http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=327188 US President Barack Obama’s rapidly changing positions on Syria have produced many odd spectacles. One of odder ones was the sight of hundreds of lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee fanning out on Capitol Hill to lobby members of the House and Senate to support Obama’s plan to launch what Secretary of […]
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3994/iceland-mosque The Muslim Association of Iceland now admits that foreign donors will be paying for the mosque’s construction costs. The former mayor of Reykjavik says he believes it is outrageous for the city to give Muslims a site at no cost at a great location in the center of the city, and asks why political […]
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ ISLAM IS THE MOTIVE In Westgate, a Kenyan mall oriented toward expats, terrorists separated Muslims from non-Muslims before killing them. The Muslims were allowed to go free if they could recite a Muslim prayer. “I don’t understand why you would shoot a five-year-old child,” one of the survivors said. But the five-year-old was not […]
See the previous installments of P. David Hornik’s fascinating series:
Israel: Leper or Light Unto the Nations? Part 1: The Whole World Against Us
Israel: Leper or Light Unto the Nations? Part 2: That Bird Could Be a Mossad Agent!
Israel: Leper or Light Unto the Nations? Part 3: From Woodstock to the Promised Land
Israel: Leper or Light Unto the Nations? Part 4: Why Is Israel So Lousy at Making Its Case?
Israel: Leper or Light Unto the Nations? Part 5: Whichever It Is, I’ve Married It
This summer a total of about 800 Jewish immigrants from France are expected to arrive in Israel. They’re part of a total of about 2500 who are expected to make their way here from France over the course of the year—an increase of 40 percent over last year.
As Sabrina Kozirov, arriving in August with her husband and two teenage daughters, told Israel’s Ynetnews:
The situation in France had become unbearable. There is a large Muslim community and harsh political criticism of Israel. Therefore we preferred to leave.
Her words dovetail with a report by an Israeli institute on the bleak situation of France’s Jews and Europe’s generally, and with a much-read article by French Jewish intellectual Michel Gurfinkiel on the same theme.
Along with the problems Sabrina Kozirov alludes to—the animosity (not infrequently violent) of Muslim populations and an intense anti-Israeli atmosphere generally—many of the European countries have been banning or trying to ban kosher slaughter and even circumcision, a Jewish practice going back to Abraham’s time in the Book of Genesis.
The attempt to “rebuild Jewish life” in post-Holocaust Europe was, of course, problematic from the start. A continent that could have produced the Holocaust could not, realistically, have been expected to make an abrupt about-face and become Jew-friendly. But the form European antisemitism now takes—particularly the animus against Israel—is not without some striking ironies.
The Zionist ideology that produced the state of Israel took a dim view of Jewish life in the Diaspora. Zionist leaders like Theodor Herzl and Ze’ev Jabotinsky warned that the Jews of Europe were in grave danger and should get out before it was too late. Zionism also embraced the doctrine of shlilat ha-Golah—negation of the Diaspora, positing that even in countries that were Jew-friendly, Jews would disappear quietly through assimilation.
But while Zionism was all too right about the dangers of antisemitism, it was not necessarily right in its diagnosis of it.
As many Zionist thinkers saw it, the Jewish state in the Land of Israel would not only be a refuge from antisemitism, but the solution for it. Antisemitism, in this view, arose from the anomaly of Jewish life in the Exile, dispersed among other peoples. Once Jews became a “normal” people in their own state, antisemitism would wither on the vine.
Former President Bill Clinton said during a gathering at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York on Wednesday that President Vladimir Putin is trustworthy — that he’s never gone back on a promise.
“He kept his word in all the deals we made,” Mr. Clinton said, United Press International reported.
Mr. Clinton made the comments in context of speaking about Syria, and the plan forged by Russia to strip President Bashar Assad of his chemical weapon stash and turn it over to the international community to control.
At the same time he said Mr. Putin was trustworthy, Mr. Clinton also admitted he couldn’t predict a successful outcome with the Syrian agreement.
“[The U.S.] will just have to see what happens” with that deal, he said, UPI reported. “You work for the best and prepare for the worst in this business. But I think it would be a terrible mistake not to take advantage of the opportunity. And you know, look, Mr. Putin is very smart.”
Mr. Clinton also said his working relationship with Mr. Putin had been marked by candor. The Russian leader is “brutally blunt,” he said.
Daniel Greenfield, the Sultan Knish columnist and frequent contributor to FrontPage’s The Point Blog, is one of the most perceptive, objective, prolific, and ruthless observers of contemporary politics and culture in the country. He writes things Charles Krauthammer would be hesitant to publish, and says things no one on Fox News would dare utter.
This is because he is an intellectual, a thinker in fundamentals, and so he has a far wider perspective on things Islamic than has any newspaper pundit or TV anchor or teleprompter reader.
One of the first tasks I perform when returning to my computer after a night’s sleep is to hunt up and read his latest pieces. I do not know how he keeps up the pace and the output. I’ve often kidded him by asking him if he has a time warp device that allows him to vanish into a timeless realm to cover and produce as much copy as he does, and then emerge from it to have a bite to eat and take a nap. That way he could keep to the twenty-four hour day with the rest of us.
He will only admit that it is “like racing along a treadmill manned by Marxist clowns.”
More often than not his Sultan Knish columns are evocative of H.L. Mencken at his best: wryly ironic, sometimes bitter, always contemptuous of politicians and activists who suffer from foot-in-mouth disease or who have been lobotomized by political correctness, or who are just plain morally and/or politically corrupt. Regardless of his mood, he will make an unforgettable point. A few times he might over-write, and occasionally a grammatical error might creep in, but such lapses are so infrequent it would be picayune to dwell on them. Given the caliber of his intellect and his bare-knuckles honesty, readers are getting a bargain.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/global-warming-the-biggest-lie-exposed I will never understand the kind of thinking behind a lie so big that it became an international fraud and swindle. I cannot understand why an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) operating under the umbrella of the United Nations, was permitted to issue reports of an imminent threat to the […]
This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Colin Flaherty, the author of White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence and How the Media Ignore It.
Colin discussed the epidemic of black mob violence all over the country and the media’s cover-up.
Don’t miss the Glazov Gang’s second episode this week, featuring Raymond Ibrahim, the Freedom Center’s Shillman Fellow and the author of the new book, ”Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.”
Raymond shed light on Obama’s Enabling of Islam’s War on Christians. The discussion occurred within the context of a larger dialogue about Islam’s new war on Christians, the Brotherhood’s Church-burning sprees, its rape gangs, and Egyptians’ anger at Obama.
Raymond also discussed the hypocrisy of Obama’s call for war against Assad, the Syrian rebels’ plans to annihilate Syria’s Christians, and the media’s cover-up of the whole Islamic war against Christians.
To watch the interview, see below:
The politicians were particularly outraged by Obama’s statement that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends on the realization of a Palestinian state.
“That is one of the worst statements by an American president in history,” said Transportation Minister Israel Katz, who heads the Likud’s governing secretariat. “Israel’s existence does not depend on anything, especially not the Palestinians. The US helps Israel, but we have always known to defend ourselves with our own force. We desire peace, but we will not take unnecessary risks and we will not accept any solution that endangers our existence.”
Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon called upon Netanyahu to resist pressure from Obama on the Palestinian issue, which he said he expects will only increase with time.
“At a time when steely resolve is needed in dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, we are instead hearing of premature concessions,” Danon said. “If this is the new policy of the US administration, then our government must remain vigilant and ready for the possibility of huge American pressure in the current talks with the Palestinians.”
It’s not even a new policy. It’s the same old policy. Except now Iran smells weakness and has decided to play a little with Obama.
This week, on Sunday, September 29, 2013 in Los Angeles, the American Freedom Alliance will host yet another of its excellent international conferences — this time focusing on the 20th anniversary of the Oslo Accords.Today, we interview the conference‘s organizer Avi Davis, to discuss the purpose of the conference and its focus.
FP: Avi Davis, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
The Oslo Peace Accords, signed 20 years ago this month, have been regarded as a great diplomatic failure. Share with us the importance of revisiting them.
Davis: Thanks Jamie.
I believe there are tremendous lessons that can be learned from the Accords’ failure, not just for the Israelis, but for the West in general, particularly in light of the turbulence in the Arab world today.
For instance, the assumption that every Arab government longs for peace and prosperity, a conceit at the heart of the Oslo Accords, should be dispatched as the nonsense it is. Yasser Arafat proved that he had no interest in the kind of peace envisaged for him by his Western interlocutors – and that is a lesson that can be readily applied to many other Arab leaders today.
FP: You have a very esteemed group of panelists offered at this conference – from Bret Stephens , who recently won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, to renowned Middle East commentator Daniel Pipes, to former State Department official Aaron David Miller, among 20 other speakers and panelists.
What will the emphasis of these speakers be?
Davis: Well, we have titled the conference Oslo@20: Cost and Consequences of the Peace Process and I expect that each one of the speakers will provide his own unique response to the question of the meaning of the Oslo Accords for both Middle East and world history.
There are indeed some unique perspectives. For instance, we also have at this conference two individuals who lived in the Palestinian territories for a good part of their early lives, – Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat. They will give their perspectives on their birth place, both pre-Arafat and post-Arafat and the impact that the Accords had on their individual lives and the lives of their families.
FP: The conference does seem a little weighted in the direction of those who initially thought the Oslo Accords were a bad idea or within a short time became vigorous opponents. Can you explain the choice of speakers and panelists?