The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
This was about whether a global sanctions movement against Israel would get a new huge club to wield against the Jewish state.
ISRAEL FOREIGN MINISTRY legal adviser Tal Becker and
British barrister Malcolm Shaw KC, who appeared on behalf of Israel,
attend the International Court of Justice hearing, in The Hague on
Friday.(photo credit: THILO SCHMUELGEN/REUTERS)
For 35 minutes, the International Court of Justice bad-mouthed Israel, but then it surprised the Jewish state by not issuing any practical orders against the IDF.
There was no order to cease the war and there was no order for the IDF to withdraw from Gaza.
The
most troubling practical item in the ruling for Israel is the need to
report back to the ICJ in one month, something which leaves the door
open to a more serious order at that time.
All
of the other measures that the ICJ ordered are items that Israel says
it agrees with in general: don't commit genocide, facilitate
humanitarian aid, preserve evidence for probes of alleged war crimes, and prosecute Israelis who engage in illegal incitement against Palestinians.
To
understand the complex ICJ decision and why this was a big win for
Israel, one needs to understand the difference between declarative and
operative law.
The judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands. (credit: THILO SCHMUELGEN/REUTERS)
Declarative law is basically asking or advising a party to do something but with no teeth.
Only operative law has teeth and punishments.
No definitive action against Israel taken
Israel's
critics hoped there would be an order to end the war and withdraw the
IDF. They had every right to expect such a result after ICJ declared
Israel's West Bank security barrier illegal in 2004 and ordered Israel
to remove it.
This
would have put Israel in the uncomfortable position of either giving up
on its national security to comply or being a public offender of the
ICJ's decisions.
This
would also have put Israel's allies in a much harder position and
possibly led some of them to penalize Israel diplomatically and even
economically.
All of this would have had a real-world impact on Israel and the war effort.
Instead,
the ICJ heavily criticized Israel for killing Palestinian civilians and
causing destruction but avoided any immediate conflagration with
Israel.
The one-month time period could also work with US and EU ally positions that the intensity of the war must wind down.
This would not mean that in one month the IDF withdraws or would stop seeking out terrorists.
But
Israel could at some point declare that the formal war was over, and
that officially IDF activities in Gaza have shifted to more of a law
enforcement paradigm closer to what goes on in the West Bank,
emphasizing arresting terrorists, and firing on them only in
self-defense.
Israel
could also leave exceptions for operations relating to eliminating
Hamas's leaders and rescuing Israeli hostages, but those would be
targeted special operations, not a full-fledged "war."
Another
upshot of the decision could be strengthening Attorney-General Gali
Baharav-Miara's hand to more aggressively prosecute public officials for
incitement against Palestinians.
She
can now clearly say she is doing so both to enforce Israeli law and to
protect the country from a wave of war crimes allegations and boycotts.
Some
Israelis will be furious with the 35 minutes of badmouthing Israel, of
treating biased UN officials as neutral, of ignoring the rocket fire on
Israel after October 7 (the judges did recognize October 7 as a
massacre), of ignoring Israel's massive efforts to evacuate Palestinian
civilians and avoid harming them even at the cost of allowing Hamas
leaders to escape, and of leaving out Hamas's systematic abuse of
hospitals, mosques, schools and all of Gaza as one big human shield.
But that was not what this game was about.
The rhetorical battle was never going to go Israel's way.
This was about whether a global sanctions movement against Israel would get a new huge club to wield against the Jewish state.
And on that issue, Jerusalem just dodged a massive bullet - at least for 30 days.
The Palestinian foreign ministry criticized what it described as an Israeli campaign against UNRWA, and the Hamas terrorist group condemned the termination of employee contracts.
UNRWA truck crosses into Egypt from Gaza at Rafah border crossing, November 27, 2023(photo credit: REUTERS/AMR ABDALLAH DALSH)
Britain, Italy, and Finland on Saturday became the latest countries to pause funding for the United Nations' refugee agency for Palestinians (UNRWA), following allegations that 12 of its staff were involved in the October 7 Hamas massacre in Israel.
The
United States, Australia, and Canada had already paused funding to the
aid agency after Israel said 12 UNRWA employees were involved in the
cross-border attack. The agency has opened an investigation into several
employees who severed ties with them.
The
Palestinian foreign ministry criticized what it described as an Israeli
campaign against UNRWA, and the Hamas terrorist group condemned the
termination of employee contracts "based on information derived from the
Zionist enemy."
The
UK Foreign Office said it was temporarily pausing funding for UNRWA
while the accusations were reviewed and noted London had condemned the
October 7 attacks as heinous terrorism.
"The
Italian government has suspended financing of the UNRWA after the
atrocious attack on Israel on October 7," Foreign Minister Antonio
Tajani said on social media platform X.
Finland also said it suspended funding.
Palestinian at an UNRWA camp in Rafah after heavy rainfall, in the
southern Gaza Strip, on November 14, 2023. (credit: ABED RAHIM
KHATIB/FLASH90)
Palestinian Authority panics over UNRWA defunding
Hussein al-Sheikh,
head of the Palestinians' umbrella political body the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO), said cutting support brought major
political and relief risks.
"We
call on countries that announced the cessation of their support for
UNRWA to immediately reverse their decision," he said on X.
South Africa's ties to Hamas, Iran exposed amid financial troubles, genocide case against Israel
With the International Court of
Justice having ruled Friday on South Africa's accusations that Israel is
committing genocide in Gaza, the case is bringing to light questions
regarding Pretoria's relations with Hamas and Iran, as well as the
country's serious financial troubles and corruption allegations.
The entire country of South Africa struggles with financial
difficulties, with an estimated poverty rate of 62.6% in 2022, according
to the World Bank.
Additionally, due to a lack of maintenance on coal-fired power plants,
residents were left without power for up to 10 hours a day in the first
few months of 2023, according to the U.S. State Department. Rolling blackouts decreased to six hours a day by April, per The Associated Press,
but some U.S. analysts have predicted that South Africa is still at
risk of suffering an energy grid collapse and service failure, including
water treatment.
On Friday, the United Nations’ top court decided to allow the genocide case brought
by South Africa to proceed against Israel for its military actions in
Gaza. The decision in the Hague was made by 17 judges of the
International Court of Justice, who also demanded Israel try to contain
death and damage in the offensive but did not call for a cease-fire.
South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress, has been
plagued by threats of bankruptcy and allegations of corruption for
years. Most recently, the party has turned to crowdfunding in an attempt to stabilize its finances.
Nelson Mandela's ANC is set to face its most competitive election
since apartheid ended in 1994. Surveys suggest that the ANC may, for the
first time ever, receive less than 50% of the national vote in April's
elections, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies.
South Africa's constitution
prohibits "unrehabilitated insolvents," or people who are bankrupt from
running for office, but it is mum on whether a bankrupt party can run
candidates. However, that does not appear to be an issue at this time,
as the ANC said earlier this month that it was able to stabilize its
finances, according to The Sunday Times. It did not give specifics as to how this was accomplished.
The same week that the ANC got its finances in a better state, South
Africa brought the genocide case against Israel in the International
Court of Justice, according to South Africa's Daily Maverick news outlet.
"The South African government is the same thing as Hamas. It's an
Iranian proxy, and its role in the war is to fight the ideological and
ideas war to stigmatize Jews around the world," Cronje during an
interview on Chai FM Radio.
Former Trump deputy national security adviser Victoria Coates told the "Just the News, No Noise"
TV show this week that "one has to at least wonder" whether Iran is
funding the ANC. "This sort of unholy alliance is emerging in a deeply,
deeply dangerous way."
Iran's benefits of a close relationship with South Africa include the
ability of the African nation to provide Tehran with nuclear support,
as the Islamic Republic has been attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
Additionally, the Iran-backed Houthis have been attempting to shut down
shipping in the Red Sea. The alternative shipping route in the region
is South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, so if Iran were to put pressure to
shut it down as well, it would be catastrophic for the global economy,
Coates also said.
Although South Africa's News24 reported
that the Iran funding allegations "don't hold up" because there is "no
substantive proof" for it, the outlet is owned by the holding company
Naspers Limited, which donated at least 3 million rand, or more than
$158,000, to the ANC in 2022 and 2021, according to political finance records.
While ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu told the Maverick that her
party "does declare where its funding is derived" and the idea of
receiving funding from Iran is "preposterous," it is impossible to fully
refute the allegations without accessing the party's balance sheets,
which Just the News has no way of doing.
Regardless, Iran has been bolstering South Africa's economy for years.
Iranian Chamber of Commerce official Mohammadreza Karbasi said
in 2019 that Iran's Foreign Direct Investment in South Africa was more
than $135 billion in South Africa in 2018. Shortly before Karbasi's
announcement, South African Ambassador to Iran Vika Mazwi Khumalo said
his nation is ready to exchange tourists with Iran, per the Mehr News Agency, an outlet affiliated with the Iranian government's Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization.
More recently, Iran and South Africa signed a joint economic cooperation agreement in
August, two months before the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, when terrorists,
led by the Iran-funded Hamas, killed about 1,200 people in Israel and
kidnapped 250 others. The same month as the agreement, Tehran reached a
deal with Pretoria to develop five oil refineries in South Africa,
according to China state-run outlet Xinhua.
As South Africa cozied up to Iran, whose government for years has sought the destruction of what it has called the "Zionist regime," South Africa's tense relations with Israel dramatically worsened after the Oct. 7 attack.
One day after Oct. 7, South Africa blamed Israel,
saying: "The new conflagration has arisen from the continued illegal
occupation of Palestine land, continued settlement expansion,
desecration of the Al Aqsa mosque and Christian holy sites, and ongoing
oppression of the Palestinian people."
During the Oct. 17 call with Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh, Pandor
"reiterated South Africa’s solidarity and support for the people of
Palestine and expressed sadness and regret for the loss of innocent
lives both Palestinians and Israelis" and "discussed how to get the
necessary Humanitarian Aid to Gaza and other parts of the Palestinian
Territories," according to a summary of the conversation published by
the South African government.
The following week, Pandor spent a day in Iran. In Tehran, Pandor met
with Iranian President Ayatollah Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi "to convey a
message" from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, according to the South African government. The exact contents of that message were not disclosed.
South Africa cut ties
with Israel in November over the war, and earlier this month, it
presented its case before the United Nations International Court of
Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
If Iran did donate money to the ANC, it would not be the first time
the party has received contributions from controversial actors.
The ANC received about $1.6 million in monetary and in-kind donations
from 2021 through 2022 from a mining company linked to U.S.-sanctioned
Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. The money came from United Manganese
of Kalahari Ltd, of which Vekselberg owns a significant stake in, per
Cyprus business records cited by CNN.
Although the U.S. Treasury has sanctioned Vekselberg multiple times,
United Manganese has been able to avoid sanctions because he has less
than a 50% stake in the company.
One of the other shareholders in United Manganese is Chancellor House, which admitted
in 2021 to serving as a funding vehicle for the ANC. The Chancellor
House Trust gave more than $1.4 million to the ANC from 2021 through
2023, records show.
Beyond interactions with Iran, the heightened tensions between South Africa and Israel began long before Oct. 7, however.
Israel was one of the earliest countries to criticize
South Africa's apartheid system starting in the 1950s. Following the
Yom Kippur War, Israel developed what journalist Thomas Friedman called a
"realpolitik" attitude towards South Africa in the 1970s, and the two
nations deepened ties
at a time when most African nations severed relations with Israel over
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' oil embargo. Israel
eventually issued sanctions against South Africa in 1987 in response to
its apartheid policies.
However, the countries' relationship greatly changed in the
post-apartheid era, when Nelson Mandela was elected president under the
African National Congress political party.
Mandela had close ties with Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat, who met the South African leader with literal hugs and kisses days after he was released from prison in 1990.
Coates said Mandela "was good friends with Yasser Arafat, and created
this kind of affinity with the Palestinians for South Africa."
The Embassy of South Africa in the U.S. did not respond to Just the
News' request for comment, nor did the Johannesburg-based think tank the
South African Institute of International Affairs or the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace.
Natural gas has also played a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions have fallen steadily in the United States since 2005, a result of the switch from coal-fired electricity generation to natural gas. But the Biden administration is hitting the "pause" button.
The Biden administration is
holding up the approval of natural gas exports in order to do more
analysis on the climate impacts in response to pressure from climate
activists who don’t want the project built at all.
The White House issued a statement
Thursday explaining that President Joe Biden decided to pause approval
of liquefied natural gas exports because of "historic hurricanes and
floods wiping out homes, businesses and houses of worship."
"While MAGA Republicans willfully deny the urgency of the climate
crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future," the
president continued, "my Administration will not be complacent. We will
not cede to special interests."
Officials in the Biden administration, according to TheNew York Times,
have been in fact been meeting with "special interests," namely, the
activists who launched an aggressive social media campaign aimed at
blocking one of the projects, the Calcasieu Pass 2.
The White House, the Times reported, has directed the
Department of Energy to consider the terminal’s impact on climate change
in its review. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizes the
construction of LNG import and export facilities, according to E&E News,
and the DOE approves export licenses that are required to export
natural gas to countries that lack a free-trade agreement with the U.S.
That group includes European countries.
It’s unclear what projects the action will impact, Fox News reports.
One official said it would only impact projects that have gone through
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval process and are
now awaiting export approval from the DOE.
Planned for the Louisiana coast, the project, which is also called
CP2, would have an export capacity of 20 million metric tonnes annually.
The U.S. is currently the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, and
the $10 billion project would increase export capacity by 20%.
Shalylyn Hynes, a spokesperson for the company building the CP2 project, told the Times
that the administration appears to be putting a moratorium on the
entire LNG [liquid natural gas] industry, which she warned would “shock
the global market.”
“As we near the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,
our allies around the world are relying on the benefits of clean,
reliable, and affordable American LNG and are keenly aware of the risks
of relying on our adversaries for energy," said Anne Bradbury, CEO of
the American Exploration & Production Council, a natural gas trade
association group, in a statement emailed to Just The News.
It’s not just industry representatives that are warning that a block
on U.S. LNG exports would have serious consequences for the global
energy market. The Energy Policy Research Foundation
(EPRINC), an independent nonprofit research organization with a focus
on petroleum product markets, warned that since the Russian invasion of
Ukraine, the U.S. has become a primary source of LNG to European allies.
While European countries originally saw U.S. LNG shipments as
temporary, a more pragmatic view in which the shipments are an important
and ongoing energy source for the continent has emerged, the foundation’s president explained in an op-ed in October.
France’s minister delegate for foreign trade told the Wall Street Journal
earlier this month that France will continue to need U.S. LNG. “What’s
certain is that in the current geopolitical environment, we’re counting a
lot on American gas,” the minister said.
“U.S. produced LNG is the single most effective way to reduce overall
global emissions globally. It is a stable, reliable source of energy,
produced in the most environmentally responsible way anywhere on earth.
It is precisely the tool we want to use if we want to preserve
geopolitical stability and support our allies,” Tim Stewart, president
of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, told Just The News.
Despite the impacts of increased use of natural gas on lowering
emissions, many climate activists oppose any use of fossil fuels,
regardless of benefits.
In December, 170 climate activists who research climate change wrote a letter to Biden demanding he stop the CP2 project, arguing it would further climate change. Neither the Post
op-ed or the activists’ letter discussed how Europe should meet its
energy needs without U.S. supplies of LNG or the potential impacts of
energy poverty if those supplies were cut off.
“Rather than unilaterally halting new US LNG export approvals, the
administration should work with industry to grow the global use of US
LNG to make America stronger and the world safer," Bradbury said.
McKibben, a long-time anti-fossil fuel crusader, is organizing three days
of “nonviolent civil disobedience,” starting on Feb. 6, at the
Department of Energy. The protest is aimed at further pushing Biden to
stop approving LNG terminals.
Stewart said that climate groups will try to stop natural gas, even if it means an increase in global emissions.
“Big Green greatly fears the LNG story because it destabilizes their
own business plan, which is based on perpetual crisis-mongering.
Successfully reaching climate goals by natural gas rather than
renewables is a threat to the established narrative and renders Big
Green irrelevant,” Stewart said.
Inconvenient History from the SS Einsatzgruppen to Hamas
The BBC has used UNRWA voices
-- preferably, it seems, antipodean ones -- as purportedly objective
third-party commentators. That is deeply irresponsible journalism, and
the BBC most likely knows why that is so.
Thus, according to the Covenant and echoing the Mufti in 1943...
there is not, and cannot anywhere be a Jewish state in this world. It is
what is written: here we are told that Jews in Palestine are
incompatible with "true statehood" and the Mufti will tell us that it is
Allah's will that Jews shall forever stateless.
It is important to remember that these are thrice legitimate
Jewish lands: once from original patrimony; once by international
mandate and the third time by force of arms after successfully
countering assaults in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Anti-Semitic exceptionalism,
however, means that only the Jewish state is not allowed to enjoy the
peace of victory that winning wars brings to other nations.
Ever since the Abraham Accords, were adopted on 15 September
2020, many regional states have shown that they would prefer to skirt
around the ever-rejectionist "Palestinians" and to normalise relations
with the amazing mighty midget Israel, which is the region's creative
powerhouse in every cultural and technological domain, as well as, by
necessity, its dominant military power. Most significantly that includes
the Saudis, whom Iran's Ayatollahs have declared their sworn enemies.
In his platform speech, [the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin]
al-Husseini responded by stating that Germany "understood the Jews
perfectly and decided to find a final solution to the Jewish menace,"
and... "Allah has determined that there never will be a stable
arrangement for the Jews, and that no state should be established for
them."
Thus, in anti-Semitic ideology... the inconvenient history which
can be traced in evidence from the SS liquidation task forces -- the Einsatzgruppen -- to Hamas, is detailed, documented and direct.
Adolf Hitler meets with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj
Amin al-Husseini, on November 28, 1941. (Image source: German Federal
Archive)
Death, torture, abduction, ending an era in Israel that began in
1948, came literally on the wings of that morning, 7 October, 2023. The
hopes and ambitions for peace springing from Camp David and the Oslo
Accords, all the rational faith in diplomacy through the quadrilles of
the chanceries, were set back to nothing. That realisation is seeping
across the traumatised populace of Israel. Nothing can ever be the same
again.
The phone videos show smiling young people at, ironically, a
Supernova music festival close to the Gaza border, swaying to music in
the desert dawn as specks in the sky grow larger. They materialise as
the first wave of the attack, the terrorists with automatic rifles, in
motorized para-gliders, who start to kill from the sky, soon followed,
through defences breached by bulldozers, by ground assault teams on
motorcycles and in light trucks. They, in turn, were followed by
thousands of men who would murder, rape, torture, burn babes alive,
mutilate and kidnap hostages like Noa Argamani, seized and filmed
pleading for her life on the back of a motorbike driven away by a burly
Gazan.
There is no secret about the regional history, but it is tangled and
too often treated as inconvenient. Customary international law and
written League of Nations texts subsequently incorporated by the United
Nations, hold that Israel, since its re-establishment, has the agreed
right to "defensible borders" and an Article 51 UN Charter sovereign
right of self-defence. The only point under endless contestation is
where those borders should run.
The inter-war litany of letters, conferences, mandates and
commissions of inquiry is as familiar as it is convoluted:
McMahon-Hussein; Sykes-Picot; San Remo, the Balfour Declaration, the
June 1922 White Paper reversed in the July 1922 League of Nations
Mandate to Britain, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, Article 2
instructing the mandate power to bring Balfour's main object of
permitting the re-creation of the Jewish homeland in Palestine into
effect. Then came a further about-face with the Passfield White Paper of
October 1930. Next the Arab Revolt of 1936 brought the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, to the fore as chairman of the Arab
Higher Committee – his only formal role but not his only role in Middle
East history: in his lifetime he never had any substantive claim to
speak for all Arabs.
The 1936 Arab Revolt was ignited by followers of Izz ad-Din
al-Qassam, a Jew-hating Syrian preacher, like-minded with al-Husseini,
whom the British had killed in November 1935. The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam
Brigades of Hamas -- presently led Mohammed Deif, who is listed as a
"specially designated global terrorist" by America -- are named after
him. Another about-face, in reaction to the Revolt, came with the Peel
Commission of 1937, which deemed the Mandate impossible to maintain and
therefore partition essential, but on terms aligned to Balfour. It
indicated the need for expelling Arabs from Jewish lands.
Another Arab revolt, intensified, was examined by the Woodhead
Commission, which once more reversed British support for a Jewish
homeland. The principles of that pro-Arab switch -- inscribed in the May
1939 White Paper and during the Second World War -- brought armed
Zionists into violent conflict with the British. As authorities for the
British Mandate in charge of the area at the time, they strove to
prevent Jewish refugees escaping the Holocaust from reaching or settling
in what was then called Palestine.
Meanwhile, contrarywise, the Palestine Jewish Brigade fought with the
Allies against the Nazis. In this manner, crabwise, by agonized
degrees, the region reached the end of the British Mandate and the
re-establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel, born in war and,
through a sequence of existential wars -- 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 -- plus
many continuous lower-level operations, to today's "Operation Swords of
Iron" in Gaza.
It is no secret that Tehran pulls the strings of its puppets Hamas,
Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Yemenite Houthis, as
demonstrated by the role and death of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
senior adviser General Seyed Razi Mousavi in a pinpoint IAF airstrike in
a Damascus suburb on 25 December 2023. It is also no secret that Arabs
are present within the former British Mandate areas because in 1948
their leaders and spokesmen, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,
rejected the solution of a two-state partition that the newly-minted
"United Nations" offered and which Ben Gurion had been willing to
accept, imperfect as it was in terms of both patrimonial claims and
defensibility.
It is important to remember that these are thrice legitimate Jewish
lands: once from original patrimony; once by international mandate and
the third time by force of arms after successfully countering assaults
in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Anti-Semitic exceptionalism, however, means that
only the Jewish state is not allowed to enjoy the peace of victory that
winning wars brings to other nations.
Hajj Amin al-Husseini rejected this "two-state solution" in 1947. He
preferred to call for "...the destruction of the Jewish element residing
in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power" (not his
words but Hitler's)
to which disobligingly, by force of arms, the Israelis declined to
agree. In consequence, for four generations, those Arabs whose chance
for a flourishing future the Mufti and his colleagues betrayed, have
since been trapped in the grim limbo of the deliberately maintained
pressure-cooker camps of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In UNRWA schools in Gaza,
they are taught the Muslim Brotherhood credo to prefer death by martyrdom over life.
Graduates of those schools most likely include those who committed
the 7 October attacks. The BBC has used UNRWA voices -- preferably, it
seems, antipodean ones -- as purportedly objective third-party
commentators. That is deeply irresponsible journalism, and the BBC most
likely knows why that is so. Sadly, UNRWA is deeply, perhaps
irremediably, prejudiced.
There is also no secret that many regional states have grown tired of
"the Palestinians" -- a name shared with Jews and Christians during the
British Mandate for Palestine until 1948 but now appropriated by Arabs
alone. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will no more accept
Israel's right to exist than do Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya
Sinwar. Not surprisingly, the drafter of the 1964 Palestinian National
Covenant, Ahmed Shukairy, first chairman of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), was an aide to the Grand Mufti, as is obvious from
its uncompromising fundamentalism. Article 20, for instance, states:
"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and
everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims
of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible
with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes
statehood."
Thus, according to the Covenant and echoing the Mufti in 1943, which
we shall come to shortly, there is not, and cannot anywhere be a Jewish
state in this world. It is what is written: here we are told that Jews
in Palestine are incompatible with "true statehood" and the Mufti will
tell us that it is Allah's will that Jews shall forever stateless.
Eternally, the Wandering Jew. Like a dark angel, the double helix always
hovers over the Arab view of this history.
Ever since the Abraham Accords, were adopted on 15 September 2020,
many regional states have shown that they would prefer to skirt around
the ever-rejectionist "Palestinians" and to normalise relations with the
amazing mighty midget Israel, which is the region's creative powerhouse
in every cultural and technological domain, as well as, by necessity,
its dominant military power. Most significantly that includes the
Saudis, whom Iran's Ayatollahs have declared their sworn enemies.
Therefore, if we seek for the proximate geopolitical cause of 7
October we are looking at a salamander deliberately biting its own tail.
It was Iran's intention to smash that rapprochement, if
possible. It may well not be possible. The Abraham Accords were one of
the triumphs of the Trump Administration; and it should not be assumed
that they have been obliterated. For evidence, look only at the arrivals and departure boards
at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport. As Western airlines since 7/10 have
suspended flights to Israel, the same is not true for Etihad from Abu
Dhabi or Emirates from Dubai. Note also Saudi restraint, particularly in
the Red Sea in respect of US and UK warship action against Houthi
missiles and boats, made necessary by epic geopolitical bungling by both
Iran and the Biden administration.
It was President Joe Biden's disastrous incompetence in de-listing
Ansarallah ("the Houthis") from its proscribed status as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization (FTO) and as Specially Designated Global
Terrorists (SDGT) on 12 February 2021, presumably as part of an unwise
attempt to resurrect former President Barack Obama's misconceived 2015
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear diplomacy with Iran's
Ayatollahs, who are a regime with which diplomacy alone cannot be a
viable option. The "Iran deal", as it was called, signalled Western
fecklessness or -- in the hard eyes of Islamists -- weakness. Biden
combined Obama's Iran foolishness with withdrawing armament supplies
from Saudi Arabia, which was seeking to suppress the Houthis. He thus
drove Saudi towards the Chinese Communist Party for supplies. His Red
Sea blunder over the Houthis was a twin to his shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan
which fired the starting gun for Russian President Vladimir Putin's
invasion of Ukraine, China's revived "interest" in Taiwan, and Iran's
increased expansion to create a "Shiite crescent",
a process which had never stopped. Re-proscribing the Houthis now, as
has just happened, is to shut the stable door long after the horse has
bolted.
Hamas, the acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic
Resistance Movement), and Al Qaeda and Islamic State are all the spawn
of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan
al-Banna, an admirer of Hitler. After al-Banna's assassination in 1949,
his successor, the more intellectual and even more remorseless Sayyid Qutb, became the ideologue of the Brotherhood.
Qutb's many works, notably Milestones, described the stark division of the world into the realm of the Muslim righteous and that of unbelief and chaos – jahiliyyah
– of the Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers". His doctrine of
Salafist jihadism was the well-spring for Al Qaeda, for Islamic State
and for the Hamas Charter of 1988 which is uncompromisingly anti-Semitic to its core. Article 7, for example, quotes a Muslim hadith [the acts and sayings of Mohammad]:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems
fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones
and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a
Jew behind me, come and kill him."
As evidence of the fabricated Jewish ambition to occupy all lands from the Nile to the Euphrates, Article 32 cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the most notorious (and faked) anti-Semitic libel that emerged from the disintegration of Tsarist Russia.
Yet in all the intertwined and contested origins story, it is the
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who for present purposes, is our leading
Person of Interest. Hajj Amin al-Husseini was a friend of al-Banna, a
member of the Brotherhood and was, for a period, within its leadership.
He was a practical as well as passionate anti-Semite, an unconditional
supporter of the Third Reich, and also a boastful self-promoter.
During the war, the Mufti and his entourage lived in Berlin in fine
style on an annual budget of 4,993,860 Reichsmarks ($1,997,544 at
prevailing exchange rate). His personal Nazi stipend was 802,200
Reichsmarks ($320,000). Only few foreign supporters of the Third Reich
were so embraced; and the Nazis made a huge investment in him.
Al-Husseini served as a Nazi propagandist. However, Hitler was not naïve
about the Mufti's self-promotion as his conduct towards him showed.
The Mufti went to see Hitler on 28 November 1941 to drink lemonade
(Hitler disliked coffee in his presence) and to congratulate Hitler on
his work in killing Jews. He sought audience to offer material Arab
support to the Nazi war effort -- the invasion of the USSR was reaching
furthest penetration close to Moscow and the Einsatzgruppen (the genocide liquidation squads) were hard at work. According to an official German record of the meeting, he told Hitler that:
"The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they
had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews and
the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany
with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not
only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the
instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an
Arab Legion."
In March 1943, Heinrich Himmler,
commander of the SS, together with a group of Muslims, asked that the
Mufti might assist in raising a Bosnian Muslim SS Division. It was
incorporated into the SS order of battle as the 13th Waffen Mountain
Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). But in the winter of 1941
the Mufti's heart's desire was different.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini,
inspects the Bosnian Muslim 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS
Handschar in November 1943. (Image source: German Federal Archive)
On 28 November, al-Husseini twice requested but did not obtain from
Hitler a "counter Balfour" written declaration, even as a secret
document. Hitler was wary of him. However, Hitler did state
to him verbally, for the record, that once German forces commanded the
Middle East theatre, Germany's objective would be "...solely the
destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the
protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most
authoritative spokesman for the Arab world."
Yet, this was by no means the end of the matter. Others in the Nazi
High Command were more willing to indulge the Mufti and it seems, were
considerable enthusiasts for Islam. Most notable among them was Himmler,
who regarded Islam as a "manly and soldierly" religion. He wrote that
Muslim men would make excellent SS soldiers because Islam "promises them
Heaven if they fight and are killed in action." Therefore, on the 26th
anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, on 2 November 1943, the Nazis
laid on an extravagant, broadcast "protest rally" at the Luftwaffe Hall
in Berlin at which al-Husseini was the star and to which representatives
from across the Muslim world were invited.
The event is described in detail by the historian Dr. Joel Fishman in "Heinrich Himmler's Telegram";
the most sensational news in his article was that on 29 March 2017, the
National Library of Israel had discovered the original of the telegram
which Himmler sent to the Grand Mufti for his rally: a text which
al-Husseini had read out (as has long been known).
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, meets
with Heinrich Himmler, commander of the SS, in 1943. (Image source:
German Federal Archive)
It was the "anti-Balfour" document that al-Husseini had long craved.
In it, Himmler applauded "the firm foundation of the natural alliance
between National-Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving
Muslims of the whole world" and "followed with special sympathy the
struggle of the freedom-loving Arabs, foremost in Palestine, against the
Jewish intruders." He commiserated on the anniversary of the "wretched
Balfour declaration" and extended "heartfelt greetings and wishes for
the successful pursuit of your struggle." The Grand Mufti could hardly
have asked for more.
In his platform speech, al-Husseini responded by stating that Germany
"understood the Jews perfectly and decided to find a final solution to
the Jewish menace, which will contain their mischief in the world..."
and, in another incendiary passage that still burns down the years,
claimed that "Allah has determined that there never will be a stable
arrangement for the Jews, and that no state should be established for
them." This, according to Fishman, is the moment of fusion between
religion and politics that created Islamism.
Thus, in anti-Semitic ideology, in the genocidal anti-Semitic mission
and in studied and consistent inhumanity, the inconvenient history
which can be traced in evidence from the SS liquidation task forces --
the Einsatzgruppen -- to Hamas, is detailed, documented and direct.
Gwythian Prins is Research Professor Emeritus at the
London School of Economics and a past member of the British Chief of the
Defence Staff's Strategy Advisory Panel.
Walker was closely involved with Hunter Biden's initial dealings with CEFC China Energy, the same company that sent millions to the Biden family.
Hunter Biden associate Rob Walker
appeared for a transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee
Friday as the latest witness in the impeachment inquiry and weeks before
Hunter Biden is set to testify.
According to a source familiar with Walker’s testimony, he confirmed
reports that Hunter Biden’s work for the Chinese energy company CEFC
began while Joe Biden was still Vice President, in 2015.
“Today we learned that Joe Biden met with the now-missing Chairman of
CEFC, Ye Jianming, as Hunter Biden and his associates received $3
million from a Chinese entity CEFC controlled. Evidence continues to
reveal the Bidens sold the ‘Biden Brand’ to enrich the Biden family,"
Oversight Chairman James Comer said in a statement released by the
Oversight Committee.
"Today’s interview confirmed Hunter Biden and his associates’ work
with the Chinese government-linked energy company began over a year
before Joe Biden left the vice presidency, but the Bidens and their
associates held off being paid by the Chinese while Joe Biden was in
office," he continued.
"The Chinese company paid Hunter Biden and his associates $3 million
shortly after Joe Biden left office as a ‘thank you’ for the work they
did while Joe Biden was in office. Members of the Biden family received
payments from the Chinese deal even though they did not work on it. This
is the type of swampy influence peddling the American people want us to
end," Comer said.
The relationship between James Biden, Hunter Biden, Ye, and other partners resulted in at least $9 million in payments to Biden-connected companies in 2017 alone after Joe Biden returned to private life.
The payments included a $3 million “thank you” in March 2017, a $5 million loan in August 2017, and a $1 million legal retainer fee
to Hunter Biden from CEFC official Patrick Ho after he was indicted on
bribery charges, according to documents gathered by Congress and federal
prosecutors.
Yet, evidence from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and FBI interviews
with Biden business partners provided to Congress show that the
relationship dates back to at least 2015 and 2016.
One email from Rob Walker to another of Hunter Biden’s business
partners referenced an apparent letter from Hunter to Zang Jianjun, the
executive director of CEFC China Energy, who worked directly for its
founder and Chairman Ye Jianming.
In an interview with the FBI, Walker told investigators that he
recalls two meetings that Vice President Biden had with CEFC officials,
one after leaving office in 2017 and another while he was still in
office. The interview was provided by IRS Whistleblowers Gary Shapley
and Joe Ziegler to the House Ways and Means Committee in their probe of
the IRS and DOJ investigation into Hunter Biden.
“Any times when he was in office or did you hear Hunter say that he
was setting up a meeting with his dad with them (CEFC) while dad was
still in office?” an FBI agent asked Walker.
“Yeah,” Walker responded. After this admission, the investigators
inexplicably changed course and did not follow up on what Walker had
just told them.
Walker’s account matches that of Tony Bobulinski, another Biden
business partner who was involved in the early stages of the CEFC
relationship. Statements that Bobulinski gave the FBI place the first
stages of the relationship in 2015-16 with payments delayed until 2017,
when Joe Biden had left office.
Rob Walker also provided further evidence that Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings were a way to enrich his family members.
According to a source familiar with the testimony, Walker said that
Hunter Biden told him to forward funds from the CEFC to his uncle, James
Biden, and his sister-in-law, Hallie Biden, despite neither of them
working for CEFC with Hunter.
Previously, the Oversight Committee traced funds from CEFC that ultimately ended up in Joe Biden’s bank account through his brother, James.
According to a previous committee memo, Northern International
Capital, a Chinese company connected to CEFC, sent $5 million in August
2017 to Hunter Biden's company. Later that month, Hunter Biden wired
$150,000 to Lion Hall Group, a company owned by Biden's brother, James
Biden, and his sister-in-law Sara Biden, evidence shows.
Days later, Sara Biden took out $50,000 in cash from Lion Hall Group
and then deposited it into her and James Biden's personal account that
same day. The following week, Sara Biden sent a $40,000 check to Joe
Biden marked as a "loan repayment.”
According to a source familiar with the testimony, Walker reportedly
made excuses for Joe Biden’s apparent involvement in the CEFC deal,
despite texts from former business partner Tony Bobulinski that appear
to show otherwise, Just the News has learned.
In his opening statement, Walker reportedly told the committee
that “President Biden - while in office or as a private citizen - was
never involved in any of the business activities we pursued. Any
statement to the contrary is simply false. Hunter made sure there was
always a clear boundary between any business and his father. Always. And
as his partner, I always understood and respected that boundary.”
Yet, text messages provided to the FBI by Tony Bobulinski show that
Hunter Biden invoked his father’s name with his partners on multiple
occasions. One partner even indicated that Hunter Biden may hold an
equity stake for his father in their venture.
In one instance,
Hunter referred to his father as the chairman. “When he said his
chairman he was talking about his dad,” Rob Walker said in a text
message to Bobulinski.
The New York Post also previously reported on an email
where the business partners discussed the corporate structure of their
new venture with CEFC which included a share of the equity held by
Hunter Biden specifically for his father.
“At the moment there s [sic] a provisional agreement that the equity
will be distributed as follows,” the email from partner James Gilliar to
Bobulinski, Biden, and Walker reads.
At the end of the list, the email reads: “10 held by H for the big
guy ?” This email shows that the partners were actively considering Joe
Biden’s involvement in the venture, even if this arrangement was never
consummated.
After initially defying congressional subpoenas, and holding a
photo-op appearance at the Capitol, Hunter Biden ultimately reversed
course and agreed to sit for a transcribed interview with the committees
conducting the impeachment inquiry. The closed-door testimony is
scheduled for February 28.
Biden is expected to be asked questions about the foreign payments to
his family as well as if his father was indeed involved in any of his
deals.
“The Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways
and Means will continue to follow the facts to inform the impeachment
inquiry and legislative solutions. We look forward to releasing the
transcript from today’s interview soon," Comer said in his statement
after Walker's interview.
Rather than enforcing our laws and defending our border, Biden has turned our Border Patrol into an illegal migrant intake operation. Mexican cartels have predictably seized on Biden’s dereliction to traffic millions of humans, deadly drugs, and criminal gang members into the U.S. with documented catastrophic and deadly results.
On his first day in office, Joe Biden signed a so-called proclamation
canceling Trump’s border wall projects on America’s southern border.
The funding for the project was already in place and the materials had
already been purchased.
That
proclamation signaled to the world that, far from performing his sworn
duty to secure our borders, Biden would ensure that America’s border
would be thrown wide-open. Since that day, Biden has illegally “paroled”
an unprecedented six to ten million foreign nationals into the U.S.
Rather
than enforcing our laws and defending our border, Biden has turned our
Border Patrol into an illegal migrant intake operation. Mexican cartels
have predictably seized on Biden’s dereliction to traffic millions of
humans, deadly drugs, and criminal gang members into the U.S. with
documented catastrophic and deadly results.
Last
Tuesday, Biden’s nominee for undersecretary of the Air Force, Melissa
G. Dalton, testified before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. In
her prior role as the Pentagon's top homeland security official, Dalton
had directed the liquidation of Trump’s border wall materials.
To her credit, Ms. Dalton testified truthfully
about this infuriating fiasco and her tale perfectly illustrates
Biden’s criminal negligence and rank incompetence. Her testimony should
be prominently featured in campaign ads against Biden’s ‘reelection’.
Rather
than proceeding with the manifestly needed border wall construction,
Biden’s proclamation resulted in paying hundreds of millions in
liquidated damages to contractors and $130,000 a day to store the
already purchased construction materials.
When
Congress began drafting legislation to force Biden to use the
materials, the Defense Department surreptitiously began auctioning off
the rusting wall segments at 3 cents on the dollar. The steel bollards’
value as scrap metal would have been much higher.
Although
you would never know it if you got your news from the legacy media,
Biden is now sending his Department of Homeland Security to destroy border barriers installed by the State of Texas.
This story could be told in a 60-second ad and should be the centerpiece of Trump’s reelection campaign. Narrated over scenes of the massive invasion at our border, it would perfectly illustrate Biden’s incompetence and utter contempt for America.
Jim Daws is long-time America First activist beginning with work on Pat
Buchanan's presidential campaigns. He's a writer, itinerant talk radio /
podcast host and a former fire battalion chief from Atlanta.
What is happening in Gaza is unique – it is a new form of warfare (urban terrain, extensive Hamas use of human shields, and massive tunnel infrastructure), and still, the ratio is low.
MASTER-SGT. Elkana Vizel is laid to rest on Tuesday at
Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in Jerusalem. He had written to his family
not to be sad and to go on fighting until victory is achieved.(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
‘Approved for publication” – three words in English and two words in
Hebrew that are painfully etched on the hearts of every Israeli. This is
especially true after news broke Tuesday morning about the tragic deaths of 21 IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip the day before.
For 24 hours, Israel was overrun by rumors, but it was only on Tuesday – about 20 hours after the explosion – when the IDF spokesperson released a statement that had finally been “approved for publication.”
In
a country as small as Israel, where so many sons and daughters are
serving in and near Gaza, it is almost impossible to keep such news
under wraps. This is not a war happening thousands of miles away from
home but just a few minutes’ drive from Israeli population centers.
Naturally,
due to the number of dead, the incident grabbed the nation’s attention.
The heart broke from the stories of the men who had sacrificed
themselves to keep us safe. People like Elkana Vizel, a father of four,
who wrote to his family not to be sad and to go on fighting until victory is achieved.
What
was no less shocking was that even after more than 100 days into the
war, Hamas was still capable of carrying out such a successful attack a
mere 600 meters from the border with Israel. This was not an attack that
took place deep in the Gaza Strip. It was right near Israel.
IDF announces the names of 21 soldiers killed in combat, January 23, 2024. (credit: The Jerusalem Post)
This
naturally drew its own questions. First, was how is this even possible?
If Hamas can fire anti-tank missiles so close to the border then what
has Israel been doing for the last 100+ days? Second, why were the
soldiers even inside the homes that they were lining with mines to
destroy? Yes, they needed to be demolished as part of the plan to create
a buffer zone in Gaza, but why did soldiers need to go inside? Why
weren’t the two buildings bombed from the air?
Regarding
the second question, this is being looked into and the IDF said that it
was investigating what exactly happened. Nevertheless, there are
already elements on the Right who are accusing the IDF of being too soft
or caving into some alleged American pressure.
Regarding
the first question – how Hamas can still attack like this – the answer
is unfortunately simpler and does not require a long probe. This is an
asymmetric war against a terrorist organization that is embedded within
the civilian population and makes extensive use of long and
sophisticated tunnel networks. Attacks like this – hopefully without
this number or any casualties – have the potential to continue for years
to come.
What
this specific attack showed though, was just how complex this war has
been from the beginning, despite the declarations from politicians
claiming that Israel was going to “destroy” and “eradicate” Hamas or
bring back the hostages with military operations. Both statements have
been proven wrong and both statements were irresponsible to begin with.
Hamas
will not be destroyed in this war and – in the best-case scenario –
Israel will either succeed in eliminating the Hamas leadership and
bringing down its rule over Gaza or succeed in using military and
diplomatic pressure to force the leaders’ exile abroad.
When
it comes to the hostages, some politicians have finally started saying
publicly have what was known from the beginning – only a deal with Hamas
will bring them back. While the military operation can possibly rescue a
few, in the IDF there has been an understanding for weeks now that it
will not be able to get to them all.
Unfortunately,
Israel does not have leadership that tells it the truth and prefers to
hide behind bombastic declarations that are far from realistic. This has
more to do with their own political future than the war, even if
soldiers – like the 21 killed on Monday – are stuck in the middle.
What
this requires is a need for the leadership to outline the objective and
what the “day after” is going to look like for Gaza, for Israel, and
for the IDF. This is crucial, since only by defining the objective can
you then draw up an action plan.
Instead,
what is happening now is the politicization of the end game. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to the deployment of the
Palestinian Authority in Gaza and a Palestinian state is meant to make
the war and the next election about it as well. Netanyahu will say that
only he can stop the establishment of a state, while his contenders –
whether Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid, or Naftali Bennett – will not be able
to. By doing this, he moves the conversation away from his failures that
led to the massacre of October 7 to a new reason for why he is still
needed.
This
is not the way to conduct a war. Israel needs to have a tough and real
conversation about what is happening and why. The establishment of a
buffer zone in Gaza is another example. The 21 soldiers were killed on
Monday while demolishing two homes that are within the kilometer-wide
zone. Israelis understand why this is needed – a buffer zone can provide
time and warning in case another attack is one day launched – but the
world doesn’t.
Sincere
leadership would explain that Israel is facing no good options – it can
reoccupy Gaza or create the buffer zone. To understand that, the
leadership needs to explain what is happening and why, and not just
declare that we are on a path to victory. After 112 days, Israelis
deserve better.
Explaining the combatant-to-civilian ratio
Another
part of this war that requires explaining is the combatant-to-civilian
death ratio. What we have seen over the last 112 days is unprecedented
in military history.
I’ll
explain: The international media regularly quotes Hamas’s claims that
around 25,000 people have been killed in Gaza. They, of course, do not
differentiate between combatants and civilians.
For
argument’s sake, let’s accept the Hamas numbers for a moment, but if we
do that, we should also accept IDF numbers that the military has killed
around 9,000 combatants (if you accept a terrorist’s numbers please
have the decency to accept the democracy’s claims too).
Based
on those two numbers, the combatant-civilian death ratio in Gaza is
about 1:1.5 and less than 1:2. In other words, for every combatant
killed, around 1.5 civilians are killed.
Every
loss of civilian life is tragic, but with this ratio, not only should
Israel not be accused of genocide (that’s obvious), but actually world
leaders should be applauding the IDF’s precision-strike capabilities.
As
a point of reference, according to the UN, civilians usually make up
around 90% of casualties in war. That’s a 1:9 ratio (one combatant for
every nine civilians).
What
is happening in Gaza is unique – it is a new form of warfare (urban
terrain, extensive Hamas use of human shields, and massive tunnel
infrastructure), and still, the ratio is low. What the IDF is doing will
be studied by other militaries for decades to come. No other military
in the world has ever achieved this.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.
Since the disgraced demise of the 1930’s America First movement and America’s emergence as the leader of the free world, the parties’ pacificist/isolationist wings have carried onward.
Historically, there have long been strains of pacificism and
isolationism in our nation. Even before our nation’s founding,
pacificism was a central tenet of the Quakers, and isolation was urged
in George Washington’s 1796 “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” wherein he warned: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”
While the Quakers’ religious tenet and Washington’s warning have
usually been more honored in the breach, over the ensuing years, there
have been those who adhered to pacifism and/or isolationism in both
parties (against the formation of which Washington also cautioned).
Nonetheless, through all of America’s Wars, there has been opposition to
the conflict, its commencement and/or continuance. For example, in the
20th century, there were pacifist/non-interventionist Democrats, ranging
from opposing entry into both world wars, the anti-war left during the
Vietnam War and the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, and the “No Nukes”
movement. Today, they comprise large segments of the progressive
populist movement. On the other side of the political divide,
pacifist/isolationist Republicans’ opposed entry into World War I and
its Treaty of Versailles and then helped drive the original “America
First” movement of the 1930’s to prevent America’s entry into World War
II. Today, they comprise large swaths of the Republican-Populist and/or
MAGA movements’ neo-isolationist wing, notably the more
Libertarian-oriented members.
To varying degrees, there has been some bipartisan overlap throughout the pacificist/isolationist movements. The aforementioned “America First” movement of the 1930’s
was built upon the ruins of the failed, bipartisan opposition to
American entry into World War I. Despite the times, which witnessed the
rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, both Republicans and Democrats
converged to oppose American intervention in what would be another
European war in roughly twenty years. This bipartisan America First
coalition proved regrettably puissant, preventing a flustered and, at
times, tentative President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration
from being able to fully prepare America to defend itself and our allies
against the Axis powers.
History has shown that the 1930’s America First movement was proven
abjectly wrong in its assessment of world affairs and the requisite U.S.
response to them. It is too easy to broad brush this bipartisan
movement as a gaggle of rubes who foolishly believed our two oceans
would continue to keep the U.S. in splendid isolation from her enemies.
(Regrettably, it is also far too easy for some to forget the rank,
bipartisan antisemitism pervading the movement.) Like their recent
pacifist/isolationist predecessors who opposed entering World War I, the
latter movement had a not irrational basis for its opposition to
entering World War II—at least prior to Imperial Japan’s attack on the
U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Like the English and French policymakers and populations,
the horrific scars of the First World War led Americans to believe only
a homicidal lunatic would start another European war, and their own
fervent hopes to avoid such recrudescence of civilizational suicide
precluded them from recognizing that, in fact, such a homicidal lunatic
was ruling Germany and that an implacable military class bent upon
conquest was the power behind Emperor Hirohito’s throne. Worse, many
Americans who did recognize the threat posed by Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan still believed the U.S. should avoid becoming entangled
in a conflict with either or both nations. Battered by the Great
Depression and still wondering what America’s sacrifice of blood and
treasure had earned in our nation’s first overseas military conflict,
especially given Europe’s determination to renew the slaughter, the
America First movement revivified the earlier pacifist/isolationist
coalition.
Since the disgraced demise of the 1930’s America First movement and
America’s emergence as the leader of the free world, the parties’
pacificist/isolationist wings have carried onward. For instance, the
anti-war movement during Vietnam was in varying degrees pacifist,
isolationist, and immense, but it was largely a coalition built upon the
old center-left and the “new-left” of the Baby Boomers. Support for the
war was largely based on the center-right and the culturally
conservative right, which at the time included conservative southern
“Dixiecrats.” Still, there has since never been a bipartisan
pacifist/isolationist coalition equaling that of its pre-World Wars
predecessors. While one may consider such bipartisanship impossible in
today’s divisive political climate, such a view is mistaken.
In fact, a pacifist/isolationist bipartisan coalition is not only possible; it may already be forming.
An American Greatness contributor, the Hon.
Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) represented Michigan’s 11th
Congressional district from 2003-2012, and served as Chair of the
Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent
public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars; and a Monday
co-host of the “John Batchelor Radio Show,” among sundry media
appearances.
