Wednesday, April 24, 2019

What Is the Muslim Brotherhood? - Cynthia Farahat

​
by Cynthia Farahat

Some facts that you probably didn't know about the Muslim Brotherhood

Many people are unaware of the history of terrorism that accompanies the Muslim Brotherhood. Its history and current activities demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood operates as an incubator for modern terrorism. It serves as a parent organization of the vast majority of Sunni terrorist groups around the world, including Hamas and Al Qaeda. Even the Islamic State (ISIS) was founded by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.



Don't miss our next video -- subscribe free to the Middle East Forum YouTube channel!


Cynthia Farahat

Source: https://www.meforum.org/58306/muslim-brotherhood

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



6 Dem Senators Sell Out Jewish Terror Victims to Restore Cash to Islamic Terrorists - Daniel Greenfield

​
by Daniel Greenfield

Terrorists need their guns more than their victims need surgeries.




In 2002, Shmuel Waldman, an American from New Jersey, was shot while boarding a bus in Israel. The terrorist attack killed 2 people and left 40 injured. Among that 40 was Shmuel whose leg was blown apart, forcing him to undergo multiple surgical procedures, and leaving him suffering from PTSD.

The terrorist who shot him was Said Ramadan, a “police officer” working for the terrorists who run the Palestinian Authority. The attack had been planned by senior Palestinian Authority officials and the Palestinian Authority viewed Ramadan as a hero. Waldman joined other victims of terrorism in a lawsuit against the terrorist group, which is funded by American taxpayers, under the Antiterrorism Act. 

Waldman v. PLO resulted in a record award of $655 million in damages against the Palestinian Authority terror network. But the verdict was thrown out because an American court lacked jurisdiction over the terrorist group even though the United States provides much of the cash flow that its terrorists rely on.

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act was introduced and approved to make it clear that accepting security assistance for its "police force" would place the Palestinian Authority under judicial jurisdiction for lawsuits such as these. The PA could stop funding terrorism or face lawsuits from its victims.

A ruthless battle was waged against ATCA by a variety of groups which understood that the Palestinian Authority would not stop funding and promoting terrorism under any circumstances. These groups falsely claimed that ATCA would undermine American and Israeli security. That was a blatant lie.

The only thing that ATCA would undermine was the flow of tax dollars to Islamic terrorists.
Last year, the Palestinian Authority informed the United States that the terror group would no longer accept any aid from the United States that would expose it to ATCA lawsuits. The terror group’s letter suggested that it might revisit its refusal if the law were changed. That’s just what 6 Democrat senators, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein have set out to do, using the false claim of a humanitarian disaster.

“President Trump’s refusal to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people is a strategic mistake,” Senator Feinstein claimed, accusing him of "denying funding for clean water, health care and schools in the West Bank and Gaza."

Senator Chris Coons urged that, “It is critical that we restore lifesaving aid to the West Bank and Gaza.” Senator Jeff Merkley insisted that, “Aid to innocent civilians should not be caught up in broader geopolitical battles. We can and should restore aid to children and other vulnerable populations at the same time as we stand steadfastly by Israel’s security.”

But the real agenda revealed by their resolution shows that it’s not about humanitarian aid, but about restoring funding to the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

While Feinstein claims that Trump is preventing “clean water” and “health care” aid, her own resolution actually begins by admitting that, “the Palestinian Authority’s interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act… led the Palestinian Authority to reject all forms of United States assistance.”

The problem isn’t Trump. It isn’t the United States. It’s that the Palestinian Authority is a terror group.

The Palestinian Authority, on whose behalf Senator Feinstein is advocating, rejected the money that Dianne wants to give the terror group, because it doesn’t want to face American terror victims in court.

Rather than telling the truth about that, Senator Feinstein and her five accomplices start out by lying about the problem, and about what they want to accomplish, while assuming that the media will never report the truth. They are almost certainly right about that. But wrong about everything else.

The resolution, “Expressing the sense of Congress regarding restoring United States bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza”, specifically demands $196 million for the Economic Support Fund, $60 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and another million for anti-terrorism.

But the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist coalition. Some of its components, such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are even officially listed as terrorist groups by the United States. Palestinian Authority “police” deserve the name the same way that ISIS cops did. They’re armed members of a terrorist network with a history of participating in terrorist attacks. This network was set up with United States aid in the Clinton era. Senator Feinstein is vocally insisting that we continue funding terrorists.

If Feinstein, Coons and Merkley were really just concerned about humanitarian assistance, they would not have pushed for funds for the armed components of a terrorist network. This is not about “clean water”, it’s about dirty cash flowing to the enforcers for a terrorist group while leaving their victims out in the cold.

The six senators want the PA’s thugs to get paid, while their victims are left unable to sue them.


Feinstein is joined in this charade by Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, and Senator Jeff Merkely.

Senator Van Hollen claims that he wants to help “millions of children” with this resolution.

“There are thousands of children and families in the West Bank and Gaza who need the aid the United States has historically provided," Cortez Masto appealed.

Is it thousands or millions? Since it’s not about the children, the fake numbers don’t actually matter.

If the senators read their own resolution, they would see that it frees terrorists from being sued for the foreign aid they receive from American taxpayers by their American victims in United States courts. 

No wonder that Feinstein, Coons, Van Hollen, Cortez Masto and Merkely keep talking about children. Caring about children sounds a lot better than trying to help terrorists defraud terror victims.

A number of the Dem senators invoke Trump, attacking and blaming him, but as their own resolution concedes, it was the Palestinian Authority that turned down ATCA aid. How is that Trump’s fault?

Why blame President Trump when your own terrorists would rather kill Jews than take your money?

Senator Feinstein is broadcasting support for her resolution from a variety of “humanitarian” groups. A number of these groups, such as Churches for Middle East Peace, are involved in BDS and other anti-Israel activities. Islamic Relief has been accused of supporting Hamas. As has another NGO on the list.

Feinstein, Van Hollen, Merkley, Coons and Cortez Masto are touting support for their “humanitarian” effort that respects “Israeli security” from Islamic USA whose chair, Khaled Lamada, has allegedly praised Hamas, and distributed conspiracy theories which claim that, the Jews are causing Egyptian Muslims to have sex, plan to invade the Nile Valley and that the Egyptian president is a secret Jew.

Democrats are using support from BDS, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups to back this resolution. And they are doing so while lying and misleading about the resolution, its aims and its purpose.

Senator Feinstein and her allies have failed to explain what ATCA is or what “legal liabilities” the Palestinian Authority is attempting to evade. That’s because the plain truth is that the six Senate Democrats are trying to defraud terror victims like Shmuel Waldman under the guise of helping children.

But the “children” they’re helping are grown men who need our money for their guns.
Officially, the United States doesn’t buy guns or bullets for the terrorist police forces. But money is obviously fungible. The funds that the United States puts into terror groups frees them to buy weapons.

It is ironic that Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been known for her militant opposition to Americans owning firearms, and for holding firearms manufacturers liable for gun violence, wants to force those same Americans to pay for guns for terrorists while exempting those same terrorists from liability.

Palestinian “security officials” don’t just carry pistols, but Kalashnikov rifles. Those aren’t the weapons of law enforcement, but of a terrorist and guerrilla organization. They’re not meant to police, but to war.

Senator Feinstein hates “assault rifles” when Americans have them, not when Islamic terrorists do.

The resolution isn’t really about humanitarian aid. It’s about allowing terrorists to get away with murder. It’s about stealing money from their victims. And about weakening America’s negotiating position with a terrorist group by exempting it from accountability to the courts, to its victims and to our government.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273561/6-dem-senators-sell-out-jewish-terror-victims-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The Egyptian Brotherhood Goes to Washington - Hany Ghoraba

​
by Hany Ghoraba

Parading around the U.S. Capitol as hearty advocates for human rights.





Reprinted From Islamist Watch.

Spring has arrived in Washington D.C. And a sure sign of the changing seasons in America's capital is the annual parade of Islamist lobbyists, who come in March and April to the heart of Western democracy to advocate, under the guise of human rights, for Islamist causes and to misrepresent the beliefs held by ordinary Muslims.

Just a week before American Islamists descended on the Capitol to push for Islamist-friendly policies during the fifth annual National Muslim Advocacy Day, their Egyptian Islamist allies did the same. On March 24 and 25, Egypt Advocacy Day took place in Washington D.C. Sponsored by Democratic Congressman Tom Malinowski, Egyptian activists and Western human rights lobbyists came together to warn policymakers against Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and encourage the U.S. government to ensure Egypt works "to uphold the democratic principle of peaceful transfer of power."

Representatives of prominent human rights organizations Human Rights Watch, Project on Middle East Democracy and Human Rights First were happy to take part in this effort, seemingly unconcerned that the organizers of this lobbying day are prominent officials of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement, which was removed from power in 2013 following enormous protests against its own abuse of powers.

The main organizing body behind the advocacy day is the Freedom Initiative, a group founded by prominent Muslim Brotherhood activist Mohamed Soltan, who was imprisoned in Egypt for nearly two years on terrorism charges, until President Obama pressured the Cairo authorities to release him in 2015. While critics claim Soltan was the victim of political persecution, he has a long history of involvementwith hardline Islamist efforts in both the U.S. and Egypt – openly expressing support for the designated terror group Hamas, and leading chants praising the killing of Jews.

Other sponsors and supporters of Egypt Advocacy Day included the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, of which Soltan is among the founders. In previous years, a key Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood proxy in America, Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFAJ), has also been closely involved in the annual Egypt Advocacy Day. This year, its officials took part in the lobbying day, but the organization's name and logo were nowhere to be found on official literature.

Perhaps this is a result of a series of articles and reports exposing EAFAJ's extremism, particularly its leading officials Hani Elkadi and Ayat al-Oraby. Curiously, for example, the Project on Middle East Democracy, which sponsored this year's Egypt Advocacy Day, notes on its own website that "A number of experts on the Muslim Brotherhood have spoken out regarding EAFAJ's lobbying efforts and condemned al-Oraby's views in particular. On Twitter, analyst Mokhtar Awad referred to al-Oraby as 'a raving sectarian lunatic.' Awad also posted a video of al-Oraby calling for an economic boycott of Christian businesses, where she states that '[Christians] must be made to understand that the [Islamic symbol] crescent must be on top of the cross.'"

In the days and weeks after Egypt Advocacy Day, EAFAJ held further meetings with congressional staffers and policymakers, to express support for deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi and encourage lawmakers to force the Egyptian government to release "political prisoners" – that is, jailed Muslim Brotherhood operatives. One report alleges that EAFAJ even met with Democratic Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Leading the delegation was EAFAJ president Hani Elkadi, a New Jersey-based activist who is referred to in Arabic media as a Muslim Brotherhood "leader" in America. Elkadi openly supports violent jihadist organizations in Egypt, and routinely publishes anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist rhetoric on his social media accounts. Elkadi was a particularly vocal supporter of Mohamed Kamal, the late jihadist leader behind the U.S-designated terrorist organizations Liwa Al Thawra and Hasm. Kamal was killed in an exchange of gunfire with Egyptian police in October 2016.

Along with anti-Semitic and anti-Christian activist Ayat Oraby, Elkadi was accompanied by Amr Darraj and Ahmed Shehata. Darraj is wanted by Egyptian authorities on charges of coordinating terrorist activity in Egypt from his home in Turkey.

Shehata, meanwhile, is a prominent Islamist activist in America, closely involved with Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights, another Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood proxy, as well as the international aid charity Islamic Reliefand the community organization Muslim American Society, both of which serve as the flagship institutions of the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Islamism in America.

The April 9 visit of President Sisi to Washington evoked an angry response from Muslim Brotherhood operatives involved with all the recent lobbying efforts. At a protest outside the White House, EAFAJ, along with other supporters of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, wore Muslim Brotherhood insignia and held aloft placards of Mohamed Morsi.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, gave Mohamed Soltan column inches to denounce Sisi and criticize the Trump administration for hosting him. No mention was made of Soltan's radical Islamist affiliations, with his byline merely noting that he is "a human rights advocate and founder of the Freedom Initiative."

Why are politicians, human rights organizations and media outlets offering their support and time to these Islamist activists, given the violence and oppression that swept through Egypt under Morsi's rule? Admittedly, the involvement of Representative Tom Malinowski is not particularly surprising. Malinowski was a vocal critic of plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, and has condemned Trump's meeting with Sisi.

But opposition to President Sisi should not mean support for a violent Islamist movement. In December 2017, the Muslim Brotherhood officially declared the United States of America an "enemy state." Were that not enough for elected officials to stay away, Muslim Brotherhood members and splinter groups have wreaked havoc in Egypt over the past seven years, supporting attacks on Coptic churches, and involving themselves in terrorism and assassinations. The Brotherhood's sister organization, the designated terrorist organization Hamas, needs no introduction.

For many in the Arab world, it is a bitter irony that a movement responsible for such widespread violence and hate is now paraded around the halls of the U.S. Capitol as hearty advocates for human rights, democracy and justice. Too often, naïve Western activists and policymakers offer legitimacy to the extremists, leaving ordinary Egyptians to suffer the consequences.


Hany Farouk Ghoraba is an Egyptian Political Writer, Businessman and Freelance Journalist.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273536/egyptian-brotherhood-goes-washington-hany-ghoraba

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Swiss government spending millions on anti-Israel lawfare - Ariel Kahana

​
by Ariel Kahana

Contracts signed by Switzerland, pro-Palestinian groups show Bern financing efforts to build cases against Israel at ICC.

The Swiss government has been directly funding legal activity targeting Israel over the past year. The funding, estimated at $2 million at least, was transferred by the Swiss Foreign Ministry through its diplomatic mission in Ramallah to a series of Israeli and Palestinian organizations one year ago.

The transfer of the funds took place shortly after the Swiss government ended its support for the Ramallah-based Human Rights and International Law Secretariat over its support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. Ultimately, though, the funds went toward financing similar projects.

Israel Hayom has seen the contracts, signed by both the Swiss diplomatic mission in Ramallah and six pro-Palestinian organizations in 2018. In addition, funding was allocated toward three Israeli organizations: Hamoked human rights organization, Physicians for Human Rights and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

Among the activities financed in accordance with the contract: “building cases for the International Criminal Court” and “collecting testimonies, field inspections, holding interviews and [providing] legal assistance to victims of war crimes.”

It should be noted that according to the security doctrine formulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the ICC is one of the greatest threats to Israel.

Other Swiss-funded activities include interfering with Israel’s demolition of terrorists’ homes. So, for example, the contract with Hamoked notes that “the organization will alert the families of Palestinians involved in ‘acts of violence’ ahead of the potential demolition of the home” in question.

The contract further notes that the Swiss funds will go toward financing radio broadcasts aimed at enlisting support for the Bedouin community facing eviction.” While the contract does not specify the Bedoun community in question or the radio stations that will aid in this effort, it does clearly constitute blatant meddling in Israel’s internal affairs. Among the other activities to be financed by the Swiss are assistance for imprisoned terrorists, participation in weekly protests demanding their release, legal representation of terrorists, legal counsel for their families and the filing of complaints demanding the return of terrorists’ bodies.

In a statement, the Swiss Embassy in Israel said, “No activity of the Swiss government was intended to harm the State of Israel. Switzerland has a flourishing relationship with Israel in many fields. In accordance with Clause 54 OF the Swiss Federal Constitution, the Swiss government promotes respect for human rights and democracy, as well as the peaceful coexistence of peoples around the world.

Shaun Sacks, a senior researcher at NGO Monitor, said he was surprised by the report’s findings, which he said “demand immediate attention.”

“Switzerland is a country that is friendly to Israel, which only two years ago passed a law banning the funding of organizations that promote anti-Semitism or have ties to terrorist organizations, and therefore this move is a clear violation of every diplomatic norm,” he said.


Ariel Kahana

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/04/24/swiss-government-spending-million-on-legal-activity-against-israel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



80 groups urge University of Massachusetts to reverse sponsorship of anti-Israel ‘political rally’ - JNS and Israel Hayom Staff

​
by JNS and Israel Hayom Staff

“Providing the imprimatur of three academic departments to such a politically motivated and directed event violates the core academic mission of the university, suppresses student expression and impedes the free exchange of ideas,” says a letter to UMass chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy.


80 groups urge University of Massachusetts to reverse sponsorship of anti-Israel ‘political rally’
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst campus

Eighty organizations urged the University of Massachusetts in Amherst to rescind all named university sponsorship of an event next month that the groups allege will “incite animosity towards supporters of Israel, including Jewish and pro-Israel students on your campus.”

In a letter to UMass chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy, the organizations also requested that in the future, UMass faculty will be prohibited from using the university’s name or resources to further their own personal or political agenda.

“This is not an educational event but a political rally,” stated the letter. “Rather than aiming to promote an understanding of a highly contentious and polarizing issue by including speakers with a variety of perspectives, this event includes speakers with only one extremely partisan perspective and clearly aims to promote a political cause and encourage political action.”

“Providing the imprimatur of three academic departments to such a politically motivated and directed event violates the core academic mission of the university, suppresses student expression and impedes the free exchange of ideas so essential for any university,” it continued.

The May 4 event, titled “Not Backing Down: Israel, Free Speech & the Battle for Palestinian Rights,” is being organized by the NGO Media Education Foundation (MEF), whose director, Sut Jhally, is also a UMass professor and chair of the communication department.

The groups alleged that Jhally’s actions violate the UMass Amherst Principles of Employee Conduct.

It will include a panel and a discussion of “recent attacks on [Minnesota] Rep. Ilhan Omar and other progressives who have spoken out against Israel’s 50-year military occupation of Palestinian land and criticized pro-Israel pressure groups for conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with ‘anti-Semitism.’ ”

Speakers will include supporters of the anti-Israel BDS movement, including musician Roger Waters, Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour, and professor and former CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill.

The event is being sponsored by three UMass departments: the Department of Communication; the Department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies; and the Resistance Studies Initiative UMass.

“Although we recognize that the event itself is protected by the First Amendment, we believe that its department sponsorship constitutes an unacceptable violation of the university’s academic mission, will encourage acts of politically motivated aggression and violence on your campus, and is a fundamental breach of the public trust,” stated the groups.

“We call on you to rescind all university sponsorship of this event and to assure us that in the future, UMass faculty will not be permitted to use the university’s name or resources to promote their personal political agendas at the expense of academic integrity and the safety and well-being of UMass students.”

The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


JNS and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/04/24/80-groups-urge-university-of-massachusetts-to-reverse-sponsorship-of-anti-israel-political-rally/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Video: How the Chinese Government Infiltrates Our Schools - Sean Fitzgerald

​
by Sean Fitzgerald


Using front groups to push pro-Chinese and anti-American propaganda.




Frontpagemag Editor's note: Below is Sean Fitzgerald's new video, "How the Chinese Government Infiltrates Our Schools." The video was created in conjunction with the Freedom Center's Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign. To read our new pamphlet on this issue, "Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools," click here or order your own copy here.




Sean Fitzgerald is a graduate of John Jay College with a Degree in Criminal Justice and Film. He is the owner and content creator for Youtube.com/ActualJusticeWarrior.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273563/video-how-chinese-government-infiltrates-our-sean-fitzgerald

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The Future of the China-Russia Alliance - Dr. James M. Dorsey

​
by Dr. James M. Dorsey

Potential rivalry in Central Asia is not the only thing gnawing at the fundaments of a Chinese-Russian alliance.


Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, photo via Office of the President of Russia

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,151, April 24, 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Odds are that China and Russia will prove to be long-term US rivals. However, it may just as well be that their alliance will prove to be more tactical than strategic, with the China-Russia relationship resembling US-Chinese ties: cooperation in an environment of divergence rather than convergence.

Addressing last year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, then US defense secretary Jim Mattis dismissed fears first voiced in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, that long-term US interests would be most threatened by a “grand coalition” of China and Russia “united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.”

On the contrary, Mattis suggested. China and Russia have a “natural non-convergence of interests” despite the fact that both countries have defined their relationship as a “comprehensive strategic partnership,” he argued.

“There may be short-term convergence in the event they want to contradict international tribunals or try muscling their way into certain circumstances but my view – I would not be wasting my time going to Beijing…if I really thought that’s the only option between us and China.  What would be the point of it?  I’ve got more important things to do,” Mattis argued.

Mattis predicted that in the longer term, “China has more in common with Pacific Ocean nations and the United States and India than they have in common with Russia.”

Mattis’s prediction of a US-China-India entente may seem even further away today than it did in Singapore a year ago, but his doubts about the sustainability of the Chinese-Russian alliance are being echoed by Chinese and Russian analysts and developments on the ground.

Shi Ze, a former Chinese diplomat in Moscow who is now a senior fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, a think tank affiliated with the country’s foreign ministry, noted that “China and Russia have different attitudes. Russia wants to break the current international order. Russia thinks it is the victim of the current international system, in which its economy and its society do not develop. But China benefits from the current international system. We want to improve and modify it, not to break it.”

Russian scholar Dmitry Zhelobov recently suggested that there was little confidence to cement the Chinese-Russian alliance. Zhelobov warned that China was gradually establishing military bases in Central Asia to ensure that neither Russia nor the US would be able to disrupt Chinese trade with the Middle East and Europe across the Eurasian heartland.

Add to that the fact that Chinese dependence on Russian military technology appears to be diminishing, potentially threatening a key Russian export market.

In 2017, China rolled out its fifth-generation Chengdu J-20 fighter, which is believed to be technologically superior to Russia’s SU-57E.

Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to signal greater awareness of potentially shifting sands in Central Asia by signing an agreement in March during a visit to Kyrgyzstan to expand by 60 hectares the Kant Air Base 20 kilometers east of the capital Bishkek that is used by the Russian Air Force. Putin also agreed to pay a higher rent for the base.

He further lavished his Kyrgyz hosts with US$6 billion in deals ranging from power, mineral resources, and hydrocarbons to industry and agriculture.

Putin moreover allocated US$200 million for the upgrading of customs infrastructure and border equipment to put an end to the back-up of dozens of trucks on the Kazakh-Kyrgyz border caused by Kyrgyzstan’s inability to comply with the technical requirements of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Potential rivalry in Central Asia is not the only thing gnawing at the fundaments of a Chinese-Russian alliance. So is anti-Chinese sentiment and Russian public suspicion of Chinese intentions and commercial and social practices, already pervasive in the region’s former Soviet republics.

Increasingly, Russian leaders are facing mounting public anger in the Lake Baikal region and the country’s Far East at their alleged connivance in perceived Chinese encroachment on the region’s natural resources, including water.

A petition by prominent Russian show business personalities opposing Chinese plans to build a water bottling plant on the shores of Lake Baikal attracted more than 800,000 signatures, signaling the depth of popular resentment and pitfalls of the Russian alliance with China.

Protests have further erupted in multiple Russian cities against Chinese logging in the country’s Far East that residents and environmentalists charge has spoiled Russian watersheds and is destroying the habitats of the endangered Siberian tiger and Amur leopard. The protesters, who denounced construction of housing for Chinese workers, are demanding a ban on Russian timber exports to China.

Russian fears of Chinese encroachment on its Far East go back to the mid-1800s and prompted Joseph Stalin to deport the region’s Korean and Chinese populations. When Russia and China finally settled a border dispute in 2008 with a transfer of land to China, Russian media raised the specter of millions of Chinese migrants colonizing Siberia and the Far East.

Popular Russian fears diverge from official thinking that in recent years has discounted the threat of Chinese encroachment given that the trend is for Russians to seek opportunity in China, where wages are high, rather than the other way round.

The official Russian assessment would counter Mattis’s thesis and support Brzezinski’s fears, which continue to have a significant following in Washington.

“China and Russia will present a wide variety of economic, political, counterintelligence, military, and diplomatic challenges to the United States and its allies. We anticipate that they will collaborate to counter US objectives, taking advantage of rising doubts in some places about the liberal democratic model,” said Director of National Intelligence Daniel R. Coats in the intelligence community’s 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The report went on to say that China and Russia were “expanding cooperation with each other and through international bodies to shape global rules and standards to their benefit and present a counterweight to the United States and other Western countries.”

The truth is that the jury is out. There is no shortage of evidence that China and Russia are joining forces in multiple theatres across the globe as well as in multilateral organizations like the UN and in Russian and Chinese efforts to drive wedges among Western allies and undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.

The question is how disruptive Chinese-Russian rivalry in Central Asia and mounting Russian public unease with Chinese advances will be and whether that could alter US perceptions of Russia as an enemy rather than an ally.

The odds may well be that China and Russia will prove to be long-term US rivals. However, it may just as well be that their alliance will prove to be more tactical than strategic, with the China-Russia relationship resembling US-Chinese ties: cooperation in an environment of divergence rather than convergence.




Dr. James M. Dorsey, a non-resident Senior Associate at the BESA Center, is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University and co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture.

Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/future-china-russia-alliance/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Trump is using the weapon he knows best: Economic sanctions - Eldad Beck

​
by Eldad Beck

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

The U.S. president is a businessman who views the world through an economic prism. Preferring to avoid the military option, he is instead using economic sanctions to bludgeon countries and regimes that pose a threat to American interests.

Donald Trump has no significant military, diplomatic or political experience. The U.S. president is a businessman and thus views the world through an economic prism. Obviously, the United States became the most important global superpower, diplomatically and militarily, because of its economic clout. Trump also understood the U.S. was close to losing its leadership status in the international arena, due to willfully weakening its own economy through globalist policies enacted by previous administrations and trade agreements within that framework.

Trump’s path to making America great again doesn’t just pass through amending these trade deals, which have hurt American industries, but also through using his country’s considerable economic might against its adversaries. Trump doesn’t plan on launching wars. He is wielding a different type of weapon to bludgeon countries and regimes that pose a threat to American interests: Economic sanctions.

Trump is applying this weapon to varying degrees against Russia, China and the European Union; and with particular fervor against the regimes in North Korea and Venezuela. Against Iran, he is going all out. Trump’s goal isn’t necessarily to topple these regimes. If they do fall, all the better. Officially, however, he wants to create economic pressure levers to force these nearly-bankrupt regimes to recalibrate their course and start cooperating with Washington to dismantle the threats that Washington wishes to eradicate.

In the case of Iran, first and foremost, this means forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table to rehash the terrible nuclear deal, which the international community co-signed some five years ago; to cease developing ballistic missiles; stop its subversive activities across the Middle East; or risk civil revolt amid the country’s deteriorating economic situation.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently told Iranian-American leaders that from the administration’s perspective, “There are no moderates anywhere in the Iranian regime.” Asked if he can guarantee that economic sanctions against Tehran won’t hurt the Iranian people, he replied: “There is no such guarantee.” Indeed, without harming the Iranian people, the internal pressure can’t be created to foster the desired changes in Tehran.

In two weeks, the American administration will intensify its economic stranglehold on Iran by canceling exemptions for the five main importers of Iranian oil. In Tehran, officials threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to Gulf State oil tankers. Even if the U.S. doesn’t want to instigate a military confrontation with Iran, in Tehran officials know Washington will respond to any action against its allies. It’s possible the Iranian regime will have no choice but to escalate matters militarily. But even the ayatollahs know that playing with fire in such a manner, with festering civil unrest at home, could end in losing their grip on power.


Eldad Beck

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/04/23/trump-is-using-the-weapon-he-knows-best/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Netanyahu vs. Lieberman on Gaza (Part Two) - Hugh Fitzgerald

​
by Hugh Fitzgerald

“Today, Hezbollah possesses more firepower than 95 percent of the world’s conventional militaries, and more rockets and missiles than all European NATO members combined,” the report stated.

A report from the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s (JINSA) Hybrid Warfare Task force, which is headed by several retired senior U.S. military officials, outlined this striking strategic threat that Israel will face in its next war with Hezbollah.
According to the report, the next conflict with Hezbollah will “bear little resemblance to anything that has come before between Israel and its adversaries.”
“Changes in the strategic environment in the 12 years since the last Israeli-Hezbollah conflict will translate into unparalleled death and destruction,” the report said, noting that Hezbollah’s recent fighting experience in Syria, its support from Iran and its massive weapons arsenal pose a “quantum leap” in the terror group’s ability to inflict devastation on Israel.
“Today, Hezbollah possesses more firepower than 95 percent of the world’s conventional militaries, and more rockets and missiles than all European NATO members combined,” the report stated.
Various estimates put Hezbollah’s overall rocket and missile stockpiles at between 120,000 to 140,000—up from roughly 10,000 in the last conflict in 2006.
The threat posed by Hezbollah is much greater than that from Hamas. In mid-November, Hamas did its level best, firing nearly 500 rockets and mortars into Israel, but only one Israeli was killed. One can imagine the destruction and casualties that would result from any attack by Hezbollah, with its gigantic stockpile — 120,000 to 140,000 — of rockets and missiles, many of them advanced, and hidden all over Lebanon.

Netanyahu has decided that the IDF has to focus most of its military efforts on preparing to meet any threat on the northern front, by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and by both Hezbollah and Iranian forces in Syria. He does not want to get bogged down in Gaza, or even have to divert limited military resources to the south (such as the Iron Dome anti-missile shield). A cease-fire with Hamas is always temporary, he knows, but these intermittent flare-ups with Hamas are manageable in a way that a massive attack from Iran, aided by Hezbollah’s missiles, would not be. Israelis call the damage they inflict repeatedly on Hamas as “mowing the grass.” But the threat from Hamas hardly compares with that from Iran-backed Hezbollah or Iran itself.

According to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006, all armed groups in Lebanon were supposed to disarm. Instead of abiding by the Resolution, Hezbollah then began its gigantic arms buildup, with Iranian help, while Israel waited — in vain — for members of the U.N. to force Hezbollah to honor its solemn commitment to disarm. Everyone — Europe, America,U.N. peacekeepers — looked the other way; Israel complained, repeatedly, without success.

Nothing was done. The U.N. demonstrated its impotence, its inability and unwillingness, to force Hezbollah to abide by Resolution 1701. And the arms buildup by the terrorist group continued, unstopped and unstoppable, even until today. The only attempt to enforce Resolution 1701 has been by Israel, which has bombed Iranian shipments of weapons meant for Hezbollah. But it’s all a bit late. Hezbollah now possesses more firepower, according to the JINSA report, than 95 percent of the world’s conventional militaries, and more rockets and missiles than all European NATO members combined.

Netanyahu wants to free the IDF from having to devote so many resources to Israel’s Southern Front. He knows that ever since 2006, Israel has turned its main military attention to Gaza, and had several small wars with Hamas, in 2006, 2008-2009, 2014, and 2018, along with many smaller-scale exchanges of fire. These conflicts have all been manageable, with Israel’s victory never in question, but they also helped deflect much of Israel’s attention away from Hezbollah’s steady, massive buildup, with the results we now see.

In an Israeli attack in mid-November, by way of an answer to a barrage of rockets and missiles from Hamas, the terrorist group saw the destruction of many of its weapons depots, of Al-Aqsa TV, the Hamas-run television station that broadcasts anti-Israel propaganda and also sends messages to would-be terrorists, of several of Hamas’ main office buildings, and a few residential structures, too, where weapons were known to be stored. In every attack Israel followed its “knock on the roof” practice — that is, dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs of targeted buildings, as a warning of imminent bombing attacks, in order to give the inhabitants time to flee. The results for Israel have been most satisfactory: they hit more than 160 targets successfully, and kept the loss of life among the “Palestinians”  to an astounding minimum of seven dead.

Hamas, which not very long ago seemed swaggeringly intent on enlarging the armed conflict with Israel, was quickly chastened by seeing the widespread damage Israel managed to inflict in such a short time. That damage led Hamas to not only accept but– which is never a given with Muslim Arabs — to observe the terms of the cease-fire.

Did Israel make a strategic mistake in accepting the cease-fire? Ought it to have continued to pound Hamas so hard that it lost control of Gaza altogether? Wouldn’t a lawless Gaza be a grave danger to Israel, a place where some even more dangerous group, notably ISIS or Islamic Jihad, might fill the vacuum left by the crushing of Hamas? Worst of all for Israel would be if Gaza descended into complete anarchy, forcing Israel to move large numbers of troops into Gaza in order to impose order and to take over such mundane tasks  as supplying electricity, water, sanitation services, for a dangerous and hate-filled population of 1.8 million “Palestinians.” Indeed, the very worst thing that Hamas could now do to harm Israel is not to lobby more ineffectual rockets into southern Israel, but to announce that it cannot properly rule in Gaza when it is “under attack” by Israel, and then to hand the task of ruling Gaza over to the Israelis.


Hugh Fitzgerald

Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/hugh-fitzgerald-netanyahu-vs-lieberman-on-gaza-part-two

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Joe di Genova explains where the Russia Hoax is headed - Thomas Lifson

​
by Thomas Lifson

There will be accountability!

Throughout the unfolding of the Russia hoax, nobody has topped the clarity provided by DC superlawyer and former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Joseph DiGenova. In his television and radio appearances, he has not minced words about the nature of the illegal coup underway, and has not hesitated to name names. Undoubtedly, he has sources within the DC legal community that, combined with his experience as the top federal prosecutor among US Attorneys, give him a bird’s eye view of where this scandal – the biggest political scandal in history – is heading.



Fox News screen grab

Yesterday, he appeared on DC’s conservative talk radio station WMAL, where he is a regular guest on the “Mornings on the Mall” show, and for almost 15 minutes unleashed himself about where this is headed. His candid comments on the various actors involved in the scandal are priceless.

This is well worth 15 minutes of your time.



Hat tip: Roger Luchs
Bonus Update: Joe di Genova talks with Sebastian Gorka:




Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/joe_di_genova_explains_where_the_russia_hoax_is_headed.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter