Gates of Vienna Reviews Jerry Gordon’s The West Speaks.


Jerry Gordon’s new book, The West Speaks, is a collection of his interviews with some of “the watchers on the ramparts of the West”, brave individuals who have stepped forward since 9/11 to counter the particularly specious form of global “community” as laid out by Islam in its tenets on the Ummah. An Islamic international “community” would be the death knell for any form of authentic, vibrant community as Western civilization understands that term. One has only to look at all the polities in which Islamic Law dominates to know they are but the Ummah writ small: murderous, tyrannical, and without that spontaneous creativity which is the hallmark of any genuine community. For the most part Islamic countries, except those awash in petrol wealth, are backward, poverty-stricken hellholes. Even the wealthy ones aren’t places a person who values free speech would want to live in. Turkey could be considered on exception at the moment, although as it moves back and peels away from its Western veneer, it too will sink further into persecution of minority groups within its borders, more widespread poverty, creeping superstitions, and growing numbers of illiterate women. When women can’t read or write, the family founders.
It is not just Islam which is pushing for this fantasy global community. Fashioned from the leftovers of Marxism, political elites in the EU and camp-followers in American academia and media have their own half-baked pie-in-the-sky fantasies about immigration and outmoded economic policies as the solutions to our problems of endemic debt, economic “unfairness”, and mind-numbing poverty. For these intractable issues, the answer offered by the politically naïve is often a sickly sea, a universal solvent which would erase those ugly nation-state borders.


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ The current round of class warfare taking place in this country can hardly be called that because it is taking place within a single class. This is no great conflict between the construct of a 1 and 99 percent, this is a civil war taking place within the 1 percent. The very name of […]


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ A storm is not a good time to be at the wheel of a ship and a worldwide economic disaster is not a good time to be at the wheel of the ship of state. Hard times are supposed to bring great men to the fore, but instead we have some of the sorriest […]

“Existential Defeatism” Abroad and at Home:Bruce Kesler

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/19868-Existential-Defeatism-Abroad-and-at-Home.html In the fall of 1971, in grad school, I did a 60-page analysis of the Nixon/Kissinger détente policy. I concluded it was largely a holding action meant to slow down what otherwise was believed by its primaries as the inevitable declining power of the West in the face of rising Soviet and Chinese power. […]

Jerusalem or al-Quds? The European Union’s Choice by Bat Ye’or (June 2012)


Originally appeared in the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism vol.3 #2, 2011

The overwhelming effect of the international campaign of defamation and delegitimization of Israel does not easily allow identifying where the blows come from, nor its original source. Yet the operations and strategiccenter of this widespread war that seeks to replace Jerusalem with al-Quds is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formally called Islamic Conference), which brings together Muslim countries and those with a Muslim majority.

Created in 1969, this gigantic multinational religious organization declares that it is rooted in the Koran and Sunna. It includes a large number of subsidiary committees as well as various organizations embracing theological, legal, and political sectors. Since 2000, the OIC stated in many documents that its mission is to speak for the Ummah, the worldwide Muslim community, which also includes those Muslims who emigrated to the West. It claims to be their protector, with a particular responsibility toward those living in Europe, since they are exposed to the immoral customs and ideas of non-Muslims. The OIC constantly castigates these customs and ideas as “Islamophobia,” making every effort to have it penalized in the international courts and by European governments. Countless international networks of multiculturalism, pro-immigration, and anti-Zionism, financed by European governments and the European Union, are totally devoted to it and act as its sounding board within Western societies. Those promoting the line blaming the West and the victimization of the Palestinians feed from its sap. In Europe its lobbies spread its arguments, and benefit in the universitiesand at the international level from maximum media exposure as they operate with the tacit approval of European governments and churches, which provide them with unofficial, opaque financing.1 This Euro-OIC cooperation takes place through countless dialogue networks, partnerships, and associations that preach diversity and multiculturalism and that generally invoke the noble motives of “peace, justice and human rights.” Drawn from human rights platitudes, these ideals incorporate the principles of Jihad and dhimmitude,imperceptible for a European public unaware of them.


Were the Oslo Peace Accords fatally flawed?

The Oslo Idea traces the roots of the current campaign to delegitimize Israel. The campaign is not linked to Israeli resistance, to the absence of an acceptable settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, or to Israel’s reluctance to abandon territory. It results from a change of tactics by the Palestinian leadership. Raphael Israeli argues that these tactics have been used to exhaust, reduce, and replace Israel rather than produce a compromise.

The Oslo Idea deconstructs the immense illusion of the Oslo peace accords, which initiated the so-called “peace process.” He shows how Oslo lured a naive Israeli leadership into a trap. He shows how outside factors, bent on finding and supporting an evasive peace, have helped perpetuate the fiasco Oslo represents. He shows how Oslo’s supporters have advanced the “peace process” by coaxing and threatening Israel behind the scenes, and binding Israel alone with the Oslo commitments and their derivatives. More importantly, the author outlines and analyzes the basic and seemingly unbridgeable points of contention that remain: security, refugees, settlements, water, borders, and the status of Jerusalem itself.

Click Here To Order

About the Author
Raphael IsraeliRaphael Israeli is professor of Islamic, Chinese, and Middle Eastern history at the Hebrew University. He has authored over thirty books, including Islamikaze, The Iraq War, Muslim Minorities in Modern States, and Blood Libel and Its Derivatives, as well as over a hundred scholarly articles in the fields of Islamic radicalism, Islamic terrorism, the modern Middle East, and Islam in China and Asia.
Product Details

Blood Libel and Its Derivatives: The Scourge of Anti-Semitism by Raphael Israeli (Apr 18, 2012
Product Details

The Islamic Challenge in Europe by Raphael Israeli (Jun 16, 2008)


THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING Peter Beinart has become the clown prince of the Anti-Israel left. His big blog project, Zion Square, Open Zion or I Can’t Believe It’s Not Zion, grinds along, unattended. Desperate for attention, Beinart scrambles into any issue to pick a fight with the “right-wing” Jews, who have even less […]


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ THE DEAD BABY MEDIA If the text on that one is too small for you, it’s a CNN piece headlined, “Why the Syrian regime is killing babies.” There’s not much to add to that. The Syrian regime may be killing babies, but CNN killed journalism. With some help from the New York Times, the […]


Friday Docu-Dump: Obama Again Suspends Embassy Move to Jerusalem

Just two days after hosting a Jewish American Heritage Reception at the White House, President Obama used executive authority to suspend once again a 1995 bill requiring the government to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

“I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act,” Obama said in a short memorandum to the secretary of State today.

Under the act, which was overwhelmingly approved in House and Senate, the Embassy was supposed to be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999.

Each of Obama’s suspensions, in six-month intervals, have included the same language.

And each misses a sentence that was in President George W. Bush’s suspensions of limitations under the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

“My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem,” Bush wrote in his presidential determinations on the matter.



Last week, a white African-American friend and her husband returned to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from a European trip and observed an American-Muslim woman from their flight navigating U.S. Immigration and Customs. The couple watched attentively as the covered woman approached the immigration officer, who avoided eye contact, glanced hastily at the woman’s ID, and waved her heedlessly through. When it was their turn to be processed, the officer carefully scrutinized their faces, studied their passport photos, and then repeated the sequence a second time.

While shopping in a Washington, D.C. suburban supermarket, an Iranian-American human rights activist, who fled Iran following the Khomeini-led revolution, spied a woman in a multi-layered hijab shopping with her playful young daughter. In the parking lot, the woman struck her meandering daughter as they passed by the stunned Iranian woman. The activist reprimanded the mother for hitting her daughter and cried out, “And please don’t force her to wear a headscarf when she grows up.” Two hours later, two police officers arrived at the Iranian woman’s home to question her after the irate Muslim mother, who had recorded the activist’s license plate number, summoned them.

Are these incidents indicative of hypersensitivity to potential accusations of Islamophobia, or do they reveal an already entrenched subservience to Muslims — dhimmitude — or both? A closer examination of both leads to the conclusion that perhaps the two concepts are one and the same. Both reflect a fear of Muslims which appears to lead to special treatment. Conceivably, it’s a matter of degree, with dhimmitude being the end result of pervasive concerns about manifesting Islamophobia.