Saturday, March 9, 2019

What Happened to Israel’s Sovereignty at its Borders? - Douglas Altabef

by Douglas Altabef

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles  Bensoussan

The clear implication is that Israel has no right to patrol and guard and control its sovereign territory as it sees fit.

Thousands of Gazans riot at the border with Israel, throwing live grenades and explosives at IDF soldiers and into Israeli territory
Photo Credit: IDF Spokesperson's Office via Twitter

We have internalized the idea that individual nations are sovereign – independent, and in control of their respective countries. They protect their own borders, using soldiers who are part of an army of that sovereign power.

All countries respect the rights of other countries to exert their sovereignty in such ways as a particular nation sees fit.

It all sounds well and good, but it all breaks down in the case of Israel. When Israel seeks to protect its borders or transition points to sensitive areas, it is frequently met with contempt – contempt for its soldiers guarding these locations, and, by extension, contempt for the nation itself.

How is this manifested? “Observers” routinely hover at checkpoints or guardhouses to “monitor” the behavior of the soldiers manning them. In practice, this monitoring often takes the form of subtle or not so subtle harassment, in which observers film soldiers at extremely close range, hoping to provoke a reaction from a soldier that can go viral as an act of oppression, or even a war crime.

Much of this contemptuous behavior is undertaken or sponsored by the European Union, individual European governments or NGOs connected with them.

What is the significance of this despicable behavior?  First and foremost, it shows a complete disregard and derogation of Israeli sovereignty. The clear implication is that Israel has no right to patrol and guard and control its sovereign territory as it sees fit.

Did these countries not get the memo informing the world some 70 years ago that Israel was now an independent nation, just like all the member states of the United Nations? Or is this part of the creeping and creepy morphing of the European Union into an imperialist entity that is uncaring as to national borders and nation states in general?

One senses that even with the EU’s transnational orientation, Israel is a special case. There is the clear sense that somehow Israel’s sovereignty is contingent and conditional; it exists at the sufferance of the European nations from whom most of Israel’s founders fled.

It is no secret that the EU and most Western European countries support the Palestinians. They are eager to see a Palestinian state come into existence, regardless of the security implications that would entail for Israel.

The policies of successive Israeli governments have therefore been maddening to varying degrees. From the European perspective, the Netanyahu government has been one of the worst, because there has been no movement, no meaningful concessions, to reaching the goal of Palestinian statehood.

So, Europeans have decided to use the back door. They employ anti-Zionist Israeli NGOs to espouse the policies that they, the Europeans, are seeking to implement. The idea here is that if actual Israelis push for these policies there will be a greater likelihood that their government will comply.

At the same time, the Europeans have chosen to react as if the problem didn’t exist, meaning as if there was no Israeli sovereignty to begin with.

This attitude is manifested in the harassment of soldiers at checkpoints and at sensitive locations such as Hebron. Harassing the soldiers of a foreign country is akin to not recognizing the legitimacy of that country, nor the soldiers who serve it.

Until recently, Israel has chosen to endure this state of affairs. Army protocols allow for civilians to approach soldiers and to film them in close proximity. The government typically does not interfere with the resulting harassment by arresting or deporting those who undertake it.

Fortunately, change is coming because Zionist organizations and citizens are revolted by the free hand that these loathers have had.

One effort undertaken by Im Tirtzu, Israel’s largest grassroots Zionist organization, is particularly promising. Im Tirtzu has recruited a group of volunteer “Video Commandos,” who have been fighting fire with fire, employing the same rights of proximity exploited by the demonizers.

The Video Commandos recently achieved a significant victory when the primarily Scandinavian EAPPI, an affiliate of the anti-Zionist World Council of Churches, announced that they were leaving Hebron because of the “harassment” their volunteers had recently been subjected to.

That “harassment” was nothing more than turning the tables on them, presenting EAPPI with a new reality. Suddenly, the Video Commandos were showing exactly what EAPPI members were doing in their efforts to demonize soldiers.

That new reality, and the prospect that the anti-Israel activities of these provocateurs will be widely broadcasted to the Israeli public, is a powerful tool.

At a time when our soldiers are being harassed by these filmers with impunity, there is nothing more fitting than to fight fire with fire. 

Douglas Altabef


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The dinosaurs and the Palestinian state - Dror Eydar

by Dror Eydar

The Palestinians have never sought an independent state. All they ever wanted was for the Jews not to have one. Meanwhile, we speak up on behalf of our enemies and assign them ideals they have never held.

Chaim Weizmann and Emir Faisal in Aqaba, Transjordan, April 1918     Photo: Wikipedia 

You still hear serious people talking out loud about the two-state solution as a reasonable – even inevitable – possibility to the conflict between us and the Arabs of the region: dividing the good land and establishing an Arab state on the hills of Judea and Samaria, which could wind up connecting to the Hamas state in the Gaza Strip to the west and the state of Jordan to the east.

Exactly 100 years have passed since the division of the land was first suggested in the 1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement, after World War I. Eighteen years later, in 1937, the Peel Commission (convened to investigate the bloody events of 1936) proposed dividing the land, and a decade later, on Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. voted in favor of the partition plan. The Arabs refused, and their response was war.

The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded before the "occupation" of the 1967 Six-Day War. Its goal was to "liberate all the land from the Zionists." Our country was then quite small in size, and still the organization's terrorists wanted it. The goal hasn't changed; it has sometimes been disguised to delude naïve, liberal, self-righteous Jews in the West.

The Oslo Accords came into being after the PLO was on the mat after backing Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein during the First Persian Gulf War. The Palestinians supported any murderous dictator who served their purposes. In Oslo, the government under then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin put the dying organization on artificial life support and brought tens of thousands of terrorists whom we had armed into western Israel to force the division of the country and fulfill their dream of peace. If the Jews don't acknowledge their right to their own land and revive their sworn enemies from the ashes, we can expect nothing more from Europe or the U.S. That is how the organization of terrorists became the official, respectable representative of the supposed forthcoming Palestinian state.

It didn't happen. The Palestinian Arabs never asked for an independent state alongside ours; mainly, they wanted the Jews not to have a state. The Jews, for their part, insist on speaking on behalf of their enemies and attaching all sorts of nice ideas to them which they never held. Article 20 of the PLO charter decrees that the Jews are only a religion, not a nation, and therefore have no rights to a country of their own, and must return to the nations from which they arrived and live as Russian, Polish, Iraqi, or Iranian citizens. That article has never been changed. This is a fundamental Arab position; even Arab MKs do not recognize the Jewish people's right to national determination in their own land.

In the past decade, the basic condition laid down for negotiations with the Palestinians – recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people – is not designed to win their recognition of us. We don't need it. It functions as a litmus test for how honest their intentions are. If there is no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, then even after the land is divided, the Arabs will continue to talk about Israel in terms of colonialism and an apartheid state because they would be able to point to the Law of Return, for example, as a "racist law" that gives Jews preference in obtaining citizenship when they make aliyah.

And as for racism, according to the sanctimonious chorus (which includes Arab MKs), only the Jews – of all the nations of the world – do not have the right to national self-determination in their own country. What is that, if not racism? Given that, we can toss aside the irresponsible remarks voiced by the Zionist Left against the nation-state law.

We should go over the basics. As "Nathan the Wise" (as poet Nathan Alterman was known) once said to Shimon Peres after we returned to the stretches of our land following the Six-Day War: "If indeed there is a dispute here between two peoples – between the Palestinian people, who were supposedly uprooted from their land, and the Jewish people, who supposedly uprooted [the Palestinian people] from their land – we've been wrong all along."

To the poet Haim Gouri, Alterman said, "If we recognize that Judea and Samaria are not ours, we will need to rewrite the entire Bible." Indeed, the demand to establish a Palestinian state starts with a denial of our very historic, legal, and religious right to the land – even on part of it. As I've already observed, no Arab leader is willing to declare that the Jews have any basic right – historic, legal, or religious – to so much as a square foot of this country.

Let's leave principles aside and discuss how the brilliant plan to divide the land would be implemented. We mentioned World War I. Immediately after it was over, the world powers met and divided up the Middle East, which had fallen into their hands when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. To our north, they grouped together different and hostile ethnic groups – Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Alawites, Druze, Assyrians, and more – and decided that from then on, they would be one nation: Syria. The same thing happened in Iraq when Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds were bundled together; and in Libya, Yemen, and other places. And it wasn't only different ethnic groups; they mixed the basic, stable units of the region, which existed here for thousands of years – the tribes and clans (extended families) that exist alone and for the most part do not even intermarry.

The major powers, with typical European patronization, forced the Arab peoples into European-style nationalism and thereby sentenced the Arab nation-states to live in a constantly bubbling pressure cooker. It took less than 100 years for the artificial creation to break out of its straitjacket. At the start of the last decade, the Arab Spring still hadn't arrived, but the artificial national structures that Europe had forced on the region were collapsing the crumbling. In their place was revealed the permanent reality that had always been here: one of tribes, clans and ethno-religious groups.

So the Arab states around us are shaky or collapsing, and still people here are pushing with "messianic zeal" to found an Arab state on the hills of Judea and Samaria, a Qassam rocket away from our major population centers, in the hope it will remain in place and not fall down around our ears. That is what they wanted us to think in the short period of euphoria that surrounded us with the outbreak of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, thanks to a homogeneous media.

But the various sectors of Palestinian society represented clans and tribes that have in common almost nothing other than their hatred of the Yahud (Jew) and a desire to restore some imaginary lost honor by destroying the state of the Jews. If we were no longer in the area, heaven forbid, it would take a very short time for Hamas to violently seize control of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' ineffectual mechanism of government, and for the sleeper cells of the Islamist revolution to awaken and devour each other. In the temporary lulls that would come with chance reconciliations, they would join forces to make our lives a misery. With a wonderful sightline to the state of Israel, it wouldn't be difficult.

To the righteous who talk about the "occupation," we say: the Jewish people are in all parts of the western land of Israel because it is our land. Since we were forced into exile (and not only by Rome and Byzantine – the Muslim conquest of the seventh century C.E. also ousted Jews and forced many of those who remained to convert to Islam), no other independent national entity has arisen here. This land waited silently for its legal descendants and when we began to return here in the last few centuries did it begin to flower. It kept the faith with us. But we are also in all parts of the land to protect ourselves from another terrorist state right among us and, as WikiLeaks documents show, to protect the Palestinians themselves from the possibility of an Islamist dictatorship.

So what is the solution? I've written many articles about it. In the meantime, it's important to learn the lessons of history: Don't rush and don't force artificial solutions on a complex reality. Patience.

Dror Eydar


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

As the Democrats Go Socialist, They Go Anti-Semitic - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Jew-hate and socialism have always gone hand in hand.

"Every government having regard to good morals ought to repress the Jews," opined Pierre Leroux, the leftist credited with coining the term 'Socialism'. "When we speak of Jews, we mean the Jewish spirit, the spirit of profit, of lucre, of gain, the spirit of commerce."

"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money," Karl Marx ranted.

American socialism traces its ideological ancestry to Charles Fourier, a French socialist bigot who declared that Jews were the embodiment of capitalism, “parasites, merchants, usurers”, and the "incarnation of commerce: parasitical, deceitful, traitorous and unproductive".

Even the term ‘anti-Semite’ was popularized by Wilhelm Marr, the socialist founder of the League of Antisemites. The inventor of anti-Semitism’s arguments were the same ones put forward by Marx, Fourier, H.G. Wells, Lenin and countless other socialists. The Jews were all about the ‘Benjamins’. They started wars. They were disloyal and manipulated society. They were a dangerous foreign element.

These are the same tropes that were put forward by Rep. Ilhan Omar and defended by her socialist allies in the House Progressive Caucus and across the media. Anti-Semitism is one of the meeting points between socialists and Islamists. The more anti-Semitism she spews, the more Rep. Omar unites the identity politics caucus of minority group racial nationalists and Islamists, with the traditional Left.

Anti-Semitism isn’t just a historical relic and Rep. Omar isn’t an outlier. The Democratic Socialists of America are rotten with anti-Semitism. Before she was defending Omar, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was chatting with Jeremy Corbyn. The British Labour leader has been widely condemned for his anti-Semitic remarks and for backing anti-Semitic allies whose hatred has been even more open than Omar’s.

The DSA endorsed Maria Estrada, a California State Assembly candidate, who had praised Farrakhan, accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust, and attacked a Jewish Democrat for not keeping “your party, your religion and your people in check.” It’s unsurprising that the DSA announced that it “stands” with Omar. Socialism doesn’t just have a history of anti-Semitism, but a burning problem right now.

The DSA loudly cheered a Corbyn representative at its 2017 convention even while British Jews and non-Jews were condemning Labour’s descent into anti-Semitism. Jewish Labour members have been forced out or have since announced that they were leaving on their own. One of them was MP Ian Austin, the son of a Holocaust survivor, who condemned its “culture of extremism, anti-Semitism and intolerance”.

In response, Labour’s Marcus Barnett, the DSA 2017 speaker, tweeted, “Good riddance.”

Also at the DSA convention was a representative from Melenchon's France Insoumise.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, an ally of the Communist Party, responded to anti-Semitic violence accompanied by cries of, "Death to the Jews", by claiming that they embodied French values while accusing Jews of dual loyalty for protesting in support of Israel. Then he attacked CRIF, the umbrella group of Jewish organizations in France for accusing leftists of anti-Semitism. There was no room in France, he bloviated, for “aggressive communities that lecture the rest of the country."

Corbyn and Melenchon come by their anti-Semitism honestly. They’re the vanguard of socialist political movements that were anti-Semitic from their very origin.

Labour’s anti-Semitism problem dates back to Henry Hyndman, the founder of England's first socialist party, and then of the National Socialist Party, which eventually became part of the Labour Party.

Hyndman was refreshingly blunt when explaining the necessity of melding anti-Semitism and socialism, "the attack upon the Jews is a convenient cover for a more direct attack at an early date upon the great landlords and Christian capitalists."

The, “first we come for the Jews” approach is an innate strategy of extremist political movements.

Rep. Omar would much rather tap into anti-Semitism and turn the conversation to Israel, then discuss her past sympathy for Islamic terrorists. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez would rather turn the conversation away from why she believed we shouldn’t have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with a defense of Omar. Jews are a small and controversial minority. That makes them a good target for socialists, national and international, to make it seem as if their extremism only threatens the Jews.

Not the general public.

The division between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is a scam. Anti-Zionism is just a means of attacking American foreign policy by exploiting anti-Semitic stereotypes. Attacking Israel in support of Islamic terrorism allows leftists to use bigotry to shift the argument from our national security to Jewish conspiracies. Much as Hyndman rallied opposition to the Boer War by calling it a “Jew War”.

Anti-Zionists believe that the terrorists are right and that America, Israel and any nation that resists them deserves to lose. This toxic point of view goes over better with a spoonful of anti-Semitism.

Rep. Omar isn’t just mainstreaming anti-Semitism. She’s mainstreaming anti-Americanism.

The 20th century was rich with examples of socialists not named Adolf using Jews as scapegoats for the failures of their economic programs. After denouncing Stalin’s crimes, Khrushchev set out to improve his popularity by executing Jews for “economic crimes”. This was a continuation of a Stalinist program that attempted to blame the USSR’s food shortages on Jews with show trials and brutal killings.

The Jews put on trial were accused of not just selling food on the black market, but of colluding with Rabbis, Zionists and the entire spectrum of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Between 1962 and 1964, Khrushchev had over 70 Jews executed through these show trials even as the food shortages continued.

But we don’t have to turn to the Soviet Union to see examples of socialist anti-Semitic scapegoating.

FDR’s New Deal test cases focused in on Jews or Italians: two unpopular immigrant minority groups at the time. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the case that helped break the New Deal, targeted Kosher butchers for following Jewish religious law. The media played on every anti-Semitic stereotype, and while it won public opinion, socialist anti-Semitism lost in the Supreme Court.

August Bebel famously dismissed Anti-Semitism as "the socialism of fools". But it’s hard to have socialism without anti-Semitism. Successful socialist movements unite different economic classes. Socialists from Marx to Hitler turned to anti-Semitism because traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes made their attacks on capitalism and the free market connect with a populist audience uninterested in theory.

As the Democrats embrace the socialist dog, the anti-Semitic flea comes with it. Political extremism brings with it a host of fringe theories and beliefs. A Democrat Party that moves leftward will open the doors to anti-Semites, but also to people who believe in UFOs and that lizard people walk among us.

But anti-Semitism is also deeply linked to socialism and its ideological stereotypes, the greedy capitalist and the warmongering businessman, inescapably express themselves in the language of anti-Semitism. Rep. Omar didn’t utter new ideas about Jews, but very old ones. And these ideas have nothing to do with Israel. They predate the Jewish State and even an organized Zionist political movement.

The Jew was the classic socialist villain because he showed that free markets can empower individuals. Socialists were obliged to disprove the legitimacy of Jewish entry into the middle class by employing classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The same problem bedevils today’s socialists who have replaced class with race, but still have to contend with the economic successes of Jews and Asians despite racism.

Jewish success disproves socialism and identity politics. It can only be met with anti-Semitism. And then the very element that disproves socialism instead becomes proof that we desperately need big government to protect us from the Jews. The same rhetoric at the heart of National Socialism is lurking there in the bowels of all socialism, from the New Deal to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In the realm of foreign policy, Israel’s successful resistance to Islamic terrorism must also be disproven so that the United States and other countries do not decide to adopt it as a model. The same anti-Semitic stereotypes that socialists used to inveigh against the Boer War, WW1 and any conflict in the last century, are once again deployed, this time using anti-Semitism to stigmatize counterterrorism.

Socialist anti-Semitism isn’t new. Rep. Omar’s controversy is a variation on an old theme. Variations on it are currently burning through the UK and France as they have for over a hundred years.

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

UNHRC Spews Another Modern-Day Blood Libel - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

Irredeemably-biased UN body demonstrates its Jew-hate yet again.

The United Nations Human Rights Council, the body that sanctioned and peddled the now infamous and thoroughly discredited Goldstone Report (later repudiated by its principle author, Richard Goldstone) is at it again. Late last week, the UNHRC, whose membership includes democracy stalwarts like Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan and China, released a commission of inquiry (COI) report accusing Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity by deliberately targeting  “journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.”

The 22-page report purportedly examined the deaths of 189 Gazans allegedly at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces since March 30, 2018. That date coincides with the beginning of the Hamas–orchestrated and choreographed Palestinian riots along the Gaza border, dubbed by the terror group, “the Great March of Return.”

Israel did not cooperate with the UNHRC’s investigators and for good reason. The UNHRC is an irredeemably flawed organization whose well-documented bias has made it the poster child for antisemitism on the world stage. The body is obsessed with vilifying Israel to the exclusion of all other nations and maintains the infamous Agenda Item 7, which mandates debate on Israeli actions against Palestinians at every council session. No other nation on the planet, including those with abysmal human rights records, is subjected to such outrageous treatment.

Clearly, there can be but one reason for such “special” treatment. Seventy-four years after the Holocaust and the martyrdom of six-million Jews, the United Nations chooses to obsessively focus its negative energies on the world’s only Jewish nation. The same fascist, anti-Semitic ideology that infected Germany then, infects today’s UNHRC and similar UN committees like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO is driven by a near-mad obsession with severing the Jewish nexus to the Land of Israel.

The UNHRC’s report is flawed for a number of reasons. It lacks any form of proper context, relies almost exclusively on embellished reports from the Hamas-run Gazan health ministry as well as Palestinian advocacy groups affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which the U.S. State Department lists as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). 

The report also ignores readily available public sources which directly refute the UNHRC’s findings and conclusions. For example, a report compiled by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terror Information Center (ITIC), covering the same period as the UNHRC’s report concludes that of 187 fatalities, 150 were affiliated with various Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Considering that Hamas and its affiliate allies are notorious for employing women and children as human shields, that is an astonishing combatant to civilian ratio and it is unlikely that any army in the world could have accomplished such an incredible feat.

The UNHRC’s report also lacks sorely needed context. The destructive Palestinian riots, which commenced in March of last year, were accompanied by virulently violent and anti-Semitic rhetoric spewed by Hamas leaders. This fact was meticulously documented by UN Watch in a report which was completely ignored by the UNHRC’s fact-finders. For example, on April 8, 2018 Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar shouted to followers, “We will tear down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.” Similar violent sentiments were expressed by other Hamas leaders in connection with the so-called “March of Return.”

The UNHRC’s report also fails to account for the phenomena of kite terror, the practice by which Palestinian terrorists attach incendiaries to balloons and kites and launch them into Israel. Kite terror has caused tremendous ecological harm to Israel’s south, transforming large swaths of green farm land and forest reserves into blackened ash. In addition to Hamas-orchestrated kite terror and violent border riots, Israel has had to endure multiple rocket and mortar launchings from Gaza. In fact, since the start of the “March of Return” rioting, Hamas or its affiliates have fired some 1,500 projectiles into Israel.

The Hamas-orchestrated riots have caused millions of dollars’ worth of damage to infrastructure. Gazan rioters at the Kerem Shalom humanitarian crossing caused extensive damage to buildings and fuel lines. This act was self-defeating as it merely served to worsen acute fuel shortages already existing within Gaza. Rioters have also been observed throwing grenades and IEDs under cover of concealed Hamas sniper attacks. During one such attack, an IDF soldier was shot in the head by a Hamas sniper but miraculously survived with only minor injuries after the bullet was deflected by his ballistic helmet. 

Prolific blogger Joe Truzman, who has managed to cultivate knowledgeable and unique sources within Gaza, and has also been scrupulously following developments there, noted several glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the COI report. For example, one of the named fatalities of the COI report is Naji Abu Hajir. Yet as Mr. Truzman notes there is no mention of him being a member of the al-Qassam Brigades. The report simply and benignly refers to him as being a mechanic.

The UNHRC’s report reeks of bias and mendacity and represents nothing less than a modern-day blood libel. It is shocking that seventy-four years after the Holocaust, Jews are vilified by a body that purports to represent the world but that in reality represents nothing but a present-day reincarnate of age-old antisemitism steeped in hate and conspiracy.
* * *

Photo by Jordi Bernabeu Farrús

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Real Dual Loyalty - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

Democrats’ support and service for Mexico.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”  That was Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, speaking of American Jews and what she views as their allegiance to the “foreign country” of Israel, which she says is not a democracy.

“They forgot which country they represent.” That was Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib,  bashing those U.S. Senators who voted against Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation. Both Muslims thus dredged up the old “dual loyalty” charge, and even fellow Democrats took them to task.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, New York Democrat, said leaders were free to debate influence on the nation’s decision making process but “they would be extremely careful not to tread into the waters of anti-Semitism or any other form of prejudice or hate. Rep. Omar failed that test of leadership with these comments.” For New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer, “There is absolutely no place for this rhetoric in Congress or anywhere.”

While denouncing the Muslim’s fake charges, on the other hand, Democrats maintain the most blatant dual loyalty now going on in America. And in typical style, they attack those who have a problem with it.

By the latest count of scholars at Yale and MIT, some 22 million illegals live in the United States, more than the population of Chile (18.3 million), Romania (19.4 million) and nearly as many as Australia, with 25 million.  The vast majority of the 22 million are false documented Mexican nationals. Unlike other groups, as Mexifornia author Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, the Mexicans tend to idealize their own country and trash the nation whose immigration laws they violated. Every time Americans vote on a measure to curtail government benefits to people who should not be here, Mexican flags emerge by the thousands.

California’s 1994 Proposition 187 would have barred illegals from public school educations and from receiving a variety of government-funded services. In mass protests of the measure, the Los Angeles Times wrote, “flags of Mexico, El Salvador and other Latin American nations were everywhere.” Spanish-language media promoted the event, which mocked the “Star Spangled Banner.” California governor Pete Wilson was burned in effigy “and depicted elsewhere on placards, T-shirts and with a noose around his neck, as a pig, and in other pejorative images.”

Mexican flags also emerged by the  thousands after Californians voted to make English, the state’s official language (Proposition 63, 1986), barred racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions (Proposition 209, 1996), and banned bilingual education (Proposition 227, 1998). 

In her 2014 Hard Choices, former First Lady Hillary Clinton helpfully explained, “after all, much of the southwestern part of the United States was part of Mexico.” It was her tribute to Mexico and her pitch for the Mexican vote. During the 2016 campaign, former Mexico City mayor and current Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard openly collaborated with Democrats to get out the vote for Clinton.

When Donald Trump joined the presidential race, the Mexican flag was again waving in California, along with signs reading “Make America Mexico Again.” Actually, large tracts of the southwest ceased to be Mexico in 1848, a full 15 years before the Civil War, when outnumbered American forces defeated Mexico. In 2015, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley took down the Confederate battle flag, to chants of “USA! USA!” So the Mexican flag, representing a foreign nation, is even more out of place anywhere in the United States.  

Even so, California’s ruling Democrats register Mexican nationals to vote by the millions, and have made false-documented illegals a privileged, protected class. Last year California senate boss Kevin de Leon appointed false-documented illegal Lizbeth Mateo, or whatever her real name is, to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee, a state government position.

As California Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon proclaimed, “there is no sensible place for barriers between California and Mexico.” Democrats provide Mexican nationals with education, medical care, drivers’ licenses, welfare, and in-state college tuition, all funded by American taxpayers. To all but the willfully blind, this should indicate not only Democrats’ divided loyalty but their service as de-facto agents for the Mexican government.

Mexico is a neighbor and trading partner but in no meaningful sense is Mexico an ally of the United States. During the Cold War, Mexico often sided with the Soviet Bloc against the United States. Various Mexican regimes have proved adept at slaughtering students, as on October 2, 1968,  but it’s been some time since Mexico threw down with any nation abroad.

The Mexican army can’t prevent “caravans” of invaders from violating its southern border and traveling through Mexico to the U.S. border, which Mexico encourages its own citizens to cross illegally. The reason is not hard to discern. From January to November of 2017, Mexicans abroad sent back $26.1 billion to Mexico, an amount not possible without massive inputs from American taxpayers.

Leftist Democrats have no problem with that, so they support open borders and look the other way at document fraud, voter fraud, and crime by illegals. And Democrats reserve their wrath for those who seek to stop illegal immigration. Legitimate American citizens, legal immigrants and taxpayers might wonder if these Democrats forgot which country they represent.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, recently updated, and Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Movie IndustryBill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield, is a collection of his journalism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran: Child Executions, Amputations, Floggings - Majid Rafizadeh

by Majid Rafizadeh

The list of unspeakable human rights violations committed by Iran's regime is lengthy; however, by far the most disturbing seems the cruelty enacted against children..

  • Europe ravenously throw sanctions on a country that has been home to Jews for more than three thousand years, yet tries to find ways to keep on doing business with a country such as Iran that is not only trying to establish its hegemony throughout the Middle East, but is also the serial violator of just about every human right imaginable. The only conclusion one can come to is that Europe would evidently still like to kill the Jews and is happy to support those wishing to kill them.
  • "In February [2018], Canadian Iranian academic and environmental activist Kavous Seyyed Emami died in Evin prison following his arbitrary arrest two weeks earlier. Authorities claimed he committed suicide and refused to release his body unless his family agreed to an immediate burial without an independent autopsy." — Amnesty International.
  • The list of unspeakable human rights violations committed by Iran's regime is lengthy; however, by far the most disturbing seems the cruelty enacted against children.
  • Now is the time for the EU to halt its appeasement policy with a regime that does not hesitate to flog people -- publicly, as a message to others -- torture any citizen they choose to target, enact cruel punishments such as amputation without a fair trial, and execute children just starting their lives. These are acts that should be condemned -- not condoned through the pursuit of appeasement policies, moral depravity and raw greed.

Why does the European Union continue to pursue appeasement policies with Iran's regime, which has an excruciating human rights record? According to Amnesty International, in Iran, "Girls as young as nine can be sentenced to execution; for boys it's 15. At least 73 young offenders were executed between 2005 and 2015." (Image source: iStock)

According to a report published by Amnesty International on February 26, the human rights situation in Iran has "severely deteriorated". Why then does the European Union continue to pursue appeasement policies with a regime that has an excruciating human rights record? Sadly, Europe -- in spite its endless moral preening and self-righteousness -- seems to have become the world most immoral player -- if it was not already. The European Union, for instance, unjustly singles out for bullying the only liberal, democratic, human-rights-abiding country in the Middle East: Israel. Not Turkey for occupying Northern Cyprus, China for obliterating Tibet, or Pakistan for occupying Kashmir. Europe and the corrupt United Nations do not lay a glove on the real perpetrators of crimes against humanity such as China, Cuba, Russia, Turkey, North Korea, Nigeria or Sudan, to name just a few.

The stench of Europe's duplicity cannot be overstated. Europe ravenously throws sanctions on a country that has been home to Jews for more than three thousand years, yet tries to find ways to keep on doing business with a country such as Iran that is not only trying to establish its hegemony throughout the Middle East -- through proxies in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon -- but is also the serial violator of just about every human right imaginable (here, here, here, and here). The only conclusion one can come to is that Europe would evidently still like to kill the Jews and is happy to support those wishing to kill them. How much more immoral can one get?

The list of unspeakable human rights violations committed by Iran's regime is lengthy; however, by far the most disturbing seems the cruelty enacted against children.

According to the Norway-based organization Iran Human Rights (IHR), which closely monitors executions in Iran:
"Despite ratifying the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the death penalty for offenses committed at under 18 years of age, Iran stays the world's top executioner of juvenile offenders. According to reports by IHR, Iranian authorities have executed at least 40 juvenile offenders since 2013. "
These children are held in custody and executed before they have the chance to reach adulthood. At least 6 minors, including two child brides were executed in 2018. Amnesty International comments on Iran's use of capital punishment on children:
"Girls as young as nine can be sentenced to execution; for boys it's 15. At least 73 young offenders were executed between 2005 and 2015. And the authorities show no sign of stopping this horrific practice.
"We have the details of 49 people on Iran's death row who were under 18 at the time of the crime they are alleged to have committed. The UN says there are at least 160 such people facing execution in the country. In fact, there are likely to be many more young offenders on Iranian death rows, as use of capital punishment in Iran is often shrouded in secrecy."
Consider Zeinab Sekaanvand Lokran. In October 2018 the former child bride, who came from a poor minority family, was executed the day after giving birth to a stillborn baby. Under Iran's Islamic Penal Code, executions can be conducted in four different ways: hanging, stoning, firing squad, or crucifixion.

Vague charges can be brought up by the Islamic Republic's judiciary system or the Revolutionary Court, such as "waging war against God", spreading moharebeh ("corruption on earth") such as protesting, or endangering the country's national security. These charges can be stretched to allow for simple acts such as criticizing the Supreme Leader to become crimes, simply to allow an order of execution to be carried out.

Iran's Islamic Penal Code allows girls as young as nine to be executed. This is all allowed to occur while the deeply cynical EU continues to label the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a "moderate".

The theocratic establishment is also known for forcing confessions and televising torture, in order to strike fear in the public. As Iran Human Rights recently stated:
"In 2018, the Iranian authorities once again displayed their systematic violations of due process and the rule of law. Televised confessions, unfair trials, and reports of torture are reminders of the fact that sustainable improvements in the status of human rights and serious steps towards abolition of the death penalty are not possible without fundamental changes in Iran's judicial system."
In 2018, at least 273 people were executed in Iran, according to Iran Human Rights. The Iranian government ranks second (China ranks first) when it comes to the absolute number of people that it executes, and ranks first for the execution of people per capita. Because of lack of transparency in the Iranian regime, the unofficial number of those executed is believed to be even higher.

The use of cruel and inhumane punishments is also on the rise in Iran. According to Amnesty International's report, the use of various forms of torture such as amputation and flogging has been increasing at an alarming rate.

One example included tying a man to a tree in plain sight of the public, in the Razavi Khorasan province, and flogging him 80 times. His crime? Drinking alcohol a decade before, when he was 14 or 15 years old.

In the case of an accused thief, he allegedly stole some livestock. His punishment? His hand was cut off. Not only are these punishments barbaric, but one can assume that neither of these men, nor any of the multitudes of others treated in a similar way, was given a fair trial or anything close to a legal defense.

Iranian leaders have also been increasing their crackdown on the whole population. Detainees have been dying suspiciously in prison, such as a 63-year-old Iranian-Canadian professor. According to Amnesty International:
"In February [2018], Canadian Iranian academic and environmental activist Kavous Seyyed Emami died in Evin prison following his arbitrary arrest two weeks earlier. Authorities claimed he committed suicide and refused to release his body unless his family agreed to an immediate burial without an independent autopsy."
Due to the recent protests in the country, the theocratic establishment has also ratcheted up its censorship of media, jamming of foreign satellite television channels, and detention of human rights defenders. Human rights defenders and prominent lawyers, including Nasrin Sotoudeh and her husband Reza Khandan, who defended or supported social movements such as the opposition of compulsory hijab, have been unfairly prosecuted and sentenced to long prison sentences.

These increasingly wanton human rights violations should raise alarms among the European governments, who are always lecturing the rest of the world about how caring they are -- for instance not sending criminals back to countries where they might be tortured. It should horrify them to know that they are in some way enabling and emboldening this regime and empowering it to continue to commit these vicious acts.

Now is the time for the EU to halt its appeasement policy with a regime that does not hesitate to flog people -- publicly, as a message to others -- torture any citizen they choose to target, enact cruel punishments such as amputation without a fair trial, and execute children just starting their lives. These are acts that should be condemned -- not condoned through the pursuit of appeasement policies, moral depravity and raw greed.
  • Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Democrats failing on anti-Semitism - Jonathan S. Tobin

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Much of the House Democratic caucus revolted at the idea of a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, even if it didn't name Omar. They embraced Omar's claim that she was the victim in this drama.

Back in November, I wrote that the election of radicals like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) wouldn't have much impact on the U.S.-Israel relationship. I reasoned that the trio of newly elected radicals would be backbenchers without power or influence, while the Democratic leadership of the House remained solidly pro-Israel and friends of the Jewish community.

But as the events of the last week have shown, I was wrong about that, especially in thinking that Democrats would speak out specifically against anti-Semitism if a member of their caucus acted as Omar has done.

Yet now that it has happened, I wouldn't be surprised if their faithful Jewish Democratic supporters simply shrug it off.

The Democratic Party as a whole is shifting to the left. But with the bulk of Democrats, especially officeholders, still reliably pro-Israel, there could be no comparison between it and Britain's Labour Party, which under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn has been captured by anti-Semitic radicals.

But while the Democrats are not yet the moral equivalent of Labour, there can no longer be any doubt that AOC, Omar and Tlaib are far from powerless. Indeed, they have not only intimidated the Democratic leadership but also demonstrated their ability to rally much of the party, including leading presidential candidates, around the cause of defending Omar from facing any consequences for her anti-Semitic hate. This feat calls into question not only the future of a bipartisan consensus on behalf of Israel but also the future of the Democratic Party as a political home for centrist Americans.

But above and beyond the political implications of Omar's evading consequences for her spreading of hate, this should shock American Jews out of any remaining complacency they might have had about the willingness of the Democrats to stand with them against anti-Jewish bias.

What may be even more depressing is that most of American Jewry won't take any of this seriously or draw any conclusions about it. That's because history has taught us that liberal Jews will do nothing to hold the Democrats accountable for their shocking failure.

Omar had twice before issued anti-Semitic statements, one of which she had been forced to apologize for by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership. But her apology and disingenuous claim that she was unaware of the meaning of the anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling the world or attempting to buy off members of Congress were meaningless. Last week, she doubled down on her hate by spouting off about supporters of Israel being guilty of dual loyalty, another classic anti-Semitic trope.

Yet when some demanded action, what the Democrats did was worse than inaction. Much of the House Democratic caucus revolted at the idea of a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, even if it didn't name Omar. They embraced Omar's claim that she was the victim in this drama. Omar had singled out "Jewish colleagues" as being guilty of targeting her and Tlaib – another serial purveyor of anti-Semitism – for discrimination because they were Muslims. Three of the leading Democratic candidates for president – Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren – supported these claims when, while condemning anti-Semitism out of one side of their mouths, they also defended Omar and opposed any specific condemnation of her hate.

House Democrats backed down in the face of support for Omar from much of the party. Pelosi, who knew very well how insincere Omar's previous apology had been, exonerated her of any intentional anti-Semitism. Democrats ignored the fact that as supporters of an anti-Semitic BDS movement, there was no doubt that the hate espoused by Omar and Tlaib was intentional and purposeful. The claim that their goal was to start a conversation about U.S. foreign policy or to speak up for Palestinian human rights is a blatant lie. As BDS supporters, their goal is Israel's destruction and to delegitimize its Jewish supporters, not to merely initiate a debate about the peace process. The claim that supporters of Israel are guilty of Islamophobia is another brazen falsehood.

Equally disingenuous is the claim that the right is as guilty of anti-Semitism as the left. The claims that U.S. President Donald Trump and Republican members of Congress are also guilty of anti-Semitism are bogus. There is simply no comparison to what the Democrats are enabling and even supporting from Omar and anything that GOP officeholders have done or said with respect to anti-Semitism.

The resolution that did pass was a joke. It not only avoided mentioning Omar but was also turned into a laundry list of every conceivable sort of hatred (with the sole exception of bias against Catholics and evangelical Christians that has been demonstrated by many liberal Democrats in recent years). It was the moral equivalent of the response to the Black Lives Matter movement by some, who spoke instead of all lives mattering – a stand that most Democrats had condemned.

AOC and her leftist pals are setting the agenda for Democrats. This will have a genuine impact on the 2020 presidential race, which has already appeared to show that Democrats have been shifting to the left, and make it easier for attacks on Israel and Jews to become part of the campaign.

This ought to horrify the majority of American Jews who remain loyal supporters of the Democrats. But don't expect many of them to take action or do anything to hold their party accountable. In this hyper-partisan era, most liberal Jews are more interested in defeating Trump than in confronting anti-Semitism.

Facing the truth about the state of the Democratic Party would force them to choose between their partisan interests and defense of the Jewish community. And that is not a choice that most American Jews are prepared to make, even if means supporting a party that treats anti-Semites and their enablers as rock stars. Along with the direction of a Democratic Party that just took another step towards being Corbynized, that is the sorriest aspect of this dismal chapter of American Jewish history.

This article is reprinted  from

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS – Jewish News Syndicate. Twitter @jonathans_tobin.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Bravest Man In Africa? - Stephen Brown

by Stephen Brown

Anti-slavery activist runs for president in slave state of Mauritania - after release from prison.

There are few people who announce their candidacy for their country’s presidency only days after being released from prison. But anti-slavery activist and slave descendant Biram Dah Abeid is an exceptional man facing exceptional circumstances. 

“I am from the servile community that makes up 50 per cent of the population (of Mauritania),” said Dah Obeid, a lawyer. “Twenty percent of the fifty percent have been born as property of other men. We were inherited by other people.”

Abeid, a prominent and fearless anti-slavery activist who has been jailed and tortured numerous times in his struggle to abolish slavery in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, was released from prison last December 31, having been incarcerated on “an order from above.” Only days later, he again announced his candidacy, having also run for president in Mauritania’s 2014 federal election.

At that time, Dah Abeid, who heads the anti-slavery organization Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA), presented Mauritanians with the extraordinary and ground-shaking sight of a slave descendant (his father was a freed slave while his mother and uncles remained slaves) under sentence of death of a sharia court and imprisoned numerous times standing for president. Nevertheless, he won eight per cent of the vote, coming in second. Abdel Aziz, a former army general, won with 81.94, not unusual for an African dictatorship.

“We are the only ones to have a different ideological position,” Dah Obeid told Le Courier de Sahel during that campaign. “We are fighting against slavery, against racism, against government waste and corruption.”

Jeremy Keenan, a professorial research associate at the School of Africa and Oriental Studies at the University of London stated the reason for Aziz’s overwhelming victory: “Mauritanian elections under President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz are neither free, fair nor transparent.”

Dah Abeid agrees: “If these elections were held under normal circumstances, I would get between 35 and 40 per cent of the vote.”

Estimates of the number of black African slaves in Mauritania range from 90,000 to 500,000 among a population of 3.1 million, possibly the highest number of chattel slaves in the world (Dah Abeid’s IRA has freed about 2,000 of them). But experts agree more exact numbers are difficult to arrive at because of slave-owning, nomadic tribes and those “hidden within mansions.”

In 2013, indicating the extent of the slavery tragedy, Global Slavery Index ranked Mauritania number one in the world for its prevalence there. Which caused Dah Abeid, a constant thorn in the side of Mauritania’s leaders, to sarcastically praise them: “We will never stop commending you on this enviable place on the international stage you managed to achieve…”

The slaves’ masters are Arab and Berber Mauritanians, or “whites,” who share only the same Islamic religion with their chattel. They make up about 20 per cent of the population and almost all of the political, business and military elite that controls the country. Therein also lies the problem. It is very difficult to get this elite class to abolish slavery when many of its members own slaves.

“The problem is that Mauritania’s Arabs sincerely believe that blacks are inferior and are born to be slaves,” wrote African American scholar Samuel Cotton in his book Silent Terror: A Journey Into Contemporary African Slavery, written after an exploratory trip to Mauritania. “They believe that a black man, woman or child’s place in life is to serve an Arab master, and it does not matter to them whether that black is a Christian, or fellow Muslim.”

Another problem is that this slave-owning class believes it is doing nothing illegal. The Prophet Muhammed owned slaves and Islam’s Sharia law justifies the practice. The eminent scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, wrote that “…the institution of slavery is not only recognized but is elaborately regulated by Sharia law.”

Unlike in Sudan, or with the Boko Harem or Islamic State, where slaves are captured in violent slave raids, Mauritania’s slaves find themselves in this cruel, life-destroying institution because they are born into it and inherited as chattel. Some families have been slaves for centuries.

African scholar Garba Diallo stated the slaves “are so brainwashed, that they would consider it a sin to escape from their masters.

“Their ancestors were kidnapped into slavery long ago, and their offspring have been brought to believe Allah created two groups of people, slaves and masters, each playing specific and eternal roles in society,” Diallo said.

Several times in the last century slavery was banned in Mauritania. The first time was under the French colonial government in 1901. But Mauritania became the last country in the world to formally prohibit it in 1981. Slavery was criminalized in 2007, but only four people have ever been successfully prosecuted. However, anti-slavery activists, like Dah Obeid, are often imprisoned.

Cotton called the slavery bans “woefully ineffective mandates” that “were never enforced and slavery continued to exist.” The abolition decrees, observers say, were simply made for foreign consumption.

“This is state racism that has become institutionalized, that has caused pogroms, purges, murdering of the black population…” Dah Abeid, whose last name means ‘slave’ in Arabic, at a UN conference.

Abeid has staged attention-grabbing anti-slavery protests in the past. In one, held outside a mosque, Dah Abeid symbolically destroyed a copy of sharia law after first removing all references to the Prophet Mohammad and the Koran. Dah Abeid does not believe sharia is divine law but simply outdated codes drawn up in the Middle Ages.

For this protest, as befitted a slave state, the government violently raided Dah Abeid’s home and imprisoned him. A sharia court declared him an apostate, which put him under a sentence of death. Mauritania’s president had also once called for his death.

“There were TV programs broadcast that talked about how I was going to be hanged…,” Dah Abeid said. “And they said on television we will kill him, like we kill a cat.”

For his struggle as the world’ foremost abolitionist, Dah Abeid was awarded the prestigious UN Human Rights Prize in 2013 by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York. Past award recipients include Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, who is Abeid’s hero.

Tragically, despite such international recognition, Dah Abeid’s anti-slavery struggle remains largely unknown and unsupported by the international community, especially by the mainstream media. Most people, including most African Americans, have probably never heard of the world’s foremost abolitionist.

Leftists and liberals, for example, who worked themselves into paroxysms of moral outrage over apartheid in South Africa, have been hypocritically silent about this enslavement of hundreds of thousands of black Africans. This silence, especially on the part of Western countries, Dah Obeid finds, is particularly difficult to understand.

One important reason for leftist/liberal silence is that they want to maintain the image they have carefully constructed that America and Israel are the world’s only oppressors. The Left promotes the Arabs as victims of Israeli violence. Admitting that Arabs are enslaving black Africans would only undermine this campaign.

As well, liberals and leftists, like former President Obama during his visits to Africa, want to keep the attention focused on the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It has always been a useful weapon to attack the United States.

Without the international media support that Nelson Mandela received, Dah Abeid has a hard road ahead of him. Fortunately, there are a few bright spots. When behind bars last year, he was elected to Mauritania’s national assembly, which, he says, will make it easier for him to move around the country.

As well, while the leftist U.S. establishment media smears President Trump as a "racist", it is telling that the U.S. president has done what leftist black ex-president Barack Obama never did: he ended trade benefits to Mauritania last November “due to insufficient progress in eradicating forced labor and slavery.” Dah Obeid would now like Europe to follow suit.   

With or without international support, one thing, however, is certain: like Nelson Mandela, the heroic Dah Abeid will never give up. During one of his incarcerations, he wrote in Churchillian fashion:

“I refuse to throw in the towel. I refuse to be silenced. I refuse to abandon…those who have been ruined by slavery.”

Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter