Friday, January 19, 2018

Abbas’ ultimatum to Trump: Choose between a Palestinian Jerusalem or war - debkaFile

by debkaFile

The Palestinian Authority and its chairman Mahmoud Abbas therefore find they are being squeezed into an US-Arab blockade, which leaves Abbas with three options.

Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas kicked back hard after grasping he was confronted with an orderly, Arab-backed US peace plan that left his strategy in ruins.

Abbas now sees he is cornered by his nemesis: Trump’s move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, was not just a one-off whim, but a component of the “deal of the century,” which the US president and his advisers had crafted for months together with Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh El-Sisi, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman and the UAE ruler Sheikh Muhammed Bin Ziyad.

The Palestinian leader’s first predicament was how to explain to the Palestinian and Arab public what happened to his master strategy of the past 25 years, for using world opinion to force a pro-Palestinian peace solution down Israel’s throat. Not too long ago, Abbas boasted he was about to pull it off. Now it is crashing before his eyes. It is not enough for him to yell that the “deal of the century” is the “slap of the century.”

Here and there, he may find international pro-Palestinian stalwarts, but the doors are slamming shut as funds for UN bodies and NGOs dry up. Even the Europeans, who dislike Trump and sympathize with the Palestinians, are beginning to think twice about sticking to a blunt line against the US and Israel. They are reluctant to buck the two allies’ partners, the oil-rich Saudi and Emirate rulers, a luxury they can ill afford in these times of profound economic decline.

Much of the criticism of the US-Arab peace plan is prompted by a misapprehension. The plan is based strongly on a two-state solution that offers the Palestinians their own state and negates binational Israeli-Palestinian statehood. But the contours are different from any former peace proposal. Gone for good are the pre-1967 war lines which were Abbas’ sine qua non. According to the fragments leaked about the new proposal, which is still on the work bench, this Palestinian state would rise on territory currently governed by the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria. Its backbone would be formed by the chain of Palestinian towns running from Nablus in the north through Ramallah and Bethlehem and up to Hebron in the south. They would link up with the Gaza Strip and acquire parts of northern Sinai, presumably Egyptian Rafah and El Arish.

According to this plan, the governmental and population of the new Palestinian state would be oriented mainly in the south, so that Jerusalem would not be relevant as its capital. It would still have Ramallah and possibly Abu Dis, outside Jerusalem, where government and parliamentary compounds were installed long ago, after one of several stillborn peace initiatives.

This plan for Palestinian statehood bears little resemblance to the goal of the 50-year old Palestinian struggle. The Palestinian national movement has consistently aspired to a state that would swallow Israel and extinguish the Zionist vision. However, the contemporary Palestinian state as envisaged in the new plan would be dependent for its strength and survival on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, all of which maintain good security and economic ties with Israel.

For Mahmoud Abbas this prospect is anathema. He is so beside himself that on Sunday, he cursed the house of US President Donald Trump before the PLO central committee. But, then on Monday, Jan. 16, Trump whipped out his ultimate weapon and slashed aid to the UN Works and Relief Agency for Palestinian refugees, from $165m to $60m.

For many years, UNWRA has been a powerful political sponsor of any Palestinian group willing to join the “struggle” against Israel. Its personnel were flush with the funds paid in as dues by UN members, unlike the often cash-strapped Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Trump therefore decided that the key to getting the US-Arab peace plan on its feet would be to cut off the flow of cash to its opponents. It is a little-known fact that he was joined in this endeavor by the Saudis, the Emiratis and even Qatar, all of whom started some weeks ago to staunch aid funds to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority and its chairman Mahmoud Abbas therefore find they are being squeezed into an US-Arab blockade, which leaves Abbas with three options:
  1. To realize his back is to the wall and he has no option other than to accept the “deal of the century.”
  2. Face being ousted by the rest of the Palestinian leadership and replaced with a successor who is amenable to reaching an understanding with the Trump administration, Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
  3. Regress to Yasser Arafat’s doctrine of armed struggle – not just against Israel this time but against US targets as well. Abbas indicated that [he] was on the warpath when he challenged President Trump in a ferocious speech he delivered in Cairo Wednesday, Jan 17. He shouted, “Jerusalem would be a gate for peace only when it was the capital of Palestine. But it is also a gate for war, insecurity and instability, if not. Trump must choose.”
His barefaced ultimatum to the US president was accompanied by a rumor his cronies began to circulate, charging that the Trump administration was plotting to forcibly depose Abbas as PA chairman. The Palestinian leader finds himself tied down by two handicaps: shortage of funds for buying supporters and his advanced age. At 82, he may choose a fourth option, to retire voluntarily and make way for a younger leader.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinians: Abbas's Big Bluff - Again - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

The Palestinians have not brought up a new generation that recognizes Israel's right to exist; on the contrary, they have brought up a generation that believes in jihad and death, one that denies any Biblical Jewish history or links to the Holy Land.

  • In his desperation, Abbas hurls abuse and in all directions. He has resorted to his old-new strategy of warning us that if his demands are not met, World War III will break out. Abbas would like us to believe that the Palestinian issue should remain at the center of the world's attention -- otherwise, there will be bloodshed and violence on the streets of most countries.
  • Should anyone take Abbas's threats seriously? The answer is simple: No.
  • The war to destroy Israel is still in full force. The Palestinians have not brought up a new generation that recognizes Israel's right to exist; on the contrary, they have brought up a generation that believes in jihad and death, one that denies any Biblical Jewish history or links to the Holy Land.
PLO leaders who met in Ramallah on January 15 recommended that the Palestinians revoke their recognition of Israel.

The recommendation came in response to US President Donald Trump's announcement recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The PLO leaders also advised their leadership to suspend security coordination with Israel. They also called for revising all agreements signed with Israel, including the Oslo Accords.

The meeting of the PLO Central Council was chaired by President Mahmoud Abbas, who in the past few weeks has chosen to embark on an open collision course with the US administration, possibly in the hope that US Department of State will back down as it always previously has.

Abbas has been in a belligerent mode since Trump's December 6 announcement on Jerusalem. In a speech before the PLO Central Council session, Abbas mocked Trump and hurled abuses at him. Abbas said he hoped God would "destroy" Trump's house. The Arabic Yakhrab baytu means "May his house be destroyed". According to The Guardian, Abbas "did not literally mean the White House or Trump Tower. But its wider sense is unmissable."

Abbas's speech also contained anti-Semitic remarks in which he claimed that Israel was a colonialist project that had nothing to do with Judaism.

Abbas also directed his hate against the Arab countries and those Palestinians who oppose his policies and autocratic leadership.

His hateful remarks against the US administration and Israel reflect the growing state of isolation in which the Palestinian leader recently finds himself.

Although Abbas did not mention the Arab countries by name, it was obvious that he was referring to Saudi Arabia and Egypt when he demanded that the Arab world stop meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians. This was a speech by a leader who feels that he is becoming more irrelevant with every day that passes.

Abbas's anger at the Arab countries stems from his belief that he is being shortchanged by them in his confrontation with the Trump administration and Israel. Abbas, like many Palestinians, feels that the Arab countries have once again turned their backs on their Palestinian brothers and are fed up with the Palestinian leadership's whining and lack of credibility.

Abbas and the Palestinians miss the days of the Obama administration, which they felt was hostile to Israel and constantly sided with them. Abbas must have gotten quite used to sympathetic comments directed toward the Palestinians from the Obama administration. For Abbas and the Palestinians, each time the Obama administration condemned Israel over "settlement construction," those were the good old days – which now seem to have vanished with the arrival of a new president at the White House.

Abbas, in his desperation, hurls abuse -- and in all directions. He has resorted -- again -- to his old strategy of warning us that if his demands are not met, World War III will break out. Abbas would like us to believe that the Palestinian issue should remain at the center of the world's attention – otherwise, there will be bloodshed and violence on the streets of most countries.

Should anyone take Abbas's threats seriously? The answer is simple: No.

Abbas's threat to revoke the PLO's recognition of Israel is meaningless. True, the PLO in 1993 recognized the right of Israel "to exist in peace and security," but this recognition was essentially revoked, as it was never given any teeth in the first place

Since 1993, the Palestinian leadership has been preaching precisely the opposite to its people. It has done everything but persuade Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist.

In fact, the Palestinian propaganda machine in the past two decades, since the signing of the Oslo Accords, has been working hard to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews. The thrust of the Palestinian narrative has been: Israel has no right to exist in the Middle East. Period. The Jews were supposedly dumped there after World War II in compensation for the Holocaust; this is not their land – and this, despite Jews having lived on that land continuously for more than 3,000 years.

In a speech earlier this week, Abbas repeated that message when he denied any Jewish attachment to Israel. He then further reinforced this message by asserting that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

As if that were not clear enough, many of Abbas's officials have been even more honest and emphatic on the issue of refusing to recognize Israel. Osama Qawassmeh, a spokesman for Abbas's Fatah faction, was quoted several weeks ago stating that, contrary to claims, Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist.

The whole issue of recognizing Israel's right to exist might sound like a joke when one hears and watches the statements of Palestinian leaders and spokesmen over the past two decades; these are statements that indicate anything but recognizing Israel and a desire to live with it in peace and security.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during at the UN General Assembly in New York, September 20, 2017. (Photo by Kevin Hagen/Getty Images)

Israel has reaped no benefit whatsoever from the PLO's purported recognition in 1993 of Israel's right to exist.

The war to destroy Israel is still in its full force. The Palestinians have not brought up a new generation that recognizes Israel's right to exist; on the contrary, they have brought up a generation that believes in jihad and death, one that denies any Biblical Jewish history or links to the Holy Land.

So when Palestinian leaders threaten to withdraw their recognition of Israel, they are simply lying to themselves and the rest of the world.

They are also lying when they talk about halting or suspending security coordination with Israel.

We have become used to hearing this tall tale. Abbas and his officials make this threat whenever they feel that the world is not surrendering to their demands. A few months ago, Abbas pulled the same trick when he announced that he was halting security coordination with Israel. In the end, it turned out he was bluffing once again.

Abbas knows that the day he stops working with Israel is the day Hamas will "eat him for breakfast" and take over the West Bank. Abbas is well aware that he is in power in the West Bank thanks to the presence of the Israel Defense Forces.

Abbas is banking on the world having a short memory. The statement issued by the PLO Central Council is almost 100% percent identical to a similar communiqué issued by the same body in 2015. Then, the PLO Central Council also recommended revoking recognition of Israel and suspending security coordination. That communiqué remained just ink on paper; it was meant for the purpose of extorting more money from the international community.

More than two years later, Abbas is up to his old antics. The difference is that now he is approaching the 13th year of his four-year term in office. When will he learn? Better yet: When will we learn?

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The FBI and Collusion: An Inside View - Elise Cooper

by Elise Cooper

A former FBI agent accuses the leadership of having become corrupted.

On May 17, 2017, former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel to investigate the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Now, over a year and a half later, this has become the equivalent of the Energizer battery that keeps going on and on forever. Not only is it apparent that there is no prosecutable collusion case, but what the investigation has proven is that the world's finest law enforcement agency, the FBI, has become blemished, stained, and tainted. The Mueller probe and the FBI leadership have become contaminated by an anti-Trump bias, improper leaks, and text messages between senior FBI officials showing their own form of collusion. American Thinker interviewed Jim Kallstrom, the former assistant director in charge of the FBI office in New York and a twenty-eight-year veteran of that agency, on his views.

The political attitude of some in the FBI led to an investigation started by then-FBI director James Comey on March 20, 2017. Kallstrom says, "I personally don't understand why there is a special counsel at all, because the statute is very clear that there needs to be a criminal element. This was started as a counterintelligence investigation, so there was no legal justification to have a special counsel. It also states very clearly that there should be no conflict of interest. Bob Mueller took the position even though he was a close friend of James Comey. Now this investigation is about two years old, and there is no evidence of collusion. I am saddened that the FBI has played a role in perpetrating this falsehood."

Having served with him on his advisory board for a number of years, Kallstrom always thought of Mueller as an "honest and a forthright guy, even though I did not agree with a lot of his policies. For example, he changed the managing of investigations from the field offices to bringing everything back to headquarters in Washington, which Comey continued. You might wonder why more agents did not come forward. This is due in part to headquarters closing down the field investigations so Comey and McCabe and Strzok could control it with a small number of people involved. Let's remember: these guys had the power over the field agents."

Kallstrom is disgusted with the obvious bias among some in the FBI's leadership. He points to the fact that James Comey, the FBI director at the time, drafted an exoneration statement of Hillary Clinton before the FBI had even interviewed her. "I cannot believe there was no authorization for a grand jury. Instead of having a press conference explaining how this was all wrong and then resigning, Comey decided to dance with the devil. They were devising a way to exonerate her despite compelling evidence that she [had] committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server. In my view, this was one of many things that cost confidence in the FBI, and I think it is going to take a long, long time for it to regain its status. Why? Because it is a huge obstruction of justice. Do you know all the co-conspirators were in the same room for interviews? This is unheard of, and the interview with Hillary Clinton was a joke and a farce."

Peter Strzok, still working in the FBI, has shown complete disregard for the Constitution. "I would argue: how did Mueller not know whom he chose to work this investigation? He showed no common sense in accepting the job with his conflict of interest and then hiring these FBI partisan people. Appearances should matter. Although I don't know Strzok personally, I judge him by his actions. Those texts are extremely damaging – when he said 'terrifying' on the possibility of Trump's election; his role as 'protector[] of the republic'; and the most damaging of all, 'I want to believe [that] the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office – that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40[.]' As far as I am concerned, he is not someone who should be carrying an FBI credential. In my view, he committed federal felonies and has shown he is unable to be fair and accurate."

Regarding James Comey as FBI director, Kallstrom has nothing good to say. "Under his leadership, the FBI became stained. He is a totally dishonorable person. He was not only complicit in the IRS investigation, but actually assisted them when they stomped on American citizens' rights by putting fear in them for no reason. Comey's FBI also did nothing about Benghazi [and] Fast and Furious and had a double[-]standard with the investigation of Hillary Clinton."

He furthermore notes, "Arrogance has no pinnacle higher than James Comey, who is weak, driven, and egotistical. He is an example of why the FBI director should never ever come from the Justice Department. In retrospect, I think there have been way too many FBI directors from the Department of Justice. Instead, an agent should have been appointed as director, someone who was steeped in knowledge of criminal investigations. I think it was a fatal decision for the bureau when he became FBI director. Under both Mueller and Comey, the FBI suffered in reputation and leadership, considering those they brought forward and their obvious bias. They seemed ... concerned [only] about political gain."

To restore credibility in the FBI, Kallstrom would have investigations of the leadership. "When I was working with the FBI, we never involved ourselves in politics. What changed was the eight years under Obama. I have received numerous emails, texts, and phone calls from those inside the FBI and also retired agents who are unhappy with what is going on and has gone on. These bad eggs must be removed from the bureau. It would be a disgrace to let McCabe and Strzok remain at the FBI and be able to collect full benefits."

What he wants Americans to understand is that it should never have been about the FBI; rather, it should be about the rule of law and following the evidence where it may lie. "The majority of the agents who work there want to solve cases, from kidnapping to extortion to drugs arrests to espionage. The bad eggs have caused many to question the trustworthiness and reputation of the bureau, which affects the reputable agents. This is extremely harmful to them. I want to say without hesitation that the majority of agents are a credit to this country."

Elise Cooper writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Abbas Takes Off His Mask - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Unhinged, Jew-hating tirade reveals why the peace process is dead.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas launched into a long-winded diatribe last Sunday against President Trump and against Israel’s legitimate right to exist as a Jewish state. Abbas called President Trump’s decision on Jerusalem a “slap in the face” and threatened that the Palestinians “will slap back.” Abbas declared, "Politically, Jerusalem is our capital; in our religion, it is our capital; geographically, it is our capital." As for Israel, Abbas claimed that “Israel is a colonialist project that has nothing to do with Jews. The Jews were used as a tool under the concept of the promised land — call it whatever you want. Everything has been made up.” 

Abbas even insisted that Great Britain apologize and pay reparations for the 100-year-old Balfour Declaration, which had stated British support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” 

One is tempted to agree with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who said that Abbas had “lost his senses.”  However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was closer to the mark when he observed that Abbas “tore off the mask” of feigned moderation and revealed the “root” of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians – the Palestinians’ “continuous refusal to recognize the Jewish state in any borders.”

Abbas used his 2½-hour speech to the PLO Central Council to falsify history with anti-Semitic rhetoric worthy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. One problem he has, however, is in reconciling his own current brand of anti-Semitism in defense of an independent Palestinian state with, for example, the brand of anti-Semitism put forth by an Arab leader in 1937, who claimed that the notion of an independent Palestine was a Zionist plot. Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi submitted the following statement in 1937 to the British Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." 

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the United Nations General Assembly in May 1947 along the same lines, stating that “Palestine was part of the Province of Syria” and that “politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.” A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, who would become the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” 

As late as March 1977 Zuheir Muhsin, executive committee member of the PLO, admitted the following: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. Today, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism." At least, he was being perversely honest. That’s more than can be said about Abbas, who tries to convince the world of the nobility of the Palestinian cause of self-determination that would come to fruition if only Israel would give up its “occupation” of Palestinian land.

To support his alternative reality that the Palestinians have constituted a separate people from time immemorial, Abbas asserted that the Palestinians have ancient roots in the land they claim as their own, predating any claims by the Jews. "This has been our land since the days of the Canaanites," he declared. “From the days of the Canaanites and to this day, [our forefathers] have not left this land. They were here before our patriarch Abraham. We were. Since before our patriarch Abraham..." This is an absurd claim on its face, with no historical or archeological evidence to back it up whatsoever. 

The name “Palestine” derives from the decision of the Roman emperor Hadrian to change the name of the province inhabited by Jews and conquered by Rome from Syria Judea to Syria Palaestina (from the Greek word “Palaistin”) to try and minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arab Palestinians today are trying to use UNESCO and the false history they pedal to fool people into thinking that they are indigenous to the land while Jews have no historical connection. In that respect, the Palestinians have more in common with the Roman conquerors who tried to separate Jews from their historic homeland than they do with the ancient Canaanites.

The truth is that many Palestinians today are descendants of immigrants from multiple countries in the region who arrived in what was then called Palestine during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Egyptian and Sudanese migrants arrived in the wake of the 1831-1840 conquest by Egypt. Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the 1845-1947 Muslim migrants, who came from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, and other parts of western and central Asia. As Jews emigrated to the Holy Land and developed the area from a barren wasteland, more Arab migrants arrived from other areas to work and take advantage of the economic opportunities that were opening up there for the first time. 

Abbas’s cruelest insult in his speech last Sunday was to shamelessly claim that Jews who remained in Europe to face the Holocaust chose on their own not to come to the Holy Land. "The Jews didn’t want to come to Palestine even after what they went through in Europe, with pogroms and even after the Holocaust,” Abbas asserted.

Contrary to Abbas’s outrageous claim, over 60,000 German Jews emigrated there during the 1930s, despite substantial obstacles that included severe restrictions imposed by the British who were administering the area under the British Mandate for Palestine. The British were acceding to Arab demands. Jews who arrived in ships in defiance of Great Britain’s limitations on entry risked being placed in caged buses on the way to incarceration in detention camps. Abbas should be thanking the British for such harsh measures to stem Jewish immigration during the Nazi era.

Talking about the Nazi era, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who served as Mufti of Jerusalem between 1921 and 1936, met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders in Europe in November 1941. They got along very well, recognizing that the Jews were their common enemy. Two years after that meeting, Himmler wrote al-Husseini a letter stating that the Nazi leaders were “closely following the battle of freedom-seeking Arabs - and especially in Palestine - against the Jewish invaders.”

Abbas regards the Nazi-loving Haj Amin al-Husseini as a hero, referring to him in a 2013 speech lauding terrorist “martyrs” as one of “the pioneers,” according to a translation of the speech made by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Abbas’s bombastic January 14th speech should be no surprise. Abbas remains the anti-Semitic propagandist for the false Palestinian victimhood narrative that he always has been. He remains the hypocrite who claims to pursue a peaceful two-state solution while continuing to praise terrorists and to subsidize the terrorists and their families. He revels in disseminating what Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, correctly described as “vile fabrications” that hark back to “the racist words of the worst regimes of the previous century.” President Trump's courageous decision on Jerusalem and the pressure he is exerting on continued funding for the Palestinians have forced the real Abbas to show the world his true colors.

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.

Video: The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam -


John Stossel exposes a leftist hate group -- and a money-grabbing slander machine.

In this new video, John Stossel exposes the Southern Poverty Law Center, which he reveals is a leftist hate group and a money-grabbing slander machine. Don't miss it! (To learn more about the SPLC's fomenting of hatred and lies, see's SPLC profile. Also join the Freedom Center's campaign to oppose the SPLC's and's totalitarian blacklists of hate.)


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Arabs and Muslims Will Not Accept Israel as the Jewish State - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The existence of a living Jewish people in a functioning Jewish state threatens the very raison d’être of Islam

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 719, January 18, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The existence of a living Jewish people in a functioning Jewish state threatens the very raison d’être of Islam, which came into being to render Judaism obsolete. For that reason, Arabs and Muslims will never accept Israel as the Jewish State. 

Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital aroused massive outrage in the Arab and Islamic world. This was for two main reasons – one religious and one nationalist.

The religious reason is rooted in Islam’s conception of itself as a faith whose mission is to bring both Judaism and Christianity to an end and inherit all that was once Jewish or Christian: land, places of worship, and people. In Islam’s worldview, Palestine in its entirety belongs to Muslims alone because both Jews and Christians betrayed Allah when they refused to become followers of the prophet Muhammad. Their punishment is to be expulsion from their lands and the forfeiture of all rights to them.

Throughout the history of Islam, Muslims turned churches into mosques, including the Great Mosque of Ramle, the Bani Omaya Mosque in Damascus, the Hagia Sofia of Istanbul, and many Spanish churches. The reason is their belief that Christianity, like Judaism, is nullified by Islam, making churches unnecessary.

According to Islamic tenets, the prophets revered by these obsolete religions are Muslims. These include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Aaron. And according to Islam, King Solomon built a mosque, not a Temple, in Jerusalem. (The 1,500-year gap between the king’s reign and the birth of Islam is irrelevant to true believers.)

Jews and Christians can be protected under Muslim rule by becoming subservient to Islam in what is known as dhimmi status, which means they are legally deprived of many rights including the right to own land and bear arms. Dhimmis are forced to pay a head tax (jyzia) and are to be kept in a downtrodden state, as is mandated by the Koran. In Islam’s view, Jews are not a nation but a collection of religious communities to be found in various countries: a Jew in Poland is a “Pole of the Mosaic religion” and a Jew in Morocco is a “Moroccan Arab of the Mosaic religion.”

Suddenly, towards the end of the 19th century, everything changed. Jews began coming to Palestine in ever-growing numbers. The Zionists “invented” a new nation, the “Jewish People,” and decided that a certain part of the House of Islam was their homeland, known as Eretz Israel. They built communities and a protective fighting force even though, as dhimmis, they were not supposed to be allowed to bear arms and were subjected to Islam’s protection.

In 1948, the Jews actually declared a state, despite the fact that they did not deserve sovereignty. Then, in 1967, they “conquered” the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Jews now attempt to pray on the Temple Mount, suggesting that Judaism has returned to being an active, living, and even dynamic religion. This brings the very raison d’être of Islam into question. After all, Islam came into the world in order to make Judaism obsolete.

Muslims loyal to their religion and aware of this danger cannot possibly accept the existence of a Jewish state, not even a tiny one on the Tel Aviv coast. To them, Israel as the state of the Jewish people is a theological threat to Islam and only secondarily a national, political, judicial, or territorial threat.

President Trump’s acknowledgement of Israel’s existence by recognizing Jerusalem as its capital was a double whammy for Islam: Trump, a Christian, had granted recognition to the Jews. The outraged Muslim world thought this must be a Christo-Judaic plot against Islam. Trump’s declaration reminded them (along with several Jews) of the November 1917 Balfour Declaration, about which the Arabs continue to rail at the world: “You made the promises of non-owners to those who did not have the right to be given those promises.”

In the weeks following Trump’s declaration, Muslims all over the world expressed their fury at the seal of approval granted the Jewish State despite its very existence being opposed to that of Islam. Leaders and ordinary citizens, men and women took to the streets to demonstrate their inability to live with the fact that the most prominent Christian head of state had recognized the capital chosen by the Jewish nation and, by extension, its right to its own land.

The disturbances in Wadi Ara, in central Israel – rioters attempted to block the main road and damaged a public bus – were another manifestation of Muslim fury. The location is not surprising because the Wadi Ara area includes the city of Umm al-Fahm, where the main concentration of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement, headed by the infamous Raed Salah, is to be found. The Northern Branch has been declared illegal, along with some of the smaller organizations it has fostered, resulting in its members having no lawful way to express their fury at the existence of the state of Israel. With little alternative, they act in the public space as individuals without an organizational identity.

Nationalistic motives

It is generally accepted that the logic underpinning the Palestinian national movement is wholly based on the negation of the Jewish people’s right to its land and state. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 when the only “occupied” areas were Tel Aviv and Haifa. Its mission was to destroy the state of Israel, a goal Arabs expressed openly before and after the 1948 War.

Despite what some people think, the PLO has never amended its Charter calling for the destruction of Israel, as Yasser Arafat pledged to Yitzhak Rabin. The Oslo Accords, and the agreements with the PLO that followed in their wake, were therefore worth nothing. Those persisting in this false belief about the PLO’s intentions despite abundant evidence of the perfidy of Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, continued to foster the illusion of peace in the hearts of war-weary Israelis and anesthetize them in the process.

The goal of the Palestinian national movement is the creation of an artificial Palestinian nation (from scratch, because historically, there has never been such a nation). It is to be made permanent by constructing an Arab state on Israel’s ruins, not alongside it. This is why there is not one map of Israel to be found in the West Bank or Gaza. Every Palestinian map portrays a Palestine in the colors of the PLO flag extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

Note the PLO keffiya, which displays the words “Our Jerusalem” on the right and “Falestin” on the left (see photo at top of article).

The world, and especially Europe, is divided between a) innocent know-nothings who support a Palestinian state in order to achieve peace; and b) Jew-haters who fully grasp the PLO’s intentions and support them wholeheartedly. The entire Arab world, including those who signed peace treaties with Israel (Egypt and Jordan), willfully ignores the PLO’s real plans and treats the organization as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. If the PLO succeeds in carrying out its plans, no one in Jordan or Egypt is going to mourn Israel’s demise.

Arafat’s followers believe that if they succeed in moving Jerusalem outside the borders of Israel, many Jews will lose all hope and leave Israel for the countries from which they or their parents came. This will be the beginning of the end for the Zionist enterprise, because there is no Zionism without Zion, or Jerusalem. That is why they expend so much energy on Jerusalem. As long as most countries refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the city will be the weak link in the chain holding Israel together.

Arafat attempted to frighten Israelis with the slogan “A million shaheeds will march on Jerusalem,” meaning that millions are willing to put their lives on the line to free the city from Zionist clutches. This mantra has been internalized in Islamic society and can be heard at anti-Israel demonstrations all over the world.

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city dealt the Palestinian nationalist narrative a serious blow and gave Israel a kind of insurance policy. This maddens the Arabs who flourished on the dream of destroying Israel during the Oslo years. It has now become clear that a very powerful nation, the US, does not see itself as a partner in that dream and is even willing to act against it.

The Arabs in general, and particularly the Palestinians, can already see the dominos falling. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and other important states are considering moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in recognition that that city is Israel’s capital. In April 2017, even Russian President Vladimir Putin declared his recognition of Western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. There was no outcry in response to Putin’s declaration for one simple reason: the Arabs are deathly afraid of Putin after he made crystal clear to what lengths he is willing to go during the war in Syria, and they carefully refrain from reacting to his statements or decisions.


For both religious and nationalist reasons, the Arabs and Muslims are incapable of accepting Israel as the Jewish State that it is.

The question that Israelis, both Jewish and Christian, are forced to ask themselves is whether they are going to recognize the Muslim and Arab problem but tell them in no uncertain terms that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews and they are going to have to learn to live with it – or whether they are going to give in to the Arab and Muslim dreamers who refuse to accept the reality that the Jewish religion is alive and well.

An earlier version of this article, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, was published on December 14, 2017 by Israel National News.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served for 25 years in IDF military intelligence specializing in Syria, Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups, and Israeli Arabs, and is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The anti-Israel BDS Movement seeks the destruction of Israel, not a two-state peace with Palestinians - Patrick Dunleavy

by Patrick Dunleavy

The BDS Movement pretends to be working toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but in reality many of its supporters want to destroy Israel as a Jewish state

This article was first published by Fox News.

The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement pretends to be working toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but in reality many of its supporters want to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. For this reason, BDS has attracted support from terrorists, convicted killers and anti-Semites in the U.S. and abroad.

In fact, at many of BDS demonstrations – like ones filmed by the Investigative Project on Terrorism – demonstrators make no secret of their aims. "And the people of Palestine will wipe the Zionist entity (Israel) off all the world maps" one demonstration leader shouts on the IPT-recorded video.

On the same video demonstrators chant: "We don't want no two-state, we want 48," referring to 1948, before Israel was created from the British colony of Palestine. And for good measure, they chant: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," meaning a new Palestinian state will go from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and swallow up all of Israel. And yet other chants: "Death to the peace accords," "smash the settler Zionist state," and "there is only one solution, intifada revolution."

Law enforcement officials in the U.S. should keep a close eye on demonstrators like these, knowing that inflammatory anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric often leads to violence. The New York City Police Department and other law enforcement agencies have investigated a number of plots directed specifically at Jewish citizens and institutions.

BDS seeks to isolate Israel from world, ostensibly to protest Israel's presence in the West Bank and to call for creation of a Palestinian state. BDS seeks: a worldwide boycott against Israeli products, universities and cultural institutions; divestment from companies that provide equipment to the Israeli military; and international economic sanctions against Israel.

The willingness of young leaders of many BDS-supporting groups, such as the Blacks for Palestine, to look to violent terrorists for support exposes BDS's claim of a commitment to nonviolence as a fraud.

Several U.S. domestic terrorists who are now serving life prison sentences for killing law enforcement officers have announced their support for BDS with the goal of destroying Israel.

Inmates such as Herman Bell, Anthony Bottom, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Clark Edward Squire – who were members of the Black Liberation Army – as well as the Weather Underground's David Gilbert, have posted statements calling for the end of "US/Zionist Imperialism in Palestine." They also have encouraged the use of any means necessary – including violence – to achieve the goal of "driving the Zionist oppressors out of your land."

Gilbert, incarcerated for killing two police officers and a Brinks security guard in 1981, has received visits from several advocates for the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, now known as the International Solidarity Movement. While the movement states that it is nonviolent, it goes on to say: "our nonviolent approach does not mean that we have the right to dictate to Palestinians how to resist military occupation and apartheid."

In other words, we don't condone violence. But if you use it we're OK with it.

Another of Gilbert's prison visitors is a leader in the Syracuse Peace Council, which has advocated for the BDS movement's campaign to isolate Israel economically and politically.

"This diverse committee of activists provides grassroots education and generates political pressure needed to re-orient US policy toward a just peace in the Middle East," the peace council said in a 2013 statement.

This member of the council has also visited Assata Shakur in Cuba. Shakur, better known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted in the murder of New Jersey State Police Officer Werner Foerster. Shakur has the distinction of being the first woman named to the FBI's Most Wanted List. One wonders what a peace council and a cop killer have in common.

Keep in mind that many domestic terrorists from the 1960s began as members of non-violent protest organizations, only to later become completely committed to violence to achieve their objectives. The similarities between the BDS movement and the 1960s protest groups are alarming.

Gilbert worked with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), an originally non-violent student activist organization begun in 1962. The SDS wanted to use civil disobedience and other nonviolent means to cause changes in social, political and economic policy within the U.S. government.

After several years of non-violent protest, however, a segment within the SDS – including Ayers, Dohrn and Gilbert – became disillusioned and wanted to take violent action against the United States government. They determined that violence was the only effective means to overthrow any government that they deemed oppressive.

These same people are now active in the BDS movement. Viva Palestina, an organization founded by former British Member of Parliament George Galloway, organized a series of convoys loaded with supplies delivered to the Hamas-run government in Gaza.

Participating in the convoy was then-New York City Councilman and current New York state Assemblyman Charles Barron.

Barron, it should be noted, is a former member of the Black Panther Party who still maintains contact with several members of the Black Liberation Army currently in prison for the killing of four New York City police officers.

The BDS claim to be seeking to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians rings hollow as long as so many of the movement's adherents seek the destruction of the Jewish state and as long as the movement draws support from killers and terrorists.

Israel has repeatedly shown its willingness to make compromises and give up territory for peace. For example, it withdrew from both the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt and the Gaza Strip (now controlled by the violent terrorist group Hamas).

But for peace to become an achievable goal, Palestinians and groups like BDS need to commit themselves to compromise and living in peace with Israel and give up their pipe dreams of wiping Israel off the map. Unfortunately, that seems a long way off right now.

Patrick Dunleavy is the former Deputy Inspector General for NYS, author of The Fertile Soil of Jihad, and Sr. Fellow at the IPT. Follow him on Twitter @PTDunleavy.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Immigration Is Destroying the Welfare State - Spencer P. Morrison

by Spencer P. Morrison

Eventually, the public spigot must run dry.  The time is coming sooner than we think

Many Democrats see their party as the working man's choice. They want to soften capitalism's rougher edges, humanize big industry, and give the average American a fighting chance. One may (and should) disagree with their methods, but their intentions are good and their beliefs sincere.

That is not how the party elites feel. Their mantra is "open trade and open borders," as Hillary Clinton told Wall Street bankers in a private speech. Recall how the Democrats supported President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, a "free trade" deal that would have gutted American industries. And it is Democrats who oppose President Trump's attempts to stop illegal immigration, which hurts America's poor.

The Democrats don't care about American workers. They care about winning elections.

At this point, the chorus of "progressive" rhetoric reaches a fever pitch. "But we need immigrants to support the welfare state! We need immigrants to pay for Social Security!" Saying it does not make it so.

In truth, immigration is destroying the welfare state, in America and throughout the West. This is happening because immigrants receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Of course, this is not true for every immigrant – some never collect government handouts – but it is true for the overall immigrant population. Studies from across the Western world prove this point.

A recent and comprehensive study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that although immigration is (theoretically) revenue-neutral in America, not all immigrants are created equal. Half of all immigrants actually receive more in government assistance than they pay in taxes, but thankfully, they are balanced out by the other half. Specifically, immigrants who came to America for family reasons, or arrived as refugees, cost a net present value of $170,000.

Net present value is how much money the government would need to invest today, at a yield of inflation plus three percent, to pay for said immigrant's tax deficit over the course of his expected lifetime. Of course, the government does not do this – it spends only as it receives. Therefore, looking at net present value creates artificially low expectations.

According to the Heritage Foundation, each non-economic immigrant more realistically costs a net of $476,000 in welfare payouts. This does not account for any increases in government programs. Applying this more realistic figure to the original study means that immigrants consume far more in government services than they pay for. In fact, if immigration levels remain unchanged, those arriving over the next decade will cost American taxpayers a net of $1.9 trillion over their lifetimes. The welfare state is already struggling; immigration will make a bad problem worse.

Another important study, conducted by Denmark's Ministry of Finance, found that immigrants are a net drain on the nation's welfare state. In fact, non-E.U. immigrants and their descendants consumed 59 percent of the tax surplus collected from native Danes. This is not surprising, since some 84 percent of all welfare recipients in Denmark are immigrants, or their descendants. The bottom line: immigration is a net burden on Denmark.

Likewise, a study conducted by Canada's Fraser Institute, a think-tank, found that mass immigration costs Canadian taxpayers some $24 billion per year – and this was using data from nearly a decade ago. The number has since increased significantly, as Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world.

Finally, a study from the University College of London found that immigrants consume far more in welfare than they pay in taxes. Specifically, the study looked at the Labor government's mass immigration push between 1995 and 2011. The study found that immigrants from the European Economic Area made a small but positive net contribution to the British economy of £4.4 billion during the period. However, during the same period, non-European immigrants (primarily from South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) cost the British economy a net £120 billion.

The origin-based economic differences are actually exacerbated by the U.K.'s generous welfare state: while European immigrants often left their extended families at home, to be cared for by their respective governments, immigrants from the Third World generally brought their families with them, knowing that British taxpayers would care for them. From the immigrant's perspective, this is a rational choice, but does it make sense for British taxpayers? No.

For decades, Democrats campaigned on promises of cradle-to-grave care for low-income Americans, while at the same time they have allowed millions of immigrants to enter America and collect welfare – without ever having contributed a dime to the public purse. This is not only unfair; it is unsustainable. The welfare state is collapsing under its own weight, and mass immigration is only making this bad problem worse.

Spencer P. Morrison


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Making California Mexico Again - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

“No barriers between California and Mexico” for leftist Democrats.

After the November 2016 election, California governor Jerry Brown, a three-time presidential loser, denounced the victorious Donald Trump and pledged that the Golden State would go its own way, perhaps even launching its own satellites. Brown’s attorney general Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, also defies the federal government.

Senate boss Kevin de León, which is not the name on his birth certificate and voter rolls, authored the state’s sanctuary legislation that has made false-documented illegals, even criminals, a privileged, protected class. In early January, after the legislation kicked in, California’s Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon took things to a new level.

“There is no sensible place for barriers between California and Mexico,” said Rendon, heading south with fellow Democrats on a four-day mission to Mexico. “This trip will send a message that California resists isolation and is willing to step up and work with Mexico if the federal administration abdicates that responsibility.”

So contrary to the “Calexit” crowd, which seeks independence, Rendon wants to hook up the state with Mexico. In that cause, he touts the “historically linked governments” of Mexico City and Sacramento.  The statement was not a departure from the vision of speaker Rendon, who earned a PhD in political science at UC Riverside.

On November 9, 2017, one day after the election of Donald Trump, Rendon and de Leon said in a statement: “Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California.”

California “is – and must always be – a refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all walks, talks, ages and aspirations – regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love.” After several paragraphs of anti-Trump boilerplate comes the key line:
“California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.”

Speaker Rendon doubtless knows that Maine, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Louisiana and more than two dozen other states were “not part of this nation when its history began.” The focus on California reflects the belief, common among ruling-class Democrats, that California is part of Mexico.

For the record, California became part of the United States 170 years ago in 1848, a full 13 years before the Civil War, when the Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, and Prussia were major players on the global stage and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies still existed. Speaker Rendon and senate boss de Leon seek to turn back the clock to 1846, before Mexico lost the war.

That is why Rendon and de Leon say “we are proud to be Californians,” not Americans, because they don’t see the Golden State as part of the USA. That is why Rendon proclaims “there is no sensible place for barriers between California and Mexico.”

In this view, Mexicans who violate U.S. immigration law are only entering their own country and not illegal in any sense. They are therefore entitled to education, medical care, drivers’ licenses, welfare, and in-state college tuition. False-documented illegals also vote in federal, state and local elections, the imported electorate of California’s ruling class Democrats. California secretary of state Alex Padilla conveniently refuses to reveal voter information and will not cooperate with federal probes of voter fraud.

Meanwhile, millennials and such might not be aware of the back story here. Speaker Rendon was born in 1968, year of the Olympic Games in Mexico City. In the run-up to the games, Mexican students held demonstrations demanding more democracy. On October 2, 1968, Mexican troops gunned down hundreds of students in Tlatelolco Square, and Mexico’s Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) regime has been covering it up ever since, with collaboration from Vincente Fox of Mexico’s PAN party.

In 2014, students at a Mexican teacher college commandeered busses to attend demonstrations commemorating the Tlatelolco massacre. Mexican police attacked the students, killing six and dragging off more than 40 others. The PRI government claimed they had been taken by a drug gang and incinerated in a garbage dump. As in 1968, Mexicans decline to accept the official story.

The PRI atrocities proved no obstacle to Rendon, who appears to believe he represents the entire state. Californians might note that the speaker did not propose a 2018 ballot initiative allowing the people to vote on whether to “step up and work with Mexico” instead of their own American federal government.

When Californians voted to make English  the state’s official language (Proposition 63, 1986); denied benefits for false-documented immigrants (Proposition 187, 1994); ended racial preferences in college admissions (Proposition 209, 1996) and stopped bilingual education (Proposition 227, 1998), Mexican flags suddenly appeared by the thousands.

Now, with the ruling Democrats essentially a division of the PRI, Californians feel like strangers in a foreign land. This is what happens when rule by one political party replaces the rule of law.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of the new crime book, Lethal Injections: Elizabeth Tracy Mae Wettlaufer, Canada’s Serial Killer Nurse, and the recently updated Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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