Displaying the most recent of 54393 posts written by

Ruth King

When Was the “Palestinian People” Created? Google Has the Answer. by Jean Patrick Grumberg

All people born in British Mandatory Palestine between 1923-1948 (today’s Israel) had “Palestine” stamped on their passports at the time. But when they were called Palestinians, the Arabs were offended. They complained: “We are not Palestinians, we are Arabs. The Palestinians are the Jews”.

After invading Arab armies were routed and the Arabs who had fled the war wanted to return, they were considered a fifth column and not invited back. The Arabs who had loyally remained in Israel during the war, however, and their descendants, are still there and make up one fifth of the population. They are known as Israeli Arabs; they have the same rights as Christians and Jews, except they are not required to serve in the army unless they wish to.

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.” – PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen, interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 1977.

In an op-ed in the Guardian on November 1, 2017, ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas called on the UK to “atone” for the century of “suffering” that the document allegedly wrought on the “Palestinian people.” Abbas reiterated the claims he has been making since 2016, to justify a surreal lawsuit he has threatened to bring against Britain for supporting the “creation of a homeland for one people [Jews], which, he asserted, “resulted in the dispossession and continuing persecution of another.”

“Palestinians” were the Jews who lived, along with Muslims and Christians on land called Palestine, which was under British administration from 1917 to 1948.

All people born there during the time of the British Mandate had “Palestine” stamped on their passports. But the Arabs were offended when they were called Palestinians. They complained: “We are not Palestinians, we are Arabs. The Palestinians are the Jews”.

Bernard Lewis explains:

“With the rise and spread of pan-Arab ideologies it was as Arabs, not as south Syrians, that the Palestinians began to assert themselves. For the rest of the period of the British Mandate, and for many years after that, their organizations described themselves as Arab and expressed their national identity in Arab rather than in Palestinian or even in Syrian terms.”

When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies joined up to try to kill the infant nation in its crib. After they were routed, some of the local Arabs who had fled the war wanted to return, but they were considered a fifth column and most were not allowed back. The Arabs who had loyally remained in Israel during the war, however, and their descendants, are still there and make up one-fifth of Israel’s population today. They are known as Israeli Arabs; they have the same rights as Jews, except they are not legally required to serve in the army. They may volunteer if they wish to.

Israeli Arabs have their own political parties. They serve as members of Knesset and are employed in all professions. The moral is, or should be: Do not start a war unless you are prepared to lose it — as the Arabs in and around Israel have done repeatedly, in 1947-48, 1967 and 1973.

Robert Mueller Is the Cover-Up By James Lewis

Friendship is a beautiful thing, and it’s really good to know that Robert Mueller, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper have known each other for many years. They’re loyal friends.

Mueller is a former top FBI dude, who helped to clear Bill Clinton after that impeachment mess, and like Mr. Comey, he did his very best. Clapper was the single most powerful man in the “intelligence” “community,” a centralized directorate (as the Soviets used to call it), which was George W. Bush’s principal response to 9/11/01.

Now don’t get me wrong: I’m sure all these brave men (or persons, I should say) made great contributions to the safety and welfare of all of us. But here they are at the peak of their careers, each one of them, and Democrat candidate Hillary is suddenly exposed to the world with her email fiasco as SecState. Violating the very first rule of intelligence and statecraft, to protect your country’s secrets. And she obviously sold secret and sensitive information to Clinton Foundation “donors” around the world, including old friend Vladimir Putin (who now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium, or possibly more), the Muslim Brotherhood (friends of Huma), the Iranians (who sponsor half the terror attacks in the world), the Chinese (who want more of our secret high tech), and probably the French (who understand bribery and just wanted to get access to Hillary as POTUS).

We’ve seen how Bill sold U.S. rocket-launching secrets to the Chinese for campaign money…or personal money. It’s so hard to tell the difference.

Well, skip that.

So the wife of the perp becomes a senator from the State of New York, which is well known for the purity of its politics. Why did she become senator? Was she a resident of N.Y. State? Was she the best qualified person to represent the Great State (etc.)? Or did the N.Y. machine just pick her and scare everybody else away?

So Hillary has violated any number of laws all of her adult life, ever since she was hired by the Senate Watergate Committee to lynch Richard Nixon – which worked just as it was meant to. Nixon resigned, but for the Democrats, he should have been hanged, drawn, quartered, waterboarded, and made to read the NYT op-ed page for extra punishment. I know Democrats who still hate Richard Nixon with a hellish fury. Nixon is the gift that keeps on giving. Hillary’s major role in the persecution of President Nixon – a duly elected POTUS – was to urge that all his constitutional rights be taken away. That was the young Hillary right after law school.

The major difference from Watergate today is that no sane and sentient human being believes the NYT or the WaPo anymore. They have permanently blown their cover.

And yet the Axis of NYT-WaPo tells us that Donald Trump is just suspected of nefarious dealings with the Russians, which presumably caused the Russians to break into Hillary’s ridiculous emails and the DNC file system, sending truthful (but wicked) information to WikiLeaks, to be dumped at strategic moments of the election campaign.

Notice well that nobody claims that the Hillary dumps were false. They were true enough. That’s why they hate Trump and his imaginary Russian sources. It’s the truth that hurt Hillary.

August 2017: Stalingrad at 75, the Turning Point of World War II in Europe By Ian Johnson see note please

At a recent luncheon promoting his new book, Victor Davis Hanson spoke of Russia’s decisive battles and losses in World War 2. Read Victors Davis Hanson-The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won rsk
Three quarters of a century ago, the most famous battle of the Second World War [2] began. More than four million combatants fought in the gargantuan struggle at Stalingrad between the Nazi and Soviet armies. Over 1.8 million became casualties. More Soviet soldiers died in the five-month battle than Americans in the entire war. But by February 2, 1943, when the Germans trapped in the city surrendered, it was clear that the momentum on the Eastern Front had shifted. The Germans would never fully recover.

Fourteen months before Stalingrad began, Hitler had launched Operation Barbarossa, the largest military offensive in human history. After two years of decisive victories over France, Poland and others, Hitler and the German High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres, or OKH), were confident that the Soviet Union would fall within six weeks. At first, their prediction seemed correct: the attack in June 1941 caught Stalin [4]unawares, and the Red Army unprepared. By December, the Red Army had suffered nearly five million casualties.

But despite enduring staggering losses, the Red Army continued to resist. In August 1941, senior members of the Wehrmacht began growing increasingly uneasy. The Chief of the OKH staff, General Franz Halder, noted in his diary that ““It is becoming ever more apparent that the Russian colossus…. Has been underestimated by us…. At the start of the war we reckoned with about 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already counted 360… When a dozen have been smashed, then the Russian puts up another dozen.”

In October, the Wehrmacht launched Operation Typhoon, the effort to take Moscow and end the war by Christmas. But as the weather grew bitterly cold, the German offensive ground to a halt, and was then pushed back by a Soviet counteroffensive. The front line froze in place some two hundred kilometers west of Moscow – and 1400 kilometers east of Berlin.

During the bitter winter months, the OKH began planning for a renewed counteroffensive in the spring, hoping to achieve the decisive victory that had evaded them in 1941. Thus was born Operation Blue, an attack to seize the oil fields of the Caucasus, and then drive on to the Volga. Launched in June 1942, it caught the Red Army off-guard, as they had expected a renewed push towards Moscow. Within two weeks, the Wehrmacht advanced more than 300 miles.

Hitler, increasingly directing military operations in Berlin, decided to shift his offensive in early August. For both symbolic and strategic reasons, he ordered the Sixth Army under General Friedrich von Paulus to advance towards the city of Stalingrad. By August 23, the Germans were in the suburbs, where fighting turned ferocious. Bombed into rubble by German aircraft and artillery, the city became impassable to tanks and ideal terrain for defenders.

As the Germans approached Stalingrad, Stalin issued Order No. 227, with its famous command: “Ni Shagu Nazad!” [Not One Step Backwards!]. This meant a horrific price for the Soviet defenders within the city of Stalingrad. Outnumbered and without air cover, the 62nd and 64th Soviet Armies suffered enormous losses: the 13th Guards Division, entering the battle with over 10,000 men, virtually ceased to exist; it suffered 80% casualties in its first week in the city alone.

In September, Stalin sent General Vasily Chuikov to take command of the embattled survivors of the 62nd Army in the city itself. They were tenaciously clinging to rubble on the west bank of the Volga, with only a few hundred meters between its front lines and the river to its back.

The media is giving up its place in our democracy see note please Chris Wallace

The media feeds anti-Trump bias disguised as news which is taken up by Facebook and social media and then taken as absolute truth…..and Fox, while more nuanced is part of the problem…..Note Tucker Carlson’s obsequious interview of rabid leftist Max Blumenthal….rsk
Chris Wallace is anchor of “Fox News Sunday.” This op-ed is adapted from a speech he gave Nov. 9 to the International Center for Journalists.

Whatever side you’re on in the debate over journalism these days, you’re not going to like some of what I have to say. Let’s start with a basic fact. President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on the free press in our history. Since early in the campaign, he has done everything he could to delegitimize the media — attacking us institutionally and individually. And I think his purpose is clear: a concerted campaign to raise doubts over whether we can be trusted when we report critically about his administration.

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, between Jan. 10 and the end of October, Trump tweeted about “fake news” 141 times. One stands out. On Feb. 17, the president tweeted this: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American People!” And that was precisely his point. If we report negatively about something he’s doing, we are hurting the country.

Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, was my guest on “Fox News Sunday” two days later. When I asked him about the president’s tweet, he complained that, yes, we covered what Trump did, but that “as soon as it’s over, the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies.” I answered: “You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama. He whined about Fox News all the time. But he never said we were the enemy of the people.”

But don’t take it from me. Listen to William H. McRaven, a Navy SEAL for 37 years, the man in charge of the missions that captured Saddam Hussein and killed Osama bin Laden. McRaven graduated from the University of Texas with a degree in journalism. He’s now the chancellor of the University of Texas system. And after the president’s tweet, he told students: “This sentiment may be the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”

Remember, this is a man who fought the Soviet Union, who fought Islamist terrorism. But when I asked him about his comments, he said, “Those threats brought us together. Both the president and I swore an oath to the Constitution. And the First Amendment of that Constitution is freedom of the press. When the president says the media is the enemy of the people, to me that undermines the Constitution. So I do think it is a tremendous threat to our democracy.”

It turns out McRaven may have understated the threat. A Politico poll a couple of weeks ago found that 46 percent of voters believe that major news organizations make up stories about Trump. A Newseum Institute poll in May found that 23 percent think the First Amendment “goes too far.” And 74 percent don’t think “fake news” should be protected by the First Amendment.

But there is another side to this debate, as there usually is. There’s an old saying: “Even hypochondriacs sometimes get sick.” And even if Trump is trying to undermine the press for his own calculated reasons, when he talks about bias in the media — unfairness — I think he has a point.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas District 10): Reclaiming the mantle of leadership on the world stage

In the absence of American leadership, dangers gather in far-away lands and terrorist threats against our homeland grow. This became explicitly clear as the Obama administration wrapped up its second term, leaving behind a foreign policy legacy that included the establishment and explosion of the Islamic State, a reckless nuclear deal that enriched a terror-sponsoring regime in Iran, and an emboldened tyrant in North Korea committed to bullying, blackmailing, and possibly attacking the United States with nuclear weapons.

Our allies didn’t trust us and our enemies did not fear us.

However, because of efforts by the current administration and actions taken in the House of Representatives, we are no longer pushing the most pressing problems to the next generation. Instead, we are confronting them head-on.

Earlier this year our military began implementing a new strategy that has empowered our battlefield commanders to hunt terrorists more aggressively. This is in stark contrast to the Obama era, which saw American planes drop leaflets ahead of an attack, warning our enemies to flee. This approach has allowed American-backed forces to liberate key ISIS strongholds that include Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. We are finally on the verge of destroying the so-called caliphate.

After two years of implementation, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has turned out to be exactly what critics predicted — an extremely flawed accord that left key components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place. The JCPOA has not only strengthened the oppressive government in Tehran with planeloads of cash and sanctions relief, it has also failed to alter Iran’s destabilizing and anti-American behavior.

Around the entire Middle East, Iran has been fomenting chaos through the formation of a “Shia Crescent” by supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shi’ite militias in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Last month, after careful evaluation, the president rightly chose not to recertify the disastrous nuclear deal and sanctioned the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Europe: Destroyed by the West’s Indifference? by Giulio Meotti

Our media and intelligentsia are always on alert to defend everything coming from Islam, from women’s veils to the “right not be offended” by cartoons. The same establishment, however, lies in a coma when it comes to Christian symbols under attack.

The West today keeps on hiding its deepest secret: that there is an Islamic war going on against our own Judeo-Christian civilization.

“They want Christianity eradicated, and they want to convert all Muslims to their crusade… They want it to be a holy war. And they want Christians gone. And I don’t think that narrative is getting the attention it should get…” — Piers Morgan, Daily Mail.

There are pictures one cannot forget — for instance, of Russian troops hoisting their flag over burning Berlin in 1945. It was the end of Nazism but the rise of Communism. Another photo is of U.S. Marines raising the American flag over the battle-scarred Japanese island of Iwo Jima.

Today the West faces another totalitarianism: radical Islam. One place that witnessed the new horror is Mount Sinjar in the Nineveh province of Iraq, once a home to religious minorities, especially Christians and Yazidis. Thousands of years of history changed when the jihadists of ISIS invaded Sinjar in August of 2014. They slaughtered men and enslaved girls and women. Christian churches were razed to the ground, and houses of worship, looted.

In 2016 alone, 90,000 Christians around the world were murdered for their faith, according to a report from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. Between 2005 and 2015, 900,000 Christians were martyred. According to Open Doors, another Christian advocacy group, one out of every 12 Christians today experiences extreme persecution for their faith; the total comes to 215 million around the world.

“The persecution of Christians is real. It is global in scope, brutal in its nature, daily in its occurrence, and growing worse than ever”, said University of Notre Dame Professor Dan Philpott. A recent report by the World Council of Churches put the number of Christians left in Iraq at fewer than 250,000. “Christianity is finished”, said Canon Andrew White, the great vicar of Baghdad.

The Usual Suspects and a New Method by Amir Taheri

Last week, two events injected energy and excitement into what was beginning to look like an anemic end of the year in the Middle East as far as political developments are concerned.

The first event was the decision by the Saudi leadership to create a new mechanism to deal with alleged cases of corruption, embezzlement and influence-peddling.

The sheer number of cases referred to a special court on those charges was enough to capture the headlines. The fact that the 208 people under investigation included princes, prominent bureaucrats, and business tycoons intensified the event’s headline-grabbing potential.

But what really attracted world attention was the unexpectedness of the Saudi move.

Few, even among genuine or self-styled experts on Saudi Arabia, expected Riyadh to go right to the heart of the matter rather than dance around the issues as had been the norm in the past. Some observers, including many in Western think-tanks, warned of the danger of instability inherent in departure from old patterns of behavior.

However, the latest move is in accordance with the kingdom’s new strategy aimed at recruiting the concept of change as an ally rather than a threat.

It is possible to argue that because old methods didn’t produce the desired results, stability, which had been a key asset of the kingdom for decades, had morphed into stagnation. Thus, the new strategy is designed to end stagnation and prepare the path for a new form of stability capable of reflecting changed social, economic and political circumstances of the kingdom.

If Saudi Arabia is genuine in its declared desire to become an active member of the global system, the first thing it has to do is to offer the rule of law in the sense understood by most people around the world.

Trying to build an economy beyond oil, Saudi Arabia needs to attract massive foreign investment in both financial and technological domains. And that won’t be possible without a strong legal system backed by transparency, competition and equality of opportunities.

MY SAY: REMEMBER THE KENNEDY DODD SANDWICH?

“Sxandals” are everywhere with dominoes falling among legislators and celebrities. Remember this “sexcapade” by two Democrat Senators in 1985 while they served in the Senate:

Daniel Greenfield reminded us:http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/264466/heres-how-ted-kennedy-sexually-assaulted-waitress-daniel-greenfield

Ted Kennedy was United States Senator from Massachusetts for over forty years from 1962 until his death in 2009. Christopher John Dodd served as a United States Senator from Connecticut for a thirty-year period from 1981 to 2011

1985-

“It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant’s annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. “They’d always get their girls very, very drunk,” says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room.”

For Slimy Senators, Our Conviction Should Be Expulsion The Framers did not equate fitness for office with capacity to evade prosecution. By Andrew McCarthy

The spirit of the times has opened the floodgates of long-suppressed heartache. Victimized women are thus coming forward a decade or more after being abused by this political don or that show-biz celeb — who, in Al Franken’s case, could be the same guy.

It is vital that we hear their stories. There should be no expectation, though, of a courtroom reckoning. While prosecution is practically impossible, that doesn’t absolve the culprits. Public office is a public trust, and weighing fitness for it is a matter of everyday discernment, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You know this when the un-convicted sociopath, fresh off his second or third harassment arrest, shows up on the doorstep looking to take your daughter out. Do you really need a jury to decide that one for you?

No, they’ll never stand trial, but Franken should go away, and Roy Moore should stay away.

No sooner had yet another Moore accuser come forward than did Senator Franken’s infamia burst on the scene. True to the way these things go now, the Minnesota Democrat’s scandal had worsened by evening when a second harassment complainant (citing verbal rather than physical abuse) emerged. Past being prologue, by the time you read this, there are apt to be more victims and more outed predators.

Felony Sexual Battery
The freshet of commentary about Moore, Alabama’s Republican Senate candidate, has continued for a week. We are all too familiar with the anguish of his accusers and the difficulty — probably, the impossibility — of proving their claims, some of which stretch back 40 years.

The Franken allegations, leveled by newscaster and model Leeann Tweeden, are at once less abominable (a creepy kiss during a rehearsal and a grope while she was asleep) but more certain (there is photographic evidence of the grope). Franken garnered some sympathy by a prompt apology, but he is playing out a shopworn stratagem. When evidence is equivocal or in the nature of a “he said, she said,” you deny — as Moore has, and as Franken has regarding the forcible kiss (“I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit the same way” as Ms. Tweeden). But where the evidence is incontestable, don’t contest it — no point fighting an authentic picture, but saying “I’m sorry” might convince the credulous that you really are.

Does overwhelming evidence equate to a slam-dunk conviction? No. As with Moore, the case against Franken is too stale for prosecution.

Germany, Austria: Imams Warn Muslims Not to Integrate by Stefan Frank

“While outside the mosque there is constant talk of integration, the opposite is preached inside. Only in rare instances are parts of the sermon — or even more rarely, all of the sermon — translated into German… [fostering] social integration into an internal ethnic environment, and thus ethnic segmentation.” — Constantin Schreiber, author of Inside Islam: What Is Being Preached in Germany’s Mosques.

“Politicians who repeatedly emphasize their intention of cooperating with the mosques, who invite them to conferences on Islam, have no idea who is preaching what there.” — Necla Kelek, human rights activist and critic of Islam, human rights activist, in the Allgemeine Zeitung.

In the debate on migrants in Germany and Austria, no other term is used more often than “integration.” But the institution that is most important for many Muslim migrants does not generally contribute much to this effort — and often actively fights it: the mosque. That is the finding of an official Austrian study as well as private research conducted by a German journalist.

In late September, the Austrian Integration Fund (ÖIF), a department of the foreign ministry published a study, “The role of the mosque in the integration process”. For the purposes of the study, employees of the ÖIF visited 16 mosques in Vienna, attended several Friday sermons and spoke with the individual imams — that is, if the imams were willing to have a conversation, which was often not the case. The result of this, according to the ÖIF, is that only two of the mosque associations foster the integration of their members. The report applauds a Bosnian mosque association that also runs a soccer club. During the discussion, its imam said: “Every country, as with Austria, has its rules and laws and — something I always stress — it is our religious duty to comply with these standards and to integrate accordingly.”

With regard to gender roles, in all of the mosques they visited, the authors were struck by the almost complete absence of women at Friday prayers:

“Only three of the mosques… provide women with their own space, which is reserved for them and actually used by them. If they exist at all, most of the mosques make the women’s areas on Fridays available to men, too.”