Wednesday, July 22, 2015

  • Wednesday, July 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory

Check out their Facebook page.


Jerusalem, July 22 - Minister of Religious Services David Azulai, hearing that Evangelical Christians have been inquiring of people whether they have found Jesus, has ordered his staff to assemble a search party to assist in efforts to locate the man.

Minister Azulai has been keen to demonstrate tolerance and support of religious communities other than Orthodox Jews after an episode several weeks ago in which he dismissed Reform and Conservative Jews as not authentically Jewish. Feeling his backpedaling on that statement has been insufficient, Azulai has sought out ways to display openness and acceptance of others, and, upon hearing that Evangelicals are habitually making inquiries after Jesus, decided to pitch in to help them.

Protestant movements, as a rule, are not officially recognized communities in Israel, with the notable exception being the Anglican Church. That recognition mainly takes the form of authority over marriage, divorce, and assorted other functions affecting each respective denomination. Nevertheless, Israel welcomes Christian tourists, and does not bar members of non-recognized denominations from living or working there. Azulai's aides identified Evangelical Christians, who enjoy political influence in large stretches of the US, as a key demographic with which to develop rapport, in part to offset the growing alienation of non-Orthodox American Jews. Helping in the search efforts for Jesus, they reasoned, would cement Azulai's, and therefore his Shas Party's, reputation for ecumenicism where they had previously been known as inward and intolerant.

Ministry officials explained that the resources a government could bring to bear in the search efforts could prove effective where private efforts have failed. "This Jesus character has been sighted all over the place, but apparently many of the places with which he is most closely associated are here in Israel, so we stand a good chance of locating him," said ministry spokesman Enli Mussag. "We will of course take into account eyewitness reports that he has appeared elsewhere in the world, such as on pieces of toast in Arkansas, but the most reliable accounts place him in these parts."

Mussag said the search party would first concentrate on surveillance of the most likely sites, and would set up cameras and other sensors in the several dozen locations where Jesus is reported to frequent. With those sites covered technologically, the team would then concentrate on other locations where reports place him. "Fortunately, those places are concentrated in two principal areas: Jerusalem and the Galilee. We should be able to make a thorough search of all the sites by the end of the summer."

Ministry officials have not said what they intend to do if they find Jesus. "We're not going to say we've found him, and certainly not by ourselves," said Minister Azulai magnanimously. "Evangelicals have been asking people whether they have found Jesus for many years already, and it is only thanks to their efforts that the search can be conducted with this level of detail. No, if this operation results in someone finding Jesus, we will step back and allow our Evangelical friends to claim the achievement as their own."
From Ian:

Caroline Glick: How and why to kill the deal
Unfortunately, while eminently reasonable sounding, Ignatius’s analysis is incorrect. Kerry’s details of the deal are beside the point. The big picture is the only thing that matters. That picture has two main points.
First, the deal guarantees that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Second, it gives $150 billion to the mullahs.
The details of the deal – the number of centrifuges that keep spinning, the verification mechanisms, the dispute resolution procedures, etc. – are all debatable, and largely irrelevant, at least when compared to the two irrefutable aspects of the big picture.
According to the administration, today Iran needs a year to use the nuclear materials it is known to possess to make a nuclear bomb. Other sources claim that Iran requires several months to accomplish the task.
Since these materials will remain in Iran’s possession under the deal, if Iran abandons the agreement, it will need at most a year to build nuclear weapons.
Then there are the unknown aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. We must assume that Iran has ongoing covert nuclear operations in unknown installations through which it has acquired unknown capabilities.
These capabilities will likely reduce the time Iran requires to make bombs.
Under the deal, the US and its negotiating partners are required to protect Iran’s nuclear assets from sabotage and other forms of attack. They are required as well to teach Iran how to develop and use more advanced centrifuges. As a consequence, when the agreement expires, Iran will be able to build nuclear bombs at will.
If Iran remains a threat, the deal bars the US from taking any steps to counter it aside from all-out war.
The agreement ends the international sanctions regime against Iran. With the sanctions goes any prospect of an international coalition joining forces to take military action against Iran, if Iran does walk away from the deal. So sanctions are gone, deterrence is gone. And that leaves only war.
In other words, far from diminishing the chance of war, the deal makes it inevitable that Iran will get the bomb or there will be a full scale war, or both.
Alan Dershowitz: US gave away better options on Iran
The most compelling argument the Obama administration is offering to boost what it acknowledges is a compromise nuclear deal with Iran is this: it’s better than the alternatives. That sort of pragmatic point is appealing to members of Congress, particularly skeptical Democrats who are searching for ways to support their president and who are accustomed to voting for the lesser of evils in a real-politick world where the options are often bad, worse, even worse, and worst of all.
But the question remains: How did we get ourselves into the situation where there are no good options?
We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.
These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
Only time will tell whether this deal decreases or increases the likelihood of more war. But one thing is clear: By conveying those stark alternatives to Iranian negotiators, we weakened our bargaining position.
The consequences will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and a greater likelihood of war.
Moynihan’s message on BDS and Iran appeasement: We’ve got to stop this
Forty years ago, in July 1975, America’s new UN ambassador heard how American diplomats at the first International Women’s Conference in Mexico City tolerated Third World insults. Banging his fist on the table, Daniel Patrick Moynihan exclaimed: “We’ve got to stop this!” These are sobering times. The international threats are daunting – and leadership is wanting. Whatever you think of the Iranian agreement, the image of the great, virtuous United States of America negotiating with Iranian diplomats in exclusive European hotels while Iranian thugs yell “Death to America” on Teheran’s streets diminished all democracies. And whatever you think of Israel’s particular policies, the fact that many Progressives consider democratic Israel public enemy number one, not Iran, North Korea or other truly evil regimes, demeans liberalism.
This topsy-turvy world needs some history lessons and inspiring role models. With liberal Democrats dominating the American government and media, let’s remember muscular liberals who defended America proudly. Forty years after he became US ambassador to the UN, while building toward the fortieth anniversary of his denunciation of the infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution in November 1975, we should echo the great liberal statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, vowing: “We’ve got to stop this!” Moynihan refused to be an appeasing diplomat. Diplomats should deploy many tactics, he said, not just negotiation and compromise. Occasionally, diplomats had to defend national dignity, courageously, aggressively.
Accused of picking a fight over the Zionism-is-racism resolution, he replied, “Damned right we did!” Moynihan’s vigor stemmed directly from his liberal belief in an activist government operating intelligently, creatively and proactively, both domestically and internationally.
Moynihan mocked diplomats who believed their mission was to woo the enemy rather than defend America.

  • Wednesday, July 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
On CNN, Fareed Zakaria says that Ayatollah Khamanei doesn't want to destroy Israel by force, but by peaceful democratic means:


The problem is that while Zakaria notes that Khamenei is a canny politician, he is clueless that he is the person being conned.

Zakaria is brainwashed like most reporters into the fiction that the "occupation" is the single biggest obstacle to peace and that if only Israel would give away more land then everything would be OK. He applies this false meme into what Khamanei says, and therefore ignores what Khamanei actually says and means.

Yes, it is true that Iran does not want a direct war with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel by any other means. But, contrary to what Zakaria ways, that means includes indirect war. In 2012, he said:

We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime, we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not.

Nothing about democracy there. Iran knows that if it attacks through Hezbollah or other terror groups, Israel would find it difficult to muster world support for an attack on Iran in response. So Khamenei cultivates those willing to die for the cause while shielding Iran from reprisals.

However, Khamenei knows that the Western world is enamoured of the idea of democracy, so he also created a lie that he cares about democracy too.

In the beginning, his message was not quite as on target. In 1994 he said:
Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. If the Palestinians in Palestine—in all of Palestine—form a government, peace will prevail. If you [Israel’s supporters] are truthful [about wanting peace], and if you have not conspired against the Palestinian nation, Islamic nations, and Islam, that is the solution.
Nothing about democracy then either. But then he refined the message:
The solution is for the millions of the Palestinians to return to Palestine, the several millions that live away from home to return to Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—should hold a referendum to decide what kind of a regime they want. The vast majority are Muslims. There are also Jews and Christians that belong there, as their parents also lived there. They can decide the political system that they favor. Then, that state would decide what to do with the people that have moved there over the last forty to fifty years. Keep them there, return them to their original country, keep them in a special part, whatever decision the new Palestinian government makes should be respected. This is the solution to the crisis. So long as it is not implemented, no other solution will be effective.
Khamenei isn't saying that the people who live in the arbitrary boundaries of British Mandate Palestine should be allowed to vote, as Azkaria implies. Jews are a majority there. Khamenei is saying that all Palestinians whose ancestors lived in Palestine at any time should be given the right to vote, but the only Jews who have that right are the ones who lived there before Israel existed. Any Jews who lived in Israel for decades have no say. And then, the resulting nation has the right to expel those Jews if they decide to do so "democratically."

This isn't democracy; it is rigging the game so that suckers like Zakaria believe that Khamenei cares about democracy while he plans on ethnically cleansing millions of Jews from their homes.

Zakaria doesn't think that is worth mentioning.

And in the tweet that he mentions, Khamenei says this explicitly - but Zakaria only quoted the part that make Khamenei sound like he is peaceful:

Zakaria expesses puzzlement over the idea of "throw migrated Jews into the sea," not noticing that Khamenei is explicitly advocating a plan to ethnically cleanse practically all Jews from Israel.

Notice that Khamenei's plan also includes attacks against Israeli Jews by arming West Bank terrorists.

And the one word that Khamenei doesn't say, but Zakaria emphasizes, is "occupation."

Now, let's look at the quote that Zakaria did take from this screed, where Khamenei is saying he doesn't want a "classical war" with Israel. would handing a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah or another group to approach Tel Aviv by sea and explode it be considered "classical"?

Khamenei also puts out videos like this threatening Israel with missiles:



Zakaria's defense of Khamenei, and his idea that Israel's control of its ancestral lands is a problem that would neutralize Khamenei's threat, is fantasy. And one must wonder why he either didn't read, didn't understand or chose to not inform his audience about the entire Khamenei plan that he quoted that shows that democracy is the least of Khamenei's interests.

(h/t Richard Landes)

As we have seen, Amnesty is slavishly copying every incident mentioned in daily  Al Mezan and PCHR reports from the war last summer, including incorrect snap judgments as to whether victims were civilian, and adding that often wrong information into its database to damn Israel.

In fact, today's tweet, about an incident where they each accused Israel of shooting into a hospital, was counted twice in this database, so the same people were counted as victims more than once in Amnesty's database that they plan to use to prove Israeli "war crimes."  (Event IDs 2422 and 2345.) UPDATE: Also, they fail to mention that the hospital wasn't targeted, but a cache of anti-tank missiles that Hamas had hidden nearby - and which may have been what caused the damage.

What's wrong with a little victim inflation in a research tool, anyway?

But there is one incident that PCHR reported that Amnesty didn't mention, and it shows both PCHR's bias and Amnesty's.

At approximately 16:45 on Monday, 28 July 2014, a projectile landed near a number of Palestinian children were playing and celebrating the Eid al-Futur in the northern part of al-Shati refugee camp, west of Gaza City. As a result, 10 children and a passing old man were killed: Yousef 'Abdul Rahman Hassouna, 11; Mahmoud Hazem Shubair, 12; Ahmed Hazem Shubair, 10; Jamal Saleh 'Olayan, 8; Baraa' Akram Miqdad, 7; Mohammed Nahidh Miqdad, 13; Mohammed Mahmoud Abu Shaqfa, 7; Mohammed 'Emad Baroud, 10; Ahmed Jaberr Wishah, 10; Mansour Rami Hajjaj, 14; and Subhi 'Awadh al-Hilu, 63. A PCHR field worker arrived at the scene 20 minutes following this incidents, while ambulances were completing the evacuation of the wounded persons and the bodies of victims. She reported that the projectile landed on the street near a grocery shop as a number of children were playing in the area. She further reported that the high number of casualties and the extensive destruction in the area are not different from the outcomes of Israeli attacks over the past days.
Of course, this was an Islamic Jihad rocket that killed those kids.

As the Davis Report admitted:

The commission received information from NGO’s who conducted field research and a UN source who collected information indicating that the explosion had been caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket. One of them inspected the site after the attack and concluded that the impact of the explosion on the ground could not have been caused by an Israeli missile or artillery shell; the NGO also indicated that eyewitnesses had reported seeing a rescue team go to the place just after the attack, whose members did not collect the wounded but cleared and collected the remnants of the weapons. In addition, two journalists who spoke to the commission also suggested the attacks had been caused by Palestinian rockets misfiring. One of them said that Hamas members had gone to the site immediately after the events and cleared away the debris. The other said he had been prevented by local authorities from going to the site of the attack.

The commission found there was credible information pointing to the conclusion that a misfired Palestinian rocket was the source of this explosion. Given the gravity of the case, in which 11 children and 2 adults were killed in a place crowded with civilians, and the allegations that local authorities may have attempted to hide evidence of the cause of the incident, all relevant Palestinian authorities should conduct a thorough investigation of the case to determine the origin and circumstances of the attack.

So, naturally, this incident where 11 children were killed in Gaza during the war must be excluded from the Gaza Platform - because their deaths don't further Amnesty's goal of vilifying Israel.

(h/t Bob Knot)


  • Wednesday, July 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Ma'an:
Salafi groups in the Gaza Strip threatened on Monday to fire rockets at Israel in response to what they called “Hamas crimes and conspiracies” against Salafis living in the strip.

The threat came in reaction to the arrest of militants suspected of targeting members of the armed wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad Sunday with a series of bombings on Sunday.

The Salafi groups argued in a statement that Hamas' security services were utilizing the recent attacks "to justify its arrest campaign” as an excuse for disproportionate targeting of Salafis.

"The Salafis have decided to respond to these crimes and these blows dealt by Hamas by pointing rockets towards the occupation (Israel) and carrying out reprisals," the statement read.
The weird thing is, from the Salafi viewpoint, this makes perfect sense.

If they shoot rockets into Israel and Israel ignores them, they become heroes for shooting at the Zionists.

If Israel retaliates against Hamas by saying they are responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza, the Salafis win because their enemies are hurt.

If Israel targets Salafis, then they become martyrs.

Attacking Jews is a career move in the Middle East that cannot fail.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

From Ian:

PMW: PA education: A recipe for hate and terror (a comprehensive report)
Palestinian Media Watch has prepared a comprehensive report on Palestinian Authority education. It includes chapters on names of schools (dozens named after terrorists), school activities (e.g., visiting homes of terrorists), statements and activities of educators (e.g., presenting murderers as role models and promising a world without Israel), schoolbooks, informal education (children reciting poems on kids' TV programs: e.g., Jews are monkeys and pigs; Tel Aviv is "occupied Palestine"), and a chapter with examples of honoring Hitler.
The report was prepared for and will be presented today at the 7th World Congress of Education International (EI), the international organization of teachers' unions, which is meeting this week in Ottawa, Canada. PMW was invited by the Association of Secondary School Teachers in Israel, after the association was notified that the congress, which brings together nearly 2,000 teachers and educators from all over the world, is planning to vote on several anti-Israel resolutions that include calls for boycott of Israel and support for BDS.
PMW has prepared this report documenting that hate, Antisemitism and honoring of murderers are fundamental elements of PA education, and showing the PA's central role in undermining peace. When then Sen. Hillary Clinton joined PMW to release PMW's report on PA schoolbooks in 2007, she said the PA education "profoundly poisons the minds of these children" and called some aspects of PA messaging "child abuse." This report documents that nothing has changed since then. The PA continues to poison the minds of its children. (Click to view the report in PDF)
French prosecutor closes case on suspected Arafat poisoning
A French prosecutor on Tuesday said there was no need to pursue an inquiry regarding the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose widow alleges he was poisoned.
“The prosecution gave the opinion that the case should be dismissed,” the prosecutor’s office told AFP.
Arafat died in Percy military hospital near Paris at the age of 75 in November 2004 after developing stomach pains while at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
His widow Suha filed a case in 2012 at a court in Nanterre, north of Paris, saying he was murdered.
The same year, Arafat’s tomb in Ramallah was opened for a few hours allowing three teams of French, Swiss and Russian investigators to collect approximately 60 samples.
Who are the ICC judges who ruled against Israel on the ‘Mavi Marmara’?
Three International Criminal Court judges who were not household names probably anywhere but in their home countries gained fame or infamy last week.
Judges Joyce Aluoch of Kenya and Cuno Tarfusser of Italy voted 2-1 against Peter Kovacs of Hungary to order ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to seriously consider reopening her file on the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla, a file which she had closed saying that the case was not grave enough for the ICC.
The focus of the file was the country of the island of Comoros, functioning according to many as a front for Turkish IHH activists, asking the Bensouda to open a full criminal investigation against IDF personnel and potentially security cabinet decision-makers.
The charges: alleged war crimes related to the IDF’s killing of 10 passengers (it has maintained in self-defense) aboard the Mavi Marmara ship which was part of a flotilla which tried to break the Gaza blockade.
Who are these three judges and what might have brought them to bring the ICC closer and deeper into the Israeli-Arab conflict than at any prior point?

  • Tuesday, July 21, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
If you are in the New York City area, this is an important event to attend tomorrow.


Some impressive speakers are lined up:


It will also be livestreamed for those not in the New York area.

There will also be one in San Diego on Sunday.

  • Tuesday, July 21, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon


This past weekend has seen demonstrations by members of an organisation called “Reclaim Australia” that alleges and opposes what it perceives to be the creeping islamification of Australia.  One demo turned ugly when hundreds of “anti-racist” leftist apologists for Islam bent on mayhem descended on the event and were involved in violent scuffles with police.  Truth to tell, many of the anti-Islam demonstrators seem equally thuggish, many others at the very least boorish, with placards bearing such slogans as “no bacon, no boobs, no beer”.  Yet many others clearly are not the demons that the Left and its media outlets would portray them to be, and it goes without saying that the Left must not succeed in making mass Muslim immigration to this country, as well as elsewhere in the West, a taboo item for political discourse or public debate.  The presence and purpose of such Islamic supremacist groups as Hizb ut-Tahrir, which I’ve mentioned more than once on my own blog, is testimony to that.

Early one morning some years ago, I was at Antwerp station, waiting for a train to Brussels.  With me was my son, a sturdy young guy of six feet three.  While he went off to join a queue for coffee, I minded our luggage, sitting at a table on the edge of what was an otherwise deserted café area.  Clearly, most of the people in the coffee queue were short-distance commuters, grabbing a takeaway to carry onto a local train or to the station exit and their respective workplaces. 

Suddenly, I was no longer a solitary figure among the tables and chairs.  Four young guys, unmistakably Muslim, had surrounded me.  Two took the table to my left, and two took the table to my right.  They sat in silence, punctuated briefly by low murmuring, no food or drink or luggage in sight.  I’d noticed them roaming round the station earlier, made conspicuous by the full Islamic dress of the guy who seemed to be their leader, and their constant aimless pacing.  Why, with all the other tables in the refreshment area empty, had they clustered next to mine? And why had they split into duos, flanking me?  I felt intimidated.  My son was somewhere among the large queuing crowd at the coffee counter, too far away from the table area for my comfort.  I couldn’t easily move away, owing to all our bags.  Alert for trouble, I held my hand luggage closer, and hoped they wouldn’t make off with the rest.  Besides, concerned though I was, my pride didn’t want me to be seen to flee.
Then, luckily, my son appeared with the coffee.  And what did the foursome do? It will always strike me as significant that as he soon as he sat down opposite they all got up and strolled away.  Presumably they had had something nefarious in mind, though of course I shall never know what.  

Not long before, in – of all places – a side street in a small town in rural Wales, a slightly-built Hindu university student of my acquaintance was gratuitously attacked by two Muslim strangers.  Recognising him as Hindu from some kind of badge he was wearing, they proceeded to give him a beating, which luckily came to a shorter end than they anticipated since he’s an expert in one of the martial arts.  In his home town, Leicester, he laments, there are streets down which it is folly for non-Muslims to venture.

While, needless to say, it is unconscionable to tar all Muslims in Europe with the same brush, it’s an incontrovertible fact that mass Muslim immigration, bringing with it superstitions, prejudices, hatreds and practices at odds with enlightened Western values, has inflicted deleterious social consequences on the host nations.

A report issued five years ago (I haven’t looked at later-published figures, but I’ll wager they’re very depressing) warned that about 800 of the 8000 Muslim inmates in high-security prisons in England and Wales were being turned into radical Islamists while inside. These people weren’t necessarily doing time for terror-related offences, but were being successfully indoctrinated by extremists known for or suspected of being sympathetic to terror. Worryingly, less than 20 per cent of people convicted of terrorism offences in Britain had been given life or indeterminate sentences. During the five to ten years subsequent to 2010, the 800 potential mass murderers are being released into British society. It’s feared that they’re being groomed to concentrate not on blowing aircraft out of the skies but on detonating explosives on trains, hotels, and sporting fixtures – any target where crowds are gathered.
This grim news came on top of earlier warnings that in some British prisons Islamic gangs, using threats of violence that include a persuasive gesture that indicates a cut throat, are proselytising among non-Muslim prisoners. As well, some Afro-Caribbean prisoners have been won over with the message that there will be little hope for them on the outside once they’ve served their sentences since white society is inexorably racist and discriminatory against them, whereas Islam offers acceptance and equality.

At that time 2000 radicalised individuals were already being monitored by MI5, and the new crop of 800 was set to make the task of police and security forces all the harder, particularly in view of government plans to reduce funding for counter-terrorism. Former Home Secretary John Reid, who was one of the most realistic and shrewd members of the atrocious Blair government, warned that if those cuts exceeded 10 per cent danger would follow. It was also being predicted that sooner or later a “lone wolf” terrorist will inevitably succeed in producing carnage, since resources are so stretched.
Quite apart from the terror issue, the cohesiveness of British society is being threatened with erosion by radical hotheads. In 2007, Sir Winston Churchill’s grandson, a Conservative MP also called Winston Churchill, who died early in 2010, wrote as follows to the London Daily Telegraph:

“Britain sends some of the finest and most courageous of their generation to risk their lives and spill their blood chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But who, meanwhile, is guarding our homeland? A recent police report makes clear that, back here in Britain the Deobandi – the very same Islamist sect responsible for spawning the Taliban in Afghanistan – has succeeded in taking over more than 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques. In addition, it controls 17 of Britain's 26 Islamic seminaries and produces 80 per cent of Britain's home-trained Islamic clerics. It's a funny old world, as Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked. Except that this is no laughing matter. Not for 70 years has there been a more clear or present danger to our internal security, to our free society and to our democracy, than that posed by this vipers' nest in our midst. The Deobandi, an ultra-conservative sect, outlaws music, art, television and football, and also demands the entire concealment of women. According to the Lancashire Council of Mosques, the Deobandi has now taken control of 59 out of 75 mosques in the old Lancashire mill towns of Oldham, Preston, Bury, Blackburn and Burnley. While not all Deobandis are extremist, leading preachers of this sect aim to radicalise the Islamic youth of Britain, and to mobilise them against our society and the freedoms we hold so dear. When will the Government wake up to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years? Why are Gordon Brown and David Cameron, indeed our entire political class, so deafeningly silent on this, the most pressing matter confronting Britain today? Who will help the moderate majority of Muslims maintain control of their mosques? Who will safeguard the homeland?”

It seems that Churchill embarrassed his party by raising such matters, lest it be accused of “Islamophobia”, and the issue was not given the attention it deserved. 

Crime figures in many European countries speak for themselves, even in Sweden, which notoriously conceals the true extent of Muslim-perpetrated offences by duplicitous reporting devices.  And as we realise all too well such immigration has fuelled – indeed, reinvigorated if not reinvented – antisemitism, as the Jews of Sweden, France, and elsewhere know only too well.  The repugnant scenes of Al Quds Day in London this year, footage of which I posted on my own blog, in which hordes of Muslims – men at the front of the vast procession, women at (where else?) the back – screaming such intimidatory slogans as “Judaism yes! Zionism no!” and proclaiming through a loudspeaker that the anti-Israel nutjobs from Neturei Karta (who, incidentally, do not flinch at  participating in such pro-Iran initiatives on Shabbat, of all days) are “true Jews” suggests an atmosphere in which the lynching of Jewish passers-by perceived as Zionists by frenzied hotheads is not inconceivable.  Appallingly, there were many babies and toddlers in the procession, their tiny eardrums assailed by the loud and raucous screeching, in which a smattering of brainwashed older boys participated with zeal.  I nearly described these boys as “the antisemites of tomorrow” but that title surely belongs to the numerous little kids being wheeled by their mothers; the bigger ones seem to have been well-indoctrinated already.

This is a shocking, serious state of affairs.  Have a look at the footage if you are inclined to disagree with me.  To my mind, the time would seem to have come for the British authorities to ban these vile annual anti-Jewish fests – one of the many odious results of the 1979 Iranian Revolution – as an affront to societal harmony and a threat to public order.

And though the late unlamented Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was too often portrayed as a buffoon, we in the West – all of us, Jew and non-Jew alike – a should bear in mind and consider the ramifications of these words of his on Al Jazeera in 2006: "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Gaddafi noted that if Turkey joins the European Union – British prime minister David Cameron fervently hopes it does – there will be a further 50 million Muslims in the heart of Europe’s counsels. "Europe is in a predicament, and so is America," Gaddafi continued. "They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time .... All people must be Muslims."

Little wonder that many Cassandras warn that Europe is being deliberately colonised by Muslims intent on imposing Islam on everyone – and that in view of the Muslims’ relative youth and fertility patterns theirs is the triumphant demographic weapon, the weapon that Gaddafi spoke of in 2006.   We must bear in mind that in traditional Muslim societies polygamy tends to be restricted to affluent men, who can afford to have up to four wives – but in dear old deluded Britain welfare payments are available not only to the first but to surplus wives and their children, so long as the polygamous Islamic marriages have taken place overseas, in countries where polygamy is lawful.


It’s ironic that back in the 1960s and 1970s the “First World” was being told by latter-day Malthusians and the vanguard of the environmental movement to restrict their families to just two children per couple – “Zero Population Growth” – but that nowadays we’re being told by some “experts” that large-scale immigration is necessary for economic growth. It might not be politically correct to say so, but mass migration from the Third World, let alone the Islamic portion of it, does present a very real social and cultural problem for developed countries. 
From Ian:

Amb. Prosor: "When the villain is laughing, you know something is wrong"
Following the Security Council meeting on Non-proliferation (Iran), Israel`s ambassador to the UN, Prosor held a press briefing:
Ladies and Gentleman,
Today, you have awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world.
I hate to be the one who spoils the party, but someone has to say that the emperor has no clothes. Today is a very sad day. Not only for the state of Israel, but for the entire world, even if at this moment, the international community refuses to see the tragedy.
It is a sad day because the international community is taking steps to lift the sanctions on Iran without first waiting to see if Iran complies with even a single obligation in the agreement.
It is a sad day because this agreement gives Iran a seat on the commission which will decide whether or not it has violated the agreement. This is like allowing a criminal to sit on the jury which will decide his own fate.
You haven’t changed Iran’s destructive ideology, which goes beyond proliferating deadly weapons and funding terror.
Amb. Prosor's Press Statement on Iran


There Is No Iran Deal: West, Iran Differ Sharply over Terms
The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 on Monday to pass Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iran nuclear deal–“the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Council, plus Germany, the European Union and Iran.” However, there are already sharp disagreements between Iran and the rest of the world as to what that deal actually means.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry claims, for example, that the deal does not actually cover its ballistic missile program, as advertised. Restrictions on ballistic missiles are to be ended after eight years, according to the JCPOA. However, Iran says, according to the Times of Israel, that the UN Security Council resolution and the deal do not apply to its own missiles because they “have not been conceived to carry nuclear weapons.”
Similarly, there is confusion as to whether the deal prevents Iran from accelerating its nuclear program after the deal expires, or whether that is just an option. Such (voluntary) restrictions would have to be approved under the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the Iranian parliament is supposed to ratify, but there is no deadline for it to do so; it could wait until deal expires, in theory.
Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?'”
Mudar Zahran: Will Israel save the world a third time?
As a Jordanian-Palestinian politician, I and many other Arab politicians and decision-makers have come to learn that Israel is vital for our own existence. In fact, Israel has saved us, and the world, from two global disasters.
The first time Israel saved us all was at the beginning of the 1980s, when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was one of the West's strongest Arab allies. He was against the Islamic Republic of Iran and was viewed as a necessary asset for Western governments and as a regional balance against Iran's might. The West was in love with Saddam to the point of allowing him a nuclear program, which he obtained with France's help.
Just as Iran does today, Saddam said his nuclear program was for "peaceful and civilian use." Saddam's nuclear reactor was built with the approval of the United States. Israel, however, did not buy Saddam's claims, and in 1981 sent its pilots on a mission -- which they were unlikely to return from -- to destroy Saddam's nuclear reactor. As reports confirmed, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was enraged by Israel's actions while President Ronald Reagan's first reaction to the news was, "Boys will be boys." Arab and Western governments condemned Israel's strike and some even spoke of action at the U.N. Unsurprisingly, Western media outlets grilled Israel.
Just nine years later, Saddam occupied Kuwait, threatened the entire Gulf region, and openly spoke of controlling "the Arabs' oil wealth," which could have brought the West to its knees. The U.S. and many Western states had to risk blood and money to get Saddam out of Kuwait, but they did not fear a nuclear attack from him or that he might use dirty bombs. Therefore Operation Desert Storm went smoothly. Had Saddam still had his nuclear program, the entire situation and its outcome could have been different. In fact, Saddam might have stayed in power until today were it not for Israel taking the risk of destroying his nuclear program.
In short, Israel saved the world from a power freak who came close to getting nuclear weapons.

  • Tuesday, July 21, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
According to the Action Group of Palestinians from Syria, so far 2,910 Palestinians have been killed in that conflict.

Hundreds died under torture in Syrian prisons. Scores haven't been heard from since they were abducted. Dozens of medical personnel have been killed.

You wouldn't know any of this from reading the mainstream media or "human rights" organizations' social media feeds.

But if Israel approves a single step of a multi-step process that may one day result in a Jew being allowed to build a house in his historic homeland, the media and NGOs get very interested.

Which goes to show that the world doesn't care about Palestinians. It cares about finding reasons to single out Jews.

Palestinians are not treated as victims - but as ammunition.


  • Tuesday, July 21, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
We've seen this pattern many times before - internal Palestinian issues stop fuel from going to the Gaza power plant, and people will find a way to blame Israel.

Gaza's sole power plant will stop running Monday evening asit is unable to cover taxes imposed by the national unity government, Gaza's energy authority said.
The unity government waved the tax in a show of good will in the four months to the end of Ramadan, but the Gazan energy authority said in a statement Monday that since the tax has been reinstated it can no longer afford to keep the plant running.

The energy authority added that it had only been able to cover the cost of maintaining the plant during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan and the Eid holiday by borrowing from local companies and taking loans from banks.

The tax imposed on fuel before it is sold to Gaza amounts to a 50 percent price hike on the price of fuel per liter, or 3.5 shekels ($0.91), the statement said.
But they still have to lie:
Although the power plant inside Gaza has a potential output of 120 MW, it has been unable to produce that much due to Israeli restrictions on fuel imports as part of an eight-year blockade.
Wrong. There are no Israeli restrictions on fuel. None at all.

Amnesty told me the same lie a couple of years ago:

When I asked [Amnesty researcher Deborah Hyams] specifically about why Amnesty was calling for Israel to lift restrictions on fuel when there are in fact no restrictions, she said that there are restrictions on some types of fuel. In fact, she told me, it was because Israel refused to provide industrial fuel for Gaza's power plant that Hamas was forced to smuggle regular diesel from Egypt. She did admit that price was a factor.

I explained to her my understanding that Hamas actually retooled the power plant to handle regular diesel smuggled from Egypt because they didn't want to pay Israel and they felt that with the Muslim Brotherhood in power they would have an unlimited supply of subsidized, cheap fuel from Egypt.

Hyams insisted that Israel has restrictions, today, on industrial diesel to Gaza. That is not my understanding and I told her that I've read COGAT reports since at 2009 where they said that they can pump heavy duty diesel for the power plant and Hamas has refused.

Immediately afterwards I called up Guy Inbar from the IDF COGAT unit and asked him if there were any restrictions on any specific type of fuel to Gaza - industrial, petroleum, cooking gas, anything. His answer was an unequivocal "no." The reason Gaza has no fuel is the PA/Hamas disagreements, not because of Israel.

I'm waiting for the staged photos of Gaza kids with candles with captions that blame Israel.
Amnesty International's Gaza Platform allows one to see, quite easily, that its database is worthless.

Here is the sum total of the number of people Amnesty says it has documented as being killed in their "research" and how many of them are civilian.


Amnesty is claiming that they have documentation from PCHR and Al Mezan of 1,991 deaths, of whom 1,667 are civilian - and only 324 militants.

Yet Amnesty knows this is a lie. They themselves tweet the (still wrong) UN figures as authoritative:



That's 205 people that this "research tool" claims as civilian who are actually militants, even according to the UN! 

That is one large discrepancy, made even larger by the fact that Amnesty was only able to document 1991 deaths (although some of them are duplicates). In the end, the UN says that 65% of the casualties were civilian (out of 2251 total) while Amnesty's tool bizarrely claims 84%!

Even more incredible is that Hamas has admitted that 400 of their members were killed. Islamic Jihad admitted 135 more.  That's 200 more militants admitted killed than Amnesty's application confidently reports. (Both those numbers are way too low.)  The Gaza Platform is more biased in its casualty figures than terror groups are.

The reality, as documented by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, is that (based on their latest figures)  about 51% of those killed were civilian, a spectacularly low number for urban fighting where the terrorists hide in  and fight from civilian houses and mosques and schools.

This is yet more proof, as if more were needed, that the Gaza Platform is based on flawed, biased data.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive