Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi Connection

"Nazi Germany put all its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood distributed Arabic translations of Mein Kampf."

In the mean time, Barack Obama has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and progressive-left Jews do not mind.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the father organization of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda, yet Obama invites Muhammed Morsi, just recently of the Brotherhood, to the White House.

Are our heads so deeply buried in the sand that even Jewish people have no problem with this?

It's frankly astonishing.

Let us also remember that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a leading member of the Brotherhood and said the following:

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption...The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them...Allah Willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.

This is what Barack Obama has invited to the White House.

What I can't figure out is which is worse, the fact that Obama is embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, and helping to install them into power in Egypt, or that Jewish "progressives" simply do not care and will make excuses for it.

This is just unconscionable.

Break the Palestinian Veto over Israel

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

It is a commonplace in discussing the Arab-Israel conflict that Israel can be two of three things. It can be:

1) a Jewish state

2) a democratic state

or

3) a state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

What it cannot be, however, is all three. This makes eminent sense, but what tends to go unspoken is the fact that those who promote this view also tend to give the Palestinians a veto on Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. That is, if the Palestinians refuse to negotiate and if they refuse to give up their efforts to kill Jews for the purposes of eventually destroying the Jewish state, then the status quo will continue indefinitely.

If the status quo continues indefinitely, this means that the Palestinians can then condemn Israel as non-democratic. It will have been the Palestinians themselves, through their unwillingness to accept a state in peace next to the Jewish one that will be the cause of the continued status quo, but the western world, and particularly the western left, will tend to blame Israel, nonetheless.

This being the case, what is necessary is not a further round of useless talks with Palestinians who have no interest in ending the conflict short of actual victory over their Jewish victims, but for a unilateral declaration of Israel's final borders.

The Palestinians, as well as much of the larger Arab and Muslim world, is holding the Jews of the Middle East hostage.  For theological reasons they simply cannot accept Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land because that land was previously conquered by Islam and therefore is considered a permanent part of the Umma.  The western left, meanwhile, will continue to hold the Jews of the Middle East responsible for their own persecution and will continue to provide venues for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists to undermine the well-being of Jewish people the world over.

Thus the only thing that Israel can do is to take matters into its own hands and declare its final borders, leaving sufficient space for whatever criminal-terrorist entity that the Palestinians create for themselves.  This will not end the conflict, of course, but it will maintain Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, which is something that all of us, left, right, and center, who care about the Jewish people, want.

Many will argue that the withdrawal from Gaza demonstrates that such withdrawals are counterproductive to Israeli security and they will cite the ten thousand rockets that have fallen on Israeli heads since that withdrawal.  Their point is undeniable, but the truth of it does not mean that we must allow the Palestinians to have a veto over the nature of the state of Israel.  Israel always maintains its rights to self-defense and any violence coming at it from Palestinian areas should be met with sufficient force to put down that violence, no matter how the world community reacts. Much of the world, as recent experience shows, does not consider violence against Jews to actually be violence and thus they consider Jewish self-defense to be Jewish aggression.

This is most common on the progressive-left, sadly.

Nevertheless, it is long past time for Israel to free itself. After 13 centuries of second and third class citizenship under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperialism, followed by one hundred years of war, the Jews of the Middle East have the right to be left the hell alone. Their freedom, however, can only come about through their action.

Israel needs to free itself at last.

{The Palestinians can have Ramallah.}

Israel and the United Nations

Obama Shuts Israel Out of "Counterterrorism" Organization

Mike L.

Jewish World Review July 13, 2012/ 23 Tamuz, 5772

The Washington Free Beacon reported this week on the continuing omission of Israel from a U.S.-sponsored organization called the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF). At a recent forum meeting in Spain, Maria Otero, U.S. undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy and human rights, delivered a speech titled "Victims of Terrorism," but, in her roll call of victims, she didn't mention Israel. The conference at which she spoke was described as a "high-level conference on the victims of terrorism," but Israel wasn't a participant.

Progressive-left American Jews are still telling themselves that Barack Obama is friendly toward Israel and, thus, friendly toward the Jewish people. Given the fact that Obama helped usher the Muslim Brotherhood, the world's foremost anti-Semitic organization, into power in Egypt it is getting more and more difficult to maintain this fiction of Obama's friendliness toward the Jews and the Jewish state.

Now we have the fact that the country most subject to terrorist attacks throughout the world is being excluded from an allegedly "anti-terrorist" organization created by the president of the United States.

At the group's most recent meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the following, "From London to Lahore, from Madrid to Mumbai, from Kabul to Kampala, it's innocent civilians who have been targeted ..."

Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon? Poof, gone. And that's the point: This new counterterrorism organization, with its related counterterrorism center coming soon to Abu Dhabi, is Judenfrei. Not coincidentally, it is also heavily Islamic. Eleven member-states -- slightly more than one-third of the organization's membership -- also belong to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 56 Islamic countries working to impose Islamic law (Shariah) on the world. Six of those 11 members additionally belong to the Arab League. Both groups have defined "terrorism" to exclude Israeli victims (sometimes U.S. soldiers), and "terrorists" to exclude groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is no wonder the Arab-Islamic members would now unite in "counterterrorism" without Israel.

Yes, what a great friend to Israel this administration is.

Such dhimmitude only intensifies, as the latest developments show. Under the Bushes, after all, while Israel was not permitted to fight alongside coalition forces, at least it was still recognized for withstanding more than 60 years of Islamic terrorist attacks. Today, under the auspices of the Obama administration, Israel no longer rates mention even as a victim. "Big Satan" has thrown "Little Satan" to the sharks.

I disagree.

The United States has certainly NOT thrown Israel to the sharks.

Only Barack Obama has and that is something that we can take care of come November.

Taking on Clerical Antizionism

geoffff

The bar and grill  is Australian. About as Australian as you can  get really without being of the people who were here before the rest of us. Or a known convict.

I say that because that's all that has to be said and I mean that quite literally . I have the enormous privilege of being born in a place where anything else about you personally is pretty much your own business really once the birth has been registered unless you choose to make it otherwise or are dealing with the lawful authorities of our liberal democracy. This is particularly so with regard to "religion". And "politics" too come to think of it Or lack of it.

We prefer things that way. This is the Australian secular society.  I don't care what religion you are, sport, if you have one, so long as you keep your hands off the kids and out of  the public till , do not preach hatred, hold people against their will or try to shove it up my face..

Or blow it up my face.

It would be better if you minded your manners but you can't have everything.

The same goes for atheists. And agnostics. .This  blog has no particular issue with religion.  On the contrary the value and force of religion, for those who choose it, and sometimes for those who do not, is a fact of human life. . Religion only becomes an issue for this blog when clerics make it an issue.

They do that when they make it a human rights issue. This really isn't that difficult.

Then you remember that bad men come in all types, sizes and colours and of course they include clerics  and not just Muslim clerics. Some of the worst men  in the world and in history have been driven by religion and bad men always use religion when they can. Even the ones who try to suppress it. . It is trite to  single out Islam as unique but right now you would have to be wilfully blind or really hate Muslims if you did not recognise that there is a terrible problem with radical violent political Islam across large swathes of the planet and that it is Muslims who most of all have to pay the horrible price of that. Muslims are the first and last victims of modern radical political Islam as surely as the Germans were of Nazism, an ideology with which it shares a striking similarity. This should not surprise given the documented cross-fertilisation.

Which brings us to the Clerical Antizionists  and especially the Christian Antizionists. There are Jewish Clerical Antizionists as well but they are a tiny sect and rather quaint and comical. A reminder of just how odd religious belief can get.

But there is nothing quaint and comical about the spread of Christian Antizionism even when it purports to be peaceful just as there is most certainly nothing quaint and comical about Muslim Antizionism,  it's more strident and bloodthirsty clerical ally.

Both must be opposed not because ultimately this is a religion thing but because it is not. Or should not. It is a human rights issue pure and simple. If a Christian cleric chooses to buy into a human rights  issue this profound, on the wrong side, as an opponent of human rights, in open alliance with the worst human rights  violators in history, then he (and it nearly always is a he) has forfeited any benefits of clergy.

The first of these is any assumption that a Christian Antizionist  does not know or understand what is at the core of the dispute. They must know that it is not the "occupation" or the "settlements". It never has been and no one can  honestly and ethically claim otherwise  now what passes for a "Palestinian" leadership, and their string tuggers, are open and out with the truth. No Jewish state no matter what. Eternal war is fine by them. They keep on saying so.

They know what is at the core of it and it is getting worse. This is a violent religious ideology whose clerics will not tolerate one another let alone a liberal democratic very productive secular little country in the most vigorous traditions of our civilisations and whose clerics, God bless them, most of them anyway, are more or less in their places and doing their jobs..

Just as they are in Britain and Australia. Doing good work and upholding values. Most of them anyway. Just like Israel you will get the bad ones. There have been a few of them. Quite a few.

A Christian Antizionist can not get away with being agnostic on the key issue any longer.. The objection to Israel is that it is ruled by human made laws that can be changed in a vigorous and free political process that does not require referral to holy men who claim to know the mind of God and whose idea of the cosmos is that infidels  are to be despised and not tolerated and when circumstances permit and warrant  can be put to the sword if they do not convert or submit to an ideological hegemony and belief system that is vile anathema to any rational and free human being.

Perhaps as Christians they have lost the folk memory of what an ugly imposition religion is when clerics are in a position to impose it. They will do that of course when they can. History has taught us that. Perhaps some Christian clerics still think that's a good idea. There has to be some reason why they have taken the position they have.

Firstly there is this important piece from Melanie Philips reporting some bad news for decent Christians and especially if they are in communion with the Church of England.

Decent Christians are extremely upset, and rightly so, about the resolution passed at the General Synod a few days ago endorsing the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel. The EAPPI aims to bring ‘internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation’. Its mission is to ‘accompany Palestinians and Israelis in their non-violent actions and to carry out concerted advocacy efforts to end the occupation’, and it has called on supporters to stage sit-ins at Israeli Embassies, to hack government websites in order to promote its message and of course promote the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel.

Read it all. It gets far more offensive and not just for decent Christians.

This is important for a number of reasons but let me just pick one. BDS is part of a campaign  aimed at the destruction of Israel as the entity it is because it's population is not Muslim and therefore the truth before them has to be  obliterated from existence by means of some kind of compulsory religious delusion. 

Here's a fair question. Will Anglicans involved in this venture take the opportunity to ask their friends about accepting  the Jewish state?


Everything else has been offered time and time again and to deny that would require one of those horrible religious delusions that you would have hoped had not been a part of Anglican tradition since the hunting of witches and heretics and anything else that would run. 


So it all gets down to this. Either the Israelis give up all of their human rights, including, incredibly, religious freedom, and there are Anglican clerics who go along with this?  Or at the very least are not prepared to clarify exactly what their friends want of the Israelis if they cannot accept what they say themselves time and time again and behold that is exactly what they want.


This is offensive not because of religion but because of its casual contempt for human rights. This attack on the rights of Israelis transcends religion. Christians associated with it should be ashamed of themselves. To the extent they are inspired by their religion they disgrace it.


This is a sad time for the Church of England. 


Anyway, like a bad day it gets worse.


Daphne Anson has an important post that deserves to be read in full and I will lift slabs of it when I get a moment. In the meantime she has some breaking news about a few British Methodist clerics who have opted to take a position that warrants scrutiny  


Cross posted  Geoffff's Bar and Grill

Another Landmark and Barack Obama's Incoherent Foreign Policy

Mike L.

{Cross-posted at Geoffff's Joint Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

Every so often something pops onto the political horizon that represents a type of landmark in my political thinking. For me the last big one, before Obama's invitation to Islamist Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi, was the Mavi Marmara episode. At the time I found it exceedingly difficult to accept the fact that western progressives were literally, physically, and financially joining with actual Jihadis for the purpose of confronting Jews on the high seas in order to break the blockade of Gaza, thereby assisting Hamas.

For so many years I was a liberal and a progressive and a Democrat, so when I realized that the progressive movement was making a home of itself for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists it was something of a shock. The Mavi Marmara became a sort-of personal landmark. A symbol. It represents the fact that the progressive-left is not a friend to the Jewish people and therefore Jewish people need to move on politically. This is one of my fundamental convictions. I do not require that people share this conviction in order to participate here on Israel Thrives because the blog is not about projecting a political ideology.  It is about providing a forum for discussion among people who care about Israel. It is about thinking aloud.  I may have political views, but the very last thing in this world that I want is to enforce a political ideology.

It is for this reason that we are welcoming to people throughout the political spectrum. The only people that are not welcome on IT are anti-Zionists or Israel Haters. Other than that we are welcoming to all sorts of viewpoints, so long as one remains collegial, more or less.

But, I have to say, this most recent thing... Barack Obama's invitation to Mohamed Mursi to visit the White House... represents another landmark. From a symbolic standpoint this is just huge. I cannot know what Obama is thinking, and maybe he honestly does believe that when radical groups take power they tend to moderate, but it should be axiomatic that one does not promote the well-being and legitimacy of one's enemies. From a basic geo-political standpoint, you promote the well-being of your allies and undermine the well-being of your enemies.

Is that not obvious?

Therefore, what are we to make of the fact that the Obama administration has been supportive of the Muslim brotherhood since before the Cairo speech? The Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the Jewish people and of the Jewish state, yet it is a friend to the Obama administration. If this will not give progressive-left American Jewry pause concerning the Obama administration then I cannot begin to think of what might.

It also, however, demonstrates a fundamental incoherence in Barack Obama's foreign policy. Obama tells the world that the United States is at war with al-Qaeda, yet he is welcoming to the Brotherhood which is the parent organization of the very organization that Obama claims to be at war with. I'm sorry, but this policy is just entirely incoherent and nonsensical. One cannot be "at war" with Qaeda and yet friendly with the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaeda derives from the Brotherhood, as does Hamas.

Some may suggest that Barack Obama is a sort-of foreign policy genius who is playing three dimensional chess with America's adversaries. Who knows? Maybe Obama does, in fact, think that supporting one's enemies is a super-sophisticated trick wherein to undermine them. But I very much doubt it. I do not know what is behind Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood. What I do know is that he is supportive of the organization and the organization, itself, is both riddled with race hatred toward Jews and hostility toward the Jewish state of Israel.

And, yet, most American Jews will continue to support this president.

What are we to make of that, I wonder?