Lessons from the Pollard Saga - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

A great victory for Israel's enemies in Washington.

 

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Even before the dust settled on last Friday’s happy headlines proclaiming that after 30 years in federal prison, Jonathan Pollard was being released, we discovered that his release wasn’t the end of his sad saga.
Pollard’s parole conditions are draconian. For the next five years he will be under curfew, barred from stepping outside his apartment after 7 pm. He is prohibited from surfing the Internet. Anyone hiring him will be required to allow law enforcement authorities full access to their computers. Pollard already lost one job due to this condition.
Pollard is prohibited from leaving the US, or even from leaving New York. Even the smallest infraction on his parole conditions is liable to send him back to the slammer In other words, Pollard moved from a federal prison to house arrest.
The injustice screaming out from Pollard’s parole conditions force us to recall the long injustice he has suffered at the hands of very specific parts of the American establishment. The story that everyone wishes to put behind us, remains excruciatingly familiar.
From 1983 until his arrest in 1985, as a US naval analyst, Pollard served as an Israeli agent and unlawfully transferred classified information to Israel, a US ally. The normal prison sentence for Pollard’s offense is 2-5 years. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison.
Generally speaking, convicted agents of allied nations serve their prison sentences in minimum- security prisons under relatively easy conditions. Pollard spent ten years in solitary confinement at a maximum security prison.
Generally, prisoners receive early parole for good behavior and if they express sincere regret for their crimes.
Pollard was denied early parole despite the fact that he was a consistently exemplary prisoner and repeatedly – indeed continuously – expressed his sincere remorse for his offense.
Despite the fact that Israel is the US’s closest ally in the Middle East, none of the five presidents who served while Pollard sat in jail agreed to grant him clemency.
And today, President Barack Obama has made clear that he will not intervene with federal prison authorities to ease Pollard’s parole conditions or allow him to move to Israel.
The American Jewish community’s response to Pollard’s self-evidently discriminatory parole terms has been muted. Only Pollard’s lawyers and a handful of other voices have spoken out publicly against them. This is not in the least surprising.
For the past 30 years and still today, the Pollard affair has served as a warning to American Jewry. The Pollard case taught them that their acceptance as full Americans is conditional. In many ways, as Pollard, American Jewry has been on parole. The same forces that railroaded Pollard into a life sentence, and the same forces that are keeping him under house arrest today – can turn on a dime. Speak out too forcefully on Israel’s behalf, and you will be crushed like a bug.
If the message wasn’t clear enough, in 2004 we had the phony AIPAC spy scandal to drive it home.
The so-called spy scandal wrecked the careers and reputations of three innocent men – DIA analyst Lawrence Franklin, AIPAC policy director Steve Rosen, and AIPAC’s senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman. It besmirched the institutional standing and reputation of the largest American Jewish pro-Israel organization. It harmed the Israeli embassy. And it intimidated all Jewish Americans who supported Israel and served in the national security community.
The bottom line of the scandal, which unfolded over the course of five years, was that the FBI attempted to criminalize normal activities carried out by law-abiding, patriotic Americans who supported Israel.
Franklin transferred information to Rosen and Weissman just as federal officials trade information with lobbyists in Washington every day. He met with Israeli diplomat Naor Gillon, because dealing with Israeli embassy officials was part of his job. There was no criminal intent on the part of any of the people involved. The charges against Rosen and Weissman were thrown out.
And Franklin, who agreed to a plea bargain after his family was threatened, and was initially sentenced to 12 years in prison, had his term reduced to ten months of house arrest.
Pollard’s name lurked in the air throughout the sordid affair. The underlying message of the probe and the subsequent criminal trials was that as far as the powers that be in Washington are concerned, Jews who supported Israel while working on national security issues were inherently untrustworthy.
Outside Franklin, Rosen and Weissman, the primary victims of the fake spy case were the Jews in the Bush administration’s national security apparatus, who found themselves under around-the-clock surveillance, and AIPAC, which was tarred as the agent of a foreign government with nefarious motivations.
Not surprisingly, Pollard is the object of intense hatred by many Jews in Washington who blame him for their suffering. But of course, his punishment was far greater than his crime. The forces that tried to criminalize AIPAC and the Jews of Washington in 2004 were the same ones that sent Pollard to prison for life for an offense that should have landed him 2-5 years in the big house.
Pollard committed a serious offense. But he didn’t commit the original sin.
At any rate, the Pollard affair and the so-called AIPAC spy scandal both taught us that there are powerful forces in the American national security bureaucracy who do not like Israel and who believe that American Jews who support Israel are inherently disloyal. For these forces, who seem to comprise a permanent anti-Israel lobby in the State Department, FBI, CIA and Pentagon, unlike Italian Americans or Irish Americans who support their mother countries, Jewish Americans who support Israel are suspect.
This then brings us to Israel.
The Pollard affair’s lessons for Israel relate both to our relations with the American Jewish community and to the US government.
Israelis have always had a childlike tendency to view the American Jewish community as all-powerful. While it is true that the American Jewish community is more powerful than any other Diaspora community, it is far from all-powerful. The pressures exerted on the community in everything related to US Jewish support for the Jewish state require Israel to be careful about involving American Jews in serious disputes between Jerusalem and Washington.
This past summer we saw how hard it is for the US Jewish establishment to stand up for Israel, when doing so is the least bit controversial.
Although most major Jewish American organizations eventually announced their opposition to Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, it took a long time for them to do so.
And even after they announced that they opposed it, they bent over backwards to make clear that they harbored no hard feelings towards ostensibly pro-Israel lawmakers who decided to support a deal that guarantees that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. AIPAC’s decision to host an event last month for Senator Chris Coons, a key supporter of the deal, showed just how eager American Jews are to move on and not hold anyone to account.
So too, the Jewish community’s failure to reject out-of-hand the mendacious claims that Israel is persecuting the Palestinians stem from a discomfort with an issue on which Israel and the administration are openly at odds.
As for the US government, generations of Israeli leaders have taken American declarations of ironclad devotion to Israel’s security at face value. When American leaders, like former president Bill Clinton or former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice raised the possibility of signing a mutual defense treaty with Israel if we gave up the Jordan Valley or Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights, many Israeli leaders – particularly on the Left – thought that it would be a good trade-off. After all, we can trust America.
And in many ways, we can trust America. For instance, the US is Israel’s largest military supplier. Many of our military platforms are made in the US. US military aid to Israel has been more or less steady for decades. The US is Israel’s only defender at the UN.
Because of the US, Israel has avoided becoming subject to economic sanctions and even military actions that would in all likelihood pass through the Security Council in the absence of a US veto.
Having the US as a strategic ally has enhanced Israel’s deterrent power in the region. As the US withdrawal from the region under Obama has shown, the vacuum formed by the US retreat from Iraq and from the Persian Gulf more generally has enabled the rise of forces from the Muslim Brotherhood to Iran to Islamic State that are all dedicated to the annihilation of Israel.
While Israel’s alliance with the US is real and significant, Pollard’s story exposes its limitations.
It warns us that while secretaries of state proclaim their eternal concern and friendship for Israel, there are officials whispering in their ears that Israel is the source of instability in the Middle East and that due to the support Israel enjoys from American Jewry, America’s ability to secure its interests in the Middle East is impaired. The weaker both US Jewry and Israel are, the better off America will be, they are told.
Unfortunately, more often than not, when Israelis aren’t pretending that these forces don’t exist, they tend to view them as all-powerful.
So it is that the same Israeli officials – again, predominately on the Left – who insist that Israel can trust US security guarantees because the US will never waver in its commitment to Israel, also insist that Israel must never act in opposition to the US. So long as the US opposes destroying Iran’s nuclear installations, Israel, they insist, must not raise a finger against them.
So long as the US supports a Palestinian state, they insist that Israel must carry on as if the so-called two-state solution is possible, let along good for Israel.
Obviously, both positions are simplistic and wrong. For the past 30 years, as Pollard suffered in prison, and Israel’s position in the US remained under constant assault by its opponents in the bureaucracy, Israel’s relations with the US expanded and deepened. The level of US popular support for Israel has grown from year to year.
Pollard’s story tells us that we need to grow up. The US is a great ally, but our alliance with America is no substitute for national power.
As an ally, we should take US concerns into account where we can, and act independently where we must. Pollard’s case was a great victory for our enemies in Washington. And they will score additional ones in the future. But so will our friends. And so will we.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260942/lessons-pollard-saga-caroline-glick

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

The Islamic Republic’s Intensifying War on America - Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

. . .And the Obama administration's view of Iran as a loyal partner in peace.

As the Obama administration continues to trust the Islamic Republic and project it as a rational state actor or constructive regional player, Iranian ruling clerics are devising other plans for the United States.

After the nuclear deal was reached, Iran launched a series of unprecedented and sophisticated cyber attacks against State Department officials. Iranian hackers, who are linked to the government, gained access to some of the State Department officials’ emails and social media accounts.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, has the capabilities to conduct such espionage acts of cyberwarfare against the American government.

The Islamic republic’s military is aware of  top secret confidential information, particularly information that is related to US foreign policy towards the Middle East and Iran. Some of the officials who have been targeted are those who inform US policies towards Iran.

As one senior American official told the New York Times, “It was very carefully designed and showed the degree to which they understood which of our staff was working on Iran issues now that the nuclear deal is done.”

The Islamic Republic is now joining Russia, China, and North Korea in orchestrating new ways to endanger US national security as well as inflicting billions of dollars in damages.  Previously, Iran inflicted damages by infiltrating the system of other governmental institutions and gaining access to state’s secrets. According to a new report by a leading Israeli cyber security firm, ClearSky Cyber Security, the Islamic Republic has stepped up its cyber attacks and hacked into several governments including Israel.

Intriguingly, State Department officials were not even aware of the Iranian hackers' access to their accounts till Facebook informed them through the message, “We believe your Facebook account and your other online accounts may be the target of attacks by state-sponsored actors.”

Nevertheless, Iran’s cyber attacks and cyber espionage seem to be slanted in a much more immoral direction than those of Russia and China. For example, the hacks have focused on communicating with third parties through the victims accounts and by “using the social media accounts of young government employees to gain access to their friends across the administration.”

In fact, the email and social media accounts of Mr. Jason Rezaian - who was sentenced to prison for “espionage” - and his wife’s accounts were hacked by Iranian authorities. Intriguingly, after the sentencing, IRGC tested a ballistic missile which appears to be designed to carry nuclear warheads.

Iranian leaders are attempting to inflict destructive measures on the US through methods that are less likely to prompt a military response from Washington. As James Lewis, Director of the cyber program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, pointed out, “they [Iranians] are getting far more aggressive in cyber espionage, which they know is less likely to prompt a response from the United States.”

So, what has been the proportionate response from the White House? The Obama administration is ignoring such attacks and Secretary State John Kerry continues to argue that there is going to be hopefully more cooperation between the Islamic Republic and the US.

Normally, these kinds of cyber attacks and espionage trigger sanctions against the country which conducted them. But the administration continues to emphasize that the nuclear agreement will stay intact and sanctions will be lifted regardless of Iran’s actions. The administration will free up billions of dollars to the Iranian government as a result of this deal. This will undoubtedly further empower and embolden the Iranian military to increasingly damage US national security.

The Iranian hackers are often trained by the Russian government. As part of his charm offensive towards Tehran’s anti-Americanism, Putin met with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this week, and gave him a copy of an old handwritten Quran. Coincidentally, Moscow lifted the ban on tech export to Iran on the same day that Putin arrived in Iran. Moscow and Tehran are drawing into a closer relationship due to their mutual rivalry with the United States. Iran’s hardline media outlets, including Keyhan’s newspaper, raved about Russia-Iran intensified cooperation. In addition, Putin announced that Russia is ready to provide a $5 billion state loan to Tehran and increase trade in several areas, including energy and railway electrification. But, more fundamentally, Russia and Iran are ratcheting up arms and nuclear sales. As Putin announced, his country will resume exporting nuclear technology to Iran, modernizing the heavy water reactor in Arak, and will support Tehran in exchanging additional and highly enriched uranium.

Congress needs to pass a bill which will put pressure on Iranian governmental institutions (including IRGC) that are engaged in such attacks. Otherwise, we are sending a message to the ruling clerics that the US leadership is weak and will not respond to any aggression by Iran.

It remains to be seen when the Obama administration will take the necessary measures against the Islamic Republic and refrain from viewing the ruling Islamist clerics as trustful partners. 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, is president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University. Rafizadeh is also a former senior fellow at the Nonviolence International Organization based in Washington, DC and is a member of the Gulf Project at Columbia University. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu. Follow Rafizadeh at @majidrafizadeh.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260932/islamic-republics-intensifying-war-america-dr-majid-rafizadeh

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

The question we should be asking on Syrian refugees - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

 The American people are far ahead of their elites in seeing the problem, even though our media, like the French and other Euromeadia, generally ignores the problematic aspects of not just Islamic culture, but the scriptural religion itself. 

Andrew McCarthy’s column on Syrian refugees and the broader topic of asylum is the read of the day.  With his characteristic knowledge and incisiveness, the former prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh for the first World Trade Center bombing gets to the heart of the issue.  Few excerpts will convey the importance of this work, which should be read in its whole.

What happens in France happens in Belgium. It happens in Sweden where much of Malmo, the third largest city, is controlled by Muslim immigrant gangs — emergency medical personnel attacked routinely enough that they will not respond to calls without police protection, and the police in turn unwilling to enter without back-up. Not long ago in Britain, a soldier was killed and nearly beheaded in broad daylight by jihadists known to the intelligence services; dozens of sharia courts now operate throughout the country, even as Muslim activists demand more accommodations. And it was in Germany, which green-lighted Europe’s ongoing influx of Muslim migrants, that Turkey’s Islamist strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan proclaimed that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in their new Western countries is “a crime against humanity.”
So how many of us look across the ocean at Europe and say, “Yeah, let’s bring some of that here”?
None of us with any sense. Alas, “bring it here” is the order of the day in Washington, under the control of leftists bent on fundamentally transforming America (Muslims in America overwhelmingly support Democrats) and the progressive-lite GOP, which fears the “Islamophobia” smear nearly as much as the “racist” smear.

The American people are far ahead of their elites in seeing the problem, even though our media, like the French and other Euromeadia, generally ignores the problematic aspects of not just Islamic culture, but the scriptural religion itself.  Guided by a refugee policy begin by Jimmy Carter (of course!), the United States has been importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims as refugees and asylum-seekers.  And the vetting is worse than useless:

Washington, in its delusional Islamophilia, vets only for ties to terrorism, which it defines as “violent extremism” in purblind denial of modern terrorism’s Islamist ideological moorings. As the deteriorating situation in Europe manifests, our actual challenge is Islamic supremacism, of which jihadist terrorism is only a subset.
For nearly a quarter-century, our bipartisan governing class has labored mightily to suppress public discussion of the undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism. Consequently, many Americans are still in the dark about sharia, classical Islam’s societal framework and legal code. We should long ago have recognized sharia as the bright line that separates authentic Muslim moderates, hungry for the West’s culture of reason and individual liberty, from Islamic supremacists, resistant to Western assimilation and insistent on incremental accommodation of Muslim law and mores.
The promotion of constitutional principles and civic education has always been foundational to the American immigration and naturalization process. We fatally undermine this process by narrowly vetting for terrorism rather than sharia adherence.
Yes, I can already hear the slander: “You are betraying our commitment to religious liberty.” Please. Even if there were anything colorable to this claim, we are talking about inquiring into the beliefs of aliens who want to enter our country, not citizens entitled to constitutional protections.

As McCarthy notes, what Americans recognize as the religious sphere is far narrower than what Islam does.  Islam is a comprehensive political and social doctrine, one in utter conflict with our Constitution.  And the nations from which we are importing refugees have very large majorities in favor of sharia as the organizing principle of society.  Even of Muslims born in the U.S., support for sharia is alarmingly strong.

… since we are vetting for terrorism rather than sharia-adherence, and since we know a significant number of Muslims are sharia-adherent, we are missing the certainty that we are importing an ever-larger population hostile to our society and our Constitution — a population that has been encouraged by influential Islamist scholars and leaders to form Muslim enclaves throughout the West.
This leads seamlessly to the second reason why the influx of refugees is calamitous. Not only are we vetting for the wrong thing, we are ignoring the dynamics of jihadism. The question is not whether we are admitting Muslims who currently have ties to terrorist organizations; it is whether we are admitting Muslims who are apt to become violent jihadists after they settle here.

Adherence to Islam is what sociologists and criminologists like to call a “risk factor,” for accepting the doctrines of sharia leads one toward violence.  Not in every case.  And not right away.  But the very substance of the doctrine is such that we are justified in screening for it.  As McCarthy concludes:

...there is nothing obligatory about any immigration policy, including asylum. There is no global right to come here. American immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interests of the United States. Right now, American immigration policy is serving the interests of immigrants at the expense of American national security and the financial security of distressed American workers.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/the_question_we_should_be_asking_on_syrian_refugees.html

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

Longtime Belgian Mayor: A Godfather of Jihad? - Stefan Frank

by Stefan Frank

Translation of the original text: Molenbeeks Ex-Bürgermeister: Ein Pate des Dschihad?

• "Instead of bombing Raqqah, France should be bombing Molenbeek." — Eric Zemmour, French journalist.
• No one, at least outside Belgium, is talking about Molenbeek's long-time anti-Semitic mayor and the alliance with radical Islamists that secured his power.
• The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size -- an astounding concentration.
• "[T]here are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca." — Resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner.
• The many shops run by Jews suddenly disappeared in 2008 after harassment and threats by local "youths." How did Mayor Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the "right to diversity."
• It is supposed to be Israel's fault when the Arabs of Belgium -- and especially those of Molenbeek -- have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party.
  

The Molenbeek district of Brussels is considered Europe's "terrorist factory." At least three of the perpetrators of the November terrorist attacks in Paris came from there: Ibrahim Abdeslam, Abdelhamid Abaaoud and the remaining fugitive Salah Abdeslam. The list does not stop there. The Viennese daily newspaper "Die Presse" writes:

"Molenbeek already made headlines for the first time in 2001: Abdessatar Dahmane, the murderer of the Afghan war hero and horror of the Taliban, Ahmed Schah Massoud, was also a regular at the Islamic center at 18 Rue du Manchester, known for its radical views; as well as Hassan El Haski, who was presumed behind the attacks in Casablanca (41 dead in 2003) and Madrid (200 victims in 2004). The weapons that were used in the attacks on the French satirical paper "Charlie Hebdo" in January 2015 came from Molenbeek. The French jihadist Mehdi Nemouche, who caused a bloodbath in the Brussels Jewish Museum the previous year, lived here. In August 2015, Ayoub El Khazzani started out from here on his attempt to attack a train from Amsterdam to Paris."

The two jihadists killed by Belgian police in January, in Verviers, came from Molenbeek. The terrorist Amedy Coulibaly, who attacked the HyperCacher kosher supermarket in Paris, also spent time in Molenbeek.

The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size -- an astounding concentration. Belgium is, in relation to the size of its population, the greatest European exporter of fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Most of them -- at least 48 -- come from Molenbeek. "Instead of bombing Raqqah," says the French journalist Eric Zemmour, "France should be bombing Molenbeek."

More than half the population of Molenbeek is Muslim; a quarter come from Morocco -- such as the Paris attackers. "You know, there are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca," says a resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner of the French news portal "Atlantico." Gaetner does consider that "surely an exaggeration," but admits: "When one walks the streets of this Brussels district, with its nearly 96,000 residents, one is overcome by a bizarre impression. Not only would you think you were no longer in the Kingdom of Belgium, but an oppressive atmosphere reigns here."

Foreign reporters are only now discovering Molenbeek. Those who have to live there have been complaining about the conditions there for a long time. The following excerpt is from a report by the Belgian weekly magazine Le Vif L'Express from 2011:

Buildings in danger of collapsing, street corners that are becoming landfills, a parked car rusts away in a parking lot: Urban renewal would be helpful here. "This is a gangster district. Here you get beat up for five Euros," says Karim. The shopkeeper is not happy. He talks about how he recently chased a teenager with a knife in his hand, who had stolen cigarettes. This scene took place just steps away from the Ribaucourt subway station. "The Rue Piers is not safe at this hour," says a young woman, who after 6pm either makes sure she is accompanied home, or else takes a taxi. She has been living with friends in an apartment in the district for three years. The apartment is large, and not too expensive. "But I am always vigilant," she says. Especially when she is wearing a skirt. "Insults, spitting, groping: I have experienced that." Other residents are moving out. "My house was burglarized twice within one year," says a witness. "When I go to the supermarket around the corner, I double-lock the door and turn on the alarm."

Testimonials to a city in fear. Much of the responsibility for this apparently rests with Philippe Moureaux, member of the Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste), who was mayor of Molenbeek from 1992 until 2012. Confronted with the complaints of his citizens, he regularly denied the unsustainable conditions in his town: "It makes me angry when people pick out tiny details and lie about them," he said in the quoted report. Molenbeek is "not the Bronx;" the problems with criminality only concern a small number of streets, said Moureaux.

Then Moureaux showed his true colors: "Molenbeek is a symbol that certain people want to destroy. But only over my dead body." Certain people? Does the mayor actually believe in a conspiracy against his district of misery? One does not have to search for long to realize that Moureaux, on whose initiative Belgium passed an "anti-racism law" in 1981, is an anti-Semite -- not exactly common even in Belgium. At the same time, he downplays and supports the violence of young Muslims -- also against Jews.

Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), suspected by French authorities of masterminding this month's terrorist attacks in Paris, is -- like many terrorists in Europe -- from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux (right) was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.

There was heavy rioting in 2009 during Ramadan in Molenbeek. Muslim youths set up barricades made of burning tires, set cars ablaze, threw rocks at firefighters who came to put out fires and, equipped with rocks and crowbars, looted stores. According to unconfirmed reports, the police received the following order: "Do not provoke them, do not search them, do not intervene, even if dozens of them come together, do not issue warnings for harassment, not even if they throw rocks at you."

Jewish shop-owners were also harassed other than at Ramadan. In 2008, the Flemish magazine Dag Allemaal reported on "youths" yelling, "The Jews are our worst enemies," in the streets of Molenbeek. There used be many stores run by Jews on the Rue du Prado and the Chaussée de Grand in Molenbeek, but in 2008, with the exception of one furniture store, they suddenly disappeared. And nobody seemed bothered by this, especially not Mayor Moureaux.

None of the Jews wanted to speak with the Dag Allemaal reporter, out of fear of reprisals. The one exception was a man whom the paper referred to as "René." René ran a barbershop for over 30 years in the Chaussée de Gand. Then came a series of acts of violence. It began with graffiti on his shop's windows: "Sale youpin" ("dirty Jew") and other anti-Semitic slogans. Later on, six Muslim youths stormed into his shop, destroyed the furnishings and punched René in the face. He called the police. An hour later, the youths returned in order to "punish" him; they broke all the mirrors. For more than 35 years, René had built up a large and loyal customer base, but after this attack, most people were afraid to visit his shop. He had no other choice but to close it.

How did Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the "right to diversity." That is what he said in 2008, in the weekly paper Le Vif L'Express. It was a report with the title: "Enquête Moureaux, Shérif de Molenbeek, drogué du pouvoir - Son islamo-municipalisme" ("The Moureaux Investigation: Sheriff of Molenbeek, addicted to power -- His Islamo-municipalism"). That he was "addicted to power" ("drogué du pouvoir") were his own words. The paper described him as a "soaring intellectual, university professor and brilliant minister, who resides in the beautiful Uccle district."

But back to Moureaux's Jews: At 20 years old, Moureaux was a Marxist, he said, and never accepted anybody's right to diversity; but he "evolved": "What changed my mind were talks with the representatives of the Jewish community. It saddens me today to see how they deny the Muslims the right to diversity."

This "right to diversity" was not granted to citizens by Moureaux during Ramadan. In a press release with the title, "Ramadan regulations for everyone," Moureaux appealed to citizens in August 2011 to stop driving into the center of Molenbeek in the afternoon during the month of Ramadan, because Muslims are doing their shopping there.

In January 2015, after the massacre of the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the murder of four Jews in Paris's HyperCacher supermarket, the now-retired mayor gave an interview to Maghreb TV, a channel broadcast via the internet, the target audience for which is North Africans in Belgium. After he made an appeal not to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few terrorists, it got wild:

"Many have an interest in dividing us. ... Unfortunately, these people can be found everywhere. There is a contagion of the problems of the Middle East, in the Near East, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which leads to some having an interest in provoking local disagreements, like a reflex to what happens over there. ... It will be said that it is coming from both sides. But it is obvious that they are trying to create hatred for Arabs here in the West, in order to justify the policies of the state of Israel, policies that appear unacceptable to me."

It is supposed to be Israel's fault when the Arabs of Belgium -- and especially those of Molenbeek -- have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party. In March 2013, the Socialists of Molenbeek issued an invitation to an event titled: "What if we freely and calmly spoke about Zionism?" On the invitation flyer was an anti-Semitic caricature, drawn in the style of Der Stürmer, by the Arabic neo-Nazi "Zéon." After loud protests, the Socialists cancelled the event -- on the grounds that the aspired-to "calm" discussion was unfortunately no longer possible.

Many examples can be listed to show what an anti-Semitic environment prevails in Molenbeek. In the official town magazine, "Molenbeek Info," one can find a text in which the Stalinist Party of Work calls for a celebration in honor of Dr. Hanne Bosselaers, who had just returned from Gaza: "Everybody come!" In Molenbeek, you need to know, there is a hospital run by Stalinists under the name "Medicine for the People" ("Medécine pour le peuple"), which in 2013 initiated a "partnership" with Al-Quds Hospital in Gaza. Consequently, Bosselaers had a lot to talk about. For example: "The Palestinians want us to boycott Israel."

And what did Dr. Bosselaers have to say about Hamas?

"Behind the attempt of some of our politicians to cast the Palestinian resistance organization in a negative light lies a political goal. Certain circles keep pointing out the "Islamic character" of Hamas, in the hope of keeping the population from forming solidarity with the Palestinians.... The Palestinian resistance is much greater than Hamas, and it is completely up to the Palestinians to decide which form of resistance they choose against their oppressors."

Welcome to Molenbeek. The jurist Etienne Dujardin recently wrote in the news portal Levif.be that the conditions in Islamist terror districts such as Molenbeek, Verviers or Saint Denis also had something to do with the deliberate efforts of some politicians, who find welcome campaign workers in radical Islamic circles:

"[p]arties have been practicing a form of cronyism based on elections; they all used the same radical mosques as mouthpieces for their election campaigns. Some saw them as a massive pool of easily available votes."

And that is how it seems Mayor Moureaux observed that he could personally profit from the transformation of Molenbeek into a bastion of jihad. As he himself lives in a wealthy district, he was able to reject with great arrogance citizens who complained about excessive crime. He won elections by catering to radical Islam. Once again, the rule is confirmed: If someone agitates against Israel, it is always a symptom of other serious character flaws in that person. Behind the anti-Israel agitation of Moureaux lay a corrupt mayor, who only cared for his office and his income; who, as he himself said, was "addicted to power." That his town was transforming into a hell of criminality, anti-Semitism and Sharia, he either did not care about or actually welcomed. Those who fled from Molenbeek could no longer participate; and those who moved there liked what Moureaux was doing: encouraging Islamization and agitating against Israel and Jews. This is how Molenbeek became, during the term in office of just one man, what it is today.

Originally published in German in slightly different form by Audiatur Online.

Stefan Frank

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6959/molenbeek-mayor-moureaux

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

Ex-envoy: Obama brought 'radical Muslim values' into White House - Ari Yashar

by Ari Yashar

Former ambassador Oren slams Obama, saying he would be 'problem' even for leftist government because he is 'first to bring radical Islam.'

Former Israeli Ambassador to the US MK Michael Oren (Kulanu), a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, released a particularly strong accusation against US President Barack Obama on Saturday.

Speaking on Saturday morning at a cultural event in Be'er Sheva, Oren accused Obama of "bringing in radical Muslim values into the White House."

"Obama's worldview would have been problematic to any Israeli government, including a leftist government," asserted the former ambassador. "This is the first time that radical Muslim values reached the White House."

The MK said, "Obama will never say the term 'radical Islam,' because Obama was exposed to the Muslim world and its values."

His comment refers to the fact that Obama's father was a Muslim Kenyan, and he spent many years in his childhood living in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, after his mother re-married with another Muslim man.

"It is his right as president to bring into the White House a different worldview from those of his predecessors," continued Oren. "Our responsibility is to recognize this fact and act in accordance."

The former envoy argued that Obama "is viewed as weak in the world," referencing the president's lackluster foreign policy, and concluded by saying, "I won't hide it - there's no love story here" between Israel and Obama.

Oren added that the bilateral relations between Israel and the US comprise enough levels that Obama's worldview will not significantly affect the alliance.

The MK raised a storm over the summer after publishing a book accusing Obama of betraying the alliance with Israel. The book earned stern condemnation from the White House.


Ari Yashar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204074#.VloCe7-zdds

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

A community on the frontline - Yehuda Shlezinger

by Yehuda Shlezinger

Kiryat Arba, next to Hebron, has suffered around 20 terrorist attacks in recent weeks, including the murders of Eitam and Naama Henkin and of Yaakov and Netanel Litman • But residents insist: Our covenant with this place is a covenant of blood.

The Nir hesder yeshiva Photo credit: Yonatan Shaul

In a tiny, locked room on the first floor of the Nir hesder yeshiva (a religious school where students incorporate mandatory military service with Torah study), is a memorial wall honoring students and alumni who fell in battle or in terrorist attacks. There is room for 20 photos on the wall. Fifteen are taken by pictures of students who fell in the Six-Day War, in Lebanon, and a string of vicious terrorist attacks in Hebron. Two of the remaining five spots now contain empty frames, reserved for two alumni murdered in recent weeks. Their pictures are still being prepared. 

The two victims are Eitam Henkin, shot along with his wife Naama in a drive-by terrorist attack while driving home in Samaria with their four children, and Yaakov Litman, murdered with his son Netanel in a shooting attack near Hebron while driving to his daughter's pre-wedding celebration. 

The Kiryat Arba region, on the eastern outskirts of Hebron, has been among the areas hit hardest by the current surge of terrorist violence. In addition to the killings of Henkin and Litman, resident Avraham Asher Hasno was run over and killed by a truck driver after his vehicle was stoned by Palestinians, and fellow resident Meir Pavlovsky was seriously wounded in a stabbing attack. All in all, the area has seen around 20 attacks -- stabbings, car rammings, and shootings -- over the last two months, which ended in varying degrees of injuries. 

The situation has prompted hundreds of Kiryat Arba residents to march to Jerusalem and demonstrate at government buildings, demanding that something be done to restore security to their homes and roads. 

Fewer than 7,000 people live in the tiny regional council, and everyone knows everyone else.

The main focus, however, has been on the Nir hesder yeshiva, which has lost two alumni in the latest terror wave. The injured Pavlovsky also frequented the yeshiva regularly in recent years. 

And everyone's lives are intertwined: Shlomi Levinger, the brother of Kiryat Arba council head Malachi Levinger and son of the famous rabbi Moshe Levinger, is both an alumnus of the Nir hesder yeshiva and the headmaster of the school where the late Litman taught. He is still trying to make sense of everything that has happened. 

"Two impossible incidents," he says of the attacks that killed Litman and Henkin. "What was supposed to be the happiest day, a daughter getting married, turned into the most painful thing possible. It is true that losing both a mother and a father, like the Henkins, is painful, but to lose a son is unfathomable. Netanel Litman, may he rest in peace, was a sweet kid. A prodigy. A yeshiva boy with tzitziyot [tassels] on display and peot [sideburns]. This combination of a father, a son and a wedding is extremely difficult.

"To think that Dvir, the youngest son, watched his father and brother being executed. It raises some very painful associations." 

'Zionism does not need anyone's approval'

The Nir hesder yeshiva is one of the oldest of its kind in Israel. It was established in 1970 by a group of settlers. Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, 79, who headed the yeshiva for many years and was one of the founders of Kiryat Arba, recalls: "To start our lives here we had to rent the Arab Park Hotel and turn it into a Jewish place. That was in the beginning, when the Movement for Greater Israel was just established. In those days there were activists from the Right and the Left as well -- religious and secular, all in support of settlement.

"We wanted to get onto the land and build a settlement, but we couldn't get government approval. So we went to Labor Minister Yigal Allon for advice. We told him that we were waiting for government approval. He said, 'Are you crazy? You want approval? That is not how Zionism works. We have never asked anyone for approval.' We understood what we had to do and we settled on the land. If we had waited for approval we wouldn't have our communities today.

"We rented the hotel and made it kosher for Passover. From then on we just kept living in it. The Left fought us, but Menachem Begin proposed that the government adopt a decision worded in such a way that would not officially recognize renewed settlement in Hebron but instead would recognize 'renewed establishment of a yeshiva in Hebron with the presence of families in the surrounding area.' That was the first and only time that the government decided to build a yeshiva. It was always first a settlement then a yeshiva was built. Here, it was the other way around."

Among the graduates of the Nir hesder yeshiva throughout the years are some big names in the settler leadership. The school gained prestige and men from the nationalist-haredi stream flocked to it. The late Eitam Henkin was taught by Rabbi Avraham Smotrich, now better known as the father of Habayit Hayehudi MK Betzalel Smotrich.

"Rabbi Eitam [Henkin] studied here for years, even after he got married. He joined the rabbinical institute and served as the editor of the yeshiva newspaper," says Avraham Smotrich.

"We had an educational relationship that evolved into mutual appreciation and friendship. Eitam was a great talent. When he was killed, and the papers said his wife was a graphic artist, I said that an artist had married an artist. He had a special talent for pulling out details, finding connections and putting together a coherent picture. He was a champ. His absence is painful, but the biggest sorrow is over what the world missed out on."

Shlomi Levinger, who heads the school where Litman taught, describes a special, beloved elementary school teacher.

"During former Education Minister Shay Piron's term, the Education Ministry adopted the slogan 'moving toward learning with meaning.' That describes Rabbi Litman exactly. I always asked to see syllabi at the beginning of the year. He could have shown me exactly what he would teach on the fourth of Shvat. He was that organized," says Levinger.

"Whenever I wanted to talk about the model teacher, and how an educator should be, I would give him as an example."

The void left by Litman in his first-grade class teaches us something about how complicated life has become in Kiryat Arba recently. On Sunday, Levinger photographed three of Litman's students holding a photo of their slain teacher.

"The students mainly ask technical questions, but we don't wait for the children to ask," he explains. "They understand what's going on. They are worried about rock throwers, they talk about fear, but not about their own fears -- they say their parents are afraid, but they also feel a sense of duty. At this early age they already, truly feel a sense of duty that makes them stronger."

The head of the yeshiva, Rabbi Noam Waldman, joins the conversation. He is the son of Eliezer Waldman, and his youngest son attends the first-grade class that Litman taught.

"The first- and second-graders understand that we are here on a mission. They learn in the weekly Torah portion that ever since the biblical spies committed their sin all of the Land of Israel is our mission. Of course they can understand that," he says.

"For a long time my son has been telling us, 'I don't want to go to the army because people die there.' It makes sense for children to have fears. Now that Rabbi Litman has been murdered he is suddenly asking, 'Dad, but Rabbi Yaakov wasn't evil and those who die are evil. So why did it happen to him?' I explained to him that Rabbi Litman was a righteous man, a holy man, an angel who gave his life for the Land of Israel. Once he heard that he said, 'I am ready to go to the army.' I guess he was afraid that he had it coming, and now he understood. That is the children's reality. They understand.

"He gets very afraid. He says to us, 'Mom, Dad, you're not leaving Kiryat Arba.' He really cries. Of course there are concerns but we explain to him that we need to overcome. We cannot let these fears paralyze us. It only helps prepare properly and continue courageously on our special mission in Hebron and all of Israel."

'We must never show fear'

The residents of Kiryat Arba are trying to go about their daily routines as though everything is normal, but the security threat is palpable. There are concrete slabs at every hitchhiking station; soldiers detain an Arab man roaming the streets to check his papers; troops are on edge, jumpy whenever they see a vehicle standing still for too long; demonstration posters against the government and the Arab public hang on bulletin boards and inside the yeshiva; even a photojournalist who doesn't look as if he belongs raises suspicions.

"We have to keep living as always," says Rabbi Eliezer Waldman. His son, Noam, adds that "there are more security and patrols during the hours when people are coming home from work. Of course it affects the residents, there are those who drive less, walk around less."

The elder Waldman says, "You can't blame families that take the dangers of living in such a place into consideration, but generally speaking, the approach is that where there are no Jews, or just a few Jews, that is where the danger is greatest. Where there are many Jews, the danger lessens.

"That is not to say that there are no threats. There are threats. The government needs to take steps. The IDF needs to take action in a way that won't show weakness. And we need to go on with our lives."

His son adds that "we believe that if we continue to drive as usual, it will have an effect. The Arabs aren't acting out of desperation; they are acting out of hope – the hope that they will be able to kick us out. In the meantime, more [Jewish] families are arriving, housing projects are sold at record speed, and we are doing everything in our power to destroy their hope that we will not be here anymore."

Eliezer Waldman listens to the hourly news update and comes back optimistic.

"They are reporting that [Israel will exert] increased pressure on the Arab population. That is good. We are demanding that Route 60, the main axis that runs through Judea and Samaria, be closed to Arabs," he says. "Likewise, if Israel were to openly declare that every time young [Palestinians] gather and throw rocks and firebombs at IDF troops we will shoot to kill, those things would not happen anymore. We need to declare a state of emergency. Why is it that in France, after one attack, albeit a big one, they declare a state of emergency, and here, when the attacks are ongoing, they don't?"

Noam agrees with his father and says that "Hebron needs to be shut down and pressure on the residents needs to be stepped up. Mothers who are proud of their children for stabbing Jews need to understand that this will affect their income, that their normal lives will be affected. Then they can do a cost-benefit analysis."

The Waldman family is not afraid to criticize the military.

"We have no doubt that the current commander [of the Judea division, Col. Yariv Ben Ezra] comes from a place of devotion and desire to restore safety," says Eliezer Waldman.

"The dispute is over the method. The commander's working objective is not to disrupt the lives of the Arab residents, even at the expense of jeopardizing Jewish citizens. That is the attitude. He even handed out candy to Arab children thinking that he could create a friendly atmosphere. The problem is that what they see is an Israeli commander handing out candy. They see a weak commander who didn't come to fight."

'Willing to die'

Despite the recent tragedies, and perhaps because of them, talk of giving up, of crises of faith, is unacceptable, even at the Nir hesder yeshiva.

"Does the price undermine our faith? Of course not!" exclaims the yeshiva head. "Our connection to Kiryat Arba is historical; our covenant is a covenant of blood. There is a willingness to die. We want to live in this land. We love life, but we know that in order to receive it, to be worthy of it, there is a price to pay. All the students at the yeshiva feel that devotion is not momentary. It gives your life great meaning."

Despite the recent string of difficult incidents, most of the residents don't think this is the worst spate of violence the community has experienced. They recall the 2002 murders of Col. Dror Weinberg along with three Kiryat Arba residents on an emergency response team, and of nine soldiers at the Cave of the Patriarchs. They recall other incidents. But even they can sense that the current wave is different.

"There is something about the knife attacks that makes it feel very close," says Smotrich.

"A gun and a rock are operated from a distance. Stabbings create a sense that anyone who passes by you on the street could pose a threat.

"The nature of the attacks is an alarming combination of knives and blood. The world is headed toward 'cleaner' wars with planes and bombs. They may cause more damage, but sitting behind a plasma screen is cleaner and more sterile. Even [Israeli songwriter] Naomi Shemer once wrote that 'the Arabs like their murder warm and damp and steamy. If they ever get the freedom to realize their dreams, we will be yearning for the good, sterile poison gas used by the Germans."

A military source responded to the criticism of Ezra, the Judea division commander, saying, "These remarks are extremely upsetting. [Ben Ezra] is one of the top officers in his unit and in all the IDF. He hasn't gone home over the last two months, even when he had a baby girl, due to his devotion and sense of duty."

The IDF Spokesperson's Unit issued a statement saying, "The IDF is operating in Judea and Samaria, working day and night to ensure the safety of the citizens. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit rejects the allegations made against the commander of the Judea Division, an accomplished officer who has been combating terrorism in Judea and Samaria in his current role and as the commander of the Duvdevan unit in the past."

Yehuda Shlezinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=30001

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

Egyptian Cleric: ISIS Grows out of Islamic Mainstream - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

"The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches...

^{Originally published under the title "Al Azhar and ISIS: Cause and Effect."}

Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr heads a group of former Al Azhar graduates who support a civil government.

Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt's Al Azhar University—regularly touted as the world's most prestigious Islamic university—recently exposed his alma mater in a televised interview.
After being asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic, Sheikh Nasr said:

It can't [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic]. The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar's programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?

Nasr joins a growing chorus of critics of Al Azhar. Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that "The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches... and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir's Beginning and End."

Al Azhar, which the New York Times calls "Sunni Islam's leading religious institution," refuses to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic.

Ibn Kathir is one of Sunni Islam's most renowned scholars; his Beginning and End is a magisterial history of Islam and a staple at Al Azhar. It is also full of Muslims, beginning with Muhammad, committing the sorts of atrocities that the Islamic State and other Islamic organizations and persons commit.
In February, Egyptian political writer Dr. Khalid al-Montaser revealed that Al Azhar was encouraging enmity for non-Muslims, specifically Coptic Christians, and even inciting for their murder. Marveled Montaser:

Is it possible at this sensitive time — when murderous terrorists rest on texts and understandings of takfir [accusing Muslims of apostasy], murder, slaughter, and beheading — that Al Azhar magazine is offering free of charge a book whose latter half and every page — indeed every few lines — ends with "whoever disbelieves [non-Muslims] strike off his head"?

The prestigious Islamic university—which co-hosted U.S. President Obama's 2009 "A New Beginning" speech—has even issued a free booklet dedicated to proving that Christianity is a "failed religion."

In short, the phenomenon known as "ISIS" is not a temporal aberration within Islam but rather a byproduct of what is considered normative thinking for Al Azhar—the Islamic world's most authoritative university.


Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Source: http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/11/isis-byproduct

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

Is Kerry reinventing the Middle East? - Yoram Ettinger

by Yoram Ettinger

The reliability of Kerry's policy assessments and recommendations should be appraised within the context of his track record.

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's Nov. 24 visit to Jerusalem confirmed his determination to reinvent "the energetic, youthful and forward-looking Middle East" in accordance with his own worldview, irrespective of the reality in the region. Kerry recycles well-intentioned, but failed, assessments and tactics, further eroding the U.S.'s posture of deterrence and its power projection among pro-U.S. Arab countries. 

On Oct. 28, Kerry presented his vision of U.S. policy in the Middle East, convinced that peaceful coexistence can surmount the inherently complex, anti-American, 14-century-old violent and intolerant Islamic Middle East: "Just imagine a future where people from the Nile to Jordan and Euphrates are free to live and work and travel as they choose, where every boy and girl has access to quality education, where visitors are able to flock without fear." 

Kerry's preference for a Middle East policy driven by hope rather than reality was highlighted on Dec. 7, 2013, when he said: "Imagine what a two-state solution will mean for Israel, Palestine, Jordan and the region. Imagine what it would mean for trade, tourism, technology, and for Israeli and Palestinian children."

Kerry's suspension of disbelief triggered a Nov. 21 column by Amir Taheri, the most experienced columnist of the prestigious Saudi daily, Asharq al-Awsat, expressing the views of the House of Saud and the Arab world at large: "What Kerry offers is mediocre poetry ... [commissioning] marketing studies while the whole region is in flames ... a fireman trying to put out the flames, so far without success ... failure on a grand scale. ... Under the deal which Kerry was boasting [of], Iran retains full capacity to build a nuclear arsenal within one year." 

The reliability of Kerry's policy assessments and recommendations should be appraised within the context of his track record. In 1993, unlike Sen. Daniel Inouye, the late chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee who defined the Oslo Accords as "a potential funeral of the Jewish state," then-Senator Kerry embraced PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat as a messenger of peace in defiance of reality, namely Arafat's 40-year trail of terrorism. Moreover, in his 1997 book "The New War," Kerry hailed "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman," ignoring Arafat's real transformation back in the 1970s from regional terrorist to role model of anti-U.S. international terrorism. 

Now, in 2015, Kerry embraces Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as a messenger of peace, in defiance of reality (Abbas' 70-year trail of terrorism, exacerbated by the establishment in 1993 of anti-Israel, anti-U.S. and anti-Semitic Palestinian hate education in kindergartens, schools, mosques and media, which has evolved into the most effective production line of terrorists).

On Oct. 16, 2014, Kerry reiterated his conviction that the Palestinian issue is the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and the core cause of Middle East turbulence -- including Islamic terrorism -- and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

"As I went around [the Middle East], in the course of our discussions about the anti-ISIL [Islamic State] coalition, there wasn't a leader who did not raise with me, spontaneously, the need to try to get peace between Israel and Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt -- and I see a lot of nodding [by State Department personnel] -- they had to respond to. And people need to understand the connection of that. And it has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity," Kerry said. 

Thus, Kerry and those who nod in agreement with him ignore the unbridgeable gap between the Arab talk and the Arab walk on the Palestinian issue, as evidenced by the fact that Arabs shower the Palestinians with rhetoric, but not resources. Contrary to what Kerry and other "Palestine Firsters," may claim, the Palestinian issue has always been a sideshow in the Middle East, as highlighted by the non-Palestinian-related Arab tsunami. Furthermore, Arabs have never launched a war on behalf of Palestinians. In fact, Arabs have launched military operations against Palestinians, whom they have considered a source of subversion and terrorism.

Until 2011, Kerry was one of the very few U.S. legislators who considered the late Syrian President Hafez Assad, and then his son and successor Bashar, to be constructive, peace-driven leaders, pressuring Israel to concede the Golan Heights.

In 2011, once again, Kerry sacrificed Middle East reality on the altar of his own benevolent worldview, welcoming the Arab tsunami -- which has yet to reach its brutal climax -- as the "Arab Spring." He viewed it as a youth revolution, a Facebook revolution, and an ostensible transition toward democracy, bringing an end to ruthless dictatorships and sharing with Arabs the blessings of civil liberties and peaceful coexistence. Kerry supported the successful effort to topple Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (who transferred his nuclear infrastructure to the U.S. in 2003), which transformed post-Gadhafi Libya into the largest, most lawless platform of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, spreading terror into Africa, Europe and the rest of the world.

In 2015, Kerry is still determined to ignore Middle East reality, recycling past U.S. initiatives that failed to advance the cause of Israel-Arab peace by highlighting mediation rather than direct negotiation. Kerry overlooks the fact that the only two successful peace accords (Israel-Egypt in 1979 and Israel-Jordan in 1994) were initiated and negotiated directly between the parties. Thus, unintentionally, Kerry's involvement -- featuring the immoral, moral equivalence -- hardens Palestinian positions. It legitimizes and rewards hate education and incitement, which must be uprooted as a prerequisite to real peace, and indirectly fuels Palestinian terrorism.

Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=14489

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