This “If it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck” comparison to Barack Hussein Obama has actually been around for a while. Since it represents the essence of what a chain email looks like, I will make an effort to verify the claims. If I can’t find the claim connected to the phrase I will say so and try to find a similarity. If my Google and Bing search skills turn up empty I will admit it. (In all honesty, the admission may mean I inputted the incorrect search parameters. I you find something I didn’t, feel to rectify the case in a comment.)
Here is a Youtube video that covers many of the assertions of Obama quacking like a Left Wing betrayer of American values:
Obama admits that he is a Muslim. Obama bowing before a Muslim king. Obama talking about his Muslim family. Obama quoting from the Koran. Obama defending Islam. Obama visiting a Mosque. And many more clips of Obama and his Muslim connections. Legal Disclaimer: The writers, producers, and editors of this video are not claiming or implying that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim, or that Obama said he was a Muslim, rather they are only examining the evidence surrounding the rumor that Barack Hussein Obama might be a secret Muslim.
Whether we are willing to honestly admit it or not, folks, herein lies the reason and major source of many of our nation’s current problems! Elections do have their consequences, you know!
Keep this old adage in mind: If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck; have feathers like a duck; eat like a duck and lay eggs like a duck, there is a very high probability that you are a duck.
Mike Gallagher, the 8th most recognized talk radio personality in the country, is heard by over 2.25 million listeners weekly. He compiled and wrote the following essay: "Obama: It was You”. [According to TruthOrFiction.com, Gallagher didn’t write this essay. Rather he posted it on his Facebook page.] …
This is why you didn't go to France to show solidarity against the Muslim terrorists:
* It was you who . . . spoke these words at an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you.”
[Blog Editor: I cannot find any references of Obama attending an Islamic dinner whence he told the Muslim diners “I am one of you”. Nonetheless, there are plenty of public appearances that Obama insinuated an Islamic affinity.]
* It was you who . . . on ABC News referenced -"My Muslim faith." [HERE & HERE]
* It was you who . . . gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques. [TopRightNews quotes CBS the taxpayer bill was closer to $770 BILLION to foreign Mosque refurbishing]
* It was you who . . . exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay. [After Obamacare passed coupled with Obama’s documented sympathy for Islam, read the potential Obamacare exemptions and then looking at Sharia Law, thought an exemption could arise for Muslims. However, the perception proved wrong.]
* It was you who . . . was the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House [From what I looked at, verbally the word “Christmas” was used in greetings from the White House. However the Obamas, like many Leftists, tried to secularize Christ’s birth “Holiday” greeting cards], and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree.
* It is you who . . . has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture(a), but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.(b)
* It was you who . . . when queried in India, refused to acknowledge[It’s the NYT, so you might need to scroll down a bit for details] the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorist assaults.
* It is you who . . . departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal White House religious events. [The only criticism I have about Obama vacationing in Hawaii during Christmas is the taxpayer cost.]
* It was you who . . . said the Muslim call to worship is "the most beautiful sound on earth." [Leftist NYT has the quote. Click “Find” on a word search, use the word “sound” and you’ll find it easily.]
QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!
Distribute this far and wide, Please! [If or When you share, be sure to link to this blog. Most Social Media do not carry embedded links.]
European style hate-speech laws protecting the evils inherent in Islam have made it to the shores of the North American Continent; i.e. CANADA.
William Finlay, better known as Wild Bill for America, was arrested at a Canadian airport on his way to a speaking engagement accused of hate-speech towards Islam. World Coalition Against Islam invited Wild Bill to speak at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” about Islam and Sharia. Wild Bill had not even given a speech yet on Canadian soil.
Apparently, the arrest was based on a speech he had given in Jacksonville, Florida USA. Again apparently, Canadian hate-speech laws can be enforced as a criminal act for speech given outside the borders of Canada.
Below is the Youtube video of Wild Bill talking about his Canadian detainment followed by another video set in Florida that Canadian authorities based their hate-speech detainment. Then I found an awesome article about Wild Bill’s inhospitable treatment by the Canadian government at Fortress of Faith.
This is of special interest to me because the very same thing happened to us in our ministry about 3 or 4 years ago. My pastor was helping me by taking some of my DVDs to our dropshipper in Canada. He was detained at the border crossing and our materials were seized as hate speech. Later they returned the material without apology, but they did admit that the material was not “hate speech.”
William Finlay goes by the name, “Wild Bill for America.” He was a policeman for more than 20 years. He is a Christian, and he travels around proclaiming truth. His topic at the festival was titled “Preserving Your Freedom Of Speech, and Not Becoming Sharia Compliant.”
This incident shows that freedom of speech is already dead in Canada. They will not allow anyone into their country who is concerned about organizations and religions, like Islam, that don’t want you to have freedom of speech. Those who stand for freedom against those who want to take away freedom, are considered hateful.
The day after this happened to us I did a broadcast on What if Muhammad came to the Canadian border, and the border police went through his materials the same way they are going through the material of Christians, would they find material that would incite people to kill those of another belief system? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES! The Qur’an is full of such statements. The problem is, they are protecting Islam from scrutiny. They are trying to silence people who are warning about what Islam really teaches. Those who show that Islam is a religion of hate and incitement to violence are the ones being targeted as hate mongers. Islam doesn’t just teach violence against unbelievers, it actually carries it out.
Somehow, those who are warning of the danger are the criminals, and those who are preaching and practicing violence are the “innocent victims.” We need to stand up against this because if we don’t we will wake up one day and find that all of our freedoms are gone. The first right we will lose is our freedom of speech, and before long we will find we have lost the right to practice our faith. If you are paying attention, you know that it has already started.
ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WHO CARRY OUT ACTS OF TERROR ARE SIMPLY APPLYING WHAT THEIR FAITH REQUIRES OF THEM, ACCORDING TO JESUIT FATHER HENRI BOULAD, AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR OF THE EGYPTIAN GREEK MELKITE RITE.
In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Father Boulad said that “Islam is an open-ended declaration of war against non-Muslims” and those who carry out violent jihad are true Muslims who are applying exactly what their creed demands.
Those who fail to recognize the real threat posed by Islam are naïve and ignorant of history, he said, and unfortunately many in the Church fall into this category.
Citing a letter he wrote last August to Pope Francis, Father Boulad said that “on the pretext of openness, tolerance and Christian charity — the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West.”
“Anything that does not espouse this ideology is immediately stigmatized in the name of ‘political correctness,’” he said.
The priest went so far as to chastise Pope Francis himself—a fellow Jesuit—suggesting that he has fallen into this trap as well.
“Many think that a certain number of your positions are aligned with this ideology and that, from complacency, you go from concessions to concessions and compromises in compromises at the expense of the truth,” the priest wrote to Francis.
Christians in the West and in the East, he wrote the Pope, “are expecting something from you other than vague and harmless declarations that may obscure reality.”
“It is high time to emerge from a shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism that attacks the West and the rest of the world. A systematically conciliatory attitude is interpreted by the majority of Muslims as a sign of fear and weakness,” he said.
“If Jesus said to us: Blessed are the peacemakers, he did not say to us: Blessed are the pacifists. Peace is peace at any cost, at any price. Such an attitude is a pure and simple betrayal of truth,” he said.
The priest also stated his belief that the West is in an ethical and moral debacle, and its defense of Islam is a denial of truth.
“By defending at all costs Islam and seeking to exonerate it from the horrors committed every day in its name, one ends up betraying the truth,” he wrote.
To back up his argument, Father Boulad enumerated a number of texts from the Koran that call on Muslims to employ violence in their conquest of the world for Allah.
The many passages he cited included: “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Koran 2:191), “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood” (Koran 9:123), “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (Koran 9:5), “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” (Koran 5:33), “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies” (Koran 22:19), and “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” Koran 8:12. [Bold text by JRH – Blog Editor]
Father Boulad is not the first Jesuit scholar to criticize the West for its naivete in dealing with Islam. Last year, Georgetown scholar Father James V. Schall contended that decades of students have been given a “sanitized education” that systematically excludes an honest portrayal of the history and theology of Islam, which limits their ability to assess what is going on in the world.
In his essay titled “Realism and Islam,” Father Schall argued that Islam “is actually and potentially violent throughout its entire history” and the basic reason for this method is religious in nature: “obedience to the Law of Allah.”
Therefore, he wrote, the Western tendency to simply call Muslim violence “terrorism” is insulting to believing Muslims who “see themselves carrying out the will of Allah, even sometimes to their own death in doing so.” Rather than terrorism, he insists, Muslims see their violence as “a religious endeavor to conquer the world,” which they understand to be “an act of piety.”
Because of this gaping educational void, “most citizens are simply not equipped to face the forces now reappearing in the world,” he wrote.
“And while it may be politically incorrect to state these things, they need to be stated and are in fact the truth—things that both Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear and consider,” he said.
While Dems blame Conservatives for inspiring Leftist assassin James T. Hodgkinson, Pamela Geller has a better guess. Geller believes years vitriolic hate spewed by the Left and reaching a zenith with hatred directed toward President Trump is the primary cause of an assassination attempt. Geller moves the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to the top of violence pushing list.
Yesterday’s shooting by an SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) supporting, Bernie Sanders devotee is the obvious and logical consequence of the left’s treasonous war on America. This is but another assassination attempt by a left-lauded Southern Poverty Law center supporter. SPLC, a vicious hate and smear machine, is held up as some kind of authority by elite media and academic institutions. SPLC enthusiast Floyd Corkins shot up the Family Research Council with the hope of killing as many employees as possible in August 2012. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
For years, the left and its media lapdogs have created narratives out of whole cloth about the impending violence from the right. President Obama, inciter-in-chief, regularly used violent rhetoric to gin up the Democrats: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” He has supported the most violent, seditious movements of 21st-century America (Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Muslim Brotherhood groups, etc.) while directing the Department of Homeland Security to track “right wing extremists” — in other words, Americans like you and me.
“I’m itching for a fight.” Obamato Democrats in a speech.
For years, the street thugs have been agitating, and for years the elites in the Democrat Party have egged them on, giving the violence their imprimatur, legitimacy and sanction. All the while, they blamed the right for unrelated violence. While there was no connection between what a Norway mass-murdering madman did and we what said, what we recommended for countering jihad terrorism and the brutal sharia, the left blew up and blood-libeled us almost to the point of extinction. When it came out in court that this Norwegian madman was inspired to violence by al Qaeda and Hamas, that was never widely reported. The left always blames us for violence, no matter how non-existent the ties. Even when I was the target of an assassination plot in Garland, Texas, for example, the left blamed me because I would not adhere to the blasphemy laws under the sharia.
Bernie Sanders fundraisedby blaming Sarah Palin and conservatives in general for the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ). The Daily Caller reported that “there was never any actual evidence presented that Jared Loughner, a diagnosed schizophrenic who pleaded guilty to the shooting, was a Palin fan, a Tea Party supporter, or that he had ever seen Palin’s ‘crosshairs’ map” that was widely blamed for the shooting. In fact, according to the Caller, “one friend tweeted that ‘he was left wing, quite liberal.’”
Last week’s shooter in Portland was also a Bernie supporter; he ranted against Christians, Jews and Muslims, but the enemedia reported his shooting of two people as an “Islamophobic” “hate crime.”
I have been covering leftist and Islamic protests for years, and they are rife with hate and violence that never get reported in the mainstream media. My colleague, Pamela Hall, has been indefatigable in covering the rise of the left-wing totalitarians. Followers of my website, the Geller Report, know her work and what it proves: a systematic, organized movement to overthrow American freedoms and install an enemy regime.
At every pro-America, pro-Trump, anti-sharia, counter terrorism protest, leftists show up full of bloodlust and primed for battle. These primitives agitate, incite and attack our people whenever we peacefully assemble. And their stooges in the media, like clockwork, then report what happened as follows: “Violence breaks out at far-right rally…” “Far-right” the media’s term for anyone who doesn’t submit to these goose-stepping, jackbooted thugs. At my rally against CUNY’s invitation to terror-inciter Linda Sarsour to give its commencement address, New York City Mayor “Red Bill” de Blasiodirected the NYPD to put the violent leftists not three feet from our people. It was not pretty.
Conservative and pro-Israel speakers are attacked and silenced on the rare occasions they are even invited to speak. Trump supporters have been beatenat rallies and demos in support of the President. From Berkeley to Brooklyn, college campuses have become nothing short of war zones.
As the Daily Wire noted: “In recent years, under the tender tutelage of the Obama Department of Justice, mass violent action by leftists has become commonplace across the country, from the Occupy Wall Street movement to Black Lives Matter-inspired mob violence in Ferguson and Baltimore, from campus chaos at California State University of Los Angeles to this sort of violence at Trump rallies.”
This is not static. This situation on the ground is fluid. Do the leftists think freedom-lovers will continue to stand down? Does the left want war? They are going to get it. Because we know where this road leads. We saw this same kind of violent thuggery in the 1930s in Germany. And we have seen what happens when good people do nothing.
As for the “good people” in the Democrat Party, where are they? Where are the mass protests where Democrats proclaim, “Not My Party!” Why aren’t we seeing that the way we are seeing “Not My President!”
If you are a Democrat Party member, you are part of the problem.
Europeans face the same kind of propaganda of blaming the exposers of reality as Conservatives face in America from the Left on multiple issues, including gun control. After Leftist hater James Hodgkinson (See Also HERE) went to murder Republican members of Congress because he hated Trump, the Dem gun control rhetoric was amped up almost as viciously as the Hodgkinson shooter himself.
Fjordman (Peder Jensen) is the Counterjihad writer that European Multiculturalists love to hate. They would rather blame Fjordman (and other Counterjihad writers daring to risk EU hate-speech laws) for acts of Islamic terrorism rather than the Muslims devoted to the purist Islam of Muhammad and the revered writings of the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah.
Below is a Fjordman essay I found on the Internet European publication Snaphanen that takes a stark look at Muslim immigration to Europe and the troubles that immigration is causing.
[Blog Editor: I must admit ignorance of European publications. Snaphanen has a “.dk” indicating Denmark but the news seems to focus on Sweden. And Fjordman is Norwegian. It’s all Nordic to me.]
One of the frustrating things about trying to warn against a gradually-developing threat is that many people choose to ignore the warnings until it is almost too late. Perhaps this is human nature. We prefer to ignore unpleasant realities as much as possible, and don’t believe a problem is real until we can see it with our own eyes. Some people will not believe it even then.
If seeing is believe, the time has now come to believe. The problems of mass migration and radical Islam have been developing for a long time. However, they have intensified recently and keep on escalating. 2015 may in hindsight be remembered as the year when illegal mass immigration was brought to the forefront of mass media attention. Migrants have been arriving illegally to the Western world for many years. Yet the flow of illegal migrants arriving in boats in the Mediterranean has drastically increased in 2015 compared to 2013 or 2014.
After some high-profile incidents in which migrants have drowned, several European countries sent ships to pick up illegal immigrants in the Mediterranean and bring them to Europe. Critics argue that this is not a long-term solution. This sends out a signal to illegal immigrants and people smugglers that Europe is open to them. That will encourage even more of them to come. There is no reason to assume that the pressure of illegal immigration from the south will stop in the year 2016, 2017 or 2030. On the contrary, the ongoing population explosion in Africa and parts of the Middle East indicates that mass migration could further increase in scale in the coming years. The turmoil caused by militant Islam also continues.
Sometimes, bringing attention to a problem may trigger accusations that you caused the problem to exist in the first place. Jan Opsal is a Professor of Science of religion at the School of Mission and Theology (MHS) in Stavanger, Norway. He works with issues related to Christian-Muslim relations. In July 2015, Professor Opsal accused me personally of contributing to the rise of radical and militant Islam by spreading alleged “conspiracy theories” about Islam. According to him, “Those who warn against Islam, through constant assertions that are not factual, will thereby contribute to increased radicalization of Islam.” Mr. Opsal further suggested that maybe one tenth of a percentage point of Muslims support the Islamic State (IS or ISIS).
With all due respect to the professor, the percentage of Muslims sympathizing with the militant Muslims of ISIS is a lot bigger than what he suggests. It could be 50 times as great, or even 100 to 200 times. Muslims supporting jihadists from groups such as ISIS or al-Qaida can now be found in cities and towns across the Western world. This is not a “conspiracy theory.” It is a fact. Just listen to the increasingly worried warnings of professional security services.
Furthermore, if you listen to the jihadists themselves, they legitimize their actions by referring to the Koran and other authoritative Islamic texts. Suggesting that critics of Islam helped cause the slave markets and massacres of ISIS is not merely wrong, it is absurd. This is like suggesting that critics of Communism caused the Gulag, or that critics of Nazism caused Auschwitz.
Next to Islamic theology, the primary cause of radicalization in Europe today is arguably the immigration policies promoted by Western political elites. EU governments have a duty to help the flood of migrants arriving in Europe and not cave in to “populist” demands to turn them back, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker says. In other words, EU leaders think native Europeans have a “duty” to settle large numbers of illegal immigrants from dysfunctional African and Muslim societies permanently in their nations. “Ministers, unlike citizens, have an obligation to act. We made proposals that went far, while still being modest given the scale of the problem,” Juncker said, referring to the proposals from the Commission, the executive arm or unelected “government” of the 28-nation EU. “We proposed a mandatory system to redistribute asylum seekers and people who need international protection, but the member states did not follow us,” he said. At a July 20, 2015 meeting in Brussels, EU justice and home affairs ministers agreed to relocate more than 32,250 Syrians, Eritreans, Iraqis and Somalis who had landed in Greece and Italy. The ministers also agreed to take in some 22,500 Syrian refugees currently living in camps outside the EU. Juncker said the EU would resume efforts to reach a higher target. “If we don’t get there on a voluntary basis, we will have to reconsider the Commission’s proposals,” the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg said. Mandatory distribution of asylum seekers among member states is still being seriously considered.
Illegal immigrants currently arrive on a daily basis, at a pace of hundreds of thousands annually. They use every trick imaginable to get into Europe, perceived as the promised land of milk and honey. Migrants hide in containers, storm trucks, occupy railway stations or use inflatable rubber dinghies. Some even tryto swim to European-controlled territories, or get smuggled in suitcases. Meanwhile, there is rising opposition among ordinary Europeans to having their local communities forcibly changed by this influx.
It is interesting to note that some of the strongest opposition to mass immigration can be found in societies that have first-hand experience with Communist rule: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Eastern Germany and Baltic nations. Nationalists protested in Riga, Latvia’s capital, against their country’s taking in a planned 250 migrants under an EU resettlement scheme. “I don’t feel that EU institutions are listening to our concerns about taking in refugees from very different cultures,” said MP Raivis Dzintars. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has repeatedly sounded the alarm. He warns that mass immigration constitutes a threat to European civilization.
EUSSR It has long been a joke to compare the European Union to the Soviet Union, an EUSSR. Some people wonder whether this is really a joke. The Russian intellectual and former Soviet dissidentVladimir Bukovksy believes the EU has certain structural similarities to the dictatorial Soviet Union. The unelected and powerful European Commission resembles the Soviet Politburo, ruling hundreds of millions of people without their consent. While partly true, it should be mentioned that not even Communist states such as the Soviet Union championed mass immigration of Muslims and Africans on the scale which the EU is doing today. The USA does, however. The EU seems to have adopted harmful traits from both Cold War superpowers: The anti-democratic bureaucratic structure of the Soviet Union, and the mass immigration “diversity” policies of the USA.
It has become increasingly apparent that the EU in its present form is actively harmful to the long-term interests of native Europeans. The organization provides weak leadership. When it attempts any leadership at all, it usually leads Europe in the wrong direction. The handling of illegal immigration and radical Islam has been very poor, and dominated by Utopian ideas without basis in reality. Its handling of the euro crisis in Greece has not been impressive, either. With its increasingly authoritarian centralization, the EU robs national parliaments of their power and undermines its own popular legitimacy. The repeated attempts to force illegal immigrants on all of its member states trigger outright hostility. Its immigration policies contribute to the rising polarization of European societies.
Perhaps the EU will be remembered as the alleged “peace project” that once again plunged Europe into conflict.
Peder Fjordman Jensen • 2 days ago Thanks to Steen to reprint this text. It is originally from 2015, but the conclusion is the same today. My conclusion already before the euro crisis and the migrant crisis began was that the EU can not be reformed.]
It has always been my opinion that a Two-State Solution would NEVER be a harbinger for peace between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. A Palestinian State would merely be a launching ground for Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel. The result would be Israeli military incursions to punish an independent Palestine for allowing the terrorist launching pads. Or an independent Palestine might have the hutzpah claim the terrorism is military incursions for whatever fake/false reason given.
The only raison d'être for a Palestinian State existence would be to end Israel’s existence and to kill Jews. Because of Muslim animus against Israel, a One-State Solution is the best solution.
The best One-State Solution is to find a way to move Jew-hating Muslims out of any area that is a part of ancient Jewish heritage.
Dr. Martin Sherman has written a two-part essay touching on the logistics and feasibility of an ethical fashion to aid Jew-hating Muslims to emigrate to another Arab-Muslim nation. I found out about Dr. Sherman’s from the Facebook Group “No Palestinian State!” (If you are a Pro-Israel kind of person you should go there and request to be a member and add to the discussion.)
The title is “INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm - Answering FAQs”. You can read the 6/2/17 Part One HERE. Part Two is cross posted below.
INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm - Answering FAQs (Part 2)
Sequel to the dispelling of doubts regarding the feasibility - and morality - of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach for resolution of the Israel-Palestinian impasse.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -attributed to Winston Churchill
Readers will recall that last week I began a two part response to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) relating to the practical feasibility/moral acceptability of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP), which prescribes, among other measures, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs, living across the pre-1967 lines as the only route to attain long-term survivability for Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
To recap briefly
In last week’s column, I addressed the question of the overall cost of the funded emigration project, and showed that, given the political will to implement it, it would be eminently affordable – even if Israel had to shoulder the burden alone. If other industrial nations could be induced to participate, the total cost would be an imperceptible percentage of their GDP.
I then went on to demonstrate that there is ample evidence indicating a wide-spread desire in large sections of the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate permanently in search of more secure and prosperous live elsewhere. This point was underscored by a recent Haaretz article, describing how thousands of Gazans had fled their home to Greece, undertaking perilous risk to extricate themselves from the harrowing hardships imposed on them by the ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs. Significantly, according to the Haaretz report, none of them blamed Israel for their plight—but rather the ruling Hamas-regime, which, it will be recalled, was elected by popular vote to replace the rival Fatah faction, ousted because of its corruption and poor governance.
Finally, I dealt with the question of the prospective host nations, pointing out that the funded Palestinian-Arab émigrés would not arrive as an uncontrolled deluge of destitute humanity, but as an orderly regulated stream of relatively affluent immigrants spread over about a decade-and-a-half, whose absorption would entail significant capital inflows for the host nation’s economy. Moreover, given the fact that, globally, migrants total almost a quarter billion, Palestinian-Arab migration of several hundred thousand a year would comprise a small fraction of one percent of the overall number—hardly an inconceivable prospect.
Following this short summary of previously addressed FAQs, we can now move on to tackle several additional ones.
FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?
One of the most commonly raised reservations as to the practical applicability of the HP is that potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants would be deterred from accepting them because of threats of retribution from their kin-folk who allegedly would view such action as perfidious betrayal of the Palestinian-Arabs’ national aspirations.
In contending with this question, it is necessary to distinguish between two possible scenarios, in which such internecine intimidation will be either a phenomenon whose scope is (a) limited; or (b) wide-spread and pervasive.
Clearly, if the former is true, it is unlikely to have any significant inhibiting impact on the conduct of prospective recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants.
If, however, the assumption is that the latter is the case, several points need to be made:
- If this objection to the HP is to have any credence, its proponents must present evidence (as opposed to unproven supposition) that potential violent opponents of the HP program have the ability not only to inflict harm on prospective recipients (as opposed to issuing empty threats), but that they can sustain such ability over time.
- In this regard, it should be kept in mind that implementation of the HP entails the disarming, dismantling and disbanding —if need be, coercively—of the ruling Palestinian regime, and reinstating Israeli governance over all territory under Palestinian-Arab control.
Inhibiting internecine intimidation
The HP is hardly unique with regard to this latter point. All other proffered policy alternatives for the failed, foolhardy two-state formula entail such measures—either by explicit stipulation, or implicit inference—since preserving the current Palestinian regime intact would clearly preclude their implementation. Indeed, they are even endorsed by some pundits who do not discount the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, such as Middle East Forum president, Daniel Pipes.
Clearly, the dispersal of the central Palestinian governing body, together with the defanging of its armed organs and the deployment of Israeli forces in their stead, will greatly curtail (although not entirely eliminate) the scope for internecine intimidation and the capacity to dissuade potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants from availing themselves of the funds.
In addition, Israel should task its own formidable military and intelligence services to protect prospective recipients of these grants by identifying, intervening and thwarting attempts to intimidate those seeking to enhance their lives by extricating themselves from the control of the disastrously dysfunctional regime under which they live.
Moreover, the international community should be called upon to cooperate with and participate in this principled endeavor to prevent fratricidal elements within Palestinian society from depriving their brethren of the opportunity of better, safer lives. After all, violence against Palestinian-Arabs, who choose to reside within any given host nation, would comprise an intolerable violation of that country’s national sovereignty.
Appalling indictment of “Palestinian” society?
Of course invoking the specter of large-scale fratricide as an impediment to the acceptance of the HP is an appalling indictment of Palestinian-Arab society.
After all, the inescapable implication of such an objection to the HP’s practical applicability is that its acceptance by otherwise willing recipients, wishing to avail themselves of opportunity to seek security and prosperity elsewhere, can only be impeded by violent extortion of their kin-folk.
Accordingly, if the concern over large-scale fratricide is serious, it is in fact, at once, both the strongest argument in favor of the HP and against the establishment of a Palestinian state. After all, two unavoidable conclusions necessarily flow from it: (a) any predicted reluctance to accept the relocation/rehabilitating grants would not be a reflection of the free will of Palestinian-Arabs, but rather a coerced outcome that came about despite the fact that it is not; (b) Similarly, the endeavor for a Palestinian state is not one that manifests any authentic desire of the “Palestinian people” but rather one imposed on them, despite the fact that it does not.
As a result, any Palestinian-Arab state established under the pervasive threat of lethal retribution against any dissenter will not be an expression of genuine national aspirations but of extortion and coercion of large segments of Palestinian-Arab society, who would otherwise opt for an alternative outcome.
In summation then, if the fear of fratricide can be shown to be a tangible threat, it should not be considered a reason to abandon the HP formula. Quite the opposite! It should be considered an unacceptable phenomenon to be resolutely suppressed –by both Israel and the international community—in order to permit the Palestinian-Arab public the freedom of choice to determine their future.
FAQ 5: Would funded emigration not be considered unethical “ethnic cleansing”?
I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.
I shall therefore refrain from repeating much of the arguments presented previously and focus on one crucial issue: The comparative moral merits of the widely endorsed two-state paradigm (TSS) and those of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP).
Since there is very little doubt (or dispute) as to the domestic nature of any prospective Palestinian state, anyone seeking to disqualify the HP because of its alleged moral shortcomings must be forced to contend with the following question: Who has the moral high-ground?
(a) The TSS-proponents, who advocate establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents? ; or
(b) The HP-proponents who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution, brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.
Furthermore, TSS advocates should be compelled to clarify why they consider it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; yet they consider it morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?
FAQ 6: What about those who remain?
This is, of course, a serious question and a detailed response would depend on, among other things, the size of the residual Palestinian-Arab population who refuse any material compensation as an inducement to emigrate.
The acuteness of the problem would undoubtedly be a function of its scale. Clearly, the smaller this residual population, the less pressing the need will be to deal with it. For example it seems plausible that if, say, only a hundred thousand Palestinians remain, consideration may well be given to the possibility of offering them Israeli citizenship – subject to stringent security vetting and sworn acceptance of Jewish sovereignty as the sole legitimate source of authority in the land – without endangering the Jewish character of the country.
However, it should be remembered that, unlike the two-state approach which advocates perilous concessions, and the one-state prescription which calls for incorporating the Palestinian-Arabs resident across the pre-1967 lines into Israel’s permanent population, the HP does not involve any cataclysmic irreversible measures.
At the heart of the HP program is a comprehensive system of material inducements to foster Palestinian emigration, which includes generous incentives for leaving and harsh disincentives for staying. As detailed elsewhere, such incentives would entail substantial monetary grants, up to 100 years GDP per capita per family in Palestinian terms; while the latter entail phased withdrawal of services (including provision of water, electricity, fuel, port facilities and so on) that Israel currently provides to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines.
Accordingly, should it be found that the initial proposed inducements are ineffective, the former can be made more enticing, and/or the latter more daunting, until the proffered package is acceptable.
Seen in this context, it is difficult to envisage that many non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs would prefer to endure the rigors of discontinued provision of services rather than avail themselves of the generous relocation/rehabilitation funds—especially given the dispersal of the Palestinian regime as an alternative source of such services.
FAQ 7 What if the same kind of offer were made to induce Jewish emigration?
In addressing this question several points should be borne in mind:
The offer would clearly not be made by an Israeli government. After all, the HP is intended as a measure to: (a) Ensure – not undermine – the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and (b) Relieve the genuine humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs—precipitated by the dysfunctional administration they have been subjected to since the 1993 Oslo process—not Jewish disgruntlement with the imperfect functioning of the Israeli government.
Of course, it would be impossible to prevent Arab elements from offering Jews financial inducement to emigrate from Israel, but in this regard it should be recalled that: (a) As a sovereign nation Israel can control the financial flows into the country and impede money from hostile sources reaching Israeli citizens, considerably complicating the transfer and receipt of funds. (b) Arab governments have been singularly reticent in providing large sums to advance the “Palestinian cause” and there is little chance (or evidence) that they would advance the hundreds of billions required to finance large scale Jewish emigration; (c) The overwhelming majority of Israelis enjoy living standards of an advanced post-industrial nation with a GDP per capita around 20 times higher than that in the Palestinian-administered territories; (d) Accordingly, it would be commensurately more difficult to tempt them to leave. Indeed, sums offered would have to be considerably higher to create a comparable incentive, running into millions rather than hundreds of thousands per family. (e) Moreover, a slew of recent polls show the large majority of Israelis are satisfied with their lives – thus the prospect of material incentives to induce large-scale emigration seems remote.
Urgent Zionist imperative.
The HP is the only Zionist-compliant policy prescription that can save Israel from the perilous dangers of the two-state formula and the specter of Lebanonization/Balkanization inherent in other proffered alternatives. Embarking on its implementation is a Zionist imperative that is both urgent and feasible.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
The writer served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir's government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science and international relations, was the first academic director of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies(www.strategicisrael.org).
Esam Omeish at Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center 9-18-15
I realize that the government situation in Libya is not exactly stable, yet I find it very amusing that a Libyan parliamentary procedure has placed Muslim Brotherhood linked Esam Omeish - who resides in America - on a terrorist watch list. Omeish has gone ballistic when a foreign government has exposed his trojan nature in the USA.
A prominent Muslim American political activist is included on a list of 75 terrorists issued by a Libyan parliamentary committee.
Esam Omeish is a former president of the Muslim American Societyand remains a prominent figure at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va. He is among 75 people the Libyan House of Representatives' Defense and National Security Committee labeled Friday as enemies.
Libya's government remains fragmented, with the House of Representatives based in a city called Tobruk. It is considered closely aligned with Egypt.
Omeish is the 29th name listed on the terror list and is described as an "international member of the Muslim Brotherhood." Another American, Aly Abuzaakouk, appears just after Omeish's, also identified as an international Muslim Brotherhood member.
Omeish blasted the move in a statement on his Facebook page, saying "my name had unjustly and falsely been placed on a so called list of supporters of terrorism." He protested Saturday to Virginia U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, the 2016 Democratic vice presidential nominee, and plans to try meeting more members of Congress today.
Omeish wants the committee's leader "legally prosecuted for fraud, slander and defamation to obtain a judgement inhibiting their ability to travel to America..." He also wants penalties for committee members who approved the list, accusing them of "randomly charging American citizens who have no offense or crime, or involvement with any of the forms of terrorism, and who are major in the American landscape in the fight against terrorism and working with all security and legal agencies to preserve the country's security and the safety of the society and communities with transparency and integrity which everyone near and far knows."
Omeish formerly served as president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), which insiders have acknowledged is the Muslim Brotherhood's overt arm in the United States. In a December Facebook comment, Omeish wrote that Muslims "have not known of the people of Islam ... those more just in understanding, wider in approach and closer in application than the Muslim Brotherhood. We have not known of humane brotherliness and its people, (and we are affiliated with all men whom Allah has created a propensity for love, mercy, an upright disposition, good morals and honorable character) better in ethics, of gentler parts, deeper in adherence to duty, nobler in morals among all their sons, and every one of their actions than the Muslim Brotherhood."
Last year, he advocated that the U.S. support for a group known variably as the "Revolutionary Shura Council," or the "Mujahideen Shura of Derna," despite ties between its officials and al-Qaida. Egypt's air force bombed the group last month in retaliation for terror attacks against Coptic Christians in April.
Abuzaakouk also has deep Muslim Brotherhood connections. He has served as executive director of the American Muslim Council (AMC), and publications director for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). He became foreign minister of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Government of National Salvation based in Tripoli after dictator Muammar Gaddafi fell. That group opposes the internationally recognized government in Tobruk.
The AMC was founded in part by Mahmoud Abu Saud, who helped Hassan al-Banna create the Brotherhood in Egypt, the Washington Postreported in 2004. FBI officials have long suspected that the IIIT housed leading Brotherhood officials in the United States.
Despite his overt support for "the jihad way" and for the Brotherhood, Omeish has been close to Kaine for at least a decade. When Kaine was Virginia's governor in 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a state immigration panel after Investigative Project on Terrorism video showed him praising Palestinians during a 2000 rally for knowing that "the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."
At a separate event two months earlier, Omeish similarly praised Palestinians "for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah and for the sake of Al-Aqsa [Jerusalem]. They have spearheaded the effort to bring victory upon the believers in [Palestine]."
It was during a 2010 fundraiser for Omeish's state assembly campaign that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison – now the Democratic National Committee's vice chair – complained that Israel unduly influence U.S. policy in the Middle East. "A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million," Ellison said. "Does that make sense?"
Ellison added: "We can't allow another country to treat us like we're their ATM. Right? And so we ought to stand up as Americans. Now some of us have affinity for other places around the globe. Some of us are new Americans and adopted America as our home. But whether you're born here or whether you accepted America as your own voluntarily, this is our home. Right? All of our home equally, and we can't allow it to be disrespected because some, by a country that we're paying money to."
In this case, Kaine serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee for North Africa.
It is unclear what impact the Libyan House committee's terror list will have, especially among U.S. policy makers. There's no public information indicating Omeish was directly involved in any terror support. But he has openly advocated for "the jihad way" and lauds the Brotherhood, a movement which articulated a goal of creating a global Islamic state and serves as an inspiration for Sunni jihadist groups including al-Qaida, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Ja'amat Islamiya.
"The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood – all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers," former National Security and Counter-terrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke testified in 2004 before a U.S. Senate committee.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. It is recognized as the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups. For more than two decades, the IPT has investigated the operations, funding, activities and front groups of Islamic terrorist and extremist groups in the United States and around the world. It has become a principal source of critical evidence to a wide variety of government offices and law enforcement agencies, as well as the U.S. Congress and numerous public policy forums. Research carried out by the IPT team has formed the basis for thousands of articles and television specials on the subject of radical Islamic involvement in terrorism, and has even led to successful government action against terrorists and financiers based in the United States.
The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Tax deductible contributions should be made to its fund-raising arm, the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
Founder and executive director Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and author. Consulted by the White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies, Mr. Emerson is in great demand as one of the most astute, insightful and knowledgeable experts in the world today on the threat and prospects of militant Islamic terrorism. He has been quoted in more than 500 news articles and …READ THE REST
In early June 2016 three immigrant Muslim boys aged 14, 10 and 7 brutally raped a then 5-year old girl in an apartment complex laundry room. Here is a somewhat abbreviated yet detailed description of the disgusting evidence of how Islamic Supremacist thinking played out for an Idaho child and her parents:
June 2, 2016, at Fawnbrook Apartments, was witnessed by Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who told WND she saw a 14-year-old boy from Sudan filming the assault in progress inside the laundry room. Two other boys, ages 7 and 10 from Iraq, were inside the room with the little girl, all three with their clothes off, while the older boy shot video.
I have constantly been behind the curve in finding out details because the Mainstream Media (MSM) has been complicit with the Leftist judicial system in this Idaho County protecting these Muslim boys from justice in the name of Multiculturalism. A Leftist Multiculturalism that wants to perpetuate the lie that is the duty of Americans to welcome anti-American Islamic values into our culture.
These juvenile delinquent brutal Muslim rapists may have received some kind of probation but that is a bit of guess work. WHY?
The presiding Judge Thomas Boressen put a gag order on all attending the court proceedings.
I can imagine hearing a Leftist Multiculturalist defending the Judge’s gag order because the Muslim rapist brats are children themselves. Well sure, seal the brats’ identity. But do you honestly believe these Muslims kids will be taught right from wrong according to American law above what Islam teaches is just fine and dandy to do to non-Muslims?
The court has a duty to both protect the good citizens of Idaho and to let Americans know these are children of Muslim immigrants or refugees. The reason is American voters need to be able understand the dangers of harboring massive Muslim refugees unwilling to renounce Islamic Supremacism. American Laws for all people residing in America must be administered regardless of culture or religion.
Americans must have the right at the voting both to throw the bums out (viz., Leftist Multiculturalist politicians) that desire to infest our nation with people not willing to comply with American law.
I don’t know how good it will do, but it made me feel good to sign an anti-gag order petition because Americans need to know why Muslim refugees get a pass from American justice.
Here is Ann Corcoran’s update on the brutalization of then 5-year old Jayla Peterson and the resulting gag order.
And, adding insult to injury, the judge in the case placed an unlawful gag order on everyone in the court room, telling them they could not discuss what happened during the five hours when the boys were portrayed as victims and the little girl was forgotten. Obviously the judge’s order was ignored, read on…..
Here is some of what happened, but I do want you to read the whole article by Leo Hohmann:
A judge sentenced three Muslim refugee boys in the sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl in Idaho, but nobody knows the length or terms of the sentence because the judge has barred everyone in the courtroom, including the victim’s own parents, from speaking about the case.
The three boys — two from Iraq ages 7 and 10, and one from Sudan aged 14 — pleaded guilty in juvenile court in April to multiple counts of sex crimes in an incident that occurred last June in Twin Falls. The assault occurred at Fawnbrook Apartments, when 5-year-old Jayla, who is developmentally disabled, was lured into a laundry room, stripped of her clothing and sexually assaulted while the oldest boy filmed the entire incident.
Now, following a sentencing hearing Monday at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls, Judge Thomas Borreson of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District issued a gag order preventing everyone in the courtroom from saying anything about the sentence received by the boys.
Borreson did allow the family to say they were unhappy with the sentencing, but threatened to jail them for contempt of court if they say why they are unhappy.
Mathew Staver, chairman and co-founder of the nonprofit legal assistance agency Liberty Counsel, told WND that Judge Borreson was completely out of line in issuing a gag order after the fact in a criminal case.
Blaming the female victim in a sexual assault case! In 21st century America!
“The travesty of justice in Idaho is now complete…instead of getting justice, the victim’s family has been abused by law enforcement and governing authorities as if they were the criminals – because what happened to their little girl contradicts the politically correct narrative about Muslim migrants,” Geller wrote. “On Monday, the perpetrators were sentenced, and the final injustice was done to this poor girl.”
Geller said there were 12 to 15 people in the courtroom for the sentencing hearing and one of them leaked the outcome to her anonymously.
“And the more I heard, the more I understood why this judge wanted to keep all the proceedings secret,” she said.
“Janice Kroeger, the senior deputy prosecuting attorney, who was supposed to be trying these boys for their crimes, defended the boys and repeatedly attacked Lacy, the victim’s mother.A therapist for the boys was present, as well as a parole officer and a detective. Everything that was said was designed to portray the perpetrators as victims. Throughout the proceedings, they were repeatedly called victims.”
She said Idaho officials were willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of a small girl in an effort to suppress negative information about the state’s growing refugee community.
In the 1967 – 50-years ago – June 5 -10; Israel fought a war with at least four Arab nations amassing troops on Israel’s border. Begin counting from day one through the last day, you have the Six-Day War.
Israel AGAIN defeated armies much-much larger than the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The Arab nations prepared for invasion for what they believed would be the utter destruction of Israel. Wisely, Israel utterly surprised the Egyptian military front by launching a preemptive attack which destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. Using the shock to Israel’s advantage, the IDF then launched their vastly outnumbered tanks and pushed Egypt out of the Sinai. Then Jordan and Syria launched their invasions unaware that Egypt had gotten their butts kicked in the Sinai. Although there was a less of a surprise, the IDF ultimately prevailed against Syria and Jordan. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria and the land conquered by Jordan in 1948 was taken back which included Israel’s heritage of uniting Jerusalem. Making Jerusalem whole allowed Jewish access to their most holy site left to them – the Western Wall still standing after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.
1/12 | In the first video of the mini-series, find out about the early steps that led to the 1967 Six Day War - a war that changed the future of Israel. Surrounded by enemy neighbors and only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, Israel was vulnerable.
In May of 1967, the state of Israel was only 19 years old. At its inception in 1948, five Arab armies had coordinated a military invasion to prevent the creation of the small Jewish country. But Israel’s War of Independence succeeded in repelling the forces bent on Israel’s destruction. Israel reclaimed sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland, making way for the establishment of a Jewish country after 2,000 years of statelessness and periods of persecution.
Yet despite Israel’s success in creating a new country, it did not enjoy peace with its neighbors. Terrorism and frequent attacks on three borders kept Israel in a perpetual state of alert.
To the north, from the Golan Heights, Syria shelled Jewish communities below on a regular basis. In the South and East, Arab terrorists from Egyptian-controlled Gaza and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank infiltrated and perpetrated attacks on Israeli civilians, killing 400 in the 19 years since Israeli independence.
The attacks reached the point that they were condemned as “deplorable” by then-Secretary General of the United Nations U Thant.
Although the Jewish state had been welcomed into the United Nations and hailed by the international community, its Arab neighbors rejected its very right to exist, preparing to resume a war for Israel’s destruction which they had halted 19 years earlier. The Arab buildup for all-out war was very near.
In this video - the first in a 12-part mini-series - you will learn about the regional atmosphere leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, and find out about the early steps that led to the war that changed the future of Israel.
This video was produced by Jerusalem U in partnership with The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Action Network, the European Jewish Congress and the Center for Israel Education. For more on the dramatic events and impact of the Six Day War, visit sixdaywarproject.org.
Thumbnail Photo Credit: Israel GPO/Moshe Milner -----------
While the military victory was resounding, the Six-Day War created unresolved challenges that Israel grapples with to this day. The war also bolstered America’s pro-Israel community and helped to further reinforce the foundation of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship and America’s pro-Israel community. Learn more: http://fal.cn/SixDayWarReflections
Adam Garfinkle wrote an essay for the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.
The most important lesson of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that there is no such thing as a clean war. That war was very short and stunningly decisive militarily; it has been anything but politically. From the Israeli point of view, military victory solved some serious near-term challenges, but at the cost of generating or exacerbating a host of longer-term ones—some of which may have come along anyway, some not, some of which may have been averted (or worsened) had Israeli postwar policy been different—and we cannot know for certain which are which. To ask whether what has transpired after the war “had to be that way” constitutes an aspiration to levitate the philosopher’s stone.
At any rate, of the war’s many consequences, three stand out as pre-eminent. First, major wars change the societies that fight and endure their consequences. The Six Day War changed the political, social-psychological, and, in at least one key case, demographic balances within all the participating states and a few others besides, with multiple and varying secondary and tertiary effects over the years. Second, despite the war’s after-optic of a smashing Arab loss, it was the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian national movement. And third, the war catalyzed a redirection of U.S. Cold War policy in the Middle East (and arguably beyond) from one teetering on the edge of generic failure to one of significant success.
At this fiftieth “jubilee” anniversary of the war, buckets of ink will inevitably be spilled mooting and booting about such questions and many others; a lot already has been, and I am not reluctant to add to the bucket count. But before doing so, we all need to take a deep breath to inhale as much humility as we can—to remind ourselves what exactly we are doing and what we cannot do when we exhume moldering chunks of anniversarial history for reexamination.
We are so very attracted to anniversaries in the long parade of political history. We love to draw clear lessons from them, if we can—and if we can’t some others will claim to do so anyway. We are also attracted to thinking in terms of parsimonious eras with sharp lines of delineation between them; anniversaries of turning or tipping points help us mightily to draw such lines—which is precisely why we call them epochal. Wars, mostly hot but occasionally cold, figure centrally in the pantheon of such points.
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War is all but universally considered to be epochal in this sense, so the recent ink flow is no wonder as journalists, scholars, memoirists, and others look for lessons and insight as to how those supposed sharp lines that divide eras were drawn. The subtitle of a new book furnishes a case in point: “The Breaking of the Middle East.”
There is a problem here—at least one, arguably more than one. Without yet having read this book, I cannot say for sure that this subtitle is not magnificently meaningful. But I can say for sure that it puzzles me. What does it mean to say that a region of the world is “broken”? Does it imply that before the 1967 Middle East War the region was somehow whole, a description that implies adjectives such as peaceful, stable, and nestled in the warm logic of a benign cosmos; and suggests that regional wholeness also meant that its state or regime units were seen as legitimate by their own populations and by other states and regimes? So on June 4, 1967, the Middle East was whole, and by June 11, it was well on its way to being broken?
All of which is to say that the penchant for reposing great significance in anniversaries is often distortive, because for many it reinforces the right-angled sureties and sharp distinctions—and presumed causal chains leading into our own time bearing those precious, sought-after lessons—that historical reality rarely abides. Only by rounding off the ragged edges, usually with a rasp composed of our contemporary concerns and convictions unselfconsciously pointed backwards, can such artificial categories be devised. Ambiguity annoys most people, and so they go to some lengths to duck it, in the case of getting arms around history by generating categories, boxes, and labels into which to shove obdurate facts. History, meanwhile, remains the sprawling entropic mess it has always been and will always remain.
To employ the anti-ambiguity rasp presupposes, too, that the craftsman commands cause and effect. We can, after all, only simplify a reality we presume to understand in its detail. When it comes to the Six Day War, that means presuming to know how it started and why, how it ended and why, and what the war led to thereafter in an array of categories: how the postwar geopolitical trajectory of the core Middle Eastern region and its periphery spilled forth; how the region’s relationship to the key Cold War superpower protagonists shifted; the war’s impact on the domestic political cultures of participants and near-onlookers; and more besides.
The problem here is that we know with confidence only some of these causal skeins, and, what is more (or actually less), some of what we know has not stayed constant over the past half century. At one point, say thirty years ago, we thought we understood the Soviet government’s role in fomenting the crisis by sending false reports of events in Syria to the Egyptian leadership; after the Soviet archive opened in the early 1990s, consensus on that point has weakened as revisionist interpretations have come forth. Nasser’s moving-target motives at various points in the crisis leading to war seemed clear for a time, until they no longer quite did. Several more examples of elusive once-truths could be cited.
Alas, every seminal event has a pre-context and a post-context: the convolutions of historical reality that give rise to an event and its causal afterflow. The further we get from the event, the greater the still-expanding post-context overshadows the pre-context, because we can see, for example, how various things turned out in 2017 in a way we could not have in, say, 1987. But so much else has happened that must, of necessity, dilute any construction of direct or preponderant causality.
Thus, did the war push Israeli society into becoming more religious, as many have claimed? Did it help shift Israeli politics to the Right by transforming the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, leading Orthodox Israelis to engage on many political issues to which they had been formerly aloof? Or was that a deeper social-demographic trend that would have happened anyway, if differently, war or no war? So we face a paradox: the richer the post-context becomes for any epochal event, the poorer becomes our ability to isolate its downstream impact. As already suggested, we often enough make up for that poverty by exiling natural ambiguity before the demands of our current questions or biases. That is how we predict the past.
Scholars do try to isolate causal threads, of course, but differently because intellectual business models, so to speak, differ. Historians tend to seek out particularities; political scientists tend to search for general rules. Historians like their rocks fresh and jagged; political scientists like theirs rounded by patterns that flow through time. Each to their own intellectual aesthetic.
And the rest of us? How do we chase truth in history? Consider that if you pick up a history book and a memoir old enough to serve as an adjunct to it, you will have in your hands two different perspectives on the political world. An international political history of the 1930s written in the 2010s will take a passage of reality—say about the British, French, and American reaction to the 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia—and might spend two sentences or perhaps a paragraph on it. A memoir written in the 1950s by someone actually involved in debating and shaping that reaction will read very differently, recalling details, sideways connections to other issues, and nuances of policies and personalities bound to be lost in a general text if it aspires to be less than 10,000 pages long. In a history book such a mid-level event is likely to be framed as a consequence of larger forces that were leading to more portentous happenings (say, World War II); in a memoir it is more likely to be framed as both illustration of a synthetic historical moment, akin to a zeitgeist that is fully felt but is recalcitrant to reductionist analysis, and partial cause of what came after. Which do we read; which do we trust?
The answer is both, and wholly neither. How will the Six Day War figure in history books fifty years from now? There’s no way to know, because it will depend at least as much on what happens between now and then as it will on what happened in May and June 1967. But one thing we do know: As the post-context of the war doubles, the thinness and sameness of the description will grow, and be of little help in understanding how the main actors involved saw their circumstances. It will lose a sense of human verisimilitude. Details invariably give way to theme, and narratives grow shorter even as their truth claims grow larger. The thickness of memoirs will retain that sense of human verisimilitude. But what they provide in terms of broader context may suffer from too narrow an authorial aperture, and perhaps a bad memory in service to ego protection, if not other incidental causes of inaccuracy. As with many aspects of life, intellectual and otherwise, tradeoffs spite us in our search for clarity.
The point of all this? Anniversaries are shiny. They attract a lot of attention, much of it self-interested and sentimental enough to lure some people into excessive simplifications if not outright simplemindedness. If someone will bait the hook, someone else will swallow it. We witnessed exactly such a spectacle not long ago at the 100th anniversary of Sykes-Picot, and we’ll see it again a few months hence with the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. But as Max Frankel once said, “simplemindedness is not a handicap in the competition of social ideas”—or, he might have added, historical interpretations. If it gets you on TV talk shows to sell your book, no form of simplification is liable to remain out of bounds these days. After all, what is fake history if not a collection of aged fake news?
Never mind all that: I want people to read this essay, so rest assured that I know what happened and why, and what it all means even down to today. And now that I have donned sequins and glitter, I can be almost as brief and punchy as I am shiny, as is the current custom.
What did the war mean for the region? Plenty. It proved to remaining doubters that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by conventional force of arms. It helped establish Israel’s permanence in the eyes of its adversaries, the world at large, and, to an extent, in the eyes of its own people. That changed Israel’s domestic political culture. It no longer felt to the same extent like a pressure-cooking society under constant siege, and that, along with demographic and other subterranean social trends, ironically loosened the political grip of Israel’s founding generation of leaders, and the Labor Party. Less than a decade after the war Revisionist Zionists came to power for the first time, and now, fifty years later, Israel has the most rightwing government in its history. Did the Six Day War directly cause that? Of course not; but it was one of many factors that steered Israeli politics toward its current circumstances.
The war also began the occupation, first of Golan, the West Bank, and Gaza—in time a bit less of Golan and not of Gaza at all. If you had told typical Israelis in the summer of 1967 that fifty years later the West Bank would still be essentially occupied, neither traded for peace nor annexed, they would have thought you mad or joking. Israel as an independent state was 19 years and a few weeks old on June 5, 1967. The twentieth anniversary of the war in 1987 was about the midpoint of Israel’s modern history, half within-the-Green-Line and half beyond it. Now vastly more of Israel’s history has passed with the occupation as a part of it. Many more Israelis today cannot remember Israel in its pre-June 1967 borders than can—and that includes the Arabs citizens of the state as well as their ethno-linguistic kin living in the West Bank and Gaza.
In Israel there is a huge open debate, and a constant more private discussion beneath it, as to how the occupation has changed the nature of Israeli society. It is a difficult debate to set premises for, because in fifty years a lot is going to change in any modern society, occupation or no occupation. My view, like that of most Israelis I know, is that the occupation has been significantly corrosive of many Israeli institutions. They would like the occupation to end if it could be ended safely; but increasingly most agree that it can’t be, at least anytime soon. The remarkable fact is that, considering the circumstances, the damage to morale and heart, beyond institutions, has not been even worse. Israel’s moral realism has proved resilient. But the damage has not been slight, and of course it is ongoing.
As for the Arabs, the war crushed the pretentions of Arab Socialism and of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Within what the late Malcolm Kerr called “the Arab Cold War” it played in favor of the Arab monarchies against the military-ruled republics and hence generally in favor of the West; but it did not guarantee the safety of monarchical rule everywhere: Just 27 months later the Sanusi kingdom in Libya fell to a young army colonel named Muamar Qadaffi. None of the defeated Arab states lost its leader right away: not Nasser in Egypt, or King Hussein in Jordan, or Nurredin al-Atassi in Syria. But by the late autumn of 1970 Nasser was dead and al-Atassi had been displaced by Hafez al-Assad. Rulers also rolled in Iraq, and the very next year, with the British withdrawal from East of Suez, the United Arab Emirates came into being against its own will.
The war, therefore, was one element—more important in some places than others—in a general roiling of Arab politics (and I haven’t even mentioned stability-challenged zones like Yemen and Sudan), those politics being pre-embedded, so to speak, in generically weak states (again, some more than others). Not that Arab politics was an oasis of serenity before June 1967 either, as a glance at post-independence Syrian history will show. Indeed, the contention that the Six Day War, by hollowing out the pretensions of secular Arab nationalism for all to see, presaged the “return of Islam” with which we and many others struggle today is both true and overstated—in other words, too shiny. The frailties of secular nationalism among the Arab states preceded the war and would have multiplied on account of any number and kind of failures to come, war or no war.
In any event, the political impact of the Arab loss was mitigated by the “Palestine” contradiction that then lay at the heart of Arab politics. “Palestine” was, and remains to some extent, a badge of shame, for it epitomizes the failure of the Arab states to achieve its goals. Yet it is only a badge; the persistence of the conflict, sharply inflected by the 1967 loss, has served as a raison d’être for most ruling Arab elites, their unflagging opposition to Israel as a symbol of legitimacy. In the parlous context of inter-Arab politics, too, the conflict has served as the only thing on which all the Arab regimes could symbolically unite. Non-democratic Arab elites have used the conflict both as a form of street control internally, and as a jousting lance in their relations with other Arab states.
Yet by far the most important consequence of the Arab defeat in 1967 was to free the Palestinian national movement from the clutches of the Arab states. The theory before June 1967 was that the Arab states would destroy Israel in a convulsive, epic war, and then hand Palestine over to the Palestinians. The hysteria that overtook the Arab street leading to war shows how widespread this theory was, and the war itself showed how hollow a promise it was. So the Palestinians took matters into their own hands for the first time, seizing control of the Palestine Liberation Organization from its Egyptian sponsors and reversing the theoretical dynamic of liberation: Palestinians would liberate Palestine, and that victory would supercharge and unify the Arabs to face the hydra-headed monster of Western imperialism. The key bookends of this transformation as it manifested itself in Arab politics writ large were the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, which passed responsibility for “occupied Palestine” from Jordan to the PLO, and the 1988 decision by King Hussein to formally relinquish Jordan’s association with the West Bank, which it had annexed and ruled for 18 years after the 1949 Rhodes Armistice agreements.
But how would the Palestinians themselves, led by the new and authentic PLO, liberate Palestine? They had in mind a revolutionary people’s war, an insurrection focused on the territories Israel newly occupied. It took its inspiration from lukewarm Maoism and its example from the Vietcong. The attempted insurrection in the West Bank failed miserably and rapidly; terrorist attacks mounted from east of the Jordan and across the border with Egypt became the next tactical phase as Palestinian nationalism’s organizational expression fractured. In time, Palestinian use of contiguous lands in Jordan and later in Lebanon to launch repeated terror attacks against Israeli civilians sparked civil wars in both countries. It did not bring about the “liberation” of even one square centimeter of “Palestine.”
Terrorism, however, did put the Palestinian issue “on the map” for much of the world, and now, fifty years later, Palestinians can have a state if their leaders really want one and are prepared to do what it takes to get it—the evidence so far suggesting that they don’t, and won’t. Nevertheless, looking back from fifty years’ hindsight, the Six Day War was about the best thing that could have happened for the Palestinians; that fact that they have not consolidated that windfall politically is their own doing, but everyone’s tragedy.
As to terrorism, it is true that the pusillanimous behavior of many governments in the 1970s, including some allied in NATO to the United States, helped the PLO shoot, bomb, and murder its way to political respectability. So one might venture that by helping to show that terrorism post-Six Day War can work at least to some extent, these governments bear some responsibility for the metathesis of nationalist, instrumentalist terrorism into the mass-murder apocalyptical kind we have witnessed more recently with al-Qaeda and ISIS. To me it’s another in a series of shiny arguments, more superficially attractive than fully persuasive. It is not entirely baseless, however.
But far more important than what the war did for the thinking of the Palestinians was what it did to the thinking of the Arab state leaders whose lands were now under Israeli occupation: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Before the war, Arab support for “Palestine” was highly theoretical, highly ineffectual, and in truth amounted merely to a symbolic football the Arab regimes used to compete with one another in the ethereal arena of pan-Arab fantasies. Now, suddenly, the core national interests of three Arab states—including the largest and most important one, Egypt—became directly and ineluctably entwined with the reality as opposed to the symbol of Israel.
The Egyptians, particularly after Nasser’s death brought Anwar el-Sadat to power, got downright pragmatic. Israel had something these three states wanted—chunks of their land. And the Egyptian and Jordanian leaderships, at least, knew that a price would have to be paid to redeem that pragmatism. Complications aplenty there were, as anyone who lived through the dozen years after the 1967 War knows well. Nevertheless, this critical divide among the Arabs—between state leaders who could afford to remain only symbolically engaged and those who could not—shaped inter-Arab politics then and still does to some degree today. First Egypt in March 1979 and then Jordan in October 1994 paid the price and made peace with Israel. It seemed like forever passed between June 1967 and March 1979, but it was less than a dozen years—quick by historical standards.
While Egypt recovered the entire Sinai through its peace arrangement with Israel, Jordan did not recover the West Bank. The war had shifted the political demography of the Hashemite Kingdom, sending more Palestinians to live among East Bankers—some now refugees twice over and some for the first time. The consequence was to intensify Jordan’s internalization of its problem with Palestinian nationalism: It had lost land but gained souls whose fealty to the monarchy was presumably weak. The benefit of peace to Jordan in 1984, and hence its main purpose from King Hussein’s point of view, was therefore not to regain territory but to strengthen the stake that both Israel and the United States had in Jordan’s stability in the face of future challenge from any quarter, internal and external alike.
Syria, do note, did not follow the Egyptian and Jordanian path to peace, and so the Golan Heights remain for all practical purposes part of Israel. The reasons have to do with the complex sectarian demography of the country, and specifically with the fact that since 1970 Syria has been ruled by a minoritarian sect in loose confederation with the country’s other non-Sunni minorities. The Alawi regime has needed the symbolic pan-Arab mantle of the Palestinian cause more than any other Arab state, particularly as one with a border with Israel. Regime leaders anyway did not consider the Golan to be their sectarian patrimony, but more important, peace and normalization seemed to the Syrian leadership more of a threat to its longevity (and to its ability to meddle in Lebanese affairs) than a benefit. Now that Syria as a territorial unit has dissolved in a brutal civil war, the legacy of 1967 has been rendered all but moot.
Does that mean that Egypt and Jordan essentially sold out the Palestinians, making a separate peace? Well, much political theater aside, yes. But they really had no choice, and not selling out the Palestinians would not have gained the Palestinians what they wanted anyway. That, in turn, left the Palestinians with little choice. Eventually, the PLO leadership also decided to “engage” Israel directly, but without giving up what it still called the “armed struggle.”
Its partial pragmatism, tactical in character, gained the PLO a partial advance for the Palestinians through the truncated Oslo process: a kind of government with a presence in Palestine; some “police” under arms; a transitional capital in Ramallah; wide international recognition; and more. Withal, the “territories” remain under Israeli security control, and the Palestinian economy (jobs, electricity grid, water, and more) remains essentially a hostage to Israel’s.
This has given rise to perhaps the most underappreciated irony in a conflict replete with them: First Israel internalized the Palestinian nationalist problem in June 1967 by occupying at length the West Bank and Gaza, and then the PLO internalized its Israel problem by drifting via Oslo into essential dependence on Israel for basic sustenance and even security support (against Hamas, for example). Note that it was hard for Israel to bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, but very easy to send a tank column into downtown Ramallah ten years later. It’s all so very odd, you may think, but there you have it.
The Bigger Picture
Now to the larger, international scene. What the Six Day War showed was that Soviet patronage of the Arabs and arms sales to them could deliver neither victory to the Arabs nor reflected advantage for the Soviet Union. This devalued the allure of Soviet regional overtures reassured the Western-oriented Arab regimes and hence played directly into the portfolio of U.S. and Western interests: keep the Soviets out, the oil flowing, and Israel in existence (the latter construed at the time as a moral-historical obligation, not a strategic desideratum).
The Johnson administration figured the essence out, which is why in the aftermath of the war it did not do what the Eisenhower administration did after the Suez War of 1956: pressure Israel to leave the territories it had conquered in return for promises that, in the event, turned out to be worthless. It rather brokered a new document—UNSCR 242—calling for withdrawal from territories (not “the” territories) in return for peace.
But it was not until the War of Attrition broke out in 1969 around and above the Suez Canal—a direct follow-on to the Six Day War—that the new Nixon administration codified in policy this basic strategic understanding. To prevent and if possible roll back Soviet inroads in the Middle East, the U.S. government would guarantee continued Israeli military superiority—that was the start of the major U.S. military supply relationship to Israel that endures today (the younger set may not know it, but Israel won the Six Day War with a French-supplied air force). In short, nothing the Soviets could supply or do would help the Arabs regain their lands or make good their threats. The events of the Jordanian Civil War in September 1970, and the way Nixon administration principles insisted on interpreting and speaking about that civil war, only deepened the conviction and the anchors of the policy.
On balance, the policy worked well, despite one painful interruption. By July 1972, President Sadat had sent a huge Soviet military mission packing out of Egypt, and was all but begging the United States to open a new relationship. Egypt had been by far the most critical of Soviet clients in the Middle East, and Sadat’s volte face represented a huge victory for U.S. diplomacy. Alas, neither the victory-besotted Israelis nor the increasingly distracted Americans paid Sadat the attention he craved—so he taunted the Soviets to give him just enough stuff to draw Jerusalem and Washington’s eyes his way: He started a war in October 1973. This also worked, leading as already noted to the March 1979 peace treaty—a geopolitical and psychological game-changer in the region and, ultimately, beyond.
For most practical purposes, Israel’s role as an effective proxy for U.S. power in the Middle East endured through the end of the Cold War, although its benefits paid out quietly, more often than not in what trouble it deterred as opposed to actively fought. And the Israeli-Egyptian relationship—imperfect as it may be—still endures as a guarantee that there can be no more Arab-Israeli conventional wars on the scale of 1967 or even 1973. These are both, at least partially, strategic achievements born of the conjoining of Israeli power and American diplomacy, and—it bears mentioning—these are achievements that were constructed and made to endure pretty much regardless of the state of play in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.
Obviously, the end of the Cold War put paid to the structure of this regional American strategy, its logic dissipated through victory. In that sense, the larger global strategic impact of the Six Day War ended when the Berlin Wall fell. While Israel remains a strategic partner of the United States in the post-Cold War environment, largely through intelligence sharing and other activities, its value as strategic proxy diminished as the focus of U.S. concerns moved east, toward Iraq and the Gulf. In the 1991 Gulf War, for example, Israel through no fault of its own became a complication for American policy—a target set for Iraqi scuds—not an asset, such that the U.S. government pleaded with its Israel counterpart not to use its military power against a common foe.
Amid the sectarian and proxy wars of the present moment in the region, Israeli arms lack any point of political entrée that can aid U.S. policy. Even when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, Israeli intelligence is indeed valuable but we will not see Israeli special forces attacking salafi terrorist organizations far from home. The last thing Israel needs is to persuade still more murderous enemies to gaze its way.
Only if the two parties come to focus on a common enemy—never the case during the Cold War, by the way, when for Israel the Arabs were the threat and for the United States the Soviets were the threat—could a truly robust U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership be born anew. And that common enemy, which could bring in also many Sunni Arab states and possibly Turkey as well, is of course Iran. But we are now very deep into the post-context of the Six Day War, more than six degrees of separation from any plausible causal skein leading back to June 1967.
A Smaller Picture
The war affected the political and social-psychological condition not only of state actors but of some others as well. As the Middle East crisis deepened in May 1967, I was a (nearly) 16-year old Jewish high school student in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like every American who was of age in November 1963 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I suspect that just about every Jew of age anywhere in the world in May and June of 1967 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the war had started, and how they felt when it had ended.
We had been frightened, and afterwards we were relieved and even elated. It turned out that a lot of what we thought was true about the state of affairs at the time was incorrect. That was hardly a unique experience, but more important, over time the effects of the Six Day War on American Jewry and other Jewish communities outside Israel were dramatic—and the triangular relationship between Israel, American Jewry, and the United States has never since been the same.
Figuring it all out has borne its own challenges, surprises, and disappointments. Those on all three sides who thought they knew what was going on—who was dependent on whom, who could count on whom, who had political leverage over whom, and so on—learned better, often the hard way. But none of this has involved armies with modern weapons and high-level state diplomacies interacting; no, it is truly complicated and tends to generate narratives that are very, very shiny—so let’s just leave it at that.
If You Pick Up the Gun, You Roll the Dice
Let us conclude by returning to where we began, using another’s much earlier conclusion as our prooftext. On Saturday, June 3, 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concluded a meeting of his inner cabinet with these words: “Nothing will be settled by a military victory. The Arabs will still be here.”
Eshkol (as well as the out-of-office but still prominent David Ben-Gurion) had counseled patience and restraint to Israel’s confident military leadership as the spring 1967 crisis grew, and only reluctantly came to the decision for war. Keenly sensing the ironies of history—Jewish history not least—he knew that the war would not be politically conclusive. He realized that whatever immediate threats needed to be extinguished, war would not deliver peace and security before, if ever, it delivered mixed and unanticipated consequences. He was right.
Not even the shrewdest statesmen are wise enough to foresee the consequences of a major war: When you pick up the gun, you roll the dice. That, I think, is no shiny lesson, but one more likely for the historically literate to recall the past’s many dull pains. May it help future leaders to control their own and others’ expectations if use force they must.
 I have written on the anniversary of the Six Day War before: See “Arab Loss Had Profound Effect on Politics in the Middle East,” Jewish Exponent, June 5, 1987; “1967: One War Won, a Few Others Started,” Newsday, April 30, 1998; and “Six Days, and Forty Years,” The American Spectator, June 5, 2007.
 Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale University Press).
 See, for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007).
 On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American Interest Online, May 16, 2016.
 For detail on what is meant by “pre-embedded” in “generically weak states,” see my “The Fall of Empires and the Formation of the Modern Middle East,” Orbis (Spring 2016).
 A point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.
 I have written of this triangular relationship elsewhere: “The Triangle Connecting the U.S., Israel and American Jewry May Be Coming Apart,” Tablet, November 5, 2013.
Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago
The Foreign Policy Research Institute, founded in 1955, is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. In the tradition of our founder, Ambassador Robert Strausz-Hupé, Philadelphia-based FPRI embraces history and geography to illuminate foreign policy challenges facing the United States. More about FPRI »
Foreign Policy Research Institute · 1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610 · Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 1.215.732.3774 Fax: 1.215.732.4401 www.fpri.org
There is a problem in cities spread across Europe with Muslim enclaves. These enclaves are a Third-World Muslim brutality transplanted into Europe. The Muslim brutality is so pervasive that they are often dubbed as No-Go Zones for non-Muslims, too often even applying to police authority.
SADLY, America’s Left Stream Media have thrown themselves into full scale Multiculturalist denial of the facts demonstrating No-Go Zones in European Muslim Enclaves is a painful reality. Dear God, even the Conservative to Left Stream Media in Fox News issued an apology for airing the No-Go Zone phenomena in European cities.
European Multiculturalist’s most hated Counterjihadist Fjordman wrote the facts back in April 2017:
In January 2015 The New York Times denied that there are "no-go-zones" -- areas that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to sharia law -- dominated by certain immigrant groups in some urban areas in Western Europe. The American newspaper mentioned this author, alongside writers such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, for spreading this alleged falsehood. The article was published shortly after Islamic terrorists had massacred the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015. Other established media outlets such as the magazine The Atlantic also dismissed claims of no-go-zones.
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology for allowing its anchors and guests to repeat the suggestion that there are Muslim "no-go zones" in European countries such as Britain and France.
Regarding the subject of "no-go-zones," this is largely a question of semantics. If you say that there are some areas where even the police are afraid to go, where the country's normal, secular laws barely apply, then it is indisputable that such areas now exist in several Western European countries. France is one of the hardest hit: it has a large population of Arab and African immigrants, including millions of Muslims.
In an essay published in February 2016, Stockholm police inspector Lars Alvarsjö warned that the Swedish legal system is close to collapse. The influx of asylum seekers and ethnic gangs has overwhelmed the country and its understaffed police force. In many suburbs, criminal gangs have taken control and determine the rules. The police, fire brigades and ambulance personnel in these areas are routinely met with violent attacks.
In December 2016, the American Jewish documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitztold the story of his venture into Husby. A few seconds after they arrived, five men approached them. They said "You guys gotta get out of here right now." The film crew, being Swedish, turned around and ran for it. Horowitz decided to stay and try to figure this thing out with the men.
Edmund Kozak writing for Lifezette spells out Ami Horowitz’s story of a Swedish No-Go Zone:
Filmmaker Ami Horowitz recently encountered the all-too-real brutality to be found in a Muslim “no-go” zone in Sweden.
“When they dragged me into that building, that’s really when I thought, ‘They’re going to end my life here,'” Horowitz told LifeZette. Horowitz painted a vivid picture of the extent of the danger of Muslim no-go zones in Sweden — even the police fear them, he said.
As Horowitz noted, liberals love to pretend that Muslim no-go zones — Muslim neighborhoods to which even the authorities are afraid to venture and in which Sharia law is the rule and non-Muslims are attacked on sight — are little more than a figment of paranoid conservative imaginations. But as Horowitz would find out for himself, they are very much a horrifying reality.
“Literally moments after I stepped into the town, a gang of five clearly Islamic men approached my crew, and they attacked me without provocation,” he continued. “They repeatedly punched, kicked and choked me, as a number of bystanders watched. Eventually they dragged me into a building, which at the time I assumed was to finish me off. Once inside the apartment building vestibule, they resumed their vicious attack. But seconds later someone opened an apartment door directly above us, and it luckily spooked them enough to run away,” wrote Horowitz.
While it is nearly impossible to gauge the full extent of the no-go zone problem, it is safe to say there are hundreds of no-go areas scattered throughout Europe. A March 2016 report published by the Hungarian government found 900 areas across Europe.
In France alone, where no-go areas are euphemistically referred to as “zones urbaines sensibles” — sensitive urban zones — the government counts over 750 such zones. In Sweden, the number could be “as high as 50, [but] the police who I spoke with … estimated there to be about 20-30,” Horowitz said.
In the United Kingdom, “you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts [of London] when you are working,” a London police officer told Breitbart News in December 2015. Also in December 2015, a police officer from Lancashire in northern England told the Daily Mail that, “there are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission.”
Germany also has its problems with no-go zones. In July 2015, a routine traffic stop in Gelsenkirchen turned into a nightmare when officers tried to carry out their duty. “During the arrest, the two officers were surrounded by about 50 members of a large family who suddenly appeared on the side streets,” local news reported.
The mob tried to intimidate the officers into dropping the arrest, but when that failed, a 15-year-old attacked the officers from behind and started choking one. The situation only returned to calm after backup arrived. “It was only with the summoned reinforcements that the police were able to put the situation back under control and arrest the youthful attacker,” the report said.
It does not take a rocket scientist that violence and murders against Europeans are largely the end result of carte blanche immigration of Muslims. These same Muslims have not and will not assimilate into the Western Culture. Thanks to the errors of Multiculturalism these Muslims are encouraged to retain the Medieval mentality that Islam is stuck in globally.
This Medieval mentality has bred a Muslim hatred into second and third generation Muslims descended from first generation immigrants. Islam teaches superiority over all things non-Muslim. Hence, in refusing assimilation logically leads to resentment of 21st century Westerners not inclined to submit Medieval cultural thinking.
These next-gen Muslims then are attracted to the concepts of what Westerners call Radical Islam. Enter Islamic terrorism into a European society that Multiculturalist politicians are in self-deceived denial which if continues, will likely result in the END of Western heritage that will be subsumed into an Islamized continent.
This Multiculturalist idiocy MUST NOT be allowed to metastasize in America! I wish I could use the phrase “not gain a toe-hold” in America, but thanks to the Obama years, Medieval-minded Muslim have already been brought in en masse to enlarge American-hating Muslim communities that have already formed non-assimilation zones in the U.S. of A.
John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled. President (“Understanding The Threat”) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Please support The Glazov Gang because we are a fan-generated show and need your help to keep going. Make a contribution or set up a monthly pledge. Thank you!
From Minneapolis (MN) to Hamtramck (MI) to Falls Church (VA) to Paterson (NJ) and many other towns and cities across the fifty states, the Islamic Movement is quietly conquering America.
The federal government sleeps, many state governments – including those controlled by Republicans – do their best to accommodate muslims waging Civilization Jihad against America, and the hard-left Marxists – including nearly all of the local and national media – are collaborators in the enemy’s efforts.
As UTT has previously reported, Minneapolis, Minnesota is currently enemy-held territory and will require force to take back.
Hamtramck, Michigan is a small suburb of Detroitistan, and is the first town in America to have a majority muslim city council. This formerly Polish-Catholic town has been overrun by sharia-adherent muslims who have already achieved accommodations for sharia in the community.
Falls Church, Virginia is home to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center. The Muslim Brotherhood leader of Dar al Hijra, Sheikh Shaker Elsayed (former President of the MB’s Muslim American Society), recently gave a lecture promoting female genital mutilation. Dar al Hijra is a jihadi factory whose property is owned by the MB’s bank NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).
Al Qaeda’s Anwar al Awlaki was the Imam of the Dar al Hijra beginning in January 2001 and serving for over a year there.
The community around Dar al Hijra has been taken over by sharia-adherent muslims. Law enforcement calls the two twin apartment buildings in the area “Taliban Towers,” and the number of jihadis in this area of Northern Virginia, only minutes from the nation’s capital, is significant.
Historically, Paterson, New Jersey has been a melting pot of Irish, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Eastern Europeans and others. Christians and Jews made a home in this town approximately 20 miles outside of New York City.
Now, estimates put the number of muslims in Paterson at over 30% of the total population. This number – possibly over 40,000 – makes Paterson, New Jersey the town with the one of the highest concentrations of muslims in the United States. Many Turks and Syrians are a part of the muslim community, but the majority are Palestinians/Hamas. Many citizens are concerned for their safety and security.
What do these four communities – Paterson, Falls Church, Minneapolis, and Hamtramck – have in common?
Muslims concentrated their efforts in these communities, built up their numbers, and then asked for accommodations. Once their numbers were significant enough, they made DEMANDS of local officials to accommodate sharia.
Islamic leaders (read: Muslim Brotherhood et al) purchased numerous plots of land in these communities – often with funds from Saudi Arabia – and began building of Mosques/Islamic Centers, Islamic schools, etc.
Once the mosques were built, land immediately around the mosque was purchased for muslims and, over time, muslims began occupying the land around the mosque up to a radius of approximately 3 miles.
Islamic organizations (read: Muslim Brotherhood) began outreaching to local Christian and Jewish leaders, as well as law enforcement and elected officials with positive results. The majority of Pastors and Rabbis stood/stand with jihadis (“terrorists”) and publicly defend them because the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Interfaith Outreach” efforts work; many elected officials believe they “have to” meet with jihadi leaders to show how “progressive and open minded” they are; and law enforcement remains unaware of the grave threat growing like a cancer in their communities.
Collaborators in the media wrote/write glowing stories about how wonderful the jihadis muslims are and defend them right up to and, in some cases, after they kill Americans (eg New York Times defending Anwar al Awlaki after the U.S. government killed him because he was the Al Qaeda leader in Yemen).
Elected officials defend and even promote the jihadis. Example: Mayor Jones in Paterson, NJ raised the Palestinian flag over the City Hall and declared “Palestinian-American Day.”
Cities which stand up against this onslaught, at least under the previous administration, find themselves fighting a lawsuit from the Department of Justice and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups. In Bernard Township, NJ the town council said no to Islamic leaders’ request to build an Islamic center/mosque for a number of reasons. The DoJ and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Center of Basking Ridge sued and forced the city to allow the mosque be built.
As each day goes by the problem gets worse and the enemy digs in and enhances their fighting positions in the United States.
UTT encourages all Americans to pay attention to what is going on around them in their community. The enemy is inside the wall. A muslim representing an Islamic organization has a 99.9% probability of being a jihadi because all of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are jihadi/hostile as a matter of fact. Islamic leaders may give a friendly appearance, but they want what ISIS an Al Qaeda want – an Islamic state under sharia.
What are you doing to prevent your town from surrendering to the jihadis in your community? Are you holding your leaders accountable? Are you boldly speaking truth? Do you understand the threat?
Sheriffs and Pastors are the most important people in this war. We will attain victory when sheriff’s and their deputies understand the threat and aggressively go after it. Law Enforcement can only do this if the citizens also understand the threat. Pastors are the key to ensuring that happens, so they must speak truth in love to open the eyes of the American people.
Understanding the Threat provides threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, training, and education for federal, state, and local leadership and agencies in government, the private sector, and for private citizens. UTT is the only organization in America which is training leaders, elected officials, law enforcement, military personnel, and citizens, about the Global Islamic Movement and the jihadi networks in communities around the nation. UTT is also the only organization showing security professionals and state leaders how to locate and map out jihadi organizations, locate jihadis, and dismantle the network at the local and state level. While UTT briefs and teaches about many of the threats external and internal to the United States, its primary concern is the threats to the Republic and the West in general from the Global Islamic Movement.
About John Guandolo
John Guandolo is the Founder of UnderstandingtheThreat.com, an organization dedicated to providing strategic and operational threat-focused consultation, education, and training for federal, state and local leadership and agencies, and designing strategies at all levels of the community to defeat the enemy.
Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who took a commission as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served with …READ THE REST
This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.