Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Kerry State Department Promoted Steele Dossier and Russia Collusion Fantasy - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

“Let’s do a movie about this!”

One day before the FBI launched its Trump-Russia investigation, Sovietophile academic Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ boss Bruce Ohr and an employee of Fusion GPS, met with former British spy Christopher Steele. The upper reaches of the FBI and DOJ – Ohr, McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Page and such – have drawn the most attention in the fake Russia collusion story. It now emerges that the elusive Steele also deployed collaborators at the U.S. Department of State.

As 43 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch explain, “State Department ‘Special Coordinator for Libya’ Jonathan Winer played a key role in facilitating dossier author Christopher Steele’s access to other top government officials,” and “prominent international business executives.”

According to the Middle East Institute, Jonathan M. Winer was “deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement, and counsel to United States Senator John Kerry.” Winer has written and lectured widely on, among other things, “corruption, and U.S.-Russia issues,” which seems somewhat removed from the Yale alum’s background.

In November of 2014, Winer sought to hook up Steele with Nelson Cunningham, president of McLarty Associates, a consulting firm co-founded by former Clinton White House Counselor Thomas ‘Mack’ McLarty. Winer’s email describes Steele as “an old friend of mine,” and “a former senior British intelligence officer focusing on former Soviet Union with a number of US and European private sector clients these days…”

In November of 2014, Winer “openly acts as a liaison for Steele,” attempting to set up meetings for “Chris” and referencing “Three Orbis Reports” in the subject line of the email. That same month Winer set up Steele with Ariuna Namsrai of ACPO “one of the world’s leading advisory and advocacy communications consultancies.”

Jumping ahead to January of 2017, movie producer Eric Hamburg forwards an article on the Steele dossier to Winer, proclaiming “Let’s do a movie about this!” Hamburg is the producer of the 1995 Nixon, starring Anthony Hopkins and directed by Oliver Stone. As it happens, Hamburg’s IMDB profile shows him posing with Hillary Clinton.

In February of 2018, Winer wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post claiming that Steele told him in 2016 he had “learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials.” Steele and Clinton factotum Sidney Blumenthal approached Winer with “separate dossiers.” No word whether the DNC also paid for Blumenthal’s dossier and whether his high concept featured any Russian whores urinating on a bed. Scenarios like that doubtless had Eric Hamburg panting to produce a movie.

“These documents show that Fusion GPS and Clinton spy Christopher Steele had a close relationship with the Obama State Department,” said a statement from Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “The State Department under John Kerry is emerging as another center of the Spygate conspiracy against President Trump.” That should come as no surprise.

Kerry once testified that U.S. actions in Vietnam were “reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” Kerry said the 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France had a “sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy” and “a rationale that you could attach yourself to.” Kerry described the terrorist attack as obscurantisme, which even in French fell a bit short. The performance prompted Sen. John McCain to call Kerry, “the most inept secretary of state, certainly in my lifetime.” And when no longer Secretary of State, Kerry still acted like one.

After President Trump nixed the Iran deal, Kerry duly showed up in Iran for back-channel talks. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted Kerry for “actively undermining” administration’s policy toward the Islamic Republic.

For his part, Jonathan Winer was a State Department “Special Coordinator” for Libya, but what he managed to coordinate there remains unclear. For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the murder of four Americans was all about some internet video, and after all, what did it matter?

As the State Department emails obtained by Judicial Watch show, Jonathan Winer was, in effect, Steele’s personal agent with the State Department, the Clinton propaganda machine, and even the entertainment industry. So Winer qualifies as an associate producer of the Russia collusion show, which the Democrat-media axis shows no sign of abandoning. It’s the biggest production on the left since Barry Soetoro teamed with David Axelrod on Dreams from My Father, which official biographer David Garrow called a novel, and the author a “composite character.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr is aiming at a broad-based, multifaceted investigation of the Russia collusion story’s origins. As other emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal, the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr, Nellie’s husband, grabbed bonuses while that was going on, and bagged a pay raise after he lost his job as Associate Deputy Attorney General.

Prosecutor John Durham should find out if that was a reward for the Ohrs’ role in the illicit targeting of President Trump. In similar style, Durham might have a look at State Department records, and what they reveal about the multifaceted Jonathan Winer.

Curious observers might note that the State Department did not volunteer the material about Winer’s connections with Christopher Steele. Likewise, no congressional committee and nobody in the establishment media came up with the documents. The revelation resulted from legal action by Judicial Watch, whose motto is “because no one is above the law!” Other pertinent Judicial Watch revelations can be found at this link.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of  Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation and, most recently, Sexual Terrorist, about the Golden State Killer.  Lloyd’s work has appeared in City Journal, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, California Globe, and many other publications. Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield is a collection of his journalism. His crime books include A Shut and Open Case, about a double murder in Davis, California.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274002/kerry-state-department-promoted-steele-dossier-and-lloyd-billingsley

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

We Must Reject LGBTQ Craziness Becoming America's Accepted Norm - Lloyd Marcus

by Lloyd Marcus

When small children have nightmares about being turned into the opposite sex, then schools pushing the LGBTQ agenda are effectively creating a state-mandated form of child abuse.

Turning around in Walmart, I saw a large exhibit of Listerine mouthwash. The exhibit was covered in rainbows stating that it was in celebration of LGBTQ (and other alphabets that I can't remember) pride. The wording on the exhibit preached to us about love, respect and anti-bigotry. Why is Johnson & Johnson which owns Listerine making a big deal about portraying perverted lifestyles engaged in by less than 3% of the population as something beautiful and crucially important? 

My wife Mary showed me a photo on Facebook of a Philadelphia politician with his male sex partner. The politician's male sex partner had a full beard with his face painted in gaudy feminine makeup wearing a dress. When did things get so crazy in America that admitting being repulsed by the obviously perverted photo would get one branded a bigot, publicly shamed and severely punished?

The greatest trick of LGBTQ activists was convincing corporations and bullying lawmakers into believing their lie that those in LGBTQ lifestyles are born that way. Science proves no one is born LGBTQ. And yet, anyone who dares to state this truth risks a total destruction of his or her life.

Take just the 'T' in that LGBTQ alphabet represented in that rainbow flag. Dr. Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of American College of Pediatricians, explained that if a brain was born the wrong sex due to factors before birth, every single identical twin would have the same gender identity every time. They do not. Identical twins have identical DNA. Therefore, if transgenderism were in the genes, 100% of the time, both twins would be either transgender or non-transgender. Studies show that if one twin is transgender, 72% of the time the other twin is normal. This proves that post-birth events primarily impact your identity. In other words, transgenderism is a mental disorder.

Using their “born this way” lie, LGBTQ activists claim rejecting their lifestyle in any of its manifestations is bigotry, the same as rejecting me because I am black. This is nonsense. My DNA confirms that I was born black. But there is no homosexual gene. As I stated, daring to state this scientific truth is not permitted; igniting swift and intense retaliation on offenders. It blows my mind that we are not allowed to publicly state facts, common sense and truth. The LGBTQ enforcers demand that we embrace lies, evil and craziness. 

Dr. Cretella shared a horrific story: In a California kindergarten class, the teacher read to her students two transgender indoctrination stories for kids. After the teacher finished reading these stories, little Joey went to the restroom and returned to class wearing a dress. The teacher said: “Boys and girls, Joey is really a girl just like Jazz in our story. From now on we need to call her Josephine.” This was Joey's parents' and the teacher's way to introduce Joey's transformation to his fellow kindergartners. 

Joey's classmates were extremely confused. One little girl was terrified. At home, after bathing in the tub, the girl's mom wrapped her in a towel. Passing a mirror, the girl noticed that her hair was slicked back. Panicked, she burst into tears. “Mommy, am I turning into a boy? I don't wanna turn into a boy! Joey turned into a girl. Am I gonna turn into a boy?” 

Folks, allowing our kids to be traumatized with LGBTQ crazy ideology is incredibly cruel, insane and irresponsible. God commands us to protect children.
But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone hung around your neck.” Mark 9:42
Folks, do you know the only diagnosis used to begin gender reassignment is a child saying they feel like the opposite sex? That's insane.

“I Am Jazz” was one of the transgender indoctrination children books read to Joey's kindergarten class. Insanely, Jazz's parents started his male to female transition at 3 years old. How on earth could rational parents conclude that their 3 year old was born in the wrong body? Looking like a female from the waist up, Jazz is now 17, star of his own TV show. LBGTQ enforcers are on the verge of making the reading of “I Am Jazz” a mandatory part of the national curriculum in public schools. 

It shows that government-mandated sexual child abuse is taking root in public schools across America. Meanwhile, far too many Christian pastors give us sermons about how we must be more tolerant of the LGBTQ agenda. 

Still, I keep trusting God. Responsible parents said 'no' to the mandatory reading of “I Am Jazz” to their children in schools. The great Christian patriots at Liberty Counsel are handling the parents' case. Here is one of the fake news media headlines trashing the parents: “Elementary school cancels reading of book about a transgender child after 'hate group' threatens to sue.” The tactic of LGBTQ enforcers and their fake news media minions is to brand all who oppose them infecting our children with LGBTQ craziness as “haters.” 

Dr. Cretella made a great point. She said if someone wants to cut off a healthy arm or leg because they believe they are an amputee trapped in a normal body, medical professionals correctly would diagnose that person as mentally ill, suffering from Body Identity Integrity Disorder. And yet, if a person wishes to cut off her healthy breasts or his healthy penis, medical professionals diagnose them as transgender. Dr. Cretella says transgenderism is a mental illness which should not be a civil right. 

The problem is everyone is terrified to publicly state common-sense facts and truth regarding LGBTQ ideology. Dr. Cretella said she has been secretly contacted by even leftist medical professionals, thanking her for her courage to tout the absurdity of LGBTQ ideology. They won't go public because they fear losing their jobs as she does.

When I was a black kid growing up in the projects of Baltimore in the 1950s, I thought America was the greatest source of good around the world. I still believe that. I thought presidents were exceptional people because six-year-old George Washington confessed to chopping down his father's cherry tree. He could not tell a lie. Roy Rogers and Superman were good guys like my dad who always tried to do the right thing. As a young man, I thought politicians could not lie because of video. Silly me. 

Today, youths are taught there is no longer such a thing as definite right and wrong.

What happened to us? Biblical morality upon which America was founded is systematically being banned from government and our culture. The Democratic party, LGBTQ enforcers, and fake news media demand that biblical morality be replaced with government-mandated satanic evil, lies and plain craziness. We must not allow craziness to become America's accepted norm.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American. Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk http://LloydMarcus.com

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/we_must_reject_lgbtq_craziness_becoming_americas_accepted_norm_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

No more the safe haven, no more the Promised Land - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

I see no way to put the anti-Jewish genie back in the bottle in the US. The 'Goldene Medina" - the Golden Land - as Jews used to call the USA, is no more.

I spent five of the weeks between Passover and Shavuot of this year on a lecture tour of the US and Canada, as I do every year. The first tour took place in 2009, making this one the eleventh. Among those inviting me to speak are academic institutions, Jewish and non-Jewish public organizations, community centers and individuals. The topics of my lectures center around my research on the Middle East, including Israel, as well as Islam in its indigenous states and in those to which it has migrated.

The Jewish institutions inviting me to lecture run the gamut of North American Jewish culture: from liberal progressive, as in Reform temples, to Orthodox and even haredi milieus. I am invited by Jewish organizations such as IAC and asked to speak to them in Hebrew. On every tour, I meet people with diverse opinions, hear varied approaches to issues and listen to complex ideas.

In previous years, I was always asked to talk about the Middle East, the challenges facing Israel, the peace process, the "Arab Spring," Islam, ISIS and similar topics involving the region and how its problems spill over into other countries. The situation in the United States, and especially the subject of US Jewry, almost never came up in my lecture series because, in the audiences' eyes, the fact that I am an Israeli precludes my having anything to say about American Jewish affairs.

When, here and there, the topic of North American Jewry did arise, I received the incontrovertible impression that the Jews of the US and Canada feel that they live safely and securely in a Promised Land. North America was seen as such because Jews there live tranquilly in a nation devoid of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish discrimination, where they are part of every political and social circle and thus have no cause for worry.  They feel afe and secure because of the fact that the level of violence in American public space is generally low and where it is not, there is police protection for synagogues and Jewish community centers.

A Reform rabbi once made this feeling abundantly clear when he told me that "exile" is a concept, not a geographical construct. Any country in which Jews can live a secure and full life cannot be considered "exile," he said, because that word refers to a land where Jews cannot maintain their religious, cultural and physical lives in free and secure fashion.  The hidden message in his words was that Israel is more of an "exile" than is America, because of the security situation prevailing in the Jewish State and the fact that Reform rabbis do not have the freedom to lead their congregations as freely as they do in the United States. 

This year, however, the atmosphere greeting me during my lecture tour was entirely different. A good many Jews of all cultural types spoke clearly and openly of their fears with regard to two things: the rise in Jew-hatred and the deteriorating security situation. (I am attempting to avoid the term "anti-Semitism" because Arabs, too, are Semites). The reasons for the rise in anti-Jewish hatred are many and varied: The Christian European legacy that emigrated to the New World; Jews identified as being movers in the establishment as well as in finance, media, politics, academia, arts and film-making; Jews involved in scandals in the movie world (e.g. Harvey Winston)  and in financial scams (Bernie Madoff); increased Islamic immigration to the US leading to political clout as seen in the election of three Muslim members of Congress for the first time in US history; identifying Jews with Israel – and more.

It is important to remember that Jews are to be found in political positions that put them in the public eye. Among the liberal Jews who surrounded President Obama were Rahm Emanuel, Dan Shapiro (then US ambassador to Israel) Jeremy Ben Ami (J Street head), Jonathan Greenblatt (currently head of the ADL) and others. Many of the Americans who opposed Obama, especially Republicans, aimed their arrows – both the airborne and more subtle ones - at those Jews. On the other hand, President Trump is surrounded by Jews as well, conservative politically and even Orthodox religiously: his daughter Ivanka, son-in-law Jerard Kushner, advisor Jason Greenblatt, US ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Michael Cohen, Steve Mnuchin (Sec. of the Treasury) and others. An anti-Trump American does not care for the Jews who are closely connected to the president. 

It is worthwhile mentioning that Jews held high level positions in previous Republican administrations as well: Paul Wolfovitz was Deputy Sec. of Defense under President George W. Bush, and other Jews – Douglas Feith and Richard Perle come to mind – filled key positions in the US government. Clinton, the Democrat, put Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke and Martin Indyk in key positions as well. The Jews have found themselves between the Republican hammer and the Democrat anvil for a long time.

Identifying Jews with big money is a widespread phenomenon in the USA, and for many reasons: Prominent investment banks – Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, for example – were founded by Jews and still carry their names. During the 2008-2009 general financial crisis the two were in the epicenter of the period's  economic, media and public earthquake. Bernie Madoff, the Jewish "investor," lost the assets of thousands of American citizens.

Jews are the most prominent donors to American charitable causes, such as hospitals, universities and organzations that aid the needy. Jews donate to these causes because they feel a responsibility towards the American society which accepted and included them with unlimited affection.  The donors' names are up there for all to see on plaques and above the entrances to  these many institutions. The problem is that when the ordinary blue collar American who works hard to put bread on the table sees the Jewish names shining proudly on the entrances to hospitals and universities (many of which charge over $50,000 a year in tuition fees), he associates the Jews with money and so Jewish generosity acts against the donors and the group to which they belong. Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar knew what she was doing when she spoke of the connection between Jews and "Benjamins" – a term for the US $100 bill which has Benjamin Franklin's portrait printed on it.  

The roots of Jew hatred and its causes have been analyzed in myriads of articles and books. I will add only two important factors here, common to the Arab-Muslim-Eastern world and the Western-European-Christian one: 

1. Two religions, Christianity and Islam, are both daughter religions of Judaism and both developed "replacement theories" according to which both consider themselves the true religions replacing the defunct Judaism whose adherents are to  be subjugated and humiliated under Christian and Muslim rule

2. Jews lived in both these cultures among the nations and since Jews are "different" by definition, there are always many who hate them. The proof that these two factors – the religious and the realistic – are the basis of Jew hatred is the fact that in three other cultures – Chinese, Japanese and Indian – who for our purposes can be seen as a control group- there is no Jew hatred because:
       a. there is no connection between the local religions and Judaism and 
       b. Jews did not live among the Chinese, Japanese and Indian peoples. Jews are therefore not seen as the "other who lives among us at our expense", and therefore are not hated.

Jew-hatred immigrated to the US from Europe long ago, but today its source is Islam and it is increasing as Islamic presence in public and political spheres becomes more pronounced. The number of Muslims in the US today is on the increase, while the number of US Jews is in constant  decline. Most US Jews are liberals and over 70% vote Democrat, making them the target of those who hate the Democrats. Jews were at the center of the struggle for civil rights for Afro-Americans in the middle of the last century and can be found today in the forefront of public activisim for accepting Syrian migrants, mainly Muslims. The American Right sees this Jewish activity in a negative light and as a result their demonstrations include the slogan "Jews will not replace us."

The growing hatred towards Jews is evident in worrying reports of a dramatic rise in the number of incidents where this hatred is expressed, the most shocking being shooting sprees: One, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on the Succot hoiiday this year, was the work of a murderer named Robert Bowers who broke into the Tree of Life Synagogue murdering 11 worshippers in cold blood and wounding six. The second happened this past Passover when a murderer named John Ernest broke into the Poway, California Chabad House, killed a worshipper and  wounded three others. In both cases the perpetrators cited the ant-Jewish Turner Diaries written in 1978 by an American Nazi named William Luther Pierce who also writes under the pseudonym Andrew MacDonald.

Another factor casting a shadow on Jewish life in the USA is the strengthening of anti-capitalist concepts and negative opinions regarding "privileged," rich, healthy whites held by groups seen as underprivileged: people  of color, the poor and handicapped. Jews are considered privileged and therefore an inseparable part of the  "oppression and exclusion" system operated by the "privileged" against those "discriminated against" and "excluded" from the advantages available to the privileged groups.

More and more, as criticism of the policies it employs for self-defense increases, Israel is considered a burden by many American Jews. The very establishment of the Jewish State at the cost of the "unfortunate Palestinians" is in question. The challenge  to Israel's right to exist because of it being a "colonialist entity" is  prevalent in US Academic circles where for decades generations  of students have been taught to  believe  with all their hearts that Jews have no right to a national home. Jews identifying with Israel on campus are subjected to criticism and hate speech from lecturers who threaten to affect their grades negatively and from peers who threaten their safety.

It is imperative to mention the involvement of Jewish organizations In fanning the flames of this criticism as well as hatred for Israel: Jewish Voice for Peace, Peace Now, J Street, each it its own way and with its own methods. Activists in these organizations think that if only Israel would "act nicely" – according to their definitions of what that entails – to its neighbors, they – that is, the Jewish liberals  and progressives – would be accepted more easily by American society. They do not realize the simple fact that Jew-hatred has nothing to do with Israel, was not born in 1948 but is deeply rooted in western culture, just as it is in Islamic culture. 

The US was the Promised Land for Jews for many years. It was a land of immigrants where they could enjoy equal rights, respect and appreciation just like the other immigrants to its shores.  It was also a safe haven - certainly in comparison with the security situation in Israel - a country where no one checks the bags of those entering a shopping center, train or bus station as they do in the Jewish State. However, the increase in Jew-hatred over the last few years has cast a pall on that feeling of security, and the murderous attacks targeting Jews in the past year have made the safe haven concept a shaky one. Many synagogues now have police protection during Sabbath and holiday prayers or during other activities that take place during the week.   

A number of Jews have established an organization called Jews Can Shoot. Their kippahs are embroidered with the words: "Norhing Says Never Again Like an Armed Jew." Printed on the lining of the kippah is a saying by the Jewish Sages: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first." There are Jews who come to the synagogue with a firearm, but is that going to solve the problem of Jew-hatred? And what exactly is the armed Jew going to do if the murderer carries an automatic weapon? What is going to happen if a group armed with automatic weapons attacks a synagogue where a single guard carrying a pistol is stationed outside? Is this scenario impossible to imagine?

Never Again kippah
I became aware of the massive change in the worldview of many US Jews during my lecture tour between Passover and Shavuot. The fear of encountering Jew hatred and terror attacks became a real possibility, an all-embracing undercurrent. The result is going to be the strengthening of two opposing trends: one, that Jews who do not feel a real connection to the Jewish collective are going to see that connection as an increasingly troublesome burden which they will try to make less visible as long as they can safely integrate totally into the surrounding society and be rid of the destiny facing US Jewry. In contrast, those Jews who will not or can not hide their identity (due to their clothes, side locks, beards and faith) will surround themselves with real or virtual walls in order to protect themselves and their congregations in Jewish neighborhoods (such as Williamsburg, Brooklyn) or towns  (such as Monsey and Munroe). Others will reach the conclusion that French Jews reached over the past few years, give up life in America and move to Israel.

Israel's political system reflects the mindset of its population, with the right getting steadily stronger and the left weaker in a long term, continuous process. The political system in the United States, in contrast, is based on a kind of pendulum that sometimes grants the reins of power to Democrats like Carter, Clinton and Obama, and sometimes to the Republicans like Reagan, the Bush father and son and Trump. It is possible that after Trump – as a reaction to his way of thinking and behavior – the political pendulum will bring a radical leftist Jew like Bernie Sanders and his followers' liberal progressive agenda.That will bring the anti-Jewish feelings on the part of the American Right to new heights, but hopefully not their anti-Jewish actions.I do not see a way to return the anti-Jewish genie back to the bottle – and I am not so sure he was ever imprisoned there.

Twentieth century history teaches that the more Jews were integrated into the society in which they lived, the greater the threat they were perceived to pose to that society, therefore the greater the hatred they inspire. In pre-WWII Weimar Germany, Austria and Holland, Jews were on the highest socio-economic level, causing the Jew-hatred in those countries to be worse than that of Eastern European countries. Until recently, most American Jews felt that the US is intrinsically different than Europe, that "it can't happen here." That feeling has begun to erode.

Israel must prepare itself to absorb massive aliya from the USA. This aliya will be the result of American Jewry reaching the conclusion that just as Europe, the USA has ceased to be a secure haven for Jews. Canada is not much better. And what is happening in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, let alone Venezuela, will encourage many of the Jews in those countries to leave them and move to Israel. I believe that  massive aliya from North, Central and South America is a matter of a few years at most, and the question Israel faces is what steps to take in order to absorb these future and blessed waves of immigration successfully.

Written in Hebrew for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24027

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

This Juneteenth, Read 'The Real History of Slavery' - Robert Maranto

by Robert Maranto

Thomas Sowell teaches taboo lessons no longer taught in higher education or pop culture.

Today, it seems obvious that, as President Lincoln wrote, “if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Yet through the vast majority of recorded history, in the New World and the Old and in each major religious tradition, slavery was normal, a regular part of the social fabric. Slavery’s abolition is recent and aberrant, perhaps the finest achievement of the West.

American abolition came in 1865 when on June 19, soon dubbed Juneteenth, Union General Gordon Granger freed the last enslaved Africans in Texas.

America’s Juneteenth hardly ended slavery, however. China, Brazil, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, all 26 nation-states governing most of humanity, abolished slavery after - in many cases long after - over 300,000 Union soldiers died in large part to end U.S. slavery.

A nation with substantial economic ties with the U.S., Saudi Arabia, only got around to ending slavery in 1962. Yet I would never define Saudi Arabia by its history of slavery, and I bristle when people define America that way. Virtually all peoples have histories of enslaving and brutalizing others, so obsessing over America’s sins while ignoring everyone else’s is anti-American in the purest sense. Alas, such views proliferate in the media, academia, and politics.

For that reason, I commemorate Juneteenth by re-reading Thomas Sowell’s classic essay, “The Real History of Slavery,” written in part to debunk popular misconceptions spread by the likes of Alex Haley’s Roots. A part of his collection of mainly original essays in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Sowell's essay teaches politically incorrect lessons no longer taught in higher education or pop culture.

First, slavery impoverished rather than built societies, by stigmatizing work and thrift while exalting as role models a slave-owning leisure class. In some respects, slave owners were like Hollywood stars, widely envied, and notorious for their conspicuous consumption and reckless disregard of others. Within places as distinct as China, Brazil, the Middle East, and America, locales with high concentrations of slaves were the poorest and most backward.

Second, Sowell shows that despite claims of a kinder, gentler slavery in non-European societies, “how human beings treat other human beings when they have unbridled power over them is seldom a pretty story or even a decent story, regardless of the color of the people involved.”

Historically, powerful people enslaved their neighbors. Africans enslaved Africans while Turks and Arabs enslaved Europeans. Indeed slave derives from Slav, reflecting the many Slavs sold into slavery by their conquerors, even into the 20th century. People enslaved by non-Europeans likely fared even worse than those in the Antebellum South, with higher mortality. Yet, Sowell observes that “[t]he absence of a critical literature or an anti-slavery movement outside the West left the abuses of slaves in non-Western countries without the kind of exposure or denunciation” that slavery faced in European dominated societies.

Simply put, there is no Arabian equivalent of Uncle Tom’s Cabin because no one wanted to write it.
Relatedly, American’s founders were unusual not in owning slaves, but in their misgivings about owning slaves. Avoiding controversy, George Washington quietly freed some slaves by leaving them in the north when he returned to Virginia post-presidency. In his will, Washington freed all his slaves and funded their fresh start, while regretting that he had ever owned people.

Slave owners like Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Congressman John Randolph pondered ways to end the evil institution without breaking apart their new nation or causing a race war, all the while cognizant that for those enslaved, “slavery was a very poor preparation for freedom.” Accordingly, Lincoln favored incremental ends to slavery, as had happened in Great Britain. For that reason abolitionists refused to support him in 1860. Even after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, abolitionists split on whether to back his reelection.

Finally, Sowell explains slavery’s end. Globally, more peoples became part of nation-states protected by national armies, so those raiding territories to enslave unprotected others increasingly faced military retaliation. Anyone proposing replacing modern nationalism with postmodern, UN-run globalization should imagine a world where slavers like Boko Haram face UN resolutions rather than national armies.

More important was the evolution and spread of Western ideas about individual worth and self-determination. As Sowell writes, slavery pitted “Western civilization against the world” at a time when the West had the power to prevail. Non-Western people generally did not end slavery on their own; indeed, most fiercely resisted abolition. Great Britain played the indispensable role in ending slavery, choosing ideals over interests in the process.

18th century Britain was the world’s largest slave trader, with powerful interests profiting from human trafficking. Yet under religious pressure, 19th Century British parliaments abolished slavery and increasingly employed the Royal Navy and colonial governance to erode the global slave trade, at enormous cost in blood and treasure.

In Sudan, for example, British General G.C. Gordon fought slavery, imposing the death penalty on those convicted of castrating enslaved men to market them as eunuchs. After Mohammad Mahad defeated Gordon at Khartoum, human trafficking again went untroubled until British soldiers returned, among them a young Winston Churchill. Under British pressure, Sudan eventually formally abolished slavery, though informally it exists there to this day.

Sowell attacks the hypocrisy of criticizing the 19th century West for falling short of modern standards, while far more culpable non-Western societies get a free pass. Today, universities rebrand buildings named after long dead slave owners, while courting wealthy sheiks who may have owned people in their youths. President Obama, who removed a bust (in fairness, one of two) of Winston Churchill from the White House, probably never learned at Harvard that Churchill fought slavery in traditional Sudan, Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia.

Obama should read "The Real History of Slavery."

Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, and serves on his local school board.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273992/juneteenth-read-real-history-slavery-robert-maranto

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Buttigieg Entered the Anti-Israel Echo Chamber - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

And adopted Obama’s foreign policy.

Last year, Pete Buttigieg, then the mayor of a failing Indiana city with a small Jewish community, and with unlikely aspirations for higher office, visited Israel. He suggested that Israel's approach to security offered "a very important lesson in that that hopefully Americans can look to".

Buttigieg had joined an American Jewish Committee delegation of mayors and came back with a seeming understanding of Israel’s precarious security situation and the danger of simplistic solutions.

 “One of the first things that was very clear to us is that there is not a unified or single voice for the Palestinian people. Most people aren’t aware of the difference between what’s happening in Gaza, run by Hamas in a way that is contributing to a lot of misery there, but also totally different than an environment where you would have a negotiating partner across the table," he observed.

Fast forward a year and Buttigieg is running for president and threatening to cut aid to Israel.

In his foreign policy address, he falsely claimed that "the Netanyahu government is turning away from peace" and warned Israel, while, referring to himself in the third person, that "President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill."

What happened? There are two answers.

When Buttigieg was running a conservative city with an active Jewish and Christian community, where it’s not unusual to see churches flying the Israeli flag, it was safe for him to be more pro-Israel. On the campaign trail of a radical primary, where anti-Israel protesters dogged his steps, things changed.

But the bigger answer goes inside the foreign policy factory to see how the sausage gets made.

Buttigieg’s foreign policy team is headed by Doug Wilson. Wilson, Obama's Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and the highest-ranking gay Pentagon official, is an obvious choice. Wilson chairs the Board of Advisors at the Truman National Security Project making him the guy to talk to for 2020 Democrats like Buttigieg interested in developing a foreign policy position at the national level.

The second member of Buttigieg’s foreign policy advisory team named in the media is Tarek Ghani, the son of Ashraf Ghani, the president of Afghanistan, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, who is a senior economic advisor to the other Soros’ International Crisis Group. There is an obvious conflict with the son of the president of Afghanistan advising a man running to be the president of the United States.

But the most crucial name on the team list is Ned Price.

Price was the deputy of Ben Rhodes. As Obama’s National Security Council spokesman, Price worked closely together with Rhodes, who had boasted of creating an echo chamber in the media.

That echo chamber manufactured a pro-Iran and anti-Israel narrative.

A New York Times story profiled the echo chamber in action as Rhodes used Price to spin the crisis that ensued when Iran took ten American sailors hostage and humiliated them in front of the world.

Ned Price, a former Clinton donor, threw $1,200 to Buttigieg. It was the largest donation to come from a member of the Obama foreign complex topping Susan Rice’s cool thousand. Price had previously backed Hillary Clinton. But he broke out a $250 check to Buttigieg in January and then another $1,000 in March.

Those were Price’s only donations in the 2020 race. Rhodes’ deputy had picked his man.

When Buttigieg delivered his speech bashing Israel and touting the Iran Deal, the echo chamber’s fingerprints were already all over it. The 2016 election didn’t kill the echo chamber. It just morphed into National Security Action, a group co-chaired by Rhodes, which included Price, aimed at, among other things, preserving the Iran Deal which protected the terror regime’s pathway to nuclear capabilities.

That’s what Buttigieg promised in his foreign policy address.

The attacks on Israel and support for the Iran Deal are a staple of Rhodesian foreign policy. Prime Minister Netanyahu had defined his foreign policy by opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, Obama had defined his support for aiding Iran’s nuclear ambitions with sustained attacks on Netanyahu. Buttigieg has followed the same pattern of repeatedly attacking Netanyahu to protect his standing on Israel.

After his Israel trip last year, he seemed to understand that simplistic solutions like negotiations were not a real answer. As he conceded at the time, there wasn’t even a single voice to negotiate with.

Now, Buttigieg has embraced the Obama tactic of accusing Israel of refusing to negotiate a solution.

Buttigieg’s lines of attack on Israel, the false claims that Israel had gone far to the right, that it did not care about peace, and that the two-state solution was the only way it could survive as a Jewish state are cut and pasted directly from the Obama foreign policy scrapbook. They’re flashbacks to 2015.

That’s not because Obama is whispering in Buttigieg’s ear. But the guy whispering in Obama’s ear is.

A memo profiling the echo chamber had been passed around the National Security Council last year. Price had appeared in the memo as one of a number of “likely operations officers”. Ronan Farrow, a co-author of a New Yorker piece attacking the memo, had just released a new book, War on Peace which repeatedly quoted Rhodes. Farrow has also authored a number of hit pieces targeting Israeli supporters.

The chamber was alive and well. And had plenty of media allies.

The Atlantic claimed that Buttigieg’s foreign policy speech channeled Truman, not Obama. The claim was so absurd that it might have come from the echo chamber. Buttigieg’s foreign policy was not only being shaped by Obama vets like Price and Wilson, but the actual policies he proposed, treating global warming as a national security crisis, crawling back to Iran and bashing Israel, were Obama classics.

Even his call to end the AUMF, the authorization of military force passed after 9/11, is an Obama policy.

Buttigieg’s speech called for repealing the AUMF to end “endless war”. Obama’s 2015 speech calling for the AUMF repeal had also warned of “endless war”. Even the rhetoric consists of the same dated clich├ęs.

Media accounts touting Buttigieg praise his original policy vision. But a leader with an original policy vision doesn’t need to surround himself with Obama retreads like Wilson and Price. If Buttigieg really wanted to define a new foreign policy vision, he wouldn’t sound exactly like an Obama clone.

The echo chamber speaking through Buttigieg’s pursed lips is praising its puppet for his original vision.

Buttigieg hasn’t outsourced his foreign policy to Obama’s echo chamber because he knows what he’s doing. Despite the media spin about his experience, his knowledge of foreign languages, and his time abroad, he’s so clueless that he just signed on the dotted line for every failed Obama foreign policy.

That may be one reason the echo chamber chose him. Another is that he sounds so much like Obama. The pros who wrote for Obama don’t have to bother learning to shape their message to another voice.

Buttigieg’s rhetoric, the warnings that the clock cannot be turned back, the impossible call for a holistic worldview for dealing with world problems, disguising military cuts as modernization and veiling the lack of a meaningful policy in sermonizing are all the classic parts of an Obama foreign policy speech.

There’s a good reason for that.

As the New York Times documented, what we think of an Obama’s voice was often Rhodes’ voice. At one point, Rhodes wonders, “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.” It’s getting harder to tell where Obama ends, where Rhodes ends, where Ned Price ends and where Buttigieg begins.

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274003/how-buttigieg-entered-anti-israel-echo-chamber-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China strategically withdraws in Art of War offensive - Chriss Street

by Chriss Street

No one should underestimate China’s continuing determination to seek economic and geopolitical dominance.

China, facing trade war retaliation and Hong Kong protests, is following an ancient Art of War offensive strategy by temporarily withdrawing when meeting concerted opposition.

Sun Tzu’s Art of War military treatise may have been written about 2,500 years ago, but it continues to be the most important modern primer for strategy and tactics. The sage text has had life-changing impacts on Chinese communist revolutionary Mao Zedong, American Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., and undoubtedly influenced New York Military Academy First Captain and now President Donald J. Trump.

Enodo Economics’ Diana Choyleva first coined the term ‘Digital Cold War’ in 2018 to describe a “contest for future hi-tech supremacy” as ascendant China seeks to supplant America in setting artificial Intelligence and quantum computing ‘standards.’ Short of a “change of regime or ideology in either China or America and no military confrontation,” Enodo warned investors to be aware of a protracted “messy decoupling” as East and West jockey for economic and geopolitical dominance.

Sun Tzu stated as a leader’s premier strategy for victory: “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” Tactics for war revolve around timing, chaos creating opportunities, subduing enemies without fighting, use of deception, letting success compound on itself, and understanding that no one profits from prolonged warfare.

Chaos from the Soviet Union’s collapse was timed with China’s declaration of ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,’ to provide Western justification for funding China’s economic transition from rural impoverishment to urbanized factory to the world.

China was so successful in subduing its historic adversaries in the West without a fight, Business Insider published a slide deck in October 2015 titled, ‘How China went from Communist to Capitalist.’ BI joyfully trumpeted that “China's economy is the second-largest in the world and will likely overtake the U.S. sometime this century.”

But at the time, China President and Chairman of the Central Military Commission Xi Jinping was quietly using the China’s national security apparatus to detain 27 full members and 8 alternative members of the Communist Central Committee in his "tigers and flies” anti-corruption “great purge” that ensnared at least 1.34 million high and low level Chinese officials, according to a BBC review of public records.

President Xi openly announced dual technology initiatives in 2015: Internet Plus to meld digital and real-world economies; and Made in China 2025 to surge core technology competitiveness. Domestic content goals for advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing; automated machine tools and robotics; rail transport and self-driving vehicles; power and agricultural equipment; new materials and bio-pharma products were raised to 40 percent by 2020 and to 70 percent by 2025.

To maximize control, 2,300 Communist Party officials in 2017 voted to elevate President Xi to the “core” paramount status of level of legendary Chinese communists Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. A constitution amendment enshrined “Xi Jinping thought on Socialism with Chinese characteristic for a new era” as governing philosophy.

Such brazenly confrontational moves ran directly counter to Sun Tzu’s tactical warning:
“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.”
Donald Trump had run for president in 2016 on a commitment to “Make America Great Again” by confronting what he called a series of unfair international trade deals. The blatant American job killing goals of the Made in China 2025 manifesto validated his stated desire for the United States to unleash an escalating trade war against China.

With the trade war already sapping the domestic economy, China inexplicably introduced confrontational legislation to allow extradition of semi-autonomous Hong Kong residents to mainland China. Mass demonstrations turning violent with police firing tear gas and rubber bullets at college-age students symbolically dropping umbrellas and storming the city’s parliament building were broadcast live across the globe.

Geopolitical Futures suggests that “Beijing’s main concern today is that the city-state could be used to destabilize China.” Leadership worries include “muckrakers circumventing state media controls to air Communist Party leadership’s dirty laundry,” dissidents funding mainland political movements, and China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection seeking recovery of billions of dollars in tycoon “ill-gotten wealth.”

Having pushed its goals to the point of concerted opposition, China’s leadership seems to be paying attention to the importance Art of War assigns to “no one profits from prolonged warfare,” as Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam announced an indefinite suspension of the extradition bill on Saturday.

No one should underestimate China’s continuing determination to seek economic and geopolitical dominance. But in a classic Art of War response as two million of Hong Kong’s seven million residents took to the streets to protest on Sunday, Hong Kong security forces remained almost invisible. 

Chriss Street

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/china_strategically_withdraws_in_art_of_war_offensive_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘No end to Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Palestinian state’ - Reuters , Israel Hayom Staff

by Reuters , Israel Hayom Staff

Arab League head Ahmed Aboul Gheit says Arabs agree a Palestinians state must be established on the June 4, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

‘No end to Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Palestinian state’
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen seated between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and King Abdullah II of Jordan | Photo: AFP PHOTO / Chris Kleponis
The head of the Arab League warned on Monday that attempts to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict will be in vain without the establishment of a Palestinian state on all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit’s comments appeared directed at a still unpublished peace plan that US President Donald Trump has dubbed the “deal of the century.” As part of the plan, a US-led conference will be held next week in Bahrain on proposals for the Palestinian economy.

The Palestinian leadership is boycotting the conference, saying Trump’s peace plan is likely to be heavily weighted in favor of Israel and to quash their aspirations for statehood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

While the precise outlines of the draft plan have yet to be revealed, Palestinian and Arab sources who have been briefed on it say it jettisons the two-state solution.

“Whatever is rejected by the Palestinian or the Arab side is unacceptable,” Aboul Gheit said during an event at the Arab League.

“What is acceptable from our side as Arabs as a solution is the establishment of a Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital,” he added.

Based in Egypt, the Arab League is often seen as a talking shop rendered ineffective by regional rivalries, but it remains the main forum for Arab opinion on international matters.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are its most influential members.

Aboul Gheit said that Israel’s acceptance of an Arab Peace Initiative drawn up by Saudi Arabia in 2002, which offers Israel normal ties in return for withdrawal from territory captured in 1967, was the only acceptable solution for Arab states.

“If [Israel] chooses the only reasonable and accepted way from our side as Arabs, which is the establishment of a Palestinian state … it will be accepted in the region as a normal regional partner,” he said.

Reuters , Israel Hayom Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/06/17/no-end-to-israeli-palestinian-conflict-without-palestinian-state/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Palestinian Leaders' War on Preventing Corruption - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Palestinian leaders not only deny their people the right to institutions of proper governing, they are now doing their best to block any chance of improving their living conditions by boycotting the upcoming Bahrain conference

  • The Palestinian Authority has chosen to crack down on anti-corruption activists as part of an effort to silence its critics and deter others from demanding transparency and accountability.
  • Stories concerning rampant financial and administrative corruption in the Palestinian Authority do not surprise those who have been reporting on Palestinian affairs in the past two decades. What is surprising is the growing number of Palestinian individuals and groups who are openly defying Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his senior officials by talking about and exposing corruption.
  • What Palestinian leaders are actually telling their people, in other words, is that anyone who complains about corruption is a traitor working with the Americans and Israelis against the interests of the Palestinians. This charge not only carries the death penalty, it brings shame to the accused and his or her entire clan. Palestinians are thus understandably wary of such an accusation.
  • Palestinian leaders not only deny their people the right to institutions of proper governing, they are now doing their best to block any chance of improving their living conditions by boycotting the upcoming Bahrain conference, whose main goal is to offer Palestinians economic prosperity and rid them of failed leaders whose sole interest seems to be enriching their own bank accounts and those of their family members.
A growing number of Palestinians are demanding that the Palestinian Authority (PA) take serious measures to end financial and administrative corruption among its top brass.

Rather than heeding these calls, however, the Palestinian Authority has chosen to crack down on anti-corruption activists as part of an effort to silence its critics and deter others from demanding transparency and accountability. The Palestinian Authority's measures against anti-corruption activists have angered many Palestinians, who are accusing their leaders of covering up for senior officials suspected of abusing power for their own personal gain.

In the past few days, the Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank arrested two prominent anti-corruption activists: Fayez al-Sweiti, Mohammed Ayesh and Saed Abu al-Baha.

Sweiti, who heads a not-for-profit anti-corruption organization, was arrested after he shared on his Facebook page a document accusing senior Palestinian official Hussein al-Sheikh, head of the Palestinian General Authority for Civil Affairs and member of the Fatah Central Committee, of exploiting his job for personal gain.

Although the Palestinian Authority insists that the document is forged, several Palestinians say they have good reason to believe it is authentic.

Sweiti's son, Saeb, said that more than 20 officers belonging to the Palestinian Preventive Security Force raided his family's home near the West Bank city of Hebron early in the morning. The officers, he said, confiscated his father's computer, mobile phone and other documents. They also informed his father that he must report to the office of the Palestinian prosecutor general later in the day.

After being interrogated about the document he had shared on Facebook, Sweiti was ordered held in detention for 48 hours. He was released the following day, however, after widespread protests by Palestinian human rights and anti-corruption activists.

The second anti-corruption activist, Mohammed Ayesh, was arrested on June 12 as he was on his way to work in Bethlehem, his family said. Earlier this month, Ayesh was briefly detained by Palestinian security officers after he asked Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh why his government had arrested Ala' Bashir, a female Koran teacher from the village of Jainsafout in the West Bank.

The third man, Saed Abu al-Baha, who is also affiliated with Hamas in the West Bank, was arrested for his role in the anti-corruption campaign waged on social media. Shortly before his arrest, he called on Palestinians to take to the streets to demand transparency from their leaders and protest corruption.

The arrest of the anti-corruption activists came in the aftermath of a new scandal that hit the Palestinian Authority in recent weeks. Documents leaked by social media users revealed that the Palestinian Authority government had secretly agreed to increase monthly salaries of its ministers by 67%, from $3,000 to $5,000. The prime minister's salary, the documents showed, was raised from $4,000 to $6,000. The scandal surrounding the salary hike has seriously embarrassed the Palestinian Authority, whose leaders this time did not question the authenticity of the leaked documents. The Palestinian Authority has defended the controversial decision by arguing that it was taken by the previous government back in 2017.

The Palestinians were not the only ones to protest the decision to raise the salaries of the prime minister and his cabinet members. United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, said that he spoke to Prime Minister Shtayyeh, "who committed to end this practice immediately." Criticizing the secret salary raise, Mladenov added: "At a time when the Palestinian people are struggling with economic hardship, when salaries were cut in Gaza, such decisions defy logic and rightly anger people."

Another scandal that recently hit the Palestinian Authority concerns nepotism in the Palestinian Foreign Ministry.

A video posted on Facebook last week revealed that the wife of the Palestinian Authority ambassador to Spain is serving as ambassador to Sweden, while his brother, who also holds the rank of ambassador, works as head of the Latin America Department in Fatah's International Affairs Department.

The ambassador's daughter, the video revealed, was appointed as a Palestinian "spokeswoman" in Europe, while her husband works as senior aide to the Palestinian foreign minister.

"One family holds all these jobs in the [Palestinian] Foreign Ministry," said a caption attached to the video. "This confirms the corruption of nepotism inside the ministry. The video also claimed that Foreign Minister Riad Malki, who has been in his position for 12 years, had appointed his brother as ambassador to Colombia. "Is this a foreign ministry or a family ministry?" asked another caption accompanying the video.

Stories concerning rampant financial and administrative corruption in the Palestinian Authority do not surprise those who have been reporting on Palestinian affairs in the past two decades. What is surprising is the growing number of Palestinian individuals and groups who are openly defying Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his senior officials by talking about and exposing corruption.

More and more Palestinians are stepping up -- and risking their lives (and jobs) -- by using social media platforms to discuss corruption -- an issue long considered a taboo in Palestinian society. For many years, Palestinian leaders managed to divert attention from corruption by directing the heat against, mostly, Israel.

Beleaguered Palestinian officials are again resorting to this reliable old sleight of hand. This time, they are saying that the corruption charges are being made suspiciously close to the announcement of US President Donald Trump's plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the "Deal of the Century."

Munir al-Jaghoub, a senior official with Abbas's ruling Fatah faction, claimed that leaking the corruption documents is linked to both the Palestinian Authority's rejection of the Trump plan and the US-led economic conference slated to take place in Bahrain later this month.

This statement is intended to create the impression that the Palestinian Authority is facing some kind of American-Israeli conspiracy because of its rejection of the Deal of the Century. What Palestinian leaders are actually telling their people, in other words, is that anyone who complains about corruption is a traitor working with the Americans and Israelis against the interests of the Palestinians. This charge not only carries the death penalty, it brings shame to the accused and his or her entire clan. Palestinians are thus understandably wary of such an accusation.

The crackdown on anti-corruption activists and the attempt to deter Palestinians from demanding transparency and accountability demonstrates how far the Palestinian leadership is from combatting corruption and preventing its senior officials from abusing power for personal gain.

Palestinian leaders not only deny their people the right to institutions of proper governing, they are now doing their best to block any chance of improving their living conditions by boycotting the upcoming Bahrain conference, whose main goal is to offer Palestinians economic prosperity and rid them of failed leaders whose sole interest seems to be enriching their own bank accounts and those of their family members.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14390/palestinians-corruption

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter