IsraelAmerica

Israel And America Together As One

  • More Articles On IsraelAmerica

Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category

Guatemala Supports Democracy, Moving Embassy to Jerusalem

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on December 25, 2017

Guatemala says it is moving embassy in Israel to Jerusalem

Guatemala’s president announced on Christmas Eve that the Central American country will move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, becoming the first nation to follow the lead of U.S. President Donald Trump in ordering the change.

Guatemala was one of nine nations that voted with the United States and Israel on Thursday when the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a non-binding resolution denouncing Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Trump didn’t set any timetable for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and neither did Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales.

In a post on his official Facebook account Sunday, Morales said that after talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he decided to instruct Guatemala’s foreign ministry to move the embas

Guatemala and Israel have long had close ties, especially in security matters and Israeli arms sales to Guatemala.

No other country has their embassy for Israel in Jerusalem, though the Czech Republic has said it is considering such a move.

In a statement, Netanyahu praised Morales’ decision and said that he was waiting in Jerusalem.

“God bless you, my friend, President Morales,” he said. “I told you recently that there will be other countries that would recognize Jerusalem and announce the transfer of their embassies to it. Well here is the second country and I reiterate: It is only the beginning and it is important.”

Trump upended decades of U.S. policy with his Dec. 6 announcement that he was recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Though Trump said he was merely recognizing reality and not prejudging negotiations on the future borders of the city, Palestinians saw the move as siding with Israel on the most sensitive issue in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, while the Palestinians claim the city’s eastern sector, which was captured by Israel in 1967 and is home to sensitive religious Jewish, Muslim and Christian sites. Many governments have long said that the fate of Jerusalem must be resolved through negotiations.

Trump’s announcement has set off weeks of clashes between Palestinian protesters and Israeli security forces that have left 12 Palestinians dead.

Netanyahu has made great efforts to reach out to Latin America in recent years as part of a campaign to counter longstanding support for the Palestinians at the United Nations.

The resolution passed by the General Assembly declared the U.S. action on Jerusalem “null and void.” The 128-9 vote was a victory for Palestinians, but fell short of the total they had predicted. Thirty-five nations abstained and 21 stayed away from the vote.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS GUATEMALA CITY

 

Advertisements

Posted in Israel, Yehudim | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

America’s Dumbest Intellectual

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on December 2, 2017

Walk onto the popular-music floor of Virgin Records in midtown Manhattan, and you encounter, as you’d expect, kids with shoulder tattoos and pierced body parts, wandering through rows of the latest hip-hop, altrock, and heavy-metal CDs as heavily amplified beats thunder. At the checkout counter, though, is a surprise. A single book is on display: perennial radical Noam Chomsky’s latest anti-American screed, 9/11—an impulse item for the in-your-face slackers of the Third Millennium. Strictly speaking, 9/11 is a non-book, a hastily assembled collection of fawning interviews with Chomsky conducted after the terrorist attack on New York City and the country, in which the author pins the blame for the atrocities on—you guessed it—the U.S. But you’d be wrong to dismiss 9/11as an inconsequential paperback quickie. More than 115,000 copies of the book are now in print. It has shown up on the Boston Globe and the Washington Postbest-seller lists, and in Canada, it has rocketed to seventh on the best-seller list. And as its prominent display at Virgin Records attests, 9/11 is particularly popular with younger readers; the book is a hot item at campus bookstores nationwide. The striking success of 9/11 makes Chomsky’s America-bashing notable, or at least notably deplorable—especially here in New York, which lost so many of its bravest on that horrible day.
Chomsky’s title for his new book may have a little to do with its best-seller status: some people may have picked it up assuming it to be a newsworthy account of September 11. But undoubtedly, the main reason 9/11 is selling so briskly is because of its author’s fame. According to the Chicago Tribune, Noam Chomsky is cited more than any other living author—and he shows up eighth on the all-time most-cited list, the paper says, right after Sigmund Freud. Do a search for “Noam Chomsky” on Amazon.com and up pops an astonishing 224 books. The New York Times calls him “arguably the most important intellectual alive.” He’s even been the subject of an adoring 1993 movie-length documentary film. Chomsky has achieved rock-star status among the young and hip. Rock groups like Bad Religion and Pearl Jam proudly quote his writings in interviews and in their music. To the self-styled bohemian coffee-house crowd, observes Wired magazine, “Chomsky is somewhere between Kerouac and Nietzsche—carrying around one of his books is automatic countercultural cachet.”
Chomsky, now a 73-year-old grandfather living in suburban Massachusetts, has worked for decades to win that cachet. Avram Noam was born in Philadelphia in 1928. His parents, William and Elsie Chomsky, had fled from czarist oppression in Russia to the City of Brotherly Love, where William established himself as a Hebrew scholar and grammarian. Radical politics aroused the young Noam—at ten, he wrote a school newspaper editorial on the Spanish Civil War, lamenting the rise of fascism, and two years later he embraced the anarchism that he still adheres to today. By the age of 16, the bright, ambitious youth had enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, where he eventually earned a Ph.D. in linguistics. Passed over for a teaching position at Harvard, he landed in 1955 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has remained ever since.
Most linguistics professors would have toiled in obscurity in a science-and-industry school like MIT. Not Chomsky. In the 1950s, he brashly challenged psychologist B. F. Skinner’s theory of language as a learned skill, acquired by children in a process of reward and punishment. Chomsky claimed instead that when we learn a language as children, we can articulate and understand all sorts of sentences that we’ve never actually come across before. “What we ‘know,’ therefore,” Chomsky held, “must be something deeper—a grammar—that makes an infinite variety of sentences possible.” In Chomsky’s view, the capacity to master the structures of grammar is genetically determined, a product of our evolutionary development. This idea—that grammar is hardwired in the labyrinth of DNA—shook the walls of linguistics departments across the globe. Chomsky promoted his theory tirelessly, defending it in countless symposia and scholarly reviews. By the mid-sixties, he was an academic superstar; in the seventies, researchers at Columbia University even named a chimpanzee trained to learn 125 words “Nim Chimpsky” in his honor.
With this fame as a base, the professor proceeded to wander far from his area of expertise. Such uses of fame, ironically, are common in the country Chomsky attacks so relentlessly. In America, you come across two kinds of fame: vertical and horizontal. The vertical celebrity owes his renown to one thing—Luciano Pavarotti, for example, is famous for his singing, period. The horizontal celebrity, conversely, merchandises his fame by convincing the public that his mastery of one field is transferable to another. Thus singers Barbra Streisand and Bono give speeches on public policy; thus linguistics professor Chomsky poses as an expert on geopolitics.
Chomsky first employed his horizontal celebrity during the 1960s, when he spoke out forcefully against the Vietnam War. His 1969 collection of agitated writings, American Power and the New Mandarins, indicted the nation’s brainwashed “elites”—read: government bureaucrats and intellectuals who disagreed with him on the morality of the war. But Vietnam was only the beginning: over the next three decades, Chomsky published a steady stream of political books and pamphlets boasting titles like What Uncle Sam Really Wants and Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies—all of them filled with heated attacks on American policies, domestic and foreign.
Those attacks would be laughable if some people didn’t take them seriously. Here’s a small but representative sample. The goal of America, Chomsky charges, “is a society in which the basic unit is you and your television set. If the kid next door is hungry, it’s not your problem. If the retired couple next door invested their assets badly and are now starving, that’s not your problem either.” Prisons and inner-city schools, Chomsky maintains, “target a kind of superfluous population that there’s no point in educating because there’s nothing for them to do. Because we’re a civilized people, we put them in prison, rather than sending death squads out to murder them.” Another example: “When you come back from the Third World to the West—the U.S. in particular—you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other.”
Goodness. But if America is all about ignoring hungry children, why does the country spend billions in public and private funds every year on the poor? Does America deliberately seek to mis-educate and send to prison a “superfluous” population? Wouldn’t today’s knowledge-based economy benefit from as many decently educated people as it could find? What Third World countries does Chomsky have in mind where the discussion is more freewheeling and open than in the U.S.? Algeria? Cuba? Such puerile leftism is scarcely worthy of a college sophomore.
If possible, however, Chomsky’s assessment of U.S. foreign policy is even more absurd. The nightmare of American evil began in 1812, he thinks, when the U.S. instigated a process that “annihilated the indigenous [American] population (millions of people), conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world.” That the U.S. saved the Philippines during World War II, that Hawaiians voted to become the fiftieth state, that every day Mexicans pour across the border to take part in the economy of the hated United States—all of that is irrelevant to Chomsky. He believes in the Beaumarchais mode of political debate: “Vilify, vilify, some of it will always stick.”
For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence.
The Chomskian rage hasn’t confined itself to his native land. He has long nourished a special contempt for Israel, lone outpost of Western ideals in the Middle East. The hatred has been so intense that Zionists have called him a self-hating Jew. This is an unfair label. Clearly, Chomsky has no deficit in the self-love department, and his ability to stir up antagonism makes him even more pleased with himself. No doubt that was why he wrote the introduction to a book by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. Memoire en Defensemaintains that Hitler’s death camps and gas chambers, even Anne Frank’s diary, are fictions, created to serve the cause of American Zionists. That was too much for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who challenged fellow leftist Chomsky to a debate. In the debate, Dershowitz keyed in on the fact that Chomsky had described Faurisson’s conclusions as “findings,” and claimed that they grew out of “extensive historical research.” But as numerous scholars had shown, Faurisson was not a serious scholar at all, but rather a sophist who simply ignored the mountain of documents, speeches, testimony, and other historical evidence that conflicted with his “argument.” Dershowitz noted that Chomsky also wrote the following: “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.”
Just recently, Chomsky spearheaded a group pressuring universities to divest themselves of any stock connected with the Jewish state: Israel equals South Africa in the Chomskian universe of moral equivalence. Here, happily, Chomsky got nowhere. He obtained 400 signatures for his movement; opposing him, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, gathered 4,000 signatures in support of Israel. The controversy set Dershowitz off again. This time, he said, he wanted the MIT prof to debate him “on the morality of this selective attack against an American ally that is defending itself—and the world—against terrorism that targets civilians.” He pointed out that universities have always invested in companies head-quartered in foreign nations with unsavory reputations—countries whose citizens don’t have the freedom the Israelis enjoy or suffer the terror they endure. “Yet this petition focused only on the Jewish State, to the exclusion of all others, including those which, by any reasonable standard, are among the worst violators of human rights. This is bigotry pure and simple.” Chomsky declined the challenge.
That brings us to 9/11, an egregious insult to decency in general and to the citizens of New York in particular. True to form, in one of the interviews, Chomsky calls the United States “a leading terrorist state” and equates President Clinton’s 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan with the horrors of September 11. In every way, Chomsky’s comparison is obscene. The bombing was in response to attacks on two U.S. embassies that had resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands. The U.S. made sure it took place at night, when the target was empty of civilians. U.S. intelligence, mistaken though it may have been, indicated that the pharmaceutical factory was producing weapons of mass destruction. The unprovoked attack on the World Trade Center, needless to say to anyone except Chomsky and his disciples, occurred in broad daylight, with the intention of inflicting maximum damage and death on innocents.
Chomsky concedes that the WTC attack was unfortunate—not so much because of the deaths of Americans, but because “the atrocities of September 11 were a devastating blow to the Palestinians, as they instantly recognized.” (Some other group, disguised as Palestinians, must have been dancing in the streets that day.) Israel, he adds, “is openly exulting in the ‘window of opportunity’ it now has to crush Palestinians with impunity.”
On the rare occasions in 9/11 when Chomsky expresses condolences for the victims of the terrorist attack, he immediately goes on to excoriate the U.S. “The atrocities were passionately deplored, even in places where people have been ground underfoot by Washington’s boots for a long, long time,” he typically says. Chomsky rolls on in this manner. The West is the Great Satan, the Third World its eternal victim. The World Trade Towers were a symbol of America’s gluttony and power. In effect, we were asking for it and are now unjustly using it as a casus belli. More U.S. oppression is about to take place all over the globe. If you didn’t know better, you could be reading one of bin Ladin’s diatribes. Chomsky’s response to September 11 outraged even leftist Christopher Hitchens, a former admirer of the MIT professor who now attacked him for abandoning “every standard that makes moral and intellectual discrimination possible.”
Does anyone believe these inanities? It would be tempting to say that the author only preaches to the choir. But there’s more to Chomsky’s success than that. True, Chomsky is like the Bog Man of Grauballe, Denmark, preserved unchanged for centuries. Since the early 1960s, no new ideas have made it into his oeuvre. He is as he was, and his rage against democracy as practiced in the U.S. is of a piece with the raised fists of the Chicago Seven and the ancient bumper stickers condemning “Amerika.” But his message still seems to resonate with a sizable faction of the Boomers, trained to respond to emotion rather than reason. These are the people who sympathized with Susan Sontag’s notorious post–September 11 observation: “Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?” These are the folks who applauded Bill Clinton’s fatuous mea culpa appraisal of the WTC attack: “This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. . . . [W]e are still paying a price today.”
And now a younger crowd is following the Pied Piper of anti-Americanism. 9/11makes it easy for them. They needn’t read it; they just have to make sure the thing is sticking out of their backpacks or sitting on their milk-crate coffee tables, a symbol of mass-market rebellion pushed at the record stores for $10.95—less than the new Eminem CD! Call it Anti-Americanism for Dummies. It would be more than a pity if the lies of 9/11 seduced more innocents; it would be a clear and present danger. We are at war now, and two generations of Chimpskies are enough.

stephan kanfer

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

Report: Saudi Crown Prince will ‘crush’ Hezbollah with Israel

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on November 17, 2017

img800775British newspaper reports Saudi King Salman will step down next week and announce his son as his successor.
Elad Benari, 17/11/17 00:05

The King of Saudi Arabia plans to step down and announce his son as his successor next week, the British newspaper Daily Mail reported on Thursday, citing a source close to the country’s royal family.

The move is seen as the final step in 32-year-old Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s power grab, which began earlier this month with the arrests of more than 40 princes and government ministers in a corruption probe.

The unnamed source told the Daily Mail that King Salman will continue only as a ceremonial figurehead, handing over official leadership of the country to his son, often referred to as MBS.

“Unless something dramatic happens, King Salman will announce the appointment of MBS as King of Saudi Arabia next week. King Salman will play the role of the queen of England. He will only keep the title ‘Custodian of the Holy Shrines,’” said the source.

The high level source further said that once crowned king, the prince will shift his focus to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s longtime regional rival.

He will also enlist the help of the Israeli military to crush Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, according to the source.

“MBS is convinced that he has to hit Iran and Hezbollah…MBS’s plan is to start the fire in Lebanon, but he’s hoping to count on Israeli military backing. He has already promised Israel billions of dollars in direct financial aid if they agree,” claimed the source.

“MBS can not confront Hezbollah in Lebanon without Israel. Plan B is to fight Hezbollah in Syria,’ added the source.

The Daily Mail report has not been confirmed by another source.

The 32-year-old crown prince portrays himself as a liberal reformer. He recently announced that the ultra-conservative kingdom would adopt a moderate and open Islam. Previously, the kingdom announced it would cancel its longstanding ban on women driving. It is believed the crown prince was behind this move as well.

As for Israel, there have been several recent reports that Saudi Arabia and Israel are getting closer.

Earlier this week, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported that the Saudi government is weighing the possible normalization of relations with Israel ahead of a planned Middle East peace program by the Trump administration which aims to not only secure a final status agreement between Israel and the PA, but lead to recognition of the Jewish state by the larger Arab world.

The newspaper’s report was based on a letter it alleged was sent from Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir to the crown prince.

Recent reports indicated that a senior member of the Saudi royal family, perhaps even the crown prince himself, held high-level talks with Israeli officials during a clandestine trip to the Jewish state.

Saudi Arabia vehemently denied the reports, saying they were unfounded.

Earlier on Thursday, IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot gave a rare interview to Elaph, a Saudi newspaper based in London, in which he called for a new regional coalition to counter Iran’s growing influence and threats in the Middle East.

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

Page Exposes Trump Conspiracy

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on November 7, 2017

Another adviser, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty in October to lying to federal agents about Russian contacts during the campaign.

The transcript shows Page, a Navy veteran who worked for a time in Moscow as an energy consultant, was at times combative and evasive in response to committee questions.

Asked about his email indicating he had discussed Trump’s campaign in a private conversation with a Russian official, Page responded to The Washington Post via text message: “That is complete misinformation and/or misinterpretation.”

“I’m working on my lawsuit tonight that will get to the bottom of the real interference in the 2016 election, by the [United States government]. I’ve played this nonsensical game long enough and am not interested in this latest round tonight,” he said.

Page requested that the committee make the transcript of his remarks public.

Page’s testimony shows that a number of Trump campaign officials were aware of his plans to travel to Moscow before he left — and that he updated others on his return.

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

Simone Simmons and Princess Diana

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on July 31, 2017

I’ve considered Simone Simmons to be a very special friend for close to twenty years.
More importantly, of course, is her friendship with Princess Di. Paul Burell, the man who Princess Diana called called ‘my rock’ and ‘the only man I can trust’ said that not only was Simone Simmons Di’s spiritual advisor, “she was her closest friend in the world.”
She has appeared on all of the cable talk shows, and on a recent trip to America, (she resides in London) she graciously answered questions informing the media’s still deep interest in the Late Princess.
Simone is also an indefatigable defender of the Middle Easts only Democracy, Israel.
She has been a hero of mine for a long time.
I said to her once, “Simone, it is such an honor to know you.”
She replied, “Michael, it’s an honor to know YOU.”
And I believed that she meant it.
That’s the kind of person she is, she treated me, a humble man, the same way she treated Sir Lawrence Olivier, the same way she treated Diana.
The book is fascinating, you feel like you know the “People’s Princess” after reading Simone’s intimate biography.
Frankly, I wasn’t a Di “fan”. I was a Simone Simmons fan, so I read her book and BECAME a fan of the incredible human being that was Princess Diana.
<i>Michael F. Blackburn, Sr.</i>
<

I’ve considered Simone Simmons to be a very special friend for close to twenty years.
More importantly, of course, is her friendship with Princess Di. Paul Burell, the man who Princess Diana called called ‘my rock’ and ‘the only man I can trust’ said that not only was Simone Simmons Di’s spiritual advisor, “she was her closest friend in the world.”
She has appeared on all of the cable talk shows, and on a recent trip to America, (she resides in London) she graciously answered questions informing the media’s still deep interest in the Late Princess.
Simone is also an indefatigable defender of the Middle Easts only Democracy, Israel.
She has been a hero of mine for a long time.
I said to her once, “Simone, it is such an honor to know you.”
She replied, “Michael, it’s an honor to know YOU.”
And I believed that she meant it.
That’s the kind of person she is, she treated me, a humble man, the same way she treated Sir Lawrence Olivier, the same way she treated Diana.
The book is fascinating, you feel like you know the “People’s Princess” after reading Simone’s intimate biography.
Frankly, I wasn’t a Di “fan”. I was a Simone Simmons fan, so I read her book and BECAME a fan of the incredible human being that was Princess Diana.
<i>Michael F. Blackburn, Sr.</i>
https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?asin=B00699P5NI&preview=inline&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_cP-jybS62HBCK
During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana’s social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess.

Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend’s candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self.

In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to “tell it like it is.” This is that book. It is truly the last word.

With her extraordinary insight into Diana’s life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling–with John F. Kennedy, Jr.–at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles.

Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone’s help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA–THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana’s life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana’s social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess.

Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend’s candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self.

In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to “tell it like it is.” This is that book. It is truly the last word.

With her extraordinary insight into Diana’s life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling–with John F. Kennedy, Jr.–at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles.

Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone’s help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA–THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana’s life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

I’ve considered Simone Simmons to be a very special friend for close to twenty years.
More importantly, of course, is her friendship with Princess Di. Paul Burell, the man who Princess Diana called called ‘my rock’ and ‘the only man I can trust’ said that not only was Simone Simmons Di’s spiritual advisor, “she was her closest friend in the world.”
She has appeared on all of the cable talk shows, and on a recent trip to America, (she resides in London) she graciously answered questions informing the media’s still deep interest in the Late Princess.
Simone is also an indefatigable defender of the Middle Easts only Democracy, Israel.
She has been a hero of mine for a long time.
I said to her once, “Simone, it is such an honor to know you.”
She replied, “Michael, it’s an honor to know YOU.”
And I believed that she meant it.
That’s the kind of person she is, she treated me, a humble man, the same way she treated Sir Lawrence Olivier, the same way she treated Diana.
The book is fascinating, you feel like you know the “People’s Princess” after reading Simone’s intimate biography.
Frankly, I wasn’t a Di “fan”. I was a Simone Simmons fan, so I read her book and BECAME a fan of the incredible human being that was Princess Diana.
<i>Michael F. Blackburn, Sr.</i>
https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?asin=B00699P5NI&preview=inline&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_cP-jybS62HBCK
During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana’s social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess.

Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend’s candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self.

In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to “tell it like it is.” This is that book. It is truly the last word.

With her extraordinary insight into Diana’s life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling–with John F. Kennedy, Jr.–at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles.

Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone’s help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA–THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana’s life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana’s social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess.

Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend’s candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self.

In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to “tell it like it is.” This is that book. It is truly the last word.

With her extraordinary insight into Diana’s life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling–with John F. Kennedy, Jr.–at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles.

Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone’s help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA–THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana’s life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana’s social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess.

Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend’s candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self.

In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to “tell it like it is.” This is that book. It is truly the last word.

With her extraordinary insight into Diana’s life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling–with John F. Kennedy, Jr.–at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles.

Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone’s help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA–THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana’s life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana’s social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess.

Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend’s candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self.

In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to “tell it like it is.” This is that book. It is truly the last word.

With her extraordinary insight into Diana’s life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling–with John F. Kennedy, Jr.–at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles.

Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone’s help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA–THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana’s life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

Why Does The Left Hate Israel?

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on September 18, 2016

Respectable opinion knows which side wears the black hats in this conflict.

What is it about Israel that arouses so much anger? Is it because it’s a theocratic state, committed to destroying its neighbour, which uses civilians as human shields, tortures and kills its political opponents, persecutes homosexuals, and holds freedom of speech and the rule of law in contempt?

No, hang on, that’s Hamas. No matter how appallingly they treat their own people and how many innocents they blow up, shoot or kidnap, nothing can damage their image in the left’s eye.

Israel can’t even protect its own people without drawing criticism. Israel is like the older brother who is expected to know better. His younger siblings can run riot, because they’re held to different standards, but big bro should sit there quietly, no matter how many times he takes a kicking.

Not that the media does much reporting on the kicking Israel receives. It would much rather lament the significantly higher Palestinian losses, as if they automatically put Israel in the wrong and let Hamas off the hook for striking the first blow. Israel, it seems, should show restraint that no one would realistically expect of Hamas if it possessed the same military might. The relativists who see no moral difference between a liberal democracy and a terrorist regime have no problem expecting the two sides to behave differently.

One thing’s for sure, if it was just another flyblown Islamic hellhole, Israel would get a much easier ride on the world stage. More blood is typically shed each year in Somalia, Pakistan and Nigeria than in Gaza, but outrage at those horrors pales beside the indignation Israel’s actions provoke. Heads are buried, standards doubled and blind eyes turned to provide an excuse for bashing the country everybody loves to hate.

So is this just about anti-Semitism? It is certainly rife in the Arab world, and long-standing critics of Israel probably pick up a little Jew-hatred along the way. But I don’t think it’s at the heart of Western, liberal antipathy. If anti-Semitism were to blame, it would be directed at Israel wherever it was in the world. Yet it’s hard to imagine it having as much trouble with its neighbours, or attracting as much hatred, if it were a European state. The chances are it would be another Switzerland, and would arouse the same amount of ill-feeling.

The fact is that when it comes to Israel, nobody seems to be interested in the truth. No one cares that it gave up the lands it seized during the Yom Kippur War, in the hope of securing peace. Nor that it gifted the Palestinians 3,000 greenhouses, opened border crossings and encouraged trade. Nor that the Gazans responded by destroying the greenhouses and electing a government committed to eradicating the Jews, which has fired thousands of rockets into Israel, and digs tunnels under Israeli territory from which to launch surprise attacks.

No one cares that Israel gives Gazans advance warning of raids, while Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians. Nor that Hamas places its weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals and private homes, to maximise the chance of civilian casualties. Nor that Israel arrested those guilty of murdering a Palestinian youth, and offered reparations to the victim’s family, while Hamas did nothing to capture or punish the killers of three Israeli teenagers. Nor that no Israeli soldiers are actually based in Gaza, despite talk of an ‘occupying force’ by Hamas apologists

No one takes these facts into account because they are unhelpful to the narrative propagated by the pro-Palestinian Left – namely, that this is a battle between a strong, macho oppressor and a weak, downtrodden underdog, which leftists can feel virtuous about supporting.

Israel is a distillation of everything leftists hate about Western nations: capitalist, conservative and fiercely patriotic. It is a projection of their own prejudices about the supposed injustices of societies that cherish the ‘wrong’ values and the ‘wrong’ people. They don’t share the Palestinians’ spiritual beliefs, but they share a common enemy. Indeed, if Israel was removed from the equation, its critics would have little good to say about Gaza or Hamas. Theirs is a marriage of convenience.

The Left’s use of the Israeli-Arab situation as a platform for moral preening, and as a metaphor for its own hang-ups, blinds it to the evils of Hamas and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems oblivious to the ideological conflict between Islamic fundamentalists and Western progressives, because it persists in regarding the former as pet victims of the latter. It may discover the hard way that it is giving comfort to an enemy that makes no distinction between liberal hand-wringers and any other infidels.

By Russell Taylor

The Left Hate Israel Because It Is Everything They Despise: Capitalist, Conservative and Patriotic

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

The Surge Of Trump-Fueled Anti-Semitism Is Hitting Jewish Reporters Who Cover Him

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on September 9, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop in Indianapolis. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/DARRON CUMMINGS

Donald Trump has an anti-Semitism problem.

Granted, the Republican nominee for president has long insisted that his is not himself anti-Semitic, and regularly points out that his daughter is a Jewish convert. Yet Trump has done little to quell a rising tide of anti-Semitism among his supporters since launching his campaign last year: Trump initially refused to disavow anti-Semitic Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, a Trump surrogate implied at a rally that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders should convert from Judaismand “meet Jesus,” prominent anti-Semites went on radio shows to encourage their supporters to “get out and vote” for Trump, and a man was filmed leaving a Trump rallyshouting in Cleveland shouting “Go to fucking Auschwitz.”

To make matters worse, anti-Semitic white supremacists recently announcedthat they view Trump’s relative silence on the issue “as an endorsement.”

This surge of anti-Semitism has been unsettling to many, but is hitting one group especially hard: Jewish political reporters who cover Trump, many of whom who say they are regularly subject to anti-Semitic harassment by his supporters online.

When Jewish journalist Julia Ioffe published a lengthy profile of Donald Trump’s wife Melania in April, for instance, her computer was reportedly flooded with an avalanche of angry, anti-Semitic tweets in response. Ioffe began retweeting the attacks to highlight their unsettling intensity, such as photoshopping a Jewish star used by the Nazi regime onto her clothing or digitally inserting her face into an image of a person detained the Auschwitz concentration camp. She also received death threats by phone and email, prompting Ioffe to solicit the help of the Anti-Defamation League and file a police report alleging that the hateful messages included a “threat to kidnap or injure a person.”

When DuJour magazine asked Melania Trump about the incident weeks later, she condemned the tweets but turned the blame back on Ioffe, implying the attacks were her fault because she “provoked” the hateful commenters.

“I don’t control my fans,” she said, “but I don’t agree with what they’re doing. I understand what you mean, but there are people out there who maybe went too far. She provoked them.”

Donald Trump was also asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to comment about the situation but demurred, saying he didn’t know much about it before adding, “You’ll have to talk to them about it.”

Ioffe declined to be interviewed for this story, telling ThinkProgress via email that she thinks her work and the Trumps’ response “speak for themselves.”

A similar fate befell New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman earlier this month, who reportedly received a rash of anti-Semitic tweets simply forposting an opinion piece critical of Trump entitled “This is how fascism comes to America.” Weisman was promptly “outed” as Jewish by Twitter user “CyberTrump,” and others soon began tweeting anti-Jewish slurs and threatening retribution.

The online hate doesn’t appear beholden to any political ideology, targeting seemingly any prominent writer that blasts Trump — both liberal and conservative. In late April, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro recountedthe anti-Semitic backlash he received for criticizing Trump, saying, “I have never received the amount of anti-Semitic hate I currently do each day for the crime of criticizing The Great Trump.” Two weeks later, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic received an email from someone saying that he will be “sent to a camp” if Trump wins the presidency.

As the number of incidents grew, so too did calls for the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) — which includes Trump backer Sheldon Adelson — to speak out. They finally released a statement on Tuesday condemning any and all attacks on Jewish reporters, but declined to hold Trump supporters uniquely accountable.

“We abhor any abuse of journalists, commentators and writers whether it be from Sanders, Clinton or Trump supporters,” the statement read. “There is no room for any of this in any campaign. Journalists, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity should be free to do their jobs without suffering abuses, anti-Semitic or otherwise.”

As the Washington Post pointed out, the statement’s attempt to lump Sanders and Clinton supporters in with the wave of anti-Semitism rang hollow to many Jewish reporters, who argue the vitriol is emanating primarily from Trump fans. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which studies and tracks hate groups, acknowledged that anti-Semitism is especially common among Trump’s digital devotees.

ThinkProgress’ own reporting staff has also been impacted by the phenomenon. Kira Lerner and Alice Ollstein — both political reporters and both Jewish — say they have encountered anti-Semitic remarks online while covering Trump.

“I immediately blocked them,” Ollstein said. She pointed out that the attacks were unique to this election season, noting, “I’ve been reporting in Washington, DC for six years, and this is the only time it’s ever happened to me — either in person or online.”

The same is true for Bryce Covert, ThinkProgress’ economics editor. Covert says she received a deluge of anti-Semitic tweets in May after she published an op-ed in the New York Times decrying Trump’s policy agenda as disproportionately benefiting white men. The tweets personally attacked her for being Jewish and referenced her family — even though she never mentioned her Jewish heritage (she’s half-Jewish) in the story.

“The Trump supporters had to really dig deep to figure out that I’m Jewish,” Covert said. “They unearthed this tweet of mine from months ago referencing my Jewish grandma.”

“I haven’t gotten any anti-semitism in my mentions for writing about any other candidate,” she added.

One of the anti-Semitic tweets Covert received in response to her op-ed. CREDIT: Screenshot
One of the anti-Semitic tweets Covert received in response to her op-ed. CREDIT: Screenshot

Indeed, this ThinkProgress reporter — who is Presbyterian — also received anti-Semitic tweets simply for putting out a call for help with this story. One commenter appeared to deny the Holocaust and mock the Hebrew language, and another awarded the author with a “gold star” — meaning the yellow Star of David used by the Nazis to identify Jews.

The connection between Trump and internet-based anti-Semitism has gotten so bad that The Donald’s name and image are now brandished as an excuse to unleash insults whether or not he is being discussed. In mid-May, a Twitter account sporting an image of Trump attacked a Jewish reporter at the Charleston Post and Courier for commenting on shifting opinions regarding the Confederate flag, tweeting, “I guess daddy didn’t love her enough to get her a nosejob for her Bar Mitzvah.” The account’s bio notes that liberals should be sent “straight to the ovens.”

The growing culture of hate shows few signs of slowing down, and reporters are increasingly concerned the vitriol won’t stop so long as Trump refuses to condemn the attacks — and stop attacking reporters himself.

“I’m not surprised that Trump supporters feel comfortable assaulting journalists on Twitter,” Lerner said. “Trump is leading by example.”

 T

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

Trump:What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on September 8, 2016

for-men-not-to-rape

Donald Trump apparently still believes that if you put women and men together in the military of course it’s going to lead to a lot of rapes. ‘What did these geniuses expect when they put men &amp; women together?’  Trump was confronted by Matt Lauer Wednesday night in the Commander-in- Chief forum with a three-year-old tweet of his.

Trump defended his 2013 tweet suggesting that high rate of unreported rape allegations could have been predicted when men and women were allowed to serve in the military.”It is a correct tweet. There are many people that think that is absolutely correct,” Trump said to Lauer.

Later Lauer asked trump if he still thought he knew more about ISIS than our Generals and he said”They have been reduced to rubble, our Generals.”

Later he said part of his “Secret Plan ” to defeat ISIS would be to give the Generals 30 days to come up with a plan.

The Generals he knows more than, the ones who have been reduced to rubble.

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

Megyn Kelly Alone

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on May 11, 2015

o-MEGYN-KELLY-facebook
It’s getting lonely out there for Megyn Kelly. At the moment she’s about the only American journalist defending Pamela Geller and, by the way, free speech.

The rest of American Journalism agrees that the First Amendment is okay, so long as it comes with a dash of restrictive Sharia Law. Speak your mind but do not take your opinions to Texas or any place that might offend people who go crazy at the sight of a cartoon.

In other words, as we’ve been listening to the clobber-fest against Pamela Geller, freedom of expression, we’re being advised, must be exercised with caution. So they tell us, these opinion makers, who without a sense of shame insist that they love the First Amendment – but conditionally, fitfully, reluctantly, sporadically.

Who says this? People who by the luck of the draw have the Bill of Rights to sustain their livelihoods.

But apparently Judeo/Christian values are not worth savoring and fighting for, particularly if you are a journalist.

From Moses’ declaration in Leviticus, to “proclaim liberty throughout the land,” how quickly we’ve gone to proclaiming the suppression of liberty.

Who saw this day coming? I did. Not because I’m smart, but because I’m a pessimist. Pessimists are correct 98.7 percent of the time. Novelists are pessimists and that’s what gets us in trouble so much of the time, when we use fiction or part fiction to get digging into the truth – like this book that spills the beans about news media dishonesty and what really goes on in our newsrooms.

From “Half The News That’s Fit To Print” we can hardly be expected to make up our minds intelligently.
We are a misinformed public and nothing is more dangerous than a people being misled by liars and fakes…in this case ideologues of the Left.

The shift may have begun when Edward R. Murrow brought down a Senator, Joseph McCarthy, but it certainly began when Woodward and Bernstein, back in the 1970s, brought down a President, Richard Nixon. A generation wanted to “do good” and found journalism as the perfect means to “repair the world,” quicker than dentistry and root canal.

Now we are still in the clutches of news being presented by social activists who, starting with The New York Times, hardly pretend to be neutral.

From “Half The News That’s Fit To Print” we can hardly be expected to make up our minds intelligently.

Take George Stephanopoulos, please. This is a journalist? Yes, this is a journalist. ABC-TV hired him straight from the Clinton White House (the old one, not the new one quite yet) where he served as a political advisor. They offered him big money, and presto; he is a journalist, indeed the leading voice at ABC.

You expect both sides of the story?

Or take Geraldo Rivera, who specialized in trash sensationalism, like the search for Al Capone’s Vault, and now reports for Fox News.

But Fox News must be forgiven because despite the presence of Juan Williams and Shepard Smith, it’s all we’ve got for news and opinion fair and square.

This is where we find Megyn Kelly. This is where steady customers to the network were astonished to find Miss Kelly all alone doing battle for Pamela Geller. One by one, the rest fell like dominoes for limits to free speech, while for Kelly it is all or nothing.


We sense her frustration as even the most tough-minded conservative speakers clobber away at Pamela Geller and the First Amendment.

Kelly must have thought she stumbled into the wrong studio when colleagues Greta Van Susteren and Bill O’Reilly sounded like Chris Matthews.

It’s good that we have her, but sad that we have her practically all alone.

Jack Engelhard

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »

The Trouble With Islam

Posted by Zamir Ben Etzioni on January 10, 2015

Marc Kahlberg
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim The Beltway Snipers were Muslims The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims’

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

**********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************
They're not happy in Gaza
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya
They’re not happy in Morocco
They’re not happy in Iran
They’re not happy in Iraq
They’re not happy in Yemen
They’re not happy in Afghanistan
They’re not happy in Pakistan
They’re not happy in Syria
They’re not happy in Lebanon
They’re not happy in Nigeria
They’re not happy in Kenya
They’re not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********
They’re happy in Australia
They’re happy in England
They’re happy in Belgium
They’re happy in France
They’re happy in Italy
They’re happy in Germany
They’re happy in Sweden
They’re happy in the USA & Canada
They’re happy in Norway & India
They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam… Not their leadership… Not themselves… THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered
!!!!

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

Think about it….

Posted in Israel | Leave a Comment »