Friday, February 7, 2020

Who's afraid of a Palestinian state? The Palestinians - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

The fact that Trump's peace plan demands the Palestinians stop killing Jews, respect human rights, and adopt proper governance to earn the US's endorsement of a Palestinian state makes it realistic, not "biased."

Report: US aims to bypass PA objectionism by mediating ‎between Abbas' opponents
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas                                               | File photo: AFP/Abbas Momani

We live in historical times. The Arab Israelis, who have always been very suspicious of "occupying" Israel, now embrace Israeli rule and exclaim that they wish to remain part of Israel even if the Palestinians fulfill their national aspirations and see a state established.

US President Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan has pledged many benefits for Israel and has set a series of preconditions the Palestinian must meet, including relinquishing all forms of terrorism and adopting proper governance practices.

As expected, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected the plan, but he certainly did not expect Israeli Arabs – and Arab states, for that matter – to deviate as much as they did from the Palestinian "line."

This shows how well-crafted Trump's plan is, and it further underscores the fact that the Palestinians truly have no idea how to take advantage of opportunities.

Statements about potential land swaps sparked outrage and protest among Israel's Arab citizens, especially in the Triangle, a concentration of towns and villages adjacent to the Green Line at the Samarian foothills. That, perhaps, attests the most to the plan's relevance on a perceptual level – as much as on the political-diplomatic level.

Trump's plan has changed the paradigm: All previous plans urged Israel to take the proverbial plunge regardless of whether or not there was any water in the pool. Moreover, it has created a new paradigm, by which Palestinian nationalism must first and foremost be good for future Palestinian citizens – and for Israel, of course – otherwise there is no point in establishing a Palestinian state.

The plan presents specific goals and metrics that Palestinians must meet before they become "eligible" for a state, or even before they can negotiate for one.

These metrics include, among other things, values ​​of human rights, the rule of law, and refraining from killing Jews – basic criteria that every country should uphold.

The peace plan's critics argue that it is "grossly biased" in Israel's favor and is therefore unfair. When the US demands the Palestinians "stop killing Jews and respect human rights," to gain its support for a state – that's "biased"?

If these conditions are rejected by the Palestinians, meaning they will not commit to establishing good governance and fighting terrorist organizations, then negotiations are not feasible to begin with, let along simply endorsing a Palestinian state.

Moreover, if the Palestinians are not even willing to consider land swaps; if they are unwilling to even entertain the idea that, practically, Palestinian refugees will not be able to return to Israel, it no longer matters whether they reject or accept the plan. They clearly have no interest in taking control of their own fate and they prefer to continue using Israel – and even the refugees – as a punching bag.

The Palestinians had hoped that the Arab world and Arab Israelis alike would side with them and reject the "deal of the century," thus forcing the administration to revise it. But the moderate Arab states, which have long decided that it is better to align themselves with the US and Israel, have actually welcomed the plan.

Arab Israelis, who are concerned by fact that the US recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and moved its embassy there, ​​and the Arab parties, which often openly oppose the state, were presented with a choice: Which side do you wish to belong to – the "Israeli occupation" or the "future state of Palestine"?

They clearly prefer to be part of Israel and not part of the homeland they long for.

All this only proves to what extent Arabs Israelis do not trust the Palestinian leadership to provide them with the security and quality of life they enjoy as Israeli citizens. Arab Israelis prove, in their own way, that the parameters outlined in the American peace plan are not meant to serve Israel's interest, but rather first and foremost to ensure the safety of the Palestinians.

No Palestinian wants to live in a country that may as well be the Wild West, even if said Wild West is supposed to embody their national aspirations.

Ironically, Arab Israelis have all but told Abbas as much: We see no reason to establish a Palestinian state before you can prove we can live there safely and without fear, as we do in Israel.

The Americans understand this, Arab Israelis understand this, and now the Israeli Left must also understand that this plan succeeded in altering the paradigms of Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but also of the Palestinians among themselves and between Arab Israelis and the Palestinians.

This is the best possible outcome we could have wished for – the State of Israel has become popular among voters supporting the Arab parties – the same ones who have long since ceased to represent them in lieu of representing Abbas and his interests.

It cannot be overlooked that President Trump's peace plan is the best way for Israel to achieve all of its security aspirations in the long-term and its sovereignty aspirations in the immediate term. However, there is no real basis for the claim that the plan is solely "pro-Israeli" as it is clearly "pro-Palestinian-civilian" as well.

Boaz Bismuth


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Terrorist surprised the soldiers from behind - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

Initial investigation finds that some of the soldiers loaded their guns and chased after the terrorist, but did not manage to fire.

attack scene
scene of attack                                                                                                                                        Yonatan Sindel/Flash90

Initial investigation into the Jerusalem ramming attack, in which 12 Golani fighters were injured, revealed that, at 1:30 am the terrorist surprised the young soldiers who had completed a heritage tour ahead of their inauguration ceremony at the Western Wall.

The soldiers walked on the sidewalk and were about to cross the road as a vehicle came from behind them, accelerated, hit them and fled the scene.

Some of the soldiers put cartridges in their weapons and even tried to run after the terrorist, but did not manage to fire. The seriously injured soldier and the other 11 lightly injured soldiers were evacuated for medical treatment at the hospital.

After fleeing the scene of the attack, the vehicle burst through the tunnel checkpoint, heading toward Beit Jala in the Bethlehem area. Hours later, the car used in the attack was found abandoned.

The trauma unit at Shaare Zedek Medical Center received five injured from the terror attack, one injured seriously with multi-systemic injury who then underwent initial diagnosis and treatment and imaging tests, and was transferred to the operating room. In addition, four lightly injured with limb injuries were transported for further medical treatment.

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Report: 12 pro-Iran fighters killed during air strikes in Syria - AFP

by AFP

Israeli air strikes killed 12 pro-Iran fighters near Damascus and in southern Syria early Thursday, monitor says.

Israeli air strikes killed 12 pro-Iran fighters near Damascus and in southern Syria early Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Seven foreign fighters were killed in the Kiswa area south of Damascus, where Iranian and pro-Iran foreign fighters are present, the Britain-based war monitor said.

Five Syrian members of a pro-Iranian group were killed in the Ezra area of Daraa province, Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said.

A Syrian army source quoted by state news agency SANA said air defenses responded to two waves of Israeli strikes after midnight that targeted the Damascus area and then positions in Daraa and the adjacent province of Quneitra.

The source said the attack wounded eight fighters, without elaborating on their rank or nationality.

An Israeli army spokesman contacted by AFP early Thursday declined to comment on the strikes.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

UK: Why Are Dangerous Jihadists Being Released Early from Prison? - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

"Bluntly, how would you feel if you were told to keep track of known terrorists who have been released from prison to satisfy the politically correct assumptions of our justice system?" — Philip Flower, former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, Daily Mail.

  • "We cannot have the situation...where an offender — a known risk to innocent members of the public — is released early by automatic process of law without any oversight by the Parole Board. — UK Secretary of State for Justice.
  • "When I was a constable, I could arrest and process a suspect in an hour, maximum. Today, it takes a day or more.... The police are mired in bureaucracy, while the judicial system has become an institutional cloud-cuckoo land." — Philip Flower, former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, Daily Mail.
  • "Bluntly, how would you feel if you were told to keep track of known terrorists who have been released from prison to satisfy the politically correct assumptions of our justice system?" — Philip Flower, former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, Daily Mail.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to toughen sentencing guidelines for convicted terrorists after a newly-released prisoner carried out a jihadist attack in London. Pictured: Police officers search for evidence at the scene of Sudesh Amman's terror attack in London, on February 3, 2020. (Photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images)

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to toughen sentencing guidelines for convicted terrorists after a newly-released prisoner carried out a jihadist attack in London.

On February 2, Sudesh Amman, a 20-year-old jihadist from Harrow in north-west London, stabbed two people in a knife rampage on Streatham High Road before he was shot dead by police. He had been released from prison just days earlier after serving less than half of his sentence for terrorism offenses.

Amman, who was carrying a 10-inch kitchen knife, wearing a fake suicide bomber vest, and shouting "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the Greatest"), had been under active police surveillance at the time of the attack, which London police described as an "Islamist-related terrorist incident."

In December 2018, Amman was sentenced to three years and four months in prison after pleading guilty to 13 counts of expressing support for Islamist terrorism and possessing and sharing Islamic State and al-Qaeda propaganda. He was 18 years old at the time.

Amman was arrested in May 2018 after posting Islamist propaganda online. At the time, police said that he had expressed support for the Islamic State, sent beheading videos to his girlfriend, and asked her to kill her "kuffar" (non-Muslim) parents. He also wrote about carrying out a jihadist attack:
"If you can't make a bomb because family, friends or spies are watching or suspecting you, take a knife, Molotov [cocktail], sound bombs or a car at night and attack the crusaders, police and soldiers of taghut [idolatry], or western embassies in every country you are in this planet."
In a search of Amman's computer, police found documents titled, "How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom", "U.S. Army Knife Fighting Manual Techniques" and "Bloody Brazilian Knife Fighting Techniques."

During Amman's trial, police noted that he had a "fierce interest in violence and martyrdom." Acting Commander Alexis Boon, then head of the Metropolitan police counter terrorism command, explained:
"His fascination with dying in the name of terrorism was clear in a notepad we recovered from his home. Amman had scrawled his 'life goals' in the notepad and top of the list, above family activities, was dying a martyr and going to 'Jannah' — the afterlife."
"It's not clear how Amman became radicalized, but it is apparent from his messages that it had been at least a year in development. Whatever the circumstances, this case is a reminder of the need to be vigilant to signs of radicalization and report it."
Amman's attack is the second one in the British capital in the past three months. On November 29, 2019, Usman Khan, a 28-year-old jihadist from Stoke-on-Trent, stabbed and killed two people in a knife rampage near London Bridge. Like Amman, Khan had also been released early from prison.

A day after Khan's attack, Boris Johnson announced a review into the license (parole) conditions of 74 terrorists who had been released from prison early. He also vowed to end the practice of automatically releasing serious offenders from prison before the end of their terms:
"The terrorist who attacked yesterday was sentenced 11 years ago under laws passed in 2008 which established automatic early release.
"This system has got to end. I repeat, this has got to end.... If you are convicted of a serious terrorist offense, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 years — and some should never be released.
"Further, for all terrorism and extremist offenses, the sentence announced by the judge must be the time actually served — these criminals must serve every day of their sentence, with no exceptions."
A Sentencing Bill included in the Queen's Speech in October 2019 would have changed the automatic release point from halfway to two-thirds for adult offenders serving sentences of four years or more for serious violence or sexual offenses. The bill, however, stalled due to a hung parliament, and was shelved later that month when new elections were called.

The latest attack sparked considerable anger. In an interview with Sky News, the editor of Spiked magazine, Brendan O'Neill, spoke for many when he said:
"The Streatham terror stabbing is a scandal. This man was an Islamist maniac. He was devoted to ISIS and he had planned to kill non-believers. And yet he was let out of jail after just 18 months. We've got to start taking Islamic terrorism more seriously."
Paul Stott, a terrorism researcher with the London-based Henry Jackson Society, added:
"We need an immediate moratorium on the release of terrorist prisoners, whilst the government reviews each individual case."
In an interview with the Daily Mail, an unidentified government source said that according to British law, Amman had to be released from prison early, despite the threat he posed to society:
"There had been concerns when he [Amman] was in prison but there were no powers for any authority to keep him behind bars.
"There was nothing that could be done to keep him behind bars under existing laws, hence why he was under surveillance and strict licensing conditions.
"He had served half of his sentence, which was more than three years, so he had to be released despite concerns over his conduct.
"The public will look at this case and say why was this individual not kept behind bars and the Prime Minister shares that view."
After the latest attack, Johnson promised "fundamental changes" to the system for dealing with convicted terrorists. He said that terrorists currently in prison will lose their right to automatic early release halfway through their sentences. Johnson stressed that the legal concept of automatic early release for people "who obviously continue to pose a threat to the public has come to the end of its useful life."

On February 3, Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland announced that the government would introduce emergency legislation — The Counterterrorism Bill — to end the automatic early release from prison of terror offenders:
"We cannot have the situation, as we saw tragically in yesterday's case, where an offender — a known risk to innocent members of the public — is released early by automatic process of law without any oversight by the Parole Board.
"We will, therefore, introduce emergency legislation to ensure an end to terrorist offenders getting released automatically having served half of their sentence with no check or review."
Buckland added that the changes would be retroactive and apply to jihadists currently in prison:
"We face an unprecedented situation of severe gravity and, as such, it demands that the government responds immediately and that this legislation will therefore also apply to serving prisoners.
"The earliest point at which the offenders will now be considered for release will be once they have served two-thirds of their sentence and, crucially, we will introduce a requirement that no terrorist offender will be released before the end of their full custodial term unless the Parole Board agrees."
A total of 353 convicted and suspected Islamist terrorists were released from prison between June 2012 and June 2019, according to Home Office statistics cited by the Daily Mail.

In October 2018, the Islamist firebrand preacher Anjem Choudary, described as Britain's "most dangerous extremist," was released from prison after serving only half of the five-and-a-half-year sentence he received in 2016 for pledging allegiance to the Islamic State.

Prison authorities could not prevent his release: under British sentencing guidelines, prisoners — even those who are still a risk to the public — automatically become eligible for release under license (parole) after serving half their terms.

In an essay published by the Daily Mail, Philip Flower, a former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, warned that the fight against violent Islamism in Britain was being hampered by political correctness:
"As a retired senior police officer involved in containing terrorist and other threats during a 40-year career, I want to tell you of the intense frustrations that will be felt today across British policing. They will feel utterly let down by the judicial system.
"When I was a constable, I could arrest and process a suspect in an hour, maximum. Today, it takes a day or more.
"The police are mired in bureaucracy, while the judicial system has become an institutional cloud-cuckoo land.
"As a society, we have to decide how to deal with terrorist suspects. It takes around 32 police officers to maintain around-the-clock surveillance of a single terror suspect.
"It is insane to attempt to maintain this level of supervision of the thousands of individuals known to be of interest to the security services and counter-terrorism police. It seems as though the Streatham perpetrator was being watched by armed police, yet still he managed to stab shoppers....
"If we are to release convicted terrorists from jail early, then we would have to recruit thousands and thousands more police to oversee them, which of course will never happen because there is not enough money and we would find that level of intrusion unacceptable in a free society.
"There is a wider problem of maintaining the morale of the officers charged with keeping the public safe from fanatics.
"Bluntly, how would you feel if you were told to keep track of known terrorists who have been released from prison to satisfy the politically correct assumptions of our justice system?"
Ian Acheson, a veteran prison officer who in 2015 led an independent review of Islamist extremism in British prisons, told the BBC's Today program that the UK's risk-management system is fundamentally broken:
"We are going to have to accept that we have to be much more skeptical and robust about dealing with the risk of harm.
"We may need to accept that there are certain people who are so dangerous they must be kept in prison indefinitely....
"I am still unconvinced that the prison service itself has the aptitude or the attitude to assertively manage terrorist offenders."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and President Trump: The left has only one playbook - Patricia McCarthy

by Patricia McCarthy

A brilliant new documentary, "Clarence Thomas: In His Own Words," tells us a lot about the left's playbook.

Every American should see the new film, Clarence Thomas: In His Own Words. 
It is a beautiful film about his life, told in his own voice. The reason it is so relevant is that his story, especially in the left's attempt to block his confirmation to the SCOTUS because he by then was a conservative black man, has lessons for today. 

So what again did the left do? They began with the "let's get a woman to accuse him of sexual harassment" play. Out of nowhere came the loathsome Anita Hill to duly spill her fabricated tale of phony woe that was meant to stop his confirmation. Seeing these scenes from that "high-tech lynching," which it most certainly was, is an apt reminder of how far and how viciously the left is willing to go to get its way. 

]Joe Biden, then the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is so sneering, so intent upon humiliating Thomas that one is reminded why he should never get close to the Oval Office again. Biden is truly a vile man. 

And who are the racists in this tale? The truth of that is abundantly clear: It is the Democrats and the usual suspects in the media who cannot abide a conservative black man in their midst and will do anything, no matter how underhanded, to destroy such a man. 

Fortunately for all Americans, they failed to quash Thomas' confirmation, thanks to the Republicans and eleven Democrats. Ironically, the vote count to confirm was exactly what the vote to acquit President Trump was on Wednesday: 52 to 48! 

It is almost surreal to watch the scenes from the Thomas "trial" because it tracks so precisely with what the Democrats then did to Brett Kavanaugh. 

Just when it seemed his confirmation was a done deal, the fraudulent Christine Blasey Ford appeared on the scene as a wrench in the gears with her absolutely unbelievable story about having been "molested" by Kavanaugh in high school! 

Not a word she uttered was remotely credible but that did not matter to the Democrats on the current Judiciary Committee, not one bit. They behaved as though she was the innocent rape victim on an episode of Law & Order, SVU. She was nothing of the kind. As with what the Democrats did to Thomas in 1991, she was a hired gun, a willing participant in another high-tech lynching. These two women both allowed themselves to be used by leftists to achieve a desired end: To stop any justice they feared might oppose Roe v. Wade. That is what motivated the Democrats in 1991 and still motivates them today. 

Thomas is a religious man, and just that is what energized them to implement their plan to wreck the Thomas confirmation. Kavanaugh, too, is a religious man and there is nothing the left hates more than people of faith. This is why they despise President Trump, too, and Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Dennis Prager. Such men are the bane of their existence. 

It is the scenes with Joe Biden that are the most infuriating. To see how he so thoroughly delighted - the looks on his face are unmistakable - in belittling a fine black man is beyond disturbing. Biden is not just incompetent and by now a bit senile; his demeanor then betrayed the fact that he is malevolent to his core. How he ever came to be Obama's vice president is a mystery. He is not a good person. That he came in fourth (so far) in the Iowa caucus proves that most Americans are smarter than democrats ever realize. Biden will never be president of this country. 

All of which brings us to the Democrats' repeated attempts to impeach President Trump, each shot based on wholly fabricated nonsense. From the Russia hoax invented and paid for by the Clinton campaign to the most recent orchestrated scheme by Adam Schiff over a phone call. Each try is more feeble than the last and this one was the most ridiculous. Still, all the Democrats and one spineless and compromised Republican, 'Pierre Defecto," or rather, "Delecto," voted to convict despite there being no actual evidence presented beyond the opinions of some self-important foreign policy underlings. But Schiff, a man sorely afflicted with numerous mental maladies, and his fellow conspirators plowed ahead with the view that, again, Americans are stupid and would fall for their game just as the democrats in 1991 assumed they could sway public opinion against Justice Thomas. The current Democrats thought they could convince the American people that Kavanaugh had been, thirty years ago, an abuser of a young girl even though, like in the Thomas case, the charges were entirely fallacious. 

In the end, the Democrats lost in each of these controversies. 

Clarence Thomas has been one of the finest Justices in history. He has written over six hundred opinions (30% more than any other Justice), many of them dissents, and since the death of Antonin Scalia, he is perhaps the lone true originalist on the Court. The Democrats failed to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation and lost again in their effort of impeach President Trump, an outcome that was certain as they began this charade. They have one playbook - destroy any opponent by any means necessary. But they never learn; they are stuck on stupid. 

Presiding over Schiff's impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts betrayed his bias when he refused to read Rand Paul's question about how the latest "inquiry" began, because it contained the name of the faux whistleblower. Like everyone else in the room, like everyone watching at home, he knew the name. His failure to read it aloud is suspect. President Trump, in the months ahead, should appoint Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice because he cannot be bought, not by partisan politics, not for anything. He loves and knows our Constitution and applies it unfettered by current ideological theories or partisan politics. See the film. 

Patricia McCarthy


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Islam's Hidden Role in the Transatlantic Slave Trade - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

While most Western historians are aware that it was African "tribesmen" who captured and sold enemy tribesmen to Europeans, left unmentioned is that the "tribal" differences often revolved around who was and was not Muslim.

From its inception, Islam's history with the West has been one of unwavering antagonism and seismic clashes, often initiated by the former. By the standards of history, nothing between the two civilizations is as well documented as this long war. Accordingly, for more than a millennium, both educated and not so educated Europeans knew — the latter perhaps instinctively — that Islam was a militant creed that for centuries attacked and committed atrocities in their homelands, all in the name of "holy war," or jihad.

These facts have been radically "updated" in recent times. According to the dominant narrative — as upheld by mainstream media and Hollywood, pundits and politicians, academics and "experts" of all stripes — Islam was historically progressive and peaceful, whereas premodern Europe was fanatical and predatory. 

Whatever else can be said about such topsy-turvy claims — and there is much — they raise the question: if such a formerly well known, well documented, and bloody history could be revised in a manner that presents its antithesis as the truth — with little objection or challenge — what then of Islam's more subtle but also negative influences on history, the sort that, unlike the aforementioned centuries of violence, are not copiously documented or readily obvious but require serious historical investigation?

Take Islam's role in facilitating the transatlantic slave trade — which is otherwise almost always presented as an exclusively European enterprise.

Slavery is, of course, as old as humanity. Centuries before the coming of Islam, Europeans — Athenians, Spartans, Romans — were fully engaged in the slave trade. With the coming of Christianity, and as it spread all throughout the Roman and post-Roman empire (circa fourth–seventh centuries), the institution of slavery was on its way to becoming extinct. 

Then Islam came. While hardly the first to exploit human flesh, it was the most effective to perfect and thrive on it in the post classical, medieval, premodern, and even modern eras — with untold millions of non-Muslims enslaved throughout the centuries (one source indicates that 15 million Europeans alone were enslaved). 

As usual, it was only natural for those near and in constant contact with Islam to be infected by the same vice of dehumanizing — and taking advantage of — the "other." After all, the few instances of Christians in Europe buying and selling slaves are largely limited to the long war with Islam. Malta's Knights of Saint John, for instance, responded to Islamic slave raids by enslaving the raiders and other Muslims. Similarly, those Europeans who first became involved in the African slave trade, the Spanish and Portuguese, were also the ones who for centuries lived side by side with — often in violence and themselves enslaved to — Muslims (those of al-Andalus). 

Islamic slave raids into Africa began in the mid- to late seventh century. Then, according to Muslim records, astronomical numbers of Africans — in the millions — were enslaved in the name of jihad. By the time seafaring Europeans reached the coasts of West Africa, the Islamic slave trade was bustling. 

While most Western historians are aware that it was African "tribesmen" who captured and sold enemy tribesmen to Europeans, left unmentioned is that the "tribal" differences often revolved around who was and was not Muslim. 

As John Alembillah Azumah, an African academic and author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa, said in an interview:
Slavery was a very important part of Islamic expansion in West Africa, and in fact in the Sudan, and from the very earliest period of Islamic penetration of Africa. ... Slavery was a very endemic part of Islamic interaction with Africa. And in West Africa, the jihad's period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries involved massive slave raiding and slave trading; and many of the slaves that were captured and sold and sent to the transatlantic slave trade [were captured by Muslims]; most of those who were doing the slaving at the time were Muslim communities.
A look at historic maps seems to confirm this: the western coast of Africa, where captives were enslaved and sold to Europeans, was a hotbed of jihadi slave raids. The populations from Senegal to Angola — the regions where arguably most African-Americans trace their bloodlines — were roughly half-Islamic, half-pagan between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. 

More to the point, if today, when slavery has been formally abolished around most of the world, Muslims groups are still subsisting on the slave trade all throughout Africa — "Slavery Prevalent in Africa 400 Years After Transatlantic Trade Began" is the headline of one report — the role Muslims played in facilitating the transatlantic slave trade should be evident. 

Unfortunately, however, and as mentioned, if the obvious things of history — such as more than a millennium of unprovoked Islamic attacks on Europe — have been revised in a manner that presents the antithesis is truth, surely, Islam's more insidious or subtle role throughout history, such as its facilitation of the transatlantic slave trade, will remain unheard of.

Meanwhile, here is a rule of thumb to help cut through all fake, pro-Islamic histories: to know what Islam did in the past, simply look to what it is doing in the present.

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An Al Qaeda Leader Came to America as a Refugee, And Applied for Disability for Bullet Wounds - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

How Biden helped an Al-Qaeda leader come to the USA.

After engaging in terrorism in Iraq, an Al Qaeda leader came to America as a refugee and applied for Social Security disability benefits because his “injuries” in Iraq had made it too hard for him to work.

In 2006, Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri was the Emir of an Al Qaeda terrorist group in Fallujah. The Iraqi city was the scene of brutal battles between Al Qaeda and America. It was where American soldiers had suffered the most casualties in any battle since the Vietnam War. Despite multiple defeats, Al Qaeda remained deeply entrenched in the city and was even able to seize a number of neighborhoods in 2014.

By then, Al-Nouri was living in Arizona.

Only 2 years after being the Emir of an Al Qaeda group, Al-Nouri had traded the deserts of Al-Anbar for the deserts of the Southwest. How was an Al Qaeda leader able to move to the United States?

Easy. He claimed to be a refugee from Al Qaeda.

In 2008, the United States raised the refugee admission celling to 80,000 to accommodate the surge of Iraqis applying to come to the United States. The Iraqis claimed to be fleeing terrorism, but some, like Al-Nouri were terrorists, and our refugee resettlement program was not interested in telling them apart.

A quarter of refugees that year were Iraqis. The Al Qaeda leader was one of 13,823 Iraqi refugees. The huge increase from 1,608 in 2007, made any real screening of the Iraqis all but impossible. And, worse still, Iraqis, like Al-Nouri, were in the top 3 refugee groups and their claims were processed 'in-country'.

"In-country processing", as noted by the Center of American Progress, makes "the process less onerous and cumbersome for Iraqis seeking asylum by allowing for in-country visa processing, making screening less restrictive." And what migrants from Al-Qaeda’s stronghold needed was less restrictive screenings.

The less restrictive screenings were one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final immigration gifts to America. The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act was introduced by Ted Kennedy, backed by Grover Norquist, and co-sponsored by Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez and Barack Obama.

The disastrous legislation cosponsored by Obama and Biden no doubt helped ease Al-Nouri’s path.

"The United States has a clear responsibility to support these brave Iraqis who have stood by us," Senator Ted Kennedy had insisted.

And Al-Nouri, like many other fake refugees, pretended to be one of those imaginary Iraqis. He did such a good job of pretending that under Obama, the Al Qaeda leader became a military contractor.

The Emir’s job was training American soldiers preparing to deploy to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq (the group that would eventually be known as ISIS) about Iraqi culture.

After arriving in the United States as a refugee, the Al Qaeda leader applied for Social Security disability. Refugees applying for Social Security disability payments is a popular scam that hurts Americans.

But Al-Nouri claimed to have been shot by Al Qaeda terrorists and that he had 20 bullets in his body.

The 20 bullets might have been real, but they likely came from either the Iraqi or United States forces that Al-Nouri might have fought. The Emir had not only contrived to come to America as a refugee, but to make taxpayers foot the bill for his bullet wounds that he had picked up while fighting for Al Qaeda.

Despite the Al Qaeda leader’s supposed disability, he was able to work as a military contractor in California and to open a driving school, the A-Plus Driving School, in Phoenix.

1,050 Iraqi refugees were resettled in Arizona in 2008. Iraqis were the number one refugee group resettled everywhere from Alabama to Virginia. But Arizona had the highest share of Iraqis in any state outside Michigan's Islamic enclaves. Al-Nouri became one of 12,329 Iraqi refugees operating in Arizona.

When Al-Nouri came to this country, Arizona was accepting the most refugees per capita of any state. Money for resettling refugees poured into the state which was happy to take in Muslims from Yugoslavia, then Sudan, and Iraq. The Iraqi community in Phoenix boomed. Along with Al-Nouri.

And the problems have been growing.

Last month, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that Mohammed Mostafa Altayar, an Iraqi refugee, could be deported after he had threatened another man with a gun and assaulted him in 2014. But that sort of thing hasn’t stopped Arizona politicians, including Republicans, from demanding more refugees.

After the last September 11 anniversary, numerous Arizona representatives, including Republicans  signed on to a Welcome Refugees 2020 letter, demanding that President Trump bring more refugees.

Meanwhile, in Phoenix, even as the Al Qaeda leader’s driving school was touting, “peace of mind”, the refugee belatedly attracted government attention after flying to Istanbul: a common ISIS travel route.

FBI agents questioned Al-Nouri and appeared to suspect that he might have traveled to Iraq.
Now, Al-Nouri was finally arrested for extradition to Iraq, where he is suspected of the murder of two Iraqi police officers as the leader of an Al Qaeda group operating in Fallujah. While having Iraq request his extradition may be a simpler process than trying to bring him to trial here, it’s far from easy.

Last year, the FBI busted Omar Ameen, an Iraqi refugee in Sacramento, for his role in Al Qaeda and ISIS. But efforts to send him back for trial to Iraq have been stymied by an aggressive media campaign with the New Yorker and CBS News, not to mention pseudo-conservative sites like Bill Kristol’s The Bulwark and The American Conservative, launching a campaign in the alleged ISIS terrorist’s defense.

There is every reason to think that Al-Nouri will benefit from the same defense.

Iraqis in Phoenix have already come to Al-Nouri’s defense, describing him as a popular figure in the community. They claim that they had no idea that he could have been an Al Qaeda terrorist.

That’s unlikely.

In a culture with massive extended families and tribes whose members do everything, whether it’s fighting Al Qaeda or joining Al Qaeda as a group, coming out of a major Iraqi city, Al-Nouri’s story would not have fooled everyone in his community. But Al-Nouri was far from the only terrorist to come to America as a refugee. We don’t know how many terrorists who pretended to be fighting Al Qaeda tricked the system to come to America. And we don’t know how many more are coming now.

The Pentagon, which had hired an Al Qaeda Emir to train troops deploying to Iraq, recently warned again that failing to bring Iraqi refugees to America will undermine our national security. Military brass complained that the FBI’s more intensive screenings were keeping too many Iraqi refugees out.

The number of Iraqis coming to America on special visas had dropped to a mere 3,000 in 2017.

The FBI found suspicious information on 87 out of 88 Iraqis who had been specially screened in 2018. Instead of praising the FBI for doing its job, the Pentagon complained that it was doing its job too well.

In a White House meeting, an unnamed senior Pentagon official proposed exempting Iraqis from President Trump’s lowered refugee cap.

The battle over Iraqi refugees pitted White House advisor Stephen Miller against the Pentagon. The outcome is 4,000 refugee slots for Iraqis, some legitimate refugees and some Islamic terrorists.

Most governors, Democrats and Republicans, have indicated that they will keep admitting refugees.

On a quiet desert lot, in Surprise, AZ, the horrible surprise of an Al Qaeda Emir living next door in a quarter-of-a-million house should come as no surprise. It’s just refugee resettlement at work.

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

President Trump Joins the 'Peace Processors' - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

Can "the Deal of the Century" work if Palestinian Arabs hate Israel more than they love peace?

For decades the “peace process,” the attempt to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict, has tempted American presidents into trying to achieve international diplomacy’s biggest prize. Apart from the cold “peace” Jimmy Carter brokered between Israel and Egypt ––a success predicated on the U.S. giving Egypt $1.5 billion a year in foreign aid––all the other attempts have foundered on Arab Palestinian intransigence, corruption, and fanatical devotion to the destruction of Israel.

Some commentators, however, now believe that given changing geopolitical circumstance and Trump’s rejection of the old anti-Israel paradigm, this string of failure has a good chance of ending with Trump’s “deal of the century.” But odds are it will add just one more exercise in futility, since the Palestinian Arabs simply do not want to make a deal, and are more committed to the dysfunctional (and, for its leaders, lucrative) status quo than they are to creating a viable economy and a normal nation living “side-by-side in peace” with Israel.

Trump’s deal endorses a Palestinian state on 70% of Judea and Samaria, an area twice the size of the land the Palestinian Authority currently controls, with a transportation corridor between the so-called “occupied West Bank” and Gaza; designates East Jerusalem as its capital; and promises $50 billion in multinational development aid. But it puts the burden of concessions on the PA rather than Israel: Disarming terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, ending “pay to slay” money to the families of terrorists who die during an attack, and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian Arabs will also have to abandon its demand of a “right to return” for an ever-metastasizing number of  “refugees” from the 1948 war, accept Israeli control over an undivided Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and stop its school curricula and state propaganda that incite hatred of Israel and legitimizes terrorist violence against it.

Hope for success lies in this radical departure from past peace-plans, which legitimized the Palestinian Arab demands for a Judenfrei Palestinian state on all territory between the 1967 armistice line and the Jordan River, a divided Jerusalem, the dismantling of Jewish “settlements,” and the “right of return” for some 4.3 million people. These concessions would have left Israel even more vulnerable to terror attacks, and demographically swamped the Jewish state out of existence. The value of Trump’s plan is that it recognizes facts on the ground, some of which his administration has created: settlements in Judea and Samaria, the historical heartland of Israel, are legitimate and permanent; an undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; and no deal can be made without the Palestinian Arabs’ abandonment of terrorist violence and support for the jihadist gangs that foment it.

Moreover, changing geopolitical circumstances suggest that the Palestinian Arabs no longer have the support of neighboring Arab nations. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman sent representatives to the unveiling of the plan last week, which they have cautiously endorsed, and for now are advising the Palestinian Arabs to accept the deal. The Sunni Arab nations, having become tired of pumping money into a corrupt and intransigent regime, have bigger fish to fry: an expansionary Iran that has established military bases in Syria, and foments aggression against Saudi Arab through terrorist proxies in Yemen. They have finally understood that a militarily powerful, affluent, technologically advanced Israel, serially threatened with annihilation from a common foe, makes a better ally than enemy. And Israelis, even on the left, have resisted suicidal “land for peace” concessions after the increased terrorist violence that followed the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza.

Circumstances have also changed in the West, particularly in the U.S. with the election of Donald Trump, the best friend Israel has had since Harry Truman. Europe’s reflexive, if not anti-Semitic, hatred of Israel has begun to be tempered. Terrorist attacks across the continent perpetrated by Muslim immigrants have given Europeans a taste of what Israel has had to live with for over 70 years, as well as helping to encourage populist-nationalist parties more friendly to Israel. Here at home, hydraulic fracturing has made the U.S. the world’s leading exporter of natural gas, and has brought us to the brink of energy self-reliance. Israel’s natural gas discoveries have turned it into an exporter of natural gas, as well as making it self-reliant as well. Energy exports and energy independence have neutralized the oil-extortion Arab states had used in the past to browbeat Western nations that support Israel. Instead, old Arab enemies like Egypt and Jordan are now making deals with Israel, freeing them from dependence on enemies like Iran.

Yet despite these changes and new realities, there is one thing that hasn’t changed: The Palestinian Arab inveterate hatred of Israel, an enmity born of creed and resentment. Despite attempts by ignorant Westerners to blame Islamic anti-Semitism on the West, it is attested copiously in traditional Muslim doctrine, as extensively documented in Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. For traditionalist Muslims, moreover, the spectacle of Islam’s primeval enemy not just surviving, but flourishing in lands once Islamic is intolerable. And having three times lost in their attempts to destroy this interloper by force rubs salt in the wounds. The other Arab states have seemingly moved on, but the Palestinian Arabs, abandoned by their confessional brothers, and trapped in dependency on the U.N. and Western aid, have predicated their identity on this hatred and resentment of a historically persecuted minority that, despite having suffered near-annihilation, still managed to create a powerful, modern, liberal-democratic state culturally, materially, and militarily light-years ahead of every Muslim state in the region.

This brings us to the false assumption that has lain behind every attempt at a negotiated peace since 1948: The Western failure of imagination in thinking that because the West prizes peaceful coexistence, tolerance, sex equality, prosperity, nationalism, equal rights, and political freedom that everybody else must too––the “trap” and “error,” as Robert Conquest wrote, that vitiates diplomatic negotiation. Thus for decades we have shoe-horned the Israeli-Arab crisis into the leftist anti-colonialist paradigm of nationalist aspirations that allegedly have been thwarted by Western imperialist interests and their neocolonialist stooges like Israel.

But the Palestinian Arab hatred of Israel was always based on creed, camouflaged by nationalist aspirations and resistance against those who ignored those aspirations. Yet “nationalist aspirations” were merely a tactic, like terrorism or insincere negotiations, that serve the long-term strategic goal of destroying Israel. Summarizing David Meir-Levy’s work, John C. Wohlstetter explains that tactic’s origins: “Palestinian nationalism is the brainchild of the former Soviet Union’s intelligence services. They hatched the 1960s ‘wars of national liberation’ to energize sub-national groups in their struggles against the West.” Like Saul Alinsky’s precept to use the master’s tools to destroy his house, Western goods like national self-determination and human rights were used to cloak aggression that served creedal objectives. Only when they thought Westerners weren’t listening did leaders like Yasser Arafat command “jihad, jihad, jihad” to be waged until Palestine was liberated from “the river to the sea.”

Western leaders have failed to reconcile the Palestinian Arabs to Israel’s existence through a negotiated settlement because they failed to recognize the Arabs’ true motives. They ignored the  enemies of Israel like Hamas, whose charter blatantly states that the destruction of Israel is its purpose. They were taken in by Arafat and other “nationalists” who disagreed not with the aim of Hamas, but with its reliance on terrorist violence alone, rather than combining it with duplicitous negotiations that bought the Arabs time, misdirected the West, and reaped billions in Western “aid.” And they didn’t listen when Arab leaders like Gamal Abdel Nasser said in 1956, “The Palestinians are useful to the Arab states as they are. We will always see that they do not become too powerful. Can you imagine yet another nation on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean!”

Despite Trump’s rejection of the West’s chronic appeasement of the Palestinian Arabs and its indifference to Israel’s security, the “deal of the century” is still predicated on the failure to understand motives, without which no agreement can achieve a “meeting of the minds” upon which a legitimate agreement must be built. This fundamental error makes the long history of failed attempts to find a negotiated solution the prime exhibit in the indictment of the “rules-based international order.”

Indeed, the first sign of its weakness came right after World War II and involved this very conflict. In 1948 the UN, the international institution that was supposed to be the prime institution of this transnational order, failed to enforce its own resolution calling for the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab nations. When UN signatory Arab nations violated the resolution with military force, and Israel was left nearly alone to defend itself, we knew then that UN would be as hypocritical and feckless as the League of Nations, an arena not for the peaceful resolution of conflict, but for sovereign nations to pursue their parochial and zero-sum interests. And in subsequent decades, the UN has been Israel’s enemy, regularly showering it with calumny even as it bestows billions in largesse on those using invasion and terror to “wipe Israel off the map,” as an Iranian president put it.

The vehement rejectionism and calls to violence that have greeted Trump’s plan are not mere negotiating tactics. They are heartfelt and sincere, for the conditions imposed upon the Palestinian Arabs to them are intolerable and dishonor their faith. And even if they agree, past history of such agreements show they will serially violate its terms while pocketing the money. In the end, this latest move in the “peace process” will fail, because for now a critical mass of Palestinian Arabs and their leadership hate Israel more than they love peace.

* * *
Photo from YouTube

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Islamic Republic's New Starvation Rules - Michael Ledeen

by Michael Ledeen

The Mullahs instruct their people to eat less.

A military advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said Iranians should fast Ramadan-style to show “the enemy” they can resist its sanctions. In other words: The less you eat, the stronger you will become.

Iran's former Minister of Defense, Hossein Dehqhan, speaking on February 1 at an event dubbed “The Idea of Resistance in Imam’s (Khomeini) School of Thought,” stated that Iranians should follow the teachings of the founder of the Islamic Republic. He stressed that “If America is sanctioning us and wants to keep us hungry,” then the people should fast to show their resistance.

U.S. sanctions have brought the Iranian economy to a standstill, devaluing its currency fourfold and deepening the impoverishment of working-class people. This has led to consecutive protests, destabilizing the ruling regime.

Dehqhan is hardly alone in his sentiments. Several national leaders called upon Iranians to cut down on their calories, as a sign of loyalty to the regime, and they had some suggestions on what to eat. And when.

A hardliner ayatollah, Ahmad Alamolhoda, told people in a sermon last year that if they cannot afford chicken, they must eat a cheap omelet instead. Last August, the Minister of Energy Reza Ardakanian said, “The Chinese eat once a day” and that Iranians have a bad habit of eating more.

As the leaders of the Islamic Republic call on Iranians to eat less, their agents throughout successful countries try to steal money so that the elite can eat whatever they wish. The Justice Department just indicted an Iranian in the United States for organizing the export of American dollars in cahoots with Venezuela.

The Department of Justice announced that Bahram Karimi was charged with conspiring to commit bank fraud and making false statements in connection with his involvement in a joint project initiated by the governments of Iran and Venezuela -- in which more than $115 million was illegally funneled through the U.S. financial system for the benefit of various Iranian individuals and entities. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan. 

“Karimi allegedly conspired in an infrastructure project initiated by the Governments of Iran and Venezuela,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers.
He then lied to banks about Iranian involvement and took advantage of the U.S. financial system to benefit Iranian parties.  The Department of Justice will continue to prosecute those who misuse our financial system in violation of U.S. sanctions.
As Iranians starve, the rulers of this failed state pound on their chests and threaten their enemies. The late General Qassem Soleimani’s heir, General Qaani, promised the leaders of Islamic Jihad (Ziad Nakhale) and Hamas (Ismail Haniyeh) that his forces were more powerful than anything the supporters of Trump’s “Deal of the Century” could put on the battlefield.

The leaders of the regime are incensed at Trump’s proposal. Khamenei wants a referendum in “the Palestinian territory” while denying such an expression of political wishes to his own people (Iranians would undoubtedly vote against the Islamic Republic), and Hassan Baqeri, the head of the Joint Staff of the Iranian armed forces, warned Islamic states that their silence in the face of the Deal would have dire consequences.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, who had said one day after Trump announced the deal that it was "the most hated plan of the century," added during a visit to Khomeyni's tomb on Sunday that it is "a disgusting and shameful plot against all Muslims and freedom-lovers of the world."

But American military power takes a toll on Iran-sponsored terrorist leaders. Al Qaeda terrorists, who have received substantial assistance from the Islamic Republic, were especially hard-hit. Qassim al-Rimi, aged 41, was killed by U.S. bombs. He was the leader of AQ terrorists in Yemen. And within the United States, 42-year-old Ali Yousif Ahmed al-Nouri was arrested in Phoenix. He was an Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, was wanted for the killing of Iraqi police, and at this writing nobody knew where he had been living, how long he had been in America, or what he had been doing. Was he a lone wolf? A member of an extensive AQ network? Or what? Time may tell. 

Meanwhile, the Iranians are bragging about the good old days, when the Quds Force was waging war in Bosnia and Soleimani was building it up to become one of the premier terrorist organizations in the world. 

But that was then. Things are getting different nowadays.

Michael Ledeen


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter