The World is holding Israel Down for Islam to Rape Her!
TRUTH IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT, LET ALONE SWALLOW!
January 5, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
It has always been my contention the best foreign policy America could follow in the Middle East was a very simple one. Do not tell Israel how to make peace, how to deal with their enemies, how much land to give to the Palestinians, or how to run their own country – In short, keep our nose out of their decisions – that is Part 1. Part 2 is even simpler – Provide, within reason, whatever finances and military weapons Israelis ask from us to accomplish the “how’s” of what they decide to do, and pray for them as they do it. As far as our own world policy, it is just as simple – Practice “In God We Trust” – Walk Softly – Carry A Bigger Stick Than Anyone Else – And Warn China and Russia to leave Israel alone.
I have always said Caroline Glick was the best journalist in Israel, and by some of its politicians, perhaps the most hated. I do not believe the United States is raping Israel, but I do believe we are holding her down while her enemies rape her, with Islam having a future view of fulfilling the role of a serial killer after they finish their perverted act.
There has never been any question in my mind that before the splitting of the Mount of Olives, there is going to be a literal Islamic rape of Israel, and I do not believe there is anything America can do to stop it. But I certainly do not believe we should be putting Israel in the position required for a literal or figurative rape by helping to set the stage for it, through our directing her in how to deal with her enemies.
Zechariah 14:1-5 – Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
[2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. [3] Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. [4] And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. [5] And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
Begin Jerusalem Post Article
Column One: The rape of Israel
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST
January 3, 2008
Last Wednesday, New York’s Jewish Week reported that the editor of Israel’s self-described “newspaper of record” asked the US secretary of state to rape his country and told her that his erotic fantasy is to watch America rape Israel.
On September 10, at a dinner at the home of US Ambassador Richard Jones, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with a group of Israeli “elites.” Among the elitists was Haaretz editor David Landau. According to the Jewish Week, Landau “referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically, one in need of a US-imposed settlement. He was said to have implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” and that it would be like a “wet dream” for him to see this happen.
When questioned by the paper, Landau claimed this account of his comments was inaccurate, but then confirmed saying that “Israel wants to be raped” into a settlement and that he told Rice it was his “wet dream” to address her on the issue. He added that several people came up to him afterwards and congratulated him for his remarks, claiming, “I articulated what many Israelis feel.”
Actually, almost no Israelis feel what Landau expressed. But his views are shared by his newspaper and by a significant portion of the elitists who dominate the country.
The pro-rape crowd’s influence, which rose after Israel’s defeat in the war with Hizbullah in 2006, became decisive over the past few months as the date of the publication of the Winograd Committee of Inquiry’s final report on the war approaches. The report, set to be issued later this month, is expected to find Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responsible for Israel’s failure to defeat Iran’s foreign legion in Lebanon.
To offset the public’s demand for his resignation that the report will likely trigger, Olmert has worked overtime to woo the Landau crowd.
To this end, he courts Syria, advocates Israel’s withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, and refuses to act against either Iran or the burgeoning Iranian-trained Hamas army in Gaza.
Then too, a week before George W. Bush’s first presidential visit to Israel, Olmert gave an interview to The Jerusalem Post where he went out of his way to prove that Landau is right. His government does wish to be “raped” by the US.
Sounding more like a Palestinian spokesman than the leader of Israel, Olmert attacked his own country, claiming that it isn’t abiding by its obligations to the terror-supporting Palestinians.
In his words, “There is a certain contradiction… between what we’re actually seeing and what we ourselves promised. We always complain about the [breached] promises of the other side.
Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves.”
Olmert argued that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines with minor modifications, not because doing so will ensure peace with the Palestinians, but because if we don’t we’ll lose our Jewish majority.
The prime minister’s contention is questionable for two basic reasons. First, the 1949 lines are not demographic borders but cease-fire
lines. On the eastern side of the line live a half million Jews, and on the western side live one million Arabs. Second, the cease-fire lines are indefensible. So while not solving any demographic problem, withdrawing to the 1949 lines would imperil Israel militarily.
Beyond that, there is the fact that Olmert’s dark demographic projecti ons are based
on falsified census data published by the Palestinian Authority in 1997. As the American-Israeli Demographic Research Group proved conclusively in January 2005, the PA’s numbers were inflated by some 50 percent. Although demography is a problem, Israel is in no immediate danger of losing its Jewish majority.
The immediate danger Israel faces stems not from demography but from the ideology of jihad that has convinced the Arab and Islamic world to seek Israel’s destruction rather than to accept it. Shrinking into indefensible borders will only exacerbate that problem by telling the jihadists that Israel can be destroyed through violence and terror.
Olmert also argued that Israel must give up its sovereignty over Jerusalem because Israel’s supporters want it to. In his words, “The world that is friendly to Israel… that really supports Israel, when it speaks of the future, it speaks of Israel in terms of the ’67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem.”
So in an English-language interview a week before Bush’s arrival in the country, Olmert essentially asked Israel’s friend in the White House to pressure Israel to concede its vital national rights and interests.
In the same interview with the Post, Olmert acknowledged that his putative peace partner – Fatah leader and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas – does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and demands the so-called “right of return” for millions of foreign descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948. But, he soothed, this is not a cause for worry.
Olmert’s not worried, because he can see into Abbas’s soul. As he put it, “If you ask [Abbas] to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does.”
For Olmert, intent as he is on securing the support of the pro-national rape crew, his faith in Abbas’s peaceful soul is more important than the visible reality on the ground. And that reality is not merely reflected in the fact that Fatah and Hamas are rhetorically indistinguishable from one another. That reality is also reflected in the fact that the three Israelis murdered in the last six weeks – Ido Zoldan, David Rubin and Ahikam Amihai – were all killed by official, Abbas-commanded PA security forces.
The three terrorist murders show clearly that the PA itself, rather than Hamas, is the most lethal terrorist group in Palestinian society.
And the same PA security organs involved in killing Israelis are funded and armed by Israel and the US – which together with the Europeans and the Russians also train them.
Rather than contend with this sordid reality, the Olmert government makes excuses for it.
On Thursday, Olmert’s spokesman Mark Regev told the Post that Israel will raise the involvement of PA security forces in the murder of Israelis with Bush, but Regev took pains to underplay the significance of the fact that the PA security forces themselves are the ones killing Israelis.
He referred to the killers as “rogue, extremist elements inside the Fatah machine and the Palestinian security apparatus,” and so sought to distance them from their leaders who encourage and celebrate their behavior.
Through their actions and statements, the Palestinians themselves show daily that there is no difference between Abbas and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, or between Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. None of them is interested in peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state – whatever they may or may not feel in their souls. Just as happened in Gaza, so in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, any land that Israel transfers to their authority will be used as a base for operations against Israel. Any Israeli community relinquished will be transformed into terror training bases and missile launching pads.
But then, the reality of war doesn’t have much to recommend itself under the looming specter of the Winograd Report. The only reality that interests Olmert is the reality of his quest to survive in office. And to stay in office, Olmert needs Landau and his friends. And so Israel’s strategic straitjacket grows tighter by the day.
THIS WEEK, Iranian strongman Ali Larijani paid an official state visit to Egypt. He met not only with President Hosni Mubarak and Foreign Minister Ahmad Gheit, but with Egypt’s chief cleric, the head of the Al Azhar Mosque and Islamic University Sheikh Muhammad Tantawi. During his visit, Larijani offered nuclear collaboration with Egypt. He also worked to settle religious disputes between Shi’ite and Sunni Islam to facilitate jihadist collaboration against the common enemies of all Muslims.
On the heels of Larijani’s visit, Mubarak broke his pledge to Defense Minister Ehud Barak from a week ago not to allow the thousands of Hamas terrorists seeking to return to Gaza after traveling to Saudi Arabia to enter the Strip through the Rafah crossing, where Israel has no security presence. On Wednesday, the terrorists marched across the border unopposed. Some were reportedly carrying more than $100 million in cash that they received from Iran and Saudi Arabia. Others were returning after receiving military training in Iran.
The Olmert government had nothing to say about Egypt’s open collusion with Israel’s enemies. And how could it? Admitting that Egypt is an enemy state would harm the pro-national rape gang’s peace narrative. For them, Egypt is the head of the “moderate camp.” Rather than acknowledge this reality, Olmert showers Mubarak with praise. In his interview with the Post, he said, “When I even think of how things would be if we were dealing with people other than Mubarak, well, I pray every day for his well-being and good health.”
The truth is that so far, Olmert’s gambit has been successful. All of the public’s attempts to force him to resign – over Lebanon, Gaza and allegations of Olmert’s massive corruption – have been scuttled. Guarding their man, the pro-national rape camp has given little to no media backing to popular calls for his removal from office. Landau and his friends are fully willing to lose wars and to be led by morally impaired, incompetent leaders if doing so facilitates the international rape of their country.
Take for example Landau’s Haaretz employee, columnist Yoel Marcus. In his December 14 column, Marcus called for Olmert to be forced from office.
Just one week later, emphasizing the importance of the peace process, Marcus said that Olmert must stay in power after the Winograd Report is published.
There are officials in Washington who claim that Bush is angry at Olmert. They say Bush expected Olmert to stand up to Rice when she became overtly hostile to Israel in the leadup to the Annapolis conference. These officials argue that if Olmert were just to stand up to Rice, the president would finally have the opportunity to marginalize her.
It is hard to know what to make of this claim. Unfortunately, we won’t see it tested any time soon. Controlled by the rape-Israel crowd, Olmert needs Rice’s pressure. And so he told the Post that Bush, (and by extension Rice), is “not doing a single thing that I don’t agree to. He doesn’t support anything that I oppose.”
Bush’s first presidential visit to Israel could have been a great opportunity for the country. But in his interview with the Post, a week before Bush’s arrival, Olmert made it clear that the visit will be a disaster. Whether Bush wants to or not, ahead of the publication of the Winograd Report, Olmert will leave him no choice. Bush will be forced to rape Israel.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner
from which we extracted it.