Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Iran's Plan to Foil Israeli-Arab Normalization and to Keep Expanding the Revolution - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

It is clear that Haniyeh and Nasrallah are seeking to use Lebanon as a launching pad not only to attack Israel, but also as a base for intimidating Saudi Arabia and other Arabs into avoiding alliances with Israel against Iran.

  • When Hamas and Hezbollah talk about "develop[ing] the program and axis of resistance," they are referring to terrorist attacks against Israel. The two terrorist groups have tens of thousands of rockets and missiles that are ready to be fired towards Israel at any moment from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

  • Haniyeh's visit to Beirut has outraged many Lebanese and Arabs, who expressed concern that the Hamas-Hezbollah alliance would further destabilize Lebanon and bring it closer to a military confrontation with Israel.

  • It is clear that Haniyeh and Nasrallah are seeking to use Lebanon as a launching pad not only to attack Israel, but also as a base for intimidating Saudi Arabia and other Arabs into avoiding alliances with Israel against Iran.

  • "When will the Biden admin learn that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Iran's regime are all the same?" — Lisa Daftari, Iranian-American investigative journalist, Twitter, June 16, 2022.

  • "Iran occupied Lebanon through its powerful arm, Hezbollah, which took control of Lebanon by the force of Iranian weapons. This occupation was justified by the absurd claim that these weapons aim to impose a balance of terror with the Israeli enemy and prevent its attacks, when in fact its use was purely internal to terrorize and kill." — Huda al-Husseini, Lebanese political analyst, Asharq al-Awsat, June 23, 2022.

  • "Iran penetrated Syria after the outbreak of the revolution against the regime in 2011 and Bashar Assad resorted to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to defend what remained of his regime. Tehran gave orders to Hezbollah to get involved, commit the most horrific massacres, terrorize opponents, and restore the [Syrian] army's control. This made the Syrian regime in the grip of Tehran. Iran completed its expansion plans through its weapons to Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen." — Huda al-Husseini, Asharq al-Awsat, June 23, 2022.

  • The meeting between Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon should set off alarm bells in Washington: the meeting shows that Iran is taking advantage of the perceived weakness of the Biden administration in failing to confront the mullahs' covetous schemes in the region.

  • It only remains to be seen whether the Biden administration's policy of appeasement toward the mullahs enables the Iranians and their proxies to redouble their efforts to spread their expansion, terrorism and bloodshed throughout the Middle East.

As part of Iran's efforts to thwart normalization between the Arab countries and Israel, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh travelled to Beirut last week for talks with Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Pictured: Nasrallah (R) meets with Haniyeh in Beirut, Lebanon on June 29, 2021. (Hezbollah Media Relations Unit)

Iran and its terrorist proxies have intensified their efforts to sabotage US President Joe Biden's upcoming visit to the Middle East, which is scheduled to take place in mid-July.

The effort to sabotage the visit comes amid reports that Biden will try to advance Israel-Saudi relations and broker a military alliance between Israel and a number of Arab countries to confront the threats and terror by Iran and its proxies.

According to the reports, Biden is planning to form a regional conference in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The coalition will include the US, Israel, and some Arab countries, including Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq. "The new alliance is intended to contain Iran and, in the first stage, will be based on an air defense system against Iranian missiles and attack drones and cyber security measures," said Prof. Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israel relations.

The mullahs in Tehran and their proxies, such as the Palestinian Hamas group and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, appear especially worried about the idea of establishing an Israeli-Arab military alliance built along NATO lines.

They also appear worried that some Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, may be moving towards normalizing their relations with Israel.

As part of the efforts to thwart normalization between the Arab countries and Israel, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh travelled to Beirut last week for talks with Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

Haniyeh's visit to Beirut has outraged many Lebanese and Arabs, who expressed concern that the Hamas-Hezbollah alliance would further destabilize Lebanon and bring it closer to a military confrontation with Israel.

According to Hamas, Haniyeh and Nasrallah "reviewed the political developments in the region and their repercussions on the Palestinian cause, as well as the dangers of the normalization [between Israel and Arab countries]."

Haniyeh and Nasrallah emphasized the need to "develop the program and axis of resistance as the strategic option for restoring the [Palestinian] national rights," Hamas added.

When Hamas and Hezbollah talk about "develop[ing] the program and axis of resistance," they are referring to terrorist attacks against Israel. The two terrorist groups have tens of thousands of rockets and missiles that are ready to be fired towards Israel at any moment from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

Ali Barakeh, a senior Hamas official, said that Haniyeh's visit to Lebanon aims at "consulting and coordinating" with Hezbollah about the situation in the region "in light of the talk about forming an Arab-American alliance to confront the axis of resistance." Barakeh added:

"It's natural for the Palestinian resistance to consult with the Lebanese resistance in order to confront the American-Zionist policy that it hostile to our nation and the Palestinian cause."

Referring to the idea of a military build-up against Iran in the region, Haniyeh warned that "what is happening in the region is very dangerous and has gone beyond normalization between Arab countries and Israel."

In a speech before the Arab-Islamic National Conference in Beirut on June 25, the Hamas leader said:

"Normalization [with Israel] is a crime because it harms Palestine and the Arabs; this is an attempt to integrate the Zionist entity into alliances in the region. This scheme targets the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon. The Palestinian people need strategic depth and the unity of the Arab and Islamic nation."

It is clear that Haniyeh and Nasrallah are seeking to use Lebanon as a launching pad not only to attack Israel, but also as a base for intimidating Saudi Arabia and other Arabs into avoiding alliances with Israel against Iran.

Some Lebanese have expressed outrage that their president, Michel Aoun, received the Hamas leader in the presidential palace in Beirut. Charles G. Hage, a Lebanese citizen, wrote:

"At a time when we are looking for ways out so that the Lebanese do not go hungry, can someone tell us how Lebanon benefits from a public meeting between President Michel Aoun and the head of Hamas' political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh? Hamas is accused of terrorism and banned in the various countries that Lebanon requests help from. Is Lebanon required to become a new Gaza?"

Haniyeh's visit to Lebanon, according to Lebanese journalist Sawsan Mhanna, coincided with a visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to Egypt and Jordan:

"At a time when Egypt and Jordan received Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and at a time when Egypt and Saudi Arabia signed 14 agreements worth $7.7 billion, Beirut receives Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. What if Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's plane had landed in Beirut? What if Beirut were free?"

Iran and its proxies were cooperating to prevent the establishment of an anti-Iranian military alliance in the Middle East, wrote Emirati journalist Mohamed Taqi:

"After the accelerated Arab moves to establish a Middle East alliance, the terrorist Ismail Haniyeh went to meet with the terrorist Hassan Nasrallah... The puppets of Iran are always against any Arab national and security project."

It was high time that the US take note that there is no difference between Iran's various terrorist proxies, noted Iranian-American investigative journalist Lisa Daftari. "When will the Biden admin learn that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Iran's regime are all the same?" Daftari asked.

"Iran occupied Lebanon through its powerful arm, Hezbollah, which took control of Lebanon by the force of Iranian weapons," remarked Lebanese political commentator Huda al-Husseini.

"This occupation was justified by the absurd claim that these weapons aim to impose a balance of terror with the Israeli enemy and prevent its attacks, when in fact its use was purely internal to terrorize and kill."

Al-Husseini pointed out that Iran tightened its control over Lebanon after the US war in Iraq in 2003 by getting rid of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was subsequently slain.

"Hezbollah, which is a faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, took control of state institutions... Iran penetrated Syria after the outbreak of the revolution against the regime in 2011 and Bashar Assad resorted to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to defend what remained of his regime. Tehran gave orders to Hezbollah to get involved, commit the most horrific massacres, terrorize opponents, and restore the [Syrian] army's control. This made the Syrian regime in the grip of Tehran. Iran completed its expansion plans through its weapons to Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen."

In a move reflecting growing concern over Iran's meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon, several Lebanese politicians and political and religious leaders urged the international community to confront Hezbollah.

They demanded that Hezbollah hand over its weapons to the Lebanese Army and reminded the international community that the terrorist militia was behind the assassination of Rafik Hariri. They also requested that the Lebanese Army be deployed along the border with Israel to prevent another war.

Earlier, the same group of Lebanese warned that Nasrallah should not be responsible for making decisions on war and peace on behalf of his masters in Iran. The group also called for ending the Iranian "occupation" of Lebanon.

The Arabs are evidently aware of the dangers that Iran and its terrorist proxies pose to Lebanon and other countries, especially the Gulf states. They also seem anxious about Iran's increased efforts to meddle in the internal affairs of the Arab countries as part of the mullahs' scheme to expand their influence throughout the Middle East.

The meeting between Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon should set off alarm bells in Washington: the meeting shows that Iran is taking advantage of the perceived weakness of the Biden administration in failing to confront the mullahs' covetous schemes in the region.

Without question, this meeting took place on instructions from Tehran ahead of Biden's visit to Saudi Arabia and Israel. It only remains to be seen whether the Biden administration's policy of appeasement toward the mullahs enables the Iranians and their proxies to redouble their efforts to spread their expansion, terrorism and bloodshed throughout the Middle East.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18653/iran-plan-foil-normalization

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why the Left Will Cut Biden Loose - Victor Davis Hanson

 

​ by Victor Davis Hanson

His liabilities transcend his physical infirmities, advanced age, and geometric rate of mental decline.

 


Reprinted from Townhall.com.

Republican pundits and conservative activists are debating whether they can win in 2024 with the successful Trump agenda, but without the controversial former President Donald Trump as their nominee.

The Democrats have a similar, but far more serious dilemma with President Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's nominee in 2024.

Unlike the Trump Administration's successful four years, Biden's tenure has been an utter disaster. There are no policy offsets to the personal liabilities and unpopularity of Biden himself.

Biden's liabilities transcend his physical infirmities, his advanced age, and his seeming geometric rather than arithmetic rate of mental decline.

Biden, moreover, proves daily that he is not a nice guy. His excesses, past and present, are precisely those the Left considers mortal sins.

Walking back Biden's absurdities has become the nonstop, tiresome task of many on the Left. As they face a midterm disaster in November, many no longer see any compensating reasons not to drop Biden.

When the Republicans take the House of Representatives in 2022 there will be nonstop investigations of Hunter Biden's alleged tax avoidances, his possibly illegal work as an unregistered foreign agent, and Joe Biden's untaxed compensation he received from the Biden lobbying consortium.

Consider also Biden's nastiness.

During the 2020 campaign he personally attacked a young co-ed as a "lying dog-faced pony soldier" and a stocky questioner was reduced to "fat."

Unlike Trump's art of the deal, exaggerations, and distortions, Biden says things that are not simply untrue, but abjectly preposterous - such as the United States currently has a lower inflation rate than major European industrial powers.

In Biden's world, there were no COVID-19 vaccinations until he took the oath of office. Russian President Vladimir Putin, or the oil companies, or the refiners, or Trump are responsible for the historic crippling gasoline price hikes he caused by canceling drilling and pipeline projects.

Biden claims his negative-growth, hyperinflating economy is not disastrous but strong.

He serially lies that he drove a semi-truck. He has not been to the Middle East 38 times. He never received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. Nor was he a full professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The MAGA movement is not the "most extreme political organization in American history."

In other words, Biden reveals the same fantasies and plagiarism that ended his 1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns.

On matters of race and sexuality, Biden is the epitome of that for which the Left, supposedly, has zero tolerance. Biden was infamous for damning with praise candidate Barack Obama as the first "clean" and "articulate" African American presidential candidate.

In a fake patois, Biden once warned an audience of black professionals that Mitt Romney would "put y'all back in chains."

During the 2020 campaign, candidate Biden derided a black journalist as a "junkie" and lambasted a radio host and his audience with the claim "you ain't black" if they didn't support his candidacy.

Spinning racialist fables like Biden's "Corn Pop" stories would brand any conservative politician as a racist. As president, Biden still uses the term "negro," and he called an African American advisor "boy."

On disturbing matters of sexuality, Biden is even more coarse.

After the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the nation was lectured that "women must be believed." But it was the Left who attacked former Biden aide Tara Reade who surfaced in 2016 to accuse then Senator Biden, her former boss, of sexually assaulting her.

Biden himself had a creepy history of invading the private space of young women - inappropriately kissing them, hugging and squeezing them, and smelling and blowing into their hair and ears.

Finally, Biden was forced to apologize - sort of - by claiming he belonged to an earlier generation when such aggression was simply normal behavior. It was not then or now.

The latest controversies whirl around the British tabloid Daily Mail's publication of the diary of Biden's own daughter.

From the Mail's lurid reporting, Ashley Biden seems to suggest that she showered with her father at an age when "showers w/ my dad (probably [were] not appropriate)." And she seemed to connect Biden familial inappropriateness with her regret over being "hyper-sexualized (at) a young age."

When Trump was accused by porn star Stormy Daniels of a consensual tryst or was caught on old Access Hollywood tape crudely boasting about touching inappropriately female admirers, the resulting uproar nearly derailed the Trump 2016 campaign.

The point is not just the asymmetrical treatment that has shielded Biden's cognitive decline, his rude outbursts, his outrageous racialist slurs, and bizarre sexual aggressiveness.

Instead, the Left now fears Biden's terrible polls and a worse record - and the resulting damage he is doing to the Democratic Party.

In such a losing political context, Democrats will soon find no further reason to cover for Biden's own serial abhorrent personal behavior on matters of financial probity, sex, race, and truthfulness.

No wonder they are growing desperate to find ways to cut him loose - without making Vice President Kamala Harris his successor.

 

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, from Basic Books.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/06/why-left-will-cut-biden-loose-victor-davis-hanson/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

On Losing 'Roe' - Dr. Naomi Wolf

 

​ by Dr. Naomi Wolf

How could this possibly have happened? Easy. Pro-Choice movement, look in the mirror.

 


Bestselling author, columnist, and professor Dr. Naomi Wolf is a graduate of Yale University and received a doctorate from Oxford. She is cofounder and CEO of DailyClout.io, a successful civic tech company.

Reprinted with permission from NaomiWolf.substack.com.

Last Friday, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the ruling Roe v Wade via its decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Across the country, understandably, frightened and angry young women are protesting; screaming and weeping.

The organized, institutional, heavily funded US feminist movement, which for fifty years has predicated American feminist ideology, and its own donor appeals, on the foundation of defending Roe, is calling this ruling a travesty.

I am going to argue that the defeat of Roe is not in fact a defeat of women but a necessary evolution in the law, in response to women’s ascendancy in America over the last fifty years.

Before I do, though, I warn that the Roe decision is being used as a pretext for a campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court. This anti-SCOTUS campaign fits in as part of the larger war on our democratic institutions, about which I have been writing in The Bodies of Others, and elsewhere.

Members of the Court are being abused, intimidated and threatened in ways that are the definition of “un-American.”

Before the ruling, protestors “doxxed” members of the Court (exposed their personal information) and picketed their homes. In May, 2022, the then-White House Spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, refused to condemn those who disclosed the private information of the Justices.

This past week, after the Dobbs decision, the DNC chairman, Jaime Harrison, sounding just like an opposition leader in a full-on pre-1989 Soviet-satellite nation, called the Supreme Court “illegitimate”.

On Twitter, the Justices who decided in favor of overturning Roe are being doxxed again, this time along with posted instructions for making pipe bombs.

The White House itself used language that departed from the important American tradition of reverence for the Supreme Court as the legitimate arbiter of the Constitution, an authority that we accept whether we like the Justices’ individual rulings or not: our own President demonized the Supreme Court’s Justices from the White House bully pulpit, calling them perpetrators of “an extreme ideology,” and damning the Dobbs decision as “a tragic error”:

“Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law.  It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.”

Moving on from my noting a red-light-flashing assault from many fronts on yet another aspect of our tripartite system, on our traditions and on our rule of law — is Dobbs really a “tragic mistake”?

Is it indeed, as liberal feminist narratives have held for five decades, the outcome of attacks on the nation’s women as a whole, by sadistic, misogynist, paternalistic old white men?

Or does the end of Roe represent something very different?

I believe that the Dobbs decision was an almost inevitable reaction to devastating overreach by the organized pro-choice movement, especially in the last twenty years.

I also believe that it represents not a defeat of women, but rather that it is a testament to the reality of the evolution of women's growing authority and power in this country.

Before you throw your computer across the room, or doxx or deplatform me (hard to do, as I‘ve been deplatformed five times already), please hear me out.

I am pro-choice, in the sense that in no way, hard as I have tried, can I see how women can have basic equality or self-determination in any society if they cannot choose to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester. I’ve explained my tortured feelings about this issue in a 1995 essay that has been widely reproduced over the years, Our Bodies, Our Souls: Rethinking Pro-Choice Rhetoric. [This essay is elsewhere in this Substack, and also here].

In this essay, I warned that while I was pro-choice, I also recognized that the death of a fetus is a real death, and that an abortion always represents a loss'; that we as feminists risked becoming increasingly hard-hearted and soulless if we continued to embrace a discourse in which a fetus was merely “a clump of cells”, if we persisted in pretending that abortion was spiritually meaningless, and if we continued to posit that a second- or even third trimester abortions were nothing more bloody or catastrophic than “personal choices”.

I also warned that such mechanistic, amoral language and such increasingly monstrous policies would eventually also create a political scenario that in time was certain to lose: these policies would eventually lose us the reasonable middle: the majority of the country that supports abortion rights in the first trimester but that withdraws its support progressively as pregnancies progress.

I don’t mean always to be Cassandra. It is a drag. But nota bene, that is exactly what has come about in this past week.

Today, a woman — a woman — posted to me on Gettr: “I have always been on [board] with 1st trimester abortions. But when they started pushing for late term abortions I could no longer go along with that. So if I am forced to choose full term abortions or no abortions, I am going to side with no abortions. The left just had to keep pushing and that is where I draw the line. I am hoping that we can come together and dial back the insanity.”

I agree with this Everywoman. But organized feminist pro-choice activists increasingly ignored those millions who shared this woman’s reasoned position, and did so to their own destruction.

Pro-choice activists were not content to defend the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester, which are the limits on readily available abortion throughout Western Europe (where, notably, there is almost no anti-choice activism).

The organized feminist left were not content to use the language or policies that polls supported, of seeking a country in which abortion would be “safe, legal and rare.”

Rather, they pushed, in state after state, to enshrine that “right” up until very the day of a baby’s birth.

At what point does a “right” become a murder?

This is hard to believe, but a number of blue states have no time limit at all for how late in a pregnancy a woman can choose to abort. “States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.”

The overreach went on on other fronts: the pro-choice movement was not content to secure the right to abortion only for adult women, who can be expected to know what is best for them and who are also legally in charge of themselves.

Rather, it went after teens — by the millions.

When I was growing up, my friends and I were heavily influenced by the discourse of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-choice groups. I am grateful to Planned Parenthood for its provision to teens such as myself and my friends, of safe and affordable contraceptives, and knowledge about how to use them.

But along with that valuable offering came another intensely messaged discourse that was purely destructive. Abortion rights groups insisted in the 70s, and to this day, that teen girls (I write “girls” here intentionally, as the pro-choice groups and I mean “minors”) can and should make the decision to abort, if they choose to do so, without parental involvement.

As the National Abortion Federation writes, “By the time they turn 20, about 40% of American women have been pregnant at least once. Many of these young women have little understanding of their bodies and have begun having sexual intercourse before knowing about ways to prevent pregnancy.”

As a feminist, and as a mother and stepmother, my reaction to this statistic and to the description of its context, is: isn’t that what’s wrong?

Doesn’t this a shocking statistic suggest a stunning failure on the part of all of us in terms of informing, protecting and supporting teenage girls?

Isn’t that situation something to change, via the family, culture, and loved ones around teenage girls, and not simply to patch up via providing children with limitless abortions in the traumatic, confusing context of zero required parental knowledge?

So the pro-choice movement lost the middle of America — as well as losing the moral high ground — by its insistence that, state by state, we must allow teenage girls to be able to choose abortions without parental consent or even knowledge.

The National Abortion Federation objects to state laws that compel disclosure to parents or parental consent in order to obtain an abortion. The group has kinder words for school counsellors, and for medical professionals advising the teen, than it does for parents.

As a result of this anti-parent bias and of some states’ laws preventing parents from the right to be informed at all, 39 per cent of teens’ abortions take place without any parental knowledge.

As the pro-choice organization’s “Fact Sheet” “Teenage Women, Abortion and the Law” puts it, “Fact: Laws restricting teen access to abortion are coercive.” It goes on to explain that laws to inform parents of teens’ pregnancies, are oppressive.

But are those views “facts”? A fourteen year old reasonably enough can’t be presumed to drive a car safely, can’t sign up for military duty, can’t vote, can’t own property in her own name.

Why? Because she is a child.

But the pro-choice movement wants to put her in a situation in which she is making a monumental decision to end the life of her fetus — a decision that will affect the girl emotionally, and certainly her fetus physically, forever — advised only by self-interested, ideologically driven adult strangers, who do not even know the girl?

There is other overreach on the part of the pro-choice movement. The movement insisted on adding the “right” for abortions to be paid for by the state.

It may or may not be good practical policy for a state to pay for abortions, as it may or may not be good practical policy for the state to pay for college education.

But is state-funded abortion really a “right”?

I know a number of people, moderate politically, who are Catholics or Orthodox Jews. They say that they would not lobby against another adult’s private decision to have an abortion. But they draw the line at being asked to fund it, because of their own moral or religious principles.

Is that wrong?

By pushing to make abortion not just a private choice by adults, which represents the strongest argument in their rhetorical arsenal, but also by extending it to a state-funded “right” that implicates others in supporting it, as well as via these other examples of over-reach, the pro-choice movement exceeded what had been their limited defensible, indeed necessary, position on the moral and civilizational spectrum.

The result? A country that has 629,828 abortions a year, most of them to women in their 20s. [https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm] Almost 200 per 1000 live births.

Just about two babies out of twelve are aborted.

Doesn’t this mean that a generation of women in their 20s, year by year — are alone without support; ill-informed about contraception, or can’t afford it; feel desperate in relationship to their choices, and are in a traumatizing state of crisis, with something awful having happened in their formative years?

Isn’t that a national issue that should primarily concern us?

What does it do to women that two of ten of them, by the time they are 30, felt that they had to, and did, choose abortions? Whether their contraception did not work or whether they and their partners were careless or ignorant of it and did not use it, or whether the men who impregnated them may have forced them, or whether they were raped — what does it say about our willingness to let young women go through a nightmare situation, in that they got pregnant against their wishes and in that they felt that they had no other choice but to choose abortion?

Surely this crisis in the lives of women in their 20s is what the parents and leaders of America should be concerned about, rather than simplistically throwing ideologies at this situation — and at these young women — from one direction or another.

What would a truly feminist, truly motherly world focus on as policy and culture, to nurture, empower and support these millions of women in their 20s who face this desperate, miserable “choice”?

Surely contraception that is free or cheap, readily available, fully explained. Surely real prosecutions of rapists and abusers, to deter sexual predators and date rapists. Surely free secondary and higher education, the antidote to the poverty and hopelessness that must lead many of these young women to feel that they cannot be decent mothers or even afford to bring a healthy child to term. Surely, if you wanted fewer young women to feel driven to the choice of abortion, you’d want safe, engaging day care centers and nurseries at those affordable universities and free community colleges.

Surely, I’d add, training in responsible use of firearms, so that they could defend themselves against and deter abusers.

Surely also young women of all races and economic backgrounds should be receiving from our culture the message that they are precious, that they are gifts of God. Surely they should receive the message that if they choose to bring their child to term, welcoming adoptive parents will raise the child lovingly. Surely they should receive the message that when and if they are indeed ready to have a baby, it too will be a precious gift from God and that they will not be alone. And that no baby would be less cherished by all of us, than any other.

If we had such a culture of support and care for young women and for their real needs to have personal, sexual lives while not becoming mothers before they choose to do so — and if we cared for every single baby in our nation with true reverence and love — and if we retained abortion rights only for adults, and only in the first trimester or with the exceptions later on for the life and health of the mom that are available now in every state — this always-sad choice to abort would indeed be “safe, legal and rare.”

And the country would not be so riven.

But do we give young women — especially poor young women, especially young women of color, or young women who have been victims of sexual abuse or assault — these messages, or this level of protection, encouragement, investment, education, help with childcare, or with nurture and support of their little families, as a culture?

Indeed we do not. We propose and embrace rather a culture of death, of disposable humans, and increasingly, of flat-out eugenics. Maryland has proposed bills that allow babies to die without penalty after they are born. I initially was inclined to believe the “fact-checkers” who claimed this was a myth, till I read the bill. It’s true.

And we ask our young women to numb themselves, sexualize themselves, and get on with fitting into that death culture — one in which their potential for maternality has zero sanctity; zero value; one in which fetuses, like babies themselves, are fungible.

Apart from these variations of overreach, as I mentioned above, I feel that the loss of Roe also came about because women in America had evolved and grown in influence and leadership.

What do I mean by that?

In 1973, when Roe was decided, women had just begun to be accepted into many universities. Marital rape was legal. Contraception was hard to secure in many places. Housing, credit and property ownership discrimination against women was not yet illegal. It was legal to discriminate against pregnant workers and to use gender in discriminating against even lawyers in law firms. Few significant professions had female parity. Date rape was hard to prosecute. Rape was hard to prosecute. Incest and sexual abuse of children within the family were still shameful secrets for which the victim was blamed. Single mothers and teen mothers were stigmatized. One could go on and on about how many fewer options, and how much less power, women in America had when Roe was decided. Women really were victims of powerlessness in 1973, helpless to change their circumstances, in ways that supported the argument that they needed a Federal-level right to abortion access, simply to survive as human beings.

Today, while we still need to close many gaps in gender equality, the world is very different. That’s what some of the Justices’ more well-reasoned decisions to overturn Roe, rightly evaluate.

An American woman does have choices and powers she did not have in 1973. She can buy contraceptives. Birth control pills are now over 99% effective in preventing pregnancy. IUDs are over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy for seven years.

A woman or her partner can buy condoms anywhere, without secrecy or guilt in most communities. A package of 12 condoms costs $7.98. Information about contraception is easy to find. Single mothers, unmarried mothers, are no longer ostracized in most communities. Teen mothers are no longer typically exiled from their communities in 2022, as they were in 1973. Women in America in 2022 have access to professions, credit, degrees.

That does not mean that an unintended pregnancy is ever easy — but it does mean that the circumstances that made Roe seem obviously needed, have changed; in such a way that state by state legislation can reflect local norms and values in 2022, more accurately than can a one-size-fits-all national decree predicated on the presumption of absolute female helplessness that was a reality fifty years ago but that is no longer the case.

Another change in the last fifty years has to do with the science of pregnancy. Due to advances in prenatal treatment and premature birth neonatal care, “viability” has moved back earlier and earlier in a given pregnancy, so that the “viability” language in Roe is out of date, and the rigid one-two-three trimester structure of Roe seems more and more brutal and arbitrary, as the opinion points out.

The abortion rights fight now is no longer as it has been characterized for 50 years by liberal feminists: it is no longer a matter of helpless young women being victimized by oppressive, old white men.

Rather, in 2022 this fight is one between women and women: between female leaders at high levels who simply, deeply, disagree.

It’s women outside the Supreme Court who are protesting for Roe. And it’s women outside the Supreme Court who are protesting against it.

It’s women who lead the pro-choice movement. And it’s women who lead the pro-life movement.

It’s a female justice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was a decisive voice in the overturning of Roe. And it is two female justices, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who are among the dissenting.

We have to face the fact that this battle is no longer one along gender lines of men versus women. Indeed there is now almost a statistically insignificant different in the view of women and men in terms of support for abortion rights. Where there is indeed a gender gap, it‘s the opposite of what you’d expect from the feminist narrative of oppressive men: far more women than men are pro-life.

So this battle, rather, is between two groups of principled women with heartfelt convictions who see the value of female bodies, pregnancy, babies, sexuality, and society’s responsibilities, in authentically oppositional ways.

Liberal pro-choice feminists have long disregarded or dismissed conservative or pro- life feminists as having “false consciousness” or “internalizing the patriarchy”. I have warned since the early 1990s that this dismissiveness was going to be a huge mistake; and so it has proven.

Pro-life feminists — conservative feminists such as Justice Barrett — are not Stepford Wives or brainwashed fundamentalists, in spite of caricatures from the Left.

Most pro-life feminists I know hold thoughtful views about abortion that are in fact feminist positions: insofar as these pro-life women assign pregnant women, and the society around them, roles of responsibility and agency that are different, and more serious about maternality, than are the roles assigned to pregnant women and society by many pro-choice feminists.

Ironically, conservative pro-life feminists see pregnant women, or women faced with unintended pregnancies, or families with unexpectedly pregnant teenage daughters, as being more capable, resourceful, morally adult, and responsible, than do many feminists on the Left, whose discourse tends to cast all unexpectedly pregnant girls and women, whatever their circumstances, as being equally helpless victims to be saved by the Daddy State (or by the right kind of nonprofit).

America has changed too since 1973 in terms of who holds political power. In state legislatures, women are a substantial plurality. In the top ten states for female representation in the legislature, over forty per cent of the state legislators are women. In Nevada, women lawmakers are the majority.

And even where women are not the majority of state lawmakers, they are nationally the majority of voters.

So, paradoxically, sending decisions about abortion access back to the States is actually, in my reading, a truly feminist outcome.

While liberal feminists may have liked Roe as a metaphor — it felt poetically and existentially right to have the Supreme Court affirm a Constitutional right to an abortion, even if the language was not really there in the Constitution — the fact is that returning the argument to the states means putting the issue of abortion in the hands of — women. Because in election after election, more women turn out to vote than men.

Will women, post-Roe, have to work hard to have their own mores and values reflected in their states’ abortion laws?

Yes — but it will be women from every point of view having that debate and lobbying one another, as well as their (often-female) state representatives. And women themselves making the case to one another about what abortion means.

As the opinion itself points out, on P 65:

“Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so. In the last election in November 2020, women, who make up around 51.5 percent of the population of Mississippi, constituted 55.5 percent of the voters who cast ballots.”

This is kind of a feminist conclusion for these august conservative Justices to make, in pointing out that by overturning Roe, they are putting the decisions about abortion laws in the hands of women.

And I agree with them.

Women-led citizens thus can, hopefully, be creating at state levels, a reasonable consensus reflecting majority views, about what a decent society should do to defend what many see as basic bodily autonomy while still keeping what many see as the deaths of viable innocents out of civilized bounds.

And that debate between citizens, and that advocacy, and that state-level self-determination — rather than a fiat from above, exploited by self-interested entities in such a way as to grow only more grotesque over time — is how America is supposed to work.

Justice Alito concluded: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”’

Can this be argued with in good faith?

I agree, as a feminist, with the Justices in the majority: that the end of Roe is actually, believe it or not, a feminist outcome — as it is one that assigns modern American women — not the hypothetical ghost-women of 1973 — the deciding voice.

The soundness of this reasoning is why I believe, too, as an American, that the end of Roe, and the reversion of decisions about abortion to the women and men of the states, can actually even help to generate sane, locally relevant, morally-defensible abortion-related policies; and that these might even help to heal a divided nation.

 

Dr. Naomi Wolf

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/06/losing-roe-dr-naomi-wolf/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ron Johnson demands answers on leaked DHS memo about transporting migrants across US using taxpayer dollars - Thomas Catenacci

 

​ by Thomas Catenacci

Sen. Johnson says taxpayers shouldn't be forced to "further exacerbate" the border crisis

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is demanding answers from the Biden administration over its reported plans to fund the transportation of migrants across the country.

American taxpayer money shouldn't be used to "further exacerbate" the border crisis by facilitating migrant travel in the U.S., Johnson wrote to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a June 22 letter first obtained by Fox News Digital. 

ICE AGENTS FORCED TO COORDINATE TRAVEL FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, SOME WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS: SOURCE

Johnson, the top Republican on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, noted a recent NBC News report that the federal government would begin paying for migrants' travel from the U.S.-Mexico border to various shelters located in Texas, New Mexico and California.

"It appears that a recently leaked DHS plan doubles down on this administration’s efforts to charge taxpayers for illegal aliens’ travel," he wrote to Mayorkas. "According to this plan, DHS would pay to transport aliens away from the border and deeper into the U.S." 

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demands answers from the Biden administration on reports that the administration plans to spend American taxpayer money on transporting migrants across the country.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demands answers from the Biden administration on reports that the administration plans to spend American taxpayer money on transporting migrants across the country. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

"Under DHS’s plan, taxpayers would foot the bill to send aliens to cities such as Los Angeles, California; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Houston and Dallas, Texas," Johnson continued. "Taxpayer dollars should be used to secure our border not further exacerbate the Biden border crisis."

The Wisconsin senator also highlighted a Fox News Digital report from January that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had coordinated migrant travel and accommodations with non-governmental organizations. Johnson's letter included a list of more than two dozen NGOs the Biden administration has worked with on the border that his staff obtained from DHS in April.

"That enclosed list potentially shows only a fraction of the NGOs DHS and its components utilize," he wrote.

SENATE REPUBLICANS DEMAND ANSWERS FROM MAYORKAS ON SCOPE OF DISINFORMATION BOARD, 'MISLEADING' TESTIMONY

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifies during an April 2022 House hearing.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifies during an April 2022 House hearing. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Johnson asked whether the DHS provides "any funding, financial support, or reimbursement to any NGOs" for migrant travel. He also asked for a list of organizations that receive such funds and for all records related to the leaked memo highlighted in the NBC News report.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The number of border apprehensions has increased sharply under the Biden administration, according to government data. More than 1.95 million migrants were encountered crossing the border in fiscal year 2021 and about 1.75 million have been encountered in fiscal year 2022 which ends in late September.

By comparison, an average of 751,231 migrants were encountered per year between 2017-2020.

The DHS didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Thomas Catenacci is a politics writer at Fox News Digital

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-johnson-demands-answers-leaked-dhs-memo-transporting-migrants-across-us

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

NY Supreme Court strikes down Non-Citizen Voting Law - Rajan Laad

 

​ by Rajan Laad

Stopping this closes the ever-opening Overton Window of eventually making this a federal election practice.

Last year, the New York City Council passed legislation that allows non-citizens who have lived in the city for at least 30 days and are legal permanent residents in the U.S. to vote in city elections for mayor, public advocate, the borough president, and city council. The law also applies to green card holders, individuals with workers' permits, and DACA recipients.

The law was set to go into effect on January 2023.

Fortunately, a group affiliated with the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation.

More than 800,000 non-citizens would have become eligible for voting rights if this new law had taken effect.

The lawsuit also stated that "by dramatically increasing the pool of eligible voters, the Non-Citizen Voting Law will dilute the votes of United States citizens, including the plaintiffs in this action.”

New York’s State Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio, based in Staten Island,  struck down the legislation in a ruling calling it illegal and stating that it violates the state constitution, which only provides for citizens to vote.

The ruling states the following:

"There is no statutory ability for the City of New York to issue inconsistent laws permitting non-citizens to vote and exceed the authority granted to it by the New York State Constitution. Though voting is a right that so many citizens take for granted, the City of New York cannot "obviate" the restrictions imposed by the constitution."

New York City Law Department spokesperson Nicholas Paolucci said:

"This is a disappointing court ruling for people who value bringing in thousands more New Yorkers into the democratic process. We are evaluating the next steps." 

New York City Public Advocate and gubernatorial primary candidate Jumaane Williams also running for governor took to Twitter to say the following: 

"Today, the state Supreme Court seeks to once again revoke that right and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of permanent New York City residents from having a voice in the decisions that shape our city -- and choosing the leaders who make those decisions."

The ruling comes at the apt time, a day prior to the first of New York's primaries this year. State offices, including governor, attorney general, and lieutenant governor, will be among those on the ballot.

This is merely another example of how the left is waging war against the fundamentals and values upon which the U.S. is founded.

Citizenship is a contract between an individual and a state. The citizen has certain fundamental duties and rights.

The citizen has a right to participate in the process of governance and law-making.  Since all citizens cannot govern and pass laws simultaneously, they elect representatives to work on their behalf, lending their power through their vote.

The citizen's vote decides who governs the city, state, and country.  The vote also decides who makes laws and who represents them.

Alongside rights, there are duties that a citizen must perform. Among the foremost duties of the citizen is obeying the laws and the payment of taxes which are used for the maintenance of the state. 

But those fundamental rules are now under attack.

Once upon a time, the Democrats resorted to expediting the process of citizenship to increase their voter base. At least there was some semblance of regard for laws. That pretext no longer exists, they are blatant in the approach. They are misusing the system to reinterpret legality.

The Democrats realize that they have lost in the arena of public ideas. The only way the Democrats can win electoral contests is to rig the contest to tilt the playing field emphatically in their favor.

The Democrats believe that every new voter will add to their base and ensure they have permanent control over the government. 

They have already succeeded in New York and California where the Democrats have a monopoly on power. The only contest that occurs in these states is among the left, the far left, and the socialists. The Democrat primary contest is the sole decider of the electoral contest.  

The result is lawmakers such as AOC and governors such as Gavin Newsom. This explains why these states are plagued with crime, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, and a struggling economy.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting non-citizens from voting in federal elections, such as the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and presidential elections. Local elections are excluded from this law.

But, fifteen municipalities across the U.S. allow non-citizens to vote in local elections as of January 2022. Eleven were located in Maryland, two were located in Vermont, one in San Francisco, California, as well as in New York City.

Make no mistake, the idea of allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections is merely a pilot project. The hope is to gradually move the Overton Window, in time they will demand this for federal elections. That truly will be the end of the nation.

It is essential that these sly little ploys such as the proposed law in New York, be nipped in the bud.

The GOP did well in New York by filing a lawsuit, hopefully, they are keeping a watchful eye elsewhere.

 

Rajan Laad

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/06/ny_supreme_court_strikes_down_noncitizen_voting_law.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turkey: Jihad against Cyprus - Uzay Bulut

 

​ by Uzay Bulut

It is not just part of the island country of Cyprus that is being occupied and demeaned. What is being occupied, colonized, and culturally destroyed is a significant part of Western history and civilization.

  • Turkey is now using the distraction of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a cover to increase its likelihood of officially annexing Cyprus's north.

  • It is not just part of the island country of Cyprus that is being occupied and demeaned. What is being occupied, colonized, and culturally destroyed is a significant part of Western history and civilization. It is part of the "Great Replacement" predicted for Europe but ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory". One only need look back at the replacement of the Christian Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Empire and then Turkey, or the replacement of the indigenous Copts in Egypt. With Cyprus and Greece under attack from Turkey, where are the West's principles, strength and resolve?

It is not just part of the island country of Cyprus that is being occupied and demeaned by Turkey. What is being occupied, colonized, and culturally destroyed is a significant part of Western history and civilization. Pictured: Turkish Army soldiers and tanks on parade in the Turkish-occupied part Nicosia, Cyprus, on July 20, 2021. (Photo by Iakovos Hatzistavrou/AFP via Getty Images)

Turkey became a member of NATO in 1952. Twenty-two years later, in 1974, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus, and to this day continues illegally to occupy 36% of the island. Turkey has ethnically cleansed non-Turks from the northern part of Cyprus and largely destroyed both the Christian and Jewish cultural heritage of the area they occupy.

Since Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, the island has been illegally and forcibly partitioned in two. The northern part of the Republic of Cyprus -- like the rest of the country -- had been majority-Greek. Its demographic structure was changed by Turkey when approximately 170,000 Greek Cypriots were forcibly displaced by Turkish troops. This expulsion affected about one-third of the Greek Cypriot population. The occupied part of the island has since been colonized by settlers from Turkey. Approximately 40,000 Turkish soldiers are illegally stationed in the occupied area, making it, according to the UN, one of the most heavily militarized areas in the world. Around 80% of the island's wealth-producing resources lie under Turkish occupation.

Turkey is now using the distraction of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a cover to increase its likelihood of officially annexing Cyprus's north. On April 14, a protocol was signed between Turkey and the illegal Turkish de facto regime that has been ruling occupied northern Cyprus. Although Turkey has already forcibly altered the demography of Cyprus through the ethnic cleansing campaign, the new protocol gives Turkish nationals even easier access to the region.

The protocol also stipulates the strengthening of the Religious Affairs Department in the area, as well as building religious complexes, such as mosques, and restoring Turkish-Islamic heritage sites. The protocol makes no secret of Turkey's intention to annex the north. The introduction states, "the island of Cyprus has been a part of Anatolia politically and culturally since 1571." 1571 is when the Ottoman Empire began occupying Cyprus.

In 1570, Ottoman troops invaded Cyprus and plundered it, while killing thousands. The Ottoman Empire, presumably to keep the indigenous Greek population under control, transported Turks to Cyprus. In 1878, the Ottoman Empire granted Britain administrative control of Cyprus, and in 1914 Britain annexed the island. In 1923, Turkey renounced all claims to Cyprus in favor of Britain through the Treaty of Lausanne, which also established the Republic of Turkey. In 1960, Cyprus gained independence from British rule and became an independent republic. Britain, Greece, and Turkey became guarantors of "the independence, territorial integrity and security" of the Republic of Cyprus under the 1960 "Treaty of Guarantee". Fourteen years later, Turkey violated both the treaty and international law by invading Cyprus in two phases -- on July 20 and August 14, 1974.

In 1983, Turkey declared the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (TRNC) in the occupied north of Cyprus. The TRNC was unilaterally recognized only by Turkey and remains unrecognized by the international community to this day.

The regime in occupied northern Cyprus continues to be driven by neo-Ottomanism. On April 28, 2022, the "mausoleum of Martyr Pertev Pasha", one of the commanders involved in the Ottoman invasion of Cyprus, was opened in the north. "We have made this opening in accordance with the law," said Ersin Tatar, head of the illegal TRNC regime. However, the law to which he was referring is neither international law nor that of the UN Charter. Rather, it is the sharia law of the Ottoman Empire, which occupied Cyprus for nearly 300 years, from 1571 to 1878. According to a press release from the website of the Presidency of the TRNC:

"After 1571, these places were brought back to our history as properties of the foundations [Cyprus Foundations Administration/ EVKAF established by the Ottomans in 1571]. There are very deep traces of our ancestors here," Tatar said, adding that the Maraş [part of Turkish-occupied Cypriot city of Famagusta] lands, the [Ottoman] ancestral properties of the foundation [EVKAF], were [inappropriately\unjustly] given to [some people] during the British colonial rule in violation of the contract between England and the Ottoman Empire.

"Maraş is under our sovereignty. We can never accept it being placed under UN control or entering any trade-offs in the context of confidence building measures," Tatar added.

The driving forces behind Turkey's invasion and occupation of the Greek island were Islamic jihad and Turkic nationalism. With these objectives in mind, Turkey's preparations to invade Cyprus began decades before the invasion. Starting at least in the 1950s, Turkey's military provoked inter-ethnic tensions in Cyprus by sending in fighters and weapons. In 1953, the "Tactical Mobilization Group" (Seferberlik Tetkik Kurulu) was established in Turkey, according to Turkish General Sabri Yirmibesoglu, and sent weapons to Cyprus to be used against Greek Cypriots: "The Committee had three officers in Ankara. It was a new organization [established] to send weapons against the EOKA [National Organization of Cypriot Fighters]."

"Mujahideen" against Cyprus

Those who joined the 1974 invasion campaign, or its years-long preparations, are called mücahit in Turkish. The word comes from the Arabic mujahid (plural: mujahideen) and means "Muslim holy warriors, jihadists, engaged in a jihad against non-Muslims." Many Islamic armed groups, such as the Taliban, call themselves mujahideen.

One Turkish mujahideen group that illegally operated in Cyprus was TMT, or the Turkish Resistance Organization, a paramilitary group established in 1958. TMT, active for years in Cyprus, engaged in widespread violence. According to their own public statements, TMT murdered not only Greek Cypriots, but also many Turkish Cypriots (mostly "left-wingers") for "crimes" such as "being treacherous", "helping Greeks", "doing business with Greek merchants" or "not being real Turks". In 1976, TMT became the "Security Forces Command" of Cyprus's Turkish-occupied north. The website of the so-called "Security Forces Command" is mucahit.gov.ct.tr. Thus, the current military of Cyprus's occupied north is a proud extension of the mujahideen movement. Its website refers to the bloody invasion campaign as the "happy peace operation":

"In July 1974, when the Turkish Armed Forces used the guarantor state intervention right granted to them by the 1960 Constitution, Mujahideen and Mehmetçik fought side by side and succeeded in the Happy Peace Operation."

"Mehmetçik" (Little Mehmet, after a common male name) is an affectionate reference to Turkish soldiers.

The government-funded Turkish news agency, TRT, in an interview with some of those mujahideen in 2020, called Cypriot locations "sanjaks", a term from the Ottoman Empire, referring to administrative districts within which a larger district ("vilayet") was divided. The TRT reported:

"The mujahideen of Cyprus got organized years before the [1974] operation. These organizations later merged under the umbrella of the Turkish Resistance Organization (TMT).

"TMT remained a secret organization for many years. Training camps were established in Ankara and Antalya. The first goal was to train and arm 5,000 mujahideen. Officers who would serve in TMT with identities such as teachers, inspectors and clergy were also trained there.

"In order [for the mujahideen] not to be noticed by the Greeks, code names were also given to the officers who would serve in the TMT.

"TMT was getting organized in such a secret manner that no one knew who was a mujahid. The names of the sanjaks established at that time were also coded so that the negotiations and the regions would not be found out by the Greeks.

"Trained officers and Turkish Cypriots sent from Turkey under other qualifications [titles] during those years were burying the weapons and ammunition sent in great secrecy under the ground."

Another Turkish government-funded news outlet, Anadolu Agency (AA), interviewed three of these mujahideen. According to the 2019 report, one "stated that he was a journalist at that time and had participated in both [military] operations in 1974." Stating that he was on duty at the Sanjak Headquarters in Nicosia during the operation, he noted that he had served in the military for 5 years before the operation and that they had called it "mujahideen":

"Then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit came to Cyprus after the operation, and he told those fighters: 'Turkey could not have made this landing if you, as the mujahideen, had not resisted until today.'"

"Atilla" against Cyprus

When the Turkish military invaded Cyprus in 1974, the operations were code named after Attila ("The Attila Plan" or "the Operation Atilla"), and in the Oxford Dictionary.

Attila was the ruler of the Huns, a nomadic people who originated from Central Asia, from 434 until his death in 453. Atilla was notorious for his brutal invasion campaigns, during which civilians were massacred and whole cities sacked or destroyed. Atilla the Hun, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "was one of the greatest of the barbarian rulers who assailed the Roman Empire, invading the southern Balkan provinces and Greece and then Gaul and Italy."

The official website of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) refers to the Hun Empire as the origin of its military tradition: "The first orderly and disciplined formation of the Turkish Army dates back to 209 BC, during the Great Hun Empire".

Attila's legacy of death and destruction is what Turkey seems to aspire to export to Cyprus. In the summer of 1974, Turkish troops carried out an ethnic cleansing in northern Cyprus against non-Muslim Cypriots through forcible mass displacement. According to a letter dated 6 December 1974 from the Permanent Representative of Cyprus to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General,

"Turkey -- in unchallenged command of the air and the sea and illegally using armaments and sophisticated weapons in her possession strictly for purposes of defense under a relevant alliance agreement -- launched a full-scale aggressive attack against Cyprus, a small non-aligned and virtually defenseless country, possessing no air force, no navy and no army except for a small national guard. Thus, Turkey's overwhelming military machine embarked upon an armed attack including napalm bombing of open towns and villages, wreaking destruction, setting forests on fire, and spreading indiscriminate death and human suffering to the civilian population of the island.

"The landing of the Turkish forces on the territory of Cyprus became from its inception no less ferocious inhumanity towards the civilian population, in violation of all principles of international law and accepted concepts of a civilized society."

The war crimes committed by Turkish forces include the cold blooded murder of civilians, the unlawful detentions of both civilians and soldiers, forced disappearances, wholesale and repeated rapes, forcible eviction of Greek Cypriots from their homes and land, looting of their houses and business premises, and seizure and distribution of their lands, houses, and other properties mostly to settlers from Turkey. These and other atrocities were documented by a two-volume report by the European Commission of Human Rights, adopted in 1976, then covered up, then leaked to Britain's Sunday Times in 1977 and eventually declassified in 1979.

The illegal regime in the occupied area -- with the support of Turkey -- has largely obliterated every trace of Greek and other non-Turkish civilizations of the area. The Greek names of cities and villages have been replaced by Turkish names.

According to the report, "The Loss of a Civilization: Destruction of cultural heritage in occupied Cyprus":

"The churches have been subject to the most violent and systematic desecration and destruction. More than 500 churches and monasteries have been looted or destroyed: more than 15,000 icons of saints, innumerable sacred liturgical vessels, gospels and other objects of great value have literally vanished. A few churches have met a different fate and have been turned into mosques, museums, places of entertainment or even hotels, like the church of Ayia Anastasia in Lapithos. At least three monasteries have been turned into barracks for the Turkish army (Ayios Chrysostomos in the Pentadactylos Mountains, Acheropoiitos in Karavas and Ayios Panteleimonas in Myrtou). Marvelous Byzantine wall-paintings and mosaics of rare artistic and historical value have been removed from church walls by Turkish smugglers and sold illegally in America, Europe and Japan. Many Byzantine churches have suffered irreparable damage."

Turks have also destroyed Greek cemeteries in an attempt to extinguish all signs of Greek culture and Christianity from the occupied area.

Antigoni Papadopoulou, a Member of the European Parliament, submitted a written question to the European Commission in 2013:

"The bones which had been taken out of the cemetery were thrown away as rubbish. In the Greek Orthodox tradition, such actions against cemeteries and lack of respect for the dead are considered a severe violation of religious human rights."

Meanwhile, the West has looked the other way and enabled Turkey's occupation of northern Cyprus.

It is not just part of the island country of Cyprus that is being occupied and demeaned. What is being occupied, colonized, and culturally destroyed is a significant part of Western history and civilization. It is part of the "Great Replacement" predicted for Europe but ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory". One only need look back at the replacement of the Christian Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Empire and then Turkey, or the replacement of the indigenous Copts in Egypt. With Cyprus and Greece under attack from Turkey, where are the West's principles, strength and resolve?

 

Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18633/turkey-jihad-cyprus

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter