The Israel Illusion: A Warning To The West

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. 

Eurabia Comes To Israel

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.

This is the Netanyahu nightmare.

Segment of Israeli Society Endorses Apartheid

 

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?

Considering the left deny just how much aid Israel delivers to Gaza each week, and denies that these ‘Palestinians’ are allowed medical treatment inside Israel, Peace Now shouldn’t have a problem in demolishing these roads?

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?! 

Footnotes:

^1. The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations

The Endgame

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.

So goes Israel. So goes the rest of the world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: 

"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." 

Link

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.