Saturday, December 23, 2017

Obama's Collusion With Hezbollah Narco-Terrorists - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

Efforts to push through Iran nuke deal resulted in shutdown of major DEA operation.

By the summer of 2015, the Obama administration was in a panic. Obama’s foreign policy was marked by abject failure. The Russian re-set went disastrously wrong and the same could be said for the Arab re-set.

America’s lead from behind attitude in Libya and its support for anti-Qaddafi insurgents produced a base of operations for al-Qaida. In Syria, an American leadership vacuum allowed the Russians to slip right in and assume a dominant regional role. In Iraq, the early departure of American forces resulted in half the country being overrun by the Islamic State while the other half was subsumed by the Islamic Republic.

Obama’s support for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood front man, Mohammed Morsi, and his vacillation in supplying attack helicopters to the successive government of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi allowed the Russian to once again move in and usurp America’s traditional role.

The administration seemed incapable of dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. Indeed, Obama and the oleaginous sycophants that worked for him could not even bring themselves to utter that phrase. ISIS was on the march, democracy was on the run in Venezuela, and North Korea continued to detain Americans and test-fire ballistic missiles.

Obama’s efforts to strong-arm Israel into accepting a deleterious peace agreement with the gangsters from Ramallah had backfired miserably. Finally, Obama’s pet project of emptying Guantanamo of its dangerous Islamist detainees ran into a brick wall.

It seemed as if nothing could go right for the president. Everything he touched became tainted.  Every Obama initiative (when there was initiative) produced negative results that were harmful to U.S. interests.

Obama was desperate. After a string of public failures and humiliations, he badly needed something in the win column. And so with a cloud of failure swirling around him, he committed an act so egregiously destructive, so outrageously deceptive, it rivaled Neville Chamberlain’s calamitous Munich Agreement. On July 14, 2015, the Obama administration bound the United States to an agreement with the world’s premier state-sponsor of international terrorism and drug trafficking.

In its zeal to clinch a deal with the Islamic Republic, the Obama administration embarked on a systematic campaign to lie to the American people and Congress. It utilized its many obsequious troglodytes, chief among them Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and John Kerry, to create echo chambers to hammer false talking points and narratives that would reverberate within friendly quarters of the establishment media.

But Obama did much more than lie. In an effort to appease Iran and stroke the detestable mullahs, he thwarted a very promising DEA operation, code-named Project Cassandra, targeting Iran’s terrorist proxy arm, Hezbollah; this, according to an explosive 50-page bombshell report authored by Politico’s Josh Meyer.

Meyer, citing interviews with dozens of participants, details the depth and breadth of Hezbollah’s drug trafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering schemes. DEA operatives established that Hezbollah’s tentacles of destruction was both large and sophisticated and spanned several continents. Hezbollah partnered with various drug cartels in Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico in a lucrative venture that netted the organization billions of dollars. Drug money was then laundered with the help of various Hezbollah affiliated financial institutions, and complex transactions involving the mass scale purchase of used cars in the U.S. for resale in the west African nation of Benin.

Hezbollah operatives were knee-deep in efforts to supply Iraqi and Afghan insurgents with a new type of Improvised Explosive Device called Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP) which wreaked havoc on American troops and was responsible for over 500 American deaths and the maiming of many more. Moreover, Hezbollah acted on behalf of Iran to obtain illicit material for Iran’s rogue nuclear program.

The names of those involved in these illicit schemes were known to the DEA and its operatives were ready to pounce. But the Obama administration had other ideas. It delayed, obstructed and ultimately thwarted the DEA’s law enforcement efforts. Project Cassandra was shut down and its agents were reassigned. Years of meticulous investigations which netted a treasure trove of intelligence on the inner workings of Hezbollah and its operatives were discarded and lost.

In addition to the calamitous tactical and strategic implications of the Obama administration’s obstructionist policies, Hezbollah was never called to task for its importation of over $1 billion worth of cocaine into the United States. Over 60,000 Americans annually succumb to drug related deaths and Hezbollah is responsible for a good many of these.

But Obama wasn’t concerned with Hezbollah’s nexus to the cocaine flow nor for that matter was he concerned with its money laundering operations and its arms trafficking activities, including its involvement with supplying EFPs to America’s jihadist enemies. Obama was more concerned with reaching accommodation with Iran and solidifying his legacy with at least one crowning foreign policy “achievement.” He feared that criminal action against Hezbollah would alienate Iran, Hezbollah’s main patron, and thus could unravel his efforts in seeking accommodation with the mullahs.

In addition, there was an absurd belief within the administration that America could engage with “moderate elements” of Hezbollah. That’s akin to saying that the Allies could deal with the “moderate wing” of the Nazi party. The chief proponent of this ridiculous policy was CIA chief John “Al-Quds” Brennan. Brennan saw Hezbollah as evolving from “a purely terrorist organization” to a militia and ultimately to a political party with representatives in the Lebanese government. But what Brennan overlooked was that Hezbollah operates a full-fledged army within the sovereign borders Lebanon in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions, has regulated the Lebanese army to a subordinate auxiliary role, and has absorbed most Lebanese state institutions through brute force and intimidation.

With the Iran deal, Obama has indeed solidified his legacy, one that will be remembered for deception, appeasement and curtailment of law enforcement. More ominously, the Iran deal will be remembered as the deal that empowered the mullahs and provided them with a legal pathway toward acquiring nuclear bombs. Absent regime change or overwhelming military force, the Islamic Republic will acquire WMDs sooner rather than later and when that happens, God help us all.

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinians: Another "Reconciliation" Bites the Dust - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Westerners are either ignorant and naïve or they are willfully deluding themselves.

  • The idea that Hamas would disarm and stop digging tunnels and hand the Gaza Strip on a silver platter to Abbas and Fatah is pure fantasy.
  • Westerners are either ignorant and naïve or they are willfully deluding themselves.
  • Hamas simply cannot accept a situation where it is being asked to accept the so-called two-state solution....As made clear by the Hamas leaders, their goal remains to seek the "liberation of all of Palestine, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river." This is Hamas's mantra.
For more than two months, the Hamas-Fatah "reconciliation" agreement that was reached in Cairo in October has been hailed by many Arabs and Westerners as a sign that the Palestinians were finally marching forward together.

It turns out, however, that the dramatic announcement of the agreement, which was reached with the sponsorship of the Egypt, was all a bluff.

Those in the know about the Palestinian world predicted that the latest "reconciliation" deal would fail. At least five previous agreements between Hamas and Fatah, reached under the auspices of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Yemen over the past ten years, likewise failed. Every one of these agreements was stillborn, not worth the time it took to uncap the pen.

The latest "reconciliation" agreement, then, has just joined this impressive list of defunct accords. Moreover, it is not too speculative to suggest that any truce struck in the foreseeable future between Hamas and Fatah would also swiftly join its predecessors in the graveyard of agreements.

So, why do these "reconciliation" agreements between the two rival Palestinian parties keep failing? Why has it become impossible for the Palestinians to reunite themselves and work together for the sake of a better life for their people? Who is responsible for the divisions and internal bickering among the Palestinians and who are the biggest losers and winners from the continued power struggle between Hamas and Fatah?

PA President Mahmoud Abbas. For the Palestinians, the word '"reconciliation" has become synonymous with discord. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

These questions prod at one as Palestinian leaders continue to call for "days of rage" and incite their people in response to President Donald Trump's announcement recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The small protests that have swept some parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (but were exaggerated by mainstream media in the West) served as a distraction from the failure of Hamas and Fatah to implement their "reconciliation" agreement.

Once again, Hamas and Fatah have shown that their accords are about everything but "reconciliation." In fact, each time they sign such a pact, tensions between them skyrocket. For the Palestinians, the word "reconciliation" has become synonymous with dissension and disagreement.

While Palestinians, incited by their leaders, were busy over the past week throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and burning US flags and effigies of Trump, Hamas and Fatah were quietly burying the "reconciliation" agreement that they had enthusiastically celebrated a few weeks before. Hamas and Fatah have begun the process of preparing for their people the news that this has been yet another short-lived marriage, and that the two parties are simply unable to live together in the same house.

Echoing this mood, Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar told a group of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on December 21 that the "reconciliation" deal with Fatah was "collapsing." He explained: "Anyone who doesn't see the reconciliation agreement collapsing is blind. The agreement is falling apart and everyone should intervene to save it."

Another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, said that his movement does not want to be part of any "reconciliation" agreement that "harms the interests of Hamas and the religion of Islam." Zahar, in a speech before Muslim worshippers in the Gaza Strip on December 15, said that Hamas's "project" remains the "liberation of all of Palestine." He also repeated Hamas's long-standing position that it will never recognize Israel's right to exist and will never accept the so-called two-state solution.

According to the two Hamas leaders, the main reason behind the failure of the agreement with President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction centers around the demand for Hamas to disarm and give up its security control over the Gaza Strip. Abbas and his Fatah leaders have been begging Hamas to allow them to regain security control over the Gaza Strip as part of the "reconciliation" agreement, but to no avail. Hamas' response: "Over our dead bodies!"

Some Western political analysts and experts who had applauded the "reconciliation" agreement as a sign that Hamas and Fatah were finally moving in the right direction and doing something good for the sake of their own people are in a for disappointment. One of two things is happening: Westerners are either ignorant and naïve or they are willfully deluding themselves.

Once again : Anyone who thinks that Hamas will voluntarily, and peacefully cede its security control over the Gaza Strip and lay down its weapons is living under an illusion.

The idea that Hamas would disarm and stop digging tunnels and hand the Gaza Strip on a silver platter to Abbas and Fatah is pure fantasy.

From the outset, it was clear that Hamas had no intention of relinquishing its security control over the Gaza Strip and that it plans to continue holding hostage the two million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. How do we know that? The answer is simple: That is what Hamas leaders themselves have been stating in public almost every day for the past few weeks since the "reconciliation" agreement was announced in Cairo.

The Hamas-Fatah "reconciliation" accord failed because Hamas will continue to prepare itself to pursue the fight against Israel. It wants to continue digging tunnels along the border with Israel so that it can use them one day to kill or kidnap Israelis. Hamas wants to continue building tunnels along the border with Egypt so that it can use them to smuggle weapons and terrorists into and out of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas wants to hold on to the thousands of militiamen it employs and continues to recruit in the Gaza Strip because it will never allow anyone else to rule the Gaza Strip. Hamas denies that it had agreed to disarm or dismantle its security forces when it reached its agreement with Fatah.

The "reconciliation" deal, however, not only failed because of the controversy over the security control of the Gaza Strip.

The other reason the deal never materialized is because Hamas simply cannot accept a situation in which it is being asked to accept the so-called two-state solution. Hamas is worried that its partnership with Abbas and Fatah might be interpreted as a sign that Hamas recognizes the Oslo Accords and has abandoned its genocidal ideology, which calls for the destruction of Israel. As made clear by the Hamas leaders, their goal remains to seek the "liberation of all of Palestine, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river." This is Hamas's mantra.

The agreement failed because Hamas remains the same Hamas it has been for the past 30 years. The one thing Hamas has to its credit is honesty: it now, as it has always, aims to eliminate Israel. Hamas has been making this considerately clear in all languages.

The Palestinians are now back in the kitchen. This means that the Palestinians will have to continue living with the reality that they have two separate political entities (or mini-states) – one in the West Bank and another in the Gaza Strip. Abbas and Fatah will continue to rule parts of the West Bank – under the protection of Israel, while Hamas will continue to have full control over the entire Gaza Strip, which has been turned into an Islamist emirate.

This is purely an internal Palestinian affair which concerns neither Israel nor any other party. The power struggle among the Palestinians is the direct result of a dispute between corrupt leaders of Fatah and Hamas. These are leaders who are prepared to fight each other to the last Palestinian. These are leaders who insist upon indoctrinating their people and inciting them against Israel and the US as a way of distracting attention from bad government. These are the leaders who have led their people again and again, from one war after another, to the edge of devastation.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

"Court Jihad": How the French Justice System Assists Islamists - Yves Mamou

by Yves Mamou

Anyone who dares to question Islam or Islamism in its relation to violence and terrorism risks being hauled into court and tried as a "racist."

  • In France, all the circumlocutions for the word "terrorist" appear to have the same goal: to deny that Islamist terrorism is a coordinated movement and that Islamist warriors are mainly French citizens engaged in a war against their own country.
  • If you deny that terrorism is a war, you also logically have to deny that terrorists are supported, sheltered, transported and financed by a grey zone of supposedly peaceful French citizens.
  • In France today, the result of the denial of war is the "anti-racism" movement. Anyone who dares to question Islam or Islamism in its relation to violence and terrorism risks being hauled into court and tried as a "racist."
When members of a small French far-right nationalist group, Génération Identitaire, occupied a mosque under construction in Poitiers in 2012 and said they were celebrating the anniversary of the battle of Poitiers (732 AD), in which Charles Martel defeated the army of the Ummayad Caliphate, thereby routing the Arab invasion of France, the prosecutor of the Republic of France launched an immediate investigation for "incitement to racial hatred." Five of the activists were arrested, indicted, and this month, sentenced to one-year suspended prison sentences. The court sentenced four of them to deprivation of their civic rights (such as the right to vote in elections) for the next five years. In addition, the Génération Identitaire organization had to pay a fine of 10,000 euros, and the four activists had to pay a fine of 24,000 euros to the organization "Muslims of France" ("Musulmans de France"), which is the owner of the mosque and the legal representative in France of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement. If the fine is not paid, the activists will go to jail.

The lawyer for Génération Identitaire, Frederic Pichon, said he was "flabbergasted by the severity of the sentence" and that the decision was "political". "I cannot help comparing it with the incredible impunity that... Femen received when it burst into the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris," he said.
Pichon was referring to a 2013 incident, in which members of the feminist group Femen had burst topless into Notre Dame Cathedral, were accused of damaging a bell, and in 2015, were acquitted by the Paris court of appeals. Two of the security officers who drove the perpetrators received fines.

Members of the French nationalist group Génération Identitaire chant on the roof of a mosque (then under construction) in Poitiers, France, on October 20, 2012. (Image source: France 3 video screenshot)

The heavy sentence against far-right activists of the Génération Identitaire, however, should not have come as a surprise. The French judicial system is simply applying a policy which claims that the new enemy of the society is not Islamism, but the traditional fascism of the extreme right. This policy, elaborated by the Ministry of Justice and applied by prosecutors, is based on two assumptions. The first is that -- despite the fact that since 2012 more than 250 people have been murdered in France by Islamic terrorism -- there is supposedly no Islamist war against France or any other non-Muslim country. Islamists killers are presumably only "lone wolves" or "mentally ill". The second assumption is that if there is no Islamist war against non-Muslims, all critics of Islam and Islamism are not exercising freedom of speech but expressing racism.

The denial of an Islamist war was established in the judiciary by Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira in 2012, under the socialist president François Hollande. Taubira staffed her ministerial office with a significant number of members of the Syndicat de la Magistrature, an Islamo-leftist union of judges.

To get an idea of what the Syndicat de la Magistrature (SM) is, its general secretary, Laurence Blisson, told the communist paper l'Humanité in 2015, after the terrorist attack against the satiric magazine Charlie Hebdo: "We are facing extremely serious criminal acts, but we are not facing a war..." Blisson was also very active in public meetings, siding with Islamist figures such as the activist grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tariq Ramadan, and the founder of the Collectif contre l'islamophobie ("Collective against Islamophobia," CCIF), Marwan Muhammad.

Under Taubira, François Molins, the prosecutor of Paris, became the backbone of the fight against terrorists and the Denier-of-War-in-Chief. Molins showed great lexical inventiveness in finding different definitions each time for the same acts of terrorism: killers became "isolated and troubled"; "lone wolves"; "mentally unbalanced" or "radicalized at the last minute". One Islamist terrorist became a "neophyte". All these circumlocutions appear to have the same goal: to deny that Islamist terrorism is a coordinated movement and that Islamist warriors are mainly French citizens engaged in a war against their own country.

If you deny that terrorism is a war, you also logically have to deny that terrorists are supported, sheltered, transported and financed by a grey zone of supposedly peaceful French citizens.

The case of Jawad Bendaoud illustrates the mindset of denial of war. Bendaoud was arrested because in one of his apartments, he had sheltered two members of the Islamist cell that had committed the terrorist attacks of November 2015 at the Bataclan Theater, several cafés and the Stade de France stadium, in which more than 130 people were murdered. At first, Bendaoud, prosecuted by Molins's department of justice, was accused of being "associated with terrorist criminals for the preparation of one or more crimes to harm people". Three months later, however, when public anger calmed down, Bendaoud's crime of "terrorism" was downgraded to just "concealment of wrongdoers". Under the first charge, Bendaoud risked 20 years in prison; under the second, only three.

Another Islamist, Kobili Traore, who murdered an elderly Jew, Sarah Halimi, in spring of 2017, was immediately sent to a psychiatric hospital. For the Paris prosecutor, this Islamist was neither an Islamist nor anti-Semitic. He was regarded as just a poor, mentally-ill killer. Only a report by experts, and public pressure from the Jewish media, moved the Paris prosecutor to reconsider the charges. Sarah Halimi's murderer will now be brought to court and charged with an "anti-Semitic offense".

In France today, the result of the denial of war is the "anti-racism" movement. Anyone who dares to question Islam or Islamism in its relation to violence and terrorism risks being hauled into court and tried as a "racist."

Before 2012, the French judiciary considered "racism" a difficult matter. Most of the time, police precincts were reluctant to register a complaint on any matter related to "racism." They found the entire concept of racism ethereal and seemingly did not want to waste time on a matter where proof is so difficult to demonstrate. Even when a precinct registered a complaint, the file was never delivered to the prosecutor. If a complaint of racism was finally transmitted to prosecutor's office, it was most often carefully kept at the bottom of the pile of complaints.

In 2012, the Minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira, changed all that. She ordered all prosecutors to hire a "discrimination attaché", an investigative magistrate specializing in cases related to racism. She also ordered all prosecutors to work closely with "anti-racist" organizations, which means they had to get close to the Muslim "anti-Islamophobia" organizations. In January 2015, in the wake of Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, Taubira ordered all prosecutors in France to pay special attention to all expressions of racism in the country. Her intentions were undoubtedly good, but since then, any kind of criticism or protest against Islam or Islamists immediately comes under suspicion of "racism". The government, possibly afraid of a civil war, began to fight anti-Islamic "hate speech".

As a consequence, a "court jihad" of trials began in France, not only against the far-right, but also against journalists, writers, academics, secular Muslims, and anyone else accused of being a "racist" if he expressed a fear of Islamism, justified or not. Spread by a constellation of Muslim organizations allied to powerful (non-Muslim) "anti-racist" associations, "jihad by court" has brought to trial people who exercised their right to freedom of speech. Many prosecutors have exceeded what was necessary to prevent abuse and the circumvention of the freedom of speech.

It will be now be interesting to see how the courts will treat two Islamists who, in mid-November 2017, penetrated the Carmel de Verdun monastery in eastern France, where nuns were celebrating Vespers. The Islamists has shouted and sung Koranic suras in Arabic, and had "encouraged" the nuns to convert to Islam. "If you do not convert to Islam," they said, "you will go to hell". On the Golden Book of the Carmel, the monastery's visitors book, they wrote "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the greatest"). The two men were later arrested by the police. Their trial is expected in April 2018. Officially they are charged for "psychological violence" and could face up to three years in prison and a fine up to 45,000 euros.

Yves Mamou, author and journalist, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde. He is finishing a book about "Collaborators and Useful Idiots of Islamism in France," to be published in 2018.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Dror Eydar

by Dror Eydar

It is not the prime minister's alleged corruption that threatens our future but rather the Left's insistence on challenging the people's democratic choice.

Israelis protest against corruption in Tel Aviv on December 2  
Photo: Reuters

In days to come, when your son asks you "where were you when all this happened?" You will be able to say, "at least I tried." It has been more than 20 years since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the evaporation of the leftist dream – that inviting murderous gangs from Tunisia into Israel will yield peace. In those 20 years, the Israeli Left, from its various power centers, has been going after the one person it views as the main culprit behind their ongoing defeat: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Democracy, in the sense of respecting the rule of government and accepting the will of the people, couldn't be further from this bunch. They can't accept the notion that the right-wing riffraff can choose their leaders. The battle is not over corruption or proper governing practices, as they would have us believe. The battle is over the most important issue here in the homeland of our forefathers: Our freedom to choose our own future, and to choose who will lead us there, on the basis of our own independent thinking and not because someone manipulated us and tried to circumvent the democratic process and change the decision made by the majority.

There are at least two sides to the truth. If there are corruption allegations implicating the prime minister, it stands to reason that there are allegations to the contrary, doesn't it? As long as no indictment has been filed, no trial has been conducted and no judge has handed down any ruling, the presumption of innocence obligates both sides to be presented. This is all the more true when the suspect is a prime minister, because a prime minister is not a private person but rather an elected figure. A majority of the public wanted this man to lead them. A majority that is far greater in number than all his opponents. Accusing him of these crimes casts a heavy shadow over his voters, too.

Now take a look around at all the journalists, news websites, radio stations and television channels in Israel. Do you see anything remotely resembling equality in the representation of both sides? Do you see any kind of decency toward the prime minister? Not even an iota. Justice doesn't stand a chance in such a hostile environment. Netanyahu has already been convicted in the media's court. Now the police investigators, the prosecution and the judges are left with no choice but to convict as well, in the face of demonstrations and pressure for months on end. In fact, Netanyahu was convicted all the way back then, more than 20 years ago. The first Israeli-born right-winger to defeat the Left's prince. The old Left was outraged for having the country taken away from them.

Now people are taking to the streets every week, expecting us to believe that they are really protesting against "corruption," as they claim. These are the same people – or the political descendants of the same people – who waged a propaganda campaign in 1992 against the government of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir under the slogan "we've had it with the corrupted," and gave us the Oslo government.

When the ideological arguments run out; when the geo-political reality turns the tables on the bizarre policies that would see an Islamist terror state on the hills of Judea and Samaria; when the economy increasingly rejects the vestiges of the leftist socialism that tied it down for so many years and grows correspondingly stronger; when the world's nations fall all over themselves to strike diplomatic, economic and security relations with Israel and the doomsday prophecies of global isolation are proven wrong; when the U.S. threatens its allies at the U.N. that automatically voting against Israel will come at a price (where did you go, Obama?) – what ammunition do they have left?

What is this corruption they speak of? Look around you – Israeli politics are far cleaner than they have ever been. Bribery affairs, which, in the past, would have been swept under the rug, are now exposed daily. Even outrageous behavior by clerks, who abuse the public, are now on the public agenda, if not in the mainstream media. And if not there, then certainly on social media.

So what do Netanyahu's critics want us to believe? That he sold out the country for a handful of cigars? That's all. They wrap this inanity in a thousand words and quotes, but in the end, all that is left is the big empty balloon: Netanyahu received cigars as a gift from a friend, and in return, Netanyahu gave his friend nonsense. You see? He wanted a kickback for selling out the country and the kickback was cigars.

A cigar is not a bribe. A cigar is a cigar and a friend is a friend. This is not something that should topple a government. It's not something that crowds should protest in the streets, and certainly not something over which to self-righteously declare "we've had it" in interviews. We all need a psychiatrist to rid our psyches of the barrage of idiocy that we have been subjected to since the last election. This idiocy aims to seal our minds off from independent thought, and forcibly impose on us the opinions of the opponents – who also serve as investigators, prosecutors and judges.

I have written about the pressure being applied to investigators and the State Prosecutor's Office to indict and prosecute the prime minister. But this pressure is unnecessary, seeing as the head of the Israel Police major crimes unit currently investigating the prime minister, Maj. Gen. Roni Ritman, accused Netanyahu of orchestrating a sexual harassment complaint against him. These are not mere rumors. Even the police commissioner alleged that powerful figures had joined forces to conspire against Ritman. This is a far more serious allegation than a smoking cigar. If there is justice, let it be served immediately. If what the police brass are saying is true, why isn't the police investigating these serious allegations? And if what they are saying is idiotic to the point of corruption, how can we trust that these people are conducting the investigation against the prime minister fairly and appropriately? Incidentally, this week, the High Court of Justice reinforced the female officer's sexual harassment complaint when it censured the police commissioner for deciding to cover for Ritman.

And there are two other women calling the integrity of the investigation into question. One is a police officer working on the team investigating Netanyahu, who, at the same time, called on the public to demonstrate against Netanyahu. The other is Ritman's wife, Michal, who served in the major crimes unit until recently, and posted incendiary comments on social media like "Never before has there been a prime minister who divided and fragmented the Israeli public as much as this." (Someone please tell this woman what went on here at the time of the Oslo agreements.) And these are just the tip of the iceberg. What does this do to public trust, in such a sensitive investigation?

It is not just on the Left that a yearslong campaign is being waged against Netanyahu. In fact, purists from the Right are now joining the Left's cause against the conservative right-wing camp. A coalition of purists and crooks. They, too, don't want a prime minister who receives cigars from friends. Perhaps they will get their wish and replace Netanyahu with a leader who, carried on the waves of hate, will bring us a new Oslo. these things may seem far off, but they could change in the blink of an eye.

And no, dear friends, the Right will not be deposed over corruption, because contrary to the constant propaganda, the leadership is not actually corrupt. Anyone who lost their way will resign following a fair investigation and trial. But the Right could potentially be deposed by traitorous intellectuals, who, at the moment of truth, joined the undemocratic efforts to manipulate us with lies and subterfuge and to delegitimize the people's democratic choice. The Right could be deposed by the cowardice of some of its own spokespeople, who opted to withdraw from the fight and capitulate to the immense pressure from the Left (while being warmly embraced by the media for their "courage"). They left Netanyahu to bleed, but there is no need to get all worked up. We will be fine without them.

Dror Eydar


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinian Authority BDS organizations receive major blow - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

Denmark announces cessation of funding for PA NGOs after Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs report exposes ties to terror.

Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen
Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen
The Danish Foreign Ministry announced Friday the cessation of financial aid, along with a more stringent vetting process, for the transfer of funds to Palestinian Authority (PA) NGOs.
The move came after Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs provided information to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that European funds are going to PA NGOs with ties to terrorist organizations. These NGOs also promote boycotts against Israel, the ministry noted. As a result, Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) sent a letter to the Danish Foreign Minister insisting Denmark cease funding these organizations.

In an official statement, Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen emphasized that he attaches great importance to ensuring Danish aid is used properly. It is for this reason, he wrote, that the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs began, in May 2017, a comprehensive examination of the funds distributed to PA NGOs. The results of those findings led the Danish government to conclude that there was a need to toughen the conditions and terms surrounding finances given to PA organizations.

According to the announcement, most of the Danish aid frozen in recent months will be returned to government coffers. Samuelsen made it clear that many organizations currently receiving Danish support will no longer continue to do so.

In recent years, Denmark has been a member of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, a European government funding mechanism based in Ramallah which includes Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Among the organizations supported by the Secretariat are Palestinian Authority NGOs which promote de-legitimization and boycotts against the State of Israel, and which are linked to “The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine” (PFLP) - an organization deemed a terrorist group both by the EU and the United States. 

Examples of such NGOs include Al-Haq and Addameer, of which several of their senior administrators have close ties to the PFLP, including Al-Haq's executive director Shawan Jabarin (who previously served jail time for his involvement with the terrorist group).

Responding to the Dutch announcement, Erdan said, "Friday’s announcement by the Danish Foreign Ministry is a significant win for the State of Israel, and a severe blow to our adversaries. It is absurd that these so-called Palestinian NGOs are promoting a distorted and false picture of Israel, and even worse, maintaining ties with terrorist organizations, while receiving European funding."

"It is for this reason I congratulate Foreign Minister Samuelsen for his just and resolute decision. I am glad that Denmark understood that the Danish taxpayer should not finance, directly or indirectly, Palestinian organizations which have direct connections to terrorist groups. I call on other countries in Europe to exercise the same moral responsibility and take similar steps."

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The UN Continues its Israel-Bashing - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

General Assembly passes meaningless resolution against Trump’s Jerusalem decision.

Following the U.S. veto of a draft Security Council resolution on December 18th seeking to censure and reverse President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Palestinians and their enablers pushed for a similar resolution at a special emergency session of the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly passed the resolution on December 21st by a vote of 128-9, with 35 abstentions. It declared U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital “null and void” and urged nations to “refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions.” Major European allies, including Britain, France, and Germany, shamefully voted for the resolution. In doing so, they exposed their latent centuries-old anti-Semitism by singling out the Jewish state for special condemnation. Other allies, such as Canada and Australia, at least had the decency to abstain.

UN General Assembly resolutions purporting to buttress the Palestinians’ position are entirely non-binding, as are virtually all resolutions, actions or recommendations by the General Assembly on such matters as international security. They have no more legal impact than the vacuous speeches that have accompanied the passage of the resolutions. The latest resolution passed by the UN General Assembly forum, whose members include many free-riding authoritarian regimes, was a farcical attempt to isolate the most powerful democracy in the world, and the UN’s largest contributor by far, for exercising its national sovereign rights.

Moreover, with all the real global crises today, including in Syria, North Korea, Yemen and Myanmar, one would think such crises would deserve their own special emergency sessions of the General Assembly. Alas, that has not happened. Yet the Israel-bashers chose to call a special emergency session to indulge their hatred for the Jewish state and their fantasies that what they pass there will have any real impact on Israel or the Trump administration.

Ambassador Haley bluntly told the member states voting for the General Assembly resolution to butt out of America’s decisions as a sovereign nation. “Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people,” she said. Ambassador Haley added that “the President’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.”

Ambassador Haley also warned that Americans will need to re-evaluate the current level of generous contributions the United States makes to the UN and how they will now choose to regard those “countries who disrespect us in the UN.”

President Trump was even more blunt in remarks he made the day before the General Assembly vote, as quoted by Reuters:  "They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we're watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We'll save a lot. We don't care."

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon, during his remarks to the General Assembly, harshly criticized the countries supporting the resolution at the urging of the Palestinians. “Those who support today’s resolution are like puppets pulled by the strings of the Palestinian puppet masters,” said Ambassador Danon. “You are like marionettes forced to dance while the Palestinian leadership looks on with glee,” he continued. Ambassador Danon displayed a coin from the year 67 AD that was minted during the Jewish revolt against the Romans. “On this coin is written ‘Freedom of Zion.’ It proves the ancient connection of Jews to Jerusalem,” Ambassador Danon explained.  “No UNESCO declaration, no empty speeches, no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem,” he declared.

The UN’s handling of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been immorally one-sided. As Ambassador Haley said in her remarks to the General Assembly, “To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel.” Israel, far more than many of the member states that continue to denounce it, “stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.”

In standing up for Israel, the only genuine democracy in the Middle East, against continuous efforts at the UN to demonize and delegitimize it, and standing up for U.S. sovereignty in deciding where to locate its own embassies, the Trump administration is displaying the “principled realism” so lacking during the last administration.

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.

Trump's First Year vs. Obama's Eight Years - Jack Hellner

by Jack Hellner

The difference is night and day.

Here are President Obama’s main accomplishments over eight years:

--Obamacare: This 2,000-plus page law with more than 10,000 pages of regulations and over 20 new taxes has not increased life expectancy but has taken away freedom of choice on what type of insurance everyone has to buy with greatly increased costs and deductibles.

--The Iran Deal: This took the country which is a top sponsor of terrorism and lifted its regime up with more power and money. It did not make the world or the U.S safer and stronger.

--The Paris Climate Accord: This transferred a massive amount of money and power from the U.S. private sector to its government and in turn transferred money from the U.S. to other countries. The policy is based on the belief that climate change/global warming exists and is the greatest threat to the world. So does Iran sponsor terrorists because of climate change? Does North Korea build nuclear weapons because of climate change? Does Russia take over more territory because of climate change? Do refugees from Syria and other countries escape because of climate change? CO2 is a clear, innocuous, non-polluting gas that allows plants to thrive and the billions of people to be fed. The reason Obama and other people want to regulate it is to have government control. But this accord certainly did not have its goal to make the U.S. stronger. 

---- Regulatory avalanche: Obama added tens of thousands of regulations and burdens to businesses and individuals as fast as he could. This certainly helped empower and enrich the D.C. suburbs but not the rest of us.

I honestly can’t think of any policies that Obama passed or implemented that had the effect to help the U.S. economy and the people as a whole. The result of Obama’s high tax, high spending, high regulations was the slowest economic recovery in eight years and $10 Trillion more in debt along with more people being dependent on government.

Here are just some of Trump’s accomplishments in his first year: 

----He has been reducing regulations as fast as he can to free up the private sector. He has opened pipelines and drilling. Where Obama was trying to bankrupt coal companies and harm fossil fuel companies, he is building them up.

---He scrapped the burdensome Paris Accord.

----He dumped the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. I have not seen any country that has reduced their trade or refused to trade with the U.S as a result. Trump correctly believes that we should negotiate in smaller groups so they can be easier to monitor and fix.

----He knocked the foundation out of Obamacare. While Trump has not been able to get rid of Obamacare, he has been whittling away. The tax bill gets rid of the individual mandate which may eventually kill it. Critics say getting rid of the mandate will increase costs and I would ask them to explain why costs went up so much with the individual mandate in effect.

----The tax bill itself: Lowering rates for everyone and doubling the standard deduction means that around 90% will have a very simple return: This reduces the need for as many IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with reducing the need for as many tax preparers.

Since I am a tax professional, I will go into a bit more detail on the obvious benefits:

  • Lowering the tax rate on corporations and moving to the territorial tax system is tremendous. It makes the U.S. more competitive and takes away the impetus for tax inversions which moves headquarters to other countries. These provisions reduce the need for IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with tax accountants and lawyers who so often have been used to beat the high taxes.
  • Upping the exemption for estates. This reduces the need for as many IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with reducing the demand for tax accountants and lawyers who were used to get the wealthy out of paying the confiscatory rates that somehow the government believes it is entitled to.
  • While the tax bill isn’t perfect it is a heck of a good start. Once the economy picks up and the tax cuts generate more for the government, not the less predicted, as other previous cuts have done they can attack more of the still too cumbersome tax code.
Everything I have seen Trump do in his first year indicates his desire to help everyone who is a citizen of the U.S. I see no preference based on race, gender identity or class. He is rapidly trying to transfer the power and money from the government back to the people where it belongs. The government, after all is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.

What a great start to what will probably be an eight-year presidency. I look forward to more freedom and prosperity. Maybe someday a few Democrats will stop obstructing and recognize that capitalism is the system that has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and increasing prosperity.

Now I look forward to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats campaigning throughout the U.S saying the sky is falling and Armageddon is upon us because heaven forbid that individuals and business are allowed to keep more of the money they earn to spend as they like instead of having the government confiscate it.

It is a glorious day in America. The U.S. and the world are stronger and safer when the U.S economy and the private sector are thriving with more freedom and fewer people are dependent on government.

On a day like this I think of one of my favorite songs. Louis Armstrong’s: “What a Wonderful World.”

Jack Hellner


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The US and the UN #2: The 'strong horse' wins big at the Security Council - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Don't take it from me; take it from a former passionate NeverTrump.

The U.N. General Assembly's theatrics are meaningless in terms of real power, as in the vote declaring "null and void" the planned move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Where it matters, in the Security Council, Ambassador Haley just pulled off a triumph.

Don't take it from me, because I am a supporter of the president and his policies. Take it from former NeverTrump Streif of #NeverTrump Red State, who just wrote an astonishing paean to the man s/he used to despise.
[A] lesson [is] to be learned for the giddy left who were proclaiming the US to be isolated at the United Nations in the wake of the shameful vote of the UN General Assembly yesterday to condemn the United States for exercising its sovereign right to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Even as the vote was taking place, Nikki Haley's staff was circulating a no-notice resolution to tighten sanctions on North Korea and asking for a vote today[.] ...
For an "isolated" nation to pursue this strategy would be delusional. But for a strong nation, confident in its goals and dismissive of the nonsense that passes for diplomacy at the UN, it signals that the vote of the mob is of no import. Which was it?
And in fact (via The New York Times):
The United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions on North Korea on Friday that significantly choke off new fuel supplies and order North Koreans working overseas to return home within two years, in what may prove the last test of whether any amount of economic pressure can force it to reverse course on its nuclear program.
The sanctions, adopted by a vote of 15 to 0, were the third imposed this year in an escalating effort to force the North into negotiations.
These new sanctions go after one of the last remaining sources of North Korea's hard currency, beyond outright criminality like counterfeiting and the drug trade. Streif correctly concludes:
If the US was [sic] truly isolated and ineffectual, Russia or China would have vetoed the resolution. Or one of the Security Council members would have voted no. That didn't happen.
I am not tired of winning – not yet, anyway. But there are three more years left on President Trump's term.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israel's Learning Disabled Right - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Why abandoning Netanyahu will not end well for the Israeli Right.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

It is an iron rule of Israeli politics regularly disregarded by the political Right that left-wing parties govern from the Left, not the Right; center-left parties govern from the Left, not from the Center.

Despite the axiomatic nature of this rule, time after time, politicians and public figures on the Right have ignored it. Periodically, they make light of the distinction between governments run by their political camp and governments run by their leftist opponents.

To their credit, the converse is never true. Leftist politicians and activists never delude themselves that they are better off in the opposition. They always prefer governments led by their own camp to governments led by the Right.

For several years, this pathology unique to the political Right laid dormant – never entirely gone, but out of sight. Today, the Right’s pathological refusal to recognize that it is better off in charge than in the opposition is making a political comeback.

For the past month, a rapidly growing chorus of columnists and politicians – all of whom dwell on either the right-wing or left-wing margins of the nationalist camp – have decided to join the Left in its assault against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and call either directly or indirectly from his ouster from office.

The Left – like its rightist followers – characterizes its anti-Netanyahu campaign as an anti-corruption campaign.

For the past several months, Netanyahu has been the subject of two dubious criminal probes. The first involves allegations that he received too many cigars as gifts from his personal friends. To date, investigators have found no evidence that Netanyahu provided special favors to his friends in exchange for the cigars. We know no evidence indicating the cigars were bribes has been found, because if any had been found, it would have been leaked to reporters just as every shred of even mildly incriminating findings from the probe has been leaked to the media in real-time.

The second investigation is arguably even less substantive. Netanyahu is being investigated for conversations he held in 2014 with his political nemesis Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu recorded the conversations and they were found on the cellphone of his former chief of staff Ari Harow in the course of a separate criminal probe against Harow for alleged influence peddling. In the recordings, Netanyahu and Mozes discuss the possibility that in exchange for Mozes tamping down his incendiary coverage of Netanyahu at Yediot, Netanyahu’s ally, Sheldon Adelson, would decrease circulation of Israel Hayom, the free daily Adelson owns.

We know that the two men never made a deal because in late 2014, Netanyahu disbanded his own government after his coalition partners voted in favor of a bill drafted by Yediot’s lawyers, that was aimed at shutting down Israel Hayom.

Moreover, during the 2015 election and since, Yediot has led the 24/7 media campaign for Netanyahu’s political destruction.
Given the flimsy nature of the probes, it isn’t surprising that Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit isn’t thrilled with them.

Mandelblit’s reported lack of enthusiasm over the probes led leftist political strategist Eldad Yaniv to launch a massive political campaign against him earlier this year.

Several months ago, Yaniv began organizing anti-Netanyahu demonstrations outside Mandelblit’s apartment building in Petah Tikva every Saturday night, demanding that he indict the prime minister.

Not surprisingly, the Netanyahu-obsessed media have given massive and sympathetic coverage to the rallies. Reporters have airbrushed out the protesters’ anti-Zionism while massively exaggerating the number of participants. And while the protests are self-evidently anti-government protests, the media have played along with Yaniv’s conceit that they are apolitical protests by people who simply want to ensure that Netanyahu is indicted because he has to be guilty because they hate him.

The story of Netanyahu’s alleged corruption has led nightly newscasts countless times as breathless reporters present the public with details of investigations that are supposed to be secret. The open bias of police investigators, some of whom have openly called for the public to participate in political rallies against Netanyahu, is ignored.

Recently, the protesters decamped from Petah Tikva to the tony Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv. And although most right-wing commentators and politicians acknowledge the leftist agenda of the protesters, last week Yaniv scored a significant victory. Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, one of the rabbinical leaders of the National Religious community, participated in his rally.

Cherlow wasn’t the first public personality on the Right who chose to turn against Netanyahu. Last month rightist attorney and newspaper columnist Nadav Haetzni wrote in Maariv that Netanyahu has become a burden to his political camp and must resign. Last week, Haetzni’s niece Sarah Haetzni Cohen, a columnist at Makor Rishon, and Yehuda Yifrach, Makor Rishon’s legal affairs editor, wrote side-by-side columns arguing that the nationalist camp mustn’t allow the Left to monopolize the fight against public corruption and must support the criminal probes against Netanyahu.

Yoaz Hendel is a columnist at Yediot identified with the soft Right. Ahead of the 2015 election, Tzipi Livni offered soft-rightist Hendel a spot on her leftist Knesset list.

Hendel announced this week that he is organizing an “anti-corruption” rally for members of the nationalist camp at Zion Square in Jerusalem this Saturday night. Since members of the nationalist camp don’t feel comfortable standing with protesters holding massive pro-BDS signs on Rothschild, Hendel said he decided they needed a place of their own to go to show that they don’t like corruption, (or Netanyahu).

Former MK Aryeh Eldad of the National Union Party, and Kulanu MK and coalition member Rahel Azariya, are scheduled to participate at Hendel’s protest.

The members of the nationalist camp insisting Netanyahu is bad for the Right ignore the weak foundations of the probes against him and the political bias of police investigators. They ignore as well the probable consequences for their political camp if Netanyahu is ousted from office due to these investigations.

Some of Netanyahu’s homegrown opponents like Hendel and Azariya are motivated by the belief that Netanyahu is too opposed to the leftist establishment that controls Israel’s legal system. They attack him for not stopping his party members from criticizing Israel’s activist, post-Zionist Supreme Court justices and for calling out police investigators and journalists for their bias against him.

Others, including Yifrach and Eldad, argue that Netanyahu isn’t much of a rightist since he hasn’t actively expanded construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and has not enacted significant court reform.

We’ve been here before.

The same groups from the soft and hard Right joined together twice before to overthrow right-wing governments and hand the Left the keys to the realm.

In 1992, the far-right Tehiya party brought down the government of Yitzhak Shamir. Tehiya leaders Geula Cohen and Hanan Porat on the one hand justified their behavior by pointing to the Left’s allegations that Shamir and his Likud colleagues were corrupt. On the other hand, they claimed that Shamir’s agreement to participate in then-US president George H.W. Bush’s “peace conference” in Madrid meant that he was no better than the Left.

Their action facilitated convinced enough right-wing voters that there was no difference between the Likud and Labor to bring about the Labor Party’s electoral victory in the 1992 election. A year later, then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin recognized the PLO and initiated the Oslo peace process.

In 1999, the Likud’s soft-right and hard-right establishment bolted Netanyahu’s first government and formed new parties. Dan Meridor, Yitzhak Mordechai and Roni Milo left Likud and joined with leftist politicians to form the “Center Party.”

Bennie Begin abandoned his father Menachem Begin’s party to form the National Union party with far-right ideologues.
Neither of the two parties fared well in the 1999 election.

But together, they brought down Netanyahu’s government and facilitated the Left’s electoral victory and Ehud Barak’s replacement of Netanyahu as premier.

In other words, the soft Right and the hard Right paved the way for the Camp David summit and the Palestinian terrorist war that followed, as well as Israel’s surrender of south Lebanon to Hezbollah. Those events in turn brought about Israel’s surrender of Gaza and northern Samaria to the Palestinians.

Both in 1992 and 1999, the Left based its electoral campaigns on opposition to corruption and tough talk on terrorism. Rabin pledged in 1992 never to recognize the PLO or withdraw from the Golan Heights. The next year he recognized the PLO and the year after that he offered Syrian dictator Hafez Assad the Golan Heights.

In 1999 Barak assured voters that there was no possibility of reaching a permanent peace with the PLO. A year later, he offered Yasser Arafat the Temple Mount and half of Jerusalem.

We can see the same situation forming today. As prejudicial leaks from the investigation of Netanyahu’s cigars multiplied, and Yaniv received more and more air time for his anti-Netanyahu rallies, Labor leader Avi Gabbay made a series of centrist statements to the media. Last month he said he doesn’t support uprooting Israeli communities in the framework of a peace treaty. This month he said that the Left made a mistake by embracing atheism.

Yair Lapid, head of the center-left Yesh Atid party, for his part has been going out of his way to court the Right for more than a year.
In other words, like Rabin and Barak in 1992 and 1999, the Left’s two contenders for premiership are going out of their way to make members of today’s nationalist camp feel comfortable overthrowing Netanyahu while protesting their ideological purity and commitment to clean politics.

The willingness of ostensibly right-wing intellectuals and politicians to make the same mistake for a third time is stunning. If Netanyahu is forced from office for receiving lots of cigars from his friends, the Likud won’t be stronger without him. An ugly battle for succession in Likud among equally uncompelling politicians will immediately ensue.

The Likud will enter the early election frayed, with a weak leader, under the pall of Netanyahu’s forced resignation.

For their part, the leftist parties, with the full support of the media that will hide their radical Knesset candidates list, will present themselves as incorruptible, moderate centrists who are tough on security and nice to poor people.

And they will win.

Yaniv, Gabbay, Lapid and the media all know that they cannot overthrow the government. They know the government will only fall if its members bring it down.

And that’s where the right-wing intellectuals come in handy. By falling yet again for the Left’s Three-card Monte corruption trick, right-wing media personalities are leading a campaign that if successful, will lead to only one outcome: the rise of the Left. And again, once it is in power, the Left never ever governs from the Right. 

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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