Friday, October 26, 2018

Revealed: Hezbollah establishes terror infrastructure in Druze Golan - Yoav Limor

by Yoav Limor

Mustafa Mughniyeh, the eldest son of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's former military chief whose 2008 assassination is attributed to Israel, is orchestrating group's efforts on the Syrian Golan

Mustafa Mughniyeh, the eldest son of slain Hezbollah commander 
Imad Mughniyeh, believed to be establishing terror posts in the Syrian Golan 

Hezbollah is working on establishing military infrastructure in the Druze village of Khader in the Syrian Golan Heights, just across the border from Israel, it emerged this week.

The person behind the terrorist organization's military buildup in Khader is none other than Mustafa Mughniyeh, the eldest son of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's former military chief who was assassinated in February 2008 in Damascus in an operation attributed to Israel and the CIA.

A survey of the immediate border area doesn't indicate anything out of the ordinary, but Israel has learned that Hezbollah has re-established its military presence in Khader, situated 3.5 kilometers (some 2 miles) from the Israeli border.

This effort, in its present phase, consists primarily of lookout posts and equipment that Hezbollah is providing to local residents who report back to the organization.

According to information gathered by Israel, Mustafa Mughniyeh recently held a key position in Hezbollah's arms smuggling apparatus. He is also the brother of Jihad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated in January 2015 along with other senior terrorists during a tour of the Syrian Golan. The 2015 assassination was also attributed to Israel, following reports that Jihad Mughniyeh had been building up the organization's military and terrorist infrastructure in Khader – just like his older brother is reportedly doing now.

Ever since the battles between Syrian rebels and government forces in the Syrian Golan Heights ended last July, the border area has been calm. The rebels surrendered or fled, and the Syrian army now controls the area.

Russian military policemen have also deployed along the Israeli-Syrian border and the Quneitra border crossing has been reopened. For the time being, only United Nations peacekeepers are authorized to use the border crossing, and they are also returning to the positions they had vacated during the war.

Israeli officials warned recently that Hezbollah could seek to exploit the new reality to regain a foothold on the Golan Heights. According to assessments, the group intends to do this in three stages: establish a presence and gather intelligence, transfer weapons and eventually carry out terrorist attacks.

Mustafa Mughniyeh, following in the footsteps of his father and younger brother, is apparently overseeing these efforts.

Yoav Limor


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Threats Posed by the Impending Invasion - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

All Americans need to wake up and pay attention.

As I have been watching with growing concern the rapidly increasing numbers of aspiring illegal aliens in Latin America who are heading north towards the United States, I came to draw the comparison that the aerial videos of these huge numbers of people, at least from high overhead, appear somewhat like the images of the runners participating in the New York City Marathon. 

That analogy caused me to think back to March 20, 2013, during the Obama administration, when I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic, "Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values."

The last two paragraphs of my prepared testimony for that hearing more than five years ago now seem all the more appropriate if not, in fact, prophetic:
Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter's pistol has been fired and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.
Back when I was an INS special agent I recall that Doris Meissner who was, at the time, the commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be “customer oriented.” Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented what Ms Meissner and too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the “customers” of the INS and of our government in general, are the citizens of the United States of America.
These foreigners are massing in Latin America, heading for the United States in what is certainly a coordinated strategy to overwhelm America’s capacity to secure its borders and effectively enforce and administer its immigration laws.

That system has always lacked adequate resources or the commitment to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity because it is a simple matter to simply prove the great majority of applications for immigration benefits which was how previous administration generally dealt with those applications for immigration benefits and the “keys to the kingdom” that they represent.  After all, with the customer-oriented mentality of previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike, the alien “customer” was almost always right.

Indeed, the starter’s pistol has been fired.  The only questions that demand answers are, who pulled the trigger and with what ultimate goal?

There are a number of suspects and it is entirely possible that there has been collusion by several groups that may not immediately appear to relate to one another but have come together for common purposes.

While many speculate about George Soros we must not ignore the potential that Iran may well be a major player.

In my previous article, "The Impending Alien Invasion," I addressed the apparent “marriage of convenience” between the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas and the Drug Trafficking Organizations of Latin America that work cooperatively in an unholy alliance to move large quantities of people and narcotics and other contraband into the United States as a funding mechanism and also to move illegal aliens into the United States for profits and to also bring their operatives into the United States to participate in criminal operations and to also embed Iranian sleeper agents in the United States.

This is worrying enough but there are more issues to consider and reasons why all Americans from coast to coast and border to border need to be extremely concerned.

For far too long the virtually all-encompassing focus on the U.S./Mexican border has served to convince many Americans across the United States that there are only “four border states.”  Sadly all too many of our fellow citizens are so selfish that they believed that since they did not live along the southern border in one of those “border states” that the issue of border security was of no real concern to them.

I have frequently noted that our nation has 50 border states, any state that has an international airport, access to our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline or lies along the northern as well as the southern border are all border states.

No matter where or how aliens enter the United States, they have access to our entire country.  This is why “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” pose a threat to national security and to each and every person in the United States no matter where they live.

Today, however, the focus is on that extremely porous and highly dangerous U.S./Mexican border.

If these aliens are able to ultimately gain entry into the United States they will not emulate Neil Armstrong or the other Apollo astronauts who grabbed some lunar samples, planted a flag and promptly flew back to Earth.  These aliens are likely to fan out across the United States potentially impacting every state of our nation for decades to come.

They would be undoubtedly drawn to Sanctuary Cities that will welcome them like conquering heroes.  The terrorists among them could use those cities as staging areas as they embed themselves, hiding in plain sight, in preparation for the day they are called into action.

In point of fact there is a huge population in NYC comprised of illegal aliens who entered the United States without inspection along our northern and southern borders.

Nearly a year ago I wrote an article, "New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade," wherein I discussed the fact that the only reason that the Mexican drug cartels had decided to make the City of New York their central hub for their drug trafficking operations on the east coast was due, in large measure, to the sanctuary policies of New York City.

Of course the Radical Left and their allies in the Mainstream Media has decried President Trump’s concerns that among these aspiring aliens are criminals and aliens from the Middle East and potentially terrorists. 

Of course the fact that the President receives a daily briefing from the intelligence services does not matter to these supposed “journalists” who simply write off the President’s statements as “right-wing fear mongering.”

Just this evening my local CBS radio anchor proclaimed that the Caravan of Central American migrants was bringing desperate immigrants looking for a better life.

Somehow it did not occur to the reporter to ask why these aliens would want to come illegally rather than legally.  The U.S. has the most generous legal immigration system on the planet.

Nor did he question that perhaps they weren’t all from Latin America.

It must be presumed that these supposed “journalists” have blithely ignored the testimony of numerous expert witnesses who have testified before a long string of hearings in the House and Senate.  It must also be presumed that these “journalists” have never read the 9/11 Commission Report and/or the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel - Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Both reports made it clear that the 9/11 terror attacks and other terror attacks the Commission studied were only possible because of multiple failures of the immigration system.

In November 2001, shortly after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 I was called to testify before the Immigration Reform Caucus that was attempting to uncover how our nation could be so devastatingly fall victim to a terror attack carried out by aliens who had, in one way or another, been able to enter the United States and go about their deadly preparations by exploiting failures of the immigration system by violating various immigration laws as well as other laws.

On December 10, 2001 my prepared testimony for that hearing was submitted to the Congressional Record by then Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Rep. Tom Tancredo. Here is an excerpt from my testimony you must take to heart:
It is often said that you only get one opportunity to make a first impression.  Generally speaking, the first laws that aliens entering the United States encounter are those laws that the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) is supposed to enforce.  When the INS fails to effectively,, consistently and fairly enforce those laws, we are sending a very dangerous message to aliens seeking to enter the United States.  In effect we are telling them that not only can they expect to get away with violating our laws, they can anticipate being rewarded for violating our laws.
Many years have passed since that hearing.  More deadly terror attacks have since been carried out, while still other unsuccessful attacks have been attempted to be carried out, all by aliens who, in one way or another exploited multiple failures of the immigration system.

Aliens who successfully game the immigration system create a serious problem.  Not only because those aliens succeed in obtaining immigration benefits they should never be granted, but because each time the immigration system fails, more aliens are encouraged to head for the United States fully expecting to be successful in making a mockery of our borders and our laws thereby committing Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

As the number of aliens who apply for asylum grows the system will ultimately implode and obliterate any vestige of integrity to a system that is a major component of national security.
The Left would call this fear mongering- I call it “Connecting the dots.”

Photo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Michael Cutler


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IAF strikes Hamas position in response to Gaza rocket ‎fir‎e - Lilach Shoval, Nikki Guttman, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Lilach Shoval, Nikki Guttman, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Israeli aircraft bomb eight Hamas targets throughout the coastal enclave, including a weapons arsenal and a training ‎compound, after Gaza terrorists fire rocket at southern communities

The Israeli Air Force targeted eight Hamas positions ‎in the Gaza Strip following a rocket attack on ‎southern Israel, the military confirmed Thursday. ‎The incident marked the end of a weeklong stretch ‎of relative calm on the volatile border.‎

The IDF Spokesperson's Unit said IAF aircraft bombed ‎Hamas targets throughout the coastal enclave, ‎including a weapons arsenal and a training ‎compound. There were no immediate reports of ‎Palestinian casualties.‎

Gaza's media reported that Hamas had ordered its ‎operatives to clear several compounds in ‎anticipation of an Israeli raid.‎

The strikes came in response to an overnight rocket ‎attack – the first firing from Gaza since a missile ‎hit a house in the city of Beersheba a week ago, ‎threatening to spark another full-fledged ‎confrontation.‎

The military further confirmed Thursday that the ‎Iron Dome defense system did not intercept the ‎projectile fired from Gaza.‎

IDF data pegs Iron Dome's interception rate at 90%. ‎

A military official told The Times of Israel that the interceptor did not miss its mark but rather was redirected after it became apparent the rocket was headed for an open area and did not represent a threat to human lives.

The rocket attack came as Egypt and U.N. Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladenov ‎are trying to mediate a long-term truce ‎between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist terrorist ‎group that rules Gaza.‎

On Wednesday, the IAF struck a Hamas position in ‎southern Gaza after it was confirmed it was being ‎used as the base from which incendiary balloons were ‎being sent across the border.‎

Lilach Shoval, Nikki Guttman, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Netanyahu: If not for Israel, Hamas would topple Abbas - AP and Israel Hayom Staff

by AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Netanyahu says Israel can't afford to repeat the mistake of withdrawing its presence completely from Gaza and letting Hamas overrun it.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed on Wednesday to maintain a permanent Israeli military force in the West Bank, saying that if it weren't for Israeli troops stationed there, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would be "overrun in two minutes" by Hamas terrorists.

Addressing an assembly of the Jewish Federation of North America, Netanyahu remarked that Israel doesn't have the luxury of repeating the mistake it made in Gaza, where Hamas violently seized control from Abbas after Israeli forces withdrew from the coastal strip.

Asked about his vision for the West Bank, Netanyahu said he preferred to avoid labels such as "Palestinian state." But he did make clear his view that Abbas and his Palestinian Authority owe their very existence to Israel's protection and directly benefit from the presence of Israeli troops.

"They'd be overrun in two minutes. A couple of years ago we uncovered a plot of 100 Hamas men to overthrow [Abbas]. Overthrow? Kill him. Not kill him politically. Kill him. So, if we weren't there, they'd not be there, which is exactly what happened when we left Gaza," Netanyahu said.

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, evacuating its settlements there and pulling back all its troops. The following year, Hamas won parliamentary elections and a year after that, it violently overthrew forces loyal to Abbas and has since ruled the territory with an iron fist.

As part of interim peace deals in the 1990s, the West Bank was carved up into autonomous and semi-autonomous Palestinian areas, known as Areas A and B, and Area C, which is under exclusive Israeli control and home to dozens of Israeli settlements.

Previous peace talks have come to a deadlock over how much of the territory would become part of the future Palestinian state.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, an Abbas spokesman, said the only way to achieve peace and stability was through a Palestinian state on the entire West Bank, with east Jerusalem as its capital.

"Other than that, it is just excuses to keep the occupation," he said, adding that continued occupation and settlements "will only lead to instability and violence."

After years of rejecting the concept, Netanyahu ultimately agreed to the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state in 2009. But he has since walked it back some, faced with pressure from his more hard-line coalition partners.

Maintaining security control of the West Bank is a longstanding position of Netanyahu. Israel continues security cooperation with PA forces even though there haven't been serious peace talks since Netanyahu took office in 2009. U.S. President Donald Trump, however, has promised to present a far-reaching and much-awaited peace plan of his own at some time.

Netanyahu's comments appeared to indicate how far he'd be willing to go if forced to compromise in the West Bank.

"They [Abbas' PA] were there in Gaza, they had 15,000 armed men, Hamas had 3,000. Within a few days they kicked him out and we can't afford that happening in Judea, Samaria, the West Bank," he said. "We left Gaza. What happened? This tiny thumb became a position of radical Islam supported by Iran and they fired 4,000 missiles on us."

While Israel and Hamas have waged three wars in Gaza over the past decade, the West Bank has remained relatively calm.

The PA Health Ministry said Israeli troops shot and killed a 21-year-old Palestinian who threw stones at soldiers during clashes Wednesday in the West Bank. The ministry said five other rioters were wounded by live fire during confrontations with Israeli soldiers in the village of Tamun.

The IDF said some 50 Palestinians instigated a riot during a routine Israeli search for illegal weapons, hurling rocks and fireworks at the troops. The troops responded with riot dispersal means and live fire. The military said its searches resulted in confiscating two improvised weapons.

AP and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Britain's Grooming Gangs: Part 3 - Denis MacEoin

by Denis MacEoin

Religious ideas about purity, virginity, modesty and obedience are taken to the extreme until horrific abuse becomes the norm.

  • This reformist activity in the migrant community needs to be encouraged and backed by government resources.
  • "On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring." — Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation.
  • There are decent Muslims everywhere who work hard to counter all the anti-social and criminal activities in which so many of their co-religionists engage and the theological positions through which they try to justify what they do. But terrorist attacks, anti-Semitic hate speech, and sexual harassment of young white women are real crimes committed by a different kind of Muslim and must be addressed as such.
  • "Women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents. And violence against women remains all too prevalent...." — Dame Louise Casey, The Casey Review, 2016.

The Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) has spoken out strongly about grooming culture. Julie Siddiqi, chief executive of the ISB, coordinated a Muslim-led coalition to campaign against offenders, known as The Community Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation. (Image source: Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Not all Muslims remained silent about the grooming gang problem. We have already seen how the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, a Muslim of Pakistani origin, took rapid action to open an enquiry into the crimes. A number of Muslim organizations and individuals have spoken out against the gangs, and condemned them for bringing their faith into disrepute. The integrative Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), for one, has spoken out strongly about grooming culture.

In May 2013, Julie Siddiqi, chief executive of the ISB, coordinated a Muslim-led coalition to campaign against offenders, known as The Community Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, which, in turn, was launched in Bradford with the backing of the Bradford Council of Mosques. The following month, a Muslim group called Together Against Grooming (TAG) declared that a Friday prayer sermon (khutba) would be read out in around 500 mosques across the country to draw attention to the grooming issue. The sermon was written by Alyas Karmani, an imam who has a background in psychology and serves at several mosques around Bradford. Karmani specializes in sexual counselling from a non-fundamentalist perspective and has worked on a PhD entitled, "The Crises of Masculinity and Urban Male Violence". His detailed understanding of the grooming gangs and their various motivations are perhaps the most sophisticated yet advanced by a Muslim expert and should be taken into account by any present or future investigation.

Some other Muslim organizations such as the progressive Islamic Society of Britain have sent out sermons on the same issue. There can be no question that there is an important and growing range of Muslim reaction to the shame brought on the communities by the grooming gangs and the reluctance in many places even to talk about sexual matters. This reformist activity in the migrant community needs to be encouraged and backed by government resources.

There are, however, other, sometimes deeper aspects to the problem that still remain to be explored. Not all mosques agreed to read Karmani's sermon, and some claimed -- quite incorrectly, as it happened -- that the grooming issue was a thing of the past. Many of those deeper aspects are directly related to the persistence of religious fundamentalism and a wide refusal among many to integrate within British society. Despite the efforts of moderate Muslims, mosques and institutions to stop young men and women travelling abroad to take part in jihad or bring back wives from abroad, many have done so. Sermonizing, even with good intentions, may not address the underlying reasons for seemingly anti-social behaviour.

Also in 2013, Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, and a controversial reformist, spoke out following the trial and conviction of six members of a child sex ring from Oxford. He contended that some imams were indirectly inspiring the grooming gangs through their contempt for non-Muslim women:
On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.
He wrote at length about the ways in which fundamentalist attitudes influenced some men:
True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - "one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt"....
The men are taught that women are "second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority"...
The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs [sic for kuffar, pl. of kafir] or non-believers.
Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.
The largest and most influential of all UK mosques are those of the Deobandis, a highly conservative majority denomination in Pakistani Islam that also dominates the seminaries within the UK and in which future imams are trained.[1]

According to the author and Investigations editor at BBCNewsnight, Innes Bowen:
What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned; attitudes towards women are deeply conservative, with, for example, some scholars advising Muslim women that their religion does not permit them to travel any distance unless accompanied by a close male relative. That this description of such an austere brand of Islam sounds similar to that propagated by the Taliban in Afghanistan should not be surprising – the Taliban movement grew out of the Deobandi madrasas of Pakistan.[2]
Many Deobandi and other fundamentalist preachers and online fatwa sites promulgate the doctrine of al-Wala' wa'l-Bara', which may be roughly translated as "loyalty [to Islam] and avoidance [of unbelievers]". This belief reinforces the need to stay away from, and even to have enmity towards, the inferior non-Muslim world. It is not far-fetched to see how, through this doctrine, a sense of total difference from, and contempt for, non-Muslims in general -- and non-Muslim girls and women in particular -- may have given many of the grooming gangs a debased level of justification, even self-righteousness in the members of the grooming gangs.

Hargey's link between the grooming gangs and hard-line religious leaders is borne out by an article published in 2018 by the serious liberal newspaper, The Independent. The author is Ella Hill, one of the girls abused in Rotherham and now part of the largest child sexual abuse investigation. She begins:
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a "white slag" and "white c***" as they beat me.
They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn't dress "modestly", that they believed I deserved to be "punished". They said I had to "obey" or be beaten.
Later, she refers to a Swedish government meeting in 2017, when it was stated that:
Sexual and gender-based violence is used as a tactic of terrorism by a range of today's violent extremist groups. This makes it essential to address violence against women and girls as an integrated part in countering and preventing violent extremism.
She then argues that:
Religious indoctrination is a big part of the process of getting young men involved in grooming gang crime. Religious ideas about purity, virginity, modesty and obedience are taken to the extreme until horrific abuse becomes the norm. It was taught to me as a concept of "othering".
"Muslim girls are good and pure because they dress modestly, covering down to their ankles and wrists, and covering their crotch area. They stay virgins until marriage. They are our girls."
[Author's note: Italicized in the original, but should probably have been in quotation marks. The passage is evidently meant to be words spoken by gang members who used her.]
She also emphasizes this religious background to her treatment, stating that "My main perpetrator quoted scriptures from the Quran to me as he beat me." Nevertheless, she goes on to say that "Most grooming gang survivors I know absolutely condemn anti-Islamic hate, and we're uncomfortable with English Defence League protests. We certainly don't want random attacks on 'all Muslims'. You can't cure harm with more harm."

The connection between fundamentalist religiosity, terrorism and gender crime is not as fanciful as it might have seemed at first. There are decent Muslims everywhere who work hard to counter all the anti-social and criminal activities in which so many of their co-religionists engage and the theological positions through which they try to justify what they do. But terrorist attacks, anti-Semitic hate speech, and sexual harassment of young white women are real crimes committed by a different kind of Muslim and must be addressed as such.

In a report published on December 12, 2017, the important Muslim counter-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, addressed at length the problem of the grooming gangs. Written by Quilliam's CEO, Haras Rafiq with media strategist and researcher Muna Adil, the report, "Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation: Dissecting Grooming Gangs", consists of a comprehensive data analysis of grooming gang cases identified in the UK since 2005. Ten case studies from 2010-2017 are also analysed in depth to help determine any similarities and identify any patterns that exist across the cases.

At the root of the problem seems to lie the fact that many Muslim men have failed to integrate into British society. According to Muna Adil:
There are elements from within the British Pakistani community that still subscribe to outdated and sexist views of women embedded within their jaded interpretations of Islam. These backward views are passed down from generation to generation until the lines between faith and culture dissolve, making it increasingly difficult to criticise one without being seen as a critic of the other.
Quilliam's findings echo a number of earlier reviews and surveys of the British Muslim community as a whole. In her 2016 government-commissioned review into integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities, Dame Louise Casey found evidence that the hardest group to integrate was the Muslim community. In her Executive Summary, she notes (paragraph 30) that:
People of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity tend to live in more residentially segregated communities than other ethnic minority groups. South Asian communities (people of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi ethnicity) live in higher concentrations at ward level than any other ethnic minority group. These concentrations at ward level are growing in many areas.
She adds that that, "Compared to other minority faith groups, Muslims tend to live in higher residential concentrations at ward level". She continues:
[Paragraph] 32. The school age population is even more segregated when compared to residential patterns of living. A Demos study found that, in 2013, more than 50% of ethnic minority students were in schools where ethnic minorities were the majority, and that school segregation was highest among students from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds relative to other ethnic groups.
[Paragraph] 44. Polling in 2015 also showed that more than 55% of the general public agreed that there was a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society, while 46% of British Muslims felt that being a Muslim in Britain was difficult due to prejudice against Islam. We found a growing sense of grievance among sections of the Muslim population, and a stronger sense of identification with the plight of the 'Ummah', or global Muslim community.
She also highlights problems with the national language:
[Paragraph] 52. English language is a common denominator and a strong enabler of integration. But Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups have the lowest levels of English language proficiency of any Black or Minority Ethnic group and women in those communities are twice as likely as men to have poor English.
Finally, we should note her statement on gender equality, which is clearly linked to the Muslim communities:
[Paragraph] 57. ... in many areas of Britain the drive towards equality and opportunity across gender might never have taken place. Women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents. And violence against women remains all too prevalent in domestic abuse but also in other criminal practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage and so-called "honour" based crime.
Casey was not the first to draw attention to most of these issues. In 2007, the British think tank Policy Exchange, published a detailed report titled "Living apart together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism", written by three young Asian researchers. Their most striking finding, drawn from a survey, was that the youngest generation (16-24 year olds) were more radical in their beliefs than their grandparents (55+ year olds). Thus, 37% of the youngest would prefer to live under shari'a law than British law, compared to only 17% of their elders; 36% of the youngest believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they must be punished by death, compared to only 19% of the oldest; a high 74% of 16-24 year olds prefer Muslim women to wear the veil, compared to a mere 28% of 55+ year olds -- an astonishing reversal. Most immigrant communities -- notably Jews, Italians, Irish, Poles and others in the United States' "melting pot" -- come to identify with their host country within the second and third generation, and that has been largely true of the United Kingdom.

One particular feature that distinguishes Muslims from the rest of the increasingly secular UK population is the extent to which religion plays a major role in people's lives. Figure 2 of the report shows that 66% agree strongly and another 20% of Muslims tend to agree that "My religion is the most important thing in my life". In Figure 1, 49% say they pray the full 5 times a day, and 22% 1-3 times a day, with a tiny 5% replying "never". It is important to read the report in full. for it has many supportive things to say about British Muslims:
However, there is also considerable diversity amongst Muslims, with many adopting a more secular approach to their religion. The majority of Muslims feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad. There is clearly a conflict within British Islam between a moderate majority that accepts the norms of Western democracy and a growing minority that does not. For these reasons, we should be wary of treating the entire Muslim population as a monolith with special needs that are different to the rest of the population.
An extensive poll of Muslim opinion conducted in 2016 by ICM showed that things were much the same or worse than in 2007. It was reported on by Trevor Phillips, a son of Caribbean immigrants and former chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission. In an article for the Sunday Times[3], he expressed his deep frustration with the Muslim failure to integrate:
...for a long time, I too thought that Europe's Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain's diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.
Another 2016 survey, carried out by a Czech think tank, European Values, found that some 44% of Muslims held views corresponding to radical Islamic fundamentalism.
"The survey discovered 57 percent of Muslims reject homosexuals as friends, 45 percent said they don't trust the Jews and 54 percent think of the West as an enemy of Islam. Among fundamentalist Muslims, 72 percent of respondents said they would use violence to defend Islam. Among regular Muslims, that number amounted to 35 percent.
"An incredibly large number of Muslims want Islamic Sharia law to dominate over local laws. For instance, 72 percent of Muslims in France want to see Sharia as the main or only source of law in the country. That figure remains astonishingly high in the United Kingdom at 69 percent."
Dr. Denis MacEoin taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at a British University and is a Senior Distinguished Fellow at New York's Gatestone Institute.

[1] For a well-researched study of Deobandism in the UK, see Innes Bowen, Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam, London, 2014.
[2] Bowen, pp. 11-12.
[3] Trevor Phillips, "An Inconvenient Truth", The Sunday Times, 10 April 2016.

Denis MacEoin


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Nobel Peace Prize Shines This Year - Hugh Fitzgerald

by Hugh Fitzgerald

It finally goes to someone who deserves it.

Of all the Nobel Prizes, the one that gives rise to the most doubts is the Peace Prize. Nobels in the sciences and in economics are for achievements recognized by others in the field. The Peace Prize is political and wildly subjective, sometimes given for work that has nothing to do with “peace,” or used to promote the political side that the Norwegian judges favor. Yassir Arafat, before bin Laden the world’s foremost terrorist, shared a prize (with Rabin and Peres) for promoting peace by signing the Oslo Accords, which accords represented a stunning diplomatic victory for the “Palestinians.” The left-wing Norwegians were eager to forget all the terrorist attacks by Arafat’s men and to honor him in order that he might continue “on the path of peace.” Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” although his main diplomatic effort, that led to the Iran Nuclear Deal, also included, as is now known, all sorts of side deals favorable to Iran, that he made while keeping Congress largely in the dark.

There was Anwar Sadat, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for graciously agreeing to receive back the entire Sinai from Israel as part of a peace settlement. Sadat was later murdered by a Muslim fanatic who failed to realize what a diplomatic coup Sadat had pulled off as a veritable Prince of Peace. There was Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian female activist, who has worked for women’s rights in Iran, where Islamic misogyny is in full flower. Her Nobel hasn’t protected her; she now lives in London where, she now insists, she was wrong: she used to push for reform from within Iran, but has concluded that no reform is possible with the current regime, and women will continue to suffer in Iran until the regime is overthrown.

There was Malala Yousefzai, who worked for the right of girls in Pakistan to get an education, not something many Muslim males in that country favor, including the one who shot her through the head (she survived). There was a Nobel Peace Prize shared by Mohammed Yunus for his attempts to spread microloans, in order to help the poor start businesses. Mohammed el Baradei won for his efforts, as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which shared the prize with him, “to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that the Agency’s monitoring of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in order to make sure it is used in the safest possible way.” Some American officials believed he was engaged in communications with the Iranians who were suspect. Of course, although he was dealing mostly with weapons programs in Iran and Iraq, two very aggressive states, El Baradei has accused Israel of being the biggest threat to the Middle East because of its nuclear weapons. Israel has repeatedly said it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to any conflict, but that’s not good enough for El Baradei. He would like to force Israel to rid itself of nuclear weapons, but Israel, unsurprisingly, is not impressed with his suggestion and is not about to commit suicide to please the likes of Mohamed el Baradei.

The United States finally dropped its objections to a third term at the IAEA for El Baradei, not because it had full faith in him, but to avoid a diplomatic debacle, and the vote in his favor was unanimous. Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the atomic energy agency he headed (instead of simply awarding the prize only to the Agency) allowed the Norwegians to provide one more feel-good moment — a Nobel winner! — to the Third World, and to give Muslims a boost to their self-esteem with this additional Nobel.

This year the Norwegians have finally done themselves proud. One of the two Nobel Peace Prize winners is Nadia Murad, a Yazidi girl who was captured by fanatical Muslims belonging to the Islamic State in northern Iraq. These Muslims in ISIS have killed thousands of defenseless Yazidis, whose only crime was that they were not Muslims. Murad was beaten and repeatedly raped. Six of her nine brothers were killed. Yet she escaped, and now perseveres, having been named by the United Nations as a “Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking of the United Nations,” in spreading her own tale and that of her people, a task which takes her around the world, telling the Yazidi story and listening to others tell of similar atrocities, about the trafficking of women prisoners who are war booty for the jihadis.

Listening to the radio, I heard with alarm several people on a talk show describe Nadia Murad as a “Yazidi Muslim.” She is not a Muslim. She must never be thought of as a Muslim. She is a Yazidi, a small religious sect with roots in Kurdistan and Armenia, that has always been the object of Muslim hatred. The killings of Yazidis by the Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, of the Islamic State have, during the last few years, been conducted “on an industrial scale,” as Amal Clooney, Murad’s lawyer, told the U.N.

Nadia Murad stands up not just for the Yazidis, but for all the other non-Muslim or non-Arab minorities who have been oppressed — harassed, persecuted, and often murdered — by their Muslim captors, and not just in Iraq. Over the centuries the Armenians, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Jews, Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Alawites, and orthodox Shia, have all suffered from Sunni Muslims. Nadia Murad now has her bully pulpit, for her own mistreated people, and she obviously intends to use it.

This is first time that a victim of Jihad and Islamic terrorism has been recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize. If it leads to greater attention to what has happened to the Yazidis, and to other groups of non-Muslims similarly situated, and to a greater focus on the Muslims who are responsible for the attempted genocide of the Yazidis, that would be a salutary development. Meanwhile, be on the alert when the subject of Nadia Murad comes up on any show to which listeners can call in. Make sure that she is properly identified as a Yazidi, a non-Muslim victim of Muslim mass rapes, just as her six dead brothers were victims of Muslim mass murder. Call in, especially, to correct anyone identifying her as belonging, as I have heard someone say, to “a small Muslim sect.” You could, while correcting that error, also add that Yazidis in Iraq have made contact with Israelis, and Nadia Murad herself has visited Israel, and expressed great admiration and sympathy for the country and its people, seeing an obvious parallel:

In 2017, she traveled to Israel to speak about her ordeal, where she addressed Beit Hatfutsot, the Museum of the Jewish People.

Addressing a packed lecture hall at the Museum of the Jewish People at Tel Aviv University on her last day in Israel, i24 News reported that Nadia drew strong parallels between the suffering of the Yazidi people and that of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“[The Jewish people’s story] is a unique story, and yet so much of it echoes my own community’s experiences. Like the Jews, the Yazidis have an ancient history thousands of years old. Despite recurring persecution, both our people have survived,” Nadia said, in remarks delivered through a translator.

“For three years, ISIS has stolen the authorship of the Yazidi story. But we will not let them write our future. My time in Israel has shown me that in the wake of oppression and genocide, a community can emerge stronger,” she said.

“About Yad Vashem, Israel’s national memorial museum to the Holocaust, she said,
the message is that there are many ways to be a hero. Like Jews, the Yazidi people are showing resistance by holding onto our identity and practising our traditions, and we need the Jewish people’s mentorship to rebuild our community. Thank you for giving us hope.
In a speech in the Knesset, she asked Israel to formally recognize the genocide of the Yazidis:
“My visit here today is to ask you to recognize the genocide being committed against my people, in light of our peoples’ common history of genocide,” The Times of Israel quoted Nadia Murad as saying on Tuesday, urging the Knesset to recognize the atrocities committed against the Yezidis of the Kurdistan Region at the hands of ISIS extremists.
The Jews and the Yazidis share a common history of genocide that has shaped the identity of our peoples, but we must transform our pain into action. I respect how you rebuilt a global Jewish community in the wake of genocide. This is a journey that lies ahead of my community.
Some Yazidis have requested that they be taken in by Israel. There are even reports that some Yazidis have asked if they might be allowed to train and fight with the IDF against their common enemy, fanatical Muslims.

If Nadia Murad keeps telling her own tale, what she endured in all its ghastliness, and does not leave anything out, if she describes how the members of the Islamic State would recite verses from the Qur’an both before and after raping Yazidi girls, if she goes still further and dares to discuss the Qur’anic passages and hadith stories on which the Islamic State bases its behavior, she will have performed a great service, as the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to tell unpleasant truths about Islam. Think of her Prize as a way of cancelling the embarrassment of Arafat’s award. And Muslim states would have a hard time explaining any attempts to criticize or silence such a formidable person.

So far, Nadia Murad appears not to be pulling her punches when it comes to Islam. In 2016, she addressed the UN Security Council, describing how she had been gang raped for a failed escape attempt. All of this, she said, was considered legal under ISIS rule — which dictates that Yazidis, because they do not practice Islam, can be taken as slaves on religious grounds. “They sold girls, girls that were underage, because ISIS considered that permissible under Islamic law,” she said. “They came not just to attack certain people, but they came for all Yazidis.”

Nadia Murad has so far in her travels addressed audiences in Ireland, in France, in the U.K., in Canada, in Germany, and in the United States, telling her tale, and the tale of her people:
Four years ago I was one of thousands of Yazidi women kidnapped by Islamic State and sold into slavery. I endured rape, torture and humiliation at the hands of these militants before I escaped.
I was relatively lucky. Many Yazidi girls and women went through worse and for much longer.
Over 2,000 are still missing. Many have been killed.
In early August 2014 Islamic State invaded the Sinjar region in northern Iraq with the mission of exterminating the Yazidis. They called us a ‘pagan minority’, and because we don’t have a holy book we have been described as ‘devil worshippers.’”
In Kocho, my village of 1,800 people, over 300 men were shot and their bodies buried in irrigation ditches. Six of them were my own brothers.
Since then the Yazidis have received sympathy and solidarity all over the world. Rightly, many countries and the United Nations have recognised the genocide committed against us by Islamic State. But we now need concrete action to get justice and allow us to rebuild our community and homes. We have been displaced and dispersed around the world. Many countries, including Germany, Canada, and the United States have given us refuge.
Now she has the Nobel Prize, which she can permanently use as a mighty megaphone to spread her story, and the stories of other Yazidis, across the globe. She is being helped by the world’s most mediagenic and celebrated lawyer, Amal Clooney, who has become the legal advocate for Yazidi victims of atrocities.

It will be fascinating to see how the Arab and Muslim media report on this prize to Nadia Murad, and on her campaign to describe the fate of Yazidis at Muslim hands. So far — it’s early yet — they are mostly observing radio silence, trying to figure out how to cover the story. Al Jazeera did report, in passing, that the Islamic State had tried to make her convert to Islam, without recognizing that all Muslims are supposed to try to convert Infidels.

Will the Arab media focus on the one Muslim family that helped her escape from ISIS, as if that family should make us overlook all the Muslims who were not willing to help? Furthermore, should that one decent family make us overlook all the Muslims who engaged in the mass rape of Yazidi girls, and mass killings of Yazidi men? Will Muslim reporters insist, implausibly, that just as the Arabs and Jews used to have such good relations (“we got along with them just fine until the Zionists arrived”), so too “for centuries we Muslims got along perfectly well with the Yazidis — it’s only these Islamic State extremists who have been attacking them”? In fact, for centuries, under Ottoman rule, and until today, Yazidis have been persecuted as “devil worshippers” by Muslims, both Arabs and Turks. Constant attempts have been made to force them to convert to Islam, though in the past nothing quite as bad as the atrocities they have recently endured apparently occurred.

There are now 400,000 Yazidis still living in northern Iraq. They deserve to survive. Will they be given protection, so that they can remain in their ancestral homeland? Can the Iraqi government be trusted to provide it, or will it require Western forces, having armed the Yazidis so that they can participate in their own defense, to ensure the safety of the remaining Yazidis, with some kind of cordon sanitaire? Let’s find out what Nadia Murad thinks would make the most sense. She’s not just earned her Nobel as few others have, but even more important, she’s earned the right to be listened to on the fate, both tragic and hopeful, of her tiny people.

Hugh Fitzgerald


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Anniversary of a Shameful U.S. Surrender—the Cuban Missile Crisis - Humberto Fontova

by Humberto Fontova

How JFK pulled defeat from the jaws of victory.

Those who think “Fake News” started with Trump’s term and the media’s “slobbering love affair” with a U.S. president started during Obama’s should have seen John F. Kennedy’s term. 

Imagine Obama's term with no Fox News, internet or talk radio. That’s about what JFK enjoyed. And tragically, the fairy tales Kennedy’s court scribes (with their media cohorts of the time) concocted about JFK’s Pattonesque handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis prevail in media/academic circles even today.

In fact, that Khrushchev swept the floor with cowed Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis was mainstream conservative conclusion throughout much of the Cold War. Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, for instance, represented opposite poles of the Republican establishment of their time.

"We locked Castro's communism into Latin America and threw away the key to its removal," growled Barry Goldwater about the JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution.”

"Kennedy pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory,” complained Richard Nixon. "Then gave the Soviets squatters rights in our backyard."

Generals Curtis Le May and Maxwell Taylor represented opposite poles of the military establishment.

"The biggest defeat in our nation's history!" bellowed Air Force chief Curtis Lemay while whacking his fist on his desk upon learning the details of the deal.

"We missed the big boat," complained Gen. Maxwell Taylor after learning of same.

"We've been had!" yelled then Navy chief George Anderson upon hearing on October 28, 1962, how JFK "solved" the missile crisis. Adm. Anderson was the man in charge of the very "blockade" against Cuba.

"It's a public relations fable that Khrushchev quailed before Kennedy," wrote Alexander Haig. "The legend of the eyeball to eyeball confrontation invented by Kennedy's men paid a handsome political dividend. But the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal was a deplorable error resulting in political havoc and human suffering through the America's."

William Buckley's National Review devoted several issues to exposing and denouncing Kennedy's appeasement. The magazine's popular "The Third World War" column by James Burnham roundly condemned Kennedy's Missile Crisis solution as "America's Defeat."

Even Democratic luminary Dean Acheson despaired: "This nation lacks leadership," he grumbled about the famous “Ex-Comm meetings” so glorified in the movie Thirteen Days. "The meetings were repetitive and without direction. Most members of Kennedy's team had no military or diplomatic experience whatsoever. The sessions were a waste of time."

But not for the Soviets. "We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along," snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey and Italy. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy's death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba."

In fact Khrushchev prepared to yank the missiles before any “bullying” by Kennedy. “What!” Khrushchev gasped on Oct. 28th 1962, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war? “But that is insane!...Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible! Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens!” commanded the Soviet premier.

So much for the gallant Knights of Camelot forcing the Russians’ retreat. In fact, the Castro brothers and Che Guevara’s genocidal lust is what prompted the Butcher of Budapest to yank the missiles from their reach.

Considering the U.S. nuclear superiority over the Soviets at the time of the (so-called) Missile Crisis (five thousand nuclear warheads for us, three hundred for them) it's hard to imagine a President Nixon — much less Reagan — quaking in front of Khrushchev's transparent ruse a la Kennedy.

The genuine threat came --not from Moscow—but from the Castros and Che. “If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.” (Che Guevara to Sam Russell of The London Daily Worker, November 1962.)

“Of course I knew the missiles were nuclear- armed,” responded Fidel Castro to Robert McNamara during a meeting in 1992. “That’s precisely why I urged Khrushchev to launch them. And of course Cuba would have been utterly destroyed in the exchange.”

Castro's regime's was granted new status. Let's call it MAP, or Mutually-Assured-Protection. Cuban freedom-fighters working from south Florida were suddenly rounded up for "violating U.S. neutrality laws." Some of these bewildered men were jailed, others "quarantined," prevented from leaving Dade County. The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro remained unmolested.

JFK's Missile Crisis “solution” also pledged that he immediately pull the rug out from under Cuba's in-house freedom fighters. Raul Castro himself admitted that at the time of the Missile Crisis his troops and their Soviet advisors were up against 179 different "bands of bandits" as he labeled the thousands of Cuban anti-Communist rebels then battling savagely and virtually alone in Cuba's countryside, with small arms shipments from their compatriots in south Florida as their only lifeline.

Kennedy's deal with Khrushchev cut this lifeline. This ferocious guerrilla war, waged 90 miles from America's shores, might have taken place on the planet Pluto for all you'll read about it in the mainstream media and all you'll learn about it from Kennedy’s court scribes, who scribbled Kennedy’s Missile-Crisis “victory.” To get an idea of the odds faced by those betrayed Cuban rebels, the desperation of their battle and the damage they wrought, you might revisit Tony Montana during the last 15 minutes of "Scarface."

Photo courtesy of CIA.

Humberto Fontova


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter