The EU Is At War With Israel

 

It's official. For all intents and purposes, the EU is at war with Israel.Some of the members, particularly in Eastern and central Europe aren't participating, but most of the EU is.

It isn't a shooting war, but an increasing effort to marginalize the Jewish State so it can be destroyed..

The EU supports anti-Israel NGOs financially,and continues to fund the PLO even though it uses much of those funds to pay terrorists for murdering Israeli civilians, even though that financial support frees up funds to be used in what the PLO refers to as 'operations.'

Only Israel has fruits, vegetables and fresh flowers specially labeled as being from 'the Occupied West Bank.'

Led by Angela Merkel and Frances Emanuel Macron, the EU has consistently evaded U.S. sanctions against Iran and continued to observe the farcical Iran 'deal' of Barack Hussein Obama. The EU has done this even though Iran has been quite clear of its genocidal intentions towards Israel.

And it was none other than Germany's Angela Merkel who pressured Eastern and Central European countries with good relationships with Israel not to relocate their embassies in Jerusalem or face her wrath.

The founding director of the European Coalition for Israel in Brussels, Tomas Sandell, reported that  that the  German Chancellor  waged a strenuous campaign to stop central and eastern European countries from moving their capitals to Jerusalem..

 “I have spoken to many Germans these last few days in Brussels,” he said. “They are not aware of this, and all of them would be shocked that all of the countries in the European Union today would want to block an embassy move to Jerusalem, not only for your own country, but for other countries that have the conviction [that] this is the right thing to do, the only country to do would be Germany. This is a big shock.”

According to Sandell, most of  Merkel’s calls to put the squeeze on European leaders happened when “many of the nations were seriously considering moving their embassies.”

This isn't a shock to me at all,but let's continue.

Germany also implemented  the marking of Israeli goods from 'disputed territories' in 2015. Not only did Germany start the labeling, but Merkel used her influence to get other Eu nations to do the same.The idea, of course is to further isolate Israel as an 'occupying power.'

As recently as a few days ago, the EU showed that it had chosen sides against Israel. When American U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley tried to discuss aspects of President Trump's proposed peace plan, they essentially brushed it off. Let's look at their official statement and then dissect what it really means.

After the usual horse manure about a 'just peace 'based on international law, relevant UN resolutions and previous agreements', here's what they said:

  "The EU is truly convinced that the achievement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of both States, that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation and resolves all final status issues, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2334 and previous agreements, is the only viable and realistic way to end the conflict and to achieve just and lasting peace."

Let's translate this, shall we?

 

Resolution 2334 is the one former President Barack Hussein Obama engineered when the Security Council had a majority of anti-Israel countries on it and then made sure the US abstained so it would pass, his final hateful attack on Israel. Here's what it stipulated, and it's an  'anti-zionist' wet dream.

First of all, it negates every Israeli community as illegal outside the pre-1967 lines and gives East Jerusalem to the PLO. This creates 580,000 homeless Israeli refugees, bars them forever from all their holy sites, and puts all of Israel's central plain and its airports in easy missile and mortar by giving Israel's sworn enemies the high ground.

 

Not only that, it also  takes away any notion of security from what's left of Jerusalem that the resolution is willing to leave to Israel. The Israelis themselves had previous experience with this in 1967, when Jordan's King Hussein announced his entry into the war by shelling civilians and having snipers fire on West Jerusalem

Even worse, there would be nothing to stop Iran from supplying deadlier and deadlier missiles and arms to both the PLO and Hamas. With the Jordan Valley out of Israeli control, there would be nothing to stop Iran from moving troops, missile launchers and armor  to Israel's new borders.

Essentially, what the EU was saying to Ambassador Haley is that they weren't going to support President Trump's plan whatever it was, that Israel should be moved to indefensible borders, and that its enemies should have every strategic advantage so they can finally destroy it.

2334 also  violates the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, agreements the U.S. was a signatory to that stated unequivocally that any settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could only be achieved through direct negations between the two parties.

And then of course, there's that notion of 'occupation.' That term has always been used to describe one country forcibly invading and taking control of another country's sovereign territory. And sovereign territory means land inside another established country's recognized borders, like Saddam Hussein occupying Kuwait or the US occupying Germany or Japan.

So we have to ask the question...which country's sovereign territory is Israel 'occupying?'

It can't be Jordan. Yes, Jordan illegally occupied Judea, Samaria (AKA The West Bank) and East Jerusalem in the 1948 war for 19 years after ethnically cleansing the Jewish population in this area,  but the UN never recognized these areas as Jordanian territory, Israel took it back in the Six Day war after Jordan attacked them and Jordan later gave up all claims to this area as part of their peace treaty with Israel. So it isn't Jordan Israel's occupying.

And it can't be 'Palestine' either. It never existed as a sovereign nation with established borders at all. Owning a house in say, Pennsylvania does not make it and maybe your yard a sovereign country, now does it?

So there really is no 'occupation.' According to the San Remo Accords between the League of Nations (the UN of its day) and Britain in 1922, the 22% of the Palestine Mandate that includes Judea and Samaria and what is now Israel was supposed to be the Jewish State, while the 78% of it that's now Jordan was supposed to be the Arab State. It's the only partition of the area both sides ever agreed on, and it was reaffirmed in Article 80 of the UN Charter.

What the EU and their pals at the UN are doing is pretty simple to figure out. They're simply doing what  Mark Twain predicted they would back in 1899 when the  Zionist movement was  beginning. Here's what he had to say  in a famous article on Jews he did in Harper's Magazine:

  I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more. 

Want further proof of how the EU has it in for Israel? The recent attempt to simply pass a resolution  condemning unprovoked terrorism  by Hamas against Israel in the UN General Assembly failed dismally once Israel's enemies in the UN insisted on a two thirds majority instead of the simple majority Ambassador Haley wanted.

You know what did pass? A resolution sponsored by Ireland calling for 'the achievement, without delay”  of the implementing  of U.N. resolution 2334.

Since 2334 was a series 6 Resolution that has no status as international law,  Israel promptly rejected it, as any country not interested in national suicide would.But thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, it remains a framework for countries that want Israel gone.

And make no mistake,it definitely is about the Jews. Much of what constitutes the EU will never forgive them for Auschwitz. Or for being so successful in a region noted for failed states.

The Real Story on Merkel And Macron's Call For A New EU Army

 

By now, many Americans are aware of France’s Socialist President Emanuel Macron’s acid comments to U.S. President Donald Trump about how a new EU Army was needed for protection from, “China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

This was particularly insulting since Macron made his remarks on an occasion when President Trump was in France to commemorate the end of WWI and to honor the American soldiers who fell in places like Belleau Wood and the Argonne Forest and literally saved France from defeat at the hands of the German Army. Without the heroic efforts of those American soldiers,that  last German offensive in 1918 would almost certainly have broken through the exhausted French troops, many of whom had mutinied against their own officers just months ago.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel was quick to second Macron's remarks at a speech the very next day to the European Parliament, saying, "we have to work on the vision of one day creating a real European army.”

 

This is quite interesting. Germany's Bundeswehr is an under equipped, under manned and under financed joke, and Germany refuses to even meet their NATO commitments financially. As for France, most of their army is stationed within France itself, trying to maintain a semblance of order in France's cities, and France's economy is in a dismal recession. To do what Macron and Merkel are planning would cost billions that neither country would likely be able to afford, especially if, as Merkel said, they plan on staying part of NATO.

So what's behind this call for a new EU Army is actually easy to see if we look at the similarities between Merkel and Macron.

Both are by nature, totalitarians. Macron is a lifelong socialist and EU functionary who was part of the Hollande regime. Angela Merkel was a member of East Germany's notorious secret police, the STASI. And it's certainly easy to see these tendencies at work at when you look at how the EU and their individual countries are being run.

 

Both are seeing their grip on power severely threatened. Macron's popularity has plummeted severely, now that the French have begun to realize how badly they were conned and lied to in the last election.  The French are increasingly pessimistic about their future.  And Angela Merkel,while still  Bundeskanzlerin of Germany has seen her own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party reject her, along with their historic coalition partners, the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union (CSU). Both parties are now at record lows in approval ratings, and Merkel will probably not even finish her term unless something drastic happens.  

While Macron's mishandling of France's economy contributed to his unpopularity, both he and Angela Merkel are deeply unpopular because of the problems caused by Merkel's decision to open the EU's borders to Muslim migrants and Macron's eager acquiescence to that policy for France. For all the efforts of most of the press in these countries, the sexual assaults, violence, vandalism and crime that have occurred are no secret any more to the average German or French citizen.

Both leaders are also childless by choice. People with that mindset  tend to have a very different view of the future than those who have children.

So, let's put the pieces together, shall we? 

 The original bright idea Merkel and and other EU leaders had was to solve a growing problem: their native populations were simply not having children and rapidly graying. This tends to happen in socialist countries, and it was particularly true in Germany. And that meant fewer taxpayers to keep the socialist welfare state these countries had created solvent and running. Merkel hit on the idea of importing thousands of Muslim migrants to Germany, most of them young men of military age. She stupidly thought they would assimilate, adopt German culture and become taxpayers to keep Germany's social welfare system afloat.

What actually happened in both France,Germany and other countries stupid enough to try this is that the vast  majority of these young Muslim men didn't assimilate at all. After all, their own religion and culture was the best, wasn't it? Why imitate the kuffars? Nor did they particularly want to work, not when living on the dole gave them a lifestyle far better than they had back home, with free housing, medical care, and a generous cash stipend. And for amusement, there was crime, gang rapes, rioting, gay bashing, attacking Jews and simply behaving overall like the conquerors Mohammed and the Qur'an told them they were.  

Merkel and Macron's new idea is simply a variation on their former one. If they can't get these migrants off the dole and working, why not conscript them! Which is exactly how the new EU army is going to be created. While they probably wouldn't be too much use against the Russians, the new EU army could be used to threaten or even to attack EU nations like Hungary, Italy, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic who aren't abiding by the EU's diktats and bring them to heel. And of course, to discipline any dissidents in their own countries who need to be taught a lesson about co-operating with the New Order. It could also be used to deal with those uppity Jews in Israel who won't do as they're told by the EU. And of course, it would get a lot of these migrants off the dole. Given their inherent nature, making them into horde-like shock troops shouldn't be too hard, should it?

If it works the way they see it working, the entire populist movement in the EU nations can be crushed. And it's a great way for leaders like Merkel and Macron to stay in power, nicht wahr? 

Of course, in reality this would backfire in a hideous way. Armed and trained Muslim migrants aren't going to obey the orders of their infidel masters for very long.  They will simply use the opportunity they have been given to take over whatever they can manage to conquer and turn it into Dar Islam, which of course they will rule under shariah.

You would think Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron would be smart enough to see how badly their last experiment with Muslim Migrants turned out and avoid this sort of thing. But remember, they were dumb enough to do it  in the first place, and to insist on  bringing more migrants in,  even when it became obvious what a huge mistake it was. 

And the U.S.? Since most of the nations of Western Europe now regard America as  dangerous, would we get involved? It depends. 

I've seen others write about what a great  thing a new EU army would be, because we could simply take our troops out of Europe and forget about it. They forget that France has nuclear weapons and even some ICBMs and that Germany's Kiel shipyards are fully capable of building nuclear capable submarines. Would it really be such a great idea to let the Muslims get their hands on them?  So yes we probably would pull at least France out of the fire again, unless we simply decided to bomb the French nuclear facilities and Germany shipyards and have done with it.

  Also, in spite of what Angela Merkel had to say, as soon as they have their new EU army in place, NATO will largely be history. But that isn't going to apply to Eastern Europe, Italy, and quite possibly the UK if someone like Boris Johnson, David Davis or Dominic Raab takes over from Theresa May, which is very likely. And yes, if they're attacked, we might see US forces involved. 

Let's hope Merkel and Macron's idea of an EU army turns out to be just trial balloon with a hole in it. 

These leaders consider America a greater threat to them than an aggressive Islamist Iran, to the point where they appease the Ayatollahs at every turn and put their hopes in a bogus 'deal' Iran never even signed.
 
Based on that, I wouldn't count on a new EU Army being on our side in the event things hit the fan.










Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.
Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.
And connect with him on Linked In

Germany Update: Angela Merkel Surrenders On Migrant Policy

Faced with having her government collapse, Angela Merkel surrendered entirely to the demands of her interior minister, Horst Seehofer. Here's the agreement, in English and then in German:

In order to better regulate, control and prevent secondary migration, we come to this agreement:

1. We agree to a new border regime at the German-Austrian border, which ensures that asylum seekers whose asylum procedures are the responsibility of other EU countries, will be refused entry.

2. To do so, we will establish transit centers, from which the asylum seekers will be directly sent back to the responsible countries (refusing entry on the basis of the legal implication of non-entry). We do not want to act in an uncoordinated fashion, but come to administrative agreements, or establish communication, with the countries concerned.

3. In those cases where countries refuse administrative agreements, the rejection at the German-Austrian border will be on the basis of an agreement with the Republic of Austria.

The original German version:

 

Like I said, complete capitulation. Hort Seehofer had the best weapon possible in this kind of negotiation, the willingness to walk away from the table and take his CSU party with him. Needless to say, he was attacked ferociously by the Leftist German press, but he stood his ground, a man with courage and conviction.

Merkel’s facesaver in this agreement is one single sentence: “We do not want to act in an uncoordinated fashion, but come to administrative agreements, or establish communication, with the countries concerned.”
 Since the 'countries concerned' have already said no to more Muslim migrants, that question is essentially settled anyway, nicht wahr? But it looks nice on paper.

The true issue here was whether Germany actually has national borders and can refuse people entry or not. Merkel wanted to have a Germany with no borders and no real nationality, just a province in a non-democratic EUSSR.

This is a great day for both Germany and Europe, a victory for the German people's right to self-determination, and a major setback for the forces of multi-culti and slavery.

Don't be surprised if Seehofer ends up as the next German chancellor.

The German Elections: Dead Man's Curve

The German Elections are over, and the German people mostly voted for the status quo. And in that word 'mostly' lies a possibility that rather than crashing and burning, Germany might just manage to avoid suicide and remain a western, European nation.

Angela Merkel did indeed win a fourth term, but with the worst result for her party, the CDU/CSU Union since 1949, and one that assures that in order to govern, she will need coalition partners. And that won't be all that easy to assemble. Even worse for her is a possible splintering of the long standing CDU/CSU party...and the surprisingly strong showing of the Right in the form of Alternative für Deutschland (AFD). Here are the numbers:



Mutti Merkel will need 316 seats to govern. Let's look at who these parties are...

The Union is the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands, Christian Democratic Union of Germany) , in union with the CSU (Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern, Christian Social Union in Bavaria). The CSU is to the right of the CDU, although both are pro-EU. And the CSU is seriously talking about a split, since they're concerned how Merkel's stance on unlimited Muslim migration will effect them in their Bavarian stronghold. The CSU dropped from 49% to 38.5% thanks to Merkel, and have already announced a turn to the right, particularly regarding Muslim migration.

The SPD is the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany). It's a party of the Left that supports socialism, is pro-EU and has already said it will not join a coalition with Merkel. The Social Democrats and their candidate Martin Schulz came in a distant second, with a post-war record low of 21 percent.

Die Linke, as you can gather from its name is a far Left party that includes the former German communist party (PDS). They're an unlikely partner for Merkel.

Grüne (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Alliance 90/The Greens) is a very Left party with enviro-politics as their major focus. They might be prepared to do a deal with Merkel for the right price.

The FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei, Free Democratic Party) —are more centrist and champion free market economics and traditional classic liberal freedoms, but are also pro-EU. Again, a possible partner for Merkel for the right price.

And finally, AFD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) — Anti-EU, nationalist and very much against Merkel's continued importation of Muslim migrants to Germany. This is the first them they have passed the threshold of votes needed to get them into the Bundestag, Germany's Parliament. and while the chart lists them last, in terms of seats they have now gone on to become Germany's third largest party. They not only won't work with Merkel, they have pledged to oppose her at every turn. As AFD Leader Alexander Gauland said last night when the returns came in, "We will chase Mrs. Merkel, and we will take our country and our people back!”

By gaining seats in the Bundestag, AFD has dramatically boosted its visibility and qualifies for state financing.

AFD's rise is even more astonishing when you realize that the party was essentially split between an unapologetic right wing party led by Gauland and Alice Weidel and a more moderate wing headed by Frauke Petry, who helped form the party in 2013. If AFD had been united, their results might have been even more stunning.



In fact, Frauke Petry announced just after the election that she would sit in the Bundestag as an independent in opposition AFD's future will depend on whether the party continues to splinter or is able to unify over its core issues without being distracted.



The Left's reaction to AFD's success was quite typical. Rent-a-mobs in Leipzig tried to storm the town hall, where votes were still being counted, and where the AFD was holding their election party.



The same thing occurred in Berlin where another AFD election party was being held, and elsewhere, with protesters screaming things like 'Nazis Aus!' waving signs, breaking windows and generally acting out.

Unsurprising, since the German press (largely Left leaning) branded AFD as Nazis, and even German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and other Merkelites made the idea of "real Nazis" entering the Bundestag a real issue during the campaign.

Are the AFD Nazis? While some of them likely lean in that direction and have questionable views on certain subjects, I'd have to say generally speaking that this is more a typical case of Leftist hypocrisy and frankly, projection. After all, there were no AFD brown shirts trying to violently storm CDU/CSU events! Nor does AFD regurgitate the Nazi's economic views, which were frankly socialist.

The election itself basically revolved around two main themes. Merkel is seen as the comfortable status quo. Germany is still prosperous, and a lot of its graying population (more than half of the 61 million voters are aged 52 or older) saw Merkel as a symbol of stability.

The other theme is the simple fact that many Germans feel unsafe in their own country. Women in particular are uneasy walking alone at night, riding the trains or using public swimming pools for obvious reasons. Whole areas in German cities are becoming no-go areas for non-Muslims, and the tax money needed to support the Muslim migrants is taking a huge bite out of German wallets. Many people are simply fed up, and the election results show that as well.

The German elections show a nation negotiating Dead Man's curve. If Germany continues its skid towards destruction, it will end up with Muslims ruling it under sharia as one of the most important countries in Europe literally falls to invasion. Ironically, given how Merkel touts it, that would also lead to the end of the EU, something that's pretty close to happening anyway since many nations in the EU aren't going along with the diktats of Merkel and her minions in Brussels when it comes to doing to their countries what Germany and Sweden have done to theirs.

If the Germans decide that enough is enough, if the AFD remains united and goes more mainstream, if Germany reaches a consensus on the harm Merkel's allowing a surge of Muslim migrants into Germany has done, they may yet make the turn on Dead Man's Curve and save their country.

In that case, this year's German elections may be the beginning of Germany's return to sanity.

And Mutti Merkel? She will likely end up a Chancellor again, but her term will be anything but smooth. I'd be very surprised if she finishes it.