Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Romney Recognizes Jerusalem

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Israel Thrives and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has made a point during his trip to Israel to recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state. The Jerusalem Post reports:
After the speech, in comments he made before meeting the prime minister for the second time that day, for dinner, Romney made it a point to refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, putting distance between him and the Obama administration, whose spokesmen in recent weeks have been unable to name Israel’s capital.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usThis represents a very distinct contrast to the Obama administration which holds the Jewish state in such contempt, and thus the Jewish people in such contempt, that it will not even recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. How can we possibly think of Obama as a friend of Israel when he will not even recognize its capital? And what's worse, of course, is that he pretended to do so when he was running for president in 2008. In 2008 Barack Obama stood up before the Jewish people and claimed:
Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.
So, Obama recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and then, elected to the presidency, he changed his mind. In other words, he lied to us about something as central to the hearts of the Jewish people as the status of the ancient city of Jerusalem and he did so in a way that was blatant, callous, and obvious... yet he still expects you to support him.

The fact that Obama lied was revealed as early as March, 2010, during Joe Biden's visit to that country. When the Israeli Interior Ministry announced approval for 1,600 housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of north-eastern Jerusalem, suddenly not only did the Obama administration no longer consider Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel which must remain undivided, but his people said that the announcement was an "insult" and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly harangued Benjamin Netanyahu on a 45 minute phone call over the issue.

The Obama administration publicly, loudly, and in a manner intended to demonstrate "daylight" between the United States and the Jewish state told the world, particularly the Arab and Muslim worlds, that the status of Jerusalem was entirely up for grabs. Just as Obama voided 3,500 years of Jewish history in his 2009 Cairo speech when he claimed that the founding of Israel was due to the Holocaust, rather than to the long, long history of Jewish people on that land, so he voids 3,500 years of Jewish history now by implying that the capital of the Jewish nation may, or may not, actually be Jewish.

If the Palestinians had not demonstrated their ongoing intention to destroy the Jewish state of Israel through never accepting a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, I might not mind if Israel felt itself so gracious as to give away Jewish land for yet another Arab state. Unfortunately the Palestinians have well-demonstrated their ongoing malice because they absolutely refuse a negotiated conclusion of hostilities. That being the case, their viciously corrupt and anti-Semitic leadership should be allowed no sovereignty in the Jewish city of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish nation long before London, Paris, or New York even existed as cities. This matters not one whit to Barack Obama who has so little respect or friendship for the Jewish people that he lied to us when he said that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state.

He lied directly to our faces.

Perhaps Romney can do better.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Why Australia Should Have Boycotted The London Olympic Games


Is it too late?

You would have to be an Australian to appreciate how shrill that sounds.

Australia has never boycotted the Olympic Games let alone one in London. There have been Australians winning medals at every one.  Even in 1980 when the US President implored us to boycott the Moscow Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we let the team go if they wanted to so long as they did not appear under Australian emblems or anthem..  Many stayed home but most went. That is easy to understand.They appeared under the IOC flag in the opening ceremony if they appeared at all.. Fine.

Sport is one of the things that define us as a people. It is one of the things that defines all peoples. It is something that defines us as people. Isn't that the whole point of the Olympic  ideal? Is there some other point? 

A few days ago the Lebanese judo team was scheduled to train in the same facility as the Israeli team. They demanded that a screen be placed between them so that they did not have to see the Jews working out. 

The IOC complied. 

The families of the Israeli team who were murdered  by Nazi insurgents* (maybe it's past time we starting calling these people what they are) asked for a moment of silence in their memory at the opening ceremony.

The IOC refused.

What is going on here? As an Australian I would like to know. 

Here is a man who has an opinion that should be heard.. This is who he is in his own words. 

"The threat of the IOC coming after me does not scare me anymore. When you have no more dignity, you have nothing to lose. So, members of the IOC -- my name is Guri Weinberg and I am the son of Moshe Weinberg, the wrestling coach murdered at the 1972 Olympics. And I am not going away."

And here is a sample of what he has to say:

"In 1996, I, along with other Munich orphans and three of the widows, were invited for the first time to the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Before the Opening Ceremony, we met with Alex Gilady. Gilady has been a member of the IOC's Radio and Television Commission since 1984 and has been the senior vice president of NBC Sports since 1996.

"I have known Mr. Gilady since I was a kid; in fact, I grew up with his daughter. He had been supportive in the past regarding our plea for a moment of silence during the Opening Ceremonies, so we arrived with high hopes. Gilady informed us that a moment of silence was not possible because if the IOC had a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes, they would also have to do the same for the Palestinians who died at the Olympics in 1972. 

"My mother said, "But no Palestinian athletes died."

"Gilady responded, "Well, there were Palestinians who died at the 1972 Olympics."

"I heard one of the widows say to Gilady, "Are you equating the murder of my husband to the terrorists that killed him?


"Then Ilana Romano burst out with a cry that has haunted me to this day. She screamed at Gilady, "How DARE you! You KNOW what they did to my husband! They let him lay there for hours, dying slowly, and then finished him off by castrating him and shoving it in his mouth, ALEX!"

"I looked at Gilady's face as he sat there, stone cold with no emotion. This man knew these athletes personally. This man led the Israeli media delegation at the 1972 Olympics and saw this atrocity first hand. This man saw my father's dead, naked body thrown out front of the Olympic Village for all the world to see. 

"Without a hint of empathy, Gilady excused himself from our meeting. "

I wouldn't be going away either.

See what else he has to say here.

OK. Pulling the team out now might be a little over the top. But surely as Australians we must see  there is something stinking and rotten going on in the world and that it has always been close to the core of the IOC.. Nor should there be any surprise it has now reached London. You only have to note who was the Labour candidate to run the city at the last election. 

At what point are we going to say enough is enough?

Torturing and murdering athletes and coaches in front of the whole world is not enough? An athlete who is killed in a tragic training accident is enough but this is not? Why? 

You know why. It is because of who they were. 

Slinking off to some side show at Guildhall or somewhere from which the Jew haters could exclude themselves is moral cowardice of the worst kind and we all know it and It makes no difference at all if the families were there.

Consider the IOC.. They could not  honour  the memory of the victims of this unspeakably ugly crime before the whole world in the same way that it was committed because there were too many people and countries that would find even the suggestion contemptible.

They prefer screens.

 As a Jew* (never forget by the way it is they who define the Jews and they are known to be liberal with the definition. If Rupert Murdoch is a Jew so can anybody),  apart from the usual disgust you would hope all people feel I guess there is some relief that there are still  signs of empathy.  As an Australian I'm not sure what I feel. I'm glad our Parliament stood in respect but at what point is enough enough?

In our lifetimes in certain regions of the US  a man could be dragged by a mob and brutally murdered in public because of an allegation against him. They kept the photographs. You can find them in an instant if you want to. Sometimes they didn't even bother wearing their hoods.  Unlike Munich.

Australians need not get smug about this as we all know. Not by any means. We know what this is. It does not get uglier. We all have reason to be embarrassed by it.. We all have a reason to stand against it.

At what point is enough, enough? Here's a modest proposal. 

Until the IOC is reformed and this racist shit is eliminated and in particular until there is proper respect for the families of the murdered athletes and coaches  of the Munich massacre  Australian athletes should not compete under the Australian flag. They can compete if they must but under the IOC flag or no flag at all. 

Are we brave enough? Would it help?

Probably not. Probably not as well but it might.

The point is to make the bigots boycott the ceremony and show themselves for what they are in front of the whole world. Let them explain themselves. Why aren't they there. Put them under the spotlight. Sometimes it helps if only to clear some more minds of the delusion this has anything to do with the welfare of the Palestinian people. 

Here is an opportunity to show the world that  murdering people in front of the world because of who they are is un-Australian and not only do we want no part of it but we want no part of an international body that equivocates on this.

 Even if they run the Olympic Games.  Especially if they run the Olympic Games. 

This immediately raises the United Nations but let's be serious for a moment and do something in the pursuit of peace, doesn't cost anything and is thoroughly Australian as well and leave the UN out of it..The UN and peace have no right to be in the same sentence other than this one anyway.. So let's talk sport. I think we will find there are many who speak the language.

It's too late for London but is it too late to send a message to the IOC for next time? 

Australians prefer their sport direct, fresh, raw and unpolluted  by cheating, corruption, drugs and racism. It is unacceptable to refuse to honour the murdered athletes and coaches of 1980 and to stand in sympathy with their families solely because of their nationality, race or religion. Politics are unavoidable but this introduces something foul that defiles any decent concept of the Olympic spirit. It is something that we choose not to have our flag associated with. 

If  the IOC can not or will not deliver untainted sport then it is time to sack the IOC in the interest of sport.

For certain there are many people around the world who feel the same. What if this were to become global with others urging their countries refuse symbolic association with something that so plainly disgraces and debases sport.  A global campaign to clean out the IOC or face boycott-lite as a minimum. You know. A little like Methodist BDS except not morally depraved.

Australians know the history.  The IOC should be reminded of its.. Reform. Or else. 

Hat tip:  Eleanor  

Cross posted:   Israel Thrives


Did you know that in 1908 and 1912 New Zealanders and Australians competed in the same team and were called Australasians ? 

I didn't. 

Yuk. That's appalling. 

I suppose that was one way of getting them used to the idea of Gallipoli.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

More on Nazism and the Brotherhood

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Israel Thrives and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

When we think about the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East and the Obama administration's bolstering of that movement, particularly in Egypt, it is helpful to know some history of the Brotherhood and its connection to Nazi ideology.

As I have mentioned many times on this blog Matthias Küntzel (author of Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11) is among the foremost scholars working on this question. Below is a bit of a 2008 interview (pdf) which should be required reading for anyone who intends to form an opinion on the Brotherhood:

Bridges between early Islamism and late Nazism

Alan Johnson: In your book you show that from the 1930s to the mid 1940s there was a growth of ‘personal contacts and ideological affinities between early Islamism and late Nazism.’ Let’s talk about two people who acted as bridges between an older, doctrinal or Koranic anti-Judaism and a modern political and Islamist antiSemitism, influenced by Nazism: Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, and Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. First, who was Haj Amin al-Husseini and what was his central achievement?

The first thing to understand, and it is virtually never mentioned in the mass media, is the "personal contacts and ideological affinities between early Islamism and late Nazism."

This is a key point that must be addressed because we need to know just who these people are that the Obama administration is helping into power in Egypt. The fact of the matter, however much they may pose as "moderate" for a gullible western audience, is that the Brotherhood is a fascist movement, heavily influenced by European fascism of the early-middle twentieth century.

Matthias Küntzel: The main achievement of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was to combine the Jew-hatred of ancient Islam with modern antiSemitism into a new and persuasive rhetoric. I discovered a speech he gave in 1937 with the title, ‘Jewry and Islam.’ Here, he intermingled modern anti-Semitism the stories of very early Islam, going back and forth from the 7th and the 20th centuries, and connecting both kinds of Jew-hatred. This was something new.

So the Mufti, who is the father of Palestinian nationalism, merged early Islamic Jew Hatred with the Nazi variety during the 1930s.

When Churchill visited Jerusalem in March 1921, just before the British Mandate, he was given a petition by the then Palestinian leadership which was very antisemitic. But it was a purely European anti-Semitism – about the alleged Jewish responsibility for the First World War, about how later Jews incited the Russian Revolution and so on. It was ridiculous and no Muslim of that time would have been able to understand any of this, because it was really a précis of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! This was not the way to mobilise the Arab masses. It was the Mufti who realised this. He was always a special case in this regard. High ranking Muslims at this time rarely wanted to mobilise masses, but Haj Amin al-Husseini
did. Indeed it was a mass mobilisation that in 1921 led to his appointment as Mufti,against other Jerusalem notables.

The Mufti combined Nazi anti-Semitism with traditional Islamic Jew Hatred and used both to "mobilize the masses" in the 1920s. It was the Arab riots and revolts throughout the 1920s and 1930s that led the British to issue the infamous White Paper restricting Jewish immigration to mandated Palestine directly during the Holocaust.

Here was a modern feature – the mobilisation of masses to rescue your position. To this end he invented a form of Islamic anti-Semitism which was able to reach the illiterate masses by recruiting their religious feelings and by repeating the antiJewish verses from the Koran and Hadith again and again. Thus, we find for the first time in about 100 years the famous Hadith about the stones and the trees that want to kill Jews – a Hadith which constitutes today a part of the Hamas Charter – mentioned in the Mufti’s speech of 1937.

The Mufti was the most important founder of modern Islamic anti-Semitism and this achievement – with all its after-effects – is more important than his role during the Nazi time. Amin el-Husseini is often reduced to this time. But I think that what he did before and after this period of time was much more important. Before, he created the new antisemitic rhetoric, the rhetoric the Islamists would spread. Between 1946 and 1948, he played a key role in mobilising the Arab world against Israel. Sometimes individuals can change a lot, and the Mufti was by far the best-known representative of the Muslim world at that time, among other things because of his broadcasting of pro-Nazi and antisemitic sermons into the Middle East during the war over the Berlin short wave transmitter. He pursued his passion after May 8, 1945 and stirred up a specifically antisemitic hatred against the Jews in Palestine and Israel.

There is much more to this interview and I very much recommend that it be read in full. I may continue this little exercise going forward, but for the moment the purpose is simply to point out... to insist, really... that the Muslim Brotherhood has historical connections to Nazi ideology and that we must bare this in mind when we consider the US-Brotherhood connection under the Obama administration.

The point, it should be understood, is not that Barack Obama intends to support an Islamic variant of fascism in today's Middle East. I have to go on the assumption that he has no such intention. Instead there are two possible explanations for Obama's behavior, ignorance and / or the sincere belief that either the Brotherhood has moderated itself or that bringing it into power will serve to moderate it.

Sometimes pundits will say that the Muslim Brotherhood has given up on the violent Jihad with the obvious implication being that there is nothing to fear from them. If that is the case, however, how is it that the Brotherhood calls for a renewed Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital?

One of my foremost criticisms of the progressive-left, and particularly the Jewish left, is their insensibility concerning the rise of radical Islam. They are almost entirely incapable of discussing what is perhaps the foremost international political development of our time for reasons that amount to social cowardice.

This makes standard progressive-left, including standard "progressive Zionist," opinions on the Arab-Israel conflict almost entirely worthless because they fail to take into account the fact that it is radical Islam, itself, which is driving the conflict. The reason that there is no peace is not because Jews are building housing for themselves in Judea, but because the Arab world absolutely refuses to allow Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land and they do so for religious reasons.

You may ignore it, but ignorance will not make it go away.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Echonetdaily -- free, green and ...


Egypt’s Morsi orders release of detainees

Cairo [AFP]
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has ordered the release of 572 people detained by the military, the official MENA news agency reports.
Morsi, who was sworn in last month as Egypt’s first elected civilian president, ‘issued an order to pardon 572 people convicted by the military justice’, MENA said.
The president had ordered the formation of a committee to review the cases of civilians tried by the military.
A total of 11,879 Egyptians have been detained by the military since last year’s uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak, according to figures issued by the committee. Of these, 9714 have since been released.
Activists and international rights groups have repeatedly called for the end of military trials of civilians.
‘International law is crystal-clear on this: no civilian, regardless of the crime, should be tried by a military court,’ Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said this week.
She urged Morsi to take a ‘principled human rights stance and pardon all civilians convicted by military tribunals’.
Morsi was sworn in on June 30, taking over from a military council that oversaw the transition from Mubarak’s rule.
But the president has been locked in a power struggle with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which issued a constitutional declaration – that acts as a temporary charter – giving the military sweeping powers.
‘Military trials and arrests of civilians by the military have continued despite the June 30 handover to civilian authority,’ Human Rights Watch said.
The committee formed by Morsi does not however have the mandate to look into cases of military trials and arrests of civilians after the the handover date.
  • bebo
  • facebook
  • gplus
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • rss
  • print
  • bookmark
  • email
20. July 2012 by admin
Categories: World News |

Comments (0)

  1. “Activists and international rights groups have repeatedly called for the end of military trials of civilians.”
    An end to military trials? And replace them with what? Trial by clerics associated with the Muslim Brotherhood?
    When “activists and international rights groups” start to genuinely support human rights, all human rights, including the right to be free of lunatic violent religious bigotry of the type that has duly come to power in Egypt, then perhaps they might have something to say worth hearing.
    Otherwise they should be ignored. They just make bad things worse. Just like the Australian Greens.
    Geoffff’s Joint Bar Grill
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Of course my comment is awaiting  moderation. Echonetdaily is associated with the Australian Greens.  For the Greens racism and Jew murder is moderation so long as it doesn't happen in the  Byron Shire while anybody is actually looking..

American Dhimmi


Who would have thought it would get to the stage that the only true friends the Christians of the Middle East have in the West are the atheists and the Jews?

Instead, in Europe at least, the Christians respond to Christian persecution by religious fanatics and Nazis by attacking Israel and the Jews. They call this "speaking truth to power".   I'm glad I'm not a British Methodist or something. If I were I'd be feeling  pretty unmanly about such brazen moral cowardice.

At least we have the United States to stand up to it. Or do we?

It seems that will depend on who the American people vote for in November.

Pat Condell says it straight in a way no one else can match.

cross posted  Israel Thrives.

Friday, July 20, 2012

I Surrender!

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Israel Thrives and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

To My Jihadi Friends:

I surrender!

You have been in the Jew Killing Business for, what?, 1,400 years now? I must say, I think that you've done a splendid job. Just look at the Middle East. This huge expanse of land and the Jews only occupy some fraction of one percent of it. If you guys had not been so vigilant in your genocidal attempts against us, who knows how much of that land we might be living on today?

That is, you've done an exceptional job of keeping our numbers artificially low and you should be commended for your efforts. I'm sure that Big Daddy Allah is very proud of your work.

Oh, and by the way, I have to say that I find the argument that you made yesterday in Bulgaria to be quite compelling. Nicely done. Well said.

In any case, I surrender! I give up! Take me, I'm yours!

To My Progressive Friends:

I want to thank you for telling little Jewish kids that the reason that Jihadis seek to kill us is because we're mean to the Palestinians and that if only we would stop being mean to the Palestinians then they would stop trying to kill us. This is the message that you guys have been sending us for decades and I appreciate it very much. It's necessary for Jewish people to understand that the reason that Jihadis seek to kill us is because we aren't nice enough and that we need to redouble our efforts at niceness.

It's particularly important that Jewish children understand this.

I fully understand your moral superiority to the Jewish state of Israel, if not to Jewish people, in general, and will do what I can to make the bad Jews be more like the good Jews.

To the Good Jews:

The good Jews are my absolute favorite Jews.

These are Jewish liberals or progressives or leftists (or whatever) who agree with progressives, in general, that the real problem here is not the Jihadis (who they barely even acknowledge the existence of because to do so would make one a racist, a vile "Islamophobe"), but bad Jews.

The good Jews understand, along with progressives, that the problem is not radical Islam or Islamism or the Jihad... or any of that... but bad Jews who must be stopped at all costs. The problem is not anti-Jewish incitement emanating from throughout the Muslim Middle East, but Avigdor Lieberman.

Were it not for Avigdor Lieberman or Benjamin Netanyahu or the Likud there would be peace now and therefore what is necessary is excoriating these people and dragging their names and reputations through the mud and driving them out of public life by any means necessary, including, but not limited to, defamation of character.

So, I surrender.

You guys are right.

The Jihadis are right that Jews are the children of apes and pigs and need to be slaughtered wherever we might be found.

The progressives are right, with their profound sense of history, that the reason that the Jihadis seek to kill us is because we're mean to the Palestinians. If we weren't mean to the Palestinians the Jihadis would be as gentle as narcophied lambs.

And progressive Jews are right that the real problem is those Jews over there, the bad Jews. The Jews who believe in Jewish self-defense. The Jews who are willing to stand up for the Jewish people. Those Jews who insist upon living in Judea. Those Jews give all the rest of us a bad name, so it's no wonder that our non-Jewish progressive friends blame us for the violence against us because clearly we deserve it... but that's because of the bad Jews!

{'Scuse me. Must go throw up, now.}

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Another Nakba

Barack Obama's Defamation of the Jews

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Israel Thrives and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

Obama's inclination to defame the Jews of the Middle East seems almost instinctive and done without any reflection or even conscious malice.

Obama says 'failed' to push Mideast peace

In interview with ABC7, US president says he feels he hasn’t been able to achieve desired progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 'Parties have to want it as well,' he says

The direct quote from the Y-Net article is this:

"I have not been able to move the peace process forward in the Middle East the way I wanted."

"It's something we focused on very early. But the truth of the matter is that the parties, they've got to want it as well."

Barack Obama believes that neither side wants peace.

That is precisely what he is saying in the quote above. "The parties, they've got to want it as well."

So, what does this message convey to the world? It tells the world that the reason that there is no end to the Long Arab War against the Jews is because even the Jews do not want an end to their own persecution. We apparently have not done enough in the way of serious "self-reflection" as Obama has recommended of us in the past.

The good news is that this might indicate that Obama is washing his hands of the matter. One can certainly hope, although I wouldn't count on it. When I voted for Obama I thought that he could possibly bring about peace between Arab and Jew in the Middle East. At the time I was still suffering under the Oslo Delusion and thought that if Israel made the right kind of concessions then the Palestinians would agree to an end of hostilities in a two-state solution.

I could not have been more wrong.

Be that as it may, it still must be acknowledged that the Jewish people do want peace. The Palestinians have refused offer after offer for a state for themselves, going back to the Peel Commission Report of 1937, long before they even called themselves "Palestinians." Yet this American president tells us that we don't really want peace.

And you're still going to vote for this guy, eh?

It makes me begin to wonder just what diaspora "progressive" Jews actually think about the Jewish people? I am a diaspora liberal Jew by any meaningful definition of the word "liberal," but I no longer consider myself a progressive. The progressive movement gives anti-Semitic anti-Zionists a seat at the progressive table and that means that self-respecting Jews should probably go elsewhere. That has been my choice, at any rate.

But, my point is that diaspora Jews, even liberal diaspora Jews, will probably not even recognize when they have been insulted by the president of the United States. I consider it a pretty substantial insult, actually. He does not believe that YOU honestly want peace or, at the very least, that our Israeli brothers and sisters do.

One of my persistent themes has been the necessity of acknowledging the obvious. It is obvious that Barack Obama has not much in the way of respect for, or understanding of, or affection for, the Jewish people as a whole. If he did he would not defame the Jews of the Middle East by claiming that they, and by obvious extension we, do not want peace.

My question is this:

Are you going to object or do you actually agree?

My suspicion is that most "progressive" Jews actually agree.

Am I wrong?

Monday, July 16, 2012

Obama Administration Supports Jew Hatred in the Middle East

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Israel Thrives and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

At this point it should be well beyond dispute that the Obama administration supports the Muslim Brotherhood, the foremost anti-Semitic organization on the planet with historical and ideological roots that go to Nazi Germany. In a recent joint press conference with Brotherhood Foreign Minister Amr, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this:

I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and for your democratic transition.

Yes. How nice. The Obama administration is telling the world that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a good thing because it happened through democratic means. Of course, it is also true that Adolph Hitler came to power via democratic means, as well. The obvious conclusion is that mere voting does not a democracy make and that we should not be in the business of promoting fascism even if the fascist organization in question comes to power through the voting booth.

And lest one think that I exaggerate in regard the Brotherhood and that they are really a moderate organization, I will refer you to this video of a Mursi campaign rally in which the participants screamed for the conquest of Jerusalem.

Clinton continues:

In close consultation with the United States Congress, the Obama Administration is preparing to provide budget support to help Egypt stabilize its economy and to use debt relief to foster innovation, growth, and job creation. As Egypt takes these steps to shore up your economy, we will support you with international financial institutions and other donors.

We are also focused on increasing trade, investment, and entrepreneurship to create jobs and are ready to make available $250 million in loan guarantees to Egyptian small-and-medium-sized businesses. We are sending a high-level delegation of American businesses in early September to explore new investment and trade opportunities, and we will be creating the U.S.-Egypt Enterprise Fund. We’ll launch that fund with $60 million.

In other words, not only has the Obama administration helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt, it is prepared, during difficult economic times, to fork over American tax dollars to it, as well.

Second, the President and I discussed the importance of keeping Egypt’s democratic transition moving forward, and I commended him on his pledge to serve all Egyptians, including women and minorities and to protect the rights of all Egyptians.

Is this an example of that three dimensional chess that Barack Obama is allegedly playing? The Muslim Brotherhood is devoted to al-Sharia and the Sharia is most certainly not compatible with women's rights, with the rights of Gay people to live free from harassment, nor compatible with the rights of Jews, Christians, and other dhimmis to live free in a Sharia state. Thus when Clinton talks about President Mursi protecting the rights of all Egyptians she must mean under a system that is entirely incompatible with the ideology of the very organization that they helped bring to power. We already have reports, as I pointed out yesterday, that the Muslim Brotherhood suppressed the Christian vote in Egypt at gunpoint, yet Clinton has the temerity to talk about the Brotherhood as if they have some secular democratic commitment to social justice and human rights. They don't.

More than three decades ago, Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up without knowing war.

This is entirely false or can only be taken as true if one does not consider violence against Jews to be violence at all. An entire generation of Egyptians and Israelis have not grown up without knowing war and it is scandalous that Clinton would say so. Only the Egyptians of this generation have grown up without knowing war. The Jews of the Middle East, however, remain entirely under siege and are suffering under a war of aggression against them that has been ongoing since the 1920s. Did Hillary forget the Second Terror War (intifada) that the Palestinians launched against the Jews of the Middle East? Has she forgotten the ten thousand Qassams and Katyusha rockets that Hamas and Islamic Jihad rained upon the heads of Israelis since Israel ethnically cleansed every Jew out of Gaza, as insisted upon by the international left?

Or are we to believe that violence against Jews somehow does not count as violence?

We believe America’s shared strategic interest with Egypt far outnumber our differences.

Shared strategic interest? The Egyptians just voted in the Muslim Brotherhood which is the parent organization of al-Qaeda, which the administration claims to be at war with. Just what strategic interests can the United States share with an organization devoted to the restoration of the Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital? Just what strategic interests can the United States share with an organization that is the parent of al-Qaeda which killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11?

The bottom line is that the Obama administration helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood into power and continues to support an organization with a long history of fascism, terrorism, and Jew Hatred. Obama met with the Brotherhood in the spring of '09 when they were still a relatively insignificant force in world politics.   Obama made a point of inviting the Brotherhood to his Cairo speech, wherein he threw 3,000 years of Jewish history out the window by suggesting that Israel is the result of the Holocaust. Obama cleared the way for the rise of the Brotherhood in Egypt by rallying for the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. Obama interfered in Egyptian internal politics on the side of the Brotherhood in their struggle with the Egyptian military.  And now Obama is giving the Brotherhood an extensive financial package in order to maintain power in that country.

And, despite all this, the Obama administration, and the progressive-left, more generally, still expects Jewish people, the very target of Muslim Brotherhood malice, to support them in their efforts and in their reelection campaign.  I can think of nothing more foolish than to do so, yet I am also well aware that the majority of American "progressive" Jews will support this president no matter what he does, always finding excuses for the very worst of his behavior toward the Jews of the Middle East.

What a disgrace.

Supporting fascism, even if it happens to be Islamic fascism, is not the liberal thing to do.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

There Is Hope For The World


Dunno about Europe though.

For those of you left a little saddened about that attempt at a conversation with our outspoken country clergyman ( a beautiful part of the world, by the way, I have been there many times) here's something to cheer you up.

More about the Clerical Antizionists*  later

Moscow 2012
 Young people put on a flash mob dancing
                  to an 83 year old American song written by a
                  Russian born American-Jew whose last
                  name is the capital of Germany.  
Hat tip   My old mate Ken

cross posted Israel Thrives

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Trying To Engage British Methodists On Human Rights


Or should I say Clerical Antizionists?

I left this a moment ago on this blog.

G’day Richard Hall,

Will you try please to help me with this horrible on going human rights violation on a massive scale I am trying in our feeble human way to do something about?

I know this is a strange appeal from the other side of the world but I have looked at your blog and thought that in some sort of way you could do something..

Please help with perhaps one of the great moral dilemmas of our day. The surrender of a whole nation to …


The reply?  

You guessed it.

Here it is

geoffff 07.14.12 at 8:52 am
[deleted by admin]
Forget it, “geoffff”


  1. I'm sorry Richard that you feel that way. I'm an Aussie!
    I know the songs are pretty weak but the game is sufferable.

    If you want a serious and informed public discussion on this subject then you are welcome at my blog. In any event I'm about to post this there.
  2. And this

    Also I forgot to mention I'm a Woody Guthrie fan from way back! There's a point of contact.

    Anyway last chance Richard. Do you want a civil discussion on these core moral subjects that has attracted so much of the attention of you and your denomination? Or not?

And since?

Well nothing really.

Anyway I'm still here if  they want to say something or hear another point of view. I doubt it though. My guess is that these people would prefer to regard these attempts at dialogue as something else.

Further Update!

British Humour!

Dennis Levene 07.14.12 at 12:16 pm
Hope you’ve got Happy Joyous Hanukkah on JMG Records (2007)
Richard 07.14.12 at 12:34 pm
I’m afraid I don’t.
Kim 07.14.12 at 1:47 pm
In a fit of pedagogical masochism, I visited geofffff’s — sorry, geofff’s — website, where I discovered a laudatory reference to Melanie Phillips. I guess this is the same Mad Mel who wrote the Islamophilic Londonistan, sensitively likens gay relationships to bestiality, learnedly denies anthropogenic climate change, and lovingly longs to see the back of Rowan Williams. I think we’re at the orc-end of the blogosphere here, folks.
Richard 07.14.12 at 1:58 pm
I don’t think there’s much to be gained by engaging. Life is too short.
Kim 07.14.12 at 2:19 pm
That’s what gets me, Richard: some folk come here not to engage but to vandalise the place. Heigh-ho — it’s a pity, really.
Richard 07.14.12 at 4:56 pm
It is a pity. I’ll talk to anyone, no matter how much I disagree with them, if a measure of civility and goodwill can be assumed. But that would be a very unsafe assumption in this instance.
A measure of civility?

It is a pity.  He would like to engage. 

But I'm an orc . Therefore I might say something rude. 

Last Update 

cross posted Israel Thrives

Richard 07.14.12 at 8:20 pm
Be honest. You gave no indication on your own blog, on “Daphne’s” (so bravely outspoken that she blogs under a pseudonym) or in your comments here that you were looking for a reasoned and civil conversation. If I blog about something you want to talk about, you’ll be welcome and I’ll happily engage.
However, posting off-topic (and sarcastic) comments doesn’t make me well-disposed as a conversation partner. Nor do insulting comments on other blogs.

Ah well 

Here's a question for you Richard that you can leave swinging in the wind on this blog just as you have done on yours.

Why don't the British Methodists use their good offices with the Palestinians to ask them to stop the vile  antisemitic propaganda,  accept the Jewish state, end the "occupation"  , accept "Palestine" and raise their children in peace?