Jewish Acceptance About to Die in Europe

 

There are any numbers of measurements which one can point to depicting threats to the continued acceptance of the presence of Jews. The increased levels of anti-Semitism and the accompanying violence perpetrated on Jewish members of numerous European nations is just the beginning. France has witnessed so much violence targeting Jews that they have called up reservists activating their military units and placed them at virtually every Jewish institution where Jews may congregate. This has meant that French soldiers are guarding every Synagogue, every Jewish school, almost every Jewish pre-school, a plethora of Jewish daycares and even some Jewish markets, especially in Friday afternoon as the Shabbat shopping rush takes place. Even with all of this has not completely prevented anti-Semitic attacks in France as the recent murder of an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor in Paris, Mireille Knoll. This harmless lady was stabbed eleven times and violated in other ways before her apartment was set on fire. The bottom of the article lists a number of other similar anti-Semitic driven murders committed in the French recent past. The list is honestly frightening, and we are only in France.

 

Moving to the east we enter Germany on which we just reported on the assault of a Jewish youth on the streets of Berlin resulting in the youth being more seriously wounded than initially thought. This attack was simply representative of one side of a triple-sided closure of German Jews, two of them described in this USA Today article which defines threats from the Islamic refugee influx and the nationalist right-wing neo-Nazi and related anti-Semitic groups. The third threat comes from some on the extreme left who have taken to blaming the Jews for the increasing violence against the Jews themselves. As pointed out deep in this article, there has also been a rise in anti-Semitism on the left as well as the right and amongst some of the Muslims with growth coming from all the aforementioned sides. Even in the schools anti-Semitic bullying has occurred targeting girls and boys alike.

 

Sweden is not an ideal place filled with acceptance and love for their Jewish population which is facing increasing violence with Malmo becoming a city with what might only be called no-go areas for Jews. In Italy it is reported that from Malmo we go to Milan and the hate is the same anti-Semitism which has even infected soccer crowds. We are shown that being called a ‘Jew’ is one of the worst insults used by Italians which happens at soccer matches despite efforts by the authorities. Moving across the Channel to Britain we find that anti-Semitic hate crimes hit record high as violent assaults increase by more than a third in a year. These are simply an introduction as expressing Jewish themes or following actual religious obligations become crimes, these are the real signs that Europe will soon spit out its Jews if not worse.

 

But the real stories lie at opposing ends of Europe. Poland has recently passed a new law making a crime out of references to any Polish participation in the Nazis genocidal murder of Jews during World War II, thus making such a thought crime and against national speech code. Even worse is when even performing Mitzvahs and fulfilling Biblical commandments become criminal acts. How can a Jew remain living in a nation and raise a family when performing even the most basic and central command from the Torah, one demanded of Avraham by Hashem and practiced by the Jews during the Exodus before entering the Holy Lands and the rite by which every male child shares the same covenant made by Avraham when committing to Hashem and his ways and laws. The Mitzvah of the covenant to which we refer is Circumcision, an act which will become illegal and punishable by a punishment of up to six years in prison. This is what a new law recently proposed by Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir from the Progressive Party, a center-right, populist party, along with eight other members of Parliament from across the political spectrum. Should this become law, then the message is that Jews, as well as Muslims, are not welcome in Iceland and that any residing in Iceland who has a male child will be required to choose between following the laws of the land or the laws of their people and Torah. Any Jew who is honest will choose Torah and making the covenant for their child with Hashem and need to leave Iceland or become a fugitive from Justice. Such a law has been passed before in Europe back in Nazi Germany where having been circumcised was very likely a death sentence as it was considered proof positive that one was a Jewish male.

 

Aurora Borealis Over Reykjavík, Iceland

 

Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are amongst the countries who have considered circumcision bans in the modern era. Thus far, none have actually been passed and stood challenges but it is very likely that Iceland will blast through that door and not simply unlock and open it. This will not be a polite passage of a ban as it has been made clear and indisputably shown that passing such a law banning circumcision would be a religious ban and insult to both Judaism and Islam and that believers of these faiths, one of the world’s largest and potentially the world’s oldest religions, would find residing in a nation with such a law on the books impossible. The problem is that once this door has been even cracked open, let alone blown off its hinges, will begin to allow the other nations who had previously considered banning circumcision will return to reconsider and this time having a precedent which they can point to as their license to follow suit in protecting infant male children from the imposition of barbarous actions of the religiously dogmatic parents. Europe has been moving towards considering religious people to be dogmatic and suffering mental difficulties and requiring social readjustment and potentially claiming such people as unfit parents. Adding circumcision to the intended acts of a religious person may soon come to be cause for placing a child under state care. This will be the threat which will send European Jews rushing for the exits taking their children where their safety will be better assured.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Would Reykjavik Mind Answering One Question Before Boycotting

 

Reykjavik, Iceland’s Capital City, has taken a vote on a motion presented by Björk Vilhelmsdóttir, an outgoing councilwomen representing the Social Democratic Alliance, to boycott all products from Israel, not just the “territories” or the “occupied areas” but all goods Israeli until Israel has pulled all Israelis and other objects of the occupation from all Palestinian areas and allowed the Palestinian peoples to have their own independent homelands. There have been claims that since there have been no actual boycott items list, that this was purely a symbolic vote with some claiming it was just done as a parting gift for the retiring councilwoman. Might we suggest an acrylic award, as it appears gold watches are rather expensive and retiring councilpersons may be a short lived retirement should they feel they miss telling others how to live their lives. There may be a problem with meeting their demand even if Israeli leaders were at all inclined to fold before this immeasurable pressure; namely, exactly what are the actual acceptable borders for these so-called “occupied areas” so that Israel could satisfy the demand being made by the Reykjavik city council.

 

Truth be told, I am not all that surprised by the vote in Reykjavik. Nor would I be surprised by any of the leftist government councils, parliaments and other governances taking and passing similar pieces of legislation. I also do not see any of these governmental organizations actually implementing their “symbolic” legislation as it would, if carried to the extreme that Reykjavik’s legislation would cover as that would mean junking their computers, erasing their security programs leaving their networks open to malware and viruses except for the problem that the processors would have been removed already as part of their boycott. One must wonder if anybody with a stent permitting their hearts to function would have them replaced with the less effective older models which do not carry the medicine additive which makes the Israeli stents far more effective. The list of items which would need be replaced or completely done without is extensive and surprising. But as the government of Iceland has all but voided the Reykjavik boycott which a spokesperson for the Reykjavik Council stated that the boycott was not readily able to be implemented and was more symbolic than an actual policy. Their admitting the lack of intent to enforce the boycott when they found themselves being called and ridiculed or challenged, depending which groups’ reactions one chooses, put to sham any intent for enforcement.

 

Before posting today it has come to our attention that Reykjavik Mayor Dagur B. Eggertsson has realized a change of heart and decided that the decision is to be withdrawn. Apparently he claimed stating to the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service RUV, “Yes, the decision was poorly prepared. In the past I have taken great pride in preparing all big decisions thoroughly. I’ll admit here and now that I am angry with myself for not doing that, and for not having prepared the decision as well as I would have liked to. This was very unfortunate.” He may have been better off leaving this as his statement but, as with all too many politicians he added as a further explanation, “I have previously stated that we could have been far clearer in the text of the decision, even if the idea had always been this. It is important we make absolutely clear that this was the case.” Oh, so it was not phrased well enough and if the wording had been crafted a little more subtlety it would have been better? No, no matter how you phrase enjoining your city with the BDS movement and doing so up to the neck banning all things Israel is not going to fly as finally the world’s conscience has had enough ever since the BDS fiasco in Spain with Matisyahu being uninvited and then reinvited after the brouhaha appears to have been the bromide behind your limp and half wet backtracking. May this be the reaction for all other BDS against Israel so this sorry chapter can be brought to an end here and now. On the brighter side, Iceland’s Prime Minister Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson called Reykjavik’s actions “Absurd.” But that still leaves us with “The Great Question.”

 

We want somebody in Europe, the Arab League, the Arab Palestinian Authority (PA), Fatah, or anyone with some authority to answer as nobody has answered this necessary question which is required if Israel is to comply with vacating the lands claimed as part of Palestine by the various Arab entities to finally answer with maps and GPS coordinates and a final statement defining exactly what would be required of Israel to satisfy the Arab demands for the formation of some amorphous, undefined entity cynically referred to as Palestine. What is required before Israel gives up an additional millimeter of lands is a definition of exactly what borders are required to be vacated in order for all claims, all terrorism, and all other negative actions, accusations, protested or other negative actions against Israel to cease, end, and be permanently terminated and Israel allowed to live in peace with secure borders. Israel cannot accept what the European Union, the United Nations, European governments, NGOs, or any other entity other than Mahmoud Abbas and backed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezballah, Iran and all the rest using the “Palestinian occupation” as their reason d’etre in denouncing and calling for Israel to be boycotted, attacked and terrorized or otherwise attempted to be destroyed, end of the entire demanding puzzle, and satisfactory conclusion, period. We in Israel have read of claims by Mahmoud Abbas which are not helpful, not helpful at all.

 

 

 

 

There is the one statement that Mahmoud Abbas made where he claimed that they only demand that the state of Palestine be formed with the twenty-two-percent which belongs to the Palestinian people. This was immediately locked onto and then defined as Abbas demanding just the areas of Judea and Samaria that Jordan once occupied and renamed West Bank. Others said that Abbas was only demanding the “West Bank” and Gaza. One would think that with Abbas claiming he just desires the twenty-two-percent that belongs to the Palestinians that everybody would have gotten their handy-dandy maps, protractors, compasses and calculators and all come to the same agreement on what Abbas was demanding. This begs then why there were such different descriptions. The “West Bank” measures 5,860 km2 and Gaza measures 360 km2 making the combined total 6,220 km2 while Israel (pre 1967 War) 20,582 km2 we can work out the math and the closest we get to that twenty-two-percent is if Abbas is only claiming the “West Bank” without East Jerusalem or Gaza which produces a figure of twenty-two and two-tenths percent of the land. There is another division which is far more familiar with in the Middle East and it comes from the British formation of Transjordan, today’s Jordan. When Britain divided up the British Mandate along the Jordan River it took the lands east of the Jordan River which measures seventy-eight percent of the lands to make what was then referred to as the Arab Palestinian State and the remaining twenty-two percent west of the Jordan presumably reserved for the Jewish State. If one were able to dig out the actual audio of Abbas he precisely stated that the end of the struggle with the Zionist entity when Palestine was established on its twenty-two percent of the Mandate lands. There were two Mandates in the area, the British Mandate and the French Mandate and the Palestinian state, should one ever be formed, would come only from the British Mandate and the only land mass measuring almost exactly twenty-two percent of Mandate lands is the lands, all the lands, west of the Jordan River, or the land which the pro-Palestinian Arab demonstrators chant, “From the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea, Palestine must be free.” The only other claims Abbas has made is that he would accept temporarily a settlement where the West Bank would be made into Palestine but that must be accepted if it includes the “Right of Return” for over five-million Arabs being thrust into Israel as he specifically states claiming they are Israel’s problem, not the Palestinian Authority’s problem. He also claims that the Arab Palestinians also must be permitted to continue their resistance to the occupation until all of Palestine is freed. What could he possibly mean by all of Palestine, the rest of Palestine? He means and always had meant that Palestine must replace Israel and the Jews must be expelled or otherwise removed from the Arab Lands by whatever becomes necessary.

 

But why would anybody trust that I might be stating any truths, anything completely honest. I do not demand such but until somebody can produce anything contrary where it gives actual demands which the Arab Palestinian Authority and the Arab nations still at war with Israel such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and a number of others and then we can begin to negotiate a solution which recognizes final borders where the Jews and the Arabs all get secure and recognized borders, security, peace, and an end to all further struggle or violence. We might take a glance at some of the depictions of the proposed State of Palestine from Abbas’s own PA schoolbooks and other media.

 

 

 

 

As stated in my plea above, please simply get Mahmoud Abbas or Saab Erekat to lay out a map depicting the borders for their idea of a Palestinian state which will signify a complete end to the terrorist war and all other forms of conflict including Lawfare and the BDS threat and allow for a permanent peace with all claims of occupation settled and final borders providing peace and security. It is a simple request which Yasser Arafat refused to define and Mahmoud Abbas has refused to define and Saab Erekat after him will also fail to define because once they reveal that the only solution they will accept is the destruction of Israel replacing it with Palestine and then the destruction of Jordan then Lebanon as Palestine moves to unify the world under their banner. There is little difference between Hamas and Fatah except that Hamas makes their claims in the name of Islam and Fatah makes its claims in the name of Palestine. Both groups believe they have been destined by Allah or the fates to rule the entire world. The western nations have forgotten the drive which had driven so many in history of conquering the world. Where the Western leaders have resigned and forgotten their former designs on world conquest but that drive is what drove the colonization of the Americas, Asia and Africa and is what is driving many in the Islamic world today. The drive for world conquest drives Islamic State as it does Hamas and Fatah as well as the Saudi Wahabbists and the Mullahs of Iran who believe by causing worldwide chaos they can hasten the return of the Mahdi who will lead them in the final conquest of the world for Allah and the Shiite form of Islam, well, unless Islamic State is able to reinitiate the Caliphate and conquer the world for Allah and the Sunni form of Islam. When their aim is the world does anybody really and honestly believe that they would allow Israel, all 20,582 km2 to stand in their way? Israel is just their appetizer and once they have gobbled down the appetizer, if they ever do, the soup and salad is Europe and Africa, the main course is the United States, Russia and China and the desert is whatever is left over unless we can make a space station or Moon and Mars bases as the Quran does not exactly command the conquest of those of mankind who managed to flee the planet before Islam took over everything, so they might be safe if they are self-sufficient. But just get a commitment that spells out what will satisfy their bloodlust and will bring the terrorism, rockets and war to an end, and then decide what should be done.

 

One last warning, look up the meaning in Islam of the world, the concept is more appropriate, of “Taqiyya.” That last bit kind of puts a wrench into the works, doesn’t it. Below is a small poster giving a basic and simple definition of the concept of “Taqiyya” followed by a short four minute video from the Center for the Study of Political Islam also about “Taqiyya.”

 

 

Taqiyya defined in plain and simple easy to understand terms

 

 

 

 

Beyond the Cusp

Turkey Needs to Prove They Belong in NATO Now

 

United States Secretary of State John Kerry toured the nations of the Middle East seeking allies who would be willing to provide support for the operations spelled out by President Obama for dealing with ISIS. Secretary of State Kerry began his trip visiting NATO partner Turkey in hopes that as a fellow NATO nation they would eagerly support the efforts of their NATO ally. This assumption was sorely mistaken. While I was not privy to the look on Secretary Kerry’s face when Turkish President Erdogan, or whichever functionary was assigned to give the government refusal of intent to cooperate in any way, but I can take a good guess at his feigned surprised, you can knock me down with a feather astonishment look on the face of John Kerry. Why anybody would be surprised at the Turkish refusal should not be holding high position in the government of the United States as anybody holding even the smallest knowledge of recent history should remember that it was Turkey that refused to permit and United States, a NATO ally, troops to be deployed from Turkish soil when the Second Gulf War to remove Saddam Hussein from office was initiated. This prevented a second front from being established in the north of Iraq and permitted many top officials from the Hussein government to make their escape into Syria and possibly even into Turkey itself. The official commentary from the State Department simply stated that Turkey is opting out completely from the coalition and its efforts in Iraq and Syria. This should have further been expected considering Turkey being amongst the original and continuing supporters of ISIS.

 

The other problem is that Secretary of State Kerry is running into brick walls where many nations he has approached claiming they support the idea of what the United States has laid out but we are not really able to assist these efforts at this time. In Egypt President Sisi and the rest of the military hierarchy are not about to forgive President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the United States support for the Muslim Brotherhood and their continuing opposition of the military government which won the election after the army overturned the government of President Morsi as part of bringing an end to the massive demonstrations against the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi and their application of oppressive laws designed to make a path for Sharia and an end to the secular civilization in Egypt. There will be no support coming out of Egypt for anything coming from the Administration of President Obama, period. Secretary Kerry must have felt like he had won the lottery after his stops in Turkey and Egypt when Saudi Arabia and the Emirates promised financial support but denied to offer any boots on the ground against ISIS. Part of the reasons behind the Sunni refusals also is due to the threat to Shiite Iran that ISIS potentially poses and that ISIS is far more likely to take its fight to purify the true Religion of the Prophet, Sunni Islam, ISIS is predictably more likely to take their forces against Shiite Iran before they tackle the perceived impure governance by the Saudi Royal Family and the other leaders in the Emirates and across the Sunni world. Check back with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Egypt after SISI had been severely degraded after their successful overthrow of the Shiite Mullahs in Iran, providing there is any semblance of ISIS that survives an assault on Iran. Until then, the Sunni Arab leaders will not feel the threat and could see the potential for ISIS to, at the least, degrade the arch threat they face, Iran and their sycophants Syria and Hezballah. These results mean that President Obama and his grand plan will place all their expectations for victory on the two groups who have an immediate reason to take on this struggle, the remaining remnants of the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga Militias who rescued many of the Yazidi peoples who were surrounded and threatened by ISIS forces and are defending the lands populated by Kurdish peoples. Of these two groups the Kurdish Peshmerga Militias are by far the more capable and likely the most capable of forces who make up their lack of numbers with a fierceness and steadfast convictions. The rest are unlikely to offer any ground forces, or even air support, without the United States also putting forces on the ground and even then they will be reluctant and only provide support troops who are able to serve in the rear and unable to perform combat duties with any measurable effect.

 

Still, the reluctance of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and other nations from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is to be expected as these nations are often willing to fight to the very last American troop before they will risk a single of their own troops. They might be willing to provide support troops or combat troops who would hold and guard supply depots and support areas such a motor pools but would be restricted as a condition of their deployment into the theater. Many understand that any problems in MENA locations which the United States determines as a threat, even if it also threatens the nations which are parts of MENA, will refuse to provide troops to fight anywhere outside of their own borders and support any numbers of United States troops being deployed to eradicate the threats to these nations and once the threat has passed they demand that the United States troops leave their territories until the next threat. All of this has been the exact scenario in countless confrontations ever since the Ottoman Empire was defeated as part of World War I and the division of those lands into individual nations over the following couple of decades. This was even the case for most of the fighting during World War I against the Ottoman Empire on behalf of the Arab tribes who resented Ottoman rule and mostly refused to join the battle. The main exception, and it was such an exception that it became the theme for a blockbuster movie, was the Arab revolt which was organized, held together, and led by a single British officer, and possible madman, Major T. E. Lawrence (often mistaken for Peter O’Toole). In all honesty, the film “Lawrence of Arabia” took so much liberty in depicting the Arabs as unorganized tribal forces who suffered from rivalries and discipline difficulties where the reality is most of those led by Major Lawrence were disciplined forces under direct command of their officers, uniformed, and many were captured initially fighting as part of the Ottoman Army and volunteered, initially demanding, to be permitted to fight to overthrow the Ottoman Turks. The movie engendered numerous law suits contesting how many actual people were portrayed to such inaccuracy that the families took umbrage and insult to their honor. There is also the fact that there were other British and French intelligence officers who, like Lawrence, led Arab units. The possible reason that the movie was centered around T. E. Lawrence was likely due to two factors, American journalist Lowell Thomas gave Lawrence much coverage in the West, particularly in the United States, and the extensive and self-aggrandized recounting of Major Lawrence’s accomplishments and importance found within his penned accounting titled, “Seven Pillars of Wisdom.” Maybe we could use another rather eccentric British officer about now, or maybe not.

 

The only actual effrontery which, though expected in this office, likely somewhat blindsided the Administration of President Obama would be the utter refusal to cooperate by the Turkish government. The government of newly elected and first publically elected President, Erdogan’s refusal not only to provide troops on the ground, but to refuse to provide air support, the use of Turkish airfields or even the use of Turkey itself to house troops or supplies or to launch strikes on ISIS in both Iraq and Syria should be taken as a virtual resignation from NATO as he has proven that under his guidance Turkey has split from NATO and moved closer to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. This should have been expected as this was the exact reaction and lack of consideration or cooperation which Turkey gave President George W. Bush for utilizing Turkish ground from which to launch a second front in the initial stages of the 2003 start to the Second Iraq War. Apparently the Turkish refusals were just as much a shock and surprise as they were a little over a decade ago. Perhaps President Obama had relied on two things, the fact that he believes he is the anti-Bush President and thus should succeed where President George W. Bush had failed, and that he considers Recep Tayyip Erdogan to be one of if not his closest friend and confidant amongst all the leaders in the world. Apparently the friendship felt by President Obama is not reciprocated nearly as much as he might have anticipated and hoped. Still, with what is reputed to be some of the finest information gathering abilities available to advise an American President, one would have thought that President Obama would have been advised on how poorly his hopes for coordination and cooperation his plan would be rejected by the Arab nations he was presumably offering to help and particularly he would have been informed that the only NATO ally was not going to be onboard with the plan. Why President Obama was not forewarned is a question whose answer we will never know.

 

Still the Turkish refusal to once again assist their NATO allies in efforts in the Middle East begs some serious questions. The first, most obvious and of paramount importance is why Turkey remains within NATO. Perhaps there is no means of removing a member once they have been accepted. The one obvious fact is that the experiment of allowing a nation which historically, since the fall of the Byzantine Empire, has sided with the Muslim and Arab forces of the world including being the central home to the last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, would be considered and granted membership in NATO, a Europe centered mutual defense organization. The reason has more to do with the when and why NATO was originally established. On April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was established with twelve Western nations making up its membership; Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. The organization was established to resist the pressures of the Soviet Union and their iron grab over Eastern Europe and to provide a united front which was to provide a greater defensive front for the individual nations by tying their defense against aggressions into the Three Musketeers pledge of all for one and one for all. A short period later on February 18, 1952, two additional states were granted membership; Greece and more importantly Turkey. The most obvious reason leading to the inclusion of Turkey in NATO was desirable as Turkey ruled over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles which are the two straights which control access to the Mediterranean Sea from the Black Sea which served as the southern route for Russian and Soviet Naval vessels, their western most all season port in the Crimean Peninsula. As the Soviet Union collapsed the reasoning behind NATO, and especially Turkey, should have dissipated leaving the entire alliance to the dustbin of history. But such treaties and similar large organizations, such as labor unions, find new but not necessarily improved, raison d’être. This has been the reality of NATO with it coming up with reason after reason as the years pass which its members generally agree are sufficient excuses to continue the organization. But now that the newest raison d’être is to provide a unified front and mutual protection against potential threats emanating out of Iran or any other threats across the Middle East, the consistent refusal by Turkey to permit any use of their lands and bases or to volunteer their troops or air force joining efforts in the Middle East. What the reason is for having kept Turkey as a member of NATO after their refusal, especially the manner in which they revoked permission with hours left before the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iran, causing the delay of the deployment of the forces which were to have assaulted Iran from the north and removing entirely the northern front from the strategy, potentially making the entire plan more likely to fail, is beyond reason and can only be attributed to the belief that the Turkish refusal to honor their obligations as a NATO ally was a once only event. With it now established as their policy and not an exception, there is absolutely no conceivable reason to permit Turkey to remain as a member in NATO and doing so is simply an endangerment to the entire membership of NATO. Somehow, it is very doubtful that their refusal again to cooperate in efforts by NATO ally members will have any consequences as any insult or antagonism of Western nations and alliances comes without consequences. Working contrary to the efforts and intentions of any other alliance or nation will definitely have immediate and serious consequences, especially efforts against, the Chinese, the Russians and the Arab and Muslim worlds. Working contrary to the United States is one of the few acts which has no apparent consequence, well, unless the nation refusing to obey the United States is Israel, the nation which appears to be held to a singular set of rules, consequences and restrictions with expectations of morality of actions on a scale beyond that applied anywhere else and to no other nation, even the United States though they come in a relative second place on the expectation scale imposed by such as the United Nations, the NGOs, the plethora of human rights organizations and the opinion of the web of nations.

 

Beyond the Cusp