Egypt Expels Gazans and the World is Silent - Ari Yashar

by Ari Yashar

Tanks, helicopters and soldiers force Gazans to flee their homes before destroying them - buffer zone evacuation meets no criticism.

Arab residents of Gaza were rounded up by armed soldiers and forced to flee their homes, which were promptly exploded in impressive plumes of dust and sand - but the soldiers were Egyptian, and there has been no international criticism of the buffer zone Egypt is establishing by force on the Gaza side of the Sinai border.

In the buffer zone plan, Egypt is seizing and evacuating all homes and farmland up to 500 meters (over 1,640 feet) into Gaza, all along the 13 kilometer (over eight mile) border. Additionally, a channel with a depth and width of 20 meters (over 65 feet) will be dug along the Gaza border.

The expulsion is in fact being sped up, after the Egyptian army said Saturday night it discovered hundreds more smuggling tunnels into Sinai from satellite imagery, reports the Arabic-language Sky News as cited by Yedioth Aharonoth.

As of last week, 200 families living in the buffer zone area defined by Egypt had accepted a financial package to compensate their abandonment of their homes, but 680 more families were still refusing.

Video uploaded on Saturday shows the expulsion in full steam, as Egyptian tanks and helicopters can be seen over a Gazan town. Armed soldiers go house-by-house and residents flee with all of their belongings loaded into cars, before cranes knock down their homes and explosions rend the air.

The Egyptian move follows two lethal terror attacks two weeks ago on Friday, in which at least 31 Egyptian soldiers were killed in El-Arish in the Sinai by a suicide bombing and a shooting attack.

Egyptian sources revealed last week that Hamas terrorists had provided the weapons for the attack through one of its smuggling tunnels under the border to Sinai; the attacks were conducted by Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis jihadists, members of a group sympathetic to Islamic State (ISIS).

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi justified the expulsion by citing the attacks, which led him to declare Sinai in a state of emergency, and insisting "Egypt is fighting a war of existence."

Despite the fact that Hamas terrorists aim to destroy Israel, IDF actions to defend Israel from attack such as in the recent counter-terror operation have been met with a tidal wave of international criticism - the Egyptian expulsion of Gaza has been met with no such condemnation so far.

Egypt has been cracking down on Hamas, in recent months banning the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot and implementing a siege on Gaza.

While Egypt has deployed troops to the Sinai to fight the rampant jihadist terrorism in the region in coordination with Israel, concerns remain that the Egyptian disarmament of the peninsula as part of its peace agreement with Israel may be in danger of collapsing altogether, posing a potential military threat to Israel.


Ari Yashar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186880#.VFVWNBYYjLM

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

Erdogan's Book of Defeat - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

In the entire Middle East, Turkey now has only two allies: Qatar, which looks more like a rich, family-owned gas station than a state; and Hamas, a terrorist organization.
Tunisia was the final chapter in Erdogan's book of defeat. Neo-Ottomanism was a childish dream. It is, now, a "sealed" childish dream.

Shortly after the Arab Spring rocked several capitals in the Middle East, the Turks devised a plan that would enable their country to emerge as the new Ottoman Empire. While deliberately and systematically antagonizing Israel, Ankara would: replace the Shia-controlled Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad with a Turkey-friendly Sunni ruler; support the Sunni in Iraq and Lebanon and boost their political influence; support Hamas in the Palestinian territories and provoke it to violence against Israel; and make sure that the Muslim Brotherhood or their various brethren rule Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Saudis were already "our Muslim brothers." Eventually, all former Ottoman lands would produce governments subservient to the emerging Turkish Empire.

Nearly four years later, Syria's Assad is comfortably sitting in his presidential palace in Damascus and possibly laughing at the mess the Turks created by supporting Syria's jihadists. These jihadists have only wreaked havoc along Turkey's nearly 900-mile-long borders with both Syria and Iraq.

The Shia in Iraq are as powerful as before, and remain obedient to Turkey's regional sectarian rival, Iran.

The Shia in Lebanon -- where Turks are a high-value currency on the hostage market -- are increasingly hostile to Turkey.

No one knows who rules Libya after the downfall of Colonel Qaddafi, but none of the warring factions want any Turks meddling in the former Ottoman colony.

Meanwhile, a coup in July 2013 toppled the Turks' most-trusted regional ally, Egypt's then president, Mohamed Morsi. Today, not only the Turks but also Turkish products -- including even soap operas -- are unwanted in Egypt.

'Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy...' Pictured above: Egypt's then President Mohamed Morsi (left) poses with Turkey's then Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before Morsi was overthrown and jailed.

With the downfall -- ironically, instead of Assad -- of their Islamist allies in the region, the Turks recently discreetly moved to win back Egypt, the most populous Muslim nation in the region.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu asked to meet with his Egyptian counterpart, Sameh Hassan Shorky Selim, on the sidelines of the UN summit in September. The Egyptian minister abruptly cancelled the meeting, citing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's "insulting words about [Egyptian] President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi." A statement from the Egyptian foreign ministry called Erdogan's words "lies and fabrication."

More recently, Cairo announced that it would not renew a three-year transit trade agreement with Turkey. The decision indicates a further worsening of bilateral ties, which had been downgraded, as in the instance of Israel, to the level of chargé d'affaires. The transit trade agreement, signed in 2012 when Morsi was in power, had facilitated Turkish exports to African nations and the Gulf through Egypt's mainland, via Egyptian ports. Turkish companies previously sent their cargo to Gulf and African customers through Syria, when relations with Syria were normal. After Erdogan chose cold war with Syria, the Syrian route was closed to the Turks. The Turks then signed the transit deal with Egypt to use their ports and mainland as the alternative route. Now that Egypt will terminate this agreement, Turkish companies will be deprived of an easy route to Gulf and African customers.

Ironically, only six weeks before General al-Sisi ousted Egypt's Islamist President Morsi, Turkey had granted Egypt a $250 million loan to finance Turkish-Egyptian joint defense projects. The loan, the first of its kind, was intended to boost defense cooperation and Turkish exports of defense equipment to Egypt. At that time, Turkey was hoping to sell Egypt scores of Turkish-made drones, tactical naval boats and helicopters.

Egypt's hostile move was a "shock" to Ankara, but only to Ankara. "Apparently everyone dealing with the Egyptians knew this was coming, except the Turks," said one EU ambassador in Ankara.

It was not a secret that Egypt and the Turks' "Muslim brothers, Saudi Arabia" aggressively lobbied against Turkey's failed bid in September to win the seat of the non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The EU ambassador said: "There may be further Egyptian moves to retaliate against Turkish hostilities. After Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Israel, Turkey has completely lost Egypt."

That mishap left Turkey's Islamists with one ideological ally in the former Ottoman lands: Tunisia, where the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Ennahda party was in a coalition government -- until this past weekend.

Ennahda, the first Islamist movement to secure power after the 2011 Arab Spring revolts, conceded defeat in elections that are expected to make its main secular rival, Nidaa Tounes party, the strongest force in parliament.

This defeat is a huge setback for Erdogan's Tunisian ideological allies, who had headed a coalition government with two non-religious partners for more than two years.

Tunisia was the final chapter in Erdogan's book of defeat. Neo-Ottomanism was a childish dream. It is, now, a "sealed" childish dream.

In the entire Middle East, Turkey now has only two allies: Qatar, which looks more like a rich, family-owned gas station than a state; and Hamas, a terrorist organization. But Turkey has a rich menu of hostilities: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, (discreetly) Jordan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, (as always) Cyprus, (now) Tunisia, (also discreetly) Morocco and Algeria, and (most warring factions of) Libya.

In an April 2012 speech, then Foreign Minister Davutoglu defined Turkey's policy goal as: "On the historic march of our holy nation, the AK Party signals the birth of a global power and the mission for a new world order. This is the centenary of our exit from the Middle East... whatever we lost between 1911 and 1923, whatever lands we withdrew from, from 2011 to 2023 we shall once again meet our brothers in those lands. This is a ... historic mission."

That was a not-so-covert message of a strategic goal of reviving the Empire. Only nine years before the deadline to "meet our brothers" and the birth of Turkey as "a global power with a mission to build a new world order," Turkey looks rather dramatically isolated.


Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4830/erdogan-book-of-defeat

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

A Heartbroken Turk Belly-Dancing to Persian Santouri - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (right) with then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2010.

Everything [should] have come up roses between Ankara and Tehran. Certain things did come up roses. Trade, of both the conventional and shady varieties, actually did prosper. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, while he was still the prime minister, said he felt that Tehran was his second home. He smiled and felt proud when former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised his good friend Mr. Erdoğan "for his clear stance against the Zionist regime." The "Passage to Persia" was in perfect progress.

But this column also noted times of less optimism: "Mr. Erdoğan and his men, for the Shiite mullahs in Tehran, are too Western, too little Muslim, too Sunni and too shrewd; they are probably a modern-day Trojan Horse in the eyes of their Shiite neighbors. And Mr. Ahmadinejad's Iran, for the Sunni mullahs in Ankara, is too Shiite, discreetly too hostile/rival, too ambitious and possibly too unreliable," (Apr. 7, 2011).

A year-and-a-half before a coup against the Muslim Brothers in Cairo made Egypt Turkey's new regional nemesis, this column also predicted that

"Mr. [then-Foreign Minister Ahmet] Davutoğlu and his briefcase full of neo-Ottoman ambitions are simply not so wanted in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus or in influential office rooms in Beirut. Soon they will be unwanted in Egypt and Libya, too … Ankara naively thinks that it can win hearts and minds in Tehran by opposing the [Western] sanctions … Professor Davutoğlu may confidently believe that his powers of persuasion work more than perfectly in Tehran and Cairo – like they more than perfectly worked in Damascus and Beirut … After the usual smiles, exchange of pleasantries and good wishes in his January visit to Tehran, [Davutoğlu] said 'the rise of a Shiite Crescent could turn into an opportunity if Turkey and Iran enhance their dialogue,' inspiring 'Turkish belly-dancing to Persian santouri,'" (Jan. 11, 2012).

And part II of "Turkish belly-dancing to Persian santouri" provided an unwilling prologue almost three years before President Erdoğan put it in different wording: "Just like it took Ankara several years to find out that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a ruthless dictator, it has taken the Turkish foreign policy wizards even longer to see that their childish Iran policy could only cause thunder-like laughter in Tehran."

Put in Mr. Erdoğan's heartbroken wording over the weekend: "We cannot comfortably work with Iran. They highlight a sectarian approach too much. I have repeatedly told prominent Iranians: Let's put aside the Alevi-Sunni [divide]. Before everything, we are Muslims. Let's view this matter [Syria] like Muslims. When we have bilateral meetings with them, they tell us 'Let's resolve this matter together.' When it comes to taking steps [for a solution], they unfortunately have working methods that are particular to them. This is, of course, very sad."

Is it really very sad, Mr. President? Are you so awfully shocked? You expected that the Iranians would belly-dance to the Turkish saz, while in fact over the past few years it has been Turkish belly-dancing to the Persian santouri.

It's the same Turkish malady: Let's have a (Sunni) Islamic approach to all things Middle Eastern. Unless, of course, we are in trouble and call for reinforcements from the Christian world.

The Turks are smart. They finally discovered that the "Iranians highlight a sectarian approach too much." Sadly, they are not yet smart enough to see that the Iranians are smart enough to see that the Turks, too, highlight a sectarian approach too much and childishly think that the badly unconvincing "let's-sort-this-out-like-Muslims-would" rhetoric could only cause further loud laughter in Tehran.

It's the same Turkish malady: Let's have a (Sunni) Islamic approach to all things Middle Eastern. Unless, of course, we are in trouble and call for reinforcements from the Christian world. It is indeed very sad, Mr. President. Not just that the mullahs in Tehran must be privately laughing at you and refuse to buy your rhetoric, but that you still believe you can cunningly impose a Sunni supremacist worldview in this very complex part of the world.

But fortunately the game of pretension between the neo-Ottomans and neo-Safavids goes on. Just a couple of days ago, Iran's ambassador to Ankara, Alireza Bigdeli said "There are close personal relations between the leaders of the two countries [Iran and Turkey]." Is that not lovely?


Burak Bekdil is a columnist for the Istanbul-based daily Hürriyet and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. 

Source: http://www.meforum.org/4875/a-heartbroken-turk-belly-dancing-to-persian

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

MESA and IIIT: Islamists Infiltrating Academia - Cinnamon Stillwell

by Cinnamon Stillwell

The field of Middle East studies has a troublesome penchant for partnering with Islamist organizations. Case in point: The 2014 annual conference of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) will host an International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) reception at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC on November 23.

The true nature of IIIT, a Virginia-based think tank, was revealed during the 2007 U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, which unearthed a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum naming IIIT as one of the likeminded organizations in the U.S dedicated to a “grand jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” so that “God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” Middle East studies professors have long shared the podium with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), another Islamist outfit linked by the United States government to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As far back as 1988, an FBI investigation exposed IIIT’s goal to “get inside . . .  American universities” for the larger purpose of instituting “the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” Clearly, IIIT is making headway. Consider the following:

IIIT has on ongoing relationship with Hartford Seminary, including a $1 million donation in 2013 to endow a faculty chair in Islamic chaplaincy. According to one M.A. graduate, its Islamic studies program has been “an institution promoting Islamization” for the better part of a decade. Ingrid Mattson, the previous director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Harford, is also former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA.

In 2011, IIIT contributed approximately half of a $2 million endowment for a new chair in Islamic studies at Huron University College in Ontario, Canada. Soon after, Ingrid Mattson was appointed as the first London and Windsor Community Chair in Islamic Studies at its Faculty of Theology.

IIIT donated $1.5 million to George Mason University in 2008 to establish an endowed chair in Islamic studies at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

In 2008, Temple University declined a $1.5 million gift from IIIT to endow a chair in Islamic studies, citing ongoing federal investigation of IIIT’s possible involvement in funding for Palestinian terrorists. Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, a cofounder and former president of the IIIT, had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sami al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor and North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). IIIT was the primary funder of Al-Arian’s think tank and PIJ front, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise.

In addition to the aforementioned gifts to George Mason University and Huron University College, IIIT has entered into a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Nazareth College in New York and a “Memorandum of Agreement” with Shenandoah University in Virginia. At the latter, Daoud Nassimi, chosen by the IIIT-run Fairfax Institute, taught a spring 2014 class on Islamic civilization with a Shenandoah professor.

IIIT’s Council of Scholars includes Middle East studies professors who have acted as apologists for Islamism, such as Sherman (Abdul Hakeem) Jackson (University of Southern California), Muqtedar Khan (University of Delaware), and the above mentioned Ingrid Mattson (Huron University College).  

Over the years, IIIT has organized numerous lectures, conferences, and seminars involving equally problematic Middle East studies professors, such as founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University John Esposito; ACMCU Islamic studies professor John Voll; Ibn Khaldun chair of Islamic studies at American University Akbar Ahmed; and Duke University William and Bettye Martin Musham Director of Islamic Studies Omid Safi. Such professors teach Islamic studies courses in IIIT’s annual Summer Students Series and participate in its Summer Institute for Scholars.

In order to achieve its objective of producing “intellectuals who can relate their Islam to modern day challenges,” IIIT pledges at its website to participate in “teaching, training of teachers, [and the] publication of text books”;  “directing research and studies to develop Islamic thought”; “supporting researchers and scholars in universities and research centers;” and “holding specialized scholarly, intellectual and cultural conferences, seminars and study circles.”

MESA is helping IIIT achieve its goals by including it in its 2014 annual conference and by the years-long participation of its scholars in the Islamist group’s activities. This close relationship demonstrates either appalling ignorance on the part of the Middle East studies establishment or, worse, sympathy with the IIIT’s anti-Western, anti-democratic philosophy. Perhaps George Washington University professor and MESA president Nathan J. Brown can explain to the public why the organization he leads is lending a platform to a radical Islamist organization.


Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/mesa_and_iiit_islamists_infiltrating_academia.html

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

Christian priest to UN: “Israel only Mideast country not persecuting Christians” - UN Watch

by UN Watch







Mr. President, I am speaking to you on behalf of UN Watch.

Standing before you is Father Gabriel Naddaf, a Christian citizen from Nazareth, the city in which Christ was raised and where he proselytized.

Dear Sirs, while I stand before you today, the earth of the Middle East is soaked with the blood of Christians being killed daily.

Do you know that at the start of the 20^th century, Christians comprised 20% of the population of the Middle East?


Today they comprise only 4%.

Do you know that over the past years some 100,000 Christians have been killed annually? And why? Not for a crime they’ve committed, but only for believing in Christ.

In Iraq alone, more than 77% of the Christians have fled during the year 2000, in addition to thousands killed and expelled.

Some 2 million Christians lived in Syria, but today, they are less than 250,000.

Christians in these countries are treated as second-class citizens; facing racial, religious, economic and social discrimination.

Why is this happening? Only due to their religion, a religion that advocates love and peace between mankind.

Christians in the Middle East are marginalized; their rights denied, their property stolen, their honor violated, their men killed, and their children displaced.

Where will they go? Who will defend them? And who will guard their property?

If we look at the Middle East, Mr. President, we realize there’s only one safe place where Christians are not persecuted.

One place where they are protected, enjoying freedom of worship and expression, living in peace and not subjected to killing and genocide.

It is Israel, the country I live in. The Jewish state is the only safe place where the Christians of the Holy Land live in safety.

Christians and Jews live in Israel not only because Christ was originally Jewish, born in Jewish Bethlehem, but because they share a common destiny, and a true hope to coexist in peace.

Does the world acknowledge Israel for protecting its Christians? Many in the international community have chosen to criticize Israel.

This, in my mind, is a double crime: because by doing so, the international community helps those striving to annihilate the Jews, the Christians, the Druze and the Yazidis for political ends.

By doing so, the international community unfortunately contributes to exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.

It causes Christians to leave the land of Christ searching for a safe haven across the world.

It is time for the world to awaken and realize the truth of those striving to destroy the Jewish state.

They are hastening the death sentence of Christians in the Middle East and the Holy Land, the land which witnessed the birth and life of our Lord Jesus Christ. If they leave, who will remain in it?

I, Father Gabrial Naddaf of Nazareth, stand before you and plead: O world leaders and supporters of peace, stop those who want to destroy the only free Jewish state in the region.

It is the only refuge welcoming and protecting all of its citizens. It is the only place that does not attempt to push out Christians, forcing them to leave their land in search of security.

I implore you from the bottom of my heart to hear the cry of the Christians of the Middle East before it is too late, and you may read about them only in the history books.

Thank you, Mr. President.


UN Watch

Source: http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/10/29/christian-priest-to-un-israel-only-mideast-country-not-persecuting-christians/

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

Obama Seeks Confrontation with Israel - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the intensifying global pressures on Israel is to firmly reject any further territorial withdrawals that would put Israel’s security at risk, stating that “Israel will not lose hope for peace, but neither will it cling to false hope.”

He was also forthright about his intention to continue residential construction in Jerusalem, noting that “all previous Israeli governments have done so. … It is also clear to the Palestinians that these territories will remain within Israel’s borders in any deal.”

The Obama administration’s response to Israel’s confirmation that it would continue to create homes in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem was vindictive, brutal and in stark contrast to its deafening silence in relation to Palestinian incitement.

The State Department went so far as to accuse Israel of acting “illegally,” and in a manner “incompatible with the pursuit of peace”.

In an interview with American journalist Jeffery Goldberg published in The Atlantic, a senior US official referred to Prime Minister Netanyahu as “chickenshit” and described him as “the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most”. More than Assad, Erdogan, the Iranian Ayatollah and Putin the ‘peace loving’ Abbas?

The curtain drop to the administration’s malice was displayed last week in the Ya’alon imbroglio. In a private conversation earlier this year, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon disparaged Secretary of State John Kerry’s behavior in relation to the peace process as “obsessive” and “messianic.” He made his remarks when Kerry was repeatedly making provocative statements against Israel and then retracting them.

As defense minister, Ya’alon is limited in what he can say publicly and the fact that he spoke off-record is irrelevant if he was subsequently quoted. But he apologized and reiterated the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Nevertheless, the White House inflated his unofficial remark totally out of proportion.

To invoke such a vendetta against the defense minister of its most important regional ally, months after the event, exposes the pettiness of the Obama administration. That Ya’alon was denied access to Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice is problematic. But that this was leaked by State Department sources at the end of his visit was odious. To make matters even worse, the information was leaked to the Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, whose publisher is engaged in a long-standing crusade to demonize Netanyahu and his government and which was the source that had initially released Ya’alon’s off-the-record comments.

Clearly, the White House regarded this as an opportunity to undermine not only Ya’alon’s standing, but the entire Netanyahu government.

This is just the latest in a series of vindictive incidents by the Obama administration because Israel has dared to reject its diktats. Nothing illustrates President Barack Obama’s contemptuous attitude toward Israel more than his directive to withhold arms to Israel during wartime because Israel had rejected Kerry’s initiative to engage Qatar as the mediator to end the Gaza hostilities.

As virtually every foreign policy initiative by Obama has proven to be disastrous, his recommendations or directives must be viewed with skepticism. After all, it is we who will have to live with the consequences.

This administration adamantly insists that the Israel-Palestine status quo is untenable. Yet it remains silent as Hamas boasts of efforts to restore its terror tunnel network; barely reacts to the mayhem in Syria and Iraq where close to a quarter million people have been butchered; ignores the Qatari funding of Hamas and other terrorist entities including the Islamic State; fails to castigate Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for enabling jihadists to traverse Turkey’s territory in order to fight in Syria, while standing by and allowing the massacre of the Kurds on his border.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas humiliated the U.S. administration by merging with Hamas without prior consultation. But the U.S. failed to criticize this move, has not responded to Abbas’ policy of ethnic cleansing by making any future Palestinian state Judenrein, nor condemned him for executing any Palestinian found selling land to an Israeli. The U.S. did not reprimand him for failing to denounce the act of terror in which a baby and a young woman were killed last week in Jerusalem. Yet when an Arab teenager was shot to death while hurling potentially lethal Molotov cocktails at Israeli automobiles, the U.S. immediately conveyed its condolences to the family and urged Israelis to initiate an investigation.

Israel, the principal regional ally of the U.S., is the only country consistently facing criticism and has become the punching bag for the inept Obama administration, even being denunciated for opposing a nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Only recently, Kerry again conveyed to an Arab audience the absurd allegation that the Arab-Israel conflict fanned ISIS and Islamic extremism. Yet the U.S. assiduously avoids condemning or responding to rogue states guilty of criminal bloodletting, out of fear of being further humiliated and exposed as lacking leadership.

It should be noted that there is a broad consensus throughout Israel that the government is justified in resisting efforts by the U.S. and others to restrict construction in its capital Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs – which were never challenged prior to the Obama administration.

There are those who question the wisdom of such an announcement at this time, but if there is one issue for which we should stand united and maintain our rights, it is construction in Jerusalem, whose development must not be dependent on endorsement from other countries.

The administration’s efforts to demean Israel’s leaders have always been counterproductive. Despite the initial media frenzy, Israelis have in such circumstances responded by rallying in support of their government. And yet, now when the house of Israel should display unity, some of our politicians are behaving irresponsibly.

Finance Minister Yair Lapid’s and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni public response to the recent pathetic and mean attempt to humiliate Ya’alon implying that the fault for the breakdown in relations rests with Israel rather than with a bumbling and spiteful U.S. administration were highly inappropriate. They promote chaos and bring shame upon themselves and the government they purport to represent, conveying the mistaken impression that Israel suffers from battered wife syndrome.

It is also regrettable that, in the face of a vindictive U.S. administration, Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog, failed to suspend political infighting and accused Netanyahu of being “personally responsible for the destruction of relations with the U.S.” He could have gained respect by stating unequivocally that there cannot be any limits on construction in the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem.

Yes, there is constant tension and endless recriminations bouncing between the U.S. administration and Israel. And according to Goldberg, there is now even the threat that the US “may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations”.

The government has made every effort to avoid aggravating the situation but Israel is a sovereign democratic nation and there are occasions when it must reject unrealistic or dangerous demands from the U.S.

Netanyahu should be commended for his extraordinary diplomatic balancing act in withstanding the unreasonable pressure from Obama and Kerry, avoiding outright confrontations and in so doing, retaining the support of American public opinion and Congress.

Israel is a small country and its people are aware that the U.S. is crucial to their survival. But does that oblige us to forfeit our self-respect or sovereignty and fawn toward an administration that repeatedly displays its contempt and humiliates us?

We should display unity by supporting our prime minister’s policy of rejecting further territorial concessions until the Palestinian leaders separate from Hamas, engage in negotiations and display flexibility to enable us to achieve our security requirements. We will not be denied the right to construct homes in our capital or in the major settlement blocs, which will remain within Israel. We seek the support of the United States but we must retain our sovereignty.

Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/Obama-Seeks-Confrontation-with-Israel

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

Immigration Politics: Where Facts and Commonsense Are Ignored - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler


On October 22, 2014 CBS News, New York posted a brief report, “City Council Votes For Bills To Protect Jailed Immigrants From Feds.” This report illustrates the unholy alliance forged between many politicians and news agencies to skew the truth about immigration. The article begins with this excerpt:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Bills passed by the City Council Wednesday aim to keep detained immigrants from being deported by the federal government.

The City Council voted in favor of the legislation 41-6 Wednesday.

As WCBS 880’s Rich Lamb reported, the measures, supported by Mayor Bill de Blasio, would prohibit correction officials and police from handing over detainees to immigration officials.

The report went on to note:

“The law will only allow the city to honor the detainer if the subject has been convicted of a violent or serious felony in the last five years or if the person is a possible match on the federal terrorist watchlist,” she said.

The bill would also shutter the federal immigration office on Rikers Island.

First of all, let’s consider that the title of the CBS article incorporates the phrase, “Protect the Jailed Immigrants From the Feds.” There are two key words that paint a deceptive image and both evoke a strong emotional response and virtually create the illusion that the efforts to impede the effective enforcement of our immigration laws against aliens who have been arrested for allegedly committing crimes is no less than heroic.

The term “protect” is a term that engenders a sense of an appropriate action taken to make certain that no harm comes to someone, especially an innocent person. Police departments around the United States adopted the phrase “to protect and serve” as their mission statement. In considering this infuriating news report, the question that must be asked is: “Who is being protected and who is being served?”

Our nation’s borders and our immigration laws are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense to protect America and Americans from aliens whose presence poses a threat to the safety and well-being of our nation and our citizens.

Our immigration laws are utterly blind as to race, religion or ethnicity and were enacted to achieve two primary goals: protect innocent lives and protect the jobs of American workers. While the CBS report focuses on how the majority of the members of the City Council are seeking to protect illegal aliens who have been arrested from being deported, the article neglects to mention that this proposed action would fail to protect Americans and others present in the United States by blocking ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents from being able to identify and take into custody aliens who are subject to being removed (deported) from the United States.

It would be wrong-headed to shield any illegal alien from detection by ICE (although ICE is no longer mounting a meaningful effort to enforce our immigration laws). However, in this instance we have the great majority of the members of the NYC Counsel seeking to prevent the removal of aliens who have been arrested by the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies.

The term “immigrant” as used in the headline is currently being used deceptively throughout the United States to describe all foreign nationals (aliens) who are present in the United States, irrespective of their status. The term “alien” has come to be (falsely) equated with a slur, not unlike the “n-word.” In reality, under the immigration laws of the United States, which are encompassed within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.” There is no insult of any sort in that definition — only clarity. Clarity is something that must be avoided at all costs when a con artist attempts to swindle his (her) intended victim. This is no different from the dreaded and infamous “small print” contained in contracts designed to confuse the person signing the contract to get them to agree to terms that they would never knowingly agree to.

By using the term “immigrant” to describe all aliens present in the United States it then becomes easy to talk about the wonderful contributions that immigrants have made to the United States. After all, they remind us, “We are a nation of immigrants!” Of course this fails to note that among illegal aliens are criminals, fugitives from justice in foreign countries and others whose presence is harmful or even dangerous.

By hammering away at the lie that all aliens should be deemed “immigrants” immigration anarchists have set the stage to label as “anti-immigrant” anyone of wanting our borders to be secured against those who would evade the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a threat to national security, public safety, public health or otherwise be detrimental to the well-being of America and/or Americans. They go on to attack anyone seeking effective immigration law enforcement branding them “bigots,” “racists” and “nativists.”

In my effort to provide clarity to this issue I have come to say that the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar. It is not anti-social or uncharitable for a person to lock his (her) doors at night to make certain that burglars or criminals do not enter their homes as they sleep. It is only prudent and commonsense.

In point of fact, our immigration laws not only establish the grounds by which aliens are to be prevented from entering the United States and the grounds under which aliens should be deported from the United States, but also establish the lawful means by which more than one million aliens legally immigrate to the United States, are granted Alien Registration Receipt Cards and are immediately placed on the pathway to United States citizenship. These laws also provide for the naturalization of hundreds of thousands of lawful immigrants each year, conferring United States citizenship upon them.

Furthermore, the most likely victims of crimes committed by transnational criminals are the members of the ethnic immigrant communities of the same origins of the criminal aliens. This holds true for all ethnic communities, not just from Latin America. As an INS agent I investigated and arrested many such individuals from countries around the world.

Therefore, how on earth can supporting the effective enforcement and administration of our immigration laws constitute an anti-immigrant position?

Let us briefly revisit the notion of “protecting immigrants” as noted in the headline. The more appropriate phrase should be “shielding and harboring.” Theses terms appear in the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that addresses alien smuggling.

Consider that under 8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, a section of law that is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), it is a felony to aid, abet, encourage or induce aliens to enter our country illegally or remain in our country illegally and a crime to harbor, shield or conceal such aliens from detection.

Here is an excerpt from that section of law:

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts.

Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

On February 25, 2014 Californians for Population Stabilization published my article “NYC Mayor Determined to Give Illegal Aliens ID Cards” that addressed the program being created by New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio to provide illegal aliens with identity documents, violating commonsense and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commmission.

I focused on the nexus between immigration and the threat of terrorism and how the creation of “sanctuary cities” undermines national security in my September 24, 2014 article for FrontPage Magazine, ‘Sanctuary Cities’ or ‘Safe Havens’ for Terrorists?

What is truly incomprehensible is how New York Senator Chuck Schumer recently railed against those who have trespassed on important landmarks such as the Brooklyn Bridge and the new World Trade Center Tower. Consider the October 14, 2014 CBS News report on de Blasio heading to Washington to participate in meetings focusing on city security and counter-terrorism, “Mayor De Blasio Heads To D.C. For Meetings On NYC Security And Counter-Terrorism.”

The article noted that the meetings would be held the day after, “Sen. Charles Schumer proposed making trespassing on critical infrastructure like major bridges or important buildings punishable by up to five years in prison.”

Here is the brief report in its entirety:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Mayor Bill de Blasio is heading to Washington, D.C. Tuesday for meetings about city security and counter-terrorism.

De Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism John Miller are set to meet with the heads of Homeland Security and the FBI.

The meeting comes a day after Sen. Charles Schumer proposed making trespassing on critical infrastructure like major bridges or important buildings punishable by up to five years in prison.

The proposal was made in the wake of several recent trespassing cases in the city.

Over the summer, two German artists climbed the Brooklyn Bridge, switching the American flags with white washed versions.

Berlin-based Mischa Leinkauf and Mattias Wermke said they replaced the flags on top of the bridge with bleached-out versions as a tribute to public art.

“The stuntman placed aluminum pans over the floodlights to keep them from being seen and for awhile, it was scary,” Schumer said Monday.

A Russian tourist was then arrested in August after climbing the Brooklyn Bridge.

Yaroslav Kolchin was seen walking back and forth on the landing, taking photos with his iPhone, police said. They said once a police aviation unit was hovering at an altitude next to the tower, Kolchin began to descend safely down the same way he had climbed up.

He was met by police at the security gate, where he was taken into custody without further incident.

Also in August, an activist group unfurled a Palestinian flag on the span of the Manhattan Bridge.

In March, 16-year-old Justin Casquejo was charged after climbing to the top of the World Trade Center. He admitted in July to breaking a city misdemeanor law against scaling tall buildings without permission.

About a week after his trade center climb, three extreme-skydiving fans were arrested for a leap off the tower last year.

“While individuals like this may have meant no arm, their acts put commuters and first responders at risk,” Schumer said. “They also inspire copycats who may have much more evil plans in mind.”

Critical infrastructure is defined by the Patriot Act as systems and assets so vital to the U.S., that the incapacity or destruction to them would have a debilitating effect.

“That would be a bridge, a power plant, the air vents to one of our tunnels,” Miller said.

Miller and Schumer said the new legislation will help serve as a deterrent.

“When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”

Schumer said this legislation is based on another federal law protecting railroads.

This is the same Schumer who, as a member of the “Gang of Eight,” has championed providing a pathway to United States citizenship for millions of illegal aliens who evaded the vital inspections process designed to prevent the entry of aliens who would pose a threat to public health, public safety and, indeed, national security by trespassing on the United States. There can be no greater example of a lack of mouth-ear coordination than that demonstrated by Mr. Schumer.

In case you missed it, this is the next to last paragraph of the news report, quoting Schumer:

“When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”

Schumer’s own ears apparently are unable to hear the words he utters from his own mouth when the issue of immigration is raised. Clearly, he understands that undesired behavior can be deterred by tougher laws coupled with tougher enforcement, particularly where the crime of trespassing is concerned.

Schumer, however, is hardly the only politician to be afflicted with a lack of mouth-ear coordination. On September 27, 2012 New York City’s then mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was the focus of a New York Post article, “Bloomberg blasts Bronx DA for not prosecuting trespassing arrests.” It must be pointed out that Bloomberg continued the immigration sanctuary policies of the previous administration.

The continuing sanctuary policies were, in fact, the subject of a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on February 27, 2003 on the topic, “New York City’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policy and the Effect of Such Policies on Public Safety, Law Enforcement and Immigration.”

I was one of the witnesses called to testify at that hearing, more than a decade ago. As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

We are continually told that the immigration system is broken. The reality is that what is broken is the moral compass of this administration and all too many politicians. The administration lacks the will to effectively secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and follow the advice Schumer provided concerning trespassing: increase the penalties for such crimes and effectively enforce the laws.

There is an old Yiddish expression that translated declares, “When the fish goes bad, it smells from the head!” The lack of moral leadership in Washington permeates our nation and is being felt from coast to coast and border to border.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/michael-cutler/immigration-politics-where-facts-and-commonsense-are-ignored/

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