Jewish Kindergarten in Belgium Can’t Get Insurance Because Risk of Attack Too High

Shlomo Papirblat of Haaretz is reporting that:

An insurance company has refused to renew the policy of a Jewish kindergarten in Brussels, claiming that the risk of doing so is too high, given the clear threat of anti-Semitic attacks.

brussels-attack-2-860x280

This is the European reality as the world “negotiates” with a nation that has announced as a prime objective, the destruction of Israel.

Things may not be exactly the same, now, from the days when appeasement was considered prudent, even wise, and attacks on Jews were, more are less, routine.  But neither are they all that different.  Not when:

The refusal to insure the kindergarten comes less than a year after the terror attack at the Brussels Jewish Museum, in which a French jihadist opened fire at the museum entrance, killing four people including an Israeli couple. That attack in May 2014, followed by the January killings at the kosher supermarket in Paris, have prompted insurance companies to regard Jewish institutions as high risk.

In other news:

‘Trojan horse’ school pupils fear for jobs

From The Times thanks to  Esmerelda Weatherwax.

Birmingham school i

 I think the poster in the picture says more than the article. If that is the parents and/or teachers reaction to what was uncovered then employers would be wise to be wary.

Imran Awan yesterday told an audience in Birmingham that the city’s Muslims had been left “feeling like a suspect community fearful for their children’s future”.

The Birmingham City University academic, who has published a study detailing the impact of the Trojan horse inquiry, quoted one child saying: “I’m really worried now, because if I apply for a job then someone is going to look at my CV and think he must be a terrorist because of how the media has portrayed this. . . A teacher at the one of the implicated schools told me: the biggest losers here are the poor children who are going to be labelled as extremists and terrorists.”

Hugh Fitzgerald

Who, given what is now easily discovered about the beliefs and attitudes of Muslims, and given too the observable behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims all over the world, would employ a Muslim? What kind of worries, insecurities, should an employer, and should his other, non-Muslim, employees, be expected to endure?

In other news:

3 thoughts on “Jewish Kindergarten in Belgium Can’t Get Insurance Because Risk of Attack Too High”

  1. During the 2012 London Olympics I was a Duty Site Manager. I was given a site where the lower echelons of the Team Squads were billeted. I had a group of 12 ‘security’ officers, all were Muslim.
    Prayer time came and they all wanted to go and pray together, stripping all security from the site. I sought the assistance of a local Imam who told the assembled ‘security’ officers that they could pray seperately; the timings of their prayers was not essential, that they prayed was essential.
    I was subsequently reported for being ‘racist’. Without letting LOCOG know, I fired everyone and got hold of the Agency from whence these idiots came. In somewhat brutal Anglo-Saxon terms I explained what had happened and why. I demanded that 12 new guards were to be provided, ones who were prepared to work.
    I got 12 Ghurkas, all ex-Army!!!!

  2. There are many Qur’an references to fighting, so of course, there are some verses concerning how a devout Muslim should perform the obligatory prayers, which involve prostration, not holding weapons, not being “on guard” against attack. It was merely common sense that warriors should take turns in such prayer, while their comrades were taking their turn in keeping watch and holding weapons. See: http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=pickthall&searchstring=+2:239;+4:101-102 but, like most Muslims, they may not have read the Qur’an well enough to understand what is in it.

Comments are closed.