Friday, November 28, 2014

A Black to Giuliani: 'Right on brother. Way to go Rudy!' - Lloyd Marcus

by Lloyd Marcus

All heck broke loose in the media when white former Mayor Rudy Giuliani smacked down black race pimp Michael Eric Dyson with the truth about black-on-black crime during a TV panel discussion.  As an American who happens to be black, I say, “Right on, brother.  Way to go, Rudy!”  It is about time someone got into the face of these despicable human beings like Dyson, whose evil intention is to divide our great nation along racial lines for political and personal gain.  Dyson and his ilk are disgusting.  We must not submit to their arrogance, bullying, and assumed superiority.

Typically, the left is having a cow, and even some on the right are chiding Rudy for “going too far.”  Simply telling the truth is not allowed when dealing with black destructive behavior in America.  Nuanced responses are expected, exempting blacks from all responsibility, citing racist white America as the bad guys.

In typical race pimp fashion designed to silence whites, Dyson used the deplorable tactic of calling Rudy a racist, claiming that Giuliana has a “white supremacy” mindset.  Thank God, Rudy did not back down, cower in fear, and start walking back his comments.  God forbid that compassionate Americans who have a sincere desire to turn things around in the black community allow themselves to be intimidated into silence by evil race exploiters and profiteers.

Remarkably, Dyson went on to launch the absurd narrative that Rudy, by simply stating facts and refusing to pander to black bad behavior, is racist and a contributor to the problem.  This is what vile race pimps do – usually getting away with their crap.  Rudy refreshingly showed some backbone.

During a recent interview, I was asked what event turned me into a black conservative.  Upon giving it some thought, I was reminded that my great awakening began at around age 9.

Back in the 1950s, my parents, four younger siblings, and I lived in a rundown leaky-roof row house in the ghetto of east Baltimore, with a potbelly-stove in the living room.  I remember our excitement upon being approved to move to the brand-new 11-story government projects building.  Our 6B apartment (funny how I still remember our apartment and apartment number) was fully equipped with new appliances.  We were in heaven.

Over time, I witnessed the destruction of and disrespect for our building by a majority of the all-black residents.  The elevators were regularly out of service due to vandalism.  After people broke the light bulbs, the dark stairwells were used for various forms of criminal activities and as toilets.  Despite overhearing numerous residents complaining about whitey, I clearly saw that whitey was not solely responsible for all of our woes.  According to my childhood experiences, only a handful appreciated, respected, and kept their apartments nice.

At my early age, I sarcastically said, “How can we stop mean white people from sneaking into our building at night, peeing in the stairwells, leaving broken wine bottles, and raping people?”  Even as a child, I knew everything wrong was not the white man's fault and that we possessed power to positively impact our lives.

It is beyond-the-pale evil that the MSM, Democrats, and a majority of the modern civil rights movement are attempting to convince blacks that in terms of race relations, our nation has progressed minimally since the 1950s.  Their vile, insidious false narrative says blacks are denied justice and white cops shoot blacks at will.

Living in the projects, I was too young and uninformed to understand the political dynamics involved.  And yet, I instinctively understood that fellow residents in the government projects did not respect their apartments because they did not earn or own anything, thus feeling no pride of achievement or ownership.

As a young adult, I won the Mr. Baltimore contest.  While I cannot remember the question, here is the answer that won me favor with the judges.  “You must first get the ghetto mindset out of the people before you can truly take them out of the ghetto.”  This observation was birthed out of my firsthand experiences living in the projects.

I do not recall a single "road to Damascus" moment marking when I officially became a black conservative.  However, the seeds of my conservative roots were planted in my early childhood.

Fortunately, I have built up an immunity to the victim mindset instilled by Michael Eric Dyson and his shameful traitorous black posse to keep conned blacks voting for Democrats.

Again, I tip my hat to my patriot brother Rudy Giuliani for compassionately taking a courageous step toward starting an honest dialog regarding uplifting and empowering my fellow black Americans.

Lloyd Marcus


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

Illegal Alien Benefit Free-for-All - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

obama-immigrationjpeg-0107f_c0-67-2700-1640_s561x327Apparently President Obama’s unilateral decision to grant de facto amnesty to five million illegal aliens was insufficiently outrageous. On Tuesday, a White House official told the Washington Post that many illegals now protected from deportation will be eligible to receive a “wide array” of government benefits, including Social Security and Medicare.

The admission verifies that, once again, Americans are forced to endure another lie perpetrated by the president. When he announced his executive action last Thursday, Obama was adamant. “It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive—only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you,” he insisted.

Not exactly. The status conferred by the president activates the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which states that the government “will pay monthly title II and title XVIII benefits to a claimant/beneficiary who is present in the U.S. and who is a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or lawfully present alien as determined by the Attorney General” (italics mine). It further states that payment provisions “apply to retirement, survivors or disability benefits. This rule also applies to payments made for Medicare services rendered.”

Illegals would be required to pay a Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, which includes separate payments made to Medicare and Social Security. Once they do that, benefits await. “If they pay in, they can draw,” White House spokesman Shawn Turner told the Post by e-mail.

Turner further noted that such eligibility does not extend to benefits such as student financial aid, food stamps, housing subsidies or ObamaCare. Yet as critics of the president’s plan rightly explain, this administration’s “flexible” approach to the rule of law and the Constitution leaves the door wide open for additional “adjustments” to the program.

“Deferred action and parole-in-place don’t fit neatly into statutory definitions that prohibit access to benefits, mostly because deferred action and parole-in-place have no statutory basis themselves,” Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) communications director Bob Dane told Breitbart News. “Congress has never imagined a rogue president pulling rabbits out of a hat to justify a broad, transformational makeover of the country by way of amnesty. There will always be thousands of loopholes in the law and backdoor methods to achieve a desired agenda, but ultimately the intent of Congress is preeminent. It may be that the courts will have to review that.”
If a recent ruling by a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is any indication, there may be little relief in sight. On Monday, they rejected Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s request to rehear a case related to her 2012 executive order denying about 20,000 illegals access to drivers’ licenses. The Court determined that the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), allowing illegals brought here as children before June 15, 2007, and born after 1981 to be protected from deportation, included the right to obtain those licenses.

In other words, we already have exactly the kind of court-sanctioned “extrapolation” of a constitutionally-dubious executive order that completely belies Turner’s assertion. Thus it is more than likely a president interested in a “fundamental transformation” of the nation—one that includes the transparent attempt to make the Democrat Party an unassailable power—would be more than OK with pulling a few more “rabbits out of a hat” to realize that agenda.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, the current level of benefit access imposes a staggering cost on the nation. “The net cost–which is total benefits minus total benefits paid in–of the amnesty recipients I estimate will be around $2 trillion over the course of their lifetime,” Rector told Breitbart News Monday. “What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people– who on average have a 10th grade education–into the Social Security and Medicare programs. Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” he added.

Rector’s calculations were based on a figure of 4 million illegals living an average of 50 years each. The additional trillion dollars of his estimate is based on an assumption that is the mother’s milk of the American left: incrementalism. Rector assumes that additional legislation—or another executive order—will eventually grant amnestied illegals unrestricted access to America’s welfare state. He further envisions that once the citizen children of the amnestied illegals turn 21, they could petition the government for green cards to be granted to their parents, without those parents having to leave the country to get them. “After 5 years with a green card status they are eligible for all the welfare programs,” he explained.

Ironically—or perhaps more accurately, inevitably—the push to expand amnestied illegals access to benefits will be driven by ObamaCare. As the Washington Times explains, the current executive order gives up to 5 million illegal immigrants three years of legal presence in the country that includes the ability to obtain work permits—but not ObamaCare. As a result businesses that hire amnestied illegals will not have to pay the $3000 ObamaCare penalty for denying them healthcare coverage. Since that penalty would apply to native-born workers, ObamaCare has established a perverse incentive to favor illegal employees over American employees Rep. Lamar Smith lamented that reality. “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” he contended. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

Or as mentioned earlier, it would provide the administration with a springboard to expand ObamaCare coverage to include amnestied illegals. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to envision the administration pursuing mainstream media-assisted sales pitch that such a scenario is a “win-win” for illegals who get healthcare coverage, and American workers who no longer have to worry about that perverse incentive.

Republicans were ostensibly surprised that amnestied illegals would be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. “First with Obamacare we were told we should pass it and then read it to find out what was in it,” noted Republican National Committee (RNC) spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski. “Now Obama overreached and acted unilaterally on immigration, which should have been vetted and authorized by Congress, and we’re finding out there’s more to the story than Obama and the Democrats originally told Americans.”

All well and good, but one suspects Americans have little sympathy for a reactive GOP, one “finding out” that the same president and party who lie on a regular basis would once again engage in subterfuge to further their agenda. Credit the normally clueless Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for having a clue this time around. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the best way to get rid of the loophole is to get rid of the employer mandate itself, adding that next year’s GOP majority should hold a vote on such a proposal.

That would theoretically put the president between a rock and a hard place—unless he unilaterally decided to grant temporary access to ObamaCare to amnestied illegals. There is little doubt a president who makes it up as he goes along would dismiss such an idea out of hand. Another solution would be to once again postpone the business mandate. Again, in the age of the Imperial President, all things are possible.

In the meantime, Obama reminded the nation why he remains one of the most divisive individuals to ever occupy the Oval Office. “There have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans,” he told a Chicago audience Monday, completely dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans, including 62 percent of likely voters who opposed his unilateral efforts. He further insisted migrants “will boost wages for American-born workers.”

There are conflicting reports with regard to that statement, depending on whose ideology is being served. Yet the most basic rule of supply and demand cannot be ignored: when you have more of something, as in a larger pool of foreign and native-born workers competing for jobs, each unit of that something, in this case wage levels, are worth less. Yet as far as this president and his party are concerned, the well-being of Americans and illegals are now inseparable agendas. One is left to wonder how long American citizens will put up with that.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to, and He may be reached at


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

Israel and PA Held Secret Back Channel Negotiations - Cynthia Blank

by Cynthia Blank

Report reveals that Israel and PA held secret peace talks from 2010; collapsed when it was realized negotiator didn't have Abbas' backing.

Yitzhak Molcho
Yitzhak Molcho
Israel news photo: Flash 90
Israel and the Palestinians held secret back-channel negotiations to achieve a "two-state solution" deal even while official US-brokered negotiations were faltering, the New Republic revealed Wednesday in a first time report. 

The secret talks began in 2010 between Yitzhak Molho, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's attorney and point man for negotiations, and a confidante of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who could not be named for security reasons. 

Veteran peace process negotiator, Dennis Ross, then special foreign policy advisor to US President Barack Obama, came in to foster the discussion. 

"Substantial progress" was apparently made toward crafting a final agreement. 

According to the understandings, Israel would accept the 1949 armistice lines with mutual land swaps. In return the Palestinian Authority would be flexible in recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, with the clarification that the rights of Arab citizens in Israel would not be harmed. 

The secret negotiations also discussed the "Palestinian refugee" issue and reached creative wording acceptable to both sides. They could not, however, reach a complete understanding on Jerusalem, deciding to postpone the issue for later negotiations. 

Ross tried to make these discussions more prominent with the Obama administration in 2011 but found little success, according tot he report. The secret channel talks were not particularly interesting to Washington nor to Netanyahu and Abbas, who gave no public signs of accepting the proposal. 

As a result, Molho and his counterpart began to meet less frequently. 

However, in 2013, when US Secretary of State John Kerry began pushing for official new peace talks, Molho and his Palestinian counterpart also renewed their back channel in a European capital, meeting every few weeks. 
While the official negotiations stalled thanks to arguments, mistrust, and other distractions, the secret channel was gaining momentum. Molho and his counterpart were reconstructing their plans from 2010 and transforming it into an outline of terms for a serious final status agreement. 
Kerry, Martin Indyk, the US envoy for peace talks, and Tzipi Livni, the head Israeli negotiator, were all aware of the back channel negotiations, and were being briefed regularly on its progress. But Israeli officials began to believe that the official Palestinian negotiators had no knowledge of this back channel. 
In December 2013, the fundamental flaw of of the secret negotiations exploded: Abbas' so-called representative was holding the talks without a real mandate from the Palestinian Authority, and the concessions he had discussed did not represent the real views of the PA Chairman. 
At this time, an Israeli news article reported that during Netanyahu's previous term in office (2009–2012), Molho had a "secret Palestinian contact" with whom he exchanged messages between Abbas and Netanyahu. 
While Netanyahu's office did not comment, Abbas forcefully announced that "there is no secret channel with Netanyahu, and never was one." 
His statement raised concern in Israel, who had taken seriously the back channel talks. Abbas' subsequent detachment from the compromises made in these secret talks, which Kerry attempted to incorporate into the official negotiations, saw the fizzling out of negotiations in the spring of 2014. 
As the New Republic concluded, "“Perhaps what the Israelis considered a serious back channel, the Palestinians — including their man in the room — saw as merely an unofficial exchange of ideas." 
"Only two people can really solve the mystery, Yitzhak Molho and his negotiating counterpart. Both of them refused to comment."

Cynthia Blank


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

Establishment Media Openly Defend Rioting as Ferguson Burns - Alex Newman

by Alex Newman

After months of fomenting strife, hate, and unrest surrounding the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, the increasingly discredited establishment press — Time magazine, in particular, but others too — has taken it to the next level. On November 25, Time published an incendiary “opinion” piece headlined “Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting.” As the title suggests, the commentary defends the perpetration of violence following a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Wilson on charges of murder and manslaughter. But the piece goes even beyond that, calling riots “necessary” to the “evolution” of society.

Since the grand jury’s decision was announced on Monday night, Ferguson has faced even more violence than was experienced in August in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Outraged and agenda-driven agitators — many from out of town — seized on the news as an excuse to run wild, steal, destroy property, and more. Businesses were burned to the ground and looted. Even a local church was not spared by the frenzied and violent mob. According to news reports, more than 160 gunshots were fired by “protesters,” too. At least one man died amid the chaos. Pictures that emerged after the latest round of rioting and looting revealed an American suburb that looked more like a war zone.

In response to the tragedy, Time magazine published its pro-rioting piece by Darlena Cunha, who also serves as a contributor to a wide array of other establishment mouthpieces including the Washington Post. “The violent protests in Ferguson, Mo., are part of the American experience,” reads the sub-header for the Time “Ideas” column promoting riots and senseless violence as a proper and effective means of achieving political goals. “Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture.” Cunha then goes even further: “Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society.” To defend her thesis, she even cites the Boston Tea Party, equating it with the current mayhem enveloping Ferguson.

“Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you,” Cunha continues, dismissing the explanation offered by one critic of the rioting who blamed the violence on the establishment-promoted mentality of “blaming everyone else” for one’s own failures. “And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege.”

Before saying blacks are more apt to riot, race-obsessed Cunha insists that she is not racist, styling herself a “realist” instead. “Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged,” she claimed. “But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.” Nowhere does Time or Cunha point out that the allegedly racist American people twice elected Obama, who is half black, to be president.

“I would put forth that peaceful protesting is a luxury of those already in mainstream culture, those who can be assured their voices will be heard without violence, those who can afford to wait for the change they want,” Cunha writes in her widely criticized and ridiculed defense of rioting. “Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to. In the case of the 1992 riots, 30 years of black people trying to talk about their struggles of racial profiling and muted, but still vastly unfair, treatment, came to a boil.” Of course, countless black Americans — including many whose businesses were looted and burned down in recent days — would likely take offense at the bizarre notion that their “population,” which in Cunha’s world is apparently defined solely by melanin content, “need” to riot.

Concluding the bizarre argument, Cunha goes on to defend the individuals involved in the violence, looting, and rioting, suggesting they are merely “angry” at “the system” and that stealing and destroying other people’s property while shooting randomly may be justified responses. “Instead of tearing down other human beings who are acting upon decades of pent-up anger at a system decidedly against them, a system that has told them they are less than human for years, we ought to be reaching out to help them regain the humanity they lost, not when a few set fire to the buildings in Ferguson, but when they were born the wrong color in the post-racial America,” she said. It was not immediately clear who told blacks they were “less than human for years” or how having slightly more melanin content made somebody the “wrong color.”

Cunha’s argument was promptly attacked by critics as absurd. Rick Moran at American Thinker, for example, pointed to the business owners (“almost all of them minorities”) who watched helplessly as their lifetime dreams went up in smoke. “There are, indeed, justifications for breaking the law. But there is nothing ‘political’ about destroying property not your own, injuring people, and taking what you want without payment,” he wrote, ridiculing the notion that burning, smashing, and looting could be legitimized as some sort of “political statement” that Americans had better submit to.

“Even if you buy into the dubious ‘white privilege’ sociological crap, you must recognize that when law and order break down, we are left with the rule of the jungle. And in a jungle, only the strong benefit from mayhem. The victims are those who can't or won't fight back,” Moran concluded. “So Ms. Cunha is actually supporting jungle law vs. civilization – a civilization that makes possible her freedom to publish nonsensical screeds like this without worrying about anyone setting her house on fire or looting her belongings. Wouldn't that be a ‘political’ statement, too?”

Cunha was not alone in openly defending rioting. Gawker, a widely read website that largely peddles celebrity gossip, even published a piece purporting to make the “economic case” supposedly justifying wanton destruction of property and violence. “There is, of course, the historical case to be made for rioting: the past is replete with examples where rioting gets the goods,” the piece argues. “But there is also, I'd submit, an even more straightforward case for rioting: at the right levels, rioting is economically efficient.” According to Gawker’s commentary, by rioting and looting, Ferguson residents are teaching authorities a lesson while making future shootings of citizens by police less likely through the imposition of heavy “costs” on taxpayers, businesses, and residents.

Meanwhile, more than a few analysts have suggested that the rioting and looting in Ferguson may have been deliberately fomented by the establishment and its mouthpieces in the press. “Either this was a case of almost unbelievable incompetence, or there was someone out there that actually wanted this to happen,” argued analyst Mike Snyder with the popular Economic Collapse blog in a widely cited piece, citing 10 supposed “coincidences” that contributed to the latest chaos. “If someone out there is actually trying to provoke more violence in Ferguson, then the rioters are being played like a fiddle. Most of them have no idea that they could potentially just be pawns in a game that is far larger than they ever imagined. The only other alternative to explain what we just saw is incompetence on a level that is absolutely laughable.”

Some in law enforcement even argued that Obama, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, and other top federal officials were subtly helping to instigate the mayhem in Ferguson. “When I heard the president call for calm after the rioting started, I questioned his sincerity because some of his political strategy of divide and conquer fuels this sort of racial animosity between people,” argued Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who happens to be a black Democrat. “And so, I think when he called for calm after the rioting started, I believe it was done with a wink and a nod.” Of course, the administration has already come under fire for inciting and fanning racial tensions and unrest on numerous occasions.

While the anti-capitalist screed in Time drew swift condemnation and ridicule from the alternative and conservative-leaning press, such half-baked agitation and promotion of unrest and division has actually become a staple among the mischaracterized “mainstream” media — though perhaps not quite as openly as Cunha’s piece. From giving respectability and credibility to race-mongers and profiteers to wildly sensationalizing stories that help advance the Big Government agenda, the increasingly discredited establishment press appears to be becoming more and more brazen in its efforts to distort the facts and foment chaos for sinister purposes.

Indeed, the establishment-manufactured violence serves a number of important goals. For one, it helps keep the American people divided based on arbitrary characteristics such as “race,” “class,” “gender,” and more. Fanning the flames of hate and division while keeping the public focused on blaming other races, classes, and genders also distracts from the real issues and the real sources of many real problems plaguing America today: Big Government, globalism, anti-constitutional governance, the looting of the nation by the establishment via its banking cartel and currency monopoly, and more.       

The American people should reject the race-based hatred and division being deceitfully promoted by the establishment and its propaganda organs — along with the looting, violence, and rioting. Instead, Americans of goodwill should reach across the aisle to deal with the underlying causes of so many problems facing the nation today. There are many indeed. But contrary to Time’s absurd narrative, a lack of riots, violence, and thievery to achieve “justice” are not among them.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at


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

Hagel's Departure Reveals Obama's Underestimation of the Threat from the Islamic State - Steven M. Ackerman

by Steven M. Ackerman

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s resignation highlights the Obama Administration’s failure to appreciate the threat posed by Islamic State.  Hagel and the Joint Chiefs have argued that the conflict against Islamic State is much larger and more serious than the White House contends.  In August, Hagel made his famous statement that the threat from Islamic State was “beyond anything we’ve seen” and that Islamic State was “beyond [being] just a terrorist group.”  Hagel was backing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey’s refusal to rule out the need for U.S. ground troops; a question President Obama has persistently avoided. 

Despite Obama’s eventual bellicose language against the Islamic State, he has yet to outline a set of goals or a clear strategy to achieve them.  Meanwhile, the President continues to send more U.S. troops to Iraq -- from 400 to 3,000 over the past few months.  This harks back to President Lyndon Johnson’s approach to the conflict in Vietnam when he got the U.S. increasingly involved, but was never clear on the goals of the mission or the strategy to achieve victory.  Like his 1960s predecessor, President Barack Obama has failed to explain how he plans to deal with the threat the Islamic State poses.  This is despite prodding from Secretary Hagel and the military.

I believe the Obama Administration could send roughly 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq in an all-out conflict with the Islamic State by the spring of 2015.  It would likely be composed of 2-3 army combat brigades (upwards of 12,000 soldiers) a mix of special operations team (with expertise in chemical weapons) and counter-terrorism training, and extra troops for border protection around Jordan and Turkey.  There might also be additional soldiers to ensure an adequate force due to the open-ended and unpredictable nature of this conflict.

This will occur because the utility from airstrikes will diminish.  At the same time, the Obama Administration’s slow and tepid response to arming and training local fighters will continue to make it harder to pull together the kind of coherent force needed to turn the course of the conflict.  Finally, the Obama Administration continues to show little sign that it will include in its outreach to allies – both in the region and in Europe – the clear strategy for victory over IS, commitment to fulfill that strategy, and vision for long-term stability in Iraq and the region.  Given this, it is difficult to see why America’s would be willing to bear the cost of a complex engagement such as this one.    It is unfortunate that the Obama Administration did not consider such potential problems when it departed so unceremoniously in 2011.  Wars are won on the ground; not from the air.  It is hard to see how airstrikes, intelligence sharing, and the delivery of weapons can compensate for that fact.  Wars are massive undertakings of coordination under pressure where the psychology of political will can help one side defeat its adversary.  This requires cooperation on the ground among allies; not dictates from foreign powers thousands of miles away.

If the Obama Administration were truly serious in achieving victory over the Islamic State, it would have stayed involved in the region, ensuring Iraq properly unifying, monitoring Syria, checking Iran, and maintaining longstanding ties with friends.  It would have acted as the bridge between Europe and the Middle East, cementing relations and understanding the concerns of Turkey -- the most pivotal state in the area.  To be sure, Turkey has been playing both sides of the fence, i.e., its support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its less than enthusiastic support for the defeat of IS. 

However, it has also shown flexibility and cooperation when it has a larger interest.  For example, it recently allowed Pesh Merga fighters cross its border to go into Syria and fight IS around Kobani.  The larger point is that the Obama Administration should be trying to get Turkey to be part of a coalition against IS, highlighting the fact that Erdogan’s government -- or any government in the region -- won’t be able to limit Islamic State.  His support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and his unwillingness to do more against IS can be tempered by his own desire to have a stable southern border.  The U.S. can also leverage Erdogan’s anti-Assad sentiments (which helped the U.S. locate Patriot missile batteries in Turkey against Syria) with the fact that neither Washington nor Ankara want Assad replaced with a radical Islamic group who wantonly dismisses borders.  Such a move should make any Turkish leader pause.  U.S. economic incentives to Kurdish oil development, as a condition to remaining within Iraq’s borders, coupled with U.S. long-term commitments to a unified Iraq could be used as leverage to get Turkish support.

Looking back, it is clear that the Obama Administration waited far too long, did far too little, and left Iraq far too quickly.  Staying in Iraq could have prepared that country to withstand the kind of hit the Islamic State landed on it.  It also would have meant a much more informed and ready America; one able to pull together local troops and countries for combat and support.  And, there would have been legitimacy to all observers based on American commitment to the unified Iraqi state in a stable region prepared to counter terrorism.  Such a deterrence-based policy now looks inexpensive compared to the open-ended engagement in which it may be contemplating.

But despite all this, the Obama Administration hopes to build an international coalition that will bear the cost, all the while claiming it won’t put U.S. “boots on the ground” to “degrade and destroy” Islamic State.

Incremental military involvements are always dangerous.  They put people in harm’s way, fail to reassure friends and allies, and show a lack of resolve to adversaries.  A country ends up fighting a larger war – beyond the threat originally posed – in order to prove to others it has the will to fight.  Ironically, President Obama’s biggest accomplishment against Islamic State may be to cause his successor to inherit a war.

Stephen M. Ackerman was an intelligence analyst with the U.S. Air Force, and an analyst with the President's Commission on Defense Base Closure and Realignment.  He is President and CEO of Competitive Edge Research.


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

Coping with barbaric, religiously inspired terrorism - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

While Hamas leaders continue to behave in this outrageous manner, we should cease providing electricity and services to Hamastan. The prime minister should state that if those in control of Gaza are going to continue publicly calling on their people to murder us, we will simply terminate all contact.

The horror that engulfed the entire nation in the wake of the barbaric murder of Jews engaged in prayer in a Jerusalem synagogue remains palpable.

Although there have been other devastating acts of terror against innocent civilians, this time it was clearly religiously motivated. It was undoubtedly inspired by the incitement and despicable lies repeatedly broadcast by our purported peace partner, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who created frenzy among Muslims by alleging that Israelis would “contaminate” the Temple Mount by praying there and then invade and destroy Al Aqsa mosque. Such outbursts are reminiscent of the Arab riots in the 1930s.

Abbas also sent his condolences to the family of a terrorist slain while attempting to murder a Jew the previous week, hailing him as a “martyr” who “rose to heaven while defending our people’s rights and holy places.” This was followed by false allegations that Israelis had murdered a Jerusalem Arab bus driver, even though a Palestinian coroner confirmed that it was a suicide. To top it off, the day following King Abdullah's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jordan in order to ease tensions, Abbas called on his people to launch “a day of rage” against Israelis.

This latest escalation of incitement is yet another extension of the traditional hatred against Jews inculcated among the Arabs but which accelerated after the Oslo accords. Yasser Arafat and then Abbas have effectively brainwashed generations of Arabs -- from kindergarten age -- into fanatically hating Jews and sanctifying as “martyrs” those willing to sacrifice their lives and gain paradise by killing them.

The Palestinians have, in fact, been molded into a criminal society adopting a culture of death comparable only to the Nazis who, once in power, also brainwashed Germans into committing barbaric crimes. And those, including Jews, who morally equate this monstrous society with Israel because the Jewish state like any country also includes deviants and degenerates, are making obscene analogies.

Every level of Israeli society, from the leadership to the media and down to the man in the street, reacts with shock, horror, disgust and condemnation against our deviants. Contrast this to the public display, not merely in Gaza but also in Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablus, as Palestinians celebrated the most recent horror their “martyrs” had inflicted on Jews praying in a synagogue.

It is noteworthy that our “peace partner” Abbas had to be cajoled twice by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (who subsequently thanked him profusely) for condemning this latest act of terror. Yet even when he did, he had the chutzpah to blame Israel for inciting Muslims by repeating his lies that Israel is attacking Al Aqsa mosque. His Fatah spokesmen immediately stressed that he was forced to make the statement for “diplomatic” reasons.

Furthermore, Sultan Abu Al-Einein, his senior adviser and member of the Fatah Central Committee, praised those who carried out the synagogue massacre, stating, “Blessed be your quality weapons, the wheels of your cars, your axes and kitchen knives because [they are being used] according to Allah’s will. We are the soldiers of Allah.”

These murders, some of which were committed by Arab Israelis who worked and interfaced with Israelis, have had a devastating impact on good relationships between Israeli Jews and Arabs. Understandably many Jews now feel uncomfortable and suspicious of their Arab neighbors.

The majority of Israeli Arabs are law-abiding and wish to live in peace with us but major efforts are required to convince Jews to regain their trust in those Arabs living and working among them. This will require more than government and media appeals calling for tolerance. Much will depend on whether there are moderate responsible Arabs willing to speak out, condemn the terrorists and take active steps to effectively excommunicate the minority of fanatics in their midst -- including their Knesset representatives who currently openly identify with the terrorists and praise their vile acts.

The outrageous public celebrations by the Arab residents of the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber are an example of what must no longer be tolerated. This village was an incubator of dozens of terrorist attacks, including the recent synagogue massacre, the murder of the eight Merkaz Harav students in 2008 and many others. The family of the murderers publicly proclaimed: “We are proud of what they did. … They are heroic martyrs.” Paradoxically, the village pleaded with the High Court to remain on the Israeli side of the separation barrier.

We must adopt tough measures if we are to avoid a breakdown between Israeli Jews and the Arab minority. The first step must be for the government to reinforce security, including in Arab areas that had until now been unsupervised. This is an awesome challenge and requires punitive measures for those engaged in anti-state or antisocial activities such as stone throwing, destruction of private property and incitement against the state. The homes of the terrorists’ families should be destroyed and the residence status of convicted terrorists and their families revoked, as this will serve as a major deterrent even to those willing to die in order to kill Jews. Should the international community condemn this as an infraction of human rights or the U.S. again complain that such steps “harm the interests of peace,” we should remind them that it is our lives that are at stake and that they should not interfere.

Beyond that, we should now repudiate the misplaced displays of goodwill we have made over the years in order to placate the international community. These have been counterproductive and only served to camouflage the Palestinians’ criminal society and culture of death.

It is one thing to demonstrate our high moral standards to bleeding hearts abroad by providing the top medical facilities to relatives of Hamas leaders calling for our destruction and applauding barbaric acts. But while Hamas leaders continue to behave in this outrageous manner, we should cease providing electricity and services to Hamastan. The prime minister should state that if those in control of Gaza are going to continue publicly calling on their people to murder us, we will simply terminate all contact.

The situation with the Palestinian Authority is different, because unlike Hamas, it does not have total authority in the region under its jurisdiction. Abbas remains in office despite the absence of elections since 2006. But he is party to the violation of civil rights among his own people, the rampant corruption and the rabid incitement against Israel. Yet his PA maintains order on the West Bank, not merely in order to retain his “moderate” image with the U.S., but more so to prevent the upheavals that would eventuate if a full intifada broke out, which could enable Hamas to assume control. Thus Abbas directs his terror incitement to Jerusalem and creates religious hysteria about Israelis destroying Al Aqsa mosque.

Abbas has been emboldened and encouraged in the knowledge that U.S. President Barack Obama and his administration will continue to stand by him. The U.S. criticisms against Israel, before, during and after the Gaza war, together with the repeated categorical whitewashing of Abbas and the PA, have paved the way for the current situation.

In contrast to previous occasions, Kerry unequivocally condemned the synagogue massacre, but Obama, appallingly, again felt impelled to employ moral equivalency by bracketing the attack in the context of “innocent” Palestinians who had also been killed.

The time has come to openly confront the international community and above all, Obama, for having mollycoddled Abbas and failing to exert pressure on him to bring an end to this murderous incitement.

The government must initiate a campaign in conjunction with friends of Israel throughout the world, to highlight the criminality of Palestinian society and explain why it would be an act of suicide under the prevailing circumstances to create a new terrorist rogue state.

We should appeal to our friends among the American people and Congress and, if necessary, challenge the president’s moral equivalency and betrayal of a loyal ally. The silent American Jewish establishment must now also speak out. They should take their cue from the Zionist Organization of America, which condemned Obama for linking his condemnation with the deaths of “innocent “ Palestinians, and Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, who called on the U.S. and EU to suspend PA funding until such time as they cease their incitement to murder Jews.

It is time for the U.S. and the international community to recognize that Hamas and other Arab extremists are not nationalists but birds of a feather with Islamic State.

We would have greater success conveying this message if our political leaders felt accountable to the public, which overwhelmingly yearns for a unity government during these difficult times. Alas, in our current dysfunctional political system, that is highly unlikely.

We must therefore gird ourselves to confront our adversaries, confident in the knowledge that we can and will defend ourselves and will not allow Jerusalem to be transformed into a Belfast or enable the international community to appease the extremists by offering us as a sacrificial lamb.

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom

Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at  He may be contacted at


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

Major Hamas Plot to Attack Jerusalem's Teddy Stadium Thwarted - Uzi Baruch and Ari Soffer

by Uzi Baruch and Ari Soffer

Security forces announce they broke up an extensive Hamas cell plotting a range of attacks against targets in Israel and abroad.

It has been released for publication that Israeli security services, together with the IDF, broke up a major Hamas terrorist cell in September that was planning attacks on a range of high-profile Israeli targets, including Jerusalem's Teddy Stadium.

According to the Israeli Security Agency (ISA or Shabak), the cell - which was based in Judea and Samaria - was directed by Hamas's leadership in Turkey. It involved several members of Hamas's "military wing", the Ezzedine Al Qassam Brigade, who had received specialist military training abroad.

During the course of the investigation more than 30 terror suspects were arrested and a large cache of weapons seized by security forces, including two M-16 rifles, ammunition and bomb-making material.

The cell in question is believed to have been behind the series of roadside bombs placed at Rehelim Junction in Samaria, close to the city of Ariel, back in August 31, as well as another explosive charge planted at Jit Junction. In both cases, terrorists set two bombs and timed them to go off one after another following enough of a time-lapse to allow the second charge to go off when emergency services arrived.

The attacks failed to cause any injuries, but led to a series of arrests by the Shabak which ultimately led to the major Hamas cell.

Upon interrogating suspects, investigators revealed a long list of targets for attack throughout Israel.

They also discovered that several of the terrorists involved in the plot had been recruited in Jordan as far back as 2012. Those recruits received extensive military training and were smuggled back into Judea and Samaria at the start of 2014, in preparation for a major terrorist campaign. Their tasks included making contact with and recruiting other cell members, and carrying out reconnaissance and other key operational tasks.

Shabak investigators have revealed the intricate and carefully-planned details of the wave of terror.

The selection process

Potential recruits were scouted by Hamas commanders among students in Jordan who they knew personally and therefore were able to trust, according to investigators. Those singled out for recruitment were also required to shared the same ideology of Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood).

Those enlisted were immediately passed on to senior officials at Hamas's Jordanian headquarters, who were tasked with training them in military and other fields.

Military training

After being located and recruited, the new operatives were trained in the specific fields they would need to carry out terrorist attacks. The training was carried out in coordination with and under the supervision of Hamas's leadership in Gaza as well as abroad, and took place in different locations, including Gaza, Syria, Turkey and Jordan.

Recruits were taken into Gaza via the network of Hamas smuggling tunnels from Egypt. Upon arrival, they received intensive training in sabotage, weapons training, navigation and intelligence-gathering. 

From there they traveled to Turkey, where they received more specific courses gearing towards individual tasks necessary for targeting cites throughout Israel, as well as Israeli and Jewish targets abroad.

In Jordan, they also received weapons and explosives training, espionage, and briefings on attacks they were to carry out.

Preparing for attacks

The newly-trained terrorists were then placed under the command of Hamas's Turkey-based leadership, headed by Salah Al-Arouri - the man who, among other things, was responsible for the kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers back in June. Those Hamas officials appointed specific roles to each recruit and deployed them in different locations throughout Judea and Samaria.

Hamas commanders in Jordan also helped coordinate their operational activities.

The extensive list of planned attacks included:
  • Shooting attacks against Israeli drivers in Judea and Samaria
  • Infiltration attacks into Israeli communities
  • Kidnapping Israelis both in Judea-Samaria and outside of Israel
  • Car bombings
  • A major attack on Jerusalem's Teddy Stadium
  • An attack on Jerusalem's Light Rail
  • Recruiting operatives in Jordan to carry out deadly raids into Israeli territory
Latest in a string of terror cells broken up

The revelations once more illustrate the high motivation and priority placed by Hamas on setting up major terrorist cells in Judea and Samaria.

Earlier this month it was revealed that another major terrorist cell in Judea and Samaria was broken up in August; in that case as well, the cell was coordinated by none other than Salah Al-Arouri from his base in Turkey. Arouri funneled millions of shekels' worth of funds into Judea and Samaria to set up operations there as part of the plot.

The massive efforts being made by Hamas in general, and Al-Arouri in particular, are aimed not just at attacking Israel but also at undermining the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas. 

The terror cell broken up in August is believed to have been linked to yet another major Hamas plot - this time in the form of a direct military coup against the rule of the PA, as well as attacks on Israelis. That plot was foiled by Israeli security forces as well, and saw 93 Hamas terrorists arrested in total.

There is no doubt that the tireless efforts of Israeli security forces to foil this latest plot, as well the growing list of previous plots, have saved countless Israeli lives.

Terrorists named

Security services have also released for publication the names and details of several of the terrorists arrested in the course of the operation.
Clockwise from top left: Manef Agbariya, Rajai Ahmed Mustapha Amori, Mahmoud Wa'el Mahmoud Malham, Abdullah Mahmoud Yusef Zeituni, Musab Khaled Ibrahim Dawib, Adnan Taysir Kamel Samara, Zuheib Radwan Mahmoud Ta’abat, Mahmoud Yusef Mahmoud Shorbaji - Credit: Shin Bet
Raja'i Ahmed Mustapha Amori: 30 years old, resident of Tulkarem. A member of Hamas's military wing, he has served five previous terms in Israeli prison for terrorism offenses. Was drafted into the cell at the start of 2014 by Ali Sa'id Ahmed Sa'id, a Gaza-based Hamas commander. Infiltrated back into Judea and Samaria together with one Mahmoud Suleiman, both of whom are responsible for placing the bombs at Rehelim and Jit Junctions, as well as preparing for other attacks including a car bombing. He has admitted the charges against him.

Mahmoud Wa'el Mahmoud Malham: Also 30 and from the town of Anabta near Tulkarem. A member of Hamas's military wing he has served time for terrorist activity under the auspices of Hamas's Jordanian leadership. Was arrested during the investigation into Raja'i Amori. Has admitted to storing weapons, including an M-16 and ammunition, and bomb-making equipment for the terror cell in a secret apartment in Ramallah, at Amori's request.

Abdullah Mahmoud Yusef Zeituni: 25, a resident of Jordan. Admitted to having traveled to Gaza on three separate occasions between 2012-2013, where he received extensive weapons and explosives training. Was smuggled into Judea-Samaria by Hamas operatives in Jordan and ordered to build a new life there as a cover story, in preparation for carrying out attacks against Israelis in the future.

Musab Khaled Ibrahim Dawib: 23, a resident of Za'atara, east of Bethlehem. Recruited while studying in Jordan between 2010-2014. He admitted to having been assigned specific tasks by Hamas in order to facilitate attacks against Israel, including weapons trafficking and transferring funds to Manef Agbariya.

Adnan Taysir Kamel Samara: 30, a resident of the village of Sfarin near Tulkarem. A member of Hamas's military wing, he has spent four previous sentences in Israeli prisons for terrorism offenses. Admitted under interrogation to having provided support to Manef Agbariya, as well as possession of an M-16 rifle and active membership in the cell with the aim of attacking Israelis.

Zuheib Radwan Mahmoud Ta’abat: 29, a resident of Bayt Dajan near Bekaot in Samaria, and member of a family with a long history of Hamas ties. Admitted to having joined the Hamas cell and meeting with senior Hamas commanders who provided him with espionage, weapons and explosives training. Was due to return to Jordan to complete his training in April, and in the meantime was tasked with recruiting additional people from his village to the cell.

Mahmoud Yusef Mahmoud Shorbaji: 25, originally from Kuwait, he was recruited while studying in Jordan, and was arrested in October while attempting to enter Judea and Samaria. Admitted under interrogation to having been accepted into the Hamas cell in April 2014 by the Islamist movement's Jordanian leadership. Was tasked with facilitating communication between Hamas's international leadership and the operatives inside Judea-Samaria. He was scheduled to continue his training in Jordan but as mentioned previously he was apprehended by Israeli security forces beforehand.

Uzi Baruch and Ari Soffer


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