Friday, July 20, 2018

Quneitra falls to Syrian army. Damascus: 1974 accord permits Syrian air flights over Israel’s Golan border - debkaFile


by debkaFile

The Syrian army was able to return to the positions held before the 2011 uprising without a shot.




Syrian rebel resistance to the Syrian Army advance on Quneitra opposite the Israeli Golan crumbled on Thursday, July 19, in the absence of Israeli military support. The terms of surrender that rebel leaders signed with Syrian army officers obliged them to hand over all their strongholds, including the town of Quneitra. The Syrian army was able to return to the positions held before the 2011 uprising without a shot. Rebels refusing to sign were to be sent with their families north to Idlib province.


Israeli officials and military leaders were dismayed by a message received from Damascus claiming that the 1974 Separation of Forces Accord, which both governments resuscitated this week, allowed Syrian aircraft, including assault helicopters and UAVs, to fly over the buffer zones of the Golan up to the Israel border. Damascus relayed a copy of the accord to Moscow with a warning that any Israeli attempt to shoot down a Syrian overflight would be a breach of the 1974 accord, and its endorsement on July 16 at Helsinki by Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. DEBKAfile revealed on July 17 that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had partnered the Helsinki deal for the restoration of southern Syria to the Syrian army under Russian oversight.

Israeli officers were handed the Syrian message on Thursday by the UNDOF commander, Maj Gen. Francis Vib-Sanziri of Ghana, who is henceforth responsible for monitoring implementation of the Helsinki deal.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, this Syrian message for the first time  forbids the Israeli air force and anti-air missile batteries shooting down Syrian aerial vehicles entering the air space over the buffer zones. On July 13, Israel shot down a Syrian drone entering the buffer zone. This is no longer permissible. Israel is even precluded from discovering if the intruder belongs to Iran or Hizballah, leaving both these hostile entities free to fly at will over Israel’s Golan border. 

 Furthermore, Assad may have those flight[s] painted with Syrian air force markings, just as he supplies Syrian military uniforms to disguise Hizballah and pro-Iranian Shiite militiamen.


Our sources reveal that it took the Assad regime no more than four days to renege on Syria’s role in the Helsinki accord. For regaining Quneitra, the Syrian army, led by disguised Hizballah and Shiite troops, was obliged to evacuate the Beit Jinn pocket opposite the IDF’s Hermon outpost. On Monday, July 16, the Syrians pretended to pull back, while actually leaving several hundred troops behind – disguised this time as civilians and farmers.


debkaFile

Source: https://www.debka.com/quneitra-falls-to-syrian-army-damascus-1974-accord-permits-syrian-air-flights-over-israels-golan-border/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ted Kennedy and the KGB - Jamie Glazov


by Jamie Glazov

A reflection on the late Democratic Senator's outreach to the Kremlin to undermine President Reagan.



FrontPageMag Editors’ note: In light of the Left's deranged hysteria in response to President Trump's recent press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, marked by pathological accusations that Trump has engaged in "treason," Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin -- by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy's outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan. There were no screams of moral indignation, or accusations of treason, about this matter from the Left at that time -- nor since. 

Ted Kennedy and the KGB.

Frontpage Magazine, May 15, 2008.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. 

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.

Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.

FP: Tell us about this document.

Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.

So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.

Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.

FP: Did you have the document vetted?

Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.” 

But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy. 

Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.

I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.

Of course, all of those steps were extra, extra, extra precautions, since the reporter for the London Times had done all that work in the first place. He went into the archive, pulled it off the shelf, and the Times ran with the story. This wasn’t rocket science. I simply wanted to be extra careful, especially since our media did not cover it at all. I now understand that that blackout by the American media was the result of liberal bias. At first I didn’t think our media could be that bad, even though I knew from studies and anecdotal experience that our press is largely liberal, but now I’ve learned firsthand that the bias is truly breathtaking.

FP: So what shockwaves did your exposure of this document set off in the media?

Kengor: Well, I thought it would be a bombshell, which it was, but only within the conservative media.

I prepared myself to be pilloried by the liberal mainstream media, figuring I’d be badgered with all kinds of hostile questions from defenders of Ted Kennedy. I still, at this very moment, carry photocopies and the documentation with me in my briefcase, ready for access at a moment’s notice. I’ve done that for two years now. The pages may soon begin to yellow.

I need not have bothered with any of this prep, since the media entirely ignored the revelation. In fact, the major reviewers didn’t even review the book. It was the most remarkable case of media bias I’ve ever personally experienced.

I couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.

The only cable source was FoxNews, Brit Hume’s “Grapevine,” and even then it was only a snippet in the round-up. In fact, I was frustrated by the occasional conservative who didn’t run with it. I did a taping with Hannity & Colmes but they never used it, apparently because they were so focused on the mid-term elections, to the exclusion of almost any other story or issue. The Hannity & Colmes thing was a major blow; it could’ve propelled this onto the national scene, forcing the larger media to take note. That was the single greatest disappointment. I think Sean Hannity might have felt that I wasn’t hard enough on Senator Kennedy during the interview. He asked me, for instance, if what Kennedy did could be classified as treason. I told him honestly, as a scholar, that I really couldn’t answer that question. I honestly don’t know the answer to that; I’m not a constitutional scholar. I don’t have the legal background to accuse someone of being a traitor. I was trying to be as fair as possible.

Rush Limbaugh, God bless him, appreciated it. He talked about it at least twice. So did blogs like Michelle Malkin’s HotAir. Web sources like FrontPage hit it hard. But without the mainstream news coverage, the story never made the dent I expected it would.

I should note that Ed Klein of Parade magazine recently contacted me. He himself got a rude awakening on the media’s liberal bias when he wrote a negative book on Hillary Clinton. I’ve not heard back from him. But he’s a rare case of journalistic objectivity.

If I may vent just a little more on the mainstream press, Jamie: There’s a bias there that really is incredibly troubling. Over and over again, I’ve written and submitted the most careful op-eds, trying to remove any partisan edge, on issues like Reagan and Gorbachev privately debating the removal of the Berlin Wall (I have de-classified documents on this in The Crusader as well), on Reagan’s fascinating relationship with RFK, on various aspects of the Cold War that are completely new, based on entirely new evidence from interviews and archives. When I submit these op-ed to the major newspapers, they almost always turn them down. The first conservative source that I send them to always jump at them. The liberals, however, are very close-minded. Nothing is allowed to alter the template. You can construct the most fair, iron-tight case, and they turn it down. This is not true for everything I write on the Cold War era, but no doubt for most of it. And certainly for the case of Senator Kennedy and this KGB document.

FP: How about trying to place some op-eds on the Kennedy document?

Kengor: Here again, all the mainstream sources turned me down. I had no alternative but to place the op-eds in the conservative outlets. Liberal editors blacklisted the piece. I began by sending a piece to the New York Times, where the editor is David Shipley, who’s extremely fair, and in fact has published me before, including a defense I wrote on the faith of George W. Bush. This one, however, he turned down. He liked it. It certainly had his intention. But he said he wouldn’t be able to get it into the page.

I sent it to the Boston Globe, three or four times, actually. I got no response or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. It was as if the piece was dispatched to the howling wilderness of Siberia—right into the gulag—airbrushed from history.

The most interesting response I got was from the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, another very fair liberal, a great guy, who since then has retired. He published me several times. We went back and forth on this one. Finally, he said something to the effect, “I just can’t believe that Ted Kennedy would do something this stupid.” My reply was, “Well, he apparently did.” I told the editor that if he was that incredulous, then he or someone on his staff should simply call Kennedy’s office and get a response. Hey, let’s do journalism and make news! It never happened.

For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.

FP: So, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?

Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.

FP: Tell us about the success the book has had in the recent past and the coverage it has received outside of the U.S.

Kengor: The paperback rights were picked up by the prestigious HarperPerennial in 2007, which I’m touting not to pat myself on the back but to affirm my point on why our mainstream press should take the book and the document seriously. The book has also been or is in the process of being translated into several foreign-language editions, including Poland, where it was released last November. It is literally true that more Polish journalists have paid attention to the Kennedy revelation than American journalists. I’ve probably sold about 20 times more copies of the book in Poland, where they understand communism and moral equivalency, than in Massachusetts. 

FP: One can just imagine finding a document like this on an American Republican senator having made a similar offer to the Nazis. Kennedy has gotten away with this. What do you think this says about our culture, the parameters of debate and who controls the boundaries of discourse?

Kengor: History is determined by those who write it. There are the gatekeepers: editors, journalists, publishers. The left’s ideologues are guarding the gate, swords brandished, crusaders, not open to other points of view. The result is a total distortion of “history,” as the faithful and the chosen trumpet their belief in tolerance and diversity, awarding prizes to one another, disdainful and dismissive of the unwashed barbarians outside the gate.

You can produce a 550-page manuscript with 150-pages of single-space, 9-point footnotes, and it won’t matter. They could care less.

FP: So, this historical revelation is not a revelation?

Kengor: That’s right, because it is not impacting history—because gatekeepers are ignoring it.
Another reason why the mainstream media may be ignoring this: as I make clear in the book, this KGB document could be the tip of the iceberg, not just with Kennedy but other Democrats. John Tunney himself alluded to this in an interview with the London Times reporter. That article reported that Tunney had made many such trips to Moscow, with additional overtures, and on behalf of yet more Democratic senators. Given that reality, I suppose we should expect liberal journalists to flee this story like the plague—at least those too biased to do their jobs.

For the record, I’ve been hard on liberal journalists in this article, and rightly so. But there are many good liberal journalists who do real research and real reporting. And it’s those that need to follow up on this. I’m a conservative, and so I’m not allowed into the club. Someone from inside the boys’ club needs to step up to the plate.

FP: All of this is in sync with David Horowitz’s and Ben Johnson’s new book, Party of Defeat, isn’t it? As the book demonstrates, many Democrats are engaging in willful sabotage in terms of our security vis-à-vis Islamo-Fascism today. And as the Kennedy-KGB romance indicates, a good portion of Democrats have always had a problem in reaching out to our enemies, rather than protecting our national security. Your thoughts?

Kengor: Obviously, as you know and suggest, this does not apply to all Democrats, needless to say. But there are many liberal Democrats who were dupes during the Cold War and now are assuming that role once again in the War on Terror. President Carter comes to mind, as does John Kerry, as does Ted Kennedy, to name only a few. When I read President Carter’s recent thoughts on Hamas, it transported me back to 1977 and his stunning statements on the Iranian revolution, or to 1979 and his remarks on the Soviets and Afghanistan. Many of these liberals and their supporters on the left literally see the conservative Republican in the Oval Office as a greater threat to the world than the insane dictators overseas that the likes of Reagan and George W. Bush were/are trying to stop. That’s not an exaggeration. Just ask them.

History is repeating itself, which can happen easily when those tasked to report and record it fail to do so because of their political biases.

FP: Paul Kengor, thank you for joining us.

Kengor: Thank you Jamie.


Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270783/ted-kennedy-and-kgb-jamie-glazov

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Deputy chair of the Democratic Party slams border with Mexico as creating ‘injustice’ - Thomas Lifson


by Thomas Lifson

Now comes the party’s vice chair, Keith Ellison, going on the record as calling our very border with Mexico an “injustice.”

The radical wing of the Democrats is doing its best to convince the mainstream of the American electorate that the party is too far detached from reality to be trusted with power. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, embraced by the Party’s chair Tom Perez as “the future of our party,” already has provided such convincing evidence of being an ignoramus (unemployment is low because so many people have two jobs) that poor Joe Lieberman is encouraging voters to vote for the opponent she defeated in the primary, who remains on the ballot on a splinter party ticket.

Now comes the party’s vice chair, Keith Ellison, going on the record as calling our very border with Mexico an “injustice.”  Seriously, he said that on video (via The Daily Wire). The key verbiage, spoken to interviewer Rabbi Michael Lerner ( a hard leftist):
"Since NAFTA, Mexican wages have dropped between nine and thirteen percent," Ellison began. "Now, some people have said to me, oh, Keith, that’s too bad for them. And my answer is, no that’s too bad for us because that means those people are going to be a low wage sector not only in Mexico, but here in the United States. And the undocumented worker is an exploited worker."
"We just have to say that the 12 million undocumented people in the United States are here because somebody wants them to be," Ellison continued. "But they want them here to do the work, but they don’t want them to get any rights. They don’t want to pay them fairly."
Ellison added: "And labor, which is a regular person, cannot travel back and forth across the border. And so corporations, certain people who get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages, but people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. So what it creates is an imbalance. It creates an injustice."




Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/deputy_chair_of_the_democratic_party_slams_border_with_mexico_as_creating_injustice.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Iran Supports Palestinian Terror Groups - Khaled Abu Toameh


by Khaled Abu Toameh

Iran is not helping the terror groups out of love for the Palestinians, but in order to advance its goal of eliminating the "fake Zionist regime."

  • The Iranian general did not offer to build the Palestinians a hospital or a school. Nor did he offer to provide financial aid to create projects that would give jobs to unemployed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. His message to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip: Iran will give you as much money and weapons as you need as long as you are committed to the jihad (holy war) against Israel and the "big Satan," the US.
  • The same Hamas that is telling UN representatives that it wants to improve the living conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is the one that is reaching out its hand to Iran to receive funds and weapons.
  • Now, someone needs to step in and stop Iran from setting foot in the Gaza Strip and using the Palestinians as cannon fodder in Tehran's campaign against the US and Israel. How might someone do that? It is not so complicated. Any international aid to the Gaza Strip must be conditioned on ending Iran's destructive effort to recruit Palestinians groups as its soldiers. It is that simple.
While the United Nations, Israel and the US are proposing plans to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, Iran is pledging to continue its financial and military aid to Palestinian terror groups.

Iran's meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians is not new. The Iranians have long been providing Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror groups with money and weapons. Were it not for Iran's support, the two groups, which do not recognize Israel's right to exist, would not have been able to remain in power in the coastal enclave.

Iran's support for the Palestinian terror groups has a twofold goal: first, to undermine the Palestinian Authority, which is headed by Mahmoud Abbas, and which Tehran sees as a pawn in the hands of the US and Israel; and second, to advance Iran's goal of destroying Israel.

Just this week, we received yet another reminder of Iran's true goal. The leader of Iran's "Islamic Revolution," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that the Palestinians will win over their enemies and will "see the day when the fake Zionist regime" vanishes. He said that US President Donald Trump's "evil policy" is doomed to failure.

So, Iran does not care about the harsh conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Instead, its leaders are hoping that the Palestinians will live to see the day Israel is eliminated. This is also why Iran continues to support any Palestinian group that seeks to destroy Israel.

On the same day that Khamenei made his statement in Tehran, one of his senior generals, Gholamhossein Gheybparvar addressed a conference held in the Gaza Strip and Tehran simultaneously. Gheybparavar is a senior officer in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and commander of its Basij forces -- the "Mobilization Resistance Force." This force's main mission is to suppress protests against the regime in Tehran.


Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards General Gholamhossein Gheybparvar. (Image source: Tasnim via Wikimedia Commons)

In his speech via video conference, the Iranian general told representatives of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terror groups that he was "proud" of their "resistance" against Israel. He said that the conference, which was being held under the title, "Wet Gunpowder/Resistance Is Not Terrorism," was an expression of Arab and Islamic unity against the enemies of the Arabs and Muslims. The Iranian general said that Iran and the "axis of resistance" were not afraid of Trump's "threats."

The Palestinian terror groups said after the conference that they were encouraged by the Iranian general's pledge to support them in their fight against Israel and the US.

Khader Habib, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad official in the Gaza Strip, said that the Iranian-Palestinian conference was both "symbolic and significant." The conference, he said, served as a reminder that Iran continues to support the Palestinian "resistance" and would deter Israel from attacking the Gaza Strip in response to terror attacks on its citizens. The speech by the Iranian general, he added, was aimed at sending a message to the many countries to support the Palestinian "resistance" groups in the Gaza Strip. "Israel is a potential threat to the Arabs and Muslims," Habib said.

Buoyed by the Iranian backing, several speakers at the conference called for the formation of a "unified Arab-Islamic front" against Israel and the US. They also stressed that the terror attacks against Israel would continue and praised Iran for its full support for the Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip.

By promising to continue helping the Palestinian terror groups, Iran is offering the two million residents of the Gaza Strip more bloodshed and violence. The Iranian general did not offer to build the Palestinians a hospital or a school. Nor did he offer to provide financial aid to create projects that would give jobs to unemployed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. His message to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip: Iran will give you as much money and weapons as you need, as long as you are committed to the jihad (holy war) against Israel and the "big Satan," the US.

The Iranian message to the Palestinian terror groups came at a time when several international parties are trying to resolve the "humanitarian and economic" crisis in the Gaza Strip. These efforts are spearheaded by the UN's Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, who in recent weeks has been on a mission to prevent another war in the Gaza Strip.

These efforts are unlikely to succeed, however, as long as Iran continues its support of the Palestinian terror groups. Iran apparently wants to retain control over its Palestinian proxies to prevent any peace and stability between Arabs and Israel. Iran is not helping the terror groups out of love for the Palestinians, but in order to advance its goal of eliminating the "fake Zionist regime."

If anyone is worried about the Iranian meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians, it is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his ruling Fatah faction. "We don't want to become a pawn in the hands of Iran," said Ra'fat Elayan, a senior Fatah official. "Iran is using Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a maneuvering card against Israel and the US, and this will have a negative impact on the just Palestinian cause. We have repeatedly warned the two groups of the Iranian intervention in Palestinian affairs."

Meanwhile, it appears that Hamas wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, Hamas wants the international community to step in and help the people of the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, Hamas wants Iran to continue funding its terrorism. The same Hamas that is telling UN representatives that it wants to improve the living conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is the one that is reaching out its hand to Iran to receive funds and weapons.

We can take a tip from Abbas's and Fatah's anxiety: If they are worried about Iran's ongoing efforts to infiltrate the Palestinian arena, the US and the rest of the world need to find ways to stop Iran from using the Palestinians as a weapon in its battle to extend its control over more and more countries in the Middle East and carry out its deadly schemes.

Iran has brought nothing but disaster to Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. Now, someone needs to step in and stop Iran from setting foot in the Gaza Strip and using the Palestinians as cannon fodder in Tehran's campaign against the US and Israel. How might someone do that? It is not so complicated. Any international aid to the Gaza Strip must be conditioned on ending Iran's destructive effort to recruit Palestinians groups as its soldiers. It is that simple.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12729/iran-palestinian-terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Entity - Tom Quiggin


by Tom Quiggin

Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood: "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

  • It can be said that Hamas has more than mere "ties" to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, its own documents point out that the Muslim Brotherhood has been intrinsically tied to Hamas and the entire Palestinian situation since as early as 1948.
  • Rather than "helping our enemies attract more recruits," targeting the Muslim Brotherhood would weaken those organizations.
  • The greater point about the Muslim Brotherhood is that in its quest for domination, it is either violent or not yet violent. For this reason it should be designated as a terrorist entity.
The Congressional Subcommittee on National Security held a hearing on July 11 in Washington, DC "[t]o examine the threat of Muslim Brotherhood to the United States and its interests and how to effectively counter it."

According to the background information provided by the Subcommittee,
"The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist organization that has generated a network of affiliates in over 70 countries. The Brotherhood has been designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries including Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The United States has designated multiple Muslim Brotherhood affiliates as terrorist organizations, including Hamas."
Among those testifying before the Subcommitte were: Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Hillel Fradkin, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; and the Honorable Daniel Benjamin, Norman E. McCulloch Jr. director from the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth University.

Perhaps the most startling testimony was that of Benjamin, who served as Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks to the Subcommittee, Ambassador Benjamin, whose stated position was that the Muslim Brotherhood should not be designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, advanced the belief that while Hamas has ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, it would be a mistake at this point to say that the group is an affiliate of the organization.

This statement was inaccurate, to say the least. The original Hamas Covenant of 1988 openly declares that the organization is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. It also states that its foundational roots go back to 1939, to the "emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, who were members of Muslim Brotherhood," and reveals that its founding history includes the "struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war" and the "Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after." As such, it can be said that Hamas has more than mere "ties" to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, its own documents point out that the Muslim Brotherhood has been intrinsically tied to Hamas and the entire Palestinian situation since as early as 1948.

Although the provenance of the Muslim Brotherhood was officially removed from the charter during an apparent attempt to soften it for public consumption in 2017, the revised Hamas Charter nevertheless still calls for "the liberation of all of historical Palestine", said armed resistance was a means to achieve that goal, and did not recognize Israel's right to exist... and backs an armed struggle."

Ambassador Benjamin's additional claim was equally inaccurate and worrisome. He asserted that Hamas has "a history of foreign relations – including with Iran – that no other Brotherhood group would sanction," apparently suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood would not tolerate Hamas being in close communication with Iran. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood itself has had multiple interactions with Iran, specifically with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Nor have these interactions been simply perfunctory or diplomatic. Their purpose is and has been to establish close cooperation between Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood whenever the group is in a position of power.

In December 2012, for instance, Essam al- Haddad, the foreign affairs adviser to then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi -- a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood -- met in Cairo with the head of Iran's Quds Force, General Qassem Soleimani. According to a Times of London report on the meeting, the Muslim Brotherhood was looking to set up an alternative security and intelligence apparatus to serve its interests, much in the way that the IRGC was established to cater to the ayatollahs. The report also quoted one Muslim Brotherhood official as saying, "The meeting was intended to send a message to America, which is putting pressure on the Egyptian Government, that we should be allowed to have other alliances with anyone we please."

The Muslim Brotherhood's cooperation with Iran in Egypt is neither new nor a departure from its behavior elsewhere, such as in Sudan and other countries. As a 2013 Huffington Post piece described,
"When President Al-Bashir and Hassan Al-Turabi rose to power in the 1989 coup that established an Islamist state in Sudan, one of the new regime's first diplomatic initiatives was to forge an alliance with Iran, whose own Islamic revolution a decade earlier inspired Sudan's Islamists (despite the Sunni-Shia division). Five months after the coup, Bashir paid a visit to Iran and the two states' intelligence agencies signed cooperative agreements."
Al-Bashir was head of the Sudanese Islamic Movement, which was seen as the Muslim Brotherhood's Sudanese operation. His political affiliations, as listed by the Sudanese Tribune, were with the Muslim Brotherhood, the National Islamic Front and the National Congress Party.

In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is quite capable of working with Iran and the IRGC, and thus, Hamas's interactions with Iran do not reveal anything other than a well-established pattern.
In his testimony, Ambassador Benjamin also stated that the "Egyptian Brotherhood has foresworn violence since the 1970s, and there is no compelling evidence that it has reversed course on that issue." On this point, he was partially correct. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood did make a seemingly serious attempt to move away from violence in the 1970s. However, to say that "there is no compelling evidence that it has reversed course" is a stretch.

In his 2012 election speech, President Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, said: "The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal."


Pictured: Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, campaigning for the presidential election in 2012. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

More recently, in January 2015, the Muslim Brotherhood posted a communiqué on its Arabic-language website, stating:
"Everyone must realize that we are on the verge of a new stage, which will require the power hidden within us, in order to use it to bring back the ideas of jihad. We must prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and those who follow in our path for a lengthy, uncompromising jihad, in which we seek [to gain] the status of martyrs."
Ambassador Benjamin told the Subcommittee, "Unwise actions to target Muslim Brotherhood groups will only deepen the animus against America, and we should not be doing anything that helps our enemies attract more recruits."

The 2016-17 UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Muslim Brotherhood appears to contradict this. According to the report, "Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism. Both as an ideology and as a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism." The report also states that "membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism."

In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is a conveyor belt that moves individuals along a path to violence and terrorism, and any association with it should be considered indicative of extremism. Thus, rather than "helping our enemies attract more recruits," targeting the Muslim Brotherhood would weaken those organizations which make up the conveyor-belt system.

The government of the United Arab Emirates concurs, with the UAE Muslim Brotherhood topping its list of officially designated terrorist organizations. Included in this list are several Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as Islamic Relief Worldwide, CAIR USA and the Muslim American Society. Dr. Al Ketbi, chairwoman of Emirates Policy Centre, said of these groups that they "also include proxy terror actors and front organisations that give others the funding, training, and weapons to carry out terrorist acts."

Simply put, the UAE believes that targeting the Muslim Brotherhood's proxies and front organizations will weaken its efforts to raise funds and recruit new members.

The argument is about whether the Muslim Brotherhood is a violent organization or purely political. But, as the UK House of Commons report states: "Both as an ideology and as a network (the Muslim Brotherhood) has been at rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism."

Considerable evidence exists for this. The leader of ISIS was a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri of al Qaeda were both former Muslim Brotherhood members.

Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, made the role of the organization clear: "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." Domination, of course, implies coercion, and coercion implies the use of violence.

The greater point about the Muslim Brotherhood is that in its quest for domination, it is either violent or not yet violent. For this reason it should be designated as a terrorist entity.

Tom Quiggin is a former military intelligence officer, a former intelligence contractor for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a court appointed expert on jihadist terrorism in both the Federal and criminal courts of Canada. He is the author of SUBMISSION: The Danger of Political Islam to Canada – With a Warning to America, written with co-authors Tahir Gora, Saied Shoaaib, Jonathon Cotler, and Rick Gill with a foreword by Raheel Raza. He is also the primary contributor to the QUIGGIN REPORT podcast.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12730/muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-entity

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Left's embarassing Pleas for Open Borders - Michael Cutler


by Michael Cutler

The real facts immigration anarchists try to hide from the public.



Pro law-and-order immigration advocates in America whine about the emotional arguments and unhinged publicity stunts used by the open borders/abolish-ICE anarchists to sway public opinion.
 
But, when they use these emotional arguments, the abolish ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) crowd are merely playing to their own personal strengths: irrationality, magical thinking, and projection. The important issue is that law-and-order advocates, like us, have failed abysmally to use our own emotional arguments in changing minds on the immigration topic.
 
Indeed, the most persuasive emotional arguments strongly favor secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement.
 
Let’s begin by understanding that a nation’s leaders should be most concerned about the safety, well being and futures of its own citizens the same way that rational parents must prioritize the safety and well being of their own children above all others. From a nurturing perspective, pro law-and-order immigration advocates will have an edge by using this argument.
 
While we are on the topic of children, consider how the DREAM Act and then DACA were sold to us on the lies that this legislative detritus was supposed to help “young immigrants” who were brought here as children and had no control over their situation.  
 
Of course, those “young immigrants” could have been in their mid-thirties and simply had to claim to have been present in the U.S. prior to their 16th birthdays.  Then, when that bill failed to pass, President Obama cobbled together DACA -- again claiming that this was about the children because, “Congress had failed to act.” I wrote about this deception in my article, DACA: The Immigration Trojan Horse, How the original DREAM act was designed to cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the US. 
 
Now the press,  and the Democrats along with certain judges, have gone off the deep end where an estimated 3,000 children have been separated from their parents along the U.S. Mexican border when they were caught being smuggled into the United States.
 
Various religious and charitable organizations like T'ruah and Church World Services have turned this into a media circus. Psychologists have been rushed in to help treat these “traumatized” children. 
 
Had their own caregivers not brought these children across the border - in a brazen act of law-breaking - there would be no separation between family members.  The caregivers took those illegal and irresponsible actions.  The Trump administration was compelled to act as a consequence of the actions of those law-breaking caregivers.
 
Many of those children were not brought into the United States by their parents,  but by human traffickers - this fact has been ignored by the media. Those children’s lives were endangered when they were brought by criminals, with whom their parents possibly conspired with in an effort to circumvent our immigration laws.    
 
Even the children brought here by their parents or other family members were placed at risk by the arduous trek across dangerous terrain -- with it's sweltering temperatures, poisonous insects and snakes at every few feet, and with roving murderous thugs of the drug cartels waiting to pounce on innocent people.
 
The incredible hypocrisy is that those now demanding the demise of ICE are deafeningly silent on the mental condition, and the ultimate fate, of American children in foster care.  
 
The website Children’s Rights Children’s Rights posted a section on Foster Care that included the following statistics:
 
On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the United States.
 
On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.
 
Despite the common perception that the majority of children in foster care are very young, the average age of kids entering care is 7.
 
 
While most children in foster care live in family settings, a substantial minority — 12 percent — live in institutions or group homes.
 
Many of the children were taken from their families in the U.S. because their parents were incarcerated, were homeless or were, in one way or another deemed unfit to care for their own children.
 
Where is the news coverage about this foster care crisis that involves a far greater number of children in the United States? How many psychologists are rushing to comfort these hundreds of thousands of children in America who are in foster care, not for several weeks but as noted above, in some cases, for years?
 
Once again, the so-called “concerns” about children that have been exploited to evoke antagonism for the Trump administration and immigration law enforcement, are as fake as their other arguments.
 
The facts are crystal clear: our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity.  Safety, security and employment opportunities for Americans, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity are at the foundation of America’s immigration laws.
 
The bullying tactic employed by the immigration anarchists whereby they accuse pro-law-and-order immigration advocates of being racists and xenophobes is quickly dispelled by reviewing a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.
 
This section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States.  There are absolutely no references about race, religion or ethnicity.  Rather, this section of law that guides CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at America’s ports of entry.
 
Among these categories are:  aliens who were previously deported (removed), aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or are severely mentally ill and prone to violence, and aliens who are criminals, spies, war criminals, human rights violators or terrorists.  Exclusions include: aliens who would likely become public charges or work illegally, thereby displacing and suppressing the wages of American workers and lawful immigrant workers.
 
Open borders and a lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws has enabled transitional gangs to enter the United States and establish themselves in towns and cities around the country.   Recent news of MS-13 gang activity has outraged the American public but the problem has persisted for decades and involves Latin American gangs as well as gangs from around the world.  As an INS agent,  I investigated and arrested criminals from nearly every continent.  Human nature is universal.  All humans bleed red and among all races, religions, and ethnicities we find examples of “The good, the bad and the ugly.”
 
I focused on this issue in my article, America's Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearings Focus On MS-13.
 
The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, made it clear that multiple failures of the immigration system enabled terrorists, and not only the 19 terrorist-hijackers who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 but a list of others, to enter the United States and embed themselves.
 
Thousands of innocent people have lost their lives to foreign criminals and international terrorists.  Does this not evoke strong emotions?
 
My family, my neighbors and I lived through the terror attack on September 11, 2001, nearly 17 years ago, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the attacks left those who witnessed them shaken to the core and causing many to still suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), forever impacting them and their well being.
 
 
That news report began with this excerpt:
Psychological damage has led to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke among civilian 9/11 rescuers and recovery workers, according to a study to be released Tuesday.
 
The American Heart Association interviewed more than 6,841 non-firefighter workers and untrained volunteers who were at Ground Zero following the attacks on Sept. 11, and found that PTSD cases were twice as prevalent than among the general population. Heart attacks and strokes among those blue collar crew members with PTSD were 2.35 times higher than the rest of the 9/11 workers, according to the study.
America has been too willing to permit foreign workers to enter the United States.  This has displaced American workers, driven down wages and caused large numbers of American families to lose their homes to foreclosure, perhaps forcing more American kids into foster care.
 
Will hearing these facts evoke strong emotions?
 
Time and again judges and mayors of Sanctuary Cities have fatuously declared the Trump administration's immigration policies - policies to secure our nation’s borders and enforce our immigration laws - to be “unconstitutional.” 
 
These officials should be required to read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
"Invasion" has been defined, in part, as:
An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: the Allied invasion of Normandy | in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion.
• an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
Facts and emotions are stubborn things.  Where the current immigration debate is concerned, facts, the U.S. Constitution, our laws, our sense of morality, common sense - and even emotions - can be used to counter the unhinged and irrational narratives of the open borders / abolish-ICE crowd.
 
Photo: Sarahmirk
Michael Cutler

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270771/lefts-embarrassing-plea-open-borders-michael-cutler

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Watching Weather Waves, but Missing Climate Tides - Viv Forbes


by Viv Forbes

Earth has two natural global thermometers which can reveal short and long term trends – the advance and retreat of glaciers, and the rise and fall of sea level.

The climate alarm media, the bureaucracy and the Green Energy industry follow an agenda which is served by inflating any short-term weather event into a climate calamity. They should take a long-term view.

Earth’s climate is never still – it is always changing, with long-term trends, medium-term reversals and minor oscillations. Humanity is best served by those who use good science to study geology, astronomy and climate history searching for clues to climate drivers and the underlying natural cycles and trends hidden in short-term weather fluctuations.

For the last 10,000 years Earth has basked in the Holocene Interglacial which is the latest of many warm cycles within the Pleistocene Ice Age. There are small warm and cool cycles within the Holocene. Today we enjoy the Modern Warm Cycle (which started about calendar 1900) following the Little Ice Age which bottomed in about 1750. 

What does the future hold? The past gives clues to the future.

In every warm era, glaciers retreat, ice sheets melt and sea levels rise. Coastal land, ports and settlements are lost under the rising seas but tundra, grasslands and forests expand. Some corals manage to grow as fast as the seas rise, but others are drowned in deep water. The warmth drives more carbon dioxide from the seas, plants thrive, deserts shrink and humans are well fed.  

Then solar intensity wanes, solar orbits change, less solar energy is received by the big northern lands, and the warm Earth radiates more heat to space. It starts cooling.

As Earth enters a cold era, not all of the winter snow melts over summer. The extra snow reflects more solar radiation, leading to even colder winters. The snow-line and the tree-line fluctuate lower, mountain passes are closed, and advancing glaciers threaten mountain villages. Sea ice expands, ice sheets grow, lakes and rivers are frozen, sea levels drop and coral reefs are stranded above the water line. The cooling seas absorb life-giving carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and crops fail; deserts expand, humans suffer poverty and famine, settlements are abandoned, empires fall and some species disappear. 

This has happened many times before and will probably happen again.

But there are clues to the next big phase for Earth’s climate.

Earth has two natural global thermometers which can reveal short and long term trends – the advance and retreat of glaciers, and the rise and fall of sea level.

If glaciers are growing and ice sheets are advancing and getting thicker, it indicates that average global temperature is falling.

Glaciologists have drilled and analysed many of today’s glaciers. They have been surprised to discover that, outside of Antarctica and Greenland, no glacial ice older than 4,000 years has been found. For example, the Fremont Glacier in Wyoming half-way towards the Equator is only a few hundred years old. 

Naturally some of these new glaciers can show melting and retreat during long spells of warm weather, but the mere existence of glaciers today where none existed at the peak of the Holocene warming over 3,000 years ago confirms what other studies show - Earth is gradually cooling towards the next Glacial Cycle.


Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) –Temperature Reconstruction – “Falling for 3000 Years”
From “The Inconvenient Skeptic” p 115 by John Kehr 2011, http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/
The second natural thermometer is the changing sea level caused by fluctuations in the volume of ice and snow trapped on land. Coastal and near-shore locations show much evidence of past and recent sea level changes. In warm eras, glaciers and ice sheets melt, sea levels rise and offshore coral reefs become submerged and drown. Then as peak warming is passed, ice starts to accumulate and sea levels fall.

Even a moderate cooling event such as the Little Ice Age was sufficient to cause lowering of sea level and stranding of port cities and beaches.

A Stranded Beach - Coastline east of Prawle Point, South Devon England – shows an old beach now well above current sea levels
© Copyright Tony Atkin and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
Earth’s natural thermometers are now flashing an amber warning. The long-term trends point to growing glaciers and falling sea level. These warn us that the warm moist bountiful Holocene Era is past its peak. The next chapter in Earth’s History will be a long, hungry, ice-bound era. Only humans who are good at hunting and gathering or have easy access to nuclear power or carbon energy will survive.


Temperature Reconstructions using deep sea sediment cores. (Raymo, 2005)
From “The Inconvenient Skeptic” 2011 p42, by John Kehr http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/

People who try to create a “Climate Crisis” out of extreme weather events or short-term climate fluctuations (such as today’s Modern Warm Cycle) are like Lord Nelson – their telescope is applied to the blind eye. They point to the choppy waves from summer storms behind the ship, but fail to see the blizzard approaching on the horizon ahead. 

Al Gore was right in one thing – warm cycles coincide with high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The warmth drove CO2 into the atmosphere, and then the cooling oceans removed it again. Carbon dioxide variations are the result, not the cause, of climate changes.

But never once, over eleven warm cycles covering the last million years, have those high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide prevented the next glacial cycle.
“Carbon Dioxide
Causes Global Warming
Like Wet Roads 
Cause Rain.”
Trying to remove or limit atmospheric carbon dioxide is a futile and costly gesture. Even if it were to succeed, by removing plant food from the atmosphere, it would increase the misery of the approaching cold, hungry era.
We may still have warm decades or even centuries ahead. But even when there is a heatwave in autumn, the winter still comes.                                  

Further Reading:
Sea levels and Temperature peaked at least 5000 years ago:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/21/10000-to-5000-years-ago-global-sea-levels-were-3-meters-higher-temperatures-4-6-c-warmer/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/

Climate Change – the last 20,000 years:
https://carbon-sense.com/2013/11/30/nothing-new-about-climate-change/

Temperature and Sea levels:
http://carbon-sense.com/index.php?s=sea+levels&Submit=Go

The De-icing of North America (animation):
https://youtu.be/wbsURVgoRD0

Himalayan Glaciers are Growing:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/04/himalaya-glaciers-are-growing/

“Most glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere have only formed in the last 4000 years”.
John Kehr 2001 “The Inconvenient Skeptic” Chapter 8, p116-126
Al Gore manipulated the data to suit his agenda:
https://yournewswire.com/global-warming-scientist-theory/


Viv Forbes

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/watching_weather_waves_but_missing_climate_tides.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter