AM I THE ONLY PERSON CRYING OUT IN ANGUISH AGAINST THIS HATRED BY DAVID ICKE

Felix Quigley answers this evil hatred of a people by David Icke. The following appears on the David Icke website. Icke has taken this from “MiddleEastMonitor” and this scurrilous charácter Icke is saying this Jewish soldier gives water to a Palestinian Arab woman, has a photo taken for propaganda purposes and then shoots her in the head. Meanwhile this horror calumny against the Jewish people is carried onto the airways thanks to British Jew Martin Nathan and his radio station Talk Radio Europe … on which station many Jewish people are working and are associated with. The spawn of Icke a person called “Richie Allen” is offered 2 hours nightly for publication of this kind of stuff. Am I the only person fighting against this I cry out in anguish?

‘During the Israeli bombardment and shelling of the Gaza Strip last summer, an Israeli soldier approached a 74-year-old Palestinian woman Ghalya Abu-Rida to give her a sip of water. He gave her the water, took a photo with her and then he shot her in the head from a distance of one metre. He then watched as she bled to death, the Palestine Information Centre reported.

This is how Ahmad Qdeh, a journalist in Al-Aqsa TV, described the scene that he witnessed during the latest Israeli aggression. The spokesman of the Israeli army, Avichay Adraee, shared the photo of an Israeli soldier holding the water bottle and helping the old woman drink as an example of the “humanity” of the Israeli army towards the civilians in the Gaza Strip.’

EL SISI IS A VALIANT LEADER AND MUST BE SUPPORTED BUT HIS TASK IS HUGE INDEED

Obama brought the full weight of the west to overthrow the secular leaders like Ben Ali, Gaghbo, and here Mubarak and Gadhafi in favor of the Jihadists their mortal enemies. It will not be easy for el Sisi

FELIX QUIGLEY SAYS…At the end Martin Sherman writes

“So while Sisi’s endeavor should be warmly applauded – and supported – its chances of success are sufficiently uncertain – indeed, remote – that it would be more than imprudent of the West and for Israel to make any assumption of such success a basis for future policy.”

That is a wise warning.

Ben Shapiro took on Ben Affleck and the myth that only a tiny minority of Muslims worldwide are radical. Shapiro based his thoughts on this so vital matter on the Pew Poll Research. There are huge numbers in ALL of these countries like Egypt who are in favor of Sharia Law, or aspects of Sharia Law, such as hand cutting for theft. This is the culture of 1500 years of indoctrination by Islam.

It therefore cannot be easy and it is well to know this. But there is one other factor which is absolutely central. There is the role of the world capitalist governments of all types, especially the US Governments and the European states. Their role is to defend and prop up, even promote, Islam.

And note it well there is only ONE Islam. It is based on the Koran. Note the extreme confusión that even the valiant el Sisi throws up on thiis very score.

But back to those governments. The Arab secular governments have met not just the wrath of the Islam but also the wrath of those very governments. Obama insisted on overthrowing Mubarak and he invited the Muslim Brothers in Egypt to attend his first public occasion in Cairo. Remember that. Then on to Ivory Coast, Tunisia, above all to the war on Gadhafi. Britain and France were to the very fore in this.

So that is the enemy. It is a huge enemy indeed. The Fascist left like the David Icke spawn are playing perhaps a key roll where even the murder of cartoonists in Paris and Jews in a Kosher establishment are being changed, morphing into sheer Antisemitism – the Palestinian Arab ANTISEMITIC narrative enters everything.

Martin is right. This is a huge task. Please let us discuss the implications with an open mind.

Into the Fray: Sisi or ISIS?

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi
It is possible that $1.6 Billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible!” – Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Al-Azhar, January 1

“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty.” – Koran, Sura 9:123

“Violence… occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.” – Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, 1993

<a href=”http://www.bidvertiser.com/bdv/BidVertiser/bdv_publisher_toolbar_creator.dbm”>toolbar</a>
On New Year’s Day, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi delivered a remarkable address at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University.

The Obama-Sisi contrast

He directed measured, but nonetheless severe, censure at much of the Islamic clergy, their interpretation of religious texts and their prescription for how Muslims should practice their faith in the modern day: “I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing – and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!”

Ironically, Sisi spoke at the same venue that Barack Obama chose to deliver his 2009 “Outreach Speech” to the Muslim world. But the contrast between the two could hardly be more striking. As one US analyst deftly noted: “Obama began the 2009 speech by praising the same seminary that Sisi reprimanded,” emphasizing “That [Obama’s approach] is different from Sisi, who is trying to suppress the Brotherhood movement and push Al-Azhar’s Islamic leaders toward modernity.”

Sisi used the occasion to condemn the ongoing practices in the Islamic world, after having coercively removed the regressive and ruinous regime of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. By contrast, Obama heaped effusive praise on Islam, and insisted on places of honor for senior Brotherhood representatives – to the chagrin of his host, president Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, many consider Obama’s words and gestures in Cairo as providing a considerable – arguably, crucial – fillip in the process that swept the Brotherhood to power barely two years later.

Revolution not reform

Although Sisi was at pains to appear respectful to Islam as a religion per se, there was little doubt as to the grim view he took of the consequences of the manner in which Muslims were being instructed to observe their faith.

“That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!” he said.

Sisi appealed to the religious establishment for a “more enlightened perspective”: “I am saying these words here at Al-Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema [top Islamic scholars] – Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now…you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to… reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.”

But despite his ostensible deference, Sisi made no bones about what was called for. Not gradual reform but swift revolution. “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move,” he urged.

Tendency to appease

Sisi is undoubtedly correct in his diagnosis of Islam as comprising “a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.” However, until recently the tendency of the “rest of the world” has been to appease rather than oppose, to understand rather than withstand, to excuse rather than expunge.

Nonetheless, lately there does appear to be the beginning of rumbling discontent in the West, and indications that resistance to Islamic-inspired outrages is beginning to emerge – albeit far too timidly and far too slowly.

It is still too early to assess whether the savage slaughter in Paris last week will prove a tipping-point in the mood toward Islam and shift it from angst to anger. There is, however, considerable room for skepticism.

For despite the short-term uproar the killings at Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher has generated, the death toll pales when compared to far-greater Muslim-motivated atrocities perpetrated in the West without producing a sustained, resolute response to deal adequately with the manifest menace.

With 17 dead, last week in Paris seems unlikely to become a watershed event. After all, the Madrid train bombings left 191 dead and 1,800 wounded in 2004; the London subway bombing 52 dead and 700 wounded in 2005; the Mumbai attacks almost 170 killed and over 600 injured in 2008, and the Moscow metro bombing 40 dead and over 100 injured in 2010. This of course is but a minute sample of a long, gory list of post 9/11 Muslim massacres, carried out in the name of their religious belief.

Islam’s bloody borders

It is difficult to see why the ordeal in Paris, gruesome as it was, will produce the required stiffening of resolve.

After all, the incipient clash between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds has been part of the public discourse for over two decades. In his controversial – some might say, prescient – article “The Clash of Civilizations?” in Foreign Affairs (1993), the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted: “The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” He warned: “… the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the… boundaries of the… Islamic bloc of nations, from the bulge of Africa to central Asia…. Islam has bloody borders.”

In a subsequent book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1998), Huntington wrote: “No single statement in my Foreign Affairs article attracted more critical comment than: ‘Islam has bloody borders.’… Quantitative evidence from every disinterested source conclusively demonstrates its validity.”

Subsequent events and statistics strongly corroborate Huntington’s contentions.

Bloody borders (cont.)

It is possible to fill tomes with examples of obdurate Islamic enmity to Judaism and Christianity. But Islamic intolerance is not confined to the monotheistic People of the Book.

One of the most graphic illustrations of Islam’s abiding rejection of all that is not Islamic is provided by the 2001 destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

The statues, which stood for 15 centuries (!) were designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, and were perhaps the best-known cultural landmark of the region. Despite all this, and ignoring international appeals, the Taliban government reduced the statues to rubble, in a determined, prolonged and complex effort.

According to the then-Afghan culture minister, 400 religious clerics from across the country decided the “statues were un-Islamic.”

The Taliban’s spiritual leader and supreme commander Mullah Muhammad Omar, proclaimed: “Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them.” The then-foreign minister told a Japanese daily: “We are destroying the Buddha statues in accordance with Islamic law… it is purely a religious issue.”

This implacable enmity toward the un-Islamic is reflected in the appalling statistics regarding Islamic violence.

Some estimates indicate that since 9/11, there have been a staggering 25,000 lethal acts of Islamic terrorism.

Islam’s bloody innards

In his Al-Azhar address, Sisi issued a stern warning: “… this umma [Islamic world] is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.” The warning is timely and accurate.

For, as I pointed out in last week’s column, as appalling as Muslim violence against non-Muslims might be, it pales into insignificance when compared to violence among Muslims themselves.

In a sense, Sisi was echoing views Huntington articulated in his book: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and… obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

Judging from the scope of the carnage, Islam’s innards are if anything bloodier than its borders, and the enmity for fellow Muslims far outstrips that for the infidel.

Quite apart from the well-known Sunni- Shia rift that has resulted in untold deaths, the myriad massacres in mosques, marketplaces and madrassas across Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim-dominated Dar a-Salaam (Zone of Peace) make it impossible for anyone other than a learned expert to decipher the patterns of intra-Islamic rivalries and the reasons for their lethal consequences.

Sisi’s passionate cry that the Muslim world is being torn apart at its own hands is corroborated everyday by a never-ending stream of blood-soaked facts.

‘No stronger retrograde force exists…’

Well over 100 years ago, in his book The River War (1899), Winston Churchill predicted with stunning prescience much of the realities which Sisi laments in his New Year address: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful, fatalistic apathy.”

Churchill warned of adverse effects on Muslim economies and societies: “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live… the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

On Islam’s attitude to women, he wrote: “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Regarding conflict with the West, he provided an ominous caveat: “Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science… the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome… ”

Given the situation in Europe today, this is a prognosis that should not be lightly dismissed.

Ataturk or Anwar Sadat?

It’s difficult to overstate the importance that Sisi’s speech could have – and equally important to exercise sober caution in developing excessively optimistic expectations as to the practical impact it may have.

Earlier this week, the influential US columnist George Will raised both the prospects and the perils: “…as head of the Egyptian state, Al Sisi occupies an office once occupied by Anwar Sadat who was murdered by Islamic extremists for his opening to Israel. This was an act of tremendous bravery by Sisi, and if the Nobel Peace Prize committee is looking for someone who plausibly deserves it, they could start there.”

Will Sisi be able to initiate a Kemalist-like transformation of Egypt as Kemal Ataturk did in Turkey just under a hundred years ago (and now disintegrating rapidly under the Islamist Erdogan regime)? The answer is far from certain. The times and circumstances in today’s Egypt are vastly different – and arguably more daunting – than those in post-WWI Turkey.

Egypt faces almost insurmountable socioeconomic challenges, and failure by Sisi to address them adequately will provide his numerous radical opponents much grist for their extremist mills to grind.

Recent reports (The Jerusalem Post, January 12) that a newly exposed Islamic State-affiliated cell that “planned to assassinate government ministers, media personalities and businessmen in the coming days” dramatically underscore how a tragic rerun of political assassination in Egypt cannot be discounted.

So while Sisi’s endeavor should be warmly applauded – and supported – its chances of success are sufficiently uncertain – indeed, remote – that it would be more than imprudent of the West and for Israel to make any assumption of such success a basis for future policy.

Sisi, ISIS & Israel

The outcome of the titan battle between Sisi and Islamic State will, of course, have dramatic impact on Israel, particularly with regard to the fate of Sinai, and the ramifications this will have on our long southern border and the city of Eilat.

But that is a topic for another – and somewhat depressing – article in the future.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies http://www.strategicisrael.org.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner AND HER ACTION IN THE HAGUE IS TOTAL BETRAYAL OF JEWS AND SERBS

The Israeli Law centre is wrong and is a danger to Israel. Taking any case to the Nazi Hague Court (ICC) is a betrayal of Serbs and Jews. Fatah and Hamas are Nazi organizations founded by this Nazi (above) Hajj Amin el Husseini from whom Arafat and Abbas descended

I am totally opposed to this business of Israel taking Palestinian Arabs to the International Criminal Court. I have a far better strategy which is for Israel to arrest the leadership of Fatah and Hamas and to uproot their organizations.

 

I am opposed to the concept of “International Law” full stop. There is no difference between this concept and the Samantha Power very great danger to Israel and to the independence of ALL national states of “Responsibility to Protect”

 

This Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin, the Israel Law Center, is walking right into this trap. It is seeking to disarm Jews of Israel and their supporters internationally in the face of Samantha Power and Obama’s lethal “Responsibility to Protect”.

 

This means that I am also totally in opposition to the concepts in the brain of this lady called Nitsana Darshan-Leitner who is the Chairwoman.

 

As an aside I would wish to know where she was and what she was saying when the Serbs such as Slobadan Milosevic were being hauled in front of this same Court (set up specially for Yugoslavia)???

 

I suspect that this lady was in favour of the hounding of the Serbs. I say I “suspect” and when I find different I will publish.

 

I very much have the feeling that this lady was FOR the hounding of the Serbs. Let us see!

 

In any case her taking of any case to this Court in The Hague has to be opposed by every Jew and every Israeli.

 

That is precisely playing the game of Abbas.

 

There is indeed an alternative. That is for Israel, the state of the Jews, to immediately arrest the leaders of Fatah and Hamas and to uproot totally their whole organizations. Destroy these organizations which are rooted in the Nazi Holocaust. These organizations are in fact Nazi organizations. You do not take a law case against Nazi organizations or individuals in or to another Nazi centre which is what the Hague Court really REALLY is.

 

Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin, the Israel Law Center, filed lawsuits on Monday at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against three Palestinian Authority leaders for alleged war crimes, terrorism and human rights offenses, following PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s move last week to join the court and seek to prosecute Israel.

 

 

Indictments were brought against PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, Abbas’s deputy; minister Jibril Rajoub; and PA intelligence chief Majed Faraj, all of whom belong to Abbas’s Fatah party.

 

 

The NGO is also pursuing existing litigation filed against Abbas last November, as well as a case against Gaza-based terror group Hamas and its leader Khaled Mashaal, filed at the ICC on September 2014.

 

According to Shurat HaDin, during the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict “Fatah openly boasted in Facebook pages and other media channels that it launched projectiles that caused the injury and death of Israeli civilians — a war crime under international law.”

 

The NGO pressed The Hague to issue international arrest warrants for the three pending litigation.

 

Shurat HaDin’s chairwoman and founder, attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, said that the organization will make it as difficult as possible for Palestinian leaders at the ICC, and that they must be held accountable for crimes committed under their supervision.

 

“Abbas and his friends in terror organizations believe that the courts can be used as a weapon against Israel, while at the same time, the Palestinian leadership carries out crimes with utter impunity against their own people and against Israeli civilians,” Darshan-Leitner said.

 

The case brought against Faraj and Hamdallah details widespread torture and killings of Palestinian residents who reside in areas under PA control, according to a statement released by the group.

 

“Faraj and Hamdallah, as commanders in the Palestinian security services, are directly responsible for widespread human rights violations committed [in the West Bank] against regular Palestinians by units under their authority,” the statement read.

 

 

According to the indictment, Rajoub, too, was fully aware of the violations it listed and should be held “accountable for the actions committed under his auspices by his subordinates in the organization,” the statement read.

 

The ICC can prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed since July 1, 2002, when the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, came into force.

 

“The PA and Hamas have to understand that the International Criminal Court is a double-edged sword,” Darshan-Leitner said. “Years of murder, acts of terrorism and incitement will now be brought before prosecutors for investigation.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/group-files-war-crimes-lawsuits-against-palestinian-leaders/

 

 

TROTSKYISM ALONE IS THE VOICE WHICH WILL FIGHT IN OUR ERA FOR JEWISH FREEDOM…HOW TO FIGHT THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL PLOTS

Abbas is a Nazi and the whole business of recognising a Palestine State in the UN is Nazi business. There is only one antidote to this poison which is that Israel arrests Abbas and breaks up forever both the Fatah and the Hamas organizations…I mean totally

This is a most interesting and useful analysis of the position Israel finds itself at the hands of Abbas in the United Security Council. It says the following:

 

The U.N. Vote on Palestine Was a Rehearsal

 

And so it was, of course!

 

I saw this on the Israpundit website. Let me quote first of all the editor Ted Belman introduction to this John Bolton analysis:

 Belman… Bolton rightfully argues that the US should reject out of hand any resolution that circumvents its policy of requiring direct negotiations to achieve an agreement. Although the Obama Administration keeps repeating the mantra of direct negotiations, it still violated the principle of a negotiated solutions by embracing in advance of such negotiations, borders which are based on ’67 lines plus swaps. To do so limits the scope of negotiations.

 

Here is where I start to disagree (as a Trotskyist) with Belman and Bolton. Stay with me on this because I think it is important.

 

Trotskyism is a very bad name for all Jews that I know of. They listen to me quietly and sullenly. If I am right they say nothing at all. Just get ready to stick the knife in later when they can. Ah well!

 

This is my take on what Belman says above:

 

I do not think that “Bolton rightfully argues” at all at all in this analysis for very fundamental reasons. Why should Israel be dependent on anything at all that the US does? Note I did not say what Obama does. I mean the US. Israel is an independent country and it must not allow itself to be placed in this situation for a single moment.

 

But it is and that is the crucial thing now in every day in the lives of every Israeli.

 

Belman follows this American ruling classes creep Bolton. He was the guy all over the place calling for the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of Saddam in 2003. Bolton has never for a second changed his position on this game changer.

 

That remains the key issue for Jews. That issue which is hardly ever discussed is the key issue to discuss.

 

It was the overthrow of Saddam by Bush and Blair, supported totally by so many Jews like Belman, that is the defining issue.

 

It was the toppling off Saddam and the destruction of the Baathists (no matter how Antisemitic they were and all Arabs are Antisemitic) that opened the door to the Jihad in all its forms.

 

That action that Bolton was behind was followed by the Arab Spring which is actually a “Nightmare” for Jews.

 

To be kind to him Belman cannot see past his nose. Belman hates Trotskyism. So let us debate, really debate and I am ready against all comers on these issues.

 

So what then as an alternative to that do I propose? I am a Trotskyist and a socialist revolutionary.

 

I propose that there is only one answer. That is for the Israeli Government to arrest and break up all of the Fatah leadership/movement and of course to do the same with the Hamas movement.

 

That is the answer. That is the only answer.

 

In order for that to happen there must be a Government in Israel that is elected to do just that.

 

A Government which is headed by either Netanyahu or Bennett, or by Netanyahu in coalition with Bennett, or in coalition with Labour, or in coalition with Labour and Livni, or any one of a hundred concoctions, will never do that.

 

Do you see my point?

 

This Trotskyist based on the tradition of Trotskyism which Robert Wistrich is so hateful in his writings towards is coming up with this policy, and as far as I can see I am quite alone in putting this forward although I intend in future articles to go into some of the articles of both Sherman and Gil White to prove my point.

 

Belman is saying as is Bolton that the future of Israel is tied to the US Government. If so then Israelis finished. Israel must not for a second depend on the US Governemnt for anything.

 

 

 

An influx of new Security Council members means a likely ‘yes’ vote—and a veto dilemma for Obama.

 

 

By JOHN BOLTON, Wall Street Journal

 Jan. 2, 2015

http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63603723

 

Long-standing Palestinian efforts to use the United Nations to achieve internationally recognized statehood status nearly succeeded early Wednesday. Just after midnight, the Security Council narrowly rejected a Jordanian draft resolution fixing a one-year deadline for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, requiring Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, and declaring Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine.”

 

Because the U.N. Charter requires nine affirmative votes from among the Security Council’s 15 members (assuming no vetoes) to pass a resolution, Jordan’s proposal failed—by one vote. There were eight in favor, two against, and five abstentions. Nonetheless, a pro-Palestinian, U.N. Charter-compliant majority may soon exist.

 

And absent more-effective U.S. diplomacy, the Obama administration could soon face making a choice that it would dearly like to avoid: whether to veto a biased, anti-Israel resolution. The Palestinian Authority has already significantly upped the ante by moving, later on Wednesday, to join the treaty creating the International Criminal Court.

 

 

 

A firmer U.S. strategy might have prevented the dilemma from arising. The White House’s opening diplomatic error was in sending strong signals to the media and U.S. allies that Mr. Obama, wary of offending Arab countries, was reluctant to veto any resolution favoring a Palestinian State. Secretary of State John Kerry took pains not to offer a view of the resolution before it was taken up. Such equivocation was a mistake because even this administration asserts that a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict requires direct negotiations and agreements among the parties themselves.

 

No draft resolution contrary to these precepts should be acceptable to the U.S or worth wasting time on in the diplomatic pursuit of a more moderate version. This American view, advocated for years and backed by resolute threats to veto anything that contradicted it, has previously dissuaded the Palestinians from blue-smoke-and-mirror projects in the Security Council.

 

It is precisely the Obama administration’s audible heart palpitations about negative Arab reactions to a possible U.S. veto that encouraged the Palestinian Authority and its supporters to plunge ahead. Mr. Obama neither prevented the resolution from going forward nor prevailed decisively enough to discourage the Palestinians from trying again within months or even weeks.

 

 Several factors support a swift Palestinian reprise. First, they obtained a majority of the Security Council’s votes, even if not the required supermajority of nine. In today’s U.N., the eight affirmative votes constitute a moral victory that virtually demand vindication, and sooner rather than later.

 

Second, the text of Jordan’s resolution was wildly unbalanced even by U.N. standards—for example, it demands a solution that, “brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967,” and calls for “security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine.” A few meaningless tweaks here and there, and several countries that abstained could switch to “yes.” Third, on Jan. 1 five of the Security Council’s 10 nonpermanent members stepped down (their two-year terms ended), replaced by five new members more likely to support the Palestinian effort.

 

Consider how Wednesday’s vote broke down, and what the future may hold. Three of the Security Council’s five permanent members (France, China and Russia) supported Jordan’s draft. France’s stance is particularly irksome, since it provides cover for other Europeans to vote “yes.” The U.K. timidly abstained, proving that David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher ; the abstention signals that a more “moderately” worded resolution might be enough to flip London to a “yes.”

 

Washington cast the only permanent member’s “no” vote, which is characterized as a veto only when nine or more Security Council members vote in a draft resolution’s favor. Will President Obama now have the stomach to cast a real veto against a U.N. Charter majority backing the Palestinians? Is this the point where the “liberated” Mr. Obama allows a harsh anti-Israel resolution to pass? Happy New Year, Jerusalem.

 

Among the nonpermanent members, the prospects are grim. Three “yes” votes came from Jordan, Chad and Chile, which all remain Security Council members in 2015. Two additional supporters, Argentina and Luxembourg, have been replaced, respectively, by Venezuela (no suspense there) and Spain. Spain narrowly won election in October, defeating Turkey after three ballots. Madrid might be expected to support Washington, but not necessarily, given recent EU hostility to Israel and the appeasers’ argument to soothe wounded Muslim feelings about Turkey’s loss by backing the Palestinians.

 

Only Australia joined the U.S. in voting “no.” Its successor, New Zealand, would either have abstained or voted affirmatively, according to Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

 

South Korea abstained, but its replacement, Malaysia, is a certain affirmative vote. Angola, taking Rwanda’s seat, is an abstention at best. While abstainers Lithuania and Nigeria remain, Nigeria’s Boko Haram problem could easily move it to “yes” as an olive branch to the Muslim world. And Lithuania, as a new member of the euro currency union, could well succumb to arguments for EU solidarity, especially if Britain also surrenders.

 

Finding nine affirmative votes, and likely even more, looks decidedly easy. The Obama administration can only prevent what it dreads by openly embracing a veto strategy, hoping thereby to dissuade pro-Palestinian states from directly confronting the U.S.

 

And if that fails, the veto should be cast firmly and resolutely, as we normally advocate our principles, not apologetically. As so often before on Middle Eastern issues, a veto would neither surprise nor offend most Arab governments. If the administration had courage enough to make clear that a veto was inevitable, it would minimize whatever collateral damage might ensue in Arab lands. But don’t hold your breath.

 

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

 

– See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10498#sthash.1a1zwwZ6.dpuf

ISRAELI LEADERS ARE PARALYSED INTHE FACE OF ARAB AND WORLD ANTISEMITISM

Sharon expressed this paralysis. He knew that the removal of Saddam by Bush would usher in a period of Iran dominance in Iraq and the Middle East, knew this very well based on his experience of the area, he was no fool! But he could not say so in public even though he argued with the political imbecile Bush. That seems to me to express just how unable to lead the Jewish people are all of the Jewish elites today. This leadership issue is central and creates great dangers which will only get worse!

All my reading on this subject of Israel and the way the world is attacking Israel, demands the need for a strong propaganda-like response from Israel

 

That is not forthcoming and under the leadership of the present groups/parties/individuals/blogs will not be forthcoming any time soon, meaning never.

 

That is the problem, the central problem, that dwarfs all else and is connected to Israel taking effective action to defend itself, which also it finds itself impossible to do. The Israeli elites were prepared to look elsewhere for about 7 years as the people of Sderot were bombarded weekly with hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets. They could not and did not take any action to block this which amounted to a second class citizen ship in effect being placed on these people next to this aza border.

 

So we have two things happening in synchronicity: the message abroad from Israel and the inability to take action to determine its future. Both of these are held together in a vicelike grip that will not let go.

 

The development of the world crisis of the capitalist system, with money markets as we speak more and more on edge and seemingly more vulnerable, the exposure of the world and its people to new forms of barbarity by the likes of IS flashing across our screens, and the obvious vulnerability to this by Israel, while the world as Martin Sherman says so well, corners on Israel, thus forcing Israel more and more into a Samson situation.

 

These are not small issues and cannot be answered in a  facile way.

 

This places great demands on Israeli leadership.

 

Here is the kicker though. It is possible for Caroline Glick to be enraged at EU reps but at the same time not to deal with the overall crisis in a comprehensive manner. (I am all for being enraged but rage in itself, like prayer, is never a strategy)

 

I will give two examples that point to the new aspect to the situation faced by Jews, Israel and the world.

 

  1. The methods of Netanyahu, ignoring then massive physical splurge on Gaza (Protective Edge) (Which episode in history has given no edge and which therefore was not protective) while at the same time tying the hands of the soldiers fighting in Gaza, have proved to be disastrously inadequate
  2. Related to that the reality in Britain, which I have looked at especially based on written reports, which were available and have been available but have not been discussed in any significant manner, that the old methods of defending Israel abroad have collapsed. I am referring to the bankrupt “friends” of Israel concept. I have showed that the “friends” quickly became the “enemies” as they effectively voted (many by abstaining) for a Palestine Jihad state. (Vote in Britain October 13)

Those two examples in our very recent past shows that there is needed an overall strategy for Israel, Jews and the rest of us, to fight this war and it simply is not there.

 

I think that is the starting point. The Antisemitic positions of European elites are just a symptom of this lack of strategy by the Israeli leaders. They are created because the Israeli leadership is vacuum territory.

 

It is impossible for Israel because there is no clear strategy inside of Israel on how it can defend itself and how the Jewish state can be brought forward in this situation. I need to return to that but the answer by Sherman to Bennett’s Saban tussle with Idyke is a starting point.

 

The leaders are paralysed because they do not know what to do and if they do not know what to do then they do not know what to say either

 

That may sound simplistic but it is true

VITAL FOR A UNITED FRONT IN ISRAELI ELECTION OF NETANYAHU, BENNETT, LIEBERMAN AND RELIGIOUS PATRIOTS TO KEEP TRAITORS OUT

These two pictures, the first is the Islamic State, the second above is the result of the “Palestinian” narrative are the same thing

The Israeli election in March by itself is not going to decide anything. Yet it is still of absolute importance. It is most important that the headline above is made reality (and we will explain why)

Israel is in a race against time.  These are some issues that are at play:

  1. The way that Christian Antisemitism is changing into a new force behind the lies in the narrative of the “Palestinians” and how this is joining with the deadly Antisemitism of the Muslim world which has its roots in Muslim ideology. This combined force is a great threat which must be understood theoretically as well as combatted in a practical way.
  2. The changing international situation which combines many factors, too numerous to cover here. Of great importance are these: The role of ideology in the world today. This takes many challenging forms. One is how the “Palestinian” narrative has been sold. Also the power of the modern Media in spreading all kinds of lies, seen very vividly in Yugoslavia, when the great Lie of Srebrenica “massacre” was sold most effectively by a Media, and followed on from many other lies such as the Racak “massacre” and where a whole people were successfully lied against over many years, lies very difficult to stand up against. Yes a people can today be hammered by the Media into the ground.
  3. The changing situation in America is partly a continuation of the Yugoslavia Big Lie. If the Media could sell lies like Racak and Srebrenica then it also could place into power Obama, and successfully cover the CIA roots of his family (His Father as a CIA asset under Tom Mboyo, his mother as a lifelong CIA asset or agent, his stepfather Soetoro as a very central Indonesian CIA asset involved in the massacre in the Indonesian countryside of at least a million Indonesian communist youth, mainly country youth, who had been systematically misled by the “peaceful road to socialism” of Stalinism. Bill Ayers proved by Jared Israel to be a CIA agent as was his wife, and their role in the student movement of the 60s acting as obvious agents provocateurs (Jared proved the links then between Obama and Ayers and raises the idea that they were all at that time being directed by the CIA)
  4. That is an important factor in this Israeli election although few may discuss it. The reality is this…from Reagan on, every one of them, especially Bush Snr. and Bush Jnr., all have been most dangerous towards the Jews , all are under the sway of the CIA and the US State Dept.
  5. There have been massive mistakes made by Israeli leaders and we must understand these mistakes and what are their roots. Sharon was right in opposing bitterly the Bush war on Saddam in 2003. Sharon travelled to America to argue against this war. His big mistake was that he did this in secret. This was fatal because the Antisemites of Right and Left convinced the world he was arguing for the war.
  6. The war against Saddam was the greatest blow against Israel, Jews and all of us progressives in the world. Not because Saddam was blameless. But because he was a secular politician as was Nasser. He was thus like a finger in the dyke holding back the forces of anti-rational Islam. If Sharon had opposed the war on Saddam and stated his correct reason very publicly…different ball game entirely. To understand the issue of the danger to Israel from Iran and its Nuclear Bomb plans then it is necessary to understand that single episode of Bush overthrowing Saddam. All has followed from that.
  7. That though was nothing to the silence of the Israeli rulers and elites when Obama and the Jihad were toppling Ben Ali, Gaghbo, Mubarak above all, and also Gadhafi. Sharon with his “privacy” was weak but this was total scandal for Jews! Many like Caroline Glick had joined the war on Saddam but by now had changed (having with difficulty learned) and were opposing Obama in say the overthrow of Mubarak. But the Israeli Government said not a word.
  8. This leads to the present because it is easy to take a position on past events. But what about in the present Assad, the promotion of Jihad morphing into Islamic State against Assad, and what about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz travelled recently to a conference in America which was slated as defending the Christians of Syria and Iraq and proceeded by attacking Assad and calling for the destruction of Assad. Cruz said basically “I will not defend the Christians of Syria and Iraq” unless they shape up in relation to Jews and Israel. Bottom line Cruz did not and does not defend the Christians against the Jihad. Israel (at least its leaders) is part and parcel of that Cruz treachery towards the Christians which is contained within the Assad issue. We say defend Assad UNCONDITIONALLY against Obama and the Jihad, while do not forgive or lower your guard against Assad’s Antisemitism. That is a correct and principled position but nobody in Israel holds it.

 

SO THERE ARE MANY ISSUES IN THIS ELECTION AND ISRAELI LEADERS HAVE SHOWN THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO THIS PERIOD OF INTENSE THEORETICAL AND PHYSICAL CHALLENGES.

 

So then to be super practical!…A new leadership is required. But what is it? What leadership can meet this period?

 

I say it will be a Trotskyist leadership! But the Israeli people know hardly a thing about this aspect of history. They see only Labour, revisionist left and Stalinist traitors. So that is the sad reality. We have to deal with things as they are.

 

The election will not deal with these vital issues. But the worst outcome is that traitors take power in Israel. I mean the open traitors like Herzog and Livni. The best is that Netanyahu, Bennett and Lieberman can join with some religious patriots and thereby form a government. This allows the discussion to take place. If the traitors like Lapid take power in any way they will open the door to the Obama CIA and you remember what happened to those hapless millions of communist cadres in the Indonesian massacre all those years ago, with Obamas step dad in the fore of the CIA Suharto major killing spree. Without leaders that can happen anywhere today.

 

So vital issue in this election…major really major effort to vote Netanyahu, especially vote Likud, vote especially for Bennett, vote for Lieberman because the Russian vote is vital too, and vote for religious patriots. To continue the discussion of the way forward in this difficult world. Against any kind of complacency! To allow Livni, Herzog or Lapid near power is to say “Here Jihadists place your rockets on the hills overlooking Ben Gurion Airport a few miles off”. Not advisable at all!

ELECTION MARCH 17 MEANS NOTHING, EL SISI SHOWS WAY, RESTORE DEATH PENALTY IN ISRAEL

Kenya quarry murders of yesterday morning  by Jihad…Why is Israel not sending arms to Kenyans, Kurds, Nigerians etc. to help fight against the common enemy?

The election on March 17 in Israel means very little indeed. This is because all of the Israeli politicians, part of a political elite, are cowardly, insular, and do not have a single policy to meet the crisis in world imperialism in which Israel is being surrounded by the Islamic Jihad represented above all by the Islamic State, which in turn is promoted by US Imperialism, the EU and NATO. They all aim to dismantle Israel as they did Yugoslavia in the interests of the Jihad

 

They are cowards! What they should be doing is clear enough. There is no division in Israel between things internal to Israel and things external. The Israeli leaders are bankrupt on both counts.

 

Start first with external (international). Israel must see its immediate and obvious enemies as being an alliance of American elites and European elites with the Jihad, the latter represented by Hamas, Fatah and Iran. To combat this Israel must state clearly that it intends to arm the Kurds to the gills in order to fight its enemies and to set up their Kurdish states in Turkey and Iran. Israel must send its delegates to the Scots and make clear that Israel will back the Scots with everything they need in order to achieve Scottish independence. Israel must send a delegation to Belfast, meet Northern Protestant delegates there, and aim to create an independent Ulster. Israel must travel to the city of Barcelona and state that it will back the Catalonians with everything to fight the Spanish imperialists to the very end in order to win Catalonian independence. Basques also! This and more. Israel must do this with the greatest of fanfare possible. Create a big stir. Ram these policies right down the bloodthirsty throats of the British and American Imperialists.

 

That is external. What about internal? The internal cannot be discussed without creating the most direct alliance with the el Sisi Government and Judiciary of Egypt because Egypt is actually showing the way to the Jews as to how the Jews can survive inside of Israel. An immediate statement must be rattled off the presses in Israel that gives the Egyptians full support in the sentencing to death of Hamas Fascist demonstrators and killers.

 

Moreover in relation to Israel and Egypt Israel must state publicly and with a lot of humility that Israel has been shown the way by el Sisi and the courageous Egyptian Judiciary in the action of condemning to death these Hamas Fascists. The death penalty for Palestinian Arab Fascists of Hamas and Fatah must indeed be restored to Israel. Do this and then sit back and watch Obama and Kerry go berserk. Then say to these British and American Fascists “Bugger off out of our country the historical Jewish state of Israel which existed 3000 years before your state was born”.

 

The same applies to Israel and Assad, Israel and Putin, and so on. Even with the Assad alliance with Hizbullah and with the Iranian Fascists notwithstanding Israel must make a statement saying that it will support Assad with everything including with arms to defeat the British and US Imperialists and to defeat the Jihadists against Assad. Israel must take the side of Assad unconditionally at same time as the IDF strikes the Iranian Nuclear Bomb. This unconditional support of Assad against the Jihad does not imply for second that Assad is not Antisemitic like all Arab leaders and it does not mean dropping Israeli defense against Assad if necessary.  The very same applies to the defense of Putin in Crimea, Georgia and south Ukraine. Israel must state that it will arm the Ukrainian Russians against the Nazis of the Ukrainian Government that overthrew the elected president a year ago. Nor does this imply agreement with Putin.

 

That is the only way to fight this election on March 17. The rest is to follow these creeps like Netanyahu, Likud, Feiglin and Naftali Bennett into the abyss and endanger Israel to the Jihad and US Imperialism.