Saturday, November 28, 2015

Stop the Jihad on Campus Campaign Combats Pro-Terror Groups - Mark Tapson

by Mark Tapson

Exposing the true motivations of terrorist proxies and challenging their genocidal propaganda.

Two weeks ago, a series of posters was placed anonymously on the campuses of George Washington University and American University in Washington, D.C. and those of UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego in Southern California. The images were hashtagged #StopTheJihadOnCampus and pulled no punches in denouncing a pair of campus organizations for what they are: supporters of violent, Jew-hating jihad.

One poster depicted a bloody knife and photos of children being trained to become terrorists. Referring to a group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the caption read, “Students for ‘Justice’ in Palestine: Supporting a Culture that Teaches Children to Slaughter Jews.” A second poster linked the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national campus organization. A third targeted the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the current “stabbing intifada” in Israel with the image of a bloody knife stabbing a Star of David. Its caption read, “The Real BDS: Boycott, Divest, Stab.”

Naturally, the posters sparked instant controversy and angry condemnations, because the campus supporters of jihad weren’t accustomed to having their agenda challenged or being caught in the harsh spotlight of truth. In response to the discovery of the posters, the Hillel organization at American University predictably issued a statement decrying them as threatening, “Islamophobic” hate speech and condemning “any efforts to demonize any racial or religious group.” Likewise, the statement from the Students for Justice in Palestine at American University labeled the posters as “the intimidation tactics of bigoted ideologues,” as “falsehoods” propagated about BDS (which the statement described as “the epitome of effective non-violent resistance”), and as “vitriolic, hateful rhetoric deliberately targeting Muslims, Arabs, those who may appear Muslim, and supporters of Palestinian rights.”

The following week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center took credit for distributing the posters as part of a major campus initiative called Stop the Jihad on Campus. The poster campaign targeted SJP and MSA, both of which were spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist organization that launched al-Qaeda and Hamas. As a Freedom Center statement put it, both groups “are the chief campus sponsors” of the BDS movement “designed to destroy the Jewish state.”

UCLA’s Daily Bruin posted an article labeling the “offensive posters” as Islamophobic, to which David Horowitz himself responded with a letter in the Bruin correcting that and other “misleading impressions” in the initial article. "Shame on the students who spread the genocidal lies of Hamas on the UCLA campus," he wrote. "Shame on them for supporting the 70-plus-year Arab aggression against the Jewish state and the 70-plus-year oppression of Palestinian Arabs by Fatah and Hamas."

It is typical of these campus supporters of terrorism to attempt to suppress their critics by falsely accusing them of racism and Islamophobia, even though no racial or religious group was specified in the poster campaign. The posters were aimed at the two campus groups not because their membership is entirely Muslim (it’s not), but because they hold “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” spread Jew-hating propaganda, support intifadas like the current one in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and support terrorist parties in Gaza and the West Bank that call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews of the Middle East.

The Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign seeks to raise awareness of how such anti-Israel terrorists have infiltrated American universities, spreading terrorist propaganda and messages, with university funding and support. Along those lines, it offers teach-ins to raise student awareness and combat pro-terrorist propaganda on American campuses. It has since gone on to post a list of the “Top 10 American universities most friendly to terrorists.”

The campaign’s demands are simple: no campus support for jihad terrorists, no campus privileges for anti-Israel hate groups, and no student funding for apartheid hate weeks. “Our goal in placing these posters on prominent campuses across America,” explains David Horowitz, “is to expose the true motivations of these terrorist proxy-groups and challenge their genocidal propaganda.” He continues:

These terrorist support groups are afforded campus privileges, including university offices and the right to hold events on campus grounds that would be denied to any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels.
Below are photos from the "Palestinian Wall of Lies" display recently set up at the University of South Dakota in conjunction with the Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign, as part of the Freedom Center's efforts to counteract campus propaganda. The Wall lists and then debunks the major Palestinian lies about Israel and the Jews, which are often propagated unquestioned by the mainstream media and swallowed whole by impressionable college students. Needless to say, the Wall has proven to be quite a conversation piece whenever it has appeared on American campuses awash in leftist indoctrination about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To donate to Stop the Jihad on Campus, click here.

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of


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

Turkey: Wrong Partner to Fight Terror - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

  • In Erdogan's usual Sunni supremacist language, he accused the victims of jihad rather than the jihadists.
  • "New tragedies will be inevitable," Erdogan said, "if the rising racism in Europe and other countries is not stopped." Yet Erdogan willingly ignores the rising racism, xenophobia, and anti-western, jihadist sentiments that increasingly command the hearts and minds of his fellow Turks.
  • How should Erdogan fight Islamic terror -- something he does not believe exists? One of Erdogan's famous remarks is, "there is no Islamic terror." But he thinks that "just like fascism," Zionism is a crime against humanity.
  • It is so funny that the free world cannot see that its ally in fighting the jihadists is another jihadist.

Racism is bad, no doubt. But it cannot be the reason why jihadists kill "infidels," including fellow Muslims in Muslim lands. Sadly, the free world feels compelled to partner with the wrong country in its fight against Islamic terror.

The host of this year's G-20 summit, which came right after the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, was Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In his usual Sunni supremacist language, he accused the victims of jihad rather than the jihadists. "New tragedies will be inevitable," he said, "if the rising racism in Europe and other countries is not stopped. Racism, coupled with enmity against Islam, is the greatest disaster, the greatest threat."

Yet Erdogan willingly ignores the rising racism, xenophobia, and anti-western, jihadist sentiments that increasingly command the hearts and minds of his fellow Turks. A quick look at a few sports games and fan behavior in recent weeks would reveal much about the Turkish mind and heart.

On October 13, three days after a twin suicide bomb attack in Turkey's capital, Ankara, killed more than 100 Kurds and pro-Kurdish, leftist and secular Turks, the central Anatolian province of Konya, a hotbed of political Islam in Turkey, hosted a Euro 2016 football qualifier between Turkey and Iceland. Before the kick-off, both teams stood for a moment of silence to protest the bomb attack -- a typical gesture to respect the victims. Sadly, the moment of silence was marred by whistles and jeers: apparently the football fans of Konya were protesting the victims, not their jihadist killers.

Anyone under the impression that the whole world stands in solidarity with Paris should think again. Hundreds of Turkish fans booed and chanted "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is greater" in Arabic) during a moment of silence for the Paris attack victims before a Turkey-Greece soccer friendly. Once again, the Turks were exhibiting solidarity with the terrorists, not their "infidel" victims.

More recently, on Nov. 21, Turkish police had to deploy 1,500 policemen so that Turkish fans could not harm the visiting Israeli women's national basketball team. One thousand five hundred police officers at a women's basketball game! Despite that, Turkish fans threw objects at Israeli players as they were singing Israel's national anthem. Fans also booed the Israeli players while others applauded the fans who threw the objects.

Unsurprisingly, Turkish fans waved Palestinian flags. Israeli women basketball players were barred from leaving their hotel other than for training and the game.

None of that is surprising although, at least in theory, Turkey is a candidate state for membership in the European Union. A new study by Pew Research Center revealed that 8% of Turks have a favorable opinion of the Islamic State (IS), higher than in the Palestinian territories, where support for IS stands at 6%, and only one point lower than in Pakistan. Nineteen percent of Turks "do not know" if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of IS -- which means 27% of Turks do not have an unfavorable opinion of the jihadist killing machine. That makes more than 21 million people! Of the countries polled, Lebanon boasted a 100% unfavourable opinion of IS and Jordan, 94%. In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, 4% reported a favourable opinion of IS, half of Turkey's.

This is Erdogan's "neo-Ottoman" and increasingly Islamist Turkey. After the Paris attacks, this author saw tweets that called the victims "animal carcass;" that said "now the infidels will lose their sleep out of fear;" and others that congratulated the terrorists "who shouted Allah-u aqbar."

Meanwhile, and so funny, the free world cannot see that its ally to fight the jihadists is another jihadist. How should Erdogan fight Islamic terror – something he does not believe exists? One of Erdogan's famous remarks is, "there is no Islamic terror." But he thinks that "just like fascism," Zionism is a crime against humanity.

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. One of Erdogan's famous remarks is, "there is no Islamic terror." (Image source: Turkey Prime Minister's Press Office)

There is a Turkish saying that could perhaps describe the free world's alliance with Erdogan's Turkey against jihadist terror: "Kuzuyu kurda emanet etmek" ("to trust the wolf with the sheep").
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

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

Lessons from the Pollard Saga - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

A great victory for Israel's enemies in Washington.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Even before the dust settled on last Friday’s happy headlines proclaiming that after 30 years in federal prison, Jonathan Pollard was being released, we discovered that his release wasn’t the end of his sad saga.
Pollard’s parole conditions are draconian. For the next five years he will be under curfew, barred from stepping outside his apartment after 7 pm. He is prohibited from surfing the Internet. Anyone hiring him will be required to allow law enforcement authorities full access to their computers. Pollard already lost one job due to this condition.

Pollard is prohibited from leaving the US, or even from leaving New York. Even the smallest infraction on his parole conditions is liable to send him back to the slammer In other words, Pollard moved from a federal prison to house arrest.

The injustice screaming out from Pollard’s parole conditions force us to recall the long injustice he has suffered at the hands of very specific parts of the American establishment. The story that everyone wishes to put behind us, remains excruciatingly familiar.

From 1983 until his arrest in 1985, as a US naval analyst, Pollard served as an Israeli agent and unlawfully transferred classified information to Israel, a US ally. The normal prison sentence for Pollard’s offense is 2-5 years. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison.

Generally speaking, convicted agents of allied nations serve their prison sentences in minimum- security prisons under relatively easy conditions. Pollard spent ten years in solitary confinement at a maximum security prison.

Generally, prisoners receive early parole for good behavior and if they express sincere regret for their crimes.

Pollard was denied early parole despite the fact that he was a consistently exemplary prisoner and repeatedly – indeed continuously – expressed his sincere remorse for his offense.

Despite the fact that Israel is the US’s closest ally in the Middle East, none of the five presidents who served while Pollard sat in jail agreed to grant him clemency.

And today, President Barack Obama has made clear that he will not intervene with federal prison authorities to ease Pollard’s parole conditions or allow him to move to Israel.

The American Jewish community’s response to Pollard’s self-evidently discriminatory parole terms has been muted. Only Pollard’s lawyers and a handful of other voices have spoken out publicly against them. This is not in the least surprising.

For the past 30 years and still today, the Pollard affair has served as a warning to American Jewry. The Pollard case taught them that their acceptance as full Americans is conditional. In many ways, as Pollard, American Jewry has been on parole. The same forces that railroaded Pollard into a life sentence, and the same forces that are keeping him under house arrest today – can turn on a dime. Speak out too forcefully on Israel’s behalf, and you will be crushed like a bug.

If the message wasn’t clear enough, in 2004 we had the phony AIPAC spy scandal to drive it home.

The so-called spy scandal wrecked the careers and reputations of three innocent men – DIA analyst Lawrence Franklin, AIPAC policy director Steve Rosen, and AIPAC’s senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman. It besmirched the institutional standing and reputation of the largest American Jewish pro-Israel organization. It harmed the Israeli embassy. And it intimidated all Jewish Americans who supported Israel and served in the national security community.

The bottom line of the scandal, which unfolded over the course of five years, was that the FBI attempted to criminalize normal activities carried out by law-abiding, patriotic Americans who supported Israel.

Franklin transferred information to Rosen and Weissman just as federal officials trade information with lobbyists in Washington every day. He met with Israeli diplomat Naor Gillon, because dealing with Israeli embassy officials was part of his job. There was no criminal intent on the part of any of the people involved. The charges against Rosen and Weissman were thrown out.

And Franklin, who agreed to a plea bargain after his family was threatened, and was initially sentenced to 12 years in prison, had his term reduced to ten months of house arrest.

Pollard’s name lurked in the air throughout the sordid affair. The underlying message of the probe and the subsequent criminal trials was that as far as the powers that be in Washington are concerned, Jews who supported Israel while working on national security issues were inherently untrustworthy.

Outside Franklin, Rosen and Weissman, the primary victims of the fake spy case were the Jews in the Bush administration’s national security apparatus, who found themselves under around-the-clock surveillance, and AIPAC, which was tarred as the agent of a foreign government with nefarious motivations.

Not surprisingly, Pollard is the object of intense hatred by many Jews in Washington who blame him for their suffering. But of course, his punishment was far greater than his crime. The forces that tried to criminalize AIPAC and the Jews of Washington in 2004 were the same ones that sent Pollard to prison for life for an offense that should have landed him 2-5 years in the big house.

Pollard committed a serious offense. But he didn’t commit the original sin.

At any rate, the Pollard affair and the so-called AIPAC spy scandal both taught us that there are powerful forces in the American national security bureaucracy who do not like Israel and who believe that American Jews who support Israel are inherently disloyal. For these forces, who seem to comprise a permanent anti-Israel lobby in the State Department, FBI, CIA and Pentagon, unlike Italian Americans or Irish Americans who support their mother countries, Jewish Americans who support Israel are suspect.

This then brings us to Israel.

The Pollard affair’s lessons for Israel relate both to our relations with the American Jewish community and to the US government.

Israelis have always had a childlike tendency to view the American Jewish community as all-powerful. While it is true that the American Jewish community is more powerful than any other Diaspora community, it is far from all-powerful. The pressures exerted on the community in everything related to US Jewish support for the Jewish state require Israel to be careful about involving American Jews in serious disputes between Jerusalem and Washington.

This past summer we saw how hard it is for the US Jewish establishment to stand up for Israel, when doing so is the least bit controversial.

Although most major Jewish American organizations eventually announced their opposition to Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, it took a long time for them to do so.

And even after they announced that they opposed it, they bent over backwards to make clear that they harbored no hard feelings towards ostensibly pro-Israel lawmakers who decided to support a deal that guarantees that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. AIPAC’s decision to host an event last month for Senator Chris Coons, a key supporter of the deal, showed just how eager American Jews are to move on and not hold anyone to account.

So too, the Jewish community’s failure to reject out-of-hand the mendacious claims that Israel is persecuting the Palestinians stem from a discomfort with an issue on which Israel and the administration are openly at odds.

As for the US government, generations of Israeli leaders have taken American declarations of ironclad devotion to Israel’s security at face value. When American leaders, like former president Bill Clinton or former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice raised the possibility of signing a mutual defense treaty with Israel if we gave up the Jordan Valley or Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights, many Israeli leaders – particularly on the Left – thought that it would be a good trade-off. After all, we can trust America.

And in many ways, we can trust America. For instance, the US is Israel’s largest military supplier. Many of our military platforms are made in the US. US military aid to Israel has been more or less steady for decades. The US is Israel’s only defender at the UN.

Because of the US, Israel has avoided becoming subject to economic sanctions and even military actions that would in all likelihood pass through the Security Council in the absence of a US veto.

Having the US as a strategic ally has enhanced Israel’s deterrent power in the region. As the US withdrawal from the region under Obama has shown, the vacuum formed by the US retreat from Iraq and from the Persian Gulf more generally has enabled the rise of forces from the Muslim Brotherhood to Iran to Islamic State that are all dedicated to the annihilation of Israel.

While Israel’s alliance with the US is real and significant, Pollard’s story exposes its limitations.

It warns us that while secretaries of state proclaim their eternal concern and friendship for Israel, there are officials whispering in their ears that Israel is the source of instability in the Middle East and that due to the support Israel enjoys from American Jewry, America’s ability to secure its interests in the Middle East is impaired. The weaker both US Jewry and Israel are, the better off America will be, they are told.

Unfortunately, more often than not, when Israelis aren’t pretending that these forces don’t exist, they tend to view them as all-powerful.

So it is that the same Israeli officials – again, predominately on the Left – who insist that Israel can trust US security guarantees because the US will never waver in its commitment to Israel, also insist that Israel must never act in opposition to the US. So long as the US opposes destroying Iran’s nuclear installations, Israel, they insist, must not raise a finger against them.

So long as the US supports a Palestinian state, they insist that Israel must carry on as if the so-called two-state solution is possible, let along good for Israel.

Obviously, both positions are simplistic and wrong. For the past 30 years, as Pollard suffered in prison, and Israel’s position in the US remained under constant assault by its opponents in the bureaucracy, Israel’s relations with the US expanded and deepened. The level of US popular support for Israel has grown from year to year.

Pollard’s story tells us that we need to grow up. The US is a great ally, but our alliance with America is no substitute for national power.

As an ally, we should take US concerns into account where we can, and act independently where we must. Pollard’s case was a great victory for our enemies in Washington. And they will score additional ones in the future. But so will our friends. And so will we.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


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

The Islamic Republic’s Intensifying War on America - Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

. . .And the Obama administration's view of Iran as a loyal partner in peace.

As the Obama administration continues to trust the Islamic Republic and project it as a rational state actor or constructive regional player, Iranian ruling clerics are devising other plans for the United States.

After the nuclear deal was reached, Iran launched a series of unprecedented and sophisticated cyber attacks against State Department officials. Iranian hackers, who are linked to the government, gained access to some of the State Department officials’ emails and social media accounts.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, has the capabilities to conduct such espionage acts of cyberwarfare against the American government.

The Islamic republic’s military is aware of  top secret confidential information, particularly information that is related to US foreign policy towards the Middle East and Iran. Some of the officials who have been targeted are those who inform US policies towards Iran.

As one senior American official told the New York Times, “It was very carefully designed and showed the degree to which they understood which of our staff was working on Iran issues now that the nuclear deal is done.”

The Islamic Republic is now joining Russia, China, and North Korea in orchestrating new ways to endanger US national security as well as inflicting billions of dollars in damages.  Previously, Iran inflicted damages by infiltrating the system of other governmental institutions and gaining access to state’s secrets. According to a new report by a leading Israeli cyber security firm, ClearSky Cyber Security, the Islamic Republic has stepped up its cyber attacks and hacked into several governments including Israel.

Intriguingly, State Department officials were not even aware of the Iranian hackers' access to their accounts till Facebook informed them through the message, “We believe your Facebook account and your other online accounts may be the target of attacks by state-sponsored actors.”

Nevertheless, Iran’s cyber attacks and cyber espionage seem to be slanted in a much more immoral direction than those of Russia and China. For example, the hacks have focused on communicating with third parties through the victims accounts and by “using the social media accounts of young government employees to gain access to their friends across the administration.”

In fact, the email and social media accounts of Mr. Jason Rezaian - who was sentenced to prison for “espionage” - and his wife’s accounts were hacked by Iranian authorities. Intriguingly, after the sentencing, IRGC tested a ballistic missile which appears to be designed to carry nuclear warheads.

Iranian leaders are attempting to inflict destructive measures on the US through methods that are less likely to prompt a military response from Washington. As James Lewis, Director of the cyber program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, pointed out, “they [Iranians] are getting far more aggressive in cyber espionage, which they know is less likely to prompt a response from the United States.”

So, what has been the proportionate response from the White House? The Obama administration is ignoring such attacks and Secretary State John Kerry continues to argue that there is going to be hopefully more cooperation between the Islamic Republic and the US.

Normally, these kinds of cyber attacks and espionage trigger sanctions against the country which conducted them. But the administration continues to emphasize that the nuclear agreement will stay intact and sanctions will be lifted regardless of Iran’s actions. The administration will free up billions of dollars to the Iranian government as a result of this deal. This will undoubtedly further empower and embolden the Iranian military to increasingly damage US national security.

The Iranian hackers are often trained by the Russian government. As part of his charm offensive towards Tehran’s anti-Americanism, Putin met with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this week, and gave him a copy of an old handwritten Quran. Coincidentally, Moscow lifted the ban on tech export to Iran on the same day that Putin arrived in Iran. Moscow and Tehran are drawing into a closer relationship due to their mutual rivalry with the United States. Iran’s hardline media outlets, including Keyhan’s newspaper, raved about Russia-Iran intensified cooperation. In addition, Putin announced that Russia is ready to provide a $5 billion state loan to Tehran and increase trade in several areas, including energy and railway electrification. But, more fundamentally, Russia and Iran are ratcheting up arms and nuclear sales. As Putin announced, his country will resume exporting nuclear technology to Iran, modernizing the heavy water reactor in Arak, and will support Tehran in exchanging additional and highly enriched uranium.

Congress needs to pass a bill which will put pressure on Iranian governmental institutions (including IRGC) that are engaged in such attacks. Otherwise, we are sending a message to the ruling clerics that the US leadership is weak and will not respond to any aggression by Iran.

It remains to be seen when the Obama administration will take the necessary measures against the Islamic Republic and refrain from viewing the ruling Islamist clerics as trustful partners. 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, is president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University. Rafizadeh is also a former senior fellow at the Nonviolence International Organization based in Washington, DC and is a member of the Gulf Project at Columbia University. He can be reached at Follow Rafizadeh at @majidrafizadeh.


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

The question we should be asking on Syrian refugees - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

 The American people are far ahead of their elites in seeing the problem, even though our media, like the French and other Euromeadia, generally ignores the problematic aspects of not just Islamic culture, but the scriptural religion itself. 

Andrew McCarthy’s column on Syrian refugees and the broader topic of asylum is the read of the day.  With his characteristic knowledge and incisiveness, the former prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh for the first World Trade Center bombing gets to the heart of the issue.  Few excerpts will convey the importance of this work, which should be read in its whole.
What happens in France happens in Belgium. It happens in Sweden where much of Malmo, the third largest city, is controlled by Muslim immigrant gangs — emergency medical personnel attacked routinely enough that they will not respond to calls without police protection, and the police in turn unwilling to enter without back-up. Not long ago in Britain, a soldier was killed and nearly beheaded in broad daylight by jihadists known to the intelligence services; dozens of sharia courts now operate throughout the country, even as Muslim activists demand more accommodations. And it was in Germany, which green-lighted Europe’s ongoing influx of Muslim migrants, that Turkey’s Islamist strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan proclaimed that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in their new Western countries is “a crime against humanity.”
So how many of us look across the ocean at Europe and say, “Yeah, let’s bring some of that here”?
None of us with any sense. Alas, “bring it here” is the order of the day in Washington, under the control of leftists bent on fundamentally transforming America (Muslims in America overwhelmingly support Democrats) and the progressive-lite GOP, which fears the “Islamophobia” smear nearly as much as the “racist” smear.
The American people are far ahead of their elites in seeing the problem, even though our media, like the French and other Euromeadia, generally ignores the problematic aspects of not just Islamic culture, but the scriptural religion itself.  Guided by a refugee policy begin by Jimmy Carter (of course!), the United States has been importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims as refugees and asylum-seekers.  And the vetting is worse than useless:
Washington, in its delusional Islamophilia, vets only for ties to terrorism, which it defines as “violent extremism” in purblind denial of modern terrorism’s Islamist ideological moorings. As the deteriorating situation in Europe manifests, our actual challenge is Islamic supremacism, of which jihadist terrorism is only a subset.
For nearly a quarter-century, our bipartisan governing class has labored mightily to suppress public discussion of the undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism. Consequently, many Americans are still in the dark about sharia, classical Islam’s societal framework and legal code. We should long ago have recognized sharia as the bright line that separates authentic Muslim moderates, hungry for the West’s culture of reason and individual liberty, from Islamic supremacists, resistant to Western assimilation and insistent on incremental accommodation of Muslim law and mores.
The promotion of constitutional principles and civic education has always been foundational to the American immigration and naturalization process. We fatally undermine this process by narrowly vetting for terrorism rather than sharia adherence.
Yes, I can already hear the slander: “You are betraying our commitment to religious liberty.” Please. Even if there were anything colorable to this claim, we are talking about inquiring into the beliefs of aliens who want to enter our country, not citizens entitled to constitutional protections.
As McCarthy notes, what Americans recognize as the religious sphere is far narrower than what Islam does.  Islam is a comprehensive political and social doctrine, one in utter conflict with our Constitution.  And the nations from which we are importing refugees have very large majorities in favor of sharia as the organizing principle of society.  Even of Muslims born in the U.S., support for sharia is alarmingly strong.
… since we are vetting for terrorism rather than sharia-adherence, and since we know a significant number of Muslims are sharia-adherent, we are missing the certainty that we are importing an ever-larger population hostile to our society and our Constitution — a population that has been encouraged by influential Islamist scholars and leaders to form Muslim enclaves throughout the West.
This leads seamlessly to the second reason why the influx of refugees is calamitous. Not only are we vetting for the wrong thing, we are ignoring the dynamics of jihadism. The question is not whether we are admitting Muslims who currently have ties to terrorist organizations; it is whether we are admitting Muslims who are apt to become violent jihadists after they settle here.
Adherence to Islam is what sociologists and criminologists like to call a “risk factor,” for accepting the doctrines of sharia leads one toward violence.  Not in every case.  And not right away.  But the very substance of the doctrine is such that we are justified in screening for it.  As McCarthy concludes:
...there is nothing obligatory about any immigration policy, including asylum. There is no global right to come here. American immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interests of the United States. Right now, American immigration policy is serving the interests of immigrants at the expense of American national security and the financial security of distressed American workers.
Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson


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

Longtime Belgian Mayor: A Godfather of Jihad? - Stefan Frank

by Stefan Frank

  • "Instead of bombing Raqqah, France should be bombing Molenbeek." — Eric Zemmour, French journalist.
  • No one, at least outside Belgium, is talking about Molenbeek's long-time anti-Semitic mayor and the alliance with radical Islamists that secured his power.
  • The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size -- an astounding concentration.
  • "[T]here are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca." — Resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner.
  • The many shops run by Jews suddenly disappeared in 2008 after harassment and threats by local "youths." How did Mayor Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the "right to diversity."
  • It is supposed to be Israel's fault when the Arabs of Belgium -- and especially those of Molenbeek -- have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party.
The Molenbeek district of Brussels is considered Europe's "terrorist factory." At least three of the perpetrators of the November terrorist attacks in Paris came from there: Ibrahim Abdeslam, Abdelhamid Abaaoud and the remaining fugitive Salah Abdeslam. The list does not stop there. The Viennese daily newspaper "Die Presse" writes:
"Molenbeek already made headlines for the first time in 2001: Abdessatar Dahmane, the murderer of the Afghan war hero and horror of the Taliban, Ahmed Schah Massoud, was also a regular at the Islamic center at 18 Rue du Manchester, known for its radical views; as well as Hassan El Haski, who was presumed behind the attacks in Casablanca (41 dead in 2003) and Madrid (200 victims in 2004). The weapons that were used in the attacks on the French satirical paper "Charlie Hebdo" in January 2015 came from Molenbeek. The French jihadist Mehdi Nemouche, who caused a bloodbath in the Brussels Jewish Museum the previous year, lived here. In August 2015, Ayoub El Khazzani started out from here on his attempt to attack a train from Amsterdam to Paris."
The two jihadists killed by Belgian police in January, in Verviers, came from Molenbeek. The terrorist Amedy Coulibaly, who attacked the HyperCacher kosher supermarket in Paris, also spent time in Molenbeek.

The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size -- an astounding concentration. Belgium is, in relation to the size of its population, the greatest European exporter of fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Most of them -- at least 48 -- come from Molenbeek. "Instead of bombing Raqqah," says the French journalist Eric Zemmour, "France should be bombing Molenbeek."

More than half the population of Molenbeek is Muslim; a quarter come from Morocco -- such as the Paris attackers. "You know, there are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca," says a resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner of the French news portal "Atlantico." Gaetner does consider that "surely an exaggeration," but admits: "When one walks the streets of this Brussels district, with its nearly 96,000 residents, one is overcome by a bizarre impression. Not only would you think you were no longer in the Kingdom of Belgium, but an oppressive atmosphere reigns here."

Foreign reporters are only now discovering Molenbeek. Those who have to live there have been complaining about the conditions there for a long time. The following excerpt is from a report by the Belgian weekly magazine Le Vif L'Express from 2011:
Buildings in danger of collapsing, street corners that are becoming landfills, a parked car rusts away in a parking lot: Urban renewal would be helpful here. "This is a gangster district. Here you get beat up for five Euros," says Karim. The shopkeeper is not happy. He talks about how he recently chased a teenager with a knife in his hand, who had stolen cigarettes. This scene took place just steps away from the Ribaucourt subway station. "The Rue Piers is not safe at this hour," says a young woman, who after 6pm either makes sure she is accompanied home, or else takes a taxi. She has been living with friends in an apartment in the district for three years. The apartment is large, and not too expensive. "But I am always vigilant," she says. Especially when she is wearing a skirt. "Insults, spitting, groping: I have experienced that." Other residents are moving out. "My house was burglarized twice within one year," says a witness. "When I go to the supermarket around the corner, I double-lock the door and turn on the alarm."
Testimonials to a city in fear. Much of the responsibility for this apparently rests with Philippe Moureaux, member of the Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste), who was mayor of Molenbeek from 1992 until 2012. Confronted with the complaints of his citizens, he regularly denied the unsustainable conditions in his town: "It makes me angry when people pick out tiny details and lie about them," he said in the quoted report. Molenbeek is "not the Bronx;" the problems with criminality only concern a small number of streets, said Moureaux.

Then Moureaux showed his true colors: "Molenbeek is a symbol that certain people want to destroy. But only over my dead body." Certain people? Does the mayor actually believe in a conspiracy against his district of misery? One does not have to search for long to realize that Moureaux, on whose initiative Belgium passed an "anti-racism law" in 1981, is an anti-Semite -- not exactly common even in Belgium. At the same time, he downplays and supports the violence of young Muslims -- also against Jews.

Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), suspected by French authorities of masterminding this month's terrorist attacks in Paris, is -- like many terrorists in Europe -- from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux (right) was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.

There was heavy rioting in 2009 during Ramadan in Molenbeek. Muslim youths set up barricades made of burning tires, set cars ablaze, threw rocks at firefighters who came to put out fires and, equipped with rocks and crowbars, looted stores. According to unconfirmed reports, the police received the following order: "Do not provoke them, do not search them, do not intervene, even if dozens of them come together, do not issue warnings for harassment, not even if they throw rocks at you."

Jewish shop-owners were also harassed other than at Ramadan. In 2008, the Flemish magazine Dag Allemaal reported on "youths" yelling, "The Jews are our worst enemies," in the streets of Molenbeek. There used be many stores run by Jews on the Rue du Prado and the Chaussée de Grand in Molenbeek, but in 2008, with the exception of one furniture store, they suddenly disappeared. And nobody seemed bothered by this, especially not Mayor Moureaux.

None of the Jews wanted to speak with the Dag Allemaal reporter, out of fear of reprisals. The one exception was a man whom the paper referred to as "René." René ran a barbershop for over 30 years in the Chaussée de Gand. Then came a series of acts of violence. It began with graffiti on his shop's windows: "Sale youpin" ("dirty Jew") and other anti-Semitic slogans. Later on, six Muslim youths stormed into his shop, destroyed the furnishings and punched René in the face. He called the police. An hour later, the youths returned in order to "punish" him; they broke all the mirrors. For more than 35 years, René had built up a large and loyal customer base, but after this attack, most people were afraid to visit his shop. He had no other choice but to close it.

How did Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the "right to diversity." That is what he said in 2008, in the weekly paper Le Vif L'Express. It was a report with the title: "Enquête Moureaux, Shérif de Molenbeek, drogué du pouvoir - Son islamo-municipalisme" ("The Moureaux Investigation: Sheriff of Molenbeek, addicted to power -- His Islamo-municipalism"). That he was "addicted to power" ("drogué du pouvoir") were his own words. The paper described him as a "soaring intellectual, university professor and brilliant minister, who resides in the beautiful Uccle district."

But back to Moureaux's Jews: At 20 years old, Moureaux was a Marxist, he said, and never accepted anybody's right to diversity; but he "evolved": "What changed my mind were talks with the representatives of the Jewish community. It saddens me today to see how they deny the Muslims the right to diversity."

This "right to diversity" was not granted to citizens by Moureaux during Ramadan. In a press release with the title, "Ramadan regulations for everyone," Moureaux appealed to citizens in August 2011 to stop driving into the center of Molenbeek in the afternoon during the month of Ramadan, because Muslims are doing their shopping there.

In January 2015, after the massacre of the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the murder of four Jews in Paris's HyperCacher supermarket, the now-retired mayor gave an interview to Maghreb TV, a channel broadcast via the internet, the target audience for which is North Africans in Belgium. After he made an appeal not to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few terrorists, it got wild:
"Many have an interest in dividing us. ... Unfortunately, these people can be found everywhere. There is a contagion of the problems of the Middle East, in the Near East, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which leads to some having an interest in provoking local disagreements, like a reflex to what happens over there. ... It will be said that it is coming from both sides. But it is obvious that they are trying to create hatred for Arabs here in the West, in order to justify the policies of the state of Israel, policies that appear unacceptable to me."
It is supposed to be Israel's fault when the Arabs of Belgium -- and especially those of Molenbeek -- have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party. In March 2013, the Socialists of Molenbeek issued an invitation to an event titled: "What if we freely and calmly spoke about Zionism?" On the invitation flyer was an anti-Semitic caricature, drawn in the style of Der Stürmer, by the Arabic neo-Nazi "Zéon." After loud protests, the Socialists cancelled the event -- on the grounds that the aspired-to "calm" discussion was unfortunately no longer possible.

Many examples can be listed to show what an anti-Semitic environment prevails in Molenbeek. In the official town magazine, "Molenbeek Info," one can find a text in which the Stalinist Party of Work calls for a celebration in honor of Dr. Hanne Bosselaers, who had just returned from Gaza: "Everybody come!" In Molenbeek, you need to know, there is a hospital run by Stalinists under the name "Medicine for the People" ("Medécine pour le peuple"), which in 2013 initiated a "partnership" with Al-Quds Hospital in Gaza. Consequently, Bosselaers had a lot to talk about. For example: "The Palestinians want us to boycott Israel."

And what did Dr. Bosselaers have to say about Hamas?
"Behind the attempt of some of our politicians to cast the Palestinian resistance organization in a negative light lies a political goal. Certain circles keep pointing out the "Islamic character" of Hamas, in the hope of keeping the population from forming solidarity with the Palestinians.... The Palestinian resistance is much greater than Hamas, and it is completely up to the Palestinians to decide which form of resistance they choose against their oppressors."
Welcome to Molenbeek. The jurist Etienne Dujardin recently wrote in the news portal that the conditions in Islamist terror districts such as Molenbeek, Verviers or Saint Denis also had something to do with the deliberate efforts of some politicians, who find welcome campaign workers in radical Islamic circles:
"[p]arties have been practicing a form of cronyism based on elections; they all used the same radical mosques as mouthpieces for their election campaigns. Some saw them as a massive pool of easily available votes."
And that is how it seems Mayor Moureaux observed that he could personally profit from the transformation of Molenbeek into a bastion of jihad. As he himself lives in a wealthy district, he was able to reject with great arrogance citizens who complained about excessive crime. He won elections by catering to radical Islam. Once again, the rule is confirmed: If someone agitates against Israel, it is always a symptom of other serious character flaws in that person. Behind the anti-Israel agitation of Moureaux lay a corrupt mayor, who only cared for his office and his income; who, as he himself said, was "addicted to power." That his town was transforming into a hell of criminality, anti-Semitism and Sharia, he either did not care about or actually welcomed. Those who fled from Molenbeek could no longer participate; and those who moved there liked what Moureaux was doing: encouraging Islamization and agitating against Israel and Jews. This is how Molenbeek became, during the term in office of just one man, what it is today.
Originally published in German in slightly different form by Audiatur Online.

Stefan Frank


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

Ex-envoy: Obama brought 'radical Muslim values' into White House - Ari Yashar

by Ari Yashar

Former ambassador Oren slams Obama, saying he would be 'problem' even for leftist government because he is 'first to bring radical Islam.'

Former Israeli Ambassador to the US MK Michael Oren (Kulanu), a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, released a particularly strong accusation against US President Barack Obama on Saturday.

Speaking on Saturday morning at a cultural event in Be'er Sheva, Oren accused Obama of "bringing in radical Muslim values into the White House."

"Obama's worldview would have been problematic to any Israeli government, including a leftist government," asserted the former ambassador. "This is the first time that radical Muslim values reached the White House."

The MK said, "Obama will never say the term 'radical Islam,' because Obama was exposed to the Muslim world and its values."

His comment refers to the fact that Obama's father was a Muslim Kenyan, and he spent many years in his childhood living in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, after his mother re-married with another Muslim man.

"It is his right as president to bring into the White House a different worldview from those of his predecessors," continued Oren. "Our responsibility is to recognize this fact and act in accordance."

The former envoy argued that Obama "is viewed as weak in the world," referencing the president's lackluster foreign policy, and concluded by saying, "I won't hide it - there's no love story here" between Israel and Obama.

Oren added that the bilateral relations between Israel and the US comprise enough levels that Obama's worldview will not significantly affect the alliance.

The MK raised a storm over the summer after publishing a book accusing Obama of betraying the alliance with Israel. The book earned stern condemnation from the White House.

Ari Yashar


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

A community on the frontline - Yehuda Shlezinger

by Yehuda Shlezinger

Kiryat Arba, next to Hebron, has suffered around 20 terrorist attacks in recent weeks, including the murders of Eitam and Naama Henkin and of Yaakov and Netanel Litman • But residents insist: Our covenant with this place is a covenant of blood.

The Nir hesder yeshiva
Photo credit: Yonatan Shaul

Yehuda Shlezinger


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