Tuesday, September 10, 2024

South Africa trying to delay ICJ genocide case for lack of evidence - JNS

 

by JNS

Pretoria is hoping that proof of their allegations will come from other places.

 

Vusimuzi Madonsela (right), of South Africa, at the International Court of Justice during its ruling on May 24, 2024 that Israel must cease military operations in Rafah. Credit: Bastiaan Musscher/U.N. Photo/ICJ-CIJ.
Vusimuzi Madonsela (right), of South Africa, at the International Court of Justice during its ruling on May 24, 2024 that Israel must cease military operations in Rafah. Credit: Bastiaan Musscher/U.N. Photo/ICJ-CIJ.

South Africa is attempting to extend the deadline for presenting evidence against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague because it is unable to prove its allegations of genocide, Kan News reported on Tuesday.

The move comes some nine months after the country submitted a suit against the Jewish state over the Israel Defense Forces’ conduct in the war against the Hamas terror group in Gaza, claiming that the IDF is committing genocide.

South Africa is required to submit its evidence on Oct. 28, but is trying to extend the deadline by several months in the hope that evidence proving their genocide accusations will come from other places.

Kan noted how unusual the tactic is, as plaintiffs generally want to expedite the proceedings, and the defendant, in this case Israel, wants to slow it down.

Axios reported on Monday about an Israeli campaign to exact a heavy price in the diplomatic arena for South Africa’s ICJ suit, with the Israeli Foreign Ministry in recent weeks engaged in a diplomatic effort to prevent South Africa from moving forward with the case, including sending a classified cable to the Israeli embassy in Washington and all Israeli consulates in the United States.

“We are asking you to immediately work with lawmakers on the federal and state level, with governors and Jewish organizations to put pressure on South Africa to change its policy towards Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price,” the cable read.


JNS

Source: https://www.jns.org/south-africa-trying-to-delay-icj-genocide-case-for-lack-of-evidence/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Majority of Israelis back Netanyahu on Philadelphi, oppose protests - Caroline Glick

 

by Caroline Glick

Direct Polls conducted the survey on Monday evening both before and after the prime minister’s press conference, finding a significant disparity in Netanyahu’s favor in the latter sampling.

 


An overwhelming majority of Israelis support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s negotiation positions regarding a hostage deal with Hamas and oppose anti-government demonstrations in Tel Aviv demanding an immediate deal at any price, according to a new, in-depth JNS poll.

Netanyahu’s positions are supported not only by coalition-party voters, but also by approximately one third of voters for opposition parties, the survey found.

Direct Polls conducted the survey on Monday evening both before and after the prime minister’s press conference, finding a significant disparity in Netanyahu’s favor in the latter sampling.

At the press conference, Netanyahu set out the rationale for his refusal to remove Israel Defense Forces troops from the border zone between Gaza and Egypt, known as the Philadelphi Corridor, its code name on IDF maps.

JNS asked respondents: “Do you believe Israel should support or oppose a deal that conditions the receipt of between 18-30 hostages on an IDF withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor for six weeks, during which Hamas will be able to rearm and smuggle hostages out of Gaza?”

Thirty-five percent of respondents overall said that Israel should agree to such a deal, while 62% opposed it. Three percent had no opinion.

Among coalition party voters, 7% supported withdrawing from the Gaza-Egypt border, compared to 62% of opposition voters. Ninety-two percent of coalition voters opposed the withdrawal and 33% of opposition voters opposed withdrawing from the Philadelphi corridor.

Notably, 65% of opposition voters polled before the press conference supported withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor, and only 57% of opposition voters polled afterwards supported that position. Support for the withdrawal among coalition voters decreased from 8% to 5%.

The disparity between the way opposition party voters polled before and after Netanyahu’s press conference viewed mass anti-government protests on behalf of a hostage deal was even more apparent. Fifty-two percent of opposition party voters surveyed before Netanyahu’s press conference thought that the demonstrations advanced the goal of getting the hostages home. Thirty-two percent said that the demonstrations had no impact on whether or not a deal would be achieved that would get the hostages home. Sixteen percent said that the demonstrations decreased the chance of getting a hostage deal with Hamas.

After Netanyahu’s press conference, only 42% of opposition voters believed that the demonstrations increased the prospects for getting the hostages home. Thirty-nine percent said that the demonstrations didn’t affect their plight, and 19% said that the demonstrations decreased prospects for bringing them home.

Sixty-one percent of Israelis agreed with the sentence, “Only military pressure on Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and planned military actions including hostage rescue operations can lead to the release of the hostages.” Thirty-three percent agreed that “Continuing IDF operations in the Gaza tunnels endangers the hostages’ lives.”

Israelis are sharply split over whether Netanyahu bears responsibility for the execution of the hostages. Opposition voters support the claim 69% to 28%, while coalition voters oppose it 94%-6%.

The hostage deal Netanyahu has accepted involves three phases. In the first phase Israel would agree to free hundreds of Hamas terrorists from prison and significantly draw back its forces from Gaza while accepting a six-week ceasefire. Hamas in exchange would free 18-30 hostages. In two later phases of the deal, Hamas would release the rest of the hostages—alive and dead—in exchange for the further release of terrorists from prison and continuation of the ceasefire.

JNS asked Israelis if they believed Hamas would be willing to release additional hostages in later phases of the deal or would refuse to release them. Sixty-nine percent of Israelis (88% of coalition voters and 50% of opposition voters) believe Hamas will not release additional hostages. Only 24% of Israelis (10% of coalition voters and 38% of opposition voters) said that Hamas will be willing to advance along the deal and release additional hostages.

In other words, 69% of Israelis believe that between 83 and 71 hostages would be left behind in Gaza indefinitely.

Hamas’s negotiating position is that Israel must remove all of its forces from Gaza, including from the 3 kilometer wide security perimeter within Gaza along the border with Israel, the Netzarim Corridor that separates central and southern Gaza from northern Gaza, and the Philadelphi Corridor.

Seventy-three percent of Israelis, (95% of coalition party voters and 51% of opposition party voters) oppose Hamas’s demands. Twenty-two percent of Israelis support it, (4% of coalition voters and 40% of opposition voters).

A majority of Israelis do not trust the Biden-Harris administration’s commitments to support Israel if Hamas breaches the ceasefire-for-hostages deal. In response to JNS’s question, “Do you believe that the Biden-Harris administration will permit or block Israel from reinstating hostilities and reconquering Gaza to defeat Hamas if Hamas breaches the agreement,” 38% of Israelis said the United States would permit Israel to renew military operations; 56% said the United States would block Israel from renewing its military operations in Gaza. Only 14% of coalition voters believed the Biden-Harris administration would support a renewal of operations, while 61% of opposition voters trusted the administration’s support. Eighty-one percent of coalition voters said the United States would prevent Israel from renewing its operations if Hamas breaches a ceasefire deal, compared to 31% of opposition party voters.

On Sunday, Arnon Bar-David, the chairman of Israel’s main labor union, the Histadrut, declared a general strike in order to force the government to accept a hostage deal at all costs. A Labor court ruled the strike illegal on Monday afternoon and ordered it stopped immediately. The damage to the economy from the lost work hours is assessed at 2 billion shekels ($541 million).

JNS asked the public whether they believed that the strike advanced a hostage deal, had no impact on prospects for a hostage deal or damaged prospects for a hostage deal. Eighteen percent said the strike increased the prospects for a deal, 32% said it had no impact and 50% said it harmed prospects for a deal.

The heads of the anti-government protest groups active since January 2023 and the Hostage Families Forum, which represents a few dozen hostage families, have been cooperating informally since Oct. 7. In December 2023, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the unofficial leader of the anti-government political groups organizing the protests, called for the anti-government groups to work behind the hostages’ families. On Tuesday it was reported that Barak’s associates will begin officially cooperating with the Hostage Families Forum from now on, effectively merging the group representing a fraction of the hostages’ families with the anti-government protest movement.

JNS asked the public whether it believed that the anti-government protest groups have joined the hostages’ families groups in order mainly to help secure their release, mainly to overthrow the government or to advance both goals equally. Fifty-five percent of Israelis (90% of coalition voters and 20% of opposition voters) said that the anti-government groups are helping the Hostages’ Families Forum to overthrow the government.

Twenty percent of Israelis (3% of coalition voters and 37% of opposition voters) said the anti-government groups were supporting the Hostage Families Forum to secure the hostages’ release.

Twenty-four percent of Israelis (7% of coalition voters and 41% of opposition voters) believed they were helping the Hostage Families Forum to advance both goals equally.

In light of Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s open opposition to the Security Cabinet’s decision to oppose all withdrawals from the Philadelphi Corridor, JNS asked whether Israelis believe he should quit or be fired, or whether he should remain in his position. Fifty-one percent of Israelis said that Gallant should be fired or resign.

Thirty-three percent (53% of coalition voters and 14% of opposition voters) said Gallant should resign.

Eighteen percent of Israelis (32% of coalition voters and 4% of opposition voters) said that Netanyahu should fire Gallant.

Forty-five percent of Israelis (13% of coalition voters and 76% of opposition voters) said he should remain in his position.

Similarly, 48% of Israelis believe that IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Hertzi Halevy should either resign immediately or in the next four weeks and 41% believe that he should leave when the war is over. Only 7% believe he should remain in his position until the official conclusion of his term in 2025.


Caroline Glick

Source: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/majority-of-israelis-back-netanyahu-on-philadelphi-oppose-protests/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel rejects Hamas claim of mass casualties in Khan Yunis strike - Joshua Marks

 

by Joshua Marks

Three senior terror operatives were killed in the attack on a command-and-control center in the humanitarian zone, according to the IDF.

 

Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of Israeli strikes on a makeshift displacement camp in Mawasi Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip on Sept. 10, 2024, amid the ongoing war between Israel and Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Photo by Bashar Taleb/AFP via Getty Images.
Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of Israeli strikes on a makeshift displacement camp in Mawasi Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip on Sept. 10, 2024, amid the ongoing war between Israel and Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Photo by Bashar Taleb/AFP via Getty Images.

The Israel Defense Forces on Tuesday rejected Hamas’s claims that dozens of civilians were killed and wounded in an overnight airstrike on a Hamas command-and-control center in the humanitarian area near Khan Yunis in southern Gaza.

Three senior Hamas operatives were among the terrorists killed in the strike, carried out by Israeli Air Force fighter jets acting under the direction of the Israel Security Agency and the IDF. 

The military named them as Samer Ismail Khadr Abu Daqqa, head of Hamas’ aerial unit in Gaza; Osama Tabesh, head of the observation and targets department in Hamas’s military intelligence; and Ayman Mabhouh, another senior Hamas terrorist.

“These terrorists were directly involved in the execution of the October 7th Massacre and have been recently operating to carry out terror activities against the IDF and the State of Israel,” the military stated.

 

The terrorists’ presence was confirmed before the strike via extensive intelligence gathering and aerial surveillance, according to the IDF.

Hamas authorities claimed that more than 40 people were killed and at least 60 others wounded in the attack, with many remaining missing as rescue workers continued to search the area. The IDF refuted the figures, citing the terror organization’s history of making up and distorting statistics.

“According to an initial review, the numbers published by the Hamas-run Government Information Office in Gaza, which has consistently broadcast lies and false information throughout the war, do not align with the information held by the IDF, the precise munitions used, and the accuracy of the strike,” the military said.

Reuters cited “residents and medics” in Gaza who said that at least four missiles struck the tent encampment in the Al-Mawasi area near Khan Yunis. The Hamas-run Gaza civil emergency service told the news agency that at least 20 tents caught fire and that the missiles had left craters at least 30 feet deep.

The IDF accused Hamas of continuing to endanger noncombatants by conducting terrorist activities from within safe zones.

“Despite the extensive measures taken by the IDF to enable the Gazan population to move away from combat zones, including by designating a Humanitarian Area, the Hamas terrorist organization continues to embed its operatives and military infrastructure in the Humanitarian Area and systematically use Gazan civilians as a human shield for its terrorist activities,” the IDF statement concluded.


Joshua Marks

Source: https://www.jns.org/israel-says-it-hit-significant-hamas-terrorists-operating-in-khan-yunis/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel's True Enemy: Hamas, Not Netanyahu - Bassam Tawil

 

by Bassam Tawil

Hamas and the Israeli demonstrators seem to hope that the protests will succeed in overthrowing Netanyahu, so that the Israelis can elect a new prime minister – one who will allow Hamas to rearm, regroup and attack again, and one who will allow on Israel's border a Palestinian state committed to Israel's destruction and free of Jews who might prevent further attacks.

 

  • More than 30 years ago, these "elites," overwhelmingly on Israel's political "left" (think "peace," as if most people in democracies do not want peace) played a significant role in convincing the Israeli government to sign the Oslo Accord with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasser Arafat. The assumption back then was that if you bring Arafat's PLO from the Arab countries to Gaza and the West Bank and help them create a government and police force, the Palestinians would renounce terrorism and give up their dream of destroying Israel.

  • The Palestinian Authority, established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1994, had no intention of making peace with Israel, and still has not.

  • Palestinian leaders continue to praise terrorists as "martyrs" and "heroes" and pay monthly salaries to their families.

  • Many Israeli "elites" chose to turn a blind eye to the Palestinian leaders' support for terrorism and incitement of violence and hatred against Israel. Some Israeli peace activists continued to argue that Abbas who, since 2014 has refused to resume peace negotiations with Israel, is somehow a credible peace partner.

  • "He [Arafat] did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own." – Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted by Benny Morris from interviews in late March and early April 2202.

  • The Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip in 2005 to enable the Palestinians to create a Dubai on the Mediterranean, instead enabled Hamas and other terror groups to turn the coastal enclave into a huge base for Jihad (holy war) against Israel. With the help of Iran, the terror groups smuggled weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt in tunnels dug under the border, and were taught to manufacture rockets and missiles. The Gazans also built a vast network of tunnels throughout the Gaza Strip, with many extending into Egypt.

  • It turned out the belief of Israeli "elites" that the expulsion of Jews from the Gaza Strip would contribute to peace with the Palestinians was a catastrophic mirage.

  • The Palestinians did not see the "disengagement" as an indication that Israel wants peace. Instead, many Palestinians viewed the withdrawal as an Israeli display of weakness and retreat in the face of rockets and suicide bombings. The thinking among the Palestinians became, "Oh, it's working! So let's do it more!"

  • In a similar way, Iran, Qatar, Hamas and Hezbollah have been gaining more confidence from the current anti-government protests in Israel, especially since the Biden-Harris administration began pressing Israel to make concessions, but never Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar or Iran.

  • "Continue to exert psychological pressure on the families [of the hostages], both now and during the first phase [of the ceasefire] so that public pressure on the enemy government increases.... Arab forces should serve as a buffer to prevent the enemy [Israel] from entering after the war in Gaza ends, until they [Hamas] have reorganized their ranks and military capabilities." — Hamas document, written in March for the terrorist group's leader Yahya Sinwar, discovered on a computer allegedly belonging to him that was seized by the IDF.

  • It is wrong for Israel's anti-government demonstrators to blame Netanyahu for the deadlock in the hostages-ceasefire negotiations. As the Hamas document shows, it is actually the terror group that is not in a rush to reach a deal. Hamas and the Israeli demonstrators seem to hope that the protests will succeed in overthrowing Netanyahu, so that the Israelis can elect a new prime minister – one who will allow Hamas to rearm, regroup and attack again, and one who will allow on Israel's border a Palestinian state committed to Israel's destruction and free of Jews who might prevent further attacks.

  • Sadly, many demonstrating in Israel today appear unaware that they are being used by Hamas; that they have walked into Hamas's trap: to force out a leader, Netanyahu, who is finally succeeding in defeating Hamas.

Sadly, many demonstrating in Israel today appear unaware that they are being used by Hamas; that they have walked into Hamas's trap: to force out a leader, Netanyahu, who is finally succeeding in defeating Hamas. Pictured: Anti-government demonstrators near the prime minister's residence in Jerusalem, Israel on September 7, 2024.

Israel's self-appointed "elites" governed Israel during the first few decades after its independence in 1948, and, after an unfortunate track record of calculating and assuming things incorrectly when it comes to Israel's policies towards the Palestinians and other Arabs, are evidently dismayed that they have not been voted back into power. These Israeli "elites" are now blocking Israel's streets to try to bring down Israel's duly elected government. They seem to have forgotten their past mistakes and are still pushing for the same failed policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Israelis.

More than 30 years ago, these "elites," overwhelmingly on Israel's political "left" (think "peace," as if most people in democracies do not want peace) played a significant role in convincing the Israeli government to sign the Oslo Accord with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasser Arafat. The assumption back then was that if you bring Arafat's PLO from the Arab countries to Gaza and the West Bank and help them create a government and police force, the Palestinians would renounce terrorism and give up their dream of destroying Israel.

The Palestinian Authority, established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1994, had no intention of making peace with Israel, and still has not (here, here and here).

Instead of preparing the Palestinians for peace and recognition of Israel's right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people, Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, launched a huge campaign to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews. The Palestinian leaders told their people that they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, that Israel is a "racist and apartheid state," that Israel uses "poison gas" to kill Palestinians, that Israel is committing "genocide" against the Palestinians, and that Jews poison Palestinians' water.

Palestinian leaders continue to praise terrorists as "martyrs" and "heroes" and pay monthly salaries to their families. "We will not cut or prevent stipends to the families of the prisoners and martyrs," Abbas said during a meeting with families of terrorists in 2018. "If we are left with one penny, we will spend it on the families of the prisoners and martyrs."

Under both Arafat and Abbas, several Palestinian terror groups, including the Iran-backed Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, thrived and formed armies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinian leaders did nothing to stop the terrorists.

Many Israeli "elites" chose to turn a blind eye to the Palestinian leaders' support for terrorism and incitement of violence and hatred against Israel. Some Israeli peace activists continued to argue that Abbas who, since 2014 has refused to resume peace negotiations with Israel, is somehow a credible peace partner.

When the Palestinians launched the Second Intifada (uprising) in 2000, unfortunately, a large portion of these "elites" chose not to wake up and embark on a soul-searching process. More than 1,000 Israelis were murdered during the five-year uprising, which included a massive wave of suicide bombings. Instead of holding the Palestinians responsible for the terrorism and violence, some of the leaders of these "elites" choose to blame Israeli leaders and governments for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Anyone who was around back then can remember that whenever someone would suggest that the Palestinian Authority should be accountable, the reply would come back, "Are you trying to destroy the peace process?"

Earlier this year, one of the hostages released from Gaza related that when Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar visited them in an underground tunnel, "I asked him how he wasn't ashamed, to do such a thing to people who for years support peace? He didn't answer. He was quiet."

Former cabinet minister Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the failed peace process with the Palestinians, claimed that the Oslo Accords were absolutely right. He blames what did not go well on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the right-wing in Israel:

"It's very difficult to call Oslo a failure. The failure is that Oslo was not implemented. The most important reason was that [Prime Minister] Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and after a few months of [Prime Minister] Shimon Peres, another prime minister [Netanyahu] was elected who was against Oslo."

Beilin and other Israeli "elites", however, often ignore the fact that the Second Intifada erupted shortly after then Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the most generous offer to Arafat at the Camp David summit: a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, and turning large parts of East Jerusalem into the Palestinian capital. Arafat rejected the offer. Enraged, US President Bill Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe."

Barak was later quoted as saying:

"He [Arafat] did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own."

The same kind of Israeli "elites" who pushed for and supported Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip are currently demonstrating on the streets of Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities to demand an end to the Israeli military offensive against Hamas. The operation began immediately after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israeli communities near the border with the Gaza Strip. 1,200 Israelis were murdered, with many raped, tortured and burned alive during the attack. Another 240 Israelis were kidnapped to the Gaza Strip by Hamas terrorists. More than 100 women and children were returned during a ceasefire in late November. According to Israeli authorities, an estimated 60 living hostages remain; 35 have been confirmed murdered.

The Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip in 2005 to enable the Palestinians to create a Dubai on the Mediterranean, instead enabled Hamas and other terror groups to turn the coastal enclave into a huge base for Jihad (holy war) against Israel. With the help of Iran, the terror groups smuggled weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt in tunnels dug under the border, and were taught to manufacture rockets and missiles. The Gazans also built a vast network of tunnels throughout the Gaza Strip, with many extending into Egypt.

It turned out the belief of Israeli "elites" that the expulsion of Jews from the Gaza Strip would contribute to peace with the Palestinians was a catastrophic mirage.

The Palestinians did not see the "disengagement" as an indication that Israel wants peace. Instead, many Palestinians viewed the withdrawal as an Israeli display of weakness and retreat in the face of rockets and suicide bombings. The thinking among the Palestinians became, "Oh, it's working! So let's do it more!" The pullout from the Gaza Strip only gave the terrorists even more confidence in their strategy of terrorism and fueled their desire to pursue the Jihad against Israel with redoubled force.

In a similar way, Iran, Qatar, Hamas and Hezbollah have been gaining more confidence from the current anti-government protests in Israel, especially since the Biden-Harris administration began pressing Israel to make concessions, but never Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar or Iran.

What so many doubtlessly well-intentioned demonstrators in Israel appear not to see is that they have walked headlong into Hamas's trap: to prolong the war -- never mind their own Gazan civilian casualties; the more the better so Israel can be blamed -- to enable Hamas to stay in power to attack Israel again, and to make sure that any failure of a ceasefire deal will be blamed on Israel, not on Hamas.

The plan, revealed over the weekend by the German newspaper Bild, was discovered on a document written for Sinwar in March, on a computer that had reportedly belonged to Sinwar, seized by the Israel Defense Force.

The document recommends:

"Continue to exert psychological pressure on the families [of the hostages], both now and during the first phase [of the ceasefire] so that public pressure on the enemy government increases."

The document adds:

"Arab forces should serve as a buffer to prevent the enemy [Israel] from entering after the war in Gaza ends, until they [Hamas] have reorganized their ranks and military capabilities."

If the talks fail, it is to be attributed to "Israeli stubbornness," and that "Hamas will not be seen as responsible for the failure to reach an agreement."

The demonstrations are receiving extensive coverage in Hamas-affiliated media outlets and are being portrayed as proof of Israel's frailty and the self-interest of Netanyahu's government to retain power, rather than as Netanyahu's effort to prevent tunnels – not even mentioned in the Bild document – from being used to smuggle thousands of rockets and other weapons now waiting on Egypt's side of the border to be smuggled into Gaza, as well as the possibility that Sinwar is planning to escape to Iran, taking hostages with him.

Reports claim that Israel now knows where Sinwar is hiding, under Khan Younis, but that he is surrounded by Israeli hostages to ensure his protection.

The anti-government demonstrators want Netanyahu to accede to all of Hamas's demands, including a ceasefire and a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, in exchange for the release of some Israeli hostages. Any ceasefire deal that keeps Hamas in power will only lead to more October 7-style jihadi attacks and atrocities against Israelis.

Negotiations with Hamas are reported to be breaking down -- probably because it finally became clear after Hamas recently murdered six hostages, four of whom were to have been released, that Hamas is not interested in releasing hostages and that its only objective is a "permanent ceasefire," on its terms, so it can survive as a political and military force to continue attacking Israel.

In the initial phases of the draft hostage-ceasefire deal, Hamas had apparently been willing to release only 30 hostages. The terror group understandably wants to hold on to as many hostages as possible as an "insurance policy" so that Israel will not assassinate its leaders and will allow it to maintain control over the Gaza Strip. Terrorist groups anyhow are not exactly known for honoring their commitments. Arafat made that clear when he explained to his people in Arabic after signing the Oslo Accord that they were merely to be regarded the same way as Muhammad's Treaty of Hudaibiyya: Muhammad promised the Quraish Tribe a truce for ten years, then gathered an army together and returned two years later, slaughtered them and seized Mecca.

Israel's self-appointed "elites" seem not to understand that there is only one deal that Hamas would be willing to accept: one that leads to Israel's humiliation and defeat.

It is wrong for Israel's anti-government demonstrators to blame Netanyahu for the deadlock in the hostages-ceasefire negotiations. As the Hamas document shows, it is actually the terror group that is not in a rush to reach a deal. Hamas and the Israeli demonstrators seem to hope that the protests will succeed in overthrowing Netanyahu, so that the Israelis can elect a new prime minister – one who will allow Hamas to rearm, regroup and attack again, and one who will allow on Israel's border a Palestinian state committed to Israel's destruction and free of Jews who might prevent further attacks.

Sadly, many demonstrating in Israel today appear unaware that they are being used by Hamas; that they have walked into Hamas's trap: to force out a leader, Netanyahu, who is finally succeeding in defeating Hamas. Some Israelis have shortsightedly exploited the predicament of the hostages' families to advance their own political agenda: removing Netanyahu from office. Many Israelis appear to have forgotten that Israel's true enemy is not Netanyahu, but Hamas.


Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. The work of Bassam Tawil is made possible through the generous donation of a couple of donors who wished to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most grateful.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20925/israel-enemy-hamas

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IDF admits it likely mistakenly killed American activist in West Bank battle - Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob

An IDF statement has revealed that soldiers likely accidentally killed a Turkish-American citizen in an altercation in the West Bank.

 

American-Turkish activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. (photo credit: SOCIAL MEDIA)
American-Turkish activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi.
(photo credit: SOCIAL MEDIA)

Aysenur Eygi, a 26-year-old American, was probably mistakenly killed during an altercation in the northern West Bank last Friday, the IDF said Tuesday.

An initial IDF probe had said soldiers were aiming for a “central instigator” but likely also struck and killed Eygi unwittingly.

The altercation included dozens of Palestinians throwing rocks and burning tires at soldiers at Beita junction near Nablus, the IDF said.

In addition, the IDF said it had opened a criminal probe into the incident and would transfer the findings to its legal division when concluded, along with a request to perform an autopsy on Eygi’s body.

Finally, the IDF said it regretted having likely caused her death.

 Israeli soldiers guard after an attack by Jewish settlers in Burin village, near the West Bank city of Nablus, June 18, 2024 (credit: NASSER ISHTAYEH/FLASH90)Enlrage image
Israeli soldiers guard after an attack by Jewish settlers in Burin village, near the West Bank city of Nablus, June 18, 2024 (credit: NASSER ISHTAYEH/FLASH90)

Eygi, a dual Turkish-American citizen and recent graduate of the University of Washington, and other activists from the International Solidarity Movement have been assisting Palestinians with protests in the West Bank in recent months, including near an outpost called Evyatar, an offshoot of the Beita settlement.

ISM activists

ISM activists who were at the scene have said the IDF’s explanation was inadequate because the soldiers’ lives were not in danger from rocks being thrown from a distance.

IDF rules of engagement have evolved at points during the war, and whether soldiers feel their lives are in danger even when not being fired upon can also be influenced by how many Palestinians are throwing rocks and whether there are concerns that the dynamic movement of such rock throwers could flank and overcome an IDF position.

On the other hand, if the soldiers who fired cannot show that their lives were threatened, they could face criminal or disciplinary charges.

The US government had demanded a quick probe and transparency regarding the incident.


Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-819532

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Team Harris’ Crazy ‘Kill the Messenger’ Rental Housing Price Control Lawsuit - Rick Manning

 

by Rick Manning

Suing a price monitoring software company is not going to solve this problem, but in a world where blaming something is more valued than doing the right thing, it is to be expected.

 

Vice President Kamala Harris and the recently tossed aside President Biden continue to amaze with their lack of basic economic awareness.

Their latest ostrich move is their call to set rental housing price controls at 5 percent and throw the full weight of the federal government against a software company that monitors rental prices and suggests price ranges for comparable units to property managers. The property managers then have full autonomy to choose whether or not to follow those price recommendations.

The irony is that the pricing software merely mirrors the market.  A neighborhood with declining desirability and low demand would likely see rents remain the same or go down, while a high-desirability and high-demand area might see rental costs increase.

Democrats may not like it, but that’s how our market system works—prices rise and decline based on the invisible hand of supply and demand.

For those policymakers who have caused a housing shortage through policies that created scarcity of both new home and rental unit building, the software program is merely a messenger that shows the real-world impact of bad policies. Progressive cities, often run by the environmentalist, not in my backyard crowd, that have put barrier after barrier up to stop new development and are responsible for making housing unaffordable, must find somewhere to shift the blame.

An additional strain on the housing supply is the steady flow of thousands of immigrants flooding our borders—a challenge straining the housing market and social services of places like New York, Boston, and the Bay Area of California.

The basic laws of supply and demand are taught in the first week of any economics class. When demand (in this case, desire for housing) exceeds supply, prices go up. This price increase incentivizes those who would build housing to get busy and create more units, risking that the demand will still exist when their new or converted units hit the market.

Leftist policies that hamper if not make the building of even low-cost new units nearly impossible, also often create substantial add-on costs to housing, which increases their costs to the consumer.

So, what do the lawyers in the Biden-Harris administration propose to make housing more available and affordable?

Get their Justice Department to file a misguided lawsuit against using software that applies data-driven housing price models in rental housing. In other words, find someone to blame by deciding to allege that a politically neutral rental pricing software is illegal.

After all, data-driven software that signals that prices are too high or too low must be the reason why prices in places like Harris’s San Francisco have skyrocketed.

Pay no attention to San Francisco’s nuttiness when it comes to housing policy. Years ago, housing developments along parts of the Bay were actually stopped due to concerns about something known as the ‘salt marsh harvest mouse.’ The grounds for the initial federal lawsuit to prevent these developments were they were intended to be built on land adjacent to the mouse’s natural habitat, and in the event of global warming-induced sea rise, that land would be needed by the mouse for its survival.

Now, there are millions of dollars of government studies about the mouse, but nary a one about the impact the subsequent reduced number of housing units available have on the humans who live in the area.

Millions of voters face housing cost inflation. Suing a price monitoring software company is not going to solve this problem, but in a world where blaming something is more valued than doing the right thing, it is to be expected.

Instead, the single best way to deal with the high price of rents and housing as a whole is to encourage builders to do what they do best—build—breaking down federal government barriers to rapidly increase new construction to meet demand.

But unfortunately, Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party are the party of lawyers and bureaucrats. It would never occur to them to create conditions to build out of the housing inflation they are wholly responsible for creating. It is not in their DNA.

Maybe, instead, the solution to the affordable housing crisis is to hire a builder to be president. Someone who has actually built buildings and created housing units. Someone who has dealt with federal, state, and local governments and bureaucrats to get something built.

What a radical approach, putting someone in the White House who actually knows what he is doing.

***

The author is president of Americans for Limited Government


Rick Manning

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/10/team-harris-crazy-kill-the-messenger-rental-housing-price-control-lawsuit/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Axis of Resistance may crumble on its own - opinion - Neville Teller

 

by Neville Teller

Israel faces threats from seven Iranian-backed fronts, yet Gallant and Netanyahu believe the alliance is unstable and vulnerable.

 

AS EARLY as December 27, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said: ‘We are in a multifront war and coming under attack from seven theaters.’  (photo credit: CHAIM GOLDBEG/FLASH90)
AS EARLY as December 27, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said: ‘We are in a multifront war and coming under attack from seven theaters.’
(photo credit: CHAIM GOLDBEG/FLASH90)

As early as December 27, 2023, speaking to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said, “We are in a multifront war and coming under attack from seven theaters.” He added that the Israel Defense Forces was taking action on six of them.

On July 1, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu elaborated on this to a group of visiting US leaders. Israel, he told them, is engaged in defending itself on at least seven fronts, all Iranian-inspired and supported. He listed them: Hamas in Gaza; Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Houthis in Yemen; militias in Iraq, Syria, and the West Bank; and Iran itself. Iran has dubbed them the “Axis of Resistance.” 

Yet even though all seven look to the Iranian regime for financial and military support, and act under its guidance, to regard this Axis as anything like a unified or integrated opponent would be a misreading of the situation. The alliance is, in fact, inherently unstable, and therefore vulnerable. 

By mounting its bloodthirsty incursion into Israel on October 7, 2023, Hamas certainly did not realize it was biting off more than it could chew. Its leadership must have calculated that the organization could absorb an inevitable and massive Israeli retaliation. They certainly never foresaw that they were dealing themselves a death blow. Hamas’s military strength has been literally decimated by the IDF, and whatever shape a ceasefire deal may take, Hamas will never rule in Gaza again.

The Iranian regime became interested in Hamas in the early 1990s when the organization broke with Yasser Arafat for signing the Oslo Accords. It became clear that Hamas was 100% rejectionist, and spurned Arafat’s tactic of winning over world opinion as a preliminary move to eventually oust Israel from the Middle East.

 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Minister Benny Gantz hold a joint press conference at the Defense Ministry, in Tel Aviv, November 11, 2023. (credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/FLASH90)Enlrage image
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Minister Benny Gantz hold a joint press conference at the Defense Ministry, in Tel Aviv, November 11, 2023. (credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/FLASH90)

The Oslo Accords

After the first Oslo Accord, a conference hosted by Iran in Tehran in support of the Palestinian cause was attended by Hamas but not Arafat. Afterward, Iran began supporting Hamas militarily and financially.

But Iran is the leader of the Shi’ite Muslim world, and its founder is on record as describing the followers of the majority Sunni branch of Islam as apostates and heretics. 

Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, is Sunni, heart and soul. It is obvious that this Iran-Hamas relationship is a marriage of convenience, destined for divorce at the first suitable opportunity. Iran will support Hamas just as long as there is something to support, and not a moment longer.

The 1980s

IN THE early 1980s, Hezbollah was formed shortly after Israel invaded Lebanon to chase the PLO out of the country. It was Israel’s presence in Lebanese territory that led a group of Shi’ite clerics to create the organization. 

The new body modeled itself on the principles established by Ayatollah Khomeini following the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Its purpose was to remove the Israeli presence from Lebanon.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Hezbollah has entrenched itself within the Lebanese body politic and now forms a significant part of the country’s government. To retain power, it has to be responsive, to some degree, to the opinion of the public from which its electorate is drawn.

Polls show that the Lebanese public has no desire to be drawn into a war with Israel. The country is at a low economic ebb and sees no advantage, and much to be feared, in such an enterprise. Hezbollah will find it difficult to ride roughshod over public opinion. 

The tit-for-tat armed exchanges with Israel, which grow ever more lethal, have turned into combat for combat’s sake. Hezbollah’s original purpose – to remove Israel from Lebanon – has long been an anachronism.

Now Hezbollah has nothing to gain for itself, or Lebanon, from prolonging the conflict. Its somewhat muted retaliation on August 29 for the assassination of its military commander Fuad Shukr indicates as much. It wants to take over southern Lebanon. The only way is to wind down the conflict with Israel and get the UN to remove its UNIFIL forces from the border.

2009

IN 2009, the Houthis in Yemen welcomed Iranian assistance in their struggle to take over control of the country from the officially recognized government. The Iranian regime had its own reasons – it enabled them to gain a foothold on the Arabian peninsula, much to the alarm of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. 

Ever since 2015, a coalition assembled by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been holding the Houthis at bay.

The Houthis, who display “Death to Israel. A curse on the Jews” on their flag, were willing to put their domestic struggle to one side after October 7 and respond to Iran’s effort to attack Israel on as many fronts as possible. The group has launched missiles and drones against Israel, as well as attacking commercial shipping. 

But all this extra-mural military activity was never on the Houthis’s agenda. They have their own fish to fry, and it has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinian cause. They seek to control all of Yemen, and they will not be diverted from this main aim for very long. 

As for the Iranian-funded militias in Iraq, Syria, and the West Bank, each indulge in harassing tactics that require Israel’s occasional armed military response. 

Hamas has had an active presence in the West Bank for years, fomenting action against the Palestinian Authority that it once aimed to replace – an ambition that is now moribund. On August 28, the IDF took successful action to root out the terrorist militias that had infiltrated the West Bank.

As for Iran itself, the Supreme Leader and his acolytes, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, rule a population seething with disaffection. Every now and then open rebellion erupts onto the streets, in protest against the heavy-handed religious observance forced on the population, to say nothing of the privations forced on them by the heavily-sanctioned government. The danger of a popular uprising is always present.

Today

On April 13, 2024, Iran launched its first-ever direct aerial assault against Israel, involving hundreds of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles. The anticipated military and propaganda triumph turned into a miserable failure. Israel’s Iron Dome, American and British jet fighters, and Jordan’s refusal to allow Iran to use its air space resulted in about 99% of the aerial armada never reaching Israel. Iran will certainly think twice, and probably more than that, before attempting a similar operation.

Seven rather vulnerable military entities, including Iran, make up the much touted, but basically unstable, Axis of Resistance. No wonder Israel’s leaders feel confident they can deal with them all – if necessary at the same time.


Neville Teller is the Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His latest book is Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020. Follow him at www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-819392

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Senior US official: Hezbollah must be permanently distanced from border - Ariel Kahana

 

by Ariel Kahana

The official called for an agreement that includes security arrangements and enforcement mechanisms, unlike Resolution 1701.

 

A massive fire sparked by Hezbollah missiles launched from Lebanon, near Kibbutz Kfar Szold, northern Israel, June 14, 2024. Photo by Ayal Margolin/Flash90.
A massive fire sparked by Hezbollah missiles launched from Lebanon, near Kibbutz Kfar Szold, northern Israel, June 14, 2024. Photo by Ayal Margolin/Flash90.

A senior American official is backing Israel’s stance on the conditions required to end the conflict affecting northern Israel, stating, “We cannot return to the status quo of Oct. 6. A ceasefire with Lebanon alone is not enough, because Hezbollah will return to the border.”

The American official spoke at the Middle East-America Dialogue (MEAD) conference, which concluded on Monday in Washington, D.C., where he emphasized that to prevent a scenario in which Israel faces an invasion from the Lebanese border, “an agreement is needed that will prevent Hezbollah’s return to the border.” 

He added that beyond the security arrangements at the border itself, additional components are necessary in the agreement to ensure its enforcement and implementation—unlike U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which was adopted at the end of the Second Lebanon War but, according to him, “both sides failed to implement.”

The American official said that a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah can be prevented, but if it breaks out, the price will be heavy for both sides.

“Thousands, maybe tens of thousands, will die. There will be severe infrastructure damage. On your side (Israel), Hezbollah won’t be easily destroyed, and you likely won’t achieve most of your objectives. The war will last a long time, and many people on both sides will die. The residents of northern Israel won’t be returning home anytime soon, and such a war will eventually end with an agreement similar to the one we are now trying to reach. That’s why we are working to secure this agreement now.”

Originally published by Israel


Ariel Kahana

Source: https://www.jns.org/senior-u-s-official-warns-of-war-in-lebanon-thousands-will-die-we-need-a-deal-now/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Money that Fuels Jew-Hate at a Top Jesuit University - Jules Gomez

 

by Jules Gomez

Can you guess the source?

 


[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

A prestigious Jesuit university, which receives millions in funding from the hardline Islamic regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is facing accusations of promoting pro-Hamas propaganda and fomenting antisemitism through its Gaza Lecture Series.

Georgetown University, which has thus far received $934 million from Arab-Muslim sources, is being slammed by Israel for inviting UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese to deliver the October 28 presentation in the series titled “Anatomy of Genocide in Gaza.”

In an August 30 tweet, Israel blasted Georgetown, noting that the UN representative “justified the October 7 massacre and has spread countless antisemitic blood libels against Jews.

“And the cherry on top? This event will be held in October, exactly one year after the most horrific massacre against Jews since the Holocaust,” Israel lamented.

The Jesuit school boasts of campuses in Washington D.C. and Qatar.

Academics Condemn Georgetown’s Antisemitism

Several academics joined Israel in condemning the school, which promotes itself as the “oldest Catholic Jesuit university in the United States,” for the antisemitic stance of its lecture series.

“Look closely at who is invited and what they are speaking about, and then consider whether Georgetown is functioning more as an academic institution or more as an outlet for pro-Hamas/anti-Israel propaganda in this context,” noted David E. Bernstein, law professor at George Mason University and executive director of its Liberty & Law Center.

“Georgetown disgraces itself with this lecture series reflecting a far leftist, Islamist, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel bias that feeds and foments antisemitism,” observed Harvard university-trained historian Dr. Zachary Narrett.

“When we will see ‘less’ Jew and Israel hate!” exclaimed Hayder Alasadi, founder and CEO of the Iraqi-Israeli Association of Peace, in response to Georgetown’s lecture series. “I am Iraqi and proudly stand with my Jewish cousins.”

Unsurprisingly, Georgetown’s faculty have consistently displayed an anti-Israel and pro-Hamas bias.

The Gaza Lecture Series is being cosponsored by Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, named after a member of the Saudi royal family who donated $20 million to Georgetown University in 2005 “to teach about the Islamic world to the United States.”

The gift was the second-largest donation given to the Georgetown at that point.

In its 2020 investigation of universities receiving foreign funding — which included Texas A&M University, Cornell University, Rutgers University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Maryland — the U.S. Department of Education noted, “This donation empowered the Saudi Arabian government to advance a particular narrative about Islamic society to the West via a legitimate Western institution like Georgetown University.”

The report criticized “Prince Alwaleed’s controversial and political past, ranging from anti-Zionism to handsomely rewarding Saudi Arabians who participated in Yemen bombing raids.

“The Center also received criticism for deceptively labeling itself as pluralistic; according to critics, the ‘Christian’ studies portion of the Center was a ‘misnomer’ as there was no Christian representation,” the Department of Education’s investigation concluded.

The Gaza lecture series is also being partly sponsored by Georgetown University Qatar. In 2014, Georgetown received $59.5 million from Qatar to build a campus in the Islamic emirate.

“Blood Money”

“It’s an odd location for a Jesuit school that is supposed to be rooted in Christian values, given Qatar’s support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,” remarked Mitchell Bard, a foreign-policy analyst and author of 22 books, including the bestseller Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam’s War Against the Jews.

“Consider the irony of a Jesuit university hosting a center funded by someone from a country that discriminates against Christians,” Bard added.

Georgetown currently tops the list of Catholic universities benefiting from Islamic funding and ranks second after Cornell University ($2.1 billion) for the largest gifts received from Arab Muslim donors.

Two-thirds of the funding for Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, which is also sponsoring the Gaza lectures, was contributed by Arab countries. The center’s board of advisors has representatives from Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE has donated $750,000 to endow a chair in Arab studies and $250,000 to support a visiting professorship of Arab civilization at Georgetown University.

When the Jesuit school received a $750,000 endowment from Libya in 1977, columnist Art Buchwald chastized the university for accepting “blood money from one of the most notorious regimes in the world today,” sarcastically suggesting Georgetown also consider establishing a “Brezhnev Studies Program in Human Rights or an Idi Amin Chair in Genocide.

“I don’t see why the [Palestinian Liberation Organization] has to have a PR organization when Georgetown is doing all their work for them,” Buchwald wrote.

Similarly, after Georgetown received $20 million from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) asked whether the Center has produced any analysis critical of Saudi Arabia “in the fields of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women’s rights, minority rights, protection for foreign workers, due process and the rule of law.”

While the Jesuit school received $333 million from Qatar between 2011 and 2019, it has also received $100,000 from Sultan Qabus of Oman and $6.5 million from a foundation of Arab businessmen led by Palestinian Christian Arab Hasib Sabbagh.

Financing Hatred of Jews

The U.S. Department of Education had previously warned that “universities receiving Arab funding have faculty who are apologists for radical Islam and vitriolic critics of Israel who support the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.”

A preprint of a paper titled “The Corruption of the American Mind: How Concealed Foreign Funding of U.S. Higher Education Predicts Erosion of Democratic Values and Antisemitic Incidents on Campus,” which has been submitted for peer-review to the journal Frontiers in Social Psychology, demonstrates the link between Islamic funding and hatred of Jews.

“Foreign funding, especially when provided either by member countries of the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation or by authoritarian countries, was associated with elevated levels of campus antisemitism and anti-Zionist incidents,” the researchers found.

“A growing body of literature addresses a possible connection between funding from Islamic authoritarian regimes that hold anti-Israel views, and on-campus antisemitism,” the authors noted, naming Georgetown University as one of the schools influenced by Islamic funding.

Pro-Hamas Bias

Unsurprisingly, Georgetown’s faculty have consistently displayed an anti-Israel and pro-Hamas bias.

Just eight days after the October 7 massacre, Prof. John Esposito, the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, signed a statement warning of “potential genocide” by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza.

He was joined by two dozen members of Georgetown University, including Noureddine Jebnoun from Georgetown’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, associate professor of philosophy Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, and Sultanate of Oman associate professor Rochelle Davis.

Eleven days after Hamas committed the massacre, more than 70 faculty members from Georgetown signed a statement calling on the university to demand a ceasefire — but remained silent about Hamas, the massacre, and the hostages that were taken that day.

Jesuits Build Mosque

In March 2023, the Catholic university bragged that it had built what it called “the first-of-its-kind mosque” on an American college campus. “The Yarrow Mamout Masjid is the first mosque with ablution stations, a spirituality and formation hall and a halal kitchen on a U.S. college campus,” a press statement from the university trumpeted.

“Georgetown was also the first U.S. university to hire a full-time Muslim chaplain, Imam Yahya Hendi, 24 years ago.”

Earlier, Prof. Jonathan A. Brown, a convert to Islam and director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center, openly defended slavery, concubinage, and nonconsensual sex in a 2017 lecture, citing the Prophet Muhammad’s example, an audio recording of the lecture revealed.

On March 21, he tweeted, “Israeli security forces are lunatics. Israel is insanely racist.”

Founder’s Philosemitism

Ironically, St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus loved the Jewish people with a rare passion.

In his book, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus, historian Robert Aleksander Maryks explains how Jesuits with Jewish ancestry went from having a leading role in the foundation and development of the Society of Jesus to being prohibited from membership in it in less than 40 years.

Ignatius’s biographer, Pedro de Ribadeneyra (1526–1611) records the Jesuit founder saying that “he would take it as a special grace from our Lord to come from Jewish lineage.”

“Beyond nominal affiliation, Georgetown isn’t a Christian campus,” Georgetown student Elijah Martin, writes on the website of the Institute of Religion and Democracy, “but I am increasingly convinced that it knows it is lost.”

 

Dr. Jules Gomes, (BA, BD, MTh, PhD), has a doctorate in biblical studies from the University of Cambridge. Currently a Vatican-accredited journalist based in Rome, he is the author of five books and several academic articles. Gomes lectured at Catholic and Protestant seminaries and universities and was canon theologian and artistic director at Liverpool Cathedral. This article was cross-posted with the author’s permission from The Stream.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-money-that-fuels-jew-hate-at-top-jesuit-university/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Kamala’s Islamists - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

BDS, Al Qaeda, “Kill the Jews” and Kamala’s “Incredible Muslim Team”.

 


[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

“During the blessed last 10 days of Ramadan, we celebrate our Administration’s incredible Muslim team,” Vice President Kamala Harris announced, posing on the steps of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with some of the most controversial figures in the administration.

There right behind Kamala was Nasrina Bargzie, her deputy counsel and future Muslim liaison, who had been interviewed by the FBI after 9/11, wore orange for the Islamic terrorists at Gitmo and had fought a lawsuit [brought by] Jewish students over harassment by pro-terrorist activists at Berkeley.

Second from Kamala’s right was Mazen Basrawi, Biden’s current Muslim liaison, who had attended a conference honoring one of the unindicted co-conspirators of the World Trade Center bombing, and whose appointment was hailed by Muslim Brotherhood groups.

Second from Kamala’s left was Brenda Abdelall, who had taken part in anti-Israel protests in college, and had falsely accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” as part of a “brutal occupation”. Abdelall became the “assistant secretary for partnership and engagement” at the Department of Homeland Security in the Biden-Harris administration and then appeared at a convention where speakers had called for a caliphate ruled by Islamic law and freeing Islamic terrorists.

Abdelall was recently chosen to head Kamala’s Arab-American outreach. And the campaign refused to part ways with her over past comments accusing Jews of controlling America.

Also allegedly present was Yousra Fazili, who had studied Islamic religious law or sharia at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, notorious for its terrorist teachings,  and represented the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations co-founded by figures tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden, before becoming the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs and now serves as the Chief of Staff to the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Pentagon.

Yousra’s sister, Sameera Fazili had served as the deputy director of the National Economic Council despite being a member of Stand With Kashmir (SWK) “which was founded by her cousin, Hafsa Kanjwal” and which had “praised and defended the actions of a number of violent Islamists” including one who had “met with Al Qaeda figures” and praised Osama bin Laden.

Other members of Kamala’s “incredible Muslim team” included Maher Bitar, a former executive board member of Students for Justice in Palestine, a campus hate group which has since endorsed Hamas and the atrocities of Oct 7, and an organizer of a conference by the Palestine Solidarity Movement, which worked with Hamas, and whose previous event had reportedly included chants of “Kill the Jews”.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, Bitar became the Senior Director for Intelligence on the National Security Council and then the chief coordinator for intelligence and defense policy making him, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, “the senior-most official responsible for coordinating U.S. Government intelligence and defense policy.” Reporting tips Bitar as a likely Director of National Intelligence or “some kind of senior role” in a Kamala administration.

Reema Dodin, who had described suicide bombings against Jews by Muslim terrorists as “the last resort of a desperate people”, was brought on as the deputy director for the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Near the top of the stairs was Abdullah Hasan, a recipient of a CAIR Islamic Scholarship Fund who defended BDS for the ACLU and claimed that “Islamophobia is rampant even in our highest democratic institutions” like the Supreme Court” before becoming an assistant press secretary for the Biden-Harris administration.

Uzra Zeya worked at the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: an informal arm of the Arab Lobby started by former diplomats to Muslim countries where she helped compile material for a book claiming that Jews secretly control the United States. In the Biden-Harris administration, Zeya became the Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

Kamala’s pose with the record number of Muslim staffers, estimated to be over 100, in the Biden-Harris administration was also a measure of her personal relationships with some of them, like Nasrina Bargzie, one of her “fabulous four” staffers who had stayed with her throughout her time in office, as well as others, like Brenda Abdelall, with whom she had a developing relationship that would make her part of her future presidential campaign.

As the attorney general of California, Kamala had developed longstanding ties with CAIR, whose founder has since endorsed the Oct 7 attack, along with other Islamist groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. In Congress, she defended Rep. Ilhan Omar’s antisemitic remarks and her sympathy with activists who assailed Israel during her remarks after Oct 7 was not feigned.

The Kamala campaign continues to cultivate ties with extremist figures including a reported private meeting between the candidate and Mayor Abdullah Hammoud of Dearborn, known as the nation’s Jihad Capital, who had told a pro-Hamas rally after Oct 7 that this was “the city of resistance”.

Before a rally in Detroit, Kamala spoke with Layla Elabed, Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s sister, and Abbas Alawieh, a former Tlaib staffer, running an anti-Israel movement and told them, according to a New York Times report, that she was open to discussing an arms embargo on Israel. (The paper and her campaign later claimed that she was only open to speaking to them.)

And while Kamala’s opposition to Israel has often been seen as a response to the necessities of winning Michigan, her solidarity with Islamists is not a response to the 2024 election.

Kamala has built a Muslim team whose views are extreme and whose hostility to America and Israel, as well as their ties to foreign governments and Muslim Brotherhood groups, raise troubling questions, especially as some figures, like Maher Bitar, are expected to rise further in her administration, while others we may not yet know about will arrive on the scene.

Vice President Kamala Harris is not a critic of Israel’s campaign against Hamas because of the pressure out of Dearborn, but because she has built up relationships with terrorism supporters.


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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/kamalas-islamists/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter