Friday, April 1, 2022

China Takes Over the Solomon Islands — And the Pacific - Gordon G. Chang

by Gordon G. Chang

Beijing is moving from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii.

  • China, after years of persistent commercial, diplomatic, and military efforts, is taking over the Pacific.

  • Beijing is moving from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii.

  • The five-year deal, subject to automatic renewals, will allow Beijing to use the islands to base its military and to do pretty much what the Chinese military wants.

  • If implemented to its full extent, the Framework Agreement will give China the ability to sever shipping lanes and air links connecting the U.S. with its treaty ally Australia and partner New Zealand.

  • For decades, Washington allowed Canberra and Wellington to manage the Solomons and its region.... Beijing, through payoffs now detailed in public, essentially owns Sogavare's government.

  • There is now talk that China will ink a security agreement with Papua New Guinea, just north of Australia.

  • Moreover, China wants to upgrade an airstrip in Kiribati. Beijing says the improvements are for civilian purposes only, yet the military uses are apparent and no one believes the Chinese assurances.

  • The facility is just 1,900 miles south of Hawaii. In Pacific terms, Kiribati is America's next-door neighbor.

Communist China is moving across the Pacific from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii. China's new five-year deal with the Solomon Islands, subject to automatic renewals, will allow Beijing to use the islands to base its military and to do pretty much what the Chinese military wants. Pictured: Chinese Premier Li Keqiang shows the way to Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, in Beijing on October 9, 2019. (Photo by Thomas Peter/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

On March 25, the Solomon Islands announced it was "expanding" security arrangements, "diversifying the country's security partnership including with China."

The announcement was defensive. The day before, opponents of a security pact with China leaked what was labeled a "draft" agreement. Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare's government did not confirm the authenticity of the leaked document, but observers believe he intends that version to be final. Australia, which expressed "great concern," confirmed the draft as authentic.

The pact, titled "Framework Agreement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Solomon Islands on Security Cooperation," highlights a disturbing trend: China, after years of persistent commercial, diplomatic, and military efforts, is taking over the Pacific.

Beijing is moving from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii.

Cleo Paskal of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tells Gatestone the Framework Agreement was a "unilateral decision by Sogavare." "There has been no public consultation," she pointed out.

The five-year deal, subject to automatic renewals, will allow Beijing to use the islands to base its military and to do pretty much what Chinese generals and admirals want. "China," the pact states in Article I, "may, according to its own needs and with the consent of Solomon Islands, make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands, and the relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands."

If implemented to its full extent, the Framework Agreement will give China the ability to sever shipping lanes and air links connecting the U.S. with its treaty ally Australia and partner New Zealand.

For decades, Washington allowed Canberra and Wellington to manage the Solomons and its region, and both Western powers, through the corrosive combination of neglect and condescension, allowed China to make significant inroads. Beijing, through payoffs now detailed in public, essentially owns Sogavare's government.

Sogavare, not surprisingly, is doing Beijing's bidding. He switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 2019, and has, at home, opened the door wide to Chinese investment.

The prime minister has also mismanaged the country, for instance marginalizing the country's most populous island, Malaita, and threatening its premier, Daniel Suidani. Putting his life at risk, Suidani has resolutely opposed the Chinese takeover of the Solomons.

In November, Sogavare's misrule resulted in deadly riots in the capital of Honiara, on the island of Guadalcanal, where 1,600 Americans died in 1942 and 1943 freeing the island from Japanese control.

Australia in November sent police and troops to restore order and thereby saved Sogavare's government, which then seemed to be on the verge of failure. Canberra's misguided intervention made it easy for Sogavare then to invite Chinese police in February. Beijing's presence solidified his hold on power.

The Framework Agreement also provides, in Article 1, that the "Solomon Islands, may, according to its own needs, request China to send police, armed police, military personnel, and other law enforcement and armed forces to Solomon Islands to assist in maintaining social order, protecting people's lives and property, providing humanitarian assistance, carrying out disaster response, or providing assistance on other tasks agreed upon by the Parties."

Honiara on the 25th said it would keep its 2018 security agreement with Canberra in place, but it is evident that Sogavare is looking only to China for police and military assistance.

Sogavare, backed by Beijing's military and the Framework Agreement, can effectively end democracy in the Solomons. Paskal, who closely follows the Pacific, reports that the prime minister is trying to postpone elections. "If Sogavare can trigger a domestic security crisis, he will use that as an excuse to keep himself in power," she notes. "China will help the prime minister provoke a civil war. That war will provide Sogavare an excuse to call in the Chinese military, according to the new agreement."

As Paskal told Gatestone, Beijing has already exacerbated tensions so that it could come to the "country's rescue."

The inter-island tensions that fuel the ongoing crisis are not new. In 2000, similar disputes were ended by the Townsville Peace Agreement, which Sogavare, also then prime minister, did not implement. Paskal suggests the deal could be the basis of another settlement.

The Solomons are not an isolated instance of Chinese penetration of Pacific governments. There is now talk that China will ink a security agreement with Papua New Guinea, just north of Australia.

Moreover, China wants to upgrade an airstrip in Kiribati. Beijing says the improvements are for civilian purposes only, yet the military uses are apparent and no one believes the Chinese assurances.

The facility is just 1,900 miles south of Hawaii. In Pacific terms, Kiribati is America's next-door neighbor.


Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Were You Better Off with Trump? - J. B. Shurk


by J. B. Shurk

At some point, the people clamoring for his return will be too much for the Expert Class to hide or overcome

In the final days before what appeared to be a neck-and-neck 1980 election, Republican Ronald Reagan landed a haymaker against President Carter by asking a simple question: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"  Americans were not, and Reagan ended up beating the incumbent Democrat in a drubbing — carrying forty-four states, taking 489 electoral votes, and winning the popular vote by nearly ten percent.  Donald Trump's 2016 campaign slogan — Make America Great Again! — will be remembered as one of the most effective rallying calls in political history.  As we near what looks like his return to battle for the 2024 election, though, a potent six-word slogan reminiscent of Reagan's rhetorical thwack is inescapable: Were you better off with Trump?

Only one incumbent president before Trump ever won significantly more votes on the way to losing re-election.  That president, Grover Cleveland, left office in 1889 amid allegations that fraudulent balloting in several states had secured his opponent Benjamin Harrison's victory, and four years later, President Cleveland returned to the White House after decisively defeating Harrison in a rematch.  The 22nd and 24th president of the United States is the only man to serve two non-consecutive terms.  If that changes in 2024, it will reflect the fact that, as with Cleveland, President Trump did remarkably better with the electorate the second time around, only to be handed his walking papers.  

On paper, nothing about Trump's performance looked like anything other than a win.  Losing an election looks like the Romney/Ryan debacle in 2012, in which Obama actually lost five million votes from his 2008 haul but still defeated the unelectable Republican duds.  Trump, on the other hand, won more votes than any sitting president in U.S. history and took in roughly fifteen million more votes than Bush, McCain, or Romney could ever muster.  He won over ten million more voters than in his previous 2016 victory, won almost every traditional bellwether county in the country by double digits, and expanded his share of the electorate with women and minorities.  But for Biden being declared the winner by the press after four days of counting in a handful of battleground states, Trump's impressive gains in 2020 would have been heralded as a resounding endorsement from the American people.

That is the part of the 2020 election story that has always bothered me most.  If it were stolen, and I obviously believe it was (sorry, thought police), then the theft not only denied the American people their say in their own governance and saddled the country with a dangerous, corrupt, and cognitively declining stooge, but also unfairly recast widely successful Trump policies as having been rejected by the people.  That rewriting of history is as dangerous and consequential as the election fraud itself.  

In tort law, there's a doctrine known as res ipsa loquitur — "the thing speaks for itself" — which permits the inference of a negligent act even without direct evidence because no other plausible explanation exists.  The thing speaks for itself is how I've felt about the 2020 election.  Although I have been told ad nauseam by America's esteemed Expert Class that the last election was the most honestly conducted exercise in "democracy" to grace our shores, I still don't see anything but a brazen robbery conducted in broad daylight and covered up by a conspiracy of corporate news factories peddling falsehoods, state attorneys general and secretaries of state overlooking election lawbreaking, state and federal judges shutting down timely investigations, and a national Uniparty enthusiastically giving its stamp of approval for the whole sordid affair. 

Time Magazine admitted as much in its post-election boasting that "a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information," conspired to manipulate the election's outcome, as set forth in its detailed exposé hubristically titled "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election."  That kind of blunt testimony certainly speaks for itself, as does the New York Times' long-belated admission that the Hunter Biden "laptop from hell" was real, even though its explosive contents were covered up by members of the Intelligence Community, the Department of Justice, mainstream news corporations, and social media companies in what Congressman Darrell Issa notes was "clearly a conspiracy" undertaken to get Biden elected. 

If journalistic admissions that the fix was in were not enough, continuing social media censorship of anyone pointing out the unlikelihood that Dementia Joe won fifteen million more votes than Obama did in 2012, combined with the January 6 show trials and congressional clown shows desperate to paint the Capitol breach as literally worse than 9/11 and the Civil War put together, has left me with the enduring feeling that the "ruling class" doth protest too much.  In fact, every time I see a card-carrying member of the Establishment Club vouching for the authenticity of the 2020 election, I am reminded of the scene in the brilliant comedy The Jerk (surely "canceled" out of existence by today's "woke" scolds) in which a bumbling gas station attendant played by Steve Martin accepts an obviously stolen credit card from a thief because his accomplice vouches for his friend's identity.  We couldn't possibly have had a stolen election in 2020 because all the very best people in America swear it was legitimate.  Okay, as long as we've got a voucher!

Far from the mere opinion of the "fringe minority" for whom I try to speak, a majority of the American people agree that the 2020 election was not on the up-and-up (a consensus that, while ignored by the mainstream corporate press, has only grown over time among Democrats, independents, and Republicans).

Here's the kicker, though: whether you believe that 2020 election fraud speaks for itself or you have absolute faith in "our precious democracy" because we've got a voucher, President Trump's 2020 performance was better than any Republican's in history.  That's his undeniable baseline regardless of how much NeverTrumping the NeverTrumps trumpet.  And a little over a year since O'Biden was installed in office, Donald Trump has only become more popular.  His favorability rating tops every national political figure.  He's leading potential primary opponents by forty points.  And he's beating President Braindead head-to-head by four points.  At the same time, 71% of Americans believe that the country is now headed in the wrong direction

Now, with all of that said, America will be asked repeatedly over the next two-plus years:

When trying to pay for gas, food, and other bare necessities, were you better off with Trump?

If trying to keep America out of foreign wars is important to you and your family, were you better off with Trump?

If you are worried about the future your children will inherit, were you better off with Trump?

If you are shocked by rampant censorship and "cancel" culture, were you better off with Trump?

If you are concerned about millions of illegal aliens destroying local communities, were you better off with Trump?

If you just desperately want America to be America again, were you better off with Trump?

You don't have to be Nostradamus to know how tilted toward Trump's favor those answers are going to be.  At some point, no matter how many institutions conspire to prevent his victory, the people clamoring for his return will be too much for the Expert Class to hide or overcome.  The country will be asked in Reaganesque fashion, "Are you better off today after four years of Biden?"  And Americans will answer by decisively re-electing President Trump in 2024.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.


J. B. Shurk


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield

A hospitalized justice, a racist campaign, and the media heckler’s veto.


Even as Justice Clarence Thomas was hospitalized, a leftist lynch mob rallied on social media calling for his impeachment or death. They weren’t especially picky about which one it would be.

The same radical faction championing Biden’s selection of a black woman for the Supreme Court as a groundbreaking step forward and berating Republicans for refusing to support her were simultaneously demanding that the only sitting black justice on the court step down.

The calls for Thomas’ death are based on pure unadulterated hatred. And so are the calls for his impeachment. None of them have even the faintest basis in anything resembling the law.

The Women's March called for the impeachment of Justice Thomas because his wife, Ginni, had advocated against election fraud. Or as the racist leftist hate group put it, "The revelations that Ginni Thomas advocated for the overthrow of our democracy are disqualifying — not just for her as a human being of any decency, but for her husband.”

A “human being of any decency” wouldn’t be going after a judge by targeting his wife.

The only possible reason for disqualifying Thomas would be the presumption that men are obligated to control their wives. And prevent them from expressing political views in public.

Is this the exciting new feminist position that the Women’s March would like to debut?

Would any of the great minds at the Women’s March like to contemplate the legal implications of creating a male guardianship for women of the kind that might have existed in the 18th century?

Justice Breyer’s wife is a member of the English nobility, it doesn’t mean he answers to the Queen.

Judges whose spouses have an “interest” in a case are obligated to recuse themselves from it. But having political views about a national issue is not the same thing as having an “interest” in it. I doubt there’s a single judicial spouse who didn’t have an opinion on the 2020 election. And many of them may have signed petitions, posted comments, or otherwise urged an outcome.

Or participated in the Women’s March attacking the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election.

That’s political activism, it’s not an “interest”.

The New York Times and the New Yorker cited a federal law stating that judges must rescue themselves if their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” A point of view is not an interest. If it were, there could be no married judges.

Nevertheless law professor Lawrence Tribe tweeted, “That clearly applied here.” How?

“By writing to Meadows, who was chief of staff and active in the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement, she joined the team resisting the results of the election,” Stephen Gillers, an NYU prof quoted by the New York Times, convolutedly argued. “She made herself part of the team and so she has an interest in the decisions of the court that could affect Trump’s goal of reversing the results.”

Millions of Americans have phoned, sent letters and emails to members of Congress advocating particular policies. Did they all join the “team” of every single public official whom they contacted? Should any judges they’re married to have to recuse themselves from those cases?

Had Ginni Thomas been formally employed by the Trump team, it would be another story. Instead she was an activist urging members of the team to do everything they possibly could.

It doesn’t make her a member of the team.

If that weren’t absurd enough, both media outlets have cited a law stating that “any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Is there any federal judge, appointed as part of a partisan process, whose impartiality can’t be reasonably questioned in partisan cases?

As usual the Left has invented a standard that it doesn’t intend to apply in any other cases. Certainly not in any cases where it would inhibit its stable of unconstitutional judicial activists.

“What did Justice Clarence Thomas know, and when did he know it?” a New York Times op-ed demanded. The author, Jesse Wegman, a Times editor, presumably knows the political views of his wife, Kyra, and also, presumably, he writes his own views in his columns. Not hers.

This isn’t a complicated concept for any functional adult.

Supreme Court justices are aware of the storm of controversy over the cases in front of them. They’re expected to follow the law and rule accordingly without taking into account the views of family members, friends, and New York Times editors. That’s what they do for a living.

Thomas married Ginni in 1987. By then he was nearly 40 years old and had worked as a lawyer, a prosecutor, and as a civil rights official in the Reagan administration. He had developed his own point of view on the world. A unique one as testified by his rulings over the years.

Leftists and their media would like us to believe that the only reason Justice Thomas believes anything or rules on anything is because his white wife tells him to do it. That’s stupidly racist.

Even those who violently hate Thomas ought to be able to admit that he has a developed judicial philosophy and that his rulings reflect that unique worldview. The idea that a man who has defied expectations throughout his life, who has persevered despite being repeatedly hit with every racial slur in the book, is just following his wife’s lead is dumb beyond belief.

And yet this is the argument that the lynch mob targeting Justice Thomas is going with.

After all the fury over his wife’s activism, what does this amount to in Justice Thomas’ rulings? Where is the evidence of any conflict of interest or any violation of the law? It doesn’t exist.

The New York Times noted that "Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr." responded to the Supreme Court rejecting an election lawsuit by Texas by "issuing a brief statement suggesting the majority had acted too soon in shutting the case down." Actually Alito wrote the dissent, with Thomas joining him, on procedural grounds. At the time the dissent was issued, the media and its legal experts argued that it was not a ruling on the election, but on jurisdictional standing.

The paper also misleadingly notes that, "Justice Thomas addressed election fraud in a dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision to turn away a challenge to Pennsylvania’s voting procedures." The Supreme Court had previously deadlocked several times over the issue with previous dissents by Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, and the Thomas dissent highlighted by the paper had focused on the importance of providing "clear rules for future elections."

The media and its legal experts, shoddy as they may be, know all this perfectly well. They know that the paper is deliberately misrepresenting these cases in order to single out Thomas.

And that there’s no basis for doing so.

Thomas wrote as one of the court’s two leading conservatives, along with Alito, and there was nothing unique in his dissents that deviated from his judicial philosophy. Using his wife to attack him is the despicable tactic of a ruthless totalitarian movement with no shred of decency.

Having run out of any credible legal arguments, the lynch mob once again borrows the familiar logic of Russiagate to argue that their smear campaign proves that Thomas must recuse.

“Judging by the nature of the text messages and the uproar over them, that provision alone is enough to require Justice Thomas’s recusal, legal experts said,” the New York Times argued.

Since the New York Times and its media partners are the source of the “uproar”, conservative judges would have to recuse every time lefties launch a vocal smear campaign against them.

That’s using the media as a heckler’s veto to bar conservative judges from cases.

And that’s what this is really about.


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

Oklahoma governor explains reasoning behind signing Save Women's Sports Act, addresses critics - Lisa Bennatan


by Lisa Bennatan

Oklahoma bill bans transgender girls from competing in female sports



Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt told Fox News the "Save Women’s Sports Act" would prevent female athletes from competing against biological males, who he said would have an unfair biological advantage.

"Biological males cannot compete in women's sports," the Republican governor told Fox News. "We're not going to let it be an unfair advantage against them.

"I just think it's common sense," Stitt added.

The bill says that student-athletes can only play on sports teams matching their biological sex. A dozen other states have signed similar laws.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signs a bill in Oklahoma City on Wednesday, March 30, 2022, that prevents transgender girls and women from competing on female sports teams. Stitt signed the bill flanked by more than a dozen young female athletes, including his eighth-grade daughter Piper. (AP Photo/Sean Murphy)

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signs a bill in Oklahoma City on Wednesday, March 30, 2022, that prevents transgender girls and women from competing on female sports teams. Stitt signed the bill flanked by more than a dozen young female athletes, including his eighth-grade daughter Piper. (AP Photo/Sean Murphy) (AP)


"It's important for me to protect women and girls in sports," Stitt said. "I've got a daughter that's going to be standing behind me, as well as a lot of other women and girls."

"They train and put their whole effort into competing and being the best that they can be," he added.

Former University of Oklahoma cheerleader Alyssa Amundsen, who also stood behind the governor as he signed the bill, told Fox News: "It's no secret that there is a biological difference between males and females."

Former University of Oklahoma cheerleader, Alyssa Amundsen, explains what the 'Save Women's Sports Act' means to her

Former University of Oklahoma cheerleader, Alyssa Amundsen, explains what the 'Save Women's Sports Act' means to her (Fox News Digital/Lisa Bennatan)

"Our predecessors worked so hard and a had a huge victory with Title IX," Amundsen continued. "I think we owe it to them and we owe it to future generations of girls to pass this bill."

A University of Oklahoma track and field athlete, Levi Gladd, felt similarly.

"I don't think that it's fair if women aren't given the same opportunities or to have these opportunities taken away by biological things that they can't deal with, or overcome," Gladd told Fox News.

Debate over transgender athletes escalated in recent months, as Lia Thomas, a University of Pennsylvania excelled in women's swimming after competing as a male for three years. Thomas earlier this month became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I title.

Oklahoma State Capitol

Oklahoma State Capitol (Fox News Digital/Lisa Bennatan)

Critics of the Oklahoma bill argue that the new law unnecessarily targets a group of people already marginalized. 

"Gov. Stitt has sent a clear message to Oklahoma's vulnerable transgender youth that they are not welcome or accepted in our state," the executive director of Oklahoma's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Tamya Cox-Toure, said in a statement. The law "harms transgender youth, all to solve a problem that does not exist."

Stitt told Fox News: "I'd be happy to talk to any critics that are basically choosing to stand with someone else over women and sports. To me, it's that simple."

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (Fox News Digital/Lisa Bennatan)

"This isn't against any other person. In Oklahoma, we're inclusive of anybody and what is your life liberty and pursuit of happiness," the governor said. "We're not going to let a biological male compete against young women."


Lisa Bennatan is an associate producer/writer for Fox News Digital Originals. Follow her on Twitter @LisaBennatan and Instagram @Lisa_Bennatan


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dem senators sound alarm over reports Biden administration will end Title 42 border policy - Adam Shaw


by Adam Shaw

Title 42 order, implemented in March 2020, is expected to end May 23



Moderate Democratic senators are expressing concern over reports that the Biden administration will lift the Title 42 public health order which has been used at the border to rapidly expel migrants -- raising fears of a colossal migrant wave this summer.

"I think they should reconsider," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told reporters on Thursday. "I sent a letter, I’m against removing Title 42."


"If anything we should be looking at permanency on Title 42," he said. "Maybe that would spur us to get a good immigration policy that works for Americans and secure our borders -- the borders have to be secure," he said.

Multiple outlets reported Wednesday that the Biden administration is planning to announce that it will end Title 42 on May 23, giving the Department of Homeland Security time to prepare for an expected increase in migrants at the border.

The order was implemented by the Trump administration in March 2020 due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and has since been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to expel a majority of migrants at the border. In February, approximately 55% of migrants were returned due to the order.

Oct. 19, 2021: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., chairs a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Oct. 19, 2021: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., chairs a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Activists and top Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have called for the end to the policy, arguing that it is preventing migrants from claiming asylum. But Republicans and border officials have warned that ending the policy will encourage more migrants to make the journey north -- and also result in more migrants being allowed in.


That ending Title 42 would supercharge the ongoing border crisis -- where authorities are already mass releasing migrants due to overcrowding and continued high migrant traffic -- has been tacitly acknowledged by the Biden administration. Biden administration officials have been reportedly planning for numbers of up to 18,000 migrants a day, and have put out calls for volunteers and help from the Pentagon

The White House on Wednesday acknowledged that "there will be an influx of people to the border" when the Centers for Disease Control lifts the order. Meanwhile, DHS put out a fact sheet for its plans to deal with an increase in numbers.

While advocates and left-wing lawmakers have focused on the rights of foreign nationals -- many of whom have traveled through multiple countries to claim asylum in the U.S. -- more moderate senators have expressed concern about the chaos that could result.

July 28, 2021: Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, listens during a news conference in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., U.S.

July 28, 2021: Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, listens during a news conference in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., U.S. (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Manchin had sent a letter to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky warning that, with the rise of the BA2 subvariant, it was not time "to throw caution to the wind."

Meanwhile, Arizona Sens. Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema wrote to President Biden last week, warning him against ending the policy without a comprehensive plan in place. On Wednesday, they spoke to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about Title 42, with their offices saying they underscored how the border state could suffer if the policy is ended without a plan.  

Sinema, who is Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Border Management, said she told Mayorkas she intends to hold a hearing on the matter.


"Ending Title 42 without a comprehensive plan in place puts at risk the health and safety of migrants and Arizona communities," Sinema said in a statement. "We’ll keep working with Arizona local leaders, DHS agents and officers, and community organizations serving on the front lines of the migrant crisis to hold the Administration accountable to ensure we secure the border, keep Arizona communities safe, and ensure the fair and humane treatment of migrants."

Kelly said there is "still not an adequate plan or sufficient coordination to end Title 42 without further straining our law enforcement, border communities, and nonprofits providing humanitarian assistance to migrants." 

Feb. 8, 2022: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) speaks during a press conference following the weekly Democratic caucus policy luncheon in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Feb. 8, 2022: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) speaks during a press conference following the weekly Democratic caucus policy luncheon in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

"We’ll continue to push the Biden administration for the resources and support Arizona needs amid this crisis at our southern border," Kelly said. His office said he also asked for details about how increased funding approved in the recent omnibus for border management and security could be used.

 Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told CNN he was "very reluctant" for the administration to end without a real plan in place.

"I would be very worried about this notion that the border will be overwhelmed, and I really want to hear a specific plan with adequate personnel, and frankly I would like to see the State Dept. do more pressure on some of these countries, particularly Northern Triangle countries, to try and stop the flow of some of these economic refugees."


Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, with a focus on immigration. He can be reached at or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ukraine Shows Hating Israel Isn’t About the Palestinians - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield

Any war, anywhere, is always Israel's fault.


A war is raging three thousand miles away from Jerusalem between two nations that share no borders with Israel, and in which it has no troops, no interests, and no involvement.

And yet somehow the war between Russia and Ukraine has come to be about Israel.

"Israel Needs to Make Up Its Mind on Ukraine," a Foreign Policy Magazine op-ed blares as if the Jewish State were somehow a major player in a war between two much larger countries thousands of miles away. It’s as absurd as demanding that the Dominican Republic (which is still larger than Israel) make up its mind on the border clashes between India and China.

"Israel’s reaction to #Ukraine will have bearing on future aid from the US to #Israel," Rep. Adam Kinzinger warned on Twitter. Whatever “bearing” it has won’t come from the Never Trumper ex-Republican who is retiring after becoming unelectable. But that hasn’t stopped him, or assorted politicians and media outlets, from threatening Israel anyway.

"Ukraine asked Israel - no bigger fan of Israel than Lindsey Graham - for Stingers, and apparently Israel said no," Senator Graham said. "So I'm going to get on the phone with Israel - you know, we stand up for Israel with the Iron Dome."

The only thing more baffling than why Graham felt the need to refer to himself in the third person is why the senator is demanding that Israel supply U.S. missiles to Ukraine. Isn’t that his job?

Despite Israel delivering 230 tons of humanitarian aid, including bulletproof ambulances, setting up a field hospital, and taking in thousands of refugees, the pressure campaign insists that it isn’t doing enough. And that the war not only involves Israel, but the outcome depends on it.

There’s notably much less interest in India, a country of 1.3 billion, which buys Russian oil, has close ties to Russia, and refused to condemn the invasion, than in Israel, a country of 6.5 million, which doesn’t buy Russian oil and did vote to condemn the invasion at the UN.

No matter what the position on the war is, the consensus is that Israel is doing the wrong thing.

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Soros-Koch project that attacks America for being too tough on China, Iran, and Russia, demanded to know, "Why is Israel MIA on Ukraine-Russia crisis?" The outrage at Israel for not being involved enough in the Ukraine crisis is being directed by the same leftist-libertarian group that is warning against America getting involved with articles like, "Washington Should Think Twice Before Launching a New Cold War".

The Catch 22 hypocrisy is as obvious as the hate. If Israel is involved in a war, it’s evil, but if it’s not involved in a war, it’s also evil. Whatever Israel does or doesn’t do is an outrage.

The hatred of Israel never had anything to do with the so-called “Palestinians”, the Arabs, Muslims, or anyone in the Middle East. That’s why the same political interests are capable of taking a war in Ukraine thousands of miles away and making it all about the Jewish State.

The Ukraine war has trotted out the familiar toolbox of tropes with the insistence that Israel somehow has the ability to resolve a war it didn’t make, even as Israel’s Prime Minister Bennett scrambles around on the impossible mission of bringing peace to people who don’t want it.

There’s the Holocaust inversion with Zelensky and assorted critics depicting Ukraine as the new Jews facing a new Holocaust, with the Jews now reinvented as the unfeeling bystanders. And that leads to the anti-Zionist contention that Israel’s nationhood is at odds with “Jewish values”.

“Ukraine War Ignites Israeli Debate Over Purpose of a Jewish State,” the New York Times argued, complaining that Israel hadn’t taken in enough refugees after it took in 15,000.

(The number of Ukrainian refugees taken in by the New York Times is estimated at zero.)

Compare that to France, which took in 26,000 Ukrainian refugees, despite being ten times the size of Israel. But France, like India, isn’t full of Jews. And so there’s no contention that France which, proportionally took in far less refugees than Israel, should just stop existing.

The magical ability to make any war anywhere about Israel with the same set of familiar anti-Zionist tropes shows that these arguments were never contextual responses to regional conflicts, but a general opposition to the existence of Israel regardless of anything else.

Whatever war is going on wherever, it’s Israel’s fault and evidence that it shouldn’t exist.

The media’s attempts to link Israel to the war in Ukraine are often so tenuous as to take on their own form of surreal absurdity. 

NPR found it vitally important to write an entire story based around the fact that there was a bar named the Putin Pub in Jerusalem (it's since been renamed). When a media outlet is this desperate to negatively connect Israel to the Ukraine war, the agenda is clear.

(This is the same media outlet which claimed that it didn't want to report on Hunter Biden's laptop because, "We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.")

Ukraine’s government has colluded in the international hate campaign against Israel.

Zelensky and his government have berated Israel, exploited the Holocaust and demanded everything from Iron Dome (designed to stop crude rockets shot by terrorists, not a full assault by a world power) and the Pegasus cyberwarfare tool (it won’t stop Russian tanks), pushing for Israeli sanctions on Russia even while his government refuses to stop doing business with Iran.

In the latest bid, the Ukrainian government is demanding security guarantees from Israel, despite the fact that Israel is a country of 8,600 square miles while Ukraine encompasses 233,000 square miles. Ukraine is not only vastly bigger than Israel, it has seven times Israel's population. That's like Canada demanding security guarantees from Cyprus.

But that’s just the ex-comedian doing what he does. In his lecture to Congress, Zelensky invoked Pearl Harbor and 9/11, when addressing the Arabs, he brought up Syria, while speaking to the Japanese parliament, he called the Russian invasion a “tsunami” and referenced Japan’s nuclear disaster. The shallow formula of namechecking deep traumas in other countries while linking them to Ukraine and complaining they’re not doing enough to stop history from repeating itself has become a trite routine to anyone actually paying attention.

It’s the media’s fault for gleefully weaponizing Zelensky’s pressure campaign and amplifying outright antisemitism from leftists and Islamists who are happily exploiting the narrative.

Continuing his virtual world tour, Zelensky phoned in to Qatar's Doha Forum. The Emir of the Islamic terror state of Qatar had opened the event by comparing “Palestinians” to Ukraine.

The Al Thani scion allied with Iran and Hamas then complained that, "The accusation of anti-Semitism is now used wrongly against everyone who criticizes Israel's policies.”

Or, like Qatar’s Al Jazeera propaganda channel, broadcasts raw uncut antisemitism.

Back home the propaganda campaign against Israel is offset with weapons-grade levels of hypocrisy as bad actors tied to totalitarian regimes berate Israel over Russia and Ukraine.

William Cohen, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, went on CNN to rant to Christiane Amanpour that he was "deeply disappointed" with Israel. Cohen (despite his last name, he’s a Unitarian) and Amanpour both have a long history of hating Israel. And taking cheap shots at it.

"Are you with the Russians or are you with the United States and the West? They do have to make a decision here," Cohen railed.

Amanpour neglected to mention that the Cohen Group has an office in Beijing, that Cohen serves on the Board of Directors of the U.S.-China Business Council and that his group includes        "Chinese nationals with extensive experience in Chinese government ministries".

The Cohen Group also boasts of "decades of experience working with officials in Moscow", and "building relationships with government decision makers".

Two years ago, Cohen was claiming that "President Putin is going to try and step in and be the peacemaker here” between America and Iran.

“I’m a bit more optimistic that the Russians will come in as a peacemaker,” he told CNBC.

This exciting new hatred of Israel is not about Ukraine, any more than the old variety was about the “Palestinians”. Hating Israel is in the end always about one thing and one thing alone.

Hating Jews.


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 Founding Fathers Would Have Gagged at the Idea of Legislators for Life - Don Feder


by Don Feder

What our elected aristocracy is doing to representative government.


Republican Congressman Don Young, who died last week at age 88 (God rest his soul and all that), epitomized America’s transition from representative government to elected aristocracy.

Representing an Alaska at-large district, Young became a member of the House of on March 6, 1973, when Richard Nixon was president, America was still fighting in Vietnam and the retail price of gas was 39 cents-a-gallon.

Young was the longest-serving member of Congress. Elected to his 25th term in 2020, he helped to guide the Behemoth on the Potomac for almost half-a-century.

The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the idea of legislators for life. When the Constitution was adopted, “public servant’ was more than a euphemism.

Leaders were expected to serve because it was their patriotic duty. They would leave their farms, shops and offices for a term or two, and then go back home to live among those they’d governed under the laws they had fashioned.

Today, they make a pilgrimage to the Golden Temple on Capitol Hill and stay, and stay, and stay.

Hack-meister Joseph Robinette Biden came to Washington at age 30 in 1973 (coincidentally, the same year as Young). The man who’s never had a thought in his head that wasn’t stamped “made in the DNC,” spent 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President, before ascending to Olympus to sit with the gods. Little wonder that he has the backbone of a dishtowel and the vision of an apparatchik.  

It's interesting to speculate on what the ghost who haunts the White House would have done if he was ever gainfully employed. It used to be said of Massachusetts Senator Edward Moore Kennedy that if he wasn’t a member of the august body where he spent 47 years, he’d probably be driving a beer truck in South Boston and boffing every widow on his route.

But through cunning or dumb luck (or the right genes in Kennedy’s case), a favored few get to join the most elite club in the world. Little wonder most are reluctant to voluntarily surrender power under any circumstances.

And, there’s also gold in them thar hills.

Members of Congress receive $174,000 annually – more for certain leadership positions. The House Speaker – in this case Granny Pelosi (who was embalmed during the reign of Ramses II) – receives $223,500. Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and the President Pro-Tem haul in $193,400. Members of Congress also get benefits, like an allowance for their staff – who do most of the real work, like actually reading the bills.

A Congressman can retire on full pension at age 62, after as little as five years of service. The amount is based the number of years they warmed a seat with their ample posteriors. Former Speaker John Boehner, who retired in 2015, receives $86,000-a-year, which compares favorably to the average annual Social Security payment of $19, 370. Oh, and Members of the Club also collect Social Security.

But it’s not just the money.

It’s the power – the power to write your ideology into law, to distribute largesse from the treasury to your favorite causes like green cultism, anti-white racism or killing babies in the name of women’s rights. In the business world, you get to pick winners and losers with subsidies and tax hikes. And you get a warm humanitarian glow while you’re pushing the rest of us around.

Young men have ideas. Old men cling to power. The average age of members of the Second Continental Congress, which adopted the Declaration of Independence, was 44, while more that a dozen were under 35. The average age of members of the 117th Congress (elected in 2020) is 58.4 years for House members and 64.3 years for Senators.

Pelosi is 81, Mitch McConnell is 80. Schumer is 71. And Kevin McCarthy is 57. (They call him The Kid.) The Geezer-in-Chief is 79 years old. We’re ruled by septuagenarians and octogenarians.

Term limitation, which would have helped to alleviate the situation, is a practical  impossibility, thanks to the Supreme Court.

In the 1995 case of U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton, SCOTUS ruled that states do not have the power to limit service in their congressional delegation. That would take a constitutional amendment, which – in this case – is as likely to pass as a blizzard on the equator, in the middle of a monsoon.

There are few institutions in America as unpopular as Congress, including the Biden White House and the average used-car dealership. In a February 1-17 Gallup Poll, 75% disapproved of the non-deliberative body, while 20% approved. And yet we keep electing the same passengers in the clown car every two years.

That’s because the system is rigged.

In each election, perhaps 10% of Congressional districts are in play. In the rest, through the power of incumbency and/or skillful gerrymandering, it takes an upheaval comparable to 1932 or 1994 to make for a really competitive election. Since a red tsunami seems to be building, such could be the case this year too.

I guess Congress must be endured -- like famine, plague and Kamala Harris giggling through a press briefing. With honorable exceptions, Mark Twain had it right when he said: “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself.”

And he lived a century before Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff and Ocasio-Cortez.   


Don Feder


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

It is not a 'wave of terror,' it is an Arab revolt - Ezequiel Doiny


by Ezequiel Doiny

Since the two State Solution is not feasable the only possible solution is to recognize that the Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Israeli Arabs who revolt against the Jewish State should be deported


Bnei Brak terror victims
Bnei Brak terror victims                                                                 Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90

There is a wave of terror attacks in Israel:

1. On March 22, 2022 Arutz 7 reported "Horrific footage shows Arab terrorist murdering woman at gas station in Be'er Sheva." (See link below)

2. On March 27, 2022 Reuters reported "Two Arab gunmen killed two police officers on a city street in Israel on Sunday and were then shot dead, as the U.S. secretary of state and three Arab foreign ministers visited the country for a summit. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement posted on its Telegram account. The two assailants in Hadera, a city about 50 km (30 miles) north of Tel Aviv, were Arab citizens of Israel..."

3. On March 29, 2022 Arutz 7reported "At least five people were killed by a gunman in Bnei Brak Tuesday evening. The shooter, who was apparently an Arab terrorist, rode a motorcycle and shot the occupants of a private car with an M-16 rifle. Four occupants of the vehicle were killed. A fifth victim, a police officer, was taken to Beilinson Hospital, where he was declared dead."

It seems the wave of terror attacks is the begining of an Arab revolt against theJewish State.

On March 28, 2022 Arutz 7 reported "IDF Brigadier General (Res.) and former minister Effi Eitam warned Tuesday that the recent spate of terror attacks perpetrated by Israeli Arabs marks the beginning of a violent uprising by Israel’s Arab sector..."We need to tell ourselves the truth: We are in the midst of an Arab revolt, an Islamic-nationalist revolt against the idea of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. They hold [Israeli] citizenship and have equal rights in everything, but they are separatists.” “These 200,000 ‘good’ Arabs don’t need guns. The [Arab] sector is building a military force against the state, Israeli Arabs are becoming a separatist population. We may face a situation in which citizens of the country rebel against its authority and its sovereignty, included with armed underground movements.”

The Israeli Arabs are joining the Palestinian Arabs in revolting against Israel because they reject the "Two State Solution", they want an Arab State "from the river to the sea".

Israeli Arabs, PA Arabs and Hamas are all part of the same Islamic Ummah; all share the same goal to destroy the Jewish State, they only differ in their tactics.


Hamas rejects the "2 State Solution" and wants Israel's destruction. The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”

On June 20, 2010 Y-net newsreported "...An official from the Palestinian organization, Mahmoud al-Zahar on Sunday urged the Palestinian Authority to instruct its staff to stop pursuing terror organizations and allow them to fire rockets at Israel from the West Bank. In an interview to Palestinian paper al-Quds, al-Zahar said the Gaza Strip has been liberated, "and the PA's security apparatus should free our hands. In order to liberate Jerusalem and the West Bank, rockets must be fired from the West Bank. Why should this fire come only from the Strip?"

The Tower reported "...Al-Zahar responded by reinforcing Hamas’ commitment to the complete liberation of Palestine. “If we liberate Palestine though the resistance until the 1967 borders, we will go directly to liberate the rest of Palestine and the territories of 1948, and there will be no negotiations,” he said.

“If Hamas liberated 99.9% of the land of Palestine, it will not give up on the rest,” al-Zahar continued. He added, “We cannot religiously, morally or nationally give up on one inch of the land of Palestine.”

Al Zahar also said “Anyone who thinks that we will recognize the existence of the [Zionist] entity or the 1967 borders is deluded… Palestine stretches from the Egyptian border in the south to Lebanon in the north, and from Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean sea in the west, and we will never recognize anything less than this.”

Abbas' Palestinian Authority

Abbas rejects the 2 State Solution". On July 2013 Jonathan Tobin reported in Commentary Magazine that “While in Cairo yesterday to meet with Egypt’s new leaders, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas let drop a few remarks about the peace negotiations with Israel that began in Washington last night....Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:

“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.

...The Abbas statement provides some important context for the key Israeli demand that the Palestinians refuse to accept: PA acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. If Palestinians think there is something racist about Israel being accepted as the sole Jewish state in the world, why is it OK for them to envision an independent state of their own where Jewish communities would have to be destroyed and their inhabitants be evicted?

...The Palestinian position remains that specific acceptance on their part of Israel as a Jewish state would undermine the rights of the Arab minority inside the pre-1967 lines and force them to make a judgment about the country’s internal arrangements. But the whole point of the conflict since its beginnings a century ago has always been the Arab rejection of the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland. If Palestinians are determined to create an independent state where there are no Jews, why then are they so afraid of agreeing that their neighbors will be a Jewish state?

The reason for this is no mystery.

More than any compromise on borders, accepting Israel as a Jewish state would be an open acknowledgement that the conflict is finished. It would mean the descendants of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 would have to be resettled elsewhere and all terrorism and efforts to erase Israel inside its contracted borders would cease.

The demand for recognition of a Jewish state is often represented as something new created by Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to make peace more difficult to achieve. But it should be remembered that the original United Nations partition resolution of 1947 spoke of the country being specifically divided between a Jewish state and an Arab one, not Israel and “Palestine.” The effort to deny the right of the Jewish people to a sovereign state in their own land is an act of prejudice since no other group in the world is treated in this manner.

...What Abbas is asking for is for Israel to be a bi-national state of Jews and Arabs while Palestine would be a solely Arab nation...”

Abbas rejects the two state solution. Lt. Col. (ret) Jonathan Halevi explained in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that Abbas supports a phased plan for Israel’s destruction “…Beneath the moderate guise that Abbas tries to project is a Palestinian leader who unreservedly supports terror and demands to implement what the Palestinians call the “right of return.”

…What the Palestinians mean by “right of return” according to Resolution 194 and the Arab Peace Initiative is simple enough and was ratified as an official law by the Palestinian parliament with Abbas’s approval.

According to the 2008 Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees:

“The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, while receiving compensation for their suffering, is an inalienable and enshrined right that cannot be compromised, replaced, reconsidered, interpreted otherwise, or subjected to a referendum.

The right of return is natural, personal, collective, civil, political, passed on from father to son; it is not nullified by the passage of time or by the signing of any agreement and it cannot be abolished or waived in any way.

The Palestinian refugees shall not be resettled or displaced as an alternative to the right of return.

Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of treason and will be subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.

Anything that contradicts this law is considered null and void, and any legislation or agreement that will derogate from the right of return or contradict the provisions of this Act shall be deemed null and void.”

In other words, even after an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the conflict will remain unchanged and Palestine will demand the “return” to Israel of the millions of refugees and their descendants. The Palestinian demand for “return” entails the transfer of millions of Jews from their homes and the end of the state of Israel…”

Israeli Arabs

On May 11, 2021 Aryeh Savir wrote in TPZ "Muslim mobs attacked Jewish targets in the city of Lod on Monday night, in an apparent show of solidarity with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, leaving behind scenes reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. As part of the attacks, the rioters pillaged synagogues, ransacked the houses of prayer and desecrated the Torah scrolls. In addition, they attacked Jewish schools in the city.

Israeli Arabs praise terrorist attacks against Jews. On March 25,2020 Arutz 7 reported "Joint List MK Sami Abu Shehadeh sent a video expressing his "appreciation" for the "heroic efforts" of the mothers of Palestinian Arab terrorists.

The video, first exposed by Makor Rishon reporter Assaf Gibor, was recorded in honor of Mother's Day that was celebrated in the Arab world this past Saturday."

During the war against Hamas the blog posted a video showing Israeli Arabs in Yaffo (Tel Aviv) celebrating rocket fire from Gaza… “People always argue with me that Yaffo is a place where Arabs and Jews get along and all is fine and dandy…most of the Arabs there support Hamas and as you can see they celebrate the rockets being fired from Gaza, while taking advantage of the protective measures we have in place for all citizens!…” (see the video)

On March 23, 2020 Nadav Shragai wrote in Israel Hayom "Middle East scholar Professor Raphael Israeli, 84, one of the preeminent researchers on the Arabs of Israel, recently returned to Israel from a research trip abroad.. and went straight into coronavirus quarantine. But he is much more bothered by the political debate over how Arab Israelis will be represented politically. In contrast to widely publicized claims, Israeli sees a "clear trend of disconnect, not any desire to integrate into Israeli society" among Arabs.

He is squarely against the possibility of any Zionist party depending – actively or passively – on the Joint Arab List in order to form a government. He sees what is occurring in Arab Israeli politics as "a serious decline," and finds it difficult to understand why others can't see what he sees: "Not increasing closeness at all, but rather Arab Israelis pulling away from Israeli-ness."

"Let's put our cards on the table: They say that Arab Israelis, who are 20% of the population, want to integrate, but they vote for a confederation of parties that define Israel as a state that commits theft and robbery. Arab MKs, including a few who are currently in the Knesset, supported the "Vision Document" for the Arabs of Israel back in 2006-7, and have never gone back on their support. People have forgotten, but these documents, whose representatives justify the right of return for Arabs even now, reject the idea of Arab Israeli identity and cling to the idea of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation.

"For them, Zionism is colonialism. Hanin Zoabi and Ayman Odeh have adopted this agenda, or something similar to it. Many more who identify with the parties that now make up the Joint Arab List embrace that same agenda. There is no process of moderation, only radicalization.

On March 24, 2020 Dan Shueftan wrote in Israel Hayom "The vast majority of Arab Israeli voters cast ballots for the Joint Arab List. They are well aware of the fact that their political and public leadership rejects the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and openly expresses their understanding, sympathy and support for Israel's enemies' violence and attempts to undermine its foundations, existence and security.

...the Arab "vision documents," which cast the Zionist enterprise as a colonialist project – not as a people returning to their homeland, over which a historical compromise must be reached. But instead, the Jews are seen as foreign occupiers that wants to enjoy the poisoned fruit of the worst crime in modern history, the sin of colonialism.

...This has led to the Palestinian leadership's basic demand – which, not coincidentally, appears in the platform of the Joint Arab List: A "just solution" to the issue of Arab refugees and right of return in accordance with UN Resolution 194.

This demand is anchored in the view that the success of "Zionist colonialism" has interfered with justice and the world order, and seeks to restore them by turning back the clock. The way they see it, the heinous crime can be accepted for now – and that's convenient when the Arabs are benefiting from the achievements of the Jews – but it cannot be legitimized or accepted as a permanent reality...

Israeli Arabs claim that Zionists are colonialists but many, if not most, Israeli Arabs immigrated from other parts of the Middle East. On March 23, 2012 MEMRI reported "Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad Slams Egypt over Fuel Shortage in Gaza Strip, and Says: "Half of the Palestinians Are Egyptians and the Other Half Are Saudis" (Please see video in the link below)

Jews have been persecuted and expelled from most Middle East Countries and they managed to find refuge in Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey. reported that since 1948, 850,000 Jews have been expelled from Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia,Yemen and other Middle East Countries. Israel is the only safe heaven for Jewish refugees in the Middle-East and Jews cannot tolerate to be victims of antisemitic attacks in the Jewish Homeland.

An Arab Islamic Nationalistic Revolt in Israel invalidates the concept of two States for two Peoples. If the two State Solution is not feasible the only possible solution is to recognize that the Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Israeli Arabs who revolt against the Jewish State should be deported.

Jordan was created from British Mandate Palestine, most of the population is Palestinian, Jordan's Queen is Palestinian, the next Jordanian King will be the son of a Palestinian, Jordan's previous King said "Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan". Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said “Palestinians and Jordanians are one people in two states – Jordan and Palestine..." Jordan is Palestine.


Ezequiel Doiny is author of "Obama's assault on Jerusalem's Western Wall"


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter