Friday, 30 January 2015

Obama’s shocking interference into Israel’s election process to defeat Netanyahu.

When the French called for an anti-terror parade of world leaders following the Paris terror attacks one of the first to accept was Israel’s Prime Minister.

According to the rumor mill, Hollande tried to dissuade Benjamin Netanyahu from participating in the rally, but Bibi stuck to his guns determined to show the world that Israel, under constant threat from terrorism, is defiantly linked, in fact leads, the war against terror. 

For Israel, it was the right thing to do.

Hollande not accustomed to snubs, responded.  There was a price to pay for Israel’s Prime Minister defying the French President. Hollande invited to this anti-terror event Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of a Palestinian less-than-state regime with decades of bloody terror atrocities on its hands and united in a unity government with Hamas, an officially designated terrorist organization. 

For Israel, that was the morally wrong to do.

Hollande did join Netanyahu in attending the synagogue ceremony in memory of the murdered French Jews. But he beat a hasty retreat before Bibi told the Jewish audience to get the hell out of there. 

In face of the rising European anti-Semitism, it was morally the right thing for Israel’s leader to do.

Switch to Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu received the invitation to address Congress from House Speaker, John Boehner, shortly after President Obama had warned Congress in his State of Union Address that he would veto any move they may make to strengthen sanctions against Iran in pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Israel had released a video purporting to show an undisclosed Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile site, and Netanyahu was concerned that the Obama Administration was on its way to signing an agreement with Iran while Israel was embroiled in elections. So he accepted Boehner’s invitation.

Once again, it was the right thing for the Israeli leader to do.

But a furious Obama White House threatened “there would be a price” to pay for Bibi’s visit to Washington. 

Now we discover what that price is. 

The Obama presidential election team has set up camp in Tel Aviv with the mission to defeat Netanyahu in our upcoming election.

The “Anyone but Bibi” mission is headed by Jeremy Bird, Obama’s National Field Director in his successful presidential campaigns.

Under Bird, a group called “Victory 15” has been set up. It has recruited the young activists from Israel’s 2013 social protest movement and will man a massive social network and personal contact campaign to defeat Bibi. V15 is financed by an NGO called “One Voice” whose motto is to be “the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians.” Research finds that One Voice is funded by John Kerry’s State Department.

In its press release, V15 calls itself “non partisan” which is clearly a lie. Its aim is solely to defeat Bibi, 

Can we really call that “non partisan”

In its 2014 annual report is describes its actions as promoting popular resistance, state-building, and the Arab Peace Initiative, while advocating for an end to the conflict and a two-state solution along the 1967 borders.”

Does Israel really need this outsider that advocates “popular resistance” to impose the Arab Peace Initiative on to Israel?  There is grave danger in the intent of this American interference into our political system.

It is no coincidence that the headquarters of the V15 campaign is right next door to the Tel Aviv offices of One Voice.

One Voice was formed in 2003, its inaugural board of advisers included Gary Gladstein who used to be the chief operations officer of Soros Fund Management. As in George Soros.

The major consulting firm working on the Israeli elections is “270 Strategies” which is also headed by Bird. This company operates in elections on the principle of grassroots community organization, dividing the countries into local zones and working them incessantly and efficiently. It was the tactics that drove Obama into the White House in 2008 and kept him there in 2012.

According to World Net Daily, 270 Strategies has a team of 45 in Israel; sixteen of them are former Obama staffers who have been parachuted into Tel Aviv to lead the local workers with their experience.

One of the top men is Mitch Steward, a 270 Strategies founding partner who helped the Obama campaign build what the U.K. Guardian newspaper called “a historic ground operation that will provide the model for political campaigns in America and around the world for years to come.”

Obama’s excuse for not meeting with Netanyahu in Washington was that he couldn't be seen interfering in the Israeli election process. But the White House and the State Department is now exposed as seriously interfering in Israeli politics with the Obama team, financed by the Obama Administration, working to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu and his party in Israel’s upcoming election.

In Congress, Netanyahu will receive more standing ovations than Obama received when he addressed Congress. In Israel, the big question is will he receive more votes in our election than any other party. Or will he pay the political price for defying Obama?

Whatever the result, this is a major attack by America on our electoral system and a further deterioration in America’s attachment to Israel.

If Obama’s efforts help defeat Netanyahu another question to be asked is, can Israel survive the damage of an Obama presidency?

Barry Shaw is the author of the book “Israel Reclaiming the Narrative.”

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Can Israel survive Obama?

Since when does the US Administration send condolences to a criminal's family?

It happened in Israel after an Arab hurled firebombs at passing Israeli cars in Judea & Samaria, and was killed by security forces. The Obama Administration sent official condolences to the family of this young terrorist when, as part of a violent mob, he endangering the lives of Israelis.

Any country must adopt an unquestioned zero tolerance to growing deadly violence and terrorism. But the attitude of an American Administration is troubling.  Would it, I wonder, have sent condolences to a family had the perpetrator of a firebomb attack been an Israeli, and the intended victim an Arab?

I doubt it. I suspect the Administration would have harshly condemned the act, the perpetrator, and Israel, and rightly so. So what’s the difference?

Where is this biased animus coming from? I strongly suspect it is coming from the top of the present US Administration, from Obama himself.

There is a deep motive behind Obama's animus toward Israel. It stems from his far left Socialist political upbringing both at family and at personal mentor levels. It has framed his political mindset both at home and abroad. It is this that affects his worldview. Anyone reading his autobiography, particularly the imprisonment and alleged torture of his grandfather in Kenya by the British, must take from it a sense that the American president harbors resentment to perceived colonizers, oppressors, and imperialist powers.

He looks on countries through the prism of his upbringing. Official relations may appear normal on the surface, but grievances bubble up in personal slights and gestures.

Take, for example, the little addressed issue of President Obama returning the bust of Winston Churchill that had taken pride of place in the White House to Britain on entering the presidential residence. It was nothing less than a personal gesture of grievance of a past British oppression against his Kenyan family.

There is little doubt that Obama feels a personal kinship with the Muslim world. This again is grounded in his personal life experiences in Muslim countries. A personal affinity by an important world leader is often a good thing and can make for a more peaceful world if balanced with wisdom and diplomatic skills. What Obama does not take on board is the centuries old Islamic hatred of non-believers, and a past of corrupt and primitively brutal Muslim conquest, slavery, and slaughter that continues to today. Instead, he shares their accusations that all their troubles have been caused by colonizers, oppressors, and imperial powers of which America is the modern day leader. That is why he bows to the king of Saudi Arabia but to no other king.

Once this grievance is adopted, Israel is perceived as a colonizer and occupier. His view was expounded during his formative contacts with people such as Khalid al Mansour, a vile anti-Semite and radicalized Muslim who was a high level adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. He wrote a letter of recommendation to Harvard to gain acceptance for Barack Obama. His friend, and Arafat adviser, Rashid Khalidi, to whom Obama lavished praise at a Chicago farewell party when Khalidi headed off to Columbia.

Obama has exhibited a double-talk and double vision against traditional American allies, including Israel. Trapped in an establishment that conducts business as normal, his antipathy spills over in personal spats that Israel has suffered on numerous occasions.

Obama is a quintessential abusive husband. He tells Israel he loves her even as he abuses her.

The issue over Netanyahu’s address to Congress is the latest revelation of the bad chemistry between Obama and America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East.

A precious example was Obama’s and Kerry's rebuttal of Israel's Defense Minister, Moshe Yaalon, in Washington, which was a low point in US-Israel relations.

From an Israeli perspective, the nastiness of the Obama Administration was displayed by the State Department spokesperson dismissing with hardly a word the Mahmoud Abbas inspired incitement that led to Jerusalem terror attacks which left a 3 month old baby and others dead, yet slammed down on Jews legally buying homes in Jerusalem.

This spitefulness is seen in America denying visas to Israelis and temporarily preventing the resupply of armaments to Israel during the 2014 Gaza war inflicted on Israel by Hamas rockets and terrorists.

A headline display of spite was Obama leaving Israel’s Prime Minister to stew in the White House while he stormed off to have dinner with his wife and daughters in March 2010. Obama snubbed Netanyahu again in September 2012 over important Iranian nuclear issues.

In an October, 2013 article, “Obama gets cozy with Turkey; Snubs Israel.”  Frank Gaffney wrote; his administration has behaved toward Israel as though it were, at best, a country in which we have no interests. At worst, Obama seems to consider the Jewish State as a hostile power. He has: repeatedly demeaned its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; contributed to its international isolation (for example, by demanding at one point an end to settlement expansion as a precondition for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations); and subverted its vital interests (notably, by declaring that Israel must withdraw to the indefensible pre-1967 borders).” 

Israel was shocked at the cozy relationship between Obama and a Hamas-supporting Erdogan who adopted a strident anti-Israel policy.

Gaffney added, Barack Obama has treated Turkey as a reliable partner even though, for the better part of a decade under its Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, this nation that is supposedly a NATO ally has been aligning ever more palpably with our adversaries.”

This is deeply troubling to Israel who sees an Erdogan-led Turkey slide away from secularism toward Islamism while aiding and abetting Israel’s enemies, including the Islamic State terrorists.

The world sees the US not only retreating from the region but also changing sides in the region. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against Mubarak. He later stopped arms supply to a newly elected President El-Sisi determined to confront the war on terror in the region. Egypt faces threats from Al-Qaida in the Sinai, Palestinian Hamas in Gaza, and the Muslim Brotherhood at home. Yet Obama turned his back on him and hosts the American Muslim Brotherhood in the White House.

During the Gaza conflict, his Administration sided with Qatar and Turkey against the wishes of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Because of regional problems including an invasive Iran, the Syrian civil war, and the horrors of Islamic State and the foreign policy failures of the Obama's Administration, we have seen an alliance of common strategic interests in the Middle East which is a fascinating new opportunity for Israel and its Arab neighbors. Yet Obama has done little to help nurture and develop this development.

Instead, Israel and its neighbors are pondering on how to get through an Obama presidency. This particularly applies to an Israel suffering from a presidential animus, which is an integral part of Obama’s personal and political DNA.

Now we hear that Israel’s Prime Minister’s address to Congress will come at a heavy price. Could this be an American refusal to veto a future UN Security Council application for a Palestinian state, or even the signing of a bad agreement with Iran over its nuclear program?

Whatever this price is, can Israel survive an Obama presidency?

Barry Shaw is the Special Consultant of Delegitimization Issues to The Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya Academic College in Israel.  He is the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the Narrative.’

Obama, Bibi and Congress – the price.

What will be the price for Bibi’s visit to Congress? - Obama will follow Hollande’s lead.

When the French called for an anti-terror parade of world leaders following the Paris terror attacks one of the first to accept was Israel’s Prime Minister.

According to the rumor mill, Hollande tried to dissuade Benjamin Netanyahu from participating in the rally, but Bibi stuck to his guns determined to show the world that Israel, under constant threat from terrorism, is defiantly linked, in fact leads, the war against terror.

Hollande not accustomed to snubs, responded.  There was a price to pay for Israel’s Prime Minister defying the French President. Hollande invited to this anti-terror event Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of a Palestinian less-than-state regime with decades of bloody terror atrocities on its hands and united in a unity government with Hamas, an officially designated terrorist organization.

When it comes to leadership spite, it seems decency and morality evaporates and wrong-headedness takes their place.

Hollande did join Netanyahu in attending the synagogue ceremony in memory of the murdered French Jews. How could he not?  But he beat a hasty retreat before Bibi told the Jewish audience to get the hell out of there, a completely different message from the one that Hollande was presenting to his Jews.

In view of the rising anti-Semitism in Europe and the ongoing murder of French Jews, can anyone argue that Netanyahu’s message was not the right one?

Switching to Washington, Bibi received the invitation to address Congress from House Speaker, John Boehner, shortly after President Obama had warned Congress in his State of Delusion Address that he would veto any move they may make to strengthen sanctions on an Iran in pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Bibi was concerned that the Obama Administration was on its way to signing an agreement with Iran while Israel was embroiled in elections. Israel released a video purporting to show an undisclosed Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile site.

Bibi accepted Boehner’s invitation. Obama was furious. He claimed a protocol breach though the breach, if any, should have been directed to the invitor, not the invitee.

The White House hinted that Bibi’s visit was an election ploy and this was the reason that he would be snubbed (again) by Obama.

This excuse is disingenuous as Obama had just hosted British Prime Minister, David Cameron at the White House, which included an official joint press conference, while Cameron is also involved in the run up to the British General Election this Spring.

But the most lethal sting in the tail was the threat that “there would be a price” to pay for Bibi’s visit to Washington.

Apart from the fact that it is impossible to find any world leader’s visit to Washington coming with a price the question lingers – what price, and why?

It is highly likely that Obama, who has a marathon record of spiteful snubs to Israel’s leader throughout his presidency, will follow Hollande’s lead and exact a price that would elevate Abbas and the Palestinians, irrespective of their dubious track record of rejectionism, denial of Jewish claims to statehood, and unilateral actions that breach signed international treaties.

That price could well be a covert invitation to Abbas to return to the United Nations Security Council at some future date and represent their statehood bid where the Americans would not veto their application. This could suit an Obama legacy that amended ties with Cuba and made way for a Palestinian state.

Presssure has mounted on Netanyahu not to attend Congress but, as in Paris, Israel’s Prime Minister has a national duty to stand by his guns and affirmatively tell the world, at a critical time, of their obligation to stand strong against the threats of radical Islamic terror and a dangerous Iranian regime with an Islamic global ambition.

As with Hollande, these are words that Obama does not wish to hear, both are in denial of the source of the world’s concerns, but these are the words that Israel’s Prime Minister must be committed to express.

One thing is for sure. I guarantee that Bibi will receive more standing ovations for uttering these words than Obama received when he addressed Congress.

Barry Shaw is the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the Narrative’ and the upcoming book ‘Fighting Hamas, BDS, and Anti-Semitism.’

Friday, 23 January 2015

BDS lies, but facts are stubborn things.

What I find objectionable about any BDS campus debate, if it is at all possible to have an even-handed debate about BDS, is that they inevitably take the form, not of examining the real motives and ultimate aim of BDS but, instead, turn solely to the “merits” of its perceived mission.

These forums include BDS activists and delegitimizers of Israel with rarely an opposing voice, in the name of “balanced debate.” Any Israeli voice is a person carefully selected for their outspoken opposition to Israel.

Sadly, we increasingly see this bent growing in Jewish “intellectual” and academic circles.

Empty emotion-filled epithets such as “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid” are tossed around in place of reasoned discourse.

These insults intimidate anyone who comes with a contrary argument. They are designed to put such a person on the defensive, to explain how and why Israel is not an apartheid state and that it is the Palestinian side, BDS and Free Palestine movements with their “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free” slogan that are inciting ethnic cleansing, an ethnic cleansing of the right of Jews to their state on their ancient land. Not that these provocateurs are listening to any rebuttal. The words are meant to be an insult to the pro-Israel side to close down debate.

It is, therefore, staggering how many revered institutions find these arguments so persuasive as to warrant preferred expression and campus activism.

Even in its simplest form the BDS apologists have the wrong end of the stick. The core of their soft-sell appeal goes like this;

The Israeli Palestinian conflict has been going on for far too long. It has caused too much suffering to the poor Palestinians. It has to end.

Israel is guilty for prolonging the conflict.

Boycott is a non-violent way of pressuring Israel to stop oppressing the Palestinians.

Simply put, the pro-Israeli argument goes like this;

Everyone agrees that the Middle East conflict has inflicted much suffering on both Palestinians and Israelis. It must end through some sort of agreement between the parties.

Note the fundamental differences between the BDS position and their pro-Israel opponents;

BDS sees one side as suffering. The pro-Israel sees suffering on both sides. This is just one example of the profound asymmetry of BDS.

It can rightly be claimed that consecutive Israeli governments for decades have reached out with generous concessions in pursuit of a solution that would satisfy both Palestinian and Israeli needs. All have been rejected by the Palestinian side. The Palestinians have never come to the Israelis with any pragmatic and flexible terms that would lead to peace.

Needless to say, it is the Palestinians who are the plaintiffs for a state, and for that they need Israel’s acquiescence. Surely that should make them the more flexible party if they really do want a place of their own alongside the Jewish state of Israel? Yet, they are the side that have always refused their state while crying how much they want one. It is this significant point that is the rub concerning both Palestinian and BDS intent.

Based on this indisputable fact is it not more reasonable for the international community and BDS to put pressure on the Palestinian leadership to accept a solution that Israel can live with, if this really is their aim? This line of thought, however, only brings us to one conclusion. This is NOT their aim.

BDS advocates can translate into horror selected versions of the 1948 war, a war that Arab nations inflicted on the nascent State of Israel, in an effort to twist responsibility for an on-going Palestinian refugee crisis onto the Jewish state.

Prior to this war, and as a result of Arab riots and killing of Jews, the British government blocked Jewish refugees trying to flee Nazi persecution from entering the territory designated in international treaties to be the National Home of the Jewish People.

After the British reneged on their responsibilities under the Mandate by pulling out of Palestine, five Arab armies attacked Israel in a genocidal war against the Jews. Instead of another Holocaust, so soon after the European one, the tiny outgunned Jewish state miraculously survived. The land, now known as the West Bank, however was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 by virtue of their army’s territorial gains. These gains included parts of Jerusalem including all of the Old City where they desecrated Jewish holy sites and destroyed synagogues. Yet, nobody made claims against Jordan of “illegally occupying Palestinian land.” Palestinian claims to nationhood simply did not exist at that time. Strange!
The fury in the surrounding Arab nations from losing this war and bringing shame upon themselves was taken out against their beleaguered and threatened Jews. Those that weren't killed were summarily expelled, forcing them to leave their properties and assets behind with no compensation.

If there were 500,000 Arab refugees that left Israel, there were almost one million Jewish refugees thrown out of Arab lands. This fact never comes up for discussion in BDS circles, even if the topic is human rights. Their biased narrative concentrates on the Arab Nakba (disaster), not the Jewish one.

The BDS bias is seen in its one-sided argument for “self-determination.” It is a right not given by them to the Jewish state. This exclusivity is awarded to the Arabs who became lumped into a “Palestinian” identity around 1967.

Prior to 1948 a “Palestinian” was a Jew as proven by the results of the Zionist enterprise in the National Home of the Jewish People.

One of the many Arab statements prior to 1948 was made by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission in 1937;

"There is no such country as Palestine. “’Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it."

There were many such Arab statements at the time. They were right.

The first Palestinian flag had the Star of David in its center. It also had the two blue horizontal stripes that were replicated into the current Israeli national flag.

This Zionist enterprise before, during and after the Mandate for Palestine gave birth to the Anglo-Palestine Bank that later became Bank Leumi, the Palestine Post newspaper that became the Jerusalem Post, the Palestine Electric Company originally founded by Pinhas Rutenberg became the Israel Electric Company.

Later, Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist and now a fighter for truth, posed this question;

"Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”

While BDS activists push the “self-determination” button in favor of the “Palestinians” they deny the legal, moral right of the Jews to develop the sovereignty granted to them not only in a two thousand year heritage and legacy but also solidly founded on unanimous international treaties that precede, and have not been revoked by, any resolution or vote since.

BDS enjoys throwing around expressions like “occupation” in a derogatory manner and it is true that Israel has been battered ceaselessly with this word as if it alone is the culprit for an ongoing “occupation” even if you accept the notion of that word.  But I claim that the Palestinian Arabs equally share a responsibility and the blame for maintaining this status due to their refusal to accept the offers made to them by Israel but also by their adamant rejection of ever agreeing to live alongside the Jewish State of Israel in permanent peace and security.

They do so by promoting a domestic culture of “resistance” inciting a futile dream that, with force, Israel will disappear. The Ramallah leadership refuses to accept the presence of the Jews, and Hamas goes much further in steadfastly announcing and attempting to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

Is it any wonder that Israel holds firm to its lines of security until these people can find their way out of this dark and dangerous cul-de-sac of hatred?

The BDS may put forward campaigns based on “human rights” and “social justice,” but these noble goals are not at the heart of what they stand for.

They use these expressions while putting forward the “criminality” of Israel by championing Palestinian human rights and social justice. If BDS really were concerned about human rights and social justice for the Palestinian Arabs they would be there assisting the human rights activists in Gaza and under the thumb of the Palestinian Authority who are putting themselves at risk by exposing the numerous human rights abuses being executed by Palestinian authorities in both camps. Opposition voices are silenced by threats, imprisonment, violence and murder. Journalists and human rights activists with the courage to reveal cruelties, corruption and lawlessness of their leaders are imprisoned and sometimes tortured. Neither BDS nor the Free Palestine campaigners demonstrate about the oppression and persecution of minorities in Palestinian-controlled area. Christians have fled Bethlehem and Gaza. Bethlehem was once a thriving town. When under Israeli rule 80% of the population was Christian. Today, under the oppressive control of the Palestinian Authority, and with a bullying Muslim population, they are down to below 10%. Gays and lesbians in support of BDS hit on Israel, but if you are a hay in Gaza you wither stay in the closet, or escape to Tel Aviv.

BDS and Free Palestine fail to support the human and social rights of Arabs living under Palestinian control. Instead, they spend their money and efforts promoting propaganda circuses like “Israel Apartheid Week,” an annual pantomime of farce and lies that fail to address the harsh human rights abuses Arabs suffer under the corrupt regimes in Gaza and Ramallah.  This is how “human rights” and “social justice” are used hypocritically by anti-Israel fanatics.

The boycott campaigns are, for BDS, a flexible weapon that can be maneuvered to where they can gain best advantage. It began as a total attack against the existence of Israel attempting to use political, cultural, scientific, academic and economic boycotts. Basically it failed dismally. It then shifted to a partial campaign concentrating on what they call “the settlements,” but they make no bones about refusing to accept a Jewish state standing anywhere.

They bully against normalization and co-existence even when this results in unemployment and poverty for Palestinian bread-winners who are gainfully employed and even promoted in Israeli industry and commerce. So much for their claims of supporting improved conditions for Palestinian Arabs.

Notice how evidence of Jewish heritage, belonging, and development in the land of Israel is tippexed out of the BDS narrative, replaced by the accusation that Israelis are latter-day “white settlers” and “colonizers.” Were the nearly one million Jewish refugees from Arab lands white settlers and colonizers? 

I don’t think so.

They fail to explain that colonizers are people who set out from foreign lands to claim other territory for their sovereign country. This clearly is not the case with Zionists exercising their multiple rights to settle in the land bequeathed to them as a historic and legal right.

As Judea Pearl asks in his “BDS, Racism, and the new McCarthyism,” BDS advocates would be hard-pressed to give one case of white settlers moving into a country they deemed to be the birthplace of their history and heritage. Even more tellingly, could they offer one case of settlers reviving the language that was spoken in that land by their predecessors? Or, one case of settlers adopting national and religious holidays commemorating historic events that took place in that land, and not the land these “settlers” came from.  

Try as they may, neither the Palestinians nor the Free Palestine campaigners can manufacture a Palestinian history and identity as a timeless nation in a sovereign land that matches the Jewish narrative.

Hamas can scream “Islam!” as loudly and as bloodily as they like. The Jewish heritage goes back a thousand years and more before the dawn of Islam.

The South African branch of BDS invited a convicted Palestinian plane hijacker, Leila Khaled, to speak on their behalf. Their promotion material showed this terrorist wearing a keffiyah and carrying a machine gun, 

You know BDS is morally bankrupt when they have to recruit a terrorist to help their cause.

Barry Shaw is the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the Narrative’ available on Amazon and from  He is also a member of the Knesset Forum on Israel’s Legitimacy.

Monday, 19 January 2015

“It’s not Islam!” they say– but it is.

French President Hollande said the murderous Paris terror attacks were “an insult to Islam.” 

His Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, said, “We are at war with terrorism and radical Islam.” Days later he said France was at war with “terrorism, jihadism and radicalism." Then, in the same speech he said, "France is not at war against Islam and Muslims," before announcing a series of measures that will "draw on the lessons" from last week's attacks.

How can you draw on the lessons if you’re confused and cannot define what you’re fighting?

And don’t look for clarity and guidance from the White House. President Obama has been in denial from day one. Not only was he absent from the Parisian boulevard parade of world leaders he has been MIA on Islamic terror since he took office. The best he came up with over the French terrorist attacks was to pledge to stand with his allies against the “scourge” of terrorism. Well good for him for his vacuous words. What scourge would that be, Mr. President?

The problem with Europe and America over the last couple of decades, apart from their political prevarication, has been the loss of traditional values, mainly faith and honesty – two essential pillars, if not the bedrock, of democracy.

They ditched faith decades ago for the raunchy life of a free-ranging liberalism and secularism. Christian European nations may still have crosses on the national flags, but they have ditched Christianity. Church aisles are emptying. In many places churches have now become mosques.

Socialist secularism has taken it upon itself to replace Christian and Jewish community charity and caring with state-run social and welfare benefits.  The welfare system, altruistic in intent, has brought with it a harmful dependency for an increasing number of dysfunctional and single-parent families. It also raised a generation with a chip on their shoulder and rebellion in their heart.

One of the assets of a faith-based society is the preservation of the tradition family as the foundation of a solid social order. The strong maintenance of the family unit is found among families with traditional Christian, Jewish and Muslim ethics. Sadly, this did not prevent second generation Muslim immigrants from having an anti-establishment grudge and a festering anti-Semitism, and they began acting on their rebellion in crime and in noisy and often violent demonstrations. They turned inward, finding a cause in Islam.

Honesty, truth, has been replaced by censored speech in order not to offend anyone speaking out against the rise of radical Muslims within a society. This censorship is called Islamophobia. It’s OK to offend Christians, the Pope, and Jews, but be awfully careful what you say about radical Islam. It may upset the people who make crude anti-Semitic jokes, when they are not expressing their hate against Jews, but who get so upset if you joke about Mohammed that they may actually kill you. Charlie Hebdo, anyone!

Better to appease them. Better to say that those that kill in the name of Allah are not actually acting in the name of Islam, even when they shout “Allah Aqba!” and quote the Koran as they partake in their bloody rampage. Funny how non–Muslims seem to know what isn't Islam.

Better to hit on Israel, criticize it, condemn it, threaten to sanction it, while ignoring Palestinian outrages, the anti-Semitic rhetoric of its leaders, and the fact that Hamas is designated a terrorist organization aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. Better not to say that. It might offend Muslims, and we wouldn't want to do that, do we?

Wholesale beheadings in Syria and Iraq by a group that calls itself Islamic State shocks a world that insists that it’s not Islamic.  Of course it is!

As a Jew, I don’t care much about Mohammed. That would be an understatement. Ask me why.

One pertinent incident happened in 627 AD when Mohammed beheaded eight hundred Jewish men and boys at Medina and enslaved the women and young girls. These people weren't even fighting him. They were his trophy victims. Remind you of anything?

So, please, don’t tell me to ignore Koranic history that is acted out across a large swathe of the globe today as being somehow irrelevant to our day and age. Tell me I’m a cynic, but don’t tell me I’m an Islamophobe. If Jews have learned anything it is that when people say they want to kill us, they really mean it.

If somebody beheads eight hundred of my people as part of a victory celebration, don’t tell me that I should respect him as the leader of a peaceful religion.

I demand that they prove to me they are a peaceful religion, because I don’t see any sign of it.

Don’t tell me that they are not anti-Semitic. As an Israeli Jew I am surrounded by people baying for my death and destruction, and my fellow Jews abroad are living under threat and fear.

Let me be brutally honest. The Judeo-Christian world have had our own lunatics. When the Klu Klux Klan came in the night with burning crosses, it took Christian America to eradicate this form of Christian terrorism. They faced up to what confronted them and dealt with it.

When Baruch Goldstein murdered Muslims in Hebron he was, quite rightly, called a Jewish terrorist and condemned by all Israelis. When Yigal Amir assassinated Israeli Prime Minister, Yizchak Rabin, he was rightly called a radical Jewish terrorist. His action united everyone in Israel against him with huge public demonstrations. The Israeli government clamped down to remove this poison from our society. It was wall-to-wall words and action to identify, name, shame, and remove this menace from our midst. We put our house in order. So must the Muslim world with their radicalization.

Taking France as a case-study, not all anti-Semitic viciousness is Muslim-based. The victimization of Officer Dreyfus was embedded in the French military system. The Vichy government was a right-wing fusion with fascism. The National Front cannot shake off their anti-Jewish sentiment. But, in recent years, every murder of French Jews, all of them, have been committed by Muslims of North African origin. That’s not Islamophobia speaking. That’s a fact.

There is little hope that Socialist and left-wing Europe can find its way out of the blind cul-de-sac of its political creation. They compound the failure of their policies by offering more of the same gruesome medicine that makes them even weaker.

Hope may be coming with the emergence of a more conservative political wing grabbing what is left of indigenous voters linked to moderates despairing of damaging progressivism and demanding change.

Recently, British Home Secretary, Theresa May, promised tougher action against anti-Semitism. Wouldn’t it be more effective to hear from British imams that they will take tougher action against anti-Semitism? Instead, their silence is troubling.

Western non-Muslims can confront Islamic radicalism, but it must be the Muslim world that leads this struggle. It is they who must put their house in order.

Just as Christianity and Judaism reformed, so must Muslims reform and establish a modern, tolerant, more enlightened form of their religion, and eradicate an ideology that kills more of them than us. They must do it because this ideology is lodged in the heart of their faith, not ours.

Failure to do so must make what is left of a Judeo-Christian world suspicious that a silent inactive Muslim community in their midst is in support of a global caliphate, lying dormant until they join the final assault on what is left of the non-Muslim world.

For us to confront this ideology without moderate Muslims taking the lead will simply be construed as a clash of civilizations. Fortunately, we witness bright signs appearing on the horizon. Blow-back is taking place in Egypt and Tunisia.

Egyptians rejected the Muslim Brotherhood that was slowly imposing their harsh brand of Shariah. The new President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, cracked down not only against the Muslim Brotherhood but all forms of radical Islamic terror from Al-Qaida in the Sinai to Palestinian Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the Middle East, and increasingly large swathes of Africa, often stern measures to stabilize a country must come before Western-style democracy can be established.

One Arab country, however, that did succeed in shaking off three years of choking Islamist chaos and violence was Tunisia. Tunisia began what is known as the Arab Spring with the suicide of Mohammed Bouazizi, a simple vegetable seller who set himself alight in protest against an oppressive regime. Now Tunisia democratically overthrew an Islamic government. They drafted a new constitution before decisively defeating the Islamists in parliamentary elections, followed by the presidential elections of December 2014.

It would be good to see other Muslim countries counter the shift to Islamism. The battle is still on in Libya. Hezbollah holds too firm a grip in Lebanon. There is little hope for Turkey under the oppressive rule of Erdogan who uses his governance to close down opposition and a free press and gradually moving his people away from Ataturk principles toward an Islamic agenda.

In America, President Obama has been worryingly behind events. He was far too quick in promoting Islam in America. He embraced the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood by giving them an open door to the White House.

He failed to understand Egypt post-Mubarak as Egyptians turned away from Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood regime. He criticized el-Sisi, driving him into the arms of Russia, when he should have been more perceptive and helpful.

He restricts language to his policy-makers, intelligence, and military that disables them from naming the enemy the United States is fighting, even though they clearly identify who they are.  Astoundingly, Obama is fixated on closing Gitmo by releasing hardened Islamic terrorist leaders back to Yemen and Pakistan to fight and kill again. America and the West will pay dearly for this.

We have a long way to go. The West is still unable to see what is happening not only in the Middle East, but in their own backyard. Their leading Muslim leaders are all too quiet.

When they tell you it’s not Islam you know they have lost their political compass. They are losing their countries out of sheer willful blindness and their inability to face the truth and deal with it.

Barry Shaw is the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the Narrative.’

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Europeans are lost in their self-made loop of political and security incorrectness.

When European countries voluntarily surrender territory and control to a strong immigrant minority that, unlike the once immigrant Jewish community, refuses to integrate, you know that country is on its way to disastrous consequences and in Paris we recently saw where these consequences can lead. 

One of those consequences is that, with rising anti-Semitism, a part of the intolerance of a growing intransigent minority, Jews are fearful, unsettled, and a growing number are packing their bags and leaving. This is a major loss to the host country as expressed by French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who said, “If 100,000 Jews leave, France will not be France.”

Politicians in other countries threaten that Jews cannot remain Jewish and also be members of their nations. This has been heard in Greece, Hungary, Sweden and other European countries.

In other cases, organizations and politicians have attempted to drive a wedge between their Jews and Israel. Perhaps the most notorious was the mayor of the Swedish town of Malmo who threatened his Jews with abandoning their support for Israel during anti-Israel demonstrations in his town. I named such a phenomenon, which has spread to places such as Britain and Ireland, as the “Malmo Symptom.”

This is a new form of anti-Semitism that targets the identity and sympathy of Jews to Israel, the Jewish state. We saw this with the Tricycle Theater in London who refused to host the UK Jewish Film Festival because the Jewish organizers were receiving partial funding from the Israeli Embassy. Jews in Britain, it seemed, had to decide if they were Jewish or pro-Israel. They couldn't be both.

Depressingly, the Malmo Symptom showed itself in the Irish Holocaust Memorial Trust which demanded that no mention of Israel or the Jewish state must be made in the upcoming Holocaust Memorial ceremony in February. Fortunately this was rescinded following widespread objections.

Jews in Europe feel a triple danger. They feel vulnerable to the anti-Semitic threats and insults from sections of the population, increasingly from the Muslim community. They feel that their political representatives are more concerned with the growing Muslim constituency and their pleas are ignored. They see this expressed in the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian stance of politicians at local and national level.

They are justified in viewing this as a metaphor for their isolation within their own country. In both cases, European politicians seem to favor the Muslim side against the Jews in their words and resolutions. This increases the feeling of isolation and vulnerability of European Jews. Both they and Israel see Europe turning against them. 

If European countries want to keep their Jews they have to improve their relationship with Israel. To understand the fears of Israel they need to understand the reluctance of Israel to take dangerous steps for peace against a threatening, anti-Semitic and violent Palestinian entity.

To understand the fears of their Jews they need to understand their trepidation of a threatening, anti-Semitic and violent Muslim population.

They have underestimated, or closed their eyes, to the danger of a minority of their Muslim population and their leaders who are radicalized and anti-Semitic, just as they closed their eyes to the dangers of a minority of the Palestinian population and their leaders who are radicalized and anti-Semitic.

The similarities of what both European Jews and Israel are facing from incoherent and appeasing European politicians are too stark to ignore. Both Israel and European Jews have reached their tipping points.

Israel is not prepared to continue the impossible task of peace talks with a rejectionist, anti-Semitic, corrupt and violent adversary under unilateral pressure from a Europe that gives the Palestinians a free pass and an inordinate amount of funding. European Jews are not prepared to continue to quake in fear while their politicians are incapable of protecting them and they hear their politicians and media put mounting pressure on Israel, giving the Palestinians a free pass as they do with their intolerant Muslim population. In both cases, the one-sided approach of European countries has become too painful a burden to bear. Jews and Israel are objecting to this bias.

It is time for European leaders to reform their incorrect political thinking and give both Israel and their Jews a break which must include their full support. They must review their faulty policies. They must regain their domestic control, their political equilibrium, and see both their Jews and Israel through fresh eyes. Both are shining examples of enlightenment and liberal democracy and must be supported. The concerns of both must be taken on board as never before. 

If pressure needs to be applied it has to be against the intolerant, rejectionist and violent part of the community. In Europe it is the section of society that refuses to integrate, rejects the norms of the host country and adopts violence. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is the side that rejects solutions and concessions, refuses to recognize the Jewish state and adopts violence.

Proof that both Israel and European Jews see things differently from European politicians is evidenced by the increasing number of Jews who are leaving their home countries in which they feel growing despair and hopelessness. They share the concerns of Israel in a dangerous Middle East and a failing and weakening Europe having experienced it firsthand in the countries of their birth.

Despite this, they find hope and protection in the strength and determination of the Jewish State of Israel, and many are finding redemption in a new life in a country that welcomes them with open arms.

Barry Shaw is a member of the Knesset Forum on Israel’s legitimacy. He is also the special consultant on delegitimization issues to The Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya Academic College, and the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the

Saturday, 10 January 2015

Kristallnacht for French Jews.

For French Jews, January 9, 2015, was Kristallnacht, a seminal watershed of no return.

That was the day that the Islamic fever that had infested France and most of Europe turned its fury away from attacking a satirical magazine that poked fun at them to its greatest enemy – Judaism.

In Paris, a gunman, linked to the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre who had shot a policewoman in the back the previous day, selected a Jewish target for headline effect. He attacked the Hyper Casher Jewish supermarket gunning down four shoppers in his assault.

The French Jewish community had warned of their fears that the summer rise in anti-Semitic incidents were leading to deadly violence. At that time hundreds of Muslims, backed by radical leftists, had rampaged through the streets of Paris toward synagogues with fearful Jews sheltering inside. These Jews were the maelstrom of anti-Israel hate during the Gaza conflict that necessitated channeling its expression toward the local Jews.

Let’s be honest, Islamists hate Judaism in all its forms – Israel, Zionism, and, quite frankly, Jews.

The summer violence of 2014 led to a doubling of French Jews to Israel to escape the anti-Semitism of a Socialist France that neglectfully allowed the growth of radical Muslim activity and voice to dominate their society.

France ceded sovereignty to a growing Muslim community by allowing over seven hundred “no go” areas where Muslims are permitted to run their own affairs, including imposing Shariah law, and where French police do not tread for fear of violent reprisals. 

When a sovereign state surrenders territory and control to an intolerant and rejectionist minority it has lost the battle for multiculturalism and enlightenment. This is when integrated minorities, such as Jews who contribute fully to the host country, feel isolated and exposed. For the power of the dominating minority, in Europe’s case the Muslims, will insist that the host country cede further to their will.

Liberal politicians and media talking heads bleat about that recent phenomenon of bloody terror on the streets of Paris has nothing to do with real Islam even as the perpetrators pronounce that this is precisely what their actions are all about. Go into any mosque preaching the concept of Dar ul-Islam (Land of Islam) over Dar ul-Kufr (Land of Unbelievers) and understand that jihad can be fought by deception or violence until Islam has succeeded and any land that is not Dar ul-Islam is Dar ul-Haab – a Land of War.

This is something that Israel and Jews are fully aware. Even in this they feel isolated as clearly liberal-minded Europe is still in denial. They have deliberately decided to wear blinkers for to see the truth exposes their wrong-headedness. They cannot admit that they have led their people into a dark cul-de-sac. Instead, they impose the notion of Islamophobia for anyone pointing out the error of their ways and the frightening outcome of their policies of open immigration, failed integration, and surrender of once-proud national values in favor of a multi-cultureless that brought masses of people who rejected their valueless society.

What Europeans did not appreciate was that people do not emigrate from the Middle East. They bring the baggage of the Middle East with them.

A reporter on the French news desk of i24 online Israeli TV news, who had closely followed events surrounding the attack on the Jewish supermarket, gave disturbing news that the general French feeling was that this terror attack had little to do with France. That it was a side issue between Arabs and Jews and did not affect them, as regular French folk, as did the assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo. The French love and respect their satirical journalism a lot less than they love and respect their Jews.

The French have not yet grasped the reality that radical Islamic terror rooted in the Middle East, but nurtured by misguided politics on their own soil, may begin by targeting free speech, authority as personified by the fallen policemen and women, and Jews but, as with all totalitarian ideologies, it eventually targets everyone who do not bend to their will.

January 9 2015 should be a watershed date not only for the Jews of France, but also for Jews anywhere.  For, just as Kristallnacht targeted the Jews of Berlin, the sound of terror and broken glass were the alarm signals to Jews and civilization everywhere.

Barry Shaw is the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the Narrative.’
He is a member on the Knesset Forum on Israel’s legitimization, and Special Consultant on Delegitimization Issues to The Strategic Dialogue at Netanya Academic College.

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

I've had it with leftist intellectuals!

To say I've had it up to here with leftist intellectuals would be an understatement.

These are the people who have graduated from radical campus causes or have taken part in political campaigning and then apply their dogmatic moral superiority to all and every incident they can twist around their perverse worldview.

Why do they always see the West and East through the perspective of evil white exploiters versus good black/brown weak victim? It must be an integral part of their brainwashed upbringing.

Take, for instance, the Israeli-Arab conflict. They used to call it “war” until the Arabs gave up trying to drive the Jews into the sea and decided to rephrase it into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This simple title change did the trick for them. Israel = Goliath, Palestinians = little Davids. Neat!

As one leftist journalist and activist summed it up, “White ain’t right, and strong is wrong.”

Israel is considered white and Palestinians dark skinned.  We are all Hamas now! They are opposed to Israel’s existence. Israel is on the wrong side to these people. Israel is ‘an imperialist stooge’ a ‘colonizer and occupier.’ The weak dark-skinned Palestinians are automatically just by virtue of being weak and dark-skinned.

From the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism, an illiterate conservative superstitious Muslim Palestinian who supports Hamas is more progressive than any educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism even critically.

These are the people behind BDS. At its core these people are not only anti-Israel they are also anti-democratic because this way of thinking is inimical to democracy - social democracy or liberal democracy.

This line of thinking enables people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu to disguise his anti-Semitic Replacement Theology into a new leftist blood libel that positions a powerful white Zionist regime brutally oppressing meek brown-skinned Palestinians, thereby drawing a false parallel with white South African regime’s inhumane treatment of black South Africans and leads to ridiculous anti-Israel accusations of apartheid.

Reframing the political narrative is everything and, boy, do these lefties know how to do that!

We heard that the 9/11 hijackers did it for Palestine, although the hijackers themselves somehow forgot to say anything about that before their deadly mission. Some even said that 9/11 was a Zionist plot because all the Jewish bankers stayed away from work that day.

For the radical left, the fall of the Twin Towers was no bad thing because they represented the pinnacle of capitalism and the overwhelming power of corporation over government. How sick!

Quite frankly, I’m sick of leftist justifications for attacks on Israel, America, and the West in general. It’s time we tell them to stick a sock in it when they make out its all the fault of the mighty white West having colonized, occupied, invaded, oppressed the meek Muslim world that is the cause of all of the turmoil in the Middle East. No it’s not, and it never has been. It’s their slaughtering of more of their own but also ours, their lack of democracy, their regional and global ambitions, their desire for bloodletting that truly has been the eye of the Islamic winter that is today’s Middle East and Africa and is plaguing the world.

Idiots like leftist journalist, Robert Fisk, may say that the Afghans that almost killed him near the Pakistan border were, in his words, “innocent of any crime except that of being the victim of the world.” Give me a break, Fisk! 

This is as pathetic an argument as the other leftist intellectuals that blame white women for being raped by Muslim men because they asked for it by dressing so provocatively. According to these left-wing nutters, it’s always our fault.

This is Western leftist morality. We had it coming to us because of what we do, what we don’t do, and what we are. It’s as if the rise of Islamic fever would not have been uncorked had we not responded to 9/11 or, in Israel’s case, the 1967 war had ended in defeat with Jordan continuing to occupy the West Bank and east Jerusalem as they had been doing following their 1948 invasion against the nascent Jewish state. After all, who had heard, or even cared, about the occupation of the West Bank when Jordan held it for almost twenty years.  Do the research and let me know if you find any radical left-wing diatribe against the illegal occupation of Palestinian land prior to June 1967. Good luck in your fruitless search!

These leftists are incapable of assessing any culpable fascist, racist tendencies in the ideologies or political platforms among those they support against imperialist American, Zionist, Western enemies, including the Palestinian leadership. Just look at Hamas, you pro-Palestinian bleeding hearts. Read their Charter which drips with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  

Living under Nuremberg laws imposed by the Nazis was evil because of their global and anti-Semitic intent. Living under Sharia law is kind of OK to leftist intellectuals because it is the expression, in their eyes, of down-trodden people emerging from the yoke of Western oppression. Do me a favor, will you, and wake up and smell the pungent coffee! It’s as evil, global, and as anti-Semitic as any Nazi law.

The problem with these lefties when it comes to Israel is this. They can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Their brains don’t stretch to the length of their gum. They can’t criticize the shortcomings of the Israeli government while, at the same time, support a liberal democracy fighting against an intolerant and rejectionist enemy. It’s all or nothing, with an unquestioning all for Palestinians and a big fat zero for Israel. It’s unconditional antagonism against Israel and unconditional support for a Palestinian cause that intends the demise of Israel.

This, perhaps most of all, leads me to have had it with leftist intellectuals.

Barry Shaw is the author of ‘Israel Reclaiming the Narrative’.