Friday, February 22, 2019

Palestinians: "The Slap of the Century" - Khaled Abu Toameh


by Khaled Abu Toameh

To promote normalization with Israel, a leader must prepare his people for the possibility of peace with Israel. Meanwhile, Arab leaders are doing the exact opposite

  • Under the current circumstances, when Arabs are being widely shamed and condemned for sitting in the same room with an Israeli prime minister, it is hard to see how the Trump administration will be able to convince Arab states and leaders to normalize their relations with Israel. Some of these Arab leaders may be privately telling US administration officials things they like to hear about peace and coexistence with Israel. The very same leaders, however, are fully aware of the opposite sentiments, not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but throughout the Arab world.
  • All that is left for the Trump administration to do is to try and persuade the Arab states to abandon the Palestinians, and to continue focusing on the regional threat from Iran. If the US completes its pullout from Syria, Iran will successfully complete its long-desired "land-bridge" to the Mediterranean through Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. This encirclement of the area will position Iran, via its proxies, to be the hegemon controlling the region, as it has clearly been trying to bring about. Russia, of course, is standing in the wings, thanks to the gift that then US President Barack Obama handed Putin in 2011 by pulling American troops out of Syria.
  • For decades now, not only Palestinian leaders but Arab ones as well, have been radicalizing their people against Israel. Using every available platform, including mosques, media outlets and United Nations organizations, these leaders, with the collaboration of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, have demonized Israel. They have poisoned the hearts and minds of their people with the hate that exists towards Israel all over the Arab world. To promote normalization with Israel, a leader must prepare his people for the possibility of peace with Israel. Meanwhile, Arab leaders are doing the exact opposite -- which is why some of them are currently being denounced as traitors and pawns in the hands of Israel and the US. It would be wise for President Trump's advisers, if they wish to grasp what is really going on in the Arab world, to listen to the voices of the Arab street.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called David Friedman, the US Ambassador to Israel, a "son of a dog" in a televised speech, on March 19, 2018. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

The US administration is now saying that it will announce its plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the "Deal of the Century," after the April 9 election in Israel . The unseen plan has already been rejected by Palestinian leaders, who continue to denounce it as a "conspiracy aimed at eliminating the Palestinian cause and rights."

In light of the Palestinians' vehement opposition to the "Deal of the Century," it is already clear that the plan will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will hardly accept a plan that he has repeatedly referred to as a US "conspiracy" and the "Slap of the Century." In one of his recent speeches, Abbas said: "We will not accept the 'Deal of the Century' and we will not accept a situation where the US is the sole broker in the peace process."

Abbas has turned US President Donald Trump and his senior advisers into enemies of the Palestinians. Abbas and Palestinian Authority officials have been boycotting the US administration since December 2017, when Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Abbas and his associates have since been using harsh language to condemn Trump's senior advisers, especially US Ambassador David Friedman, and special envoys Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. Abbas himself has called Friedman a "son of a dog." Palestinian officials and media outlets regularly refer to Kushner, Friedman and Greenblatt as "Zionist extremists" and "settlers."

Palestinian leaders have incited their people against the Trump and his advisers to the point where it would be almost impossible for them even to be seen meeting with any US official. In recent months, Abbas has been quoted as saying that he does not intend to end his life as a "traitor." The comment also means that it would also be impossible to accept any peace plan presented by the current administration.

Abbas knows that the American plan will not give him everything he is asking for. He wants, among other things, a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines, including east Jerusalem.

His rivals in Hamas and other Palestinian groups, on the other hand, want to see Israel replaced by an Islamic state, where some Jews may be permitted to live as a minority under Muslim rule.

In short, Hamas rejects Israel's existence on what they claim to be totally Muslim-owned land.

Anyone who thinks that the Palestinians may change their mind about the "Deal of the Century" -- either before or after the Israeli election -- is living in an illusion. There is no reason why Abbas should not be taken seriously when he says he does not intend to end his life as a "traitor." One has to give him credit for at least being honest. He is all too aware that the moment he accepted the "Deal of the Century," he would go down in history and in the eyes of Palestinians -- as well as many Arabs -- as having sold them out, and, of all people, to the "colonizers."

All that is left for the Trump administration to do is to try and persuade the Arab states to abandon the Palestinians and to continue focusing on the regional threat from Iran. If the US completes its pullout from Syria, Iran will successfully complete its long-desired "land-bridge" to the Mediterranean through Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. This encirclement of the area will position Iran, via its proxies, to be the hegemon controlling the region, as it has clearly been trying to bring about. Russia, of course, is standing in the wings, thanks to the gift that then US President Barack Obama handed Putin in 2011 by pulling American troops out of Iraq.

The US could also agree to urging the Arab and Muslim world to continue normalizing its ties with Israel. This mission, though, could easily turn out to be "mission impossible."

Arab foreign ministers who attended the recent US-sponsored conference in Poland on peace and security in the Middle East are now facing strong condemnations from many Arabs. The ministers are being denounced for appearing in public with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the Warsaw summit. They are being accused by Arabs of promoting normalization with the "Zionist enemy."

Earlier this week, Palestinian and Arab activists launched an online campaign, under the title, "Normalization is Treason," to condemn the Arab officials who participated in the Warsaw summit.

Notably, Abbas's Fatah faction and Hamas have joined one another in the campaign against the Arabs who reportedly support normalization with Israel and have begun using the exactly same language to voice their condemnation.

Mahmoud al-Aloul, deputy chairman of Fatah (headed by Abbas), said that Arab normalization with Israel is a "stab in the back of the Palestinians."

PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat also condemned attempts to promote normalization between the Arab states and Israel as a "stab in the back of the Palestinians."

Hamas's military wing, Izaddin al-Qassam, has also endorsed the rhetoric of its political rivals, Aloul and Erekat. Abu Obaidah, a spokesman for Hamas, warned that normalization with Israel is a "stab in the back of the Palestinian resistance. Normalization is a betrayal of the blood of thousands of our martyrs."

While Fatah and Hamas clearly agree that normalization with Israel is a stab in the back, one group of Palestinian Islamic scholars begs to differ. The scholars disagree with the phrase "stab in the back" not because they support peace and normalization with Israel. Instead, these scholars believe that normalization between Arabs and Israel is a "stab in the heart" -- the front, not the back -- of the Palestinians

Under the current circumstances, when Arabs are being widely shamed and condemned for sitting in the same room with an Israeli prime minister, it is hard to see how the Trump administration will be able to convince Arab states and leaders to normalize their relations with Israel. Some of these Arab leaders may be privately telling US administration officials things they like to hear about peace and coexistence with Israel. The very same leaders, however, are fully aware of the opposite sentiments, not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but throughout the Arab world.

For decades now, not only Palestinian leaders but Arab ones as well, have been radicalizing their people against Israel. Using every available platform, including mosques, media outlets and United Nations organizations, these leaders, with the collaboration of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, have demonized Israel. They have poisoned the hearts and minds of their people with the hate that exists towards Israel all over the Arab world. To promote normalization with Israel, a leader must prepare his people for the possibility of peace with Israel. Meanwhile, Arab leaders are doing the exact opposite -- which is why some of them are currently being denounced as traitors and pawns in the hands of Israel and the US. It would be wise for President Trump's advisers, if they wish to grasp what is really going on in the Arab world, to listen to the voices of the Arab street.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13787/palestinians-slap-of-the-century

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



A press blackout on news top FBI lawyer James Baker wanted Hillary Clinton prosecuted - Monica Showalter


by Monica Showalter

Funny how the press doesn't want to report this narrative-changer...

The news is out that then-FBI director James Comey did indeed have some credible prosecutors for Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents during her stint as secretary of state, passing around some of the U.S. government's most secret documents on an illegal private account attached to a server in some guy's bathroom.

"No reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, Comey intoned, who then let the former secretary of state and then-presidential candidate off the hook.

Actually, there was one, at least one, and he was sitting right next to Comey: none other than FBI general counsel James Baker, who admitted in congressional testimony that he did think Clinton's dishonest act merited prosecution.

According to Fox News's Catherine Herridge:
The FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails' contents sent through her private server. And he believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker said high-level officials at the bureau were "arguing about" whether to bring charges against Clinton, "I think, up until the end" — and he initially thought Clinton's behavior was "alarming" and "appalling."
Pursuant to the "statutes that we were considering at the time," Baker told lawmakers, it was "the nature and scope of the classified information that, to me, initially, when I looked at it, I thought these folks should know that this stuff is classified, that it was alarming what they were talking about, especially some of the most highly classified stuff.”
Fox News has confirmed portions of the congressional transcript of Baker's remarks. Baker's testimony was considered credible by those in the room.
Up until now, Comey's "narrative" was that Clinton was "extremely careless" (not even "grossly negligent," which is actionable) and the book was closed on the matter, as Democrats brushed the whole thing off, while hackers and Russians and Chinese and terrorists got to dig into the goodies.

Clinton was supposed to be charged with mishandling classified documents, and she wasn't. 

Only three news sources are reporting this bombshell (I checked Google News, Yahoo! News, and DuckDuckGo): John Solomon of The Hill, Catherine Herridge of Fox News, and Sara Carter, all respectable heavyweights in investigative reporting, and their reports should easily merit news pickups. But the nets are nowhere, the New York Times doesn't think such a revision to its "narrative" is fit to print, and the Washington Post is going to let that one die in darkness.

Shouldn't a story about favoritism be newsworthy?

The implication now is that laws are for little guys, like that Navy sailor who was prosecuted for carelessly taking a "hi, Mom"–type photo onboard a classified ship, but not for Madame Big. One wonders why we have these laws on the books at all anymore with such stunning double standards. Secrets aren't secrets if Hillary Clinton is running things. And the FBI's Comey was clearly rooting (alongside his sidekick, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) for a Hillary victory in 2016, something he was stunned didn't happen after he put his thumb on the scale for her.

And now the whole decision is being exposed as a blatant double standard in law enforcement, except that the press has gone AWOL. It was just that funny-strange craziness in Comey's decision that might have gotten voters to elect Donald Trump president, rather than the Left's claim that Clinton's shadow of prosecution did her in. The new report about Baker's testimony blows that "narrative" to smithereens.

Somehow, that's not news. Perhaps that's because a "narrative" has been set, and the press is all in for following it. That staff revolt you hear about over at CNN regarding the hiring of a former Trump staffer certainly would support it. 

The press's job is not that hard. The nets don't have to even go digging when there are people like Solomon, Herridge, and Carter doing it for them. They just need to tell the truth, wherever that may lead. They aren't doing it. They'd rather the whole problem just go away, and by their ignoring this gargantuan shift to their already set narrative, they're derelict of duty.


Monica Showalter

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/a_press_blackout_on_news_top_fbi_lawyer_james_baker_wanted_hillary_clinton_prosecuted.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Hoda Muthana: Return of ISIS brides unites Left and right in disgust - Taylor Day


by Taylor Day

It turns out that liberals and conservatives both can be relied on to oppose ISIS brides getting a free pass back into the United States.

In recent days, outlets like CNN, ABC, and The New York Times have been running sympathetic stories about Hoda Muthana, a young woman who left her home in Alabama to go join ISIS fighting in Syria. Left-wing media have presented quotes and tidbits about her childhood meant to invoke empathy, but their strategy has failed.

The left and the right have found common ground. Together, opposite ends of the political spectrum are uncomfortable with members of the Islamic State being able to rejoin our communities. Even those who self-identify as "bleeding-heart liberals" find themselves mirroring conservatives as they blast the idea of taking back Muthana and other similar ISIS brides as unacceptable.

Hoda Muthana was one of ISIS's most prominent English-speaking online agitators. The State Department has known about her internet presence since at least 2015, when she tweeted and made calls for ISIS sleeper cells to attack Americans during holidays and to spill American blood. One such tweet read:
Americans wake up! Men and women altogether. You have much to do while you live under our greatest enemy, enough of your sleeping! Go on drivebys, and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriots, Memorial, etc day ... Kill them!
Now with ISIS all but finally defeated and left with no physical territories, Muthana is realizing that her support of the Islamic State has left her stateless. ABC's James Longman did an interview with Hoda Muthana as she held her baby, and while it was an obvious attempt to humanize her, it left viewers even more disturbed.
Muthana: "I went without thinking of the consequences, without thinking twice, really"
Longman: "And what if you had a message for people watching this in America now?"
Muthana: "I wish I could take it completely out of people's memories, really[.] ... I don't want people to picture me with that kind of mentality. I hope America doesn't think I'm a threat to them and I hope they can accept me."
Longman: "Do you think you deserve a punishment for what you did?" Hoda Muthana paused and smiled brightly instead of answering, so James Longman continued, "Because going to join the Islamic State is a crime, right?"
Muthana: "Maybe therapy lessons. Maybe a process to ensure us that we'll never do this again[.] ... Jail time, I don't know if it has that effect on people. Sometimes it has a worse effect on people[.] ... I'm just traumatized from my experience."
Liberal and conservative viewers, and even those not politically invested, responded not just to her word soup, evidencing a refusal to take responsibility for her own participation as she tried to pass it off as normal teenage rebellion, which doesn't deserve judicial punishment, but also commented on her soulless eyes and evil smile.

The liberal media should really stop trying to humanize her, as even their most loyal readers aren't falling for it. While Muthana chalks it up to a teenage mistake, she needs to understand that mistakes have consequences. Leaving America to join a terrorist organization should be a one-way ticket.

Although there were many calls to revoke her U.S. citizenship, claims that she is a valid citizen were challenged by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a statement he released on Wednesday:
Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States. She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States. We continue to strongly advise all U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria.
Britain is dealing with similar circumstances. Shamima Begum, another ISIS bride, fled to Syria to join the terrorist faction, but as their defeat is finalized, she finds herself begging to return to the U.K. The British are equally uncomfortable with the idea of her return to their soil, and measures have been taken to have her citizenship revoked. Begum released a statement to the news, exclaiming, "I wonder why they are doing this to me!" U.K. citizens are wondering whether the terrorists' victims thought the same thing in the last moments before their barbaric executions.

Hopefully, with the Left and right united in their stand, these ISIS brides can get out of our news cycles now and back to the Stone Age, where they belong. Is revoking their citizenship the right move, or is extraditing them back to the U.S. to face due process for their treasonous crimes more fitting? As for me, I'm just thrilled that both sides of the aisle can agree on our mutual enemy.

Connect with Taylor on Facebook and Twitter!


Taylor Day

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/hoda_muthana_return_of_isis_brides_unites_left_and_right_in_disgust.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Saudi acceptance of the "Other" - a change? - Dr. Mordechai Kedar


by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Islam could have created an alternative to tribal culture, but instead, added another barrier to relations with the rest of the world. Has insular Saudi Arabia opened up to the Vatican - and Israel?

Tribal culture, the basis of Middle Eastern sociology, sees the "Other" as someone who belongs to another family, tribe or ethnic group.  That makes him an enemy, either  to keep one's distance from - in the best case - or to fight against in the worst  This is the source of the Middle Eastern tendency to engage in violence in order to solve disagreements.

Islam came to the world in order to create an alternative to  tribal culture and to give believers a basis for connecting groups of converts and turning them into one, united nation.  However, in order to emphasize its uniqueness, Islam treats the "Other" as a heretic and an idol worshiper, someone who is the object of Allah's wrath (read Jews) or someone who has strayed from the right path (read Christians).

Accordingly, Islam not only failed to solve the problem of tribal hatred towards the "Other", it exacerbated and deepened it by means of religion-based hatred for non-Muslims. Today, concerted Saudi efforts to survive Persian hatred are forcing the country to develop relations with Americans  and Israelis, leading Saudi spokespersons to make valiant attempts to prepare the people and to justify relations with those who are the "Other" both tribally and religiously. This is anathema to those who have not yet overcome the way of thinking that posits hostility for the "Other" – and this explains the socio-religious context of an article recently posted by a Saudi writer 

The entire article can be read below, with my comments in parentheses.

Are we able to accept the "Other?"
The discussion last wek regarding Pope Francis' visit to the United Arab Emirates revealed a great deal about the way some Muslims view the "Other" and the "different." The way we view the "Other" is characterized by many contradictions and is often disconnected from reality. In many instances, in the worst case, some of us skew the facts and lie or believe one is allowed to lie to strengthen his point of view and reject others.

It is important to point out that this refers only to some of us, because the silent majority does not necessarily agree with those who filled the traditional social media with protests and and outcries against this visit, opening all kinds of old and new issues, using language that makes one feel that Islam is in imminent danger and that there is no choice but to declare Jihad to protect it.

There is a list of facts that must be stressed as a preface for any discussion of the current situation. 

The first essential fact is that Islam as a faith is very strong and not influenced by contact and dialogue with any other religious group, although "some of us" feel that if a Muslim sees a cross he will immediately convert to Christianity and is even more likely to do so if he visits a church or talks to an observant Christian. 

The truth is that in the few unusual cases In which a Muslim has abandoned Islam and joined another religion, a close examination will reveal that that person suffers a clear defect in his thought processes, because anyone who knows the simplicity of  Islam's portrayal of the connection between man and his Creator, finds it hard to be persuaded by the complexity of other religions, especially those ruled by clergy in so-called religious mantles. 

The second fact is that the Muslims are in a weak cultural state at present. They are still dependent on that Western Christian and Jewish "Other," as well as the Buddhist and Shiinto "Others"in the East, for  their essential needs.  This starts with the clothes on their backs and goes on to the medications with which they are treated, the mobile phones from which they send their tweets, and this means they will continue needing and purchasing knowledge from that "Other" for long decades, from.those whom they don't respect and with whom they avoid any dialogue.

The third fact is the  most important for us here. It is that Islam really is a religion of tolerance., dialogue, and live-and-let-live. If only that group of Muslims would read the life of our revered prophet with a clean conscience, peace and prayers be upon him, they would realize that by recognizing the "Other" and respecting the basic principles of life together with him, they would gain the admiration of the heart (of others) and would succeed in spreading the message of Islam.

The fourth fact that must be stressed is that dialogue with the "Other" does not necessarily result in persuading one another, and that even if the dialogue does take place on that basis, Islam has enough powerful logic and rationality to swing the pendulum its way, on condition that the person taking part in the dialogue is well versed in Islamic tenets.Except that real dialogue is based on the strength of the logic and rationality that preserve life together with all mankind, that puts an end to the suspicions and anger through which the world views Muslims because of the negative behavior of some of them. 

Therefore, the intelligent move, the minimum a believer must do, is to open channels of communication with the Catholic church which has 1.2 billion members around the world, and with the religions that have the most influence – most especially the Vatican – because the Pope, as head of the Catholic Church, has more than 1.2 billion following him all over the world. He has spiritual authority over them despite the spread of atheism and secularism..

The Saudi monarchy began to believe that dialiogue with the Vatican is important.in 1972 when the late king Faisal agreed to allow the Vatican to take part, at the urging of several European intellectuals, in a discussion with his learned religious scholars about Sharia law and  human rights. That year a seminar took place in Riyadh in the month of March with the participation of a group of Islamic scholars, including Mahmad Alkracan and several others.  The seminar ended with a declaration by the head of the European delegation MacBride, who said "From here, and from this Islamic state, we  must announce the existence of human rights, not from other states, because the Islamic scholars must announce these facts to the entire world whose ignorance led ithe enemies of Islam and the Muslims to malign Islam, Muslims and Muslim rule."

In 1974, King Faisal received the messenger sent by Pope Paul VI who brought a letter from the Pope that included an invitation for Saudi researchers to visit the Vatican. This visit did indeed take place, and Sheikh Mahmed Alkracan, then Minister of Justice, was at its head and met the Pope as well as the World Council of Churches.

It goes without saying that King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was the initiator of interfaith dialogue, and the first Saudi king to visit the Vatican and meet Pope Benedict XVI. This and the conference he headed  in Madrid brought about the establishment of an international organization for dialogue based in Vienna.

Last year, King Salman welcomed the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who visited the kingdom by special invitation, and a high level Saudi delegation visited the Vatican in 2017 and presented a letter of appreciation from the kingdom to the Pope for his opinions calling for peace and coexistence and rejecting the connection between religion and terror.

Oddly, we keep repeating the words "Islamic tolerance" but we are apt to fall at the first attempt to act on this tolerance. An imam even publicized a legal decision on live TV and his words are being recycled all over, because he announced that anyone calling for dialogue with either Christians or Jews is one of the "wicked of the earth" and continued by saying that the Jewish and Christian religions are counterfeit religions that are close to idolatry. One must not go near them because that is seen as recognition of what they encompass, while reality is far away from that.

And that is the article written by Saltan Albazai, posted on the London-based Al Hayat newspaper website.  He comments on the history of Saudi relations with the Christian world as proof that Saudi rulers tried to advance the idea of dialogue with the "Other", but he forgets or ignores the fact that it is Wahabee Islam, to which Saudi Arabia belongs, that develops the idea of keeping a large distance from all contact with the Christian "Other" in order to prevent defiling the sons and daughters of Islam.  

Between the lines of Albazai's writing on the "Other," one can discover allusions to the ties Saudi Arabia has with Israel, ties he sees as a positive development. The Saudis are so afraid of the Iranians that the threat facing them serves to connect them to Israel, a country which is a partner to that fear and has its own reasons to be anxioius about Iran. 

Written in Hebrew for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed and Judaism Editor. 


Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23482

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



A Citizen Suing the Department of Justice Needs More than Just a Winning Legal Argument - Sharyl Attkisson


by Sharyl Attkisson

How the deck is stacked against citizens who think the government derives its power from us.

As I fight on with my computer intrusion lawsuit against the U.S. government, it seems to intersect more clearly with current events every day. And it points to an even larger story.

How widespread is improper government surveillance of journalists, politicians and other U.S. citizens in the name of the fight against terrorism? A few of us found out we were targeted only because we were lucky enough to be alerted by inside sources or other unique ways. How many others were targeted, monitored and watched by government officials but still have no idea it happened?


Who is behind the move to use government surveillance tools against innocent Americans? Do some of these officials still work inside the government? Were some of them the very same officials now implicated in alleged surveillance abuses during Campaign 2016?

The Case
In late January, an appeals court heard oral arguments in my federal lawsuit, now entering its fourth year. A panel of three judges will determine what happens next. Here are several possible outcomes:
  1. The judges side with us. They determine that former Attorney General Eric Holder is not entitled to immunity from lawsuits such as mine. They decide that we had adequate time in discovery to learn the identities of the “John Doe” federal agents who conducted the remote computer intrusions and surveillance. The case returns to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where we resume our longstanding attempts to get the Department of Justice to properly respond to document subpoenas, which they have so far failed to do.
  2. The judges side with the Department of Justice. They determine that Holder and other federal officials enjoy immunity from my lawsuit. The judges also decide that the relatively few weeks that we were given the opportunity for discovery was enough time, even though the Department of Justice fought each subpoena and provided no information, documents or interviews. We then approach the U.S. Supreme Court and ask for a review. This requires preparing a special legal petition. We would also prepare summaries for anyone who wishes to offer an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief. Though not a party to the case, such an individual or interested group would help by offering expertise to the court on the issue at hand and its importance to the public.
  3. The judges side with us on some issues and side with the Department of Justice on some issues. Each party then decides whether to appeal and/or proceed in District Court.
Regardless of the outcome, this effort will continue to be very expensive. Well, expensive for me and my family. Not so much for the Justice Department, which gets to use an endless supply of your tax money to fight the lawsuit and obstruct discovery.

This case is further complicated by the fact that the Department of Justice would normally be expected to launch a national security or criminal probe into an unlawful computer intrusion of a journalist. A civil suit wouldn’t be necessary to obtain accountability, it would be handled by government prosecutors. But in this case, the Department of Justice is also “the accused.” And they’ve shown no desire to seriously investigate themselves; quite the opposite. 

When the would-be investigators are the ones who are accused, how does an alleged victim get justice?

The civil suit is a costly alternative. The person filing it is required to self-finance his own pursuit of justice.

The Costs
In my case, not only are there ongoing forensics fees, as we continue to uncover evidence; and not only are there legal fees, even with lawyers providing a generous discount and donating much of their own time; but there are also arcane fees that tell their own outrageous story.

It may be interesting to look at some of the numbers.

For example, when it came time to print our brief to submit to the U.S. Court of Appeals, I figured I could have printed it at home for about a $20 cost in terms of ink and paper. I could have had it printed at a professional printing center for about $40.

But in our legal system, those aren’t options. The procedures require us to have the brief professionally printed and bound in a book format. And only certain companies may be used for this service. 

So how much was it to print the briefing in the required format?

Instead of $20, it was $4,367.70. 

Just to print a brief.

As for attorney’s fees, my appellate attorney was kind enough to offer a deep discount, and his law students generously donated some of their time. But the cost of the work just for the appeal alone — a few months of the four years of legal work to date — totaled over $100,000.

You can see how justice quickly becomes cost-prohibitive and simply out of reach.

When there’s an issue of national importance with broad implications, especially when a journalist is involved, there’s one way to stay in the game in terms of finances: the journalist might be expected to receive legal support from any number of press groups or civil rights organizations. When no such groups step up to help, as is the case with my lawsuit, it’s nearly impossible to pursue a just outcome.

In the big picture, it’s easy to see how the courthouse has grown sadly out of reach to most Americans.

It would be easy to give up. That’s why, I think, the government so often comes out on top, even when it’s arguably done something improper or illegal. Ordinary citizens like us don’t have the millions of dollars it takes to pursue justice against an adversary that has unlimited time and money. They have to give up.

I’m grateful to the constitutional, privacy, civil rights and whistleblower advocates who discovered a few months ago that there were no groups assisting Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI, and started the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to assist with the lawsuit and fight government overreach.

If you wish to contribute to this fund, the GoFundMe page is here.

I’m told it could be months before the appeals court makes its decision.

Now, we wait.


Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative reporter. “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” is broadcast Sundays to 43 million Sinclair TV households on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and Telemundo stations. TV Listings & Times Here; sharylattkisson.com; fullmeasure.news


Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/a_citizen_suing_the_department_of_justice_needs_more_than_just_a_winning_legal_argument.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



IDF soldiers' accounts of Hamas war crimes to be submitted to ICC - Hanan Greenwood, Daniel Siryoti and Nikki Guttman


by Hanan Greenwood, Daniel Siryoti and Nikki Guttman

Jerusalem Institute of Justice to submit 33 accounts of Hamas war crimes to International Criminal Court in attempt to change anti-Israel bias

Thirty-three testimonies of IDF combat soldiers were set to be submitted to the International Criminal Court in The Hague on Thursday as proof that Hamas terrorists carry out war crimes and use Palestinian civilians as human shields.

For months, members of the My Truth organization have collected testimonies from Israeli combat soldiers that paint a shocking picture of Hamas' activities in the Gaza Strip spanning from 2014 - the year when the Palestinian Authority became a party to the ICC's Rome Statute treaty - to 2018, when thousands of Gazans took part in the violent Hamas-organized "marches of return" on the border with Israel.

This will be the first time detailed testimonies from IDF soldiers who served in the field have been submitted to the ICC.

My Truth founder Avichai Shorshon said, "We've decided to move from defense to offense."
Israel Hayom has seen some of the testimonies, which seek to change the court's approach toward Israel.

The soldiers' testimonies describe how Palestinian children are used as human shields and ambulances are used to transport weapons, as well as other war crimes.

One soldier who fought in Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 describes how "while running, I turn around and see a kid, who I believe was around 10 years old, tied up. It looked like the kids completely lacked self-awareness and stood [by] nonchalantly as shells and missiles fell in the background."

The soldier said, "It could be that Hamas tied him up at that spot because there was something very specific in that building."

In another testimony describing an incident that took place during the border protests this past summer, a solider recounts that "a terrorist threw a grenade at our jeep. As soon as he realized he had been seen, he grabbed a child and held on to him tightly, so we wouldn't fire at him."

Attorney Uri Morad, who heads the Jerusalem Institute of Justice's legal department, was preparing to submit the soldiers' accounts. He also plans to submit testimonies that implicate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in crimes against his people, as well as a request to open a criminal investigation into the Palestinian leader for those alleged crimes.

In September, Israel Hayom reported that the JIJ had filed a lawsuit against Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh accusing him of actively exploiting children under 15 for military purposes, using them as child soldiers, encouraging them to commit and assist in carrying out terrorist attacks, and using them as human shields and as military targets.

The testimonies collected from IDF soldiers in recent months are expected to bolster the lawsuit against Haniyeh.

"The International Criminal Court now has a rare opportunity to send the world a message that torture and similar acts are unacceptable," Morad said.


Hanan Greenwood, Daniel Siryoti and Nikki Guttman

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2019/02/21/israeli-group-to-submit-idf-soldiers-testimonies-of-hamas-war-crimes-to-icc/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Government to enforce law penalizing calls to boycott Israel - Ariel Kahana


by Ariel Kahana


Eight years after Knesset passed law penalizing groups who call for the boycott of Israel, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon signs necessary statutes

Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon approved new statutes on Wednesday that will allow the implementation of legislation known as the Boycott Law, which allows the government to sanction entities that call for the boycott of Israel.
The law makes it a civil offense to publicly call for the boycott of Israel and authorizes the Finance Ministry to deny certain tax benefits to individuals or groups who engage in such activity. The ministry can also add them to a special blacklist that would keep them out of the running for government contracts.
The law was passed in 2011, but enforcement has been stalled due to disagreements between the Justice Ministry and the Finance Ministry over how the law should be interpreted and enforced.
The legal wrangling culminated with a compromise agreeement, which Kahlon signed on Wednesday. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee still need to sign off on the statutes.
"I am glad we are finally able to implement the law without delay," Kahlon said on Wednesday. "This sends an important message to those who want to hurt us through an economic boycott."

Ariel Kahana

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2019/02/21/government-to-start-enforcing-law-penalizing-groups-that-call-for-boycott/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Christine Ford, Justin Fairfax and Me - David Horowitz


by David Horowitz

How the progressive blacklist works.





Reprinted from American Thinker. 

When it was reported that the law firm of Ballard Spahr was representing Justin Fairfax, the Virginia Lieutenant Governor accused of raping two women, several bells went off in my head. I knew Ballard Spahr had also represented the serial liar Christine Blasey Ford in her attempt to destroy the reputation and career of Brett Kavanaugh. But I was also familiar with Ballard as the firm that represented the once-liberal organization Common Cause in its attempt to tar me as a “white supremacist” and “sexist,” and destroy my own reputation. This effort was particularly instructive in revealing the dangerous mentality behind the blacklist, and the menace it poses not only to conservatives like myself, but to the future of our democracy.

The episode that put Ballard on my radar was an American Legislative Exchange Commission (ALEC) convention that took place last August in New Orleans. About 1200 state legislators attended. The entire thrust of my speech was that Republicans were too timid in advancing conservative agendas. I urged them to seize the opportunities created by President Trump’s bold and aggressive example.[1] I noted that Republicans had failed to repeal and replace Obamacare though they had been elected to do just that. I also referred to the fact that Republicans controlled 33 legislatures but had done nothing to stop Democrat teacher unions and their members from turning the K-12 schools into indoctrination platforms for leftist agendas. The result, was that, “school curricula have been turned over to racist organizations like Black Lives Matter, and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood [through its front group CAIR].” These were the only references to blacks or Muslims I made in a 20-minute speech, but they were enough for leftists to use them to attack me and damage my hosts.[2]

In addition to my keynote speech, which received a standing ovation from the assembled legislators, I also spoke on a panel on the same subject. In my remarks, I recalled a seminal moment when Trump emerged as a different kind of Republican leader. This took place during the first primary debate, where the very first question was to Trump, and came from Fox anchor Megyn Kelly, who accused him of calling women “fat pigs, dogs and slobs.” Instead of backing away from these remarks, as every other Republican would have attempted to do, Trump immediately replied: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” The reference was to an obese actress with a nasty mouth, who had previously been involved in many ugly public exchanges with Trump.[3] Trump’s answer won me over. He was the first Republican I was aware of who would not be cowed by political correctness and retreat under fire, but instead was ready to fight back.

When the panel invited questions from the audience, a distraught state legislator from Wisconsin named Chris Taylor rose to attack me. “You can’t say that about women,” she commented angrily. “You can’t call women fat pigs.” To which I replied: “Even if they are fat pigs? And with nasty mouths like Rosie O’Donnell? Why do you feel that you are personally implicated by O’Donnell’s behavior or Trump’s remark - or that women as a whole are? Why doesn’t the comment apply just to the individual herself and to specific context of their conflicts?”[4]

I hadn’t realized the questioner was a Democrat, nor did I think about the incident further. But three days later an article appeared on the left-wing site PRWatch.org, called “ALEC in Disarray.” It was written by Taylor and described my panel as “the biggest disaster I have ever seen at an ALEC conference….  One of the key speakers was right-wing provocateur David Horowitz. Horowitz is listed in a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report published by Alternet with the title, 10 of America's Most Dangerous Hatemongers.”[5]

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a $400 million dollar hate machine, which targets conservatives and smears them as hate groups. Its slander, “hatemonger,” proved sufficient – without supporting evidence -- to cost ALEC tens of thousands of dollars in donations over the next two months. Two and a half weeks after my speech, PR Watch announced that a broad coalition of 79 leftist organizations had agreed to join in pressuring ALEC’s corporate donors to withdraw their financial support. At the end of August, the 79 were joined by Common Cause and People for the American Way, once pillars of American liberalism.

Common Cause announced to its members that it had signed on with “more than 70 other … organizations urging some of the largest corporate funders… to cut ties with the organization after ALEC gave hatemonger David Horowitz a platform at their recent conference to spread white supremacist, sexist, and racist ideas.”[6] The letter the coalition sent to ALEC’s corporate donors began:
We write to urge that you cease your association with and stop funding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which recently provided a platform for white supremacist, sexist, and racist rhetoric at their annual meeting…. [No examples were provided-DH] Horowitz’s Freedom Center has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a group “giving anti-Muslim voices and radical ideologies a platform to project hate and misinformation.”[7]
Within a month, Verizon, the largest telecommunications provider in the United States and a sponsor of ALEC for thirty years, told The Intercept that the company was withdrawing its support: “’Our company has no tolerance for racist, white supremacist or sexist comment or ideals,’ Verizon spokesperson Richard Young said.”[8] Verizon’s withdrawal was followed by AT&T’s, whose spokesman, Jim Greer told The Intercept. “We have ended our membership with ALEC and their convention speaker was a key factor in the decision.” Note that AT&T didn’t claim it was anything I actually said that prompted their decision. The Intercept, also reported that Dow Chemical and Honeywell had withdrawn their financial support.[9]

When my lawyers sent a letter to Common Cause demanding a retraction for slandering me as a “white supremacist” and “sexist,” a Ballard Spahr lawyer named Seth D. Berlin replied: “Common Cause declines to do so…. Common Cause’s characterizations of your clients’ ‘ideas’ and ‘rhetoric’ as ‘white supremacist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘sexist’ and the like, are fully protected expressions of its opinion.”

This was true. Since 1964, slandering a public figure – defaming him without evidence - is protected by the Constitution as per a decision of the Supreme Court in NYTimes v. Sullivan.[10] This decision is responsible for the debased state of our current press since it has relieved media institutions of their legal liability for making false and character-damaging statements about public figures they oppose. Slander has consequently – and disastrously -- become the common currency of the Fourth Estate.

I already understood these facts but had asked my lawyer to send the letter anyway, knowing we did not have a legal case. I saw it as an appeal to the conscience of the Common Cause executives to look at what I had actually said and voluntarily take an action that would repair some of the damage they had done to my reputation. What I was not quite prepared for was the cynical leftism of the Ballard lawyer, Seth D. Berlin.

Having noted the law’s failure to protect public figures from unscrupulous attacks, Berlin proceeded, in a wholly gratuitous gesture, to slander me again. His attack showed me how far politically-motivated disrespect for the facts had corrupted even the ranks of professionals: “Even if Common Cause’s characterizations of your clients were somehow deemed to be [actionable], there is overwhelming evidence that they are substantially true, as is clear from Mr. Horowitz’s many speeches and writings….  For example … he (a) denigrated the Black Lives Matter movement, calling it a “racist organization,” (b) referred to “white skin privilege” as a “ludicrous doctrine,” (d) called Roe v. Wade a “travesty of justice,”…. (f) clearly aligned himself with President Trump, who has frequently embraced racist, sexist, homophobic and other bigoted views.”[11]

If supporting President Trump, along with 63 million other Americans, or doubting that “white skin privilege” has a basis in reality, is “overwhelming evidence” of racism, or calling Roe v. Wade a “travesty of justice, along with such prominent pro-abortion liberal jurists as John Hart Ely – who called it “bad law… because it is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be” --  then we are well along the path to a one-party state.[12]

The potency of a discredited blacklist like SPLC’s “Hate Watch” can be attributed first of all to the way the racial politics of the left label every policy dissent – over abortion, affirmative action, immigration, and anti-police vigilante-ism – “racist,” and “sexist.” The vast networks of the left share SPLC’s political agendas and believe in their own righteousness so passionately that they could hardly be less concerned with facts, let alone the rights of those who disagree with them. These networks include ancillary smear sites and blacklists such as Right Wing Watch, Source Watch, Media Matters, Think Progress and others that draw extensively on the slanders provided by SPLC, while adding some of their own. But the slanders are also abetted by journalists too lazy or uninterested to ascertain the facts, and by corporate organizations apprehensive of attacks from the left should they fail to respect its prejudices.

The platform that enables me to participate in the national debate is the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which I created in 1988. In the fall of 2018, one of our donors received the following letter when she tried to get matching funds for her donation from a charity set up for that purpose:
Hi, Anne,
Thank you for reaching out to us about David Horowitz Freedom Center. At this time, the organization that you are interested in supporting is not included in the program because they are on the SPLC watch list. The SPLC is, “Dedicated to reducing prejudice, improving intergroup relations and supporting equitable school experiences for our nation’s children.” Because David Horowitz Freedom Center is on the SPLC watch list, they have been marked as an ineligible organization. More information on the SPLC can be found on their website (www.splcenter.org/) and if you have any questions for us, please let us know.
Cheers,
The letter was signed by the “Goodness Engagement Specialist” of the charity.

At about the same time, Mastercard informed the company that handles the donation website for the Freedom Center that it would no longer honor Mastercard credited donations. Fortunately, the Center’s lawyers were able to get Mastercard to reverse their decision but not before a considerable amount of money was lost.

According to Mastercard, their action was taken in response to a complaint from the website Bloodmoney.org, which was created by Color of Change, an organization that was founded by CNN commentator and Democratic Party leftist, Van Jones. The headlines on the site read: “Who’s Taking Blood Money from Hate Groups? Financial service companies doing business with white supremacists are profiting from hate.” According to Blood Money, as many as “158 funding sources have been removed from white supremacist sites since the beginning of this campaign.”

Breitbart editor Allum Bokhari has called this “financial blacklisting… the most totalitarian form of blacklisting,” and a “terrifying new threat to freedom.” I could not agree more.

Notes:

[2] For documentation see www.stopk12indoctrination.org, a website I am responsible for.
[4] I have had to reconstruct the remarks of Chris Taylor and myself as there is no transcript of the session.
[6] https://www.commoncause.org/resource/coalition-letters-to-alec-corporate-funders-over-david-horowitz-involvement-in-alec/. Again, the text of the speech, containing my unexceptional comments about Black Lives Matter and CAIR’s Islamist propaganda in K-12 schools, can be read here: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271179/why-we-need-convention-states-david-horowitz
[11] Letter dated October 12, 2018 from Seth D. Berlin, Ballard Spahr, LLP, attorney for Common Cause. I have omitted two of Berlin’s slanders because it would be too tedious to correct his gross misrepresentations of the facts in my text. Suffice it to say I am not opposed to gay marriage, as Berlin claims without evidence, and I did not “mock a children’s book for referring to feminism and transgendered individuals.” I objected to a book called A Is For Activist because it was used in K-12 schools to teach kindergarteners and first graders the alphabet, while promoting leftwing agendas. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271179/why-we-need-convention-states-david-horowitz
[12] Yale Law Journal April 1973.


David Horowitz

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272934/christine-ford-justin-fairfax-and-me-david-horowitz

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Turkey: Uniting an "Army of Islam" to Defeat Just One Country - Uzay Bulut


by Uzay Bulut

It is Turkey, not Israel, whose destabilizing foreign policy needs to change.

  • At the conference, Adnan Tanriverdi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's top military advisor, delivered a speech detailing the inner workings of the "Islamic Confederal State" that Tanriverdi's Strategic Research Center for Defenders of Justice (ASSAM) aims to establish with 61 Muslim countries.
  • Judging by an article Tanriverdi penned in 2009, the purpose of this joint Islamic force is to defeat Israel, which "should be made to get engaged [in war] and the length of the war should be extended."
  • Erdogan and his chief military advisor are obviously engaging in projection. It is Turkey that has ethnically cleansed itself of Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians, and that is now targeting Syrian Kurds. It is the Turkish government's continued aggression against various peoples in Israel, Syria, Iraq, Cyprus and other countries that is a threat to world peace; not Israel. It is Turkey, not Israel, whose destabilizing foreign policy needs to change.

In 2016, Necati Yılmaz, an MP from the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), submitted a written parliamentary motion to then-Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım, questioning the activities and international connections of "SADAT International Defense Consultancy," which is headed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's chief military advisor, Adnan Tanriverdi. Pictured: Necati Yılmaz. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Istanbul recently hosted the second "International Islamic Union Congress," sponsored mainly by the Strategic Research Center for Defenders of Justice (ASSAM), which is headed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's chief military advisor, Adnan Tanriverdi, a retired lieutenant general and an Islamist .

At the conference, Tanriverdi delivered a speech detailing the inner workings of the "Islamic Confederal State" that ASSAM aims to establish with 61 Muslim countries. In his address, Tanriverdi said that a "rapid deployment force" should be created. Judging by an article Tanriverdi penned in 2009, the purpose of this joint Islamic force is to defeat Israel, which "should be made to get engaged [in war] and the length of the war should be extended."

"If Israel has to call all of its reserve soldiers to duty," he explained, "there will be no one left at home or in their businesses. It cannot continue like that for a long time."
Tanriverdi also suggested how this could be accomplished:
"The Defense Ministers of Islamic Countries should be invited to an urgent meeting, at which possibilities for 'defense cooperation' should be examined; Turkey, Iran, Syria, the Iraqi Resistance Organization and Palestine should be the core of this cooperation."
Within this context, he said, a "'rapid Deployment Force of Islam,' which will consist of an amphibious brigade, an armored brigade and an aero-landing brigade, should be encouraged."
He went on:
"A peace force of Islamic countries should be deployed in Gaza... International efforts should continue, and the use of military force in Islamic countries should be encouraged. A joint military operation by our ground, naval and air forces should be carried out in the international waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. Aid convoys from Turkey, accompanied by Turkish warplanes, should land at the Gaza port. The resistance movements in Gaza should be supported with anti-tank and low-altitude anti-aircraft weapons.
"An aid fund should be formed by Islamic countries; the monthly budget of the legitimate Palestinian government should be paid from this fund and every adult individual in [the Palestinian territories] should be paid a monthly salary... Egypt should be pressured to open the Rafah border crossing. Syria should be encouraged to enhance its military presence on the Israeli border."
Tanriverdi also claimed that:
"Turkish states, throughout history, prevented 21 crusades through which the West targeted Islam. Turkey did not get involved in the invasions following World War II, the establishment of the State of Israel and the US invasion of Iraq, which we could call the 22nd, 23rd and 24th crusades. It is Turkey's duty to rectify this. Avoiding this responsibility would be contrary to our historic mission, our commitment to the civilization to which we belong and to Turkey's survival."
Tanriverdi's views are the impetus for the founding in 2012 of his company, "SADAT International Defense Consultancy." On its official website, Tanriverdi writes:
"The Turkish Armed Forces give services of training, consultancy and equipment to 22 friendly Turkish and Muslim countries. But it is impossible for them to respond to all the needs of 60 Islamic countries in the defense sector.
"In order to give services in needed fields, to prevent dependence on crusader-minded colonialist countries, to help form an environment of defense industry and defense cooperation among Islamic countries, and to serve the Islamic alliance, SADAT was formed by 23 founding shareholders and with the support of 64 army officers and non-commissioned officers who have successfully served the Turkish armed forces and who are respectful of the religious sensitivities of Islamic countries."
Four years after SADAT's establishment, Necati Yılmaz, an MP from the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), submitted a written parliamentary motion to then-Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım, questioning SADAT's activities and international connections. The motion read, in part:
"SADAT states on its official website that that it tries to 'help establish a military force in the Islamic world that will be self-sufficient.' With what countries does SADAT have connections? Is there any other country to which SADAT gives military and intelligence training? Does it have camps in other countries?
"Is it true that Sadat has connections with al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and ISIS? Is it true that Sadat has trained ISIS militants?"
Yıldırım did not answer the motion during his tenure, but allegations about SADAT's providing military training to jihadist organizations abroad and to some pro-Erdogan groups in "secret military camps" in Turkey have not subsided. Tanriverdi and other SADAT officials have repeatedly denied the accusations, going as far as to sue some newspapers that published pieces repeating them.
In an interview last January with the pro-government newspaper, Habertürk, Tanriverdi called claims about SADAT "slanderous" and "imaginary." Replaying SADAT's "founding objective," he insisted that it "engages with the state organs of friendly nations and provides them with services of corporate consultancy, training and equipment in line with their laws in their own countries."
He continued:
"With very pure and decent feelings, we just want to transfer the experiences of our armed forces to Islamic countries. That is all. We also want the Islamic countries to get united."
He failed, however, to remind readers that SADAT's objective is to unite against the West and Israel. He also omitted comments from his 2009 article entitled "Palestine too should have an army", such as:
"The states whose peoples are Muslim should either protect Palestine with their own armed forces or form a modern armed force for Palestine to deal with Israel."
Although Tanriverdi's dream of an "army of Islam" to fight Israel has yet to be realized, his company, SADAT, seems to be aiding Palestinian-Arab jihadist organizations targeting Israel. In February 2018, for instance, Israel's internal security service, the Shin Bet, said that Hamas was funneling terror funds to the West Bank and Gaza through Turkey. The Shin Bet statement also accused Turkey of aiding Hamas' military build-up via SADAT. Kamil Tekeli, a Turkish law professor who was arrested in Israel in mid-January, told his interrogators that SADAT sends money and arms to Hamas. Tekeli, after being interrogated, was deported back to Turkey, according to the Israeli media. The Turkish Foreign Ministry, however, rejected the Shin Bet's accusations.

Tanriverdi's statements and his company nevertheless appear to reflect Erdogan's worldview.
"We as Turkey and myself -- as long as I am in charge -- can never have a positive view of Israel," Erdogan said in 2014. "The obvious reality is that Israel is the country that threatens peace in the world and in the Middle East."

More recently, on December 15, Erdogan repeated one of many hostile claims he has made over the years -- comparing Israel to the Nazis.

Erdogan and his chief military advisor are obviously engaging in projection. It is Turkey that has ethnically cleansed itself of Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians, that refuses to recognize the religious rights of the Alevi minority and that is now targeting Syrian Kurds. It is the Turkish government's continued aggression against various peoples in Israel, Syria, Iraq, Cyprus and other countries that is a threat to world peace, not Israel. It is Turkey, not Israel, whose destabilizing foreign policy needs to change.


Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute and is currently based in Washington D.C.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13559/turkey-army-of-islam

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter