Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Saturday, 30 July 2016

The Goal & Nature of Islamic Warfare (must-be-heeded videos)

"Why do Western leaders not see it that way?"

"Because they refuse to.... "

We in the West ignore this Middle East expert, Dr Harold Rhode (who has a PhD in Islamic Studies and was a Pentagon adviser for a number of years), at our peril.

There are other excellent videos by The Jerusalem Center that merit watching, including those featuring Dr Rhode.

Excellent article regarding the malaise in Europe (thanks to its weaklings and Quislings), by Guilio Meotti here

Thursday, 28 July 2016

The Islamist Enemy Within, & Christians Without

On learning that 86-year-old Father Jacques Hamel had murdered in his own church in a village near Rouen by Islamist demons who stormed in during Mass and slit his throat, the president of the World Jewish Congress issued a heartfelt message of condolence:
“This morning, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of yet another atrocious attack, and with the good people of France who sadly have become so familiar with the reality of terrorism in recent months.
Alas, there is no respite. Every day, these terrorists make it abundantly clear to the world that nothing is sacred to them, that they will not shy away from any execrable affront to the most basic values of our society.
Let’s be clear: this is not a war between religions, but between good and evil. We must stand as one in the face of this great threat. We must not be intimidated, but cherish our freedom, including the freedom to worship. We must speak out and not be silent. We must defend each other, and we must look after one another: one religious community after the other, one country after the other. This evil scourge won’t be defeated unless we are united in our resolve to defeat it.”
 "Not a war between religions".

Many might disagree.

Though perhaps not this chap Sutherland.
He's one of the political elites  who wants Europe to be ever more f*cked culturally enriched.

Remember this?:

And clearly not the Pope:
'Pope Francis has warned that a recent wave of jihadist attacks in Europe is proof that "the world is at war".  However, he stressed he did not mean a war of religions, but rather a conflict over "interests, money, resources".  He was speaking ahead of his visit to Poland to reporters seeking his comments on the murder of a Catholic priest by French jihadists on Tuesday....'
 He's now at work on Polish youth, urging them to welcome "migrants".

Or the repellent Merkel, who has dug her heels in regarding her asylum policy, despite conceding the other day what should have been obvious from the start:

  Reflects Ed West, writing here
 'Fr Jacques Hamel, murdered ... by Islamists in Normandy ... in his life would have seen his country transformed, from the Occupation to the Thirty Golden Years and through to this modern unhappy age. I can’t imagine that a young priest in the age of the Piuses would have expected to end his life in such a manner, near to where Joan of Arc was martyred, but then Europeans are getting used to things that a few decades ago would have been absurd.
After the war, Europeans thought they could escape history, and retire to a secular, progressive world in which historical conflicts of identity would be a thing of the past. But instead of fascism and communism, even older, more retrograde ideologies have sprung up, and history goes on. 
Christianity might be dying of indifference in western Europe but elsewhere it remains a living part of history, and that story includes persecution. Being a priest or a religious remains a dangerous task – earlier this year four nuns in Yemen were murdered, while a number of priests and bishops have been killed in Syria; likewise in Iraq, where some 60 churches were bombed during the conflict, the worst incident being the 2010 Our Lady of Salvation massacre where 52 men, women and children were slaughtered by a then little known outfit called the Islamic State of Iraq. The survivors were given asylum in France, which has always been especially generous towards eastern Christians 
 Please read the entire article.

As well as this one ("Will Britain at last stand up for Christians?") by Tim Montgomerie, for those who can get access to The Times:
'Could the jihadists inspired by Islamic State stoop any lower? [The killing of Father Hamel proves] once again, that an evil is stalking the continent and it is willing to plumb any depths in its attempts to terrorise and enslave us.
Christians in other parts of the world will not have been surprised at the blood spilt in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, near Rouen. Some feel that we, in the West, have turned our backs on their sufferings. “We feel forgotten and isolated,” complained Louis Sako, the Chaldean Archbishop of Baghdad: “We sometimes wonder, if they kill us all, what would be the reaction of Christians in the West? Would they do something then?”
While estimates of the global scale of religious slaughter and harassment differ wildly, there is enough evidence to suggest that religious persecution is widespread and growing. The Open Doors charity is a respected and relatively cautious chronicler of persecution and it estimates that an average of 322 Christians are killed every month as a direct consequence of their faith, while 214 churches or Christian properties are demolished, burnt down or in some way destroyed. Overall, Open Doors records, Christians are subject to 772 acts of violence — including beatings, abductions, rapes, arrests or forced marriages — each month.
We are largely familiar with the problems that Christians face in the Middle East. A century ago 14 per cent of all people in the region were Christians. Today it’s just 4 per cent.....'
They should be followed up by this one, by Lawrence A. Franklin, over at the Gatestone Institute, summarised thus:
 'Jesus warned his Apostles that men of faith would kill them, thinking they had done God a favor. Pope Francis, in the Vatican, referred to this killing as "an absurd murder." He could not be more wrong. This was a purposeful act of war against Judeo-Christian civilization. The murder of Father Jacques has great meaning. Our would-be replacements are telling us, "it is time for you to leave the stage of history."
This most recent murder is additional evidence that the old France is dying.' 
This too, by Yves Michaud, also over at Gatestone, summarised this,
'Europeans have delegated to the State the exclusive right to use violence against criminals. But Europeans, especially in France and Germany, are discovering that some kind of "misunderstanding" seems actually to be at work. Their State, the one that has the monopoly on violence, does not want to be at war with its Islamist citizens and residents. 
Worse, the State gives off the feeling that it is afraid of its Muslim citizens. "The concept of the rule of law means that the citizen is protected from the arbitrariness of the State. ... Currently, the rule of law protects the attackers above all". — Yves Michaud, French author and philosopher.'
 And this one, by Raymond Ibrahim, who warns:
 '....Mere Islam ... is responsible for the ongoing terrorization of the West.
If you doubt this, simply turn to a recent study. It found that Muslims of all sects, races, and sociopolitical circumstances—not just "ISIS"—are responsible for persecuting Christians in 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in: Shia Iran is the ninth worst nation, "Wahhabi" Saudi Arabia is 14th, while "moderate" countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are ranked 30 and 43 respectively.
The common denominator in all these nations is Islam—without qualifier.
.... Ugly or not, this truth, that mere Islam—not "ISIS," "Salafism," "Wahhabism," or "Shiism"—promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims will never be remedied until those in positions of leadership first acknowledge it. And, with the notable exception of Donald Trump, they are very far from doing so.'

As Melanie McDonough observes here:
'We’ve already got self-censorship when it comes to reporting attacks by Muslim refugees [sic] ...  in Germany and Scandinavia, and an almost comical reluctance anywhere in Europe to identify Islamist attacks as such – until IS takes credit for them, even the work of freelances. Plainly we have to guard against language that would demonise an entire community, but within that reasonable limit, we must require both politicians and public service broadcasters to talk plainly. And when Muslim extremists slit the throat of a priest in his own church, we’re looking at religiously motivated murder, entirely of a piece with the same religiously motivated murder of Christians and others being carried out in the Middle East. Shall we say so?

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

"Your Future is Our Future": Bibi to the Arab citizens of Israel (plus more)


And, outside the Democratic National Convention, hate-filled ratbags screaming wretched slogans set the Israeli flag ablaze.

This must vex them:

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

David Singer on Shifting Winds: European Union Rejects PLO Call To Boycott Quartet Report

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

European Union High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini has publicly rejected PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s call for Arab nations to lobby the UN Security Council to not endorse a Quartet Report that Abbas considers biased in favour of Israel.

Addressing the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on 22 July, Mogherini declared:
“John Kerry and I sit together in quite an impressive number of different formats. Together we decided to revitalize the Middle East Quartet. The report we have come up with just a few weeks ago cannot be underestimated. For the first time ever, the US, the EU, Russia and the United Nations have agreed on a clear analysis of the situation on the ground, and also more importantly on recommendations on the way forward to turn the two states solution into reality. Together we have also agreed to engage more regularly with the key Arab states such as Saudi Arabia – the initiator of the Arab Peace Initiative – Egypt – for obvious reasons – and Jordan – for its role in the Holy places.” 
The Report certainly cannot be underestimated – condemning and identifying the PLO and Hamas as fostering and condoning terrorism, including:
* “recent acts of terrorism” against Israelis, and incitement to violence including over 250 attacks and attempted attacks by Palestinians against Israelis since October 2015 – resulting in at least 30 Israelis having been killed in stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks, and a bombing.
* Palestinians committing “terrorist attacks” being often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs”
* Some members of Fatah which Abbas heads publicly supporting attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraging violent confrontation – including a senior Fatah official referring to perpetrators as “heroes and a crown on the head of every Palestinian”.
* Palestinian leaders having not consistently and clearly condemned specific “terrorist attacks”. And streets, squares and schools having been named after Palestinians who have committed “acts of terrorism”.
* The continuing illicit arms build-up in Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian groups  including the building of tunnels, the smuggling of weapons, and the production and launching of rockets towards Israel.
Such hard-hitting language by the Quartet “for the first time ever” was ground-breaking – demolishing Arab propaganda that had for decades portrayed such conduct as being justified by the “occupation” or morally justifiable as the actions of “freedom fighters”.

The Quartet has finally made clear that the murders of innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Kiryat Arba, Jerusalem and Itamar were equally as reprehensible as those murdered in Paris, Brussels, Ankara, Nice, Wurzburg, Sydney, Orlando and San Bernardino.

Abbas’s call to boycott the Quartet Report – and Mogherini’s public rebuke – has indeed rebounded on Abbas in spectacular fashion.

Victimhood and rejectionism must now be replaced with accountability and culpability.

Mogherini’s revelation that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will now be more regularly engaged greatly diminishes the political influence of the PLO and Hamas.

Between 1948 and 1967 Egypt occupied and administered Gaza – whilst Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem. Both enjoy signed peace treaties with Israel and are indispensable parties in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict.

It is arguably no coincidence that retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki – heading a delegation of Saudi academics and business people – was meeting in Jerusalem with Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Major-General Yoav Mordechai around the same time as Mogherini was addressing the Carnegie Endowment.

Diplomatic relations renewed this week between Israel and Guinea – a Muslim country and member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – will hopefully encourage other member-countries doing likewise.

The winds of change are certainly blowing …

Monday, 25 July 2016

"The Muslim Community are the First Victims of Fanaticism"

BBC today
Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah, writing (inter alia) in the immediate wake of the Nice atrocity:
'I can only imagine jihadis and Islamists howling in laughter at the gullibility of Islamism’s liberal apologists in the West. [Among those he cites are Jeffery Goldberg and Noah Feldman]
For the inexhaustible supply of Western liberals, who Lenin described as “Useful Idiots”, allow me to share a sample of just two sharia laws, from among the tens of thousands that have sustained ruthless, unelected caliphates for centuries.
“If the husband’s body is covered with pus and blood, and if the wife licks and drinks it, her obligations to her husband will still not be fulfilled.”
“Wives enter into their husband’s slavery after marriage.”
Even if one should consider those two examples an internal matter for Muslims, here are two more illustrations of Shariah law as expounded by the founder of 20th century Islamism, the Indian-born Syed Mawdudi, in his book Call to Jihad.
 “Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their (non-Muslims’) right to administer State affairs according to a system, which in the view of Islam, is evil.”
    “If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead.”
...'  (Read the entire article here)

Meanwhile, an example of the liberal apologists' mindset here 

And here

And in this broadcast, where we are told by the narrator "The Muslim Community are the first victims of fanaticism":

Parisian academic Guy Millière, in his article "France:After the Last Jihadist Attack", makes some choice comments on the mindset, as summarised below:
'Successive French governments have built a trap; the French people, who are in it, are thinking only of how to escape. The situation is more serious than many imagine. Whole areas of France are under the control of gangs and radical imams.
 Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: "France is at war." He named an enemy, "radical Islamism," but he was quick to add that "radical Islamism" has "nothing to do with Islam." He then repeated that the French will have to get used to living with "violence and attacks."
The French are increasingly tired of attempts to exonerate Islam. They know perfectly well that all Muslims are not guilty. But they also know that all those who committed attacks in France in recent years were Muslims. The French have no desire to get used to "violence and attacks." They do not want to be on the losing side and they feel that we are losing.'
Read his article here

And, marching towards Hungary, more young men of military age refugee family groups:

(Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

Sunday, 24 July 2016

"My Late Mother Had A Passport Saying ..." (video)

A glorious day (afternoon, by the looks of it) in old London town.  Shoppers stroll past Marks & Spencer in Oxford Street.

 An Israel-hater, flanked by others if his kind, and repeating a mantra about "racism", exhorts the populace to "Boycott Marks & Spencer". 

Eventually (around 3:11) a petite female figure in a baseball cap takes the mike.  We've seen her before in footage by Alex Seymour.  And heard her too.

But this time she has a new message in her repertoire.  It's aimed at those people who claim "there was no such place as Palestine".

By which, I take it, she means all those dastardly types who point out time and time again (to all those anti-Israel ignoramuses who insist/imply/infer that there was once a sovereign entity called Palestine stolen by "the Zionists") that there was in fact no such sovereign entity.

All sorts of dodgy pieces of "evidence" have been advanced in support of the demonisers' false assumption, my personal favourite being the Palestine (Maccabi!) Football Team.  (And not only because it's an excuse to exclaim "Balls!")

Now, this little lady in the baseball cap adds one more to the murky mix:

"How come my late mother had a passport saying 'British Mandate Palestine'?"


To invoke a certain British comedian's catchphrase: "Some mothers do 'ave 'em!"


Saturday, 23 July 2016

Half-Baked Humble Pie?

On 3 June this year the Australian Jewish News (AJN) carried an article by long-standing staff member Peter Kohn concerning cancellation of  one of the sessions scheduled for the two-day Limmud Oz conference occurring later in June.

The session was to feature a representative of the highly controversial Australian Jewish Democratic Society (seen by many if not most of the mainstream Jewish community as odious in its stance) and Adelaide University Professor Bassam Dally (pictured, forefront, left), an Israel-born Palestinian Arab who's vice-president of the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network.

 He, Kohn''s article (citing the website of the Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine) informed readers, is on record as declaring:
"I support support BDS because, unlike governments, the conscious [sic] of millions of people cannot be bought by rich interest groups.  Without international pressure, Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state."
Having been contacted by the AJN regarding the cancellation, Professor Dally is quoted as stating:
"It's ironic that Limmud Oz organisers have decided to disinvite me speaking in a session titled 'Fighting for Coexistence'. The session was never intended to be about BDS and, therefore, the organisers are deciding not only what, but who, their audience may be permitted to hear – in my case, an Israeli citizen of Palestinian heritage.
This shows a contempt for the maturity and intelligence of the Jewish community by preventing them from having these important discussions in an open and civilised manner."
 Kohn's article reported the Limmud Oz co-organisers as explaining:
"On publishing the program, we were alerted to the extent and tone of the position of one of the participants on BDS.  The decision was made on principle, given the goals of global BDS, the damaging effect of BDS rhetoric in the community, and the anti-engagement nature of BDS, to cancel the session in line with our programming policy."
The chairman of the B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation Commission, Dr Dvir Abramovich, was quoted as observing:
"Limmud Oz did the right thing by making it clear that it will not give its endorsement and sponsorship to the session, The BDS movement its corre, is anti-Semitic." [sic: The AJN, for reasons best known to itself, persists in spelling antisemitism the old, discredited, old-fashioned way.]
Dr Colin Rubenstein, executive chairman of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), was quoted thus:
"It is absurd to expect a Jewish community organisation, even one committed to the robust exchange of ideas, to extend the welcome mat to a supporter of the boycotting of Israel, as to do so may confer a degree of legitimacy on someone whose record and views do not further the cause of mutual coexistence, genuine peace or communal harmony."
Evidently, someone felt that the references to Professor Dally in the article reflected him in an unjustly bad light, for in the current issue (22 July), at the end of the correspondence columns, is an ungrammatical and badly-written apology which appears to have been composed in such a panic that even the date of the issue carrying Kohn's article is incorrect.
"In an article that we published on 2 June 2016,some people may have  mistakenly understood it to accuse Professor Bassam Dally of being anti-Semitic."  (Is this what passes for good journalistic English these days?!)
I would not have interpreted the Kohn article as implying that Professor Dally is personally antisemitic, but clearly my perceptions are not shared by everyone.

Certainly not by these two leftist Jewish critics of Israel, Brull and Stillman:

It's a pity, though, that the AJN did not choose a different phrasing and entitle it a "Clarification".  For the trouble with that abject apology, in that particular wording, seems to me to be that
the paper won't be able to argue that BDS is antisemitic without looking like prize shmendricks.   Why the ill-judged prose?  They've set a precedent. They can be seen as endorsing UN resolutions against Israel, however unjust such resolutions, and undermining fellow-Jews and Israel-supporters who insist that BDS is antisemitic.

That's my view, anyway.  Feel free to disagree!

Meanwhile, in the dear old Mother Country, the odious Spinning Jenny has been spreading her poison again.

See, for example, here and here.

Among those liking the Baroness's speech and subsequent defiance are a certain Andy Taylor (whose numerous posts on Facebook leave little doubt of his feelings towards da Joos), as well our old friend the vicar of Virginia Water, Stephen Sizer, as yet, since his return to Facebook following banishment by his bishop over that notorious Israel and 9/11 post of his, venting his hostility to Zionism through pressing the "Like" button on other anti-Zionists' proclamations rather than pontificating himself:

Not that Her Ladyship is getting it all her on way on her Facebook page.  Some dastardly Zionists have the temerity to be fighting back! (And how!)

Thursday, 21 July 2016

David Singer: Abbas Has Sown The Seeds For His Own Political Demise

 First, from Honest Reporting, a not totally irrelevant video:

And now,  here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled "Palestine – Abbas Emasculates Quartet, Humiliates United Nations and European Union".

Writes David Singer:

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to accept the recent Quartet Report has effectively emasculated the role of the Quartet and humiliated the United Nations and European Union in their efforts to resolve the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

The Quartet website points out:
“Established in 2002, the Quartet consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. Its mandate is to help mediate Middle East peace negotiations and to support Palestinian economic development and institution building. It meets regularly at the level of the Quartet Principals (United Nations Secretary General, United States Secretary of State, Foreign Minister of Russia, and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and at the Special Envoy level as well.”
Given the Quartet’s crucial role, Abbas should have accepted the Report with equanimity and pledged his readiness to stamp out reprehensible conduct identified in the Report:
'Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks are often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs.” Many widely circulated images depict individuals committing terrorist acts with slogans encouraging violence. The spreading of incitement to violence on social media has gained momentum since October 2015, and is particularly affecting the youth.'
As Chairman of Fatah – the dominant faction in the PLO – Abbas would not have enjoyed reading the Quartet’s following condemnation of his failed leadership:
'Some members of Fatah have publicly supported attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraged violent confrontation. In the midst of this recent wave of violence, a senior Fatah official referred to perpetrators as “heroes and a crown on the head of every Palestinian.” Fatah social media has shown attackers superimposed next to Palestinian leaders following terrorist attacks'
Abbas was subjected to the following further criticism:
“Regrettably, however, Palestinian leaders have not consistently and clearly condemned specific terrorist attacks. And streets, squares and schools have been named after Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism.”
 Abbas’s pathetic response was to claim that the Report:
"does not further the cause for peace…We hope that the Security Council does not support this report"
Abbas can’t be serious. Asking the United Nations to reject a Report to which it is a contributing party is incomprehensible. Expecting the European Union to act likewise would be irrational.

Abbas joins a long list of Arab leaders who rejected offers made possible by the efforts of the international community to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 1922, 1937, 1947, 2000/1 and 2007.

The conflict could have been ended between 1948 and 1967 with the stroke of an Arab League pen - after six of its member-State armies invaded Palestine in 1948 and forcibly expelled every single Jew living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), Gaza and East Jerusalem.

United Nations and European Union calls for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – since the 1980 Venice Declaration have been mistakenly construed by the PLO as a licence unrealistically to demand:
* The return of millions of “refugees” to Israel
* Establishment of the prospective State of Palestine in all of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital
 * Non-recognition of Israel as the Jewish National Home
The United Nations and the European Union have gone to extraordinary lengths to continue supporting the PLO despite the continuing terror, hatred and incitement now identified in the Quartet Report.

Abbas fumes and fulminates whilst illegally clinging to power.

Attacking the Quartet – and, by association, the United Nations and European Union – are acts of unbelievable ingratitude and incredible political stupidity.

Abbas has sown the seeds for his own political demise.

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

Joined At The Navel: The ABC BBC of it

Yesterday, in the wake of yet another Islamic atrocity (the Nice tragedy), conservative Australian columnist Andrew Bolt wrote an article in the Herald-Sun which caught the fancy of an Australian television personality named Sonia Kruger (see my previous post).

Note how the BBC has chosen to report this Aussie incident, giving emphasis to Ms Kruger's critics and deriders of her "as a mother" remark in explaining how Islamic terror worries her.   Some examples from the report:

(Who's Pickering? Oh, some comedian or other.)

Hanson-Young is a Greens senator of whom the ABC is inordinately fond, as indicated by the vast amounts of airtime its new bulletins give her to deride the nation's "turn back the boats" policy and other issues connected with asylum:

Among the critics of Ms Kruger highlighted by the BBC,  a discordant voice:

I should have thought that being a mother, and therefore having a stake in the future of this country and what kind of place it will be for her child[ren] makes a mother a very qualified person indeed.

But the opportunity to mock (and demonise) was, after all, the only reason the Corporation, awash with Islamophile leftists, reported the story in the first place, wasn't it?

I'm correct, aren't I, Jon Donnison (here spoon-feeding the not-to-be-trusted viewing public with a propaganda-laden tweet of his own)?:

In the same vein, the Facebook page of QandA, the ABC's equivalent to the BBC's Question Time  (yesterday's show here), is full of leftist partisanship, and its studio audience similarly stacked.

As always, the terrible twosome are in a three-way relationship, the Guardian being their partner in bias.  But at least the Guardian can claim entitlement to vent its propaganda: the ABC and the BBC cannot, since they are public broadcasters financed by the taxpayer.  And obligated by their charters to be objective.

Monday, 18 July 2016

Blonde on Blond: A Blonde's Bombshell

"Why have jihadist terrorists made France Europe’s bloodiest battlefield? Simple answer: Because France let in the most Muslims."

So writes Australia's most-read (and most controversial) columnist, conservative Andrew Bolt (pictured), in the wake of the Nice atrocity.  He goes on, inter alia, in the Herald-Sun:

 "This link between immigration policies and terrorism largely explains why the French are the greatest victims of Europe’s jihadists.

 It also explains why we are fools not to change our own immigration policies to protect ourselves.
No European Union country has a higher proportion of Muslims than France — up to 10 per cent of its population, or six million people, though statistics are vague, and vary.
Yes, numbers don’t tell the whole story, but they do count....
France has the most Muslims, and that is why four people were killed, three of them children, in an Islamist attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse four years ago.
To order click here
That is why 20 people were murdered in Paris in last year’s Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket....
That is why 130 more people were murdered in Paris last November in an Islamic State assault on restaurants, a concert hall and a football stadium.
That is why a policeman and his wife were last month murdered by a jihadist outside their home.
That is why 84 people died in last week’s terrorist attack in Nice, when a Tunisian-born man rammed his truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day....
Japan has strict controls on immigration and its 127 million people include just 100,000 Muslims. Result: zero Islamist attacks.
Contrast that with Australia, which has a population of just 24 million, but 500,000 Muslims. How we’ve paid for leaving our door open....
The mathematics is clear: The more Muslims we import, the more danger we are in...."
One of the readers agreeing with Mr Bolt is television presenter Sonia Kruger, who has become  the whipping girl of the usual suspects of the Left for her remarks during a television news channel today in which Mr Bolt's column was discussed:

The betting seems to be on how much longer Ms Kruger will keep her job.

Meanwhile, on the warpath over free speech regarding Islam is the woman British Home Secretary (now Prime Minister) Theresa May (pictured, in hijab) banned from Britain along with Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer:

Saturday, 16 July 2016

Europe's Islamic Future: "There are reasons to believe ... resistance is building"

In the wake of the recent Australian General Election that has seen Malcolm Turnbull's Liberal Party limp to victory, just avoiding a hung Parliament, and excluding from his Cabinet conservatives such as Tony Abbott (the prime minister Turnbull toppled in a grubby coup some months ago), the latest issue of the Australian Jewish News carries an editorial that observes, inter alia:
"The moderate brand that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has identified with has seen the PM wedged between Labor on the one hand and conservatives within his own party on the other.
In an age of doctrinaire political certitudes on the right and the left, steering the middle course may not be the most fashionable option, but it is the most responsible.
Australians have historically voted for governments of the political centre, and voters have shunned voices closer to the fringes.
In a world that flirts with Donald Trump and embraces Brexit, we hope common sense will prevail in Australia."
 With those words the paper insults not only the millions of decent Australians with views that mirror Mr Abbott's and respected conservative columnist Andrew Bolt's, but the many many millions of decent Britons who voted for their country to leave the squalid bureaucratic tyranny that is the EU.

Going on to deplore the re-election to the Senate of a proven racist fringe party leader who demands a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia, the editorial observes "[A]s Jews, we know what it is like being on the receiving end of such policies in bygone eras."

And a report in the paper quotes a statement by a prominent communal figure that  "vilification of Islam ... must be repudiated".

Such a view threatens to place in the "racist bigot" box women who deplore Islam's misogyny as well as the writings of Australia's leading scholar of Islam, Anglican priest Dr Mark Durie.

 It is untenable that the faults of Islam cannot be discussed without the discussant suffering obloquy.

The paper, which to my certain knowledge once summarily rejected an article (a perfectly reasonable one) by a regular columnist on the grounds that it was "an Islamophobic rant" (the paper has long since adopted "Islamophobia" into its lexicon), has become rather too left-leaning for many readers.  These are people who resent being cast as extremists and lumped in with racists merely because they have the temerity to express disquiet about large-scale Muslim immigration into Australia and its likely effect on government policy towards Israel (we see this trend already in sections of the Labor Party).

As a London reader wrote to the paper in response to a foolish, ignorant and in some ways quite despicable article in the paper by the British principal of an Australian Jewish day school who thundered that Brexit makes him ashamed of his native land,
"Those who voted for Brexit felt this was no longer their country.  Their national identity was denigrated by the EU and their cultural heritage was threatened .... He does not fully understand what is happening here .... If he despairs of us, he is no loss to Britain...."
One man from outside Europe who completely understands what is happening there and elsewhere in Europe is Dr Daniel Pipes, who in this latest Gatestone Institute/The video outlines three possible scenarios for the future of Europe.

See also here
And here

French Jewish reaction here:

Thursday, 14 July 2016

David Singer: China Can Exploit United Nations' Double Standards on Palestine

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.
He writes:

International support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – despite its rejection of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter – could be exploited by China to blunt international action following an unfavourable ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration against China in The Hague.

Having boycotted those proceedings, Chinese President Xi Jinping then immediately dismissed the decision – which denied China had any legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea: 
"China will never accept any claim or action based on those awards” 
His rejection was as peremptory as that of the PLO – which declared in Article 18 of its original 1964 Charter: 
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered fraud.”
This position was revised when the Charter was redrafted in 1968 – Article 20 declaring: 
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”
These provisions have been a major contributing factor in preventing a resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict for the last 52 years.

The international community has not punished the PLO for its unilateral demolition of these international-law building blocks but to the contrary has granted the PLO diplomatic recognition whilst also welcoming the PLO into the United Nations.

Should China be demonised because it also chooses to ignore a determination in international law that it regards as inimical to its national interest?

Does size matter? Can one forgive small players who wilfully shred international law but demand big players conform to legal decisions not to their liking?

The international community has some serious soul-searching to do. Vietnam may now be ruing its welcoming embrace of the PLO by:
* Establishing ties with the PLO in 1968
* Allowing the PLO to open its resident Representative Office in Vietnam in 1976
* Elevating the PLO's resident Representative Office to the status of Embassy in 1982

For further information see here

Clearly concerned by China’s response to The Hague decision – Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh has declared:
"Vietnam strongly supports the resolution of the disputes ... by peaceful means, including diplomatic and legal processes and refraining from the use or threats to use force, in accordance with international law" 
That response is what one would normally expect – but when you have not demanded the same of the PLO for the last 48 years then such statement amounts to an indefensible double standard.

Other countries vitally affected by the South China Sea ruling include the Philippines – the plaintiff in The Hague proceedings – Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia. They may find their long-standing ties with the PLO similarly embarrassing as they confront an angry China.

China on the other hand can argue that rejecting the South China Sea judgement is consistent with China’s recognition of the law-trashing PLO in 1988 – since International law means nothing to China and the PLO.

The Hague ruling is regarded as legally binding – but there is apparently no mechanism to enforce it.  Boycott Divestment and Sanctions programs against China will have little effect.

Rejecting China’s claim to any historic rights in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the acceptance of Jewish historic rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) – recognised by the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter – but erroneously claimed by the UN Security Council to be in violation of international law.

Double standards in the international community have a horrible way of coming back to bite those indulging in such dangerous games.

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

"Curse You, Curse You, Curse You, Mr Blair!"

Just what makes Anthony Charles Lynton Blair tick is very hard to fathom.  Admired by some, and loathed by others, this "all-over-the-place" politician may well be judged by history (as he is judged by many already) the worst prime minister of the British twentieth century.

The usual suspects of the Left view Blair as a war criminal for the "lies" that took Britain into the war that toppled Saddam Hussein, and feel exonerated by the Chilcot Report, but to numerous men and women Blair's crimes are those he committed against his own country during his prime ministership (1997-2007).

In the current issue of the Australian conservative intellectual and literary magazine Quadrant Welshman Christie Davies (author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain) articulates this viewpoint with clarity and passion.

Pointing out the societal, economic, and ecological problems associated with Britain's record high levels of immigration over the last  two decades, with England now the most densely populated country in Europe (419 people per square km) and projected to become even more congested by 2030 (460 people per square km), Davies notes that the warnings of demographers during the 1960s regarding future overcrowding if the birthrate did not fall are never alluded to today.

 (Anyone seen the slogan "Zero Population Growth" lately?  No. Didn't think so.  Since the immigrant population is driving up the birthrate these days it's much too politically incorrect to suggest that the maximum number of babies per family should be two.  Ever seen the Greens arguing that immigration numbers should be restricted, given the fact that swathes of unspoiled countryside and greenbelt land are now being cemented over to meet the need for housing consequent upon today's massive population surge?  Ah, that'll be the day!)

A scene in Birmingham.  Photo: Lee Thomas (see more photos here)

Writes Christie Davies, inter alia:
 'I do not blame immigrants for wanting to come to a country that is far better in all respects than the wretched ones into which they were born.  In their position I would try to do the same.  The real villain is Tony Blair ...  
[In 2004] most of the existing EU countries imposed severe restrictins on migration from the East [of Europe], but Britain under Blair did not and two million immigrants arrived...
Blair also instructed his officials to loosen considerably the rules regarding the checking of those from outside Europe claiming asylum.  Many of the claimants were fakes and they were deliberately allowed to slip through the net so as to avoid the publicity attending an expulsion.
Worst of all, Blair abolished the "primary purpose" rule.  Any British citizen who has married a foreigner is entitled to bring their spouse into the country.... Where the problem arises is when a marriage is arranged or even forced, often in pursuit of some sordid material pay-off, and no such ties exist.  Many of these marriages were simply a trick to evade the immigration rules... and it was perfectly proper to block their entry into the country by means of the primary purpose rule.
Under pressure from British Muslim activists, for many of whom marriage was a way of obtaining a British passport, Tony Blair abolished  the rule, saying it was discriminatory.  
Some Muslims had another reason for seeking an absence of restrictions on imported spouses.  They wanted to use marriage as a means of compelling those of their children who were showing signs of personal independence and assimilation, to marry unreconstructed, uneducated husbands and wives from their original country.  These parents wanted spouses who would bring their wayward offspring back into line and away from the dangers of British freedom.
In approving all these changes Blair should have known that they would destroy Britain.  ... [T]hat might have been his purpose.  He was, after all, the man who began the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, who subordinated our interests to the EU, denied tradition and fostered multiculturalism.   
Curse you, curse you, curse you, Mr Blair!
A mural in Birmingham
Leftists welcome immigrants, whom they perceive as lacking the ties that hold the British people together in a sense of a common history and culture.  The leftists wish to destroy these forms of solidarity, so that they can replace them with their own ideological framework of imposed equality.  That is what the weasel Blair meant by modernity ... Some have also cynically calculated that the new arrivals are more likely to be hungry for benefits and more likely to vote Labour....
Immigration is stealing our land but Islam threatens to steal our soul....
Australia's tough line on immigration including the turning back of boats and building detention centres outside the country is exactly what Britain needs...'
Meanwhile, to judge from her recent naive comments regarding sharia, it appears Britain's new prime minister Theresa May would benefit from a reading of Australian scholar of Islam Mark Durie's latest article here

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

"These People Only Care When There's Jews Aboard": Israel advocate socks it to the PSCniks (video) (updated)

Following on from my previous post, here's another video of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Israel-haters in London being challenged by the truth-tellers from the Israel Advocacy Movement:

Oh, and since some of the Israel-haters seem to be getting their underwear in a twist over the perceived "Zionism" of Britain's prime minister designate Theresa May, here's her speech last year that's making the Israel-haters so unhappy:

Sunday, 10 July 2016

Pieces of Hate: "The Palestinian cause is ... for the exploited & oppressed masses in our era"

In London last week, a mob of abusive Palestine Solidarity Campaign activists taunt an unexpected showing of pro-Israelis, standing in dignified fashion in silent counter-protest while the PSCniks raise fists in the air, rasp familiar chants, sound a silly shrill trill, and even indulge in a taunting improvised rhyme that includes da Joo word.

 The doughty David Collier gives the context (and another video) here

And in Toronto on Al Quds Day teacher Nadia Shoufani reminds her fellow Israel-haters of another Israel-hater's words ("... We are here to urge you all to believe ... that the Palestinian cause is not a cause for Palestinians only but it's a cause for every revolutionary whereever he [sic] is, a cause for the exploited and oppressed masses in our era ...") before launching into a full-scale rant against the Zionist Entity.

There's a very able refutation here of her damaging nonsense

(Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

Meanwhile, an old friend of ours, Jeremy Moodey, CEO of Engage the Middle East, surfaced in the correspondence columns of the Church of England newspaper (12 May) to argue against its behind-a-paywall editorial of the previous week.  (Hat tip: reader P)

Notice that Moodey has the spiteful audacity to consider Israel a "rogue" state.  He implicitly favours an end to Jewish statehood.

Shame, shame, shame on him.

On social media, another old friend of ours, Stephen Sizer, likes the dissembling Israel-bash, and incorrigible antisemite and 9/11 troofer Tony Gratrex (founder of Reading PSC)  seems equally pleased, sharing the article.

 In defiance, I think we should give this fine fellow with the magnificent moustache a twirl:

Thursday, 7 July 2016

David Singer: Quartet and Two-State Solution Sink into Political Oblivion

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The Quartet – America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – has effectively consigned any negotiated two-state solution to political oblivion with its latest Report.

Two statements in the Report stymie any resumption of negotiations – stalled since April 2014.
1. “The Quartet reiterates that unilateral actions by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."
 Unilateral actions by the Palestinian Authority – disbanded in January 2013 – have already seen the international community: 
 (i) Admit “Palestine” as a member State of UNESCO on 29 October 2011 in contravention of UNESCO’s own constitution
 (ii) Accord “Palestine” non-member observer State status in the United Nations on 29 November 2012. 
Such acts of recognition by the international community – over Israel’s strident objections – have hardened Palestinian demands and expectations that their goals can be achieved without negotiations requiring any concessions to Israel. 
 Reversing these decisions is a Quartet pipe dream.
 2. “Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements." 
 Reunification under the “PLO platform” sounds the death knell for the Quartet’s mediating role and the two-state solution.
Hamas will certainly not become a willing player in its own extinction.
The Quartet obviously has not considered how such reunification could be achieved whilst Hamas’s own Covenant declares:
'Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies. That is why, with all our appreciation for the Palestinian Liberation Organization – and what it can develop into – and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.
"Who will be adverse to the religion of Abraham, but he whose mind is infatuated?" (The Cow - verse 130).
The day the Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.
Until such a day, and we pray to Allah that it will be soon, the Islamic Resistance Movement's stand towards the PLO is that of the son towards his father, the brother towards his brother, and the relative to relative, suffers his pain and supports him in confronting the enemies, wishing him to be wise and well-guided.'
Replacing “secular-democratic Palestine” with “Islamic-autocratic Palestine” is certainly not the Quartet’s prescription for achieving any realistic two-state solution – but this is what Hamas demands and will never abandon.
The Quartet is living in fantasy land if it believes otherwise.
“Democratic Palestinian authority” involves free and fair elections that Hamas and the PLO have both been unwilling to entertain since 2006. Given the rivalries between the PLO and Hamas such elections remain a figment of the Quartet’s imagination.
The Quartet – the most powerful and influential mediator in history – became totally irrelevant after it was restructured in July 2015. This latest Report will become yet another historical document attesting to the failure to achieve the two-state solution as envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The time has surely arrived for trilateral negotiations to be commenced between Israel, Jordan and Egypt to allocate sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza between their respective sovereign States.

Time for the out-of-tune Quartet to bow out and give this Trio the world stage.

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Anglican Father Dave: "Al Quds Day is a Day when God Brings Us Together ... An Intrinsically Religious Event" (video)

Although very much an Aussie in speech and rough diamond manner, Israel-bashing Sydney priest Father Dave Smith can be considered the antipodes' answer to the smoother, softer spoken English Rev Stephen Sizer.

 I last wrote about Smith here (where the photo of him at left appears in context).

Not that the Rev. Sizer, to my knowledge, has ever swathed himself in a keffiyeh (correct me if I'm wrong.)

No friend to Israel, but seemingly very warmly disposed indeed towards Islam, Father Dave (as he likes to be known) is a staunch supporter of BDS, of the "Right of Return" and of the other goodies in the anti-Zionist box of tricks.

And that includes, just like Sizer, support for the Iranian-inspired annual excrescence known as Al Quds Day. (Here he is on that day back in 2014, where his demagoguery drew forth spontaneous cries of "Free, Free Palestine".  Note the reference to "well-financed and powerful" regarding pro-Israel "propaganda" (is dat da Lobby, den?)  and use of the term Holocaust.

Here's the former boxer (who's yet to hang up his gloves) addressing his Muslim friends in Melbourne this year and demonstrating once again his repellent lack of empathy with Israel.

And here he is addressing his Muslim friends in Sydney:

More from that event:

Meanwhile, another glimpse of Al Quds in Australia's general region (my previous post shows Indonesia), namely, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (a few minutes of this very lengthy video provides the tone, with the numerous repetitions of a familiar phrase hinting at the mindset regarding the existence of the little land of Israel):

And in New York, an activist from Harlem spends a lot of time telling the assembled Israel-haters of the alleged "occupation" of his neck of the woods: "black and brown communities ... are under occupation every day by the NYPD":

Monday, 4 July 2016

"An Absurd Political Marriage Enabled Only by a Mutual Hatred of Jews"

See exclusive photos at Breitbart by clicking here
".... Hezbollah T-Shirts, Nasrallah T-Shirts, Khomeini T-Shirts. These people marched proudly through the streets of London. Someone had a placard that read ‘ We are all Hezbollah’. ... Support for radical Islamic extremists. Maybe 350 people in total, maybe slightly more. The demographic was clearly one sided. Over 80% of them looked Middle Eastern themselves. Arabic was the language most spoken.

.... The drum beat ever present. The mob’s conductor leading the way with the usual chants. Right through Oxford Circus, Regent Street, Bond Street, the heart of London’s main shopping district. Hezbollah flags were waving all the way. I saw a boy, maybe 13 or 14, holding the terrorist flag.....

Image: SussexFriendsofIsrael
Such extremism. Such hatred. There will be no peace, there will be no progress, until this venom is extracted from the conflict. The irony that on this day in North London, left-wing Zionists had gathered at a Haaretz conference to discuss the issue of peace was not lost on me. With all the will in the world, theirs is a bubble that at the moment, simply does not exist.

You cannot negotiate with this. Nor will peace move forward whilst this mob is allowed to spread its poison. This is blind hatred. Self- chosen ignorance, bias, and yes, not a little antisemitism. Those few in the crowd that were not Islamic radicals fell into two distinct groups. Those on the very far left, and those on the very far right. An absurd political marriage enabled only by a mutual hatred of Jews...."

 The words are the admirable David Collier's, and are taken from his firsthand account of Friday's Al Quds march in London (click here for that must-read post with several instructive photos).

And see the many photos as well as videos on Sussex Friends of Israel's Facebook page here. (Happily, this year the Israel-haters did not have Al Quds Day all to themselves: pro-Israel forces featured a counter-rally, at which UNWatch's Hillel Neuer and Hendon MP Matthew Offord spoke.)


Regarding the Hezbollah flags, be sure to  see Edgar Davidson's totally-nails-it graphic here

Meanwhile, in Berlin, this modern form of the Old Hatred where Jackboots went before:

Also in Berlin, these pro-Israel protesters against the haters' march:

And, half a world away, the Old Hatred's manifestation close to Australia's shores:

Sunday, 3 July 2016

"Obscene and Outrageous": Isi Leibler blasts the ADL's association with J Street

In conversation with Rabbi Mark Golub, veteran world Jewish leader and Jerusalem Post columnist Isi Leibler delivers a sustained and stinging criticism of ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt for cosying up to "pernicious" J Street, which is doing untold harm to the Jewish People and the State of Israel.

Leibler believes that Greenblatt has not spent sufficient time in Israel, and should do so, seeing what it is enduring for himself rather than choosing to associate with people and ideas that are "undermining" Israel and its national security.

"Israel is standing alone in a sea of barbarism", Leibler says, and if Jewish leaders in the Diaspora stand aside and fail to stick up for Israel against the leftist and Palestinian narrative, "history will condemn them."

 He is askance at the failure of American Jewish leaders strongly and unitedly to stress to Obama that Israel must have defensible borders, and fears that Obama might still give Israel an unacceptable "leaving present".

For more on Leibler versus Goldblatt see here and here and here

Saturday, 2 July 2016

No Sounding the Knell of BBC Reporter's Bias

Hallel Yaffa Ariel
In an egregiously one-sided feature (that's her hallmark, as shown time and time again by BBC Watch and other BBC monitoring sites) the BBC's Yolande Knell begins:

"For retired West Bank farmer Issa Hamed, the idea that Jewish settlements are destroying a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a no-brainer" 

and goes on to push the Palestinian narrative in what should properly be known, as it always used to be, as the Arab-Israeli conflict, for several paragraphs.

In the course of these, Knell described (en passant, without naming) tragic Hallel Yaffa Ariel, the 13-year-old stabbed to death, by an evil teenager bent on mayhem against Jews and since praised as a shahid, while sleeping in her bedroom in Kiryat Arba, as "an American-Israeli girl".

 The fact that Hallel held American citizenship is of interest to Americans and their newspapers, and that is perfectly understandable (as seen here) but Knell's reference to it is, judging from her past form, in all likelihood merely gratuitous.

 Other BBC reports referred to Hallel as "Israeli".   The suspicion must be that Knell, in her snide propagandistic fashion, was deliberately emphasising the "settler" status of the young victim of Palestinian Arab terror in a sort of "well, what do you expect?" frame of mind. A frame of mind that would seek, though not to condone this frame of mind, then at least to excuse it in some sense as tit-for-tat ...

Of course, Binyamin Netanyahu has a response to that Knellian-type frame of mind, declaring:  
One mother ...
"In the 24 hours before the publication of the Quartet report, Palestinian terrorists stabbed and shot innocent Israelis three times, leaving two dead and others wounded. Today a young father was killed and his wife and children injured when their car was riddled with gunfire. Yesterday a 13 year-old Israeli girl was stabbed to death while she slept in her bed. Not only did the Palestinian Authority fail to condemn this gruesome murder, it referred to the murderer as a “martyr” in official media.
... and another
Palestinian praise for murderers today inspires those who will strike tomorrow. This response reflects the moral bankruptcy of the Palestinian leadership and leaves little doubt about its true intentions.
Israel therefore welcomes the Quartet’s recognition of the centrality of Palestinian incitement and violence to the perpetuation of the conflict. This culture of hatred poisons minds and destroys lives and stands as the single greatest obstacle to progress towards peace.
The report unfortunately says nothing about the payments made by the Palestinian leadership to terrorists and their families. The graver the violence, the greater the payment. This Palestinian practice must stop.
Israel shares the Quartet’s historical commitment to advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace through direct, bilateral negotiations without preconditions.
In previous agreements, Israel and the Palestinians committed to discuss every difficult issue exclusively through direct, bilateral negotiations. Nevertheless, the record shows a history of repeated Palestinian rejection of offers to negotiate and compromise from Israeli governments across the political spectrum. Israel cannot negotiate peace with itself.
Israel also notes the Quartet’s concern about the military buildup in Gaza and the threat posed by Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization, to both Israeli and Palestinian lives.
We regret the failure of the Quartet to address the real core of the conflict: the persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people in any boundaries.
The report also perpetuates the myth that Israeli construction in the West Bank is an obstacle to peace. When Israel froze settlements, it did not get peace. When Israel uprooted every settlement in Gaza, it did not get peace. It got war.
It is troubling that the Quartet appears to have adopted the position that the presence of Jews living in the West Bank somehow prevents reaching a two-state solution. The presence of nearly 1.8 million Arabs in Israel isn’t a barrier to peace; it is a testament to our pluralism and commitment to equality.
Israel rejects any attempt to draw moral equivalence between construction and terrorism. So too do we reject the parallels suggested between the campaign of Palestinian terrorism and the violence of marginal elements in Israeli society. The former is lauded by the Palestinian leadership. The latter is utterly condemned and rejected by Israelis across the board.
 Israel will continue to strive for a genuine, negotiated peace based on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s vision of two states for two peoples. While the report includes numerous factual and policy assertions with which we take issue, Israel will discuss with the Quartet envoys ways to explore moving toward this end."
A pertinent post from Edgar Davidson here See also here
 And here

Meanwhile, for this Muslim lady, all praise