The rapid deterioration of Haaretz - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

Publisher Amos Schocken has imposed a radical ideology on the daily, seemingly oblivious to the harm that the paper's political agenda, anti-Israel delegitimization, and demonic views more appropriate for the ‎Palestinian media, have inflicted.

Haaretz, Israel's oldest Hebrew daily newspaper, was established in 1918 by a group of left-‎leaning businessmen. In 1937, Salman Schocken bought the newspaper and it was edited by ‎his son Gershom until his death in 1990.‎

Although its circulation was never high when compared to the tabloids Maariv and Yedioth ‎Ahronoth, it has for many years been regarded as the most influential intellectual newspaper ‎in Israel with its readership including leading political and economic elites. It was considered a ‎liberal newspaper although its economic section was conservative, and it published many ‎outstanding feature articles. ‎

After Gershom died, his son Amos assumed the role of chairman, CEO and publisher. In August ‎‎2006, 25% of the Haaretz shares were sold to the German publisher M. DuMont Schauberg, ‎whose father was a Nazi party member and whose publishing enterprises promoted Nazi ‎ideology. ‎

Although he passionately denies being post-Zionist, Amos imposed his radical left-wing ‎ideology onto the newspaper which has now been transformed into a vehicle that provides ‎much of the anti-Israeli sentiment, and even anti-Semitic lies and distortions, that is a boon to ‎our adversaries.‎

It is difficult to comprehend the depths to which this once highly regarded newspaper has ‎descended. There are still a number of level-headed commentators, such as Ari Shavit and ‎Shlomo Avineri, and the occasional "fig leaf" in the form of conservative columns contributed by Moshe Arens ‎and Israel Harel. But the opinion section is overwhelmingly dominated by delusional anti-‎Zionists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, who promote the idea that Israel was born in sin. ‎Levy repeatedly reiterates that Israel is one of the world's most brutal and tyrannical regimes ‎in existence today and repeatedly accuses the Jewish state of being an apartheid state. Even ‎publisher Schocken wrote a column titled "Only international pressure will end Israeli ‎apartheid."‎

These demonic views of their own country would be more appropriate for publication in the ‎Palestinian media than in an Israeli newspaper. ‎

Furthermore, even the reporting became as opinionated as op-ed articles, frequently totally ‎distorting news events and depicting Israel in the worst possible light. The reporting has also ‎become selective in its news coverage, a prime example being the suppressed coverage of ‎then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's alleged corruption, in order not to create problems for the ‎Gaza disengagement.‎

If Haaretz was restricted to an Israeli audience its impact would be minimal, as it has a small ‎circulation and few Israelis are influenced by what it publishes.‎

The real problem is the English language edition and its internet site, which is monitored by ‎diplomats and reproduced by the global media. 

It serves to demonize and delegitimize Israel to ‎countless internet readers throughout the world who are under the illusion that they are ‎reading a reputable liberal Israeli newspaper. Pro-Israel Diaspora activists who would normally ‎have protested the bias and even the anti-Semitic slant of anti-Israeli media outlets, have been ‎confronted by editors who defended their approach on the grounds that it reflected the ‎editorial policies of a respected daily Israeli newspaper.‎

The damage is incalculable. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that in recent years, the ‎newspaper has caused more harm to the image of Israel than the combined efforts of our ‎adversaries. Nothing demonstrates this more than the front-page headlines in 2009 based ‎upon unsubstantiated evidence from the discredited Breaking the Silence group which first ‎promoted the lie that Israeli soldiers were committing war crimes. ‎

After successive days in which Haaretz highlighted this blood libel, the IDF chief military ‎advocate general released a report describing the accusations as "categorically false." Instead ‎of apologizing and expressing remorse, Haaretz responded sarcastically, suggesting that while ‎the report showed the IDF to be "pure as snow," implying that the accusers -- fighters and ‎commanders from some of its best combat units -- were a bunch of liars, who exaggerated their case.

Despite the unequivocal repudiation of these false allegations, the damage was done. The ‎global media enthusiastically highlighted the news from the "influential" Israeli newspaper. ‎This paved the way for subsequent allegations of Israeli war crimes, culminating in the now ‎discredited Goldstone report, which remains a central feature of the defamation leveled ‎against us by our adversaries. ‎

Another notable example was the 2014 Haaretz Conference held in New York, where in ‎deference to chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat, who addressed the conference, ‎the Israeli flag was removed from the podium.‎

The situation has continued to deteriorate, with more readers canceling subscriptions, even ‎including many prominent left-wing supporters who can no longer tolerate the ever increasing ‎anti-Israel hysteria that fills the pages of the paper. ‎

Uzi Baram, a respected former minister and MK representing the Labor party, wrote a column stating that even left-wing readers do not ‎want to read a newspaper "that is ashamed of its Zionism and which believes that without ‎boycott from abroad, Israel has no chance of changing its position."‎

The harshest blow came from liberal American journalist icon Jeffrey Goldberg, who is ‎regarded as the principal media source used by U.S. President Barack Obama in relation to ‎Israel and Jewish affairs. Goldberg erupted after two American Jewish historians published an ‎article in Haaretz accusing the U.N. of establishing a Jewish racist state that is today an ‎extension of Western colonialism. They proudly announced that they would never set foot in ‎any synagogue that supported Israel.‎

Goldberg also responded to a recent Levy op-ed titled "Yes, Israel is an evil state" -- which ‎described Israel as an entity based on "pure evil. Sadistic evil. Evil for its own sake." He ‎announced that he was canceling his subscription, tweeting that "when neo-Nazis are emailing ‎me links to Haaretz op-eds declaring Israel to be evil, I'm going to take a break." He also noted ‎that "I can read anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli things like this on other websites. There really no ‎need for an Israeli website like this."‎

Sadly, Schocken's delusional response was predictable. He expressed regret that the critics ‎failed to recognize that, far from being a post-Zionist, he would not be deterred from ensuring ‎that Haaretz maintained a Zionist outlook. Having had a lengthy personal discussion with ‎Schocken on this issue, I can state with confidence that he is genuinely convinced that he is ‎on the side of the angels and does not appreciate the immense harm that Haaretz's anti-Israel ‎demonization, delegitimization and political agenda have inflicted upon us abroad. Nor does ‎he recognize the extent to which Haaretz has divorced itself from any semblance of political ‎reality in terms of the nation. ‎


Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=36123

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

One accident (SpaceX) , multiple casualties - Aharon Lapidot

by Aharon Lapidot

The damage, which will have an adverse effect on many fields, will be felt immediately, but also in the long run, on a more strategic level.

Only rarely does an accident undo scientific progress. The explosion at the SpaceX launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida on Thursday was one such accident. The damage, which will have an adverse effect on many fields, will be felt immediately, but also in the long run, on a more strategic level.

The explosion is a crushing blow to the Israeli satellite industry, and especially to the Israel Aerospace Industries. 

It must be stated that the IAI shares no blame for the explosion. The Israeli engineers are the victims, so to speak, because years of meticulous effort and superb design went down the drain. The satellite on the Falcon 9 rocket payload, the Amos-6, was the IAI's crown jewel. It was the largest, most sophisticated and most advanced satellite it ever built. 

According to some, it was the most advanced satellite of its kind. The Amos-6 had a long and distinguished "lineage" of Israeli communication satellites. It is thanks to the various iterations of the Amos satellites that Israel ranks as one of the most technologically advanced nations. Watching it go up in flames on the launch pad must have been heart-wrenching for all those involved. 

The accident will have major repercussions. It will take years before the IAI can build another satellite, and it is unclear whether anyone would be willing to commission another such satellite. 

Facebook planned to use the satellite for connecting rural Africa to the internet through a space version of Wi-Fi. Amos-6 was the most important element of this project, because it was to serve as the backbone of this service. But now the internet giant will have to postpone its project indefinitely. This is a loss not just for Facebook, but for Africa as well. 

Israel-based Spacecom Satellite Communications, which operated the Amos satellite series, is now devastated, not just because a sophisticated satellite worth some $200 million was torn to pieces. The company announced its acquisition by Beijing Xinwei Technology Group just last week, but in the wake of Thursday's accident, this acquisition, which was contingent on a successful launch this coming Saturday, will not move forward and it is unclear whether the Israeli company has a future at all. 

Elon Musk's SpaceX also suffered a massive blow Thursday. The company has been developing trailblazing, bold technology, very much like Musk himself, who introduced to the world the popular electric car Tesla. 

The SpaceX rocket that was to deliver Amos-6 to space is the world's first reusable satellite launch vehicle. 

Other orbital launchers, such as the European Ariane 5 and the American Delta IV, are not designed for multiple launches. SpaceX hopes "reused" rockets will help protect the environment and reduce costs. Over the past several months it managed to land three rockets on a floating platform after sending them to space. The explosion on Thursday, which is still being investigated, will no doubt cast a big shadow over the future of this rocket. 

The explosion will be heard around the world. Confidence in advanced technology will be shaken, and as a consequence, development will slow, and there will be a delay in connecting large swaths of Africa to the internet. Meanwhile, in Israel, one of the most advanced industries could go under.

Aharon Lapidot

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17075

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

U of Illinois mulls 'substantial consequences' for 'non-inclusive behavior' - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

--public universities are unquestionably required to permit students to engage in kinds of expression that other people might subjectively describe as hateful.

University of Illinois student government is seriously considering a proposal that would mandate "substantial consequences" to student organizations that engage in what is termed "non-inclusive behavior."

They can't quite describe what that behavior is.  But they'll know it when they see it.

Reason:

In defense of the bill, Student Senate Vice President Spencer Haydary said that free speech isn't absolute, and that hate speech should result in "consequences, repercussions, whatever you want to call it," according to The Daily Illini.
The bill asks the administration "to create more substantial consequences for communities, such as registered student organizations, registered organizations, related organizations, and Greek organizations, involved in behavior that is not culturally inclusive, engaged in acts of intolerance, or engaged in acts that violate community standards."
Campus Reform reports that the bill came in a response to activist demands for formal sanctions against a fraternity and sorority that hosted a theme party at which some guests wore sombreros.
Illinois's Student Senate has no actual power—thank goodness—and so the bill isn't actually much of a threat to free speech on campus. Still, it's illustrative of the stupidity of the kind of person who gets elected to the Student Senate. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court has never recognized a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment: public universities are unquestionably required to permit students to engage in kinds of expression that other people might subjectively describe as hateful.

Totalitarianism is alive and well at U of I. 

This makes the very concept of free speech meaningless.  The First Amendment exists not to protect speech most people find acceptable.  It's there specifically to protect unpopular views and utterances.  In this case, a political faction at the school want to narrowly define speech in such a way that they become the final arbiters of what should be allowed and what shouldn't.  There is rarely a clearer example of the totalitarian impulse on college campuses today.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/u_of_illinois_mulls_substantial_consequences_for_noninclusive_behavior.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump: Immigration Must Serve America’s Interests - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Donald Trump embraces the long-forgotten idea that immigration is supposed to make America better.

America’s immigration policies must promote “the well-being of the American people,” not the interests of the open-borders lobby, America-hating Islamists, and those who violate the nation’s laws, Donald Trump declared last night.

America cannot continue to be the dumping ground for all the world’s problems, was what the Republican candidate for president implied in his address in Phoenix, Ariz., last night.

The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants or however many there may be … but whatever the number, that's never really been the central issue. It will never be a central issue. It doesn't matter from that standpoint. Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington.

The speech, which was met with loud applause, was a ringing, patriotic affirmation of conservative values, particularly the rule of law which has become all but a dead letter in the Obama era. Instead of backpedaling and watering down his stance on the illegal immigration crisis as pundits had expected, he refined it and put flesh on proposals that had until now been overly abstract. (A full transcript is available here.)

Trump made the case that immigration has to be rational and make America better, not worse, a radical idea in today’s political and cultural climate.

The “fundamental problem” with the immigration status quo “is that it serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful, powerful politicians.” The current system “does not serve you, the American people.”

He continued:

When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely. It should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.

It is important “to listen to the concerns that working people, our forgotten working people, have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills and general living conditions.” Illegal immigration costs taxpayers upwards of $113 billion a year and “most illegal immigrants are lower skilled workers with less education, who compete directly against vulnerable American workers, and that these illegal workers draw much more out from the system than they can ever possibly pay back.”

In many cases, illegal aliens are “treated better than our vets,” he said.

Trump vowed to right the ship of state by reversing President Obama’s executive actions, building a wall on the country’s southern border complete with towers, installing above- and below-ground sensors to detect tunnels, and enhancing aerial surveillance. He promised to beef up manpower for border protection, create what he called “a new special deportation task force focused on identifying and quickly removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants,” triple the number of ICE deportation officers, end “catch and release” programs, and hit so-called sanctuary cities that shelter illegal aliens in the pocketbook by denying them federal funds until they stop breaking immigration laws.

“Our enforcement priorities will include removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, public charges,” he said. Public charges, he explained, are “those relying on public welfare or straining the safety net along with millions of recent illegal arrivals and overstays who've come here under this current corrupt administration.”

Trump said illegals and other non-citizens incarcerated in the U.S. had about 25,000 homicide arrests to their names, according to a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office.

Trump said the immigration process has to include “an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.”

He continued:

Applicants will be asked their views about honor killings, about respect for women and gays and minorities. Attitudes on radical Islam, which our president refuses to say and many other topics as part of this vetting procedure. And if we have the right people doing it, believe me, very, very few will slip through the cracks. Hopefully, none.

Not everyone who wants to move to the U.S. should be allowed in, Trump said. Some applicants won’t be able to be assimilated and “it's our right, as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.”

Visa issuance should be suspended in any place where adequate national security screening cannot occur, he said. From 9/11 to the end of 2014 “at least 380 foreign born individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States,” Trump said. “And even right now the largest number of people are under investigation for exactly this that we've ever had in the history of our country.”

Having a porous border gets Americans killed, he said as he invited “angel moms” who have lost children to crimes committed by illegal aliens onto the stage. “Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of this administration and the administration that causes this horrible, horrible thought process, called Hillary Clinton.”

“Since 2013 alone, the Obama administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into United States communities,” Trump said. “These are individuals encountered or identified by ICE, but who were not detained or processed for deportation because it wouldn't have been politically correct.”

Trump promised to “restore the highly successful Secure Communities Program … [and] expand and revitalize the popular 287(g) partnerships, which will help to identify hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens in local jails that we don't even know about.”

Both programs were “recklessly gutted” by Obama.

From the outset of the speech the New York Times set out to undermine Trump in its running online commentary, referring to the audience as a “largely white Arizona crowd.”

But overall the address was well received – at least on Fox News Channel.

Speaking on Fox, Mark Krikorian, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies, indicated he was pleasantly surprised.

“My concern over the past couple of weeks was that he was maybe backsliding, he hadn’t really decided what his immigration policy was,” Krikorian said. But the speech presented “a pretty coherent, detailed immigration platform that holds together.”

The speech came hours after Trump visited with President Enrique Peña of Mexico in the Mexican capital city. That meeting and the attendant media coverage of it went a long way towards making Trump look presidential on the world stage.

“Prosperity and happiness in both our countries will increase if we work together on the following five shared goals,” Trump said in a joint appearance with Peña after the meeting.

The first of those five goals is "ending illegal immigration," not just between the U.S. and Mexico “but including the illegal immigration and migration from Central and South Americans, and from other regions that impact security and finances in both Mexico and the United States."

He said “having a secure border is a sovereign right and mutually beneficial," and that both countries have the right “to build a physical barrier or wall on any of its borders to stop the illegal movement of people, drugs and weapons.”

The third goal is “dismantling drug cartels and ending the movement of illegal drugs, weapons, and funds across our border."

The fourth is "improving NAFTA," the trade pact between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. It “must be updated to reflect the realities of today. “

The fifth is “keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere," Trump said. "When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S., or Central America, and go overseas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services, as well as pressures on cross-border migration. Tremendous pressure."

Anti-Trump pseudo-journalist and open-borders shill Jorge Ramos of Univision went absolutamente loco after the speech. Ramos was upset that Trump failed to apologize to Mexicans for speaking his mind. President Peña “was not ready for Trump,” he tweeted. “Couldn’t get an apology or any change on immigration and Trump still wants Mexico to pay for the wall[.]”

In an interview with Time yesterday, former Mexican president Vicente Fox lashed out at Trump comparing him to a “street fighter.” Presumably President Fox is unaware that given the public mood in the U.S., most people would cheer that description of Trump.

The trip to Mexico and the speech in Arizona come as the much ballyhooed extended post-convention bounce Democrat Hillary Clinton enjoyed has evaporated as Trump continues to narrow the gap. The latest Fox News poll of registered voters shows Clinton edging out Trump by 41 to 39 percent, with Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party at 9 percent and Jill Stein of the Green Party at 4 percent.

The Real Clear Politics moving average of polls shows Clinton at 42.3 percent, 4.1 percentage points ahead of Trump who has 38.2 percent. Trailing are Johnson at 7.7 percent and Stein at 3.0 percent. Just two weeks ago Clinton was besting Trump by 6.3 points in a four-way race. In an ominous development for Clinton, her unfavorable rating with registered voters is now virtually identical with Trump. Trump’s rating is 60 percent; Clinton’s is 59 percent.

Trump’s very successful Wednesday is bound to drive his poll numbers higher.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264039/trump-immigration-must-serve-americas-interests-matthew-vadum

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Why the Origins of the BDS Movement Matter - Alex Joffe

by Alex Joffe

The Jew-hatred and radicalism behind a fake Palestinian-led cause.

Reprinted from the Times of Israel. 

A recent film clip showing ex-Israeli academic Ilan Pappé has raised eyebrows. Asked whether it was Palestinians who launched the BDS campaign in 2005 Pappé conceded, “Not really, but yes. OK. For historical records, yes.” Both Israel supporters and Israel haters have been taken aback by this forthright statement, from a leading Israel hater, that Palestinians did not create this now iconic movement.

What are the BDS movement’s origins? The question is, at one level, an historical curiosity. The movement exists, it is forging ever-deeper links with the far left and the ‘progressive’ movement, and is a force to be reckoned with. At another level, however, the history of the BDS movement is emblematic of Palestinian political history, and the recent development global antisemitism, as a whole.

Two trends are immediately evident in the history of BDS, the role of Palestinian political factions and professional Palestinians from the diaspora, which have led Palestinians toward rejectionism.

It is easy to dismiss the movement’s own origins story, the 2005 call from Palestinian ‘civil society’ organizations. The call for boycotting Israel was in explicit opposition to the Palestinian Authority (which, indeed, rejected it) and may well have originated with a rejectionist PLO faction. Indeed, many of the ‘grassroots’ organizations that signed the document cannot be traced. They were likely organs of political factions or just fabrications.

The message was simple: the “representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.”

The call also put forward three demands; “1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.” In short, the call demanded dismantling of Israel through the ‘right of return.’ This has not changed: the end of Israel is the core BDS goal.

The story from this point is well-known; the civil society call burgeoned into an international movement which has had particular success in Europe and in global academia. Among the Palestinians themselves, however, groups like the “Palestinian BDS National Committee,” which purports to be the “Palestinian coordinating body for the BDS campaign worldwide,” remain mysterious. Only a few individuals can be identified, its funding sources are completely (and characteristically) obscure, but it has had some success encouraging BDS in Arab states, in part under the old Jordanian (and now ubiquitous) slogan of “anti-normalization.”

But the 2005 ‘civil society’ call built on the academic and cultural boycott launched in 2004, allegedly by Palestinian intellectuals. In fact, the academic boycott was largely the effort of a small group centered on Omar Barghouti (born in Qatar, raised in Egypt, educated in the US), then a graduate student at Tel Aviv University. The academic boycott’s questionable success notwithstanding, the fact is that Barghouti was basically a freelancer; with no political base in Palestinian society, he and his ‘movement’ took a well-trodden rejectionist path. Palestinian society, always fearful of appearing to accept the existence of Israel, fell in line.

But this history of outside manipulation is much deeper still. The academic boycott as such has roots far outside of the Middle East, specifically in Britain. There, as David Hirsch has pointed out, academics Steven and Hilary Rose, and Mona Baker, began to demand Israelis be boycotted in 2002, and in 2003 began agitating for Israel boycotts in British teachers’ unions.

Prior to their call, however, was the 2001 United Nations “World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in Durban.” The ‘Durban strategy’ was a systematic effort by NGOs to demonize and delegitimize Israel precisely in the manner of apartheid South Africa, and it marked the effective return of the Soviet “Zionism is racism” trope that had been adopted by the UN in 1975.

Implicit in the association of Israel with South Africa was boycott and isolation, and the process was given incalculably important support from the heavyweights of the global ‘human rights’ industry, namely Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

But the British connection is even deeper and more sinister. Already in 2001 the Palestine Return Centre in London, a Muslim Brotherhood associated group founded in 1986, claimed to have been supporting a boycott of Israel. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (founded in 1982 by Communist Party members including Tony Greenstein, and patronized by current Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn) is also at the forefront of Israel-hating in Britain. Its 40 branches have spread the ‘Israel apartheid’ message into British universities and trade unions since the 1980s, and the boycott message since 2001, if not earlier.

This ‘red-green alliance’ between Islamists and Communists is critical to understanding BDS past and present. From the 1950s local Communist parties spread the Soviet Union’s anti-Zionist message throughout the world, and Soviet support for the PLO, in terms of training, weapons, and ideology, was critical. And from the early 1960s Saudi support for a global network of Islamist organizations like the Muslim World League, World Association of Muslim Youth, and International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations spread that message, including in the US through the Muslim Student Association (founded in 1962).

Today, Students for Justice in Palestine and its many chapters are the leading BDS forces on campuses. But at the national level this organization and its parent, American Muslims for Palestine, is controlled by many of the same individuals who were part of the Hamas-supporting Holy Land Foundation and Islamic Association for Palestine. Its personnel overlap with other US Muslim Brotherhood groups such as CAIR and the Muslim American Society, and its alliances with ‘progressive’ organizations, like the Center for Constitutional Rights and National Lawyers Guild, have made BDS and Palestinian rejectionism leading causes of the left.

To a large extent BDS in the US is a Muslim Brotherhood project. Add to this far left wing organizations and foundations (Code Pink, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Benjamin Fund, the WESPAC Foundation, and many others), local Arab groups like Al Awda, and putatively religious organizations (such as the American Friends Service Committee, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Presbyterian Church USA), and you have a global Palestinian ‘movement’ in which there are few Palestinians.

Even those BDS organizations in Israel and the West Bank like Badil and Adalah survive only through financial and other support from Western foundations and European governments, all of which, in effect, use BDS as policy tools against Israel.

For decades the Palestinian cause has been a pawn of others; the BDS movement is no exception. The Arab League boycott of Jews in 1945 (and arguably, the very formation of the League itself), and the unending manipulations by Islamists, Communists, and Arabs from outside Palestine – including Yassir Arafat – show the extent to which the political fate of Palestinians have been controlled by outsiders with their own agendas.

To find indigenous Palestinian-directed boycotts one has to look back a century to the 1910 boycott of Jewish labor in Palestine (on the grounds that Zionists had allegedly boycotted Palestinians), and the boycott of Jewish merchants called for by the 1922 Fifth Arab Congress in Nablus. These failed as economic and political measures, but like the BDS movement today, succeeded in sowing hatred. By the 1930s the Palestinian cause had been internationalized, Islamified, and Palestinian voices began to be lost. The BDS movement extends this into the 21st century.

Alex Joffe

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264032/why-origins-bds-movement-matter-alex-joffe

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Czech treachery - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Calling Tel Aviv the capital of Israel means much more than meets the eye

A small, unimportant-looking article appeared in an obscure spot on one of the inner pages of a weekly newspaper this week, reporting the fact that the Czech Republic, having decided that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, will be presenting it as such in its history texts and atlases. The impetus for the change, the article further added, was pressure from the Palestinian Arab envoy in Prague. Israel's Foreign Ministry is working to change the decision.

The Czech decision follows a similar one by UNESCO which claimed in April of this year that the Temple Mount belongs to Muslims - and only Muslims - and that its name is the El Aqsa Mosque.

There are those who see this as just another point of contention between Israel and the Arab Palestinians, another topic for the negotiation table to be settled in the agreement that it is hoped will be reached at some future time. The problem is that this viewpoint is totally detached from reality, and it's time for all of us to open our eyes and see what is really behind the Arab Palestinian campaign regarding  Jerusalem.

Hamas, Fatah and the Palestinians, both religious and secular, modern and  traditional, in Israel and out of it, see in uprooting Israel from Jerusalem a sacred obligation, a supreme mission and goal from which there is no way to backtrack. Saeb Erekat, the head of the Palestinian Authority negotiating team, has declared frequently that without East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, there will not be one.

Yasser Arafat coined the phrase "Millions of shaheeds marching to Al Quds," meaning that the Arabs are prepared to sacrifice millions of shaheeds in order to wrest Jerusalem from the hands of the Jews.

The whole thing is very peculiar, because Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab or Islamic state, let alone of a Palestinian state – a state which has never existed – so why is Jerusalem such an immovable issue? What is behind the Arab Palestinians relating to Jerusalem as their capital and why do they want to take it out of Israeli hands?

In previous articles, I explained the religious Islamic element in these goals and presented the issue of a Jewish presence in the Old City of Jerusalem as a theological problem for Islam, which believes that Judaism was rendered null and void by Christianity, which in turn became valueless when Islam appeared to take the place of both religions.

The return of the Jews to their homes, land and Temple site seems to Islamic eyes the return of Judaism to its former glory, putting Islam's very existence into question – as Islam is supposed to be the true religion while Judaism and Christianity are false.

Palestinian Arab intentions can be discerned from what they say and in what they do. They claim to be descendants of the Jebusites (from whom King David conquered Jerusalem) and therefore preceded the Jews in Jerusalem. This claim is as true as other Arab imaginary claims: Saddam Hussein once claimed to be descended from the Babylonian Hammurabi, Assad said that the Syrians were descendants of the Assyrians, the Egyptians claim they are Pharaoh's direct descendants and there are even Lebanese who to be descended from the Phoenicians. Arab history, however, claims that the Arabs arose out of the Arabian Peninsula, destroyed all the ancient idol worshiping nations in their path and settled in their lands. And now they claim to be descended from them?

Even more interesting is what the Arab Palestinians actually do: They hand out the scarf that appears in the picture accompanying this article to their friends. One side of the scarf has the words "our Jerusalem" and on the other side they have put the map of all of what they call "Palestine." Israel does not appear on this map. And note that the flag next to these graphics is that of the PLO, not Hamas.

This scarf reveals the connection between the Palestinians'  approach to Jerusalem and their approach to the state of Israel. It cries out soundlessly that the goal is to get Jerusalem as a first step on the way to all of "Falestin" – that is, Israel – all of it, and in other words: after we gain Jerusalem, we will succeed in gaining all of the land of Israel.

This final goal, that of completely destroying the Jewish State, is normally kept hidden from those who would rather not see it. Nice, pleasant people in Israel and outside it, Jews and non-Jews alike, fall right into the trap of Palestinian duplicity over and over again. They persist in believing that if we just give them the "holy basin" – the Temple Mount and parts of Eastern Jerusalem- they will be satisfied with that and recognize the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish People. Those nice people include volunteers  from organizations such as "Ir Amim" that tries ceaselessly to gain recognition for the "rights" of the invaders from the Arabian Peninsula in the Jewish capital.

Today enormous sums are invested in the campaign to cut away Jerusalem from Israel. Qatar, the main supporter of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, has set aside half a billion dollars to promote the removal of Jerusalem from Israel by mounting an international propaganda campaign that will fill  newspapers, television, radio, academia and political corridors. It is quite possible that other Arab, Islamic and even European countries are involved in the effort to take Jerusalem out of the Jewish People's hands – and it is, of course, of no matter that the Jews remained loyal to their Holy City through a 2000 year long  exile replete with unbearable suffering and persecution.

Anyone who tries to remove the city of Jerusalem, and  in particular, the site of the Holy Temples, from the land of the Jewish nation is taking part, whether or not he admits it, in the Arab and Muslim war against the Jewish people. That is a war against the Jewish state, the Jews' very existence as a people, culture, religion and heritage. There is no way to square the circle and there is no recourse but to tell the truth about the real nature of this battle against the Jews. It does not take place only on the battlefield.

It is taking place in every possible setting, public, legal, academic, educational, political and in the media, and the BDS movement is another of its manifestations.

Every person, Jewish or non-Jewish, who assists in the efforts of the enemies of the Jewish people regarding Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in particular is an active supporter of those enemies' ambition to destroy Israel, the state of the Jewish People. Possibly he does not realize that or is unaware of the historical, religious and emotional connection between the Jewish people and its Holy City, its eternal and historical capital, but that lack of knowledge and consciousness does not grant his actions a different import or condone them.

The Palestinian Authority, that convinced the Czech Education Ministry to see Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel is participating in a war – that's right, no less than a war – against the Jewish people. We have to call it by its real name and not tiptoe around the problem for destructive and foolhardy reasons, such as political correctness.  The Palestinian Authority, in its attempt to remove Jerusalem from Israel, works night and day to destroy the State of Israel's existence as the land of the Jewish People.

Israel must act according to the normative principle of "when at war, fight a war." Israel must dismantle the Palestinian Authority, dispatch Mahmoud Abbas and his corrupt sons to one of the many homes they have acquired all over the globe with the donations contributed to the "Palestinian people," dismantle the army they built with American money, take apart the corrupt and illegal institutions they have established.

Do the State of Israel and the Jewish people wish to survive? Then it is time for them to recognize the enemy and the type of war that enemy has declared on the nation of Israel and its land. Seventy five years ago the Jewish people did not recognize the meaning of the war that had been declared against it, and the result was catastrophe. If we continue with the lack of consciousness that characterizes us today in the face of the Arab Palestinian challenge, we will find ourselves once again without a state that protects the Jewish people everywhere in the world.

Translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky.


Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19423

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Islam and the West’s Death by ‘Freedom’ - Selwyn Duke

by Selwyn Duke

“With your democratic laws, we will colonize you. With our Koranic laws, we will dominate you.”

It can be a good thing to be idealistic. But you’d better make sure you have the right ideals. As to this, the modern West is quickly becoming something non-Western -- precisely because our ideals are now far less than ideal.
 
It has often been noted that some among us use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. George Soros, a real-life James Bond villain, comes to mind; other leftist entities such as the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center also qualify, as they sue Americans into shedding Americanism. Another example is a group they aid and abet: Muslim conquerors bent on winning the West for Dar al-Islam. And since this is not just an American phenomenon but a Western one, it has recently been addressed by a French academic -- in strikingly blunt language.

Jean-Louis Harouel, professor emeritus of the History of Law at the University of Paris, recently criticized a French court’s decision to strike down a burkini (Islamic swimsuit) ban that had been instituted by dozens of the nation’s municipalities. Here are some of his words, as translated by Jihad Watch’s Hugh Fitzgerald:

[T]he Conseil d’Etat [the court] failed to take into account the fact that France is now engaged in a clash of civilizations, that just in the past year has cost it hundreds of deaths on its own territory, and which made it necessary to maintain the State of Emergency. “Islamism” is now making war on France, and there is no real boundary-line between Islam and Islamism.
The Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the shock felt by the French people on seeing burkinis deliberately appearing on the beaches so soon after terrible massacres had been committed in France by Muslims acting in the name of their god. So soon after the carnage on the promenade in Nice and the slitting of the throat of a priest while he was fulfilling his priestly duties, such an increase in the flaunting of Muslim identity is truly indecent.
The Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the fact that at present a silent conquest of Western Europe is underway. This conquest finds its source in the Qur’an where one can read that Allah has promised to give to the Muslims as the spoils of war the lands of the Infidels. That’s how sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradawi, one of the leaders of the UOIE (Union of Muslim Organizations in Europe), the French branch of which is the UOIF (Union of Muslim Organizations in France) put it: “With your democratic laws, we will colonize you. With our Koranic laws, we will dominate you.”
The Conseil d’Etat refused to see that the conquest of our beaches by these burkinis is only one stage in the taking over of France by the forces of political Islam. The Conseil d’Etat refused to see that those wearers of the burkini -- like all those who wear variations on the Muslim veil -- are the foot-soldiers, whether deeply convinced or merely docile, of a civilizational jihadism which is now trying to conquer our country by stealth.
To speak simply, the “rule of law” too often means condemning the peoples of Europe to helplessness when confronted by the mass immigration that is submerging them, and the aggressive Islam that is in the process of conquering their countries. To be able to react, it will be necessary to give the “rule of law” a bit of a shove, as it is currently being imposed on Europeans in this positively suicidal fashion by the secular religion of human rights.
In this confrontation with Islam, to conceive of the principle of “laicite” as being neutral in regard to different faiths will not work. For Islam is only secondarily a religion in the sense given to that word in Europe. In our country, Islam is now an aggressive civilization that is at war with our own and claims to replace it. Now, facing another civilization bent on our conquest, we cannot be neutral: we have to defend ourselves and counter-attack.
The main point is this: a Muslim living in Europe should not expect to be able to live as he would in a Muslim country. Muslims who have settled on European soil have constantly to be reminded that they are not in Dar al-Islam but, rather, in the land of the Infidels where, even their own sacred texts tell them, they should keep a low profile. If the Muslims living in Europe come to feel that they are living in Dar al-Islam, that will mean the end of Europe.

And it is leading to the end of Europe, just as our suicidal immigration regime -- wherein 85 percent of our newcomers hail from the Third World and Asia -- is contributing to the death of Western culture in the U.S.

When considering these suicidal policies, it occurs to me that our Western liberals are like children playing at government. Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” How many of us understand the true meaning of that statement? And how many of us are willing to contemplate its implications?

We could, of course, convince ourselves that Adams didn’t know what he was talking about.  Yet he was merely echoing great thinkers, men such as Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, who warned, “It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Benjamin Franklin likewise observed, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Once we recognize the validity of Adam’s statement and that he uttered it not just because, hypothetically, there could in some alternate universe be peoples lacking the moral foundation for healthy representative government, some striking matters must be pondered:

1. Peoples unfit to live under our form of government do exist in this world.
2. Given this, it’s dangerous to the republic to allow them, as a group, into our country.
3. It’s also dangerous to have cultural institutions -- the media, academia and our entertainment realm, for instance -- that breed “men of intemperate minds.”

Then there’s this question: since foreign peoples “inadequate” to our form of government exist, who might they be? Pro tip: when people empower vile socialists in their native lands or think Sharia law should be preeminent, it’s a clue.

Of course, much of this could be solved if we actually adhered to our Constitution. Note that the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). The founders specified “Congress,” thus constraining only the federal government’s legislative branch. States were meant to have more power in this area, and, in fact, prior to 20^th-century, incorporation-theory jurist fantasies, this was recognized.

Were it still, states would be able to prohibit, oh, let’s say, a religion wholly incompatible with Western civilization. Instead, we don’t even have a correct understanding of “establishment,” which is why a Satanist was recently allowed to give an invocation before an Alaskan municipal legislature. I suspect, by the way, that these days Satan is a big civil libertarian.
If our current ideals don’t allow us to exclude people who vow, “With your democratic laws, we will colonize you,” then those ideals are only for schlemiels.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/islam_and_the_wests_death_by_freedom.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Black Lives Matter livid over leaked Dem email on how to 'handle' them - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

In addition to avoiding “all lives matter,” the memo advised against mentioning “black on black crime,” saying, “This response will garner additional media scrutiny and only anger BLM activists.”

Here's a real shocker for you.  Democrats take black activists for granted and look to manipulate them to keep their allegiance without showing any support for their policy positions.

The "plantation" is working fine.

Washington Times:

Black Lives Matter accused the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee of trying to placate activists after a hacker leaked on Wednesday an internal party memo advising candidates on how to handle the movement.
The Nov. 9 memo to by former DCCC staffer Troy Perry urged candidates to listen but “don’t offer support for concrete policy positions”; limit the number of activists who meet with staff; and never say “all lives matter.”
“We are disappointed at the DCCC’s placating response to our demand to value all Black life. Black communities deserve to be heard, not handled,” Black Lives Matter said in a statement issued Wednesday. “People are dying.”
The group added that, “We expect that our elected officials will stop pacifying and take us seriously.”
Mr. Perry, who now works for the Hillary Clinton campaign, characterized Black Lives Matter as a “radical movement” and the memo as a “best practices” guide for candidates and campaign staff.
He warned that the document “should not be emailed or handed by anyone outside of the building.”
The hacker Guccifer 2.0 said the memo, posted online along with several other documents, was taken from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s personal computer.
DCCC national press secretary Meredith Kelly issued a statement Wednesday in support of Black Lives Manner, insisting that, “We will not allow this hacking to distract from our common goals nor disparage the BLM movement.”
“The DCCC highly respects and values the leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement,” Ms. Kelly said. “In less than two years, BLM has evolved from three words into a political force that is changing and waking our nation. At theDCCC, we highly encourage our candidates to not only embrace the importance of this movement, but to meet with and listen to community activists to partner social change.”
In addition to avoiding “all lives matter,” the memo advised against mentioning “black on black crime,” saying, “This response will garner additional media scrutiny and only anger BLM activists.”

In other words, don't tell the truth about Black Lives Matter or the state of black America.  It's better to pretend otherwise.

Hillary Clinton and Democratic candidates are likely to get 90% of the black vote in November.  They have well and truly trapped black voters with tried and true scare tactics about Republicans: Republicans will cut off your welfare; Republicans will take us back to the days of Jim Crow;  Republicans want to reinstitute slavery;  Republicans want to take away your right to vote.

That Black Lives Matter and other blacks believe this crap is their own fault.  They want to believe it.  They love the idea of being victims.  What would they do if they couldn't blame Republicans and racism for their economic and cultural problems? 

The answer is that they would have to take personal responsibility for their lives.  Democrats offer them a way to avoid that while setting up villains to explain why black unemployment is so high, black educational achievement lags behind others, and 80% of black children are born out of wedlock, among other issues facing the black community. 

This is not to say that racism doesn't exist or that Republicans too often simply ignore the problems of black people because they don't get their votes.  But Democrats are super-enablers of black self-pity, and the leaked email proves it.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/black_lives_matter_livid_over_leaked_dem_email_on_how_to_handle_them.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Sunni nightmares, Kurdish dreams collide in Syria - Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

Russia's increased involvement in the Syrian civil war, Moscow's warming ties with Iran and Turkey's regional strategy have eroded the Sunni-Arab axis while the Shiite axis is now stronger • Israel should focus its intelligence efforts on the latter.

Members of the Kurdish Self-Defense Forces stand near the Syrian-Turkish border [Archive] | Photo credit: Reuters

Three major developments have recently taken place in the terrible war ripping Syria apart, and all three stand to make a true impact on the future of the Middle East: First, there is Russia's increased involvement in the conflict; second is the coalition's success in eroding the Islamic State group's territorial grip in Syria; and the third is Turkey's decision to send troops into Syria to fight the Kurds in its north under the guise of fighting Islamic State. 

Such developments are difficult to understand and their ramifications are difficult to predict -- still, some conclusions can be drawn even in this early stage.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, for one, most likely just got another reprieve and will be able to remain in power for the foreseeable future. 

As eliminating an autonomous Kurdish entity is far more important to Turkey than ending Assad's regime, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had relinquished his demand for Assad's removal from power. In the new Middle East reality, there is no one left to demand that Assad be deposed, and it looks like the U.S. -- devoid an actual ace in the hole in its talks with Russia about Syria's future -- will have to learn to live with it.

This change proves how adaptable Erdogan is: Recognizing the need for a strategic change over the threat posed by the Kurds' desire to form a buffer state on what used to be the old border between Syria and Turkey, he came up with a plan to quash the Kurdish aspiration -- and deal Islamic State a blow in the process.

The latter lends his actions international -- and especially American -- legitimacy, as the U.S. is actually assisting the Kurds, and Erdogan has been able to bolster his position both domestically and internationally, making backing down on the Assad issue a personal, insignificant loss, minimized by the bigger strategic gains.

The Kurds stand to lose the most from this development, as it eroded their opportunity to promote their demand for independence, and who knows when it will present itself again.

They had set their hopes on the U.S., but it failed them in the moment of truth. No one knows exactly what the U.S. promised the Kurds, but the reality is, they have been left to shoulder the burden of fighting Islamic State on the ground, in Syria and in Iraq.

There is no doubt that the recent U.S. support for Turkey against Kurdish ambitions will be held against Washington throughout the Middle East, as again it seems the U.S. has turned its back on its friends in the region. Reality may not be as clear-cut, but that is the impression it gives. 

Recent developments have undermined the Arab-Sunni axis, led by Saudi Arabia. This moderate axis has so far failed to achieve any of its goals, and as a result, Iran has grown stronger, as it has been the one to capitalize from keeping Assad in power -- he is at Tehran's mercy.

In Damascus, Assad is a key part of the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut Shiite axis that Iran has been working very hard to set up. Iran continues to use Hezbollah as its regional proxy but it has cost the terrorist organization dearly in operatives, as well as compromised its legitimacy as a defender of the Shiites in Lebanon. Prioritizing long-term interests over tactical disagreements, Iran is more concerned with preserving the Assad regime than it is with making life easier for Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.

Another indication that Iran's regional position is becoming stronger is its evolving relationship with Russia, who has been diligently expanding its reach in the Middle East.

There is nothing coincidental in the close proximity of the Iranian nuclear deal, inked in July 2015, the deployment of Russian forces in Syria, and the budding Russian-Iranian collaboration in fighting alongside Assad's forces. And let's not forget -- Moscow is providing Tehran with advanced Russian weapons.

The agreement between Iran and the West gave way to a change in relations between Moscow and Tehran, limited only by issues concerning the latter's nuclear program. These relations will continue to evolve, and the prospect is already making the U.S. uneasy, which in turn makes the Sunni Arab states wary -- all things seem to be playing into Iran's hands. 

In the long run, the results of these developments are likely to play out on two levels -- internationally and regionally.

On an international level, the U.S. has emerged as a power unable -- or unwilling to affect Syria's fate, to the point where it is unclear whether it wants to exercise its influence in the Middle East. The U.S. focuses on the war on Islamic State, where it has marked some achievements, but its regional influence beyond has been steadily shrinking. 

Russia, on the other hand, has been steadily increasing its reach, mostly over the change in Turkey's position, as nothing will be decided about Damascus sans Ankara's input. 

On a Middle East level, the Shiite axis is growing stronger. Turkey is busy with domestic and foreign affairs, and in any case, it feels closer to the Muslim Brotherhood than the Arab-Sunni axis, where Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states may be important, but have so far proven impotent. 

As for Syria itself -- while Turkey joining the Iranian-Russian axis could, in the long run, prove useful in weakening rebels, there is no end in sight for the raging civil war. 

Israel does not need to change its careful policies when it comes to Syria, but given the precarious Middle East dynamics, the strides marked by the Shiite axis should be the focus of its intelligence efforts.

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=36111

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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