Saturday, August 30, 2014

War on Jews: Europe and now America

by Richard Baehr

The Democratic Party and its leader, U.S. President Barack Obama, have spent several years ‎developing election themes around supposed "wars" directed by Republicans ‎against particular segments of society. 

The war talk has served to fire up the base ‎among the groups supposedly under attack, and boost turnout for "progressive" ‎candidates. The most repeated and ridiculous of the war themes is the alleged "war ‎on women," supposedly manifested most recently by challenges to the new ‎contraceptive coverage mandate under Obamacare by owners of businesses ‎opposed to the new mandate on religious grounds. 

Other battles in this "war" ‎include Republicans refusing to support "equal pay for equal work" for women ‎workers, though virtually all of the alleged pay gap can be explained as having ‎nothing to do with discrimination: ‎"The [American Association of University Women] has now joined ranks with serious economists who ‎find that when you control for relevant differences between ‎men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in ‎workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."‎

There are other wars the Obama administration is fighting at ‎home, now that it has withdrawn from pretty much all the real ‎global conflicts, many of which have become uglier in light of ‎the vacuum created by the increasing absence of an American ‎presence in the Middle East. The recent flare-up in Ferguson, ‎Missouri, after an 18-year-old black man was shot by a white ‎police officer, was used to argue that there is a war in America ‎by white cops against black men. Although blacks comprise ‎only 13 percent of the population, they ‎commit or are the victims in about half of all murders in ‎America, almost all of which are black-on-black murders. Yet blacks represent barely 30 percent of those ‎killed by police. In addition, more than half of the shootings ‎and killings of black suspects were by black police. If anything, one might argue there is a war ‎on white suspects in America, since they are disproportionately ‎killed compared to the number of murders whites commit. 

The fake wars dominate media coverage of campaigns, not a ‎surprise, since well over 90 percent of Washington journalists support ‎Democrats according to several surveys, and see their job as a ‎way to advance the causes and candidates they believe in. ‎Nonetheless, there are actual campaigns, if not wars, against ‎groups in America that never see the light of day, and whose ‎various fronts are never connected. One of these, and in some ‎ways, an ominous, and dangerous new development, has been ‎the beginnings of what might be called a war on Jews in ‎America. ‎

Jewish history in America has, by and large, been a very good ‎one, especially compared to the Jewish experience in any other ‎place on the globe at any time (other than modern Israel). ‎Nonetheless, for many years, when the FBI compiles a list of ‎hate crimes by groups, Jews are always atop the list of those ‎targeted for their religion (66 percent of all cases in one recent year, ‎though Jews are only 2 percent of the population). Jews are also ‎targeted disproportionately compared to victims from any other ‎group (blacks, gays, Hispanics). 

When three people were shot outside a Jewish community center ‎near Kansas City this year, this confirmed that Jews are targets ‎not only for Middle Easterners or Muslims in America, but also ‎by the far Right. Hating Jews makes for strange bedfellows.‎

In the last two months, during which Israel's third war with ‎Hamas occurred, the ferocity of hatred toward Jews has risen ‎to unprecedented levels in America. Several pro-Israel ‎demonstrators in various cities were attacked by Muslim ‎counter-demonstrators, with the attacks occurring from coast to ‎coast (Seattle to Boston). In the past weeks, we have these ‎charming incidents:‎
  1. In New York, a married Jewish couple was attacked with ‎the man (wearing a kippah) beaten by Middle Eastern ‎men who exited cars and motorcycles on the ritzy Upper ‎East Side of Manhattan (the cars were decked out with ‎Palestinian flags), with insults and death threats screamed ‎at the victims.‎
  2. At Temple University, a Jewish student involved with the ‎media monitoring group CAMERA was assaulted by a ‎student with the group Students for Justice in Palestine, just the ‎latest in a long line of vile incidents associated with this ‎rapidly growing and viciously anti-Semitic organization. ‎Like all groups on campus that target Israel and attempt ‎to shut off debate on the issue, SJP has some Jewish ‎members, which in their eyes may serve to give them a ‎clean bill of health on the anti-Semitism charge. The ‎reality is that the presence of Jewish SPJ members, as well ‎as those in Jewish Voices for Peace, serves to expose ‎how toxic and conformist the Jewish Left has become, with ‎individuals primarily interested in earning the respect of ‎their Jew-hating colleagues for their breaking from the ‎pro-Israel crowd.
  3. In Miami, a visiting rabbi was shot and murdered on ‎Shabbat, following a series of anti-Semitic incidents in the ‎heavily Jewish North Miami area. While there is no suspect in custody nor a ‎motive yet established, local police seem to be hinting it ‎was a botched robbery, though that may ‎be wishful thinking.‎
  4. Then there was this Los Angles incident, which has been ‎repeated in cities across the county in recent weeks -- where ‎anti-Semitic insults and threats were screamed at Jewish ‎residents. ‎
  5. ‎An American ISIS supporter, now in captivity, threatened to blow up a "Zionist" day care center. ‎In other words, if Jews are part of something, it becomes ‎Zionist, and a target.‎
The reports of violence directed against Jews in France, the ‎Netherlands, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and other ‎charming European locales in recent weeks, are not a great ‎surprise. These incidents have been occurring for years, and ‎there were many violent attacks before the Gaza war, especially ‎in France and Sweden. These countries are filling up ‎with Muslims, as immigration continues at high levels, and the birth‎rate of the native population declines as its population ages. ‎When 16 percent of Frenchmen in a survey this week told a pollster ‎they supported ISIS, that gives you a floor on the real Muslim ‎numbers in the country, not the 10 percent claimed by the ‎government. ‎

American Jews and elected officials have condemned the ‎violence against Jews in Europe, but been very cautious about ‎sounding any alarms in the United States. Obama has not ‎spoken between rounds of golf about any new problem in this ‎area, and Attorney-General Eric Holder is too busy visiting Ferguson ‎and filing lawsuits against communities for racial ‎discrimination or religious discrimination against Muslims to take notice.‎

The number of Muslims in America has risen by over 50 percent in the ‎last decade to around 3 million, now 1 percent of the population. In 15 ‎years, their numbers are expected to double, given the number ‎of legal immigrants expected during this period based on family ‎reunification or refugee status. With the Jewish population ‎having flat-lined for 60 years at 6 million, the relative political ‎influence of the two groups will change rapidly and converge. ‎The Democrats, the party of minorities, have the winds of ‎demographic change at their back, and will attempt to ride these ‎to dominance in national politics. The concerns of Jewish ‎Americans may become far less critical. 

In Europe, the authorities have condemned violence against ‎Jews and enhanced security around Jewish institutions. But ‎when members of the Jewish community warn fellow members ‎even in ostensibly friendlier countries to not "provoke attacks" ‎by wearing kippahs, it is well past time to head for the exits. The ‎authorities and the newspapers will report attacks by "youths," ‎with the ethnic origin of the assailants often withheld. The ‎Europeans are too far down the path in their commitment to the ‎multicultural nightmare they have brought on themselves, that ‎cowardice, denial, and looking away are all that are left as policy ‎prescriptions. 

In America, the long history of acceptance of Jews, or at least ‎non-scary secular Jews (evidenced nowhere more than in the ‎high intermarriage rate, the ultimate acceptance test), provides ‎some comfort that there may be some pushback against virulent ‎and violent anti-Semitism. So too, the deluge of illegal immigrants ‎swamping the southern border, nothing if not intended by the ‎White House to create pressure on Congress for immigration ‎reform, or to provide an excuse for executive action ( the law be ‎damned), has also caused growing concern. Many American ‎realize that a country without borders is no longer a self-‎governing country, and that the wide open borders in recent ‎months not only allow in fleeing Central Americans, but ‎anybody, including potential jihadist attackers. 

The creeping growth of a political correctness designed to shield ‎Muslims and their actions has not yet reached a stage where ‎most Americans see it or are impacted. College campuses are of ‎course different, and pro-Israel students will face a very trying ‎year following the Gaza war. Young people were the least ‎supportive of Israel's efforts in the Gaza war in every opinion ‎survey. Coupled with the big money universities are earning by ‎admitting full paying students from the Middle East and ‎opening campuses in the Gulf states, the administration of ‎universities are more than just normally gun-shy about ‎addressing hostility and violence directed toward Jews on ‎campus, mainly by Muslims. They would prefer to think that ‎nothing more than a serious exchange of viewpoints is on ‎display. What is happening on campuses is a warning for where ‎America is headed. And where it is headed is the European ‎model, where Muslim numbers and threats begin to dictate ‎policy, and make Jewish security and safety no longer a given. ‎Call it a war on Jews, if you like.‎

Richard Baehr


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The War with Gaza: Let the Recriminations Begin

by Jerrold L. Sobel

In a wretched neighborhood called the Middle East where perception usually trumps reality, Israel has lost on both accounts. As Likud Central Committee chairman Danny Danon announced on Wednesday: "The Protective Edge war that began with huge support ended with Israel shamed and confused." Despite the spin of some pundits and people in and out of government, the facts support MK Danon’s assertion.

In addition to Danon, the deal, unilaterally agreed to by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu without consent from his cabinet rattled coalition partners and political rivals such as Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman. Itamar Shimoni, The mayor of Ashkelon, a beachside city adjacent to Gaza hit incessantly by rocket fire since 2005 had this to say: “Any concession to Hamas is a surrender to terrorism.”

Steven Emerson, writing for the “Investigative Project on Terrorism” seemed to concur with senior Israeli security officials which stated that Hamas has taken a severe military and morale blow, but its military arm is preparing for another round of fighting, believing the price its people are paying is tolerable as long as its goals are achieved. By Netanyahu acquiescing to this latest truce, their assessment seems have been proven correct.

Emerson closes out his article describing the bitterness and hatred felt by some Gazans in the street toward Hamas for firing and placing munitions in hospitals, Mosques, and private residences while senior leadership hid in tunnels leaving residents to fend for themselves. He quotes a Hamas fighter claiming to have received his anti-tank training in a hall under the Alshafi Mosque in Khan Yunis where the Izzadin Al-Kassam Brigades train. All this is probably true. Yet the streets were filled Gazans celebrating what they deemed a great victory over the “Zionist occupation.”

That Gaza has been dealt a heavy blow there can be no question. According to a CBS report; (biased no doubt and dependent upon overinflated U.N. and Hamas estimates) The Gaza war has killed at least 2,133 Palestinians and wounded more than 11,000, according to Palestinian health officials. The U.N. estimates more than 17,000 homes have been destroyed, leaving 100,000 people homeless. Inflated or not, the damage to Gaza is indeed considerable.

But so what? To a rogue “government” of terrorists that ruthlessly uses its people as human shields, death and destruction are water off a duck’s back. It’s actually welcomed for its propaganda value. Throughout the war, biased media constantly harped on the absurd issue of “proportionality.” As if war was a game and Israel was guilty of not suffering sufficient fatalities.

Emerson may be correct: “Many within Gaza are disillusioned with Hamas.” No doubt during the waning days of the World War II many Germans were likewise disillusioned with the Nazis as their cities too laid in ruin and they lacked control of events. Yet the war dragged on until unconditional surrender was effectuated and Germany no longer had the wherewithal to conduct aggression. This is not the case with Hamas, which still retains the capacity after 50 days of fighting to disrupt the lives of not only Israelis living adjacent to Gaza but throughout all of Israel.

To these Israelis, recriminations against Prime Minister Netanyahu have already begun. They correctly view that the failure to unconditionally win this war lies upon his shoulders.

Trying to paint a brighter picture, at a Jerusalem press conference Wednesday alongside Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, Netanyahu declared, “Hamas was hit hard, and did not get any of the things it demanded for a cease-fire.” With obfuscation worthy of President Obama, he listed his take on Israel’s achieved goals in the war:

Destruction of Hamas’s attack tunnels; killing some 1,000 terrorists, including top commanders; destroying thousands of rockets, rocket launchers, arms depots, and weapon manufacturing facilities; knocking out “hundreds” of command centers; and preventing Hamas attacks on Israel from the land, sea and air; Hamas’s conditions of a sea and airport were denied; as were their demands to release prisoners placed back under arrest following the murder of the three Israeli boys.

Glaringly, he failed to come to grips with the least common denominator of this war. Issues which politicians and people from all points on Israel’s political spectrum are already taking him to task for, his irresolute military leadership and Hamas’s ability to renew hostilities at any time of its choosing. Many are also accusing him of being more concerned with world opinion than the welfare of the people he was elected to defend.

According to polls conducted by Israel’s Channels 2 and 10: 54% of Israelis oppose the ceasefire, 37% support it. In accordance, 59% are dissatisfied with Netanyahu’s performance. Most notably, the poll also found satisfaction with the prime minister fell to just 32%, down from 38% on Monday, 55% last Thursday, and from 82% since July 23 when ground forces first entered Gaza.

In fairness, when asked who won the war another poll from Channel 10 indicated: 32% said Israel, 25% said Hamas, and 26% called it a tie; 19% did not know. Not exactly a mandate for Netanyahu’s conduct of a war in which he seemed to lack a cogent plan, one that some are accusing him of lacking the moxie to finish. The question is not so much as who won the war as the absurdity to the way it was fought.

From dropping of leaflets warning Hamas of imminent attack to allowing them a respite by tolerating eleven ceasefire violations, from failure to consider sensitive targets due to collateral damage to continued electrical service into Gaza, Netanyahu may go down in Israeli history not as a leader but as its most congenial warrior. Particularly in the Middle East, moral codes of ethics are viewed as cowardice, not strength. Like bad neighborhoods throughout the world, perception of weakness is immediately recognized by bullies and bad guys.

On Wednesday the Iranian Foreign Ministry wasted no time congratulating Hamas: “The heroic Palestinian people have forged a new era with the victory of the resistance which has brought the Zionist regime to its knees.” Hamas senior spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri proclaimed: “The value of this campaign is not in the opening of this crossing or that crossing, but in paving the way for the next stage, liberating Jerusalem.” It’s this long-term messianic viewpoint spelled out explicitly in its charter of 1988 that makes Hamas so dangerous to Israel. Unwilling to accept the sacrifices necessary to totally eviscerate this sworn enemy, Netanyahu has allowed them the perception of victory, a pause to rearm, and preparation for the next round which is surely to come.

Jerrold L. Sobel


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Islam, Postmodernism, and Poltiical Correctness

by Danusha V. Goska

One of the most important tools humanity needs right now is frank speech about Islam. Unfortunately, in journalism, on campuses, and in politics, politically-correct speech codes demonize any analysis of Islam as "Islamophobia." Speech taboos are obeyed across a wide spectrum. In September, 2001, after the 9-11 attacks, President George Bush stated, "Islam is peace." In 2007, his fellow officers declined to take effective action against U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, even after he exhibited to them a PowerPoint presentation that cited the Koran to predict and support his subsequent, 2009 shooting of soldiers at Fort Hood. As the Christian Science Monitor put it, the Army may have chosen to "ignore red flags out of political correctness." Hollywood is also wary. The 2014 Liam Neeson film Non-Stop depicts an attempt to hijack an airplane. A Muslim is suspected.  In fact he is kindly. The real villain is a 9-11 family member and a member of the U.S. military. 

The avoidance of analysis of Islam contrasts sharply with the excoriation accorded Christianity, Israel, and Western Civilization. The Catholic Church sex abuse crisis has received saturation coverage. Distinguished history professor Philip Jenkins, in a book published by Oxford University Press, claims that media coverage distorts the crisis and contributes to anti-Catholic bigotry. Israel's very right to exist is questioned and, in high profile media, at times denied. Western Civilization is depicted as imperialist, racist, and Orientalist. This politically-correct selective outrage that lambastes the Judeo-Christian tradition and Western Civilization while emphasizing positive images of Muslims only serves further to inoculate Islam from critique. 

Selective outrage does not stand alone. Politically-correct speech codes consistently deploy three more tactics: cultural relativism, postmodern denial of objective definitions of terms, and the threat of mass hysteria. 

The first tactic used to suppress speech about Islam, cultural relativism, has an honorable history. One hundred years ago, scientific racism dominated American elite thought. Inspired by Charles Darwin, American scientific racists like Madison Grant applied a hierarchy to human beings. Some cultures, those of hunter gatherers and peasants, were low and worthless; others were high and to be valued. Educated, atheist Anglo-Saxon males occupied the top of the human pyramid of value. 

Franz Boas, the Father of American Anthropology, became a professor at Columbia University in 1896. Spurred by his own experience of anti-Semitism, Boas was determined to overturn scientific racism. Boas argued for the worth of all cultures. 

The head-to-head confrontation between scientific racist Madison Grant and cultural relativist Franz Boas had high impact. Adolf Hitler declared that Grant's 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race, was his "bible." Franz Boas died of a heart attack while speaking against Nazism. Today all American schoolchildren, whether they have heard of Franz Boas or not, are indoctrinated to repeat that to so much as question whether any aspect of American culture might be superior to any aspect of a Non-Western culture is racist and taboo. Even brilliant ideas from great men rot when they pass from the vivifying circulation of vigorous debate into the cloying closet of unquestioned dogma. 

Objective realities do mark Islam as different from other religions. Among the five major world faiths, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, Islam is unique in its doctrine of jihad, stated clearly in this hadith, attributed to Mohammed: "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me." This hadith is echoed by over a hundred jihad verses in the Koran, a book that is a fraction of the size of the Bible. 

Jihad is established not only in Islamic texts. It is exemplified by action. Mohammed ordered at least forty-three assassinations and participated in at least one hundred militarized expeditions.  Mohammed is the "perfect example worthy of emulation."

Islam spread by war, warfare that began in Mohammed's lifetime, and that has continued in the Muslim world, without significant relief, for 1,400 years. Mohammed died in 632. Muslims reached the Indian Subcontinent by 664 and Spain by 711. Islam's expansion was stopped only at the Battle of Vienna, September 12, 1683. 

Abraham, the first Jew, was a nomadic herder. Abraham made no converts through war. Conquests of Old Testament warriors like Joshua at Jericho were time- and place-specific. Jews' command to conquer was limited to the land of Israel. The God of the Bible never ordered Jews to war on all humanity and conquer the entire earth, and Jews never tried. Judaism has a significant tradition of not seeking converts. Though Judaism rivals Hinduism as the world's oldest faith, it is the smallest of the top five. Approximately .02 percent of the world's population is Jewish. 

Buddha, founder of Buddhism, was a celibate, nonviolent monk, meditator, and teacher. Buddha made no converts through war. 

Jesus, founder of Christianity, was a teacher and healer. Jesus made no converts through war. Christianity was outlawed for its first three hundred years; early Christians were subject to public torture at the hands of the all-powerful Roman Empire. Christianity's greatest spread was and continues to be thanks not to the sword, but to the word. 

Hinduism has no historical founder. Its most popular deity is Shiva, a god of meditation, cannabis use, and tantric sex. Hinduism's indifference to proselytizing is reflected on world maps. Hinduism is largely limited to the Indian Subcontinent where it was born. 

Politically-correct speech code enforcers, using cultural relativism, insist that violent acts of jihad committed by Muslims are comparable to a predictable series of crimes that demonstrate that Christians are just like Muslims, and that Christianity is just like Islam. Christianity's crimes include the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and witch trials. One might hear, "Oh, sure, some Muslims are violent, but look at Catholics. They murdered millions in the Inquisition. As times goes on, Muslims will evolve to become peaceful, just as Catholics have evolved."

The charge that the Inquisition is just like jihad is fallacious for the following reasons. 

First, while jihadis kill in obedience to Islamic scripture, the Spanish Inquisition occurred in defiance of Christian scripture, which does not counsel violence or forced conversion. A time-and-geography-specific historical series of traumas conspired to bring about the Inquisition. Spain had been invaded in 711 by Tariq ibn Ziyad, who, in a famous speech, promised his Muslim warriors Christian riches to loot and Christian women to rape. The indigenous people of the Iberian Peninsula fought back. This is called the Reconquista. Fighting lasted for seven hundred years, until 1492. Jewish converts to Catholicism were doing relatively well in the newly unified, post-Reconquista Spain. Ethnically Spanish Catholics were envious. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted in 1478. It was a xenophobic manifestation of a land that had been at war for seven hundred years over identity issues. Given human nature, the Inquisition's psychological, economic and political roots are all too understandable. 

Compare the Inquisition's limitation in space and time to jihad, which is temporally and geographically coterminous with Islam. Wherever and whenever Islam has existed, it has been accompanied by the violence of jihad. Jihad is not a response to historical traumas. Economically and socially comfortable people have left placid lives in order to wage jihad. A prominent example is the multimillionaire, Osama bin Laden, who left the swank life of a construction magnate's heir in order to live in caves, eat swill, and pursue death. 

Second, those making their case through cultural relativism often say things like, "A long time ago, Christians were violent, but they evolved; with time, Islam will evolve, too." In fact, the Inquisition was condemned by Christians not because time had passed and they had evolved; it was condemned at the time it was happening, and it was condemned because it defied Christian scripture. 

On April 18, 1482, a critic of the Spanish Inquisition wrote, "In Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth." This critic was Pope Sixtus IV. 

Pope Innocent VIII also criticized the Inquisition. 

Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536), a Catholic priest, criticized the Inquisition. Estimates are that in some years between one fifth and one tenth of all books sold in Oxford, London, and Paris were by Erasmus; he was no lone voice crying in the wilderness. Regular clergy also criticized the Inquisition. 

Christians didn't just verbally condemn the Inquisition. They offered refuge. Catholic Poland actively invited Jews to settle in Poland, and protected their rights in the 1264 Statute of Kalisz. These sentiments were restated in the 1573 Warsaw Confederation. Medieval Poland was internationally dubbed "paradisus Iudaeorum" or the paradise of the Jews.

And, of course, Catholics continue to apologize for the Inquisition, including Pope John Paul II's 2000 apology. 

The voice of the Christian conscience in opposition to the Inquisition is reflective of a wider trend. Throughout the centuries, Christianity produced its own best critics, including famous examples like St. Francis, Teresa of Avila, Bartolomé de las Casas, and Dorothy Day. 

One searches in vain for equally unambiguous condemnations of jihad from Muslims. Rather, one finds an opposite trend. Muslim Turkey, for example, belligerently denies that its 1915 genocide of Armenian Christians ever took place. Turkey arrested and convicted one of its most celebrated sons, Nobel-Prize-winning writer Orhan Pamuk, for briefly alluding to the Armenian Genocide during an interview with a Swiss newspaper. Turks have burned Pamuk's books and attempted to assassinate him. 

When Muslims have critiqued other Muslims, it has often been to chastise them for not killing enough infidels. When the 8th-century Arab general Muhammad bin-Qasim defeated his opponents on the Indian subcontinent with craftiness, his superior, Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef, demanded that Qasim commit more massacres. In his next action, Qasim was sure to massacre thousands. 

There are many examples in Islamic history of relatively tolerant Muslims being replaced by more draconian ones. In Medieval Spain, the more orthodox Almoravid Dynasty replaced previous more tolerant rulers, and, in turn, it was replaced by the Almohads, an even more fundamentalist Islamic dynasty. In Medieval Baghdad, the more liberal Mu'tazilis, who emphasized reason and argued that the Koran was created, were denounced and defeated by more strict Muslims. In modern Iran the more conservative Ayatollahs replaced the Shah. Today the more extreme ISIS is eclipsing Al-Qaeda, whom they assessed as too moderate. The hope that time will temper Islam lacks supportive evidence. 

Even as Christians are driven out of their homes in Muslim countries, no Muslim country steps forward to invite refugee Christians to live, and no Muslim country offers Christians complete freedom of religion. 

The third problem with the culturally-relativist argument that "Jihad is just like the Inquisition" is this. Modern scholars agree that the Inquisition's evils have been exaggerated for propaganda reasons, beginning with Catholic Spain's rival, Protestant England. This continues; one website cites ninety-five million victims killed in the Inquisition. In fact, between three thousand and five thousand victims were executed, and they were executed by the state, not the church. 

This brief analysis shows why the cultural relativists' insistence on comparing the problem of jihad to the Inquisition is not valid. A brief essay cannot adequately address the fallacious, politically-correct, cultural relativist insistence that the Crusades and the witch trials are comparable to jihad, but the reader is advised to examine these claims with care. Rodney Stark's excellent, brief, and readable God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades shows that the Crusades were undertaken, not as PC would have it, to convert Muslims to Christianity by force, but rather to protect Christians in the Holy Land. Lyndal Roper's Witch Craze is one of several recent, revolutionary books that demonstrates that just about everything PC says about witch burning is wrong. 

In any case, the above-listed paradigm applies. Christian scripture does not encourage killing people for the faith. Outbreaks of violence by and among Christians are most easily attributed to the kind of trauma that might cause any population to go to war, like the seven hundred years of identity-fueled war that preceded the Inquisition in Spain, or the social chaos caused by the Reformation, and the crop failures caused by the Little Ice Age that contributed to the witch craze. Christians in the past who lived contemporaneously with these violent outbreaks, including pontiffs, decried violence as a means to advance religious ends, and Christian individuals and nations not directly involved in conflicts attempted to rectify conditions to the extent that they were able to do so. None of these points apply to jihad. Jihad is coterminous with Islam, it is approved of, not condemned by, devout Muslims, and Muslim nations have no significant tradition of aiding the victims of jihad. Muslim reformers have agitated for a more draconian and violent interpretation of Islam. 

A second tactic politically-correct speech code enforcers use to prevent analysis of Islam is the postmodern rejection of definitions of terms based on objective reality. The postmodern approach to definition might best be summed up as "words mean whatever I say they mean." Thus, PC spokespeople focus on model Muslims who insist that "jihad" means "inner struggle." They argue that one can interpret the Koran's numerous calls to violent jihad as referring only to Mohammed's lifetime, and having no application today. Imam Jihad Turk took this approach on March 15, 2012 at the Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance. "I am instructed in the truth of my religion from people who are not Muslim," Turk protested.  I am a Muslim, his argument ran. If I say Islam is peaceful and tolerant, then that is what it is. 

The problem with this approach is that there is such a thing as objective reality. How can one know the essence, the objective reality, of a religion?

The following criteria might be used to assess the essence of any religion:

1) What does the critical mass -- not exceptional passages, but numerically representational ones -- of canonical scripture and interpretation say? What does the critical mass of practice based on that scripture look like?

Here is an example of numerical representationally in texts as reflected in behavior. Superstar Christian pastors Rick Warren, Tony Campolo, and Jim Wallis have repeatedly stated that over two thousand Biblical verses counsel care for the poor; they cite this statistic when spearheading charities that care for the poor all over the world. Christians and Jews are exceptional in the energy and resources they devote to care for the poor. Catholics invented modern hospitals, and the Catholic Church is the single largest nongovernmental provider of health care services in the world. Statistics show that American Protestants, Catholics, and Jews donate significantly more to charity than non-believers, or other populations. 

The Koran's plethora of jihad verses has already been mentioned. The Koran also frequently mentions Hell. There is a threat of hell in every 7.9 verses; contrast this with the New Testament, where Hell is mentioned once for every 774 verses. It is not surprising that a violent text inspires violent behavior. 

2) Difficult passages occur in every document. Is there a mechanism for interpretation?

Cultural Relativists insist that the Koran is just like the Bible. Muslims can interpret the Koran to be a peaceful book. 

In fact, though, the Koran is not comparable to the Bible. The Koran is perfect. It is in Arabic, only in Arabic, never to be translated. The Koran is uncreated. It has existed for eternity. In his article, "The Uncreatedness of the Quran and the Unity of Allah," Sam Shamoun writes that merely suggesting that the Koran was created could earn the death penalty. Scholar Christoph Luxenberg has adopted his pseudonym and lives in hiding because he wrote a book suggesting that the Koran may have been first written, not in Arabic, but in the Syro-Aramaic dialect. That scholarly, linguistic observation was enough to earn him credible death threats. The belief in the near divine nature of the Koran, and the threats against anyone who studies it, leave little room for interpretation. 
3) What are the facts on the ground?

Politically correct cultural relativists insist that Islamic gender apartheid is not significantly different from misogyny in the West. They attempt to make this point by referring to Christians in the West as "Taliban." For example, Hobby Lobby, an American chain store that sells arts and crafts material, has chosen not to cover abortifacients in the health coverage it provides employees. Opponents call Hobby Lobby the "Christian Taliban." Books like Michelle Goldberg's 2007 Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and Chris Hedges' 2008 American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America describe American Christians as genocidal monsters hiding behind the innocuous, welcoming smiles of megachurch potlucks. In her book, Goldberg reports keeping her passport handy and her bags packed in case she needs to flee the United States at any moment. 

The facts on the ground speak for themselves. Muslim countries are "high sex ratio" countries. They have more males than females. Females face of a gauntlet of survival-threatening customs, including sex selective abortion of female fetuses, the denial of health care to females, child marriage, subsequent early pregnancy, and honor killing. In Judeo-Christian countries, females tend to survive longer than males. 

Facts on the ground, including sex ratios, female literacy rates, wealth distribution, publication of scholarly articles, degrees granted, holding of office and other indicators, give the lie to the cultural relativist insistence that there is no difference between misogyny in the West and in Islam. 

In short, the postmodern refusal to define Islam according to objective criteria does not withstand analysis. If you stand in front of a moving train, you will be smashed, no matter how you interpret that train, or how invincible you tell yourself you are. There are multiple objective criteria that demonstrate Islam's differences from the world's other five top faiths. Statistics on gender are just one such objective criterion. 

The final politically-correct roadblock to analysis of Islam is the paranoid, fear-mongering threat that analysis of Islam will immediately spark mass hysteria, lynchings and pogroms. For this threat to gain traction, it must be accompanied by a conviction that Americans are a mob of frothing-at-the-mouth, knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Only anti-American bigots believe this. Americans are to be commended for significantly not scapegoating Muslims after 9-11. 

Nobel Prize winner Marie Sklodowska Curie said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." She is correct. 

Scholars, journalists, and media personalities are wordsmiths. While others work with their hands, their eyes, and their endurance, wordsmiths' job is to use words to clarify issues, to comfort the afflicted, to expand minds, and to find solutions. The world needs wordsmiths right now. Their articulate analysis of Islam will comfort and enlighten, not inflame, the masses. 

Now, when talking heads state simple truths, "Most Muslims are not jihadis. Most Muslims are peaceful. Most Muslims are just like you and I and most Muslims should not be the targets of our rage," many otherwise good people, rendered cynical, dismiss these words. 

Free speech is the best friend Muslims have. In the current environment, unspoken suspicions rankle and conspiracy theories proliferate. We must protect innocent Muslims from rancor, every bit as much as we must protect innocent people of all faiths. The best way to protect the vast majority of Muslims who are innocent and who just want to live their lives in peace is to tell the truth about Islam, and to publicly, verbally, fearlessly, and communally hash out solutions to the challenges Islam presents. 

Danusha V. Goska is the author of Save Send Delete.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Putin Storms Ukraine

by Arnold Ahlert

Yesterday, Ukrainian President Petro O. Poroshenko declared that Russia had invaded his nation. Col. Andriy Lysenko, spokesman for the Ukrainian military, confirmed that two armored columns of Russian forces, replete with tanks and armored fighting vehicles, captured the town of Novoazovsk on the Sea of Azov near the Russian border. Ukrainian troops were forced to retreat in the face of superior fighting power that included Grad missiles launched from Russian territory. “Our border servicemen and guardsmen retreated as they did not have heavy equipment,” Lysenko said in a statement. 

NATO released a series of satellite images further confirming that at least 1,000 soldiers and Russian artillery units were operating in Ukraine. Captured in late August, the images show the artillery units moving through the Ukrainian countryside and establishing firing positions near Krasnodon, Ukraine. “Over the past two weeks we have noted a significant escalation in both the level and sophistication of Russia’s military interference in Ukraine,” said Dutch Brigadier General Nico Tak, director of the Comprehensive Crisis and Operations Management Centre (CCOMC), Allied Command Operations. “The satellite images released today provide additional evidence that Russian combat soldiers, equipped with sophisticated heavy weaponry, are operating inside Ukraine’s sovereign territory.”

Tak further noted the overall scope of the invasion was much wider than the current effort. “We have also detected large quantities of advanced weapons, including air defense systems, artillery, tanks, and armored personnel carriers being transferred to separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine,” he explained. “The presence of these weapons along with substantial numbers of Russian combat troops inside Ukraine make the situation increasingly grave.”
The motive for doing so was also illuminated. “Russia is reinforcing and resupplying separatist forces in a blatant attempt to change the momentum of the fighting, which is currently favoring the Ukrainian military,” Tak added. “Russia’s ultimate aim is to alleviate pressure on separatist fighters in order to prolong this conflict indefinitely, which would result in further tragedy for the people of Eastern Ukraine.”
President Poroshenko cancelled a scheduled trip to Turkey and convened an emergency meeting of the Ukrainian security and defense council to determine what steps his government would take to address the crisis. “I made the decision to cancel a working visit to the Republic of Turkey in connection with the rapidly deteriorating situation in Donetsk region, in particular in Amvrosiyivka and Starobesheve, as Russian troops have actually been brought into Ukraine,” he said in a statement on the presidential website. Poroshenko also requested the meeting of the U.N. Security Council that took place yesterday afternoon.
Lysenko stated that Russian troops began entering Ukraine shortly after midnight, adding that “Russian servicemen” are in control of several other localities around Novoazovsk. There are also reports of a Russian BM-27 Uragan missile system in the area.
The satellite images paint a grim picture. In addition to the strategic setups in and around Krasnodon, the images show a steady buildup of Russian forces on the Russian side of the border near Rostov-on-Don, approximately 31 miles from the Dovzhansky, Ukraine border crossing. Between June and late August, a conglomeration of battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, cargo trucks and tented accommodations were established, with NATO insisting it represents “one example of the multiple encampments that Russia has positioned near its border with Eastern Ukraine.” Another image shows what appear to be a half dozen Russian 153mm 2S19 self-propelled guns located in Russia near Kuybyshevo, which sits only four miles south of the Ukrainian border, near the village of Chervonyi Zhovten. According to NATO the guns are pointed north, “directly towards Ukrainian territory.”
Ukrainian forces are fortifying their positions 28 miles west of Novoazovsk, around the port city of Mariupol, anticipating that Russian forces will attempt to secure a road link to Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed last March. If successful, Russia and/or the separatists would gain a direct land corridor to the peninsula, as well as control of the entire Sea of Azov, thought to contain extensive gas and mineral deposits. National Guard spokesman Ruslan Muzychuk told the AP in Mariupo that Ukrainian troops currently control the area, even as he too insisted his government had proof the Russians were moving large amounts of weaponry into Novoazovsk, presumably headed for Mariupo and a seemingly critical confrontation.
Aleksandr Zakharchenko, a rebel commander and the prime minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, also confirmed the presence of 4,000 Russian troops in Ukraine, but insisted that many of them were active-duty soldiers on leave who have “volunteered” to fight for freedom. “There are active soldiers fighting among us who preferred to spend their vacation not on the beach, but with us, among their brothers, who are fighting for their freedom,” he said in an interview on Russian state-run television.

Unsurprisingly, Russia has once again denied the incursion is happening. A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry told Russia media sources that “this information has no relation to reality,” and that units on the Ukrainian side of the border were simply engaged in “tactical training exercises on their own and outlying ranges” and that such efforts “were the normal work of any army.” Andrey Kelin, Russian representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) also toed the company line, contending that “no Russian involvement has been spotted, there are no soldiers or equipment present.” “Accusations relating to convoys of armored personnel carriers have been heard during the past week and the week before that,” he added. “All of them were proven false back then, and are being proven false again now.”

Not quite. On Tuesday, Ukraine announced the Monday capture of ten Russian paratroopers who had “accidentally” crossed the border, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. “These servicemen really did take part in a patrol of a section of the Russian-Ukrainian border, crossing it likely by mistake at an unequipped and unmarked point,” a Ministry source told Russian media.
Ella Polyakova, a member of President Vladimir Putin’s advisory council on human rights, contradicted those assessments, insisting that a Russian invasion is taking place. “When masses of people, under commanders’ orders, on tanks, APCs and with the use of heavy weapons, (are) on the territory of another country, cross the border, I consider this an invasion,” she said.
European leaders were on board with Polyakova’s characterization. German Chancellor Angela Merkel phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin demanding an explanation. French President Francois Hollande characterized Russia’s actions as “intolerable” and warned of further sanctions if they continue. “Russia cannot simultaneously aspire to be a world power in the 21st century and not play by the rules,” he said in a speech to French ambassadors. He was echoed by British Prime Minister David Cameron who also spoke of unspecified “consequences” if Russian continued its “large scale incursions.” Cameron insisted that Putin’s stated desire to end the conflict peacefully “is not credible when Russia is supporting pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine with arms and troops,” even as he warned the effort “must cease immediately.”
The Obama administration also accused Russia of orchestrating the fighting, with State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki contending the latest incursions “indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk.” Donetsk is the largest city held by rebel forces and 11 people were reported killed by shelling Wednesday night.
At yesterday’s U.N. Security Council meeting, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Power continued leveling accusations at the Russians. “Russian soldiers, tanks and air defense have supported and fight alongside separatists as they open a new front in a crisis manufactured and fueled by Russia,” she declared, further noting that Russia had been called to account on other occasions. “At every step, Russia has become before this council to say everything but the truth. It has manipulated, obfuscated and outright lied,” she added.
Power also urged the Security Council to take immediate action. “How can we tell those countries that border Russia that their peace and sovereignty is guaranteed if we do not make our message heard on Ukraine?” she asked. “The cost of inaction is unacceptable.”
NATO is apparently preparing for action. Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that the organization will for the first time deploy forces at new bases in Eastern Europe, to counter Putin’s aggression and protect Baltic States that were former Soviet satellites. The plan is to be unveiled at a meeting in Wales next week when NATO seeks to overcome divisions within the alliance, with the ultimate aim of securing an agreement to station troops along the Russian border. “We will adopt what we call a readiness action plan with the aim to be able to act swiftly in this completely new security environment in Europe,” said Rasmussen. “We have something already called the NATO response force, whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed. Now it’s our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very high readiness.”
He also illuminated sobering reality. “We have to face the reality that Russia does not consider NATO a partner,” he explained. “Russia is a nation that unfortunately for the first time since the second world war has grabbed land by force. Obviously we have to adapt to that.” So does Putin, who is sure to be infuriated by the move.
Late yesterday afternoon the New York Times reported that President Poroshenko ordered mandatory conscription into the Ukrainian army, which was suspended last year, be reinstated. “The situation is certainly extremely difficult and nobody is going to simplify it,” Mr. Poroshenko said. “Still, it is controlled enough for us to refrain from panic.”
Perhaps it is—for now. Yet one is left to wonder how long such “control” can be maintained. Vladimir Putin’s expansionist urges have been extremely popular among the Russian people who share his vision of a resuscitated “empire.” How far he and they are willing to go to maintain that worldview may determine the fate, not just of Russia and Ukraine, but the entire continent of Europe. It wouldn’t be the first time national pride ignited a widespread conflagration.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to, and He may be reached at


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Mahmoud Abbas: Blame Hamas for Gaza Casualties

by IPT News

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas may not be fond of Israel and its political leadership, but he's clear-eyed about one thing: Hamas initiated and prolonged an unnecessary fight with Israel that directly led to Palestinian deaths.

Abbas appeared on Palestine TV Friday, saying "it was possible for us to avoid all of that, 2,000 martyrs, 10,000 injured, 50,000 houses (damaged or destroyed)."

This criticism comes on the heels of his statement that this week's open-ended ceasefire was, in essence, the same Egyptian proposal Hamas rejected weeks ago, before Israel's ground incursion into Gaza which sent casualties dramatically higher and cause massive damage.

Nevertheless, Hamas is trying to spin the war into a victory. That was apparently too much for Mahmoud al-Habbash, a senior Abbas adviser on religious affairs. On Thursday, Habbash likened Israel's Operation Protective Edge to a battle Mohammed fought in 625 A.D. That fight, the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh wrote, "is generally believed to be a defeat for the Muslims, especially because of the heavy casualties they suffered."

In that case, Habbash wrote on Facebook, "The Muslims admitted their defeat," a statement interpreted as a call for Hamas to do the same today.

That same candor has been lacking among American Islamists, including officials at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which apparently now acknowledges that its mission includes being "defenders of the Palestinian cause."

CAIR's Los Angeles director, Hussam Ayloush, has had no comment about Hamas. But after the ceasefire, he wrote in a Twitter post that he conflict was an unprovoked "barbaric assault" by Israel.
Even in the conflict's early stages, however, Abbas wondered what Hamas was "trying to achieve" by firing rockets at Israeli neighborhoods, given that Palestinians "are the losing side, and every minute there are more and more unnecessary deaths. I don't like trading in Palestinian blood."

If he can say that, why can't Ayloush and his colleagues in the United States?

IPT News


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Yoram Ettinger: Is time working for or against Israel?

by Yoram Ettinger

For the first time, Israel's country default spread (2.48 percent) -- which reflects ‎the risk premium on government bonds -- is similar to that of the U.S. ‎‎(2.38 percent).

The trend of Israel's economy from 1948 until today has reaffirmed that time ‎has been working for, not against, Israel. Moreover, the ongoing ‎war, terrorism, international pressure and boycotts, which have challenged ‎Israel since its establishment in 1948, have been exposed -- in retrospect -- ‎as bumps and hurdles on the road to unprecedented economic growth.‎

The sustained, impressive growth of Israel's economy throughout ‎the last 30 years -- in defiance of endemic geopolitical and military ‎adversity -- is documented in an August 2014 study by Dr. Adam Reuter, ‎the CEO of Financial Immunities Consulting and the chairman of Reuter-‎Maydan Investment House. Israel's gross domestic product catapulted from ‎‎$30 billion in 1984 to $300 billion in 2014; per capita GDP surged from $7,000 to ‎‎$38,000; the public debt to GDP ratio shrank from 280 percent to 66 percent; the external ‎public debt to GDP ratio contracted from 55 percent to 10 percent; the budget deficit to ‎GDP ratio decreased from 17 percent to 3 percent; the defense budget reduced from ‎‎20 percent to 6 percent; annual inflation collapsed from 450 percent to 1 percent; the foreign ‎exchange reserves swelled from $3 billion to $89 billion; exports rose from $10 billion to ‎‎$90 billion; high tech exports expanded from $1 billion to $28 billion; research and ‎development expenditures to GDP ratio grew from 1.3 percent to 4.2 percent; the ‎population of Israel grew from 4.1 million to 8.2 million, etc. The growth ‎from 1948 is even more impressive: a 2000 percent growth in GDP, from $1.5 billion to ‎$300 billion.‎

Assessing the impact of the Gaza war on Israel's economy against the ‎backdrop of the three previous wars -- 2006 against Lebanon's Hezbollah ‎and 2009 and 2012 against Gaza's Hamas -- demonstrates an exceptional ‎capability to bounce back rapidly, except for the gradual recovery of ‎tourism, which accounts for 2 percent of Israel's GDP. ‎The pattern of crisis-to-recovery has always featured an abrupt and short-‎lived crisis followed by a speedy -- not a prolonged -- recovery (a "V" and not ‎a "U" shaped graph).‎

For example, according to the Bank of Israel, the 2006 war against ‎Hezbollah triggered an immediate drop of GDP from more than 6 percent to a ‎negative growth of 1.5 percent, followed by a swift recovery to almost 10 percent ‎growth in the following quarter (prior to the global economic meltdown). The ‎effects of the 2009 and 2012 wars were significantly more moderate, but ‎recovery was as rapid. ‎

The 2014 Gaza war is estimated to lower Israel's 2014 GDP by 0.5 percent. Based ‎on recent precedents, it will have insignificant influence on foreign investors, ‎most of whom seek the know-how-intensive Israeli high tech companies, ‎which are minimally vulnerable to rocket and missile fire. Moreover, the ‎expanded global interest in Israeli-developed and manufactured, battle-‎tested defense systems (e.g., Iron Dome, Trophy, etc.) -- which ‎demonstrated their unique capabilities during the Gaza war -- is expected to ‎bolster a quick recovery and the continued growth of Israel's economy. ‎

In 2014, Israel is the world's top exporter of drones, the world's co-leader ‎‎(along with the U.S.) in the development, manufacturing and launching of ‎small and medium sized satellites, the second-largest cyber exporter in the world -- ‎‎$3 billion in 2013, 5 percent of total exports and three times larger than Britain's, as ‎well as an emerging natural gas power. 

The February 2014 International Monetary Fund Israel ‎Country Report stated: "Israel has been exposed to a series of shocks, ‎including the global crisis and heightened geopolitical tensions in the Middle ‎East. Nevertheless, GDP growth has averaged 4 percent over the past 5 years, ‎compared with 0.7 percent on average for OECD countries. Per capita GDP grows ‎more rapidly than in other OECD countries." 

The three leading credit ‎rating companies, Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch reaffirmed ‎Israel's high credit rating, emphasizing its fiscal responsibility, economic ‎dynamism and resilience, while lowering the credit rating of many developed ‎economies. According to the OECD annual 2013 report, Israel is the fourth most attractive country for foreign direct investment per GDP -- 4 percent, ‎compared to 1.6 percent in the top 16 economies. Warren Buffett attests to that ‎distinction: "Israel is the leading, largest and most promising investment ‎hub outside the United States." In addition, leading U.S. venture capital ‎funds established Israel-dedicated funds, and over 250 leading U.S. high tech ‎companies established research and development centers in Israel, ‎leveraging Israel's brainpower, which has become a chief pipeline of cutting ‎edge technologies; thus, expanding U.S. employment, research and ‎development and exports. Intel's recent decision to invest $6 billion in ‎upgrading one of its six Israeli facilities represents the confidence of the ‎global high tech community in Israel's long term viability.‎

In contrast to those who wish to boycott Israel, 2013-2014 has highlighted ‎Israel's expanding trade and investment global network, especially with the ‎surging economies of China, India and South Korea.‎

Is time working for or against Israel? The economic indicators from ‎‎1948 until today confirm that Israel has experienced splendid economic ‎integration and unprecedented economic growth, in defiance of ongoing ‎war, terrorism, boycotts and international pressure.‎

Yoram Ettinger


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

40 Lessons from Hamas’ War Against the Jews

by Steven Plaut

1.      Nice fences do not stop missiles, rockets, and mortars.

2.      Complete removal of Israeli forces and Jewish settlers from an area merely signals Israeli weakness and invites escalated Arab terror and aggression.

3.      Hamas (and Hezb’Allah and ISIS) cannot be defeated with air strikes.  There is no effective alternative to ground invasion and ongoing military control of the ground retaken.

4.      Unless the Israeli military controls the ground on the other side of fences, those fences achieve nothing.

5.      Goodwill gestures by Israel increase terror.

6.      Goodwill gestures by Israel never produce moderation of Arab goals and demands.  They also do not win Israel friends in the West but rather encourage outbursts of anti-Semitism.

7.      Terror is not caused by Israeli settlements but by the removal of Israeli settlements.

8.      Terror is not caused by Israeli military occupation but by the removal of Israeli military occupation.

9.      It is impossible for two sovereign entities to exist between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

10.      No matter how many concessions Israel makes, the world will always justify Arab terrorism because there will always be still one more capitulation Israel failed to make.

11.      No matter how nice Israel is to its own Arab citizens and no matter how many affirmative action programs it implements, Israel will always be accused of being an “apartheid regime.”

12.      The Israeli far left is an openly anti-Semitic movement that seeks Israel’s destruction and automatically endorses the enemies of Israel in nearly all things.

13.     The Likud is too cowardly to defeat the terrorists.

14.       The real enemy of Israel is not Arab fascism but Jewish leftism.

15.       Much of the world has no qualms about seeing Jewish civilians murdered by terrorists.  In fact it celebrates these Jewish deaths and complains that there are too few of them.

16.       The Israeli Left will oppose every conceivable act of Israeli self-defense.

17.       Israeli niceness and flexibility fan anti-Semitism.

18.       Arab terrorists do not morph into statesmen.

19.       Israel bashers do not care about dead Arab civilians, other than as a useful tool with which to bludgeon Israel.

20.      Many on the worldwide Left would not raise an eyebrow if Israeli Jews were shipped off to concentration camps in cattle cars – except perhaps to demand improved rail service.

21.      The vast majority of Israeli Arabs and nearly all Israeli Arab politicians support terrorism and wish to see Israel destroyed.

22.      There are hundreds of Jewish professors in Israel who serve as an academic Fifth Column and who collaborate with the enemies of their country.  They are the moral equivalent of American and British jihadis who fight for the ISIS.

23.      The Arabs will not accept an independent Israel within any set of borders, no matter how small. Hence reducing Israel’s territory does nothing but signal weakness and destructibility.

24.      The only country on earth expected to respond to the mass murder of its civilians by turning of the other cheek is Israel.  The only country on earth that has spent years trying to defeat aggression and terrorism by turning the other cheek is Israel.  It failed.

25.      No matter how Israel responds to aggression and terrorism, it will always be denounced as a “disproportionate” response.  The only “proportionate” response is complete capitulation by Israel.  If an Israeli coughs in the general direction of Gaza, this would be a disproportionate war crime and act of genocide.

26.      Those who claim that anti-Zionism is different and distinct from anti-Semitism tend, on close inspection, to be anti-Semites themselves.

27.      The only people on earth whom the Left believes should be denied the right to self-determination and self-defense are the Jews.

28.      “Palestinians” are not a nation in any true sense of the term and never were. They are simply Arabs who happened to migrate or infiltrate into Western Palestine.  They have no “right” to statehood.

29.      Israeli leftists, rather than learn from the failures of their policies and “ideas,” will always complain that their policies have not been applied thoroughly enough.

30.      The moral and legal responsibility for every single Arab civilian killed or injured in the Middle East conflict rests squarely on the shoulders of the Arab terrorists and their Western amen choruses.

31.      There is no moral or legal reason for Israel to refrain from attacking terrorists and murderers when they hide among civilians.

32.     Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is NOT an apartheid regime.

33.      Palestinians are the Sudeten Germans of the Middle East.

34.      There are no non-military solutions to the problem of terrorism.

35.       One can only make peace with one’s defeated enemies.

36.      There are no significant differences between the agenda of the PLO and the agenda of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Moslem Brotherhood, and ISIS.

37.      One cannot make peace by pretending that war does not exist.

38.      One cannot buy off anti-Semites and Islamofascists with trade concessions and subsidies.

39.       The only way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists.

40.       No terrorist has ever murdered anyone after he was executed.

Steven Plaut is a native Philadelphian who teaches business finance and economics at the University of Haifa in Israel.  He holds a PhD in economics from Princeton.  He is author of the David Horowitz Freedom Center booklets about the Hamas  and Jewish Enablers of the War against Israel.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.