Friday, November 23, 2018

Columbia University’s Center for Palestine Studies: Ramallah on the Hudson - A.J. Caschetta

by A.J. Caschetta

Call it the PLO’s American academic wing.

An “apartheid wall” at Columbia University. Photo: Columbia SJP / Facebook.

The Trump administration may have closed the PLO’s Mission in Washington, D.C., but its Morningside Heights Mission is open for business. I refer to Columbia University’s Center for Palestine Studies (CPS), an Ivy League clearinghouse for PLO propaganda and the demonization of Israel. Call it the PLO’s American academic wing.

When the CPS opened more than eight years ago, founding co-director Rashid Khalidi promised that it would avoid doing “anything that’s directly related to any political activism.” This is laughable. What Khalidi meant is that the CSP would not participate in anti-Israel activism, but this is a lie. The faculty members who comprise the center’s experts are rivaled only by the faculty of Birzeit University for their anti-Israel advocacy.

It might, in fact, take a Center for Palestine Studies to examine thoroughly the history of Palestinian organizations devoted to political violence. But instead, Columbia has assembled the anti-Israel all-stars of academia, such as Joseph Massad, who has called for “the continuing resistance of Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories to all the civil and military institutions that uphold Jewish supremacy.” Another member of CPS is Hamid Dabashi, who wrote that Israel is a “key actor” in “every dirty treacherous ugly and pernicious act happening in the world.”

In addition to being a professor at Columbia’s Middle East Institute and co-director of the CPS, Khalidi also happens to be a former member of the PLO, as Martin Kramer has shown. Not since Columbia hired former Weather Underground member Kathy Boudinat its School of Social Work has it given a platform to “reformed” terrorists. At least Boudin expressed remorse, even if it was insincere. Not so Khalidi, a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS ) advocate whose views have remained consistent since his PLO days, though they are now masked in the academic patois of post-colonialism.

Brinkley Messick, the CPS’s other founding co-director, hyped it as the first academic center devoted to the study of Palestinian Arabs. “Very simply,” he gushed, “there’s never been a dedicated space … for this kind of research.” He was partly right. Columbia already had one called the Middle East Institute, which has an anti-Israel bent, but the CPS brought together faculty from beyond Middle East Studies, all dedicated to delegitimizing Israel and whitewashing Palestinian violence. Several of them have even been immortalized in The David Project’s documentary Columbia Unbecoming (2004) where their purported reluctance to be political is exposed as fraudulent.

The CPS has spent the past eight years spreading the three key elements of PLO propaganda: minimizing terrorism, delegitimizing Israel, and altering history. Yasser Arafat was the pioneer of minimizing terrorism. In 1974 he addressed the UN General Assembly and said: “whoever stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists, cannot possibly be called terrorist.” Delegitimizing Israel has always been a PLO priority; the academic version is called BDS. And finessing history by portraying the Arabs who refused a state in 1948 as victims of European Jewish aggression is the third component of the propaganda strategy.

By becoming its own echo chamber at Columbia, the CPS attracts students who revile Israel and equips them with the latest fashionable post-modern jargon to dress up their hatred. Those students who support Israel generally know enough to stay away. The rare few Zionists who genuinely seek dialogue and debate are feared at the CPS. Rather than engage in a civil debate, the CPS isolates and excludes them, fostering an atmosphere of harassment, especially against members of Students Supporting Israel(SSI), an organization founded to oppose campus BDS activists.

Columbia SSI chapter president Dalia Zahger, and vice president Ofir Dayan, both IDF veterans, shared their experiences as targets of harassment, some by members of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a joint venture of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). Dayan said she has been approached by anti-Israel students screaming at her “Stop killing Muslim babies,” “You’re a murderer” and “Zionist get out!” Zahger reports she has been compared to a Hamas terrorist and told that her devotion to Israel is tantamount to “spitting on [her] ancestors’ ashes in Europe.”

On April 9, 2018, they attended an event titled “On the Palestine Exception (with some thoughts concerning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and Zionism in the academy).” The speakers were three anti-Israel ideologues: Massad; Jasbir Puar, professor of women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University; and Gil Hochberg, who is professor of comparative literature at UCLA and also the Ransford professor of Hebrew and comparative literature, and Middle East studies at Columbia.

When members of CUAD saw Dayan looking at her phone, they accused her of recording the event and called campus safety officers, who demanded her phone. When Dayan refused to hand it over, she, Zagher, and the other SSI members in attendance were escorted from the event. So much for academic freedom. When they registered complaints with the University, Zagher was asked why she attends such events when she knows they will be “problematic and tense.” The executive vice president for student life told Dayan that the university “has no authority to take measures against SJP unless they become violent.” She was advised to “put campus safety on speed dial.”

There is no doubt that anti-Israel political activism in the classroom leads to anti-Semitism outside it. Statistics show that anti-Semitic incidents are far more likely to occur at universities where BDS events are hosted. Clearly, the CPS fosters an atmosphere that encourages anti-Semitism.

If Columbia University abides by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism (as adopted by both the State Department and Department of Education), it will have to re-examine both the work and influence of the Center for Palestine Studies, where the professors for the liberation of “Palestine” are trying to turn the Upper West Side into the Upper West Bank.

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lebanon has been warned - Itzhak Levanon

by Itzhak Levanon

-- if Beirut continues to side with the Shiite terrorist group, an Israeli strike in Lebanon may prove inevitable.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vague statement in ‎Paris last week on is meeting with Russian President ‎Vladimir Putin indicated that Moscow's ire over the Sept. 17 ‎downing of a Russian plane by Syrian air defenses trying to ‎counter and Israeli airstrike has yet to subside. ‎

It also indicated that Israel's policy in Syria has become ‎more prudent, and to a great extent, the public threats ‎against Syria have been replaced with quiet threats against ‎Lebanon.

French National Security Adviser OrlĂ©an la-Chevalier visited ‎Israel two weeks ago, ahead of a visit to Beirut. According ‎to Lebanon's al-Akhbar newspaper, which is affiliated with ‎Hezbollah, in his meetings with Lebanese officials, the ‎French envoy relayed Israeli warnings saying that unless ‎Beirut stops Hezbollah from getting Iranian weapons ‎shipments, Israel would have no choice but to target ‎Hezbollah assets in Lebanon.‎

Hezbollah learned of this almost immediately, which is not ‎surprising considering Lebanese President Michel Aoun's ‎affinity with the Shiite terrorist group, and Hezbollah leader ‎Hassan Nasrallah was quick to respond with threats of his ‎own, saying any Israeli strike would meet a forceful ‎response. ‎

This is not the only example of the close ties Beirut ‎maintains with Hezbollah. Several Lebanese MPs and even ‎the country's chief of staff have stated that if another war ‎breaks out between Hezbollah and Israel, Lebanon's army ‎will fight alongside the Shiite terrorist group, which wields ‎considerable political power in the country. ‎

Moreover, Lebanon knows that Hezbollah strives to improve ‎the accuracy of its missiles and is doing nothing to stop it, ‎and in all honesty, Israel knows that the Lebanese ‎government or military cannot really prevent Hezbollah from ‎getting its hands on Iranian weapons, as even if all the ‎ethnic and political powers in Lebanon came together, they ‎would still be unable to counter Hezbollah's military might.‎

Hezbollah has gained significant political clout in Lebanon, ‎even winning a majority in May's parliamentary elections. ‎Add to that the fact that the Lebanese army no longer ‎bothers to conceal its collaboration with the group, and you ‎have an overtly hostile neighbor in the north.‎

All Israel can do at this point is follow through on the ‎warnings it conveyed via the French envoy. Strategically, ‎making things right with Russia outweighs engaging in a ‎limited conflict with Hezbollah. The latter is still deterred ‎enough to contain an Israeli strike, if one proves necessary.‎

Having relayed its message using back channels, Israel ‎must now make its position public so both official and ‎unofficial Lebanon understands – it has been warned.‎

Itzhak Levanon is the former Israeli ambassador to Egypt.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Debate about Normalization of Ties between Gulf States and Israel - MEMRI


Iran Is the Real Enemy; Israel Should be Part of the Anti-Iranian Alliance

During a debate on Al-Hurra TV (U.S.) that aired on November 9, 2018, Saudi journalist Muhammad Al-Osaimi said that Iran is the "obvious and real enemy" of the Arab states. He criticized the Arab countries for not recognizing Israel's existence even though the entire world - the Palestinians included - does. He said the [sic] any Middle Eastern alliance against Iran or other agendas that threaten peace and stability in the region must include Israel and that the Arab states should find common ground with Israel in order to "enable a just peace, followed by all-out normalization."  Another Saudi journalist, Dahham Al-Enazy, said that the Arabs need partners with serious intentions in order to establish a comprehensive peace in the region, and that they should see Israel as a friend against the Iranian enemy and against "Ottoman colonialist aspirations." Omani researched Zakariya Al-Muharrami added that the Jews are among the original inhabitants of the region and that the Palestinian issue is a question of justice rather than a question of religion.

Saudi Journalist Muhammad Al-Osaimi: Should we direct the Arab efforts towards Israel, Iran, or both?

Interviewer: You are saying that today there are two enemies, but fighting Iran takes priority?

Muhammad Al-Osaimi: Obviously, fighting Iran takes priority, because Iran is the enemy. Iran is the obvious and real enemy. Iran declares that it is occupying four Arab capitals, and that it intends to continue on the same path, despite the sanctions that kicked in yesterday or today. We must be aware of the situation that we are in. I find it odd to see some journalists, especially from the remaining Nasserists, who to this day… Take for example Dr. Abdallah Sinawi who is a Nasserist from Egypt. To this day, he does not consider Iran to be an enemy. If Iran did it in the region and in these countries, and if Iran threatens us all the time – who else could be the enemy?


Saudi Journalist Dahham Al-Enazi: Everybody should know that this region needs peace. Therefore, there must be partners with serious intentions, whether Arabs or Israelis, for the purpose of establishing a sustainable and comprehensive peace. We have no problem with the Jewish religion or even with the Israelis. We want to see Israel as a friend and not as an enemy – a friend against the Iranian enemy and the Ottoman colonialist aspirations in the region.


Omani researcher Zakariya Al-Muharrami: The Jews are among the original inhabitants of this region. They lived in this region and there are no problems between us and them. Our religion does not prohibit us from opening up to the Jews or from interacting with them. The Israeli-Palestinian problem is not a religious one, but a problem of justice.


Muhammad Al-Osaimi: Israel is a Middle Eastern state recognized by the whole world, except for some Arab countries. Even Egypt recognizes Israel as a state, and so do Jordan, the Palestinians, and even some in Lebanon. It is a Middle Eastern state. If we are talking about a Middle Eastern alliance against Iran, or against any agenda that threatens the peace in the Middle East and threatens global economy and prosperity by threatening the Middle East, then Israel must be a part of it. There is no escaping that.


The Arab countries must face reality. The reality is that Israel exists and that the Palestinians have recognized its existence – even before the Arabs have. Therefore, [we must ask ourselves] what the Arab countries and Israel have in common, that can enable us to realize a just peace, followed by all-out normalization.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

California wildfires and environmental radicalism - Chriss Street

by Chriss Street

The Trump administration is rolling back green rules that encourage wildfires.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on Breitbart News Sunday blamed California’s 7,421 wildfires that have burned 1,665,746 acres, destroyed 30,000 structures and killed at least 82 individuals and six firefighters so far in 2018. Zinke stressed: “I will lay this on the foot of those environmental radicals that have prevented us from managing the forests for years. And you know what? This is on them.”

Secretary Zinke’s remarks came the day after President Trump toured the horrific devastation in Paradise, California on Saturday. Trump stated that countries like Finland do a better job managing forests to prevent and mitigate fires. The President stated: "You’ve got to take care of the floors. You know, the floors of the forest, very important.”

The Trump Administration’s coordinated statements signal the launch of an initiative to contain the skyrocketing federal costs to fight wildfires that topped a record $1.1 billion for the 2017 fiscal year ending September 30, according to the U.S. government’s Wildland Fire Annual Report. Costs were up by 49 percent from the prior year and 94 percent more than fiscal 2009, the last year before the Obama administration.

California governor Jerry Brown’s administration published its Fourth Climate Change Assessment in late August that blamed the threat of a 77 percent increase in wildfires and 18 percent higher insurance costs on “greenhouse gas emissions.” Warning of a ‘New Normal’ for wildfires, Brown advocated federal responsibility for climate change.

Although the number fires for FY 2017, the last year before the Trump Administration, were up by just 5.5 percent, the total area burned spiked by 82 percent to 10 million acres. Federal wildfire costs also spiked by 49 percent from the prior year, and up by 94 percent more than FY 2009, the last year before the Obama Administration.

California wildfire losses in 2017 hit a record of $13 billion, according to AON Benfield’s ‘Weather, Climate & Catastrophe Insight’ 2017 annual report. But catastrophe risk modelling specialist RMS just estimated losses from the California’s still burning Camp and Woolsey fires could reach as much as $13 billion. Total 2018 annual financial losses from California wildfires will be a record that could reach $20 billion.

The U.S. Weather Service’s footprint map visualizes the repetitive nature of California wildfires since 1910. Although RMS found that over two decades there was about a 40 percent increase in housing added to the high wildfire risk of fire Wildland Urban Interface and an increase in temperatures, there was also a major “change in firefighting philosophy in the early 2000s to favor aggressive firefighting over aggressive control of flammable vegetation.”

Forbes reported that before the 1850s, the Native American population shaped California’s landscape every spring with low-intensity fires to encourage grasslands and boost the game animal population. Sierra landscape photos from 1849 record open fields of grass with isolated pine stands and scattered oak trees. Pine tree branches start about 20 feet up due to lower branches having been burned off.

California forestry management drastically changed after the 1994 after the Clinton Administration adopted the Northwest Forest Plan covering 4.5 million acres of Northern California national forests that prioritized protecting endangered species, water quality, and old-growth forests. The new rules increased timber logging industry costs and limited the annual harvests to smaller and often uneconomical-sized trees.

With 60 percent of California forest land owned by the federal government, logging permits shriveled and forest tree spacing became much denser. As private logging roads that served as national forest fire breaks were abandoned and covered by brush, annual wildfires became bigger, hotter, and more remote from firefighter access.

The Bush administration tried to reverse the Clinton policies in 2004, but environmentalists used lawsuits to stop the effort. The Obama administration reinstated the Clinton anti-logging policies and supported the adoption of Gov. Brown’s California Forest Practice Rules 2015 that led to more logging road abandonments.

Brown warned on August 1 that California spent almost a third of the state’s $442.8 million budget for emergencies and its “e-budget” could quickly run dry.

Having suffered many more highly destructive wildfires and with 13,000 firefighters battling nine major forest fires on Thanksgiving Day, Gov. Brown would like to blame global climate change and have the federal government pay for California wildfires. 

Chriss Street


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Democrats Protected a Democrat Who Beat and Murdered His Wife - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Is it any wonder that Lance Mason believed that he could get away with killing his wife?

On the way back from a funeral, Judge Lance Mason beat his wife so badly that he broke her orbital socket.  A woman who called 911 had described a horrifying scene of “fists flying” inside the car.

Their two children, ages 4 and 6, were in the SUV when their father assaulted their mother, choked her and bit her on the ear and the cheek. According to Aisha, Judge Mason "struck me in the face, yanked my hair, slammed my head into the dashboard and armrest of the car."

She later called the police, telling them, "I'm afraid he's going to hurt my daughters.”

Aisha had to be hospitalized and required reconstructive surgery to repair the damage to her face.

When the cops came to arrest Judge Mason, they found semi-automatic rifles, 2,500 rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest and a sword.

Judge Mason wasn’t just anybody. He had deep roots in the local Democrat machine. He had been appointed to the bench by Governor Ted Strickland. Before that he had worked as a district director for Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, his mentor. Then he wrangled an appointment to the Ohio State House, and moved on to the State Senate, where he became notable for opposing a bill regulating strip clubs.

When Governor Strickland appointed Mason, the Democrat claimed that the future domestic abuser’s experience in politics “will make him an effective and respected judge." Mason claimed that he wanted to be a judge for the sake of his family. “I've got to get home and help out my wife with my baby.”

The huge pay bump to $121,350 probably didn’t play a role for this devoted family man.

Despite his horrific crime, Mason was still able to call on the support of numerous Ohio Democrats, including Rep. Marcia Fudge, who wrote a letter in his defense, claiming, “Lance Mason is a good man who made a very bad mistake. I can only hope you can see in Lance what I and others see.”

The Ohio Supreme Court had to assign a special judge to hear the case after Mason’s colleagues recused themselves. Judge Mason attempted to avoid jail time in a move that the assistant county prosecutor described as a statement conveying that, “I'm special; I'm not like the other people”.

Despite the prejudiced assumptions of white liberals, Mason came from a privileged background. His father had been a doctor and his cousin a lawyer. A profile written during his Capitol Hill days describes him as being “torn between a career in medicine or law”.

Judge Mason couldn’t escape jail. He was sentenced to two years. But when he got out, the Ohio Democratic party did not abandon its favorite son. Instead Ohio Dems, who condemned President Trump for not caring about “women’s rights”, gave him a plum position as the Minority Business Development Administrator for Cleveland despite beating his wife so badly she needed surgery.
Then she was murdered.

The body of Aisha Fraser, a beloved teacher at Woodbury Elementary, and the mother of a daughter with Down syndrome, was found, stabbed to death, in the driveway of her home.

Mason was reportedly caught trying to flee the scene. He struck a police officer with his car and rammed into the police car hard enough to disable both cars.

The officer suffered injuries to his legs and ribs.

And then Cleveland finally fired its monster.

Mayor Frank Jackson defended hiring Mason as part of Cleveland’s second-chance for felons program. “We hire many ex-felons and almost all of them turn out well because we have second chance as a part of what we do as a policy in the City of Cleveland,” the Democrat insisted.

In an interview, Mayor Jackson suggested that domestic violence cases were too complex to lay blame.

He claimed that murderers and drug dealers, "have come to work for the city of Cleveland and they have done quite well for us." Even people convicted of “public corruption” are being employed by Cleveland.

They include City Council member Sabra T. Pierce Scott who was sentenced to probation for soliciting a job for her son and taking a bribe from a contractor, before being hired as Cleveland's first director of quality control and performance management at a $95,000 salary. Scott is a Democrat.

Scott’s son was shot by a police officer after allegedly reaching for a gun.

Mayor Jackson personally swore in a politician who had been found guilty in the biggest corruption scandal in the region, aiding a $125 million project for corrupt reasons. Scott had escaped with a slap on the wrist, teaching ethics to high school students, before landing a top government job.

Mason had also gotten a virtual slap on the wrist.

He had been indicted on charges of kidnapping for driving away with the children after throwing his wife out of the car, and on charges of domestic violence, felonious assault, attempted felonious assault and child endangerment. But all he did was plead guilty to domestic violence and attempted felonious assault. And then in a short time, he was out and back working for his corrupt political organization.

Like Mason, Scott had benefited from the patronage of her party, with current and former Democrat council members showing up to support her at her sentencing hearing. Democrat politicians had used programs meant to help released convicts looking for a fresh start to employ their own criminals.

Mayor Jackson had personally hired Mason and admitted he knew him because of his relationship with fellow Democrat, Rep. Tubbs. It was rumored that Jackson had hired Mason as a favor to Rep. Marcia Fudge, a top Democrat currently running against Rep. Nancy Pelosi to serve as Speaker of the House.

Rep. Fudge had endorsed Mayor Jackson, but denies that she pulled any political strings for Mason. She claimed that by reporting on the story, the media is guilty of the “traumatization and victimization of Mr. Mason's family”. That family would not include Aisha Fraser, whom Mason allegedly murdered.

Her concern for the two surviving children is as transparently phony as Mayor Jackson’s condolences.

The simple and ugly truth of the Mason case is that he benefited from Democrat political privilege. But in Mason’s case, the Democrats were not satisfied with protecting crooks and instead decided to cover for a monster because, no matter what he did or whom he hurt, he was a Democrat monster.

"I learned that when I had been stripped of public acclaim, I had far more friends than I had imagined. I didn’t lose a friend," Mason wrote on his blog. "People who I didn’t think I was close to were kind, gave encouraging words (even several prosecutors)... Eleven attorneys donated time to work on my cases."

When you’re a Democrat, prosecutors offer you encouraging words instead of throwing the book at you.

The political party that claims to protect women got a woman killed. The faction that claims to love “women of color” helped put one in the ground.

Aisha Fraser might be alive today if Lance Mason had been held accountable. Instead he was coddled and protected because of his relationships within the Democrat establishment. If he had been put away for a substantial prison term, the way that any ordinary person would have, Aisha would still be alive. And her daughters would still have their mother and her students would have their teacher.

Instead Mason got a slap of the wrist, and after that slap, Cleveland officials, from Mayor Jackson on down, made it clear that he still had the backing and the protection of his fellow Democrats.

Is it any wonder that Lance Mason believed that he could get away with killing his wife?

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Paul Joseph Watson Video: The Truth About Brexit - Paul Joseph Watson

by Paul Joseph Watson

An illusion of choice . . . and a stab in the back.

In this video, Paul Joseph Watson reveals how UK citizens have been betrayed by a globalist cabal -- that planned to cancel Brexit from the very start.

Paul Joseph Watson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

There’s No Terrorism Like Islamic Terrorism, Despite the Left’s Lies - Bosch Fawstin

by Bosch Fawstin

What, exactly, constitutes a “right-wing terrorist attack”?

Leftists, who are natural suckers for America’s enemies, downplay Islamic terrorism and leftist terrorism by citing a dishonest government study that claims that there’s no terrorism like so-called “right-wing” terrorism in America.

Remember, our government, media, academia, entertainment and culture at large, all push the lie that “Islam means peace”, so they will always downplay the endless attacks by Muslims in America, and not list them as Islamic terrorism. So what they do is claim that these Muslims have “mental health problems”, which is why many attacks by Muslims aren’t categorized as Islamic terrorism, which diminishes their number on record, while any attacks that are not by Muslims or leftists are classified as “right-wing”, no matter how tenuous their claim.

Another way leftists downplay Islamic terrorism, (and left-wing terrorism) while playing up “right-wing” and “white” terrorism is by conveniently and deviously citing terrorist attacks after 9/11/01. That way, they can make it appear that they’re telling the truth when they lie that “right-wing”/”white” terrorism is deadlier than all other terrorism in America the way Donald Lemon did. It’s a lie, a typical leftist lie, and that lie is as pushed by them as the lie that “Islam means peace”. And I notice that not even those on the right are willing to mention the most obvious cover up here: that growing left wing terrorism is being covered up. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are just the most recent leftist terrorist groups, and leftists like Donald Lemon naturally defend them. And there are also the hundreds of recorded acts of violence by leftists across America in the last few years. And CNN’s leftist Chris Cuomo also justifies Antifa’s violence as being “moral” and on “the right side”.

What are the names of the “right-wing” terrorist groups that we’re told dominate terrorism, as opposed top the endless Islamic terrorist groups?

Donald Lemon, on CNN: “So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on  — they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that?”

Racist Donald Lemon chooses to make this a race issue, and yet you never hear him refer to ubiquitous Muslim terrorism by the race of its perpetrators, as most Muslim terrorists are non-white.

Another leftist hack, politician Corey Booker, told CNN in January, “In American history since 9/11, we’ve had 85 major attacks in our country, 73 percent of them have been by white nationalist hate groups.” As I noted above, this lying leftist cites the study that conveniently and deviously begins on 9/11, in order to downplay or even exonerate Islamic terrorism, and not even mentioning leftist terrorism, in order to conveniently make it appear that his political opponents are the most dangerous terrorists around.

As for what constitutes a “right-wing terrorist attack”, according to the GAO (Government Accountability Office), which is almost guaranteed to be made up of leftist bureaucrats whose job it is to rewrite history for their political gain, they list as one particular “right-wing terrorist attack” that a “white supremacist member of Aryan Brotherhood killed a man”. (I don’t even concede the idea, as some do, that any “white supremacist” is “right-wing”, because Nazis were leftists, as were the KKK, and leftists have spent an inordinate amount of time hiding that fact and projecting it onto the right.) This alleged “right-wing terrorist attack” doesn’t sound like a terrorist attack at all, as this article points out. Have any of the terrorist attacks by Black Lives Matters and Antifa been categorized as terrorist attacks by the GAO? I highly doubt it. This is a naked hit job to cover up the massive terrorism of Muslims and of leftists, and to smear the right, and to do so in racist terms.

Nearly every “terrorist attack” by the “right” on the GAO list are individual murders that would only be classified as so-called “hate crimes” by less rabid leftists.

And again, when our culture at large wants to believe “Islam means peace”, the way to buttress that myth is for our authorities and media to not call Islamic terrorist attacks what they are, but to redefine them as cases having to do with “mental illness”. And with the frequency of Islamic terrorist attacks, along with the dishonesty of the GAO, then the most common terrorism in America (and the world) is Mental illness Terrorism, which is a ludicrous classification, so ludicrous that leftists have yet to use that term. Yet.

One more reason that you Know the GAO is a leftist smear job operation: leftists cite it as if their lives depend on it. Their lies depend on it.

Here’s something I wrote in 2011, to show that this leftist effort to smear the right and exonerate Islam and Muslims is nothing new:

Individual Lone Wolf Terrorists vs Islamic Terrorist Groups. The left wing media likes non-Muslim terrorists, even if there aren’t many, because they use them as a bludgeon against right-wingers, even if the terrorist himself is left-wing. Right after a rare non-Islamic terrorist attack, they trip over themselves to get the words "right-winger", "Christian", “white” or anything Un-Islamic out there ASAP as a way to prove, to themselves, that there aren't world-wide, organized, state-sponsored Jihadist Terrorist groups that are responsible for 99.9% of all the terrorist acts in the world.

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award-nominated cartoonist currently adapting a novel into a graphic novel, to be announced soon He’s the winner of the Mohammad Cartoon Contest, which ended with a jihadist attack where only the would-be murderers died. He’s the creator of the anti-jihad superhero, Pigman, featured in The Infidel series. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a print companion to The Infidel.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hamas said to be 'devastatingly torn' between two leaders - Daniel Siryoti

by Daniel Siryoti

Discord between Hamas' political leader Ismail Haniyeh and military commander Yahya Sinwar "unprecedented," Gaza sources say, adding that the two no longer speak

Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh ‎
Photo: AP 

Hamas' political leader Ismail Haniyeh and the group's military ‎leader Yahya Sinwar have been repeatedly locking horns over the ‎terrorist group's policies in the Gaza Strip, and the rivalry has gotten to the point where the two no longer speak to each ‎other, Israel Hayom learned Wednesday.‎

According to Gaza sources, the growing animosity between the two ‎has caused a rift in Hamas, pitting Haniyeh's supporters against Sinwar's supporters in a devastating split.

Haniyeh's camp includes ‎top political officials in the group and Sinwar's camp hails from Hamas' military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, led by ‎Hamas strongman Mohammed Deif. ‎

A senior Hamas official described the rift in Hamas' leadership as ‎‎"unprecedented," saying it has undermined the Egyptian-led ‎efforts to strike an agreement between Hamas and Israel that ‎would allow for the economic rehabilitation of Gaza.‎

‎"Sinwar, who was released [from Israeli prison] as part of the ‎‎[2011] Schalit deal, is very committed to the issue of Palestinian ‎prisoners," the official added. "He promised the prisoners still in jail that he will do ‎everything in his power to secure their release, and he is following through on that. ‎Haniyeh is less interested in the prisoners and has refused ‎various offers for a prisoner exchange deal with Israel."

Sinwar, the official added, "is perceived as much more hawkish than ‎Haniyeh, because he comes from the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, ‎but the truth is he is far more pragmatic than Haniyeh, who can't ‎seem to make difficult decisions and take responsibility for them."‎

A former senior Hamas official told Israel Hayom that the current crisis in ‎the organization is so severe that many of its top members have decided to resign over it. ‎

He said that former Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal has been asked to ‎mediate between Haniyeh – his successor – and Sinwar, but has ‎failed to bridge the gaps between the two. ‎

"The result is that Hamas now has a two-headed leadership," the former official said. "The political wing and the military wing each decide on their ‎own policies without much coordination.‎"

Giving an example of the bad blood between Haniyeh and Sinwar, ‎another official recalled that "a few weeks ago, Haniyeh arrived at the ‎‎[Israel-Gaza] border to support demonstrators there. His security ‎guards whisked him away within minutes, fearing he would be hurt by the Israeli military's tear gas and crowd control measures. A short while later, Haniyeh learned that Sinwar had arrived at the ‎Khan Yunis protest and addressed the protesters. He ‎was furious and told his associates, 'Sinwar is doing everything he ‎can to undermine my position, humiliate me and embarrass me.'"‎

The ongoing rivalry within Hamas even escalated recently, with cells ‎loyal to the opposite camps clashing violently, firing warning ‎shots at officials' homes and planting explosives under ‎their cars. ‎

Top officials in Hamas' political wing have even accused the military ‎wing of establishing a "hit squad" tasked with intimidating Sinwar's ‎political rivals. ‎

Several Hamas officials in both camps said that the Egyptian ‎mediators have also realized that engaging with Sinwar was more ‎effective than negotiating with Haniyeh. ‎

‎"It's not for nothing that all the recent talks involved Sinwar. The ‎Egyptians don't really see the point of talking with Haniyeh," one ‎official said. ‎

Also on Wednesday, U.N. Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladenov ‎downplayed reports suggesting Israel and Hamas have made ‎progress on a potential prisoner swap. ‎

Gaza's rulers are holding the remains of two Israeli soldiers, Staff ‎Sgt. Oron Shaul and Lt. Hadar Goldin, killed during Operation ‎Protective Edge in the summer of 2014. Ethiopian Israeli Avera ‎Mengistu and Bedouin Israeli Hisham al-Sayed, both mentally disabled, crossed into Gaza voluntarily in 2014 and 2015 ‎and were captured by Hamas.‎

‎"We are very far from a deal that would secure the return of the ‎Israeli soldiers' bodies and the two living Israelis held by Hamas," ‎he said.‎

Mladenov also criticized the Palestinian Authority and said that "since ‎the Egyptians began mediating between Israel and Hamas in 2017, ‎‎'someone out there' is trying to disrupt any progress."‎

Daniel Siryoti


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Saudi 'state-sponsored murder'? Bad. Obama state-sponsored murder? No problem. - Andrew Thomas

by Andrew Thomas

Remember when drone strikes against American citizens were totally cool at the Washington Post?

How dare President Trump "condone" the murder of a Saudi citizen by his government? The only rational response is to drop Saudi Arabia as an ally, impeach Trump, and re-install the wonderful treaty with Iran, maybe adding a few more pallets of cash in the deal.

These are apparently the objectives behind the massive outrage exploding from the American left, as well as some establishment Republicans in Congress.

Trump's official statement on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi begins with, "The world is a very dangerous place!" and concludes, "As President of the United States I intend to ensure that, in a very dangerous world, America is pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that wish to do us harm. Very simply it is called America First!"

This statement has caused firestorms in the op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, which issued this tweet:

Now the calls for impeachment are being heard over Trump's supposedly weak reaction to the incident. This makes the 1,393rd reason to impeach Trump, right after the treasonous way he ties his shoes in the morning.

We are supposed to be outraged over a supposed "state-sponsored" murder, based on supposed evidence from the always reliable CIA. After all, the pals of former communist John Brennan wouldn't lie to us for political advantage, would they? We should trust the CIA implicitly, since they were only caught one other time in a blatant lie, successfully influencing U.S. policy by falsely claiming that Iran had abandoned its nuke program.

I guess those who are screaming for Trump's impeachment over the Saudi government's alleged murder of one of its own citizens have conveniently forgotten something in our recent past. Were they this upset over the Obama administration for murdering three U.S. citizens (including a 16-year-old) by targeting them in drone strikes?

Yes, they were probably bad people, possible terrorists living in Yemen working against American interests. But I'm sure the Saudi government viewed Khashoggi as a threat in much the same way. In all of these assassinations, the victims were denied their right to a trial and due process as citizens.

The Khashoggi assassination was gruesome and messy. The U.S. drone strike assassinations were much cleaner and left no witnesses. However, they were morally not at all different. Actually, the drone strikes were much worse, because they resulted in significant collateral damage, killing others who were possibly innocent victims.

This is all so dishonest and hypocritical. Did the WaPo call out Obama's "failure of leadership"? Did the paper cry for "the cause of truth and justice and human rights" when U.S. citizens were murdered by their government without a trial?

Is there that much ignorance bordering on insanity in leftist politics and the media? Or is it really a cold, calculated effort to influence the public in order to weaken Trump's agenda and gain power for the left?

Image: Ari Levinson via Wikimedia Commons.

Andrew Thomas


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Multipolar World: Partnering with Russia to Stop Iran - Brandon J. Weichert

by Brandon J. Weichert

Today, China, Russia, and others have a say in how the United States can best exercise its power in their respective regions.

The "unipolar moment" that the United States enjoyed following the end of the Cold War is, for the most part, over. We have entered into what international relations scholars refer to as a "multipolar world" – a world of many powers seeking balance against each other. Gone are the days (at least for now) of Washington dictating terms to the rest of the world because the United States was the global hegemon. Today, China, Russia, and others have a say in how the United States can best exercise its power in their respective regions.

This multipolar reality has been especially felt in the ever shifting geopolitical sands of the Middle East. The Middle East has been dominated by extreme ethno-religious tribalism for centuries and has long been the focus of great powers. The region has always been important because of its geostrategic position as a crossroads of civilization: it connected the civilizations of Europe and Asia (as well as Africa).

The Mideast is also the source of much of the world's oil and natural gas. Over time, other oil- and natural gas-producers have started competing against the Mideast (particularly we here in the United States as well as Russia). Despite this, the region basically remains the world's gas station.

The Mideast in Flux

The goal of U.S. foreign policy for the region has centered on keeping the region's energy sources available to the world. Because of this, Washington has not been able to rest: the region is constantly faced with the forces of modernity clashing with those of traditionalism – and within that framework, various ethno-religious groups jockeying for dominance over one another (as well as over powers like the United States) – which could close the region off to the world.

This is especially true today, as the intra-religious rivalry between the Sunni Arab world and Shiite Iran crescendos. Iran is poised to obtain a nuclear weapons arsenal that will fundamentally alter the already precarious balance of power in the region. With the believable threat of their nuclear weapons, the Iranians intend to shatter the axis of resistance in the Sunni Arab world while threatening their great rival, the Jewish state of Israel. In so doing, Tehran hopes to force America's withdrawal from the region, thereby leaving Iran as the strongest power in the Mideast.

Beginning with Desert Storm, the United States spent the last 30 years running the biggest (failed) social experiment in the world: trying to democratize the Middle East to create long-term "stability." Unfortunately, all of America's military interventions there – each one escalating in size and scope – have done little to quell the unrest. In fact, American interventions have only worsened the instability in the region. With the old order broken, the region appears to be transitioning away from the Sunni- and Israel-dominated balance of power toward a new Iranian order inimical to American interests.

To further the cause of regional hegemony, Iran has aligned with Russia, Turkey, and even China. Washington fears that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will solidify Iran's claim on the region.

Putting Pressure on Iran through Russia

Iran, like North Korea, has long been considered a rogue state with malicious nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite their continual calls for "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!," the Obama administration made an ill advised executive agreement with the mullahs of Iran that effectively allowed Iran a path to acquiring nuclear weapons. The Obama deal then normalized the country with the outside world. Basically, Obama legitimized the virulently anti-American, revisionist regime in Iran – at the expense of American allies in Israel and throughout the Sunni Arab world.

While President Trump has (rightly) shredded the horrible Obama agreement with Iran, it remains to be seen if an Israeli-Sunni Arab concert can contain the growth of Iran. Despite his tough talk on Iran, Trump appears disinclined to repeat the mistakes of his Republican presidential predecessor, George W. Bush, by invading another Muslim country. Trump has even intimated over the last year that he'd be willing to meet with Iran's leadership (without preconditions) and make a deal – just as he has done with North Korea.

What few acknowledge is that the North Koreans came to the negotiating table because of the increasing pressure that the Trump administration placed on China. Trump used tripolar diplomacy (among the United States, China, and North Korea) to bring North Korea to heel. Just as China is North Korea's most important partner, Russia is Iran's most important ally. Thus, Trump must replay his strategic gambit of using tripolar diplomacy to prevent a seemingly implacable rogue state – this time Iran – from threatening the world.

Welcome to Multipolarity!

Reaching out to Russia is something the president has been prevented from doing, thanks to the partisan hackery of Trump's opponents in Washington. According to these partisans, Trump colluded with Russian intelligence to steal the 2016 election (a claim that remains unproven), therefore any diplomatic overture to Russia is politically toxic for Trump.

The Russians want to make a deal with Trump; they continue engaging in hostile rhetoric as part of their overall program of "escalating to de-escalate" world crises. Yet Trump has not gotten the message because the Democrats are preventing him from picking up the phone. As with all negotiations, there is a window of opportunity before the negotiations cannot be had...and that window is closing fast.

Without making a great geopolitical deal with Russia (which would mean creating a real peace over Ukraine and better defining NATO's eastern borders) – and soon – the chance to do for the Iran threat what Trump has managed to do with the North Korean threat will evaporate. And, absent any meaningful diplomacy alongside Moscow, the region will slide into a terrible nuclear arms race that will eventuate in a larger gruesome war.

Russia has taken on the characteristics of its autocrat, Vladimir Putin. As Fiona Hill observed at The National Interest, Russia wants respect more than anything else. The Russian Federation wants to be viewed as a world power equal to that of the United States – a fact that was codified in Russia's 2002 national security strategy document. Such desires on the part of Putin explain why Moscow has been calling for a multipolar world for years.

While it might harm Washington's ego to treat Moscow as an equal partner in world affairs, the only way to mollify the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program – without a major war against Iran (and absent another silver bullet to use on Iran, like the Stuxnet cyber-attack) – is to grant Russia the respect Putin believes he and his country deserve. Thanks to the restrictive sanctions regime that President Trump has imposed on Russia, the United States has leverage. By dangling the prospect of a grand bargain between Moscow and Washington over key disagreements, the United States would likely be able to get Russia to work with it on ending the threat posed by Iran.

Life in a multipolar world order is complex; often enemies must work together to balance against greater, shared threats (such as the case with Iran) while, at times, pursuing shared opportunities. Let's not miss this opportunity out of moral squeamishness, pride, or misplaced partisan rancor.

Brandon J. Weichert is a geopolitical analyst who runs The Weichert Report, is a contributing editor at American Greatness, and is a contributor at The American Spectator. His writings appear often in Real Clear Politics and RealClearPolicy. He can be reached on Twitter at @WeTheBrandon.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter