RUTHFULLY YOURS

Senior Palestinian Authority officials told the Hebrew news portal Walla on Sunday that the Israeli ‎leadership is rooting for a Hamas victory in the upcoming PA municipal elections. The reason cited for ‎Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s ostensible favoring ‎of a majority win for the terrorist organization that runs Gaza over its rival faction, Fatah, is that this ‎would legitimize Jerusalem’s claims that there is no partner for negotiations on the Palestinian side.‎

Everybody, other than delusional leftists, knows by now that the only difference between one jihadi ‎group and another is internal, involving power struggles and arguments over the best way to eliminate ‎the world’s infidels. For decades, Israel has acted on the hope — and prayer — that this is ‎surmountable. Like all Western countries, even the one situated in the Middle East, Israel operated ‎under the assumption that enemies could be moderated, with heaps of goodwill, territorial concessions ‎and help from the international community.‎

However, the cold, hard reality, which has been evident throughout history, is that this premise is ‎false. Europe, whose memory is so short that it has forgotten the lessons of World War II, is unable to ‎articulate this realization. But a glimmer of understanding occasionally rears its head among citizens ‎shaken awake by terrorist attacks, whose increasing frequency is beginning to cause insomnia. ‎

German Chancellor Angela Merkel — one European leader whose popularity is plummeting as a result ‎of a spate of gruesome attacks committed by radical Muslims against innocent people — last week ‎made a desperate attempt to defend herself against charges that her open-door policy to refugees was ‎responsible.

‎”Islamist terror in Germany wasn’t imported with [them],” she said, though more than 2 million ‎unvetted migrants have flooded her country since 2015. The phenomenon of homegrown radicals ‎going to Syria to train with Islamic State terrorists, she explained, “has been concerning us for years.” ‎

How comforting.‎

http://spectator.org/west-bank-story/ Does a Good Samaritan have a chance these days? Over a month ago, a terror attack in the West Bank killed Rabbi Miki Mark, seriously injured his wife (now recuperating in hospital), and lightly injured his teenage son and daughter. The attack, in which Palestinians terrorists fired over 20 bullets into the Marks’ car […]

On the eve of Tisha B’Av, which marks the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians and the Second Temple by the Romans, most restaurants in Israel close early and no comedies are broadcast on TV. As a result, when invited to a dinner at a trendy eatery in Herzliya on Saturday night, I questioned whether it would be open.

Not only was the answer yes, but the place was packed, to boot.

Seated near a large window watching the orange sun slowly sink into the Mediterranean, I felt a mixture of great fortune and guilt. The meal I was about to enjoy, the price of which could cover my rent, would be as delicious as the company was interesting. But it was the start of a somber Jewish fast day, when we should have been at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, not partying along the beach.

Years ago, an Orthodox friend contended that Tisha B’Av should have become a feast day when the State of Israel was established, because it signified that we had returned to our homeland from exile. When I asked why he did not put this theory into practice, he said his neighbors would take it the wrong way.

Indeed, Judaism is big on “marit ayin,” meaning the way things appear, which is why I’ve never been good at observing it. I am nevertheless a sucker for its spiritual tenets, moral lessons and endless wisdom. So I decided that if we were all feasting while our neighbors were fasting, I could at least make a meaningful toast befitting of the occasion.

“Let us hope that next year on Tisha B’Av, Jews will be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount,” I said, referring to the fact that today only Muslims are permitted to do so, and if any Jew is caught even mouthing words suggesting he is communing with God, Muslims and police descend upon him like the plague.

And boom, before our glasses even had a chance to clink, it was clear I had sparked a political fight. In my defense, it was one of few times I actually hadn’t intended to be provocative. I knew that the people at the table shared my views, and believed I was saying something non-controversial.

An Israeli movement known as Im Tirtzu (IMTI) has been instrumental in publicizing the infiltration of Israeli organizations perceived as human rights organizations, but, which, in reality, are actually Foreign Agent organizations bent on destroying Israel.

Im Tirtzu (Hebrew אם תרצו, lit. ‘If you will it’) is a phrase coined by Theodor Herzl — “אם תרצו, אין זו אגדה” or “If you will it, it is no dream.” Founded in 2006 by Ronen Shoval, Im Tirtzu is an Israeli “extra-parliamentary movement that works to strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel.” A major component of Im Tirtzu’s efforts is devoted to “combating the campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to provide responses to anti-Zionist” declarations. With thirteen branches at universities and colleges throughout Israel, its mission is based on recognizing that it is critical “to strengthen the Zionist and Jewish identity of Israeli students and encourage them to participate in Zionist activities in the Israeli academic sphere.”

Like many American universities, Israeli institutions of higher learning are filled with left-leaning professors who display a fierce anti-Zionist bias. In 2010, American-born Israeli journalist, newspaper editor, and writer, Caroline Glick noted that

One of Im Tirtzu’s central goals is to engender an atmosphere of academic freedom and intellectual pluralism on university campuses. Over the past generation or so, those campuses, and particularly the humanities and social sciences faculties, have become hotbeds of anti-Zionist activism and intellectual terror. Stories of professorial intimidation of and discrimination against Zionist students are widespread, as are instances of outright indoctrination in the classrooms.

Responding to complaints from students, Im Tirtzu examined the Politics and Government Department faculty at Ben-Gurion University and discovered adjunct lecturers openly promoting calls for international boycotts of Israel. Better known as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, its primary purpose is the elimination of Israel.

In one of their publications, Im Tirtzu explains the concept of “political terrorism” which is defined as “actions that are not actually physically violent, but which are intended to spread terror and fear in certain countries for the achievement of political aims.” Consequently, “various political entities in Israel and abroad… carry out political actions with the aim of paralyzing Israel’s ability to defend itself.” For example, the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, a Palestinian Foundation located in Ramallah, “supports not only foreign agent organizations, but also Palestinian organizations who work together with the terrorist organization ‘The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.'”

Dr. Sebastian Gorka on “Defeating Jihad” — on The Glazov Gang.
Dr. Gorka unveils the winning strategy against Jihad, unmasks the Radical-in-Chief, describes the horrific scenario of a Hillary victory, and much, much more.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2016/08/14/dr-sebastian-gor…-the-glazov-gang/

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/08/12/islams-hatred-of-dogs-and-cruelty-to-animals-on-the-glazov-gang-2/

Donald Trump is standing by his charge that President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are the “co-founders” of ISIS.

“In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama,” Trump said at a Florida rally on August 10th. “He’s the founder of ISIS. I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”

Commentators immediately ripped into Trump’s latest accusation against Obama as demonstrably false. They point out that ISIS’s predecessor organization was originally a part of al Qaeda in Iraq and was founded years before Obama became president. David A. Graham, a staff writer at The Atlantic, for example, wrote that the idea that Obama is “a founder of the group is plainly ridiculous.”

A conservative radio show host, Hugh Hewitt, tried during an interview with Trump to offer him some wiggle room. “You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Hewitt said, in attempting to clarify for the audience what Trump really meant. At first, Trump did not back down from his use of the term “founder” when describing Obama’s relationship to ISIS. He responded, “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” But then, Trump explained, “I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about. If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.” Hewitt agreed with Trump’s explanation, but said he would not have used the phrase “founder of ISIS” to communicate it.

A debate over the precise semantics should not be allowed to obscure the underlying truth of Trump’s observation. Obama’s policies, in which Hillary Clinton participated in their formulation and early implementation, created the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise and become the global threat that it represents today.

ISIS (or the Islamic State, as it likes to call itself) emerged from the remains of the al Qaeda organization in Iraq, which was founded by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi was killed during the second term of George W. Bush’s administration. The al Qaeda organization itself was defeated as a result of Bush’s “surge” policy, which Obama and Hillary Clinton, as U.S. senators, opposed. On October 22nd, 2007, Osama bin Laden admitted in an audio tape, entitled “Message to the people of Iraq,” that al Qaeda was losing the war in Iraq because it had made mistakes and no longer had the allegiance of Sunni insurgents who had switched sides. When Barack Obama became president on January 20, 2009, the war in Iraq against ISIS’s predecessor group was essentially won.

The status of Islam should be clarified if the debate on how to defeat terrorism is ever to bear fruit. Islam, I would argue, is not a religion in the common acceptation of the term as a community of believers dedicated to the loving worship of the Divine, the sanctity of life, and the institution of moral principles governing repentance for sins and crimes, making life on earth a stage toward a higher reincarnation, an ineffable peace, or a confirmatory prelude to eternity in the realm of a righteous and merciful God.

In fact, Islam is an unrepentant politico-expansionist movement clothed in the trappings of religion and bent on universal conquest by whatever means it can mobilize: deception (taqiyya), social and cultural infiltration, or bloody violence, as its millennial history and authoritative scriptures have proven. (See Koran 13:41, which is meant literally despite the attempt of apologists to launder its purport: “Do they not see that We are advancing in the land, diminishing it by its borders on all sides?”)

There are several ways in which Islam differs from all other major religions. For starters:

It sanctions militant proselytization, mandating forcible imposition on other peoples by coercion, threat and overt violence (Koran 8:39, 9:29, etc.), a practice unique among religions today.

It punishes apostasy with death (Koran 4:89; Hadith, Bukhari 9.84.57), also a practice unique among religions today.

It countenances no separation between church and state, that is, it cannot render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The scope of its ambition is khilafil, that is, the establishment of a Caliphate requiring that a state—ultimately a universal state—be ruled by Islamic law. As Muslim scholar Jaafar Sheikh Idris explains, “Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon Allah’s decree for that of man.”

The “religion” itself takes precedence over the transcendent values it should strive to attain: the flourishing of the individual soul, the love of God’s Creation, the grace and miracle of life, the conversation with the Divine, freedom of conscience and the inviolability of personal choice in determining one’s redemption. Instead, it elevates conformity to a set of stringent rules, down to the smallest detail, as a prerequisite to salvation, whose effect is primarily to perpetuate the faith itself at the expense of the individual votary. Admittedly, this is a literalist practice common to most restrictive and comparatively minor orthodoxies, but regarding the massive following enjoyed by Islam and its susceptibility to violence and the subjugation of other faiths and peoples to its hegemony, we are remarking a radically greater economy of scale and the havoc it can wreak.

The propensity to violence is not an aberration but an intrinsic element of the Islamic corpus. As Lee Cary has written, Islamic terrorists are “legacy, Koranic literalists” who use terror “to enforce a dogma that defines behavioral practices that comply with the Koran and [defines] the regulations of daily life.” The much-bruited notion that there is such a thing as “Islamism,” a form of extremism that has nothing to do with Islam proper, or is a perversion thereof, is a pure canard, another in a series of timorous progressivist memes bleaching the blood out of the Islamic ideological jalabiyya. Islam, not “Islamism,” promises paradise for martyrs and jihadis killed in battle (Koran 3: 157), thus palliating and even inciting feral attitudes and fanatical actions—a patently non-spiritual way of earning beatitude.

As Howard Kainz points out in an illuminating essay, “Islam and the Decalogue,” Islam reverses the Golden Rule, which is central to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism (Koran 48:29, 2:191, 3:28, etc.). For this reason, Kainz concludes, “Islam may best be understood,” not as a religion, but “as a world-wide cult.”

On June 15, 2016, Israel’s Shin Bet security agency nabbed Muhammad Halabi at the Erez Crossing as he was trying to return to the Gaza Strip.

The Times of Israel reports that Halabi was Gaza manager of operations for World Vision. One of the largest Christian charities in the world, World Vision operates in about 100 countries and has a budget of $2.6 billion, much of it provided by Western governments and the UN.

Halabi has been indicted in an Israeli court for funneling 60% of the World Vision budget at his disposal—about $7.2 million a year—to Hamas, the terror organization that runs Gaza.

A member of Hamas from a young age, in 2005 Halabi was “handpicked to infiltrate” World Vision with the aim of diverting funds to the terror group. The money went for digging terror tunnels, buying weapons, and building military bases.

In addition, “about 40% of World Vision’s funds for civilian projects—$1.5 million a year—was also given to Hamas battalions in cash…along with approximately $4 million a year that was designated for helping the needy.”

Some of the fictive humanitarian projects

included the construction of greenhouses, rejuvenation of agricultural fields, mental and physical health projects, an initiative to assist fishermen, a center for treating the mentally and physically handicapped, and the creation of agricultural organizations.

“These were all used as a pipeline to transfer money to Hamas,” the Shin Bet said.

In a statement, the Shin Bet said its “meaningful and important investigation [had] showed—above all—the cynical and crude way in which Hamas takes advantage of funds and resources from international humanitarian aid organizations.”

World Vision, for its part, countered with: “Based on the information available to us at this time, we have no reason to believe that the allegations are true. We will carefully review any evidence presented to us and will take appropriate actions based on that evidence.”

On a trip to the U.S, the Rev. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe, a member of the South African Parliament, president of the African Christian Democratic Party and chairman of the South African Israel Allies Caucus, expressed his profound concern about the ad campaign on San Francisco’s Muni transportation system, urging for an end to U.S. support for Israel. A group of Christian, Jewish and Muslims has funded the ad campaign since 2010. [1]
Having lived as a black South African under apartheid and having visited Israel numerous times, he said there is no basis for those accusing Israel of being an apartheid state. Apartheid is a legal system of segregation based on color, with a white majority in control of the government. Under apartheid, people of color could not vote, hold office or travel freely in their own country.
Only segregated schools and sports arenas were available to them and they had to use segregated public restrooms and public transportation. Whites and blacks were prohibited to marry or have sexual relations. Different residential areas were built to ensure a forced physical separation between the races. Their hospitals, medical care and education were always inferior to those of the whites. Any white physicians willing to treat a black patient had to conduct the examination in private. [2]
Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-2009, added that attacking Israel “is an unfair and inaccurate slander … calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations…. In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute.” [3]
He remembered “all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system …where blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no black’ ambulance to rush them to a black hospital. ‘White’ hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.”[4]