Friday, May 1, 2015

Arabs from Saudi Arabia to Iraq Voice Support for Israel - Ari Soffer

by Ari Soffer

From Jeddah with love? How an Arab Israeli soldier's quest to enlist his countrymen led him to an unexpected source of pro-Israel sentiment.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen... These may not be countries you would expect to feature in a pro-Israel campaign.

Even in Egypt and Jordan, which have treaties with Israel, you're not likely to find much pro-Israel sentiment among the general public - at least not in public

However, a recent poll of the Arab world, released last month, revealed something surprising: unlike their elders, young Arabs are increasingly abandoning the paradigm of Israel as the root of all evil. The Arab Youth Survey showed that faith in that doctrine, which has long-dominated the Arab discourse, is being eroded, as a new generation with access to information beyond the "official" channels which dominated life before the social media age takes stock of the challenges it faces - from ISIS to dictatorships to unemployment - none of which have anything to do with Israel.

Just how much those attitudes may be changing was inadvertently discovered by one Israeli Arab, who uncovered a hidden wellspring of support for the Jewish state in those countries and more.

The Muslim-Arab IDF soldier - who identifies only as "M." due to concerns over his safety - recounted to the AI Monitor website how a campaign to encourage other Israeli Arabs to enlist in the IDF led him to his remarkable discovery.

He said he was motivated to begin his online campaign after being angered by anti-IDF campaigns run by the radical Arab political parties - themselves a response to a slowly growing movement of Israeli Arabs joining the army.

"I saw the signs that were hung in Arab villages, and I kept track of the Facebook campaign being run by activists of Balad and the other Arab parties under the name ‘TZaHaL ma bistahal’ ['The IDF isn’t worth it']. It infuriated me," he told AI Monitor.

"Activists would show up in the main square of Shfaram with bits of rubble, as if the rubble were from Gaza. They carried big signs too, as if they were trying to say, ‘Look what the army that is calling on you to enlist is actually doing in the Gaza Strip.’ Some of the activists would even paint their faces red, as if they were injured, while they tried to relay their message of ‘Don’t enlist!’ to young Bedouin, Druze, Christians and Muslims.

"I decided to respond to them on Facebook, so I made a page called ‘TZaHaL bistahal’ ['The IDF is worth it'], but instead of getting responses from the young Arabs to whom I was directing my personal campaign, I started to get photos and texts from young people around the Arab world. My jaw dropped."

Some of those who contacted him even sent video messages of support, including one from central Baghdad and another from a woman in Saudi Arabia, many of which can be found on the Facebook page he set up.

The Saudi woman claimed to be "a member of one of the better-known tribes of the Hijaz", and sent her message of support for Israel from the center of the Saudi city of Jeddah.

"I’d like to send a message of peace and love to Israel and its dear citizens. I know it is surprising that a Saudi Arabian citizen sends a message to the people of Israel, but it is a basic principle of democracy that everyone is free to voice an opinion. I hope the Arabs will be sensible like me and recognize the fact that Israel also has rights to the lands of Palestine, or the Holy Land."”

( Video is available here - scroll down when the site opens)

M. also received dozens of photos, including one apparently from an Egyptian policeman which displayed a note saying "We love, love, love Israel and its army" next to his police cap.

He said the project was also inspired by a Coptic Christian he met who fled Egypt due to persecution from the country's Muslim majority.

"I quickly learned that she also speaks Hebrew, like many young people who studied Hebrew at Cairo University.

"So I said to her, ‘Why don’t you do a little something to spread the message, so that people in other countries will see and hear that there are other voices in the Middle East?’ She sent a photo of her passport, and pretty soon I started getting pictures of passports from all across the Arab world. The very next photo came from Iraq."

According to M., the messages he has received - including a great deal of private correspondence from people afraid to go public - may be just the tip of the iceberg.

"After I got the video from Baghdad, I asked the person who sent me the clip what it was that caused him to express support for Israel," he said.

"He responded, ‘You’d be surprised. I’m not the only one. There are a lot of young people here who think like me. Everything that is happening to us here in Iraq — the killings, the terrorism, the veritable bloodbath — showed us that Israel has nothing to do with it. There are many young people living in Iraq today who have no religion. They are fed up with the religious wars between Sunnis and Shiites and want to live their lives without religion.'"

Ari Soffer


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

Exposed: US and Russia in talks for promoting a ceasefire in Syria and the dismantling of the state into control zones - Amir Rapaport

by Amir Rapaport

Russian and American officials are discussing the possibility to a ceasefire on Assad and the rebels, which will dismantle Syria into several control zones. Meanwhile, each side tries to improve its positions

Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon will enter his second term as defense minister with high levels of tension (once again) on the northern border. The media receives only bits of information about what is happening in the north, but there is no doubt that the northern front is the most pressing defense challenge for Israel. Proof of this was given this week as well, in a series of events on both sides of the border in the Golan Heights.

What is less known is the fact that the events occurring these very days in Syria, which also affect Israel, are first and foremost "a game" of the world powers – the United States and Russia. Israel may be seeing the consequences of an American-Russian move being formulated to impose a ceasefire in Syria, after no less than four years of a bloody civil war. Defense sources estimate this is a coordinated move for which the practical meaning is the dismantlement of Syria into several control zones, when the fighting stops.

The Russians and Americans recognize that the fighting has reached a dead end. The Russians, who are concerned for the continuity of the grip they have of Syria through President Bashar al-Assad's regime, will make sure to continue his rule by ensuring its survival in most areas of Damascus, the mountainous areas leading towards the port of Tartus (which will remain their sole naval base in the Middle East), and in the Syrian Golan Heights region. The other areas will fall in the hands of rebel groups.

The recently resumed ferocious fighting is related to the end of the winter season and to the fact that fighters are starting to "smell" the ceasefire. Each side wants to transfer additional areas to its control, before the war is over (if in fact it ends). An especially tough battle took place this week in Al-Klmon, between Jabhat Al-Nusra (identified with Global Jihad), forces of Hezbollah and Syrian forces (who are both a part of the same camp).

Difficult battles are also raging in the region of the Golan Heights, during which stray mortar shells landed on the Israeli side of the border.

The US-Russia move, if executed, may bring the decline of the civil war in Syria, since Assad is dependent on the Russians in order to continue fighting. Also, Iran and Hezbollah might be interested in a ceasefire as long as the continuation of Bashar al-Assad's regime is guaranteed, even in limited territory.

Amir Rapaport


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

The NY Times’ Israeli-Hating Reporter - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

The majority of news outlets covering the story understood that the shootings were provoked by deadly attacks and did not simply emerge from a vacuum. But Diaa Hadid and her editors at the New York Times have a different agenda, one that substitutes objective reporting with yellow journalism, propaganda and obfuscation.

ny timesOn April 25, the New York Times, the paper that placed second as the most dishonest reporter in 2014 and placed first the preceding year, ran the following headline, “Israeli Police Officers Kill Two Palestinian Men.” The article was authored by Diaa Hadid; more on her later. Not until one starts reading the article does one understand why the shootings occurred and under what circumstances. In both instances, Israeli security forces came under attack by knife and hatchet wielding Palestinian terrorists and in at least one of those incidents, the attacker succeeded in stabbing an Israeli, though thankfully, his injuries were non-life threatening.

Clearly Hadid has difficulty understanding (or accepting) the concept of cause and effect – terrorist attempts to stab Israeli and Israeli responds by defending himself and shooting terrorist. Consider the manner in which other news outlets covered the event. The Jerusalem Post ran the following headline in connection with precisely the same story; “Terrorist shot dead after stabbing Border Policeman in Hebron.” The left-leaning Ha’aretz ran something similar; “Palestinian tries to stab police officers in Jerusalem and is shot dead, police says.” And the Boston Herald noted the following; “Israeli police: 2 Palestinians shot dead after knife attacks.”

Hadid also used the article to remind readers of an anti-Arab terrorist attack perpetrated by an Israeli that occurred more than 21 years ago and resulted in the deaths of 29. Absent from her reportage of course is the Arab pogrom, massacre and expulsion of the peaceful Jewish community of Hebron in 1929 that resulted in the deaths of 69 civilians. Nor does she bother noting that following the Arab occupation of Hebron in 1948, Arabs embarked on a systematic campaign to eradicate all vestiges of Jewish presence in the city. The ancient Jewish cemetery of Hebron (which incidentally, contained the bodies of some of the victims of the 1929 massacre) was desecrated and synagogues were either destroyed or converted into animal pens.

The majority of news outlets covering the story understood that the shootings were provoked by deadly attacks and did not simply emerge from a vacuum. But Diaa Hadid and her editors at the New York Times have a different agenda, one that substitutes objective reporting with yellow journalism, propaganda and obfuscation. I performed an internet search for Hadid and came across some disturbing information that may shed a little light on her reporting.

Hadid had previously worked as public relations officer for Ittijah, A virulently anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian NGO. According to NGO monitor, Ittijah’s head, Amir Makhoul, was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for spying for Hezbollah. The group endorses the anti-Semitic Boycott Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement, propagates the repugnant “Apartheid” calumny and supports the so-called Palestinian “Right of Return,” a common moniker used by Israel’s enemies in lieu of calls for outright destruction of the Jewish State to make the concept genocide more palatable to Western audiences. Hadid’s past high-level association with Ittijah should have at the very least, raised alarm bells at the New York Times and should have constituted sufficient cause to preclude her from coming anywhere near the Israel Desk.

But there’s more on Hadid. In an article entitled “My Israel, My Palestine” Hadid is quoted as saying “I can’t look at Israelis anymore. I can’t separate your average Israeli citizen from the occupation, I don’t want to be friends with them, I don’t want to talk to them.” She is further quoted as saying, “To this day I’d never say that I am anti-anybody. But did my objectivity get thrown out the window? Yes, because I had an Israeli gun pointing at me, not a Palestinian one.” So there you have it. Hadid unabashedly acknowledges that her objectivity has been tossed out the window and that goes a long way in explaining why the New York Times hired her.

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


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

Britain's Labour Party Vows to Ban Islamophobia - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

  • "In Miliband's Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. ... If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged." — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.
  • The report shows that Britain's Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population's median age of 40 years.
The leader of Britain's Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw "Islamophobia."

The move — which one observer has called "utterly frightening" because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as "the tightest general election for a generation."

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:
"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government's definition of "religious hatred" was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only "threatening" words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband's renewed promise to make "Islamophobia" (a term he has not defined) an "aggravated crime" may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.
According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, "Miliband's proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions." In an opinion article, he added:
"In Miliband's Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy's name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged."
McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain's three million-strong Muslim community to "prop up Labour's urban vote."

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

The report shows that Britain's Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population's median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year's election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain's Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year's election "will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level."

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of "Asian" voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:
"A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.
"With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.
"YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.
"With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics."
Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the #StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a "sin" against Islam because Allah is "the only legislator." He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are "apostates."

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a "sin."

Other British Islamists are following Choudary's lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy "violates the right of Allah" have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.
One such poster stated:
"Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.
"Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estrat├ęgicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.


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

The Mullahs and the Real Iran - Manda Zand Ervin

by Manda Zand Ervin

There is no connection between the Islamic Republic of the Shia clergy and Iranian history or culture. These two are in opposition. The only fact is that Khamanei and his gang want to guarantee their rule by having the Bomb. He wants to continue the Khomeinist doctrine that has nothing to do with Iran and Iranian history, civilization or culture.

In an article in New York Times April 26th issue titled:  "Iran Won't Give up on its Revolution", three of the Washington Institute senior fellow experts on Iran have wrongly connected the history of Iran to an anti-Iranian Moslem Shia establishment without any facts or documentation. Here are the historical facts that these gentlemen have ignored:

The article says: “Although the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is often cited as the beginning of this imperial worldview, Iran's hegemonic aspirations actually date back to the Safavid Dynasty of the 16th century.”

It looks as if these gentlemen are trying to give a historical legitimacy to the power-grabbing Islamic regime in Iran while trying to more isolate and discredit the Iranian people.

Here are the historical facts; the Safavid dynasty was not Iranian, it was a Turkish tribe from Lebanon who conquered Iran in 1499. Until then, Iran had no national religion dating back to the human rights proclamation of the Cyrus the Great and freedom of the Jews from Babylonian slavery, in 539 BCE. The Safavids were Shia, and upon their occupation they imported a group of Shia clerics, olima, from Lebanon -- hence the connection of Iranian Shia establishment with the Hizb’allah -- including the infamous Mohammad Baghir Madjlesi, the author of the rule of Jurisprudents, meaning the god-given rule of clerics, that Khomeini adopted 300 years later and implemented in Iran again in 1979.

The imported Shiite establishment overrode the Iranian culture and civilization of human rights, equal rights of women, freedom of worship and respect for all, dismissing it as pagan and enforcing a new culture of Islamic Sharia laws written by Madjlesi.

In response to this next statement: “In the ensuing centuries, Iran extended its control over Afghanistan, the "Persian" Gulf, Iraq and the southern Caucasus.”

It is also true that the Persian Gulf has been Persian since the first Millennium BCE, and also during the same time span, Iran lost territories to the Ottomans and Afghan Khans. From 1501 to 1925 Iran was conquered by the Safavid Turks and then Qajar Tartars and dominated by Russian and British imperialists for almost a hundred years.

The Shia establishment never considered themselves Iranian, as they are rooted in Lebanon and have kept the ties by intermarriage. In 1979, when the American reporter on the plane to Iran asked Ayatollah Khomeini about his feelings going back to Iran after all these years, Khomeini responded with one word, hichi, nothing.  He repeatedly said that Iran is not important, it is only a source and a base to establish his Islamic foundation to spread in the region and the world.

The Iranian people have never considered the Shia clergy as one of their own either, for the reason that mullahs have enforced their ideology by denigrating Iranian history and culture. There is no love lost between the two parts of Iran; the regime on one side and the people of Iran on the opposite side. 

Marguerite Del Giudice traveled to Iran in 2008 and spent some time listening to the people “privately”. In her long article for National Geographic’s August 2008 issue she reveals the hidden feelings of the Iranian people in a few sentence such as: “An irony is that the Islamic revolution -- at times referred to as the “second Arab invasion” -- appears to have strengthened the very ties to antiquity that it tries so hard to sever. On page 62 she writes; “The first thing people said when I asked what they wanted the world to know about them was, “We are not Arabs” (followed closely by, “We are not Terrorists”).”

There is no connection between the Islamic Republic of the Shia clergy and Iranian history or culture. These two are in opposition. The only fact is that Khamanei and his gang want to guarantee their rule by having the Bomb. He wants to continue the Khomeinist doctrine that has nothing to do with Iran and Iranian history, civilization or culture. 

The Shia establishment has always denied Iranians' history and have even declared that Cyrus the Great was made up by the Jews and that he never existed.

Connecting the Islamist movement that has taken over Iran to Iran’s ancient history and culture is an insult to an already devastated and silenced people who cannot exonerate themselves. It is discrimination against the people of Iran to farther isolate them from the international community by making them partners in the crimes that Khamenei and his gang are committing (inlcuing this week's seizure of the M/V Maersk Tigris in the Gulf of Hormuz). And please don’t call the Shia establishment Iran, they are not Iran, they are the Shia clergies in Iran. 

Manda Zand Ervin is an Iranian writer, thinker and human rights activist born in the province of Lorestan, Iran. She is a member of the Zand tribe.


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

Clinton Aide Gets Life in Prison - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

It provides yet more damning proof of the ties of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to totalitarian Muslims while throwing more light on the shady goings-on of the terrorist-friendly international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

61133666_gehad_el_haddad_bbcAn Islamic terrorist leader who jumped straight from his job at the Clinton Foundation to a post with Egypt’s jihadist Muslim Brotherhood has received a life sentence back home for seditious activities.

It provides yet more damning proof of the ties of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to totalitarian Muslims while throwing more light on the shady goings-on of the terrorist-friendly international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. (The endlessly corrupt foundation, which has taken oceans of cash from Islamic regimes that persecute women and religious dissenters, was profiled at length by this writer last week in FrontPage).

Professional propagandist Gehad el-Haddad, who worked for the Clinton Foundation for five years, was one of more than 35 other Islamofascist defendants in the case to receive life imprisonment for anti-government activities from judge Mohammed Nagi Shehata earlier this month. The court also confirmed death sentences for another dozen or so defendants. (Fun fact: Gehad is the Egyptian version of the Arabic word jihad.)

According to the New York Times, the defendants “were reportedly accused of joining a command center” during an Aug. 14, 2013 Islamist sit-in at Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya Square “that sought to spread chaos across Egypt in defiance of the government.” The Muslim Brotherhood-led protest was in support of President Obama’s Islamist ally, the now-deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. Morsi, whose rhetorical repertoire seems limited to calling Jews “bloodsuckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs,” himself received a 20-year prison sentence this month and his Muslim Brotherhood organization is now officially banned in the Arab republic.

Gehad el-Haddad was the lead English-language spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood. He is the son of Essam el-Haddad, who was foreign affairs adviser to then-President Morsi. Gehad’s brother, Abdullah el-Haddad, serves as spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in London, England.

Hillary Clinton, of course, headed the U.S. Department of State during the “Egyptian Revolution of 2011″ that ousted longtime U.S. ally and anti-Islamist Hosni Mubarak and cleared the way for Obama pal Mohamed Morsi.

Haddad was “city director,” a senior communications post, at the Clintons’ charity from August 2007 to August 2012. Those who support the Global War on Terror should bear in mind that Haddad’s experience at the foundation undoubtedly helped him to gain the know-how to participate in building a state terror apparatus and other oppressive institutions that would be required to turn Egypt into a totalitarian theocracy, which is the Brotherhood’s objective.

The Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative, which he worked on in Egypt, “taught Haddad about managing [a nongovernmental organization] and the role that civil society takes between the state and private sector, lessons he is applying to the Renaissance Project,” according to the Egypt Independent.

Haddad “officially became a senior adviser for foreign affairs in Morsi’s Freedom and Justice Party in May 2011, when he was still claiming to be employed by the Clinton Foundation,” the news website reports.

It was also reported that Haddad’s tenure at the Clinton Foundation “overlapped with his official work for the Muslim Brotherhood, which began in Cairo in February 2011 when he assumed control of the Renaissance Project, a Brotherhood-backed economic recovery program.”

Although the Renaissance Project has been described as a long-term economic recovery program, Egyptian media say it is actually a program designed to implement the radical Islamization of Egyptian society.

“Renaissance is far more than the electoral program of President Mohamed Morsi or the Brotherhood’s political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party,” according to the Egypt Independent. “It is a 25-year project to reform state, business and civil society, rooted in the Brotherhood’s Islamic values but conditioned by the experiences of the project’s founders in the modern economy.”

In Egyptian media, Haddad was a frequent apologist for the Brotherhood’s violent crackdowns on civil liberties. He put his spin doctoring skills to use downplaying Brotherhood supporters’ attacks on women and children.

And in a major non-coincidence, a mere month after Haddad quit his Clinton Foundation job for full-time employment with the Brotherhood in 2012, Morsi received an invitation to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative, a high-profile project of the foundation.

The Haddad saga is a sobering reminder not just of how close Hillary Clinton’s network is to the brutal Muslim Brotherhood, possibly the Left’s favorite Islamofascist operation, but also of the extent to which Islamist enemies of the United States have infiltrated the American political establishment.

Although in recent years Clinton’s former boss, Barack Hussein Obama, has hogged all the terrorism-related media oxygen, the Clintons have long been enablers of terrorist groups, Islamist and otherwise.

Listing all the pro-terrorist activities of the Clintons would take up volumes, so let’s just recap some of what they’ve done over the years.

Hillary’s top aide who follows her from job to job is Huma Abedin. Abedin, who worked for Mrs. Clinton at the State Department and the Clinton-era White House, has since joined her favorite politician on the presidential campaign trail. Abedin has generational ties to Islamic terrorism and to the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. It is very difficult to believe that she hasn’t done her best to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Muslim, pro-terrorist direction. Because Hillary’s has destroyed tens of thousands of her U.S. government-owned emails, we may never know if Abedin shared state secrets with America’s enemies.

We also know that after Hillary’s senior aides learned about the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, while it was in progress, the nation’s top diplomat did nothing to help the Americans under fire. “[H]er top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it.”

Instead Secretary Clinton devised a ridiculous story about an unwatched anti-Islam video and issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” The statement added that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” implying that the video inspired the attack.

During Hillary’s tenure at Foggy Bottom, the entry ban applying to Islamic scholar, stealth jihadist, terrorism funder, and grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tariq Ramadan, was lifted.

Mrs. Clinton said a few months ago that the U.S. should use “smart power,” along with “every possible tool and partner” to advance peace. This includes “leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

While it is always wise to respect enemies in the sense of not being dismissive of their capabilities, empathizing with them would seem to go even further in sucking up to the Islamic world than President Obama has gone.

At the State Department, for two years Mrs. Clinton strongly resisted efforts to put the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations. Now “lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.”

So much for Hillary’s feminist credentials.

President Clinton, as well, didn’t take terrorism seriously.

All the 42nd president seemed to care about was power and the trappings of it. As bestselling author Richard Miniter has written, throughout that administration the Clintons “demanded absolute proof before acting against terrorists.” Setting the evidentiary bar so high precluded taking decisive action and may have been a key factor in President Clinton’s decision to let Osama bin Laden escape when he was in U.S. crosshairs.

When New York’s World Trade Center was bombed by Islamists on Feb. 26, 1993, President Clinton described the incident as “regrettable” and “treated the disaster … like a twister in Arkansas.” Before that he had “urged the public not to ‘overreact’” to the deadly attack on the financial heart of the nation.

Radical imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, claimed to have ties to the Clinton administration. “I had dinner with [then-] Secretary of State [Madeleine] Albright — after the list” of unindicted co-conspirators was released. Wahhaj is also involved the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s front group in the U.S.

Abdurahman Alamoudi helped President Clinton and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) develop a presidential document called “Religious Expression in Public School,” which established a legal justification the ACLU could use to sue public schools to force them to remove Nativity scenes and curtail Christmas celebrations. Alamoudi is a former director of CAIR and founder of CAIR’s ally, American Muslim Council.

Bill Clinton also handed out get-out-of-jail-free cards to unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists who were trying to win the territory independence from the U.S. through political violence.

The FBI concluded that the two radical left-wing groups to which that the 16 freed militants belonged were tied to well over 100 bombings, along with plenty of armed robberies, a half dozen murders, and hundreds of injuries.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are terrorism enablers, though Hillary has the more developed pro-terrorist track record.

In the eyes of leftists across America, this makes Hillary the perfect successor to President Obama.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


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

The Fake Palestinian Video that Cost Over a Thousand Israeli Lives - Richard Baehr

by Richard Baehr

Both Poller and Landes in his writings have emphasized that the Al Dura story is hardly unique in terms of deliberate misreporting or completely fabricating  the news concerning Israel and the Palestinians. Landes calls the staged productions- whether on a Gaza beach, or a  Lebanese village, “Pallywood.”

Two days after Ariel Sharon walked onto the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000, an alleged shooting of a young boy and his father at the Netzarim Junction in Gaza launched the deadly second Intifada. The several years of savagery that followed resulted in approximately 1,500 Israeli deaths from shootings, suicide bombings and other attacks by various Palestinian terror groups including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and an assortment of Fatah-affiliated groups under the supervision or control of Yassar Arafat.

The Sharon visit to the Temple Mount followed two months after the collapse of the Camp David talks between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Palestinian Authority President Arafat, and U.S. President Bill Clinton.  Arafat abandoned the talks, clearly uninterested in resolving the conflict, and as is now well known, immediately began planning  the new intifada. His widow Suha Arafat has confirmed that the planning for the violence began soon after the talks broke up and had nothing to do with any provocation by Ariel Sharon. 

Palestinians and the media friendly to their side were nonetheless quick to slam Sharon for his appearance on the Temple Mount, which lasted only a short time and harmed no one. The next day, there were major disturbances in the area, assaults on worshippers at the Western Wall, and responses from Israeli forces. The stage was set for the theatrical acts the following day, September 30th, which would captivate the Palestinian street and Israel haters from around the world for years to follow.

A dozen camera crews descended on the Netzarim junction in central Gaza, where a small Jewish settlement was guarded by Israeli forces. Clearly, the word had gotten out that something big was going to happen that day (September 30th). For most of the day, it could have been a Hollywood set, as fake shootings were filmed and ambulances arrived to pick up the allegedly wounded. There were phony films made in hospitals as well, including one with some boy, later described as Mohammed Al Dura. However, the scene with the boy in the hospital was filmed three hours before the supposed shooting of Al Dura and his father occurred.  In other words, this was an average day in building the “Palestinian narrative.”

The big moment came at 3 PM. For most of the day Palestinians had been flinging rocks, and tossing burning tires at the Israeli position with no gunfire from either side. People were walking and driving through the intersection as on a normal day.  But as broadcast on French Channel 2 by the well-known newsman Charles Enderlin, a boy and his father were shot by the Israelis.  According to the dramatic broadcast, the boy had died and the father was gravely wounded in the incident.  The shooting, as reported, was a deliberate act (no crossfire explanation was offered).  The Israelis were charged with having fired at the pair for 45 minutes before hitting the targets.  Enderlin was not at the scene, but provided the dramatic voiceover to a few pictures taken by one of his camera crew, Talal Abu Rahma.  The short video of the shooting with the dramatic announcement that the boy is dead was out over the air within minutes, and quickly became the photo that proved the cold bloodedness of the Israelis -- a bunch of vicious child killers.  Mohammed Al Dura immediately became the latest Palestinian victim of Israel’s “colonization of Palestinian lands,” stealing their land and their lives.

The cameraman, not Enderlin, was the source for the claim that the Israelis had been shooting at the man and his son for 45 minutes.  He argued the Israelis had a clear line of sight.  If this were true, not only would the boy and his father have been killed a lot earlier than the 45th minute, but the wall they were huddled behind would have been shattered and destroyed. 

One might think that there would be some blood to be found, since the father was supposedly wounded in 9 places, and the boy shot to death.  

It turns  out that  the wounds later found on the father , were attributable to an earlier event in 1992. Enderlin was a respected journalist (in France at least) and like almost all French journalists, had never been a fan of Israel. As the story about what happened at Netzarim or what was staged there, was studied over the months and years which followed, Enderlin, the French government and  almost all French journalists, never really wavered in their support for the original presentation and explanation of what happened. 

Nidra Poller was a novelist living in Paris when the Al Dura story broke.  It did not take long for Poller to see the damage the Al Dura story had caused.  Twelve days after the alleged child killing, the Palestinian bloodlust for avenging Al Dura had become so stoked that it resulted in the murder of two Israeli army reservists who made a wrong turn in Ramallah, and were then torn to pieces by an angry mob in a police station.   One killer waved his bloody hands approvingly to the frenzied crowd. 

 Over the next 14 years, Poller meticulously followed the story and the challenges to its authenticity in a wide variety of print and online publications.   Her new book, Al Dura: Long Range Ballistic Myth, is a collection of her writings on the alleged shooting that, based on what is known today (and really soon after the incident occurred),  was  almost certainly a  deadly hoax.  The articles are largely organized chronologically and because of the large number of publications where Poller has published on this incident, there is a basic summary of the details of what supposedly occurred at the Netzarim junction at the start of almost every one of them. One can skip through the repetitive parts without missing any of the substance. 

Many enterprising journalists from several countries worked to derail the fake story over the succeeding years, none more so than Philippe Karsenty. French defamation laws are more like Britain’s than those in the United States, and Enderlin sued Karsenty for defamation for damaging his reputation by challenging the authenticity of the story. Karsenty then had the burden of proof to show he had not defamed Enderlin, when of course Enderlin had defamed Israel.
Largely as a result of legal technicalities that had no relation to the substance or the merits of the case, Karsenty eventually lost and was fined a few thousand Euros. But the trials enabled him to demonstrate to anyone interested that the story was a hoax.

The 45 minutes of video supposedly shot by Enderlin’s cameraman, turned out to be 27 minutes, almost entirely of clearly staged scenes, with but 55 seconds for the Al Dura incident. Even those 55 seconds do not show the supposed shooting itself. The Enderlin lie that a few seconds at the end were edited out because they were so painful to watch, instead showed some life and movement by the boy, presumably after he was shot dead. He may have needed to know what he was to do next.

Remarkably, none of the other camera crews in the Netzarim junction area have any video of the shooting, but they did shoot lots of video of faked events that day. Eventually, Enderlin turned over 18 minutes of the 27 minutes of footage to the Court in the Karsenty trial, and some of this appeared to have been spliced from other events not even in Netzarim.  Richard Landes, a history professor at Boston University also studied the Al Dura case for years, and was one of a small number of people to have viewed the original 27 minutes of footage. The description of what the cameraman claims to have seen and filmed and what Landes viewed have almost no overlap.

Both Poller and Landes in his writings have emphasized that the Al Dura story is hardly unique in terms of deliberate misreporting or completely fabricating  the news concerning Israel and the Palestinians. Landes calls the staged productions- whether on a Gaza beach, or a  Lebanese village, “Pallywood.”

Poller spends much of the second half of her book detailing why these second rate fake videos have so much appeal.  Israel can’t win and must not win in the eyes of the modern media, almost all of whom are leftist and have bought into the Palestinian narrative of the theft of their land, forced relocation, and brutal occupation by Israel in the territories.  Throw in the intimidation of journalists by groups like Hezb’allah and Hamas, and it is clear that to gain access and stay alive, the reporters have to adopt a certain stance and tone.  Charles Enderlin was too big to fail in French journalism, so his determination to indict Israel for the Al Dura story, was a safe bet, whatever the actual facts of the case, and he felt confident he never had to look back and adjust his story.   Enderlin had throughout his career, been invested in Palestinian suffering and Israeli brutality.  Israeli officials, despite their obvious skepticism about the event, for years refused to challenge the official story,  sensing that there would be no favorable outcome from doing so.  What were the chances the French were going to admit they created a hoax which cost thousands of innocent lives over the next few years?  Ne va pas se produire. (Not going to happen.)

Richard Baehr


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

The New Knesset's National Paralysis List - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

It is called the United Arab List, it is third in size in the Knesset, but not to worry.

The last few years in Israel have been witness to a longstanding argument over raising the country's election threshold. One of the reasons for opposing the change was the possibility that it would lead the Arab parties to unite so as to pass the new threshold, thereby increasing their strength. This prediction turned out to be accurate. The threshold was raised, the Arab parties united, gained 13 seats and became the third largest party in the Knesset.

Now the United Arab List has to consolidate its plan of action, and it turns out not to be an easy task because the party's various components have varied and even contradictory worldviews. On the one hand, the Balad party has  a secular and even anti-religious agenda with Christians such as Basel Ghattas and founder Azmi Bishara, Druze such as Sa'id Naffa' and Muslims such as  Wasel Taha.  Balad also put women, notably Hanin Zouabi, in leadership positions. On the other hand, the United Arab Party also contains the Islamic Movement with Sheikh Talab Abu 'Arar,  Mas'oud Ghanaim and 'Abd al-Hakim Haj Yahya, and this movement represents the fundamental Islamist view that does not accept members of other religions and most certainly does not put women in high positions.

The problems came to a head in April when the party received an invitation from the Arab League to meet in order to discuss the relationship between the Israeli Arab sector and the rest of the Arab world. This topic is of great importance for the United List, because Israeli Arabs see themselves, correctly, as part of the Arab world, its culture, heritage and aspirations. Israeli Arabs have been trying for years to build bridges with the Arab world - from which they were cut off in 1948 by Israel's War of Independence - but the Arab world gave them the cold shoulder, considering them traitors for not fighting the Zionists day and night.

Some even called Israeli Arabs by derogatory names, such as "whipped cream Arabs" because of their lives in a democratic and peaceful country where they enjoy civil rights and turn their backs on their Palestinian and other Arab brothers.

From the seventies on, a trend towards the Palestinization of Israeli Arabs began to be discernible and today, many of them call themselves "Palestinians bearing Israeli citizenship". This is the source of the interesting dialectic with regard to their connections with the Arab world: on the one hand they are part and parcel of the "Palestinian nation," itself an honorary member of the Arab League, but on the other hand, they are citizens of Israel, a state that most of the Arab League members consider an enemy - and they do not want to relinquish their citizenship.

When the party received the League's invitation, party head Ayman Odeh was interviewed for the London Arabic paper Asharq Al-Awsat and said "I and my colleagues are proud to be Arabs and will never give that up, but we prefer to concentrate on internal issues at this time, so as to be able to withstand racist discrimination and the occupation. In the near future, we will find the way to meet our Arab League brothers. The United Arab List in Israel has decided not to accept the invitation to visit the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. I will not hide the fact that there is a debate and difference of opinion among the Arab parties in our homeland with regard to several issues that have to do with the situation in Syria and Yemen and we have not succeeded in resolving those differences. Since we don't wish to turn our visit into a divisive issue, we have decided – after a meeting of the four parties [on the United Arab List, ed.] – to put off our visit."

He continued: "I would like to make it clear to everyone that the Arab ethos is very important to us, and we have been looking for it, especially during the decades immediately following the Palestinian Naqba of 1948. We have followed what is happening in our Arab world attentively, and participate in its aspirations, because we see ourselves as an inseparable part of that world. We hope that this connection will get stronger, but will also take our special situation into account. We are happy to see that our Arab brothers have begun to evince an interest in us and in connecting with us…"

Another party source said to Asharq Al-Awsat: "Some of our leaders fear the criticism of the Arab street in Israel, which in the past has accused its representatives of concentrating on external matters at the expense of urgent local matters that are important to Israeli Arabs." His intention is to concentrate on conventional topics that interest Israeli Arabs, such as opposing the destruction of illegal buildings. The Arab leadership plans a demonstration in Tel Aviv on this issue, with Jewish support, mostly from the soul weary residents of Tel Aviv.

The Arab League's interest in the United Arab List was aroused when the party came in third place in the Knesset elections and might therefore be able to influence issues that the League wishes to promote, such as negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian state and an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.  The idea of joining up with the Arab League was raised in a meeting that the list's representatives held with Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on April 18th , at which he also delivered the League's invitation.

The invitation led to an argument between the parties that make up the list because the original invitation stated the meeting place as Doha, Qatar. In the Arab  world, Qatar's status is troublesome because of the role it played in the storm that has hit the entire Arab World. Starting in 2010 as the misnamed  "Arab Spring", it turned into a catastrophic storm that left hundreds of thousands dead in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq and created the vacuum that allowed the Islamic State to be established on the ruins of Syria and Iraq. A trip to Qatar might be seen as supportive of its actions and might anger the Saudis, Egypt and the Emirates, the countries leading the attempt to restrain Qatar and especially the terrorist media network it runs, Al Jazeera. It is important to mention that among Israeli Arab citizens of Israel, there are not a few who strongly criticize Qatar for its part in destabilizing the internal situation in Syria, thereby causing harm to many of their relatives, Palestinian refugees, who lived in Syria - mainly in the Yarmouk camp in southern Damascus which turned into a city of ruins.
Another possibility raised was for the United List MKs to visit the Arab League's headquarters in Cairo, but this idea, understandably, did not sit well with the Islamic Movement's representatives because of the Egyptian government's campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological "parent" of the Islamic Movement in Israel. A trip to Egypt while it is under the rule of Al Sisi might be seen by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as an indication that Israel's Islamic Movement supports the current regime.

An additional reason preventing the List's MKs from accepting the Arab League's invitation is the war in Yemen between the government and the Shiite militia of the Houthis, who have Iranian support in the form of weapons, arms, money and political backing. A visit to Egypt or Qatar would force the United List members to express their support for the Sunni Arab Coalition battling the Shiite power loyal to Iran. The problem facing the United List is that expressing opposition to Iran's efforts to take over Yemen might be understood as support - even oblique support - for Netanyahu's efforts to control Iran and its goal of achieving regional hegemony by developing nuclear weapons. The last thing the United Arab List needs is to seem to take a position that parallels that of Netanyahu.  The party's Mks understand the boundaries that limit their activities and know that taking a stand on controversial issues could destabilize the party and endanger its continued unity. One of its members said: "We are trying to design a strategic plan for our parliamentary activities, and are well aware of the hopes our constituency has placed in us. Sometimes we feel that these hopes are way above our actual ability and powers, because voters speak to us as if we succeeded in gaining Israel's premiership.  They expect us to succeed in accomplishing things that are unattainable in the current Israeli political reality and it is imperative that our brothers in Israel and abroad temper their expectations to conform with that reality."

it is interesting to point out that no meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has taken place, although the United List's members have twice been invited to meet him. It seems that this issue, the relationship with the right leaning government that is coalescing over the last few days, is another area of internal conflict among the List's members. Note that the United Arab List does not see itself as part of the Israeli left, especially since the Labor Party and Tzipi Livni's party called themselves the "Zionist Camp". How could an Arab list join forces with a bloc calling itself "Zionist"? Even Meretz is Zionist, a fact which prevented the United List from signing a surplus votes agreement with that party. Even before the elections took place, one of the United Arab List heads announced "We are not in anyone's pockets, not even the Left's."

All of this gives rise to a rather sad picture. It is becoming apparent that forming a United Arab List and running jointly in the elections - a difficult task for parties with differing political and cultural agendas - is still easier than elucidating a strategy for joint parliamentary activity within the state and vis a vis external entities. The desire to remain united forces the members of the list to control themselves, to consider one another's opinions and to limit their activities to the ability of their colleagues to live with these activities. That means that the party's activities are limited to the common denominator of promoting the needs of the Arab sector in Israel. The specter of the parties splitting into their original formats looms in the background, but it is understood that in the next elections, Arab voters will punish whoever causes the United Arab List's disintegration. As a result, the situation that has ensued is one of near paralysis and of limited ability, at best, to take advantage of the party's size in the current Knesset.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar


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

IS Seizes Major Dam as Sectarian Bombings Strike Baghdad - Olivia McCoy

by Olivia McCoy

This location is key for the Islamic State because it can be used  as a transit point for supplies and forces through Anbar, which IS continues to dominate, to other provinces. Additionally, the area surrounding the dam and the Lake Tharthar can be utilized for launching attacks on both Shiite militias and Iraqi regular forces.

At least eight people were killed in Baghdad Wednesday morning as a result of several bombings occurring in and around the capital. The largest attack was in a commercial area in the neighborhood of Amiriyah. In this attack alone, 3 civilians were killed and another 12 were wounded.

One bomb targeted a convoy of Shiite militiamen, killed two fighters and wounded four more. The Shiite militias have been integral to the force the Iraqi government has utilized against the Islamic State.

Attacks on Sunday, the 26th of April, claimed the lives of 12 civilians. Five people were killed as a result of a car bomb parked in front of a Sunni mosque.

Also on Sunday, the Islamic State’s major news outlet, Amaq News, released a video showing Islamic State fighters near the Tharthar dam. Baghdad lies just 75 miles south of the Tharthar dam. The video documented the result of an attack on the dam and military base nearby.

The video documented  slain Iraqi soldiers, as well as Islamic State fighters manning the military base with an ISIS flag flying above. It has been reported that 127 Iraqi soldiers were killed during this attack and that the Islamic State has now gained control in the area.

This location is key for the Islamic State because it can be used  as a transit point for supplies and forces through Anbar, which IS continues to dominate, to other provinces. Additionally, the area surrounding the dam and the Lake Tharthar can be utilized for launching attacks on both Shiite militias and Iraqi regular forces.

Next, the dam controls the flow of water from both Lake Tharthar and Habaniya into the Tigris River, which lies to the west of Baghdad. Control of the dam could mean flooding if Islamic State chooses to open the dam’s gates or drought if they choose to refuse to let any water through as the summer season begins. Islamic State has previously been documented to use water as weapon.

While the Iraqi forces have made large strides by putting more effort into reclaiming territory from the Islamic State, they have been unable to fend the jihadists off entirely, and the need to stage and coordinate large numbers of troops and equipment in order to seize key IS-held cities and towns (as was the case in Tikrit) has enabled Islamic State to conduct operations and achieve successes in other areas.

Olivia McCoy


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