Category: Thought

Posted on

Has Israel Asked for Too Much Aid from the USA?

Glenn Greenwald once again goes on another anti-Israel diatribe at the Intercept. His articlelaunches the typical vacuous attacks on Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria, where Arab Palestinians were encouraged to move to by foreign powers in order to block the Jewish return to their biblical heartland. He then meanders into the meme of Israel being  a wealthy country and circles back to the idea that ultimately Zionist Jews are just after money. All of this is tucked into the neat package of why everyone should oppose US foreign aid to Israel.

Let’s first establish that many Israelis, including this author are opposed to taking American aid.  We appreciate the gesture, but in fact are aware that it comes with far too many strings attached.  Despite what Glenn Greenwald posits in his article, the deal is essentially the same, where as Israel must spend much of its money on America weapons manufacturers as well as rules on how to use weapons and financing.  But this is not why many Israelis are against accepting foreign aid.  At its base foreign aid takes away a country’s ability to act within the confines of doing what’s best for it and its citizens.  In Israel’s case, Israel itself can likely live without the aid and if it does so it would be able to approach its own foreign policy in a neutral and patriotic sense.

So why does Israel accept the aid and if it is so displeasing to America, why does even Obama, Bibi’s erstwhile adversary freely give it?

One word: Control.

The Americans would love not to give Israel the kind of aid it does and although ideas like this have floated around for a while, American intelligence understands that a strong Israel not held back by American aid, could do what it pleases.  Israel could in fact do what it already has started to do and make deals and partnerships with rising powers. It could in fact leave the false two-state narrative behind and annex its biblically mandated land.  With India, China, and many other countries in the east rising, this control becomes very important for the American elite.  Israel is not the Ukraine. It has the largest amount of startups besides Silicon Valley and it boasts a unriveled innovation engine. Keeping Israel in the pocket of the American ruling class is a serious objective for both Republicans and Democrats.

So why does Israel continuously accept the aid if it can do much better on its own?  The answer comes down to money and connections.  There has always been a disturbing dichotomy between the globalist leaning elite in Israel and the typical citizen. The upper tier of the military still sees connections with the American security establishment as vitally important for a career post their military service.  They have good pensions and financial incentives to back US aid to Israel.  The Israeli populace sees very little of this money and instead receives conditions placed on the government’s maneuvarability.

What About Bibi’s Request for Even More Money

Glenn Greenwald points out what only seems like chutzpah on the part of Bibi Netanyahu in asking for even more money. The truth is, that Israeli intelligence provides a lot of unfettered access to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian movements in the Levant and Middle East.  America has by and large outsourced its intelligence gathering to Israel and in doing so, the terms of the agreement must change.  This is far more like a job than it is aid. America, doesn’t and at this point can’t afford to put boots on the ground and so Israel does it for them, giving valuable intelligence on enemy goings and comings that the US can’t get anywhere else.

Like usual Glenn Greenwald gives a half-baked position on an Israel centric issue.  Whether one agrees with US aid for Israel or not, the reasons for opposing it must be built on a solid factual foundation or else the argument risks slipping into old-fashioned antisemitism masked in anti-Zionist propaganda.

Posted on

Israel’s Kingdom: Rectifying Evil and Lifting Holy Sparks

This week’s Torah portion is called “Matot:”

“HaShem spoke to Moshe, saying, ‘Take vengeance for the Children of Israel against the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered unto your people.’” (BAMIDBAR 31:1-2)

HaShem instructs Moshe to wage war against Midian in retribution for that nation’s attempts to seduce and destroy Israel. But when Moshe, in turn, relates this mitzvah to his people, his words are noticeably different.

“Moshe spoke to the people, saying, ‘Arm men from among yourselves for the army that they may be against Midian to inflict HaShem’s vengeance against Midian. A thousand from a tribe, a thousand from a tribe, for all the tribes of Israel shall you send to the army.’” (BAMIDBAR 31:3-4)

In relating this commandment, Moshe refers to the vengeance of Israel as the vengeance of HaShem. Rashi teaches that one who raises a hand against Israel – the national human expression of the Kadosh Barukh Hu – must be regarded as if he is attacking G-D Himself.

Israel is tasked with the mission of bringing humanity to the awareness of HaShem as the timeless ultimate Reality without end that creates all, sustains all, empowers all and loves all. This message is manifest through the very life of the Jewish people in history, culminating with the establishment of a Hebrew Kingdom in Eretz Ysrael that reveals the Divine Ideal in every facet of human behavior.

By attempting to prevent Israel from establishing this kingdom, the Midianites were essentially working to delay man’s attainment of this higher consciousness and the blessing it would bring to all of Creation.

The battle of Midian therefore reveals the link between a nation’s animosity towards Israel and its subconscious desire to prevent history’s goal from being attained. By waging war on the Jewish people, even if not consciously aware of the inner cause, an individual person or collective group is making a declaration of war against the Source of all Creation. It then becomes Israel’s task, like a surgeon removing malignant tumors from a patient’s body, to extract this malevolent cancer from the world. While this may be difficult for a people whose national aspirations necessitate the elevation of all humankind, Jews must learn to view such “cruelty” through the lens of a greater vision that strives for humanity’s ultimate collective benefit.

Loving HaShem naturally requires one to extend that compassion to all of His children. And loving everyone and everything that the Kadosh Barukh Hu creates makes it difficult to hurt people fashioned in His Image. Every creature in existence, no matter how iniquitous, possesses a Divine spark of deep inner kedusha. But when existing within those who war against Israel, this holy spark suffers from a dark malice surrounding it and desperately yearns for rectification.

By removing such a person from the world, Israel rectifies the evil and uplifts the holy spark, liberating it from its prison of darkness and sin. It therefore becomes an act of great compassion – to HaShem, to humanity and even to the spark of good existing within Israel’s antagonist – that the Jewish people remove such a threat from the world and prevent him from further destructive behavior (while at the same time precluding his darkness from corrupting civilization). Similar to killing harmful bacteria, this kindness makes our world a healthier place as the Hebrew Nation aspires to bring Creation to an era of unparalleled blessing and harmonious unity through the higher awareness of HaShem as the infinite Whole of which we are all a part.

Posted on

Bruce Mayrock and the Hebrew Roots of the Free Biafra Movement

Bruce Mayrock

When 20-year-old Bruce Mayrock set himself on fire in front of the UN Building on the 30th of May 1969 to protest the world’s silence in relation to the Biafran genocide, little did he know he would be the most publicized non-Igbo activist to be killed during the 3 year Biafran struggle for independence from Nigeria.  The struggle ended in loss. Millions of Biafrans, mostly Igbo were systematically killed at the hands of their enemies.   Women and children were raped, tortured, killed, and starved to death. Nigeria was aided by the British and the Americans through a blockade, which prevented needed supplies from reaching Biafra.

It is doubtful that Mayrock attached a Jewish connection between himself and the Biafran struggle. In those days the Hebrew roots of the Igbo were fairly unknown in the West.  Mayrock was doing as a Jew what he felt was right. But like all things there are some cosmic connection to Bruce Mayrock’s immolation.

We now know that before the British and other European countries colonised, enslaved, and missionized the West Coast of Africa, tribes like the Igbo had a plethora of Hebrew practices and still retain obviously Jewish practices. Many of these have surfaced in recent years: brit milah (circumcision), chupah (wedding canopy), ritual slaughter, separation of meat and milk, day of rest, and many more. Many practices were forcibly suppressed by European missionaries, with those same missionaries telling the Igbo that they were pagans.

The Biafra struggle has many facets to it.  One of the most fascinating is the struggle has awoken the ancient connection of the Igbo and many of the other smaller tribes around them to their connection the people of Israel.  The free Biafra movement is as much about spiritual and cultural freedom as it is about political independence.

Understanding for a moment that 60% of African-American have Igbo ancestry, it is not by accident that the power structure in America wanted to drive a wedge between the civil rights movment and the Jewish community.

As the awareness is spreading that the Igbo and Jews are actually long-lost brethren, both enslaved and abused by European and Arab cultures, the immolation of Bruce Mayrock takes on a far more powerful iconic symbol than ever. Understanding for a moment that 60% of African-American have Igbo ancestry, it is not by accident that the power structure in America wanted to drive a wedge between the civil rights movement and the Jewish community. These forces are essentially the same forces that have created separate narratives between the Igbos and Jews keeping the first from recovering the roots stolen from them and the latter from embracing their lost brothers and sisters. These lost brothers and sisters in America may just be some of the very same African-American neighbors Jews regarded as outside of the Hebrew National consciousness.

Bruce Mayrock maybe have killed himself, but his immolation revealed the deep despair that was occurring in his heart, witnessing another genocide of a Hebrew people, so shortly after the European Holocaust.  Freeing Biafra and the Igbo from their cultural, spiritual, and political occupation is a cause the Jewish world must take on themselves both as a rectification of the past and a need to restore a more complete Israelite and Jewish nation.

Posted on

Potential Payoffs and Pitfalls for Israel if the GOP Wins

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

Rejecting decades-old policy, the Republican Party approved on July 12 a [2016] platform that does not include a call for a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.—Forward, July 10, 2016

We believe the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank would be destabilizing and harmful to the peace process. – 1980 Republican platform that brought Ronald Reagan to the White House.

We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state; its establishment is inimical to the security interests of Israel, Jordan, and the US. We will not support the creation of any Palestinian entity that could place Israel’s security in jeopardy. –1988  Republican platform that brought George H. W. Bush to the White House.

These three excerpts spanning over a quarter-century relating to the GOPs attitude towards the establishment of a Palestinian state include two important lessons for Israel.

Breathtaking erosion

One of these lessons relates to the past; the other to the future.

Israel will ignore either at its peril—or at least, to its grave detriment.

With regard to the past, these excerpts underscore the breathtaking erosion that has taken place since the late 1980s in the GOPs opposition to Palestinian statehood—from utter rejection; to retraction of opposition (1996); to explicit—albeit conditioned—endorsement in 2002.  It is only now that the GOP is setting aside its ill-considered support, and has thankfully begun to revert—albeit it still partially—to its former position.

What makes this spectacular erosion—from un-conditional rejection to conditional acceptance—even more remarkable is the fact that it took place over a period in which for the overwhelmingly greater proportion  of time, the incumbent Israeli government was headed by Likud, which until mid-2009 (Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan Speech) explicitly opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Indeed, for the twenty-two years (between 1980 to 2002), Likud-led coalitions were in power for about double the time that Labor-led ones were.

This is clearly a grave indictment of the Israeli “Right’s” inability to convincingly convey the validity of its political credo, and to undermine that of its ideological adversaries on the “Left”.

The need for soul-searching

The gravity of this indictment is further compounded by two factors that make it even more damning.

The first is that this dismal outcome emerged despite the highly favorably point of departure, which opponents of Palestinian statehood enjoyed.  After all, no effort was required to win over the GOP to this “rejectionist” position, for it was staunchly behind it to begin with.  Yet despite this, the “Right” was unable to sustain this like-minded support, which by 2002, had for all intents and purposes, been totally eroded.

The second is that this erosion occurred despite the fact that the “Right’s”  opposition to Palestinian statehood was completely validated by facts on the ground – i.e. by the bloody events that tragically arose from the fatally failed attempt to implement it.

So, sadly, the “Right” was not able to marshal the distinct dual advantage it had of a highly favorable point of departure and overwhelming empirical corroboration of its credo to sustain the GOP’s natural inclination to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.

This in itself is reason enough for intense soul-searching among “Right” wing activists, but it acquired even greater pertinence and urgency, precisely because of the encouraging signs that  the GOP is reverting—at least, partially and cautiously—to its past position of opposition to Palestinian statehood.

For today, the challenges Israel may have to face in a post-two-state era could well be as dire—perhaps even most so—than those that the perilous two-state paradigm posed.

A word of warning

It is no secret that enthusiasm for the two-state concept is waning—even among ardent erstwhile adherents. Indeed, recently, some obsessive two-staters such as New York Times’s Tom Friedman (February 10, 2016),  New York University’s Alon Ben Meir (Huffington Post, April 7, 2016), and recently the Jerusalem Post’s Gershon Baskin (July 20, 2016)  have acknowledged that, (gasp!), the Palestinians may actually have contributed to the accelerated irrelevance of the two-state idea.

Thus, and without wishing in any way to diminish the sterling efforts of those who helped bring about the welcome change in the 2016 GOP platform, this was, to some extent, as Rafael Medoff points out (Algemeiner, July 20, 2016)  a sober and clear-sighted response to the changing realities on the ground.

Of course, according to conventional wisdom in “Right-wing” circles, the changes in the GOP platform are a development that bodes well for Israel, as it signals growing awareness of the futility and dangers entailed in continued pursuit of the two-state chimera as the only route to a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs.

While this, of course, is undoubtedly true, a word of warning is called for.

With the passing to the two-state paradigm as a relevant policy option, new perils will immediately emerge. Planning on how they should be contended with is a pressing imperative for the Israeli “Right”—and one that, hopefully, it will display greater acumen and competence in contending with than it did in dealing with the two-state menace.

If not two-states, what?

With the growing prospect of the two-state option being abandoned, the question of what alternative paradigm Israel should adopt is becoming a question of increasing relevance.

It is also one which the Israeli “Right” has been appallingly remiss in addressing.

Indeed, for the better part of two decades, the “Right” limited itself to underscoring the myriad defects and dangers entailed in the two-state proposal, but largely refrained from articulating and advancing some cogent and comprehensive alternative prescription for its preferred vision of a permanent-status arrangement with the Palestinian-Arabs.

As a result, the “Right” found itself unable to respond effectively to the pointed and very pertinent question from adversarial two-state adherents: “So what’s your alternative?”

Failure to provide an adequate response to this question, eventually led to a drastic erosion of the Likud-led opposition to the two-state formula until its acceptance by Netanyahu in 2009.

But the recanting of support for the two-state formula by the GOP, and its waning attractiveness elsewhere,  will create a dramatically different and challenging reality for both the reluctant Likud-like two-staters on the one hand, and for still die-hard two-state opponents,  on the other.

For not only  will it be increasingly less plausible to invoke “irresistible international pressure” for reluctant acceptance, under duress, of a two-state compliant policy; but it will also no longer be possible to confine oneself to criticism and rejection of the two-state formula.

To the contrary, with the declining dominance of the two-state concept, its opponents will be obligated to proactively produce and present a plausible and practical Zionist-compliant alternative…or suffer the consequences of its generally accepted default option:  a multiethnic un-Jewish state-of-all-its-citizens.

Alternatives worse than two-state option?

As mentioned earlier, until lately, two-state opponents long eschewed presenting some persuasive, sustainable long-term blueprint for the outcome of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs.

In recent years, however, a spate of such alternative proposals has emerged. Sadly, not everything that is not a two-state compliant proposal is preferable to the perilous two-state principle itself.

And indeed, nearly all the major alternatives being advanced today by prominent figures on the “Right” are – notwithstanding the sincere goodwill of their authors—no less inimical to the long-term survival of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

Thus while I bear none of them any personal rancor, I am firmly convinced that if these “alternatives” are advanced as tangible policy options to replace the two-state  concept, the consequences for Israel and the Zionist ideal will be grave.

Indeed, in broad brush strokes, these proffered “alternatives” to setting up a Palestinian state can be divided into three major categories.

The first is that proposed by those who favor “managing—rather than resolving–the conflict”, which basically consists of “kicking the can down the road”. In effect, it calls for letting the problem fester, until some unspecified event(s) occur to—hopefully and inexplicably—facilitate resolution.

The other two—somewhat more proactive—suggestions can be divided into those that will, almost inevitably and demonstrably, lead to either:
(a) the Lebanonization (and later Islamization) of Israel by incorporating the Palestinian-Arab residents of the territories across the pre-1967 lines, into the permanent enfranchised population of Israel; or
(b) the Balkanization of Israel by trying to encapsulate the Palestinian-Arab population in disconnected autonomous enclaves in these areas.

None of these three categories can pave the way for Israel—as the nation-state of the Jews—to a sustainable long-term situation that is any less menacing than that entailed in the two-state scenario.

“What’s wrong with ‘The Right’…”

In a series of past articles, I have—with varying degrees of acerbity/exasperation—laid out in considerable detail, the manifest shortcomings of these alternative proposals, to which I urge readers to refer. See:

What’s Wrong With The Right — Part I: As demented and disastrous as the two state “solution” is, most alternatives proffered by the Right would be no less calamitous.

What’s Wrong With The Right – Part II:The Right must realize that between the river and the sea, either exclusive Jewish or exclusive Arab sovereignty will eventually prevail.

Brain Dead On The Right?: The only thing more dangerous, delusional and disastrous than the Left’s proposal for a two-state solution, is the proposal now bandied about by the Right – for a one-state solution

To My Colleague Caroline, A Caveat:I strongly concur with Caroline B. Glick’s diagnosis of the fatal failings of the two-state formula, and disagree just as strongly with the prescription she offers to remedy them.

Sovereignty? Yes, But Look Before You Leap: Extending Jewish sovereignty over Judea-Samaria is imperative, but some proposals for this imperil Israel no less than the two-state folly.

Islamizing Israel – When The Radical Left And Hard Right Concur:The almost unavoidable result of annexing the territories & enfranchising their Arab population would be to eventually create a Muslim-majority tyranny.

Annexing Area C: An Open Letter To Naftali Bennett:Between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, there can — and eventually will — prevail either exclusively Jewish, or exclusively Arab, sovereignty.

Sovereignty? Yes, But Beware Of Annexing Area C: Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will solve none of the problems Israel faces today, and exacerbate many

The most urgent & important issue today

In these articles I show why:

– “managing the conflict” is an exercise in futility—and self-delusion—that will only carry the country on a perilous downward spiral, with prevailing problems increasing in both scale and intensity;

– proposals that prescribe including the Palestinian Arabs in the permanent population of a post-two-state Israel would almost inevitably turn the country into a Muslim-majority tyranny within a few generations—even if the optimistic demographers are right and, initially, the Muslim population will comprise a 35-40% minority;

– proposals that advocate partial annexation and limited autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs, concentrated in disconnected mini-enclaves will result in wildly torturous and contorted borders, virtually impossible to demarcate  and secure, thus emptying  “sovereignty” in the annexed areas of any meaningful content.

None of these proposals offer a sustainable alternative paradigm to the two-state formula that can ensure Israel’s survival as a viable nation-state of the Jewish people.

The GOP’s new platform can indeed herald a great new opportunity for Israel, especially—but not necessarily, only—if it wins the November elections.

But to reap the potential benefits that this entails, Israel must prepare.  It must formulate a cogent, comprehensive paradigm to replace the two-state folly, which addresses both its geographic and demographic imperatives for survival—lest it promote a proposal that threatens to make it untenable geographically or demographically–or both.
It must be a proposal that ensures that Israel retains its vital geo-strategic assets in Judea-Samaria and drastically reduces the presence of the hostile Arab population resident there—preferably by non-coercive means such as economic inducements…which, by the way, is what brought the bulk of the Arab population here in the first place.

Initiating debate on this is a matter of paramount urgency and importance. I can only hope that this essay will help initiate it.

Posted on

Brexit, Sadiq Khan, and Lessons from the Igbo on Radical Islam

Igbo Genocide Buhari Sadiq Khan Brexit

Dogs at play

The Igbo believe that there is a standard rule of play which dogs observe when two of them are at play: When one dog falls on its back the other dog knows without any other prompting that the next time is his turn to fall too. In this way, the play does not turn into a fight and will last longer. The lesson here is that when I fall for you and you in turn fall for me, the world goes around and becomes a more peaceful place where we all work, play and prosper in the spirit of give and take.
A Muslim becomes the Mayor of London 
On May 9, 2016 the new Mayor of London Sadiq Khan was heralded into office with a fanfare and much jubilation. By any stretch of the imagination the election of Khan, a Muslim whose parents were recent Pakistani immigrants to Britain was historic. For the next 4 years Khan will preside over the affairs of one of the greatest cities of Christendom and Western civilization – London England. London, a Christian English city is only 60 miles from the famous cathedral in Canterbury where the revered Archbishop of Canterbury who is the global head of the Church of England lives. So, as well as being an important Western civilization’s cultural center, to many members of the Anglican Communion, Wesleyan Methodists and many other Christians, London can also serve as a holy city comparable with any other religions’ “holy” cities anywhere else.
For some people, especially the liberal politicians, the result of the London mayoral election was just the way it’s supposed to be. Such liberal thinkers argue that this is 2016 after all, and the world has come a long way in its journey towards tolerance and the integration of world’s diverse cultures and peoples. That notwithstanding, and given the prevailing realities of Islamic terrorism and violent jihad being unleashed by radical Muslims throughout the world, there are a large number of conservatives, including some moderates, who were shocked at Khan’s election as the new Mayor of London. Nevertheless, many have compared his election in London in some ways, to the 2008 election of Barack Obama into the White House as the President of the United States of America.
But, as some people have observed; in Obama’s case, he had to make an extra effort to assert and defend his Christian faith. While in Khan’s case, the people of London went a step further than the Americans; Sadiq Khan did not have to disguise his Islamic faith in his bid to become the Mayor of one of the most important Christian and Western cities in the world. In this regard therefore, Khan’s election became both a personal as well as a collective victory. The collective which won alongside Khan are all those who have campaigned to see a world where the populations of societies everywhere are more plural and diversified than closeted and mono-cultural. In this regard, the Western culture and education as represented by the city of London leads the way and has become the epitome of tolerance and liberty of the 21st century. London is now a city on the hill to which any other elsewhere that is eager to exhibit tolerance and integration will aspire to copy
The dangers of Muslims resisting assimilation
However, and unfortunately so, judging from current events and experiences in Europe and other Western societies, it shows that it is not enough to create multi-cultural societies through open liberal immigration policies. What is even more important is that recent immigrants should be encouraged to integrate with the native populations to which they emigrate. It is of primary importance that new immigrants should accept the ways and practices of their host communities. Sadly and very troubling too, most Muslim immigrants to Western societies have continued to resist assimilation into their host Western societies. This resistance therefore has continued to breed unnecessary social tensions and cultural clashes. Apparently and very absurd also, the Muslim immigrants are fighting to destroy the very cultural foundations and social practices that sustained the host societies and made them attractive to the newcomers to want to emigrate to them.
Since the last few decades collective human civilization and progress have come under severe attack and threatened with real danger by unholy heat from radical Islam. And very disturbingly, this heat is fueled by these Muslims’ deep-rooted hatred and intolerance of other people’s views and cultures. Going by the Biafran experience, the danger of such antisocial behaviors as being displayed by these radical Muslims can be terrible and far reaching. When these excesses go unchecked for too long, they end up producing very serious crimes like complete social breakdown, genocide and other forms of crimes against humanity and civilization.
Radical Islam was responsible for the Biafran Genocide
As some readers may recall, it was the same intolerance and hate that led the Muslim dominated government of Nigeria, between 1966 and 1970, to commit the genocide of the Igbo in which more than 3.1 million Igbo perished. This heinous crime of genocide against the Igbo has so far gone largely unnoticed and unpunished, and as a result fifty years after, the world is witnessing an increased widespread impunity where the same group of people is committing the same atrocities against other populations. This world belongs equally to all the people here and no single group should lay claim to an exclusive right to control it and dictate for all others how they should live their lives.
The people of the world should come together to save the world
In 2016, fifty years after Biafra or Igbo Genocide, Muslim extremists have continued to pose real danger to not only Igbo people in Nigeria, Western civilization and its peoples, but also to all humanity, its civilizations, peoples and every progress that the collective humanity has ever made. And rather than continue to live in denial, human beings everywhere should now assume the responsibility by coming together to stop this bent by radical Muslims to destroy the world civilization as we know it. The international community must come together to fight this Islamic monster to a halt. The international community, led by the United Nations must declare a global state of emergency against intolerance, hate, violent Islam, sharia and jihad. Honest, sincere and practical steps must be taken collectively by the international community now to stop this madness or everything the world had ever held dear and all progress made by human beings will be doomed. The continued survival of the human race and their civilization is the collective responsibility of all people everywhere and the people must come together to save themselves.
Extending London-example to Islamic societies
Apart from the immigrants accepting, and in some cases willingly adopting the ways and cultures of their host communities, to accelerate the rate of integration of world’s cultures and populations, other cities and societies around the world need to follow in the path which the city of London has gone. In this regard it is necessary to particularly call out the traditional Muslim cities and societies. Tolerating and integrating with other cultures and peoples cannot be a unidirectional river that flows only from the West and other free societies toward the Muslims. Going back to the dogs’ rule of play with which we started this discussion; all Islamic countries and other societies which hitherto had been bent on remaining exclusive and intolerant of other cultures and worldviews must look up to London’s example and update their societies to the 21st century London-standards.
In this same spirit of tolerance, it will be proper to see in no distant time, probably within the next decade, a Christian or Jewish man or woman become the mayor, emir or its equivalent of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Within the next ten years there should be a Christian or Jewish man or woman born by recent Christian or Jewish immigrant parents elected to become the mayor or emir of Tehran. Also, as the West has shown through the election of a Muslim into the mayoral office in London, such Islamic terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Islamic State, Boko Haram among others which are bent on destroying everybody, all cultures and views that are different from theirs must reconsider their unholy barbarous campaigns and start working toward tolerating and accepting other people and cultures. They must accept and practically demonstrate that 21st century world and civilization have moved far away from the 7th century intolerant Arab barbarism on which Islamic sharia and jihad are based.