What Are Jews?

 

Hitler would love it.

Decades after he tried to convince the world that Jews are a separate ‘race’, many people still fall for this lie. Jews are defined as a ‘race’ in fiction, by some theologians of other faiths, and by many otherwise intelligent, rational people across the globe. Log into any online forum where religion is the topic, and you’ll find endless posts passionately insisting that there exists a ‘jewish race’.

 

You’ll also see people referring to ‘being jewish via blood’ or of someone being ‘of jewish blood’.

I mean really – do they think we Jews have kosher chicken soup running through our veins…?!

There is no such thing as ‘jewish blood’!

Let’s clarify the issue. Jews never were and are not now a ‘race’.

Can you alter your race? No.

Can you convert to Judaism? Yes.

Are you then considered as Jewish as those born into the faith? Again – yes.

Clearly, then, neo Nazi protestations to the contrary, Jews are not a ‘race’.

 

Nor are we an ‘ethnic’ group, though again, we are often defined as such.

But think about it: there is no one ethnicity which unites all Jews. How can there be? There are Japanese Jews. Indian Jews. Black Ethiopian Jews. White Jews. We come in all shades and colours. We represent all ethnicities.

So we’re not a race, and we’re not an ethnic group. Yet we’re not a religion in the same way that Christians or Muslims are, either.  After all, as perplexed non Jews often note, there do exist Jewish Atheists. How can this be, though, if Jews are members of a faith?

So what are we, exactly…?

Well, we’re a Tribe. We started out as a collection of smaller tribes, bound by tribal law. Today we are still tribal in nature.

You’re born into the Jewish Tribe, if your mother is Jewish.

You remain a member of the Tribe – unless you leave to join another faith.

And you can return any time you wish, so long as you renounce the religion you left the Tribe for.

People convert to Judaism and are then adopted by the Tribe.

You remain a Tribe member even if you don’t actively practise Judaism, which is how we can state that there do exist Jewish Atheists. Atheism is not a religion, thus it does not represent a violation of Tribal law.

Originally, even the Jewish G-d was a tribal deity – nothing remotely like the universal G-d that we worship today. Rather, the Jewish tribal deity was unique to Abraham and his descendants. It was only after Moses received the Torah at Mount Sinai that we find Jews being transformed from a Tribe with a localised deity, into a Nation with a Universal G-d.

So there you have it. That’s what we are.  A faith, a family, and a nation. But above all, a Tribe. Personally, I prefer ‘tribe’ and think it’s more accurate, as it conveys better the clannish, and intense nature of Jews as a group.

So, next time you encounter someone calling us a ‘race’, remind them that only neo Nazis actually believe this, and that anyone who does use this term to define Jews, is sadly continuing Hitler’s legacy, something no decent person would ever desire to do.

Jerusalem Is Jewish – It’s Non Negotiable

 

As many Arabs and Muslims try to obscure the link between Jerusalem and the Jews, the EU seems only too happy to support their revision of history.

 

And crucially, nobody ever seems to refer to Jordan’s illegal occupation of the city.

 

 

So just to remind people, and via David Hornik at Front Page Magazine:

 

Jerusalem was unified under Israeli sovereignty in 1967, after nineteen years in which Jordan illegally occupied the city and finally used it to attack Israel despite being implored by Israel to keep out of the fighting.

Under Israeli rule, Muslims and all other groups (except Jews—on the Temple Mount itself) have enjoyed full freedom of worship—a stark contrast to the nineteen years of Jordanian rule when Jews and Christians were denied access to Jerusalem’s holy places and Jewish synagogues and gravestones were destroyed and desecrated.

Muslims already have full control over Mecca, Medina, and countless sacred locales and shrines throughout the vast Muslim world, and their demand for Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem and the redivision of Israel’s capital can reasonably be regarded as excessive – especially when, as noted, Israel gives Muslims full access to their Jerusalem shrines and full rights in the city.

Indeed, Jerusalem is full of minarets, and any visitor to its Old City or its Arab neighborhoods can attest to the vibrancy of Muslim religious life there. The EU should be more concerned with Islamization on the continent than with taking harsh stances against Israel as it struggles to survive and to find the right mix of accommodation and steadfastness in an Arab/Muslim environment hostile its very existence.

But for the EU, after decades of forsaking its Judeo-Christian roots for pro-Arabism, that may be too much to expect. Even if European populations are starting to grasp the consequences of this civilizational self-abnegation, Europe’s Brussels-based bureaucracy remains willfully ignorant of the stakes.

Breaking News! Barack Obama To Receive Psychiatric Help

 

 

White House sources have this morning confirmed that Barack Obama is receiving psychiatric care. The problems apparently started a week ago, after the President’s closest aides observed his behaviour becoming increasingly erratic. 

 

But it was after Obama became delusional that alarm grew among his staff. Specifically, one aide has confirmed: ‘It’s all rather embarrassing, actually. The President clearly believed himself to be in charge of, well, planning permission –  in Jerusalem.’

 

It was then that White House staff had to face the fact that Obama was seriously ill.

 

‘At first I thought he was just stressed,’ states one source who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, ‘But then he got on to the phone to the Israeli Ambassador to America and began issuing bizarre instructions’.

Specifically, confirms the aide, Obama ordered the Israeli government to halt work on an apartment building near Sheikh Jarrah.

 

‘It was embarrassing, to say the least’, confides another aide, ‘There we are with people being killed on the streets of Iran, and there’s Obama marching around the Oval office, screaming down the phone to Tel Aviv about this new block of flats and demanding that it not go ahead!

 

And the aide continues: ‘It was apparent to everyone there that Obama was delusional. We had no choice but to organise the appropriate help for him.’

 

Rumours suggest that Obama has been assessed by a consultant psychiatrist, at the White House, and that a medication regime is being set up. Although details of the diagnosis remain under wraps, it’s rumoured that Obama is experiencing some form of  obsessive-compulsive disorder.

 

Specifically, his staff are hoping that the treatment will help to reduce the American President’s apparent fixation on Israel. 

 

 ‘His behaviour is troubling, no doubt about it, ‘ stated a member of the secret service, ‘Sometimes,  in the early hours of the morning, our boys will come across the President wandering around, muttering and mumbling about ‘that bloody Bibi’. We sure hope he gets better soon.’

 

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has conveyed his ‘heartfelt wishes for Obama’s speedy recovery’ during a phone call with the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.

He is reported to have said: ‘I am truly sorry to hear of Obama’s difficulties. We will of course disregard his irrational demands over what Israelis can and can’t do in the Israeli capital, Jerusalem. As far as I am concerned, it never happened and I won’t mention it ever again.  Our thoughts are with Obama and his family at this time.’

 

We will update this news story as soon as we get more details – watch this space!

 

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

 Jeff Jacoby, writing in the Boston Globe, offers some historical context:

 

Late last week, the Obama Administration demanded that the Israeli government pull the plug on a planned housing development near the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem.

 

The project, a 20-unit apartment complex, is indisputably legal. The property to be developed – a defunct hotel – was purchased in 1985 and the developer has obtained all the necessary municipal permits.

 

Why, then, does the administration want the development killed? Because Sheikh Jarrah is in a largely Arab section of Jerusalem and the developers of the planned apartments are Jews. Think about that for a moment. Six months after Barack Obama became the first Black man to move into the previously all-White residential facility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, he is fighting to prevent integration in Jerusalem.

 

It is impossible to imagine the opposite scenario. The administration would never demand that Israel prevent Arabs from moving into a Jewish neighborhood. And the Obama Justice Department would unleash seven kinds of hell on anyone who tried to impose racial, ethnic or religious redlining in an American city. In the 21st century, segregation is unthinkable – except, it seems, when it comes to housing Jews in Jerusalem.

 

It is not easy for Israel’s government to refuse any demand from the United States, which is the Jewish State’s foremost ally. To their credit, Israeli leaders spoke truth to power, and said “no”.

 

“Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. “This has been the policy of all Israeli governments. There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city’s east. This is the policy of an open city.”

 

There was a time not so long ago when Jerusalem was anything but an open city. During Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, the Jordanian Arab Legion invaded eastern Jerusalem, occupied the Old City, and expelled all its Jews – many from families that had lived in the city for centuries.

 

“As they left,” the acclaimed historian Sir Martin Gilbert later wrote in his 1998 book, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century, “they could see columns of smoke rising from the quarter behind them. The Hadassah welfare station had been set on fire and… the looting and burning of Jewish property was in full swing.”

 

For the next 19 years, eastern Jerusalem was barred to Jews, brutally divided from the western part of the city with barbed wire and military fortifications. Dozens of Jewish holy places, including synagogues hundreds of years old, were desecrated or destroyed. Gravestones from the ancient Mount of Olives cemetery were uprooted by the Jordanian army and used to pave latrines. Jerusalem’s most sacred Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum.

 

It wasn’t until 1967, after Jordan was routed in the Six-Day War, that Jerusalem was reunited under Israeli sovereignty and religious freedom restored to all. Israelis have vowed ever since that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

 

And not only Israelis. US policy, laid out in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, recognizes Jerusalem as “a united city administered by Israel” and formally declares that “Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.” 
 
US presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, have agreed. In former President Bill Clinton’s words, “Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city, with assured freedom of access and worship for all.”

 

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said much the same thing. To a 2008 candidate questionnaire that asked about “the likely final status Jerusalem,” Obama replied: “The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement…. Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided.”

 

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council, he repeated the point: “Let me be clear… Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

 

Palestinian irredentists claim that eastern Jerusalem is historically Arab territory and should be the capital of a future Palestinian state. In reality, Jews have always lived in eastern Jerusalem – it is the location of the Old City and its famous Jewish Quarter, after all, not to mention Hebrew University, which was founded in 1918.

 

The apartment complex that Obama opposes is going up in what was once Shimon Hatzadik, a Jewish neighborhood established in 1891. Only from 1948 to 1967 – during the Jordanian occupation – was the eastern part of Israel’s capital “Arab territory”. Palestinians have no more claim to sovereignty there than Russia does in formerly occupied eastern Berlin.

 

The great obstacle to Middle East peace is not that Jews insist on living among Arabs. It is that Arabs insist that Jews not live among them. If Obama doesn’t yet grasp that, then he has a lot to learn.

This article first appeared in the Boston Globe on July 22, 2009.

A Message For ‘Reader X’ aka It’s My Blog And I’ll Ban Who I Want To!

.

 

Is freedom of speech absolute?

Here’s a candid answer: not for readers of my blog.

I make no apologies for this stance. Only one person has total free speech in this particular arena – and that’s me!

 

I’ve been pondering  ‘freedom of speech’ because I stand accused of ‘blocking opinions differing from your own’. My accuser? A regular poster on Jew With A View that I’ve now had to, reluctantly, bar from posting full stop.

 

Of course, most bloggers ban those who submit abusive or racist comments. 

 

 

It’s just common sense. But what about banning someone who is usually polite..?

  

 

Is it ‘wrong’?  Does it ‘prove’ that I ban dissent, especially when it comes to the topic of Israel…?   I can’t respond privately to this person, hence this post.

 

  

Truth is, I welcome dissenting opinions. Genuinely. Blogging would be mighty dull if everyone who posted here was just echoing my views!

Nor do I claim to be ‘right’ in all I say. Indeed, if I make factual errors, I hope someone will correct me and I am most grateful when they do! Hell, I’m appreciative when anyone takes the time to post a comment, and I hope regulars especially, know this

Let’s call the person I’ve banned Reader X. He knows who he is. He’s posted many long comments on this blog and that was fine, though I passionately disagree with him. But as he seems a reasonably decent soul, and as he’s taken the trouble to express his views, I’ve welcomed his thoughts.

 

But here’s the thing. Everyone has the right to their own opinions.  But nobody has the right to their own facts. That’s where a line exists, and it can’t be crossed if one still wants any form of rational discourse.

The discrepancy between these two was illustrated vividly back in 2007 when Oxford University decided to allow known Holocaust Denier David Irving, and his fellow weasel BNP head Nick Griffin, to speak at the Union debate.

 

The move was publicly condemned by Jewish and Muslim students alike, along with anti facism activists and numerous politicians – several of whom cancelled membership of the Oxford Union as a result.

 

But Oxford Union was unrepentant. These two racist twits had, it declared, the right to ‘freedom of speech’.

 

Wrong.

 

  

What they had was  freedom of opinion. But that doesn’t mean any institution, let alone Oxford, should offer them a platform to spread their malice.

 

If Irving and Griffin wish to go around peddling their mad and subjective belief that six million Jews did not perish, that is their right to do so – within the confines of their homes and in hushed conversations with their fellow neo Nazis.

 

But once they start publicly twisting and misrepresenting objective facts in their bid to deny history, then no. A thousand times, no.  They don’t have any unconditional, inalienable ‘right’ to do that.  Nor did Oxford Union have any ‘duty’ to help them.

 

I have the right to declare a disbelief in gravity. Does Oxford Union have any obligation to provide a platform for me to unveil my copious notes and ideas in ‘support’ of this idea…?

 

No, of course not – and nor would  Oxford dream of doing so!  Yet when it suits, countless individuals and institutions play the ‘freedom of speech’ card in order to promote all manner of absurd, irrational and sometimes dangerous beliefs.

Which brings us to Reader X. He has repeatedly stated: ‘I insist that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation’.

 

Well, dear Reader X, you may continue to insist this, and deny reality, as much as you like. Go on – knock yourself out!

  

But not on my blog.

  

 

Any group which attacks and kills unarmed, innocent civilians, is a terrorist group. Yep – it’s as black and white as that. Thus when Hamas sent suicide bombers onto two Israeli buses, killing sixteen people, including a 3 year old child,  that was terrorism. End of.

 

I’m not remotely interested in Reader X’s apologetics for Hamas. Nor will I feel bad for denying his ‘right’ to publicly condone them. He can seek to justify and rationalise and apologise for Hamas terrorism all he likes.

  

But not on my blog.

 

Nor do I accept that Reader X has any ‘right’ to use my blog to condone bigotry.

Last week I posted a story about how a top Obama aide cheerfully shared a platform with a man who then claimed that Hurricane Katrina was G-d’s ‘punishment’ towards Gay people, and that Jews are seeking to ‘control the world’.

 

Most sane people recognise this bigotry towards Gays and Jews for what it is: appalling. Likewise, they understand that it is not OK for a top Obama aide to share a platform with and thus legitimise someone expressing such spite.

But what did Reader X think? ‘It’s good that Obama is prepared to talk to lots of people.’

Er, right…

 Again, if Reader X wants to support anti Gay and Anti Jewish bigotry, he’s free to do so.

  

 But not on my blog.

 

In particular, Reader X has condemned my apparent unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions on Israel. So let’s clarify.

 

If someone wants to criticise Israeli policies, they are free to do so. If someone wants to post condemnation of specific decisions made by Israel or particular Israeli politicians, they are free to do this too.  If their posts are based on facts and – this is key – an accurate understanding of the situation.

 

But when someone makes it clear that they don’t even know the term ‘palestinian’ always referred to Palestinian Jews, and when they then try and ‘prove’ their case by anecdotal evidence, and when all they do is regurgitate weary old Arab propaganda that has been disproven time and again – then no, I don’t have any obligation to publish this person’s misconceptions.

  

There are countless sites out there where Reader X can share his inaccurate ideas on Israel.

My blog is not one of them.

 

And finally, Reader X,  I reserve the right to reject your blatant hypocrisy. For example, you have often stated that you trust the UN. Thus if the UN condemns Israel for something, it is  ‘good enough‘ for you – note, I’m using your own words here.

Yet at the same time, you ignore that the UN also stated in a resolution that Hezbollah should have disarmed.   But you don’t care what the UN says about this. Indeed,  only recently you tried to submit a post claiming that Hezbollah has nothing to do with terrorism!

This is rank  hypocrisy. When the UN condemns Israel, it’s acceptable. But when the UN condemns Palestinian and Islamic terrorism, it gets ignored. Again Reader X, you’re free to practise this hypocrisy.

  

But not on my blog.

 

Finally, and most egregiously, Reader X, you showed how little value you attache to Jewish life, any Jewish life, by your response to the recent update on murdered and tortured French Jew Ilan Halimi.

Responding to this post, what did you say?  You spoke of Palestinians in prison in Israel – and did not say a single word about the way that this young French man was abducted, tortured, set alight and killed by French Muslims. Muslims who admitted to being obsessed with killing Jews and who actually phoned the victim’s parents and quoted to them from the Quran.

Now of course, you’re not obliged to respond to the Ilan Halimi post at all. But to submit a response to it  that totally ignores his death? That is in poor taste and again, just reveals your hypocrisy. You care so much for Palestinian Arabs – yet don’t give a damn when Jewish blood is spilled.

 

And so, Reader X, if you are indeed looking at this post: don’t tell me that you’re ‘objective‘ and ‘fair‘ when it comes to any topic connected to either Israel or anti Jewish sentiment. You’re not. At least have the integrity to acknowledge your own bias and blatant double standards.

 

And if at any time you decide to adopt a fairer approach, then you are most welcome to post here again.

But, until and unless that time arrives, you’ll have to take your right to condone terrorism and bigotry and exercise it on other blogs –  ’cause you ‘aint doing it on this one!

The Terrible Case Of Ilan Halimi: Update

.Some of you will recall my earlier posts on the terrible murder of French Jew Ilan Halimi.  Back in 2006, he was lured to an empty basement in Paris and then tortured for several weeks. His killers were members of a Muslim mob who have recently stood trial in France.

The latest news on this tragic case is that fourteen of the twenty-five gang members will be retried. This is because of  protests about their having received absurdly lenient sentences.  The French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie intervened just three days after the gang members – or evil, racist bastards as I prefer to call them – were sentenced for the 2006 killing of Halimi.

The gang leader and chief bastard, one Youssouf Fofana,  was sentenced to life in prison. He was the only gang member convicted of murder. The other mob members were given prison terms shorter than recommended by the prosecuting attorney. This sparked a massive protest by French Jewish groups and Halimi’s family.

Among the fourteen who will be re-tried, are  two of Fofana’s main accomplices, as well as the woman who acted as the ‘honeytrap’ and lured Ilan Halimi to that isolated basement in the first place.

One key thing to remember about the murder of Ilan Halimi is that he was not a random victim. Fofana and his mob had been, by their own admission, fixated on finding and killing Jewish men for a considerable length of time. Anti semitism was not incidental to this murder – it was a fundamental cause.

Ilan Halimi was 23 and had everything in the world to look forward to. Yet he ended up being tortured and beaten for three weeks nonstop, before finally being set alight by his abusers and then left, naked, by a railway line. By the time someone found him, it was too late.

 

Harry Potter: The Closet Jew

 As the star of the Harry Potter films, Daniel Radcliffe plays a boy who above all else, has integrity. A boy who loathes the bigotry of his enemies and  is proud of his ‘mudblood’ friends.

 

What a pity that in real life, Radcliffe doesn’t embody those traits. For this week, in an interview with the Guardian  Radcliffe shocked many by producing the type of anti semitic ‘joke’ that anyone with a functioning brain recognises as  vile. He claimed, absurdly, that because his own mother is Jewish, he ‘is allowed’ to make ‘jewish jokes’.

 

His remarks are disingenuous  in the extreme.   Firstly, the ‘joke’ that Radcliffe offered does nothing but repeat the weary old stereotype of Jews being mean and caring only about money. Did it never occur to Radcliffe that the millions of youngsters who hang on his every word would be taking this, too, as gospel…? 

 

Can he really be so naive as to think that what he says in a national newspaper won’t be read, remembered, and absorbed by his legions of young fans…?

 

Secondly, Radcliffe then tried to convince us, in this same article, that he is ‘proud’ of his Jewish heritage. Er, no, Daniel. You’re not, actually. If you were,  you would be incapable of maligning Jews in this manner. Those of us who are truly proud of our heritage do everything we possibly can to counter the spiteful lies historically told about Jews – not promote them to the masses.

 

Radcliffe’s ‘jewish identity’ is interesting, in fact. He clearly feels it is something he can switch on and off when it suits him. Thus, for the most part, his heritage doesn’t get a mention – and that’s just fine.  But when he does suddenly decide that ‘being jewish’ might make him more interesting, how does he reference his religion? With an anti semitic jibe. At the same time, another British newspaper has revealed that Radcliffe secretly writes poetry which he submits to an ‘underground’ publication under the name of – wait for it – Jacob Gershon.

 

Thus in private, Radcliffe cheerfully uses a Jewish name for his poetic scribblings yet in public, where it counts, the only thing he offers is bigotry.

 

There’s a word for behaviour like that. It’s hypocrisy.

 

So here’s the thing, Daniel. Please feel free not to identify as Jewish, either in public or private. I promise – the rest of us  don’t mind and won’t miss you.

 

Because frankly, with ‘jews’ like you, who needs enemies…?

Top Obama Aide Shares Platform With Rabid Anti Semite

I recently read an excellent article over at the    Investigative Project On Terrorism   and the good folk there have kindly said I can re-post some of it here. It’s an important story – do read and then share this information. And do visit the IPT’s superb site!

The article details how one of Obama’s top aides cheerfully shared a platform with people promoting Jihad, Anti semitism, homophobia, and Islamic terrorism. This is an abbreviated version of the original piece; the extra emphasis in italics and colour are mine:

 

A top aide to President Barack Obama provided a keynote address at last weekend’s 46th Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) national convention, a gathering that attracted thousands of people and also featured anti-Semitic, homophobic rhetoric and defense of the terrorist group Hezbollah.

In her remarks, Senior Advisor for Public Engagement and International Affairs Valerie Jarrett noted she was the first White House official to address ISNA. She spoke in general terms about interfaith dialogue and cooperation. She praised her hosts for “the diversity of American organizations, and ideas that are represented and will be debated” at the convention.

And she openly invited ISNA President Ingrid Mattson to work on the White House Council on Women and Girls that Jarrett leads.

The ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-support conspiracy and maintains significant leadership ties to its foundation 28 years ago by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. A more pointed statement also would have stood as a powerful retort to extremist sentiments offered in other segments of the conference.

While many panels featured criticism of U.S. policy and law enforcement, one stood out for its hate-filled rhetoric, and ISNA officials should have seen it coming a mile away. During a “meet the authors” session, Imam Warith Deen Umar, former head of the New York state prison chaplain program managed to:

Argue that key Obama aides are “Israeli,” proving Jews “have control of the world.”

Malign the motives of Jews active in the Civil Rights movement.

Portray the Holocaust as punishment of Jews for being “serially disobedient to Allah.”Insinuate that Hurricane Katrina was a result of tolerance for homosexuality.

 

Umar’s radicalism is no secret. He previously hailed the 9/11 hijackers as martyrs who were secretly admired by Muslims. He has called for violent jihad. In a January 2004 speech, he urged people:

“Rise up and fight. And fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. You think there is no terror in Quran? It’s called [word unclear] read it in the 56th Surah of the Quran. There’s no lack of translation, there’s no mistranslation There’s not one Sheikh says one thing, no, it’s very clear. When you fight, you strike terror into the heart of the disbeliever.'”

 

He has a website promoting a past book, Judaiology, which features an excerpt describing “the inordinacy of Jewish power.” Jews, he wrote, are “an amazing people who can steal you blind as you watch. If you discover the theft, they can put you to sleep. If you wake up to them, they can put you back to sleep with mind games, tricks of fancy, smoke screens, and magic. Henry Ford almost uncovered them.”

 

Other choice comments of his included:

“It’s against the laws of Allah and against the laws of the Bible for homosexuality. And if you think the Quran talks about harsh punishment from Allah, you should read what the Bible says. I don’t have the time to go into it, but it’s in my book. The Bible is very hard on, he says, Allah says that the land itself is doomed. You wonder why things are happening in America are going to happen? You think that Katrina was just a blow of wind?”

And also:

“My conclusion is that there should be more jihad,” he said. “But people don’t want to hear that. They’re scared.”

 

This is the man responsible for the Muslim chaplain program in New York prisons for 20 years. He was forced out of that job after his praise for the 9/11 hijackers became known. This is who ISNA chose to showcase in a “meet the authors” panel and provide an unchallenged platform for.

 

Umar shared the microphone with another author who did not spew out bigotry, but who did cast Hezbollah as an innocent player.  Cathy Sultan described her book, Tragedy in South Lebanon: The Israeli/Hezbollah War of 2006, as a history of “the tragedy of the repeated incursions and wars in South Lebanon, the complexities of the Lebanese politics.”

She made no mention of Iranian funding for Hezbollah or Syrian meddling in Lebanese politics or its suspected involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Nor did Sultan describe indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket fire toward Israeli civilian communities, or the cross-border attack on an Israeli army base by Hezbollah that left three soldiers dead and two others kidnapped.

In response to a question, Sultan said: “Hezbollah still serves a role. I think that Lebanon is still under constant threat from its southern neighbor. And I see nothing wrong, as long as Hezbollah abides by certain rules and regulations; I see no reason why Hezbollah should not remained armed.”

The United States considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist group, and some experts consider it a bigger potential threat to the United States than Al-Qaeda.

The panel did not feature anyone with contrasting viewpoints to challenge Sultan or Umar. The program drew about 50 people, who sat passively during most of the remarks.

Umar’s books were available for purchase at the convention. Government agencies were represented with booths of their own, including the departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

 

In Cairo, Barack Obama said:

“Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong and a hindrance to peace.”

But somehow, partnering with a group that invites the same thing is okay?

 

 

With thanks to the Investigative Project On Terrorism for allowing me to re-post this material.

Visit the IPT by clicking

Judenfrei

My, how easily the world condones the notion of this new, racist Palestinian state as championed by Obama.

The plan supported by his administration will lead to a new Palestinian Arab nation – in which Jews and maybe also Christians are banned from living.

At the same time, of course, Israel is being told she must kick out  Jews in Judea and Samaria, to make way for this new, ‘Judenfrei’ Palestinian Arab state.

The world either doesn’t care, or doesn’t recall, that 80% of what was Palestine is already taken up by Jordan – which is already Judenfrei, as  no Jews are permitted to live there.

Has anyone, ever,  read any pieces in the international press condemning Jordan for this racism…?

I know I haven’t.

Thus while the world yells in rage the second Israel lifts a finger to respond to Palestinian terrorism, Israel is  held to a far higher standard than either Jordan, or any Muslim country, or the new Palestinian state which is being carved out of Israel by the Arabs and Obama.

In other words, land is being taken from Jews, to form part of a Palestinian Arab, Judenfrei state.

And the world nods and smiles and mutters ‘about time’ as it sits back and watches this happen.

So when a few of my regular readers and even blogger friends chastise me for claiming that Obama is less than fair to Israel, well, they can chastise all they want.

What – am I as a Jew now meant to praise an American leader who seeks to turn the only middle eastern democracy into the size of a postage stamp?

Am I expected to cheer the idea of a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel that will serve as a base for yet more terrorism?

The world is, again, either forgetting or ignoring what happened when Israel left Gaza. Israel gave the Palestinian Arabs what they were demanding – and what happened? Increased terrorism.

A new Palestinian Arab state beside Israel will just be Gaza redux. So excuse me if I’m not throwing a party and cracking open the champagne at the prospect.

And just to illustrate how Palestinian Arabs truly feel on these issues, here’s a fascinating glimpse into their hopes for this new state, courtesy of Arutz Sheva:

A poll released this week showed that PA Arabs are reluctant to grant rights to Jews or Christians within areas demanded for a PA state.

A survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development among 1,200 Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, found that many felt Jerusalem should not be shared with Jews and Christians.

When asked to what extent they agreed with a statement made by Barack Obama that Jerusalem should be “a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims,” less than 17% said they agree, while 20 percent said they “somewhat agree.” More than 42 percent said they disagree with the statement, while 17 percent “somewhat disagree.”

More than 45 percent of those surveyed disagreed with a second statement of Obama’s in which the president called on the Arab world to reject violence and killing as a means of struggle.

Twenty-two percent did not give an answer, while the remainder said they “agree” or “somewhat agree” with the statement.

Roughly 300,000 Jews reside in Judea and Samaria,   and approximately 250,000 more live in Jerusalem neighborhoods now being demanded by the Palestinian Authority.

The PA demands that any future Arab state in Judea and Samaria be rid of the current Jewish minority.

Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria include the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Me’arat Hamachpelah) in Hebron, Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem, and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem.

Jews are currently allowed full access only to the latter site, while the Tomb of the Patriarchs is split into Jewish and Muslim sections, and Jews are allowed to visit Joseph’s Tomb only intermittently.

I think we can all envisage the rage and the threats 0f violence if Muslims  were not allowed total access to their holy sites! Yet many of them would ideally ban Jews and Christians from Jerusalem.  Talk about rank hypocrisy.

Jerusalem was holy to Jews and Christians before Islam even existed.

So to those who complain when Jews dare to use words like ‘Judenfrei’ and ‘Judenrein’ in connection with Obama’s plans for a new Palestinian Arab state, I say: tough.

It’s the ugly policy that you should be protesting – not the accurate words Jews use to describe it.

Additional information:

The excellent Elder Of Ziyon blog offers this information about Jordan’s bans on both Jews and Israelis:

In 1933, a number of prominent Arabs in Transjordan asked Great Britain to allow Jews to settle there, to help its ailing economy, and Zionists were enthusiastic about the idea. But since the British saw the riots that were happening in Palestine at the time they didn’t want to worry about more problems of that type, so they created a law banning Jews from living there.

This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan’s law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963.

It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.

So, yes, Jordan really has a law banning Jews – not Zionists, but Jews – from becoming citizens. And the original source of this law was none other than Great Britain.

Here’s the law: (h/t british18)

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;

(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;

(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;

(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;

(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.

But what if a Jew wants to become a naturalized citizen? Well…

Any Arab who has resided continuously in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for not less than 15 years may acquire Jordanian nationality, by decision of the Council of Ministers taken on a proposal by the Minister of Internal Affairs, if he renounces his nationality of origin and the law of his country permits him to do so..

‘Judenfrei‘ and ‘Judenrein’

Nazi terms used to designate an area free of Jewish presence. The words bear slightly different connotations; while Judenfrei merely refers to “freeing” an area of all of its Jewish citizens, Judenrein (literally “clean of Jews”) demands that any trace of Jewish blood be removed as an impurity.

Some of the locations declared Judenfrei

Establishments, villages, cities, and regions were declared Judenfrei after they were ethnically cleansed of Jews.

• Gelnhausen, Germany – reported Judenfrei on November 1, 1938 by propaganda newspaper Kinzigwacht after its synagogue was closed and remaining local Jews forced to leave the town.
• German-occupied Luxembourg – reported Judenfrei by the press on October 17, 1941.
• German-occupied Estonia – December, 1941 . Reported as Judenfrei at Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942
• German-occupied Belgrade, Serbia – August, 1942
• Vienna – reported Judenfrei by Alois Brunner on October 9, 1942
• Berlin, Germany – July 16, 1943

Check out also ‘Jordan’s Identity Crisis’ over at Elder Of Ziyon:

Joseph Farah On Obama’s ‘Auschwitz Borders’

 

American Arab journalist Joseph Farah is one of the few commentators who talks straight about what Obama is trying to do to Israel.  Here he makes it clear what Obama is really doing:

 

Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as “a more balanced approach to Middle East policy.”

Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.

It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.

 

 I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.

 

Of course, that would never happen with “a more balanced approach to the Middle East.”

 

It’s the 1930s all over again. This time, it’s the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all. I know you haven’t heard it put like this before. I don’t really understand why.

 

There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world. Israel is being reduced to “Auschwitz borders.” Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip.

 

Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.

 

Again, I ask: Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn’t even tolerate the mere presence of Jews? Can anyone answer that question for me?

 

Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.

 

I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don’t understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.

 

Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea? Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?

 

Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims? Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?

 

That’s what we do when we forbid “settlement construction,” repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.  This is “balance”?

 

Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No.

 Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No.

Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No.

Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.

 

 Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well.

 

But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.

 

 All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors.

 

Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely. But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.

 

I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends.

 

These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.

 

I say: “No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live.”

 

 

 

Original article at    

Deja Vu

 

Throughout Jewish history, enemies have burned and destroyed our books. People who know Jews and who understand the Jewish religion and even more, the Jewish psychology, understand that we are a people who revere books and the written word. Indeed, as one commentator on Judaism once wrote, while we are banned from worshipping anything bar G-d, the closest we ever come to this is our deep love and adoration of the Torah.

 

So it was with a sense of historical deja vu that I read today’s headlines about Arabs attacking a yeshiva in Samaria yesterday, and torching dozens of books including a Torah and also volumes from the Talmud. The attack was pure spite – the arsonists ignored everything else there and attacked only the books. Clearly, some of our Arab cousins do understand the Jewish love of words and books – and struck us where they knew it would wound.

 

Rabbi Elishama Cohen, head of the yeshiva, said: “It was a horrible sight to see dozen of holy books of the Talmud and Bible burned almost completely.”

 

And he added:

“The Arabs did this very thoroughly and carefully. We succeeded in saving the remains of some of the burned books and several pages where the letters still are recognizable, the same pages we learned the past several days.”

 

Rabbi Cohen said that instead of the spirit of the yeshiva students being broken, their numbers will increase next year as a reaction to desecration. Samaria Regional Council chairman Gershon Mesika called on the police to search and arrest the perpetrators. Police said they have begun an investigation.

 

Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon commented:

 

“Whoever has not yet understood with whom we are dealing should look at the pictures of the burnt holy books. If Jews had burned dozens of Muslim books, the whole world would be shaking.”

 

Yule Edelstein, Minister of Information and Diaspora Affairs, said. “To my sorrow, this grave incident is a result of classic anti-Semitism and a reminder of the dark days of the past. It is sad to think that if there were permanent homes and official security, we would not be witness to this grave incident.”

 

Obama Administration: No More Jews Allowed To Be Born In Judea And Samaria

(hat tip  EMET NEWS   )

 

So now we’re told by George Mitchell, Middle East envoy to Obama, that America will be ‘closely monitoring’ Israeli birth statistics…  So much for Obama ‘not meddling’ in what other nations do.

Mitchell has apparently suggested that Jewish births in Judea and Samaria would be violations of Obama’s prohibition on ‘natural growth’. Let’s translate, shall we? If any Jewish parents dare to have more Jewish children in Judea and Samaria, Obama will be angry.

Since when is it acceptable for America to mandate how many children parents living in a sovereign nation can have…?

And why isn’t Obama cracking down on the truly illegal Palestinian Arab settlements in east Jerusalem…? You know – the ones built on land purchased fairly and owned legally by Israelis…?

I think the obscenely unfair nature of Obama’s stance on Israel is best summed up thus:

 

“Something must be wrong with a man who is far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran“ — Bert Perlutsky.

Sharia Courts In Britain – Ruling Against British Law?

Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.

Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.

Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that  both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.

But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases.  Now Civitas notes that many  Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.

“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”

Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.

In this case, British law  prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.

As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts,  MacEoin has  had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:

Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.

Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.

Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …

…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …

a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …

fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”

Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:

“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal.  A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”

Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.

But Addison begs to differ:

“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”

Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid  any legal action on the part of the victim.

Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?

Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!

But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.

It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.

Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.

And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.

But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of  democracy…?

Gilad Shalit – Three Years On

 

Three years after he was snatched by Hamas terrorists, and young Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is still missing.

And that’s the only thing we can say for sure. Because Hamas, with their typical hatred for all things Israeli and Jewish, are still refusing to allow Gilad even one visit by an international aid agency such as the Red Cross.

Assuming he’s still alive and could even receive a visit, that is.

Imagine with me, for a minute, the international outcry if Israel was treating Palestinian prisoners like this?

If Israel snatched a young Palestinian man, aged 20, and held him for three years – and refused to tell his frantic family a single thing about whether he was alive or dead?

Can you picture what the media would do with that?

Yet Hamas – which remember is the elected government of Gaza – gets away with this brutality and the media is silent. Not a word. Oh, sure, Jewish newspapers speak of Gilad Shalit. But where is the concern for ‘human rights’ that the Guardian (UK) and the New York Times, to give but two examples, are always expressing about their beloved Palestinians…?

It seems that ‘human rights’ only matter when they are Palestinian rights.

Who cares if one young Israeli soldier spends three years in the hands of Hamas?

Not the international media, that’s for sure.

 

Let’s all say a prayer for Gilad Shalit.

And G-d help him – because it doesn’t look like anyone else is going to.

 

Gilad Shalit

 

Gilad Shalit

 

 

Calling All Jews:

I urge you to read this article;  what are your thoughts…?

Obama’s ‘Jewish Experts’

by Jack Engelhard

This is getting uncomfortable.

A few days ago, George Mitchell once again expressed his position, and opposition, even to “natural growth” in Judea and Samaria. Both Mitchell and Hillary  Clinton speak for themselves and for President Barack Obama, who’s made this – Jewish life in the “settlements” – his priority above all other international disputes.

Even the language is disturbing. Mitchell – top Middle East envoy along with Clinton – explained that the controversy centered on “the number of Jewish births.”

Where have we heard this before? To my mind, as someone who was born under similar conditions, in France under Vichy, where Jews were kept within “restricted zones,” this sounds too much like Verboten!

When I hear American diplomats, and Obama himself, count the number of children allotted per Jewish family, at the same time measuring Jewish growth by the inch, the images that come to mind, to my mind, are of an earlier time, though not so long ago, when the Third Reich confronted the “Jewish Problem” by way of the Nuremberg Laws and the Wannsee Conference.

I picture Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann. They, too, were “Jewish Experts.”

I hear echoes of “none is too many.” That was the response from Canada’s Mackenzie King’s government on the question of how many Jews were to be allowed inside the country following the Holocaust. Those words still ring throughout Canada, especially among survivors, but how did “none is too many” become an American position so fast and furious?

On top of that, there’s The New York Times’ Blood Libel of the Day. Today, it’s Tony Judt’s turn for his “expertise.”

I’m not saying that Mitchell and Clinton are Heydrich and Eichmann – but I am watching too many scenes that feature (in my imagination) long speeches amplified by radio, round-ups, sealed trains, enclosures, ghettos, quotas. This takes me back to all that and it is unpleasant. We were supposed to allow this never again.

The past has returned, as my eyes see it, and we’re watching it unfold with diplomacy that’s too familiar.

When our ship came in – into Philadelphia – we were greeted, but not with brotherly love, back in April 1944. This boat was the Serpa Pinto (one of the few Jewish refugee voyages that were successful) and, as my sister Sarah recalls in her memoirs:

“The city arranged planks upon the docking area and had us under armed guards lest we step on American soil.”

We were, paradoxically, en route to Canada. America wouldn’t have us. (Finally and thankfully, yes.)

Here we go again – but now in Israel? None is too many?

Mitchell and Clinton, and certainly Obama – do they know the Jewish Experience and what it means to restrict Jews and place them into “zones”? I’m not talking politics and policy. That’s too complicated for this trip.

I’m talking about the sound, the roar of approval this brings to mind, from the beer halls in Bavaria on to the rallies in Berlin when the chancellor spoke.

I hear those sirens, still, and when they – Mitchell and Clinton – prohibit Jewish children, so diplomatically but emphatically, I can’t help myself. I find my father packing our bags to prepare for an escape, and when the language gets to “the number of Jewish births,” I’m not hearing Mitchell, but watching Leini Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will.

Those who’ve been there before, like me, are on alert for slippery talk like “peace process” when we know the merchandise being sold is the yellow badge.

“They make smooth their tongue,” wrote King David, “against Your anointed…. Save Your people and bless Your inheritance, Your children.”

(italics etc were mine; to read the original article, go to Arutz Sheva by clicking HERE

From Mecca To Jerusalem: Muslims And Their Feelings

 Next time someone tries to hoodwink you into believing that Islam ‘respects all faiths’, ask them about Mecca and Medina. Specifically, ask them why the two holiest Muslim cities are off limits to all non Muslims.

Yep, that’s right. Mecca and Medina are no go areas unless you’re a Quran-brandishing member of the ‘religion of peace’. And there are no exceptions, no apologies and certainly no concern over whether this might be a tad hypocritical.

In fact, just to make it clear to any naughty infidels who may try and sneak into Mecca, the Saudi authorities have put up these helpful signs:

 and

 

Now let’s compare what happens in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This is the holiest Jewish city. And where the second temple once stood, there now remains a solitary wall; the Kotel, or ‘Wailing Wall’, where Jews come to pray. Non Jews are also welcome there, and perfectly at liberty to visit the Kotel and pray there, should they desire.

And then there is the Al Aqsa Mosque – slapbang where the Jewish temple used to stand.

From what you read in the international media, you’d never know that Israel – being democratic to a fault – has given control of this vital area to the Muslims. So even as Muslims across the globe support, sponsor and carry out terrorism against  the Jewish state, it is the Muslim Waqf, part of the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Temple Mount area.

And what happens when any non Muslim dares to go there…?

Ask Israeli cabinet Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch. Today he paid a visit to the Temple Mount.  Result? Total hysteria and threats of violence from Palestinian Muslims. Aharonovitch spent a mere ninety minutes in the area, and was there purely to check police deployments in this volatile area of Jerusalem.

 “The intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency,” Aharonovitch’s spokesman Tal Harel said. And he added: “We went everywhere. We were accompanied by the Waqf, who were fully aware of our presence, and this was planned in coordination with them well ahead of the visit.”

Nine years ago, of course, a similar visit by Ariel Sharon triggered a bloody and protracted ‘intifada’ by the Palestinians. I mean, just think about it: a  Jewish Israeli has the sheer chutzpah to visit a holy Jewish area in Israel, the Jewish homeland! Whatever next?!

And these are far from being isolated events. Back in 2005, on Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), a small Jewish group ascended the Temple Mount only to be attacked by a mob of Palestinian Muslims, who emerged from  the Al Aqsa Mosque. The police had to be called, so intense was the violence directed at the Jews.

But Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews before Islam even existed, I hear the historians among you cry indignantly!

Yet here is the Palestinian-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, insisting that today’s visit by Israeli Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch was not coordinated in advance and, wait for it:

“He does not have the right to visit al-Aqsa because it is an Islamic site and not a Jewish site, and it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims. It is an assault on an Islamic place,” Hussein said.

And there, in that one line, you have it. The sheer hypocrisy of the demands made by Muslims in non Muslim nations. Let’s read it again, just to marvel at the utter arrogance involved:

‘…it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims…’

Ah yes,  Muslim feelings…

The same Muslim feelings that are ‘provoked’ by cartoons and teddy bears and piggy banks and democracy and Geert Wilders and books about Mohammed and freedom for women and alcohol and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Atheists and Gays and every single thing on the planet that does not comply with Islam!

It is these Muslim feelings that Barack Obama, the great Dhimmi in the White House, is busy bending over backwards to appease.

It is these Muslim feelings that got Dutch Politician Geert Wilders banned from Britain and also have him living in fear, under 24/7 police guard.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensure women throughout the Islamic world have about the same rights as a house plant; none, in other words.

It is these Muslim feelings that enable Muslim men in Saudi Arabia to rape women with impunity; women who are then publicly flogged and imprisoned as ‘punishment’.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensured the novel ‘The Jewel Of Medina’ was dropped by two publishers,  after angry Muslims threatened the first one, and then firebombed the London home of the second who took it on.

It is Muslim feelings that result in Muslim terrorists stealing the lives of innocent civilians in Israel on a regular basis.

It is Muslim feelings that in 2005 brought horror to the heart of London and left corpses buried underground on burning tube trains.

It is Muslim feelings that brought down the Twin Towers in New York and that have caused another 13,459 deaths since.

 

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Muslim sensibilities any more,  given that in order to keep Muslims happy, the rest of us have to sacrifice every  value we hold dear.

I recommend that next time the followers of Islam start burning flags, rioting, issuing fatwas, and banging on about their feelings, we tell them where to shove’em!