In France, denouncing anti-Semitism is risky - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

France has become dangerous for Jews, especially those who say what they think in the land of pseudo "liberty, equality and fraternity."

In Michel Houellebecq’s “Submission” novel, the main character François continues his slow and inevitable decline towards nihilism, interrupted by occasional sexual dalliances with a Jewish student, Myriam. But France becomes dangerous to the Jews and Myriam finally moves to Israel.

This will soon be the fate of all of French Jewry, because in Paris it has become risky and dangerous even to denounce anti-Semitism.

Transmission “Répliques” on France 2. The guest is the historian of Moroccan origin, Georges Bensoussan, editorial director of Mémorial de la Shoah and the Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, one of the greatest scholars of anti-Semitism. There is talk about failed integration in the suburbs: “There will be no integration until we rid ourselves of this atavistic anti-Semitism”, says Bensoussan. And he quotes a sociologist, the Algerian Smain Laacher, who said that the Arab families in France, even if no one wants to say it out loud, “get anti-Semitism from their mothers’ milk”.

Georges Bensoussan was quickly overwhelmed by accusations and controversies. The Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, which has already succeeded in putting writers such as Oriana Fallaci and Michel Houellebecq on trial, has announced that it will drag Bensoussan to court for incitement to racial hatred and asked the leaders of the Memorial to distance themselves from this editorial director who promoted a “biological racism”.

The leftist press immediately attacked Bensoussan. Le Monde castigated the eminent historian, comparing his words to those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was criticized about his description of the role of the Mufti of Jerusalem in the Holocaust.

Libération called for “practical” measures to punish the historian Bensoussan: “The Shoah Memorial, financed by the state and partner of the Ministry of Education, which organizes school trips to Auschwitz every year as part of the prevention of anti-Semitism and racism, should distance itself from the statements by its editorial director.” 

Edwy Plenel and the journalists at Mediapart accused Bensoussan of “biological racism” and asked the High Council for Audiovisuals  for his exclusion.

A counter appeal in favor of Bensoussan was signed by some well-known personalities, all too few in number. “Silence seems to be the goal of this new thought police,” reads the appeal. “The works, books and teachings of Bensoussan are radically unrelated to any racism. We need to affirm our full support for Georges Bensoussan, acclaim his intellectual courage and his freedom of speech. His detractors are happy to accuse, denounce, vilify and threaten. The hatred of Jews is part of the strategy.” 

Among the signatories are the brave philosopher Elisabeth Badinter,  famous intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy, Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia and film maker Jacques Tarnero.

None of  Bensoussan’s colleagues had the courage to sign the appeal of solidarity, leaving him to stand alone before the lynching mob and maybe already dribbling to take his job. The historian now risks his seat as editorial director at the Mémorial de la Shoah. “Guilty” of having denounced that the vast French suburbs are dominated by the law of Allah and not that of the secular Marianne -  and that the Jews are not welcome there anymore.

Last week, a Palestinian-Arab terror attack occurred in Netanya, the French riviera on the Israeli coast. But for French Jews, life in Israel is safer and better than in any Islamicized French suburb.


Giulio Meotti

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17848#.Vj5eKb-zdds

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

Senate demands answers from DHS on leaked docs that show administration defiance of amnesty ban - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

A plan to give green cards to millions of illegals

We covered the story earlier this week of documents leaked from DHS showing the agency looking to circumvent the injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas that prohibited the federal government from implementing the president's immigration executive orders.  The agency prepared several options, which included changing a regulation that would have allowed the president to issue millions of green cards.

That leak caught the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who now want answers from DHS about what they're up to.

Washington Examiner:

The group, led by Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, called for DHS to explain the origin and status of internal memos published Monday.

"Granting employment authorization to illegal immigrants under the proposed scheme would accomplish, by different means, the de facto legalization of the population intended to be legalized by the enjoined DAPA program," Republicans charged.

The agency's proposed regulations would change immigration regulations to allow foreign workers in the U.S., potentially including illegal aliens, to get a green card if an employer sponsors him or her, even if the sponsorship has expired.

The move by DHS would circumvent a program to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants that was the subject of a lawsuit brought by 26 states this year.

Other senators on the letter were David Vitter, R-La., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, John Cornyn, R-Texas, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Mike Lee, R-Utah, David Perdue, R-Ga., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Ted Cruz R-Texas.

The committee asked for a response by Nov. 12.

"We want assurances that the administration will refrain from moving forward with any such proposal that harms the integrity of our legal immigration system and violates the law," the letter concluded.

There has been no comment from the White House on the leaked memorandum, which isn't surprising, given that they've been caught red-handed trying to get around the ruling by a federal judge.  Neither has there been any response from the federal judge who issued the injunction.  As a rule, federal judges get angry when an administration tries to go behind their backs or pull the wool over their eyes.  I suspect that the judge is going to want an explanation also.

No doubt DHS will claim they were only examining "hypothetical" situations and had no intention of carrying out a plan to give green cards to millions of illegals.  But given the track record of this administration in obeying the basic laws of the land, it's doubtful that too many Republicans will believe them.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/senate_demands_answers_from_dhs_on_leaked_docs_that_show_administration_defiance_of_amnesty_ban.html

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

Wake up and start connecting the dots - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

This is not the time for an academic discussion of morality and ethics.

An acrimonious argument is going on in Israel over the explosive issue of whether the public is allowed to take the law into its own hands if confronted with a terrorist who has just stabbed a Jew. There is no argument over the permissibility of killing a terrorist before he has attacked anyone if that seems the only way to prevent him from carrying out his plans. The dilemma is over whether it is permissible to kill a terrorist after he has knifed someone. Here, too, there is no argument about killing him if he is capable of continuing on his rampage; in that case, everyone agrees that he must be eliminated forthwith.

The problem arises when a terrorist is neutralized, lying flat on the ground, possibly wounded or handcuffed and unable to rise and continue injuring more people. Can physically attacking him and even causing his death be condoned, or is he entitled, once neutralized, to protection against spontaneous vengeance, to medical care and a fair trial to determine his punishment?  

The answer to the question depends on the views held by the person to whom it is addressed. More tellingly, however, does the debate have to be based on deductions reached from the study of Israeli legal and moral systems, reflecting a country ruled by law where even a criminal is entitled to due process – or should the debate be based on the fact that the perpetrators are not part of Israeli normativity, do not accept Israel's moral standards and would like to destroy them along with the entire state, so that there is no logical reason for the system to protect them.

In other words, should the "lynch question" debate be guided by the legal principles that serve Israeli society, or should we look at the question from the point of view of the attacker, his society and the norms by which he lives. And don't forget that while this argument rages on, other, more immediate questions give Israelis no respite – how can the next attack be prevented and how can the next terrorist be deterred from stabbing even 80-year-old Jews in an attempt to murder them?   

Many left-leaning Israelis use legal and moral arguments that derive solely from modern, liberal and secular Israeli experience. This is the stand espoused in a Haaretz article (November 3, 2015) by Professor Moshe Negbi, Hebrew University lecturer and legal commentator for Voice of Israel radio.

A glance at the title of the article, The Lynch Culture of the Extremist Right, suffices to ascertain his feelings on the subject. According to his point of view (or that of the editor in charge of writing headlines), inflicting injury on terrorists is not an emotional reaction to an incident in which a terrorist has just stabbed a Jew, but part of a "cultural pattern", an indication of something genetic and ingrained in the makeup of rightist extremists, guiding their every step.  In his opinion, rightist extremists are people whose entire culture is one of lynching, people who spend their time looking for someone to lynch.

Negbi calls them "an uncontrolled mob", whose "criminal views" have infiltrated the halls of government and the security establishment, affording "unassailable proof of the increasing bestiality of Israel."

"Palestinian blood is not the only blood allowed to be spilled, so is the blood of anyone who attempts to stop Israel's degeneration from a law-abiding to a lawless lynch state," he claims. Professor Negbi goes on to quote justices and academics who have written scathing criticism of members of the IDF and security forces who acted against the law while carrying out their missions – and who received criminal punishments.

Similar views were expressed by Reshet Bet radio broadcaster Adi Meiri on her regular "It's all talk" program aired on November third. The problem of all these writers and radio broadcasters is that they analyze the stabbing terrorist issue through the rose colored glasses of liberal, modern Israeli culture. This is a culture that insists that every citizen and member of the security forces is obligated to exercise self-control, restraint and proportionality, even if this means protecting himself and others with his own body from a criminal who is intent on inflicting injury. They relate to the terrorist stabber and murderer as though he is a member of civilized society who has, unfortunately, strayed from the proper path, but is entitled to all the protection afforded by law to any criminal from the minute he ceases to be an immediate and palpable danger to others.

What motivates Negbi, Meiri and their friends is the moral ethos that claims that we Jewish Israelis are bound by an ethical code that prohibits our acting violently against someone who does not present a palpable and immediate danger, even if, less than a minute earlier, he stabbed us with intent to murder. This moralistic approach is to be found in Israeli law and in various court decisions. The principle behind it is that we do not act as our enemies do, we do not descend to their level – because we are better than they. Does this approach not smack of supercilious arrogance?

Another "minor" detail that bears noting is that our legal and moral dilemmas do not impress our enemies one bit; they simply take advantage of the fact that we allow them to wander freely and unchecked in our midst, enabling them to draw sharpened knives from their pockets at any given moment and butcher us.

According to our enemies' approach to the situation, Jews have absolutely no right to live in this land, not even in Tel Aviv, because they are conquerors of the Islamic state of Palestine that belongs to Muslims alone. We have no right to independence or sovereignty, because Jews are obligated to live under Sharia, Islamic law, as subservient dhimmis. If we protect ourselves, we are breaking the laws of Islamic protection and deserve to be butchered.

The average stabber knows that if caught, he will be put in prison where he can study for an academic degree, that within a few years he will be exchanged for an Israeli soldier or citizen kidnapped for the very purpose of freeing terrorist murderers, and that while he is imprisoned his family will receive generous sums of money from the Palestinian Authority (the source of which funding is the American taxpayer). This is in addition to the great honor that his family will enjoy, whether he is killed or not. If he is killed, he will have a school named for him, one in which children will study his "heritage", and possibly a street or even an organization that will spread the spirit of anti-Israel jihad in the world.

The stabber is motivated by the same concerns that encouraged Haj Amin al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, to take part in the destruction of European Jewry in the 1940's. A Muslim who sets out to stab Jews knows that a reward awaits him in Paradise whether he is killed before, during or after he does so. Our moral concerns do not interest him in the least, but if worst comes to worst, they will be the reason he will be protected from the anger of those surrounding him at the scene. He relies on Israeli law and Israel's police force to protect him from the crowd's vengeance, and is sure he will survive to stab more Jews after he is freed during a prisoner exchange.

That is how Israeli morality works against Israel and its citizens, paralyzing Israeli deterrence  and encouraging terrorists to stab Israelis. The stabbers are in a win-win situation since Israeli law and morals grant them immunity from immediate punishment by bystanders who were witness to their terrorist actions. It turns out that those who constantly spout lessons in morality actually behave immorally by encouraging terror and murder. It is fascinating to see a professor of law blatantly encouraging terror.

This is how Israel ties its own hands, making it more difficult to respond effectively to terror. Israel has lost its ability to deter terrorist murderers because they feel that they have immunity. It should be a given that any terrorist who takes up a knife to stab a Jew knows that he will not return home alive, that he will be killed either by security personnel or the people who witnessed his actions. Isn't the period when Muslims considered Jewish blood cheap a thing of the past? Israel has no choice, it must renew its ability to deter terrorists.

Both the left and right must remember that this is the Middle East. Peace in this region is not the lot of those who unwaveringly follow Western mores, laws and ethics. He who succeeds in convincing his enemies that he is invincible and that they had better leave him alone for their own good, has a chance of achieving peace.

Anyone who does not understand this or who does not want to understand it, is cut off from reality. I suggest that he wake up and connect the dots for his own good, before the butcher's knife separates his head from his body - and I am not engaging in mere fear mongering.

In case that scenario does occur, will his being a moral person be of any help?

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


Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17840#.VjxkA7-zddt

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

Showdown at the OK Corral - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Why Obama has no intention of letting bygones be bygones in his upcoming meeting with Netanyahu.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with US President Barack Obama next week is likely to look less like a rapprochement than a showdown at the OK Corral.
The flurry of spy stories spinning around in recent weeks makes clear that US-Israel relations remain in crisis.
Two weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal published a fairly detailed account of the US’s massive spying operations against Israel between 2010 and 2012.
Their purpose was to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear installations. The Journal report, which was based on US sources, also detailed the evasion tactics the Obama administration employed to try to hide its covert nuclear talks with Iran from Israel. According to the report, the administration was infuriated that through its spy operations against Iran, Israel discovered the talks and the government asked the White House to tell it what was going on.
Over the past several days, the Israeli media have reported the Israeli side of the US spying story.
Friday Makor Rishon’s military commentator Amir Rapaport detailed how the US assiduously wooed IDF senior brass on the one hand and harassed more junior Israeli security officials on the other hand.
Former IDF chiefs of General Staff Lt.-Gens. Gabi Ashkenazi and Benny Gantz were given the red carpet treatment in a bid to convince them to oppose Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations. More junior officials, including officers posted officially to the US were denied visas and subjected to lengthy interrogations at US embassies and airports in a bid to convince them to divulge information about potential Israeli strikes against Iran.
Sunday, Channel 2 reported that the IDF’s Intelligence Directorate’s information security department just issued guidance to all IDF soldiers and officers warning them about efforts by the CIA to recruit them as US agents.
These stories have been interpreted in various ways. Regardless of how they are interpreted, what they show is that on the one hand, the Obama administration has used US intelligence agencies to weaken Israel’s capacity to harm Iran and to actively protect Iran from Israel. And on the other hand, Israel is wary of the administration’s efforts to weaken it while strengthening its greatest foe.
These stories form the backdrop of next week’s meeting between Netanyahu and Obama – the first they will have held in more than a year. They indicate that Obama remains committed to his policy of weakening Israel and downgrading America’s alliance with the Jewish state while advancing US ties with Iran. Israel, for its part, remains deeply distrustful of the American leader.
This Israeli distrust of Obama’s intentions extends far past Iran. Recent statements by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have convinced Israel that during his last 15 months in office, Obama intends to abandon US support for Israel at the UN Security Council, and to ratchet up pressure and coercive measures to force Israel to make irreversible concessions to the Palestinians.
From Netanyahu’s perspective, then, the main strategic question is how to prevent Obama from succeeding in his goal of weakening the country.
The implementation of Obama’s deal with Iran deal will form a central plank of whatever strategy the government adopts.
As far as Obama and his allies see things, the nuclear accord with Iran is a done deal. On October 21, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hosted a reception for Democratic congressmen attended by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to celebrate its official adoption.
Unfortunately for Pelosi and her colleagues, Iran is a far more formidable obstacle to implementing the deal than congressional Republicans. As Yigal Carmon, president of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), explained in a report published on his organization’s website last week, at no point has any Iranian governing body approved the nuclear deal. Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, and its Guardians’ Council have used their discussions of the agreement to highlight their refusal to implement it. More importantly, as Carmon explains, contrary to US media reports, in his October 21 letter to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not give his conditional approval to the deal. He rejected it.
Carmon explained that the nine conditions Khamenei placed on his acceptance of the nuclear deal render it null and void. Among other things, Khamenei insisted that all sanctions against Iran must be permanently canceled. Obama couldn’t abide by this condition even if he wanted to because he cannot cancel sanctions laws passed by Congress.
He can only suspend them.
Khamenei also placed new conditions on Iran’s agreement to disable its centrifuges and remove large quantities of enriched uranium from its stockpiles.
He rejected inspections of Iran’s military nuclear installations. He insisted that Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor must remain capable of producing heavy water in contravention of the deal. And he insisted that at the end of the 15-year lifetime of the deal Iran must have sufficient uranium enrichment capability to enable it to develop bombs at will.
As Carmon noted, the US and EU have announced that they will suspend their nuclear sanctions against Iran on December 15 provided that by that date, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Commission certifies that Iran has upheld its part of the bargain.
By that date, in conformance with their interpretation of the nuclear deal, the US and the EU expect for Iran to have reduced the number of centrifuges operating at the Natanz facility from 16,000 to 5,060 and lower enrichment levels to 3.67%; reduce the number of centrifuges at Fordow to a thousand; remove nearly all its advanced centrifuges from use; permit the IAEA to store and seal its dismantled centrifuges; reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium to 300kg.; remove the core from the Arak reactor and disable it; and submit to agreed monitoring mechanisms of its nuclear sites.
Carmon noted that Iran has taken no steps to fulfill any of these conditions.
With Khamenei’s rejection of the nuclear deal and Iran’s refusal to implement it, there are two possible ways the US and the EU can proceed.
First, as Carmon suggests, Obama and the EU may renew nuclear talks with Iran based on Khamenei’s new position. These talks can drag out past Obama’s departure from office. When they inevitably fail, Obama’s successor can be blamed.
The other possibility is that Iran will implement some component of the deal and so allow Obama and the EU to pretend that it is implementing the entire deal. Given the US media’s failure to report that Khamenei rejected the nuclear pact, it is a fair bet that Obama will be able to maintain the fiction that Iran is implementing the deal in good faith until the day he leaves office.
So what is Israel to do? And how can Netanyahu use his meeting with Obama next week to Israel’s advantage? Israel has two policy options going forward. First, it can highlight the fact that Iran is not implementing the deal, just as Israel took the lead in highlighting the dangers of the nuclear accord with Iran over the past year. This policy can potentially force Obama onto the defensive and so make it harder for him to go on the offensive against Israel at the UN and other venues in relation to the Palestinians.
But then, it is far from clear that Obama will be deterred from adopting anti-Israel positions at the UN even if Israel succeeds making an issue of Iranian noncompliance with the nuclear deal.
Moreover, if Netanyahu leads the discussion of the Iran’s bad faith, as he drove the discussion of the nuclear deal itself, he will reinforce the already prevalent false assessment in the US that a nuclear Iran threatens Israel but is not dangerous for the US.
This incorrect assessment has made a lot of Americans believe that by seeking to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel is advancing is own interests at America’s expense.
The other policy option is the one that Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon indicated Israel is pursuing in his meeting last week with his counterpart Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. At the Pentagon Ya’alon declared, “The Iran deal is a given. Our disputes are over.”
The downside of this position is that it indicates that Israel accepts the legitimacy of a deal that Iran is not implementing and that would imperil Israel’s national security even if Iran were implementing it.
Its upside is that it takes Israel out of the US debate regarding the nuclear deal. To the extent that opponents of Obama’s Iran policy are willing to lead the fight against the deal themselves, Israel could do worse than to take a step back and plot its own course on Iran, independent of the US policy discussion.
It is hard to know which line of action makes more sense. But as the spy stories demonstrated, one thing is clear enough. Whatever he says before the cameras next week when he meets with Netanyahu, Obama has no intention of letting bygones be bygones.



Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260686/showdown-ok-corral-caroline-glick

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

New Report Details Iranian Commander's Involvement in Terrorist Activity and Regional Expansion - IPT News

by IPT News

Despite Iran's commitment to Syria, the Islamic Republic is actively establishing terrorist networks in the Golan Heights – using Hizballah, Druze, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operatives - to target Israel.

The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force– Qassem Soleimani – continues to remain actively involved in promoting the Islamic Republic's regional expansion and terrorist networks, according to an extensive report compiled by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

Click here to see the full report.

As the head of the Quds Force – the most powerful security organization in Iran –Soleimani is directly tasked with maintaining the fundamentalist regime in power and is responsible for exploiting Arab World turmoil in recent years to advance Iran's regional hegemonic objectives. From September 2015, Iran increased its number of troops - mainly IRGC soldiers - in Syria from hundreds to thousands, to support Hizballah terrorists acting at Iran's behest in propping up the Bashaar Assad regime.

In October 2015, Soleimani reportedly landed in northwestern Syria to brief Hizballah operatives and command a Syrian military offensive, indicating that Iran is diverting more resources from its presence in Iraq to Syria.

Despite Iran's commitment to Syria, the Islamic Republic is actively establishing terrorist networks in the Golan Heights – using Hizballah, Druze, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operatives - to target Israel.

Emphasizing growing concern over Iranian terror bases on the Jewish state's borders, Israel allegedly conducted an airstrike targeting a convoy of Hizballah and Iranian operatives in January 2015, killing Jihad Mughniyeh – son of slain Hizballah leader Imad Mughinyeh – and a senior IRGC general in the Golan Heights.

In August 2015, PIJ terrorists, reportedly under Iran's direction, fired four rockets at Israeli territory, signalling the first missile attack striking the Upper Galilee from the Syrian Golan Heights since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In fact, since the 1990s, the Quds Force has invested significant resources in supporting Palestinian terrorist organizations, smuggling weapons into the West Bank and Gaza, and ordering attacks against Israel.

Since the end of 2006 war in Lebanon, the Quds Force also played a vital role in rebuilding Hizballah's terrorist infrastructure, helping the terrorist organization amass an arsenal of over 100,000 rockets, including precision guided missiles that can strike any target in Israel. Iran's continued support to Hezbollah also includes sophisticated air defense systems and anti-ship missiles.

The Israeli report assumes that the Quds Force directly oversees the ongoing transfer of advanced weapons from Iran through Syria to Lebanon, despite the Islamic Republic's overwhelming commitment to ensure Assad's survival amid an intensifying civil war.

Iran has also attempted to infiltrate intelligence agents into Israel. In September 2013, Ali Mansouri – under direction from the Quds Force - was detained at Ben Gurion International Airport and found to be in possession of pictures of important sites in Israel, such as its international airport and the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

In the past, Soleimani's Quds Force was responsible for financing most of the Iraqi Shi'ite militias and providing them with weapons to specifically target American soldiers. With Hizballah's assistance, the Quds Force supplied terrorists with powerful explosive devices that killed numerous American and coalition troops in Iraq.

After Iran and the West signed the nuclear agreement, Soleimani and the Quds Force were featured on a list of Iranian personnel and institutions that may be relieved of previously imposed international sanctions. Despite initial denials, the U.S. administration confirmed that Soleimani's name would be removed from the list of UN Security Council sanctioned individuals, eight years following the nuclear deal's signing. Adding to the confusion, the U.S. Treasury Department insisted that Soleimani will remain sanctioned in light of his ongoing involvement in terrorist activity.

Nevertheless, the Iranian commander's recent trip to Russia to coordinate both countries efforts in Syria emphasizes the difficulty in enforcing personal sanctions.

Critics of the nuclear deal argue that ensuing sanctions relief will encourage Iran to enhance its regional expansion and global state sponsorship of terrorism.


IPT News

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/5018/new-report-details-iranian-commander-involvement

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

Jordanian Cleric Who Banned Killing Jews Sets Record Straight: Jihad Against Brothers Of Apes And Pigs A Duty - MEMRI

by MEMRI

In the new videos, Sheikh Al-Halabi referred to Jews as "the brothers of apes and pigs" and said that Jihad against them is a duty, but that the Muslims are not up for the task right now, and must prepare first.

In a video from February that has been circulating on social media platforms in recent days, Jordanian cleric Ali Hassan Al-Halabi said that killing Jews is not permissible, adding that the Jews "don't attack you if you don't attack them". On November 3, Sheikh Al-Halabi posted two lengthy videos in which he rebutted criticism by political rivals, especially from the Muslim Brotherhood. In the new videos, Sheikh Al-Halabi referred to Jews as "the brothers of apes and pigs" and said that Jihad against them is a duty, but that the Muslims are not up for the task right now, and must prepare first.

Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV

Caller: "Dear Sheikh, a few days ago I read on the Internet that you had issued a fatwa, about which there has been a lot of confusion."

Al-Halabi: "Yes." 

Caller: "Could you please clarify your fatwa? My question is: When was the Israeli soldier ever not ready [for war]?"

Al-Halabi: "Right. Thank you. Thank you very much... Dear brothers, the Jews are occupiers and plunderers. They are people [prone to] betrayal, fraud, cunning, and deceit. They are the slayers of the prophets and the messengers.

[...]

"The conflict with the Jews cannot be won just by those defenseless [Palestinians].  No matter how hard they try, they will not succeed.

[...]

"We hope that our brothers and folk in the West Bank will have the ability and strength to uproot that treacherous enemy. The Jihad against the Jews is a mandatory Jihad, incumbent upon any Muslim country, as upon any Muslim who accepts Allah as the Lord and Islam as his religion. But it cannot be done through such an emotional thrust, and with such excitement that only serves to harm us. How can we think that this leads us to victory? The nation must prepare and unite in order to uproot this enemy.

[...]

"By Allah, if your brother, the son of your mother and father, were to attack you in your own home, and you have no way to fend him off other than killing him, then we say that he was the aggressor and you were the defender – all the more so when the aggressor is an evil Jew, from among the brothers of apes and pigs. 

"But what we should really do is save our strength, and protect our unity, our religion, our men and our youth for the right moment that is bound to come.

[...]

"A few days ago, a fatwa that I issued in a meeting began spreading like wildfire. That was two days ago, although the aforementioned meeting took place almost a year ago.  

[...]

"Unfortunately, tens of thousands of Palestinians work with the Jews, and accept money from the Jews. They need the Jews. Sadly, this is the reality of an occupied people.  I am not saying this, as some people mistakenly understood it, as praise for the Jews, who deserve nothing but more and more curses. I am talking about the reality. What will be the outcome of such an asymmetric war, if not, sadly, total defeat? 

"Yes, we are happy when the Jews are humiliated and defeated, when they fall, but there is a way of doing things. In the words of the poet, a boat cannot sail on dry land.

[...]

"By God, a Muslim's fingernail is worth more to us than the heads of a thousand Jews.

[...]

"Jihad against the Jews, fighting them, and liberating the land from them is a binding and mandatory duty, incumbent upon the Islamic countries and upon the Muslim individuals, but it depends on capabilities, because everybody knows that America has Israel's back. Are today's fragmented Muslims up for the task? Let's be honest. Let's not fool ourselves."

View The Clip


MEMRI

Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5146.htm

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

Iranian losses in Syria 'triggering mutiny' - Ari Soffer

by Ari Soffer

Source close to Revolutionary Guards tells Arab paper some Iranian officers refusing orders, as casualty count keeps rising.

The steadily-rising casualty count among Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) troops sent to prop up beleaguered dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria is leading to "mutiny" among officers serving there, according to reports.

The Arabic Asharq al-Awsat claims a source close to the Guards told them some senior officers were refusing orders. Other more junior officers have already been court marshaled on charges of "mutiny and treason," the sources added.

Some 30 IRGC fighters have been killed in combat over the past several weeks, including four senior officers killed last month alone.

The most recently-confirmed casualty was Colonel Ezzatollah Soleimani, who state media said died during an "advisory mission" near the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, where battles are raging between regime forces, rebels and ISIS.

Earlier that month Iran received its harshest blow since intervening on behalf of Assad in Syria, with the death of top-ranking IRGC commander General Hossein Hamedani, who was also killed near Aleppo.

The same source also revealed some of the ethnic fault lines within the Guards, claiming that senior officers from the ethnically-Arab Ahvaz province in Iran had in recent months suddenly "chosen retirement and pursuing business activities" to avoid deployment in Syria alongside their comrades from the Persian majority, where they would be fighting against fellow Arabs.

Tehran has reportedly opened an investigation into many of them for retiring at such a "critical time."

The source further claimed the Revolutionary Guards had resorted to a hasty recruitment drive among other Iranian minority populations - including Sunni Muslims, and ethic Kurds and Balochs - "offering the equivalent of 830 dollars for six weeks’ service in Syria following training," to augment the Assad regime's own flagging manpower.

Iran is Damascus's staunchest backer, having provided weapons, training, funds and other extensive aid to regime forces, as well as military "advisers," many of whom - despite Iran's denials - have been involved in front line battles.


Ari Soffer

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202969#.VjtFUSuzddt

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

Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV Report On 'Former And Incumbent MPs, As Well As Party Leaders And Cultural Figures From Europe' Meeting With Hizbullah Deputy Sec.-Gen. Naim Qassem - MEMRI

by MEMRI

On November 2, 2015, Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV aired a report about a meeting in Lebanon between "former and incumbent MPs as well as party leaders and cultural figures from Europe" and Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, in what the channel termed a "show of solidarity with the resistance in its fight against terrorism." In the report, an interpreter translates statements to reporters by former Belgian MP Laurent Louis as follows: "The Western leaders' collaboration with terrorism has been exposed, despite their false claims that they are protecting democracy and human rights."

According to other sources, the group, which was also to visit Damascus,[1] met with former Lebanese president Emile Lahoud,[2] as well as with Gen. Mustafa Hamdan.[3]

Over the past decade, MEMRI TV has released numerous clips of Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Qassem; some of these are listed below.

View the clip on MEMRI TV here. 

The following is the transcript of the clip: 

Narrator: "Former and incumbent MPs, as well as party leaders and cultural figures from Europe, met with Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, in a show of solidarity with the resistance in its fight against terrorism."

Former Belgian MP Laurent Louis, via interpreter: "Your fight against terrorism constitutes a comprehensive defense of humanity and of interfaith coexistence. The Western leaders' collaboration with terrorism has been exposed, despite their false claims that they are protecting democracy and human rights."

From The MEMRI TV Archives: Sheikh Naim Qasim

The following are some MEMRI TV clips of Sheikh Naim Qassem from the MEMRI TV archives:

 
#5044 - Hizbullah Deputy Sec.-Gen. Sheikh Naim Qassem: We Have Pledged Allegiance to Khomeini and Khamenei

Al-Alam TV (Iran) - August 14, 2015 - 01:31

 
#4942 - Hizbullah Deputy Sec.-Gen. Sheik Naim Qassem: Despite Losses in Syria, We Are Ready for War with Israel 

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - June 6, 2015 - 02:42

 
#3853 - Deputy Leader of Hizbullah Naim Qassem: Hizbullah Is Ready to Participate in Fighting in Golan 

Mayadeen TV (Lebanon) - May 25, 2013 - 01:53
  
 
#1960 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Sheik Naim Qassem, Leads Lebanese Multitudes in "Death to America" Chants 

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - December 19, 2008 - 03:17

 
#1474 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah Sheik Naim Qassem: America Is the Great Satan 

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - June 4, 2007 - 02:16

 
#1425 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Sheik Naim Qassem: We Received Jurisprudent Permission to Carry Out "Martyrdom" Operations and to Fire Missiles at Israeli Civilians from Iran

Al-Kawthar TV (Iran) - April 16, 2007 - 06:09

 
#1337 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah Naim Qassem Speaking to a Massive Opposition Demonstration in Beirut: Death to America 

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - December 10, 2006 - 02:08 

 
#1303 - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem: We Will Not Give Up Armed Resistance to Liberate Jerusalem 

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - October 20, 2006 - 01:35

 
#1298 - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheik Naim Qassem on the Difference between Jews and Zionists 

Al-Kawthar TV (Iran) - October 17, 2006 - 03:13

 
#1242 - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheik Naim Qassem: President Bush Is Either "Hitler of the 21st Century or "Number One International Criminal." Lebanese Army and UNIFIL Forces to Protect South Lebanon from Israel 

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - August 15, 2006 - 06:39

---

[1] Sana.sy, November 3, 2015.

[2] Nna-leb.gov.lb, Sana.sy, November 3, 2015.

[3] Addiyar.com, November 3, 2015.

MEMRI

Source: www.http://memri.org

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

Georgetown's John Esposito Shills for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Cinnamon Stillwell

by Cinnamon Stillwell

Esposito -- and other Middle East studies academics were instrumental in whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood, downplaying its Islamist agenda, and encouraging—with great success—U.S. government cooperation.

John Esposito fetes the Muslim Brotherhood, Georgetown, 2012.

John Esposito, founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University, has signed an open letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron opposing his invitation to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Britain this week for talks. The letter stipulates that:

While not necessarily supporting deposed President [Mohamed] Morsi or the policies of his Freedom and Justice party, we note that he was democratically elected, and that his removal from office was effected by means of a military coup led by Sisi.

However, in 2012, Esposito happily appeared alongside members of the Peace and Justice Party, the political wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, for an ACMCU-hosted panel discussion at Georgetown. At the time, he and other Middle East studies academics were instrumental in whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood, downplaying its Islamist agenda, and encouraging—with great success—U.S. government cooperation.

This renders Esposito's objections to al-Sisi's visit suspect, much like his sudden antipathy towards "repressive and authoritarian" regimes, given that ACMCU has been bankrolled to the tune of $20 million by a member of the Saudi Royal Family, who rank among the most oppressive rulers on earth.

Esposito had the audacity to complain about "philanthropic support for Islamophobic authors and websites" in a recent interview with OnIslam (read Robert Spencer's response here). He directs the Bridge Initiative, an ACMCU project that, like its UC Berkeley predecessor, the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project, is dedicated to promulgating the myth of a shadowy "Islamophobic network" fueling the "anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry" that it claims has "increased exponentially in the United States and Europe." Esposito labels his work at the Bridge "protecting pluralism" from the "forces of evil," but, in reality, such apologias serve only to protect the evils of Islamism from legitimate criticism.

Is it any wonder then that Esposito and his ilk condemn al-Sisi, who, while remaining a strongman, has been one of the few Middle Eastern leaders to call for reform within Islam, to reach out to his country's Christian minority, and to fight Islamic terrorism? By Esposito's reckoning, that makes him a certified "Islamophobe."


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.campus-watch.org/blog/2015/11/georgetown-john-esposito-shills-for-egypt-muslim

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

How Peres trashed Rabin's vision - David Singer

by David Singer

Yitzchak Rabin: "We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."

Former Israeli President Shimon Peres pre-empted the memorial rally held last Saturday evening to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the assassination on 4 November 1995 of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin - by writing – quite misleadingly - of Rabin’s vision in the Israeli newspapers.

Former US president Bill Clinton, Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin and Yitzchak Rabin’s daughter - former deputy defence minister Dalia Rabin - participated in the rally – but did not set the record straight.

Peres claimed that Rabin’s Government – in which Peres was Foreign Minister:

“sought peace at the price of a historic compromise: two states for two peoples. For, if there shall not be two countries, there shall be one continues [sic] tragedy for both peoples.”

Rabin never offered any such two-state compromise.

Peres repeated this disingenuous message again:

“We laid down the foundations for a two-state solution and began building our peace with Jordan.”
Rabin made his vision very clear in his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 when presenting the 300 page “Israeli - Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” (Oslo Accords) for approval:

“Members of Knesset,
"We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.

"In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.

"At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel -- Muslim, Christian, Druze and others -- will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.

"We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

"We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

"And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”

The two-state solution was never entertained by Rabin.

Two separate countries - favoured by Peres - is irretrievably dead and buried.  Rabin’s legacy should not be coupled with that failed diplomatic initiative.

Rabin’s vision should be faithfully preserved – not trashed.

David Singer

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17826#.Vjs-oyuzdds

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