Friday, November 10, 2017

When Clinton Donors Prosecute And Judge Trump Associates - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield


This is what a rigged system looks like.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed a lawsuit by the families of the victims of Benghazi against Hillary Clinton. Judge Jackson decided that the families couldn’t sue Hillary either for wrongful death or for defamation. That isn’t too surprising as Jackson is a former Clinton donor who had been appointed by Obama. And a Clinton donor should never have been ruling on a Clinton case.

But now Judge Jackson will be presiding over the Paul Manafort case.

Presiding over Manafort’s indictment is Judge Deborah A. Robinson. Judge Robinson’s most prominent previous case was the Berger trial. Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s former National Security Adviser, stole classified documents about the terror failures of the Clinton administration, hid documents under a construction trailer, lied about taking them and destroyed some of them.

People have gone to jail for doing a whole lot less with classified documents. But not Clinton associates.

Sandy Berger was sentenced to two years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a fine.

Judge Robinson had presided over the “Scooter” Libby indictment. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Robinson may have had little to do with that final outcome. And may have had limited control over the eagerness of some in the DOJ to give Sandy Berger a pass. If nothing else, Robinson did end up raising the fine that Berger had to pay. But Berger still got a slap on the wrist and Libby didn’t.

FBI Director Christopher Wray had announced the slap on the wrist for Berger in his former capacity as Assistant Attorney General.  And had declined to discuss the investigation while in progress. President Bush had wanted action, but the FBI had cheerfully dismissed the seriousness of the investigation.

And that’s just the way that it seems to go for Democrats and the way that it is for Republicans.

It’s not hard to see why. Take Judge Beryl Howell.

Howell is an Obama appointee and a former Leahy adviser. Beryl and her husband are both Dem donors. She’s also a pal of Obama’s former DOJ boss, Lorretta Lynch. And of Andrew Weissmann.

Weissmann, an Obama donor, is a key member of Mueller’s team.

And Judge Howell gave Mueller his grand jury and decided that Manafort wasn’t entitled to attorney-client privilege. It was an extraordinary and troubling decision. And its legitimacy can’t help but be questioned when it comes from a partisan Dem figure.

It was seemingly Weissman, Howell’s old friend, who decided to shred Manafort’s attorney-client privilege. And Weissman has been described as being very friendly with Loretta Lynch.

“Absent the good will of his friends Loretta Lynch and Bob Mueller, it is inconceivable that his DOJ or FBI career would be have been resuscitated," a former prosecutor was quoted as saying.

Manafort may be guilty, but it’s not hard to see the problem with an opposition party, prosecuting, trying and convicting its political opponents while exonerating its own operatives.

The Mueller team already includes no shortage of Clinton and Obama donors. Jeannie Rhee is a Clinton donor who represented the Clinton Foundation. Aaron Zebley had represented Justin Cooper, a senior Clinton adviser, who helped run Hillary's email server. James Quarles, Rush Atkinson and Elizabeth Prelogar are Hillary donors. Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack are Obama donors.

We now know that the Trump dossier that got the ball rolling originated with the Clinton campaign. The charges against Manafort have nothing to do with Trump, yet Trump is the reason for the entire affair. The investigation and the trial are the end products of an investigation touched off by the Clintons, that is being managed by Democrats and is being overseen by Clinton and Obama loyalists.

There is no possible way that such proceedings won’t be seen as fundamentally tainted.

The only way to have conducted a legitimate investigation in a partisan atmosphere would have been to minimize the role of partisan figures. Instead their presence has been maximized. And that’s the kind of behavior that people associate with rigged cases. As the latest DNC revelations show, the Clintons are no strangers to rigging the game in order to win. And their fingerprints are all over this.

It’s no secret that the endgame of this investigation is Trump’s impeachment. The Democrats have made it clear that impeachment will happen as soon as they get their majority. Whatever the investigation turns up will be used as grist for impeachment proceedings. That makes the investigation the third leg of the tripod that began with the Clinton campaign’s Russia dossier, that continued with Obama’s eavesdropping on Trump officials and that has now evolved into criminal proceedings.

The tripod’s legs may point in different directions, but they began in the same place. They’re all efforts by Clinton and Obama associates to rig the election and, when that failed, to overturn its results.

There’s a term for unelected officials deciding to remove elected officials from office. It’s a coup.

If the Dems really thought that their investigation was legitimate, they wouldn’t have needed to stack the deck with their people. Nor would they be utilizing crude and ruthless tactics that are completely out of proportion to the offenses in question. By rigging the game, they are guaranteeing that the majority of Republicans will not accept the outcome. But that doesn’t matter to them.

What matters is winning.

The Dems have decided that they want to win elections at any cost. They are willing to win them at the cost of eavesdropping on their political opponents and forcing them out of office with criminal investigations. And they are clever enough that these tactics may be technically legal.

The Obama version of Watergate was so cleverly executed that few, if any laws, were probably broken. Mueller’s investigation will produce results that will probably fall apart on appeal, but will deliver immediate material to his political allies who are trying to achieve regime change any way they can.

But the technical legality of these tactics doesn’t change their inherent destructiveness.

Your neighbor may find a technical legality for seizing your house, but that doesn’t mean you are likely to accept the fairness of his actions. Individuals have limited recourse against technically legal, but blatantly unfair abuses of power. The same isn’t true of half the country’s voters.

Democrats have spent so long being the government party that they have lost sight of the limitations of government power and the resentment that the possession of it stirs up outside Washington D.C.

Rather than understanding Trump’s victory as a backlash against establishment power, the political establishment is trying to squelch it with even more abuses of power. And it imagines that half the country will accept the outcome because the establishment is playing by its own rules.

That may prove to be its worst mistake yet.

Countries are run by consensus. People accept laws that are the product of the consensus. They will overlook abuses in the system as long as they feel that they have some sort of voice. Trump’s win was the backlash of people who felt that they no longer had a voice. Establishment figures depriving them of their voice through underhanded tactics will only prove them right. And lead to a far worse backlash.

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/268367/when-clinton-donors-prosecute-and-judge-trump-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Down the Memory Hole: Obama Stole the 2008 Primary with Help of DNC - Karin McQuillan




by Karin McQuillan

Clinton made a backroom deal with the DNC.  But in 2008, Barack Obama combined muscular Chicago-style clout with community organizing acumen to steal the nomination directly from the voters.

The country is shocked, shocked that the DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign to anoint her as their nominee. In her 2015 caper, Clinton made a backroom deal with the DNC. In 2008, Barack Obama used outright election fraud and thuggery, the tried and true Chicago methods. to steal the nomination directly from the voters. When he got far enough, the DNC pressured Hillary’s pledged superdelegates to violate their voters’ wishes and award Obama an unearned victory.

Obama’s illegal shenanigans in the 2008 Democrat primaries were far worse than Clinton’s – and will never be widely reported. 

It’s an odd experience to dig this information out of the memory hole. No Democrat cares: no party leaders, no members of Congress, no journalists, and no ordinary people. Democrats do not care about rule of law or fair elections. All of them feel morally entitled to win. That is the corrupting influence of their identity politics that tars political opponents as moral reprobates.

Democrat primaries show us who they are: their will to power trumps every other value. Progressives want permanent power, not a functioning republic. They don’t accept fair and free elections – witness their dirty attempts to overturn the last one and deprive Trump voters of their victory. 

As Hillary might say, Democrat corruption, Hollywood corruption - it takes a village.

Like the revelations of Harvey Weinstein’s abuses, one big dog gets punished, while the even bigger dog - Bill Clinton for sexual abuse, Barack Obama for political abuse - remains untouchable.
A documentary by Hillary supporters on Obama’s cheating and abuse was reported on Fox & Friends only in 2010; at the time of the election, no one would cover their complaints. Read about it here.
In one documentary interview, civil rights activist Helene Latimer recounts seeing an elderly woman being intimidated at the polls. "As she approached the entrance way to go into the building, one of the young men said to her, 'If you're not voting for Obama, go home because you're not voting here today.'"
"It's our right as Americans to be able to vote and everybody was alerted, we went to press, we went to Fox, we went to CNN, nobody wanted to hear the story (in 2008)," Gaston told Fox's Alisyn Camerota. "Nobody wants to deal with this."
From “How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination”:
… the Obama Campaign… encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote.
Political junkies will recall that Obama gained crucial momentum after his surprise win of the Iowa primary. He won in Iowa by breaking the law and busing in supporters to vote. Everyone in Iowa could see it with their own eyes – and that includes the entire national press corps.

Dr. Long spent several months studying the caucus and primary results, published here.
“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states… my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.
In Hawaii, caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants. In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary. They flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets. Union members were told they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

Two thousand Texas Democrats filed official complaints, in outrage and total frustration, against Obama’s lawless tactics. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement. Nothing happened.
Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.
Bernie Sanders supporters are justifiably angry that the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary. The Washington Post reports in 2008 Hillary won the popular vote in the nomination process. She was neck and neck with Obama in the delegate count. Yet the DNC pressured the superdelegates who were pledged to Hillary to flip their votes. From the Washington Post:
In 2008, the superdelegates became infamous — and essential. That year, as in this one, they helped the party’s front-runner cross the threshold by releasing endorsements around the final primary. The irony was that the 2008 election, a near-tie, ended with pro-Clinton superdelegates flipping to support then-Sen. Barack Obama.
The Post makes it sound like the superdelegates flipped themselves. Hillary delegates tell us the DNC did the deed:
Basically, the delegations would meet and the leadership would say, ‘We need to vote for Obama. You need to basically switch your vote from Hillary to Obama.’ Even though in some 16 or 14 states it was required by law that the delegation needed to vote for the candidate that they represented on the first ballot. Those state party chairs were still manipulating that delegation to break the law and vote for Obama.”
As early as April, Virginia’s party leaders pressured their superdelegates:
Another Clinton superdelegate, senior Democratic strategist Mame Reiley, said she understood targeting undecided superdelegates, but including longtime Clinton supporters only created ill will. "If we wanted to have a nominee decided in June then we'd have scheduled the convention in June," Reiley said. "It sort of makes me wonder what they're afraid of."
In May 2008, Hillary wrote to the superdelegates, begging them to respect the popular vote.
As we reach the end of the primary season, more than 17 million people have supported me in my effort to become the Democratic nominee – more people than have ever voted for a potential nominee in the history of our party. … And with 40 and 35 point margins of victory, it is clear that even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they’re not giving up on me – and I am not giving up on them either.
Clinton trounced Obama by half a million Democrat votes in the 2008 Democrat primaries. She bettered him among women, seniors, Latinos, the working class, those earning less than $50,000 and first-time voters. Clinton won the primaries where it is harder to cheat; Obama’s delegate count was based on his fraudulent caucus wins. Polls showed Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing. Rasmussen showed Clinton was more competitive than Obama by 16 points. Yet 100% of the superdelegates threw the nomination to the weaker, less popular candidate.

Senator Obama’s win in Indiana was used by the Democratic leadership to call for the party to unify behind him. But Obama lacked the minimum number of signatures to legally run In 2013 two county election board workers were convicted on felony charges for forging hundreds of signatures to get Obama on the ballot. Separately, Acorn was caught turning in 5,000 fraudulent voter registrations.
In Lake County, home to the long-depressed steel town of Gary, the bipartisan Elections Board has stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.
"All the signatures looked exactly the same," Ruthann Hoagland, a Republican on the board. "Everything on the card filled out looks exactly the same."
As a Heritage Foundation expert on election fraud explains, Obama’s Indiana victory was at a crucial juncture.
Had this fraud been discovered, Barack Obama would have been disqualified from the primary ballot in a major state…the course of the campaign—and history—could have changed. …
The Indiana fraud was uncovered in 2011 by a Democrat Yale college student. The inquiring mind wants to know –did anyone bother to check Obama’s victories in other close primary states?
Nees said the fraud was easy to detect “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting.”
Some of the Obama campaign abuses Democrat voters testified to in “We Will Not Be Silenced,” are disturbing in the extreme. The documentary is available in four parts on YouTube here. (hat tip canadafreepress.)

In Texas, Hispanic voters were told to go home before they got a chance to sign the caucus sheets, so their vote was not counted. In Indiana, parents were livid that their high school children were taken out of school, bussed to vote and told to vote for Obama.

The most emotional report is from a Civil Rights activist who had marched with Martin Luther King (Part 3, 3:54).
I got out of my car and there was this lady, probably about 80 years old, who was slowly walking up the street. As she was approaching the entranceway to go into the building, one of the young men called to her ‘If you’re not voting for Obama, go home, because you’re not voting here today.’ She turned and walked away. The pain that I felt, because of the people who have fought for African Americans to have the right to vote… While I was standing there, there were other people approaching, maybe four or five, and when they heard that they all turned and walked away.
In Texas, elderly Hillary voters were also turned away from voting:
Part 3, 7:20, The two women saw that these women had Hillary stickers on them… so they weren’t going to let them caucus. They said ‘Oh, you must be in some other caucus.’ I said ‘Look lady, I’m from Chicago and I know tricks like this. Let me see that book or we’re going to get the precinct captain over here and we’re going to look and find the names together. I guarantee this woman’s in here, because she’s not a liar. She’s ninety years old and has been looking forward to this. Don’t tell me she’s not in the book.’ Well then, wouldn’t you know it, … she magically found her name in the book and let her go be a part of the caucus… I noticed that that was not happening for any of the Obama people, they were just getting waved right through.”
Fixing the nomination for Obama didn’t end with secret lawbreaking. There was the infamous ruling by the DNC to not count the primary votes in Florida and Michigan, where Clinton won. These two states were allotted 796 superdelegates. After their ruling, Clinton came up 137 delegates short.

The Democrat primary process is not this corrupt and ugly by accident. This is not a problem found in both parties. It is characteristic of our leftist party, and its leading politicians, because they feel morally entitled to hold power, and are given cover by the mainstream media. The Democrat lust for power destroys other civic virtues. They lie to voters about themselves, they lie to voters about this country, and they lie about their own elections. 

In 2008, Obama used the obvious but unstated threat of black voters boycotting the election to silence even Clinton, who knew very well he was cheating. In 2016, Hillary adopted not only Obama’s identity politics but his cheating in the primaries. She did it her own way, by buying the DNC, which had been cleaned out by Obama and left $24 million in debt. (President Obama, it turns out, did that non-stop fundraising for his personal foundation, Organizing for America, not the party.) 

Obama, I suspect, is now busy destroying Clinton via his surrogates, trying to set her up as the fall guy for the administration’s corruption of the FBI and spying on candidate Donald Trump. Neither Obama nor Hillary can reconcile themselves to honest elections, where there is a chance they lose. 

President Trump won free and on the square, relying on his message and his voters. The Democrats are at their wits’ end. They can’t scare Trump, they can’t fool Trump voters, and they can’t silence the conservative websites. What was done in the dark is coming to the light.

Karin McQuillan

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/down_the_memory_hole_obama_stole_the_2008_primary_with_help_of_dnc_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Middle East Forum Launches Project to Tackle Islamist Financing - MEF




by Middle East Forum

As Americans are mowed down on the streets of New York, some of America's richest charitable foundations, most prominent politicians, and government officials continue to fund and legitimize the ideology that underpins this violence.



Philadelphia – November 8, 2017 – The Middle East Forum (MEF) has launched the Campaign on Islamist Financing (CIF), a research body and resource for foundations, politicians, journalists, and private companies that accept donations from, offer grants or services to, or wish to investigate charities and lobby groups suspected of Islamist ties. CIF will campaign against this flow of money to and from Islamist organizations and operatives in the United States, and instead encourage support for moderate Muslim groups.

CIF has been launched in the wake of a prominent feature piece by The Daily Caller about an MEF campaign to identify and challenge millions of dollars of donations from major American corporate, community, and independent foundations to prominent Islamist groups with long histories of links to terror and extremism.

Since 2008, over 50 foundations – including the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the GE Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Foundations – have given $5.6 million to Islamic Relief USA, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). [See Appendix I]

Since 2008, over 50 foundations have given $5.6 million to six leading U.S.-based Islamist organizations.

MEF sent the foundations evidence of these Islamist groups' extremism, which included examples of anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-Western, and pro-terror hate preachers regularly given platforms by the seven organizations.

CIF will expand on these efforts, publicly shaming other foundations that fund extremist organizations and refuse to stop. CIF will also continue the work of MEF's Islamist Money in Politics (IMIP) project, which studies and campaigns against Islamist money in politics – identifying politicians that take money from Islamist-linked operatives and calling for these donations to be returned. [see Appendix II],

In addition, CIF will study government grants to Islamist organizations, Islamist monies in American universities, foreign funding of American Islamist groups, taxpayer subsidy of Islamist-run schools and community institutions, and the growth of Islamist charitable organizations that fund extremism and terror in the Middle East and South Asia.

Gregg Roman, Director of the Middle East Forum, said: "For years, we have been writing to foundations and politicians, urging them to stop funding and partnering with extremists and start working with moderate Muslim groups instead. They ignored our requests. Many even failed to respond. As Americans are mowed down on the streets of New York, some of America's richest charitable foundations, most prominent politicians, and government officials continue to fund and legitimize the ideology that underpins this violence. It is time to condemn this behavior publicly. They must be held to account."


The Middle East Forum promotes American interests through activist, intellectual, and philanthropic efforts.

For immediate release
For more information, contact:
Gregg Roman, Director
Roman@MEForum.org 215-546-5406

Middle East Forum

Source: http://www.meforum.org/7000/mef-project-on-islamist-financing

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Tamer Elnoury, Muslim American Spy - Danusha V. Goska




by Danusha V. Goska


Inside the world of an undercover Muslim FBI agent.




"We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with radicals. I am a Muslim. I am an American. I have been serving my country for twenty-two plus years. I am appalled at what these animals are doing to my country while desecrating my religion."

The evening of Sunday, October 22, 2017, I was mesmerized as I listened to "Tamer Elnoury" describe his FBI undercover work to Sixty Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley. "Tamer Elnoury" is not this FBI agent's real name. His real name will probably be known to the public only after his death, if then. His work is perilous for him and for his family. Elnoury is an Egypt-born Muslim Arab. He immigrated to New Jersey with his parents when he was five years old. He worked in law enforcement. Under the persona of "Rico Jordan," a street thug, he broke up cocaine and heroin rings. He contributed to 2,500 narcotics investigations.

Interviewing Elnoury at Ground Zero, near the reflecting pools where the Twin Towers once stood, Pelley asked Elnoury why he left narcotics and became involved in tracking down international Al Qaeda terrorists.

Elnoury replied that he was horrified by 9-11. He initially had no idea that a plane flying into a Manhattan skyscraper had any connection to Islam. "That's how naïve I was. That's how naïve we all were at that time." As a patriotic American and as a Muslim, he wanted to help stop terrorism. Elnoury was on Sixty Minutes to discuss his new book, American Radical: Inside the World of an Undercover Muslim FBI Agent. Pelley said, "He wrote the book … so that fellow Americans could understand how the Islam he knows is tortured by terrorists trying to justify mayhem."

Beginning in June, 2012, Elnoury spent a year spying on, and interacting with, Chiheb Esseghaier, a Tunisian scientist studying for a PhD in Quebec, Canada. Esseghaier, following instructions from his handlers in Iran, wanted to destroy train tracks so that a US-bound Canadian passenger train would crash and kill everyone on board. Later, Esseghaier plotted to plant bombs near the ball drop in Manhattan on New Year's Eve. Pelley said that Esseghaier, "twisted the Koran to justify attacking the West."

During a visit to Manhattan, at Ground Zero, Esseghaier told Elnoury that America needed another 9-11, and that he wanted to provide it. Esseghaier described how he could bomb Manhattanites on New Year's Eve. During this conversation, Elnoury became so upset, he nearly broke cover, and he came close to murdering Esseghaier. "I saw red at that moment. It was the hardest time in my career to stay professional. Here I am on hallowed ground … at that very moment I could feel a pen in the pocket of my jacket. I envisioned stabbing him in the eye and dropping him dead right where he stood. … We pretend to be someone we loathe while hanging out with people we hate … I almost broke that night but thankfully for the case I didn't."

In subsequent interviews, Elnoury repeatedly emphasized that terrorism and real Islam are unrelated. "The vast majority" of terrorists, he insisted, "have no idea what the true tenets of the religion is [sic]. Some of them can't even pray." He compared terrorists to school shooters. They are "lost souls" "looking for something to latch on to," he said.

Listening to Elnoury describe his work, I was enraptured. Elnoury is patriotic; he is brave; he is manly; he is effective. He is, in short, a real-life action hero. He risked his life to keep you and me safe.

Elnoury was so articulate, so passionate, so charismatic, that I had to give his book a chance. I was eager to see how he would spell out and argue for his Islam, this so-called "authentic" Islam, that not only did not justify terror, but that militated against terror and for peace. Elnoury claimed that terrorists "perverted" his religion. I wanted to read his words explaining exactly how.

American Radical, published in October, 2017, by Dutton, is a terrific book. It is written in flim noir style. Words and sentences are short and to the point. Action is fast-paced. Elnoury and his co-writer Kevin Maurer never linger over descriptions.

Elnoury's family had been successful. His mother was a chemist, his father, a medical engineer. He grew up in a suburban New Jersey home with a built-in swimming pool and a cabana with a fireplace where he and his friends partied. He lived between a church and a synagogue and socialized with Jewish friends in their homes. He grew up immersed in enough American pop culture that he talked shop with his colleagues by using baseball metaphors and he casually sprinkled his speech with references to movies like Pulp Fiction. Elnoury acknowledges that he is not perfectly adherent, and insists, "I'm no different from Catholics who go to church only on Christmas and Easter." 9-11 "wasn't Islam to me … Some asshole in a cave turned me and my family into the enemy. I hadn't felt this lost since my mother passed." His law enforcement colleagues confirmed his sentiment. "We know that is not your religion," they told him on the day of the attacks. Elnoury is a true American patriot. "A little part of me died every time I had to denounce my country or pervert my religion"

Elnoury's treatment of his mother's passing is poignant and caused this reader to cry. One cannot doubt that this woman, who remains unnamed, was a charming, empathetic and memorable earth mother. Elnoury talks about how loved she was by all she met. He talked to her by phone every day in college, and his college pals wanted to talk to her as well, she was such a loving presence. Elnoury's mother was determined that her son remain an Arab Muslim. She spoke only Arabic to her son. Before she died, she said to Elnoury that Allah's will, "is everything I ever taught you. You need to believe it in your heart." In a subsequent chapter, Elnoury's father tells him that terrorism "is not Islam … is not anything resembling Islam." Rather, terrorism "is an evil that needs to be wiped off our planet." Terrorists, his father insisted, offer "a warped rationalization." The Koran teaches that "women and children" are "off limits." In a chapter entitled "I Am a Muslim," Elnoury says that on 9-11, hijackers murdered "in the name of the most precious and private thing in my life." "Islam is what makes me who I am," he writes. Terrorists are "a small group of mass murderers."

War, the old saying goes, consists of long stretches of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Undercover work comes across the same way. Elnoury shadows his prey in day-to-day life. They go to restaurants, drive around, talk about girl trouble. These passages are rather dry and repetitive. But then Elnoury enters rooms without escape routes and he suspects that someone may have learned his true identity. The reader's pulse pounds and she contemplates what it takes to be a successful spy.

It is clear that Elnoury is struggling to place a genial face on Islam for his non-Muslim readers. The problem is the facts he presents so meticulously make it impossible for him to achieve his goal. The Muslims on whom Elnoury is spying fly on American and Canadian airplanes, dine on lobster in American and Canadian restaurants, shop at The Gap, slurp down coffee and scarf down pastry in Tim Hortons and Dunkin Donuts, sleep in Marriott hotels, stroll through crowds at tourist destinations, attend university classes and scholarly conferences. All the while they are hating and wanting to murder everyone around them: helpful stewardesses, bubbly waitresses, passing pedestrians, babies in strollers. Three Muslim men walking across a bridge on a sunny day are there for one purpose in Elnoury's book – not to retreat to a private place for a heart-to-heart talk, not to admire the scenery, not to stretch their legs or get a breath of fresh air. They are walking across that bridge to plot to demolish that bridge and thereby to murder kuffar. Chiheb Esseghaier, Elnoury's main target, works with deadly diseases. Ahmed Abassi, a Tunisian student at Canada's Laval University, tells Esseghaier to put a virus into a reservoir. We can, he said, reap a harvest of "thousands of dead Americans." "Live among them so as to defeat them," is Elnoury's motto as a pretend terrorist.

"Live among them so as to defeat them" is real terrorists' motto as well. It will be impossible for many readers ever again look at the Muslims around them without at least a hint of cautious, self-protective suspicion. Esseghaier spells out to Elnoury how and why he can live among kuffar, pretend to be a participating member of society, while remaining merely a "sleeper" waiting for the text message from his overseas handlers to murder his kuffar neighbors. "'Hypocrisy is haram in Islam, but not during times of war or necessity' … Muslims can break rules in order to survive – eat pork it if is the only food – and pretend to be American in order to blend in."

Why do jihadis feel they must murder kuffar? Because Americans and other non-Muslims "are spreading adultery, they are spreading alcohol … they are spreading Christianity … it's our duty to make trouble in their homes … God almighty says fight their leaders … Islam is a very powerful weapon … you can bulldoze the whole world." Esseghaier and his fellow sleeper jihadis are outraged by liquor sales, by a friendly waitress who goes out of her way to be kind, and belly dancers in Middle Eastern restaurants. The terrorists Elnoury shadows are outraged by women in attractive dresses and men with alcohol on their breath. Every aspect of Western life is a potential irritant for jihadis. The jihadis in this book are convinced that they must punish the kuffar for living lives normal in Western culture. One of Esseghaier's complaints: Canada won't allow him to slaughter his own lamb for Eid. A licensed butcher must slaughter the lamb. This violates Islam. One cannot read these passages and not reach the conclusion that Muslim immigrants, and their children, migrating to any non-Muslim country, not just Western ones, confront an obstacle course of flashpoints that could trigger the more devout and less well-balanced to turn into the next Anwar al-Awlaki, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, or Nidal Hasan.

Another factor that taxpayer readers will not help but note. Counter jihad surveillance is very expensive. At one dinner, Elnoury drops a thousand dollars for dinner for three, with, of course, no alcohol.

Given his intimate contact, Elnoury provides a detailed portrait of the foibles of his wannabe jihadis. Esseghaier would spend up to forty-five minutes in public restrooms ensuring that he had not allowed so much as a drop of urine to contact his clothing. Such a drop would contaminate him and invalidate his next installment of the five daily prayers. Elnoury does not linger on what motivates Esseghaier's urine obsession. In fact this obsession is rooted in Islamic sacred texts. In one hadith, Mohammed said that he could hear a damned soul being tortured in his grave. The man committed, Mohammed said, a "major sin." He "never saved himself from being soiled with his urine." Mohammed placed the green leaf of a date palm on the grave in order to lessen the torture temporarily, until the leaf dried, when, evidently, the torture would begin anew. At one point, in order to participate in one of the five mandated daily prayers, Elnoury had to purchase a new set of clothes for Esseghaier because one drop of urine had made contact with his clothing.

Elnoury gave Esseghaier and the other jihadis he trailed every chance to renounce their evil. Elnoury did this because he is a decent human being and he wanted to "save" his targets from their lives dedicated to hate and death. Elnoury also did this for legal reasons. Readers will be astounded to discover how far jihadi wannabes can go before their words merit even so much as their deportation. Merely saying that you'd like to murder many kuffar in the name of Allah is not enough to build a court case. Elnoury had to give his targets a chance to announce in no uncertain terms that they were fully prepared to carry out a specific terrorist act before they could be taken to court.

We are about to murder women and children, Elnoury announced to his wards. "Are you sure this is considered halal? Is this what Allah wants?" Esseghaier offered Islamic supports for jihad. As he listened, Elnoury thought, "This was not the religion my mother and father taught me. Islam wasn't a religion of violence and revenge. The Quran says he who slays a soul on earth shall be as if he had slain all of mankind, and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind."

Tamer Elnoury has published an exciting book about espionage. Has he achieved his larger goal of redeeming Islam in the eyes of his readers? Absolutely not.

The closest Elnoury gets to Koran exegesis is his comment on 5:45, "And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, in legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him." Elnoury insists that this verse states that "human beings are not supposed to be judge and executioner. That is God's job. Humans forgive and forget." Elnoury is exactly wrong. The verse says nothing about forgiveness or forgetting. The verse says that it is the wronged person's "right" to take life. If one does not take that life, not taking that life is an "expiation" for the person's past wrong. In other words, if the person had killed someone in the past, and gotten away with it, and someone kills his loved one, he can let that killer get away with it as payment for his own crime. This is a profit-and-loss worldview. Lives have dollars-and-cents value in Koran-inspired legal systems, and this dollars-and-cents value can be traded like any other commodity. Diya, or the monetary value assigned to human life in Shariah, varies. Muslim men have the highest value. Then Muslim women. A Hindu woman's life is worth a fraction of the value of a Muslim male's life. Diya misses the concept of murder as a crime against society. Elnoury misrepresents the Koran as being more compassionate and humane than it is.

Elnoury insists that the Koran "specifically states that Muslims must abide by the country's laws in which they reside." Elnoury offers no Koran verse to support this assertion. In any case, not all Muslims agree. As one wrote, "There is no such principle within Islam that says you have to obey any laws other than what Allah (SWT) has revealed. It is outrageous to claim that the 'law-of-the-land' supersedes the Sharia laws, if so then what value and authority do the Sharia laws have?" An online argument for such obedience cites no Koran quote specifically supporting Elnoury's claim; rather, it cites vague Koran quotes about honoring contracts. Even the page arguing for Muslims' obedience to the law of the land states that Muslims may break the law if it is contrary to Allah's wishes. According to press accounts, attorneys in Michigan will present a "religious freedom" defense when Dr Jumana Nagarwala's female genital mutilation case goes to court. Her lawyers will argue that Islam supersedes the law of the United States. In 2010, a New Jersey judge found no criminal intent in the actions of a Muslim man who raped and tortured his arranged, teen bride. Those actions, the judge found, were consistent with the assailant's Islamic beliefs. In short, not only are there Muslims who argue against Elnoury's assertion that Muslims must obey the law of the land, there are culturally relativist Westerners who do so, as well.

Elnoury says that the Koran teaches that whoever takes one life is like one who slays all mankind. Elnoury misrepresents the Koran here. The "one life" quote is originally from the Talmud, not the Koran. The Koran acknowledges this origin in verse 5:32. It begins, "We [Allah] decreed upon the Children of Israel that" whoever kills one person it is as if he had killed all humanity. The very next verse, 5:33, states, "the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land."

Elnoury says that Mohammed prohibited the killing of women and children in war. Mohammed is "al-Insan al-Kamil," the perfect example, worthy to be emulated. Mohammed massacred the non-combatant Banu Qurayza, a tribe of Jews. Mohammed forced youths to expose their private parts. If they had pubic hair, he beheaded them. If not, he enslaved them. Mohammed raped, and recommended the rape, of captives. Mohammed tortured Kinana al-Rabi. Mohammed ordered at least forty-three assassinations. In Sahih Bukhari (52:256), Mohammed condoned attacking at night in a manner that guaranteed casualties among women and children. In Sahih Bukhari (52:220), Mohammed said, "I have been made victorious through terror." Elnoury does not address Koran 3:151, "We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve," or 8:12, " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip," or 8:60 "And prepare against them all the power you can muster, and all the cavalry you can mobilize, to terrify thereby God’s enemies and your enemies." In the centuries since Mohammed, Muslim thinkers have reinforced the religious obligation of jihad on all Muslims. In the fourteenth century, Ibn Khaldun wrote, " jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations." In short, Elnoury's insistence that Mohammed prohibited the killing of women and children in war is not reassuring.

"Jihadis," Elnoury writes, "are using a peaceful religion to further their agendas. That's not religion. It's politics. The reality is that radical Islam is a very small minority that twists the Quran to fit its needs. Just look at Chiheb, Jaser, and Abassi. Chiheb though the Quran justified the murder of innocent men, women, and children because he chose not to honor the Prophet's rules of war … Jaser thought Allah wanted him to kill Jews."

Let's address this paragraph point by point. In Islam, there is no separation between religion and politics. "When anyone studies a little or pays a little attention to the rules of Islamic government, Islamic politics, Islamic society and Islamic economy, he will realize that Islam is a very political religion. Anyone who will say that religion is separate from politics is a fool; he does not know Islam or politics … Islam is politics or it is nothing," said Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Muslims who approve of violence in the name of Islam are not a "very small minority." The Pew Research Center reveals that significant percentages of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims, that is roughly one fourth of the world population, support even something so heinous and nihilistic as suicide bombing; see graph here. In one poll, one in four young, American Muslims supported bombing. There is nothing "very small" about these numbers.

Elnoury's use of the word "innocent" serves to obscure rather than to enlighten. “Non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," said Anjem Choudary. The Muslim belief that all non-Muslims have "denied" Allah and his prophet may astound many non-Muslims. To clarify: in the Muslim worldview, everyone is born Muslim. To be anything other than Muslim, according to Mohammed, is to obey "devils" "who made them go astray." This is why Muslims believe that no one "converts" to Islam; rather one "reverts" to one's status at birth. What appears to the naïve to be the innocuous use of the word "revert" rather than "convert" underlies a diabolical belief. All non-Muslims have obeyed the devil and rejected Allah and his prophet, and all non-Muslims are guilty and deserve to die in jihad. Not all Muslims believe this, of course, but enough do to use this belief to murder those they judge as having rejected Allah.

Tamer Elnoury expresses outrage at one of his targets, Raed Jaser. Jaser, Elnoury writes, was not a true Muslim in his belief that he ought to kill Jews. It is incumbent upon Elnoury to address Koran 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166, all of which describe Allah turning Jews into despised apes and pigs. Elnoury should address the impact of Islamic daily prayer, which requires Muslims to repeat multiple times every day that Jews have earned God's anger. (See The Qur'an and Its Interpreters Volume 1, page 49.) Elnoury should address the Koran verse advising Muslims not to take Jews as friends. Elnoury should address Sahih Muslim 6985, "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews." Elnoury should address the impact of sermons like this one, broadcast over a loudspeaker at Mecca, "O Allah vanquish the unjust Christians and the criminal Jews, the unjust traitors; strike them with your wrath; make their lives hostage to misery; drape them with endless despair, unrelenting pain and unremitting ailment; fill their lives with sorrow and pain and end their lives in humiliation and oppression; inflict your tortures and punishments upon the unjust Christians and criminal Jews. This is our supplication, Allah; grant us our request!" Elnoury should address the textbooks and popular media found throughout the Muslim world that depict Jews drinking children's blood. Elnoury focuses on the anti-Semitism of one man, Raed Jaser, his target, while ignoring the scripture and culture that generated and supported that man's homicidal hatred. Elnoury said that terrorists are so divorced from their religion that some of them can't even pray. In news photographs, it appears that Chiheb Esseghaier's forehead is marked with a zebibah, a discoloration from repeatedly striking the head to the ground in prayer.

Elnoury objects when a terrorist refers to jihad as the sixth pillar, that is, religiously prescribed duty, of Muslims. It's all well and good that Elnoury objects. The problem is many Muslims do view jihad as Islalm's sixth pillar. Jihad "is the biography of Mohammed," as one terrorist put it in Elnoury's book.

Terrorists scrupulously cite Koran verses and hadith to justify their abominations. No perversion, no act of sadism, is beyond the sanctifying reach of the Koran or hadith. After ISIS burned Jordian pilot Muath Al-Kaseasbeh alive in a cage, ISIS justified the act with the Islamic concept of "qisas." ISIS justified its sex slavery with Koran verses and hadith. Indeed, the very 9-11 attack that prompted Elnoury to become an anti-terror agent was justified by Osama bin Laden with Koranic verses.

Living as he does so closely to Esseghaier, Elnoury wishes he could save him. He sees in Esseghaier a "naïve," "awkward" lonely man who is clumsy with women, and a nerdy scientist whose intelligence could serve humanity. "I was happy the terrorist would never be free. I felt sorry for the man." Esseghaier is true to the Koranic dictate in 48:29 to be compassionate to fellow Muslims but to be harsh to unbelievers. The notes Esseghaier exchanges with his terrorist handlers are obsequious and soppy to the point of being nauseating. As long as you are committed to murdering kuffar, you are "habibi," "dear brother," and accorded every courtesy. Indeed, the reader cannot help but be touched by Esseghaier. He is a poor graduate student, but he donates thousands of dollars of his own money to "the cause." The cause, of course, is murdering kuffar – the very people educating him in Canada. Elnoury notes Esseghaier's cold willingness to murder and resigns himself: he can offer no salvation to this man who has chosen evil.

This aspect of the book is important. Anyone who calls jihadis "animals" is mistaken. Plenty of jihadis are men who, living in a life-affirming culture, would make good husbands, loving fathers, and productive citizens. They want to do the right thing. They have been brainwashed to believe that God is named Allah and Allah demands murder. Those who recognize the falsehood of that statement need to communicate loud and clear: Islam's Allah is not God, and murder is a wicked crime, not a good deed.

When the planes hit the Twin Towers, Elnoury had no idea what was going on. "That's how naïve I was. That's how naïve we all were," he said.

Officer, whose real name I do not know, you are wrong. Some of us knew exactly why even the first plane, never mind the second, hit the World Trade Center. We knew it was jihad, because we knew Muslims who expressed the sentiments that were manifest that day. Years before 9-11, I met, in New Jersey, men who spoke like the men you surveilled. Tamer … whatever your name is … you insist that you are the hero you are, and you are a hero, because of Islam. Forgive me for speaking this truth to you: you're wrong. You're not a hero because of Islam. In fact, you aren't a Muslim. Contrary to the literal definition of the word, you have not submitted to Allah. You, Tamer, have defied Allah. You are loyal to America, in spite of the Koran verses devout Muslims cite to argue against any Muslim being loyal to an infidel state. You drink alcohol to the point of intoxication, in defiance of Koran 5:90. You are comfortable with flirtatious female strangers who engage in casual touching. You have beloved Christian and Jewish friends, in defiance of Koran 5:51, which dictates that you not take Christians or Jews for friends. You celebrate Thanksgiving with your father, in spite of imams condemning any Muslim participation in non-Muslim holidays. You like exotic dancers and you laugh at pranks involving sex toys. You put fellow Muslims in kuffar jails for life sentences. Tamer Elnoury, you are courageous, resourceful, loyal, and you are all these things not because of Islam. You are an American, my friend. You are, furthermore, like Bruce Springsteen, Chris Christie, and Jack Nicholson, a Jersey Boy. In spite of your cloak and dagger disguise, I'm a Jersey girl, and I can hear it in your accent.

Danusha V. Goska is the author of Save Send Delete and Bieganski.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268348/tamer-elnoury-muslim-american-spy-danusha-v-goska

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iraqi Elements To Lebanese Daily Close To Hizbullah: We Will Fight U.S. Forces In Iraq After ISIS Is Defeated - MEMRI




by MEMRI

"We will not lay down our arms at the end of [the war against] ISIS," -- The end would for them be "a call for reorganizing our ranks and preparing for the great conflict with the Americans."

In the past two weeks, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah, published a front-page article and an interview quoting Iraqi elements, who state that, after the Islamic State (ISIS) is defeated, they intend to continue their military activity, focusing it this time against U.S. troops who are now on Iraqi soil fighting ISIS. The daily quotes "sources from the Iraqi resistance," as well as Akram Al-Ka'bi, secretary-general of Al-Nujaba, a faction of the pro-Iran Shi'ite Al-Hashd Al-Sha'bi militia (the Popular Mobilization Forces, PMU) in Iraq. Al-Nujaba is included in the Iranian Proxies Terrorist Sanctions Act of 2017, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on November 3, which aims to level sanctions against it and its "officials, agents, or affiliates," including Al-Ka'bi.[1]


It should be noted that threats of harming U.S. forces in the region were also expressed recently by Iranian representatives, to mark the November 4 anniversary of the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran. For example, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander Ali Jafari said, on October 31, 2017: "The range of our missiles is limited to 2,000 km... [T]he Americans are sufficiently situated within a 2,000-km radius around Iran. We will respond to them if they attack us."[2] To underline these statements, a Qadr-F ballistic missile with a 2,000-km range was parked in front of the former embassy building for the main Iranian ceremony marking the anniversary.[3]

The following is the translation of the main points of the threats by the Iraqi elements as quoted in Al-Akhbar:

Iraqi Resistance Elements: The Units "Are Already Prepared To Begin Their Operations" Against The Americans In Iraq


On November 1, 2017, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar published an article quoting "Iraqi resistance" elements declaring their intent to attack U.S. troops in Iraq, who, according to the article, number between 7,000 and 25,000.  These elements told the newspaper: "We will not lay down our arms at the end of [the war against] ISIS," and added that the end would for them be "a call for reorganizing our ranks and preparing for the great conflict with the Americans."


The article added: "The American forces deployed in Iraq will constitute 'targets for new attacks' to be carried out by the resistance factions who see the American presence as a 'new occupation'..." It continued: "Today, calls are increasing in Iraq for planning to carry out military-security operations against the 'new [American] occupation'  where it is situated in Iraq. According to the sources, 'the [resistance] units in charge of the confrontation [with the U.S. forces] are already prepared to begin their operations.'"


The sources presented the newspaper with three stages of the war against the American occupation: the first stage, 2003-2011, during which, they said, they "succeeded in defeating the American occupation by means of Iraqi efforts and Iranian and Lebanese support, hinting at Hizbullah." The second phase, they said, began in 2011 "with the Americans' exit from Iraq, when clashes with 'the [Americans'] agent' began, referring to the nucleus of ISIS and the terror organizations," and the third phase, which is yet to come, is, they said, called "the post-ISIS struggle."


The article also stated that most of the resistance factions believe that the main goals of the U.S. and its allies are "the cantonization and division of Iraq" and "'transforming the country [i.e. Iraq] into a forward base, in order to close in on Iran from its western border in light of the crises in the region. Accordingly the activity of the factions is aimed at 'liberating the country' [in order to] thwart the actualization of the goals mentioned."[4]


all-ahkbar.jpg
Al-Akhbar Front Page, November 1, 2017: "A Return To Confronting The U.S. In Iraq!"

Al-Nujaba Secretary-General Al-Ka'bi: Our Role "Is To Strike At Every American Military Presence In Iraq"


On November 4, 2017, three days after Al-Akhbar published the above article, it published an interview with Akram Al-Ka'bi, the secretary-general of Al-Nujaba, one of the factions of Al-Hashd Al-Sha'bi (PMU). Asked about the stated intention of some of the resistance factions to return to carrying out military operations against the Americans, he said: "Yes, our main role in the resistance factions, and one of our aims, is to prevent any occupation of Iraq. The Islamic resistance [in Iraq] was established with the beginning of the American occupation [of the country] in 2003, and therefore its role is to strike at every American military presence in Iraq and to prevent it from remaining, particularly when it is a non-diplomatic presence."[5]

guy.jpg
Akram Al-Ka'bi. Source: Al-Akhbar, Lebanon, November 4, 2017.



[1] Congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4238/text, November 3, 2017. The bill notes that Al-Ka'bi "participated in multiple mortar and rocket attacks on the International Zone, or Green Zone, in Baghdad in early 2008," and that "[he] and other Nujaba commanders have claimed they follow orders from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and declared in March 2016 support for Lebanese Hizballah."
[4] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 1, 2017.
[5] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 4, 2017.


MEMRI

Source: www.memri.com

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

‘The Right to Maim:’ Jasbir Puar’s Pseudo-Scholarship and Blood Libels Against Israel - Richard L. Cravatts




by Richard L. Cravatts


A new spin on centuries-old anti-Semitic defamation.




Jews have been accused of harming and murdering non-Jews since the twelfth century in England, when Jewish convert to Catholicism, Theobald of Cambridge, mendaciously announced that European Jews ritually slaughtered Christian children each year and drank their blood during Passover season.

In the regular chorus of defamation against Israel by a world infected with Palestinianism, a new, more odious trend has shown itself: the blood libel has been revivified; however, to position Israel (and by extension Jews) as demonic agents in the community of nations, the primitive fantasies of the blood libel are now masked with a veneer of academic scholarship.

No more salient example of that type of mendacious academic output can be found than in a new book by Rutgers professor Jasbir K. Puar published by Duke University Press, The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability. The thesis of Puar’s book is formed by her examination of “Israeli tactical calculations of settler colonial rule,” which, she asserts, is “that of creating injury and maintaining Palestinian populations as perpetually debilitated, and yet alive, in order to control them.”

In other words, Puar’s core notion is that Israeli military tactics—as an extension of its political policies—involve the deliberate “stunting, “maiming,” physical disabling, and scientific experimenting with Palestinian lives, an outrageous and grotesque resurrection of the classic anti-Semitic trope that Jews purposely, and sadistically, harm and kill non-Jews.

Puar, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, boasts that she regularly writes on a hodgepodge of currently fashionable academic fields of study, including “gay and lesbian tourism, queer theory, theories of intersectionality, affect, homonationalism, and pinkwashing,” the latter being the perverse theory that Israel trumpets its broad support of LGBT rights in its society to furtively obscure its long-standing mistreatment of the Palestinians.  

“The Israeli Defense Forces (idf) have [sic] shown a demonstrable pattern over decades of sparing life, of shooting to maim rather than to kill. This is ostensibly a humanitarian practice,” she admits, although it results in “leaving many civilians ‘permanently disabled’ in an occupied territory of destroyed hospitals, rationed medical supplies, and scarce resources.” So, while Puar reluctantly admits that Israel purposely limits the lethality of its self-defense through restraint and tactical control, she still accuses it of using violence and injury as a tactical tool of a settler state to maintain control of a vulnerable indigenous population. It is both sadistic and exploitative, she contends, because it maintains a purportedly unjust and illegal occupation and the oppression of a victim people.

“I am arguing that debilitation and the production of disability are in fact biopolitical ends unto themselves,” she explains, “ . . . what I call ‘the right to maim’: a right expressive of sovereign power that is linked to, but not the same as, ‘the right to kill.’”

“Maiming,” she contends,  “. . . is a sanctioned tactic of settler colonial rule,” without ever bothering to offer an explanation of why it is strategically more productive for Israel to permanently injure, as opposed to eliminating, a population which is perpetually an existential threat.

In a 2016 speech Puar delivered at Vassar College, which presaged the content of her book, she presented this same noxious theme, that Israel is intent on “Targeting youth, not for death but for stunting” as a “tactic that seeks to render impotent any future resistance.” “Maiming masquerades as let live when in fact it acts as will not let die,” she said, and that this technique, as part of a sadistic, imperialistic militancy on the part of Israel, “is used to achieve . . . tactical aims of settler colonialism.”

Unsurprisingly, Puar is also on the Advisory Board of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, a leading coordinator of Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement on campuses. And more alarming than her open support of the BDS movement is Puar’s explicit support for terrorism against Israeli citizens as a corollary aspect of the BDS movement. BDS “is such a minor piece of how Palestine is going to be liberated, [and] we need BDS as part of organized resistance and armed resistance in Palestine as well [emphasis added]” she has said. “There is no other way the situation is going to change.”

Puar also accuses Israel of randomly, and recklessly, targeting medical facilities and other infrastructure as a deadly way “to provide the bare minimum for survival, but minimal enough to attempt to defeat or strip resistance” where “. . . the target here is not just life itself but resistance itself.”  But Puar’s view that Israel’s military operations are characterized by disproportionality and a disregard for human life—even of its mortal foes—was, in fact, totally contradicted by a report prepared by The High-Level International Military Group on the Gaza Conflict in 2014, which found that “during Operation Protective Edge . . . Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard.”

Professor Puar is a feminist and gender studies specialist, and one may wonder why she has invested so much of her academic energy in vilifying Israel. But her obsession with Israel and its various perceived modes of oppression and brutality toward a weak, innocent victim group is consistent with many academics in the humanities and social sciences who increasingly find a linkage as they seek to affirm the rights of the victimized and name the villains responsible for this oppression. 

This trend is called “intersectionality,” and it has meant that someone who is a gender studies professor, or queer theorist, or American studies expert can, with no actual knowledge or expertise about the Middle East, readily pontificate on the many social pathologies of Israel, based on its perceived role as a racist, colonial oppressor of an innocent indigenous population of Arab victims. For Professor Puar and her fellow academic travelers, to know one victim group is to know any victim group—with Israel being a tempting and habitual target of their opprobrium.

In The Right to Maim, Puar discusses the supposed linkage between Black Lives Matter and the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, seeing in both struggles a common theme of weak victim groups being oppressed by the forces of racism and colonialism, respectively.

“‘Hands up, don’t shoot!’ is not a catchy slogan that emerges from or announces able-bodied populations,” Puar suggests, assuming that black victims of police shootings are always innocent and their deaths are the result of police brutality as opposed to the consequences of criminal behavior. “Rather,” she continues, “this common Black Lives Matter chant is a revolutionary call for redressing the debilitating logics of racial capitalism. It is a compact sketch of the frozen black body, rendered immobile by systemic racism and the punishment doled out for not transcending it.”

And just as the black male is a perennial victim of “racial capitalism” and “systematic racism,” the Palestinian terrorist is also a victim, never a perpetrator. The Black Lives Matter story, for Puar, is analogous to and also “ . . . is the story of a Palestinian resister shot dead for wielding a knife (if that) against an idf [sic] solider who has the full backing of the world’s military might. ‘I can’t breathe!’ captures the suffocation of chokeholds on movement in Gaza and the West Bank as it does the violent forces of restraint meted out through police brutality. ‘Hands up, don’t shoot!’ and ‘I can’t breathe!’ are, in fact, disability justice rally cries.”

Supporters of the Palestinian cause have come to accept the fact that Israel will not be defeated through the use of traditional tools of warfare. Instead, the Jewish state’s enemies, abetted by the academic and media elites in the West, have begun to use different, but equally dangerous, tactics to delegitimize and eventually destroy Israel in a cognitive war. By dressing up old hatreds against Jews, as Puar has done in this new book, combined with a purported goal of seeking social justice for the oppressed, and repackaging ugly biases as seemingly pure scholarship, she and Israel’s other ideological foes have found an effective, but odious, way to ensure that the Jew of nations, Israel, is still accused of fostering social chaos and bringing harm and death to non-Jews.

It is a vicious and ugly trope in the centuries-old history of the world’s oldest hatred: that Jews still harbor murderous, sadistic, and inhuman impulses against non-Jews and wish to injure or murder them—in the current day with the Palestinian Arabs as long-suffering victims of the Jew of nations, Israel.


Richard L. Cravatts PhD, president emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268372/right-maim-jasbir-puars-pseudo-scholarship-and-richard-l-cravatts

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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