What Turkey Wants in Syria - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

• Turkey says that it, together with the US, wants an IS-free zone in northern Syria. That is fine. But who will fill the vacuum in areas cleared of IS?
• Turkey simply finds joining the international campaign against the Islamic State an opportunity to install pro-Sunni Islamist rule in areas now controlled by IS.
• In all reality, Prime Minister Davutoglu wants to replace extreme Islamists with less extreme Islamists. Turkey is trying, with U.S. help, to make Syria an extension of Turkey for Muslim Brotherhood Sunni Islam.

After several months of reluctant negotiations, Turkey has anxiously decided to join the allied battle against the radical Islamists who fight under the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or Islamic State, ISIS, IS). Turkish jets bombed IS strongholds inside Syria, and police detained hundreds of IS supporters operating in Turkey, including two leaders. Moreover, Turkish ministers hastily signed a decree that would allow the U.S. military to use the critical Incirlik air base for strikes against IS targets. Incirlik, in southern Turkey near the Syrian border, is close to many IS strongholds and will cut response times for U.S. aircraft, increasing the efficiency of anti-militant operations.

Turkey says that it, together with the U.S., wants an IS-free zone in northern Syria. That is fine. But who will fill the vacuum in areas cleared of IS? That is an extremely important question Turkey's American allies should think about with extreme care. Turkey simply finds joining the international campaign against IS an opportunity to install pro-Sunni Islamist rule in areas now controlled by IS.

This is how Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu describes, with all the unrealistic euphemism he could think of, the militias he apparently wishes would replace IS's brutal Islamists:

"We need to support moderate opposition forces there. Moderate opposition forces means all those forces who are tolerant of other Syrian citizens, who do not commit any terrorist crimes and who do not collaborate with the Syrian regime, which is responsible for all these humanitarian tragedies in the last four, five years."

The key word here is "moderate." In all reality, Davutoglu wants to replace extreme Islamists with less extreme Islamists. And the less extreme ones come under a different flag: the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which Turkey has vehemently supported over the past few years, in the hope that it would fight and topple Turkey's regional nemesis, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.

The FSA was formed in August 2011 by Syrian army deserters, and was based in Turkey. 
Unsurprisingly, its fighters are 90% Sunni, which explains the real appeal to the Sunni supremacist Davutoglu. The FSA militias are a ragtag group of rebels with a cause: to build a Sunni Islamist Syria, albeit not a Salafist Syria. The group does not have a real structure, money or sophisticated weapons to fight either Assad or the Islamic State.

Members of the Free Syrian Army's Al-Tawhid Brigade pose for a photo in Aleppo, in 2012. (Image source: Vice video screenshot)

In Syria's civil war, it is not uncommon to see fighters moving from one group to another. In March, for instance, the US-backed "moderate" rebel group, Harakat Hazzam, disbanded and its members joined extremist groups such as the al-Nusrah Front (ANF), an al-Qaeda offshoot, and the Levant Front, a coalition of rebels, also with ties to al-Qaeda. The ANF has, in addition, picked up thousands of men who once fought under the flag of the FSA.

Almost invariably, the groups fighting in Syria, with varying degrees of violence, are Islamists. If Davutoglu can market the FSA to his American allies, he will be nurturing, on his private agenda, another Islamist group that can potentially become another band of jihadists. Davutoglu is trying to make Syria an extension of Turkey for Muslim Brotherhood Sunni Islam.

In 2012, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued an open letter to opposition groups in Syria, including the FSA, accusing them of carrying out kidnappings, torture and executions. A United Nations-sponsored inquiry commission documented war crimes committed by these groups.

Some FSA-aligned groups have been criticized for having an affiliation with radical Islamists. The group itself was accused of summarily executing innumerable prisoners it held. Furthermore, the UN offered credible allegations against opposition groups, including the FSA, that they were recruiting children as soldiers. The FSA was mentioned in a 2014 HRW report detailing the widespread practice of using child soldiers -- just as the IS is doing. All that is reasonable when you recall that some FSA-aligned brigades are working with hardline Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Ahrar Al-Sham.

Such is the profile of the "moderate" rebel group that Turkey supports and tells the U.S. is the "good guys" fighting for democracy in Syria.

In other words, with U.S. help, Turkey wants to build, in parts of Syria, a Sunni Islamist rule, which it hopes will expand into other Syrian regions, finally reaching Damascus.

This may not be a realistic scenario, but even its progress can potentially create new Frankenstein monsters in Syria, with, most likely, "moderate" Islamists taking off their masks and becoming the radicals they in fact are.
 

 

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/6257/turkey-isis-syria

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

Hope Not Hate and the Coming English Civil War - Paul Austin Murphy

by Paul Austin Murphy

You can assume that the stated main worry (as opposed to the real one of being against the criticism of Muhammed) is that counter-jihadists “are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims”. As ever, if Muslims do react violently, non-Muslims will be blamed.

Hope Not Hate has just published a report ('The Muhammed Cartoons') on a forthcoming cartoon exhibition that will feature the prophet Muhammed. It has also featured this exhibition in a recent website piece.

The exhibition itself is scheduled for the 18th of September and it will take place in London.
This is the main claim of the piece:

“Our report... reveals that while some people are supporting the exhibition out of a strong belief for free speech, others are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims in order to prove the incompatibility of Islam in the West.”

You can assume that the stated main worry (as opposed to the real one of being against the criticism of Muhammed) is that counter-jihadists “are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims”. As ever, if Muslims do react violently, non-Muslims will be blamed. (Nick Lowles once blamed Charlie Hebdo for the Islamic violence against it which happened before the recent killings.)

So let's be absolutely clear here: Hope Not Hate wants to ban the exhibition. Nonetheless, Nick Lowles does say that “if the exhibition goes ahead” then his organisation will do X and Y. Though if Hope Not Hate has its way, it will be banned. (My bet is that it will be banned.)

What else would Hope Not Hate ban if it had the political power to do so?  After all, the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK was a direct response to Hope Not Hate activism. (Here is Hope Not Hate itself claiming victory!)

Hope Not Hate's Position

Nick Lowles's position is ridiculous anyway. If acted upon, it would render almost all demonstrations, acts, groups, parties, etc. illegal simply because some of the people involved in them may be planning illegal acts elsewhere and at other times.

So let's bring this argument closer to home.

There will be many Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) supporters -- and indeed leaders  -- who believe in violent revolution; that 'bankers', 'Tories', etc. should be strung up; and that “racists” and “fascists” should be imprisoned for what they believe, not for what they do. Many supporters of Hope Not Hate and UAF will have also indulged in violent political acts. Indeed, although Hope Not Hate is less violent than UAF, the violence of Hope Not Hate supporters is well documented (as can be seen on the Nope, Not Hope website).

Thus, by his own reasoning, Hope Not Hate exhibitions, demos, or activities should also be banned. Indeed since Hope Not Hate has called for the banning of political parties, groups, and individuals (as well being the main force behind the omnipresent Leftist “no platform” policy), it can be said that Hope Not Hate itself should be banned because of its communist or totalitarian inclinations.

“We believe in free speech... but...”

Nick Lowles rather ridiculously says that Hope Not Hate's 

“opposition to the cartoon exhibition is not an attempt to curtail free speech....”

…You can hear it coming, can't you?... “but”! Yes, Nick Lowles continues by saying “but to prevent a clear incitement to violence” the exhibition should be banned.

In any case, it all depends on what Lowles takes the words “incitement to violence” to actually mean. To him and to other socialists/”progressives”, many varied things will be seen as incitements to violence: critical remarks about Islam, Muhammed, or the Koran; critical remarks about immigration; EDL demos; and so on. Indeed, the very existence of patriotic parties and groups will be deemed as incitements to violence by Lowles and Hope Not Hate. And that's one of the reasons why Lowles's socialism or communism always leads to totalitarianism.

You can also see how Nick Lowles uses the old trick of “guilt by association”. He connects Anne Marie Waters (of Sharia Watch), for example, with all sorts of bogeymen. Nonetheless, the majority of these bogeymen have never carried out a terrorist attack; never condoned terrorist attacks; don't believe in violent revolution; and are committed to democracy and free speech. Their only real sin, then, is to criticise Islam. And because many followers of Islam have brown skin, that is indeed a sin to Hope Not Hate. After all, as many people know, Hope Not Hate is a racist organisation that has different moral and political standards for people of different colours.

The other strange thing is that just after mentioning Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters, Lowles writes that counter-jihadists “make little or no distinctions between moderate or hardline followers of the religion”. Yet Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters have made precisely that distinction. What happened to them? They were heavily and violently criticised by both Leftists and the Muslim community for doing so!

That must mean that if you make a distinction between hardline and non-hardline Muslims, you lose. And if you don't make such a distinction, you also lose.

Despite all that, some counter-jihadists do believe it's possible for some “Muslims and non-Muslims to get along peacefully” (to use Nick Lowles's words). Nonetheless, it's suicidal to place all our eggs in that basket. Because there are far too few Muslims who can be classed as moderate or reformist (discounting nominal or tribal/family Muslims), it would be madness to do so. Indeed look around the world to see which kind of Muslim is gaining the upper hand at present.

Perhaps there are more seemingly moderate Muslims in the UK simply because Muslims are currently a minority. But what's going to happen once the Muslim population increases? As it is, Muslims on the whole are far more radical and extreme than they were twenty or even ten years ago.

Nick Lowles's touchy-feely stuff (which is insincere anyway) about “Muslims and non-Muslims getting along peacefully together” isn't going to become a self-fulfilling prophesy any time soon.

Civil War?

The fact is that a civil war is very likely to occur in the UK whether or not there are any counter-jihadists or “far-rightists” egging it on. How do I know that? Well, Muslims have already caused civil conflicts in the UK dating back to 1989 and most notably in 1996 and 2001. (E.g., riots in Dewsbury, Bradford, Oldham, Burnley, Birmingham, London, etc.) There have also been Muslim riots in Paris, Oslo, Malmö, Marseilles, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Gothenburg, Stockholm, the Hague, Dijon, Tours, Orleans, Nantes, Grenoble, Toulouse, and so on. And then there were the Islamic terror attacks in Europe: in Madrid (2004), Paris (1995, 1996), London (2005), Copenhagen (2015), Brussels (2014), Toulouse (2012), Montauban (2012), Frankfurt (2011), Stockholm (2010), and so on.

Now we can think globally and see what happens when Muslims live next to non-Muslims in the Philippines, southern Thailand, Burma, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Indonesia, Armenia, Albania, Chechnya, the Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, and so on. The list, basically, includes every country in which Muslims live next to non-Muslims. In virtually all cases, there is violence -- often mass violence.

Civil war in the UK (rather than civil conflict) will be entirely dependent on Muslim demographics. In order for full-scale civil war to ensue (rather than civil conflict -- which could occur tomorrow), the Muslim population would need to have reached a certain level -- a certain critical mass.

Now, when it comes to certain demographers on the Left, by 2050 the Muslim population would have only increased by one or two people. Some on the Right, on the other hand, have forecast a British Muslim population of 100 million by the same period... As you can see, I'm joking. So all I can do here is cite the lowest possible figure of around fifteen million Muslims by 2050. However, the lowest estimate I've seen -- by Channel 4 News -- puts the Muslim population at 10% by 2050. (It doesn't give the numbers; though the percentage must mean that at least ten million Muslims will live in the UK by that date.) The Commentator, on the other hand, argues that Muslims will be the majority by 2050.

Consequently, Hope Not Hate and Lowles's fluffy (if insincere) words and anti-free speech actions will ultimately lead to more violence, not less.


Paul Austin Murphy's blogs can be found at 'Counter-Jihad: Beyond the EDL' and 'Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy'. He's had pieces published in Broadside News, Intellectual Conservative, Liberty GB, New English Review, Faith Freedom, Human Events, etc.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/hope_not_hate_and_the_coming_english_civil_war.html

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

Palestinians: A Rare Voice of Sanity - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

• While many in the international community and media hold Israel fully responsible for the plight of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abrash offers a completely different perspective.
• Referring to widespread corruption under the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, the former Palestinian minister reveals that Palestinian academic institutions, including universities and colleges, have become "commercial projects for granting certificates that have no scientific value or content."
• This is a voice that is rarely given a platform in mainstream media outlets in the West, whose journalists continue to focus almost entirely on stories that reflect negatively on Israel. Western journalists based in the Middle East tend to ignore Palestinians who are critical of the PA or Hamas, because such criticism does not fit the narrative according to which Israel is solely responsible for all the bad things that happen to the Palestinians.
• Abrash's criticism of Hamas and the PA -- whom he openly holds responsible for the suffering of their people -- actually reflects the widespread sentiment among Palestinians. Over the past few years, a growing number of Palestinians have come to realize that their leaders have failed them again and again and are now aware that both Hamas and the PA, as corrupt as ever, are hindering efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip.

It is almost unheard of for a prominent Palestinian figure to hold the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas equally responsible for corruption and abuse of power.

Dr. Ibrahim Abrash, a former Palestinian Minister of Culture from the Gaza Strip, recently surprised many Palestinians by publishing an article that included a scathing attack on both the PA and Hamas, holding them responsible for the continued suffering of their people.

In his article, Dr. Abrash also holds the two Palestinian parties responsible for the delay in rebuilding thousands of houses that were destroyed or damaged in the Gaza Strip during last year's military conflict between Israel and Hamas. He points out that Hamas and the PA have been holding each other responsible for the suffering of Palestinians. "Sometimes, they also put all the blame on Israel for all that is happening in the Gaza Strip," he said.

Referring to the ongoing power struggle between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which reached its peak with the violent takeover by Hamas of the entire Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, Dr. Abrash accused the two rival parties of exploiting their dispute to cover up corruption in vital sectors of Palestinian society.

"In light of the division [between the PA-controlled West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza], corruption and absence of accountability have become widespread," Dr. Abrash wrote. "This division has led to the collapse of the political system and the system of values, and an increase in corruption. This has also allowed many opportunists and hypocrites to reach important positions, where they do anything they want without being held accountable."

J'Accuse. Dr. Ibrahim Abrash, a former Palestinian Minister of Culture (left), accuses Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials of corruption, extortion, opportunism and hypocrisy. Pictured in the middle is PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and at right Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

And while many in the international community and media continue to hold Israel fully responsible for the plight of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abrash offers a completely different perspective.

Noting that the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip have fallen victim to the power struggle between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, he says that no one today knows who is supposed to be helping the people living there.

"The interests of the people have been lost as result of the two parties' rivalry," Dr. Abrash said. "No one knows who is in charge of the people's needs in the Gaza Strip -- Hamas, which is the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip, or the Palestinian Authority and its national consensus government. Or is it UNRWA and the donors who are responsible? Or is it the sole responsibility of Israel as an occupation state? To whom should the people direct their complaints?"

Referring to widespread corruption under the PA in the West Bank, the former Palestinian minister reveals that Palestinian academic institutions, including universities and colleges, have become "commercial projects for granting certificates that have no scientific value or content."

Dr. Abrash points out that no one knows whether universities and colleges in the Gaza Strip are subject to the supervision of the Ministry of Education in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

He also blasts the PA's Ministry of Civilian Affairs for exploiting and extorting Palestinians who seek travel permits, especially those wishing to leave the Gaza Strip. He goes on to hold Hamas responsible for "harassing" Palestinians who wish to leave the Gaza Strip through the Erez border crossing (to Israel). Dr. Abrash claims that some Palestinians are forced to pay bribes to Palestinian officials to obtain a travel permit.

"Many people have been subjected to blackmail and procrastination [by Palestinian officials] after Israel eased travel restrictions at the Bet Hanoun [Erez] border crossing," he said. "But the people are afraid to complain, out of fear that they would be denied travel permits in the future. What is happening at the border crossing has created favoritism and bribery."

Dr. Abrash concludes his article with a rhetorical question: "Isn't it shameful and irritating that while Israel has been issuing travel permits for those with special needs, some influential [Palestinian] officials are placing obstacles? Until when will they continue to manipulate and blackmail the people of the Gaza Strip?"

Dr. Abrash's article represents a rare voice of sanity among Palestinians. This is a voice that does not blame all the miseries of Palestinians on Israel alone and holds the Palestinians leadership also responsible for the continued suffering of their people.

However, this is a voice that is rarely given a platform in mainstream media outlets in the West, whose journalists continue to focus almost entirely on stories that reflect negatively on Israel.

Western journalists based in the Middle East tend to ignore Palestinians who are critical of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. That is because such criticism does not fit the narrative according to which Israel is solely responsible for all the bad things that happen to the Palestinians.

Dr. Abrash's criticism of Hamas and the PA -- whom he openly holds responsible for the suffering of their people -- actually reflects the widespread sentiment among Palestinians. Over the past few years, a growing number of Palestinians have come to realize that their leaders have failed them again and again. Today, many Palestinians are aware of the fact that both Hamas and the PA are responsible for hindering efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip and that the two parties are as corrupt as ever.

But when will the international community and media wake up and comprehend what many Palestinians came to understand years ago, namely that the real tragedy of the Palestinian people has been -- and remains -- bad and irresponsible leadership? Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen as long as the world continues to see Israel as the villain.

Khaled Abu Toameh  - Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6236/palestinians-sanity

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

Black Skin Privilege: To Be The Wedge For The Totalitarian Future - John Perazzo

by John Perazzo

Obama's race-based plan to turn Congress Democratic, forever.

FrontPage Editor’s note: The following article is the first in a series of articles elaborating on David Horowitz and John Perazzo’s 2013 pamphlet “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream.” “White skin privilege”—a term that has made a comeback in the last few years of racial demagoguery—was first popularized by the terror sect Weatherman in the early 1970s during its campaign to launch a race war in "Amerikka.”  
Although most leftists did not follow the call of Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to join in a global race war to eradicate “white skin privilege,” the foundation of racism, the concept gradually took hold as an article of faith among all progressives as an all-purpose explanation for why the great Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s had not produced immediate equality and why such quintessentially un American policies as affirmative action were necessary.  Because of “white skin privilege,” virtually ineradicable “institutional racism” continued to saturate our society even though individual racism was a thing of the past.

By its obsessive quest to find evidence of illusory “white skin privilege” the progressive left created and enshrined in our national life its very real opposite—“black skin privilege.” As David Horowitz and John Perrazo showed in their 2013 pamphlet Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream,” its effects can be seen in the presumption of guilt on the part of innocent whites (think Duke lacrosse team) on the basis of their skin color while guilty blacks (think O.J. Simpson) are often presumed innocent.   Blacks can commit racist attacks on whites certain that civil rights “activists” who sift the news obsessively for black victims will either not notice or dismiss such attacks as a form of delayed “justice” for the historical oppression of black people.  

The liberal media obediently follow their lead. When Trayvon Martin was killed by “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman it became a national outrage. But the media was nowhere to be found in the year afterward when  there at least 14 known incidents of attacks by blacks (often citing the death of Martin as their motivation) against whites, including the brutal beating of a 78 year old man.  

The result of such prejudice—there is no better word for it—is the creation of an optical illusion of deeply embedded, if largely invisible, white racism that creates vast numbers of black victims when the social facts show quite a different situation.  According to statistics gathered by  the National Crime Victimization Survey, for instance, blacks attacks on whites are  five times greater than the opposite.  When differences in relative population size are factored into the equation, a white person is 25 times more likely to be attacked by a black than a black by a white. 

Such statistics are not the whole U.S. racial picture by any means.  But they are a part.  And they are suppressed (or shrugged off) by the media and civil rights “activists” dedicated to creating a one sided and propagandistic narrative of race in the United States.  Such inconvenient facts complicate their melodrama of white guilt and black victimhood.  

The presence of black skin privilege as odious as white racism was: two sides of the same coin.  To illumine the complexity of racial truth in America, FrontPage Magazine will regularly present articles about black skin privilege, beginning with today’s piece by John Perrazo on how it has become a wedge into a possible totalitarian future.

To order “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream,” click here.

*

If you're a white Republican who lives in a well-to-do, majority-Republican suburb anywhere in America, Barack Obama has huge plans for you. Why? Several reasons: (1) He resents you for taking advantage of what he sees as your unfairly acquired ability to afford life in an affluent neighborhood, while so many poor nonwhites live amid squalor and crime in the central cities of this racist land. (2) He believes that by choosing to reside in a suburb, you are selfishly depriving a nearby city of precious tax dollars which could otherwise have been used to fund the public schools and social services that minority city-dwellers so desperately need. (3) Above all else, he resents the fact that people like you tend to elect Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Thus our president has set in motion the political equivalent of “The Knockout Game,” where you're going to be blindsided by a devastating head blow that will rattle your world more dramatically than anything the government has ever previously done to you. You see, Barack Obama has lots of racial scores he wants to settle, and this one is at the very top of his “to-do” list.
Like a dutiful totalitarian, Obama has quietly been hard at work on a stealth plan to make Republican suburban communities from coast to coast disappear. It's a plan to empower Democrat-led cities to annex those suburbs and seize political control of them. How? By moving large numbers of poor blacks and Latinos (virtually all Democrats) out of the cities and into the surrounding white suburbs, where they can be much more politically useful to Obama and his party. Instead of merely being “surplus voters” who do nothing more than pad massive Democratic margins of assured electoral victories in urban districts, these transplanted nonwhite Democrats will now be utilized to help Obama tip the demographic scales in a host of Republican suburbs—and turn them Democratic.
Obama's plan was conveniently buttressed by the recent Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities Supreme Court decision, where the Court's five reliable left-wing activists ruled that plaintiffs will henceforth be permitted to base housing-discrimination lawsuits on mere population statistics. That is, they won't be required to show evidence of actual racial discrimination, or even of any intent to discriminate. Instead they can simply cite, as “proof” of discrimination, the racial makeup of a given neighborhood with comparatively few black or Latino residents. And even if that neighborhood is able to definitively show that no discriminatory motive or policy has ever existed there, it won't matter. “Disparate impact”—a statistical racial or ethnic imbalance in a given population—is now enough to indicate guilt.

The Texas Housing decision dovetails beautifully with the Obama agenda, as laid out in a recently unveiled 377-page document called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” crafted behind closed doors by the nameless, unelected bureaucrats at Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In this document, the Obama Administration articulates its plan to aggressively and forcibly change the demographics of majority-white suburban neighborhoods by requiring them—even in cases where housing discrimination has never even been alleged, let alone proved—to meet federally imposed quotas for the creation of government-subsidized, multi-family “affordable housing” units, and to aggressively market those units to ethnic and racial minorities.

A corollary Obama plan will be to enact a “regional tax-base sharing” scheme that diverts a portion of suburban tax money into a common regional pot, from which it is then redistributed to poor urban neighborhoods. Thus the suburbs will not only be blended into the cities racially and politically, but economically as well.
This will all take place, of course, under the pious banner of “social and racial justice.”

As Obama sees things, black or brown skin, by definition, makes people victims of white America's intransigent bigotry. And justice demands that their victimhood be addressed by a variety of compensatory measures, like the privilege of living—at taxpayer expense—in a community whose existing residents—whatever their race or ethnicity—sacrificed a great deal in order to get there.
Obama's scheme has limitless political potential because of one vital fact: Whereas Republicans constitute fewer than 40 percent of all residents in cities with populations above 500,000, the corresponding figure in the suburbs that surround those same cities is 52 percent. That's a rather slim majority, thus Obama is cocksure that he can erase it with some well-executed social engineering which he can orchestrate from his throne. All he needs to do is infuse a few dozen middle-class, suburban congressional districts with several hundred or several thousand additional nonwhite, impoverished Democrats, and he will have sown the seeds of a permanently transfigured electoral map, a permanent Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, a permanent totalitarian future of one-party rule.
If the neighborhoods targeted by Obama's grand scheme have preferred, up to now, to be zoned for single-family housing, too bad for them. It's time for a change. Washington knows best. The Democrat Party knows best. President Obama can sniff out a singular white racist at a thousand paces, without so much as a mild breeze to carry the scent.
“Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” effectively authorizes the federal government to re-engineer, through HUD, every neighborhood in America—that is, to obliterate all local zoning laws and create racial “balance” wherever and whenever it pleases.
So how will HUD decide where to focus first? That's easy: It will consult the reams of data it has been quietly and secretly gathering, without a shred of statutory authority from Congress, about the racial and economic makeup of every community in the nation. As investigative journalist and Hoover Institution Fellow Paul Sperry explains, HUD's bureaucratic beavers have been busy analyzing the distribution of “four racial groups—white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino”—in “every U.S. neighborhood” and representing them as different-colored dots on “geospatial data” maps designed to “pinpoin[t] racial imbalances.” The dots on these maps will serve as the basis upon which HUD will target various communities with its demands for forced population redistribution.
And you, my fellow American, constitute a microscopic fraction of one of those dots. Makes ya real proud, don't it?
Now you may be wondering, what if some municipalities try to resist the Obama decree? Predictably, our stalwart master has already figured out how to deal with such obstinate party poopers: The government will punish them by cutting off their federal aid. And if that's not enough to gain their submission, the government will file economically devastating federal lawsuits claiming violations of fair-housing regulations.
This, then, is the grand plan that Barack Obama has so cleverly pieced together to systematically—district by district, state by state—turn one suburban congressional district after another from Republican red to Democrat blue.
“What about my personal rights and liberties?” you may be tempted to ask, rather quaintly.
Sorry, pal. To Barack Obama and the Democrats, you're just a white, black, brown, or yellow dot on a geospacial map. Your only civic duty is to sit still, keep your mouth shut, and wait for the masterminds at HUD to sprinkle you where they want you, like a grain of salt, pepper, or sand.
Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are having one heckuva good laugh over your meaningless little lives, which are so pathetically insignificant in comparison to the glorious utopia they're busy erecting behind your backs.

Note: Three individuals in particular have done yeoman's work in articulating the dangers of Obama's plan to eradicate America's suburbs: Stanley Kurtz, Paul Sperry, and broadcaster Mark Levin. You are highly encouraged to acquaint yourselves with their extraordinary insights.


John Perazzo

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259613/black-skin-privilege-be-wedge-totalitarian-future-john-perazzo

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

'You Can't Label Settlement Products Made in Israel' - Yoni Kempinski

by Yoni Kempinski

EU's Lars Faaborg-Andersen says the EU opposes boycotts of Israel - but can understand why they happen.

[Editor: They say they want dialog, but what they really mean is that they want to impose their world view on us. They are not interested in dialog, otherwise they would LISTEN as well as talk, and they would investigate Israel's well-founded position that making "peace" at this point, especially at this point, is madness. Borders in the Middle East are being erased; regimes are falling; alliances are shifting rapidly. Is this the time for Israel to make dangerous compromises? (There is never a good time for that, but especially not now!) And ironically, just as Europe is clamping down on Israel, a growing number of Arab countries in the Middle East are beginning to see Israel as a potential ally rather than a sworn enemy.]

Lars Faaborg-Andersen, the head of the European Union (EU) delegation to Israel, told Arutz Sheva on Wednesday that the EU is opposed to boycotts of Israel - but also said he understood why there are such boycotts.

“The EU is totally against BDS, boycotts, isolation. We want dialogue and we think that it’s the best way to get our points across and get Israel to work in the direction that we would like to see,” said Faaborg-Andersen.

At the same time, he continued, “There are other groups in Europe and also in the United States that are advocating for BDS but there are also corporations and others taking decisions to disengage economically from Israel, and they are not in our control.”

He warned that Israel could find itself in a situation “where it has fewer friends in the world, if a solution is not found to the problem of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

Faaborg-Andersen acknowledged that “it takes two to tango” but added, “What we don’t like to see is the parties taking steps that are bringing us further away from the solution.”

Those steps, according to the EU envoy, include Israel’s “expansion of settlements that we have seen in recent years”.

With regards to products from Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, Faaborg-Andersen said that labeling them as “made in Israel” would be misleading.

“That’s in accordance with existing legislation in the EU when it comes to consumer protection,” he said. “A number of member states have already enacted guidelines on this particular issue, and I think that in the not too distant future, there will also be an EU-wide arrangement on this issue.”

However, said Faaborg-Andersen, guidelines with regards to labeling are not only enacted when it comes to Israel.

“This is not different for Israel or any other country in the world. It is a fundamental premise that the consumer must be assured that the product he or she is buying is correctly labeled,” he said, adding, “You cannot write that a product comes from country A when it comes from country C.”

“I want to make the point that this a general legislation that’s applied from any product coming from anywhere in the world. It has to be correctly labeled,” added Faaborg-Andersen.

As for the issue of Palestinian Arabs who are employed in Israeli-owned factories in Judea and Samaria and would be affected by a boycott of products from the region, Faaborg-Andersen called for a broader perspective.

“Settlements are currently affecting 60% of the area, and there are many reports from the World Bank and from the IMF showing that giving Palestinians access to just a couple of percentages of this territory would add millions to their GDP,” he explained. “So when you’re making up the overall calculation as to what is the cost for Palestinians of the settlement enterprise, I think you have to take that into account as well.”


Yoni Kempinski

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198816#.VbnV5_mzchQ

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

Top jurists to craft 'legal Iron Dome' to boost public diplomacy efforts - Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

by Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely promotes initiative that brings together senior legalists who will create special public diplomacy instruments that could withstand legal scrutiny in international forums • Move seeks to counter boycott efforts.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (center), with former Chief Justices Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch | Photo credit: Mor Duek

Top Israeli jurists came together Tuesday to formulate a new legal strategy that could bolster the Israeli government's public diplomacy efforts.

The project, promoted by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud), seeks to provide Israeli diplomats with solid public diplomacy messages to counter anti-Israeli boycott, divestment and sanctions efforts worldwide, as well as the Palestinians attempts to have the International Criminal Court launch a war crimes investigation against Israel over 2014's Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip. 

Hotovely, Foreign Ministry Director General Dore Gold, and former Chief Justices Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch teamed with other senior legalists, including former Deputy Attorney General Mike Blass, Israel Prize recipient in legal studies Professor Ruth Lapidoth, and the dean of the Hebrew University Law School, Professor Yuval Shany, to name a few, in an effort to craft talking points that could stand up to legal scrutiny in international forums where Israeli diplomats appear. 

The two-hour meeting delved into legal issues pertaining to Judea and Samaria settlements, land and human rights, rules of war, and the state's right to defend itself.

"We have to update Israel's legal instruments, and to that end, Israel's senior jurists, the best we have in the field of international law, have come together to assist the Foreign Ministry in its struggle," Hotovely said. 

"The State of Israel has to form a legal Iron Dome to fight international delegitimization efforts, the majority of which focus on two issues, Judea and Samaria settlements and military ethics," she said.

The forum is scheduled to reconvene in the coming weeks.

Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=27241

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

War or Deal - Adam Turner

by Adam Turner

Apart from the multiple types of ‘war’ that President Obama ignores, there are also several other valid options besides his agreement.

President Obama loves his binary approach. He repeats it often. Just two weeks ago, the president was quite insistent, essentially daring his critics to produce an alternative: I'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal… What I haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative?... And the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war. Those are -- those are the options.”

Of course, it goes almost without saying, but the president is completely wrong.

We are already at war with Iran. This war started 35 years ago, when Iranian students -- with the backing of the Iranian regime -- invaded and took hostage Americans in our Embassy in Tehran. (The fact that this has not officially been declared is immaterial). This was Iran’s first act of aggression towards the U.S. Since then, Iran has routinely conducted its war against the U.S.: in the 1980s in Lebanon through its proxy Hizb'allah, which killed hundreds of Americans; in Iraq, in the 1990s, through incidents like the attack on the Khobar Towers; in the 2000s, where its explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) killed or wounded thousands of American soldiers; and in 2011, through its plan to bomb a U.S. restaurant in Georgetown in Washington D.C. The person responsible for helping to supply the EFP’s to Iraqi militias, and who oversaw those who planned the Georgetown terrorist plot is Qasem Soleimani, who will receive sanctions relief from the deal struck with Iran. Also to receive sanctions relief is Iranian Ahmad Vahidi, wanted by Interpol and the FBI for his role in numerous international terrorist attacks, including the 1996 Iranian bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

We all understand that the president isn’t referring to ‘war’ in this manner. But this brings up the question -- just what does the president mean when he says ‘war?’  We know he must be focusing on American military actions, because he has always ignored the fact that the Iranians are already constantly attacking, or planning to attack, the U.S. However, there are still a variety of military actions he could be referencing. 

The most probable meaning of ‘war’ in Obama’s statement is ‘another Iraqi combat operation and occupation, but this time in Iran.’ President Obama is seemingly obsessed with President Bush, and has long tried to be, and do, the opposite of his predecessor. He has also long railed against the Iraq war of 2003-2011 and brings it up frequently as the epitome of the most disastrous war ever. So much does he dislike the Iraq war that Obama prematurely withdrew American troops in 2011, thereby allowing the al-Qaeda spinoff ISIS to reignite the Iraqi civil war, resulting in thousands of new Iraqi casualties, the disintegration of the Iraqi state, and blowback in the form of new terrorists and foiled attacks on the American home front. So, it seems only logical to assume that this is what President Obama means when he says ‘war.’

It is extremely unlikely that a ‘war’ with Iran would be ‘another Iraqi combat operation and occupation, but this time in Iran.’ There are many kinds of war, or combat operations. Some involve large numbers of ground troops, occupying a foreign nation(s), like we did post-WWII and in Iraq, post-2003. But others do not.

The most likely combat involving the U.S. and Iran would actually be an air strike, perhaps supplemented by special forces on the ground for a short period of time. The U.S. has produced massive ordinance penetrators (MOP) for this very purpose. The MOP is a U.S. Air Force precision-guided, 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb, which has, as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has said, “the capability to shut down, set back and destroy the Iranian nuclear program.” Contrary to the Iraq war, such an attack on Iran is unlikely to result in major U.S. casualties, and it is also not likely to last long.

Further, Iran does not have the military or air forces to allow them to effectively strike back militarily at the U.S. Their only response can and will be terror attacks. Which they are already doing; such as in 2011, when they unsuccessfully planned an attack in Georgetown. 

Now, perhaps some might argue that the Iranians would double or triple their plotting of terror attacks. Which they might do anyway, since the Iran deal will provide them with an extra $150 billion plus sanctions relief. Then again, perhaps they would not. 

Instead, the Iranians might be intimidated by the U.S. assault.   

It is often said that in the Middle East “(p)ower is respected; weakness is not.” This concept has also been popularized by Osama Bin Laden, who memorably was quoted as saying that people favor the “strong horse” over the “weak horse.” He meant that most Muslims respect and support a strong nation, even if that nation is not always friendly towards them, rather than a weak nation that keeps trying to endear itself to them.  Iran, as a Muslim nation, is likely to respect the “strong horse.” 

It certainly has in the past.  In 1981, the American hostages were released by Iran when a new and widely considered stronger U.S. president took office. Also, in 1988, during Operation Praying Mantis, U.S. naval ships attacked and destroyed Iranian targets in retaliation for an Iranian mine damaging a U.S. ship. The Iranians had been mining the Persian Gulf as part of their war with Iraq; the U.S. had been escorting Kuwait oil tankers through the sea zones to keep the international oil routes open. Soon after this operation, a U.S. ship unfortunately and accidentally shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 Iranian crew and passengers. The Americans mistook the Iranian airplane for an attacking fighter. According to scholars, these American actions led the Ayatollah Khomeini, the then-clerical dictator of Iran, to agree to the cessation of the eight year Iran-Iraq War -- and the connected Persian Gulf mining -- because of his fear of the increasing American involvement. 

The Iranians still have something to lose in the above scenario; an American attack on their nuclear program is not directed at removing the Iranian regime. The U.S., however, has that ability as well.  And the Iranians know this. So they have an incentive not to push for a longer war.

It is also a fact that twice -- in 1981, and in 2007 -- Israel struck the nuclear programs of Iraq and Syria without provoking a wider war with extensive combat operations.

Apart from the multiple types of ‘war’ that President Obama ignores, there are also several other valid options besides his agreement.

This bad deal -- like any deal -- can be renegotiated. Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh, noted foreign policy authorities, advocate exactly this:

A careful examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reveals that it concedes an enrichment capacity that is too large; sunset clauses that are too short; a verification regime that is too leaky; and enforcement mechanisms that are too suspect. No agreement is perfect, but at times the scale of imperfection is so great that the judicious course is to reject the deal and renegotiate a more stringent one. The way for this to happen is for Congress to disapprove the JCPOA.

There is also the possibility of reimposing, or implementing new sanctions, to further grind down the Iranians (to the same place or worse than they were when President Obama allowed them to get off the carpet with money from the JPOA). President Obama seems to enjoy dismissing this possibility, perhaps because he has a noted preference for “leading from behind.” But the president’s argument that the international community will not go along with new sanctions is not particularly persuasive. The U.S. is the natural leader of the world community, and often must be the “adult” in the room to lead the international community to do the right thing. An accomplished president can, and has, done this before. Both President G.H.W. and G.W. Bush persuaded huge international coalitions to support their wars in Iraq. In neither case was this easy or popular. President G.W. Bush persuaded the international community to impose sanctions on Iran in the first place, and Obama generally followed his lead (grudgingly), until 2013.

Even going back to the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) is a better alternative than the current option heading before the Congress. The JPOA, unlike the JCPOA, does not give Iran $150 billion in frozen funds, end the embargoes on Iran regarding conventional arms and ballistic missiles, commit the West to assist Iran in developing nuclear power, to protect Iranian nuclear facilities from sabotage, or to provide Qasem Soleimani with sanctions relief.

In reality, President Obama is so dismissive of the possibility of renegotiation simply because he doesn’t want to renegotiate. President Obama wants to get a deal with Islamist Iran as quickly as possible, and he doesn’t care much what is in this bad deal. The president wants to officially “end” the thirty-five year struggle between Iran and the U.S., and thus go down in history as a great “peacemaker.” He also has the hope that this “peace” will allow the U.S. to cede to Iran the responsibility for dealing with ISIS and other Middle East problems. The quickest way for the president to get a deal with Iran is to accept the current bad deal and then push it through Congress by painting his opponents as reckless warmongers, and so that is what he is doing.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s plan is working all too well. Even more unfortunately, this bad deal with Islamist Iran makes future war more, not less, likely, and also increases the likelihood that this war will be a more serious and protracted struggle with Iran. 

But none of this bothers President Obama, because by the time things unwind, he will be safely out of office, and all this will fall on the lap of another president.


Adam Turner serves as general counsel for the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET).  He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he focused on national security law.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/war_or_deal.html

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

Huckabee's Critics - Rabbi Aryeh Spero

by Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Mrs. Clinton seems more offended by a few words than by the actual rockets that Iran has aimed at Israel.

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has warned that the Obama/Kerry deal with Iran could lead to an Iranian-lead nuclear Holocaust against Israel that would, "take the Israelis and basically march them to the door of the oven."

Hillary Clinton, who has endorsed the Iranian deal, has denounced Mr. Huckabee, saying Huckabee’s comments are “personally offensive”. President Obama is likewise offended, as is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida who is the go-to Jewish member of Congress Mr. Obama uses when he wishes to bar Mr. Netanyahu from speaking or when he needs “Jewish” support for policies and actions that appear harmful to Israel.

Mrs. Clinton seems more offended by a few words than by the actual rockets that Iran has aimed at Israel. Instead of wasting our time on this side issue of phraseology, she should be working to stop this catastrophe. Instead of denouncing her opponent’s choice of words, she should be decrying an arrangement that gives Iran $150 billion, allows it to spin nuclear centrifuges, has no worthy verification system to stop Iranian nukes, and, worse, has the U.S. pledging to teach and help Iran defend itself from any necessary attack Israel might make to defend herself from Iran. A true friend of Israel should, would, be opposed to any such deal.

The Obama deal says we, the U.S., will teach Iran the fine points of nuclear science and its implementation. That is most definitely something that should concern us regarding a potential Holocaust, especially since Iran has declared its Number One Goal to be the destruction, the incineration, of Israel’s Jews. Someone, a real friend, concerned with a future Holocaust would be alarmed about that, not remain silent and pipe up only when words are used that "offend" her and President Obama.

In fact, the best way to avert a planned Holocaust is by evoking the language of Holocaust. What is so hard to understand about that?  The best way for Paul Revere to announce the British are coming was by warning: “The British Are Coming”. Iran has declared its intentions to wage a Holocaust against Israel. This is “Holocaust” language. They and other Muslim radicals speak of "ovens”. Too many on Obama’s team seem more concerned about the feelings of Obama and Clinton, supporters of the Iran deal, than the actual threat posed to Israel and her population, including Israel’s children who’ll bear the brunt of the incineration. The Clinton and Schultz horror should be directed not at Mr. Huckabee, who truly loves Israel and her people, but at Iran and this dangerously concocted deal.

Let me publicly state: Of the three, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Huckabee, the one I bet on for supporting Israel is Mr. Huckabee. He has always been there for Israel and the Jewish people, while the other two have not.

Meanwhile, Ms. Wasserman Schultz has demanded an apology from Mr. Huckabee, doing so in the name of the Jewish people. Well, Mr. Huckabee, you owe this rabbi no apology. I am grateful that you have focused and brought the inherent danger and disaster of this capitulation to the ears of the American people… and the world. It is Debbie Wasserman Schultz who owes the Jewish community an apology for defending anti-Israel Obama polices that are indefensible. It is Wasserman Schultz who warned Prime Minister Netanyahu not to say anything negative about Mr. Obama’s policies that might hurt Democrats in the 2014 election.  It is she who prefers that we Jews be kept in the dark rather than know the truth. She doesn't want us to make informed decisions and thereby push back. She didn’t then in 2012 or 2014 and she doesn't now in 2015, with this Iran betrayal. 

Wasserman Schultz's party loyalty appears to override everything else, including Jewish survival and American survival. She attempted to publicly humiliate Mr. Netanyahu when he came to America to speak, labeling his speech a re-election gimmick, disregarding his need to defend and plead for his people. It is she who owes the Jewish community an apology for consenting to be the attack dog against those who love Israel and the Jewish people, while defending harmful policies if coming from liberals and Democrats. The Talmud says: “Do not use faith as a shovel in service to your own personal ambitions”. Wasserman Schultz invokes “Jewishness” to thwart and nullify our attempts at protecting Israel, and Jews, if it stands in the way of her political ambitions.

Unfortunately, there are a few establishment Jewish organizations that can always be counted on to assail great friends of the Jewish people and Israel. Why? Because they have become arms of the Democrat Party. They long ago traded in concern for Jewish survival for the liberal and Democrat agenda and then have the chutzpah to redefine “Jewishness” as liberalism or Obamaism. By now, most of us simply ignore their predictable, partisan statements.

Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Obama: if you truly cared about anti-Semitism, you’d be out there denouncing Mr. Kerry for dredging up those tired old canards used by anti-Semites that Jews control Congress and Israel is at fault for harming U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Kerry in recent testimony warned: “Israel will be blamed if the deal doesn’t go through Congress”. Team Obama is whispering some talking points about “Jewish donors”, Congress under Jewish and AIPAC control… hinting about dual loyalty. 

It’s not Mr. Huckabee’s heartfelt emotion regarding a potential Holocaust that bears watching. On the contrary, his words of warning are an expression of love and concern. No, it is those who stand by or participate in smear campaigns, using the oldest, anti-Jewish stereotypes and accusations that are indifferent and worrisome to the Jewish people.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero is author of Push Back as well as Why Israel Matters to You , and is president of Caucus for America.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/hucakbees_critics.html

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

Big-budget Hollywood movie on Benghazi attack due out 2 weeks before Iowa Caucuses - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Quite clearly, the Americans who died are going to be seen as heroes, and it doesn’t look as though Hillary’s State Department will come off as exactly heroic.

Hillary Clinton isn’t catching a lot of breaks from her former friends in Hollywood.  Or so it seems, considering the fact that big-name, big-budget director Michael Bay is premiering his latest move, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi on January 15, 2016, two hours before the Iowa Caucuses.

You can see the trailer here.



It looks pretty exciting.  Bay is best-known for Transformers, which leads Moe Lane to comment, “It looks … a bit more serious than the stuff that Michael Bay usually does.”  But Bay also has Pearl Harbor on his list of credits.

Quite clearly, the Americans who died are going to be seen as heroes, and it doesn’t look as though Hillary’s State Department will come off as exactly heroic.

Will the demonstrators be portrayed as outraged by an obscure video?  It hardly seems likely, and it wouldn’t be nearly as good a story as the truth.

We have all got to keep our fingers crossed that Hillary’s hold on the nomination endures, for she is getting easier and easier to beat.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/big_budget_hollywood_movie_on_benghazi_attack_due_out_2_weeks_before_iowa_caucuses.html

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