Islamic Dress? What's that?

Am I the only reader of news media who is constantly irritated by the reference, when addressing anything to do with any prominent follower of Islam, to their wearing 'Islamic Dress'? This usually is a reference to someone wearing the 'tribal' outfit of either some Bedouin group, or some group from Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh. I note it is also abused when referring to women in headscarves, burkhas or the rather strange 'coats' worn by women in Iran and neighbouring states under theocratic rule.

Would someone please tell these so-called 'journalists' that THERE IS NO SUCH THING as Islamic Dress! It is a fiction spread by certain fundamentalist elements of the Islamic faith and widely spread by the terminally ignorant mouthpieces of 'Political Correctness' and other so-called 'liberal' claptrap. Frankly, it is insulting to call those of that persuasion 'liberal' since they are generally everything except 'liberal'. The Quran makes no reference to how its adherents should dress other than to say it should be 'with modesty'. Choosing to wear Bedouin robes in the UK or Europe, or the tribal outfits one associates with the many ethnic groups scattered about the Near and Middle East is NOT a statement of faith, but a matter of personal choice in clothing.

Islam is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-national faith. Not everyone who follows it is an Arab - indeed many of its followers get quite annoyed by the suggestion they might be - just as not every European is French. To say that its adherents must all wear the same thing, or even that there is such a thing as one 'Islamic' outfit is stupid in the extreme. It is the equivalent of saying that all Baptists and Non-Conformist Christians MUST wear black suits with knee breeches, white stockings, buckled shoes and wide starched white collars with an obligatory wide brimmed tall crowned hat with a prominent buckle! With their womenfolk in grey or brown dresses and white bonnets. Or that all members of the Church of England must wear Tudor pantaloons and puffed sleeved coats with Canterbury caps, and their wives in wimples, corsets and floor length dresses. And the Romans? Monks habits and nuns habits for the lot of them. What complete twaddle!

There is no such thing as "Islamic Dress" just as there is no such thing as "Christian Dress" unless you belong to a religious order, or one of the Sects that impose such a thing. If some so-called 'preacher' like Mr Choudray chooses to wear the outfit of his homeland that is a matter of his choose. It does NOT mean that he is any more Islamic than me wandering around in a cassock makes me any more "Christian".

Would some editor, somewhere, please sack the next lazy journalist who uses this inane and frankly inaccurate expression in a report!

When is a Terrorist not a Terrorist?

When is a murderous gunman a 'freedom fighter', and when is he a 'terrorist'? This is a question we need to sort out pretty quickly. It has often been argued in the past, that it depends on which side of the relevant 'cause' you support. Alternately, it depends on how big a crowd you can 'persuade' to attend a demonstration against whoever they are against. So a 'demo' of 150,000 in London apparently turns Hamas into 'freedom fighters' and makes Israel 'aggressors'. This allows the demonstrators to demand that Israel stop defending its citizens and allows Hamas and all the splinter groups hiding under its mantel, to bomb, murder and kidnap their way into possession of all of Israel. For those who hate Israel and wish to see it destroyed, Hamas are 'freedom fighters' and not 'terrorists'. Their every excess is justified by the 'cause' they fight for, the total destruction of Israel, and the subjugation of all its inhabitants to Sharia Law, or at least their version of it. For their supporters, no 'bad' deed can be laid at their door, everything is Israel's 'fault' presumably simply for existing and for defending itself.

It is noteworthy that these same demonstrators argue that they are justified in NOT demonstrating against, or renouncing the excesses of, ISIS and the suppression of all other faiths in most Islamic lands, on the grounds that they are the result of 'western aggression' and support for Israel. As ever, when one looks at terrorists, one is confronted with a double standard. The government/people/nation under attack are always, in the minds of the terror group's sympathisers and supporters, "aggressors" or "abusers" and the terrorists are branded "liberators" and "freedom fighters". As always, there is a refusal to accept that there may be some justification for the vigorous defence of the status quo, and a refusal to condemn the excesses of the terrorist group. The favourite canard of the supporters is "it is always necessary that some must suffer for the greater good ..." George Orwell certainly knew the mind of the idiots who trot that out in defence of any excess perpetrated by their favourite ideologues or 'freedom fighters'.

The situation in Southern Africa thirty years ago was similarly divisive. To their supporters the ANC were 'freedom fighters' as, forty years ago, Mugabe's Patriotic Front were. To their supporters, every killing, every murder of their own people as well as every 'white man/woman/child' was a justifiable killing in the name of 'freedom', and every black person killed by the same terrorists, was an 'unfortunate casualty in the name of the struggle'. Of course, if you were on the receiving end of this, then the ANC and the PF were 'terrorists' and remain so. It is very easy to shout slogans, wave banners and pontificate about the 'justice' or the 'justification' when you are not the target, and will not have to live with the consequences resulting from the triumph of your favourite bunch of terrorists. The trouble is that there is no clear definition of either term, no generally agreed situation that makes you one or the other - and there is no dirtier, more inhumane or genocidal 'war' than a 'civil war' conducted by masked or disguised fighters from within a population.

The western Media (mostly 'liberal/left') has, at various times, hailed as 'liberators' the likes of Che Guevara, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Sukarno, Ho Chi Min and any number of others - most of whom have turned out to be nothing other than vicious psychopaths hell bent on attaining and keeping power at all costs, no matter how many people die so they can achieve it. I frequently wonder how many of those who wear the teeshirts emblazoned with Che Guevara's image know they are celebrating a classic psychopath responsible for bringing misery and poverty (and possibly creating the drug cartels) to so much of South America and the Caribbean today. Not many, I suspect. And those that do, don't care. It was, and is, all about being a 'rebel' and having a 'cause'. That last is, in my view, borne out by the fact so many of those who do wear that image, or display it in homes and offices, are 'single issue' campaigners for something.

The truth is there is no such animal as a 'freedom fighter'. Those that do join such 'armies' are often seriously misguided, sometimes psychopathic or psychologically disturbed. They are often brutes whose only 'cause' is advancing their own form of tyranny. The current group terrorising the Middle East, ISIS, are classic examples. Yet again, they were hailed, among others, by the western liberal media, as the 'freedom' fighters 'striving to overthrow the oppressive dictatorships' of so many of the Arab countries. And now their true colours are emerging, we hear no word of condemnation from the same 'liberal/left'. Instead they try to divert attention to Israel's supposed 'war on children' - quietly ignoring the evidence that Hamas has used schools as munitions dumps, fires their rockets from heavily populated areas, and hides their 'soldiers' among groups of women and children.

We rejoiced as Libya was torn apart and Gaddafi overthrown. We rejoiced as Tunisia was riven, then Egypt, and finally Syria - and we poured money and arms into funding and supplying the 'rebels' of the 'Arab Spring'. The Muslim Brotherhood were beneficiaries, and through them, ISIS and Hamas got the latest weapons and munitions. Yes, we made a good call there then. ISIS is now said to have a 'fighting fund' of over $2 billion, and it's major funders are the State of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and - oh dear - the Muslim Brotherhood which has been enjoying funding from the US among others. Again and again, the liberal/left make the mistake of falling for their own prejudice. We loathe the government or the leader of a state - so those who seek to overthrown him must be good guys. They must be friends - and we throw resources at them.

Then we are surprised when they turn out to be worse then the 'devil they cast out'. We never seem to learn that a man with a gun, a bomb vest strapped to him, and a mortar or a rocket launcher in his hands is NOT a 'better' person than his 'enemy'. Above all we never seem to get it into our heads that 'the enemy of my enemy' is NOT necessarily a friend. He may well be an even worse enemy. A terrorist is a terrorist whatever his cause, however 'justified' it may be. A man who tries to shoot or bomb his way to power is filled with hatred, and hatred is a poison which eventually extends that hatred to everyone who doesn't agree with the first man's 'vision'.

There are some shocking images emerging from Syria and Iraq, images the majority of western governments and media seem determined to ignore. President Obama has authorised 'bombing' of ISIS groups and forces, but how does he propose to identify them? Not all of them are wearing anything identifiable as a uniform. So, like all terrorists - they hide among civilians. Bomb them and you kill civilians. Kill civilians and the liberal/left media scream 'murder' at the western military (or Israel), but justify Hamas, ISIS or any other 'terror' groups' campaign of murder.

ISIS brings us a further dimension. Children as young as 10 are being 'encouraged' to swear 'allegiance' to the new 'caliph'. Video footage they are putting out shows children declaring they want to 'die a martyrs death for the Caliph'. Where are the sensible heads in all of this? Ah, adorning fences after ISIS made examples of them for daring to oppose their vision of Paradise. As is often said, for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for good men to do nothing. And this is the fruit of the ideology that has driven the west for the last five or six decades. We are now afraid to speak out; to say what is obvious, because to do so will result in our being accused of Islamophobia, racism, or 'cultural ignorance' - which is ironic, because those who use that last, are generally utterly ignorant of the 'culture' they seek to defend.

Terrorism, in all its forms, is a cancer that erodes liberty, personal freedom and ultimately the nation state. Like cancer it requires radical treatment. There are NO half-measures. Either surrender to the terrorist immediately, or be prepared to embark on a campaign as vicious as theirs. There is no negotiation with them. We have to accept that they are fanatics, and you cannot negotiate with a fanatic, since they deal only in absolutes. We have to stop playing the semantic card, make up our minds, and suppress terrorism. Plant a bomb in the name of a 'cause' and you are a terrorist. Join up with others, and take up arms against a legitimately elected (which does not necessarily mean it has to be by what you or I consider 'democratic' process) government - and you are a terrorist. Terrorists cannot, and must not be tolerated, no matter what the cause.

Those who truly want to see peace in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank have to stop supporting kidnapping, shooting, stone throwing, bombing and rocket firing targeted at Israel and Israelis or any other state and ts people. They will retaliate, just as any of our nation states would. If you want 'peace' in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza or anywhere else, stop supporting those who think they can achieve their aims through the bombs, stones and bullets you are supplying through your donations. If Hamas, ISIS, or anyone else want peace, they must go to a negotiating table with no weapons and no preconditions. Otherwise they must be seen as terrorists.

Recently Gerry Doyle, a US based Radio and TV commentator, made the point that, with the support of gullible western 'liberal' sympathisers, terrorist groups have come to believe that they can win. Hamas think they can beat Israel no matter how many of their own civilians die in the attempt. ISIS believe they can overthrow every government in the world and impose their 'Caliph' on everyone. Both get  support through all manner of third parties, such as the state of Qatar, elements of the Saudi government, 'humanitarian' agencies who provide goods and materials they can trade for weapons, 'supporters' who raise money for them (often under various guises which conceal who it is really supporting) and the benign ignorance of politicians whose 'multi-cultural' ideology blinds them to what is really happening. Such as traffic being stopped in Bradford and 'donations' demanded, with threats implied, for the support of the 'Palestinian Resistance'. They will continue to thrive and to advance their cause as long as we are prepared to 'tolerate' their continued existence and activities of both the 'fighters' and their supporters.

It is said there are some 500 British 'fighters' with ISIS, a similar number from Germany, and from the US. There are others from France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands - from every European state in fact. We are told the police 'know', or suspect they know, who they are. Fine, but then, when they eventually return to their home countries they must be arrested and charged with the crimes they have committed in the name of their cause - and preferably subjected to the same 'sentence' they have handed out to those they have killed or captured in the course of their 'war' on the people of Iraq and Syria. Sadly, I doubt they will be - because the armies of 'human rights' lawyers are probably already lobbying and lining up to make sure these psychopaths are not subjected to any legal actions for their campaigns of murder.

I do not believe anyone can be called a 'freedom fighter', whether he is a Ukrainian 'Russian', a Chechen, a Pushtun Taliban or a Nigerian tribesman who thinks he should be in control of all the other tribes in his homeland. In my view they are all terrorists and must be captured and either executed, or put away in a place where they and their evil poison can never be imposed on anyone else. Frankly, those who support them should be treated the same way.

One speech you won't see widely reported in the UK ...

The Prime Minister gave a very interesting and strongly pro-Israel speech in the Knesset recently as reported in the Blog "The Elder of Zyon". I'm pretty sure the pro-Palestinian Foreign Office apparatchiks will be seething and I am even more certain it will have the usual anti-Israel rentamobs up in arms on our university campuses. It will probably also cost him votes in all the colonised Islamic constituencies of the UK.

Now it remains to be seen whether Mr Cameron can and will deliver on some of his promises. Of one thing I can be very sure, if Ed Miliband wins the next election, it will be back to the anti-Israel situation of the past. Labour did its best to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel, and is strongly alligned to the boycott, sanctions and disinvestment campaign. In recent years their electorate has shifted more and more to the Islamic population, and much of the legislation of the last Labour government provided the platform for the very stunts Mr Cameron mentions in his reference to attempts at 'citizens arrests' of visiting heads of state and public figures.

I shall watch the way this develops over the next eighteen months, with interest. But, given the history, and given the demographic shifts Britain has and is still experiencing with migration from strongly anti-Israel populations, I have no great hopes of any major advances in the attitudes to Israel or the countries achievements.

Israel the 'obstacle' to peace?

I was delighted to see the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the Bundespräsident, Joachim Gauck, have roundly dismissed the call for Germany to impose 'sanctions' on Israel and to 'boycott' and 'disinvest' from Israeli businesses and trade. They are right, and the movement that calls for this is hypocritical. They do not acknowledge Istrael's right to exist, or the Jewish people's right to defend themselves. They are so blinded by their own lies and propaganda they refuse to see the realities of life in the socalled 'Palestinian Territories', which were seized by Jordan and Egypt immediately after the UN itself had drawn the boundaries of Israel to include them in Israel. Jordan and Egypt then proceeded against Art. 33 of the Geneva Convention, to relocate their own citizens to these territories and to consolidate them into their own countries. In an even more cynical move post the 1973 Yom Kippur War (which most of the promoters of boycotts, sanctions and so on probably think was a war of 'liberation'), Jordan and Egypt colluded to create the 'Palestinian State' on the West Bank and Gaza.

Why was this cynical? Put simply, the two areas are not viable 'states' and with no connecting corridor, can never be a homogenous territory. It is a fiction that they can even begin to be. Just as it is a total fiction that the 'Palestinian People' are the victims. As a simple bit of research son uncovers, most of those claiming this status are, at best, socnd generation 'Palestinians' since the name itself did not exist before Yasser Arafat created it in the 1970s. The British named the whole area 'Palestine' which was not its name under the Ottoman Turks, and if there is a 'Palestine' today, it is the Kingdom of Jordan according to maps drawn up and agreed by the League of Nations and accepted after the Jewish people rejected the British attempt to subject them to a second holocaust in 1946-7. The British had handed over the keys to the arsenals, the local and regional government and the military to the Hashemite Arabs despite the declared intention of them and every other Arab leader to 'cleanse' the land of Jews. They even deported desperate refugees back to the very concentration camps they'd just been released from. And now, British politicians, to what should be the shame of every Briton, do and say nothing to stop the perpetuation of lies, misinformation and anti-Jewish propaganda.

Synagogues in Britain are regularly defaced, and Jews attacked in our streets and nothing is said. But don't touch a mosque, or threaten a Salafist, or Islamist on a British street with the thrashing they deserve. Anti-semitism is fine, as long as its called 'anti-Zionism' - but 'Islamaphobia' is a heinous crime. So, our politicians hide behind a fiction of being impartial, of seeking 'peace' in the Middle East, but privately promoting the eradication of Israel by covertly supporting and encouraging the anti-Israel movements. Watch our Foreign Secretary duck and weave when any of this is discussed. Watch the BBC always promote the 'suffering' of the 'Palestinians' and justify the descration of Christian and Jewish holy places. Listen as they perpetuate the lies and the deceits. Let's face it, if you establish a bomb factory in a block of flats crowded with women and children, or make children play between you and the missile launchers, are you not expecting to get them killed? Just who is klilling the children in that situation? In my view it is Hamas, Al Fatah, Hezbollah and the rest of these gangsters, not the IDF.

It is often stated in the western media that Israel refuses to 'concede' this or that in the interests of 'peace' in the Middle East, but, when one actually looks at the truth, rather than the Arab propaganda, a very different picture emerges. I found this on the blog "The Elder of Zyon" and the fact is that his information is correct. The Arab League, which 'created' the Palestinian People out of refugees they have deliberately kept in camps and refused to allow to integrate into their host populations since 1948, don't want 'peace' with Israel, they want its complete eradication and have said so.

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Arab definition of "peace," 1948

This comes from a July 8, 1948 memo from the Arab League to UN mediator Count Bernadotte rejecting the extension of the truce during Israel's War of Independence. (I found this in a 1962 book of Arab League documents.)

The Arab States, however, were again disappointed when they received the proposals of the Count which he had based on partition, on the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and on recognition of what has been called the "accomplished" fact brought about by the Zionist gangs. We do not think that the Mediator is unaware that the present struggle is directed against the idea of partition and against the establishment of a Jewish state. Yet he soon took this as a basis for his proposals, (thus) disregarding the rights of the Arabs.

The Zionists are going ahead with the establishment of their so-called "state". There is nothing in this to encourage the prolongation of the cease-fire and the finding of a peaceful solution. The Mediator himself is fully convinced, as he has said on one occasion, that there is no hope of convincing the Jews to give up their state.

This means that the cease-fire will not enable us to find a peaceful solution.

Even then, the Arabs would use Western concepts of "peace" when talking to the West - but as they made clear, their definition of peace means no Jewish state.

Perhaps it is time the western 'peacemakers' like Blair, Kerry and the various Foreign Affairs departments all with fingers in the pie of appeasing the Arabs, and blaming the Jews, got real. Maybe it's time they admitted there is no hope of 'peace' until the Arabs accept that they do not have a right to destroy a people or a faith that built the city they claim to be the third holiest place in their faith (The Prophet never ever set foot there and until it became a symbol of their 'struggle' the mosques on the Temple Mount (former Christian Churches) were in a pretty run down state!) or provided the foundation of their faith. Perhaps it is time to stop pandering to the hatred of the Arabs and tell them, in no uncertain terms, to grow up.

Israel was created out of the broken promises of the British government in 1947-8, and recognised by the UN. That 'recognition' was immediately undermined by the Arab side in their attempt (using British led Armies) to 'drive the Jews into the sea'. They failed. Jordan imposed a 'province', in clear contravention of International law, on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt grabbed Gaza. Both then carried out a purge of Jewish families in these areas, many of them with roots going back to Biblical times. Both ignored the Geneva Convention, Article 33, which forbids the incorporation of land seized by war into the aggressor state. Neither had a right to repopulate these territories - as they did - with people moved from their own countries, and neither had a right to 'give up the land' to create the farce that is the Palestinian 'State' of today.

Let's get real. Let's recognise that the Arabs are the greatest obstacle to peace. They, not the Istraelis, are the aggressors. They label the Israelis as "Zionist gangs" but refuse to acknowledge the public statements on the eve of the 1947 British withdrawal, in which their leaders declared their intention of 'cleansing Palestine' of Jews, or of 'making the sea red with the blood of the Jews'. It is time to make them confront the evil in their own minds, to make them accept there can be no acceptance of such attitudes in the future. It is time to remind them that, much like today's Jihadis, the Grand Mufti of Istanbul helped raise a Division for the Nazi SS in Turkey, and that the Grand Mufti of Mecca attempted to do the same - both with the express desire to 'purge the Jews' from history.

The only stumbling block I can see is that they are now the owners of so much of London and so much of the world's banking system ... Well, money talks. It always has. Blair, Kerry, et al will continue ton take the thirty pieces of silver, and continue to be seeking peace in the full knowledge there is no intention of finding it.

Jewish Presence in Israel

Every so often one stumbles across something unexpected and interesting on the blogosphere. One such is a blog I found yesterday which had a fascinating article about a necropolis in the Jezreel valley which was the burial place of the wealthy and famous families of Jews following the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Bet She'arim was developed as a burial place following the Roman ban on the continuance of Jewish worship and burial in Jerusalem. It continued in use under the Byzantine regime which continued the ban on Jews in Jerusalem and only gradually fell into disuse after the Muslim conquest of the area.

In the last couple of centuries, the site was seriously damaged by grave robbers, but the Israeli government has placed it under strict control. Today archaeologists are able to examine each of the several huge man-made caves and their associated tunnels and burial chambers properly. One does have to wonder why it is not listed under the UNs Heritage protection programmes - but then none of the important Jewish shrines, tombs and archaeological sites are. There is a great fuss over Jews attempting to visit those still under Muslim control. There is also rampant vandalism of those and some major Christian sites by Muslim vandals, but not a word of criticism from the UN about that. There is considerable evidence to suggest that there has been a very concerted effort in East Jerusalem, during the time it was under Muslim control, to erase all trace of Jewish history, and that is ongoing as the Waqf that controls (by international and Israeli agreement) the Al Aqsa Mosque and the platform surmounting the Temple Mount has 'enlarged' a number of underground structures and, contrary to the same international agreements, carried out a systematic programme of destroying anything and everything that might be Jewish or Christian in origin in the areas they control.

Bet Sha'arim is important, since it demonstrates the continuous presence of Jewish leaders, thinkers and merchants - plus, of course, the ordinary folk who worked for and supported them - in Israel from at least the time of the Roman occupation. Bet Sha'arim, the town, was the seat of the 'exiled' Sanhedrin, and the seat of the School of scholars that shaped and formed the post Temple form of Judaism. Why, therefore, do we hear nothing whatsoever about it in our media? Or, for that matter, in our histories of the area?

Probably because it would show that the arguments that Israel is an 'illegitimate' Nation are false. That would, presumably, not suit the narrative of the history of the region our current crop of so-called leaders wish to present.

Middle East's 'Christian Winter'

It is rare for the BBC to post something that acknowledges the fact the Christians are suffering, so, when they do, it is worth getting it more widely read. In the article, "A Point of View: The long winter for the Middle East's Christians" the author, a resident of Delhi, India, makes a number of interesting points about both the seldom mentioned co-existence of Christians and Muslims, but how some of the 'sayings of Jesus' not found in Christian literature, can be found in Islamic books. It is that co-existence that is now threatened, and being systematically destroyed, by the hardline fundamentalists who have taken over the 'Arab Spring'.

In Egypt alone, some 14 million Christians are increasingly the target of attacks. Prior to the civil war in Syria, some 10% of the population were Christian, and to them must be added the Christians driven out of Iraq post the war on Saddam. Now they are being driven out again as al-Qaeda inspired Salafists take control of the revolution and target Christians as 'the enemy of the Prophet'. Turkey has a large Christian population and once, Iran had some 6% of the population as Christians. They were decimated during the war with Iraq, mostly used to clear minefields or lead suicide attacks on Iraqi positions. Today only about 1% of the Iraqi population is Christian, the rest have been driven out, forced to convert, or killed off. Nor is this unique. Pakistan has allowed the fundamentalist Mullahs to wage an undeclared and unacknowledged campaign against Christian communities since Independence - yet it is never acknowledged by the western media.

It is refreshing therefore to see it mentioned 'en passant' by William Dalrymple. The article is a fair one, though he does focus more on the fact that there was co-operation and mutual respect in the past - and not much on the realities of the present. Still, it is a start, and a glimmer of light being shone into a murky area the media - and the BBC in particular - usually try to ignore.

Attacking Faith?

It has been recently claimed that 100,000 Christians are killed each year, and that most 'qualify' as martyrs. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, a journalist writing for the BBC news, has questioned the numbers and the whole question of whether they can be called 'martyrs'. She attempts, in true media style, to reduce the numbers by excluding all those killed in civil wars on the grounds that 'they would have been casualties anyway'. She continues by attempting to argue that the presence of Muslim fighters on the 'other side' doesn't prove that the killings are motivated by an 'anti-Christian' movement.

This ignores, as the organisation which produced the figure states, the fact that two-thirds of the world's Christians live in 'non-Christian' countries, many of them actively hostile to Christianity. That covers all Muslim ruled countries, despite the protestations that they 'allow' the practice of other faiths. The truth is that, from the moment a child enters the school system - if they are allowed to - they are under pressure to convert to Islam. As adults they are often excluded from holding any position of authority if it places them over Muslims. The practice of their religion is also proscribed, with rules forbidding them to discuss it with Muslims or to attempt to convert anyone to it. In at least one Middle Eastern country, even the holding of services in churches is structly controlled by the state - and services can be cancelled without notice. In one I visited, Christians met in the hall of a primary school - but their use of it depended on the man who held the keys, and he frequently 'went away' on the days services were due to be held, taking the keys with him.

Throughout the lands once Christian in the Middle East, Christianity is being driven out. Laws forbidding the appointment of Bishops or Patriarchs 'trained outside of the country' are in force - and so are the laws which closed down the training colleges for the priesthood. The current Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) will very likely be the last, since Turkey has a law that makes it illegal for this post to be held by anyone from outside Turkey. The lands that were the cradle of Christianity are being purged of Christians. The world knows, the UN knows, the media ignores it.

Something I have noted the government, the Church of England  and the media fail to mention is that Israel has a growing Christian population, while the neighbouring Muslim States - and the 'Palestinian Territories' in particular, have a net exodus of Christians. This is due to several factors, the first is most likely the constant threat from their neighbours, certainly there are economic factors in play, but one cannot ignore the frequent attacks, and murder of Christians. What is not acknowledged by the various supposedly 'neutral' Muslim governments is that their laws against 'blasphemy' and for the 'protection' of Islam are frequently used to obtain the judicial mureder of Christians, their dispossession or to drive them out of communities.

The ignorant journalists are patently unaware of the fact that a Christian reciting any of the Christian Creeds, is committing 'blasphemy' according to the teaching of Islam. This is being used in Egypt, Syria and several other Muslim States by fundamentalists to kill Christians and seize their property. In Pakistan it is not uncommon to find Christians being accused of 'insulting the Prophet' or 'insulting the Quran'. One such case did get a mention, probably because it involved a young woman, but there are many more that don't get a mention at all. In Northern Nigeria Christians are the daily target of Islamic fundamentalists attempting to succeed from Nigeria and who wish to create an Islamic State there. Even in the UK, there is pressure, in predominantly Muslim areas on 'Christians', though this is not always obvious, and certainly not acknowledged.

Sadly it is not just in Muslim countries that the Christian Faith is under attack. 'Inclusive' religious education presents a very biased picture to children of what the major faiths teach and believe. In presenting them all as 'essentially the same', Christianity is reduced. Add in the onslaught of media promotion of the humanist and atheist mantra that all religion is 'just mythology' and you begin to understand the reason that the latest Polls give a picture of a country where those who admit a faith are equalled by those who admit none.

Whether the number of 'Christian Martyrs' per year is 100,000, 1,000 or 1 is, in my view, immaterial. That fact that there are any at all is a disgrace, that it is a situation ignored by politicians, twisted by the politically correct media, and denigrated as 'typical example of the stupidity of religion' by atheists is a scandal.

Media Bias: Reflections of Political bias?

An interesting recent development is the change of direction on the subject of Israel by the Australian Federal government. The announcement by the Australian Foreign Minister that Australia would once again 'support' Israel in the UN General Assembly has triggered the usual torrent of outrage from the pro-Palestinian media sources. The fact is that the General Assembly is one of the reasons I personally consider the UN to be a complete waste of space and money. What the Minister has exposed is the fact that it is biased. There can be no resolution of the vexed question of the existence of Israel or of the status of the 'Palestinian State' - a UN General Assembly fiction - unless and until the General Assembly stops its anti-Israel campaigns.

As one of the General Assembly's interpreters accidentally exposed in an unguarded remark on an 'open' microphone -

I mean, I think when you have five statements, not five, like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad shit happening [around the world], but no one says anything about the other stuff.

and this was just a reference to a single session! The fact is that many of the ambassadors seated in the General Assembly are anti-Israel and anti-Jew. Many represent regimes that are far from democratic, do not respect 'human rights' of their own citizens, and have no intention of allowing anyone to discuss their own offences. So Israel makes a perfect 'whipping boy' and the mass media of the world thrives on it since it feeds into the inherent anti-Semitic rhetoric of the socialist left. Oh yes, they always deny that, claiming that being 'anti-zionist' or 'anti-Israel' isn't the same as being 'anti-semitic'. Some go further and claim that as 'all Middle Eastern peoples, including the 'Palestinians' are 'Semitic Peoples' being anti-Israel can't be anti-semitic'. All I can say, in polite language, is garbage. This is pure and simple semantics, splitting hairs and trying to hide their hatred behind yet another web of lies.

The fact is that 'Palestine' didn't exist in name before the British Mandate, and then it included all of what is now the Kingdom of Jordan. The Roman 'Province' actually included all of Syria and Lebanon and most of the Sinai and the British application of the name to the lands of the ancient kingdoms Judea, Israel, and the Transjordan was, as usual, a result of a Whitehall/Westminster misinterpretation of the history. It gets worse, of course, when you realise that there were no such people as 'Palestinians' until Yasser Arafat named the refugees that in the 1970s - and the Arab world immediately saw the political capital to be made out of playing this 'racist' card at every opportunity. And the Jew hating western intelligentsia fell for it.

The UN General Assembly completely ignores that fact that the 1948 'Peace' agreement actually accepted an Israel that included what is now called 'the Occupied Territories' and the whole of Jerusalem. The 'occupiers' immediately after the Agreement was signed, were Jordan and Egypt, who invaded Israel in a surprise attack before the ink on the signatures was even dry. From 1948 until they were ejected in the 1967 war, Jordan and Egypt had massive military presences in both the West Bank (which the King of Jordan regarded as part of his 'Kingdom', and Gaza, which Egypt treated as a 'province'.  Political chicanery at the UN between the UK, the Arab world, the USSR and the 'emerging' nations of Africa and elsewhere, slowly but surely managed to undermine, in the minds of their electorates, the 1948 agreement. Since the 1970s we have been fed a constant diet of Israel being the 'occupiers' and the Arabs as 'the liberators'. Now, we are fed the fiction that Israel is an 'apartheid' state which 'denies the Palestinians their rights'. 

Central to this is, of course, the Jewish 'settlers' moving into the 'Palestinian' lands. I find it interesting that the land for these 'settlements' is being bought and paid for at market prices. Nor is the money coming from the Israeli state, it is private money, and private enterprise which is doing it. The land isn't being 'seized' or 'confiscated' as some media reports have it. Plus, the Israeli government doesn't grant permission for new settlements, it does so only in those areas that it will never include in any future 'redistribution' of land, largely in the area immediately adjacent to Jerusalem itself. But that is not how it is reported by the biased and bigoted western media.

What is NOT reported by the western media, or discussed in the UN General Assembly, is the daily refusal of the Arab/Muslim media, governments and peoples to honour agreements that give Jewish worshippers access to some of the most sacred places in the Jewish faith. Jews are regularly harassed if the attempt to visit the Temple Mount, and are forbidden to pray there. The monthly pilgrimages to the Tomb of Joseph in Judea (part of the West Bank) is regularly reported in Arab media as a 'Jewish Invasion of sacred sites to practise Talmudic rituals'. This is an effort to equate any practise of worship by Jews as the practise of some of the more unsavoury falsehoods of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Sadly most of the western anti-Jew journalists do believe that this Tsarist forgery is the truth - as did a certain Hr. Hitler. In fact the Protocols are a text book in many Muslim schools in that region supposedly to 'warn the children not to trust Jews'. But, of course, that can't be 'anti-semitic' because it's Semites calling Semites names - isn't it?

Why do western journalists and intelligentsia of the left hate the Jews? Why do they wish to destroy Israel? In the UK I suspect it has to do with the fact that the Jews refused to be the victims of a second Holocaust and rejected the British 'solution' for Palestine. Whitehall and Westminster wanted to hand the whole of that territory to the Jordanians, despite the declared intention of the Jordanians of 'cleansing' the land of 'Jews'. As in India, the British government felt the locals were just being childish and would settle the 'squabble'. If they didn't - well, it wasn't going to be 'our' problem any longer. So they staffed the Jordanian army with British officers, set up an all Arab police force and then scuttled out from under. It didn't quite go to plan. The nasty Jews ended up in possession of everything west of the Jordan, and the Arabs who had 'escaped' on the advice of their own side, wound up dispossessed.

The UK did its best at the negotiating table at the fledgling UN to prevent the deal, but, in the end, had to accept the de facto 'Two State' solution in being. The Arabs wouldn't, so immediately they left the negotiating table - attempted to rub out the new state. And they lost. Since then there has been a campaign of propaganda against Israel. Two more wars have taught them nothing, and the passage of time has taught those supposedly intelligent westerners who hate Israel nothing either.

Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish state and its religious centre for almost 3,000 years. Since the recovery of East Jerusalem quite a lot of evidence of this has been found - despite the efforts of some sections of the archaeological profession to suppress or 'reinterpret it. More would be found if the Waqf (the committee of Muslims who control, by international agreement which Israel honours) in charge of 'protecting' the Al Aqsa mosque would allow the proper examination of the site. Instead they have embarked on a deliberate campaign to destroy all traces of any Jewish presence there - even undermining the mount itself in building massive subterranean 'mosques' in the face of advice to the contrary. It's all an Israeli attempt to destroy the mosque and rebuild the Temple according to them. Despite all the claims made by Muslim 'scholars' to Jerusalem being the third 'holiest' site in Islam, it is not mentioned even once in the Quran. Not as Al Quds or as Jerusalem. The 'Prophet' was never there, and it was not until the Arab conquests that it became anything at all to their faith. But, of course, truth is the first casualty in any propaganda war - and this is a war of hate speak and hate propaganda. 

I suspect there are two main reasons there are so many in the west who cannot bring themselves to accept the right of the Jewish people to exist. The first is religious. Many fundamentalist Christians still cling to a far too literal interpretation of parts of the New Testament. The gospel of John is NOT anti-Jew. He uses the term 'The Jews' (in the KJV) to refer to the ruling classes who were, like our present generation, 'religious' when they needed to be and the rest of the time denigrated everything and anything about their faith. Thus, the utterances so often quoted by the religious Jew haters, is misunderstood and misinterpreted. They should direct their bile at the rulers of every land - not just Israel. The second is a perception of self-righteousness. Israel dares to try to behave like a 'western' democracy in a region where none 'should' exist.

Israel is a democratic state. It has first class hospitals, every Israeli citizen has a vote, there are even 'Palestinians' in the Knesset as elected representatives. If we listen to certain 'Christian' media, Christianity is being 'driven out' by the Israelis, but that isn't the truth - the numbers of Christians with Israeli citizenship is increasing. Israel is a 'secular' state and all religions are free to practise there. It must be one of the ironies that the so-called 'Palestinains' could end their isolation tomorrow by simply voting to become Israeli citizens, but you won't find that being discussed anywhere by the pro-Palestinian support teams. Israel's 'crime' in the eyes of western supporters of 'Palestine' is that it does practise 'western values' for its population. As one such campaigner put it; "they claim to be supporters of western values - so we must hold them to a higher standard than we expect of their neighbours." There we have the double standard. Israel must obey the standards set by the anti-Israel campaigners and become like the dictatorships all the rest of the Arab-Islamic world suffers. Presumably so these bleeding hearts can feel sorry for the 'poor downtrodden Jews' when they are again subjected to a renewed Holocaust.

The Australian government has taken a bold step. It is to be hoped that the US, the EU and the UK will now step up to the mark and take a similar stance. The PLO, Fatah and Hamas have made plain their ambitions - not for a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but for the control of the whole of Israel. The PLO representative to the UN is on record saying he supports the expulsion of every Jew from Israel, but there has not been a single mention of this in the western media. Ironic isn't it that I read this in a Middle Eastern source.