Friday, December 14, 2018

The Hamas Plan to Take the West Bank - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Each "successful" attack carried out by Hamas earns it more popularity in the West Bank, at the cost of Abbas and his regime.

  • Hamas and its allies are openly working and encouraging the eruption of a new anti-Israel uprising in the West Bank, and they have been emboldened by the recent failure of the UN General Assembly to adopt a US-sponsored resolution condemning Hamas and other Palestinian groups for firing rockets at Israel and inciting violence.
  • The Hamas-engineered attacks are not only a threat to Israeli civilians and soldiers; they also undermine the Western-funded Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas. Each "successful" attack carried out by Hamas earns it more popularity in the West Bank, at the cost of Abbas and his regime.
  • Now that Hamas is getting what it wants in the Gaza Strip -- millions of dollars and no war with Israel -- it is seeking to shift the attention to the West Bank, all with the help of its friends in Tehran. This has a twofold goal: to undermine or overthrow the Palestinian Authority, inflict heavy casualties on Israel, and thwart any peace plan brought forward by the US administration.

Hamas and its allies are openly working to export their "armed struggle" against Israel beyond the Gaza Strip and ultimately to take control of the West Bank. Pictured: Masked Hamas terrorists. (Photo by Abid Katib/Getty Images)

It is clear by now that Hamas is behind some of the recent terror attacks against Israelis in the West Bank. These attacks serve the interests of Hamas and its friends and sponsors, especially the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization -- and Iran.

Hamas and its allies have a plan, and they are not even keeping it a secret -- to export their "armed struggle" against Israel beyond the Gaza Strip and ultimately to take control of the West Bank.

The latest terrorist attack took place on December 9 outside the West Bank settlement of Ofra, east of Ramallah. An Israeli-Canadian citizen, Amichai Ish-Ran, and this pregnant wife, Shira, were among seven people wounded in a drive-by shooting attack. The baby born prematurely as a result of the terrorist attack died on December 12, after doctors fought to save his life for close to 72 hours.

Hamas, which later claimed responsibility for the attack, was the first Palestinian faction to commend the terrorists. So far, not a single Palestinian faction has come out against the attack, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction.

Describing the shooting attack as a "heroic and qualitative operation," representatives of Hamas and several Palestinian factions said that it demonstrated that the Palestinian "resistance was still alive in the West Bank." They also called on Palestinians to "step up the intifada (uprising) against Israel, specifically settlers and Israel Defense Forces soldiers.

"The West Bank has taken the initiative of resisting the occupation," Hamas said in a statement published in the Gaza Strip shortly after the terrorist attack. The attack, Hamas added, "came to affirm our people's legitimate right to resist the occupation at a time when the occupation, together with Israel, had tried to criminalize our resistance."

This stance by Hamas points at two important factors; first, that Hamas and its allies are openly working and encouraging the eruption of a new anti-Israel uprising in the West Bank; and, second, that Hamas and its friends have been emboldened by the recent failure of the UN General Assembly to adopt a US-sponsored resolution condemning Hamas and other Palestinian groups for firing rockets at Israel and inciting violence.

Hamas's dream of spreading its ideology to all Palestinians is as old as its foundation 31 years ago. Hamas is not interested in ruling only the Gaza Strip. It wants the West Bank, Jerusalem, and all the land, "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." Hamas does not believe in negotiations or peaceful settlements. Rather, it believes that the only way to "liberate" Muslim land is through jihad. This goal is why, it says, it remains committed to the option of "armed struggle" against Israel.

As Hamas clearly states in its charter:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned." (Article 6)
The Hamas charter leaves no doubt as to the methods it believes should be used to employed to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian issue except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." (Article 13)
The Hamas charter, which is relevant today more than ever, states unambiguously that the movement "believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up. (Article 11).

From here, it is easy to understand why Hamas continues to celebrate and applaud every terrorist attack against Israel, whether in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or inside Israel proper. Hamas sees these "heroic and brave operations" as an implementation of its ideology of waging jihad to "liberate the land of Palestine." Even if the terrorists who carried out the recent shootings in the West Bank do not belong to Hamas, their attacks are completely compatible with Hamas's declared goals and ambitions, the most prominent of which is seeing Israel removed from the map.

Hamas has good reason to celebrate not only the attacks, but what it perceives as a series of "achievements" that it has gained in recent weeks. These "achievements" include the $30 million in Qatari cash grants that were delivered to Hamas in the past few weeks so that it can pay salaries and stipends to tens of thousands of its employees and supporters, as well as the failure of the UN General Assembly to adopt the anti-Hamas resolution. These two steps have left Hamas leaders laughing all the way to the next shooting attack on Israel.

The Qatari funds are being delivered to Hamas as part of unwritten understandings regarding a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. The purpose of the funds is to help solve the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and prevent the eruption of another major military confrontation between Hamas and Israel. Hamas, however, has thus far done nothing to stop the violence, including weekly protests that began last March along the border with Israel. On the contrary, Hamas is now saying -- and there is good reason to believe it -- that the demonstrations will continue. Hamas is also saying the that it was not required to pay any "political price" for a purported ceasefire.

The ceasefire understandings between Hamas and Israel, which were reportedly achieved through the mediation of Qatar, Egypt and the UN, are only related to the Gaza Strip, and have nothing to do with the West Bank. Because these understandings are limited to the Gaza Strip, Hamas, believes it has a green light to continue launching and directing terrorist attacks from the West Bank without being accused of violating the ceasefire.

The UN, Qatar and Egypt should have demanded that any ceasefire agreement include the West Bank, where Hamas still has several armed cells as well as significant support.

The Hamas-engineered attacks are not only a threat to Israeli civilians and soldiers; they also undermine the Western-funded Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas. Each "successful" attack carried out by Hamas earns it more popularity in the West Bank, at the cost of Abbas and his regime.

Evidently, members and friends of Hamas have interpreted the failure to adopt the US resolution as a pass from the UN and the international community to continue their "resistance" against Israel. They perceive the failure of the US administration as a "big achievement" -- one that permits the Palestinians to continue all forms of "resistance" against Israel, including the "armed struggle." It is no coincidence, then, that Hamas has responded to the debacle at the UN General Assembly by pledging to remain committed to an "armed struggle" against Israel.

Every dollar and every concession that is being made to Hamas will only increase its appetite to continue its plan to extend its control beyond the Gaza Strip. From Hamas's point of view, its plan has won legitimacy from the UN and important players in the region such as Qatar and Egypt. As long as Hamas feels that it is marching in the right direction, we are likely to see an increase in armed attacks and other forms of violence in the West Bank.

Now that Hamas is getting what it wants in the Gaza Strip -- millions of dollars and no war with Israel -- it is seeking to shift its attention to the West Bank, all with the help of its friends in Tehran. This has a twofold goal: to undermine or overthrow Abbas's Palestinian Authority, inflict heavy casualties on Israel, and thwart any peace plan brought forward by the US administration. In other words, Hamas and Iran now have their sights set on the West Bank, and this is reason not only for Israel to worry, but Abbas as well.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hizballah plans Hamas-style mob violence against IDF troops from the Lebanese border - debkaFile

by debkaFile

Hizballah strategists estimate that thousands of Shiite men, women and children can be mobilized to harass the Israeli soldiers unearthing its tunnels.

On Monday, Dec. 1, Hizballah activists began organizing groups of “demonstrators” in the Shiite villages of South Lebanon for mob assaults from behind the Lebanese border on the IDF teams excavating tunnels. They plan to take a leaf from the violent disturbances Hamas and Islamic Jihad staged against Israeli troops from the Gaza border for months. Hizballah strategists estimate that thousands of Shiite men, women and children can be mobilized to harass the Israeli soldiers unearthing its tunnels. By turning up at different points, they would seriously hamper the Israeli operation.

Since the IDF keeps to the Israeli side of the Lebanese border, these groups would at first be ordered to stay at least 20 meters from the soldiers’ excavation sites. Our exclusive sources add that Hizballah obtained a Lebanese army guarantee to secure the Shiite riots. Preparations appear to be in progress for the first outbreak to occur around the village of Meiss ej-Jabal in the Marj Ayoun district opposite Israeli Zar’it. This patch was chosen as the starting point for the crowd assault on Israeli troops because there is no fence or wall blocking access between Lebanon and Israel. This first pilot “demonstration” will be staged to test results and gauge Israel’s response. If the stratagem works for Hizballah, it will be expanded to other parts of the border.

A close watch is being kept on the Gaza Strip in case the Palestinian terrorists, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are closely aligned with Hizballah, decide to go back to their former full-scale rampages against Israeli troops as a “second front.” In the last few weeks, they were persuaded to slacken the violence by the intake of Qatari dollars.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Obama’s War is Upon Us - Kenneth R. Timmerman

by Kenneth R. Timmerman

How the ex-Radical-in-Chief created a security vacuum that Iran rushed to fill.

Donald Trump has a name for everything and everyone, from Crooked Hillary to Little Rocket Man, who for a time became his best friend. Will he call the next region-wide conflagration in the Middle East, when it breaks out, Obama’s War?

If he hasn’t thought of that already, he should start considering it now. Because the catastrophic policies of our former president have emboldened the Islamic state of Iran and enabled it to threaten the United States and our allies militarily in ways never before possible.

When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a strong U.S. military and diplomatic posture across the Middle East.

The U.S.-Israel strategic relationship was at its peak, with the Bush White House openly supporting Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s latest attempt to stop Hamas terror in Gaza.

The U.S. enjoyed a close relationship with a secular Turkey, that itself had strong ties to Israel.

Egypt was at peace, Qaddafi had come into the Western camp and abandoned terrorism and its nuclear weapons program, and the insurgency in Iraq had been crushed.

Al Qaeda truly was “on the run,” while Iran was beginning to feel the crunch of international sanctions over its previously covert nuclear weapons program.

Obama succeeded in reversing every one of these strong U.S. positions, treating Islamic Iran as a friend and Israel as an enemy while promoting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist spawn.

And while President Trump has taken great strides to reverse the enormous damage to our strategic posture Obama caused, fighting his way out of the spider’s web of Iran deal restrictions Obama enacted against the United States has taken nearly two years, time the Iranian regime has put to good use.

Iran today can bracket Israel with more than 150,000 rockets and guided missiles from the North and the South. That’s more than twenty times what it had available during the 2006 war. In addition to its proxies - Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the recently formed Golan Liberation Brigade in Syria – Iran now enjoys a “land bridge” directly linking it through Iraq and Syria to Israel’s northern border.

Terror chief Qais al Khazali, known for his attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, officially opened the land bridge by leading a military convoy from Iraq into Southern Lebanon in December 2017, where he did a stand-up for an Iranian-backed television network while surveying Israel from the Lebanese side of the border.

Khazali was acting on orders from Quds Force terror-meister, Qassem Suleymani, and met up in Beirut with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah before heading to the South.

At the same time, the Iranians and their local minions have been burrowing tunnels into Israel from Lebanon that the IDF began targeting last week.

From its bases in Yemen, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has lobbed missiles at the Saudi capitol, Riyadh, and at oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley forced the media to acknowledge these aggressive Iranian actions by unveiling Iranian missile fragments at a press conference at Andrews Air Force base exactly one year ago.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has now revealed that the ballistic missile Iran test-fired last week was capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads to targets as far away as Europe. Even the Europeans finally realize that the Iran deal did nothing to restrain Iran’s nuclear weapons development or tame its aggressive behavior. It was not the U.S. but France that convened the UN Security Council to condemn the Iranian test.

In a nutshell, Iran today is poised to wreak havoc across the Middle East and beyond with military and strategic capabilities it did not possess a decade ago, including the ability to target U.S. aircraft carriers with ground-based missiles.

Short of U.S. military force, the sole limiting factor on Iran’s actions will be the position of Russian President Vladmir Putin. Will Putin seek to restrain Iran? Or give the Iranian regime free reign?

This is one reason why it is so important for the U.S. President to maintain an open channel of communications to the Kremlin, meeting with Putin, say, at G-20 summit meetings and one-on-one.

Why do you think the anti-Israel Left is so eager to hog-tie President Trump in Russia witch hunt investigations, forcing him to downscale relations with the Russians to the point that the two leaders no longer talk, at least not in public? Because they actually favor a strong Iran and see it and Russia as constraints on the evil United States. As Obama put it in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2016, “We’ve bound our power to international laws and institutions.”

Russia signaled a strategic shift in its position toward a potential Iranian-led regional war on September 17, when a Syrian air defense crew downed a Russian Ilyushin-20 spy plane over Syrian air space, killing all fourteen Russian crewmen on board.

Putin could have called it a “tragic accident,” which indeed it was. Instead, he blamed Israel for the attack.

Until then, Israel enjoyed a special relationship with Russia when it came to Syria. The IDF had a hot line to the Russian defense ministry, which it used to give a heads up before Israeli air strikes against Iranian positions inside Syria. The result: not a single Russia missile was ever fired at an IDF fighter jet.

When a particularly large strike was in the offing, Prime Minister Netanyahu would fly to Moscow to brief Putin ahead of time. With Putin’s green light, Israel then decimated IRGC and Hezbollah positions.

All of that changed after September 17.

Today, Putin refuses to meet with Netanyahu and the Russian military has rejected Israeli efforts to deconflict its operations in Syria with the Russians.

Last month, Russia turned over operational control of its sophisticated S-300/400 air defense batteries in Syria to the Syrian military, a clear sign that restraint toward IDF fighter jets was over.

On November 29, Israeli showed that it takes these moves seriously, launching its first-ever major strike on Iranian Quds Force position inside Syria using surface-to-surface missiles and long-range artillery. By using unmanned weapons, Israel avoided the possibility that Syrian air defense batteries could shoot down an IDF jet or that Israel might inadvertently kill a Russian military advisor.

After that attack, Netanyahu met in Brussels with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, where the two pledged to work in tandem to contain Iranian “aggression.”

“As we have been warning for some time, Iran’s missile testing and missile proliferation is growing. We are accumulating risk of escalation in the region if we fail to restore deterrence,” Pompeo said.

Taken as a whole, I believe Iran actually welcomes U.S. and Israeli military action, now that Russia has made clear it will no longer restrain Iran. Seen from Tehran, they have many cards to play, including the activation of Iran’s vast underground terror networks in North America and Europe and an ability to target U.S. military bases in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region.

Successive U.S. administrations have a bad track record of holding the Islamic state of Iran accountable for its aggression. We never responded to the 1983 attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon, nor did we hit Iran for its direct material involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.

While Team Trump has reimposed sanctions and escalated the rhetoric, it has yet to take military action against Iran’s Islamic regime. But when that happens, make no mistake: the United States will be fighting Obama’s war.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of "ISIS Begins, a Novel of the Iraq War."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump sprang three traps on Pelosi and Schumer yesterday - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

And they are walking right into the next two with their eyes wide open

President Trump clearly shocked House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday with his televising of the Oval Office sit-down over his demand for $5 billion in funding for border security, including funding of critical mileage for his border wall. Knowing well that Pelosi had already vowed publicly that "transparency and openness" would characterize the Democrat-run House starting next month, her plaintive request to speak in private scored points for Trump and revealed her hypocrisy before any substance at all was considered.

The remarkable body language during the meeting tells the story of Trump's dominance. Here is the full video of the press gaggle:

That was merely the first of three traps Trump had prepared for the Democrats' congressional leadership.

Trump's second trap is his bold declaration of ownership of any "government shutdown." Democrats have convinced themselves that what is called a "shutdown," but really means furloughing non-essential federal workers, is a tragedy, a scar on the nation's psyche. The fact that federal workers are now a major and solid constituency for Democrats skews their perception of the public's concern. Aside from canceling sleigh rides in national parks and other such photo drama, the fact is that life goes on well for nearly all Americans during the furlough. They learn that there are a lot of non-essential government workers.

After multiple shutdowns, including the last one that bore the label "Schumer Shutdown" and was quickly conceded by the Democrats, the public is no longer afraid of non-essential services (roughly 25% of the government) being temporarily suspended.

Chuck Schumer took the bait on the second trap, and after the Oval Office meeting, he employed triumphantly the term "Trump Shutdown" as if he had won a victory through Trump's surrender. Thus fortified, he is more likely to take Trump's dare and refuse funding for adequate border security and metaphorically throw Bre'r Trump into the briar patch.

The third trap is maneuvering the Senate Democrats into standing for open borders, or at least ineffective border security. The current House of Representatives will pass the funding. It is the Senate, where a 60-vote filibuster could be employed, that would be the obstacle.

Never forget that Trump was the most successful producer of reality television in the history of the medium. He understands drama and a story arc. Chuck Schumer leading a Senate filibuster right before Christmas to stymie border protection is exactly the story Trump wants the nation's TV-viewers to absorb. 

He is immeasurably aided in crafting his third trap narrative by the Democrats' acceptance of and belief in the narratives peddled by their allies in the mainstream media. Just as they believe that the voters share their own horror over a "partial government shutdown," they also believe their own rhetoric about a wall being "immoral" (Pelosi) or "wasteful" (Schumer).

But the arrival of the Central American caravan and the reaction of Tijuana's political leadership and citizens have changed the game. The "race card" (more properly, the "ethnicity card" for Hispanics) no longer trumps (pun intentional) the hand being played by Trump. It is obvious that a substantial portion of the populace of Central America would like to enter the United States and take advantage of our free schooling for their children; food stamps; the refundable tax credit (which doesn't refund taxes, but sends a check to poor families who file tax returns without owing any taxes); Section 8 housing; and, when their kids are ready for college, race preferences.

Trump knows he would win in the court of public opinion, by making the point that the Democrats want to let more illegals into the country, and that failure to reinforce the border will mean more caravans, more terrorists, and more welfare clients entering our country.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Brexit: Now What? - David Brown

by David Brown

MPs will be torn. The establishment does not want a no-deal Brexit. But their constituents -- the people who voted them to be their voice in Parliament -- do.

  • Ardent Brexiteers are increasingly despondent. Many had hoped for a vote of no confidence in Theresa May with a strong Leave-supporting leader installed in her place, prepared to take the United Kingdom out of the untransparent, unaccountable and unable-to-be-voted-out EU.
  • Instead, Theresa May's "deal" not to leave the EU makes the UK a vassal state, locked into the EU but without a voice. Leave voters did not vote for a "deal". They voted to take back the Britain's sovereignty.
  • MPs will be torn. The establishment does not want a no-deal Brexit. But their constituents -- the people who voted them to be their voice in Parliament -- do.
  • Politicians voting to remain in the EU would be doing it in flamboyant disregard of the will of the people -- the very people they need to be re-elected.

British Prime Minister Theresa May gives a speech in London after surviving a vote of no confidence in her Conservative Party on December 12, 2018. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

Theresa May has survived a no confidence vote in her Conservative Party. She says she now has a renewed mission; "delivering the Brexit people voted for, bringing the country back together and building a country that works for everyone".

Whether she has any troops willing to follow her charge is unclear.

Just 200 Conservative MPs voted for her to stay on as leader of the party; 117 voted against. Many of those who voted for her said they will vote down her Brexit deal nonetheless.

As a result of this challenge, MPs cannot call another vote of no confidence for 12 months, meaning that Theresa May will be the woman to succeed or fail in taking Britain out of the European Union.

Many questions are still unanswered by this vote. If Parliament looks set to vote down her deal -- especially with so many in her own party apparently planning voting against her -- where on earth will Brexit go from here??

To trigger a confidence vote, 15% of Conservative MPs must submit letters of no confidence to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the parliamentary group of the Conservative Party in the UK House of Commons.

Once at least 48 letters were received, Sir Graham Brady, the Chairman of the 1922 Committee alerted May that there would be a vote of confidence in her continuing as party leader. May was determined to contest this vote as soon as possible. So it was scheduled for 6pm Wednesday. The process is ruthless. As a result, on the streets of the U.K., there is a great deal of sympathy for Theresa May

Abby Handbridge, a trader at Chapel Market in north London, said, "I feel really sorry for Theresa May. She's being battered by everybody and Boris Johnson has just come out with a haircut and weight loss so we know what he is looking for."

Some suggested that she might resign at the news of the vote, in exasperation as much as anything else.

Doubters, however, were surprised. Theresa May, in fighting form, bowled out of Number Ten to address the press. "I will contest that vote with everything I've got", she said. She then defiantly restated her priorities: "delivering the Brexit people voted for... And I stand ready to finish the job".

Her win, nevertheless, was not without a huge concession to Conservative MPs. She promised that she will not lead the party into the next election in 2022.

The key message, according to deputy Tory chairman James Cleverly, was that it would be "a very, very bad time to replace the prime minister". Or it might have more like: I know you don't want me, but you need me for now. Not quite the "strong and stable" leadership she promised in her election campaign in 2017.

Winning this vote has been positive in one sense for the Prime Minister. The Leave rebels who mounted this failed coup against her are now on the back foot; arguably, she no longer needs to placate them with her deal.

In addition, her dogged determination seems widely admired. She has proved to be a remarkably hard to get rid of, like some sort of ailment. Which of us could withstand the same?

Critics say she had to win by a decent margin to have any authority, yet a huge 37% of her own party are against her. She is fatally wounded. What authority is wielded by a Prime Minister surviving a no confidence vote in her own party by a narrow margin?

Ardent Brexiteers are increasingly despondent. Many had hoped for a vote of no confidence in Theresa May with a strong Leave-supporting leader installed in her place, prepared to take the United Kingdom out of the untransparent, unaccountable and unable-to-be-voted-out EU.

Instead, Theresa May's "deal" not to leave the EU makes the UK a vassal state, locked into the EU but without a voice. Leave voters did not vote for a "deal". They voted to take back the Britain's sovereignty.

At present, Britain remains perched at the edge of a cliff and unsure how it will make a descent or in which direction. Will she leave the EU with no deal, or go for a hideous climb down from Brexit: an extension of Article 50 -- which says that by law Britain will leave the EU on March 29, 2019 -- and the likelihood of a second referendum?

By defeating the Brexit rebels in the vote of confidence, there is a real possibility she will now return to parliament with a deal that is even more pleasing to the Remain side. Otherwise, if her deal fails to pass through the Commons, it is possible she will allow Parliament to vote: either to keep Britain in the EU, or to leave the EU with no deal.

MPs will be torn. The establishment does not want a no-deal Brexit. They have fought it for over two years. But their constituents -- the people who voted them to be their voice in Parliament -- do. 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of Labour constituencies voted Leave.

Politicians voting to remain in the EU would be doing it in flamboyant disregard of the will of the people -- the very people they need to be re-elected.

Theresa May has said there will not be a second referendum whilst she is leader of the party. Recent history nevertheless suggests her words are cheap. Five times in 2016 and 2017 she said there would not be a general election -- before calling one just three months later in June 2018.

Theresa May says she has a renewed mission -- to deliver Brexit and bring the country back together. She may have won the battle, but she seems doomed to lose the war.

David Brown is based in the United Kingdom.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Europe's Jew-Hating Virus - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

Is the influx of Muslim migrants dampening or feeding it?

The recent CNN survey on Anti-Semitism in Europe is alarming, but not surprising.  Anti-Semitism in Europe is a 2,000-year old malady with ever changing manifestations.  As soon as Christianity became the State religion under Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I, persecution of Jews began. Edicts against Jews appeared soon thereafter.  The anti-Semitism of the middle ages was religious in nature, or as some would call it, anti-Judaism.  Jews were forbidden from proselytizing, and offering circumcision to their servants.  Jews were denied citizenship, and the rights that came with it.  They were barred from holding posts in government and the military, excluded from guilds, and professions.   

During the First Crusade (1096CE), Jews endured anti-Semitic violence in France (Metz) and Germany (Worms and Trier).  Jews were herded into synagogues, and burned alive for alleged deicide (Killing of Jesus, a Jew himself).  Jews were accused of desecration of the Host, and ritual murder, allegedly sacrificing Christian children to use their blood for Passover.  The most famous case took place in 12th century England, with the murder of William of Norwich.  Such unfounded accusations were revived periodically in Eastern and central Europe throughout the medieval and modern times.  Consider the Beilis case. Menachem Mendel Beilis was a Russian Jew accused of ritual murder in Kiev (Ukraine’s capital).  In the notorious 1913 trial, Beilis was ultimately acquitted, but the legal process sparked international criticism of the anti-Semitic policies of the Tsarist regime.  The Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and other parts of Europe was another chapter of European anti-Semitism based on religious intolerance and hate.

The economic success of Jews, particularly in trade and banking, elicited Christian envy which prompted the forced expulsion of Jews from several European countries.  It began in England in 1290, followed by France in the 14th century, Germany in the 1350’s, Spain 1492, Portugal 1496, Provence 1512, and the Papal States in 1569.  The Spanish Inquisition was the culmination of Catholic anti-Judaism.  It forced Jews to convert to Catholicism or be expelled from Spain.  Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation did not spare the Jews.  At first Luther decried the Catholic treatment of the Jews, but when Jews refused to convert to his newly reformed Christianity, Lutheranism became notoriously anti-Semitic.  Hitler and the Nazis invoked Luther’s calumny against Jews.

Modern anti-Semitism no longer focused solely on religion.  With many European Jews being baptized (Benjamin Disraeli being one example), anti-Semites needed a new way to isolate and persecute Jews.  Jewish intellectual and economic achievements fostered envy, and resentment. It gave rise to notorious political hate-mongers, and it ushered in anti-Semitism that was based on racist rather than religious grounds.  Despite the liberating impact of the Enlightenment, nationalistic sentiments in Europe targeted Jews as the “outsiders.” The infamous Tsarist forgery called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion increased anti-Jewish violence.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894-1906) exposed French anti-Semitism.

Racial theorists such as Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) advanced the theory in which race explained everything in the human experience.  Jews were relegated to be a non-Aryan, Semitic race. In 1873, Wilhelm Marr, a German agitator, coined the term “anti-Semitism.”  He wrote a pamphlet titled “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom.”  In 1879, he founded the League of Anti-Semitism.  Also in 1879, Heinrich Treitschke, a German historian, wrote the phrase “The Jews are our misfortune,” later used by Hitler.  In 1900, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an Englishman who settled in Germany wrote, “The Foundation of the 19th Century,” in which he characterized Germans as honest, loyal, and industrious, to be contrasted by Jews who he argued, were materialistic, legalistic, and devoid of tolerance and morality.  These are some of the sources that preceded the Holocaust and gave ammunition to Nazi Germany to perpetrate the greatest crime in history.

Today’s anti-Semitism in Europe has assumed a new phase.  It is no longer religious, and its racist manifestations are hidden in the guise of anti-Israelism.  The above mentioned CNN poll interviewed 7,092 adults online in seven countries between September 7 and September 20, 2018.  The surveyed countries included Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Sweden.  CNN indicated, “More than a Quarter of Europeans polled believe Jews have too much influence in business and finance.  Nearly one in four said Jews have too much influence in conflict and wars across the world.”  The poll disclosed that one in five Europeans, especially young Europeans, claimed they have never heard of the Holocaust.  It confirmed my longstanding assertion that the moratorium over the shame and guilt due to Nazi Germany’s and the other European countries’ collusion in the murder of Six Million Jews, including 1,500,000 Jewish children, has long been over.  Europeans have assuaged their guilt by maliciously and falsely equating Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians with the Nazis treatment of the Jews.

A third of the people CNN interviewed said that “Israel uses the Holocaust to justify its actions.”  Similarly, a third of Europeans said “supporters of Israel use accusations of anti-Semitism to shut down criticism of Israel, while only one in 10 said that was not true.”  A third of Europeans said commemorating the Holocaust distracts from other atrocities today, with higher than average numbers of Germans, Austrians, Poles, and Hungarians stating that.  Germans and Austrians were the main perpetrators of the Holocaust, while Poles and Hungarians murdered Jews in their own countries during the Shoah.  More than a quarter of the respondents (28%) said “most anti-Semitism in their countries was a response to the actions of the state of Israel, and nearly one in five (18%) said “anti-Semitism in their countries was a response to the everyday behavior of Jewish people.” 

Europeans and the European Union often condemn Israeli actions of self-defense, and responses to Palestinian terror.  It is clear that Israel, being the corporate Jew is held responsible, or rather, is a traditional scapegoat for European frustrations with their own ineptness in combatting Islamist terror. It goes especially well with the traditional European anti-Semitism that also blamed the “Black Plague” on the Jews.  Jews practiced ritual bathing and dietary cleanliness at a time when few Europeans did the same. 

About two-thirds of the respondents guessed too high when asked what percentage of the world population was Jewish.  Similar numbers got the answer wrong for their own countries.  They were off by a factor of 100.  Only about 0.2% of the world population is Jewish, according to Pew Research.

The overestimates came, according to CNN, even as majorities or near-majorities in every country polled said they were not aware of ever having met a Jewish person.  Two-thirds of Germans, Austrians and Poles said they did not think they had ever socialized with a Jew, whereas about half of the people of Britain, France, Hungary and Sweden said the same.

Unlike Muslims in Europe, Jews were easy scapegoats because they were a smaller minority.  At their highest number, on the eve of the Holocaust in 1939, 9 million Jews lived in Europe, compared to 25.8 million Muslims in Europe today.  Jews moreover, were not violent, and did not pose a terrorist threat.

Anti-Semitism in Europe is an endemic virus, and it has been re-invigorated by the influx to Europe of Arab and Iranian Muslim migrants from the Middle East.  In addition to traditional Islamic hatred of Jews (who did not accept Muhammad’s offer to convert to his new faith), these Muslim migrants brought with them a deep hatred for Israel, which has conveniently served native European anti-Semites from both the political far left and right. 

Joseph Puder


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

No, Republicans are not the ones who are soft on crime - Jack Hellner

by Jack Hellner

The Democrats have a lot to answer for on the unpunished white-collar political crime front.

Republicans, of all people, are being called soft on crime. Here is what Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell wrote recently:
Is the GOP the law and order party? Not so much.
For a party that claims to be “tough on crime,” Republicans seem pretty confused by what it means to hold criminals to account.
Particularly when it comes to white-collar crimes, or really any crimes committed by rich people.
In reality, the reason Manafort wasn’t prosecuted ages ago — despite the many red flags over the years — has little to do with politics and more to do with the fact that the United States has basically stopped prosecuting white-collar crimes.
Consider the sweetheart plea deal given to Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, which the Miami Herald recently reported on in damning detail.
Ummm, well, ahem. While I agree with Rampell about crime not being enforced, blaming of Republicans for this is a little hard to swallow. In fact, she is tremendously confused when she pretends that journalists such as herself and other Democrats have ever cared about pardons by Democratic presidents or criminal activity by powerful Democrats. She and other Democrats absolutely can’t stand it if Trump pardons Paul Manafort after he was found guilty of campaign finance law violations.

Let's start with Bill Clinton.

The story of Jeffrey Epstein, who was running a pedophile transport service, was out there when Hillary Clinton was running for president and Democrats didn't care about putting Bill and Hillary back in the White House with that going on, but now journalists all of a sudden care about the case.

Here is a May 2016 Fox News report showing just that, and here is another Fox report from July 2016.

Here is one from a July 2015 story on Politico.

And don't forget the final signature move of Bill Clinton's presidency, his pardon of white collar commodity crook Marc Rich in exchange for campaign donations.

Clinton pardon of Rich a saga of power, money

President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is a saga of secrecy, tenacity, sleight of hand and pressure from Rich's ex-wife and one of her friends, who together have steered millions of dollars to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's causes and those of fellow Democrats.
Whether it is a story of bribery as well or illegal gifts from abroad is the subject of congressional inquiries and a criminal investigation by the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office in New York.
Bill Clinton acutally sold a pardon to the wealthy Marc Rich in exchange for political donations. The Clintons, of course, continued to sell access throughout their political careers and journalists and Democrats knowingly supported putting them back in the White House showing laws don’t matter, only the agenda.

Clinton's lawlessness didn't stop there. He also pardoned terrorists for political purposes - remember these headlines?
11 Puerto Rican nationalists freed from prison
President Obama’s Pardon for Oscar Lopez Rivera Trades a Terrorist for Votes
Now let's move on to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary, her aides and President Obama repeatedly violated the nation’s security laws and Democrats, including the media, didn't care. I don't even have to link it, it's so well known.
Now let's move to President Obama:

Here's a choice headline from his presidency:

Obama Granted Clemency Unlike Any Other President In History

And on Obama's watch, white collar scientists repeatedly committed fraud on the public by manipulating climate data and not only don't Democrats care, they just repeat the fraudulent numbers as if they are true.

Democrat manque Planned Parenthood crushed and crunched babies while preserving body parts to sell illegally and not only didn't democrats care, they threatened to shut down government if they didn't continue to get a $500 million taxpayer allowance.
Then there are the Democrats in Congress. Anybody remember this one?

Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.
But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.
Members of Congress from both parties used taxpayer funds to keep the public from knowing about sexual harassment claims but now Democrats, including journalists say Trump should be charged with a crime for using personal funds to pay off blackmailers. Shouldn’t all members of Congress be charged with campaign finance law violations since these hidden settlements were kept from the public so politicians could be reelected?
Meanwhile, downstream in Democratville, powerful Democratic political operatives, such as Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick and James Johnson committed massive fraud at Fannie Mae, yet Democrats didn't care. Remember this?
Senior executives at Fannie Mae manipulated accounting to collect millions of dollars in undeserved bonuses and to deceive investors, a federal report charged Tuesday. The government-sponsored mortgage company was fined $400 million.
Would pardoning Manafort be worse than any of this? The Justice Department that did everything to let people off throughout Obama's eight years clearly targeted people around Trump for special prosecution. That certainly doesn't pass the smell test for equal justice.
It is a joke that Democrats are the party of law and order. They are the party that wants the government to have power. They gladly supported the corrupt Senator Bob Menendez for reelection.

People who supported putting the Clintons back in the White House, who support sanctuary cities and states that refuse to abide by laws Congress passed, and who had no problem with the Justice Department protecting Hillary and others who worked for Obama no matter which laws they broke while targeting Trump and those surrounding him have zero credibility talking about law and order and equal treatment under the law.

Jack Hellner


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Jihad in Strasbourg - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

Cherif Chekatt reminds Emmanuel Macron that climate change is not the only threat France faces.

Emmanuel Macron, France’s youthful wunderkind, Europe’s poster child for globalism and socialism, has been absorbed lately with furious protests and riots over a confiscatory new tax he placed on gasoline in order to fight what he thinks of as the greatest threat France and the world face today: climate change. But on Tuesday in Strasbourg, a Muslim named Cherif Chekatt reminded Macron that France faces another threat, one that could prove to be immensely more serious: jihad. Chekatt opened fire at a Christmas market in his native Strasbourg, murdering four and injuring eleven.

As of this writing, Chekatt is on the run, and in a departure from the recent tendency to wave away all such attacks as manifestations of “mental illness” and insist that they’re not terrorism, much less jihad, French authorities are, according to the Telegraph, “treating the attack as a terrorist act. Anti-terrorist prosecutors have opened an investigation.”

In fact, Chekatt was “on a list of ‘security threats,’” France’s “Fiche S” list of people who pose a serious terror threat. RT reported that the regional prefecture announced: “The author of these acts, listed as a security threat, had been sought by police” on Tuesday, but they hadn’t been able to catch up with him before he opened fire. A former London police inspector, Peter Kirkham, explained to RT: “There are so many people that are involved around the edges of this sort of terrorism if this is what it turns out to be, that you can't keep any sort of meaningful surveillance on them. Even just monitoring the use of communications and social media would be too much.”

And that’s especially true when, like Macron, you don’t want to admit that there is any significant threat at all. But it is also a situation that the Islamic State (ISIS) has been working actively to bring about. As I explain in detail in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, in 2015 the Islamic State (ISIS) published Black Flags from Rome, detailing its strategy for conquering Europe. It explains how, as the Muslim population of Europe increases, intelligence agencies collect huge amounts of data, “but they will not study it unless you are caught under the radar.” As jihad attacks become more common, law enforcement authorities will not be able to keep up:
As the Western nations get poorer, their intelligence collection agencies will continue to exist, but they simply won’t have enough manpower (less jobs) to analyse it all. With less attacks in the West being group (networked) attacks and an increasing amount of lone-wolf attacks, it will be more difficult for intelligence agencies to stop an increasing amount of violence and chaos from spreading in the West.
As this violence and chaos spreads, Leftist non-Muslim Europeans will help pave the way for the Islamic conquest of Europe, for
a growing population of left-winged [sic] activists (people who are against; human/animal abuses, Zionism, and Austerity measures etc) look upto [sic] the Muslims as a force who are strong enough to fight against the injustices of the world….Many of these people (who are sometimes part of Anonymous and Anarchy movements) will ally with the Muslims to fight against the neo-Nazis’ and rich politicians. They will give intelligence, share weapons and do undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome.
When will this alliance be cemented? When, sooner or later, Leftist protesters realize that taking up arms alongside Muslims is the only viable way of achieving their goals:
If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism). It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made, and a portion from them will realise that protests are not effective, and that armed combat is the alternative. So they will start to work together in small cells of groups to fight and sabotage against the ‘financial elite’.
Three years later, this plan is working beautifully. And so Cherif Chekatt will fade quickly from the headlines, and the jihad threat will again be downplayed, until the next one. Meanwhile, watch in the coming days for the handwringing establishment media stories about how the local mosque in Strasbourg fears a “backlash,” and that Muslims are the real victims of jihad terror attacks. It always works the same way, like clockwork. That is, until the day that it doesn’t. One day soon the disingenuousness and cynicism of this establishment media propaganda will be obvious to everyone. But by then it will likely be far too late for Emmanuel Macron, and France.

Robert Spencer


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Islamist migrants - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Islamist thinkers see emigration as an opportunity to conquer the places in which they choose to live and turn them into Islamic states.

In the West, if a person's birthplace affords  him a feeling of security, a good education, a decent way to make a living, a nice home to live in and a partner with whom to raise a family – that person usually does not try his luck in another country. Emigration becomes a realistic option only when one or more of these elements is not provided for by the land of his birth.

In the Muslim world, emigration is understood in an entirely different fashion and is based on the precedent set by Islam's prophet, Mohammed, who was humiliated, despised and almost murdered in his birthplace, Mecca. The antagonism shown him was the result of the doomsday prophecies he dealt the people of the city and his attempts to "reeducate" them. After leaving Mecca in 622 A.D., he moved to Medina and there, after a period of about two years, became ruler and military commander, as well as statesman. 

Mohammed is seen as the ideal role model in Islam, one who cannot possibly mislead his followers, the leader whose every act was guided by a heavenly hand. That means that every Muslim, wherever he is and in whatever situation he finds himself, must follow in Mohammed's footsteps and attempt to imitate his behavior. Since emigration led to a rise in Mohammed's status, his takeover of Medina and its becoming an Islamic city, Islamist thinkers see emigration as an opportunity to conquer the places in which they choose to live and turn them into Islamic states.

The millions of Muslims rapping on the doors of Europe over the last few years come from failed, war-torn states, rife with unemployment, neglect and despair. They are in search of a secure environment, honorable employment, education for their children, a roof over their heads and safe, fulfilling lives. Once they achieve economic stability in their host state, many also integrate culturally and become part of the society in which they have found themselves. They break their ties to Islamic tradition, eat whatever is put on their plates and drink whatever is poured into their cups.

In contrast, however, there are millions of Muslims settled in Europe who have a clear objective: Staying loyal to their religious tradition while strengthening its status in Europe. They make demands whose goal is turning the host country into an even more welcoming one: They see to the availability of Halal foods sans alcohol and pork, courts acting according to Islamic Sharia law instead of local statutes, non-marking of Christian holidays, eliminating Holocaust education that includes the genocide of the Jews, the establishment of a banking system according to Islamic law, and allowing Muslim women to wear the niqab covering their faces in the public sphere. They want their women treated by female medical personnel and not by males, as well as many other demands whose objective is to turn the host country into a place that will attract more Islamist migrants.

To anyone whose keeps his eyes open, it is abundantly clear that those Muslim migrants who do not integrate into the European host country's society intend to turn that state into an Islamic entity. They do not have to fire a single bullet to accomplish this – and it is perfectly fine with them if the process takes decades, because the Koran states that "Allah is with those who are patient,"   so the Islamic world is quite capable of waiting patiently until its goals are achieved. 

Muammar Qaddafi, former Libyan president, once said that "we Muslims do not have to fire a single shot against Europe, because our emigration and high birth rate will do the job." The problem with the Europeans is that they are forced to accept migrants because of their failing demographics. Two World Wars within one century reduced their population by tens of millions (in addition to six million Jews) and when added to their low birth rates, make for a drastic lack in manpower.

Those who are left are interested in the law, accounting, journalism, hi-tech and the performing arts. Who is left to work in the factories? Who is willing to be a greengrocer? a taxi driver? a deliveryman? That's where the migrants come in and provide an answer.

Europe is progressing in an Islamic direction - slowly but surely. The core problem is that Europe is infected with political correctness, a blind belief in multiculturalism, and guilt feelings about what Europeans did to indigenous peoples worldwide. For those reasons, anyone talking against migrants is immediately labeled anti-human rights, anyone who voices concern about his own people is called a racist, anyone worried about his country's future is deemed a "Fascist", while anyone who expresses worry for both his country and its people is called a "Nazi."  

This attitude stifles any criticism of immigrants, although many of them live on the dole and their percentage among those imprisoned is far higher than their percentage of the general population. The reason for both phenomena is that the basic values of the host nations – hard work and law observance– have not been absorbed by most of the migrants.

The rules of the political game have been changed in Europe in response to the massive Islamic migration to that continent over the past few years: The nationalist right parties- not the neo- Nazis -  considered unacceptable up to five years ago because of their perceived racism,  have become most popular parties. There is a well-founded possibility that Austria and Hungary will not remain the only countries with  a right-leaning political orientation.

Europe's public space has changed: Terror in the streets, like the attack in Strasbourg this week and in many other cities in the past, street riots of the kind Parisians have been witnessing for weeks, entire areas the police are afraid to enter and ever growing portions of the economic pie allocated to migrants in the form of unemployment benefits, maternity grants and other stipends dedicated to helping migrants, which also encourage future waves of migration. 

This cannot go on forever. One of the possible scenarios is that the political right unites to act resolutely against the waves of migration by legislative means and by deporting migrants back to their country of origin. Even if the left disagrees, it has no practical solutions to the problem and the public is not stupid. 

The real solution will come about when the Europeans realize that without bringing children into the world, there is no future for their civilization and its culture. They must first change the image of marriage as an institution, because all the substitutes for it have not encouraged women to decide to become mothers. At the same time, Europeans have to consider granting economic benefits to couples who have more than three children. The problem is that at present, there is no legal way, when encouraging large families, to differentiate between "European" families and Islamic families who have attained citizenship. 

Europe is at an impasse that will lead to cultural suicide if the rules of the game are not changed fundamentally.  Israel has to find new friends in Eastern Asia, South America and, of course, the USA, because in the very near future, an Islamist Europe will not be pro-Israel.

Written for Arutz Sheva in Hebrew, translated into English by Rochel Sylvetsky

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter