Friday, August 28, 2020

Voter Fraud: With Evidence - Deborah Weiss

by Deborah Weiss

Contrary to media denials, voter fraud is real.

I am sick and tired of the purportedly objective media quoting President Trump and injecting "without evidence," especially when ample evidence exists. Such is the case with the President’s claims of voter fraud and the potential catastrophe that will ensue if we go to unsolicited mail-in ballots for the upcoming November election.

Years ago, I worked on the congressional committee which deals with contested elections. Our committee found extensive voter fraud in examining the Dornan-Sanchez election. That was just in California, not exploring other states at the time. Long before the Read ID Act and before the onslaught of “systemic racism” accusations, we introduced a bill to require voter ID to ensure that citizens' votes would not be diluted or negated by the votes of those voting illegally. Even then in the 90's, Republicans proposing this legislation were called racist and told we hated Hispanics (since that constituted the bulk of the illegal votes in California at the time). Actually, the real problem was that Democrats loved illegal Hispanics and others who voted illegally, primarily because they knew most voted Democrat to get free benefits.

I want to point out, however, that actual illegal voting or voter fraud is just one problem with mail-in voting. When President Trump refers to voter fraud, I think he is also talking in general terms about all the things that can go wrong with a mail-in election, some of which are not fraud, but would likely still result in problems that can drastically skew accurate election results.

First, actual voter fraud includes: people who vote in more than one state or county (because when they move they do not remove themselves the voter rolls of the place they left and then illegally vote more than once); people who have died are not always purged from voter rolls and yet somehow their votes are cast; and sometimes people who are not citizens vote. In some “liberal” localities, Democrats have even passed legislation allowing permanent residents or illegal immigrants to vote in local elections. Additionally, when there is no requirement to prove you are who you say you are, anyone can vote, and it’s easier to wrongfully vote in someone else's name. Thus, lax or no requirements for addresses and proof of citizenship result can result in voter fraud.

The Democrats’ so-called coronavirus bill (“The Heroes Act) also includes the purposeful removal of legal safeguards that protect the integrity of each person's vote. This includes on a national scale getting rid of all voter ID laws (usually voting laws are determined by the states), and permitting vote harvesting. Vote harvesting is when third parties are allowed to bring ballots to people's homes, stand there while they are filled out, and then return them to the ballot drops. Obviously, this technique is rife with problems including harvesters filling out the ballots themselves instead of giving them to the person intended, coercing or pressuring the voter to fill it out for a particular candidate, and picking and choosing which ballots will be returned to the ballot drops. The removal of signature requirements enables anybody whose hands gets on a ballot to fill it out and without knowing if it was the intended voter. One of the ways ballots are challenged in court is through a determination of a fraudulent signature. The removal of the signature requirement serves no other purpose other than making it easier to commit voter fraud without getting caught.

Democrats also want to get rid of stamp and date requirements. For example, normally, for an absentee ballot to be counted, there is a legal requirement about either what date it has to be postmarked by and/or what date the ballot has to arrive by. Democrats want to get rid of both. Thus, when Trump said we'll no longer have Election Day, but election week, month or season, he was absolutely right.

It is true that all states have absentee ballot voting for those who are out of state or country and for those who are sick.  In other words, if you have a legitimate reason that you cannot vote in person, you can request an absentee ballot. It is a small percent of the overall vote. Even so, absentee ballot votes are often not counted because if the in-person votes are tallied and have results within a margin of error whereby the absentee ballots would not change the results, then they don’t count the absentee ballots.

However, requiring all mail-in ballots poses numerous problems. First, it eliminates the requirement that the voter requests a ballot (and thus you know the person is real) and instead mails ballots to all people on the voter rolls, which, as mentioned earlier, may be outdated and duplicative. Second, it floods the postal system with mail that it likely cannot handle at a crucial time. Think about how often the mail you get goes to the wrong house, or gets lost or delayed. Even if not often, do you want to take that chance with your most precious freedom, the right to vote? If it goes to the wrong house, it’s possible that the person receiving it can vote twice and you won’t be able to vote at all.
In this same vein, in Washington, DC, during the primaries, which has fewer voters than in a general election, the Board of Elections failed to mail out ballots to over 1100 people who requested them. Additionally, there were admitted design flaws in the ballots that did go out. In New York, it took six weeks before the final primary results were finalized. In Nevada, hundreds of thousands of ballots were rejected in two counties. Flawed procedures lead to flawed and/or delayed results. Those that conducted general mail-in voting demonstrated problems that should serve as a warning of what is to come this November.

Despite this, numerous states have changed their rules to allow broader, more sweeping mail-in voting. Litigation has been launched around the country where states refused to change their procedures, in order to pressure them to go to a mail-in system. Senate Democrats introduced legislation in 2019, titled the “Vote by Mail Act of 2019” which would have usurped states’ authority to determine their own voting methods and require them to allow mail-in voting for everyone in federal elections. Fortunately, that bill went nowhere. Right now, only five states have all mail-in voting. Some of these states have been conducting all mail-in voting for years, and though in some ways still problematic, they have tweaked the process and improved it over time. For those that don’t have it in place, now is not the time to conduct a trial or experiment on new voting methods that are doomed to be perilous.

Additionally, there are always other requirements for mail-in ballots. Absent the Democrats getting rid of every safeguard to ensure your ballot is really from you, then you still risk the danger of making a mistake or overlooking a safeguard requirement. One can forget to sign the ballot, fail to get a witness signature if required, or mail it in too late to be counted.

Additionally, the expanded time frames for voting constitute a problem. There's a reason we originally had Election Day and not election season. No one can foresee what is going to happen between now and November 3rd. There might be an October surprise that would sway people's votes, but only if they didn't vote already. The Democrats want early voting which mail-in voting necessitates, in order to ensure that independents and those who can be swayed to Trump's side will vote before the debates (that's why Biden won't agree to an earlier debate), before the Durham report comes out with possible indictments, and before we come out of COVID lockdown and the economy improves. It seems that Democrats are keeping localities shut down so they can blame Trump for the resulting bad economy and job losses.

Finally, I will add -- and this is important -- that much of this election hinges on voter turnout. Let's face it: Biden inspires almost nobody to get out and vote. It’s mostly an anti-Trump contingent. People should have to give the slightest damn about who our president will be if they deserve to have a say. However, the Democrats want all-mail voting largely because people who normally would not be motivated to go to the polls, might vote if a ballot arrives unrequested at their house. What the hell, why not? Clearly, as you have probably figured out by now, COVID is not the reason for demanding all mail-in votes, it's the excuse. We allow grocery shopping, pharmacy shopping and outdoor restaurants to open with social distancing. There is no reason we can't do the same for voting, and it would still meet CDC COVID guidelines.

It is a lie that Trump and the Republicans want to "suppress the vote." It is clear that he wants to protect the integrity of each citizen's vote. Any effort to ensure vote integrity is framed as voter suppression by the Democrats. The only votes Trump wants to "suppress" are those that are fraudulent and those are the ones that the Democrats need in order to win.

To make matters worse, in their usual Alinskyite way, the Democrats have propagated the narrative that Trump doesn't want post office voting because he wants to steal the election, when clearly it is they who want to do this, as the confusing, diluted, mail-in voting scheme serves no other purpose. In the event that the Democrats win, they'll claim victory even if Trump challenges potentially illegal votes. But in the event they lose, they'll argue that Trump "stole" the election. There's a reason that Biden already hired 700 election attorneys to prepare.

Further, many Democrat states are reducing the number of polling stations drastically, so you'll likely have to wait on very long lines November 3rd. Most will have the option of voting in person early under this new voting regime, and under the circumstances, that is what I suggest. The Democrat scheme to have all mail-in ballots with no safeguards, in my view is designed to cause chaos and confusion in the outcome of the most important election in our lifetimes. It is an attempt to undermine confidence in our system and destabilize our country. Unfortunately, I see only two outcomes: 1) Biden wins and we become a socialist country, losing America as we know it forever or 2) Trump wins and there will be riots across America, amidst accusations of a stolen election. Hillary Clinton has already advised Biden not to concede the election “under any circumstances.” America is no longer "We the people." It is the tale of two cities, with only "us" and "them." We live in scary times.

Deborah Weiss


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

College leaders, you must put an end to Jew-hatred on campus - Susan Tuchman & Morton Klein

by Susan Tuchman & Morton Klein

Universities must make it clear that if you harass students due to their Jewish or pro-Israel identity, you will bear consequences

campus anti-Semitism
campus anti-Semitism                                                                                                                                             INN:JTA
The anti-Semitism that Rose Ritch endured at the University of Southern California has been all over the media. Ritch resigned as vice president of USC’s undergraduate student government after she was harassed for months by fellow students for one reason only: She is proudly Jewish and openly expresses her Jewish identity by supporting the State of Israel. Students launched an aggressive social-media campaign against Ritch to “impeach her Zionist ass.”

Heartbreakingly, Ritch felt that she had to resign to protect her physical safety and mental health.

Ritch’s ordeal is outrageous and unacceptable. But sadly, it’s not surprising or new. She is the latest example of what Jewish students have been enduring on their campuses for years.

Consider, for example, what happened in 2015 to UCLA student Rachel Beyda, whose application to serve on the Student Council’s Judicial Board was initially rejected after several council members questioned her fitness based on her identity as a Jew. Beyda was asked: “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

Beyda’s expression of her Jewish identity—she belonged to a Jewish sorority and was involved in UCLA’s Hillel—had absolutely nothing to do with her fitness to serve on the judicial board. She was eminently qualified to serve. But that didn’t stop anti-Semites from bullying her and trying to derail her nomination simply because she proudly affiliated with her Jewish community.

Consider, too, what happened to Jesse Arm in 2015 when he was an undergraduate at the University of Michigan. Members of an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel student group on campus (”Students Allied for Freedom and Equality,” or SAFE) instigated what can truly be described as a witch hunt against him. They called for his removal from his position in the student government simply because he exercised his right to object to the timing, taste and appropriateness of an anti-Israel display in the center of the campus. SAFE set up the display on the very same day that two deadly terrorist attacks occurred in Israel, killing five people.

The university leadership did not protect Arm’s legal right to express his views, even when the student government forced Arm to appear before its ethics committee to determine whether he engaged in unethical behavior or conduct unbefitting a student government representative and should be punished. Arm was ultimately exonerated, but that he was besieged simply because he exercised his right to condemn Israel-bashing is a disgrace.

All of these situations were plainly motivated by anti-Semitism and nothing else. So why do they recur? Why is the recent persecution of Rose Ritch the latest in a history of harassment directed against students simply because they are proud Jews and proud supporters of the Jewish state?

One reason is the failure of university leaders to take the steps that are morally and legally required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to assure students a campus environment that is safe and welcoming to them as Jews. There are numerous examples of university leaders who quickly and appropriately respond when other groups are targeted and harassed. However, they seem to react less forcefully or are even silent when the targets of the bullying are Jews.

In response to Rachel Beyda’s ordeal, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block issued a statement weakly stating that he was “troubled by recent incidents of bias” on campus. Block did not condemn the perpetrators’ conduct, simply describing it as “unfair.” He did not even mention anti-Semitism.

In Jesse Arm’s case, University of Michigan president Mark Schlissel issued no statement at all. In fact, months after Arm’s nightmare, SAFE erected an anti-Israel “apartheid wall” on Rosh Hashanah in the center of the campus. They assembled Israel-bashers dressed up as Israel Defense Forces’ soldiers who yelled at students passing by.

Anguished Jewish students implored Schlissel to speak up. He did not, even though just one week before he did speak up when black students were targeted. After racist flyers were found on campus, Schlissel issued a statement that “behavior that seeks to intentionally cause pain to members of our community is reprehensible.” Yet he failed to acknowledge the pain that SAFE deliberately caused to the Jewish community or condemn SAFE for its disgraceful actions.

In response to Rose Ritch’s harassment, USC president Carol Folt issued a statement expressing her belief that “it is critically important to state explicitly and unequivocally that anti-Semitism in all of its forms is a profound betrayal of our principles and has no place at the university.” Yet Folt failed to explicitly acknowledge that anti-Semitism was a problem on her own campus. And she failed to make it clear to her community that anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism are forms of anti-Semitism that USC won’t tolerate.

Not one of these university leaders made sure that their rules and policies against harassment and discrimination were enforced. Had they done so, the perpetrators of anti-Semitism would have been punished for their actions, and the rest of the university community would have gotten the message that if you harass and discriminate against students because of their Jewish identity, then you will bear the consequences.

USC’s Folt did announce a new “Stronger Than Hate” program and invited the community to participate. But that’s not enough. If they are truly committed to addressing anti-Semitism, university leaders must mandate training on anti-Semitism for students, staff and faculty. The training must differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that is a mask for Jew-hatred. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is an excellent frame of reference.

Ritch is the latest example of Jewish students who are being bullied for expressing their Jewish identity. University leaders must do everything they can to ensure that she’s the last.

Susan B. Tuchman is director of the Zionist Organization of America’s Center for Law and Justice. Morton A. Klein is the national president of the Zionist Organization of America.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Pelosi says Biden shouldn't debate Trump - Marisa Schultz

by Marisa Schultz

House speaker says Trump would 'belittle' presidential debates

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Thursday that former Vice President Joe Biden cancel his three scheduled debates with President Trump because the commander-in-chief would "belittle" the forum and engage in "skullduggery."
"I don't think that there should be any debates," Pelosi said out of the blue at a news conference at the Capitol, saying she doesn't want the debates to be "an exercise in skullduggery."

"I wouldn't legitimize a conversation with him, nor a debate in terms of the presidency of the United States. Now I know that the Biden campaign thinks in a different way about this."

Indeed, Biden told MSNBC Thursday he's still planning on showing up to the high-profile faceoffs with the president.

"As long as the [debate] commission continues down the straight and narrow as they have, I'm going to debate him," Biden said, adding that he'd call out any Trump lies in real-time.

"I’m going to be a fact-checker on the floor as I’m debating him," he added.

Pelosi is the latest high-profile Democrat to offer a major piece of advice to the former vice president. Earlier this week, former 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said Biden shouldn't concede the race under any circumstances.

Republicans pointed to Pelosi's remarks as another sign that Democrats are trying to hide Biden.

Michael Ahrens, communications director for the Republican National Committee, said Democratic leaders are advising Biden to not debate, not to leave the basement and not to concede. "Odd way to project confidence in your nominee," he tweeted.

Debates have been an issue of contention for weeks as the Trump campaign has pushed for an additional early debate to coincide with early voting that will be underway in states. And the idea of abandoning debates all together made headlines after a New York Times op-ed earlier this August argued that presidential debates should be "scrapped," with critics suggesting that it's the latest effort by the media to prevent Biden from debating Trump.

Pelosi made the comment at her weekly news conference, unprompted, and her advice was not in response to a question about debates. She cited Trump's "disgraceful" performance at the 2016 debate when he was "stalking" Clinton as one reason Biden should break tradition and sit out the debates.


"So I think that he'll probably act in a way that is beneath the dignity of the presidency; he does that every day," Pelosi said of Trump. "But I think it will also belittle what the debates are supposed to be about. And they're not to be about skullduggery on the part of somebody who has no respect for the office he holds, much less the democratic process.

"Why else would he try to undermine the elections in the manner in which he is doing?" Pelosi continued. "So, if Joe Biden asked me what I thought about it, [I'd say] I don't think that he should dignify that conversation with Donald Trump."

Shortly after Pelosi's comments, the Biden campaign responded that while they agree with the speaker's characterization of Trump, Biden will go through with the debates as planned.

The Biden campaign already agreed in June to three debates in September and October in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, in addition to a vice-presidential debate.

“We certainly agree with Speaker Pelosi on her views of the President's behavior," Biden campaign spokesperson Andrew Bates said. "But just as she has powerfully confronted that behavior in the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room, Joe Biden looks forward to doing the same on the debate stage."

The first debate is scheduled for Sept. 29.

Fox News' Madeleine Rivera and Allie Raffa contributed to this report.

Marisa Schultz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Yarmuk: Venerated by Islam, Forgotten in the West - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

Learning from the “most consequential” battle between Islam and the West.

Last week in history, on August 20, 636, arguably the single most consequential battle between Islam and the West took place—that of Yarmuk.  Occurring just four years after Muslim prophet Muhammad had died, not only did the military engagement decide whether the Arabian creed thrives or dies; it became a chief source of inspiration and instruction for jihadis throughout the centuries, right down to the Islamic State.  And yet, very few in the West are even aware of the Battle of Yarmuk’s existence—much less how it motivates contemporary Islamic terrorists. 

The contestants were the Eastern Roman Empire, under Emperor Heraclius, and the newly born Arabian caliphate, under the second caliph, Omar.  After a couple years of Muslim depredations in then Christian/Roman Syria, the two forces met along the Yarmuk River.  The pre-battle exchange between the two generals, the Roman-Armenian Vahan and Khalid bin al-Walid—Islam’s much revered (and near cannibalistic) “Sword of Allah”—is instructive:

The Christian commander began by diplomatically blaming Arabia’s harsh conditions and impoverished economy for giving the Arabs no choice but to raid Roman lands. Accordingly, the empire was pleased to provide them with food and coin on condition that they return home. “It was not hunger that brought us here,” Khalid responded coolly, “but we Arabs are in the habit of drinking blood, and we are told the blood of the Romans is the sweetest of its kind, so we came to shed your blood and drink it.

Vahan’s diplomatic mask instantly dropped and he launched into a tirade against the insolent Arab: “So, we thought you came seeking what your brethren always sought” — plunder, extortion, or mercenary work. “But, alas, we were wrong. You came killing men, enslaving women, plundering wealth, destroying buildings, and seeking to drive us from our own lands.” Better people had tried to do the same but always ended up defeated, added Vahan in reference to the recent Persian Wars, before continuing:

As for you, there is no lower and more despicable people — wretched, impoverished Bedouins. . . . You commit injustices in your own nation and now ours. . . . What havoc you have created! You ride horses not your own and wear clothes not your own. You pleasure yourselves with the young white girls of Rome and enslave them. You eat food not your own, and fill your hands with gold, silver, and valuable goods [not your own]. Now we find you with all our possessions and the plunder you took from our coreligionists — and we leave it all to you, neither asking for its return nor rebuking you. All we ask is that you leave our lands. But if you refuse, we will annihilate you!
The Sword of Allah was not impressed. He began reciting the Koran and talking about one Muhammad. Vahan listened in quiet exasperation. Khalid proceeded to call on the Christian general to proclaim the shahada—that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”—and thereby embrace Islam, in exchange for peace, adding:

“You must also pray, pay zakat, perform hajj at the sacred house [in Mecca], wage jihad against those who refuse Allah, … and befriend those who befriend Allah and oppose those who oppose Allah,” a reference to the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa al-bara’. “If you refuse, there can only be war between us. . . . And you will face men who love death as you love life.”

“Do what you like,” responded Vahan. “We will never forsake our religion or pay you jizya.” Negotiations were over.

Things came to a head, quite literally, when 8,000 marching Muslims appeared before the Roman camp carrying the severed heads of 4,000 Christians atop their spears. These were the remains of 5,000 reinforcements who had come from Amman to join the Roman army at Yarmuk. The Muslims had ambushed and slaughtered them. Then, as resounding cries of “Allahu akbar” filled the Muslim camp, those Muslims standing behind the remaining 1,000 Christian captives knocked them over and proceeded to carve off their heads before the eyes of their co-religionists, whom Arabic sources describe as looking on in “utter bewilderment.”

So it would be war: 30,000 Christian Romans against 24,000 Muslim Arabs along the Yarmuk River in Syria.  On the eve of battle, writes historian A. I. Akram, “the Muslims spent the night in prayer and recitation of the Quran, and reminded each other of the two blessings that awaited them: either victory and life or martyrdom and paradise.”

No such titillation awaited the Christians. They were fighting for life, family, and faith. During his pre-battle speech, Vahan explained that “these Arabs who stand before you seek to . . . enslave your children and women.” Another general warned the men to fight hard or else the Arabs “shall conquer your lands and ravish your women.” Such fears were not unwarranted. Even as the Romans were kneeling in pre-battle prayer, Arab general Abu Sufyan was prancing on his war steed, waving his spear, and exhorting the Muslims to “jihad in the way of Allah,” so that they might seize the Christians’ “lands and cities, and enslave their children and women.”

The battle took place over the course of six days.  On August 20, 636, the sixth and final day, a dust storm — something Arabs were accustomed to, their opponents less so — erupted and caused mass chaos, particularly for the Romans, whose large infantry numbers proved counterproductive. Night fell.  Then, according to historian Antonio Santosuosso,

[T]he terrain echoed with the terrifying din of Muslim shouts and battle cries. Shadows suddenly changed into blades that penetrated flesh. The wind brought the cries of comrades as the enemy stealthily penetrated the ranks among the infernal noise of cymbals, drums, and battle cries. It must have been even more terrifying because they had not expected the Muslims to attack by dark.
Muslim cavalrymen continued pressing on the crowded and blinded Roman infantry, using the hooves and knees of their steeds to knock down the wearied fighters. Pushed finally to the edge of the ravine, rank after rank of the remaining forces of the imperial army fell down the steep precipices to their death. “The Byzantine army, which Heraclius had spent a year of immense exertion to collect, had entirely ceased to exist,” writes British lieutenant-general and historian John Bagot Glubb. “There was no withdrawal, no rearguard action, no nucleus of survivors. There was nothing left.”

As the moon filled the night sky and the victors stripped the slain, cries of “Allahu akbar!” and “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger” rang throughout the Yarmuk valley, the Arabian chronicler narrated.

Mere decades after Yarmuk, all ancient Christian lands between Syria to the east and Morocco to the west — nearly 4,000 miles — had been conquered by Islam. Put differently: Two-thirds of Christendom’s original, older, and wealthier territory was permanently swallowed up by the scimitar of jihad. (Eventually, and thanks to the later Turks, “Muslim armies conquered three-quarters of the Christian world,” to quote historian Thomas Madden.)

But unlike the Germanic barbarians who invaded and conquered Europe in the preceding centuries, only to assimilate into the religion, culture, and civilization of Christianity, and adopt its languages, Latin and Greek, the Arabs imposed their creed and language onto the conquered peoples so that, whereas the “Arabs” were once limited to the Arabian Peninsula, today the “Arab world” consists of some 22 nations across the Middle East and North Africa.

This would not be the case, and the world would have developed in a radically different way, had the Eastern Roman Empire defeated the invaders and sent them reeling back to Arabia. Little wonder that historians such as Francesco Gabrieli hold that “the battle of the Yarmuk had, without doubt, more important consequences than almost any other in all world history.”

Moreover and as the alert reader may have noticed, the continuity between the words and deeds of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and those of its predecessors from nearly 1,400 years ago are eerily similar. This of course is intentional. When ISIS proclaims that “American blood is best and we will taste it soon,” or “We love death as you love life,” or “We will break your crosses and enslave your women,” they are quoting in verbatim — and thereby placing themselves in the footsteps of — Khalid bin al-Walid and his companions, the original Islamic conquerors of Syria.

Similarly, ISIS’s invocation of the houris, Islam’s celestial sex-slaves promised to martyrs, is based on several anecdotes of Muslims dying by the Yarmuk River and being welcomed into paradise by these immortal concubines. So too is the choreographed ritual slaughter of “infidels,” most infamously of 21 Coptic Christians on the shores of Libya, patterned after the ritual slaughter of 1,000 captured Roman soldiers on the eve of battle.

Here, then, is a reminder that, when it comes to the military history of Islam and the West, the lessons imparted are far from academic and have relevance to this day — at least for the jihadis, whose mindset many in the West still refuse to acknowledge.

Note: The above account was excerpted from Raymond Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.  For a more detailed exposition, see his Master’s thesis on Yarmuk, written under the supervision of military historian Victor Davis Hanson.  Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

Photo: YouTube  

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'Supreme Court discriminates against Jews, settlers' - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

Settlement leaders react with rage to Supreme Court order to destroy community of Mitzpe Kramim.

Mitzpe Kramim
Mitzpe Kramim                                                                                                                                   Gideon Marmelstein
Binyamin Regional Council Chairman Yisrael Gantz slammed the Supreme Court for ordering the destruction of the community of Mitzpe Kramim.

"Supreme court judges have crushed the human rights of 250 residents and ordered the demolition of a living and prosperous settlement," Gantz said. "In an unparalleled injustice, the judges overturned the district court's decision and proved that only political motives and extreme leftist views guide them and cause them to abuse children and families and order the displacement of a thriving community."

Gantz said that the community of Mitzpe Karmim was established with the approval and consent of all State authorities. ''The then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak approved the settlement's construction on the ground after the area was carefully selected. The settlement was built at the time with full consent at its current location and now the Supreme Court is raising its hand against it."

He said, "The responsibility for preventing injustice rests with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the elected representatives of the public. There is no other way. The Override Clause must be promoted and the full regulation law re-enacted. There is no other solution to the Supreme Court's hostility to the settlements and to any policy that is not extreme left."

MK Gideon Saar (Likud) responded to the ruling and called for another hearing in the Supreme Court: "The result reached by the majority judges on the matter of 'Mitzpe Karmim' is illogical and unjust. The State must continue to fight to regulate the status of the settlements and submit a request for a further hearing based on the ruling of Justice Hendel and to promote legislation, if necessary."

The Yesha Council said that this was "another scandalous decision by the Supreme Court, which seeks to harm the settlements in a grievous ruling that discriminates against Jews. There is neither justice nor logic here."

''The district court ruled that the settlement could be regulated, but in a draconian move the judges decided to demolish Jewish homes without any justification. This is severe discrimination against the localities in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley, which was done in bad faith."

The Yesha Council demanded that Prime Minister Netanyahu "give an appropriate Zionist answer and immediately approve the construction of thousands of housing units throughout the settlements."

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Some Palestinians Support the Israel-UAE Accord - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

By arresting and threatening Palestinians who dare publicly to promote the Israel-UAE deal, the Palestinian leaders are again demonstrating that they, like all other Arab dictators, evidently consider basic human rights a privilege they reserve for themselves alone.

  • Some Palestinians do not share their leaders' rage toward the United Arab Emirates. These Palestinians say they are worried that the Palestinian leadership's overreaction to the UAE-Israel deal is counterproductive and will cause further harm to the Palestinian cause.
  • By ignoring these voices, Mahmoud Abbas and his associates are again showing that they have no problem acting against the interests of their own people. Worse, by condemning the Israel-UAE deal on a daily basis, the leaders of the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer to side with Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese proxies -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah -- in rejecting any compromise with Israel.
  • "The peace treaty between the UAE and Israel comes as a significant breakthrough in the course of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations that have been stalled for 30 years. This important achievement reduces Arab expectations, which destroyed many of our lives and dreams and wasted billions of dollars that could have been invested in future generations and modern technology.... The Emirati move is an advanced step towards achieving a comprehensive peace." — Sameh Kaoush, Palestinian poet and journalist, based in the UAE.
  • By arresting and threatening Palestinians who dare publicly to promote the Israel-UAE deal, the Palestinian leaders are again demonstrating that they, like all other Arab dictators, evidently consider basic human rights a privilege they reserve for themselves alone.

By welcoming the Israel-UAE deal and praising the Emirati leadership, some Palestinians are trying to do damage control to what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have done by waging a vicious attack on Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed Ben Zayed and accusing him of being a traitor. Pictured: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets with Ben Zayed in Abu Dhabi on June 24, 2019. (Photo by Jacquelyn Martin/AFP via Getty Images)

As Palestinian leaders continue to wage a massive campaign of incitement against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of its normalization agreement with Israel, some Palestinians have come out in support of the deal and accused the Palestinian leadership of harming Palestinians' relations with the Arab states.

In the past two weeks, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and leaders of his ruling Fatah faction have repeatedly accused the UAE and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Ben Zayed, of "stabbing the Palestinians in the back with a poisonous dagger" and betraying Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and the Palestinian cause.

They have also accused the Gulf state of acting in violation of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which states that the Arab countries would normalize their relations with Israel only after a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.

The accusations have prompted Palestinians to stage protests in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, during which they burned UAE flags and pictures of Ben Zayed.

Some Palestinians, however, do not share their leaders' rage toward the UAE. These Palestinians say they are worried that the Palestinian leadership's overreaction to the UAE-Israel deal is counterproductive and will cause further harm to the Palestinian cause.

The Palestinian leadership, nonetheless, does not seem to care about the voices expressing concern over the damage caused to Palestinian-Arab relations as a result of the incitement against the UAE and its leader.

By ignoring these voices, Abbas and his associates are again showing that they have no problem acting against the interests of their own people. Worse, by condemning the Israel-UAE deal on a daily basis, the leaders of the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer to side with Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese proxies -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah -- in rejecting any compromise with Israel.

One of the Palestinians who has dared openly to challenge the Palestinian leadership is Suha Arafat, the widow of former PLO leader Yasser Arafat.

Last week, she posted an "apology" on her Instagram account in which she wrote:
"I want to apologize, in the name of the honorable among the Palestinian people, to the Emirati people and their leadership for the desecration and burning of the UAE flag in Jerusalem and Palestine, and for insulting the symbols of the beloved UAE."
Suha went on to praise the UAE for its support of the Palestinian people, adding:
"Our generations need to read history well to learn how the UAE supported the Palestinian people and cause in the present and past. I apologize to the people and leadership of the UAE for any harm done by any Palestinian to this generous and kind [Emirati] people, who have always welcomed us."
Suha's "apology" drew criticism from some Palestinian officials, who said she was not entitled to speak on behalf of the Palestinians.

One of these officials, Monir al-Jaghoub, a senior member of Fatah, responded: "I did not mandate anyone to apologize on my behalf to the UAE after it normalized its relations [with Israel]."

Al-Jaghoub's quick response to Arafat's widow is an indication of the Palestinian leadership's determination to pursue the campaign of incitement against the UAE. It is also a sign of how the Palestinian leadership does not tolerate any form of criticism, even when it comes from the former "First Lady of Palestine."

Suha's criticism of the Palestinian reaction to the Israel-UAE deal, however, is shared by other Palestinians, many of whom are afraid publicly to express their views out of fear of being targeted by the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank.

Last week, Palestinian Authority security forces arrested Palestinian artist and television producer Abdel Rahman Daher after he posted a comment on Facebook in which he criticized the Palestinian leadership's stance towards the Israel-UAE deal. The arrest is seen by Palestinians as part of their leadership's ongoing crackdown on its critics. It is also seen as an attempt to deter other Palestinians from openly supporting the Israel-UAE agreement.

It is worth noting that Suha Arafat resides in Malta and not in the West Bank, where she probably could have been arrested or summoned for interrogation by the Palestinian Authority security forces.

Other Palestinians who are venturing to support the Israel-UAE deal are those living in the Gulf, especially in the UAE, who have a lot to lose because of the Palestinian leadership's incitement. Tens of thousands of Palestinians live and work in the UAE and other Gulf states.

Dr. Muhannad Khanfar, chairman of the Palestinian Community Committee in the UAE, emphasized the depth of historical and strategic relations between the UAE and Palestine, according to the Dubai-based UAE newspaper Al Bayan.

Khanfar praised the UAE's support for the Palestinians, particularly regarding humanitarian aid and the funding of various housing, health and educational projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "The Palestinian people are grateful for these positions that express the strength of relations between [Emiratis and Palestinians]," he said.

A UAE-based Palestinian poet and journalist, Sameh Kaoush, remarked:
"The peace treaty between the UAE and Israel comes as a significant breakthrough in the course of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations that have been stalled for 30 years. This important achievement reduces Arab expectations, which destroyed many of our lives and dreams and wasted billions of dollars that could have been invested in future generations and modern technology. As a Palestinian, I have full confidence in the wisdom of the Emirati leadership, its insightful vision and its authentic Arab affiliation. The Emirati move is an advanced step towards achieving a comprehensive peace."
Salem Al Qaisi, a Palestinian intellectual and businessman living in the UAE, said:
"I have been in the UAE for 47 years, and I am proud to be in this honorable country. The people of the Emirates and all its rulers have always defended Arab issues. The [Israel-UAE] deal represents a wise and bold decision which will bring peace to the entire region."
Moataz Fanous, a Palestinian legal adviser also living in the UAE, commented that the Emirati leadership has proven to the world that it has an active and vital role in making peace and supporting the Palestinian cause.

The deal, Fanous said, "came in support of Palestinian rights and interests because it opens a new door for dialogue and negotiation, and enhances peace in the Middle East."

Saeed Nuri, an educational expert, thanked the Emirati leadership "for standing by the Palestinian right and a just peace," noting that the UAE has in the past five provided material, political, economic and moral support to the Palestinians.

By welcoming the Israel-UAE deal and praising the Emirati leadership, these Palestinians are trying to do damage control to what Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have done by waging a vicious attack on Crown Prince Ben Zayed and accusing him of being a traitor.

Several citizens of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have strongly condemned the Palestinian leadership's vehement attacks on Ben Zayed, including the burning of UAE flags, and have accused the Palestinians of being "ungrateful."

By continuing their attacks on the UAE and other Arab countries that are reportedly considering establishing relations with Israel, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders are not only incurring massive damage to Palestinian communities in the Arab world, they are also feeding the ravening hunger of the anti-peace and rejectionist camp in the Arab and Islamic countries. By arresting and threatening Palestinians who dare publicly to promote the Israel-UAE deal, the Palestinian leaders are again demonstrating that they, like all other Arab dictators, evidently consider basic human rights a privilege they reserve for themselves alone.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Bated Breath for Barr's Big Break - Erik Gregory and Todd Gregory

by Erik Gregory and Todd Gregory

Conservatives are eagerly anticipating the results of Trump's A.G.'s work. If it comes to naught, we're all in deep trouble.

With the reported guilty plea of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to a false statement charge as part of John Durham's Russia Hoax investigation, true conservatives are celebrating the much heralded arrival of Attorney General (A.G.) William (Bill) Barr, who, we are being promised, will round up the coup-plotters with dispatch and bring a rain ruin to the anti-Trump cabal that engaged in the illegal spying and sting operations against the president and his associates. 

And yet...and yet..Kevin Clinesmith? Not exactly a ringleader in the anti-Trump cabal. And what of the instigators of this audacious plot against the president (i.e., John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Joe Biden, or Barack Obama to name but a few)? Thus far, Barr has indicated no intention of prosecuting anyone beyond the low-hanging fruit of Kevin Clinesmith and even publicly issued assurances to Barack Obama and Joe Biden that they have no criminal culpability (to say nothing of Barr's exoneration of Andrew McCabe on Valentine's Day). Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief John Brennan was reportedly told by Durham that he was not a target (or even a subject) of the Russia Hoax investigation. And it appears that Durham has not even interviewed most of the principal figures central to the Russia Hoax. While Barr and Durham should be applauded for finally taking some judicial action, however limited, if Kevin "little fish" Clinesmith is their biggest catch and the true ringleaders escape unscathed, we can be assured these serial abuses of power will escalate under a Joe en administration.

Consequence #1 — The DOJ Will Ensure a Two-Tiered Politicized Justice System (Exclusively Targeting Conservatives and Protecting Progressives): The DOJ began visibly putting its thumb on the scales of justice in favor of fellow progressives and against conservatives during Obama's reign. Examples are extensive, but to recap a few highlights, recall the persecution of conservatives by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Sharyl Attkisson/James Rosen spy scandals and the shameless protection of Hillary Clinton, who (along with several members of her staff) committed multiple and flagrant felonies including lying to Congress and felony dissemination of material classified at the highest security levels. Out of these scandals, and more, how many progressive Democrats were indicted and prosecuted? None. Under Obama, the progressive DOJ was the quintessential "hometown referee" for the Democrats. They blew the whistle on everything Republican (including false allegations, like the Russia Hoax) and looked the other way, every time, when Democrats committed real crimes (just ask Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama). By some estimates, 97% of DOJ political donations went to the Democratic Party. Republicans and conservatives, and soon even moderates, are, or will shortly be, subject to a nearly impossible standard of justice. With Biden's 2020 victory, the progressive Democrats will cement their stranglehold on the DOJ, and the political persecution and censorship of all future generations of Republicans (and, indeed, moderates) is assured. 

Consequence #2 — Escalating Federal Government Attacks against Republicans and Conservatives: Progressive-dominated federal government agencies will renew and escalate attacks against conservative organizations and individuals in the confident knowledge that the politically aligned DOJ will not hold them to account. The IRS (dominated by left-wing ideologues), among other like-minded agencies (such as the CIA), under a Biden presidency, will be emboldened to renew their attacks on Republicans and conservatives with impunity (just as they did during the Obama years).

Consequence #3 — The Russia Hoax Investigation Will Be Dissolved Immediately by President Biden.

Consequence #4 — The DOJ Will Disenfranchise United States Citizens by Enforcing Open Borders: Under Biden, the DOJ (and the John Roberts–led Supreme Court) will use the awesome power of the law to enforce open borders and grant amnesty to millions of illegal migrants, which will ensure many millions of new voters for the progressive Democrats (to say nothing of breaking the social welfare state at U.S. taxpayer expense). This will result in the widespread disenfranchisement of United States citizens, whose votes will be essentially nullified. The DOJ and Supreme Court will be all too happy to ensure Democratic hegemony for the foreseeable future, but along with the new voters will come criminals, gangs, smuggling, disease, and an endless supply of illegal drugs (effectively making the United States an open toilet for the rest of the world). The rich and happy public "self"-servants of the DOJ and Supreme Court will not suffer the consequences of their disastrous policies from behind their gated and secure communities. We will. 

Consequence #5 — A One-Party United States: Owing to Consequence #4, we will live in a one-party (Democrat) country. Diversity of thought and policy will no longer be tolerated. Those that stray from progressive orthodoxy will be targeted for destruction by the awesome and unchecked powers of the DOJ. 

Consequence #6 — Persecution of Christians (and Rigorous Protection of Non-Christian Faiths): If you burn a Koran, the DOJ will arrest you and charge you with a hate crime. If you burn a Bible, you won't be. It's that simple, and it helps explain why the DOJ has taken no steps to protect churches even while they are being actively targeted for desecration during the riots. If mosques were being burned down, be assured that the DOJ would arrive in force with guns drawn. If churches are being burned down, the DOJ is cool with that. 

Consequence #7 — Election Interference and Election Rigging Will Be Assured in a Manner Favoring Progressive Democrats: Mail-in voting, already so rife with fraud, along with so-called ballot-harvesting, will be enthusiastically supported (and enforced) by the progressive-friendly DOJ. Progressive judges called to adjudicate these matters will invariably side with their political allies over the rule of law. It's an open joke that Republican voters who die often keep right on voting — as Democrats.

Conclusion: This is a pivotal moment for the A.G.'s office, and Bill Barr needs to consider the legacy that he will be leaving future generations. The seven consequences listed merely scratch the surface in terms of how a progressive Democrat administration will wield the awesome powers of the DOJ as a transformative agent to terrorize and extinguish (conservative) political opponents and ensure permanent progressive Democrat hegemony. Conservatives like Bill Barr, among many others, still naïvely believe in the equal and transparent application of the rule of law, a belief that is in no way reciprocated by their progressive Democrat colleagues at the DOJ. To the progressive Democrat, using the awesome power of the law to target morally inferior conservatives is a solemn obligation and duty. Expecting a progressive Democrat to adhere to the law and engage in fair play is a fool's errand, a fallacy, wishful thinking, hopes and prayers. We are dealing not with reasonable liberals from several decades ago, but instead with power-crazed progressives who believe they have a mission and mandate to destroy the political opposition.

If Barr hoists the white flag in abject abeyance to the Deep State (as Jeff Sessions did), then the dirty cops will have won. Conservatives like Bill Barr will then deserve what's coming to them, but our children and grandchildren don't, and they will be the ones who pay the price. They will live forever in a political prison, under the boot of the progressive Democrat DOJ, which stands ready to strike against law-abiding conservatives — for being conservative, or being Caucasian, or attending a Christian church, or whatever pretext the progressive left can think of — while simultaneously protecting progressive Democrats who abuse conservatives. Our grandchildren will curse our memory for the government and nation we bequeath to them and the vulnerable, weakened position in which we have left them. 

It has been said that fortune favors the bold, and the progressive Democrats at the DOJ, and other federal agencies, have been oh, so bold in recent years, wielding their awesome powers of terror against the political opposition. If Barr's "answer" to this vast progressive offensive is Kevin Clinesmith, then the progressive Democrats will have won the final victory. Conservatives had better begin thinking in terms of bending knee and tending sheep in servitude to the victorious progressive Democrats.

Erik Gregory and Todd Gregory


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turkey's Hostility to Israel-UAE Peace Accord - Uzay Bulut

by Uzay Bulut

Turkey -- condemned the Israel-UAE agreement despite its 71 years of diplomatic relations with the Jewish State.

  • It should not be a surprise that a government that supports Hamas is against the normalization treaty between Israel and the UAE. The treaty will hopefully pave the way for more peaceful coexistence and cooperation between Israel, the UAE and other Muslim countries. The Erdogan regime, through its hostility to the deal, its hosting Hamas terrorists on its own soil, and its recent acts of aggression in Syria, Libya, Greece and Iraq, has once again demonstrated that it supports the destruction of Israel, regional instability, neo-Ottoman expansionism, and war.

The regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, through its hostility to the Israel-UAE peace deal, its hosting Hamas terrorists on its own soil, and its recent acts of aggression in Syria, Libya, Greece and Iraq, has once again demonstrated that it supports the destruction of Israel, regional instability, neo-Ottoman expansionism and war. Pictured: Erdogan (right) welcomes Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal (center) and Ismail Haniyeh in Ankara on June 18, 2013. (Photo by Yasin Bulbul/AFP via Getty Images)

When the Israel-United Arab Emirates (UAE) peace agreement, also known as the Abraham Accord, was announced on August 13, the UAE became the third Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, formally to normalize relations with Israel.

Turkey, however, condemned the Israel-UAE agreement despite its 71 years of diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. The Turkish foreign ministry said in a press release:
"While pursuing its narrowly defined interests, the UAE has attempted to present its betrayal to the Palestinian cause as an act of altruism. The history and the conscience of the people in the region will never forget or forgive this hypocritical act."
Turkey's Communication Director for the Presidency, Fahrettin Altun, said that they consider the agreement between the UAE and Israel "null and void." The head of Turkey's parliament, Mustafa Şentop, condemned the deal, calling it "disgraceful" and a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that Turkey was considering suspending diplomatic ties with the UAE and withdrawing its ambassador.

"The step taken towards Palestine is not a swallowable step," Erdogan said.
"Palestine is now probably either closing its embassy [in the UAE] or withdrawing [its ambassador]. The same is true for us now. I ordered my Minister of Foreign Affairs. We might suspend diplomatic relations with the Abu Dhabi administration and withdraw our ambassador there. Because we stand by the Palestinian people. We have never let them eat Palestine and will not let them do so now."
Erdogan's hostile reaction is ironic and irrational: In 1949, Turkey became the first Muslim-majority nation to recognize Israel. In the 1990s, Turkish leaders continuously visited Israel and several significant military agreements were signed. Although relations are now strained, there are still diplomatic and trade ties between the two countries.

Erdogan's reaction, however, was not unexpected. Shortly after the announcement of the UAE-Israel accord, Erdogan's regime once again showed which side they are on. On August 22, Erdogan received Ismail Haniyeh, head of the "political bureau" of Hamas -- an organization whose covenant calls for the annihilation of Israel -- and his accompanying delegation. The president of Turkey's Intelligence Organization (MIT) Hakan Fidan; Turkey's Communication Director for the Presidency, Fahrettin Altun, and Presidential Spokesperson, Ibrahim Kalın, were also present at the meeting, which was closed to the press. According to NBC News correspondent Raf Sanchez, who posted a photo of the meeting on Twitter, the delegation also included Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri, a wanted terrorist with a $5 million bounty on his head.

Erdogan's reaction to the UAE-Israel agreement is reminiscent of his response in 2017 to the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. During a Human Rights Day event in Ankara, Erdogan said, "Those who think they are the owners of Jerusalem today will not even be able to find trees to hide behind tomorrow." The reference is to an Islamic text sanctioning the killing of Jews. According to this hadith (a reported saying by Islam's prophet, Mohammed), on the eve of the Judgment Day, Muslims will try to annihilate Jews, "Stones and trees will cry out to Muslims and say, 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him'."

Having referred to Israel as a "terrorist state" several times, Erdogan is leading Turkey by example. Antisemitic slurs against Jews and hostile statements against Israel are now widespread in the Islamist, pro-government Turkish media, politics and public life. A few examples include:
  • In February Nurettin Yıldız, a pro-jihad and anti-Semitic Turkish cleric, said during a conference titled "Jerusalem and the martyrs of the Mavi Marmara [flotilla]" that Jerusalem will be conquered when Turkish women abide by the Charter of Medina (of Islam's Prophet Muhammad in 622) instead of the Istanbul Convention on combatting violence against women:
    "When Turkish women abide by the Medina Charter instead of the Istanbul... and prefer the protection of Allah rather than human protection, the Jews will disappear and Jerusalem will be ready for a [Islamic] conquest."
    Referring to Jews as an "accursed nation", Yıldız went on to describe how Jerusalem could be "saved" from the Jews.
    "If Jerusalem is holy and it is, those living in the homes that Jerusalem has conquered can conquer Jerusalem and save it from the Jew. Otherwise the conquest could only be a word. It cannot be actualized. When Muslims take a vow on Jerusalem, saying 'I will conquer it and be Saladin [the Muslim Sultan who invaded Jerusalem in 1187]', take your vows based on how much Jerusalem has conquered you... The people that Jerusalem has conquered can save the al-Aqsa mosque and Jerusalem.... Jerusalem is the work of courageous Muslims.
    "As ummah [Islamic nation], we will be brought to account on the Judgement Day because Jerusalem is held captive at the hands of an accursed nation. We will also be brought to account for the empty talk we engage in concerning Jerusalem [if we do not conquer it]."
  • In December 2019, A-Haber network, owned by Erdogan's family, allowed the morning news presenter Erkan Tan to refer to Israel as a "terrorist". He further said that Israel does not exist as a state. "Israel is a murderer," Tan said.
    "Israel is a terrorist. There is no state called Israel. Israel is the name of the terrorist organization of Zionist Jews. And Jerusalem is not the capital city of Jews. If you accept Jerusalem as the capital of Jews, it means that you accept giving part of our lands including the cities of Malatya and Adiyaman to Jews. I hope I am clear enough. Know and learn about this filthy and disgusting game of Zionist Jews. They live according to the perverted faith based on the Torah that they distorted [falsified]. Is this clear enough? Israel is the name of the terrorist organization of Zionist Jews."
  • A news article, "Stoning the Jew [in order to stone] Satan", published in the newspaper Milli Gazete in 2016, referred to Jews as "Satan". "Stoning exists in Judaism too," the author Ibrahim Hakkıoğlu was quoted as saying. "That is why Palestinian children throw stones [at Jews] like they [Palestinian children] stone Satan. It is an expression of the fact that Jews cooperate with Satan."
  • In a 2016 column on the newspaper Vahdet, author Seyfi Şahin referred to some Qur'anic verses and claimed that Jews were "turned into apes" as a punishment from God. He added, "The gorillas and chimpanzees in Africa are cursed Jews. Those are perverted humans that have been mutated.
  • Columnist Mehtap Yılmaz referred to Israel as "a rabid dog" and asked in the title of her 2014 article published in the newspaper Yeni Akit: "Who do you blame when you get bitten by a rabid dog?"
  • During the 2010 Mavi Marmara ("Gaza Flotilla") crisis between Turkey and Israel, the headline of the newspaper Yeni Safak on June 1, 2010 read "Hitler's Children", referring to Israel. The paper also said "Netanyahu only knows how to kill" and "Israelis are Tel Aviv pirates that are not different from Nazis."
Sadly, these are not isolated incidents. Jews and Israel are frequently exposed to hate speech in Turkish media. According to the Istanbul-based Hrant Dink Foundation's latest yearly report, "Media Watch on Hate Speech," published in 2018, Jews are listed as the most frequent target of hate speech in the Turkish media, with 1,133 news items or columns containing antisemitic hate speech.

Turkey has not only been targeting Israel through words. The Erdogan regime has also actively been supporting Hamas. "Turkey is granting citizenship to senior operatives of a Hamas terrorist cell," reported the Telegraph on August 13, "raising fears that the Palestinian group will have greater freedom to plot attacks on Israeli citizens around the world."
"Turkish identity papers seen by the Telegraph show that at least one of 12 senior Hamas members, who are using the country as a base of operations, has received Turkish citizenship and an 11-digit identity number."
According to a 2019 report by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center:
"Turkey allows Hamas to conduct terrorist activities from its territory, including the handling of terrorist squads in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and the transfer of funds to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip to finance terrorism."
It should not be a surprise that a government that supports Hamas is against the normalization agreement between Israel and the UAE. The accord will hopefully pave the way for more peaceful coexistence and cooperation between Israel, the UAE, and other Muslim countries. The Erdogan regime, through its hostility to the deal, its hosting Hamas terrorists on its own soil, and its recent acts of aggression in Syria, Libya, Greece and Iraq, has once again demonstrated that it supports the destruction of Israel, regional instability, neo-Ottoman expansionism and war.

Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter