Friday, March 12, 2021

Biden’s Open Border Policies Go Off the Rails - Joseph Klein


​ by Joseph Klein

Trump’s warning of a "spiraling tsunami" is right on the mark.


President Biden is creating an unprecedented man-made disaster at the U.S.-Mexico border – not merely a “challenge” as Biden officials like to call it. Biden has rolled out the welcome mat to illegal aliens as well as to would-be asylum-seekers with dubious claims. His reckless policies like catch and release, reversal of the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program, and his open arms extended to unaccompanied illegal alien minors are huge magnets. Biden is enticing hordes of illegal aliens to make the journey to what they view as their wide-open land of milk and honey.

Walter Melendez of Tegucigalpa, Honduras typifies the enthusiastic response to the new open border president.  “We put our trust in God and this new President Joe Biden,” Melendez said.

In February alone, according to preliminary figures, U.S. border agents detained nearly 100,000 migrants at the border. This is the highest number of detainees for the month of February since 2006. In one single day in early March, U.S. border agents caught more than 4,500 illegal aliens crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. "It’s going to be insane come spring," one Customs and Border Protection source told Fox News.

Border patrol agents have admitted that they are once again releasing apprehended illegal aliens, a policy that the Trump administration had ended. One Border Patrol agent in the hardest-hit Rio Grande Valley sector told Fox News that "we can’t catch and release them fast enough."

This situation is particularly acute in the case of illegal alien parents and their children, who will neither be detained for very long nor deported immediately under Biden’s lax policies.

The Trump administration had implemented a pandemic emergency order directing immigration agents to turn back nearly all migrants, including children, at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under Trump’s emergency order, any migrants, including children, who had illegally entered the country were subject to rapid expulsion. The Biden administration did not rescind this entire order immediately but decided to make an enormous exception for children who had illegally entered the country – whether they were unaccompanied or entered with their families. Biden is sowing the seeds of another whole generation of “Dreamers” who will be offered a quick path to citizenship if the Democrats get their way.

The Trump administration had worked out an arrangement with the Mexican government to have would-be asylum-seekers remain in Mexico pending hearings of their U.S. asylum applications. Biden ended all that. Now they are being allowed to enter and remain in the United States while their applications are being considered. In the meantime, those released from temporary custody were not tested first for the coronavirus by federal officials. Some who subsequently tested positive for the coronavirus in tests administered by local officials and volunteers were able to board buses taking them to their destinations anyway. The New York Times reported that “about 50 migrants a day have been dropped off by Customs and Border Protection at a bus station in Brownsville [Texas], headed to points north.”

The risk to other passengers and staff prompted the CEO of the Greyhound bus company to send a letter of concern recently to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “As a result of COVID-19, we are anticipating a much more serious challenge if there are any potential migration surges in 2021,” his letter stated. “Our top priority is the safety of our employees and passengers. We need assurance that any detainees released by ICE have proof of a negative COVID-19 test, similar to the proof required for international airline passengers who arrive at US ports of entry.”

Then there is the acute problem caused by the surge of unaccompanied illegal alien minors. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki declared on March 5th that all unaccompanied minors who report to the US-Mexico border will be allowed into the country. “Obviously we’re going to have more kids across the — in the country since we have been letting unaccompanied minors stay. And the last administration immorally kicked them out,” Psaki said.

The Biden administration’s moral code is perverse. By virtue of its strict entry policy, the Trump administration undoubtedly deterred many children from making the long, dangerous journey from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border in the first place. This policy saved the lives of some children who might have perished along the way from disease or at the hands of smugglers. Some children were spared from rape or other forms of abuse. Biden’s decision to invite unaccompanied minors to stay in this country is luring many more children to take the perilous journey to the border despite the grave risks to their lives and well-being.

On March 9th, Psaki still refused to concede that there was a crisis at the southern border in response to reporters' questions. “I don’t think we need to sit here and put new labels on what we have already conveyed is challenging,” she said.  Psaki proceeded to explain that the Biden administration is working to put policies in place aimed at “keeping these kids safe and moving them as quickly as possible from border patrol facilities to shelters where they can have access to educational resources, health resources, mental health resources, legal aid, et cetera.” Instead of spending money to return the minors safely to their home countries after testing them for the coronavirus, the Biden administration’s plan is to spend American taxpayers’ money for the illegal alien minors' shelter, education, psychological counseling, legal aid, and more.

“We are not apprehending a 9-year-old child who’s come alone, who has traversed Mexico, whose parents — whose loving parents — had sent that child alone,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas said on March 1st.

Mayorkas’s holier-than-thou attitude is sickening. Parents who truly love their child would not take the chance that their 9-year old will be able to trek thousands of miles safely without them and survive. Parents who truly love their child would not turn their 9-year old over to dangerous smugglers. Haven’t Democrats and their open border friends lectured us about the inhumanity of separating parents from their children? Now the Biden administration is pursuing policies that magnify such separations – that is, until the administration exploits chain migration and allows the children’s parents into the country for family reunifications.     

Mayorkas should also check the statistics. The vast majority of unaccompanied minors entering the country illegally are teenagers.

About 2,200 unaccompanied minors were reported to have crossed the border illegally into the United States each week in February. Psaki downplayed the severity of the growing influx. She said “No” to a reporter who asked whether there are “any discussions within the White House about reversing the policy of allowing all unaccompanied children into the United States.”

Despite all the self-righteous talk, the Biden administration is at a loss of what to do with the thousands of unaccompanied illegal alien minors from Central America it has enticed to enter the country. These minors are overwhelming shelters. COVID-19 social distancing restrictions that the rest of us are expected to follow have been loosened to accommodate the illegal alien minors while they are housed in temporary facilities. The overflow has forced the Biden administration to reopen border detention facilities, at least one of which was used by the Trump administration and came under heavy Democrat criticism at the time. The Biden administration is so desperate that it is seriously considering using military bases for additional housing.

Former President Donald Trump had it right when he blasted the "spiraling tsunami" at the border since Biden took office. "Our border is now totally out of control thanks to the disastrous leadership of Joe Biden," Trump said in a statement. “A mass incursion into the country by people who should not be here is happening on an hourly basis, getting worse by the minute."

Trump managed to contain the immigration mess he inherited. Biden has quickly doubled down on the ruinous policies of the past. And with radical progressives pushing him more and more to the left, Biden’s open door at the border will get wider and wider until there is no effective border at all.


Joseph Klein  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Roots of Insurrection: Antifa Exposed - Janet Levy


​ by Janet Levy

Andy Ngo's new book tells the truth about this organization and why it should not be ignored.

The mainstream media — silent on the Marxist ideology, violence, and militancy of groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) — deceptively reported that the protests they inflicted on over 200 U.S. cities in 2020 were mostly peaceful.” It deceitfully transformed the mayhem into a summer of love.” Widespread rioting, looting, arson, murder, assaults, and destruction of property and businesses went unreported. Such abject failure explains why polls consistently rank the media among Americas least trusted institutions.

Given media complicity with radical groups, its not surprising that the Los Angeles Times dismissed Andy Ngos Unmasked: Inside Antifas Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy as unserious, supremely dishonest,” and self-serving.” While video-recording left-wing protests as part of his independent reporting in 2019, Ngo was assaulted and hit with a milkshake containing quick-dry cement. But the Times dismissed his allegation of a brain injury from that attack. It says hes fixated on the imaginary threat of Antifa” and ignores the real danger” from far-right extremists.

Ngos book is a riveting exposé of the background, structure and workings of the collectivist militant group, set on destroying capitalism and Americas history, culture, and institutions. He presents an accurate, well-researched picture of this insurrectionist movement, its widespread network and its hostility to the rule of law and democracy.

Antifa origins trace back to 1932: it began as Antifascist Action, a paramilitary faction of the German Communist Party. It emerged in America in the 1980s as a marginal group, remaining so through the 1990s and 2000s. About five years ago, it surfaced in earnest, and now counts students, academics, journalists, lawyers, and politicians among its members and supporters. They use sophisticated methods of propaganda, outreach, recruitment, fundraising, and reconnaissance. They strategize violent protests with full security.

Even the name is a deception, for Antifa strives to overthrow liberal democracies and abolish capitalism. The group draws on dogma from Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School, considered the father of the New Left.” It believes that there is no objective reality or truth; that tolerance means suppression of the intolerant; and that unacceptable opinions are violent.” Large factions of the Left sympathize with Antifa; some in academia, corporations, and Big Tech assist it in silencing opponents. 

Antifas recent rise coincides with that of BLM, which draws on the black power movement of the 1960-70s. Now linked, they share the goal of upending liberal democracy and the rule of law while purporting to fight racism, sexism, homophobia, and capitalism. They aim to abolish law enforcement, property rights, national borders, American jurisprudence, free markets, and free speech.

Antifa advocates window-breaking, looting, and arson as valid and powerful protests, deeming such actions self-defense” against an unjust” system. Typically, Antifa announces a gathering to oppose an event it disagrees with through social-media blasts. Members arrive in intimidating and protective black bloc — black clothing, ski masks, scarves, sunglasses, and helmets. The use of pepper spray, batons, bats, brass knuckles, frozen water bottles, and milkshakes” is encouraged. Many carry weapons and are trained to gouge out eyes, break ribs, and deliver hits to the liver and kidneys.

After George Floyds death in Minneapolis in May 2020, Antifa and BLM spread disinformation with the help of a complicit media. Floyds extensive criminal history and his resistance to arrest were overlooked. In fact, the autopsy showed no evidence of strangulation but revealed a fatal level of fentanyl in his blood. Riots were fueled with the hackneyed trope of an innocent” black murdered by racist police. Widespread violence, arson, looting, and assaults escalated. But police were prevented from responding. When a mob surrounded the Minneapolis Third Precinct, the mayor ordered the evacuation of the police station. Antifa and BLM replicated such planned violence in dozens of American cities.

Besides Antifas systematic violence, Ngo reports on its targeting of perceived enemies through tactics such as doxing: victims find highly personal, sensitive information amplified online, leading to harassment, assault and job loss. Other intimidation tactics include community alerts” that broadcast the real-time whereabouts of a person or group online.

A nationwide network of bookstores where selling books is clearly not a priority serves as a front for Antifa training in street violence, coordinated attacks, and psychological tactics. Radical propaganda is available, but the bookstores’ main function is to spread radicalization, destabilize communities, and delegitimize the authority of local government. Ngo reports that Antifa fields and crowdfunds candidates in elections and organizes voter fraud.

Going undercover, Ngo reported on Antifas occupation of a large, densely populated area of Seattle in the same month as the Minneapolis riots. Antifa members designated the area as the country of CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone). There was complete lawlessness: assaults, robberies, six shootings, two homicides, and an attempted rape took place. The mayors edict against the use of tear gas rendered police impotent. Ngo debunks claims that it was an anti-racist zone: he exposes segregation there and writes that CHAZ ended up with a 100 percent black victim shooting rate.”  The city administration refused to restore order; instead, it provided street barriers, cleaning services, washing stations, and portable toilets to the occupiers. The city council was sympathetic to Antifa and never condemned the anti-police violence.

In Portland, Oregon, the Antifa-BLM attacks sparked by Floyds death went on for weeks, Ngo reports in his book. Rioters started at the Justice Center, moved downtown, smashed windows, broke into stores, started fires, looted everything in sight, brought down statues, and attacked police vehicles. The city council fanned the flames, accusing the police of racism and brutality. Police held back in the face of the allegations, so shootings and homicides skyrocketed. Mainstream media called the riots spontaneous.”  In fact, they were well-organized and funded by Leftist groups. Supplies such as water, food, street medics,” and phone access were provided as well as projectiles and weapons. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised online over four months. Leftist lawyers and organizations filed 21 protest-related lawsuits against the police. The local media supplied favorable coverage. The progressive district attorney went easy on the violence: between May and October 2020, there were an estimated 1,000 protest- and riot-related cases, but the D.A. rejected 90% for prosecution. There were no arrests for vandalism.

Radical politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) of the Democratic Socialists of America, too, have helped mainstream Antifa. She participates in its events and supports its call for defunding the police, ending capitalism, and abolishing the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement. AOC promoted a bail fund for rioters and urged her 6.5 million Instagram followers to donate to an Antifa propaganda outfit. Together with journalists, academics, and left-leaning intellectuals, Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk justify rioting and looting in the name of racial justice.” Some city councils sympathize with and legitimize Antifa-BLMs violence.

In 2019, Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) sponsored a resolution to designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, saying it represents opposition to the democratic ideal of peaceful assembly and free speech for all.” Ngos book provides rigorous documentation that shows the senators’ fears are real. It warns of the influence amassed by this destructive movement and cautions against an insurrection proceeding with impunity.


Janet Levy  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

EU shamelessly interfering with Israeli democracy - Sara Ha'etzni-Cohen


​ by Sara Ha'etzni-Cohen

The Swiss are pouring millions into obtaining Israeli security records, the Europeans are helping the Palestinians assert their presence in Jerusalem, and Germany is perpetuating the Nakba narrative. To what end?

Over the past five years, Europe has invested 300 million shekels ($90 million) into Israeli non-governmental organizations. This might seem like a good thing at first until one delves deeper into the purposefully complex documents that detail how exactly Europe allocates its investments and how they alter the very core of Israeli society.

Let's take a look at the hottest issue at this time: the International Criminal Court and its investigation into Israel's "war crimes." It so happens to be that Europe is the one who financially supports the Palestinian organizations that are at the forefront of the prosecution. Moreover, it finances the pro-Palestinian Israeli NGOs, like Breaking the Silence, Adalah, B'Tselem, and Yesh Din, who are putting together documents to help the ICC prepare for its investigation.

Unfortunately, The Hague is not the only one "investing" in Israel this way. Governments across the continent are interfering with the home demolitions of terrorists as well, a move that was meant to prevent more terror attacks. In 2018 alone, the government of Switzerland transferred NIS1 million ($300,000) to an Israeli organization to impede the demolition of the homes of the terrorists who murdered Raziel Shevach, Adiel Coleman, Ronen Lubarsky, and others.

One grant from the European Union was meant to ban IDF soldiers from entering Palestinian homes during military operations. To hell with the soldiers' safety.

The Swiss government is pouring millions into obtaining Israeli security records, the European Union is setting up associations in Jerusalem to preserve the Palestinian identity of the capital, Germany is perpetuating the narrative of the Nakba ("catastrophe") of Israel's inception, and Denmark busies itself with presenting Israel as an apartheid state. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The pattern is clear: a European country chooses a goal, the government writes a fat check to an NGO in Israel or abroad to do the job, the organization gathers information and returns to the mothership to report.

There's a difference between a government supporting a cause versus an individual. A governmental investment reflects the perspective of the entire nation.

Ahead of the election, we must ask ourselves, how is such interference considered legal in Israel? Would the Jewish state ever dare conduct itself this way in Europe? That would never fly.

In proper governments, there are straightforward legal ways to act in such cases. When Israel wanted to appeal the law that banned circumcision and kosher slaughter in Europe, it could do so in a transparent diplomatic way without financing European organizations to do this for them.

Europe is intervening in our lives and is having a hell of a good time. They have been doing it for years, but for some reason, our leadership is scared to stand up to the great continent.

Let this be a goal for the next elected government: to establish a parliamentary inquiry committee to investigate the European government's intervention into Israeli democracy.


Sara Ha'etzni-Cohen  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

NGOs fuel 2021's anti-Israel machinery - David Schiff


​ by David Schiff

Funding groups seeking to unilaterally redefine concepts such as "statehood" and "apartheid" will not improve the lot of either Palestinians or Israelis.

 We're barely two months into 2021, but the anti-Israel propaganda machine is already running at full speed.

First, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that claim to promote human rights launched a libelous campaign, claiming that Israel, in the midst of the world's most efficient COVID-19 vaccination drive, had failed to fulfill its obligation to distribute vaccines to Palestinians. The NGOs ignored the facts: No such obligation exists, and at the time, by the Palestinian Authority's own admission, it had not requested vaccines from Israel.

Then, in mid-January, the Israeli group B'Tselem published a report declaring that Israel maintains an apartheid regime not only in the "occupied Palestinian territories," but "from the river to the sea." Thus, B'Tselem conferred on Israel the distinction of being the first apartheid state to have minority rights enshrined in its founding document.

And earlier this month, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague ruled that it has jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, a decision hailed by human rights organizations as "a major breakthrough" and "a long-overdue step towards justice."

The common thread in each of these incidents is that they were catalyzed by NGOs, either directly or indirectly funded by European governments, that pursue an agenda of delegitimization and demonization of the State of Israel.

While each of these campaigns has the same benefactors, they nevertheless are full of inconsistencies. The ICC ruling, for example, cites the Palestinian government's 2015 accession, following an aggressive NGO campaign, as the legal basis for its presumed jurisdiction. For more than a decade, international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and their Palestinian counterparts such as the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, repeatedly lobbied the court to open an investigation into Israel, advocating for the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state entity which can refer cases to the court.

Contrast that with the rhetoric of those same organizations on the topic of COVID-19 vaccine distribution. In a Dec. 23 statement, Amnesty and other European-funded NGOs called on Israel to "fulfill its duties and moral responsibilities to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank" and to "provide full financial support [for the purchase of vaccines]." The NGOs also noted their "grave concern" regarding reports that the PA intended to independently purchase vaccines from Russia, stating unequivocally, "Israel must ensure that the vaccines delivered to Palestinians in the OPT also meet the approvals of the Israeli health system." In other words, they are arguing that the PA was not, in fact, an independent state, and could not be trusted with the public health of its own citizens.

Similar contradictions can be found in the "apartheid" report of B'Tselem, another European grantee. On the one hand, B'Tselem insists that any annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would be illegal, and on the other, it advocates for a unified legal framework "between the river and the sea." More egregiously, B'Tselem went a step further, using very loaded phrases such as apartheid, racism and even "Jewish supremacy," which is an expression that finds its roots in white supremacy and has been used by the likes of David Duke.

Ironically, B'Tselem's incendiary report was released during the same week when thousands of Arab citizens joined other Israelis to be among the first in the world to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Funding organizations, including governments, that pay groups seeking to unilaterally redefine concepts such as "statehood" and "apartheid" will not improve the lot of either Palestinians or Israelis. This tactic has proved itself time and time again to be woefully ineffective. In fact, those who gain the most from the spread of inconsistencies and disinformation are those who profit from the continuation of the conflict—the NGOs themselves.

Reprinted with permission from


David Schiff  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

10 things to know about Israel's jittery peace with Jordan - Tovah Lazaroff


​ by Tovah Lazaroff

A list of Israeli-Jordanian crisis points, most of which center on the Temple Mount.


PALESTINIANS AND the Wakf Islamic religious trust have made it clear that Emiratis and Bahrainis are not welcome to pray in al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. (photo credit: AMMAR AWAD/REUTERS)
PALESTINIANS AND the Wakf Islamic religious trust have made it clear that Emiratis and Bahrainis are not welcome to pray in al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
(photo credit: AMMAR AWAD/REUTERS)

 Israel and Jordan don’t have a cold peace, they have a jittery peace.

The fragility of one of Israel’s most important regional allies – with whom security ties are often described as a cornerstone of regional stability – was underscored by a series of apparent tit-for-tat diplomatic price-tag attacks over the last 24 hours.
On Wednesday, Israel prevented Hashemite Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah from visiting the Temple Mount.
Jordan in retaliation refused on Thursday to authorize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flight path to the United Arab Emirates, causing the trip's cancellation.
It's the latest diplomatic skirmish in a 26-year relationship fraught with crises brought on by religion, geo-politics and violence.
Netanyahu might have glossed over the incident, pointing out that
 the flight path was later approved, but it's harder to brush away the persistent simmering tensions.
Here is a look at 10 Israeli-Jordanian crisis points, many of which center around the Temple Mount, as the present crisis does.
1. Prince Hussein denied access to Temple Mount
When it comes to the Hashemite Kingdom and its relationship to the Temple Mount, there are no minor mishaps, only deliberate slights.
Israel might have barred Hussein from entering Israel because he wanted to bring a security retinue that was larger than agreed. But the issue at the heart of the dispute is about control of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, the most holy site for Jews and third-holiest site for Islam.
But the issue at the heart of the dispute was about control of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, Judaism's most holy site and Islam's third holiest.
There were those in Israel who felt the size of the security details was a deliberate show of Jordanian power and a statement against its authority over the site, which lies within Israel’s sovereign borders.
One Israel Radio commentator noted that by now, Jordan should accept Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
The Hashemite Kingdom’s special custodial relationship to the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif, is one of the central pillars on which rests a monarchy whose family claims to descend from the Prophet Mohammed, and which takes pride in a long history as the keeper of holy Islamic spaces.
So an Israeli refusal of a visit by a Hashemite member of the Royal Family, even for technical reasons, is a public affront that underscores what the Kingdom already feels has become a tenuous custodial tie to al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem.
The British in 1924 during its rule over Mandatory Palestine granted the Hashemite Kingdom a special custodial role over the al-Aqsa compound.
The 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty enshrined that role, but events over the last decade have made Jordan nervous about the future status of that relationship. Wednesday's border snafu was a stark reminder that its custodial relationship could be in jeopardy.
2. West Bank annexation
Israeli willingness to advance a plan to annex 30% of the West Bank over the last two years, including the Jordan Valley, created an immediate public backlash among the Jordanian public that could have threatened to undermine the Hashemite Kingdom, had Netanyahu not suspended the plan in August.
Palestinians make up over 50% of the population in Jordan, so tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often translate into public pressure on the Jodanian leadership to take a hasher tone with Israel.
King Abdullah and the country's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, who led the global diplomatic campaign against annexation, hinted throughout that they could renege on the country's 1994 peace treaty with Israel should annexation move forward. The scars from that battle are still visible
3. A Saudi role on the Temple Mount?
There was public speculation that in order to entice Saudi Arabia to normalize ties with Israel, the Trump administration had considered weakening Jordan’s sole role as custodian of al-Aqsa Mosque compound by offering a role to the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the House of Saud.
It was a move that would have been a violation of the 1994 peace treaty, and which struck a particularly sensitive nerve because of the competition between the Hashemites and the House of Saud as the spiritual keepers of the Islamic faith.
Until the early 20th century, the Hashemite monarchy had controlled the two holiest Islamic mosques in Mecca and Medina.
A century ago, it lost control of Mecca and Medina to the House of Saud, so its only foothold on Islamic holy spaces is now its special custodial role over the al-Aqsa compound in Jerusalem.
The possibility that Israel could back a Saudi Temple Mount plan so detrimental to the Hashemite monarch was not lost on the royal family.
4. Israeli drive to change Temple Mount status quo
The Temple Mount, where the biblical Temple once stood, is one of the most volatile flash points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is governed by a very careful arrangement among Israel, Jordan and the Islamic Wakf (Islamic trust), which administers the site that everyone can visit but where only Muslims can worship. The ban on non-Muslim worship has been in place since the aftermath of the Six Day War.
Former US president Donald Trump’s peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alluded to a change in that status quo that would allow for those of all faiths to pray there, including Jews.
There has been a growing political movement within the Israeli Right, including by ministers of Netanyahu’s own Likud Party, to allow Jewish worship at the site.
Netanyahu has continually spoken of maintaining the status quo, but persistent comments by his ministers as well as legislative drives in the Knesset has given Jordan cause for concern.
Jordan's persistent warnings about the erosion of the Temple Mount status quo has, in turn, inflamed Palestinians and helped spark violent incidents in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
5. Temple Mount metal detector crisis
A brief crisis erupted in the summer of 2017 after two Israeli policemen were shot to death by the Lion’s Gate entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City by three Israeli-Arabs, who had just visited al-Aqsa Mosque compound for the weekly Friday prayers. After the attack they ran back in the direction of the Temple Mount, where they were killed by Israeli police.
To prevent further such attacks, Israel placed metal detectors at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure that Muslim worshipers were not armed. The decision sparked immediate violent protests in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and created an immediate diplomatic backlash with Jordan.
By July 25, Israel decided to remove the detectors and calm was restored.
It was the third such crisis in three years. When the “knife intifada” began in 2015, Jordan warned Israel that its security measures had violated the status quo. In 2014, it withdrew its ambassador for three months after Israeli security forces responded to clashes at al-Aqsa by entering the main mosque and throwing percussion grenades.
6. Dispute over Jordanian detained
In 2019, a dispute broke out between the two countries when Israel detained but initially refused to release two Jordanians it suspected of security transgression, Hiba Labadi and Abdul Rahman Miri. Israel released them only after Jordan recalled its ambassador.
7. Violence at the Israeli Embassy compound in Amman
In July 2017, a violent incident occurred in an apartment within the Israel Embassy compound in Amman that left two Jordanians dead.
According to Israel, a Jordanian worker violently stabbed the embassy’s deputy director of security, while moving furniture in his home. The landlord was also present. The security guard defended himself, fatally shooting 16-year-old Mohammad Jawawdeh, and also mortally wounding the landlord, Bashar Kamel Hamarneh.
Jordan claimed that the security guard had unnecessarily fired his gun when a dispute turned violent. Israel spoke of it as a terror attack, with Netanyahu hailing the security guard as a hero.
Jordan allowed the security guard to be returned to Israel and then-ambassador Einat Schlein left the county, while Israel agreed to remove the metal detectors. A new Israeli ambassador was sent to Jordan only in April of 2018.
8. Jordan shuts down Island of Peace
In light of Israeli-Jordanian tensions, King Abdullah in 2019 refused to extend a land lease with Israel that had been an annex to the 1994 peace treaty between the two countries.
Under the terms of the deal, privately owned Jewish land near the Sea of Galilee was given to Jordan, but Israelis were allowed to farm the site and tourists could visit what had become known as the Island of Peace.
Jordan similarly refused to extend a contract under which it leased farm land to Moshav Tzofar along the southern border between the two countries, ending that arrangement in 2020.
9. Island of Peace massacre
In 1997, during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term in office, a Jordanian soldier killed seven Israeli school girls who were on a field trip to the Island of Peace. Ahmed Daqamseh was tried and convicted in Jordan, which released him 20 years later in 2017.
10. Failed poison plot by Mossad against Khaled Mashaal in Jordan
A Mossad plot to poison former Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Jordan in 1997 was foiled by the country’s security forces, but only after the poison had been injected. I
srael gave Jordan the antidote and freed Palestinian prisoners, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in exchange for the release and return of the two Mossad agents.
Reuters contributed to this report.


Tovah Lazaroff  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Middle East: The Ghosts of Sovereigns Past - Naomi Linder Kahn


​ by Naomi Linder Kahn

Ironically, Israel's legal reticence continues to fuel the endless conflict over the land itself.

  • The State of Israel continues to enforce Jordanian law [in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria] -- despite its clearly racist and backward underpinnings.

  • No matter what side of the political divide you view it from, a legislative and legal time-warp has trapped the residents of these territories – Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians – in amber for more than five decades. The result: legal chaos, injustice and incessant conflict.

  • Ironically, Israel's legal reticence continues to fuel the endless conflict over the land itself... that could be avoided by simply completing the process of land survey and registration initiated by the Ottoman Empire and continued by the British Mandatory and Jordanian governments in turn.

  • Surveying and registering land ownership was not perceived as an act of sovereignty when the British caretakers undertook it; there seems no reason why it should be regarded that way now.

  • This same vacuum has made it impossible to formulate forward-thinking policy for land use, environmental protection, settlement policy, and perhaps most critically, a negotiated resolution of the status of the territory. Without establishing who owns what, it is impossible to proceed toward a just division of resources or a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

  • The time has come to banish the antiquated ghosts of Ottoman, Jordanian and British Mandatory rule, and to fill the legal void in Judea and Samaria with a modern, humanist, democratic system of law for everyone.

In short, the legal and legislative vacuum that has resulted from Israel's well-intentioned decision to retain Ottoman and Jordanian law in the territories that came under its legal jurisdiction over 50 years ago continues to deprive both the Arabs and Jews who live there of their basic rights. Pictured: King Hussein of Jordan visits an army post in the disputed territories known as Judea and Samaria -- or the "West Bank" (of the Jordan River), on June 5, 1967. (Photo by Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Now that the debate surrounding the extension of Israeli sovereignty to the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria has abated somewhat in light of the Abraham Accords, the time may be ripe to take a closer look at the legal status of these territories.

The picture that emerges might be surprising. More than a century after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the empire's ghost continues to reign. More than 50 years after Israel's victory in the Six Day War, more than 30 years after King Hussein of Jordan publicly relinquished all legal and administrative ties to this territory, and more than 25 years after Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, officially relinquishing all territorial claims, the State of Israel continues to enforce Jordanian law -- despite its clearly racist and backward underpinnings.

In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, despite the clear moral and legal justification for full and unambiguous annexation of the territory, Israel instead chose to refrain from the natural, normal and expected steps that any and every other government takes following an undisputed outcome in a war of self-defense. The Israeli authorities instead chose to put in place "temporary arrangements" that continue to hold the area in legal limbo to this day.[1] At present, the State of Israel continues to enforce a combination of Jordanian and Ottoman law, rather than Israeli law -- for fear of being accused in international forums, particularly the United Nations Security Council, of "acts of sovereignty."

In what has proven to be a most unfortunate policy decision – which continues to wreak havoc on the lives of the Arabs and Jews who live in these areas, Israel continues to honor the Jordanian legislation that prohibits inheritance or purchase of land by women – both Arabs and Jews. Israeli courts continue to honor antisemitic Jordanian legislation that bars Jewish individuals from purchasing land in Judea and Samaria.[2] Israel continues to honor outdated Ottoman laws – abandoned everywhere else in the world more than 100 years ago[3] -- that enable massive property theft through agricultural use.

In this bit of absurdity, every man and woman in the disputed territories known as Judea and Samaria -- or the "West Bank" (of the Jordan River) -- is being denied the most basic rights that form the bedrock of modern Western democracies. No matter what side of the political divide you view it from, a legislative and legal time-warp has trapped the residents of these territories – Arabs and Jews, Palestinians and Israelis – in amber for more than five decades. The result: legal chaos, injustice and incessant conflict.

Ironically, Israel's legal reticence continues to fuel the endless conflict over the land itself, as well as a massive waste of resources -- monotonous cycles of construction, lawsuit , demolition, reconstruction -- that could be avoided by simply completing the process of land survey and registration initiated by the Ottoman Empire and continued by the British Mandatory and Jordanian governments in turn.[4]

Surveying and registering land ownership was not perceived as an act of sovereignty when the British caretakers undertook it; there seems no reason why it should be regarded that way now.

In short, the legal and legislative vacuum that has resulted from Israel's well-intentioned decision to retain Ottoman and Jordanian law in the territories that came under its legal jurisdiction over 50 years ago continues to deprive both the Arabs and Jews who live there of their basic rights. This same vacuum has made it impossible to formulate forward-thinking policy for land use, environmental protection, settlement policy, and perhaps most critically, a negotiated resolution of the status of the territory. Without establishing who owns what, it is impossible to proceed toward a just division of resources or a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Israel has spent so many decades avoiding any action in order not to be seen in a bad light, that it has created an unforgiveable vacuum of human rights and governance and a black hole of law and accountability. These continue to turn normal life for everyone who lives there into a bureaucratic nightmare. The time has come to banish the antiquated ghosts of Ottoman, Jordanian and British Mandatory rule, and to fill the legal void in Judea and Samaria with a modern, humanist, democratic system of law for everyone.

Naomi Linder Kahn is Director of the International Division of Regavim, an Israeli non-profit dedicated to ensuring legal, responsible use of Israel's land resources.

[1] For a review and summary of the regulatory and legal processes still in effect in Judea and Samaria, see "Report of the Committee Examining the Issue of Land Registration in Judea and Samaria" (the Zamir Commission), 2005 (Hebrew).

[2] (Hebrew)

[3] See Haim Sandberg, "Regulation of Property and Land Rights in the Land of Israel and the State of Israel" (Hebrew) (2000) for a history of the evolution of law in these areas and the evolution of Ottoman Land Law throughout the Middle East. Zandberg's describes the Ottoman Empire's attempt to replace the land registry system instituted in 1858 in favor of a cadastre-based system in 1913; this plan never came to fruition due to the outbreak of hostilities and the disbanding of the Empire following WWI (pp. 110-118).

[4] See Dr. Chagai Vinizky and Attorney Daniel Kramer, "Land Registries in Judea and Samaria" (Hebrew), in Land Law and International Law in Judea and Samaria (2013: The Adam v'Adamah Center), pp. 113-209).


Naomi Linder Kahn  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Choice to Trash Human Life - Anthony J. DeBlasi


​ by Anthony J. DeBlasi

A mind so blurred or dulled by pro-choice rhetoric as to bypass the instinct to protect human life has entered a twilight zone where sanity is absent.

Is it possible that a woman who can terminate the life in her womb with no qualm or regret is at risk of withholding the love and empathy needed by the life she allows to come into the world? It may be hard to believe that there are such women, until you witness the bizarre reactions of some, hooked on “pro-choice,” when you bring up the subject of abortion.

To the everlasting dismay of hardcore “pro-choicers,” the dead-end wall of legality constructed by judges who pretend to follow the Constitution does not stop the hard questions that they refuse to face regarding the termination of human life.

The time is past overdue, however, to face those questions squarely and honestly. And I ask one rarely asked: How are love and empathy – central to the wellbeing of human life − switched on and off? I’m reminded of the mental switch that allows a hunter to kill a deer yet remain locked against harming a fellow human being. In the case of human life and death, a matter that tops all others, the separation of mind and feeling that allows a woman to accept or reject the baby developing in her womb is a direct and immediate threat to a human life. A mind so blurred or dulled by pro-choice rhetoric as to bypass the instinct to protect human life has entered a twilight zone where sanity is absent.

9-month fetus (photo credit: Jason Wilson CC BY 2.0 license)

So, for instance, if a woman wants what is developing in her womb, it’s a baby; if she doesn’t want it, it’s not a baby. Huh? Well, this is what pops out when you remove the mask of “pro-choice.” I do wonder at times if the woman who can hold such a bizarre notion ever thanked her mother for not thinking that way when she was in the womb.

The person who can believe that snuffing out human life is a “right” – making the value of human life depend on a private decision – could receive a moment of truth when facing the barrel of a gun held by some­one who agrees.

She or he who can detach human life from human value with such complete unconcern has been so desensitized or washed of common sense as to have become a zombie-walking member of the cult of death rolled out by phony liberals after the middle of the twentieth century. Major credit for including infants in the death cult must go to justices of the Supreme Court who, with their heads in the shadows of a penumbra, issued a formal death warrant on unborn children in 1973. Their “shadowy” Roe v. Wade decision was a ruling that they believed justifies the killing of unwanted babies, something that now occurs “every 89 the United States, adding to the rising death toll of more than 60 million preborn lives claimed under the guise of reproductive healthcare... .” [source]

Ultimate responsibility for putting an unborn child to death rests with the woman who so decides. Whatever the specific reason for it, such deliberate intervention against that child’s life is an act of violence that devalues human life.

Modern feminists may make some believe that the fetus is disposable tissue, like a tumor or an appendix. But to the everlasting rage of radical feminists, na­ture dispels that view and reveals the centrality and importance of motherhood to human wellbeing. Before the “liberation of women” in the last century, fringe feminists apparently never stopped to wonder why mothers have been revered in word, deed, affection, literature and art for centuries.

The resulting war on the family that heated up in the 1970s became part of the culture war in America, now hotter than ever. The great many who have taken on the fight − even as they are gagged, “canceled,” threatened with violence and/or death – elected the first president in American history to seriously challenge the cultural assaults on families, on unborn children, on common sense, on common language, and on the wide-ranging adulteration of reality by false liberals in hopes of imposing their deranged way of life on everybody.

But the distortions of reality from fake liberals regarding abortion must, however much they fight it, face the heat of truth. Ending a baby’s life because the woman carrying it doesn’t want it will not stand because it has no real ground in justice.

The fake claim to justice in the phrase “it’s a woman’s body” − equating a fetus to a tumorous growth or some extraneous tissue – does not alter the reality that what is being rejected and expelled is the body of someone else. This is a fact proven over and over by every person who survives that crucial step in their life. Words, thoughts, and feelings do not transform a fetus into a lump of disposable tissue – for which we must all be grateful.

I must ask a few more important questions: How is the deliberate extinguishing of a human life inside the womb less bar­baric than killing a baby outside the womb, or less barbaric than killing an innocent adult by murder or decree? How does “legalizing” such termination of innocent humans differ in its brutality from sanctioning any wanton homicide? How do words like “reproductive right” cancel the evil of ending a human life?

What stronger evidence of the intent to kill a human being is there than the infanticide committed when a baby that survives an abortion is put to death because it isn’t wanted?

Those who wake up in time to see the truth that deliberate abortion is a form of homicide and accept the children that come from their love-making – or, unable or unwilling to care for them, offer them for adoption – are acting out of a love of humanity and justice. Tacitly or outspokenly, they are rejecting the warp on reality pushed by elites with no moral sense, backed by a complicit media.

The vast majority of Americans follow their hearts, even if at times they are confused about the right thing to do. For she or he who loves children will not willingly harm them at any stage of their development. They know that trashing innocent human life is no part of being human.


Anthony J. DeBlasi is a lifelong culture warrior


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Former ADL Director Discovers Virulent Islamic Anti-Semitism - Andrew Harrod


​ by Andrew Harrod

Abe Foxman finds himself at odds with his former support of Democratic orthodoxy over Islam and Israel.


President Donald “Trump is a demagogue and his presidency threatens American democracy,” former Anti-Defamation League (ADL) director Abraham Foxman wrote on September 11, 2020,  in opposition to Trump’s reelection. Yet review of Foxman’s 2003 bookNever Again: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, actually indicates that Jews such as him and others should have voted for Trump over Vice President Joe Biden.

Foxman himself had conceded in his editorial that his Biden endorsement uniquely broke with Foxman’s traditional abstinence from partisanship. “For more than half a century, I avoided public positions on electoral politics,” he noted. “Everyone knew Foxman was liberal, but he kept his personal views distinct from his work,” Alex Van Ness from the conservative Center for Security Policy wrote in 2016.

Yet in Foxman’s book tour d’horizon of antisemitism’s various ideological currents, Islam holds throughout center stage. Indeed, the book’s longest chapter is “From Hatred to Jihad: Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World.” “The fact is that virulent anti-Semitism is widespread throughout the Arab Middle East,” he wrote.

This danger was a revelation for Foxman. “For many years ADL and others at the forefront in the war against bigotry and hatred treated anti-Semitism in the Arab world as a marginal issue,” he wrote. In reality, “[a]nti-Semitism is tolerated or openly endorsed by Arab governments, disseminated by the media, taught in schools and universities, and preached in mosques.”

In a realistic assessment of Arab antisemitism’s roots in Islamic doctrine, Foxman noted that

in the traditional Muslim view, Judaism and Christianity were both distorted by human frailty and ultimately superseded by Islam, which is the perfect expression of the one true religion. Therefore, Jews and Christians were permitted to live in Muslim lands as tolerated minorities (dhimmis), free to practice their religions but subject to the humiliations of second-class status.

Foxman correctly analyzed the canonical Islamic history of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and how his seventh-century Islamic community expelled and exterminated Arabia’s Jewish tribes that had resisted his religious claims. “This hostility and triumphalism set the tone for Islam’s subsequent attitude toward the Jews. As descendants of those who distorted God’s truth and opposed his Prophet, Jews would rightly be humbled before Muslims.” Likewise modern sharia supremacists have sought inspiration in the “Qur’an and the history of al-Rashidoon, the ‘rightly guided ones,’ the first four caliphs after Muhammad, who ruled over a militant, ever-expanding, triumphant Muslim empire.”

Islamic oppression of Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims often led them to welcome European colonial empires that began to dominate Muslim countries beginning in the 19th-century, Foxman noted:

In the early twentieth century there were still many Jews living in Arab lands, but their status had changed significantly since the pre-imperialist days of dhimmi-hood. Jews had generally embraced the Western newcomers to the Arab world. Under Western protection, they had cast off many of their traditional restrictions and humiliations.

The 1948 establishment of a sovereign Jewish state of Israel, a Western outpost in the Muslim-majority Middle East, thus easily appears to Muslim eyes as the ultimate manifestation of this Jewish-Western alliance. Accordingly, for Islamists, Foxman noted, “Jews came to be described as the ‘eternal’ enemies of Allah and of Islam, a satanic, diabolical force, locked in a lethal struggle with Islam.” In modern Arab-Islamic antisemitism,

Jews, who in the past were the greatest enemies of Prophet Muhammad, have resumed their role and are today the greatest enemies of modern Islam. Thus, just as the defeat and slaughter of the Jews of the Arab world by the Prophet Muhammad helped promote the rise of Islam and its conquests in the seventh and eighth centuries, the annihilation of Israel will bring into being a new golden era of contemporary Islam.

Even secular Arab rulers have had their reasons to support Islamic antisemitism, Foxman noted. They

promulgated anti-Semitism to appease and draw support away from the Islamists, whose goal was still the overthrow of the secular governments to establish new Islamic regimes. Thus the leaders of the Arab world have chosen for their own reasons to treat the conflict with Israel not mainly as a secular conflict over land or resources but as a religious one. It’s a dangerous game for them to play.

Islam additionally brings particular advantages to the anti-Israel cause, Foxman observed. For Arab leaders, piety

provides a pretext for calling upon all their coreligionists around the world to support the Arab jihad (holy war) against Israel. Thus the energies and resources not just of the 300 million Arab Muslims but of over a billion Muslims around the world can be directed against the tiny Jewish state.

Islamic ideological motivations are painfully clear in the violence inflicted upon Israel, Foxman wrote. “When terrorists record videotapes to inspire their followers and frighten their opponents, they don’t talk about demands for land or autonomy; they talk about religious martyrdom and about their wish to kill Jews.” This would not surprise others, including Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer and Israeli historian Benny Morris, who have examined the historic jihadist nature of Israel’s enemies.

However Foxman questionably claimed that faith-based hatred of Israel

is relatively new. It’s easy to forget that only a generation ago the mainstream Arab leaders tried hard to avoid the appearance of outright anti-Semitism. Even when they promoted a trade boycott in an attempt to strangle Israel economically, they stressed that this was a boycott against a country, not against Jews in general.

Foxman strove to present an optimistic vision of Islam. He condemned evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for having used “words of bigotry” by respectively “tarring Islam as an inherently violent religion” and Muhammad as a “terrorist.” “The demonization of Jews was not a traditional component of Islam,” Foxman wrote, notwithstanding copious contrary evidence.

The tolerant Islam invoked by Foxman inevitably involved the ever-mythologized, medieval Islamic Spain:

Not all Muslim governments were equally eager to impose strict interpretations of the dhimmi paradigm on their Jewish subjects. Many Muslim societies, especially during the High Middle Ages (tenth to twelfth centuries), exhibited a rare tolerance for Jews and other minorities.

Nonetheless, Foxman’s prognosis for peace with Israel and the wider Middle East remained realistically bleak. Modern Islamic “anti-Semitism in the Middle East may not be easily overcome. Religions are self-propagating, and theologies possess remarkable staying power across generations.” Yet “no true peace between Israel and its neighbors will be possible until the Arab press ceases its drumbeat of anti-Semitic propaganda.”

Islam’s illiberal elements worried Foxman beyond the Middle East in a modern age of significant Islamic immigration into the West. He disturbingly quoted Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi of Rome’s University of Vellectri, a rare Zionist Muslim: “Over 80 percent of European mosques are controlled by extremists who belong to radical pseudo-Islamic movements that have absorbed anti-Semitic motifs.” Foxman accurately noted that, “unfortunately, as the political pressures from the growing Muslim population mount, few European politicians have had the courage to denounce and actively discourage the spread of anti-Semitism.”

Antisemitism was merely one flashpoint in Foxman’s analysis between Islam and the West, with its various sexual, political, and religious freedoms. “It’s clear that American culture, along with the economic and social influence of our country, is abhorrent to the extreme fundamentalists among Muslims,” he wrote. Upon retiring in July 2015 from directing the ADL after 28 years, he noted in an interview “significant elements that are at war with our civilization and values.”

In the same interview, Foxman emphasized the importance of properly defining the West’s Islamic foes. “A first step is recognizing your enemy,” he said, but the West’s politically correct sensibilities meant that “you can’t even call it jihadism.” “Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim,” he added in his pithy description of jihadists.

Earlier while still heading the ADL, Foxman had expressed similar thoughts following the January 7, 2015, jihadist massacre at the Paris offices of the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. French President Francois Hollande had claimed that these murderers of cartoonists who caricatured Muhammad had “nothing to do with the Muslim religion.” “For Hollande to stand up in front of the world and to say that Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with Islam is closing your eyes to a reality, to a truth,” Foxman had countered.

Foxman deviated from leftist orthodoxy on Islam on other occasions as well, as in the instance when he warned against a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt during the 2011 “Arab Spring.” In 2010 he also opposed a projected Islamic center (the so-called Ground Zero Mosque) near the former site of World Trade Center destroyed by Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, New York City terrorist attacks. He called the project legally permissible, but politically insensitive.

Expressed in 2003, Foxman’s perceptive understanding of jihadist dangers have since found little support among Democrats, as Barack Obama’s presidency showed. Now Foxman’s wished-for Joe Biden presidency shows every indication of following Obama’s defense against “slander” of Islam. As a concluding article will show, Foxman’s many differences with modern Democratic orthodoxy over Islam, Israel, and other matters may cause him to regret his Biden support.


Andrew Harrod 


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Desecrated and Defecated on: Churches in Europe under Islam - Raymond Ibrahim


​ by Raymond Ibrahim

A widespread—but wholly ignored—phenomenon.


A few days after Muslim migrants firebombed an 800-year-old Swedish church twice over the course of four days—once on Jan. 20, 2021 and another on Jan. 24—a Feb 4 report came out saying that 829 “hate crimes” against churches in Sweden have been reported between just 2012-2018, or about 138 attacks on average every year.

Thus the churches of Sweden join those of other Western European nations that have taken in sizeable Muslim migrants. In France, for example, two churches are vandalized every day.  According to a 2019 PI-News report, 1,063 attacks on Christian churches or symbols (crucifixes, icons, statues) were registered in France in 2018.  This represents a 17 percent increase compared to the previous year (2017), when 878 attacks were registered—meaning such attacks are only going from bad to worse.

They are also getting increasingly vile.  As one example, vandals used human excrement to draw a cross on the Notre-Dame des Enfants Church in Nimes in 2019 (pictured above); consecrated bread was also found thrown outside among garbage. One week later, vandals desecrated and smashed crosses and statues at Saint-Alain Cathedral in Lavaur; they mangled the arms of a crucified Christ in a mocking manner and burned altar materials.

Similar reports are coming from Germany.  After reporting how four separate churches were vandalized and/or torched over the course of four weeks in 2019, PI-News, a German news site, explained: “In this country, there is a creeping war against everything that symbolizes Christianity: attacks on summit crosses,  on holy figures on the way, on churches and recently also on cemeteries.”

Although mainstream media regularly claim that the vandals—who are seldom caught to verify their identities—are “mentally ill” or part of “right wing extremist” groups, as the recent Swedish report states, PI-News offers a hint: “Crosses are broken, altars smashed, Bibles lit, baptismal fonts overturned, and the church doors smeared with Islamic expressions like ‘Allahu Akbar.’”

Similarly, another German language report from late 2017 noted that in the Alps and in Bavaria alone, some 200 churches have been attacked and many crosses broken: “Police are currently dealing with church desecrations again and again. The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background.”

Another telling indicator is that those European regions with large Muslim migrant populations often see a concomitant rise in attacks on churches and Christian symbols.  Before Christmas, 2016, in the North Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany, where more than a million Muslim migrants reside, some 50 public statues of Jesus and other Christian figures were beheaded and crucifixes broken.

In 2015, following the arrival of another million Muslim migrants to Dülmen, a local newspaper said “not a day goes by” without attacks on Christian statues.

France, where one of Europe’s largest Muslim populations resides—and where churches are attacked every single day—is also indicative that where Muslim numbers grow, so do attacks on churches.  A January 2017 study revealed that “Islamist extremist attacks on Christians” in France rose by 38 percent, going from 273 attacks in 2015 to 376 in 2016; the majority occurred during Christmas season and “many of the attacks took place in churches and other places of worship.”

As a typical example, in 2014 a Muslim man committed “major acts of vandalism” inside a historic Catholic church in Thonon-les-Bains.  According to the report with pictures (since removed) he “overturned and broke two altars, the candelabras and lecterns, destroyed statues, tore down a tabernacle, twisted a massive bronze cross, smashed in a sacristy door and even broke some stained-glass windows.”  He also “trampled on” the Eucharist.

For examples of Muslims being caught red handed desecrating churches in other European nations, see herehereherehere, and here.

Should there still be any doubt concerning the true identity of those most responsible for vandalizing churches throughout Europe, one need only turn to the treatment of churches in the Muslim world itself, or even in areas that have very large Muslim populations.

Thus, Muslims in Kenya torched five separate churches between Jan. 20 and Jan. 24—the very same days Muslims twice firebombed an 800-year-old church in Sweden.  “A majority of the church members were afraid to attend services [in or near the ruins] in the aftermath of the burning of the churches, fearing that the arsonists might follow them right into their homes, risking the lives of their families,” a local source said.

As occurred when vandals in France used human excrement to draw a cross on the Notre-Dame des Enfants Church in 2019, so these Kenyan arsonists also “committed the heinous acts of scooping human feces onto the buildings,” the source added.

The fact is, the vile desecration of churches (including with human excrement) has for centuries been a Muslim trademark—a sort of “Islam was here.” As copiously documented in Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, during their invasions of Christian nations, Muslims ritually desecrated hundreds of thousands of churches (Caliph Hakim b’amr Allah alone reportedly destroyed 30,000 churches during the early eleventh century). Think what ISIS did but on an exponential level—and not for a handful of years but for over a millennium in dozens of nations spread out over three continents.

Most recently, according to a Feb. 17, 2021 report, the ninth church to be torched in Muslim-majority Sudan recently occurred.  Before it was set aflame, local Muslims shed light as to why they attack churches: “In every city or village where Muslims live, they should not allow anything that belongs to infidels such as church buildings to be there,” one Muslim wrote on social media; another insisted that, wherever Muslims allow the existence of a church, that place becomes “disgraced.”  In short, and in the words of  the Rev. Kuwa Shamal, of the Sudanese Church of Christ, “They targeted the church because they do not want to see any sign of the cross in the area.”

As seen from what is happening to churches throughout Western Europe, at least some Muslim migrants share this sentiment, despite being minorities in and guests of the West.


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


  Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter