Friday, July 28, 2017

Palestinians: Metal Detectors or Lie Detectors - Who Is Violating What? - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

It is not the security measures that the Palestinians want dismantled. It is Israel that they want dismantled.

  • Crucially, and contrary to Palestinian claims, there has been no Israeli decision to ban Muslims from entering the Temple Mount. For the first time since 1967, the Palestinians are denying Muslim worshippers free access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
  • The Palestinians and the Islamic religious authorities are protesting against security measures that are intended to save the lives of Muslim worshippers and prevent the desecration of their holy sites by terrorists and rioters. They are protesting because Israel is trying to make it hard for them to murder Jews.
  • To clarify what is actually going on: it is not the security measures that really anger the Palestinians; for them, this crisis is not about a metal detector or a security camera. It is not the security measures that the Palestinians want dismantled. It is Israel that they want dismantled.
The metal detectors that were supposed to prevent Muslims from smuggling weapons into the Temple Mount compound, and which were removed by the Israeli authorities this week, have a more accurate name: "lie detectors." They have exposed Palestinian lies and the real reason behind Palestinian anger.

Israel apparently removed the metal detectors from the gates of the Temple Mount as part of a deal to end an unexpected crisis with Jordan over the killing of two Jordanian men by an Israeli embassy security officer in Amman. The security officer says he was acting in self-defense after being attacked by one of the Jordanians with a screwdriver.

The crisis erupted when the Jordanian authorities insisted on interrogating the officer -- a request that was rejected by Israel because the officer enjoys diplomatic immunity. US intervention and a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jordan's King Abdullah helped end the crisis peacefully and quickly, and the officer and the rest of the Israeli embassy staff were permitted to leave Jordan and head back to Israel.

Shortly after the embassy staff returned to Israel, the Israeli authorities started removing the metal detectors that were installed at the entrances to the Temple Mount after terrorists murdered two Israeli police officers on July 14. The move sparked a wave of rumors and speculation, according to which the Jordanians allowed the embassy staff to return home in exchange for the removal of the metal detectors.

Israel and Jordan have denied any link between the shooting incident in Amman and the removal of the metal detectors.

The crisis that erupted between Israel and Jordan over the killing of the two Jordanians was solved in less than 48 hours -- much to the dismay of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians were hoping to exploit the crisis to exacerbate tensions between Amman and Jerusalem. Their ultimate goal: to cause the Jordanians to scrap their peace treaty with Israel and return to the state of war with the "Zionist enemy." The Palestinians were also hoping to exploit the crisis to incite Jordanians against Israel and the Hashemite monarchy.

Fortunately, the Jordanian authorities did not fall into the Palestinian trap. They realized that it is in their own interest to resolve the crisis swiftly and peacefully. King Abdullah was wise enough not to allow the Palestinians to drag him into a confrontation with Israel.

Since the installation of the metal detectors at the Temple Mount, the Palestinians have been waging yet another campaign of fabrications and distortions against Israel. This Palestinian blood libel claims that Israel is seeking to "change the status quo" at the Temple Mount by introducing new security measures such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras at the gates to the holy site.

Yet if anyone has violated the status quo it is the Palestinians themselves.

Status Quo Violation Number One: For the past two years, the Palestinians have been trying to prevent Jews from touring the Temple Mount -- a practice that has been allowed since 1967.

Status Quo Violation Number Two: The Palestinians and their supporters have long turned the Temple Mount into a battlefield for clashing with Israeli policemen and Jewish visitors. In an ongoing arrangement that ought to interest the international community, they pay Muslim men and women salaries to come to the compound and harass policemen and Jewish visitors by hurling insults at them and throwing stones and petrol bombs. These individuals belong to an outlawed group known as the Murabitun. This is a group of Muslim fanatics who receive money from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Islamic Movement in Israel to do their utmost to stop Jews from entering the Temple Mount.

Status Quo Violation Number Three: Over the past two decades, the Waqf (Islamic Trust) that manages the affairs of the mosques on the Temple Mount, and other parties, have been carrying out illegal excavation and construction work at the site in a bid to create irreversible facts on the ground. The Waqf and the Palestinian Authority claim that the excavation work is aimed at refuting Jewish claims to the Temple Mount and showing the world that Jews have no historical, religious or emotional attachment to Jerusalem.

Status Quo Violation Number Four: The Palestinians and their supporters have been using the Temple Mount compound as a platform for spewing anti-Semitism and calls to murder Jews and all "infidels." This abuse of the holy site as a podium for spreading Palestinian poison is far from a new practice. Palestinians and other Muslims have been doing this at the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other mosques around the world for decades. Take, for example, when the imam at Al-Aqsa Mosque predicted that the "White House would turn black, with the help of God."

This prayer, attended by thousands of Muslim worshippers, came only a few weeks before the 9/11 terror attacks. Last week, another imam prayed to God that Israeli policemen guarding the Temple Mount would be widowed and orphaned.

These are only a handful of the countless examples of how mosques are being used to indoctrinate the hearts and minds of Muslims with hate.

Status Quo Violation Number Five: The murder of two policemen on July 14 is the mother of all status quo violations. Until the murder, Muslims had resorted to less deadly weapons such as stones and petrol bombs to attack Jews and policemen. July 14 represents the first time that Muslims used firearms at the Temple Mount. While it is not unusual to see Muslims blowing up mosques and committing atrocities against fellow Muslims in many Arab and Islamic countries, the shooting attack at the Temple Mount was still unprecedented.

Smuggling weapons into the Temple Mount is a grave desecration of the holy site. Murdering two police officers, who were stationed there to safeguard the site and protect Muslim worshippers, takes the level of violation and desecration to new lows. It is worth noting that the two police officers were not murdered during a confrontation or a violent incident. One of them was shot in the back while he was standing at one of the entrances to the Temple Mount.

After the July 14 murder, Palestinians began waging daily protests by refusing to enter the Temple Mount through metal detectors installed by the Israeli authorities to prevent weapons smuggling for the safety of the Muslim worshippers themselves.

Instead, Palestinians gather every evening at the entrances to the Temple Mount, where they complete their prayers with a volley of stones and petrol bombs lodged at police officers.

Crucially, and contrary to Palestinian claims, there has been no Israeli decision to ban Muslims from entering the Temple Mount.

Rather, we are witnessing precisely the opposite situation: there has been a Palestinian decision banning Muslims from entering the Temple Mount until Israel removes any security measures, whether metal detectors or surveillance cameras. This particular, and serious, breach of the status quo on the part of the Palestinians and Muslims has yet to receive appropriate mention: for the first time since 1967, the Palestinians are denying Muslim worshippers free access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Unsurprisingly, the removal of the metal detectors this week has not sated the Palestinians' and Waqf's lust for Jewish blood. Quite the contrary: the removal has increased their appetite, voracious as they are for Israeli capitulation and retreat. Now the Palestinians are demanding an end to all security measures imposed after the murder of the two officers on July 14.

So, here we are in a situation where Israel is damned if it does and damned if it does not.

In other words, the Palestinians and the Islamic religious authorities are protesting against security measures that are intended to save the lives of Muslim worshippers and prevent the desecration of their holy sites by terrorists and rioters. They are protesting because Israel is trying to make it hard for them to murder Jews. The message is: How dare you try to stop us from murdering Jews?

To clarify what is actually going on: it is not the security measures that really anger the Palestinians; for them, this crisis is not about a metal detector or a security camera. Rather, it is about sovereignty over the Temple Mount, Jerusalem and the whole of Israel. For the Palestinians, the real struggle is not over the Temple Mount, but over the presence of Jews in what they consider "occupied Palestine, from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea."

In the face of the metal detector removal, the Palestinians are calling for yet more "days of rage." The Palestinians were hoping to drag the Arab and Islamic countries into a confrontation with Israel. This is a hope they have thus far failed to achieve, especially as the short-lived crisis with Jordan proved. The Palestinians now feel disappointed that they were unable to drive a wedge between Israel and Jordan.

Palestinians near Jerusalem's Old City protest Israel's installation of metal detectors at entrances to the Temple Mount, on July 21, 2017. (Photo by Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)

So, what else is on the Palestinian agenda of violence? They are aiming to stop Jews from visiting the Temple Mount. They are also hoping to show Israel and the rest of the world that sovereignty over the Temple Mount belongs to Muslims and to Muslims alone. In short, this is about strong-arming Israel and portraying it as weak and volatile and scared -- a country ripe for intimidation and taking apart.

First, the Palestinians demanded that Israel dismantle metal detectors. Then, they were demanding that Israel end all forms of security measures at the Temple Mount. It is not difficult to imagine what the next demand will be. It is not the security measures that the Palestinians want dismantled. It is Israel that they want dismantled.

Thus, dismantled or intact, the metal detectors have played a vital role by exposing Palestinian and Muslim lies and blood libels.

Bassam Tawil is an Arab Muslim based in the Middle East.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

It's about Sovereignty - Shoshana Bryen

by Shoshana Bryen

Nothing in the Middle East is ever what it looks like. Metal detectors may be metal detectors elsewhere, but on the Temple Mount they are an attack on “Muslim patrimony.

The disgusting terror murders of two Israeli policemen (one shot in the back) on the Temple Mount, coupled with the indescribable terror murders of three Israelis (grandfather, father, and aunt) celebrating the birth of a baby at their Sabbath dinner, were met with howls of outrage and threats of retaliatory violence and even religious war –- not by Israelis seeking vengeance, but by Palestinians!

Echoed by Jordanians, al Jazeera, and the UN, Palestinian strongman Mahmoud Abbas claimed he couldn’t be held responsible for escalated violence if Israel maintained the metal detectors on the Temple Mount installed to prevent a recurrence of violence directed at Jews.  

Nothing in the Middle East is ever what it looks like. Metal detectors may be metal detectors elsewhere, but on the Temple Mount they are an attack on “Muslim patrimony.” Turkey’s President Reccep Tayyip Erdogan made that clear. “When Israeli soldiers carelessly pollute the grounds of Al-Aqsa with their combat boots by using simple issues as a pretext and then easily spill blood there, the reason [they are able to do that] is we [Muslims] have not done enough to stake our claim over Jerusalem."

Israel, to the relief -- and kind words -- of the White House, has removed the metal detectors, but far from resolving the problem, the retreat encouraged Fatah to announce it would “intensify the struggle” because the “campaign for Jerusalem has effectively begun, and will not stop until a Palestinian victory and the release of the holy sites from Israeli occupation.”

Two important issues have to be sorted out here: first, the political and religious rights of Jews in their indigenous space; and second, the right not to be murdered for the “crime” of being Jewish, or Israeli, or non-Jewish and non-Israeli but being in Israel. Among the recent victims of Palestinian terror are Druze Muslim police officers Kamil Shnaan, 22 and Haiel Sitawe, and American Vanderbilt University student and U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force, as well as American and Israeli Jews.

Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people -- the restoration of Jewish sovereignty to even part of the historic homeland was prayed for since the end of the Second Jewish Commonwealth and celebrated since 1948. In the 20th century, Jews and Israelis accepted various suggestions and commands for borders of a reconstituted State -- everything from the lopping off of 75% of the British Mandate for a Judenrein Arab state (1917) to the split-state Peel Commission Partition Plan (1937) to the British Partition Plan (1938) to the Jewish Agency plan (1946) to the much smaller UN Partition Plan (1947).

The Arab states agreed to none of those and declined to say where Jews might then exercise sovereignty -- because there was no such place. The 1949-67 lines were unacceptable and so were the post-67 lines. Israel and the U.S. posited new lines after the Oslo Accords, and in 2008 when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed 93% of the West Bank plus political rights in Jerusalem for the Palestinians (the Gaza Strip already being 100% in Palestinian hands). Mahmoud Abbas said no.

“No” was the necessary answer because the Palestinians agree there is no legitimate place for Jews to exercise sovereign authority. This goes directly to the question of the Temple Mount and metal detectors.

Jews have prayed alongside the Western Wall since, perhaps, the 12th century, and certainly since the 16th century, when the Ottoman Sultan gave them official permission to do so, according to scholar Nadav Shragai. The Arab warning, “Al Aksa (the mosque on the Temple Mount) is in danger” –- used in this case by Abbas –- has been a call for shedding Jewish blood by Arabs for more than a century. The originator of the lie was Haj Amin al Husseini –- the Hitler acolyte Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the earlier part of the 20th Century. Abbas and Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel carry on his legacy.

In 1967, in an audacious (or there are other words) act of generosity, the Government of Israel informed the Arab Waqf that Israel would not assert sovereignty over the top of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism; that its administration would remain in the hands of the Waqf and King Hussein of Jordan. The Hashemite King is by history the “Guardian of the Mosques” (Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem).

Israel adopted the Arab position that Jews could not conduct prayer atop the Temple Mount, although visits by Jews and others were commonplace for decades after. Israel did, however, maintain security control through a negotiated series of steps with the Jordanians, the Waqf and later the PA. At various points, the Temple Mount was the scene of Palestinians throwing rocks down on worshippers at the Western Wall plaza, but at no time until last Friday were guns used on or from the Temple Mount.

To prevent further weapons use, Israel searched the mosque and installed metal detectors. It is hard to get Americans excited about that -– we’ve been taking off our shoes, agreeing to be x-rayed and patted down, and tossing our Starbucks for years, precisely because Palestinian terror (remember who started airplane hijacking) was focused on civilian rather than military objectives.

But in Palestinian eyes, if Israel assumed the right to install metal detectors without negotiation, Israel assumed control of the space. And that, like every other manifestation of Israeli sovereign decision-making, is unacceptable to the Palestinians.  

Cue the howling!

“Al Aqsa is under attack!” didn’t mean Israel was shooting at the mosque, or that Israel had claimed it for Jewish prayer. It meant the sovereign Jewish state had exercised a governmental decision affecting the Temple Mount. And that was enough for Omar al-Abed to announce on his Facebook page that he would die a glorious death for al Aqsa. “All I have is a sharpened knife and it answers the call of al Aqsa.” He called Jews “pigs and monkeys,” a familiar phrase.

He put on a white shirt and black slacks -– the standard Sabbath dress of Orthodox Jewish men –- and knocked on the door of 70-year-old Yosef Salomon. The Salomons, who were expecting guests as they welcomed the birth of Yosef’s grandson, opened the door. Photos of the massacre scene show rivers of blood on the floor from Yosef, his daughter Chaya and son Elad. They can’t show the screams of Yosef’s wife Tova as she bled from stab wounds and watched her husband and children die.

As a result, Al-Abed stands to receive the standard PA “salary” for convicted terrorists –- and, happily for him, he committed his crime after Palestinian authorities announced a salary increase of 13%.

If the United States wants to help bring peace to a troubled place, it will focus on the Palestinians what territory and rights they claim, what heroes they pay and venerate, what constitutes a “crime” vs. “glory” in their lexicon, and –- most important –- what they believe are the sovereign rights of the citizens of the Third Jewish Commonwealth. If the Palestinians are honest (hmm?) the answer to the last is “none,” the conversation is over, and metal detectors are the least of the problem.

Shoshana Bryen


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A Yazidi survivor lauds freedom of religion in Israel - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

"I saw what Israel did for  the Druze, the Bahai in Haifa,  the Bedouin,  Samaritans,  Alawites, and the Christians who fled the Lebanese civil war, for the Circassians and the Ahmadi Muslims".

Do you know of this most extraordinary girl, Nadia Murad? The Islamic State’s henchmen kidnapped her when they decimated the Yazidi, they raped her and sold her. She escaped. Today she travels the world to make it aware of the genocide of her people at the hands of those horrendous Islamic predators. Nadia Murad was recently in Israel and said incredible things. 

She praised “the ability of Jews to remain strong and preserve their culture”, she called the Jews “an example” and asked Israel for support. This girl did not study at Harvard and does not write for the Western mainstream media, but she has more courage and moral clarity than all those clumsy intellectuals and journalists who love to demonize Israel. 

Nadia is right. Israel has been a sanctuary not only for the Jews endangered all over, from Baghdad to Yemen, but also for the non-Jewish religious minorities. 

I saw what Israel did for  the Druze, the Bahai in Haifa,  the Bedouin,  Samaritans,  Alawites, and the Christians who fled the Lebanese civil war, for the Circassians and the Ahmadi Muslims. The Jewish state and the Jewish people have created a paradise not only for the Jews, but for the persecuted minorities of the Middle East.

Menachem Begin’s first act as Israel's prime minister was to offer asylum to Vietnamese refugees who had fled the Communist takeover. From 1977-79, Israel welcomed over 300 Vietnamese refugees. 

The West, which uses only words to show how it cares so much about religious freedom, should see Israel as a global example of integration and protection of religious minorities. Only in Israel are mosques protected from the vandalism of Muslim fundamentalists. Only in Israel are the churches filled with the faithful. Only in Israel can Arabs enjoy freedom and prosperity. Only in Israel do you find such a mosaic of religious differences.

At the same time, the West might ask the Arab-Islamic regimes: Where are your Jews? Where are the Jews of Algeria, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon? 

For hundreds of thousands of people, not the Jews but the Gentiles of many communities, the creation of the State of Israel was not a “nakba”, a catastrophe, but a blessing. That is what that extraordinary Yazidi young woman understood. 

Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter and of "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books.. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Modernizing America's Nuclear Capabilities Is a Must - Peter Huessy

by Peter Huessy

America's ability to defend itself is at stake.

  • In 1989, America had 1,000 nuclear missile silos, and a small number of additional bomber and submarine bases and submarines at sea, facing 13,500 Soviet warheads. Today, the U.S. has 450 such silos facing 1,750 Russian warheads. That is a switch from a ratio of 13 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo, to a ratio of 4 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo. Getting rid of Minuteman ICBMs would reverse that progress and make the ratio even worse, with 175 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo. How is that an improvement?
  • The U.S. "cannot afford to delay modernization initiatives" while the "American people and our allies are counting on congressional action to fund our nuclear enterprise modernization efforts." — General Robin Rand, the commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command.
  • America's ability to defend itself is at stake.
In April 2017, the Pentagon launched the U.S. Defense Department's legislatively mandated quadrennial Nuclear Posture Review to determine American policy, strategy and capabilities. The process now underway involves testimony from experts arguing over how the estimated $27 billion spent annually (growing over the next decade by an additional $10 billion a year) on America's nuclear arsenal should be allocated.

One claim, made by a number of experts, is that investing in the effort to upgrade America's exiting nuclear arsenal -- the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) -- would be destabilizing and wasteful. They are, it is claimed, highly vulnerable to enemy attack and therefore do not provide deterrence. Among the 40 House members who suggest killing the land-based missiles is the ranking Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee.

The opposite position was expressed recently by General Robin Rand, the commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC). He persuasively argued that, far from being either destabilizing or unnecessary, "Our bomber and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) forces, and our nuclear command, control, and communications systems defend our national interests, assure our allies and partners, and deter potential adversaries."

Addressing the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee on June 7, Rand said, "ICBMs are the sole weapon system capable of rapid global response and impose a time-proven and unpalatable cost to attack by peer, near-peer and aspiring nuclear nations."

The discrepancy in viewpoints stems from the difference in perception about American nuclear power and deterrence. Those who disagree with Rand are stuck in Cold War thinking, which has become largely irrelevant in today's world. To understand this better, a review of the history of the U.S.-Soviet arms race is necessary.

In January 1967, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson announced that the USSR had greatly expanded its powerful multiple-warhead land-based missiles, as well as having begun to build an anti-ballistic-missile defense system (ABM) around Moscow -- which would enable it to launch a first strike against the U.S. without fear of an effective retaliation against Soviet leadership bunkers -- and called for strategic arms limitations talks (SALT).

Johnson's successor, Richard Nixon, continued with the process, formally launching the negotiations in November 1969 that led to the signing of the SALT I executive agreement in May 1972. When Gerald Ford became president, he agreed with Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev on a general framework for a second agreement -- SALT II -- marginally to limit the deployment capabilities of each side, but still allow major increases in warheads, especially powerful, multi-warhead land-based Soviet missiles.

Although SALT II was signed in June 1979 by Ford's successor, President Jimmy Carter, it was never ratified by the Senate, members of which, on both sides of the aisle, argued that it would not "reverse trends in the military balance adverse to the United States." A week after 19 senators expressed this warning in a letter to Carter, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Carter withdrew the treaty from further consideration.

Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan -- who had been vehemently opposed SALT II before his election -- knew its upward limits would readily accommodate his proposed modernization efforts and thus agreed to abide by it in principle. But here, he switched gears while pursuing a markedly different military and diplomatic avenue, in the form of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Reagan proposed that the U.S. simultaneously modernize while seeking reductions, instead of merely allowing huge increases in warheads under the SALT process. This also challenged the Soviet idea of a nuclear freeze -- especially in that the Soviets were well through their nuclear modernization and the United States had not even begun.

Early in the Reagan administration, the U.S. still continued seeking to make its land-based silo missiles better able to withstand a massive Soviet strike. Many plans were examined, but all were expensive and required the use of a great deal of land on which to move the missiles on trains, trucks or mobile launchers.

Ultimately, in 1983, Reagan reached a simple, but elegant, solution: a three-step program. First, deep reductions in nuclear weapons; second, putting the new, modern, large 10-warhead Peacekeeper land-based missiles in existing Minuteman silos, and third, simultaneously developing a much smaller mobile missile with only one warhead, to be built later. This was essentially accomplished during the three successive administrations after the end of the Cold War, but with one key change. Given that the number of Russian and American strategic warheads eventually were reduced by more than 90% under the START I, Moscow and New START Treaties, American silo-based missiles -- all with only a single warhead -- became fundamentally survivable, even deployed in silos where they remain today.

A Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile in its silo in Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, circa 1980. (Image source: U.S. Department of Defense)

The situation is therefore now the opposite of what it was during the 1970s and 1980s. At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. -- with 1,000 American missile silos -- faced more than 13,000 Soviet (subsequently Russian) warheads, or a 13-to-1 ratio. Today, we face roughly 1,750 Russian warheads but have 450 silos, a 4-to-1 ratio. In other words, the strategic environment became more stable, not less, and eliminating the very nuclear triad responsible for this stability makes no sense.

Although the nuclear triad was conceptualized and developed during the Cold War, maintaining it is just as imperative today. ICBMs are as highly stabilizing now as they were highly destabilizing prior to the dramatic reduction in the number of warheads from 1981-2017.

Why is that?

In 1989, America had 1,000 nuclear missile silos, and a small number of additional bomber and submarine bases and submarines at sea, facing 13,500 Soviet warheads. Today, the U.S. has 450 such silos facing 1,750 Russian warheads. That is a switch from a ratio of 13 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo, to a ratio of 4 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo. Getting rid of Minuteman ICBMs would reverse that progress and make the ratio even worse, with 175 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo. How is that an improvement?

It is crucial, therefore, to continue to invest in modernizing the ICBMs. As for the suggestion -- among some of the less extreme anti-ICBM analysts -- that the current ICBM force be extended for a few more years and modernization be reassessed later -- is not a viable option, according to General Rand. He says that the U.S. "cannot afford to delay modernization initiatives" while the "American people and our allies are counting on congressional action to fund our nuclear enterprise modernization efforts."

Let us hope that those who do not grasp how necessary it is for the United States to go forward with the ground-based strategic deterrent have little influence over the Nuclear Posture Review that is currently underway. America's ability to defend itself is at stake.

Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He was also for 20 years, the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Transgender Ban Isn’t Fair. Neither is War - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The military demands results, not diversity.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

The ban on transgender service that President Trump reaffirmed was there for eight years under Obama. It was there in his first term and his second term. And the media said nothing.

Only in the summer of last year did the ban technically end. And, in practice, it remained in force. All the while there was no angry clamor about the suffering of potential recruits who couldn’t enlist. Those who are fuming with outrage now had hypocritically remained silent. Obama had done it. So it must be good.

Obama had kept the ban in place for almost his entire two terms in office. And he found a way to retain it throughout his final months. With a year’s review, the transgender recruits could only be accepted after he was out of the White House. That way he could have his social justice cake and eat it too. He would get the credit for ending the transgender ban without dealing with any of the problems.

And there were plenty of problems.

45% of transgender persons in the 18 to 44 age range are suicidal. This is a serious risk for personnel who are around weapons or operating machinery or aircraft. If this were the only issue, it would be enough to justify the medical ban.

Transgender operations and hormone therapy requires constant monitoring by a doctor. They carry serious health risks. Some of those risks require serious medications and ongoing management.

That is not what the military usually expects to deal with from recruits.

The Rand study being touted by transgender advocates who claim that medical expenses will only be in the millions relies on a statistical bait and switch. The actual cost is estimated to be in the billions.

The Army and Air Force wanted to delay implementation for another two years. That was on top of the original year review that was lapsing. The issue had become a heavy burden that we didn’t need.

So President Trump got rid of it. His policy is the same one that existed for most of Obama’s time in office. The televised outrage over it is shameless and cynical posturing by media hypocrites.

The transgender ban isn’t a moral or religious policy. It’s a medical one. The military doesn’t have the resources and isn’t equipped to deal with the complicated medical and social problems involved.

The Department of Defense fitness standards have an extensive list of disqualifiers. A “history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex" is there in between pelvic inflammatory disease and missing testicles. These medical issues are there alongside missing fingers, a history of gout and numerous other problems. They’re there because the military wants healthy and able recruits.

It’s that simple.

Military readiness demands personnel who can deploy on short notice without ongoing medical problems holding them back. It wants recruits in prime health who can give all they have. Medical issues don’t just drive up costs so that hard choices have to be made. They also cost lives.

Our armed forces run on teamwork. When members of the team can’t perform, they put lives at risk.

A soldier patrolling around Taliban territory in Afghanistan who runs into medical issues has to be evacuated by helicopter. That puts the crew at risk. Helicopter crashes have made up a sizable chunk of the American death toll. Since medical personnel in Afghanistan won’t be equipped to deal with transgender problems, he will have to be flown out to Germany.  And then to America.

Meanwhile the leading medical challenge in Afghanistan is getting enough trained medics to prevent soldiers whose limbs have been blown off by an IED from dying of blood loss before getting to surgery.

Should resources be diverted from keeping dying soldiers alive to managing transgender issues?

That may not be nice. By the current mores, it may not be fair. But war isn’t nice or fair. And the enemy, whether it’s ISIS or Iran, doesn’t offer special accommodations the way domestic companies do.

The fitness regulations aren’t a matter of morals, but of survival.

Military fitness regulations are inherently discriminatory. They’re discriminatory because life is. The left’s attempts to socially engineer the military are reality denial. There are plenty of things that a 21-year-old Marine can do, that I can’t. There are things that he can do, that a female counterpart can’t.

But the left cares far more about identity politics than military readiness. That’s why ROTC cadets are being made to march around in high heels. And why female soldiers were being trained to shower with “women with male genitalia”. And who needs military readiness anyway?

The military is not a social experiment. It’s the fine line between us and death.

The left is obsessed with identity politics. It breaks down every situation to the oppressed and the oppressor. It seeks to restore “justice” by overthrowing the oppressor. We can’t afford to let these tantrums of childish self-righteousness tear apart the military the way they have torn apart our country.

Identity politics is egocentric and narcissistic. There is no room for that attitude on the battlefield. The political crusade for a transgender military is selfish and irresponsible. It demands that the military put the lives of others at risk to cater to the emotional whims of their identity politics. And that is the exact opposite of the attitude with which thousands of our best and bravest have gone forth to war.

And where should the line be drawn?

If discriminating against any single medical issue is illegal, as leftist lawyers fresh from the judicial sabotage of the travel ban are preparing to argue, then the same must be true for every issue.

How can we allow in transgender recruits, yet keep out the morbidly obese? If enlistment guidelines must be turned upside down to fight transphobia, how can we tolerate fat shaming?

Who are we to exclude a 600lb Marine from the battlefield?

The Democrats demand diversity. They claim that diversity naturally leads to excellence. But while such theories merely wreck campuses and corporations, they are fatal in wartime. On the battlefield unit cohesion matters while all the social theories about the utility of diversity won’t stop a single bullet.

In a crisis, theories mean nothing and competence means everything.

In times past, Americans learned important lessons from their military service. These days, the left expects the military to learn lessons from the dysfunctional grievance society that it has created.

But dysfunction in the military carries a much higher cost than it does in Los Angeles or New York. Our society can tolerate mistrust, hostility and even riots. And still go on running. Without cohesion, the military does not work. Soldiers under fire fight for each other. When they don’t see themselves as part of a team, then they will no longer risk their lives for a bunch of rules and regulations.

Once upon a time we understood that we were part of something greater. And that we could not achieve greatness without each other. Identity politics has shredded that sense of aspirational community. It has replaced it with the conviction that we are oppressed by each other.

Instead of forcing the military to learn from the broken society that Obama created, there are valuable lessons about loyalty and excellence that the military could teach the United States of America.

Sometimes life isn’t fair. Greatness comes from how we deal with that unfairness.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Venezuela on the Brink - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

The opposition fights President Maduro’s power grab as Trump administration imposes sanctions.

Venezuela is at the breaking point. Its failed socialist system is imploding. Venezuela’s economy is in a free fall, a classic example of how top-down centralized government control ends up making conditions worse for virtually everyone except the autocrats running the show. Venezuela’s embattled president, Nicolas Maduro, is facing a determined opposition that is conducting a general strike and a mass protest this week.

Tensions have been building for months, but the country is approaching a critical juncture as Maduro plans to go ahead with a sham “election” on Sunday to choose 545 members for a body known as the Constituent Assembly. This new body would be empowered to rewrite the country’s constitution, which the opposition sees as a way for Maduro to consolidate his autocratic powers even further.  The sham "election" of the Constituent Assembly members is procedurally stacked in such a way that Maduro will almost certainly get a pliant assembly to do his bidding. This move has not only angered the opposition, which has called for a boycott of Sunday’s election, but it has split Maduro’s own ranks. On July 4, 2017, Venezuelan Attorney General Luisa Ortega, a so-called Chavista, strongly denounced Maduro’s plan for a re-write of the constitution.

The opposition controls the National Assembly, which is trying to choose judges for Venezuela’s Supreme Court who are not Maduro loyalists. The Supreme Court back in March had announced that it was taking over the powers of the National Assembly in a blatant bid to suppress the opposition politically. While the Supreme Court reversed its decision a few days later, the move increased distrust in Maduro’s government. Maduro exacerbated the distrust when his intelligence forces began arresting judges appointed by the opposition. He has threatened to arrest more.

“As a direct result of Maduro’s power grab,” The Diplomat has reported, “more than 100 people have been killed, 1,000 injured, and nearly 3,000 arrested in the recent wave of violence and protests.”

Beyond the political struggle, the Venezuelan people are struggling to put food on the table. Inflation may reach as high as an unsustainable 720 percent, destroying the average citizen’s purchasing power. Venezuela’s economic health relies on revenues from oil exports, which have been steadily shrinking. As a result, its currency reserves are shrinking as well. Venezuela’s GDP collapsed by 19 per cent in 2016. Once one of the richest countries in Latin America with its huge proven oil reserves, Venezuela’s socialist government has squandered it all in the service of a failed ideology and greed.

Lower oil revenues have meant cuts in social services. Venezuela is suffering an acute humanitarian crisis, including severe shortages of medication and food.

Rather than confront Venezuela’s political, economic and humanitarian crisis head on and work with the opposition collaboratively to resolve it, President Maduro is lashing out at scapegoats. He has alleged a conspiracy between the opposition and the United States to bring his regime down.  "The US right wing thinks it can give orders in Venezuela, but the only one who gives orders in Venezuela is the people," Maduro said on his weekly broadcast.

If the people of Venezuela are truly the ones giving orders, Maduro is obviously not listening. According to Datanalisis’s June 2017 poll, 69% of Venezuelans oppose the Constituent Assembly maneuver that he is shoving down the throats of the Venezuelan people.  An even larger majority (including a majority of the so-called Chavistas) prefer that the current constitution be enforced. Maduro insists that a new constitution is needed in order to stave off "coup-plotters." Maduro is the real coup-plotter. The opposition-controlled National Assembly leader Julio Borges called Maduro’s insistence on drawing up a new constitution "a scam to deceive the Venezuelan people with a mechanism that is nothing more than a tightening of the coup in Venezuela."

On July 17th, President Donald Trump called Maduro “a bad leader who dreams of becoming a dictator.” He promised that the United States will “not stand by as Venezuela crumbles.” On July 26th, President Trump followed through on his promise. His administration imposed new sanctions on current and former high level government officials, military officers and managers of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PetrĂ³leos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The Trump administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, warned that more U.S. action will be forthcoming if Maduro does not change course. “The United States will keep all options on the table, including sanctioning anyone who joins the Constituent Assembly, and will look into additional measures to hold the Maduro regime accountable,” Ambassador Haley said. “We will also continue to have the backs of the Venezuelan people as they fight to save their once prosperous democracy – even in the face of violence, intimidation, and denial of services by their own government.”

Socialist ideology imposed by brute force is not only morally bankrupt. As proven time and time again, it is self-destructive. Venezuela is but the latest example as it descends into chaos and human misery.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Caving in cravenly to terror, acting stupidly towards Jordan - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Israel has damaged its image and its security in no small measure and must chanege its attitude to the Hashemite Kingdom.

Israel's security cabinet decided to remove all the metal detectors and cameras at the Temple Mount entrances, and perhaps even the cameras at the Lion's Gate and the other gates that lead into the Old City of Jerusalem, placed there just a few days ago after the cold-blooded murder of two Druze Border Police officers by Israeli Arab terrorists. The decision was linked to Jordan's freeing the security guard in the Israeli Consulate there, although the guard has diplomatic immunity, having been sent by the  Shabak chief on a mission to Jordan and engaging in negotiations with colleagues in the Hashemite Kingdom.

The Cabinet decision talks about developing "smart checks" for the astronomical cost of 100 million IS to take the place of the detectors and cameras. I am willing to bet – you name the amount -  that nothing of  significance will be developed in the near future and the talk of "smart checks" is meant to mislead the public, deluding the man in the street into thinking that Israel has found a way to be sovereign in the Old City and the Temple Mount. In addition, even if a miracle occurs and new technology is developed, there is zero chance that it will be put in place without riots. For Israel-hating Muslims, there is  no difference between metal detectors, cameras and any other technology, because putting anything there means Jewish Sovereignty, contradicting basic Islamic tenets mandating that Jews have to live as dhimmis under the protection of the ruler but subject to his whims, and that they must pay the humiliating Koranic jyzia head tax.

Without doubt, the Israeli government caved and retreated from its decision to operate security apparatus at the entrances to the Temple Mount. From today on, only Jews and tourists will be expected to undergo a humiliating search to be sure they are not carrying phylacteries or prayer books when they ascend the Mount. Muslims, who proved their terrorist proclivities on the 14th of July this year, will continue to enter the holy site without being searched or supervised and will be able to smuggle weapons on to  the Mount. Pressure was exerted on the Israeli government from every direction: Israeli Arabs, PA Arabs, Arab and  Muslim countries, Europe and the USA.

Israel's capitulation when faced with these pressures is of grave significance. The first failure is the fact that Israel's government did not coordinate its steps with the US government, particularly Jason Greenblatt, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East. The government did not expect the crashing wave of Islamic opposition to the move and did not obtain American support for the security measures beforehand. After all, every American  understands the necessity of these measures in light of  the terrorist reality in which the enlightened world finds itself.

Muslim haters of Israel have received enormous encouragement from this affair. Their future demands will be much greater, in just the way one's appetite grows at the sight of food. Terror, it seems, does pay, and the state of Israel looks for easy, immediate and temporary solutions to problems instead of dealing forthrightly with challenges and emerging the victor over those who wish to  harm us. The Jewish people will pay a high price for this questionable "achievement" of "defusing tensions on the ground," a result that is far from proven.

Removing the security apparatus proved that the Muslims have scored another victory over the Jews. Once again it has been made clear that Israel's government has melted down the steadfast sticking-to-our-guns mentality that characterized the Jewish people when the state was established in 1948 and during the wars that have since accompanied life on our ancestral lands. No declaration, no matter how bombastic, whether proclaimed by the president, prime minister, ministers, officials, IDF commanders or  police can hide the bitter and humiliating truth that terrorists forced the Israeli government  to cave in and retreat from its correct and completely justified - original - decision.

How will the government be able to look the families of the two Border Police officers in the eye?  What  will all those irresponsible ministers say to  the families hit by the terror that will unquestionably increase thanks to their weak and scandalous decision to remove the security apparatus guarding the capital of Israel? How will the Israeli Police deal with the wave of terror that this government's stupidity will bring about, without being provided with the means necessary to accomplish their mission? What nation with the will to live caves in to terror this way?

The stupidity regarding Jordan

Since the signing of the 1994  peace agreement with the Hashemite Kingdom, Israel's dealings with Jordan are replete with mistakes stemming from the "special status" Israel granted that country on the Temple Mount. Peace could have been achieved without that unnecessarily generous gift, because Hussein needed peace with us more than we needed peace with him. That aside, what normal nation grants another nation special status in its capital and on the holiest site of its own people?

The special status and authority granted Jordan on the Temple Mount constitutes the original sin. But the greater sin Israel commits regarding Jordan is the "insurance policy" it has been providing the Hashemite Kingdom for the last 23 years under the  illusiory belief that the monarchy's continued existence ensures that Jordan will act as a buffer zone defending Israel from the periodic dangers threatening it from the east: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Ayatollahs' Iran, al Qaeda and ISIS. 

As a result of this supposition, the Hashemite monarchy, whose source of power is the Saudis, continues to rely on the backing of  Jordan's Bedouin minority in order to rule over its Palestinian Arab majority. This prevents the much-needed logical switch that will turn Jordan into a Palestinian Arab state or split Jordan into a Palestinian Arab State in its northwestern,Palestinian-populated region and a Bedouin state in the rest of the country.

The continued rule of the Hashemite Kingdom in  Jordan and the failure to establish a Palestinian Arab state there is the source of the demands that Israel establish a Palestinian Arab state on the hills of Judea and Samaria, the birthplace of the Jewish people. That  Palestinian Arab state will have its sights trained on Beit Shaan and Afula in the north all the way down to Beer Sheva and Dimona in the south, and it will make use of gunfire, rockets and missiles to establish its  power.

Instead of  heeding the Jordanian king's demands on security measures in Jerusalem, Israel should have told him clearly: "The murderous attack on July 14th proved that you are not living up to your responsibilities on the Temple Mount. Accordingly, you have not kept that part of our peace agreement and have relinquished the special status Israel [stupidly] granted your father in 1994. As far as the security guard who defended himself in Amman is concerned, you have one hour to hand him over to us healthy and whole.  Until that happens, Israel will not transfer the tens of millions of cubic meters of water that it promised your father in the peace agreements."

That is the way Israel should be communicating with the king of  Jordan, especially since he led the anti-Israel UNESCO decision on Jerusalem. Is that the behavior of a country that has a peace agreement with us?

When Israel  put the security equipment on the Temple Mount about ten days ago, King Abdullah II of Jordan turned to the American government and the countries of Europe, saying that Israel's actions might cause the  Muslims in Jordan and outside it to be furious with him because of  his "special status" in Jerusalem, and might threaten the stability of his monarchy. In order to guard his shaky throne, he demanded Israel remove the security apparatus it had placed there. Is there a more ridiculous demand than this one? Is Israel expected to put its own  citizens in danger to protect the job the king inherited from his grandfather Abdullah I, himself put there by the British with no justification whatsoever?

Israeli egregiousness is blatant when it comes to Jordan. Israel prefers to serve tactical, immediate, short term and  narrow interests instead of the strategic, long term interests provided by overthrowing the present Hashemite monarchy and turning Jordan into a Palestinian Arab state. The last few days proved that the peace agreement with Jordan does nothing but put constraints on  Israel while allowing pressure to be imposed on it by an illegitimate monarchy living on borrowed time, that can collapse any minute as did the other much more stable Arab regimes in our area

The Hashemite monarchy owes its life to Israel and Israel has no need to give in on anything it demands. But it is hard to expect a government that caves in to terror to be able to wend its way safely along the crooked roads of the Middle East.;

Israel will have to invest much effort to restore its image, severely damaged by the government decision. Perhaps the time has come for Israelis to ask themselves if  they would not be better off with a more steadfast national leader who has the guts to stand up to the challenges that could lead to security in the terror-wracked area in  which the Jewish state would like to survive.

Written for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Tower of Gender Babble - Deborah Tyler

by Deborah Tyler

There are no such people as transgenders. --  There is a very rare, serious mental disorder of transsexuality.

The first book of the Bible contains a story about a fortunate people who are delivered from the Great Flood. After their lives are spared from the watery cataclysm, they gather together and settle in Babylonia. They have no multicultural diversity, which enables them to achieve great works. They become proud of their advanced technologies, and as their pride grows, they come to feel they can do anything – even rival God through the force of their own identity. To this end, they begin building a great tower of special bricks to reach Heaven. To thwart this unholy ambition, God inflicts linguistic diversity upon them, casting them into balal – confusion – to prevent them from communicating with one another. They swiftly become incapable of using advanced science and abandon building the tower. The once proud people splinter into language groups who begin to make war against each other.

What happened on the plain of Shiner was an anti-God rebellion. God punished this once proud people by inflicting mental confusion upon them. And the best way to confuse the mind is to confound the mouth with babble.

American society is drowning in the dank waters of an anti-God reformation of belief, in which truth, purity, and beauty are despised while cults of selfishness and pride are venerated. Our minds are bedeviled by the "lesbian-gay-bisexual" obsession; our mouths babble about "gender."

A paradox of human psychology is that good fortune and high favor tend to make people more likely to forget or reject God. The twentieth century is the first time in human history in which fortune and favor have risen so high that pride has caused people not merely to reject or compete with God, but to hate Him. This psychodynamic of egoism has not changed since the Flood. The job of the ego is to solve inner conflict created by the pressure of ever more wanting. The ego accomplishes this by falsely valuing the important as unimportant and valuing the unimportant as important. Political power and gratification of instinctual desires are unimportant to the spiritual condition, but the ego takes them to be all-important and therefore exonerates multifarious selfishness. On the other hand, spirituality is all-important for the soul, but the ego looks upon it as unimportant. Throughout history, the collective egoism of societies, operating much like individual egos, have deemed power and wealth to be more important than the spiritual. Over and over, peoples have turned away from God, with tragic outcomes.

But something unique in human spirituality happened throughout the course of the twentieth century: an anti-God reformation. In great civilizations of the West, political power reorganized around cults of self-worship. They did not merely reject their Judeo-Christian heritage, but came to reject the idea of God altogether. Without the moral authority of theistic religion, egoism runs wild among materialistically comfortable people, and the confining aspects of consciousness such as anger, lust, and greed, assume egoistic dominance. In particular, the instinctual experience of sexuality is deified. Methods of self-control such as marriage are debased, and instinct becomes the client of legal entitlements and political power.

This is the impetus of the political obsession called lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender. The ego is never satisfied with equality, but strives for dominance. The lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender inundation has always been about the destruction of the Judeo-Christian religions and political dominance for minority, variant, and deviant sexuality.

Of the four horsemen – lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender – the introduction of the term "gender" is entirely an artifact of the anti-God reformation. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual can be conflated into homosexual/bisexual behaviors and consciousness. Whether or not it is the proper role of government to promote special rights for these lust stylings, at least the words "homosexuality" and "bisexuality" refer to objective psychological realities. The term "gender," however, is a dehumanizing obfuscation created for political purposes. The gender hoax is again casting proud people into balal.

There is no such thing as human "genders." Homosexuality is not "homogender attraction," nor is bisexuality "bigenderism." The term "gender" is recently concocted politico-babble of the anti-God, anti-natural belief catastrophe. The goal of mid-20th-century feminism was to establish the delusion that there are no significant functional differences between the two sexes. For egoism, that falsehood was not enough, so the next step in reformation scripture was to insist that biological sex is trivial. Now that scripture is denying the very existence of the two sexes in favor of the subjective but biologically nonexistent experience of "gender." This nonexistent human condition was slowly introduced over the last several years – and now everybody is babbling it.

Before the ever worsening anti-God reformation, no one used the word "gender" in reference to human beings. There was a fairer sex, the battle of the sexes, and what is the sex of your baby? Every verbal "gender" emission is totalitarian newspeak, a psychological dirty bomb, because it is mendacious. That is why it must be enforced by left-wing thought policing.

Hate speech expresses aversion and hostility that demean a group of people. The terms "gender" and "transgender" are hate speech because they express antipathy to human nature itself. Human identity is inseparable from sex identity. To deny an individual's male or female identity is to make that person a thing, an "it." To deny an innocent child the significance of sex identity is an abusive imprisonment in anti-natural confusion.

There are no such people as transgenders. The promulgation of that term is a political, territorial expansion of the insatiable campaign against faith in God and gratitude for God's natural world. There is a very rare, serious mental disorder of transsexuality. People who suffer that disorder want only to change from one sex to another to affirm their humanity.

Karl Marx coined the pejorative and misleading term capitalism. The vast majority of successful people in America do not owe their success to starting out with piles of capital. The American free enterprise system has been demeaned by the term "capitalism" because of Marx's historic influence. Gender-speak is well on its way to becoming another entrenched dehumanizing term of politico-babble unless it is stopped now.

May the Democrats continue to focus on the very special needs of lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer. Regardless of wealth, education, or any other advantage, there can never be enough favoritism shown to every member of the irreparably underserved minority sexualities. Non-Democrats need to understand that when they accede to the initialism "LGBT," they are kowtowing to political power of the anti-God reformation and undermining the highest spiritual possibilities of human life.

It is time to raze the tower of babble and pledge, "I solemnly swear never to use the word 'gender' again."

Deborah C. Tyler can be reached at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israel capitulates to Palestinian escalation - debkaFile

by debkaFile

The insatiable demands for more capitulation will not stop at this point.

The Netanyahu government has caved in to combined Palestinian and Israeli Arab pressure on its positions regarding Temple Mount and its responses to acts of terror. By Thursday morning, July 27, all the security measures, metal detectors, cameras and fences, had been removed from Temple Mount, and the bodies of the three Israeli Arabs who murdered to Israeli police officers handed over to their families in their home town of Umm al Fahm in the Israeli Arab Triangle.

In the Old City of Jerusalem, joyous Palestinians handed out candy and fired off crackers. Their cars hooted to celebrate their victory over the Jews.

In Umm Al Fahm, thousands attended a funeral march early Thursday under fluttering Palestinian flags and hailed the three terrorists, who set off the Temple Mount crisis by gunning down police guards, as “holy martyrs” who brought glory to “occupied Umm al Fahm.” This Arab town northeast of Tel Aviv is represented in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset.

Even after Israel gave in to their demands, for the sake of calming the loaded crisis, the Palestinians’ clerical leaders and the Waqf did not order Muslim worshippers to end their boycott of A Aqsa. Instead, their prayer gatherings in the streets outside are constantly swelling as a symbol of their confrontation with Israel. The Palestinian Authority, the Tanzim militia and Hamas have called for an escalated showdown with Israel on Friday.

As debkafile noted Wednesday, the Israeli government, by surrendering to Palestinian and Israeli Arab nationalist and religious extremists, has set its feet on a dangerously slippery slope. The insatiable demands for more capitulation will not stop at this point.

debkafile reported Wednesday:

Binyamin Netanyahu’s government is being forced back step by step on the Temple Mount standoff by a three-line siege imposed by the Palestinians, Sunni Arab governments, including Jordan, and public opinion at home.

The security cabinet can’t be faulted for approving its first rational steps for securing the worshippers and visitors frequenting Temple Mount, after three Israeli Arab gunmen desecrated the shrine on July 14 by shooting dead two Israeli police officers on guard at Lion’s Gate.

Metal detectors at the gates provided a quick fix for reopening the shrines the next day.

Where the ministers went wrong was in failing to go after the perpetrators of the murders committed at one of the most sensitive world shrines. The killers belonged to the lawless Jabarin clan that rules the Israeli Arab town of Umm al Fahm. The ministers did not treat this clan as central to the crime, out of concern for the delicate relations with Israel’s Arab minority. Instead, Temple Mount, the lightning rod of Israel’s relations with the entire Muslim and Arab world, was treated as the core issue.

The Jabarins felt safe enough to carry on breaking Israel’s laws. On Tuesday, July 25, a member was caught smuggling a truckload of illegal Palestinian workers from the Palestinian town of Jenin across into Israel. It was obvious that something is badly amiss in national homeland security policies.

In another example, the government finally, a year late, ordered the home of one of the Tel Aviv Sarona Market terrorists, who murdered four Israelis, to be knocked down. One story of a building in the Hebron village of Yata will be destroyed. At the same time, the Supreme Court of Justice in Jerusalem gave the police 30 hours to hand over the bodies of the three Temple Mount gunmen, members of the Jabarin tribe,  to their families for burial.

Razing the home of one of the Tel Aviv terrorists, who claimed to have been inspired by ISIS, in a timely fashion, a year ago, might have been some deterrent for the killers of Umm al-Fahm.

it now turns out that the shrine murders 12 days ago were the result of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians coming together for a joint terrorist conspiracy against Israel. The location was deliberately chosen as the catalyst for dragging moderate Arab rulers into a plot for compelling Israel to give up its sovereignty on Temple Mount and the Old City of Jerusalem. 

This conspiracy was insufficiently addressed by the ministers taking part in the security cabinet’s deliberations. The removal of the metal scanners, security cameras - or any other measures Israel was been forced to cede - will not satisfy the Palestinians and Israeli Arab leaders, including their members of parliament. They are intent on drawing their community of 1.5 million into the bloody brew they have cooked up for the entire Arab world to consume.

As this juncture, the Israeli government has no choice but to brake hard on concessions – even as street violence escalates - and draw a red line against caving in any further. The Palestinians and their clerics should be firmly informed that if they choose to continue to boycott Al Aqsa and hold prayers in the street outside the shrine, so be it. Israel will not budge any further on its responsibility to secure Temple Mount against more violence. And their dream of a victory parade on the holy compound to celebrate their humiliation of the Jewish State will never come true.

Very few Israelis are aware of the origins of the 180,000 Arabs living in Jerusalem today. Most of them originate in Hebron and migrated to Jerusalem over the years since 1967. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which ruled eastern Jerusalem and its shrines for 19 years up until the Six Day War, very carefully kept Hebron natives out of the city. Their extremist conduct over Temple Mount explains why.

If Israel fails to draw a strong red line at this point in the standoff, a new crisis or terrorist outrage will be staged every few days to force the ministers to fall back step by step on measures pivotal to national security. Popular opnion at home, incensed over the Halamish terrorist outrage, was against the first concession and will oppose any more.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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