Friday, December 20, 2019

Testimony by IG Horowitz yesterday demolishes claims he exonerated FBI of bias - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Even better: Horowitz reveals that his team is looking further into whether the FBI’s “basic errors” in the case were potentially systemic

Important Senate testimony by IG Horowitz was almost totally overshadowed by the impeachment debate and vote in the House yesterday. Under questioning by Senator Josh Hawley, Horowitz clarified the very limited meaning of his previous statement that he “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” of political bias in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Tobias Hoonhout in the National Review:
…under questioning from Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), Horowitz explained his investigation did leave the door open to possible political bias because his team could not accept the explanations FBI members gave on why there were “so many errors” in their investigation.
“We have been very careful in the connection with the FISA’s for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz told Hawley. “As we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”
Horowitz’s clarification comes after U.S. attorney John Durham released a statement saying his office did “not agree with” the report’s statements regarding the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe.
The inspector general also said during testimony that his team was looking further into whether the FBI’s “basic errors” in the case were potentially systemic.
So, there are more reports to come!

You can watch here:

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Toxic left-wing antisemitism: Australia, UK and the USA - Prof. Peter Kurti

by Prof. Peter Kurti

Final part of a three-part report on left wing anitsemitism. For parts I and II click here.

Postmodern Left Antisemitism in Australia

Each year, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry produces a report assessing the state of antisemitism in this country. Its 2010 report observed: “Australia does not have a past to which anti-Semites can comfortably look with nostalgia, which distinguishes it from many other countries.”[32]

Nonetheless, the 2010 report noted that an emerging tolerance of antisemitism in Australia “has been exacerbated with the growing phenomenon of anti- Semitism purporting to be representative of a left- wing or ‘anti-racist’ opinion.” It is a phenomenon that report author Jeremy Jones says is extremely difficult to measure.[33]. The 2018 report presented a bleaker picture, recording 366 antisemitic incidents — an increase of 59% over the previous 12-month period:
Many of the principal themes in these expressions of antisemitism, especially online, involve a cross-fertilisation of concepts between the political Left and Right. For example, left-wing rhetoric exaggerating the power of a so-called “Jewish lobby” has helped to revive and stoke far-right myths about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.[34]

The 2019 federal election was marred by a number of ugly antisemitic incidents. The campaign corflutes of three Jewish candidates, Julian Leeser, Jason Falinski, and Josh Frydenberg — all of whom were sitting Liberal MPs — were defaced with dollar signs, devil’s horns, and Hitler moustaches. Antisemitic emails also were directed at another Jewish candidate, Kerryn Phelps; and posters displayed by Dave Sharma, a non-Jewish candidate campaigning in an electorate with a large number of Jewish voters, were also defaced.[35]

Julian Leeser called it: “singularly the dirtiest and nastiest election I can remember. It really left a disgusting feeling. It’s so un-Australian.”[36]

Such blatant eruption of antisemitism in Australia took many by surprise and was widely condemned. Although the antisemitic graffiti bore many of the tropes of right-wing antisemitism, it is clear that antisemitic views are now also being expressed more frequently on the political left in Australia.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Antisemitism of the British Postmodern Left

Perhaps the most prominent contemporary example of left-wing antisemitism is provided by the British Labour Party, which was just trounced in national elections. The latent — and blatant — antisemitism that has seeped through its ranks into the public domain over the past few years has been one of the most divisive issues to confront Labour. Responsibility for this crisis can be set at the feet of the party’s extreme left-wing leader (since 2015), Jeremy Corbyn.

Until then, Corbyn had been a fringe member of the party, devoting much of his time to attending protests and speaking at rallies denouncing the USA, NATO, Israel, and even his own country. He has been a noted apologist for tyranny, publicly offering his support to Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi, Cuba’s Castro regime, and to Gaza’s ruling Hamas.[37] Corbyn has also been a consistent critic of Israel and its successive governments, and a long-term supporter of the Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine; which adopted a policy of installing a democratic secular state to replace Israel.[38]

How is it that the political left, so long associated with notions of economic justice, fairness and equality — and also a long-time natural home for many British Jews — could become the conduit for such blatant prejudice and discrimination levelled against Jewish people?

Dave Rich argues that Corbyn is both a leader and  a product of a political culture whose deep roots can be traced back to the 19th century when Marxism posed what became known as ‘the Jewish Question’— a questioning of the economic and political status of Jews in European society.[39] This evolved into the overt antisemitism prosecuted by the Soviet Union in the 20th century; which included purges, anti-Zionist propaganda, and allegations of Jewish disloyalty.

After Corbyn’s election as leader, stories about antisemitism and anti-Zionism within the Labour Party started to appear with increasing regularity. Accounts of antisemitic incidents at university Labour clubs emerged, as well as news of suspensions of some party members for alleged antisemitic language.[40]

As a worsening crisis of antisemitism engulfed Labour — and while Jewish support for the Labour Party collapsed — Corbyn appeared reluctant to acknowledge the existence of any problem.

Corbyn did establish an inquiry into antisemitism within the party; which gathered evidence selectively and delivered its report swiftly —clearing the party of systemic wrong-doing.[41] However, the chair of the inquiry, human rights lawyer Sharmishta Chakrabarti, was compromised because she subsequently joined the Labour Party and was nominated by Corbyn to sit as a Labour peer in the House of Lords.

Nor did the problem of antisemitism within Labour’s ranks disappear. Indeed, it became more acute in 2019 with the suspension of MP Chris Williamson for remarks he made about antisemitism,[42] and the resignation of several MPs.

The first of those was Luciana Berger, followed by Louise Ellman, who was reported to have said of Corbyn, “I see no indication at all that he recognizes his responsibility for what is happening, or indeed wants to do anything about it. I see no contrition, no recognition of his role in this terrible situation.”[43]

A non-Jewish Labour MP, John Mann, also resigned in 2019, citing Corbyn’s repeated failure to act against antisemitism. Mann, who served until his resignation as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism, warned: “[Corbyn] has given a green light to anti-Semites and done nothing to reverse that.”[44] Since leaving the House of Commons, Mann, who was created a life peer in September 2019, has been appointed as Independent Adviser to the UK Government on Antisemitism.

Postmodern left antisemitism has become front-page news because of this blatant manifestation within the British Labour Party. Corbyn, himself, is not solely responsible for this antisemitism; but his failure to address antisemitism has now brought the party to the point where even its supporters believe the party to be systemically antisemitic.

As Labour barrister Adam Wagner has remarked: When people look back on Labour and Jeremy Corbyn’s response to antisemitism, the question is unlikely to be whether the party became institutionally antisemitic, but when. Taken together, the failures in leadership, processes and culture have created a toxic brew. For a party with a history of being at the vanguard of anti-racism, it hurts.[45]

This is a view supported by Dave Rich, whose seminal work on left-wing antisemitism in Britain has helped identify the problem’s depth and complexity.

Rich argues that Corbyn’s responses to the issue of antisemitism reveal “a pattern of thought and behavior that speaks to a deeper malaise that has been building within the British left for decades. It reflects an antisemitic political culture.”[46]

The crisis about antisemitism engulfing British Labour has focused to a large extent on the behaviour of Corbyn himself, and his refusal to either acknowledge or act on the issue; but Labour‘s problem is that of institutional antisemitism. Not every party member is antisemitic; but the themes of anti-racism, anti- colonialism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Zionism have all combined to provide fertile ground in which antisemitic attitudes within the party have grown and festered.

Yet Corbyn refused to concede — let alone address— the existence of antisemitism within Labour ranks, because he refused to accept that opposition to racist colonialism is equivalent, in the case of Israel, to hatred of Jews.[47]

According to the world view to which he is committed, racism is about structural discrimination whereby power is exercised over the marginalised. Since it is axiomatic for these critics that the State of Israel is a racist endeavour, they simply cannot accept that a commitment to anti-racism and defence of the powerless against the claims of the powerful can be antisemitic. In their view, if colonialism is racism, it cannot be antisemitic to condemn colonialism.

Scarcely a week goes by without news emerging of some new convulsion gripping the party.[48] As Rich has remarked: “this combination of ideological hostility, personal prejudice, and organizational failings has brought Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party to a state that can be fairly described as institutionally antisemitic.”[49]

As Labour’s scandal of antisemitism worsens, many UK Jewish leaders now consider the party — long the home of British Jewry — a threat to Jewish life there. According to a September 2018 poll commissioned by the London-based Jewish Chronicle, 85.6% of British Jews consider antisemitism to have significantly infiltrated all levels of the Labour Party.[50] (Ed. note: It is too early to know how their devastating election defeat will affect the Labour Party's antisemitism.)

The Squad: Postmodern Left Antisemitism in the United States

The cultural shift in emphasis that has occurred in left-wing politics in the United Kingdom has also taken place in the US. As in Britain, American identity politics is driving a determination to correct perceived imbalances of power expressed in issues of race, gender, and intersectionality.

Among a younger generation of political activists on the American left, these progressive issues have displaced concerns about economic injustice; but they have also ignited postmodern forms of antisemitism.
 The confluence of Islam and the politics of identity have been particularly powerful in driving antisemitism on the American political left where contempt for the US has comingled with a rejection of Israel — which is considered one part of the bitter legacy of western imperialism in the Middle East. The enthusiastic support shown for Israel and for Jews by President Donald Trump serves only to fuel the US left’s postmodern antisemitism.

Four first-term members of Congress have quickly become the focus of concern about this rise of US postmodern antisemitism. Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley were all elected to Congress in the mid-term elections in November 2018. The four Congresswomen have been dubbed “The Squad” — a term coined by Ocasio- Cortez a week after their election.[51]

All four — but Omar and Tlaib, in particular — have attracted severe rebukes for repeatedly invoking antisemitic stereotypes about the claimed dual loyalty of Jews, economic power of Jews, and Israel’s colonial intentions.[52]

Criticism of Israel, in particular, became the focus of a row with the Israeli government in August 2019 when Omar and Tlaib were denied entry to Israel  on the basis of their overt support for the BDS campaign. In making its decision to deny them entry, there were reports that the Israeli government came under pressure from President Trump to make its decision.[53] However, when Israel subsequently granted permission to Tlaib to visit the country subject to the condition that she did not express any political views, she declined the invitation. [54]

There are growing concerns that by tolerating — and even excusing— the antisemitism expressed by the Squad, the Democratic Party is institutionalising antisemitism in much the same way the Labour Party has done in Britain.55 And it is likely that left-wing antisemitism in the US, as in Britain, is only set to worsen. As Victor Davis Hanson has remarked: Radical Muslims and the Left disguise their hatred of Jews by claiming that they are only championing downtrodden Palestinians.

Anti-Semitism is only going to intensify. It is naturally at home on the multicultural Left. The media, popular culture, universities, and left- wing political parties either cannot or will not stop it.[56]

Is there a problem of postmodern left antisemitism in Australia?

For the most part, the Australian Labor Party has so far been spared the travails of either its British counterpart or the US Democratics. However, voices critical of Israel, and suspicious of supposed Jewish influence in finance, politics, and the media, are becoming increasingly prominent on the political left in Australia.

In her 2018 report on antisemitism in Australia for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Julie Nathan catalogued numerous remarks and responses made by those on the political left; such as NSW ALP MP Shaoquett Moselmane, former NSW Premier Bob Carr, and NSW Greens MP Tamara Smith.[57] These remarks tended to focus on support for the Palestinians and criticism of the State of Israel.
 Carr’s remarks, in particular, have caused considerable dismay in some quarters because of his earlier,public support for Israel and the Jewish community in Australia.[58] His views had changed by the time he ceased serving as Foreign Minister in the Gillard government, when he became very critical of what he called the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne” which had “extremely conservative instincts” and which wielded disproportionate influence over government policy.[59]

But his change of view — and the rise of left wing antisemitism in Australia in general— can be explained by the politics of those Labor-held seats now containing large Muslim populations that are religiously and culturally conservative, but also hostile to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

The ALP’s problem is exacerbated because in some of the seats it needs to hold — such as in Western Sydney — there is growing support for the Australian Greens, a party that maintains both an intense hostility towards Israel and the United States, and a very strong commitment to the Palestinians.

Such factors help to explain why Labor has been pulled further away from its historically pro-Zionist position to utter denunciations of not just the Israeli government but the State of Israel itself. Indeed, as this paper has noted, a critical feature of postmodern left antisemitism is the revival of anti-Zionist rhetoric fueled by its antagonism to the existence of Israel: “a prosperous democracy and undeclared nuclear power that is nearing the historic threshold of being home to the majority of the world’s Jews.”[60]

Similar hostility to Israel is frequently displayed by the Australian Greens, whose stance on Israel and Palestine is marked by the kind of anti-Zionism so characteristic of postmodern left antisemitism. In a tweet posted on 8 June 2018, NSW Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi declared: “Thanks everyone for standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people. End the occupation. End the blockade. Free Palestine!”[61] There is every indication that the Greens’ anti-Zionism will not lessen, but intensify.[62]

Indeed, there are few signs that left-wing positions on Israel, Zionism, and antisemitism are likely to change quickly — either in Australia or the UK. As Mendes has noted: “Left groups do not view Jews as a vulnerable or oppressed group, and do not prioritize the struggle against anti-Semitism.”[63]

At the same time, nor are Jews as vulnerable as they once were to the oppression from right-wing regimes that served to rally the support of the left.

Yet a vital opportunity now presents itself to the ALP, the Australian Greens, and other domestic left-wing groups, to ensure that the long-standing commitment of the Australian left to the pursuit of justice and human decency is freed from the ugly taint of antisemitism.


32. Jeremy Jones, Anti-Semitism in Australia 2010, (Sydney: ECAJ, 2010), p.6. The report is prepared annually on behalf of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to assist in the understanding of anti-Jewish prejudice in contemporary Australia.

33.Jeremy Jones, as above, 9.

34.Julie Nathan, Report on Antisemitism in Australia 2018, (Sydney: ECAJ, 2018), 7.

35.Julie Nathan, “The resurgence of racism in the 2019 federal election – a deep and disturbing trend”, ABC Religion & Ethics, (31 May 2019) of-racism-and-antisemitism-in-the-2019-federal-e/11167332.

36. Sophie Deutsch, “Leeser: ‘Dirtiest, nastiest election I can remember’”, Australian Jewish News, (30 May 2019). leeser-dirtiest-nastiest-election-i-can-remember/

37. Robin Simcox, “Jeremy Corbyn has a soft spot for extremists”, Foreign Policy, (3 October 2018) hezbollah-britain-labour/

38.David Abulafia, “In Corbyn’s mind, there is no place for the Jews”, Standpoint, (October 2018), 20-25.

39.Dave Rich, “The Etiology of Antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party”, Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, (2018 Vol.12, No.3), 357-365, 358.

40./See, for example, Aftab Ali, “Oxford University Labour Club students did engage in anti-Semitic behaviour, report finds”, The Independent, (3 August 2016) student/news/oxford-university-labour-club- anti-semitism-report-baroness-royall-jewish- students-a7170446.html

41.“Chakrabarti inquiry: Labour not overrun by anti- Semitism”, BBC News, (30 June 2016) https://

42.See, for example, Peter Mason, “The resignation of Luciana Berger is a watershed moment for many Jewish Labour members”, New Statesman, (20 February 2019); and “MP Chris Williamson loses anti-Semitism suspension appeal”, BBC News, (10 October 2019) england-derbyshire-50002636

43.Henry Zeffman, “MP Louise Ellman quits Labour and says Corbyn is a danger to Britain”, The Times, (16 October 2019) https://www.thetimes. says-corbyn-is-a-danger-to-britain-j80htb5fv

44.Naomi Levin, “Mann’s mission to fight antisemitism”, Australia/Jewish Affairs Council, (3 October 2019) manns-mission-to-fight-antisemitism/

45.Adam Wagner, “Labour’s antisemitism problem is institutional. It needs investigation”, The Guardian, (8 March 2019) commentisfree/2019/mar/07/labour-antisemitism- investigation

46.Dave Rich, “The Etiology of Antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party”, Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, (2018), 357-365, 359.

47.See Daniel Johnson, “Corbyn waves the flag of anti-Semitism”, Standpoint, (December 2018-January 2019), 64-67.

48.See, for example, Harry Cole, “Jeremy Corbyn in fresh anti-Semitism row after defending controversial hard-Left candidate who described Israel as ‘a pig’”, Daily Mail, (27 October 2019), article-7617909/Jeremy-Corbyn-fresh-anti- Semitism-storm-defending-controversial-hard- Left-Labour-candidate.html

49.Dave Rich, “The Etiology of Antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party”, as above, 364.

50.Daniel Sugarman, “More than 85 per cent of British Jews think Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic”, Jewish Chronicle, (13 September 2018) https:// per-cent-of-british-jews-think-jeremy-corbyn-is- antisemitic-1.469654

51.See “The Squad (United States Congress”, Wikipedia, Squad_(United_States_Congress)

52.See, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Can Ilhan Omar overcome her prejudice?”, Wall Street Journal, (12 July 2019) ilhan-omar-overcome-her-prejudice-11562970265

53.“Benjamin Netanyahu bans Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from Israel after pressure from Donald Trump”, ABC News (16 August 2019) israel-bans-ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-under- pressure-trump/11420450

54/Oliver Holmes, “Rashida Tlaib rejects Israel’s offer for ‘humanitarian’ visit to West Bank”, The Guardian, (16 August 2019) https://www. allow-entry-to-rashida-tlaib-for-humanitarian-visit

55.See, for example, Abraham Miller, “Institutionalizing Anti-Semitism in the Halls of Congress”, The American Spectator, (7 March 2019) semitism-in-the-halls-of-congress/

56.Victor Davis Hanson, “Why Progressive Anti- Semitism – and Why Now?”, National Review, (7 May 2019) https://www.nationalreview. com/2019/05/progressive-anti-semitism- multicultural-left-new-york-times/

57.See Julie Nathan, Report on Antisemitism in Australia 2018, (Sydney: ECAJ, 2018), 83-100.

58.Nick Dyrenfurth, “British Labour, anti-Semitism and the immorality of Jeremy Corbyn”, ABC Religion & Ethics, (28 February 2019) https://,-anti-semitism- and-the-immorality-of-jeremy-corbyn/10857676

59.“Former foreign minister Bob Carr says ‘pro- Israel lobby’ influenced government policy”, ABC News, (10 April 2014) au/news/2014-04-09/bob-carr-lashes-out-at- melbourne-pro-israel-lobby/5379074

60.Yaroslav Trofimov, “The New Anti-Semitism”, Wall Street Journal, (12 July 2019) https://www.wsj. com/articles/the-new-anti-semitism-11562944476

61. status/1005288784869523456

62.Naomi Levin, “Greens problems with Israel and Jews worsen”, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, (29 April 2019) australia-israel-review/greens-problems-with- israel-and-jews-worsen/

63.Philip Mendes, “Whatever happened to the political alliance of the Jews and the Left?”, ABC Religion & Ethics, (20 June 2018) au/religion/whatever-happened-to-the-political- alliance-of-the-jews-and-the-/10094614

Prof. Peter Kurtiis a Senior Research Fellow, Director of the Culture, Prosperity & Civil Society program at the Centre of Independent Studies, and adjunct Associate Professor at the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. He has written extensively about issues of religion, liberty, and civil society in Australia.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

James Comey is a Pathological Liar - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

Without Comey's lies, the FISA court never would have approved the Obama administration surveillance of Carter Page and Team Trump.

Before the first FISA application was signed and submitted mired by the pompous, self-serving serial liar James Comey, who signed three of them, Carter Page wrote Comey a letter telling him he was a government asset working with the CIA and the FBI. If that letter had been presented to the FISA court by Comey, as it should have been, the FISA court never would have approved the Obama administration surveillance of Carter Page and Team Trump. As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett points out:
“If you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?” Sen. Graham asked Horowitz.
“Absolutely,” replied Horowitz, adding that “it’s illegal surveillance.”
Beyond Steele’s fictitious document, the FBI hid from the FISA Court exculpatory evidence that Page was not a Russian spy, which is how the initial warrant application boldly described him.
According to the IG, a top FBI attorney (identified by Graham during the hearing as Kevin Clinesmith) doctored an email that falsely portrayed Page as a Russian spy when, in fact, the original email confirmed that he had worked for a U.S. intelligence agency. Page had also helped to prosecute an espionage case against Russian agents.
Comey knew this before the first warrant was ever sought. As I explained in my book “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History,” Page had sent a letter to the director in September 2016 advising that he had assisted the FBI and CIA for many years, acting as a valuable source.
Instead of responding to Page or having the bureau interview him, Comey prepared and executed a warrant application to have him wiretapped and to secretly access all of his electronic communications going forward and backward.
That letter by Page to Comey, hidden and never acknowledged or disputed by Comey, is a deliberate fraud committed by Comey upon the FISA court. This deliberate act by itself is a felony worthy of serious prison time. Comey lied to the court and the action by FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, another deliberate act, implies both intent and therefore bias. Comey was not misled by underlings, as he told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, nor was the malfeasance seven layers beneath him as he claimed. He was the leader of the pack of lieutenants waging a criminal coup against a duly elected president of the United States.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, he with multiple criminal referrals against him, was not seven layers down from Comey. According to a House Intelligence Committee memo, written when it was chaired by the now-vindicated Rep. Devin Nunes, McCabe admitted that without the now fully discredited Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrants and no subsequent deep state coup against Trump under the guise of a counterintelligence investigation:
The dossier, authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and commissioned by Fusion GPS, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie. It included salacious and unverified allegations about Trump's connections to Russia.
The memo, which has been at the center of an intense power struggle between congressional Republicans and the FBI, specifically cites the DOJ and FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, saying the dossier "formed an essential part" of the application to spy on him….
The memo states that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”
The memo also says Steele was eventually cut off from the FBI for being chatty with the media. It says he was terminated in October 2016 as an FBI source “for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.”
Now Comey knew all this, or should have known all this. His deputy, McCabe, was at the heart of all the criminal activity and knows where the bodies are buried. The Steele dossier, despite McCabe’s prior obfuscations, was acquired illegally. Money was laundered through a law firm, to a dirt-gathering opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to Russian sources making most of the stuff up. The fact that the transaction went through multiple hands does not make it any more legal. It just makes the coming indictment longer.

McCabe, Comey, and the people who worked under McCabe, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, then took this fruit of foreign interference 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 FBI Agent Peter 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."
In another text, Page said: "maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace." Strzok replied: "I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps."
"This goes to intent," Jordan said. "We can't take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can't take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He's saying, 'we can't take the risk, we have to do something about it.'"
Again, these criminal activities by Comey’s immediate subordinates imply intent and therefore bias. It was not done at some rogue field office but at FBI headquarters by Comey’s immediate underlings. Comey lied when in an earlier interview with Brett Beier on Fox News’ Special Report that the dossier was merely part of a “broad mosaic” of evidence indicating Carter Page was a Russian asset worthy of surveillance. It was the whole enchilada and a lie at that just as Comey’s “recollection” was a lie.

After a meeting with Obama; Comey went to the White House; not to warn Trump about foreign interference, or to give him a heads up or a defensive briefing, but to entrap him just as he bragged about how he entrapped Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn who was told not to worry, he didn’t need a lawyer. Comey bragged about taking advantage of the new Trump Administration’s inexperience and just send over a few agents to do the dirty work without going through proper channels.

As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy notes:
The plan on January 6 (i.e., the day after director Comey met with President Obama about next steps in the Russia investigation) was for Comey to hit the president-elect with a Steele-dossier allegation: the salacious and unverified claim that Trump had cavorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel in 2013, and been covertly recorded doing so by Russian intelligence.
That’s not a briefing. It is Criminal Investigations 101: Get the suspect talking so a comfort level is established, then zing him with something that will rock his world. Thus confronted, a suspect will often blurt out either an implicit admission of guilt or a false exculpatory statement. Either one is a home run for the investigator.
And make no mistake: Comey was the investigator. The zing was elaborately planned, and so was the post-mortem. A bureau car equipped with a secure computer would be at the ready. While Trump’s words were still ringing in Comey’s ears, the then-director would begin typing out the then-president-elect’s reaction to the ambush -- his responsive statements, his reasoning if he had tried to justify himself, his demeanor.
It was a trap deliberately set by Comey, one of his many lies. The walls are closing in, not on Trump, but on James Comey.

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

Boris Johnson's Victory Heralds a Golden Era in US-UK Relations - Con Coughlin

by Con Coughlin

Washington now has a firm ally in London, someone who is committed to breathing new life into the vital and long-standing partnership between Britain and America.

  • The US president said a future US-UK trade agreement has "the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative" than any deal that could have been made with the EU.
  • Compared with the calamitous impact a victory for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose politics is defined by his visceral anti-Americanism, would have had on transatlantic relations, Mr Johnson's return to Downing Street will have been greeted with enormous relief in the White House, as it means Washington now has a firm ally in London, someone who is committed to breathing new life into the vital and long-standing partnership between Britain and America.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's return to Downing Street means that Washington now has a firm ally in London, someone who is committed to breathing new life into the vital and long-standing partnership between Britain and America. Pictured: Johnson meets with US President Donald Trump on September 24, 2019, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. (Image source: The White House)

Boris Johnson has only been back in Downing Street a few days following his stunning victory in Britain's general election, but there are already early signs that his premiership will preside over a dramatic revival in transatlantic relations not seen since the heyday of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

First and foremost, the British prime minister has made it abundantly clear that his first priority will be to break the Brexit deadlock that has effectively paralysed British politics, and the country's ability to make its voice heard on the international stage, at the earliest possible opportunity, thus opening the way for a trade deal with Washington.

As a start, Mr Johnson has committed his new government to fulfil its election pledge to complete Britain's withdrawal from the European Union by the end of January. Furthermore, he will enshrine in law his promise that the complicated trade negotiations that are due to take place next year to finalise Britain's future trading relationship with the EU bloc will be completed by the end of 2020.

Critics of Mr Johnson's ambitious programme to free Britain from the EU's shackles and negotiate a new network of global trade deals have argued that completing the process of establishing a new trading framework with the EU will take much longer than a year, especially in view of the EU's notoriously slow approach to completing such transactions. The critics point out, for example, that the Canada-EU trade deal took seven years to negotiate and was 22 years in the making.

By enshrining Britain's ultimate departure date in law, Mr Johnson has effectively silenced those critics, as well as sending a clear declaration of intent to Brussels that Britain aims to complete the withdrawal process by the end of next year, with or without a deal.

The fact, moreover, that Mr Johnson now enjoys a comfortable majority of 80 seats in the newly-constituted House of Commons means that he will no longer be subjected to procedural legislative obstructions from die-hard Remainers, as was very much in evidence during the death throes of the last parliament.

Thus Mr Johnson's reinvigorated Conservative Party finds itself in a position to shape Britain's destiny for the foreseeable future, with rebuilding relations between Washington and London seen as being one of Mr Johnson's first priorities.

During the tenure of Theresa May, Mr Johnson's hapless predecessor as prime minister, relations between Downing Street and the White House became strained, to say the least. As one senior former member of Donald Trump's foreign policy team recently told me, "By the end of Mrs May's premiership relations with the US had fallen to an all-time low".

The first indication of a revival in relations between Washington and London came when Mr Trump was one of the first world leaders to congratulate Mr Johnson on his historic win -- he secured the largest Conservative majority since Mrs Thatcher's third election victory in 1987 -- and immediately promised to strike a "massive" new trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. The US president said a future US-UK trade agreement has "the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative" than any deal that could have been made with the EU.

Indeed, with Mr Johnson assured of being Britain's prime minister for the next five years, and Mr Trump well-placed to secure re-election in next year's presidential election contest, there is every prospect that the two leaders could herald a new golden era of transatlantic relations not seen since the alliance of Mrs Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

There will, of course, be numerous political obstacles that will have to be overcome regarding issues where the two men have opposing views, such as the controversial nuclear deal with Iran. While Mr Trump is determined to pressure Tehran with punitive economic sanctions, Mr Johnson still remains committed to working with other European powers, such as France and Germany, to save the nuclear deal.

Yet, compared with the calamitous impact a victory for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose politics is defined by his visceral anti-Americanism, would have had on transatlantic relations, Mr Johnson's return to Downing Street will have been greeted with enormous relief in the White House, as it means Washington now has a firm ally in London, someone who is committed to breathing new life into the vital and long-standing partnership between Britain and America.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Corbyn Crushed, A Telling Lesson for Democrats - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

But will the Democratic Party take heed?

British citizens went to the polls this past Thursday and handed opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn a humiliation that will permanently stain his already tarnished reputation. His Labor Party sustained a stunning rout at the hands of the conservatives and suffered its worst showing since before World War II.

True to form, Corbyn and his die-hard acolytes refused to take any responsibility for the calamity befalling their party and instead, blamed Brexit and the media for their defeat. Corbyn’s vapid explanations and denials are steeped in a combination of hubris, venality and fantasy. Britain’s citizens plainly recognized Corbyn for what he was, a vile, hard-core socialist and anti-Semite who could not be trusted to lead the nation.

As noted by Katie Hopkins at FrontPage, Corbyn ran on a platform that would have fostered an atmosphere inimical to the free market system. He called for the nationalization of utility companies. Wanted illegal aliens to have access to Britain’s already heavily burdened healthcare system and wanted to restructure the inheritance tax in a manner that would have further punished those who managed to accumulate some measure of wealth during their lifetime. 

Corbyn was dogged by other issues as well that had nothing to do with his hard-core socialist agenda. In keeping with his anti-Western dogma, he was an avid supporter of the Irish Republican Army and pointedly refused to condemn IRA terrorism, even when pressed on the issue. He was also a rancid anti-Semite who considered Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends” and championed their cause. Under his leadership, antisemitism in the Labor Party was stoked and even encouraged, while Jew-haters swelled the party’s ranks. Allegations of antisemitism were largely ignored and swept under the rug. During an interview with the BBC’s Neil Andrew just two weeks prior to the election, Corbyn was given no less than six opportunities to apologize to Britain’s Jewish community and tellingly refused to do so.

The U.S. Democratic Party would be wise to heed Britain’s thorough repudiation of Corbyn. Since the ascension of Obama, the party has veered away from its centrist bent and this alarming leftward trajectory has increased markedly in the last four years. Led by the likes of AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, the party’s platform has changed to the point where it’s beginning to resemble Corbynism in both manner and tone.

During the first debate, all the candidates raised their hands signifying their positive view of extending healthcare benefits to illegal aliens. Joe Biden seemed hesitant and took note of the other raised hands before raising his own. All the Democratic candidates would reverse in whole or part, Trump’s successes in thwarting illegal immigration. Some, Like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, would even abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the federal branch responsible for immigration enforcement and countering transnational crime. All the Democratic Party candidates would raise taxes, impose burdensome regulations on business, and have exhibited varying degrees of climate change militancy, with some like Sanders endorsing AOC’s catastrophic Green New Deal.

The Democrats have also made no secret of their hostility toward the fossil fuel industry and would reverse gains made by this energy sector during Trump’s tenure. In fact, the U.S. fossil fuel industry marked a major milestone in September becoming, for the first time since records began in 1973, a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products. Kiss that achievement goodbye under any Democratic nominee.

Democrats will seek to broaden government interference in healthcare by either expanding the disastrous Obamacare system, as suggested by Biden or by going full-blown socialist and implementing the single-payer healthcare system, as suggested by Warren and Sanders. Either option means higher taxes, higher premiums, higher co-pays, less innovation in pharma, inferior treatment, and more government interference in healthcare choices.  

Finally, like the British Labor Party, the Democratic Party has become infested with antisemitism. It is the party that the likes of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders call home. It is the party that could not unequivocally bring itself to condemn Omar after she spewed a malicious antisemitic trope on Twitter which made reference to Jewish wealth buying votes and dual loyalty canards. It is the party that embraces the BDS-supporting, terrorist-embracing, foulmouthed Linda Sarsour, who now acts as a surrogate for Sanders. Two weeks ago, Sarsour was recorded calling Israel “a state…built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else.” Former KKK head David Duke has espoused near-identical views. Despite engaging in blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric, the Sanders camp took no remedial action against Sarsour. Worse yet, to my knowledge, not a single Democratic candidate condemned her toxic remarks.

The British Labor Party is now in tatters with its leadership pointing blame at everyone and everything – the media, Brexit – but themselves. Sadly, there is little these days distinguishing the Democratic Party from its ideological twin across the Atlantic. That fact will doom the Democratic Party to failure in 2020.

Ari Lieberman


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House Dems Approve Articles of Impeachment Against Trump - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

It's now up to the Senate to rectify the House’s assault on the Constitution.

After about eight hours of insufferable debate on December 18th, with barbs hurled back and forth turning quickly into a broken record, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump. The final votes on the two articles were largely along party lines. Article 1 (Abuse of Power) received  230 votes in favor and 197 votes against. Article 2 (Obstruction of Congress) received 229 votes in favor and 198 against. All Republicans voted against both impeachment articles. The only defections were on the Democrat side. Two Democrats voted against Article 1, with one Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, voting present. Three Democrats voted against Article 2, with Tulsi Gabbard again voting present. Representative Justin Amash, Independent of Michigan, voted yes on both articles.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened Wednesday’s debate on the floor of the House by declaring that lawmakers are “custodians of the Constitution.” She and several of her female Democrat colleagues wore black attire in the House chamber to signify what they described as a “somber day.” That was all for show, of course. But the black color Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts wore for Wednesday’s proceedings was appropriate for an entirely different reason – to mourn the damage the House Democrats themselves have inflicted on the Constitution by their irresponsible votes. They have earned a black mark for taking a wrecking ball to the Constitution’s impeachment provisions.

The media are describing December 18th as a “historic” day. They point out that President Trump is now only the third president to be impeached in U.S. history and the first president to be impeached while seeking re-election. Yet, what truly makes this day “historic” is the extremely low bar this impeachment has set for the impeachment of future presidents. For the first time in history, the majority party controlling the House of Representatives has weaponized impeachment to interfere with the people’s right to choose, in less than one year’s time, who they want as their president. From this point forward, it will be much easier for the party controlling the House to justify voiding the election of a president from the opposing party, with impeachment serving as just another partisan tool in their toolbox.

In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, President Trump noted the gravity of the historic precedent set by the House Democrats. “One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it can never happen to another President again,” he wrote.

The Founding Fathers envisioned impeachment as an extraordinary constitutional remedy to be used only as a last resort to check a lawless president who violates the public trust. Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist Papers 65 that “the greatest danger” in the House impeachment process is “that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Mr. Hamilton worried about the “animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” He observed that “the most conspicuous characters” guiding that impeachment process in the House will be “too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction.”

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers installed a firewall – trial in the U.S. Senate. It should save us from the House Democrats’ Kafkaesque proceedings.

Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat herd have proven Alexander Hamilton’s point about the risks inherent in the House impeachment process. They allowed their “animosities” against President Trump to take over, leading them to trivialize the impeachment process.

As Republican Representative Chris Stewart said during Wednesday’s debate, “This day is about one thing and one thing only. They hate this president. They hate those of us who voted for him. They think we are stupid. They think we made a mistake.”

Illustrative of how consumed House Democrats have become by their hatred for President Trump, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries shamelessly compared the impeachment of President Trump to past fights against slavery and Jim Crow. Rep. Al Green, who was one of the first House Democrats to call for President Trump's impeachment, declared that President Trump should be impeached “for the sake of the many who are suffering.” He delivered this balderdash while using a picture of a crying migrant girl as a prop.

Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu viewed impeachment as President Trump’s own special version of a permanent record that “will follow him around for the rest of his life and history books will record it.”

All that the Trump haters can hope for, however, is a symbolic asterisk on his presidency, placed there by rabid partisans. This will be dwarfed by the historic accomplishments of the Trump administration.

According to the latest Gallup poll, President Trump’s job approval rating has “increased six percentage points since the House of Representatives opened an impeachment inquiry against him in the fall.” It is now at 45 percent, which is at the higher end of the range of the president’s approval ratings during his first term in office. At the same time, public support for President Trump’s impeachment continues to decline. “Currently, 46% support impeachment and removal, down six percentage points from the first reading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry,” Gallup reported. “Meanwhile, 51% oppose impeachment and removal -- up five percentage points over the same period.”

With the House impeachment vote over and done with, the action will move over to the U.S. Senate once the House actually sends the impeachment articles they approved to the Senate. House Democrats will no longer be in control of the narrative. As the Founding Fathers intended, the Senate should serve as a brake on the animosity-filled House Democrat majority. The Senate is expected to spare the nation of any further distractions from the people’s real business and acquit President Trump of the House’s groundless, crimeless charges.

Joseph Klein


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Transgenders Attacking Gays and Lesbians for Refusal to Accept Them as Athletes and Same Sex Lovers - Christopher Skeet

by Christopher Skeet

The newfound “Drop the T” campaign, promoted by homosexual men and women, asks organizations such as Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal, and others to separate gay activism from trans activism.

"One only wonders, with concern, what the Soviets will do after they have wiped out their bourgeois." - Sigmund Freud
In October 2018, biological male Rachel McKinnon took the gold at the UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles. Afterwards, he took to Twitter to condemn as “transphobic bigots” anyone who pointed out that his “victory” consisted of a man competing in an all-women’s event. He called mandatory testosterone suppression for transgender athletes a human rights violation. 

Last February, nine-time Wimbledon singles champion and lesbian Martina Navratilova caused an uproar when she wrote that it is “insane” and “cheating” that biological men are allowed to compete in women’s sports. For stating the obvious, Navratilova was immediately expelled from the LGBTQ advocacy group Athlete Ally for alleged “transphobia.” The BBC withdrew its invitation to Fair Play for Women to discuss Navratilova’s comments after public pressure from the aforementioned McKinnon himself.

Martina Navratilova in 2011 (photo credit: Angela George)

In the UK, rugby referees are quitting in droves because transgender women playing on all-women’s teams are injuring too many actual women. One anonymous referee told the Sunday Times that they’ve been instructed not to challenge bearded players on the field. In Connecticut high schools, transgender girls are dominating girls’ sports and smashing records, and female students who complain are facing backlash from the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. In Texas high schools, a transgender girl wrestler won a state tournament with a record of 35-0, beating every actual girl or winning by forfeit by girls who feared injuries wrestling a biological male.

What’s going on here? Either, through history’s greatest coincidence, all these transgender women suddenly sweeping competitions and breaking international records just happen to be the world’s greatest athletes. Or, as everybody reading this already knows, biological men possess physiological advantages over women, regardless of whatever hormonal treatment or bodily mutilation they endure. 

Then there’s Jessica Yaniv, a Canadian transgender woman who sued after several female estheticians refused his lecherous requests to wax his groin. The British Columbian Human Rights Tribunal eventually ruled against him, but it's notable that their decision stemmed from his disingenuous and contradictory testimony, rather than from the right of women to refuse to handle male genitalia. Feminists needn’t delve too deeply into the dark recesses of imagination to appreciate the consequences of this cop-out ruling which, by comparison, makes John Roberts’s Obamacare opinion look positively principled. It’s not a question of if, but of when, a more disciplined, legally savvy “victim” waxes up for the next bout.

Then there's lesbian activist and Get The “L” Out co-founder Angela Wild, who is flabbergasted that she and other lesbians are being attacked as “transphobic bigots” and “Nazis” for not dating men who identify as women. Angela defines a lesbian as “a woman – in the biological sense of the word – exclusively emotionally and sexually attracted to women.” I wouldn't bet money on the “biological” part of that definition hanging on much longer. The Scientific American recently published an article hinting at the social constructiveness of biological sex, and transgender-studies professors are openly claiming that biological sex doesn’t exist. You don’t need a Helms flag to figure out which way the wind is blowing, Angela. It’s all well and good if you want to be a lesbian… so long as you have sex with men claiming to be transgender women. If you don’t, you’re now part of the problem.

This is the Left's logic in 2019. What will it be in 2026?

Gay activist Brad Polumbo concurs with Angela, and he predicts that LBG and T will have some sort of formal breach and go their separate ways. Don’t bet on it. Totalitarian ideologies don’t let people “go their separate ways.” Jack Phillips wasn’t allowed to go his separate way. Neither were Elaine Huguenin, or Barronelle Stutzman, or Martina Navratilova, or those Canadian estheticians. And neither will you, Brad. 

In this Orwellian fever dream, Angela and Brad are Nazis because they think it’s acceptable for people, gay or straight, to not be forced to have sex with people to whom they’re not attracted. But the fanatics who slander you are interested in neither biological science nor once-sacrosanct sexual freedom. They’re interested in exerting control over you, and they’re currently banking on social coercion to do so. But, as in Canada, don’t think the courts aren’t next.

The newfound “Drop the T” campaign, promoted by homosexual men and women who nervously glanced around the latest Pride parade and thought to themselves, Wait a minute….how did I end up being the bigot?, asks organizations such as Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal, and others to separate gay activism from trans activism. Fat chance. These organizations are in the business of being woke and being woke is a dissipative process. This is the nature of “movements,” few of which allow themselves to fizzle out once their main goals are achieved, and almost always morph into something more fanatical (and often contradictory to its original mission). Worried about documented patterns of transgender women sexually assaulting actual women? Well, Herr Adolf, hop in the basket of deplorables with everyone who made that argument against sanctuary cities. Upset that the history of gay civil rights is being re-written to serve transgender ideology? It’s as despicable as the 1619 Project, isn’t it?

Have you noticed the pattern yet?

Supposedly LGB-friendly organizations such as the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Stonewall, Huffington Post, Medium, the BBC, the Independent, and others have exhibited either enthusiastic support or cowed submission to the rollback of women’s and gay rights to appease the transgender lobby. Every Democrat presidential candidate supports the Equality Act, which redefines sex as gender and encodes its nondiscrimination into law. At this point in the game, nobody can pretend that its consequences would be “unintended,” and those currently being targeted only on the periphery will truly know what it means to (ahem) get the shaft. 

To those who rightfully feel threatened by this ominous shifting of the tide, take note in the coming years who comes to your defense, as opposed to your “rights” organizations falling over one another to sell you out to the lowest bidders. Disagree as we might about the definition of marriage, neither conservatives nor their advocacy groups support using government power or social coercion to destroy women’s-only institutions, or to force unto gays (or anyone else) sexual relationships against their will. We understand that true freedom is enjoyed not by the group but by the individual, and that true choice is exercised not based on other’s feelings but on our own decisions. 

If we can be forced to say a man is a woman, there is nothing we can't be forced to say. If a lesbian can be forced to have sex with men, there is nothing we can’t be forced to do. We will all increasingly be pressured to publicly affirm our support for these mores to the point where there will be nothing we can’t be forced to think. And that’s the point. A society whose subjects must not only declare but actually convince themselves that 2+2=5 is a society that is truly totalitarian, regardless of whatever lip service its politicians pay to democracy.

When the inevitable kangaroo courts convene, the show trials begin, and decrees pour forth that yesterday’s martyrs are today’s saboteurs, maybe you’ll comprehend more clearly who are and aren’t the "oppressors.” You need to decide, and decide pretty quickly, what world you're helping to shape. By and large, conservatives can co-exist with you as you are. Increasingly, the Left cannot. Choose which side you will but choose with the recognition that your usefulness to The Cause has run its course and that, unfortunately, you too are now expendable.

Christopher Skeet


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dozens of UN envoys tour Samaria for first time - Efrat Forsher

by Efrat Forsher

Visit "helps us to present the truth about Israel," says Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon.

Dozens of UN envoys tour Samaria for first time
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon and Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan with the UN envoys in one of the facilities at the Barkan ‎Industrial Park | Photo: Roee Khadi

Twenty-three UN ambassadors who visited Israel last week toured Judea and Samaria, Israel Hayom has learned. It was the first time a delegation of this magnitude staged an official visit to the area.

The tour took place as part of the Samaria Regional Council's foreign relations and public diplomacy efforts. It was led by Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon.

UN ambassadors from Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Guatemala, and Haiti, among others, participated in the tour.

The ambassadors met with Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan, visited the Barkan ‎Industrial Park and met with Palestinians and Israelis working there.

Located just north of the cross-Samaria highway, ‎the Barkan Industrial Park is home to 164 businesses that ‎employ some 4,200 Palestinians and 3,000 Israelis. ‎The waiting list to set up facilities in the park, ‎one of the most sought-after industrial zones in ‎Israel, currently includes 60 companies.‎

"We have seen Arab and Israeli coexistence in factories and we think this is a very important project. By buying these products, we can give peace a real chance," said Bosnia and Herzegovina Ambassador to the UN Sven Alkalaj.

Danon said that "the visit helps us to present the truth about Israel.

Efrat Forsher


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter