THE END OF PALESTINE


palestine-flag-1939

Daniel Greenfield gives out a dose of reality pertaining to a Two-State Solution between the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic terrorism of Arabs that made up a non-existent Palestinian nation.

 

JRH 2/18/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

*****************

THE END OF PALESTINE

 

By Daniel Greenfield

February 16, 2017

FrontPageMag

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

hamas-terrorists

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

 

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

 

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

 

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

 

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

 

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

 

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

 

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create “Palestine”.

 

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

 

The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.

 

The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.

 

The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the  best weapon of Islamic terrorists.

 

But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.

 

A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.

 

These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.

 

But they will be less committed to it.

 

45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That’s a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.

 

The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.

 

More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.

 

But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.

 

Nationalist governments will find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.

 

Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.

 

But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.

 

Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.

 

Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for an answer.

 

This won’t mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.

 

For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.

 

The real change will be on the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.

 

The “Palestinian Authority”, a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.

 

Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.

 

Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.

 

It won’t happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.

 

Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.

 

Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.

 

The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its place.

 

The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.

 

The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.

 

“Palestine” is dying. Israel didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.

_____________

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

READ MORE

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as READ THE REST

 

Understanding The Communist Role In Driving The Current Chaos In America


Dee Fatouros provides an intro to some G. Edward Griffin info on Communism in America pointing out the similarities of the present to the Marxist agenda of the past. Look at today’s street chaos and the obstructionism of the Dems in Congress.

 

There is an hour and fifteen-minute video seminar conducted by Griffin in 1968 at the end. I mention this because you will notice a portion of the monologue would be politically incorrect today. AND YET a very informative seminar.

 

g-edward-griffin-1968

Edward Griffin 1969

g-edward-griffin

Edward Griffin present day

 

 

 

JRH 2/12/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Understanding The Communist Role In Driving The Current Chaos In America

 

lenin-communist-america Lenin-Communist Revolution

 

Posted by Dee Fatouros

By G. Edward Griffin

February 11, 2017 10:12:00 AM

The Realistic Observer

 

A fairly brief, but most informative read. I’m sure the reader will recognize much of what is being said as occurring today, class warfare, racial strife, big government, disinformation, (fake news), “protests” etc.

Like Jihad, Communism has its stages and its soldiers. The CPUSA is quite powerful in America and many members of Congress are followers. They are but one of the more effective occupants in the toolbox of the globalist drive for world domination. Many see Globalism as rebranded Communism, and indeed, there are undeniable similarities, but that is another discussion. The end game by any other name is world domination, loss of national sovereignty, and world wide totalitarian oppression of the world citizenry.

At the end of this write up is a video (made in 1969) discussing Communism in America, and its approach to fomenting internal revolution.  It is prescient, an hour long, but can be listened to. By the way, this video was made when Blacks were politically correctly referred to as Negros. Do not be offended.

At 21 minutes into it, he discusses African American Manning Johnson’s awakening as to the true motives of the using Black Americans as cannon fodder for the beginning revolution which resulted in his leaving the Communist Party.

Johnson wrote an insightful book, “Color Communism And Common Sense”, in 1935 in which he exposed the truth of the Communist purported “concern” for the American Negro and its attempted manipulation of them into becoming the spearhead of the  revolution in America. He also discussed the created racial divide and its intended purpose. This book is as pertinent today as was in 1935.

 

“Color Communism And Common Sense”.


Contents 

Preface by ARCHIBALD B. ROOSEVELT
I In the Web
II Subverting Negro Churches 
III Red Plot to Use Negroes 
IV Bane of Red Integration 
V Destroying the Opposition 
VI The Real “Uncle Toms” 
VII Creating Hate 
VIII Modern Day Carpet Baggers 
IX Race Pride Is Passé 
X Wisdom Needed
 

Appendices

 

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE PLANNED U.S. CIVIL WAR
by G. Edward Griffin

 

This week’s news is dominated, once again, with reports of violent demonstrations against the Trump administration. We have seen violent demonstrations before, but something new has been added that is profoundly significant. It is the rhetoric of civil war and revolution. 

The organizations spouting civil-war rhetoric are following a playbook taken from the writings of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Communist Party. It is a rhetoric that demonizes all enemies as ‘capitalist exploiters’ (in America, where there still is a latent affinity to capitalism, the word ‘Fascism’ is preferred.) and calls for an overthrow of the government. Followers are not supposed to think about what would replace it but, for those who are curious, the answer is a ‘socialist’ government responsive, not to big business, but to the people. 


You may think that, boisterous as these demonstrators are, and although they can draw a few thousand youngsters to their events, they are but a tiny fraction of the population and could never pose a serious threat to any government. But how wrong you would be. 


Major political changes always are achieved by minorities. All revolutions are the work of less than three percent of the population, and the American Revolution was no exception. It’s not how many people there are, but how well organized they are and where they are. If the three percenters are influential in a nation’s power centers (political parties, government agencies, courts, military, schools, activist groups, labor unions, etc.), then the odds are in their favor. The masses will follow the winners. 


When you look at the rag-tag bunch carrying placards and shouting obscenities, you may be comforted thinking that they have no influence in the real power centers, but be mindful that street theater is only half the picture. Classic communist strategy involves, not one, but two types of revolution. The first is by force and violence (they call it a war of national liberation), but the other is political and peaceful (what they call a proletarian revolution). 


The two are designed to work together, one from the bottom (masses in the streets) and the other from the top (agents inside government waiting for an excuse to introduce legislation that will move the nation closer to the Leninist ideal. The strategy is, not to conquer in one fell swoop, but to do so by a series of steps, each one seen by the public as a necessary compromise to end the violence. 


In 1969, I delivered a lecture on this subject, entitled More Deadly than War. That was in the day when I was hanging out at the communist book store in Los Angeles doing research on collectivism, so I was loaded with communist publications to illustrate my message. The presentation was recorded on black-and-white film, released in VHS format, and then forgotten. Someone put it on YouTube about five years ago so, when we created our Reality Zone YouTube channel last year, we copied it to that collection. 


It has been almost fifty years since I gave much thought to that lecture so, when I started to write this commentary, I decided to watch it again to see what I said. Frankly, I was blown away by how every point applies directly to what is happening today.


If you are interested in my analysis, here is the link. (video below)

 

VIDEO: More Deadly Than War – A Lecture by G. Edward Griffin [1:14:36]

 

Posted by Reality Zone

Published on Oct 8, 2016 

 

…The Blueprint for Revolution in America….

This address by G. Edward Griffin, given in 1968, is as current as today’s headlines. Mr. Griffin shows that the Leninist strategy for conquest involves two kinds of revolution: One is violent; the other is non-violent.

While most people think only of violent revolution, the non-violent phase is where most of the action has been in the United States. Leninists call it the Proletarian Revolution and it involves the gradual transition to Marxism (which is merely one form of collectivism) by use of the ballot box. Control is achieved through economic pressures rather than guns and executions.

This program shows how Leninists utilize mass-membership organizations, politicians, and the parliamentary process to bring about totalitarianism with little opposition from those who are being subjugated.

For more information, visit http://www.realityzone.com

 

___________

EDWARD GRIFFIN – Non-Real Observer Bio

 

EDWARD GRIFFINis a writer, documentary film producer, and Founder of Freedom Force International. Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand.

 

He has dealt with such diverse subjects as archaeology and ancient Earth history, the Federal Reserve System and international banking, terrorism, internal subversion, the history of taxation, U.S. foreign policy, the science and politics of cancer therapy, the Supreme Court, and the United Nations.

 

His better-known works include The Creature from Jekyll Island, World without Cancer, The Discovery of Noah’s Ark, Moles in High Places, The Open Gates of Troy, No Place to Hide, The Capitalist Conspiracy, More Deadly than War, The Grand Design, The Great Prison Break, and The Fearful Master

 

Ed is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in speech and communications. He is …  READ ENTIRETY

 

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science


global-warming-hoax-exposed

Americans are becoming aware of the Left Stream Media’s Fake News. Now Americans should examine the evidence of the Fake Science that global Leftists promote to ram the Climate Change hoax down our throat.

 

JRH 2/10/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science

 

By Julie Kelly

FEBRUARY 10, 2017

The Federalist

 

The scientific community and media outlets that claimed Trump will silence scientists are now attacking one of their own for speaking up.

 

Congress is ramping up its investigation into a key climate study, now under further scrutiny after a federal whistleblower raised more questions about it this week. The scandal some are referring to as “Climategate Two” (you can learn about the first Climategate here) is quickly escalating after Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), exposed how an ex-colleague mishandled a report on global warming right before a major international climate conference in 2015.

 

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said during a Tuesday hearing that NOAA “has deceived the American people by falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.” He will now push for all documents related to the climate study, materials he requested via subpoena in 2015 after Obama Administration officials refused to disclose them.

 

What Bates Revealed About a Famous Climate Study

 

The explosive allegations from Dr. Bates were detailed in the Daily Mail and on the scientific blogClimate, Etc. on February 5. Bates accuses Tom Karl, former director of the NOAA office responsible for climate data, of manipulating temperature readings, failing to archive data, and ignoring agency protocols to rush publishing his study that debunked the well-known pause in global warming at the beginning of this century.

 

At the time, climate activists were in a panic because the premier scientific body in charge of climate science—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—admitted the rise in global temperatures had basically stalled from 1998 to 2012. This bombshell was included in the IPCC’s 2013 report, which would serve as the main primer leading up to the United Nations’ Climate Conference in Paris two years later.

 

World leaders were poised to obligate their countries (er, taxpayers) into paying hundreds of billions to ease climate change. The inconvenient truth that plenty of evidence showed the planet was not significantly warming would be hard to climatesplain away. To give the climate leaders a big assist, Karl worked with a team of scientists to prove the pause didn’t happen, and claim global temperatures were rising just as fast as they had been at the end of the twentieth century.

 

Karl specifically cites the IPCC report in the introduction of his paper published in Science in June 2015, a few months before the Paris conference. Under the headline, “Walking back talk of the end of warming,” the authors said, “Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the IPCC. These results do not support the notion of a slowdown in the increase in global surface temperatures.”

 

The paper concludes that “the IPCCs statement is no longer valid.” In other words: settled.

 

The Climate Change Study Was Rigged

 

But Bates says the researchers “put a thumb on the scale” to reach their conclusions. He reveals other alarming details, like how the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure. Chairman Smith responded immediately to Bates’s allegations, thanking him for “exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

 

Shortly after Bates’ exposé was posted, climate skeptics and conservative outlets began reporting on it—including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times (my piece in NRO is here). And of course it wasn’t long before climate activists and their media propagandists seized on Bates, attacking his credibility and motives while insisting Karl’s report was indeed credible and backed up by other scientists.

 

True to form, the same media that helped promote Karl’s study before the Paris climate conference overlooked key parts of Bates’s account. Neither the Washington PostNew York Times, nor the Associated Press mentioned IPCC as the source for the global warming pause, the main reason for Karl’s rebuke. Nor did they mention Bates’ shocking claim that the computer used to process the data had crashed.

 

Media Rushes to Defend Karl’s Study

 

Other lowlights from that group include the following.  New York Times headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say.” Reporter Henry Fountain starts by smearing the Daily Mail reporter who wrote Bates’ exposé, excusing away the accusations and claiming the global warming pause became a “cause célèbre among climate change denialists.” Fountain then cites a few scientists who support Karl and finishes up insisting the study had no impact on the Paris accord.

 

Associated Press headline: “Major Global Warming Study Again Questioned, Again Defended.” Reporter Seth Borenstein referred to the scandal as “bickering,” a “kerfuffle,” and a mere “hubbub” about data management and storage.

 

Washington Post headline: “As the Planet Warms, Doubters Launch a New Attack on a Famous Climate Change Study.” Do you really need anything after that? Reporter Chelsea Harvey refutes every point of Bates’s account and cites “multiple” scientists who support the Karl study. (Bates said in his blogpost he first offered his story to the Washington Post last year and they declined. Shocker.)

 

The Media Weren’t The Only Study Apologists

 

The media weren’t the only Karl study apologists. Rush Holt, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which publishes Science, testified at Smith’s hearing on Tuesday. Holt brushed off the allegations—this was about 48 hours after the article posted, basically no time to check the veracity—calling it an “internal dispute” and concluding it’s “not the making of a big scandal.” Another committee member warned Holt to withhold judgement on the matter until the matter was fully investigated.

 

There’s a little (a lot?) of irony to this whole affair. The very same scientific community and liberal media outlets that have been hysterical since November 8, claiming the Trump Administration will silence scientists and have a chilling effect on science, are the very same people now attacking one of their own for speaking up. Chalk this up as one more example of liberal hypocrisy, exposed thanks to Donald Trump.

 

______________

julie-kelly

Julie Kelly is a National Review Online contributor and food policy writer from Orland Park, Illinois. She’s also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and The Hill.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.