Lily’s Room

October-19-2018 ZOA for Trump & Mike Pompeo


Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released the following statement:

The ZOA strongly praises the Trump administration and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for today announcing that the U.S. Consulate General (which really dealt with Palestinian Arabs) in the western portion of Jerusalem will be merged into a single diplomatic mission, in the beautiful new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, which was opened this past May 14, 2018. (See “On the Merging of U.S. Embassy Jerusalem and U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem, Statement by Secretary Pompeo,” U.S. Consulate website, Oct. 18, 2018.)

The merger announcement notes that the merger is part of a U.S. “plan to achieve significant efficiencies and increase our effectiveness,” and “is driven by [U.S.] global efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations.” Such efficiencies should save U.S. taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, although the merger announcement noted that the U.S. “continues to take no position on final status issues,” ZOA believes that the merger is another vivid demonstration that Jerusalem is a united city and the eternal capital of Israel.

The merger of the Jerusalem U.S. Consulate into the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem is also another step in fulfilling President Trump’s pledge that under his administration, “the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end.” As far as we can tell, the U.S. has no separate consulate general operating in the capital city of any other country where the U.S. has an embassy. For instance, in Germany, the U.S. Embassy is in Germany’s capital Berlin, while the U.S. Consulate Generals are located in Frankfort and Dusseldorf. In Turkey, the U.S. Embassy is in Turkey’s capital Ankara, while the U.S. Consulate Generals are located in Istanbul and Adana. Thus, the merger will bring the status of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in line with the other U.S. Embassies throughout the globe.

ZOA is also pleased that Secretary Pompeo’s announcement noted that U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman will be guiding the merger. Ambassador Friedman has been proving himself to be a tremendous emissary for restoring a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. ZOA predicted that David Friedman would be the most extraordinarily talented US Ambassador to Israel ever. And that prediction has come true in spades.

The U.S. Consulate in the western portion of Jerusalem had focused on Palestinian-Arab affairs, operated autonomously, reported directly to the U.S. State Department instead of to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, and was unofficially viewed as a sort of embassy to the Palestinian-Arabs. This was an insult to Israeli sovereignty, the unity of Jerusalem, and the 3,500-year-long history of the Jewish people’s presence in and connection to Jerusalem – especially including the Western Wall and Old City, all located in Jerusalem. The U.S. Consulate’s previous mode of operations was thus a glaring example of how prior administrations treated Israel as a “second class citizen.” No other country that we know of had a U.S. Consulate that operated in such a manner, bypassing the U.S. ambassador and focusing on serving a particular group of people in the country.

Programming and outreach to Palestinian-Arabs will not be adversely impacted by the merger. The merger announcement notes that the U.S. “will continue to conduct a full range of reporting, outreach, and programming in the West Bank and Gaza as well as with Palestinians in Jerusalem through a new Palestinian Affairs Unit inside U.S. Embassy Jerusalem. That unit will operate from our Agron Road site [where the consulate has been located] in Jerusalem.”


トラックバック -

September-23-2018 Dr. Daniel J. Pipes once again

I was a Japanese translator for Dr. Daniel J. Pipes for the full six years until last March this year( I finally ended the translation work due to a personal reason upon some disagreements with him. However, I think that this article below should be paid much more attention. (Lily)

・Much of my family was murdered by the Nazis. My parents are Holocaust survivors. I was born four years after the end of World War II. Growing up, the fact that the world's most horrific crime was perpetrated against my own family cast an indelible shadow.

・Realizing early on that disaster looms when politics go wrong, from a young age I seriously studied political philosophy. I concluded that mainstream American conservatism offers the surest path to liberty, prosperity, and safety.

・In my college years (1967-71), I studied with Harvey Mansfield and Robert Nozick. I read National Review and Friedrich Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, and I fought the New Left totalitarians.

・My career is devoted to political sobriety and moderation. I write about it and donate to it financially. I served in five U.S. presidential administrations and founded the Middle East Forum toward this end. I continue to learn and teach on this topic.

・The European elite whom I call the 6Ps (police, politicians, press, priests, professors and prosecutors) shamelessly distorts facts to turn those protecting their heritage into criminals. I know, for now I too am a casualty.


トラックバック -

September-04-2018 The late Senator John McCain

As for the author, please refer to my previous postings (


What Frank Field and John McCain have in common

Douglas Murray

3 September 2018

It is an extraordinary thing to watch specific moral values being celebrated at the same moment that they are being defiled. Often by the same people.

The world’s media has, in recent days, been filled with tributes to the life of John McCain. Aside from his exceptional bravery as a captive in Vietnam, the main quality that these tributes focused on was McCain’s willingness, later in his life, to transcend political boundaries. It was not simply that McCain was willing to work with, befriend and advise Democrats as well as Republicans in the Oval office. Nor was it just the fact that on issues including campaign-finance reform, he was willing to push bipartisan legislation. Or that in 2008 he even suggested that Joe Lieberman (still a registered Democrat at the time) might be his running mate in his Republican campaign for the Presidency.

It was not the specifics that commentators and politicians noted, so much as the remarkable general attitude. It’s a frame of mind that is diminishing in American political life, just as it is retreating from political life in Britain and other major democracies.

Hyperventilating attacks on McCain’s erstwhile friends were at least equal to those attacks currently being made against some of Field’s friends

When he was a Senator, McCain always held the view that reaching across the political aisle was a natural thing to do; he believed that what unites people elected to political life is greater than anything that can divide them. He saw political differences as just that – differences of politics but not differences in allegiance to the wellbeing of the nation.

Of course, it is easy to speak well of the dead. Any challenge they once posed is diminished, if not completely erased. And so it is interesting to observe such celebration of bipartisanship in the dead, when it’s the last thing to be lauded among the living.

During the week in which the world honoured John McCain, one of the very few figures in British politics who could be said to embody remotely similar ideals to those of the late Senator resigned from his party. In Britain, barely anyone has a career-long reputation for reaching across the political divide between Labour and Conservative. As in America, most people bemoan the lack of cross-party cooperation – but do little in practice to alter the reality. Not so the former Labour MP Frank Field. During his decades in Parliament, Field has been unusually morally consistent.

He has been a constant foe of the excesses of capitalism and from the Maxwells to Phillip Green he has challenged those guilty of such excesses assiduously, forensically and to their faces. He has been a consistent critic of elements of the European Union and has campaigned and voted accordingly, whether the government of the day was Labour or Conservative led. In the process, he has gained Conservative admirers and left-wing detractors. But he has been a crucial embodiment of the views of millions of people: not Conservatives who want a token Labour party MP to love, but as a representative of the millions of Labour voters who voted ‘Leave’ and who see few people in their own party willing to respect their wishes.

There are other issues on which Field has also stood out. Ten years ago he set up an All Party Parliamentary Group on ‘Balanced migration’. He set this APPG up with the Conservative MP Nicholas Soames. This was seen, in Westminster and the press, as evidence of an ‘odd couple’ political friendship which gave hope that other such bipartisan friendships and cooperation might be possible. In reality such a thing has remained all-too uncommon.

But now Frank Field has resigned the Labour whip. Among the reasons given is the anti-Semitism which has become endemic in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party.

Naturally, this has led to attacks on Field from hardline supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and others. Various claims have been made against him, but perhaps the most striking has been their weaponisation of Field’s friendships across the political divide. In particular, his friendships with Margaret Thatcher and with Enoch Powell.

Both of these people are long-dead. But both of them, in death as in life, are still turned from living, breathing human beings with oddities and failings of their own, into fire-breathing monsters in the Left’s hall of infamy. There is even more ire for them in death than there was in life. Consider this programme, broadcast in 1978, in which the veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner sits with Enoch Powell in a television studio discussing a range of policy areas. Skinner does not ‘no-platform’ Powell, or spend the programme railing against him. He recognises him as a fellow Parliamentarian, who represents his constituents and with whom he has points of political similarity as well as points of political difference.

To have been on friendly terms with Powell or Thatcher is not an indictment of Field’s personality, but a demonstration of his strength of character

Frank Field, now almost 80, has lived through plenty of the tos and fros of political life, and watched the rise and fall of many men and women of power. To have been on friendly terms with Powell or Thatcher is not an indictment of his personality, but a demonstration of his strength of character. Nor were these friendships kept darkly secret, as Jeremy Corbyn’s semi-professional outriders now wish to pretend. Six years ago Field contributed a moving, honest, warm and critical essay to the volume ‘Enoch at 100: a re-evaluation of the life, politics and philosophy of Enoch Powell’, edited by Lord Howard of Rising (Biteback, 2012). It is worth re-reading. Field was just as open about his relationship with, and opinions about, Margaret Thatcher.

Nor is the fact that Field was able to sustain a friendship with Thatcher up to her last days evidence that he is some kind of closet Thatcherite. Such claims are akin to the claims by some Republicans that John McCain’s friendships with Lieberman and other Democrats demonstrated that he was a secret Democrat.

After Margaret Thatcher’s death the House of Commons paid tribute to her. With the exception of a splenetic and deranged act of grave-spitting by Glenda Jackson, these tributes were appropriately respectful and thoughtful. But the most thoughtful and significant – from either side of the House – came in the tribute paid to Thatcher by Frank Field. As his local newspaper recorded, Field paid the most significant possible tribute to Thatcher: by analysing what she had wished to achieve in power but failed to accomplish. The speech was one of the most generous, critical and illuminating contributions the Commons had seen in many years.

Those who defend Corbyn and this special line of hyper-partisan, intra-party vituperation, might bear the tributes to McCain in mind as they determinedly roast Field. They will claim that being on even moderately friendly terms with Thatcher or Powell is nothing like being friends with Barack Obama or George W Bush. But they could not be more wrong. Hyperventilating attacks on both McCain’s erstwhile friends were at least equal to those attacks currently being made against some of Field’s friends.

Last week, the hysteria-whippers paused for a moment before the body of John McCain. If they are going to honour those tributes, they and their ilk should consider whether it might be a good idea not to save their kinder reflections for the dead, but occasionally share them about the living as well.


トラックバック -

September-03-2018 Death of the Labour Party

As for the author, please refer to my previous postings (

StandPoint Mag

The Outsider's Diary

The moral death of the Labour Party

by Douglas Murray

September 2018

Every day this summer marked another development in the moral death of the Labour Party. Perhaps lowest was the squabble over whether Jeremy Corbyn had lain a wreath at the grave of the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics massacre. Suddenly Corbyn’s supporters had to scramble to pretend they were experts on the precise grave arrangements in Tunis and contest whether being photographed holding a wreath equals being involved in any wreath-laying. The Labour press office was happy to deflect attention from this serious charge by saying “But Israel . . .”. And Corbyn’s few die-hard supporters in the mainstream press fought hard to get their man off. This was no easy task.

A great giveaway for false sentiment is the use of false language. One example during this depressing episode was provided by (who else?) Owen Jones in the Guardian (where else?). Explaining that Corbyn’s wreath-laying was no big deal and in any case lots of people have laid wreaths, Jones clearly felt a need to balance his case by making a complementary condemnation of anti-Semitism. “And here’s where moral clarity is needed,” he began promisingly. “Anti-Semitism exists, it is a menace, and frightens Jews traumatised by the all too recent Holocaust.”

“All too recent.” It’s been a while since I’ve come across a line so false that it is painful to read.

The decision to go for “Islamophobia” in the Conservative Party as the counter-attack for the endless string of anti-Semitism embarrassments in Labour is revealing in itself. Tactically speaking, if Labour is being accused of anti-Semitism the obvious thing to do would be to say, “Well, why doesn’t the Conservative Party get its own house in order before accusing us of anti-Semitism?” It is the obvious move to make, and one which could (if Labour were remotely bothered about tackling anti-Semitism) do some good. Questions could obviously be raised about Sayeeda Warsi, who resigned from the cabinet over the British government’s support for Israel and has spent recent years arguing that British dual-nationals who are in the IDF should be treated like British nationals who join IS. I can also think of at least one Conservative close to the Prime Minister who has very fanatical and bigoted attitudes against the Jewish state, and who is currently in a position of greater importance than Corbyn and Co. have ever reached.

But the Labour Left clearly aren’t remotely interested in dealing with anti-Semitism in their own party or any other. They are interested in covering over their own shame and pressing a political advantage on behalf of their preferred interest groups.

I have spent a fair amount of time in recent weeks getting back on the road and speaking with live audiences. In Dublin and London I appeared with Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Then it was all around Australia and New Zealand with Dr Cornel West. One thing that live events now always throw up is the question of what audiences already know. It is a troubling and nearly unsolvable question for anyone appearing in public. In the recent past you could make assumptions on levels of knowledge or areas of interest. Today you have to find a way to negotiate between sections of an audience who have just shown up, and another section that has followed everything the speakers have ever said or written, right up to that day. The internet, especially YouTube, is an amazing blessing, but it presents conundrums to public speakers which are almost insoluble.

Very occasionally a story comes along that is so suggestive that it almost seems to be communicating at a different level. The New York Times, among other papers, recently ran a front-page story on an American couple who gave up their desk jobs to go cycling around the world. Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan were both 29. They updated a blog as they travelled. “You read the papers and you’re led to believe that the world is a big, scary place,” Austin wrote. “People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted. People are bad. People are evil. I don’t buy it. Evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own.”

In July the couple were cycling along a road in Tajikistan. A car passed them, did a U-turn and then sped into them and two other cyclists (one Dutch, one Swiss). The five men in the car got out and stabbed the cyclists to death. Days later the perpetrators released a video showing themselves in front of the flag of IS and promising to kill “disbelievers”. The NYT’s coverage attempted to wrestle some hope and positivity from this story. It seemed to be reaching for a moral conclusion something like this: “At least they weren’t bigoted or pessimistic when they were killed.” As the late Mr Austin put it, “I don’t buy it.”


トラックバック -

August-31-2018 People have lost their minds

As for this author, please refer to my previous postings(


Douglas Murray: I can’t think of a time when more people have lost their minds

Douglas Murray

1 September 2018

Whenever I visit a country I try to pitch high and meet the president or prime minister. In Australia this proves tricky. At the start of the week Malcolm Turnbull and I are on for lunch, but commitments force me to call off. By the end of my visit he is no longer prime minister. One of his excellent predecessors comes to see me at my hotel. At first I marvel at the ease with which former prime ministers can move about in Australia. But I soon wonder if people are unfazed because they reckon it might be their own turn to run the country next.

I am here for ten days. First to do a day-long event in Sydney with Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris and others. Then a multi-city tour across Australia and New Zealand alongside Harvard’s Dr Cornel West. Some while ago Suzi Jamil of Think Inc asked if I would consider touring down under with a political opponent. I said it would only work if we were searching for points of agreement and didn’t already loathe each other. Dr West found his political feet in black activism and revolutionary socialism, but I have always admired his commitment to ideas. So over the course of a week, in front of thousands of people, we find disagreements on capitalism, identity politics, foreign policy, domestic policy and more. But we speak the same language of ideas and share many of the same concerns and reference points, from Aristotle to Aretha Franklin. We get into a habit that when one cites a thinker in defence of their case, the other cites the same person to make a different point. Most importantly, in politically polarised times, there seems to be value in demonstrating what meaningful face-to-face disagreement might look like. My favourite feedback comes from a young audience member in Melbourne: ‘Modern politics, multimedia and social media so often feels like living in a perpetual Two Minutes Hate. Last night was like getting handed the power to turn it off.’

Of course, it isn’t all peace and light. Question and answer sessions are perilous in any country, but more so abroad. In Auckland one young man prefaces his question by saying I inspired him to become a journalist. I am riding high. The next questioner pronounces a set of personality disorders he believes I suffer from, including ‘straight white male privilege’. In Sydney a young man at the mic thanks ‘Doug’ for coming all this way. ‘Douglas,’ I correct him. There is an intake of audience breath. ‘I know you Australians,’ I explain. ‘If I let one Doug go by you’ll all be on to Dougo next.’

It is noticeable that both Australians and New Zealanders are beginning to get nervous about their relationship with China. Locals finding it hard to get on the housing ladder and foreigners buying up property is an issue. Though where is it not? Yet it is aboriginal matters that most rumble, and sometimes threaten to explode. One evening Dr West and I are discussing the effects of the loss of the Christian substrate in our societies. I express concern over euthanasia of the mentally ill. A woman in her twenties with mental health issues has just been euthanised in Holland. This does not seem to me a positive development. During the Q&A a woman of aboriginal descent declares that she wishes that she and her people had the same ‘privilege’ I show in opposing euthanasia. Her specific point is unclear, but her larger aim is to put me in the position that chess players call ‘zugzwang’: a situation in which every potential move will only worsen my situation. Had I come out for euthanasia — let alone called for its wider deployment — then you could be sure the aboriginal woman would have found some way to use this against me. I’m willing to take some of this because I am a visitor. But I’m not sure I would feel so zen if I were an Australian being thus blackmailed.

In New Zealand there is a halcyon day off. Suzi and I take a ferry to Waiheke Island. Before lunch at a vineyard we stop on a tiny secluded beach. ‘This is heaven,’ I exhale. ‘The end of the world, and then a ferry ride further.’ The only other person on the beach is throwing a ball into the ocean for his dog. He shouts over: ‘Hey Douglas — I watch you all the time on YouTube.’ Every blessing is also a curse. I left Britain during its second week of pretending to be offended by Boris on burkas. I return as a row is being worked up over jerk chicken. From abroad it is clear that Brexit now lies under everything in Britain, as Donald Trump does in America. I cannot think of a time when more people have lost their minds — opponents and erstwhile allies alike. I am a minimalist in my expectations for this era. I think our main job is not to be driven mad. Or at least not to behave in ways that will make us feel shame in the future.


トラックバック -