DESTRUCTIVE JEWISH GUILT By Rabbi Meir Kahane (January, 1988)

DESTRUCTIVE JEWISH GUILT

By Rabbi Meir Kahane (January, 1988)
[ He  knew the truth, wrote the truth, spoke the truth and was hated for the truth. But loved by so many for the truth.  As we see today, he was “always right!!!!! “]

There is a specter haunting Israel and its American Jewish supporters. It is called guilt. Guilt over the "repression of Palestinian human rights". Guilt over the refusal to remove "the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East - the occupation of the Arab land seized in 1967". Guilt over the unwillingness to give the "Palestinians" their own state in the "occupied lands". And now, guilt over the killing of "Palestinians" and innocent civilians in the "Occupied territories". It is a powerful weapon, this guilt; Jews have a difficult time coping with it.

A people that has been the most debased of losers for 2,000 years finds it difficult to cope with victory. It finds it extraordinary difficult to remain normal. It inherits insecurities, complexes, guilt. It begins to believe its enemies' slanders. It loses its self-respect and longs for the love of a hating world. That is especially true for the Jewish liberal! It is important that those who have retained their self-esteem and sense of Jewish survival speak out against the disease of guilt and moral insecurity. No guilt.

Are the lands of 1967, "occupied" by the Jews, the main obstacle to peace? Is the year 1967 the origin of the conflict? How peaceful it must have been in 1966 when Sinai and Gaza were in Egyptian hands and the Golan was possessed by the Syrians to shell, for 19 years, the Jewish settlements below, and when Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem were in the hands of the "moderate" King Hussein. Why did they go to war? What did they want then? When they had all the "occupied lands" before they were "occupied"? When one has East Jerusalem and attacks Israel, can it be that he desires West Jerusalem? And Tel Aviv? And can it be that that is what they really want again? Now? And why did the "innocent Palestinian women and children" take to the streets then, in 1967, when Jordan and Egypt ruled them to call for "Israel in the sea"? What "occupied lands" did they want back then? And could it be that that is what they want now?

And what did they wish in 1947 when they rejected the "Palestine" state offered them by the United Nations and went to war, killing fully 1 % of the Jewish population? And what did they wish in the riots of 1936-38 when there was no country called Israel and they murdered more than 500 Jews? And in 1929 when no "Zionist occupation troops" were in Hebron, why did the "Palestinians" rise up to murder 67 Jews in one day? And why the pogroms in Jerusalem and Jaffa in 1920 and 1921?

What troubles the Arabs is the very presence of large numbers of Jews in the land, and Israel of any size. Zionism. That is what troubles the Arabs. That is the obstacle to peace. Let us inscribe that on our hearts lest we open the doors to a repetition-on a grand scale-of that which the Arabs have done to Jews since 1920. A horror of slaughter by knives and axes. And the bearers of guilt would do just that.

No guilt. There is one sublime reason why we should not give up a centimeter of land...it belongs to us. If we have no right to Judea and Samaria and Gaza, then we indeed have no right to Tel Aviv. Abraham did not walk on Dizengoff Street nor did our ancestors live in Israeli cities that were built in the 20th century. But Abraham, who lived in Hebron, and Jacob who lived in Shechem, now Nablus, and David in Bethlehem are the sole legitimate reasons that Jews can lay claim to a Tel Aviv and the kibbutzim of the guilt-ridden Left. The land belongs to us because the G-d of Israel, creator and Titleholder of all lands, gave it to us. No guilt.

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian people". They are Arabs, part of the Arab nation, possessor of 21 lands. Let them live in peace in any or all of them. But there are no "Palestinians". It was the Roman emperor Hadrian who, after the Jewish revolt against the Romans, angrily erased the name of the state, Judea, and invented the name "Palestine" after the Philistines. In every normal case, an existing people gives its name to a land. The Franks named it France and the Angles, England, and the Germanics, Germany. Only in this ludicrous case does a Roman invent a name, give it to a land, and the arriving Arab trespassers become "Palestinians". One presumes that had Hadrian not changed the name, Israel today would be fighting Yasir Arafat and the Judean terrorists. There are no "Palestinians" and there is no "Palestine" in the land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael. No guilt.

The "Palestinian" civilians in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Lebanon cheered and supported every P.L.O murder and terror of Jews. They are united in hatred of Israel. It would be nicer if they did not stone our soldiers and try to kill Jews. It would be nicer if they did not rise up in revolt in order to force us out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as the first step to the elimination of the State of Israel. But since they do, let Jews not allow themselves to be destroyed by "Palestinian" women and children. And if the only way to survive is to take the lives of people who attack us we have no choice. I wonder how many Americans and British and French mourned and protested the killing of German civilians during World War II bombings of Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden?

There is nothing ethical about dying or anything moral about another holocaust. There is nothing immoral about winning and nothing necessarily noble in a loser. Let us cast off the chains of guilt and reject the accusations of its bearers. The greatness of Judaism is its spirit, but no spirit can survive without a living body. If we do not want to kill Arabs--and we don't; and if we want to put an end to the nightly television pictures of violence; and if we do not want to see those pictures tomorrow inside Israel itself, with Israeli Arabs fighting soldiers; and if we do not want to see the threat of Arab demography destroying the Jewish State--then let us have the courage to take the one difficult but immutable step that will free us of all this and guarantee a Jewish State: Remove the Arabs from the land and let them live with their brothers and sisters in any of the 22 Arab states. Anything short of that will see the horrors of today escalated a hundred-fold tomorrow. And let us not fear the world. Those who stood by during the Holocaust and when Israel faced destruction in 1948 and 1967 have nothing to tell us.

Faith in the G-d of Israel and a powerful Jewish army are the only guarantors of Jewish survival. Let us not fear the world. Far better a Jewish State that survives and is hated by the world, than an Auschwitz that brings us its love and sympathy. No guilt Rather faith in G-d and a return to authentic Torah laws; rather pride and strength, and the love of our people rather than the enemy that would destroy us. That is sanity; that is Judaism.

Suspended, with no notice etc, permanently by the Communist Twitter Censorship Board

AviRudofsky Twitter Account

Suspended, with no notice etc, permanently by the Communist Twitter Censorship Board for:

Islam = Death Cult.


This, of course is censorship....

No threats, just a statement I am positive is fact.

FREE ALEX JONES/

America’s Cold Civil War

October 2018 • Volume 47, Number 10 • Charles R. Kesler

Charles R. Kesler
Editor, Claremont Review of Books

STILL THE TRUTH

---

Charles R. Kesler is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. He earned his bachelor’s degree in social studies and his A.M. and Ph.D. in government from Harvard University. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a recipient of the 2018 Bradley Prize, he is the editor of several books, including Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought (with William F. Buckley Jr.), and the author of I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism.

Six years ago I wrote a book about Barack Obama in which I predicted that modern American liberalism, under pressures both fiscal and philosophical, would either go out of business or be forced to radicalize. If it chose the latter, I predicted, it could radicalize along two lines: towards socialism or towards an increasingly post-modern form of leadership. Today it is doing both. As we saw in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the youngest generation of liberals is embracing socialism openly—something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War. At the same time, identity politics is on the ascendant, with its quasi-Nietzschean faith in race, sex, and power as the keys to being and meaning. In the #MeToo movement, for example—as we saw recently in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle—the credo is, “Believe the woman.” In other words, truth will emerge not from an adversarial process weighing evidence and testimony before the bar of reason, but from yielding to the will of the more politically correct. “Her truth” is stronger than any objective or disinterested truth.

In the Claremont Review of Books, we have described our current political scene as a cold civil war. A cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.

Political scientists sometimes distinguish between normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns means, not ends. In other words, the ends or principles are agreed upon; debate is simply over means. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who has rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere together as a people? I fear America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics—a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more, as they did in the 1850s, between two contrary visions of the country.

One vision is based on the original Constitution as amended. This is the Constitution grounded in the natural rights of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It has been transmitted to us with significant Amendments—some improvements and some not—but it is recognizable still as the original Constitution. To simplify matters we may call this “the conservative Constitution”—with the caveat that conservatives have never agreed perfectly on its meaning and that many non-conservatives remain loyal to it.

The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals, for 100 years now, have called “the living Constitution.” This term implies that the original Constitution is dead—or at least on life support—and that in order to remain relevant to our national life, the original Constitution must be infused with new meaning and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. To cite an important example, new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original Constitution imposed on government.

As a doctrine, the living Constitution originated in America’s new departments of political and social science in the late nineteenth century—but it was soon at the very forefront of Progressive politics. One of the doctrine’s prime formulators, Woodrow Wilson, had contemplated as a young scholar a series of constitutional amendments to reform America’s national government into a kind of parliamentary system—a system able to facilitate faster political change. But he quickly realized that his plan to amend the Constitution was going nowhere. Plan B was the living Constitution. While keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood.

The resulting Constitution—let us call it “the liberal Constitution”—is not a constitution of natural rights or individual human rights, but of historical or evolutionary right. Wilson called the spirit of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment. To paraphrase the late Walter Berns, the point of the old Constitution was to keep the times in tune with the Constitution; the purpose of the new is to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.

Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens.

The conservative campaign against the inevitable victory of the living Constitution gained steam as a campaign against the gradual or sudden disappearance of limited government and of republican virtue in our political life. And when it became clear, by the late 1970s and 1980s, that the conservatives weren’t going away, the cold civil war was on.

***

Confronted by sharper, deeper, and more compelling accounts of the conservative Constitution, the liberals had to sharpen—that is, radicalize—their own alternative, following the paths paved by the New Left. As a result, the gap between the liberal and conservative Constitutions became a gulf, to the extent that today we are two countries—or we are fast on the road to becoming two countries—each constituted differently.

Consider a few of the contrasts. The prevailing liberal doctrine of rights traces individual rights to membership in various groups—racial, ethnic, gender, class-based, etc.—which are undergoing a continual process of consciousness-raising and empowerment. This was already a prominent feature of Progressivism well over a century ago, though the groups have changed since then. Before Woodrow Wilson became a politician, he wrote a political science textbook, and the book opened by asking which races should be studied. Wilson answered: we’ll study the Aryan race, because the Aryan race is the one that has mastered the world. The countries of Europe and the Anglophone countries are the conquerors and colonizers of the other continents. They are the countries with the most advanced armaments, arts, and sciences.

Wilson was perhaps not a racist in the full sense of the term, because he expected the less advanced races over time to catch up with the Aryan race. But his emphasis was on group identity—an emphasis that liberals today retain, the only difference being that the winning and losing sides have been scrambled. Today the white race and European civilization are the enemy—“dead white males” is a favored pejorative on American campuses—and the races and groups that were oppressed in the past are the ones that today need compensation, privileges, and power.

Conservatives, by contrast, regard the individual as the quintessential endangered minority. They trace individual rights to human nature, which lacks a race. Human nature also lacks ethnicity, gender, and class. Conservatives trace the idea of rights to the essence of an individual as a human being. We have rights because we’re human beings with souls, with reason, distinct from other animals and from God. We’re not beasts, but we’re not God—we’re the in-between being. Conservatives seek to vindicate human equality and liberty—the basis for majority rule in politics—against the liberal Constitution’s alternative, in which everything is increasingly based on group identity.

There is also today a vast divergence between the liberal and conservative understandings of the First Amendment. Liberals are interested in transforming free speech into what they call equal speech, ensuring that no one gets more than his fair share. They favor a redistribution of speech rights via limits on campaign contributions, repealing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and narrowing the First Amendment for the sake of redistribution of speech rights from the rich to the poor. Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform called for amending the First Amendment!

There is, of course, also a big difference between the liberal Constitution’s freedom from religion and the conservative Constitution’s freedom of religion. And needless to say, the liberal Constitution has no Second Amendment.

In terms of government structure, the liberal Constitution is designed to overcome the separation of powers and most other checks and balances. Liberals consistently support the increased ability to coordinate, concentrate, and enhance government power—as opposed to dividing, restricting, or checking it. This is to the detriment of popular control of government. In recent decades, government power has flowed mainly through the hands of unelected administrators and judges—to the point that elected members of Congress find themselves increasingly dispirited and unable to legislate. As the Financial Times put it recently, “Congress is a sausage factory that has forgotten how to make sausages.”

***

If one thinks about how America’s cold civil war could be resolved, there seem to be only five possibilities. One would be to change the political subject. Ronald Reagan used to say that when the little green men arrive from outer space, all of our political differences will be transcended and humanity will unite for the first time in human history. Similarly, if some jarring event intervenes—a major war or a huge natural calamity—it might reset our politics.

A second possibility, if we can’t change the subject, is that we could change our minds. Persuasion, or some combination of persuasion and moderation, might allow us to end or endure our great political division. Perhaps one party or side will persuade a significant majority of the electorate to embrace its Constitution, and thus win at the polling booth and in the legislature. For generations, Republicans have longed for a realigning election that would turn the GOP into America’s majority party. This remains possible, but seems unlikely. Only two presidents in the twentieth century were able to effect enduring changes in American public opinion and voting patterns—Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. FDR inspired a political realignment that lasted for a generation or so and lifted the Democratic Party to majority status. Ronald Reagan inspired a realignment of public policy, but wasn’t able to make the GOP the majority party.

Since 1968, the norm in America has been divided government: the people have more often preferred to split control of the national government between the Democrats and the Republicans rather than entrust it to one party. This had not previously been the pattern in American politics. Prior to 1968, Americans would almost always (the exceptions proved the rule) entrust the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency to the same party in each election. They would occasionally change the party, but still they would vote for a party to run the government. Not so for the last 50 years. And neither President Obama nor President Trump, so far, has persuaded the American electorate to embrace his party as their national representative, worthy of long-term patriotic allegiance.

Trump, of course, is new to this, and his party in Congress is basically pre-Trumpian. He did not win the 2016 election by a very large margin, and he was not able to bring many new Republicans into the House or the Senate. Nonetheless, he has the opportunity now to put his mark on the party. In trying to do so, his populism—which is not a word he uses—will not be enough. He will have to reach out to the existing Republican Party as he has done, adopt some of its agenda, adopt its electoral supporters, and gradually bring them around to his “America first” conservatism if he is to have any chance of achieving a political realignment. And the odds remain against him at this point.

As for moderating our disagreements and learning to live with them more or less permanently, that too seems unlikely given their fundamental nature and the embittered trajectory of our politics over the last two decades.

So if we won’t change our minds, and if we can’t change the subject, we are left with only three other ways out of the cold civil war. The happiest of the three would be a vastly reinvigorated federalism. One of the original reasons for constitutional federalism was that the states had a variety of interests and views that clashed with one another and could not be pursued in common. If we had a re-flowering of federalism, some of the differences between blue states and red states could be handled discreetly by the states themselves. The most disruptive issues could be denationalized. The problem is, having abandoned so much of traditional federalism, it is hard to see how federalism could be revived at this late juncture.

That leaves two possibilities. One, alas, is secession, which is a danger to any federal system—something about which James Madison wrote at great length in The Federalist Papers. With any federal system, there is the possibility that some states will try to leave it. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have gone their separate ways peacefully, just within the last generation. But America is much better at expansion than contraction. And George Washington’s admonitions to preserve the Union, I think, still miraculously somehow linger in our ears. So secession would be extremely difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could lead, as we Americans know from experience, to the fifth and worst possibility: hot civil war.

Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

It is 5779 and nothing has changed. The thorns are still in our eyes

It is 5779 and nothing has changed.
The thorns are still in our eyes and the Islamists continue their 1400 year run of terror and crime.
The US has a new leader and is influencing Nationalists Worldwide.

Since Kahane, the leadership in Israel still plays the avoid war game.
The UN and World remain Anti-Semitic.
Technology has given the mongrels of the world more guerrilla warfare power.

The uncivil war in America is in full swing.
The Democrat party has become completely unhinged.
Democrats brought the KKK, continued racism, the great society to America and still retain the majority of black voters. Education will finally set them free.
That is why the the Neo-Democrats has taken over the former Universities and have made them revisionist history/indoctrination centers.
Normal mainstream, traditional Americans find themselves against a unified party of nuts, sluts and mutts...that are in league with Islam.
This current uncivil war is a battle for the very survival of America.

A massive DC March may be in order, to demonstrate the strength of America to put down this upheaval from the ill formed that have decided that are entitled...regardless of anything.

Give Felons the vote
Gender mish mash
No Meritocracy
Guerrilla warfare of words in public
SJW

to be continued

MAGA

Gog will Rise up....

Meir Kahane Wrote:

(change Iraq to Iran and 1990 to 2015)

The Rabbis tell us that Gog will rise up against Israel in order to do war against the G-d of Israel.  The ultimate Hillul Hashem.  And, indeed, until the Jew understands that the war against Ishmael and ultimately the world, is a war of Judaism, of the G-d of Israel, against the nations and their religions and beliefs, a war to proclaim the G-d of Israel as King, as the One and only G-d, we will never understand any of the events that are taking place around us.

We do, indeed, not understand.  Worse, we do not want to understand.  Having been conquered and subjugated by the gentilized Foreign Culture, such talk sounds to us as “medieval” and “primitive” and “tribalistic” and, of course, “Khoumeinism.”  Alas, the Ishmaelites, the Muslims understand it only too well and Saddam, whether through belief or cynical politics, used it and proclaimed it in his proclamation calling for a holy war:

“To all Arabs and Muslims masses wherever they are – save Mecca and the Tomb of the Prophet from occupation . . .

“The imperialists, deviators, merchants, political agents, the servants of the foreigner and Zionism all stood up against Iraq only because it represents the conscience of the Arab nation and its ability to safeguard its honor and rights against any harm.

“Iraq, O Arabs, is your Iraq... It is the candle of the right to snuff out darkness…

“O Arabs, O Muslims and believers everywhere.  This is your day to rise and defend Mecca, which is captured by the spears of the Americans and Zionists.

“Strike at their interests everywhere.  Save Mecca and the Tomb of Prophet Mohammed in Medina…

“Victory is ours, God willing, and the invaders will be repelled and with them oppression and corruption everywhere and the sun will shine forever on the Arab and Muslim nations…”

This is what Gog is all about,  This is the beginning of the final era and the lessons of the events of our time can be summed up in one general cry: “Return unto Me, saith the L-rd of Hosts, and I will return unto you” (Zechariah 1); “Return unto Me, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings.”  That is the lesson of lessons, and from it all the others, the individual lessons are to be learned.

The events surrounding the Iraqi attack and conquest of Kuwait are things to be studied, learned, to be engraved on the tablet of our hearts.  For there are so many lessons to be learned here, so many lessons that the Almighty pleads with us to learned before terrible tragedy strikes.

ONE:  The Arab world is populated with people who are filled with hate and cruelty, ambition for power and lust for ascendancy.  They are people for whom truth, a promise and pledge are totally meaningless things, without the slightest moral or ethical value, meant to be used as weapons and means to achieve whatever goal strikes the fancy at that time.  The fact is that whatever the Iraqis said and did was part of one huge tissue of lies.  The original charges were lies.  The cover of meeting with the Kuwaitis to ostensibly work toward a settlement was a lie.  The claim that they were called in by Kuwaitis rebelling against the government was a lie.  The greatest truth of the Middle East is that Arabs simply lie.  

Of course, it is not only Iraq.  Every time (and that means many times) slaughter breaks out in Lebanon, there is a call for a truce.  Any particular outbreak of violence is certain to give birth to at least a dozen “truces” each one broken whenever any side feels that it has an opportunity to benefit from the breach.  A promise, a word, a treaty, in the Arab world is a weapon in the game of acquisition, and the person who takes an Arab’s word seriously deserves his punishment if not for no other reason than that he is a fool.

The lesson?  We would be worse than foolish to trust the Palestinians.  We would be murderers of our loved ones.  Saddam Hussein is not a person – he is a concept.  Every Arab ruler is a Saddam Hussein, and given the opportunity, they behave like him.  Answar Saddat who attacked across the Suez Canal on Yom Kippur was a Saddam.  And we, who gave away a huge land mass and moved the border to within 60 mils of Tel Aviv, are mad.  And Hussein Mubarak is a Saddam and when he feels that his opportunity is ripe, will strike at Israel.  And Hussein, of Jordan, the little king, in 1967 smelled that opportunity for himself and attacked Israel.

There is not truth, no honesty, no word, no loyalty among the Arabs.  Yesterday’s enemy is today’s “friend,” and Jordan can massacre the PLO and then a PLO terrorist can assassinate a Jordanian minister and drink his blood, and tomorrow they can be “allies.”  Yesterday, Syria tried to do to Jordan what Iraq did to Kuwait; today they are “brothers.”  There is a diseased soul in the Arab world.

TWO:  To everyone who has told me (and I cannot begin to count the ways), that the reason we cannot expel the Arabs is that the world will not accept it:  Why is it that Saddam Hussein was not worried about “the world?”  Why is it that the Iranians are not worried about “the world?”  Why is it that the Esaus of the world never worry about what all the other Esaus might say and do?  Why is that only Jacob sits about all day watching tragedy grow and an awesome and terrible future come closer and refuses to act normal because of “the world” and what it might do and say?  Why is it that Saddam is prepared to do a terrible thing and not fear “the world” and Jews are not ready to do a mitzvah that will save them, i.e. throwing out the Arabs, because of “the world?”  Learn the lesson.

THREE: The real and natural reaction in the Arab world was one of awe and respect for a man who wasted no time in diplomatic niceties but used power and strength.  And here is the key to the Arab and Middle Eastern mind – strength and power is what impresses, not goodness and morality.  When Israel was perceived by the Arabs to be strong and tough, they hated her but feared her and cowered in terror.  Each time that Israel, consistent with her Hellenistic-influence, grants insane concessions, it is not perceived by the Arabs as “goodness” but as weakness, and the weak in the Middle Eastern jungle are ripe for the slaughter.  Learn the lesson.

FOUR:  The Iraqi dictator has become a hero to the Palestinians who see in his actions the only way to deal with Israel.  They dream that his moves, in defiance of the world, will be adopted by other Arab states against Israel.  That is why the PLO supports him.  He has brutally taken over another Muslim Arab state – does that matter? Not in the slightest in the jungle of beasts and wild animals that comprises the Arab world.  Learn the lesson.

FIVE:  From this lesson comes forth another lesson.  The Iraqi move will embolden the Israeli Arabs inside the Jewish state to intensify their attacks on her.  The so-called intifada will grow and expand inside Israel and give Iraq greater reason to intensify its own threats against Israel’s existence until the madman who typifies so much that is the Arab megalomaniac mind may be driven by dreams to launch his missiles and chemicals against the Jewish state.  Already on behalf of Saddam, a man threatened to incinerate Israel.  The Arabs of Israel are possessed by a hatred of the Jewish state that transcends their fear of being incinerated along with the Jews.  And we allow them to remain and grow and become a fifth column cancer within our midst.  Madness!  Learn the lesson that cries out two things:

a)      Remove the Israeli Arabs now, before it is too late.

b)      Strike at Iraq now, before that, too, is too late.  And that is the next lesson:

SIX:  It is only a matter of time before Saddam, drunk with adulation of his people and the Arab world, and seeing himself as one of the great Arab heroes of history, takes upon himself to do that which the Arab world has dreamed of doing for 42 years – wiping out Israel.

Every day that passes sees Saddam’s nuclear and chemical power and potential grow.  Israel’s interests are not those of the United States.  America seeks to protect the oil fields and the “moderate” Arab state.  Our concern is not that; ours is knowledge that even if Saddam should capitulate to all American demands and retreat from Kuwait, he remains to continue his progress to nuclear weapons, even more awesome chemical and biological ones, and the ever-more sophisticated means of delivering them.

The U.S. wishes Israel to stay out of the fray.  It wants Israel neither to be seen nor heard, lest that harm U.S. interests in the Arab world It certainly does not want Israel to bomb Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq’s main and hallowed target is Israel.  The nuclear bombs of Iraq are not aimed and never will be aimed at Washington.  They will be at Israel.

Israel’s interest are not those of the United States, and we should do only what is best for us.  One can feel for American hostages, and in great measure they are there now because George Bush waited and allowed the Iraqis time to round them up and place them as hostages inside the sensitive Iraqi targets.  But all that is ultimately irrelevant.  Just as the U.S. did nothing for Israeli hostages and really could not have cared less, so must Israel disregard American interests when its survival is at stake.

Every day Saddam moves closer to perfecting weapons of awesome mass destruction.  Now, now, now, before he can wipe out, G-d forbid, hundreds of thousands of our people, is the time to strike and level his potential – factories, installations, missiles.  Now, now, now while the world – which we so fear – is itself in a mood of anger and fear of Iraq.  Strike; destroy the man and people who both have the halachic status of a “rodef,” of one who wishes to kill Jews.

Israel should never be bound by any made, murderous, perverted ethics and immoral morality of the disturbed liberal-left axis.  Never should to ever pledge not to strike a first blow.  If the need arises or if Israel even perceives the need arising, it must strike first.  And never should Israel ever fall into the trap of banning any kind of weapon.  There is nothing in any way less “moral” about a huge weapon of destruction than a small one.  Any weapon that is used to kill people in an immoral war is bad.  Any weapon used to kill vicious enemies in a war of survival is a mitzvah.

Israel should make no bones about, and should not be shy in any way about telling the world that it plans to have one of the world’s most potent and efficient arsenals of what is stupidly called “unconventional weapons” “conventional” forces far outnumber Israel’s and who are working feverishly to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.  Israel should have every possible weapon of mass destruction imaginable and deal with the question, “but will that not give the Arabs an excuse to do the same,” with the nausea it deserves.

It is best that no one bomb.  But it is better, far, far better, to bomb than to be bombed.  It is better to gas than to be gassed.  And when dealing with Saddams and Arabs – that is the only language they will ever understand.  Learn the lesson.

SEVEN: The last and most important lesson, without which all the others will avail us nothing.  Return unto G-d, quickly, now, now, now.  We and all that is ours are in His hands.  The Saddams of this world are nothing before Him, and yet, everything, if G-d hides His face from us.  Of course, we must strike Saddam, but the hawks of this world who devour shrimps are too small to help the Jewish people.  They understand nothing that is Jewish.  And yet, the lesson is so clear, the lesson of G-d and history.

Two things are the call of the hour:  Return to the L-rd, G-d of Israel.  And wipe out Iraq’s power.  Now.

Anyone reading this Rabbi Meir Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rabbi Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at:

barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To view articles written by Rabbi Meir Kahane go to blog:

www.barbarachaimginsberg.blogspot.com

To view Rabbi Meir Kahane site of Youtubes, Videos. CDs posted by Michael Miller go to:http://www.youtube.com/user/bayitvegan

Facebook Links: 

Michael ben-Ari- Jewish Strength:

https://www.facebook.com/…/Michael-Ben-Ari…/1531135183822770

Barbara Ginsberg – Do search

Arabs of Israel.

The Arabs of Israel: No Surprise - 1988

Once again, Israeli leaders and Jewish Establishment groups are “surprised.” In the wake of the riots which saw Arab citizens of the Jewish state stone Jewish buses, attack a police station and firebomb security vehicles — the one word which Jewish leaders, intellectuals and news media used over and over again was “surprise.” Suddenly, all the years of efforts by Israeli and Jewish leaders to persuade the world — but more important, themselves — that the Arabs of Israel were loyal citizens of the Jewish state exploded in the wake of the Arab riots — not in the territories, but inside the Israeli cities of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramle, Acre, Nazareth, Um el Fahem and, of course, Jerusalem.

The most surprising thing about all this is the fact that Jews are surprised. It is this “surprise” and shock which is the direct result of decades of deliberate efforts to avoid dealing with the real, root cause of the problem, a madness that continues to this very day. All the absurd “explanations” and rationalizations: the problem, we were told, is that the Arab economic and social position is not equal to that of the Jew. Or the problem is that the “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza is causing anger and upset among the Israeli Arabs. As if those are the reasons Israeli Arabs take to the streets and cry “Palestine! We will free the Galilee with blood and spirit!” As if giving Israeli Arabs more sewers and more indoor toilets will put an end to the problem. As if a “Palestinian” state in the territories will send the Israeli Arabs back to their homes, happy and satisfied.

The root of the growing Israeli Arab revolt does not lie in economic inequality. It lies in a problem that is so basic and so painful and so terrifying for secular Israeli and Jewish leaders that they flee from confrontation with it — thus assuring that it will grow to proportions that will threaten the very existence of Israel.

The root of the Israeli Arab hostility and, indeed, hatred of Israel, lies in the very definition of Israel as a “Jewish state.” It lies in the very basis of Zionism, which arose to recreate the “Jewish state” that twice stood in the land. And Israel which, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, was to be “a Jewish state in the Land of Israel,” by definition could never allow the Arabs to be equal. It could never allow the Arabs the opportunity to become the majority — albeit peacefully — and democratically change a Jewish state into an Arab one, an Israel into a Palestine. Indeed, the root of the problem and of the liberal Jewish nightmare is that there is a basic, immutable contradiction between Western democracy and a Jewish state.

Western democracy eliminates all such concepts as national background or religion. Whoever are the majority rules, and both Arabs and Jews have the right to become the majority in Israel — under this Western democratic credo — and do with the country what they, the majority, will. Certainly, such a basic law as that passed by the socialist Zionist government of David Ben-Gurion in 1950, the Law of Return, that allows Jews automatic right to immigrate and become Israeli citizens, is not what Western democracy would adopt.

But that is exactly the kind of law that Zionism and a Jewish state did adopt and must adopt, for the Jewish people’s main dream is that of a Jewish state, and all that can be done to insure the Jewishness of that state is not only proper but mandatory. A Jewish people, for 1,900 years, lived in involuntary exile, as a minority in Christian and Moslem countries. It enjoyed such minority benefits as Crusades and Inquisitions and pogroms and, of course, Auschwitz. It decided that never again would it be trampled upon, spat upon, gassed to death and burned alive. It decided that it would have a Jewish state in which the Jew was master of his fate, never dependent on others.

That is Zionism and that is Israel — the Jewish state — and there is nothing for any Jew to be ashamed of. But let him never deceive himself. A Jewish state can never be a Western democratic one, and it can never allow the Arab political equality with the Jew, no matter how much the liberal and Left in Israel and the Jewish Establishment refuse to face it.

And that is why the Arab in Israel riots and hates the Jewish state. Because it can never be his, by virtue of the stark fact that he is not a Jew. It is the contradiction between Zionism and Western democracy that is at the heart of the inevitable Arab hostility. And all the economic benefits and all the Palestinian states in the world will never remove the reality of the Israeli Arab who will never accept the Jewish state. It will get worse.Much worse. The Arab birthrate and the new generation of young, educated and hostile Israeli Arabs guarantee that in the years to come, the world will watch on its television screens rioting and shooting of Arabs in the Galilee and the cities of Israel.

The Arabs of Israel joined with the Arabs of the territories in rioting, for the simple reason that they are ONE. For them there is no nonsensical “Green Line,” of 1967. The Arabs of Israel and the territories, both, are logical and normal. They know and proclaim what normal Jews such as Kahane do. They believe and proclaim that there is but ONE “Palestinian” people and that all of the land — “West Bank” and Israel — is really ONE, “Palestine.” To be sure, the Arabs of Israel have no intention of leaving Israel, but surely not because they love Israel. The contention of so many vapid Israeli leaders that the Israeli Arab is caught in the dilemma of being a member of the Palestine nation and citizen of Israel is ridiculous. There is no dilemma for the Arab. His identity is not dual; it is clear and unmistaken. He considers himself to be a member of the Palestinian Arab nation. The fact that he is also a citizen of Israel and lives in the Jewish state is not a dilemma for him, but rather an unfortunate tragedy that he must live with at the moment, but which he strives, daily, to change.

The problem in getting Jews to understand all this lies in the basic dishonesty of the Jewish leadership and the ‘gentilized’, liberal views that surround them, and from which they spring. It lies in the basic dishonesty of the Jewish news media, intellectuals and clergy (both non-Orthodox and, in great degree, Moderdox  Modern Orthodox). This dishonesty is rooted in the terrible fear of admitting the fundamental contradiction between their beloved Western democracy and gentilized social values, and the values and definitions of Zionism and authentic Judaism. None of them has the courage to face up to this contradiction and choose!

It is this cowardice that threatens the very existence of Israel, for the vacillation, the hesitation, the flight from the obvious and only choice — expulsion — sees the enormous growth of Arab population as well as the radicalization of an educated and boldly brazen new generation of Israeli Arabs. The cowardly refusal to choose and to act sees a growing sense of uncertainty and then guilt among young Israeli Jews, young people who — in any event — are naked of Jewish values, thanks to the ‘gentilized’, secular education they receive.

This cowardly fear of deciding for Zionism and a Jewish state, and rejecting Western democracy, is nothing short of criminal. The signs and the evidence of Israeli Arab hatred of the Jewish state have been there to see for decades! In recent years not even the most blind of people could fail to see it. When Arab Communist Party Knesset Member Tewfik Ziad hears Labor M.K. David Libai speak of Jews defending the right of the Arab minority, he calls out: “The minority that will be the majority, in the future” (Knesset minutes, Dec. 9, 1986).

And when Muhamad Mussarwa, the Israeli Consul General in Atlanta (chosen by Israel as some Uncle Ahmed to show the greatness of Israeli token democracy), tells a group of Atlanta rabbis (come to drink from his feet): “Israel is my country. I do not perceive it as a Jewish state” (Atlanta Jewish Times, Nov. 20, 1987) — he is merely proclaiming what every Arab sees as the most logical strategy. Unable to demand a “Palestine” at this moment, proclaim Israel to be a Western democracy in which Jews and Arabs are truly equal, i.e., Israel is not a Jewish state and Arabs have the right to become the majority and create the kind of state they desire.

This is exactly what the openly pro-PLO Arab M.K., Mohamed Miari (Progressive List), meant when he said: “The State of Israel is not the state of the Jewish people but rather of the citizens who are there by virtue of being citizens of the State of Israel” (Knesset minutes, Oct. 15, 1985).

And this is what Na’ama Saud, an Israeli Arab teacher, tells the newspaper Ma’ariv (May 28, 1976): “Today, I am in the minority. Who says that in the year 2000 we Arabs will still be in the minority? Today, I accept the fact that this is a Jewish state with an Arab minority. But when we are the majority I will not accept the fact of a Jewish state with an Arab majority.”

And Muhamed Muhareb, chairman of the Arab students at Hebrew University, tells Ma’ariv (January 20, 1978): “I am first and foremost a Palestinian, resident of Lydda. My Israeli citizenship was forced upon me. I do not recognize it and do not see myself as belonging to the State of Israel. With the final solution common to the Arabs of Palestine and of Judea, Lydda will be in the sovereign boundaries of the democratic state. What will that state be called? Palestine, naturally.” And that is why Arab mobs in the Israeli town of Taibe shout: “Katyushas will yet fall again on Kiryat Shemona,” and some 6,000 Israeli Arabs come to the Knesset to demonstrate and shout: “We will free the Galilee with blood!”

The Arabs of Israel are a hostile, hating minority in the midst of a Jewish state they hate and despise and dream of overthrowing. The absurd shibboleth that is waved on high again and again by the ‘gentilized’ cowards to the effect that “the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs have never been involved in anti-state acts” is worse than stupidity. One could as well prove that the French or Dutch or Norwegians enjoyed living under the Nazi occupation because so few joined the underground against the Germans. Most people do not risk life and limb by attacking authority. It takes courage to join an underground or a terrorist group. Most people do not relish being caught and serving long prison sentences. That does not mean that they do not admire the PLO or support it. And even those who are against violence are of that mind for the pragmatic reason that they feel it will not work. But all of the Israeli Arabs reject a “Jewish state,” reject the Zionist concept of a Jewish state in which they — the non-Jews — must, of necessity, be strangers.

The Jewish leaders in Israel; the Jewish Establishment in the Exile; the Jewish news media and the intellectuals — all are bound to Western democracy as some Prometheus, to which their Hellenism so gravitates. All are too terrified and too weak to choose a Jewish state over Western democracy. That is why they doom Israel to years of slow and agonizing torture; to years of Arab rebellion within the country; to years of bloody confrontation with Arabs inside the Jewish state; to years of world condemnation of Israel.

If we do not want that, we must throw off the yoke of the present Jewish leadership in Israel and the Exile. We must reject the sterile anger and protests of sterile Jewish liberals, who are the most dangerous enemies that Israel faces.

If we do not want tragedy, let us throw off our fear of facing the contradiction of Western democracy and a Jewish state. And let us choose a Jewish state, with no guilt. The answer, the inevitable answer is — remove the Arabs to any of their 22 states, and Israel will remain the one Jewish state for the Jewish people. Without liberal guilt or apologies.

Dylan - Says it all

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man
His enemies say he's on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully he just lives to survive
He's criticized and condemned for being alive
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
He's wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
He's always on trial for just being born
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he could apologize
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it, and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a licence to kill him is given out to every maniac
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he got no allies to really speak of
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep
He's the neighborhood bully.
Every empire that's enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no one's command
He's the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract that he signed was worth that what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health
He's the neighborhood bully.

What's anybody indebted to him for ?
Nothing, they say. He just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed
He's the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars ?
Does he change the course of rivers ? Does he pollute the moon and stars ?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still
Neighborhood bully.