RUTHFULLY YOURS

This is a decent try by an apparently very decent man…..but an Arab Palestinian state of any size or demographic constitution would destroy the future of Jewish Palestine, namely, Israel….rsk

Israel could have played by Arab rules and deported all Arabs in the land it occupied, but it did not. Precisely because Israel respected the human rights of Arabs, and despite its own self-interest, Israel gave the Palestinians a platform from which to seek the destruction of Israel.

One can only hope that the Palestinians, like Egypt and Jordan, will soon decide to live in peace with a neighbor which turned out to be far better in the way it treats Palestinians than the Palestinians’ own “Arab brothers” — not all that bad, after all. One can only hope that Palestinian leaders will start promoting a culture of peace rather than a culture of hate.

From the moment Israel declared its independence, one of the main Arab tactics has been to exploit the Jews’ Achilles heel – their highly developed culture, which respects and values life, and their support for human rights.

Of Arab origin, I have long known about the Arab stereotype of the West and Israel — that they are weak because they care about the lives of their own people and they are eager to respect the human rights of their enemies. Golda Meir is reported to have said, “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.”

Until now, Israel has conformed to that Arab stereotype — such as with “knocks on the roof” in Gaza to warn residents to leave buildings being used for military purposes before they are targeted — but in conversations with Zionists, it seems that this attitude is changing. While Jews will always value life, their determination to minimize enemy casualties and to respect their human rights at almost all costs might be unraveling, and it is the Palestinians who are likely to pay the price.

During the War of Independence, the Arab side ensured that not a single Jew was left on the Arab side of the 1949 armistice lines, but a large number of Arabs were allowed by Jews to remain on the Israeli side. Today those Arabs constitute 20% of the Israeli population.

Israel’s respect for the human rights of Arabs living in Israel has been used by Arabs against Israel. The idea of any Jews on the Arab side is demonized and any “normalization” with Jews is aggressively discouraged

By contrast, Arabs living in Israel have consistently elected Arab parliamentarians, even anti-Zionist ones who openly support Palestinian terrorists. If Israel expels those politicians from the Knesset — as there is a proposed law to do — it is accused by the West of being undemocratic, but if it does not expel them it is seen by Arabs as weak.

In the nearly 30 years since the Fall of the Berlin Wall the fortunes of freedom have experienced a drastic reversal. In the Philippines, where the color revolutions all began in 1986, the son of Ferdinand Marcos is among the leading candidates for the vice-presidency. “The Philippines is steadily giving into ‘strongman syndrome’, the misguided belief that tough-talking and political will alone can address complex 21st-century governance challenges.”

Soon, Philippine (cacique) democracy as we know it may come to an end, as the Filipino people increasingly opt for political outsiders as well as the offspring of a former dictator, who have promised decisive leadership and national discipline. The latest survey suggests that a provincial mayor, Rodrigo Duterte, and Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. are cruising towards the top two positions in office.

If “political outsiders” and “strongmen” sound attractive to the voters in the 2016 election cycle, they’re in lots of company. A Bloomberg report notes that voter anger and consequent shift toward political outsiders is world-wide. “From the supporters of Donald Trump to the street protesters of southern Europe, voters around the world are mad as hell. Inequality, immigration, and the establishment’s perceived indifference are firing up electorates in a way that’s rarely been seen before. As these charts show, the forces shaping the disruption of global politics have been building for years and aren’t about to diminish.” Among their findings are:

The share of wealth owned by the middle class declined in every part of the world on a relative basis;
U.S. workers’ share of income has dropped to near the lowest since World War II;
Incomes in Europe’s southern crisis countries have fallen since 2009 relative to the northern Europeans;
The European youth has lost its future. In Spain and Greece, unemployment among those under 25 is close to 40 percent;
U.S. student debt is soaring, while median pay for recent college graduates has barely budged;
Europe’s asylum and border policies have collapsed under the pressure of refugee and immigration flows;
In 2015 only 19% of Americans trusted their government “just about always” or “most of the time” – down from 54% after the 9/11 attacks;
It’s the same picture in Europe as distrust of government has surged, to a high of 84% in Spain

In brief the report suggests that “the future” — that favorite word of the Left — has disappeared. Nearly 90% of French parents, 72% of British, 65% of American and 56% of German are convinced their children will be worse off than they are. Not that the “present” is any better. For one thing the threat of major “war”, that condition the Left promised to save the world from, has grown under the stewardship of their Nobel Peace prize winner.

In the light of these global trends the situation in the Philippines is not unique but typical. The Bloomberg report argues that all over the world insurgent parties, often featuring strongmen who promise the trains will run on time, are on the rise. In place of the Color Revolutions three decades ago there is an enormous nostalgia for the age of diktat. The Wall Street Journal describes an Arab democracy activist who evolved into a suicide bomber. A Japan Times article argues that the Arab Spring has taught Western diplomats that the best way to spread progress is through stable autocracy. If one were to ask leftists what’s the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 20 years the answer would probably be ‘not leaving Saddam in power’.

Inside the Beltway, the analysts are awakening to the possibility that faith in old-time democracy may be dying in America too. Eli Saslow of the Washington Post begins by way of focusing on a funeral in Oklahoma. “Anna Marrie Jones: Born 1961 — Died 2016.”

A growing number of Islamist radicals are infiltrating Germany’s military, the Bundeswehr, with an estimated 30 former soldiers later joining international terrorist organizations, reports German press agency DPA International.

Germany’s military counterintelligence service (MAD) says 65 active soldiers are under investigation for suspected Islamist tendencies. Since 2007, 22 soldiers designated as Islamists have been discharged or left the military. Moreover, 29 former soldiers have left for Syria and Iraq to join Islamist terrorist organizations.

“We perceive a risk that the Bundeswehr may be used as a training ground for potentially violent Islamists,” says MAD leader Christof Gramm.

German intelligence believes that the Islamic State is actively recruiting operatives with a military background. Moreover, Germany’s Ministry of Defense expressed concern that no background checks are required for soldiers in unclassified positions.

“Like all armies, the Bundeswehr can be attractive to Islamists seeking weapons training…,” Hans-Peter Bartels, the parliamentary commissioner for the military, told the DPA. Bartels added that Islamists in the German army pose “a real danger that needs to be taken seriously.”

Following the January 2015 Paris attacks targeting the Charlie Hebdo satirical publication, Gramm became increasingly concerned since the terrorists appeared to have professional military training.

“It would be negligent of a MAD president not to ask what would happen if a Bundeswehr-trained Islamist did something like this, and we had failed to notice anything,” Gramm said.

There are Jihadists from dozens of countries who have joined ISIS. What do they all have in common?

The official answer is radicalization. Muslims in Europe are “radicalized” by alienation, racism and unemployment. Neglected by governments, Muslim youth band together and become terrorists. Muslims in Israel are responding to the “despair and hopelessness” of the “Occupation”. Muslims from the rest of the Middle East are angry over their “dictators”. Muslims from the Ukraine? Who knows.

Radicalization comes packaged with a set of local grievances and explanations. It contends that all Muslim terrorism is a response to local conditions and that we are responsible for those conditions. Even though the “radicalization” is Islamic, it denies that Islam plays a positive role as a Jihadist goal. Instead, like Halal liquor or hashish, it’s what Muslims turn to when they have been disappointed in the West or in their own governments. Islam is just what happens when a Belgian Muslim can’t get a job.

And yet Islam is the only positive uniting factor for Islamic terrorism.

Why otherwise should a Moroccan youth from a French suburb who works at a nightclub, the son of a rural Saudi farmer who has never been outside his country and an American teenager who converted to Islam all risk their lives to form an Islamic State? The Jihadis of ISIS are a truly multinational and multicultural bunch. They have traveled to two foreign countries that most of them have never been to.

What else unites them into a common identity that they are willing to kill and die for if it isn’t Islam?

“When fashion brands praise the skinny image with anorexic models, we say this is dangerous for the health of young women. We can also say that those same brands, when they promote Islamic collections, they promote an image that is dangerous for the rights and freedom of Muslim women in France. … in many French neighborhoods, we see fewer and fewer women outside on the street, in cafes. We see that fewer and fewer wom

Critics argue that by jumping on the Muslim fashion bandwagon, European brands are encouraging the visible public expression of Islam in Europe — and promoting Muslim separateness rather than integration.

en are living freely in their neighborhoods.” — Laurence Rossignol, France’s Minister Families, Children and Women’s Rights.

French feminist Elisabeth Badinter warned that cultural relativism was preventing the French from seeing the alarming rise of Islamism in France. She added that tolerance “has turned against those it was meant to help” with the result that “the veil has spread among the daughters of our neighborhoods” due to “mounting Islamic pressure.”

The decision by a British department store to include Sharia-compliant bathing suits in its summer swimwear collection has ignited a debate over the “mainstreaming” of Islamic fashion in Europe.

Marks & Spencer (M&S), the iconic British retail chain, is now marketing the burkini, a full-length swimsuit ostensibly designed to protect the modesty of Muslim women.

Supporters of the move say it “liberates” Muslim women in Europe by giving them the choice to wear whatever they want. Detractors argue the exact opposite: they say the burkini “enslaves” Muslim women, many of whom are facing mounting pressure to submit to Islamic dress codes, even though they are citizens of secular European states.

Viewed more broadly, a growing number of European fashion companies are seeking to profit from the rising demand for Islamic clothing. Business is business, they say. But critics argue that by jumping on the Muslim fashion bandwagon, those companies are encouraging the visible public expression of Islam in Europe — and promoting Muslim separateness rather than integration.

According to M&S, the £49.50 (€62, $70) burkini (a neologism blending burka and bikini) “covers the whole body with the exception of the face, hands and feet, without compromising on style.” Another selling point: “It’s lightweight so you can swim in comfort.” Some Burkini enthusiasts say the garment is also ideal for non-Muslim women who may be “worried about the damage that exposure to sun could do to the skin.”

A few days after the M&S launch, another British department store, House of Fraser, unveiled its own burkini range. Also known as “modest sportswear,” House of Fraser’s “legging and tunic sets cover the body from the neck to the ankles, and also come with a separate hijab head covering.” The burkinis are “designed to encourage women to feel both comfortable and stylish when participating in sports and provide extra sun protection.”

Companies from across Europe are making forays into Islamic “modest wear.”

In January 2016, Italy’s luxury fashion brand Dolce & Gabbana launched its first-ever collection of abayas and hijabs. (Abayas are ankle-length robes and hijabs are scarves that cover the head and neck but not the face.)

According to Dolce & Gabbana, the new line — named The Abaya Collection: The Allure of the Middle East — is intended to be “a reverie amidst the desert dunes and skies of the Middle East: an enchanting visual story about the grace and beauty of the marvelous women of Arabia.” The collection is available at all of the brand’s boutiques in the Middle East, as well as stores in Paris, London, Milan and Munich.

During his visit to Washington, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s security guards harassed and physically assaulted journalists trying to cover the event; they also forcibly attempted to remove several journalists, although they were on the guest list.

An American reporter attempting to film the harassment received a kick in the chest.

Against this backdrop, Erdogan kept on adding to his own ridicule. “I am not at war with the press,” he said in an interview with CNN International. Then he went on: “We have never done anything to stop freedom of expression or freedom of press.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s increasing Third-Worldish authoritarianism is taking new turns: it is now visible outside Turkey.

At the same time as Erdogan was heading for Washington for a nuclear security summit, the two journalists who he asserted last year “will pay a heavy price” had to stand trial at a second hearing on charges of espionage and terrorism, and with life sentences hanging over their heads. Their “espionage and terrorism” activity concerned a story they ran in May 2015 detailing how Turkish intelligence was transporting weapons to Islamist fighters in Syria.

“This is a tug of war between Turkish democrats and autocrats,” Can Dundar, one of the “spy/terrorists” told The Wall Street Journal. “The Western world has been supporting Erdogan for years and we were telling them that this was the wrong decision, not only for Turkey, but also for the Western world.”

The case had already turned into a diplomatic row between Turkey and a number of European Union nations, after Erdogan lashed out at the foreign consuls-general who attended the first court hearing in a show of solidarity with the journalists.

Tony Abbott’s invocation of “Team Australia” inspired an immediate pile-on, his comments hurled onto the heap of reasons why, or so it was said, he had to go. Sure enough, as Malcolm Turnbull re-endorsed all the coy circumlocutions, Australia’s jihadis kept reporting for duty.
As PM, Tony Abbott drew a lot of flak for his stance on homegrown Islamic terrorism, not least for his use of two rhetorical strains. On August 18, 2014, he said “my position is that everyone should be on Team Australia”, and on February 23, 2015, he went further: “I’ve often heard Western leaders describe Islam as a religion of peace … I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often and mean it”. These comments marked a departure from the tone and language chosen by senior politicians over most of the previous decade. And they sparked the inevitable round of hand-wringing and denunciations.

Unsparing in their hyperbole, The Guardian called them “damaging and dangerous” while The Age condemned them as “reckless”. In similar vein, Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek said they were “at risk of being counterproductive”. Notwithstanding the inanity of such claims, Abbott’s foray into tough language was short-lived. His enemies hurled it onto the pile of reasons why he had to go and, sure enough, the old ways were conspicuously restored by Malcolm Turnbull.

For present purposes, let’s call Abbott-style discourse hard rhetoric and the alternative soft rhetoric. Usually in the form of a mollifying post-atrocity sermon, the soft line combines four elements:

Terrorism has nothing to do with true Islam, which is a religion of peace.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding, and should not in any way be judged by the actions of a few.
The Muslim community and its leaders are as horrified by terrorism as the rest of us, and do all they can to prevent it.
Those who blame the Muslim faith and Muslims in general for terrorism have no place in our inclusive multicultural society.

However much it may represent conventional practise for progressives and the political class, as a strategy to prevent terrorism, soft rhetoric is a pretense. Its real purpose is to prop up official multiculturalism by diverting attention from a troublesome minority onto the supposedly racist mainstream. These are Australians who, we are lead to believe, will lash out at innocent Muslims on the slightest provocation. Never mind that this hardly ever happens. On the other hand, Abbott’s hard talk actually was about preventing terrorism, by making Australian Muslims and their leaders publicly accountable for developments in their community.

Years ago I had a chat with three young Muslim men as we waited in a Heathrow airport lounge to board a flight to Islamabad. I was going to Pakistan to report on the fallout from a devastating earthquake in Kashmir. They were going there to do what they vaguely described as “charitable work.” They dressed in white shalwar kameez, wore their beards in salafist style and spoke in south London accents.

I tried to steer the conversation to the earthquake. They wanted to talk about politics. Had I seen Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”? I avoided furnishing an opinion about a film they plainly revered. The unvarnished truth about Amerika—from an American. Authority and authenticity rolled into one.
Noam Chomsky (left), speaks to Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nabil Qaouq (right) at the former Israeli jail in Khiam, southern Lebanon, May 13, 2006. ENLARGE
Noam Chomsky (left), speaks to Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nabil Qaouq (right) at the former Israeli jail in Khiam, southern Lebanon, May 13, 2006. Photo: AFP/Getty Images

I think of that exchange whenever the subject of Islamist radicalization comes up. There’s a great deal of literature about how young Muslim men—often born in the West to middle-class and not particularly religious households—get turned on to jihad. Think of Mohammed Emwazi, the University of Westminster graduate later known as Jihadi John. Or Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, of Fort Hood infamy. Or Najim Laachraoui, who studied electrical engineering at the prestigious Catholic University of Louvain before blowing himself up last month in Brussels. Or Boston’s Tsarnaev brothers and San Bernardino’s Syed Farook.

It’s a long list. And in many cases investigators are able to identify an agent of radicalization. Maj. Hasan corresponded with extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Laachraoui seems to have come under the spell of a Molenbeek preacher named Khalid Zerkani. The Tsarnaevs took their bomb-building tips from “Inspire,” an online English-language magazine published by al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen.

But the influence of the Awlakis of the world can’t fully account for the mind-set of these jihadists. They are also sons of the West—educated in the schools of multiculturalism, reared on the works of Noam Chomsky and perhaps Frantz Fanon, consumers of a news diet heavy with reports of perfidy by American or British or Israeli soldiers. If Islamism is their ideological drug of choice, the political orthodoxies of the modern left are their gateway to it. CONTINUE AT SITE

It’s not a leak, it’s a tidal wave. The documents (illegally) obtained from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca by the grandiosely-named “International Consortium of Investigative Reporters” comprise about twelve million documents going back about forty years. It’s some 2.6 terabytes of information. (The entire Library of Congress consists of about fifteen terabytes of data.)

The size of the leak is less important than the content. Mossack Fonseca specializes in forming offshore corporations, trusts, foundations, and other legal entities. In many cases, they are entirely legal. They may be created legally to do business overseas and keep earnings and savings away from domestic taxation authorities. Mossack Fonseca insists it has vetted its clients to ensure their businesses are legal. But among the hundreds of governments, companies, and people involved is almost certainly a massive amount of corruption.

Many, if not all, of these business arrangements are created in the most complex manner possible to conceal the true owners and beneficiaries. Like Russian matryoshka dolls — any number of figures, one inside another, each one progressively larger — each layer has to be taken apart to get to the people who are profiting.

So far, Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, prime minister of Iceland, has resigned over the Panama Papers revelations. UK Prime Minister David Cameron took the extraordinary step (for a Brit politician) of publishing his tax returns after it was revealed he’d benefitted from offshore deals his father had made.

Even those closet capitalists in Communist China are implicated. Relatives of Chinese President Xi Jinping — including his brother-in-law — were revealed to own, or have owned, secret offshore companies set up by the Panamanian lawyers. The Chinese government has written the whole matter off as another Western plot against them but took the trouble to make it impossible to search the term “brother in law” in the Internet.

The Russian government had the reaction you’d expect. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, said that because he wasn’t named in the documents, there was nothing to talk about. And, of course, he said that, “In this connection, attempts are made to weaken us from within, make us more acquiescent,” painting the whole Panama Papers leak as another American plot against him.

The United States is facing a humiliation of the first order resulting from almost comically provocative Iranian test launches of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles earlier this month and the lack of any real response from Washington, save for largely symbolic sanctions. For the Obama Administration, a recent interview suggests it sees this humiliation and loss of credibility not as a serious problem, but as a successful application of the “Obama Doctrine.”

Iran’s missile launches violated the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which lifted international sanctions on Iran when it agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regulating its nuclear program. This suggests that the Ayatollahs in Iran have no intention of getting “right with the world” as Obama once suggested, and intend to continue their revolutionary goals. Lest anyone fail to grasp that point, the missiles were inscribed with the words “Israel must be wiped off the Earth,” in Hebrew.

Iran’s ayatollahs have no intention of getting ‘right with the world,’ as Obama once suggested.

Yet the Russians are blocking any attempt to invoke 2231 to sanction Iran on the grounds that its language does not explicitly forbid this behavior. They’re right. Paragraph 3 of Annex A of 2231 states, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology” for a period of up to eight years after the JCPOA goes into effect. Resolution 1929, a previous Iran sanctions resolution, did explicitly forbid it, stating, “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”