Saturday, December 6, 2014

Supporting Terrorists’ Families through the New Israel Fund - Ronn Torossian

by Ronn Torossian

As The Algemeiner Journal reported New Israel Fund is “a controversial foundation that supports dozens of Israel related causes, many of which are considered hostile to the Jewish State.” The New Israel Fund supports groups that hurt the Jewish State. 

IMG_6091-1024x682A few days ago I wrote about the radical, extremist New Israel Fund and their support for groups that hurt the State of Israel.

Israel’s Supreme Court issued a stay and agreed to rule on the planned demolition of several terrorists’ Jerusalem homes, including the terrorist who tried to kill American-born Rabbi Yehuda Glick, the terrorist who slammed his tractor into a bus, two who drove their cars into people near train stops, and those who murdered five Israelis a few weeks ago in a brutal massacre during morning prayers in Jerusalem.   The day after that synagogue attack in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered law enforcement to destroy the homes in question.  The following day, one murderers’ home was destroyed – until the radical extremist organization Hamoked petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of the terrorists and their families.

As this article in Yediot Achronot notes, Hamoked is representing the families of terrorists. Hamoked is a grantee of the New Israel Fund, which has provided $688,901 worth of grants from 2008-2013.

One can plainly see on Hamoked’s website their New Israel Fund partnership. Donors of New Israel Fund, which funds Hamoked, include Irwin and Joan Jacobs, the Fohs Foundation, the Bonnie and Marty Tenenbaum Foundation, the Edith and Henry Everett Foundation, The Irving Harris Foundation, Susie and Michael Gelman, and others.

A few weeks ago, a major donor to the New Israel Fund, the Leichtag Foundation, responded to my criticism by saying that their donations “involves the prerogative of a private foundation making determinations on best use of its resources. We are confident that our grant to the New Israel Fund was in line with our strategies and objectives and feel the money was well-spent.

They can spend their money how they want – yet Ms. Charlene Seidle, executive vice president of the Leichtag Foundation, is the incoming President and Chief Executive Officer of the Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego and this is an inappropriate job for someone with these extremist viewpoints. The incoming CEO of a major Jewish organization helps fund causes which benefit the families of Arab terrorists who kill Jews in Jerusalem.

As The Algemeiner Journal reported New Israel Fund is “a controversial foundation that supports dozens of Israel related causes, many of which are considered hostile to the Jewish State.” The New Israel Fund supports groups that hurt the Jewish State. People give charity for many different causes – but those that help protect the families of terrorists would be the people Lenin spoke of when he called people who work against their people’s own best interests in support of their enemies “useful idiots.”

As Benjamin Netanyahu once said, “The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.”

Ronn Torossian is one of America’s most prolific and respected public relations experts. Torossian is the Founder, President and CEO of 5W Public Relations, one of the 25 largest independent American PR firms, which was named PR Agency of the Year by the American Business Awards. He is the best-selling author of For Immediate Release: Shape Minds, Build Brands, and Deliver Results with Game-Changing Public Relations


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

Congress Demands Clarification on Obama Israel Sanctions Report - Mark Langfan

by Mark Langfan

45 GOP Congressmen demand president clarify reports White House considering sanctions against Israel for Jerusalem building.

45 Republican Congressmen fired off a stern letter to President Barack Obama demanding that he “clarify recent reports” which suggest his Administration has held classified meetings over the past several weeks to discuss the possibility of imposing sanctions against Israel for its decision to construct homes in eastern Jerusalem.

Congressman Mark Meadows tweeted that the anti-Israel sanction reports were “appalling.”

The letter, published Friday, further warned that “Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the Administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome. Such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”

In the wake of numerous Obama “executive orders” - including an amnesty for illegal immigrant and Obamacare, which Republicans have alleged are “illegal” - the 45 congressmen emphasized that “at no point in time has Congress given the [Obama] Administration the authority to sanction Israel. In fact, Congress has continued to show its unwavering support for Israel and has recently taken steps to increase our economic and military cooperation.”

It was widely reported last week that the State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf dodged questions on whether the Administration would pursue sanctions. And on Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest failed to give a definitive yes or no answer when asked about the Administration’s position during the White House press briefing.

In view of the uncertainty that these reports caused, the congressmen made clear that while “it is our hope that these reports are untrue, the fact that your Administration has failed to denounce or clarify them is deeply troubling. The United States must stand firm in its commitments to Israel, or we risk fracturing our relationship with Israel and other key partners across the globe.”

And in a dramatically ominous sign of the deteriorating congressional Democratic Party support for Israel, there were no Democratic congressmen as co-authors or co-signatories to the letter.

The report, which was leaked by far-left Israeli paper Haaretz, coincides somewhat suspiciously with the collapse of Israel's Likud-led coalition government, and the announcement of snap elections - leading some analysts to speculate it is an attempt to influence the outcome of next March's general elections

Speaking to Arutz Sheva Friday, Professor Shmuel Sandler - an expert on US-Israeli relations at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies - noted that both Haaretz and the White House have never made any effort to hide their dislike for the current government and prime minister, and could potentially have coordinated the link "to influence the public" to vote for a more left-wing government, 

In another up the sentiments of many Israeli and American observers, Congressman Meadows asked: “What message does it send to the world for the US to impose sanctions against Israel while easing sanctions against Iran - a state-sponsor of terror with an abysmal human rights record?”

Mark Langfan


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

ISIS in Gaza - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Now almost everyone is talking about the Islamic State threats in Gaza against poets, writers and women. The leaflets mention the poets and writers by name — a move that has created panic. The leaflets also include an ultimatum to Palestinian women to abide by Islamic attire or face the Islamic State style of punishment — presumably being stoned to death.
Of course, all this is taking place while Hamas continues to insist that that the Islamic State is not operating in Gaza. Those who are taking the threats seriously are the writers and women whose names appeared in the leaflets.
Islamic State flags can already be seen at football stadiums, on windshields of vehicles, mosques, educational centers and wedding invitations.
It is also clear that if and when the Hamas regime collapses, the Gaza Strip will not fall into the lands of the less-radical Palestinians.
It is important to keep in mind that the counties in Europe now voting for a Palestinian state may effectively be paving the way for a takeover by Islamic State.

It is always dreamlike to see one Islamist terror group accuse the other of being too "lenient" when it comes to enforcing sharia laws. But it is not dreamlike when a terrorist group starts threatening writers and women.

That is what is happening these days in the Gaza Strip, where supporters of the Islamic State are accusing Hamas of failing to impose strict Islamic laws on the Palestinian population -- as if Hamas has thus far endorsed a liberal and open-minded approach toward those who violate sharia laws.

Members of Islamic State, in Gaza. (Image source: Islamic State YouTube video)

Until this week, the only topic Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were talking about was how to rebuild homes and buildings that were destroyed during the last war between Hamas and Israel.

Now, however, almost everyone is talking about the Islamic State threats against poets, writers and women.

It is no secret that the Islamic State has a presence in the Gaza Strip. According to sources there, many disgruntled members of Hamas and other radical salafi-jihadi groups have already joined the Islamic State, with some fighting together with ISIS groups in Syria and Iraq.

Earlier this year, it was revealed here that Islamic State has already begun operating inside the Gaza Strip -- much to the dismay of Hamas.

Hamas, nevertheless, continues to deny any presence of Islamic State inside the Gaza Strip. "There are no members of Islamic State in the Gaza Strip," said Eyad al-Bazam, spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry.

Many Palestinians, however, do not seem to take Hamas's denials seriously, and remain unconvinced.

Over the past few days, two separate leaflets signed by Islamic State threatened to target Palestinian poets and writers for their "wantonness" and "atheism." The leaflets mention the poets and writers by name -- a move that created panic among many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The leaflets also included an ultimatum to Palestinian women to abide by Islamic attire or face the Islamic State style of punishment -- presumably being stoned to death. The threat leaves one with the false impression that, under Hamas, women can wear swimming suits at the beach and walk around the streets of Gaza City in mini-skirts.

But this is what happens when one fundamentalist group believes that the other is not radical enough.

"We warn the writers and poets of their wanton sayings and atheist deeds," one of the leaflets read. "We give the apostates three days to retract their apostasy and wantonness and enter the religion of Islam anew."

The threats issued by Islamic State have drawn strong condemnations from many Palestinians. This is the first time that such threats have been made against poets and writers or women.

Although Hamas has denied any connection to the threats, Fatah officials in the West Bank were quick to accuse the Islamist movement -- which has been in control of the Gaza Strip since 2007 -- of being behind the leaflets.

Palestinian political analyst Naji Sharab explained that any attempt to deny the presence of Islamic State terrorists in the Gaza Strip was "unrealistic."

"There's no denying that Islamic State exists [in the Gaza Strip] as a small group or as individuals," he said. "The leaflets that were distributed this week could not have come from any Palestinian organization."

Palestinians point out that the two leaflets were not the only sign of the presence of Islamic State inside the Gaza Strip. They say that Islamic State flags can be seen in many parts of the Gaza Strip, especially at football stadiums and public buildings. In addition, Islamic State stickers can be seen on the windshields of many vehicles.

More recently, Palestinians say, families have begun attaching the Islamic State emblem to wedding invitations sent out to friends and relatives. Photos of Palestinians who were killed while fighting with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria appear in many places, especially mosques and educational centers.

Of course, all of this is taking place while Hamas continues to insist that the Islamic State is not operating in Gaza.

Those who are taking the threats seriously are the women and writers whose names appeared in the leaflets.

Amal Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Women's Union, expressed deep concern about the threats made by Islamic State. "We are headed toward the worst in the Gaza Strip," she complained. "We hold the Hamas security forces responsible for the leaflets of intimidation and terror." She and a large group of women in the Gaza Strip held an emergency meeting to discuss the repercussions of the threats.

Judging from reactions, it is clear that many Palestinians -- including Hamas -- are extremely worried about Islamic State's presence in the Gaza Strip. Even if the terror group still does not have many fighters in the Gaza Strip, it already has countless followers and admirers.

It is also clear that if and when the Hamas regime collapses, the Gaza Strip will not fall into the hands of less-radical Palestinians.

The Gaza Strip has already been turned into an "Islamist Emirate" that is run by Hamas and other radical groups such as Islamic Jihad.

While Islamic State may have succeeded in infiltrating the Gaza Strip, its chances of entering the West Bank are zero. This is thanks to the presence of the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas are well aware that without the Israeli security presence in the West Bank, the area would easily fall into the hands of Hamas or Islamic State.

It is important to keep in mind that the countries in Europe now voting for a Palestinian state may effectively be paving the way for a takeover by Islamic State.

Khaled Abu Toameh


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

Saul Alinsky Lives in Ferguson - John Perazzo

by John Perazzo

Saul_Alinsky_27If the late Saul Alinsky—the America-hating godfather of community organizing—had fathered a black son, he’d look like Barack Obama.[1]  Obama has embraced, revered, and employed Alinsky’s philosophy and tactics of social revolution for decades. Indeed, he even taught Alinsky’s methods in community-organizing workshops and seminars in Chicago, when he was a much younger Marxist. As we witness the continuing racial unrest sparked by the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson grand jury’s subsequent decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson, it is vital to understand that everything the protesters/rioters are doing—in Ferguson and elsewhere—is straight out of Alinsky’s most famous publications, Rules For Radicals and Reveille For Radicals. And Obama has encouraged them, every step of the way.

Obama and Alinsky never actually met in person, as Alinsky died when Obama was just 11 years old. Happily for the future president, by that time he had already been introduced to the man who would mentor him throughout his adolescent years—the America-hating, pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin, Communist writer Frank Marshall Davis. Thus, when Obama eventually encountered Alinsky through the latter’s writings, the young community organizer was well prepared ideologically to soak up Alinsky’s message.

In his quest to cultivate the type of chaos that would spark social revolution against America’s capitalist system, Alinsky exhorted activists to constantly “rub raw the resentments of the people” and “fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression”—but to do this in measured tones, so as not to “scare off” middle-class Americans.

Thus did Obama dutifully and blandly call for “unity” and calm in the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown’s “heartbreaking and tragic” death, even as he repeatedly reminded us that: “police should not be bullying or arresting” anyone without cause; “in too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and left as objects to fear”; “there is no excuse for excessive force by police”; “the justice gap” between whites and nonwhites is unacceptable; “the criminal-justice system doesn’t treat people of all races equally”; and “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black, or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” And when the grand jury in Ferguson subsequently chose not to indict Darren Wilson because the officer obviously had shot Michael Brown in self-defense, Obama pronounced the black community’s indignation to be “an understandable reaction.”

Obama’s carefully chosen words—all delivered in the type of nonthreatening tenor advocated by Saul Alinsky—clearly communicated a single, foundational theme to African Americans: In the racist cesspool known as the United States, black people are routinely treated like second-class citizens, if not subhumans. Oh, and by the way, please remain calm. Wink, wink.

Alinsky also taught that in some cases activists must be completely willing—for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they profess to act—to turn up the proverbial heat and watch society descend into chaos and anarchy; to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.” “Wherever possible,” Alinsky counseled, “go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”

Mobs of shouting protesters can accomplish that objective quite effectively—even if, as in the present case, they are oblivious to the irony that the poster-child of their crusade is a multiple felon who tried unsuccessfully to murder a police officer. Such demonstrations tend to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is not only well underway, but may actually be preparing to shift into an even higher gear at any moment. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating. Thus did President Obama recently meet at the White House with Al Sharpton, his leading advisor on race-related matters, and other protest leaders from Ferguson, urging them to “stay on course” with their activism.

Yet another highly noteworthy observation by Alinsky was this: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” “The threat,” he explained, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Thus, “if your organization is small in numbers,… raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”

This can be well achieved by orchestrating a host of simultaneous demonstrations in multiple cities or venues, exactly as the highly organized Gentle Giant crusade has been doing. The stature of these rallies is magnified by the fact that they receive lots of media attention, while scores of millions of ordinary Americans who view them with contempt and dread are busy quietly going about their lives, caring for their families, working at their jobs, and pursuing their personal aspirations as they see fit. Such people are many thousands of times more numerous than the perpetually aggrieved rabble-rousers of the Left, but Alinsky understood—as Obama understands today—that a spraying skunk inevitably gets all the attention when it intrudes unexpectedly upon a picnic.

The America-hating Alinsky also taught that activists, in order to cast themselves as defenders of high-minded principles, must theatrically convey “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever any of their demands—however inconsequential—are not met. And no one conveys such emotions more convincingly than Obama’s aforementioned racial “advisor,” Al Sharpton, who vows to continue the Michael Brown/anti-police brutality crusade until the end of time if necessary. Alinsky understood quite well that even a pathetic moral degenerate like Sharpton can be an effective revolutionary if he is skilled in the otherwise worthless arts of bluster and righteous indignation.

Lest anyone think there might be a way to bridge the gap between civil society and the revolutionaries in the vanguard of the current Gentle Giant Brigades, a dose of reality is in order: Alinsky emphasized that the overarching objective of any crusade is never to promote peace or reconciliation, but rather to be unwaveringly “dedicated to an eternal war” in which “there are no rules of fair play” and “no compromise” whatsoever; to mercilessly “pulverize” people with “fear”; and ultimately to “force their capitulation.”

We got a glimpse of this mindset recently when we learned that two New Black Panther Party members were plotting not only to blow up St. Louis’s famed Gateway Arch, but also to assassinate Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson and the city’s prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch. And a shrieking Louis Farrakhan, for his part, has been busy urging black Americans to throw Molotov cocktails at white people in order to fulfill a scriptural “law of retaliation”; condemning whites for allegedly “killing us” in large numbers; and warning that “we’ll tear this goddamn country up!”

Like all Marxists, Obama, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and the rest of their fellow revolutionaries seek to tear society apart by pitting the “races,” the “classes,” and the “genders” against one another—“rubbing raw” their respective “resentments” until hatred abounds in every person’s heart and mayhem fills the streets. Michael Brown’s corpse is merely a building block for these rabble rousers. They know that someday another African American will be killed by a white police officer and thus be anointed as their movement’s next martyred saint. Bit by bit, the inconvenient fact that Brown was a violent, abusive criminal whose death was brought about entirely by his own actions will be airbrushed out of public memory. And the grievance mongers of the “civil rights” movement will wistfully remember him as just another innocent black victim whose life was tragically cut short by white depravity.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

[1] In March 2012, not long after the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, President Obama famously said: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

John Perazzo


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

Turkish Hospitality For Arab Terrorism - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

Erdogan deliberately overlooked a significant difference between Hamas and Turkey's Islamist parties: Hamas specifically advocates violence, while Turkish parties operate within democratic politics.
Hamas is coordinating its efforts in the West Bank with logistical support from a command center in Istanbul.

In 2004, Turkish President (then Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan labelled Israel "a terrorist state." Two years later, he hosted Khaled Mashaal, Hamas's leader. Alluding to Turkey's experience with Islamist parties, including his own, coming to power through elections, Erdogan said: "The choice of the people (at the ballot box) should be respected." Erdogan, citing Hamas's election victory in Gaza, apparently wanted to legitimize Hamas and terrorism.

However, he deliberately overlooked a significant difference between Hamas and Turkey's Islamist parties: Hamas specifically advocates violence, while Turkish parties operate within democratic politics.

Eight years after Mashaal's visit to Turkey, Hamas is coordinating its efforts in the West Bank with logistical support from a command center in Istanbul -- a fact that apparently annoys even the Palestinian Authority [PA], Hamas's "governing partner" in the Palestinian territories.

Turkey is also host to Salah al-Aruri, a Hamas commander whom the PA accuses of planning multiple attacks against Israeli targets.

According to the Israeli media, the Shin Bet has evidence that the deadly attacks against Israelis were planned at the Hamas headquarters in Istanbul. Turkish diplomats deny the claims, unconvincingly. Israel has reportedly requested NATO and the American government to take steps against Turkey's support for a terrorist organization.

It was, in fact, Aruri who, on Aug. 20, speaking at the World Conference of Islamic Sages in Turkey, admitted that Hamas had instigated the "heroic action carried out by the al-Qassam Brigades [the military wing of Hamas], which captured three settlers in Hebron." The three teenage boys were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas operatives, an incident that triggered the spiral of violence that led to the vicious 50-day war in Gaza this summer.

Most Western observers tend to explain Erdogan's love affair with Hamas with realpolitik and pragmatism – that Turkey has sought regional clout among Arab nations by setting out to become the powerful defender of the "Palestinian cause." This author thinks that there is also "a story of indoctrination" behind the love affair.

Turkish President (then Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, meeting with Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal (center) and Ismail Haniyeh on June 18, 2013, in Ankara, Turkey. (Image source: Turkey Prime Minister's Press Office)

One of the most influential philosophers and writers who inspired a young generation of Turkish Islamists in the late 1960s and early 1970s was Nurettin Topcu (1909-1975). His writings greatly influenced an emerging class of Turkish jihadists who gathered under the umbrella of the Turkish National Student Union (MTTB, in its Turkish acronym). Topcu's and other thinkers' theories founded what would later become known as the "Turkish-Islamic synthesis," or simply Turkish political Islam. In Topcu's views, "Islam is a Turk's spirit/heart and Turkishness his body." One of MTTB's most enthusiastic members of was Erdogan.

In a 2010 speech, Erdogan referred to Topcu, along with half a dozen other writers, as a "great thinker." In the same year, in another speech, Erdogan said that Topcu was "the mirror of this country." More recently, in an interview, Erdogan counted 11 names as the greatest writers in Ottoman and Turkish history." One of them was Topcu.

Today there is a cultural center and a number of primary schools, including in Ankara and Istanbul, which proudly carry the philosopher's name. This year, a deputy minister inaugurated a political school named Nurettin Topcu. Only last week, government bigwigs and bureaucrats organized a panel discussion on "Nurettin Topcu the Master and Our Education Cause."

But what makes the Sorbonne-graduate Turkish philosopher and his views so dear to the hearts and minds of Turkish leaders? Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, Topcu published three essays: "The Islamic Cause and Judaism," "Money and the Jew," and "Human Beings and Jews."

A pro-Erdogan newspaper columnist, Ibrahim Tenekeci, wrote in his column for the government-friendly Yeni Safak daily earlier this year: "[Topcu's 1967 writings] reflected a Muslim's rage… a noble challenge, an honourable stance." But what were the teachings of one of the Turkish president's favorite thinkers?

From Topcu's "Money and the Jew:"
"Mankind has two enemies, two Satans: money and the Jew."
From his "The Islamic Cause and Judaism:"
"As long as [the state of] Israel stands there, the Turkish and Islamic worlds will be in danger. The future belongs to either one (Israel) or the other (the Turkish and Islamic worlds)."
And from his "Human Beings and Jews:"
"Jews are... the eternal ordeal of mankind; they are the bloody and sinful hands…
"The Jewish nation was sent to the world in order to destroy every beauty, every solid foundation and every redemptive fact. To do harm to human beings and humanity is almost a Jewish instinct."
Topcu does not say "who" sent Jews to the world to do all the harm to mankind, or why. But apparently the 70s generation of Turkish Islamists have taken his theories too seriously.

Yes, President Erdogan is a pragmatic politician. But not always. Especially when his pragmatic-self meets with his emotional-self: That's heaven! Still wondering about his passionate love affair with Hamas? Read Topcu's excerpts once again. Then open up Hamas's charter, read the caricature-like text and compare its lines with the Turkish philosopher's. Now you can have a better reading of Erdogan's mind.

Burak Bekdil


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

Obamacare: Trying to fix a problem we didn't have - Silvio Canto, Jr.

by Silvio Canto, Jr.

It started with Schumer, Harkin and Webb.  It will very likely grow as more and more Democrats realize that the Affordable Care Act is the political equivalent of the Titanic.   

Obamacare's main problem is it tried to fix problems we never had.  It looks like Democrats are realizing that now.  They are painfully learning that messing with one sixth of our economy will have lots of consequences, especially unintended ones.
In January, we will have majorities, and I mean bipartisan majorities, ready to start "undoing" the law, as W. James Antle III pointed out:
Come January, majorities in both houses of Congress will favor its repeal. Repealing the individual mandate, the employer mandate and IPAB all have bipartisan support.
The health-care law faces another legal challenge at the Supreme Court. The Halbig case could make Obamacare a very expensive proposition if the justices rule people who bought health insurance from the federal exchange are ineligible for subsidies.
Even without Halbig, a Wall Street Journal analysis found that Americans are spending 42 percent more on health insurance than in 2007. Obamacare isn't the only reason, but the law does mandate the purchase of more expensive health plans.
Affordable Care Act, indeed.
We had health care problems in 2009 that should have been addressed on a case-by-case basis.  Sadly, President Obama so misunderstood the 2008 election that he felt that the country was ready for something big on health care, but it really wasn't.   

We needed simple laws that addressed pre-existing conditions, people who lose their health insurance over job changes or layoffs, and a plan to take care of the uninsured.  Most of all, we should have given the middle class tax credits to purchase family plans if they didn't get them at work.

President Obama would have enjoyed bipartisan support for those kinds of solutions.  They could have happened in 2009, and the Democrats would have benefited politically from commonsense solutions to the problems.   

Instead, they are burdened with Obamacare and not happy about it.

P.S. You can hear CANTO TALK here & follow me on Twitter @ scantojr.

Silvio Canto, Jr.


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

House Passes “Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014” - Warren Mass

by Warren Mass

On a 219-197 vote that was mostly along party lines, the House of Representatives passed the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014 (H.R. 5759) on December 4. The largely symbolic measure was passed in response to President Obama’s November 20 announcement that he would use executive action to remove the “fear of deportation” and provide three-year work permits for up to five million illegal aliens currently living in the United States.

Seven Republicans voted against the measure, however: Representatives Mike Coffman (Colo.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Marlin Stutzman (Ind.), and David Valadao (Calif.).

Since the bill almost certainly will not be brought to the floor of the Democratic-controlled Senate in this Congress, the passage of H.R. 5759 is seen as largely a symbolic protest against the president’s announced actions.

In his announcement of his intended executive actions, Obama anticipated that opponents of his action would call it what it was — amnesty — and said: “I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not.”

But 219 House members, including three Democrats — John Barrow (Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), and Collin Peterson (Minn.) — agreed that the presidential action (when it is carried out) amounts to amnesty. However, thus far, there has been no executive action filed by the president to accomplish his goals stated in his November 20 speech. Instead, his plan is being put into effect mainly through a memorandum signed by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson entitled: “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children With Respect to Certain individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents.”

The Executive Amnesty Prevention Act made reference to Johnson’s memorandum, as we will quote further along in this report.

Members of Congress have taken Obama to task for his announced action however it is accomplished. “Two weeks ago, President Obama declared war against the Constitution by changing our immigration laws on his own, and Congress today began its fight against this unprecedented power grab," said House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte.

House Speaker John Boehner told reporters upon passage of the bill:
We think this is the most practical way to fight the president's action, and frankly we listen to our members, and we listen to some members who are frankly griping the most. This was their idea of how to proceed. 

The Executive Amnesty Prevention Act made the Constitution its prime point of contention in condemning Obama’s amnesty executive action, citing article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which states that the Congress has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” 

The bill juxtaposed that phrase with a citation from the Supreme Court’s decision in Galvan v. Press: “that the formulation of ... policies [pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.”

The bill next cited article II, section 3, of the Constitution, stating that the President is required to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The legislation then charged that Obama was misusing the concept of “prosecutorial discretion,” which historically has been used by presidents,
through their constitutional power over foreign affairs to permit individuals or narrow groups of noncitizens to remain in the United States temporarily due to extraordinary circumstances in their country of origin that pose an imminent threat to the individuals' life or physical safety.

Prosecutorial discretion generally ought to be applied on a case-by-case basis and not to whole categories of persons.

The bill noted that Obama “has stated at least 22 times in the past that he can’t ignore existing immigration law or create his own immigration law.” We mentioned two of those occasions in our November 21 article, “Immigration Speech: Does Obama See Himself as an Elected Dictator?” — his Univision Town Hall held on March 28, 2011 at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington, D.C. and his 2008 campaign speech at a Town Hall meeting in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

The legislation summed up its argument nicely, referring to Secretary John's memorandum, as we noted previously:

President Obama's grant of deferred action to more than 4,000,000 unlawfully present aliens, as directed in a November 20, 2014, memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Charles Johnson, is without any constitutional or statutory basis.

It then goes on to prohibit the executive branch from deferring the deportation, “by Executive order, regulation, or any other means,” entire categories of illegal aliens present in the United States.

With just a month before the 113th Congress ends on January 3, the chances of H.R. 5759 doing anything other than die of neglect in this Democrat-controlled Senate are unimaginable. Since this legislative victory is largely symbolic, some amnesty opponents dismissed it as inconsequential. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called the bill’s passage a “show vote.”

“Congress should stand up and use the power of the purse to say: we will fund the government, we will fund the operation of the federal government, but we will not allocate taxpayer dollars to lawless and illegal amnesty,” Cruz told The Blaze, a conservative website. “Do what you promised,” he added. “And doing what you promised doesn’t mean, as it so often does in Washington, sending a really stern letter, and having a meaningless show vote.”

Opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants will have an opportunity to see what Cruz and others who share his views (such as Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Rand Paul of Kentucky) can accomplish in the 114th Congress, when Republicans control the Senate.

If the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014 did nothing else, however, it did present an excellent constitutional argument and provide some good talking points for legislators who want to move on to the next step.

Warren Mass


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

The IRS Scandal Is Not Going Away - Bruce Walker

by Bruce Walker

The IRS scandal is not much in the news these days, but it is not going away.  The more Obama’s minions stonewall this scandal, the more congressional Democrats discount the scandal, the more the leftist establishment media ignores this scandal, the more toxic it will be for the left.  In late November we learned that 30,000 of Lois Lerner’s lost e-mails have been found, but these e-mails have not yet been converted into readable form.

The utter contempt the Obama administration shows toward the oversight powers of Congress, toward the millions of information technology-savvy Americans who grasp the lying and silly explanations provided by the administration, and  toward federal judges who have ordered serious explanations for presumably “destroyed” e-mails is breathtaking and appalling. 

Once the new Republican Congress convenes in a few weeks, its leaders would do well to create a joint committee on the IRS scandal, elevating it to the highest levels of congressional action and putting the mendacious IRS flacks covering for Obama in an even more desperate situation – compounding lies already told to a House committee with new and flimsier lies told to a joint committee of House and Senate members.

Congressional Democrats on that committee who continue to parrot the transparent lies of IRS officials at some point become complicit in the cover-up of criminal misconduct – not in the legal sense, exactly, but certainly in the political sense.  Individual members might lose re-election or might find themselves discounted for any higher positions in government if they are seen as toadies for these Obama crooks.  Yet once Democrats begin to join in the chorus of Republicans in demanding real answers and agreeing that there is real wrongdoing, the whole defense of this investigation being a partisan witch hunt vanishes.

The leftist establishment media, by continuing to ignore the scandal and downplay the significance of this investigation, risks the last little fig leaf of notional journalistic competence and integrity.  Their utter obliviousness to fetid swamps of official misconduct could become the “real story” as this scandal unfolds.  Treating federal judges with contempt is also dangerous, because these judges have tools to force compliance that work. 

The real threat, however, comes from the knowledge that an incoming Republican administration in two years will be able to really investigate the cover-up and open up all the files currently kept from Congress and the courts.  There will, at that point, be absolutely nothing to protect those officials who have played “kick the can” on the theory that the public will forget about all this.  Federal prosecutors can then seek indictments of officials who have obstructed congressional investigations or obstructed justice.

Although some conservatives may fear a blanket presidential pardon to all those involved, after the November 2016 election, of course, this will not make the scandal go away.  It may, in fact, make the scandal even more transparent.  There would, at that point, be no privilege against self-incrimination that any of the guilty officials could use to hide the truth.  All those involved could be ordered to answer questions, put in jail if they refused, and convicted of perjury if they lied under oath (any pardon could not address future crimes like perjury).

These bad actors could also be sued in civil actions – no presidential pardon can protect against private lawsuits – and as more of the ugly mess oozes out, the seriousness of the civil wrongdoing will become clearer.  Big money judgments could be awarded against these thugs who bully citizens, and no one will have much sympathy for them.  As the extent of the scandal grows, there will be increasing pressure for bar associations to disbar all the attorneys, like Lois Lerner, who were up to their necks in the muck of this scandal.

All of these realities will make it increasingly likely that some of the people now hiding malfeasance and dishonesty by IRS officials and the White House will crack before November 2016, bringing this scandal to center front in the presidential election.   The need for putting the White House in Republican hands would then grow dramatically, rather like Watergate provided a strong argument that eight years of Republican presidential power was enough, when that presidential power was proven corrupt.

What makes this scandal worse for Democrats is that it is very easy for ordinary Americans to sink their teeth into: lying government officials, abuse of IRS power, and arrogant persecution of innocent countrymen by political thugs.

The IRS scandal is not going away…oh, boy, is it not going away!

Bruce Walker


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

Learning from History - Yoram Ettinger

by Yoram Ettinger

Unlike the Arabs, Jews are reliable and do comply with agreements. … Zionism is the ‎hope for the reconstructed Jewish homeland; it is also a clear strategic benefit to the ‎British Empire. … The British policy in the Middle East bets on the wrong horse, when ‎appeasing the Arabs."

Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, the chief political/intelligence officer of the British ‎Mandate in Palestine, inspired the late Sen. Daniel Inouye, who laid the ‎foundation for the landmark U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, which was ‎overwhelmingly supported by Congress. The Act reflects Israel's increasing and ‎unique strategic contribution to vital U.S. defense and commercial interests, and the ‎mutually beneficial, two-way-street nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship. ‎

Col. Meinertzhagen's Middle East Diary 1917-1956 is as relevant today for the ‎USA as it was 80-100 years ago for Britain, maintaining that a Jewish state would ‎be the most reliable and effective beachhead of Western democracies in an area that is vital to their critical economic and national security interests. ‎

In 1923, Col. Meinertzhagen stated: "Britain will not be able to sustain its control of ‎the Suez Canal endlessly. … [Therefore], I've always considered the land ‎of Israel to be the key to the defense of the Middle East. … When a Jewish state will ‎be established, Britain shall benefit from air force, naval and land bases … as well as ‎Jewish fighting capabilities … which will secure its long-term regional interests. … ‎Unlike the Arabs, Jews are reliable and do comply with agreements. … Zionism is the ‎hope for the reconstructed Jewish homeland; it is also a clear strategic benefit to the ‎British Empire. … The British policy in the Middle East bets on the wrong horse, when ‎appeasing the Arabs." ‎

In 1920, he wrote: "I firmly believe that a sovereign Jewish state shall be established ‎in 20-30 years, militarily assaulted by all its Arab neighbors." In 1919, he assessed ‎that a long-term, and possibly insoluble, clash between Jewish and Arab nationalism ‎was inevitable. He expected the Jews to prevail due to their impressive military track ‎record in ancient times. Jewish quality would overcome the Arab quantity. ‎

In 1920, Meinertzhagen noted that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict and ‎the Palestinian issue was the Arab obsession with the existence -- not merely the ‎size -- of a Jewish state, as evidenced by the systematic campaign of anti-Jewish ‎incitement by Arab leaders, especially the Jerusalem mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini (the ‎role model for Mahmoud Abbas and Yassir Arafat). ‎

He noted that while Zionism was relentlessly determined to re-establish Jewish ‎sovereignty in the land of Israel, the Arab worldview was dominated by a seventh ‎century fanatic Islam. Arabs displayed hopeless inter-Arab fragmentation, intrigues, ‎tenuous regimes and policies, as well as violent intolerance, featuring ruthless ‎incitement, toward the Christian and Jewish "infidel," in a region that Muslims ‎perceived to be divinely ordained only for the followers of Islam.‎

Meinertzhagen opposed British policy, which egregiously violated legally binding ‎commitments made to Jewish sovereignty over (at least!) the entire area west of ‎the Jordan River, such as the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo ‎Conference British Mandate, and the 1922 League of Nations reaffirmation, which ‎was integrated into Article 80 of the 1945 U.N. Charter. He claimed that British policy ‎was driven by pro-Arab and anti-Semitic sentiments, discriminating against Jewish ‎aspirations, thus radicalizing the Arabs and minimizing the prospects of peace. ‎

Meinertzhagen considered a sovereign Jewish entity a strategic and moral asset, ‎while the Arabs were defined as a strategic and moral liability, urging the British ‎government to ally itself with the reliable and grateful party. ‎

The conviction-driven British clairvoyant was convinced that the Jewish state was ‎destined for a rosy commercial and military future due to boundless Jewish tenacity -- ‎as evidenced by the survival of Judaism in defiance of historical adversity -- and ‎Jewish brainpower, inspired by values that generated monotheism and Western ‎democracies. Moreover, in 1920, Meinertzhagen wrote that "the Zionist entity shall ‎provide its Arab citizens with enhanced economy and security." In 1949, he referred ‎to the newly born Jewish state as "one of the world wonders, and the only positive ‎outcome of the Second World War."‎

Noting in 1937 that "a secure Jewish state would bolster the regional position of ‎Britain," while "a splintered land of Israel would weaken, and possibly, eliminate, the ‎Jewish state," Meinertzhagen delineated the security lines of the Jewish state ‎‎(before the intensified unpredictability, instability and threat generated by the Arab tsunami): from the Sea of Galilee to the Jordan River, the Dead Sea and the Gulf of ‎Aqaba in the east; from the Gulf of Aqaba to Rafiah (southern Gaza) in the south; the ‎Mediterranean in the west; and the Litani River (southern Lebanon) in the north. ‎Meinertzhagen's map was similar to the map of Israel's minimal security ‎requirements, submitted on June 29, 1967 to President Lyndon Johnson by Gen. Earl ‎Wheeler, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs-of-Staff. ‎

Against the backdrop of the 2014 controversy over the Jewish state law, it is ‎instructive to read that Col. Meinertzhagen indicated in 1932: "It is clear that the land of Israel will become a Jewish state no less than England ‎is English."

Yoram Ettinger


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

Indyk's Insidious Analysis - Ruthie Blum

by Ruthie Blum

One neat trick Indyk employs is referring to the peace camp in Israel as the "center." This is not only false; it is also a complete misreading of the electorate. Just as the Democratic party in the United States was dealt a heavy blow in the mid-term elections due to utter disillusionment on the part of the public with the Obama administration, so too in Israel has the bloc to the left of Netanyahu disappointed the voters who believed they were opting for some better alternative that turned out not to exist.

The disbanding of the Israeli government this week is breathing new life into dead arguments from the American Left about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

One example worth noting is Christiane Amanpour's "interview" with Brookings Institution foreign policy director Martin Indyk on Wednesday. The reason for the quotation marks is that the exchange between the two celebrities, who owe their careers to the promotion of a twisted view of the Middle East, was more like a victory volley than a question-and-answer session on a serious topic about which each is touted as an expert.

It is hard enough for Israeli voters to stomach the internal scramble for Knesset seats that will dominate the public sphere for the next three months without the added cacophony from abroad. 

That the noise from overseas is going to play into the hands of the Israeli Left, which is as adept at twisting the truth about the Jewish state as its international counterparts -- makes it even more unbearable. 

But it, like Indyk's take on the situation, has its advantages.

Indeed, if anyone can serve as a negative gauge by which to measure a political climate, it is he. Oh, yes, and the think tank that has served as his cash-cow fallback whenever his peace-brokering between Israel and the Palestinians ends in abject failure. (You know, the research institute which receives most of its funding from Qatar, where it has its "Overseas Center.")

One neat trick Indyk employs is referring to the peace camp in Israel as the "center." This is not only false; it is also a complete misreading of the electorate. Just as the Democratic party in the United States was dealt a heavy blow in the mid-term elections due to utter disillusionment on the part of the public with the Obama administration, so too in Israel has the bloc to the left of Netanyahu disappointed the voters who believed they were opting for some better alternative that turned out not to exist. 

In both countries, the fantasy that socialist policies (cloaked as a viable marriage of the free market and a welfare state) would cure economic ills, and that peace overtures would make the West safer from radical Islam than military might, was killed by reality. This is not to say that average voters in the U.S. or Israel have all shifted their support to the Right. On the contrary, many of them blame their plight on their leaders' not going far enough.

It is this mind-frame that Indyk and his ilk possess.

He began his interview by calling Netanyahu's firing of Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Finance Minister Yair Lapid on Tuesday a "collapse in the ability of the government to function."

That's one thing he got right, but for all the wrong reasons.

Livni has been acting as Israel's chief negotiator in talks with the Palestinian Authority. In spite of her kowtowing in every possible way to reach a two-state solution, she, like all her predecessors, was given the cold shoulder. Nevertheless, she holds Netanyahu -- the person who appointed her to that job in the first place -- responsible, rather than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Lapid, with zero experience in politics and even less knowledge of economics, has been moving in a decidedly socialist direction. Both have been fighting Netanyahu on every issue brought to a cabinet vote.

Indyk's analysis is that "the Right is enjoying a surge … which really started over the summer, I think as a result of the Gaza war."

Ya think?

Of course, neither he nor Amanpour delve into that inconvenient detail. They just leave it hanging there, as though it is a shame that Israelis are wary of a two-state solution with an entity that is in a unity government with Hamas.

What Amanpour does raise, however, is the question of the Obama administration's part in why "this [peace process] is not happening."

"There was no lack of leadership on the part of the United States," replied Indyk. "Secretary [John] Kerry, backed by President Obama, made every effort to move the parties towards a resolution. But American will and ingenuity and creativity on its own is not enough. … The two parties have to be committed to it."

Aside from his omitting incessant Israeli efforts -- including by every leader Indyk himself considers kosher politically -- to reach a deal with the Arabs in the PA and the rest of the region, he resorted to the vile practice of creating moral equivalence between the sides.

"I think both … President Abbas … and Prime Minister Netanyahu … were looking over their shoulders at the more extreme parts of their polity -- in the Palestinian case… Hamas, which is absolutely opposed to a two-state solution, and on the Israeli side, within Prime Minister Netanyahu's own coalition, you had groups also adamantly opposed to a two-state solution," he said. "In those circumstances, it takes very strong-willed leaders to be able to push through the kind of opposition they were facing and, frankly, a public on both sides that didn't believe in a two-state solution anymore, because they didn't believe that the other side actually wanted it. So a kind of distrust permeated the negotiations that was, in the end, impossible for us to overcome."

Such insidious comparisons are evil. 

Not only does equating a liberal democratic society with a terrorist-honoring Muslim-Arab entity provide the latter with a veil of legitimacy, but it removes the conflict from its global context, thereby perpetuating the lie that Israel is at fault for the entire war against the West.

It would be wise for sane Israelis to follow the winds blowing from Brookings when we head to the polls on March 17 -- and go for the opposite.

Ruthie Blum is the author of To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring'.


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

Thursday, December 4, 2014

UK: Britain's Terror Addiction - Samuel Westrop

by Samuel Westrop

Debates over the causes of radicalization and extremism in Britain invariably focus on how to tackle support for groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. But why is it that Hamas and PFLP are deemed moderate regardless of how many civilians they murder?
"God be praised for the martyrdom operation in Jerusalem and news of the state of the killed and injured." — Interpal partner Ahmed Brahimi, in response to the murder of Israeli Jews praying in a synagogue.

The response to the murder of four Israelis praying at a synagogue in Jerusalem on November 18 was, in some quarters, one of jubilation.

Although Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the murders, officials of his political party, Fatah, were careful to explain on Palestinian television that the terrorists were "blessed…soldiers of Allah" and that Abbas had only issued a condemnation for "diplomatic reasons... [he] is forced to speak this way to the world."

Other Palestinian groups were less oblique. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which claimed responsibility for the murderous attack, described the terror operation as "heroic" and handed out sweets on the streets of Gaza.

Hamas praised the attack and described the murders as "a quality development... an appropriate and functional response to the crimes of the occupation."

In Britain, it is not the equivocal response of Fatah that draws sympathy from various political and religious groups, but the forthright violence of Hamas and the PFLP.

On September 28, a British Marxist group, the "Tricontinental Anti-Imperialist Platform," organized in central London an event entitled, "Gaza and the Palestinian Revolution," featuring, as its main speaker, Leila Khaled.

In 1969 and 1970, Leila Khaled, armed with several hand grenades, hijacked two planes. She was released by the British government as part of a hostage exchange deal. Today, Khaled is still a member of the PFLP's central committee.

In 2012, Khaled spoke at University College London, as part of the annual Marxism Festival, an event organized to celebrate "resistance" to "imperialism."

Not all support for the PFLP, however, is confined to the extremes. Christian Aid, one of the UK's largest charities, funds and supports Palestinian NGOs openly managed by PFLP operatives.

British groups and individuals who support Hamas are even more extreme. An official of the Project for Peace and Development in Palestine (PPDP), a group founded in Britain and a key partner of the British charity Interpal, recently rejoiced over the recent murders in Jerusalem. In response to the synagogue killings, Ahmed Brahimi wrote: "God is most great... God be praised for the martyrdom operation in Jerusalem and news of the state of the killed and injured... God is Most Great and God be praised."

Brahimi is an Algerian national who took part in the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" in 2010 as a passenger aboard the Mavi Marmara, which was raided by Israeli forces. His organization, the PPDP, was officially established in Britain in 2007. It held its inaugural event at the British Library in London.

The event was organized by Interpal and a number of other British Islamic charities accused of belonging to the Union of Good -- a coalition of charities that works to obtain the financial support for Hamas's political and terrorist activities. The British Library event, however, did not mark the actual beginning of the PPDP. The group originally seems to have been a project managed by Interpal itself, which was in operation as early as 2004.

Interpal, a leading British Islamic charity, is designated as a terrorist organization under US law. Interpal's officials regularly meet with senior Hamas leaders. In 2006, a BBC documentary accused Interpal of funding Hamas front groups in the Palestinian territories. Notwithstanding the evidence, Interpal received £536,000 of taxpayers' money from the British government in 2012 through a tax relief scheme named Gift Aid.

Today, the PPDP, which operates out of Gaza, maintains an office and bank account in the UK through which it privately raises funds.

Directors listed on the PPDP's registered company in the UK include Interpal trustee Essam Yousef. Moreover, the PPDP does not attempt to hide its affiliations – it has its own weekly program on one of Hamas's television channels, Al-Quds TV.

While officially, the PPDP provides loans and grants to help "empower young people and help reduce unemployment through education," its main role is to finance and manage the Miles of Smiles initiative, a regular expedition of convoys established in 2007.

Miles of Smiles supplies the Hamas government's welfare programs in Gaza. The convoys are supported by the Union of Good, but are chiefly organized by the PPDP and senior Interpal trustees. Several times a year, Ahmed Brahimi and Interpal trustee Essam Yousef lead the convoys into Gaza, where they are welcomed by senior Hamas leaders.

The PPDP's Ahmed Brahimi (left) and Interpal's Essam Yousef (center) with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Hanyieh (right).

Ahmed Brahimi with Ahmad Bahar, a senior Hamas official who has called for the killing of Jewish children across the world.
The PPDP's Ahmed Brahimi has previously expressed support for murdering Jews. On November 5, for instance, after the Palestinian terrorist Ibrahim Akari drove his car into a group of Israeli citizens – killing one and injuring twenty -- Brahimi exclaimed: "This hero, this lion, this son of Islam who took vengeance for Al-Aqsa with his spirit and with his blood... with the operation to kill pigs [Jews]."

In Britain, declarations of disgust for specific acts of terrorism often seem designed merely to shroud tolerance for pro-terror views. The Guardian, for example, condemned the synagogue murders in Israel and described Hamas's celebrations of the attacks as "depressing"; but a mere four days before the terror attack, the newspaper published an opinion piece by Hamas official Ahmed Yousef, which set out to defend the Hamas charter, a document that explicitly calls for the eradication of not only Israelis but Jews.

Meanwhile, Ahmed Brahimi's PPDP has entertained members of the House of Lords; Interpal enjoys the support of parliamentary motions signed by dozens of British MPs and is painted as a victim of Islamophobia by prominent newspaper journalists; and the PFLP, addressing crowds of supporters in London, is considered a heroic bulwark against Western "imperialism."

Debates between politicians and commentators over the causes of radicalization and extremism in Britain invariably focus on how to tackle support for groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. But why is it that Hamas and PFLP are deemed moderate, regardless of how many civilians they murder?

One enormous factor in the spread of Islamic extremism surely must be the networks of charities that seem to support Palestinian terrorist organizations – networks that include groups such as Interpal and the PPDP. Will these organizations ever be shut down?

Samuel Westrop


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