Op-Ed: Donald Trump will understand Middle East real estate in 5 minutes

Mark Langfan

The writer, who specializes in security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.

ight months ago, in September 2015, when every pundit opined that Donald Trump was a laughable candidate, I wrote that: “In short, get ready for a President Trump.  But, more importantly, Trump, and only Trump, has the guts to erase Obama, and the vestiges of Obama's traitorous Iran-First policies, like Obama never existed.  Just call Trump the Eraser-Man.  America will elect Trump because they want to erase Obama, and all of his domestic and national security policies.

After one year of President Trump, Obama and his policies will be just a bad dream.”

Now, get ready for United States President Donald Trump to be installed in January 2017.  Secretary of State Clinton has already fatally “bitten” into Trump’s “women’s card” baited-trap, hook, line, and sinker. 

Imagine Trump in the soon-in-coming nationalized TV debate retorting to Clinton, “Where was your ‘women’s card’ for Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky, or for all of Bill Clinton’s other victims?” 

As for the Middle East, real estate mogul Trump will quickly understand the topography, demography, and resource aspects of the Middle East real estate map.  Here’s a quick guide to the 5 keys to the Middle Eastern Real Estate’s topographic, demographic, and asset-rich terrain.

1)  Iran is shooting to steal, for itself, the Black Gold Triangle, taking it from the Sunni Kingdoms. The Black Gold Triangle holds 56% of the world’s oil.  With a Middle East topographic map one quickly sees that the “fertile crescent” which lies between the Tigris [West river] and Euphrates [East river] Rivers topographically traces out what I have dubbed the “Black Gold Triangle.”  This north-southward topographic triangle is essentially the demographic dividing line between the Sunnis to the west and the Shias to the east. 

So, on the face of it, the Middle East is a Sunni-Shiite fight over the fertile-crescent’s oil riches.

The Black Gold Triangle INN:ML

The trianglel INN:ML

  

2) Trump will notice that topographically the 4,000 meter-high Zagros Mountains that form Iran’s western border are the dividing line between Persia to the east, and the Arabs to the West, and that all the oil is on the Arab’s Western side.  Therefore, Iran has really engaged in a Persian divide-and-conquer campaign to divide the Arabs among themselves, and to foment an intra-Arab genocide by inciting the Sunni-Shiite internecine hostilities.  Iran’s goal is to instigate Arab auto-genocide so that Iran can walk into the Black Gold Triangle without anyone stopping them. 

Trump will see the current Middle East turmoil not as a Sunni-Shiite battle to the death, but as a Persian plan to steal Arab oil resources.  Once Trump gets this fact, the entire Sunni Muslim American community will vote for him in droves.  Sunnis make up 90% of the world’s Muslims and a similarly huge percentage of American Muslims.

Zagros Mountains  INN: ML

3)   Once Iran is seen as the ultimate fomenter of the horrific violence, mass-murder, and world terrorism,  Mr. Trump will quickly see Israel as the key to forming a sustainable local regional Sunni defense alliance that will stop the Iranian hegemonic land-grab in its tracks.  A lucky fall-out will be that the Sunnis want to eradicate ISIS as much as they want to eject Iran out of the Arab lands. 

The key is the fact that the Middle East doesn’t need American troops. The Middle East needs an American President who does not act like an Iranian stooge, and is not threatened by the Syrian-America dual-national Tony Rezko who is said to have engineered Obama’s allegedly fraudulent purchase of his Hyde Park home while Obama was a sitting United States senator. 

Obama has done everything in his power to kill an Israeli-Sunni alliance.  An informed Trump will encourage and facilitate an Israeli-Sunni entente - and that means no US troops in the Middle East and a well-earned Nobel Peace Prize for Trump.  Once Trump understands the intersection between dual-national Syria-American Tony Rezko, Obama, Valerie Jarrett. the Mukhabarat, and the Iran-Nuclear Deal, the FBI will be called in to effect order.

Shamshir of Mahdi INN:ML

4)  Next, Trump will see that only thing that stands between Greece, a NATO member with 11 million Christians (that America is sworn to defend), and 370 million Muslims of the Middle East - is the safe and strong fortress of Eretz Israel including the entire 'West Bank'.  Without Israel, the Islamists would bring their Kalashnikovs instead of their suitcases to Greece. 

Without Israel, the United States would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year and lose many thousands of our precious soldiers defending Europe from an Islamo-Fascist invasion from the South-East.  He will understand that control of the physical territory of Israel forms the key strategic European defense hub of the entire Middle East.  

For, as Alexander the Great schooled his generals in 333 B.C.E. after he rejected their urgent advice to immediately chase east after the Persian/Iranian Darius III after Alexander defeated Darius III at Battle of Issus, “Friends and fellow soldiers, I do not see how we safely advance . . . to pursue [the Iranian] Darius with the neutral city of Tyre in our rear and Egypt and Cyprus still in enemy hands would be a serious risk. . .. But with all Phoenicia [Israel] . . . ours . . . we shall be able to march on Babylon [Iraq] with security at home, with enhanced prestige and with Persia [Iran] excluded not only from the [Mediterranean] Sea but from the whole [Middle East] continent up to the Euphrates.” 

With a safe and secure Israel, there will be peace.  With a defeated Israel, the Iranian Pandora’s evil box will become unstoppable.

 Israel's strategic value

INN: ML

5)  Finally, in seconds President Trump will understand that the West Bank is the topographic mountains that tower over the low lands of the Sharon Plain that hold 70% of Israel’s Jewish population. And, any “West Bank ‘Demilitarized’ PA States will smuggle rockets into the territory and will rain Sarin-tipped rockets into Tel Aviv five minutes after Israel withdrew to the  “2-State Solution” just like Gaza has rained rockets on Israel’s south.  Trump will see the “2-State Solution” is the “Establishment’s” prescription for an American catastrophic loss of its key geo-strategic asset in the region.

Israel's enemies  INN:ML

In short, a President Trump will usher in a golden age of peace and harmony in the Middle East by recognizing that the “international establishment’s” 2-State Solution is as much of an international fraud on America as is all of the “Establishment’s” other domestic policies that have destroyed America’s power of good in the world.  And, critically, the real evil of the Middle East is Iran and its evil proxies who are now funded by Obama’s treasonous Iranian Nuclear deal.

Op-Ed: Islam is Colonialism, 'Palestine' is Colonialism

Muslims invaded, conquered and settled Israel as they did in other places, like India, that had an indigenous population. Advocates for 'Palestine' are not fighting colonialism, they are promoting it.

Published: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:22 AM

Daniel Greenfield

The writer is a popular New York City based freelance commentator and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He blogs at sultanknish.blogspot.com

At Israeli Apartheid Week, campus haters claim to be fighting “colonialism” by fighting Jews. Columbia University’s Center for 'Palestine' Studies, dedicated to a country that doesn’t exist and which has produced nothing worth studying except terrorism, features diatribes such as 'Palestine' Re-Covered: Reading a Settler Colonial Landscape”. This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population.

You can’t colonize 'Palestine' because you can't colonize colonizers. The Muslim population in Israel is a foreign colonist population. The indigenous Jewish population can resettle its own country, but it can’t colonize it.

Muslims invaded, conquered and settled Israel. They forced their language and laws on the population. That's the definition of colonialism. You can't colonize and then complain that you're being colonized when the natives take back the power that you stole from them.

There are Muslims in Israel for the same reason that there are Muslims in India. They are the remnants of a Muslim colonial regime that displaced and oppressed the indigenous non-Muslim population.

There are no serious historical arguments to be made against any of this. 

The Muslim conquests and invasions are well-documented. The Muslim settlements fit every historical template of colonialism complete with importing a foreign population and social system that was imposed on the native population. Until they began losing wars to the indigenous Jewish population, the Muslim settlers were not ashamed of their colonial past, they gloried in it. Their historical legacy was based on seizing indigenous sites, appropriating them and renaming them after the new conquerors.

The only reason there’s a debate about the Temple Mount is because Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem and ordered a mosque built on a holy Jewish site. The only reason there’s a debate about East Jerusalem is because invading Muslim armies seized half the city in 1948, bombed synagogues and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population to achieve an artificial Muslim settler majority.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Israel is littered with Omar mosques, including one built in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because Islam is a colonial entity whose mosques testify to their invasive origins by celebrating colonialism as their true religion. The faith of Islam is the sworn religion of the sword.

Islam is a religion of colonialism that spread through invasion, settlement and conquest. Its caliphs, from the original invaders, including Omar, to the current Caliph of ISIS, wielded and wield religious authority in the service of the Islamic colonial enterprise.

Allah is the patron deity of colonialism. Jihad is just colonialism in Arabic. Islamic theology is nothing but the manifest destiny of the Muslim conquest of the world, colonial settler enterprises dressed up in the filmy trappings of religion appropriated from the culture of conquered Jewish and Christian minorities. Muslim terrorism is a reactionary colonial response to the liberation movements of the indigenous Jewish population. 

Even “Allahu Akbar” did not originate as a religious sentiment. It does not mean “God is Great”, as it is often mistranslated. It was Mohammed’s taunt to the Jews he was ethnically cleansing. His purge of a minority group proved that “Allah was Greater”. Islamic colonialism is used to demonstrate the existence of Allah. And the best way to worship Allah is through the colonialism of the Jihad.

Islam would not have existed without colonialism. It still can’t exist without it. That is why the violence continues. The only way to end the violence is for Muslims to reject their theology of colonialism.

But instead of taking ownership of their real history, the Muslim settler population evades its guilt through propaganda by claiming to be the victims of colonialism by the indigenous Jewish population. This twisted historical revisionism is backed by bizarre nonsense such as claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian or that the Arabs are descended from the Philistines. The Muslim settlers insist on continuing to celebrate colonialism while claiming to be an indigenous population that was always living in Israel.

You can have one or the other. You can have your mosques celebrating the conquest and suppression of the indigenous population or your claims of being the indigenous population. But you can’t switch from being the indigenous population to being its conquerors whenever it suits your pseudo-historical narrative. You can’t claim to be the Philistines, the Jews and their Islamic conquerors at the same time.

From its Roman origins, 'Palestine' has always been a colonial fantasy of remaking Israel by erasing its original Jewish identity. The Arab mercenaries who were deployed by the Romans in that original colonial enterprise continued it by becoming self-employed conquerors for their own colonial empire. The name 'Palestine' remains a linguistic settlement for reimagining a country without a people and a past as a blank slate on which the colonial identity of the invaders can be written anew. That is still the role that the 'Palestine' myth and mythology serves.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “linguistic colonialism”. When Muslims rename the Spring of Elisha, a Jewish biblical figure, Ein as-Sultan in honor of an Islamic colonial ruler, that’s linguistic colonialism. When Jews restore the original indigenous names that Jewish sites held before Muslim colonialism, that’s not colonization. It’s the exact opposite. It’s decolonization.

Promoting mythical claims of a 'Palestinian state' isn’t decolonization, it’s colonization. Or recolonization. Advocates for 'Palestine' are not fighting colonialism, but promoting it. They are advocating for a discredited Muslim settler fantasy and against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “geographic amnesia” among “Palestinians”. There’s no geographic amnesia because you can’t remember what never existed. There’s only paramnesia because there was never a country named ''Palestine''.

''Palestine'' has no history. It has no people. It has no borders. It has never been anything except a colonial invention. It is a name used by a variety of foreign settlers operating on behalf of colonial empires.

You can’t colonize ''Palestine''. How can you colonize a colonial myth? You can only decolonize it.

Every Jewish home built on land formerly under the control of the Caliphs is decolonization and decaliphization.

When Jews ascend the Temple Mount, they are also engaging in decolonization and decaliphization.

When the liberation forces of the Jewish indigenous population shoot a Jihadist colonist fighting to impose yet another Islamic State on Israel, that too is decolonization and decaliphization.

Resistance to Islamic terrorism is resistance to colonialism. And Jews have the longest history of resisting the Islamic State under its various Caliphs throughout history. Israel is still resisting the colonialist Jihadist plans for the restorations of the Caliphate.

Zionism is a machine that kills Islamic colonialism.

The existence of Israel not only means the decolonization of Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh’s imaginary colonial fantasies of “'Palestine'”, but inspires resistance in peoples struggling against Islamic colonialism throughout the region, from the Copts to the Berbers to secular intellectuals fighting for freedom.

Islamic colonialism has always been defeated, whether at the Gates of Vienna or in the Sinai Desert. Its colonial fantasies are false and will be defeated as many times as it takes, whether in the form of 'Palestine' or ISIS.

The writer blogs at sultanknish.blogspot.

Why Netanyahu, The Churchill Of Our Time, Must Speak Before Congress

by Steve Forbes

Barack “Neville Chamberlain” Obama 

tries to appease Iran for October Surprise

It is fitting and proper–indeed essential for our very security–that Speaker John Boehner has extended an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran and its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them anywhere in the world. The invitation has bipartisan support because many members on both sides of the aisle recognize the fundamental threat to world peace that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. Like Winston Churchill in the 1930s with Nazi Germany, Netanyahu has been sounding the alarm about Iran’s ominous nuclear and terrorist activities.

It’s a message much of Europe and even segments of the US, particularly in the Obama administration, don’t want to hear. The President has made clear his intense dislike of Israel’s prime minister and his refusal to keep quiet about Obama’s desire to conclude a Neville Chamberlain-like deal with Teheran. In a flagrant interference in another country’s election, Obama operatives are working hard in Israel to help bring down the courageous Prime Minister.

Congress needs to hear first-hand the truth about what Iran is doing and the dreadful implications of those activities.

Thanks to US leadership, the ever-harder sanctions imposed over the years had taken a politically damaging toll on the Iranian economy. The mullahs agreed to sit down with the US and Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany to come up with an agreement ostensibly to get Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions. Iran’s agenda was simple: get the sanctions eased, and then with a loophole-ridden treaty, get them removed altogether.

The basic problem is that the Obama administration wants a deal–any deal–with Teheran and the other parties to the talks are willing to go along in order to snag business contracts with Iran, oblivious to the implications of a radical regime that will be in the position to get the Bomb any time it wants.

Appeasers argue that containment will work with a nuclear-armed Iran just as it did with the old Soviet Union during the Cold War and thus there is nothing to really worry about. Israel and other Mideast nations know better.

The Iranian government, despite the immense corruption of many of its leaders, is a revolutionary regime. Its actions over the years demonstrate that the rhetoric of its officials is more than just hot air. Iran is terror central. It bankrolls and provides arms to Hamas, Hezbollah and all sorts of Islamic terrorists organizations. If the US tacitly concedes its resignation to Iran becoming a nuclear power, then other countries will follow suite in creating their own nukes, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

That kind of proliferation enormously increases the chances of a nuclear war. We saw in 1914 how the then-center of civilization plunged into a catastrophic war. Even during the Cold War,Washington and Moscow went to the brink of a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (President John Kennedy was acutely aware during those fraught days of how events in 1914 ran away from European leaders.) With nukes in so many unstable hands, a disaster is almost a certainty. Moreover, the widespread knowledge of how to make the Bomb will certainly fall into terrorist hands, which is why the US must prevent this nuclear proliferation in the first place.

Ominously Iran has apparently developed an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach not only Israel but also Europe. It won’t be many years before the mullahs can aim nuclear tipped missiles against the US. No surprise, the current negotiations don’t cover Iranian missile development.

Another factor Obama and his appeasement-minded minions willfully ignore is the existential threat Iran poses to Israel. Given the size of the Jewish state, it has no room for error. A nuclear-armed Iran will put Israeli leaders in a dangerous, hair-trigger situation. Israel is a crucial US ally, strategically and morally. It is the only durable democracy in the Mideast. With only 8 million people, Israel has surpassed the European Union, with a population of over 400 million, in high technology, rivaling Silicon Valley. It was born from the ashes of the Holocaust. The destruction of Israel would mean, ultimately, the end of Western civilization; the moral rot that would permit such an event would be just about impossible to surmount.

It is not only Israel that is appalled by what Iran is up to. When Israel very nearly undertook preemptive action against Teheran in 2012, countries such as Saudi Arabia were remarkably open about their support for Israeli military actions that would destroy or cripple Iran’s nuclear facilities.

President Obama is either oblivious to all this or feels that in his perverted worldview, these things don’t much matter. Iran knows Obama desperately wants an agreement. It figures that the more it refuses to accept Obama’s willingness to surrender, the more concessions he will offer.

And spin to the contrary, an agreement will be a surrender. For all intents and purposes, Iran will be allowed to make a nuclear device any time it wishes. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will proclaim that if Teheran goes to make the Bomb, the US will have plenty of time to stop them before the Iranians can actually do it. Nonsense. It is has already crossed a very difficult threshold on uranium enrichment. The mullahs are moving ahead on the plutonium front. Teheran has brazenly blocked the International Atomic Energy Agency from access to its nuclear installations.

Congress is considering legislation proposed by Sen. Robert Menendez (D., NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) that would impose stiff sanctions on Iran if an agreement is not reached by the deadline of June 30. Twice before, negotiation deadlines have been extended. This would effectively tell Iran, put up or shut up. Obama is naturally opposed. He wants nothing that might jeopardize his dangerous course of abject appeasement of an evil regime. The President outrageously dragooned British Prime Minister to play the role of unregistered lobbyist to call Senators to block the Menendez-Kirk bill. 

Which gets to why Speaker John Boehner was well within his bounds to extend that invitation to Netanyahu. Such a momentous treaty with Iran as desired by Obama must, under the Constitution, be submitted to the US Senate for ratification. Obama has trampled on the Constitution time and again–making laws and changing laws at will–and wants no Congressional involvement precisely because the resultant debate would glaringly show what a dangerously miserable deal he had cut. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez, recently declared: “The more I hear from the Administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Teheran.” When President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address that Iran has “halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material,” the guffaws could be loudly heard from every intelligence agency in the world.

Congress is a separate branch of government. Hearing directly from Netanyahu is well within its prerogatives, especially on a matter as critical as this. By the way back in 2011, Speaker Boehner attempted to coordinate a Netanyahu invitation with the White House. Naturally Obama gave Boehner the back of his hand by ignoring this courtesy.

Op-Ed: 'Never Again' in Europe is Just a Meaningless Slogan

Considering all the speeches and tears marking the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz's liberation, you might think Europe really has learned its lesson. You would be wrong - it's just a case of out with the old, in with the new.

Ari Soffer

The writer is the Managing Editor of Arutz Sheva/Israel National News. He was born in London, UK, and prior to his Aliyah to Israel in 2013 was active in a variety of pro-Israel and anti-extremism organizations. Today, he lives in the ancient Jewish town of Shiloh in Samaria, Israel.

On Monday, award-winning actor Sir Ben Kingsley charged that Europe never really grieved the Holocaust, and as a result has never properly come to terms with what happened, nor achieved real atonement for its crimes. As a result, he warned, Europe is in real danger of "sliding back."

Is he right?

On the face of it, watching and reading the powerful speeches by world leaders, as well as the countless heart-rending documentaries marking the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on International Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday, you might think not. After all, there were plenty of tears, plenty of grief, plenty of strong words, plenty of solemn pledges to "never forget" and never allow such an atrocity to occur again.

Indeed, there is no doubt that the words and the sentiments were genuine. The liberal European and other world leaders of today really do mean it when they say they are dedicated to preventing a repeat performance of the events of 1938-1945 in Europe. The problem is that that is where it ends.

"Never again"? Of course! Never again shall white European fascists be allowed to goose-step their way unchallenged to building a vast industry of genocide against Jews, gypsies and other "undesirables." Never again shall we allow the far-right to impose its twisted ideas of "racial purity" onto western society. Never again shall the West turn a blind eye to a fascist regime building huge death camps to gas millions in Europe's backyard.

But that is not what "never again" means - and if it is, it is nothing more than an empty, utterly worthless slogan.

Because for the victims of deadly anti-Semitism, it doesn't really matter whether they are killed by a can of Zyklon B tossed by a German or Polish Nazi, or a Kalashnikov bullet fired by a Muslim terrorist. Equally, it matters remarkably little what the perceived "pretext" or "reasons" for that anti-Semitism are. Take your pick - for at any given time in history we Jews have been accused of everything from "polluting the white race" to trying to take over the world; we are simultaneously communist Bolsheviks and bourgeois capitalists in control of the banking system; we've even killed God - oh yes, and we dared to reject his "Messenger Mohammed."

Today - in the West at least - such justifications for anti-Semitism are unthinkablebeyond the fringes (frighteningly emboldened as they may be). But that doesn't mean that anti-Semitism is defeated, or that the same pundits and opinion-shapers who are so committed to discrediting the discourse of "Sieg Heil", "White Power" and "Christ-killers" are equally committed to stamping out Jew-hatred per sa. Instead, they've just found a new pretext - this one far more "liberal", reasoned and even enlightened.

To quote renown French Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henry Levy, in his speech at the recent UN conference against anti-Semitism:

To understand how anti-Semitism really operates today, we must abandon these clichés and listen instead to how it is expressed and how its supporters justify it.
Because, after all, the anti-Semites have never been content to say, "Well, that's how it is - we're bad people and we hate the poor Jews."
No.
They have said, "We hate them because they killed Christ." That was Christian anti-Semitism.
They have said, "We hate them because, by producing monotheism, they invented Christ." That was the anti-Semitism of the Enlightenment, which wanted to do away with religion altogether.
They have said, "We hate them because they belong to another species recognizable by traits observed in them alone and that pollute other species." That was racist anti-Semitism, the variety contemporaneous with the emergence of the modern life sciences.
They even have said, "We have nothing against the Jews per se - no, no, really, nothing at all. And we couldn't care less whether they killed or created Christ or whether they are a separate race or not. Our complaint is just that most of them are plutocrats bent on dominating the world and oppressing the humble people." That was the socialism for dummies that, throughout Europe, infected the workers' movement at the time of the Dreyfus Affair.
Today, none of those arguments works anymore.
For reasons having to do with the history of the terrible 20th century, very few people, thank God, remain unaware that all those anti-Semitic arguments resulted in abominable massacres and have therefore been, as a French anti-Semitic writer once said, discarded by Hitlerism.
So, for the old virus to resume its assault on people's minds, for it once again to inflame crowds of ordinary people, for great numbers of men and women to resume hating while believing that they are doing a form of good, or, if you prefer, to believe that there could be legitimate reasons to hate the Jews, a new set of arguments is needed, one that history has not yet had time to debunk.

So, what is this new set of arguments used to justify contemporary anti-Semitism?

Levy succinctly breaks it down into three distinct points.

1. The Jews are detestable because they are assumed to supportan evil, illegitimate, murderous state. This is the anti-Zionist delirium of the merciless adversaries of the re-establishment of the Jews in their historical homeland.
2. The Jews are all the more detestable because they are believed to base their beloved Israel on imaginary suffering, or suffering that at the very least has been outrageously exaggerated. This is the shabby and infamous denial of the Holocaust.
3. In so doing, the Jews would commit a third and final crime that could make them still more guilty, which is to impose on us the memory of their dead, to completely stifle other peoples' memories, and to overshadow other martyrs whose deaths have plunged parts of today's world, most emblematically that of the Palestinians, into mourning. And here we come face to face with the modern-day scourge, the stupidity, that is competitive victimhood.
Anti-Semitism needs these three formulations, which are like the three vital components of a moral atomic bomb.
Each taken separately would be enough to discredit a people, to make it abominable once more. But when the three are combined, brought into contact and allowed to form a knot, a node, a crux, a helix, well, at that point we can be pretty sure of facing an explosion of which all Jews, everywhere, will be the designated targets.
What a monstrous people, it will be said, to be capable of all three of these crimes!
What a strange picture is formed by this community of men and women adulterating what they should hold most sacred - the memory of their dead - for the base purpose of legitimizing an illegitimate state and sentencing the rest of the world's victims to silence deaf and dumb.
That is modern anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism will not return on a large scale unless it succeeds in popularizing this insane and vile portrait of the modern Jew.
It has to be anti-Zionist, it must deny the Holocaust, and it must feed the competition of pain - or it will not thrive: The logic is implacable, despicable, but compelling

Astoundingly, one need look no further than the mainstream European media to find a real, if subtle, manifestation of such a discourse. That same European media which may or may not actually be "anti-Semitic" itself, but which nevertheless does an impressively good job of providing conveniently-repackaged, "liberal" justifications for those people who are.

Take the UK - a country where anti-Semitism is certainly on the rise but still some way behind the levels seen on mainland Europe. On the very day - the very same day - that the world was making its solemn pledges of "never again," a British news presenter spent a considerable portion of his interview with the British Chief Rabbi trying to persuade him that the Jewish state of Israel is at least partially to blame for anti-Semitism.

I encourage you to watch the clip, and put aside for one second the utterly biased portrayal of Israeli acts of self-defense against merciless terrorists whose own charter draws its inspiration from a fusion of Islamic texts and the Nazi party platform. 

Now just consider for a second the prospect of a TV presenter treating a spokesperson from the Muslim or Black or gay community that way in an interview on, say, Martin Luther King Day. Are the actions of some Black people "pouring fuel on the fire of racism"? Do Muslim countries bear at least some responsibility for Islamophobia? Is homophobia - while terrible - partially due to the actions of some gay people? Such questions, directed at any other group, would provoke disgust and outrage - but directed towards Jews it is seen as totally acceptable.

And it's not a one-off. On the BBC, a senior news reporter can get away with haranguing a fearful Jewish woman expressing her alarm over anti-Semitism following the deadly Kosher supermarket attack, playing down her fears by retorting that "many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well."

That's the same BBC reporter who felt quite comfortable discussing "rich Jews" and "Jewish lobbies" with his enlightened guests back in the warmth of the BBC's London studios. He still has his job - and why shouldn't he? He didn't give a Hitler salute or call her a Christ-killer, so he can't possibly be an anti-Semite! Besides, the BBC has made it abundantly clear that in its view Jew-baiting is a legitimate way to boost ratings.

But there you have it. The cheapest form of competitive victimhood, carried out shamelessly against the backdrop of Jewish suffering (in one case while the dead had not even been buried yet), with the not-so-subtle implication that we Jews should stop harping on about the Holocaust anyway. All neatly packaged and presented by respectable, mainstream media outlets.

I wonder if, were Adam Bolton or Tim Wilcox around back in the day, they would have asked the Jewish victims of crusades, pogroms and holocausts, who were shot and dumped in mass graves, or gassed, or burned at the stake, or torn to pieces by wild mobs, whether they had considered how "Jewish hands" (or tentacles) had perhaps contributed somewhat towards the Christian or Muslim or Aryan "grievances" of those people who were now killing them? Could they have avoided such a gruesome (though of course, of course condemnable!) fate by at the very least expressing their opposition to killing Jesus, or rejecting Mohammed, or polluting the white race...?

It is important to point out that these voices do not represent all Europeans. Indeed there are many people - both leaders and members of the wider public - who understand what "never again" truly means, who "get it" in the sense that they are able and willing to recognize the modern anti-Semitism for what it is, and who march side-by-side against all forms of anti-Semitism with their Jewish compatriots from Paris to Berlin to London.

They are struggling for truth - but sadly, as it stands the discourse is largely controlled by the likes of Wilcox, Bolton and their ilk. And that discourse is slowly, but surely, shaping the way in which Europe views its Jews.

People often ask me, a Jew born in Britain whose family has experienced both the holocaust (on my mother's side) and the ethnic-cleansing of Jews from Arab states (on my father's), and who myself have experienced European anti-Semitism on numerous occasions, whether I think "another holocaust" could happen again. My answer, always, is no. 

No; I can confidently say that there will never be another holocaust. Because that is not how history works. It repeats itself, for sure, but never word-for-word.

The Third Reich is gone forever, and its poisonous discourse is now so discredited as to appear genuinely alien to most sane people. It just isn't fashionable; European fascism's once attractive brand (and let the historical revisionists not con you into thinking its adherents were all somehow coerced into its ranks) has been utterly tainted by the smoke of six million cremated bodies.

But anti-Semitism is far from dead. Today, it just has a new brand, new slogans (from Allahu Akbar, to Free Palestine) - and it is as fashionable as "it" was back then, to the extent that in order to challenge it directly one must often literally run counter to the prevailing media and political discourse. And to the extent that - apart from the Islamofascist stormtroopers and their leftist and rightist fellow travelers - even respectable news outlets genuinely see no problem in pulling the Jews to the front of the class, and singling them out from all other minorities for provocation, interrogation and demonization.

So no, Europe has not yet internalized the lessons of the 20th century - the question is, will it ever do so?

Op-Ed: Back in the 80's We Really Believed in Peace

I was young then. I had dreams of Peace and co-existence just like everyone else, and I thought most of us were on board.

Dr. Zeev Shemer
The writer is the author of “Israel and the Palestinian nightmare”, “Israel Redeemed” and “The Answer”. He lectures for Bar Ilan University at the college's branches in the north of Israel, specializing in Zionism and comparative religion.

Back in the 80’s Arabs did not have autonomy, weapons, or a so-called police force. Back in the 80’s Arabs would riot, as many do today in Jerusalem and elsewhere, throw rocks, burn tires, and charge against the police and soldiers who timidly tried to calm them down.

Back in the 80’s there was a sincere desire by many to make Peace with Arabs even as they professed their hatred of Israel and their hatred of the Jews. “Give them plumbing and microwave ovens and they will come to love us,” proposed Shimon Peres and the other leftwing pioneers.

Back in the 80’s a lot of good people wanted to believe that Peace could be reached and they were willing to sacrifice parts of Israel for the its sake. Victims of terror were called “sacrifices for Peace” and their leading movement was called “Peace Now”.

We were willing to do whatever it took. We screamed “Du-kium” (co-existence) as loud and often as we could.  We played John Lennon’s “Imagine” every 20 minutes, and even a radio station was called ‘The Voice of Peace’.

Arab and Jew can live together. After all, Sephardic Jews had been living with Arabs for hundreds of years and they never endured the level of pogroms and the Holocaust that their Ashkenazi counterparts did, we were told.  They were living proof that Arabs and Jews can be friends. And we were willing to do whatever it took.  

“Yes,” we answered to our number one diplomat and appeaser, Shimon Peres. “Yes, give them toilets and microwave ovens,” and ever since, Israel has been providing Arab towns and villages with more or less free water and electricity. After all, it was for the sake of Peace.

A strange thing was, that as opposed to our state, they wanted no Jews in theirs. Well, it’s okay; after all, we have our own country now. We ignored their racism.
We suddenly realized that many Arabs wanted more than just co-existence. They wanted a state of their own. And why not? Jews that came from Europe and the Arab world, we created a state, why couldn’t they do the same?  A strange thing was, that as opposed to our state, they wanted no Jews in theirs. Well, it’s okay; after all, we have our own country now. We ignored their racism.  

Thing is, they began chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”  Hold on here. That leaves nothing for a Jewish state. Not even the small “From Hedera to Gedera” of leftwing extremists e.g. Yossi Beilin and Yossi Sarid. Even so, Peres didn’t seem to mind; him and Rabin claimed this was only the extremists who were being unreasonable, and that Arabs in general are good people, they said. They will set the tone for our Peace.

We were getting a bit nervous when every week there was another murder; another Jewish family in mourning. Our soldiers were then forbidden to take rides with civilians and cement blocks began guarding most bus stops across the country. 

I was young then. I had dreams of Peace and co-existence just like everyone else, and I thought most of us were on board. I attended Tel Aviv Universitywhere the Arab ‘cause’ was spearheaded in front of any Jewish claim to their ancestral land.  Lies about this fictitious people calling themselves ‘Palestinians’ rather than Arabs living in the area the Romans named Palestine way before there was an Islam began taking form.

Imagine my outrage when we were told a ‘rabbi’ – and how much we disliked rabbis – was coming to our campus to protest against Arab subsidies. The indignation! We decided not to go to class and, instead, go and show this rabbi that we, the Peace-loving Jews are, well, peace-loving.  Policemen came in large number, many on horses. We screamed and spit and chanted for Peace. And that rabbi, even with his bullhorn, could not be heard. We were victorious!

I asked one of my classmates – my Hebrew was not the best – about what he had come to say. “He’s a fascist,” she said. “He came here to speak badly about the Arabs. He came to say that one day they would bomb our buses and restaurants; the hutzpah!”

“Bomb our buses?” I asked.

“Yes,” she explained. “He says they will blow themselves up in bus stops and busy streets, in our malls, and in our markets.”

Well, he was clearly an anti-peace lunatic!  He claimed Arabs were teaching their children from a young age to hate Israel and that killing Jews would bring them closer to paradise. Outrageous! Who teaches their children to hate? And who would blow himself up just to kill a few Jews? And what did this rabbi propose we do instead? My friend explained that he proposed to transfer Arabs that hate Israel to the other side of the border, to the other “Palestine,” the one the British had turned into a Muslim state called Jordan.

Months later, I heard he was banned from the Knesset and members of the Likud were ecstatic! But the newspapers were filled with stories of murderous attacks by Arab marauders. Maybe, just maybe, he wasn’t as crazy as my classmates claimed. But it didn’t matter, because a couple of years later he was murdered.

After Rabin and his partners Peres and Beilin, who rescued Arafat from Tunisia and oblivion, signed the Oslo Accords, thousands of Jews were subsequently murdered just like that outshouted Rabbi Kahane had predicted. Free water and electricity, weapons for their ‘police force’ were given to them by our leaders, and parts of our precious ancestral land were given away all in the name of that Peace I once worshiped. 

This year I did not attend Yitzhak Rabin’s memorial. This year after thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza and our leaders continued to supply our enemies with water, electricity, and supplies, I realized that the Peace brainwashing I had once been exposed to had destroyed the neurons of many of my fellow countrymen.

This year I invite you to come to Jerusalem this coming Monday or Tuesday. It will be a memorial very different from that in honor of Rabin. In this memorial you will be exposed to a unique group of individuals that for some reason were immune to the brainwashing and the delusions of Peace. A group of people who have a much clearer understanding of what Peace is really all about. People who understand that ‘Ahavat Yisrael’, love of Israel and ‘Yirat Shamayim’, awe of G-d, are the forces that kept our dream of returning to our land alive.

When Jabotisnksy traveled from town to town warning Jews of the incoming tragedies that would befall them, he was met with the same hatred and rejection I once showed this rabbi who now everyone knows, was one hundred percent right.

Those that did not heed Jabotinsky’s warnings literarily went up in smoke. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, for the sake of the Jewish dream of Zion, I will share a few moments with the ‘crazy’ people that happen to be sane.

(Note: the program referred to is for Rabbi Kahana hy"d's yahrzeit and takes place at Yeshivat Haraayon Hayehudi, 11 Shmarya St. Jerusalem. In English on Monday evening November 10 from 6pm and in Hebrew, on Tuesday November 11, with shiurim from 12 noon, aliya lakever at 4pm and an additional program at 6 pm  Heichal David, 14 Ohaliav St., Romema.)

Another article by . Zeev Shemer

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13231#.VGGzmfmUeVM

Op-Ed: Palestinian 'Narrative'? Their Own Covenant Refutes It

As Mahmoud Abbas continues his denial of any Jewish connection to the land and the Temple Mount, one need only take a close look at the PLO Covenant to see that his 'narrative' is false

Dr. Yale Zussman

In recent years, the Palestinian Arabs, broadly conceived to include the Palestinian Authority, the various political and militant factions, and their supporters abroad, have been pushing a narrative in which a flourishing Palestinian Arab national society of ancient origin was brutally attacked and overrun by an imperialist Zionist invasion intent on stealing what had been their "Palestine" since time immemorial. 

Curiously, the Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization, initially adopted in 1964 and revised in 1968, contains an article that refutes this claim.

Article 6 of the Covenant reads: "Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinian."  That "invasion" is usually identified with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, so this article acknowledges that there were Jews in the Land before then.

Let us leave aside that Abbas's insistence that his Palestinian state be Judenreinviolates this provision of the supposedly sacred Covenant and address the question:  Who were these Jews?

The Quran makes no mention of "Palestine".
Conceptually, they potentially fall into three categories, any one of which establishes that the Palestinian narrative is false.

The first possible source of pre-1917 Jews would be those who had been living in the Land at the time of the Arab invasion in the Seventh Century.  There is no credible way to explain the existence of such Jews without acknowledging that the Land was their homeland.  Why would they have come there at that time if they had no previous connection? 

Indeed, the Quran actually confirms that this was the case:  Surah 5, verse 21 begins:"O my people! (referring to the Children of Israel)  Go into the holy land which Allah has ordained for you."  (Pickthall interpretation) The existence of such Jews demonstrates that Jewish claims about prior habitation are correct.

What, then, are we to make of Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Malaiki's  statement on ash-Sharq al-Awsat, "This is the issue of recognizing the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. This is a sharply contentious issue. It would be dangerous to recognize this because this would mean our acceptance of the dissolution of our own history and ties and our historic right to Palestine. This is something that we will never accept under any circumstances."

We also have the following statement from Ahmad Samih Khalidi of the Institute of Palestine Studies in 2011:  "[I]f Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, then the lands that it occupies today (and perhaps more, for there are as yet no borders to this “homeland”) belong to this people by way of right. And if these lands rightfully comprise the Jewish homeland, then the Arab presence there becomes historically aberrant and contingent; the Palestinians effectively become historic interlopers and trespassers -- a transient presence on someone else’s national soil."

Seen against Article 6 of the Palestinian Ljiberation Organization Covenant these statements lead inexorably to the conclusion that the Palestinian Arab narrative is false.  The Palestinian leadership must know that their narrative is false.

Incidentally, the Quran makes no mention of "Palestine".  And the Palestinian 'narrative' asserts that Surah 5, verse 21, is false.

The second possible source of pre-1917 Jews would be those who might have arrived between the Arab conquest and the beginning of the Zionist awakening in the Nineteenth Century.  Why would they have come, knowing full-well that they would be subjected to the dhimma, a system of discrimination that is the ancestor of apartheid, if there was no previous connection to the Land?  There were such people, mainly pious pilgrims seeking to live out their lives inthe Land of their fathers; they settled mainly in Jerusalem and Safed.  One of these was Joseph Caro, who wrote the code of Jewish law still used today.  Undoubtedly, their descendants inter-married with descendants of Jews who had returned earlier and with Jews whose ancestors had lived there since before the Arab invasion, so in some sense, the first two groups can be conceived as having merged into one.

The third possible source of pre-1917 Jews are those who arrived with the First and Second Aliyot, estimated to total some 65,000 people.  For the record, the First Aliyah was before the establishment of the Zionist Movement and thus cannot be deemed part of any "Zionist" invasion.  For the most part, these people arrived in small groups, by boat to Jaffa and then made their way on foot or by donkey to land purchased for them by European Jewish philanthropists.  They came to work the land, rather than as religious pilgrims, so they were fairly easy to find.  The notion that they came against the will of the sovereign at the time, the Ottoman Empire, is basically unsupportable.

Why might the Ottoman sultan, who was also the khalifah, have welcomed Jews to this part of his empire?  Jews had been welcomed into the Ottoman state since shortly after the expulsion from Spain in 1492, and had made valuable contributions to the modernization of the Empire.  For example, Jews brought the first printing press.  There is also the matter that these Jews had good connections in the major European powers, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, and the Ottomans hoped they could be used to gain influence in the capitals of those powers.

There is a potentially more important reason that often goes overlooked:  During the late Nineteenth Century, the Land was on the frontier between the Ottoman Empire and a resurgent Egypt that had British backing.  The Ottomans were concerned that this largely-unpopulated territory didn't provide much of a barrier to Anglo-Egyptian ambitions.  That is why they sought to bring various population groups there from elsewhere.

The record is very clear that the Ottoman government sought to populate the area with basically anyone willing to move there.  Muslim tribes were attracted from elsewhere in the Empire and from Turkic Central Asia.  A large number of Bosnians was transferred there when Austria seized Bosnia in 1878, which is why the Palestinian Arab leader during World War II, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was able to recruit Bosnians to fight for Hitler.

European Jews brought new technologies from Europe, and money, permitting the economic growth necessary to attract the Muslim groups from elsewhere; they were necessary to the success of the Ottoman strategy.  The Ottomans let the dhimma slip into the shadows while this effort was underway.  That the Ottomans undertook this effort demonstrates that the Land was underpopulated in the late Nineteenth Century.  That it had the approval of the khalifah is why the Covenant grants Palestinian identity to Jews present by 1917.

And it all would have worked just fine, except the Ottoman Empire came to an end.  Government ministers, as a rule, do not factor the consequences of the demise of their state into their thinking about policies to adopt.  In this case, they gave no consideration to how the Jews, both autochthonous and more recently returned, and Muslim peoples, again both those of long standing and those they were bringing into the Land, might get along without Ottoman suzerainty.

Jews who had arrived with the First or Second Aliyah had no previous experience of living as dhimmis, second-class citizens subject to the dhimma, and would not accept that status, particularly since they had taken the lead in developing the Land.  There was little prospect that the Arab population would abandon it, since in its absence, Jews would continue to hold at least the economic reins. 

The Balfour Declaration was issued into this mix, asserting that Jews would have rights in the Land, i.e., the dhimma would not be re-established.  Conflict became inevitable, with only two solutions: One or the other of the parties would have to expel the other, or there needed to be a partition, so each party would have its own state.  The Arab population has routinely rejected partition and, obviously, both parties reject the idea that the other is entitled to push them out. 

The world has been trying to untie this knot ever since.

The Yishuv's Jewish population in 1917 consisted of people from each of the three sources, but even if they all came from only one of them, the acknowledgement in the Palestine LIberation Organization's National Covenant that there were Jews there before 1917 disproves the current Palestinian Arab narrative's claim that the Land has been home "since time immemorial" to a thriving Palestinian Arab culture. 

If the Jews are from the first source, then they predate the Palestinian Arab arrival. 

The second source pre-supposes the existence of the first. 

The third source reflects Ottoman recognition that the Land was underpopulated and in need of a revival; i.e., whatever culture was there could hardly be described as flourishing.

The Palestinian Arab narrative is thus hoist with its own petard: The Palestinian "people"'s founding document announces that its narrative isn't true.