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)

Tuesday, 20 February 2018

In America, Pop Go The Gullible

Da'awa lite
Yep. Easy does it, and pop go the gullible.

Contrary to what you may imagine from these screenshots from the featured video, the ladies of small-town Michigan aren't the only gullible folk.  Be sure to see the entire video for the proof.  But first, the background. 

In a recent post on his blog, Leo Hohmann, described as "a veteran journalist and author of the 2017 book Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad," writes, inter alia:
' .... To offset the friction caused by the aggressive Islamization put forth by CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood uses other groups to present a more friendly face. For this, the Brotherhood uses groups like ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], ICNA [Islamic Circle of North America] and MAS [Muslim American Society].
That's why the city of Center Line [in Michigan has hosted, on Saturday,10 February] a Know Your Muslim Neighbor event at its public library ... compliments of MAS.
The problem, says Philip Haney, an expert on Sharia and retired Homeland Security officer who worked in counter-terrorism for more than a decade, is that the MAS partner ICNA was named in the Explanatory Memorandum published in 1991 by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the document that explains the Brotherhood’s strategy to infiltrate and dominate the U.S. from within. All of its outreach efforts are part of this seditious plan and fall under the umbrella of what the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”  [Emphasis added, here and below]
“These MAS-sponsored Know Your Muslim Neighbor events have been going on in cities throughout Michigan and the U.S. for years,” Haney said.
 The video below shows snippets of how they unfold. The events focus on half-truths and inconsequential facts, like that great Middle-Eastern food and those stylish head-scarves donned by the women....
But there’s more than meets the eye going on at these meetings, says Haney....
The MAS works closely with the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA.
“Dawah is their specialty,” Haney said.
Dawah is an Arabic word meaning “proselytization.”
“People who do dawah are called Dawiya, which means missionary or what we call outreach in the secular arena,” Haney explained....
Dawah is a form of peaceful, civilizational jihad, used to establish Islam in the minds of a people not familiar with it. The ultimate goal is to elevate Islam to the point where it becomes the dominant religion in the community and anyone who resists will find themselves marginalized and considered “less than.” This is the hallmark of Sharia.
“In their campaigns three to five years ago they emphatically denied they had any intention of implementing Sharia law in America,” Haney said. “But then when it became obvious that wasn’t true, with people like Linda Sarsour talking openly about Sharia, they switched it up to say it’s being practiced but it’s compatible with the Constitution so it’s OK, don’t worry about it. And if you think it’s a threat you are an Islamophobe, you’re an extremist.
“It all ties in. It always will until it all finally gets resolved,” Haney said.
... Dhimmified!
Haney believes a time is coming when America will have to make a choice. It’s the same choice that has already been made in the UK, Germany and Sweden — to either confront this ideology of Sharia or allow it to dominate and control what non-Muslims are allowed to say or write in public. Those countries have all enacted hate-speech laws that effectively serve as Islamic blasphemy laws, punishing anyone who speaks out critically of the new dominant faith – Islam.....'
 See the entire post here

Sunday, 18 February 2018

David Singer: Trump Promotes Jordan, Downgrades PLO and Defunds UNRWA

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

He writes:

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was in Jordan this week delivering some very good news for Jordan – but not for the PLO and UNRWA.

Tillerson announced America’s commitment to fund Jordan to the tune of $1.275 billion per annum for the next five years – an increase of $275 million per annum over the previous annual commitment of $1 billion per annum during 2015-2017.

Part of this increased funding seems certain to come from defunding UNRWA – which receives about $355 million per annum from America. $65 million to UNRWA has already been frozen following President Trump’s earlier warning.

Tillerson stated that America’s ongoing contribution to UNRWA is dependent upon what other non-donor States who can afford to contribute to UNRWA are willing to do.

Trump has also expressed his annoyance at countries that take America’s money then show hostile intent in the United Nations when voting on matters inimical to American interests – such as America’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there.

Jordan had voted with 127 other nations at a rare emergency meeting of the General Assembly on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

Yet Jordan has not been punished financially by Trump for that decision but has seen its funding substantially increased. Secretary Tillerson justified America’s decision at his joint press conference with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ayman Safadi – citing:
1. The truly indispensable strategic partnership for decades between the United States and Jordan that’s been critical to the security of both nations, as well as contributing to the region’s security. 
2. Jordan receiving [650,000] displaced Syrian refugees. 
3. Jordan actively participating in the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State
4. Jordan cutting diplomatic ties with North Korea
Tillerson’s North Korea remarks were particularly significant since the “Embassy of Palestine” remains open in North Korea.

Trump has also certainly not forgotten PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s extraordinary two-hour-long anti-American and Jew-hating diatribe delivered on January 14.

Tillerson also stressed President Trump’s commitment to respecting Jordan’s role as the Custodian of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. This special role was assigned to Jordan in the 1994 Jordan-Israel

Peace Treaty and seems set to be one of the cardinal planks in President Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Foreign Minister Safadi pointedly remarked: 
“We’ll continue to work with this current administration [to resolve the conflict] because we believe in the key role of the United States in delivering that peace. We cannot give up. It is a difficult situation. The challenge is not to make it worse and to find a way of moving forward. If we do not have the two-state solution, then I think we’re looking at a longer period of conflict that would only play into the hands of the spoilers and radicals who want to exploit the suffering and despair of people to spread their agenda of hate.” 
 Jordan’s position starkly contrasts with the PLO which will not accept America’s pivotal role.
Any negotiated two-state solution involving the creation of another Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history was rejected by the Arabs in 1947 – could have been created at any time by the Arab League between 1948 and 1967 – and was again rejected by the PLO in 2000/1 and 2008.

Jordan – comprising 78% of former Palestine – has now signalled its readiness to move forward with Trump on achieving his “ultimate deal”. Trump’s latest funding commitment to Jordan guarantees Jordan’s co-operation for the next five years.

The PLO’s anti-America stance continues to test Trump’s patience.

Friday, 16 February 2018

NIF Oz's False Analogy

In Tel Aviv (image Haaretz)
The latest issue of the Australian Jewish News carries a letter from a Sydney reader expressing outrage at Israel's decision to "deport specifically African refugees".  Inter alia:
"What message does it send to all those people that have been to the Sydney Jewish Museum or the Jewish Holocaust Centre, seen the suffering of the Shoah and then read what Israel is doing to people who could also be sent to their death by an Israeli government's decision?
As Jews we must put pressure on the government by any means we know how, not only because it is humane to do so, but also for a selfish reason to ensure that this action does not lead to increased anti-Semitism."  (Emphasis added)
And in the same newspaper is an article on the same theme by the vice president of New Israel Fund Australia and a board member of the Asylum Seeker Centre of NSW, that also invokes the Shoah, specifically the voyage of the SS St Louis, and observes, inter alia:
"Here in Australia, the country with the highest number per capita of Holocaust survivors except Israel – people are insisting on being heard.
An emergency appeal launched by the New Israel Fund Australia raised $20,000 within just one week to help fund lawyers and case workers in Israel who are assisting asylum seekers facing deportation.
And, in just two days, 200 people signed a letter to PM Netanyahu protesting against his asylum seeker policies.
NIF plans to send the letter to Mark Sofer, Israel’s ambassador to Australia, next week.
... Please join us and call upon the Israeli government to treat its refugees with the compassion that Jewish people, our parents and our ancestors, have sought at times of grave danger for more than 2,000 years."
Never mind that, as reported here,
'When asked whether Israel needs to deport illegal Eritrean and Sudanese infiltrators, 58% of those polled said yes, and 23% said no.
When asked whether the infiltrators from Sudan and Eritrea are seeking political asyum or migrants looking for jobs, 51% of responders said they believe the infiltrators are "job seekers," and only 37% said they are "asylum seekers."
In addition, 63% of Israelis support the decision to remove the infiltrators to a third country in Africa, and 20% opposed the decision. 59% of Israelis do not believe that Israel has a moral obligation towards the infiltrators, while 24% said they believe Israel does have a moral obligation towards them.
Israel's plan offers the nearly 40,000 male, unmarried infiltrators, who entered Israel illegally, the opportunity to leave voluntarily before the end of March and receive $3500 compensation. enough to live on for as long as a year in the countries which agreed to accept them and to which they are to be flown. Anyone still in the country after that date will be arrested and deported without compensation.
Families and bona fide refugees are not included in the plan.
Israeli residents of southern Tel Aviv - where most of the infiltrators live - have long complained of their presence, the increased crime rate endangering Israeli citizens, and the city and Supreme Court's preference for infiltrators over Israeli citizens. The government's current plan has been approved by the Supreme Court, after all its previous objections were complied with by the Justice Department.'
As Liel Leibovitz sensibly states here:
"The Sudanese and Eritrean migrants struggling to stay in Israel aren’t Anne Frank, and the Israeli government isn’t the Gestapo. Thinking in these terms is morally unserious, intellectually dishonest, and politically unwise. And they prevent us from carefully and effectively addressing the real question: Should the migrants be allowed to stay?
Take the sound and the fury out of the picture, and you’ll find good and convincing arguments on both sides. It’s perfectly fine to argue that Israel, a Jewish state founded in the shadow of unprecedented persecution, should be sensitive to all who wish to make a better life for themselves, and therefore loosen its immigration policy to absorb as many newcomers as it can without making spurious arguments and claiming that they’re all in imminent mortal danger. That said, anyone making this argument should be prepared to explain precisely how Israel ought to welcome torrents of newcomers. The last decade was proof that, in the absence of clear guidelines, Israel’s free society and robust economy will attract an exponentially growing number of African migrants. Even if you believe the freedom to pick up and move anywhere you like to be a universal human right—a problematic proposition—you’d still have to explain just how Israel is supposed to take in so many newcomers without jeopardizing its ability to sustain its citizens first, losing its inherently Jewish nature, or both.
This, of course, is a more jagged version of the very same conversation Americans are having when they talk about immigration. Israelis, so frequently the canaries in the global coal mine, would do well to lead the way by rejecting the temptation of empty outrage and engaging instead in a difficult and complicated conversation, the kind adults have when faced with inconvenient truths and imperfect choices."

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Where Did You Get That Hijab?

No, everyone does not, Ms Wells.
Pictured swathed in Burberry-patterned headgear a fortnight ago is Annie Wells MSP, Conservative and Unionist member of the Scottish legislature for the Glasgow district.

Ms Wells's choice of garment was not to protect herself against the February chills in her northerly part of the world, but to demonstrate her solidarity with women who wear the hijab.  For this Burberry number is indeed a hijab and she was marking "World Hijab Day" (1 February), now in its fifth year.

See some more Scottish politicians' reactions here; that from John Mason is nauseating.

It goes without saying that nobody should be insulted, much less assaulted, for wearing the hijab, but when western women are actively encouraged to wear it, and by the British Foreign Office too, then a step too far has surely been reached.

A London newspaper, the Evening Standard reported:
'The Foreign Office handed out free headscarves to staff and encouraged them to learn why Muslim women wear the garment as part of its World Hijab Day celebrations. The Government department, headed up by Boris Johnson, offered all employees the chance to wear a hijab for part of their day to mark the worldwide event on February 1. In an internal memo, the Foreign Office said that the headscarf is worn by some women who see it as representing “liberation, respect and security”.
According to reports, an email sent to staff said:  
“Would you like to try on a hijab or learn why Muslim women wear the headscarf? Come along to our walk-in event.Free scarves for all those that choose to wear it for the day or part of the day. Muslim women, along with followers of many other religions, choose to wear the hijab. Many find liberation, respect and security through wearing it. #StrongInHijab. Join us for #WorldHijabDay.”
A Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the event was for staff at its London office who wanted to learn more about other cultures.'  [Emphasis added, here and below]
For the sake of pandering to the Islamic world at home and abroad the Foreign Office believes it appropriate for non-Muslim females to cover their heads in a scarf that many Muslim women themselves regard as a symbol of female subservience and which began as an indication of which women (the covered ones) were not to be considered fair game for sexual violence by Muslim men.

Having the right not to wear the hijab is the real issue.  

Just ask all those Iranian women who recently, in a brave act of defiance, have allowed their locks to blow freely in the wind as nature intended.

Let's look at that Foreign Office memo again:
“Would you like to try on a hijab or learn why Muslim women wear the headscarf? Come along to our walk-in event.
“Free scarves for all those that choose to wear it for the day or part of the day."
Methinks I sense Da'awa at work there.  This photo (above, left) from the Evening Standard would seem to confirm that view.

Reports the Daily Mail:
'The event was ... just days before Britain marked the 100th anniversary of women [aged 30 and above, plus university graduates aged 21-30] being given the vote.
Maajid Nawaz, who heads the counter-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, criticised the department for ‘supporting World Hijab Day and the institutional oppression of women through modesty culture, while brave Iranian women risk all to remove hijab tyranny’.
Anti-hijab activist Masih Alinejad told Reuters: ‘We are fighting against the most visible symbol of oppression. These women are saying, “It is enough – it is the 21st century and we want to be our true selves.”’ 
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘I’d like to know whose bright idea this was. It is ridiculous, a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and not the business of a Government department.‘I can’t see the Foreign Office promoting Christianity or the handing out of crosses.’
No demonstrative Foreign Office stunts on behalf of the Islam-persecuted Christians of the Near and Middle East, then.

And I don't see the Foreign Office holding a demonstration of solidarity with Jews in the "new" Europe, who feel increasingly unsafe when wearing symbols of Judaism in public places.

World Kippa Day, anyone?

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

"The Impurity of Jews & Infidels": A western imam tells (video)

 A former vice-chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, Sheikh Yusuf Badat, explains on what terms the "filthy" can enter the masjid (mosque).

 A Vlad Tepes video:
"This video is part of a series exposing how Islam is taught in mosques and Islamic schools in North America. This video focuses on the Islamic view of Jews and unbelievers."

[Update: I don't know what happened to that video, but here's another from Vlad Tepes, illustrating the high status in which women are likely to find themselves in the new and improved Europe:]

And on his website here Vlad Tepes has an excerpt from QandA, the ABC's answer to the BBC's Question Time (and just as stacked, audience and panel) with confirmed leftists, well-known journalist Chris Kenny talks sense about the Islamist threat while a strident lefty panellist bristling with outrage, Vanessa ('Van') Badham (a contributor the The Guardian and its ilk, and needless to say a foe of [western] patriarchy) tries to shout him down.  (More on the Jim Molan incident mentioned, here)

Sunday, 11 February 2018

David Singer: UN Secretary-General Guterres Ignores Jordan-Palestine Nexus

Click HERE for video
Here's the latest article by Syney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres displayed how little he knows of the history, geography and demography of Palestine when addressing the opening of the 2018 Session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (“CEIRPP”). Established by the General Assembly in 1975  – CEIRPP was responsible for the publication in 1978 of a false narrative of the Arab-Israel conflict – “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1947" (“UN Study”) – which has undoubtedly influenced United Nations thinking and decision-making.

Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
1. Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181 spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” – when claiming:
“After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
2. Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
3. Falsely alleging:
“The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine” 
The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations own archives.
That evidence comprises:
· Meetings of the Palestine Arab Delegation (Delegation) with the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies  – Winston Churchill  – on 12, 22 and 23 August 1921 
· Letters from 21 February 1922 to 23 June 1922 between the Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies during the Delegation’s stay in the Hotel Cecil in London.
CEIRPP concealed this crucial archival evidence  – falsely inferring the Palestinian Arabs wishes had not been taken into account when in fact they had been fully considered. Secretary-General Guterres told the CEIRPP opening session:
“I remain steadfast in the United Nations and my commitment to supporting the parties in their efforts to make the two-State solution a reality.
There is no Plan B.
A two-State solution is the only way to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and secure a sustainable solution to the conflict.”
Secretary-General Gutteres is apparently unaware that:
 · The term “Palestinian people” was invented in the 1964 Palestine Liberation Organization Charter which also specifically excluded any claim to exercise regional sovereignty “over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and “on the Gaza Strip”
· The Palestinian Arabs were never mentioned in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - being grouped in with “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”
· The “two-State solution” - Israel and Jordan – first envisaged in 1922 and actually proposed in 1937 - was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs on both occasions. It was 95% achieved in 1994 when the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty was signed.
· The “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” went walkabout between 1948 and 1967 when an additional Arab State between Jordan and Israel could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen after all Jews living there had been forcefully expelled.
· There are many Plan B’s involving Jordan – the major part of former Palestine – which remains the key to resolving this conflict.
Secretary-General Gutteres – with the greatest respect – needs a crash-course in the actual – not fictitious – history of the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict. Relying on this false UN Study to gain his knowledge and understanding of the conflict is not recommended.

Glitzy in Gaza

What the biased western media doesn't let us see!

Tom Gross has more here