Intro to Ungurean Post on ‘CRUSADES: The TRUTH’


John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 27, 2018

About those Christian Crusaders that loaded their weaponry to RE-TAKE the Holy Land from Muslim invading conquerors. Closer to the truth than lying Multicultural Leftists and Muslim Apologists.

 

My only criticism I have is Geri Ungurean’s source downplays the Antisemitism of the Crusaders. That’s a bit surprising considering Ms. Ungurean is a Messianic Jew (i.e. a Jew that has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior).

 

Not deviate too much from this otherwise awesome post, my take is the Crusaders were Antisemites largely because the Church had spent centuries calling Jews Christ-Killers which if you read your Bible is a bit of a stretch. The Pharisee/Sadducee ruling class empowered by the Roman government feared any Jewish movement that might be a threat to their station in life under Roman rule. The Jewish population on the other hand reviled Roman rule; hence many Jewish Messianic and Rebellion Movements (of which as far as Christians concerned was the Messianic Movement of Christian Redemption in Christ).

 

But as Gentiles became the dominating group over the Jewish Christians, Jew-hatred began to be taught even though pre-Resurrection Jesus was raised under Jewish traditions and every single person among the Twelve Apostles was Jewish.

 

The Jewish perspective of Jew-hatred Medieval propaganda HERE.

 

The Christian perspective for Jew-Hatred Medieval propaganda HERE and HERE.

 

JRH 11/27/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

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

The CRUSADES: The TRUTH About Islam and Why Christendom FINALLY Pushed Back

 

By GERI UNGUREAN

NOVEMBER 27, 2018

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

 

Truth About the Crusades

 

The devil is a liar.

 

We know this because God told us this in His Holy Word.  Satan is the father of lies. He is a master of deception and the author of confusion.

 

Through the centuries, history has been rewritten with the help of the evil one. If you asked the typical person on the street about the Crusades, most of them would begin to disparage Christianity and speak of  ‘horrors’ committed against Muslims.

 

Do you remember when Obama spoke of  Christian aggression during the Crusades?

 

VIDEO: Starnes: Why Obama smeared Christians at prayer event

 

Watch Dinesh Desouza’s comments at the 4:27 mark in this video:

 

VIDEO: Malzberg | Dinesh D’Souza weighs in on President Obama’s “Crusades” comments

 

I would encourage the reader to print this article out.  I am using a piece from thenewamerican.com to dispel the lies which have been perpetrated throughout the centuries about the Crusades.

 

This article is rather long. For those who would rather watch a video concerning truth about the Crusades, I will insert a link for that at the end of this piece.

 

From thenewamerican.com

 

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.

 

Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

 

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

 

And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.

 

The Gathering Threat in the East

 

While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.

 

Ah, the Crusades. Along with the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition (both partially to largely misunderstood), they have become a metaphor for Christian “intolerance.” And this characterization figures prominently in the hate-the-West-first crowd’s repertoire and imbues everything, from movies such as 2005’s Kingdom of Heaven to school curricula to politicians’ pronouncements. In fact, it’s sometimes peddled so reflexively that the criticism descends into the ridiculous, such as when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and, writes Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University Thomas Madden, “recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.)” Why, indeed. Yet, it is the not-so-ridiculous, the fable accepted as fact, that does the most damage. Madden addresses this in his piece, “The Real History of the Crusades,” writing:

 

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

 

But what does good history tell us? Madden continues:

 

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War…. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western [sic] Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

 

[The Crusades] were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

 

The reality is that in our modern conception — or, really, misconception — of the word, it is the Muslims who had launched “crusades” against Christendom. (In the true sense of the word, the Moors couldn’t be Crusaders, as the term means “those who are marked with a cross,” and the Muslims just wanted to erase the cross.) And like Martel before them, who ejected the Moors from most of southern Gaul, and the Spaniards, who — through what was also a Crusade — would much later wrest back control over Iberia, the Crusades were an attempt to retake conquered Christian lands. So how can we describe the view taken by most academics, entertainers, and politicians? Well, it is the Jihadist view. It is Osama bin Laden’s view. It is a bit like ignoring all history of WWII until December 8, 1941 — and then damning the United States for launching unprovoked attacks on Japan.

 

Christendom Pushes Back

 

So now the year is 1095. Just as the Muslims had invaded Europe from the west in the days of Charles the Hammer, now they are pushing toward it from the east. And just as they had taken the Byzantine lands of the Mideast and North Africa in the seventh century, they now have seized Anatolia (most of modern Turkey), thus robbing the Byzantines of the majority of what they had left. The Muslims are now just a few battles away from moving west into Greece itself or north into the Balkans — the “back door” of Europe. Rightfully alarmed and fearing civilizational annihilation, Byzantine emperor Alexius I in Constantinople reaches out to a rival, Pope Urban II, for aid. Inspired to act, in November of 1095 the pope addresses the matter at the Council of Clermont, an event attended by more than 650 clerics and members of European nobility. On its second-to-last day, he gives a rousing sermon in which he appeals to the men of Europe to put aside their differences and rally to the aid of their brothers in the East. Here is an excerpt of the sermon as presented by the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres:

 

Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians.

 

In addition to this call, the pope articulates a second goal: the liberation of Jerusalem and other Mideast holy sites. The pope’s words are so moving that those in attendance are inspired to shout, it is said, “God wills it! God wills it!” The first crusade is born.

 

Modernity, the Middle Ages, and Myth

 

Yet, in modern times, much cynicism would be born. People just can’t believe that these medieval “barbarians” didn’t have ulterior motives. This brings us to the “ambitious pope” and “rapacious knights” bit, the 20th-century myths about 11th-century motivations. Let’s examine these one at a time.

 

First we have the notion that the Crusaders were imperialists. This is an understandable perspective for the modern mind, as the not-too-distant past has been one of a dominant West colonizing a world of backwaters. Yet this was a recent and relatively short-lived development. Do you remember how Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi considered the eighth-century Europeans barbarians? It was no different in the 11th century; Dar al-Islam was the burgeoning civilization. It was the imperialist force — and this wouldn’t change for another 600 years.

 

Next we have two myths that contradict each other; although, considered individually, they may seem tenable. One is that, despite the Crusaders’ purported religiosity, they were just seeking riches by the sword. The other myth is, they were so darn religious that they were seeking to convert Muslims by the sword. It seems unlikely that both could be true, and, as it turns out, neither is.

 

Today we like to say “Follow the money.” Well, if you followed it in the 11th century, it led right back to Europe. The reality is that most Crusader knights were “first sons,” men who had property and wealth — much to lose (including their lives) and little to gain. And just as the United States can drain the public treasury funding Mideast interventions today, medieval warfare was expensive business. Lords were often forced to sell or mortgage their lands to fund their Crusading, and many impoverished themselves. It also doesn’t seem that the average knight entertained visions of becoming “the man who would be king” in a faraway land, either. As Madden said in an October 2004 Zenit interview, “Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.”

 

As for conversion, the Crusaders were warriors, not missionaries. They had no interest in converting Muslims; in fact, I doubt the notion ever entered their minds. They viewed the Muslims as enemies of God and His Church and a threat to Christendom, nothing more, nothing less. Treating this matter in a piece entitled “The Crusades: separating myth from reality,” Zenit cited medieval history expert Dr. Franco Cardini and wrote:

 

“The Crusades,” says Cardini, “were never ‘religious wars,’ their purpose was not to force conversions or suppress the infidel.” … To describe the Crusade as a “Holy War” against the Moslems is misleading, says Cardini: “The real interest in these expeditions, in service of Christian brethren threatened by Moslems, was the restoration of peace in the East, and the early stirring of the idea of rescue for distant fellow-Christians.”

 

Yet, whether or not the Crusades were religious wars, they certainly flew on the wings of religious faith. And when the Crusaders sought treasure, it was usually the kind that was stored up in Heaven. As to this sincerity of belief, Madden has pointed out that Europe is peppered with thousands of medieval charters in which knights speak of their deepest motivations, of their desire to do their Christian duty. Then, Professor Rodney Stark, author of the new book God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, tells us that while the knights were serious sinners, they were also serious about becoming more saintly. Anne Godlasky of USA Today quotes him as stating, “These knights did such terrible things that their confessors kept saying, ‘I don’t know how you will ever atone for this — why don’t you try walking to Jerusalem barefoot.’ And they would do it — they took their faith very seriously.” Moreover, when the Crusaders met with failure, Europeans embraced a characteristically religious explanation: They blamed their own sinfulness. Then, seeking to purify themselves, piety movements arose all across their lands. Perhaps this is why Oxford historian Christopher Tyerman has called the Crusades “the ultimate manifestation of conviction politics.

We should also note that the Crusaders didn’t see themselves as “Crusaders”; the word wasn’t even originated till the 18th century. They viewed themselves as pilgrims.

 

Having said this, it would be naïve to think that all Crusaders’ worldly endeavors were animated by heavenly thoughts. Some say that Pope Urban II might have hoped he could regain control over the Eastern Church after the Great Schism of 1054. It’s also said that Urban and others wanted to give those militant medieval knights someone to fight besides one another. As for those on the ground, the Crusades involved a motley multitude encompassing the regal to the rough-hewn, and it is certain that some among them dreamt of booty and betterment. Yet is this surprising or unusual? People are complex beings. Within a group or even an individual’s mind, there are usually multiple motivations, some noble, some ignoble. Charles the Hammer might have very well relished the glory won on the battlefield, for all we know. But it would be silly to think that was his main motivation for fighting the Moors. Likewise, if the Crusaders were primarily motivated by covetous impulses, it was the most remarkable of coincidences. For those dark urges then manifested themselves just when a Christian emperor appealed for aid, just when Europe again seemed imperiled — and after 400 years of mostly unanswered Muslim conquests.

 

Into the Mouth of Dar al-Islam

 

But however great the Europeans’ faith, the first Crusade was a long shot. The soldiers had to travel on foot and horseback 1,500 miles — traversing rivers, valleys, and mountains; braving the elements; dealing with hunger and thirst and whatever unknowns lay ahead — and then defeat entrenched Muslim forces. And the endeavor had gotten off to a rather inauspicious start: An unofficial Crusade comprising peasants and low-ranking knights had already departed — only to be massacred by the Seljuk Turks.

 

So, now, it is August 15, 1096, and the official Crusader armies depart from France and Italy. Arriving in Anatolia many months later, they lay siege to Muslim-occupied Nicea; however, Emperor Alexius I negotiates with the Turks, has the city delivered to him on June 1, 1097, and then forbids the Crusaders to enter. They then fight other battles against the Muslims on the way to their next objective: the great city of Antioch. It is a must-win scenario; if they do not take it, they cannot move on to Jerusalem. The siege continues for seven and a half months, during which time the Crusaders are hungry, tired, cold, and often discouraged; Antioch’s formidable walls seem an impenetrable barrier. On June 2, 1098, however, they are able to enter the city with the help of a spy. It is theirs.

 

Yet the Crusaders soon find themselves besieged and trapped in Antioch with the arrival of Muslim relief forces. Nevertheless, they manage a break-out on June 28, defeat the Turks, and, after a delay caused by internecine squabbling, move south to Jerusalem in April 1099. Starving after a long journey, they arrive at the Holy City on June 7 — with only a fraction of their original forces. Despite this, Jerusalem will not pose the problems of Antioch, and they capture it on July 15.

 

The First Crusade successes give Christendom a foothold in the Mideast for the first time in hundreds of years with the establishment of four outposts known today as “Crusader states.” They are: the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch, founded in 1098; the Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099; and the County of Tripoli, founded in 1104. Perhaps the tide has finally turned in Christendom’s favor.

 

But it was not to be. It was still a Muslim era, and more Crusades would be launched in the wake of Islamic triumphs. In fact, there was a multitude of Crusades — if we include minor ones — lasting until the end of the 17th century. However, it is customary to identify eight major Crusades, dating from 1096 through 1270, although this does omit many significant campaigns.

 

Great passion for a second Crusade was sparked when the County of Edessa was overcome by Turks and Kurds in 1144. Led by Kings Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany and advocated by St. Bernard, it was an utter failure. Most of the Crusaders were killed before even reaching Jerusalem, the campaign did more harm than good — and Muslim power continued to grow.

 

Because of this, Madden writes, “Crusading in the late twelfth century … became a total war effort.” All are asked to answer the call, from peasants to patricians, either by devoting blood and treasure to the defense of Christendom or through prayer, fasting, and alms to make her worthy of victory. Yet these are the days of the great Muslim leader Saladin, and in 1187 he destroys the Christian forces and takes one Christian city after another. And, finally, after almost a century of Christian rule, Jerusalem surrenders on October 2.

 

The loss of the Holy City inspires the Third Crusade. Led by storybook figures such as England’s King Richard the Lionheart, German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, and France’s King Philip II, it is sometimes called the Kings’ Crusade. Yet it is no fairytale affair. Frederick’s army quits the campaign in 1190 after their aged German leader drowns while crossing a river on horseback, and King Philip leaves after retaking the city of Acre, owing to continual friction with Richard. Despite this, the English King is undeterred. Displaying brilliant leadership and tactical skill, he fights his way south, taking on all comers, and eventually recaptures the Holy Land’s entire coast. Yet the crown jewel, Jerusalem, eludes his grasp. Believing he would not be able to hold it (since most Crusaders will be returning home), he must swallow hard and settle for what he can get: an agreement with Saladin to allow unarmed pilgrims unfettered access to the city. Richard then returns home and never sees the Holy Land again, dying from a battle-related wound sustained in Europe in 1199.

 

While the passion for Crusading remained strong in the 13th century and the Crusades were greater in scope, funding, and organization, they were lesser in accomplishment. There would be no more Richard the Lionhearts. Mideast Christian lands would slowly be overcome. And Jerusalem would never again be in Crusader hands. In fact, by 1291, the Crusader kingdom had been wiped off the map.

 

The Next Crusades Battle: The History Books

 

Because the Crusades ultimately failed to achieve their objectives, they are typically viewed as failures. And this brings us to a common Crusades myth. It’s said that those medieval campaigns are partly to blame for anti-Western sentiment in today’s Middle East, but this is nonsense. The reality is, as Madden told Zenit, “If you had asked someone in the Muslim world about the Crusades in the 18th century he or she would have known nothing about them.” This only makes sense. Why would the Crusades have been remembered? From the Muslim perspective, they were just routine victories — like so many others — events that would just naturally fade into the mists of time. What in truth is partly to blame for Islamic anti-Western sentiment is 19th-century pro-Western propaganda. That is to say, when England and France finally started colonizing Arab lands, they wanted to rubber-stamp imperialism. To this end, they taught Muslims in colonial schools that the Crusades were an example of an imperialism that brought civilization to a backward Middle East. And, not surprisingly but tragically, when imperialism was later discredited, the Crusades would be discredited along with it. Muslims would start using the false history against the West.

 

But there are many Crusade myths. For example, some would characterize the campaigns as anti-Semitic. Yet, while there were two notable massacres of Jews during the Crusades, there is more to the story — as Madden also explained in the Zenit interview:

 

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army [the aforementioned “People’s Crusade”], descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there…. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.

 

This obviously adds perspective. In every war there are rogue forces that commit transgressions. Why, the United States had the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Yet, to echo Madden on this count, it would be unfair to claim that the goal of American forces was to, respectively, murder innocent civilians or commit sexual abuse.

 

There were other Crusader sins as well. In the Second Crusade, the warriors foolishly attacked Muslim Damascus, which had been an ally of the Christians. Worse still, the Fourth Crusade saw the sacking of Constantinople itself — occupied by the very eastern Christians the Crusades were designed to protect — after the Crusaders helped an imperial claimant gain the Byzantine throne and then were refused the aid he had promised them as a quid pro quo. In response, the pope at the time, Innocent III, condemned the attack (and he had already excommunicated the Crusade). Nevertheless, the damage was done. The act widened the Great Schism of 1054 to perhaps irreparable proportions.

 

Yet, again, perspective is necessary. Medieval armies didn’t have modern discipline or rules of engagement, and they were, above all, medieval. You could not have put hundreds of thousands of men in the field during the course of centuries in that age without writing some dark chapters. Really, though, you couldn’t do it in the modern age, either.

 

With all these failures and missteps, we may wonder why Europeans continued Crusading well beyond the 13th century’s close. We may ask, was it worth the blood and treasure? Yet the answer boils down to one word: survival. The threats to Europe mentioned earlier would not remain theoretical. The Muslims would extinguish the Byzantine Empire — and Constantinople would be renamed Istanbul. They would cross into the Balkans, and their descendants would clash with Christians there in the 1990s. The Ottoman Turks would capture the Italian town of Otranto in 1480, prompting the evacuation of Rome. The Ottomans would occupy what is now Hungary for 158 years. And, in 1529 and 1683, they would reach the gates of Vienna.

 

Yet the tide would finally turn against Dar al-Islam. The Ottomans would lose the Battle of Vienna in 1683, and, more significantly, Europe was blossoming. It would outpace the Muslim world technologically, and in its march toward modernity, the Christian “barbarians” would become the burgeoning civilization. In fact, they would become dominant enough to forget how recent their time in the sun is — and how, perhaps, it almost never was.

 

So, were the Crusades really a failure? Sure, there was no Charles Martel and Battle of Tours, no Duke of Wellington at Waterloo; there was no history-changing engagement where we could say, ah, that is where we slew the dragon or “this was their finest hour.” And they accomplished none of their stated goals. But the Crusades era might have constituted a “holding action,” a time when Christendom was pushed toward the abyss and, outweighed and wobbling, pushed back. Of course, this isn’t the fashionable view. But it is easy today to characterize those medieval warriors any way we wish; they are no longer around to defend themselves. But had they not defended the West, we might not be troubling over the past at all — because we might not have a present. – source

 

VIDEO: The Truth About The Crusades

 

Brethren, it is important to be able to chronicle the events leading up to the Crusades. We must attempt to shut down revisionist historians who present history from a politically correct vantage point.

 

Truth is truth!!   Jesus would have us tell the truth about events in history regarding His church.

 

The Left have made Islam and Muslims into “victims.”  Not all Muslims are war lords or terrorists, but many are.  Their prophet Muhammad was the originally war lord and his fundamental followers continue in his footsteps.

 

Shalom b’Yeshua

 

MARANATHA!

______________________

Intro to Ungurean Post on ‘CRUSADES: The TRUTH’

John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 27, 2018

_______________________

The CRUSADES: The TRUTH About Islam and Why Christendom FINALLY Pushed Back

 

About Geri Ungurean 

 

Bio: I am a Jewish Christian who was born-again in 1983. Yeshua is my life. Writing about Him is my passion. My subject matter varies. Sometimes I write on Bible Prophecy. Other times on apostasy in the church. And often times I address the political climate of our country and our world. My greatest love is writing about my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I pray that some of my articles will fall in the hands of my Jewish people. If you would like to bless us with a gift, please send to: Geri Ungurean P.O. Box 1031 Savage, MD 20763 Your generosity is most appreciated! Shalom

 

View complete profile

 

al-Hijrah: The secret Islamic doctrine of Migration for Jihad


Only now are a growing number of Europeans waking up that allowing the mass immigration of Muslims devoted to the concept that the Quran is absolute and perfect was and is a huge mistake. Thanks to the likes of Leftists like President Barack Hussein Obama who support the culture destroying concept of Multiculturalism, Muslim immigration has continued to grow toward the USA. Couple that much of these Muslim immigrants of the same quality of the Quran loving Muslims that have disrupted European society are now flowing in the USA, societal problems WILL arise significantly beyond the shores of American coasts.

 

AND here is another thing to think about! A huge majority of organized Mosques and Muslim-American organizations that exist in the USA have a direct affirmative relationship or monetary relationship with the Islam that derives from Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi), Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (radical Salafist global Caliphate-minded), Shi’ites from Lebanon (Lebanese Hezbollah affiliated to crazy Twelver Shias of Iran), Pakistan (Deobandi/Wahabi/Salafi schools of Islam including but not limited to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, al Qaeda and Taliban: HERE, HERE and HERE), Somalia (al-Shabab), Turkey (Fethullah Gülen-Hizmet movement: HERE and HERE) and probably more I don’t have time to look up.

 

SEE: An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America

 

JRH 4/1/15

Please Support NCCR

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

al-Hijrah: The secret Islamic doctrine of Migration for Jihad

al hijrah mosque

 

By Paul Sutliff 

March 30, 2015

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Today thousands of Muslims are answering a call to immigrate to non-Muslim lands. According to the Department of Homeland Security, of the 70,000 refugees granted asylum in the USA in 2013 “the leading countries of nationality for refugee admissions were Iraq (28 percent), Burma (23 percent), Bhutan (13 percent), and Somalia (11 percent). Seventy-five percent [75%] of refugee admissions in 2013 were from these four countries” (Martin & Yankay, 2014). If we accept that the vast majority of those living in these countries are Muslim, then 70% of 70,000 translates into 49,000 Muslims migrated to America in 2013.

 

Why is this happening when fatwas have been given stating it is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to move to a non-Muslim land?

 

Islam Q and A recently answered: Can Muslims settle in kaafir countries for the sake of a better life? Part of the answer stated that:

 

In the Sunnah, the Prophet (PBUH) said: “I disown every Muslim who settles among the mushrikeen” [non-Muslims]. (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2645; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.)

 

According to this manner of thought living in Dar al-Harb is not only wrong for Muslims it was not acceptable to live in non-Islamic communities in Muslim lands, according to their prophet. However, the author of this document does make an exception.

 

“Rather we should say that each Muslim has his own unique set of circumstances and his own ruling that applies to him, and each person is accountable for himself. If he is able to practise his religion in the Muslim country in which he lives more than he can in a kaafir country, then it is not permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country.

 

But if it is the other way round, then it is permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country, subject to the condition that he is confident that he can resist the desires and temptations to be found there by taking the precautionary measures prescribed in sharee’ah.

 

Zakariya al-Ansaari al-Shaafa’i said in his book Asna al-Mataalib (4/207):

It is obligatory to migrate from the kaafir lands to the Muslim lands for those who are able to do that, if they are unable to practise their religion openly.”

 

So why are Muslims coming to non-Muslim countries, what they call Dar al-Harb if it is forbidden? Is this merely a smoke screen? Are these very words quoted above only for a select few? It makes little sense that they could not practice what they believe in an Islamic country. Or is this a screening out policy? A doctrinal statement that insists Muslims not strong in their faith must stay in an Islamic country. What then of those who hold their Islamic faith with strength?

 

Keep in mind that Muslims practice taqiyyah, lying to protect their faith. If they think it is not advantageous to the spreading of Islam, they will lie or obfuscate the truth. Since we cannot trust a Muslim to tell the truth on al-hijrah, we must rely on what the Islamic scriptures state.

 

According to Hadith no. 2863 Kitab al Amthael reported by Timri, also reported by Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbel as Hadith no 17344 Mohammad said:

 

I charge you five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage jihad for the sake Allah.

 

According to this wording it is implied that migration for the purpose of jihad is not only Ok, it is commissioned by the prophet of Islam. But is this the only citation of such a statement?

·         Sura 2:218 “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad.”

 

·         Sura 8:72    “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad with their money and their lives for the sake Allah, and those who gave asylum…”

 

·         Sura 8:74    “And those who believed and emigrated and performed jihad for the sake of Allah, and those who gave asylum and help [gave you victory], those are the true believers, they will receive forgiveness and generous provisions.

 

·         Sura 8:75   ““And those who believed afterward and emigrated and performed jihad with you, so those are of you.

 

As you can see the Koran provides several examples that the purpose of migration (al-Hijrah) is to accomplish jihad. Shouldn’t Immigration and State Department officials considers this practice when reviewing persons who are Muslim seeking entry into the United States?

 

Careful thought in this would go back to the first large amount of Muslims coming to America in 1962. Did they come for the purpose of jihad? This would account for the founders of the North American Muslim Brotherhood. It would also explain their usage of the term civilization jihad in 1991 when they defined their goals. It directs the Muslim migrant who came for jihad, on how to pursue that goal.

 

If Muslims coming here would have the purpose of jihad, you would expect them to:

1.       You would expect to find communities of Muslims starting to request sharia law.

 

2.      You would expect to find Muslims here coordinating new Muslims coming to the states into designated areas for the furtherance of Islam and the declaration of sharia law.

 

3.      Attempt to infiltrate every level of government for the purpose of subverting the constitution. 

 

These things are happening today! 20,000 Syrian Muslims are slated to arrive in the USA between 2015 and 2016. Will America cease to be the land of the free and become dar al Islam (land of submission) if it does not wake up soon?

We have to fight and make America wake up NOW!

 

Bibliography

 

Martin, D. C., & Yankay, J. (2014, September 5). Refugees and Asylees 2013. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from Department of Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_rfa_fr_2013.pdf

 

Solomon, S., & Al Maqdasi, E. (2009). Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration. Charlottesville, VA: ANM Publishers.

 

The Generous Koran. (2009). (U. Dakdok, Trans.) Venice, FL: Usama Dakdok Publishing, LLC.

_____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. You can find my books on Amazon portraying the truth about Civilization Jihad!


Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam Paperback – January 21, 2015

 

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad Homepage

 

Get Rid of the Trojan Horse


Muslim Trojan Horse 3

John R. Houk

© June 30, 2014

 

I read an editorial by Joseph Farah in which the title says everything, “2-State Solution is Dead”. Of course the title is due to the Arab-Israeli conflict that has been going on between Jews desiring the return of their Biblically ordained Homeland, even before Israel became a nation, and Arab that are culturally taught the Islamic Supremacist concept – once conquered for Islam then always owned by Islam (Dar al-Islam).

 

The premise of Farah’s editorial is based on polls which show that the majority of Arabs that call themselves Palestinians believe in a ONE-State solution in which all Jews are exterminated. In case the word “exterminated” didn’t sink in. These Arabs calling themselves Palestinians desire a Palestinian State in which Jews are ethnically cleansed from the Holy Land.

 

Farah stating that the 2-State Solution is dead implies (but not actually stated) the only alternative then is a One-State Solution. Didn’t I just write that is exactly what the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians believe? Indeed I did; however the One-State Solution implied by Farah is one sovereign Israel that includes Judea-Samaria (labeled West Bank by Jordan and occupied land by Arabs and blind Liberals – SEE ALSO HERE). Frankly I would include Gaza but the Jews that lived there that actually operated prospering businesses, were forced to leave by now deceased Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sharon, whether an actual change in stands or forced by arm twisting by the EU & USA, created a term called Disengagement. Sharon’s Disengagement was to unilaterally transport Jews outside of Gaza as a precursor to an independent Palestine. That mistake resulted in the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas (dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews) seizing control of Gaza and setting up a terrorist military structure armed with ballistic missiles that wasted no time to be aimed at Israeli cities. This should have proved to the world that the Land for Peace concept as a deceptive scam in the agenda to destroy Israel rather than a Palestinian State living in peaceful coexistence with Israel.

 

The concern of pro-Israel supporters is that extending sovereignty over Judea-Samaria under the current democratic political system in Israel would lead to an Arab birthrate population explosion that would make Jews the minority electorate in their own homeland. In which case a Muslim majority would democratically end the Jewish State in favor of a Muslim State basing the rule of law upon Islamic Sharia. Just view the manner in which Muslim dominated nations treat their minority Christian population to get a snapshot of what would happen to Jews in their own Homeland under Sharia Law. Then realize the hatred in Muslim lands for Jews dwarfs in comparison Muslims disdain Christians in Muslim lands.

 

Might the Jewish Israel begin their own version of ethnic cleansing JUST as the Muslim neighbors intend for Jews? Israel’s rule of law has a Western orientation. Even though Jews have faced ethnic cleansing for a better part of their existence after their last expulsion from their Homeland, I doubt Israel would utilize the same method to solve a majority Muslim problem. After all Israel is experiencing the same political polarization between Left and Right as America currently is. I am hopefully guessing the cough compassionate Liberal Jews would not stand for anything to do with ethnic cleansing. There might be a very small minority of Israeli Conservatives that favor some sort of ethnic cleansing or actual political apartheid but most politically Conservative Jews are sane enough to join the cough compassionate Liberal Jews. So unlike Muslim Arabs gaining control democratically of the Holy Land that would stoop to ethnic cleansing, Israel would not.

 

It is my humble politically incorrect opinion the best option for a ONE-State Israel Solution is a forced expulsion of Arabs that hate Jews. This is one practice that Jews have experienced first-hand over thousands of years. However, unlike Jews, an Arab expulsion would be sending them to Muslim majority nations. The Jewish Diaspora NEVER resulted in a Jewish majority in any non-Jewish land.

 

At this point Liberals (Leftists, Progressives, etc.) are howling for me to experience the noose and Muslims for my stoning or beheading. Think about it though. Because of the Islamic Supremacist concept Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb, we will always see Muslim nations trying retake the Holy Land. Ergo, the best viability for the Jewish State of Israel is to rid the nation of its Islamic Trojan Horse –expulsion of Jew-hating Muslims.

 

JRH 6/30/14

Please Support NCCR

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

2-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals reality behind efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace deal

 

By Joseph Farah

June 29, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

It’s official – or should be.

 

The much-championed, so-called two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict should never be mentioned again as even a remote possibility. The “international community,” as it is known, as well as the nation of Israel, needs to declare it dead, buried, pushing up daisies.

Why?

 

Because it is. We just need a coroner to come and make it official. We have to get beyond denial and recognize reality.

 

The reality is that the very people for whom the two-state solution was dreamed up to satisfy have rejected it resoundingly as an option.

 

Last week, a poll commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found a clear majority of so-called Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip rejects the idea of creating a Palestinian state in those territories.

 

In Judea and Samaria, 55 percent said they reject the idea in favor of exterminating all Jews from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. In Gaza, fully 68 percent took that position.

How anyone could think that creating yet another radical Islamic state in the Middle East is a solution for anything is beyond me – poll or no poll. But clearly, the solution that has been de rigueur for 25 years, is not going to make anyone happy – least of all Arab Palestinians.

 

The poll results are even worse than that when you scrutinize the numbers carefully. They show that less than one-third of Arab Palestinians actually support a two-state solution in which Arabs live peacefully alongside a Jewish state. Nearly two-thirds of the Arab population says “resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.”

 

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

 

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

 

For decades, the Arab leadership, inside the territories and outside, has been fostering anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred and a victimization mentality in its schools, its media, its popular culture and in its own rhetoric. They indoctrinate the population, from the earliest age, to embrace jihad and martyrdom as the only acceptable path. Under the circumstance, it’s amazing the level of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terrorism and violence is not higher.

 

The institute’s scholars got it right in their analysis of the poll: “U.S. policy should seriously consider abandoning all hope now of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.” They suggested focusing on “immediate steps to lower tensions.”

 

Those steps should include a complete suspension of aid to the territories until all incendiary and provocative and anti-Semitic government, school and media rhetoric ceases. Since that will never happen, the U.S. and other aid could be put to much more constructive use.

 

These polls, by the way, are as close to free elections as anything in which Arab Palestinians get a chance to a chance to participate. So it is truly meaningful.

 

This has always been Israel’s problem, try as it might to make peace.

 

How do you make peace with a neighbor who doesn’t want it? How do you make peace with a neighbor who is sworn to murder you? How do you make peace with a neighbor who is sworn to killing you, your family, your community, your entire nation?

 

That’s what Israel is up against and has been up against since it was reborn as a nation-state 66 years ago. Things aren’t getting better. They are getting worse.

 

So why not try something new?

 

There’s an old saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.”

 

It doesn’t work. It’s not rational. It’s not scientific. It’s no sensible.

 

Has anyone noticed in the U.S. State Department? Not a chance.

 

Because the U.S. State Department has never been accused of being pragmatic, rational, scientific or sensible.

__________________________________

Get Rid of the Trojan Horse

John R. Houk

© June 30, 2014

_________________________________

2-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD

 

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

 

About Joseph Farah:

 

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service.. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

USA, EU and UN join to MAKE a Judenrein Palestinian State


No Jews Palestine - Dry Bones

John R. Houk

© January 19, 2014

 

There has been a conflict between Israel and Arabs – primarily Muslim – since the Jews managed to turn the hope of the Balfour Declaration hope into a Jewish State reality in their ancestral land in 1948. The essence of the conflict is simpler than world leaders are willing to admit. The conflict boils down to the thousands of years desire to return to their Biblically Promised Land and multiple centuries of persecution that spanned the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Christian Europe through the ages including the NAZI Holocaust of late 1930s to 1945 and actually a modern reemergence today. The Balfour Declaration perceived as a promise of return for Jews rubbed Muslims who had been indoctrinated in Islamic Supremacism of once land was conquered it became a part of the Land of Islam (Dar al Islam) never to be restored to the conquered non-Muslims. The 20th century Alia of Jews to the Holy Land was and still is a miniscule portion of the actual Holy Land/Levant area AND YET Muslim theopolitical ideology refuses such a small portion to exist under non-Muslim control. As long as Muslims view the Quran as the pure very word of their Allah sent through Mohammed and as long as the almost as holy Islamic Hadith and Sira-Sunnah commentaries amplify Quranic hatred of Jews there will be no end to a conflict between Israel and Muslims motivated by Islamic Supremacist Dar al Harb thinking. UNLESS of course the Islamic terrorist led coalition of Arabs that call themselves Palestinians succeed in another Jewish genocide destroying Israel. Creating a sovereign Palestinian State that has one purpose in destroying Israel. A Palestinian State will result in a Judenrein area in the new Arab State followed by the design of destroying Israel.

 

In this present time when you think of the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ what is the first thing that comes to mind? As a part of the aging Baby Boom generation the first thing that comes to mind for me is Adolf Hitler’s agenda to rid Europe of traditionally vilified ethnicities, mentally challenged, physically challenged via birth defects, other groups NAZI ideology considered to inferior to mix with the so-called Aryan Germanic peoples and especially Jews. The Hitler-NAZI Solution for a society of ethnically pure Aryan Germanic peoples resulted in around 12 MILLION genocidal deaths. Approximately 6 MILLION of that were Jews.

 

Other significant moments in recent history’s ethnic cleansing can span from the end of WWI right through to the present day.

 

Toward the end of WWI Turkey began to ethnically cleanse Armenian Christians killing about 1.5 MILLION Armenians:

 

In April 1915 the Ottoman government embarked upon the systematic decimation of its civilian Armenian population. The persecutions continued with varying intensity until 1923 when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist and was replaced by the Republic of Turkey. The Armenian population of the Ottoman state was reported at about two million in 1915. An estimated one million had perished by 1918, while hundreds of thousands had become homeless and stateless refugees. By 1923 virtually the entire Armenian population of Anatolian Turkey had disappeared. (READ MOREArmenian Genocide; By Rouben Paul Adalian; Armenian National Institute; Copyright © 1998-2014)

 

After WWI Turkey and Greece had a population exchange of Turks and Greeks with the Greek expulsion becoming brutal:

 

Pontian and Anatolian Greeks were victims of a broader Turkish genocidal project aimed at all Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire. A total of more than 3.5 million Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians were killed under the successive regimes of the Young Turks and of Mustafa Kemal from roughly 1914 to 1923. Of this, as many as 1.5 million Greeks may have died. The end of the genocide marked a profound rupture in the long Greek historical presence on the Asia Minor. (READ MOREBold Emphasis Mine; The Genocide of Ottoman Greeks, 1914-1923; Copyright © 2013, Rutgers)

 

Here is brief gleaning of 20th and 21st Century genocides from “The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries” provided by Piero Scaruffi in 2009:

 

 

o   Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50: 49-78,000,000

 

o   Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39): 7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)

 

o   Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44): 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)

 

o   Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79): 1,700,000

 

o   Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94): 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)

 

o   Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88): 600,000

 

 

The above list is only a sampling provided by Piero Scaruffi.

 

There is the Rwanda Genocide of 1994:

 

Beginning on April 6, 1994, Hutus began slaughtering the Tutsis in the African country of Rwanda. As the brutal killings continued, the world stood idly by and just watched the slaughter. Lasting 100 days, the Rwanda genocide left approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers dead. (READ THE RESTBold Emphasis Mine; Rwanda Genocide; By Jennifer Rosenberg; About.com; ©2014)

 

There is the Bosnia-Herzegovina Genocide roughly 1992-95 – 200,000:

 

In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia. (READ THE RESTBosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995 – 200,000; Copyright © 1999 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved)

 

The genocides I have mentioned here are only the ones that my history interests have taken me. This is hardly an exhaustive list of ethnic cleansing.

 

Are you aware the collusion of USA, EU and the UN to promote sovereign Palestinian State includes PA-PLO Islamic terrorists to make the area Jew-free EVEN THOUGH 20% of the Israel population are Arab Muslims? This amounts to joining the Palestinian elites desire to ethnically cleanse Jews while demanding that not only can Arab Muslims continue to live in Israel but that the descendants of the Arabs made into refugees after the failed invasion of several Arab nations tried to destroy the new Israeli State in 1948. WND’s Joseph Farah has some legitimate and interesting thoughts on this issue.

 

 

JRH 1/19/14

Please Support NCCR

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

‘Ethnic cleansing’ in ‘Palestine’

Exclusive: Joseph Farah asks, why is U.S. supporting creation of anti-Semitic hate state?


By Joseph Farah

January 17, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is citing a cold, hard, inconvenient fact I have been pointing out for a number of years – one that has the potential to reframe the entire Israeli-Palestinian debate.

 

In an hour-long interview with Canada’s CTV this week, he explained that the official position of the Arabs on a Palestinian state is that the land must first be “Jew free” through ethnic cleansing that is rejected everywhere else in the world today an argument first made by me 10 years ago, and I alone have continued to make it repeatedly ever since.


When interviewer Lisa LaFlamme pointed out that one in five Israelis are Arabs, Netanyahu responded: “Sure, we’re not asking them to change their religion. They have full civic rights. Now in the Palestinian state, the way it’s being contemplated, no Jew can live there. It has to be Jew free, ethnic cleansing. Well, what is that? There are Arabs who live here, but they can’t contemplate Jews living there.”

 

That’s exactly what the Palestinian Authority is demanding – ethnic cleansing of it land so that a future Palestinian state can be Jew-free.

 

It’s amazing to me that the rest of the civilized world doesn’t categorically reject such a premise. But it doesn’t. In fact, no one even speaks of it. An idea that would be condemned anywhere else in the world is considered appropriate – even commendable – in the Middle East.

 

There’s one thing almost all civilized people can agree on – “ethnic cleansing” is bad. “Ethnic cleansing” is defined as a policy of eliminating unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture and history.

 

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

 

Nevertheless, even with this broad consensus opposing ethnic cleansing, there’s one place in the world nearly everyone supports ethnic cleansing.

 

It’s in the lands known as Judea and Samaria on the West Bank of the Jordan River under the administration of the Palestinian Authority. There – and only there – does the entire international community favor the complete elimination of all Jewish residents by deportation and forcible displacement if not by mass murder or threats of such acts.

 

That’s because the Palestinian Authority insists the “Palestinian state” it seeks to create be 100 percent “Judenrein,” as Hitler would say – free of Jews. And that’s OK with all those supporting the concept of creating a new state based on ethnic cleansing and bigotry that would make Himmler blush.

 

Did you know this is a prerequisite for a Palestinian state?

 

Very few do.

 

It is simply never discussed in the media.

 

It is the only place in the world where it is perfectly acceptable to insist on the eradication of residents of a particular religious or ethnic background.

 

This is one of the great untold stories of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

In any other part of the world, this kind of racist, anti-Semitic effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don’t understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, those leaders retains a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.

 

Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why do American taxpayers send hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the leaders of this movement? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?

 

Can you think of any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?

 

Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?

 

Why do we accept as a fait accompli that Jews should be forced off their land in the coming state of Palestine?

 

Can you imagine the U.S. backing a plan to uproot forcibly people from their homes because they are Muslim or any other religion?

 

Of course not.

 

But the monsters who control the Palestinian Authority, even the so-called “moderates,” demand that all Jews leave. Jews will simply be unwelcome in this future Palestinian state. End of story. It’s a non-negotiable demand.

 

Isn’t that the definition of ethnic cleansing?

 

Why is that acceptable?

 

I’ve been asking this question for a decade. Thankfully, Netanyahu has made the point. It must be repeated over and over and over again until the whole world recognizes the diabolical Nazi-like plan afoot within the Palestinian Authority.

___________________________

USA, EU and UN join to MAKE a Judenrein Palestinian State

John R. Houk

© January 19, 2014

___________________________

‘Ethnic cleansing’ in ‘Palestine’

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.