RUTHFULLY YOURS

A hardline policy of turning away boat people at sea is having dramatic results but provoking middle-class outrage, writes Nick Cater in Sydney

THE Australian immigration department’s website posts its blunt advice to would-be settlers in 17 languages: “No way. You will not make Australia home.”

Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell, dressed in battle fatigues, stares grimly at the camera in an online video warning would-be refugees not to trust people smugglers who claim that the fortress Australia policy is a sham.

“The rules apply to everyone — families, children, unaccompanied children, educated and skilled,” he says. “There are no exceptions.”

Before Tony Abbott was elected prime minister last September, Campbell commanded Australian forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Now he heads Border Protection Command and is in charge of Operation Sovereign Borders, a mission to prevent “illegal maritime arrivals” stepping foot on his country’s soil.

Campbell’s area of operation encompasses the entire Indian Ocean, where two asylum seeker boats were intercepted in June near the Cocos Islands, halfway between Sri Lanka and the Australian mainland.

Last Sunday 41 asylum seekers from one vessel were transferred into Sri Lankan custody from an Australian border protection vessel off the port of Batticaloa.

Plans to organise a similar transfer for 153 asylum seekers on the second boat have been temporarily halted by an injunction from the High Court in Canberra.

Lawyers hired by activists have mounted a challenge, claiming Australia is breaching its obligations under the United Nations refugee convention.

“The guards don’t run the prison, Islam does.” — Tommy Robinson, upon his release from prison.

“The state is finding it harder to do its most basic duty, which is to protect the public.” — UK Home Secretary Theresa May.

The court heard how he doused his wife with gasoline and set her on fire. His defense attorney told the jurors, “He wasn’t being listened to, he wasn’t being obeyed.”

Tablighi Jamaat — a fundamentalist Islamic sect opposed to Western values such as democracy and equal rights, but committed to “perpetual jihad” to spread Islam around the world — is fighting a no-holds-barred battle to build a massive mosque complex in West Ham, a neighborhood in the East London Borough of Newham.

Critics say that attracting investments from Muslim investors is spurring the gradual establishment of a parallel global financial system based on Sharia law.

Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during the month of June 2014. They can be categorized into three broad themes: 1) The British government’s growing concern over Islamic extremism and the domestic security implications of British jihadists in Syria; 2) The continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in all aspects of British daily life; and 3) Ongoing questions of Muslim integration into British society.
1. Islamic Extremism and Syria-Related Threats

The dramatic rise of the Sunni militant group the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] in June added a new sense of urgency to the ongoing debate over how to prevent British jihadists from carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK upon their return from fighting in Syria.

British Prime Minister David Cameron warned on June 17 that British citizens and other Europeans fighting alongside Islamist insurgents in Iraq and Syria posed the biggest threat to Britain’s national security.

Britain’s top counter-terrorism officer, Cressida Dick, on June 22 told the BBC that roughly 500 Britons have now gone to fight in Syria. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, Dick warned that British jihadists represent a “long-term” terrorist threat that British police will be dealing with for “many years.”

The Beltway fixture that Republicans have placed in charge of the House judiciary committee—i.e., the committee that, by its own description, functions as “the lawyer for the House of Representatives,” and claims an “infrequent but important role in impeachment proceedings”—is ignorant when it comes to the Constitution’s impeachment standard.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) took to one of the Sunday shows to demonstrate his cluelessness. After explaining that “the Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States,” he proceeded to mangle that very clear standard, opining that President Obama “has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that.”

In point of fact, no “criminal acts” are necessary before a president may be impeached. The very clear standard the Constitution prescribes calls for impeachment upon the commission of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason and bribery are, of course, well known criminal acts. As I illustrate in Faithless Execution, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a term of art borrowed from British law. It does not refer—at least, not necessarily—to criminal acts that violate the penal code. Instead, it captures what Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, described as:

the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

The concept conveyed by “high crimes and misdemeanors” is executive maladministration, whether out of imperiousness, corruption or incompetence. In that sense, it is more redolent of military justice offenses than criminal acts that violate the penal code. Like a soldier, one who owes fiduciary responsibility is liable for acts that would not be considered criminal wrongs if committed by an ordinary civilian. Dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, profound deceitfulness, and the failure to honor an oath, to take a few obvious examples, would qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors even if they might not be indictable offenses if committed by one in whom high public trust was not reposed.

As I further relate in Faithless Execution, what the Framers were most concerned about was presidential misconduct that undermined our governing framework, particularly the separation of powers:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/dont-look-down?f=puball

The title refers to the loveable Wylie E. Coyote screaming off a cliff with legs churning and no recognition that gravity will eventually have its way with him. This gravitational force is a metaphor for an unsustainable worldwide financial system built on fiat currency debt. Collapse would be due to hyperinflation. Such a collapse could be sudden or ~ a decade. Unfortunately, even most self-reliant Americans have no clue what is headed this way because the MSM is ignorant and has a rooting interest in believing we are well on the way to recovery with unemployment falling, the deficit cut in half and soaring asset values. Utter rubbish. With information instantly available to all (www.zerohedge.com and http://www.economicnoise.com/ are a must), ignorance of “the rest of the story” is appalling – but bring a Fed official, CEO or rosy analyst into the studio and these intrepid reporters simply gush.

Obama isn’t the cause of the potential financial tsunami coming ashore, though he is a powerful accelerant to it with every policy he has put in place. Instead this possible collapse has been building since 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard. And of course W. Bush contributed mightily to our circumstance as the second largest spender in history and not noticing the debt bubble inflating.

As I believe correctly described here http://www.internationalman.com/articles/understanding-hyperinflation (see Loss Due to Hyperinflation), the hyperinflation that causes catastrophe will be unlike the 1970s with rising interest rates, prices and wages because we are far worse off now. If interest rates begin to soar in order to sell our debt, it is over.

The dollar is backed by nothing but confidence that the US will remain a financial and military superpower capable and willing to defend itself and paying its debts. In the cold light of reality our dollar has less value than your laundry ticket, because the laundry ticket is at least backed up by the value of the clothes it redeems.

While $17 Trillion is the agreed amount of the national debt, it doesn’t include all the unfunded and underfunded obligations and commitments of all governments (national, states and localities). According to various contrarian experts, the actual number could be in the $100 to $200T range. That it could be this high is due to government deception and incompetence. A very important recent study by professor James Hamilton of University of California – San Diego found that off-sheet obligations of the federal government were $70T in 2012, six times what was reported. Off-sheet obligations are government trust funds (the biggies Social Security, Medicare) and things like student loan guarantees and FHA and deposit guarantees. (See http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/Cato_paper.pdf).

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/nato-after-ukraine-military-modernization-in-europe?f=puball

NATO faces a challenge to modernize and sustain its nuclear posture and missile defense deployments in Europe at a time of declining defense budgets on the one hand and expanded threats on the other. The threats from Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa are serious and growing from both ballistic missile arsenals and nuclear programs.

At the same time, there are political pressures within NATO pushing for the adoption of a “zero nuclear” posture as well as efforts to delay significantly U.S. and allied missile defense and nuclear modernization deployments. This comes as threatening countries adopt military and political doctrines that emphasize the use of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles as instruments of state power.

Ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons are weapons of terror, coercion, and blackmail. Hamas rocket attacks on Israel are meant to terrorize the population; Hezbollah and Iran threaten the coercive use of thousands of rockets against the U.S. and allied interests in the Gulf in response to any action taken to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile, North Korea launches missiles and explodes nuclear devices while demanding oil and food ransoms in return for “blackmail promises” to end such demonstrations of state power. Of the 31 countries with ballistic missiles in their arsenal, nine are suspected of possessing-or do possess-nuclear weapons, broadening the threat considerably.

In short, such weapons have diplomatic, political, and military dimensions that must be taken into account when assessing NATO policy in both arenas.
Gathering Missile Threats

Missile threats to NATO come primarily from ballistic missiles deployed in Russia, Syria, and Iran. Current Iranian missiles are thought to have a range of about 1,200 miles, capable of striking most of Eastern Europe, but there remains a debate as to when Iran will also have a missile with the range to strike London, Paris, or New York. A study of global missile threats by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center last year assessed that Iran “could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”

And while the U.S. and NATO have repeatedly emphasized that NATO defenses against Iranian or other rogue state missiles in no way can affect Russia’s central strategic missile force, Russia has continually threatened America’s European allies with Askander missiles launched from Kaliningrad. Additionally, with its violation of the INF treaty, Russia could again have medium range missiles with which to target Eastern and Central Europe. Finally, Russia is the top arms supplier to both Iran and Syria. Syrian missiles primarily threaten Turkey, or NATO’s “southern flank,” but Syria’s cooperation with North Korea and Iran could quickly change that assessment.

Hamas isn’t shooting rockets at the Jews because of persecution, isolation or occupation. The Sunni Islamic terrorist group is doing it for the same reason that Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq and Syria. And why its Muslim Brotherhood core group is killing Christians in Egypt.

To understand why, let’s step into a time machine and go back to the spring of 632. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius is engaged in the first of a series of wars with Mohammed’s maddened followers. England is divided into seven quarreling kingdoms. Across the water, the Merovingians are killing each other in ways that would give George R.R. Martin nightmares. Meanwhile in a more civilized part of the world, China’s fading Sui Dynasty fields an army of over a million men in a failed effort to invade Korea.

Back in Medina, Mohammed had come down with the sniffles. He had a fever and a headache and there wasn’t any Tylenol around for miles. Mohammed hadn’t been a very good man and he made a very bad patient. Upon being told that he had pleurisy, he claimed that only people possessed by Satan came down with that disease so he couldn’t possibly have it and instead blamed the Jews for poisoning him.

His own homemade cures, such as bathing in seven skins of water from seven different wells, didn’t help. But before he died, he managed to make the Middle East an even worse place by ordering the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians.

“Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,” Mohammed declared. “If I live, if Allah wills, I will expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.”

There could be only one.

A lot of ink has been spent in recent weeks – and deservedly so, given the gravity of the situation – on the Israeli-Palestinian flare-up that followed the killing of three Israeli teenagers, and the subsequent revenge killing of a Palestinian youth. People far more qualified than me have written endlessly on the subject, but I did want to insert my oar.

What is concerning is the growing animosity on the part of the media and people around the world toward Israel. The media is careful that their criticisms are not cocooned in terms that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic; nevertheless they are disturbing. They are subtle, but insidious in their subtlety. Examples of what I mean could be seen in a couple of front page photos in Wednesday’s newspapers. One by Mohammed Saber of the European Pressphoto Agency that appeared in the New York Times showed smoke billowing “after an Israeli attack on Gaza City.” Another, an AP photo in my local paper, The Day, by Khali Hamra, showed Palestinians trying to salvage what they could from the rubble of a house “destroyed by an overnight Israeli airstrike in Gaza City.” Should either paper be accused of bias, they could point out that on inside pages reporters do mention rocket attacks on Israel. That is true. They do, but that doesn’t take away from the visual image one gets from skimming the story – that Israel is the aggressor, using overwhelming force against a smaller and weaker neighbor.

But it is Israel that responded to the killings in the way civilized nations ought. They arrested six Israeli youths as suspects in the brutal killing of the Palestinian teenager. Has Palestine arrested, or held anyone in connection with the equally brutal murder of three Israeli teenagers? Of course not. It is Israel that has made an effort to limit civilian casualties. They call occupants of houses known to harbor terrorists, urging them to get out, and fire warning shots in attempts to reduce civilian casualties. It is Hamas that indiscriminately lobs rockets at Beersheba, Rehovot, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. And it is Hamas that urges occupants of targeted homes to remain as they are, to act as human shields, to be used as pawns on the PR battlefield being fought in world-wide media.

A sentiment often attributed to Joseph Goebbels or Adolph Hitler, but one which is true is that if you repeat a lie (or a story) often enough, it becomes accepted as gospel. George Orwell made a similar observation in his dystopian novel, 1984. He wrote, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” That, in my opinion, is what is happening in the saga between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israelis are being portrayed as the aggressor, against less well-equipped Palestinians. Little is made of the terrorist organization Hamas, which occupies Gaza and shares power with Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Party, a political party that emerged from the Palestinian National Liberation Movement.

“The Jewish Legion” is now available. You can see it directly via the following link:

http://zionism101.org/NewestVideo.aspx

Or log in at www.zionism101.org

“The Jewish Legion” was the first Jewish national military unit to fight in the Land of Israel since the Bar Kochba revolt 1,800 years earlier. It was composed of three infantry battalions within the British Army. They helped drive the Turks from Palestine during World War I.

We are now a 501(c)3 charitable organization. All donations are tax-deductible. Help us reach our goals by donating to Zionism 101. Please visit: http://zionism101.org/donate.aspx

We encourage you to share information about “Zionism 101” with your friends, family, and co-workers, plus anyone else who is interested in learning about the most important development in modern Jewish history.

If you haven’t already, please watch our completed video courses.

We welcome questions and comments.

Sincerely,

David Isaac
Executive Director
Zionism101.org

P.S. To ensure delivery of our emails, please add the following to your contacts list: mailer_response@emailcounts.com.

Between the Settlers and the Unsettlers, the One-State Solution Is on Our Doorstep

Why Israel will soon be the only state able to govern Judea and Samaria, and the only military force capable of securing its borders

A one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is upon us. It won’t arrive by Naftali Bennett’s proposal to annex the West Bank’s Area C, or through the efforts of BDS campaigners and Jewish Voice for Peace to alter the Jewish state. But it will happen, sooner rather than later, as the states on Israel’s borders disintegrate and other regional players annex whatever they can. As that happens, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is becoming inevitable.

Last week’s rocket attacks from Gaza failed to inflict many casualties in Israel—but they administered a mortal wound to Palestinian self-governance. Hamas launched its deepest strikes ever into Israel after the IDF cracked down on its West Bank operations following the murder last month of three Israeli boys, arresting nearly 900 members of Hamas and other terrorist groups. Humiliated in the territories, and unable to pay its 44,000 Gaza employees, Hamas acted from weakness, gambling that missile attacks would elicit a new Intifada on the West Bank. Although Fatah militias joined in the rocket attacks from Gaza, for now the Palestinian organizations are in their worst disarray in 20 years.

The settlers of Judea and Samaria have stood in the cross-hairs of Western diplomacy for two decades, during which the word “settler” has become a term of the highest international opprobrium. Yet the past decade of spiraling conflicts in the Middle East have revealed that what is settled in the region is far less significant than what is unsettled. Iran’s intervention into the Syrian civil conflict has drawn the Sunni powers into a war of attrition that already has displaced more than 10 million people, mostly Sunnis, and put many more at risk. The settled, traditional, tribal life of the Levant has been shattered. Never before in the history of the region have so many young men had so little hope, so few communal ties, and so many reasons to take up arms.

David Without a Sling ‘Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel’

It may be hard for some to believe, given the endless attacks on the Jewish state today, that in the not-too-distant past, Israel was as beloved as it is now widely reviled. More remarkable, it was especially loved on the left, where now it is scorned. The process by which Israel turned from paragon into pariah is the subject of Joshua Muravchik’s well-argued new book Making David into Goliath.

Muravchik sets the stage by describing the time when Israel was popular. One factor he cites was the reservoir of sympathy created after the Holocaust. For “progressives,” Israel’s socialist leadership was another source of solidarity. The kibbutzim were particularly admired outside of Israel as successful experiments in communal living. In the state’s early years, leaders from around the world came to visit the kibbutzim and pay homage.

All this changed in the aftermath of the Six Day War. Muravchik documents the wide sympathy in Europe as well as in the United States—including in the media—which Israel enjoyed immediately prior to the war. At that time, it looked as if Israel might be annihilated by its Arab neighbors, who made no secret of their intention to rid the world of the Jewish State.

But when, to general amazement, Israel defeated the Arab armies and captured lands previously held by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, it overnight became the ruler of millions of Arabs. The Arabs would take advantage of this, setting in motion a redefinition of the conflict. No longer was it tiny Israel against a vast Arab world. “Now it was Israel versus the homeless Palestinians. David had become Goliath,” Muravchik states.

As those familiar with the conflict know, Palestinian peoplehood was not the first choice of identification for the Arabs living on the west bank of the Jordan River. They had viewed themselves as “Syrian,” or as part of a pan-Arab world, in which all Arabs belong to a supra-national whole.

Indeed, the Arabs of Palestine resisted the label “Palestinian” for some time. It was only after 1967 that they began to see themselves as “Palestinian,” and to be trumpeted as such by an Arab world cognizant of the propaganda value of doing so. As the Egyptian weekly Al Mussawar admitted in 1968: “The masses of the Palestinian people are only the advance-guard of the Arab nation … a plan for rousing world opinion in stages, as it would not be able to understand or accept a war by a hundred million Arabs against a small state.”