Friday, January 31, 2020

Why the Palestinians Rejected Trump’s Peace Plan - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

The one aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that no one wants to talk about.

President Trump unveiled his long-awaited “Deal of the Century” plan Tuesday afternoon, offering Palestinians a state and fifty billion dollars. Predictably enough, the Palestinians and their supporters are enraged. The way they have expressed that rage is a new indication of why all peace plans up to now have failed, and why all future plans are doomed to fail.

An Islamic Republic press organ, the Tehran Times, reported that “Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani on Wed., in a letter sent to the Parliament speakers of the Islamic states, urged Islamic countries to counter US-proposed so-called ‘Deal of Century.’”’

According to the Jerusalem Post Tuesday, Islamic State (ISIS) caliph Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi “called on all Muslims worldwide to thwart US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, and added that ‘The Muslims who live in Palestine... will be at the forefront of the fight against the Jews [and] foiling the ‘Deal of the Century.’”

And in Turkey, according to Yeni Şafak, “Turkish demonstrators poured onto streets across the country on Tuesday to protest U.S. President Donald Trump’s long-awaited Middle East peace plan….Many protesters at the rally held placards bearing slogans reading, ‘Jerusalem belongs to Islam.’”

Even before the plan was announced, the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on Monday declared that the Palestinian National Council “again expressed its objection to every plan, project, deal, or attempt to harm the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights.” It called upon the PLO to “take all the necessary steps to encourage and escalate the resistance and the struggle against the occupation in all its forms and manners.” Jihad is “struggle” in Arabic.

“Islamic states” should counter the plan. “Muslims worldwide” should work to thwart it. “Jerusalem belongs to Islam.” Palestinians should escalate their “jihad.”

This is the one aspect of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that mainstream Western analysts routinely dismiss or ignore: Islam. This is a disastrous exercise in willful ignorance, as the Palestinian jihadis and their supporters constantly frame their war against Israel in Islamic terms, as The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process shows.

It’s easy to understand, albeit inexcusable, why the Islamic aspect of the conflict is routinely ignored. The Qur’an commands Muslims to “drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191), and even though it is a historical fiction that Israel actually drove Muslim Arabs out, this claim is a staple of pro-Palestinian propaganda, and hence it is a divine imperative, no more negotiable than the Ten Commandments are for Jews and Christians, that Muslims must destroy Israel and “drive out” the Israelis.

That means that no negotiated settlement will ever establish Israel securely and end the jihad against it, and that’s why analysts ignore Islam when considering the conflict: people don’t like bad news, or problems that cannot be solved. Nonetheless, this is the reality of the situation, and no good can ever come from ignoring reality.

In light of the role of Islam in the conflict, a Palestinian state would simply be a new base for more jihad attacks against Israel, as the withdrawal from Gaza demonstrated. Its establishment would not bring peace. The idea that Palestinians or their allies and supporters will ever sincerely accept Israel’s right to exist is a pipe dream. In light of that, it is easy to see why Abbas so contemptuously dismissed the plan before it was even announced: Trump declared: “To ensure a successful Palestinian state, we are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful coexistence. This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights, protecting against financial and political corruption, stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace, ending the incitement of hatred against Israel – so important – and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists.” Not gonna happen.

The refusal of analysts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to face the role of Islamic theology in the conflict is astonishingly naïve and ethnocentric. The Palestinians and their supporters will never accept the Trump peace plan because of Islamic imperatives that mandate that Islam must dominate and not be dominated, and that any land that once was ruled by Islamic law must be ruled by Islamic law forever. Unless and until these facts are taken into account, every peace plan is foredoomed.
* * *
Photo from YouTube

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 19 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinian Liberation or Islamic Conquest? - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

The message is clear: for too many Muslims, desires about "liberating Palestine" are really more about "conquering Israel" — not because Israelis are unjust, but because they are infidels.

What drives Muslim animus for Israel: brotherly love for "oppressed" Palestinians or religious hatred for "infidel" Jews? 

A recent incident in Jerusalem goes a long way in answering this question. Hizb al-Tahrir — the "Liberation Party" — held a large, outdoor event near al-Aqsa mosque commemorating the anniversary of the Islamic conquest of Constantinople (May 29, 1453). There, as he had done before, Palestinian cleric Nidhal Siam made clear that, from an Islamic perspective, liberation and conquest are one and the same.

After all the takbirs (chants of "Allahu Akbar") had subsided, Siam spoke:
Oh Muslims, the anniversary of the conquest [literally, fath/فتح, "opening"] of Constantinople brings tidings of things to come. It brings tidings that Rome will be conquered in the near future, Allah willing…. We are approaching the fulfillment of three prophecies, and we pray that Allah will fulfill these prophecies by our hands. The first prophecy is the establishment of the rightly-guided Caliphate in accordance with the way of the prophet. The second prophecy is the liberation of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of the state of the Caliphate. The third prophecy is that Islam will throw its neighbors to the ground, and that its reach will span across the east and the west of this Earth. This is Allah's promise, and Allah does not renege on his promises.
He and the assembled throng then repeatedly chanted, "By means of the Caliphate and the consolidation of power, Mehmed the Conqueror vanquished Constantinople!" and "Your conquest, oh Rome, is a matter of certainty!"

Consider for a moment the significance of these remarks — coming as they are from Palestinians, who, when speaking to and seeking sympathy from the international community, often present themselves as an oppressed people whose land is unjustly occupied.

First of all, the Islamic conquest of Constantinople was just that — a brutal and savage conquest the sole legitimacy of which was the might of arms. As Muslims had done for centuries earlier in North Africa and the Middle East, they invaded and conquered "New Rome" — not because it had committed some injustice, but because Islam commands the subjugation of non-Muslims, as Siam made clear. Moreover, Islam had long targeted Constantinople — beginning with its prophet, Muhammad, who desired its women — as the "ultimate prize."

Which leads to Rome: what does it have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict that it too deserves to be conquered? Absolutely nothing — except that, since the conquest of Constantinople, Islam has seen Rome as the symbolic head of the Christian world, and therefore in urgent need of subjugating. Or, in words of the Islamic State, "We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah… [We will cast] fear into the hearts of the cross-worshipers." 

Most telling is Siam's "third prophecy" — delivered to thundering applause: "that Islam will throw its neighbors to the ground, and that its reach will span across the east and the west of this Earth." 

Surely all this must seem surreal when placed in context? How can Muslims seek to present the Palestinians as a conquered and oppressed people whose land was stolen — while, in the very same breath, praising former and hoping for future conquests, replete with oppression and land grabbing from other peoples, only because they were/are non-Muslims?

Further underscoring the idea that the "liberation of Palestine" is intimately connected with the conquest of the non-Muslim world, Siam called on the Muslim world to work towards fulfilling the "three prophecies," that is, "to establish the Caliphate, to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and to conquer Rome." Note how, while the "liberation of al-Aqsa" may seem to revolve around notions of universal justice and the elimination of oppression, the establishment of a caliphate is, as it was throughout history, about conquest and expansion — to say nothing of the open wish to subjugate Rome. Yet all three are presented as part of Islam's selfsame vision.

The message is clear: for too many Muslims, desires about "liberating Palestine" are really more about "conquering Israel" — not because Israelis are unjust, but because they are infidels.

Note: See the author's Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, for much more on the fall of Constantinople and other themes related to this article.

Raymond Ibrahim


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinians: Abbas Chooses Hamas Over Peace with Israel - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

In their response to the "Peace to Prosperity" plan, Palestinian leaders have once again succeeded in what they do best: taking any hope for the wellbeing of their people and driving it straight into the ground.

  • Hamas and Iran have no plans to boost the economy in the Gaza Strip. They also have no intention of creating jobs for thousands of unemployed Palestinians.
  • "After years of no progress, the donor community is fatigued and reluctant to make additional investments so long as the governance structure in Gaza is run by terrorists who provoke confrontations that lead to more destruction and suffering." — From the "Peace to Prosperity" plan.
  • In fact, the wording of Trump's plan is quite compatible with the position of Abbas and his PA officials in the West Bank.
  • By forging an alliance with Hamas, a terror group that does not recognize Israel's right to exist, Abbas is already signaling his readiness to join forces with those who oppose any peace process with Israel. Such an alliance effectively places Abbas on the side of Iran and its Hamas and PIJ proxies.
  • Abbas and Hamas may renew their relations in the near future, but it will be the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip who will suffer, condemned by their leaders to poverty and misery.
  • In their response to the "Peace to Prosperity" plan, Palestinian leaders have once again succeeded in what they do best: taking any hope for the wellbeing of their people and driving it straight into the ground.

Instead of welcoming President Donald Trump's peace plan, designed to give the Palestinians a prosperous future, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected and denounced it as the "deal of shame" and "slap of the century." Pictured: Abbas denouncing the peace plan in Ramallah on January 28, 2020. (Photo by Abbas Momani/AFP via Getty Images)

US President Donald Trump's "Peace to Prosperity" plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians offers hope to the two million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled by Hamas for more than a decade.

Instead of welcoming the plan, designed to give the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip a prosperous future, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected and denounced it as the "deal of shame" and "slap of the century."

Worse, Abbas has chosen to renew his ties with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the two Iranian-backed groups that are opposed to his policies and have regularly condemned his policies and decisions.

Abbas, in other words, is acting not only against the interests of his people in the Gaza Strip, but also against himself by engaging the same groups that have long been seeking to undermine his rule.

By rejecting Abbas Trump's plan, Abbas is denying the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip the chance of improving their living conditions.

Hamas and Iran have no plans to boost the economy in the Gaza Strip. They also have no intention of creating jobs for thousands of unemployed Palestinians. The only plan Hamas, PIJ and their patrons in Tehran have is one that will bring more suffering and bloodshed to the Palestinians. That, however, does not seem to bother Abbas, who is now seeking to appease Hamas and PIJ.

As the Peace to Prosperity plan accurately points out:
"The people of Gaza have suffered for too long under the repressive rule of Hamas. They have been exploited as hostages and human shields, and bullied into submission. Hamas has failed the people of Gaza and has diverted money belonging to the Palestinians of Gaza, including funds provided by international donors, to attack the State of Israel, instead of using these funds to improve the lives of the people of Gaza. Under the leadership of Hamas, the residents of Gaza have suffered extreme poverty and deprivation. After years of no progress, the donor community is fatigued and reluctant to make additional investments so long as the governance structure in Gaza is run by terrorists who provoke confrontations that lead to more destruction and suffering."
The plan further requires Hamas and PIJ to disarm and calls for the return of Abbas's PA to rule the Gaza Strip.

In fact, the wording of Trump's plan is quite compatible with the position of Abbas and his PA officials in the West Bank.

In 2014, Abbas held Hamas responsible for the failure of the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of Israel's Operation Protective Edge, which was in response to the launching of rockets towards Israel.

In 2018, Abbas held Hamas responsible for the bombing of the convoy of former PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah in the northern Gaza Strip and threatened to take punitive measures against the terror group. He also repeated his demand that Hamas allow the PA to assume its full responsibilities over the Gaza Strip -- exactly as Trump's plan envisages.

Last year, Abbas stepped up his attacks against Hamas by accusing it of working for Israel, and not the Palestinians. He also accused Hamas of obstructing Egyptian efforts to achieve reconciliation with his ruling Fatah faction and end the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Abbas's animosity to Hamas has even prompted him to oppose Israeli gestures to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by initiating various projects to improve the infrastructure there and create job opportunities.

Senior Abbas advisers such as Azzam al-Ahmed have also been launching scathing attacks on Hamas. Ahmed even used the same words as the Trump plan when he accused Hamas of "kidnapping" the Gaza Strip and holding its people hostage.

Abbas evidently shares the same views of the Trump plan regarding the Gaza Strip and Hamas. He too has endorsed an Egyptian proposal to disarm Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip to pave the way for the return of his PA there.

Yet, Abbas now seems to be moving in the opposite direction of his declared policy. On the day Trump released his peace vision, Abbas invited Hamas representatives to an "emergency" meeting of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah to discuss ways of thwarting the plan.

The Hamas representatives invited by Abbas included Ayman Daraghmeh, Nasser Eddin al-Shaer, Samir Abu Eisheh, Ahmed Atoun, Omar Abdel Razek and Ali al-Sartawi.

Hamas leaders have welcomed Abbas's move and invited him to visit the Gaza Strip as soon as possible to discuss ways of working together to foil Trump's "plot."

Khalil al-Hayya, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, said in response to Abbas's initiative that the Palestinians are "united in confronting Israel with one rifle and one revolution."

Shortly before the unveiling of the Trump vision, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh phoned Abbas and offered to cooperate in efforts to foil the plan.

Abbas has also decided to dispatch a delegation of his Fatah faction to the Gaza Strip next week to hold talks with Hamas and other Palestinian groups about devising a joint strategy to thwart the Trump plan.

Abbas has threatened to renounce all signed agreements with Israel in response to the Trump plan, which he claims is aimed at "liquidating the Palestinian cause."

By forging an alliance with Hamas, a terror group that does not recognize Israel's right to exist, Abbas is already signaling his readiness to join forces with those who oppose any peace process with Israel. Such an alliance effectively places Abbas on the side of Iran and its Hamas and PIJ proxies.

In addition, Abbas's repeated threats to halt security coordination with Israel is tantamount to committing suicide. The security coordination benefits Abbas much more than it benefits Israel. Abbas knows that without Israel's presence in the West Bank, he and his government would be eaten alive by Hamas.

Abbas and Hamas may renew their relations in the near future, but it will be the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip who will suffer, condemned by their leaders to poverty and misery.

Remarkably, without showing a trace of irony, Abbas is rejecting a plan to disarm his own enemies who expelled his government from the Gaza Strip in 2007 and have since been killing, arresting and persecuting his loyalists.

In their response to the "Peace to Prosperity" plan, Palestinian leaders have once again succeeded in what they do best: taking any hope for the wellbeing of their people and driving it straight into the ground.

  • 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

PMW exclusive: PA gave 517.4 million shekels to terrorists as salaries in 2019 - Maurice Hirsch, Adv.

by Maurice Hirsch, Adv.

Accordingly, in 2020, the Israeli Government must deduct no less than 669 million shekels from the taxes Israel collects and transfer to the PA

  • As US President Trump demanded “halting the financial compensation to terrorists” PA documents just publicized show the PA admits to paying 517.4 million shekels in salaries to terrorists in 2019, a rise of 15 million shekels compared to 2018.
  • Israeli government stipulated that the PA spent 150 million shekels on the payments to wounded terrorists and the families of dead terrorist “Martyrs” in 2018 
  • PMW has calculated that this figure has grown by at least 1.6 million shekels, in 2019
  • Accordingly, in 2020, the Israeli Government must deduct no less than 669 million shekels from the taxes Israel collects and transfer to the PA
According to recently published Palestinian Authority financial reports, Palestinian Media Watch can expose that the PA has admitted to spending no less than 517.4 million shekels ($149.7 million/€136 million) paying salaries to terrorist prisoners and released prisoners in 2019. 
The PA expenditure on allowances to wounded terrorists and the families of dead terrorists was at least 151.6 million shekels in 2019. Accordingly, the total minimum PA expenditure in 2019 on its payments to terrorists and families of dead terrorists - its Pay-for-Slay policy- was 669 million shekels ($193.6 million/€175.8 million). 

In accordance with the Israeli law, Defense Minister Naftali Bennet should present the National Security Cabinet with a report showing that the PA expenditure on its Pay-for-Slay policy was no less than 669 million shekels. 

Israeli law demands that this figure be deducted from the monthly tax transfers Israel makes to the PA. 
Since created in 1994, the PA has implemented a “Pay-for-Slay” policy according to which it pays millions of shekels/dollars/euro every year in monthly salaries to reward Palestinian terrorist prisoners and released prisoners and monthly allowances to reward wounded terrorists and the families of dead terrorists (so-called “Martyrs”).  

The PA codified the policy in the Law of Prisoners and Released Prisoners in 2004. Since then, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, has twice approved substantial hikes in the monthly salaries paid by the PA to the terrorists (2006, 2010).

According to sworn testimony given by a senior official on behalf of the PA, the PA payments to the wounded terrorists and families of dead terrorists are not codified in PA law, but rather only stipulated in undisclosed internal documents.

While the PA policy has been widely condemned, with four countries (Canada, the US, Australia, and Holland) cutting off all direct aid to the PA until the policy is abolished, and while the PA continues to request (and receive) considerable amounts of foreign aid, the PA itself carries on squandering hundreds of millions of shekels/dollars/euro on terrorist salaries every year, incentivizing and rewarding Palestinian terrorists.

In 2018, Israel passed a law to combat the PA policy. According to the law, at the end of each year, the Israeli Minister of Defense must submit a report to the National Security Cabinet detailing the PA expenditure on terrorist salaries and allowances in the passing year. Once the Cabinet approves the report, the PA expenditure in the passing year is deducted in twelve equal parts from the taxes that Israel collects and transfers to the PA in the coming year. 

The new Israeli law was first implemented in February 2019, after PMW exposed that the PA had admitted to spending no less than 502 million shekels to pay the monthly salaries to the terrorist prisoners and released prisoners in 2018. 

In response to the Israeli decision, Abbas positively decided to plunge the PA into a self-inflicted financial crisis by refusing to accept all the tax revenues from Israel, if Israel deducted any sum. Since the tax revenues account for almost half of the PA budget, rejecting their receipt had a substantial impact on the PA economy.

 To overcome the crisis, the PA decided to temporarily cut salaries to the law abiding PA employees by 50% and to suspend referrals of Palestinians for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals. The PA also attempted to hide its financial reports, until PMW highlighted these actions. However, at the same time, the PA doubled down on its commitment to pay the terrorist prisoners, continuing to pay them 100% of their salaries.

After 7 months, the PA finally capitulated and agreed to receive the taxes that remained after the deduction.

Following an additional PMW report on the subject of the PA payments to the wounded and the families of the dead terrorists, in late December 2019 the Israeli National Security Cabinet decided to deduct an additional sum of 150 million shekels. Since the number of wounded Palestinian terrorists and the number of Palestinian terrorists killed grew in 2019, it is reasonable to assume that the PA expenditure for these terrorists grew.

According to statistics published by the PA and Israeli NGO B’tselem, no fewer than 110 Palestinian terrorists were killed in 2019. Taking into account the different PA payments, the additional expense incurred by the PA was no less than 1.6 million shekels.

During the presentation of his new Middle East peace plan, - the deal of the century - US President Donald Trump stressed the need for the PA to abolish its policy of rewarding terrorists and murderers:
“To ensure a successful Palestinian state, we are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful co-existence.  This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights; protecting against financial and political corruption; stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace; ending the incitement of hatred against Israel — so important; and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists.” 
[, Jan. 28, 2020]
Whether the PA will suddenly listen to US President Trump – for whom the PA has only shown contempt - only time will tell, but until then, Israel – if it wants to abide by its own laws – should deduct no less than 669 million shekels ($193.6 million/€175.8 million) from its tax transfers to the PA in 2020.

In the meantime, while most of the world agrees that the PA practice of paying financial rewards to terrorists is despicable, the PA continues to waste ever-growing amounts of fungible donor aid to fund this policy. To help put an end to the PA’s “Pay-for-Slay” policy, the EU and more countries should make their aid conditional on the permanent abolishment of the policy.

Maurice Hirsch, Adv.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Understanding the World's Greatest Source of Jew-Hatred - Allon Friedman

by Allon Friedman

A sober examination of Islam's historical treatment of Jews.

[To order Andrew Bostom's new paperback edition of The Legacy of Islamic AntisemitismCLICK HERE.]

During a public U.S. Congressional hearing held in April 2019, data was presented from a worldwide survey performed between 2014 and 2017 by the Anti-Defamation League that found the 16 nations with the highest prevalence of extreme antisemitism to all be Muslim countries in the Middle East. In response to the presentation of these data, the ADL's Senior Vice President for Policy Eileen Hershenov had this to say: "vulnerable, marginalized communities have bigotry within them."

If explaining away Muslim Jew-hatred as somehow a result of vulnerability and marginalization in societies that are overwhelmingly Muslim strikes one as troubling, well it should; especially if the person doing the explaining represents an organization that claims "its timeless mission is to protect the Jewish people." Any person with a healthy sense of self-preservation might ponder other questions that arise from this case. Like, for instance: Why is extreme antisemitism so ubiquitous in the Arab Muslim world? Or: Why is a prominent Jewish advocacy organization so intent on apologizing for Islamic Jew hatred?

Unfortunately, anyone searching for answers to these timely questions is not going to find them anywhere in the public arena. In fact, a conspiracy of sorts has prevailed on college campuses, in Hollywood, in the establishment media, in think tanks, and in other cultural institutions, both Left and Right, where honest and open discussion of Islamic anti-Semitism is taboo because of the fear of social ostracism and professional suicide.

Shamefully, many Jews too often aid and abet this ugly and dangerous conspiracy.

Enter Andrew Bostom, M.D., an Associate Professor of Family Medicine at Brown University, who has just released a second (paperback) edition of his magnum opus The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. It is a desperately needed corrective to the amnesia, ignorance, and self-destructive denial of reality that currently plagues much of Western Civilization and its Jewish community when it comes to Islam's historical treatment of Jews.

Full disclosure: I worked with Andrew as a research collaborator and have remained friends since. Bostom drew on his professional skills as a physician, medical researcher and epidemiologist to carefully construct an understanding of the underpinnings of Jew-hatred within Islamic theology and civilization. The empirical evidence Bostom provides is so comprehensive and powerful that it hits the reader like a tsunami.

Bostom is very careful to let Islam’s core texts and its most renowned and influential theologians, scholars, jurists, and leaders--from Islam’s inception to the 21st century--speak for themselves on this matter, which makes the overall argument even more persuasive. Perhaps inspired by his medical training, the author also offers the reader dozens of "case studies" culled from primary sources as well as third-party observers over disparate eras and lands (some translated for the first time) that encapsulate how Jews, identified in the Koran as the worst enemies of the Muslims, have suffered immeasurably as dhimmis, or subjugated people, under Islamic rule up to the present time.

The new edition also features an updated preface that elegantly demonstrates how ancient antisemitic doctrines within Islam have reverberated through the centuries to explain contemporary Muslim antagonism and violence directed towards Jews. If there is any downside to this book, it is that becoming so thoroughly informed about the predations suffered by Jews throughout the ages can weigh heavily on the soul. 

The author does, however, provide the blueprint for a constructive way forward by highlighting the immediate post-World War II efforts of Jules Isaac, a French historian and Holocaust survivor. Isaac, working with willing Christian colleagues and directly appealing to two popes, helped catalyze a movement that culminated in the Second Vatican Council and the Nostra Aetate (1965) declaration, which was an unprecedented and brutally honest document detailing the failings of the Church when it came to the treatment of Jews. This movement ultimately reformed Christian teaching about the Jews and greatly advanced Christian-Jewish relations.

Who should buy this book? Anyone who wants to understand the world as it is today in an unvarnished presentation, free of the distortions of political correctness; anyone who wants to understand the fundamental underpinnings of the genocidal war against Israel; anyone who wants to understand why Jews in Europe today are under siege.  And anyone who wants to save American Jewry as it stands at a precipice while Islamic Jew-hatred in the world escalates frighteningly unchecked.

Allon Friedman, M.D., is a practicing physician and vice president of the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana. JAACI is a leading advocate for Jews and Israel in Indiana was instrumental in passing Indiana’s anti-BDS law, the second in the nation. Dr. Friedman’s essays and editorials have been published locally as well as in various media outlets across North America and Israel.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ex-Trump aide Carter Page files suit against DNC over dossier: ‘This is only the first salvo’ - Brooke Singman

by Brooke Singman

“This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high. … The rule of law will prevail.”

Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court against the Democratic National Committee, law firm Perkins Coie and its partners tied to the funding of the unverified dossier that served as the basis for highly controversial surveillance warrants against him.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’ Eastern Division Thursday morning, and was described by his attorneys as the “first of multiple actions in the wake of historic” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse.

“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” attorney John Pierce said Thursday. “Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state.”

He added: “This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high. … The rule of law will prevail.”

Page first filed a defamation suit on his own against the parties in October 2018 in federal court in Oklahoma, but that suit was dismissed in January 2019 after the judge ruled the court lacked jurisdiction over the case because neither Page nor the DNC had strong enough ties to the state.

Page is now represented by Pierce, the global managing partner of Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP. They filed in Illinois because they allege the relationship with the firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS, was “orchestrated” through law firm Perkins Coie's Chicago office. The suit also claims the DNC "has a historical pattern” of making Chicago its principal place of business.

Pierce called the suit the first in a “campaign to restore Dr. Page’s name and hold those who targeted him accountable.”

Page’s lawsuit does not specify the amount sought, instead seeking “compensatory, special and punitive damages in appropriate amounts to be established at trial.”

The suit alleges that the DNC, Perkins Coie and partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussman “used false information, misrepresentations and other misconduct to direct the power of the international intelligence apparatus and the media industry against” Page “to further their political agenda.”

The dossier in question was filled with salacious claims about Trump and his associates and has been the subject of fierce controversy ever since its public emergence around the time of President Trump’s inauguration. The document was authored by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie.

In December, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a long-awaited report finding that the FBI made repeated errors and misrepresentations before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as the FBI sought to monitor Page in 2016 and 2017.

Horowitz confirmed that the FBI’s FISA applications to monitor Page heavily relied on the dossier and news reports rooted in Steele’s unverified research.

Just last week, the FISC released a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department assessment revealing at least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to monitor Page lacked probable cause.

“In connection with an effort to counter the Trump campaign, Defendants undertook to develop opposition research regarding Trump and his campaign, including persons associated with that campaign,” the new lawsuit states. “As part of this effort, Defendants developed a dossier replete with falsehoods about numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign—especially Dr. Page. Defendants then sought to tarnish the Trump campaign and its affiliates (including Dr. Page) by publicizing this false information.”

The suit goes on to allege the parties named “misrepresented Dr. Page’s connections to and interactions with certain foreign nationals in order to create the false impression that Dr. Page —a law-abiding American citizen who served his country honorably in the United States Navy and in the private sector—was in fact an agent of a foreign power, Russia.”

The suit states: “Defendants leveraged these fabrications within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’) and the United States Department of Justice (‘DOJ’), leading these agencies to present false applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (‘FISC’).”

The suit alleges Page was then “wrongfully and covertly surveilled” and “has seen his reputation ruined and his personal safety threatened.”

Page was a central figure in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election. Mueller did not find any wrongdoing by Page and was unable to substantiate the dossier’s claims about him.

Pierce’s firm also represents 2020 presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, who sued Hillary Clinton last week for defamation.

Brooke Singman


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Myth of Bernie’s Integrity and Consistency - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

After almost 50 years in politics, Bernie Sanders will say anything to get ahead.

"I'll probably vote for Bernie," Joe Rogan told listeners. "He's been insanely consistent his entire life. He's basically been saying the same thing, been the same thing his whole life."

The podcaster was repeating a popular myth about Bernie Sanders.

Sanders has been the same thing his entire life. A political activist or a politician. He graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in political science and began his political career not long after moving to Vermont. He’s either been running for political office or holding political office for 48 years.

Over those nearly 50 years, he’s said a lot of insanely inconsistent things.

In 1971, he argued that it was a disgrace that there were so many millionaires in the Senate.
"Nobody should earn more than a million dollars," he said in 1974. When he first ran for the Senate, he called for a 100% tax on wealth of over $1 million a year. These days, that’s just how much he makes.

“I wrote a best-selling book,” he told off critics. “If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

Millionaires suck and should have all their money taken away. Until you become one.
But that’s just an inflation issue. Right? These days Bernie opposes billionaires instead of millionaires. And if he somehow became a billionaire, he would almost certainly give away all his money to the poor.

You can tell because the first year he made a million bucks, he gave a whole 1 percent of it to charity.

Bernie is a real 1 percenter.

But forget the money. Washington D.C. is full of guys who came there to fight corruption and then cashed in. Nobody’s too surprised when politicians find ways to cash in, like Sanders did with the Sanders Institute which employed his wife and stepkids to ‘institute’ whatever it is Sanders does.

What about his actual political beliefs? Has Bernie been saying the “same thing” his whole life?

Bernie Sanders moved from Vermont to Washington D.C. because a little organization called the NRA sent out a letter to its members telling them, “Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith.” Bernie ended up voting against a seven-day waiting period to buy guns, against the Brady Bill, and voted for a bill to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits.

And there’s nothing wrong with that except that now Bernie keeps talking about taking on the NRA.

But Bernie’s pitch to a gun rights group was, “I won’t change my views on the subject.”

That’s the same pitch that Joe Rogan fell for. Except that Bernie changes his mind when it’s politically convenient. And it doesn’t take 48 years for him to change his mind. Try a decade.
In 2005, he voted for The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a bill backed by the NRA to stop lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. In 2016, when it became an issue in the Democrat primaries, he agreed to cosponsor a bill to repeal that protection.

“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen,” Bernie Sanders had argued in 2013.

Fast forward 5 years and Bernie Sanders blamed school shootings on a "three-letter word".

"It’s the NRA,” the elderly socialist ranted. “And it’s Trump and the Republicans who don’t have the guts to stand up to these people and that’s pretty pathetic."

Pretty pathetic indeed.

It’s not that Bernie Sanders evolved over his two generations in public life. Just as with the NRA, he adopted positions for political convenience and then jettisoned them when they became inconvenient.

These positions were often somewhat conservative, balancing out his socialist class warfare with common sense views that would help enlist the support of more conservative voters in Vermont.

Take immigration.

In 2015, when Bernie was asked about “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit”, he retorted with, “Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.” He went on to argue that, “It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state.”

That argument could have and would come from Donald J. Trump. And the backlash was severe. The transition from open borders opponent to open borders advocate didn’t take years, it took months.

His current immigration plan calls for abolishing immigration enforcement, breaking up ICE and CBP, ending detention of illegal migrants, ending border enforcement, legalizing sanctuary cities, and allowing migrants who come here for welfare and for just about any and every reason.

Who knew Bernie was one of the Koch brothers?

“One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics," Bernie had suggested in 2016. It didn’t take long for Bernie to embrace identity politics. He went from not wanting to talk about race, to compulsively running on race.

"Do I think we need some more jails? Yup. Do I think we have to get tougher in certain instances? Yes, I do," Bernie Sanders said, when discussing the 1994 crime bill that he supported. "So what you have is a balance here. You have more money going to law enforcement, more money going into jails. You have, on the other hand, significant sums of money going into prevention."

That’s another common sense position that he has completely disavowed.

These days, Bernie denounces the “prison-industrial-complex”, calls for an end to bail, and proposes cutting the national prison population in half, which would put dangerous criminals back on the street.

At a CNN town hall, he even suggested that the Muslim terrorist who set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon should be able to vote from prison.

Most people took that as a typically radical Bernie position. But it’s a radically inconsistent one.

Bernie has been an inconsistent flip-flopper on gun control, on immigration, on identity politics, and on crime.  The only two places he has been consistent is on class warfare and national defense.

And even there, he’s been inconsistent on class warfare once he made it to the 1 percent.

Sandernistas launched his campaign by sharing pictures of him flying coach. Once the money began coming in, he was flying luxury jets as often as he could. The jets remained a sore point with other Democrats. As impeachment got underway, Bernie’s campaign plotted to use more private jets.

That’s not just personal hypocrisy, it’s environmental hypocrisy for the Green New Deal candidate.

When it comes to his own personal interests, Bernie can’t even consistently identify which party he belongs to. When he first ran for president, on the Democrat line, he denied that he was a Democrat.

"No, I am an Independent," he said.

By the summer, he'd come around. "I am a Democrat obviously," he told USA Today. "That’s where I am and that’s where I’ll stay."

"Do you consider yourself a Democrat?" he was asked next year.

"No, I am an Independent," he replied.

This year, he signed a DNC loyalty pledge, stating, "I am a member of the Democratic Party."
Meanwhile he also filed to run for Senate as an Independent.

That’s insanely inconsistent.

Bernie is whatever he wants to be. He can be a Democrat and an Independent. A millionaire and an opponent of millionaires. He can denounce open borders and support them. He can support more prisons and call for freeing all the inmates. He can support and oppose guns when convenient.

What the elderly socialist isn’t is principled.

Few politicians can spend 48 years in politics and remain principled. Bernie isn’t one of them. Like most politicians, he has a few pet issues he strongly believes in, but not when they interfere with his career. Between 2013 and 2020, he tossed away his positions on multiple issues without blinking an eye.

Bernie is no more principled than the other senators running in 2020. That’s just another one of his lies.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Warming and the Snows of Yesteryear - Gregory Wrightstone

by Gregory Wrightstone

Even the most skeptical of us tend to believe is “warming by recollection.”

I was recently reminded of one of the most common misconceptions about our changing climate that is often accepted as fact by climate skeptics and true believers alike. Last week a commentary written by a fellow geologist and colleague lamented the less snow and cold in recent winters compared to the winters of his youth in Kentucky in the 1950s and 60s. He also related a talk he had with an octogenarian in Europe over the holidays who told him that he also recalled common snow during Christmas in Germany but alas, no longer.

This nearly universally held belief that even the most skeptical of us tend to believe is “warming by recollection.” Virtually every person from snowy climes claims that winters today are nothing like they were when they were a child. This recollection reinforces the thought that we are experiencing global warming within our own lifetime. Never mind that the slight warming of ~0.6 oF (0.3 oC) that a typical 45-year-old may have experienced since that big snowfall when he was five years old is much too slight to be recognizable by anyone.

Before I looked at the actual data on the subject, I also believed that the snow of my youth in Pennsylvania exceeded any of recent decades. My research into snowfall records for my hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, showed that my memory of snowfalls past was quite flawed. Snowfall here had been on the rise, rather than in decline.

Further examination from around the country revealed that this was not the exception, but the rule, as snow has generally been on the increase dating back many decades. My colleague’s recollection was equally flawed and records indicate that five of the top ten snowiest Februarys in his hometown of Lexington, Kentucky, had occurred since 1975!

This notion is not a new one. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson expressed similar opinions about the moderating temperature and lack of snowfall.
Both heats and cold are becoming much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep…. The rivers which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scearcely (sic) ever do now.
-- Thomas Jefferson 1801
Just like Thomas Jefferson in 1801, we remember those times that are remarkable, while forgetting the unremarkable. Our memories are filled with the times of extreme weather conditions as opposed to the moderate.

Big snowfalls periodically happen. Just like the picture below of me and my siblings in the snow in 1961, a six or eight-inch snowfall may come well past your knees when you are only five years old and three feet tall. It is a memory indelibly etched in your brain because it was so awesomely fun. (The odd-looking fellow in the bowler hat is my younger brother).

Increasing snow is not isolated to random sites in the United States but confirmed using data from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab (GSL) that reveal snow cover both in North America and across the northern hemisphere have been increasing.

The mistaken notion of decreasing snowfall in our lifetimes reinforces the idea that many people have that supposed man-made warming is more significant and impactful than it really is. Despite the evidence to the contrary we are warned regularly of the “end of snow” from warming driven by our use of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us in 2001 that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”

Dr. Kathryn Hayhoe, no stranger to failed alarmist predictions, stated in 2008 that the California region would experience 70% to 90% reduction in snowfall due to warming. This was just three years before California’s snowiest winter on record of 2010/2011.

As with so many other climate fantasies the “end of snow” prediction doesn’t stand up to review of the actual data. Go ahead and buy those skis, you will be using them often in the decades to come.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist and author of the bestselling book, Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter