Friday, October 7, 2016

Obama Aids Iranian Nuclear Terror - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield


New information exposes old lies about the nuclear deal.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Senator Obama opposed naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terror group even while it was closely involved in organizing attacks against American soldiers in Iraq. Then, as part of his dirty deal with Iran, he secretly sent a fortune in foreign cash on airplanes linked to the IRGC.

And, as another part of the secret ransom deal with Iran, he lifted UN sanctions on Bank Sepah.

The United States has gone after plenty of banks for aiding terror finance, but Bank Sepah is somewhat unique in that it is a financial institution actually owned and operated by Islamic terrorists.

Bank Sepah is an IRGC bank. The IRGC, despite Obama’s denials, is an Islamic terror group with American blood on its hands. It is to Shiite Islam what ISIS is to Sunni Islam. And even the Democrats know it.

After the Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 Americans, President Clinton sent a message to the leader of Iran warning that the United States had evidence of IRGC involvement in the attack.

More recently, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the IRGC have been “labeled as terrorists” when discussing how the Shiite terror organization will benefit from Obama’s sanctions relief.

Bank Sepah however had been sanctioned for something bigger than terrorism. The scale of bombings it was involved in could make the Khobar Towers attack seem minor. Sepah had been sanctioned for being "involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities."

Among other activities, it had helped Iran buy ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program would only be halfway complete if it gets the bomb. It also needs missiles to be able to strike Israel, Europe and eventually America. That’s where North Korea and Bank Sepah come in. Bank Sepah helps keep Iran’s ballistic missile industry viable. By delisting it, Obama aided Iran’s ballistic missile program just as he had earlier aided its nuclear program.

Obama’s holistic approach to the Iranian bomb is to help the terror state assemble the physical components it needs to become a nuclear power. And the truth is hidden within the secret deals.

There are secret deals that Obama made with Iran that we already know about. There are secret deals that we suspect exist. And there are secret deals whose existence we are not even aware of.

Obama rang in Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, by assuring the Rabbis on a conference call that they didn’t need to worry about Iran nuking anyone because “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is now closed off.”

That’s funny because last year he was still claiming that under his deal in 13 years Iran’s breakout time will, “have shrunk almost down to zero.” If every pathway to a nuclear weapon is closed, how could Iran possibly have zero breakout time to make the occasion of the bar mitzvah of his dirty nuclear deal?

And which Obama do you believe? Try neither.

The secret document revealed earlier this year by the AP showed that Iran would be able to get its uranium enrichment in gear after 11 years and more than double its enrichment rate. What happens by the thirteenth year? Then Iran gets a blank check on centrifuges. That’s what Obama really meant.

Then breakout time to the bomb drops from a year to six months. Or even less. Until it hits zero.

But Ernest Moniz, Obama’s sniveling Secretary of Energy, assured the AP that it wouldn’t be a problem because Iran would only be allowed to store 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.
He lied.

Even as Obama was assuring the Rabbis of how thoroughly Iran was complying with his deal, new revelations were emerging of how he had helped Iran fake its compliance with the deal.

That’s the sort of thing you go to hell for. But it’s a little too late for Obama to worry about that.

The issue was simple. Obama wanted to lift sanctions on Iran. But Iran was not in compliance with even his mostly worthless agreement. So Obama decided that it was time to help the terror state fake it.

Iran was only allowed to keep 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. Obama agreed to upgrade that amount to “unknown quantities”. How much is an “unknown quantity”? Like the rest of Iran’s nuclear program, we don’t know. Low-enriched uranium, even in unknown quantities, doesn’t sound that scary. Except that according to a former U.N. weapons inspector, it can be used to produce highly enriched uranium. And that’s how you go from zero to a mushroom cloud over your city.

And then there are the large hot cells that Iran was allowed to keep running.

Secretary of Energy Moniz didn’t just lie to the AP. Lying to the media is practically an Obama indoor sport. He told the same lie in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Senators were assured that Iran would be allowed to keep "only 300 kilograms of low (3.67 percent) enriched uranium hexafluoride, and will not exceed this level for fifteen years." Iran didn’t have to wait 15 years to exceed that amount. Or even 15 minutes. Obama gave them a pass on it right out of the gate.

But Moniz wasn’t a rogue liar. He was telling the lie that he had been told to tell.

At the Rosh Hashana conference call with the Rabbis, Obama repeated the false claim that Iran had “shipped out 98 percent of its enriched uranium”. He told the lie even though the truth had already come out at the beginning of September. The 98 percent or 300 kilogram limit had been bypassed by him.

No one challenged him or called him out on his lie. And that is the problem.

Obama has lied about the Iran deal from the very beginning. And that’s not about to change.

The fairy godmother of Iran’s enrichment was Hillary Clinton. The “breakthrough” in the negotiations took place when she accepted some Iranian nuclear enrichment. And then it was just a matter of determining how much enrichment would take place officially and how much would take place unofficially that would be officially ignored or covered up by our own government.

That is how we got to the ticking atomic time bomb.

Obama hasn’t just turned a blind eye to Iran’s race to the bomb. He has empowered and enabled all elements of it from its nuclear program to its ballistic missile program. He has ensured that Iran would have the money, the manpower and the resources to become a nuclear power. He directed elements of our intelligence services and military to prevent Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear program. He even aided its core terrorist organization and its ballistic missile program.

This isn’t an error. It’s not cowardice. It’s treason.

A coldly calculated plan to turn Iran into a nuclear power is coming together. On the other end of it lies the horrifying death of millions.

Why would Obama and Hillary do such a horrifying thing? The American scientists and spies who helped the Soviet Union get the bomb believed that they were making the world a better place by limiting our ability to use nuclear weapons. Their treason almost led to the end of human life on earth.

The Iran deal is the second great wave of nuclear treason of the left. And the full truth is yet to be told.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264371/obama-aids-iranian-nuclear-terror-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Senate Must Act Now to Stop Obama’s Climate Change Treaty - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein

Obama and the UN work together to tie Trump's hands if he is elected president.




The United States Senate must act urgently to save its treaty approval authority from irreversible damage inflicted by President Obama with the complicity of the United Nations. Congress has already allowed President Obama to get away with putting in force his Iran nuclear deal with no more than a pro forma review. His administration considered it a “political” arrangement, not a treaty. Now the Obama administration has doubled down with the Paris Agreement on climate change, which was negotiated last December and signed by President Obama in April. For domestic consumption, the administration contends that the Paris Agreement on climate change is no more than an “executive agreement,” which does not require Senate concurrence. However, for the purposes of making it legally binding on the United States under international law, the Obama administration has colluded with the United Nations Secretariat to designate the Paris Agreement as a treaty. In fact, in her October 5th press release regarding the latest developments of the agreement, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power referred to the accord as a "treaty" that is on the verge of being enacted. Aside from legally binding requirements to periodically report on each state party's progress in meeting individual country's greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments previously submitted in writing to the UN, the Paris Agreement contains provisions that appear to impose additional legally binding financial commitments.

The Paris Agreement on climate change will go into legal effect thirty days after at least 55 countries, whose greenhouse gas emissions represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, have presented the legal instruments necessary under their domestic laws to become formal parties. Once the Paris Agreement goes into legal force, a state party can only withdraw upon at least three years notice. With India and the European Union countries added to the United States and China as well as scores of other countries, the thresholds are about to be met - but only if U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are included in calculating the 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions total. In order for the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be counted, and the U.S. to be bound legally to the Paris Agreement after the thresholds are met, Obama had to find a way around submitting the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate for approval while still having it deemed a treaty under international law. His scheme was to enlist the help of the United Nations Secretariat, which has placed a universal climate change agreement at the top of its agenda.

With an eye on the upcoming U.S. presidential election and the possibility that Donald Trump, who opposes the climate agreement, would win, the Obama administration and UN officials worked feverishly to accelerate the member state ratification process necessary to allow the Paris Agreement to go into legal effect.  Patricia Espinosa, the UN's climate chief, said it wouldn’t be “feasible” for Trump to change the terms of the Paris Agreement once it did go into effect. So it was a race against the clock. 

President Obama presented his instrument of “acceptance” of the Paris Agreement to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon while attending the G-20 meeting in China last month. He did so alongside China’s President Xi Jinping, who presented his instrument of “ratification.” President Obama said that he and President Xi decided to “commit formally to joining the agreement ahead of schedule.”  By sleight of hand, President Obama sought to transform his “executive agreement,” now deposited as a treaty with the UN and listed as such in the United Nations’ Treaty Collection under the heading “Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General,” into a treaty without Senate approval.

The United Nations Office of Legal Affairs is complicit in this shell game. The chief of its Treaty Section told me that “what the United States calls an executive agreement we call a treaty.” He cited as a precedent an obscure treaty known as the Minamata Convention on Mercury, to which President Obama had also bound the United States through executive action without any consideration by the Senate.

Executive agreements are not binding on successor presidents, who can simply void them.  Obama knows this very well. He is not worried about Hillary Clinton, who is all in with inflicting a critical blow against the fossil fuel industry while giving away many more billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in wealth redistribution to developing countries. However, he wants desperately to try and cut off Donald Trump, if he is elected as the next president, from taking such an executive action.  Thus, taking no chances, President Obama worked overtime to cement his "legacy" on climate change by imposing treaty obligations on the next president without having gone through the constitutional treaty legislative approval process pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. His administration connived with the UN Secretariat to end run the Senate, an executive overreach that not even Mexico’s president dared to attempt. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto submitted the Paris Agreement to Mexico’s Senate for approval before presenting Mexico’s instrument of ratification to the United Nations. Other democracies have followed their own constitutional processes for treaty approval, including involvement of their legislative bodies.  But not Barack Obama!

The United States Senate should convene at the earliest opportune time to consider the Paris Agreement as having been deemed submitted to it as a treaty, since it is branded as such by the United Nations. The Senate can then deliberate and formally disavow Obama’s action in depositing the Paris Agreement with the UN as a treaty if the Senate decides not to approve it with the requisite two-thirds vote. This is important not only because of the problems with the Paris Agreement itself, most notably the huge redistribution of wealth it imposes, taking from the United States and other developed countries and giving without any accountability to developing countries. It is also important for the Senate to act so that it sets a clear marker to deter future presidents from proceeding without regard to the Constitution’s separation of powers.

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.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264413/senate-must-act-now-stop-obamas-climate-change-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

European commission tells British press not to use 'Muslim' to identify terrorists - Rick Moran




by Rick Moran

ECRI has made 23 recommendations to make the U.K. into the politically correct paradise ECRI wants

A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) singles out Great Britain, saying there has been a significant increase in "hate speech" over the last few years and that the government must do a better job "training" journalists.

ECRI has made 23 recommendations to make the U.K. into the politically correct paradise ECRI wants. Among them, the press should no longer mention the word "Muslim" when identifying terrorists.

Daily Express:
In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
"Alternative explanations"? Is that like lying? If a terrorist attacks a crowd of people with a machete screaming "Allahu akbar," I suppose the commission would approve of the press leaving that fact out of the story, or perhaps giving an "alternative explanation" that the terrorist was just clearing his throat.
Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”
But as Britain prepares to leave the crumbling bloc, the Government waded in to defend freedom of expression.
n a written statement to the ECRI, the Government said: “The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.”
ECRI is a human rights body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts, which monitors problems of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, intolerance and racial discrimination.
The group writes reports on every member state every five years and says the documents are “analyses based on a great deal of information gathered from a wide variety of sources.
Great Britain already has very strict libel laws that chill free speech and strict rules governing the publication of national security information. But there is little chance the government will ever adopt such draconian restrictions on speech.

The problem with ECRI is its interpretation of "hate speech." ECRI administrators appear to be saying that any speech that offends anyone is hate speech. 

But what's really chilling is that they want the government to step in and order journalists and publications to toe the line. To do that, government would have to oversee the editing process to ensure that no "hate speech" is accidentally posted. Imagine letting some of those ECRI creeps determine what the British people read.

Needless to say, the ECRI report should make U.K. citizens grateful they voted to leave the EU. Let the rest of Europe deal with these pompous asses who are as big a threat to freedom as Hitler or Stalen ever was.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/european_commission_tells_british_press_not_to_use_muslim_to_identify_terrorists.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Gaza Tunnels Get Too Much Attention - Prof. Efraim Inbar




by Prof. Efraim Inbar

The threat to Israel of terror attack tunnels from Gaza is exaggerated. Thus the Israel Ministry of Defense’s plan to build a very expensive subterranean wall around the Gaza Strip, reaching a depth of dozens of meters, makes no strategic sense. It is a waste of money and effort, and hands Hamas a public relations victory.

tunnel

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 369

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The threat to Israel of terror attack tunnels from Gaza is exaggerated. Thus the Israel Ministry of Defense’s plan to build a very expensive subterranean wall around the Gaza Strip, reaching a depth of dozens of meters, makes no strategic sense. It is a waste of money and effort, and hands Hamas a public relations victory. 

The attack tunnels dug by the Hamas from Gaza into Israel are great for the public relations of terrorists. They make for a deeply unsettling image that intensifies the threat perception among Israelis. Terrorists want to be feared and the tunnels seem to achieve that goal, despite their limited destructive potential.

In January 2016, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot played into the hands of the Hamas terrorists by saying that countering the tunnel threat was the army’s “number one mission this year.” Eisenkot’s statement showed that he prioritized the tunnel threat over Hezbollah’s growing rocket capability to Israel’s north or the threat from IS in the Sinai. Moreover, he belittled the serious nuclear threat from Iran.

Similarly, Education Minister Naftali Bennett gave in to the popular mood and exaggerated the threat of the Hamas tunnels. He accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of leaving the cabinet in the dark about the grave danger of the tunnels until after Operation Protective Edge had begun. A leaked draft of a report by the State Comptroller also criticized Netanyahu, then-Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Yaalon and then-IDF CoS Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for failing to anticipate the Hamas tunnel threat.

In any case, in the summer of 2014, Israel went on a ground attack to destroy tunnels that crossed into Israeli territory. Heavy fighting ensued, particularly in Shujaiyeh, a neighborhood of Gaza City. Forty-one Israeli soldiers were killed and many more injured during the ground phase, which ended after 32 tunnels were destroyed.

Following the development of the Iron Dome system, which has largely neutralized the rocket threat from Gaza, tunnels became an important tool in the Hamas arsenal. They are a low-tech challenge and quite difficult to handle. So far, Israeli efforts to develop technologies to locate tunnels have achieved only partial success.

Yet the tunnels’ potential ability to cause significant damage to Israel is itself limited. True, they enable terrorist attacks and/or the hijacking of dead or alive Israelis. While Israeli inhabitants around Gaza are most directly affected and obviously the most concerned, this type of threat, while undoubtedly disturbing, is not new.

Acts of terrorism have always been considered by the national security establishment as secondary to dangers that affect Israel’s territorial integrity or threaten its very existence. The tunnels cannot threaten strategic targets within Israel, such as power stations or airports, as Hamas missiles have done in the past. Investing in defense against missiles is important; spending money to negate the effects of tunnels is much less so. Limited resources dictate that spending be prioritized in accordance with the relative magnitude of the threats to be faced.

Nevertheless, the defense establishment, prodded by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is planning a giant project – a 60-kilometer wall around the Gaza Strip that will reach a depth of dozens of meters. Initially, a trial section will be erected at a cost of 600 million shekels ($158 million). This “Maginot Line” around Gaza, if completed, could become one of the most expensive projects in Israel's history.

The high priority allocated by Israel to the problem of the tunnels is totally unjustified. First, it is not clear that the planned Gaza Wall would be effective in preventing Hamas underground projects. Concrete walls can be penetrated, as bank robbers have shown. Israel should not underestimate the ingenuity of the engineers employed by Hamas.

Second, this ambitious project diverts resources from financing more important needs of the IDF. One very pertinent example is the neglect of ground forces due to financial considerations. Beefing up ground forces is an imperative in dealing with the looming threats of accurate missiles and a number of other serious contingencies.

Third, the tremendous effort to handle the tunnel threat unnecessarily magnifies the power of the enemy to harm Israel. The mammoth wall project is a public relations gift for Hamas. Moreover, its timing is problematic, as there are signs that Hamas is getting tired. The rounds of violence have taken their toll on Gaza. It looks as though Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, and the growing regional isolation of Hamas, may have created a modicum of deterrence. Hamas seems reluctant to initiate hostilities.

The project to build a wall around Gaza appears to be motivated by domestic politics. It is intended to calm the understandable concerns of the inhabitants of the southern region with regard to the tunnel threat. It enables the government to relieve the constant political pressure by stating that it is "doing everything possible" to find a solution. It is, however, a wasteful populist response.

Above all, it makes no strategic sense.

PDF
 
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family


Prof. Efraim Inbar is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and the founding director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.

Source: http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/gaza-tunnels-get-much-attention/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israel's edge in the Middle East - Dr. Ephraim Herrera




by Dr. Ephraim Herrera

-- it is easy to imagine what they would do to Israel if they were able to harm us

The Arab Spring has cultivated a lot of green, the color of Islam, from Tunisia in the west to Iraq in the east. And this Muslim green very quickly yielded a lot of red: the blood spilled in the civil wars that continue to grip the Muslim world. This is particularly true of the war in Syria, which has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands and driven over 10 million people from their homes, leaving them with no hope of ever returning: The complete destruction of entire cities leaves no doubt about that.

Much has been said about the policy Israel should take. In fact, there is a consensus that the preferred policy is "do nothing, unless they hit us directly," and this is the policy the Israeli government has rightly taken. Less discussed are the lessons we should learn from the atrocities being committed in such close proximity to our borders.

The hallmark of civil wars is their unfathomable cruelty. The bombing of civilian areas, of hospitals, places of worship and schools is a daily occurrence. The use of chemical weapons, by those we refer to as rebels and by those aligned with the government, has become routine. If this is how Muslims are capable of behaving toward one another, it is easy to assume what they would do to Israel if they were able to harm us. Indeed it is not for love of man that all sides involved abstain from hitting us: Israel has succeeded in building a strong, dedicated and sophisticated military, which deters any threat against the Jewish state. In the Middle East, strength is respected.

The entire international community's willingness to ignore war crimes is an important phenomenon. Here and there, Western countries condemn Russian and Syrian bombings, and that is where it ends. Suicide attacks and car bombs that kill dozens in Iraq do not even make the headline news in the West. It is easy to surmise what would happen to the State of Israel were it not so strong: The Islamists, who frequently depict their war as against the Crusaders and the Jews, would commit similar war crimes, and one can assume that here, too, the world would stand on the sidelines. Our strength pays off.

Another point is also becoming clearer: Muslim countries detested by their citizens in the blood-drenched Arab Spring, with Egypt and Jordan at the forefront, are in need of -- whether openly or in practice -- Israeli assistance. Egypt has asked for and receives Israeli intelligence assistance on the war on Islamic State's Sinai branch. It has asked for and receives Israeli assistance in its negotiations with countries in Africa, first and foremost Ethiopia, on the issue of water from the Nile River. 

King Abdullah II of Jordan is faced with the internal threat of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the external threat of Islamic State and the Syrian branch of al-Qaida, as well as the threat of Iran, which aspires to realize a fertile "Shiite crescent" spanning from Doha to Beirut. Israel, in the interest of keeping the peace on its eastern border, will likely support Abdullah. The estimated billion-dollar deal signed last week to export gas is indicative of the nature of Israel's relationship with Jordan. Strength pays dividends.

When an official cease-fire with Hamas was discussed, it was rejected by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, his reasoning being that Israel's willingness to sign a deal was a sign of weakness; therefore, it is forbidden, according to Islamic law, to sign a cease-fire deal. In the Middle East, the strong are spared the need to use their strength: Their strength is the best guarantee -- if not of peace, at least of life without war.

The use of chemical weapons by the rebels and the regime has become routine. If this is how Muslims are capable of treating each other, it is only too easy to assume what they would do if they could harm Israel. 


Dr. Ephraim Herrera is the author of "Jihad -- Fundamentals and Fundamentalism."

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17357

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Gaza ISIS Affiliate Fires Rocket into Sderot - Tower.org Staff




by Tower.org Staff

Egyptian authorities have claimed that Hamas has been crucial to the rise of ISIS in the Sinai, transforming it from “a gang of Bedouin with light weapons into a well-trained, well-armed group of 800 militants.”

featuredimage_10-05-2016_flash90_rocket_sderot

A terror group with ties to ISIS fired a rocket that struck a street in Sderot on Wednesday, causing minor damage.

Ahfad al-Sahaba-Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis took credit for the rocket attack. The group released a statement in what The Times of Israel described as “poorly-translated Hebrew”: “Oh you cowardly Jews: You don’t have safety in our land. [Former defense minister Moshe] Ya’alon, the failure at giving security. [Defense Minister Avigdor] Liberman to fail will be a certainty.”

Three Israelis were treated for anxiety following the attack, and several cars were damaged.
In response, Israel fired tanks at Hamas positions in Beit Hanoun, the Times later reported. Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rocket fire emanating from Gaza, which the terror group has ruled for nine years.



Ahfad al-Sahaba-Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis’s message is similar to one issued by ISIS’s Sinai affiliate in a video released this past summer: “Jews will not remain in Palestine, we will turn it into a graveyard for Jews.”

Egyptian authorities have claimed that Hamas has been crucial to the rise of ISIS in the Sinai, transforming it from “a gang of Bedouin with light weapons into a well-trained, well-armed group of 800 militants.” An ISIS commander met with Hamas officials in Gaza in December to increase cooperation between the terrorist groups, especially in the area of arms smuggling. (ISIS leaders are reportedly hosted by Hamas officials in Gaza regularly — a disgruntled ISIS fighter complained in an open letter published in March that ISIS officials attend “lavish banquets” at the homes of Hamas leaders.)

These growing ties, which have enraged Egyptian officials, reportedly also include joint explosives manufacturing, communications and logistical assistance, and hospitalization for injured fighters.

[Photo: Flash90 ]


Tower.org Staff

Source: http://www.thetower.org/4001-gaza-isis-affiliate-fires-rocket-into-sderot/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Germany Imports Child Marriage - Soeren Kern




by Soeren Kern

"This is not a question of tolerance and openness, but a question of the protection of children and minors"

  • The true number of child marriages in Germany is believed to be much higher than the official statistics suggest because many are being concealed.
  • In May, an appeals court in Bamberg recognized the marriage of a 15-year-old Syrian girl to her 21-year-old cousin. The ruling effectively legalized Sharia child marriages in Germany.
  • "Religious or cultural justifications obscure the simple fact that older, perverse men are abusing young girls." — Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.
  • "This is not a question of tolerance and openness, but a question of the protection of children and minors. We therefore need a clear rule: Assessing the marriageable age of a person ... will in the future always be determined by German law." — Bavarian Justice Minister Winfried Bausback.
German authorities are debating the contours of a new law that would crack down on child marriages after it emerged that some 1,500 underage brides are now living in the country.

The married minors are among the more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who entered Germany in 2015.

The German Interior Ministry, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, recently revealed that 1,475 married children are known to be living in Germany as of July 31, 2016 — including 361 children who are under the age of 14.

Most of the married children are from Syria (664), Afghanistan (157) and Iraq (100). Nearly 80% (1,152) are girls. The true number of child marriages in Germany is believed to be much than the official statistics suggest because many are being concealed.

German law currently allows minors aged 16 or over to get married if their partner is of legal age and the parents or guardians consent. Germany does not recognize marriages contracted abroad if a partner is under 14, but German family courts have discretion to determine the validity of marriages concluded abroad by minors who are 14 or older.

Zeinab, a married 14-year-old girl refugee from Syria, lives in a tent-camp in Lebanon. Germany hosts many thousands of migrants and refugees from Syria, among whom are at least 664 married children. Under current law, German family courts have discretion to determine the validity of marriages concluded abroad by minors who are 14 or older. (Image source: World Vision UK video screenshot)

In May, an appeals court in Bamberg recognized the marriage of a 15-year-old Syrian girl to her 21-year-old cousin. The court ruled that the marriage was valid because it was contracted in Syria, where such marriages are allowed according to Islamic Sharia law, which does not set any age limit to marriage. The ruling effectively legalized Sharia child marriages in Germany.

The case came about after the couple arrived at a refugee shelter in Aschaffenburg in August 2015. The Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) refused to recognize their marriage and separated the girl from her husband. The couple filed a lawsuit and a family court ruled in favor of the Youth Welfare Office, which claimed to be the girl's legal guardian.

The court in Bamberg overturned that ruling. It determined that, according to Sharia law, the marriage is valid because it has already been consummated, and therefore the Youth Welfare Office has no legal authority to separate the couple.

The ruling — which has been described as a "crash course in Syrian Islamic marriage law" — ignited a firestorm of criticism. Some accused the court in Bamberg of applying Sharia law over German law to legalize a practice that is banned in Germany.

"Religious or cultural justifications obscure the simple fact that older, perverse men are abusing young girls," said Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.

Monika Michell of Terre des Femmes, a women's rights group that campaigns against child marriage, said: "A husband cannot be the legal guardian of a child bride because he is involved in a sexual relationship with her — a very obvious conflict of interest."

The Justice Minister of Hesse, Eva Kühne-Hörmann, asked: "If underage persons — quite rightly — are not allowed to buy a beer, why should the lawmakers allow children to make such profound decisions related to marriage?"

Others said the ruling would open the floodgates of cultural conflict in Germany, as Muslims would view it as a precedent to push for the legalization of other Islamic practices, including polygamy, in the country.

Child marriage is a Germany-wide problem: 559 married children are living in Bavaria; 188 in North-Rhine Westphalia; more than 100 in Lower Saxony; and at least 100 in Berlin.

In Baden-Württemberg, the number of known child marriages jumped seven-fold in the past two years, from 26 in 2013 to 181 at the end of 2015. Of those, 162 are girls, and 18 are younger than 15 years of age.

The exact number of child marriages in Germany is unknown, partly because German authorities appear to have lost track of the identities or whereabouts of potentially hundreds of thousands of migrants. Of the 1.1 million migrants who entered Germany in 2015, only 477,000 have applied for asylum. The German government blames the discrepancy on an accounting problem, but others say that many migrants have gone underground to avoid being deported because they are not legitimate refugees fleeing war zones but economic migrants seeking a better life in Germany.

The Justice Minister of Baden-Württemberg, Guido Wolf, said foreign marriages should only be recognized if one partner is at least 16 years old and the other is 18, in line with existing German marriage law. Wolf described marriages contracted at 14 or 15 years of age as forced marriages. "I find it hard to believe that someone who is younger than 16 would decide autonomously and self-determinedly for marriage," he said. Wolf has called for raising the legal age for all marriages in Germany to 18.

Members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats and their Bavarian allies in the Christian Social Union have called for outlawing child marriage. A strategy paper states:
"An 11-, 13- or 15-year-old girl belongs not in marriage but in school. In the future, the principle must be the annulment of child marriages contracted abroad. The primacy of the child's welfare and the equal treatment of men and women are pillars of our society and of our understanding of values. Child marriage is therefore absolutely incompatible."
A proposed law, which will be submitted to the German parliament in November, would require all Youth Welfare Offices (Jugendämter) in Germany to report child marriages as soon as they become aware of them, and to bring all such cases before family courts so that they can be annulled. Judges would be allowed discretion to make exceptions only in cases where the wife is already close to the age of majority.

Bavarian Justice Minister Winfried Bausback said:
"This is not a question of tolerance and openness, but a question of the protection of children and minors. We therefore need a clear rule: To assess the marriageable age of a person — that is, the question of the age at which marriage can be contracted — will in the future always be determined by German law."
Stephan Harbarth of the Christian Democratic Union called for child marriage to be abolished in Germany by the end of 2016. "According to our cultural perspective, child marriage is unacceptable," he said. "The suffering of those affected requires quick action. Our proposals are on the table. We can immediately legislate. For us, family clans do not decide about a marriage. Rather, each individual does. We will not tolerate illegal Islamic parallel justice — not even in marriage."
 
 
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
 
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9078/germany-child-marriage

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Kaine’s bad performance matters more than you think - Thomas Lifson




by Thomas Lifson

It was obvious to even Chris Matthews that something was off about Tim Kaine during the vice presidential debate

It is now a received truth of punditry that vice presidential debates don’t matter. The humiliation Dan Quayle experienced at the hand of Lloyd Bentsen did not hand the presidency to Michael Dukakis, after all. But I think this year could be different. 

The reason is fairly simple. For the critical swing constituency, the uncommitted, the question has become “which candidate do I dislike less?” 

Most undecided people will make their choice (including the choice not to vote) based on a gut feel, a sense of the person they are choosing. And the vice president nominee can affect the gut feel for those who have no overwhelming preference. After all, the “team” image allows for the possibility that the running mate could moderate or leaven the dislike of the top of the ticket. I think this is particularly true for Pence, because Trump has never held political office and will obviously depend on advice from the Capitol Hill veteran Pence. 

But in the case of Hillary Clinton, the dislike centers on issues of corruption, lying, and her unattractive personal presentation on television. Did Tim Kaine do anything to leaven these concerns? 

It was obvious to even Chris Matthews that something was off about Tim Kaine during the vice presidential debate. Matthews thought him “desperate,” while John Podhoretz was more pointed: “programmed and testy and hectoring.” 

via Politico

Russ Vaughn’s characterization of Kaine as “a typical know-it-all, smug, smarmy liberal” was probably shared by most conservatives and not a few independents.

I think on balance, Pence came across as steady, nice, and well informed. Exactly what Trump needs for balance. 

Kaine came across in a way that highlights, not balances, Hillary’s defects.


Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/kaines_bad_performance_matters_more_than_you_think.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Tel Aviv University researchers make Alzheimer's breakthrough - Ilan Gattegno




by Ilan Gattegno

Scientists find way to correct genetic flaw that causes Alzheimer's • Lab mice treated with new therapy recovered from illness • "We believe our study opens up new directions for the development of effective treatment of Alzheimer's," researcher says.



Lab mice treated with new therapy recovered from illness [Illustrative]
|
Photo credit: Getty Images

Ilan Gattegno

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=36961

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A rare look at Shaldag, the IAF's clandestine commando unit - Lilach Shoval




by Lilach Shoval

Military offers rare glimpse into Air Force's Shaldag commando unit, marking 40 years of clandestine operations deep behind enemy lines • Unit's hallmark is creative solutions, developing new tactics, and task force adaptability under complex conditions.



                       Shaldag soldiers during urban warfare exercise
                         Photo credit: IDF Spokesperson's Office 


Lilach Shoval

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=36957

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Europe's "Good Terrorists": Because They Might Destroy Israel? - Khaled Abu Toameh




by Khaled Abu Toameh

Appeasing terrorists is a dangerous game: it has already backfired on its foolhardy players and will continue to do so.

  • Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri would like the Europeans to understand that they need not worry about terrorism by the Islamist movement because the attacks will be directed only against Israel.
  • The European Court of Justice (EJC) is sending the message to Hamas that Europeans see no problem with Hamas's desire to destroy Israel and continue to launch terrorist attacks against Jews. This message also undermines those Palestinians who still believe in a peace with Israel.
  • The EJC recommendation to remove Hamas from the EU's terrorism blacklist comes at a time when countries such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and even Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian Authority, are doing their utmost to weaken Hamas.
  • Appeasing terrorists is a dangerous game: it has already backfired on its foolhardy players and will continue to do so. This is exactly how Muslims conquered Iran, Turkey, North Africa and much of Europe, including Hungary, Greece, Poland, Romania, and the Balkans -- countries that still recall a real "occupation," an Islamist one, and abundantly want none of it.
  • The EU and the ECJ need to be stopped before they do any more harm to Palestinians, Christians and Jews -- or to Europe.
Once again, the Europeans seem to be in Alice's Wonderland when they consider Palestinian affairs in particular and the Middle East in general. The renewed attempt by the European Union to remove the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas from its terrorism list is a case in point.

Recently, an advisor to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) recommended that Hamas be removed from the EU's terrorism blacklist. In 2014, the EU's second-highest court ruled that Hamas should be taken off the list on "technical" grounds. It argued that Hamas's listing was not based on evidence, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet."

However, the European Council then appealed this judgement, arguing that Hamas should remain on the terrorism blacklist, citing a 2001 decision by the UK and the US that designated both Hamas and the Tamil Tigers as terrorist groups. But the recent opinion by the ECJ advisor dismisses this argument. "The council cannot rely on facts and evidence found in press articles and information from the internet," Advocate General Eleanor Sharpton said. She explained that the council could not rely on terrorist listings by countries (the UK and US) outside the EU.

This latest highly dangerous European attempt to strike Hamas from the terrorism blacklist will, as the EU knows perfectly well, only serve further to embolden the Islamist movement to replace Israel with an Islamic empire.

Removing Hamas from the terrorism list would obviously be seen as a severe blow to Hamas's rivals in the Western-backed and funded Palestinian Authority (PA), and to the efforts to revive any peace process between the Palestinians and Israel.

As this is not the EU's first attempt to do this, it is hard not to conclude what many Palestinians have suspected all along: that the EU and its affiliates do not care if the Palestinians and others in the area are overrun by Hamas terrorists and are forced to live under the rule of despotic Islamist militants.

The recent opinion by the European court advisor lightheartedly ignores Hamas's own statements concerning its true intentions and continued preparations for war against Israel. It is hard not to conclude that this is what the EU secretly wants -- perhaps for Muslim voters, who brought to power France's President François Hollande, perhaps in the hope of buying off terrorists so that they avoid further attacks in Europe, perhaps to continue good business deals with Arab and Muslim countries, and, of course, perhaps all of the above.

It came as no surprise, therefore, that Hamas was quick to "welcome" the opinion of the European Court advisor to whitewash and legitimize the Islamist terror movement. "Hamas considers the recommendation a first step towards removing the sin committed by the European Union towards the Palestinian people when it demonstrated bias in favor of Israel by placing Hamas on the terrorism list," said Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, who welcomed the opinion and called on the Europeans to abide by it. Hamas, he added, has always been keen on openness towards the West and on building strong humanitarian and political relations with it. Israel is the only enemy of Hamas, Abu Zuhri stressed.


In other words, Abu Zuhri would like the Europeans to understand that they need not worry about terrorism by the Islamist movement because the attacks will be directed only against Israel. Hamas wants "openness" and "strong" ties with the Europeans because it believes that this will advance its goal of implementing its charter, which calls for the elimination of Israel. This is how Hamas understands the renewed bid to have it removed from the EU's terrorism blacklist. And it is improbable that the EU, which for decades has sought "good relations" between the two sides of the Mediterranean, does not understand it that way, too.

Even more improbable is that some Europeans believe that Hamas should not be on the terrorism only on the basis of press articles and information on the internet -- as if what is being said about Hamas and its goals are rumors or unsubstantiated charges that need to be verified, and for which there is no basis.

What of Hamas's own charter, which calls for Jihad (holy war) against Israel. "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad," the charter states. It goes on to say that the
"liberation of that land (Palestine) is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad...We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the (Islamic) Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters. The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."
Okay, one might argue, so the Europeans will not take seriously the Hamas covenant. Yet what does the ECJ make of the incessant rhetoric of Hamas?

Here is what Fathi Hammad, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, had to say after the recommendation: "Resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river." Praising the recent wave of Palestinian knife and car-ramming attacks on Israelis, Hammad called on Palestinians to rise against any peace process with Israel. "The path of negotiations has dissipated the Palestinian cause," he added.


In a statement marking the first anniversary of the anti-Israel attacks, which is being referred to by many Palestinians as the "Jerusalem Intifada," Hamas said this week that the wave of terrorism will not stop "until the occupation is driven out of Jerusalem, the West Bank and all Palestine." Reiterating its refusal to recognize the "Zionist Entity's" right to exist, Hamas said that the Palestinians maintain the right to "resistance in all its forms."


Let us translate that for a moment: When Hamas talks about "resistance in all its forms," it is referring to killing Jews with suicide bombings, rockets, knives and vehicles. As far as Hamas is concerned, Palestinians are entitled to use all these methods to kill as many Jews as possible and drive them out, to "liberate all of Palestine." Notably, this statement was issued after, not before, the recent recommendation by the European court advisor to remove Hamas from the terrorism list. This is far from simply another "press article" or "rumor" published on the internet; this is an official statement released by the Hamas leadership.

Thousands of armed Hamas troops showed off their military hardware at a Dec. 14, 2014 parade in Gaza, marking the organization's 27th anniversary. (Image source: PressTV video screenshot)

To its credit, and despite the clearly genocidal ECJ recommendation, Hamas has been utterly transparent concerning its intentions. In fact, Hamas has never hidden its desire to destroy Israel and prevent any peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. This position and strategy has not changed since the establishment of the Islamist movement nearly thirty years ago. And if the officials of the EU and the ECJ do not know that, they should be replaced.

Further evidence of Hamas's intentions and policies was provided by another leader of the movement, Mahmoud Zahar, who assured supporters in the Gaza Strip last week that Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist. "We will not give up one inch of the land of Palestine to the Israeli entity," Zahar declared. He then praised Palestinians for using "stones and knives" to attack Jews.


These are only some of the recent statements by Hamas leaders and spokesmen that leave no room for doubt as to the movement's intentions to continue using terrorism as a means to destroy Israel. Perhaps EU officials might go to the numerous Hamas websites and read what is being said there by the movement's leaders. The words speak for themselves.

Hamas's threats do not stop at rhetoric. Hamas's current actions also attest to its goals. Hamas and other terror groups openly continue to dig tunnels that will be used to attack Israel.

Only days after the ECJ recommendation was published, another Palestinian was killed while working in a tunnel. He was identified as 30-year-old Ahmed As'ad. Other men were wounded in the incident, in a tunnel that was supposed to serve Hamas and other terrorist groups to attack Israel.


Meanwhile, last week, in the context of these preparations, the terror group Al-Naser Salah Eddin Brigades unveiled a new rocket called Koka 70 (named after one of its leaders, Abu Yusef Koka).


The European recommendation to remove Hamas from the terrorism blacklist comes at a time when Hamas and other groups are not only talking about attacks, but also actively preparing to launch new rockets and infiltrate Israel via attack tunnels. These are not unverified press reports, but facts -- facts that fly in the face of the European whitewashing and legitimizing of this terrorist group.

The ECJ is sending the message to Hamas that the Europeans see no problem with Hamas's desire to destroy Israel and continue to launch terrorist attacks against Jews. This message also undermines those Palestinians who still believe in a peace with Israel. Moreover, the recommendation comes at a time when countries such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and even Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian Authority, are doing their utmost to weaken Hamas.

Those who embolden Hamas also strengthen ISIS, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe. Appeasing terrorists is a dangerous game: it has already backfired on its foolhardy players and will continue to do so, not less, but more. This is exactly how Muslims conquered Iran, Turkey, North Africa, the Crimea and much of Europe including Hungary, Greece, Poland, Romania, and the Balkans -- countries that still recall a real "occupation," an Islamist one, all too well, and abundantly want none of it.

The Ottoman Empire at its largest size. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Mevlüt Kılıç)

The EU and the ECJ need to be stopped before they do any more harm to Palestinians, Christians and Jews -- or to Europe.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9065/europe-good-terrorists

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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