RUTHFULLY YOURS

A perfect storm is brewing for Israel.

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. – Winston Churchill, in first speech to the House of Commons as prime minister, May 13, 1940

A military defeat of Israel would mean the physical extinction of a large part of its population and the political elimination of the Jewish state… Nor does this reflect a historical trauma…To lose a single war is to lose everything…
– Yigal Allon, then foreign minister, in Foreign Affairs, October 1976

This is not an article for those of weak stomach. It is not for those who wish to be reassured that, in the end, things will be “okay.” It offers no glimmer of optimism, nor any comforting prospect of some happy ending.

Indeed, if the Jews are to preserve their political sovereignty, all it bodes for the foreseeable future is one of Churchillian “blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

A perfect storm brewing

A perfect storm is brewing for Israel. On virtually every front, ominous clouds are gathering, and should the menacing maelstroms they portend hit together, it is far from certain that the Jewish state will survive the destructiveness of their combined impact.

Since I began writing this Into the Fray series in mid- 2011, I have warned repeatedly of the perils of the government’s policy of counterproductive compromises and concessions. I cautioned that this “cavalcade of capitulation” will elicit nothing from our adversaries other than demands for more – and more far-reaching – concessions, as indeed it has.

BRISBANE, Australia (AP) – Vladimir Putin is underlining his presence at a major summit of world leaders in Australia by stationing warships in waters off the country’s northeastern coast, prompting the Australian prime minister to angrily accuse Russia of trying to reclaim the “lost glories” of the Soviet Union.
The diplomatic drama, which has been simmering since a Malaysia Airlines plane was shot down over an area of Ukraine controlled by Russian-backed separatists in July, threatened to overshadow Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s goal of keeping this weekend’s G-20 summit focused on economic growth.
But Abbott, who had previously said he would physically confront the Russian president over the Flight 17 disaster that killed 298 people, including 38 Australian citizens and residents, did little to dampen tensions with his latest critique of Putin’s Russia.
In recent days, four Russian warships have entered international waters off the northeast Australian coast to coincide with Putin’s visit to Australia for the summit that brings together the leaders of the world’s 20 biggest industrialized and developing economies. Australia, in turn, sent three warships of its own to monitor them.
The Russian embassy said on Friday that Russia’s Pacific fleet was testing its range, and could be used as security for Putin.
Abbott was not impressed.
“Russia is being much more assertive now than it has been for a very long time,” he said at a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, also in Australia for the summit. “Interestingly, Russia’s economy is declining even as Russia’s assertiveness is increasing.”
The prime minister, who met with Putin earlier this week on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Beijing, aired details of his conversation with the Russian leader.
“One of the points that I tried to make to President Putin is that Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity … instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.”

Super-Amnesty Will Turn Every City into Detroit

After another bloody weekend in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel branded the shootings unacceptable and the city’s top cop demanded more gun control laws. Chicago’s murder rate has actually dropped since concealed carry became legal. Emanuel’s lawsuits over his illegal gun control laws have left the already struggling city deep in the hole and forced to cover the NRA’s million dollars in legal bills.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KGwTDQG-uNA/VGWBpXtkqCI/AAAAAAAAOjg/Be9nLNHIz-o/s1600/DETROIT-articleLarge.jpgConcealed carry paid off over that bloody weekend when a vet carrying a gun returned fire stopping a massacre before it happened. The original shooter ended up in the hospital, but nobody ended up in the morgue, which kept the death toll for the weekend down to fourteen.

Fourteen isn’t pretty, but it’s better than twenty or thirty.

Chicago’s murder rate in 1992 was double what it is today. The death rate was at 33.7 out of 100,000 which meant that you had a pretty good chance of being shot in Chicago. Today it’s down to 15 out of 100,000, which is small comfort to those ending up in the morgue, but it gives everyone else much better odds of surviving to see what ingenious ways the next corrupt mayoral administration will use to rip off the city.

Back in 1992, the cops also blamed guns for the murder rate. But it wasn’t the guns that were killing people. It was the gangs. Now the murder rate is down, but the number of shootings is up. To Chicago’s police boss, that’s a problem, as if it makes a difference to the deceased whether he’s shot, stabbed or dropped in the water wearing cement overshoes. But fighting guns is easier than fighting crime.

The gun obsession is one of the few things that cops and leftists have in common. It’s the last politically acceptable form of prohibitionism in a society that enthusiastically legalizes drugs, even if possessing crack cocaine is statistically much more likely to lead you to kill a man, than possessing a gun will.

Every shooting spree bypasses the obvious problem with calls for more gun laws and something for the youth to do over the weekend that doesn’t involve shooting up the local housing project. This weekend, Rahm Emanuel took on the problem of funding more teen centers while Chicago’s top cop blustered about more gun laws. And then having successfully talked around the issue, they all went home.

The left loves root causes more than it loves red shirts and black bandanas, a fashion choice that it shares with some of the gangs responsible for most of the shootings.

To say that my question “Is this book pro-Hezbullah?” wasn’t well received on Tuesday night at SOAS is an understatement.

I was at the book launch of The Hizbullah Phenomenon: Politics and Communication written by Lina Khatib, Dina Matar and Atef Alshaer.After I had asked my question Dina Matar said “I knew you were going
to ask that” and Lina Khatib waved the book at me and said “Why don’tyou read it?”

The book explains how Hizbullah has been successful in staying relevant since its 1982 inception by adapting itself to changing situations and communicating these adaptations through various means
such as poetry and social media.

Hizbullah are poets? Who knew.

One can imagine: “To kill a Jew, or not to kill a Jew. That is the question.”

So, according to the authors, Hizbullah’s 1980s narrative was one of“victimisation” to attract Lebanon’s marginalised Shia Muslims.

During the 1990s it was one of “resistance” against Israel and connection with “Palestine”.

From 2000 onwards it was focused on “defence” after Israel had left south Lebanon with Hizbullah disseminating the narrative that the Lebanese army is not strong enough to defend Lebanon from Israel.

Now Hizbullah is back to a “victimisation” theme after being implicated in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq
Hariri and others by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and also due to its fighting alongside Bashar Assad in Syria.

Dina Matar said that although Hasan Nasrallah has lost some credibility because of Syria he is still popular, and people in th

If military advisers don’t plan to win it, Congress shouldn’t authorize it.

It probably won’t be, but the first item on the lame-duck congressional agenda should be the military action in which we are now engaged against the Islamic State, or ISIS. Congress has no more serious responsibility than to examine the policy and goals behind any action that puts American lives at risk. Thursday’s appearance of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey before the House Armed Services Committee should be only the beginning.

Not that Congress does that all or even most of the time our military is engaged in conflict. Over our hundreds of years of history, Congress has declared war only 11 times. Without declarations of war, we’ve nevertheless fought major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and engaged in smaller military actions dozens of times. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress twice passed “authorizations for the use of military force” first against al Qaeda and then for the Iraq invasion, but in neither case actually declared war.

Congress passed the 1973 War Powers Act by overriding President Nixon’s veto. Nixon’s successors have generally followed it without admitting to its constitutionality. President Obama, in accordance with the War Powers Act, notified Congress when he ordered the commencement of the air campaign against the Islamic State.

We’re already hearing members of Congress, beginning predictably with Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, say the ISIS war is illegal because it has exceeded the 90-day limit imposed by the War Powers Act, ignoring the probable unconstitutionality of that congressional action.

Following a second day of talks between top American, European and Iranian diplomats in Oman on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “real gaps” remain between the sides, but stressed that the negotiation partners were “working hard” toward an agreement by the end of the month.

He was referring to the self-imposed Nov. 24 deadline for signing a deal that would curb Iran’s nuclear program to a mutually satisfactory extent.

Statements emerging on the sidelines of the talks, which continued beyond Tuesday among lower-tier negotiators, indicated a degree of optimism on the possibility of progress in time to make the deadline. But the real test will take place next week in Vienna, when a final round of meetings is held to iron out differences that have prevented reaching an accord until now — unless another extension is decided upon, in the event of a stalemate.

Whatever happens, however, the outcome cannot be good.

The signing of a deal would mean that the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K., France and Germany) will have succumbed to Iran’s demand that it be able to complete its “peaceful” nuclear program, unencumbered by restrictive international sanctions.

The absence of a deal would basically amount to the same thing, since Russia and the Obama administration will not cease pushing for an easing of sanctions, no matter what Iran does.

This no-win situation for the West is precisely what has been buying Iran time to build nuclear bombs.

I never met a British Baroness before, and yesterday at lunch I met a British Baroness who also never met one until, at the recommendation of Margaret Thatcher she was appointed The Baroness Cox, of Queensbury in Greater London on January 24, 1983. The luncheon was off the record and I respect that, but there is so much about Baroness Caroline Cox that is on the record.

She is one of 18 co-founders of the One Jerusalem Organisation,which aims at “maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel”.In 2005, she became Co-President of the Jerusalem Summit whose stated aim is “The establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international agenda”.

In February 2009, Cox joined UKIP peer Lord Pearson in inviting Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders to show the anti-radical-Islam film Fitna before the House of Lords. However, Wilders was prevented from entering the UK on the instructions of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In response, Cox and Pearson accused the Government of appeasing militant Islam.

She is a great humanitarian who has worked endlessly on behalf of persecuted tribal and religious minorities in Africa. She was one of the leaders of the anti-Communist intellectuals of Europe during the Cold War.

In April of 2014 Baroness Cox tells Israeli audience at an event hosted by the Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security at Tel Aviv University and The Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies on Monday that ‘Islam is using the freedoms of democracy to destroy it’ and warned about the growing threat of political Islam in Britain and Africa.

A biography: Lela Gilbert “BARONESS COS- EYEWITNESS TO A BROKEN WORLD” (2008) is available at:http://www.amazon.com/Baroness-Cox-Eyewitness-Broken-World/dp/0825461642/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415968620&sr=1-1&keywords=lela+gilbert+baroness+cox

Anti-Israel Jon Stewart Claims Judaism is Nazism

Professional cretin and former guest star on The Nanny, Jon Stewart is upset that Jews exist and have opinions that don’t accord with his. The notoriously thin-skinned whiner decided to promote his movie by calling Jews who kept their original last name and like being Jewish, fascists.

“It’s so interesting to me that people want to define who is a Jew and who is not. And normally that was done by people who weren’t Jewish but apparently now it’s done by people who are, and I find that very interesting. It’s more than nationalism,” Stewart whined.

It’s interestingly only in that Stewart knows less about Judaism than he does about Quantum Mechanics.

Every group defines who is a member of it. That’s especially true of religions which have a theology. Stewart retardedly seems to think that having a definition for a religion is what Nazis do.

But then again Jon Stewart calls people Nazis like Godwin’s Law never existed. “Don’t like me, you’re a Nazi!” “Didn’t get my order right, you’re a Nazi.”

“No. And you can’t observe (Judaism) in the way you want to observe. And I never thought that that would be coming from brethren. I find it really sad, to be honest,” Stewart said.

Brethren? Seriously.

How dare Jews have standards for Judaism? Why can’t Stewart just observe Judaism the way he wants to… by not observing it. He’s really sad that apparently Judaism is a religion with some sort of Bible and even a Ten Commandments.

Where did that come from? Why was he not told that you can’t observe Judaism by dressing up in clown makeup and twirling a propeller around. He never expected this from his fellow Stewartites.

In America there are two types of people; the oppressed and the oppressors.

The oppressed oppress the oppressors. And everyone including the oppressors agrees that this is only fair because the oppressors deserve to be oppressed. After all they are the oppressors.

They deserve to have the money they earn taken away. They deserve to be sent to the back of the line when applying to a college or looking for a job. They deserve to be beaten, robbed, raped, and taunted with slurs that would lead to national outrage if it were directed at the oppressed.

But they’re the oppressors. They deserve it.

If they complain, they deserve to have their speech censored. They are the oppressors. There’s no telling how much oppression they might dish out if the oppressed don’t keep them down.

That’s just life in the Victimocracy.

With one sob story too many, one whine too great, one more PBS special, special report about the plight of the oppressed and episode of Donahue, the country changed. The oppressors still had the democratic refuge of elections where they could by sheer numbers vote to retain their civil rights, but most of the other mechanisms of governance had ceased to be democratic and instead became victimocratic.

To have real power you had to be a victim or one of their protectors.

The Victimocracy is a lot like any other tyranny. In an aristocracy, power belongs to the nobles, in a theocracy, power belongs to the clergy, in a meritocracy, to anyone with skill and a work ethic.

But in a Victimocracy the biggest and angriest whiner wins.

Although they often complain, life as an Israeli Arab isn’t half bad · An examination of spending and consumption in the Israeli Arab sectors shows a quality of life which competes nicely with Haifa and Ashkelon · Meanwhile, the government pours millions in revenue support grants and support for corrupt municipalities · But who cares when you can throw rocks and stab people in the name of Falastin?

“They shot him just because he’s Arab!” is the slogan yelled by the masses of Israeli Arabs protesting the death of an Arab who tried to kill Israeli policemen just because they’re Jewish. The Arabs have shut down the schools, closed their businesses and started intifada-style riots. Why? Because article 17d, policemen need to fire at the legs and then the head?

One would have to be particularly naïve – or particularly left-wing – to believe that this is the cause of the riots. There are times when the truth has to be said. And when the riots are virulently nationalist, with Palestinian flags and lynching of Jews, then it’s probably not a protest for fair wages or higher budgets.

The Arabs and their well-wishers like to speak about “years of discrimination” which led to the buildup of tension and genuine class-based “rage”. It’s a nice sound bite, but when you check the actual data, it turns out that the facts are far different, and even if there are gaps, they certainly are not severe enough to excuse or justify an intifada.

Better than life in Haifa

Populations are usually compared based on income data – how much Jews and Arabs make and “what this says about us as a society.” But this measure is misleading and faulty; it makes no reference to unreported income or non-monetary income (presents or goods). Considering the differences in income and work habits of Jews and Arabs, these are critical lacunae.

In order to bypass these problems, we need to set aside income and focus on consumption: how much money do people spend? How much property – real estate, cars – do they own? And so on in this vein.

When you examine the amount spent on consumption among both groups, it turns out they’re about the same: the average Arab family in an urban settlement spends 13,100 NIS per month. True, this is less than Petah Tikva (13,612 NIS) and Tel Aviv (15,365), but it’s more than Ashdod (12,541 NIS) and Haifa (12,105 NIS).