Saturday, December 25, 2021

As a Christmas present to America, Biden denounces himself - Andrea Widburg


by Andrea Widburg

Alternatively, the delightful words that came from his mouth were just another sign of his deteriorating mental condition.

Joe Biden and Mrs. Joe Biden were taking calls from children and their parents to NORAD (which “tracks” Santa Claus). One father, speaking in cheerful and respectful tones, ended the call by saying “Merry Christmas and let’s go, Brandon.” And to the delight of Biden’s tens of millions of detractors, Biden echoed those words and added, “I agree.” His supporters could argue that he was taking the air out of the phrase, but alternative explanations are that he couldn’t hide from the truth or that he was revealing yet another sign of dementia.

As I know every one of you recalls, the obscene phrase “F*** Joe Biden” started out as a cheer at college football games in red states across America. When it showed up at a NASCAR race, while NBC’s Kelli Stavast was interviewing Brandon Brown, she tried to cover for the president: “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon.’”

In the face of this obvious lie, the same people earlier denouncing Biden in obscene terms gratefully latched onto a clean version of the same sentiment. Suddenly, “Let’s go Brandon” was heard across America. (I always get thumbs up when I wear my “Let’s go Brandon” t-shirt on shopping runs.) Even Brandon Brown himself has tactfully embraced the term, not as a direct attack on Biden, but in solidarity with American concerns about inflation.

The phrase showed up last week when a heckler interrupted Nancy Pelosi on her home turf in San Francisco, shouting in penetrating tones, “Let’s go, Brandon!”

But when it comes to this loaded phrase, nothing has been as beautiful as hearing Joe Biden echo it and agree with it when a caller who had clearly been part of a conversation between Biden and the man’s child regarding Santa’s journey, ended the call by politely cheering for Brandon:

There are several possible reasons behind Biden’s denunciation of himself. (In effect, he clearly stated, “F*** myself; I agree.”)

Biden could have been entirely unfamiliar with the phrase but it’s hard to believe that he lives in such a bubble.

Biden could have forgotten that he was familiar with the phrase, which is a possibility given his apparently declining mental acuity.

Biden could have been taken unawares and unthinkingly repeated a statement he knows is common and true.

If, as some posit, Biden is crazy like a fox, rather than demented, he could have been sucking the air out of the phrase by owning it, rather than letting it belong to his political opposition.

Lastly, we could have been witnessing a very specific sign of Biden’s declining mental faculties, something called “echolalia.” This occurs when someone echoes what he’s just heard, in an automatic and effortless fashion. It’s common in young people with some forms of autism or Tourette syndrome. Among older folks, it can be associated with...dementia.

Regardless of why Biden did what he did, it was just a wonderful thing to hear those words coming from his lips. It was, in essence, Joe Biden’s Christmas gift to the millions of Americans who look at his presidency and weep for their country. There’s really nothing as good as hearing a bad man (and Biden is a bad man; there are no good intentions there, only a lust for power) freely and without coercion denounce himself.

Let’s go, Brandon!!!

Image: Biden’s Let’s Go Brandon moment. Twitter screen grab.


Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel's Iran question: To strike or not to strike? - opinion - Yaakov Katz


by Yaakov Katz

Will an overt airstrike on Iran really achieve so much more for Israel in terms of a delay than continued covert operations?


An Israeli F-15 fighter jet is seen from behind at Uvda Airbase in southern Israel. (photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)
An Israeli F-15 fighter jet is seen from behind at Uvda Airbase in southern Israel.
(photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)

The targets in Iran would vary.
The first would be Natanz, Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility. The complex consists of two large halls, roughly 300,000 square feet each dug somewhere between eight and 23 feet below ground and covered by several layers of concrete and metal. The walls of each hall are estimated to be approximately two feet thick. The facility is also surrounded by surface-to-air missiles.
The next facility would be the heavy-water plant under construction near the town of Arak, which could be used one day to produce plutonium. Iranians say the material will be used for medical and research isotope production, but in reality could have the ability to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Next is Iran’s Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), located at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. Based on satellite imagery, the facility is above ground, although some reports have suggested tunneling near the complex.
And then there is Fordow, the uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom, not far from the Caspian Sea. Officially revealed to the IAEA in 2009, the facility can hold thousands of centrifuges. Built into a mountain, it would be difficult to penetrate the hardened facility. Former defense minister Ehud Barak has noted more than once that the facility is “immune to standard bombs.”

Iranian flag flies in front of the UN office building, housing IAEA headquarters, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, in Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2021. (credit: LISI NIESNER/ REUTERS)Iranian flag flies in front of the UN office building, housing IAEA headquarters, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, in Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2021. (credit: LISI NIESNER/ REUTERS)

Military planners would also likely feel compelled to attack Iran’s centrifuge fabrication sites, since their destruction would make it extremely difficult for Iran to reestablish its program – although the destruction of Natanz, Arak and Isfahan on their own would be enough to set back the ayatollah’s dream of obtaining the bomb.
In addition to these key targets, the attacker would also want to bomb Iranian radar stations, missile bases, silos and launchers as well as air bases, with the aim of knocking out Iran’s ability to strike back with its long-range missiles or combat aircraft.
This plan on how Israel might attack Iran was published in 2012, in a book entitled Israel vs. Iran – The Shadow War, authored by Yoaz Hendel, at the time a columnist with Yediot Aharonot, and me, at the time this paper’s defense analyst.
Back then, some Israeli officials also called for bombing Iran’s oil fields and energy infrastructure. Such strikes, they believed, could have a demoralizing effect on Iran and influence the regime’s decision-making process. Oil revenues provide a significant portion of Tehran’s government income. The oil facilities are also vulnerable and lack surface-to-air missile protection.
One former IDF general claimed at the time that in total, Israel would have to strike close to 100 primary targets, possibly in sorties lasting two days.
But, we asked then, can Israel do it?
The main problem Israel would encounter in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, we pointed out, is the physical distance that is over 700 miles from Israel, with the main targets even further at distances ranging between 1,000 and 1,500 miles from Israel.
According to most estimates, Israel is capable of unilaterally attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities with its F-16 and F-15 aircraft. Israel’s vaunted 25 F-15Is – Ra’am (Thunder) in Hebrew – that are based in the Negev are believed to be capable of striking Iran in a non-stop operation like Operation Opera against Iraq in 1981, with a combat range of over 2,000 miles. Israel in 2010 also finished receiving 102 F-16Is – Sufa (Storm) in Hebrew – that it procured in the late 1990s. These too are capable of long-range missions, with a combat radius of over 1,000 miles.
There were three possible routes that we outlined in 2012 for Israel to fly to Iran. The northern route, which skirts along the Turkish-Syrian border into Iran; the central route, which is the most direct but entails serious diplomatic obstacles; and the southern route, which would take Israeli planes over Saudi Arabia and into Iran.
Back then, the IAF had some of the munitions needed to destroy the Iranian facilities and penetrate the fortified bunker in Natanz, either developed domestically or purchased over the years from the United States, such as the GBU-27 and GBU-28 that can carry anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 pounds of explosives. While Natanz is one of the most difficult targets, even if the missiles on their own will not succeed in penetrating, Israeli pilots could glide them in.
Former Israeli Air Force commander Maj.-Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, who participated in the strike on Osirak in 1981, explained how this would happen. Even if one bomb would not suffice to penetrate a target, he explained in 2005, Israel could guide other bombs into the area of where it has attacked to eventually destroy the target.
Israel, according to foreign reports, could also – we noted at the time – potentially utilize its Jericho road-mobile, two-stage solid-propellant missile, which has a range varying from 1,200 to over 3,000 miles, and is capable of carrying a one-ton conventional or non-conventional warhead. The latest version of the missile called Jericho III and tested in early 2008 has enhanced accuracy, and puts every Arab capital, including Tehran, within striking distance of Israel.
NEEDLESS TO say, a lot has changed since that was written 10 years ago.
  1. Israel has upgraded its weapons and platforms, like the F-35 that is capable of covertly flying into Iranian airspace and taking out radar stations, which would then enable non-stealth aircraft to enter with a fuselage loaded with bombs without risk.
  2. There are new munitions the IAF has acquired, and as illustrated by recent covert operations, the country’s intelligence on Iran is deep and extensive.
  3. The route possibilities themselves have completely changed. Flying over Syria today is not like it was in 2012, when Bashar Assad still had an advanced military, and Israel rarely entered his airspace; America is no longer deployed in Iraq the way it was then; and the Abraham Accords have changed the dynamic between Israel and Saudi Arabia. El Al planes today openly fly over Saudi Arabia. Does that mean Riyadh would let IAF fighter jets do the same? Maybe.
  4. But what has also changed is Iran, and the progress it has made in its nuclear program. What people often overlook when considering whether Jerusalem can go it alone against Tehran is that the technical know-how is Iranian. It is not from a foreign source, like was the case of the Syrian reactor destroyed by Israel in 2007 (North Korea), or the Iraq reactor destroyed by Israel in 1981 (French).
  5. What this means is that even if Israel attacks and succeeds in causing extensive damage, Iran will not need help to rebuild it – Tehran will be able to do it all over again on its own. Now one could argue that due to domestic and international pressure, Iran might be slow to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure after a strike, but there is another case to make as well: that the ayatollahs will be emboldened by the Israeli strike as the world instead cracks down on Israel for acting unilaterally.
The other main difference is that in 2012, Israel’s option was viable and real. The Air Force was sharp, and the pilots were trained and knew their targets. But they were never given the green light, and that capability instead fell to the side; and Israel missed its window of opportunity to act.
Is it too late now? I don’t know. In the IDF, the generals are confident – as illustrated by the arrogance the incoming commander of the IAF exhibited in the media this week – that they can get the job done. And they are, God willing, probably right.
Israel’s military is powerful, and could definitely deal Iran a blow that would set back and delay its nuclear progress. But there are questions that need to be asked: will an overt airstrike really achieve so much more in terms of a delay than continued covert operations? Is the war that will ensue worth just a few years delay? And is the diplomatic fallout something Israel can sustain for an undefined achievement?
Ten years have passed since Hendel and I wrote that plan. Parts of it are still relevant. Others are not. What is for certain is that in the time that has passed since then, Iran has not been stopped. It has grown stronger, more audacious, more advanced – and Israel failed to prevent that from happening.
How much longer?

Yaakov Katz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Judge orders New York Times to return Project Veritas internal memos - Jan Wolfe


by Jan Wolfe

Times publisher says the newspaper will appeal

A New York state judge on Friday ordered the New York Times to return internal documents to the conservative activist group Project Veritas, a restriction the newspaper said violates decades of First Amendment protections.

In an unusual written ruling, Justice Charles Wood of the Westchester County Supreme Court directed the New York Times to return to Project Veritas any physical copies of legal memos prepared by one of the group's lawyers, and to destroy electronic versions.

Wood had entered a temporary order against the New York Times last month, drawing criticism from freedom of the press advocates.

Facade of the New York Times headquarters building on Eighth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, in 2013. 

Project Veritas, led by James O'Keefe, has used what critics view as misleading tactics like secret audio recording to expose what it describes as liberal media bias. The group is the subject of a Justice Department probe into its possible role in the theft of a diary from President Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley, pages of which were published on a right-wing website.

Project Veritas objected to a Nov. 11 Times article that drew from the legal memos and purported to reveal how the group worked with its lawyers to "gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws."


Wood said in Friday's ruling that the Project Veritas legal memos were not a matter of public concern and that the group has a right to keep them private that outweighs concerns about freedom of the press.

Headquarters of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., May 10, 2021.  (Reuters / Reuters Photos)

"Steadfast fidelity to, and vigilance in protecting First Amendment freedoms cannot be permitted to abrogate the fundamental protections of attorney-client privilege or the basic right to privacy," Wood wrote.

A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, said the newspaper would appeal the ruling.

Sulzberger said the decision barred the Times from publishing newsworthy information that was obtained legally in the ordinary course of reporting.


"In addition to imposing this unconstitutional prior restraint, the judge has gone even further (and) ordered that we return this material, a ruling with no apparent precedent and one that could present obvious risks to exposing sources should it be allowed to stand," Sulzberger said.

Libby Locke, a lawyer for Project Veritas, said in a statement that the New York Times’ behavior was "irregular," and that the ruling affirms that view.

This Jan. 21, 1969, photo shows President Richard Nixon at his desk at the White House in Washington. (Associated Press)

"The New York Times has long forgotten the meaning of the journalism it claims to espouse, and has instead become a vehicle for the prosecution of a partisan political agenda," Locke said.

Project Veritas has been engaged in defamation litigation against the New York Times since last year, when the newspaper published a piece calling the group's work "deceptive."

 The Times had not faced any prior restraint since 1971, when the Nixon administration unsuccessfully sought to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers detailing U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.


Jan Wolfe


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

If they tear down the Chomesh Yeshiva - Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer


by Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer

It no longer matters if the Chomesh “settlement” or “community” or yeshiva was set up “legally” or “illegally.” That story is over.

The Samarian community of Chomesh originally was established as a secular settlement of the National Worker movement in 1980, in the heart of Samaria, north of Shavei Shomron and northwest of Shechem, on Route 60.
Ariel Sharon had Chomesh torn down in northern Samaria as part of his 2005 Gaza tragedy that gave rise to Hamas as a sovereign war combatant. Seventy families were displaced from Chomesh then. In 2009 a yeshiva was set up in Chomesh.
Arab Muslim terrorists murdered Yehudah Dimentman of blessed memory on Thursday, December 16, near Chomesh. He learned Torah at that yeshiva. The government now is planning to tear down the yeshiva.

I can think of only one thing in all of modern Israel history that would even remotely compare with the Israeli government now tearing down the yeshiva in Chomesh. That would be when David Ben-Gurion and Yitzchak Rabin coordinated to shoot down and sink the Altalena and kill those aboard.

The Altalena was an Irgun-sponsored ship sailing to Israel, bringing vitally desperately needed weapons during Israel’s war of independence, to secure what could be held in Jerusalem. However, the socialists of the pre-state Haganah, which would become the socialist Labor Party, ordered the ship destroyed. They succeeded. Yitzchak Rabin commanded the murderous assault. Avrasha Stavsky was murdered. Menachem Begin might have been murdered, too, if he were not forcefully taken off the ship by others before it went down. G-d remembers those who murder Jews standing for Israel. G-d does not forget.

Shift to Chomesh.

It no longer matters whether the Chomesh “settlement” or “community” or yeshiva was set up “legally” or “illegally.” That was yesterday. Now an Arab Muslim murdered a beautiful young man who studied at the yeshiva and lived in Chomesh.

End of story.

Only the same kind of sick, distorted Jewish mind capable of sinking the Altalena could think of tearing down the Chomesh Yeshiva now. That yeshiva must stand. It must not be touched.

Truth to tell, every time an Arab Muslim shoots a Jew in Judea or Samaria, a new Jewish community should be established at the exact site of the shooting and named for the person shot.

In addition, any Arab Muslim who is found guilty after a truly fair and open trial of killing a Jew as part of a premeditated terror incident — not an accident — should get the death penalty. The execution should be carried out on the shloshim (the 30th day from the murder).

If the trial requires more time, then execute on the yahrzeit — the anniversary of the murder. Or on Yom Atzma’ut, Israel Independence Day. Or on Yom HaShoah, the day we remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Or on the anniversary of the Munich Massacre. Or on the anniversary of the Maalot murders. Or the Kiryat Shmoney murders. Or the day that Gush Etzion and “The 35” fell. Or on Bernie Sanders’s or George Soros’s birthday. We have lots of dates to choose from.

But there is more.

Any Arab terrorist convicted, after a fair and calm trial, of murdering a Jew with premeditation should be buried in a grave with a carcass of a pig. Arab Muslims believe that a pig in the grave precludes entering Heaven. So the 72 Virginians can wait. Why not? They will be offended?

So apologize to the pigs.

My readers and I are offended by Arab terrorists. So bury the guy with a pig. Literally, wrap the two carcasses in one shroud: pigs in blankets.

If this Israel government tears down the Chomesh yeshiva, we then see what a Naftali Bennett – Ayelet Shaked – Matan Kahana – Gideon Saar – Ze’ev Elkin vision offers. We know already, but that will define those five forever — even if Israel has to engage in fifty consecutive elections in a row without forming a government.

Any Israeli government that would tear down the Chomesh yeshiva now, after the murder of Yehuda Dimentman of blessed memory, may be lawfully constituted and deserve all the proper deference that a duly elected government must receive. However, it is one more government of mediocrities doomed to failure with only one person in that government truly able to stand proudly in front of a mirror, speaking the words “Job Well Done!”

And that man is the Hon. Mansour Abbas of the Ra’am Party.

Do you grasp the difference between a government flailing about for a COVID policy and one dealing with Chomesh? No one should blame such a government as it gropes for a better way to deal with COVID. On that, the government must be given its freedom of decision. No one in the universe — except for the guy who sits near you in shul — knows what to do about COVID: not Boris Johnson, not Biden, not Fauci, not Bennett, not Gantz, not Lapid, not nobody. No Jew living outside Israel has the right to command Israel whether and what she must do as she grapples in the dark for the wisest policy in the face of this two-year pandemic.

Any Jew outside Israel who is angry that he or she cannot travel in and out of Israel at will, like a hotel revolving door, has a simple solution: make aliyah. Pay Israel income taxes. Pay VAT. Have all your kids serve in the IDF. Fly around the world with an Israel passport. Then you have a say. Then you can boss Israel around rather than sit in Long Island, earning $250,000 a year, complaining that, since Israel is trying to reduce sources of Omicron infection, you won’t lend Israel $10,000 at 8 percent interest next year when they come with Israel bonds. So, yeah, go ahead and show Israel how angry you are that they won’t let you in for a brit.: buy a year’s supply of Ben & Jerry’s, join J Street, and promote BDS.

By contrast, unlike COVID, the pandemic of Jew-hatred is not two years old, but two thousand years old. We have had Arab Muslims murdering us for the past 1500 years, long before there was a State of Israel, long before Balfour, long before you-name-it. By now, we should have figured out a few things:

1. If you walk out of Gush Katif and Gaza unilaterally, Arab Muslims do not reciprocate by electing peace makers. They elect Hamas.

2. If you walk out of South Lebanon unilaterally, Arab Muslims do not reciprocate by electing peace makers. They elect Hezbollah.

3. When you win a Six-Day War and declare Jerusalem reunified, Jordan stays out of the next war and the war after that.

4. When you stare them in the eye, recognize united Jerusalem as israel’s capital, move the American embassy to Jerusalem, declare Israel sovereign over the Golan, declare Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria to be legal, throw the PLO out of Washington, and cut off UNRWA funding . . . they rush to sign Abraham Accords.

A Jew with self-respect does not respond to a murder in Chomesh by tearing down its yeshiva.

Nor does a Jew respond to Arab terror by imprisoning Arab terrorists who know, s surely as day follows night, that they can rely on being released some day for Hadar Goldin, Oron Shaul, and Avera Mengistu.

It is time to hang the murderers and bury them wrapped in pigs. Let’s see what happens.

Instead of moaning with cries of “Oy!” try “oink.”


Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

WaPo Accused Conservatives of Russian Disinformation - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield

While its boss was spreading Chinese disinformation.


If there’s one newspaper that could have had “disinformation” copyrighted and then collected royalties from every Russian conspiracy theory, it was the Washington Post.

The Washington Post gained power and influence and its circulation and its profits grew as the paper spread lies, smears, and conspiracy theories that pandered to the prejudices and coup impulses of an angry base of D.C. Democrat government bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, and contractors who fancied themselves to be the “resistance” to the 2016 election.

The Post's opinion section filled up with headlines like, "The Republicans have become the party of Russia", but its news desk was no better with a false claim, later retracted, that Giuliani had been warned by the FBI that he was the target of a “Russian influence operation”.

Day after day, the paper built a case that Republicans were a “threat to democracy” by “spreading Russian disinformation”, and urgently needed to be deplatformed and censored.

Max Boot, a Washington Post columnist, cheered Big Tech's censorship of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden while insisting that it was "Russian disinformation".

"Sorry, Republicans. Social media companies aren’t obligated to spread your lies," he gloated.

We now know that there was no Russian disinformation, but that the Washington Post’s Big Tech boss was actually the one profiting from spreading Chinese disinformation to Americans.

The Washington Post had been purchased by Jeff Bezos while Amazon’s federal contracts and lobbying expenditures began to grow. One of Amazon's biggest federal paydays was a $600 million cloud contract with the CIA. Then the Big Tech giant set its sights on a $10 billion military cloud contract known as JEDI. After the Trump administration noted favoritism toward Amazon, the contract was instead awarded to Microsoft, leading to an Amazon sore loser lawsuit. JEDI was then canceled and Amazon got a profitable piece of a new JWCC military cloud contract.

Meanwhile, Amazon was deep in bed with Communist China. Amazon’s marketplace is dominated by third party sellers and most of those third party sellers are based in China.

But a recently leaked internal Amazon document also revealed that the Big Tech giant was trading the Communist regime access to Americans in exchange for doing business in China.

While Amazon wanted the right to sell books to the Chinese, the Communist regime wanted to be able to push its propaganda through Chinabooks on the Amazon platform.

Jay Carney, formerly Obama's press secretary, now heading up Amazon's lobbying operation, was told before he flew out to Beijing that the key to persuading the Communist regime to allow Amazon to continue doing business was "the Chinabooks project.”

The China Books project is outwardly just another storefront, albeit stocked with books on Xi. The design may be crude but the agenda shows up at the beginning with a menu that highlights "Governance of China" and "Books on China's Battle Against the Pandemic". While the former category largely features Xi, the country’s Communist dictator, the latter is where the action is.

The various texts, political, personal, and even books on the pandemic for children, highlight the efforts of the Communist party and treat the battle against the virus as a vindication of the party.

The books often come through the Foreign Languages Press, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party that is used to spread disinformation and propaganda around the world. FLP is an imitation of the Soviet Union's Foreign Languages Publishing House. While the Soviet Union had shut down and freshened up its FLPH propaganda operation in the sixties, China, which copied it in the fifties, has kept FLP going with few changes to the operation.

Amazon sells a lot of books, but with the Chinabooks project it had partnered with an enemy nation’s propaganda campaign in order to be able to do business with the Communists.

And much of that propaganda campaign was aimed at Americans.

Even while Amazon’s CEO was partnering his company with China’s state propaganda arm, his newspaper was accusing Republicans of being in bed with Russia. The Washington Post’s smear campaign was true, not of Republicans, but of its owner and his Big Tech monopoly.

Even as Amazon swallows up American retail, it’s become little more than a front for China. Its products come from China, but so do the third party sellers who dominate its platform.

And yet Amazon also wields enormous influence over American policy and politics.

Despite its close relationship to Communist China and other enemies, Amazon controls the CIA’s cloud and will have a chunk of the military cloud. Some of our most sensitive information is in the hands of a corporation that doesn’t think twice about collaborating with our enemies.

Amazon did not hesitate to give China’s Communist party the key to spreading their disinformation to American audiences. What other digital doors might it help China open?

Beyond the sensitive role that Amazon plays in our military and intelligence apparatus is the political role that it enjoys courtesy of its chairman’s ownership of the Washington Post.

The Post sets the policy agenda for the Democrats and columnists like Jennifer Rubin function as mouthpieces for the Biden administration. The partnership has been extremely profitable for the paper as lefty audiences ate up its Russiagate disinformation campaign, sending subscription rates sky high and making its articles trend on Big Tech social media platforms.

Qatar’s biggest foreign influence operation, involving the death of Jamal Khashoggi, a Qatari terror operative embedded as a columnist in the Washington Post, was enormously successful and quickly became part of the Democrat foreign policy agenda. The transformation of an old friend of Osama bin Laden into a political martyr would not have been possible without the unquestioning acceptance that the Post’s disinformation campaigns have achieved among the Democrats and even among some less sensible Republicans.

Even after stepping down as CEO to become Amazon's executive chairman, Jeff Bezos still commands $180 billion worth of Amazon stock. The intertwining of the key media outlet of D.C. Democrats and one of the most powerful Big Tech monopolies in the country still remains.

So does the disinformation threat posed by the combination of Amazon and the Post.

Leftists most often accuse their enemies of their own sins. While the Washington Post colluded to censor its conservative political opponents to protect Biden’s electoral chances, Amazon stood to profit from Biden’s win, renewed relations with China, and a military cloud deal.

And while the Post claimed that Republicans were spreading Russian disinformation, it was actually the money behind its machine that was spreading Chinese disinformation.

The paper manufactured a threat by Republicans to cover up the threat that it poses to America.

As long as China calls the shots at Amazon, and the Big Tech monopoly and its paper call the shots in our retail sector and our nation’s capital, America remains in the grip of China.


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Truth About Christians in the Holy Land this Christmas - Barry Shaw


by Barry Shaw

Persecution and lies about it.

Sadly, this Christmas, many Christian leaders must enter into a period of theological soul-searching. 

Christian diplomats from once proudly Christian nations failed to oppose the United Nations General Assembly resolution that designated the central holy sites of Jerusalem to be exclusively Islamic property, thereby excising both Jewish and Christian history and the biblical heritage of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 

And, following this recent fraud that Israel will never accept, Christian pastors and bishops are now preaching blasphemy against Israelis and the Jewish State.

This Christmas, the Archbishop of Canterbury colluded with the Archbishop of Jerusalem in suggesting that the fate of Christians in the Holy Land is being challenged, not by those who have been threatening Christian existence in once Christian majority towns, but by Israel.

This is nothing short of a barefaced lie. It more than hints of disgraceful replacement theology, a medieval blasphemy against Jews that, sadly, continues by misguided church leaders to this day.

The Archbishops, in an inaccurate and biased article published in the anti-Israel Times newspaper under the dramatic title, “Let us pray for the Christians being driven out of the Holy Land,” more than hinted that Jews were the ones driving Christians out of the Holy Land. 

They even prophesied that Christianity will be absent from the Holy Land in fifteen years’ time. 

They may be religious leaders. They are certainly not statisticians. 

They admit that the Christian population in Israel has grown. Indeed, there are now more Christians in Israel than Druze. Christians have been free to follow their faith and various churches have taken root in Israel including Roman, Armenian, Syriac, Maronite, Chaldean, Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, as well as Anglicans and other Protestants. 

Israel protects the only significant population of Samaritans in the world. It is where the Baha'i faith is centered (in Haifa) after being persecuted in Islamic countries, particularly Iran.  

And yet, the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleague in Jerusalem have forged an alliance that picks on the Jews for the persecution of local Christians when, if they were to be truly honest, they would admit that the real danger to Christianity lies in the locations that Israel handed over to the Palestinians to administer, and Bethlehem is a prime example. 

When Israel was established in 1948, Christians composed 80% of the holy Christian town. This Christmas, Bethlehem Christians are a shrinking minority, less than ten thousand strong. 

They pretend it’s because of Israeli checkpoints. At least this is what the replacement theologians behind the Kairos campaign allege. 

Truth is, until Israel handed over control of Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority the vast majority of local businesses were owned by middle-class Christian families who were driven out by the Muslim population who did to the Christians what Arabs had done to the Jews in Arab lands. 

In 2006, David Parsons of the International Christian Embassy wrote in a Jerusalem Post op-ed that Christians who remained in Bethlehem “suffer from the same Islamic hostility that is battering Israel, and which views both Jews and Christians as followers of ‘inferior’ faiths naturally destined to be subjugated by Muslims.”

He was referring to the edict of Sheikh Yussef Salameh, the Palestinian Authority's undersecretary for religious endowment, who promoted the idea, in 1999 after Israel had left Bethlehem, that Christians should become dhimmis, second-class citizens "protected" by a majority Muslim administration. 

It’s an easy search to uncover multiple Christian tales of persecution by Muslims in Bethlehem. 


Bethlehem (Photo by David Case CC BY-SA 3.0 license

Why should they treat Christians better than Jews? Bethlehem became a hotbed of Palestinian terror. Multiple deadly attacks were launched from Bethlehem against Jews in Jerusalem and Kiriat Araba. In 2002, when the IDF moved in to arrest the perpetrators of one particularly deadly attack, the terrorists took over the St. Mary’s Church, held priests and nuns at gunpoint, and used the sanctuary of the church to open fire on the soldiers. The Israeli soldiers did not return fire and negotiated the safe release of the Christians.

By Christmas 2005, one Italian blogger wrote, The Mayor of Bethlehem is Christian, but it is Hamas that’s in charge.”

Threats, physical attacks, and extortion drove Christians out of their holy town. Their businesses and homes are now occupied by incoming Palestinians. 

The Kairos lie alleges that Christians fled because of Israeli checkpoints, but these checkpoints didn’t prevent thousands of Arab Muslims from entering the town to usurp the homes and businesses of departing Christians.

This is one fact that the two Archbishops failed to address this Christmas.

This Christian persecution has been repeated in the Gaza Strip ever since Hamas usurped power in Gaza during the Palestinian civil war between this Islamic terror group and Fatah. One result of the Hamas takeover has been that Arab Christians have fled the Gaza Strip, some finding shelter in Israel.

In short. Where Israel handed control over to the Palestinians one direct result has been that Christians inevitably fled. Where Israel retained control, the Christian population increased, prospered, and was protected. 

This is the truth about Christianity in the Holy Land this Christmas. 


Barry Shaw, Senior Associate at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ireland: Still No Room at the Inn - Lawrence A. Franklin


by Lawrence A. Franklin

In Ireland, Jew-hatred does not well up from the general public but seems clearly driven from the top down.

  • Ostensibly, the BDS movement's goal is to shift world opinion to declare that Jewish settlements in the historically-named areas of Judea and Samaria are supposedly illegal seizures of Palestinian Arab land. In truth, the principal and outspoken objective of Palestinian organizers of the BDS movement is the destruction of Israel.

  • In Ireland, Jew-hatred does not well up from the general public but seems clearly driven from the top down. These Goebbels-like attacks on Israel include salvos from several Sinn Fein members of parliament. One of them, Martin Browne, represents Tipperary and claims, falsely, that Israel created ISIS. Another, Matt Carthy representing Cavan-Monahan, has stated that Israel is the worst human rights offender on earth -- presumably dwarfing China, North Korea, Venezuela and Iran.

  • There is understandably some sympathetic sentiment among the Irish people for the plight of Palestinians, as there is also among Israelis, saddened to see people suffer unnecessarily under a brutal and corrupt Palestinian leadership, which has full autonomy over much the territory under dispute. The Palestinians long ago agreed, in the Oslo Accords of 1993, to settle those disputes by direct negotiation, not by external fiat.

  • All Israelis -- about 20% of whom are Muslims, along with Christians and Druze -- have identical rights under the law. Israeli Arabs can vote, have political parties and prominent job opportunities, and are members of Israel's parliament. The one exception is that Arabs are not required to serve in the Israeli military; in the event of possible conflicts with Arab states, Israelis did not want brother fighting brother.

  • Even more shocking was that fully a third of Irish members of parliament of voted to expel Israeli diplomats from Ireland.

The Irish Parliament, on the night of May 25, 2021, staged a "legal Kristallnacht" against the nation of Israel. Following an avalanche of vituperative anti-Israel and anti-Semitic diatribes by members of the lower house of Parliament, its members voted unanimously to discuss a motion on whether or not Ireland should support BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) legislation to try to strangle Israel economically. Pictured: Ireland's parliament building in Dublin. (Image source: Jean Housen/Wikimedia Commons)

The Irish Parliament, on the night of May 25, 2021, staged a "legal Kristallnacht" against the nation of Israel. Following an avalanche of vituperative anti-Israel and anti-Semitic diatribes by members of the Dáil Éireann (lower house of Parliament), its members voted unanimously to discuss a motion on whether or not Ireland should support BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) legislation to try to strangle Israel economically. Ostensibly, the BDS movement's goal is to shift world opinion to declare that Jewish settlements in the historically-named areas of Judea and Samaria are supposedly illegal seizures of Palestinian Arab land. In truth, the principal and outspoken objective of Palestinian organizers of the BDS movement is the destruction of Israel.

Disturbingly, the May 25 motion was fully supported by at least two of Ireland's leading NGOs sponsored by the Irish Catholic Church: Sadaka and Trócaire. Pro-BDS Sadaka, in particular, makes no pretense about being bitterly opposed to Israel. Even more shocking was that fully a third of Irish members of parliament of voted to expel Israeli diplomats from Ireland. Sein Fein ("Ourselves Alone"), a democratic socialist party and that won the most votes in Ireland's 2020 parliamentary elections, has been spearheading the increasingly anti-Israel orientation of Ireland's foreign policy.

Ireland, by virtue that it stands alone in its official state-to-state condemnatory initiatives against Israel's policies "in the territories," is, according to Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney, perceived as supposedly the most anti-Israeli state in the European Union. Other EU states may often be critical of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians -- for instance Sweden, Belgium, and Luxembourg. When Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn hosted a convocation of several EU states who were considering granting diplomatic recognition to a supposed "state of Palestine," Sweden, Belgium, and Ireland were a few of the states that sent representatives to this meeting.

Unfortunately, there has been virtually no push-back from Ireland's general public or civil society institutions. This lack of support for Israel is distressing, as much of the pro-Palestinian rhetoric and criticism of Israel is not only unjust but has been morphed into blatant anti-Semitism by some political and cultural Irish public figures. One legislator, Catherine Connolly, raised the anti-Semitic theme of "Jewish Supremacy" analogous to the world Jewish conspiracy trope found in the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic document. The chairman of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, Maurice Cohen, pointed out that Connolly's performance strayed into classical anti-Semitic language.

There is understandably some sympathetic sentiment among the Irish people for the plight of Palestinians, as there is also among Israelis, saddened to see people suffer unnecessarily under a brutal and corrupt Palestinian leadership, which has full autonomy over much the territory under dispute. The Palestinians long ago agreed, in the Oslo Accords of 1993, to settle those disputes by direct negotiation, not by external fiat. One Palestinian shopkeeper in Dublin suggests that there is a shared feeling with the Irish of having fought against colonialism and oppression. Yet there is little evidence that the bulk of the Irish citizenry support this prejudicial assault on Israel, much less, the poisonous anti-Jewish rhetoric.

All Israelis -- about 20% of whom are Muslims, along with Christians and Druze -- have identical rights under the law. Israeli Arabs can vote, have political parties and prominent job opportunities, and are members of Israel's parliament. Confusion likely arises because the people known as Palestinians are not Israelis. They are Arabs who fled what is now Israel when armies of five Arab countries -- Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq -- attacked Israel on May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended. These countries were hoping to destroy the new state of Israel in its crib. When, after Israel's unexpected victory, the Arabs who had fled wished to return, they were refused as fifth-columnists: people who had shown sympathy or support for the enemy. The Arabs who had fled suddenly found themselves without a home, displaced. These are the people who later called themselves Palestinians. The Arabs who stayed in Israel during the war are full-fledged Israeli citizens, and have exactly the same rights and legal protection as Jews, although there is always room for improvement in everyone's standard of living. The one exception is that Arabs are not required to serve in the Israeli military; in the event of possible conflicts with Arab states, Israelis did not want brother fighting brother. Many Israeli Arabs have nevertheless been voluntarily joining the military in record numbers, often despite harsh criticism from other Arabs.

In Ireland, Jew-hatred does not well up from the general public but seems clearly driven from the top down. These Goebbels-like attacks on Israel include salvos from several Sinn Fein members of parliament. One of them, Martin Browne, represents Tipperary and claims, falsely, that Israel created ISIS. Another, Matt Carthy representing Cavan-Monahan, has stated that Israel is the worst human rights offender on earth -- presumably dwarfing China, North Korea, Venezuela and Iran.

Others include People Before Profit Party members Gino Kenny and Brid Smith, representing districts in Dublin, who have called for the expulsion from Ireland of Israel's Ambassador. Leading Irish novelist Sally Rooney refused an offer by Israeli publisher Modan to translate her latest book into Hebrew, expressing support for the BDS movement.

The behind-the-scenes launch pad for much of this anti-Semitic rhetoric might be the outsized influence enjoyed by Ireland's Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Cultural Centre (ICC) The ICC is the religious, political, and financial wellspring of Islam in Ireland. Another impetus for the appearance of Jew-hate in the Irish parliament is the full-time activism of pro-Palestinian propagandists on Ireland's college campuses. This campus activism is spearheaded by Palestinian students who have granted scholarships to study in Ireland [1] These students and sympathetic teachers recruit Irish natives [2] to form chapters of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) that operate on and off college grounds. The chairwoman of the IPSC is Fatin al Tamimi, a Palestinian who emigrated to Ireland three decades ago. There are IPSC chapters in most of Ireland's large cities. Then there are the faculty-assisted Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters on the campus of several universities. SJP university chapters are in Dublin's Trinity College, the National University of Ireland (NUI) of Maynooth in County Kildare, and County Galway's NUI chapter in Galway City,[3] all of which support the BDS movement, as does the Union of Students in Ireland.

There also exists an apparent tacit alliance of convenience between pro-Palestinian politicians, academics and Sinn Fein leftists with right wing, racist Holocaust deniers and proponents of anti-Semitic tropes such as Rothschild financial manipulators and Christ-killers.[4]

There are about 2,500 Jews in Ireland, with census reports indicating that from 2011 to 2016, the Jewish population rose by nearly 30%. Although the number of Irish Jews may be on the rise, the political influence of Irish Jewry is waning. The last elected Jew in Ireland the former Irish Attorney General Alan Shatter was drummed out of office in 2014 following the Irish media's broadcast of unsubstantiated charges of political corruption against him. Although Shatter has been subsequently exonerated, his case lends evidence that anti-Semitism is alive and well in Ireland. The exhaustive examination of the just released report compiled by David Collier, entitled "Ireland Antisemitism Report," details classic examples of widespread Jew-hatred among politicians, academics and Palestinian students on the grounds of several Irish universities.

Under the rubric of developing a "social justice" foreign policy profile for Ireland, some of Ireland's anti-Israel critics may have helped ignite a vicious anti-Semitic campaign that is poisoning what was once a most welcoming Irish society for Jews.

[1] "Ireland Anti-Semitism Report" by David Collier. October 2021. P.54.
[2] Ibid. p. 54 and p.57.
[3] Ibid, p. 56,60, and 62
[4] Ibid. p.66.


Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Empty Suit at the Head of the Table - Caroline Glick


by Caroline Glick

Bennett’s confused and contradictory policies on Covid—19 are of a piece with his confusing and failed policies in every other major policy sphere.


Prime Minister Naftali Bennett held a primetime press conference about his Covid-19 policies Monday evening. It went poorly for him.

Channel 12’s reporter Ofer Hadad spoke for many Israelis when he said, “Mr. Prime Minister, on the one hand, you’re signaling urgency and fear, and on the other hand, confusion.

“You decide to require a Green Pass for entry into shopping malls, and then you do an about face. You call for children to get vaccinated and then we discover that the Education Minister is — at best — refusing to mobilize the school system to this end. You ask the citizens of Israel not to travel abroad. And then your family flies off to the Maldives. You’re confusing us.”

Bennett’s confused and contradictory policies on Covid—19 are of a piece with his confusing and failed policies in every other major policy sphere. From his dealing with the Biden administration, the Palestinians, Iran, Diaspora Jewry, the economy and beyond, Bennett’s policies are a muddle of self-defeating contradictions.

Consider the situation with the Biden administration. Bennett said that by forming a radical ruling coalition dominated by the left and the Islamist Ra’am Party, he would vastly improve Israel’s relations with the administration. Bennett and his partner Foreign Minister Yair Lapid insisted that then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had brought Israel-U.S. relations to a crisis through his close relations with then President Donald Trump and the Republican party. Bennett and Lapid claimed that once they took charge, ties with the Biden administration would vastly improve.

But the opposite has occurred. On Tuesday, Channel 13 reported that for the past three weeks, President Joe Biden has refused to speak with Bennett. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken refuses to engage in any serious discussion of the administration’s Iran policies.

In a phone call with Bennett three weeks ago, Blinken reportedly refused to seriously discuss Iran’s nuclear program and the nuclear talks in Vienna. Instead, he focused obsessively on Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods in northern, eastern and southern Jerusalem to which the administration passionately objects. Blinken escalated the administration’s demands that Israel bar construction for Jews in Jerusalem’s northern Atarot neighborhood.

Blinken’s animosity reinforced the already strong sense that the Biden administration views Israel as an irritant, not an ally. For Blinken, Biden and their colleagues, Israel is the problem in the Middle East. As for their supporters on the radical left, Biden and his team wrongly view Israel as the “occupier” in its capital and national heartland.

Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan arrived in Israel on Tuesday. Whereas Bennett’s advisors told the media that the purpose of his visit was to discuss Iran, a U.S. official insisted that Sullivan’s primary goal was to step up the pressure on Israel to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and only after would he discuss Iran.

Following Sullivan’s meeting with Bennett Wednesday, Israel Hayom reported that as far as Iran is concerned, far from coordinating positions and reaching a joint plan of action to block Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Sullivan merely presented a vague plan of increased sanctions and Security Council condemnations of Iran that the U.S. may implement against Tehran at some point in the future if the Iranian regime fails to agree to reach a nuclear deal in Vienna.

Bennett has no policy for managing relations with the most hostile U.S. administration in history. Although Bennett ostensibly opposes Washington’s dictates on nullifying Jewish property rights, Defense Minister Benny Gantz is essentially toeing the administration’s line. After Yehuda Diamnetman was murdered last Thursday by Palestinian terrorists on his way to his yeshiva in Homesh in Samaria last week, Gantz didn’t order the destruction of the terrorists’ homes. He ordered the destruction of Diamnetman’s yeshiva.

Gantz has given retroactive approval for thousands of illegal buildings in Area C that the Europeans built for the Palestinians, and approved the construction of thousands more.  

This brings us to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. According to Gantz and Lapid, Iran’s achievement of independent military nuclear capabilities is imminent. Yet Bennett has no policy to deal with this state of affairs. Once a week the media report the IDF’s detailed operational plans for destroying Iran’s nuclear installations. Twice a week the media report that Israel lacks the capacity to attack Iran’s nuclear installations and needs America to take care of Iran for us.

These opposing views presumably reflect the points of view expressed in Bennett’s security cabinet. There, apparently preventing Iran from achieving independent military nuclear capabilities is presented as an all-or-nothing deal, with no middle ground. Israel has no diplomatic options. It has no option of helping the Iranian people bring down the regime. Sabotage is apparently off the table.

Either the entire Air Force flies to Iran to destroy all of its nuclear sites, or America will rescue Israel – at the cost of Israel’s sovereignty and national identity.  

What is the source of Bennett’s strategic confusion?

Bennett’s Covid-19 policies provide a clue. To date, Bennett has only fully implemented one clear cut decision. He barred all non-Israeli citizens from entering Israel.

Whether you are a grandparent who wants to see your Israeli grandchildren, or a high school class scheduled to spend a year in Israel, if you don’t have an Israeli passport, Bennett says keep out.

To date, criticism of Bennett’s ban on tourists has focused on the economic price it imposes on Israelis. According to the Association of Travel Agents, by banning entry to foreigners, Bennett has caused severe economic distress to a hundred thousand travel agents, tour guides and their families.

But there is an additional, much deeper cost: the Jewish cost.

Over the past week, expressions of outrage at Bennett’s blanket ban among Diaspora Jews have multiplied. Jews worldwide express feelings of hurt, outrage and humiliation at what they perceive as an abandonment and betrayal. Israel is the homeland of the entire Jewish people – wherever they dwell. Despite this, Bennett is making a distinction between Jews based not on the Covid-19 status, but on the passports they hold.

After South African native Eliyahu Kay was murdered last month as he made his way to work at the Western Wall, members of the South African Jewish community flew to Israel to pay their respects. While their flight was in the air, the government announced a ban on entry to non-Israelis arriving from Africa. The first people to be turned away were the Kay family’s friends. They arrived on a Friday morning and forced to return to South Africa, in violation of Shabbat.

South Africa’s Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein lashed out in anger at Bennett’s actions.

The ban on Diaspora Jews, he said, “is causing terrible human suffering. It’s dividing families, people can’t come for family celebrations, or just to see their relatives. It’s a moral disgrace, and cannot be defended on the grounds of medical safety.”

Bennett’s move, Goldstein and many other Diapsora Jews say, is a betrayal of the central foundation of Zionism.

As Goldstein put it, “The future sustainability and success of Israel depend on if it fulfills the reason for its existence. That is to be a Jewish state. If you violate the Jewish identity of the Jewish state, if you take away its reason for being, that is a strategic threat to the state of Israel.”

At the outset of his Covid-19 cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Bennett said, “We are discussing the heart of the policy. We who are responsible, have no good options.”

Bennett’s statement touched the essence of leadership – deciding between imperfect options in an environment of uncertainty, and implementing policies whose ultimate outcome is unknowable.

To succeed at policymaking in conditions of deep uncertainty, every leader requires three things – core convictions, experience, and public support. Unfortunately, Bennett lacks all three.

In the past, Bennett presented himself as a conviction politician. He wrote a book on how to fight Covid-19. He published a plan to apply Israeli sovereignty over Area C and another one to destroy Hamas. When Bennett abandoned his ideological camp to form a government with the left, he abandoned all of his books and plans and any glimmer of a conviction. Now as Prime Minister, he has no ideological foundation to guide him.

When Bennett abandoned his ideological camp, he also abandoned his voters. And so, he lacks public support.

Public support is important for two reasons. First leaders without public support lack the ability to convince their colleagues in government to stand with them. Second, leaders with a public behind them are expected to serve that public.

As for experience, Bennett never held real executive office. Bennett’s experience is as a pitchman. He sold start-ups. He set out perfect policies he never had to implement in the real world. He ran campaigns.

So when Prime Minister Bennett talks to his ministers about choosing between bad options, he has no convictions and no experience to guide him. And he has no constituents to whom he owes allegiance. Bereft of all three components of leadership, Bennett is the apotheosis of an empty suit.

Bennett’s blanket ban on entry for tourists demonstrated his lack of all three.

To be sure, with the advent of the highly contagious Omicron Covid-19 variant, Israel, like all other states is compelled to take steps to limit as much as practicable the spread of the virus. At the outset of the pandemic two years ago, lacking sufficient Covid-19 tests and treatment protocols, and with no vaccines in sight, the government’s decision to temporarily close the borders to non-citizens like its decision to enact  national shutdown were understandable.

But today, tests, treatments and vaccines are abundant. An experienced leader guided by Zionist convictions and sensitive the cost his policy would impose on voters and other important stakeholders, would look at the situation and recognize that there are more options than having the country completely open or completely closed to tourists. For instance, the government could require tourists entering the country to abide by the Green Pass requirements of vaccinations, PCR tests and quarantine.  Such a policy would reduce the danger of contagion, while limiting the damage to the economy and relations with Diaspora Jewry.

Bennett can repair the damage he has caused Diaspora Jewry fairly easily by cancelling his entry ban and applying the Green Pass criteria to foreign visitors. Repairing the damage his inexperienced, conviction-free and unsupported positions in all other spheres is causing will not be so simple.

Originally published in Israel Hayom.


Caroline Glick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

As Communism Spreads, Europeans are on Guard against Nazis - William Kilpatrick


by William Kilpatrick

The Great Replacement and the Great Distraction.


What’s the biggest issue in the next French Presidential election?  The economy?  Climate change?  Education?

All of the above are on the minds of French voters, but what’s shaping up to be the main issue is what Eric Zemmour calls the “great replacement.”  Zemmour, a journalist, television personality, and author of a best-selling book (The French Suicide) is one of the leading presidential contenders.  “The great replacement” refers to the belief that European elites wish to replace what remains of Western-Christian civilization with a different civilization built on different values.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the replacement culture is Islam.  And the replacement is being accomplished by a combination of high Muslim birth rates and the importation of millions of people from Muslim countries.  According to a recent Harris poll, about 67 % of French people agree with Zemmour that a “great replacement” is underway.  There are approximately 750 “no-go-zones” in France which are largely controlled by Muslims.  The population of Lyon, the third-largest city in France is over 30 % Muslim, while Marseille, France’s second-largest city, is 40 % Muslim.  Projections of current population trends suggest that France will be a predominantly Muslim country by 2050.

It seems as though a “great replacement” may well be underway.  Yet the European elites whom Zemmour and others criticize, are responding in the same knee-jerk fashion they have always employed when their hegemony is threatened.

Take Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg.  He’s the head of the Commission of Bishops Conference of the European Union (COMECE).  Cardinal Hollerich recently criticized some European Union officials for wanting to remove the word “Christmas” from the Christmas season (which would henceforth be known as “winter break”).

That seems the proper attitude for a Cardinal to take—until you discover his rationale.  He worries that the name changes might push European Catholics “into the trap of the populist politicians who use the name of Christianity to justify their very nearly anti-Christian… attitudes.”

To understand the Cardinal’s full meaning, you need to understand that among Europe’s liberal and leftist elites, “populism” is a code word for “Nazism.”  Hitler and Mussolini were populist leaders, so if you vote for a populist candidate, you’ll soon have brownshirts marching in the streets.  Or so goes the simple-minded reasoning of people like Cardinal Hollerich.  Unfortunately, his narrow line of logic is not confined to COMECE (which has been pushing it ever since its inception); it has been the common wisdom among Europe’s bien pensants ever since the end of World War II.

For liberals, populism must be avoided at all costs.  And so must nationalism, because Hitler and Mussolini were also nationalists. They never ceased talking about returning their respective nations to their former glory.  The path of nationalism, said Cardinal Hollerich in an interview with Crux, would put us “back in 1914 and 1939.”  In other words, the nationalists would return us to the days of World War I and World War II.

And who are the present-day populist-nationalists?  Well, Victor Orban in Hungary comes to mind along with other Eastern European leaders.  But quite obviously, the populist man-of-the-hour is Eric Zemmour.  In response to the interviewer’s question about going back to the nationalistic past, Cardinal Hollerich replied, “the big challenge will be the presidential election in France.”

And what is the big issue in the French presidential election?

Interviewer: “A lot of those who would vote for the nationalist parties, would argue that the identity of Europe is at risk because of migration.  Would you agree with that?”

Cdl. Hollerich: “I do not think so, because if you look at the number of migrants, the percentage they make and our numbers, then we must be very weak and they are very strong if they are a threat to our identity.”

Hollerich’s answer is quite revealing.  Above all, it reveals his naiveté.  He dismisses the threat to “our identity” from Muslims because their numbers are small compared to native Europeans.  Considering the population advantage enjoyed by the heirs of the Western-Christian tradition, says Hollerich, “We must be very weak” if the newcomers are “a threat to our identity.” 

But that’s precisely the point that Zemmour and others are making.  The strength of the Muslims in Europe is not a myth; it’s a reality.  The truth is, “they” are strong, and “we” are weak.  In a contest of wills, it’s not the size of the two contesting populations that counts, but strength of resolve.  And, by-and-large, the French (along with other Europeans) seems to have lost the will to resist.

Lack of resolve is really the whole point of Michel Houellebecq’s best-selling novel, Submission.  The protagonist submits to Islam because nothing seems to him worth fighting for.  The things that are important to him are not so important that he is willing to take a stand for them.

Cardinal Hollerich’s belief that Islam is not a threat to European identity misses a crucial point.  European identity is already shattered—and the fault lies not with Muslims, but with Europeans themselves.  What’s at stake now is not Europe’s identity, but its existence.  Zemmour’s book is entitled The French suicide with good reason.  His campaign, he says, is about whether France lives or dies.  English journalist Douglas Murray expresses similar sentiments in The Death of Europe—another best-seller.  Meanwhile, Thilo Sarrazin’s, Germany Abolishes Itself, topped the best-seller list for 21 weeks in that country when it was published.

A common theme of all these books is that Europe’s existence is threatened because, to a large extent, Europe has already lost its identity. One could, of course, argue that Europeans have an identity of sorts-- a blend of secular relativism, materialism, technology, and entertainment. These passing values may provide some sort of identity, but not a very solid one. While transcendent values may be worth fighting for, few are inclined to risk their lives for transient values.

Ironically, for most of its history the center-point of European identity was the faith that Cardinal Hollerich now represents.  But he doesn’t represent it very well if he won’t acknowledge the simple fact that Christianity in Europe is in a weakened state:  it is in decline, while Islam is on the rise.

His nonchalance about the relative strength of Christians and Muslims is all the more puzzling in light of the numerous attacks against European Christians by Muslims in recent years.  Just last week in the town of Nanterre west of Paris, a dozen young Muslims harassed an outdoor procession on the feast of the Immaculate Conception.  Several of the parishioners were pushed and shoved and spat upon, and death threats were issued.  In the last few years, thousands of Catholic Churches have been desecrated in France alone, and many have been set on fire.

Similar attacks on Christian churches and churchgoers are now common all over Europe.  In addition, recent years have seen numerous deadly attacks by Muslims against Europe’s famous Christmas markets.

Of course, Christians aren’t the only target.  On a percentage basis, Jews are more likely to be attacked by Muslims than are other groups:  Jews in synagogues, Jews in Kosher markets, Jewish children at school, Jews walking down the street.  When Muslims migrate to the Continent, they tend to bring with them the anti-Semitic attitudes that are endemic in Muslim countries.

 And this brings us back to the elitist complaint about populist and nationalist politicians.  It is assumed that, like the Nazis, they also are anti-Semites

The problem with this long-standing thesis, is that Eric Zemmour, the current leader of the nationalist movement in France, is a Jew.

One might think that this inconvenient fact would prompt the leftists and elitists to question their narrative.  But for those on the left, the narrative always trumps the facts.  The theme of populist anti-Semitism is actually part of a larger and more elaborate narrative—one that has proven quite useful to Europeans on the left.  Let’s call it the “narrative of the new Jews.”

Jews are a small minority in Europe and their numbers have been decreasing.  Moreover, it’s difficult to make the case that they are still suffering the kind of persecution they suffered at the hands of the Nazis and Nazi collaborators.  So, in order to make the narrative more persuasive, it was given a tweak.  This was done by replacing the Jews with the Muslims.  Henceforth, Muslims were to be thought of as the “new Jews.”  They would be the new victim class.  Though basically ridiculous, this new narrative did make some sense.  By the beginning of the 21st century, there were far more Muslims in Europe than Jews.  Muslims were still a minority, but they were a very visible minority.  It was also clear that many Europeans regarded the Muslims with suspicion, fear, and resentment.  What’s more, the Muslim leaders had developed a narrative of their own which dovetailed with the “new Jews” narrative.  They complained incessantly that they were the victims of “Islamophobia.”  And the main proof of this “phobia” was European resistance to Muslim immigration.

Whether that resistance was due to a phobia (an irrational fear) or to a rational fear is a question for another time.  But European fears about Muslims did feed into both narratives—the “Islamophobia” narrative and the “new Jews” narrative.  Unsurprisingly, those who hewed to the “new Jews” storyline were soon labeling immigration resisters as the “new Nazis.”  By this strange logic, Eric Zemmour, a Jew, can be considered anti-Semitic because he resists the takeover of his country by the “new Semites”—the Muslims.

But ironies abound.  In order to accept the “new Jews” thesis, one has to ignore a number of stark realities.  For one thing, the “new Jews” (the Muslims) are strikingly reminiscent of the old Nazis (the original ones). They have a deep-seated animosity toward Jews and a long history of persecuting them.  Indeed, during World War II, one of the most prominent Muslim leaders, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively collaborated with Hitler to develop a plan to exterminate the Jews. It seems no coincidence that today the majority of hate crimes against Jews in America and Europe are committed by Muslims. Translated into woke-spoke, that means that the chief enemy of the old Jews (i.e., Jews) are the new Jews. Meanwhile the main resistance to the “new Jews” comes from the “new Nazis” (who resemble the leaders of the resistance movement against the real Nazis during the war).

If you can iron-out all these ironies, you deserve a gold medal, but there is one more irony to consider.  Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that this Kabuki drama about keeping Nazis from coming to power again, is being played out against a backdrop of an actual resurgence of a clear and present danger--communism.

  Nazism was almost totally discredited after the total defeat of Hitler’s armies.  The only places where Hitler is still honored and Mein Kampf is still studied are in Muslim countries. By contrast, communism which was responsible for far more deaths in the 20th century than Nazism, was never thoroughly defeated or discredited.  Judging by a plethora of Hollywood movies, Nazis or neo-Nazis are always just a step away from world conquest.  But in the real world—Islamists excepted—fans of Nazism control absolutely nothing.  On the other hand, communists control some of the largest and most powerful countries on the planet, and many smaller nations besides. In addition, they are close to controlling many of the West’s key institutions—schools, universities, the media, political parties, deep-state bureaucracies, and, of course, Hollywood (where they continue to churn out movies about the Nazi threat).

In Europe, the ruse of a Nazi resurgence has been fairly successful. It has often convinced voters to vote left-liberal-- just in case. More importantly, it has worked to distract Europeans from another and far more real danger. In America, a similar diversionary tactic has long been a part of national politics. For a number of reasons, however, Americans were more resistant than Europeans to the Nazi scare tactic.

But leftists don’t give up. In recent years, their campaign of diversion in America has escalated. Of course, they seldom speak of Nazis. Instead, they tell us we are in great danger from “nationalists,” “white supremacists,” and “domestic terrorists.” By the same token, the leftists assure us that we have no enemy on the left.

At a time when there is growing danger on the left, it’s time for both Americans and Europeans to stop falling for the old ruse.


William Kilpatrick is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.  His books include Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West (Ignatius Press), What Catholics Need to Know About Islam (Sophia Press), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter