Sunday, July 28, 2013

Releasing mass murderers as a good will gesture

So Obama and his Israel-hating lap-dog John Kerry have forced Israel to release 104 Palestinian terrorists, including mass murderers of children, for no reason other than to 'bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table' for useless peace talks. Why would anybody even think that you can have peace with people whose prerequisite for just allowing you to talk to them is to release mass murderers?  Netanyahu says this 'painful measure is necessary for Israel's strategic interest'.  What possible logic relates the release of convicted mass murderers to national strategic interest and where does it stop? Since he has agreed to release Salem Suleiman Mahmoud and Adham Ibrahim Jum’ah who murdered 26-year-old Rachel Weiss and her three young children in 1988, does that mean he would now be prepared to release Amjad and Hakim Awad who murdered the Fogel family in 2011, decapitating a baby in the process? And if not what makes one release acceptable and the other not?

And Netanyahu was not only weak enough to submit to this ludicrous demand, but he failed to get a single concession in return - not even the release of Jonathan Pollard who has been rotting in a US jail for 28 years for 'spying for Israel' (longer than any other spy has ever been imprisoned in the US).
As Barry Rubin explains there is simply no good reason why Israel has agreed to this 'concession'.

If Obama really is not a pure antisemite - as every one of his foreign policy decisions clearly indicates - then for consistency the next time he wants to negotiate (say, with the Russians) I assume he will offer to release a large number of mass murderers in the US as a gesture of goodwill. For example, Charles Manson and his followers would be a good start because Obama could then claim that their release will bolster the position of all ageing Hippies in the community. Or even better Obama can simply release his own mass murdering jihadists such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the Boston bomber) and Nidal Malik Hasan (the Fort Hood killer). Such a gesture - as well as the prisoners themselves - would be welcomed by every one of the world's 58 Muslim countries.

I am sure Obama will be as well supported by the US people as Netanyahu is by the Israeli people in agreeing to such a prisoner release.
Charles Manson: For consistency Obama should now release him as a gesture of goodwill to the Hippie community

Erasing Jewish Jerusalem from Apple maps

Apple erases all trace of Jewish existence in 'occupied Jerusalem' - click to enlarge (note I am using the version of Maps that came with iPad3)
No people and city have a stronger link than the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem - a link that has been unbroken physically as well as spiritually for thousands of years. Even during the worst period of exile Jews lived and prayed in Jerusalem. Only during the illegal Jordanian occupation of 1948-67 were Jews completely unable to pray at the Western wall.

Because this link is so fundamental in Israel's narrative, there are no limits to the extent to which the antisemites will go in seeking to deny the truth about this link. Breaking the link between the Jews and Jerusalem is for them the key to the ultimate deligitimization of the State of Israel. But while the Arabs do everything they can to try to deny the historical facts, the Western antisemites - led by the EU and the US State Department do everything they can to deny the current status of Jews in Jerusalem. That is why, for example, the EU last week announced their boycott of Jewish businesses in 'occupied' East Jerusalem and why the US this week once again confirmed its bizarre refusal to recognise any Jew born in Jerusalem as having been born in Israel.

Some recent visits to Israel have, however, highlighted some particularly pernicious examples of how technology is being used to try to deny the existence of Jews. Take, for example, the case of the north Jerusalem suburb Pisgat Zaev - something close to being a city in its own right with 50,000 residents. Although this city was developed after 1967, much of the land was bought by Jews in the 1930s. On the basis of Jordan's illegal occupation of this land during 1948-67 the 'international community' regards it as 'occupied territory' even though it did not belong to any state. Any rational person who has actually travelled through this and other Jewish areas of 'occupied Jerusalem' knows that this land will never be 'given up' under any 'peace agreement'.  Yet, bizarrely, when I tried to navigate to Pisgat Zaev using the Apple iPad Maps application (not Google Maps) I discovered to my astonishment that not only does no such place exist but there is a completely empty space on the map where it is physically located. The same is true for all other Jewish areas of 'occupied East Jersusalem' such as Gilo; yet, far smaller Arab areas of East Jerusalem such as Silwan are on the app. The most bizarre omission of all is the completely empty space where the old city of Jerualem should be.

Sadly, there are plenty of (presumably Jewish) Israelis only too happy to go along with this kind of nonsense. On a previous trip the satellite navigation device (which was programmed in Hebrew) that we hired along with a car actually not only failed to recognize Jewish areas of  'occupied Jerusalem' but kept instructing us to turn around whenever we approached them.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Nigel Farage (UKIP) speaks to London Jews

I attended the Jewish Chronicle hosted meeting with Nigel Farage of UKIP last night in North London. The hall was pretty much packed out (amazing for a warm summer evening). Farage spoke for about 30 minutes and then JC editor Stephen Pollard asked him a number of questions before inviting questions from the audience.

Farage is a masterful speaker and he especially brilliantly explained his contempt for the EU, the global warming fetish, David Cameron, and even Obama. If he gets decent, unbiased exposure in the main stream media over the next two years then not only will UKIP win next year's European elections, but they will also get significant representation in Parliament the year after.

However, in total contrast to his complete mastery and understanding of European politics, he demonstrated almost complete ignorance of Israel and the Middle East. He was honest enough to say that, unlike other politicians speaking to a Jewish audience, he was not there just to speak about and tell them things they wanted to hear. Hence, in his speech (as opposed to the questions), all he wanted to say about Israel was that he 'strongly supports its right to exist' (I was hoping an Israeli in the audience might respond by saying 'I strongly support the right of Great Britain to exist' but sadly that did not happen).

Although Farage expressed some concern about Islamists in the UK he is clearly completely oblivious to the fact that Islamism is at the root of most of the problems in the Middle East. For somebody who so well understands the flaws of the leftist narrative with respect to so many things, it is bizarre that he actually accepts in its entirety the leftist narrative about the Middle East: thus he thinks that Arabs are peace-loving people who only want to kill us because we (meaning Western powers and Israel) attacked them first; he believes there is never any justification for a pre-emptive strike (such as against nuclear installations or terrorist leaders); and most incredibly he believes that the only reason the Iranians hate us is because of the sanctions against them. On this latter point he said 'we should have bombed them with love instead of sanctions as that way they would have discovered western values rather than turning to Islamic fundamentalism'.  His understanding of the history of the Iranian revolution is therefore a perfect inversion of reality. 

During his speech Farage spoke about how in the 1930s the entire political and media class (with the exception of Churchill and a small number of MPs) were convinced that Hitler was somebody we could work with. He used this analogy to answer the rhetorical question of how everybody could be wrong and only UKIP right on a range of core issues. Yet, ironically, he stands with all other mainstream British (and indeed EU) politicians in burying their head in the sand over the worldwide Islamist threat. I was hoping to ask him about this - and also his views on the banning and arrest of those who warn about the Islamic threat in the UK - but never got the chance because there were so many people clambering to ask questions.

The bulk of  the questions - including all of those by Pollard were pretty poor. To understand why the JC has become the pathetic, leftist, non-defender of Israel that it has, you only have to know that Pollard is its editor.  In his view the 'burning' question that 'everybody wanted to know' of Farage was what was he going to do about the 'racist' members of UKIP. Farage answered that pretty well - it's just a shame he is not aware that Pollard and the JC are not at all interested in the far more numerous and serious racists in the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Party, nor even in the racists among the Islamic community in the UK.  In fact Islamism was like the elephant in the room. It did not got a mention until near the end when a man (who I think may actually have been a Muslim given his name) asked the simple question 'what is your view of Islam?'. After a suitably politically correct answer the subject was not touched on again.

The most shameful 'question' came from a guy (who I assume was a member of Yachad or Jews for Justice for Palestinians because he was there to demonise Israel). He stated that many young Jews get the full benefit of the British state and then, without contributing anything back, go to live in Israel. He asked Farage what he would do about this, but not before he also got in a classic antisemitic dig that 'it is not surprising Jews are accused of dual loyalty'. Farage did not address the dual loyalty slur, but gave an excellent answer to the question by saying simply he hoped that when such people went to Israel they would forge strong commercial links between Israel and the UK.

Update: It appears that Farage's politically correct attitude to Islam (and only Islam) turns out to be a very carefully considered stance. Like the rest of the political and media class he has made a decision that nothing must be said by UKIP at all in case they might be perceived as 'racists' (as in truth is the new hate speech). See here.

Update 1 June 2014 (one year on): I said in the above report that if Farage "gets decent, unbiased exposure in the main stream media over the next two years then not only will UKIP win next year's European elections". Well they certainly did not get decent unbiased exposure - they were subject to a relentless smear campaign by the entire political and media establishment - but they did still win the 2014 European election (the first time in 100 years that neither Labour or Conservatives have won a national election.

Update 12 April 2015. Which British political partyis the most antisemitic?

Friday, July 05, 2013

No need for satire: The JC on Ronnie Fraser speaking at American Freedom Alliance

Following my recent satirical statements by a) the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the banning of Spencer and Geller and b) the Metropolitan Police on the arrest of EDL leaders Robinson and Carroll, it seems to me that the latest main stream media reporting makes satire redundant. If you have been watching the BBC's reporting of the latest Egyptian revolution you will, for example, have been told that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, non-violent, democratic organisation now robbed of its deserved place to rule. There are too many examples to cite but looking at today's Jewish Chronicle I found this gem that is especially relevant to last week's story on the UK banning of Spencer and Geller.
Non-satirical article in Jewish Chronicle (click to enlarge)

Ronnie Fraser is someone who I previously greatly admired. He fought a recent bitter legal  battle against the University and College Union for their antisemitic bullying (dressed up as 'anti-Zionism' of course) only to come up against the antisemitic British judiciary (dressed up as 'anti-Zionist' of course). From  today's Jewish Chronicle (which readers of this blog will know has extensive form with respect to it official position of accepted dhimittude) I discovered that Fraser:
..agreed to speak at the American Freedom Initiative (AFA) .... He appeared at the Los Angeles conference despite the presence of Robert Spencer, who was last week banned from entering Britain by Home Secretary Theresa May..
but here are the good bits:
Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event
Given his brave fight against the UCU bigots and bullies I was expecting to read about Fraser standing up to these unnamed 'Jewish community leaders' but instead we find:
In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said "He would perhaps have taken a different view on whether to attend the conference if he had known the level of controversy surrounding Mr Spencer".
The piece de resistance is, however, this gem:
Mr Fraser said "While I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer's talk, nor do I align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine."
So, as per my satirical article, we can be comforted to know that Mr Fraser could not in any way have been 'infected' with Spencer's views since he actually never heard what those views were.

Also interesting is the guilt by accusation reference to Geert Wilders. There was I thinking that Geert Wilders was an incredibly brave freedom fighter who had sacrificed his personal safety, freedom and livelihood by standing up to Islamic terrorism (and who also happens to be one of the only politicians in Holland who is strongly pro-Israel), but who is only described by the JC in the following terms:
Other speakers ..included Geert Wilders, who was cleared two years ago of inciting hatred against Muslims following comments about Islam".
Hooray for free speech eh?

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Metropolitan Police Statement on the arrest of EDL leaders Robinson and Carroll*

Following the illegal publication (on numerous racist websites) of this video purporting to show that the arrest of Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll was somehow unfair, we wish to provide the following points of clarification.

  1. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are clearly wearing identical tea-shirts which are predominantly black in colour. This is proof that they are part of a conspiratorial fascist blackshirt army intent on destroying the entire social fabric of the United Kingdom.
  2. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are speaking in an extreme working class dialect, a clear indication of anti-multiculteralism.
  3. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are walking at a brisk pace that is fully consistent with intent to do harm to a Muslim place of worship.
  4. Prior to the 'confrontation' Mr Robinson can clearly be heard whistling, which is known to be a racist call to arms.
  5. Mr Carroll alleges that he was the victim of an "unprovoked assault". However, note the aggressive manner in which Mr Carroll attempts to stop himself being hit. 
  6. Moreover, the man (who we can confirm is a Mr Carl Marks of Islington) who allegedly "assaulted" Mr Carroll" was, in fact, acting in self-defence. Seconds before the assault Mr Robinson can clearly be heard talking about "tensions in the community" and "violent mob".  This was a manifest signal that Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll were themselves about to launch an unprovoked violent attack against Mr Marks.
  7. Despite the obvious aggression and intent of Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll the Met Police showed considerable restraint in not arresting the pair until they committed the grave offence of walking in London without the express permission of Sheik Abu Qatada.
  8. In the interests of community cohesion, which is the primary objective of the Metropolitan Police Force, we are delighted to announce that we have co-opted the above mentioned Mr Marks to be a member or our multi-cultural diversity team. This team, which is answerable to the Minister for "Faith and Communities"  Baroness Warsi, will be fully responsible for determining who the Police can and cannot arrest. The team is led by Mr Anjum Chaudhary (leader of Al Mahjaroun) and co-chaired by Mr Bill Greenshields (Chairperson of the Communist Party of Britain). As an active member of the Violent Islamo-Marxist Fascists against Loyal Brits organisation (also know as 'United Against Fascism') Mr Marks will bring valuable experience on how to fight racists.
 * To pre-empt humourless commenters this is intended as satire.

See also Board of Deputies statement on the banning of Spencer and Geller
Excellent relevant Pat Condell video.
Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK Petition | GoPetition

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Charity to Palestinians

Daniel Greenfield has highlighted the disproportionate amount of humanitarian aid paid to the Palestinians compared with any other people/nation.

In fact, while almost all of this is paid for by US and Western countries (from their tax payers' income), it is also interesting to know how Muslims themselves are brainwashed into focusing their own charity giving towards the Palestinians. As I pointed out here based on the UK Muslim charity 'Muslim Hands' instructions to its donors, a Palestinian Muslim deserves far more than any Muslim living anywhere else in the world. Specifically, Muslims are asked to donate 44 times the amount to Palestinian Muslims than to Muslims in Malawi - one of the poorest nations in the world. Moreover, taking account of population size and per capita income a Muslim in Jerusalem is valued nearly two hundred thousand times more than a Pakistani Muslim.

I doubt if, in the history of the world, there has ever been so much money given to a least deserving cause, especially as much of the money sent to the Palestinians not only perpetuates their total culture of dependency but also ends up funding terrorism and anti-Semitic propaganda.