Open Hillel welcomes the enemy into the Jewish tent - Dr. Richard Cravatts

by Dr. Richard Cravatts

Israel-hating academics want to force Palestinianism down Jewish students’ throats. Why are they not demanding that Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association, debate or embrace the views of pro-Israel students?

Winston Churchill could have been observing the sorry state of academic free speech today when he observed that “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” 

As if to confirm Churchill’s prescience, this month a cabal of 55 high-minded but morally incoherent American and Canadian professors formed Open Hillel’s Academic Council, a group comprised of well-known Israel-haters who condemned “Hillel International's Standards of Partnership [which] narrowly circumscribe discourse about Israel-Palestine” and which, in its view, “only serve to foster estrangement from the organized Jewish community.”

This group of academics and intellectuals, who almost to a person promotes a one-sided, anti-Israel view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and whose teaching and so-called scholarship perpetuates a historically false and factually defective narrative in which Israel is the world’s greatest manifestation of malevolence and the Palestinian Arabs are innocent victims of colonial oppression, feel very free to tell Hillel how to achieve its mission:

“Hillel’s recent aggressive attempts to police discourse about Israel place it in direct conflict with the spirit of the academy,” the Council bloviated, adding that “Just as our classrooms must be spaces that embrace diversity of experience and opinion, so must Hillel.”

This sentiment is not surprising from these particular academics, given the ideological composition of a group that includes:

• Peter Beinart, associate professor at the City University of New York, who justifies the BDS campaign because “its recruits are progressives, and that what tips them toward BDS is despair that there seems no other way to end Israel’s immoral, undemocratic control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip;”
• Berkeley’s feminist philosopher, Judith Butler, who notoriously and who almost surreally commented that it is important to view “Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left;”
• Stanford’s Joel Beinin, a self-proclaimed Marxist and rabid anti-Zionist who singles out Israel for criticism of its varied and frequent transgressions, all the while excusing the social and political defects of the neighboring Arab states who surround it and blaming the pathologies of the Middle East on Western imperialism and the continuing colonial impact of the U.S.'s proxy in the Levant, Israel;
• UC Irvine’s Mark LeVine, associate professor of history, who claims that Israel, like America, essentially receives what it deserves, contending that, “In Israel the violence and terrorism of the latest intifada cannot be understood except as emerging out of decades of occupation, discrimination and dispossession.”  

Open Hillel, founded in 2013 by “progressive” (read: anti-Zionist) Jewish students at Swarthmore College, was an attempt to challenge Hillel International’s guidelines which seek to preserve Hillel’s primary desire “to enrich the lives of Jewish students so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.” Part of that enrichment is helping Jewish students to connect and form an enduring relationship with Israel, and so a positive view of the Jewish state is generally fostered and embraced within Hillel chapter walls.

Open Hillel, however, is not satisfied with that approach to forming a Jewish identity; instead, it seeks to invite anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist voices into Hillel, purportedly to bring a diversity of views into discussions about Israel and the Palestinians, but, as is obvious from the unseemly group behind the movement, to actually bring anti-Israel activism right into the otherwise “safe” space that Hillel provides Jewish students who are forming their own spiritual identities and attitudes about the Jewish state.

The idea that Hillel International has very clear guidelines about which type of groups may, and may not, appear at Hillel events was apparently too much for these anti-Israel ideologues, who are not content with flooding the rest of campuses with virulent pro-Palestinian activism that incessantly demonizes, libels, and demeans Israel and its supporters; these activists also want to force this tsunami of anti-Israel hatred, often anti-Semitic in nature, right into Hillel’s door—using the disingenuous claim that it is done in the name of academic free speech and diversity of ideas.

“Hillel’s recent aggressive attempts to police discourse about Israel place it in direct conflict with the spirit of the academy . . . [by] forcing an unnecessary and destructive choice between academic freedom and membership in the Jewish community.”

What are the “aggressive attempts” by Hillel “to police discourse about Israel”? In fact, Hillel’s guidelines are designed, not to eliminate any discussion about Israel, but only to prevent self-identified enemies of Israel to participate in Hillel events—those groups such as the virulent Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Student Association (MSA), who lead in on-campus agitation against Israel and Jews who support it, and toxic fringe groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Breaking the Silence, which use the cover of having Jewish members themselves to openly, and vigorously, seek to weaken and destroy the Jewish state. 

Hillel’s Standards of Partnership state clearly that “Hillel will not partner with . . . organizations, groups, or speakers that . . . Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state . . . Delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel . . ; Support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel . . ; [or] Exhibit a pattern of disruptive behavior towards campus”—exactly the speech and behavior characteristic of both the activist groups mentioned above and virtually all of the members of the Open Hillel Academic Council.

Students for Justice in Palestine, for example, the campus group currently leading the campaign to delegitimize and demonize Israel, has absolutely no interest in joining Hillel in robust, honest debates about a future Palestinian state or, as the wishful thinking goes, creating two states that will live side by side in peace. SJP has a long history, since its founding in 1993, of bringing vitriolic anti-Israel speakers to their respective campuses, and for sponsoring Israeli Apartheid Weeks, building mock “apartheid walls,” and sending mock eviction notices to students in their dorms to help them empathize with Palestinians.  

SJP may wish to enter Hillel’s tent to spew their venom, and clearly this is the intention of Open Hillel’s Academic Council, but not so they can engage in actual dialogue with pro-Israel Jewish students. The whole idea of even legitimizing a pro-Israel view is anathematic to SJP and their fellow-travelers in their never-ending bash-Israel campaign.

In fact, a leaked memorandum from the Binghamton University SJP chapter revealed that its members would be required to never even engage in dialogue with pro-Israel groups on their campus, and they would be prohibited from “engaging in any form of official collaboration, cooperation, or event co-sponsorship with [pro-Israel] student organizations and groups, due to their unyielding support for the Apartheid State of Israel.”

What is more, the memo read, SJP members “shall in no manner engage in any form of official collaboration with any student group which actively opposes the cause of Palestinian liberation nor with groups which have aided and abetted Zionist student organizations in the interest of undermining or denigrating the work of Students for Justice in Palestine,” meaning, of course, that the so-called intellectual debate that academics pretend to promote will never take place when SJP is involved.

Why, then, would Hillel ever want to allow SJP, or groups countenancing similar attitudes, to discuss anything about Israel, Zionism, or Judaism inside its walls? Obviously, it would not, which is precisely the reason that Open Hillel wants so badly to force these openly anti-Israel, often anti-Semitic views into a Jewish communal space where an honest discussion of Israel’s politics and relationship to its Arab neighbors is productive, but not a negative, one-sided dialogue with Israel as the sole villain and the Palestinians as entirely blameless victims.

If the august and self-important Open Hillel Academic Council actually wishes to support campus “spaces that embrace diversity of experience and opinion,” why is it not demanding that Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association, or other groups central to the Israeli/Palestinian debate and/or embrace the views of pro-Israel students, as they are asking Jews to do with their ideological enemies, and insist that Hillel members and others be invited to participate in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, rallies, conferences, and campaigns to promote “the principle of open discourse” they seem so intent to foist on Hillel alone?

The renowned religious leader Hillel the Elder, for whom Hillel itself was named, once famously asked, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” For Hillel International, that means that as Jewish students forge a relationship to Judaism and Israel, they have to act with some self-interest to insure that others, who do not have their best interest at heart, cannot do them harm by defaming, libeling, and assaulting their moral and religious identities—exactly what the poisonous ideology of the Open Hillel academic council seems intent on achieving.

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, author of Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews (A David Horowitz Freedom Center publication), is President of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18252#.Vpu_X1Kzdds

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

'Peddling Fiction' Or Repealing Math? - Clarice Feldman

by Clarice Feldman

Amid all the factors behind the tailspin of our and the world’s economies it is obvious that the grand progressive schemes based on ignoring reality play a critical part

No sooner had the president charged that those who claimed the economy is in trouble were “peddling fiction” than U.S. stocks posted their worst ten-day start to a year in history. Walmart announced it was closing 154 stores in the U.S. putting 10,000 U.S. jobs on the block. (It also was closing over one hundred of its stores in Brazil.) Macy’s announced it was closing 36 stores and 27 Kmart and Sears stores were also to be shuttered. True, some of this reflected the change in shopping habits with more consumers buying merchandise online, but from the barrage of emails I receive daily from retailers online cutting prices, I think it’s likely that the entire tranche -- retail sales -- suffered mightily last year, and I expect to see that big dip reflected in their fourth quarter reports. Consumers simply are running out of money to buy things.

To be sure, the global economy is shaky right now. China leads the way down and with it a glut of oil as Middle Eastern countries open the spigots just as demand is down. Countries in BRIC, the five emerging national economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), are also in a hard spot, meaning that the entire globe, not just the oil producers and the Western economies, are at risk and the global recession looks to be more severe than the last one.

As my friend “Ignatz Ratzkywatszky” notes:

The problems my untrained eye see that are worse than last time;
1. U.S. population may not be overextended but the middle class is in a weaker spot otherwise than 08, a lot of municipalities and states are already a lot more stressed than they were in 08 and U.S. gov[ernment] debt is much higher.
2. Every one of the BRICS is already either in a depression [Brazil], plunging who knows how far [China, South Africa] or getting set to plunge who knows how far [Russia, India]. That doesn't leave much of a wall and I have zero confidence in any of their abilities to weather the storm.
3. Most of the Eurozone never really recovered from 08.
4. Policy makers and central bankers seem even more clueless than ever after having embarked on an even larger worldwide binge to cure the hangover, or more correctly aneurysm, from their last binge.
Perhaps the only silver lining might be there is less distance to fall for most and those who have most profited from the free money binge of the last 7 years are those with the most to lose.

Amid all the factors behind the tailspin of our and the world’s economies it is obvious that the grand progressive schemes based -- as they certainly are -- on ignoring reality play a critical part. Returning to Walmart, for example: responding to demands to raise the minimum wage, in February of 2015 it raised wages above the minimum. Critics of raising the minimum wage argued that that would raise prices, negatively affect sales and reduce employment rolls. It seems that it did.

In economic terms, we are in the worst possible situation: politicians and bureaucrats with no respect for reality support programs which depend on an ever increasing supply of other peoples’ money at a time when there isn’t such money to be had because, in large part, they are also supporting programs which ignore supply/demand exigencies and choke commercial, industrial, and agricultural activity.

Reason sets out the dilemma succinctly:

Sanders has built his popularity almost exclusively on promises to spend more money not just on the poor but not on everybody, without even a hint that he understands why that would only exacerbate the "wealth inequality" he rails so often against.
[snip]
Sanders hasn't been specific about where the money would come from, mentioning only one transaction tax on Wall Street. Such a tax, by itself, wouldn't come close to funding Sanders' promises --his plans require massive tax hikes not just on the rich but on the middle class, meaning his efforts at offering everyone an education could not only increase inequality (since richer people are, in general, more likely to take advantage of entitlements like a "free education") but also actually redistribute wealth upward.
There's a relevant Richard Feynman quote about big numbers. "There are 10¹¹ stars in the galaxy," Feynman once said. "That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." That was at least three decades ago -- the annual deficit is at about a trillion now.

Puerto Rico is this week’s U.S. basket case with $70 billion in debt for which they have no means of repaying. Other states with unfunded enormous pension liabilities look to be lining up behind Puerto Rico and will certainly be seeking some sort of bankruptcy relief, relief which may well hurt middle class bond holders as well as the pensioners and the poor who depend on functioning government services. On a national scale, People who could add warned that ObamaCare would collapse with expenditures quickly exceeding revenue, and there’s no doubt that the death spiral is well underway.

This week Humana joined the list of insurers reporting big problems with Obamacare. PJ Media’s Stephen Green Commented: 

As for the ObamaCare!!! cheaters -- well, it's not like the Democrats who authored this law weren't given plenty of warnings about the perverse incentives.
The net result is that more and more insurers can't afford to sell insurance to ObamaCare!!! customers -- the very people the law was ostensibly designed to help:
"Humana Inc. has added its name to the list of mega-medical insurers to report big problems under ObamaCare."
"The Louisville, Ky.-based company does not expect to make enough money this year in premiums from individual plans to cover what it will pay out in claims, according to a regulatory filing made last week with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission."
"Humana, which is being acquired by Aetna Inc., said it is still trying to figure out how big the gap will be. The company did say it has set aside a premium deficiency reserve -- meaning, it’s setting aside money to help make up the difference."
"Humana, which will provide a deeper dive into its 2016 outlook when it releases its fourth-quarter earnings on Feb. 10, said in the SEC filing that it expects membership to drop this year by 200,000 to 300,000. The decrease reflects plans sold under ObamaCare as well as older policies."
"'We expect Humana will exit Health Insurance Exchange marketplaces in 2017 in light of this data.'"
This thing is coming off the rails, and a LOT of people are going to get crushed when it does.

Mere glitches to the innumerate progressives. I don’t know what they are up to where you live, but in Washington D.C. they are proposing a massive new paid 16-week family leave program which it is estimated could cost over $700 million a year. Even though the plan would be based on a 1 percent tax on salaries to be paid by employers, it likely would entail a $200 million annual deficit, and -- if experience on the cost of government programs is any guide -- that shortfall estimate is probably an optimistic scenario. In any event, it is most likely that if this passes, employers will hire fewer people and pay them less to compensate for the cost. Once again the bottom of the economic pyramid would bear the burden of the virtue signaling of those at the top.

In fact, Walmart has just notified District officials that it was cancelling 2 planned new stores in depressed neighborhoods.

Walmart officials were more frank about the reasons the company was downsizing. He said the company cited the District’s rising minimum wage, now at $11.50 an hour and possibly going to $15 an hour if a proposed ballot measure is successful in November. He also said a proposal for legislation requiring D.C. employers to pay into a fund for family and medical leave for employees, and another effort to require a minimum amount of hours for hourly workers were compounding costs and concerns for the retailer.
“They were saying, ‘How are we going to run the three stores we have, let alone build two more?’ ” Evans said.

Restaurant employment is already down, likely due to the city's minimum wage law.
Math is so hard for progressives. I expect any day now some Democrat in Congress will introduce a bill repealing it.

Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/peddling_fiction_or_repealing_math.html

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

Iran's Commitment to Shia in the Region - Lawrence A. Franklin

by Lawrence A. Franklin

• Iran's commitment to Shi'ite interests seems firmly linked to its idea of its mission, as well as to the survival of its revolutionary regime. Iran's theocracy is likely willing to pay a high price to safeguard this legacy. The West should not expect Iran to reduce its presence in Syria or Iraq, even under severe military pressure.
• As the Obama Administration continues to reward Iran for violating its agreement not to build nuclear weapons under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and violating its agreement not to build nuclear-capable missiles, and its refusal to sign the worthless "Iran Deal," its presence is set to become even more unpleasant as it becomes more prominent.

The West does not seem to appreciate the intensity of Iran's commitment to its Shi'ite cousins in Syria. The West also seems not to comprehend the depth of Iran's spiritual ties to its centuries-old role as the champion of Shi'a Islam.

Much Western journalistic commentary addresses Iran's commitment to the Assad regime in Damascus. Left underreported is the profound sense of shared religious identity between the Shia of Iran and the Shi'a Alawi minority of Syria. Iran's determination to maintain Alawi supremacy in Syria transcends any personal attachment to the Assad administration.

In light of this month's execution of a leading Shi'ite preacher Nimr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia and the consequent heightened tension between Tehran and Riyadh, it might help policymakers to understand that the religious divide between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims as an inveterate and unbridgeable chasm as that between ISIS and the United States.

Parts of the Saudi embassy in Tehran were burned on January 2, when a mob of Iranians attacked and ransacked the diplomatic mission. The attack came in response to Saudi Arabia's execution of Shi'ite preacher Nimr al-Nimr the same day.

Iran's Shi'ite Ayatollahs are on record declaring that Syria's Alawites are genuine Shi'ites[1], a question finalized after a centuries-long dispute. The Iranian Shi'ite establishment had questioned the Syrian Alawi inclination to venerate Jesus, Mohammad and Ali as a pale reflection of the Christian theological concept of the Holy Trinity. Moreover, some Iranian Mullahs were not comfortable with the Alawi practice of celebrating Christmas. Iran evidently felt obligated to extend a protective cover to its Shi'ite co-religionists.

Another dimension of Iran's support for regional Shi'ism is its close operational relationship with the Lebanon-based terrorist group, Hezbollah -- the political arm of Lebanon's Shi'ites. The links are so close that Tehran has been able to mobilize thousands of Lebanese Shi'ite volunteers to fight in support of the Assad regime in Syria. Iran's theological ties to Lebanon's Shi'ite Muslims also are deep and longstanding.

Iran's sense of responsibility for Shi'ism beyond its borders seems linked to the historical Islamic world-power contest for hegemony between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. The Sunni, for centuries, have dominated and persecuted the Shi'ites, even in states where the Shiites have been in the majority. This century is first time the Shi'ites have started successfully to challenge Sunni supremacy in the region of the Persian Gulf. The George W. Bush Administration replaced Iraq's ousted Sunni President, Saddam Hussein, with a basically Shi'ite leadership. And the Obama Administration, thorough the promised infusions of up to $150 billion (much of which Iran will presumably use to increase its terrorist activities worldwide), has paved the way for Iran to have the capability to assemble nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems.

But perhaps even the Americans could not, in an electoral system, have prevented Shi'ite predominance in a country where the Shi'ites constituted about two-thirds of Iraq's population.[2] Next-door Iran is at least 75% Shi'ite.[3] The theological cadre from both countries receives its religious training in many of the same seminaries in Qom, Iran and Najaf, Iraq. Much of Iraq is now controlled by militia groups loyal to Tehran, not to Baghdad.[4]

Iran is also extending assistance to Bahrain's Shi'ites, the vast majority of the island's population.[5] Iran, which had controlled Bahrain before the island was colonized by Great Britain in the 19th century, had agreed to London's grant of independence to the Gulf state in 1971. The agreement had served British imperial interests in the region. Yet Iran has evidently never been comfortable with the arrangement. The final secession of Bahrain from Iranian patrimony remains an open wound to Iran's national pride. The Bahrain issue is particularly sensitive, as the United States Navy's 5th Fleet is now headquartered there. The fleet's naval assets enable the U.S. to guard the Persian Gulf below Iran's southern border.

A religious reason, however, also motivates Tehran's role in Bahrain. For more than two centuries, Bahrain has been governed by the al-Khalifas, a Sunni family originally from Qatar,[6] and sustained in power by Iran's regional and religious arch-rival: Saudi Arabia. The Sunni ruling family in Riyadh even financed the construction of a 14-mile bridge linking Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, enabling a quick response to any possible move by Tehran to re-establish its dominance in the island. In 2011, Riyadh dispatched military units to Bahrain to suppress protests by the country's Shi'ites, who were demanding more representation in keeping with their majority status on the island.

Iran also maintains extensive ties to the Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where most of the country's oil fields are. The Saudi National Guard does not permit demonstrations against Riyadh's policies. Imams who preach any opposition sentiment to the House of Saud are immediately imprisoned. One imam, Nimr, al-Nimr, was executed by the Saudis this month, presumably as a warning to Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia not even to think any dissenting thoughts.

Iran's sense of duty to Shi'ite communities outside the Arab Middle East has also earned it influence, particularly in South Asia[7] and West Africa[8].

Iran's commitment to Shi'ite interests seems firmly linked to its idea of its mission, as well as to the survival of its revolutionary regime. Iran's theocracy is likely willing to pay a high price to safeguard this legacy. The West should not expect Iran to reduce its presence in Syria or Iraq, even under severe military pressure.

As the Obama Administration continues to reward Iran for violating its agreement not to build nuclear weapons under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and violating its agreement not to build nuclear-capable missiles, and its refusal to sign the worthless "Iran Deal," its presence is set to become even more unpleasant as it becomes more prominent.

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

---

[1] In 1972 Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Hasan Mahdi al-Shirazi issued a Fatwa ruling that Shia and Alawis are "two synonymous words." Ayatollah Musa al-Sadr, who disappeared on a visit to Libya reconfirmed al-Shirazi's Fatwa. See also The Vanished Imam by Fouad Ajami, 1986. p 174.
[2] Encyclopedia Britannica (1997) and various other compilation sources support the statistics cited. However, B.E. claims the percentage of Shia among Iran's Muslims is about 93%.
[3] Encyclopedia Britannica. Kuwait 30%, Syria/15%, Pakistan 15-20%, Bahrain/65%.
[4] The Council on Foreign Relations Initial Background Paper on Militia Groups in Iraq by Lionel Beehnor and follow-on versions, 9 June 2005.
[5] Encyclopedia Britannica.
[6] Al-Khalifa has governed Bahrain directly or indirectly since 1783.
[7] The key pro-Iranian militia/terrorist group in Pakistan's mega-city of Karachi is the Tehrik-e-Jafaria.
[8] Iran has just lodged diplomatic protest against the alleged Nigerian Army's recent massacre of Shi'a Muslims.

Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7242/iran-shia-commitment

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

The most plausible explanation for the 10 riverine sailors captured by Iran - Thomas H. Lipscomb

by Thomas H. Lipscomb

Explains several things. Why the captured sailors were so much more fit than the average sailor these days, and how a woman could be among them.

See also: Calling BS on the official story of the Iranian capture of two US riverine boats

I have separately heard from two experts, both high ranking Marines, one on active duty and the other working in DC at a foundation, the following.
 When I pressed them on the Fars News Service statement from Iran that the 10 captured on the two US vessels were all Marines, they countered:

No, they are part of a Rivierine Squadron based in San Diego. Further they are support crews for SEAL missions from the US Navy and highly trained. The Iranians probably mistook “Riverine” for “Marine” in doing the story.
So that explains several things. Why the captured sailors were so much more fit than the average sailor these days, and how a woman could be among them. While not special ops personnel directly engaged, they have to be extraordinarily fit and well-trained, as indeed these sailors appear to be.

It also raises the question as to whether they had been on a mission ferrying SEALS somewhere. 
One must understand that small craft “belly bumping” has been going on all over the Gulf for decades. There are Standard Operating Procedures for numerous levels of possible engagement, including being swarmed and overcome. They don’t have to include vainglorious responses like getting all your people killed resisting being taken prisoner by other ships with more firepower.



The young Lieutenant commanding the mission, covered in this Chicago Tribune story appeared totally composed in making that statement of “confession,” probably because that was exactly the statement he was supposed to make according to one of those SOPs at Fifth Fleet that had been set up for the alternative scenarios.
 So any notion that malfeasance by the officers and crews of these two vessels is most unlikely. 



Also unlikely is any notion that with the multiple communications channels of special ops vessels and multiple navigation aids anyone on board them got lost, was without communications, or drifted while doing repairs anywhere near the Fars Islands. Look at a map. The course from Bahrain to Kuwait is not only direct, it is almost directly N-S and given the shallow draft capability of these vessels, both boats could have proceeded with the Arabian coast in sight the entire time.



So how did they get more than 70 miles and 90 degrees off their course, (some “short cut”) which at their speeds of more than 40 mph would have taken over an hour one way, and fall into the 12 mile limit of the Farsi Islands claimed by Iran?

In short, they didn’t.

Fifth Fleet knew exactly where they were at all times, just as it knows exactly where all the other NATO vessels, which practically pave the Persian Gulf these days are. And they had the option to back them up with air and sea power if they were allowed to.



If the American people were not suffering from an incompetent and incurious press and media, some of these discrepancies would have come to light and been subject to public debate. One would think the questions remaining over what are now the clear lies about Benghazi would excite some editorial interest.



The explanations pouring out of Obama’s lying Administration spokespersons from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State simply do not stand the light of day. In fact they insult the intelligence of any knowledgeable citizen with military experience.

But one thing is clear. Secretary of State Kerry was a much better liar about his small boat riverine actions in Vietnam than he is in explaining what was going on with our riverine sailors in the Persian Gulf.

Thomas H. Lipscomb

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_most_plausible_explanation_for_the_10_riverine_sailors_captured_by_iran.html

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

Dalia Mogahed: Mainstreaming Islamic Oppression - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

Sharia advocate goes on the Daily Show to explain why Islamic oppression of women is, hey, really cool.

Dalia Mogahed, formerly Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, appeared on Trevor Noah’s sinking-like-a-stone Daily Show last week, to explain to a worshipful Noah and an adoring audience that the hijab represented nothing more or less than the “privatization of women’s sexuality” – and who on earth but the most benighted lout could possibly be against that? The burning outrage of Mogahed’s words was probably missed by most Daily Show viewers. It should not be missed by FrontPage readers.

“The privatization of women’s sexuality.” A well-constructed and extraordinarily clever phrase, to be sure. With it, Mogahed suggests that the only people who could possibly object to women wearing hijabs are those who want to objectify women as sexual commodities. In this, we glimpse the subtle manipulation by which Islamic supremacists such as Mogahed have co-opted and silenced feminists whom one might otherwise have expected to have stood up against the Sharia oppression of women. How can one stand with the objectifiers, the pornographers, the users, the haters, against those who simply want to “privatize” their sexuality?

The audience loved this. Noah ate it up. But there are a few audiences before whom Mogahed’s extremely clever act might not play quite as well as it did before the Daily Show. Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Aqsa might have a few choice words for Dalia Mogahed about “privatization” of her sexuality. And then there was Amina Muse Ali, who was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. Forty women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. They might wish that their sexuality had been a trifle less “privatized” – at least enough for them to be able to continue to breathe air.

Will Dalia Mogahed and Trevor Noah get together on another Daily Show episode to say a few words in memory of Aqsa, Amina, and the forty Iraqi women? Will they honor the memory of Amira, an Egyptian girl who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to “privatize” her sexuality and wear the hijab? Will they defend the freedom of Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped privatizing her sexuality and wearing the hijab in Britain? Will they speak up for the Saudi schoolgirls who were burnt alive because firefighters wouldn’t enter their burning school since they weren’t wearing hijab, i.e., their sexuality was insufficiently privatized?

When will we see the Daily Show episode on Amira Osman Hamid, who faces whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab? Will we hear about the sexuality privatization of the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired? How about the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents? When is the Daily Show episode scheduled about the hazards that lie in the way of women who refuse to “privatize their sexuality”? When will Dalia Mogahed and Trevor Noah spare a few words for these and all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?

Dalia Mogahed has done this before. Several years ago she appeared on a British TV show sponsored by the pro-Sharia group Hizb ut-Tahrir and proclaimed: “Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” Who has misunderstood Sharia and Islam, O Ms. Privatized Mogahed? Was it Aqsa Parvez, who might perhaps have believed the establishment codswallop about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance long enough to think that she might survive into adulthood even while not wearing hijab? Was it any of these other women and girls who might have had a different understanding from that of Ms. Mogahed of the “privatization” of their sexuality, and didn’t deserve to have Ms. Mogahed’s view violently enforced upon them?

Mogahed added on the Hizb ut-Tahrir show that we have erroneously associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women.” “Seem unequal”? The next time a young man is brutally murdered by his family to cleanse the family “honor,” call my office. Until then, the fact is undeniable: the path to Mogahed’s “privatization of women’s sexuality” is littered with the mangled bodies of those women and girls whose sexuality was deemed insufficiently privatized. For Mogahed and Noah so glibly to gloss over that fact was tantamount to dancing on their graves.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261475/dalia-mogahed-mainstreaming-islamic-oppression-robert-spencer

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

Republican Debate Calls for America To Get Up From its Knees - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Candidates vow to take on Iran in fierce debate.

The Republican debate may have been taking place in South Carolina, but over it hung the shadow of Iran. And so, despite its FOX Business hosts, the topic quickly turned to the American sailors who had been captured and humiliated by Iran’s terrorist regime on television.

“We were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees, with their hands on their heads,” Ted Cruz began the debate.

“I give you my word, if I am elected president, no service man or service woman will be forced to be on their knees, and any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

That was also the way that Trump closed the debate describing the “terrible sight” of American hostages. “I stood yesterday with 75 construction workers. They're tough, they're strong, they're great people. Half of them had tears pouring down their face. They were watching the humiliation of our young ten sailors, sitting on the floor with their knees in a begging position, their hands up. And Iranian wise guys having guns to their heads.”

There were personal clashes in between, some petty, some personal and some political, but above all else, was the conviction that there were larger stakes in this struggle.

In the undercard debate, Rick Santorum asked Citadel candidates to stand up and accusing Iran of forcing our sailors to record a hostage video, told them, “If you choose to serve this country, I will have your back. I will not let America be trampled upon anymore by these radical jihadists.”

Carly Fiorina pointed out that Iran had violated the Geneva convention with the hostage photos and video. “The President wouldn't even mention the fact that Iran had taken two Navy boats and our sailors -- hostage. He didn't mention the fact that they violated the Geneva convention.”

The State Department likewise refused to acknowledge that the Geneva convention violation had taken place. And at the Republican debate, the candidates grappled with what it would take to rebuild America as a respected nation once again.

“Here's the real issue, is this America anymore? Do we still have standards? Do we still have values and principles?” Ben Carson asked.

The debate over Muslim immigration divided the stage into those politicians that believed its continuation was the price of maintaining the coalition to beat ISIS and those leaders who believed that protecting our own people had to come first.

Trump rejected a suggestion that he rethink his position, saying, “Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that's not going to have the kind of problems that we've had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers, with the -- with the shootings in California, with all the problems all over the world.”

Christie argued, “You can't just ban all Muslims. You have to ban radical Islamic jihadists.”
Ted Cruz urged going a step further and denaturalizing Muslim citizens who join ISIS so that they don’t use their passports to enter the United States again.

In the undercard debate, Rick Santorum suggested that deportations would actually help the world. “I'm going to export America, the education they were able to see. They learned English language. They learned about capitalism. They learned about democracy. You want to stop flow of immigrants? Let's send six million Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, El Savadorans... back into their country, so they can start a renaissance in their country so they won't be coming over here anymore.”

In the undercard debate, Huckabee laid out the stakes in the global clash of civilizations in stark, but understandable human terms. “When I went to Afghanistan, I saw a land that looked like the land of the Flintstones. It was desolate. It was barren. It was primitive. And it's been that way for thousands of years. They want to take the world back to be just like that. We don't.”

He argued that Islamic terrorism was not just a strategic threat, but a civilizational threat.
“We need to make a clear goal as to why we want to be anywhere in the Middle East, and I'll tell you why we want to be and need to be, is to destroy radical Islam and everything that threatens civilization. It's not just a threat... to Israel or to America, it's a threat to every civilized person on this Earth.”

There were also expressions of support for America’s beleaguered law enforcement community under assault from Obama and the racist hate group #BlackLivesMatter.

“The police are the most mistreated people in this country,” Donald Trump said.

“The president of the United States and both his attorney generals, they give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal, not to the police officers,” Chris Christie pointed out.

“To every soldier and sailor and airman and marine, and to every police officer and firefighter and first responder who risk their lives to keep us safe, I will have your back,” Ted Cruz vowed.

There were several mentions of the new Benghazi movie and the issues about the abandonment of Americans raised by it, which appeared to echo the recent Iranian Naval hostage crisis.

“Someone who lies to the families of those four victims in Benghazi can never be president of the United States. Ever,” Marco Rubio said to loud applause.

“We have a President who seems to be more interested in protecting the reputation and image of Islam than he is protecting us,” Huckabee argued.

After the Iranian Naval hostage crisis, there were calls to rebuild the military, and in particular, the Navy.

“We need to rebuild our military, and this president has let it diminish to a point where tinpot dictators like the mullahs in Iran are taking our Navy ships,” Christie urged.

“In this administration, every weapon system has been gutted, in this administration, the force levels are going down to a level where we can't even project force,” Jeb Bush said.

In the undercard debate, Huckabee argued against more democracy building exercises in Afghanistan and beyond. “The role of the United States military is not to build schools, it is not to build bridges, it is not to go around and pass out food packets. It is to kill and destroy our enemy and make America safe.”

Despite the personality clashes, there was a general agreement among the remaining candidates that the military, not ISIS, had been degraded under Obama, that political correctness threatened our ability to fight terrorism and that the latest attack by Iran made the election of a Republican more vital than ever.

“The good news is the next commander-in-chief is standing on this stage,” Ted Cruz said early on.

We don’t know who that individual is yet, but the one thing that everyone can agree on is that when it comes to facing Islamic terrorism, anyone and everyone on that stage would be better than Obama.

Because it’s time that America was allowed to rise from its knees to confront its enemies with the full measure of its strength.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261476/republican-debate-calls-america-get-its-knees-daniel-greenfield

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

Palestinian Acts of "Peace" - Guy Millière

by Guy Millière

• Because terrorist acts against Israelis are almost never described as terrorist acts, Israel is the only country that is found guilty of defending itself against terrorism. Israel is the only country living next to a terrorist entity, and asked not to treat it as a terrorist entity.
• The illusion of the Oslo Accords was that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) could become a respectable, law-abiding government, renounce violence, and abide by an agreement. The lies of the Oslo Accords were that the PLO, representing the "Palestinian people," was ready to exchange "land for peace" and actually desired to create a state living in peace side by side with Israel.
• Many Europeans are falling for Joseph Goebbels's formula, that "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Israel is now -- solely from propaganda and the falsification of history -- possibly the most unjustly demonized nation in history.
• Israel is the only country that is always supposed to make "more concessions" to enemies who do not even hide their destructive intentions.

The Greek Parliament, on December 22, 2015, voted unanimously on a motion calling on Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to recognize the "State of Palestine."

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, who was on an official visit to Athens, took the opportunity to say that the PA would no longer accept being called by any other name, and that passports with "State of Palestine" would be issued with this name.

The Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Tzipi Hotevely, responded by saying that Mahmoud Abbas was following a "flawed path that will lead him nowhere." Israel's former Ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, in a report for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, noted that this was a "clear and flagrant violation of the Oslo agreements."

Abbas may well have chosen a "flawed path," but he seems to be going forward with it, doubtless hoping to increase the number of countries that recognize the non-existent "State of Palestine."

Abbas also continues to violate the once much-trumpeted Oslo Accords -- but they were violated from the start. They effectively did not even exist. They were based on an illusion, and based on lies.

The illusion was that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) could become a respectable, law-abiding government, renounce violence, and abide by an agreement.

The lies were that the PLO, representing the "Palestinian people," was ready to exchange "territories for peace" and actually desired to create a state living in peace side by side with Israel.

The illusion was quickly shattered. In 1993, as soon as the Oslo Accord was signed, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, while visiting Johannesburg, compared it to the truce of Hudaibiya, a temporary agreement Muhammad signed with the Qurayesh tribe in 628 AD. In the truce, Muhammad had promised not to attack the tribe for ten years; but two years after that, when he had assembled more troops, he broke the truce, attacked with full force, and massacred the Qurayesh.

When Arafat became Chairman of the Palestinian Authority a few days later, he wasted no time in showing that the PA was still the PLO and that he had renounced exactly nothing.

Murderous attacks have hit Israel ever since then. They only declined when Israel built a defensive security barrier.

In the decade after Oslo, 1,400 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks; thousands more were injured but survived, still mutilated.

In 2000 the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades came into being -- the "military" wing of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority ruling party, Fatah. As the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades organized suicide attacks and planted bombs, other Islamist terrorist groups also gained in importance, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Palestinian Authority created anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish media from the start. PA schools were established and immediately began teaching that hating Jews is important.

Palestinian Authority leaders negotiated with Israel, but the PA would never recognize Israel as a state for the Jewish people.

The PA also never stopped demanding innocent-sounding, "poison pill" concessions that would have meant the destruction of Israel. These included the "right of return," possibly for almost as many Palestinians as Israel's population. This demand has been a constant that would demographically overwhelm the Jews with Palestinians -- as if France were required admit 60 million Muslims.

Sadly, the Palestinians have only increased their violence. There have been more than 11,000 rocket attacks on a country not even as big as Vancouver Island. But most political leaders and journalists in the West stubbornly refuse to see it this way.

Successive Israeli governments have been prompted to behave as if they could not see that an unending series of onslaughts was happening to them. The Israelis have been told behave as if they had before them people with whom they could actually agree. It would be as if France were ordered to reach an agreement with al-Qaeda.

The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's remark, that Israel has to "negotiate as if there were no terrorism," was repeated to them endlessly, as if terrorist murders were not daily taking place all around them.

Some Israeli governments offered to cede almost everything to the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert in 2008 went so far as to propose a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (the entire West Bank), and to abandon Israel's control over the Old City of Jerusalem; many Israeli political and military leaders told him such a withdrawal was a suicidal proposition. The Palestinians turned it down without so much as a counter-offer.

Over time, lies gain ground. Palestinians terrorist acts are often no longer described as terrorist acts but as "acts of resistance" against the "occupation."

The Palestinian Authority is now trying to be recognized as "State of Palestine" in the hope that words will make it so, despite its own signed commitments to negotiations, meaning that it too might have to offer something -- maybe an end to incitement (already agreed to under Oslo. but never implemented); the end of the conflict, perhaps recognition of Israel.

The Palestinian Authority is now an "observer state" at the United Nations. Abbas, now in the eleventh year of his four-year term, is received everywhere as a legitimate President. He does not say -- and no one else does either -- that he would not be alive today if Israel were not protecting him. Hamas has long been trying to kill him and supplant his government with its own.

Almost no one dares translate into English the bloodthirsty remarks Abbas makes in Arabic.
Palestinian leaders rewrite history, and many Europeans even buy it. Many now believe that the Palestinian people existed since "ancient times," and are one of the most "oppressed" peoples on earth.

Palestinian leaders often state -- without even being contradicted even by the Church! -- that Jesus was a Palestinian. They deny he was born a Jew in a Jewish family. They asked -- and got ! -- UNESCO (in which "Palestine" has been a full member since 2011) to rename ancient Jewish sites as Islamic. According to a resolution passed on October 21, 2015 by UNESCO's General Conference, Rachel's Tomb is now "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque" and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron is the "Ibrahimi Mosque."

In most Western media, Judea and Samaria are presented as "occupied Palestinian territories" and Israel is described as the "occupying power."

The presence of Jews in the West Bank -- home to the Jews for nearly 4,000 years -- is depicted as an "illegal intrusion." Yet people who presumably pass out at even the thought of ethnic cleansing anywhere, seem to have no problem with all Jews being expelled from Judea and Samaria -- and a future "State of Palestine."

These lies have placed Israel in a dangerous position.

Israel has a powerful army and a prosperous and dynamic economy. But Israel, a very small country, is possibly the most-threatened nation in the world. And because terrorist acts against Israelis are almost never described as terrorist acts, Israel is the only country that is found guilty of defending itself against terrorism. Israel is also the only country living next to a terrorist entity, and asked not to treat it as a terrorist entity.

Many Europeans are falling for Joseph Goebbels's supposed formula, that If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Israel is now -- solely from propaganda and the falsification of history -- possibly the most unjustly demonized nation in history.

It is a country subjected to incessant diplomatic offensives by its enemies, end even by people -- such as J Street and the New Israel Fund -- that call themselves "friends." Israel is the only country that is always supposed to make "more concessions" to enemies who do not even hide their destructive intentions.

The Oslo Accords have been described as an act of peace. They were actually -- for the Palestinians -- an act of war.

They were a huge victory for the PLO, which was able to advance from there to other victories. The Palestinians set out, in their never-rescinded plan, to take over Israel by "stages" in their "Ten Point Plan."

The current Israeli government, like those that preceded it, adopts a defensive attitude, and seems to manage the status quo.

Malicious attacks continue from self-righteous Jew-haters, who pretend it is only Israel they dislike. The BDS movement keeps trying to find traction; fortunately, Israel has expanded its commerce to the Far East, where it is booming. The European Union recently decided to ask member countries to put discriminatory labels on products made by Jewish businesses located beyond the "borders of 1967", which were only armistice lines (at the Arabs' request) -- and never borders to begin with. Smear campaigns against Israel grow and disseminate their venom.

In Israel, Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked proposed a law requiring non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Israel to declare all funding from foreign governments. "The blatant intervention of foreign countries in the State of Israel's internal matters through funding is an unprecedented phenomenon that violates all the rules and norms of relations between democratic countries," she stated.

The proposal is a step in the right direction: in the United States, organizations financed from abroad are subject to severe constraints.

More needs to be done. Inside Israel, various NGOs, under the pretext of "free speech," circulate seditious, anti-Israeli propaganda. They are internal enemies. They forge false evidence and send it to countries who want to drag Israel -- but no other country -- to the International Criminal Court. Such NGOs should be should be treated as the internal enemies that they are.

During the last years of his life, because he encouraged suicide attacks and incited children to seek death as martyrs, the Israeli government confined Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to his Muqata presidential compound in Ramallah.

Because Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian leader accused Israeli Jews of "desecrating" Al Aqsa Mosque with their "filthy feet," and added that "blood spilled in defense of the holy site is pure,", he bears direct responsibility for the current wave of murders of Israeli Jews. The Israeli government could confine him to his Muqata as they did with Arafat, and truthfully explain that a man who is guilty of incitement to murder innocent civilians going about their daily lives must not be allowed to roam freely.

Yasser Arafat (L) and Mahmoud Abbas, pictured in a Fatah propaganda poster. The Arabic text reads "Bearer of the trust" on top, and on the bottom: "I call on you to hold onto national unity. It is more precious than all of us."

The Israeli government could also honestly say that no negotiations are possible with an organization that supports terrorism, and teaches children to hate Jews.

The Israeli government could go even further, and explain to the world that the Palestinian Authority itself is still a terrorist organization, and cut off all political, economic and financial relationships with it.

The Western world should be asking Israel to stop supporting an organization, the Palestinian Authority, that daily backs terrorism; and Israel should be asking the Western world to stop supporting an organization, the Palestinian Authority, that supports terrorism and is on its way to creating yet another terrorist state -- especially at a time when the international terrorist threat is so intense and pervasive.

Of course, many European leaders would probably answer that they see only one terrorist state: Israel. Surreally, an EU court in December 2014 even removed Hamas from the EU list of banned terrorist organizations.

For now, while chaos is gaining momentum in the Middle East, the "Palestinian question" is far from a central concern for Muslim countries in the region. The main aim of Saudi Arabia is to survive the attempts to destabilize it coming from Iran. Some Saudi leaders might now even regard Israel as an ally.

In Egypt, the priority of its President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is to contend with the deadly conflict in the Sinai.

At the same time, Iran is busy spreading terrorism and racing toward nuclear weapons capability, as well as the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them. Iran is also breaking records executing its own citizens; holding political prisoners on trumped-up charges; saving what remains of the Assad regime in Syria and, with Russia, bolstering the power of the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon.

Both Iran and the Islamic State do not hide their genocidal intentions towards Israel. Recently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's "Supreme Leader," unveiled his plans for Israel's destruction.

In the midst of all this, John Kerry recently said something right: "Circumstances" lead "to seriously consider the possibility of the collapse of the Palestinian Authority."

The wave of murders triggered by Abbas at the beginning of September has had catastrophic effects on the finances of the Palestinian Authority. After Mahmoud Abbas has left the scene, an attempted takeover by Hamas or ISIS is virtually inevitable.

Kerry correctly added that "several Israeli ministers have made clear their opposition to a Palestinian state." It would be more accurate to say that several Israeli ministers seem to think that creating a state destined to become a terrorist state would be an extremely bad idea.

A few days ago, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told high-level government officials that Israel has to "prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, but be prepared in case the collapse occurs."

Opinion polls show that more than 75% of the Israeli Arabs define themselves as Israeli, and that more than 60% of them unreservedly define Israel as a Jewish country. The polls also show that 18% of Israeli Arabs support violence against the Jews.

For two decades, Israeli Arabs and Arabs living in Judea and Samaria have been poisoned by propaganda from the Palestinian Authority -- from textbooks; from official statements such as naming stadiums, streets and public squares after terrorists, and from the PA government-controlled media. The Palestinian people deserve a better leadership than this. Their current destructive leadership, and the even more destructive leadership that could well follow it, should not be encouraged -- by treacherous Europeans or anyone else.

Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, has published 27 books.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7240/palestinian-acts-of-peace

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

How (and Why) Palestinian Leaders Scare the World - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

• Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the Palestinian Authority (PA) president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash, and a gaze directed away from the PA's turmoil.
• The PA wants the following response from the international community: "Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand."
• Abbas wants the world's eyes on Israel -- and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.
• The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?

What do you do when your home has become hell?

If you are Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, you divert attention from the mess as fast as possible.

For a start, Abbas is trying to scare the international community into believing that without increased pressure on Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be forced to resort to unilateral measures, such as attempting to create new "facts on the ground" in the West Bank.

Next, Abbas is threatening to renew the Palestinian call for convening an international conference for peace in the Middle East and to step up rhetorical attacks against Israel.

Finally, Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the PA president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash and a gaze directed away from the PA's turmoil.

Abbas wants the world's eyes on Israel -- and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.

This week, Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, announced that the Palestinian Authority was coordinating with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan in order to create "facts on the ground" to establish a Palestinian state.

This announcement was designed to tighten the international screws on Israel. The threat to "create facts on the ground" was a direct message to the US and the EU that they had better push Israel farther -- and faster -- or the Palestinians would be left with no recourse but to build in Area C of the West Bank, currently under exclusive Israeli control.

Yet Palestinian building in Area C is not just a threat. In fact, and thanks to the financial and logistical aid of the EU, Palestinians have already begun building that project in some parts of the West Bank.

What the PA wants is the following response from the international community: "Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand."

The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. This has been quite clear for some time, but the PA spokesman's recent announcement leaves no room for doubt. Abbas has no incentive whatsoever to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?

As part of this strategy, Abbas last week renewed his call for an international conference to discuss "ways of solving the Palestinian cause." According to the PA president, the international community that has reached understandings that Syria, Libya and Iran should be able to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is nothing but an Abbas scare-tactics redux. Radical Islam and terrorism, so we are to believe, will be conquered by solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president of the PA desires to implant in the minds of the West a direct link between the Islamic State terror group (ISIS) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But Abbas might have done well to check in with his sources. ISIS and the other terror groups currently destroying the Arab world do not give a damn about Israeli settlements or checkpoints. Nor is a two-state solution on their docket. These groups have a different agenda -- to conquer the world and establish an Islamic empire. En route to achieving their aim, the Muslim terrorists will kill "apostates" and "infidels" including Abbas and other Arab leaders.

"President Abbas's call for an international conference reflects the state of confusion and wallowing he is in," remarked former Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfour. "The appeal is designed to search for an unclear and jellied formula and it has no legitimacy." Asfour noted that there was no need for such a conference, in light of the fact that the UN already recognized a Palestinian state in 2012.

So what exactly is Abbas trying to achieve? For the most part, Palestinian political analysts are convinced that the eighty-year-old president, who is about to enter the eleventh year of his four-year term in office, is simply seeking to hold onto the reins of power. The best way to do so, they argue, is by keeping up the buzz about international conferences and potential Palestinian unilateral moves on the ground.

In order to run the Palestinian show until his last day, Abbas needs to divert attention from the battle of succession that has hit the spotlight in the past few days. Top Fatah officials have been pushing him to appoint a deputy president, in the hope of forestalling a power vacuum upon his departure from the scene for one reason or another.

These officials have long censured Abbas for running the PA as if it were his private fiefdom. Among the critics are Jibril Rajoub, Tawkif Tirawi, Mohamed Dahlan, Salam Fayyad and Yasser Abed Rabbo -- all of whom regard themselves as potential successors to his seat.

Mohamed Dahlan (right), a former PA security commander in the Gaza Strip, is one of the major critics and rivals of PA President Mahmoud Abbas (left), and hopes to succeed him in the presidency. (Image sources: U.S. State Dept., M. Dahlan Office)

Meanwhile, Abbas's preferred candidate for deputy president appears to be none other than Saeb Erekat, the PLO's chief negotiator who was recently upgraded to the post of PLO Secretary-General. This choice, however, is not going down well with Fatah officials, many of whom have expressed their opposition to the attempt to pave the way for Erekat to become the next Palestinian president.

A direct link does exist, then, but it is not, as Abbas contends, one between ISIS and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The true direct link is between the urgency Abbas feels at home to prop up a crumbling empire and his intimidation of the international community. In other words, when Abbas feels the heat, Israel is thrown into the fire.

• Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7234/palestinian-leaders

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