The only proper thing for two-staters to do is to admit error, apologize for the vast damage they have wrought, and bow out of public life.

The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them. – Albert Einstein

This insight encapsulates the predicament that two-staters have inflicted on us. The problems that have arisen from the pursuit of the policy of two-states-for-two-peoples cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created those problems – i.e. by the continued pursuit of that policy.

Two-stater bewilderment
Over the past several months, two-staters have been in a flap, displaying growing frustration and bewilderment over the refusal of reality to conform to their political prescription. Increasingly, their public statements show signs of despair and desperation, at times tinged with tones of panic. It is becoming evermore common to encounter expressions of what once would have been considered heretical musings, reflecting mounting doubts whether their formula for resolving the conflict is at all feasible.

One of the more outlandish responses to this spreading desperation was that articulated recently by Shimon Peres – who might well be dubbed “the-two-stater-in-chief” – at last month’s Presidential Conference in Jerusalem.

Addressing a plenary session titled “Learning from Mistakes on the Way to Tomorrow,” Peres seemed to advocate that we shouldn’t.

Learn from mistakes, that is.

His recipe for attaining peace – which of course has worked so splendidly up to now – was to forget the past because “we can’t change it.”


By:- Ed Ziegler – Columnist

In America and all westernized countries females have the same rights as men. It is safe to even say women tend to receive a little more respect then men. In many Islamic societies women are openly treated as the property of men, of lower value, perhaps even as slaves. Where Muslims have emigrated to other countries there are numerous instances where they maintain their custom of abusing women.

The authority allowing men to control women comes from the Hadith and the Quran. One such verse (4:34) in the Quran reads “Men are the protectors of woman, because Allah has given one more than the other. Therefore the righteous woman is devoutly obedient.”

According to the ISNA news agency, the Euro 2012 games are aired on television in football-mad Iran. However women are banned from watching with their menfolk. Bahman Kargar, Iran’s deputy police commander in charge of social affairs, said “It is an inappropriate situation when men and women watch football in theatres together,” “Men, while watching football, get excited and sometimes utter vulgar curses or tell dirty jokes,” he said. “It is not within the dignity of women to watch football with men. Women should thank the police for the ban.”

In a sermon, former Pakistani lawmaker and prominent Islamic cleric, Maulana Abdul Haleem, justified Honor killings of women who opt for secular education. He threatened to forcibly marry off Western female staff of secular non-governmental organizations who visit the district of Kohistan to work with women’s education, health, and other welfare projects. He termed formal education for women un-Islamic.

In April 2012 the Egyptian website Youm 7 reported Azza al-Jarf, a female Member of Parliament representing the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice Party,” was trying to abolish laws enjoyed by Egyptian women—including preventing them from divorcing or even separating from their husbands, because “the man has the authority and stewardship.”

Another female politician, Mona Salah, declared that “women are deficient in intelligence and religion,” and that, in agreement with Sharia law, they are banned from running for the presidency.

On June 25, 2012 “The Sun” reported “I wed age FIVE in the UK “ (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4244979/I-married-at-the-age-of-FIVE-in-the-UK.html ). Samina, the subject of the article, has decided to speak out after Britain’s Forced Marriage Unit revealed that last year they investigated 1,468 cases of forced marriage including another girl of five.

In March 2012 Mohamed al-Omda, deputy head of the People’s Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, has submitted a resolution draft to cancel a woman’s right to divorce (Khula) or separate from her husband.

On June 4, 2012 “The Independent” reported Charlotte Proudman, has represented Muslim women pro bono at Sharia courts across the UK. Proudman received a call from Nasrin, who pleaded for help to obtain an Islamic divorce from a forced marriage characterized by rape and physical violence. The Sharia council refused to provide her with a divorce. The Sharia council told Nasrin that her gender prevents her from unilaterally divorcing her husband. She was told to return to her husband, perform her wifely duties and maintain the abusive marriage.



Reprinted from IsraelNationalNews.com.

It has become an article of political faith in the West that the creation of an independent Palestinian state will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the two-state paradigm is based on fictional assumptions – that an ancient Palestinian people occupied the land for thousands of years until its displacement by Israel, that the conflict is driven by this displacement, and that Israel usurped ancestral Arab soil.

These false premises are used to obscure the true nature of the conflict, which is not really a dispute between Israelis and Palestinians over real estate, but rather is a war of annihilation being waged by the entire Arab-Muslim world. The establishment of an independent Palestine will not facilitate peace because the goal of this war is Israel’s demise.

A more rational resolution, and one that makes historical, legal and demographic sense, would be for Israel to annex some or all of Judea, Samaria and other areas that were part of the ancient Jewish commonwealth, which was the only sovereign nation ever to exist between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

The western media relegates any discussion of annexation to the lunatic fringe, but there is nothing radical about the concept. Indeed, the San Remo Conference of 1920 and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 originally contemplated Jewish settlement throughout the traditional homeland, well before the term “Palestinian” entered common usage after 1967 as a dissimulative weapon in the propaganda war against the Jewish state.

After Transjordan was created on the bulk of Mandate lands under British control, the goal for the remainder was unrestricted Jewish habitation west of the Jordan River. This objective was recognized long before the dialogue was hijacked by the myth of Palestine, a nation that never existed, and by the canard that Judea and Samaria were historically Arab lands. No amount of subterfuge can change the fact that Palestinian nationalism is an artificial construct or that Judea and Samaria were never lawfully part of any sovereign Arab nation.

Ironically, commentators who condemn any discussion of annexation as right-wing extremism conveniently ignore the singular role of Arab-Muslim rejectionism in perpetuating the state of war with Israel. The liberal media portrays the Palestinian Authority as moderate despite a charter that plainly calls for Israel’s destruction and regardless of its reconciliation with Hamas, whose own charter screams for jihad and genocide.

The Obama administration and European Union remain deaf, dumb and blind to Palestinian prevarications and incitement, even as they chastise Israel for not offering ever more unilateral concessions. Arab provocations are ignored or rewarded, while Israel is labeled obstructionist, despite the unrequited compromises she has made in the naive search for peace with those who seek her destruction.



The hilarity never stops among those lovable jihadists. When they’re not trying to calculate exactly how thick a stick you may use to beat your wife (all the best authorities seem to concur that it’s about the thickness of your thumb), they’re pouring through the vegetable kingdom in order to discover cruciferous foods that they can then ban. (Interesting, is it not, that a Google search for the allowable thickness of the stick with which to beat your wife brought up 122,000,000 “hits,” so to speak; clearly it is a matter of concern among the followers of the Religion of Peace.)

Regular readers will recall that just the other day I reported in the space on the unhappy fate of the noble tomato. Slice it down the middle and, lo! there you’ll find a delectable cross shaped structure holding in the luscious fruit. But wait just a second, Mohammed, that tomato, containing in its inmost heart the shape of a cross, may be the work of the devil! So hands off.

I reported this in general terms the other day. It is one of the benefits of being at The New Criterion that we attract the very highest quality intern. One of our current crop, a student at Yale, is Nicholas Aubin, and, seeing my post, he helpfully provided this translation of the Arabic script:

It is a sin to eat the tomato, because it is Christian and it praises the Cross instead of Allah, and bears witness to the fact that Allah is one third of the Trinity. God Forbid…. Swear by Allah that you will spread the news of this, because there is a Sister from Palestine who saw the Prophet Muhammad in a vision, and he called out a warning of death to those who eat of it.

Don’t say you weren’t warned!



The comedian tweeted yesterday: “Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks”

Some websites consider Richard Henry Lee a president of the United States. In fact, Lee was president of the Continental Congress and actually made the motion in Congress to declare independence from Great Britain. In other words, he was the man willing to literally stick his neck out in a body still unconvinced that open rebellion was prudent. Lee signed the Declaration of Independence and was eventually elected a senator from Virginia.

Yesterday, on July 4, I visited the odd and charming grave of Lee, tucked away in a Westmoreland County, Virginia, cornfield. It isn’t easy to find. Nevertheless, I wasn’t the only visitor. Others had left wreaths and notes of thanks. A dirt road travels through the middle of a cornfield, a field that used to comprise his family estate Burnt Fields. Suddenly the corn gives way to a small circle with the Lee family plot enclosed by a brick wall.

Lee was a Southern gentleman farmer, which to people like Chris Rock means slaveholder. Of course wiser Americans know the principles in the Declaration were so transcendent that even though it might take two centuries to fully realize, the authors of that document were revolutionaries both philosophically and politically. The human experience is now better because of those men, for blacks and whites alike.

Rock’s rancid attitude wasn’t new to me. If you’ve read my book Injustice, you know that hatred of the founders is a deep undercurrent of the racialist left. Documenting how that nasty undercurrent has become public policy is a central theme of my book:



“The Abu Dhabi police issued this week a booklet on dos and don’ts for tourists that will be available at the Abu Dhabi International Airport and hotels, according to The National newspaper. It advises tourists that public displays of affection including kissing are considered indecent and that they should wear “modest” clothing.”


ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — With the number of foreigners dwarfing that of locals in her hometown of Abu Dhabi, Asma al-Muhairi has become increasingly anxious at the prospect of her younger nieces abandoning their full-length black robes in favor of Western attire that seems to be everywhere she goes.

But it wasn’t until the 23-year-old marketing worker came face to face with two scantily-clad female foreigners at one of the many luxury shopping malls in the United Arab Emirates that she decided to take action.

“While going to a mall, I saw two ladies wearing … I can’t say even shorts. It was underwear,” said al-Muhairi, whose black abaya — a long garment worn by conservative Gulf women — is offset by a gold Versace watch and egg-shell blue handbag.

“Really, they were not shorts,” she said. “I was standing and thinking: ‘Why is this continuing? Why is it in the mall? I see families. I see kids around.'”

Failing to persuade the mall to intervene, al-Muhairi and another Emirati woman, Hanan al-Rayes, took to Twitter to air their concerns in May.

They were inundated with responses that prompted them to launch a Twitter campaign dubbed (at)UAEDressCode that aims to explore ways to combat the growing number of shoppers in low-cut dresses and hot pants.

As the campaign picked up steam, it also has served to symbolize the growing concerns among Emiratis, a tiny minority in their own country.

Emirati citizens account for a little more than 10 percent of the 8 million people living in the Gulf nation. Most of the population is made up of Asian, African and Middle Eastern guest workers, as well as Western expatriates living here temporarily.




Robert Strauss, a longtime correspondent of this blog, writes in today concerning an anti-Olympics op-ed in the New York Times by two academics: Jules Bykoff, an associate professor of political science at Pacific University, “who is writing a book on dissent and the Olympics,” and Alan Tomlinson, professor of “leisure studies” at the University of Brighton. Their piece critiques the commercialism of it all, the cronyism of it all, the privilege of it all (aha!) … and “Ann Romney’s horse,” which is probably the raison d’etre of it all.

Bob writes:

Honestly, I don’t have much concern for the Olympics one way or the other. And gee, who’d a thunk that a major sports event would be overly commercialized!

But what’s interesting about the Occupy-style tone of this article is that it could be applied perfectly to the Obama stimulus. It’s almost a parallel blueprint, especially the emphasis on cronyism and signage!

Eureka: It’s the same anti-capitalist Agenda.

To improve the Olympics, the poli sci and “leisure studies” profs have a plan. They write:

Competitions drenched in privilege, like the equestrian events, should be ditched (with apologies to Ann Romney’s horse Rafalca, who will be competing in dressage in London). Pseudo-historical events like Greco-Roman wrestling, concocted in the 19th century, could also go. Events with high start-up costs could be swapped for those requiring fewer resources. Why not bring back tug-of-war (a hotly contested event in the early 20th century) and add more running events, like trail running and cross-country?

Can’t you just see their rimless little Lenin glasses fogging up at the thought of “ditching” “privilege-drenched” equestrian events? And maybe the “p-d” equestrians themselves to boot! “Privilege” has no place in their brave new world; academic tenure, of course, is perfectly okay. Let them play tug-of-war!

Personally, I am all for privilege drenching society — trickle-down and all that. In fact, since Marxists like economics so much, before the revolution, let’s consider the relative economic impact of dressage and its apparently prole-approved replacement, tug-of-war.




[Last Saturday (6/30), Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders delivered this speech at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, Colorado.]

Thank you, dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, for inviting me to the Western Conservative Summit. It is always a pleasure to come to America. I was here a few weeks ago to meet with my dear friend, congresswoman Michele Bachmann, to talk about Islam and the threat to America and Europe.

I feel honored to have been invited to address you today about the situation in Europe and in particular in my own country, the Netherlands. This situation serves as a warning to what might happen in America if you fail to be vigilant. As U.S. President Andrew Jackson said: “Remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.”

But first, let me start by introducing myself. I am one of the 150 members of the House of Representatives in the Netherlands, a small country of almost 17 million people in Western Europe. I am the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid). My party is the third largest of eleven parties represented in the Dutch parliament.

Perhaps many of you think that life for this politician in the Netherlands resembles the life of the members of your own Congress. Unfortunately, that is not the case. For the past eight years I have been living under 24 hour police protection. Wherever I go, plainclothes policemen go with me. I live in a government safe house, heavily protected and bulletproof.

I am driven every day from the safe house to the Dutch parliament in armored police cars with flashing blue lights.

I have not walked the streets on my own in the past eight years. When I occasionally go to a restaurant or a movie theater, the police will have to check everything first. My wife and I have lived in army barracks and prisons cells just to be safe from assassins.

Why do I need this protection? I am not a president or a king; I am a mere parliamentarian.

I have, however, been marked for death for criticizing Islam. I was placed under police protection in early November 2004 when an Islamic fanatic murdered th Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh because he had criticized Islam. Van Gogh was slaughtered in broad daylight in the streets of Amsterdam. A few hours later, the police found a letter written by the assassin threatening to kill me as well.

What have I done, you might ask, to deserve those death threats? I have candidly expressed my views about Islam.

My views, in a nutshell, are that Islam, rather than a religion, is predominantly a totalitarian ideology striving for world dominance. I believe that Islam and freedom are incompatible.

Some people do not want to hear this message. That is why they threaten to murder everyone who states this truth.

I am not the only one who has been marked for death. The British author Salman Rushdie, the Scandinavian cartoonists Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks have all been victims of assassination attempts.

However, if you really love freedom, you have to speak the truth. If not, we will fall victim to Islam, like earlier the people in the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, India and Indonesia fell victim to it. That is why I spoke, why I speak and why I will continue speaking, whatever the consequences: I do not want Europe nor America to become Islamic.

Before I continue I want to make clear that I do not have a problem with Moslems. There are many moderate Moslems. I always make a distinction between the people and the ideology, between Moslems and Islam. There are many moderate Moslems, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

There is only one Islam and it is a dangerous ideology. It is intolerant, it is violent. It should not be tolerated, but should be contained.

In Europe, we are experiencing that as Islam becomes stronger in a society – even when the majority of Moslems are moderates – a society becomes less free and more intolerant of non- Moslems.

Certain parts of our inner cities no longer look like Europe. They look like suburbs of Cairo, Rabat, Algiers, Damascus or Mecca.


‘Israelis have a legal right to settle all Judea and Samaria’


Committee headed by retired Supreme Court justice, tasked with examining the legal status of outposts, concludes that international law does not preclude Israeli construction on land owned by the state • Committee declares that communities built with government assistance were implicitly authorized.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, who heads a committee tasked with examining the legality of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, declared on Tuesday that Israelis have a legal right to settle the region.

“According to international law, Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority,” Levy stated. “Therefore, the establishment of Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria] is, in itself, not illegal.”



Product Details
The Lady in Gold: The Extraordinary Tale of Gustav Klimt’s Masterpiece, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer [Deckle Edge] by Anne-Marie O’Connor (Feb 7, 2012)
Product Details
Lost Lives, Lost Art: Jewish Collectors, Nazi Art Theft, and the Quest for Justice by Melissa Muller, Monika Tatzkow and Ronald S. Lauder (Nov 1, 2010)

The legendary Jewish gallery owner Alfred Flechtheim lost dozens of precious paintings during the Nazi era. For years, his heirs have been fighting for their rights to many paintings that now hang in Germany’s top museums. It is one of the most complicated art restitution cases the country has ever seen.

The city of Berlin has affixed a memorial plaque to the front of the magnificent art nouveau building on Bleibtreu Strasse. It reads: “Alfred Flechtheim, art dealer, publisher and friend of modern art, lived in this building from 1923 to 1933. In 1933, Alfred Flechtheim was forced to emigrate. He died in exile in London.”

Flechtheim must have experienced good times in his nine-room apartment, where he played host to the stars of the Weimar Republic — actors, artists and athletes. But then the dark days began.

Michael Hulton, his grand nephew, still refers to him as “Uncle Alfred” today. Hulton, 66, an affable, soft-spoken man, now lives in San Francisco. His grandparents came from Berlin, and his grandmother was Flechtheim’s sister-in-law. The family name was still Hulisch at the time. Hulton grew up in London and later studied medicine at Cambridge.

‘I Want Justice’

For the last four years, Hulton has made regular trips to Berlin, where he rents a room at Pension Gudrun, in the house next door on Bleibtreu Strasse. “I want justice,” says Hulton.