Terrorism, the Litman wedding and Mahmoud Abbas

There is no universally agreed-upon definition for ‘terrorism’. According to some, there’s a reason for this failure. That reason is called, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (“UN 101”, humanrightsvoices, no date).

The OIC is made up of 57 Islamic nations. Its mission is to be  “the collective voice of the Muslim world” (OIC homepage—About OIC). Its purpose is to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world” (ibid).

To “protect” those “interests”, the OIC refuses to allow any definition of terrorism to include armed struggle for liberation and self-determination (“UN 101”, above). The OIC wants to make sure that armed actions against ‘foreign occupation’ and ‘alien domination’ (ibid) don’t get classified as ‘terror’.

To an important extent, Islamic countries control UN debate on terrorism. They keep the UN from validating the most common definitions of terror because that definition would make much Islamic aggression, including attacks by the Palestinian Authority (PA) against Jews, ‘terror’.

Still, despite this Islamic-driven impasse over a formal definition of ‘terrorism’, there does exist some informally accepted definitions. One such definition defines  terrorism as “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets [both civilian and unarmed/off-duty military personnel] by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience…calculated to terrorise the public or a particular section of it” (Brian Whitaker, “The definition of terrorism”, the guardian, May 7, 2001).

An alternative definition is similar but different: “The use of serious violence against persons or property, or threat to use such violence [emphasis mine], to intimidate or coerce a government, the public or any section of the public, in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives” (Lord Carille of Berriew, QC, The definition of terrorism, March 2007, p. 3).

There is a subtle but important difference between these two definitions. In the first definition, we might infer than only attacks against civilians and non-armed military personnel are called ‘terror’. In the second definition, we might infer that serious attack against any “persons” (including armed soldiers) can also be termed ‘terrorism’ if those attacks are designed “to intimidate or coerce a government”.

Mahmoud Abbas rules the Fatah Party that controls the PA. His Fatah uses terror against Israel. Abbas incites for terror against Israel. He and his Fatah do this to intimidate and coerce the Israeli government.

He uses terror for political and ideological purposes. The so-called political purpose is ‘statehood’. The ideological purpose is to replace the Jewish Israel with an Islamic ‘Palestine’.

Because Abbas uses both violence and the threat of violence for such purposes, he fits the definition of ‘one who promotes terror’. The aim of his terror is to instil fear in Israel’s Jewish population (definition of terrorism, above).

He fails to do that.

For example, on Friday, November 13, 2015, just hours before a massive Islamic terror attack in Paris, France, an Arab terrorist murdered two Israelis near the city of Hevron--Rabbi Yaakov Litman (HYD) 40, and his son, Netanel (HYD), 18 (Bassam Tawil, “The Terrorists Funded by the West”, gatestoneinstitute, November 17, 2015). Five other family members -- Litman's wife, three young daughters and a 16-year-old son -- suffered minor gunshot wounds.

That Jewish family was driving to a Shabbat celebration in advance of a fourth daughter's wedding. The wedding was to take place less than five days later. Their joy turned to tragedy the moment that Arab terrorist opened fire at their vehicle.

That same afternoon, PA President Mahmoud Abbas appeared at a joint press conference in Ramallah together with the president of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades (ibid). At this press conference (in Ramallah), Abbas refused to condemn the attack (ibid).

In response to that attack, this Jewish family did the unimaginable: in the middle of Shiva—the seven days of Jewish mourning—the now-bereaved engaged daughter sent a message to the public. She declared that the marriage would only be delayed nine days. She stated that her wedding venue would be moved to the National Convention Center in Jerusalem. She invited the entire Jewish nation of Israel to her wedding--everyone!

Thousands upon thousands came to the wedding, far more than could fit into the Center. Therefore, there was dancing in the street outside the Center—dancing, singing and joy.

The wedding became a symbol of National Jewish Unity. This wedding turned a day of national mourning to a day of National Joy, said one attendee (Michael Bachner, “Thousands Celebrate Wedding of Terror Victim’s Daughter”, Israelbreakingnews, November 27, 2015).

The Litmans are an important family—as is the Henkin family, whose husband/father and wife/mother were murdered by Arab terrorists in a similar way just weeks before. This was an ‘important’ wedding.

In her own way, the bride, Sarah, is a leader, just as was her father, z”l. At this wedding, she was ‘Israel’, the bride who looks Heavenward in joy and grief.

Watch this video. Watch her face when you see her. Her father and brother have only recently been murdered. This is her wedding day.

Watch her face beginning at 10:10, and most especially at 10:52-12:47: does her face reveal what is in her heart?

(You may not be able to see her face clearly; the screen is small and can't be expanded. When the bride moves her head from side to side, she raises her eyes to the Heavens and speaks words we cannot hear. At those moments, face lifted, she may be crying--or on the verge of tears. One can only imagine what might be in her heart at these moments you see filmed)

Since the current wave of Palestinian terrorism against Jews in Israel began on the eve of the Jewish Rosh Hashannah (the Jewish New Year), Abbas and his PA leadership have refused to condemn the murder of Jews. They repeatedly condemn Israel for killing the terrorists who carried out the attacks.

The Foreign Minister of Sweden joins that condemnation.

Between the day Rabbi Litman and his son were murdered and this wedding, we found out why Abbas and Fatah won’t condemn ‘Palestinian’ murder of Jews: so far as he and his Fatah is concerned, there’s no reason to condemn something that isn’t wrong (Ari Yashar, “Abbas's Fatah: Murdering Israelis is our 'right'”, Arutz Sheva, November 18, 2015).

Such declarations spit upon the core values found in the Charter of the United Nations: respect for human life; the rule of law; rules of war to protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict (“High level Panel on threats, challenges”, un. Org, no date).

Abbas rejects all of these values. His goal isn’t tolerance or peaceful resolution. His goal is to commit genocide—to cause death or serious bodily harm to Jews, whether they are soldiers or civilians--in order to intimidate Israel’s Jewish population (definitions of terrorism, above). He’s a terrorist.  

There’s a stark contrast here. Mahmoud Abbas brings terror and genocide to the world. The Litman wedding brings joy, happiness and unity, even at a moment of painful grief.

That’s the difference between Abbas and us. Abbas will be forever linked to murder and barbaric savagery. Israel will be forever linked to the national Litman wedding.

Abbas reminds us of death. The Litman wedding reminds us of Am Yisroel Chai, as you heard at 3:41 in the video: the nation of Israel lives on—and will always live.

Perhaps that’s why the bride, Sarah Litman, invited Am Yisroel (the entire Jewish nation) to her wedding. Even in grief, she understands the nature of dancing, singing, joy and unity.

Israel will live on. Abbas can go to hell.

Mr Kerry: The problem isn’t Israel; it’s PA genocide

Once again, US Secretary of State John Kerry demonizes Israel (Matthew Lee,  “Kerry warns Israel about collapse of Palestinian Authority”, Associated Press, December 5, 2015). This time, he doesn’t just blame Israel for a lack of peace between Jews and Arabs. He blames Israel for the possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA) (ibid).

If Kerry wants peace, he should promote Israel, not blame Israel. Kerry’s blame-game against Israel doesn’t support peace. It strengthens the PA’s resolve to resist peace.

Kerry’s anti-Israelism is counter-productive. It doesn’t make peace possible. It makes genocide possible.

Kerry ignores three truths: (1) The PA has a genocide agenda. (2) Genocide never brings peace. (3) Blaming the intended victim of genocide for ‘no peace’ only supports the genocide—and pushes peace farther away.

If you believe the PA is not obsessed with genocide, you’re ignoring PA Arab news sites. Those Arabic-only sites tell the truth. The PA has a genocide agenda for Israel, not a peace agenda. 

If you can’t read Arabic, visit the websites, MEMRI, and Palestinian Media Watch. Those sites bring you (in translation) what the PA tells its Arab audience.

The headlines you’ll see in a moment don’t cover a broad period. But they are completely consistent with the kind of headlines the PA regularly presents in Arabic about Jews and Israel.

As you look at these headlines, you’ll need to think about the definition of ‘genocide’. As defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide includes:

Article II: …genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals [emphasis mine].

These statements tell you that genocide is about destroying or harming members of ‘a group’ precisely because individuals belong to that group. In this instance, that ‘group’ is Jews, who are called by the PA ‘Zionists’, ‘settlers’ and ‘Israelis’.

Remember, it’s not genocide to call, for example, for ‘the arrest of those responsible for this heinous murder’. But it is genocide to call for the killing of ‘Zionists’, Jews, settlers and ‘Israelis’ [all members of a group]—or to honour those who kill ‘Zionists’, settlers, etc.

That’s genocide because ‘Zionists’, Israelis, settlers and ‘Jews’ are not identified as individuals who have committed a crime; they have no individual identity. Instead, they are members of a group whom you want to destroy or incite others to destroy.

You should also keep in mind that there is a relationship between genocide and demonization/dehumanization. Genocide against a hated group doesn’t happen in a vacuum (Itamar Marcus, “The Genocide Mechanism”, Jerusalem Post, April 26, 2009). The hate of a population anxious to commit genocide against others needs to be stoked and nurtured (ibid). The PA uses its media, education system and clergy to complete that ‘stoking’ and nurturing process.

See if you can understand how these PA headlines below prepare its population to be comfortable with genocide:

-November 23, 2015: “PA daily: School football tournament named after 13-year-old terrorist who stabbed and nearly killed a 13-year-old Israeli boy”, Palestinian Media Watch.

-November 18, 2015: “Terrorists who butchered 5 rabbis exemplified the meaning of heroism for the homeland... [They] died as Martyrs on the path of honor", ibid.

-November 18, 2015: “Fatah: All Israelis are Nazis; a Fatah official: There is no difference between Netanyahu and Hitler”, ibid.

November 19, 2015: “The PA's [ideal of the] moral murder: Kill the [Jewish] parents, spare the children”, ibid).

-November 22, 2015: “Girl's hate speech on PA TV: Our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail” (ibid).

-November 14, 2015: “PLO official: Terrorist murderer of 2 is a role model for generations of young”, ibid.

-December 4, 2015: “Abbas’ Fatah honors heroic killer of 11 Zionists”, ibid.

-December 3, 2015: “PA: Killing Israelis is good, but must choose place and time so world accepts it”, ibid.

-November 2, 2015: “Palestinian football tournament named after murderer ‎who stabbed two to death”, ibid.

-October 6, 2015: “Fatah officials: Killing ‘settlers’ is legal and ‘national duty’, ibid.

-November 14, 2015: “Fatah: Israel breeds violence in the entire ‎world”, ibid.

-July 31, 2015: “‎Jews paid doctors to create and spread diseases because 95% of the pharmaceutical industry is owned by Jews, according to Islamic preacher”, ibid.

-November 16, 2015: “Fatah cartoon compares Jews to ISIS”, ibid.

-November 9, 2015: “Fatah official: Israel is barbaric, fascist, has aggressive plots in Jerusalem, says gangs of settlers are running wild and causing devastating corruption everywhere”, ibid.

-November 1, 2015: “Fatah spokesman: Jews are sons of apes and pigs", ibid.

-November 17, 2015: “PA daily: Palestinian Ambassador claimed Israel steals the Martyrs’ organs”, ibid.  

This incessant stream of unalloyed hate knows no limit. It’s an insult to Israel for Kerry to declare that both sides here ‘hurl invective at each other on a daily basis’ (Matthew Lee, above). 

There is simply nothing like this genocidal hate from Israel. This flow of hate is all one-sided.

These headlines, found by Palestinian Media Watch, reflect just some of the PA’s public record. That record is viciously anti-Semitic. That record incites for genocide against Jews.

If John Kerry wants peace in this region between Arabs and Jews, he should address that genocide. If he doesn’t do that, he’s either incompetent, an anti-Israel ‘Palestinian’ advocate or an outright anti-Semite—or some combination of all three. 

Yesterday's knife attack essay, exile--and aliyah

After reading yesterday’s essay (“Knife attack in Israel: is 21 feet safe enough?”, below, December 3, 2015), a reader who works in self-defense training has sent me feedback I’d like to share with you. His feedback adds to yesterday’s self-defense information. But it also reminds me that these thoughts about defending oneself in Israel aren’t just about self defense. They’re actually about exile, Israel--and aliyah to Israel.

This feedback is an excerpt from a training manual (Krav Maga: How to Defend Yourself Against Armed Assault, Dekel publishing, Tel Aviv, Israel, p. 43). It was written for law-enforcement officers. I highlight what’s new:

“[when facing a knife attack], your empty-hand defense training must be employed to save your body from immediate critical injury. Most attackers can close a gap of fifteen to twenty feet before a defender is ready to utilize higher force options such as a gun or [police] baton. Many law-enforcement officers around the world have unfortunately lost their lives as tragic proof of this fact…

In experiments with a knife-wielding assailant who was standing less than twenty feet (six meters) from, and bursting towards, an officer who was aware of the danger facing him, it was proven that any attempts that the officer makes to retrieve and operate his (or her) firearm will be made in vain, and that he (or she) will ultimately be stabbed several times. This is due to the time needed in order to react effectively, which is composed of the time needed to process the information about the attack and make a decision to draw the gun from its holster, plus the time needed to aim and fire. This time may vary between 1.5 and 3 seconds, [that is, the 1.5 second delay needed to draw-and-shoot that was stated in the Tueller Drill is not set in stone (“Knife attack in Israel…”, ibid); the actual time you might need to draw-and-shoot could be higher than 1.5 seconds, for reasons highlighted above] during which [time] the assailant can practically operate undisturbed. 

Therefore, even if you carry a gun, you must practice hand and foot defences and counterattacks in order to survive an attack at close range, as detailed above.”

If you own a gun, you should find a gun instructor who will help you practice. But, as this excerpt makes clear, you must still learn self-defense and counter-attack drills.

So how do we connect guns and self-defense with exile, Israel and aliyah? That connection is actually clear. It has to do with the dangers of exile.

Today, exile is not an isolation bubble. If you’re in exile, you’re not cut off from the world.

The internet has changed everything. Because of what’s called ‘internet connectivity’, you don’t just see news headlines from your own country. You see headlines from every country.

What you see from Israel is certainly disturbing. You see headlines about Jews being stabbed or run over, more Jews getting stabbed or run over—and yet more Jews getting stabbed or run over. But from exile, you see something very different about these stories. In exile, headlines don’t tell you that ‘Palestinian’ Arabs are attacking Jews. Instead, those headlines tell you: Palestinian killed by Israeli police…2 Palestinians shot by IDF…Israel security forces kill Palestinian….WATCH video of IDF beating Palestinian. 

Get the picture? Those anti-Israel headlines are misleading. They don’t tell the truth.

They are everywhere. In exile, they are universal.

They have become in exile the iconic symbol of Israel. Israel, the land of the Jews, has become, by slight-of-hand (altering headlines) the new Nazi regime.

Because of that false and misleading image, Israel is not the most dangerous place for you. Exile is.

The presentation of Israel as the ‘new Nazi’ means that anti-Semitism in exile rises. In that kind of environment, exile won’t protect Jews the way Israel does.

In Israel, those who attack Jews often die immediately. That’s why those ‘Palestinians’ mentioned above died. They were killed by security forces (and even by civilians at the scene) at the point of the ‘Palestinian’s’ attack.

In exile, those who attack Jews often don’t get caught, let alone shot on the spot. Anti-Semitic incidents often don’t even get reported—or, they’re called, ‘criminal mischief’ instead of ‘hate-crime’.

In Israel, those attacks against us are going to stop. In exile, anti-Semitic attacks against Jews are just beginning.

In Israel, we know how to deal with anti-Semitic attacks. Even if we aren’t perfect in defense and counter-attack, we do act--and we do understand the consequences of failure. In exile, anti-Semitism isn’t high on authorities’ to-do list. In exile, protecting communities against Islamophobia is more important that protecting Jews against beatings and assaults.

Today in exile, you are not far from ‘the time’ when you will be safer in Israel than exile. For some of you, you’re already at ‘that time’.

This is why you should make aliyah now. The longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes to get here. The longer you wait, the greater the risk you run that your assets in exile (including the value of your house) will plummet.

If you follow Israel news, you know that you will definitely read about every single attack against a Jew. That’s how the news business works.

But it would be a mistake to conclude that you’re safer in exile than in Israel. That would be a big mistake.

You see, what headlines don’t tell you is, no one in Israel is running away. Very few hide in fear.   

There’s a reason for that: this is our land. No matter what Jew-hating Jews say, no matter what the UN says, no matter what the EU and the US say, this is our land. The more we are attacked by knives, cars and children, the more united we become. The more united we become, the stronger we get.

The more attacks we see, the more we begin to talk about the Redemption process. The more we see how people miraculously survive these attacks, the more people say, we are on the threshold of Redemption.

You don’t have that spiritual sense of anticipation in exile. In exile, the more you get attacked, the weaker you get. The weaker you get, the more frightened you become. The more frightened you become, the darker your spiritual vision becomes.

That’s why you need to make aliyah. You need to be strong, not weak.

The truth is, the only place you will get stronger when attacked is Israel. The only place you will really feel that HaShem is at work, is in Israel.

Stop waiting. Make aliyah.

Knife attack in Israel: is 21 feet safe enough?

The 'knife Intifada' hasn't ended. This week,  there have been at least three more Arab knife attacks in Israel against Jews.

Here's a question: if you own a gun, do you know when to draw your gun when facing an aggressive knife-holder?  

Five weeks ago, blogger William Levinson posted a piece of advice about this question ("Don't let potential terrorist within knife range!", Arutz Sheva, October 23, 2015). In that essay, he declared that "a knife-armed assailant can reach you from 21 feet (6.4 meters) in roughly 1.5 seconds, per the Tueller Drill" (ibid). 

21 feet? Is that right? Is Levinson right to suggest a knife attacker who is closer than 21 feet can stab you before you can shoot him? That's pretty ridiculous, right?

We know it sounds ridiculous because of reactions to a new video making the rounds in the US about a police shooting incident in Chicago that actually took place a year ago, but which is only now making headlines (Andrew Branca, "Laquan McDonald video not dispositive of police criminal misconduct", legalinsurrection, November 25, 2015). Upon seeing the video of the shooting taken from a police dashcam, many argue that the knife-holder was too far away from police to be a threat. 

An analysis of the video suggests the knife-holder was closer than 21 feet. Is that reason to shoot him?

21 feet appears to be the police standard for 'threat' from a knife-holder. If the knife-holder is closer than that, police appear to have the right to consider him an imminent threat (ibid). Why?

You'll see why, in a moment. But first, you need to understand that Levinson, above, was correct. If a knife-holder attacks you from a distance of, say, 19 feet, he'll probably stab you before you can defend yourself.

The question is, do you believe that? Most people don't.

Here now is a video that seems to have been designed for police viewing. It's called, the 'Tueller Drill'. You'd be wise to watch it. It's less than 2 minutes long.

My comment:

If you own a handgun, you probably don't walk around with a round chambered. In many places, that could be illegal.

The officer in this video doesn't chamber a round after he draws his gun. He is shown drawing and  shooting.

He has only 1.5 seconds and 21 feet separation to draw-and-shoot.

If you're not a police officer, but carry a gun, you'll have to draw, then chamber a round before you fire. That takes more than 1.5 seconds. For you, 1.5 seconds and 21 feet separation may not be sufficient time-and-distance to defend yourself.

Here's some advice: go to your shooting range. Work with a gun instructor. Time yourself. How many seconds does it take you to reach-draw-chamber-aim-shoot?  How many seconds do you need to do all of that?

You will probably need 20-22 feet for every 1.5 seconds lapsed time. If you need three seconds to do this, you'll have to begin drawing your weapon when your potential attacker farther than 21 feet away. Will your gun instructor tell you that's okay to do?

If you have a gun, you've got to ask him. 

I would guess that, unless a gun instructor has already taught this to you, you'd have no clue that you'd need more than 21 feet to defend yourself. You'd probably wait until an attacker comes to within 15 feet before you'd consider acting.

As the Tueller Drill illustrates, you couldn't defend yourself if the knife-holder attacks you from 15 feet away. 

Do you know what 21 feet distance looks like? Do you know what 31 feet looks like? You have to talk to your gun instructor. Your life could depend on it.

If you do not own/carry a gun, what should you do? I think the answer to that question depends on several factors:

-What do you carry in order to defend yourself? Some people carry pepper spray. But pepper spray might not work: the attacker may have to be too close to you for the spray to work. That close, he might still stab you.

-A baseball bat might work--but who carries a baseball bat? An umbrella--the closet normal item to a bat--might not be strong enough to have any stopping power.

-I've seen individuals carrying an umbrella. But is an umbrella strong enough or hard enough to protect you?

-Then, there's your own strength. Can you swing an umbrella with enough force-and-accuracy to defend yourself? Can you swing a cane with enough force and accuracy?

-You can run. But if you're not a runner--or, better, a sprinter--don't think you can outrun a 16 -25 year-old attacker, especially if you let him get within 20 feet of you. 

Without a gun, you are vulnerable. With a gun, you have protection only if you know about the Tueller Drill--and adjust the distance you must keep, based upon your own need for draw-chamber-aim-shoot.

You've got to find a gun instructor to talk to about that distance-and-time issue. You've got ask him about the Tueller Drill--and your time-distance problem as you chamber a round before attempting to fire. You've got to understand if you have the legal right to draw-and-chamber a round when an knife-holder is more than 20 feet away from you. You've got to understand how to act when your gun is in your hand and the knife-holder is more than 20 feet away.

You can defend yourself. But you can do that only if you learn what to do and when to do it. You have to think it out and plan before you are threatened. Then, you have to practice.

You can also defend yourself by being alert. Know the environment you are in. Keep your head swiveling--though not so excessively that you fall or look ridiculous. If you have to, cross the street to stay away from someone who's look you don't like. 

Go online. Search for self-defense ideas. Talk to others about strategies. 

Whatever you do you, remember not to be over-confident: for gun-owner, 21 feet may not be enough separation to protect yourself. As Levinson (above) has already pointed out, the danger you face in a knife attack isn't a matter of excessive force (by you); it's a question of excessive restraint by you.

Be careful. Is 21 feet safe enough?

Obama Iran deal, Obamacare and Pinocchio

On July 14, 2014, US President Barack Obama announced to the world that a historic nuclear agreement had been reached with Iran. He said, “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not—a comprehensive, long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon… Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. Because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon… Inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain… inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location… the IAEA has also reached an agreement with Iran to get access that it needs to complete its investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran’s past nuclear research… if Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place [emphasis mine]” (Michael  McIntee, “Obama Announces Iran Nuclear Deal – Full Video Of Remarks & Deal Summary”, theuptake, July 14, 2014).   

The White House also stated that “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons” (ibid).

It sounds wonderful. Obama got everything he’d wanted from Iran (ibid). The world, he told us, will now be safe from a nuclearized Iran.

That’s not just a good deal. It’s a great deal.

Well, it’s great, all right, except for two things: (1) it’s not legally binding (“Obama Admin: Iran Nuke Deal Nonbinding”, Washington Free Beacon, November 25, 2015). (2) It was never formally signed by anybody (ibid).

This information comes to light because Julia Frifield, a State Department Assistant Secretary for legislative affairs, has written a letter to US Rep. Mike Pompeo (R. Kansas) to tell him these things and to assure him that this deal is “not a signed document” (ibid). It isn’t a treaty (ibid). It isn’t an executive agreement (ibid).

The meaning of this is clear: if nothing was signed and this deal isn’t legally binding, then, of course, Iran is under no obligation to do anything.  This is what the New York Post is now suggesting (Benny Avni, “The Iranian scorpion stings us again”, December 1, 2015). Benny Avni writes, “Remember the Iran nuclear deal? You know, the one our leaders hoped would turn around the behavior of a rogue, terror-sponsoring state by the sheer force of diplomatic will?

Wait, deal? What deal? “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” State Department spokeswoman Julia Farifield acknowledged.

And this week the International Atomic Energy Agency will issue its latest report, a stepping stone toward implementing that much-ballyhooed, um, non-deal. The Vienna-based UN agency’s director, Yukiya Amano, said last week the IAEA wouldn’t be able to certify in its report that “all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

Ouch. Tehran has long urged Amano to close the file and assure everyone that there never was a “Possible Military Dimension” to its nuclear program. Now, the mullahs say, unless Amano certifies that they never intended to build a nuclear bomb, they won’t shut down the spinning centrifuges. They may even take all their marbles home” (ibid).

Obama told us this deal was a deal. He told us it would force Iran to stop building a nuclear weapon. Now, Iran doesn’t have to comply? It can ‘take all its marbles home’ without consequence?

We’ve seen this kind of ‘deal’ before. This is Obamacare, Deja vue. Remember Obama’s healthcare plan promises? You could keep your doctor. You could keep your healthcare plan. Everybody would save money.

Those promises were untrue. With Obamacare, “A President and his party were caught in a blatant, premeditated lie.  Despite their repeated promises, you couldn't keep your doctor, and you couldn't keep your health insurance, and it didn't save everybody money.  It was not just an unmitigated mess; it was a program and a policy sold to the American people by a president lying through his teeth (Fritz Pettyjohn, “A Once in a Century Opportunity”, American Thinker, November 30, 2015).

Is Obama is doing the same thing here? If these new Iran-deal reports are correct, Obama has sold to the American people another ‘Obamacare’ lie. He’s reprising his role as Pinocchio, the lying dummy. Only this time, it’s not your doctor he’s lying about. This time, he’s lying about an Israel-hating, West-hating scorpion, telling you the scorpion’s tale has been cut off when it’s still firmly affixed; soon, because of the terms of this deal, that scorpion is going to have another 100+ billion dollars released from sanction to do what it loves doing—spreading Islamic terror.

What kind of deal is that? It’s a ‘sweet-heart’ deal—for Iran.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was raked over the coals for opposing this deal. He was vilified. He was demonized.

Well, this deal is not legally binding. Who’s the demon here?

Europe faces terror. John Cleese is right

Since the November 13, 2015 ISIS Paris terror attack, nations of the European Union (EU) have been awash in ‘terror fear’. Headlines about Europe reflect that fear:

-“Terror fears hurt European stocks before Fed update”, fin24, November 18, 2015.

-“Terrorism in the UK”, thetelegraph, December 2, 2015.

-“Parisians Fear Terror Attacks Will Divide, Not Unite, the City”, International New York Times, November 14, 2015.

-“Brussels terror alert, city shut down as fears of Paris style attack”, wn.com, November 21, 2015.

-“Belgium extends security alert for capital amid terror fear”, presstv, November 24, 2015.

-“How the Paris Attackers Honed Their Assault Through Trial and Error”, International New York Times, November 30, 2015.

-“Paris terror attacks provoke fresh fears over migration in already tense Europe”, Associated Press, November 14, 2015.

-“Europe entangled in terror fears”, presstv, November 22, 2015.

-“European Parliament: EU Lawmakers Call for Action on Radicalization as Terror Threat Spreads”, sputniknews, November 24, 2015.

The truth is, Europe has been afraid of Islamic terror attack for at least 10 years (Robert Leiken, “Europe's Angry Muslims”, Council on Foreign Relations, July/August, 2005).   Islamic migration into Europe has driven that fear (Ed West, “Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history”, telegraph, August 24, 2009).

Muslim anger in Europe isn’t new. Increasing Muslim migration into Europe isn’t new. The threat of Islamic terror in Europe isn’t new.

Here’s something else that’s not new for Europe: Europeans are paralyzed. They’re so committed to ‘multiculturism’ and an idealized concept of ‘peace’, the very idea of fighting terror makes them weak in the knees (“Why Europe's Response to the Paris Attacks Will Be Tricky”, bloomberg, November 16, 2015).

We’re reminded of this weakness by, of all people, a comedic actor--John Cleese. Cleese is no longer just another pretty face (if he ever was one). He’s got a brain.

Several years ago, he published a short observation on how Europe reacts to terror. That observation still looks relevant.

A reader sent his short essay to me. I think it’s making the rounds on the internet. It might have been written in 2008 or, more likely, in 2013. Its original publication date seems fuzzy. The version I received had an altered ending, to update its impact. I left it in:

-The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.”

Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the Blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

A final thought – Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, Rome is in disarray and Israel is a threat? Welcome back to 430 BC.

--

I think Cleese—with that added paragraph—gets it right.

In the war against Israel, Abbas stands apart

Arab leaders are consistent. They have never wavered in their hatred for Israel.

This doesn’t mean that Arab leaders are afraid of change. They’re not afraid, at least not when it comes to war against Israel. In fact, when it comes to their war against Israel, Arab leaders have been most creative (Joseph Puder, “Abbas’ Religious Incitement”, FrontPageMag, November 2, 2015).

For almost 100 years, Arab leaders appear to have waged at least twelve distinctive types of war against the world’s only Jewish state. Each war has a different tone. Each has a different theme. Each employs a different strategy.

Here’s my personal list of those wars:

The first type of Arab anti-Israel war was used before 1947. It involved small-weapons attacks against Jewish villages and communities throughout Israel.

The small-weapons attacks were committed by individuals, pairs of attackers, small bands of marauders and the occasional progrom-style rampage through Jewish-populated areas. These attacks and progroms (riots in which Arabs stormed into Jewish areas killing and burning) began soon after World War One. They terrorized Jews. But they failed miserably.

These attacks did little to stem the flow of Jews into pre-state Jewish Palestine. For example, according to at least one opinion, less than 4,100 Jews emigrated to pre-state Israel in 1931. In 1936, more than 60,000 Jews emigrated there (C.N. Trueman, “Palestine 1918 to 1948”, the history learning site, May 26, 2015). This ‘war’ changed nothing. But a lot of Arabs died trying to kill Jews.

The second war was an economic boycott against Jewish businesses in pre-state (Jewish) Palestine. These boycotts may have begun as early as 1922. Their intent then was the same as today’s boycott attempts—to stop doing business with any Jewish business in Israel. But they were focused primarily, I understand, on Jewish businesses in Israel. They had no real effect on Jewish economic development.

Beginning in late 1945, just months after World War Two had ended, the Arab League officially created its own boycott effort. This boycott was more elaborate. It applied to all Arab businesses. It also attempted to blacklist and pressure all companies, anywhere, to stop doing business with ‘Zionists’ in Israel. It didn’t do much damage. Its effect on Israel’s economic growth was negligible.

The third ‘war’ against Israel was purely military, in the most traditional sense of that word.  In 1947-8, 1967 and 1973 Arab armies from surrounding Arab nations gathered to attack Israel. Their aim was to push Israel into the Sea. That war failed.

The fourth war to destroy Israel was a war of terror. This was created by Yasser Arafat. While ‘fedayeen’ (Arab guerrilla fighters) had been harassing (and killing) Jews after 1948, Arafat seems to have taken for himself the crown of ‘creating terror against Israel’. Fedayeen attacks didn’t do much.

The fifth type of war was a more elaborate creation of Arafat. It was a war of terror with a new name (‘Intifada’). It brought to Israel a new way to kill Jews (suicide bombers).

The First Intifada (uprising) occurred in 1987 (Puder, ibid). A Second intifada, much bloodier, began in September, 2000.  Both ran out of steam. They killed more than 1,000 Jews. But they failed to break the spirit of Jewish Israel (ibid). Almost 6,000 Arabs died during these ‘Intifadas’ (“Vital Statistics: Total Casualties, Arab-Israeli Conflict”, Jewishvirtuallibrary). This war failed miserably.

The sixth type of war began in 2005. It’s called, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (the BDS Movement). Its aim is economic war, not terror or Intifada or military attack.

It aims to destroy Israel by crushing Israel’s ability to do business outside Israel. Unlike the original Arab boycotts of Israel, this one has received far more publicity. But it, too, hasn’t harmed Israel. For example, Israel’s trade with the EU has increased since BDS began in 2005, not decreased.

The seventh, eighth and ninth wars against Israel are all the invention of Mahmoud Abbas. Where Arafat created only small terror and the larger suicide-bomb attacks, Abbas has proven to be more diverse. His efforts have also proven to be more savage—against his own followers. For every Jew he kills, ten-to-fourteen Arabs die (“Vital Statistics: Total Casualties, Arab-Israeli Conflict”, jewishvirtuallibrary, 2014).

The seventh war is an Abbas-designed re-tread of an old once-used war cry against Israel: the Jews are attacking Al Aqsa (the Temple Mount)! The call he’s used in this war is the call for a ‘Day of Rage’.

He’s made much trouble with these Days of Rage. But the ones most profoundly harmed aren’t Jews. It’s the Arabs who’ve participated in these riots.

The eighth war is another Abbas creation: the so-called car-and-knife Intifadas. These are relatively new. But they haven’t dented Israel’s presence on the land. They’ve killed many more Arabs than Jews.

But it’s the ninth war that separates Abbas from all of his predecessors. This ninth war is the most horrific. It’s the most barbaric: his Fatah Party incites children and young teens to die trying to stab Jews (Ari Yashar, “PA music video: Nothing beats 'martyrdom' shooting attacks”, Arutz Sheva, November 17, 2015.

Through Abbas’s sick creativity, the world has seen for the first time the use of an 11-year old and a 13-year old to attack Jews on Israel’s streets. These attacks don’t harm Israel’s presence in Israel. They get Arab children killed.

There is nothing more sick than convincing children to die for your ‘Cause’. There is nothing more ‘Abbas’ than children killers who are shot dead while trying to attack a Jew.

In the ugly Arab war to kill Jews, Abbas stands apart. He’s the ugliest of all.

He doesn’t send his own grandchildren to their deaths. He asks his followers to send their children.

I can think of three other Arab ‘wars’, numbers 10, 11 and 12: the war to deny Israel’s connection to the land, the war to transform Jewish Holy Sites to Islamic landmarks and the use of lawfare—the use of international law to criminalize Israel. Each of these wars are part of Abbas’ repertoire. Each has had little-to-no effect on Israel.

Abbas is a failure. He has failed at everything he’s tried--in every area but one. He’s the expert at figuring out how to get his own people killed.