RUTHFULLY YOURS

There are no Palestinians. There are no moderate Syrian rebels. There is only Islam.

The axe that fell on the head of a Rabbi in Jerusalem was held by the same hand that beheaded Yazidi men in the new Islamic State. It is the same hand that held the steering wheel of the car that ran over two Canadian soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec and the same hand that smashed a hatchet down on the skull of a rookie New York City cop in Queens all in a matter of months.

Their victims were of different races and spoke different languages. They had nothing in common except that they were non-Muslims. This is the terrible commonality that unites the victims of Islamic terror.

Either they are not Muslim. Or they are not Muslim enough for their killers.

The media shows us the trees. It does not show us the forest. It fragments every story into a thousand local narratives. In Jerusalem the killers were angry because of Jews praying on the Temple Mount. In Queens and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, they were outraged because we were bombing the Islamic State.

And in the Islamic State they were killing Christians and Yazidis because America hadn’t bombed them yet.

Our leaders and our experts, the wise men of our multicultural tribes, who huddle in their shiny suits around heavy tables, believe in the good Muslim terrorist the way that the Muslim believes in Allah. The good Muslim terrorist who is willing to make peace for the right price is their only hope of salvation. The good Muslim terrorist willing to settle for Palestine or Syria at 50 percent off is their way out of a war.

And so like Chamberlain at Munich and FDR at Yalta, like a thousand tawdry betrayals before, they make themselves believe it. And then they make us believe it.

A thousand foreign policy experts are dug out, suited up and marched into studios to explain what specific set of un-Islamic Muslim grievances caused this latest beheading and how the surviving non-Muslims need to appease their future killers. And then another tree falls. And another head rolls.

This week’s terror attack in a Jerusalem synagogue evoked a 300-word unsigned editorial from the New York Times.

Seemingly, this was a straightforward case: two terrorists with a gun, axes, and knives entered the synagogue and proceeded to butcher peaceful, unarmed worshippers. But for the Times, nothing involving Israel is straightforward.

Yes, the Times called the attack a “bloody rampage” and said Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas “has a duty to make the moral case that such brutality and inhumanity can only bring shame upon the Palestinian people” (which, by the way, he’s never going to do).

But the Times also called the attack

a tragedy for all Israelis and Palestinians. The two communities appeared increasingly locked in a cycle of hatred and hopelessness, where chances for stability, much less permanent peace, seem nearly impossible.

… it also is part of an alarming wave of violence fueled by a dispute over a holy site in the Old City known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

The drift of that could not be clearer: both sides are at fault, both evincing “hatred” and “violence” that make peace “nearly impossible.”

But is that really true?

The attack on the synagogue immediately killed four Jews, three of them rabbis; a fifth person—an Israeli Druze policeman who fought the terrorists—died the following day.

Ignoring the brutal, historic slap-down angry American voters gave his party this month, President Obama unveiled plans for a unilaterally imposed amnesty that will shield an estimated 5 million illegal aliens from deportation.

Whether Republicans, now in possession of a thunderous mandate to fight Obama tooth and nail, will fight this despotic usurpation of the lawmaking powers of Congress remains to be seen.

Obama doesn’t care. He is pressing on, hoping to fill America with millions of new Democrat voters. And he’s going to kill American jobs in the process.

“We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules,” said the president. The address from the White House came yesterday, which just so happened to be Revolution Day (also known as Civil War Day) in Mexico.

“We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded,” the president continued. Yet Obama went on to propose just such a reward in the form of a special “deal” for unlawful immigrants:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

Strangely, Obama, who routinely flouts the Constitution, still acknowledges some limits to his power. The deal, he said, does not apply to recently arrived illegal aliens or illegals who have yet to sneak into the country.

“It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive,” Obama said. “Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

Whether the benefits illegal aliens receive are as generous as benefits that citizens receive is beside the point. Illegal aliens are already eligible for extensive benefits from the government and Obama is a big believer in getting poor people addicted to welfare. No serious person believes illegals won’t have access to social programs.

“I understand that you were once almost nearly a constitutional law professor, so I think you can help me.”

Dear Mr. President,

I find it curious that immigration was an issue of such pressing importance that it required immediate (and dare I say unprecedented?) action on your part, and yet so trivial that you couldn’t be bothered to address the nation. “Bad optics,” as they say in your biz. Still, I hope you enjoy your stay in Las Vegas this weekend — it’s lovely there this time of year.

One of those British newspapers I read online, you know the one with all the stories about busty celebrities barely wearing fancy clothes? Anyway, they were nice enough to publish a lot of what you said last night, and there was some good stuff in there. I really like that part where you told illegal… excuse me, undocumented migrants that “if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes — you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.” That sounds to me like smart policy, the kind of thing we could probably all agree on. Maybe it would have been smarter if you had saved it for your State of the Union address a few weeks from now, when you would have had the new Congress to work with, and everybody would have had the holiday vacation to settle down and cool off and stuff?

Anyway, when you get back to DC to work more on rewriting our immigration laws, which sounds like lonely work by the way, maybe you could answer a couple of questions I have about the Constitution. I understand that you were once almost nearly a constitutional law professor, so I think you can help me.

You keep using this phrase “if Congress refuses to act,” and I keep wondering,”If Congress refuses whom?” I’m not one of those Tea Party racists who carries a tiny version of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or whatever in his pants pocket all the time, but I did pull up a copy of it online, and I don’t see anything in there about you being able to demand anything of Congress. It doesn’t even say here that you’re allowed to introduce your own bills. And then you said that thing that the House refuses to vote on a Senate bill, but I also don’t see anything in here that says the Senate can demand anything from the House or vice versa. They both have to agree on the same stuff without any demands at all, and then you have to sign it and then it’s a new law. Or did I miss something? Anyway, I read somewhere last week that the Senate has refused to vote on over 300 bills the House sent over, lots with bipartisan support, so it sounds like that Harry Reid is really going to have his hands full when he comes back to run the Senate in January! So if you could clear that up for me, that would be great.

We can respond, but not in kind. A principled Israeli government should create Jewish facts in direct response to Islamic hate.

In January, 2005, I wrote a chapter in the first volume of my trilogy, “Politicide: The Attempted Murder of the Jewish State”. It was titled, “The ultimate answer to Arab terror.”

I had hoped that my suggestion in that chapter would have borne fruit, but it was not to be. Let me suggest, again, what I had suggested almost ten long years ago – a period in which hundreds more Jewish civilians have perished in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem from a relentless campaign of Islamic butchery by the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

A direct and pure Zionist response to each and every Palestinian Arab and Muslim terror atrocity against Israelis must be the building or rebuilding of Jewish villages throughout Judea, Samaria, all of Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan with each new village named in eternal memory of the individual Jewish victim who fell at the hands of Arab hate and evil.

Let them refer their bankrupt protests to the sole instigators of violence and aggression: their beloved Palestinian Arabs.
Years of futile hope that in the face of Arab knives, bullets, bombs, missiles, boycotts and venomous diplomatic warfare, matters will improve have availed Israel naught. The answer to aggression from the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians is to act in ways that make it so painful for them that they will come to realize that their violence and blood-lust becomes horribly counter-productive.

Military responses to Muslim Arab violence are effective, but only up to a point, for they welcome death as shahids and relish the 72 virgins allegedly awaiting them in paradise. No, there is a far, far more devastating response that Israel must employ regardless of the howls of rage that will undoubtedly emanate from the baleful Obama administration and the ever hypocritical international corridors of power in Europe and in the immoral United Nations. It is a purely Zionistic response.

Caveat – I am not an economist, so the opinions expressed are mine based on little education, some experience and selective readings. Those with more knowledgeable than me might properly challenge my findings. My bottom line is that modest deflation and inflation, by which I mean one or two percentage points, are not reasons for concern. It is when we get rapid changes in either direction that trouble ensues, as the U.S. experienced in the 1930s with deflation and in the 1970s with inflation, and which other countries have undergone to far greater extremes.

We live in an age of technological wonderment, not dissimilar to the closing decades of the 19th Century when the fruits of the Industrial Revolution were being harvested. The European Space Agency was able to land a vehicle on a comet 300 million miles away, yet only two and a half miles wide, and which was traveling at 40,000 miles per hour. The journey began on March 2, 2004 in French Guinea when the spacecraft Rosetta lifted off on what would be a journey of 3.8 billion miles and which took more than ten years. By any measure this was an extraordinary feat.

Technology has changed our everyday lives in myriad ways, from e-books to smart phones, from home security systems to cars that drive themselves. Technology, along with the lowering of trade barriers, has allowed businesses to design products in one place and produce them somewhere else, lowering prices for consumers – a benign form of deflation that we should celebrate, despite politicians using the term to conjure images of potential catastrophes.

About a week ago John Cochrane, professor of finance at the University of Chicago, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Who’s Afraid of a Little Deflation?” I read it, and exhaled, finally! Is it possible that we may be exiting an eighty-year period during which deflation, because of the 1930s, has been seen only as a portent of doom? During the 19th Century deflation was seen as compatible with economic growth.

“I am a United States Army general, and I lost the Global War on Terrorism,” Lieutenant-General Daniel Bolger begins his history of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. “It’s like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry.”

By this, Bolger means that United States generals, notably David Petraeus, sold short-term fixes to baffled political leaders and hatched even worse problems for the future.

Bolger’s point was lost on most reviewers, for example Andrew Bacevich in the New York Times and Mark Moyar in The Wall Street Journal. They protested that civilian leaders deserve at least some of, and perhaps the lion’s share, of the blame.

Bacevich and Moyar have no sense of humor, let alone an ear for irony. By placing the blame on the military, Bolger portrays presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama as woefully misguided. The mission was impossible from the outset. Announcing the 2007 “surge” in response to a Sunni insurgency, president Bush said that the US wanted to turn Iraq into “a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.”

The trouble, Bolger explains, is that majority rule in Iraq meant permanent war: “The stark facts on the ground still sat there, oozing pus and bile. With Saddam gone, any voting would install a Shiite majority. The Sunni wouldn’t run Iraq again. That, at the bottom, caused the insurgency. Absent the genocide of Sunni Arabs, it would keep it going.”

Bolger’s book should be rushed into Russian and Chinese editions. A substantial current of opinion in those countries, supported by some respected foreign-policy specialists, holds that the US has chosen to destabilize the region intentionally. Now that America is nearly self-sufficient in oil, it wants to interrupt oil supplies to China and others in order to assert global hegemony.

That is paranoid nonsense, but it reflects the incredulity of Russian and Chinese observers at the seeming self-destruction of America’s world role. How could the Americans be so stupid? We could, and were. Bolger’s insider explanation of the chain of blunders that led to the present situation in the region is convincing and should be circulated as an antidote to the paranoia.

Proof that America has set out to destabilize the Persian Gulf region, a well-regarded Chinese specialist argued recently before a Beijing foreign-policy seminar, is that the Islamic State is led by Sunni officers armed and funded by General David Petraeus, the US commander during the 2007-2008 “surge”. The observation is correct, to be sure: ISIS shows impressive leadership capacity and mastery of large-unit tactics involving sophisticated equipment, and it learned much of this from the Americans. But the Americans acted out of short-term political expediency rather than medium-term malevolence.

Fighting the indoctrination to hate is harder than fighting the physical battle.

As I was listening to a radio report on Palestinians in Gaza, Ramallah
and some Jerusalem neighborhoods celebrating the lethal attack on the
synagogue on Tuesday, I received an email from my son’s
state-religious school. The letter to parents and pupils provided a
refresher of security precautions and procedures, called on all staff
who have licensed weapons to carry them during the school day, and
noted prayers are being said for the wounded and for the safety of the
security forces.

In a bold font above the principal’s signature the letter stated: “We
emphasize that it is completely forbidden to take the law into your
own hands.”

I am grateful the school is reinforcing this message. I am sad that it
has to issue a call for teachers to carry arms and warn students not
to be tempted to use them.

The terror attack on the synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighborhood
will be remembered for its brutality: two Palestinian terrorists
wielding axes, butchers’ knives and a gun slaughtering Jewish men
wrapped in prayer shawls and phylacteries deeply immersed in the
morning service.

Jihadists consciously choose to “kill themselves” in order not to die, in order to achieve immortality. The struggle is not about land, it is about God.

“Blessed be your quality weapons, the wheels of your cars, your axes and kitchen knives, because they are being used according to Allah’s will. We are the soldiers of Allah (Sultan Abu Al-Einein, Abbas Senior Advisor and Member, Fatah Central Committee, November 19, 2014).

To be sure, there was nothing subtle or coincidental about the latest Palestinian-inflicted carnage in a Jerusalem synagogue. Once again, the ritualistic attack with knives and axes was an example of crude religious sacrifice masquerading as revolutionary terror. Yet again, the Islamist perpetrators were animated by the belief that in shedding “infidel” blood “according to Allah’s will,” their homicidal mission would represent individually sacred acts of redemption.

Above all, the murderers sought to overcome their own dreaded mortality, lasciviously, by dispatching defenseless and praying Jews, to an unspeakable death.

In reality, Hamas terrorists and their many kindred Palestinian comrades in arms are not indifferent to dying. On the contrary, their mock-heroic posturing is simply pretense, a grotesque misrepresentation of core cowardice as authentic courage.

In fact, verifiable, and also unhidden, the Palestinian terrorists’ own personal fears of death are overwhelming and tangible.

These utterly primal fears are the reason they so eagerly seek a unique “death” as martyrs; that is, to best ensure that they will never “really” die. Although counter-intuitive, these Jihadists consciously choose to “kill themselves” in order not to die. More than anything else, perhaps, this strange decisional calculus now needs to be more fully understood.

How does a human being (or two) walk into a synagogue and begin hacking at worshippers who are immersed in prayer, leaving behind a trail of blood, victims, grief and horror?

The question is misplaced because no “human being” could do such a thing. It would have to be a beast in human form, a relic from primitive times before true humans became civilized. The Arab-Muslim animals that span the globe chopping, hacking and merrily decapitating – from Iraq to Jerusalem to New York to Oklahoma, and places in between and beyond – are a discredit even to the term “animal.” Most animals are not that brutal.

The real issue confronting Israel for decades and the civilized world today is what to do about the proliferation of savages who lust for blood and derive inspiration from their religious texts? One example not to follow is that of President Obama’s. In one of his more ludicrous statements in the last few months – amid a healthy competition – he decried the attack, the loss of life “on both sides (!),” and then added this gem: that the “overwhelming majority of Palestinians…want to live in peace.” Really? And based on what data was that determination made? That only tens of thousands of “Palestinians” rejoiced after the massacre, singing and dancing in the streets, distributing candies and sweets, praising the vicious slaughter and the slaughterers – and not hundreds of thousands? Polls in the PA reveal widespread support for the murder of Jews so what exactly is he talking about??

Obama seems to be as much an expert on “Palestinian” society as he is about Islam generally. His incessant protestation that ISIS distorts Islam is based on…what exactly? ISIS and sundry other radical groups seem to feel that they are fulfilling the dictates of Islam – and the few Muslims who disagree meet their fate at the business end of a machete. Actions speak louder than words. Obama’s expertise in Islam has led him to cede the Middle East to the most ruthless forces, embrace the radical Muslim Turk Erdogan as an American ally, and facilitate Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Perhaps with a nuclear weapon, Iran will be civilized, or so the thinking goes.

Little can or should be expected from Obama or from the Europeans, mired as they are in cultural deterioration, moral relativism, population decline and Muslim-inspired Jew hatred. Sweden just became the latest country to recognize “Palestine.” Sweden (!), which willfully encourages those who favor the shechita of Jews even as they themselves ban the shechita (ritual slaughter) of animals. How is that for misplaced priorities and corrupt values? And we should be clear, as the wave of recognition sweeps Europe in the coming year: any country that recognizes a “Palestine” is endorsing the mass slaughter of Jews.