott movement has backfired. Mostly, it doesn’t convince anyone of significance to turn against Israel. But when it does succeed, that success hurts the PA more than it hurts Israel.

For example, a BDS success doesn’t mean an Israeli company goes out of business. It means that an Israeli company closes, packs up and moves to another, non-disputed location in Israel. The result of this ‘success’ is that hundreds of ‘Palestinian’ workers get laid off because their employer has moved.

In the end, BDS locks out Palestinian workers from dream jobs in Jewish-run companies. Make no mistake. These jobs are indeed dream jobs for ‘Palestinians’. These jobs pay more than Arab jobs, provide better benefits and better work environments than Arab jobs (Paul Miller, "Arabs praise Israel; for their treatment of Palestinian workers", breitbart, October 1, 2014). 

Jews are better employers. Jews treat Arab employees better than Arab employers (ibid).

When BDS wins, the PA loses. Every BDS victory means misery, not opportunity. 

The Jewish settlement enterprise, meanwhile, grows stronger. As Israel grows, the PA cripples itself with greed, corruption, incompetence and Jew-hate.

Haven’t you noticed? The longer the PA promotes its Jew-hate, the stronger Israel has grown. The more the PA glorifies Jew-killing, the weaker the PA becomes.

The more Arabs use terror and incitement against Jews, the less willing Israel becomes to trust Arabs to have a state right next door. Every attack against a Jew doesn’t forward the ‘Palestinian’ Cause. It drives another nail into the coffin of that Cause.

There are no protests for peace in the PA. There are only protests to demonize Israel.

There are no calls in the PA to seek Israeli technology and know-how. There are only calls to destroy Israel.

The PA doesn’t have a single individual in its leadership structure who seeks cooperation with Israel. It doesn’t have a single individual who has proposed a single pragmatic plan that can be implemented to reach a sustainable political agreement with Israel (Bassam Tawil, “The Palestinians' Window of Opportunity Is Closing”, gatestoneinstitute, December 8, 2015).

The PA state-craft cupboard is bare. It’s always been bare.

No one in the PA leadership wants peace. Everyone wants Israel destroyed. The entire PA asks, why seek cooperation with Israel when Israel will cease to exist (“PA TV tells kids Israel will cease to exist”, Arutz Sheva, December 16, 2015)?

PA leaders are fools. They don’t build a future. They make peace-killing demands. For example, the PA demands that the capital of ‘Palestine’ must be in the heart of the capital of the State of Israel. That’s ridiculous. Israel will never accept that (Tawil, ibid).

The PA demands the ‘return’ of millions of ‘Palestinian’ refugees to the territory of the State of Israel. That’s also ridiculous. The Jews know that would be demographic suicide for their country (ibid). They’ll never accept that.

The PA doesn’t want a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It wants a Palestinian state in place of Israel. It deludes itself into thinking the West genuinely supports its goals.

The PA doesn’t hope for peace. It hopes that the West will help it destroy the Zionist entity, meaning, Jewish Israel.

The PA terrorizes Israel and believes that, by such terror, Israel will surrender land to it. That’s ridiculous. Israelis do not delude themselves into thinking Arabs will ever consider them as anything but a cancer in the heart of the Middle East (ibid).

Those who argue that Israel is immoral because it uses force are fools (ibid). They have no clue how Hamas, ISIS and Fatah operate. Whatever immorality Israel has, these Arab organizations are worse (ibid).

Hamas, ISIS and Fatah are not simply immoral. They’re barbaric.

The PA embraces barbarism. It destroys itself. In the end, it will cut off more than its own tongue.

Im Tirtzu and the failure of Israel’s Right

A news analysis has surfaced about a recent incident involving an Israeli pro-Israel NGO called, Im Tirtzu (Gil Ronen, “Im Tirtzu saga: The Israeli Right needs to learn from the Left”, Arutz Sheva, February 2, 2016). This analysis offered a criticism of Israel’s political Right. The criticism is correct. But it doesn’t go far enough.

To discuss this issue, let’s start with that Im Tirtzu ‘saga’ (above).

Im Tirtzu is an Israeli NGO that dedicates itself to renew “Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology” (Im Tirtzu homepage-about us-movement). A major portion of its work focuses on “combating the campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to providing responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena” (ibid). In practical terms, this means that Im Tirtzu fights Israel’s Left, mainly Leftist Human Rights NGOs.

On Israel’s political battlefield, Im Tirtzu hardly registers as a player. It’s small. But, despite its size, it’s become a thorn in the side of the Left.

In December 2015, Im Tirtzu drew Leftist blood.  It posted a video claiming that several named Israelis from leading Left-wing Rights organizations in Israel worked actively against Israel by aiding terrorists (Reut Rimerman et al, “Right-wing group: leftist activists are 'implants'”, YNET, December 15, 2015). The video refers to these named individuals as foreign ‘plants’ (ibid) who aim to harm Israel on behave of foreign nations (they are believed to take money from foreign countries specifically to delegitimize Israel). The video makes the statement that, while Israel fights against terrorism, these individuals fight against Israel (ibid). Nowhere in the video do we see or hear the words, ‘traitor’ or ‘moles’. The video calls these individuals ‘agents’ of foreign countries (“Right-wing group accuses activists of being foreign agent ‘moles’”, Times of Israel, December 15, 2015).

Immediately, Israel’s Left screamed, ‘foul’. The Left called this video ‘incitement’. At least one of the Leftists named said he became afraid he’d be killed in the street because of this ‘incitement’.

The Leftist Haaretz went ballistic. It stated as fact that Im Tirtzu had called “human rights activists as terrorist-supporting traitors” (Chemi Shalev, “Im Tirtzu and the Proto-fascist Plot to Destroy Israeli Democracy”, Haaretz, December 15, 2015). It called the video part of a Proto-fascist plot to destroy Israel.

With that, everyone else went ballistic. Every politician with a recognizable name condemned Im Tirtzu for calling individuals ‘traitors’ or ‘moles’. The uproar was so great that the director of Im Tirtzu apologized to the public—and then suspended himself.

Im Tirtzu had opened fire on the Left. It had struck hard. It had hit a nerve. But it then felt forced to retreat in shame.

According to Akiva Bigman, editor-in-chief at a conservative-nationalist website called, Mida, what happened to Im Tirtzu shows how seriously the Left controls the Right. The Left, he says, knows how to deploy all its assets in a campaign against the Right (Arutz Sheva, above). It knows how to cast anything the Right says into the most negative light (ibid). It knows how to control an issue so as to “portray the right as reckless, boundary-less, fascistic, fanatic, threatening, speech-stifling and dangerous” (ibid).

This, Bigman asserts, is exactly what the Left did to Im Tirtzu. Im Tirtzu never used the word ‘traitor’ in its video. But the Left made ‘traitor’ the key reason Im Tirtzu had crossed the line to ‘incitement’. It was also the main reason many on the Right jumped to condemn Im Tirtzu.

As Bigman put it, the Left knows how to use the media, academia, courts and cultural institutions in an orchestrated way. “The media creates the storm, intellectuals make harsh statements, the courts are asked to intervene and some ‘cultural icons’ often add their writing and acting talents to the mix” (ibid). The Right, he said, has not learned how to play this game. Therefore, he suggested, it cannot compete with the Left. Indeed, until the Right learns to adopt a similar approach, it can’t beat the Left (ibid).

He’s correct. But his assessment doesn’t go far enough. There’s another reason the Right cannot compete with the Left: it isn’t unified.

The Left in Israel is unified. It focuses on four issues: two states for peace, human rights, democracy over religion, Arabs over Jews. Any time any of these issues makes the headlines, the Left speaks with one voice.

The Right cannot do that on any of these issues. It’s not unified. It’s divided over the two-states issue. It’s divided over how human rights should be applied in Israel. It’s divided over the question of religion in the public domain. It’s divided over how much Israel should cater to the Arab population.

Compared to the Left, the Right is chaotic. In the Im Tirtzu affair, the Right didn’t defend Im Tirtzu. It didn’t point out how the Left’s accusations were false. Instead, it joined the Left’s fictitious portrayal of the video—and condemned Im Tirtzu.

They reacted that way because the Left raised such a cry the Right froze. It feared it’d be crushed by the Left if it didn’t join the condemnation. It was easier to condemn than to fight.

That’s not the way to win against the Left. Until the Right gets its act together and starts to speak with one voice, it will always come in second to the Left.

Should a scientist talk about G-d?

As Jews around the world prepare for Shabbat, many add a little extra Torah-study to their Friday to-do list. After all, what's a Shabbat meal without a devar Torah (brief Torah presentation, usually on a part of that week's Torah portion).

Here's a brief video (under 2 minutes) about G-d. It's about G-d and the world of science. It's about how the world of science accounts for G-d in the natural world. 

The video doesn't have any direct link to this week's Torah Portion (Mishpatim). But as you go about your Shabbat preparations, perhaps this video will be food for thought for you. 

The video comes from israelvideonetwork. 

So, who protects Israel? Does an invisible shield protect Israel? Does pure luck protect Israel?

As the narrator suggests here, what we see in the Nature essay is science at a loss. When it comes to Israel, it's luck that protects the Jews?

As the narrator also suggests, modern science cannot accept the idea of G-d. They prefer luck to G-d. 

Yes, the video says it all: G-d forbid a scientist should suggest that G-d protects Israel. G-d forbid there should be miracles!

Fortunately, some of us know better.

Shabbat shalom!

A modest proposal for Israeli product labeling

Following the lead of the EU, the US has now announced new labeling requirements for products currently marked ‘Made in Israel’. According to US Customs CSMS #16-000047, dated January 23, 2016, all product made in “the West Bank or Gaza Strip shall be marked as originating from ‘‘West Bank,’  ‘Gaza,’ ‘Gaza Strip,’ ‘West Bank/Gaza,’ ‘West Bank/Gaza Strip,’ ‘West Bank and Gaza,’ or ‘West Bank and Gaza Strip.’ It is not acceptable to mark the aforementioned goods with the words ‘Israel,’ ‘Made in Israel,’ ‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’ or any variation thereof. Goods that are erroneously marked as products of Israel will be subject to an enforcement action carried out by U.S. Customs and Border Protection”.

This is an intriguing announcement. It’s intriguing because, for one thing, Jews no longer live or work in Gaza or the Gaza Strip. If you remember, with the world’s approval, Jews in Gaza were ethnically cleansed by the State of Israel more than 10 years ago.

Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. But when it comes to Jews, the world looks the other way. So Gazan Jews were expelled while the world said nothing.

Today, anything ‘Made in Gaza’ is Arab-made. US Customs doesn’t realize that. They think Gaza is Jewish.

What does that say about the competence of US Customs? For that matter, what does it say about the competence of the Obama administration?

The intent of this announcement is not to discriminate against Gazans. It’s to pressure Israel to surrender Judea-Samaria. It’s intent is to punish all things Jewish coming out of Judea-Samaria so that one of two things happens: (1) Jewish businesses leave Judea-Samaria, or (2) the State of Israel decides to pull all Jews out of Judea-Samaria.

This is an act of discrimination. The EU embraces it. Now, the US does. It seems that both find pleasure in what amounts to a pre-boycott action that will certainly encourage the world’s ‘boycott-Israel’ movement.

What does that say about the Obama Administration?

This announcement is non-boycott because it doesn’t declare that it is forbidden to purchase product made in these areas—at least, not yet. It’s more a pre-boycott alert system. It alerts consumers. It tells everyone who wants to boycott product coming from Israel which products are 'boycott-able'. 

It’s a more subtle form of the Nazi's German national boycott against Jews in April, 1933. It's more subtle. But the intent is the same: to harm Jews. 

Of course, it is absolutely discrimination. It requires no product labeling from other countries involved in land disputes. In case you think there are no land disputes outside Israel, you should understand that land disputes are more commonplace than countries that play American baseball. In fact, there are between 170-200 such disputes world-wide.

Nevertheless, this US Customs announcement targets only Israel. That’s discrimination because it requires prejudicial action against a specific, singled-our group—the Jewish Israel.

Israel itself correctly calls this labeling requirement discriminatory (Peter Foster, Raf Sanchez, “Israel fury after EU orders labels on goods from occupied territories”, thetelegraph, November 11, 2015). Israel also says those who use this requirement are hypocritical. 

What does that say about the morality of the Obama Administration?

The supports the EU’s anti-Israel labeling requirement (“’Made in Israel’ is not acceptable for any product made over the Green Line for both Washington and Brussels [Home base of EU]”, neweurope, January 29, 2016). The US claims to have done this because it had received nine ‘mislabeling’ complaints (ibid). 

Apparently, the US will jump to action when it receives nine complaints. 

Here’s a modest proposal for Israel. It's not complicated. 

Israel should remove all ‘Made in Israel’ labels from its product, just as US Customs demands. In place of ‘Made in Israel’, the government of Israel should require the words, ‘Made in the Land of the Bible’.

That's it. US Customs will no longer see the words, 'Made in Israel'. 

If anyone argues that Judea and Samaria (what the gentile nations call ‘the West Bank’) have to be identified explicitly on a label, Israel should respond, they are on the label. If someone asks, how can Judea-Samaria be included in the words, ‘Made on the Land of the Bible’, the Israeli government should respond, respectfully, read the Tanach.

When a howl of objection goes up, we’ll know who the anti-Semites are. Any howl of objection over such an instruction shows no respect for the Jewish religion. It shows no respect for Jewish history. It shows no respect for Jewish Israel.

Since today’s anti-Semites work so very hard to argue that we must respect the Quran, Islam and Muslims, they should understand the need to respect the Tanach, Judaism and Jews.

The Jewish Tanach clearly shows that Judea and Samaria are part of Jewish history and the Jews’ religion, Judaism. They are very much part of ‘the Land of the Bible’.

Therefore, Israel should be consistent. It should mark all product made in Israel as ‘Made in the Land of the Bible’.

Palestinian’ peace, Gentile silence, Jewish Redemption

Almost every day, the world hears the same message: The 'Palestinian' people want peace. Israel rejects peace. 'Palestinians' attack Israel out of 'frustration' over Israel's anti-peace behaviour.

That message is false. There’s a reason there's no peace in this region. But that reason isn't Israeli intransigence. There's no peace here because of ‘Palestinian’ Jew-hate (see below).

The UN, the USA and the EU ignore this Jew-hate. They respond to this hate with silence.  

The US, EU and UN should know better. ‘Palestinians’ don’t hide their Jew-hate. The nations should reject that hate. 

They don't. They find nothing wrong with ‘Palestinian’ Jew-hate. 

The Obama administration, the EU and UN are not innocents who’ve been taken in by sophisticated falsehoods. They are not naïve. They have too much access to information to be innocent. They have too much experience on the international stage to be naive.

I’d say they accept ‘Palestinian’ Jew-hate because they want to accept it. Somewhere in their Western-Christianized collective consciousness, the US, EU and UN (created by Western thought) find the demonization and ultimate destruction of the Jews to be a satisfying thought. That’s why the US, EU and UN say nothing about the ‘Palestinian’ hate you're about to see.

The video below was made in 2009. It references other videos made as long ago as 1995. The video is connected to the website HonestReporting. It's 8:03 minutes. 

Points to remember:

-‘Palestinian’ children's shows are laced with Jew-hate incitement.

-TV reinforces this hate: everyone yearns for martyrdom...martyrdom is a beautiful thing...martyrdom is better than peace...I celebrate as I eat the flesh of my usurper...

-The worse form of child abuse is to teach a child to hate...these are kindergarten children being taught to be suicide bombers.

-These children are being raised to believe that the entire land of Israel is Arab...the entire land is Arab..Haifa, Jaffa, Hebron...all the land is Palestine, all the land is Palestine. Repeat enough and the children will learn: all the land is Palestine.

-The Palestinian Authority (PA) publicizes the worst kind of Jew-hate, including those who shout, 'just give us weapons. We will kill them all [the Jews]. We won't leave a single Jew. We won't leave a single Jew here'. What kind of people glorify such hate?

-In every map, in every schoolbook, Israel is Palestine: that is, their Palestine replaces Israel. They do not teach peace. They do teach that Israel and 'Palestine' should live side-by-side in peace and security (the mantra of the UN, the EU and the Obama administration). They teach 'Palestine' will erase and replace Israel. How can there be a two-state solution when ‘Palestinians’ are taught there is only one state in their future—Palestine.

-Israel doesn't exist...Israel doesn't exist...Israel doesn't exist. How many times do we have to hear it to understand it: Israel doesn't exist, Israel doesn't exist--all the land is Palestine, all the land is Palestine, all the land is Palestine. Get it? Kindergartners do. So tell me: with this kind of education during 1995-2009, will young Arabs in 2016 be talking about peace with Israel—or getting rid of Israel?

-The Oslo Accords (for a two-state solution) were supposed to be the road to peace. That’s what the US, EU and UN say. But ‘Palestinians’ disagree. They say Oslo was just a Trojan Horse to get inside Israel, to continue the battle against Israel. For ‘Palestinians’, the purpose of the Oslo Accords is to weaken Israel and then destroy Israel...The strategic goal is the liberation of 'Palestine', from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. If that’s what the PA says, why do you blame Israel for ‘no peace’?

-Little children are taught to want to kill Jews.

Here’s a suggestion: if the US, EU and UN choose not to hear or see PA hate, they make that choice consciously. Their silence in the face of that hate suggests they want what ‘Plaestinians’ want: the destruction of the State of Israel.

Why else would they refuse to address the Jew-hate? Put another way. since when are Jew-hate and peace compatible?

In the end, there will be an accounting for this hate—and for the acceptance of this hate. That accounting will be part of the Plan that HaShem, the G-d of Israel, has for the Final Jewish Redemption.

Don’t take my word for it. Read your Tanach. Read the Talmud tractate, Avodah Zara.

History is unwinding. In the end, there will be a collective Judgment. In the end, those who embrace or empower Jew-hate will receive a Just reward--measure-for-measure.

Biblical Promises will be fulfilled: those who bless Israel will be blessed. Those who curse Israel will be cursed.

Stay tuned.

Modern Educayshun

Europeans become increasingly aware of the threat they face from hostile Muslim migrants.

Americans become increasingly aware that the American Dream evaporates before them.

Jews in Israel become increasingly aware that HaShem controls history.

The world changes. It threatens us. We try to mind our own business but can't.

To illustrate how our world changes, some creative types have made a short film (7:20 long). It's about modern education. Because these are creative types, they call their film, "Modern Educayshun".

Take a look. It's a Brave New World your children enter when they go to college. It's a world where social media, political correctness and hypersensitivity shape how your children think about their world. This Brave New World includes not only science, but Israel as well, which gets the same treatment in the real world as science gets in this film.

The film is courtesy israelvideonetwork. If you've seen it, that's okay. It's worth a second look:

As you think about this Brave New World, consider this:

political correctness does not stand alone. It's part of a tri-level world-view of the far Left that joins political correctness to multiculturalism and to moral equivalence ("Multiculturalism + moral equivalence + political correctness = incompetence + corruption + political dominance", one citizen speaking, no date). It makes everybody equal. It tells us it is hateful to criticize one who hates us. It makes us compassionate to the cruel.

It dictates who is the oppressed, who the oppressor. It reshapes what is right, what is wrong.

As you saw in the film, math must be modified (in the extreme) to account for political correctness and some form of 'social equivalence' as determined by the 'group'. Correctness is first. Reality is last.

This is the thought-process that makes 'Palestinians' morally superior to Jews. It makes the 'Palestinian' claim to land
equivalent to the Jewish claim. It turns vicious Jew-hating 'Palestinians' into innocent victims who deserve the moral high-ground. It empowers the 'Palestinian' goal of erasing Israel from the world map. 

Correctness is first. reality is last. You must be compassionate to the cruel. It is hateful to criticize those who hate us.

It's through this Brave New thought-process that we see Israelis who defend themselves against Arabs trying to kill them are labelled the criminal, not the victim. It's a thought-process that has spawned a new social calculus called 'intersectionality' that makes Israel an evil force that influences black-white relations (for the worse) and sexual assault in America.

On one level, this film is correct. Your college-age children are indeed getting a 'modern educayshun'--in the mores which demand them to be anti-Israel. Your children learn how to be 'socially correct'. They learn that, for reasons of a new compassionate morality, Israel must be destroyed. 

Go back to the video. Go to 'full screen' (click the icon on the bottom right). Go to the 5:32 mark. Watch the final 110 seconds and think about what the world says about Israel, not math. 

The language is virtually the same (for math in this film and for Israel in real life): it's illegal for the Jew to defend himself. Facts (about Israel and the fake 'Palestine', for instance) are arrogant and offensive. The 'other'--the offended--has the right to kill.

That's your children's Brave New World. It's a world of lies-as-truth. It's a world they're being trained to accept without question. 

That's the goal of modern educayshun: don't ask questions. Just follow.

How much is your children's educayshun costing you?



.

France’s solution for rising Muslim violence

France is worried. It has a growing Muslim population. As its Muslim population increases, so does Muslim-inspired violence. 

Of course, France believes in ‘political correctness’.  French officials are not allowed to track race or religion (“France, Islam, terrorism and the challenges of integration: Research roundup”, journalists resource.org, November 16, 2015). As a result, there is no official link between Muslims and crime. The only thing the French know is that heavily populated Muslim areas are known for their crime (George Packer, “The Other France”, New Yorker, August 31, 2015).

Everyone knows this. Everyone writes about it. But France's ruling elite has its collective head in the sand (Natalie Nougayrede, "A year after the Charlie Hebdo attack, France is still in denial," the guardian, January 9, 2016).

France is very worried. In 2010, France's Muslims represented 7.5 per cent of France's population (Adam Taylor, "Map: France's growing Muslim population", Washington post, January 9, 2015).  Within a year (2011), the French could identify 751 ‘no-go zones’ where Muslims were/are ruled by Muslim criminals violent enough to overpower police (Soeren Kern, “European 'No-Go' Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating”, gatestone institute, August 22, 2011).

In 2010, conventional wisdom said that France's Muslim population would reach 10 per cent by 2030. By 2030, researchers said, France would host Western Europe's largest Muslim population (Taylor, ibid). Given Muslim violence, that population increase didn’t bode well for France’s future.

That was 2010. By 2013--the latest year for French population numbers--France's Muslim population had reached that 10 per cent critical-mass number (Soeren Kern, "The Islamization of France in 2013", gatestone institute, January 6, 2014). France had reached its predicted Muslim growth figures 20 years ahead of schedule (Soeren Kern, “The Islamization of France in 2015”, gatestone institute, January 19, 2015) .

For France, that means only one thing: more violence. By the beginning of 2014, the French city of Marseille had become perhaps 40 per cent Muslim (Daniel Greenfield, "French city with 40 per cent Muslim population is the most dangerous city in Europe", front page mag, January 4, 2014). Muslims were setting up 'unofficial' checkpoints (ibid). They ran no-go zones with an iron fist (Abigail James, "The shocking reality of 'no-go' zones: France has no control over Muslim neighborhoods", Catholic Online, January 14, 2015). French officials were helpless.

Marseille, France is "sick with violence" (Greenfield, ibid). It’s not alone. Across France, there’s hardly a town without a Muslim-controlled 'no-go' Zone where French officials fear to tread (James, ibid).

France is frightened. It faces a violence it cannot control (ibid). More and more, it sees Jews being attacked by Muslims shouting, 'Viva Mohammed. F-- the Jews. Palestine will win' (Greenfield, ibid).

What should France do? What can France do?

France cannot allow itself to drown-by-violent-Muslims. It’s got to do something to convince perpetrators to stop being violent. How can France do that?

Here's what I think France believes it should do to stop Islamic-inspired violence: it'll turn against Israel. It’s already declared that if Israel doesn't accede to 'Palestinian' demands, France will unilaterally recognize the 'state of Palestine'' (Joshua Spurlock, "France to Israel: Capitulate to Palestinian demands or else?", the Mideast update, January 31, 2016).

Of course, France will object to such a reading of its actions. It’ll say there’s no connection between peace for Israel and France’s Muslim violence. But I don’t buy it. France has too many Jew-hating Muslims. Its Muslim constituency is too large. Its Muslim population is too stridently anti-Jew and anti-Israel.

To understand France’s behaviour, consider three realities: (1) France has 475,000 Jews. (2) France has 4,710,000 Muslims. (3) The squeaky wheel gets oiled.

Jews want to keep a low profile. Muslims want dominance (Rachel Molschky, “Muslim Terrorism and European Jew Hatred: what’s changed in 35 years?”, cherson and molschky, April 27, 2015).

Jews are quiet. Muslims are ‘noisy’. France listens to that noise (“France: We will recognize Palestinian state if talks deadlock persists”, Times of Israel, January 29, 2016).

The problem is, turning against Israel isn’t the solution to Muslim violence in France. Forcing Israel into a fake ‘peace’ isn't going to stop the next rape in France.  It won’t prevent the next beating in the streets of Paris. 

Turning on Israel does, however, make a statement. It makes the statement that France prefers Muslim anti-Semitism to reality. Instead of taking a very hard look at uncontrolled Muslim neighbourhoods where violence reigns supreme, France takes the easy route. It blames the Jews (Judith Bergman, “Europe Still Blames the Jews for All Its Problems”, algemeiner, November 22, 2015).

That’s what France’s behaviour is about: ‘F—the Jews. Let ‘Palestine’ win’.

That’s what France buys into: let ‘Palestine’ win. The calculus is simple. Give the masses what they want. They’ll love you.

It’s a fool’s logic. France’s non-Muslim citizens will not be safer because Israel has been handed over to ‘Palestine’.  French women are not being raped because Muslims are angry at Israel.

France appeases its Muslims. For this, it will drown in Muslim violence.