The End of Pax Americana - Lee Smith

by Lee Smith

Hat Tip: Darrell Simms

When the secretary of state holds a joint press conference with Moscow’s foreign minister after Russia has decimated American proxies bearing American arms, we are not witnessing anything like a return to the Cold War. Rather, we’re witnessing a new order being born.

The United States, President Obama said at the U.N. General Assembly last week, “worked with many nations in this assembly to prevent a third world war—by forging alliances with old adversaries.” Presumably, the president was not referring to his deeply flawed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the recent agreement that the White House has marketed as the only alternative to war with a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. Rather, it seems he was referring to the post-World War II period, when the United States created and presided over an international order that prevented an even larger, potentially nuclear, conflict with the Soviet Union. Now, that Pax Americana may be ending. 

Indeed, Russia’s airstrikes against CIA-vetted Syrian rebels last week looked like a punctuation mark. When the secretary of state holds a joint press conference with Moscow’s foreign minister after Russia has decimated American proxies bearing American arms, we are not witnessing anything like a return to the Cold War. Rather, we’re witnessing a new order being born. It is an order that is being designed by others, without any concern for American interests.

Its cradle is not the conference rooms of the U.N., but the killing fields of Syria. After four and a half years, the Syrian civil war and the refugee crisis it has spawned threaten to disrupt two zones of American vital interest, the Persian Gulf and Europe.

America’s Cold War prosperity depended on our ability to trade with the rest of the world across both oceans. The United States built a powerful blue-water navy and far-flung bases as tokens of our willingness to protect our allies and stand up to their, and our, adversaries. What facilitates both trade and the movement of a military as large as America’s is access to affordable sources of energy, which is why the security of the Persian Gulf has been a vital American interest for 70 years. 

The nuclear agreement with Iran signals that Obama doesn’t see things this way. From his perspective, no core American interest would be threatened by either the domination of the Gulf by revolutionary Iran or the likelihood that other regional powers will go nuclear. The JCPOA told American partners in the Middle East that the old alliance system was finished. Israel and Saudi Arabia would get stiff-armed, and Iran would get to call plays in the huddle. What Obama sought, as he said in a New Yorker interview, was a “new geopolitical equilibrium.”

Vladimir Putin understood Obama’s rhetoric and actions as confirmation of what he’d already surmised. Putin showed NATO to be a paper tiger when he moved against Georgia, then ordered a Russian crew based in Syria to shoot down a jet flown by NATO member Turkey, then annexed Crimea, to little response. In July, the JCPOA opened the way for Russian and Iranian cooperation in Syria. The Americans, Putin understood, had no stomach for a fight. But the White House may have helped create the conditions for a conflict much larger than the war already underway in Syria, a conflict that could someday force the United States to defend its vital interests.

“There already is a third world war underway,” says Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. “It’s the war between Sunnis and Shiites. It’s a world war because it engages people all around the world who happen to be Muslims.” 

Codevilla thinks it unlikely that the war will expand past the Middle East but notes that Pakistan, a nuclear Sunni power, could present problems. In any event, the Obama administration has little ability to shape outcomes. “Once you seize a position by force, as the Russians have,” says Codevilla, “you are in the diplomatic driver’s seat. Putin is schooling the U.S. foreign policy establishment in foreign affairs. He has put his armed forces not at the service of Bashar al-Assad, but at the service of Russian interests.”

And Obama? The White House believes in a balance of power without winners and losers, an abstract international system with room for every nation to pursue its rational interests. But this is fantasy: Whatever order exists belongs to the power that imposes it. The Syrian war threatens two of the pillars of the order we formerly led. 

“At what point does the Syrian conflict create political instability in places like Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf?” asks Walter Russell Mead, professor of foreign policy and humanities at Bard College. “As long as nothing is happening to block the oil flow, it’s the refugee flow that makes Syria an international issue.”

But even before the refugees, European security services were overwhelmed trying to keep tabs on potential jihadist recruits traveling from Europe to the Middle East and back. The influx of hundreds of thousands more migrants from the region is likely to generate political instability and could carry the war between Sunnis and Shiites into Europe.

To stem the refugee crisis, the White House is broadly hinting it is willing to go along with Tehran and Moscow and let Assad stay in power, at least for now. But it is Assad and his allies—not, as the administration seems to suggest, the Islamic State—who are responsible for the vast majority of the refugees. If the Obama administration accommodates Russia and Iran on Assad, it will be acquiescing in a plot to extort and destabilize Europe.

In the Gulf, Mead says, “if the Sunnis continue to feel that they’re losing an existential conflict with Iran, they may move toward a closer relationship between governments and radical groups. Keeping oil money out of the hands of truly radical jihadists has been a core U.S. interest since September 11, but if the Gulf states don’t feel we are keeping our part of the bargain by providing security, they could take matters into their own hands.”

Of course, another option for the Gulf states would be to enlist Russia, which, unlike the Obama administration, has shown its willingness to act on behalf of its own interests. Now that Obama has forsaken America’s post-World War II patrimony, life is more dangerous for America and its allies. This won’t be easy to reverse, no matter who succeeds Barack Obama.

Lee Smith is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

Source: http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/end-pax-americana_1039617.html

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

The Limits to Self-Criticism in the Muslim World - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Görmez, has said that someone else carried out the Paris terror attacks in January and put the blame on Muslims.

 

Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Görmez, has said that someone else carried out the Paris terror attacks in January and put the blame on Muslims.

Murat Yetkin, our editor-in-chief, mentioned in his Sept. 24 column "a self-criticism of the Islamic world by a top Turkish official in Mecca." Indeed, it was important that Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Görmez, the head of the Religious Affairs Directorate (Diyanet), said that "[Muslims] failed to do our works with justice, mercy and love. We called violence as jihad, oppression as victory." He also condemned "movements like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as 'terrorism.'"

No doubt, Professor Görmez deserves praise for all the self-criticism. All the same, one other evil habit in the Islamic world that he probably deliberately avoided condemning was the typical reluctance of the "ulema class" to condemn un-Islamic acts committed by the ruling Islamist class.

It could be a bad coincidence that the top Turkish cleric's condemnation of al-Qaeda and ISIL as terrorists came only after the Turkish government joined an allied campaign against both, not before. Really, why did Professor Görmez not condemn ISIL over the entire previous year, when its videos of utmost brutality were known to every soul in the world?

Görmez's condemnation of al-Qaeda and ISIL came only after Turkey joined an allied campaign against both.

"We [Muslims] have called oppression as victory." Very true. And what does Professor Görmez think about the culture minister's "passionate" call to open a sixth century Orthodox church, Hagia Sophia, to Muslim prayers? Victory? Or the childish feeling of conquest? Justice, mercy and love?

A professor of theology, Professor Görmez should know better than this columnist that the Islamic holy scripture commands "modesty" in more than 60 verses. Does he think that spending several hundreds of millions of dollars in a presidential palace and private jets should comply with the Islamic commandments on modesty? If he does not agree, would he say that publicly? Why has he not been self-critical of the Islamist man who spent that money?

Professor Görmez recently said he would return his fancy Mercedes car, adding that he hoped his decision to return the car would "be a precedent to everyone." But after this President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said he would give him "a better, armored Mercedes car." What happened to his Mercedes? Did he return it? Has he agreed to accept the Mercedes that the president promised to give him?

Religious leaders of Islam should more bravely encourage free thinking and advocate justice.

"We [Muslims] called victory as jihad." Very true. But what does Professor Görmez think arming jihadists should amount to? Did he think that the Sunni jihadists' war on Syria's Shia regime was legitimate? Was it violence? Or just innocent jihad? At least, Professor Görmez should have shared his views on the Muslim Brothers' systematic attacks on Egypt's Coptic community. Was that violence or jihad? Why was he totally silent when Egyptian Islamists attacked more than 50 churches overnight in 2013?

It is no doubt praiseworthy that Turkey's top cleric resorted to something that is extremely rare in Muslim lands: self-criticism. But it is not good enough when self-criticism comes in carefully-worded speeches designed to self-criticize but not to annoy the ruling class of Islamists – in other words, his employers. Could the ulema be frightened of speaking the Islamic truth in the face of the ruling class?

Too many questions. To be realistic, there is no prospect of a single answer.

Professor Görmez's nice words in Mecca were indeed self-criticism in the Islamic world. But they were merely "selective" self-criticism in the Islamic world. Religious leaders of Islam should more bravely encourage free thinking and advocate justice instead of paying servitude to the men of power – at least for the sake of advocating Islamic commandments on justice.

This columnist is not optimistic, though. Titles and the fortunes associated with titles are almost always more important than holy verses in this part of the world.


Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish daily Hürriyet and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/5540/muslim-self-criticism

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

Palestinians: Why Our Leaders Are Hypocrites and Liars - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

Danish German

• We contaminate our mosques with our own hands and feet, and then blame Jews for desecrating Islamic holy sites. If anyone is desecrating Islamic holy sites, it is those who bring explosives, stones and firebombs into Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Jews who visit the Temple Mount do not bring with them stones, bombs or clubs. It is young Muslim men who are desecrating our holy sites with their "filthy feet."
• These leaders, including Abbas himself, are not willing to send their own children and grandchildren to participate in the "popular struggle." They are fully responsible for sending the children of others to throw stones and firebombs at Jews. Sitting in their luxurious offices and villas in Ramallah, they demand that Israel be held responsible for cracking down on "innocent" Palestinians. Their main goal is to embarrass Israel and depict it as a state that takes tough measures against Palestinian teenagers.
• These youths are not taking to the streets to fight "occupation." Their main goal is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Jews. When someone tosses a firebomb at a house or a car, his intention is to burn civilians alive.
• It is as if our leaders are saying that throwing stones and firebombs at Jews in their cars and homes is a basic right of Palestinians. Our leaders believe Israel has no right to defend itself against those who seek to burn Jews driving in their vehicles or sleeping inside their homes.

While Hamas and Islamic Jihad are continuing to exploit our teenagers in the Gaza Strip by training them to join the jihad against Jews and "infidels," our leaders in the West Bank are committing a similar crime against Palestinian youths.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, who falsely describes himself as President of the State of Palestine, has been encouraging our teenagers to engage in the so-called "popular resistance" against Israel. But these leaders, including Abbas himself, are not willing to send their own children and grandchildren to participate in the "popular struggle." As usual, our leaders want the children of others to take to the streets and throw stones and firebombs at Jews.

The "popular struggle" that the PA leadership is spearheading these days is anything but peaceful. In some instances, it has even proved to be lethal. Recently, Alexander Levlovich was killed after losing control of his vehicle in Jerusalem. Investigations showed that at least four Arab youths had pelted his car with stones, causing Levlovich to hit a tree.

During the past few months, hundreds of Palestinian teenagers from Jerusalem have been arrested for throwing stones and firebombs at Israeli vehicles. These teenagers have offered various explanations as to why they decided to take part in the "popular resistance" against Israel. Most of them said they wanted to protest against visits by Jews to the Temple Mount -- an act described by our leaders as a "contamination" of Islamic holy sites. Mahmoud Abbas, who is by no means a devout Muslim, recently accused Jews of desecrating Al-Aqsa Mosque with their "filthy feet."

Abbas and other senior figures in the Palestinian Authority leadership have also been issuing daily threats against Israel in response to perfectly peaceful visits by Jews to the Temple Mount. One of them, Mahmoud Habbash, even went as far as announcing that the visits by Jews to the Temple Mount would ignite a third world war.

It is this type of incitement that prompts our youths to hurl stones and firebombs at Jews. These youths are not taking to the streets to fight "occupation." Their main goal is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Jews. Otherwise, how does one explain the fact that Palestinian teenagers have thrown dozens of firebombs at Jewish homes in the Old City? When someone tosses a firebomb at a house or a car, his intention is to burn civilians alive.

Our leaders, who are fully responsible for sending these teenagers to throw stones and firebombs at Jews, are sitting in their luxurious offices and villas in Ramallah and rubbing their hands with deep satisfaction. Abbas and several Palestinian leaders in the West Bank would like to see our youths rioting on the streets of Jerusalem and in the Temple Mount's Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, so that they can hold Israel responsible for cracking down on "innocent" Palestinians. Their main goal is to embarrass Israel and depict it as a state that takes tough measures against Palestinian teenagers, whose only fault is participation in "popular resistance."

After having incited our youths to engage in violence against Jews, our hypocritical leaders are now rushing to condemn new Israeli measures against stone-throwers. It is as if our leaders are saying that throwing stones and firebombs at Jews in cars and homes is a basic right of Palestinians.

One of the loudest hypocrites is Saeb Erekat, the veteran Palestinian negotiator who was recently elected Secretary-General of the PLO. Erekat, who never dispatched his sons and daughters to throw stones and firebombs at Jews, was quoted this week condemning Israel's newly approved measures against Palestinian stone-throwers. He described these measures as "inhumane" and part of Israeli "incitement" against Palestinians.

Neither Erekat nor his boss, Mahmoud Abbas, has denounced the violence by Palestinians against Jews. The only time they issue condemnations is when Israel arrests teenagers for throwing stones and firebombs. Our leaders believe Israel has no right to defend itself against those who seek to burn Jews driving in their vehicles or sleeping inside their homes.

If anyone is desecrating Islamic holy sites, it is those who bring explosives, stones and firebombs into Al-Aqsa Mosque in the first place. For the past few months, dozens of Palestinian youths have used the mosque as a launching pad for attacking Jewish visitors and policemen on the Temple Mount. The Jews who visit the site do not bring with them stones, firebombs and clubs. It is young Muslim men who are desecrating our holy sites with their "filthy feet."

Such reports show that Muslims have no respect for their religious sites. The images of masked youths inside Al-Aqsa Mosque, collecting stones for attacking Jews, also reveal the true intentions of the rioters and those behind them: to harm Jewish visitors and policemen, who anyway have no plans to enter the mosque.

Palestinian Arab young men with masks, inside Al-Aqsa Mosque (some wearing shoes), stockpile rocks to use for throwing at Jews who visit the Temple Mount, September 27, 2015.

We contaminate our mosques with our own hands and feet and then blame Jews for desecrating Islamic holy sites. Not only are we lying, but we are also displaying the highest level of hypocrisy and impudence. We plan and initiate the violence on the Temple Mount and elsewhere and then we run to complain to the world that Israel is arresting our youths "for no reason."

It is obvious that our leaders are once again leading us toward a catastrophe. They want our children to get hurt or killed so that they can go to the United Nations and complain that Israel is using "excessive force" against the Palestinians. Our leaders, of course, do not tell the world that they are the ones inciting these young men to take to the streets and attack the first Jew they run into. Nor do they tell the world that it is Muslims, and not Jews, who are contaminating Islamic holy sites through their violent acts.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6618/palestinian-leaders-liars

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

Jihadist Jew-Hunting in Jerusalem and Shomron - Phyllis Chesler

by Phyllis Chesler

The difference between a mentally ill lone mass murderer in the West and a mentally ill Jihadist in Israel.

The recent murders of Jews in Jerusalem and in Shomron are as horrifying as they are predictable. They are Third Intifada lone-Jihadist stabbing sprees, post-Abbas-at-the-United Nations vigilante group shootings. These very specific anti-Semitic murders are being minimized, poorly covered, subsumed under the front page headlines of the Oregon college shootings.

For example, the Oregon atrocity made page A1 in the New York Times and took up two whole additional pages in Section A. The Jerusalem murders appeared on page 8, at page bottom, and took up only 1/4^th of the page. In addition, the Palestinian stabber-shooter was described as a “law student”; his victims were described as “ultra-Orthodox Jewish men.” Late last week, Palestinians shot and killed two parents in front of their four children; they are described as “settlers” in the “occupied West Bank.”

In short, as many have been led to believe, these Jewish victims are somehow deserving of their fates, since they have “provoked” Palestinians by “humiliating them.”

The NYT “spin” on the Oregon shooting is, as usual, one which focuses on the need for gun control and the crisis of mental illness. The killers featured there are mainly white, mentally ill men, who had access to guns. This is the company in which the Oregon shooter is placed. The Times and other mass media do not write that Mercer-Harper is bi-racial nor do they focus on his internet love affair with Jihad.  

President Obama is called our first “black” President although his mother was Caucasian and very white and his father was a black African. Conversely, but similarly, Mercer-Harper, the Oregon shooter’s father is white but his mother is an African-American nurse. Does this make Mercer-Harper one of the white boys? Just asking.

I have no doubt that these men were “mentally ill.” However, there is a difference between someone who is “mentally ill,” let’s say a paranoid schizophrenic or depressed, someone who suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome, or has a Social Personality Disorder but who grew up in a Judeo-Christian culture—and someone who suffers from any of these same psychiatric illnesses, but who has grown up in a tribal, shame-and-honor Muslim culture, (which routinely means serious but normalized child neglect and abuse, paternal absence, and the most profound devaluation of women and infidels). Take someone from such a culture and who is “mentally ill,” and who is living during a period of glorified global Jihad and who has been propagandized into becoming a human bomb, stabber, or stoner of other Muslims and of all infidels and we have a very different kind of problem.

The “mentally ill” loner-boys in the Judeo-Christian West have latched on to a variety of ideologies that are not currently collectively embraced. They are viewed as racists, haters, disgusting. The “mentally ill” loner-boys in Muslim societies are not loners once they embrace an approved ideology of violent, externally oriented Jihad. And, they are glorified, treated as martyr-heroes. This, too, is an important difference.

Such distinctions must be made especially as Europe is being flooded with countless immigrants from Muslim cultures and as President Obama keeps upping the number of Muslim immigrants whom America will be accepting.

Neither Obama nor the Pope have specifically called for the acceptance of Christians and Yazidis. One must wonder why. And, one must challenge them both on this point.


Phyllis Chesler

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260353/jihadist-jew-hunting-jerusalem-and-shomron-phyllis-chesler

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

Defiance: Thousands Celebrate With the Torah at Terror Sites - Yaakov Levi

by Yaakov Levi

Education Minister Naftali Bennett joins thousands in Hakafot dancing celebrations over the Simchat Torah holiday at 'trouble spots.'

Naftali Bennett in Jerusalem's Old City (file)

Minister Bennett's Office

 

Hundreds of people marched to the site of the murders of Rabbi Nehemia Lavi, 41, and Aharon Banita Bennett, 21, who were murdered in a terrorist attack Saturday in Jerusalem's Old City.

Carrying Torah scrolls, the marchers danced with the Torahs and performed the hakafot celebration that is traditional on the holiday of Simchat Torah.

The marchers danced their way through the streets of the Old City, starting out from the area of the Kotel Hakatan, a portion of the Kotel that is located in the Muslim Quarter. They stopped at Hagai Street, the site of the murders, and there began singing louder and increasing their celebrations. Participants said that they would not allow the tragedy to ruin the holiday spirit, and that terrorists would not be allowed to set the agenda for the Jewish presence in Jerusalem.

Among the guests in holiday celebrations in the City of David neighborhood, which has a large Arab population, was Education Minister Naftali Bennett. Bennett participated in hakafot dancing in the neighborhood on Sunday night, and later went on to the Kotel, where celebrations were taking place as well. He later joined hakafot at the site of the murders on Hagai Street.

In the morning, Bennett danced with the Torah at the Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva in the Old City, as well as at the Kotel Hakatan, the Christian Quarter, the King David's Tomb complex, and other sites. 

On Monday night, as hakafot shniot take place, thousands are expected outside the Prime Minister's Residence, in a combination celebration and protest, demanding that the government do more to protect Israelis. 

They will be joining Samaria Council Chairman Yossi Dagan, who has been sitting outside the residence in protest since the murders of Eitam and Na'ama Henkin last Thursday.


Yaakov Levi

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/201439#.VhK_zJezdds

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

Sexual Slavery: "Nothing to do with Islam"? - Uzay Bulut

by Uzay Bulut

• "They are also taught that white non-Muslims are easy, cheap, dirty sluts and that it is their right [to take them]. ... On top of this, teaching people to hate anyone who is not a Muslim -- as is done in many mosques -- will, of course, lead to a lot of people hating anyone who is not a Muslim. ... The problem, however, is also due to police, judges, lawyers, and teachers, fearing the words 'racist' and 'Islamophobe' -- and nothing is being done to stop that." -- Toni Bugle, women's rights activist, founder of Mothers against Radical Islam and Sharia, and victim of child-rape.
• "When girls are raped, they are referred to by the rapists as 'white trash,' 'white whores' and 'white kuffir.' It is said to the girls quite openly. And the girls tell the police. Yet the assaults are never recognized as 'racially motivated. ... "I am sick of being told that I matter less because, I was born white, or that someone else matters less because he was born a different color. Such terms are themselves racist. People now seem to be using the race card to behave in the most appalling manner." -- Toni Bugle.
• Many British girls still stay silent. The perpetrators threaten and intimidate them: "This would be enough to silence most girls. In addition, the police ignore the pleas of these girls, so they do not trust the police. I do think the silence of the community means it acquiesces."
• In Islam, only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves -- a rule that is unfortunately only further evidence of a supremacist doctrine within Islam: that Islam is superior to other religions, and its adherents therefore entitled to privileges not afforded to members of other religions.

The sexual abuse of non-Muslim children and women at the hands of Jihadist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram is not only a widespread practice in the Muslim world, but, sadly, has a lot to do with Islamic teachings.

Sexual slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. The founder of Islam also practiced and approved of slavery, as was more common at the time. Caliphs had harems of hundreds or thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu, Persian and African lands.

Islamic slavery also was, and is, race-based. Umar, Muhammad's father-in-law and a caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves; he even emancipated all Arab slaves. In Islam, only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves -- a rule that is unfortunately only further evidence of a supremacist doctrine within Islam: that Islam is superior to other religions, and its adherents therefore entitled to privileges not afforded to members of other religions.

This supremacist doctrine of Islam has brought non-Muslims centuries of persecution and institutionalized discrimination. Some have been exposed to brute force and had to convert from their native religion; others have been given the status of "dhimmis": third-class, "tolerated" citizens who have to pay a tax (the jizya) in exchange for "protection," never allowed the same religious rights or freedoms as Muslims. If they cannot pay the tax, they are to be killed or have their children taken from them.

All those practices indicate what Islamic rule brings for non-Muslims: death or a state-approved position of inferiority and humiliation.[1] One of the most appalling practices of the Islamic supremacist mindset was the institution of Janissaries established by the Ottoman Empire. For hundreds of years, Ottoman Turks took away the sons of Christians in occupied Europe and forcibly converted them into Muslim warriors (Janissaries).

There are about dozens of verses in the Quran and the Hadith referring to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims and the eternal damnation and punishment awaiting them in the afterlife.[2] Once Islam establishes political superiority, there is very little tolerance for people of other faiths or atheists.

As early Muslim armies used their swords to invade and Islamize non-Muslim lands, they enslaved non-Muslims, and even other black Muslims. Islamic scriptures approve of the rape of female prisoners who have very few civil or legal rights under Islamic law.

During 1,400 years of jihad and even today, the Muslim world is mostly apathetic and silent about sexual aggression. Many Muslims even try to justify it under Islamic rule. So now this practice is common not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe, including Britain.

Women are finally refusing to accept this situation. Toni Bugle, for example, a women's rights activist, has established an organization called M.A.R.I.A.S (Mothers Against Radical Islam and Sharia), which tries to raise awareness about, and act against, sexual abuse, female genital mutilation, child grooming gangs, child marriage, domestic violence, forced marriages and honor killings.

In the midst of the complicit silence of many institutions, including the mainstream media in Britain, Bugle is trying to protect British children and women from rapists -- many of whom apparently have been Muslims.

As a victim of sexual abuse for two years from the age of eight, Bugle was homeless for a time, and later exposed to physical violence. She witnessed her friends in the streets sexually abused and forced into prostitution.

"Not until years later did I realize I was reading patterns which were similar that are happening to girls all over the UK," Bugle said to Gatestone Institute. "I have also spoken to Muslim women, abused because of sharia law. I took one into my home. Her family were trying to use her to traffic people from Somalia to the UK."

A few months ago, a report found that between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 non-Muslim British children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in Rotherham. Children as young as 11 were often gang-raped, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, according to the report. Authorities did nothing "for fear of being thought as racist."

Another report in May, 2015, added that the Rotherham Council and police had wanted the authorities to ban protests against child rape. "They have appealed to the home secretary for emergency special powers under the Public Order Act 1986," according to Breitbart.

A protest against child-grooming in Rotherham, on October 5, 2014, organized by the group "Britain First." (Image source: Britain First)

Bugle remarked that not only does this political and religious ideology encourage Muslim men to rape non-Muslim children and women, but that Britain's submission to Sharia-inspired brutality seems to have several causes:

"Muslims believe they are at war with the West; and when in a state of war (jihad), they have the right to 'war booty:' that which the right hand possesses, sex slaves. They are also taught that white non-Muslims are easy, cheap, dirty sluts and that it is their right [to take them]. On top of this, teaching people to hate anyone who is not a Muslim – as is done in many mosques – will, of course, lead to a lot of people hating anyone who is not a Muslim. So the way many Muslims perceive Western women fuels the increase in rape incidents. The problem, however, is also due to police, judges, lawyers, teachers, to name but a few, fearing the words 'racist' and 'Islamophobe' -- and nothing is being done to stop that."

The map on the organization's website shows the areas hit by Muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telsley, Stevenage, Peterborough, Birmingham, Oxford, and Bradford. "This," says Bugle, "barely scratches the surface.[3]

"The UK media refuse to use the term Muslim," Bugle adds. "But in London alone 27% of the inmates are Muslim, serving time for rape, drugs and violence. That is a massive percentage considering that Muslims are apparently only 4% of the overall population."

"When girls are raped, they are referred to by the rapists as 'white trash,' 'white whores' and 'white kuffir.' It is said to the girls quite openly. And the girls tell the police. Yet the assaults are never recognized as 'racially motivated'."
"I get death threats, rape threats, and sodomy threats - but never from non-Muslims. Muslims follow me on Twitter and Facebook and have immediately sent messages, calling me 'white bitch' and 'white whore,' and threaten me with sexual assaults."

Despite the enormity of the problem, Bugle notes that the media virtually ignore the Muslim rape epidemic in the West: "The media will rarely speak about it for more than one day. Rotherham was the only time they did, and they insisted on calling the perpetrators 'Asian,' not Muslim. And they never mention the link between these rape incidents and the Islamic teachings."

One of the few scholars who do expose the link between the two, Raymond Ibrahim, wrote in a comprehensive article about Islamic rape: "The ongoing epidemic in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere—whereby Muslim men sexually target white women—is as old as Islam, has precedents with the prophet and his companions, and, till this day, is being recommended as a legitimate practice by some in the Muslim world."

Despite the alarmingly widespread problem, many British girls, possibly partly from shame or concern that they might be thought complicit, stay silent. A stronger reason, according to Bugle, is that the perpetrators still threaten and intimidate them.

"This would be enough to silence most girls. In addition, the police ignore the pleas of these girls, so they do not trust the police. Also, apparently when parents were told that the girls were 'known prostitutes,' they were told that the girls 'would grow out of it.' These are just a few of the reasons they stay silent."

Bugle says she has

"emailed several 'feminist' organizations inviting them to speak out against sharia law, but each time they have not even answered. If you search for feminists standing against sharia law or the rape of predominantly white girls, she says, they will always tell you it has nothing to do with Islam. No matter how you try to explain that we wish to stand against all forms of misogyny, they do not want to accept facts. They refuse even to address the problem. They say 'you cannot blame an entire community.' I do not blame an entire community and I do not think all Muslims are rapists or terrorists, but I do think the silence of the community means it acquiesces. To address an issue properly, however, one must first acknowledge and accept that there is a problem."

One of the main arguments of the apologists of extremist Islam in the West has been to accuse people of having "white privilege," an overtly racist term for advantages allegedly enjoyed by white people but that non-whites do not experience.

Bugle, a rape victim, opposes the term:

"I am sick of being told that I matter less because, I was born white, or that someone else matters less because he was born a different color. Such terms are themselves racist. People now seem to be using the race card to behave in the most appalling manner and because people fear being termed racist. I do not see skin color. Yet skin color is used to shut down debate and discussion. 'White guilt' is being manipulated to silence the masses. Whether you are black or brown or white, you should be proud of the skin you were born with; it was not a choice."

Bugle says her organization aims eventually to give a voice to every woman abused by sharia law, and a place to girls who are targeted -- first for being non-Muslim, and second for being white -- a place to come to. There, they will be able to talk with people who will believe them and will not blame them.[4]

She says she would like the girls to feel free of guilt, and to take back the control that was taken from them. "Perhaps in the future we will be able to provide safe houses, phone help-lines and a sense of safety, and help them to not remain victims, but in time to become survivors. Not all will survive but those who do will one day help others."

When the organization held its first conference on August 29, two of the speakers were Muslim women, one of whom had apparently been repeatedly raped by Muslim men. The organization intends to hold another conference, also with Muslim speakers, in Rochdale around mid-November.

Britain -- with all of its institutions, says Bugle -- should act to protect children and women from rapists. No matter who may feel hurt or offended, she says, nothing is more hurtful than innocent women and children being raped, pimped, tortured and trafficked. "But first," she states, "we need a government with the moral fortitude to stop ignoring facts and constantly stating, 'This has nothing to do with Islam.'"

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

---

[1] E.g: Koran 67:6-8; 21:98; 2:191-193; 9:111; 9:5; 9:29; 5:32; 5:33; 33:50; 8:41; 22:19-22; 2:178; 8:12
[2] E.g.: Koran 6:27; 3:91
[3] A blog at Channel 4 also reported that in many other cases in the UK, vulnerable teenage girls were sexually abused:

"We have evidence of such exploitation taking place in Keighley (2005 and 2013), Blackpool (2006), Oldham (2007 and 2008), Blackburn (2007, 2008 and 2009), Sheffield (2008), Manchester (2008 and 2013) Skipton (2009), Rochdale (two cases in 2010, one in 2012 and another in 2013), Nelson (2010), Preston (2010) Rotherham (2010) Derby (2010), Telford (2012), Bradford (2012), Ipswich (2013), Birmingham (2013), Oxford (2013), Barking (2013) and Peterborough (2013)."

The report also says that "Of the 306 offenders whose ethnicity was noted, 75 per cent were categorized as Asian."
[4] On the website, there are blogs written by the girls in their own words.

• Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6630/sexual-slavery-islam

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

Amir Taheri: Unlike Kennedy, Nixon And Reagan, Who Drove A Hard Bargain In Negotiations With Enemies, Obama Is Capitulating And Chasing Illusions - MEMRI

by MEMRI

Obama demanded nothing of the Iranians before commencing negotiations, not even the release of U.S. hostages. Moreover, he pursued rapprochement with Iran despite the absence of any positive change in this country's hardline policies and ideologies.

  
In an opinion piece published August 25, 2015 in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri, a prominent Iranian analyst, author and columnist, compared Obama's policy towards Iran to the policies of Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan in their dealings with the U.S.'s main rivals in their day – the USSR and China. Taheri wrote that, in making the deal with Iran, Obama wishes to portray himself as an heir to the tradition established by these presidents of defusing conflict through diplomacy and negotiations. He noted, however, that these leaders negotiated from a position of strength, and pursued a detente with America's enemies only after the latter had fulfilled important American demands and changed key elements of their policies. For example, Kennedy negotiated with the USSR only after forcing it to remove the nuclear sites from Cuba; Nixon's normalization with China came only after the latter had turned its back on the Cultural Revolution and abandoned its project of exporting communism, and Reagan engaged with the Soviets only after taking military measures to counter the threat they posed to Europe. Moreover, says Taheri, the U.S. warmed its relations with China and the USSR only after they abandoned their absolute enmity towards it and began regarding it as a rival and competitor rather than a mortal enemy that must be destroyed.

Conversely, says Taheri, Obama demanded nothing of the Iranians before commencing negotiations, not even the release of U.S. hostages. Moreover, he pursued rapprochement with Iran despite the absence of any positive change in this country's hardline policies and ideologies. On the contrary, America's overtures only encouraged Iran's worst tendencies, as reflected in a sharp rise in human rights violations within Iran and in its continued support for terror groups and for Assad's regime in Syria. The detente with America did not even cause Iran to abandon its calls of death to America, Taheri notes. He concludes "Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary," whereas "Obama is responding positively to his own illusions."  

The following are excerpts from his article:

Amir Taheri (Image: Twitter.com/amirtaheri4)

JFK Forced Russia To Remove Its Missiles From Cuba; Obama Obtained Nothing Tangible And Verifiable

"Promoting the 'deal' he claims he has made with Iran, President Barack Obama is trying to cast himself as heir to a tradition of 'peace through negotiations' followed by US presidents for decades. In that context he has named Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as shining examples, with the subtext that he hopes to join their rank in history.

"Obama quotes JFK as saying one should not negotiate out of fear but should not be afraid of negotiating either. To start with, those who oppose the supposed 'deal' with Iran never opposed negotiations; they oppose the result it has produced... In one form or another, Iran and the major powers have been engaged in negotiations on the topic since 2003. What prompted Obama to press the accelerator was his desire to score a diplomatic victory before he leaves office. It did not matter if the 'deal' he concocted was more of a dog’s dinner than a serious document. He wanted something, anything , and to achieve that he was prepared to settle for one big diplomatic fudge.

"Is Obama the new JFK? Hardly. Kennedy did negotiate with the USSR but only after he had blockaded Cuba and forced Nikita Khrushchev to blink and disband the nuclear sites he had set up on the Caribbean island. In contrast, Obama obtained nothing tangible and verifiable. Iran’s Atomic Energy chief Ali-Akbar Salehi put it nicely when he said that the only thing that Iran gave Obama was a promise 'not to do things we were not doing anyway, or did not wish to do or could not even do at present.' 

"JFK also had the courage to fly to West Berlin to face the Soviet tanks and warn Moscow against attempts at overrunning the enclave of freedom that Germany’s former capital had become. With his 'Ich bin ein Berliner' (I am a citizen of Berlin), he sided with the people of the besieged city in a long and ultimately victorious struggle against Soviet rule. In contrast Obama does not even dare call on the mullahs to release the Americans they hold hostage. Instead, he has engaged in an epistolary courting of the Supreme Guide and instructed his administration in Washington to do and say nothing that might ruffle the mullahs’ feathers.

Nixon Extracted Far-Reaching Concessions From China; Obama Has Only Encouraged The Worst Tendencies Of The Khomeinist Regime 

"No, Obama is no JFK.  But is he heir to Nixon? Though he hates Nixon ideologically, Obama has tried to compare his Iran 'deal' with Nixon’s rapprochement with China. Again, the comparison is misplaced. Normalization with Beijing came after the Chinese leaders had sorted out their internal power struggle and decided to work their way out of the ideological impasse created by their moment of madness known as The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The big bad wolf of the tale, Lin Biao, was eliminated in an arranged air crash and the Gang of Four defanged before the new leadership set-up in Beijing could approach Washington with talk of normalization. 

"At the time the Chinese elite, having suffered defeat in border clashes with the USSR, saw itself surrounded by enemies, especially after China’s only ally Pakistan had been cut into two halves in an Indo-Soviet scheme that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Hated by all its neighbors, China needed the US to break out of isolation. Even then, the Americans drove a hard bargain. They set a list of 22 measures that Beijing had to take to prove its goodwill, chief among them was abandoning the project of 'exporting revolution'. 

"Those of us who, as reporters, kept an eye on China and visited the People’s Republic in those days were astonished at the dramatic changes the Communist leaders introduced in domestic and foreign policies to please the Americans. In just two years, China ceased to act as a 'cause' and started behaving like a nation-state. It was only then that Nixon went to Beijing to highlight a long process of normalization. In the case of Iran, Obama has obtained none of those things. In fact, his 'deal' has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Khomeinist regime as symbolized by dramatic rise in executions, the number of prisoners of conscience and support for terror groups not to mention helping Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

Reagan Had No Qualms About Calling The USSR 'The Evil Empire';  Obama Is Scared Of Offending The Mullahs 

"No, Obama is no Nixon. But is he a new Reagan as he pretends? Hardly. Reagan was prepared to engage the Soviets at the highest level only after he had convinced them that they could not blackmail Europe with their SS20s while seeking to expand their empire through so-called revolutionary movements they sponsored across the globe. The SS20s were countered with Pershing missiles and 'revolutionary' armies with Washington-sponsored 'freedom fighters.'

"Unlike Obama who is scared of offending the mullahs, Reagan had no qualms about calling the USSR 'The Evil Empire' and castigating its leaders on issues of freedom and human rights. The famous phrase 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!' indicated that though he was ready to negotiate, Reagan was not prepared to jettison allies to clinch a deal.

"Obama has made no mention of Jimmy Carter, the US president he most resembles. However, even Carter was not as bad as Obama if only because he was prepared to boycott the Moscow Olympics to show his displeasure at the invasion of Afghanistan. Carter also tried to do something to liberate US hostages in Tehran by organizing an invasion of the Islamic Republic with seven helicopters. The result was tragicomic; but he did the best his meagre talents allowed. (NB: No one is suggesting Obama should invade Iran if only because if he did the results would be even more tragicomic than Carter’s adventure.)

"On a more serious note, it is important to remember that dealing with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran is quite different from dealing with the USSR and China was in the context of detente and normalization. Neither the USSR nor the People’s Republic regarded the United States as 'enemy' in any religious context as the Khomeinist regime does. Moscow branded the US, its 'Imperialist' rival, as an 'adversary' (protivnik) who must be fought and, if possible, defeated, but not as a 'foe' (vrag) who must be destroyed. In China, too, the US was attacked as 'arch-Imperialist' or 'The Paper Tiger' but not as a mortal foe. The slogan was 'Yankee! Go Home!'"

China And USSR Moderated Their Virulent Hate For U.S,; In Iran The Slogan Is Still 'Death To America'

"In the Khomeinist regime, however, the US is routinely designated as 'foe' (doshman) in a religious context and the slogan is 'Death to America!' Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has no qualms about calling for the 'destruction' of America, as final step towards a new global system under the banner of his twisted version of Islam. Tehran is the only place where international 'End of America' conferences are held by the government every year. The USSR and China first cured themselves of their version of the anti-American disease before seeking detente and normalization. That did not mean they fell in love with the US. What it meant was that they learned to see the US as adversary, rival, or competitor not as a mortal foe engaged in a combat-to-death contest. The Islamic Republic has not yet cured itself of that disease and Obama’s weakness may make it even more difficult for that cure to be applied.

"Détente with the USSR and normalization with China came after they modified important aspects of their behavior for the better. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary. In the case of the USSR positive change started with the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin’s crimes, purged the party of its nastiest elements, notably Lavrentiy Beria, and rehabilitated millions of Stalin’s victims.

"In foreign policy, Khrushchev, his swashbuckling style notwithstanding, accepted the new architecture of stability in Cold War Europe based on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy, Johnson and, later, Nixon and President Gerald Ford had to respond positively. In the late1980s, the USSR offered other positive evolutions through Glasnost and Perestroika and final withdrawal from Afghanistan under Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Reagan and President George Bush (the father) had to respond positively.

"In the case of China we have already noted the end of the Cultural Revolution. But China also agreed to help the US find a way to end the Vietnam War. Beijing stopped its almost daily provocations against Taiwan and agreed that the issue of the island-nation issue be kicked into the long grass. Within a decade, under Deng Xiaoping, China went even further by adopting capitalism as its economic system. 

"There is one other difference between the cases of the USSR and China in the 1960s to 1990s and that of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran today. The USSR had been an ally of the United States during the Second World War and its partner in setting up the United Nations in 1945. Although rivals and adversaries, the two nations also knew when to work together when their mutual interests warranted it. The same was true of the Chinese Communist Party which had been an ally of the US and its Chinese client the Kuomintang during the war against Japanese occupation when Edgar Snow was able to describe Mao Zedong as 'America’s staunchest ally against the Japanese Empire.' In the 1970s, Washington and Beijing did not find it strange to cooperate in containing the USSR, their common rival-cum-adversary as they had done when countering Japan.

"In the case of the Islamic Republic there is no sign of any positive change and certainly no history of even tactical alliance with the US. 

"Unless he knows something that we do not, Obama is responding positively to his own illusions."

MEMRI

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8779.htm

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

It's Jihad, Stupid - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Abbas' UN speech is part of a master plan and it's name is Jihad. The doctrine of Islamic Jihad mandates the inclusion of an element of deceit, and Mahmoud Abbas is a master of deception.

Israel is experiencing a sharp increase in terrorist activity in the form of rock-throwing, Molotov cocktails and live ammunition aimed at Israeli vehicles, which began to be noticeable several months ago and has escalated rapidly over the last few weeks. It is happening in Judea and Samaria, but the focus of the violence is in Jerusalem, where any incident involving the Temple Mount – el Aksa [sic] in Arabic – draws regional and even world attention.

Are we witnessing an organized set of terror attacks or an ongoing continuum of spontaneous events?  Is this the harbinger of a third Intifada? And if not, what is it? The jury seems to be out on the question.

The undecided internal debate about the significance of the violence is expressed by the media's selective choice of words. Should young people's actions be labeled acts perpetrated by "youths," a word emphasizing their age, but not claiming that they are minors? Should they instead be called "activists?" "terrorists?" "militants?" "hooligans?" It goes without saying that the choice of term makes a statement about the speaker's position regarding the violence as well his opinion on the punishment the perpetrators should receive if and when they are apprehended. There is a great deal of difference between "driver killed by rock thrown by youths" and "driver killed by rock thrown by terrorists."

It is sad to see the lack of real understanding on the part of Israelis and the rest of the world as to what actually is happening out there, because there is only one word that describes the truth about what the other side sees as reality - that is, the side that screams about Jews ascending the Temple Mount, throws rocks, hurls boulders and Molotov cocktails, stabs and shoots. That word, and it is the only applicable word, is "Jihad." This, to many Israelis, is the word "that must not be said" because it tells us is that what we in Israel are experiencing at the present time is an Islamic religious war.

Denial won't change anything, however, because there are at least seven different ways to prove that Israel is, as it always was, a "Jihad" target.

First and foremost, the struggle today, as in the past, is over the religious supremacy issue. According to Islam, the Jewish religion is passé, Din al-Batil, while Islam is the true religion, or  Din al-Haqq. According to Islam, Jews may live under Islamic rule if they cooperate and accept the lowly role of "dhimmi", protected ones, sans sovereignty, arms and citizens' status. The situation today where Jews rule "Palestine," a land Islam considers holy to Muslims alone, and are able to tell Muslims what they are allowed and not allowed to do, contradicts the most basic Islamic tenet: "Al-Islam Ya'lu wala yu'la 'alayhi" - Islam is supreme and nothing can be above it.

A situation where another religion, and certainly Judaism, controls Muslims and an Islamic land, mandates a "Jihad."

Second, according to Islamic doctrine, "Jihad" can assume various forms depending on prevailing circumstances. Screams, curses, blows, rocks, boulders, firecrackers, firebombs, knives, shots – all are weapons, each chosen after assessing the particular situation. Cameras are also weapons, especially for the media, which acts as the preferred Jihadist arena. The photographer and journalist are fighters in the "Communications Jihad."

"Legal Jihad" continues the struggle in the halls of international courts and institutions, while "Economic Jihad" is waged in BDS calls to boycott Israel, pull out of financial investments in the Jewish state and lay on sanctions.

The Bedouin in the Sinai have been carrying on a Jihad against Israel by smuggling infiltrators – many of them Muslim (surprise!) - and weapons into Gaza and into Israeli territory. The leader of the infiltrators in Israel is a Muslim, and his activities against the state, its citizens and laws can be lumped together as "Migrant Jihad."

A Muslim MK who defames Israel from the Knesset podium is a "Political Jihadist." The UN podium is no different. 

Mahmoud Abbas' speech at the United Nations and other world forums and the Palestinian Authority's attempt to receive international recognition as a state, are a kind of "Political Jihad" whose goal is the establishment of Muslim State No. 58 on the ruins of the one and only Jewish State. These efforts are camouflaged as legitimate political activity through which, by presenting a false image that depicts them as "peace lovers,"  the Muslims living both in Israel and outside of its borders are attempting to persuade the world to agree to destroy the Jewish State. The doctrine of Islamic Jihad mandates the inclusion of an element of deceit, and Mahmoud Abbas is a master of deception.

Make no mistake, all of the above are different types of Islamic Jihad.

Third is the increasing involvement of the Islamic Movement, particularly the northern branch led by Raed Salah (aka the el Aksa Sheikh) in staging incidents, incitement, financing the al-Murabitoun  and  al-Murabitat organizations and in its growing coordination with Hamas.

Each of these organizations carries on its anti-Israel Jihad to the best of its abilities, but all share a common religious goal: transforming all of "Palestine," stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, into a part of the Islamic Caliphate, with its capital in Al Quds (Jerusalem). The first religious leader of the Arabs in the area designated as the Jewish Homeland – the Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini - was involved in Military Jihad against the Jews of Israel but was also actively involved in the annihilation of a half million Hungarian Jews in 1944.

Fourth is the meaning of the the historically and religiously significant names of the above-mentioned organizations. They refer to the entire land and especially to the areas bordering it, where Muslims battle infidels in order to strengthen Islam and establish its rule over them and their countries. There have been organizations with similar names outside of Israel, all of them Islamic Jihadist in character.

The fifth indication is the expression used for anyone killed in anti-Israel incidents. Today, as well as in the past, the term employed is "shaheed", a religious term meaning someone who dwells in Paradise near Allah and receives the reward for martyrdom for the sake of Islam from Allah's hand.

And the sixth proof? Just look at what is going on in the Muslim world. All the Muslims living west of the Jordan River, in Israel and the Palestinian Authority are well-informed about the developments in Syria, Iraq and the Sinai. They are privileged to see in real time how original, fundamentalist, pure and unadulterated Islam is going about a bold and successful Jihad – including beheadings on camera – against Alawite, Yazidi, Druze and Shiite infidels, as well as foreigners like the Americans, whom they  do not fear in the least.

Everyone knows what is happening in the Jihad-land that has blossomed in the Sinai Desert, and how the Jihadists are successfully fighting an all-out war against Egyptian military forces, the largest army in the Middle East. Joy at Jihad successes in the countries surrounding Israel has found its way into the hearts of the Muslims living West of the Jordan and motivates them to join the Jihad against the Jews, the "enemies of Allah and Islam," and become part of the wave of Islamic successes that have the entire world trembling in fear.

Seventh, the illegal Arab construction going on all over Israel west of the Jordan River is a kind of Jihad known as "Construction Jihad."  

Not coincidentally, that is the name of the construction company owned by Hezbollah, no problem because the idea of a joint Jihad against Israel is an integral part of Islam to both Sunnis and Shiites and is one of the few points of agreement between them.

The multi-pronged Jihad against Israel described here is not announced publicly (or explained in detail as I have done), because the Muslims know full well that the world will not support Jihad if its fighters are openly attempting to destroy Israel.

That is why Israel's leaders, spokespersons and media, every last one of them, must begin to pull their heads out of the sand, call the "Jihad" by its name and talk about what is happening here in real terms, that is, religious ones. It is time to say from morning to night that what we - and not only we - are facing is a Jihad, nothing else, and the fighters – women, children, adults and youth – are Jihad fighters. That is what they identify with, that is why they are enlisting.

Rock, boulder, firebomb, knife and gun, along with the camera, courts, boycott and migration – are all weapons in the hands of Jihad fighters, all are meant to topple Israeli security, society, economics and standing. Israel must take them seriously – and remember that in war as in war. Our media people, who are still dreaming about a new Middle East as postulated by their delusional leader and Pied Piper of Hamelin, Shimon Peres, are afraid of Jihadism, because they, like all liberals, have no tools to fight a religious war against soldiers who have Allah's praise on their lips.

Every time I try to tell Israeli media that Israel is fighting Jihadists, the interviewers quiet me fearfully and tell me not to change the nationalist Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an Islamic-Jewish religious war. I make an effort to tell them that with or without my saying it and whether or not they admit it, the war is a religious one. In fact, I add that even if they do not allow me to say it, the roots of the entire conflict are Islamist and religious. 

It may be presented as a nationalist, territorial, legal, political or any other kind of struggle, but that is an exercise in self-deception. The conflict stems from a source of Islamic religious fire, one that burns in the hearts of men and inside  the firebombs. In the War of Independence, the Arabs shouted "Idbah al-Yahoud – butcher the Jew." Note that they did not say Israeli or Zionist, but Jew. It is the Jews that they want to be rid of.

Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Alon Liel and the other hallucinatory figures tried to convince us that there is a difference between the bad Jihadists of Hamas and the "charming", "pleasant' PLO ones, those true lovers of peace and tranquility, those whose arch-Jihadist leader Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Even Abbas' incendiary UN speech will not change their minds.

Theirs was an unfounded and utterly delusionary point of view, but it cost the lives of over 1500 very real Israelis, because the only difference between Hamas and the PLO is that Hamas declares openly that it is a Jihad fighter organization, while some PLO members hide the fact that they are as well.  Some of them – those in the el-Aksa Brigades - don't bother to hide it and their president, Mahmoud Abbas, finances them.  Those of us who are battle-weary attempt to kosher the Jihadist PLO vermin just as they attempted to gloss over Haj Amin al Husseini's part in the Holocaust of European Jewry.

Let's wake up and tell the truth – to ourselves and to the world. Only the truth can help us understand reality and deal with it properly. The truth is that we are a Jihad target for Hamas and the PLO, each one using its own methods of trying to dissemble and pull the wool over our eyes, and if we fall – thanks in part to the European money pouring into the arteries of the PA Jihad – Europe will be the next objective of that very same Jihad, which is already in the midst of exporting itself to Europe by means of massive Muslim immigration to the aging and deteriorating continent.

This is a Jihad. Our enemies, no matter what else they are, are all Jihad fighters. We have to adapt our way of talking about this situation and deal with it accordingly. The faster we do so the better it will be for us and the world.

Written in Hebrew for Arutz Sheva, translated by Op-ed and Judaism Editor, Rochel Sylvetsky.


Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17628#.VhLJn5ezdds

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