RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomatic-Conference/Danish-ambassador-JPosts-Caroline-Glick-exchange-verbal-blows-over-EU-attitude-toward-Israel-384438

Europe should apply a double standard to Israel when judging its actions compared to other Middle Eastern nations, Danish Ambassador Jesper Vahr said on Thursday, causing sparks to fly at the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference in the capital.

“Israel should insist that we discriminate, that we apply double standards, this is because you are one of us,” Vahr said during a panel discussion on relations between Israel and Europe.

Israelis sometimes ask why Europe applies a different standard to its neighboring countries, such as Syria, Vahr said. “Those are not the standards that you are being judged by. It is not the standards that Israel would want to be judged by,” he said.

Israel should want to be held to European standards, not Middle Eastern ones, he said.

“So I think you have the right to insist that we apply double standards and put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context.”

The Jerusalem Post’s diplomatic correspondent, Herb Keinon, who moderated the panel, asked Vahr if his statement couldn’t be seen as “patronizing” to the Palestinians.

Vahr responded: “I am not sure it is,” particularly given that Israel is the stronger party in the conflict and the Palestinians are the weaker one.

It is “natural,” Vahr said, to engage differently with Israel, a country with whom Europe, including Denmark, has an extensive cooperative relationship with in trade and cultural affairs.

Norah O’Donnell is called an “anchorwoman,” defined as “a television reporter who coordinates a broadcast to which several correspondents contribute.” However, would she not vet the material before airing erroneous contributions, or is there intentional complicity?

O’Donnell reported the brutal attack by two Palestinian boys in a Jerusalem synagogue, killing four rabbis and injuring seven. In fact, it was a massacre, with blood everywhere, including on the Torah – but she called the synagogue a “contested religious site.” Contested? Neither the Har Nof synagogue nor the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem is contested. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, has been the capital of the Jewish people through most of history, and was declared the capital when Israel became a state; therefore, the neighborhood and the synagogue are indisputably legal. If it is contested, it is only a war tactic by jihadists, who will use any method to garner supporters when they fear the possibility of loss by modern warfare. Does O’Donnell also contest the Christian churches or Bahi’a, Buddhist, or Hindu temples in Israel? Does she contest the Al Aqsa mosque, over which dominion was ceded by General Moshe Dayan, whether out of generosity or naïveté and his hope for peace with barbarians. How could he have known that the courtyard would someday be a soccer field for boys who use severed heads for sport? Perhaps he should have been more aware of Islam’s bloody 1400-year history!

Ahhhh, the Al Aqsa mosque should be contested, because it sits on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, where King Solomon built the First Temple in Jerusalem as a monument to God and a permanent home for the inner sanctuary, which contained the Ark of the Covenant that held the two stone tablets that Moses received at Mt. Horeb. The ground under the Temple Mount to this day contains artifacts that verify the existence of the Jewish people who worshipped in that Temple; the coins of the monetary system used by the Jews before the Christian Era, pottery, stones with inscriptions, an arch, a colonnade, a grand stairway, Solomon’s Stables, thousands of mikvehs (ceremonial baths), and the continuation of the Western Wall now leading to the city walls and the Lion’s Gate. It should also be contested because the imams have the audacity to preach hate and death to all the Jews from the mosque that sits on Jewish land!

I would like to hear from CBS’s Morning news show and Norah O’Donnell concerning her contesting the Har Nof synagogue; I believe a sincere apology to the Jewish people and a statement of correction are in order.

Louis René Beres, professor of political science and international law at Purdue University, is the author of many books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including several very early works on nuclear terrorism. He received his Ph.D. at Princeton.

It would seem preposterous to connect the United Nations General Assembly and genocide in causal terms, but this link is plausible today. On December 2, the world body overwhelmingly endorsed a plainly one-sided resolution, calling upon Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and, simultaneously, to join a Nuclear Weapons Free-Zone for the Middle East. Should Israel ever feel compelled to abide by such a carefully contrived proposal, it would immediately become complicit in its own planned disappearance.

Almost from the beginning, when first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion saw the primary need for a “great equalizer,” Israel’s core security as a beleaguered state has depended upon nuclear weapons. Although still ambiguous and still undisclosed, this Israeli “bomb in the basement” has managed to keep a substantial number of potentially existential enemies at bay. And while it was never a suitable deterrent against historically “normal” wars, or acts of terrorism, this available nuclear option has successfully thwarted what enemy states have expressly wanted most of all – that is, in the precise words commonly favored in such recurrent Arab and/or Iranian pleas, a “liquidation of the Zionist Entity.”

Significantly, from the standpoint of Israel’s enemies, there has never been any ambiguity. Presently, with Iran approaching full and effectively unobstructed membership in the Nuclear Club – a manifestly disingenuous approach, one assumed in stunning defiance of its nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations – nuclear weapons and strategy have become indispensable to Israel’s physical survival.

“Mass counts,” wrote the classic Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, and only Israel’s enemies have mass. Each year, without fail, these determined enemies call sanctimoniously for some form or other of Israeli denuclearization. Now, it is high time to acknowledge that nuclear weapons are never truly evil in themselves, and that their potential harmfulness is contingent upon which individual state or alliance is in control. In certain circumstances, as should be cartographically obvious to anyone who can see that Israel is less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan, these weapons can be vital to self-defense and population survival.

ERIN GO ANTI-SEMITIC?…RSK

A furore has broken out in Ireland after organizers of the forthcoming Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27 decided to ban any mention of Israel at the event.

“The trustees of Holocaust Educational Trust Ireland (HETI) have instructed the host of the country’s main Shoah memorial event in January ‘not to refer to the Jewish State or the State of Israel during any part of the ceremony,’” the London-based Jewish Chronicle newspaper reported.

The ban follows a similar bar imposed just days before this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day in Ireland, when long-standing host Yanky Fachler was told to avoid mentioning Israel, the JC said.

He reluctantly complied when his objections fell on deaf ears but, afterwards, complained in writing to the organising body, HETI – only to be told the rule will again apply at January’s event at Dublin’s Mansion House.

Six days later, Fachler received a letter from HETI chair Peter Cassells telling him he was being replaced after 12 years in the job.

“I felt like I’d been hit very hard in my stomach,” Fachler said. The HETI decision “plays directly into the hands of everyone who doesn’t like Jews or Israel and I find it very sad that apparently the two Jewish members of the board did this,” he said.

The JC noted that Alan Shatter, a Jewish politician and former Justice and Equality Minister, “emphatically denied” that he had asked for Fachler to be sacked at a meeting with HETI to review the Holocaust commemoration event.

“I’m concerned that board members of HETI have been influenced in how they’re approaching this issue by the hostility towards Israel in some sections of Irish public discourse and by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement,” Shatter told the JC, after describing Fachler as an “outstanding” Master of Ceremonies.

The liberal narrative is that fighting back against Muslim terrorists just makes them attack us. It’s best to just throw up our hands.

The Senate Torture report was supposed to prove their point by inciting Muslim violence. But no particularly special violence has arrived.

A desperate CBS based its entire claim of Muslim outrage on one guy from Twitter who wasn’t even outraged by it. It’s a sad state of affairs when CBS can’t even find an angry Muslim.

At the Daily Beast, Dean Obeidallah tries to explain why Muslims aren’t outraged.

There are two reasons why the torture report has resulted in nothing more—to date—than a few public condemnations and a slew of snarky tweets by ISIS supporters using the hashtag…

First, people across the Middle East have seen their own governments employ horrible forms of torture for years. It’s one of the oppressive techniques utilized by their respective leaders to remain in power…

The second, and what I see as the bigger reason for a collective shrug from the Muslim world, was what we didn’t see in the report. There were no allegations that the jailers engaged in desecrating Islam.

The common denominator in the most violent protests against Western actions has been when Islam had been insulted.

Dean’s various excuses and attacks on America and Israel aside, his two reasons are correct. What he doesn’t say is that…

Can any American who has been force fed videos of young men being beheaded by Islamic barabarians, who lived through the national grief of 9/11 be persuaded by McCain’s blather? He was a lousy candidate and a fool who paved the way for the victory of the worst president in American history….rsk
Senator McCain: ‘Torture is a stain on our national honor’
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate on December 9 concerning the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA interrogation methods:

“Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

View In Web Browser Forward This Message

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/6120/150/Welcome to this morning’s headline. It’s hard to imagine more nauseating news, confirming all of our suspicions about what Rino rectum sellout corrupt scumbags are John Boehner and the House GOP leadership.

The $1.1 trillion bill dubbed the “Cromnibus” but which the HFR calls the Crapnibus passed last night (12/11) by 219-206, a margin of 13 votes. The vote was 162R-57D Yes, 67R-139D No. That means if just 7 more Pubs had the spine to stand up to Boehner, the bill would have been defeated, 213-212.

What’s more, the dreaded Shutdown would be blamed on the Democrats, as the No vote would have been lopsided 74R-139D. Indeed, Pelosi argued for a Shutdown and No vote on the House floor yesterday.

This destroys Boehner’s cowardly argument that Pubs had to pass the bill and avoid a Shutdown for which they would be blamed. It is now clear that Boehner and the GOP Establishment is in collusion with Zero to grant unconstitutional amnesty to millions – uncountable millions with subsequent chain migration – of illegal non-Americans.

As the linked article at the top explains:

“Fueled by Boehner’s money, Obama’s amnesty will provide work-permits, federal aid, Social Security cards and drivers’ licenses to millions of illegal immigrants, who will be able to compete against blue-collar worker – including many who voted Democrat in 2014 – for decent jobs.”

Daryl McCann A State of Apocalyptic Psychosis The fantasy that a Palestinian mini-state in the West Bank will “solve” the Middle East’s problems is wearing thin, especially with Egypt no longer on board. The long, sad history of Arab rejectionism has made sure of that

Peter Smith’s splendid Quadrant Online essay, “Dancing at the Wailing Wall”, quotes a Palestinian terrorist: “There will be one country from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.” Though usually not one to agree with Islamic militants, I think our anti-Zionist freedom fighter has got this one right. For the foreseeable future – okay, until the end of time – there will be only one country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. And its name shall be Israel.

The so-called “two-state solution” is dead. Truth be told, the notion of transforming the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria) into an Arab Palestinian state has always been a minority view. Haj Amin al-Husseini (1897-1974), the religious and political leader of the Arabs who inhabited British Mandatory Palestine, did not care for it. While he retained any kind of authority, at least, he never aspired to an Arab Palestinian state – neither the maximalist Jordan-to-the Mediterranean version nor the minimalist West Bank adaptation.

In the aftermath of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, al-Husseini rejected the idea of an autonomous Palestinian entity and instead insisted that the Arabs of the region (formerly known as southern Ottoman Syria) be absorbed into an independent Greater Syria. Come the Second World War, Haj Amin al-Husseini did not conspire in Berlin to become President of Palestine but Supreme Leader of a Nazi-sanctioned, Judenfrei, transnational Islamic state with Jerusalem as the capital – not so much a two-state solution as an integral part of the Final Solution. In al-Husseini’s day, the term “Palestine” was associated with Zionism. Until May 16, 1948, the day after the foundation of the State of Israel, The Jerusalem Post was known as The Palestine Post. An Arab Palestinian flag, an Arab Palestinian identity and an Arab Palestinian nation are all recent innovations.

This excellent and thoughtful column is about mis-education in Australia, but so applicable to the academies in America….rsk

While textbook pages are devoted to Karl Marx, to socialism and the struggle of the working man, nineteenth-century liberalism is almost totally neglected. How is it possible to omit so much, remembering always that this excision is but one of many in the systematic stripping of the past

It was once the case that the political and constitutional history of England and Australia dominated the study of history in schools. But since the mid-1980s historians have largely abandoned these matters for social history. While the apostles of social history might say that what they have to offer is a gain, and it is, the arrival of this new history has also had the effect, intended or not, of crowding out political and constitutional history.

The social history approach does not always enhance our understanding of the past, for it produces a very odd account of the past when it stumbles into areas where it lacks understanding. Take slavery. According to the History 9 textbooks, slavery in the British Empire was abolished as the result of a social movement. Now while such a movement was very influential it was not in itself sufficient; legislation was required to abolish slavery in the British Empire in 1833.[1] The failure to mention this might create the impression that somehow it just went away because people protested. This is a typically adolescent view of social change and ignores the complex ways change actually occurs. [2]

It would help students to know that in 1772 the English courts declared slavery unlawful in England when the Court of King’s Bench set free a Virginia slave who had been brought to England, on the basis that there was no slavery in England.[3] The case was cited and applied in a habeas corpus case involving the illegal detention of an Aboriginal boy in New South Wales in 1861.[4] Students should also know that the Governor of New South Wales declared in 1788 that Australia would not permit slavery.[5]exhibition building