Friday, October 21, 2016

In the Era of Jeremy Corbyn, It's Now Cruel Britannia for UK Jews

Why has Britain's Labour Party turned into such a simmering dung heap of Jew-hate? As Douglas Murray explains, it's because when the hatred could have been nipped in the bud (so to speak), it wasn't. Instead, it became "Israelized," and was allowed to fester and grow to the dizzying levels we see now:
The story of the takeover of the Labour Party by forces aligned with naked anti-Semitism begins with the aftermath of September 11 and the run-up to the Iraq war. In September 2002, three Jewish leftists who marched in a Stop the War demonstration described in a letter to the Guardian how they became increasingly uncomfortable with the “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish imagery” of their comrades: “Where does that leave us,” the trio wrote, “as Jews who totally oppose the war in Iraq but felt hostility or indifference from many of our fellow marchers?” The open link between leftist politics and the defenders of anti-Semitic terror in the Middle East was made clear by the way that the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament, a Cold War–era radical leftist group, allied itself with the Muslim Brotherhood to form the Stop the War coalition, one of whose leaders was Jeremy Corbyn. 
The evidence of growing Jew-hatred was there for all to see, and yet for years the left refused to carry out even the most basic hygiene at events such as these. Indeed, its panjandra waved away any expressions of concern. How, they demanded, could anyone from a political movement in which “anti-racism” was one of the few remaining certainties be connected with any variety of racism? The leaders and spokesmen of these movements denied evidence that was literally before their eyes. When cornered, they hid behind an insistence that anti-Zionism was a wholly different thing from anti-Semitism—and when that no longer worked, they were left to argue in effect that anti-Semitism was not anti-Semitism. At a loftier and more private level, senior Labour members of parliament aligned with the rival moderate factions led by Prime Minister Tony Blair and his eventual successor, Gordon Brown, consoled critics with the assurance that members of their party who helped propel such forces by attending and addressing their rallies were mere eccentrics and embarrassments: persons of no significance. 
Well what a difference 15 years has made. Today the Blairites and Brownites who gave such assurances are almost to a man and woman in the political wilderness, reduced to lecturing dictators for cash or appearing on reality television shows. Meanwhile, the man who spent the years of Labour power outside the Israeli and American Embassies, or at the foot of Lord Nelson’s column in London’s Trafalgar Square hollering through a megaphone at the nation’s monomaniacs now leads their party.

"From Yemen to Turtle Bay"--Iran Rules

For those in a hurry, I have summarized Caroline Glick's latest column--headline cited above--thusly:
From Yemen to Turtle Bay
Iran is having its way.
The mullahs are preening
And quite overweening
And they're going to make Israel pay.

WaPo Article Washes Away the Taint of Terrorism from Islamic Charity

Hewing to the narrative that everything's hunky-dory when it comes to Islam and Muslims, the Washington Post crafts a rapturous account of America's largest Muslim charity. Trouble is, the paper fails to do any due diligence--or, at the very least, conduct a cursory Google search--re these religion-of-peace "do-gooders." Had the WaPo bothered to do so, it would have discovered that the charity is said to have some pretty unsavory ties--to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

But, hey, as in the case of the Clinton Foundation, which undoubtedly does some good works too, why accentuate the negative when you can simply eliminate it (for the sake of toeing the line re "diversity," multiculturalism, social justice and rest of the "progressive" malarkey)?

Update: Re the Islamic concept of charity, this ROP entry is most illuminating:
Charity is technically an important part of Islam, but this does not mean that it is defined as Westerners generally understand it. In Christianity, charity means giving to your fellow man in need. In Islam, it means giving either to support holy war or to a fellow Muslim - and usually through the mandated poor tax (zakat) which is precisely calculated. As Robert Spencer puts it, "Islam makes a distinction between believers and unbelievers that overrides any obligation to general benevolence."

The zakat (almsgiving) may be one of the five pillars of Islam, but the Hadith only speaks of it as a requirement to help fellow Muslims ("taken from among you and distributed among you"). Non-Muslims are not entitled to the zakat by virtue of their need, and mainstream Islamic teaching forbids Muslims to give this to unbelievers. The website, for example, lists unbelievers along with the wealthy, strong and healthy as being prohibited from receiving zakat (although some Muslims may personally disagree with this).

While Islamic scholars forbid giving zakat to non-Muslims in physical need - including the victims of Islamic terror - it is acceptable to use zakat in defense of accused Muslim terrorists.

Interestingly, the Quranic verse that is said to be the basis for zakat (9:103) comes from the most violent and intolerant of suras. Its context also appears to be that of a penance taken from the property of 'hypocrites' for their sinfulness and failure to participate in battle against unbelievers.

Islamic charities that raise funds openly in the West are savvy enough to downplay the fact that beneficiaries of their assistance are selected by ethnicity, which would not go over well with non-Muslim donors. They are also known to advertise "window dressing" projects on their websites or literature, in which they claim a role in prominent disasters or causes (in disproportion to their actual contribution or concern). It is usually enough to fool others into not looking deeper.

Generally speaking, international Islamic charities are better known for funding terrorism and hate than in meeting the actual needs of natural disaster victims (bankrolling Jihad through charitable giving is mandated by the Quran 9:60). In 2014, the UAE determined that fifteen well-known Muslim charities - including the world's largest - were actually sponsoring Islamic terrorism.

Even at its most legitimate, Muslim charity to the poor is heavily tainted by ulterior political and racial agenda, such as lopsided support for Palestinians to the exclusion of Darfur victims, who suffer much worse. The latter are also Muslim, but they don't count since they are Africans oppressed by an Islamic-Arab regime. (The rule is that Muslims generally ignore the suffering of other Muslims unless non-Muslims can be held responsible).

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Word of the Day--and It's a Mouthful: Vergangenheitsbewältigung

It's German for "coping with the past." More specifically, coping with Germany's role in perpetrating the Holocaust.

As this article in The Local explains, one of the ways Germans practice Vergangenheitsbewältigung is by constructing more and more monuments and memorials for dead Jews.

That's on the one hand. On the other hand, Germany is "coping with the past" by doing its utmost to finish off the Israel of today by funding Zion-despising NGOs:
The German federal government provides millions of euros to political advocacy NGOs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, through a variety of frameworks, including German federal funding programs of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Foreign Office, government-funded church aid, and independent development NGOs. 
Officially, the funding is aimed at “combating poverty, securing food, establishing peace, freedom, democracy and human rights, shaping globalisation in a socially equitable manner, and preserving the environment and natural resources.” In contrast to these stated moral objectives, research reveals that German federal funding is allocated to, amongst others, organizations that promote anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) and “lawfare” campaigns, anti-Zionism, promotion of a “one-state” vision, antisemitism, and violence.
Update: The German Left's Undeclared War on Israel

Update: "An Israeli-style restaurant in Munich is closing its doors after 16 years because its owner is tired of being a punch-bag for Israel-haters."

Top 5 Ways Trudeau and His Libs Are Ruining Canada

Would You Sign This Petition?

It reads:
We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.
The petition requires, in other words, that you close your eyes to the reality that jihadis (a.k.a. generic "extremist individuals") are motivated to wage jihad because they are commanded to do so by/in Islam's holy texts.

Not surprisingly, almost 77,000 Canadians have signed on to this comforting fiction. Many did so, I suspect, because of the second part of the above statement--that it's a way of "condemning all forms of Islamophobia." (All forms? Meaning there's more than one?)

A bloke named Samer Mazjoub, who describes himself as an "initiator" of this petition, is delighted by the result. He writes:
Based on the solid support that the petition e-411 got from Canadians, a motion to condemn all forms of Islamophobia was submitted, on Oct 5, 2016, to the House of Commons for unanimous approval by all MPs. Although the unanimous motion didn't pass through due to the refusal of a small group of Conservative representatives out of the 338 members in the House of Commons, the fact that it earned the consent of the vast majority of other legislators proves that the Islamophobia is becoming a true Canadian concern.  
Surely, the trip to recognize and to condemn discrimination, as it is a total contradiction to Canadian values, has not come to an end yet. Canadians from all stripes of social, political, racial and religious backgrounds are coming together at a much faster pace to stand united up to hate and smear campaigns against their fellow citizens.
You know what's a real contradiction of Canadian values? The idea that "Islamophobia"--a faux phobia invented by those determined to further the Islamist agenda--is rampant and requires parliamentary action (i.e. a curtailment of free speech) to be stopped.

Next UNESCO Proposition to Get High-Fived By the Coalition of Arab/Muslim Nations: The Sun Rises in the East and Sets in the West

How could they vote in favour of such a thing? It's because at the UN, as we know, the majority rules. And the majority can approve of any dang thing it wants to.

A Phrase I Bet You Never Expected to Hear

"A giraffe ate my lulav."

About That Debate...

The smartest, soundest, sanest person in the room was the moderator. But he's not on the ballot, alas.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

That's No "Child." That's a Man, Baby!

Another all-male coachload of 'child' migrants arrives in Britain - but officials WON'T say how many there are and WON'T do dental checks to prove they're really children

A Preview of Coming Hill-tractions?

The corruption that's been engendered by Barack Obama and his minions is now so pervasive that the sound bite "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown" pretty much captures the ensuing (and endemic) rot.

Re the corruption, Hillary Clinton's hand in it, and a complicit media's M.O. of ignoring it, Mark Steyn has this to say:
So, to add to the corrupt revenue agency and the corrupt justice department, we now have a corrupt national law enforcement agency and a corrupt foreign ministry - willing, indeed, to subordinate national security and its own diplomatic policy to the personal needs of Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc, etc, you will be entirely unaware of all this. Which is the way they plan on operating for the next eight years. 
A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.