Displaying the most recent of 90930 posts written by

Ruth King

The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Why No Peace? by Richard Kemp

The jihadist aim is to isolate Israel politically; to influence political leaders, public opinion, international institutions and international organizations so that on the day their planned offensive begins, no one will be there to support Israel and the Jews. The Palestinian Authority, the PLO and the Arab/Muslim states will be unhampered to do what Hitler was unable to do in historic Palestine — make it Judenrein (free of Jews).

Terror is “to achieve Palestinian political goals, to influence Israeli politics, to favor a given Israeli candidate for the post of Prime Minister, to compel the Israeli government to conceal more land, to prevent a final peace settlement by maintaining a state of conflict that could eventually lead to total war, to erode Israeli and American resolve and to demonstrate to Arab population that peace is not an option and that the existence of the Jews on their land cannot be recognized”. Some of the attacks occurred just when foreign representatives landed in Israel, “to prevent the revival of the peace talks.” Mr. Jason Greenblatt should take that into consideration.

The same jihadist war is also underway against the Americans and all “infidels”: Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Hindus, Buddhists, and in a general manner all those who do not believe in the “religion of truth”, namely Islam; and against those Muslims who compromise with such so-called infidels.

The critical question of why the Middle East seems unable to achieve peace has just been rigorously considered again, this time by Michael Calvo, an international lawyer, in an important new book, The Middle East and World War III: Why No Peace? It is worth being read by all political leaders, academics, journalists, students and anyone who wants to understand why there is no peace and what may happen.

The book analyzes why the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim conflict has not been resolved, in spite of the Oslo Accords and many years of active involvement by the European Union, individual European states, the U.S., Russia and the United Nations.

The long-term Palestinian use of terror, for instance, looked at chronologically:

“to achieve Palestinian political goals, to influence Israeli politics, to favor a given Israeli candidate for the post of Prime Minister, to compel the Israeli government to conceal more land, to prevent a final peace settlement by maintaining a state of conflict that could eventually lead to total war, to erode Israeli and American resolve and to demonstrate to Arab population that peace is not an option and that the existence of the Jews on their land cannot be recognized”.

Some of the attacks occurred just when foreign representatives landed in Israel, “to prevent the revival of the peace talks.” Mr. Jason Greenblatt should take that into consideration.

Europe’s Betrayal of the Iranian People by Guy Millière

The alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States seems intended to contain the Iranian regime, and not, as falsely advertised by President Barack Obama, to prevent a nuclear program.

Leaders of Western Europe know exactly what the mullahs’ regime is, and what its goals and activities are. They know it is the world’s main sponsor of Islamic terrorism. They know the disastrous state of Iran’s society and economy, but they prefer to play deaf and dumb. All they think about, it seems, are the contracts they sign with the mullahs to get more money. They do not care about the suffering of Iranians; the chaos, massacres and destruction caused by the regime. They know that the nuclear deal is constantly violated by the self-policing regime, and that a nuclear bomb is in the making. They are aware that the regime has close ties with North Korea, and that both are global threats.

The EU’s chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, has hypocritically called “all parties concerned to abstain from violence”, as if there were a moral equivalence between unarmed protesters and killer militias with weapons of war. Meanwhile, in Iranian prisons, protesters were being arrested and tortured to death.

Leaders of Western Europe like to boast how they respect human rights, yet they are the ones trampling on them.

It is hard to know exactly the current situation in Iran, but the uprising seems to be fading . The mullahs’ regime might survive a little longer.

The overthrow of a totalitarian regime takes place when the security forces — which ensure the survival of a regime that has been ruling through repression and fear — begin to falter, or else when the number of angry people becomes so big that a tidal wave sweeps away all in its path.

This time, Iranian security forces remained loyal to the regime and angry people were too few. The regime could manage the situation by killing a few dozen protesters, arresting four thousand more, torturing and murdering some of them, and cutting off access to digital networks. It is a defeat not only for the Iranian people, but for all who defend freedom.

The Syrian Refugee Imam Who Wants Jews Dead Should an anti-Semitic Imam receive political asylum in America? J Daniel Greenfield

Last winter, the local media was touting Imam Abdullah Khadra as a victim of President Trump’s travel ban. Khadra, a Syrian, was here on a religious worker visa and was applying for political asylum.

The refugee Imam living in North Carolina called Trump’s move, “absolutely inhumane and ridiculous.”

Jewish leftists agreed. Lucy Dinner, the clergywoman from Temple Beth Or in Raleigh, denounced “singling out an entire group of people based on their faith.” Lucy Dinner had previously signed a letter in support of anti-Israel activism by Eric and Jennifer Solomon. Eric Solomon was affiliated with the anti-Israel hate group, T’ruah, and Jenny Solomon ran controversial educational programs at the NC Hillel.

But the local media’s favorite Syrian refugee was soon caught preaching the murder of Jews.

Cary and Islam had previously been in the news when a heavily armed Muslim convert had been arrested last year by the FBI over a terror threat. “For too long the kuffar [non-Muslims] have spit in our faces and trampled our rights. This cannot continue. I cannot speak of anything. Say your dua [prayers], sleep, and watch the news tomorrow. It will only be the beginning,” he had warned.

But now an Islamic Association of Cary figure had upstaged him with his own rant.

In his sermon, Imam Khadra declared that all of Israel was “Muslim land” and would be reclaimed by Muslims. “The question is: Will you be among those who will contribute to regaining it or not?” he asked.

If his congregation was under the improbable impression that he meant regaining it through diplomacy and negotiations, the Syrian refugee went on to quote a notorious genocidal Islamic hadith.

“The Prophet Muhammad gave us the glad tidings that at the End of Time, we will fight those Jews until the rocks and the trees will speak: Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me,” the Imam declared.

Of Barbarism, Backlash, and Boundaries Negotiating the post-Weinstein era. Bruce Bawer ****

After reaching a certain age, one is rarely shocked by human behavior; one thinks of oneself as having gotten used to the ways of the world. But I have to admit that the scale of the revelations that began with Rowan Farrow’s exposé of Harvey Weinstein genuinely shocked me. Charlie Rose “groping female colleagues and walking around naked in their presence”? Met conductor James Levine molesting a boy of fifteen and continuing to do so for years? Matt Lauer installing a door lock under his desk to facilitate sexual assaults on colleagues? Kevin Spacey trying to rape a 14-year-old boy?

Two or three stories like this wouldn’t have shaken my world. But one after another of them, coming to light day after day? Mind-blowing. I never imagined that so many respected (in some cases beloved) public figures could be such sleazeballs – and creepily creative ones, at that. As an old friend of mine wrote the other day on Facebook, “It’s strange to suddenly discover in late middle age that I’ve always been even more of a straight-arrow type than I knew at the time.” It’s even stranger to make this discovery knowing that you were once, long ago, as I was, a white-bread, well-behaved-to-a-fault young gay guy who thought his sexual orientation made him the most aberrant thing in town.

The reckoning that Weinstein and others of his ilk have faced is necessary and gratifying. But the longer this has gone on, the less it has looked like a righteous round-up of rogues and the more like a witch hunt by people who are determined to take down every man who ever looked at a woman the wrong way. Last Saturday, front and center on the New York Times website was an article claiming that fashion photographer Bruce Weber had subjected male models to “unnecessary nudity and coercive sexual behavior.” One of the models said Weber had grabbed his equipment: “We never had sex or anything, but a lot of things happened. A lot of touching. A lot of molestation.”

The same article accused another photographer, Mario Testino, of subjecting male models to “sexual advances that in some cases included groping and masturbation.” I don’t know anything about Testino, but what I’ve seen of Weber’s oeuvre over the years consists largely of pictures that, oozing eroticism, seem to document the placid interludes in the midst of pansexual orgies. In other words, these models should have had a good idea of what they were getting into. As grown men, in any case, they were perfectly capable of saying no, of pushing away the hand of a photographer two or three times their age (Weber is now 71), and, if necessary, of simply putting on their clothes and walking away.

Tony Thomas An Old Scrapbook’s Reminder

Fifty years ago Alexander Dubček began the ill-fated bid to reform the government of what was then Czechoslovakia. In August, 1968, the experiment was crushed by Soviet tanks. Today, with communism’s apologists still peddling myth and equivalency, a refresher course in tyranny.

I’ve had a couple of non-tourist encounters with Czechs from the Communist era. One I recall well from seven years ago; the other more spectacular encounter was 50 years ago and I have no memory of it whatsoever. Still, it’s detailed in print in The West Australian of June 14, 1969, so it must have happened.[i]

In late 2010, my wife and I were on a slow train from Munich to Prague and got talking to an elderly Czech lady, who gave us her potted life story. She told it all as though it was nothing exceptional. Her husband was arrested in the Communist era for saying something uncomplimentary about the regime and was sentenced to two years hard labor digging out underground coal from seams little more than half a metre thick. On release he couldn’t get a normal job anywhere and in desperation he took work in a uranium mine. After a while the uranium dust gave him cancer and he died, she said. Their five children also couldn’t get higher educations or jobs because they were tainted by their father’s prison record. Four got out to West Germany and settled there. She’d just been visiting them.

She was talking about the time before the “Prague Spring” of liberalization that began in early 1968 and ended abruptly in late August when the Soviets and their Polish, Hungarian and Bulgarian allies invaded with 200,000 troops and 2000 tanks. There was only minor resistance but 70 Czechs were killed and about 250 wounded. Passive resistance continued well into 1969. This is the background to my other Czech encounter.

To suppress any vestige of free speech, the Soviets’ first target was the Czech TV, radio and press. Editors were forced to agree to a new ‘temporary’ censorship regime where the media’s prime role was to support the new hard-line Communist leaders. Any dissent led to closure of the media outlet or worse. By April 1969 censorship became total and continued until the ‘Velvet Revolution’ twenty years later, which brought democracy to the republic.

Forty years before our chat with the lady on the train, I had spent an afternoon interviewing a young Czech journalist stuck in Perth a few days on his way back to Prague. At that point the last liberties in the Czech republic were being snuffed out by the pro-Soviet regime.

India’s Modi abandons legacy of Muslim appeasement By Richard Benkin

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has earned a deserved reputation as a no-nonsense opponent of appeasement. His expansion of the India-Israel relationship and personal affinity with President Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have strengthened that perception. The latest evidence that it is more than a perception came this week, when Modi’s government discontinued half-century-old government subsidies provided to Muslim pilgrims going on the Hajj. The Hajj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims must carry out at least once, so long as they are physically and financially able – artificial conditions that the subsidy is intended to create.

That’s right: the government of India has been spending badly needed funds for one religious community’s annual pilgrimage. (There is even a special terminal in New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport exclusively for Hajj pilgrims, which is closed for most of the year.) Since 2008, about 120,000 Muslims have utilized the government money to go on the Hajj, according to the Indian government, costing the Indian people almost a half-billion dollars in the last five years alone. This money now will be used for educational purposes, especially for girls who have been particularly underserved in accordance with community practice.

The Left Will Always Be with Us By David Solway

In a January 3, 2018 article for American Thinker, “The Left’s 1942,” J.R. Dunn argues that leftism may be approaching its last days, at least in the U.S. Its losses, failures, and absurdities have ensured its gradual demise. “While certainly not as dramatic as the events of WWII,” Dunn writes, “the political defeat of leftism may well be just as decisive.”

“Never in my memory,” Dunn concludes, “has leftism been so disarrayed and subdued. For the first time in many decades, we can turn our eyes toward the bright sunlit uplands, where liberty reigns, and where each may abide by his vine and fig tree and be not afraid.”

Dunn’s assessment deserves to be taken seriously. The author of a major political work, Death by Liberalism, he has considerable authority to pronounce on the present condition of the liberal-left project. In that book, Dunn expresses his conviction that any government that denies the social “compact” or “bargain” between government and governed will ultimately collapse, “as surely as the British went in 1781, as the imperial states after WWI, as the [USSR] went in 1991.” We may add that the latest instance of total socialist miscarriage is the oil-rich state of Venezuela, now officially out of gas.

This domino effect is certainly the case in individual historical episodes. But hybristic liberalism – aka utopianism, leftism, communism, fascism, or any of the sobriquets by which it is known – is a Hydra-headed phenomenon that, after every defeat, inevitably regenerates. As Jean-François Revel wrote in The Totalitarian Temptation (1976), “[t]he only way to reform [c]ommunism is to get rid of it,” yet even he, in Last Exit to Utopia (2000) admitted “[c]ommunism’s ongoing capacity for ideological terror.”

It seems to me that what we now call “leftism” or any of its nominal substitutes will always be with us. It is an indelible part of human nature, going back to time immemorial and probably rooted in the necessary sharing arrangements of primitive or subsistence societies. Socialism also has a message that it relentlessly disseminates. As Dunn himself points out in Death by Liberalism, dictatorial liberalism – that is, leftism – has profited and spread by virtue of an ideological component abetted by modern technology and communication systems. “Ideology provided the dictators,” he explains, “with a means of mobilizing support and instilling revolutionary zeal.” It was – and is – no longer merely a question of jackboots and tanks; the ideological message and missionary zeal guarantee the longevity of the doctrine being propagated.

What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right By Karin McQuillan

Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Last time I was in Paris, I saw a beautiful African woman in a grand boubou have her child defecate on the sidewalk next to Notre Dame Cathedral. The French police officer, ten steps from her, turned his head not to see.

I have seen. I am not turning my head and pretending unpleasant things are not true.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I relished the feeling of the brotherhood of man. People were open, willing to share their lives and, after they knew you, their innermost thoughts.

The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can’t understand anything in Senegal using American terms.

THE U.N. RESCUES A SCAM THAT KEEPS ON SCAMMING

U.N. Calls for More Aid for Palestinian Refugees After U.S. Cut White House reduced its funding for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East by about half. By Rory Jones

TEL AVIV—The United Nations on Wednesday called on countries to bolster funding to Palestinian refugees, warning of a collapse in health-care and education services, after the White House withheld about half its pledged financial aid to a key institution that supports the displaced people.

The U.S. move adds further pressure on Palestinian leaders, who have accused President Donald Trump of aligning with Israel and are now scrambling for a strategy to achieve statehood after recent diplomatic setbacks such as a White House policy change on Jerusalem.

The U.S. on Tuesday said it would give $60 million to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, or Unrwa, after previously agreeing to deliver $125 million in its first installment this year. The cut followed complaints by Mr. Trump that the U.S. pays Palestinians millions of dollars a year but receives no “respect” in return.

“At stake is the dignity and human security of millions of Palestine refugees, in need of emergency food assistance and other support,” Unrwa said in a statement launching a global fundraising campaign.

The U.S. is the largest donor to the Unrwa, contributing $368 million last year to a total international budget of $1.24 billion that supported Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Israeli-controlled West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to the U.S.

“Palestinian refugees and children’s access to basic humanitarian services [are] not a bargaining chip but a U.S. and international obligation,” the Palestine Liberation Organization, the body that negotiates with Israel in peace talks, said late Tuesday. CONTINUE AT SITE

Iran’s Regime Probably Won’t Die Quietly Thanks to Obama’s deal, it could become the first nuclear power to undergo a violent revolution. By Ray Takeyh

The popular uprisings in Iran make it a sure bet that the Islamic Republic’s government will eventually collapse. That possibility in a nuclear Iran should have many in Washington losing sleep. What will happen to Iran’s centrifuges, enriched uranium, warhead designs and ballistic-missile technologies if the mullahs are toppled? What will happen to Iran’s scientists who are suddenly unemployed? Western governments should prepare.

The Islamic Republic was never the island of stability its Western enablers made it out to be. In the early 1980s, vengeful mullahs purged liberals and secularists who had naively joined Islamists to overthrow the shah. This produced a generation of young Iranians highly skeptical of their clerical elders. Students rebelled in 1999, the middle class in 2009. Last month tens of thousands of working-class Iranians finally decided they’d had enough.

These demonstrations must have been particularly unsettling for the clerical oligarchs, because the lower classes were supposed to be the mainstay of their power. For decades, the Islamic Republic has sought to tether this class to clerical rule by expanding the welfare state. Yet that welfare state is jeopardized by corruption and foreign adventures. Corrupt men of God are always more galling than crooked monarchs and army officers.

The Islamic Republic is no ordinary dictatorship heading toward the dust bin of history. In 2015 it was effectively granted a license by the U.S. and the other world powers to expand its nuclear program. The deal has not impeded Iran’s efforts to modernize its nuclear apparatus. Under the watchful eye of Ali Akbar Salehi, the MIT-educated head of Iran’s atomic program, Iran continues to enrich uranium, develop advanced centrifuges, test ballistic missiles, and train engineers. The regime, which has continuously lied about its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, is determined to build an industrial-sized uranium-enrichment infrastructure equipped with cutting-edge technology and manned by a capable cadre of scientists.

Thanks to the nuclear deal, Iran could be the first country to undergo a violent revolution while in possession of an extensive nuclear network. The world has been lucky that the two nuclear states that collapsed did so peacefully. At the Cold War’s end Mikhail Gorbachev managed to liquidate the Soviet Union while safeguarding its atomic apparatus. In South Africa, the apartheid regime dismantled and destroyed its nuclear capability before handing over power to the majority.

Iran’s mullahs won’t go as quietly as Russia’s commissars and South Africa’s racists. These are men who claim to know the mind of God and have no compunction about shedding blood. The Islamic Republic will surely experience a prolonged period of internal strife, nationwide violence and ethnic separatism as it unwinds its theocratic experiment. In such circumstances, the command-and-control structure of the Iranian nuclear program may break down. Its enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges could go missing. And Iran’s enterprising scientists may find lucrative employment in unsavory places like North Korea and Pakistan. CONTINUE AT SITE