Dangerous external intervention - Dr. Gabi Avital

by Dr. Gabi Avital

Rather than investigate the claims by the prime minister, who happened to be the head of a political movement that was running in the election, Netanyahu was met with a wave of mockery.

An ancient proverb says that the truth is bound to come to light, or in another version, a thief will eventually hang. The late historian Professor Yosef Nedava said that some individuals and sectors of the public held out hope for "the test of history," which they saw as a kind of Supreme Court that would come down, dig around, and deliver an unimpeachable ruling. "That's a delusion," Nedava said. After the report was published detailing a U.S. Senate committee's findings that the V15 organization received money from the U.S. State Department and used it for one purpose -- to topple the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- has the folk saying proved the historian wrong? 

The truth depends on how you look at it. The average citizen's expectation that media outlets should have probed into the source of the money that flowed to various entities and nonprofit groups before the 2015 election was unfounded. Moreover, during the campaign, the prime minister posted on Facebook that left-wing groups were working to put the Left back into power, supported by funding from foreign governments, and held a press conference about the post. In the end, what happened? 

The proverb is slippery. Rather than investigate the claims by the prime minister, who happened to be the head of a political movement that was running in the election, Netanyahu was met with a wave of mockery. The atmosphere on the Left was one of impending victory, to the extent that heads of the well-known group peacocked around, although still in the guise of "protecting democracy." The sense was that there were too many foreign fingers in the pie. There was no need for proof. The biggest difficulty the prime minister and his team faced was the many ways in which the Left, with massive media backing, responded by attacking en masse the Likud and the person who headed it, in an attempt to create a distraction. This is what Labor MK Shelly Yachimovich, for example, wrote: "It's a paranoid post, confused, both whiny and threatening, by an old-time king whom the masses are tired of and who is feeling threatened because soon he'll be beheaded." 

So what happened here? The findings of the Senate committee confirm the claims made by Netanyahu and his staff. They hold a mirror up to many in the media who preferred to take sides in the election instead of doing their jobs and investigating what many people had already realized: A foreign nation was making generous financial contributions to flagrantly and unfairly intervene in the election process. The media's marginalized coverage of the committee's findings echoes the coverage of the prime minister's recent visit to Africa in the midst of a "huge scandal," which turned out to be nothing. Sleight of pen. 

No matter how we look at things, the bottom line is that we're talking about dangerous intervention by a foreign government and an attack on Israel's sovereignty, with the goal of influencing a democratic election. I look at the Left's cries about budding fascism and the destruction of democracy, not only in the context of the NGO law, and I am forced to conclude that the Left appropriates lofty, enlightened concepts, but its conduct -- with frightening support by the media, which is mostly leftist -- indicates only a passing connection between what the Left says and how it actually conducts itself. If it hadn't been for the Senate investigative committee, it's doubtful that the proverb would have won this struggle. It looks like Professor Nedava was right. Waiting for someone from outside to investigate these groups is a danger to democracy.

Dr. Gabi Avital

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16689

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Boabdil Syndrome - Zakaria Fellah

by Zakaria Fellah


Editor's Note: This article was written on May 13, 2015
 

Let Muslims embrace the challenges of the 21^st century and reap its fruits. -- While part of mankind is exploring outer space we are still striving to see the sunlight.  

Ananta Bijoy was a blogger in Bangladesh. Yesterday, he was hacked to death in Dacca. His crime? To believe that a secular Muslim could debate peacefully about the role of Islam in the 21^st century. He is the third Bangladeshi blogger to meet such a violent and premature death in a month. 

Today, in Pakistan this time, 43 Shia civilians were massacred in a bus. Their crime? To be Shia Muslims. It is enough to get you killed in many parts of the Muslim world. The same can be said if you are a Sunni, in Iraq, for instance…

The murderous insanity continues and I do not see an end to it soon. Muslims killing Muslims. Shia against Sunnis and vice versa. Macabre statistical routine. 

My point? We, Muslims are the principal victims of our own madness. In the name of Islam, we have indulged in an orgy of mass killings unprecedented in Islamic history. And we do very well, without any imported know-how. Of course, from time to time, we remember to blame it on the usual scapegoats: the Zionist plot, Western imperialism, the “fifth column” of traitors, working at debilitating the Muslim world to better dominate it and pillage its resources. 

So, if that was true, why are we killing each other then? Since we are so smart as to uncover the “plots”, why do we let mayhem be our daily lot and decay and misery to be our forecast future? 

The syndrome of Boabdil again and again…   

The last Muslim king of Granada lost Al-Andalus. It was forecast at his birth. When he surrendered Granada to Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, Boabdil cried. Upon the sorry sight of her son’s tears, his mother, Aicha la Horra, is believed to have addressed him in these cruel – prophetic - words:“ Do not cry like a woman for what you were not able to defend as a man”…

Boabdil died in exile far away from his beloved Granada. 

The story of Boabdil is still relevant today. Muslims, especially, Arabs, refuse to see their reality because it reminds them of the loss of Al-Andalus. The fall of Granada is a turning point in the following Arab decline. Arabs were not relevant anymore in the history of the world. Their lands were dominated by fellow Muslim but non-Arab dynasties – Persians, Ottomans – and later, came European colonialism and Imperialism.  

The several attempts for a political “resurrection” failed. The mythical “Arab Unity” was just that, a myth. A misleading one too .Even the “sacred Palestinian cause” ended in tatters. It has always been the tool of failed Arab regimes to divert their population’s anger and frustrations towards the “Zionist” enemy. The fact that a large number of our “Palestinians brothers” have died at the hands of Arabs and other Palestinians, is beside the point.  The Pot-Pourri of nationalistic ideologies – from Nasserism to Baathism- , although secular - at least in name – ended in a fiasco because they embraced policies based on political authoritarianism (cronyism, corruption, and dogmatism), economic crypto-Marxism, social Islamism, and sterile belligerence. 

Right after gaining self-determination from European domination, the train of modernism, knowledge, education, technology, had already gone. We would not catch up with it. 

The gap between the West and the Arab world was just too abysmal. And it is still widening.

Last month, I was struck by a statement from Mr. Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Mosque of Paris. He expressed the wish to see the number of mosques in France doubled!

I was not amazed. I was disheartened…

I can understand that a man of religion like Mr. Boubakeur takes at heart the spiritual well-being of his Muslim flock in France. But his statement was the exact point I am trying to make when I write about Arab – Muslim – decadence and anachronism with the 21^st century. 

Is not Mr. Boubakeur familiar with the reasons behind the Arab-Muslim decay compared to the rest of the world? Or does he – like the Muslim Brotherhood – believe that “Islam is the Solution”, and the only solution? 

I would have been more sympathetic to his a statement had he insisted that instead of mosques, the number of research and development facilities in his (and mine) native Algeria should grow exponentially. Also, did he have the concept of reciprocity in mind?  I mean Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc would have a legitimate claim in seeing their worship places doubled in….Algeria too. But that would be anathema for the Rector and his double language consorts. 

The position of the Rector of Paris is symptomatic of the psychological paralysis of my fellow Muslims. Every aspect of life must be seen through the narrow prism of religion. But I dare to differ. Religion is like sex. It is an intimate relation between two beings. It should remain behind closed doors. No voyeurs allowed in. 

No, Mr. Boubakeur, the French Government does not need to double the number of mosques in France. But if you insist on French assistance, let it be directed to more productive areas: economic, social and educational empowerment, intellectual creativity, development, promotion of freedoms and liberties to name a few. After all, the French are the champions of secularism, no? 

These issues should not be taboo. Let Muslims embrace the challenges of the 21^st century and reap its fruits. Stop preaching one thing and doing another. Face the reality. It is not a pretty sight I agree. While part of mankind is exploring outer space we are still striving to see the sunlight.   

Our people are drowning in the Mediterranean, fleeing nations that once were the cradle of civilization. Our peoples should have a better choice than between the suitcase – exile or the coffin - death.  

Why should our youth continue to suffocate under the yoke of religious norms incompatible with the modernity it aspires to and expresses everyday on social media? And why do you let the adherents of murderous cults take hostage entire populations? We claim that the illiterate and drug-addicted Assassins of Daesh, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Shebab, and others do not represent true Islam, the religion of “peace and tolerance”. Why is it, then, that Muslim voices are so rare and dispersed in denouncing such odious crimes committed in our name? 

We have a unique chance to stand up against the barbarity, the hate, the intolerance of such people and their hijacking of an entire civilization. Are we really serious when we declare war on the rest of world, on anything non-Muslim, non-halal? 

Please, not in my name! 

Are we going to seize the opportunity to prove the world our seriousness in combating evil and be part – albeit belatedly – of the real world, the tangible one and not the heinous masquerade of the so-called Islamic State?    

Or are we once again going to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity? 

At this time, even Boabdil is still crying in his grave…

Zakaria Fellah

Source: Middle East and Terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Who Do Bigots Blame for Police Shootings in America? Israel, of Course! - Alan M. Dershowitz

by Alan M. Dershowitz

"The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians"

In response to the tragic deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling at the hands of police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana, the New York University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) posted the following on its Facebook page:

"In the past 48 hours another two black men have been lynched by the police.... We must remember that many US police departments train with #IsraeliDefenceForces. The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians. What this means is that Palestinians must stand with our black comrades. We must struggle for their liberation. It is as important as our own. #AltonSterling is as important as #AliDawabsheh. Palestinian liberation and black liberation go together. We must recognize this and commit to building for it."

Even in moments of national mourning such as these, SJP bigots cannot help but exploit the deaths of innocent Americans to further their own anti-Semitic political agenda, namely to delegitimize and demonize the nation state of the Jewish people.

By implicating Israel in these killings, SJP is engaging in the old trope of blaming Jews for systemic and far-reaching societal problems. This practice was anti-Semitic when some Christian communities used it to blame Jews for plagues, poisonings, and murders; it was anti-Semitic when the Nazis used it to blame Jews for the failing German economy; and it is still anti-Semitic today. There is no more evidence that any of the police who killed Mr. Castile and Mr. Sterling were in fact trained in Israel than there was that Jews were responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels.

The oppression of black Americans long predates the founding of the state of Israel; contrary to the claims of SJP and like-minded groups, Zionism did not beget racism, nor is Zionism a reflection of racism. It is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. But the twisted logic on the part of SJP should come as no surprise, given that the same organization blamed Zionism for rising tuition costs in the City University of New York college system. The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews — and now Zionists — must be its cause.

Addressing the structural causes of racism in the United States will take more than scapegoating Israel — it will require the type of far-reaching legislative action of which our current Congress seems incapable. By morphing the discussion about criminal justice reform and systemic racism in the United States into a polemic against Israel, SJP makes progress even more difficult.

That said, the reaction by SJP is reflective of a broader trend in hard left politics. Increasingly, groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), MoveOn, Code Pink, and Occupy Wall Street have embraced intersectionality — a radical academic theory, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked.

This radical concept has led to the linking of disparate left-wing causes, no matter how tenuous their connections. Some intersectional feminist activists, for example, insist that feminists must oppose drone strikes (and by extension, Hillary Clinton), because they negatively impact women in the developing world. Even more absurdly, Jill Stein — the Green Party candidate for president — has come out in favor of the bigoted Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, partly on the grounds that support for Israel furthers the interests of the military-industrial complex, and by extension the fossil fuel industry.

Those activists that do not sufficiently embrace the new intersectional orthodoxy, meanwhile, have been targeted by protests: the 2016 Gay Pride parade in Toronto, for example, was broken up by Black Lives Matter for including a police float, and for not sufficiently prioritizing the concerns of black trans women. Similarly, a gay rights event in Chicago was broken up by activists, who insisted on the exclusion of an Israeli organization, which they claimed was co-opting the gay rights agenda and "pinkwashing" Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

Intersectionality seems to be driving hard left activists towards a "No True Scotsman" worldview: increasingly, they insist on a package of unrelated left-wing causes that must be embraced by anyone claiming the label of progressive — including the demonization of Israel as a racist, apartheid state.

Perhaps more worryingly, intersectionality tends towards the conclusion that the existing social, political, and economic system is flawed in so many profound ways, that any attempt at remaking it through democratic means is unacceptable. Activists have become increasingly obsessed with "Shut it Down" protest tactics, and a proud politics of "disrespectability," that prioritizes resistance to a "corrupt," "rigged" socio-economic system over respectful discourse and political compromise.

This helps to explain the sympathetic attitude of Black Lives Matter activists towards groups like Hamas, which embrace terror as a mode of "resistance" (in their view) against Israel. Indeed, Black Lives Matter activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures. While Black Lives Matter claims to disavow violence in securing its political objectives, many of its most prominent members are far more eager to criticize the "Israeli genocide of Palestinians" than to criticize Hamas for using rockets to target Israeli civilians. Black Lives Matter and other hard left groups have been notably silent about other oppressed ethnic groups such as Tibetans, Chechens, and Kurds. The only alleged "oppressors" they single out for condemnation are the Jews. This double standard raises legitimate questions about their real motivations.

Black Lives Matter activists have a sympathetic attitude towards groups like Hamas, which embrace terror as a mode of resistance against Israel. Indeed, BLM activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures.

Moreover, the conflation of police actions in American cities with Israeli military actions in Gaza raises a disturbing question: if the so-called oppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the oppression of people of color in the United States are two sides of the same coin — as the SJP implied in its tweet — are the violent tactics employed by Hamas, and perversely supported by many on the hard left, an appropriate model to emulate in the United States? One hopes that the answer is no, and that the intersectionalist radicals will make that clear to their followers.

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.

• Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8469/police-shootings

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Could Italy Bring Down the Euro? - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

A move by Italy — the third-largest economy in the eurozone — to abandon the euro could strike a potentially fatal blow to the currency and to the bloc itself.

• Meanwhile, at more than 130% of GDP, Italy has one of the biggest public debt burdens in Europe, second only to Greece.
• "A perfect storm of slow or zero Italian economic growth, low interest rates and politically connected, often corrupt, lending have combined to create a situation where the Italian financial system is in need of a large rescue." — Mihir Kapadia, Sun Global Investments.
• M5S blames the euro for Italy's woes, and many Italians agree.

The eurosceptic Five Star Movement (M5S) has overtaken Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's Democratic Party (PD) in several opinion polls and is now the most popular political party in Italy.

The poll results represent a significant shift in Italy's political landscape and have potentially far-reaching implications for the future of the European Union.

M5S, which would win national elections if they were held today, has called for a referendum on whether Italy, which is facing the collapse of its banking system, should keep the euro, the single currency of the European Union, or bring back the Italian lira.

A move by Italy — the third-largest economy in the eurozone — to abandon the euro could strike a potentially fatal blow to the currency and to the bloc itself.

An Ipsos poll, published by the newspaper Corriere della Sera on July 5, gave M5S 30.6% of the vote, up from 28.9% in April, while Renzi's center-left PD fell to 29.8% from 31.1%.

A Demos poll, published by La Repubblica on July 1, gave M5S 32.3% of the vote, compared to 30.2% for the PD. An EMG Acqua poll for TeleGiornale La7 television on June 28 gave M5S 31.7%, compared to 31.2% for the PD.

According to Ipsos pollster Nando Pagnoncelli, the polls show that M5S "is increasingly viewed as a political force that is capable of governing the country."

The anti-establishment M5S was founded in 2009 by Beppe Grillo, a well-known comedian and blogger who has led a popular fight against rampant corruption in Italy's political system. The party advocates for direct democracy — a system in which political decision making is devolved from the government to citizens — as a way to bypass traditional political parties embroiled in corruption scandals.

M5S, which portrays itself as post-ideological and draws support from both the left and right sides of the political aisle, has leveraged the internet to attract millions of voters, especially among the young.

The 67-year-old Grillo recently handed over the reins of the party to a new "directorate" of five young leaders, of which 30-year-old Luigi Di Maio has become the most prominent. He is widely expected to be the party's candidate for prime minister at the next election.

M5S achieved a major breakthrough in municipal elections on June 20, when it won 19 out of the 20 cities — including Rome and Turin — in which its candidates stood for mayor. The M5S landslide presents a serious challenge to Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

Renzi has staked his political future on an October referendum in which he wants Italian voters to support wide-ranging reforms to the constitution. The most important reform involves reducing the size and curtailing the power of the Italian Senate in order to ease gridlock in the lawmaking process.

Renzi, who says the reforms are essential to streamlining the government, has promised to resign if he loses the vote. M5S and all other opposition parties are against the reforms, which they say will erode democratic checks and balances.

A Euromedia Research poll conducted on July 1 found that 34% of Italians would vote against Renzi's plan, with 28.9% in favor, 19.4% undecided on which way to vote and 17.7% undecided on whether to vote.

The political uncertainty in Italy is drawing renewed attention to the country's financial woes. Italy's banks are burdened by €360 billion ($400 billion) in bad loans. This figure amounts to more than 20% of Italy's GDP and accounts for one-third of all non-performing loans in the eurozone. Meanwhile, at more than 130% of GDP, Italy has one of the biggest public debt burdens in Europe, second only to Greece. The International Monetary Fund expects the Italian economy to grow just 1% this year.

Mihir Kapadia of Sun Global Investments explains:

"A perfect storm of slow or zero Italian economic growth, low interest rates and politically connected, often corrupt, lending have combined to create a situation where the Italian financial system is in need of a large rescue."

M5S blames the euro for Italy's woes, and many Italians agree. Faced with a financial crisis of potentially epic proportions, the October vote could backfire on Renzi and turn into a referendum on the Italian government itself — and even on the euro.
Writing in the Financial Times, columnist Wolfgang Münchau, cautioned:

"The political dynamic in Italy is not much different from the one in the UK. The electorate is in an insurrectionary mood. The country has had virtually no productivity growth since it joined the euro in 1999. The Italian political establishment has until recently been as dismissive of its chances of losing the referendum as the British establishment was until [Brexit on June 23]. They are still dismissive of the chances of a Five Star victory — and will be until the moment it happens."

M5S's Luigi Di Maio, who, polls show, has a very good chance of succeeding Renzi as prime minister, has reiterated his party's long-standing call for a referendum on the euro:

"We want a consultative referendum on the euro. The euro as it is today does not work. We either have alternative currencies or a 'euro 2.' We entered the European Parliament to change many treaties. The mere fact that a country like Great Britain even held a referendum on whether to leave the EU signals the failure of the European Union."

A referendum on the euro would be "consultative" because Italian law does not allow such plebiscites to change international treaties, including those that involve Italy's relations with the European Union.

Luigi Di Maio, who, polls show, has a very good chance of becoming Italy's prime minister, has reiterated his party's long-standing call for a referendum on the euro, saying "The euro as it is today does not work." (Image source: M5S video screenshot)

But Grillo is seeking a legislative change to allow an "ad hoc" exception, similar to the one in June 1989, when Italy held a consultative referendum on whether to transfer certain powers to the European Parliament. The exception would presumably be approved if M5S wins the prime minister's office.

Meanwhile, analysts are warning that the turmoil in Italy could spread to the rest of the eurozone. The risk of contagion is due to the so-called "doom loop" that exists between European governments and European banks, which have more than doubled the holdings of their own governments' debt from a low of €355 billion in September 2008 to €791 billion today.

International banks have lent Italy more than €500 billion, according to Die Welt, which reports that French banks alone hold €250 billion of Italian debt. German banks hold €84 billion of Italian bonds. The only question, according to analysts, is whether taxpayers or bondholders will be left holding the tab.

Wolfgang Münchau of the Financial Times warned of the consequences of a disorderly Italian exit from the euro:

"An Italian exit from the single currency would trigger the total collapse of the eurozone within a very short period. It would probably lead to the most violent economic shock in history, dwarfing the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 and the 1929 Wall Street crash."

As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph has pointed out, however, Italy must choose between the euro and its own economic survival. Leaving the euro "may be the only way to avert a catastrophic deindustrialization of the country before it is too late."
 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8468/italy-euro

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Facebook finally erases Hamas propaganda - Tal Polon

by Tal Polon

Facebook erases tens of Hamas pages, including those of senior Hamas members.

Facebook closed tens of pages linked to the terrorist organization Hamas, including the personal account of senior Hamas member Ezzat al-Rishq.

Rishq condemned the action, tweeting, “I condemn Facebook’s administration for closing my personal account for the seventh time in a row, and I consider the [decision as displaying] bias in favor the occupation and its dictates and against the struggle of our people for the sake of freedom."

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, The Head of the Israeli legal group Shurat Hadin, which takes legal action against Arab terrorists, reacted to the news in a press release.

"Facebook's closing of the pages proves that it does indeed have the ability to shut down and monitor incitement and violence on its pages, in contrast to what it has claimed up until now," she said. "I expect that Facebook will manifest its goal of being a social networking site, and not a platform for murderous terror."

Just this week, Shurat Hadin filed a billion-dollar lawsuit against against Facebook, for injury and damages incurred by American casualties of Hamas terrorist attacks that were carried out between June 2014 and March 2016.


Tal Polon

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214972

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Republican platform takes strong pro-Israel stand - Eli Leon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Eli Leon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

In dramatic departure from 2012, GOP's draft platform sidesteps two-state solution, slams BDS movement as anti-Semitic • Draft also recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible capital" and calls for the U.S. Embassy to move there.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump | Photo credit: AP

The draft platform formulated by the Republican Party ahead of its 2016 National Convention is expected to include groundbreaking pro-Israel language. 

The draft recognizes Jerusalem "as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state," and called for the American embassy "to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law." This is a dramatic departure from the platform the GOP introduced before the 2012 presidential elections, which made no mention of Jerusalem.

The suggested platform also sidesteps the two-state solution, saying the party supports "the establishment of a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region," and "opposes any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and calls for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so."

The GOP Platform Subcommittee, which drafted the platform, blasted the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement as anti-Semitic and called for "effective legislation to thwart actions intended to limit commercial relations with Israel."

The draft further says the Republicans commit to "ensuring Israel maintains a qualitative military edge over all adversaries, and supports Israel's right to defend itself in conventional warfare as well as against legal, economic, and cultural warfare." 

The Republican Party "rejects the false notion that Israel is an occupier" and is "proud to stand with Israel now and always," the draft said.

The language must be approved by the full Republican National Committee ahead of the convention in Cleveland next week.

Also on Tuesday, Democrat Bernie Sanders endorsed former rival Hillary Clinton for president in a display of party unity, describing her as the best candidate to fix the United States' problems and beat Republican Donald Trump in the Nov. 8 election.

"This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face, and there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that," he told a raucous crowd in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that included plenty of vocal Sanders supporters.

"I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States," the Vermont senator said. 

Trump ridiculed the move, tweeting, "Bernie Sanders endorsing crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs."

In a statement, the Trump campaign said Sanders was now officially part of the rigged system the senator had criticized during his long primary battle with Clinton.

"Bernie's endorsement becomes Exhibit A in our rigged system -- the Democrat Party is disenfranchising its voters to benefit the select and privileged few," said Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser to Trump.

Eli Leon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=34951&hp=1

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hillary’s Libya Debacle - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

How Clinton's reckless push for military intervention has created a dire strategic threat to the U.S.

Colin Powell’s famous words, “You break it, you own it,” are coming back to haunt Hillary Clinton. Powell said those words in cautioning President George W. Bush about the harsh unintended consequences that could result from the military action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Hillary voted to support while in the Senate. As Secretary of State, Hillary forgot all about Colin Powell’s prescient warning. She became the prime mover within the Obama administration for military action to forcibly remove Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi. In fact, upon learning of his death at the hands of a mob, Hillary Clinton exulted. Paraphrasing Julius Caesar, Hillary proclaimed on Oct. 20, 2011:  “We came, we saw, he died.” 

What followed the toppling of Gaddafi’s regime, however, was utter chaos, not the smooth transition to a pluralistic democracy that Hillary had naively envisioned. Indeed, the anarchy that ensued has created a dire strategic threat to the United States and its Western and Arab allies that had not existed during the last years of Gaddafi’s reign. Especially after Gaddafi announced the end of his nuclear weapons program in December 2003 and followed through with allowing the removal of nuclear materials thereafter, his regime posed no strategic threat to U.S. national security.

No doubt Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, who sought to ruthlessly put down the rebellion that threatened his rule. However, his death and the end of his regime, which Hillary celebrated, fixed nothing. 

Robert Gates, Obama’s Defense Secretary at the time, along with other senior leaders in the Obama administration such as Vice President Joseph Biden and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, foresaw the dangers of an ill-planned U.S. military intervention without a realistic plan for a peaceful transition. They warned against it. But Hillary’s call for intervention won out.  She persuaded a reluctant President Obama to enter the fray in support of our European and Arab allies on humanitarian grounds. 

Hillary spent countless hours shuttling among foreign capitals to shore up what became a NATO-led coalition against Gaddafi’s regime.  She engineered the passage of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force in Libya to protect the vulnerable civilian population, which she apparently interpreted to authorize outright regime change. Hillary had personally met with the chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and other Libyans who might become a part of a successor regime. Her top aide Jake Sullivan explained Hillary’s confidence in these leaders’ ability to bring the various factions in the country together to form a relatively stable, democratic and inclusive post-Gaddafi transitional government. He said Hillary had received written pledges to bring about just such a transition from the Transitional National Council. 

In a succession of e-mails, Hillary’s senior aides at the State Department, and her informal outside confidante Sidney Blumenthal, sang her praises for leading the implementation of the Libyan strategy she had pushed Obama to accept.

 “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

Hillary chomped at the bit to take credit for what she initially regarded as a great success in Libya when things seemed to be going well. She sent an e-mail to her top aide at the State Department, Jake Sullivan, forwarding Blumenthal’s recommendation. “Pls read below,” Hillary wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic.”

Sycophant Sullivan wrote back, “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.”

Sullivan had already written an e-mail to two other high level State Department officials, Cheryl Mills and Victoria Nuland, just a day before the above-mentioned Blumenthal e-mail, effusively praising his boss for her leadership role in steering Obama administration policy on Libya. “HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.”

Sullivan then laid out a detailed chronology of all the actions Hillary had taken to accomplish her mission. 

However, Hillary’s mission turned into a strategic disaster.  Weapons in the hands of non-state actors, including jihadists, were spreading from Libya across national borders to help further inflame conflicts in Mali, Syria, and elsewhere. Migrants were using Libya as a disembarkation point to try and reach Europe across the Mediterranean Sea in overwhelming numbers. Armed militias fought each other within Libya, while rival governments were formed. Anti-American jihadists, who benefitted from the outcome of the ‘Clinton Doctrine” in Libya, filled the power vacuum. The tragic result was the terrorist attack in Benghazi that took four Americans’ lives on September 11, 2012, including the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Just as Hillary was, in the words of FBI Director James Comey, “extremely careless” in the handling of classified information on her private e-mail system, she was reckless in ignoring clear warning signals leading up to the deadly September 11^th Benghazi terrorist attack. Indeed, in addition to threats, there were previous terrorist attacks, including one in June 2012 against the U.S. consulate compound itself and another the same month hitting a convoy carrying the British ambassador. The British decided to evacuate from Benghazi. Yet Hillary pressed on to establish a permanent U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens took his fateful trip to Benghazi in September 2012 in part to advance Hillary’s plan. “At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified to a Congressional committee in 2013. 

Multiple requests from people on the ground in Libya for more security, including some from Ambassador Stevens himself, were sent to the State Department prior to the September 11, 2012 attack.  Stevens’ last diary entry was “never ending security threats.”  Somehow the security concerns never reached Hillary’s desk. She told the House Benghazi Committee that “I was not responsible for specific security requests.”  But Hillary’s attempt to wash her hands of any responsibility raises more questions than it answers. 

Hillary said that Stevens was a friend. She had, in her words, “hand-picked” Stevens for what she knew was a highly dangerous post even as her so-called Clinton Doctrine unraveled. By her own account, there was “lawlessness” in Benghazi, which she said Stevens had been aware of. Yet she never bothered to reach out to him directly to ask whether there was sufficient security for the mission she had hand-picked her friend to carry out.  She simply said that Stevens knew the risks and “felt comfortable” with conditions on the ground. One phone call or e-mail directly to her personal friend would have informed her of Stevens’ concerns over the “never ending security threats.” Hillary had not even provided Stevens with her cell phone number, fax number or personal e-mail address in case he needed to reach her. Apparently, Hillary had less compunctions about giving out that contact information to Blumenthal.

Through her reckless indifference to the security needs of Stevens and other Americans who became caught in the terrorist attack at the Benghazi facility that she wanted to make permanent, Hillary Clinton for all intents and purposes left them there unprotected to face the deadly consequences. She then lied to the families of the victims of the attack, telling them that an obscure anti-Muslim video was the cause of the attack when she knew at the time that the attack was a coordinated, pre-meditated act of jihadist terrorism. And she doubled down on her reckless indifference – literally - a year later at a Senate hearing with her infamous remark: “What difference at this point does it make?”

As she runs to become the next president and commander-in-chief, Hillary Clinton is trying to disown what she broke in Libya. Her recklessness and indifference to the consequences of her actions, as well as her lies to cover up her mistakes, follow the same pattern as her e-mail debacle and should disqualify her from the presidency.

Joseph Klein

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263487/hillarys-libya-debacle-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Saudi Media Campaign Supports Iranian Opposition, Demands Toppling Of Iranian Regime - MEMRI

by MEMRI

Numerous articles praised the Iranian opposition and its resistance to the regime; also published were cartoons, images, and posters attacking the Iranian regime

In recent days, a massive Saudi media campaign in support of the Iranian opposition has been underway. The campaign was launched right after former Saudi intelligence minister and ambassador to the U.S. Emir Turki Al-Faisal attended the July 9, 2016 Paris conference of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella organization of five Iranian opposition groups in exile, the largest one being Mojahedin-e-Khalq.

Addressing the conference, Al-Faisal harshly criticized the Iranian regime, and expressed explicit support for the opposition's demand to topple the Iranian regime – the first time a Saudi official has expressed such support. Al-Faisal further emphasized that the Iranian people cannot go on suffering from the regime's policy of oppressing and humiliating its opponents and minorities within the country, particularly its Arabs, Sunnis, and Kurds.

Al-Faisal's speech received widespread positive coverage in the Saudi press, and this coverage was accompanied by increased expressions of anti-Iran sentiment and of support for the opposition in that country. Several articles in the Saudi press,[1] including editorials, launched withering attacks on Iran and called for toppling its regime. The articles claimed that the Iranian regime had adopted a policy of racial repression and discrimination within Iran and was even exporting this policy to several Arab countries via Iranian support for various terrorist organizations operating within these countries. The articles encouraged the Iranian opposition to work at bringing down the Iranian regime, a course of action defined as "the optimal way" for restoring peace and security to the entire region. Articles in a similar vein were published in the Kuwaiti and Bahraini press.[2] .

Numerous articles praised the Iranian opposition and its resistance to the regime;[3] also published were cartoons, images, and posters attacking the Iranian regime.[4]
 
It should be noted that on social media, Saudi intellectuals, for example, the author and journalist Turki Al-Hamad and Muhammad A'al Al-Sheikh, who tweeted on their Twitter accounts that Turki Al-Faisal's participation in the Paris Iranian opposition congress was a mistake. Al-Hamad even argued that by his participation, Al-Faisal may have provided justification for Iranian intervention in the neighboring countries.[5]
 
Following are examples from the Saudi anti-Iranian regime media campaign:
 
Turki Al-Faisal At National Council Of Resistance Of Iran Conference: "I Too Want To Topple" The Iranian Regime

In his statements at the National Council of Resistance of Iran conference in Paris, Emir Turki Al-Faisal harshly criticized the Iranian regime for oppressing its people. He said that ever since the days of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Iranian regime had worked to export the Islamic Revolution to the Arab and Islamic countries, in an attempt to control them by means of interfering in their internal affairs and establishing sectarian terrorist organizations on the pretext of defending "the oppressed" in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. He also accused Iran of aiding armed sectarian groups, as well as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, and Al-Qaeda, in order to foment chaos in the region. Stressing that this Iranian policy has caused devastation, spread sectarianism, and led to bloodshed in Iran and the Middle East, he added that it has, first and foremost, impacted Iran's own citizens. In response to audience chants of "The people wants to topple the regime" – a common slogan during the Arab Spring – Al-Faisal said: "I too want to topple the regime."[6] 

 

Editorials: Toppling The Iranian Regime Is The Best Way To Achieve Global Peace And Security; Al-Youm: Iranians Call To Topple Regime, Many Countries Around The World Agree

Following Turki Al-Faisal's statements, many articles condemning the Iranian regime and supporting its removal were published. The official Saudi daily Al-Youm's July 11 editorial criticized the Iranian regime's policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution to the countries in the region, leading to their destruction, and argued that toppling the regime was the best way to ensure peace and security in those countries that are subject to Iranian interference.[7] The editorial stated: "Exporting the Iranian Khomeinist revolution to the world has led only to the destruction of all nations that experimented, and are still experimenting, with the dictates and principles of this revolution of devastation... 

Removing the regime of the Rule of the Jurisprudent from Iran, the region, and the world in general is the best way to spread security, peace, and tranquility in many communities that experienced the Iranian regime's interference in their affairs. The Iranian people [itself] is still calling for toppling the regime of the Rule of the Jurisprudent, and many countries around the world agree [with this call], in light of the crimes, horrors, and terrorist actions it carries out...

"The oppression that was and still is being carried out by the Iranian regime against the Ahwazi people and in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Lebanon, as well as its open support for the Lebanese terrorist organization Hizbullah and its total support for destructive and terrorist actions around the world, confirms [the statement] that toppling the regime of the Rule of the Jurisprudent is the best way to achieve security and peace in many regions and countries around the world.

"Since the days of Khomeini, the Iranian regime has tried to force its authority on the Islamic countries and to spread the principle of exporting the revolution to the Arab and Islamic countries. However, this aggressive attempt has only led to the sowing of widespread conflict [in these countries], and to their destruction – sparking wars there and undermining the stability and security of [their] communities. The blatant Iranian interference in the affairs of the other has caused conflicts, riots, and wars."[8] 

Iran's satanic policy in the Arab region – the devil remains "on" while the angel is permanently "off" (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, July 11, 2016)

Senior Saudi Writer: Arab Representation At The Paris Session – A Message To The Iranian People To Stop Showing Restraint Towards The Regime

Ayman Al-Hamad, an editorial writer for the official Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, also criticized what he called the Iranian regime's racist policy towards non-Persian minorities, and described how it attempts to apply this policy in other Arab countries, leading to their destruction, which benefitted Israel. He wrote: "The Iranian regime in Tehran has turned its back on its sons, who have criticized its policy and rule... Those who oppose the concept of the Rule of the Jurisprudent and its authority is against the revolution that brought the slogans of liberty, victory for the Iranian man, and the struggle against corruption. The fall of the Shah regime gave rise to an extremist theocratic segment that utilized all forms of barbaric behavior, constitutionally legitimized sectarianism, and championed the Persian race...

"The Iranian regime... attempted to export its crisis in religious guise, by undermining regional security and stability, supporting armed factions in the Arab and Muslim countries by egging them on and aiding them with weapons and training under revolutionary or religious slogans, and later by carrying out terrorist acts [using these same armed proxies]. Today we find in the Arab countries those who are tempted by the slogans of the Iranian clerics who are attempting, by means of these slogans, to win over the Shi'ites, to play upon their religious sentiment, to try to undermine their sense of nationalism, and to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of their leaders. This comes while the regime in Tehran is not concealing its racism against the Arab Shi'ites in Iran – the events in Al-Ahwaz being the best evidence of this regime's racism – and is showering praise on the Palestinian issue, which it sees as its ticket [into] other Arab [countries]...

"It is Iran and its militias that have served the Israeli occupation, through their hostile actions towards the Arab countries, particularly after the Arab Spring. [Iran's] support for the Syrian regime's [actions] against its own people led to the destruction of Syria. This is also true for Iraq. These two countries began dealing with the threat of division, which led to the two greatest Arab armies leaving the Arab balance of power because of Iran's policy, enabling Israel to sleep soundly. The Iranian opposition summit that was held two days ago [July 9] included large-scale Arab and international representation, reflecting the aversion to the existing regime in Tehran and to its actions against its people and its Arab and Muslim neighbors. This Arab, Islamic, and international representation is a message to the Iranian homeland not to continue to show restraint as it witnesses the economic destruction of its cultured, capable, and lofty country, and the expulsion of its people – all for the sake of the empty words of its ayatollahs."[9]

Al-Sharq: "Peoples Can Withstand Any Regime, But At Some Point Things Go Too Far"

The July 11 editorial of the official Saudi daily Al-Sharq argued that the Iranian regime was not working in the interests of its people, and that it was not seeking regional stability because it would ultimately lead to a change that it did not desire, since the peoples always win in the end:

"Peoples can withstand any regime, but at some point things go too far, and in the case of the Iranian people, this point was reached many years [ago]... The Iranian regime does not seek stability in the region, and does not want its people benefiting from the country's resources via development programs and services; rather, it wants illogical and useless adventures aimed at harming peaceful peoples and interfering in their affairs in a way that is unacceptable to the entire world. The rulers in Tehran should note the fact of a turning point, which could lead them to a situation they do not desire, as peoples always emerge victorious."[10]

Articles, Cartoons, Posters In Saudi Press Criticizing Iranian Regime, Praising Iranian Opposition

The Saudi media campaign to topple the Iranian regime also included cartoon, posters, and articles supporting the Iranian opposition and its call for toppling the country's current regime. Below are a few examples:

 

"The people wants to topple the [Iranian] regime" ('Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016) 

 
 

The two-faced Iranian "Mullah regime" funds the terrorist organizations while it executes the "Iranian people" (Al-Jazirah, Saudi Arabia, July 12, 2016)

 

Article in Saudi daily supports Paris conference with headline in Arabic and Farsi: "Freedom Summit... 'Very Good'... Death to Supreme Leader [Khamenei]... 'Death to the Leader of Iran'" accompanied by image of Khamenei crumbling to dust ('Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 12, 2016)

 

Infographic: "100,000 Iranians expose the shame of the Rule of the Jurisprudent" (Makkah, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016)

 

Saudi daily posts video titled "The Ayatollah Terrorism" highlighting organizations supported by Iran, such as Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen ('Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016)

 

Article in Saudi daily titled "The Rule of the Jurisprudent Coordinates With ISIS, As the World Turns a Blind Eye to Iran's Terrorism" ('Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 12, 2016)

 

Infographic titled "Iran and Israel – Two Sides of the Same Coin" compares Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and Iran's treatment of Arab Ahwazis (Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016)

 

"Ahwazi Revolution" strikes blow against "Iranian Government" (Al-Jazirah, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016)

 

Infographic: "The Acid of the [Iranian] Basij Disfigures Iranian Women" (Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016)

 

Headline in Saudi daily: "Media: Ayatollah Regime Faces Grave Situation, Undergoes Worst Crisis Since Its Establishment"; the subhead reads: "Former French Human Rights Minister: Political Situation In Iran Is Shaky" (Al-Youm, Saudi Arabia, July 12, 2016)

 

Infographic: Ayatollah Khomeini's false promises to the Iranian people for a rosy future after the Islamic Revolution (Al-Sharq, Saudi Arabia, July 12, 2016)

 

Infographic: "The Courts of the Iranian Islamic Revolution – The Most Dangerous Body Established After 1979 [the year of the revolution]" (Al-Sharq, Saudi Arabia, July 12, 2016)

 

Infographics: "After the nuclear agreement, Iran has become more aggressive" and increased its terrorist acts around the world (Makka, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 2016)

Endnotes:

[1] See, for example, the following July 12, 2016 articles: "We Also Want to Topple the Ayatollah Regime" by Khalid Al-Sharida, Al-Youm (Saudi Arabia), and "Emir [Turki Al-Faisal] – We Also Want to Topple the Regime" by Faisal Al-'Asaf, Al-Hayat (London),

[2] See, for example, the July 12, 2016 articles by 'Abdallah Al-Hadlaq in the official Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan titled "Liberating Iran and Its People from the Ayatollahs' Terror" and the article by Faisal Al-Shaikh in the official Bahraini daily Al-Watan titled "Toppling the Rule of the Jurisprudent."

[3] For example, July 11, 2016 articles in the official Saudi dailies 'Okaz and Al-Riyadh described the Iranian regime's persecution and oppression of ethnic minorities in the country, such as the Ahwazi Arabs, Kurds, and Baluchis. 'Okaz even featured an interview with an exiled Ahwazi human rights activist, who said that there has been a recent increase in voices inside Iran speaking out against the regime's oppression at home and its interference in the affairs of other countries. See: 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016; Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016. The Saudi press published similar reports in 2014. See also MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5904, Saudi Media Campaign Denounces 'Ethnic Minority Oppression' In Iran, December 15, 2014.

[4] 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016; Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016.

[5] Twitter.com/TurkiHAlhamad, July 9, 2016; Twitter.com/alshaikhmhmd, July 9, 2016.

[6]   Al-Iqtisadiyya (Saudi Arabia), July 9, 2016.

[7] It should be mentioned that the following day, July 12, Al-Youm featured another editorial with a similar message titled "Together to Support the Iranian People and Defeat the Rule of the Jurisprudent."

[8] Al-Youm (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016.

[9] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016.

[10] Al-Sharq (Saudi Arabia), July 11, 2016.

MEMRI

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9323.htm

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.