Saturday, May 26, 2018

CIA or CNN? The Media Deep State’s Echo Chamber - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield

Will the media ever be held accountable for conspiring against America?




Spygate began with the Clinton campaign. It ended with informants and eavesdropping on the Trump campaign. Clinton opposition research morphed into an endless investigation of her opponent.

The Clinton campaign and its opposition research were the starting point of Spygate. And Mueller’s hound dog face scowling from a thousand CNN screens (roughly its viewership when you subtract airports, bars and Marin County) were the endpoint. But the media was Spygate’s interface.

Hillary’s Fusion GPS mercs used the media to spread their smear. Mother Jones’ David Corn was the first man on the ground. But there were plenty of others. And that’s only to be expected. Opposition research is useless if the media won’t pick it up. And the best opposition research looks like a story generated by a dedicated reporter, not some sleazebag employed by the other guy’s campaign.

In real life, those Pulitzer scandal scoops come from story-launderers who handfeed stories to reporters, sometimes even writing their hit pieces for them. What the media likes to pretend is journalism is really just a bunch of PR and shadier outfits like Fusion GPS waging a shadow war using corporate media.

But the media didn’t actually run the Clinton-Steele dossier. Until BuzzFeed slipped up, no one did. Instead the dossier was meant to serve as a primer for media hit pieces that would then be used to justify actions by the Obama administration. For example, the FISA warrant application cited a Yahoo News story by Michael Isikoff that had been based on the Clinton campaign’s opposition research.

Fusion GPS had introduced Isikoff to Steele while telling the reporter that the FBI was interested. In the next phase of Hillary’s human centipede, Isikoff wrote a story which was used by the FBI to support its claims. Clinton opposition research was the source for both the FBI investigation and the media hit pieces. But by concealing that fact, the media manufactured an echo chamber in which both its outlets and the “intel community” appeared to be deploying mutually reinforcing narratives about Trump.

Joe Biden claimed that he and Obama were briefed about the dossier by intelligence officials because they were afraid that the information would leak. But Obama’s Director of National Intelligence would leak it to CNN after Trump was briefed about it. And former FBI boss Comey claimed that he had to brief Trump because CNN had the dossier. CNN and government conspirators were reinforcing each other.

Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe informed Comey that CNN would use the existence of the briefing as the basis for its story. “The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment," he wrote.

(Likewise, the FBI’s Peter Strzok appeared to have his own oddly close relationship with the media.)

How did McCabe know what CNN’s trigger for running the story would be? And why would he need to have that information and distribute it within the Bureau? The obvious explanation is coordination.

The media used the leaks about the briefing to justify reporting on the allegations. Obama officials used media interest to justify their own interest. And the media used the interest of Obama officials to justify their interest.

But that’s how echo chambers work.

Echo chambers blow up stories by spreading a single narrative into a broad stream of integrated loops that appear diverse when they’re actually the same. (That’s none too coincidentally how the left operates. Its diversity is just a series of front groups controlled by a small number of ideological bosses.)  What ordinary people see are a lot of experts, organizations and agencies all saying the same thing.

So there must be something to it.

But this time the media wasn’t just manufacturing a messaging consensus through its echo chamber. Instead it was directly involved in a conspiracy that eavesdropped on the political opposition and that is attempting to overturn the results of the 2016 election using not only dirty tricks, but the government.

Media smears are nothing new. Media coups are a whole other thing.

James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, allegedly coordinated with CNN. And then took a job at CNN. Clapper isn’t alone. Obama’s CIA boss, John Brennan, is over at NBC News. Josh Campbell, Comey's assistant, is at CNN. The three arms of the Deep State offer interchangeable employment. Much as Fusion GPS was paying the wife of a top DOJ official to investigate Trump.

This is what organizational integration looks like. And that’s what a Deep State looks like.


CIA or CNN? Who can tell the difference?

The investigation of the investigation has made it very clear that top CIA and FBI people were coordinating with the media. When CNN knows what’s going on at the FBI, that’s a leak. But when the FBI knows what’s going on at CNN, that’s close coordination.  

Spygate depended on close coordination between Clinton’s people, the media and Obama’s intel folks. But it was the media that lubricated the alliance of the Democrat Deep State behind the coup.

Hillary Clinton’s nasty little trolls were the least useful to the process. The media could have easily done its own dirty work. But it’s a testament to its laziness that it needed political operatives to write its story for it. Every time you read glowing media porn accounts of dedicated reporters holding Trump accountable, remember that the media couldn’t even be bothered to invent the hit piece it’s milking.

If CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post were really full of brilliant investigators, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be out six figures and they wouldn’t have needed Fusion GPS to do their job for them.

The intel and investigatory side had vast powers that were used to do what none of the other players could. But the only way to mask the police state abuses involved in spying on the political opposition was to have some padding between Clinton campaign operatives and Clinton allies in the DOJ.

The media was the peanut butter and jelly in a Clinton scandal sandwich. It covered up the Clinton origins of the conspiracy theory that fueled Spygate by claiming that it had to protect its sources in the same way that the FBI claimed that it had to protect its sources. They were protecting the same source.

Hillary Clinton.

But the term “source” is a misnomer. It implies that the media and Obama intel officials were gathering information when they were actually coordinating a plan of attack against Trump.

There were no sources here because nothing was being found out or discovered, only planted.

Sources come from outside your organization. Spygate ran by pretending that the media, the Clinton campaign and the FBI represented different organizations. Each one “discovered” material from another allied organization. Each discovery justified an organizational response and each organizational response then justified reciprocal responses by the other organizations creating the vicious cycle we’re living in.

The Clinton campaign “discovered” information which it passed along through the government and the media. The media had to report on this “discovery”. Intel officials also had to investigate it. The media had to report on their investigation. The intel officials had to take action based on that reporting. 

And so on and so forth.

But collapse the organizational boundaries and there’s no discovery, just the Deep State.

The media acts as the interface between conspirators, the organizational mortar offering lucrative jobs for campaign and intel officials, and the lubricant for the organizational imperatives of its allies who can always justify further action because the media has made it a story by reporting on it.

The media Deep State enjoys the highest level of legal protection and the lowest level of accountability. That exposed it to the least risk in a conspiracy against America. It was not the most powerful player in Spygate. But it had the most range and the fewest limitations. FBI officials and Clinton campaign officials might face legal sanction, but the media figures that made the conspiracy possible never will.

And that’s why the media must be held accountable.


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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270253/cia-or-cnn-media-deep-states-echo-chamber-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Going onto the front foot on the battleground of the mind - Melanie Phillips




by Melanie Phillips

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

The problem is not a failure of the IDF’s communications officers nor even the patent uselessness of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.


As I See It: Going onto the front foot on the battleground of the mind
Israeli soldiers, on the Israeli side of the border with the Gaza Strip, watch Palestinian protesters in Gaza May 14, 2018. (photo credit: REUTERS/AMIR COHEN) 


The attempt to scapegoat the IDF communications team for the shocking western media coverage of the Gaza Strip border riots reveals once again that Israel’s political class simply hasn’t got a clue about the anti-Israel madness.

Mainstream media in Britain, America and Europe presented the murderous attempts by Hamas to storm the border, using Molotov cocktails, IEDs, firearms and flaming kites under cover of the unarmed civilians they pushed to the front, as peaceful demonstrators being killed by brutal Israeli soldiers. That was the coverage Hamas was out to procure.

The media thus made themselves accessories to Hamas war crimes.

Within Israel, this has been blamed on the IDF spokesperson, Brig.-Gen. Ronen Manelis, and on Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, head IDF spokesperson to the foreign press. This is deeply unfair.

Doubtless, they could have done things better. When BBC Radio asked Conricus how he could justify firing live ammunition at unarmed protesters, he said they were members of Hamas – but failed to list the weapons they were using or that the IDF had tried tear gas, rubber bullets and shooting at legs before the last resort of lethal fire.

Merely saying they were Hamas meant nothing to a British public indoctrinated by wall-to-wall propaganda that unarmed protesters were mowed down – a public, moreover, for whom the greater the violence Hamas uses against Israel, the deeper the Gazans’ desperation is thought to be as a result of Israeli “oppression.”

The problem is far too profound to be adequately addressed in such circumstances by any individual. For the demonization of Israel is a derangement that has gripped the media and intelligentsia in Britain, Europe and America.

OVER AND over again, hapless Israeli spokesmen, officials or politicians don’t hear the grotesque question behind the questions they’re asked. This is: “What right have you to be there at all when you have displaced the indigenous Palestinians, whose lives you are now making a misery through occupation and laying siege to the prison in which you have penned them?” Yes, “occupation.” British journalists repeatedly refer to the Israeli occupation of Gaza – even though every Israeli was removed from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Time and again, the Israelis fail to answer the question from hostile British interviewers – because in the Israelis’ minds, they are always addressing not the British but the Israeli public. And they really can’t grasp the difference.

Up against an Arab and Muslim enemy that carefully observed, analyzed and came to understand the mindset of both its Israeli targets and the western left that was to be enlisted in its genocidal cause, the Israelis (with a few exceptions) haven’t got the faintest idea what makes Brits tick – and they see no reason to find out.

Over the years, before I gave up trying, I would have occasional conversations with Israeli bigwigs to try to convince them that their whole strategy needed to change. They brushed it all aside. They thought it just wasn’t that important. Why should they fret about Britain and Europe, they said, when they had America’s solid support – a misjudgment that became all too apparent during the Obama years and could well surface again if the Democrats return to office.

Why should they lose any sleep over BDS, they said, since trade with Europe had never been better? And in any event, there was absolutely no point bothering about any of this because it was all down to the irredeemable antisemitism of British and European culture.

The antisemitism is true enough. The Left’s fixed belief that Israel is a colonialist project and the Palestinian Arabs its historic victims cannot explain the frenzied, obsessive attempts to demonize and delegitimize it – treatment afforded to no other people, country or cause. The unhinged nature of this venom suggests a psychic, even metaphysical disturbance in the West and a civilizational crisis.

Yet combat it we must. Here’s why.

First, it’s important to record the truth. That’s what Jews do. Second, we must stop the demoralization of Jews themselves who are increasingly signing up to this narrative of lies. Third, despite the antisemitism now coursing through the West, there are plenty of decent, rational people who are committed to law and justice and human rights. Yet they believe Israel stands against law, justice and human rights simply because this is the only story they ever hear.

This could change virtually overnight.

How? By going onto the front foot. To defend yourself against demonization is to lose the battle before it starts because you are forced to argue on the territory chosen by your enemies.

Instead, Israel’s champions should use what the demonizers hurl against it and turn it into a boomerang. Take the initiative. Reclaim the language from those who have hijacked it and turn it back into what it’s supposed to mean.

Hold press conferences and call the Arabs the true colonizers. The Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their national homeland. Call the Jews what they are – the only extant indigenous people of the land.

Accuse those who would force Israel to cede land to its enemies of being the ones who are repudiating law and justice. Tell the West what so many don’t know, that in the 1920s, the international community granted the Jews alone the never-abrogated right to settle the entire land from the river to the sea.

Publicly tell the British government that by denying that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, Britain is complicit in the perfidious Arab and Muslim strategy of writing the Jews out of their own history.

Label “progressives” as racist ethnic-cleansers for insisting the Jewish “settlers” are frustrating a two-state solution, thus endorsing the Palestinian Arabs’ cry of “not one Jew in Palestine.” Accuse the BBC/Channel Four News/CNN of gross journalistic misconduct by recycling Hamas propaganda. And so on.

IF SUCH unsayable fundamentals were said loudly enough, the atmosphere in the West would change. Not because the ideologues and antisemites would ever be convinced – it’s just much more difficult to keep the lies going once the evidence is out there, forcing people at the very least to ask where the truth actually resides.

The problem is not a failure of the IDF’s communications officers nor even the patent uselessness of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. It is that Israel has been for decades the target of massively financed psychological warfare, a fact it has almost completely ignored.

The narrative debacle at the Gaza Strip border was the outcome. It won’t be the last.

 
Melanie Phillips is a columnist for The Times (UK).

Source: https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-See-It-Going-onto-the-front-foot-on-the-battleground-of-the-mind-558327

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Heeding Democratic [Party] Warnings - Caroline Glick




by Caroline Glick

“You will pay a price for your support of President Donald Trump,” we are told.


Ellison Bernie Dems

Every day Israel is subjected to a torrent of warnings from Democrats.

“You will pay a price for your support of President Donald Trump,” we are told.

“He won’t be president forever, and when he’s gone, watch out!”

The basic notion, repeated over and over again is clear enough. If Israel doesn’t want to be punished by the next Democratic White House – which we are warned will make us long for Barack Obama – then we’d better stop talking about the fact that Trump is the best ally and friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

These warnings are not baseless. The data are unmistakable. Republicans are more supportive of Israel than they ever have been. Democrats are abandoning Israel in droves. In January, Pew reported that liberal Democrats side with the Palestinians over Israel by a margin of nearly two to one. Conservative Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians by a margin of more than 16 to 1.

The yawning gap in support plays out in multiple ways. This week, 70 House Democrats sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Israel not destroy illegal Palestinian construction in the south Hebron hills.

Last week, no serving Democratic lawmakers attended the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem.

Democrats also boycotted the Israeli Embassy in Washington’s party celebrating the move.

How is Israel supposed to deal with this wide and growing gap in partisan support? Before taking a stab at the answer, we first must understand what is causing the Democrats to turn against the Jewish state.

There are two primary causes for the current trend.

The first has to do with President Trump.

Never in US history has a president been demonized and delegitimized by his political opponents as Trump has been by Democrats. Since the day he was elected, Democrats have sought to overturn the election results.

Every policy Trump enacts is subjected to immediate delegitimization. Democrats attack every position Trump adopts as morally defective, somehow treacherous and utterly illegitimate.

Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem and move the US Embassy to Israel’s capital is case in point. In 1995, Democrats and Republicans joined together to overwhelmingly pass the Jerusalem Embassy Act mandating the transfer of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. It passed the Senate 93-5.

Every year since lopsided majorities in both houses have voted in favor of resolutions enjoining successive administrations to follow the law and move the embassy. In the past four presidential elections, the Democrats’ party platform has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and supported moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

Given this background, the obvious move for Democrats would have been to applaud Trump for finally doing what none of his predecessors did.

Given this background, dozens of Democratic lawmakers could have been expected to come to Jerusalem for the embassy opening last week and still more could have been expected to put in an appearance at the Israeli Embassy’s bash in Washington.

Instead, with some notable if constrained exceptions, Trump’s move was met with stony silence by the vast majority of Democrats. And several powerful lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and prominent senators Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Chris Murphy and Bernie Sanders condemned the move.

The only possible explanation for their abrupt abandonment of a policy they had dutifully followed for 23 years is Trump. They revile him and reject him to such a degree that they prefer to abandon long-held positions than admit that he did exactly what they have wanted the president to do for the past 23 years.

The second cause of the Democrats’ abandonment of Israel is the rise of identity politics within the party.

For the past decade or so, a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party has been going on between moderate Democrats, in the Bill Clinton mold and the far Left. The Clinton Democrats ascribe to traditional liberal democratic values and views of America and its role in world affairs. They believe that the protection of liberty and civil rights are the beating heart of American identity and that America has an indispensable and uniquely moral role to play as a superpower in world affairs.

Opposing them are lawmakers and activists from the far Left who believe identity politics should govern the party’s positions and policies. Identity politics reject the notion that people should be judged by their achievements and character.

Instead its subscribers assert that people should be judged, pushed ahead or kept back, supported or opposed based on their membership in various ethnic, racial, gender and sexual identity groups.

Perhaps the best encapsulation of identity politics was given this week by a New York Times editor on the paper’s twitter feed. In a post reporting the results of the gubernatorial primaries in Georgia, the editor wrote, “History in Georgia: Stacey Abrams became the first black woman to be a major party’s nominee for governor after winning her Democratic primary.”

The paper applauded Abrams for being born a certain race and a certain gender. It told us nothing about her qualifications for office. It told us nothing about her past achievements or plans for governing if elected. All the Times thinks we need to know is that Abrams is black and a woman. This is why she should be governor.

Unfortunately for Israel and its supporters, the same forces who determined that black women should be supported determined that Israeli Jews and their American supporters should be opposed and the Palestinians, including Hamas, should be supported.

This position is unmovable. Identity politics imposes a pecking order of victimhood that is impervious to reason and closed to argument.

People are judged only by their placement on the ladder of victimhood. During Obama’s presidency, the dispute between the two warring factions was swept under the rug as everyone joined together in supporting him.

But even as he was supported by moderate and radical Democrats alike, Obama advanced policies and positions that empowered the radicals at the expense of the moderates.

Obama’s hostility towards Israel, his repeated intimations that Israel is a colonialist outpost while the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land of Israel were part and parcel of his across-the-board effort to enable the radical Left to take over the party. Obama’s efforts laid the groundwork for socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly strong challenge to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in the party’s presidential primaries. It also set the stage for the rise of radical leaders like Congressman Keith Ellison and Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the post-Obama Democratic party. 

Feinstein, who supported a bipartisan Senate resolution just last year calling for the implementation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, is now facing a far-Left primary challenger.

To fend off the challenge, she is embracing identity politics.

Her outspoken condemnation of the embassy move no doubt is an expression of her political pivot to the far Left.

When the causes of the Democrats’ alienation from Israel are properly understood, it becomes self-evident that Israel did nothing to precipitate the current situation. It is equally clear that Israel is powerless to reverse the current trends. Only the Democrats can do that.

And so we return to the question: What can Israel do to minimize the partisan divide over support for the Jewish state in America? Democrats advise Israel to do two things. First, they say, the government, and the public more generally, should keep Trump at arm’s length. We should stop supporting him and applauding and thanking him for his support for Israel.

Second, they say, the government should maintain faith with Obama’s pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel policies. Among other things, this means that Israel should permanently deny Jews the right to exercise their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Israel should also prop up Hamas and the PLO.

If Israel does these things, the Democrats say, then a future Democratic president will be more likely to develop a constructive relationship with Jerusalem than he or she otherwise would be.

There are two problems with this advice. First, it involves abandoning the proverbial bird in the hand for a bird that not only flew out of the tree but is swiftly vanishing over the horizon. If present trends in the Democratic party continue, there is little chance that a future Democratic president will be supportive of Israel. The party’s rank and file would revolt.

The second problem with the advice that Democrats are providing is that if Israel listens to them, it will be at even greater risk of being harmed by a hostile administration in the future. Given the ascendancy of the radical Left in the party, and its intractable, impermeable hatred of Israel, Israel needs to secure as many of its long-term strategic interests as it can with the friendly Trump administration lest those interests are imperiled by a hostile Democratic White House in the future.

Among other things, this means securing Israel’s long-term strategic interests in Judea and Samaria by applying Israeli law to Area C.

It means diminishing Israel’s strategic dependence on the US by vastly diminishing with the short term goal of eliminating US military assistance to Israel. That aid should be replaced with US-Israeli joint projects to jointly develop weapons systems and advance other common strategic goals.

Securing Israel’s long-term strategic interests means vastly diminishing Hezbollah’s capacity to wage war against Israel from Lebanon.

And it means destabilizing with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian regime.

The Democrats who are saying that by supporting Trump, Israel is turning itself into a partisan issue, are themselves responsible for turning support for the Jewish state into a partisan issue. By denying that Israel has a right and a legitimate interest in standing with a president that is supportive of and takes concerted steps to advance the US-Israel alliance, they are saying Israel has no right to be supported by its supporters.

The Democrats are right that Israel has a vested interest in preserving and expanding bipartisan support. But contrary to their position, there is only one way for Israel to achieve this goal, and happily, the government’s policies indicate that this is the path that Israel is following today.

Israel must support its supporters and oppose its opponents, without regard to their political affiliation. Israelis support Trump because Trump supports Israel not because he is a Republican. By the same token, Israelis support Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer not because he is a Democrat, but because he supports Israel.

Democrats are right that Trump won’t be president forever. Israel needs to heed their warnings not by distancing itself from the administration, but by working with the Trump administration to secure its long-term strategic interests and goals.

Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel will certainly support our efforts.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 


Caroline Glick

Source: http://carolineglick.com/heeding-democratic-warnings/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

North and South Korean leaders hold surprise meeting at Panmunjon - Thomas Lifson




by Thomas Lifson

It seems clear that both leaders want the summit to go forward, which is probably what Trump wants. They now need to please him, after all

Obviously reacting to President Trump's cancellation of the scheduled June 12 summit meeting with Kim Jong-un, President Moon Jae-in met with the North Korean leader again on the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone. The U.K. Guardian reports:
South Korean president Moon Jae-in crossed into the north at the border village of Panmunjom, where the two met for the first time in April, according to Moon's office. The two leaders discussed the potential US-North Korea summit, which Trump cancelled on Thursday, as well as implementing the joint statement that was released at the end of their earlier summit.
The surprise meeting highlighted Moon's efforts to get the historic summit back on track, and showed inter-Korea relations are in a far better state than those between Washington and Pyongyang. On Friday, Trump made a partial climbdown, saying the summit could still be held in Singapore on 12 June if conditions are right.
Photos released by the South Korean presidential office showed the two leaders embracing, shaking hands amid opulent decor and holding intimate discussions, accompanied by just a single aide each.

Moon is expected to announce further details of the meeting on Sunday morning.

We don't know who first proposed the meeting, nor do we know any detail about what was discussed. But it seems clear that both leaders want the summit to go forward, which is probably what Trump wants. They now need to please him, after all.

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/north_and_south_korean_leaders_hold_surprise_meeting_at_panmunjon.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Canada: A "Different" Kind of Antisemitism? - Philip Carl Salzman




by Philip Carl Salzman

Let us be frank: as is all too clear from the recent European experience, importing large numbers of Muslims means importing Islamic antisemitism.

  • "I have a confession to make. If you are Jewish... I used to hate you. I hated you because I thought you were responsible for the [Somali civil] war which took my father from me for so long... When we had no water, I thought you closed the tap. ... If my mother was unkind to me, I knew you were definitely behind it. If and when I failed an exam, I knew it was your fault. You are by nature evil, you had evil powers and you used them to evil ends. Learning to hate you was easy. Unlearning it was difficult." — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, quoted in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, by Andrew G. Bostom.
  • In Canada, Wael al-Ghitawi, the imam of Al-Andalous Islamic Centre, and Sayed al-Ghitawi "both called for the death of Jews. The sermons came to public attention in February 2017, when YouTube videos of the talks were translated into English."
  • Let us be frank: as is all too clear from the recent European experience, importing large numbers of Muslims means importing Islamic antisemitism. Hate crimes against Canadian Jews are already on an upward trajectory. Is it the Canadian Government's policy to encourage an increase in antisemitic hate crimes?
In Berlin, on evening of the May 17, 2018, two men wearing Jewish skull caps were attacked by three Arabic speaking men, who repeatedly cursed at them and called them "yahudi," Jew, in Arabic. One of the Arabs knifed one of the men, Adam Armoush, with his belt. The attack was recorded, and the video widely seen.

Ironically, Adam is not a Jew. He is an Israeli Arab, who was wearing the skull cap to test whether it was unsafe to show oneself as a Jew in Berlin. He was skeptical; he has now reconsidered.

One of the assailants, a 19 year old refugee, claiming he was from Syria, later turned himself into the police.

In response to the attack, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was saddened, and that it was depressing that antisemitism had not been destroyed for good in Germany. There were, in fact, more than 1,000 antisemitic incidents in Berlin last year alone. Merkel pointed out that, in addition to some traditional German antisemitism remaining, "We have a new phenomenon of refugees or people of Arab origin who bring another form of anti-Semitism into the country."

Germany's first Antisemitism Commissioner, Felix Klein, pointed out that "We've observed that Salafist and Islamist extremists seek to approach refugees in Germany and try to incite anti-Semitism and hatred." Muslim Arabs speakers as well as Iranians Pakistanis, Afghans, Muslim Africans and Turkic speakers from Turkey and Central Asia, would be vulnerable to such influences.

Throughout Europe during the past decade, there have been many attacks on Jews.[1]

Christian antisemitism used to be based on Jews not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and the belief that the Jews were responsible for Jesus's death. Little consideration was given to the facts that both One God and the Messiah were Jewish ideas, that the Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, or that Jesus and his Apostles were themselves Orthodox Jews. Christian antisemitism frequently broke out in violence, as with Western European Crusaders slaughtering Jews in the cities they passed through on the way to the Holy Land, where they also murdered Jews, and as with the regular Pogrom attacks in Eastern Europe that were a beloved feature of Easter. Then there were the expulsions of Jews from England, Spain, Austria, Hungary, and Germany, among 109 mostly European locations that expelled them, and, in Spain, the torture and execution of converted Jews during the Holy Inquisition. Fortunately, in recent times, many Christian churches have distanced themselves from this kind of antisemitism.

Meanwhile, Islamic antisemitism arose in reaction to the frustration of Mohammed's fond hopes that the Arabian Jewish tribes would accept him as the final Prophet of the line of Jewish prophets. Mohammed had drawn much from Judaism: One God, the Prophets, repeated daily prayer, circumcision, and food prohibitions. When the Jewish tribes declined to accept Mohammed's offer, that he was their final Prophet, Mohammed declared war on them, executed all of the men in one Jewish tribe, and distributed the women and children among his followers, and exiled another tribe from their traditional territory.

The foundational documents of Islam also reflect total rejection of the Jews and all "disbelievers". In the hadith (sayings and deeds of Mohammad), there is a verse, still quoted in Article 7 of Hamas's charter:
In Saheeh Muslim (2922), it is narrated from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "The Hour will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them, until a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: O Muslim, O slave of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Except the gharqad (a thorny tree), for it is one of the trees of the Jews."
In the Quran, surahs referring to Jews, as well as all "disbelievers, and recommend:
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. [Quran 2:191-193; Sahih International translation]
Islam further claims that all Jewish Prophets -- Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, and all -- were Muslims:
Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists. [Quran 3:67; Sahih International translation]
Jesus and Mary were also added to this list of Muslim Prophets. Islamic antisemitism is reflected in the vast holy literature of Islamic texts, and in the almost uncountable incidents in the 1,400-year history of Islam.

What can be offered here are a few short statements that will have to suffice to illustrate Islamic antisemitism. In the Islamic Holy Book, the Quran, believed by Muslims to be the direct words of God, is the following:
Have you not seen those who have received a portion of the Scripture? They purchase error, and they want you to go astray from the path. But Allah know[s] best who your enemies are ... Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings, and say 'We hear and we disobey,' ...twisting with their tongues and slandering religion. ... But Allah had cured them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. (Quran 4:44-46, seventh century a.d.)
The famous Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, in Epistle to the Jews of Yemen, 1172, reports that:
The nation of Ishmael [Muslims]...persecute[s] us severely and devise ways to harm us and to debase us. ... None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. ... We listen, but remain silent ... In spite of all this, we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness, and their outbursts [of violence] at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and choose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently toward us.
According to al-Maghili, a prominent theologian in Morocco, late fifteenth century, "Love of the Prophet requires hatred of the Jews." In a 2002 sermon at the Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca, the most important shrine in Islam, the imam and preacher Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, claimed the following:
Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [God's] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers, ... the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs. ... These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption.
The Somali-American human rights advocate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, describes (May 4, 2006) what she learned as a Muslim:
I have a confession to make. If you are Jewish ... I used to hate you. I hated you because I thought you were responsible for the [Somali civil] war which took my father from me for so long... When we had no water, I thought you closed the tap. ... If my mother was unkind to me, I knew you were definitely behind it. If and when I failed an exam, I knew it was your fault. You are by nature evil, you had evil powers and you used them to evil ends. Learning to hate you was easy. Unlearning it was difficult.
The evidence is overwhelming that the sentiments expressed here by Muslims against Jews are, unfortunately, typical in the Islamic world.

Does Islamic antisemitism exist in Canada? We know that Jews are the most targeted religious group, with 221 antisemitic hate crimes in 2016. There were 139 hate crimes directed against Muslims. With a Canadian Jewish population of 329,500, and a Canadian Muslim population of 1,053,945, there was an antisemitic hate crime for every 1491 Canadian Jews, and an anti-Muslim hate crime for every 7582 Muslims. On a per capita basis, Jews were by far the most targeted religious group.

While the authors of many hate crimes are unknown, some cases stand out. Muslim Sleiman Elmerhebi firebombed the United Talmud Torahs Jewish elementary school in Montreal. He was convicted and jailed, and his mother given probation as an accessory after the fact.

While Muslim attackers of Jews often keep a low profile and are not found by police, Muslim religious and political figures, whose job it is to speak out, have been frank about their views of Jews:
In Canada, at the Al-Andalous Islamic Centre in the St-Laurent borough of Montreal, Wael al-Ghitawi, the center's imam, in November 2014, and Sayed al-Ghitawi, who was visiting from the Middle East, in August 2014, both called for the death of Jews. The sermons came to public attention in February 2017, when YouTube videos of the talks were translated into English. In February 2017, two Jewish groups filed complaints against the imams with the Montreal police. Quebec's prosecutors, however, chose not to proceed, arguing that that too much time had elapsed.
Later, in July 2017, a Quebec judge issued an arrest warrant for an imam who had made several violent anti-Semitic statements at another Montreal mosque in December 2016. Sheikh Muhammad bin Musa al-Nasr, a Palestinian-Jordanian, while visiting Canada had said in the video that Allah has ordained that Jews should be killed by Muslims "at the end of time." He was apparently drawing on the same Jew-killing hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari Book Number 56 Hadith Number 791 - Muflihun) invoked by the U.S. imams. After an investigation by the Montreal police hate crimes unit, he was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code with the willful promotion of hatred.
Canadian campuses are home to the organizations Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Students Association which actively campaign against Israel in such events as "Israel Apartheid Week," and which sponsor boycotts of Israel and a wide array of anti-Israel speakers. Although these anti-Israel advocates, many of them Middle Eastern and Muslim in origin, claim not to be antisemitic even while denying Jews a 3,000 year history in their historical homeland, their animosity toward Jews repeatedly breaks out. For example, a Facebook post celebrating an anti-Israel event at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology asserted that "Jews are rodents." Other media posts advised Jewish students to "Go back to Palestine." At Toronto's Ryerson University, Holocaust education was opposed with a staged walkout.

At McMaster University, numerous incidents have been documented of students writing antisemitic social media posts. Nadera Masad, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, tweeted "hitler should have took you all."
[Rawan] Qaddoura — a political science and economics major who unsuccessfully ran for the SPHR presidency in 2016 — tweeted in September 2012, "i just don't like jews lol #sorrynotsorry"
On August 2013, she wrote, "'@judeZAdude: The whole world is controlled by Zionist Jews and until you understand that, life will never make sense.'"
Qaddoura also repeatedly praised Hitler, tweeting in January 2012, "I honestly wish I was born at the time of the second world war just to see the genius, Hitler, at work."
She doubled down on these sentiments in June 2013, writing, "everytime I read about Hitler, I fall in love all over again."
On July 2015, [McMaster student Esra] Bengizi tweeted a photo of Hitler — captioned with heart emojis — alongside the fake quote, "The only Religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad."
A year earlier, she wrote, "'@KMKurd: Where is hitler when u need one?' I literally ask this every day." On the same Twitter thread, she added, "hitler did more than just kill. He was also a great leader & role model to many..."
Bengizi's admiration of Hitler sometimes accompanied tweets that were explicitly antagonistic towards Jews. 'I'm actually going to the rule the world and get rid of anyone who doesn't have basic common sense or if youre yahoodi [Jewish]' #QueenE, she tweeted on May 2014. Bengizi praised Hitler as 'so intelligent' later on the same thread.
Do not worry about Jew-hatred at McMaster, however. The McMaster administration is on the case. Its "Equity and Inclusion" committee is promoting an anti-Islamophobia campaign, seeking out instances of possible hostility toward Muslims, and publicizing them widely.


At McMaster University in Canada, numerous incidents have been documented of students writing antisemitic social media posts. (Image source: Mathew Ingram/Wikimedia Commons)

Undoubtedly there are Canadian Muslims who do not share the antisemitic views quoted above, and others whose prejudice is more on the mild side. But strong antisemitic views are apparently as prevalent in the Canadian Muslim community, as in the international Muslim community.

When antisemitism is integral to orthodox Islam, how could it be otherwise?

Islamic antisemitism raises serious questions about the exuberant and thoughtless support for multiculturalism and open-borders immigration celebrated among some Canadian political parties and the Canadian media commentariat. Let us be frank: as is all too clear from the recent European experience, importing large numbers of Muslims means importing Islamic antisemitism. Hate crimes against Canadian Jews are already on an upward trajectory. Is it the Canadian Government's policy to encourage an increase in antisemitic hate crimes?
Philip Carl Salzman is Professor of Anthropology at McGill University, Senior Fellow of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and Fellow of the Middle East Forum.

[1] In France, a gang of African and North African immigrants led by Youssouf Fofana kidnapped, severely tortured, and eventually abandoned Ilan Halimi, whose body was 80% covered by burns, and who died on the way to the hospital. An Islamist gunman, Mohammed Merah, murdered three children and a teacher at a Jewish school in Toulouse. Four Jews were murdered in the Jewish grocery store Hyper Casher by a Muslim Tunisian immigrant, in an explicitly antisemitic attack. Dr. Sarah Halimi was a 65 year old Jewish woman, a retired physician, who was tortured by a Muslim neighbour shouting Allahu akbar, Allah is the Greatest, and then thrown out her third floor window to her death. The reluctant authorities finally acknowledged antisemitism as motive. Mirelle Knoll, an 85 year old holocaust survivor, was stabbed and set afire by a Muslim neighbour who she had known, and was on good terms with, since he was a boy.


Philip Carl Salzman is Professor of Anthropology at McGill University, Senior Fellow of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and Fellow of the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12339/canada-antisemitism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Purges on Campus - Jack Kerwick




by Jack Kerwick

A frightening look at the forces merging to destroy higher ed.





Readers of this column know well that much space has been reserved in order to bring to the public’s attention two immense industries that otherwise aren’t typically recognized as such.  They are the Academic-Industrial-Complex (AIC) and the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC).

Readers also know that the AIC, for all of its massiveness, is actually but a facet of the vastly larger RIC.  Some recent examples from the world of Higher Education make this abundantly, painfully clear.

[1] Duke University just dropped Professor Evan Charney.  His defenders, particularly his student defenders, suspect that Charney, a white man, was let go because the manner in which he critically engages his students led some to charge him with making his classroom into an “unsafe space” for minority students.

In a letter published by more than 100 of Charney’s students in The Duke Chronicle, some of Charney’s students, including his international students, defended him against the charge that “his class reproduces systems and structures of inequality involving notions of class, privilege and power.”  Charney, the letter reads, has a “teaching style” that is “wonderfully thought-provoking and challenging.  His students’ ideas are vetted and sharpened through rigorous debate and discussion” on a range of issues, and everyone is made to feel uncomfortable through exposure to “viewpoints that conflict with how they think and what they value.”

Charney is known by his students for his “Socratic format,” a style that leaves no “thought…unexamined” or “assertion…unchecked.”

At one point—perhaps this was the final trigger to have broken the leftist juggernaut’s back—Professor Charney used a whole class period to critically interrogate “the motivations and tactics” of students who staged a weeklong sit-in over a racially-oriented event that occurred in 2016.  He “challenged” students to “argue cogently in favor of or against the movement,” an approach that “put the burden on protesters in his class to justify their actions [.]”

Though Charney’s publications include analyzes of “liberal bias,” neither he nor his students are in any obvious way “conservative.”  At least this is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from looking at the views expressed in the student letter to the Chronicle and a listing of some of the classes that Charney typically teaches: While his area of expertise is “genomics and genetics,” specifically “behavioral genetics,” Charney regularly taught a seminar on “Global Inequality research.” 

In fact, that Charney would even take up class time to discuss issues that seem to fall well beyond the jurisdiction of his courses suggests that his instincts as a professor are more at home among the ideology of the colleagues and students who favor his termination than they are the approach to teaching traditionally found among more conservative professoriate.

[2] Yet even faculty who have spent their lives on the left are discovering that they are not safe.  Brett Weinstein is a left-leaning professor at Evergreen State College in Washington.  When he objected to a “Day of Absence,” an event during which whites would avoid campus while non-whites, or “POC” (People of Color), hold workshops, both he and his students were subjected to harassment and intimidation.  When campus police informed Weinstein that they could not protect him, he was forced to hold class off-campus at a park.

Administrators decided this year that in place of a Day of Absence, Evergreen would instead hold an “equity symposium.” Student activists, however, resolved to hold their event despite the school’s change of plans. The theme of this year’s affair is, “Deinstitutionalize/Decolonize.” According to the RSVP page:

“The mission of this event is to bring POC together in order to create a reclamation of space and move forward into the future.  In reaction to [the] institution’s consistent disregard for our safety, we are operating independently of the college. This is a day for us, by us.”

If whites insist upon attending, they will be directed toward “antiracist workshops.”

[3] The University of Michigan is among over 230 colleges and universities nationwide with a “Bias Response Team.” Yet it is among “the most established,” according to The Detroit News.  Whether the “bias” is “intentional or unintentional,” if team members determine that speech contains unacceptable bias, it exacts disciplinary action that ranges from requiring “restorative justice” to “individualized education” to “unconscious bias training.”  

Fortunately, the University of Michigan is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit. 

According to the complaint, such is the restrictive nature of the University’s interpretation of “bullying,” “harassment,” and “bias” that it threatens “staggering amounts of protected speech and expression.”

Nichole Neilly, whose Japanese-American parents met in an internment camp during World War II, is especially sensitive to infringements of liberty.  She is the head of “Speech First.”  The University’s current system, given that it incentivizes members of the school community to anonymously blow the whistle on others, “is not workable,” Neilly says. “Students should be able to express themselves without fear of retribution.”

Speech First found that in just this past year, UM investigated over 150 incidents of alleged “bias.”

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation says of speech restrictions of the sort found at UM that they are “Draconian” and reminiscent of East Germany and Orwell’s 1984.

[4] At Georgetown University, left-wing student activists are laboring to prevent campus police from being armed.  If police are armed, the students maintain, minority students will be threatened.

On a Facebook post, “Georgetown United Against Police Aggression” self-identifies as “a group of students concerned about GUPD’s impact on Georgetown’s communities of color.” The group shares a letter that it issued to the school’s president urging him “to not arm GUPD [.]”

Among the 30 or so signatories to the letter are such groups as: African Society of Georgetown; Black Student Alliance; Asian Pacific Islander Leadership Forum; Casa Latina; GU Women of Color; Georgetown University College Democrats; Georgetown Young Democratic Socialists; Hoyas for Immigration Rights; Muslim Students Association; Native American Student Council; Queer People of Color; and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The Racism-Industrial-Complex knows no bounds, but academia is a bastion of it. Of course, RIC has facilitated the Academic-Industrial-Complex as well.

Anyone who can still doubt this is either na├»ve or in denial.   


Jack Kerwick

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270246/purges-campus-jack-kerwick

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Al-Jazeera Footage of Gazan Youth Breaching Israel's Border, Torching Military Post - MEMRI




by MEMRI

Does this look like "peaceful demonstrations" to you?





MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/tv/jazeera-footage-gaza-youth-breach-israeli-border-torch-sniper-post

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

In the European Appeasement Olympics, Who Wins? - Bruce Bawer




by Bruce Bawer

The difference [between what Tommy Robinson did and any reporter] is that the BBC and other mainstream media are determined to give as little coverage as possible to the mass Muslim rape of infidel girls.

  • The difference [between what Tommy Robinson did and any reporter] is that the BBC and other mainstream media are determined to give as little coverage as possible to the mass Muslim rape of infidel girls.
  • These same cops arrested Tommy Robinson on Friday not because he did anything wrong, but because he was drawing attention to Muslim crimes that they would rather see ignored – and drawing attention, too, by extension, to their own genuinely criminal failure to defend innocent children from what was essentially jihadist torture.
  • Within hours, according to some sources, Robinson was tried and sentenced to thirteen months in prison. Even in Islam-appeasing Britain, this seems inconceivable. It sounds like Soviet or Nazi "justice," not like British jurisprudence.
  • However Tommy Robinson may have strayed from the straight and narrow over the years, he is a champion of those victimized children, a voice for freedom, and a living rebuke to the cowardice of the British media, police, social workers, and other officials and public figures who knew what was going on in flats in Rotherham, Newcastle, and elsewhere, but stayed silent.
All right, the competition is over. Britain wins.

For years I thought that Britain's long tradition of open debate and individual liberty would enable it to stand up more firmly to the encroachments of Islam than other Western European countries. I worried more about the Netherlands, where Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were murdered, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was hounded into exile, and Geert Wilders, a member of parliament, was put on trial -- and still is on trial this week -- for criticizing Islam in public. I worried more about Denmark, where Lars Hedegaard, a serious historian, was tried for criticizing Islam in the privacy of his own home, and where the Jyllands-Posten cartoon crisis caused riots. I worried about Norway, where people at the highest levels of government conspired to force an apology out of the editor of a tiny Christian periodical who had dared to reprint the Danish cartoons. I worried about France, where the suburbs of major cities were increasingly becoming sharia enclaves, and Sweden, where a cordon sanitaire was put around the one party that dared criticize that country's own steady Islamization.

But I was wrong. It is Britain that is falling fastest to Islam. It is Britain, our mother country, home of the Magna Carta, that is most firmly betraying its own history and values. It has already banned Robert Spencer, a serious and cogent American critic of Islam, from its shores, even as it lets in the looniest of sharia preachers. More recently, three other critics of Islam – American Brittany Pettibone, Austrian Martin Sellner, and Canadian Lauren Southern – were turned away by British border authorities.

Now, Tommy Robinson has been arrested – not for the first time. Born Stephen Bellon, he is a lifelong resident of Luton who helped found the English Defence League, which he left in 2013 because he disapproved of its focus on race rather than ideology; since then, he been involved with Quilliam, a reformist Muslim think tank; with the Canadian alternative-media group Rebel Media; and with Pegida UK, the British chapter of a German anti-Islam organization. Robinson has been an outspoken critic of Islam, and has been imprisoned several times, sometimes for relatively minor physical disturbances and other misdemeanors – he has admitted that he is no saint – and sometimes simply for speaking his mind. I have never met the man, but I have watched hours of interviews with him and other videos in which he does speak his mind, interviews others, and covers various events, and I must say that he comes off consistently as a decent man who is free of prejudice but legitimately concerned about Islam.


Tommy Robinson. His concern about Islam has made him a target of British authorities. Photo: Tommyrobinson.online.

It is his concern about Islam that has made Robinson a target of British authorities. A few years ago, knowing his public profile as a critic of Islam, they put him into a penal institution, Woodhill Prison, where they knew he would be surrounded by Muslim convicts and vulnerable to physical abuse if not jailhouse murder. Indeed, he was assaulted there, and it was apparently only thanks to intervention by Maajid Nawaz, the founder of Quilliam and a prominent Liberal Democratic Party politician, that he was moved to a safer lockup. Since his release, he has been repeatedly harassed by British police. In May of last year, after he was hired as a Rebel Media correspondent, he was arrested while reporting from outside a court in Canterbury where a Muslim rape trial was underway.

Just a few weeks ago, Robinson was the headliner at a "Day of Freedom" free-speech rally in London. Other speakers included UKIP leader Gerard Batten, YouTube celebrities Gavin McInnes and Carl Benjamin (who goes by the name "Sargon of Akkad"), Anne Marie Waters of the political party For Britain, and Milo Yiannopoulos. I watched it on YouTube. It was impressive. It gave me a bit of hope for that scepter'd (but battered) isle.

Now Robinson has been arrested again. On Friday, while livestreaming on Facebook from outside a court in Leeds, where yet another trial of Muslim child rapists was underway, he was taken into custody by a phalanx of police officers. The charge? "Breaching the peace." In fact, anyone who watches the video of his arrest can see quite clearly that he was only doing what any reporter for the BBC would have done – standing in front of a courtroom, talking into a microphone, and being filmed by a camera. The difference is that the BBC and other mainstream media are determined to give as little coverage as possible to the mass Muslim rape of infidel girls. As for the police, they knew about these "grooming gangs" for many years (as did armies of social workers) but did nothing for fear of being labeled racist or sparking Islamic uprisings. These same cops arrested Tommy Robinson on Friday not because he did anything wrong, but because he was drawing attention to Muslim crimes that they would rather see ignored – and drawing attention, too, by extension, to their own genuinely criminal failure to defend innocent children from what was essentially jihadist torture.

It gets worse. Within hours, according to some sources, Robinson was tried and sentenced to thirteen months in prison. To send him to a British prison, where a very high percentage of inmates are likely to be Muslim, is to condemn him to a life of brutal harassment and, very possibly, a violent death. Even in Islam-appeasing Britain, this seems inconceivable. It sounds like Soviet or Nazi "justice," not like British jurisprudence.

Make no mistake: however Tommy Robinson may have strayed from the straight and narrow over the years, he is a champion of those victimized children, a voice for freedom, and a living rebuke to the cowardice of the British media, police, social workers, and other officials and public figures who knew what was going on in flats in Rotherham, Newcastle, and elsewhere, but stayed silent. Anyone in the United Kingdom who believes in freedom, recognizes the danger of Islam, and has any self-respect should rally to Robinson's cause.

Bruce Bawer is the author of the new novel The Alhambra (Swamp Fox Editions). His book While Europe Slept (2006) was a New York Times bestseller and National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. His other books include A Place at the Table (1993), Stealing Jesus (1997), Surrender (2009), and The Victims' Revolution (2012). A native New Yorker, he has lived in Europe since 1998.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12375/in-the-european-appeasement-olympics-who-wins

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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