Friday, August 2, 2019

Reasons Why Peaceful Resolutions for the Arab-Israeli Conflict Always Fail - Tawfik Hamid

by Tawfik Hamid

Rejecting the state of Israel was related to the fact that it is a Jewish rather than a Muslim country.

  • The cause of the problem is NOT the land. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, several Arab nations were created by fiat. The Arab world accepted this without any problem, as these were Muslim-majority countries. Rejecting the state of Israel was related to the fact that it is a Jewish rather than a Muslim country.
  • In this manner, despite the clear discrimination against non-Muslim minorities in most of the Arab and Muslim world (denying equal rights in church construction, for example), many in the Arab world point the finger only at Israel when they talk about discrimination.
  • The European Union is currently funding a study into Palestinians textbooks, brought about by the findings of the non-governmental organization IMPACT-se, which found in May that "the new Palestinian school [material] for the 2018–19 academic year... was 'more radical than those previously published.'" ... Meanwhile, no one is being educated for peace.
  • When we add onto all that the sad reality that Palestinian politicians are using the conflict to get billions of dollars in donations, we can understand why this conflict has so far not been solved.

The rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan by the Arab nations, and their declaration of war against Israel rather than their acceptance of peace, was the first clear indication that the Arabs' desire was never to provide a state for the Palestinian people, but rather has been from the beginning to erase Israel from the map. Pictured: An Arab Legion platoon on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in 1948. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

We must salute Jared Kushner's attempt to bring a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That said, the Palestinians' unsurprising rejection of the peace offer requires some scrutiny, especially the true causes of the perennial failure to achieve lasting peace.

Without understanding them, every attempt to solve this conflict, every attempt to make true peace in the Middle East, will always fail.

As an insider with a background as both a Muslim and an Arab, please allow me share with you some insight into the problem.

1. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about borders. It is about the existence of the state of Israel.
In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan -- Resolution 181 -- gave the Palestinians and Arabs control over most of the Holy Land. The rejection of the plan by the Arab nations, and their declaration of war against Israel rather than their acceptance of peace, was the first clear indication that the Arabs' desire was never to provide a state for the Palestinian people, but rather has been from the beginning to erase Israel from the map. This destructive intent is memorialized in the Hamas Charter, which unashamedly asks for the eradication of the State of Israel. This intent is also aligned with the Iranian leaders' continuous entreaties to destroy Israel. An evaluation of relevant social media commentary in the Arab world demonstrates a genuine desire by many -- if not most -- of the Arab population to see the destruction of Israel and the killing not just of all Israeli Jews but of all Jews:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle
[Muhammad] saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' " -- Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 791
2. The cause of the problem is NOT the land
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, several Arab nations were created by fiat. The Arab world accepted this without any problem, as these were Muslim-majority countries. Rejecting the state of Israel was related to the fact that it is a Jewish rather than a Muslim country. In fact, on several occasions I have asked Arab Muslims (including raising the point on Aljazeera TV) [See: 40:44 - 41:04] whether they would continue fighting Israel if its entire population converted to Islam. The answer is a unanimous "NO." My answer to that is always, "Then the problem has nothing to do with the land, as many claim, but with the Jewishness of the State of Israel."

3. Delusional way of thinking
Delusions are defined as fixed beliefs that contradict reality. This way of thinking among many in the Arab world impedes any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, many in the Arab world strongly believe that the Jews are the cause of the economic collapse of nations. This idea is belied by the fact that when the Jewish community was a viable component of Egypt prior to 1952 revolution, the Egyptian economy was in far better condition than it was after President Nasser expelled the Jews from the country. Any rational person can see that if the Jews were the cause of the economic collapse of nations, the economy of Egypt should have improved significantly after they were kicked out of the country. Delusional people do not see (nor do they want to see) such logic

4. Inability of the Arab mind to admit its wrongdoings
Many in the Arab world falsely believe that Israel expelled all Arabs. In fact, there are nearly two million Israeli Arabs who live in Israel as citizens, making up 20% of the population. Many in the Arab world tend to ignore that it was the Arabs who expelled the Jews -- in a humiliating way -- from countries such as Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Arabs' failure to admit their own mistakes and crimes against their Jewish communities adds another obstacle to peaceful resolutions to the problem.

5. Conspiracy theories
Analysis of the Arab and Muslim media and honest evaluation of comments on social media in the Arab and Muslim world show that Arab street tends to believe that any problem that occurs in the Arab world must be an "Israeli conspiracy," or, at very least, "It can't be the Arabs' fault!" For example, When, for example, sharks attacked several tourists at Egypt's Red Sea coast in 2010, many Arabs, including officials, originally accused Israel of planning the attack. Shortly after that, Saudi Arabia detained a vulture on "charges" of spying for Israel. When rats were accused of being trained by Israelis to drive Arabs from the Old City of Jerusalem, the award-winning journalist Khaled Abu Toameh drily noted , "It is not clear how these rats were taught to stay away from Jews, who also happen to live in the Old City."

Such terrible self-deception, which must stem from a feeling of supremacy (or inadequacy), and the shifting of blame for all problems in the Arab world onto Israel instead of admitting one's own wrongdoings, have reached pathological and self-destructive levels in the Arab world.

6. Psychological projection
Psychological projection is a mental mechanism in which people defend themselves against unconscious impulses that they might consider unflattering or forbidden, by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who has wishes that he does not want to admit to, will accuse other people of having them, such as greed, bigotry or sexual urges that might frighten him -- as a way of shifting the blame.

In this manner, despite the clear discrimination against non-Muslim minorities in most of the Arab and Muslim world (denying equal rights in church construction, for example), many in the Arab world point the finger only at Israel when they talk about discrimination.

It would be hard not mention in this context that the only place I have found discrimination in Israel was by Muslims, at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. (Sadly, because non-Muslims are seen as unclean). By contrast, I -- with my Muslim background -- was freely allowed to visit the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem without any objection from the Israeli authorities.

7. Unprecedented levels of antisemitism
Nothing better illustrates the level of antisemitism in the Muslim world more than the statement of Soad Saleh when she justified Muslims raping Jewish women to humiliate them. Soad Saleh is a well-known scholar at Al-Azhar University, the most reputable Islamic university in the world. She is actually considered by many in the Arab street to be "moderate"!

Not a single well-known Islamic scholar stood up against her evil views. She remains in her position at Al-Azhar University and was not punished at all.

Such barbaric views are not limited to people like Soad Saleh. Unfortunately, careful evaluation of social media comments on issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict shows beyond doubt that these beliefs are widespread in the Arab world.

It would be extremely difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to reach any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict without first addressing this unrepentant antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim world.

8. Lack of Pragmatism
Another factor that impedes any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a general lack of pragmatism in the Arab world. For example, despite the many economic benefits to Egypt from the peace treaty with Israel (such as the return of the Sinai Peninsula and renewed access to the Suez Canal, both of which were a boon to trade and tourism), many Egyptians and the Arab of other nations still reject and refuse to follow the peaceful path of President Anwar Sadat. Arab resistance to peace with the Jewish people, despite the economic gains that resulted from the Camp David Accords, was clearly demonstrated when tens of thousands of Egyptians attacked and burned the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

This kind of unpragmatic approach to the problem will always be an obstacle to solving the conflict only via economic incentives.

9. Ideological Factors
The strong ideological belief held by many Muslims that they MUST fight the Jews before the end days, and kill all of them, is another major obstacle to achieving true peace in the Middle East. It is important to note that such a belief is mainly based on a Hadith of Prophet Mohamed rather than the Quran itself.

10. Lack of Reformed Understanding of Islam
Traditional interpretations of Islam tend to limit the verses that speak positively about Jews to the past and on the contrary generalize the verses that were critical of the Jews in specific situations.
For example, many Muslims see the following verse as limited to the past: "Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and that I preferred you over mankind" (Quran 2: 122). By contrast, the verse that has been used to call all Jews "pigs and monkeys" was actually limited only to specific group among the Children of Israel who refused to obey the Torah in a particular situation at a particular time and place. Without going into sophisticated theological analysis, the main point is that if such verses are understood in a different way so that the first verse is not limited to the past and the second one is seen in it its historical context, Arab-Israeli relations would be much better today.

11. Education
While a bias against Jews starts at home -- it is not as if this view appears only on the first day of school -- children are fed a curriculum in much if the Arab and Muslim world that reinforces these prejudices. Saudi textbooks, for instance, while recently banning all influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, have not yet done the same for anti-Jewish, anti-Christian or anti-Sufi bias.

A Saudi textbook from 2016-2017, for instance, on Hadith (the sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), "baselessly alleges that Zionism aspires to world domination and a 'global Jewish government.'" (Now that is projection: world domination is what Salafi Islam aspires to; Judaism does not).

Palestinian textbooks are basically no different. The European Union is currently funding a study into Palestinian textbooks, brought about by the findings of the non-governmental organization IMPACT-se, which found in May that "the new Palestinian school [material] for the 2018–19 academic year... was 'more radical than those previously published.'"

"Most troubling," the NGO reported, "there is a systematic insertion of violence, martyrdom and jihad across all grades and subjects in a more extensive and sophisticated manner..."
Meanwhile, no one is being educated for peace.

When we add onto all that the sad reality that Palestinian politicians are using the conflict to get billions of dollars in donations, we can understand why this conflict has so far not been solved.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, the author of Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Middle Eastern Terrorism Coming to the US through Its Mexican Border - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

  • In May, Abu Henricki, a Canadian citizen of Trinidadian origin, told researchers with the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism that ISIS sought to recruit him and others to penetrate the US-Mexican border through routes originating in various Central American locations.... Other Trinidadians, he said, were also being approached to "do the same thing."
  • The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. At least 15—though likely many more—suspected terrorists have already been apprehended crossing the border since 2001. One suspected terrorist who crossed the border, an ISIS supporter, already launched a terrorist attack in Canada that nearly killed five people.
  • The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. Pictured: The fence along the US-Mexico border, seen from Sunland Park, New Mexico. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A captured Islamic State fighter recently related how, in an effort to terrorize America on its own soil, the Islamic terror group is committed to exploiting the porous US-Mexico border, including through the aid of ISIS-sympathizers living in the United States.

"Whatever one thinks of President Donald Trump's heightened rhetoric about the US-Mexico border and his many claims that it is vulnerable to terrorists, ISIS apparently also thought so," according to the Government Technology and Services Coalition.

In May, Abu Henricki, a Canadian citizen of Trinidadian origin, told researchers with the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism that ISIS sought to recruit him and others to penetrate the US-Mexican border through routes originating in various Central American locations.

"The plan came from someone from the New Jersey state of America," Henricki confessed.
"I was going to take the boat from Puerto Rico into Mexico. He [N.J. resident] was going to smuggle me in.... They [ISIS] wanted to use these people [sympathizers living in the U.S.] because they were from these areas."
Other Trinidadians, he said, were also approached to "do the same thing."

"Our intent was not to support any political agenda," the nonpartisan International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism said.
"We don't want this to be used for fearmongering... That said, it would be erroneous — and detrimental to our safety and security — to outright downplay the potential terrorist threats emanating from our borders, similar to the Bush administration casting aside initial warnings about al-Qaeda plots with the result of American citizens eventually suffering the 9/11 attacks."
More importantly, the notion that Islamic terrorists might infiltrate by way of the U.S. southern border is not a hypothetical. It has already happened. In 2017, for instance, Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, originally from Somalia, launched what police in Edmonton, Canada labeled a terrorist attack. Sharif stabbed a police officer and then intentionally, it seemed, rammed his vehicle into four pedestrians. Sharif had an ISIS flag in his vehicle; he entered the United States by illegally crossing the US-Mexican border.

Furthermore, according to a November, 2018, report from the Center for Immigration Studies:
  • "From only public realm reporting, 15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, or en route, since 2001.
  • The 15 terrorism-associated migrants who traveled to the U.S. southern border likely represent a significant under-count since most information reflecting such border-crossers resides in classified or protected government archives and intelligence databases.
  • Affiliations included al-Shabaab, al-Ittihad al-Islamiya, Hezbollah, the Pakistani Taliban, ISIS, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh, and the Tamil Tigers.
  • At least five of the 15 were prosecuted for crimes in North American courts. One migrant is currently under Canadian prosecution for multiple attempted murder counts. Of the four in the United States, one was prosecuted for lying to the FBI about terrorism involvement, one for asylum fraud, one for providing material support to a terrorist organization, and one for illegal entry, false statements, and passport mutilation."
Europe offers a similar account. As the 2018 National Strategy for Counterterrorism of the United States of America report states:
"ISIS has been innovative and determined in its pursuit of attacks in the West. The group has exploited weaknesses in European border security to great effect by capitalizing on the migrant crisis to seed attack operatives into the region. For instance, two of the perpetrators of the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris, France, [which killed over 130 people] infiltrated the country by posing as migrants."
The US-Mexico border is so alluring that long before ISIS came onto the scene, other Islamic terrorists were eying it—including as a potential gateway to smuggle anthrax into America in order to kill 330,000 Americans—and operating in it.

Examples are many. In 2011, federal officials announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States," tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. Months earlier a jihadi cell in Mexico was found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to the report, "obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah's presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO's) operating along the U.S.-Mexico border."

Such "concerns" might have been expected, considering that a year earlier it was reported that,
"Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S."
As far back as 2006, "Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a Muslim missionary organization named after a historic jihadi group that terrorized Spain in the eleventh century] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group's European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda."

The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. At least 15—though likely many more—suspected terrorists have already been apprehended crossing the border since 2001. One suspected terrorist who crossed the border, an ISIS supporter, already launched a terrorist attack in Canada that nearly killed five people.

The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

 Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Political Correctness: Tool of Totalitarianism - Dave Ball

by Dave Ball

We're creeping ever closer to George Orwell's "1984" dystopia.

Political correctness is a liberal mind control strategy intended to stifle any thoughts or actions inconsistent with radical liberalism. It is the abrogation of free speech and the right to hold an opinion contrary to established liberal-socialist doctrine.

Political correctness didn't just happen; it has been carefully crafted over time. Radical liberals long ago realized that their emotion-based dogma could not withstand logical examination. The only solution for protecting radical liberalism until it undergoes its full evolution to totalitarianism was to snuff any contrary thought and speech. This being the case, the liberal cabal of coastal elites, academia, and victimhood profit centers, supported by the always faithful mainstream media, employed well honed weapons such as indoctrination of children, mass shaming, and shouting down dissent while playing on conservative apathy to firmly root political correctness in the mass psyche.

It is not just the stifling of contrary speech that is so troubling about political correctness and its radical practitioners. Also, it seeks to eliminate the very ability to think contrary thoughts.

For those not familiar with George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984, Oceania is a mega-state, one of three that exist on Earth after a global war. It is ruled by "The Party." Oceania is a metaphor for what might happen under one-party rule. The government, which is the Party, is the model of government overreach to the point of totalitarianism. Individual thought and even the individual are completely repressed. Society is completely defined by its ruler, the Party. Thought Police assure that all adhere to the commands of Big Brother and the Party.

The primary tool by which individual thought is eliminated is a new language called "Newspeak." In an appendix to the book, Orwell describes Newspeak and its principles. Of relevance is the concept that "[i]f thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." In 1984, the Newspeak language is used to narrow rather than broaden thought and ideas. The bottom line is that if there is not a word for something, that something does not exist. For example, in Newspeak, there is no word for freedom, so the concept of freedom cannot exist. Our language exists to describe what we see as reality. If that language is replaced by a narrowing language, then language asserts control over reality. When words are in control of reality, rational argument becomes impossible. Liberal emotionalism wins.

The operation of political correctness is eerily similar to Newspeak. Words that reflect non-liberal concepts are ostracized and replaced with often meaningless and non-definitive words.

Apologists for P.C. will tell you that the terms are intended to be egalitarian, inclusive, and not hurtful ("hurtful" itself being a P.C. word). The practitioners will freely tell you that the larger P.C. concept is to develop a new way of thinking that will lead to new ways of acting. Language changes thought, and thought changes action. The proponents of P.C. will tell you that when more and more people speak with P.C. terms, more people will accept a new way of doing things. This is, of course, a way of saying that people will accept doing things their way.

The proponents of political correctness will tell you that the intention of the sought after behavior modification is to eliminate sexism; racism; homophobia; transgenderphobia; and a lot of other phobias and isms that presumably include conservatism, patriotism, nationalism, Christianity, and any other non-liberal doctrine. The presumption is that the behaviors or thought processes they wish to eliminate in fact exist and are bad.

There are, in this nation, many rational people who, for example, do not agree that homosexuality and transgenderism are either innate or good and believe that it is those behaviors that should be modified rather than embraced.

Racism is possibly the most overused word in the media and, consequently, means almost nothing since it is a term applied to any comment or criticism liberals don't like or something for which they have no response. The same with sexism. People are male and female. They are he and she. Why not refer to each as such?

Other terms are defined by the P.C. police as "hurtful." What exactly is that? The connection between many terms and their supposed "hurt" is often too tenuous to even imagine.

We have lost our sense of humor because poking fun at something is now politically incorrect. P.C. people have forgotten how to smile and laugh. Oversensitivity is being inculcated in our population from childhood. It's a necessary precursor of believing political correctness.

Examples of P.C. ridiculousness abound. Why, for example, are the names for the Atlanta and Cleveland baseball teams, the Braves and the Indians, hurtful to American Indians? Why are American Indians called "Native Americans" when even they came from elsewhere? Why is someone called a racist for pointing out to Rep. Elijah Cummings that the part of Baltimore he represents is a disgusting mess? Because it is. The area would be a mess whether or not Cummings were black. Why is pointing out how ridiculous and misguided the "Squad" of freshman Democrat representatives are termed racist? They are ridiculous and misguided whatever color or heritage they might be. Why is any remark questioning homosexuality labeled homophobic when there are genuine questions regarding the psychology of same-sex attraction? Why must the sexually dysphoric, who erroneously call themselves transgendered, be called by a dozen personal pronouns, often changing, when their actual sex is either male or female, for which there are well established pronouns?

Political correctness is reaching new and ridiculous heights on our college campuses. Words now banned by various college handbooks include "soup Nazi," "illegal alien," "Third World," "lame excuse," "man up," "crazy," "psycho," "crusader," "dwarf," "Eskimo," and "grandfathered in." Also on the banned list are "America" and "American." To use a non-P.C. term, this is crazy.

While some of the specific words may be amusing to rational people, the concept is concerning. By eliminating masculine and feminine pronouns, the liberals are creating a unisex society, blurring the actual differences between men and women. Normalizing homosexuality and transgenderism is a move in this direction also. Eliminating words like "alien," we are moved toward the much coveted one-world concept of the Left. Applying "racist" and "hateful" to everything not to liberal liking smothers dissent and alternative points of view.

Eventually, Newspeak turns to action. Newspeak encourages boys to seek to participate in women's sports. Newspeak pushes males into female locker rooms and bathrooms. Newspeak bans conservative and traditional speakers from our campuses. Newspeak is an insurmountable wall between groups of polarized people. Newspeak is the language of totalitarianism.

As words disappear, the breadth of thought is narrowed. Do you remember when the big discussion was over "Miss," "Mrs.," and "Ms."? How long will it be until we arrive at Newspeak's state of doubleplusungood?

Dave Ball is the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official, and a county party official.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thank You, Representative Ilhan Omar - Eileen F. Toplansky

by Eileen F. Toplansky

The viciously anti-Semitic representative from Minnesota has brought to light the bigotry in the Democratic Party.

As a congressional representative, Ilhan Omar has masterfully manipulated American freedom in order to make anti-Semitism a more accepted idea. She has admirably done the work of the Muslim Brotherhood in normalizing anti-Semitism in the land of the free. By cloaking the evil as merely an expression of her freedom of speech, she has removed the "racist portrayal of Jews from the neo-Nazi fringe into the mainstream." She has mastered the art of psychological warfare as she couples "Muslim anti-Semitism with the American left's vague notion of 'social justice.'" She has shown her bona fides as a representative of the jihad on free speech while vigorously claiming this vital freedom.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes, Omar hails from Somalia, where anti-Semitism is taught at an early age. Thus, she was taught that to destroy the Jews, the Zionists, and the state of Israel is a worthy goal. Religious teaching is coupled with the political narrative where jihad is the solution to all the ills of the Muslim world. In addition, there is very little freedom of expression in Muslim-majority countries, and the state-owned media propagate daily expressions of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. Everything is tainted with this hatred, from the mosques to the Islamic college campuses. Refugee camps are another "zone of indoctrination."

Omar asserts that American Jews have a dual loyalty that should make them suspect. This anti-Semitic meme has been used since time immemorial to besmirch Jews and to cast aspersions upon them. Then there is the "all about the Benjamins, baby" statement, which revives the stereotype of Jews using their money and influence to pressure those in power to advance the interests of a foreign nation over their own.

In fact, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out, it is ironic that the "resources available to propagate Islamist ideologies, with their attendant anti-Semitism, vastly exceed what pro-Israel groups spend in the U.S." In fact, "Saudi Arabia has spent vast sums with estimates of as high as $100 billion to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam abroad."

Yet Omar amplifies that she wants "to talk about the [Jewish] political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

Interesting projection, since it is actually Ilhan Omar who is using her political influence to usher in the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group ardently devoted to infiltrating and ultimately destroying America. Almost a decade ago, the Center for Security Policy issued "Shariah: The Threat to America," which explained the political, religious, social, and economic operative goals required to secure ultimate Islamic domination of the West. They include "establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood; adopting Muslims' causes domestically and globally; expanding the observant Muslim base; unifying and directing Muslims' efforts; presenting Islam as a civilization alternative supporting the establishment of the global Islamic State wherever it is" (page 277).

Revulsion of the Jew and hatred of Western liberty and freedom are integral components of this desire to establish a global caliphate.

Now Omar is ramping up the hate by using the national platform to engage in the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that seeks the ultimate destruction of Israel. As David French has stated, "the resolution itself is clever. It doesn't mention Israel, and is crafted as an ode to free speech." But the fundamental truth about the BDS movement is that it is "anti-Semitic in its intent and effect."

Josh Hammer asserts that Omar compares "the genocidal BDS campaign which seeks the annihilation of the state of Israel and the tossing of all the [Jews into the Mediterranean Sea], to the lineage of proud American boycotting that dates all the way back to the Boston Tea Party itself." To do this, she lies about the "free, liberalized, and pluralistic state of Israel and compares it to genocidal Nazi Germany, the gulag state that was the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa alike."
In fact:
Criticizing Israel does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic. The determining factor is the intent and content of the [speaker]. Legitimate critics accept Israel's right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not. Anti-Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example, denying Israelis the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging the Palestinians to do so. Anti-Semites deny Israel the right to defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims, while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers. Anti-Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements about Israel. Anti-Semites describe Israelis [by] using pejorative terms and hate speech, suggesting, for example, that they are "racists" or "Nazis."
But the BDS campaign targets Israel's right to exist. It opposes coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS puts Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, and Israeli Jewish jobs at risk. BDS also puts many American jobs at risk. Consider that "[d]irect Israeli investment in the U.S. totaled approximately $11.9 billion in 2017. U.S. exports to Israel support an estimated 75,000 American jobs and Israeli owned companies provide an additional estimated 20,000 jobs to U.S. workers." What hurts Israel economically hurts America as well. Actually, BDS is a lineal descendant of the Arab League boycott, begun in 1948 and still in existence.

Consider, for example, how Ireland's BDS bill will harm Israeli and American tech giants. As Alexander Titus notes, "Ireland is home to corporate offices and subsidiaries of Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft." Thus, these "tech companies would be forced to either violate U.S. law or the new Irish law since an American company cannot legally participate in a boycott that is not backed by the U.S. government."

How ironic that the Irish BDS would mean that "buying a souvenir from a Jewish trader or taking a tour with a Jewish tour guide could land an [Irish Catholic] with a criminal record and punishments befitting that of a class A drugs smuggler."

Finally, is, as Omar claims, the BDS movement constitutionally secured by the First Amendment? The answer is a resounding "no."

Josh Hammer writes that "[a]s law professor and constitutional law expert Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post in 2017, it is the 'distinction between ... expression and ... commercial conduct' that makes all the constitutional difference in the world."

Thus, as Kontorovich explained in a July 2017 article
This distinction between the expression and the commercial conduct is crucial to the constitutionality of civil rights acts. In the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. However, if a KKK member places his constitutionally protected expression of racial hatred within the context of a commercial transaction — for example, by publishing a 'For Sale' notice that says that he will not sell his house to Jews or African Americans — it loses its constitutional protection.
Hammer points out that "[t]hese provisions were not initially written with Israel in mind, but they are statutorily agnostic as to the target of the boycott." He goes on to assert:
[T]he U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that an institutional entity's refusal to do business based on national origin is not an inherently expressive activity that is protected under the First Amendment. As Kontorovich aptly phrased it: 'It is only the boycotter's explanation of the action that sends a message, not the actual business conduct. Those expressions of views are protected, but they do not immunize the underlying economic conduct from regulation.' Under properly drafted anti-BDS statutes, such as the bill passed earlier this year by the U.S. Senate, individuals remain free to express their opposition to Israel through whichever convenient means they'd like to channel in order to do so. Instead, it is merely an entity's economic discrimination based on national origin that is not covered by the First Amendment. And under Rumsfeld and other applicable Supreme Court precedent, institutional boycotts against Israel are legally treated as economic action — and not as First Amendment–protected speech.
To put it simply, an individual can choose to purchase or not purchase a product from a country. But as Hammer asserts, "to the extent Omar's resolution seeks to 'affirm' an institutional entity's 'right' to economically discriminate based on national origin, she is dead wrong on the law." In fact, "the anti-Semitic BDS movement advocates illegal discrimination." Conversely, anti-BDS laws are perfectly constitutional and do not impede freedom of speech.

Thus, Omar is dead wrong on the law, but clearly, this will not stop her hatred, and the jihadist infiltration will continue.

Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

://" target="_blank">Twitter

As Police Prestige Declines, Crime Increases and Civilization Weakens - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The unraveling of law and order.

In the latest of a string of municipal police stand-downs, New York City officers slunk away after a jeering crowd dumped water on them. In a separate incident in Harlem, an officer was hit on the head with a hard-plastic bucket. This retreat from an assault on the law was not as consequential as that of Portland police who did nothing as journalist Andy Ngo got assaulted and injured by Antifa thugs, but it bespeaks a dangerous trend: The growing disdain for the prestige of law enforcement officers, who now are politically handcuffed and prevented from doing their jobs.

That this latest embarrassment happened in NYC makes it even more revealing. Throughout the Nineties, crime in the city plummeted: Violent crime dropped by more than 56%, and property crimes 65%. Murders peaked at 2245 in 1990, then started to decline, particularly after Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor in 1993 and instituted changes in policing, such as the “broken windows” crackdown on misdemeanors like subway turn-style-jumping that created an atmosphere of disorder and lawlessness. Along with more police on the streets, more criminals put in jail, and tactics like “stop-and-frisk” of suspects, these changes contributed to the steep decline in murders. By 1999, murders had fallen by 73%. In 2018, there were 289 murders, almost half as many as Chicago, which has about one-fourth the population of New York.

That success demonstrated how the prestige of the police, their success at stopping crimes, and the respect for their authority that follows from their active presence in the public square, deters potential miscreants and improves the quality of life for citizens––especially minorities, who are the most frequent victims of violent crime in big cities.

But sometimes reinforcing this authority requires a physical response when a civilian continually resists even verbally an officer’s orders. I learned this lesson in my rural, multi-ethnic high school. The students were equally divided among white, black, and Mexican-American. This meant every few years there’d be an interracial gang fight, which brought out local sheriffs and highway patrolmen. Once, while I was watching the show, a white kid started to enter the fray, lunging between me and a highway patrolman. The officer told the student to stay out of it. The kid lunged again, and the officer grabbed his arm and gave it a pull. On the third try, the patrolman bounced his nightstick on the kid’s head, and he hit the ground with his eyeballs spinning like a slot-machine. 

Years later, I had a refresher course in how to avoid unpleasant encounters with the police. I was in D.C. with a couple of university colleagues, sitting in a cab after dinner at Union Station. The cab in front of us wasn’t moving, because the East African driver was being hassled by three black “youths.” The driver obviously did not want to transport them where they wanted to go. Yes, he profiled them, based on the hard experiences of cabbies who end up maimed or dead for not being as careful. After a few minutes, two D.C. policemen, black men who looked like they played linebacker for the Redskins, approached the group. We couldn’t hear what was said to the officers, but one of the cops didn’t like it–– he suddenly lifted the offending punk off the ground and slammed him against the cab. He then advised the group in very colorful language we could hear that they should not frequent this area. The kid wasn’t hurt enough to need medical care, but he and his fellows did get the point. And to show it wasn’t a question of race, our black cabby defended the black policemen.
These anecdotes illustrate what most of us who lived outside the affluent progressive cocoons learned growing up––the informal “rule of three” governing police reactions to resistance or disrespect. The first response is verbal, the next physical, and the last requires medical attention.  Sounds cruel and abusive in our age of therapeutic solicitude, dainty snowflakes, and predatory lawyers, but for the police to be effective, they cannot brook any public challenge to their authority that damages their prestige. Doing so invites more resistance, more contempt for the cops, and more crime.

Yes, as in any group of flawed human beings, there are abusive cops too fond of their power and of abusing it.  But even if the cop was in the wrong, those of us with common sense understood that at the moment of contact, he possessed the authority to use lethal force, so it’s more prudent and healthier to deal with his abuse of authority later. Don’t give a policeman, particularly one who seems overly aggressive and bullying, an excuse to mess you up. Knuckleheads, on the other hand, typically have a problem with authority and impulse control, and so require more kinetic persuasion. The “rule of three” reinforces the prestige of the police, showing that their words will be backed up with action. You don’t have to like them, but you’d better respect them.

But the war on police waged over the last decade by race-industry activists like Black Lives Matter, and progressive mayors like NYC’s Bill de Blasio, nee Warren Wilhelm Jr.––whose complaints are based on lies about racist cops targeting black males for extralegal execution––have damaged the prestige, and hence authority, of cops on the beat. According to the N.Y. Post, “The NYPD, under orders from City Hall, has been standing down for years now — watching fare-beaters beating fares, pot-dealers dealing pot and addicts and insane people defecating in the streets, all without consequence.” Now the police have gone from ignoring crimes to allowing them to be perpetrated against themselves.

Yet like most of our contemporary social dysfunctions, the current demonization of the police goes back half a century. The rise of the New Left in the Sixties, with its violent rhetoric and crimes, turned hatred of the police and violence against the social order that police defend into a political virtue. In this they were following radical leftist utopians from Robespierre to Lenin, who both embraced terrorist violence as revolutionary justice. Academics, of course, provided the legitimacy of scholarship to this idea. In 1969, Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm glorified violent criminals as “social bandits,” who “challenge the economic, social, and political order by challenging those who hold or claim power, law, and the control of resources.” Popular culture played along with movies like Bonnie and Clyde, which glamorized as “social justice warriors” two psychopathic cop-killers, and demonized the American hero who tracked them down and killed them. Then there was a National Lampoon cartoon strip in the Seventies titled “How to make a football,” which depicted the murder and skinning of a cop.

Why, then, given this long embrace of cop-hatred as an act of justice and virtue-signaling, are we now surprised that cops are assaulted and mocked with impunity, and a two-bit outfit like Antifa is being empowered and enabled by a political party that has returned to the lunacy of the Sixties? Or that civic “leaders,” having completed the Cultural Marxist “long march through the institutions,” go along? We have yet to hear any specific condemnations of Antifa from the Democrat Party, with the exception of presidential candidates Joe Biden and Andrew Yang. The “Squad” of four far-left Congresswomen, of course, refused a direct invitation to do so. Indeed, last year Minnesota one-time Congressman and DNC chairman, now state Attorney General, Keith Ellison tweeted a photo of himself with the Antifa Handbook, and months later posed with a Portland Antifa capo.

These anti-police ideas have burrowed deep into popular culture and school curricula, and have become so familiar that we see little outrage over Antifa’s depredations, or over the fashion of “making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep.” As Orwell said of Kipling’s memorable line, “He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.”

The effectiveness of the police at keeping us safe and civilized depends on the citizens’ respect for their authority and their readiness to use force, sometimes lethal, to enforce the law. When the police do not use their power to do so, people start to disdain them and their illegal behavior escalates. Unless resisted, this political assault on the police will have dire consequences on public order. We’re already witnessing the wages of mayors and police chiefs of some American cities telling their officers to stand down in the presence of Antifa’s public assaults and vandalism. We should also be concerned about more deadly violence against police officers, such as the 2016 assassination of six policemen in Dallas by an assailant angered by the media and race-hacks’ over hyped and misleading coverage of police shootings of blacks.

Emboldened by this fecklessness on the part of officials responsible for public safety, Antifa is becoming more violent and destructive. At some point more people are going to start dying, and their blood will be on the hands of progressive politicians who restrain and disrespect the police in the service of a malign ideology long associated with violence against those who guard all of us--including anti-cop progressives and activists--while we sleep.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dems Double Down in Detroit - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

Targeting Trump, turning back the clock.

After the first debate on Tuesday, CNN took some heat for including no questions about the famous Mueller report. This time the CNN crew brought it up, but only near the end of the proceedings.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California cited “ten clear cases” of obstruction of justice on the part of President Trump. “No one is above the law,” she said, but the candidate failed to outline the ten clear cases. In his recent testimony, Mueller cited zero cases of obstruction.

Sen. Cory Booker said the president is “authoritarian,” so “start impeachment proceedings immediately.” Julian Castro told the crowd the Mueller reports indicates that Trump “deserves impeachment,” without any citation from that report or the recent Mueller testimony. The Texas Democrat also supports the “prosecution” of the president.

Likewise, New York mayor bill Di Blasio said the president “has committed crimes worthy of impeachment,” without naming any of the crimes. On the prospect of impeachment hindering the Democrats’ prospects to defeat Trump, several candidates, including Castro, said they had to “walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Former HUD boss Castro also delivered one of the bigger whoppers of the night when he acknowledged recent job growth and said it was all “due to Barack Obama.” As with the Mueller report, he didn’t explain how, or deliver any figures.

Castro did tout his “Marshall Plan” for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which would sent more money to those countries. Castro would not deliver a clear answer whether crossing the border should continue to be illegal. The notion of  “open borders,” he said, was a “right-wing talking point.”

Likewise, candidate Michael Bennet was silent on illegal border crossings, but did refer to “nativist hostility.” Kirsten Gillibrand, brilliantly clad in orange, wanted such illegal crossings to be a “civil violation.” The candidates opposed the separation of families and several targeted former vice president Joe Biden for the heavy deportation record of the Obama administration. In fact, anti-deportation chants broke out several times during the debate.

Biden pushed back at Castro and talked up his position on asylum, and how he had sent $750 million to Guatemala. Biden also asked the candidates “what do you say to all those who wait in line” and that the United States should be “able to send back” those who cross illegally.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbert of Hawaii, clad in white suit worthy of Elvis, referred to the undocumented as “second-class citizens.” She did not clarify that they are not citizens at all, and that states such as California have made illegals a privileged, protected class, even helping violent criminals to evade detection and deportation. Gabbert did say she would make it easier to gain asylum in the United States but did not support free college for illegals.

Candidate Jay Inslee, sporting a Clark Kent look, denounced the “white nationalist” in the White House and said “send us your Syrian Refugees.” Cory Booker, who like host Don Lemon often calls Trump a racist, warned about “playing into Republican hands.” Bill Di Blasio wondered if Biden used his power as vice president to stop deportations, and got no clear answer. For his part, Biden became something of a target in the opening exchange on health care.

Biden charged that the Medicare for all policies touted by leftist Democrats would raise taxes and cause people to lose their employer-based insurance. “You can’t beat Trump with double-talk,” said Biden, who wants to “build on Obamacare” and “take back all that Trump took away.”

That wasn’t enough for candidates such as Harris and Gillibrand, who blasted independent insurance companies with nearly the fury of Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday. The audience got no clear indication how it would all be funded. Several Democrat candidates supported health care as a “right” and Cory Booker said Donald Trump is “trying to take away health care.”

Joe Biden  also took some heat from Harris for working “with segregationists to oppose busing,” without indicating that those segregationists were in fact Democrats such as Senators Herman Talmadge and James Eastland. Harris talked a good game on criminal justice but Gabbert took her to task for jailing people on marijuana charges as a DA in San Francisco, and keeping cash bail in place.

In the debate’s foreign policy section, candidate Gabbert lamented the nation’s endless wars and said “our president is supporting al Qaida.” She didn’t say how, exactly but that might have tied Julian Castro’s contention that Obama caused the nation’s current prosperity. The people in Detroit  could be forgiven for thinking he didn’t, and that Democrats bear responsibility for many of their current woes.

As on Tuesday, the so-called moderates and progressives tangled but no clear winner emerged. On the other hand, Cory Booker may have provided a hint when he said, “Trump is enjoying this debate.”

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of  Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation and, most recently, Sexual Terrorist, about the Golden State Killer.  Lloyd’s work has appeared in City Journal, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, California Globe, and many other publications. Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield is a collection of his journalism. His crime books include A Shut and Open Case, about a double murder in Davis, California.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Muslim Friends Betray - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

Circumstance and profitability.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and author most recently of Sword and Scimitar.

One of the most troubling aspects of the recent gang-rape and murder of a 60-year-old Christian teacher in Syria was reported on Arabic media as follows (in translation):
Her rapists and murderers are from the [jihadi] organization, al-Nusra.  Some of them are foreigners but others are from the area.  In other words, those who raped and stoned her are themselves from among her former students and neighbors, whom she taught Arabic in school over the course of 30 years….  Surely she never dreamt to see such depraved savagery in the eyes of her former students…. Nonetheless, they preyed on her like wild beasts—even though wild beasts do not rape their mothers (emphasis added).
Such is the third category of Muslims that lurks between “moderates” and “radicals”: “sleepers”—Muslims who appear “moderate” but who turn “radical” once circumstances become favorable.   For instance, after the Islamic State (“ISIS”) entered the Syrian city of Hassak√®, prompting a mass exodus of Christians, many otherwise “normal” Muslims joined ranks with ISIS, instantly turning on their longtime Christian neighbors.

This shift has played out countless times wherever and whenever Islamic terror groups infiltrate.  The following are testimonials from non-Muslims, mostly Christian refuges from those regions of Iraq and Syria that came under ISIS or other jihadi control.  Consider what they say about their longtime Muslim neighbors who appeared “moderate”—or at least nonviolent—but who, once the jihad came to town, exposed their true colors:

Georgios, a man from the ancient Christian town of Ma‘loula, Syria, tells of how Muslim neighbors he knew all his life turned after al-Nusra—the same jihadi outfit that recently gang-raped and murdered the aforementioned 60-year-old Christian women—invaded in 2013:
We knew our Muslim neighbours all our lives. Yes, we knew the Diab family were quite radical, but we thought they would never betray us. We ate with them. We are one people.  A few of the Diab family had left months ago and we guessed they were with the Nusra. But their wives and children were still here. We looked after them. Then, two days before the Nusra attacked, the families suddenly left the town. We didn’t know why. And then our neighbours led our enemies in among us (emphasis added).
After explaining how he saw a young member of the Diab family whom he knew from youth holding a sword and leading foreign jihadis to Christian homes, Georgios continues:
We had excellent relations. It never occurred to us that Muslim neighbours would betray us. We all said “please let this town live in peace — we don’t have to kill each other.”  But now there is bad blood. They brought in the Nusra to throw out the Christians and get rid of us forever. Some of the Muslims who lived with us are good people but I will never trust 90 per cent of them again.
A teenage Christian girl from Homs, Syria, relates her story:
We left because they were trying to kill us. . . . They wanted to kill us because we were Christians. They were calling us Kaffirs [infidels], even little children saying these things. Those who were our neighbors turned against us. At the end, when we ran away, we went through balconies. We did not even dare go out on the street in front of our house. I’ve kept in touch with the few Christian friends left back home, but I cannot speak to my Muslim friends any more. I feel very sorry about that. (Crucified Again, p. 207; emphasis added).
When asked who exactly threatened and drove Christians out of Mosul, Iraq, another anonymous Christian refugee explained:
We left Mosul because ISIS came to the city. The [Sunni Muslim] people of Mosul embraced ISIS and drove the Christians out of the city. When ISIS entered Mosul, the people hailed them and drove out the Christians….  The people who embraced ISIS, the people who lived there with usYes, my neighbors. Our neighbors and other people threatened us. They said: “Leave before ISIS get you.” What does that mean? Where would we go?…  Christians have no support in Iraq (emphasis added).
Other “infidels,” Yazidis for example, have experienced the same betrayal.  Discussing the ISIS invasion of his village, a 68-year-old Yazidi man said:
The (non-Iraqi) jihadists were Afghans, Bosnians, Arabs and even Americans and British fighters….  But the worst killings came from the people living among us, our (Sunni) Muslim neighbours….  The Metwet, Khawata and Kejala tribes—they were all our neighbours. But they joined the IS, took heavy weapons from them, and informed on who was Yazidi and who was not. Our neighbours made the IS takeover possible (emphasis added).
When asked during an interview why people she grew up with her whole life suddenly joined ISIS and savagely turned on her people, a Yazidi woman replied:
I can’t tell you exactly, but it has to be religion.  It has to be religion.  They constantly asked us to convert, but we refused.  Before this, they never mentioned it.  Prior, we thought of each other as family.  But I say, it has to be religion (emphasis added).
This phenomenon is not limited to the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.  In Nigeria—a nation that shares little with Syria and Iraq, other than for its Islam—a jihadi attack that left five churches destroyed and several Christians killed was enabled by “local Muslims” who were previously on friendly terms with the region’s Christians.

Nor is this phenomenon connected to any of those contemporary Muslim “grievances”—whether the existence of Israel, “blasphemous” cartoons, or “lack of job opportunities”—Western talking heads often cite to rationalize away Muslim hatred.  The following anecdote, over one century old and from the Ottoman Empire, speaks for itself:
Then one night, my husband came home and told me that the padisha [sultan] had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village, and that we would have to kill our neighbours. I was very angry, and told him that I did not care who gave such orders, they were wrong. These neighbours had always been kind to us...  but he killed them — killed them with his own hand (Sir Edwin Pears, Turkey and Its PeopleLondon: Methuen and Co., 1911, p. 39; emphasis added).
This, then, is the other, forgotten group of Muslims that lurk between “moderates” and “radicals”: sleepers, whose allegiance can and does shift at the drop of a dime.

Raymond Ibrahim


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter