Help Pseudo-Palestinians Emigrate


John R. Houk

© June 13, 2017

 

It has always been my opinion that a Two-State Solution would NEVER be a harbinger for peace between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. A Palestinian State would merely be a launching ground for Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel. The result would be Israeli military incursions to punish an independent Palestine for allowing the terrorist launching pads. Or an independent Palestine might have the hutzpah claim the terrorism is military incursions for whatever fake/false reason given.

 

The only raison d’être for a Palestinian State existence would be to end Israel’s existence and to kill Jews. Because of Muslim animus against Israel, a One-State Solution is the best solution.

 

The best One-State Solution is to find a way to move Jew-hating Muslims out of any area that is a part of ancient Jewish heritage.

 

Dr. Martin Sherman has written a two-part essay touching on the logistics and feasibility of an ethical fashion to aid Jew-hating Muslims to emigrate to another Arab-Muslim nation. I found out about Dr. Sherman’s from the Facebook Group “No Palestinian State!” (If you are a Pro-Israel kind of person you should go there and request to be a member and add to the discussion.)

 

The title is “INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs”. You can read the 6/2/17 Part One HERE. Part Two is cross posted below.

 

JRH 6/13/17

Please Support NCCR

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

INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs (Part 2)

 

Sequel to the dispelling of doubts regarding the feasibility – and morality – of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach for resolution of the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

 

By Dr. Martin Sherman

June 9, 2017 06:48

Israel National News – Arutz Sheva 7

 

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -attributed to Winston Churchill

 

Readers will recall that last week I began a two part response to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) relating to the practical feasibility/moral acceptability of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP), which prescribes, among other measures, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs, living across the pre-1967 lines as the only route to attain long-term survivability for Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

To recap briefly

 

In last week’s column, I addressed the question of the overall cost of the funded emigration project, and showed that, given the political will to implement it, it would be eminently affordable – even if Israel had to shoulder the burden alone. If other industrial nations could be induced to participate, the total cost would be an imperceptible percentage of their GDP.

 

I then went on to demonstrate that there is ample evidence indicating a wide-spread desire in large sections of the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate permanently in search of more secure and prosperous live elsewhere. This point was underscored by a recent Haaretz article, describing how thousands of Gazans had fled their home to Greece, undertaking perilous risk to extricate themselves from the harrowing hardships imposed on them by the ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs.  Significantly, according to the Haaretz report, none of them blamed Israel for their plight—but rather the ruling Hamas-regime, which, it will be recalled, was elected by popular vote to replace the rival Fatah faction, ousted because of its corruption and poor governance.

 

Finally, I dealt with the question of the prospective host nations, pointing out that the funded Palestinian-Arab émigrés would not arrive as an uncontrolled deluge of destitute humanity, but as an orderly regulated stream of relatively affluent immigrants spread over about a decade-and-a-half, whose absorption would entail significant capital inflows for the host nation’s economy.  Moreover, given the fact that, globally, migrants total almost a quarter billion, Palestinian-Arab migration of several hundred thousand a year would comprise a small fraction of one percent of the overall number—hardly an inconceivable prospect.

 

Following this short summary of previously addressed FAQs, we can now move on to tackle several additional ones.

FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?

 

One of the most commonly raised reservations as to the practical applicability of the HP is that potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants would be deterred from accepting them because of threats of retribution from their kin-folk who allegedly would view such action as perfidious betrayal of the Palestinian-Arabs’ national aspirations.

 

In contending with this question, it is necessary to distinguish between two possible scenarios, in which such internecine intimidation will be either a phenomenon whose scope is (a) limited; or (b) wide-spread and pervasive.

 

Clearly, if the former is true, it is unlikely to have any significant inhibiting impact on the conduct of prospective recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants.

 

If, however, the assumption is that the latter is the case, several points need to be made:

– If this objection to the HP is to have any credence, its proponents must present evidence (as opposed to unproven supposition) that potential violent opponents of the HP program have the ability not only to inflict harm on prospective recipients (as opposed to issuing empty threats), but that they can sustain such ability over time.

– In this regard, it should be kept in mind that implementation of the HP entails the disarming, dismantling and disbanding —if need be, coercively—of the ruling Palestinian regime, and reinstating Israeli governance over all territory under Palestinian-Arab control.

Inhibiting internecine intimidation

 

The HP is hardly unique with regard to this latter point. All other proffered policy alternatives for the failed, foolhardy two-state formula entail such measures—either by explicit stipulation, or implicit inference—since preserving the current Palestinian regime intact would clearly preclude their implementation.  Indeed, they are even endorsed by some pundits who do not discount the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, such as Middle East Forum president, Daniel Pipes.

 

Clearly, the dispersal of the central Palestinian governing body, together with the defanging of its armed organs and the deployment of Israeli forces in their stead, will greatly curtail (although not entirely eliminate) the scope for internecine intimidation and the capacity to dissuade potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants from availing themselves of the funds.

 

In addition, Israel should task its own formidable military and intelligence services to protect prospective recipients of these grants by identifying, intervening and thwarting attempts to intimidate those seeking to enhance their lives by extricating themselves from the control of the disastrously dysfunctional regime under which they live.

 

Moreover, the international community should be called upon to cooperate with and participate in this principled endeavor to prevent fratricidal elements within Palestinian society from depriving their brethren of the opportunity of better, safer lives. After all, violence against Palestinian-Arabs, who choose to reside within any given host nation, would comprise an intolerable violation of that country’s national sovereignty.

 

Appalling indictment of “Palestinian” society?

  

Of course invoking the specter of large-scale fratricide as an impediment to the acceptance of the HP is an appalling indictment of Palestinian-Arab society.

 

After all, the inescapable implication of such an objection to the HP’s practical applicability is that its acceptance by otherwise willing recipients, wishing to avail themselves of opportunity to seek security and prosperity elsewhere, can only be impeded by violent extortion of their kin-folk.

 

Accordingly, if the concern over large-scale fratricide is serious, it is in fact, at once, both the strongest argument in favor of the HP and against the establishment of a Palestinian state.  After all, two unavoidable conclusions necessarily flow from it: (a) any predicted reluctance to accept the relocation/rehabilitating grants would not be a reflection of the free will of Palestinian-Arabs, but rather a coerced outcome that came about despite the fact that it is not; (b) Similarly, the endeavor for a Palestinian state is not one that manifests any authentic desire of the “Palestinian people” but rather one imposed on them, despite the fact that it does not.

 

As a result, any Palestinian-Arab state established under the pervasive threat of lethal retribution against any dissenter will not be an expression of genuine national aspirations but of extortion and coercion of large segments of Palestinian-Arab society, who would otherwise opt for an alternative outcome.

 

In summation then, if the fear of fratricide can be shown to be a tangible threat, it should not be considered a reason to abandon the HP formula. Quite the opposite! It should be considered an unacceptable phenomenon to be resolutely suppressed –by both Israel and the international community—in order to permit the Palestinian-Arab public the freedom of choice to determine their future.

 

FAQ 5: Would funded emigration not be considered unethical “ethnic cleansing”?

I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.

 

I shall therefore refrain from repeating much of the arguments presented previously and focus on one crucial issue: The comparative moral merits of the widely endorsed two-state paradigm (TSS) and those of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP).

 

Since there is very little doubt (or dispute) as to the domestic nature of any prospective Palestinian state, anyone seeking to disqualify the HP because of its alleged moral shortcomings must be forced to contend with the following question: Who has the moral high-ground?

 

(a) The TSS-proponents, who advocate establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents? ; or

 

(b) The HP-proponents who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution, brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

 

Furthermore, TSS advocates should be compelled to clarify why they consider it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; yet they consider it morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

 

FAQ 6: What about those who remain?

 

This is, of course, a serious question and a detailed response would depend on, among other things, the size of the residual Palestinian-Arab population who refuse any material compensation as an inducement to emigrate.

 

The acuteness of the problem would undoubtedly be a function of its scale. Clearly, the smaller this residual population, the less pressing the need will be to deal with it. For example it seems plausible that if, say, only a hundred thousand Palestinians remain, consideration may well be given to the possibility of offering them Israeli citizenship – subject to stringent security vetting and sworn acceptance of Jewish sovereignty as the sole legitimate source of authority in the land – without endangering the Jewish character of the country.

 

However, it should be remembered that, unlike the two-state approach which advocates perilous concessions, and the one-state prescription which calls for incorporating the Palestinian-Arabs resident across the pre-1967 lines into Israel’s permanent population, the HP does not involve any cataclysmic irreversible measures.

 

At the heart of the HP program is a comprehensive system of material inducements to foster Palestinian emigration, which includes generous incentives for leaving and harsh disincentives for staying. As detailed elsewhere, such incentives would entail substantial monetary grants, up to 100 years GDP per capita per family in Palestinian terms; while the latter entail phased withdrawal of services (including provision of water, electricity, fuel, port facilities and so on) that Israel currently provides to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines.

 

Accordingly, should it be found that the initial proposed inducements are ineffective, the former can be made more enticing, and/or the latter more daunting, until the proffered package is acceptable.

 

Seen in this context, it is difficult to envisage that many non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs would prefer to endure the rigors of discontinued provision of services rather than avail themselves of the generous relocation/rehabilitation funds—especially given the dispersal of the Palestinian regime as an alternative source of such services.

 

 FAQ 7 What if the same kind of offer were made to induce Jewish emigration?

 

In addressing this question several points should be borne in mind:

 

The offer would clearly not be made by an Israeli government. After all, the HP is intended as a measure to: (a) Ensure – not undermine – the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and (b) Relieve the genuine humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs—precipitated by the dysfunctional administration they have been subjected to since the 1993 Oslo process—not Jewish disgruntlement with the imperfect functioning of the Israeli government.

 

Of course, it would be impossible to prevent Arab elements from offering Jews financial inducement to emigrate from Israel, but in this regard it should be recalled that: (a) As a sovereign nation Israel can control the financial flows into the country and impede money from hostile sources reaching Israeli citizens, considerably complicating the transfer and receipt of funds. (b) Arab governments have been singularly reticent in providing large sums  to advance the “Palestinian cause” and there is little chance (or evidence) that they would advance the hundreds of billions required to finance large scale Jewish emigration;  (c) The overwhelming majority of Israelis enjoy living standards of an advanced post-industrial nation with a GDP per capita around 20 times higher than that in the Palestinian-administered territories; (d) Accordingly, it would be commensurately more difficult to tempt them to leave. Indeed, sums offered would have to be considerably higher to create a comparable incentive, running into millions rather than hundreds of thousands per family. (e) Moreover, a slew of recent polls show the large majority of Israelis are satisfied with their lives – thus the prospect of material incentives to induce large-scale emigration seems remote.

Urgent Zionist imperative.

 

The HP is the only Zionist-compliant policy prescription that can save Israel from the perilous dangers of the two-state formula and the specter of Lebanonization/Balkanization inherent in other proffered alternatives. Embarking on its implementation is a Zionist imperative that is both urgent and feasible.

_________________

Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Dr. Martin Sherman

The writer served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science and international relations, was the first academic director of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org).

 

 Born in South Africa, he has lived in Israel since 1971. More from the author

 

© Arutz Sheva, All Rights Reserved

 

Media Goes Kumbaya For Hamas


Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization attempting to schmooze Western support with duplicitous words that actually change nothing about Israel and Jews in general. Hamas published a revised version of their charter with deceptive moderated language.

 

JRH 5/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Media Goes Kumbaya For Hamas

 

By Simon Plosker

May 3, 2017

Honest Reporting

 

Lipstick Pig

 

At a news conference held in Qatar, Hamas presented its new manifesto in a clear attempt to make itself more palatable to a Western audience as well as so-called moderate Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

 

Writing for CNN, Jonathan Cristol says:

 

“The new document may seem more moderate, but in reality nothing has changed. While the document accepts the 1967 borders as a “national consensus formula,” and you are sure to see breathless praise for this “change,” Hamas still calls for the “full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” which is poetic code for “the destruction of Israel.”

 

On Jerusalem it says, “Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished.” Hamas still rejects not only the admittedly failed Oslo Accords, but also the recognition of Israel and the renunciation of violence. Indeed it calls “armed resistance” the “strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.”

 

The new document allows Hamas to claim moderation and to seek out new allies alienated by the religious struggle depicted in its original charter. But make no mistake: The new charter does not mean that Hamas will make any change in either its strategy, tactics, or its demands.

 

It has “moderated” its position, but it is not moderate. It must continue to be fought against and to be rejected, just as it rejects the right of Israel to live in peace and security.

 

Click here to sign our petition and call on the media to stop whitewashing Hamas.

 

Some media, however, appear to have gone kumbaya for Hamas, including the claim that Hamas is no longer calling for Israel’s destruction.

 

The Wall Street Journal:

 

 

The Financial Times:

 

 

The Independent:

 

Then there’s the utterly incredulous suggestion that Hamas is somehow interested in any sort of peace process with Israel.

 

Bloomberg:

 

International Business Times:

 

 

The Irish Times:

 

 

You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

 

Hamas is still a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction through the use of violence and terror.

 

Click here to sign our petition and call on the media to stop whitewashing Hamas.

 

_______________

Copyright © 2017 by HonestReporting

 

About Honest Reporting

 

HonestReporting monitors the news for bias, inaccuracy, or other breach of journalistic standards in coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It also facilitates accurate reporting for foreign journalists covering the region. HonestReporting is not aligned with any government or political party or movement.

 

HonestReporting believes that a fully informed public is essential to progress and understanding in conflict resolution. It is not enough to correct inaccurate reporting and expose breaches of journalistic ethics. HonestReporting, through its MediaCentral project, provides support services for journalists based in or visiting Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the region to insure the free flow of information.

 

HonestReporting’s work serves the public interest by fighting misinformation, such as computer manipulations of images that give people a false impression of the conflict. At the same time, it provides agenda-free services to reporters, including translation services and access to news makers to enable them to provide a fuller picture of the situation. Honestreporting has over 140,000 subscribers and its MediaCentral project handles over 1,000 inquiries from journalists each year.

 

Polston Suspension Lifted – Prof Zufari Resigns


John R. Houk

© April 14, 2017

 

I just an ACT for America email update on Rollins College suspending a student for openly disagree with a Muslim Prof who was indoctrinating the class about the Crucifixion of Cross saying it was a hoax.

 

The student – Marshall Polston. The Professor – Areej Zufari.

 

After Polston publicly complained about his suspension, Counterjihad investigators began to Areej Zufari’s life. The discovery was that she was a Jew-hating radical Muslim working at Rollins College in Florida. Zufari was a mistress to a married Syrian whose name is Maher Ghawji:

 

Joe Kaufman, an investigative journalist for FrontPage Magazine and Chairman of Americans Against Hate a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, filed an affidavit No. CT-003545-04 naming Professor Zufari and her then husband Maher Ghawji a medical doctor based in Memphis, Tennessee. The affidavit reads in part:

 

8. Maher Ghawji has admitted to his wife of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent political movement whose members are sworn to “defend Islam” with their “blood.” He accepted this status with a group of friends, during a trip they had made to Cairo, Egypt (Exhibit 1). He left Syria around 1982, the year a government-led massacre took place in the town of Hama – a Brotherhood stronghold – which resulted in the deaths of 10,000 to 40,000 people (Exhibit 2). Following the massacre, members of the Brotherhood fled Syria, some leaving for the U.S. or Europe, some joining up with Osama bin Laden to fight in Afghanistan (Exhibit 3).

 

9. During his court deposition, on June 4, 2004, Maher Ghawji admitted to the court and to his wife of being a Wahhabi, an adherent to a fanatical religious form of Islam READ THE REST (Orlando’s Muslim Professor Areeje Zufari — Profile of a ‘Radical Islamic Supremacist’; By Dr. Rich Swier; Website – Dr. Rich Swier; 3/28/17)

Knowing about Zufari’s boyfriend is quite significant; however, if one believes there is Radical Islam inherent in Zufari merely because she is married to a Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi operative, this will change your mind:

 

Zufari served as the spokesperson and Director of Communications for the Islamic Society of Central Florida (ISCF) from 2001 to at least 2004, according to the author bio from her 2012 book “Beyond the Headlines” and press communications from the organization. ISCF’s main mosque, Masjid al-Rahman, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was classified by federal prosecutors as both an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case and as an entity that is or was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

In this case, the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals were identified as “establish[ing] a network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and raise money for Hamas,” and “eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.” Former FBI special agent Robert Stauffer stated that NAIT’s role in the Muslim Brotherhood is that of a nonprofit financial holding company, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

 

Security policy expert Alex Alexiev reports in the National Review that NAIT is “the proprietor of hundreds of radical mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S., including some that have been closed down by the government as criminal enterprises.” According to the Hudson Institute, NAIT is the title owner of at least 25% of all Islamic facilities in the United States with some estimates reaching up to 79%. ISCF has not responded to multiple calls and emails asking if Zufari still holds a position with the organization.

 

In recent years ISCF has received notable publicity for terrorism fundraising activities. In 2009, ISCF sponsored and held an event at Masjid al-Rahman that raised at least $55,000 for George Galloway’s Viva Palestina, which has been criticized as being a financial conduit for the terrorist organization Hamas. Indeed, in 2009 Galloway held a public press conference where he handed a bag of cash over to Hamas leadership.

 

 

While its website claims that the organization is for peaceful practitioners of Islam, earlier this year Imam Musri welcomed Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi, a radical Muslim cleric who openly calls for the death of Jews and gays, according to Heritage Florida Jewish News.

 

In recent years Rollins College appears to have forged deep connections with ISCF and the two have engaged in affiliated projects dating as far back as 1998. Rollins has collaborated on several events with the ISCF, including one as late as September of 2016, according to the ISCF’s Twitter page.

 

… Zufari was caught up in the middle of a divorce case between Rosine Ghawji and her husband, Maher Ghawji, a Syrian-born endocrinologist, whom Rosine has exposed as a supporter of and donor to radical Islamic activities.

 

Proof of the affair, found in the affidavit of counter-terrorism expert Joe Kaufman, showed that Zufari had been planning a trip to a nudist resort with Maher Ghawji, a man who admitted in court to giving money to his brother, who ended up being a part of a terrorist-linked organization, according to page 32 of the court filing. Specifically, a …

 

Six years prior to their divorce, Rosine [Maher Ghawji’s ex-wife] began acting as an FBI informant leaking information about her ex-husband, who she claims revealed himself to her to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood early on in their relationship.

 

Email evidence uncovered in the court filing shows that the two were so deeply involved that Zufari had gone to Syria and visited with Ghawji’s family. This past Wednesday, Zufari’s sister confirmed in a comment on a Facebook post that at one point they were even engaged to be married, but claims “their relationship didn’t last for other reasons” after the court trial had ended.

 

According to point 20 of her lawsuit against Zufari, Rosine alleges that throughout the affair Zufari was aware of her ex-husband’s extremist beliefs, and was even complicit in the plan to radicalize Ghawji’s two children, Louis and Tarek “K.K.” Ghawji.

 

 

When asked to respond to the situation and Zufari’s ties to radical Islam, Rollins College spokeswoman Jo Marie Hebeler said the following in a statement:

 

Rollins College is welcoming and respectful of all religious and cultural beliefs. As an institution of higher education, we value and encourage diversity of opinions and respectful discourse. In accordance with FERPA and our institutional policies, it is our responsibility to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all involved in this incident, students and faculty alike. The safety and fair treatment of all members of our campus community is of utmost concern.”

 

Rollins College stated there will be no further comment on the situation. READ ENTIRETY (PROF. AT ROLLINS COLLEGE INVOLVED IN SUSPENDING CHRISTIAN STUDENT HAS TIES TO ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS; By Will Nardi and Zach Swaim; FrontPageMag.com; 4/4/17)

 

Ergo the Rollins College multicultural diversity policy means the college looks the other way when Islamic terrorist supporting apply for employment. YOU have to wonder if the college has other Islamic terrorist supporting staff under their employ?

 

Marshal Polston had his suspension lifted after only a week. AND Islamic terrorist supporting Areej Zufari has voluntarily resigned as a Professor at Rollins College.

 

And yet Rollins College insists Polston did not get suspended for arguing with Areej Zufari. Rather the college claims Polston was suspended for social media disrespect and vulgarity against college staff. The only proof of such disrespect and vulgarity is an email sent to Zufari complaining of receiving a failing grade for disagreeing with her facts. I found the email at WND:

 

We need to talk as soon as possible over phone or in your office because you have been extremely unfair to me and pursuit a ruthless program of hostility in your recent grading simply due to the fact that I disagree with you on your inherent bias and clandestine theological apologies. I’m actually a nice person but not when I’m viciously attacked. I’d be just as happy to go to the dean about this issue.

 

I’m emailing you about the first essay in your Rollins class. You recently failed me with a 52% despite the fact that I followed all the guidelines listed, covered all the topics and asked you directly about the problem areas. I specifically asked you about sources in person as a result of your request that the paper be an analysis and not research. Everything I wrote came from personal memory and research or first hand experience in my travels with the government, personal visits with friends, teaching experiences or philanthropic efforts in the Middle East.

 

Quite frankly the grade you assigned to me exposes your a true agenda which is to silence me in class. As I told you before I’m not interested in speaking anymore. But since you’ve decided to carry a blitzkrieg out against me, I may have to speak up in regards to your extreme bias and not necessarily to the class but to the dean. You’re one of the most incompetent professors I have ever seen in my entire life.

 

It’s very clear you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You may have a college degree but you belong in a reform school.

 

First you conflate the immaculate conception and virgin birth which are totally different. Then you state that middle eastern Jews were Sephardic when in fact they are mostly Mizrahi Sephardic Jews only emigrated from Spain to North Africa and Istanbul and we’re NEVER native.

 

I could go on and on and on. Everybody knows that you’re a failure as a Professor — Rest assured I’m not the only one!!! I have dozens of examples to pull from that I’ve noticed during the class.

 

I think it’s great to be a theological apologist but not in a secular setting — I don’t know whether this was just a mistake or not so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. In order to stop a textual embarrassment in the Quran from coming to light in class you proceeded to ignore the facts when I asked a pertinent question about Mohammed. He had an adopted son which divorced his wife so he could marry him and although you finally admitted it was twisted, it took until I looked up the verse that you believed me.

 

Your bias is blatantly evident in your misinformation about the historical Jesus and moreover manifested in the lack of discussion about Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis (with you taking the theological position that Moses wrote the first five books of the Torah). No one takes either position that you gave in the archaeological or secular biblical fields.

 

Also your brainwashing session about sharia law at the United States of Rollins ignores what the vast majority of people in countries like Egypt and Iraq really believe in regards to misogyny, homophobia or religious freedom.

 

I agree that sharia law can be reformed but in the context of the seventh century, let’s not jump to utopian conclusions about sharia law’s original implementation in society. I understand that you are much more liberal Muslim which is great but quite frankly it astonishes me your hypocrisy. On the one hand you report me to the dean for correcting you while you were indoctrinating students with false information. On the other hand a Muslim student in class cracks a joke about chopping someone’s body parts off and you do nothing. Yes I have witnesses – I’m not the only one who has a concern about your agenda and overt bias. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

It’s really cowardly of you to shut me down in the middle of class or lie to the dean but I should be careful when saying that because that would be insulting to cowards. There’s something seriously wrong and depraved about you when you think my intellectual conversation is more threatening than the despicable comments about decapitation made by the student in question! SICK! [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

I hope we don’t have to escalate this issue and you’ll stop this crusade against me. I would really hate to get in contact with some national media personalities that I’m good friends with but I’m going to have to take it there or pursue legal options if you don’t stop your harassment toward me.

 

Hmm … I see an upset student over an unjust/undeserving failing grade AND NOTHING physically threatening, disrespectful or vulgar. Since Rollins College multicultural diversity policy does not preclude hiring Islamic terrorist supporters, it is not surprising the college uses an age old Islamic tenet in fabricating a suspension reason – Taqiyya (aka Lying).

 

The ACT for America is taking its share of credit for Areej Zufari resigning, but says nothing of Marshall Polston’s reinstatement. ACT uses the email as a fundraiser. Give or not, that’s up to you. ACT for America is a worthy cause if you have the extra cash.

 

Well, to make this post lengthier, I am cross posting ACT’s email followed by The Blaze’s update on Marshall Polston. Those are the two sources I initially read that chapped my hide about Rollins College’s idiotic multicultural diversity policy.

 

JRH 4/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

We Did it! The Power of Grassroots!

 

From ACT for America

Sent 4/12/2017 6:05 AM

 

We did it!

 

Thanks to you, radical Islamic Professor Areej Zufari has resigned from Rollins College.

 

After being caught red handed indoctrinating students, and slandering one who stood up to her radical agenda, Marshall Polston, ACT for America came to the rescue.

 

Zufari was on the FBI terror watch list for connections to a co-conspirator in the first WTC bombing, and was an explicit anti-Semite.

ACT for America mobilized its grassroots army to bombard the college with tens of thousands of emails and calls demanding the reinstatement of Marshall Polston and the firing of the radical professors. We made life so difficult for her and the college, she resigned on her own.

 

Chalk up another victory for our grassroots machine, which continues to grow in both size and influence.

 

We want to thank you for standing by our side in this fight to identify, expose, and remove radical Islamic Professors from college campuses across the country.

 

At ACT for America, we don’t just talk about the threats facing our nation, we ACT to eradicate them.

 

Let this be a lesson that your phone calls matter. Your emails matter. Your voice matters, and together, we are going to make America a safer place to call home.

If you see value in the work we do stand with us financially. We are only as strong as our supporters.

 

For Freedom,

ACT for America

 

+++

Muslim prof accused by Christian student of saying Jesus’ crucifixion is a hoax resigns from college

 

By Dave Urbanski 

April 13, 2017

The Blaze

 

A Muslim professor as resigned after a dispute with a Christian college student who accused her of saying the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax. (Image source: Getty Creative)

 

A Muslim professor at a small Florida college has resigned after a bitter dispute with a Christian student which included theological dust-ups, angry emails, a police report, a suspension for the student — and a reversal of the suspension — all of which made national headlines.

 

The professor, Areej Zufari, wanted 20-year-old sophomore Marshall Polston out of her Middle Eastern humanities class at Rollins College after doing battle with him for most of the spring semester. Polston accused her of saying Jesus’ crucifixion is a hoax and that his disciples didn’t believe he is God — but that wasn’t his only issue.

 

In an email to Zufari after receiving a failing grade on an essay, Polston wrote “you report me to the dean for correcting you while you were indoctrinating students with false information. On the other hand a Muslim student in class cracks a joke about chopping someone’s body parts off and you do nothing.”

 

The controversy spread beyond the private liberal arts school in Winter Park, which received thousands of angry messages about the professor.

 

The school’s President Grant Cornwell told the Orlando Sentinel that Zufari quit “because of the hateful threats and emails and phones messages she was getting. I think it’s a terrible injustice, but I do respect her decision.”

 

In addition, Cornwall told the paper that Polston’s suspension in late March — which was rescinded after a week — wasn’t over his theological dispute with Zufari but because of his “vulgar” and “mean-spirited” Facebook comments to another student. The president added to the Sentinel that since Polston’s posts didn’t constitute a specific threat, he was reinstated.

 

However, Polston’s reinstatement letter from Rollins College says his behavior was connected to more than just a single student, noting he had been “aggressive, disrespectful, and at times, vulgar in multiple verbal and electronic communications with faculty, staff and students.”

 

Cornwall’s revelation about Polston’s “vulgar” and “mean-spirited” Facebook comments was the the first time the school gave its reason for the suspension, the Sentinel reported, adding that the school wouldn’t comment earlier, citing student privacy laws.

 

But at the time, Cornwall did insist the school “never ever ever” would suspend a student simply for disagreeing with a professor.

 

Polston’s attorney Kenneth Lewis told the Sentinel the Facebook post was “nothing” and “a total joke” — and that the classroom dispute was the real reason for his client’s suspension.

 

Before Polston’s suspension, Zufari sought an injunction against him for “protection against stalking,” the paper said, citing court records — but she withdrew the injunction request last week.

 

Cornwell added to the Sentinel that school officials interviewed other students in Zufari’s class who disputed Polston’s allegations — and that the school decided his failing grade was appropriate after reviewing Polston’s essay.

 

“I was upset, understandably,” Polston told the Central Florida Post about his failing grade. “I’ve never gotten anything less than straight As, so I was really interested in figuring out how to possibly improve or at least understand the grade.”

 

In 2013, Rollins College kicked InterVarsity Christian Fellowship off campus because the student group required its leaders to be Christian and promote certain conservative beliefs, the Sentinel reported, which constituted a violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy.

 

This story has been updated.

 

(H/T: The College Fix)

 

______________

Polston Suspension Lifted – Prof Zufari Resigns

John R. Houk

© April 14, 2017

____________

We Did it! The Power of Grassroots!

 

ACT for America · 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 190, #614, Washington, DC 20004, United States

 

You can also keep up with ACT for America on Twitter or Facebook.

_______________

Muslim prof accused by Christian student of saying Jesus’ crucifixion is a hoax resigns from college

 

http://www.theblaze.com/

Fatah blatantly supports terror – findings presented in US Congress


In case you were unaware, Fatah is the terrorist organization of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) umbrella of Jew-hating Islamic terrorists. AND the PLO is the backbone of the Palestinian Authority (PA) – HERE & HERE. The PA is the so-called governing organization that four military/economic powers – Quartet (which includes the U.S. government) have demanded Israel commit national suicide to create a sovereign nation for the fake Palestinian people.

 

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has presented a roughly 47-page report on how Fatah is supporting blatant terrorism against the Jewish people of Israel.

 

JRH 3/20/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Fatah blatantly supports terror – findings presented in US Congress

 

By Itamar Marcus and PMW staff

Mar. 17, 2017

Palestinian Media Watch

 

Yesterday, Palestinian Media Watch presented its report Fatah Votes for Terror to the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle EastIncluded as an appendix to that report is a new collection of examples which show that Fatah continues to blatantly incite and glorify terror in 2017.

 

 

Posted text: “My weapon has emerged”

Text on image: “From my wounds, my weapon has emerged.

Oh, our revolution, my weapon has emerged.

There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand.

My path is bitter, your path is bitter, tread on my ribs and advance

How much this revolutionary people has sacrificed to live freely.”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 7, 2017]

 

The picture to the right, which Fatah posted on its official Facebook page and appears in Appendix 2 of PMW’s report, is just one of countless examples of the party’s violence promotion.

 

Click to view Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 2: Fatah terror promotion continues in 2017

 

Fatah promotes terror during times characterized by daily terror attacks as well as during relatively peaceful times. In Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 3, PMW documents that Fatah actively glorified terrorism on its Facebook page throughout the terror wave of 2015-2016.

 

The image below, which Fatah posted to its official Facebook page and appears in Appendix 3, glorified the ongoing violence and promised more to come:

 

Posted text: “We march, we are not afraid of the fire and we do not fear death. With blood we will redeem the homeland and saturate its ground. The anniversary is approaching.” #The_51st_anniversary_of_the_beginning _of_Fatah’s_activity”

Text on image: “Half a century has passed and we have never abandoned our weapons”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Dec. 26, 2015]

 

Click to view Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 3:

Fatah Facebook posts glorifying Palestinian terrorists during the 2015-2016 terror wave

 

The large number of examples documented in these appendices show that terror support is fundamental to Fatah’s ideology. This documentation is of paramount importance when examining whether the Palestinian Authority, with the Fatah Movement as its leading party, can be seen as a peace partner. Is Fatah leading the Palestinian people toward peace or toward continued terror?

 

Click to view PMW special report Fatah Votes for Terror in pdf

 

Click to view Appendix 2: Fatah terror promotion continues in 2017

 

Click to view Appendix 3: Fatah Facebook posts glorified

 

Palestinian terrorists during the 2015-2016 terror wave

 

__________________

© 1997-2017 Palestinian Media Watch|Reproduction Rights

 

About PMW

 

Founded in 1996, Palestinian Media Watch is an Israeli research institute that studies Palestinian society from a broad range of perspectives by monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks. PMW’s major focus is on the messages that the Palestinian leaders, from the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, send to the population through the broad range of institutions and infrastructures they control.

PMW’s many reports and studies on Palestinian summer camps, poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles, religious ideology, women and mothers, children’s music videos and the PA’s indoctrination of adults and children to seek Shahada (Martyrdom), have had significant impact on the way the world sees the Palestinians. PMW has presented its findings before members of US Congress and READ THE REST

 

VIDEO of My AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”


Islam- Sword not Pacifism

Andrew Bostom is one of my favorite Counterjihad authors. So when I discovered from the Counter Jihad Report that a Bostom speech was posted on his website a few days ago I was quite pleased to watch it. Below is the entire post from Bostom’s blog which includes the text of the speech.

Bostom talks of the failure of the Bush Administration’s concept of bringing Western democratic principles to overthrown dictatorships and hostile Muslim leadership. In hindsight, Bostom is correct to criticize this Bush Agenda; however, the concept was correct. History has shown that bringing democracy to repressive regimes (e.g. conquered Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the end of WWII) was and is highly successful. Not only have the citizens flourished when despotism was removed but once repressive regimes have chosen a path of peaceful dialogue and trade with their conquerors. UNFORTUNATELY, the nation-building paradigm does not work in a culture under the domination of a millennia of Islamic cultural brainwashing.

 

JRH 9/1/16

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO of My AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”

By Andrew Bostom

August 28, 2016 1:46 PM

Uncreated, Uncreative Words

Many thanks to Scott Jacobs for uploading the video of my speech last Sunday 8/21/16 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled,Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

The text in its entirety was posted at PJ Media last Monday 8/22/16, with the title, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’.” I was able to present about ~70% of the full text provided below the embedded video.

VIDEO: Andrew Bostom at the AFA Conference: “Islam, Mindslaughter, & the Catastrophic “Lewis Doctrine'”

Posted by Democracy Broadcasting

Published on Aug 28, 2016

http://DemocracyBroadcasting.com Dr. Andrew Bostom at the AFA Conference: “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘The Lewis Doctrine’.” Dr. Andrew Bostom examines Dr. Bernard Lewis’ legacy at American Freedom Alliance’s “Islam and Western Civilization Conference” in Los Angeles, 8/21/16.
See: https://pjmedia.com/blog/islam-mindslaughter-and-the-catastrophic-lewis-doctrine/

Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic “Lewis Doctrine”

Andrew Bostom

Text of a speech delivered Sunday, August 21, 2016 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

**

Col. Douglas MacGregor is a respected military strategist, who was a heroic tank commander during the 1991 Iraq war. As the Gen McChrystal scandal broke in 2010, Col MacGregor, who attended West Point with McChrystal, and was angered by the US military’s disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan “nation building” efforts, commented accurately,

The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense

Successful lobbying for that miserably failed utopianism was accomplished by bowdlerizing Islam—indeed mindslaughtering it, a powerful term I will introduce. My discussion will identify the ultimate source of “gravitas” for that bowdlerization process, and key elements of the Islam—not “Islamism,” or “radical Islam”—bowdlerized.

**

Tuesday August 2nd, (2016) Khizr Khan, who achieved notoriety for his condemnation of Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, had the temerity to tell Anderson Cooper “I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing.” Except when he, Khan, notes it does exist, as in his 1983 essay published in the Houston Journal of International Law, “JURISTIC CLASSIFICATION OF ISLAMIC LAW”, which used the word “Sharia” 8X, including this usage:

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah…”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper did not even challenge Khan’s mendacious, self-contradictory assertion let alone follow-up on Khan’s effusive written praise of two prominent, modern global Sharia promoting ideologues, Said Ramadan, and A.K. Brohi, making plain Khan’s support for so-called “Sharia-based human rights.” The Khan-Cooper exchange illustrates, starkly, the contemporary equivalent of what the great chronicler of Soviet Communist mass murder, Robert Conquest, appositely characterized as MINDSLAUGHTER—a brilliantly evocative term for delusive Western apologetics regarding the ideology of Communism, and the tangible horrors its Communist votaries inflicted. Conquest decried those numerous “Western intellectuals or near intellectuals” of the 1930s through the 1950s whose willful delusions about the Soviet Union, “will be incredible to later students of mental aberration.” He observed,

“One role of the democratic media is, of course, to criticize their own govern­ments, and draw attention to the faults and failings of their own country. But when this results in a transfer of loyalties to a far worse and thoroughly inim­ical culture, or at least to a largely uncritical favoring of such a culture, it becomes a morbid affliction—involving, often enough, the uncritical accep­tance of that culture’s own standards”

His critique of Western media highlights a cultural self-loathing tendency which has persisted and intensified over the intervening decades, and is now manifest in the bowdlerized public discussion of Islam. Tragically, such MINDSLAUGHTERED Islamic discourse extends to an iconic figure in conservative punditry on Islam, while the impact of this doyen’s policymaking advice has been disastrous.

Samuel Huntington acknowledged his indebtedness to Bernard Lewis’s 1990 essay, “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” for Huntington’s book title, “The Clash of Civilizations.” Lewis, as Huntington notes (on p. 213), in 1990, had pronounced,

This is no less than a clash of civilizations—that perhaps irrational, but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

 Oracle-like font of Islamic wisdom to a large swath of conservative policymaking elites, Bernard Lewis added this caveat:

 It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.

Despite his own morally equivocating advice, Lewis himself convinced the Bush 2 administration to pursue what became known, aptly, as “The Lewis Doctrine,” which was not only an irrational, but a catastrophic response to the eminently rational Islamic doctrine of jihad.

 Peter Waldman’s methodical, well-sourced Feb 3, 2004 WSJ investigative report (“A Historian’s Take on Islam Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight  Bernard Lewis’s Blueprint—Sowing Arab Democracy—Is Facing a Test in Iraq”) stands as important confirmation of the overarching ideology which spurred the March, 2003 Iraq invasion. Waldman meticulously documented how Lewis exerted profound influence in shaping the Bush II administration’s “Islamic democracy agenda”—invading Iraq being the sine qua non manifestation of this “Lewis Doctrine.” Lewis, as Waldman notes, began evangelizing his “Doctrine” to the highest level Bush II administration officials just over a week after 9/11, accompanied, significantly, by the late Ahmad Chalabi, a likely “vector” of Iranian influence.

Eight days after the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi –now [circa 2/2004] a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council—argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future

Call it the Lewis Doctrine.  ..Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast… As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.

Waldman also demonstrated how Lewis successfully indoctrinated the ultimate Bush II administration leadership to pursue his utopian design: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and most likely, National Security adviser (and later Secretary of State), Condoleezza Rice, as well.

I contend, after careful review, that the miserably failed “Lewis Doctrine” was a sham castle of dangerous, MINDSLAUGHTERED misrepresentations built upon four pillars: dhimmitude denial; Islamic Jew-hatred denial; Sharia obfuscation; and Lewis’s own inexplicable volte face on his gimlet-eyed 1950s assessments of Islamic totalitarianism, and “hurriyya,” the Islamic antithesis of Western freedom.

Regarding the imposition of the dhimma, Islam’s humiliating pact of submission for non-Muslims, per Koran 9:29, and the alleged absence of theological Jew-hatred in Islam, Lewis made these oracular, if vacuous and counterfactual, summary pronouncements, across three decades:

[1974] The dhimma on the whole worked well. The non-Muslims managed to thrive under Muslim rule, and even to make significant contributions to Islamic civilization. The restrictions were not onerous, and were usually less severe in practice than in theory. As long as the non-Muslim communities accepted and conformed to the status of tolerated subordination assigned to them, they were not troubled.

[1984] In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic history. For Muslims it is not part of the birth-pangs of their religion, as it is for Christians.

[2006] “dhimmi”-tude [derisively hyphenated] subservience and persecution and ill treatment of Jews… [is a] myth.

Shlomo Dov [S. D.] Goitein (d. 1985), unlike Lewis, was a historian, who specialized in the study of Muslim, non-Muslim relations. Goitein, whose seminal research findings were widely published, most notably in the monumental five-volume work A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (1967–1993), was Professor Emeritus of the Hebrew University, and a Lewis colleague while at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The New York Times obituary for Professor Goitein (published on February 10, 1985) noted, correctly, that his prolific writings on Islamic culture, and Muslim-non-Muslim relations, were “standard works for scholars in both fields.” Contra Lewis’s uninformed, whitewashed drivel, here is what Goitein wrote on the subject of non-Muslim dhimmis under Muslim rule, that is, “the dhimma covenant,” circa 1970:

[T]he Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by…the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. Its trea­sury was mal al-muslumin, the money of the Muslims. Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws. . . . As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence. . . . In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities

“The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism,” my own exhaustive treatise, included voluminous materials Lewis never bothered to compile, let alone analyze with comparable intellectual honesty. My careful analyses demonstrated, irrefragably, that the Koran, its classical and modern exegeses by Islam’s greatest commentators, and the traditions of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community, are rife with virulent, conspiratorial Jew-hating motifs that have been acted upon by Muslims, vis-à-vis Jews, across space and time, from the advent of Islam, till now.

The Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. Presently, Al Azhar Koranic litanies of 20 to 25 verses describing fixed negative traits of the Jews are popular, widely disseminated, and endorsed in the writings and public statements of this Vatican of Sunni Islam’s last two Papal equivalents, the late Grand Imam Tantawi, and current Grand Imam al-Tayeb. Such Jew-hating Koranic “highlights” include: Jews as prophet killers, updated in the hadith to include Muhammad himself—allegedly poisoned to death by a Jewess, in a Jewish conspiracy, while the Shiite hadith further hold the Jews responsible for the deaths of Ali, and his son Hussein—meriting permanent debasement and humiliation (Koran 2:61/3:112); Jews as apes, or apes and pigs (Koran 2:65; 5:60, 7:166)—a Koranic epithet Muhammad personally directed at the Jews according to the sira before the Muslims subdued, and he personally slaughtered, by beheading, all the post-pubescent males, some 700-900, of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza; Jews as inveterate conspirators against Islam (the ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Koran 5:64), who harbor the greatest enmity towards the Muslim creed (Koran 5:82). The Jews’ ultimate sin and punishment are made clear in the Koran: they are the devil’s minions (4:51/60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and pigs (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

A brilliant, scrupulously documented 72pp/202 ref 1937 essay in French by rabbi, and Islamic scholar Georges Vajda on the hadith (which Lewis never analyzed, but I felt privileged to have fully translated into English for the first time, and included in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism), demonstrated that stubborn malevolence is the Jews defining worldly characteristic in these traditions. Rejecting Muhammad and refusing to convert to Islam out of jealousy, envy and even selfish personal interest, lead them to acts of treachery, in keeping with their inveterate nature: “…sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.” These archetypes sanction Muslim hatred towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.” Vajda’s research on the hadith further illustrates how Sunni Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews supreme hostility toward Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Antichrist— and, per other traditions, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered—everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to several canonical hadith, Muhammad himself reportedly declared if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Vajda also emphasizes how the notion of jihad war “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology:

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

Lastly, a profound anti-Jewish, and racist motif, put forth in early Muslim Sunni historiography, as well as the Shiite hadith literature, is most assuredly, contra Lewis, a part of “the birth pangs” of Islam: the story of Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and, per Sunnis founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect. Sunnis held him responsible—identified as a black (i.e., a racist motif, as well!) Jew—for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence”, culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife. Authoritative Shiite authors claimed this identifiably black Jew was guilty of perverting and warping the message of Caliph Ali’s true (Shiite) followers. Mainstream Shiites thus designated Abdullah Ibn Saba an avatar of extreme, heretical beliefs, for which Caliph Ali purportedly had Ibn Saba burned alive, as described in Shiite hadith.

The entirety of this ugly Islamic doctrine—shared, with minimal variation, by Sunni and Shiite Islam alike—begot chronic, grinding oppression, interspersed with paroxysms of violence, including sporadic, mass murderous pogroms, which affected Jewish communities in Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and even mythically tolerant Muslim Spain, to the west, as well as Turkey, to the north, and Iraq and Iran, to the east. Modern Zionism, culminating in the re-establishment of Israel, governed by Jews fully liberated from 13 centuries of jihad-imposed dhimmitude in their ancestral homeland, has re-invigorated Islam’s annihilationist strains of Jew-hatred.

During a Pew Forum interview April 27, 2006 Bernard Lewis opined rather defensively about Islam’s religio-political “law,” the Sharia:

“[W]hen we talk of Muslim law, I would remind you that we are talking about law. Sharia is a system of law and adjudication, not of lynching and terror. It is a law that lays down rules, rules for evidence, for indictment, for defense and the rest of it, quite a different matter from what has been happening recently.”

But Lewis doesn’t elaborate on those “rules,” or any of the elements of Sharia which make it so noxious! I will. Briefly.

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing, Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof,” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

In light of the still raging 2006 Danish cartoons controversy, regarding the “crime” of blaspheming Islam’s prophet, specifically, thus spake Lewis, the Islamic Yoda of our generation, circa April, 2006:

“The jurists on the whole tend to take a rather mild view of this offense.”

Really? Carl Brockelmann (d.1956), the renowned scholar of Semitic languages, and arguably the foremost Orientalist of his generation, made these candid observations in 1939 about the Sharia’s injunctions pertaining to penal law in general, and so-called “blasphemy and apostasy,” specifically—Islamic Law being “valid” eternally, and all too widely applied in Brockelmann’s era, through the present.

“The penal code of Islam has remained on a rather primitive level…Blasphemy with respect to Allah, the Prophet, and his predecessors is punished by death, as is defection from Islam, if the culprit persists in his disbelief.”

Consider the modern views on blasphemy articulated by the late Ayatollah Montazeri (d. Dec 2009), gushingly championed by fervent Lewis acolytes Michael Ledeen and Reuel Gerecht, and deemed the enlightened spiritual godfather of the so-called Iranian Green Movement. The good Ayatollah adhered rigorously to the traditionalist Shiite dogma on “sabb,” or blasphemy, i.e., instant, lethal punishment of the offender, declaring,

“In cases of sabb al-Nabi [blasphemy against a prophet, in particular, Muhammad]if the witness does not have fear of his or her life it is obligatory for him or her to kill the insulter.”

“Rising Restrictions on Religion,” a report by the Pew Research Center issued August 9, 2011, examined the issue of “defamation” of religion, tracking countries where various penalties are enforced for apostasy, blasphemy or criticism of religions. “While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical,” the report noted. The Pew report, consistent with Brockelmann’s assessment from 1939, found that application of the Sharia at present resulted in a disproportionate number of Muslim countries, 21—Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Western Sahara and Yemen—registering the highest (i.e., worst) persecution scores on their scale. Furthermore, the Pew investigators observed,

Eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, the highest share of any region. These penalties are enforced in 60% of the countries in the region.

As a predictable consequence of this Sharia-based application of apostasy and blasphemy laws by Islamic governments, the Pew report also documented that,

…the share of national governments that showed hostility toward minority religions involving physical violence was much higher in countries where laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion are actively enforced

Bernard Lewis’s April 2006 apologetic on the Sharia was complemented by the stunning claim he made during a lecture delivered July 16, 2006 about the transferability of Western democracy to despotic Muslim societies, such as Iraq. He concluded with the statement, “Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us,” which was published as, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” and disseminated widely. Yet Lewis never elucidated the yawning gap between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom—hurriyya in Arabic. This omission was striking given his contribution to the official Encyclopedia of Islam entry on hurriyya. Lewis egregiously omitted not only his earlier writings on hurriyya but what he had also termed the “authoritarian or even totalitarian” essence of Islamic societies.

Hurriyya, “freedom,” is—as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,” expressed it  “perfect slavery,” and following Islamic law slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya. Bernard Lewis, in his Encyclopedia of Islam analysis of hurriyya, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era. Lewis maintained,

…there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government-to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West.

Lewis also makes the important point that Western colonialism transiently ameliorated this chronic situation:

During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issueThough often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after.

And Lewis concludes his entry by observing that Islamic societies forsook even their inchoate democratic experiments,

In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims.

Lewis, viewed the immediate post-World War II era of democratic experimentation by Muslim societies as an objective failure , rooted in Islamic totalitarianism, which he compared directly to Communist totalitarianism, in his 1954 essay, “Communism and Islam,” noting their “uncomfortable resemblances” with some apprehension. Lewis characterized the political history of Islam,” as “one of almost unrelieved autocracy.” He added,

“[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind…in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law”

Directly comparing Islam and Communism, Lewis observed:

“Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which-the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same…The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.”

Consistent with Bernard Lewis’s admonition, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” the US military, at an enormous cost of blood and treasure, liberated Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic regimes. However, as facilitated by the Sharia-based Afghan and Iraqi constitutions the US military occupation helped midwife—which formally negated freedom of conscience, and promoted the persecution of non-Muslim religious minorities—they,” i.e., the Muslim denizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have chosen to reject the opportunity for Western freedom we provided them, and transmogrified it into “hurriyya.” With sad predictability, Lewis, in an April 2, 2011 Wall Street Journal interview, managed to reject his own 1950s characterizations of Islam as authoritarian, even totalitarian, while burbling his subsequent oft repeated pieties about the putative tolerant, anti-authoritarian “tradition” of Islam, to cast a hopeful light on the Arab Spring:

The whole Islamic tradition is very clearly against autocratic and irresponsible rule.. We have a much better chance of establishing…some sort of open, tolerant society, if it’s done within their systems, according to their traditions.

Finally, in May, 2012, George W. Bush appeared to have learned nothing from the Iraq democratization debacle, and how it repudiated his blind adherence to the “Lewis Doctrine.” Mr. Bush hectored critics who did not share his ebullient cognitive dissonance about the then unfolding so-called Arab Spring phenomenon, declaring

Some look at the risks inherent in democratic change, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know, in the name of stability.

Bush II even made the outrageous claim that the, de facto Springtime for Sharia in Araby was tantamount to “the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet Communism.”

Far more important than mere hypocrisy—a ubiquitous human trait—is the catastrophic legacy of his own Islamic negationism Bernard Lewis has bequeathed to Western policymaking elites.

__________________

Andrew Bostom About / Contact

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at info@andrewbostom.org

For any website problems please contact the webmaster at webmaster@ndrewbostom.org

FYI — All yahoo email domains have been banned for spam abuse. Please use your own ISP to send email or get a gmail account. If you don’t your email will not be delivered or forwarded. Thanks, webmaster.

Again for Nice


Islam- Face of Enemy

[I hace a feeling Ari Bussel would not approve of the above image. This is this Blog Editor’s emotion about Islamic terrorism.]

 

Cataract surgery has placed me a bit behind in reading my email. The result being I am also a bit behind in catching writer submissions.

 

In this submission Ari Bussel writes about the threat of Islamic terrorism to the USA, Europe and Israel. Bussel rightly examines how Muslim Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are taught from the cradle to grave to hate Jews and destroy Israel AND how the West castigates Israel for their response to this Muslim hatred of Jews.

 

Bussel’s thoughts are inspired by an email exchange with a Japanese friend who queried him about the Islamic terrorist attack in Nice.

 

JRH 7/22/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Again for Nice

 

By Ari Bussel

Sent Sun 7/17/2016 1:22 AM

 

Dear John,

 

A family friend from Japan shared with us an e-mail he wrote to a friend in Nice.  I bring this e-mail in its entirety.

 

[Blog Editor: I performed just a little editing to the correspondence but for the most part the email tone is untouched —

 

Before end of World 2nd War, anybody in France/Germany or in Algeria were unable to judge who belonged to Nazi or who were only shamming as Nazi…

 

Then 70 years passed, again terrible thoughts of IS is getting infiltrated into many of EU countries by some portion of immigrated people from middle east, and infiltrated into many of south/east Asian places also.

 

Now nobody of well-meaning persons are getting unable to judge who are brainwashed IS members, who are infiltrated as IS, or who are nothing concerned among their neighborhood…

 

It regrets to say to what a new difficult stage we are facing now, how we should judge my neighboring persons or persons enjoy in down towns after every evening as common friends or as such dangerous persons?

 

And what we are able to act to get a peace again?

 

Always,

 

 

 

Ari Bussel

 

bussel@me.com

USA +1 (310) ***-****

 

On Jul 16, 2016, at 7:39 PM, wrote:

 

Dear Ari san,

 

Only for your guidance, I sent following message to one friend liv[ing] in south France.

 

My Best,
送信日時: 2016年7月16日 23:46
件名: again for Nice

 

Dear Jean-Remi san,

 

 

Very sorry, this is only my monologue & private words after drank this evening,

 

but if you have anything, hope to hear your comment…

Of course OK to be disregarded.

 

After I sent you a message of sympathy to tragedy in Nice, I just remembered one novel story “La Peste” which I had read often around 50 years ago at my university age, & was written in 1947 by famous French novelist “Albert Camus” what was taken place at Oran city in Algeria.

 

In such novel, Albert Camus probably regarded that a terrible black death disease Pesto as Nazism. Before end of World 2nd War, anybody in France/Germany or in Algeria were unable to judge who belonged to Nazi or who were only shamming as Nazi…

 

Then 70 years passed, again terrible thoughts of IS is getting infiltrated into many of EU countries by some portion of immigrated people from middle east, and infiltrated into many of south/east Asian places also.

 

Now nobody of well-meaning persons are getting unable to judge who are brainwashed IS members, who are infiltrated as IS, or who are nothing concerned among their neighborhood…

 

It regrets to say to what a new difficult stage we are facing now, how we should judge my neighboring persons or persons enjoy in down towns after every evening as common friends or as such dangerous persons?

 

And what we are able to act to get a peace again?

 

Probably you are surprised to read this e-mail what I have never sent before to any of my friends but I was in Nice very often and enjoyed a very beautiful sea view on Promenade des Anglais and I still got excited at Nice tragedy…

 

My Best Regards,

 

 

 

Have you read that novel?]

 

Here is my reply:

 

Your e-mail is the least expected and most thought provoking and insightful writing I have received lately.  Thank you very much for sharing, and for exposing me to Camus’ La Peste.

 

There will be peace again, but first, we must fight and conclude WWIII, in which midst we are now.

 

A Global Islamic Caliphate

 

You refer to IS (Islamic State, in Arabic Daesh), but its ideology is not new, just its methods more widely “appreciated.”

 

Wahhabism (Saudi Arabi, the most common ideology to be found in “cultural centers” and mosques throughout the USA courtesy of Saudi money) and Muslim Brotherhood (primarily to be found in Egypt and Gaza, but here in the USA shared by the “spokespeople” known as CAIR-the Council on American-Islamic Relations) are not different from Daesh or the Mullahs in Iran.  Each wants to establish a global Islamic caliphate and to subjugate all to its doctrine and way of living.  [I, for one, do not want to live as a Dhimmitude (second class citizen) according to Sharia Law.]

 

Each slightly “different” version of Islam is just a different flavor of the same, and all are expected to experience the same fate:  convert and become a devout Muslim following the particular manner of Islam being advocated, be a second class citizen (by paying a “protection” tax) or die.  It is true about non-Muslims (non-believers) and about Muslims who do not subscribe to the exact same interpretation of Islam by the particular “flavor of the moment.”

 

Lately, Daesh has managed to attract followers the world over.  Its methods are gruesome, the exact meaning of “terrorism”:  instilling fear in us.  Murdering en mass, setting people on fire (like the Jordanian pilot inside a metal cage).  Raping and selling to slavery women and children.

 

Non-Muslims are at Peril

 

Minorities throughout Arab states are at great peril.  The Yazidis in Iraq.  The Coptic in Egypt.  The Christians throughout Africa.  The Jews in Israel.

 

Israel has proven to be one safe haven for all.  Minorities are guaranteed the same freedoms as Israelis.  They are respected – as it is a major tenet in the Bible.  For the Muslims, Israel is a problem, for it refuses point blank to go away.  It is the only source of light in an otherwise growing darkness engulfing the world.  It is a refuge where sanity rules.  It is a spring of innovation and goodness.  And – it is a laboratory where the forces of darkness and the cults of death unleash their wares – from homicide bombings to cars plowing at civilians.

 

In short, Israel is an obstacle in the way of the ever-spreading Islamic forces.  At one point it was Iran, more recently Daesh.  But they all aspire for the same end-result, and to achieve that, Israel must be “wiped off the map of the earth” and the Jews must be exterminated.  (Same doctrine as that of the Nazis.)

 

WWIII is that of Islam trying to rule the world, except the various versions have not agreed yet among themselves which is the dominant one, which will prevail.  In the meantime, the Islamists have declared “Europe has Fallen!  America is Next!”

 

A Culture of Death

 

You mention people who are “brainwashed.”  Once it was believed that the destitute become “martyrs” (or as we call them “terrorists”).  Except, it was established long ago that this is not the case, and there are numerous examples.  I often cite the doctors (MDs) who drove with a car full of explosives into the Glasgow airport.  Not only were they not impoverished, they had taken an oath to protect and save human lives.  None had mattered.  They became part of a death cult.

 

Brainwashing is what takes place in the “Palestinian” areas.  From age zero, their kids are taught to hate non-Muslims (“Pigs and Apes” we are called – reference to Jews and Christians).  They watch children’s programs and cartoons, video games and music videos that glorify “martyrdom” for the sake of 72 virgins in heaven and to avenge some wrongdoing (the audacity of existing).  They go through summer camps and training camps how to murder, how to use a knife and a gun, how to explode themselves (and add to the explosives contaminated blood, rat poison or sharp metal objects to add to the devastation).  The textbooks in schools teach them hatred.  Classrooms, soccer fields and major intersections and city squares are named after terrorists as are stamps and other collectibles.

 

A mother swears her son is a good “kid.”  That he ate her amazing cooking and was at home the all night.  It turns out it was all a lie, he went with a friend, butchered a Jewish family – two parents and three of their children, the youngest just an infant – and then went back home to sleep.

 

They went back home to sleep, and continued to live as if they just executed the most peaceful, most beloved and most admirable act in the world.

 

When arrested, they knew that their families will be well taken care.  Japanese, European and American aid money is used to pay very generous monthly stipends to their families.  The more people one murders or maims, the higher the stipend.

 

Stopping the flow of money will not stop the lunacy, but it is absolutely necessary to send a message:  We are not part of this insanity.  But the money keeps flowing, and some of the teachings and indoctrination take place inside UNRWA schools (again, the United Nations playing a major role, exact opposite to the reason it was created).

 

Moreover, the young terrorists became heroes, their acts exalted, their families worshiped.  They did the right thing!  (Let us forget not that the mother went on TV and vowed the son was at home and would never do something like that – it is “against how he was raised,” it is “against the teachings of Islam” she said.)  There are public celebrations and days of worship and exaltation of such devout and devoted “heroes.”

 

This is in Israel, but what is effective in Israel is also effective elsewhere.

 

Except, when it happens in Israel, the world does not call it “terrorism.”  Instead, the world points a blaming finger right at Israel.  This is nothing new, just pure old anti-Semitism.  When it happens days, weeks or months later elsewhere, it is abhorred.  Thus, hundreds of homicide bombings (when a person comes into a crowded location and detonates an explosive belt he or she wears, shouting “Allah-U-Akbar”) in Israel – not a single objection.  When the same happened at a Jordanian (Muslim) wedding, the top Islamic clergy issued Fatwas (edicts) this is contrary to the teachings of Islam (it is, if the victims are Muslims).

 

When Muslim spokespeople go out to say “We Condemn Terrorism,” they cite some very known “incidents.”  They never include any of the exact same attacks in Israel, or in Israel’s capital – Jerusalem.  There it cannot be terrorism, for Jewish blood is allowed, because Jews deserve what they get.

 

Exporting Terrorism

 

Since the first day of October, 2015, to today, Israel has experienced what is called the Third (or Youth) Intifada (Uprising).  Primarily young people (age 13, 17, sometimes younger even) take a knife or scissors and go out to murder Jews – a 13yo, an 86yo, and more.

 

Others drive into crowds standing at a bus station.  (Does that sound familiar?  Nice was not invented two days ago, rather, the practice was well rehearsed repeatedly in Israel.)

 

The head of the “Palestinian Authority” calls it a “Symphony of Blood” and calls to quench the thirsty earth.  On official radio, TV and newspapers.  Repeatedly they call to do more of the same.  Glorification of death in this culture or cult of death.

 

Is there any wonder, then, that the same is then “exported” elsewhere?  It is very difficult to fight a non-conventional war, and Israel has become the laboratory.  This cancer must be eradicated.  We are told it is not “organized,” that individuals are rising up (thus the reason that the Third or Youth Intifada is also called the Individual Intifada.  But this is not the case).

 

Lessons of WWII

 

You went back to the Nazi era.  Humanity promised not to forget, to internalize the lessons and that such madness would happen “Never Again!”  Seven decades have passed, and we are experiencing exactly the same.  The last remnants of the Holocaust are still here, some survivors (primarily in their nineties) and child-survivors (like both my parents).

 

Let us remember (as you had indirectly highlighted) two lessons from the Holocaust and WWII:

 

First, more Christians died in the hands of Christian in WWII.  The systematic extermination of the Jews – six million murdered, 20% children – paled in comparison to the ten-fold number of Christians that died.

 

In WWIII, more Muslims will die in the hands of a Muslim [or Muslims].

 

Thus, anyone following that lesson from long ago must ask:  Why are the Muslims not speaking out?  Why are they not rising to protect themselves, not for our sake, for they too would not want to revert to the 7th Century way of living?

 

The answer is simple:  Many are afraid.  Some agree with what is taking place (even if a very small percentage, it still translates to many tens of millions of people [Bold text from Editor]). The remainder do not have anyone to follow, so they fall in place as well, lost to the ever increasing feeling of dominance and power.

 

And to them I suggest to ponder a poem by one Pastor Martin Niemoller: “First they came….”

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

— Fighting from Within

 

You asked about how does one differentiate the innocent from the culprit.  The answer is simple.  It is not you or I who need to do so.  The Muslim communities must act to reform themselves.  They can identify those within them who are getting ready to perpetrate atrocities, but they close their eyes, they cover their ears.  They refuse to do anything.  And so, the work continues uninterrupted.  And help is always given to those who seek it.

 

In theory it sounds commonsensical for the Muslim communities to be on the alert, again – for their own sake.  But in practice here in the USA, the Muslim community at large is taught by its assumed leaders (like CAIR and MPAC – Muslim Public Affairs Council) not to cooperate with authorities, to cry foul every time there is an investigation and to point a blaming finger to us, the non-Muslims.  There is even a manual what to do when questioned, for immediately, automatically and by default, their “civil rights” have been attacked.

 

Even in other matters, such as travel.  We are all subjected to searches at airports – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – except all the terror attacks that used airports or airplanes have been perpetrated by … yes, you guessed it!  We cannot go to the gate if we do not have a ticket.  We must remove our belt and shoes, we must open our computer.  We cannot take any liquids if more than a tiny container.  And the list of restrictions goes on and on.

 

Everyone is subjected to the same rules, but Muslims complain:  We “target” them.  We accuse them.  We persecute them.  We hate them.

 

The truth is different, but they prefer to sound the “victim” cry-of-war.

 

They are the victims and we are at fault.  That has been what we, Americans, have been hearing also from our President for the past seven and a half years.

 

Tell a lie often enough, and people will start believing it.  So in the USA, there are no “terror” attacks and no “terrorists.”  We only have “work-place violence.”  We are told that “Islam is a peaceful religion” and we are so politically correct that we are made to repeat it ad nauseam.

 

For Humanity to Prevail

 

For WWIII to end, Islam – a geopolitical movement (often mistaken to be a monotheistic religion) – must reform itself.  This will have to happen from within, for I – a Jewish person – cannot reform Islam, nor can any other person of any other faith outside Islam.

 

For WWIII to end, Islam will have to be defeated and crushed, in the same manner that Nazism was crushed allowing for WWII to end. [Bold text from Editor] And a better Germany rose out of the ashes, reminding the entire world that humanity matters.  (Interestingly, the Bible teaches us that this is exactly what God expects from us, to be good human beings, to treat the other as we want to be treated ourselves, to do good and to be kind.)

 

We, human beings, have a tendency to easily forget and to a practice of not knowing our own history.  Seven decades have passed from the most horrific period we have known in modern times, and here we are repeating the very same mistakes once again.

 

I am attaching something I wrote recently, “Everything but Terrorism.”  Yesterday there is a continuation, “The Lighthouse of Humanity.”  I will forward the latter as soon as it is published.

 

Thank you again for a thought-provoking reaction to Nice.

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Ari Bussel

 

Blog Editor: I found a very good bio for Mr. Bussel that reveals more than I had previous known of pertaining to his history. The bio is from BeverlyHills.com in pdf format which I am converting to a Word format to make it easier to share here.

 

Ari Bussel Bio

 

Ari Bussel is Vice President of Operations at Saybrex International, a privately held family business specializing in the distribution of fine wines and spirits. He is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company and has held various positions in the company since 1993.

 

Prior to joining Saybrex, Mr. Bussel served as First Lieutenant in the Center for Systems Analysis at General Headquarters of the Israel Defense Forces, where he led the implementation of the Logistics War Doctrine in the Computerized Wargame Program.

 

Mr. Bussel is involved in a variety of philanthropic and civic activities. Mr. Bussel completed the Team Beverly Hills Leadership Program and served on the Environmental Sustainability Topic Committee of the City of Beverly Hills. He was a member of the Steering Committees of former Beverly Hills Mayor MeraLee Goldman and the current Beverly Hills City Treasurer, the Hon. Eliot Finkel. Mr. Bussel also completed and participated in the Community Emergency Response Training Program of the City of Beverly Hills as well as the Crisis Response Team of the Maple Counseling Center.

 

Mr. Bussel was among the founding members and served on the boards of Gen. Shimon Erem’s Israel Christian Nexus, the Western Region of Friends of Israel Firefighters and the Israel Institute for Alternative Energy Advancement. He completed the Salvin Leadership Program of the Anti-Defamation League.

 

Mr. Bussel writes regularly. For the past decade, his weekly columns appeared in print in Israel Jewish Life, Shalom LA, Muslim World Today and Israeli Week. Mr. Bussel’s articles appear on numerous websites, including Canada Free Press, Free Republic, NewsBlaze, SlantRight [That’s me] and OpEdNews. He is a member of the Los Angeles Press Club.

 

Mr. Bussel received a Master of Science in Operations Research from Stanford University and Bachelor’s degrees from UCLA in Applied Mathematics and in Economics with a specialization in Computing.

 

Mr. Bussel was an avid runner who completed the 2005 and 2006 Los Angeles Marathon.

 

Mr. Bussel divides his time between Israel and the United States, writing about the social, political, military and foreign policy fabrics of the two countries. Mr. Bussel is a member of the foreign press corps in Israel. Since 2008, Mr. Bussel has cooperated with award-winning investigative journalist and author in a series of essays “Postcards from America

 

– Postcards from Israel,” and since 2011 in a series of radio broadcasts “Conversations Eye to Eye.”

What Me Worry?


antisemitism defined

Do you hate Jews? If you are studious Muslim you might answer of course – it is encoded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. If you are a Nazi or Neo-Nazi you would probably answer yes, your delusional hero uncle Adolf taught you to hate Jews in his writings.

 

Are you an American, a Westerner and/or a Christian? Do you hate Jews (Profanity Warning – Pat Condell condemns Jew-hatred)? SHAME ON Y0U if you answer yes.

 

Are you a Progressive and hate Jews (FrontPageMag & DTN) because Israel exists and those poor non-entity Palestinians have told you they are victims? Then you are a deluded idiot.

 

Any hatred of a people or religious faith is an evil. From a Christian perspective, hating Jews is just plain ungodly. If you think the Jews are collectively responsible for the Crucifixion of Christ, you should their hand. Without Christ’s death and Resurrection, you to realize we would still be lost to the Fallen nature of Adam that the Resurrected Jesus redeemed us from.

 

It is wrong to blame Jews for the Crucifixion, that was actually a collaboration Roman leadership (Gentiles) and the Jewish Sanhedrin leadership. Does anyone persecute Italians for being Christ-killers?

 

Norma Zager wonders out loud if there is an inoculation for hate. Why? Antisemitism is again raising its ugly head among those that should be enlightened to see the idiocy of Jew-hatred in this day and age of the 21st century.

 

JRH 6/27/16

Please Support NCCR

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

What Me Worry?

 

By Norma Zager

Sent: 6/26/2016 7:59 PM

 

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” John F. Kennedy

 

So many years ago, and I purposely choose not to remember, Alfred E. Newman graced the cover of Mad Magazine begging the question, “What Me Worry?”

 

An icon of sorts, Alfred’s question became a watchword or guide for my generation.  Peace love and rock n’ roll seemed to fit perfectly into the parameters of “What Me Worry?”  And we didn’t, at least not much until we entered adulthood and found ourselves face to face with actual life.

 

Now it seems to me I feel compelled to raise the question once again, but the worry somehow seems implicit in the question itself, “what me hate?” There is so much hate around us these days; it is almost impossible to escape its ravages or virus-like movement through our lives.

 

Would one invent a vaccine to eradicate hatred? I actually wonder how many earthlings would choose to sign up for a dose.

 

And that is my conundrum.

 

For as I have come face to face with the ugliness of hatred, I now must admit to myself it is a conscious choice and one that is dictated by a willingness to believe lies about those very people we seek to dislike and blame.

 

As a Jewish person I have faced anti-Semitism numerous times. Whether from gentiles or self-hating Jews, the effects are always nauseating and unsettling, and after a bout with a hater I am left spent and weary as a sickly feeling courses through my veins until I can finally dispel its effects.

 

The most difficult task coming face to face with anti-Semitism is what to do. Shall I speak up? Shall I defend Israel? Shall I remain mute, retain relationships and betray my true self? What is my responsibility and how far shall I go? Perhaps to even refuse a job as I once did.

 

Is there a way to make a hater stop hating or a denier accept truth? What is gained by my leaping into the fray and becoming emotionally involved? These are questions only one can answer for oneself.

 

Do I wish I could remain mute, slough it off and change the subject? Yes, I do. Am I able to do so and not hate myself? No, unfortunately not. So either way I wind up feeling like a ton of ugliness was dumped on my head. I suppose that is a problem that has no answer. Hate does not possess a path for winning on any level.

 

Yesterday I came face to face with a hater. Oh of course hatred robes itself in intelligence. Academia prides itself on being above the fray. By their sheer acumen they can better discern fact from fiction, the cause from effect and of course who is to blame for the ills of the world. They believe they are right, defenders of the truth, and feel no remorse when pulling out the trite and careworn blame-the-Jews theories from their intellectual toolbox.

 

And yet laughingly for them it all still comes back to one answer: The Jews are to blame of course.

 

I should not have been shocked when speaking yesterday with an educator who firmly believes Israel is an occupier and killer of innocent Palestinians and that the problems of the Jewish people could be blamed directly on Israel’s behavior in the Middle East.

 

And yet I still find it hard to believe that in the wake of all the information available about Israel’s desire to live in peace with her neighbors and terrorist groups like Hamas that attack innocent Israelis on a daily basis, one would have accumulated the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision.

 

But no, it is still the Jews that are at fault. Or as the anti-Semite asked me yesterday, “Don’t Palestinians have rights? It was their land,” and on and on and on with all the crazy rhetoric that fuels the fires of hatred. Sadly, she believes her assumptions are truth, and being so accomplished intellectually she thus has the right to make this choice.

 

What I find so amusing is that even after the world has seen what the Arab world is capable of – stonings, killings, murdering homosexuals, cutting off heads, burning people alive and barbaric behavior in the most primitive forms – it still chooses to side with them against the Jewish people.

 

It is not information haters seek, it is merely a reason to hate, to fuel the fires of their racist rants.

 

I cannot speak for Muslims, although I know only too well they are suffering terribly for those among them who pay homage to a culture of hatred and evil.  My heart goes out to them, and I hope they as a religion find a way to escape from this dark cloud that has risen above them.

 

I can however speak as a Jew.  I have seen that in a world filled with evil, a Jewish life brings far less on the open market. Although it seems our Christian brethren have now succumbed to the ravages of evil as well, with few to cry out against their tormentors.

 

There is no excuse for hatred and racism if one can forego one’s prejudices and accept the facts. I am not saying Israel or the Jewish people are perfect and without flaws; perfection does not exist on this earth and never will, and we are all a little right and a little wrong at times. I am only saying that when faced with a scenario that includes hating evildoers or a Jew, haters, sadly, opt to blame the Jew.

 

It does not matter how many missiles rain down on Israeli children before they are forced to fight back; it does not matter how many leaflets are dropped by the IDF warning Palestinians to leave their homes and find safety because Israeli jets are coming; it does not matter how many Palestinian leaders hide their weapons in kindergartens or hospitals to rack up scores of victims to serve their PR purposes; it will always be the fault of the Jews.  Because that is the choice the haters make and they will never change.

 

Winston Churchill said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

 

Perhaps it is only in the end the world will finally acknowledge the truth, but I highly doubt the haters will choose to see it even then.

 

It is clear to me that Friedrich Nietzsche was correct when he wrote, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” I suppose as long as this is the case the haters will hate, the idealistic will defend and the pragmatists will stand aside and let them fight it out.

 

I often wonder who will win, and that is what truly gives me pause. For it seems more and more each day it is haters 6,000,000+ and defenders of the truth 0.

 

So I must ask myself once again as I have so many times before, “What Me Worry?”

 

You bet I do.

_______________

This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

© Israel Monitor, June, 2016

 

First Published June 25, 2016

Contact:  bussel@me.com