Friday, September 13, 2019

The NY Times blames airplanes for 9/11 instead of Muslim terrorists - Leah Rosenberg

by Leah Rosenberg

The NY Times blames airplanes for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. They felt airplanes were responsible and not Al-Qaeda. There are no words.

The NY Times Blames Airplanes??

The New York Times keeps on reaching new lows. Every time some article or tweet is written, it seems bad. And then it just keeps getting worse. And this time, they did something to degrade and dishonor every single 9/11 victim and their families. That is thousands and thousands of people that The New York Times disrespected. That is thousands of victims that The New York Times decided were not valuable enough to remember properly. 

The NY Times actually blames airplanes for the tragic terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 instead of blaming Islamic terrorists. Apparently, the airplanes were responsible for murdering thousands of innocent Americans, leaving husbands without wives, wives without husbands, children without parents, parents without children and more. Apparently, terrorists had nothing to do with it. The New York Times should be completely ashamed of themselves.

And Then it Continues…

To remember 9/11, The New York Times did not have victims share their thoughts. They did not have people talk about the horrors. Instead, they had a Muslim talk about how America became Islamophobic after, and how that is the biggest issue facing the United States. Wow. If The NY Times had not disgraced all the victims of 9/11 enough, they also have an article to go along with their already shameful tweet. This is actually horrifying and humiliating. Just 18 years after the shocking and traumatizing attack, this newspaper made it clear who they side with. And no, sadly, it is not America. It is not the victims. It is not the victims’ families. 

If the lack of compassion, awareness, and morality of The New York Times does not bring you to tears, what will? 

Leah Rosenberg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Danny Lewin H'yd: The very first victim of 9/11 - Ron Jager

by Ron Jager

Danny Lewin, veteran of the IDF’s elite commando team, outstanding graduate of Israel’s Technion and MIT PhD student at MIT will be forever remembered for his attempt to prevent the hijacking of Flight 11, becoming the very first victim of 9/11.

Danny Lewin first walked into Samson’s Gym in Jerusalem in 1985 accompanied by his best friend, Aviad, the son of Peace Now pioneer activist Janet Aviad. Despite Danny not yet being 15, he came armed with a series of questions about Jerusalem’s legendary fitness facility, the first of its kind in Israel, and the much-talked-about new attraction in Israel’s capital. After asking about the equipment, the rates, the hours, and the type of workout program that he had hoped to get from one of the muscular instructors who seemed to epitomize the gym’s name, Danny asked a question that would seem haunting a decade and a half later. “Why are there no Arabs here and what are you afraid of?” His question seemed more a comment that stood to support the argument that would soon follow when his close friend brazenly challenged the gym’s unspoken policy.

The gym owner’s responded in his typically blunt manner: “Because we don’t want any trouble—”; yet, before he could further clarify, Danny Lewin boldly asked again: “What about the good Arabs?!”

Less than a month into their initial three-month membership, Aviad dropped out. The sport was simply too demanding. Danny, on the other hand, became more and more committed, visiting Samson’s Gym even on the days he didn’t train. He saw it as his home away from home, convinced that it would serve as the vehicle by which he would transform his life, helping to develop a fine-tuned body that would complement his noticeably gifted mind. His friends marveled, and the mirror reflected evidence of the rapid development of a determined, motivated, and aspiring muscle man.

There was something special about Danny; he radiated a sense of independence more fitting of someone twice his age. Only weeks into his membership, he asked if he could get a job at the gym and join the small team of instructors who were already well recognized as they walked the streets of Jerusalem wearing the coveted Samson’s Gym trainer tee shirt. Not taking no for an answer, he asked again a few weeks later. And yet again, a few weeks later, offering to “do anything” to become part of the team. Anything! And so it was. Still new to the iron game, 15-year-old Danny Lewin rushed to Samson’s Gym from school every day—to sweep the floors, mop the showers, and, yes, to clean the toilets. He could finally call himself part of the Samson’s team. A year and a half later, the now-muscular Lewin was ready to be an instructor—training a cadre of Jews, young and old, to believe in themselves and the inner strength that they possess.

After breezing through high school and matriculation exams, Danny volunteered and served in Sayeret Matkal, the IDF’s most elite commando unit. He married at 21 and raised two young boys with his wife. He received his B.S. from the Technion, working long hours as a teaching assistant there and as a researcher for IBM in Haifa. 

In 1996, Danny accepted a scholarship to study computer science and mathematics at MIT. Two years later, while working on his Ph.D., he founded Akamai Technologies which offered a new and revolutionary way to deliver content over the Internet. By 2001, Danny was widely recognized as one of the most influential technologists of his generation. One well-known trade publication ranked him as the seventh most important technologist in the world. His impact on people was so strong that, even today, battle-hardened CEOs and IDF sharpshooters get choked up when talking about him, in part, because his rise was so quick, so spectacular, and so tragically short.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Danny Lewin boarded American Airlines Flight No. 11 in Boston, expecting to reach Los Angeles. Instead, the flight was hijacked and commandeered by Arab terrorists, crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. On that fateful flight, Danny Lewin became the very first victim of the largest terrorist attack in history in which almost 3,000 Americans died. An internal memorandum of the Federal Aviation Administration says “that in the course of a struggle that took place between Lewin, a graduate of Israel’s elite commando unit, Sayeret Matkal, and the four hijackers who were assaulting that cockpit, Lewin was murdered by Satam Al Suqami, a 25-year-old Saudi.”

Sometime after the attack, the Lewin family in Jerusalem received a telephone call from the FBI offices in New York. On the line was the agent responsible for the investigation of the attack on Flight 11. He told Danny’s parents that there is a high degree of certainty that Danny tried to prevent the hijacking. The FBI relied, among other things, on the testimony of the stewardess Amy Sweeney.

Sweeney succeeded in clandestinely getting a call out during the flight to a flight services supervisor in Boston, from the rear of the plane: “A hijacker slit the throat of a passenger in business class and the passenger appears to me to be dead.” To this day the American investigators are not convinced that Danny Lewin was murdered on the spot. An additional stewardess, Betty Ong, who succeeded in calling from a telephone by one of the passenger seats, said that the passenger who was attacked from business class seat 10B was seriously wounded. It turned out that 10B was the seat of Danny Lewin.

The Lewin family, Danny’s parents and brothers, have no doubt that Danny battled the hijackers. And it is for them a tremendous consolation. “I wasn’t surprised to hear from the FBI that Danny fought. I was sure that this is what he would do,” Yonatan, his younger brother, said. “Danny didn’t sit quietly. From what we heard from the Americans, the hijackers attacked one of the stewardesses and Danny rose to protect her and prevent them from entering the cockpit. It is a consolation to us that Danny fought. We see it as an act of heroism that a person sacrifices his life in order to save others. That battle in the business section ended quickly. Lewin was overcome and bled to death on the floor. Two additional flight attendants were knifed and the captain was murdered. The hijackers were already inside the cockpit. They announced to the passengers to remain quiet in their seats.

As we fathom the tragic details of the incredible life journey of Danny Lewin, Hy’d, from mopping up the locker rooms of Samson’s Gym in Jerusalem to the pinnacle of the high tech industry in America, I am reminded of Danny’s question back in 1985, “What about the good Arabs?” Indeed, as we grasp the dimensions of 9/11 from a 10-year perspective, where were these “good Arabs” who rejected this compulsive need to murder one’s way to Islamic glory? Where are they today?

Danny Lewin H'yd –father, son and husband, a veteran of the Israel Defense Force’s elite commando team, the outstanding graduate of Israel’s Technion Institute, an accomplished PhD student at MIT and co-founder of the Internet giant Akamai Technologies will be forever remembered for his heroic attempt to prevent the hijacking of Flight 11 becoming the very first victim of 9/11.

*this article was prepared with the assistance of Mr. Meir Jolovitz. the legendary founder of Samson's Gym in Jerusalem

**this article was cited as a footnote in Wikipedia for being the first source ever to name by name the very first victim of 9/11 

Ron Jager, a 25-year veteran of the I.D.F., served as a field mental health officer. Prior to retiring in 2005, served as the Commander of the Central Psychiatric Military Clinic for Reserve Soldiers at Tel-Hashomer. Since retiring from active duty, he provides consultancy services to NGO’s implementing Psycho trauma and Psycho education programs to communities in the North and South of Israel. He was former strategic advisor at the Office of the Chief Foreign Envoy of Judea and Samaria. To contact:


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump: I don't think the Israelis are spying on us - Elad Benari

by Elad Benari

Trump downplays report on alleged Israeli spying in Washington: I really would find that hard to believe.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump
US President Donald Trump on Thursday downplayed a report on alleged Israeli spying in Washington.

“I don’t think the Israelis are spying on us. I really would find that hard to believe,” he told reporters.

While the President added that “anything’s possible”, he reiterated he doesn’t believe it.

Earlier on Thursday, a senior US administration official said that the report in Politico is “completely false”.

The unnamed official told Los Angeles Times reporter Noga Tarnopolsky that the story, which appeared on the Politico website, "is completely false. Absolutely false. I checked."

The report said that an investigation by security forces in the United States has led to the suspicion that Israel is behind the placing of miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as “StingRays,” in the vicinity of the White House.

The devices in question mimic regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information. According to Politico, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.

Based on forensic analysis, the FBI and other agencies working on the case felt confident that Israeli agents had placed the devices, according to the former officials, several of whom the report said served in top intelligence and national security posts.

Earlier on Thursday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denied the Politico report as he landed in Sochi where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Netanyahu said, "Lies. Complete nonsense. I have a clear directive - no intelligence collections in the US, and this directive is completely enforced."

Elad Benari


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Is Christopher Wray Protecting Andrew McCabe? - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

Christopher Wray may also be suffering from his own lack of candor in his reasons for hiding McCabe’s text messages.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has tried to stay out of the public eye, and while he does not have liar and leaker James Comey’s flair for flamboyant, self-serving press conferences, and doesn’t have his fingerprints all over the Russian collusion hoax and FISAgate, he still is a D.C. swamp rat working behind the scenes to protect his deep-state cronies. 

The text messages of FBI agents Peter Strzok and paramour Lisa Page have gone a long way to explain and document the attempt by President Obama’s government agencies to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House. One would think the text messages of Andrew McCabe, fired for “lack of candor,” would be a treasure trove of information detailing the coup plotters' machinations and deliberations. So why is Wray fighting to keep them out of public view and away from legal scrutiny? 

McCabe, the man he worked for, Comey, and the people who worked under McCabe, such as Strzok and Page, took the fruit of foreign interference in our election that was the Steele Dossier, compiled from Russian sources, delivered through a British agent, and paid for by the DNC and Team Clinton, and used it to commit a fraud upon the FISA court to trigger the illegal surveillance of one political campaign by another with the aid of co-conspirators at the DoJ and FBI. 

That McCabe himself was a key architect of this coup is found in the texts of Strozk, who speaks of the plan hatched in “Andy’s office” to stop Trump at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:
Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to (Lisa) Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in "Andy's" (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe's) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [break]... that there's no way he gets elected. I want to believe that... But I'm afraid we can't take that risk... We have to do something about it."
As investigative journalist Sara Carter notes:
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes, R-CA, said his committee was stymied by the FBI when they attempted to retrieve McCabe’s communications.
“The House Intelligence Committee tried to get the McCabe texts in the last Congress, but we were stonewalled,” Nunes told on Monday. “This is the kind of issue that really needs more transparency. There’s been too much unnecessary secrecy surrounding the entire Russia investigation -- the American people deserve to know exactly what happened.”…
“The DOJ Inspector General found that Andrew McCabe ‘lacked candor, including underneath, on multiple occasions,’ and that he disclosed sensitive information about ongoing investigations to members of the press,” said Rep. Matthew Gaetz, R-Florida, on Monday. “The FBI’s own Office of Professional Responsibility recommended McCabe’s firing. It is imperative that the DOJ have access to the full universe of Andrew McCabe’s communications -- Congress and the American people deserve transparency, both to better understand McCabe’s role in the attempted ‘coup’ against President Trump, and to ensure that systemic corruption of this magnitude never happens again.”…
Judicial Watch also sought the text messages earlier this year. The government watchdog group filed a motion in May to obtain McCabe’s text messages on behalf of FBI supervisory special agent Jeffery Danik…
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told this reporter Monday that his organization is still awaiting a court ruling on obtaining McCabe’s text messages.
“It is astonishing that the FBI is not only playing games with Judicial Watch and Congress but also the Justice Department on text messages,” said Fitton. “It is as if Comey is still running the FBI.”
Indeed it is. Christopher Wray may also be suffering from his own lack of candor in his reasons for hiding McCabe’s text messages. We saw a typical deep-state bob-and-weave in his reaction to Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

Wray’s explanation of the Horowitz report revealed him to be just another deep state-shill willing to ignore the attempted and ongoing coup against the duly elected president, Donald J. Trump. In his Orwellian press conference, Wray spoke from a parallel universe:
"It's also important, though, to note what the inspector general did not find. This report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations actually impacting the investigation under review," Wray told a press briefing at FBI headquarters. "The report does identify errors of judgment, violations of or even disregard for policy, and decisions that, at the very least, with the benefit of hindsight, were not the best choices."
Of course, Wray took advantage of the IG report’s reluctance to connect all the dots between the actions and the motives of those engaged in obstruction of justice like Comey and Strzok, who headed the Hillary investigation and joined Special Counsel Mueller’s team. 

It takes either mind-numbing stupidity or corruption or both to find no evidence of anti-Trump bias that affected either the investigations of Hillary Clinton or Trump/Russia collusion in the text messages of Strzok and Page. Wray merely says the matter will be referred to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), not bothering to explain how Strzok, despite his texts vowing to stop Trump, remains in the employ of the FBI. 

Wray agrees with Inspector General Clouseau that texts such as these are not reflected in actions that clearly amount to obstruction of justice:
In August 2016, the IG notes, Strzok vowed to Page that they could "stop" Trump from becoming president, although the IG did not find that political bias tainted specific investigative decisions in the Clinton probe.
Trump is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted to Strzok.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.
Christopher Wray accepted the notion that the participants sworn to exonerate Hillary and stop Trump in the political crime of the century really had no animus against Trump and merely made poor choices and exercised bad judgment 

Excuse me, Director Wray, but FBI officials like Strzok had both the motive and opportunity to act on their virulent bias to obstruct justice and interfere in the 2016 election in ways the Russians could only dream of. Ironically, Strzok sought to take his bias from Hillary’s exoneration to Trump’s alleged Russian collusion when he joined the Mueller witch-hunt. Strzok served as Mueller’s lead agent on the Russia probe until last July, when he was removed after the discovery of the text messages. And they discussed it all in “Andy’s offices.” 

One wonders -- if the text messages hadn’t been unearthed after Wray’s FBI said it had lost them, would Strzok have continued working on Mueller’s team of Democratic donors and Clinton lawyers? Wray must end his McCabe cover-up and being an apologist for deep-state corruption and criminality. 

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

California Judges Gone Wild - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

Protecting cop killers, illegals and terrorists.

On September 28 near Modesto, California, Dutch Hollow Farms will open a memorial for Ronil “Ron” Singh, the legal immigrant from Fiji who came to America to become a police officer. Singh’s wife and child will be the first to enter the massive maze bearing the officer’s image. Those paying tribute have good cause to track the path of the man charged with killing him.

On December 26, 2018, one day after Christmas, Singh pulled over a suspected drunk driver. He pulled a gun and shot the officer. The shooter fled and seven other illegals aided his flight before police apprehended him in Bakersfield. The accused shooter called himself Gustavo Perez Arriaga, one of his many aliases, but later claimed his real name was Pablo Virgen Mendoza. The gang-affiliated illegal had two previous DUI arrests.

His case is being handled by Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Ricardo Cordova, a former public defender appointed as a judge in 2003 by Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat recalled that year in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger. On January 2, Cordova suspended the proceedings against the accused cop killer on the grounds that his mental competency had come into question, a dubious claim but predictable tactic by the defense.

Cordova is also handling the cases of five illegals arrested for helping Mendoza flee. The judge complained that having all five in court at one time would be “unwieldy,” a claim even more dubious than the mental competency of the accused cop killer. To the surprise of no one, he was  indeed competent, and in May Cordova set the preliminary hearing for December 10, nearly a year after the murder of Ronil Singh. His many supporters have good cause to wonder whether Cordova will reprise his role as a public defender with the accused illegal.  

Last month, California’s First District Court of Appeals, packed with Jerry Brown appointees, reversed the gun conviction of Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, a previously deported criminal illegally present in the United States. In what amounted to a show trial, Garcia-Zarate was acquitted of murder in the July 1, 2015 shooting of Kate Steinle, 32, on a San Francisco pier. Despite the reversal of the gun charge, the illegal did in fact discharge the weapon that killed Steinle.

In May, Ismael Huazo-Jardinez crashed into a Sutter County residence claiming the lives of three people, including a ten-year-old child. The drunken illegal attempted to flee the scene, but Judge David Ashby, a 2016 appointee of Gov. Jerry Brown, allowed Huazo-Jardinez to post bail. He was arrested by ICE and found to possess two stolen firearms, two dozen cell phones, and $12,000 in cash.

In California, the anti-ICE prejudice goes all the way to the top. In 2016, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye charged that federal agents were “stalking” illegals in courthouses. The former blackjack dealer thus showed her hand as an advocate for violators of U.S. immigration law. Other judges are eager to cut convicted terrorists some slack.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell ordered the release from federal prison of Hamid Hayat, convicted on terrorism charges in 2006. That delighted Hayat’s defenders, CAIR and the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), who had gone judge shopping. 

By releasing Hayat, Burrell was following the recommendation of magistrate judge Deborah Barnes, who allowed relatives of Hayat to testify from Pakistan by a video hookup. It remains unclear how these witnesses were identified, under what law they were sworn in, and how they were cross-examined.

To the surprise of no one, they testified that Hayat could not have attended a terrorist training camp, one of the crimes for which he was duly convicted. Despite the crowing of CAIR bosses, the premature release of Hayat does not mean that he is innocent of the original charges.

Back in 2015, Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik gunned down 14 people in San Bernardino. The Muslims carefully planned the attack, rigging explosives to kill first responders. Had the terrorists survived, Californians could easily believe that state courts might have ignored their motive and questioned their mental competence.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, recently tipped his hand that 10 million illegals reside in California. Automatically registered to vote by the DMV, illegals have become the Democrats’ electoral college, so Democrats protect even the violent criminals among them at all costs. State judges, in effect, serve as a pro-bono law firm for illegals, and rank their concerns above those of their victims.

As legal immigrants and legitimate citizens might note, it was a private entity, not state government, that created the memorial to Ronil Singh. Those who show up on September 28 will be admitted free, and all donations will go toward the Corporal Ronil Singh Memorial Fund.

Meanwhile, legal immigrants, legitimate citizens, and anyone concerned about public safety might monitor the way former public defender Ricardo Cordova handles the case of Pablo Virgen Mendoza, accused of gunning down Ron Singh. Mark your calendars for December 10.

Lloyd Billingsley


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

UK: Tony Blair Think-Tank Proposes End to Free Speech - Judith Bergman

by Judith Bergman

The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of "spreading intolerance" or "aligning with extremist ideologies" -- and designate it a "hate group".

  • Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair's think-tank appears to be the online verbal "hatred" displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks -- not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of UK life.
  • Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions such as violence or terrorism, the designation of "hate group" would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.
  • Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank's least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the UK.
  • The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of "spreading intolerance" or "aligning with extremist ideologies" -- and designate it a "hate group".

A new law proposed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the UK. (Images' source: iStock)

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has released a report, Designating Hate: New Policy Responses to Stop Hate Crime, which recommends radical initiatives to tackle "hate" groups, even if they have not committed any kind of violent activity.

The problem, as the think-tank defines it, is "the dangerous nature of hateful groups, including on the far right like Britain First and Generation Identity. But current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence". The think-tank defines what it sees as one of the main problems with hate crime the following way:
"A steady growth in hate crime has been driven by surges around major events. Often this begins online. Around the 2017 terror attacks in the UK, hate incidents online increased by almost 1,000 per cent, from 4,000 to over 37,500 daily. In the 48-hour period after an event, hate begins to flow offline".
Specifically, the report mentioned as problematic the rise online in "hate incidents" after three Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK in 2017 -- the Westminster car-ramming and stabbing attack in March by Khalid Masood, who murdered pedestrians and a police officer; the Manchester arena bombing in May, at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, in which Salman Abedi murdered 22 people -- the youngest only 8 years old -- and injured more than 200 people; and the London Bridge ramming attack in June, in which Rachid Redouane, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then proceeded to stab people in nearby Borough Market. Eight people were murdered in that attack.

Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair's think-tank appears to be the online verbal "hatred" displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks – not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of UK life.

The report claims:
"Divisive groups – especially increasingly mainstreamed far-right groups – spread hatred with relative impunity because responses to nonviolent extremism remain uncoordinated; hate incidents spike around major events, leaving communities exposed; and perpetrators of religious hate are rarely prosecuted due to gaps in legislation".
The problem, according to the report, is that "current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence".

One of the think-tank's suggested solutions to this problem is to:
"Create a new law to designate 'hate groups'. This new tier of hate group designation would be the first of its kind in Europe and would help tackle nonviolent extremist groups that demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religious, gender, nationality or sexuality ... Powers to designate would, like proscription powers, fall under the Home Office's remit and require ministerial sign off".
The report defines a hate group as:
"Spreading intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality, specifically because of these characteristics; Aligning with extremist ideologies... though not inciting violence; Committing hate crimes or inspiring others to do so via hate speech; Disproportionately blaming specific groups (based on religion, race, gender or nationality) for broader societal issues".
It would be up to the government to define what is understood by "spreading intolerance", or "blaming specific groups for broader societal issues".

Being designated a "hate group", it is underlined in the report, "would sit alongside proscription but not be linked to violence or terrorism, while related offences would be civil not criminal".

Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions, such as violence or terrorism, the designation of "hate group" would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.

The groups that Blair's think-tank mentions as main examples of those to be designated hate groups are Britain First and Generation Identity. Both are political; Britain First is also an aspiring political party with parliamentary ambitions. If the report's suggestions were to be adopted into law, these movements, if designated as "hate groups" would not be allowed "to use media outlets or speak at universities". They would also not be allowed "to engage, work with or for public institutions".

However, the report tries to assure us, "hate designation would be time-limited and automatically reviewed, conditioned on visible reform of the group".

Although the report would still allow designated "hate groups" to "meet, support or campaign", such a law would mean that the political speech of designated groups would be rendered null and void. The European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence on the convention from the European Court of Human Rights puts a special premium on political speech, which enjoys particular protection: it is so fundamental to the basic workings of a democratic society. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated[1] that the convention
"...protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected".
Even more important is that, according to the European Court of Human Rights' case law,
"...the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns... strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court". [emphasis added]
The European Court of Human Rights may therefore find aspects of the proposed law problematic precisely because of concerns with free speech and basic democratic values.

Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank's least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the UK. The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of "spreading intolerance" or "aligning with extremist ideologies" -- and designate it a "hate group".

It would make the old Soviets proud.
Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

CNN's spy exfiltration story was a Second Russia Hoax - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Literally, a piece of Sciutto.

Less than a day and half after it appeared, CNN's "exclusive" report by Jim Sciutto that worries over President Trump's handling of classified information led the CIA to exfiltrate "one of [the CIA's] highest level sources" from Russia has been shown to be a hoax. Literally, a piece of Sciutto. As phony as the allegation that President Trump hired Russian hookers to urinate on a Moscow hotel room mattress just because President Obama once supposedly slept on it. Or that the man whose aggressive development of American fracking has devastated the pricing of Putin's sole money-making exports — oil and gas — is somehow in his pocket.

The phoniness of this CNN report did not take long to become apparent.

Even the Trump-hating New York Times reported that the decision to remove the agent was made before Trump took office:
C.I.A. officials worried about safety made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia.
And what caused the worries over his safety? Why, not President Trump, but rather his nemesis, the mainstream media, which were vigorously publicizing information that the Russian official supposedly supplied to the CIA about Russian interference in our 2016 election:
[W]hen intelligence officials revealed the severity of Russia's election interference with unusual detail later that year, the news media picked up on details about the C.I.A.'s Kremlin sources.
So, the agent in question was a source used by the Russia hoaxers to support the allegations in the Steele dossier. And his safety was the last thing on the mind of President Obama*, as Lew Jan Olawski reports in The Federalist:
President Obama compromised this source even further, right before Trump's inauguration. Obama authorized the public release and declassification of a report by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) alluding to this source's placement in the Russian government. The New York Times cites the public release of the DNI report as another reason for extracting the source.
The DNI report incredibly claimed President Trump was Russian President Vladimir Putin's favored candidate in the United States presidential election. It said Mr. Putin was, in part, motivated by a "grudge" against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him."
In publishing those claims, intelligence officials publicly revealed they were privy to Putin's private motivations and policy process. This implied they either had a mole in Putin's inner circle or else were eavesdropping on Putin's most sensitive discussions. Such a revelation would have been clever if it were false because this could cause Putin to distrust, investigate, or even purge members of his inner circle.
But now it appears the leak was true. Intelligence officials spoiled a bona fide top-level intelligence source operating inside an adversary foreign government just to damage their own American president and government.
Yet another layer of hoax has become clear. The identity of this supposedly top-level agent spirited out of Russia has not been much of a secret at all. He is living in Fairfax, Virginia, a D.C. suburb, under his own name, Oleg Smolenkov. So open was his life in the United States that NBC sent a reporter to his house, all the while gushing about the danger to this secret agent.

Why would a truly important defector who had provided important inside information on Putin's Russia buy a house in his own name in a D.C. suburb? Only if he had nothing to fear from Putin. And why might he have had nothing to fear? Is it unreasonable to suspect that he was part of a disinformation campaign? One that the Kremlin instituted to sow dissension among Americans? One that worked, and generated the Mueller probe, for instance?

Something worth looking into is CIA chief John Brennan's reported secret trip to Moscow in March 2016.

High-ranking Russian officials claim that CIA director John Brennan visited Moscow on March 14 to meet with Russia's federal intelligence agency. A CIA spokesman allegedly clarified that the meeting had nothing to do with Russia's withdrawal from Syria.
"It's no secret that Brennan was here," claimed Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov. "But he didn't visit the Foreign Ministry. I know for sure that he met with the Federal Security Service (the successor agency to the Soviet KGB), and someone else."
Joe diGenova and Alan Dershowitz discussed the incident last night with Laura Ingraham. The very well connected diGenova thinks Brennan was behind the second Russia Hoax as much as he was behind the first.

The first Russia Hoax has turned out to be an exploding cigar for its perpetrators. The second one also may end up damaging its creators.

Corrected brain freeze typo, having mistakenly written Trump instead of Obama.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Forever War - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

Eighteen years and counting.

Four years after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the Japanese empire and its Nazi partner had been relegated to the dustbin of history, and America was rebuilding from the ravages of warfare. Eighteen years after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States was in the middle of a long period of peace and prosperity, and was looking confidently into a future that promised to be even better. The contrast with today, the eighteenth anniversary of the jihad bombings of New York and Washington, couldn’t be more stark.

Bernie Sanders and other Democrat presidential candidates have decried America’s “forever wars” and vowed to end them. But they want to end them not because they have been won, but because they believe that there is no significant jihad threat, and that therefore our continued presence in Afghanistan in particular, but in Syria and Iraq also, is pointless and self-defeating. They want to end the “forever” wars so that more American resources can be devoted to the chimera of climate change, the vastly overestimated “white supremacist” threat, and the deception of “Islamophobia.”

Yet oddly enough for liberal Democrats, they do have a point, or at least a partial one. The war in Afghanistan has become a “forever war” because it has no clear goal or end point and no definition of victory. What’s more, even if the Taliban were completely eradicated, the jihad threat against the United States would not be ended, because that threat doesn’t originate solely in Afghanistan, and in many ways has not even been addressed in the years since September 11, 2001.

The jihad threat can emanate from anywhere the Qur’an and Sunnah are preached and believed. But saying that in America eighteen years after 9/11 won’t result in any public consternation or calls for the monitoring of mosques; it will only get you defamed as a “racist” and an “Islamophobe,” to be dismissed and shunned by all decent people. Meanwhile, one imam in Georgia recently stated: “There has not been another 9/11-such attack in America because Islam is winning.”

Empty braggadocio? Maybe. But this imam was no outlier. In August at the notorious the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Fairfax County, Virginia, the imam Shaker Elsayed prayed that Allah would “grant victory to his servants, the mujahideen, wherever they are.” A few days later in Philadelphia, a convert to Islam named Maurice Hill shot and wounded six police officers in a shootout; according to the Clarion Project, he attended a “radical mosque,” the Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar, which “is known for preaching the Islamist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia referred to as ‘Wahhabism.’”

Imagine what would have happened if in 1959, a German leader said that there had been no Nazi terror attacks in the United States because Nazism was winning, while another German leader publicly hoped for the victory of the Nazis, and a man who shot six policemen was found to be a member of a German society that preached Nazism. Imagine if those who called attention to the ongoing Nazi threat were derided as “anti-German bigots,” and not taken seriously by anyone. Imagine if a network of activist judges systematically struck down efforts by an anti-Nazi President to rectify this situation.

All that would have been inconceivable in 1959, but it is our reality today. The September 11 jihad attacks were a great victory for the forces of the global jihad, because since then the principal target of those attacks, the United States government, has been so concerned with not appearing to be “anti-Muslim” and not “going to war with Islam” that it quickly became, and remains, afraid to enunciate, much less to confront, the motivating ideology behind those attacks.

And so on this eighteenth anniversary of the murder of nearly three thousand Americans by the warriors of Allah, supporters of those warriors are all over this land, and many are in positions of power and influence. But no matter. The attention of the world has moved on. The jihad threat is a concern of the past, not of the present. All is well, and all will continue to be well, as long as we tackle global warming, the Russian threat to our elections, and the rise of white supremacism. Won’t it?

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turkey: Religious Backlash? - Uzay Bulut

by Uzay Bulut

"The religion that the [Turkish] government is trying to 'impose' on society is emotionally unsatisfying: it is loveless." — Professor Murat Belge

  • It is notable, however, that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's efforts to create "devout generations" of Muslims, through the establishment of numerous state-funded Imam Hatip religious schools, may not be having the desired results.
  • "Since [last summer], seventeen students with headscarves who identify as atheists have come to my office and [told me that] the reason [for their atheism] is the actions of the people who say they represent religion." — Dr. İhsan Fazlıoğlu, Istanbul Medeniyet University, T24, March 19, 2018.
  • "The religion that the [Turkish] government is trying to 'impose' on society is emotionally unsatisfying: it is loveless." — Professor Murat Belge, Head of the Department of Comparative Literature, Bilgi University, Istanbul, to Gatestone.
  • "Mosques or churches in your neighborhoods are no longer your only sources of information... Of course, societal pressures and the situation of the country are also [important] elements, but they are only elements that get the questioning started. This situation makes many people ask, 'Is this what my religion is about?' or they say, 'If this is religion, I am out.'" [Emphasis added] — Selin Özkohen, head of the Atheism Association, Euronews, March 19, 2019.

A 2018 survey reveals that, over the last decade, there has been a 4% decrease -- from 55% to 51% -- in the number of people in Turkey who define themselves as "religious" and that non-believers are becoming "more visible." (Image source: iStock)

In a radio interview on July 23, Temel Karamollaoğlu -- the head of Turkey's Islamist opposition party, Felicity -- accused Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of driving young people, particularly those from religious families, away from Islam and towards deism, a belief in a non-interventionist creator, or a god of nature.

According to a 2018 survey conducted by Turkey's leading polling company, KONDA, Karamollaoğlu appears to be correct, at least about the growing number of young Turks who no longer consider themselves "religious" Muslims.

The survey reveals that, over the last decade, there has been a 4% decrease -- from 55% to 51% -- in the number of those who define themselves as "religious" and that non-believers are becoming "more visible."

One example of this "visibility" was the September 2018 establishment in Istanbul of the "Deist Society." During the opening ceremony of the Society, its head, Özcan Pali said:
"Because we do not belong to any religion, we have been exposed to heavy insults. Our dignity has been offended. The government leaders even called us 'perverts.' First and foremost, we are like 'Adam and Eve.' Just like them, we do not belong to any religion. They had no holy book, no religion, no prophet. They only believed in God. We are like them. If they call us perverts, then they call Adam and Eve perverts, too."
Given that Erdoğan's AKP government has spent its 17 years in power enhancing the Islamization of the education system and its curricula, it is perhaps not surprising that Pali and his fellow deists have been verbally assaulted by the political echelon. It is notable, however, that Erdoğan's efforts to create "devout generations" of Muslims, through the establishment of numerous state-funded Imam Hatip religious schools, may not be having the desired results.

The debate over whether Turkish conservative youths are increasingly distancing themselves from religion and embracing deism or atheism intensified in March 2018, after Professor İhsan Fazlıoğlu, a lecturer at Istanbul Medeniyet University, participated in a panel in which he said:
"Since [last summer], seventeen students with headscarves who identify as atheists have come to my office and [told me that] the reason [for their atheism] is the actions of the people who say they represent religion. This is very serious. If we do not confront these claims, we will be [facing a very different reality] in 30 years."
The following month, in April 2018, participants in a "Youth and Faith" workshop -- organized by the Konya Provincial Directorate of Education in the presence of 50 Islamic Imam Hatip school teachers -- reportedly concluded that many students in those schools are leaning towards deism, due to the inconsistencies in religious instruction. Teachers in attendance also noted that many Imam Hatip students question why, for example, God does not prevent evil in the world.

Following the workshop, Erdoğan reportedly reprimanded Education Minister Ismet Yilmaz during an AKP assembly on the spread of deism at state schools. In response, Yilmaz denigrated the workshop and denied that deism was on the rise.

The head of the government-funded Diyanet (Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs), Ali Erbaş, also rejected the allegations: "None of the members of our nation would ever give credence to such a perverted, superstitious mentality," he said, referring to deism. "Let no one slander our nation and our youths."

In response, the Istanbul-based Atheism Association issued a statement, saying in part:
"It is completely unacceptable that the atheists who are already excluded by society are insulted by government authorities, isolated by them from society, targeted and even put in the same category as terrorists! We regretfully condemn this mentality that tries to exclude, despise and destroy the citizens due to their religious and philosophical views through their insulting statements!"
Selin Özkohen, the head of the Atheism Association, recently explained the increase in Turks' questioning of their religious beliefs as a function of the "information age," saying:
"Mosques or churches in your neighborhoods are no longer your only sources of information... You can immediately translate sources in different languages into your own language and read them. You can get informed about all kinds of developments instantly. In general, atheists become atheists by researching and questioning things. Of course, societal pressures and the situation of the country are also [important] elements, but they are only elements that get the questioning started.
"In Turkey, a shallow type of conservatism has emerged recently, and many people seem close to religion for show, only due to a herd mentality. This situation makes many people ask, 'Is this what my religion is about?' or they say, 'If this is religion, I am out.'"
"The religion that the [Turkish] government is trying to 'impose' on society, " Professor Murat Belge, Head of the Department of Comparative Literature at Istanbul's Bilgi University who has written extensively on Islam, told Gatestone, "is emotionally unsatisfying: it is loveless."

Earlier, Yasin Ceylan, a retired professor of philosophy at Ankara's Middle East Technical University and an expert in Islamic history, said that it is "normal that deism is on the rise among youths in Turkey," continuing:
"Islam does not seek happiness in this world; it aims for happiness in the afterlife... It sees this world as temporary. ... Islam has no ideal of establishing ... a Western-type civilization. In Western civilization, there's science, art, literature, prosperity, joy and poetry... Islam does not have a vision for such a society. I argue that without happiness in this world, success is not possible. And without happiness, there is no morality. Unhappy people cannot be moral. They cannot love... There is no solidarity among those who are unhappy."
Ceylan claimed that for an "enlightenment" to occur in the Muslim world,
"Islam should... abandon its globalist claims. Religion should stop being a factor in the public sphere, switch to the personal sphere and be reserved for an individual's free will and lifestyle."
However, Ceylan concluded, the above will not happen on its own: Muslim scholars "will not have the courage to say, 'Let's do something; the 14th century was very different from today's lifestyle. Let's create a synthesis [of both eras].' Modernity will impose itself [on the Muslim world], and Islam will forcibly be pushed to be a personal choice."

Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley - what does it mean? - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

What is the Jordan Valley, who lives there, how is it governed, and why is Netanyahu focusing on it?

Benjamin Netanyahu said in a message to the nation on September 10th, that if he is re-elected next week, he’ll immediately declare Israeli sovereignty over a swathe of land along the west bank of the Jordan River, bordered by the river on the east and a range of hills to the west, and running north-south from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. The area is known as the Jordan Valley.

It would be the first time in decades that Israel applied sovereignty over any territory gained in the Six Day War, and it assuredly would have serious implications for the future of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, if they do take place. Netanyahu also said he’d move to apply sovereignty to more territory — after the Trump administration unveils its long-awaited peace plan sometime following Israel’s elections next week.

“Today I’m announcing my intention, with the establishment of the next government, to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea,” Netanyahu said. “This is our essential safety belt in the east. This is the eastern defensive wall.”

Here’s what that means:

What is the Jordan Valley?

The Jordan Valley is part of the land originally allocated for the Jewish homeland at the 1922 San Remo Conference, which defined it as a country to be established on the area west of the Jordan River.  The1937  Peel Commission suggested dividing that small  parcel of land between the Jews and the Arabs as well and was adopted by the UN in 1947. The Jews accepted the plan (it is said that Ben Gurion was desperate to have a Jewish state to accept Holocaust survivors who were being sent out to sea or imprisoned by the British)  but the Arabs did not.

In the ensuing 1948 War of Independence when seven Arab armies invaded the fledgling Jewish state, the Jordan River posed a real danger due to the possibility of massive Arab forces crossing it, leading the Palmach (pre-IDF Jewish forces) to blow up the bridges along its length.

Israel blew up the bridges again and captured the Jordan Valley during the Six-Day War in 1967 and has controlled it and the bridges since then.

The entire area captured in the Six Day War is actually the biblical Judea and Samaria, but is also known as the 'West Bank' because it is located west of the Jordan River.

The Jordan Valley's is part of that region, but its borders are not precisely defined. It consists of the strip of territory in the 'West Bank' that runs alongside the Jordan River, and stretches to only ten miles west of the river at its widest point.

Who controls the Jordan Valley now?

The 'West Bank' was divided into three areas by the 1993 Oslo Accords which established the Palestinian Authority (PA). Some of it is entirely governed by PA institutions (Area A), some is governed by the PA except for security issues (Area B) and some (known as Area C) is run entirely by Israel. Israeli civilians are barred from Areas A and B which pose a danger to their lives. The Jordan Valley is in the part that is fully controlled by Israel, with the exception of the city of Jericho.

The Jordan Valley is home to dozens of Israeli communities, most of them agricultural, built after the Six Day War as part of the Allon Plan, a program by Labour Party minister Yigal Allon, in which the location of Israeli communities was decided according to security needs. The plan, on which there was general consensus both on the left and right, defined control of the land along the west bank of the Jordan River's as crucial for defense of the narrow state of Israel against hostile countries to the east. 

In fact, the hills to the west and the valley itsefl were known as "Eretz Hamirdafim", the "area of pursuit" referring to the nightly pursuit of terrorists who crossed the Jordan River in attempts to attack Israeli citizens, but almost eradicated after the peace treaty with Jordan.

Is the Jordan Valley officially part of Israel?

Like the rest of Judea and Samaria, and as opposed to the Golan Heights and greater Jerusalem, Israel has controlled it for more than 50 years but has never officially applied sovereignty.

Israelis who live there are Israeli citizens. Palestinians there do not have Israeli citizenship and do not have the right to vote for Israeli officials, but vote in Palestinian local elections.   

The Palestinian Arabs, much of the international community and the Israeli left say the 'West Bank' is unjustly occupied by Israel, although it is legally considered "disputed territory" because Jordan was actually an occupying power until 1967 and its control there was recognized by only two countries.

The Israeli right cites international law in claiming that Israel rightfully won the territory in a defensive war.. A majority consider it vital for Israel's defense. Some Israelis — especially religious Jewish ones — view  Judea and Samaria, as Israel’s heartland, as it is the setting of many of the Bible’s events.

With annexation, Netanyahu would officially be making the Jordan Valley part of Israel, having the same status in Israel’s eyes as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

However, Palestinian areas like Jericho, would not be under Israeli sovereignty.  Those areas, now surrounded by Israel, would maintain their current status.

Why is Netanyahu focusing on the Jordan Valley?

Israelis have been fiercely debating the status of the 'West Bank' for decades. But to Jewish Israelis, the Jordan Valley is less controversial than the rest of the territory.

Successive Israeli governments have viewed control of the Jordan Valley as a strategic asset for Israel. It completes the country’s eastern border with Jordan and allows Israeli forces to encircle the 'West Bank’'s Palestinian population. It essentially creates a buffer between Israel and the Arab states farther to its east, including Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces that if he is re-elected, he will make the Jordan Valley a sovereign part of Israel, Sept. 10, 2019. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

The valley, whose temperatures are extremely hot in summer, is also sparsely populated. 'West Bank' Palestinians are concentrated elsewhere, and Israel’s larger Judea and Samaria communities are farther to the west.

Maintaining control of the Jordan Valley is also not a new idea. Even Yitzhak Rabin, the left-wing Israeli prime minister who launched the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the 1990s, said in 1995 that “The security border, for the defense of the State of Israel, will be in the Jordan Valley — broadly defined.”

Would this hurt the chances for peace?

Chances for peace are already pretty slim. The Palestinians and Israelis haven’t been in any kind of serious negotiations for more than five years. Palestinian leaders won’t talk to the Trump administration because they view it as overly pro-Israel. Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he will not evacuate any settlement and opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. 

This move would make any thought of future evacuation of the territory as part of a peace plan that includes territorial compromise unlikely. The Palestinians have insisted on governing the Jordan Valley as part of a future peace deal.

Netanyahu also promised, in his speech and earlier, to annex even more Israeli communities in  Area C, which is where all the Jewish communities and 4% of the Palestinian Arab population are located, down the line. The more Israel annexes, the less possible a contiguous Palestinian state would be.

How are people reacting?

For opponents of an Israeli withdrawal from the 'West Bank', this is good news. Yishai Fleischer, the spokesman for the Jewish community in the city of Hevron, tweeted (in all caps) that Netanyahu’s speech was “A HUGE MOVE FORWARD!”

Many Palestinians and many across the international community had a different reaction. A United Nations spokesman called Netanyahu’s pledge “devastating to the potential of reviving negotiations, regional peace and the very essence of a two-state solution.”

“If the annexation is carried out, it will have succeeded in burying any prospect of peace for the next 100 years,” tweeted  Palestinian Arab negotiator Saeb Erekat,. “The Israelis, the international community must stop this madness. Annexation is a war crime.”

Israelis as a whole are split. Nearly half of Israeli Jews and 11 percent of Israeli Arabs favor annexing the Jordan Valley if Trump supports it, according to a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute. Twenty-eight percent of Jewish Israelis and a majority of Arab Israelis oppose the idea.

Bottom line: Is this going to happen?

At this point, it’s impossible to say. Before carrying out this pledge, Netanyahu has to win in next week’s election and assemble a coalition that supports the move. The race is neck-and-neck right now and some are talking about a broad coalition with the rival Blue and White party..

The Trump administration has said it will release its plan for Mideast peace after the election. Netanyahu has said he would pursue annexation in full coordination with the U.S., so before the plan is released, it is hard to predict what will happen.

This article is loosely based on the outline of a JTA article by Ben Sales, but most of its content has been added to and amended by Arutz Sheva Staff.

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter