top of page

The West falling into its own trap

The picture on the left is the cover of the most important book I know of depicting the relationship between Jews and Muslims over the millenium plus. 

Islam is latest newcomer on the world stage. As such its founder was familliar with both Judaism and Christianity, and of course the various idolatrous sects which proliferated in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century AD. Islam developed the moral and cultural basis for the world's greatest, and most subjugating enduring empire, it is now more than than the thousand year Reich. Jews, which came under its dominion learned to rue their change of fortune. Islam relentlessly repressed and relegated them to a lower caste, Dhimmi, by which they lived and died. This book is a great collection of monographs depicting the life of the Dhimmis under Islam. Not for the squeamish, for the truthfinder. 

Now fundamental Salafist Islam is making a major comeback. Aided and abetted by post-modernism. This is my take on recent events in the clash of civilizations 

 

Y Brandstetter MD

 

 

 

The relationship of the West with Judaism is long and tortuous. On the one hand, to quote Geert Wilders, the West's cultural foundations are Jerusalem, Athens and Rome. Jerusalem gave the West God Morality and the Nation State, Athens gave logic and science, and Rome gave it governance and Christianity. Take these foundations away and what you have is rootlessness, fecklessness, and eventually suicide.

The anti-theses to these foundations is Jew-hatred. On the one hand Jesus was Jewish and his teachings based on his Jewish heritage, leading to Jew appreciation. On the other hand Jews rejected Jesus and his teachings, refused to assimilate and deny their own primacy in the affairs of God, and yearned to return to their land, good reasons for Jew hatred. Under Christian rule Jews many times prospered, many times were murdered, were sometimes privileged, and sometimes shunned. There is no question that the Jewish movement for national and territorial self- determination was  seriously supported by large swaths of Christian Western society, culminating in the Balfour declaration and the San Remo treaty which placed Jewish aspirations in the proper context of nation-state building and execution. Forty years after the first Zionist Conference of 1897 the Lord Peel, who was commissioned to advise the British Colonial government about the strife in the British Mandate concluded that the Jewish National home is already in place. He further concluded that it does not dovetail with British Interests and therefore must be abrogated. Hence the White Paper which condemned six million Jews to death for want of a home to shield them from Nazi genocide.

The means chosen by British Jew-hating government was the Open Borders policy. The sea was closed, but the land borders with neighboring Muslim-majority territories were wide open, with the British trucking in Muslims as  economic migrants  ad libitum. Thus the territory which held less than half a million on both sides of the Jordan before 1917 swelled enormously, with the onus of paying taxes placed on the Jews only.

The British left the Mandate with the firm belief that combined Arab power, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, the Arab legion, multiple volunteers and militants swarming in, under the flag of Jihad raised by the Arab League, would crush the Jews and leave them whimpering for help to escape. It was not to be. In fact it was the Arabs who were made refugees, and an exchange of population occurred. Arabs out of Israel, Jews hounded out of Muslim-majority countries and re-settled in Israel.

But the open-border demand remained. Not only remained but intensified. Instead of insisting Muslim refugees be assimilated into Muslim states as the Jews were assimilated into theirs, the West set up a special organization charged with keeping, augmenting and perpetuating the crisis so as to eliminate the Jewish State under the onrush of belligerent invaders. There is no other way to explain UNWRA as separate entity from UNCHR, the UN body charged with resettlement of all non-Arab refugees but as an antidote to the Jewish State.

 

And further intensified when Israel, threatened again with Jihad and Genocide won the 1967 war, ending up with many of those foreign invaders under its rule. Not only was Israel besieged with demands to cede territory, but the Western support for organizations which channeled resources to terrorist organization increased further.

In keeping with the demand that Israel, as a Western democracy should end its discriminatory policy of limiting immigration to Jews only, the West, and especially Europe in the zenith of prosperity, opened its borders to Muslim immigration. And they came. The Turks, the Moroccans, the Syrians, the Libyans, the Pakistanis and Bangla-deshis, hesitantly and then more confidently, setting up their own communities, then enclaves, then Dar-Al-Islams, then Special Zones, then no-go zones where non-Muslims are excluded. As Muslim populations grew, Islamic practices of driving others away emerged, from concessions to capitulations to harassment, all the way to outright terror, exactly the kind that the British had imported into the Jewish National Home.

 

The war on the Jewish State did not wane. In fact, it intensifies at the same rate as the enormous monetary investment into proxies who prosecute the war of Jew-hatred in Israel. 177 million shekels that we know of, all from Western nations such as Britain Norway, Sweden Germany, Holland, the United States, over two years, 2012-14  went to 33 non-governmental organizations which are governmental proxies. The main demand of these organizations is that Israel arrest  the Judaisation of Judea and allow millions of so-called refugees to invade.  Incessant demands that Israel hand over control of the Jordan Valley so as to move hundreds of thousands of Syrian displaced, now dubbed Palestinians, into the Jewish patrimony. Many Billions in dollars and Euros from donor nations to the Palestinian authority whose sole function is to pay terrorists, before and after the act. All to force Israel to open its borders to unlimited Arab immigration so as to subdue the Jewish National Home.

 

However, this insistence on the holy concept of open borders is  beginning to back-fire, in a big way. Europe and the West are now inundated with Muslim immigrants who realized that the open-borders policy is an open door to invasion. Once in the West, especially Europe which shares the Mediterranean, there is no opposing force that will negate the "rights" assumed by the immigrants. Europe has detached its cultural moorings, has no obligations to its heritage religion culture and territory, and is unable to muster the moral strength to put a stop to it.

Further, should Europe and the West put a stop to the invasion, or start deportations, who will stop the Jewish State from doing the same? The moral equivalence by which Westerners cannot lay exclusive claim to their own territory and citizenship will be broken. If Paris is for the French, what will stop the Jews from acting as if Judea is for the Jews? Oh what horrible conundrum!!!

 

The Gazans are quick to realize the new development. Since they have no love for Hamas, or for Gaza, or for so called Palestine, having heard of the generous welfare Europe provides its invaders, they are off, on the refugee boats departing Egypt and Libya to the Promised Land. The land where they can both drink and party and taharoosh AND kill the infidel with almost impunity, AND get paid the Jyzia they have been collecting as perpetual refugees in search of a Jew to kill. Further, Western Jews are even a softer target than those tough Jewish cookies in Israel, who seem impossible to dislodge despite a century of unrelenting terror.  So much easier it is to dislodge the Mushy Belgique from entire Bruxelles neighborhoods such as Molenbeek. . So much easier to take over London, where the mayor is either a Dhimmi or a full fledged terror sympathizer. And the Jews? Ah, the easiest to intimidate. Will they fly? No matter, we shall get them in the end, in Highgate if not in Tel Aviv.

 

There is complete conformity between Westerners who reject the right of invasion, and the Westerners who reject the so-called right of return. The afore-mentioned Geert Wilders, whose party is the second largest in Holland, has made the parallel between Jewish rights to exclusivity in Israel to Dutch rights to exclusivity in Holland. Czech parliament has rejected the EU demand of Muslim invader  distribution, and recognized Jerusalem as the Jewish capital. The Polish government tells Western Europe they are suicidal, and holds joint sessions with the Israeli government in Jerusalem. These countries enjoy the lowest levels of terror and crime in modern Europe, while Paris London and Manchester are terrorized. Many predict the final demise of borderless, feckless, heritage-denying Europe, in the foreseeable future while exclusivist Israel survives and prospers.

 

The die is not cast yet. The West must realign with the Jews in order to survive.  

When the West realizes its anti-Jewish sentiment and policies and promotion of the Muslim right to invade are the foreground to its own demise it may reverse course. Or it might not. Lemmings generally do not turn back the headlong rush into the abyss. Israel should bide its time, keep welcoming Jews home, keeping its guard up and the finger on the trigger, and wait for the outcome of the Hijra. Should the West succumb, there is no reason to follow. If the West fights back and mass deportations ensue, then it behooves Israel to do the same, and deport the invaders back where the Turks and British brought them.

 

It seems Bibi is quite good in biding his time, as should be the son of a historian of Jewish catastrophes. His detractors have no answers for the Jews yearning for peace but wary of Dhimmitude, so likely enough he will stay with us for a long long while.

 

Yuval Brandstetter MD Lehavim

Avoiding looking the obvious in the eye

Hamas: Striking the Right Balance

 

 

 

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 502, June 19, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip, is under pressure from three sides: less electricity, lower salaries, and reduced economic aid. It might be tempting for Israel to take advantage of these pressures to compel Hamas to rein in its military expenditures – but the less Hamas feels it has to lose, the more combustible Gaza becomes.

The first and most important element currently putting pressure on Hamas is the loss of Qatar. Under pressure from its Arab Gulf neighbors, Qatar has expelled several Hamas leaders and is leaving open the possibility that the organization’s entire leadership will eventually need to leave the country. If Qatar ceases to provide economic aid to the Gaza Strip due to this pressure, residents of Gaza and Hamas will have lost what has been their primary source of help in recent years.

The second source of pressure is the recent decisions of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. First, the PA will reduce or has already significantly reduced salaries to people it considers its enemies in Gaza, and these cuts will have a considerable impact on the economic situation.

Abbas has also decided not to pay for a large portion of the electricity Gaza consumes, leading to the Israeli cabinet’s decision on Sunday to reduce the amount of electricity Israel transfers to Gaza. As a result, the people of Gaza will be left without electricity for much of the time.

There is no alternative to Israeli electricity, because the Egyptians, too, are denying Gaza more electricity. As to who will supply the salaries, there is no alternative there either. No one will fill the void left by the PA on this matter and it does not appear that anyone will step into Qatar’s shoes if it has to discontinue its economic support.

All these factors will lead to immense pressure on the Gaza Strip in general and on Hamas, which is responsible for Gaza, in particular.

This is a classic example of a situation in which Israel has no “good decision” to make.

On the one hand, Israel has a great interest in pressuring Hamas to sacrifice its military investments.

On the other hand, the worse the situation in Gaza becomes, and the less Hamas has to lose, the greater the risk of a violent outburst from inside Gaza. This outburst will be aimed at Israel, not Hamas.

What is the right balance between pressure on Hamas and the building of hope for the citizens of Gaza? The answer to this question is entirely unclear. How can pressure be applied without causing an eruption? To do so is an art, and it is difficult to provide good advice.

It is exceedingly clear, however, that once the three prongs of pressure – less electricity, lower salaries, and reduced economic aid – affect life in a tangible manner, the Gaza Strip will become far more combustible. This has to be taken into account.

 

Yaacov Amidror, like the majority of Israeli policy shapers, fails to notice his slippery slope slide away from truthful assessments.

This can be seen in the question he poses regarding the right balance between pressure on Hamas and the building of hope for the citizens of Gaza. There are so many misconceptions in this sentence alone, it is mind boggling.

One: Why is HAMAS, one of the more violent offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, considered a terror organization by the majority of the Arab world, an entity worthy of anything but dissolution? A policy maven should make up his mind is Hamas a polity responsible for its citizens or is it a terror organization to be attacked and disbanded like ISIS? Since HAMAS was voted into office by a body of residents it is a polity, and must be held accountable for its actions, inclusive of its expatriates should the unwilling host state expel them.

Two: How is Israel responsible in any way for building hope for Gaza's residents? Those residents have chosen Hamas when given the choice, and fully identify with Hamas' stated goals of destroying the Jewish State. Giving hope to such citizens of the polity bent on the destruction of its neighbour is tantamount to suicide. Did anyone consider giving hope to Germany's citizenry while the Blitz was ongoing? 

Three: Amidror claims Israel has no good deceisions to make. Somehow in his assessment Israel is boxed in, out of options. Nothing is farther from the truth. Israel has lots of options, but first it must make up its mind. Is the Jewish State named Israel the exclusive owner of the jewish patrimony? If it is, its goal should be clear: To closely settle the Land with Jews, and maintain Jewish sovereignty everywhere west of the Jordan River (quoting almost verbatim the 1922 San Remo treaty). Consequently any attempt to set up a non-Jewish polity withing this realm should be vigorously opposed. Once this priniciple is upheld the options are clear. Encourage emigration of those who deny Jewish sovereignty, and actively expel those who act upon this denial. 

Four: The basic premise of Amidror's reasoning is that the presence Gaza Residents is an immutable fact, as much as the rising of the sun and the course of the moon. Recent events prove that is not the case. 13 million Jews were uprooted and either murdered or displaced within the last 75 years. Of those about 1 million were uprooted from Muslim-ruled countries. The world was not terribly shaken by this mass-migration and redistribution. Several million Muslims have migrated in the last half-decade, a million at least to Europe. Gaza residents are no different. Given half the chance they too will join the Hijra, especially if Israel makes the good, that is in it's interests, choices. Once those Gazans are redistributed in Europe, a counter migration of Jews is likely to ensue, to the only place without Jewish quotas. Another good choice. For some unfathomable reason this good outcome is totally ignored by Amidror, and the vast majority of opinion-makers. 

Five: The basic premise that the Muslims have a right to self-determination west of the Jordan is incorrect. The rights of Muslims as individuals may be viable but the rights of Muslims as a polity must be abrogated, since they have more than 58 countries and territories where it is unchallenged. 

 

Thus, I would propose some simple outlines for dealing with Hamas. 

One: Recognize Hamas as a polity to which all so-called Palestinians belong. they voted for it overwhelmingly. 

Two: Sever all ties to Hamas, all water, electricity, communications, food, economic, financial, humanitarian, etc... 

Three: Charge Egypt, the Muslim neighbor to Hamas, with all civilian responsibilities. Food supplies, bought and paid for, may be routed via Egypt. 

Four: Encourage emigration as the viable alternative to Hamas rule. 

Five: respond to every military infraction forcefully, never proportionally. 

Six: Respond to every security infraction within Israel's realm by expulsion of Hamas affiliates to their own polity in Gaza. For example, the greater clan of the Hadas Malka murderers must be expelled immediately and their village moved to Gaza. 

Seven: Any foreign nation raising reservations about these policies should be encouraged to offer asylum to the afflicted. 

 

I shall not hold my breath to see those recommendations adopted. If fifteen hundred deaths and twenty thousand severe injuries sustained in and since the 1999-2002 intifadah were not enough to convince the opinion-makers and the Jewish State to instate these recommendations, then the occasional murder of a twenty three year old policewoman is unlikely to cause such a shift. Apparently Jews need a Shoah to learn the obvious, and not even then do they take the good choices to their logical conclusion. 

Domage. 

Y Brandstetter MD

 

bottom of page