Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Islamists: "Destruction is a Matter of Time" - Mitchell Bard

by Mitchell Bard

"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. The Jews are infidels not because I say so but because Allah does... They aren't our enemies because they occupy Palestine; they would be our enemies even if they had not occupied anything." — Muhammad Hussein Ya'qub, Egyptian cleric.
Muslim extremists trust that time is in their side, in part because they are on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons. Once Iran and other Muslim countries have this capability, they will have the military means to blackmail their oil-rich neighbors, destroy Israel and threaten Europe.

What makes negotiations with Iran, ISIS, Hamas or any other Islamist group impossible is that their leaders believe they are acting according to the immutable word of God. America, Israel, other Muslims with whom they disagree, cannot do anything to satisfy them except "submit" (the Arabic word "Islam" means "submission"). As Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qub said in a televised sermon in 2009, "If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. The Jews are infidels not because I say so but because Allah does... They aren't our enemies because they occupy Palestine; they would be our enemies even if they had not occupied anything."

Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups do not conceal their intentions. The Hamas covenant explicitly calls for Israel's destruction and does not distinguish between Israelis and Jews:
Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious... It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine... It is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders...
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'".... There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Palestine is an Islamic land.
Regrettably, this is why "solving the conflict with the Palestinians," or even recognizing a Palestinian State, will not bring peace and tranquility to the Middle East.

The radical Islamic focus on Israel serves as an easy rallying point for the masses in the Middle East and Europe; however, the goal of jihad for many Muslims extends beyond eliminating or subjugating Israeli Jews. According to caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, any land previously occupied by Muslims cannot be surrendered. No single Arab regime -- or number of regimes acting together -- has the right to break this trust and give up any of this land, whether in Israel or Spain (Al-Andalus). Reconquering the lands is considered a solemn religious duty, but the obligation does not stop there; as an ISIS recruiter told Der Spiegel, the Koran says that one should kill or expel unbelievers wherever one finds them.

Today Israel, tomorrow Spain, and then...? Left, Hamas' 25th anniversary logo shows all of Israel colored in Hamas' Islamic green. Right, a translated Islamic State map that includes all formerly Islamic-ruled lands that they plan to reconquer.
The Islamists are in no hurry to fulfill their goals. An Arab adage says, "A man who gains his revenge after 40 years is acting in haste." Ahmed Yousef, political adviser to then Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, said it all in the title of his book, "The End of the Jewish State: Just a Matter of Time."

Muslim extremists trust that time is on their side, in part because they are on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons. Once Iran and other Muslim countries likely to follow its example have this capability, they will have the military means to blackmail their oil-rich neighbors, destroy Israel, and threaten Europe. Perhaps then the West will realize it is in a religious war.

Dr. Mitchell Bard is the author/editor of 24 books including The Arab Lobby and Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's War Against the Jews.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Is it Too Late to Stop Iran? - Ari Soffer

by Ari Soffer

Senior US Congressman says Obama admin 'playing into the hands of the Iranians' in nuclear talks - but insists Congress can fight back.

Barack Obama
Barack Obama
US President Barack Obama is "playing right into the hands" of the Iranian regime by yet again extending talks over its nuclear program - but a Republican-dominated Congress isn't going to go quietly.

So says the co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL).

Speaking to Arutz Sheva, Roskam says he was "not surprised" at the decision to push off the deadline for talks with Iran for another seven months, but says he was nevertheless "very disappointed."

"This continues to play right into the Iranians' hands," he said of the decision. "Now they've managed to extend this charade for an additional several months."

"They continue to get the benefit of a loosening of sanctions, more and more companies are trying to position themselves to be the first ones into the Iranian market - it's definitely a setback."

But what of vague references by US and other leaders regarding "progress" towards a deal, if not an outright deal so far?

"It's merely speculative," says Roskam.

"The administration can say anything it wants and it doesn't have to disclose any details, and I don't believe there's been progress from our point of view."

But for Tehran, each delay is a step closer to victory, he warns.

"History is filled with examples of tyrants who manipulate the world with false claims of cooperation, all the while laying out a plan that's aggressive and clear - and I think that the Iranians are doing the exact same thing."

"There's nothing that the administration can point to that is substantive," he added, contrasting the White House's weak stance with that of "the mullahs (who) have been very clear that they intend to give up nothing."

"Meanwhile, Iran gets all the benefits of this pretense of a 'peaceful nuclear program.' There is no 'peaceful Iranian nuclear program'."

Roskam emphasizes, however, that Congress can still play a role in pushing back against the President's "wishful-thinking foreign policy" by bringing the Kirk-Menendez Bill for tougher sanctions on Iran up for a vote.

"Congress has a duty to not be complicit in the foreign policy mistake the administration is making," he insists, expressing "every confidence" the bill would pass in an overwhelmingly Republican House of Representatives. "I expect it would pass the Senate as well."

Turning back to the White House, Roskam points to the resignation of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel yesterday as proof that "the administration has no capacity to reflect and absorb what is actually happening."

"The president has not stepped back from a domestic point of view and said what can he learn and what are the American people telling him. Instead he's doubling down."

Worryingly, Roskam believes that come what may President Obama will not change course vis-a-vis Iran - even if the new seven-month deadline passes without a deal to prevent the Islamic Republic from reaching the nuclear weapons threshold.

"There is zero likelihood that the administration will admit to a foreign policy failure because they have built so much in looking for a legacy," he said, echoing comments he made in an interview earlier this year.

"No matter what happens the administration is going to try to claim victory - even if the talks collapse," Roskam warns.

Taking aim at Barack Obama personally, he accused the President of using a cult of personality as a substitute for real policy.

"Since the beginning of his presidency he has created a foreign policy based on his own personality, instead of... what's in the best interest of the US and freedom around the world."

"Other presidents have used their personality to supplement American policy," he continued, pointing to Ronald Reagan as an example. "But this is the first US President who allows his personality to become the policy, and that's been a great weakness"

He traces that stance all the way back to Obama's famous 2009 speech in Cairo, which Roskam summed up as consisting of three points: "I am not George W. Bush; I am Barack Obama; I want you to like us."

"He has assumed that [his personality] primarily has been able to form and shape world events in the same way as American power has.

"But personalities can't move great events - they can influence, but they can't shape events."

When asked whether he thought the president's policies were reversible, Roskam distinguished between the "damage" done to US foreign policy in general, and its policy vis-a-vis Iran in particular.

"American foreign policy is easier to remedy" when Obama's term ends in 2016, via "a strong administration working with a strong Congress and the US playing its natural leadership role in the world."

"That's already begun to happen with the reshaping of Congress" during the mid-terms, he noted.

But Iran in particular is a different question, and Roskam admits he is concerned.

"I don't know if this dithering and hopeful, wishful thinking, vanity-seeking foreign policy is giving the Iranians enough of a time advantage that they need - and only time will tell unfortunately."

Ari Soffer


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Is Russia Banning Islam? - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

Vladimir PutinRussia appears to be taking serious moves to combat the “radicalization” of Muslims within its border.

Recent pro-Islamic reports are complaining that Russia is banning the Islamic hijab—the headdress Islamic law requires Muslim women to wear—and, perhaps even more decisively, key Islamic scriptures, on the charge that they incite terrorism.

In the words of Arabic news site Elaph, “Russia is witnessing a relentless war on the hijab.  It began in a limited manner but has grown in strength, prompting great concern among Russia’s Muslims.”

The report continues by saying that women wearing the hijab are being “harassed” especially in the “big cities”; that they are encountering difficulties getting jobs and being “subject to embarrassing situations in public areas and transportation.  The situation has gotten to the point that even educational institutions, including universities, have issued decrees banning the wearing of the hijab altogether.”

Moscow’s Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University appears mentioned as one of the schools to ban the donning of the hijab on its premises, specifically, last September (the New York Times bemoaned an earlier instance of anti-hijab sentiment in 2013).

While this move against the hijab may appear as discriminatory against religious freedom, the flipside to all this—which perhaps Russia, with its significant Muslim population is aware of—is that, wherever the Islamic hijab proliferates, so too does Islamic supremacism and terrorism.  Tawfik Hamid, a former aspiring Islamic jihadi, says that “the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”

The reason for this correlation is clear: strict Islamic Sharia commands jihad (“terrorism”) against unbelievers just as it commands Muslim women to don the hijab. Where one proliferates—evincing adherence to Sharia—so too will the other naturally follow.

But Russia’s growing list of Islamic books to be banned on the charge that they incite terrorism is perhaps more significant.  Elaph continues: “This move [ban on the hijab] coincides with a growing number of religious books to be prohibited, with dozens of them being placed on the terrorist list, including Sahih Bukhari and numerous booklets containing verses from the Koran and sayings of the prophet.”

According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari is being targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of a senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan Ruslan Galliev, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

This is significant.  While one may expect modern day books and tracts written by the likes of al-Qaeda or the Islamic State to be banned, Sahih Bukhari, compiled in the 9th century, is fundamental to Sunni Islam (that is, 90 percent of the world’s Muslims).   Indeed, the nine-volume book is often seen as second in importance only to the Koran itself and contains the most authentic sayings attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

And yet, that this important scripture promotes “exclusivity”—that is, supremacism—and “arouses ethnic, religious enmity”—that is, “terrorism”—should not be missed on anyone.  The following few statements contained in Sahih Bukhari and attributed to the prophet of Islam speak for themselves.  Muhammad said:

•“I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings [tawriya, Islamic deception], and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy).”

•“Whoever changed his Islamic religion [“apostates”], then kill him.”

•In the end times, a “stone will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!’”

•“I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity” [i.e., until they become observant Muslims].”

Apparently the Russians are aware that such assertions—whether they come from this or that jihadi or from Prophet Muhammad—are enough to incite chaos on their soil.  Indeed, the “terrorist” writings of modern day Islamic jihad groups are all infused with and based on the intolerant texts found in Islamic scriptures such as Sahih Bukhari.

This begs the following question: what of the Koran?  Can it too be banned on the same grounds?  After all, Islam’s number one holy book is also replete with calls to violence and terrorism against unbelievers.  Koran 8:12 is one of numerous examples: Allah declares “I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, so strike [them] upon the necks,” that is, behead them, as the Islamic State has been doing—while citing the Koran.

At any rate, back in La La Land, far from banning Islamic texts that incite violence and terrorism, Barack Hussein Obama has banned U.S. intelligence communities from connecting anything Islamic to Islamic terrorism.  In other words, Muslims are free to be incited by Islam’s scriptures—prompting things like beheadings and hatchet jihad attacks in America.  The only ban rests on those who dare connect such acts to the core texts of Islam that so clearly inspire them.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama on Ferguson: America's Racist, Give Me More Power - Ben Shapiro

by Ben Shapiro

On Monday night, after the media’s attempted racial assassination of Officer Darren Wilson shipwrecked on the rocky shoals of the criminal justice system, President Obama took to the podium to try to salvage their narrative of American racism. The media spent months portraying 18-year-old black man Michael Brown as a “gentle giant” victimized by cruel white racist Wilson, and by extension, charging America’s law enforcement establishment with the ultimate sin. Unwilling to let that narrative die, President Obama stepped forward – and in doing so, fueled the flames for future racial conflagrations.

Obama, of course, invested long ago in the notion that every incident involving a black victim and a white (or white Hispanic) shooter symbolizes America’s greater racial ills. There is no individual justice; there is only social justice. Darren Wilson and Michael Brown were not individuals; they were merely stand-ins for racial conflict. That’s why President Obama said that Trayvon Martin was like his fictional son; it’s why he told the United Nations that the situation in Ferguson demonstrated America’s failures. Every story fits into a narrative for President Obama. 

Sadly for President Obama, the grand jury looked at the evidence – something Obama and his allies have never bothered to do – and decided that Obama would have to find a different symbol of racial injustice. But that didn’t faze Obama a bit. Striding to the podium, speaking off-teleprompter – which is when Obama truly says what he thinks, in all of its incoherent but radical glory – Obama explained that Wilson wasn’t really innocent, that America could never be absolved of its past racial sins, and that the only solution was for him to be given more power.

Obama opened by stating that America was a “nation built on the rule of law.” When millions of Americans stopped guffawing at the irony of President Executive Amnesty glowing over the value of process, Obama continued:

[W]e need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction.

No, actually, it isn’t. As it turns out, justifiable anger should be based on evidence of injustice, not a vague sense of it purveyed by the media and opportunistic politicians. And there is not a shred of evidence suggesting that Officer Darren Wilson was a racist, profiled Michael Brown, or gunned him down summarily.

Why, then, is such anger justified according to the president? Because while Wilson may not be guilty, America is guilty: 

[W]e need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is in too many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country.

It is the year 2014. This is not Selma, as the president has acknowledged. The legacy of racial discrimination had nothing to do with Michael Brown, an 18-year-old who strong-arm-robbed a convenience store before allegedly twice attacking a police officer. Absent fathers, a culture of casual crime, disdain for education – all of these are “broader challenges” in our nation. But “deep distrust” is not. Neither are “issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion.” Feelings cannot be cured, unless a licensed psychotherapist is on hand. And Obama is not America’s psychotherapist.

Only behavior can be cured. And unless President Obama is willing to name specific cases of behavior, and recommend specific punishments, this is happy talk designed to win him raves in The New York Times and generate more federal government interventionism. President Obama creates amorphous “challenges” America must overcome, and which can only be solved by him and his minions:

I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement. That means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. It means enlisting the community actively on what should be everybody’s goal, and that is to prevent crime.

Only Obama doesn’t want to prevent crime. If he did, he’d focus on the causes of crime, a list on which white racism does not even rank in the top 100. Obama prefers to focus on unsolvable problems, because unsolvable problems always carry the same solution: more power for the executive.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama and the Dispensing Power - Adam Yoshida

by Adam Yoshida

President Obama’s abuse of his powers to attempt to grant pseudo-legalization to five millions illegal aliens by executive fiat has been widely described as being “unprecedented” in some quarters. This is inaccurate. Others have tried to argue that reasonable precedent can be found in actions of prior presidents, such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who have issued executive orders relating to the implementation of earlier immigration laws. This is also false. It is difficult to find anywhere in the history of the United States a broader assertion of the power of the executive to make law than that asserted by Mr. Obama in this case. That does not mean, however, that this action is wholly without precedent in our collective political history.

The president argues that he must act on this issue because the Congress has not done so. If that is what the president sincerely believes, that would suggest that he fundamentally misunderstands the design of the Constitution of the United States. In order to understand this, we must travel back some distance in time. The American Constitution is fundamentally modelled after the British constitution as it existed in the Eighteenth Century with certain tweaks designed to remedy such defects as the Founders saw in the fabric of their British inheritance. The separation of powers inherent in the Constitution was designed to be a “fail-safe” system. There are two branches of the Congress elected to represent different constituencies, a judicial branch with a power of review, and a separately-elected executive charged with the execution of the laws specifically because the system was designed to prevent someone from doing something unless a very broad consensus already existed for it to occur. The system is supposed to be slow and given to delay because such delay limits the power of the state to act in an arbitrary fashion.

This was also the design of the British system of government in the day of the Founders. Laws could only exist in Britain by the agreement of the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons. This British system existed because the people of Great Britain had, by 1776, learned through hard experience what happens when one portion of the government was allowed to dominate the other. They had seen tyranny emanate from the Crown, as during the “Personal Rule” of Charles I, and they had experienced arbitrary government by the Commons followed by military despotism during the days of the Commonwealth and Cromwell. Therefore, by the time of the American Revolution, there had evolved in Great Britain a system where interest was balanced against interest to protect the liberties of the people. The Founders didn’t revolt against the British system; they rose up because their circumstances meant that they, as citizens of the American colonies, did not enjoy the same liberties as their British cousins did.

It is in the British experience that the best precedent for Mr. Obama’s executive actions may be found. The last Stuart to hold the English throne, James II, was a Catholic ruler of a Protestant nation and he therefore found the various anti-Catholic laws that existed in England in those days to be distasteful and dangerous to his objective of maintaining power (and, possibly, of imposing Catholicism upon the English). Therefore, he used what was known as the “dispensing power” to allow Roman Catholics to serve as officers in his army without taking the oaths required by the laws passed by Parliament. The dispensing power held, in essence, that the Monarch was permitted to free himself or anyone that he chose from the obligations of the law. 

The free people of Britain were not willing to stand for the abuses of the king. They soon rose up and launched a rebellion that resulted in the constructive abdication of James II (the Convention Parliament that assembled in the king’s absence ruled that his act of throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames constituted his resignation) and installed William and Mary upon the throne in his place. These events, capped by the passage of the Bill of Rights of 1689, have become known to history as the “Glorious Revolution” and with good reason, for they represent the dawn of many of the constitutional liberties that we enjoy today. 

The first declaration of the Convention Parliament contained within the Bill of Rights is, “(t)hat the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.” 

For three hundred and twenty-five years, this principle has held. No previous American president has ever attempted to claim the power that the English Parliament had forbidden to their kings. Those who view this sweeping assertion of presidential authority by Mr. Obama simply through the prism of politics are missing the point. This is not merely a political outrage -- it is a historic offense against the Constitution and public liberty. It represents a breach not only of political norms, but an attempt by the president to claim powers that have been denied to the executive among the English-speaking peoples since the end of the era of absolute monarchs. 

Adam Yoshida is an author and political commentator.  His most recent book is This Mighty Scourge.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Between Condemnation and Incitement - Asaf Gibor

by Asaf Gibor

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav

The head of the Palestinian Authority, who in the past, has tried to position himself as a leader of the opposition who uses peaceful means, is now actively engaging in incitement. He condemned the terror attack in Har Nof, but Fatah clarified: this was done only to pacify the world.

The attack in Har Nof was the signal for a Palestinian festival. In the early morning hours, with reports of the results of the slaughter in the synagogue, fireworks were fired off in the Gaza Strip. In Palestinian cities they gave out sweets and candies to the passersby, to celebrate the murder of the people as they prayed in the synagogue.

A half hour after the attack, caricatures were already spread throughout the social networks, in which the two terrorists, cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu-Jamal from the Jabel Mukaber neighborhood, were drawn, as they perpetrated the murder. The Al-Aqsa mosque and a butcher knife, which the two used to slaughter the praying congregants, were the central motifs in these hateful caricatures. “The road to Jerusalem” was the title of one of the caricatures, in which a car was drawn speeding towards Jerusalem. “For you, O Aqsa”, was written on a knife smeared with blood in another caricature.

Abu-Mazen condemned the murder, but the message of condemnation did not impress Prime Minister Netanyahu, who pointed to the head of the Palestinian Authority as the party who is primarily to blame for the deterioration in security, and said that the murder is “the direct result of incitement by Hamas and Abu-Mazen”.

Walking between the drops

 “Popular resistance in peaceful ways” – this is the banner that Abu-Mazen waved when he replaced Arafat. This slogan constrained him walk between the drops and maintain a style of language that could be interpreted in two ways - on one hand to present to the world a view that forbids violent rebellion, and on the other side to speak to his target audience in the opposite way.

Nan Jacques Zilberdik, senior researcher at Palestinian Media Watch, who tracks what is said in the Palestinian media, says that lately there is a rise in the level of Abu-Mazen’s incitement. She brings a few examples, from which it can be stated unequivocally, that Abu-Mazen encourages violent action against Israel. In a speech that the head of the PA gave for the Fatah movement last October, he spoke about the concept of “ribaat”, which means religious war to defend Islamic land.

“It is not enough that we say that there are people who do ‘ribaat’”, said Abu-Mazen. “We must all do ribaat in al-Aqsa. It is not enough that we say that the settlers have come to the mosque; we must prevent them from entering the holy compound in any possible way. This is our holy compound, it is our al-Aqsa and it is our church (the church of the sepulcher, A.G.). They have no right to enter them. They have no right to defile them. We must prevent them. We will stand in front of them, exposed, in order to guard our holy places”.

The quote from Abu-Mazen’s speech was edited by the team from official Palestinian television. “The part where Abu-Mazen calls for the use of violence was broadcast that evening before the news program on official Palestinian television”, says Zilberdik, “and afterwards it was presented 19 times over three days, together with pictures of conflicts between Israeli security forces and the residents of East Jerusalem”. A few days after the Palestinian television’s brainwashing, the terrorist Abd a-Rahman Shaludi carried out the attack with a vehicle in Jerusalem, when the baby Haya Zissel Baruch and 20 year old Karen Yemima Muskara, an immigrant from Ecuador, were killed. On the 29th of October, Muatez Hijazi, a resident of Silwan, tried to assassinate Yehuda Glick. When security forces arrived to arrest him, he fired on them and was killed.

Zilberdik says that “the family of the terrorist Hijazi received a letter of consolation from Abu-Mazen, in which he condemns his having been killed”. In the letter that was brought to the family by Minister for Jerusalem Affairs and governor of the Jerusalem area, Adnan al-Husseini, Abu-Mazen expresses his anger over what he defines as “the despicable crime that was perpetrated against the martyr Muatez Hijazi”.

In addition, the head of the PA wrote that “Hijazi was murdered by the Israel Occupation Army’s murder and terror gangs. Muatez, the martyr, has ascended to heaven while defending the rights of our people and its holy places. We condemn this barbaric action”. The killing of Muatez “is added to the occupation’s crimes against our people since the Nakba, and continues the historical injustice that has been done against us”, in Abu-Mazen’s words. Abu-Mazen’s office did not confirm that the letter was sent by them, but the family that received the letter indicated that they received it from the minister and that it is was written the PA head’s writers and signed by him.

Proof from the Qur’an

 Many long hours passed before Abu-Mazen’s office issued a condemnation of the Har Nof terror attack. Tremendous pressure from Secretary of State John Kerry on Ramallah is what led to the terse announcement, which dealt mainly with Israel’s criminality. “Abu-Mazen condemned the killing of the people who were praying this morning in the synagogue in Jerusalem”, was written in the message. “He condemns every act of violence, and therefore he demands that the settlers and those Israeli ministers who came up the Temple Mount desist from their provocative act of coming to the Al-Aqsa mosque”.

Abu-Mazen took the opportunity to call for an end of the occupation, which he defined as “the reason for the tension and the violence”, and expressed the hope for a “just and comprehensive solution on the basis of two states in accordance with international decisions”. He added: “The spirit of the ceasefire must be maintained and the understandings that were formulated in the meeting with Abdullah II, King of Jordan and the American Secretary of State John Kerry in Amman”.

Immediately following the condemnation that was publicized in the media, they hurried to publish a large picture of Abu-Mazen on the Fatah movement’s Facebook page, with Abu-Mazen holding the Qur’an, and underneath was a citation from Sura 22, verse 39, which the head of the PA quoted last August, during Operation Protective Edge. “The believers who have had war made against them can go out to war because an injustice has been done to them. Allah can rush to their aid”. Zilberdik clarifies that this passage is unambiguous, and that this is a call for violent uprising against Israel.

And if this is not enough, Fatah made it clear on its official Facebook page, that the PA’s condemnation was not real. To explain Abbas’ condemnation, the movement used a video clip – that was documented by Palestinian Media Watch – in which Muhammad Dayeh, Arafat’s bodyguard, explains the condemnation, “killing of citizens”. “When there was a terror attack in Tel Aviv, President Mubarak would telephone Brother Arafat and tell him: ‘Come out with a condemnation, Brother Arafat, they will tear you up’. Arafat would issue a condemnation in his special way – ‘I am against the killing of citizens’ – and it is not the truth”, said the bodyguard.

Tawfik Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, was asked about Abu-Mazen’s condemnation during an interview for a Lebanese television channel. He tried to “calm people down” since it was only a condemnation for the world. “Abu-Mazen speaks to the world; we, in Fatah, speak to the people”, said Tirawi, twice during the interview, to make it clear that Abu-Mazen is continuing on Arafat’s path – outwardly issuing condemnation and inwardly fuelling the hatred and violence.

Asaf Gibor

Source: Makor Rishon, 21-11-2014, Yoman section, pg. 6

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

What Obama said about the grand jury (and what he could have said) - Jim Gammon

by Jim Gammon

Obama on Ferguson:
"There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply upset, even angry. It's an understandable reaction. But I join Michael's parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully."
Let's consider these words. He starts by appearing to give both sides an even footing, but then allows that anger is understandable which is tantamount to it being justified.

A man of peace, a man with compassion and yet a representative of the nation would not say it is an understandable reaction - because it isn't. It is not understandable to be angry unless you believe a result of a lawful and objective jury decision is unfair -- and angry with whom? The police in general? The government of the State? The world?

He then goes on not to say that justice has to be trusted, but to call for those who "protest" is non-violent. But he does in truth call for protest.

Thomas Lifson adds:

Let’s consider what could have been. President Obama could have discussed the thorough process of evidence review undertaken by the grand jury. He could have discussed why grand jury secrecy is an important feature of the justice system in all 50 states. He could have stressed that all Americans of all races are protected by the process of checks and balances built into the grand jury system. He could have mentioned that the grand jury was representative of the demographic composition of the St. Louis area. He could have urged all those with anger and frustration to take the time to review the evidence seen by the grand jury before jumping to conclusions.

But instead he stated that anger was “understandable.”

Jim Gammon


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Profs Blame ISIS on ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Grievances’ - Cinnamon Stillwell

by Cinnamon Stillwell

President Obama’s infamous proclamation that ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is “not Islamic” was received sympathetically within the ranks of Middle East studies. While many scholars of Islam and the Middle East have condemned ISIS’s heinous actions, a stubborn refusal to acknowledge their theological underpinnings lingers. Those who do concede ISIS’s Islamic supremacism are branded “Islamphobes.” Others attribute ISIS’s rampage of mass murder, beheadings, rape, slavery, and strict Sharia law in pursuit of a caliphate to Western-inspired “grievances” or “root causes.”

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is at the forefront of such obfuscation. Disregarding ISIS’s adherence to Quranic literalism, Esposito declared:
I do not think that this is a very Islamic vision at all. . . . Theirs is a kind of religion that is extraordinarily full of violence and abuse that is not in accordance with the Quran, the traditions of the Prophet or even with Islamic Law.
Hatem Bazian, director of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, lived up to his title by invoking victimhood. Bazian claimed that:
When Islamophobes point to the Koran and Islam as the problem, they are epistemically reinforcing ISIS’s claims and also pushing every Muslim into the same categorization. . . . For me, religion is a rationalization rather than the root cause.
Responding to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s public acknowledgement that British Muslims are joining ISIS, University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole ranted, “It’s just a way of beating up on the Muslims in the UK. . . . Cameron is grandstanding about this and it’s Islamophobia, it’s just racism.” Perhaps Cole is unaware that Cameron, speaking at a reception for British Muslims, kowtowed to political-correctness by declaring that ISIS has “nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace.”

Meanwhile, Sahar F. Aziz, Texas A&M University law professor, condemned those who are “blindly blaming religion . . . rather than root causes,” lamenting that, “Thousands of miles away from the Middle East, it is tempting for Americans to view the atrocities committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) as further evidence that something is wrong with Islam.” Instead, she asserted, “The politics of authoritarianism, rather than religion, explain the rise of ISIS.” Given that ISIS arose in a power vacuum, there is little basis for blaming authoritarianism.

Going to ridiculous lengths, Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center, faults humanity itself:
I am mindful of the fact that much of the Islamophobic discourse of today holds Muslims in the West accountable for atrocities of ISIS. In that context, it makes a fundamental mistake. . . . All of us, Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and people of no faith and people of occasional faith, we are all responsible.
That is, since everyone is responsible for ISIS, no one is responsible.

After conceding that “Muslims have a responsibility to speak out against ISIS,” Safi then entreated,
[A]ll of us to speak out with the same vehemence . . . about the victims of the American drones, about the victims of the allies of the United States? Can we mourn Palestinians? Can we mourn Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin? Can we mourn the 2.5 million Americans caught in a penal industrial complex?
A better question for Safi would be whether there is any unrelated societal ill that cannot be associated with condemning ISIS?

University of California, Riverside creative writing professor Reza Aslan denied that ISIS has any appeal whatsoever to devout Muslims, marveling over “how little religion plays a role in this group, how little the idea of reading the Koran or praying or those kinds of things play a significant role on the ground among these militants.” Granting that “religion is the sort of underlying, unifying aspect of it,” Aslan then contradicted himself: “But the idea that ISIS is drawing excessively religious people to it is factually incorrect.” Elsewhere, he alluded to the “grievances . . . that a lot of Muslims around the world have” and warned that ISIS’s appeal would remain, “unless those grievances can be addressed.”

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, suggested that Muslim scholars respond to ISIS by proclaiming:
What you are doing, killing innocent people, implementing so-called “Sharia” or the so-called “Islamic State”, this is against everything that is coming from Islam. . . . It is not a caliphate. It is just people playing with politics referring to religious sources.
While it is indeed necessary for Muslim moderates—a group that does not include Ramadan—to condemn ISIS, it is self-defeating to deny the Islamic basis for its behavior.

Other academics engage in moral relativism, equating ISIS’s unbridled aggression with the defense of Western democracies. Absurdly, Musa al-Gharbi, a University of Arizona instructor, described the U.S. as the bigger evil: “It would not be a stretch to say that the United States is actually a greater threat to peace and stability in the region than ISIS.” Al-Gharbi also dubbed Mexican drug cartels more destructive than ISIS and maintained that, “What is fueling the disproportionate reaction to ISIL is Islamophobia.”

Mark LeVine, a professor of Middle East history at the University of California, Irvine, simultaneously absolved Islam and demonized Zionism by likening ISIS fighters to religious “fanatics” of all types:
[The Islamic State] is as real a form of expression of Islam as the violent and chauvinist Israeli settler movement is to Judaism or as extreme Hindu nationalism, Rahkine Buddhism and militant Christianity are to their religions in India, Myanmar and the United States.
Georgetown University history professor Abdullah Al-Arian drew a cruder comparison on Twitter:
Israel and ISIS sitting in a tree, K-I-L-L-I-N-G, First come the bombs, then come the savages, then come the U.N. to survey the damages.
Likewise, Steven Salaita, a former Virginia Tech University English professor whose offer of a position at the University of Illinois was withdrawn, tweeted nonsensically, “#Israel and #ISIS are but two prongs of the same violent ethnonationalism.”

Stretching credulity even further, Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University, alleged that ISIS “would be positively affected if the United States stopped its biased support of Israel.”

Seemingly bucking these trends is an open letter to ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi signed by over 120 Muslim leaders and scholars, including the aforementioned Hatem Bazian, Hamza Yusuf of Zaytuna College, and Brandeis University’s Joseph E.B. Lumbard. However, the letter calls its sincerity into question in its calculated ambiguity, endorsement of Sharia law, and the Islamist bent of many of its signatories.

Plainly, these Middle East studies academics are reluctant to admit the existence of Islamic supremacism. The rise of ISIS has challenged their ideology even more than the growth of al-Qaeda. Instead of addressing the monster to which Islam has given birth, as French Muslim philosopher Abdennour Bidar recently put it, they blame the non-Muslim world. Quite simply, the “experts” have buried their heads in the sand.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hagel Ouster Won’t Solve the Obama Foreign Policy Crisis - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

458110428-1024x682Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel has resigned his position under pressure from the Obama White House. According to one senior administration official, “He wasn’t up to the job.” Of course, if competence were the standard, President Obama himself should resign.

Hagel is being made the fall guy for Obama’s own national security failures, including not forcefully addressing the ISIS threat at a more opportune time to destroy ISIS. After all, it was Obama who derided the jihadist militants earlier this year as being akin to a junior varsity team.

Obama had precipitously pulled all American troops out of Iraq in 2011, against the advice of his military advisers, which helped create a vacuum filled by ISIS. Then he watched and did nothing while ISIS racked up victory after victory in Iraq during the last year, ignoring warnings from Iraqi government officials, U.S. intelligence and U.S. military leaders. Hagel added his own warning, declaring that ISIS represented an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”

Finally, in response to mounting criticism from home and abroad that he was showing no leadership while multiple global crises were exploding around him, President Obama first ordered air attacks on ISIS positions in Iraq while telegraphing to the enemy what he would not do. Then he expanded the air attacks to parts of Syria, while gradually increasing the number of U.S. troops he was willing to send back to Iraq, ostensibly to play a non-combat role.

Incredibly, senior administration officials are reported by the New York Times to have claimed, as justification for the pressure on Hagel to resign, that Hagel lacked the skills to deal with the ISIS threat. It was Obama – not Hagel – who had so recklessly minimized the ISIS threat in Iraq when it could have been dealt with more readily. And it was Obama – not Hagel – who admitted he had no strategy to deal with the ISIS threat in Syria. Hagel had his eyes open and saw the ISIS threat more clearly. Obama looked away as long as he could. But Hagel takes the fall.

President Obama chose Hagel for the Pentagon chief post in the first place to serve as the nominal Republican in his cabinet. Hagel also shared Obama’s skepticism about the Iraq War. Hagel’s combination of actual war experience as a Vietnam veteran and his cautiousness in committing American troops to vaguely defined missions suited Obama’s own inclinations. After having experienced the strongly opinionated Robert M. Gates, the former defense secretary, who went on to criticize the president in his memoir, Obama appears to have wanted someone he thought would focus more on internal management of the Pentagon than embroiling himself in national security policy debates.

Opposition to Hagel’s nomination among his former colleagues in the Senate and among some analysts stemmed in part from the remarks he has made about the Iraq War over the years and his evident anti-Israel bias. Questions were also raised about his overall fitness for the job. Hagel did himself no favors in that regard with his widely criticized poor performance during his Senate confirmation hearings. Nevertheless, Hagel was eventually confirmed as defense secretary by the Senate in a 58-41 vote.

During his relatively brief tenure, Hagel served as Obama’s manager of a diminishing U.S. military footprint. Hagel oversaw the draw-down of troops in Afghanistan that Obama had ordered, and began the process of looking for ways to trim the Pentagon’s budget.

However, on matters of national security and crafting responses to emerging threats such as ISIS, Hagel never made it into the inner circle of decision-makers in the Obama administration. He is reported to have remained mum during cabinet meetings, as he concluded that his advice was not being taken seriously by those who had the president’s ear. Hagel is said to have provided his advice to Obama in one-on-one phone calls, but he was still relegated to the outer periphery of influence on Obama’s final decisions.

While Hagel came across during his Senate confirmation hearings and in some public appearances since he became defense secretary as tentative and unsure of himself, he is no shrinking violet. He has at times expressed the kind of sharp-edged skepticism about the direction that the current president is taking the country’s military and national security that he displayed as a senator regarding former President George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq War.

For example, Hagel wrote a memo to National Security Adviser Susan Rice last month raising concerns about the administration’s Syria strategy, particularly how to best deal with Syrian President Bashar Assad while simultaneously fighting ISIS in Syria.

Rice is at the heart of Obama’s inner circle and does not take kindly to disagreements with her patron’s policies. “I guess I could be a testosterone-driven, territorial kind of personality in this role,” Rice was quoted by the New York Times last month as having said. “My view on this is that it’s an asset to have a partner down the hall.”

Hagel did not have that kind of access to the president. He had also been losing patience with what he regarded as interference on his own turf by an inexperienced White House national security team.

Said Senator John McCain, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I know that Chuck was frustrated with aspects of the Administration’s national security policy and decision-making process. His predecessors have spoken about the excessive micro-management they faced from the White House and how that made it more difficult to do their jobs successfully. Chuck’s situation was no different.”

During an interview with Charlie Rose last week, Chuck Hagel’s frustration seemed to have boiled over. Hagel expressed concern about the military’s declining capability under President Obama’s watch.  “I am worried about it, I am concerned about it, Chairman Dempsey is, the chiefs are, every leader of this institution,” Hagel said, referring to the Pentagon. Then, in a not-too-subtle slap at the dithering that Obama brings to decision-making when a quick response from a capable and confident leader is required instead, Hagel added that “the main responsibility of any leader is to prepare your institution for the future. If you don’t do that, you’ve failed. I don’t care how good you are, how smart you are, any part of your job. If you don’t prepare your institution, you’ve failed.”

President Obama has displayed a thin skin time and time again. Truly believing that he is always the smartest person in the room, Obama wants yes-people around him. Hagel, for all his faults, did not fit that mold.

During a White House ceremony Monday at which Hagel’s resignation was officially announced, Obama said he and the defense secretary had determined it was an “appropriate time for him to complete his service.” Obama’s praise for Hagel as an “exemplary defense secretary” rings no truer than all of Obama’s other statements on a variety of topics. Hagel served as Obama’s scapegoat. Sadly, this president’s national security failures will continue.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Arresting Terrorists & Rescuing Hostages: Just a Typical Week for the Lotar Unit - IDF Blog

by IDF Blog

An infiltration into Israeli territory in order to kidnap civilians: this is the strategy favored by terrorist organizations attempting to harm Israeli citizens. The Lotar Counter-Terrorism Unit serves as the IDF’s response to these threats. The unit specializes in the release of hostages, is constantly training, and is prepared to face any scenario that may be thrown at it.

“Terrorists have infiltrated the Shavei Hebron yeshiva (a Jewish institution),” informs the commander of the Lotar Counter-Terrorism Unit during a briefing in the operations room, located in the center of Hebron near the yeshiva. “There are reports of four to six terrorists who have taken 20 people hostage.”

Lotar Exercise

The soldiers slowly begin moving towards the yeshiva under the cover of the night. They find the room where the hostages are being held and take the terrorists by surprise. Then they systematically search the other rooms in the building. The operation to release the hostages has taken less than one minute.

Lotar Exercise 1

This scenario is part of the Lotar Counter-Terrorism Unit’s final week of training, in which the soldiers of the unit are faced with different scenarios throughout the week.

Lotar Exercise 2
“The exercise in Hebron is exceptional because it takes place in a real urban environment, in a place that many events have happened in the past,” said Lt. Col. Erez, commander of the Lotar Unit. “These exercises help us improve; we learn new tactics that help us respond better to the situations we may face.”
In another situation the soldiers face during this arduous week, terrorists take control of a bus and hold its passengers hostage. The soldiers must regain control of the bus, neutralize the terrorists, and free the hostages. One team is responsible for breaking the windows of the bus and neutralizing the terrorists, while the second team enters through the doors and takes control of the vehicle. “Some of the situations that the soldiers had to face this week actually happened during the operation in Gaza,” said Lt. Col. Erez. “The exercise is more relevant now than ever.”
“In each situation, the soldiers had to use different techniques,” summarized Lt. Deen, a team commander. “The exercise has evaluated the skills of every soldier. The unit’s requirements are very high since it will be up to the soldiers to pass on their knowledge to other combat units. The soldiers are determined and professional, and they proved to us that we can count on them.”

IDF Blog


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It