When black millionaire sports star Colin Kaepernick kneels for the flag, he disrespects America. Not Republicans, not Democrats, not black or white, but America.
In the Pledge of Allegiance, it states loyalty to the land and the flag. Not the President, not to any of the political parties and certainly not any ideology.
Since 9/11, 2001, during football games there are helicopters and fighter jets that patrol the skies above. Military and security; both visible and undercover, who do their duty to serve and protect, against all enemies foreign and domestic. Not because of their political affiliation, and not because of what they think are the political affiliations of the audience. They do this because of the flag. They do this because of the flag that they believe in and the nation state under which those laws must be upheld. They do it because the terrorists that want us dead don't care either about left or right, they want to kill us because of that flag.
And the same goes for those that went abroad and never came home.
Duty and history called and they stepped up. They responded and gave the ultimate sacrifice, and were prepared for the ultimate sacrifice for the principles of freedom for all those who live under that flag. In their action, they brought to life the commandment 'Liberty and justice for all'.
For his disrespect, Colin wasn't incarcerated. Not locked up. Only criticised. Unlike Tommy Robinson who was imprisoned for a year in the UK for daring to speak out against the tyrannical UK Government's agenda.
This makes kaepernick's protest unjust, illegitimate, empty. So Colin's protesting because America isn't perfect? All because there have been some bad men along the way? His protest disrespects all those who fought injustices. Those that fought against slavery and segregation. Every one of those that knowingly entered battle against evil and never came home again.
When you protest the flag, you are protesting history and the best that America and mankind had to offer. When you protest that, you no longer remain an American; you no longer remain a good person. You become an enemy of humanity and an enemy of a nation that has granted its citizens every freedom Gd Himself has granted upon mankind.
And yet again, what does the nation that you protest and despise so much say about this act of malice and of utter disrespect?
That it is your right to do so.
Gd bless all those who serve and especially this memorial weekend all those who did not come home again. Let not their sacrifice be in vein...
Once again like clockwork, whenever we see Israel come under attack from one of its neighbours, we see the bimbos and himbos of Hollywood come out and use their celebrity status to inform us ignorant mortals of just how righteous and worthy of praise they are.
In recent days, actors Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem penned an open letter claiming that Israel defending itself in Operation Protective Edge against genocidal fanatics is, well... genocide.
You might wonder why, with Spain's history of subjugation under Islam for 700 years, Pen and Jav, (and Spaniards in general), aren't more knowledgeable or even aware of what Israel is up against.
Under Islamic belief, a territory that was once conquered by Muslims remains Islamic for eternity. If the land is freed from Islam, as happened with Spain in 1492, then Muslims consider it 'occupied'.
As such, Spain shares exactly the same 'legal' status as Israel under Islamic law (and they're not the only ones). More urgently than other, as yet unconquered territories, these 'occupied' lands must be brought back under the rule of Islam. It is a matter of pride for Islamic supremacists worldwide. A very good litmus test to do if you're engaging a Muslim to see whether they're radical is to ask them about such lands, especially Israel.
Thus if Israel belongs to Muslims simply because they once invaded it then so does Spain. If Muslims have more right to Israel than the Jews - no matter how much evidence there is to show Jews lived in Israel thousands of years before of the existence of Islam - then Spaniards certainly have no claim whatsoever to Spain.
Spain Under Islam Had iPhones, Or Something
There is so much fiction written about Islamic history in Israel as well as the Islamic occupation of Spain, that it would be impossible to debunk all of those myths here. But suffice it to say that Spain's brutal and horrific conquest of the Americas came directly as a result of being under Islamic occupation. The behaviours of the Spanish in the new world (Conquistadors) mirrored exactly those of the Muslims they had been subjected to for the 700 years leading up to these events, when Spain was in a near-total state of 'holy' war for virtually the entire duration of the Islamic occupation. The same goes for the Inquisition (convert or die; sound familiar?). But if you're interested in reading a debunking of just some of the 'Golden Age' myths, here's an article I penned for the JDL blog a while back.
Oh and here's a video which fits right into that article
What Pen And Jav's Attitudes Show
Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem display key behaviours dhimmis are required to display when under Islamic rule. They are totally subservient to their masters and adopt their likes and dislikes in order to win favour with their Muslim overlords. They are silent on genocides around the world (especially in the Muslim world) when it is unimportant or harmful to the Islamisation project (such as Syrian Christians being beheaded or crucified) but on cue, these historical illiterates claim the worst charge against the only Jewish country in the world when the intentions of the Jews' enemies could hardly be clearer.
Although the Hollywood couple live in the US, they are still for all intents and purposes a purely European product. It has been well documented that Europe is being Islamised. A central part of Islam is hatred, especially hatred of Jews. Thus while Spain is in the process of being reconquered (culturally this time around), the demonisation of Jews must occur as part of the cultural transformation that needs to take place in order for Islam to be accepted. And lefties with their own history of antisemitism and blood-libels against the Jewish state are only too happy to go along with this.
Pen and Jav's behaviour is compliant in other ways as well. Bad publicity, shedding a spotlight on Muslim atrocities elsewhere in the world, such as the frequent massacres in Nigeria, or the ethnic cleansing going on in Thailand or the Philippines, would go against the project of Islamisation; if people are aware of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity generally committed by Muslims against 'infidels', then there is little chance of them accepting Muslims in their midsts. By Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem being silent on atrocities occurring worldwide, they are showing us the Islamic values they've been exposed to historically and are being prepared for once again.
Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper was right when he said 'historically, those that are enemies of the Jews are enemies of civilisation as well.' The disease which Cruz and Bardem are cursed with will extol a far greater price from the financially crippled Spain than it will from the Jewish people or Israel.
NOTICE: In light of the recent escalation of violence in the Philippines with a 'peace' process ongoing, I publish this article penned almost a year ago (Oct 2012) which was almost completed, but I didn't get the chance to finalise and post until now.
Oct 2012: The US State Dept. has just released some depressing news. After many centuries of successful resistance, the Philippine government has decided to surrender; to enter into negotiations with Islamic terrorists, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), in order to create a foothold in the Southern Philippine province of Mindanao.
To read Hillary Clinton's statement, all one need do is replace the names and places, and it sounds like something out of the Israel-Arab 'peace' process (a 'peace' that claimed more lives than the actual war).
"The United States welcomes the announcement of the framework agreement between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. This agreement is a testament to the commitment of all sides for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the southern Philippines. The next steps will be to ensure that the framework agreement is fully implemented. We encourage all parties to work together to build peace, prosperity and greater opportunities for all the people of the Philippines."
Hillary Clinton
Unfortunately, despite the fact that many unsuspecting people in the Philippines might feel a sense of relief at this announcement (as I did back in 1993 when seeing Israel and the Palestinians reached a historic peace deal), the sad fact is that Muslims do not enter into negotiations unless it is to their advantage, to buy time if their side is too weak to fight, and the peace deals are always broken. They have always done this and always will. Since the Prophet Mohammed's time, peace treaties have been used as tactical devices in order to gain an advantage over an enemy. The only times peace agreements are kept is when it suits the leaders (ie in the case of Egypt, Mubarak kept the peace agreement with Israel as Egypt wasn't strong enough to take on Israel. Had Mubarak started a war with Israel, his regime would have been destroyed and Mubarak would have lost US aid besides. It was therefore tactically advantageous to him to keep peace).
From left: Rabin, Clinton and Arafat
Reuters reports that this is the first time in a 15 year period a roadmap has been agreed between the government and the terrorists to create an autonomous region by 2016.
In typical appeasement fashion, the notorious news agency attempts to whitewash aggression by the Muslims and defensive actions by the government and claims: "it is hoped, both sides will keep their sides of the agreement" which is an insulting statement, as if there's any danger of Manilla breaking any agreements.
This kind of talk is straight out of the State Department's peace-process playbook. It is dangerous because it puts a legitimate government of a sovereign state on an equal level to terrorists. In other words, it elevates the terrorist's legitimacy and brings down the government's legitimacy.
Second, the State Department will insist that neither side speak badly of each other in their radio and TV broadcasts (if the Muslims in S.Philippines actually have radio broadcasts. I'm sure they do).
The State Dept. will tell you this is in order to move both sides forward. If one side or another is demonising the other side, then it makes peace that much more difficult. This is another danger. What happens is that the non-Muslim news service not only doesn't say anything bad about the Muslims, it starts to lie about them and ignore their acts of terror. This is extremely serious as it affects free speech and freedom of information. Which is obviously a threat to democracy/freedom/safety.
There have been several times over the last few years when a full war has been waged on the streets of Israel, and the media have remained silent. This is in order not to anger people but means they are putting their lives at risk if they go to certain areas.
Psychology
In terms of the emotions in a situation like a 'peace' process, it is important to remember two things. First, non-Muslims tend to feel a sense of magnanimity in these circumstances; most non-Muslim people and/or leaders wouldn't mind the aforementioned whitewashing of Muslim behaviour if it means moving towards peace. Second, as negotiations are a tactical part of waging war against the infidel (Mohammed said 'war is deceit'), it states in the Quar'an that Allah has placed a softness in the hearts of the infidel which the believer (Muslim) must use to his advantage.
But as someone who's seen and lived the pain of the Israeli 'peace' process, all I have to do is look at what happened within Israel and simply predict what will happen in the Philippines. Here are any number of scenarios:
1. All of this talk of negotiations will remain just that, talk.
The Muslims, in order to continue waging jihad against the sovereign state, will create another terror group (or use a currently existing Islamic terror group, Abu Sayyef?) to continue attacking and carrying out acts of terror. All the while, the MILF who are negotiating with the government will claim they can do little to control this 'breakaway' faction.
The truth is that this is simply a tactical game, and Muslims are masters of psychological warfare. The MILF might say more concessions could help calm the situation. The complete opposite is true. The more concessions given, the more this will encourage the terrorists because it shows a weakening of the Philippine government's will.
2. Peace will be achieved, but will be broken after a few years (under ten). In Israel after the signing of the Oslo Accords, terror chief Yasser Arafat broke off negotiations to return to war, six years after agreeing to negotiations. On top of this, leftist Israeli leaders (such as Shimon Peres) who received many benefits from the US in order to appease the terrorists actually helped arm the terrorist Palestinian 'police' force to 3 times the agreed size. Add to that, the misguided notion by then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (1996-99) that he could bribe the Palestinians by lulling them into the lap of luxury by helping to develop their economy and standard of living. Nothing worked.
The Muslims 'Palestinians' simply used the 'peace' process to give them time to re-arm and train a whole new army of fighters.
The Second Intifada (really just a continuation of the jihad against the Jews) lasted from 2000 to 2005. More than 1600 innocent Jewish lives were lost. But the 'peace' processors in America weren't finished. Under the leadership of George W Bush (no less), Israel was forced to give up Gaza and even remove its own citizens from there. As many Filippinos know all too well, the result has been tens of thousands of rockets fired by Hamas into Israel.
This effectively rewarded a five year terror war. From Israel's perspective, it thought it was being generous. From the Islamic viewpoint, it saw the tactic of violence as reaping many rewards, which encouraged them to do more. A Clash of Civilisations
The sad fact is that Islam isn't compatible with any other religious group on this earth. Normal people want peace, Muslims want war. Muslims think dying is good, we think dying is bad. And we certainly don't want to kill anyone else, unless it is to defend ourselves. Unfortunately, the Islamic religion is based on war and proof of the Musilm's ability to fight and kill unimaginable numbers of people can be witnessed in the chronicles of the Islamic invasions of India.
US State Dept.
The Philippines, like Israel, has received much from the great alliance with the USA. Naturally, the US has also received much in return from these friendships. But it is important to know that US foreign policy is run by 'Arabists', American diplomats totally enthralled by the Arabs and their oil. These are the kinds of people who accuse Jews in America of having dual loyalty (more loyalty to Israel than to America), but in fact their loyalty is to the Arab oil-rich Gulf states; the countries who fund the Taliban and al Qaeda and who want to bring America down.
Unfortunately, America has far too many problems at the moment and the good people of America can't cope with another issue right now. Outside friends need to understand that while Americans are our friends, the American diplomatic corps cannot be trusted. They will push 'peace' upon us as a weapon to make the Gulf Arab nations happy. Because through 'peace' processes, Islam can defeat far more powerful armies and succeed in conquering us...
"According to local police agencies, at least 6 people were killed and 28
others injured in a bomb blast outside the commercial center in the
city of Cagayan de Oro, Mindanao province, southern Philippines."
The campaign to terrorise and ethnically cleanse the S.Philippines of non-Muslims continues despite 'peace' talks. This should tell you everything you need to know about the Muslim's intentions for 'peace'.
"...The bishop added: “Violence does not solve problems; it makes our
problems worse. The death, for example, of a soldier or a rebel makes
orphans out of children and widows out of mothers.”
He continued: “We join other peace advocates and strongly urge the Philippine
Government and the National Democratic Front to return to the
negotiating table and resume the peace negotiations as soon as possible."
The Reverend is a man of Gd and therefore a man of peace.He doesn't wish to escalate things (unlike the imams in the south, no doubt). He wishes to calm things. Such well intentioned statements are exactly the kinds of language I warned about above.
The Philippines is in a state of war and doesn't want to acknowledge this, just like Israeli diplomats. Because if they acknowledge there is a war on, they'll have to fight. And also as mentioned above, this is something we non-Muslims try to avoid.
Unfortunately with Islam, there is no choice. You either fight or don't fight. You either win or lose; and if you lose with Islam, you lose everything (to use the words of Pat Condell).
The jihad in the Philippines has been going on for centuries. The Muslims will never give up unless the Philippines (and Israeli) government decides to win this war once and for all. But there is an obvious gorilla breathing down our necks in the form of the US of A.
The Philippines, like Israel, is of vital strategic importance to US foreign policy. Therefore, the Arabists at the State Dept. effectively waging diplomatic war on its Asian ally at a time when China is throwing its weight around the region makes no sense whatsoever.
My advice to the Philippines gov (as well as to the Israeli gov) is to build your resources so that if in an emergency, your country will be able to function independently of America.
In Dore Gold's The Rise Of Nuclear Iran, Gold predicts a nuclear strike
isn't the first threat the world will face. The most likely scenario is that Iran
would use their nuclear weapons as an umbrella, a shield of protection while
Hezbollah and others carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
How can we know this for sure? Because it has already happened with Pakistan.
No sooner had Pakistan
acquired nuclear weapons (a significant failure of US foreign policy) did al Qaeda
make its first strike. In May 1998, Pakistan carried out its first
successful nuclear test. By August of the same year, al Qaeda had
simultaneously struck two US
embassies in East Africa, killing more than
200 people and injuring many more. This was also the same year Osama bin Laden
declared jihad on America.
Of course, the
reason American presidents and diplomats have remained silent on Pakistan's role in all this is because the US is attempting to keep Pakistan within its sphere of
influence. Thus the US could
hardly call Pakistan a major
problem in the worldwide fight to defeat Islamic terrorism, and still expect Pakistan to cooperate with the US.
And for anyone doubting the connection between al Qaeda and Pakistan
consider where OBL was assassinated. If you know your history of the creation
of the Taliban and al Qaeda, you'll know that America,
along with Saudi petro-dollars went into funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan
against Soviet invaders. All monies were channeled through Pakistan, and funds were only given
to those militants with a similar religious belief. Ahmed Shah Masoud of the
Northern Alliance, for example, received nothing from the Pakistanis, despite
having done his fair share (or more than his fare share, if you believe his own
accounts) of repelling the Russian invaders.
IRAQ: A FAILURE OR THE KEY TO
VICTORY?
I often wondered why in the war on terror the allied forces only seemed
to target countries whose connection to Islamic terrorism were secondary: Afghanistan and Iraq. What about the state sponsors:
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and to a lesser extent, Iran?
On the face of
it, this seemed illogical. Although Afghanistan
is obviously where the Taliban ruled, al Qaeda had many training bases and OBL
was hiding, it was Pakistan,
with Saudi petro-dollars, that was funding the madrassas. It was Saudi Arabia
that was funding the construction of mosques worldwide with the
Wahabi-compliant imams that now do their share of the Islamic burden, churning
out terrorists (such as the Boston Bombers). Thus fighting in terrorist
'backwaters' seemed to be like standing at the end of a long conveyor belt,
shooting the terrorists as they came off the production line, but leaving the
factory and its machinery unscathed...
But by 2003, Iraq
had been under heavy sanctions and also happened to have colossal oil reserves
big enough to rival the Saudis. Even though in terms of state sponsorship of
terrorism, Iraq had taken
part in terror operations against the US, it was a long way down the list
of priorities in terms of terrorism prevention. Take out al Qaeda, take out the
state sponsors of terrorism and you'd likely never hear from Saddam again.
However, just taking out a country like Saudi
Arabia wasn't so easy because of Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.
The possible way around all this seems to have been a little bit of
chess. Take out Saddam. Rebuild Iraq, lift sanctions, get her oil pumping again
which would help to rebuild the country, and this would also have the effect of
significantly reducing the Saudi revenues, and cut off not only al Qaeda but
Pakistan's main source of finance as well.
In the last few years we've seen exactly this come to fruition. Iraq
has significantly cut into the house of Saud's oil profits with the result that
the Saudis are panicking. It's not only that the Saudis are having to share world
oil profits with Iraq, it's that Western countries are also finding ways of
becoming energy independent (thanks in large part to Israeli innovations in the
technique of extracting oil from rock, known as fracking). As a result of this, the usual idiots have come out with scare stories about fracking, chief among them actor Matt Damon.
But there is one major problem along this road: Barack Obama. By taking out Iraq, the Americans were removing the single largest buffer to Iranian hegemony in the region and throughout the world. But by pulling
out of Iraq so soon, Obama
effectively gave Iraq to Iran. Iraq, a neighbour of Iran, is teeming with Iranian agents.
Tehran would
only need to give the word, and the Iranian agents working as bodyguards to
many Iraqi officials would carry out their duties, whether this means
assassinations or anything else.
The other
problem is that Iraq has been
helping Iran
skirt sanctions. This means that it can simply carry on with its nuclear
program. With America's poor history when it comes to stopping nuclear
proliferation (and don't forget the fiasco over N.Korea acquiring nukes), it's
a safe bet that if left to Obama, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. Certainly,
there isn't much room for interpretation when watching how Obama delays and
plays Israeli PM Netanyahu, promising to deliver bunker busting bombs (Israel
has been waiting since 2009), and then doesn't. The latest proof of Obama's
intrasience when it comes to the Iranian threat is getting the EU to boycott the bits of Israel it doesn't like as a means of pressuring Israel to come to the negotiating table with
the people that vow to wipe the Jews off the map.
After more than 10 years of
failed negotiations with Iran,
this leaves us only with the military option.
Oil has obviously been a boon for the Islamic world and we've seen the
resurgence of Islamic power/terrorism in conjunction with the resurgence in
their oil revenues. The US
has only had a decade of wars and is already critically weak economically (partly
because of those wars, but mostly because of the left). It does not take much
imagination to see what the world will be like if the 1400 year old sunni/shia
rivalry occurs under the immunity of a nuclear umbrella.
In my first post here on EOS, I wrote about the significance of the date of 9/11. Since then, it has become clear that not only do jihadists use anniversaries for attacks, but that the numbers in the dates themselves have significance; with the emphasis on odd numbers.
During the 9/11 hijackings, many more clues were given about which numbers hold significance. American Airlines flight 11 and 77 were hijacked. The London terrorist
bombings occurred on July 7th (7/7). A United
Airlines flight 175 was hijacked (read Sura II verse 175. For context sura II verse 174). Taking 175 and changing it to a date 17/5 (using the British calendar system of placing the date first, followed by month) we have the 17th of May. This was the date, in 1987, when Saddam launched an Exocet missle at the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors. Also the Madrid bombings were
carried out on March the 11th 2004 (3/11).
The most famous flight of 9/11, United 93, became well known thanks to the heroic actions of its passengers as they learnt about the other hijackings that had taken place that day, and decided to fight their kidnappers ultimately crashing the plane in Pennsylvania. All the passengers on board died. But 93 was the year (1993) of the first WTC bombing.
However, the date of the 1993 bombing was February 26th. Obviously no odd numbers there. But on Feb 26th, 1989, the US army officially withdrew from Lebanon. On the same date in 1991, Saddam ordered the withdrawal of his occupying forces from Kuwait. Given the strong evidence that Iraq was involved in the first WTC bombing, this is more than likely the reason for the date of the first attempt to destroy the WTC.
But odd numbers don't only relate to terror operations. According to Islamic sources (PDF document) on shari'ah, an odd number of prayers must be recited during daily prayers. The entire first chapter (sura) of the Quar'an consists only of 7 short verses.
The terrorist 'Palestinian' leaders of the PA, attempted to have a Palestinian State declared in September of 2011 (thus 9/11). Achieving statehood would've meant a significant milestone in the Arabs war to exterminate Israel. The State of Palestine would be able to launch one war crimes investigation after another against Israel through the UN (and as we have seen, accusations of massacres in the past have been fabricated, the most successful of which being the Goldstone Report). In addition, Israel would have no legal authority to check shipments going in and out of the West Bank, effectively meaning the importing of any amount of weapons.
As for 9/11, in the Quar'an, Sura (chapter) 9 verse 111 is the most chilling. The verse talks about believers (Muslims) killing and being killed for Islam, and in exchange receiving paradise from Allah. Reading this verse, and the authoritative commentary along with it (Quar'an IEC 2nd edition. Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)), it's not hard to imagine these verses were going through the minds of the hijackers, in the run up to their mission.
In fact, chapter (sura) 9 in the Quar'an is one of the most violent of all. Muslims believe that the 9th chapter of the Quar'an came about in the 9th year of the hijra. Meaning it was written 9 years after Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina, and from his new base of operations in Medina set about planning how to conquer the rest of Arabia, and from there the rest of the Middle East and the world.
The Odd-Numbers Theory Today
On the last anniversary of 9/11 (the tenth anniversary), tensions were high as people were expecting some sort of attack given the significance of a decade passing since the attacks. But I remember positing the above theory and being skeptical that an attack would take place. Thankfully, an attack never came. But could that be because of what we now know above? Ten is obviously not an odd number...
Today, I received my copy of Secret Weapon by Kevin Freeman. In the book, Freeman explains not only how the Western economies are being destroyed using financial products as weapons, but that we're in a final stage (the Third Act, as he calls it) of a monetary and fiscal attack.
Nobody could have missed the 2008 economic crash. But amazingly, Freeman reveals, It came on the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, on September 11th, 2008.
Here is an important lecture by Freeman of his concepts, how economic terrorism works, and what happened in the 2008 economic meltdown.This has already been approved by US Congressmen, intelligence officials; and Freeman has now briefed the CIA.
Clearly the US is extremely vulnerable (in large part thanks to President Obama's stimulus, as well as the community organisers, with the help of President Clinton, overloading the housing markets). This ties together all the projects of George Soros, the Saudi sponsored al Qaeda's war on the US, and shari'ah finance. But the last remaining piece of the puzzle is when the final attack itself will occur?
Maybe a financial attack is connected to the upcoming 9/11 anniversary, which will be the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks 2001, maybe it won't be financial. But I am certain from the data above (and there is a lot more of it), that this anniversary (2012) will be a lot more significant than last year's 10th anniversary of 9/11.
The intention of writing this is not to cause alarm, but it is written in the hope of providing the relevant authorities a possible insight and key date in order to prepare. Hopefully the readers will also make some preparations too. To some, this may be hard to believe and easy to dismiss. Just like standing in downtown Manhattan on 10th September 2001, and telling people that the towers would be brought down the next day.
As time goes by, defending Israel gets
easier and easier, even though the demonization of Israel gets worse and worse.
With things like Hamas posting videos and setting up websites to show how good life is in Gaza (to try and promote tourism), the claims of the anti-Israeli
campaigners becomes more and more absurd. What isn’t absurd, however, and something far
more sinister, are those still pushing the same narrative about Israeli brutality/oppression and 'Palestinian' victims, regardless of what happens on the ground.
Propaganda vs Reality
Whether it’s the types of unapologetic, open and unrestrained Anti-Semitic attacks on the streets of Europe, or mass terror operations (such as 7/7), the instant explanation by Muslims and their apologists is “it’s all because of Israel”.
Gaza City - What, no bomb damage??
So why do this? What is the purpose of portraying a wildly different reality of Israel? If the likes of the BDS mob were really about fighting against injustice, then surely the improvement in the quality of life of the so-called 'Palestinians' should ease the calls to boycott Israel. The reason this isn't happening reveals the true motives behind the Israel-apartheid/BDS campaigns and also the real face of the proponents of the Muslim/victim narrative. If Arabs are shown not only to be living in decent conditions, but superb conditions, then there cannot very well be any justification for acts of aggression against Israel, let alone against Jews around the world by Muslims.
Gaza Market Stall - Plentiful Supply Of Fresh Fruit And Vegetables
In the beginning, the "Israel=evil" campaign was simply to portray Israel in a negative light. But as time has passed, and as the condition of the so-called 'Palestinians' improved (which has a lot to do with Israeli leaders appeasing their diplomatic counterparts in the EU and US as Arabs murder Jews with impunity), another purpose for this anti-Israel Orwellian version of reality became apparent: Islamisation. The Middle East isn't the issue. The further the 'Palestinian' campaign is pushed, the further Islamisation increases.
In other words, the 'Free Palestine' campaign is the stealth jihad. What is the difference between the fabricated call of 'Israel atrocities' in the West and decades of Arab dictators starting wars with Israel in order for them to distract attention from problems at home? As it turns out, our previous understanding of this dynamic was only half the story. We now know from an increasing stock of quotations by Islamic clerics that waging war against Jews actually holds religious connotations for Muslims. So the fact that Arab dictators in years gone by have called their subjects to arms wasn't a successful attempt to distract their populations, it was seen by those populations as their leaders engaging in something good, morally, according to an Islam. In this sense we can see exactly the same thing with the pro-'Palestinian' campaign. As many commentators and analysts have noted before, it's not so much that the 'Palestinian' camp are pro-Palestinian, it's that they are anti-Israel. The campaign to create a 'Palestinian' identity and country isn't so much about creating a 'Palestinian' state and identity, it's about destroying the Jewish state and Jewish identity/religion.
The Israel illusion, therefore,
is a double-edged sword whereby on the one hand it is used as a war against the Jewish state, and an excuse in the West to legitimise a campaign of threats, violence and demands that the victim society work hard to please the Muslim community, or else. This is moving in the direction of Islamic societies where Muslims are superior in standing, and the infidels live in fear.
A few decades down the line and we can now see the results. Less than 100 years since the Holocaust, Europeans (and a growing minority of Americans), would be very happy to see Israel disappear. But the reason for this is that they see the disappearance of Israel as being the key to solving their own Muslim-violence problems within their own borders.
If most people were informed about the reality, they'd very quickly realise the lack of difference between terrorism carried out in the West and terrorism carried out against Israel, people would quickly realise what is being perpetrated upon them.
At the heart of all this is a very basic psychological tactic. The 'Free Palestinian', BDS and Islamic terror campaigns work in tandem to seek to establish a link between the victim society's suffering and Jews. So if the cause for Britain (for example) being the recipient of Islamic aggression lies elsewhere, in some supposed foreign policy decision of the British government, then the solution lies in British foreign policy. Therefore the logical step in order to stop the Muslims targeting them, so the average Brit might think, is to join the chorus of condemnation against Israel and try to make the British government become hostile to Israel.
Psychologically, condemning a 'far away place' feels so much safer and more convenient than confronting uncomfortable truths at home, not least because this also wins some superficial reward buying into the alleged purpose of standing up for human rights (while remaining silent when Hamas and Fatah murder their own people mercilessly). Thus condemning Israel (really Jews) is
the Western infidel’s get-out clause. While the Muslim missionaries deny they
are angry at Jews, only Israeli policies, so too does the infidel establish
the same excuse in their own mind, more in an effort to convince themselves, than
anyone else.
But in the meantime, however, acts of Muslim violence continue to be carried out in the
name of Israel (or do I mean Islam?), and the more the victims condemn Israel,
the more Jewish owned businesses close (BDS), the more society turns a blind
eye to attacks on Jews (and others), the more they adopt Islamic values and the notion that whatever Muslims demand must be given becomes the norm. The more noxious the European anger at "what they have to suffer because of Israel", the less offended they are by anti-Semitism and people who hold anti-Semitic beliefs. While Jews or Israelis who hold hostile feelings towards Arabs or Muslims are dismissed as being partisan 'because of your war with the Palestinians', Muslims who hold hostile views against Jews are seen as 'understandable'.
The more fictitious a society's beliefs
about Israel (adopting the BBC's Muslim-innocent-victim narrative about the Arab-Israel war),
the more likely they are to, eventually, find the Jew and infidel-hatred found in Islamic holy texts
appealing.
The Israel excuse has been created as a
psychological tool in order to delay the victim society from facing reality and taking responsibility as citizens of the free world (if they ever wake up at all). The Israel illusion is a convenient way of ignoring the fact that Muslims are on an all out war, not only against Israel but against all infidel nations, and that while the majority of Muslims don't support
the terrorist’s aims (Islamic rule - Shari'ah), this is not the vast majority, it is a little over half who say they do not support terrorism.
Fmr London mayor Ken Livingstone with Hitler-praising cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood
Clearly, the vast majority of Muslims are
more offended by people who criticise their religion than terrorist actions in the name
of their religion. Despite Muslims saying they don't support terrorism, we see the kinds of support Muslims give at elections to dangerous figures such as George Galloway and Ken Livingstone (in the UK) when they run for office. We see politicians who stand up for Israel having to go into
hiding and receive police protection because Muslims threaten their lives; or
politicians that are simply Jewish are targeted.
This is all perfectly
consistent with the warnings given about Islam and Islamic immigration. Muslims in Europe are
completely unified with their supposedly more ‘radical’ co-religionists in the Middle East who chant 'one nation for a holocaust' at football matches.
Muslims in the Middle East have just overthrown their tyrannical secular leaders, thanks to America's help, and are replacing them with puritanical
tyrants hell bent on bringing the return of the caliphate (for global jihad). The riots witnessed in Britain in 2011, and in Paris in 2005/6 is a taste of things to come, as the Muslims under religious obligation subjugate their host populations to assert Islamic authority.
Israel is not the cause, it’s an excuse.
Standing against Israel won't make things better, it will only make them worse. Not for Israel, but for you.
Last night on Holocaust Memorial Day in Israel, another story of attempted murder showed the dangers of having Muslims live with non-Muslims.
In the Arab dominated area of East Jerusalem, a young Jewish man was stabbed by a Muslim. This is just one of a series of attacks on this minority of Jews living among Arabs. What is clear is that while elsewhere in Israel some 1.5 million Israeli Arabs live far better lives than Arabs anywhere else in the Mid East, the Arabs in Israel do not want Jews living among them.
The other day I was on a mini-bus and noticed the driver's erratic behaviour on the road. Aggressive, he started driving off before passengers had gotten off (before they'd managed to fully step off the bus); elsewhere in the news we hear of multiple hit-and-runs. Jews being mown down in traffic 'accidents' with the assailant's identity remaining a mystery.
The other week, again on a bus, a passenger sitting on the other side of the aisle from me was talking on her cell phone. Nobody complained, she wasn't loud or speaking for long. But as soon as she started saying good bye and 'Happy Passover', the driver yelled at her from the front of the bus, in an Arabic accent, that it was disturbing him.
I sat in a restaurant in the middle of Tel Aviv, only to feel murderous vibes from the owners. On further 'inspection' I notice they are not Jews. I walk past building sites with Arab labourers and I see them trying to chat up Jewish girls as they pass by. In other news I hear some 150,000 Jewish women are held against their will in Arab homes after being seduced by Arab men.
Elsewhere in Europe, we know the patterns of migration all too well. The Muslims move in, and when there are enough of them, the jihad starts. A variety of crimes, paedophilia and rapes ensure the non-Muslim inhabitants eventually flee thus creating a ghetto, which become breeding grounds for terrorism. And with the authorities' showing 'cultural sensitivity' to Islam's covert tactics of war, the non-Muslim majority is on a losing streak.
With this record of failure, it begs the question why the EU is now imposing the same fate on Israel.
Arabs are everywhere.
There are many Ethiopians, Sudanese refugees (but also non-refugee illegal immigrants), and Filippino and Thai migrant workers here too. I don't pay attention to them because they don't want to kill every last one of us. All they want to do is work, send money home, and get on with their lives. With the exception of the illegal infiltrators, they don't pose a problem to the safety of Israelis. And they do jobs Israelis themselves don't do, such as care giving for our elderly or cleaning dishes in kitchens. As such, they help the economy and many other people. And this is an ideal scenario which benefits both the host nation as well as the migrants. However this is not the case when it comes to the vast majority of Muslims, no matter where they reside.
Up until recently, the Arab and Jewish communities have kept to their own towns, cities and villages. So why the sudden change? By chance I found an article which made me realise what's going on. A secret EU plan to impose mass integration in Israel between its Muslims and non-Muslims seeing as this has obviously worked so well for Europe.
In keeping with the Arab rejection of a Jewish state, the EU report refused requests from Israel that Arab leaders show good intentions before this process begin and recognise the Jewish State's right to exist. It says "We do not believe that recognition of Israel as a Jewish State should detract in any way from the vision of equality for all its citizens enshrined in its founding documents". This is using the empty language of multiculturalism to force Israel to accept what the Arabs themselves refuse to accept.
And obviously, with Netanyahu as PM this plan has seen no resistance.
Palestinian boy gives Nazi salute with Israeli Arab MK Ahmad Tibi smiling in the background
The report also suggested that the EU file an official protest every time a bill discriminating against Arabs passes a second reading in the Knesset. Could this be related to the failure to implement Israel's pledge of allegiance? Since this failure, we have seen Arab MKs become more and more belligerent, being photographed with members of Hamas, being more open in their support for the destruction of the Jewish State. But the real reason for the report is found in hidden language, and it is because of a breakdown in peace talks.
This is interesting because it shows that no matter what happens with peace talks, Israel's enemies in the EU wish to bring Jews and Muslims together, no matter what the dangers on the ground. We can see the EU favours the whims of Muslims over the basic human rights of Europeans, so what rights do Jews have in their own country?
It is also further proof that the peace process is thinly veiled diplomatic weapon.
Last time Bibi was PM back in the late '90s, he faced pressure in the form of Bill Clinton. Clinton was desperate for peace talks and some sort of a break-through as he needed to deflect attention away from Monica and the sex scandal. In Israel's current President, Shimon Peres, Clinton found a willing acomplice.
Before Netanyahu agreed to withdraw Jews from the holy city of Hebron, as well as withdraw control over Bethlehem, and others, Shimon Peres said this to Bibi in knesset, imploring him to finalise the Hebron Agreement: "If you want peace, there will be blood and agony and murder." Peres went on with various hyperbole "I prefer the agony of peace to the blood of war." "War has a heavy price" he said "so does peace". "Our generation must undergo the agonies of peace".
Of course, Peres would pay absolutely nothing if Netanyahu agreed to withdraw. Peres did not live in Hebron, and neither was he a Christian in Bethlehem. But he would receive many rewards and friendship from Clinton for helping the beleaguered American president.
The actions taken back then are still being felt today. The people on the ground still suffer. Shimon Peres does not, and neither does anyone in the EU thus more is implemented.
In my last post I wrote about Peace Now's objection to Jews moving into Arab areas (which were previously Jewish anyway). And this just goes to show that the Left's apartheid policy is no different to the Muslims: that migration only go one way.
Twenty years ago, Hollywood was making films warning non-Muslim women of the dangers of marrying a Muslim. Now they say you're racist if you're hostile to Muslims, even with information such as this:
What is clear is that no matter what our enemies
attempt to impose on us, the government under the leadership of Benjamin
Netanyahu is the weakest in all of Israel's history. We are now paying
the price for Netanyahu continually offering peace talks to Abbas in the
face of non-stop attacks. From the flytilla to border penetrations,
when Bibi thinks he's being clever by showing the international
community just how peace-loving he is, and how much he's willing to talk
to the enemy, he's calling Abbas' bluff and showing the international
community the reality; that Israel is for peace, while our enemies are
not.
But in reply, the
international community call Bibi's bluff and simply turn the screws
even further, putting forward yet more dangerous plans on Israel, which
the Israeli left accept and Bibi dare not refuse. The EU reveal their
true colours time and time again, but Israel's leaders are too weak or
too corruptible. In terms of Middle Eastern diplomacy, when Netanyahu
offers peace talks in the face of Abbas' continued war on Israel, he
shows Abbas weakness and invites yet more attacks and inspires Abbas to
threaten another attempt at a Palestinian statehood bid, unless more
concessions are given to him by Bibi. The more Netanyahu concedes, the
worse things get.
Since 2006, when former US President Jimmy (Dhimmi?) Carter published the most factually accurate book since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, there has been a continued slander of Israel comparing it to the Apartheid of South Africa.
At long last the issue has been settled. There is a small segment of Israeli society in favour of Apartheid and has been outraged at a plan to increase integration of Arabs and Jews.
In last week’s Haaretz, an article was published entitled “Israel paving road to link East Jerusalem neighborhoods to city center”. And this was followed by the subheading: “New route would link northeast neighborhoods to capital's [sic] main Begin Boulevard; Peace Now: Plan is illegal use of occupied land, endangers two-state solution.”
Now barring for the moment that it is not illegally occupied by Jews, and neither is there a chance of any solution, let alone a two-state solution, let’s go along with Peace Now’s assertions...
If we’re to understand correctly, the extreme leftist Peace Now NGO believes that because, at some point in the future, east and central Jerusalem will be part of two different nations, that there shouldn’t be roads linking them?
This notion is an absurd one. If anything, roads help peace. They are means of communication (ask the Romans). But let’s turn this around for a moment. What if Israel were to demolish all roads out of Gaza; would Peace Now approve of this?
The article continues “Peace Now representatives argue that the "road's current route isn't legal, since the plan designates occupied territory for permanent infrastructures for the occupying power, while completely disregarding the needs of the Palestinian residents in Beit Hanina and the area."”
This is interesting! This is the first time I’ve ever heard that an allegedly undeveloped area would suffer because of increased methods of transportation to more prosperous and industrious areas. Links which could provide more business and trade, a link tourists could easily use (provided the Arab occupiers in Judea & Samaria stop attacking and killing strangers and the non-Muslim indigenous inhabitants).
The real reason the far left doesn’t want these roads built is the same reason the PA dictatorship doesn’t want these roads: to keep the conflict alive. And the main way to do that is via control of (Arab) public opinion1.
With all the Nazi-style propaganda broadcast by the PA-controlled media, Mahmud Abbas keeps power by doing what the surrounding Arab dictators want. And that is to keep this fictitious ‘Palestinian’ people fighting and killing Jews. The state of Jordan, which denies these Arab refugees their basic human rights (by not absorbing them as Israel absorbed the 850,000 Jewish refugees ethnically cleansed from Arab lands in 1948), keep the conflict alive.
The thinking behind this "evil Zionist road colonisation" project is that if these ‘Palestinians’ gain access to an easy method of transportation to central Jerusalem (especially from the West Bank), they will come to see the propaganda that they’re fed on a daily basis as wrong, and that Jews and Christians can be trading/business partners, and possibly even human.
This is my best guess. Of course there are major cultural obstacles to such a positive outcome (such as jihad; and killing Jews tends to annoy them, for some reason), and considering that genocidal, slave-capturing Muslims first gained access to Africa via Arab tradesmen (who became useful spies when planning their attacks), one wonders in this instance who has the better idea!, the left or right?!
Back in April, I talked about what the Hamas-Fatah coalition deal meant, that essentially Fatah (led by Mahmoud Abbas) had gone to Iran. What was not evident at the time, however, was the strategy Iran had for the territory Abbas presided over.
At the time, the move seemed strange and only advantageous to one side: why would Iran need such a strategically weak partner like Mahmoud Abbas when it's other proxy forces surrounded Israel (in Lebanon and Gaza)? Only now with the headline 'Hamas is against the PA Statehood Bid' have things begun to fall into place.
Hamas flags and portraits of Mahmoud Abbas being waved at the same rally
What has become evident is that the PA's bid at the UN is a last ditch effort to salvage Mahmoud Abbas' PA and 'his' territory from the clutches of Iranian control. Over the last several months we've been reading news such as Hamas flags going up all over the West Bank. While this might seem normal if both factions are in a unity deal, what was clear was that no portraits of Mahmoud Abbas were going up in Hamas-controlled Gaza.
In other words, the Hamas-Fatah unity deal was Mahmoud Abbas' 'death sentence'. Once Abbas had accepted the partnership, he effectively ceded control to Tehran. All Tehran had to do then was sit back and wait for the international community to distance itself from the coalition, thus leaving the PA vulnerable to the influence of Tehran, via Hamas.
With Abbas and his PA isolated, all Iran had to do was to was give Hamas free reign to start spreading its influence in the West Bank, thus not in fact making Abbas stronger, but weaker and more isolated than ever before.
The other side of this power struggle is, of course, the strategic importance of the West Bank. For Hamas, or any other anti-Israel force, having a presence in the West Bank means having 70% of Israel's population centre within short range rocket fire. And even though Hamas and Hezbollah both have rockets that can reach the Israeli population centres from Gaza and southern Lebanon respectively, with Israel's Iron Dome technology largely successful at intercepting rockets, having one more front from which Israel's enemies could harass her would be crucial given the terrorist's reliance on the psychological aspect of their war.
Additionally, it would be less likely that Israel attack Iran if its resources are tied up closer to home.
So Mahmoud Abbas' attempts to have a state recognised will be key in strengthening his hold on power. This will mean that Tehran will be forced to include Abbas in any of its plans.
But as we've been hearing, the US has announced it will veto any statehood bid, thus meaning a Palestinian state is not likely to be created and the US Congress will likely attempt to withdraw funding to the PA. So while this is risky territory for Abbas, we should note that there have been other patrons of the Palestinians, such as the Saudis, most notably during the 2nd intifada. And sure enough, the Saudis have stepped up to attempt to rescue the PA.
Once the statehood vote fails at the Security Council, it is then that the case will move to the UN General Assembly, in which the PA would not be susceptible to a US veto, thus be granted observer status. As we're told this will mean the PA will then have access to other UN bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
If the continuing fracas over the Goldstone Report is anything to go by, the Israel-Palestine war will likely graduate to a whole new level, and coupled with the international campaign to boycott, divest and sanction Israel (the BDS movement), having arrest warrants from the ICC against Israeli diplomats will serve as one of the biggest propaganda coups in the Muslim world's campaign to excuse terrorism and violence, as well as Islamisation of the West (citing, of course, the West's support for a 'war criminal' Jewish state). And this will be regardless of whether the cases against Israeli officials will have merit or not, as we saw with the recently overturned law in the UK called Universal Jurisdiction.
...and if anyone thinks that the ICC is a legitimate institution, devoid of the influence of the UN, they will be in for a rude awakening.
So if Mahmoud Abbas is able to achieve this reasonable sounding goal, this will not only mean him firmly placing himself at the centre of the 'Palestinian struggle', the Arab and Muslim world will reward him, thus cementing his hold on power. What exactly Abbas, or Tehran (for that matter), have in mind once this process is completed could be anything from the situation laid out above, and/or the continuation of the PLO Phased Plan devised in 1974.
In fact violence in the immediate term seems more than likely to be on the table (as a means to achieve their ultimate goals), with the usual excuses citing either failure at the UN for statehood, or some other pretext as we saw with the 2000 intifada, whether it was Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (which was in fact carefully coordinatedwith the PA, not as the PA later claimed the 'provocative act which sparked the 2nd intifada), or the forgery that was the al-Dura Affair.
But this is only where we come to the much larger forces at play here in this complex story...
Quite interestingly, this sudden flurry of activity in the Middle East can be traced back to one single event in 2010. Barack Obama's UN General Assembley speech, when he stated that by September 2011 there would be a Palestinian State. What has occurred since then has been nothing short of amazing: WikiLeaks, PaliLeaks, the Arab Spring, the acceleration by Turkish PM, Tayyip Erdogan, of souring relations with Israel, and the announcement that colossal gas and oil reserves have been discovered off the coast of Israel; and the war in Libya under the UN doctrine of R2P (Responsibility 2 Protect).
Further to Turkey souring relations with Israel, Turkey's PM Tayyip Erdogan, is also vying to champion the Palestinian's cause as part of his increasingly bellicose statements regarding reviving the Ottoman empire.
So we have Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the old Middle Eastern enemies attempting to fight it out over a politically important piece of real estate. These are the 1400 year old rivalries of the Middle East, not only between sunni and shia, but between the more recent Wahabis and the Ottomans (who once controlled the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina).
The Bigger Picture
So why are 3 of the biggest Islamic states fighting it out for control of such a small territory? Israel seems to be almost irrelevant in all this. We know that the Palestinian cause is very popular in the Arab and Muslim world. And we have seen in the past how the war with Israel has been used many times by terrorists or dictators to either distract a disgruntled population from uprising, or to manipulate a populous against a leadership, as we're seeing in Egypt and Jordan as the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to win support there, or with Erdogan attempting to rally support for his cause.
But even though the Palestinian cause has never been far away from Arab dictator sound bites, effective support on the ground has always been lacking. As we saw in Lebanon in 1982, these same dictatorships were happy to see Israel expel Yasser Arafat from Lebanon to Tunis. Compare that to the Saudis funding(with the CIA) to the mujahadin in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the same decade, which amounted to $1 billion.
Although Israel would be the icing on this particular Islamic cake, neither the Palestinian issue, nor the Israeli 'problem' are the main issue. The importance of this territory is in its political value. This is the reason the Muslim Brotherhood was founded: the re-establishment of the Caliphate, which was abolished during World War I and which Arabs today say they want to have situated at al-Aqsa Mosque in the heart of Jerusalem...
Having a Caliphate would be a significant game-changer in world affairs and history.
This is a video of one of the earliest radical Islamic groups, Hizb Ut-Tahrir, in a rally on the Temple Mount, Jerusalem (note the black flags, these are a declaration of war - jihad)
So the charge to be either the leader of the newly created Palestinian state, or patron of its cause, will have historic significance. This is the culmination of almost a century's worth of work, in what seems to be the next phase of a global quest by radical Islam for world hegemony, the central battle of which will be in the very heart of Israel.
"Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said Thursday that if the international community will recognize the Palestinian state as a member of the United Nation, the Palestinians will no longer be able to fight against Israel."
This is due to one aspect I did not cover in my piece: that regardless of whether 'Palestine' becomes a country or elevated to observer status in the General Assembly, the ICC requirements will also be placed on the Palestinians, not just Israel. Therefore Israel will also be able to bring the PA and Hamas before the ICC; a much more worrying prospect for Hamas. (David Benjamin at The Weekly Standard has more on this.)
As hopeful as this sounds, we cannot be too optimistic. Iran has sidelined Hamas in the past in favour of other, more difficult to trace terrorist groups to do its dirty work. Additionally, we have not seen any prosecutions of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or even Iraq (under Saddam) for sponsoring Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) etc.
The problems in these instances was not the law, but political interests interfering with the law (such as oil). And if the Palestinian state becomes an outpost of the Saudi oil giant, no need to guess what that will mean.
with the PA, not as the PA later claimed the 'provocative act which sparked the 2nd intifada), or the forgery that was the 
(with the CIA) to the mujahadin in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the same decade, which amounted to $1 billion.