Can Brexit Save the EU?
The conventional wisdom is that in taking out England, Brexit does the EU a damaging blow. What is overlooked is the possibility that Brexit may provide the EU with a much needed wake-up call. The Brussel elites move confidently to their own drummer, paying no attention to the opinions of the broad publics in the (now) 27 individual component states. That may no longer be possible if Britain’s example energizes anti-EU movements on the continent. The most potent issue is immigration which is inextricably bound up with the issue of national identity. On the BBC one pundit mentioned that in the supermarket he asked a woman how she planned to vote. She responded “Leave” and when he asked why said “Why did we fight World War II?”
As far as the EU elites are concerned, the ultimate moral arbiters are the so-called human rights NGOs (the joke is that there is nothing more morally corrupt than those NGOs—witness their behavior toward and in Israel). For these NGOs it is a given that nothing can be done about the vast hordes of young Muslim men invading Europe but welcome them. On this premise, the EU’s only “solution” is imposed quotas on individual member states.
If it dawns on the EU’s leaders that they could be collectively out of a job if they fail to address the issue, it is at least possible that they might ignore the indignant shrieks of the NGOs to find a solution. A real solution, not the bizarre one Angela Merkel has come up with of holding out hope of speeded up accession to the EU to Turkey (with the potential of adding umpteen millions of Moslems to Europe) in exchange for stopping a certain number of other Moslems from coming. EU leaders might find that they themselves could actually close the EU’s external borders. From a human rights point of view such an action might even save lives. If migrants were promptly turned back at sea or on shore, far fewer would risk their lives on the journey.
Why are the European states obliged to accept millions of immigrants in search of a better life? (See the article by Daniel Greenfield in this issue which underlines the extent of the folly.) Yes, there is a human obligation to help those displaced by war, but this need not be in Europe. Thanks to Brexit, the EU might actually consider this simple proposition—and bolster its future in the process.
What “Even-Handed” Means
In Mosaic Edward Alexander excoriates Bernie Sanders for his call for greater “even-handedness” in American Middle East Policy, most recently exemplified by his appointing well-known Israel-haters to two of the five slots on the Democratic Party’s platform committee he was allowed to select. Sanders constantly repeats that all he desires in American Middle East policy is greater “even-handedness,” i.e., less “favoritism” on behalf of Israel. Alexander observes that what this really means is that Israel must be deprived of its single powerful ally in the UN and in world affairs generally.
Alexander writes: “On May 25, for example, the World Health Organization voted for a UN resolution to single out Israel as the only violator of ‘elemental, physical and environmental health’ in the world, and commissioned a WHO delegation to investigate and report on ‘the health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory.’ The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, and other European Union states voted ‘Yes’ to singling out Israel as the world’s only violator of human decency in medical matters. The UN assembly did not address Syrian hospitals being bombed by Syrian and Russian warplanes, or millions of Yemenis denied access to food and water by the Saudi-led bombings and blockade; neither did it pass a resolution about Venezuelan citizens being starved by their (Sanders-style) ‘democratic socialist’ government. Out of 24 items on the meeting’s agenda, only one, Item No. 19 against Israel, focused on a specific country. For good measure a WHO delegation was commissioned to investigate health conditions in ‘the occupied Syrian Golan.’ No doubt these same nations would much prefer that ISIS take charge of the Golan inhabitants’ health and well-being.”
The Jewish Population of the “West Bank”
The annual statistics on the number of Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria, based on the Population Registry of Israel’s Interior Ministry, have been released. As of Dec. 31, 2015 there were 406,302 Jews living there, and this does not include the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem (Pisgat Zeev, Ramat Shlomo, Ramot, Gilo, Ramat Eshkol etc.) which are home to an additional 360,000 Jews. Could even a future radical peace-processing Israeli government contemplate removing over 760,000 Jews from their homes? And could Israel’s Palestinian Arab “peace partners” even pretend to settle for less?
In Belfast, Patterson Memorial Defaced
A mural honoring Lt. Col John Henry Patterson, the Irishman who commanded the Zion Mule Corps and then the Jewish Legion during World War I, was damaged in an anti-Semitic attack just hours after four Israelis were murdered in a Tel Aviv restaurant. The memorial includes a large Star of David and a quote from Netanyahu: “In all of Jewish history we have never had a Christian friend as understanding and devoted.” Netanyahu’s father was a close friend of Patterson and named his son Jonathan (of Entebbe fame) after him.
As Ruth King reported in the Oct. 2015 Outpost, Patterson was reburied near Netanya with his wife Francie in 2014, 67 years after his death. An extraordinary figure, Patterson was the subject of no less than three Hollywood movies, all of them based on his exploit in killing two man-eating lions in Kenya after they had consumed one hundred workers on a British military bridge. For more on Patterson and the Jewish Legion, including historic footage, go to www.Zionism.org. Register (if you have not already done so) and Click on Course 11, Military Stirrings and then on The Jewish Legion.
See No Terror
Alex Safian of CAMERA has taken note of the naked bias against Israel , all too familiar in the NY Times, but especially glaring in the June 8 edition. That’s because on that day the Times had an article on France preparing for the European Championship soccer tournament in which it used the term “terror” fourteen times. But in reporting an actual terror attack in Israel the same day the Times could not bring itself to use the word even once. Euphemisms abounded, e.g. “police identified the attackers”, “Tel Aviv has suffered a number of deadly attacks”, a witness “heard the shots and could see one of the attackers.” As Safian sums up: “So hypothetical attacks that France hopes to prevent during the upcoming soccer championship are terrorism, and those who would carry them out are terrorists. But real attacks against Israelis—like shooting up a restaurant and mall and murdering real people—are not terrorist attacks. One wonders, what would a Palestinian have to do for the Times to call him a terrorist?”
The Enemy Within
The Zionist group Im Tirtzu has issued a report identifying supposed “human rights” groups heavily funded by foreign governments and operating within Israel that are aimed at undercutting Israel’s ability to defend itself in the war on terror. It turns out that of the 20 organizations named by Im Tirtzu, fifteen are directly supported by the New Israel Fund, which, in turn, is funded by a host of “progressive” Jewish useful idiots.
Good News from European Parliaments?
NGO Monitor reports that on June 16 the Dutch Parliament approved a proposed bill requiring the government to review funding for NGOs that promote boycott, divest and sanction movements against Israel. The British Parliament that same week held a debate on the government’s international aid activities, resulting in a promise by the Department for international Development to mend its ways in funding anti-peace Israeli and Palestinian NGOs. Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO Monitor, says: “These changes and the requirement for close oversight, including the involvement of parliament, mark fundamental changes in the way NGOs are funded by these countries. The extreme secrecy in budgets for radical NGOs, involving tens of millions of euros, opened the door for many abuses, including BDS and other forms of demonization. We expect similar steps in the European Union and other countries that are involved in these activities.”
A couple of caveats. Steinberg says that NGO Monitor is responsible for the efforts of politicians to monitor how funds are spent. It has surely had an important role but some credit is surely also due to Tuvia Tenenbom, whose devastating best-seller Catch the Jew! embarrassed European governments by showing the outrageous anti-Israel propaganda of word and deed they were financing. Second, Steinberg is being unduly optimistic if he thinks government “review” will change the behavior of these NGOs. Their fanatically anti-Israel staff will find their way around any supposed restrictions. The only way to “reform” these NGOs is to defund them. In this respect Brexit might offer at least some relief—England’s contribution to the EU NGO pot presumably will be cut off.
Christians Need Not Apply
In the wake of the Orlando shooting spree, President Obama has announced an acceleration of his program bringing Syrian refugees to this country. But not the ones in greatest need of refuge. Not the ones likely to assimilate culturally. Not the ones unlikely to become or produce terrorists. Not Christians or Yazidis.
|Syrian Christians Protest in Syria|
Joseph Klein reports in Frontpage that this year over 99% of those admitted have been Muslims. Patrick Sookhdeo, funder of the Barnabas Fund, which has worked to rescue Syrian Christians, gives the battered city of Aleppo as an example. Four years ago there were 400,000 Christians there, today between 45,000 and 60,000. Yet according to data from the U.S. State Department Refugee Processing Center, only 47 Syrian Christians have been admitted to the United States in those four years. The current rate of Christian admissions is even lower.
A self-righteous President Obama takes a perverse pride in this. “When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted…that’s shameful. That’s not American, it’s not who we are.”
But in fact as Klein points out there is in effect a “religious test,” one favoring those migrants who need protection least—Sunni Moslems. Canada’s Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, is another practitioner of perverse morality. While his predecessor Stephen Harper had given priority to Christians, Yazidis and Kurds, Trudeau says he intends instead to focus on Moslems to prove how diverse and inclusive Canada is. When the two leaders met at the White House in March they were effusive in mutual admiration for one another’s “compassion.” As Klein sums up: “The Obama-Trudeau policy of opening doors widely to Muslim refugees, while allowing hardly a crack to open for the Christian and Yazidi victims of jihadi-inspired genocide, is risky, to be sure. It is also immoral.”