Watch and Share: ‘When the World Stayed Silent’

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei surrounded by military officials.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei surrounded by military officials.

Clarion Project, July 1, 2015:

We have already seen what happens when the world stays silent when confronted with evil. Don’t let history repeat itself.

Watch our latest film and write to your representative. Count your name among the righteous who oppose this historically bad deal and be on the right side of history.  

Please share the link and help this film go viral.

Join our campaign to say “No to a Nuclear Iran”

Throughout history, good people have often tried to make deals with bad people, in the hopes of preserving peace. Today, there are those who want to make a deal with Iran. History has not been kind to those who make deals with bad people.

Islam is Nazism with a God

Published on Apr 24, 2015 by Eric Allen Bell

Islam is Nazism with a God. Islamic scripture teaches the hatred and killing of Jews. These teachings are right out in the open in Islamic countries and occur quietly in Islamic Centers and mosques in America and Europe. The solution is to educate the civilized world about the threat of Islam. The enemy of Islamic brutality is information. Spread it far and spread it wide. Spread it like Napalm. The Information Age with be the death of Islam.

The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews


Frontpage, April 15, 2015 by Jeffrey Herf:

To order David Horowitz’s “The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV:  Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews,” click here.

In this spirited and savvy collection of recent essays and speeches, David Horowitz argues that progressives, that is, left of center politicians, journalists and intellectuals have contributed to “undermining the defense of Western civilization against the totalitarian forces determined to destroy it.” Specifically, the threat comes from “the holy war or jihad waged by totalitarian Islamists in their quest for a global empire.” (p.1) These essays, many of which are lectures at university campuses or reports about those lectures, will reinforce the views of those who already agree that “Western civilization” is a good thing, that Islamism is a form of totalitarianism and that its Jihad is quest for a “global empire.” They may not convince those who think Western civilization is another name for racism, imperialism and war, that totalitarianism is an ideological relic of the Cold War and that an otherwise peaceful and tolerant Islam has been “hijacked” by violent extremists who misconstrue its texts and their meanings. Yet they may strike a nerve with those liberals who think it is absurd to deny the clear links between Islamism and terror and who, especially after the murders in Paris in January, understand that Islamism is a threat to the liberal traditions of Western politics and culture.

This volume addresses a by now much discussed paradox of our political and intellectual life. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the liberal intellectual Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism made the compelling case that the Islamist ideology that inspired the Al Qaeda terrorists emerged from a profoundly reactionary set of ideas which had lineages to Nazism and fascism. In Germany, Matthias Kuentzel, in his Jihad and Jew-Hatred:  Nazism, Islamism and the Roots of 9/11 examined in more detail the illiberal views of the 9/11 terrorists as well as the political and ideological connections between Islamism and Nazism. A number of us historians have documented those connections. The irony of the years since 2001, and especially of the Obama years, is that, with some exceptions, much of the sharpest criticism of the reactionary nature of Islamism and defense of classically liberal values has not come from the historic home of anti-fascism among leftists and liberals. Rather, as the 55, mostly short essays in this collection indicate, that critique has migrated to centrists and conservatives or those who are now called conservatives.

“Islamophobia,” the longest essay in the collection is co-written with Robert Spencer, also importantly draws attention to the international connections of Islamist organizations in the United States. The authors write that “the purpose of inserting the term ‘phobia’ is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational” and thus to discredit arguments that suggest a connection between Islamism and terror as themselves forms of bigotry. Horowitz and Spencer connect this criticism of the concept to discussion of the organizational connections between the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, the FBI seized the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States. In a trial in 2007 that led to the conviction of the Foundation’s leaders on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, the prosecution entered a seized a remarkable document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”(18)  The group’s goal was the establishment of “an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslim’s efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islam state wherever it is.”  Muslims, it continued “must understand their work in American is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Horowitz and Spencer perform an important service in drawing attention to this document and to the political campaign that it has inspired.

The memo called for the creation of front organizations including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Another front group identified in the Holy Land memo was the International Institute for Islamic Thought, said to have invented the term “Islamophobia.”  Horowitz and Spencer’s discussion of CAIR’s “Islamophobia campaign” is particularly interesting. In the Holy Land case, the US Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator and produced evidence that it has received $500,000 dollars from the Holy Land Foundation to set itself up.  CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that the US government shut down in 2005 for funding terrorism. CAIR has defined Islamophobia as “closed minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims” and has described anti-terror measures adopted by the US government as forms of “prejudice” and “hatred.” The authors argue that the use of such terms has been an effective instrument in blunting or stifling criticism of Islamism.

On American university and college campuses, the Muslim Students Association and “Students for Justice in Palestine” have sponsored “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” In recent years, the MSA has been particularly active at the campuses of the University of California in Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in the anti-Islamophobia campaigns. Remarkably, such efforts have received support from coalitions of leftwing student groups active in student governments. The authors write that “perhaps the chief asset possessed by the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims-European and American progressives—who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign,” one that “had a venerable antecedent in the support that progressives provided to Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.” (p.48) Again, the remarkable aspect of the current coalitions between Islamists and leftists was that these leftists were making common cause with organizations famous for anti-Semitism, subordination of women to second class status or worse and deep religious conviction, a set of beliefs at odds with some of the classic values of the radical left in the twentieth century. Then again, in view of the anti-Zionist campaigns of the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War and the hostility of the global radical left to Israel in recent decades, such “Red-Green” leftist-Islamist coalitions of recent years are not so surprising.

Horowitz sees a parallel between the “secular messianic movements like communism, socialism and progressivism” and the religious creeds they replaced. “It is not surprising therefore, that the chief sponsors of the blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been movements associated with the political left. It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like ‘racist.’”  The invention and application of the concept of Islamophobia “is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech, and therefore freedom itself, in the name of religious tolerance.”(55)

The remainder of this volume elaborates on these themes with twenty essays on Islamo-fascism, thirteen on the Middle East Conflict and eleven on “the Campus War against the Jews.” Horowitz’ reports on his many speeches at various campuses where some of the above mentioned Islamic organizations turn up to protest. There the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Students Association, emerged to challenge his arguments about the links between Islamism and fascism. Two essays are particularly important—and depressing. In “Suicidal Jews” and “”Hillel”s Coalitions with Israel’s Enemies,” Horowitz describes instances in which liberal and left-leaning Jewish undergraduates turn their criticism towards him rather than towards the anti-Israeli activists on campus.

This fourth volume of Horowitz’s essays depicts the bizarre nature of our contemporary political culture in which leftists make common cause with Islamists, Israel is denounced as a racist entity while the anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas and the government of Iran are non-issues for leftists, and the United States government refuses to state the obvious about the connection between Islamist ideology and the practice of terrorism. The defense of liberal principles has liberal advocates but as this valuable collection indicates the core of the defense has become a preoccupation of the center and right of American intellectual and political life. This volume is an important document of that endeavor.

Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book is Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. His work in progress is entitled “At War with Israel: East Germany and the West German Radical Left, 1967-1989.”

Andrew Bostom: Maimonides, the Houthi “Motto”, & My Limited Sympathy For War-Torn Yemen

“Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory to Islam”—Houth motto

“Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory to Islam”—Houth motto

By Andrew Bostom, April 2, 2015:


“And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them [the Jews] and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.”—Koran 2:61

“The nation of Ishmael…persecute us severely and devise ways to harm us and to debase us…None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have. We have done as our sages of blessed memory instructed us, bearing the lies and absurdities of Ishmael. We listen, but remain silent…In spite of all this, we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness, and their outbursts at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and choose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently toward us.” —Maimonides, Epistle to the Jews of Yemen (1172) [Stillman translation]

“Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory to Islam”Houthi motto

Even my eye, jaundiced as it is from studying the chronic plight of Yemenite Jewry under Islam, is not blind, or fully inured to the daily, ongoing Sunni-Shiite sectarian carnage in Yemen. This is a human tragedy, amongst many similar examples within Islamdom, daily unfolding before our collective eyes.

Yet, animated by Islam’s Jew-hating canon, the ugly historical context that I have chronicled—Yemen’s Jews being subjected to a millennium of continuous, grinding Islamic persecution, interspersed with paroxysmal acts of mass Muslim violence—compelled me to recall two very recent, bitter reminders of this specific, living doctrinal, and historical legacy.

Shiite worshippers from Iran’s surrogate minions at the Houthi Al-Hashoush Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen, on March 20, 2015, were engaged in the following exchange just as they were immolated by an ISIS homicide bombing:

Preacher: “Our belief in Allah will increase after today. We will triumph over their deceit and their arrogance. Allah is with us…” Worshippers: “Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory to Islam. Allah Akbar.”

Six days after that ghoulish scene of depraved Islamic Jew-hatred, literally in the midst of internecine Muslim sectarian slaughter, Houthi official Khaled Al-Madani, of the Supreme Revolutionary Council, addressed thousands of supporters assembled outside Sanaa’s old city. Al-Madani’s Thursday, March 26, 2015 invective was directed principally against Saudi Arabia. He intoned, “The horn of Satan [i.e., Saudi Arabia] has hired mercenaries to attack Yemeni soil, but Yemen will become their graveyard.” And once again, these comments drew the same response from the gathered Shiite Muslim masses previously uttered by the Al-Hashoush Mosque attendees immediately before their immolation:

Allah Akbar. Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory to Islam.

A pathognomonic New York Times story from February 18, 2015, entitled,“Persecution Defines Life for Yemen’s Remaining Jews,” noted the ubiquity of this Shiite Muslim motto (i.e., Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory to Islam), which

is chanted at all Houthi rallies, broadcast on television and painted on what seems like every blank wall space in areas they control.

Previous Houthi violence—death threats and Houthi jihadists burning down Jewish homes—was directed at the then 200, or fewer, Jews in Saada province, during 2006 to 2007. According to Yemenite Jew Salem Mousa, in 2006, he and his family fled because,

Houthis pursued us everywhere we went. Attacks and even forced conversions were common at that time

More than eight centuries before Salem Mousa’s account of the 2006 Muslim depredations against the Jews of Yemen, including “attacks and even forced conversions,” Maimonides’ The Epistle to the Jews of Yemen was written in approximately 1172, as a response to inquiries by Jacob ben Netan’el al-Fayyumi, then leader  of the Jewish community in Yemen. The Jews of Yemen wereexperiencing a crisis, as they were being forced to convert to Islam, an effort launched in about 1165 by Abd-al-Nabi ibn Mahdi. Maimonides offered al-Fayyumi and his flock what encouragement and guidance he could. The Epistle to the Jews of Yemen elucidates Maimonides’ views of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, whom he dubbed “the Madman,” and of Islam in general

…October 8, 1983, Bat Ye’or interviewed Yemenite Jews Hannah [Lolou] and Sa’adya b. Shelomo Akiva [Aqua], born respectively at Dhamar and Menakha (Yemen). They left Yemen in 1949, became citizens of Israel, and lived in Nes Ziyyona. Their recorded testimony affirms the additional chronic humiliations and oppressions experienced by Yemen’s Jews, resulting from the application of the sharia, right up until the community was effectively liquidated after the creation of Israel.

Until our departure from Yemen in 1949, it was forbidden for a Jew to write in Arabic, to possess arms, or to ride on a horse or camel. The Jews could only ride on donkeys, both legs on one side [sidesaddle] and were obliged to jump to the ground when passing a Muslim, and had to make detours. Pedestrians went on the left of Muslims. It was forbidden for Jews to enter mosques…The Arabs forbade us to wear shoes, so that we hid them when, as children, we went searching for wood for cooking. When we were far enough away, we put on our shoes; on returning, we took them off and hid them in the branches. The Arabs frequently searched us, and if they found them, they punished us and forbade us to collect wood. We had to lower our head, accepting insults and humiliations. The Arabs called us “stinking dogs.

Jewish children who became orphans before they were fifteen were forcibly converted to Islam. The families tried to save them by hiding them in bundles of hay. Afterward, the children were sent to other villages where they hid with another family and were given other names. Sometimes the children were put into coffins and the Arabs were told that they had died with their parents. Then they were helped to escape.

Georges Vajda’s comprehensive 1937 analysis of the portrayal of the Jews in the hadith remains the definitive treatment of this subject matter…These archetypes, Vajda concluded, in turn justify Muslim animus toward the Jews, and the admonition to at best “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.”

Vajda (d. 1981) also made these sadly prescient observations in 1968 regarding Islamic doctrines that continue to shape the behaviors of Muslim governments and societies toward any Jewish communities remaining in their midst, no matter how small or unobtrusive, present day Yemen offering a striking illustration:

[I]t seems clear that, unless it changes its principles, goes against the deepest feelings of its coreligionists and calls in question its own raison d’être, no Muslim power, however “liberal” it may like to think itself…could depart from the line of conduct followed in the past and continued de facto in the present [emphasis added], in conferring on Jews anything but the historic status of “protection,” patched up with ill-digested and unassimilated Western phraseology

Nuclear Truth; Dr. Andrew Bostom, Irreversible Ideology

Published on Mar 5, 2015 by theunitedwest

Dr. Andrew Bostom gives a brief lesson on the long history of Islamic antisemitism, with a focus on the Iranian Shia strain.


Andrew Bostom: Accommodating Totallitarianism, from the USSR to Iran – an interview with Diana West from  April 19, 2014:

On November 16, 1933, FDR “normalized” relations with the USSR in spite of overwhelming evidence that USSR was anything but  a “normal” state. On the contrary, it was a self-declared revolutionary entity openly (and covertly) dedicated to the subversion and overthrow of non-Communist nations. The US-USSR agreement included Soviet promises not to foment the overthrow of our Constitution, not to support agents attempting to overthrow our Constitution, and the like – all of which was already underway and, after the agreement, would only increase. Maintaining this diplomatic (later military) relationship, then, required looking the other way, the sustained denial of the facts, and even outright lies – a pattern of behavior, I argue in American Betrayal, that ultimately helped subvert our government, and even our nation’s character.

Without a serious re-examination and revision of these events, these patterns just continue. Indeed, as I argue in the book, this same pattern of behavior may be seen in current US dealings with Islam in all of its guises.

Irans-Final-Solution-for-IsraelIn Andrew Bostom’s timely and substantive new book, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel,* Bostom makes a paradigm-breaking case study of US-led negotiations with Iran, chronicling similar patterns of denial that mask the ideological and religious imperatives that drive Iran’s open, frequently declared intentions to destroy Israel. I have asked Andy, to expand on whether the agreement between Iran and  “P5 +1” — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia, China) plus Germany) — is another iteration of this same denial of reality.

Andrew Bostom replies:

In addition to the foreboding chronological symmetry—the recognition of the Soviet Union on November 16, 1933, and almost precisely 80 years later, the announcement of the “P5 + 1” agreement, November 24, 2013—two essential parallels are immediately striking, and ominous:

  • Ignoring, willfully, the former Soviet, and now (albeit, ancient prototype) Islamic totalitarian, hegemonic ideologies and their doctrinal strategies of deception.
  • Lying about the intrinsic nature of both the November, 1933 and November, 2013 agreements to deny or conceal their intractable strategic, and moral failures.

President Reagan’s seminal March, 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals included this gimlet-eyed description of the “totalitarian darkness” at Communism’s ideological core:

…they [Communists] preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth.

What Ronald Reagan understood—and articulated—was elaborated more concretely by Robert Conquest, the nonpareil historian of Communist totalitarianism’s ideology, and resultant mass murderous depredations.

The Soviet Union, right up to the eve of its collapse, was committed to the concept of an unappeasable conflict with the Western world and to the doctrine that this could only be resolved by what Foreign Minister Andrey [Andrei] Gromyko described as officially as one could imagine, in his 1975 book The Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union, as world revolution: “The Communist Party of the Soviet Union subordinates all its theoretical and practical activity in the sphere of foreign relations to the task of strengthening the positions of socialism, and the interests of further developing and deepening the world revolutionary process.” One could hardly be franker.

The shared, mainstream Sunni and Shiite doctrine on jihad is the validating context in which Iran’s 1979 Constitutional provision on its self-proclaimed “Ideological Army,” must be evaluated. Iran’s expressed aggressive, hegemonic aspirations in this foundational document— animated by the ideology of jihad—are self-evident. Thus, invoking one of the Koran’s key verses sanctioning jihad war, Koran 8:60, the 1979 Iranian Constitution declares:

In the formation and equipping of the country’s defense forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of Allah’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them” [8:60]).

Khomeini’s Iran has indeed embraced jihad “as a central pillar of faith and action,” demonstrated notably by the unending campaign of vilification and proxy violence (via Hezbollah, in particular) against the “Zionist entity,” Israel. This struggle epitomized what Khomeini’s Iran viewed as its “sacred struggle to cleanse the region and the world of Muslim and non-Muslim infidel blasphemy.”

A compelling illustration of how well the U.S. Department of State once understood the true nature of jihad as a normative Islamic institution—circa 1880—was provided by Edward A. Van Dyck, then US Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt. Van Dyck prepared a detailed report in August, 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called “capitulations”) between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer U.S.-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck’s report—written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats— opens with an informed, clear, and remarkably concise explanation of jihad and Islamic law:

In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. “Fiqh,” as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists;

Confirming that present day Iranian foreign policy remains animated by jihad,  less than three weeks after the November 24, 2013 announcement of the P5 +1  interim agreement, during an interview which aired December 11, 2013, Iranian Middle East analyst Mohammad Sadeq al-Hosseini, provided a candid assessment of the negotiations. El-Hosseini, a former political advisor to both Iran’s alleged reformist ex-President Khatami, and the Khatami regime’s erstwhile Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Ata’ollah Mohajerani (also deemed a “moderate”), underscored the ancient Islamic doctrinal bases for the contemporary Iranian theocracy’s geo-politics. Invoking the armistice “Treaty of Hudaybiyya” agreement between Muhammad and the 7th century pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, which Islam’s prophet-warrior unilaterally abrogated as soon Muhammad’s jihadist forces achieved the military superiority needed to vanquish his Meccan foes, el-Hosseini declared:

This is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva, and it will be followed by a “conquest of Mecca.”

Consistent with Muhammad’s tactical formulation when waging jihad, “War is deceit” (from the canonical hadith “traditions” of the Muslim prophet), the Islamic doctrine of sacralized dissimulation, “takiya,” or “kitman” (“concealment”; “disguise”), and the modern parallel of Soviet Communist deceit and conspiracy (especially during arms control negotiations), el-Hosseini also noted,

Incidentally, for your information, when you conduct political negotiations with Iran, you lose even when you think you have won. The [Iranians] have raised the level of uranium enrichment far beyond the level they really needed, so that when the level would be lowered, they would emerge victorious.

Igor Lukes essay, “Linguistic Deception and U.S.-Soviet Arms Control Treaties,” (from the landmark 1988 Joseph S. Douglass, Jr. essay collection Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties), noted the striking similarity between Soviet “linguistic maneuvers” and takiya/ kitman, the Islamic doctrine of deception:

It is hard to ignore the existence of clear parallels between the defensive deceptions of Islamic kitman and the more global linguistic maneuvers of the Kremlin decision makers…[D]eception and conspiracy were to become a way of life of all communist movements. Indeed the long careers of Philby et al. [Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby (d. 1988) was a high-ranking member of British intelligence, and Soviet double agent, who defected to the Soviet Union in 1963, having been an operative of the Soviet NKVD/KGB, as part the spy ring now known as the “Cambridge Five”] demonstrate that kitman is as Soviet as it is Middle Eastern.

El-Hosseini, in his December 11, 2013 discussion, further insisted the Geneva deal augured America’s eventual jihad conquest during Iran’s ongoing “fierce war with Americans on all levels.” While this claim appears dubious, at present, El-Hosseini contended, appositely, that the agreement marked near-term U.S. capitulation to Iran’s oft-repeated threat to destroy Israel by jihad—including via nuclear weapons.

Obama had to make a great retreat. He was forced to accept a handshake from President Rohani [Rouhani], whom he considered a kind of Gorbachev or Sadat, so that the day would not come when he would be forced to kiss the hands of [Secretary General of Lebanese Hezbollah]Hassan Nasrallah and [Supreme Leader of Iran] Imam Khamenei, so that they would hold their fire in the great war that was prepared to annihilate Israel.

Read more

Islamic Hatred for the Jews And How it Got That Way

siege of the fortressAn Inquiry into Islam:

The following was written by F. W. Burleigh, author of It’s All About Muhammad.

On Tuesday, March 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of the United States Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House John Boehner. This will take place despite strong opposition from the White House, whose approval for this event was not sought.

Netanyahu will address the danger that an Iran with nuclear weapons would represent not only for Israel, but also for the United States and the entire world. More pointedly he will seek to persuade Congress not to support a deal that the Obama administration appears to be working out with Iran that will guarantee that Iran will soon have such weapons. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, Netanyahu will say.

His concerns are well founded. Iran’s leaders hate Israel for merely existing, and they have a history of threatening to annihilate the Jewish state. Nuclear weapons would give them a means to do so in one strike. One of Iran’s former presidents, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a man considered a moderate by Iranian standards, said that “it is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

It will be interesting to hear what Netanyahu has to say about “such an eventuality.” It is likely to be a momentous speech, but due to the time allotted, he will have to leave out much of what needs to be explained — chiefly, why these theocratic Iranian leaders hate Israel so much that they would love to incinerate it out of existence.

The short explanation: It has to do with an ancient hatred so thick you would need a chainsaw to cut through it.

Since it is unlikely the Israeli prime minister will address this phenomenon of hatred, I have written a speech for him that says what needs to be said about this very important subject. Perhaps he will see fit to insert this into his speech. The theme of this is Iran’s hatred for Jews and how it got that way:

“Distinguished members of Congress, I want to emphasize that this hatred did not come about as a result of creation of the State of Israel in 1948, nor from any of the conflicts, major and minor, between Israelis and Arabs that have occurred since then. The cause of the hatred goes back 1,400 years to the founder of Islam. Muslims hate Jews because Muhammad hated Jews. Muhammad hated Jews because they refused to accept his claim that he was their prophet.

This hatred is the story of Muhammad and his claim that God talked to him through an angel and dictated the contents of the Koran to him. It is the history of the rejection Muhammad first got from his compatriots in Mecca who thought he was devil possessed. Muhammad proclaimed to them that he was of the line of the Jewish prophets, and was commissioned by God to restore true faith in the one God of Abraham. They should listen to him and obey him if they wanted to achieve paradise and avoid hellfire. The Meccans put up with him for ten years before deciding they had to kill him to preserve their way of life. He fled to Yathrib, now called Medina, two hundred miles north of Mecca.

This is where the Jewish part of the story begins. Half of the population of the sprawling valley was Jewish, divided among three major tribes. The other half of the population consisted of Arabs who practiced the same polytheism as the Meccans. Muhammad built a mosque in the center of the valley and turned it into his al-qaeda, his base of operations for a war he declared against the Meccans. This consisted first of attacks on their caravans and ended in pitched battles. Within 18 months, he began to purge the Jewish population from Yathrib.

When Muhammad first arrived in their valley, the Jews listened politely to him, but when they analyzed the prophet verses he had come up with in Mecca, they realized they were not based on the Torah. They were versions of the derivative Jewish legends about the prophets, but even then there were significant variations, yet Muhammad claimed his versions were the correct ones because he got everything from God. When he insisted they accept him as their prophet, the Jews laughed in his face and began mocking him.

While in Mecca, Muhammad had developed curse prayers — hate prayers — that he and his followers recited against the Meccans. He now turned his curses on the Jews. He branded them as apes and pigs and stirred up hatred against them in diatribes from the pulpit at his mosque. “They are mischief makers. They are fools. The Jews deny the truth,” he screamed on one occasion. (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 248)

He composed numerous Koran verses that seethed with the hatred he felt for the Jews for rejecting him. In verse after verse he warned them that hellfire awaited them for not believing in him. “Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!” he said in Koran 4:55. In another he said, “There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.” (Koran 59:14)

He made life for them a hell on earth. His hatred turned deadly after a battle near the caravan stop of Badr in which his small band of 300 men defeated a Meccan army three times larger. This battle took place about 18 months after his flight from Mecca. When he returned victorious to Yathrib, he began assassinating Jewish poets who had mocked him in their poems. Within a month of his victory over the Meccans, he forced one of the Jewish tribes to leave and confiscated all of their property. He wanted to behead all of them, but was dissuaded by one of their pagan allies.

genocideFrom the battle of Badr on, the Muhammad story is largely the account of atrocities he committed, particularly against the Jews. A year after purging Yathrib of the first Jewish tribe, he forced another to leave under penalty of death if they did not, and he distributed their fortresses, date plantations, and farms to the elite of his Meccan followers. This had been Jewish land for nearly a thousand years. The remaining Jewish tribe, the Qurayzas, suffered a worse fate after they took sides against him during a Meccan assault that ended in failure because of a defensive ditch Muhammad dug around Yathrib. He beheaded as many as 900 men and boys. His attacks against the Jews continued with the conquest of Khaybar, a wealthy Jewish oasis known as the date farm of Western Arabia, and other ancient Jewish centers in western Arabia.

On his deathbed he ordered his followers not to allow any religion but his to exist on the Arabian Peninsula — or anywhere else for that matter.

Hatred is as transmissible as electricity. Because Muslims believe Muhammad’s Koran came from God and that everything he did was in accordance with the will of God, the Muslims of his day absorbed his hatreds. His hatred of the Jews became their hatred of the Jews. This hatred has been passed down generation after generation, and today we see it with the Iranians. It is because of the hatred that has been transmitted through 14 centuries that the Iranians seek to destroy Israel.”

Perhaps Netanyahu can be persuaded to include these remarks in his speech. It is the story behind the story, and it is the story that people need to hear.

Frank Burleigh is the author of It’s All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. He blogs at

No Jews to See Here

1163by Mark Steyn  •  Feb 10, 2015

Early on Tuesday, apropos their exclusive tongue-bath of the President, one of the Obama pajama boys over at Tweeted :

11K words from Obama on his worldview and all DC can talk about is an obviously accidental micro-gaffe. This is why everyone hates DC press.

The “obviously accidental micro-gaffe” was the President’s off-the-cuff observations about the alleged “over-playing” of terrorism when it’s just a low-level law-enforcement question about how to deal with “a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris”.

Well, we can all say carelessly formulated things when we’re off the prompter, particularly when lulled by a sycophantic interviewer. So I suppose it was just about possible that this was indeed “an obviously accidental micro-gaffe” by Obama. Except that, as The Washington Free Beacon pointed out, the Government of the United States spent much of the day insisting that the President meant every word he said. From Josh Earnest’s White House press conference:

JIM ACOSTA: Just to be clear though, that shooting at that deli in Paris was not random, correct? Did the president misspeak there?

JOSH EARNEST: Jim, I believe the point the president was trying to make was that these individuals were not specifically targeted. They were random people that happened to randomly be in the deli and were shot…

JON KARL: This was an attack in a kosher deli. Does the president have any doubt those terrorists attacked that deli because there would be Jews in that deli?

EARNEST: Jon, it is clear from the terrorists, from some of the writings they put out afterwards, what their motivation was. The adverb that the president chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in that terrible tragic incident were killed, not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.

KARL: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli, though? A kosher deli?

EARNEST: These individuals were not targeted by name. This is the point.

KARL: Not by name but religion, were they not?

EARNEST: Well, Jon, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.

Etc. On that last point – that not everybody in the grocery store (not a “deli”) was Jewish – Scaramouche says she’s not even sure if that’s true. Indeed. Bank robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is. In Europe, Islamic supremacists shoot up kosher markets, synagogues, Jewish museums and Jewish schools because that’s where the Jews are. Yet over at the State Department Jen Psaki went further:

“Does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?” asks AP reporter Matt Lee.

“Well, as you know, I believe if I remember the victims specifically, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality,” Psaki said.

“Does the administration believe this was an anti-Jewish or an attack on a Jewish community in Paris?” Lee pressed.

“I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities,” Psaki responded.

Well, President Hollande was happy to state the obvious and call it “a terrifying act of anti-Semitism” over a month ago, but apparently that’s not good enough for the US State Department. As for Ms Psaki’s assertion that “they were not all victims of one background”, Philippe Braham, Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, and François-Michel Saada were all Jews, and they died because they were Jews – as their killer cheerfully boasted.

For over a decade, I have been writing about the metastasizing Jew-hate in Europe, and I have noted, aside from the physical attacks, the casual acceptance of anti-Jewish slurs at the highest levels in Continental society. But I find, say, the Holocaust gags favored by Gretta Duiseberg, the wife of the then head of the European Central Bank, far less disturbing than the absurd pretzel-twist logic deployed by the Obama Administration to deny reality. It is creepy and profoundly unsettling. Like Simon Peter denying the condemned King of the Jews, the most powerful government in the western world thrice denied those four dead Jews in that Paris supermarket.

Here is a typical day in 21st-century Europe:

German court rules firebombing of synagogue is a “protest”.

Belgian teacher tells Jewish student: ‘we should put you all on freight wagons’.

European Jewish population continues to plummet.

British Vicar blames JOOOOOOOS for 9/11…

Anti-Jewish attacks in UK at highest levels ever recorded…

Teacher quits French school citing antisemitism.

Jewish social life in Europe now takes place behind razor-wire and security guards, and newspapers placidly report polls showing that 58 per cent of British Jews believe Jews have no future in Europe. It is utterly disgraceful that the government of one of the few western nations relatively untouched by the new mass Jew-hate should devote so much energy to insisting that there’s nothing to see here.

But lies beget lies. The Obama Administration insists that the Islamic State is not Islamic, Islamic terrorism is nothing to do with Islam, there’s no Islam to see here, no way, no how. You can’t hold the line at one lie, and tell the truth on everything else. The lie on Islam infects everything else. If they’re just “violent extremists” in general, they have to be violent and extremist in general – or “randomly”, as the President would say.

I’m a free-speech absolutist and therefore have a high tolerance for “hate”. But that’s why free speech is important – so one can address these subjects honestly. Islam is an incubator of Jew-hate. It’s unfortunate, but it is a fact. For example, Jordan is a “moderate” Muslim country. What does “moderate” actually mean in this context? Well, it means the Hashemites send their princes to Sandhurst and marry them off to hotties. But other than that? Ninety-seven per cent of Jordanians have an “unfavorable” opinion of Jews.

Jordan has just dispatched its troops to its eastern border with Iraq (my own experiences at that Trebil border crossing are recounted in The [Un]documented Mark Steyn). Don’t get me wrong: In a showdown between Jordan and ISIS, the former are the good guys, and I’m rooting for them. But we shouldn’t be under any illusions about the uglier aspects of Muslim society.

And yet “the leader of the free world” is doubling down on his illusions: Guys called Cohen get killed in kosher grocery stores, but it’s purely “random”. As much as the Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisocane a century-and-a-half ago, Islamic imperialists believe that “ideas spring from deeds”. Obama is just about willing to acknowledge the deed, but denies the animating ideas no matter how obviously they spring. And until we confront the ideas we are doomed to lose.

When the President lectures us, with his usual condescension, about not getting on our “high horse”, he gives the pronounced impression, as a sophisticated thinker with the highest horse in town, that when it comes to a choice between civilization and barbarism he’s happy to affect a studied neutrality. But those are real dead Jews on the floor of Hyper-Cacher, and, when the head of the global superpower dishonors them in death, and sends out his subordinates to underline the point, that is not a small matter.

~A postscript: We have been here before, of course. Ed Driscoll excerpts this choice news item from The New York Times in 1922, “New Popular Idol Rises In Bavaria“:

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers.

Thank goodness for that.

Pat Condell: A special kind of hate

Published on Jan 27, 2015 by Pat Condell

Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.

Jews in Europe report a surge in anti-Semitism…

74% of French Jews are considering emigration…

Jews flee anti-Semitism upsurge in Europe…

French Muslims see Jews controlling the economy…

Islamic anti-Semitism…

The global pogrom…

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes…

Reporter wearing kippah abused by Muslims in Malmö, Sweden…

Jews attacked in Malmö days after synagogue vandalised…

Jewish woman beaten by Muslims in Sweden for wearing Star of David…

The mayor of Malmö blames Jews for anti-Semitism…

Anti-Semitism in Copenhagen…

Switzerland: Muslim protesters attempt to storm synagogue…

Belgian cafe posts a sign banning Jews from entering…

Anti-Israel protesters defend Hitler. Police eject pro-Israel man…

Anti-Semitism in Britain. “Sit up and take notice.”…

UK Islam apologist admits to Muslim anti-Semitism, “our dirty little secret”…

The Luton Islamic Centre is a hotbed of anti-Semitic hatred…

Jewish MP cancels surgeries after threat…

UK Muslim gang goes “Jew bashing”…

Another gutless UK politician condemns the current wave of anti-Semitism without once alluding to its source.…

New York City councilman David Greenfield calls out the Jew haters for what they are…

Arab TV teaching children to hate Jews…

Daniel Greenfield: We need to talk about Muslim anti-Semitism…

Contemporary imprints of the anti-Semitic libel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion…

A Conversation about Anti-Semitism with Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Dr. Richard Landes

Israel— and the West— are encircled by evil and slander. We cannot afford to appease them, for appeasement only feeds the appetite of these beasts which , tasting blood, always thirst for more. – Phyllis Chesler


Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology at City University of New York. She is a best-selling author, a legendary feminist leader, a retired psychotherapist and expert courtroom witness. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious, and human rights campaigns in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and the Far East. Her work has been translated into many European languages and into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Hebrew.

Dr. Chesler is a co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969), The National Women’s Health Network (1974), and The International Committee for Women of the Wall (1989). She is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at The Middle East Forum, and a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).

She is the author of fifteen books, including the landmark feminist classic Women and Madness, as well as many other notable books including With Child: A Diary of Motherhood;Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody; Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman; and Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site. After publishing The New Anti-Semitism (2003), she published two more books: The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle For Women’s Freedom(2005) and An American Bride in Kabul (2013), which won a National Jewish Book Award.

book_new_anti_semitism-coverIn December, Gefen Publishing brought out the new edition of Chesler’s 2003 work The New Anti-Semitism, which has been expanded, strengthened, lightly updated, and which has a new Introduction. Gefen is an English-language publisher based in Jerusalem and New Jersey. Gefen will publish a one- or two-volume edition of her Collected Writings (2003 – 2014) on this subject.

Since 9/11, Dr. Chesler has focused on anti-Semitism and the demonization of Israel; the psychology of terrorism; the nature of propaganda; honor-based violence and the rights of women, dissidents, and gays in the Islamic world. Dr. Chesler has published three studies about honor-related violence, including honor killings, and a position paper on why the West should ban the burqa; these studies have all appeared inMiddle East Quarterly. She has testified for Muslim and ex-Muslim women who are seeking asylum or citizenship based on their credible belief that their families will honor kill them.

Dr. Chesler was born in Borough Park, Brooklyn, where she went to Hebrew Schools and joined Hashomer Ha’tzair. She lives in Manhattan and is a very proud mother and grandmother.

Dr. Chesler has been profiled in many encyclopedias, including Feminists Who Have Changed America,Jewish Women in America, and in the latest Encyclopedia Judaica. She invites readers to visit her website, where many of her articles are archived and where readers may contact her:

The Real European Jew-Hatred Threat: Luton, UK British Muslims March & Invoke Muhammad’s Slaughter of the Khaybar Jews, Again


By Andrew Bostom:

According to the You Tube upload date and an independent source, the demonstration captured on the video, above, took place yesterday, Friday, August 22, 2014, in Luton, UK.

For a detailed recent analysis of this overriding threat to European Jewry. i.e., Islam’s “sacralized” Jew-hatred from the creed’s canonical sources, as acted upon in “good faith” by the Muslims of Europe, see my June 6, 2014 essay, “Rampant Islamic Jew-Hatred in Europe and the Brussels Jewish Museum Carnage.”

As an update, French Rabbi Michel Serfaty, during an interview (posted Friday, August 8, 2014) with that bastion of cultural relativist denial, no less, NPR, made this unbowdlerized observation about the reality of actualized Jew-hatred in France: its “source” is overwhelmingly Muslims (denoted as “youths of Arab, African and North African descent”).

Serfaty laughs at the notion of the far right national front party being a possible source of the “new” anti-Semitism. Its voters are angry about the rise of immigration and Islam, he says. Not about well assimilated Jews. Official statistics show that around 95 percent of anti-Semitic acts in France are perpetrated by youths of Arab, African and North African descent.

An example of just one of a depressing myriad of canonical Islamic sources of Jew-hatred frequently invoked by European Muslims is the “Khaybar chant,” based upon Muhammad’s bloody conquest of the Khyabar Jews.

Muhammad prepared for his campaign against Khaybar—a farming oasis and the last Jewish stronghold in northern Arabia, where survivors (most notably, the Banu Nadir) of the Muslims’ earlier attacks on Medinan Jewry had also sought refuge—by two gruesome political assassinations. The brutal, sanguinary assaults by the Muslims that ensued shortly afterward resulted in the complete subjugation of the Jews of Khaybar. The political rationale for Muhammad’s campaign against Khaybar has been discussed by the respected scholars of Islam’s origins, Hartwig Hirschfeld and D. S. Margoliouth. Analyzing the Muslim documentary record, Hirschfeld observed:

The expedition against Khaybar was a distinct breach of faith, as two years previously Muhammad had given the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna a charter of liberty which has fortunately been preserved, and traces of which are also to be found in the works of [Muslim historians] al-Wakidi and al-Baladhuri.

Margoliouth expands upon these arguments, and concludes:

[T]he people of Khaybar, all that distance from Medina, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali [who became the 4th“Rightly Guided” Caliph, and is revered by Shiite Muslims), when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulae of Islam. Khaybar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Muslims.

The Luton Muslims “Khaybar chant” in the embedded video derives, as examples, from two of the canonical hadith collections (words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his devout, early followers), and the first and most authoritative Muslim biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. These contemporary Luton Muslims are threatening Jews, now, and in general, with the same violence Muhammad and his prototype Muslim jihadist army inflicted upon the Jews of Khaybar.

Sahih Muslim 3328Anas reported: I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah’s Messenger, and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army. Allah’s Messenger said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the morning of the warned ones (al-Qur’an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious, defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah’s Messenger got her in exchange of seven heads, and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for marriage) with him.

Sahih al-Bukhari 371When Allah’s Messenger invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. Allah’s Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode, too, and I was riding behind Abu Talha. Allah’s Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of Allah’s Prophet. Then his thigh was uncovered by the shift of his Izar (waist-sheet), and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of Allah’s Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, “Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.” He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, “Muhammad (has come) along with his army.” We conquered Khaibar, (took the captives), and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, “O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave-girl from the captives.” The Prophet said, “Go and take any slave-girl.” He took Safiyya bint Huyai.

Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 511We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him, and I rode behind Abu Talha with my foot touching the apostle’s foot. We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, “Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.” . . . The apostle seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them. . . . The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.


Daughter of Gaza, Nonie Darwish explains Islamic Jew-hatred mandates war to conquer Israel


Gaza-born, former Muslima, Nonie Darwish, lectures a group of Israeli-Americans about the bigotry in Islamic culture towards Christianity and especially Judaism which underlies the conflict against Israel and Christian minorities.

Mrs. Darwish authored three books, ‘Now They Call Me Infidel”, “Cruel and Usual Punishment”, and “The Devil We Don’t Know; the dark side of revolutions in the Middle East.”

Nonie holds a Bachelors degree in Sociology and Anthropology and was a journalist at the Middle East News Agency. She founded, 1994, to promote understanding, peace and a new paradigm for Arabs to view Israel.   Recorded July 20th in Los Angeles, California.



By Tom Trento for The United West:

For all the Baby Boomers out in media land, could there be a jingle more annoying than Wendy’s, octogenarian with her nails-scratching-on-the-chalkboard, “WHERE’S THE BEEF?” Well, lately if you have been anywhere near a street corner in a major city or close to an electronic device that emits  sounds, then undoubtedly you have heard the battle jingle of the “Arab Street” along with their pseudo-Marxist trust fund baby comrades, together spewing, “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-Free.” Though this little ditty has a melodic tone and maybe a good hip-hop rapper can make it jump, the curious among you may want to ask, “Hey, what does that river-to-the-sea business actually mean?”

That question can be answered quite eloquently by way of a detailed historical analysis going back to the Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna where in his writings, he desires to mobilize Muslims to recapture of glorious supremacy of the “Arabian Nights” crushing the infidel and raising a  scimitar in victorious praise of Allah the majestic! Or our little Arab Street jingle can be fully understood by just adding one word – JEW. You see, Al-Banna realized that the only way Palestine could be free was if that freedom went from the river, the Jordan River on the eastern border of Israel to the sea,  the Mediterranean Sea, on the western border of Israel. Again it is at this point that the mildly curious  asks, “Free from what?” What must Israel be free of that is so important to the Founder of the Muslim  Brotherhood in the 1920’s and to the Armani Jihadis on the street corners today? What freedom do  these followers of the Religion of Peace want when they all chant in unison, “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-Free” becoming increasingly louder and more violent at the mere appearance of a Star  of David on a child’s yarmulke? For the answer to this perplexing question let’s look at that one word again – JEW. If you take that word – JEW – and place it in our cute Arab rhyme then the code is broken, the puzzle solved and genocide is served on a historic platter. Here, take a look at this revised version and you will have eyes that see the obliteration of Israel and the Jew.: “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-JEW-Free.”

Read more at Breitbart

See also:

Palestinians Chose Hamas and the Mass-Murder of Civilians—Including Their Own

palestinians_jrl109_l1h5k_16298By Andrew C. McCarthy:

I argued in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy that the illusion’s signature feature is a fantasy: By holding free elections, a people is choosing freedom: joining modernity, adopting pluralism and tolerance, rejecting revolutionary violence and totalitarianism.

Today, we are yet again being inundated with tales of Palestinian woe after Hamas’s familiar barbarism has provoked an Israeli military response. It thus bears remembering thatthe Palestinian people chose Hamas. What ever happened to all those Democracy Project paeans to self-determination? Hamas is Palestinian self-determination. Hamas was not forced on Palestinians. Hamas did not militarily conquer Gaza. No, Hamas swept parliamentary elections freely held in the Palestinian territories in 2006 – thrashing its rival, Fatah, which is only marginally less committed to the destruction of Israel.

Hamas did not suddenly become a terrorist organization after it was elected. Hamas was elected because it was a jihadist organization. It was elected because, by its own declaration, Hamas connects Palestinians to something they find attractive: the global Islamic-supremacist movement. Palestinians widely reject Israel’s right to exist. They regard not just Gaza, Judea and Samaria but all of Israel as “occupied Palestine.” Even those Palestinians who purport to accept the “two-state solution” see it as a way-station on the march to a one-state solution in which the Jewish state eventually ceases to be. Palestinians chose Hamas precisely because Hamas was seen as more dedicated than Fatah to the achievement of that goal—not to mention, more brutally competent.

At the time of its election, Hamas was well known to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian terrorist wing. It has been formally designated as a terrorist organization by the United States since the mid-nineties. Indeed, shortly before Palestinians endorsed Hamas at the ballot box, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted several Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case, a multi-million dollar terrorism financing conspiracy orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in which several of the Brotherhood’s American affiliates—CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, among others—were proved to be complicit in the promotion of Hamas and thus designated as unindicted co-conspirators.

The Wall Street Journal gets close to the heart of the matter in its fine editorial this morning about Hamas’s “civilian death strategy”:

The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation.

What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low; children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore.

To make matters worse, Gazans sheltered terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside ottoman sofas and dirty diapers. When Israel warned them of impending attacks, the inhabitants defiantly refused to leave.

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

It also calls your parenting skills into serious question. In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows closed, a social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on MSNBC where they can call Israel a genocidal murderer.

I say this “gets close to the heart of the matter” because it pulls up just short. The problem in the Palestinian territories is not Hamas; it is the Palestinians. Hamas is a natural outgrowth of the Islamic supremacist ideology that is dominant among Palestinians. It is not just that the Palestinians chose Hamas with eyes open. It is that the Palestinians are Hamas. That Hamas Charter speaks for Palestinians, particularly in its scripturally-based Jew hatred. “[O]ur struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave,” its Introduction proclaims, “so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”

That is just a warm-up for Jew-hatred that pervades the Charter’s Article Seven:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.

This is what Palestinians voted for. The highlighted section of Article Seven comes straight from Islamic scripture, from the authoritative Bukhari and Muslim collections of hadith (the sayings and doings of the prophet Mohammed). It foretells an eternal struggle until the end of time, when, with Allah’s intercession, the rocks and trees will help Muslim battalions find and kill every remaining Jew.

Read more at PJ Media

Why the Arab World Is Lost in an Emotional Nakba, and How We Keep It There

A Palestinian protester aims sparks from a flare toward Israeli security forces during clashes near the Israeli checkpoint in Hebron on Feb. 25, 2013. (Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images)

A Palestinian protester aims sparks from a flare toward Israeli security forces during clashes near the Israeli checkpoint in Hebron on Feb. 25, 2013. (Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images)

But the problem goes far beyond Israel and her neighbors. As anyone paying attention knows, the Salafi-Jihadis, who have “hijacked” Islam the world over, embody this self-same honor-shame mentality in its harshest form: the existential drama of humiliate or be humiliated, rule or be ruled, exterminate or be exterminated. Dar al Islam must conquer dar al Harb; independent infidels (harbismust be spectacularly brought low, their women raped; Islam must dominate the world … or vanish. The language of Shia and Sunni Jihadis alike reverberates with the sounds of honor, plunder, dominion, shame, humiliation, misogyny, rage, vengeance, conspiracy, and paranoid fear of implosion.

By Richard Landes:

Anthropologists and legal historians have long identified certain tribal cultures—warrior, nomadic—with a specific set of honor codes whose violation brings debilitating shame. The individual who fails to take revenge on the killer of a clansman brings shame upon himself (makes him a woman) and weakens his clan, inviting more open aggression. In World War II, the United States sought the help of anthropologists like Ruth Benedict to explain the play of honor and shame in driving Japanese military behavior, resulting in both intelligence victories in the Pacific Theater and her book The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Taking her lead, the great classicist E.R. Dodds analyzed the millennium-long shift in Greek culture from a “shame” culture to a “guilt” culture in his Greeks and the Irrational, where he contrasted a world in which fame and reputation, rather than conscience and fear of divine retribution, drive men to act.

But even before literary critic Edward Saïd heaped scornon “honor-shame” analysis in Orientalism (1978), anthropologists had backed off an approach that seemed to make inherently invidious comparisons between primitive cultures and a morally superior West. The reception of Saïd’s work strengthened this cultural relativism: Concerns for honor and shame drive everyone, and the simplistic antinomy “shame-guilt cultures” must be ultimately “racist.” It became, well, shameful in academic circles to mention honor/shame and especially in the context of comparisons between the Arab world and the West. Even in intelligence services, whose job is to think like the enemy, refusing to resort to honor/shame dynamics became standard procedure.

Any generous person should have a healthy discomfort with “othering,” drawing sharp lines between two peoples. We muddy the boundaries to be minimally polite: Honor-killings, for example, are thus seen as a form of domestic violence, which is also pervasive in the West. And indeed, honor/shame concerns are universal: Only saints and sociopaths don’t care what others think, and no group coheres without an honor code.

But even if these practices exist everywhere, we should still be able to acknowledge that in some cultures the dominant voices openly promote honor/shame values and in a way that militates against liberal society and progress. Arab political culture, to take one example—despite some liberal voices, despite noble dissidents—tends to favor ascendancy through aggression, the politics of the strong horse,” and the application of “Hama rules”—which all combine to produce a Middle East caught between prison and anarchy, between Sisi’s Egypt and al-Assad’s Syria. Our inability, however well-meaning, to discuss the role of honor-shame dynamics in the making of this political culture poses a dilemma: By keeping silent, we not only operate in denial, but we may actually strengthen these brutal values and weaken the very ones we treasure.

Few conflicts offer a better place to explore these matters than the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Read more at Tablet

Israel Is the Victim of Mohammed’s War Against the Jews


Hamas isn’t shooting rockets at the Jews because of persecution, isolation or occupation. The Sunni Islamic terrorist group is doing it for the same reason that Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq and Syria. And why its Muslim Brotherhood core group is killing Christians in Egypt.

To understand why, let’s step into a time machine and go back to the spring of 632. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius is engaged in the first of a series of wars with Mohammed’s maddened followers. England is divided into seven quarreling kingdoms. Across the water, the Merovingians are killing each other in ways that would give George R.R. Martin nightmares. Meanwhile in a more civilized part of the world, China’s fading Sui Dynasty fields an army of over a million men in a failed effort to invade Korea.

Back in Medina, Mohammed had come down with the sniffles. He had a fever and a headache and there wasn’t any Tylenol around for miles. Mohammed hadn’t been a very good man and he made a very bad patient. Upon being told that he had pleurisy, he claimed that only people possessed by Satan came down with that disease so he couldn’t possibly have it and instead blamed the Jews for poisoning him.

His own homemade cures, such as bathing in seven skins of water from seven different wells, didn’t help. But before he died, he managed to make the Middle East an even worse place by ordering the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians.

“Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,” Mohammed declared. “If I live, if Allah wills, I will expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.”

There could be only one.

Mohammed didn’t live, but that didn’t matter. His bigotry had long ago been coded into the theological DNA of Islam. Islam isn’t built on matters of the spirit, but the sword. Its theological proof is in the Muslim supremacist subjugation of non-Muslims.

The Bible begins with the creation of the universe. The Koran starts off with curses and threats aimed at non-Muslims and Muslims who aren’t Muslim enough. There is no greater contrast between the sublime and the tawdry than G-d creating the universe and Allah yelling at his followers like a frustrated fishwife with a bad temper.

Over a thousand years later, Muslims are still killing each other, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and countless others, to prove that their flavor of Islam is right and everyone else’s religion is wrong.

Theological consensus can only be achieved by the suicide bomber, the sniper, the Sarin nerve gas shell and the death squad. If England and France have come a long way since then, the Middle East hasn’t.  Mohammed’s way or the highway is still the rule of the road. And Mohammed’s way is whatever the man with the most guns and Korans says it is.

Destroying Israel has nothing to do with the so-called plight of the so-called Palestinians. They weren’t an issue in June 632. It was about oppressing and killing Jews then. It’s about the same thing now.

Read more at Front Page