Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Monday, 20 February 2017

North of the Border, Up Montreal Way (video)

"Destroy the accursed Jews! ... Allah, kill them one by one ... Grant victory to our brothers waging jihad in Palestine ..."

Here's one of those barmy Olde Tyme preachers, spewing some bloodcurdling sentiments.

But this youthful representative of the 7th century-inspired antisemitic species calling for genocide of the Jews  is not doing so in some Middle Eastern backwater.

He's doing it in Trudeauland.

His name's Imam Sayed al-Ghitawi and his hangout is the al-Andalous (here's looking at you covetously, Spain!) Islamic Center, Montreal:


To quote the uploader:
"Brad Trost issued a statement opposing Motion M-103 in Canada's House of Commons. The Motion calls for Parliament to study and take action against Islamophobia. In his statement Trost reminds people that it is Jews, not Muslims, who remain the REAL targets of hate in Canada. This video illustrates why Trost is right."
As Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah observed, inter alia, a few days ago:
'In the wake of the tragic massacre at a Quebec City mosque that killed six Muslims, a motion will be debated in the Canadian Parliament Wednesday asking MPs to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
Many in the mosque establishment and right-wing Islamic groups in Canada are celebrating this as a victory.
But Muslim critics of the so-called “Motion 103”, which mentions only Islamophobia by name and not any other form of religious persecution, are in disbelief that so few members of parliament have objected to this giant step backward and the watering down of our freedom of expression.
Perhaps, since the motion is being put before the Commons by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, a Muslim Canadian, MPs don’t want to be seen as insensitive to Muslim victimhood, or oppose the motion, lest they be labelled racist, misogynist and, of course, “Islamophobic”....
[P]erhaps MP Khalid will have the courage to amend her motion and include a denunciation of this prayer, variations of which are read at most mosques every Friday.
Will she label such hateful statements as an example of systemic racism that is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-atheist?'

Ahead of His Visit Down Under, Prominent Australians Sign Anti-Netanyahu Petition

On a current "as-a-Jew" petition
I recently blogged about APAN (the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network) and its president Bishop Browning.

Aussie Israel hater friend rants
APAN works assiduously to undermine Israel's cause in the public arena, and the bishop has succeeded in getting three score prominent and so-called prominent Australians to sign a statement opposing Bibi Netanyahu's imminent visit to Australia.

This motley assemblage includes campaigning (New Matilda, ABC) Israel-basher Michael Brull, lefty feminist Sara Dowse, actress Miriam Margolyes (who has dual British/Australian citizenship), academics Peter Slezak and Marcelo Svirsky, and Marrickville Council BDSer Cathy Peters  (all of Jewish background and all with form regarding Israel), and  personages from various fields including mega-wealthy businesswoman Janet Holmes à Court, former Labor politician Laurie Ferguson and academics Stuart Rees and Jake Lynch, both of whom need no introduction to this blog's readers. An assemblage of persons "prominent" for anti-Israel activity and sentiment for the most part, though to me Janet comes as a surprise.

Aussie Bibi/Israel-hater friends rant
More here

And here

"Apartheid ... BDS ... Colonisation".   Those well-worn words waft into the eardrums from this speaker at today's "Melbourne Says No to Netanyahu Rally" outside the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne.

Endorsed by a network of usual suspects including leftist as-a-Jews (Palestinian Community Association (PCA); Australians for Palestine;Women for Palestine; Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA); Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS); Casey for Palestine) the demo's more than a tad redundant, since, to the disappointment of his many fans in "The Shtetl by the Yarra," Bibi will not be visiting Melbourne during his imminent visit to Australia.

The odious AJDS has started an "as a jew petition" protesting Bibi's visit Down Under which as well as those of Miriam Margolyes and the usual crowd contains the signatures of a curious number of ostensible Anglo-Celts and persons living in tiny outback towns that it takes an atlas to locate.  It seems that even the AJDS smells a rat or two, since it stresses that the petition is for Australian Jews only and that persons who are not Australian Jews should remove their names.

Great speech (as usual) from Bibi:


Friday, 17 February 2017

David Singer: Bush, Obama, Russia, EU and UN buried under Trump Landslide

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Trump has buried the Bush Roadmap and any lingering hope for the creation of a second Arab State (“the two-state solution”) – in addition to Jordan – in the territory designated under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.

This inevitability follows Trump’s failure at a White House joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on 15 February to reaffirm the written commitments made by President Bush to Israel in his letter dated 14 April 2004 – overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (“Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments”).

President Bush had been urged to do so just the day before by veteran US peace negotiator Dennis Ross – who stated it would have: 
“significant implications, both because it was recognizing settlement blocs referred to in the letter as major population centers, but also because it said that no agreement can involve going back to the 1949 Armistice lines or the equivalent of June 4, 1967.” 
Similar calls had also been made by:
* Michael Oren - Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington and currently Deputy Minister in Netanyahu’s Prime Minister’s office
* Tzipi Livni – former Israeli Foreign Minister who had led negotiations for Israel with the Palestinian Authority in the peace talks brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry from July 2013 until April 2014.
* Danny Ayalon – Former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister.
Former Israeli United Nations ambassador and until recently the Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry,  Dore Gold, had been concerned as far back as 9 June 2009 that President Obama was not going to reaffirm the Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments:
"For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the US Senate (95:3) and the House of Representatives (407:9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute."
Obama’s clarification never came.

Even Netanyahu – just before boarding a plane to see Obama in the White House in May 2011 – had said he expected: 
“to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.” 
Netanyahu never received that affirmation then – nor did he from Trump now.

Their reasons however are very different.

Obama proceeded to trash those commitments made with one of America’s closest allies with disastrous consequences for America’s foreign policy, its reputation and integrity.

Trump however had difficulty in reaffirming all of Bush’s commitments because one of them stated: 
“ the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan” 
Trump doesn’t like long negotiations without any deal – and Trump wants to cut a deal.

Trump has accordingly ditched the Bush two-state solution – endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It now joins the diplomatic graveyard housing other two-state solutions proposed by
* the 1937 Peel Commission
* the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan,
* the 1993 Oslo Accords and
* Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008.
The Arabs have missed yet another opportunity to end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

David Singer: Trump and Congress Can Make America Great Again

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Trump and Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders this week have the last opportunity to resuscitate the two-state solution laid out in President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap adopted by the Quartet – America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations (“Bush-Quartet Roadmap”).

This can only happen if President Trump and the Congress re-affirm the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 – as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House 407:9 and the Senate 95:3 (“Bush-Congress Commitments”). Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly sees this outcome flowing from his White House visit on 15 February:
“Trump believes in a deal and in running peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” the prime minister was quoted as saying. “We should be careful and not do things that will cause everything to break down. We mustn’t get into a confrontation with him.” 
The last six years have seen those negotiations teeter on the brink of total collapse because the framework for such negotiations - the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress commitments – has been successively trashed by President Obama, the European Union and the United Nations.
President Obama’s failure to honour the Bush-Congress commitments first emerged on 19 May 2011 –  when he stated: 
“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” 
Obama’s statement put him on a collision course with America’s position as laid out in the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had declared before an international meeting of world leaders called by President Bush in Annapolis on 27 November 2007 – including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would resume on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments.
Land swaps from Israel’s sovereign territory for any territory Israel retained in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was never mentioned or contemplated in the Bush-Congress Commitments or indeed the Bush-Quartet Roadmap.

Certainly Israel might decide to make land swaps if deemed to be in Israel’s national interest – but that was for Israel to decide – not for Obama or Bush to influence or impose. Obama appeared to flip flop during his speech on 21 March 2013 at the Jerusalem International Convention Centre:
"I know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders – Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin – reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets." 
However those “credible proposals at Annapolis” had never suggested that the “1967 lines” and “land swaps” be the starting point for negotiations.

Yet Obama, the European Union and the United Nations persisted with these demands until the dying days of Obama’s Presidency – when America abstained – rather than veto – Security Council Resolution 2334 which expressed: 
“grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines” 
The Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments is the only mutually agreed two-state negotiating process.

President Trump and the Congress can ensure the survival of that process – though not necessarily a successful outcome of any negotiations to be conducted under that process – by reaffirming the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Trump and the Congress in so doing would be meeting Netanyahu’s expectations.
America’s restored reputation for keeping agreements made with its closest allies would resonate with Trump’s campaign promise to “Make America Great Again”.

Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Swedish Feminista Politicians Obey Male Iranian Masters

Self-abasement bigtime!  In a spectacular display of the hypocritical feminism that blasts President Trump and other Western men for misogyny real and supposed, these Swedish feministas bow their hijabbed heads to the leaders of a country known for very real and hideous oppression of women.

In the process these whacky Swedish hypocrites (whose own country, now the rape capital of Europe owing to Islamic mass migration , betrays its women and girls) have betrayed Iranian women, for whom encasement in body sacks is compulsory, despite the pleas of Iranian feminists fighting the hijab whom they have blatantly ignored.


Hillel Neuer of UN Watch has the lowdown on these wicked women.  Inter alia:
'In a statement that has gone viral on Twitter and Facebook, UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights NGO in Geneva, expressed disappointment that Sweden’s self-declared “first feminist government in the world” sacrificed its principles and betrayed the rights of Iranian women as Trade Minister Ann Linde and other female members walked before Iranian President Rouhani on Saturday wearing Hijabs, Chadors, and long coats, in deference to Iran’s oppressive and unjust modesty laws which make the Hijab compulsory — despite Stockholm’s promise to promote “a gender equality perspective” internationally, and to adopt a “feminist foreign policy” in which “equality between women and men is a fundamental aim.”
In doing so, Sweden’s female leaders ignored the recent appeal by Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad who urged Europeans female politicians “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to kowtow to the compulsory Hijab while visiting Iran.
Alinrejad created a Facebook page for Iranian women to resist the law and show their hair as an act of resistance, which now numbers 1 million followers.“European female politicians are hypocrites,” says Alinejad. “They stand with French Muslim women and condemn the burkini ban—because they think compulsion is bad—but when it happens to Iran, they just care about money.”
 The scene in Tehran on Saturday was also a sharp contrast to Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin’s feminist stance against U.S. President Donald Trump, in a viral tweet and then in a Guardian op-ed last week, in which she wrote that “the world need strong leadership for women’s rights.[Emphasis added]
"Trade Minister Linde, who signed multiple agreements with Iranian ministers while wearing a veil, “sees no conflict” between her government’s human rights policy and signing trade deals with an oppressive dictatorship that tortures prisoners, persecutes gays, and is a leading executioner of minors.
 “If Sweden really cares about human rights, they should not be empowering a regime that brutalizes its own citizens while carrying out genocide in Syria; and if they care about women’s rights, then the female ministers never should have gone to misogynistic Iran in the first place,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer...."

See also Neuer here

Sunday, 12 February 2017

The Windmills of the BBC Mind

Ah, the crafty BBC.  If they can't get their leftist propaganda across by one route, they'll get it across by another.

"We did this," the BBC's fictional lady doctor says (in an indictment of Western policy) during the year's first episode of Silent Witness. "Make beasts." 

Propaganda to soften up the public regarding mass Muslim immigration, from the drama department of the BBC  

The plot  focuses on the plight of "desperate people".  But the traumatised "Syrian refugee girl" is hardly  representative of the testosterone-fuelled so-called "asylum seekers" in the "camps" across the Channel waiting to be smuggled into Britain.

Another propaganda piece, courtesy of Al Beeb's Travel page recently, entitled "What can Albania teach us about trust?":
".... Little known to most, Albania was one of a few European countries to emerge with a larger Jewish population by the end of WWII than at the start, saving nearly all of its original Jews while offering refuge to more than 2,000 others from surrounding countries. Despite pressure from Italian fascists and occupying Nazi soldiers, Albanians refused to yield their guests, as doing so would not only result in great shame but would bind the master of the house to  “clean the blood”, meaning to take vengeance.
 More recently, Albania has again found itself offering besa, this time to those travelling from the Middle East. Hundreds of Iranian exiles are currently residing within the country after having been relocated from Camp Liberty in Iraq. Albanian prime minister Edi Rama has also expressed an intent to aid Syrian refugees, provided a collaborative agreement is reached with other European nations, saying that Albania will not ignore its duty.
Despite all these heroic instances, unassuming Albania remains unrecognized for its great services to the huddled masses of the world. The truth remains that this Balkan nation is small and poor, and as such, it hardly receives international attention for its exploits. Yet, at a time when refugees are being turned away at borders all over the world, it seems that there is a lot to learn from Albania’s penchant for hospitality...."  [Emphasis added]
An earlier attempt at this propaganda went slightly awry, leaving the propagandists with egg on their face:
"EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this story stated that hundreds of Iranian refugees were residing in Albania. We've updated the text to explain that these Iranian refugees had been relocated from Camp Liberty in Iraq. We’ve also clarified that the refugees from Kosovo were mostly ethnic Albanians."
From EdgarDavidson's blog here

And then, of course, there's the direct approach at propaganda, brazenly thumbing the nose at Al Beeb's obligations to be objective required of it by its Charter and its Producers' Guidelines.

On a recent Newsnight the BBC's John Sweeney  displayed a shamefully naked piece of bias in his piece about Geert Wilders, whose policies he attacks and whom he belittles and vilifies  (


To quote Al Beeb:
"Populist parties are growing in strength across Europe - emboldened by both Brexit and Trump. There's Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France of course. But there's a critical election before that: next month, in Holland. Geert Wilders - who leads the anti Muslim Freedom Party is hoping to top the ballot. He wants to take them out of the EU, and to 'de-islamise the Netherlands' with a ban on immigration from Muslim countries. In 2016 he was convicted of inciting discrimination. The Dutch coalition system means it's unlikely Wilders will be crowned Prime Minister. But he could end up leading the largest party which would chill European centrists and boost other populist movements throughout the continent. We sent John Sweeney in pursuit."
Towards the beginning Sweeney waits for an opportunity to "have a natter" with Wilders, and when he gets the chance to buttonhole him he tells him "Some people say you're a bit of a fascist""Well, don't talk to those people" is the reply.

Wilders later grants an interview to the sneering BBC man, who says with regard to the Dutchman's concerns regarding mass Muslim immigration into Europe (it's not Muslim individuals he's against but rather the ideology of Islam which is "incompatible" with Western freedoms, he explains): "Aren't we going back to 1939?"   It's less a question than a reflection of Sweeney's own views.

"People are equal.  Ideologies, values ... religions are not equal" observes Wilders, who speaks at some length about "cultural relativism".

Sweeney's mind is already made up, and avoiding the role and contribution of The Elephant in the Room he concludes the program, funereal tones to the fore: 
"There is no doubt that this man is changing what was once the most liberal country in Europe into something quite different." 
Not an iota as different as what these charmers have in mind:

Friday, 10 February 2017

David Singer: Trump-Netanyahu Meeting Set to Expose Obama’s Collusion on Resolution 2334

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

One of the intriguing aspects of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on 15 February will be the evidence he produces to President Trump to establish former President Obama’s collusion in promoting Security Council Resolution 2334.

America abstained from voting on Resolution 2334 – but the language used in that Resolution was inimical to the national interests of Israel and the Jewish people by declaring that:
* the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity and constituted a flagrant violation under international law
 * Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem
This language identifies as “Palestinian territory”:
* the centuries old Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem,
* the site of the First and Second Temples
* the Western Wall
* the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery
* Rachel’s Tomb
* the Machpelah, and 
* Judea and Samaria
–  and seeks to erase the legal rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National  Home in these areas under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Such language gives credence to the PLO claim that the Mandate – a critical building block in the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict – is null and void.

Resolution 2334 contravenes Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - exceeding the Security Council’s powers and condemning the hypocrisy of the Security Council which sanctimoniously professes to be concerned about “legal validity” and “international law”.

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm Al-Sabea was the first to allege American collusion in promoting Resolution 2334  – claiming to have a transcript of a meeting in December – prior to the passage of Resolution 2334  – between Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and US National Security Advisor Susan Rice in which Kerry said the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security Council.

White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price claimed no such tripartite meeting took place and that the "transcript" was a total fabrication – although he admitted Erekat had met with Kerry and Rice separately.

Netanyahu issued a Press Release on 28 December 2016 declaring:
“We have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the United States organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the United Nations Security Council. We'll share that information with the incoming administration. Some of it is sensitive, it's all true. You saw some of it in the protocol released in an Egyptian paper. There's plenty more; it's the tip of the iceberg.”
Netanyahu’s claim that some of the information is sensitive suggests that there has been an interception of emails or other classified American documents emanating from Obama or Kerry’s offices.

America’s cybersecurity record has been appalling – as the hacking of the Democrats web site and Hillary Clinton’s emails and private server has shown.

Netanyahu’s description of the transcript held by the Egyptian newspaper as “the tip of the iceberg” suggests Israel holds a Wiki-style treasure trove of incriminating documents.

Sensational claims of Israel-hacking will doubtless fuel the media.

There appears to be no evidence that this material has yet been given to the Trump Administration. If it had – some leak would surely have emerged by now.

Netanyahu’s visit to the White House presents the perfect opportunity to personally hand his evidence to President Trump - enabling him to decide whether to disclose such evidence publicly or not.

Netanyahu’s moment exposing Obama’s betrayal of Israel is fast approaching.

[Author’s Note: The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry was asked to confirm or deny some of the facts in this article but no response was received]