Featured Post 3

February 2, 2016 By Olivier Melnick 1 Comment

France/Israel Relations: A “Fait Accompli” disguised as an Ultimatum!

French foreign Minister Laurent Fabius wants to revive the talks between Israelis and Palestinians in an effort to come to an agreement regarding a two-state solution. Mr. Fabius is hoping to be able to break the current deadlock. Peace in the Middle East has become some sort of “Holy Grail” in global diplomacy. Some key players like the United States and several countries in the European Union have tried–to no avail– to play their role in bringing peace to the region. France is at it again with Mr. Fabius “ultimatum.” I would commend France for such an effort if it wasn’t so one-sided.

Actually, I would venture to say that it is more than one-sided. It is not much of an ultimatum, and it is devious at best. Mr. Fabius just announced that Israel and Palestine need to work towards reviving the peace talks. It sounds like France is expecting Israelis and Palestinians to come to some sort of compromise towards a two-state solution. Yet, if Israel doesn’t flex under France’s pressure, France will de facto recognize “the State of Palestine.”

It is obvious that France is biased in favor of the Palestinian since nothing is expected of them. As a matter of fact, why would they do or say anything since Israel failure to comply will get them statehood recognition from France? Is it possible that Mr. Fabius knows full well that the talks will amount to nothing if in fact they resume at all? If this is the case, then Mr. Fabius could be accused of moving forward with in tent to fully fail, only for the purpose of recognizing Palestine. This is not only biased, it is also a very coward move by France. Seriously, if you want to recognize Palestine, just say it since all your deeds already point towards it.

Everything already lead us to believe that France doesn’t care much about Israel and/or the Jewish people. Currently the third largest Jewish community in the world after Israel and the United States, France is losing its Jewish community fast. Almost 16,000 Jewish people made Aliyah from France in the last 2 years because of antisemitism. As a matter of fact, up to 25% of French Jews have expressed their desire to move to Israel. That is between 100,000 and 125,000 people.

Laurent Fabius’ decision to recognize Palestine shouldn’t surprise the Jewish community. Frankly, I am surprised that it hasn’t already happened. It was Sweden that lead the pack within the European Union in 2014, and first recognized Palestine. Diplomatic relations between Israel and Sweden have been hurt as a result. Today, Sweden continues to widen the gap by allowing more antisemitic acts to freely take place within their borders, such as the publishing of schoolbooks where Israel doesn’t exist. This is just one small–not so influential–country of the EU that has recognized Palestine. France, on the other hand is a major international player. If Mr. Fabius goes ahead with Palestinian recognition, many more European countries will undoubtedly follow suit.

France’s hypocrisy is so painful to watch. One one hand, Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that France without her Jews would no longer be France, and on the other hand, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius decides to slap Israel in the face with a “damn if you do/damn if you don’t” pseudo ultimatum. This would already be wrong if both Israel and the Palestinians were equally at fault. This makes the decision even more imbalanced when one consider the terror dispensed by Hamas and Fatah on a daily basis. Was Hamas asked to stop the violence? No! Was anything said about the numerous knife stabbings of the last few months? Not really!

What is so tragic about France’s one-sided decision to recognize Palestine with no strings attached and no accountability, is that it isn’t going to stop the violence. On the contrary, it will most likely embolden the Palestinians and encourage them to pursue terrorism. Even though the spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said” There is no doubt that a French recognition of the Palestinian state will contribute to building peace and stability in the region”, we know that the opposite will happen. After all, if all that they are doing to Israel is rewarded with statehood, why stop now?

August 17, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 5 Comments

Is A New Set of Global Nuremberg Laws on the Horizon?

The dehumanization of the Jewish people came to its apex during World War Two and the Holocaust. The German phenomenon did not take place overnight, but rather was the result of an incremental, yet constant persecution of the European Jewish community over the centuries.

Hitler and the Nazi Party gained power in 1933 and within two years started to implement policies that would lead to the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, the infamous euphemism for the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust.

The most notorious of these sets of laws was known as the “Nuremberg Race Laws” or more commonly “The Nuremberg Laws” (not to be confused with the post-war “Nuremberg Trials” of the Nazi murderers).

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were divided into two categories. One was The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour and the other was The Reich Citizenship Law. Both were based on the false science of Eugenics or racial purity. In their entirety, the The Nuremberg Laws were aimed at ostracizing the Jews from German society to the point of making work, life and socializing virtually impossible. They represented the foundation for the Nazi definition of who is a Jew, who is Aryan and as a result who deserved to live and who deserved to die.

Marriage between Jews and non-Jews became forbidden. Jewish owned stores were taken over. Jews wanting to leave Germany were taxed up to 90% of their estates. Jews were required to carry identity cards with the letter “J” stamped on, a well as being forced to insert the middle name of “Israel” for males and “Sara” for females on their papers. Jewish doctors could no longer treat non-Jewish patients.
A complicated bureaucracy of anti-Semitic statutes was enacted, transforming the Jews from humans to animals to parasites, and thus requiring their “extermination” for the betterment of the world, or of the Third Reich at the very least.

The Nuremberg Laws were incremental but key to the systematic attempt at the destruction of European Jewry.

Is it possible that only eighty years later, we are starting to see what could be called “a new set global Nuremberg Laws?” Just like most of the German populace didn’t notice or even react to the racial purity laws, today’s global community seems unaware or worse; uninterested about this new phenomenon.
The fact that the global Jewish community suffers from anti-Semitism can no longer be denied. But it is no longer only racial purity that is being promoted. Much is being attempted to reduce the Jews to a nuisance to society. This compilation of anti-Jewish acts, decrees, exhibits, marches and even UN resolutions is seeing an exponential growth without much resistance from anybody at all.

Recently, the Brazilian government has passed a law that all Brazilian Jews born in Jerusalem will no longer have the word “Israel” on their passport. While the number of affected people is minimal in Brazil, the politically correct statement is clear: Jerusalem can no longer simply remain the Jewish Capital! Unbeknownst to most, this is also the standard procedure for the United States, Canada and France. It has of course become highly offensive and reeking with intolerance to many who are so “invested” in the Israeli-Arab conflict!

Just a couple of weeks ago, on some Air France in-flight maps of the middle East, Israel, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were omitted and replaced with the words “Gaza” and “West Bank”. It took no time for passengers to notice and start flooding the social networks with photos of the erroneous maps. Within days, Air France issued an apology and fixed what they called a “technical problem.” I am at a loss trying to understand how this could possibly be a technical glitch. Words disappeared and were replaced by other words that are usually not on the map at any scale. Was it technical or political? Don’t get me started?

In Spain, just a few days ago, the Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu was asked to recognize the Palestinian State to be allowed to participate in a music festival. After the artist categorically refused to flex under the political pressure, his show was cancelled by the festival.

These might appear as very little waves in an ocean of anti-Israel sentiment often hit by more devastating anti-Semitic tsunamis. They nevertheless are becoming more and more common and they are a sign of the times for the global Jew. They are little stabs in the Jewish identity that often go unnoticed but set-up the stage for more and more acceptance of the propaganda coming from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) movement.

It is obvious that these are not laws against the Jews like we saw in the mid-thirties out of Germany. But in many ways, these attempts at demonizing the Jews and Israel can even be as lethal as simple laws. They come from many organizations, agencies and even common people who have naively (or some even willingly) bought into the Palestinian narrative.

There is nonetheless a greater danger looming on the Jewish horizon. As we see more and more of the world being conditioned against the Jews and the State of Israel, it is only logical to expect very little resistance when real laws are enacted against them [the Jews].

A new set of Nuremberg Laws might not be a reality yet, but I have no doubt that the tentacles of a global anti-Jewish legislation are coming. When these laws become a reality to the Jews, will they be enough of a reality to you to say/do something?

In 1942, French Pastor André Trocmé answered a Vichy official about hiding and saving Jews in his village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon and said:“These people came here for help and for shelter. I am their shepherd. A shepherd does not forsake his flock… I do not know what a Jew is. I know only human beings.”

Will there be any “André Trocmé” left around when my people are hunted down again?

April 25, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 4 Comments

Does Amnesty International Think that Anti-Semitism isn’t Worth Fighting?

In a world crippled by xenophobia and injustices of all kinds, we should welcome the work of organizations like Amnesty International (AI). Since 1961, this grassroots movement has been a global voice of outrage against racism, violence and injustice. Today, with over three million members and established branches in 68 countries, AI continues to fight for human rights and justice. Their mission statement is: “Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights”. A quick review of the half-century of work done by AI will suffice to prove the great need for such an organization. They have fought many fights and won many victories small and large.

Yet before I can rejoice for the work that they do, I must once again ponder and ask myself why would Amnesty International seem to ignore anti-Semitism?

During its annual conference in the UK, in March 2015, Amnesty International decided to table a motion to deal with the rise of anti-Semitism in Britain. Of all the motions presented, it was the only one that was defeated. The reason given by Amnesty International was: “After a really interesting debate where everyone condemned discrimination against all ethnic and religious groups, our membership decided not to pass this resolution calling for a campaign with a single focus.” 

Of course, if you dig a little, you quickly realize that Amnesty International operates with a set of double standards when it comes to Israel and the Jewish people. It was only three years ago when AI fought against Islamophobia in Europe in what clearly appeared to be a single focus campaign. As a matter of fact, they even published a 123-pages report to substantiate their claims. To be sure, I am not opposed to AI’s work to fight Islamophobia; on the contrary, I support it. What really irks me is the fact that they would be so biased as to ignore one side and promote another.

Furthermore, their report of what took place during the Gaza War in the summer of 2014 is tainted with lies and inaccuracies. Of course, because of the impeccable reputation that AI has in the public arena, fact-finding is put aside and outrage against the Israeli “oppressors” and “bloodthirsty murderers” erupts.

Consider these statements recently made by AI when they were asked if they believed that Hamas was using human shields–something that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt: “Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks”. The rest of the report is so one-sided that it will make you sick reading it.

Apparently, there are also some key staffers at AI like Kristyan Benedict who harbor clear anti-Semitic sentiments. Benedict was recently heard comparing Israel to ISIS. There is pro-Palestinianism and then there is anti-Semitism. Amnesty International can be found guilty of both. Their last conference in the UK proved it further when they chose to defeat the motion to fight anti-Semitism.

The new world standard for measuring justice and human rights seems to be irrationally connected to anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism. It is clear to me that these two words are simply code names for anti-Semitism. If AI doesn’t revise their position soon, they could become “Scapegoating International”, but then again, are there even enough people who care to show their outrage at their bias?

For Amnesty International, anti-Semitism might not be worth fighting for, but they certainly are not my role model. The Bible is my standard, and it isn’t a double standard. It looks at the Jewish people as “the apple of God’s eye” in Zechariah 2:8. It also shows many of Israel’s shortcomings, just as it does show the iniquities for the rest of mankind, proving the need for a redeemer. The prophet Isaiah spoke of that Mashiach in Isaiah 52:13-53-12 in a very descriptive way. If Amnesty International is looking for true justice, I believe that they will only find it with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Any other man made agenda is flawed.

April 1, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 1 Comment

Appeasement is a Weakness Leading to Collaboration!

Western civilization might very well be on a new threshold as world leaders have met in Lausanne, Switzerland regarding Iran’s nuclear deal. The deadline arrived and yet, the talks yielded very little. The apparent progress made in the last few days in Europe warranted that the dialogue would continue. One of the big issues that Iran has is with sanctions imposed on them. Their economy has suffered greatly in the last few years, and they demand that sanctions be lifted in a way that would also prevent them from being reinstated automatically. Iran wants to have their diplomatic cake AND eat it too!

Many international voices have been heard on the topic of a nuclear Iran, and few if any are looking forward to that prospect. It is obvious that Iran is politically and ideologically very unstable. That fact was clearly delineated in a speech to Congress on March 3rd when Netanyahu risked his whole career, two weeks prior to the Israeli elections. His plea wasn’t for the safety of Israel but for the survival of Western civilization. Against all odds, a predicted Likud loss turned into a miraculous landslide victory. The White House felt that this was the last straw that justified what could one day be remembered as “The Great Diplomatic Divorce” of the 21st Century. Never before had an American president showed so much contempt for Israel and its current Prime minister.

Our President has great hatred for Israel and its leaders while he is working overtime to appease Iran. Both feats validate his destructive ambitions by weakening our best allies in the Middle East and strengthening what the West could rightfully call the Great Satan, also known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Obama is obsessed with the idea of striking up a deal with Iran as much as he is obsessed with the demonization of Israel. It would be understandable–albeit doubtful–if Iran would lie to America and the West about their intentions; but they don’t even do that! How in the world do you even try to negotiate with a country that openly calls for the death of America?

This is a perfect example of appeasement. Mr. Obama is trying to convince the world that Iran not only can be included to the negotiating table, but that they can also be trusted. The Lausanne Iran Summit didn’t yield the results hoped by world leaders. Iran made some promises in regards to slowing down enriching until they come to an agreement. But why would anybody trust Iran’s pathological lying? They simply continue to provide lip service to a world that has its head buried so deep in the sand that nothing matters. All seems to indicate that sanctions will be lifted almost unconditionally. Additionally, Mr. Obama threatens to veto any move by the US Congress that would lead to new sanctions against Iran. This is pretty much the bulk of his foreign policy. He has worked very hard at trying to appease and even accommodate Iran’s nuclear race. So much so that it could be argued that Mr. Obama is no longer simply appeasing Iran but he is now collaborating with Iran.

It is still a mystery to me why the US Senate was handed a report saying that Hezbollah and Iran are no longer considered part of the terrorist list. Seriously? Political analysts and pundits alike might speculate on Obama’s reasons for forcing a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the results is what matters! At this point it has become irrelevant if Mr. Obama wants Iran to arm themselves with nuclear capabilities or if he believes that they [Iran] just want to modernize their country’s energy, the results will be the same. If Iran is allowed to continue their nuclear program unbridled as it is, the Middle East will be forced into a frenzied arms race that will tip the global scale forever.

Instead of confronting Iran, Mr. Obama facilitates their agenda. While there are mistakes that world leaders make and even regret as they look back on their political career, ignoring Iran’s call to kill Israel and America could help us reach a point of no return. This wouldn’t be a mistake but a catastrophe!

All the while, the White House’s energy is spent denigrating Benjamin Netanyahu before and during his electoral campaign. Israel’s nuclear secrets are being divulged by the current US administration. Do they not understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot by exposing Israel’s nuclear intel? His disdain for Netanyahu and Israel coupled with his collaborating with Iran is doubly dangerous and could prove lethal to many.
It is very difficult for me to see Mr. Obama’s foreign policy strategy as anything else than a destructive agenda for both the Middle East region and the rest of western civilization. But then again, he claimed he didn’t have strategy to fight ISIS, so I might be giving him too much credit regarding his ability to formulate and implement a constructive foreign policy. Mr. Obama follows in the infamous footsteps of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who saw no risk in dealing with Adolf Hitler. History proved him wrong. Let’s pray that the current “Appeaser-In-Chief” doesn’t turn into a “Collaborator-In-Chief”

February 13, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 1 Comment

Equal Opportunity Vagueness Is a Real Danger!

France is still trying to recover from the terrorist attacks of early January 2015. But it wasn’t just France that was affected, as many around the world are starting to realize that the danger of radical Islam isn’t specific to the Middle East and/or exclusive to the Islamic State. Our global community was hit. There is still a very long road ahead of us if we really care to defeat people with an ideology in line with that of ISIS. But at the very least, it is now impossible to ignore the danger.

Yet it is one thing to acknowledge a real danger and it is another to strategize and move forward to fight it. For the most part, the world is being forced to recognize the brutality and barbarism of the Islamic State, but few if any have made any progress in the war against that enemy. Its is quite mind boggling that some governments have yet to clearly label the Islamic State as a radical Islamic group. Leading the pack is the Obama administration whose vagueness regarding the Islamic State is a real danger.

We can all agree that the beheadings, crucifixions and burnings have placed the Islamic State to the forefront of our contemporary enemies, yet for any government to even hesitate in calling the group a radical Islamic terrorist group, is a grave mistake. Last September, in one of his addresses, President Obama declared that the Islamic State was neither Islamic nor a State. In regards to being a state, I would agree with Mr. Obama; the Islamic State might have declared a caliphate a few months back, but it doesn’t qualify them as being a bona fide state. They are more of an illicit economy as the Wall Street Journal labeled them.

On the other hand, they are every bit “Islamic” if we understand the meaning of the word Islamic. It is a misconception to believe that Islam is simply a religion of peace, because it is much more complex than that. Yes it is true and extremely important to understand that many Muslims want nothing to do with the Islamic State barbaric methods, yet any serious student of the Qur’an cannot ignore that it contains plenty of verses about violence, deception and killings of the infidels.

What we could call “orthodox Islam” is a lot closer to radical Islam that one might think. There simply are many Muslims who do not adhere to that kind of literal approach to the Qur’an. They have distanced themselves from the extremism taught in those verses. These people are what we call “moderate Muslims”, yet they are not even recognized by radical Muslims as true Muslims. I think that a better description would be to call them “cultural Muslims.”

To avoid calling the Islamic State “Islamic” is a vagueness that is far from accidental. It is deliberate! It remains uncertain if the choice is made out of fear of reprisals or simply because of political and/or ideological alignment. Nevertheless, the Islamic State IS Islamic from a Qur’anic standpoint.

Continuing with the vagueness that has stricken our President in the past few months, we also need to question his motives when he claims that the Paris Kosher Market attacks were random attacks. In an interview with VOX in the last few days, Mr. Obama didn’t identify the victims as Jews but simply as”a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” Of course, the fact that Amédy Coulibaly (the killer) entered a “kosher” store, said that he was linked to Islamic State and killed the people inside because they were Jewish was purely anecdotal and I guess irrelevant! What an insult to the Jewish community!

Mr. Obama was further defended by the White House press secretary Josh Earnest who very awkwardly backed him up. This didn’t satisfy the press and drew the ire of the social networks. Then, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki added a couple of days later that we should let the French government decide if the events were of an antisemitic nature. Give me a break; if a radical Muslims barges into a kosher store and kills Jewish people, there is NOTHING RANDOM there. The French government has authority since this took place on French soil, but that doesn’t invalidate the original intent of the act itself.

Finally, the White House decided to back pedal and do damage control on Thursday when they made a statement declaring the events of the Paris kosher store as anti-Semitic. Again, the vagueness applied to the description of the terror attack at the supermarket is very dangerous because it reduces the tragedy to a random act of violence, removing it from the hate crime that it was.

Is this part of the conditioning of the masses to lead them to ignore both a real danger and a real victim? This vagueness is terrifying to me because it was only 70 years ago that some of my family members went from being human beings to being prisoners to just being a simple number. Eventually, the whole process led to a need to exterminate my people who had been reduced to the status of animal.

Calling the Paris terrorist attack “random” is in and of itself “targeted” because often we say a lot more by saying less, and once again Mr. President your vagueness doesn’t appear to be accidental!

Subscribe to our Daily Devotions

Archived Articles

Tags