Friday, June 5, 2020

Americans are bowing down before the mob because of the Big Lie - Andrea Widburg

by Andrea Widburg

What message does it send when a law enforcement officer kneels -  solidarity or surrender?

One of the more disturbing images to emerge in the past few days has been of police officers and National Guardsman kneeling – effectively bowing down – before the mob. These men and women who represent the forces of law and order claim that they are kneeling in solidarity, but what they're doing looks remarkably like surrender. The reason they are doing so is almost certainly because they believe the Big Lie that leftists are selling -- namely, that law enforcement is causing a black “genocide.” While it's true that there is black genocide in America, it’s not coming from law enforcement. It’s coming straight from Planned Parenthood, the Democrats’ most sacred organization.

In Hollywood, footage emerged of National Guard troops “taking a knee” along with protesters:

The Chinese probably started salivating when they saw that our military is already being trained in the “surrender technique.”
In Oklahoma City, police knelt before the mob:

In Phoenix, officers knelt:

The Capitol Police knelt:

Back in the 1960s, authority figures also collapsed before the black mob. Shelby Steele, in White Guilt, describes how his college president, the quintessential white liberal who gave to all the Civil Rights causes, backed down like a deflated balloon:
Dr. McCabe simply came to a place where his own knowledge of American racism—knowledge his personal integrity prevented him from denying—opened a vacuum of moral authority within him. He was not suddenly stricken with pangs of guilt over American racism. He simply found himself without the moral authority to reprimand us for our disruptive behavior. He knew that we had a point, that our behavior was in some way connected to centuries of indisputable injustice. So he was trumped by his knowledge of this, not by his remorse over it, though he may have felt such remorse. Our outrage at racism simply had far greater moral authority than his outrage over our breach of decorum. And had he actually risen to challenge us, I was prepared to say that we would worry about our behavior when he and the college started worrying about the racism we encountered everywhere, including on his campus.
And this is when I first really saw white guilt in action. Now I know it to be something very specific: the vacuum of moral authority that comes from simply knowing that one’s race is associated with racism. Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed of it, but once they acknowledge it, they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty, and so on. They step into a void of vulnerability. The authority they lose transfers to the “victims” of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why white guilt is quite literally the same thing as black power. (Steele, Shelby, White Guilt [Kindle Locations 370-374]. HarperCollins; emphasis mine.)
In the 1960s, thanks to Jim Crow and endemic racism in the Northeast, whites had good reason to feel guilty.

But what about whites in 2020? Well, that’s where the Big Lie comes in. 

In one of his best segments ever, Tucker Carlson looks at the way white liberals, police as well as ordinary people, are groveling because they believe they’re complicit in a black genocide – except there is no black genocide. The video is long, but you have to watch every minute:

Ten unarmed men dying at police hands in a single year is sad but it's not genocide or even attempted genocide.

There is a genocide in black America, though. In 2018, blacks accounted for 36% of all abortions, despite being only 13.4% of the population. In 2016, in New York, black women aborted more babies than they carried to term. Clever, clever Democrats. First, they enslaved the blacks, then they subjected them to Jim Crow, and now, by turning abortion into a sacrament, they've convinced blacks to vote Democrat and then kill themselves.
Thanks to the Democrats' Big Lie, instead of protesting at Planned Parenthood clinics and thanking God that Trump is a pro-Life president, blacks believe that the cops who try to protect them from the predators in their communities are the enemy. And the Big Lie has caused stupid leftists, police officers, and National Guardsmen to think that they lack the moral authority to stand up and face blacks with the dignity inherent in all humankind.

Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Black America Needs Fathers - Prager University

by Prager University

Broken homes lead to broken communities.

In this powerful new video, a police officer and a protester teach two young men that there is a better way than rioting, while Larry Elder explains that black America needs fathers. Don't miss it!

Prager University


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

India to Lead Efforts to Cure the World Health Organization - Jagdish N. Singh

by Jagdish N. Singh

All serious allegations against China and the WHO must be investigated and made transparent to the world without delay.

  • Fortunately, India's Health Minister Harsh Vardhan, a physician, is the new chairman of the 34-member World Health Organization Executive Board. He and his colleagues on the board could prevail upon the WHO Director General to take steps aimed at implementing the resolution of the World Health Assembly.
  • One, however, is not sure if and when [WHO Director General] Tedros will pay attention to implementing this resolution. He does not seem enthusiastic about the probe. He would, he said in his opening remarks at the WHA, "initiate an independent evaluation at the earliest appropriate moment."
  • Chinese President Xi Jinping said at the WHA any inquiry should wait until the virus was contained -- an outcome that could, of course, take years, if ever. Xi also pledged $2 billion over two years to the WHO, to control the spread of Covid-19, presumably including control of the WHO along with it.
  • Vardhan and others in the WHO executive board cannot procrastinate. All serious allegations against China and the WHO must be investigated and made transparent to the world without delay.

India is positioned to play a leadership role in seeing to the implementation of the World Health Assembly resolution calling for an independent inquiry into the current pandemic outbreak. Fortunately, India's Health Minister Harsh Vardhan (pictured) is the new chairman of the 34-member World Health Organization Executive Board. (Photo by Prakash Singh/AFP via Getty Images)

It is heartening to note the 73rd session of the World Health Assembly (May 18-19, 2020) approved a resolution calling for an independent inquiry into the current pandemic outbreak and the World Health Organization's role in responding to it.

The resolution -- brought forward by the European Union, moved by Australia and supported by more than 116 nations -- including India and Japan -- demands that WHO's Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus "identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population..." The resolution also calls for an impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation into the WHO-coordinated international health response to the pandemic.

The importance of these requests hardly needs to be stressed. There is evidence that the WHO's suppression of the news related to the pandemic outbreak in China overlooked went a long way in the spread of the disease and caused immense loss of life and damage to economies the world over. The feeling goes that the WHO must develop an appropriate mechanism to prevent such pandemics in the future.

One, however, is not sure if and when Tedros will pay attention to implementing this resolution. He does not seem enthusiastic about the probe. He would, he said in his opening remarks at the WHA, "initiate an independent evaluation at the earliest appropriate moment."

It seems Tedros would prefer, as in the past, to follow his masters in Beijing. According to reports, Beijing knew of the coronavirus outbreak as early as November 2019. But Chinese President Xi Jinping admitted to the virus on January 20, 2020 when more than 3,000 people had already been infected. The WHO did nothing to find out the truth. It waited for China to confirm the outbreak. It labelled the epidemic a public-health emergency on January 30. It declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic on March 11.

In mid-January, the WHO said there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the virus. As late as on January 10, the WHO advised "against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China." When Australia, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the US imposed restrictions on travel from China, Tedros criticized the actions, saying it would increase "fear and stigma, with little public-health benefit."

At the WHA session, China supported a comprehensive review of the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic only after the pandemic was brought under control. Xi said at the WHA that any inquiry should wait until the virus was contained -- an outcome that could, of course, take years, if ever. Xi also pledged $2 billion over two years to the WHO, to control the spread of Covid-19, presumably including control of the WHO along with it.

India, the world's largest democracy, is positioned to play a leadership role in seeing to it that the WHA resolution is implemented and that a strong WHO emerges. Fortunately, India's Health Minister Harsh Vardhan, a physician, is the new chairman of the 34-member World Health Organization Executive Board. He and his colleagues on the board could prevail upon the WHO Director General to take steps aimed at implementing the resolution of the World Health Assembly.

Vardhan and his colleagues might consider that there is no other option to implementing the WHA resolution and reforming the WHO today, or else replacing it with another, responsible, organization. Vardhan, after taking over as WHO Executive Board chairman, said that the Covid-generated challenges "demand a shared response." He now needs to move forward in this direction. The global health watchdog today needs to provide transparency, assist in the search for a vaccine, if one is even possible, and in efforts to eliminating the Covid-19 pandemic completely.

Vardhan will undoubtedly have deep interaction with all members of the executive board, who are all technically qualified in the field of health. He could particularly focus on interacting with the board members from democratic nations such as US Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brett Giroir, Austria's Special Envoy for Health Clemens Martin Auer, Finland's Permanent Secretary (Ministry of Health) Päivi Sillanaukee, Germany's Deputy Head (Division Global Health) Björn Kümmel, Israel's Associate Director General (Ministry of Health) Itamar Grotto, Britain's Chief Medical Officer (Department of Health and Social Care) Chris Whitty, Australia's Deputy Secretary (Department of Health) Lisa Studdert, and South Korea's Vice Minister of Health and Welfare Ganglip Kim.

Recently, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told ABC's "This Week" there is "enormous evidence" that the novel coronavirus originated in a lab in Wuhan, and a recent report from the US Department of Homeland Security has faulted Beijing for downplaying the threat.

In a May 18 letter to Tedros, US President Donald J. Trump recounted the missteps in the WHO's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and gave him 30 days to make fundamental reforms. If the WHO does not do what is needed, Trump warned, the he would "make my temporary freeze of United States funding to the WHO permanent." Trump has also said that under such circumstances, the US will "reconsider our membership" in the WHO.

Vardhan and others in the WHO executive board cannot procrastinate. All serious allegations against China and the WHO must be investigated and made transparent to the world without delay.

Jagdish N. Singh is a senior journalist based in New Delhi.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Left Owns The Riots - Don Feder

by Don Feder

Starting fires for decades -- now the country is burning.

It’s fitting that so many Democratic governors and other swamp creatures (the Pelosi from the Leftist Lagoon) are bashing Trump and rationalizing the coast-to-coast violence that seems almost demonic.

For the Democratic Party, these riots have been a project long in the works.

The rioting has two components – the rage-filled savages who are burning and looting for the insane joy of destruction, and the left’s brownshirts, who are taking advantage of the chaos to bring down what they call the system. The fingerprints of the Party of Plunder/Party of Treason are all over both.

Starting in the 1960s with the Great Society, the Democrats destroyed the black family. Instead of welfare going to families, it went to single mothers. You get more of what you subsidize. Back then, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 3% for whites and 23% among blacks. Today, it’s 28% and 73% respectively. In some inner cities, it’s as high as 90%.

Boys raised without fathers, especially in decaying neighborhoods, often grow up to be angry, bitter young men – the type who beat helpless strangers, watch stores and homes burn, and dance around the flames.

The Democrats have nurtured this for decades. They can see no connection between single-parent families and all of the pathologies (crime, drug abuse, joblessness, early sexual activity) that afflict inner cities.

Almost as bad is the sense of entitlement Democrats have cultivated among those they consider their core constituency.

Whatever your problems, you’re not to blame, they tell impressionable young men. You have no responsibility for your condition (substance abuse, failure to find meaningful work, poverty). It’s all due to institutional racism, the “legacy or slavery and segregation,” police brutality, and the “white man’s culture.” As the presumptive Democratic nominee said on Tuesday, upon finally emerging from the Biden Bunker, “The black community has had a knee on its neck for too long.”

Now, rioters are taking the opportunity to strike back against their oppressors (like Korean grocery store owners and ATMs) by stealing, burning, looting, and stomping.

Still, Democrats tell them, it’s not your fault. It’s those damned, racist Republicans, white supremacists, Confederate war memorials, and FOX News. That this only increases the sense of alienation that’s endemic to the black community is irrelevant to those who claim to be its champions.

Antifa and other radical groups hellbent on tearing down civilization are products of the anti-Americanism, and an ethic that condones violence, that pervade what used to be the party of FDR and JFK.

From public school indoctrination to college groupthink, Democrats and their academic cadre have taught millennials that America was founded on genocide, nurtured on slavery, and grew to greatness through exploitation and subjugation -- that we’re responsible for most of the wars of the past hundred years and generally are a blight on humanity.

The man who mentored our last Democrat President is a case in point. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright – 9/11 was “the chickens coming home to roost” and “God damn America” – has enough hatred in his carcass to fuel an Antifa convention.

Democrats have also taught the nihilists surging in our streets that it’s perfectly acceptable -- in fact, preferable -- to shout down, harass and assault reactionaries. The skills Antifa thugs learned at colleges and universities they’ve applied to the current insurrection.

Viktor Frankenstein tried to kill his creature. The Democrats adore theirs. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he was proud of his daughter, Chiara, for joining a Midtown mob throwing projectiles at the police. His response to the mayhem rocking Gotham was so bizarre that Governor Cuomo, a fellow Democrat, threatened to have him replaced.

When asked for her thoughts on the violence which just destroyed Newberry Street (Boston’s upscale shopping district), Massachusetts Attorney General Mura Healey said burning is “how forests grow.” I’m sure those who spent years collecting the kindling appreciate those sentiments.

New York State’s Attorney General Letitia James says she’ll investigate the police. First, she’ll have to keep her knee from jerking.

At the 2020 Democrat Nominating Convention, the looters, wrecking crew and goon squad that have spent several days making a hell of the lives of ordinary Americans, should be brought to the stage so Biden can embrace them – like a proud father showing off his sons.

* * *
Photo credit: Cantfightthetendies on Flickr

Don Feder


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Truth about Interracial Violent Crime - John Perazzo

by John Perazzo

Debunking the Left's pernicious lies.

Prior to the May 25th death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, a major focus of the media during the preceding two weeks had been a video showing an incident where a young black man named Ahmaud Arbery was fatally shot by two white men in Glynn County, Georgia. The killers say that they pursued Arbery, whom they suspected of having been involved in some recent local burglaries, when they spotted him running through their neighborhood – though some accounts claim that he was merely out for a jog. Eventually a fight broke out, and Arbery was shot and killed. After a video of the deadly altercation went public in early May, there were massive protests in Arbery's behalf. On May 8 – which would have been Arbery's 26th birthday – activist Al Sharpton used the Internet to lead a “virtual rally” in the young man's memory, drawing some 105,000 participants.

In an interview four days later, Sharpton, exhorting members of the black community to “sustain” their “indignation” vis-a-vis the Arbery case for as long as possible, portrayed the Georgia killing as an extension of racist American violence dating back to the epoch of slavery: “It was expected that if you saw a black, that you would suspect that he was a runaway slave, and you had the runaway slave laws that … they would use that to hunt down blacks for vigilante groups, the KKK and others, all the way up until the modern era.”

Television personality Oprah Winfrey likewise characterized Arbery's death as a consequence of intransigent white racism: “He went out for a jog while being Black. I wonder what was he thinking in those last seconds of his life? Unimaginable to go for a run in 2020 and end up dead because of the color of your skin.”

Notably, there is no record of either Sharpton or Winfrey uttering even a single public word in memory of 34-year-old Zackary Randalls, 37-year-old Mark Gassett, or 58-year-old David Jackson. You've never heard of these individuals, of course, because they were merely three white men who were murdered three years ago in Fresno, California by Kori Ali Muhammad, a black racist who candidly sought “to kill as many white males as possible” – killings for which the perpetrator was convicted just six weeks ago. Regarding the Zackary Randalls murder, Mr. Muhammad has since explained: “When I walked up to the truck, I saw a Mexican driver and a white guy. I didn’t want to target the driver because he was Mexican, so I shot the white dude.” The media, for some mysterious reason, didn't find the story compelling enough to cover.

Neither is there any record of Sharpton or Winfrey lamenting the deaths of 86-year-old Paul Marino and his 85-year-old wife, Lidia, both of whom were murdered in cold blood by a black gunman on May 8 – the very day of Sharpton's “virtual rally” in honor of Ahmaud Arbery – while they visited the gravesite of their late son, Anthony, in a Delaware cemetery. To borrow Oprah's pithy maxim, we might say that Mr. and Mrs. Marino were just “visiting their son's grave while being white.”

Other victims whose recent murders were ignored by media outlets and camera hogs like Sharpton and Winfrey include:

  • Joyce Whaley, Patricia Nibbe, and Nettie Spencer three middle-aged white women who were brutally stabbed to death by a black killer at a Tennessee truck stop in early April;
  • Heather Perry, a 21-year-old white woman who was shot to death in a Denver alleyway on May 9 by Cornelius Haney, a convicted armed robber who had just been released from prison in order to protect him from contracting the coronavirus;
  • Logan Allen Stacks, a 17-year-old white boy who was gunned down by two black teens on March 27 in Lancaster County, South Carolina;
  • Dr. Beth Potter, a 52-year-old white physician who dedicated her career to helping “underserved communities,” and her husband, educational consultant Robin Carre, who were shot execution-style by a pair of black teens on March 30 in Madison, Wisconsin; and
  • Kristopher Dacus, a 33-year-old white man who on February 26 was shot multiple times and killed by four black teens in the North Little Rock, Arkansas cemetery where he worked.

Let us assume for a moment that Ahmaud Arbery – who quite obviously was a volatile and menacing character with a criminal history – was in fact the innocent victim of a horrific, wholly unjustifiable murder. Even if that were the case, why should his death garner more attention from American media outlets and civil rights activists, than, say, the deaths of the 13 aforementioned whites whose lives were mercilessly snuffed out by black killers in 6 different states? Perhaps a case could be made in favor of such a double standard if white-on-black killings were commonplace in American society – on the theory that the condemnation of such occurrences might help raise people's collective consciousness about the deadly ramifications of white racism. But in fact, white-on-black homicides in the U.S. have been exceedingly rare for many decades.
Conventional “wisdom” maintains that violent crime tends largely to be an intra-racial affair, where whites target mostly whites, and blacks target mostly blacks. This is certainly true for homicide, but much less true for other crimes of violence such as assault, rape, and robbery.  

Let us look first at homicides that involved whites and blacks during 2012 and 2013. During those years, white killers nationwide chose to target white victims approximately 93 percent of the time, and black victims 7 percent of the time. Meanwhile, black killers targeted black victims 84.7 percent of the time, and white victims 15.3 percent of the time.

But violence in America crosses racial lines much more frequently when the crimes in question are rape, robbery, and assault. In 2012 and 2013, for instance, blacks in the U.S. committed an annual average of 560,600 violent crimes (excluding homicide) against whites, while whites committed a yearly average of 99,403 violent crimes against blacks. In other words, blacks were the attackers in about 85 percent of all violent crimes involving blacks and whites, while whites were the attackers in 15 percent.[1]

Those broad figures, however, do not even begin to tell the full story about interracial crime. To get a complete picture, we must also look at crime statistics from the perspective of the offender. That is, when a given violent offender chooses a victim to target for a crime, does he tend to target a victim who is a fellow member of his own racial group, or does he tend to go after a victim from another racial group? Here are the facts:

  • When white offenders committed crimes of violence (excluding homicide) against either whites or blacks in 2012-13, they targeted white victims 95.8 percent of the time, and they went after black victims a mere 4.1 percent of the time.
  • By contrast, when black offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks in 2012-13, they targeted white victims a whopping 48.5 percent of the time, and they went after black victims 51.4 percent of the time.[2]
If we factor into the equation the relative sizes of America's white and black populations, we find that, statistically, any given black person in 2012-13 was about 27 times more likely to attack a white, than vice versa.

In more recent years, the disproportionate prevalence of black-on-white crime has only gotten worse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018 there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites in the United States. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90.4 percent, while whites committed 56,394 of them, or about 9.5 percent. Moreover:

  • When white offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks in 2018, they targeted white victims 97.3 percent of the time, and they went after black victims 2.6 percent of the time.
  • By contrast, when black offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks during that same year, they targeted white victims 58 percent of the time, and they went after black victims 42 percent of the time.[3]
City Journal also reports that according to Justice Department data, blacks in 2018 were overrepresented among the perpetrators of offenses classified as “hate crimes” by a whopping 50 percent—while whites were underrepresented by 24 percent.

These numbers are staggering. If America were teeming with white racism, those guilty of interracial crime would be disproportionately white. But instead, the exact opposite is the case. Thus, the enormous amount of attention given to white-on-black attacks – which are statistically rare in the United States – is an obscene and senseless absurdity. The notion of ubiquitous white racism manifesting itself in unacceptably high levels of white violence against blacks, is one of the most destructive and monstrously evil lies of our time, creating levels of racial mistrust and animosity that are wholly unwarranted.

[1] Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012-13, Special Tabulation, Table 10.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization, 2018, Table 14.

John Perazzo is the author of Betrayal: The Democratic Party's Destruction of America's Cities.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rod Rosenstein copies Hillary’s defensive technique in the Senate - Andrea Widburg

by Andrea Widburg

The drive-by media mostly ignored it, but some interesting things emerged from Rod Rosenstein’s testimony.

The media, having milked “Russia, Russia, Russia” for all it was worth, has moved on. It moved first to the Wuhan virus but, when that failed to destroy Trump, it fanned the flames of riot-happy leftists across America. Perhaps that’s why almost no one in the mainstream media has paid much attention to Rod Rosenstein’s testimony before the Senate.

Rod Rosenstein, as you recall, stepped into Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ shoes on the alleged Russia collusion when Sessions, a decent, if malleable soul, allowed the Democrats to bully him into recusing himself. Rosenstein was also the one who wrote the document recommending that Trump fire Comey, and then promptly used Comey’s firing to justify appointing Robert Mueller, who had a beef with Trump when Trump didn’t pick him as FBI director.

But wait! There’s more. Rosenstein didn’t constrain Mueller’s investigation into a sitting president; instead, he gave him an almost unlimited mandate. And if Sessions had to recuse himself for essentially saying “hello” to a Russian, why didn’t Rosenstein recuse himself when Comey’s firing, which Rosenstein engineered, was one of the issues Mueller and his team of rabid Democrats were investigating?

And then there are those FISA requests. You know, the ones that were filled with lies and were based on a dossier that the FBI knew was fake and knew that Hillary’s guys had bought and paid for. (By the way, did you ever notice that if you’re somewhat dyslexic, as I am, you keep typing FBI as FIB? It’s kind of Freudian, really.)

What the Republican Senators zeroed in on were Rosenstein’s signatures on the Carter Page spying requests. The most that Rosenstein would admit to being responsible for was maybe not reading the Carter Page FISA warrant renewal requests carefully enough. Hey, who needs to be attentive when stripping an American citizen of his rights? Even if, as some have noted, it was perjury under the Michael Flynn standard, he’s a Democrat ally, so he’ll walk.

Rosenstein readily agreed that he “feel[s] accountable.” That means that, when he appeared before Congress, he can take a page out of the Hillary Clinton playbook, by discounting any responsibility for his past wrongdoing, and just focusing on the future. This was Hillary when questioned about Benghazi:
With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
Rosenstein went for something a little simpler. “I think the issue is, ‘How do we fix the problem?’”

Bart Simpson said it best:

At PowerLine, John Hinderaker caught the inestimable Kayleigh McEnany summing up precisely what the press is so assiduously ignoring:
It’s a pretty grave thing to spy on an American citizen, to violate his Fourth Amendment rights, to not have a basis to do so, and to rely on a Russian dossier full of lies as the justification. So, it’s really astonishing to hear from [Rosenstein] that he’s not sure he read every page of that warrant. But, I suppose it’s encouraging to hear – with his 20/20 hindsight – that he wouldn’t have signed on it, though I’m sure that’s of no comfort to Carter Page.


The President is dismayed. This happened to the President’s campaign. A Republican campaign was spied on by a Democratic presidency – a Democratic administration – based on a dossier paid for by his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC. This is absolutely extraordinary. It is the biggest political scandal that we’ve seen and the lack of journalistic curiosity on this front is appalling.
A couple of other points about the hearing. First, Jonathan Turley made the excellent point that Hawaii’s Sen. Mazie Hirono (D), practically forced Rosenstein to insist that Trump neither obstructed justice nor committed a crime:

Second, Ted Cruz roasted Rosenstein. He pointed out all the illegal and politized conduct that took place on Rosenstein's watch. And then Cruz accused Rosenstein of being either a crook or a useless piece of bureaucratic refuse (although Cruz said it more gracefully):

“You came into a profoundly politicized world, and yet all of this was allowed to go forward under your leadership that unfortunately leads to only two possible conclusions,” Cruz told Rosenstein during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. “Either that you were complicit in the wrongdoing, which I don’t believe was the case, or that your performance of your duties was grossly negligent.

Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Netanyahu freezes construction in isolated Judea, Samaria towns - Ido Ben Porat

by Ido Ben Porat

Prime Minister blocks new construction projects in towns in Judea and Samaria slated to become isolated enclaves after sovereignty plan.

Elon Moreh, one of the 15 towns slated to become an enclave
Elon Moreh, one of the 15 towns slated to become an enclave                              Ulpani Etrog
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has blocked new construction projects in parts of Judea and Samaria from receiving approval in recent months, ahead of his plan to apply sovereignty to Israeli towns in the area.

Under the sovereignty plan, which is expected to be introduced to the Knesset sometime after July 1st, Israel will extend its sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and all Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria based on the boundaries set by a joint Israeli-American mapping team.

It is widely expected that 15 towns in Judea and Samaria will be placed under Israeli sovereignty but remain out of the contiguous bloc of territory connected directly to pre-1967 Israel.

While the details of the sovereignty plan have yet to be finalized, according to the general outline laid out by the Trump administration’s Middle East peace plan, Israel will sovereignty to all of its towns in Judea and Samaria, but leave 15 towns in isolated enclaves of sovereignty Israeli territory which are not directly connected to the rest of the country, with protected roads ensuring access to the towns in question.

Under the Trump plan, new construction will be heavily restricted in the 15 enclaves for the next four years, so as to not create new facts on the ground.

At the meeting earlier this year of the Civil Administration’s Higher Planning Committee, numerous housing projects for towns across Judea and Samaria were approved.

However, in towns which are slated to become isolated enclaves, such as Yitzhar and Elon Moreh in Samaria, housing projects have been frozen, with builders barred from advertising them.

Samaria Regional Council chief Yossi Dagan slammed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, accusing him of instituting de facto freeze on construction.

“This constitutes an attempt to create a building freeze for towns deep [in Judea and Samaria] under the guise of bureaucracy,” said Dagan.

“We don’t accept towns in Judea and Samaria being separated into separate classes.”

“If this is a hint at plans to leave towns isolated as part of the sovereignty plan, then that makes it even worse. I call on the Prime Minister to immediately remove the restrictions and permit construction to move forward in all towns in Judea and Samaria, without any distinction.”

“We will not accept the attempt to choke our towns. Sovereignty is important. Netanyahu was elected on a platform promising it three times in the elections, and the people of Israel are waiting for it. There is no way that the Israeli public will allow a de facto freeze to be let in the back door by the reassuring talk of sovereignty. That isn’t a policy of a right-wing government, and it shouldn’t be carried out.”

Ido Ben Porat


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Chabad rabbis hear the dangers of the US peace plan - Hezki Baruch

by Hezki Baruch

Members of Chabad Rabbinical High Court visit Hevron, where community leaders show them detailed maps of the US plan and note its dangers.

Map of the plan
Map of the plan                                                                                                    Screenshot
Members of the Chabad Rabbinical High Court visited the city of Hevron last night to hold a prayer at for the health of Jews throughout the world in wake of the coronavirus.

During the visit, the rabbis met with the heads of the local Jewish community, who presented them with the map of the “Deal of the Century” plan and noted the dangers lurking therein.

Following the tour, some of the visitors decided to prepare a plan of action, the goal of which is massive pressure against the plan in two arenas: the US and Israel.

Heads of the Jewish community in Hevron said, "Those who remember the struggles during the Oslo Accords, the establishment of left-wing governments and the Disengagement plan know that Chabad has been at the head of the fight, sometimes behind the scenes and sometimes on the front."

Settlement officials who met the rabbis said, "In this struggle the hearts of the people will be needed, and there is nothing like the Chabad movement in managing to get into people’s hearts."

At this point, the activists are likely to focus on a US-targeted campaign to influence Trump's administration. Trump's Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump make sure to come with their children every Saturday to a Chabad synagogue in Washington, and are considered supporters and friends of the movement, such that Chabad has large influence in this arena.

One of the activists told Arutz Sheva: "The Lubavitcher Rebbe warned that the very talk of retreat from the enemy endangers the nation that dwells in Zion, even before talking about the dangers that stem from the plan, and therefore Chabad will have to act to prevent danger to the lives of millions of Jews in the land of Israel.”

Hezki Baruch


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The 1982 Lebanon War and Its Repercussions for Israel's National Security - Dr. Hanan Shai

by Dr. Hanan Shai

[Mistakes] in the IDF’s deployment during Operation Peace for Galilee, and later in its protracted security activity, culminated in the May 2000 hurried withdrawal that continues to this day to negatively affect Israel’s national security.  

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,596, June 4, 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The conquest of southern Lebanon in Operation Peace for Galilee, and Israel’s long sojourn in the area, had political and military justification. But defects in the IDF’s deployment during the operation, and later in its protracted security activity, culminated in the May 2000 hurried withdrawal that continues to this day to negatively affect Israel’s national security.  

Israel’s 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee had two political objectives. The first, which was realistic and achievable, was to restore normalcy to Israel’s northern towns and villages after sustained rocket attacks had disrupted life there for many years. The second, which was unrealistic, was to expel the Syrian and Palestinian armed forces from Lebanon and secure a peace treaty with a second Arab country—a goal that required complete Christian control over Lebanon.

In line with these objectives, the IDF was ordered to conquer southern Lebanon up to the Beirut-Damascus Highway (about 40 kilometers from the border) to rid the area of terrorists and weaponry and cut Syria off from Lebanon.

With the aim of reaching the highway before it was captured by a nearby Syrian division, a brilliant, wily idea was proposed: that an Israeli tank division make use of Mount Jabal Barouk, which was considered impassable by armor and hence not well protected, to rapidly penetrate deep into Lebanon. Its mission was to reach the Beirut-Damascus Highway 48 hours from the beginning of the operation, cut Syria off from Lebanon, and surprise and defeat the terrorists in the south of the country by gaining access to the rear of their defensive deployment.

Despite the cleverness of the idea and the fact that the operation had been conceived and planned years in advance, the IDF’s performance in conquering south Lebanon was rather poor. Its forces reached the highway three weeks late, and even that required slow advances that went on for more than two weeks after the ceasefire came into effect. An inquiry conducted later by the IDF (the Wald Report) found that the many failures in the IDF’s performance repeated failures that had emerged nine years earlier in the Yom Kippur War, and which had not been remedied despite the army’s promise to do so.

Moreover, as in a movie that is rewound, in preparing for its stay in southern Lebanon at the end of Operation Peace for Galilee, the IDF repeated the same mistakes it made in its deployment along the Suez Canal in the year preceding the Yom Kippur War.

Like post-June 1967 Sinai, southern Lebanon after Operation Peace for Galilee was an ideal territory for a frontal “protective holding effort”—that is, a secondary effort to create a defensive alignment that would identify an attacking force and warn of its movements as early as possible, thus enabling an advance deployment to stop the attackers when they reached the area. In south Lebanon this involved the early identification of terrorists making their way to the Israeli border and the conveying of a warning of their progress to the “protection effort” forces at the border so as to allow them to intercept the terrorists while they were still on the Lebanese side of the border security fence.

To fulfill its task of “identifying without being identified,” a protection effort should be uncomplicated, mobile, and without a signature. In the Lebanese case, it should have been based (as it is within the Palestinian Authority) on units of mista’arvim (Israeli soldiers disguised as Arabs) that were tailored to the sector. However, as occurred along the Bar-Lev Line in Sinai, the Lebanon frontal holding effort comprised a broad and prominent military signature of strongholds and frontal logistical facilities, along with a regular routine of operational and administrative traffic between the positions within Lebanon and between Lebanon and Israel that was highly vulnerable to guerrilla attacks.

The IDF’s visible signature grew ever more prominent the more the IDF, in response to the rise in casualties, thickened its protection rather than train its forces as mista’arvim in counterinsurgency warfare and reducing them to the minimum needed to gather intelligence on terrorists making their way to Israel.

In a decisive war aimed at achieving rapid victory, it is impossible to avoid sacrificing the lives of soldiers—as few as possible—to save many more lives, both soldiers and civilians. However, in a war of attrition that takes the form of an ongoing, erosive process that does not lead to victory, the winner is not necessarily the side that inflicts more casualties on its enemy but the one that limits its own casualties as much as possible. The IDF ignored this rule in Lebanon just as it ignored it after the Six Day War in its flawed deployment in Sinai. That deployment led to the protracted, difficult, fruitless, and thus unnecessary War of Attrition (1969-70), as Defense Minister Moshe Dayan characterized it.

The defense establishment rejected criticism of the IDF’s conduct in Lebanon with the claim that risking soldiers’ lives was necessary to protect the Galilee’s civilian population. That claim was in turn rejected by the Four Mothers—ordinary women who, through the massive public pressure they generated, brought about the IDF’s May 2000 ignominious withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the opening of a new, lackluster chapter in the history of Israel’s national security.

After the withdrawal, the attrition of IDF soldiers in Lebanon—which, as noted, could have been reduced with a proper professional deployment—was the main factor that influenced the crafting of the combat doctrines of both Hezbollah (and later Hamas) and the IDF.

Hezbollah exploited Lebanon’s mountainous territory to block the movement of mobile ground forces along the few existing traffic arteries with a stationary terror army operating within a dense network of fortified, well-obstructed, and tunnel-based defenses equipped with antitank weapons and rockets/missiles for standoff fire at Israel. These defenses were built in areas densely populated by civilians whom Hezbollah made use of as human shields.

Hezbollah’s (and later Hamas’s) stationary army would pose a triple military-political threat to Israel: attrition of the home front under rocket fire and attacks issuing from offensive underground tunnels; the infliction of heavy casualties on the IDF’s maneuvering ground forces, which would be compelled to operate in costly frontal battles aimed at breaching the fortified routes and defenses from which the fire on the home front was executed; and damage to Israel’s international status and the legitimacy of its struggle if it struck the human shields. Hezbollah thereby confronted Israel with three cruel options: high attrition of its soldiers in order to stop the attrition of its civilians; civilian attrition to avoid the attrition of its soldiers; or the prevention of the attrition of both soldiers and civilians by destroying rockets and tunnels from afar at the price of widespread collateral damage and the attendant damage to its international status.

Israeli society’s high sensitivity to casualties led the IDF to replace its traditional doctrine of rapid victory, which entailed defeating the enemy by destroying its combat capabilities, with a new doctrine that seeks to force the enemy to surrender quickly via the infliction of psychological shock and awe induced by technological feats that are spectacular in their accuracy and lethality.

This doctrine seems to have been based on a well-known idea of Michel Foucault’s: that power and knowledge are inextricably intertwined. Thus the IDF’s superiority was translated into massive data collection and the building of a rich “bank” of “quality targets.” By gradually destroying those targets in their order of importance, processes were meant to be generated that would lead to the enemy’s surrender.

While it is doubtful that the political echelon formally approved this doctrine, it was applied during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Yet despite the emptying of the Lebanese “target bank” of its “Foucault treasures,” Israel’s northern towns and villages remained under rocket fire for 34 days. Eight years later, in Operation Protective Edge, the doctrine of emptying the “target bank” was applied against Hamas—a much smaller and weaker terror army than Hezbollah. Yet Hamas was able to subject the south of Israel and the outskirts of the central region to rocket fire for 51 days.

Under the IDF’s traditional doctrine of victory, each round of fighting ended with the enemy’s defeat and the creation of improved initial operative conditions (which were not always exploited) for the next round of fighting. Because a war of attrition does not afford decisive military achievements, it is impossible to end it with significant political and military arrangements, including better initial conditions for the next round. Hence each round of attrition warfare turns out to be (as might be expected) more difficult and protracted than its predecessor. This may be why, in recent years, Israel has been forced to accept the ongoing suffering of its civilians along the Gaza border and the buying of quiet with Qatari money.

Although Israel is no longer threatened with destruction through conquest by maneuvering state armies, the new strategic threat it faces is not to be dismissed: the infliction of extremely heavy damage by powerful and massive rocket/missile fire, some of it extremely accurate and lethal, carried out by small, stationary terror armies.

Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi seems to be the first to try to extract Israel from the security trap into which it has fallen by exploiting its technological advantage to readopt a combat doctrine based on victory. This doctrine is aimed, according to Kochavi’s own description, at concluding a war with a rapid, clear, and unequivocal victory that will destroy the enemy’s combat capabilities with minimum harm to both IDF soldiers and human shields.

While the technologies needed to implement this doctrine are available or can be acquired relatively quickly, they will necessitate huge budgets. Amid the COVID-19 crisis, it is doubtful whether such budgets will be allocated anytime soon.

Dr. Hanan Shai is lecturer in strategic, political, and military thought in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter