Thursday, December 8, 2016

Michael Flynn and What he Means for Trump's Foreign Policy - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Why Tehran is worried.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

In the US and around the world, people are anxiously awaiting US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement of his choice to serve as secretary of state. There is no doubt that Trump’s choice for the position will tell us a great deal about the direction his foreign policy is likely to take.

But the fact is that we already have sufficient information to understand what his greatest focus will be.

Trump’s announcement last week that he has selected Marine General James Mattis to serve as his defense secretary is a key piece of the puzzle.

Mattis has a sterling reputation as a brilliant strategist and a sober-minded leader. His appointment has garnered plaudits across the ideological spectrum.

In 2013, US President Barack Obama summarily removed Mattis from his command as head of the US Military’s Central Command. According to media reports, Mattis was fired due to his opposition to Obama’s strategy of embracing Iran, first and foremost through his nuclear diplomacy. Mattis argued that Iran’s nuclear program was far from the only threat Iran constituted to the US and its allies. By empowering Iran through the nuclear deal, Obama was enabling Iran’s rise as a hegemonic power throughout the region.

Mattis’s dim view of Iran is shared by Trump’s choice to serve as his national security adviser. Lt. General Michael Flynn’s appointment has been met with far less enthusiasm among Washington’s foreign policy elites.

Tom Ricks of The New York Times, for instance, attacked Flynn as “erratic” in an article Saturday where he praised Mattis.

It is difficult to understand the basis for Ricks’ criticism. Flynn is considered the most talented intelligence officer of his generation. Like Mattis, Obama promoted Flynn only to fire him over disagreements regarding Obama’s strategy of embracing Iran and pretending away the war that radical Islamists are waging against the US and across the globe.

Flynn served under Obama as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in 2014 for his refusal to toe the administration’s mendacious lines that radical Islam is not the doctrine informing and inspiring the enemy, and that al-Qaida and its fellows are losing their war.

What Obama and his advisers didn’t want to hear about the US’s enemies and about how best to defeat them Flynn shared with the public in his recently published book Field of Fight, which he coauthored with Michael Ledeen, who served in various national security positions during the Reagan administration.

Flynn’s book is a breath of fresh air in the acrid intellectual environment that Washington has become during the Obama administration. Writing it in this intellectually corrupt atmosphere was an act of intellectual courage.

In Field of Fight, Flynn disposes of the political correctness that has dictated the policy discourse in Washington throughout the Bush and Obama administrations. He forthrightly identifies the enemy that the US is facing as “radical Islam,” and provides a detailed, learned description of its totalitarian ideology and supremacist goals. Noting that no strategy based on denying the truth about the enemy can lead to victory, Flynn explains how his understanding of the enemy’s doctrine and modes of operation enabled him to formulate strategies for winning the ground wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And win them he did. As he explains in his book, Flynn oversaw the transformation of the US’s strategies for fighting in both theaters from strategies based on top-down decapitation of the enemy’s leadership to a groundup destruction of the terrorist networks.

Flynn’s strategy, which worked in both countries, was based on the premise that it wasn’t enough to kill “high value” targets. The US needed to develop a granular understanding of the terrorist networks from the village level up the line. Only by taking out the local terrorist leaders would the US be able to destroy the ability of the likes of al-Qaida, the Iranian-controlled Shi’ite militias and the Taliban to quickly mobilize new forces and reignite fighting shortly after every successful US operation.

Flynn’s book contributes three essential insights to the discussion of the global jihad. First, he explains that the Bush and Obama administrations were both unable to translate military victories on the ground into strategic victories because they both refused to join their military war with a war of ideas.

The purpose of a war of ideas is to discredit the cause for which the enemy fights. Without such a war, on the one hand the American people sour on the war because they don’t understand why it is important to win. On the other hand, without a war of ideas directed specifically at the Islamic world, Muslims worldwide have continued to be susceptible to recruitment by the likes of ISIS and al-Qaida.

As Flynn notes, the popularity of radical Islam has skyrocketed during the Obama years. Whereas in 2011 there were 20,000 foreign recruits fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, by 2015, the number had risen to 35,000.

Flynn’s second contribution is his forthright discussion of the central role the Iranian regime plays in the global jihad. Flynn chronicles not only Iran’s leadership of the war against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. He shows that their cooperation is global and predates 9/11 by several years.

Flynn recalls for instance that in 1996 British troops confiscated an al-Qaida training manual written by Iranian intelligence in a terrorist training facility in Bosnia. Six Iranian “diplomats” were arrested at the scene.

Flynn is unflinching in his criticism of the Obama administration’s moves to develop an alliance with Iran. And he is almost equally critical of George W. Bush’s war against terror.

For instance, Flynn argues, “It was a huge strategic mistake for the United States to invade Iraq militarily.”

Iran, he said was the main culprit in 2001 and remains the main enemy today.

“If, as we claimed, our basic mission after 9/11 was the defeat of the terrorists and their state sponsors then our primary target should have been Tehran, not Baghdad, and that method should have been political – support of the internal Iranian opposition.”

Flynn’s final major contribution to the intellectual discourse regarding the war is his blunt identification of the members of the enemy axis. Flynn states that the radical Islamic terrorist armies operate in cooperation with and at the pleasure of a state alliance dominated by Russia and Iran and joined by North Korea, Venezuela and other rogue regimes. Flynn’s frank discussion of Russia’s pivotal role in the alliance exposes the widely touted claims that he is somehow pro-Russian as utter nonsense.

In Flynn’s view, while Russia is Iran’s primary partner in its war for global domination, it should not be the primary focus of US efforts. Iran should be the focus.

In his words, the best place to unravel the enemy alliance is at its “weakest point,” which, he argues, is Iran.

Flynn explains that the basic and endemic weakness of the Iranian regime owes to the fact that the Iranian people hate it. To defeat the regime, Flynn recommends a strategy of political war and subversion that empowers the Iranian people to overthrow the regime as they sought to do in the 2009 Green Revolution. Flynn makes the case that the Green Revolution failed in large part because the Obama administration refused to stand with the Iranian people.

Flynn is both an experienced commander and an innovative, critical, strategic thinker. As his book makes clear, while flamboyant and blunt he is not at all erratic. He is far-sighted and determined, and locked on his target: Iran.

Whoever Trump selects as secretary of state, his appointment of Mattis on the one hand and Flynn on the other exposes his hand. Trump is interested in ending the war that the forces of radical Islam started with the US not on September 11, 2001, but on November 4, 1979, with the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.

With Mattis and Flynn at his side, Trump intends to bring down the Iranian regime as a first step toward securing an unconditional victory in the war against radical Islam.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Regional Vision Of Iran's Islamic Regime And Its Military-Political Implementation, Part I - A. Savyon, Y. Carmon, and U. Kafash

by A. Savyon, Y. Carmon, and U. Kafash

The Ideological Doctrine: Exporting The Revolution; Iran As 'Umm Al-Qura'


Since its beginning, the regime of Iran's Islamic Revolution has championed the idea of exporting its Revolution to the entire Muslim world. This doctrine is rooted in the thinking of the Revolution's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, particularly in his book Al-Hukuma Al-Islamiyya ("The Islamic Government," Beirut, 1979). In the book, he presented his perception negating the existence of peoples and states in Islam, and aspiring to actualize Islamic unity. Khomeini defined himself as a Muslim, not as an Iranian or a Shi'ite, and the Revolution as Islamic, not Iranian or Shi'ite. In his view, nationalism is an imperialistic plot to weaken and divide the Islamic world, and Islamic unity is the way to restore Islam to its greatness. The regime in Iran is the jumping-off point for a "comprehensive Islamic Revolution," and exporting the Revolution is the tool for attaining Islamic unity.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (image: Fars)

This concept, which Iranian revolutionary ideologues have called Umm Al-Qura – one of the names of Mecca – considers Iran the true Mecca, that is, Iran is the religious, spiritual, and political center of the Muslim world. These ideologues have set out a vision and a mission to spread revolutionary Shi'ite Islam across the geographic and religious region of the Islamic world.

According to this doctrine, Iran appropriates the leadership role of the Sunni Islam that is based on Mecca and on that city's historic role in Islamic history, as part of the generations of political and religious struggle between the Shi'a and the Sunna. This constitutes also an additional layer in the intra-Islamic philosophical discussion on what form an Islamic regime should take, and of how to rebuild the Islamic world after centuries of repeated defeat by Western civilization.

In principle, it is an overall Islamic view, shared by both Sunnis and Shi'ites, that Islam not only defines sovereign borders but also demands the loyalty of Muslims living outside the borders of the Islamic state and their obedience to this state's ruler.[1] Thus, it is no wonder that the concept of Umm Al-Qura as the political-religious center of the entire Islamic world was developed in the modern era by the Sunni thinker Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi in the late 19th century, on the eve of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the last Islamic caliphate. In his book Umm Al-Qura, published in 1901, Al-Kawakibi proposed a doctrine for rehabilitating the status of Islam and the Muslims, which centered on restoring the Arabs, who have a separate and unique ethnic identity not shared by the other Muslim peoples, as leaders of the Islamic world, and also on bringing Muslims back to the original Salafi Islam. In Al-Kawakibi's thought, two ideological aspects had nourished two different movements in the Arab and Muslim world of the modern era: the anti-imperialist national Arab movement, and the Islamic Salafi movement, from which emerged the various Islamic jihadi movements.

Al-Kawakibi (image:
The Umm Al-Qura concept was espoused, and upgraded, by Iranian revolutionary ideologues, who adapted it to the needs of Iran's Islamic Revolution. For example, Ayatollah Sadeq Taqi Mesbah Yazdi published, in the autumn of 1996, an article titled "The Authorities of the Ruler of the Jurisprudent [Vali-e Faqih] Outside The Borders [Of the State]," in the Islamic Regime journal of the Center of Scientific Research of the Assembly of Experts.[2] In his article, Mesbah Yazdi stressed that Muslims are obligated to pledge allegiance (i.e give ba'ya) and obey the worthy Islamic ruler regardless of geographic borders, ethnic affiliation, linguistic association, or anything else. He said: "From the point of view of Islam, the main element for the unity of the ummah and Islamic society is the unifying of faith, and there is no validity at all in the unity of states and in the existence of geographic borders, whether natural or agreed-upon... If a certain Islamic state is run by the Rule of the Jurisprudent, its ruler has supremacy... Therefore, his order is binding for every Muslim, and even Muslims in non-Islamic countries must obey him."[3]

Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi (image:
It should be noted that the Iranian ideologues' view of the Umm Al-Qura concept is not aimed against the imperialist West – that is, the U.S, Israel, and so on – as it is camouflage for Iran's effort to expand the hegemonic Iranian-Shi'ite territory within the Islamic world at the expense of the historic Sunni hegemony that has prevailed in the Middle East for 14 centuries. Although hatred for America, the Great Satan, and Israel, the Little Satan, as well as antisemitism, are central elements in the ideology of the Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran, the concept of Umm Al-Qura, which deals with the historic Shi'ite-Sunni conflict, is not directed against them.

Burning Israeli and American flags (image: ISNA, Tasnim, Iran, July 1, 2016)

The hatred for the U.S. and Israel are two ideological focal points that serve the concept of Umm Al-Qura as camouflage for the Iranian-Shi'ite aspiration to expand Iranian hegemony at the expense of the Sunni hegemony in the region. Dialogue with the U.S., the Great Satan, and even with Israel is possible and has been carried out in the past when necessary, but the Iranian-Shi'ite hostility towards Sunni Islam in the region and the struggle against are existential issues as far as revolutionary Iran is concerned.

Iranian spokesmen take care not to present the Umm Al-Qura concept as an Iranian doctrine aimed at expanding Iran's hegemony. In order to conceal their real aim, and to keep Sunni Muslims in the dark and recruit them to join the Iranian struggle for regional hegemony, Ayatollah Khomeini coined the saying "The path to Jerusalem goes through Karbala" – that is, the struggle for the ultimate Islamic goal (Jerusalem) goes through Iranian control of areas that historically been part of Sunni hegemony (Karbala in Iraq). This slogan is reiterated by Iranian regime officials and the Iranian military leadership today as well. Thus, even Iranian-Shi'ite involvement in fighting the Sunni Islamic State (ISIS), which is presented by the Iranian regime as a justified struggle against terrorism, constitutes effective cover for the Iranian-Shi'ite striving for regional hegemony, by deliberately eliminating every center of Sunni power in the arena of the fighting – Iraq, Syria, and Yemen – so as to create a contiguous swath of Iranian hegemony from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean.[4]

This strategy was not completely clear, because Iran had refrained from direct involvement in Sunni-Shi'ite conflicts, acting only via proxies – and its spokesmen have publicly denied such action and stressed that Iran has never started a war against its neighbors. But it was recently revealed when Iran began direct military involvement in Sunni-Shi'ite areas of conflict. In the past few years, senior Iranian officials have begun to express this strategy openly.

Thus, for example, Ali Younesi, advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rohani and a former intelligence minister, stated, in March 2015, that Iran was once again an empire as it had been in the past, and that its capital, Iraq, was "the center of Iranian heritage, culture, and identity."  He stressed that the Iranian Islam is the pure Islam, with no Arabism, racism, or nationalism.[5]

Ali Younesi, advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rohani (image:
Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said in February 2013: "Iran has planned defensive positions outside its borders and linked its fate to the fate of the Islamic countries, and therefore will support people such as [Syrian President] Bashar Al-Assad to the end."[6]

Ali Akbar Velayati (image:
Ayatollah Mohammad Baqr Kharazi, director-general of Hezbollah Iran and part of the elite of the Iranian regime, presented a plan in 2010 for establishing "Greater Iran" in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan, in the first stage, and for creating a union of Islamic countries under Iran's leadership.[7] In 2013, he promised that if he were elected president he would restore Tajikistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan to Iranian sovereignty.[8]

Ayatollah Mohammad Baqr Kharazi, director-general of Hezbollah (image: ISNA, Iran, February 9, 2013)
On May 2, 2014, Yahyah Rahim Safavi, security advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said: "Iran's line of defense against Israel stretches to South Lebanon, and our strategic defensive depth reaches to the Mediterranean and above Israel's head."[9]

Ali Saeedi, Khamenei's representative in the IRGC, said in August 2015 that Iran's strategic depth is in Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, Bahrain, and Syria.[10]

Ali Saeedi (image:
IRGC commander Ali Ja'fari said on September 15, 2014 that "the missions of the [IRGC elite unit] Qods Force are outside Iran's borders and it aids the revolutionary movements, the resistance movements, and the oppressed worldwide. Whether in Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon, if there is a need for help, we will help."[11]

IRGC commander Ali Ja'fari (image:
Mohammad Ali Falaki, retired IRGC general and an associate of the Iranian military elite, discussed, in August 2016, the Shi'ite Liberation Army that Iran established for the war at its three battle fronts in the Middle East – Syria, Iraq, and Yemen – under the command of Qods Force leader Qassim Soleimani and the oversight of Leader Khamenei.[12]

Hossein Hamdani, former IRGC commander in Tehran, revealed, at a May 2014 regime conference in Hamadan, the extent of Iran's involvement in Syria. He said that Iran was operating in Syria out of concern for the interests of the Islamic Revolution and that it had established popular militias, called the Second Hizbullah, in 14 districts in Syria, with a total of 70,000 members.[13]

Hossein Hamedani (image:
Mehdi Taeb, head of Khamenei's Ammar Base think tank and the brother of IRGC intelligence director Hossein Taeb, said in March 2013 that Syria is "the 35th district [of Iran] and a strategic district for it," and stressed that losing it would lead to the loss of Tehran.[14]

Mehdi Taeb (image:
Additionally, the escalation in the Iran-Saudi clash in its various aspects, both political and military, has also exposed additional aspects of this strategy (see Appendix: MEMRI Reports On Iran-Saudi Conflict).

Beyond these verbal statements, Iran's approach is manifested on the ground in its military involvement in the various areas of the fighting in the region – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen – and in its tremendous investments and in the heavy price it is paying in Shi'ite casualties, from both Iran and the entire Muslim world.[15]

This paper is in two parts: Part I, below, will review the Umm Al-Qura concept, while Part II, forthcoming, will review its implementation by the Iranian regime in the Islamic region.

Part I – The Concept Of Umm Al-Qura

The Concept Of Umm Al-Qura In The Thought Of Mohammad-Javad Larijani

In the winter of 1996, Mohammad-Javad Larijani, a senior Iranian regime official, who is the secretary of Iran's Judiciary High Council for Human Rights and an advisor to Khamenei, as well as a member of the prominent Larijani family, three of whose members hold top positions in Iran, published an article titled "The Political Boundaries" in the Islamic Regime journal of the Center of Scientific Research of the Assembly of Experts.[16] He described the article as an expansion of Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi's Autumn 1996 article "The Authorities of the Ruler of the Jurisprudent [Vali-e Faqih] Outside The Borders [Of the State]" in the same publication. Larijani wrote:

Mohammad-Javad Larijani (image:
"A state in which the Islamic regime is in complete control has a select status, called Umm Al-Qura. The most important, and the major, unique aspect of Umm Al-Qura is that the Islamic regime was established [in that state] and that its leader the worthy one and his authority extends throughout the entire Islamic ummah. That is, this leader is worthy of leading the entire Islamic ummah, even though in practice his leadership is only actualized, for now, in Umm Al-Qura."

Larijani went on to explain that the Muslims in Iran, as well as Iran's Assembly of Experts, must make decisions concerning the selection of the leader and his actions, with the understanding that a worthy and chosen leader serves not only them in Iran, but the entire Muslim ummah.

This concept forces is actually forcing the worthy leader chosen by Iran on the entire Islamic world. This is also a one-time selection; in the case of Ayatollah Khomeini, it was made by the people, but this was not so with the selection of Khamenei, who did not even have the religious rank necessary to become Supreme Leader.

Larijani continued: "Although the leader of Umm Al-Qura officially rules only a certain state [Iran], the entire Islamic ummah must obey him... Any defeat or victory by Umm Al-Qura is a defeat or victory for Islam. Therefore, if Umm Al-Qura is attacked, the entire Islamic ummah must rise to defend it... The Islamic ummah is a collection of people who have chosen Islam as the foundation of their actions, and believe in it. Therefore, everyone in the Islamic ummah has a responsibility towards Umm Al-Qura – even if they live in infidel lands and are distant from it."

Larijani then analyzed various situations in which there is more than one Islamic regime or worthy leader, and examined the question who should be the leader worthy of ruling the Islamic state.
Ideologically confronting what he sees as the Western championing of individualism aimed at promoting the hegemony of Western liberal economic order, Larijani stated that under the Islamic doctrine there must be "a unified Ummah with one consolidated regime." This, he added, "will be seen as a peak for the new Islamic culture."

He then sets out several phases for actualizing this vision:

"Phase one: Creating awareness of the need to revive Islam in the life of the individual and society.
"Phase two: Making an effort to establish Islamic regimes in several states in today's Islamic world. These efforts would naturally come from the people... Sometimes it will be possible to use tools that already exist, such as parliamentary elections and so on, and sometimes there should be street demonstrations, so that this movement will achieve results...

"The third phase begins when the people in several important states in the Islamic world succeed in establishing an Islamic regime. In this situation, the Islamic regimes should be …reorganized… and  included in a unified regime in the [Islamic] Ummah...

"Here we must pay attention to a critical foundation of our Islamic logic – that we are obligated to carry out this mission...[17]

Mohammad Javad-Larijani's 2007 Interview With Iranian Daily Resalat 

In a February 2007 interview, Larijani explained additional aspects of the Umm Al-Qura concept to the Iranian daily Resalat, underlining again the supremacy of the Islamic state and its existential interests over the problems of oppressed Muslims at the edges of the Islamic region and over dealing with them as a priority. Reiterating Ayatollah Khomeini's saying, "The road to Jerusalem goes through Karbala," he explained that the Umm Al-Qura concept is aimed at reconciling two interests that appear to contradict each other: the interest of Iran as a state with defined borders, and the overall Islamic interest which is supranational.

He explained that what qualifies an Islamic state for the special status of Umm Al-Qura is not how Islamic a state is, but whether its defeat would be considered a defeat of all Islam. According to this definition, he said, the fall of the Saudi or Pakistani regime would have no ramifications for Islam as a whole, but the fall of the Islamic rule in Iran would be a defeat for the entire Islamic world: "If we are defeated, it will be said that the [entire] Islamic rule was defeated. According to this view, we become Umm Al-Qura."

Larijani also reiterated that when a certain place, such as present-day Iran, attains the status of Umm Al-Qura, all Muslims are "obligated to defend it... Defending Umm Al-Qura is not a mission just for the Iranians, but for every Muslim. If, God forbid, the Islamic regime in Iran is destroyed and becomes a monarchy, as it was in the past, Iran will no longer be Umm Al-Qura... Today, the logic of our actions is the logic of Umm Al-Qura... [Therefore] we believe that if Iran is attacked or if its interests are jeopardized, it is other states' Islamic duty to assist it – because the defeat of Iran is the defeat of Islam."[18]

Iranian Regime Officials Talk About Implementing The Concept of Iran As Umm Al-Qura In Our Time

IRGC Deputy Commander Hossein Salami said in a November 27, 2016 interview with Basij Week TV: "In fact, the idea to create the Basij was a divine prophecy [delivered] to the Imam [Khomeini], and can be seen as a wondrous miracle, as it is an innovation by the Imam. That is, the creation of the Basij was not based on any previous model or experience; it was created out of Imam Khomeini's profound internal understanding, true prophecy, profound wise thought, and view of the future. The Imam Khomeini envisioned a Basij of the Islamic world. This idea and thought was later realized by the leader of the Revolution [Khamenei], and, gradually, this great defense institution has crossed the borders of Iran.

"If you look today at the arena of regional developments, you will clearly see the blessed tree of the Basij at different points of the Islamic world. For instance, Hizbullah in Lebanon has become a powerful defensive apparatus in the eastern Mediterranean, and defender of the honor and independence of the people in Lebanon – even of other Muslims and of the Palestinians. This is an example of a Basij in a different country in the Muslim world.

Deputy Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami(image:
"Additionally, when you currently look at Ansarollah – the fighting Muslim people in Yemen – which stands against America's criminal policy that is being implemented by Saudi Arabia, [you can see] that they have created an infinite and powerful channel of resistance near the Yemeni Red Sea. This is another example from the blessed tree of the Basij in the Muslim world.

"Likewise, if you look at the developments in Syria... Without the expansion of the Basij model in the society in Syria, which recruits the people's desires and beliefs to support national security [there] and the regime that rules in Syria – the current developments in Syria would have benefitted the Zionist regime, and America and its regional allies...

"Obviously, also in the other Islamic countries, like Bahrain and Afghanistan, we are seeing the first signs of the Basij. The Basij is broadening its reach and presence in the political, security, cultural, and social arenas of the Muslim world and within its expanding borders. Therefore, we have gained a prominent role in this global creation, and this process is unstoppable.

"We have exported the Basij philosophy or the Basij model... According to the Basij philosophy, the Muslim world does not think much of geographic borders. The borders are being removed. The Basij is the symbol of globalization of religious and revolutionary faith in the Islamic world; therefore, according to the Basij logic, geographic borders [are set by] faith in the goals, beliefs, and thoughts [of Islam]...

"In our society, the Basij is mightier than all political streams, that is, the Basij is not within or in the framework of [any] political stream. Rather, it is part of the Islamic Revolution's discourse, which is rooted in the philosophy, thought, and discourse of the Rule of the Jurisprudent."[19]

Ayatollah Ahmad Alam Al-Hoda, Khamenei's representative in Khorasan, said on November 24, 2016: "Restricting [the role of] the Basij and IRGC [just] to the military level [inside Iran] is a plot [against Iran and against Islam]... [since] today, our fighters are fighting in Iraq and Syria, because this is not just defense of Iran, but rather of Islam and the Revolution. The true goal is the spread of Islam and the Revolution – and the Basij defends them."[20]

Ayatollah Ahmad Alam Al-Hoda (image:
Yahya Rahim Safavi, advisor to Khamenei, said at a November 29, 2016 commemorative service for the 500 Iranians who died in Chalus during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War: "Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen have copied their models from the Iranian Basij. In Syria, our youth have created a popular Basij comprising the Syrian people, who have fought terrorist elements for 68 months... Allah willing, in this century we will witness the revelation of the might of Islam, made up of [an Islamic] government [in Iran] and Islamic nations. Iran will be the central axis of this tremendous might."[21]

Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, a top military adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution (image:

APPENDIX – MEMRI Reports On The Iran-Saudi Conflict

MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6622, Iran, Saudi Arabia Clash Swords In U.S. Press, September 21, 2016.
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6607, Following Rafsanjani Call To Moderate Iranian Policy Vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, Khamenei Delivers Virulently Anti-Saudi Speech, Sparking Increased Conflict With Kingdom, September 12, 2016.
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6260, Saudi-Iranian Tensions As Depicted In Cartoons, January 13, 2016.
MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1215, Unprecedented Tension Between Saudi Arabia, Iran Following Execution Of Shi'ite Cleric Nimr Al-Nimr, January 4, 2016.
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6251, Iran Furious Over Saudi Arabia's Execution Of Shi'ite Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, January 4, 2016.
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6183, Iran Threatens Saudi Arabia: 'The IRGC... Will Take Vengeance' On The Al-Sa'ud Regime; 'Our Responses Will Be... Harsh And Decisive', November 10, 2015.
MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1144, Iran Threatens Saudi Arabia; Khamenei: Iran Will Answer Saudi Arabia 'A Blow With A Blow', October 2, 2015.
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5918, IRGC Weekly To Saudis: 'Iran Has Many Options For Harming Saudi Arabia... All [It] Needs To Do Is Use A Single One Of [Them] So That Nothing Remains Of The Entity Named The Aal-Saud Regime Or Of Saudi Arabia Itself', December 30, 2014.
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5858, Associates Of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei: Saudi Arabia Is The Source Of Scheming Against The Islamic World; The Al-Saud Family Is Of Jewish Origin – And Its Turn To Fall Has Come, October 14, 2014.
MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1108, Iran's New Strategy Of Diversion: Persuading The Sunni Camp To Fight Israel, Not Iran, July 31, 2014.
MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1068, Iran Calls For Violent Shi'ite Reaction Against Saudi Arabia, February 12, 2014.

*A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iran Media Project; Y. Carmon is President of MEMRI; U. Kafash is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.  

[1] This is also the perception of the Sunni Islamic State (ISIS), which demands an oath of allegiance from every Sunni Muslim outside its borders.
[2] Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, "The Authorities of the Ruler of the Jurisprudent [Vali-e Faqih] Outside The Borders [Of the State]," in the Islamic Regime journal, Year 1, Part I, Autumn 1996, pp 82-96. The journal was published by the Assembly of Experts' Center of Scientific Research; on July 24, 2006 it was posted on
[3] Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, "The Authorities of the Ruler of the Jurisprudent [Vali-e Faqih] Outside The Borders [Of the State]," in Islamic Regime, Year 1, Part I, Autumn 1996, p. 85 and p. 92, respectively.
[4] See MEMRI Daily Brief No. 109, Two Presidents, One Fatal Historic Move, November 4, 2016.
[6], February 8, 2013.
[9] Mehr (Iran), May 2, 2014.
[11] Tasnim (Iran), September 16, 2014.
[15] It should be noted that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei emphasized that the 2011 Arab Spring was in fact an "Islamic Awakening," in order to apply Iranian Islamic Revolution terminology and goals to the Sunni uprisings against dictatorships.
[16] Mohammad Javan Larijani, "The Political Boundaries," Islamic Regime journal,, Year 1, Part II, Winter 1996, pp. 37-49. The journal was published by the Assembly of Experts' Center for Scientific Research, and was posted on July 24, 2006 on
[17] Mohammad Javan Larijani, "The Political Boundaries," Islamic Regime journal,, Year 1, Part II, Winter 1996, pp. 37-49.
[18] Resalat (Iran), February 12, 2007.
[19] Tasnim (Iran), November 27, 2016.
[20] Tasnim (Iran), November 24, 2016.
[21] ISNA (Iran), November 29, 2016.

A. Savyon, Y. Carmon, and U. Kafash


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hezbollah turns 200 towns in Lebanon into launching pads - Ben Ariel

by Ben Ariel

IDF publishes map with nearly 10,000 Hezbollah targets it could attack during a potential confrontation with the terror group.

The IDF has published a map on its Twitter page revealing that Hezbollah has taken over more than 200 towns and villages in southern Lebanon since the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Channel 2 News reported Tuesday.

Some of the houses, in which innocent citizens of Lebanon reside, have become rocket launching sites, headquarters and warehouses for rockets. The targets displayed on the map will be the ones attacked by the IDF should a new war be launched on the northern front.

The map includes nearly 10,000 potential IDF targets about which Israel has collected intelligence in recent years, and is presented to all the foreign diplomats who visit Israel, according to Channel 2 News. It was recently presented by Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon as well.

Israel’s goal in using the map is to show the world the truth about Hezbollah, and warn that despite the fact that Hezbollah is currently investing most of its efforts on the civil war in Syria, it continues to rearm and prepare for a confrontation with Israel.

According to foreign reports, Israel continues to prevent Hezbollah’s military buildup by launching air strikes on arms shipments meant for the terror group, most of which come from Syria.

One of these air strikes attributed to Israel came last week, when Arab media reported that Israel targeted a convoy of cars belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist group.

Israel does not usually comment on reports on attacks which appear in the Arab media.

Ben Ariel


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

France: Decomposing in Front of Our Eyes - Yves Mamou

by Yves Mamou

Violence. It is spreading. Not just terrorist attacks; pure gang violence. It instills a growing feeling of insecurity in hospitals, at schools, in the streets -- even in the police.

  • Four officers were injured (two badly burned) when around 15 "youths" (Muslim gang-members) swarmed their cars and hurled rocks and firebombs at them. Police were aggrieved when the minister of interior called the attackers "little wild ones." Police and opposition politicians replied that the attackers were not "little wild ones but criminals who attacked police to kill."
  • Two students at a vocational training school in Calais attacked a teacher, and one fractured the teacher's jaw and several teeth -- because the teacher had asked one of the students to get back to work.
  • "This is a warning. These young people did not attack the school by chance; they wanted to attack the institution, to attack the State." — Yacine, 21, a student at the University of Paris II.
  • The riot, which lasted for four nights, broke out after the arrest of a driver who did not stop when asked to by a policeman.
  • This revolt of one pillar of French society, the police, was the biggest that ever happened in modern France. Yet, virtually no one in France's mainstream media covered the event.
  • "Everything that represents state institutions (...) is now subjected to violence based on essentially sectarian and sometimes ethnic excesses, fueled by an incredible hatred of our country. We must be blind or unconscious not to feel concern for national cohesion". — Thibaud de Montbrial, lawyer and expert on terrorism.
France will elect a new president in May 2017. Politicians are already campaigning and debating about deficits, welfare recipients, GDP growth, and so on, but they look like puppets disconnected from the real country.

What is reality in France today?

Violence. It is spreading. Not just terrorist attacks; pure gang violence. It instills a growing feeling of insecurity in hospitals, at schools, in the streets -- even in the police. The media does not dare to say that this violence is coming mainly from Muslim gangs -- "youths," as they call the in the French media, to avoid naming who they are. A climate of civil war, however, is spreading visibly in the police, schools, hospitals and politics.

The Police

The most jolting evidence of this malaise was to see more than 500 French police officers demonstrating with police cars and motorcycles on the night of October 17, without the backing of labor unions, without authorization, on the Champs Elysées in Paris. According to the daily, Le Figaro, "the Interior Ministry was in panic," frightened by a possible coup: "Police blocked access to the Avenue Marigny, which runs beside the Presidential Palace and overlooks the Place Beauvau."

On October 18, when Jean-Marc Falcone, director-general of National Police, met the leaders of the protest, he was surrounded by hundreds of police officers urging him to resign.

The main cause of their anger seems primarily the violence often directed against police, and terrorist attacks. On the terrorist level, two policemen were stabbed to death in Magnanville in June 2016 by a Muslim extremist, Larossi Aballa. This spring, more than 300 police officers and gendarmes were injured by demonstrators. In May, police unions demonstrated in the streets of Paris to protest "anti-police hatred."

This autumn, the last straw was an attack on a police patrol in the Paris suburb of Viry-Châtillon. Four officers were injured when a group of around 15 "youths" (Muslim gang-members) swarmed their cars in the town and hurled rocks and firebombs at them. Two policemen were badly burned; one had to be placed in an induced coma. The same scenario took place a few days later: a police patrol was ambushed in another no-go zone in the "sensitive" area of Val-Fourré.

Four police officers were recently injured (two badly burned) when a group of around 15 "youths" (Muslim gang-members) swarmed their cars and hurled rocks and firebombs at them, in the Paris suburb of Viry-Châtillon. (Image source: Line Press video screenshot)

Police were also aggrieved by Bernard Cazeneuve, the minister of interior, who called the attackers "sauvageons" ("little wild ones"). Police and opposition politicians replied that the attackers were not "little wild ones but criminals who attacked police to kill."

"Police are seen as an occupying force," declared Patrice Ribeiro of the Synergie Officiers police commanders' union. "It is not surprising that violence is spiking."

On October 18, Le Figaro launched an online poll online with one question: "Do you approve the protest by policemen?" Ninety percent of the 50,000 respondents answered "yes."

Since then, police demonstrations have spread to other cities. More than a month after the start of the discontent, police officers were still protesting in every big city. On November 24, two hundred police officers demonstrated in Paris between Place de la Concorde and the Arc de Triomphe, to express their "anger." Police in civilian clothes, some wearing orange armbands, some hidden under a scarf or hood, supported by citizens, gathered in the evening at the Place de la Concorde, before walking the length of the Champs Elysée up to the Arc de Triomphe, where they formed a human chain around the monument and sang La Marseillaise (France's national anthem).

This revolt of one pillar of French society, the police, was the biggest that ever happened in modern France. Yet, virtually no one in France's mainstream media covered the event.


Tremblay-en-France (Seine-Saint-Denis close to Paris): The headmaster of the Hélène-Boucher training school was attacked on October 17 by several individuals outside the school. Some "youths" were attacking the building with firebombs, and when the headmaster tried to calm the situation, one of the "youths" answered with blows. Fifty unidentified people were involved in the incident. This was the third episode of violence to occur in the vicinity. Four days earlier, two vehicles were torched.

One month later, the daily Le Monde held a meeting with several students, The goal of this meeting was to try to understand the cause of the violence in in Tremblay. Yacine, 21, a student at the University of Paris II, said: "This is a warning. These young people did not attack the school by chance; they wanted to attack the institution, to attack the State."

Argenteuil (Val d'Oise, suburb of Paris): A teacher at the Paul Langevin primary school, was beaten up in the street, on October 17, while leading children back to school from tennis courts a kilometer from the school. After hearing the teacher raise his voice at a child, two young men stopped their car, told the teacher he was a "racist" and beat him in front of the children. According to Le Parisien, one of the attackers justified his actions by accusing the professor of "racism". "You are not the master," said the man. "The only Master is Allah".

Colomiers (Toulouse, south of France). A physical-education teacher was assaulted by a student on October 17, when the teacher tried to stop the student from leaving the school through a prohibited exit.

Calais (Pas-de-Calais): Two students at a vocational training school in Calais attacked a teacher, and one fractured the teacher's jaw and several teeth on October 14, according the local paper, Nord-Littoral. The students attacked the electrical engineering teacher because he had asked one of the students to get back to work.

Saint-Denis (Seine Saint-Denis, suburb of Paris): On October 13, a school headmaster and his deputy were beaten by a vocational student who had been reprimanded for arriving late.

Strasbourg: A mathematics teacher was brutally attacked on October 17 at the Orbelin school. The headmaster of the institution told France Bleu that a "youth," who is not a student at the school, had beaten the teacher. This was not the first time that the "youth" had entered the building. Earlier, when the teacher asked him to leave his class, the "youth" delivered several blows to the teacher's face before fleeing.

All these attackers were not terrorists, but like Islamic terrorists, they apparently wanted to destroy "attack the institution, to attack the State."


On October 16, fifteen individuals accompanying a patient sowed terror in the emergency department of Gustave Dron Hospital in Tourcoing, according to La Voix du Nord. A doctor was severely beaten; another pulled by the hair. Doctors and nurses told the newspaper they were still in shock. Said a nurse:
"Ten people forced their way into the heart of the ER. The doctors asked them to leave... When everything stopped, I realized that the ER was ravaged, patients terrorized, relatives of patients crying."
The attackers were from the district of La Bourgogne, an area essentially populated with North African immigrants. Three people were arrested.

In the same area of La Bourgogne, there was a riot on October 4. Fourteen cars were burned and 12 people arrested. The riot, which lasted for four nights, broke out after the arrest of a driver who did not stop when asked to by a policeman.


On October 14, Nadine Morano, deputy of the opposition party Les Républicains, tried physically to prevent an Algerian businessman, Rachid Nekkaz, from entering the Center of Public Finance of Toul, in the east of France. Nekkaz is known for paying fines of Muslim women arrested because they were wearing a burqa in public, banned by law since October 2010. Police came to protect the right of Mr. Nekkaz to pay the fine. An amendment to the finance law is currently under discussion to block and punish practices, like those of Nekkaz, that circumvent the law.

President François Hollande is currently under fire after the publication of a book, A President Should Not Say That... In it, he is reported to have said, "France has a problem with Islam," and "there are too many migrants in France" -- remarks Hollande claims he never made. Another quote in the book that Hollande denies saying:
"We cannot continue to have migrants who arrive without control, in the context of the attacks... The secession of territories (no go zones)? How can we avoid a partition? Because it is still what is going to happen."
President Hollande spends his time apologizing for things he never said, but should have said because they are true.

French People

French Chinese: The French Chinese live in the same suburbs as Muslims and are attacked and harassed, to the general indifference of police.

As crime against community members has spiraled, about 50,000 ethnic Chinese staged a protest march in Paris on September 4, after the fatal mugging of a Chinese tailor.

The protesters, all of them wearing white T-shirts reading "Security for All" and waving French flags, rallied at the Place de la République. They had organized the demonstration by themselves and were not supported by the traditional "human rights" groups, which prefer to help Muslim migrants.

Public Opinion: In January 2016, Cevipof, a think tank of the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po), released its seventh Barometer of Political Trust, a poll published annually to measure the values of democracy in the country, and based on interviews with 2074 people:
  • What is your current state of mind? Listlessness 31%, Gloom 29%, Mistrust 28%, Fear: 10%
  • Do you trust government? Not much 58%, not at all 32%
  • Do you trust lawmakers? Not much 39%, not at all 16%%
  • Do you trust the president? Not much 32%; not at all 38%
  • Do politicians care about what the people think? Not much 42%, not at all 46%
  • How democracy is working in France? Not well 43%, not well at all 24%
  • Do you trust political parties? Not much 47%, not at all 40%
  • Do you trust the media? Not much 48% not at all 27 %
  • What do you feel about politics? Distrust 39%; disgust 33%, boredom 8%
  • What do you feel about politicians? Disappointment 54%; disgust 20%
  • Corruption of politicians? Yes 76%
  • Too many migrants? Yes, plus tend to agree: 65%
  • Islam is a threat? Yes, plus tend to agree: 58%
  • Proud to be French? Yes 79%
What this poll shows is the gap between people and politicians has never been so vast.
Thibaud de Montbrial, lawyer and expert on terrorism, declared on October 19 to Le Figaro:
The term "dislocation" of French society seems appropriate. Violence against police, hospitals, attacks that multiply against schools and teachers... are attacks against pillars of the ruling domain. In other words, everything that represents state institutions (...) is now subjected to violence based on essentially sectarian and sometimes ethnic excesses, fueled by an incredible hatred of our country. We must be blind or unconscious not to feel concern for national cohesion."

Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

American Jewish liberals have lost the plot - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

Hat tip: Jean-Charles Bensoussan

The real threat to the Jewish community on which the ADL should be focusing, is at the college campuses where anti-Israelism initiated by Muslim and far left groups has now morphed into open anti-Semitism with increasing manifestations of violence.
Throughout the 2000 years of Jews living in the Diaspora, there has been no precedent comparable to the behavior of major liberal mainstream sectors of the American Jewish community. They are undermining themselves and provoking massive waves of resentment from Americans, many of whom were favorably disposed towards them.

The United States has been the home of the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora for nearly a century and was regarded by many Jews as the “goldene medina.” Traditional anti-Semitism is at an all-time low with the exception of the current anti-Israel agitation initiated on college campuses by Muslims and far-left radicals. Many Jews have become affluent, powerful and are highly respected by most Americans.

Until recently, all mainstream Jewish organizations sought to maintain Democrat and Republican bipartisanship with regard to Israel and major issues of Jewish concern. This, despite the fact that for complex historical reasons, the vast majority of American Jews were inclined toward liberalism and voted Democrat.

Even after eight years of President Barack Obama’s efforts to create daylight between Israel and the United States in order to appease Iran and the Arab countries and despite the extraordinary support for Israel expressed by all sections of the Republican Party, Jews still tended to vote Democrat. This contrasted sharply with Anglo-Jewry, whose members defected in droves from the British Labour Party when it became anti-Israel/anti-Semitic under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

Regrettably, a number of mainstream U.S. liberal Jewish organizations broke with all tradition and displayed unprecedented and extreme partisanship in the recent US election and its aftermath. This may have disastrous long-term repercussions on the standing and influence of the American Jewish community.

The Anti-Defamation League, a previously respected body whose principal mandate is to combat anti-Semitism, began crossing red lines as soon as its new CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, a former Obama aide, assumed leadership after the retirement of Abe Foxman. Even before the elections, Greenblatt assumed a J Street profile and introduced left-wing policy initiatives, including pontificating about and criticizing Israeli policies, which were totally beyond his jurisdiction.

At the same time, he opposed legislation to prohibit anti-Israel boycotts, suggesting that many of its supporters were misled idealists seeking to promote the peace process. He also minimized concern for the rabid anti-Semitic platform of the Black Lives Matter movement, excusing it on the grounds that it was engineered by a small minority.

More significantly, he downplayed the escalating anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism on the college campuses initiated by Muslim and far-left groups – highly ironic for the head of the organization whose raison d’être is to combat anti-Semitism. But it was in the course of America’s most bitter and brutal electoral race that a number of liberal Jewish groups, headed by the ADL, initiated a partisan campaign against Republican candidate Donald Trump and his supporters.

Like most Americans, many Jews were distressed and polarized by the shameful and vulgar behavior of candidates. As individuals, American Jews have every right to express their political feelings. But officially, as Jewish mainstream organizations – as distinct from politically left Jewish groups – they had no right to speak on behalf of the Jewish community on issues unconnected to Jewish rights or interests.

It is also understandable that many Jewish long-time supporters of the Democratic party were  bitterly disappointed with the unexpected outcome of the elections. But to hysterically proclaim the demise of democracy and the rise of fascism, or to compare the Trump ascendancy to the 9/11 attacks and imply that Trump supporters – half of the electorate – are extremists, is sheer lunacy. Indeed the despair and frenzy reached such levels after the elections that a number of Conservative and Reform synagogues conducted formal mourning ceremonies. This is truly collective madness.

Yet ADL officials, together with Reform and Conservative leaders, also publicly exploited anti-Semitism as a vehicle to slander the Trump campaign, hurling accusations of anti-Semitism and fascism. In so doing, these groups may have caused irreparable harm to the Jewish community from among Trump’s supporters, who comprise half of the American people, many of whom had previously been positively inclined toward Jews.

The false allegations and innuendoes of anti-Semitism were accompanied by counter-productive hysteria, warning of the threat emanating from marginal right-wing anti-Semitic groups, implying that these few hundred extremists were a critical component of Trump’s support and thus the entire party was compromised.

The campaign against the extremist fringes and the national media exposure to these relatively unknown marginal neo-Nazis and degenerates, such as David Duke and Richard Spencer and the email hate peddlers, achieved the undesirable result of catapulting them into the national spotlight, which they could never have dreamed of occupying.

Stoking the fires of hysteria after the elections, Greenblatt proclaimed at an ADL conference that anti-Semitism in the United States had never been as bad since the 1930s. He was not relating to the real threat of burgeoning campus anti-Semitism at the but referring to the few hundred Ku Klux Klan lunatics, white supremacists and neo-Nazis allegedly empowered by Trump. Whatever his failings may be, Trump is certainly no anti-Semite.  He has a daughter who converted to Judaism and is religiously observant and he is surrounded by Jews.

The real threat to the Jewish community on which the ADL should be focusing, is at the college campuses where anti-Israelism initiated by Muslim and far left groups has now morphed into open anti-Semitism with increasing manifestations of violence. Freedom of expression is being denied to pro-Israeli speakers who are frequently howled down by these “progressives.” Given that graduates from these institutions will become the leaders of the future, it is truly worrisome that they are being nurtured in such a hostile environment and that it requires courage to support Israel on many campuses.

Displaying double standards, incredibly the ADL provided an imprimatur to Congressman Keith Ellison to become the new head of the Democratic National Committee. Ellison is a Muslim who previously had ties with Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan and has a long record of anti-Israeli hostility. Yet Greenblatt went so far as to describe Ellison as “a man of good character… an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism.” Instead of combating anti-Semitism, the ADL was whitewashing an opponent of Israel with an anti-Semitic background in order to promote its leftist agenda. However, the public outcry was so overwhelming that  that a week later Greenblatt was forced to state that after  seeing “disturbing”  remarks expressed by Ellison, the ADL now had “serious doubts about his ability to faithfully represent the party’s traditional support for Israel”.

Alas, the extent to which the Democratic Party has veered from its traditional pro-Israel stance was exemplified by the fact that the Charles Schumer, the incoming Jewish Senate Minority Leader, shamefully reiterated that “I stand by Rep. Ellison for the DNC chair…”while I disagree with him on some of his past positions”.

Fortunately, the new administration is unlikely to be anti-Semitic. Aside from other factors, Trump is surrounded by Orthodox Jewish officials who are also passionately pro-Israel. But nevertheless, these partisan mainstream Jewish interventions and refusal to accept the outcome of a democratic election create major tensions and have the potential to severely undermine the standing of the Jewish community.

The only major organization explicitly condemning this behavior is the Zionist Organization of America headed by Mort Klein.

To their credit, following the elections, Malcolm Hoenlein on behalf of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and David Harris of the American Jewish Committee called on Americans to reunite as a nation, encouraged Trump to calm the passions, and asked that the incoming administration be judged on its actions.

This enlightened approach is highly commendable. But it is unlikely to suppress the hysteria among those sections of the community that define their Judaism as comprising liberalism and universalism while placing the welfare of Israel low among their priorities. Moreover the links with Israel, which until now were the primary source of Jewish identity for non-Orthodox Jews, will tragically continue to erode.

In addition to the polarized division between Orthodox Jews and the rest of the community, the assimilatory tendencies will further increase, which will lead to the ongoing contraction and quality of the Jewish community.

Far left-Liberals are as free as anyone else to engage in political campaigns, but those heading mainstream Jewish organizations must be compelled to cease exploiting their positions and using anti-Semitism as a vehicle to promote their partisan agenda.

They should also ask themselves one question. Who represents a greater threat to democracy and American Jews? A handful of marginal neo-Nazis and White Supremacists who nobody had ever heard of or a Muslim with a long record of anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel who heads the Democratic National Council?

American Jewry is the most successful, powerful and respected Diaspora in Jewish history. If organizations like the ADL refuse to hearken to the wise counsel expressed by leaders like Malcolm Hoenlein, Mort Klein or David Harris but maintain their current politically partisan policies, American Jews will be marginalized and be perceived as the extension of a Democratic Party that is drifting increasingly further away from its traditional pro-Israel policy.

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom

Isi Leibler


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget