Ruthie Blum: Right from Wrong: Electing to defend Israel from Iran
Since replacing Olmert in 2009, then, Netanyahu has had to greenlight airstrikes on these convoys. Oh, and on Iranian targets in Syria, as well.Douglas Murray: Why this year’s al-Quds Day march could be different
While on the subject of the Islamic Republic, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Monday tweeted a characteristic attack on the Trump administration, accusing it of “economic terrorism [that] is hurting the Iranian people and causing tension in the region.”
He began his assault with a lie, of course, claiming that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “long ago said we’re not seeking nuclear weapons – by issuing a fatwa [religious Islamic decree] banning them.”
The story of this alleged fatwa was created by Iranian honchos for consumption by Western patsies as far back as 2005, and was reiterated prior to every summit held with and about Tehran. Former US president Barack Obama not only lapped it up, but spread it repeatedly to justify his appeasement of and capitulation to the mullah-led regime.
In 2015, mere months before reaching the deal with the devil, Obama declared: “Since Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, this framework gives Iran the opportunity to verify that its program is, in fact, peaceful.”
Yet, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) had written six exhaustive reports – one of which was released days before Obama made that statement – proving that such a fatwa never existed.
Luckily, Trump is not Obama. He believes what he sees, not the lying eyes of wishful thinkers and evildoers. And what he is witnessing are Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf threatening American interests.
Trump might not have needed a push from Netanyahu to grasp the gravity of a nuclear Iran, especially one with long-range ballistic missiles at the ready. But he appreciates the existence of a steadfast ally on the front lines, fending off Iran’s proxies on a daily basis.
Netanyahu’s adversaries at home and abroad are gleefully trying to portray Israel’s current political crisis as a failure of his leadership – or an attempt on his part to escape possible indictment – rather than what it is: an electoral system sorely in need of reform.
Indeed, Netanyahu’s critics refuse to acknowledge the real reason that he has been prime minister for the past decade. No other party chair on the scene at the moment inspires confidence that, under his or her watch, the country would be secure enough externally to withstand its internal strife.
This weekend might provide an interesting spectacle. On Sunday the annual al-Quds Day march sets off in London from outside the Home Office. Of course al-Quds Day is the day inaugurated by the late bigot Ayatollah Khomeini, and his initiative allows peace-loving Khomeinists to stroll along the streets of London (among other capital cities) calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.Remember the Farhud, 78 years on
Historically the event has always attracted controversy, not just because it is organised by the farcically misnamed ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’ but because the speakers and organisers routinely make their intentions perfectly clear. Two years ago one of the speakers on the Al-Quds Day platform declared that ‘Zionists’ were responsible for the then very recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower. This is par for the course. The only people who would be attracted to the Al-Quds Day march are Muslim and non-Muslim anti-Semites. Those who it has attracted in the past have included the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
But the reason why this year is interesting is because of a rare positive development in the UK. In February I wrote about the British government’s announcement that it was intending to proscribe the terrorist group Hezbollah in its entirety. Up until then the British government had attempted to insist that there was a distinction between the political and military wings of Hezbollah, which is like pretending that there is a difference between the military and social action wings of ISIS.
On the 78th anniversary of the Farhud on 1 and 2 June 1941, we recall the most traumatic event in the collective memory of Iraqi Jewry. It took place on the Jewish holiday of Shavuoth: 180 people were brutally murdered, thousands were wounded and raped, and shops and synagogues were plundered and destroyed. Here is an account prepared by the Museum of the Jewish People (Bet Hatfutsot) and reproduced in Haaretz:
The attack on the city's flourishing, peaceful Jewish community is usually referred to as the trigger for the Iraqi aliyah to Israel. But seldom is the question asked: How could such a pogrom have occurred in the first place in Iraq – a place where Jews had lived in peace for centuries, a country that did not seem to suffer anti-Semitic norms?
An examination of the historical background reveals the Farhud's causes: the opposing interests of the Iraqi government and the British Empire, Nazi Germany's influence, internal Arab movements, and a struggle between groups of Iraqi intellectuals. The unfortunate Jews were caught in the middle.
Historian Nissim Kazzaz has researched Iraqi Jewry and managed to put the Farhud in its historical context. Until the 1920s there was no significant evidence of anti-Semitism in Iraq. Old restrictions from the Ottoman era were abolished during the 20th century and the establishment of the British Mandate after World War I soon changed the Jews situation for the better.
Yet World War I had other outcomes as well. The Iraqi elite were introduced to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged text that was partly translated from the original Russian into Arabic. New movements were rising in that period in Iraq, some of which argued that as long as the Jews did not hold national inspirations, they were part of the Iraqi nation without obstacles.



















