RIOTS AGAIN IN JERUSALEM


These fake Palestinians with their Jew-Hatred are quite deserving of deportation from the Land of Israel. And I do mean deported from ALL of the Land of Israel that includes Judea and Samaria.

 

I am getting fed-up with Muslims exercising bogus claims to the Temple Mount to prevent Jewish (and Christian for that matter) pilgrims access. Ocensor has the irritating news and cross posted.

 

JRH 8/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

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

RIOTS AGAIN IN JERUSALEM

 

Mosque on Temple Mount

 

Posted by Timothy Benton 

August 11, 2019

Ocensor

 

In what seems to be a never-ending process, we see Jerusalem once more embroiled with riots and violence. The reason? Two faiths, Judaism and Islam, have holy days, the Muslims demand unfettered access to the Temple Mount, the Jews, in turn, want access to their most sacred sites.

 

In what is too familiar, the women are the ones at the gates screaming and trying to block any Jews from entering, the Muslim males then react violently when the Israeli police remove the women to give access. Riots started, many times aided by the Jordanian Waqf, the authorities Jordan places on the mount due to a treaty with Israel.

 

Ariel Sharon (now deceased) Visit to Temple Mount

 

This has gone on since Sharon visited the Temple Mount, the Muslims rioted due to a Jew dared to visit the site, and thus the conflict has continued. To try to ease the problems Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan, giving Jordan control of the mount, but Israel remains in control of the whole area.

 

The problem has grown worse since Jordan this year decided in response to Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel to hand over 40% of the seats of the Counsel Of Administrators to the “Palestinians,” they, in turn, are now even advocating a more violent resistance.

 

The new members include the Palestinian Authority’s illegal governor in Jerusalem Adnan al-Husayni; P.A. official Khatem Abdel Kader; controversial Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Hussein; President of Al-Quds University in eastern Jerusalem Imad Abu Kishek; and Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, a religious leader with ties to the ruling Turkish regime.

 

Thus we see far more radical stances due to ties of these people on the council. Adnan Al-Husayni is appointed as governor of all of Jerusalem, but in reality, this is just a political ploy by the Palestinian Authority, he has ZERO political power in the city, it is run and controlled by Israel. This family has a long history of anti-Jewish activities, including Mohammed Amin al-Husseini who later worked with the Fascist, wrote of his intent to bring death camps, or concentration camps to Israel if the Germans won the war.

 

Muhammad Ahmad Hussein – current Mufti of Jerusalem

 

Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, who is the current Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, is also on the board, this is also a great cause of concern. He has stated that claim of the Temple existed is a fiction, that the mosque has existed on the site for 3,000 years. The problem with this is that the mosque was built in 705 CE, then destroyed and rebuilt in 746 CE, this would put this question as a lie since this was only 1,300 years ago.

 

Hussein was appointed Mufti by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in 2006 and has a history of making incendiary remarks. Three months after his appointment, Hussein endorsed Palestinian suicide bombings against Israelis, calling the attacks “legitimate resistance.” This past summer, he condemned Israel’s decision to outlaw the Murabitin, an Islamic group whose members often harass non-Muslim visitors at the Temple Mount, saying that Jews will now be allowed to defile al-Aqsa Mosque. His language was echoed by Abbas last month.

 

In 2015, Hussein laid a wreath at the grave of Haj Amin al-Husseini, a former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and an indicted war criminal and Nazi collaborator who incited deadly riots against Jews in pre-state Israel by spreading false rumors that they threatened Al-Aqsa Mosque.

 

Haj Amin al-Husseini (then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) meets with Adolph Hitler

 

Imad Abu Kishek is another member, he is a professor of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, is an administrator, and very active in the Palestinian activities, but to say he has ties to any terrorism, I can not say, I have found no ties to radicals.

 

There is also Sheikh Ekrima Sabr, who has ties to the Turkish Ruling regime, which brings us back to why Turkey is trying so desperately to gain back control of what they used to have, would also explain their threats towards Israel.

 

This is the same person that used to be the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, called for Britain and America to be destroyed, in a sermon said:

 

“Allah, destroy the US, its helpers, and its agents. Allah, destroy Britain, its helpers, and its agents. Allah, prepare those who will unite the Muslims and march in the steps of Saladin.”

 

Sheikh Ekrima Sabr (former Jerusalem Grand Mufti)

 

He has advocated for children to be suicide bombers, supported their use while Mufti, said the Holocaust was a lie, a Jewish invention, said:

 

“The Muslim loves death and [strives for] martyrdom”. He has also previously said that: “The younger the martyr – the greater and the more I respect him.”

 

He also said:

 

“The Muslim loves death and [strives for] martyrdom.”

 

In addition to calling for the destruction of America and Britain, he has said Jews are “the most cowardly creatures Allah has ever created”, adding that he is “filled with rage toward the Jews”.

 

This is what Jordan has put on their board, the farce that they are trying to maintain peace with Israel shows just the opposite. By adding these people to the board, then wondering why the sudden uptick in violence, we see the reaction of Jordan to Trump doing what the law stipulates, the moving of radicals to run things on the Temple Mount.

 

Former Saudi General Visits Israel. (General is one with Striped Tie).

 

Jordan has recreated the board, expect things to turn far more violent, may even be pushed to the point that Israel will not find the treaty with Jordan able to be kept due to their interference on the Temple Mount and their own internal affairs.

 

Adding to this fuel, The Palestinian Authority, who are complaining that they don’t have enough funds, are now promising they are going to increase their “Pay to Slay” payments to families of terrorist, and terrorist sitting in Israeli prisons.

 

There could be a light at the end of the tunnel, the Saudi’s, who are opening relations with Israel, Israel even sold them Iron Dome to aid in protecting them from Houthi rebels firing rockets at Saudi Arabia, now they are talking about the possibility of the Saudi’s taking over control of the Mount. They have said there should be nothing to prevent the Jews from praying or worshiping on the mount. This would be a change from the Jordanians who have actively encouraged violence against the Jews.

______________________

Ocensor.com

 

Killer Pseudo-Palestinian Terrorists as Human Rights Activists?


John R. Houk

© August 8, 2019

 

As a Christian Zionist I’ve never believed the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians should get 0ne inch of the Biblically Promised Land God gave to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; then God enabled the first Jewish possession under the leadership of Moses and Joshua.

 

I realize that is a minority opinion in this world’s geopolitics. And I believe my opinion is even vilified by Left-Wing Jews globally and in Israel, more concerned about their politics than their God-given heritage.

 

Saying that, there are MUSLIMS in Congress that are supporters of Arab-Islamic terrorists calling themselves Palestinians that these Muslim members of the U.S. Congress call the indiscriminate murder (oft times butchery) of Jewish men, women and children human rights activism. I’m telling you this terrorist focus against Jews by Arabs who call themselves Palestinians make themselves undeserving of political power ANYWHERE let alone in their own fake nation that might be called Palestine.

 

Clare Lopez illustrates the picture of these Arab-Islamic-Palestinian killers centering on Congress member Rashida Tlaib.

 

JRH 8/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Rashida Tlaib Glorifies Palestinian Terror While HAMAS, Iran & the PA Pay For It

 

Rashida Tlaib at her campaign headquarters in Detroit Michigan 8/7/18

 

By Clare M. Lopez

August 8, 2019

Center for Security Policy (CSP)

 

No, Representative Tlaib, when two Palestinian savages stabbed to death five members of the Jewish Fogel family in their home in 2011, including an 11-year-old, a 3-year-old, and a little baby only 3 months old, they were not “human rights activists.” That is called terrorism, even though the murderous Palestinian Authority (PA) will pay to the families of the two killers a monthly stipend of $3,200 each as long as they remain jailed in an Israeli prison.

 

What about the Palestinian savage who fatally stabbed Ari Fuld, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, father of four and grandson of a Holocaust survivor, one day in 2018 when he was out shopping? That savage, another Palestinian from a village near Hebron, was shot by the heroic Fuld before he himself collapsed, but his family will be receiving around $400 a month from the ever-generous Palestinian Authority while he spends the rest of his life in jail. Then there was Omar al-Abed, who stabbed a Jewish father and two of his children to death and seriously injured his wife in a July 2017 attack.  The PA will be paying his family $3,120/month as a reward for that depravity.

 

These payments are nothing less than incitement to murder and terror. Thankfully, the Taylor-Force Act passed the U.S. Congress in March 2018 and will halt U.S. funding to the PA until it stops paying Palestinian killers and their families for heinous acts of pure evil. But given the depth of the hatred spewed by Palestinian terrorists and their official HAMAS and PA enablers, who vow to continue the payments anyway, that may not be enough.

 

Unfortunately, it is the Iranian-regime-funded HAMAS, PA, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)—and those who insist upon funding them through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other programs—that poison the minds of young Palestinians from the earliest ages, teaching them that Islam holds  it  glorious to murder Jews because they are Jews, an act they are told will earn them Allah’s approval and eternal reward (on top of those payments to their families). That is called Islamic supremacy, Rep. Tlaib.

 

When a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated his shrapnel-laden explosives inside a Sbarro Pizza shop in 2001, killing mothers, fathers, and children, maybe that wasn’t terrorism either? Or when a HAMAS suicide bomber massacred 30 innocent people and injured 140 in the 2002 Passover attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya, he was just trying to promote human rights? No, the Palestinian savages responsible for those atrocities thought they were going to be shaheeds, rewarded with the 72 virgins in paradise that Islam promises to such monsters. They might even get to have a park, school, or street named after them, to inspire future generations to more such depravity.

 

Until the Palestinians, whether it’s HAMAS and PIJ in Gaza or the PA in Ramallah, stop running children’s summer camps and TV programming that teach young Palestinians genocidal Jew-hatred and provide the paramilitary training to act out that hatred, there will never be peace in the Middle East. But, although her parents were immigrants from Jerusalem and the West Bank, Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) herself was born and raised in the United States. She graduated from Detroit, Michigan public schools. We Americans obviously have some work to do right here at home: what kind of education at home, in madrassa, mosque, or public school turned out a graduate imbued with such hatred as Tlaib’s? Unless we root out the inculcation of such Jew-hatred and glorification of Islamic terror right here in the USA, there will be more like her, possibly even in the U.S. Congress.

 

Murder of innocent human beings just because they are Jews is not human rights activism, Representative Tlaib. It is a despicable crime against humanity called terrorism.

______________________

Killer Pseudo-Palestinian Terrorists as Human Rights Activists?

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2019

_____________________

Rashida Tlaib Glorifies Palestinian Terror While HAMAS, Iran & the PA Pay For It

 

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.  She previously was a Senior Fellow with the Center as well as with the London Center for Policy Research, member of Sen. Ted Cruz’ 2016 presidential campaign national security advisory team, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, and a career operations officer with the CIA. Read her complete bio here. Follow Lopez on Twitter @ClareMLopez

 

Copyright © 1988-2018 Center for Security Policy | All Rights Reserved 

 

SUPPORT CSP with a DONATION

 

ABOUT CSP

 

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

I’m With Wilders Pertaining to Faux-Palestinians


John R. Houk

© June 28, 2019

I have long believed that as long as Arabs reside in Israel’s Judea-Samaria hollering for Israel’s destruction and death to Jews, Islamic terrorism would plague Israel. I discovered today from Israpundit (which is blog cross posted from Arutz Sheva [INN]) that Geert Wilders of the Netherlands is publicly advocating something he broached in 2010. Namely, that is the transfer of Jew-hating Arabs calling themselves Palestinians to Jordan.

 

After all when Israel proclaimed its Independence in 1948, at least six invading attempted to destroy the restored nation of Israel of which Jordan was one. The invaders’ goal: Destroy Israel, drive Jews into the sea (i.e. genocide) and divvy up the land between the invaders. NO INDEPENDENT ARAB STATE was envisioned by the invaders. Many Arabs fled their homes in the new Israel fearing reprisals from Jews due to past mistreatment and atrocities perpetrated by Arabs. ALSO the fleeing Arabs were convinced they could escape the ravages of war and return after the invaders’ bloody victory.

 

Victory did not work out for the invaders and the only nation to gain land via invasion was Jordan with the actual help of British Army Officers securing Judea-Samaria. The Arab Legion rank and file began expelling, killing and desecrating Jews in the process. THEN annexing Judea-Samaria west of the Jordan River (area renamed West Bank) and officially renaming Transjordan into Jordan in a 1949-1950 process of events.

 

 

Of Interest:

 

Britain’s Role in Creating and Bolstering Up Jordan While Being Against Israel; By Nadene Goldfoot; Jewish History in the Land of Israel; 4/19/16

 

Judea And Samaria: The Annexation Case; By Dov Ivry; Dov Ivry Blog on The Times of Israel; 8/5/18 11:14 AM

 

1948-1967: Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem; Sponsored by CAMERA; The Six Day War

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NAKBA; By Robert Werdine; Think-Israel; 5/15/12

 

JRH 6/28/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Wilders: ‘Transfer all of the Palestinians to Jordan’

Right-wing Dutch lawmaker pushes alternative to Trump’s Mideast peace plan, calling for transferring Arabs from Judea & Samaria to Jordan.

 

By ARUTZ SHEVA

June 28, 2019

Israpundit

 

Geert Wilders

 

A right-wing Dutch parliamentarian is calling for the transfer of Palestinian Authority residents from Judea and Samaria to Jordan, offering the plan as an alternative to the US-backed ‘Deal of the Century’ Middle East peace plan.

 

Geert Wilders, chairman of the rightist Party for Freedom (PVV), said Thursday in response to this week’s US-backed economic summit in Bahrain that President Donald Trump’s Mideast peace plan was part of a futile effort to maintain the Palestinian Authority, which he called a “bottomless” well the international community has been “throwing money into in vain”.

 

Speaking with Dutch reported Ernst Lissauer Thursday, Wilders offered his own plan, first unveiled in 2010, as an alternative to the US plan.

 

“A fifty-billion dollar plan for the Palestinians was presented to the world by the US this week in oil state Bahrain,” Wilders said.

 

“For more than two years, work has been done on a Middle East peace plan that should end, among other things, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The financial part of the plan was presented to the world in Bahrain this week. A ‘Marshall plan’ that should put an end to the bottomless Palestinian well into which the UN has been depositing money in vain for sixty years.”

 

But, Wilders continued, there seems to be little support for the plan in the European Union, with the money being “coughed up mainly by rich Arab states.”

 

“In The Hague there is hardly any interest in this Trump project. My plan, the Wilders plan, is a better plan; all Palestinians back to Jordan.”

 

In 2010, Wilders proposed renaming the Kingdom of Jordan as ‘Palestine’, and turning the country into a homeland for residents of the Palestinian Authority.

 

“Jordan is Palestine. Changing its name to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland.”

 

The PVV, which is now the second largest faction in the Dutch House of Representatives, came under fire by the Jordanian government for the proposal, which Jordan described as “delusional”.

_______________________

I’m With Wilders Pertaining to Faux-Palestinians

John R. Houk

© June 28, 2019

_______________________

Wilders: ‘Transfer all of the Palestinians to Jordan’

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

SUPPORT Israpundit

 

© Arutz Sheva, All Rights Reserved

 

War Crime!: Placing a Note in the Western Wall


Alan Dershowitz

 

Alan Dershowitz is a Left-Winger. Or at least I’ve always believed so. BUT his recent support of Constitutional law that benefits President Trump rather than fellow Leftist Dems has led to place Dershowitz as more Center-Left than Left-Wing. AND NOW I just finished reading an article that fully supports Israel sovereignty over religious sites that have a Judaic history over pseudo-Palestinians who desire to usurp that Israeli sovereignty.

 

JRH 5/14/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

War Crime!: Placing a Note in the Western Wall

 

By Alan M. Dershowitz

May 14, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • I urge all visitors to join me in a conspiracy to violate the UN Security Council Resolution…Obama, himself, engineered the Resolution. He pushed it through the Security Council despite some reservations by other members, including Egypt, which believed that the Resolution itself could become a barrier to a negotiated two-state solution. After all, if Israel’s control over Judaism’s holiest site is deemed illegal, then Israel would have to negotiate its legality with the Palestinians.

 

  • These Jewish areas were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 and lawfully recaptured by Israel in a defensive war, started by Jordan when it fired mortars at civilian targets inside pre-1967 Israel…. Yet there were no United Nations Resolutions, campus protests or other organized shows of opposition by the international community. Only after Israel liberated these historically Jewish areas, did the world, and Obama, decide — in violation of international law — that they were illegally occupied.

 

  • Declaring the Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory is akin to declaring the Vatican, Mecca or other religious, holy sites to be occupied by those who pray at them. The Western Wall is lawfully part of the nation state of the Jewish people. It will remain so as long as Israel exists. If there is to be any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the world must recognize that historic, moral and legal reality.

 

Pictured: Notes placed by visitors in the cracks of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Israel. (Photo by Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

 

Last week, in Israel, I committed a flagrant violation of international law. This “war crime” consisted of placing a note asking for “peace, salaam, shalom” in the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. The reason the note requesting peace constituted “a flagrant violation of international law” and a “war crime” is that the United Nations Security Council, in a Resolution adopted in December 2016, declared that all areas captured by Israel during the 1967 War are illegally occupied territories. That includes the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and the access roads on Mount Scopus to the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital.

 

Former US President Barack Obama demanded that his permanent representative to the United Nations not veto this one-sided, wrong-headed, ahistorical, bigoted, and anti-peace Resolution. Obama changed American policy by allowing such a resolution to be enacted by the Security Council as revenge on Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, quite correctly, opposed the very bad deal Obama made with Iran enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.

 

Although Obama himself had once stood in front of the Western Wall and placed a note in it, he now apparently regards Judaism’s holiest place as territory illegally occupied by Israel. He is dead wrong, but that does not change the Security Council Resolution.

 

So now I, and doubtless many others, have not only willfully and deliberately committed a violation of international law, we are also guilty of a war crime, because building or using civilian structures on illegally occupied territory is a war crime; and Israel built, and I used, the promenade in front of the Western Wall after Israel recaptured it during a defensive war.

 

Let me be clear: I intend to commit this crime during every visit to Israel. Call it an act of civil disobedience, or call it an act which simply recognizes the absurdity and illegality of the Security Council Resolution, despite its passage and lack of veto by the United States, which abstained.

 

The United States abstention was designed to give the Obama administration political cover at home. It could claim that it did not vote for the Resolution. But it did much more than vote for the Resolution. Obama, himself, engineered the Resolution. He pushed it through the Security Council despite some reservations by other members, including Egypt, which believed that the Resolution itself could become a barrier to a negotiated two-state solution. After all, if Israel’s control over Judaism’s holiest site is deemed illegal, then Israel would have to negotiate its legality with the Palestinians. This would give the Palestinians an incomparable bargaining chip. As a former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority once rhetorically asked me, “How much would Israel be willing to give up to get back its most important religious shrine?”

 

Israel will never accept the Security Council Resolution. Nor should any decent person. I certainly do not, and will continue to violate it during every visit to Israel, by putting notes in the Western Wall, eating kosher falafel in the Jewish Quarter and driving on the access road to Hebrew University, and if I need to, Hadassah Hospital. I urge all visitors to join me in a conspiracy to violate the Security Council Resolution.

 

These Jewish areas were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 and lawfully recaptured by Israel in a defensive war, started by Jordan when it fired mortars at civilian targets inside pre-1967 Israel. During the Jordanian occupation, King Hussein engaged in war crimes by ordering the destruction of ancient synagogues, burial places and other historical sites and by “ethnically cleansing” this historically Jewish area of all Jews. Yet there were no United Nations Resolutions, campus protests or other organized shows of opposition by the international community. Only after Israel liberated these historically Jewish areas, did the world, and Obama, decide — in violation of international law — that they were illegally occupied.

 

Declaring the Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory is akin to declaring the Vatican, Mecca or other religious, holy sites to be occupied by those who pray at them. The Western Wall is lawfully part of the nation state of the Jewish people. It will remain so as long as Israel exists. If there is to be any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the world must recognize that historic, moral and legal reality.

 

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching TrumpSkyhorse Publishing, 2018. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

_______________________

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: I did not seek permission to re-post; ergo if requested, the post will be removed.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

 

6 DEM SENATORS SELL OUT JEWISH TERROR VICTIMS TO RESTORE CASH TO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS


Hamas (pseudo-Palestinian) is a designated terrorist organization. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO – Brief Summary, Soviet involvement, PLO-PA Transition & Greater Detail) is a terrorist umbrella organization that serves essentially as a confederation of Jew-hating Islamic terrorists. The Palestinian Authority (PA – DTN, Gatestone & American Thinker) is basically the PLO legitimized by idiotic Oslo Accords to set the stage to give non-existent Palestinians a Jew-Hating independent State of Palestine. (Thank God that idiocy has not materialized!)

With that brief background of a group of Arab mostly Muslim created for the sole purpose to Destroy Israel and kill Jews, Daniel Greenfield exposes six Dem Party Senators trying to pass legislation to insure the Fake-Palestinian continue to receive humanitarian aid that is actually used for Islamic terrorism.

 

JRH 4/24/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

6 DEM SENATORS SELL OUT JEWISH TERROR VICTIMS TO RESTORE CASH TO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS

Terrorists need their guns more than their victims need surgeries.

 

By Daniel Greenfield

April 24, 2019

FrontPageMag.com

 

Dianne Feinstein PLO Garb Political Cartoon

 

In 2002, Shmuel Waldman, an American from New Jersey, was shot while boarding a bus in Israel. The terrorist attack killed 2 people and left 40 injured. Among that 40 was Shmuel whose leg was blown apart, forcing him to undergo multiple surgical procedures, and leaving him suffering from PTSD.

 

The terrorist who shot him was Said Ramadan, a “police officer” working for the terrorists who run the Palestinian Authority. The attack had been planned by senior Palestinian Authority officials and the Palestinian Authority viewed Ramadan as a hero. Waldman joined other victims of terrorism in a lawsuit against the terrorist group, which is funded by American taxpayers, under the Antiterrorism Act.

 

Waldman v. PLO resulted in a record award of $655 million in damages against the Palestinian Authority terror network. But the verdict was thrown out because an American court lacked jurisdiction over the terrorist group even though the United States provides much of the cash flow that its terrorists rely on.

 

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act was introduced and approved to make it clear that accepting security assistance for its “police force” would place the Palestinian Authority under judicial jurisdiction for lawsuits such as these. The PA could stop funding terrorism or face lawsuits from its victims.

 

A ruthless battle was waged against ATCA by a variety of groups which understood that the Palestinian Authority would not stop funding and promoting terrorism under any circumstances. These groups falsely claimed that ATCA would undermine American and Israeli security. That was a blatant lie.

 

The only thing that ATCA would undermine was the flow of tax dollars to Islamic terrorists.

 

Last year, the Palestinian Authority informed the United States that the terror group would no longer accept any aid from the United States that would expose it to ATCA lawsuits. The terror group’s letter suggested that it might revisit its refusal if the law were changed. That’s just what 6 Democrat senators, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein have set out to do, using the false claim of a humanitarian disaster.

 

“President Trump’s refusal to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people is a strategic mistake,” Senator Feinstein claimed, accusing him of “denying funding for clean water, health care and schools in the West Bank and Gaza.”

 

Senator Chris Coons urged that, “It is critical that we restore lifesaving aid to the West Bank and Gaza.” Senator Jeff Merkley insisted that, “Aid to innocent civilians should not be caught up in broader geopolitical battles. We can and should restore aid to children and other vulnerable populations at the same time as we stand steadfastly by Israel’s security.”

 

But the real agenda revealed by their resolution shows that it’s not about humanitarian aid, but about restoring funding to the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

 

While Feinstein claims that Trump is preventing “clean water” and “health care” aid, her own resolution actually begins by admitting that, “the Palestinian Authority’s interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act… led the Palestinian Authority to reject all forms of United States assistance.”

 

The problem isn’t Trump. It isn’t the United States. It’s that the Palestinian Authority is a terror group.

 

The Palestinian Authority, on whose behalf Senator Feinstein is advocating, rejected the money that Dianne wants to give the terror group, because it doesn’t want to face American terror victims in court.

 

Rather than telling the truth about that, Senator Feinstein and her five accomplices start out by lying about the problem, and about what they want to accomplish, while assuming that the media will never report the truth. They are almost certainly right about that. But wrong about everything else.

 

The resolution, “Expressing the sense of Congress regarding restoring United States bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza”, specifically demands $196 million for the Economic Support Fund, $60 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and another million for anti-terrorism.

 

But the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist coalition. Some of its components, such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are even officially listed as terrorist groups by the United States. Palestinian Authority “police” deserve the name the same way that ISIS cops did. They’re armed members of a terrorist network with a history of participating in terrorist attacks. This network was set up with United States aid in the Clinton era. Senator Feinstein is vocally insisting that we continue funding terrorists.

 

If Feinstein, Coons and Merkley were really just concerned about humanitarian assistance, they would not have pushed for funds for the armed components of a terrorist network. This is not about “clean water”, it’s about dirty cash flowing to the enforcers for a terrorist group while leaving their victims out in the cold.

 

The six senators want the PA’s thugs to get paid, while their victims are left unable to sue them.

 

Feinstein is joined in this charade by Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, and Senator Jeff Merkely.

 

Senator Van Hollen claims that he wants to help “millions of children” with this resolution.

 

“There are thousands of children and families in the West Bank and Gaza who need the aid the United States has historically provided,” Cortez Masto appealed.

 

Is it thousands or millions? Since it’s not about the children, the fake numbers don’t actually matter.

 

If the senators read their own resolution, they would see that it frees terrorists from being sued for the foreign aid they receive from American taxpayers by their American victims in United States courts.

 

No wonder that Feinstein, Coons, Van Hollen, Cortez Masto and Merkely keep talking about children. Caring about children sounds a lot better than trying to help terrorists defraud terror victims.

 

A number of the Dem senators invoke Trump, attacking and blaming him, but as their own resolution concedes, it was the Palestinian Authority that turned down ATCA aid. How is that Trump’s fault?

 

Why blame President Trump when your own terrorists would rather kill Jews than take your money?

 

Senator Feinstein is broadcasting support for her resolution from a variety of “humanitarian” groups. A number of these groups, such as Churches for Middle East Peace, are involved in BDS and other anti-Israel activities. Islamic Relief has been accused of supporting Hamas. As has another NGO on the list.

 

Feinstein, Van Hollen, Merkley, Coons and Cortez Masto are touting support for their “humanitarian” effort that respects “Israeli security” from Islamic USA whose chair, Khaled Lamada, has allegedly praised Hamas, and distributed conspiracy theories which claim that, the Jews are causing Egyptian Muslims to have sex, plan to invade the Nile Valley and that the Egyptian president is a secret Jew.

 

Democrats are using support from BDS, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups to back this resolution. And they are doing so while lying and misleading about the resolution, its aims and its purpose.

 

Senator Feinstein and her allies have failed to explain what ATCA is or what “legal liabilities” the Palestinian Authority is attempting to evade. That’s because the plain truth is that the six Senate Democrats are trying to defraud terror victims like Shmuel Waldman under the guise of helping children.

 

But the “children” they’re helping are grown men who need our money for their guns.

 

Officially, the United States doesn’t buy guns or bullets for the terrorist police forces. But money is obviously fungible. The funds that the United States puts into terror groups frees them to buy weapons.

 

It is ironic that Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been known for her militant opposition to Americans owning firearms, and for holding firearms manufacturers liable for gun violence, wants to force those same Americans to pay for guns for terrorists while exempting those same terrorists from liability.

 

Palestinian “security officials” don’t just carry pistols, but Kalashnikov rifles. Those aren’t the weapons of law enforcement, but of a terrorist and guerrilla organization. They’re not meant to police, but to war.

 

Senator Feinstein hates “assault rifles” when Americans have them, not when Islamic terrorists do.

 

The resolution isn’t really about humanitarian aid. It’s about allowing terrorists to get away with murder. It’s about stealing money from their victims. And about weakening America’s negotiating position with a terrorist group by exempting it from accountability to the courts, to its victims and to our government.

__________________________

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2019, 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 The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

 READ THE REST

 

Unwitting Embrace of Leftist Utopianism due to Jew-Hatred


John R. Houk

© April 23, 2019

I find it quite disturbing and extremely sad that there exists people in America who claim patriotism yet express racist statements indicating Jew-Hatred and Anti-Israel sentiments.

 

These so-called Patriots will lump all Jews monolithically as something repugnant because people of Jewish heritage have been or (startlingly) currently are supportive of Left-Wing ideology too often to the point of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communism.

 

In case you didn’t realize it, lumping Communist-oriented Jews are representative of all Judaism is like lumping all Americans with Communism because many people of a Western Civilization heritage (yet non-Jewish) embraced atheistic Communism. Western Christians such as Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin (born as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) abandoned their faith and heritage to embrace a violent-revolution concept like Communism.

 

Sure, people of a Jewish heritage devoted themselves to Communism, for the most part these Communist devotees abandoned their faith and heritage in the same fashion as the Communists who abandoned their Christian heritage. The attributed inventor of modern Communism in Karl Marx is an example. Another example of abandoning his heritage to embrace Communism is Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung).

 

For people looking for a form of Leftist Utopianism, Communism is the antidote regardless of heritage and religion. Ultimately the Communist antidote seeks to transform society enforced by a government even if it means massive murders for society to forget their past heritage.

 

Those Americans calling themselves Patriots yet hate Jews are unwittingly aligning themselves with Leftist Utopianism which would lead to Communism. To be clear, Communism eradicates Liberty and Freedom as the Leftist ideology seeks to make people the Natural Rights endowed by Nature’s God.

 

This brings me to the Pro-Israel organization that non-Jewish Leftists; self-loathing Leftist Jews and Muslim Apologists love to hate – the Canary Mission. I have posted twice on the Canary Mission HERE and HERE. If you are a Jew-Hater that erroneously describes oneself as a Patriot, I pray the Canary Mission exposes your racism.

 

JRH 4/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

IN DEFENSE OF CANARY MISSION

The courageous group exposing the campus Israel/Jew-hating industry becomes a target.

 

Canary Mission screen capture

 

By Harry Onickel

April 22, 2019

FrontPageMag.com

 

Jews have had a long history of engaging in wars with enemies who fight by rules that Jews find abhorrent. Rather than fight by those rules, Jews have held themselves to more humane standards. While this is morally admirable, it’s not always martially effective.

 

On his way to establishing control over the Arabian Peninsula, Mohammed’s armies fought and conquered the Jewish tribes that had lived there for centuries. Jews of the Nadir tribe, living around Medina, wouldn’t fight on the Sabbath. Even during wartime, due to a biblical injunction, they refused to cut down their enemy’s fruit trees. Mohammed had no such qualms. He had his soldiers cut down the Nadir’s date palms on which they depended for food and for trade. And he did it on the Sabbath. The Nadir surrendered and were exiled.

 

Israel has been battling the terrorists of Hamas ever since abandoning Gaza in a futile attempt at peaceful coexistence. The IDF is the most moral army in the world and fights as hard at avoiding civilian casualties as they do at fighting against Hamas. Hamas works hard at creating civilian casualties, its favorites being Gazan children that their media allies can blame Israel for. And so this war drags on.

 

On university campuses throughout North America, Israel and Jewish students are vilified and harassed by BDS supporters including Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and their allies. Campus Jews think this is an ideological disagreement. Jewish students don’t understand that BDS and SJP are fighting a war, and so they continue the custom of fighting by different rules. Jewish students see BDS and SJP as organizations that they can debate in order to sway the larger student population.

 

Meanwhile, BDS proponents, in this endless war against the Jews, use every anti-Semitic/anti-Israel lie they can muster. They use theater, public demonstrations, and displays designed to demonize Israel. They crush dissent by protesting and shouting down pro-Israel speakers. They demand free speech rights, but deny them to campus Israel supporters. They feel emboldened enough to tweet messages like, “Hitler should have killed the Jews when he had the chance that dog” and “What do you call a flyin Jew?….. Smoke.”

 

Jewish students, who because they are at college to get an education, are at a terrible disadvantage facing paid BDS activists, who are on campus to demonize Israel as part of a long-term strategy to bring down the Jewish state and return Jews to their Sharia approved roles as “dhimmis.” While Jewish students have formed grass-root organizations to fight BDS, BDS groups, including SJP, are the American arms of Hamas and are well trained and well funded by Hamas.

 

The main Hamas to SJP conduit has been American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), a group founded by U of C Berkeley professor, Hatem Bazian. AMP’s board membership includes various anti-Israel activists, terror supporters, and former members of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization that was shut down in 2009 after a lengthy FBI terrorism investigation and federal trial.

 

In addition, Omar Barghouti, founder of the BDS movement, who was denied entry into the U.S. in April 2019, has extensive terrorist connections. A group he co-founded, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions National Committee (BNC) receives support from a who’s who of terrorist organizations that not only includes Hamas, but also: Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestine Liberation, Front, Palestinians Islamic Jihad, and many others.

 

Barghouti’s father, Marwan Barghouti, along with Yassir Arafat, was a founder of the PLO, which Omar Barghouti states, “was very much a part of our family . . .” The elder Barghouti also ran the terrorist Tanzim force and founded the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. One does not engage in reasoned debate with these people.

 

Recently, groups like Zionist Organization of America, StandWithUs, and the Lawfare Project, have begun steering more resources into training and supporting beleaguered Israel advocates. These adult organizations have gained experience over the years of struggle and have begun fighting back more aggressively, going so far as bringing lawsuits against some of the most unfriendly-to-Jews universities.

 

Even with this outside help, Jewish students still refuse to go all out. They still insist on holding back even as they themselves on some campuses are wary of looking too Jewish by wearing a kippah or other noticeably Jewish outerwear, lest they be harassed. Like the IDF, they insist on fighting with one (or more) hand(s) behind their backs.

 

Three years ago, a new anti-BDS group, calling themselves “Canary Mission,” entered the fray. They take their name from the recognition that Jews are the “canary in the coal mine,” the first to face irrational discrimination when societies enter into periods of increased bigotry and self-destruction. Their motto is, “If you’re racist, the world should know it.” Their members remain anonymous. They work at exposing campus anti-Semites, including students and professors, on the Left and on the Right. And they use the anti-Semites’ own words from their own social media posts to do it. They’ve created an online database full of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tweets and Facebook rants, and dedicated pages listing personal and organizational ties to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups.

 

The Middle East Studies Association, an organization that backed a University of Michigan professor in his refusal to write a recommendation for a Jewish student to study in Israel, has a page on its website dedicated to “exposing” Canary Mission. They claim that Canary Mission’s “profiles are filled with falsehoods, misrepresentations and errors,” but provide no examples. They misrepresent Canary Mission’s “political agenda” and denounce its members as being “extremists.” Without a trace of irony, they accuse Canary Mission of seeking to “silence free and open campus discussion of, and teaching about, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Canary Mission is lumped with organizations like CAMERA, Honest Reporting, StandWithUs, and other pro-Israel and media watchdog organizations that MESA falsely associates with a “rise of Islamophobia.”

 

The Electronic Intifada has posted Steven Salaita’s diatribe, “A guide to surviving Canary Mission,” from which we learn about “Zionist thuggery,” “messianic compulsions of settler-colonization,” and facilitation of “sexist, racist and homophobic abuse.” His advice is, don’t talk to Zionists. Recall that Salaita had a University of Illinois job offer rescinded after some of his vicious anti-Israel tweets came to light.

 

Mondoweiss calls Canary Mission “a settler-colonial scam, an ethnonationalist slur, and a malicious, well-funded, underground machine set to destroy the lives and careers of real people.” People exposed by Canary Mission are referred to as “Palestinian human rights advocates” who are smeared by Canary Mission, but again, no “real people” examples are offered.

 

In addition to these long-standing Israel-hating sites, there is now, “Against Canary Mission.” In addition to slamming Canary Mission, this site also houses rehabilitative counter-profiles on people previously profiled by Canary Mission. These profiles are much shorter and contain much less detail. They are much friendlier. There is also an option for “activists” to write their own profile. To be fair, I could not find that option on the Canary Mission website.

 

The legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has accused Canary Mission of using “dirty tactics.”

 

Blowback from groups like the Middle East Studies Association and these other Israel hating websites are predictable. The fact that these sites are so offended by Canary Mission and so eager to slander and discredit it, tells us that Canary Mission is effective and that the campus Israel/Jew haters and terror supporters are afraid of being revealed as the hateful bigots they are.

 

Unfortunately, Canary Mission is so effective that it is also scaring the Jewish students who have been subjected to the bullying tactics of the people Canary Mission has profiled. And the Jewish students, in their panic at possibly being labeled as “racist” or “Islamophobic,” are siding with their enemies against Canary Mission.

 

In April and again in October 2016, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, using information provided by Canary Mission, put posters up on the U of C Berkeley campus, showing Students for Justice in Palestine’s links to Hamas. In addition, names were named. The posters were denounced by campus SJP members as “hate speech.” An attorney with Palestine Legal criticized the university “for allegedly creating a hateful environment for SJP.” This is the same campus that employs Professor Hatem Bazian, who has a deservedly long Canary Mission page documenting his founding of AMP and co-creating SJP. This is in addition to Bazian’s fund raising activities for a Hamas-linked charity and his unabashed promotion of anti-Semitism.

 

Besides being Hatem Bazian’s home campus, U of C Berkeley is also infamous for hosting a course calling for the destruction of Israel. It’s the university where Rachel Beyda was almost denied a student government leadership position because she is Jewish. Even so, the president of the Jewish Student Union condemned the posters, stating, “. . . This does not allow us to have any room for conversation from the pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian side.”

 

When the posters also appeared at San Francisco State University, which is currently being sued for discriminating against Jewish students, an advisor to the General Union of Palestine Students stated, “This is very racist, it is Islamophobic.” San Francisco’s Hillel executive director condemned the “offensive messages.”

 

At UC Davis, Aggies for Israel allied themselves with student groups including the Muslim Student Association (another Muslim Brotherhood front group, many of whose leaders graduated to terrorism), to pass a resolution, part of which accuses Canary Mission, again without irony, of creating “a toxic atmosphere of fear and paranoia among fellow students, thus infringing upon students’ ability to freely express their opinions.”

 

At the University of Michigan, a pro-BDS resolution was recently passed on its eleventh try. Part of the blame was laid at the feet of Canary Mission. BDS proponents, who were savvy enough to play on Jewish students’ insistence on fair play, pulled out their victim card, expressing worry about future repercussions due to Canary Mission’s “blacklist” and “McCarthyite tactics.” In return Jewish student organizations rolled over, submitting to a secret ballot, thereby allowing anti-Israel/anti-Semitic student government officials to escape responsibility for their anti-Israel vote. The Jewish students lost because they allowed BDS to set the rules and control the battle.

 

Following the vote, two students wrote a letter, which was signed by several universities’ Hillel Governing/Executive Boards and pro-Israel organizations, rejecting Canary Mission. “We view much of the rhetoric employed to villainize these individuals as hateful and, in some case, Islamophobic and racist. In addition, Canary Mission’s wide scope wrongfully equates supporting a BDS resolution with some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric and activity. . . we expect credible Jewish and pro-Israel communal organizations to help us combat anti-Semitism . . . in a diplomatic manner that seeks to protect our community rather than shaming the other side anonymously.”

 

One would expect SJP members to condemn the coverage of their terrorist ties. When Jewish students and Jewish organizations side with SJP because they want to combat anti-Semitism in a diplomatic manner and not shame the other side’s vile ethnic hatred, it’s clear that the Jewish students do not understand the nature of the enemy or the enormity of this fight.

 

Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

 

BDS proponents know their enemy, and they know how easy it is to control Jewish students who are truly interested in fairness and decency, with cries of “racism” and “Islamophobia.” Jewish students, who have grown up in bubbles of comfort, don’t even know that they have an enemy.  The lesson from our Passover Haggadah that: “in each and every generation, they rise up against us to destroy us” hasn’t been taken seriously. Students don’t know enough Jewish history to understand that this is just the latest manifestation of an ancient war against the Jews that began in Europe with the rise of Christianity and in the Middle East with the rise of Islam. They really believe it’s all about Israel, when Israel is just the latest excuse. They don’t understand that they are pulling the wool over their own eyes and doing some of SJP’s (and Hamas’) work for them.

 

Mohammed said, “War is deceit.” Deceit, implicit in campus “apartheid walls,” die-ins, and mock checkpoints, is the strongest weapon in the Israel-haters arsenal. Their second greatest weapon is Jewish students’ naiveté.

 

We know there is a double standard when it comes to Jews and Israel. University officials are willing to overlook campus anti-Semitism if it is masked as anti-Zionism. The anti-Semites have worked hard to create a false separation between Judaism and Zionism in order to justify and promote their hatred.

 

When a group of Wisconsin high school students stupidly posed for a school photo giving a “seig heil” salute, there were calls for their suspension. And, we were told, “. . . the image could have far-reaching consequences for the young men pictured there . . .” Meanwhile, Canary Mission has screenshots of SJP members tweeting things like: “The world would be soooo much better without jews man”, and “Lol let’s stuff some Jews in the oven.”  Shouldn’t these publicly posted sentiments have far-reaching consequences? Not according to Jewish students. But just like Israel’s fight with Hamas, the misguided insistence on fair play insures that this fight will continue long after the current crop of students has graduated. And as long as these students support Israel, they will always be denigrated. They will always be insulted as bigots by real bigots.

 

Using Canary Mission’s information, Jewish university students can take the offensive in order to hamper BDS efforts. If the BDS movement were a white supremacist or neo-Nazi group, there would be no reservations about using Canary Mission to expose them. This is a double standard Jewish students are imposing on themselves.

 

It’s not McCarthyite or bigoted if they’re telling the truth. Canary Mission recently posted a video in which SJP members disrupt a UCLA Students Supporting Israel event and threaten the speakers. SJP denied having anything to do with the disruption. But thanks to advances in digital technology, the SJP bullies are highlighted in the video along with screenshots of some of their troubling tweets. McCarthyism? No. This is revealing the truth and exposing SJP as not only bullies, but also as liars. This is fighting back. [Blog Editor’s bold text] It is aggressively taking the fight to the bigots on the public relations field where Jews and Israel have been taking a beating due to their insistence on either engaging in free and fair debate or not fighting back at all. Unlike the campus Israel haters who depend on deception, it is the Jewish pro-Israel students who have the truth on their side.

 

We know that a juicy, outrageous lie that gets one’s blood boiling is easier to accept than a boring truth, especially if that lie is about Jews or Israel. Exposing the bigoted hatred of the SJP liars and their admiration for Hitler and Nazis, who, they mourn, should have finished the job, would do a lot more for the campus pro-Israel cause than reasoned debate. In that debate, lies carry the same weight as truth to students who don’t know enough about Israel or its history to tell the difference. Anyone though, even a brainwashed university student, can identify as anti-Semitic, a tweet that says, “@BarackObama shut up about gay marriage and go kill all the Jews.” Display enough of these detestable social media posts and expose enough links to terrorism, and the true intentions of the posters would be undeniable, even as they whine about being victims.

 

That would be a strong first step toward defeating and shutting down the campus Israel/Jew-hating industry.

____________________

Unwitting Embrace of Leftist Utopianism due to Jew-Hatred

John R. Houk

© April 23, 2019

_________________

IN DEFENSE OF CANARY MISSION

 

© COPYRIGHT 2019, 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 The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

READ THE REST