International & Foreign Policy-Related Posts

British Indians: The New Jews

In the crosshairs of powerful Muslim forces — readying themselves for majority rule in the UK.

Mar 17, 2020 Katie Hopkins

Imagine a national newspaper publishing a cartoon of Ilhan Omar as a grotesque pig, with trotters for hands and a ringed snout where her nose should be. The sky would fall in. Advertisers would boycott the publication in their droves and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic relations) would claim the scalp (possibly literally) of the editor responsible.

Not so when the target is a British Indian with a Hindu faith. The Guardian (like the New York Times but more left-wing, if such a thing is possible) felt emboldened enough to print an equivalent horror aimed at Priti Patel, our British Indian Home Secretary, depicting her as a menacing cow with a ring through her nose, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson as a bull sitting next to her. Both have cloven hooves for good measure.

Priti Patel has the decency not to shove her religion in anyone’s face, but she is a Hindu whose parents came from India. And for those of us less informed about the Hindu religion, there are some important facts to establish.

In Hinduism the cow is a sacred animal. And Nandi, the gatekeeper of Shiva (one of their holiest gods), is depicted as a bull. These creatures have special significance and deep religious meaning.

In the traffic-choked streets of India, cows amble about at will, safe in their serenity, and are worshipped and decorated during festivals. Most states in India forbid cow slaughter and rumors of cows being eaten by non-Hindu families has led to thrashings and even lynchings, such is the religious significance of the beast.

The President of the Hindu Forum of Britain accused the newspaper of “crossing the boundary from legitimate reporting to blatant racism”: “The cartoon has caused huge offense in the Hindu community and beyond… Calling any woman a cow is clearly misogynistic and offensive: this cartoon should never have been printed for that reason alone… Since the cow is sacred to the Hindu religion to use such an image in this context represents the extreme of racism. We believe this should be investigated by the police.”

Others took to Twitter to articulate much the same. Former Home Secretary Sajid Javid was not the only one to say it reminded him of anti-Semitic cartoons of the last century. This was the gut reaction of many of us.

Sadly, however, it’s no surprise that the mob has come for Priti Patel who is arguably the most powerful female politician in the UK today. She has earned the respect of Brexit supporters who yearn for the country we used to recognize; she was a loyal champion of Brexit at a time when the full force of the Establishment and the leftist elite sought to overturn the will of the people. She is tough on law and order, increasing the powers of police to reduce the knife-crime epidemic in the country, calling for tougher sentences for criminals and enforcing the deportation of convicted foreigners. She is strong on immigration, launching the new British points-based immigration system to limit the numbers of low-skilled individuals flooding into the country. She has ordered officials to explain what has happened to the long-awaited government review on majority-Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs targeting our young white girls.

Her resilience, delivered with a knowing grin, has incensed her detractors all the more. An orchestrated takedown of Priti Patel has consumed the British media for a few weeks. Bullying claims emerged, and the Home Office’s most senior Civil Servant resigned dramatically and publicly, describing himself as the target of a vicious and orchestrated campaign against him, claiming Ms Patel has been “shouting and swearing at staff, belittling people and making unreasonable and repeated demands.”

Such drama is unheard of in the British Civil service, which is usually as starched and tightly buttoned as an extra on Downton Abbey.

Boris Johnson rallied to her defense – The Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job. I have every confidence in her.” – launching return fire at those trying to overthrow her from her post. His loyalty to her resulted in the vile cartoon shown above.

But this fight is about much more than one woman. There are big, strategic forces at play.

Priti Patel represents an empowered and emboldened India. The rise and rise of the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, his blossoming relationship with Trump, his fight back against Islamists in Jammu and Kashmir, and the new Citizen Amendment Act (offering refuge to persecuted Christians and other minorities) has enraged the Pakistani Muslim mob.

This is India versus Pakistan, Modi versus Imran Khan, Western (and Western-style) democracy versus Islam and Sharia. The British left (majority Muslim) versus the British right (increasingly home to the Indian diaspora). The recent appointment of Rishi Sunak as Chancellor, which adds a devastatingly effective (and handsome) Indian to the Cabinet, has only added to the Muslim and leftist chagrin.

I have visited the Indian Embassy and the leadership of the Indian Diaspora in London and Birmingham, and for them the intent of this vulgar cartoon and the reasons behind the coordinated lynching of Priti Patel are perfectly clear.

As the demographics of the UK shift towards a majority Muslim population, the left knows where its future power lies. By 2040 we are outnumbered. When the left insults Jews or Hindus – and gets away with it – it excites their Muslim base. National socialists have plied this trade before.

Our peaceful Indian community is in the crosshairs of powerful Muslim forces readying themselves for majority rule in the United Kingdom.

Are British Indians the new Jews, their women, their religion, their beliefs now acceptable targets, to be mocked, humiliated, ridiculed? Leftists openly portray them as a lesser race, to be talked about in derogatory tones. For some reason, political correctness and thought-policing only applies to anti-Muslim rhetoric. What sick hypocrisy is this?

In Israel not so long ago, a journalist told me that Jews in Europe should treat every day like 1 September 1939. I fear this is increasingly true for our Indian diaspora too. They are British citizens now and they have no Israel. Where will they run when they need a new place to call home? And what will become of those of us left behind in an unrecognizable Britain?

The bogus, sham and fake pal-Arabs 

Arab propaganda is one of biggest scams ever perpetrated, and Mahmoud Abbas is still at it

By Victor Sharpe, RENEW AMERICA | March 15, 2020

The Holocaust denying head of Terror, Inc (aka Mahmoud Abbas, and titular head of the Palestinian Authority), repeatedly outdoes his erstwhile mentor and arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat, by spewing more of the Arabian Nights hallucinatory diatribes at the United Nations Security Council. It goes as follows:

“We are the descendants of the Canaanites that lived in the land of Palestine 5,000 years ago and continuously remained there to this day.”

We should remember that the grisly, blood soaked Arafat had claimed that the Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians, were also descended from the Philistines. But then the followers of the ‘religion of peace’ will tell you that even Adam was a Muslim. Loony tunes for loony people!

But let’s come back to reality and deconstruct the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

There is no such thing as a Palestinian people; no such thing as a Palestinian history; and no Palestinian language exists.

The present-day so-called ‘Palestinians’ are an Arab people sharing an overwhelmingly Muslim Arab culture, ethnicity and language identical to their fellow Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, with few if any distinctions. They are primarily the descendants of those itinerant Arabs who illegally flooded British Mandatory Palestine from Arab territories as far away as Sudan, Egypt, Syria and what was Mesopotamia (modern Iraq).

These Arabs were attracted during the late 19th and early 20th century by new employment opportunities created and provided by the Jewish pioneers whose heroic efforts were turning the desert green again, draining the malarial infested swamps and restoring centuries of neglect, which the ancestral Jewish homeland was forced to endure under a succession of alien occupations.

Britain, during its Mandate over the territory, turned a blind eye to the flood of illegal Arab aliens entering, while at the same time often arbitrarily limiting Jewish immigration into their Biblical and ancestral homeland. This was a betrayal of the Mandate given to Britain to facilitate a Jewish Homeland in the geographical territory then known as Palestine.

Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian born arch-terrorist, was fond of creating the absurd myth that Palestinian Arabs were descended from the Canaanites and/or Philistines.

Canaanites, without doubt, were the first known inhabitants of the Land of Israel before the first Hebrews, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their wives, settled there, and before Moses brought their descendants back to the Promised Land during the Exodus from Egypt. The Canaanites lived both along the coastal plain and in the mountain regions, which run like a spine down the Biblical territory of Samaria and Judea. Their language was similar to Hebrew and their territory stretched north into present day Lebanon and included the present day Golan Heights. The Canaanites were finally subdued and no longer existed as a distinguishable people.

The Philistines were a non-Semitic people who had entered the land from their homes throughout the Aegean Islands in general and from Crete in particular. These ancient Cretans arrived in Southern Canaan and along the Egyptian coastline and were known as ‘Pelestim and Keretim’ by the Hebrew tribes. It appears that their first settlement may have been Gaza. Later they settled in Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gat and Ekron: the Pentapolis.

Though their territory was primarily along the coastal Mediterranean, they attempted at different times to invade Judah, but were turned back by the various Jewish Biblical heroes and finally defeated by King David. From that time onward, they were diminished as a threat and as a separate people, finally disappearing from history. Any claim to lineage by the Arabs who call themselves ‘Palestinian’ is as absurd as that of links with the early Canaanites.

Moving fast forward to 73 AD, the first attempt of the Jews to reclaim their independence from the repressive yoke of Roman occupation ended when Jewish warriors and their families fled to the fortress of Masada from Jerusalem. The Romans had destroyed the Jewish capital city Jerusalem, along with the Second Jewish Temple. Masada is where the heroic last stand took place and where the surviving warriors and their families took their own lives rather than be sent as slaves throughout the mighty Roman Empire.

The Land where these stirring and epochal events took place was in the province known as Judea. There is absolutely no mention of any place called ‘Palestine’ before that time.

After the suppression in 135 AD of the Second Jewish Revolt against the continuing Roman occupation, the Emperor Hadrian replaced the name of Judea (Yehuda in Hebrew from which the name Yehudim, Jews, originates) with Syria-Palæstina after the ‘Philistines’ who were the ancient enemies of the Israelites. Hadrian did so with the explicit purpose of effacing any trace of Jewish history.

It should be noted that the Arabs of today, who fraudulently call themselves Palestinians, commit appalling crimes against civilization by routinely destroying ancient Jewish archaeological remains on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and elsewhere throughout the Land of Israel.

No such name as Palestine occurs in any ancient document. It is not written in the Bible, neither in the Hebrew Scriptures nor in the Christian Testament, not even in Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucian or other Greek sources. There is no ‘Palestinian’ people ever mentioned, not even by the Romans who invented the term. Yet, here again, the fantasist, Abbas, who ranted in the United Nations Security Council and then bid a hasty retreat, claimed Jesus was a ‘Palestinian.’

Why is there no ancient 2,000 year old ‘Palestinian’ rebel group mentioned, as for example the Jewish Zealots? Why does every historic document mention the Jews as the native and aboriginal inhabitants, and the Greeks, Romans and others as foreigners dwelling in Judea while there is no mention of a ‘Palestinian’ people, neither as native nor as foreigner?

What is more, there is no reference to any ‘Palestinian’ people in the Koran, although Muslims claim that their prophet was once in al-Aksa (meaning the farthest place) which Muslims, for political purposes, chose to be in Jerusalem.

Saladin, a Kurd, knew the Jews and invited them to resettle in Jerusalem. The Kurds and Jews have millennial alliances. He had no trouble in recognizing Jerusalem as their capital city and the territory as their rightful Homeland. But he did not know any so-called Palestinians and to claim that Palestinians are the original people of Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, is not only counter to secular history but is also opposed to Islamic history.

The so-called ‘Palestinians’ who claim Jerusalem want it so that they can take it away from the Jews for whom Jerusalem, known also as Zion, is the eternal, 3,000 year old Jewish capital.

Perhaps what links the modern day Arabs who call themselves ‘Palestinians’ with the ancient Philistines is that both are invaders.

The Philistines wanted to take from the Israelites the Holy Ark of the Covenant, while today’s so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs’ want to take from the Jewish people the Holy City of the Covenant – Jerusalem.

So let me close, beginning with the words of a Christian Arab, Joseph Farah, in Myths of the Middle East. Farah has made his home here in America and knows of what he writes:

“There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.

Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 per cent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one per cent of the landmass. But that’s too much for the Muslim Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting against tiny Israel is about today….No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.”

In Their own Words:

Pre 1967: “There is no such country as Palestine. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it.” Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937.

“There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946

“It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.” Representative of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956

Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated: “The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 CE hardly lasted, as such, 22 years.”

Post 1967:

“There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity….the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.” Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council.

“Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are your true representatives” Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yasser Arafat.

“As I lived in Palestine, everyone I knew could trace their heritage back to the original country their great grandparents came from. Everyone knew their origin was not from the Canaanites, but ironically, this is the kind of stuff our education in the Middle East included.

“The fact is that today’s Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today’s Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, Muslim Sherkas from Russia, Muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door.

“My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life at the hands of Abdul Qader Al-Husseni after being accused of selling land to Jews.

“My father used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants.” Walid Shoebat.

Reports from travelers to the Holy Land before its reconstitution as the restored Jewish homeland:

“There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilee); not for thirty miles in either direction….One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee….Nazareth is forlorn….Jericho lies a moldering ruin….Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation….untenanted by any living creature

“… A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds….a silent, mournful expanse, a desolation….

“We never saw a human being on the whole route….Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country… Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes….desolate and unlovely…”Mark Twain, “The Innocents Abroad,” 1867.

In 1590 a ‘simple English visitor’ to Jerusalem wrote: “Nothing there is to be seen but a little of the old walls, which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds much like to a piece of rank or moist ground.”Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund.

“The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil.” British archaeologist, Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s.

“Palestine is a ruined and desolate land.” Count Constantine François Volney, 18th century French author and historian.

“The Arabs themselves cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it.” – Comments by Christians concerning the Arabs in geographical Palestine in the 1800s.

“The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population.” James Finn, British Consul in 1857.

“The area was under populated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880’s, who came to rebuild the Jewish homeland. The country had remained ‘The Holy Land’ in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people.

“Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants – both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts. Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen. The plows used were of wood. The yields were very poor. Schools did not exist. The rate of infant mortality was very high. The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert. Ruins were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.”The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913.That so much of the world has fallen hook, line and sinker for duplicitous Arab propaganda speaks to the success of one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated. And Mahmoud Abbas is still at it, along with two of those Judeophobic miscreants who have made their home in the Democrat Party; Ihan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, ad nauseam.

Europe needs to change the definition of a ‘refugee’: opinion

11March 2020

The migration crisis in Europe stems from corruption and the radical policy of recognizing illegal migrants, criminals and supporters of Islamic terrorism as refugees.

This con has been simple enough. The corrupt media and politicians replaced the word “migrant” with “refugee”, an excellent form of slippery semantics that proved highly effective.

About a million of those migrants are illegals who paid thousands of euros to be smuggled into Europe. They are not fleeing war zones either. Many pass through Turkey and many other safe-haven countries on their journey to richer lands.

Once in Europe, most do not want to stop in Italy, Spain or any the poorer Central European countries. They want the benefits offered in Germany and Scandinavia, and that is because they are economic migrants, not so-called refugees.

About 90 percent of these migrants are Islamic men of fighting age who buy documents from 15-year-olds from EU clerks or corrupt criminal networks in their own country, which they then use to ask for asylum.

This and many other examples of corruption show that the current crisis cannot be solved in the manner Amnesty International is proposing.

First, it is necessary to create a new program to help real refugees, which which would focus on prepubescent children and their mothers. As long as there are women and children located in camps on European borders, help for men should be halted. 

Fathers should be let in only if paternity tests confirm they are the parent. First, the mother and the children are permitted, while the man should remain at the border for test results.

Second, resources and logistics for helping refugees should be offered. Around a million illegals use support meant for real refugee women and children, yet politicians do nothing.

These fighting-age men should be deported and women with children should replace them. Then, Europe will show the world that it helps refugees, because today the image we have is of a Europe which only helps rich Islamists and rejects those who need aid the most.

Third, the definition of a “refugee” needs changing. Right now, opportunistic pro-migrant politicians and journalists use many definitions, usually what suits them best at the time.

Morality must be restored to these definitions and a “refugee” should differ from a “deserter”. These “deserters” constitute every man able to bear a weapon in a war zone. If a mother with children is fleeing a war, the husband should bring them to the border and then be turned back; maybe given a weapon to continue the fight.

The same goes for “asylum” pleas. If we are considering a male migrant from a country without war, we can only accept the citizens of countries with criminal regimes. If a state is friendly to Europe, then why should Europe fear sending him back?

When it comes to women, we should accept those persecuted for fighting for women’s rights.

European governments should unofficially support feminist networks working to change the attitude of many countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and their oppressive policies towards women. Often, these women are escaping real danger, so while Middle Eastern countries claim they are “searching” for the “runaway” mother who left her husband and took the children, in reality, Europe should be doing what it can to make sure these Islamists never find them.

Occupied Elsewhere
Selective Policies on Occupations, Protracted Conflicts, and Territorial Disputes
Svante Cornell & Brenda Shaffer. Jan 27 2020

Occupied Elsewhere

COMMENTARY: any attempt to deradicalize jihadis is going to prove fruitless – governments, politicians, and bureaucrats, knowing little or even nothing about Islam, are not in position to separate ‘the wheat from the chaff’ – IMHO it will be rare to turn a jihadi away from the political ideology and hatred of Islam’s dogma – people in positions related to overseeing jihadis must come to understand the agenda which Islam focuses on its followers; the intensity and virulence of their beliefs; on-going access to other jihadis including imams; etc.; many supported by their families and friends, also believers – governments, pols, and bureaucrats are WARNED THAT RADICALIZATION IS LITERALLY A GUARANTEE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE COMMITTED TO VIOLENCE FOR THEIR REST OF THEIR LIVES – ACCEPT THIS TRUTH AND ACT ACCORDINGLYit is said FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED – in all likelihood, they will not act forcefully as they seek votes to remain in their cushy positions – FAILING in the face of an eternal threat of massive proportions in years ahead

The Problem with Released Jihadists

by Judith Bergman March 5, 2020

“We’re playing Russian roulette with people’s lives, letting convicted, known, radicalised jihadi criminals walk about our streets”. — Chris Phillips, former head of the UK National Counter Terrorism Security Office, The Guardian, December 1, 2019.

The hate literature was distributed to inmates by… chaplains, who themselves were appointed by the Ministry of Justice. The prison staff lacked the training to confront and deter… extremist ideology, and “were often fearful they would be accused of racism if they did“. — Ian Acheson, former prison governor, Daily Mail, July 13, 2016.

It remains to be seen, whether releasing a terrorist after serving two-thirds of his sentence, rather than half, will make any difference.

“If there are people who are absolutely determined not to accept any intervention that will change that toxic mind-set, yes they should be in prison and if necessary, indefinitely.” — Ian Acheson, former prison governor, BBC News, February 3, 2020.

On February 3, 2020, Sudesh Amman, who had just been released from prison in England after serving half his prison term, stabbed two people in Streatham, south London, before he was shot dead at the scene by police. Later, ISIS took responsibility for the attack.The attack again raised the issue of how Europe should deal with jihadist terrorism.

After Amman’s terrorist attack, the government announced that emergency legislation would be introduced to end the automatic early release from prison of terror offenders. Terror offenders would only be considered for release once they had served two-thirds of their sentence and with the approval of the parole board. Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said that the latest attack by Amman made the case “for immediate action”.

“We cannot have the situation, as we saw tragically in yesterday’s case, where an offender – a known risk to innocent members of the public – is released early by automatic process of law without any oversight by the Parole Board,” he said.

It remains to be seen, whether releasing a terrorist after serving two-thirds of his sentence, rather than half, will make any difference. “There will be some people for whom their ideology is bulletproof and there is no way we can get inside that,” said Ian Acheson, a former prison governor. “If there are people who are absolutely determined not to accept any intervention that will change that toxic mind-set, yes they should be in prison and if necessary, indefinitely.”

The attack last week follows the November 2019 terrorist attack on London Bridge — in which Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist, who also had been released on parole half-way into his prison term, murdered two people and wounded several others.

That attack had prompted the UK Ministry of Justice to launch an “urgent review” of the parole conditions for 74 people jailed for terror offences but released early. In 2012, Usman Khan was given a special jail term known as Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), which meant he would serve at least eight years and could not be released unless he had convinced the parole board he was no longer a threat. But in 2013, the Court of Appeal replaced the sentence with a 16-year-fixed term, of which Khan should serve half in prison.

What is worrying is that it needed a deadly terrorist attack for UK authorities to launch a review of convicted terrorists on parole; it is not the first time that convicted terrorists on parole have decided to commit new terrorism. Incidentally, one of the associates of terrorist Usman Khan jailed alongside him, along with another seven men in 2012 for a plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange, was Mohibur Rahman, who was released on parole in 2016, after his lawyer argued that he was “undertaking de-radicalization” in prison. Rahman, however, was jailed again in August 2017 for plotting a “mass casualty attack” on a police or military target with two other men. He is now serving a life sentence with a minimum of 20 years in jail.

The UK has had 15 years — since the first large-scale incident of jihadist terror on its territory in July 2005to think long and hard about how to deal with the ever-increasing problems with jihadists. These problems include how to treat them under the law, sentencing, and the ongoing radicalization in prisons, as well as potential issues related to recidivism after release.

That a convicted jihadist on parole, who had been in a “deradicalization” program, might commit a new terrorist attack should perhaps not have come as a total surprise.

The deradicalization programs in place — such as the Healthy Identity Intervention Program, which has been piloted from 2010 and is now the main rehabilitation scheme for prisoners convicted of offences linked to extremism, and also the Desistance and Disengagement Program, in which Usman Khan participated — have never been fully evaluated as to whether they are producing the desired results, according to a recent report by the BBC.

What the government has evaluated is that Islamist radicalization poses a significant problem in UK prisons. In August 2016, the government published a summary of an unfortunately otherwise classified review of Islamist extremism in British prisons. According to the summary, “the review found evidence that IE [Islamic extremism, ed.] is a growing problem within prisons”. The review found:“… the threat from IE can manifest itself in prison in various ways, including: Muslim gang culture and the consequent violence, drug trafficking and criminality inspired or directed by these groups… offenders advocating support for Daesh and threats against staff and other prisoners, charismatic IE prisoners acting as self-styled ’emirs’ and exerting a controlling and radicalising influence on the wider Muslim prison population, aggressive encouragement of conversions to Islam… books and educational materials promoting extremist literature available in chaplaincy libraries or held by individual prisoners… exploitation of staff fear of being labelled racist”.

According to leaks from the classified review, Islamic hate literature — misogynistic and homophobic pamphlets and hate tracts endorsing the killing of apostates — was freely available on the bookshelves of British prisons. The hate literature was distributed to inmates by Muslim chaplains, who themselves were appointed by the Ministry of Justice. The leaked review also found that chaplains at some prisons encouraged inmates to raise money for Islamic charities linked to international terrorism. Former prison governor Ian Acheson, who conducted the review, said at the time that he found that the prison staff lacked the training to confront and deter Islamist extremist ideology, and “were often fearful they would be accused of racism if they did”.

Chris Phillips, a former head of the UK National Counter Terrorism Security Office, warned recently, “We’re playing Russian roulette with people’s lives, letting convicted, known, radicalised jihadi criminals walk about our streets”. Already in 2015, Phillips had warned that staff shortages in prisons were making it harder to tackle Islamic radicalization: extremists were not properly monitored, therefore enabling them to recruit others.

The release of Anjem Choudary — known as the UK’s “most notorious hate-cleric” in October 2018 — halfway through his five and a half year sentence — is another example of such “Russian roulette”. Choudary was sent to prison in 2016 for encouraging support for ISIS. He is estimated to have inspired “a generation of terrorists” with his preaching. They included Usman Khan, Michael Adebolajo – one of two murderers who hacked soldier Lee Rigby to death in Woolwich, south London, in 2013 — and Khuram Butt, the leader of the London Bridge terror gang who murdered eight people and injured 48 in a terrorist attack in June 2017. Anjem Choudary is among the 74 released jihadists whose parole is under “urgent review”.

The issues that the Sudesh Amman and Usman Khan cases raise, however, are far from exclusively British. They are a European problemAccording to CNN: “In September, the think tank Globsec examined in detail the cases of more than 300 European jihadists implicated in terrorism in a single year, 2015. Some had been killed, but 199 had been convicted of various terror offenses. Kacper Rekawek, one of the report’s authors, told CNN that of that number, 45 were due for release by the end of 2019 and a total of 113 would be released from prison by the end of 2023″.

Of particular concern was Globsec’s conclusion that “jihadi ranks include hardened veterans who have already gone through more than one terrorism conviction and are intent on repeating their feats.

“It is not just the UK that needs emergency legislation regarding imprisoned and released jihadists. Most of Europe does .

COMMENTARY: this goes under the category of ‘lotsa luck, mon ami’ – the Holy Trilogy of Islam dogma is abundant in its hatred of infidels and thus by inference to Western / non-Muslim society – further, these texts are immutable, NEVER to be changed / reformed / deleted – they represent both extremists and secular Muslims wherever they reside – they tell Muslims that the laws of the West are not applicable to Muslims, that they must follow those of their god and his messenger – their intent is clear: they must subjugate, kill, or convert The Other however long it takes until peace in their terms comes to mean Muslims are superior in every place, thus dominating the world – without redemption of those commands and teaching, Islam will remain a FAILURE of immensely, fundamental and frightening proportions Muslims in France will take his words to heart and they openly protest, make demands across the entire spectrum of today’s society, injure or kill native French citizens as they wish, all in the name of their god and his messenger – mayhem and death coming to a neighborhood near those in France

Macron Tries to Harden His Stance on an “Islam of France” (Part 1)


A Turkish writer at Hüuriyet reports here on the speech of French President Macron about “Islamist separatism”:

“Islamist separatism is incompatible with the indivisibility of the republic and the necessary unity of the nation,” French President Emmanuel Macron said n a Feb. 18 speech, explaining his strategy to combat political Islam.

“While one part of Macron’s strategy aims to combat violence in impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods, the rest is directed at nonviolent Islamist groups, which largely operate within the boundaries of the law but are criticized for an interpretation of Islam that pushes members of local Muslim communities to detach themselves from mainstream society.

What the author describes as merely an “interpretation of Islam” that causes “Islamist separatism” is Islam itself. President Macron does not realize that what he continues to call “Islamist separatism” is simply mainstream Islam. It is the Qur’an which commands Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as friends, “for they are friends only with each other.” (5:51) It is the Qur’an which describes Muslims as “the best of peoples” (3:110) and non-Muslims as “the most vile of created beings.” (98:6) Why would the best of peoples wish to become part of a society constructed over the centuries by, and still dominated by the most vile of created beings? Why would Muslims feel that the laws and customs of the “most vile” Infidels are deserving of respect? Muslims may live in France, but they should not become “French” in any way except that of holding a French passport and accepting the many benefits that a generous welfare state lavishes upon them.

“In the republic, we cannot accept that we refuse to shake hands with a woman because she is a woman. In the republic, we cannot accept that someone refuses to be treated or educated by someone because she is a woman,” said Macron.

How does Macron plan to enforce what is not a law but a custom? Though it is unpleasant, when a Muslim refuses to shake hands with a woman, it is not illegal. Will there be a kind of semi-police force, “gardiens des moeurs,” who will roam around, checking out whether Muslim men are shaking hands with women, as Frenchmen do, or violating the custom? And if they are refusing, what can be done about it? However, societal disapproval can take other forms: employers may be less inclined to hire those who refuse to treat women as equals. Students who refuse to treat their female teachers with respect can be disciplined within the school itself. Muslim patients who refuse to be treated by female doctors can be read the riot act: they must take the doctor they are assigned, or go to the back of a very long queue, or even, be told they will not be treated if they continue to refuse treatment from a female doctor. Legislation may be required — stiff fines for those who refuse to shake hands with women, a custom that thus becomes enshrined in law. That law could be based on the argument that those men who refuse to shake hands with women are violating the legal equality of the sexes. Students who do not respect female teachers may be expelled from schools, until they agree to treat male and female teachers equally. Patients who refuse female doctors could also face the prospect of not being seen at all, or being put at the back of the queue for an appointment. There is still the problem of enforcement: there are six million Muslims in France, of which roughly, three million, are men. How could their refusal to shake hands be adequately monitored? How would the classrooms be monitored for signs of Muslim disrespect of female teachers? Does the French state really want to be involved formally in such matters, meting out punishments, or does it want simply to encourage – without punishment – changes of behavior commensurate with the legal equality of the sexes?

Migrant communities are expected not just to respect the law but to respect and adapt to the norms of society, while the “civil and religious leaders” of these communities are expected to encourage their members to act in such a fashion.

How many “civil and religious leaders” of the Muslim community will agree to endorse and promote among their followers the customary behavior of the French Infidels as to hand-shaking? Will they be willing to offer counseling that goes against the practices of Muslims, and that contradicts the spirit of the many Qur’anic verses that instruct them not to take non-Muslims as friends, but instead regard them as “the most vile of created beings,” and in more than 100 verses commands them to fight, to kill, to strike at the necks of, to strike terror in the hearts of, Infidels? How will they explain in sermons that now they must, because the French insist, to follow such customs as shaking the hands of women – as if they were equal to me?. Must they really adopt that French, most un-Islamic view, of the sexes? The task of transforming Muslim attitudes will not be easy, for Islam has always promoted a misogynistic view. A man is entitled to up to four wives, which cheapens the perceived worth of the woman. A Muslim husband can divorce a wife merely by repeating the word “talaq” three times, while a wife who wishes to divorce her husband has to meet a series of requirements, including the return of her mahr or bride-price. A Muslim daughter inherits only half what a male inherits. A Muslim woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, because – as Muhammad says in a hadith – “it is because of the deficiency of her intelligence.” Given all this, will it be possible to change the attitudes of Muslim male patients toward female doctors, of Muslim students toward female teachers, of Muslim males who are forced to shake the hands of females, and Infidels to boot?

Macron will find it is going to be very difficult to persuade Muslims to violate both the spirit and the letter of Islam.

Macron believes this is not the case in France due to “foreign influence.” That’s why he announced an end to a program that allowed foreign countries to send imams and teachers.

Macron believes this is not the case in France — that is, there is scant respect for, and little willingness by Muslims to adapt to the norms of French society. He attributes this to “foreign influence.” He means foreign imams, trained abroad, who are sent to France to run mosques and preach sermons. His solution is to end the program by which these foreign imams were allowed in. From 2020 on, he has announced that there will be an end to the program that allowed foreign countries to send imams and teachers.

For the past two years, Macron has been talking about an “Islam of France.” He never quite explains how this “Islam of France” is supposed to work. Would there be a different Qur’an, different Hadith, a different Sira for Muslims in France, quite unlike the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira read in Muslim countries? Of course that is impossible. He has convinced himself that it is “foreign influence” – that is, imams and teachers from abroad who come to France spreading their malign and, implicitly, incorrect interpretations of Islam. They are spreading, in fact, in perfectly straightforward fashion, the Islam of 1.5 billion people, not a strained interpretation of the faith but the faith itself.

Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey send teachers to France to provide foreign-language and culture classes that are not subjected to scrutiny from French authorities. This part of the program, which has reached 80,000 students a year, will end this September.

It is right and proper to end a program which serves to connect Muslims in France to their countries of origin, by offering language study in Arabic and Turkish, for those from the Maghreb and from Turkey and “culture classes” which are inevitably imbued with Islamic doctrine. It is especially important to end them because these teachers are not “subject to scrutiny” by the French authorities, and some may include in their language-and-culture lessons their negative observations on the French and their ways, that can only hinder attempts at integrating the Muslim population.

In addition, France will gradually stop welcoming “detached imams” – who number around 300 (150 of whom are from Turkey) – from these countries.

The program will be replaced with bilateral agreements, which France has concluded with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia – but not yet Turkey.

Those imams who are not attached to any particular mosque or other Muslim institution, but are described as “detached imams,” are likely, the French believe, to emphasize those aspects of the faith that concern relations – hostile relations – between Muslims and Unbelievers. These “detached imams” without a fixed base in a.particular mosque, who are peripatetic preachers moving about the country, have been found to be particularly hard to monitor because of their constant movement. By banning the teachers of language (Arabic, Turkish) and culture (Arabic, Turkish, both Islam-infused) President Macron may think he is doing something of great value, something that will change the nature of Islam. He flatters himself. Will the teaching of Islam, without these foreign imams, be more accommodating to French laws and customs? Why wouldn’t imams trained in France, spending their entire lives in France, be just as dangerous in their promotion of Muslim“separatism” that arises from the Qur’an itself? They read and believe the same Qur’an. Why should the problems that have arisen, not just in France but throughout Europe, of an unintegrated and hostile Muslim population, either disappear or decrease? So far, there is no evidence that it makes much of a difference where the imams are from. That is not something Macron wishes to hear, for it would eventually lead either to a conclusion of despair or to a conclusion that the only way to “solve the Muslim problem” requires drastic measures that Macron could not at this point bear to contemplate – that is, both an end to further Muslim migrants, and repatriation of Muslims already in France who show no signs of being willing or able to integrate. as many as possible from among those who are already in France. How many European leaders would dare, at this point, to suggest such a solution?

Macron Tries to Harden His Stance on an “Islam of France” (Part 2)


The Turkish author of the Hürriyet article on President Macron, that I began to discuss in an article yesterday, continues:

Macron made his comments ahead of France’s municipal elections, and according to some international news outlets, the message was intended to elicit support from right-wing voters.

But if we are to put aside the electoral timing of the statement, let’s not forget that France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community (estimated at around 6 million, or 8 percent of the population) and the issue of living in harmony is not going to go away.

Right-wing voters are unlikely to be mollified by the mild suggestions of Macron – to ban foreign imams, as well as teachers of language (Arabic, Turkish) and Islamic “culture” in order to promote a severing of links with the home countries of French Muslims, in order to better create that “Islam of France” he keeps talking about but never quite explains. He has expressed the hope that such moves will make Muslims more likely to accept and follow French customs, as handshaking between men and women, He expects that removing these “foreign” influences will make Muslim students more willing to accept female teachers, and Muslim patients more willing to accept female doctors. He remains, despite his outward self-assurance , still uncertain about Islam, and the degree and kind of threat it represents. He still thinks a “solution” can be found, but there hasn’t been a “solution” to Muslim aggression against non-Muslims discovered in the last 1,400 years. That is something he cannot allow himself to think about – it is too upsetting.

The important point is to what degree France’s approach to the issue is healthy and whether the strategy will pave the way to the desired outcome.

At 2,000, France has the largest contingent of foreign fighters in Syria. As far as I know, there are a handful of Turkish-origin, French citizens among them. The crime levels among Turkish communities in France are lower than those of other migrant communities.

That Muslims in France have supplied the greatest number of foreign fighters in Syria – I assume the author is referring to those fighting for the Islamic State – points to the severity of the problem of “radicalization” and “separatism” that Macron hopes to solve. “Radicalization” is discussed by Macron as if it rests on a misinterpretation of Islam, but in truth, Muslims who have been “radicalized” are simply those who are prepared to put their beliefs into practice. All Muslims are taught to wage violent Jihad against the Infidels; most Muslims ignore this command; those who take it to heart, and act upon it, are the ones who join the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Al Shebaab, Boko Haram, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other groups and groupuscules. It’s not a different set of beliefs – it’s the same Qur’an — but a different way to translate those beliefs into practice.

Now that the Maghreb countries will stop sending teachers and imams, will this help get rid of the causes of their frustrations?

The “frustrations” the Turkish author of this piece is referring to are those of Muslims in France who are at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are often unemployed or engaged only in menial jobs. We are being asked to believe that it is economic deprivation that explains the “frustrations” of Muslims who, as a response, what to separate from the larger society, which they regard with hostility and hate, and some even resort to terrorism. This is a false diagnosis. Many Muslims in France are not “frustrated” by being unemployed; they are glad to remain on the generous dole of the French state. They are eager to receive all the benefits that a generous welfare state provides, and not have to do a lick of work to be eligible. They receive free or highly subsidized housing, free medical care far more advanced than anything that was available in their countries of origin, free education, unemployment benefits, family allowances, and more. Many of them appear in no hurry to find gainful employment. Why should they, when they can do so well, receive so much, when unemployed? How many Muslims in France are trying desperately to find work, and how many are finding that with the benefits they receive, they can supplement their income with petty crime – burglaries, robberies, car-jacking and, especially, drug dealing – and do quite nicely.

The “frustration” of Muslims in France is prompted by the realization that Unbelievers still dominate, when by rights Muslims should be in charge. It is infuriating to have to observe French laws and customs, when it is the French who should be modifying their behavior to meet Muslim demands. Non-Muslims on top, Muslims on the bottom is simply not acceptable; such an order of things goes against the Qur’an, goes against Allah,goes against everything that Muslims are taughrt from an early age. One more time: the Qur’an insists that Muslims are the best of peoples and non-Muslims “the worst of created beings.” This topsy-turvy world of France, where the Unbelievers are in control over Believers! — they pass the laws, rule the roost, set the tone, lord it over Muslims – of course that is “frustrating” for Muslims.

Do the youngsters from African countries radicalize because of the preaching of imams or because of the same frustrations that push “native” French youth toward right-wing extremists, as argued by Professor Ayhan Kara? His research reveals that Muslims’ anger does not stem from their religious difference but from exactly the same reasons that anger other youngsters, such as economic difficulties, unemployment, the feeling of marginalization and the like.

It is unsurprising that Professor Ayhan Kara, a Muslim Turk, would insist that there is no real difference in the “frustration” of Muslim and non-Muslim youth. He wishes to minimize, or even dispense with altogether, the effect of Islamic teaching on the behavior and attitudes of Muslims. He wants us to believe that “Muslim anger” does not stem “from their religious difference” with the majority Unbelievers, but to economic difficulties.

This is the same specious argument we have heard ever since 9/11 – that poverty is the cause of Muslim terrorism. It won’t wash. Osama bin Laden was the multi-millionaire son of a billionaire father. His second in command, Ayman Al Zawahiri, is a doctor, from one of the most prominent families in Egypt; his great-uncle was Azzam Pasha, the first, Secretary-General of the Arab League. Of the 19 terrorists who took part in the 9/11 attacks, 15 were well-heeled Saudis and two were well-heeled Emiratis. Of the remaining two, Ziad Jarrah came from a wealthy Sunni family in Lebanon, while Mohammad Atta came from a wealthy family in Egypt. None of the hijackers were economically deprived; all of them were from wealthy backgrounds. It was not economic frustration that motivated them, but the teachings to be found in the Islamic texts, Qur’an and Hadith. If they were “frustrated” it was only that they felt the American Infidels had to be put in their place. Many other terrorists, too, have turned out to be well-off. The underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was the son of a banker, one of richest men in Nigeria. The Intel engineer “Mike” Hawash earned $300,000 a year. Major Nidal Hasan had his entire medical education paid for by the U.S. military, and was earning $90,000 a year which would triple once he left the service. Aafia Siddiqui had received scholarships from both Brandeis and MIT. She was an upper-middle-class Pakistani who, had she returned to Pakistan with two such prestigious degrees, would have been set for life.

In Ending the Myth of the Poor Terrorist,” Claude Berrebi and Owen Engel take note of studies by researchers in Europe and America, who have investigated the backgrounds of thousands of terrorists, and whose data shows that Muslim terrorists are, on average, “wealthier and better educated than the median level in their respective societies.”

Berrebi and Engel continue: “But going back to Sept. 11, 2001, when 19 radical Islamic terrorists from al-Qaida hijacked four commuter planes and attacked the United States, a false consensus began to form among American politicians and experts scrambling to confront this new threat, that linked terrorism to poverty, ignorance, and hopelessness. In 2002, President George W. Bush declared that America “fights against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.” His secretary of state, Gen. Colin Powell, agreed. “The root cause of terrorism does come from situations where there is poverty, where there is ignorance.” The Bush administration’s perceptions about terrorist roots was soon echoed by rival American politicians and around the world.” Indeed, Muslims are keen to spread the notion that “poverty” and “unemployment” are the cause of the “frustration” that leads some Muslims to terrorism. This claim has had two effects. The first is that it persuades some in Western countries that they should give ever more economic support to Muslims living in their countries and more foreign aid directly to Muslim countries, as a way to diminish the threat of Islamic terrorism. It brings in more money. Second, it gets Islam off the hook. Western attention turns away from studying the ideology of Islam, which is the real source of Muslim terrorism, to focus on economic distress.

It is obviously unacceptable for teachers and imams to teach and preach in a way that would fuel France’s fear of “separatism.” One hopes that France can provide clear evidence to that effect when it comes to teachers and imams sent from Turkey.

The difficulty arises from the challenge of defining what amounts to “separatism.” For Macron, for instance, “a man unwilling to shake the hand of a woman” is “separatism.” Even Muslims can agree or disagree with that conviction. At the end of the day, religion is a highly sensitive issue and there could be additional complexities when it becomes a matter of a bilateral agreement between countries.

It might be easier for France to impose an agreement on its former colonies, but it is still noteworthy that it has not reached an agreement with Turkey, the only secular country which is benefiting from the program Macron wants to end.

Turkey under Erdogan is no longer the “secular country” it once was. The imams and teachers that Turkey had been sending to France, and who will no longer be permitted to preach or teach or even come to France, are vetted by the Turkish government. That government, under Erdogan, has been steadily re-islamizing the country; it appears it is refusing to come to an agreement – “it [France] has not reached an agreement with Turkey.” But in the end the French can simply refuse to allow the Turkish clerics in, and also can expel those already in France. It is difficult to see how Erdogan can have his way, especially since the three Maghreb states – Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia – have submitted to Macron’s demand to stop sending their imams to France. Erdogan is only further antagonizing Macron and the French. What can he do, after all, to make Macron change his mind? He has already “weaponized” the Syrian refugees whom he has now let loose on Europe, but Greece and Bulgaria have reinforced their frontiers with Turkey to keep out those immigrants; that “weapon,” once unsheathed, cannot again be used to threaten.

Then again, maybe we should not be so surprised to see that there have been problems given that Turkey’s Religious Affairs authority, the Diyanet, has become one of the most controversial institutions in the country over the past few years. The Diyanet’s approach toward women, as well as its head’s statements, have also irked and sparked reaction from the secular segments in Turkey. Turkey and France might find it hard to reach an agreement on such a sensitive topic. But finding a common ground could be easier if Macron avoided instrumentalizing anti-Turkey sentiment for his personal political gain – and if Turkey were to avoid interpreting the strategy as an effort to assimilate Muslims.

Whatever criticism one has of Macron for his miscomprehension of the ideology of Islam, he has not been “instrumentalizing anti-Turkey sentiment” for “personal political gain.” Macron has objected to Turkey sending warships to intervene in Libya, because he thinks all foreign powers should stay out of the country during its civil war. He sparred with Erdogan in 2019 at a NATO meeting over the definition of “terrorism,” which is how Erdogan wanted the alliance to describe the activities of the Kurds in Syria. Erdogan was enraged when Macron met with Syrian Kurds. Macron has real differences with Erdogan over policy; he has soberly expressed those disagreements and not been whipping up “anti-Turkey sentiment” as this Turkish writer claims.In fact, it is Erdogan who for the last decade has been whipping up anti-European sentiment in Turkey, demanding admission into the E.U., and suggesting the country is being kept out because of anti-Islam bigotry.

Macron Tries to Harden His Stance on an “Islam of France” (Part 3)


Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become an enemy of the non-Muslim West, though he is not above calling on support for NATO in his current clashes in Idlib with Syrian and, very likely, Russian forces. Turkey has been one of the countries President Macron is worried about, for half of the “detached imams” who have been moving about Muslim communities in France have come from Turkey. And Erdogan is angry at Macron for a number of things. He was furious when Macron met with Syrian Kurds. He was angry when Macron criticized the sending of Turkish warships and mercenaries to help the Libyan government based in Tripoli withstand the assault by General Khalifa Haftar. He also suspects that France is one of the countries most intent in keeping Turkey out of the E.U., a suspicion that may well be true.

Erdogan is maddening in almost everything he says or does. His plan to create a pan-Islamic military force to destroy Israel, his foreseeing a war “between the crescent and the cross,” his denunciation of Germans as “Nazis” and the Dutch as “Nazi remnants” because both Germany and the Netherlands refused to allow any electioneering by his party among the Turks living in both countries, his constant threat to “let loose” onto Europe millions of Syrian refugees, his berating the American government for refusing to extradite Fethulleh Gulen, his imprisonment on trumped-up charges of Pastor Andrew Brunson, in a transparent attempt to trade him for Gulen (the attempt failed, and he eventually had to let Brunson go), his flouting of the United States and NATO in agreeing to buy the S-400 missile defense system from Russia, his attempt to inveigle NATO into backing him militarily in Idlib. Province, even though NATO is an alliance to defend fellow members when they have been victims of aggression, and it is Turkey that in this case is the aggressor, by sending thousands of its troops to invade northern Syria, and much – all this rightly infuriates the West.

But Macron, for very different reasons from those that make Erdogan so disliked throughout Europe, also leaves much to be desired. Suave, well-educated at all the right “grandes ecoles,” an investment banker before entering politics, Macron symbolizes the failure of the political and media elites in Europe to confront head-on the dangers posed by millions of Muslims now living in their midst. His plan to ban foreign imams is a feeble response, though some reporters have hailed the measure as demonstrating his willingness to take on the “Islamists.” It is actually the bare minimum he could have done. Worse still, it makes people think that something important and useful is being done when it is not. His confused attempt to create an “Islam of France” – something he has been talking about for several years – in reality will solve nothing. There is no such thing as an “Islam for France” that is different from an “Islam for Turkey” or an “Islam for Algeria” or an “Islam for Somalia.” Islam, normative Islam, the texts and teachings of Islam, do not vary. What varies is the degree to which Believers are ready to act on those texts and teachings. Those who belongs to Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Boko Haram or Abu Sayyaf, do not read a different Qur’an from that read by millions of peaceful Muslims; the difference is that the terrorists and their supporters take what they read to heart and behave accordingly. Some Muslims are willing to engage in terrorism, just as the Qur’an commands when it tells Believers to “strike terror in the hearts” of Unbelievers. Others may not take part in terrorism, but nonetheless support, financially, politically, and in other ways, those who do engage in that terrorism. Still others do not approve of terrorism, having convinced themselves, despite all the textual evidence to the contrary, that it is not required of Believers. What does vary is the desire of Muslims not just to believe in Islam, but to put its commands into practice. The Muslim who wants to engage in terrorism is a True Believer, more committed to the cause; he does not embrace some kind of strange interpretation of the faith.

Here are some of the Qur’anic verses that Macron, and every Western leader facing the same problems, should read and reread, and make sure that the public for its own safety reads these verses too:

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out; persecution is worse than slaughter. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, kill them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is all-forgiving, all-compassionate. Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:191-193)– “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)

– “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore do not take friends from among them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, seize them and kill them wherever you find them; do not take for yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

– “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth to do corruption there: they shall be killed, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall be struck off on opposite sides; or they shall be exiled from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.” (Qur’an 5:33)

– “When your Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers; so strike the necks, and strike every finger of them!” (Qur’an 8:12)

“Fight them, till there is no persecution and religion is all for Allah; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.” (Qur’an 8:39)

– “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)

– “Then, when the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 9:5)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)

“Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Qur’an; and who fulfills his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.” (Qur’an 9:111)

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.” (Qur’an 9:123)

– “So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of your deeds.” (Qur’an 47:35)

– “When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.” (Qur’an 47:4) 

Macron recognizes that there is a problem with Islam – a recognition which is to be welcomed — but his prescription leaves much to be desired. The notion that Muslim “separatism” can be overcome by prohibiting foreign imams from coming to preach and teach in France is wrong. After all, only 300 imams arrive from abroad, while there are already many thousands of imams, “French” imams, working in France. The “separatism” most French Muslims try to practice can be explained not by the “foreignness” of some imams whom Macron now propose to ban, but in the Qur’an which Macron never – not once – has ever cited in all of his discussions about Islam.

As long as Muslims continue to read in the Qur’an that they should not take Christians or Jews as friends, “for they are friends only with each other,” as long as they read that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings,” while they, the Muslims, are “the best of peoples,”as long as they read the more than 100 verses commanding them to take part in violent Jihad, they will refuse to integrate into the societies of the Infidels.

Macron should now openly and intrepidly discuss the Qur’anic verses I have mentioned. He should quote them verbatim, let the French know what is in the Qur’an, in order to be properly informed about the danger of Islam. And let the Muslims in France know that they will no longer get away with hiding what is in the Qur’an, but will have to explain what they intend to do about such passages. This will infuriate many of them. That’s too bad. The French political and media elite have for years been afraid to tackle the most important domestic subject: what is in the immutable Qur’an that explains the hostile behavior of Muslims toward Unbelievers today, as for the last 1,400 years. The French people deserve to know.

Macron could give an address to the country in which he would ask the questions that most need to be asked, unapologetically:

What should we think, in France, when we learn that Muslims are told, in Qur’an 3:110, that they are the “best of peoples”? What should we think when, in Qur’an 98:6, non-Muslims are described as “the most vile of created beings”? Tell us, please, those in the Muslim community, how you think we should understand these crystal clear verses? Is there really nothing here for us to worry about? Do these verses have no effect on the six million Muslims in France? Or the tens of millions in Europe? Or the 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world?

And how should we react to that verse in Qur’an (3:151) which tells Muslims “not to take Christians or Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other”? I admit that it worries me Am I wrong to be worried? What do you think?

But those are only part of what we need to discuss. We want to know if we are supposed to ignore those verses – more than 100 of them! – that tell Muslims to fight, to kill, to smite the necks of, to strike terror in the hearts of, Infidels. Tell us what we should make of all these verses, such as 2:191- 194, 3:110, 3:151, 4:89, 5:33, 5:51,8:12, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, 98:6? I hope everyone listening tonight will find those verses — they can all be found online — and ponder their significance. We cannot continue as before, pretending these verses do not exist or that they do not mean what they so clearly do.

And it is not just the Qur’an that needs to be examined. The hadith – those collections of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad – should not be overlooked. Muhammad says in one of them that “war is deceit,” and in another that “I have been made victorious through terror.” How should the French people understand these two hadith? What can Muslims do to relieve our fears?

We all know there is a serious problem and it goes far beyond “separatism.” It is not only here, in France. It is in Great Britain, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Italy, in Germany, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Norway, everywhere that in the last two decades has seen an unprecedented influx of Muslim migrants. We need to discuss what this has meant, without apologies on one side, and apologetics on the other. I have a duty as President to both protect and instruct the people of France. I realize that in speaking tonight, I have not been delicate and tactful. I have chosen instead to be indelicate and truthful.That should shake things up. And France, and the Western world, need — when it comes to the subject of Islam — to shake things up.

COMMENTARY: native populations in ALL EU countries will come to see this exact accusation in their lands – Muslims will demand all sorts of pro-Sharia activities under the guise of stating that it applies only to those in the Muslim community; when their numbers reach certain levels they will demand nationwide application – coming to your own city soon, over the next few years, in a decade of two, and until they constitute a majority – then, all bets are off and natives will emigrate in massive numbers – FAILING s’il vous plait

Sweden: Muslim teacher declares that those who oppose Islamic headscarf should leave the country


“A teacher in Sweden has expressed strongly-worded opposition to a mooted ban on religious headscarves in schools, saying that those opposed to the garment have no place in the country at all.”

A strange and shocking comment coming out of “welcoming Sweden,” but it should be no surprise. The audacity of this teacher, Naoel Aissaoui, has been encouraged by Swedish authorities as the country has descended into migrant chaos.popular mall in Stockholm has become a no go zone, where women are now afraid to go  out in the streets at after dark.

Naouel Aissaoui, who is employed as a teacher in the municipality and follows the Muslim faith, said she will defy any ban on the Islamic headscarf, also known as the hijab, which she wears.

The statements of this entitled Islamic supremacist, however, are being resisted by “centre-right Moderate Party member Loubna Stensåker Göransson, who is supportive of a ban on the hijab in local schools, and said she associates the veil with the oppression of women and religious indoctrination.” Göransson, who is a Muslim herself, is being attacked, since she is not on board with Aissaoui, and is expected to be.

“It feels very strange, in fact, that she is an immigrant, a Muslim, a woman. She should have more understanding for us, and respect,” Aissaoui said.

On the contrary. Those who know about the oppression of women in Islamic countries should be the loudest opponents of the Sharia-mandated subjugation of women. They know the experience of being forced to wear such coverings, as mandated by the Sharia. It is a symbol of their inferiority. Instead, women such as Aissaoui  seek to impose the Sharia upon the West. They have found success in Sweden, and have been emboldened.

“Sweden Teacher: Those Opposed to Islamic Headscarf Should Leave The Country,” by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, March 3, 2020:

A teacher in Sweden has expressed strongly-worded opposition to a mooted ban on religious headscarves in schools, saying that those opposed to the garment have no place in the country at all.

Naouel Aissaoui, who is employed as a teacher in the municipality and follows the Muslim faith, said she will defy any ban on the Islamic headscarf, also known as the hijab, which she wears.

Aissaoui engaged in a conversation with centre-right Moderate Party member Loubna Stensåker Göransson, who is supportive of a ban on the hijab in local schools, and said she associates the veil with the oppression of women and religious indoctrination.

“You cannot come to a country that is secular and equal and live with medieval values,” Ms Göransson said, reports Nyheter Idag.

“I feel confident and strong with my faith that says that there is God who is greater than Skurup municipality and this decision,” Aissaoui said and expressed confusion over Göransson’s stance, given the fact that Göransson is also from an immigrant background and is a fellow Muslim.

“It feels very strange, in fact, that she is an immigrant, a Muslim, a woman. She should have more understanding for us, and respect,” Aissaoui said.

“Move away, if it annoys you. Move from Skurup or from Sweden. This is my country, too,” she added.Aissaoui’s statement comes just months after a report claimed that an area in the Swedish city of Borås has seen a process of Islamisation in recent years following a high number of Somalian migrants coming to the area….

COMMENTARY: yet another flawed interpretation – how’s that working out for you, living in past centuries but dealing with a modern problem?

Afghanistan: Imams say Qur’an verses worn on clothes can prevent coronavirus


If you get the coronavirus anyway, you didn’t have enough faith. And if you don’t get it, see the power of the Qur’an

“Afghan Muslims say faith can prevent coronavirus,” by Reza Shirmohammadi, DW, February 28, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

In Afghanistan, phylacteries are printed out Koran verses blessed by an imam and worn on clothes to ward off disease and evil spirits. Now that coronavirus is spreading there, there has been a boom in sales.

COMMENTARY: these so-called ‘refugees’ have left the Middle East and N. Africa for colder climates, apparently expecting good jobs, quality housing, much food, and other welfare benefits of their new country – few, if any, speak Scandinavian languages – few have academic qualifications to fit into a modern society – far too many are criminals – others assume that their norms do not apply in such places, such that murder, rape, arson, and the like can get them what they demand – last, many have moved to Europe only to bring the values from their home country into an entirely difference and very modern society, activating a greed not seen before from looking at what the West has to offer – this does not portend much success for their new homelands or the immigrants themselves – FAILING, FAILING….

SWEDEN: Surging Muslim migrant unemployment leads to even more surging Muslim migrant crime


The Swedish Employment Service has warned that migrant unemployment rates are set to dramatically increase to the worst levels since the 1990s in a new report. A report last month revealed that up to 90% of Muslim asylum seekers who arrived since the 2015 migrant crisis were unemployed.

Breitbart  The agency stated that as the trend of overall unemployment in Sweden continues to grow, structural unemployment will increase and that migrants will be especially likely to be jobless, Sydsvenskan reports.
“The Employment Service believes that those born abroad with the highest level of upper secondary education will suffer a sharp rise in unemployment and long-term unemployment in the coming years,” the agency said. “The group that is most severely affected is foreign-born Muslim women who do not have upper secondary education,” it added. (Nor do they have any desire to work)
Muslim migrant unemployment rates have been far higher than rates for native Swedes rates for years, with a 2018 report revealing that while native unemployment was just 3.6 per cent that year the migrant rate was 19.9 per cent.

Migrants dissatisfied with the quality of life provided for them by Swedish taxpayers are increasingly speaking out, with one Syrian even accusing Swedes of wanting to kill him and his fellow ‘refugees’. “You have made our lives miserable”, Syrian Mohammad Jumaa wrote in an opinion piece published by Sweden’s public broadcaster Thursday. Blasting how he and other migrants have waited a year but have yet to be provided with “a good and natural life”, which includes a well-paid job, he laments: “We are people, not animals that only need to eat and sleep!” Slamming Swedes for “forcing” migrants to “wait in housing with poor conditions”, he wrote: “I am an honourable and honest man. Many refugees curse the day they came here. “I can’t believe this is in Sweden!” the Syrian exclaimed and accused the country, which casts itself as a ‘humanitarian superpower’, of only pretending to care about human rights. “Why did you open your doors to us refugees, if you can’t help us to live a dignified, respectful and fulfilled life?” Mohammed asks.

Muslim migrants also make up the majority of those who sign up with the Employment Service, according to another 2018 report, which noted that six in ten people registered with the agency are born overseas.
The Employment Service has several programmes designed to get Muslim migrants into work including the use of government-subsidized jobs — and figures released in early February showed that just 6.1 per cent of newly-arrived migrants were able to find work not subsidized by the government after 90 days in an Employment Service program.
In total, just 31 per cent of migrants in the program were able to get any sort of job at all.
Europe Reloaded With gang crime soaring in Sweden, the country’s Prime Minister still refuses to blame immigration for the problem. The statistics prove him wrong, but in Sweden, social justice is more important than actual justice.
Loathe as Swedish Prime Minister Lofven was to admit it, the link between migrants and crime is not just the stuff of right-wing fantasy. A 2017 investigation by newspaper Dagens Nyheter found that migrants were behind 90 percent of shootings in Sweden. The majority of shooting perpetrators, the report found, were men of Middle Eastern or North African origin.
All in all, murder and manslaughter more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, according to government statistics.
Grenade attacks too seem to be an imported phenomenon. Sweden saw a handful at most of explosive devices detonated every year until 2016, when 39 hand grenades were used in attacks. Of course, 2015 was the year that Sweden welcomed in more than 160,000 migrants and asylum seekers, more per capita than any other European country.

NOTE: Click on the URL at the bottom to view the photos, tweets, and videos

But correlation does not equal causation. The fact that grenade attacks increased nearly fortyfold at the same time that Sweden was flooded with new arrivals could just be a coincidence. However, if the true cause is indeed unemployment, as Lofven suggests, then the problem is again linked with immigration.
Amid the denialism of Lofven’s government – which has launched a concerted effort to downplay the problem internationally – police in Sweden have concocted some hare-brained schemes to tackle the violence. Less than a week after a 15-year-old boy was shot dead in Malmo, police invited gang leaders to a sit-down with legal professionals and relatives of crime victims. . Pizza was served, and the cops presumably asked the criminals politely to stop murdering each other.
Sweden’s own in-house PR shop,, is meanwhile luring more migrants north with Arabic-language advertisements promising free health and dental care, sizable children’s allowance payments and the world’s longest paid parental leave – as if the newcomers ever wanted to find a job in the first place.

NOTE: Click on the URL at the bottom to view the second video

COMMENTARY: there is no way the French government can protect the hundreds of thousands of Jews spread across France – for French and even British Jews, it’s time to go, NOW – those in other EU lands have been warned but no one knows yet what they will do – this is a huge drama within the Jewish population of Europe and has long-range implications for the Jews in the Diaspora in Noth America

How Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in France are influencing Israeli politics

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has made public overtures to French Jews

Don Murray · CBC News · Posted: Mar 01, 2020 

It’s a small country, but it is watched by the world.

Israel goes to the polls on March 2, the third time in a year. Many countries have tracked Israel’s lengthy political crisis, but it has particular resonance in France. It has the largest Jewish community in Europe and, in recent years, has been the largest European source of immigration to Israel. Immigration driven in part by fear. The last decade has burdened France with a number of shocking and bloody memories, but one aggression, one victim, remains locked in the public’s mind.

She was Sarah Halimi, a 65-year-old Jewish retired kindergarten teacher living in a high-rise in Paris. Among her neighbours was Kobili Troaré, a 27-year-old man she knew and chatted with from time to time. On April 3, 2015, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” he burst into her apartment and threw her from her third-floor balcony, killing her.

The murderous attack had consequences that have rippled through France and Israel and reached the top of the political pyramid to this day.

But it wasn’t the first, or last, onslaught to frighten French Jews, who number somewhere between 450,000 and 600,000. (The French census is forbidden from asking questions about ethnic or religious origin.

In 2012, a terror attack against a Jewish school in Toulouse left three schoolchildren dead. In January 2015, there was a series of bloody events, beginning with an attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which killed 12 people.Two days later, a five-hour siege in a kosher supermarket in Paris left four Jewish victims dead. Then, in November 2015, 130 people of different faiths were killed in co-ordinated attacks on cafés and a theatre in Paris

All these were the work of Islamic extremists.

A small stream of French emigration to Israel swelled to a river, creating new political realities in both countries.

Many live in fear

In 2014, 7,238 Jews left for Israel. In 2015, the number was 7,835. Since the turn of the century, emigration has totalled almost 60,000, according to figures compiled by Marc Knobel, a historian with CRIF (the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France).

That’s 10 per cent of the Jewish population of France, and that scares the French government. A few years ago, then-prime minister Manuel Valls spoke of the outflow almost like a wound. On Jan. 9, 2016, the one-year anniversary of the kosher supermarket massacre, he said, “Without the Jews of France, France wouldn’t be France.” The disquiet remains. A survey published in January 2020 in the newspaper Le Parisien indicated that 34 per cent of French Jews have been the victim of anti-Semitic slurs or incidents. Seventy per cent said they live with fear.

Those who leave for Israel seek security and parties that preach a hard line against Arabs. The Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon published a survey in 2018 showing that 72 per cent of French immigrants said they were right-wing. Only 11 per cent described themselves as left or centre-left.

Those opinions mirror those of the 500,000 Jewish immigrants from Ukraine and Russia in the past 20 years. That constitutes a powerful right-wing voting bloc.

‘They are angry’

Laly Derai is an immigrant from France herself. She left in 1991 and is now the director of Atid Israel (Israel’s Future), which helps French immigrants. In a 2019 interview with the newspaper Haaretz, she underlined the anger of recent French immigrants compared to earlier groups.

“They are a lot more militaristic and extreme,” Derai said. “They are angry, because they see themselves as the second generation of expulsion by Arabs. Their parents were expelled from North Africa [when France agreed to Algerian independence in 1962] and they left France because of the harassment by immigrants of Muslim origin.”The right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows the political position of French immigrants and wants more of them, not hesitating to make public calls to French Jews to leave their country and make a new home in Israel.

The French government has not been indifferent to these calls, or to the fear in the Jewish community. After the attacks of 2015, armed military patrols appeared in French cities. In front of a Jewish school on my street, heavily armed squads of soldiers stood guard for more than two years.

French President Emmanuel Macron underlined in January 2020 that 868 synagogues and Jewish schools still have reinforced police protection around the country.

Those measures have helped reduce the outflow. Yearly Jewish emigration to Israel has dropped below 3,000 in the past two years.

‘A battle the French republic must wage’ 

President Macron, like his predecessor François Hollande, clearly wants to be seen as the unshakeable defender of the French Jewish community. During a visit to Israel in January, he made this dramatic declaration: “Anti-Semitism is not a problem confined to the Jews, it’s a battle the French republic must wage.”

So determined is Macron that he has created a confrontation with the country’s law enforcement system that echoes Trump’s broadsides against his own Department of Justice.

After the murder of Sarah Halimi in 2015, a French court and then an appeals court determined that her killer was mentally unfit to stand trial. Her family and CRIF protested and said he should be tried for anti-Semitic murder.

On the plane that recently took him to Israel, Macron urged that the case be reopened. “The need for a trial is there. A trial can help right some of the wrong and it is necessary on that basis.”

That brought a swift and negative response from France’s Supreme Court. “Judicial independence is essential for a functioning democracy. Supreme Court justices must be able to hear all appeals in an atmosphere of serenity and independence.”

President as protector

It seems Macron was more concerned with the political and social benefits his statement might bring than with any legal problem it might cause.

Charles Enderlin, the French Israeli author of French Jews: Between Republic and Zionism, said that since 2015, the key for the French government and for French Jewish institutions has been to keep as close to the Israel government as possible. French government criticism of Israeli policy has been muted at most. Enderlin contrasts this with the vigorous debates in the Jewish communities in the U.S. and Canada over the policies of the Netanyahu government.

In an interview with the magazine Le Point earlier this month, Enderlin offered as an example the annual commemoration of the roundup in 1942 by French police of Jews to be sent to Nazi concentration camps.

For two decades this had been a strictly French ceremony of contrition, but in 2018, Macron invited Netanyahu to attend, and even repeated the Israeli prime minister’s formula that “anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism.”

Said Enderlin, “I have the impression that [in the past five years] for the French government, Israel has become a sort of Jewish Vatican. “If so, it’s a combative Vatican where the support of the French president is considered useful, but secondary. The central battle is electoral. If Netanyahu clings to power with a decisive third election win on March 2, he may owe his slim margin of victory to the solid voting bloc of French immigrants.

COMMENTARY: yes, what is written below is quite cogent, but there will be no peace with the fanatical Arab Muslims of PA / PLO/ Fatah / Hamas – their hate of Israel and Jews is eternal – if one recalls the many times historically that various countries around the world, especially in Europe, e.g., Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, and others, have expelled entire Jewish communities and individual Jews, perhaps Rabbi Kahane, of blessed memory, was right in insisting that all Arabs be thrown out of Israel – that would certainly suit me, yet I know that it will never happen – hoping that so-called Arab Muslim ‘Palestinians’ will ever come to the negotiating table with objectivity, honesty, and reliability is quite ludicrous – Israel, by all means, should annex as much of the disputed land as she wants and needs, to hell with the Arabs!

Let’s Stop Lying About the Two-State ‘Solution’

It was never a solution, it was a wish. Time to stop pretending it’s even that.

By Shaul Magid. March 2, 2020

Sometimes people believe something so much that even once the belief is no longer viable, they can’t quite let go of it, because it is now indistinguishable from their own sense of self.

Case in point: I once asked a leader in the American Jewish community, a liberal Zionist, what he would think if the two-state solution were no longer possible. After a long pause, he responded, “That would be the end of my Zionism.” And so, he continued, he could not give up on the two-state solution.

This may be where liberal Zionists are today. As a University of Pennsylvania political scientist and longtime scholar of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Ian Lustick writes in his excellent and provocative new book, Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality: “Two states for two peoples was a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is not a solution today.” For many liberal Zionists, this is a hard pill to swallow. But it also might be true.

In many Jewish circles, when talk of two states commences, it often very quickly devolves into: “If only we had a partner for peace!” It is imagined that Israelis are generally willing, but the other side is not. Lustick wants us to shelve that reflexive, and convenient, abdication of responsibility, and look at the situation from a different direction. Whatever the foibles of the Palestinian side, he wants to explore this notion of two states solely from within the structures of Israeli governments and society from the 1970s until today. What he concludes is that the possibility of two states was never really viable on the Israeli side, not because Israelis weren’t willing to try it—many were—but because the very structures of government and societal reactions to changes on the ground made sure it would not happen. In short, once the two-state solution emerged as a possibility in the early 1970s, it very quickly became obsolete.

Lustick begins his argument by suggesting that “two-state solution” or “one-state solution” are mistaken and obfuscating terms. Instead of “two-state solution,” he wants us to understand the “two-state paradigm.” And instead of “one-state solution,” he suggests the “one-state reality.” There is no one-state solution; but there is, from the river to the sea, one state. And that state is called Israel.

By “paradigm,” Lustick means “an array of concepts, assumptions, agendas, questions, commitments, and beliefs associated with a partitionist approach to the ‘problem of Palestine.’” Paradigms in politics, like in science, “are shared beliefs strong enough to guide thinking about difficult problems for long periods of time.” But no paradigm, analytic or scientific, lasts forever, and problems arise when one remains wedded to a paradigm that has become obsolete, like continuing to believe the flat-earth paradigm after Pythagoras or the ancient notions of gravity after the advent of Newtonian physics. In such cases, continuing to think in obsolete paradigms is not only unhelpful, but also becomes counterproductive. When, how, and why paradigms fail or become obsolete are important questions for hard scientists, social scientists, and even theologians (see, for example, Zalman Schachter-Shalomi’s 1991 book Paradigm Shift). Unmasking their failure is also a crucial part of keeping a community connected to the challenges they face in order to productively consider the best options to seemingly intractable problems.


Lustick offers a cogent analysis of this failed two-state paradigm by taking us all the way back to Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s famous 1923 essayThe Iron Wall.” Jabotinsky was very unpopular in the Zionist establishment of his time. David Ben-Gurion was so angry with him, and threatened by him, that he was relieved when Jabotinsky left Palestine in 1935, never to return. He died of a heart attack in the Catskill Mountains in August 1940. But Lustick claims that despite Ben-Gurion’s misgivings about Jabotinsky’s pessimism and hard-nosed stance on Jewish-Arab coexistence, Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” essay served as a cornerstone of the nascent state’s attitude toward what was known in those days as “the Arab question.”

Jabotinsky knew some kind of rapprochement with the Arab residents would be necessary for any Jewish state to function. In “Iron Wall” he suggested a five-stage plan that he believed could achieve that goal, while enabling the Jews to remain the dominant force: (1) Construct an iron wall of separation; (2) stridently crush any attempts to breach it; (3) marginalize extremists and cultivate moderates among the Arabs, which would invariably occur through consistent Arab defeats; (4) watch as Arab moderation leads to a more moderate position among the Jews; and (5) begin negotiations toward a settlement based in equal collective rights, but with a Jewish majority.

Jabotinsky believed that Arab extremists were expressing a real, and understandable, response to Zionist colonization and the only way they would be broken was by successive political and military failures. If the Jews were going to succeed, they would have to create the conditions for Arab moderation.

Lustick admits the whole story was tricky and was full of potential pitfalls. First, it assumed extremism would give way to moderation. Second, it assumed that Jews would detect the realism of the Arabs and respond by moderating their own views in kind. In fact, Jabotinsky was right about stages one and two. Crushing defeats post-1967 did result in breaking the extremist position of the Palestinian street somewhat. But then something happened between stages three and four that Jabotinsky did not predict. Instead of Jewish Israelis matching small moderating steps in the Arab world, they upped the ante and began to escalate their demands for territory, security guarantees, and finally the demands for the recognition of the legitimacy of Zionism as a precondition for negotiations. Instead of uplifting the moderates, Israel exercised more muscle, which helped produce a second wave of extremists. Lustick writes: “Zionism’s desperate embrace of the Iron Wall strategy to finesse an otherwise unsolvable Arab problem and its partially successful implementation had drastic, if unintended consequences. Victories produced expansionism, not the generosity based on strength that Jabotinsky had imagined.

Why was Jabotinsky mistaken? He missed two crucial points: Israel’s psychological inability to overcome the trauma of a genocide he could never quite have imagined, and the United States’ unwillingness to force the Israelis to moderate their position.

Tom Segev’s The Seventh Million was a bombshell when it was published in 1991. The book was the first study to comprehensively analyze the impact of the Holocaust on Israeli society. It was chilling in its depiction of a society that put its own genocide at the center of statecraft. Others, like Hannah Arendt, had seen this coming. This is why she favored a 10-year United Nations guardianship of Palestine; she feared that a people traumatized by the Holocaust could never create a healthy society with rights for an antagonistic other in its midst. Yet the inertia and desperate psychological need to found a state from the ashes of Auschwitz were just too strong, and Ben-Gurion knew that the goodwill, and guilt, of the international community would not last forever. And so, ignoring Arendt’s quite reasonable concern, the state was created. But what Lustick calls “the cost of Holocaustia” remained, undermining what was left of any two-state paradigm.

In the early years of the state, Israel’s Jewish citizens were not merely reeling from the crushing memory of loss and tragedy; the Holocaust also emerged as a social and political construct, developed by Ben-Gurion and Ben-Zion Dinur, the first minister of education. Holocaust-the-construct had numerous key elements, the most damaging of which to the two-state paradigm was that Jews, who during the Holocaust “went like sheep to the slaughter,” became the model of how Israel was not to behave. When Menachem Begin said in a 1977 interview that “the Holocaust lives within me, and I live within it,” he may have been speaking only of himself, but to some degree his comment mirrored the collective psyche of the state. On the eve of the Lebanon War in 1982, Begin told his cabinet, “The alternative is Treblinka, and we have decided that there will not be another Treblinka.” Lustick also notes that in 2014, Minister of Education Shai Piron announced that Holocaust education in Israel would begin in the first grade. The first grade! What exactly does one teach 6-year-olds about genocide, and how can that produce anything good for the future? The point here is not to argue for or against the use of the Holocaust in the fashioning of the state or its educational choices. It is only to say that in “Holocaustia,” two states never really had a chance.

In 2013, Columbia University historian Rashid Khalidi published Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Undermined Peace in the Middle East. The book sets forth a forceful narrative of the ways the United States, ostensibly acting as an “honest broker,” in fact never did so. This was no surprise to anyone who follows these matters closely, and certainly was no surprise to Israel either, whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 2001 that “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.” The “honest broker” myth was largely a pretense for Israel to further subvert the two-state paradigm while getting cover from those who actually believed in it. Even though the Jewish community was up in arms at the provocative thesis by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt’s The Israel Lobby (2007)—that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was pushing America to act against its own foreign policy interests—it was quite obvious that AIPAC was subverting the two-state paradigm for decades, at the behest of Israeli governments, while ostensibly supporting a two-state solution. This is an important point: Talk of a two-state solution is not a product of the two-state paradigm, but rather a way to conceal its obsolescence.

At least leaders in the settler movement were consistent: They never believed in the two-state paradigm, but they came to believe that it served their goals for liberal Jews to continue espousing it. Promoting an obsolete paradigm gave them cover to continue making sure the one-state reality became unavoidable. Liberal Jews knew the one-state solution—a state with equal rights for all its citizens—could not square with their Zionist commitments, so they continued to believe in the two-state paradigm, under the guise of a two-state solutionas if it were still viable.

Lustick claims this delusion is dangerous and counterproductive: “One state is the reality on the ground. It is time to treat this reality, not this or that blueprint for a solution, as a new paradigm for thought and action.” The battle should no longer be for a “solution” at all, nor the endless debates about the legality of the occupation. The occupation is essentially over. Annexation is no longer a far-right position; it is now being supported even by many in the Israeli center. In fact, with the Trump administration’s new plan, it is now being supported by the United States government. Talk of a realistic two-state solution is akin to talk of a flat earth.

Lustick’s message to the liberal Zionist camp, especially in America, is simple: The battle is no longer about a solution, and it is certainly not about two states. The battle is about the political, social, and legal nature of one state. As Tzipi Livni said in 2019, when she resigned from politics, “The word peace has become a vulgarity.” This is not to say there isn’t amazing work being done between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs to cultivate coexistence. It is just to say it is no longer realistically about two states. The longer liberal Zionists hang on to a two-state paradigm that no longer exists—that hasn’t existed for a long time—the more those on the right get to define the parameters of the one state that exists.

The two-state-solution mantra of liberal Zionism is becoming more and more dangerous, and liberal Zionists are wasting precious time by their attachment to it. Like the American Jewish leader cited at the outset all but admitted, the belief in two states is arguably more a crutch of one’s Jewish identity than a real assessment of the one state that exists between the river and sea, called Israel.

COMMENTARY: the Arabs have a ‘thing’ going on regarding worldwide conspiracies attributed to Jews withut any evidence / proof for same – this one is hysterical! – FAILING

Oh, here we go: “Coronavirus is an American Jewish plot to reduce world population”


Iraqi Political Analyst Muhammad Sadeq Al-Hashemi went on Iraqi TV to blame the Jews – the go-to scapegoat for anything and everything bad that happens in the world.

NOTE: Click on the URL below to watch the video
RELATED STORY: KEEP IT UP, Muslims, you will be the last to get the vaccine against the Coronavirus

COMMENTARY: at this point in history, it is unknown if NATO will expel Turkey or the EU end her drive for inclusion among its members – practically speaking, both should Turkey’s membership permanently the EU, – it’s is clear that Turkey once again sees itself as the coming Caliphate of the Islamic World and the second Ottoman Empire – as she leans more authoritarian, the release of millions of poor Muslims onto the continent will add to the demographic drama already taking place, leading to massive demographic impact / consequences in the coming years – FAILING

HEY, NATO, isn’t it time to declare war on one of your member states?


Turkish leader Erdogan has opened the borders and is sending an army of what could be more than 3 million illegal alien Muslim invaders into Greece, Bulgaria, and other countries. This is nothing less than blackmail to force the EU into giving Turkey billions more euros, in addition to the billions already received from the EU in return for stopping the Muslim freeloaders from invading Europe.

At the very least, Turkey should be expelled from NATO, as its presence there is of no value to  the NATO allies, and more often than not is a detriment.
NOTE: Click on the fourth URL at the bottom to view the video


MORE THAN 76,000 illegal Muslim invaders have already arrived at the Turkish-Greek border, now that Turkey has reneged on its deal with the EU to stop them
TURKEY FLINGS OPEN THE FLOODGATES…sending millions more Muslim invaders into Europe
GREECE under fire for doing what it has to do to stop the Muslim invasion from Turkey

Statistics and the spread of Islam

Akbaruddin Owaisi, brother of Asaduddin Owaisi the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), MP from Hyderabad, a few months back famously declared Remove police for 15 minutes, 25 crore Muslims will finish off 100 crore Hindus.

I was surprised at the use of statistics in secularism.

Then it was time for more doses of statistics from another secular leader, ex-Samajwadi Party and now the revoked Congress candidate from Sharanpur Imran Masood: “If Modi tries to make Uttar Pradesh into Gujarat, then we will chop him into tiny pieces…I am not scared of getting killed or attacking someone. I will fight against Modi. He thinks UP is Gujarat. Only 4 per cent Muslims are there in Gujarat while there are 42 per cent Muslims in UP.

Now I was stumped.

I was intrigued enough to explore the connection of statistics, secularism and Islam, which I found in Dr Peter Hammond’s book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

 Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

In the following table, the yardstick defined by Dr Hammond has been applied to Muslim population by districts in India. As expected, Dr Peter Hammond’s hypothesis holds true.

 As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
US1.0The lowest population of Muslims in any district is 3.5% in India. By simple observation one can verify the truthfulness of the above statement.
China1 – 2
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from jails and among street gangs:
United Kingdom2.7
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States). At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
France8.0The Uttranchal Government granted 20 acres of land for a madrassa near the Indian Millitary Academy despite strong objections raised from IMA authorities and defence experts. (Land for madrasa near the IMA in controversy, Ravindra Saini, 7 January 2007, Organiser). Dehrdun has 8% Muslim population.
Trinidad &Tobago5.8
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris, car burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana10.0Muslims in Miraj savagely desecrated three Ganesh Idols and attacked Hindus at many places in the Miraj town in Sangli District with a Muslim population of 16%, on 2 -3 September, 2009 and thereafter. The convoluted reason for the unprovoked riot was a painting which depicted the scene relating to the slaying of Afzhal Khan (who desecrated Hindu temples at Tuljapur and Pandharpur) by the valiant Shivaji Maharaj on 30 November 1659 at the battle of Pratapgarh.
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia32.8On the Godhra railway station platform on 27 February 2002, local Muslim mobs attacked a train and roasted 58 Hindu pilgrims in a planned conspiracy. Godhra is in the Panchmahal District, Gujarat with 34% Muslim population.Two weeks after Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland started pushing out suspected Bangladeshi migrants, ….”minority” student body (All Assam Minority Students Union ) leader (Abdul Aziz) threatened to push out Assamese-speaking residents from the minority-dominated districts of Goalpara and Dhubri. Dhubri has 37% Muslim population. (Now minority group threatens to expel locals, Samudra Gupta Kashyap, 3 August 2007, The Indian Express)
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia40.0On 4 July 2008, four Muslims in the village of Lakshmanpur, located in Murshidabad district with more than 40% Muslim population, beheaded a Hindu man for marrying a Muslim woman. The Shalishi court sentenced the man to beheading for the “crime” of marrying a Muslim woman. The Government of West Bengal had legitimised local Shalishi court.
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania70.0The erection of the statue of Tunchathu Ezhuthachan, father of Malayalam language and literature, at his birthplace Tirur, part of Malappuram District with more than 60% Muslim population was not allowed as it is un-Islamic. Finally the issue was settled with the erection of a symbolic representation of an inkpot and brush, the official emblem of Jamaat-e-Islami, instead of his statue. Ezhuthachan used only stylus and palmyra leaf for writing on, he never used a pen or ink.
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh83.0In1990 lakhs of Hindus had to flee the Kashmir valley because of being targeted by Islamic militants. Mosques in Kashmir declared jihad and blared warnings from loudspeakers to the Hindus that they were infidels and had to leave Kashmir.
 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ – the Islamic House of Peace – there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan100Well everyone knows how much peace is prevalent in these countriesThe basic canon of Arab life from where Islam propagated is: It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel— Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
Saudi Arabia100

To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

The percentages source of Muslim population used by Dr Peter Hammonds is CIA’s The World Fact Book, 2007 and for Indian Muslim Population, the census data of Govt of India of 2001 is used. The census data of 2011 of Govt of India is still not out. Now, Hindus can forecast their future and make their calculated decision on Secularism and Islam based on these statistics, the same statistics that the likes of Owaisi use to egg on their followers.

Dr. Bill Warner Explains Jihad by Migration  

Feb 25 2020

“Let’s look at the similarities between the left and Islam. They’re both totalitarian. They both want to take over the world, and they both hate the society they live in. So, the left sees themselves as the hammer and the Muslims, see themselves as the anvil, and between the two, they’ll bring our society down.”

Allah’s Mischief, the Ummah’s Misery


“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and make mischief in the land is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” (Qur’an 5:33)

Is it time that Allah be killed or crucified or have his hands and feet on opposite sides cut off or, at the very least, that he be exiled from the land? Why? Because by now he has surely made enough mischief in the land to have triggered several of these recompenses. Here’s just a small selection of the mischief that Allah has perpetrated in Iran alone between February 1979 and February 2020, a mere forty-one years.

Eight years of war against fellow Muslims across the marshes (ok, they were Sunnis, and Arabs):

The Satanic Verses got published; Khomeini is dead while Rushdie lives on; never-ending earthquakes, many, caused by scantily-clad women, the latest just a few days ago on the Iran-Turkey border, killing many; drought, caused by scantily-clad women; sinkholes, within which dwell djinn, the keepers of scantily-clad women; women defiantly rendering themselves scantily-clad; rockets blowing up on lift-off time and time again; top-secret nuclear evidence stolen from right under their noses; the Little Satan’s jets taking leisurely sight-seeing flights all over the Islamic Republic; vast quantities of oil unsold; fuel shortages in the country most blessed with vast quantities of oil; a US drone taking revenge on Iran for shooting down of its brother by blowing the top Iranian general to bits in front of his subordinates; bereavement and retaliation for Soleimani’s killing costing 138 Iranian lives in a demonstration of spectacular Islamic incompetence; the Great Satan gets to investigate gross Islamic incompetence at the PS752 crash site in Tehran; never-ending fitna from a population that doesn’t understand how favoured they are; and on, and on, and on.

Why do the Muslims have to suffer such tragedies? Are they not the people Allah loves because they love him so? The absolute cruelest has to be the coronavirus epidemic with which Allah punished China for its turning the Uighur Muslims away from Islam. It is a just punishment, until you realise that the country with the second largest death toll from the virus is — wait for it — the Islamic Republic of Iran! How is this justice? Surely Iran is as joyless as Allah commands. Why is he treating Islamic Iran the same as anti-Islamic China? We know this is not a joke because there are no jokes in Islam. With this kind of behaviour, surely, it is time for a fatwa against Allah, and that the Qur’an to be thrown at him, in particular 5:33, where he commands quite clearly,

By making mischief in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Allah has been waging war against himself and his own messenger. Of course, it is possible to doubt that Allah would wage war against himself, but then we look at his all-time favourite believers, his ummah, the very best of peoples, the ones whose religion he personally perfected for them without their even asking. Take a look at the ummah to see what Allah at war against himself looks like.

Your blessings are showered on the homes of unbelievers, strangers all.

Only on the poor Muslim, Your wrath like lightning falls.

—Muhammad Iqbal, Complaint and Answer to the Complaint, (1909-1913).

Wannabe caliph Erdogan has just gone to war against brother Bashar. El-Sisi hates Erdogan’s guts for supporting Muhammad Morsi and his merry band of brothers, and for generally making much mischief in his land. Erdogan has also been making mischief in Israel and in Cyprus and in Libya and even on the open seas between them. Yet Allah has made more mischief inside Iran than Erdogan has been making outside of it.

Or perhaps we should just give it some time. No self-respecting caliph, whether actual or fancied, can go for long without picking a fight with somebody. Just the other day, Erdogan stuck up to Russia over Syria and is not minded to back down. And there’s still China, don’t forget, where Muslims in Xinjiang Autonomous Region are wholesale having the perfect religion drawn from them and not in a nice way. One wonders why Jerusalem, peopled by Arabs formerly colonised by Turks, is a red line for Erdogan, while Kashgar, home to Uighurs, a Turkic people colonised by Han, is not a red line for him. Surely a caliph couldn’t let that pass.

So why the earthquake on the Turkey-Iran border? Weren’t Erdogan and Rouhani and Mahathir and little Imran going the extra mile to get the ummah together to confront the unbelievers’ ghastly “Islamophobia”? Weren’t Erdogan and little Imran going to go into show business with their own TV station and all — ventriloquist and dummy? What happened about that? The mischievous hand of Allah was, no doubt, at play there, too, for it will not have gone unnoticed that this little Gang of Four had no Arab amongst them, and we all know that only Arabs may call an ummah unity bash, not upstart second-circle Muslims who learnt their Islam from Arabs. It would be like saying the Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him was a Turk. Or he was a Persian, a Malay, or, Heavens forbid, a Pakistani! Of course the Arabs put their foot down on the upstart Pakistani’s neck. What else could they do?

But wait, there is more. Why did they stomp on little Imran’s neck instead of on Rouhani’s. Ah, of course. Iran’s missiles, the ones famous for blowing up before they can get properly off the ground, got off the ground just fine and even hit their targets the night the Shi’ite pretenders to the Islamic throne wanted to teach the Sunni murderers of Hussain a lesson (same ummah, different Muslims). Why, on that one occasion, did the missiles work? Because Allah willed it, that’s why. So the House of Saud, too, must be well-irritated with Allah — how many pilgrims got killed in that recent Hajj again? The Iranian bull’s eye shot on the Saudi oil installation notwithstanding, Iran and Saudi Arabia must both have it well in for Allah by now. Therein, surely, lie the seeds for healing the thousand-year Sunni-Shi’a split.


Allah’s been making mischief in Iran, in Turkey, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, in Libya, in Malaysia, in Iraq, in Lebanon, come to think of it, even in Indonesia Christians presume to run for high office, no one believes Yemen did the missile thing, Sudan lost its internal source of slaves, in Mauritania slavery must now be hidden, as if it’s something to be ashamed of, in Western Sahara the Jews and the Christians are up to something, in Bahrain Jews sat pretty, in Kashmir polytheists got the better of Muslims and the Myanmar infidels dared to dump their Muslim invaders back into Bangladesh. Over and above all that, nowhere is da’wa bringing in converts, everywhere apostates and infidels mock the holy Qur’an, despise the Prophet SAW and, as if all that isn’t bad enough, Muslims are leaving Islam in droves, somehow ashamed of being the best of people whose top “scholars” have become the laughing stock of the civilised world — what is going on? For 1400 years infidels everywhere feared Islam, now they laugh at it. Subhanallah!

In every land where the ummah resides, there Allah makes mischief. Is it not time for the ummah finally to unite, even if only for the expediency of banishing Allah from the land, from all Muslim lands? It would be the most lenient of the prescribed punishments for mischief-makers, because most Muslims are still ever so attached to Allah, bless them. To kill Allah, or crucify him, or chop off his hand and foot from opposite sides would be to cause Muslims great distress, and as we all know, we must at all times be sensitive towards their feelings. We must be harsh with the infidel and lenient towards the Muslim. Could Allah deserve any less than a Muslim who has been remiss? Surely not. That would be like giving to Allah females and to Muslims males.There is no need for extremism. A simple deportation will do. Shaitan knows all about kickings-out and falls from Grace. He might just be the friend Allah so badly needs at this difficult time. While Allah is all-forgiving, he must hope that Shaitan can manage forgiveness just this once.

COMMENTARY: the man is seriously delusional as well as anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic, a pathological liar, and on and on – he is filth! good riddance to bad rubbish

Farrakhan says “Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani,” claims to be messenger promised in Qur’an


“Mr. Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani. Mrs. Clinton killed my other brother Muammar Qaddafi.”

“Let me tell you something brothers, the Quran asks a question – Do you wonder that a man born from among you has been selected by God, to be a messenger of His to the people, and a warner to the world and the nations? Yeah, that’s who I am. You may know me as Louis Farrakhan.”Remember, this traitor has the ear of some of the most prominent people on the Left.
NOTE: Click on the URL at the bottom to view the video

“Nation Of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan: ‘Mr. Trump Killed My Brother Soleimani, Mrs. Clinton Killed My Brother Qaddafi’; America ‘The Habitation Of Devils’ Will Be Destroyed By The Mahdi,” MEMRI, February 25, 2020:

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a three-and-a-half-hour keynote speech at the Saviors’ Day conference in Detroit, Michigan on February 23, 2020. In his speech, Farrakhan spoke about the killing of IRGC Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani by U.S. forces. Farrakhan said that he thinks he had met him during his visit to Iran. Farrakhan said that President Donald Trump killed his “brother Soleimani,” whom he called a “bad man” for killing Americans. Farrakhan questioned the U.S. presence in the Middle East, suggesting this was in order to protect its “little flunky nations” against Iran. He added that Soleimani was no terrorist, he was a “brother from Iran,” who was helping the people of Iraq rid themselves of an occupying army. Farrakhan added that former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also killed his “brother,” Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and this is the reason he did not support her or vote for her. Farrakhan recounted that he told Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that he represents the Mahdi, who said that “America is number one on his list to be destroyed” and that it can be destroyed within 12 hours. In a “message for the Jewish people” he said that he is “not a hater” and that he has never given an order to “hurt a Jewish person” but he is going to “put a little truth on you, today.” 

Farrakhan continued to say that America is falling because it has become “the habitation of devils, the hole for every foul person, a cage for every hateful bird.” He asked: “Have you become a nation of devils?” Farrakhan shouted at President Trump, quoting from the Ten Commandments: “You shall not commit murder,” referring to the killing of Soleimani. He added, “Murder is your modus operandi […] you want me dead and after today you might want to speed it up […].” 

Several mayors of Michigan towns attended the event as well as the Chief of Staff of Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones, who read a message of support to the Nation of Islam on stage. Nation of Islam’s new mosque is a former Jewish synagogue that was called Congregation Beth Moses.[1] Farrakhan said in a June 23, 2019 speech[2] that the property was purchased by a supporter of Nation of Islam who “loved the teachings so much that he put up $300,000 of his money so that we could purchase this former Jewish synagogue.” For clips from the 2019 Nation of Islam Saviors’ Day convention see MEMRI TV clips #7025#7024, and #7023.

To view the clip of Louis Farrakhan on MEMRI TV, click here or below.

“Qassem Soleimani, I Think We Met Him When We Were In Iran… Mr. Trump Killed My Brother Qassem Soleimani; Mrs. Clinton Killed My Other Brother Muammar Qaddafi”

Louis Farrakhan: “You know America is going to go to war. They killed Qassem Soleimani, and America is so powerful she has the right to define others. This Qassem Soleimani, I think we met him when we were in Iran.


“Mr. Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani. Mrs. Clinton killed my other brother Muammar Qaddafi. That’s why I couldn’t support Mrs. Clinton. And some of my little black friends [were] angry with me because I wasn’t going to vote for Mrs. Clinton.”


“Mr. Trump… You Said That My Brother [Qassem Soleimani] Is A Terrorist… You May Call Me A Terrorist Tomorrow To Justify What The Government Is Planning To Do To Me And The Nation Of Islam”

“See Mr. Trump, I respect you because you’re the president of the United States of America. And you said that my brother is a terrorist. And you got the power to define people. Well you may not like me, so you may call me a terrorist tomorrow to justify what the government is planning to do to me and the Nation of Islam. But I’m just inviting you, I’m inviting you to sit down and talk because I have a message for you from God. In fact, I’ll give it to you today. Let me tell you something brothers, the Quran asks a question – Do you wonder that a man born from among you has been selected by God, to be a messenger of His to the people, and a warner to the world and the nations? Yeah, that’s who I am. You may know me as Louis Farrakhan. I didn’t know what I was going to become as a student of Elijah Mohammed. But I’d like to tell you what my assignment is.

“See, Qassem, President Trump said, killed a lot of Americans – he’s a bad man, so I killed him, he’s bad – where was a man that he killed? Did he kill him in New York? Did he kill him in Philly? Did he kill him in Colorado, or California, or Florida? Where did he kill them!? He killed them in Iraq! What the hell were you doing in Iraq!?


That man was no terrorist. He was killing members of an occupying army on the territory of Iraq. And he as the brother of them from Iran was trying to rid them of an occupying army. Now I’m naming you, and I got weight with God. An occupying army. What are you doing in the middle east? Soldiers everywhere, who sent for them? Protecting your little flunky nations? So now if I speak like I speak, and you know I’m telling the truth, this is not hyperbole, truthful hyperbole, this is the real actual fact. You went there, not to save the Iraqi people. You went there and spent [a] trillion dollars to make Iraq a bulwark against Iran.”


“When I Spoke To The Supreme Leader… I Told Him What The Mahdi Told Elijah – America Is Number One On His List, To Be Destroyed”

“So, when I spoke to the supreme leader, I said: ‘You’re looking for the mahdi.’ This whole nation of 90 million people is born, and are willing to die, serving the mahdi. I said: ‘You are looking for the mahdi, but the mahdi came to us. And I am here representing him.’ Did you hear what I said? I told him what the mahdi told Elijah – America is number one on his list, to be destroyed.


“He can take America out in 12 hours.”


“America Has Become A Habitation Of Devils, And A Hole For Every Unclean Spirit In A Cage, For Every Hateful Bird”

“I have a message for the Jewish people. I’m not a hater. You can’t find one word in the millions of words that I’ve spoken that I’ve ordered somebody to hurt a Jewish person. No, that’s not me. But to tell the truth, I’m going to put a little truth on you today, and then I’m going to close it out – you’ve been such a beautiful attentive audience. Now, look at the scripture: ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen…’ [Revelation 14:8]. Substitute America for Babylon. She [America] is unraveling. America is falling, is falling. Why are you falling America? Because you have become the habitation of devils. A hole, for every foul person. A cage for every hateful bird. Have you become a nation of devils?


“Mr. Trump, this nation has become a habitation of devils. Everybody rebelling against God.


“Oh Mr. Trump, you shall not commit murder. You took credit – ah yeah, I had the boys kill Qassem… Sent the drone after him – how many have you killed? How many are you planning to kill? See, murder is your modus operandi. See here I am now. You want me dead. And after today you might want to speed it up. I don’t know. But Mr. Trump, America has become a habitation of devils, and a hole for every unclean spirit in a cage, for every hateful bird. Hateful birds mean those that are in foreign countries. You’re in Wuhan province, I didn’t know you were there. Now you have a little something that you want to bring home to America. You’re everywhere.”

[1] Detroit Free Press, February 23, 2020.[2], July 9, 2019.

Louis Farrakhan: 5 of the Nation of Islam leader’s most controversial quotes

13 Feb 2020    Bradford Betz
Louis Farrakhan, who has led the Nation of Islam since the late 1970s, has stirred controversy for his anti-Semitic remarks and anti-white theology. 
NOTE: Clcik on the URL here to view the video –

Among other things he preaches, the 86-year-old minister has led a chant of “death to Americaand called for a separate state for black Americans. Last year, Farrakhan was among several far-right or “hate” figures that Facebook permanently banned. But his hate-filled views long predate the Facebook ban. 

Here is a list of Farrakhan’s top five most controversial quotes.
1. “Hitler was a very great man.” 

During a 1984 interview broadcast on a Chicago radio station, Farrakhan reacted to Nathan Pearlmutter, then chair of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), who called the minister “Black Hitler” for his anti-Semitic views. 

“Here come the Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn’t great for me as a black person, but he was a great German. Now I’m not proud of Hitler’s evil against Jewish people, but that’s a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing,” Farrakhan said. 

2. “I’m not an anti-Semite” but… During a 2018 speech in Detroit marking the 23rd anniversary of the Million Man March, Farrakhan addressed members of the Jewish community who weren’t fond of him. In a video of the speech posted on Twitter, Farrakhan wrote the caption: I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.”

Despite drawing outrage, Twitter did not suspend his account

3. “I am that Jesus.” 

Farrakhan attempted to clarify his “anti-termite” comment during a keynote address at the United Center arena in Chicago in February 2019. He explained that the reference was not to all Jews but “the richest 10 percent of Americans” who own “84 percent of all stocks.” Yet his most eyebrow-raising comment was comparing himself to Jesus. Farrakhan told the audience that “Jesus died because he was 2,000 years too soon to bring about the end of the civilization of the Jews.”

“The real story is what I tried to tell you from the beginning,” he said. “It didn’t happen back there. It’s happening right while you’re looking at it,” Farrakhan told the audience. “I represent the Messiah. I represent the Jesus and I am that Jesus. If I am not, take my life.” 

4. “Osama Bin Laden didn’t destroy the Twin Towers.” 

Long a proponent of conspiracy theories, Farrakhan has repeatedly pushed the notion that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the U.S. government as a justification for regime change in the Middle East.

Osama Bin Laden didn’t destroy the Twin Towers. That was a false flag operation to take the world’s attention away from the great disunity in America after George W. Bush stole the election,” Farrakhan wrote in a March 15, 2016 entry of The Final Call, the official newspaper of the Nation of Islam. 

5. “Talmudic, satanic Jews” are to blame for sex scandals of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein 

In a July 2019 sermon at the Nation of Islam’s headquarters, Farrakhan spoke on the sex scandals surrounding Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and financier Jeffrey Epstein. He said the Talmud warrants their actions. “Did you know that pedophilia, homosexuality, sex trafficking, is the work of Talmudists?” Farrakhan asked the crowd.
NOTE: Click on the URL here to view the video:

“Weinstein and Epstein and all of those top Jewish Talmudists who are in media, television that abuse women – there ain’t nobody talking about Weinstein, there ain’t nobody talking about Epstein. You don’t hear anybody talking about the man who set up a hedge fund. Because Talmudic, Satanic Jews are the ones that feel nobody has a right to punish them for what the Talmud has made lawful to them.”

All of Muhammad’s Curses

Feb 14, 2020
In the hadiths (Islamic narrations about Muhammad) we so often see that Muhammad curses people for doing very trivial things. I have taken some time to find all the instances in which Muhammad curses people for specific things. Enjoy! Support AP: Patreon: Paypal: AP Merchandise: Twitter: Facebook:… Telegram: Bitchute:… (auto-upload) Intro Visual + Music made by Egyptian Atheist (…)

Frankfurt Mayor Warns of ‘Growing’ Antisemitism in Germany

Feb 19 2020 by Allgemeiner Staff

“Antisemitism and hatred of Jews is growing” in Germany, the mayor of Frankfurt warned on Wednesday.

Speaking in Tel Aviv at Muni Expo 2020, Mayor Uwe Becker posited, “What increases antisemitism is a lack of knowledge. People don’t know about Jewish life, young people in Germany know about hate and the Shoah, but they don’t know about normal Jewish life in the 21st century. The average Germany child learns that in 1933 Germans started killing Jews, and then by 1945 the war was over. Children don’t learn about Jewish life; they only know that Jews are victims.”

We have a problem with the antisemitism of adults, not only children,” he added. “Antisemitism is from the far left to the far right, influenced by anti-Zionism which becomes antisemitism. From the guilt of the past, we have the responsibility of the future.

Another speaker at the gathering of municipal officials from around the world was Nick Forbes, head of the Newcastle City Council in the UK, who decried the levels of racism and xenophobia in his country. “I stand for a Britain which is open, welcoming, accepting and multicultural,” he stated. “We need to understand what’s driving communities apart, what’s driving the rhetoric that puts communities against each other.” “In my country the UK, we have seen no economic growth for years, and when people are dissatisfied with their lives, they look for someone to blame,” he continued. “We have to focus to support our economy, create jobs [and] make people feel secure in their future, [to have] hate crimes start to diminish.”

COMMENTARY: an ever-present threat to Jews everywhere – sadly, it is expected that little meaningful action will be undertaken – Jews remain the pariah of the world’s peoples

As Antisemitism Rises in the Netherlands, Dutch Jews Fear Skepticism, Lack of Support From Police, MPs Are Told

Feb 19 2020 by Ben Cohen

The reluctance of Jews in the Netherlands to report antisemitic attacks to the authorities out of skepticism that they will not be taken seriously is as much of a problem as the rise in antisemitism itself, a Dutch MP told his colleagues during a parliamentary debate on the subject this week.

During a question-and-answer session with Ferd Grapperhaus, the Dutch minister of justice, on Tuesday, Socialist Party representative Jasper van Dijk commented that it was “at least as bad that many Jews don’t report antisemitism, because they feel that the police don’t do anything anyway.” Grapperhaus was addressing MPs’ concerns following Monday’s publication of a report that showed that the highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded in the Netherlands took place in 2019. The report — which is compiled annually by CIDI, the leading Dutch Jewish research and advocacy organization — revealed that 182 antisemitic incidents were reported in 2019, marking a 35-percent increase from 2018.

Worryingly, incidents of verbal abuse and violent physical assaults against Jews more than doubled, from 27 cases in 2018 to 61 last year. Many of these offenses were committed by Dutch supporters of the campaign to isolate the State of Israel through BDS-related actions.

In his remarks to the MPs on Tuesday, the justice minister noted that many Jews in the Netherlands experienced “too many bumps” in the reporting process, which meant that antisemitic incidents remained underreported even as they rose to record levels.

Asked by Kathalijne Buitenweg of the Green Left Party what measures the government planned in response to the latest CIDI report, Grapperhaus said that the cabinet had recently pledged 3.5 million Euros to an effort led by parliamentarians to combat the problem.

“I regularly speak out in public and in the media against antisemitism, and call on you to do the same,” Grapperhaus told MPs. “Antisemitism is a curse on our society.”

The minister also voiced agreement with Buitenweg’s point that antisemitic offenders should be handed heavier punishments because their actions were aimed not at individuals, but an entire community.

In its own statement accompanying the publication of its report, CIDI emphasized that under-reporting of antisemitic offenses remained a critical problem in the Netherlands.

“CIDI is very concerned about the explosive increase in antisemitic incidents, and fears that the incidents reported to us are just the tip of the iceberg,” the statement said. “What makes the increase all the more distressing is that victims of antisemitism seldom report to the police, because they fear that a report will lead to nothing.”

The statement continued: “When victims do report to the police,  they often encounter lack of understanding and it can sometimes take years before they hear what has been done with their report.”

CIDI concluded with a call on law enforcement officials and the judiciary “to invest in creating trust among victims of antisemitism.” Said the group: “This is the only way to encourage people to report it and to fight the problem.”

COMMENTARY: the so-called ‘Palestinians’ have hate, terror, and killing in their bloodstreams, so it would seem – simply stated, they are pathological liars and Islamic fanatics – may they burn in hell FOREVER – undeserving of a state of their own, they are TOTAL FAILURES as human beings, unworthy of living among civilized people

Report: Palestinian Anti-Semitism, Largely Unchecked, Among the World’s Worst

01-29-2020. Julie Stahl

Anti-Semitism among Palestinians is among the worst in the world according to a report released in conjunction with International Holocaust Remembrance Day.  
Yet, world leaders have done little to challenge it.

“Palestinian Authority anti-Semitism creates anti-Semitic Palestinians,” the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) says in a video compiled from statements made leaders and others. Everyone from PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas who said on official PA television, “The hatred of the Jews is not due to their religion… but due to their social role that was connected to usury, and banks.” 

To education and religious leaders: “If a fish in the sea fights with another fish, I am sure the Jews are behind it,” said Professor of Quranic Studies, Imad Hamto, on official PA television. “Humanity will never be able to live together with them,” said Sheikh Osama Al-Tibi, on  official PA television. 

“These malignant [Jewish] genes and cursed characteristics continue in them… They inherit it from father to son,” an angry Al-Tibi shouted.The shocking content is posted on Fatah’s official Facebook page as well as aired on official Palestinian Authority television.
NOTE: Click on the URL at the bottom to watch the video

“Fatah produces many horrific films, hateful films, hateful about Jews, hateful against Israel, they glorify terrorists who kill us Israelis,” PMW director Itamar Marcus told CBN News.

“The PA’s promoting of anti-Semitism for years has turned Palestinians into the most anti-Semitic people in the world,” Marcus said in a statement.

According to an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) poll several years ago, 93 percent of Palestinians believed at least six out of 11 negative stereotypes about Jews were ‘probably true’.

Last year, in an unprecedented move, a UN committee called out the Palestinian Authority for anti-Semitism, discrimination and racism.

And children are taught to spread the message as seen on the PMW compilation. “Our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail,” one little girl recited from a poem on PA TV. “Oh most evil among creations – O barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs,” a boy recited from a poem on PA TV. And another boy explained on television what he had been taught, “Fight the Jews, kill them, and defeat them.”

In an earlier interview, Marcus told CBN News about a recent anti-Semitic film produced by the Palestinian Authority. “They talk about Jews as planning to subjugate humanity.  The Jews built ghettos, they said, on their own because they were so arrogant.  They didn’t want to live amongst the non-Jews.  This video said that the Jews schemed together with the Nazis to burn Jews in order to have profits – to make profits,” Marcus said.

On January 27, the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day, on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazis’ most notorious death camp – Auschwitz.

A few days earlier more than 40 international leaders gathered to say ‘Never Again’  and pledged to combat anti-Semitism at the World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem.

Marcus said the Palestinian declarations are dangerous because they’re telling them to impressionable youth. “They are the messages that the Nazis were saying and the lies they were saying.  Jews want to control the world.  Jews are this.  Jews believe in racial superiority.  You hear the lies enough times, people start believing them,” he said.

Marcus challenged international leaders to take action against anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Authority.  Otherwise, he said, the recent World Holocaust Forum would have been a ‘dismal failure: a mere ceremony giving homage to the past while ignoring the present, and therefore having no positive impact on the future.

COMMENTARY: the ‘Palestinians’ have no grasp of human rights and the many freedoms seen in modern democracies – due to their never-ending desire for the destruction of Israel and the killing of its Jews, they merely wait for the time when Israel is somehow defeated by someone, an as yet unknown party should that day ever come – idiocy from the leadership by their so-called leadership, depriving the people of modern infrastructure, quality courts and medical services, and so on, the stench of mass corruption ever present (in the pockets of their senior people, never passing downward) – as a group, they are ‘a piece of work’ – FAILURE, FAILURE, and yes, more FAILURE

Analysis: Do Palestinians even want a state? History says no

Do Palestinians want a state or simply to erase an existing one? 

By Dr. Edy Cohen, BESA Center. February 20, 2020

Taking into account all the peace initiatives proposed to end the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs over the last 83 years, we must consider the possibility that the Palestinians — or at least their leaders — do not want to establish their own state. Their sight is currently set on the big prize — the entire state of Israel — and they are playing for time.

In the meantime, they plan to continue to subsist on monies donated by the Arabs and the Europeans. Many of the Arab states have grown disenchanted with this enterprise, and their assistance, particularly from the Saudis, has been discontinued in recent years.

President Trump has also reduced the flow of U.S. support. Only the Europeans remain committed to the implacable Palestinian narrative.

A survey of Palestinian rejectionism

The Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian Arabs from the early 1920s to the late 1940s, said in his testimony to the British Peel Commission, established in January 1937 to find a way forward for cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, “Most residents of Jewish lands will not be awarded citizenship in our future country. ”The Mufti suggested that the Jews be deported from Palestine. Rejecting the idea of a Jewish state, he promised that if such a state were established, every last Jew would be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state.

The UN partition plan

In November 1947, the same Mufti refused to adopt the UN partition plan that offered to establish two states, one Jewish, the other Arab. The Mufti rejected a two-state solution until the day he died, a choice ordinary Palestinians may well regret. Had he agreed to the UN plan, they would have gained a much larger area than what is on offer today.

Father of modern terror

The successor to the Mufti, Yasser Arafat, continued to reject any legitimacy for the State of Israel, refusing even to acknowledge its existence. For many years, he raised the PLO banner of a military and terrorist struggle against Israel.

In addition to masterminding decades of bloody terror in the streets of Israel, Arafat was responsible for devastation across the Middle East, including a civil war in Lebanon (1975-1991) and Jordan’s Black September (1970). He also threw the PLO’s support behind Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991. When Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, Arafat’s PLO called for Egypt to be boycotted. The Arab states adopted that boycott and prevented Cairo from participating in the Arab League from 1977 until 1989. Most Arab ambassadors in Egypt were recalled and Arabs visiting Egypt were considered either traitors or spies.

The Oslo “Peace Process”

The Palestinians responded to Israel’s attempts to implement the Oslo Accords by sending waves of suicide bombers to the streets and buses of the cities of Israel, a blatant violation of their commitment to the agreements and a clear statement of their rejection of the idea of peace with Israel.

At the July 2000 at Camp David summit, Israel PM Ehud Barak offered Arafat a series of far-reaching concessions as part of a comprehensive peace arrangement. In return, Arafat was asked to end the conflict. The PLO summarily rejected the Israeli proposals and never offered a counterproposal.

Instead, the PLO-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) initiated a massive premeditated wave of violence. Arafat’s war of terror (the so called “al-Aqsa Intifada”) was unparalleled in the scale and relentlessness of its terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. A total of 1,184 Israelis were murdered.

Terror follows disengagement

In August 2005, the government of Israel, headed by PM Ariel Sharon, carried out the unilateral evacuation of all Israeli villages from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. In response, the Palestinians have been launching missiles and rockets on Israeli towns and villages from the Gaza Strip for years, some of which reaching as far as Tel Aviv.

Instead of using the enormous Israeli concession as an opportunity to achieve peace, the Palestinians used it to empower Iranian-backed terrorist organizations. In June 2007, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in a violent coup.

Ever since the Hamas takeover, the villages of southern Israel have been subjected to a more-or-less nonstop downpour of rockets and missiles fired from Gaza. The number of rockets/missiles and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza since 2007 is in the tens of thousands.

Olmert’s offer

In 2008, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered Arafat’s successor as PLO Chairman and PA president Mahmoud Abbas a sweeping peace proposal. Abbas rejected it outright. He claimed that “the gaps are too wide,” meaning there was too great a distance between what the Palestinians demanded and what the Israelis were offering. “I will wait until all the Israeli settlements have been frozen,” he said.

According to Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinians, “We are not in a market or a bazaar. I came here to determine the boundaries of Palestine from 1967 without budging an inch, without removing one stone from Jerusalem or any of the holy places to Islam or Christianity in Jerusalem.”

The Palestinians refused Olmert’s offer because they found his unprecedented territorial concessions insufficient and because they insisted on the right to manage the holy sites in Jerusalem in place of the Jordanians.

Deal of the Century

The Palestinian leadership rejected the current US proposal a year ago, before they had seen it. They also refused to participate in the economic conference held in Bahrain at the end of June 2019 and prevented other Palestinians from participating.

As soon as the plan was published, it was a given that Abbas would oppose it strongly. “We say a thousand times no, no, no to the Deal of the Century,” he said. “We refused this deal from the beginning and we were right. Two days ago, they said to listen. Listen to what? Shall we get a country without Jerusalem for every Palestinian, Muslim, or Christian child?” he asked.

Mahmoud Abbas is now calling the deal a conspiracy that “will never pass… Our strategy focuses on the struggle to end the occupation. The plans to eliminate the Palestinian agenda will fail and fall away.”

As has been said many times, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Their leadership claims that every suggestion is a conspiracy and every initiative a trap. Making peace takes courage. Will a Palestinian Sadat ever arrive?

COMMENTARY: one thing everyone can be certain about ‘Palestinians’ is that they are liars on a scale not seen since Nazi days, intent on genocide toward Jews, and beyond the pale of a modern society – literally the garbage of the human species, ever teaching their own children to hate and kill, then martyrizing those who do so – fanatics and religious extreme its to be sure, unworthy of living in our world – their leaders are corrupt to the core and the population isn’t even smart enough to focus on how these so-called leaders have become so wealthy from donations around the world and to do something about it – ABYSMAL FAILURES!

Terrorist Murderers Are ‘Honor’ And ‘Crown’ of Palestinians, Says Senior Fatah Official

A woman who led the killing of 37 people – among them 12 children – and a female terrorist who placed a bomb in a movie theater are held up role models for Palestinian women.

By Nan Jacques Zilberdik and Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch. Feb 21 2020

Terrorist murderers continue to be glorified as the role models of the Fatah Movement of Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Senior Fatah official Tawfiq Tirawi stressed this ideology in a recent speech when he singled out three Palestinian terror leaders as “a crown on all of our heads”: arch-terrorist Abu Jihad, who was responsible for the murder of at least 125 Israelis; terrorist Abu Iyad, who headed the terror organization Black September and planned the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; and, terrorist Abu Ali Iyad, who was head of Fatah’s military operations in 1966 and responsible for several terror attacks. In the same speech, Tirawi singled out two female terrorists as role models for Palestinian women: Dalal Mughrabi, who led the murder of 37 Israelis, among them 12 children, and Fatima Barnawi, who placed a bomb in an Israeli movie theater.

Similarly to Tirawi, a Fatah leader in Gaza described terrorists who were killed while attacking Israelis as “the crown on the head of the Palestinian revolution.”

“On…Palestinian Martyrs’ Day, the Fatah Movement emphasizes its loyalty to all the Martyrs who ascended to Heaven in defense of the Palestinian cause… This is an eternal day in the days of the Palestinian people, on which Fatah emphasizes its national and moral obligation toward the cause of the Martyrs, who for us as Palestinians constituted and still constitute the crown on the head of the Palestinian revolution,” said Jamal Obeid, the Fatah leader in Gaza.

Palestinian Media Watch provided these translations and exposed senior PA official Jibril Rajoub as another user of the term “a crown on our heads” in reference to Palestinian murderers of Israelis. Rajoub “blessed and encouraged” these criminals to continue their terror wave in January 2016.

In his recent speech, Fatah official Tirawi also emphasized Fatah’s ideology that all of Israel is part of “Palestine” – “from the river to the sea,” and instructed PA security forces “not to pursue” Palestinian terrorists, but to target “collaborators” with Israel and “real estate agents” selling land to Jews.

COMMENTARY: Let’s face facts, folks, they will with the exception of Israel – during the Obama Administration, few Christians were permitted to enter the US, while tens of thousands of Muslims were admitted – no surprise under Obama – indeed, the Jews were the first to be expelled, losing virtually all of their property, businesses, cars, and homes, it’s now time for the Christians to go – the long term impact is unknown, but needless to say the unintended consequences will be drastic and dramatic – FAILURE

Will Christians Disappear Entirely From the Middle East?


The Muslims long ago promised to drive out the Christians, and they are now fulfilling that pledge, except in one place.

The Middle East of the 21st century is quickly becoming monolithic, as it sheds the religious and cultural diversity that once existed. Though it gave the world all three Abrahamic religions, it is rapidly becoming the home of only one.

In recent years, the Christian population has decreased across the entire region, and in some Arab countries, the Christian component has been absent entirely.

  • In Iraq, home to the oldest Christian communities in the world, Jesus’ followers are going extinct amid an orgy of hatred and violence;
  • Only a few thousand of Turkey’s Christians remain, while once the country was home to millions;
  • In Syria, Christians one made up a full third of the population, but today account for just 10 percent;
  • In the 1930s, Lebanon boasted a majority Christian population, whereas now they are less than a third;
  • For the first time since the 1950s, Coptic Christians are leaving Egypt in large numbers;
  • And in areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, once-large communities of Christians (at some times even outnumbering local Muslims) have now been reduced to a tiny minority. The land in which Christ was born is today far from a peaceful place, while most of the Muslim Arab countries around are failed states full of extremism.

Every Christian who can is now packing his or her bags and seeking to leave. And that signals a dangerous future for the Middle East.

Failure of civilization 

This failure of civilization began many decades ago. Ever since the genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks (1914-1918), which claimed about one million lives, Middle East Christians have been seeking safer haven.

Later, during the monarchy in Iraq, a policy of revenge was implemented against Christians over their cooperation with the British during World War I. The instability surrounding the fall of the monarchy in 1958 provided a chance for many Christians to escape to the West.

More recently, the rise of Islamist groups in Iraq has again reduced Christians to dhimmi status and subjected them to routine harassment and persecution. The result has been the same – a mass migration of Christians.

A brutal promise fulfilled

The Muslims have long chanted, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people,” meaning they always intended to first drive out the Jews, then the Christians.

Well, most of the Jews were driven out of the Arab world over the past century. Now it seems it is the turn of the Christians.

But what will the Middle East become without its ancient Christian population?

The Christians are never coming back

Most worrying is that this process appears to be irreversible. All of the Christians migrants that I have spoken to insist they will never return under any circumstances.

Even if the security situation improves in the short term, there are no long-term guarantees in the Muslim Middle East. Christians reject the idea of any longer living like outsiders in countries where they are far more indigenous than the Muslims. Their immigration to greener pastures is permanent.

A light in the darkness

As always, we must point out that there remains one single country in the Middle East where Christians still live in peace and tranquility–the Jewish State of Israel.

Only in Israel can Arabs of all faiths coexist with the Jewish people and enjoy the democratic freedoms denied them in nearly every Arab country.Is it any wonder that while Christian communities around the region are shrinking fast, the number of Jesus’ followers in His own country of Israel is actually growing.

COMMENTARY: can we say ‘bullshit’, boys and girls – in today’s EU and French Republic, political correctness will preclude anything substantial from coming into play – the calls to prayer on the public streets will continue as well ever more ‘no-go’ zones – sadly, Muslim organizations and activists have learned how to press government buttons without payback from authorities – this even includes murders for which no punishments are given – more and more appeasements are on the way as France will suffer from more and more intolerance of Muslims to national values – FAILING

France: Macron Vows Crackdown on Political Islam

by Soeren Kern. February 21, 2020

“The problem is when, in the name of a religion, some people want to separate themselves from the Republic and therefore not respect its laws.” — French President Emmanuel Macron, February 18, 2020.

“Turkey today can make the choice to follow that path with us or not, but I will not allow any foreign country feed a cultural, religious or identity-related separatism on our Republic’s territory. We cannot have Turkey’s laws on France’s soil. No way.” — French President Emmanuel Macron, February 18, 2020.

“What we must put in place is not, as I have sometimes heard from some people, ‘a plan against Islam.’ That would be a profound mistake. What we must fight is the separatism….” — French President Emmanuel Macron, February 18, 2020.

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced new measures aimed at countering political Islam in France. The changes would limit the role that foreign governments have in France in training imams, financing mosques and educating children.Macron also vowed to fight what he called “Islamist separatism” and to lead what he described as a “Republican reconquest” aimed at reasserting state control over Muslim ghettoes — so-called no-go zones (zones urbaines sensibles, sensitive urban zones) — in France.

In a much-anticipated policy speech, Macron, during a visit to the eastern French city of Mulhouse on February 18, said that his government would seek to combat “foreign interference” in how Islam is practiced, and the way that Muslim religious institutions are organized in France.

The problem is when, in the name of a religion, some people want to separate themselves from the Republic and therefore not respect its laws,” he said. “Here in France, there is no place for political Islam.

Macron outlined a four-pronged strategy to combat Islamism in the country: 1) fight against foreign influences in schools and places of worship; 2) reorganize Muslim worship in France in accordance with the principles of secularism and French law; 3) fight against all manifestations of Islamist separatism and communitarianism; and 4) reassert state control over all parts of France.

Macron said that, among other measures, he plans to terminate a decades-old teacher exchange program called Teaching Language and Culture of Origin (L’Enseignement Langue et Culture d’origine, ELCO), which allows nine countries — Algeria, Croatia, Italy, Morocco, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey — to send teachers to France to provide foreign language and culture courses without oversight by French authorities. Four majority-Muslim countries — Algeria, Morocco Tunisia and Turkey — are involved in ELCO, which serves approximately 80,000 students each year.

These countries also send several hundred imams to France every year. Foreign imams, Macron said, were often linked to Salafism or the Muslim Brothers and “preach against the Republic.” He stressed: “This end to the consular Islam system is extremely important to curb foreign influence and make sure everybody respects the laws of the Republic.

Macron said that ELCO will be replaced with bilateral agreements to ensure that the French state has control over the courses and their content, as of September 2020. Macron added that Turkey was the only country that had refused to sign a new bilateral agreement. The Turkish government operates a large network of mosques in France and elsewhere in Europe under the auspices of Diyanet, or Directorate of Religious Affairs, which spent more than $2 billion on promoting Islam in 2019 and is controlled by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been accused of using Diyanet to prevent the integration of Muslims in Europe.

“Turkey today can make the choice to follow that path with us or not, but I will not allow any foreign country feed a cultural, religious or identity-related separatism on our Republic’s territory,” Macron said. “We cannot have Turkey’s laws on France’s soil. No way.”

Macron also said that a new law is being drafted to allow for transparency in how mosques are financed. “Mosques financed with transparency with imams trained in France and respectful of the Republican values and principles, that’s how we will create the conditions so that Muslims in France can freely practice their religion,” he said.

Macron added that he would ask the French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil français du culte musulman, CFCM), the body representing Islam in France, to help the government find solutions to train imams on French soil and ensure they can speak French and not spread Islamism.

Macron also called for better integration of Muslims in French society and warned of the dangers of communitarianism — the practice of communities governing themselves in France: “We are here for a reason that we share with Muslims — that is the struggle against communitarianism. What we must put in place is not, as I have sometimes heard from some people, ‘a plan against Islam.’ That would be a profound mistake.

What we must fight is the separatism, because when the Republic does not keep its promises, others will try to replace it.

“Macron’s speech, which comes just weeks before municipal elections set for March 15 and 22, is part of an effort to elicit support from conservative voters. The government has faced criticism over its lackluster efforts to promote Muslim integration in France, which is home to Europe’s largest Muslim population, estimated to number around 6 million, or 8 percent of the population.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the French nationalist party National Rally, has repeatedly argued that France has failed to assimilate its Muslim community — thus jeopardizing laïcité, or state secularism, a 1905 legal principle that separates church and state and requires the state’s neutrality on religion. Le Pen, who is neck and neck with Macron in public opinion polls, speaks for many voters who are concerned about the spread of radical Islam in France.

Macron, who took office in May 2017 and has focused most of his presidency on economic reform, has had mixed results on keeping promises regarding Islamism and mass migration.

October 2017. Macron signed a new counter-terrorism law — Law to Strengthen Internal Security and the Fight Against Terrorism (Loi renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme) — which gives prefects, police and security forces wide-ranging powers, without the need to seek prior approval from a judge, to search homes, place people under house arrest and close places of worship. The measure also authorizes police to perform identity checks at French borders.

February 2018. Macron pledged to “lay the groundwork for the entire reorganization of Islam in France.” He said that the plan would be announced within six months and would limit the role that foreign governments have in training imams, financing mosques and educating children in France — the very same objectives that Macron announced two years later in his speech in Mulhouse in February 2020. Le Pen noted that Macron’s latest plan mirrors her own report — “Le Pen Plan for the Suburbs” (Plan Le Pen pour les banlieues) — published in May 2018.

September 2018. French Interior Minister Gérard Collomb launched the “Republican Reconquest” (Reconquête Républicaine) aimed at retaking control of 60 so-called no-go zones in France by sending in extra police and improving public services.

September 2019. Macron, arguing that the government must stop voters from drifting to populist parties, hinted at a tougher line on immigration. “France cannot host everyone if it wants to host them well,” Macron told French radio station Europe 1. Macron’s comments caused a backlash from left-leaning members of his own party. They penned two open letters warning against “fueling hatred against all Muslim citizens.” Lawmaker Jean-François Cesarini accused Macron of “co-opting Le Pen’s talking points.” Meanwhile, in a new book — “The Emirates of the Republic: How Islamists are Taking Control of the Suburbs” — François Pupponi, who for 20 years was the Socialist mayor of Sarcelles, a commune in the northern suburbs of Paris, recounts how supporters of political Islam have upset the balance in his community, where Arabs, Christians, Jews and Turks had lived together in peace for many decades.Pupponi describes a landscape in which entire districts are being infiltrated by Islamists in order to “make a takeover bid on this community.” He added: “It is the fruit of my experience, what I live and what I observe.”

COMMENTARY: the so-called ‘Palestinians’ have never stopped getting in their own way – their hatred of Israel and Jews is virulently fanatical compared to any other Muslim land (with the possible exception of Iran) and they have done literally nothing to act in a civilized way when it comes to regional and international actions – it’s well known that they could have had a real country numerous times but deliberately chose not to take that step or even to begin building an infrastructure which could support its residents – instead, the corrupt leadership has gotten wealthy with virtually little or no support for the rest of the citizenry – in a contemporary sense, they talk the talk but never walk the walk – their lack of gratitude toward their Arab brothers for the financial support for more than half a century (despite those other Arabs having kept them in camps during that entire period and precluded giving citizenship to them while in these other countries) – the ‘Palestinians’ are, like radicals everywhere, are stuck in a rut and unable to extricate themselves from their too-long fixed position – in reality, they are unable to fulfill the responsibilities of a nation-state – TOTAL ABYSMAL FAILURE

Why Arabs Hate Palestinians

by Khaled Abu Toameh.   September 9, 2019 

  • You simply cannot burn pictures of the Saudi crown prince one day and rush to Riyadh to seek money the next. You cannot shout slogans against the Egyptian president one day and go to Cairo to seek political backing the next.
  • Remarkably, Turki al-Hamad, a Saudi writer, did what even some Western countries refuse to do: he dared to condemn Hamas and other Gaza-based groups for firing rockets at Israel.
  • “Palestinians bring disaster to anyone who hosts them. Jordan hosted them, and there was Black September; Lebanon hosted them, and there was a civil war there; Kuwait hosted them, and they turned into Saddam Hussein’s soldiers. Now they are using their podiums to curse us.” — Mohammed al-Shaikh, Saudi author, RT Arabic, August 13, 2019.
  • Many people in the Arab countries are now saying that it is high time for the Palestinians to start looking after their own interests and thinking of a better future for their children…. The Arabs seem to be saying to the Palestinians: “We want to march forward; you can continue to march backward for as long as you wish.”
  • “We should not be ashamed to establish relations with Israel.” — Ahmad al-Jaralah, a leading Kuwaiti newspaper editor,, July 1, 2019.

Is it true? If so, why?

Sadly, the Palestinians are known for betraying their Arab brothers, even effectively stabbing them in the back. The Palestinians, for example, supported Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait – a Gulf state that, together with its neighbors, used to give the Palestinians tens of millions of dollars in aid each year.

This disloyalty is precisely how a growing number of Arabs, particularly those living in the Gulf states, have been describing the Palestinians for the past few years.

In recent months, however, Arab criticism of the Palestinians, mostly aired through traditional and social media, has further escalated, and sometimes turned ugly.

Some Arab writers and journalists expressed outrage over the Palestinians’ opposition to peace plans, particularly the US administration’s yet-to-be-announced “Deal of the Century.”

They accused the Palestinians of losing countless opportunities and said that the “Deal of the Century” could be the Palestinians’ “last, best chance to achieve a state.

“Khalid Ashaerah, a Saudi, denounced the Palestinians as “traitors” and expressed hope that Israel would be “victorious” over the Palestinians. The Arab attacks on the Palestinians reflect an intense and increasing disillusionment in the Arab world with the Palestinians and anything related to them. At the core of this deep sense of disillusionment is the Arabs’ belief that despite all they did to help their Palestinian brothers for the past seven decades, the Palestinians have proven to be constantly ungrateful toward the Arab and Muslim people and states.

Until a few years ago, it was the Egyptians who were spearheading the anti-Palestinian campaign in the Arab world. Prominent Egyptian media personalities, journalists, writers and politicians seemed to be competing for a blue ribbon on who could attack Palestinians harder.

Such a widespread view as that now being expressed in various Arab states accuses the Palestinians of betraying their Arab and Muslim brothers. As an Arab saying goes, it accuses them of spitting in the well they have been drinking from. The image refers to the financial aid that Palestinians have received for decades from many Arab states.

The Egyptians focused their criticism against the Palestinian terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip — a coastal enclave that has a shared border with Egypt. The Egyptian critics, who are mostly affiliated with the regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, see Hamas — an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood organization now outlawed in Egypt — as a threat to Egypt’s national security and stability.

These critics also seem incensed at Palestinian criticism of Sisi for having alleged good relations with Israel and the US administration.The Palestinians seem to believe that Sisi is conspiring against them, together with Israel and the US administration. They point out, for example, that last May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Sisi “my friend.” Netanyahu had thanked Sisi after Egypt sent two helicopters to help extinguish wildfires in Israel. “I would like to thank my friend the Egyptian president, Sisi, for sending the two helicopters,” Netanyahu announced.

“Instead of defending their cause, the Palestinians are insulting Sisi and the Egyptian people,” a prominent Egyptian journalist, Azmi Mujahed, said. “I have a message to send to the Palestinian beggars who sold their land and honor: You are cursing Egypt and its army and president. You are a group of despicable folks. Whoever insults our president insults all of us.”

The Egyptians’ attacks on the Palestinians reached a peak in 2014, when several prominent writers and journalists called on their government to expel Palestinians and launch a military strike against the Gaza Strip. The fierce attacks came amid reports that the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip were providing support to ISIS-inspired terrorist groups waging war on Egypt’s security forces right in its Sinai Peninsula.

Egyptian writer Lamis Jaber urged the Egyptian government to expel all Palestinians and confiscate their property. She also called for arresting anyone who sympathized with the Palestinians. “We give aid to the Gaza Strip, and in return they [Palestinians] kill our children. They are dogs and traitors.” Jaber further pointed out that while Palestinian patients are being treated in Egyptian hospitals free of charge, the leaders of Hamas are enjoying themselves in “seven-star hotels” in Turkey and Qatar.

Jaber is just one of several leading Egyptians who have been waging a campaign against the Palestinians in recent years — a move reflecting Arab disappointment with Palestinians’ “ungratefulness” and “arrogance.”

The message the Egyptians are sending to the Palestinians is: We are fed up with you and your failure to get your act together and behave like adults. We are also fed up with you because after all these years of supporting you and fighting for your cause, in the end you are spitting in our face and offending our president.

Now it seems that it is the Saudis’ turn to “tell it like it is” to the Palestinians. Like their Egyptian colleagues, many Saudi writers, bloggers, activists and journalists have taken to social media to denounce the Palestinians in an unprecedented manner. Some Saudis, for instance, are describing the Palestinians as terrorists and accusing them of selling their land to Israelis. These denunciations are coming not only from Saudis, but from a growing number of Arabs in other Arab and Muslim countries, particularly in the Gulf.

Like the Egyptians, the Saudis seem enraged by the recurring Palestinian attacks on the royal family in Saudi Arabia, especially Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In the past two years, Palestinians have burned Saudi flags and photographs of bin Salman during demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Why? The crown prince is seen by Palestinians as being “too close” to Israel and the US administration.

Like the Egyptians, the Saudis feel betrayed by the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia for years has given the Palestinians billions of dollars in aid, but this has not stopped the Palestinians from bad-mouthing Saudi leaders at every turn. The Saudis are now saying that they, too, are fed up. Their outrage reached its peak last June, when Palestinians assaulted a Saudi blogger visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the Old City of Jerusalem. The Palestinians spat in the face of the blogger, Mohammed Saud, and accused him of promoting “normalization” with Israel by visiting the country.

Since that incident at the holy site, many Saudis and citizens of Gulf states have been waging daily attacks on the Palestinians, mostly on social media. Saudi blogger Mohammed al-Qahtani wrote: “To all those in Israel who are listening to our voice: We call for transferring the custodianship over Al-Aqsa Mosque from Jordan to the State of Israel so that the despicable assault on the Saudi citizen, Mohammed Saud, will not recur.

“This is an extraordinary statement from a Saudi writer, and would have been totally unthinkable just a few years ago. A Saudi national is saying that he prefers to see an Islamic holy site under Israeli custodianship (rather than Jordanian custodianship) because only then will Muslims feel safe to visit their mosque.

Other Saudis seem extremely unhappy with the Palestinians’ relations with Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the two terror groups controlling the Gaza Strip, receive financial and military aid from Iran and political backing from Turkey. The Saudis and other Gulf states see Iran, not Israel, as the major threat to their stability. Because of that, these states have come closer to Israel in recent years. Israel and they have a common enemy: Iran.

Remarkably, a Saudi writer, Turki al-Hamad, did what even many Western leaders refuse to do: he dared to condemn Hamas and other Gaza-based groups for firing rockets at Israel. Al-Hamad, denounced the Palestinians for allowing themselves to serve as puppets in the hands of Turkey and Iran. Commenting on a recent barrage of rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, he said: “Iran and Turkey are facing a crisis [an apparent reference to economic and political crises in Iran and Turkey] and the Palestinians are paying the price.” In other words, the Palestinians have chosen to align themselves with two countries, Iran and Turkey, that support the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

Another Saudi writer, Mohammed al-Shaikh, repeated the old-new charge in the Arab world that wherever the Palestinians go, they cause trouble. “Palestinians bring disaster to anyone who hosts them. Jordan hosted them, and there was Black September; Lebanon hosted them, and there was a civil war there; Kuwait hosted them, and they turned into Saddam Hussein’s soldiers. Now they are using their podiums to curse us.”

In another comment on Twitter, al-Shaikh called for banning Palestinians from performing the Islamic hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. His comment came after a video surfaced showing Palestinians, during the recent hajj, carrying Palestinian flags and chanting, “With blood, with soul, we redeem you, Al-Aqsa Mosque!” The Saudis have strict rules banning political activities during the hajj. Al-Shaikh apparently viewed the Palestinians as using the pilgrimage to Mecca to stage a demonstration, stir up trouble during the hajj and embarrass the Saudi authorities.

“The dogs of Hamas,” al-Shaikh said after viewing the video, “should be banned from performing the hajj next year because of their obscene behavior.”

Fahd al-Shammari, a Saudi journalist, attacked Palestinians by calling them “beggars without honor.” He went as far as saying that a mosque in Uganda is more blessed than Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is a Jewish holy site.

“The Palestinians can only blame themselves for damaging their relations with the Arab states. Biting the hand that feeds you has always been a policy for which the Palestinians have paid a heavy price.

Burning photos of Arab leaders and heads of state on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has proven to be a big mistake. You simply cannot burn pictures of the Saudi crown prince one day and rush to Riyadh to seek money the next. You cannot shout slogans against the Egyptian president one day and go to Cairo to seek political backing the next.

Many people in the Arab countries are now saying that it is high time for the Palestinians to start looking after their own interests and thinking of a better future for their children. They no longer see the Palestinian issue as the main problem in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arabs seem to be saying to the Palestinians: “We want to march forward; you can continue to march backward for as long as you wish.”

What they see is Palestinian stagnation, mainly thanks to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, who are too busy poisoning their peoples’ minds and ripping each other to shreds to have time for anything positive. The Palestinians may just wake up one day to discover that their Arab brothers can truly no longer be duped.

Ahmad al-Jaralah, a leading Kuwaiti newspaper editor, was even more blunt, saying: “The Palestinian cause is no longer an Arab concern. We fund the Palestinians, and they respond by cursing us and behaving badly. The Arabs and Muslims no longer applaud the Palestinians. We should not be ashamed to establish relations with Israel.”

COMMENTARY: Israel remains the pariah among the nations of the world and may well continue to be so into the distant future – so be it when 57 Muslim countries stand united against her although some of these can be reasonably expected to advance joint agendas with Israel within the next few years – let’s face facts, folks, Britain started much of this animosity when it stood for the Arabs after denying the intent of the Balfour Declaration and that of San Remo in refusing to permit the masses of Jews into Palestine before, during, and after WWII and directly influencing other countries not to cooperate in accepting Jewish refugees – perfidious Britain! let’s not forget that many European countries willingly participated in expelling their Jews and/or turning them over to the Nazis

Israel. The Dreyfus of our time.

Despite lip service offered by senior French officials, Jew hatred still runs rampant in France as it did during the Dreyfus Affair. The similarity is striking.
Barry Shaw,  10/09/19

The Venice Film Festival awarded their Grand Jury Prize for best movie to Roman Polanski’s ‘An Officer and a Spy.’

The film is about the trial and wrongful conviction of a Jewish officer in the French military in 1894.

The Dreyfus case symbolized the rise of French anti-Semitism. The Jewish officer, Alfred Dreyfus, was wrongly accused and sentenced to life imprisonment on distant Devil’s Island on charges of being a traitor spying for Germany. 

He was innocent. The real traitor was Major Walson-Esterhazy.

But, when Emile Zola wrote the famous “J’Accuse!” denouncing the anti-Semitism of the French military court that made a Jew the scapegoat, the French officer class rallied round each other, put Esterhazy on trial, acquitting him of all charges having deported their Jew.

To add sin upon sin, they brought Dreyfus back for a second trial and again found him guilty.

Convinced of his innocence, Alfred’s older brother, Mattieu, spent his time and money organizing a campaign to prove his brother’s innocence. 

Polanski’s movie centers on the figure of Colonel Picquart who found a discrepancy on the handwriting on key documents between that of Dreyfus and the hand of Esterhazy.

Despite obstructions put in their path by the French military they discovered evidence that implicated other people, including Esterhazy. 

It took until 1906 before Dreyfus received a presidential pardon.

By that time Theodor Herzl, inspired by the trial that he had attended as a journalist, had embarked on the Zionist cause, convinced that Jews would never be entirely safe until they had their own homeland. 

But still, until today, the Dreyfus stigma hovers over France as we have seen with regular outbreaks of violent and deadly anti-Semitism against French Jews. Many have found refuge in the Jewish State of Israel.

However, the French Defense Secretary, Lawrence Farley, recently announced his intention to posthumously promote Alfred Dreyfus to the rank of general. Farley said that this belated honor was also made in memory of the French Jews who were deported to Nazi concentration camps by the French police during World War Two.

There are still echoes of the past in France with the French military objecting to the proposal of having a statue of Dreyfus placed in the forecourt of the French General Court. It was placed instead inside the Jewish Museum.

Despite lip service offered by senior French officials, Jew hatred still runs rampant in France and the main threat is solidly contained in the Muslim migrant community.

This the French have not addressed with any conviction. Until they do, French Jews will continue to enjoy the protection of Israel.

It should be beholden on the French to have Polanski’s movie screened on their own soil at the Cannes Film Festival.

In a sense, Israel is the Dreyfus of today. The Jewish state is constantly accused of criminal charges that Israel did not commit.

The accusers cover up for the crimes of others, those they support and welcome into their societies. They shower these criminals with money, honors, invitations to join their austere organizations. They do not question their evil intent. Their Esterhazy must be protected lest their finger pointing at the collective Jew be considered as something that dare not speak its name.

And so it is the Middle East Jew, that imposter, that must continue to be condemned while the Palestinian Esterhazy is allowed to literally get away with murder and treachery against the whole notion of justice and peace.

COMMENTARY: no people lie on the scale of the so0called ‘Palestinians’ who only came into being in 1964 – throughout history, there has never been a Palestinian (Arab) king, government, money, literature, or documentation to validate their claims, spurious as they are – also, Great Britain should bear the brunt of Jewish disgust for its refusal to comply with the various treaties on the subject, as well as its indirect support of Nazi activities against Jews by refusing to permit sanctuary for Jews in Palestine and for forcing other nations of the world to keep in line with British dictates in keeping sanctuary for Jews in other lands – thus, Britain aided and abetted the Nazi Holocaust for its own ends (oil and Arab friendship) as did the Roosevelt Administration

Refuting Lie that ‘Palestine’ has been Arab, Muslim from Time Immemorial

The Jewish nature of Palestine – historically, nationally, culturally and religiously – is documented by a multitude of archaeological findings, mostly in the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which are the cradle of Judaism, the Jewish people and the Jewish State. 
September 5 2019 By Amb. (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”

The Palestinian leadership is rehashing the notion that Palestine has been Arab/Muslim from time immemorial. But, is such a claim consistent with historic documentation?

According to Brown University Prof. David Jacobson, “the Greek Palaistine and the Latin [Rome] Palaestina… appear to refer not to the Land of the Philistines [Pleshet in Hebrew], but to the Land of Israel…. The Philistines [Plishtim in Hebrew] arrived on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean from Greece or Cyprus in approximately the 13th century BCE…. The Israelites’ traditional foes, the Philistines lived in a small area along the Mediterranean coast south of what is today Tel Aviv, an area that embraced the five towns of Gaza [hometown of Delilah], Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath [hometown of Goliath] and Ekron….

“As early as the Histories of Herodotus [the Greek founding father of Western historians] written in the second half of the 5th century BCE, the term Palaistine is used to describe not just the [Philistines’] geographical area, but the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt – in other words, the Land of Israel [including the Judean Hills, referred to by some as the ‘West Bank’]…. Like Herodotus, Aristotle [along with his teacher, Plato, the founding fathers of Western philosophers] gives the strong impression that when he uses the term Palestine, he is referring to the Land of Israel…. In the 2nd century BCE, a Greek writer and historian Polemo of Ilium made a similar link between the people of Israel and Palestine….

“The early 1st century Roman poet, Ovid, writes of ‘the seventh day feast [the Sabbath] that the Syrians of Palestine [the Hebrews] observe….’ Another Latin poet, Statius, and the writer Dio Chrysostom use ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinian’ in the same sense….
“Likewise the early 1st century CE Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, occasionally, uses the name Palestine when referring to the Land of Israel….

“’Palestine’ is the Greek equivalent of ‘Israel.’”  The Greek word ‘Palaistine’ is remarkably similar to the Greek ‘Palaistes’, meaning ‘wrestler’…. The name ‘Israel’ arose from the incident in which Jacob [the Patriarch] wrestled with an angel (Genesis 32-25-27).  Jacob received the name Israel because he wrestled successfully (sarita’ in Hebrew) with the Lord (El in Hebrew)….

“The striking similarity between the Greek word for wrestler (palaistes) and the name Palaistine – which share seven letters in a row, including a diphthong – is strong evidence of a connection between them…. The central event of a wrestling contest by the ancestor of this Semitic people against a divine adversary is likely to have made a deep impression on the Greeks [who admired wrestling, which took place in structures called ‘palaestra’]….”

Judea Syria-Palaestina

The Roman Emperor, Hadrian, officially renamed Judea Syria-Palaestina after his Roman armies suppressed the [Jewish] Bar-Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE. This is commonly viewed as a move intended to sever the connection of the Jews to their historic homeland.  However, that Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus used the name Palestine for the Land of Israel in their Greek works, suggests that this interpretation of history is incorrect.

Hadrian’s choice of Syria-Palaestina may be more correctly seen as a rationalization of the name of the new province, being far larger than geographical Judea.  Indeed, Syria-Palaestina had an ancient pedigree that was intimately linked with the area of Greater Israel…. The term Palaistine denoted both the Land of the Philistines [who were a minority in the area named Palestine] and the much larger entity, the Land of Israel….”

In addition to Prof. Jacobson’s essay, the Jewish/Israeli roots of the name Palestine were further highlighted when the Anglo-Palestine Bank was established on February 27, 1902 as a subsidiary of the Jewish Colonial Trust, evolving into Bank Leumi, a leading Israeli bank.

The November 2, 1917 British Foreign Minister Balfour Declaration reaffirmed, officially, the national Jewish nature of Palestine: “His Majesty’s government views with favour the establishment, in Palestine, of a national home for the Jewish people…. Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious [not national] rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….”

The Balfour Declaration commitment to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine was an integral part of the April 19-25, 1920 San Remo Conference, which determined the borders of the land captured by the allies during WWI, while laying the foundation for the establishment of 22 Arab countries and one Jewish State.  Britain’s Foreign Minister, George Curzon, defined the San Remo Conference as “the Magna Carta of the Jewish People.”

The July 1922 Mandate for Palestine, granted to Britain by the League of Nations, recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” and called upon Great Britain to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine.  In September 1922, Britain violated the Mandate for Palestine, transferring ¾ of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Furthermore, the Jewish nature of Palestine – historically, nationally, culturally and religiously – is documented by a multitude of archaeological findings, mostly in the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which are the cradle of Judaism, the Jewish people and the Jewish State.  Thus, it refutes the assertion that Palestine has been Arab/Muslim from time immemorial.

COMMENTARY: it is quite clear that Israel remains the parish of the world’s nations yet it is the Christians who are paying the price in terms of human treasure killed all over the world – it is the Church’s dialogue with Muslim leadership that is appeasing the murder of hundreds of thousands of Christians and their forced expulsion from countries long their homes for centuries and longer – the Pope, his Church, international media, and international and national government do not care and do nothing to stop the slaughter

Analysis: Christians massacred, media look the other way

 September 8, 2019

“The persecution of Christians throughout the world is one of the great evils of our time,” Fr. Benedict Kiely, the founder of, recently wrote.

By Giulio Meotti, Gatestone Institute

“In the Amazon rainforest, which is of vital importance for the planet, a deep crisis has been triggered by prolonged human intervention, in which a ‘culture of waste’ (LS 16) and an extractivist mentality prevail,” the Vatican stated.

“The Amazon is a region with rich biodiversity; it is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious; it is a mirror of all humanity which, in defense of life, requires structural and personal changes by all human beings, by nations, and by the Church.”

That is why a Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region has been scheduled to meet in Rome from October 6 to 27. In an interview with Italian paper La Stampa, Pope Francis said that one of the biggest challenges to the Amazon region is the “threat to the life of the populations and territory which derives from the economic and political interests of the dominant sectors of society.”

The program for the Amazon’s synod in Rome talks about “life threatened,” “inculturation and interculturality,” “extractivist destruction” and “indigenous peoples,” among other matters.

There is, however, another group of “indigenous people” whose life has been “threatened” and who live under an existential physical “destruction.” They are the persecuted Christians, and the Vatican should dedicate the next synod to them.

“They asked him to deny Christ and when he refused they cut off his right hand; then he refused [again], they cut to the elbow. In which he refused, before they shot him in the forehead, the neck, and chest,” a Nigerian Christian, Enoch Yeohanna, recently recounted about his father’s murder in 2014.

The trial of Nigerian Christians has been defined “a global nightmare.” But it is happening in many countries.

“The persecution of Christians throughout the world is one of the great evils of our time”, Fr. Benedict Kiely, the founder of, dedicated to relieving the persecution of Christians, recently wrote.

“The mainstream media is remarkably silent about attacks on Christians. In the same week as the awful attack on the mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand – a heinous and unconscionable crime – more than two hundred Christians were killed in Nigeria. 

“There was hardly any mention of the latter in the news. There were no marches for martyred Christians, no tolling of church bells ordered by governments, no ‘Je suis Charlie’ T-shirts… no public outrage at all.”

Boko Haram terrorists recently cut off the ears of Christian women after snatching them from their homes during a night-time raid on a mainly Christian town in northern Cameroon

The organization Barnabas Fund explained that “the Islamist extremists broke into homes, grabbed the women and dragged them to the outskirts of Gagalari town in the district of Yagoua where they sliced off one ear from each victim.”

A few days later, also in Cameroon, a Bible translator, Angus Fung, was butchered to death and his wife’s arm cut off. Then, a Catholic priest, David Tanko, was killed in Nigeria and his car and body set ablaze.

Last month, another Nigerian priest, Paul Offu, was murdered. Last year, two Catholic priests and 13 worshippers were among the victims in a single attack in Nigeria.

Four Christians in Burkina Faso were recently murdered for wearing crosses. “The Islamists arrived and forced everybody to lie face down on the ground,” recounted Bishop Laurent Birfuoré Dabiré of the Diocese of Dori.

“Then they searched them. Four people were wearing crucifixes. So they killed them because they were Christians. After murdering them, the Islamists warned all the other villagers that if they did not convert to Islam they, too, would be killed.”

Hundreds of Christians, including 433 children, are “facing attacks or fleeing from rampaging Islamist extremists in Mali,” where in June, 100 men, women and children were slaughtered in Sobame Da, a mainly Christian village.

David Curry, the president of Open Doors, an American non-governmental organization (NGO) that tracks the persecution of Christians, has defined Christian women as “the most persecuted group in the world.”

Their oppression and mutilation is astonishing. In Nigeria, Boko Haram is still holding a kidnapped girl, Leah Sharibu. She could have been freed along with her schoolmates, but Leah refused to renounce her Christian faith.

Christian women are also kidnapped and enslaved in Pakistan. “Every year at least a thousand girls are kidnapped, raped, and forced to convert to Islam, even forced to marry their tormentors,” said Tabassum Yousaf, a Catholic lawyer linked to the Italian NGO, St. Egidio.

This is a recurring pattern also in Egypt, where Christian women are facing an “epidemic of kidnapping, rape, beatings and torture.”

The most famous of these persecuted Christian women, Asia Bibi, unjustly spent nearly a decade in Pakistani prison for “blasphemy” – much of that time on death row – before she was freed. In May, she was flown to Canada, where she was reunited with her family. According to Bibi:

“When my daughters visited me in jail, I never cried in front of them, but when they went after meeting me in jail, I used to cry alone filled with pain and grief. I used to think about them all the time, how they are living.”

NASA’s satellites observed the Amazon fires, prompting world leaders to pledge to protect the rainforest. But the burning, chopping and murder of Christians is not tracked by satellites and their suffering is not seen on our televisions and newspapers.

Actually, it seems in the West as if the persecution of Christians does not even exist.

The Vatican, Pope Francis, other clerics and the media have a choice: to shed a light on these persecuted Christians or be accused of willful blindness.égé+May+Bring+Netanyahu%27s+Downfall%3B+Labor%27s+Secret+Deal+with+Arab+Party&utm_campaign=20190909_m153915068_Uranium+Found+at+Secret+Iran+Warehouse+Revealed+by+Netanyahu%3B+Former+Protégé+May+Bring+Netanyahu%27s+Downfall%3B+Labor%27s+Secret+Deal+with+Arab+Party&utm_term=_0D_0A_09_09_09_09_09_09_09_09_09_09Read+Now_0D_0A_09_09_09_09_09_09_09_09_09

COMMENTARY: we lay the tragedy of the Benghazi attack and killing of the ambassador and selected security staff on the heads of Obama and Hillary – their lack of actions and lies were diametrically opposed to our nation’s national securityABYSMAL FAILURE!!!

Obama’s Benghazi in Baghdad

How Obama’s Iraq treason created ISIS and led to the attack on our embassy In Baghdad.

Jan 3, 2020 Daniel Greenfield

When Shiite members of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) attacked the American embassy in Baghdad, in a deliberate recreation of the attack on our embassy in Tehran that had ushered in a new age of Shiite terror, the media was quick to label it ‘Trump’s Benghazi’.

The parallels are certainly there.

In both Benghazi and Baghdad, Islamist terror militias who we thought were our allies turned on the United States. In both cases, there was nothing surprising or unexpected about this inevitable development to anyone except foreign policy experts and the media.

And, in both Benghazi and Baghdad, the Obama administration’s policy of cultivating Islamic terrorists had come home to roost.

The Islamists who attacked the embassy were not Trump’s allies, but Obama’s allies.

When Hadi al-Amiri, the head of the Badr Brigade, the former military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, came to the White House, it was in 2011, not 2017.

The close IRGC ally was welcomed by Barack Obama, and played a role in the embassy attack. The IRGC, Iran’s global terror hub, had been listed as a terror group by President Trump, a move resisted by Barack Obama dating back to his time in the Senate.

Once in the White House, Obama’s policies so empowered and enabled the IRGC that in one of the most infamous incidents in American history, members of the Islamic terror group captured and humiliated American sailors. There is little doubt that the IRGC was the hidden hand behind the embassy attack in Baghdad through its PMF proxies.

The rise of ISIS and the attack on our embassy in Baghdad had their roots in Obama’s backing for Iraq’s Shiite dominated government in Baghdad. The Bush administration had tried to unite Sunni and Shiite Muslims into a political system that would sideline Al Qaeda on the Sunni side and Iran on the Shiite side. Iraqi civil society was probably always doomed, but Obama’s Iraq policy was to turn the country over to the terrorists.

Obama wanted to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. His plan for a quick pullout was to allow Iran a free hand in Baghdad. Iraq’s central government dominated by Shiite Islamists loyal to Iran allowed Islamic militias backed and trained by Iran to execute gays and impose Islamic law in the streets. The Sunni tribal leaders who had made the ‘awakening’ against Al Qaeda possible were ignored when they came to D.C. seeking support against Iran.

While the media went on touting Obama’s incredible successes in Iraq, the country split into two terror camps. While the Popular Mobilization Forces rolled up Shiite areas, Al Qaeda in Iraq reinvented itself as ISIS.

Unlike President Trump, Obama chose not to hit ISIS hard. Instead, after Iraq’s military collapsed, his administration’s anti-ISIS strategy relied heavily on supporting the Shiite PMF militias which included embedded Iranian forces.

Obama had helped birth the Islamic State by backing Iran’s takeover of Iraq. Forced to fight ISIS, he doubled down on the same strategy. And that completed the takeover.

The marginalization of the Kurds, whose attempts at creating an independent state were crushed by the Shiite regime in Baghdad, and the Sunnis, who had been caught between Iran and ISIS, ended military opposition to the Iranian takeover of Iraq.

But political protests against the Iranian puppet regime broke out, leading to violent clashes between protesters and PMF thugs, PMF attacks on Americans, American retaliation against PMFs, and the attack on the United States embassy by the PMFs.

Iran’s takeover of Iraq, like its involvement in Yemen’s civil war, in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, had been funded by the wages of Obama’s nuclear sellout. The billions that the Obama administration had directly and indirectly handed to the terrorists of Tehran were used to fund soft and hard influence across the region.

The Iran deal didn’t just mean that the terror regime was able to continue building up its nuclear program, but that it could increase its financial commitments to Hamas, help build up Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the PMFs in Iraq.

Iran had four things to offer its Shiite (and occasional Sunni fellow travelers ranging from Hamas to Al Qaeda) Islamist allies. These were weapons, training, a global network, and money. Of these money was the most generic, but also the most important.

Islamic terrorism is only partly built on the suicidal fanatics willing to die for Allah. It’s mostly built on amateur and professional killers who want to get paid.

Choke off the money and recruitment drops

Under Obama, billions in foreign currency were illegally flown into Iran on unmarked cargo planes, but Trump cut off the cash.

The cash crunch not only weakened Iran’s regime, where fresh protests arose, but its terror networks, including in Iraq, began  facing their own cash shortages. And so Iran’s rulers, their IRGC hidden hand, and their Islamist PMF proxies decided to send America and the protesters a message.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration had sanctioned the South Wealth Resources Company (SWRC), allegedly a key conduit for the IRGC’s ability to smuggle weapons and money in and through Iraq.

The sanctioning of the IRGC itself had met with anger from the Badr Brigade and Hadi al-Amiri. The conflict escalated with Kataeb Hezbollah, a PMF, attacking Americans. The death of an American contractor in a Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack raised the stakes. President Trump struck back with airstrikes against Kataeb Hezbollah. And Kataeb Hezbollah attacked the embassy.

Kataeb Hezbollah is another project of the IRGC and is led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was part of the attack on the embassy. Muhandis is the Deputy Commander of PMF who is linked to the 1983 truck bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait which, had it been better planned, could have destroyed the facility.

After the airstrikes, Al-Muhandis warned,  that “the response to the Americans will be harsh.”

But who helped build up this terrorist infrastructure? The Obama administration did. Beyond its illegal foreign cash shipments to Iran and the sanctions relief, the PMFs benefited from US foreign aid directed through Iraq’s Interior Ministry.

Even as Iraq’s Interior Ministry was headed by a Badr leader trained by Iranian forces who had been arrested for smuggling explosives used to attack American soldiers, our foreign aid kept flowing through an Iraqi ministry run by terrorists.

The Obama administration was funding terrorists to fight terrorism. It was the same disastrous scenario that had led to the massacre in Benghazi.

The only difference was that the blowback took longer to arrive in Baghdad than it did in Benghazi.

Obama’s foreign policy operatives and the media have blamed the embassy attack on Trump’s pressure on Iran, rather than on Obama’s appeasement of Iran.

This is a variation of the same cynical Obama administration strategy which manufactured a fake intelligence community consensus blaming Benghazi on a protest over a Mohammed YouTube video, instead of a coordinated transnational wave of Islamist attacks coordinated well ahead of time to coincide with September 11.

The Obama administration may be history, but the damage it did still revebrates through the region as the Islamist forces it unleashed continue to tear apart nations and to threaten American lives.