Ένα Ενδιαφέρον… Φάσκελο!
How Did Golda Meir Define the ‘Palestinians’?
Jan 12, 2018
Republished this week by David Bedein of the Jerusalem-based Israel Resource News Agency.
To be misquoted is an occupational hazard of political leadership; for this reason I should like to clarify my position in regard to the Palestinian issue. I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. In evidence of this I am supposed to have said, “There are no Palestinians.” My actual words were: “There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees.” The distinction is not semantic. My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations.
When in 1921 I came to Palestine – until the end of World War I a barren, sparsely inhabited Turkish province – we, the Jewish pioneers, were the avowed Palestinians. So we were named in the world. Arab nationalists, on the other hand, stridently rejected the designation. Arab spokesmen continued to insist that the land we had cherished for centuries was, like Lebanon, merely a fragment of Syria. On the grounds that it dismembered an ideal unitary Arab state, they fought before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and at the United Nations.
When the Arab historian Philip K. Hitti informed the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that “there is no such thing as Palestine in history”, it was left to David Ben-Gurion to stress the central role of Palestine in Jewish, if not Arab, history.
PLO Official: ‘Palestine is Nothing But Southern Syria’
As late as May 1956, Ahmed Shukairy, subsequently head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared to the United Nations Security Council, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria”. In view of this, I believe I may be forgiven if I took Arab spokesmen at their word.
Until the 1960s, attention was focused on the Arab refugees for whose plight the Arab states would allow no solution though many constructive and far-reaching proposals were made by Israel and the world community.
I repeatedly expressed my sympathy for the needless sufferings of refugees whose abnormal situation was created and exploited by the Arab states as a tactic in their campaign against Israel. However, refugee status could not indefinitely be maintained for the original 550,000 Arabs who in 1948 joined the exodus from the battle areas during the Arab attack on the new state of Israel.
When the refugee card began to wear thin, the Palestinian terrorist appeared on the scene flourishing not the arguable claims of displaced refugees but of a ghoulish nationalism that could only be sated on the corpse of Israel.
‘We Dispossessed No Arabs’
I repeat again. We dispossessed no Arabs. Our toil in the deserts and marshes of Palestine created more habitable living space for both Arab and Jew. Until 1948 the Arabs of Palestine multiplied and flourished as the direct result of Zionist settlement. Whatever subsequent ills befell the Arabs were the inevitable result of the Arab design to drive us into the sea. Had Israel not repelled her would-be destroyers there would have been no Jewish refugees alive in the Middle East to concern the world.
But though Israel is small and beset, I am not prepared to accede to the easy formula that in the Arab-Israeli conflict we witness two equal contending rights that demand further “flexibility” from Israel. Justice was not violated when in the huge territories liberated by the Allies from the Sultan, 1 percent was set aside for the Jewish homeland on its ancestral site, while in a parallel settlement 99 percent of the area was allotted for the establishment of independent Arab states.
We successively accepted the truncation of Transjordan, three-fourths of the area of historic Palestine, and finally the painful compromise of the 1947 partition resolution in the hope for peace. Yet though Israel arose in only one-fifth of the territory originally assigned for the Jewish homeland, the Arabs invaded the young state.
I ask again, as I have often asked, why did the Arabs not set up a Palestine state in their portion instead of cannibalizing the country by Jordan’s seizure of the West Bank and Egypt’s capture of the Gaza Strip? And, since the question of the 1967 borders looms heavily in the present discussions, why did the Arabs converge upon us in June 1967, when the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai, the Gaza Strip and old Jerusalem were in their hands?
These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of the matter – the Arab denial of Israel’s right to exist.SOS SOS SOS!.. This right is not subject to debate. That is why Israel cannot by its presence sanction the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the Security Council, a participation in direct violation of Resolutions 242 and 338.
‘No Common Language’ with Terrorists
We have no common language with exultant murderers of the innocent and with a terrorist movement ideologically committed to the liquidation of Jewish national independence.
At no point has the PLO renounced its program for the “elimination of the Zionist entity”. With startling effrontery P.L.O. spokesmen admit that their proposed state on the West Bank would be merely a convenient “point of departure,” a tactical “first stage” and finally, a combatant “arsenal” strategically situated for the easier penetration of Israel.
I am often asked a hypothetical question: How would we react if the PLO agreed to abandon its weapon, terror, and its goal, the destruction of Israel? The answer is simple. Any movement that forswore both its means and its end would by that fact become a different organization with a different leadership. There is no room for such speculation in the case of the PLO.
This does not mean that at this stage I disregard whatever national aspirations Palestinian Arabs have developed in recent years. However, these can be satisfied within the boundaries of historic Palestine.
The majority of the refugees never left Palestine; they are settled on the West Bank and in Jordan, the majority of whose population is Palestinian. Whatever nomenclature is used, both the people involved and the territory on which they live are Palestinian.
A Jordanian-Palestinian Arab State?
But in a genuine peace settlement a viable Palestine-Jordan could flourish side by side with Israel within the original area of Mandatory Palestine.
On July 21, 1974, the Israeli Government passed the following resolution: “The peace will be founded on the existence of two independent states only – Israel, with united Jerusalem as its capital, and a Jordanian-Palestinian Arab state, east of Israel, within borders to be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan.”
All allied problems can be equitably solved. For this to happen the adversaries of Israel will have to stop devising overt schemes for her immediate or piecemeal extinction.
There are 21 Arab states, rich in oil, land and sovereignty. There is only one small state in which Jewish national independence has been dearly achieved. Surely it is not extravagant to demand that in the current power play the right of a small democracy to freedom and life not be betrayed.
2. THE ISLAMIC THREAT AND HOW TO DEFEAT IT
Two warriors for truth discuss strategies for victory for the West at Restoration Weekend.
January 4, 2018
Editor’s note: Below are the video and transcript of remarks given by William Kilpatrick and Carl Goldberg at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2017 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 16th-19th at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.
William Kilpatrick: Dr. Goldberg and I are both doctors, but not the kind that can help you in an emergency, so if our talks send you into shock, you’re out of luck. So, Carl’s talk will be about the threat from Islam and my talk will be about the threat from the Catholic Church. Seriously, my topic is how to get the Church to join the resistance in the fight against Islam. Now, some of the non-Catholic members of the audience may wonder what the Catholic Church has to offer in the fight against Islam.
Well, one thing it has to offer is numbers. There are approximately 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, but only about 16 million Jews. Those aren’t very good odds. However, there are about 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide. Potentially, the Catholic Church is a powerful center of resistance to Islam. It certainly has been in the past. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. What are those 1.3 billion Catholics doing in regard to the struggle with Islam?
Well, essentially, very little. Many of them are just standing on the sidelines. Why is that? Well, the chief reason is that they’re getting little guidance about Islam from Catholic leaders. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church devotes only 44 words to the subject of Islam. Which is about 80 words less than the warning label on the bottle of Tylenol; except that there is no warning. Only a bland reassurance that, together with us, Muslims adore the one merciful God. That’s about all that it says in the Catechism.
Unfortunately, that has been interpreted by a good many Catholics to mean go back to sleep. Don’t worry about a thing. It’s just a tiny handful of extremists out there; the majority of Muslims are peaceful, because it’s a peaceful religion. But it’s not just that many Catholics have been lulled into complacency about Islam. The sad fact is that many of the Church leadership have become enablers of Islam.
I’ll give some examples of that shortly, but first, let me make the point that not all Catholics have lost their senses. Take Carlo Liberati, the Archbishop of Pompeii, who recently warned that Europe will soon be Muslim because of our stupidity. Well, he should know, because bad things have happened in Pompeii and it could happen again.
Or, take Jesuit Father Henri Brullard, who criticized the Pope’s policy of welcoming Muslim migrants by saying the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West. You, he wrote to the Pope, you go from concession to concession and compromise to compromise at the expense of the truth.
So, not everyone in the Church is asleep. Here’s one more example. Last month an estimated 1.5 million Polish Catholics gathered on Poland’s borders to take part in an event called the Rosary at the Borders. Significantly, the event took place on October 7, the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, one of the largest naval battles ever fought. Under the leadership of the Holy League, which had been organized by Pope Pius V, the Catholic Fleet destroyed the much larger Ottoman Fleet and saved Europe from an Islamic invasion.
Pope Pius credited the victory to Mary’s intercession and established October 7 as the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, sometimes called Our Lady of Victory. Some Catholics know their history. The Poles know that Muslims have tried to invade Europe on numerous occasions and the Poles are determined that it’s not going to happen on their watch.
Having said that, it must be admitted that many Catholics are asleep to the threat, and that goes double for the Catholic leadership. It’s not an exaggeration to say that many in the leadership have become enablers of Islam. By encouraging mass Muslim migration, by peddling a rose-colored view of Islam, and by supporting Islam at every turn, Catholic leaders are aiding and abetting the spread of an aggressively anti-Christian and anti-Semitic belief system.
Catholic leaders are forever assuring us that violence has nothing to do with Islam; that terrorists pervert their faith and that, to paraphrase Pope Francis, if we speak of Muslim violence, we must speak of Catholic violence also, because it’s moral equivalence there. Well, Muslims are bad sometimes, but Catholics are real bad sometimes, so it all washes out.
Meanwhile, other Catholic authorities tell us that we must declare our solidarity with Islam, but never explain why Catholics should want to profess solidarity with a religion that executes apostates, stones adulterers, and cuts off the hands of thieves.
Meanwhile, Catholic universities have become apologists for Islam. The prime example is Georgetown Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, also known as the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. It’s called that because most of the Center’s funding comes from a Saudi prince, which may explain why the Center’s chief focus is on fighting the greatest of all evils, Islamophobia. That’s pretty much what they do at the Center. They study Islamophobia and preach against it.
Alwaleed Bin Talal, he’s in jail now, isn’t he? But in the Ritz Carlton. That’s not a bad place to – hopefully, the people at Georgetown will join him there soon, without the Riyadh County Jail.
Other Catholic colleges give their students the impression that the Arabs created civilization, and still others celebrate International Hijab Day in order to, all together now, show their solidarity with Islam.
Let me put it this way. If you graduated from a Catholic college, you can be almost certain that your alma mater is, in one way or the other, helping Islam to win the culture war.
And then there’s the bishops’ response to mass Muslim migration into Europe. It’s no secret that the bishops have been calling for more migration and more welcoming on the part of Europeans, but they seem blind to the realities of the situation. Above all, they don’t seem to grasp the big picture, namely that in welcoming masses of Muslim migrants, they are also welcoming the cruelties of Sharia Law, the oppression of women, the end of free speech, and the persecution of Christians and Jews.
So the bad news is that many in the Church have become facilitators of Islam. The good news is that they can be turned around. Catholics have been subject to a disinformation campaign about Islam. Part of the disinformation comes from the media. Part of it comes from liberal Catholics, and part of it comes from the stealth Jihad organizations that the bishops are forever dialoging with. Organizations like the Islamic Society of North America.
The antidote is to supply Catholics with solid information and solid arguments. In my own books and articles, I try to offer the counterarguments to the stock arguments that are often made. For example, bishops in this country and in Europe, like to say that Muslim migration is like any other migration. So, if you oppose it, you’re like the Know Nothings who opposed Catholic immigrants in the 19th Century, and you don’t want to be like that.
Well, that’s not a good analogy. It’s a different thing altogether. Historically, Muslims have used migration as a means of conquest. When Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina with about 100 followers, the citizens of Medina at first gave them a warm welcome. They were happy to have them. The Prophet; they had heard about him. How wonderful. But they were soon sorry they had invited them because he took over the city and slaughtered many of the inhabitants. He then used Medina as his base for the conquest of all of Arabia. So, the migration to Medina was really the takeoff point, or the breakout point, for Islam. That explains why the Muslim calendar begins with the year 622, which is the year of the migration. Not with the birth of Mohammed, and not with his first revelation.
So, migration has a significance for most Muslims that many Catholics fail to understand. And many other people as well. Failing to understand this, the bishops insist that all migration is beneficial. To cinch their case — and this is their big argument — they remind us that Jesus was a migrant and a refugee. That was when the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt to escape Herod. So, Jesus was a migrant and a refugee. Moreover, Pope Francis likes to say that in the face of the migrant, we can see the face of Jesus.
Well, so, if you close the borders, you’re essentially closing the door on Jesus. Well, if you’re a Christian, that’s a hard argument to resist. Who wants to shut Jesus out? So, as a counterargument, I like to point out that we’re also justified in seeing the face of Mohammed in the Muslim migrant. After all, Mohammed was also a migrant and a refugee. Moreover, Muslim migrants bring with them the seeds of the faith that he founded. Moreover, as long as we’re speaking of Jesus, why can’t we see the face of Jesus in the victims of the Muslim refugees? Those, in a sense, who have been beaten, raped, stabbed and run over?
So the face of Jesus is kind of a tricky analogy. It applies to some situations, but not to others. For example, do you want to say to the guy who’s just been run over that it’s okay because Jesus was driving the car? So, it’s very tricky territory.
So many of the arguments that Catholics make in defense of Islam are purely emotional arguments. They’re based on wishful thinking and they’re not hard to refute.
Now, if there’s time during the Q&A session, I can mention one of the more persuasive arguments that can be used to wake up Catholics. I call it the Nuclear Option because it’s kind of explosive.
The crucial thing, however, is not just to offer arguments, but to help Church leaders recover their memory. In the past, the Church didn’t proclaim its solidarity with oppressors. It fought against them. If the Church is going to successfully resist Islam, it needs to recover its fighting spirit.
Some examples: At the Battle of Tours in 732, the Catholic Army of Charles Martel defeated a larger Muslim army and saved Europe from an Islamic invasion. In 1571, a Catholic Fleet organized by the Pope defeated the larger Muslim Fleet at Lepanto. But, by the way, none of this was done without great cost. Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, fought at the Battle of Lepanto, and he permanently lost the use of one arm. Which is a problem, if you’re a writer. And the other incident I want to mention, in 1683, at the Battle of Vienna, the Catholic Polish king John Sobieski, arrived with his army in the nick of time and saved Europe one more time from an Islamic invasion.
But let’s fast forward to a 20th Century example of Catholic resistance to tyranny: The Church’s struggle against Communism. During the Cold War, under the leadership of Pope John Paul II, the Church played a major role in bringing an end to Communism in Eastern Europe. In 1979, the Pope made a 9-day visit to Poland, against the wishes of the Soviets. Two million people lined the route from the airport to Warsaw. Two hundred and fifty thousand attended the opening Mass at Victory Square. When the Pope went to the Shrine of Chustikawa a crowd of a million were on hand. When he celebrated Mass in Krakow, 2 to 3 million turned out; altogether, some 12 million Poles, or one-third of the population of Poland, saw John Paul during this trip.
That trip marked a turning point in history. One year later, Lech Walesa called for a massive strike of the workers of the shipyard at Gdansk. That was the beginning of the pro-Catholic Solidarity Movement and that was the beginning of the end of Communism in Europe.
Another individual who was inspired by the Pope’s Polish trip was Ronald Reagan, and from the time of their first meeting, the Pope and the president became partners in a deliberate effort to bring down the Soviet Empire. Reagan wasn’t a Catholic, but several of his closest advisors were, and in private with Reagan they often spoke of the DP, the Divine Plan, to take down Communism. But without the inspiration provided by the Pope, the DP, the Divine Plan, might not have succeeded. And, of course, he paid a heavy personal price for the role he played. Two years after his Polish visit, John Paul II was the victim of an assassination attempt; an attempt that was ordered by Soviet Army Intelligence. Not everyone at the time understood the crucial role that John Paul played in converting people away from Islam, but the Soviets certainly did understand.
The point I want to make is that the Church needs to recover its fighting spirit, and it also needs to recover the intellectual acumen that allowed previous popes, priests and lay Catholics to understand that Communism was an enemy; that Nazism was an enemy, and that militant Islam was an enemy and still is.
Happily, that recovery may be underway. Recently, Hungarian bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo said of Muslim migrants, “They are not refugees. This is an invasion. They come here with cries of Allah Akbar. They want to take over.” Very sensible bishop for a change.
Now, the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, has also been an outspoken critic of Muslim migration and a strong advocate for recovering Europe’s Christian roots. So, a Hungarian bishop and the Hungarian prime minister want to close the borders to an Islamic invasion.
The Czech Republic and Slovakia have called for Europe to block the refugee roots and, over a million Poles, as I had mentioned, traveled to the Rosary at the Borders event. So, something is stirring in Eastern Europe. There are numerous signs that resistance to Islam is really building.
Why Eastern Europe, you may ask. Well, for two reasons. First, having recently thrown off the yoke of Communism, the Eastern Europeans are not about to be subjugated by another totalitarian system. The second reason is that Catholicism, which has been in decline in Western Europe for a long time, Catholicism is still very much alive in the East. Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, for example, are Catholic majority countries. Well, Hungary’s a Catholic plurality. The others are majorities.
Of course, one can counter that France, Italy and Spain are also Catholic countries. And a lot of good it’s done them. Well, yes, it’s true, but it’s more accurate to call them nominally Catholic. Church attendance is very low. The great cathedrals are largely empty, except for the tours. If you’ve been to Europe you’ve probably noticed that. In Poland, the Catholics Mass at the borders. In France, they can’t be bothered to go to Mass. By the time they’ve gotten up and had their croissants and coffees, oh, it’s too late. We missed Mass again.
And it’s not just Catholics. Christianity in general has been in steep decline in Western Europe for more than half a century. And that decline paved the way for Islam. As Europeans started to lose their faith, they stopped having babies. They stopped having babies because babies got in the way of self-gratification. And also because they had nothing meaningful to pass on to the next generation. The decline of Christianity in Europe created a spiritual vacuum and a population vacuum, both of which Islam soon began to fill.
So, it’s important to understand that the ideological struggle with Islam is in large part a spiritual struggle. It will be won by those with the deepest faith and the strongest sense of purpose.
But what does the average European believe in? He believes in short work weeks, long vacations, and early retirement. All of which is very nice, but a belief in early retirement is not the kind of belief that gives one the courage to stand up to Islamists.
That’s where the churches come in, or ought to come in. They can provide that sense of ultimate meaning and purpose, which gives people the courage to bring children into the world, to stand up for freedom and to resist tyranny. The Church was once a bulwark against Islam and it can be today. The Church doesn’t command armies anymore, but then, much of the battle that needs to be fought now has to be fought on the intellectual, informational, and spiritual level.
The Church is a sleeping giant in regard to Islam. If it can be reawakened it will be a powerful force of resistance. Perhaps the first step toward that goal is for Church leaders to drop the silly notion that all religions are equally wonderful, and replace it with the clear-eyed view that Catholics of an earlier generation took when faced with an enemy ideology.
That clear-eyed view can also be found in the Gospels. When Jesus sent his disciples out into the world, he cautioned them to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Our current leaders have shown that they can be as innocent as doves. Now it’s time for them to show that they can be as wise as serpents.
Carl Goldberg: Okay, with that I would like to begin. And has everybody here or did everybody here attend the lecture yesterday by Katie Hopkins? Okay. Marvelous, marvelous lecture. She described the impending destruction of Great Britain through the Islamification of Great Britain and she did it in a very witty way. However, the topic is deadly serious and she urged us, if you remember, this was the title of her talk, to get furious and fight back. Is anyone here furious? Good, good. Okay, then I don’t have to rouse you to fury and fighting back, but I would like to devote the next few minutes to giving you some hints as how better to do that, how better to fight back.
Now, the conservative movement is essentially split on defining the enemy, and because we are split, we are ineffective and it’s very difficult, then, to win the war if we are not united. And what I mean by this is that many people — and this includes many people here at the Restoration Weekend — including many speakers, believe that our enemy is radical Islam and I’d like to discuss that for a moment. Clarion, an organization which I’m sure you’re familiar with, always talks about radical Islam and we’ve heard the expression “radical Islamic terrorism.” That is a nonsense expression, because when you put an adjective like that in front of it, radical Islamic terrorism, it implies that there’s such a thing as a non-radical Islamic terrorism. That doesn’t make any sense. So we need to start calling the baby by its name. What is our enemy? Who is our enemy and how do we fight it? Well, if it’s not radical Islam – let me tell you for a moment why it’s not radical Islam. The president of Turkey, Erdogan, has famously said that “moderate Islam” is an ugly term and that there is no such thing as moderate or immoderate Islam, that Islam is Islam and that’s it. We have also heard here, some people say, that well, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. But according to Erdogan, radical Islam does not exist and moderate Islam doesn’t exist. And so, if it doesn’t exist, it can’t be the problem, radical Islam, and if moderate Islam doesn’t exist, it can’t be the solution.
So where are we going with all of this? The problem is that it is Islam itself that is the problem and we have to have the courage to say so. Because the longer we say – thank you. The longer we talk about radical Islam, we are, in fact, leaving out the major threats that Islam presents to our civilization. If we don’t talk about Islam, there’s no justification. For example, for stopping Muslim immigration. Why should we do it if it’s not just to stop a few terrorists? The situation is much more serious than that, and in fact, by talking about radical Islam, we tend to devote our attention primarily to the terrorists. The Muslim terrorists, obviously, the Islamic terrorists. But by doing that, we take our attention away, in fact, from the real existential threats that we face from Islam. And so, the major existential threat is, of course, the Stealth Jihad. It’s going on right under our noses, so to say. It’s sort of like termites invading a building. You may see a couple of termite tracks on the bottom but unless you know what you’re looking for, you have no idea what’s going on behind the walls, and one of these days the building is going to collapse if you don’t take measures.
So, who are we at war with? Well, it’s not radical Islam. We are at war with Islam, Islam itself. Islam has been at war with us for 1,400 years. And I say we are at war with Islam, we should be at war with Islam but most people are not and not even in the conservative moment are we all agreed that this is our enemy. What are the consequences of not being at war with Islam? Well, then there’s no justification for banning Muslim immigration. After all, Muslim immigrants are raised in a society and we can see what their society is like where they’re coming from. They’re bringing that with them. They’re bringing with them the ideology of Islam that they were raised with. I don’t think we want that here. Clearly, the values that they were raised with, and this doesn’t mean 100 percent of them, but certainly the majority, they are raised with the values of Islam, which in many, many ways, contradict our values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and all of our Western civilization.
By focusing on radical Islam, we also leave out the major source of the Islamic threats and that, of course, is the mosques and the community organizations. That’s where this ideology is being propagated. Another reason why we need to focus on Islam and not radical Islam is Muslim candidates for political office. They are the smoothest, sweet talking people. They’re dressed nicely. They’re very pleasant and they always say that they’re just as American as everybody else. However, if you look at their backgrounds, you will see that they are practically all graduates of the Muslim Student Association in college and then they go on through the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Which, as you know, of course, is a Hamas-linked terrorist organization, Muslim terrorist organization and Hamas itself is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. So it all ties in and the Muslim candidates are all tied in with this. Whatever you do, you must try to prevent these people from getting elected. But you can’t do that if you’re only talking about radical Islam, because they present themselves as peaceful and so there’s no way of knowing that, in fact, they are supporters of this radical ideology.
Another reason, if we talk only about radical Islam, we neglect what’s going on in the schools. Which, of course, in their textbooks and teaching materials are portraying Islam as a religion of peace. Which, as you know, it’s not. Another one, the hijab. The hijab is being presented to us by the Muslim supremacists as simply an article of clothing and modesty. Well, actually, it’s not modesty. If you read the verse in the Quran that essentially prescribes a hijab, you will see that the purpose is not modesty, the purpose is to protect them from Muslim men, so that they won’t be molested, as the Quran says. And also, wearing the hijab is a symbol of submission to Sharia law. And they will actually say though, if you read Muslim newspapers, and I’ve seen that before, that the hijab is not a question of modesty and certainly not a question of fashion, it is a question of doing what Allah wants women to do.
Another example here, is that the Islamic Republic of Iran, which nobody refers to these days as the Islamic Republic of Iran, but I would like all of you in the future to refer to the country as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Because if you refer to it only as Iran, you see it as just another nation state, but it’s not. It is a revolutionary state whose purpose is to spread Islam to the entire world. Their constitution, and you can Google that, “Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” in the preamble, it says definitely and specifically, that they are going to use their armed forces not only for defense but for filling their ideological mission in God’s way, Jihad, mainly Jihad, by spreading Islam to the rest of the world. So in their own constitution, they are telling us they’re going to commit military aggression against the rest of the world in order to spread Islam, because it’s an Islamic state. Please use the term Islamic Republic of Iran.
Now, there are some people in our movement who think that we are faced with the challenge of modernizing Islam. Let me tell you, we are not faced with the challenge of modernizing Islam, we are faced with the incoherence of trying to modernize Islam. Islam cannot be modernized, and the reason it cannot be modernized goes back to the basic proposition of Islam itself, which is that the Quran is considered by all Muslims to be the literal word of their God. No human being is going to contest the literal word of his God. If you think of our Bible, we have the ten commandments and we have the rest of the Bible and they’re different. We can talk about the rest of the Bible but I don’t think you’ll find many people saying well, we really ought to revise the ten commandments. It doesn’t mean that people follow them but obviously no one is talking about revising them because that’s the literal word of God, if you’re religious, and in Islam, every word in the Quran is the literal word of their God and it cannot be revised. No human being could ever do that. In fact, it’s forbidden by Sharia law. Anybody who tries it is subject to the death penalty in Sharia law.
Well, the very notion of reform means violating the sacredness of the Quran and therefore, it cannot be done. There are Muslims, of course, who claim that they want to reform Islam but if you look closely, you will see that they never criticize the Quran. Of course, the Quran is where the whole problem with Islam is and if you can’t criticize the Quran and get rid of parts of it – obviously you can’t – then there’s no way to reform Islam and all of these so-called moderate Muslims are simply trying to fool us and to fool themselves because they’re essentially Westerners. They have adopted Western values but for whatever reason, they continue to identify themselves as Muslims and that’s a conflict. They are suffering from a conflict between their conscience and their faith. I don’t really envy them but we should not pay any attention to them because the Muslim community doesn’t pay any attention to them. They have no influence in the Muslim community and we have no business supporting them and we have no business promoting the notion that Islam can be reformed. It cannot be reformed because Islam – what is Islam? Islam is the Quran plus the saints of Mohammed, the Hadith, the Sunna. Those are fixed texts. They don’t come in different versions. There is no such thing as a modern version of Islam as opposed to an old version of Islam, because the Quran does not come in different versions and Mohammed’s Sunna does not come in different versions and both of them are required for being a faithful Muslim.
Another reason, the word “Islam” itself means, of course, as you know, “submission.” Any Muslim who thinks of reforming Islam is automatically violating the very definition of the word. If you submit, you submit and you follow it. You don’t contest and you don’t reform it. Does that make sense? All right. So, let’s not be misled by these so-called reformers. So, the essence of Islam then, we have to remember, is that it is a complete way of life. And, by the way, everything I’ve given you here comes from the Islamic text and from the Islamic religious authorities. You have my email address at the bottom of the handout that you have on the actions to take. I’ll be happy to send you a collection of excerpts from the Quran and from the Sunna and from Muslim religious authorities, which you can then use when talking to other people, to explain the truth about Islam. Thank you. Please, whenever you do talk to other people about Islam, always quote the Islamic texts and the Islamic religious authorities. Don’t do it in your own name, because they’ll say, “Well, what right do you have to say this about Islam?” Well, you don’t and neither do I but the Islamic religious authorities do. And put the onus on them, that is on the religious authorities and on the texts, so that if people don’t like what they hear, let them go argue with the Islamic religious authorities, not with you.
And they tell is that Islam is fundamentally different from all other religions, not a religion like Western religion, because Western religion is essentially a matter between the believer and God. They talk about Islam as being a complete way of life and a complete code of life, which means that it is totalitarian. And if you look at the passages in the Quran and Mohammed, they tell us plainly that the goal of Islam is to rule the world. To set up a worldwide caliphate under Sharia law. Well, that’s imperialist. And so what we have here is an ideology and by the way, I didn’t make up the word ideology to apply to Islam, they do it. The Islamic religious authorities tell us that it is an ideology and they say, for example, that it’s a comprehensive ideology, which covers everything. Well, comprehensive, complete, total, it means the same thing. That’s a totalitarian ideology and an imperialist ideology, something like communism and something like Nazism and fascism. Please keep that in mind.
And there are certain logical consequences of this, if Islam is not a religion like other religions, because it is a totalitarian and imperialist ideology, than what is a mosque? Well, a mosque is not just house of prayer like other religions either then. So what is it? In the words of the Islamic religious authorities, a mosque is the propagation center for the ideology. Keep that in mind next time you pass by a mosque. And by the way, the Muslim Brotherhood, which we’ve heard something about in the last couple of days because they organize this major threat that we’re going to talk about in a second, the Muslim Brotherhood says in their own documents that the mosques and the Islamic centers are the organizational centers for the Islamic community to promote Islam and the triumph of Islam.
Now, what are the threats then from Islam? There are three major existential threats and ISIS is not one of them. Neither is Al-Qaeda. 9/11 was not an existential threat to the United States, it was a horrible atrocity. Three thousand people murdered but we did not go under because of that. In fact, the country became stronger. Far more, many, many times more people are killed per year in the various cities around the United States and auto accidents, what not, and so, when we see Muslim terror acts, they, by numbers, pale in comparison to the other violent deaths that our country experiences. So, what are the three major existential threats from Islam? First one is the Islamic Republic of Iran. If they ever get nuclear weapons, they have already promised to, as I mentioned, to spread Islam throughout the world through military aggression. They will use the military weapons, the atomic weapons. And it says so in their constitution also, they quote a verse from the Quran, which says that use all weapons that you can get in order to terrify the enemy. And so, there’s nothing restricting them from using nuclear weapons. They have tried to get it. They are trying to get it and they will get it, unless we stop them.
The second major existential threat from Islam is Muslim immigration. You change the population. Gaddafi from Libya once said that the Muslims are going to conquer Europe without firing a shot. And he’s right. There are over 50 million Muslims in Europe. They reproduce far faster than the native European population and more of them are being brought in. So you change the population and not only is the population by itself, the numbers, significant, but the fact, as Dr. Kilpatrick has also mentioned, the Muslim population is enabled by large portions of our population. Certainly everybody who voted for Hillary, for example, is an enabler of Muslim supremacy in the United States, because they never criticize Islam.
And so, it’s not just that the Muslims are 1 percent of our population, in fact, their power and their influence is far greater than would be expected from the 1 percent and that is because they are enabled. And as Robert Spencer also pointed out, by the university administrators all over the country. Also, by our Christian and Jewish clergy. Part of the Muslim Brotherhood program relies on so-called “interfaith” events. And they’re all the same, these interfaith events. You have a Christian pastor or a Catholic priest on one side then the rabbi in the middle and then you have an imam or some other representative of the Muslim community on the other end. And the Christian always starts out by apologizing for the crusades and the inquisition. The rabbi then apologizes for something the Hebrews did 3,000 years ago to somebody’s olive trees. I actually heard that. The Muslim never, ever apologizes about anything, ever. So this is what happens. And that the Christian and Jewish clergy then promote this and they promote to their congregations that Islam is basically a religion of peace. So, in other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is using the hands of the non-Muslims to destroy our civilization just like its program said. I’m sure you’re probably familiar with that, the Muslim Brotherhood program, if not, again, send me an email, I’ll send you all of these quotations from the Islamic sources, and what it says, that they will use the hands of the non-Muslims. For example, the two Muslim congressmen that we have, do you think they were elected by Muslims? No. They were elected by non-Muslims. The Muslim population is so small, they don’t have any electoral influence, and so they rely on the hands of the non-Muslims.
Muslim immigration, then, is a major threat because they will out reproduce us and they, themselves, are increasing their population percentage and they form separate communities. It is forbidden by Islam to assimilate. And by the way, immigration without assimilation is invasion. Remember that. So that’s what’s happening in Europe, just what’s happening here. So, immigration without assimilation is – thank you – invasion. We are being invaded. It’s a peaceful invasion, just like Gaddafi said was happening in Europe.
The third, and perhaps the most important existential threat from Islam, is the so-called “Stealth Jihad.” You’re all familiar with that. Robert Spencer wrote a book on that several years ago. There’s been much more information on that since then. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the Stealth Jihad. What is the Stealth Jihad? Well, this is subversion of all of our institutions, of our schools, our universities, our mass media and the government institutions all the way from dog catcher to the White House. Now, what can you do about this? We have to take two major actions and you all have the sheet in front of you; actions that you can take. We should focus all of our efforts on achieving two goals. One, is to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. If we don’t do that, there’s nothing else that we can do. Thank you. So, that’s first and foremost. We must get the Muslim Brotherhood under control. And not just the Muslim Brotherhood per se, but all of its front groups, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and a whole alphabet soup of other Muslim organizations in the United States. And the second goal that we need to focus on is somehow restricting or prohibiting Muslim immigration to the United States. These are the two goals that we must achieve in order to preserve our civilization. There’s no other way. Now, how do we do that? Well, there is a number of actions that you can take and I hope you do. Let’s go through a couple of them. First of all –
Moderator: We’ve got just a couple minutes left here, so —
Carl Goldberg: Okay. If the Republican Party does not save us, nobody will. Therefore, you must work through the Republican Party and try to influence them and educate them to show them that Islam is the enemy. I know it’s too controversial to say that openly but do what you can. Go to Republican Party meetings, raise the issue of Islam. Get them to talk about it. Stimulate a discussion of Islam wherever you are. We don’t have time to go through all of these other things that you can do but we need your help. If you just go home and don’t do anything, we’re going to lose. It’s not sufficient simply to contribute money to other people who are doing things. We need you to actually do something. You have spheres of influence, please use them in every possible way to stimulate a discussion about Islam itself. Then, in conclusion, since we don’t have time to go through all of these others, then, again, without a unified focus on Islam as the enemy, we cannot achieve the goals of stopping Muslim immigration or declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, because in the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood masquerades as peaceful. They don’t tell you what their real goals are, except you can look in their documents and find out. So, if we do not achieve these two goals, we can’t win. You need to help us win. Please help preserve our country for your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren. Again, not only with your financial support but also with your actions. Please do something. As Katie Hopkins said, get furious and fight back. You need to fight back. Thank you.
3. IRANIAN THEOCRACY ON THE BRINK?
The Islamic Republic alienates its own base.
January 5, 2018
After several days of protests in Iran that have spread throughout the country, costing at least 21 lives, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards is claiming victory over the “sedition” after the Revolutionary Guards intervened. It is not clear yet whether his claim of victory is premature. The situation remains fluid, but the regime appears concerned enough by the extent of the unrest that it tried to show support for its leaders through organized pro-government rallies broadcast on national television.
True to form, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday blamed Iran’s “enemies” for the protests. “All those who are against the Islamic Republic — those who have money, those who have the politics, those who have the weapons, those who have the intelligence — they have all joined forces in order to create problems for the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolution,” he charged.
However, Khamenei and his henchmen doeth protest too much. Whether or not they prevail in the short term, as they probably will since there have been no known significant defections of security or military personnel to the anti-government demonstrators’ side, the regime’s leaders are certainly aware of the deep currents of discontent in the country that are causing serious fissures in the regime’s conservative base of support.
The current protests are not led by students and the urban middle class, as was the case during the failed Green Movement in 2009. Nor are today’s protests about the legitimacy of a single presidential election, or a battle between so-called “reformers” and hardliners. These are populist protests, initially fueled by economic discontent amongst young people in rural areas, towns and small cities, who have come to despise the entire theocratic establishment. They are calling into question the legitimacy, not of one particular leader or another, but of the very foundation of a corrupt, self-serving clerical hierarchy out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.
Iran’s figurehead president, Hassan Rouhani, ran for a second term in 2017 as a “reformer” who promised to clean up corruption. He also promised to use the benefits accruing from the lifting of sanctions following the completion of the nuclear deal to improve economic conditions for the Iranian people. Of course, Rouhani, an integral part of the establishment swamp himself, did not deliver. He is under the thumb of Ayatollah Khamenei and the corrupt Revolutionary Guards, and lacks any control over the bulk of the national budget. Now Rouhani will likely become a scapegoat, following his apparent face-saving leak last month of a proposed government budget that, according to the New York Times, exposed “details of the country’s religious institutes” and the fact that “billions of dollars were going to hardline organizations, the military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp, and religious foundations that enrich the clerical elite.” Meanwhile, millions of ordinary citizens are being asked to pay the price. The Iranian people “living in Iran’s provincial towns and villages,” reports the Times, who “were regarded as the backbone of the country’s Islamic regime” are staring at cuts in cash subsidies, increased fuel prices, and unemployment of around 40 percent among young people, who constitute half the population. Their anger will not be mollified by more empty promises and phony pretenses of “democracy.”
The regime’s only alternative to maintain order is to use as much force as necessary to prevent any further unrest from turning into a full-fledged uprising that could get out of control. That is what the regime did in 2009, while Obama watched and did nothing.
Khamenei and his hardline supporters will use the faltering economy as an excuse to purge ineffectual “reformers,” further consolidate power into their own hands and “finally impose their vision of pristine Islamist rule,” predicts Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, in an article for Politico Magazine. “Iran will move into one of its darker ages, with escalating repression, censorship and the imposition of onerous cultural strictures,” he added. The regime will continue its expansionist export of its “revolution” throughout the Middle East and beyond, as costly as that may be. However, as all self-styled “Republics of Virtue” come to an end, so will the Islamic Republic of Iran, writes Mr. Takeyh, because the financial burden will overwhelm the regime, sparking further waves of deep-seated discontent. Time, demographics and social media are not on the regime’s side.
“In the end, Iran’s revolution is an impossible one, as it created a theocracy that cannot reform itself and accommodate the aspirations of its restless and youthful citizens,” writes Mr. Takeyh. “The tragedy of Ali Khamenei is that in consolidating his revolution, he is ensuring the eventual demise of his regime.”
President Trump and his administration are following the right course in demonstrating U.S. support for the Iranian people in their struggle against the regime. Addressing reporters at UN headquarters on January 2nd, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley called for emergency meetings of the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council. “The U.N. must speak out,” Ambassador Haley said. “We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom. All freedom-loving people must stand with their cause. The international community made the mistake of failing to do that in 2009. We must not make that mistake again.”
Instead of learning from their mistakes, senior members of Obama’s administration are doubling down. Former UN Ambassador and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, for example, is counseling a repeat of Obama’s vow of silence in 2009 when he turned his back on the Green Revolution protesters. Rice tweeted out a New York Times op-ed by another former Obama aide, Philip Gordon, who was an assistant Secretary of State, headlined “How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet.” Philip Gordon claimed in his article that, while he wanted to see the government of Iran “weakened, moderated or even removed,” he was offering President Trump some “unsolicited” advice: “Keep quiet and do nothing.” Susan Rice is all in and advises the same cowardly course.
As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
An individual claiming to be in Iran at the time of Rice’s tweet pushed back strongly: “They are shooting at us. Shame on you Susan Rice!”
The reason that Obama apologists give for counseling silence is that Iran’s leaders will use U.S. expressions of support for the protesters, in Gordon’s words, “to depict the protesters as American lackeys, giving the security services more of a pretext to crack down violently.” That is essentially what Khamenei has done. However, this theocratic dictator, who revels in chants of “Death to America,” would have engaged in the same blame game to divert attention from the failings of his own regime no matter what President Trump and his administration had said or done. Even the concessions Obama gave to the Iranian regime as the price for reaching the disastrous nuclear deal did not temper Khamenei’s anti-American vile. Just three days after completion of the deal, Khamenei posted a tweet with what appears to be an image of a silhouette of Obama holding a gun to his head. Khamenei and his henchmen hate the United States and the democratic values that it stands for. He does need any more excuses to blame the U.S. for all of his regime’s ills.
Ambassador Haley, in her remarks to the press, refuted allegations that the U.S. is behind the current demonstrations. Calling such allegations “complete nonsense,” she described the demonstrations as “completely spontaneous.” She added, “They are virtually in every city in Iran. This is the precise picture of a long-oppressed people rising up against their dictators.”
There is more the Trump administration can do, besides expressions of support for the protesters, to place pressure on Iran’s leaders and hopefully hasten the regime’s demise. President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that “great” U.S. support for the protesters would be coming “at the appropriate time.” He did not specify what such support might look like. Here are a few suggestions.
First, immediately mobilize government and private sector resources to provide tools usable by Iranians to circumvent government controls on messaging applications and the Internet. This would allow people unhappy with the regime to communicate with each other as well as to provide documentation to the world of the regime’s human rights abuses.
Second, continue to refuse to certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal when the next deadline approaches in mid-January.
Third, refuse to sign yet another Iran sanctions waiver later this month. Ambassador Haley laid out the predicate for such an action last month in her presentation of alleged Iranian violations of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 endorsing the nuclear deal. President Trump may already be leaning in this direction. “In terms of signing a waiver later in January, the President hasn’t made a final decision on that,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said. “He’s going to keep every option on the table.”
In an article appearing in the New York Post on Wednesday, co-authored by Richard Goldberg, an architect of congressional sanctions against Iran and senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Jamie Fly, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US, the authors suggested the prime target for specific sanctions that the Trump administration should impose as soon as possible. That target is Iran’s Central Bank, which the authors explained serves as “the regime’s financial hub for terrorism, missiles and human-rights abuse.”
Such direct sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, reinforced by secondary sanctions against non-U.S. financial institutions engaging in transactions with the Central Bank, would help cut off money flowing to the Revolutionary Guards, the military, religious institutions, and the regime’s corrupt business enterprises. Starving the theocracy, its apparatchiks and its enforcers of resources to keep their Islamic “revolution” alive can at least put a damper on the regime’s expansionist activities and funding of terrorism. Hopefully, it will do much more, bringing the day closer to the regime’s demise and to freedom for the Iranian people.
4. THE CUTTING – EDGE IDF UNIT REVOLUTIONIZING FIELD INTELLIGENCE
JANUARY 3, 2018 18:47
Unit 3060 was formed in 2014 and has soldiers who specialize in technology.
The army is increasing the effectiveness of its troops on the battlefield with a unit in Military Intelligence that has revolutionized how soldiers receive and understand intelligence.
Formed in September 2014 as part of a reorganization of responsibilities by Military Intelligence, Unit 3060 has some 400 soldiers (half of them career intelligence officers) who specialize in technology-related fields.
The unit, which reports to the head of Military Intelligence, is made up of 75% men and 25% women.
Use modern data science for operational and visual intelligence for commanders and intelligence officers to increase the combat effectiveness of the IDF.
IDF military unit develops app to give troops real time updates in the field.
The unit has developed several applications that can function on tablets and other portable devices, and allow troops to fully understand the geographical imprint and topography of an area where they will be operating.
During times of war, the applications are updated in real-time, giving troops the ability be to warned of enemy positions and to see safe exits routes from enemy territory.
These applications “have saved lives,” said one senior intelligence officer who used the applications developed by Unit 3060 during Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip in 2014. “It’s no longer an intelligence officer taking out a map in the field. If in the past it took longer, it’s now quick and in real-time.”
According to a senior officer, following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Military Intelligence realized the need to increase the potential of troops during wartime.
Israel relies heavily on various intelligence-gathering capabilities such as open source and signal intelligence during wartime to combat terrorism, and according to the senior officer all the data gathered from them are integrated and placed in one central location, “keeping it simple” for the “users,” the soldiers on the battlefield.
“It’s like a start-up company,” the senior officer said, explaining that the atmosphere in the unit is one of intensive innovation and creativity, replicating ideas from the technological world.
Similar to start-ups in the civilian world, Unit 3060 is characterized by constant change and its soldiers excel in adapting to the ever-changing needs of the combat forces, by learning quickly and taking advantage of technological opportunities.
“The unit is dynamic because of the huge security needs of Israel and the rapidly changing situation in the Middle East that directly impacts the focus of the unit and the demands of its products,” he said.
BANK HAPOALIM TO PARTNER WITH IAI ON DEVELOPING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 3, 2018 14:52
The two will determine how blockchain can assist with automated programs that function without human participation.
Bank Hapoalim, the country’s largest bank, announced on Wednesday that it will be partnering with the Israel Aerospace Industries cyber entity to conduct blockchain research and development.
Both Hapoalim and IAI – which is owned by the state – plan to leverage blockchain in developing further cybersecurity tools. The two companies will examine how blockchain can be used for securely transmitting data between services and supply chain, along with beefing up authentication for users and on critical devices.
“IAI has defined cyber as a strategic growth engine with massive investment in cyber R&D,” said IAI CEO Joseph Weiss. “The collaboration with Hapoalim is part of IAI strategy to tighten its grip as a leading cyber player in Israel and globally. The new collaboration will help us develop into high-potential areas such as blockchain technology.”
The emerging blockchain technology offers total transparency and a fixed audit trail of every transaction conducted across thousands of computers in a network. It acts as a distributed ledger, offering a way to authenticate, modify and instantaneously transfer information, while being virtually impossible to hack.
Blockchain holds the potential to transform a number of industries, such as getting rid of cumbersome paper-signing when buying a house. The technology can function as a “smart contract,” changing how businesses interact and conduct deals.
WHAT IS THE BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY BEHIND CRYPTOCURRENCIES LIKE BITCOIN AND ETHEREUM? (REUTERS)
IAI and Hapoalim will determine how blockchain can assist with automated programs that function without human participation.
Both the bank and the state-owned defense firm will bring together their cybersecurity teams to see if blockchain can improve their privacy and delivery of information to customers, suppliers and for critical military systems.
“We welcome the new collaboration with IAI in cyber and information security for our customers and business partners,” Bank Hapoalim CEO Arik Pinto said in a statement.
“Hapoalim invests heavily in cybersecurity as part of its strategy to provide the most efficient and innovative services with strong focus on information security.”
The most famous application of blockchain technology so far has been bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies such as ethereum and litecoin. Not backed by any sovereign entity, bitcoin’s value has swung dramatically, raising fears of excessive volatility.
Israel Securities Authority regulators have sought to ban bitcoin-related companies from trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Yet while cryptocurrencies may raise concerns, most experts are on the same page when it comes to blockchain’s potential to transform how companies do business.
By 2025, some 10% of worldwide GDP could be built off blockchain- related technology, according to a study by consulting firm Deloitte conducted in May 2017.
Many companies are looking at how to integrate and deploy blockchain into their systems within the next year and a half.
IAI is Israel’s main aerospace and aviation manufacturers, employing 16,000 workers as of 2013. It produces drones and aircraft for both military and civilian use