Friday, January 17, 2020

Lethal PA libel alive and kicking - Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

The incitement continues unabated

  • Israel is excavating under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, building “the alleged Temple”
  • “[Western] Wall has no connection to Jews”
  • Western Wall is “Islamic heritage”

One of the most lethal recurring Palestinian Authority libels accuses Israel of planning to destroy and defile the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Many Palestinian terrorists who murdered Israelis have explained that they killed in defense of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

One version of this libel spread by the PA is that Israel is trying to destroy the Mosque by digging under it as it searches for remnants of the “alleged Jewish Temple” and/or tries to construct the third Temple. This life-endangering libel was repeated recently by a host on official PA TV:

Official PA TV reporter: There is construction work taking place under the Al-Aqsa Mosque to build the alleged Temple of Solomon…

Expert on international law Dr. Ibrahim Al-Rabi: "Regarding this [Western] wall that the Jews claim is the remains of the Temple of Solomon – it must be understood that UNESCO has said that this wall has no connection to Jews, but is rather an Islamic heritage. In other words, it is subject to Palestinian rule and the Jews have no right to it."
[Official PA TV, The Supreme Authority, Dec. 19, 2019]
Entrenching the libel in the Palestinian psyche, the official PA daily printed this cartoon last week:

Viewed from right to left the cartoon shows an Israeli soldier with a pickax in his hands, facing a giant Palestinian protecting the Dome of the Rock and stopping the soldier. When turned away the Israeli soldier is seen digging under the Dome of the Rock with the pickax.
Text in panel 1: “When they do not succeed in standing before its residents…”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 10, 2020]
Palestinian Media Watch has documented the dissemination of this libel for more than a decade. Hamas too has repeated it for years, like in this animation from 2010:

Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Palestinians and Europe's Secret Agenda - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Failing to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for their human rights violations casts serious doubt on the EU's desire to hold new elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and their deeper, seemingly malign desires for the region as a whole.

  • The foreign media and human rights organizations seem quite uninterested in Palestinians who are arrested or tortured to death by PA security forces. After all, they have not been arrested by Israel for security-related offences.
  • The European Union is said to be pressuring the Palestinians to hold long overdue presidential and parliamentary elections. It is not clear, however, how the Palestinians would hold new elections at a time when the PA and Hamas are busy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip locking up their political opponents.
  • The "political arrests" are yet another indication of human rights violations perpetrated by Palestinian leaders against their own people. Inexplicably, though, the EU appears unfazed by them. Instead of pressuring the PA and Hamas to hold elections -- that in any case neither side seeks, as it would almost certainly hand a further victory to the terrorist group Hamas -- it would be better for the EU to encourage Palestinian leaders, as a first step towards holding free elections, at least to cease and desist making political arrests.
  • Failing to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for their human rights violations casts serious doubt on the EU's desire to hold new elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and their deeper, seemingly malign desires for the region as a whole.

The European Union is said to be pressuring the Palestinians to hold long overdue presidential and parliamentary elections. It is not clear, however, how the Palestinians would hold new elections at a time when the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas are busy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip locking up their political opponents. Pictured: PA President Mahmoud Abbas votes in the last PA legislative election, on January 25, 2006. (Photo by Pedro Ugarte/AFP via Getty Images)

For many years, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and other Palestinian parties have been reporting on a daily basis about Palestinians who are arrested by the Israeli authorities in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. These Palestinians are arrested on suspicion of involvement in anti-Israel security offences. There is nothing unusual about these arrests, which have been taking place for decades and are even publicly announced by the Israeli authorities.

While Israel apprehends Palestinians suspected of involvement in various anti-Israel activities, including terrorism, many other Palestinians are being arrested on almost a daily basis by the PA security forces in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. These arrests, however, are infrequently publicized by the PA and Hamas. Palestinians learn about the arrests by the PA and Hamas from social media postings or non-Palestinian news websites.

The PA and Hamas do not like to talk about the Palestinians targeted by their security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Why? Most of these Palestinians are arrested for their political affiliation and opinions, and not for violating the law or involvement in violence and terrorism.

Palestinian human rights organization and activists describe the detention of these Palestinians as "political arrests." That means that the Palestinians are being arrested by the PA and Hamas only for "politically motivated" reasons.

A recent report by the Human Rights Institutions Association (HRIA) revealed that in the past three months, the PA security forces have stepped up politically motivated arrests in the West Bank. The group noted that the arrests came despite PA President Mahmoud Abbas's initiative to hold new Palestinian general elections.

"Most of the political arrests that took place in the last three months of 2019 targeted political activists who participated in public political activities, including demonstrations," HRIA said in its report.
"Many arrests took place without a judicial warrant, which constitutes a blatant violation of constitutional and legal rights. According to information gathered by the researchers of HRIA, the Palestinian Authority security services arrested and summoned for interrogation 297 Palestinians during the last three months of 2019 because of their political affiliation and political activities. Forty-six political detainees are still being held without charge in Palestinian Authority prisons."
HRIA also revealed that many Palestinians detained by the PA security services have been subjected to violations of their rights. The group found that some of the detainees have been brought before Palestinian military courts although they are civilians. In addition, many Palestinian university students have been arrested by the PA security forces because of their activities on campus, including expressing their opinion on social media and organizing political events. A number of detainees have been subjected to torture, physical violence and other forms of humiliation by their interrogators, HRIA said.

"HRIA calls on the Palestinian government and security forces in the West Bank to halt political arrests and immediately release all political detainees," the group added. "We also call for ending all restrictions on public freedoms and allow political activities and freedom of expression."

Palestinian human rights activists revealed that during 2019, three detainees died in PA prisons. Two of the detainees died just in December 2019. The last detainee who died was serving a 10-year sentence on charges of selling land to Israeli Jews. His identity was not revealed by the PA security forces. A spokesman for the PA Police only said that the deceased man was arrested in 2012 and he died two weeks after being transferred from prison to a hospital in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

In early December, the PA announced that a 60-year-old detainee died after being transferred to hospital from a Palestinian prison in the West Bank city of Jericho. The man's identity was not revealed, and it remains unclear why he was being held by the PA security forces in the first place.

In April 2019, another Palestinian man, Mahmoud Al-Hamalawi, died in a PA prison in Ramallah. His family said that he was abducted from his home by gunmen who handed him over to the PA security forces. The PA later called the family and informed them that the 32-year-old Al-Hamalawi who had been severely tortured by his kidnappers, was pronounced dead after being taken to hospital.

On January 11, the families of political detainees arrested by the PA staged a protest in Ramallah to demand the release of their sons. The families urged human rights organizations to pressure the PA to halt its security crackdown on political activists in the West Bank and said that some of the detainees were being subjected to torture in PA prisons.

This protest, like the daily arrests by the PA security forces, continue to be ignored by the foreign media and international human rights organizations. So have the deaths of three Palestinian detainees held by the PA security forces. The foreign media and human rights organizations seem quite uninterested in Palestinians who are arrested or tortured to death by PA security forces. After all, they have not been arrested by Israel for security-related offenses.

Similarly, the international community seems unmoved by the continued Hamas crackdown on political activists in the Gaza Strip. On January 12, Hamas security forces arrested Eyad Nasr, a senior official with PA President Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction. No reason was even given for his arrest

Like the PA, Hamas has always displayed intolerance towards political rivals or anyone who dares to voice criticism of Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Recently, Hamas arrested one of its own policemen, Hussein Qatoush, after he posted a video on Facebook complaining about the economic crisis in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Hamas has also gained notoriety for arresting Palestinian comedians who poke fun at leaders or Arab states that support Hamas, including Qatar. Two of the comedians arrested by Hamas in 2019 are Ali Nissman and Hussam Khalaf.

The European Union is said to be pressuring the Palestinians to hold long overdue presidential and parliamentary elections. It is not clear, however, how the Palestinians would hold new elections at a time when the PA and Hamas are busy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip locking up their political opponents.

The "political arrests" are yet another indication of human rights violations perpetrated by Palestinian leaders against their own people. Inexplicably, though, the EU appears unfazed by them. Instead of pressuring the PA and Hamas to hold elections -- that in any case neither side seeks, as it would almost certainly hand a further victory to the terrorist group Hamas -- it would be better for the EU to encourage Palestinian leaders, as a first step towards holding free elections, at least to cease and desist making political arrests. Failing to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for their human rights violations casts serious doubt on the EU's desire to hold new elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and their deeper, seemingly malign intentions for the region as a whole.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rashida Tlaib and Rasha Mubarak, American Muslims for Hamas - Joe Kaufman

by Joe Kaufman

Why are Democrats ignoring the Islamist fifth column infiltrating their party?

Following the founding of Hamas in 1987, the Muslim Brotherhood set up worldwide committees to assist the newly formed terrorist group. In the US, it was called the Palestine Committee, and by the end of 1994, it would consist of four organizations, all falling under the leadership of then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. Of the four, only one remains, CAIR. However, remnants of the others came together in the form of a more recent group, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). Given AMP’s connection to a terrorist organization, why would Democrat officials, including US Representative Rashida Tlaib, go out of their way to aid and abet the group, and why isn’t the Democratic Party doing anything to stop this?

AMP was established in 2006 with the goal of vilifying and delegitimizing Israel. True to its Hamas roots, AMP’s message is laced with support for violence. The Executive Director of AMP is Osama Abu-Irshaid. Prior to AMP, he served as editor of Al Zaytounah, the official newsletter of the Palestine Committee’s Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). This month, Abu-Irshaid stated at an AMP event, “Palestinians, if they don’t take what they want willingly, they will take it forcefully. We promise you this, we’re going to liberate our land and we’re going to liberate our people, whether they like it or they don’t like it. Well, they have picked the wrong enemy!”

Last month, AMP celebrated, on its Facebook page, the 32nd anniversary of the First Intifada, the violent uprising against Israel from which Hamas was created. During its January 2018 ‘JERUSALEM IS A RED LINE’ rally, AMP repeatedly led chants of “Long live Intifada.” AMP’s Chairman, Hatem Bazian, who is also the founder of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), at an April 2004 rally held in San Francisco, called for an intifada in America. He stated, “Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq. And the question is what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country?”

One AMP board member, Salah Sarsour, allegedly has had involvement with Hamas, itself. According to a December 1998 Israeli Police memo, Salah’s brother Jamil Sarsour, in the course of an interview, claimed that Salah had involvement with Hamas and did fundraising for Hamas via the Palestine Committee’s Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Jamil also claimed that Salah had plotted an attack on Israel, as revenge for the September 1998 killing of Salah’s friends, Hamas military wing Qassam Brigades leaders and brothers, Imad and Adel Awadallah, by Israeli soldiers. Previously, Salah had spent eight months in a Ramallah prison.

AMP is a part of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). Representing AMP on USCMO’s Board of Directors is Osama Abu-Irshaid. Another board member is Mazen Mokhtar, a US-based admin for, a now-defunct al-Qaeda recruitment/financing site. Mokhtar, who has spoken at AMP events, has called Hamas acts “heroic” and suicide bombings “an effective method of attacking the enemy.” One more board member, Siraj Wahhaj, was cited by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has been linked to the bomb maker of the attack, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, and has praised the spiritual leader of the attack, Omar Abdel Rahman.

The Facebook Manager for AMP is Leena al-Arian. Besides AMP, al-Arian is the Associate Director of the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), a group founded by her father, former Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami al-Arian, that provides legal advocacy for and which seeks to whitewash the cases of high profile convicted terrorists. Last October, Leena was accompanied by two of her father’s past PIJ co-conspirators, Hatem Fariz, who was convicted of PIJ support, and Ghassan Ballut, to lobby the government. In November 2018, Leena referred to all of the convicted HLF Hamas financiers as “pillars of their communities.”

Taher Herzallah is AMP Director of Outreach & Grassroots Organizing. Originally from Gaza, Herzallah uses Twitter to post material from and correspond with the Palestinian Information Center, the media arm of Hamas, which publishes Hamas communiques, anti-Semitic cartoons, and praise for murders of Israelis. In May 2012, when Israel handed over the remains of 91 deceased terrorists, including several suicide bombers, to Palestinian authorities, Herzallah tweeted a photo of a procession of cars with Palestinian flags and armed men, calling the dead terrorists “martyrs.” In November 2012, Herzallah tweeted, “[O]ur martyrs are in paradise...”

With AMP’s leadership involved in such sinister activity and with the group’s links to extremists and violence, how could anyone look to promote this group, especially a member of US Congress? Well, one US Representative has, and that is Rashida Tlaib.

Last month, while visiting the US-Mexico border with fellow Democrat, Rasha Mubarak, the two held up signs produced by AMP and containing the AMP logo. The signs read, “FROM PALESTINE TO MEXICO, ALL THE WALLS HAVE TO GO.” Consider, both women have lengthy histories of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activism and incitement, and Tlaib has a history of participating at AMP events. In fact, this coming February, she will be the Guest of Honor at AMP-Missouri’s 1st Annual Banquet Dinner.

Tlaib has called for a ‘one-state solution’ regarding Israel and the Palestinians, which would spell an end to Israel. She happily allowed herself to be photographed with a map featuring a Post-it note renaming Israel “Palestine.” She brought up the anti-Semitic canard of ‘dual loyalty,’ questioning the loyalty of US Senators after they came out against the BDS movement. As a result, Tlaib was condemned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and barred from entry into Israel. Tlaib has also cavorted with Abbas Hamideh, who told Jews, in October 2015, “Rest assured, Zionism will be eradicated and if you’re lucky you’ll be sent back to Europe where you belong...”

Mubarak, who serves as National Committeewoman for the Florida Young Democrats (FYD), is offended at the very notion that Israel has a right to self-defense. In November 2012, Mubarak tweeted, “Lies I’m tired of hearing, Israel has the right to defend herself.” Just this past May, when Hamas launched more than 600 rockets into Israel, leading to the deaths of four civilians, Mubarak tweeted against anyone who would dare defend Israeli retaliation, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the producer of The Ellen Show, Andy Lassner. She has posted pictures of Hamas celebrations, and she has been involved in Hamas-related groups, herself.

Israel bashing, anti-Semitism and incitement all seem to be condoned by the Democratic Party, whose abject failure to combat it within Democratic ranks has led to its acceptance as part of legitimate political discourse. It has been suggested that the huge spike in violence against Jews can be attributed to this phenomenon.

Unless Democrats take decisive action to purge their party of its Islamist fifth column – to which Rashida Tlaib and Rasha Mubarak are a part of – the Democratic Party will continue to be seen as promoting this dangerous trend and providing aid and comfort, as well as a safe haven, for the enemies of America and America’s friends and allies overseas.

Though it may already be a reality, Democrats must fight to stop their party from becoming/remaining the party of radical Islam.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Joe Kaufman, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is Chairman of the Joe Kaufman Security Initiative ( and the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Republican Nominee for U.S. House of Representatives (Florida-CD23).


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Is the Mullah Regime in Iran an Intimidating Force? - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

Inside a tyranny's tactics of bullying and issuing reckless threats.

Intimidation through threats is a relied upon weapon the Islamic Republic of Iran regime has used effectively throughout its existence. It is particularly effective with the left-leaning U.S. mainstream media, which together with the socialist elements in the Democratic party, have raised the level of fear and panic in America in the aftermath of the U.S. killing of arch-terrorist Qassem Soleimani, last week. As this reporter expected, the Iranian regime is far more fearful of President Trump’s reaction to any harm caused to American citizens. They fear the might of the U.S. (the U.S. is by far more powerful than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and the Iranians couldn’t even beat the Iraqis) and the unpredictability of President Trump. So, is the Iranian regime intimidating enough to be feared?

The Iranian regime is trying to intimidate America (and Israel) with its regularly organized and ritualized rallies in which thousands in the crowds yell “death to America, death to Israel,” and proceed to burn American and Israeli flags. The threat by Iran to unleash its proxy forces, particularly the Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists, is always insinuated, if not pronounced loudly.

CBS-News reported on January 9, 2020 that, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who is the head of the Revolutionary Guard's Aerospace Force, said that the recent Iranian attacks, in which no one was killed, “marked the beginning of a string of attacks across the region.” China’s Xinhuanet (New China) reported (5/26/2019) that Iran threatened to sink U.S. warships by a secret weapon. “Iran has two new ‘top secret weapons’ and may use them to sink U.S. warships,” Morteza Qorbani, an advisor to the chief commander of the IRGC was quoted as saying to the Tehran Times Daily.” Qorbani added, “in case of the smallest foolish act by the enemy in the Gulf waters, they will find out what we will do to them. The IRGC may use its weapons to sink U.S. warships with everything and everyone on board.”

Bloomberg reported (April 22, 2019) that Alireza Tangsire, head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) navy force threatened, “if we are prevented from using it, we will close it. (the Strait of Hurmuz).” He was referring to the shipment of Iranian oil exports, as the U.S. plans to end the wavers on Iranian oil exports. Earlier, (December 27, 2011) Iranian Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi threatened to cut off oil supplies from the Strait of Hurmuz should economic sanctions limit, or cut off, Iranian oil exports. 

The threat to Israel is far more ominous. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” a New York Times headline proclaimed on October 27, 2005. Ahmadinejad was speaking to 4,000 students when he said that.  According to the Washington Examiner (1/7/ 2020) “Iran is warning that if there is (a U.S.) retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched, their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai, and Haifa.”

To their own people, Tehran said that the attack on U.S. bases in Erbil (in Iraq’s Kurdistan), and the Al Asad air base in the Al-Anbar province (western Iraq), with a dozen ballistic missiles, was in revenge for the death of Major-General Soleimani, head of the Quds Force. The Iranian regime and Hezbollah share in lying to their people.  Tehran informed the Iranian people that their missiles killed dozens of Americans and damaged the American bases. The Iranian missiles damaged an aircraft hangar, but no U.S. casualties were incurred. Similarly, Hezbollah’s boasted last September that their rockets” destroyed an Israeli military vehicle, killing and wounding those inside.” In fact, the vehicle was parked and there were no casualties.

The Iranian regime may appear to be rather powerful, according to the Business Insider survey of the most powerful militaries (2019), which ranked Iran at number 14 out of 137 counties.  Israel, with a tenth of Iran’s population is ranked number 17 in conventional non-nuclear terms. Yet, Israel’s military budget of $19.6 billion, by far exceeds Iran’s $6.3 billion, not to mention the U.S. defense budget, estimated at $716 billion. In terms of military personnel, the U.S. dwarfs Iran’s military with 2,141,900 to Iran’s 873,000. Israel’s military personnel is listed at 615,000. In combat aircraft terms, Israel can field 253 modern supersonic fighters to Iran’s 142 more antiquated jets. The U.S. is the number one military power in the world with the highest number of super modern combat jet fighters, numbering 2,362.

The mullah regime in Iran has created, through oppression, numerous domestic enemies including Kurds, Arabs, and Baluch, most of them being Sunni-Muslims. These minorities have taken up arms against the Islamic Republic. The mullah regime has also persecuted its own fellow Shiite (Persians) hanging teenage boys and girls, harassing students on university campuses, and educated Middle-class folks. The Bazaar traders, who are an important economic element in the Iranian society, also suffered under this regime.  Iranian-Azeris (at least 20% of the population of Iran) who are Shiite, are seeking cultural autonomy. They want to have the right to speak their own Turkic language. In recent weeks, feeling threatened by massive protests, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered his security official to do “whatever it takes” to suppress the spontaneous protests by ordinary Iranians. Reuters reported on December 23, 2019, that “About 1,500 people were killed during less than two weeks of unrest that started on November 15. The toll, provided to Reuters by three Iranian interior ministry officials, included at least 17 teenagers and about 400 women as well as some members of the security forces and police.”

The Iranian regular armed forces known as the ‘Artesh,’ has been relegated by the mullahs to a subordinate role. For one thing, they do not trust the army. Immediately following the 1979 Iranian revolution, Khomeini and his gang liquidated the army’s top echelon, accusing them of loyalty to the Shah, and fearing a counter-coup. Artesh is denuded of a modern air force, using F-4 fighter-bombers dating back to the Shah’s time. Iran itself has not fully recovered from the Eight-year war with Iraq (1980-1988), and the U.S., EU, and UN sanctions have made Iran a pariah in the international arms market. China, and North Korea are Iran’s main military suppliers. Russia is more judicious in providing arms to Iran. In 2016, Moscow refused to deliver to Iran 200 Sukhoi SU-30 multirole air superiority fighters. Russia has also delayed supplying Tehran with the S-300 air-defense missiles.  
While both the U.S. and Israel must take Iranian threats seriously, neither country must resort to panic and fear. Iran could never win in a war with either the U.S. or Israel, and most importantly, the Ayatollahs must consider that in case of war, they might lose their hold on power. That is the major consideration for the Tehran regime. As it is, the regime does not enjoy a great deal of legitimacy among a large segment of Iranian people. Intimidation and threats are predominantly defensive measures the mullahs use. They know all too well their vulnerabilities.

* * *

Photo by Hamed Saber

Joseph Puder


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hezbollah's pursuit of precision missiles fateful for 2020 - Yaakov Lappin

by Yaakov Lappin

The Iran-backed terrorist organization remains deterred by Israel’s military might, but pursuing precision missile factories would be taking an enormous risk of escalation. The coming months will reveal whether Hassan Nasrallah realizes the extent of the danger and decides to step back from the brink.

Hezbollah's pursuit of precision missiles fateful for 2020
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah | Photo: Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran

While it remains too soon to know the full implications of the assassination of Iranian Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and many questions remain, Iran’s malign activity in the Middle East looks set to continue to create risks for escalation.

At the top of the list of immediate threats is the Iranian-Hezbollah plan to construct precision-guided missile factories on Lebanese soil. This represents a top proliferation challenge for Israel in 2020, and Tehran is continuing to lean on Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah to proceed with the construction of the factories. Judging by the comments of Israeli officials in recent months, Jerusalem has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards such activity.

Giving Hezbollah and the Iranians the ability to accurately threaten strategic spots in Israel with guided missiles built on Lebanese soil looks like a step too far in the force buildup program by Israel’s enemies.

Nasrallah, who has his hands full with Lebanon’s political and economic woes, may not be fully aware of Israel’s determination to stop the construction of such factories. While none have likely been built so far, the possibility of construction work starting on such facilities is keeping tensions heightened between Israel and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah remains deterred by Israel’s military might, but if it proceeds with the missile factories, it would be taking an enormous risk of escalation by inviting Israeli preemptive action.

The coming months will reveal whether Nasrallah realizes the extent of the danger and decides to step back from the brink.

Two central risks to Israel’s security

Despite the loss of Soleimani, which may have a big impact on Iran’s future patterns of conduct, the Islamic republic poses two central threats to Israel’s security. The first stems from its nuclear program, which has been advancing at an alarming rate in recent months; and the second risk comes from Iran’s nefarious regional activities in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and its support for terror factions in the Gaza Strip.

On the nuclear front, blinking red lights should be going off due to Iran’s announcements of resumed uranium-enrichment activities at Fordow and Qom. At the current rate, by this coming spring, Iran’s nuclear program could be six months away from having a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium for a bomb. It’s far from a given that Iran would choose to rush one, due to the risks of inviting American or Israeli strikes, but the fact of the matter is that the program is advancing without anyone stopping it.

On the regional front, Iran is still working hard to transfer advanced weapons to militias and terror entities throughout the region. Under major duress due to the American "maximum pressure" campaign against it and facing significant internal instability, Iran is reacting aggressively. It’s building missile bases in Iraq to threaten Israel and Saudi Arabia, and transferring missiles to Yemen. It is also likely that Iran has transferred cruise missiles to Syria for use against Israel.

The Iranian proliferation routes were masterminded by Soleimani himself and include ground, air and maritime routes to gets advanced weapons to proxies. Simultaneously, the Iranians are trying to build a network of surface-to-air missile batteries across their sphere of influence to challenge Israel’s air superiority.

This aggression largely stems from the fact that Iran’s leaders are in distress. In many ways, the Islamic republic is at its lowest point since the 1979 revolution, and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has understood that he cannot stop the Trump administration’s campaign of biting sanctions.

As a result, Iran is lashing out and testing the responses of its adversaries.

The Iranians have even begun tactical cooperation with ISIS in the region, despite the massive ideological enmity between these Shiite and Sunni fundamentalists. Iran-backed militias have supplied weapons to ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria as well, to promote attacks on moderate Sunni elements and Western targets – targets that both sides can agree on attacking.

Last, but not least, the Bashar Assad regime in Syria has resumed its chemical-weapons program – an issue that will require intensive international attention in the coming year.

Israel is a formidable regional power, and its enemies understand its military might well. However, the intent of the Iranian axis to build up its capabilities is creating new potential for escalations, and 2020 looks set to be a volatile year, despite Israel’s powerful deterrence against its enemies.

Reprinted  from

Yaakov Lappin


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sharyl Attkisson Refiles Spying Suit, Exposes Big Deep State Players - Mark J. Fitzgibbons

by Mark J. Fitzgibbons

In her lawsuit refiled on January 10, Attkisson relied on a whistleblower who was actually involved in hacking her computers. He identified some of the other government officials complicit in the very disturbing spying on her. The refiled complaint quotes government forensics experts as being "quite shocked."

National news media figure and multiple award-winning, straight-shooting investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has refiled a lawsuit against the federal government for illegally and unconstitutionally hacking her computers and trespassing at her home. It’s a whopper of a lawsuit, naming high-profile Deep State officials including Rod Rosenstein of Trump Spygate fame, the high-ranking Justice Department official who told colleagues he’d wear a wire to surreptitiously record Donald Trump at the White House when the Deep State coup was in its earlier stages.
Attkisson’s first lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for failing to expressly name the government spies and conspirators who hacked her computers and remotely planted classified materials, obviously to set her up. The Department of Justice, where Rosenstein worked, had repeatedly obstructed Attkisson’s attempts to get information through litigation discovery. The court dismissed nevertheless, and even gave immunity to former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, whom Attkisson did name in her first lawsuit. 
One federal court of appeals judge even called this dismissal of her lawsuit “Kafkaesque” given how well-nigh impossible it was for her case to proceed under our justice system’s rules and judicial interpretations rigged in ways that protect government lawbreaking. Sharyl described her first lawsuit and some of the shocking roadblocks used by the government to American Thinker readers here, and has even written a best-seller, Stonewalled, describing these events in greater detail. But as anyone following the news knows, the lawbreaking Deep State can’t even be shamed by exposure of its illicit deeds.
In her lawsuit refiled on January 10, Attkisson relied on a whistleblower who was actually involved in hacking her computers. He identified some of the other government officials complicit in the very disturbing spying on her. The refiled complaint quotes government forensics experts as being “quite shocked,” demonstrating some within the government Intelligence Community thankfully have consciences.
The spying occurred after she crossed the Obama administration with her unrelenting reporting on the gun-running scandal called Fast and Furious, then continued through her reporting on the Benghazi disaster, where a United States ambassador and three others stationed at the embassy in Libya were murdered while Obama and then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton failed to respond with help and protection.
The refiled suit meticulously describes the nightmarish facts of how her computers and home were electronically and physically invaded as if she were a real “enemy of the people” and the government was playing Mission Impossible. Forensic details were derived from numerous investigations, leaving the conclusions unquestionable. The spying was conducted using government proprietary spyware and a mysterious United States Postal Service Internet domain. The latter fact is highly relevant, as government experts explained. A multi-agency government spying unit in Baltimore under Rosenstein’s supervision used these techniques, and they were even employed without court-ordered warrants. 
The new suit alleges that Rosenstein ordered the spying on Attkisson after directives -- later exposed by Wikileaks -- showed Obama officials John Brennan and Eric Holder were neck-deep in targeting journalists who were reporting on leaks about Obama administration scandals and lies. Holder’s press secretary even went to Attkisson’s then-employer CBS News complaining that “she’s out of control” with her reporting on these Obama administration scandals.
And it’s a small world, as they say, when it comes to Deep State corruption and spying on Americans. Another Defendant named in the lawsuit is Shawn Henry, who worked under Robert Mueller at the FBI and is now president of CrowdStrike Services. CrowdStrike is the company hired to review Democratic National Committee servers in a well-reported email leak scandal. Without actually examining the servers themselves, Mueller and the FBI curiously and negligently deferred to the findings of CrowdStrike that Russians hacked the servers despite assertions and evidence to the contrary. 
The government sources with consciences told Sharyl’s lawyers that she is just one of hundreds of journalists or other American citizens who have been victims of such illegal spying. Her lawsuit rightly claims her case is about a “clear and present danger to our most fundamental protections.” That danger and the corruption behind it became even more pronounced last week when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) appointed David Kris to oversee abuses of the FBI before that court. Thomas Lifson writes that “Kris is highly partisan; a Trump-hater; and, as part of the Lawfare blog, a strategist for the efforts to remove Trump from office,” and is “the last person in the world to fairly investigate mis- and malfeasance in the safeguarding of the rights of citizens when secret courts are asked to approve secret spying on them.” The Deep State is at war with the Constitution, and the cure for its lawbreaking and corruption will not come from the Deep State.
With no sign of the Justice Department and the rest of the Deep State relenting, and with a shocking absence of help from “free press” and civil liberties organizations, Sharyl is still financing this costly litigation on her own. This week I chipped in another $500 through the Sharyl Attkisson 4th Am Litigation GoFundMe page, where people can donate to help Sharyl’s fight for all of us.
I was especially at a loss for words that her GoFundMe total lags far, far behind the GoFundMe hauls for Deep State/Spygate bad guys Peter Strzok ($452,000) and Andrew McCabe ($538,000). So, if you see fit to donate, please do. Sharyl can use our help with this seemingly insurmountable fight.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ignoring Child Rape in Britain - Bruce Bawer

by Bruce Bawer

Manchester has grooming gangs too. Surprise!

It started in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, where the scandal made headlines in 2012, and where about 1500 victims have since been identified. Then came Rochdale, in Greater Manchester. There followed revelations from Lancashire, Birmingham, Surrey, Leeds, Bradford, and Gloucestershire, with the number of victims in each of these areas numbering in the hundreds or more.

Now an inquiry in Manchester proper has shown that – surprise! – that city isn’t immune to the predations of grooming gangs, either.

Commissioned by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, the inquiry found that at least 57 girls, many of whom lived in government-run children’s care homes, “were raped and abused by up to 100 members of a Manchester grooming gang sixteen years ago – but despite police and social workers knowing what was happening they weren’t stopped.” The girls, wrote Jennifer Williams in the Manchester Evening News on January 14, “were hooked on drugs, groomed, raped and emotionally broken.” Much of this, moreover, went on “‘in plain sight’ of officials”; indeed, “Greater Manchester Police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects,” at least eight of whom went on to commit more assaults, and in August 2018, the city’s Chief Constable “refused to reopen the dropped operation.” At least one of the rape victims, Victoria Agoglia, who “had repeatedly told social workers she was being injected with drugs and raped,” was given no help whatsoever, and ended up dying in 2003, at the age of fifteen, of a heroin overdose, with the then coroner, Simon Nelson, concluding (in the face of massive evidence to the contrary) that “her death could not have been foreseen by the authorities,” and with records showing that Agoglia had, at age 13, been dismissed by social workers as a prostitute.

And of course the reason why those authorities did nothing about the abuse of any of these girls was that virtually all of the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims – or, in the parlance of the British media, “Asians” – and the cops, social workers, child-services officials, politicians, and others were scared of offending the Muslim community. The man responsible for Agoglia’s death, one Mohammed Yaqoob, was cleared of manslaughter charges. Meanwhile, the Telegraph reported that cops looking into the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs were told by their superiors – who were driven by “fears over race relations,” concern about “sensitive community issues,” and a reluctance to amp up “community tensions” – to leave the Pakistanis alone and instead find and arrest rapists of “other ethnicities.” And they obeyed.

In other words, the story in Manchester is exactly the same as in all the other cities where grooming gangs have, after years or decades, finally been unearthed. Only the names are different (although the perpetrators are often named Muhammed). There is no reason to believe that things are any different in every other city in Britain. Almost certainly, in those cities that have yet to be hit by grooming-gang scandals, the fix is still in.

In response to the release of the Manchester inquiry results, Mabs Hussain, Head of Specialist Crime for the Greater Manchester Police, said: “We accept that authorities fell short of doing all they could to protect and support the child victims of sexual exploitation.” No, the Manchester police didn’t fall short. They stonewalled. They lied. They saw British children being taken off by Muslim men to be drugged and raped and, with a cowardice beyond imagining, turned their back on the victims. When a few brave souls in their ranks tried to investigate grooming gangs, the higher-ups skimped on funding, stalled, shelved findings, caused the minutes of meetings to disappear, and, when they were able to get away with it, actually closed down an investigation of the grooming gangs.

Maggie Oliver, a former Manchester detective who doggedly led that investigation, reacted to the inquiry’s findings by directing a justifiably furious j’accuse at “the people at the top of the police and at social services.” She added: “The chief constable, assistant chief constables, head of social services, the people who knew the facts, who knew the truth and they chose to bury the truth. That, in my opinion, is unforgivable.” And she asked: “why are those people not facing charges of misconduct in a public office? Where is the accountability? They should be put in front of a court of law.”

Indeed. And keep in mind that, like their counterparts across Britain, the Manchester police, while refusing to save children from rapists belonging to a protected minority group, have been zealous in their harassment of citizens who have dared to speak out in criticism of that same group. In 2017, the Times reported that cops across Britain were arresting an average of nine people a day “for posting allegedly offensive messages online” as part of a “campaign to combat social media hate speech”; in addition, over 3,300 people had been “detained and questioned” in 2016 for such offenses. As British journalist Brendan O’Neill noted in Reason in 2018, “This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the ‘liberty to utter,’ is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.” Yes, they’re not just going after critics of Islam; they’re also prosecuting people for posting rap lyrics online and for filming dogs making Nazi salutes. But this nefarious new Thought Police activity and the systematic refusal of police to arrest Muslim rapists share an identical motive – a pusillanimous terror of offending Muslims.

What is becoming increasingly, and terrifyingly, clear is that police officers throughout the United Kingdom have been inculcated with a mentality – I would call it a politically correct mentality, except that to call it merely politically correct seems far too tame – that is utterly at odds with the proper role of a police force in a free country: namely, to protect individual freedoms and to combat actual crimes. In true Orwellian fashion, the British police, with a few gutsy exceptions like Maggie Oliver, appear to have been expertly trained not to protect the innocent from the guilty but, quite simply, to prioritize, always and everywhere, the solitary goal of pacifying Muslims.

It is hard not conclude that the British police, as well as other British government functionaries across the board, have accepted the inevitability of their country’s Islamization and view it as the chief task of the police to ensure a smooth transition. Is it too late to hope that Boris Johnson’s government, once Brexit is accomplished, has the will and ability to undo this national nightmare, reverse this betrayal of democracy? Or that the Queen, who plainly views the inane Harry and Meghan situation as a catastrophe, will recognize that her realm faces an infinitely greater menace, and – taking a page from her father and grandfather, who were nowhere near as loath as she is to speak out and exert pressure in moments of crisis – will publicly demand that those who, acting in her name, have betrayed their most fundamental responsibilities, be called mercilessly to account?

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ricky Gervais Roasts Hollywood Leftists - Prager University

by Prager University

Candace Owens breaks the bad news to Hollywood.

Comedian Ricky Gervais delivered a legendary smack-down of the Hollywood elite at last week's Golden Globes Awards Show and Prager University was there for it. Check out their new short video below featuring commentary from Turning Point USA director Candace Owens:

Prager University


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

It Is Time for Iran to Reenter Negotiations on the Nuclear Deal - Con Coughlin

by Con Coughlin

"If we are going to get rid (of the 2015 deal), we need a replacement," he told the BBC. "Let's replace it with the Trump deal."

  • Speaking in his first interview since his impressive victory in last month's general election, Mr Johnson said he recognised US concerns about the 2015 deal, but insisted there had to be a way of stopping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. "If we are going to get rid (of the 2015 deal), we need a replacement," he told the BBC. "Let's replace it with the Trump deal."
  • Mr Johnson's comments came shortly after the three European signatories to the deal -- Britain, France and Germany -- announced that they were triggering a dispute mechanism in the deal following Iran's recent violations of the deal.
  • Which means that Tehran now faces a stark choice: either it reenters negotiations and addresses the serious flaws in the deal agreed by Mr Obama, or it faces yet further international isolation.

Iran's belated admission that it was responsible for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) flight PS752 could ultimately pave the way for a fresh round of negotiations on the controversial issue of its nuclear programme. Pictured: Part of the wing of the downed UIA airliner, near Tehran, Iran on January 8, 2020. (Photo by Akbar Tavakoli/IRNA/AFP via Getty Images)

Iran's belated admission that it was, after all, responsible for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752, killing all 176 people on board, could ultimately pave the way for a fresh round of negotiations on the controversial issue of its nuclear programme.

The fact that Tehran has now been forced to admit that the Ukrainian aircraft was shot down by an Iranian anti-aircraft missile, and that the disaster was not the result, as Iranian aviation experts had initially claimed, of a catastrophic engine failure, represents a major setback for the regime's hardliners, who have ultimate authority over the country's military.

It was the hardliners, who take their orders directly from the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who have been responsible for the recent escalation in tensions between Iran and the US by encouraging Iranian-backed militias in Iraq to carry out the missile attack on a US base near Kirkuk that killed an American contractor, and the subsequent attempt to storm the American Embassy in Baghdad.

It was these attacks that prompted Donald Trump to authorise the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran's master terrorist, which in turn resulted in the Iranians shooting down the Ukrainian aircraft after they mistook it for a US cruise missile.

Consequently many Iranians are blaming the country's hardliners for creating the circumstances in which the country has suffered arguably its greatest national humiliation since its 1979 Islamic Revolution, with the result that the hardline factions that support Mr Khamenei are now very much on the defensive.

This had led Western diplomats to conclude that this might present an opportunity to reopen negotiations on the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that Mr Trump has denounced as being "flawed".

Prior to the Ukrainian aircraft disaster, such a prospect appeared remote indeed as, far from being in a mood to compromise, Iran had signalled that it was resuming work on its enrichment programme, a clear breach of the nuclear agreement.

The Iranian move was initiated by the hardliners, who have always been sceptical about the deal negotiated by the country's moderate foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and they took advantage of the international outcry generated by Soleimani's assassination to downgrade Tehran's compliance with the agreement.

Now the tables have been turned in the wake of the Ukrainian aircraft disaster, to the extent that the hardliners are very much on the defensive, with moderate political leaders accusing the hardliners of misleading the government over the circumstances relating to the downing of the aircraft. President Hassan Rouhani has aligned himself with the moderates by demanding a thorough and transparent investigation in the "unforgivable error" committed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has been blamed for shooting down the aircraft.

This outcome had led Western diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic to conclude that, with the moderates once more in the ascendancy in Tehran, there is an opportunity to renegotiate the nuclear deal.

This is certainly the view of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has called for the deal previously negotiated by US President Barack Obama to be replaced with what he calls a "Trump deal".

Speaking in his first interview since his impressive victory in last month's general election, Mr Johnson said he recognised US concerns about the 2015 deal, but insisted there had to be a way of stopping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"If we are going to get rid (of the 2015 deal), we need a replacement," he told the BBC. "Let's replace it with the Trump deal."

Mr Johnson's comments came shortly after the three European signatories to the deal -- Britain, France and Germany -- announced that they were triggering a dispute mechanism in the deal following Iran's recent violations of the deal.

Which means that Tehran now faces a stark choice: either it reenters negotiations and addresses the serious flaws in the deal agreed by Mr Obama, or it faces yet further international isolation.

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

Why New World Slavery Was Inevitable - Jason D. Hill

by Jason D. Hill

What The 1619 Project gets wrong.

The 1619 Project on slavery is a program organized by The New York Times in 2019 under the auspices of one of its chief staff writers, Nikole Hanna-Jones, with the goal of re-examining the legacy of slavery in the United States -- and timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival in America of the first enslaved people from West Africa. The goal of the project is to reframe the country’s history, and to establish 1619 as true a founding of America as was the formal 1776 creation of the United States of America. The essays range in scope from attempting to prove how modern American capitalism is indelibly tied to slavery, to the alleged massive contributions the backward agrarian Southern institution of slavery actually made to the financial magnificence of the United States.

What I hope to establish in this article is not an attack against the 1619 Project -- which has many well-documented nefarious components. I’d like to offer something different: a philosophical-anthropological account of why I believe chattel slavery was the inevitable outcome of a clash between the presence of a manifest destiny of European man, and the absence of one in African and, generally speaking—Indigenous Man.   

When European Man and African Man first encountered each other it must have been a shock to the sensibilities of both. Having established a particular relationship to the earth that differed greatly from that of African man, European man saw himself as more than custodian of the earth—he was its earthly owner who exercised Divine dominion over it. He had done this by creating an abstract personality that had devised a method of exploiting and conquering nature to adapt it to suit his needs. He had, in effect, divorced himself from his animality, transcended it, and placed nature in a subordinate position which he dominated and controlled with weapons, tools and reason. Objects he encountered, including soil, trees, animals, minerals and figures resembling human-beings outside the historical process who presented themselves as part of nature—were treated as nature; that is, they were simply appropriated, controlled, taken out of the state of nature and commodified into socially useful artifacts for human consumption.

When European Man encountered African Man or Indigenous Man, he did not discover one that was his military or technological equal. What he found was one that presented himself as irrevocably tied to his animal nature. Indigenous Man presented himself as a natural creature having not yet transformed himself out of biological time into historical time, from a conception of himself as cyclical biological creature into an epoch-making world historical man. Indigenous Man did not have these attributes and he was, literally, there for the taking -- like the water buffalo and minerals and other resources around him. Had he transformed himself out of biological time into historical time, he would have devised the proper self-defense against conquest. European domination was made possible by the arrested epistemological development and faulty metaphysics of Indigenous Man that allowed for his rapacious conquest. He was seen as existing in a fallowed state of nature.

Man becomes historical by creating new worlds; new worlds that are symbolic and cultural in form which have no formal spiritual animal equivalent. Man as an evolved being severs his spiritual ties with his animal past and in the process engages in massive repression. Once man co-extends his animality into space and promotes and lives in biological time, his self-domestication and, therefore, self-maturation, is retarded and the reigning in of his animal self is a process that is fetishized. The animal within one needed no special encouragement. Rather, it is the birth of a self divorced from nature that will enter the historical process. A self that does not make this achievement will lose the battle to historical man.

The problem with Indigenous Man was that he could not extend his imagination into a world that stretched far beyond his immediate sight. Unable to construct powerful naval configurations that could dominate the high seas and reach into territories beyond, Indigenous Man’s physical, existential groping consisted in nearby raids and attacks close to the womb-like hearth where protective retreat into the zones of the primal tribe was always possible. He never learned to turn away from the ever-cyclical and adaptive behavior of animal species and create colossal conquests of his own. Formal detachment and projection into an infinite future were absent from the range of his possibilities. Mimicry and imitation -- whether of the ancestral world or the animal word -- is the ruling principle of Indigenous Man. Radical innovation would upset an unknowable order ruled by implacable and ineffable deities whose irreversible punishments would bring catastrophic designs on a people. Indigenous Man’s entire use of whatever semblance of reason he utilized was to divine the minds of the gods in order to placate them and to preempt them.

European Man, by contrast, used his reason to justify and align his will with God’s will. If he willed to conquer the majority of so-called uncivilized lands, then that was God’s will all along. European Man has never truly feared God in the way Indigenous Man has feared his gods. European man was not a renter, a mere custodian and grateful equal opportunity dweller on the face of the earth: this earth belonged to him and he was God’s earthly representative on it -- period. European Man saw himself as God made visible on earth.

European Man felt his loneliness because of a detachment from his animality and his unsentimental domestication of nature. He placed himself above nature, and did not worship, extol or venerate the creatures he willingly slaughtered as do many New World indigenous peoples. He did not pray to their spirits for guidance, or take on their likeness for deeper insight into an alternate reality. He therefore alienated himself from his primeval roots. To recover the roots he had betrayed and can never recover, he set out on a path of territorial conquests which were symbolic homes from the hearths that he had abandoned, the roots he had severed, the primal scene he had fled. The conquests were not just a substitute for a discarded home within -- they were a sign of physical and spiritual potency and omnipotence writ large: the world was his home and belonged to him. Was this not the audacious belief of tiny England when it dared and did conquer and occupy at one time one-third of the earth?   

European Man has always labored under the conception of himself as a post-human figure. Modern civilization was made by mandates handed down by God, or by the rational construct of man’s mind. European Man, even when mired in tribal configurations, was always in flight from his roots to a large extent and, therefore, has always sought to forget from whence he came through explorative conquests. Explorative European Man, unlike Indigenous Man,  declared himself eternally independent from and, in some degree, in contempt of primordial nature. For European Man it is not only that nature cannot be sentimentalized. It must be commanded, subdued and conquered.  

To begin a historical process, one must often leave origins behind and possess the absolute hubris to act as one’s own causa sui and begin a journey with one’s people out of which one creates a comprehensive mythology. One and one’s cultural milieu become the standpoint and the backdrop against which knowledge begins, and against which justification for moral action occurs.

Indigenous Man was not written out of history by European Man. His own cosmogonies canceled him out of the realm of high artifice. The subordination of nature and radical adaption of nature to man’s needs is the juncture where history begins. Indigenous Man’s cosmogonies never emancipated him from the reality of flux and chaos that he needed in order to be catapulted into the epochal realm of mastery, domination and conquest. It is not accidental that African Man’s dugout canoes and larger ships were never equipped to cross the high seas into Europe and conquer the British Isles. The cognitive feats of abstractions and mathematical computations required were absent. Perhaps they were missing because lacking in his thinking was a conception of a God who existed outside his creation that gave him cosmic significance and, more importantly, “cosmic specialness.”

Although Indigenous Man had local rites of passage that turned on heroic tropes within his small local tribes and that were validated via small-scale conquests of other tribal units within nearby compounds or at best, across the nearby waters, these conquests and local discoveries never gave him the cosmic grandeur of a universal aspirational identity and consciousness attained by European Man.

Indigenous Man’s cosmogonies canceled him out of the historical process because they never equipped him to aspire to become a universal man; the measure of all things. Primordial cosmogony was always in flux, dependent on the weather, the unruly demons, or the ineffable gods who ruled the cosmos, or the tribal chiefs who had access to them and whose whims and moods determined the moods and nature of the gods themselves.

European colonial expansion can be seen in several lights. One could say European man transformed each colonial outpost into an aspirational domain where, say, any Englishman, could realize himself and become who he thought he was meant to be in the world. These colonies were transformational units that, to the European cosmogony and moral imagination, were parts of a whole in a mechanistic rational universe. Disenfranchised individuals were not so much regarded as social ballasts as they were inanimate parts of nature to be appropriated and transformed out of nature into commodifiable material units.          

It was on such terms that the New World was founded. The United States was the legatee of such a tradition. Paradoxically, in the seeds of its founding also lay the principles for the liberal emancipation of those who had been enslaved and left outside the historical process. It is to America’s greatness that, beginning in 1776, she created a complex and often tendentious system that would eventually widen the pantheon of the human community to liberate and universalize those locked out of the domain of the ethical. The United States had built in constitutive, regulative features of self-criticism, self-reflexivity, and self-correction. The road was messy, but the forward-looking intention of the principles were clear: all human beings were created equal. None today, in the United States of America, is locked outside of the historical process.  

Jason D. Hill is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People(Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter