Friday, April 15, 2016

Israeli organization Who Profits spearheading BDS efforts - Nadav Shragai

by Nadav Shragai

Report by NGO Monitor reveals Israeli nonprofit that keeps "blacklist" of companies that have ties to or financial investments in Judea and Samaria, east Jerusalem and Golan Heights • The group receives funding from state-funded European bodies.

Nadav Shragai


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

Obama's Nuclear Contrition - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Drastically increasing the chance of nuclear war.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Hiroshima. While there meeting with this G-7 counterparts, Kerry strongly hinted that his visit was a precursor to a visit to the site of the first nuclear bombing by President Barack Obama next month.

The irony of course is that for all his professed commitment to ridding the world of nuclear weapons, Obama is responsible for drastically increasing the chance of nuclear war. Indeed, Obama’s own actions lend easily to the conclusion that he wishes to do penance for America’s decision to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs, (and so end World War II with far fewer dead than a land invasion of Japan would have required), by enabling America’s enemies to target the US and its allies with nuclear weapons.

Obama views his nuclear deal with Iran – the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – as his greatest foreign policy achievement.

Unfortunately for his legacy building and for global security, for the past several weeks news stories have made clear that critics of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran – who claimed that far from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the deal would enable Iran to develop them in broad daylight, and encourage Iran to step up its support for terror and regional aggression – were entirely correct.

All of the warnings sounded by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other leaders have been borne out. All of the warnings sounded by the leaders of the Persian Gulf kingdoms were correct.

Every major commitment Obama made to Congress and to US allies in the wake of the deal have been shown in retrospect to have been false.

Obama told Congress that while the deal did require the US to drop its nuclear sanctions against Iran, the non-nuclear sanctions would remain in place. In recent weeks, media reports have made clear that the administration’s commitment to maintain non-nuclear sanctions on Iran has collapsed.

This collapse is most immediately apparent in the administration’s helpless response to Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles.

When Obama and his advisers sold the nuclear deal to Congress last summer, they promised that the binding UN Security Council resolution that Ambassador Samantha Power rushed to pass to anchor the nuclear deal maintained the previous UN ban on Iranian ballistic missile development.

This, it works out, was a lie. The resolution significantly waters down the language. Given the weak language, today the Russians convincingly argue that Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles did not violate the UN resolution.

Then and now, Obama and his advisers argued that ballistic missiles are not part of the mullahs’ nuclear project. This claim, which made little sense at the time, makes no sense whatsoever today.

Ballistic missiles of course are the Iranians’ delivery systems of choice for their nuclear warheads.

This fact was driven home last week when the Iranian media reported the opening of a high explosives factory in Tehran. Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehgan participated in the opening ceremony.

According to nuclear experts, HMX or octogen high explosives are suitable for building nuclear triggers. In other words, Tehran just built, in a very public manner, a new facility for its military nuclear program. As Iran’s Tasnim news service explained, HMX is a “high explosive used almost exclusively in military applications, including as a solid rocket propellant.”

Last week at his nuclear conference, Obama said that Iran has been abiding by the letter, but not the spirit of the nuclear deal. But this is another lie. Last summer Obama insisted that the deal would prevent Iran from developing and building nuclear weapons by imposing an intrusive, unlimited inspections regime on all of Iran’s nuclear sites.

But this was a lie. As Eli Lake noted in Bloomberg News last week, in contravention of Obama’s explicit commitments to Congress, Iran is refusing to permit UN nuclear inspectors access to its military nuclear sites.

Not only were UN inspectors barred last fall from visiting the Parchin nuclear military site where the Iranians are suspected of developing nuclear warheads. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency admitted recently that far from expanding its access to Iran’s nuclear sites, the deal severely limited it. Out of fear that Iran will walk away from the deal, the US is allowing Iran to block IAEA inspectors.

So while the US gave up its right to unlimited inspection of Iran’s nuclear installations, and consequently has little way of knowing what is happening inside them, the US stands back and allows Iran to develop the means to deliver nuclear warheads which the US cannot know whether or not Iran possesses because it cannot access Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But for Obama, none of this is a reason to stop canceling the sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. Indeed, as Obama sees things, Iran’s non-compliance with the letter of the deal seems to be a reason to cancel the non-nuclear sanctions as well.

Take the dollarization of the Iranian economy.

Obama administration officials pledged to Congress that in the aftermath of the deal, Iran would remain barred from using US financial institutions and so barred from trading in the dollar.

Yet, in what Omri Ceren from the Israeli Project refers to as a “one-hop, two-hops” process, the administration is allowing Iran to use foreign banks to gain access to the US dollar and dollarize is transactions.

Following his visit to Hiroshima, Kerry traveled to the Persian Gulf where the US’s spurned Arab allies and commanders of the US navy’s Fifth Fleet demonstrated to him how Iran has been emboldened by the deal.

Since it was concluded, they noted, Iran has stepped up its support for terrorism and its regional aggression. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and other states told Kerry that since the deal was concluded Iran’s support for terrorism and insurgencies has expanded in Yemen and Syria. Naval commanders reported on the four shipments of illicit Iranian arms the navy commandeered en route to Yemen.

Although slightly embarrassed, Kerry was unmoved. He merely maintained Obama’s line that Iran is keeping the letter of the agreement if ignoring its spirit. He insisted that there are moderates in the regime that support the deal – although they have no power.

Then, as The New York Times reported, Kerry said the US would “continue to lift the economic sanctions against Iran that it agreed to as part of the nuclear accord, even while imposing new ones to counter Tehran’s missile launches, an effort now underway at the UN Security Council.”

But again, Russia has blocked further sanctions against Iran. Moreover Russia is doubling down on its deal to sell advanced SU-30 fighters to the Iranian air force. With the S-30, Iran will be able to end Israel’s air superiority and threaten all of its neighbors in the Persian Gulf.

As to air forces, Iran’s Hezbollah proxy have inherited a US-trained one.

According to testimony Middle East expert Tony Badran gave before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, the Lebanese Military Forces, generously supported by the US, is now a junior partner to Hezbollah.

As Badran put it, “The partnership between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Hezbollah has grown to such an extent that it is now meaningful to speak of the LAF as an auxiliary force in Hezbollah’s war effort.”

At Hiroshima Monday, Kerry and his fellow foreign ministers signed a declaration reaffirming their “commitment to seeking a safer world for all and to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.”

They went on to pat themselves on the back for their nuclear deal with Iran, which they insisted showed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – which the Iran deal effectively gutted – remains “the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation architecture.”

Several commentators have urged Obama not to visit Hiroshima. But really, what would it matter? Obama’s lies about his nuclear deal launched the world on a course where the worst regimes now know that all they need to do to get immunity for their aggression is to develop nuclear weapons while the Obama administration hectors US allies to deplete their own nuclear arsenals.

Visiting Hiroshima and symbolically apologizing for the US strikes that ended World War II would be far less devastating to the cause of international peace than the war Obama ensured by permitting the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

From the Jerusalem Post.

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.

Abbas' Fatah gives 'glory' to female suicide bombers - Ari Yashar

by Ari Yashar

After Abbas claims on Israeli TV that he wants peace, his Fatah honors its female suicide bombers who murdered 8 back in 2002.

Fatah lauds Ayyat Al-Akhras
Fatah lauds Ayyat Al-Akhras
Palestinian Media Watch
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas may have claimed to Israeli TV two weeks ago that he "extends his hand in peace," but his Fatah movement made clear that terror remains its true goal.

Fatah just this week and two weeks ago took to its official Facebook page to glorify two female Fatah-member suicide bombers, who between them murdered eight Israelis and wounded over 100 others back in 2002, as reported by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) on Thursday which translated and revealed the posts.

Hailing one as a "hero" and the other as a "bride of Palestine" on the anniversary of their attacks, Fatah ended both posts with the phrase: "glory and eternity to our righteous Martyrs."

One of those honored was Ayyat Al-Akhras, who at the age of 17 was the youngest female Palestinian suicide bomber. On March 29, 2002, she detonated near a Jerusalem supermarket, murdering two victims and wounding another 28.

Ayyat Al-Akhras post Palestinian Media Watch
The other terrorist honored by Fatah was Andalib Takatka, who targeted Jerusalem's bustling Jaffa Road on April 12, 2002.

Her suicide bombing attack murdered six, and wounded over 80 others.

Andalib Takatka post Palestinian Media Watch

The post for Takatka called her a "hero," while Al-Akhras was hailed as being "the bride of Palestine."

Ari Yashar


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

Dr. Omar Ahmad and The Agony of the 'Decent Muslim' - Hugh Fitzgerald

by Hugh Fitzgerald

A sober look at the true “misunderstanders of Islam.”

Professor Emeritus Dr Omar Farouk Sheikh Ahmad is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia. The current state and status of Islam in the world worries him. For Dr. Ahmad is a devout Muslim, but instead of denying the many attacks by Muslims throughout the world, he manfully owns up to them:
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States followed by a string of unconventional violent incidents have rocked the foundation of global and personal security raising concerns of the real prospect of a new civilisational war and the emergence of a world without peace. No country nor region has been spared and no one seems safe. Just to recapitulate, on the night of Friday, Nov 13 last year, gunmen and suicide bombers simultaneously attacked a major stadium, restaurants and bars in Paris, killing 130 people and wounding hundreds others. Almost a year earlier, on Jan 7 last year, the office of the weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was attacked, killing 12 people. Recently, Brussels Airport and a metro station were attacked, resulting in scores of deaths. Earlier, in the US, in San Bernardino, it was an ordinary couple, Tashfeen Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, who shot and killed 14 innocent people on Dec 2 last year. Halfway across the world in Charsadda, Pakistan, on Jan 20 this year, gunmen attacked students and staff at Bacha Khan University, killing 22 people and injuring at least 20. In Jakarta, Indonesia, on Jan 14 this year, seven people were killed and many more were wounded in a brazen terrorist attack on civilians in an upscale shopping district. In Burkina Faso, on Jan 18 this year, a luxury hotel in Ouagadougou, popular with foreigners was raided by the al-Qaeda terrorist group, resulting in the deaths of 29 people with scores more maimed. In the Iraqi city of Iskandariyah, at least 29 people were killed at a football field while watching a trophy-giving ceremony. In neighbouring Thailand, a hospital in Narathiwat was occupied to stage terrorist attacks. Malaysia may appear lucky so far but the government has admitted that the threat of terrorism is real and that pre-emptive measures need to be undertaken to eliminate it…..
Dr. Omar Farouk Sheikh Ahmad cannot bear to believe that Islam, normative Islam, could possibly prompt these acts, and he worries about the damage being done to the image of Islam from “the perception of ultimate accountability [of Muslims for these terrorist acts]. Long-standing prejudices towards Islam have been reawakened.” Good Muslims, true Muslims very much like Dr. Ahmad himself are, he knows, horrified by all this: “Decent Muslims everywhere agonise at their inability to rationally explain the above phenomena apart from attributing them to a variety of complex factors.”

What “complex factors” might these be? Dr. Ahmad knows that it cannot possibly be Islam itself that explains the violent behavior of Muslims. After all, he assures us, “the word ‘Islam’ itself signifies peace and its message is clear, consistent, universal and inclusive throughout time.” (He chooses not to acknowledge the correction, for whenever the doctor-ahmads of this world offer up their “peace,” we must never grow tired of insisting that the word “Islam” signifies “submission.”) “Muslims believe that Islam is a blessing to all of mankind. They cannot accept the representation of Islam as a belligerent faith which was spread “by the sword and which continues to do mischief.”

Next Dr. Ahmad presents another staple of the apologists for Islam: a sanitized definition of “Jihad” and a soothing ranking of the “lesser Jihad” and the “greater Jihad”:
Jihad is an Islamic concept which has multiple meanings but is essentially about striving, struggling, persevering and fighting to defend the forces of good….Jihadul ashgar or “the little jihad” is the physical confrontation or fight in self-defence to protect one’s dignity and the honour of Islam but it is the Jihadul akhbar, the Greater Jihad, which is “the ‘fight’ within oneself for one’s spiritual enhancement and social development in line with the central commandment of Islam, which advocates “doing good and rejecting evil” ….It was reported that after returning from the Hunayn expedition, the Prophet had declared: “We are back from the lesser jihad”[effort, resistance, struggle for reform] to the greater jihad. A Companion then asked: “What is the greater jihad, Messenger of God?” He answered; “It is fighting the self [the ego].
Dr. Ahmad needs to believe all this, so as not to shake his Muslim faith. But we who are not Muslims feel no such need. We who are not Muslims are perfectly capable of reading the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and observing the behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims through time and across space. What appears to you, and to me, from these texts and this observable behavior, more important in Islam? Is it really the “Greater Jihad” of “spiritual enhancement and social development,” or is it the “Lesser Jihad” of fighting and warfare that best characterizes Islam’s texts, and teachings, and history?

Dr. Ahmad, a kindly soul, obviously considers himself to be speaking for all those “decent Muslims” who share his sanitized view of Islam. They are deeply puzzled, unable to explain the terrorist attacks of their co-religionists, and thus incapable of preventing such incidents as they continue to believe “that Islam is a peaceful religion with a civilising and humanising mission. They must know that none of the acts [Muslim terror attacks] are in any way justifiable. The nature of violence that has been committed is unacceptable. The attempt by perpetrators and sympathisers of these acts to invoke the call of jihad to justify their actions is misplaced and does not represent the essence of Islam.”

For Dr. Ahmad, all over the world too many Muslims have been violating that essence — peaceful, civilizing, and humanizing – of Islam, the “Islam” that means “peace” and that puts the most stress on the Greater Jihad of spiritual self-improvement. Why they do so remains a mystery for him, as for all the peaceful Muslims who “agonise at their inability to rationally explain the [terrorist attacks] apart from attributing them to a variety of complex factors.” Dr. Ahmad never does offer even a partial list of that “variety of complex factors” that he claims explain Muslim terrorism. Should he ever get around to doing so, I am fairly sure the texts and teachings of Islam would not be among them.

I don’t think there’s much point in reminding the doctor-ahmads of this world that when Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi and Al-Baghdadi used the word “jihad,” it was never conceived by them as a “spiritual struggle”; that killing and subjugation of the Unbelievers, the expansion of Dar al-Islam, has always been, since its earliest days some 1350 years ago, the duty of Muslims, the real point of Islam. The true “misunderstanders of Islam” are those who, like Dr. Ahmad, have managed to ignore the texts and the history in order to convince themselves that Islam is all about peace, that the “Greater Jihad” is the spiritual one of self-dominance. And greatest of all the forms of jihad is that of the heart: ”‘scholars identify four categories of jihad: jihad of the heart, jihad of the tongue, jihad of the hand and jihad of the sword. But it is the jihad of the heart that can be considered as the highest manifestation of pacifism and the search for excellence within Islam.”

Islam’s essence is “civilizing, and humanizing.” Dr. Ahmad simply cannot allow himself to look steadily and whole at Islam, and to draw the logical consequences, unlike such celebrated (and threatened) apostates as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Allam, and Ibn Warraq. He does not dare to quote any of the more than 160 “Jihad verses” in the Qur’an, or hold up for inspection and discussion incidents in the life of that exemplary Muslim warrior Muhammad, at Khaybar, or the Battle of the Trench, or with little Aisha, or in connection with the killings of Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak.

What should we make of the more-in-sorrow views of Dr. Omar Farouk Sheikh Ahmad? Some part of me – and of you, no doubt — wants to believe that he actually believes what he says, that he has found a way to substitute his own version of peaceable-kingdom Islam, a version that allows a decent man like himself to dreamily hew to this make-believe faith, and to convince other Muslims to misunderstand that faith in the same reassuring way. Wouldn’t it be nice if more than a billion Muslims could be persuaded to willfully misunderstand their own faith? In fact, isn’t what Muslims like Dr. Ahmad do exactly what so many non-Muslim leaders in the West — Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Angela Merkel all come to mind — have done, constructed a false but hopeful “Islam,” and asked us to follow their example and accept this comforting fiction, in order to avoid having to deal with an unpleasant and frightening reality?

But there is no textual basis for the Islam Dr. Omar Ahmad and Barack Obama have allowed themselves to believe. All the Islamic texts are with the jihadis. He quotes not a single Qur’anic passage, not a single Hadith, in support of his assertions. And Islam’s 1350-year history of conquest fits the Jihad of the Sword, not Dr. Ahmad’s treacly “Jihad of the heart.” As much as we would like to participate, along with so many others, in Dr. Ahmad’s game of make-believe, in the long run, as Samuel Johnson once said in another connection, the mind can only repose on the stability of truth.

Hugh Fitzgerald


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

Picture Of PA President 'Abbas Burned At PFLP Protest In Gaza; Severe Tension Between 'Abbas, PFLP - MEMRI


There have recently been intense tensions between the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership, in particular PA President Mahmoud 'Abbas.

There have recently been intense tensions between the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership, in particular PA President Mahmoud 'Abbas. These tensions peaked after pictures of 'Abbas and PA Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki were burned during a PFLP protest in Gaza.

'Abbas and the PFLP differ substantially on relations with Israel and on the promotion of the Palestinian cause in general. The PFLP is known for its opposition to the Oslo Accords, criticizes 'Abbas's policy on negotiations with Israel, and calls to escalate the intifada and carry out armed resistance vis-a-vis Israel. Moreover, the PFLP demands that the PA immediately halt its security coordination with Israel and implement the March 5, 2015 PLO Executive Committee decision to end it.

The PFLP's scathing criticism of 'Abbas's policy grew worse after an interview he gave on March 31, 2016 to the Israeli Channel 2 program "Uvda", in which he expressed, for the first time, opposition to stabbing attacks carried out by Palestinian youths against Israelis, and also stated that he desired to continue the  security coordination.[1] On April 3, 2016, the PFLP issued a press release demanding that the PLO's Central Council and Executive Committee come out against 'Abbas's statements in the interview and hold him accountable on these matters.[2] PFLP Central Council member Rabbah Mhanna called on his Facebook page for 'Abbas to resign, claiming he had "crossed all national red lines."[3] The PFLP also criticized a March 29, 2016 condolence visit by a PA delegation to the family of Chief Brigadier General Mounir Amar, the head of Israel's Civil Administration in the West Bank, who had been killed in a plane crash on March 26, 2016.[4]
Another reason for the tensions was the PFLP's harsh criticism of the PA's conduct in the case of the assassination of PFLP member 'Omar Al-Nayef, who was killed on February 26, 2016 inside the Palestinian embassy in Bulgaria. PFLP officials accused the Palestinian foreign ministry of slanting the investigation into the assassination and of hiding key details in the case.[5]
On April 11, 2016, PFLP officials said that 'Abbas, serving as the head of the PLO, had ordered the head of the national treasury to halt funds to the PFLP. According to PFLP officials Rabbah Mhanna and Dhu Al-Fiqar Swairjo, the order was given verbally and the PFLP received no official notice on the matter.[6] A statement issued by Mhanna read: "We are continuing our activity and we will never back down from our correct positions. If the PA persists in halting the distribution [of funds], we will issue a communique against this decision and present it to members of the PLO Executive Committee."[7]
Later, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) announced that 'Abbas had ordered to halt PLO funds to this movement as well.[8]
The PFLP's fury at the PA leadership and 'Abbas in particular boiled over on April 12, 2016, the day after the announcement that funds to the movement had been halted. The PFLP in Gaza held a protest marking 40 days since the assassination of 'Omar Al-Nayef and supporting Palestinian prisoners and families of martyrs whose bodies are being held by Israel. Protestors burned pictures of Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki, of Palestinian ambassador to Bulgaria Ahmad Al-Madhbouh, and of Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas. The protest also included calls to carry out armed resistance in order to secure the release of the Palestinian prisoners and the bodies of the martyrs.[9] It was attended by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) members, including Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas official Isma'il Radwan, and PIJ official Khaled Al-Batsh.

Following the protest, official Fatah spokesman Fayez Abu 'Aita issued a press released demanding that the PFLP apologize for the burning of 'Abbas's pictures, which he called "despicable behavior on a national and moral level." He added that the national treasury had rejected the decision to halt PFLP funds.[10]

PFLP's official Facebook page posts photo of protestors burning 'Abbas picture with the caption "Leave, 'Abbas, leave!" (, April 12, 2016)

 Burning pictures of Al-Maliki and Al-Madhbouh with the caption "Murderer" (, April 12, 2016)

   Protestors carrying coffins for the martyrs. The parade included Hamas and PIJ members (, April 12, 2016)

The Palestinian media widely covered the tensions between the PFLP and PA officials. Several articles on the topic were published, both by writers close to the PFLP and by 'Abbas supporters.
The following are excerpts from the articles:

Articles On PFLP Website: 'Abbas's Regime Is Corrupt, Autocratic

In light of this tension, articles on the PFLP website harshly condemned the suspension of funding to the PFLP, and attacked 'Abbas's policies and the character of his regime.

Jibril Muhammad, who writes on the website, accused 'Abbas and his associates of corruption: "The decision-maker ['Abbas] knows that [the amount of money] the PFLP receives by right in a single year does not come close to what [a single] corrupt [official] in the [PA's] bureaucracy, or [one] wheeler-dealer, steals in just a few days. He also knows that all [the money] he grants to the PFLP does not equal the funds spent in a single year by one of the heads of the bodies linked to the government... We are tired of how this national faction [the PFLP], that has long been patient and placed national interest above partisanship, is being treated...

"[This measure of] halting funds in response to the PFLP's political position will never weaken it, but will further tarnish the reputation of the one who gave [the order]..."[11]   

PFLP member and former prisoner Fayez Rashid likewise leveled harsh criticism at 'Abbas, and even accused the PA leadership of abandoning the PLO. He wrote: "The Popular Front is the [movement] that adheres most closely to the [PLO's] Palestinian National Covenant, and this is a truth known to all. Among those who deviate from the PLO covenant, the most prominent are the PA, and its chairman and his associates. Naturally, those who do not deserve to receive funds from the PLO are the ones who deviate from its covenant, not those who adhere to it. Since the establishment of the PA, which effectively [operates] under occupation, the PLO and all its institutions have been deliberately neglected. Returning to [the PLO] has remained a [mere] slogan that is waved by those who control [the PLO] only when the PA is in political trouble. Many Palestinian organizations, chief among them the PFLP, have called for reform in the PLO and its institutions, and agreements were signed in this matter. However, those who control [the PLO] have no political incentive to start these reforms, for reasons of their own, and as a result the reform and reassessment of the PLO and its institutions have remained nothing but a slogan whose implementation never began.

"'[Abbas's] autocracy, hegemony and monopoly are not confined to the PLO's finances, but impact all the position[-holders] in its institutions, without exception. We demand not only to receive the funds allocated to the PFLP, but also to redistribute the funds."[12] 

Columnists In PA Dailies: The Burning Of 'Abbas's Pictures Was A Shameful Act; PFLP Leadership Must Apologize

'Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul, an Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist and an advisor to former PA prime minister Salam Fayyad, wrote: "The burning of the pictures of Palestinian President Abu Mazen the day before yesterday by a group of PFLP members during a protest in Gaza [is an act that] cannot be understood as part of a [mere] disagreement. Burning the picture of the PLO chairman is a shameful act and a black mark [that mars] the fraternal relations between the PFLP and Fatah, and between the PFLP and President 'Abbas...

"In the past it already happened that funds to the PFLP were halted, and the matter was resolved in a friendly manner after the national forces, including Fatah leaders, spoke with President Abu Mazen, and [thus] the matter was handled without straining the atmosphere of national [unity]. So why resort to childish pranks and fall over stumbling blocks [in a way that] contravenes the national Palestinian spirit? What interest does the PFLP have in burning pictures of President Abu Mazen?... Has Abu Mazen deviated from the program of national consensus? Has he abandoned the interests of his people? Why do some of you now make hasty, rash and irresponsible remarks? 

"You are entitled to criticize any position taken by Mahmoud 'Abbas, the Fatah leadership or any national institution if it is not to your liking or you disagree with it. You are entitled to boycott meetings – but you do not have the right to burn pictures of President Mahmoud 'Abbas, because he is [our] chief national emblem.

"If the PFLP leadership at home or abroad has any courage, political wisdom dictates that they should apologize to the people, to the Fatah movement and to president Abu Mazen [himself] immediately, before it is too late..."[13] 

Another Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist, Fatah movement member Muwaffaq Matar wrote in an article that the calls against the PA leadership harmed the Palestinians' national unity: "Our friends in the PFLP, wake up!... Do not be like a Trojan horse. The Palestinian unity, which we built together, is greater and more precious than all of the funds of the 'lackeys.'"[14] 

He added: "I searched in vain for a PFLP condemnation of what the group of young men did, [those men] who claimed to be PFLP members and who burned pictures of President Mahmoud 'Abbas. But, as of 18:00 p.m. yesterday, I could not find [such a condemnation], and I started to think that the PFLP leadership approved of burning the picture of the Palestinian people's president. Such behavior is inexcusable, especially when it occurs as part of activity which, to judge by photos circulated on social media and on YouTube, was an organized [protest], since it was headed by officials from the [PFLP] political bureau, who made statements to an Arab satellite channel. In other words, the [picture-burning] incident occurred right in front of [these officials], and even if it did not, they learned of it later and deliberately disregarded it..."[15]

[2], April 3, 2016.
[3], April 4, 2016.
[4], March 30, 2016.
[5], March 3, 2016.
[6],, April 11, 2016.
[7], April 12, 2016.
[8], April 12, 2016.
[9],, April 12, 2016.
[10], April 13, 2016.
[11], April 12, 2016.
[12], April 12, 2016.
[13] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), April 14, 2016.
[14] Presumably a reference to an April 13, 2016 report in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which claimed that the PFLP wished to receive funds from Iran and called on it to avoid this.
[15] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), April 14, 2016.



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

UK military expert: Israel must strike Iran - on its own - David Rosenberg

by David Rosenberg

Col. Richard Kemp warns Europe is in a 'downward spiral,' calls upon Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

Richard Kemp
Richard Kemp
Israel ought to go rogue on Iran, suggested a prominent British military expert on Tuesday, saying that the Jewish state was “an outpost of strength” that should target Iran’s nuclear program.

In an address to the Gatestone Institute on Tuesday, Colonel (ret.) Richard Kemp presented some of the most serious security challenges facing the West, praising Israel as an example of “unique morality” in a difficult geopolitical situation.

Kemp, who retired from the British military in 2006, now serves as a member of the High Level Military Group, a group of international military experts and advisers.

Praising Israel’s resolve and high ethical standards, Kemp lamented what he described as Europe’s “spiral downward to being obliterated.”

Despite much of the bad press Israel has received in the course of combating terrorism, Kemp argued that much of the criticism directed at Israel was the result of simple ignorance.

Kemp illustrated the point with his experiences at a recent Israel Apartheid Week event at New York University.

“I asked the students how many believed it was illegal to kill innocents in times of war. And I was surprised to discover their level of ignorance on that score, because all of them answered in the affirmative. In fact, it is not illegal to kill innocent civilians in times of war. It may not be nice; it may not be desirable; but it is not illegal.”

“Though killing innocent civilians is obviously something we must avoid doing as much as we possibly can, our enemies hide among the civilian population, and sometimes we must risk the lives of civilians in order to destroy the enemy. Fear of doing this means that we will always lose.”

Kemp was skeptical about the prospects of a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“I don’t believe there can be a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel wants to live in peace, but what the Arabs want is its annihilation.”

Among the top security threats Kemp mentioned was Iran’s nuclear program. Despite last year’s deal to freeze Iran’s nuclear program, Kemp worried over the Islamic regime’s future nuclear capacity, calling upon Israel to “initiate an offensive strike on Iran."

David Rosenberg


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

Saudi Author Said Al-Suraihi: The Ogre Of ISIS Emerged From Our History Books - MEMRI


In a TV interview, Saudi author and literary critic Said Al-Suraihi said that ISIS emerged from the history books, which "link the spread of Islam to the sword, the battles, the killings, and the wars." "It does not tell us how model conduct can spread Islam among people," he said in the interview, which aired on Sky News Arabia on February 12, 2016.

The following report is from MEMRI's Counter-Radicalization Initiative. 

MEMRI TV Clip No. 5430
Following are excerpts:

Interviewer: "You said once that ISIS emerged from the history books. Please elaborate."


Said Al-Suraihi: "Sir, let's read our history. How did Islam spread? As we know, Islam spread to the east and to the west. It spread westward through the various conquests: the battles, the commanders, the dead, the stormed cities, the burnt ships. We know every detail of this history - each and every commander and house. But tell me, do we really know how Islam spread to the east? How did it reach India, Sri Lanka, Java, the Philippines, and south China? We don't know how the forefathers of all these millions of people became Muslims.


"The reason that we don't know this is that history linked the spread of Islam to the sword, the battles, the killings, and the wars. It does not tell us how model conduct can spread Islam among people. Therefore, when ISIS wanted to fight in the name of Islam, they evoked a history that links the spread of Islam with wars. We have no history to tell us how model conduct can spread Islam. We need to know how Islam entered the Malay Archipelago with no killings, no battles, no commanders, and no burnt ships.


"This is absent from the religious discourse. Yes, it is absent from the religious discourse and from the history books. That is why ISIS draws upon the history books, as well as upon the extremist rulings in the books of jurisprudence. When you break ISIS down, you find extremist jurisprudence, and history linked to battles and blood. ISIS is the sum total of all the mistakes with which we failed to deal, until the ogre we call ISIS emerged."



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

Jordan Valley farmers tell EU leaders: We will not label products - Efrat Forsher

by Efrat Forsher

Head of Jordan Valley Regional Council: "We have no intention of doing what you ask. We will not label our agricultural produce. We are determined to fight this phenomenon and to struggle against this unethical and discriminatory [demand]."

European supermarkets are preparing to enforce EU product-labeling guidelines [Illustrative]
Photo credit: AFP

Jordan Valley farmers told European parliamentarians Wednesday that they would not label their products as coming from "the occupied territories," despite EU guidelines that may require them to do so.

Wednesday's conference in the Jordan Valley was attended by a number of European representatives, including the leader of Austria's far-right Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache.

David Elhayani, the head of the Jordan Valley Regional Council, said at the conference: "They are demanding that we label agricultural produce. I want to say to everyone who seeks to harm us: Your hope will not be realized.

"We have no intention of doing what you ask. We will not label our agricultural produce. We are determined to fight this phenomenon and to struggle against this unethical and discriminatory [demand] that has remnants of a dark time."

Strache expressed his support, saying, "We will do everything to ensure that the boycotts get taken off the agenda."

Efrat Forsher


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

It's not a Matter of Blame but Trust - Richard Butrick

by Richard Butrick

A survey conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) finds (in contrast to Pew Research) that a majority of Muslims living in the U.S. support Muslim supremacy and domination by hook or crook.

We are constantly told that it is a stupid logical fallacy to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. It is so stupid that it could only be the result of a psychological malady: Islamophobia or hysterical anti-Muslim derangement syndrome.

Yes, it would be stupid to blame all postal workers for a given postal worker that goes “postal.” The stupidity of generalization of blame to an entire cohort for the actions of a few, however is not always that clear-cut. Should the members of a KKK group in Georgia be blamed for the actions of a few that burn down a black church? No. They cannot be blamed for actually burning the church but it is rational that they be treated with the suspicion as to whether they support as much. They have earned the suspicion and distrust of those who regard such actions as inexcusable.

But that, in part, is just what the Muslim community regards as unfair and irrational. They complain about being viewed with distrust and suspicion.
I get people who don't want to sit next to me, people who whisper things like, 'Does she have a bomb on her, is she going to harm us?'" she says.
And this from Pew Research:
…life for Muslim Americans in post-9/11 America is difficult in a number of ways. Significant numbers report being looked at with suspicion (28%), and being called offensive names (22%).
When the distrust and suspicion spill over into hatred and violent crimes -- that is certainly unacceptable. But in and of itself, being viewed with distrust is just what the Muslim community, in conjunction with statistics and ulema pronouncements, has earned.

A survey conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) finds (in contrast to Pew Research) that a majority of Muslims living in the U.S. support Muslim supremacy and domination by hook or crook.
A majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah.
Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “the Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
Moreover, now the former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has just admitted that he “got almost everything wrong” regarding Muslim immigration and that the major problem is hardly Islamophobia but that Muslims are intentionally creating “nations within nations” in the West.

And then there is a document recently discovered online by the Center for Security Policy regarding the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) that insists the only legitimate law according to Islam is sharia and urges American Muslims to nurture hostility towards U.S. law. The document, which was written in 2007 and presented at a 2008 Houston imams conference, makes clear that the AMJA’s ultimate goal, as described by Andrew Bostom, “is nothing less than the eventual subversion of the American legal system” to Islamic law (sharia).

The AMJA’s website describes the annual Imams Conference as a “service to [the] Muslim community” that offers training to Muslim clerics working as a minority under “infidel” legal systems in North America. The goal is to provide guidance for these imams to pass on to their communities, especially those involved in the legal profession, on how to act overtly to present a fa├žade of compliance with the existing legal system while feeling “hatred” in their hearts.

The paper specifically instructs these Muslim imams to encourage deception if necessary in order that Islamic law eventually will triumph over the laws to which they must temporarily feign allegiance (i.e., laws derived from the U.S. Constitution). The participation of Muslims -- whether clerics, ordinary lay persons or members of the American legal community -- in a non-Muslim legal system is described as temporary only and sanctioned by darura, the doctrine of necessity.

Being looked at with suspicion and distrust? You’ve earned it.

Richard Butrick


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

Is NATO worth preserving? - Victor Davis Hanson

by Victor Davis Hanson

The issue is not whether NATO is still useful, but whether the alliance can reform itself before it implodes.

Donald Trump recently ignited another controversy when he mused that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was obsolete. He hinted that it might no longer be worth the huge American investment.

In typical Trump style, he hit a nerve, but he then offered few details about the consequences of either staying in or leaving NATO.

NATO is certainly no longer aimed at keeping a huge Soviet land army out of democratic Western Europe, as was envisioned in 1949.

The alliance has been unwisely expanded from its original 12-nation membership to include 28 countries, absorbing many of the old communist Warsaw Pact nations and some former Soviet republics. NATO may have meant well to offer security to these vulnerable new alliance members. Yet it is hard to imagine Belgians and Italians dying on the battlefield to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces out of Lithuania or Estonia.

Today’s NATO pledges to many of its newer participants are about as believable as British and French rhetorical guarantees in August 1939 to protect a far-away Poland from its Nazi and Soviet neighbors.

No NATO member during the 40-year Cold War invoked Article 4 of the treaty, requiring consultation of the entire alliance by a supposedly threatened member. Turkey has called for it four times since 2003.

The idea that Western Europe, beset with radical Islamic terrorism and unchecked migrations from the war-torn Middle East, would pledge its military support to the agendas and feuds of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s increasingly Islamist and non-democratic regime is pure fantasy.

Few NATO members meet the alliance’s goal of investing 2 percent of gross domestic product in defense spending. Instead, socialist Europe expects the United States to carry most of NATO’s fiscal and military burdens.

Europe is increasingly seen as defenseless against Islamic terrorism, and unable to stop the immigration of legions of young male Muslim migrants from the war-torn Middle East. It is also viewed as a fat target for unstable (and increasingly nuclear) regimes.

Sometimes Europeans even add insult to injury. They count on U.S. subsidies to help trim defense costs in order to fund socialist entitlements — even as they caricature America as an over-militarized superpower bully.

Using NATO forces outside of Europe has not always been productive. It was helpful in Serbia, of questionable utility in Afghanistan, and completely disastrous in Libya.

Is Trump right, then, that we should let NATO die on the vine? Is the alternative of a future without the alliance preferable to the present costly and flawed NATO?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Lord Ismay, NATO’s first secretary general, said that the alliance was formed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

The Soviet Union has collapsed, Germany is now in the European Union, and the EU has a larger population and economy that the United States. But Putin’s Russia is still nuclear and aggressive. It expands anywhere it senses weakness. Germany still earns suspicion in Europe, whether because of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s destructive immigration policies or the equally unwise practice of rich German banks recklessly lending to bankrupt Mediterranean nations. The European Union never managed to unite its disparate nations into something cohesive and similar to the individual states of America.

In sum, a powerful Russia will always have to be watched. A dynamic and headstrong Germany will always have to be integrated into some sort of military alliance. And the United States will always have a natural self-interest in preemptively keeping kindred Europeans from killing each other.

The West is increasingly under assault. It is the target of radical Islamic terrorists, it is losing its deterrence with Russia and China, and it is seen as weak by rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.

The issue is not whether NATO is still useful, but whether the alliance can reform itself before it implodes.

NATO must stop growing. Why offer guarantees to nations that it would not protect in the real world — nations that would only become red lines for aggressive enemies that wish to humiliate and unwind the alliance? NATO should be wary of using its forces outside of Europe and should instead outsource such peacekeeping to individual members acting on their own.

Turkey and other members should be warned that autocracy and Islamicization are contrary to NATO principles and are grounds for expulsion.

Greater European military expenditures will not only keep the U.S in the alliance, but also protect Europeans themselves, who lack the two-ocean buffer of the United States.

Constitutional nations with common traditions of freedom of the individual, self-criticism, and tolerance of dissent and difference are becoming rare these days. Without shared military power and cooperation, Westerners can either all hang together or surely we will hang separately.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of “The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern” You can reach him by e-mailing


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