Sunday, May 24, 2015

Abbysinia, Palmyra

UNESCO protections are worth squat once ISIS and its anti-jahilliya jihadis conquer your town.

How Did Sweden's Malmö Get to Be So Anti-Semitic? By Importing Tons of Jew-Hating "Refugees," Of Course

What follows is a cautionary tale for Canada:
"When we have let the world into our town, we have the political controversy you have in the Middle East," says Anders Ekelm, vicar of the Church of Sweden in Malmö. "Among those people you will find anti-Semitism. We have to be honest about it." 
Sweden has a generous immigration policy – last year the country of 9 million took in 85,000 refugees. According to an OECD study, that is more than twice as many immigrants per capita as any other member country. Canada, in comparison, takes a twentieth as many refugees proportionately. 
In Malmö the immigrants are concentrated in one pocket of the city, Rosengaard.  
Unemployment in the area runs at 70 per cent, stones are thrown regularly at mail carriers and police, and 150 cars were torched during summer riots in 2013. Protests for and against Muslim immigrants are frequent and tough. 
Engineer Peter Fribourg and his wife Marie, a lawyer, are what are now called 'ethnic Swedes.' "It's a tough matter, you have different cultures colliding. We are not succeeding in the way we would like." 
Marie agrees, adding that Malmö meant well but was not properly prepared to help the huge influx of immigrants settle. "I was much more liberal and welcoming before … (but) there have been so many in the last few years we do not know how to deal with them. They will not assimilate."
Update: This looks like it could be Malmö but it is actually an Al Quds Day in Toronto. (And, yes, that yellow and green shmatta you see is a Hezbo flag.):


All the Sec'y of State's Men (and Women)

Hillary Clinton may not have authorized a break-in at a political rival's HQ, but her involvement in the Benghazi debacle along with her clear-cut e-mail finagling should at the very least prompt the media that went apesh*t over Watergate to want to dig a little deeper. As we well know, however, unless she changes her name to "Richard Nixon" that's not bloody likely to happen.



Update: Among the e-mails Hillary deleted are those between her and her gal Friday, Huma Abedin. (And, yes, that is Huma you see lurking in the background during Hillary's rare on-camera questioning by reporters).

Col. Richard Kemp: Israel a Casualty of the Culture War

The man who commanded the British military in Afghanistan accounts for the upside down morality (amorality, really) of our time:
Even as late as 1973, Israel was still widely seen as the good guys and the Arabs were the bad. Sympathy was with Israel because they were being picked on and bullied. There was little consideration of the ‘legitimacy’ of Israel; it was taken for granted. 
In 1967, the capture and occupation of East Jerusalem, which of course we commemorated on Sunday as Jerusalem Day, and of Judea and Samaria were accepted as a legitimate act of self-defense. 
This was not true just for those of us still at school and in the fledgling days of a military career. This was the general view of British people, and of many in the West, obviously with plenty of exceptions. 
Back then, in the 60s and 70s, young minds were still being shaped by traditional views of good and evil. The Valiant comic, read by most schoolboys, was all about heroic Tommies beating the treacherous Nazis or the fanatical Japanese. War films on the whole told the same stories, and without the graphic violence of today. 
We had The Longest Day, The Guns of Navarone and Zulu. The BBC was neutral, and if anything supported the values of the country that paid for it. On the whole, like other UK news services of the day, it sought to convey events from the Middle East and everywhere else free of a political agenda, left or right. 
In general, popular culture still reflected the long accepted beliefs and principles of a Christian society. All of this shaped the views of the majority of people. 
We live in a very different world today. In 40 years the general opinion of Israelis and their Arab foes has been reversed. 
What has changed? Some say the situation is different. But this is not the case.  
Fundamentally the situation remains the same. Israel’s stance is unchanged from 1948. A desire for the survival of the Jewish national homeland, at peace with its neighbours. 
All that has changed about this has been that Israel has made repeated costly concessions, including giving up land, for peace. Concessions which have not been reciprocated by the Palestinians, but instead exploited at the grave expense of Israel. Concessions which have not been acknowledged or remembered by the international community, who, like the Palestinians, simply and uncompromisingly demand more and more and more and more. 
Nor have the Arabs fundamentally changed. We have of course peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And the growing threats from Iran and from expanding Sunni jihadism may be leading to some temporary and below the radar mutual cooperation from parts of the Arab world. 
But the underlying perspective and agenda, especially among the Palestinians, is the same as it was in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Rejection of Jewish communities in the land of Israel. The destruction of the Jewish State. 
Some of the basic dynamics have altered. Before, organized, uniformed and relatively disciplined and conventional Arab armies fought under their national flag. Today the armies have been replaced by terrorist gangsters and black-cloaked jihadists.  
Conventional war has been replaced by terrorist attacks. Battles fought between tanks and infantry in remote deserts have been replaced by battles fought in densely populated civilian areas and behind the protection of human shields. 
In my view if such events as the Gaza conflict last summer were played out in the 1960s and 70s, the support for Israel in the West would have been greater than it was even then. The savage and murderous actions of the Palestinians are far more shocking today. 
So I again ask the question, what has changed? And the answer is: The morality and values of the West. They have been transformed almost beyond recognition...
Indeed. And, without meaning to, Anthony Furey, the subject of my previous post, embodies the transformation. Which is to say that, while he identifies as a libertarian/conservative, he does not "get" any of that religious stuff--the Judeo-Christian stuff--which underpins Western civilization and which is the bedrock of our morality and values.
 
The Ten Commandments? The Golden Rule? The Sermon on the Mount? As non-believers like Furey know, all those stodgy rules are just so old, so passé . In these hip, modern times, we eschew--and laugh at--all those silly strictures about no-bacon-on-your-burger in favour of moral relativism, "victims" as exemplars of virtuousness and anything goes (save for the secular "sins"--"racism," "sexism," "transphobia," etc.) In that sort of world--the one we're stuck with, alas--Israel, in having to constantly defend itself militarily, will always be seen as the bad guy.

Ignorance Re Judaism Is No Excuse For This

On the occasion of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, the Toronto Sun's Anthony Furey reduces the entirety of Judaism to an insulting quip about a burger topping:
I'm puzzled that a number of otherwise rational people I know won't get bacon on their burgers because they believe some chap went into the desert centuries ago without any witnesses and supposedly received the true word of God from an angel.
I can assure you, Anthony, that there's a bit more to it than that.

I don't really care what Furey does or does not believe. Were I him, however, I would not be so quick to flaunt my ignorance.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

On a Cliff Overlooking the Pacific, We Assembled Some Fresh-Faced Youths (Some of Whom May or May Not Be Soon Running Off to Join ISIS) To Bring You This Message

Spoiler alert: As we now know, in the made-up world of Mad Men, PTSD-suffering alcoholic Don Draper ended up creating that Coke commercial, the one showing a panoply of diversity brought together by a common love for darkened sugar-water. The show's finale got me to thinking: that ad was actually a harbinger of sorts for the message of hope 'n' change that, decades later, another slick huckster would get Americans to swallow. What a perfect reason, thought I, to revise the lyrics to reflect the blissed out vision of this later mad man:

Obama and his chorus of sycophants sing:

I'd like to trash the one percent
For our "equality."
Grow calumny,
Dependency,
See me as heaven sent.

I'd like to teach the Zionists
They can't defeat their foe.
I'd like to let Iran get nukes,
But claim it's not a go.

That's the right thing.
Secure my "legacy".
So important to me.
That's the right thing...

Sample Lyric: "But Before You Leave Let Me Show You Tel Aviv"

"Golden Boy," Israel's entry in this year's Eurovision Song Contest, is kind of cheesy and kind of fun.

#MarieHarfHistoricalFacts

My contribution: Paul Revere, who deplored vocal music, shouted: "The British are humming! The British are humming!"

Friday, May 22, 2015

Shut Up Shut Up Shut Up

The POTUS who scammed 'em all with his hopeychangey smoke 'n' mirrors; who did his damndest to try to defeat Netanyahu because the Israeli P.M. had the temerity to tell it like it is re the prospect of a nuclear Iran; who is getting set to sing a deal with the Grandiose Ayatollah no matter what; who began his presidency by sucking up to Muslims and has yet to stop; who told Coast Guard grads that "climate change"--not ISIS, not Iran--is the gravest threat du jour; who hangs out with "progressives" who abominate the Jewish State--that guy has the chutzpah to lecture Israel, the one bright spot in an ever-darkening landscape, on its failure to "live up to its founding principles."

Two words 4 U, Barack: Bite moi.

A Nuke With Obama's Name On It?

In an interview with The Atlantic, the Prevaricator-In-Chief offers the following "reassurance" re a nuclear-armed Iran:
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
In other words all that stands in the way of Iran obliterating Israel with a nuke is Obama's egregious narcissism?

You'll forgive me if I don't  happen to find that particularly comforting.

"It Appears the Only Oppression of Muslims That Muslims Will Shout About Is In Palestine"

One of those statements that's so blindingly obvious but at the same time is still somewhat shocking--in a good way, though, to see in print in a newspaper.