Pro-BDS groups in Israel receive foreign funding, report finds - Yair Altman

by Yair Altman

NGO Monitor says that of 398 nongovernmental organizations operating in Israel, only 185 comply with financial transparency guidelines on foreign funding • Over 50% of foreign donations go to groups with clear anti-Zionist agenda, report finds.

Anti-Zionist groups fail to meet transparency requirements, report says [Illustrative] | Photo credit: GettyImages

Hundreds of nongovernmental organizations operating in Israel, whose mission statements are clearly anti-Zionist, fail to meet financial transparency guidelines on foreign funding, a report by NGO Monitor revealed on Sunday.

The watchdog group, which according to its website strives to "generate and distribute critical analysis and reports on the output of the international NGO community" with the objective of ending "the practice used by certain self-declared humanitarian NGOs of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas," found that out of the 398 NGOs registered in Israel, only 185 have complied with financial transparency guidelines.

The report found that over the past three years, foreign funding to these groups exceeded 100 million shekels ($26 million), with over 50% of the funds given to 27 NGOs described as "very active" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The findings also showed that only 41 groups complied with the Registrar of Associations' requirement to submit quarterly financial reports detailing foreign funding sources. 

NGO Monitor noted that the amount of money donated between 2012 and 2014 by foreign entities and governments to Israeli-based NGOs was most likely higher then the estimated $26 million, as most of the groups failed to properly report foreign funding. 

It found that in 2014 alone, 27 high-profile NGOs, known of their anti-Zionist platforms and support of anti-Israeli boycott, divestment and sanctions activities, received over NIS 55 million ($14 million) in foreign donations. 

"Out of hundreds of organizations and groups in Israel that say their activities focus on human rights, peace, coexistence, and humanitarian work, only a handful of political groups with clear agendas receive over half of all foreign donations, including groups involved in a delegitimization campaign against Israel. This raises many questions about the process by which European governments select their partners in Israel," said Professor Gerald M. Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor.

Steinberg added that the foreign government's selection process should be subjected to transparency guidelines as well, and that "the massive funding political groups receive is unique to Israel."

Yair Altman

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=34741

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Netanyahu: Israel is returning to Africa in big way - Shlomo Cesana, Israel Hayom Staff and AP

by Shlomo Cesana, Israel Hayom Staff and AP

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flies to Uganda, the first stop of a four-day trip that will also include visits to Kenya, Rwanda and Ethiopia • "All Africa is excited by this visit and I am very excited as well," Netanyahu says.

A statue of Yoni Netanyahu is seen at Aero beach, south of Uganda's capital Kampala, Sunday | Photo credit: Reuters

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Uganda on Monday, the first stop of a four-day trip that will also include visits to Kenya, Rwanda and Ethiopia.

Prior to his departure from Ben-Gurion International Airport on Monday, Netanyahu said, "I am now leaving on an historic visit to Africa. This visit will begin with a summit meeting with leaders from seven African countries who are coming especially to Entebbe, Uganda, for this meeting, to welcome a prime minister of Israel for the first time in decades on African soil.

"Coming on a journey like this is also very important from diplomatic, economic and security perspectives and I am pleased that Israel is going back to Africa in a big way. We are opening Africa to Israel again. This visit will also include a moving meeting at Entebbe, where the great rescue operation was carried out. Also attending will be soldiers who participated in the operation as well as some of those who were rescued.

"All Africa is excited by this visit and I am very excited as well."

On Monday afternoon, Netanyahu was set to take part in a ceremony at Entebbe International Airport marking the 40th anniversary of the famous July 1976 hostage rescue operation carried out at the airport by the Israel Defense Forces. The prime minister's older brother, Yoni Netanyahu, was the commander of the elite Sayeret Matkal special forces unit that carried out the rescue, and was the sole IDF fatality in the operation.

Netanyahu is being accompanied on his Africa trip by a delegation of around 80 businesspeople from over 50 companies. 

Ramzi Gabai, the chairman of the Israel Export Institute, said, "There is great potential for Israeli exports to Africa and this potential is far from being fulfilled."

Israeli officials are hoping that Netanyahu's visit -- the first by an Israeli prime minister to sub-Saharan Africa in three decades -- will usher in a new era in which Israel provides African states with security and agricultural assistance in return for support in international forums.

The prime minister's visit caps a budding rapprochement in recent years initiated by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who, as foreign minister a few years ago, toured the continent on two occasions, after no Israeli foreign minister had visited in two decades.

In turn, dozens of African dignitaries have visited Israel in recent years, including Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Israel played a prominent role in assisting newly independent African countries in the 1960s, but those relations crumbled in the 1970s, when Arab countries, promising aid, pressured African nations to limit or cut ties with Israel. 

With the recent rise of jihadism across the continent, from Boko Haram in Nigeria to al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab militants in Somalia, Israel has found common ground with countries like Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria.

While Israeli military exports to Africa are limited, Israel provides several countries with security training and assistance. 

Israeli defense officials say intelligence sharing is limited to a few close allies for now. Israel has military ties with several African countries, and Israel's Defense Ministry has given clearance for private Israeli security firms to operate in some nations, including some arms sales.

In exchange for its expertise in security and other fields, Israel wants African states to side with it at the U.N.

"We're talking about some 45 countries in sub-Saharan Africa who vote in one bloc at the U.N.," said Arye Oded, a former Israeli diplomat and expert on Africa. "Netanyahu wants to improve relations with these countries ... and wants more countries to not vote against us at the U.N."

Yoram Elron, the head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Africa division, said an increasing number of African countries "understand that Israel is being singled out in international forums."

Shlomo Cesana, Israel Hayom Staff and AP

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=34751

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

40 years after the Entebbe raid: Secret plans revealed - Uzi Baruch

by Uzi Baruch

New declassified recordings cast light on plans for rescuing Entebbe hostages

Entebbe hostages arriving in Israel

Moshe Milner

 

For the first time, the Ministry of Defense has authorized publication of audio recordings of the investigation by Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Benny Peled, immediately after the Entebbe operation which also cast new light on the preparations for the mission.

In 1976, IDF commandos rescued 102 hostages from the Ugandan city of Entebbe, where they were being held by Palestinian terrorists and local soldiers. The legendary mission ended with only one Israeli soldier killed - Yoni Netanyahu, the head of Sayeret Matkal and the brother of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Three hostages were also killed.

In the first recording the Head of the Combined Air Forces is heard speaking with Air Force commander Benny Peled. This is the transcript of their messages:

3:06 "This is one of the brightest operations in the history of the Air Force"

4:55 "The operation starts when the commander of the Air Force asks for data on the ability of the 'rhinos' (Hercules C-130) to reach Entebbe. We have 10 rhinos"

5:44 Presenting the plan to Ehud Brog (Barak): "Ehud has the idea: The success of the operation depends on surprise. This was the most important principle of this operation... "

6:15 "We started to collect material on Uganda - psychology, maps, etc."

6:38 "There was a mistake in the General Staff's combat protocol. The Operations Division was out on an exercise ... and because of a stupid mistake we were not brought into the combat protocol. We only went in a day and a half later..."

8:12 "Those who discussed the operation were a total of only 8-9 people, which was necessary to keep it a secret."

Another voice then joins in:

9:22 They talk about the various options put forward to free the hostages:

"Forces will be flown to Kenya, attack boats will land on the beach ... and kill the terrorists. Then Uganda will release all [the hostages]."

Someone then suggests "Let's send [air force] Squadron 13 to parachute troops near the target. Then someone said that there were crocodiles..."

The first voice then returns to describe the final plan they chose and describes the operation, and cooperation between the paratroopers and Lod Airforce Base (base 27).

14:10 "At first we thought to seize the airfield for a few hours, take it over, chase away the locals from there and create a base... [but] we were afraid that if we got stuck there even with the hostages it would be an international disgrace ..."

The second recording is of Peled:

01:10 "I want to stress the importance of not drawing general conclusions from things that apply only to this specific operation. It would be bad for someone to try and generalize where there is no room for such generalizations ... We almost did not carry out this operation because we tried to take the 'Torah out of the Ark' and apply things to this situation that did not apply."

I am speaking about the fact that there can be no [single] formula for an operation like this one, just as there can be no one formula for finding a wife. I also say that if our plan failed we had better plans were not carried.

3:20 "The goal of the operation was to rescue most of the prisoners and bring them home. Or at least to evacuate the captives to a non-hostile country... All the other plans were rejected because they were unable to accomplish this, even though those who suggested them thought that they could accomplish these goals. But after checking, they found that they could not accomplish [these goals]. For example, I suggested send five guys to kill five or ten terrorists and to join the hostages... [but] it was not reasonable that we would rescue the hostages and bring them back [in this way]..."

The limits of the operation: The difficulty of landing in Entebbe without the enemy knowing, the weather, flying without lights.

6:27 "It was natural that the Chief of Staff specifically requested that Ehud Brog head the planning team. Ehud Brog ... was a well-known man who had the right qualifications... Only he forgot to tell the Operations Branch that he was working..."

7:20 "These proposals (the various suggestions for the operation) were submitted and rejected several times; sometimes [they were submitted] to the Prime Minister, until at one point the Defense Minister felt he was going to lose [it]... that Israel was going to lose face."

9:10 "The Chief of Staff was asked by the Minister to give his opinion of the operation. He said, 'I refuse to comment in the presence of [all these] people.' Everyone left [the room] and we alone stayed. His opinion was completely negative."

10:01 "Then we decided that we needed to persuade him... I said to the Minister, 'I request that tomorrow morning before you go to the government... let me tell you about Uganda... that what I'm suggesting will probably [work]...'"

12:41 "Head of Operations was stubborn. He said, 'I've stopped being a team player, I am now the operation. I'm giving them a deadline: 15:30'. If they do not bring a positive response the operation does not happen today... I told him that now everything is in God's hands..."

Other revelations from the Defense Ministry archive represent rare documentations from the reconstruction of the operation in 2001 by the pilots who had participated, 25 years after the operation


Uzi Baruch

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214426#.V3qv8KKzddt

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Europe: When Free Speech Died - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

The stifling of dissenting voices in the EU.

The British people fed-up with Brussels dictates voted on June 23, to exit the European Union. Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London and a leading voice for Brexit, argued (Economist June18-24 issue) that “Napoleon, Hitler, and other various people tried this out (forcefully unifying Europe-JP), and it ended tragically.  The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.”  One of those coercive methods has been to limit, if not forbid, anti-immigration speech.

The elitist of the European Union (EU) have seen a rise in nativist protest movements throughout the European continent.  The voiceless people of the states of the European Union have been forced to adopt multiculturalism and political correctness as their new civil religion, and their dissenting voices are now being squashed by a series of measures that amount to the curtailment of free speech.

Earlier this month, the European Commission, a powerful and unelected European Union’s executive branch, announced plans to combat “illegal online hate speech.” The same European Commission unveiled a code of conduct that will ensure that online platforms do not offer opportunities for “illegal online hate speech to spread virally.” Unsurprisingly, it is the European Commission that will determine what constitutes “illegal online hate speech” and not the people’s elected representatives in the individual European countries that make up the European Union (EU).

A press release headline issued by the European Commission (EC) in Brussels on May 31, 2016, read “The European Commission and IT companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech.” The EC explanatory paragraphs read: “In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.”

These provisions of the EC against hate speech have done little to prevent the rise of anti-Semitism in the EU countries, nor has it criminalized the anti-Semitic nature of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which singles out the Jewish state.  It does, however, seek to stifle the anti-immigrant movement, which is trying to alert Europeans of the coming Islamization of Europe.  In addition, the EC decision will adversely impact on the civil liberties of over 500 million Europeans.  

The net impact of recent “speech” laws enacted by western governments has been magnified by even greater forms of private censorship on (predominantly Muslim) anti-immigrants.  For example, most news organizations have stopped showing images of Mohammad, although no such self-censorship has been made regarding caricatures of other religious figures.  In September, 2012, French actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined several times for comments she made about how Muslims are undermining French culture.  In Britain, a 15-year old girl was arrested for “burning a Koran at school and posting footage on Facebook.”

The Wall Street Journal reported on September 14, 2015 that, “Facebook Inc. said that it would work with the German government Justice Ministry to fight xenophobic and racist messages on the social network’s platform, bending to German government pressure to clamp down on hate messages against migrants online.”  While (Muslim) anti-immigrant expression is verboten in Germany, anti-Jewish hate is excused.  A German judge convicted two German-Palestinian men of attempted arson against a synagogue in the city of Wuppertal, along with a juvenile accomplice. In his ruling however, the judge declared that the crime was motivated by the desire to “bring attention to the Gaza conflict” and not by anti-Semitism, which was the obvious case.  For the German judiciary, it seems, protesting against the Islamization of Europe in general, and of Germany in particular, is a hate speech, if not a hate crime.  Yet, arson against a synagogue is not…this perversion of logic has become widespread throughout the EU states.

While Germany is on its way to commit demographic and cultural suicide with the admission of millions of poor and uneducated Middle Eastern and African migrants, Sweden is already lost.  The people of Sweden are allowing its radical leftist governing parties and its equally pandering press to expedite the process.  The Gatestone Institute reported (December 22, 2014) that before the scheduled March, 2015 elections, the current Social-Democrat and Greens party had enacted “a measure far less publicized, and would come into effect that Christmas (2014). The new measure is designed to make it easier to prosecute those who offend immigrants, immigration policies, LGBT people and politicians online.”  According to Gatestone “even immigrants themselves do not seem to be allowed to challenge immigration policy or immigrant culture.  Last year a Somali-born female journalist, critical of immigrant culture, was intimidated to such an extent by the Swedish journalistic establishment that she decided Mogadishu (Somalia) was a safer place for her than Sweden.” 

Only in Sweden does the government take out loans to make welfare payments to migrant Muslim gang-rapists.  Also in Sweden “the fear of being labeled ‘politically incorrect’ keeps Sweden’s main political parties from engaging in an honest debate about integration.”  And, while the government and its compliant leftist press blew out of proportion an attack on migrants, it had been silent on the rapes by mainly Arab and African Muslim migrants on Swedish women.  The U.K. Daily Mail reported (March 4^th, 2016) that “What is worrying is that if the Stockholm Station story has been blown out of proportion, it could have artificially fueled pro-migrant sentiment and made ordinary Swedes less ready to voice their worries about mass migration.  Fears of a cover-up have been fueled by an investigation published by a flourishing online Swedish news outlet Nyherer Idag, showing that Swedish authorities hid from the public sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on scores of teenage girls at a popular Stockholm music festival booth last year and in 2014.”

Needless to say that in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, and in the rest of the EU states, anti-immigrant voices are stifled by archaic laws that are undemocratic to say the least.  The West has traded Christianity and pride in its civilizational accomplishment for the falsehood of multiculturalism.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet dissident, author and Nobel Laureate summed it up as early as 1978, when he was given the Harvard University Laureate Award.  Solzhenitsyn used the occasion to give a politically incorrect speech, which President Carter and the mainstream press criticized.  Nevertheless, Solzhenitsyn spoke truth to the western powers. 

Solzhenitsyn didn’t mince words while he told America and the West that they were spiritually bankrupt. The West, he said, abandoned its moral and civil courage.  “The Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive.” Had Solzhenitsyn lived today, he would also witness how freedom of speech is dying in Europe.

Joseph Puder

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263358/europe-when-free-speech-died-joseph-puder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israeli ministers vow to combat incitement to terrorism on Facebook - Shlomo Cesana, Yair Altman and Reuters

by Shlomo Cesana, Yair Altman and Reuters

A day after accusing Facebook of sabotaging Israeli efforts to foil attacks, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan announces plan to legislate removal of, and block access to, inciting content • Facebook rejects criticism, says confers closely with Israel.

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan | Photo credit: Yossi Zeliger

A day after accusing Facebook of "sabotaging" Israeli efforts to thwart terrorism by not cooperating with inquiries about potential suspects and "setting a very high bar for removing content and posts that contain incitement," Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan expanded on his complaint Sunday and declared his intention to combat online incitement with legislation. 

Of 74 "especially inciting and extremist posts" Israel had brought to Facebook's attention, only 24 were removed, Erdan said Sunday, adding that jurisdiction was an issue.

"The big problem is in Judea and Samaria, because Facebook does not recognize Israeli control there and is not prepared to turn over information," Erdan added.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked called on social media companies to pre-emptively curb content deemed by Israel to be a security threat.

"We want the companies not to approve, and actively remove, posts by terrorist groups and incitement to terrorism without us having to flag each individual post, in just the same manner that today, for example, they do not allow posts and pages containing child pornography," Shaked told Army Radio.

Erdan and Shaked announced that they plan to submit a bill that would not only regulate the removal of inciting material on social media but would also serve to block access to inciting pages, much like policies currently in place in Australia and France, among other places. 

Facebook did not respond directly to Erdan's criticism, but said in a statement that it conferred closely with Israel: "We work regularly with safety organizations and policymakers around the world, including Israel, to ensure that people know how to make safe use of Facebook. There is no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform," the statement said.

It appeared to place an onus on Israeli authorities, as with any other users, to flag offensive content to Facebook monitors.

"We have a set of cmmunity standards designed to help people understand what's allowed on Facebook, and we call on people to use our report [option] if they find content they believe violates these rules, so that we can examine each case and take quick action," the Facebook statement said.

Citing sources familiar with the technology, Reuters reported last month that Facebook and other internet companies have begun using automation to remove Islamic State videos and other extremist content from their sites.

Shlomo Cesana, Yair Altman and Reuters

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=34753

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Post-Brexit Future of European-Israeli Relations - Amb. Freddy Eytan

by Amb. Freddy Eytan

Brexit should not damage Israel’s relations with Europe or its exports to it.

• Britain’s exit, or Brexit, from the European Union is first and foremost a severe British domestic problem that its leaders alone must solve with diligence and as soon as possible.
• Although EU leaders have indeed reacted with disappointment and bitterness, after the initial shock they appear to be recuperating. Europe as a whole is slowly regaining its composure. The EU will not come apart quickly. It will apparently continue to represent 27 united countries, in which close to half a billion humans live, with an average GDP of over $30,000 per capita.
• Three cardinal issues led the British to leave the EU:
  • The cumbersome administration and rigid bureaucracy in Brussels.
  • The influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe and, more recently, of refugees from Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
  • The terror attacks committed by European subjects who are inspired by Islamic organizations such as the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda.
• There is only one issue on which the European community demonstrates unanimity, namely, solving the Palestinian problem. The new French initiative, with the accompanying international conference, is especially indicative of the European approach to resolving the conflict.
• Britain’s exit will not change Europe’s policy in our region, and Israel must prepare itself accordingly. Unlike Britain, which has managed to cope with large-scale crises by itself, Israel cannot allow itself to be isolated and will always need real friends and alliances.
• Brexit should not damage Israel’s relations with Europe or its exports to it.

Britain’s exit, or Brexit, from the European Union is first and foremost, a severe British domestic problem that its leaders alone must solve with diligence and as soon as possible.

The EU leaders were taken aback by the British decision. Trusting in polls, they had confidently believed that the majority of the British people would demonstrate responsibility and solidarity by remaining in the EU, just as their Prime Minister David Cameron wanted.

Although the EU leaders have indeed reacted with disappointment and bitterness, after the initial shock, they appear to be recuperating.  Europe as a whole is slowly regaining its composure.

The newspaper headlines that foretold a worldwide financial earthquake and even went so far as to make historical comparisons with the Nazis’ rise to power in Germany will be quickly forgotten. Most of the horrified reactions and prophecies of doom have receded, and the markets and stock exchanges are already more stable.

It is clear to all that the EU will not come apart quickly. It is still alive and kicking, and it will apparently continue to represent, at least in the short and the medium term, 27 united countries in which close to half a billion humans live, with an average GDP of over $30,000 per capita.

The History of the European Common Market

Understanding what actually took place means putting Britain’s move in its real proportions and weighing the likely consequences, for better or worse, for our region and particularly for Israel in the near and distant future. To begin with, these facts must be kept in mind:

• The idea of creating a “zone of peace and stability” in Europe arose after the Second World War and was articulated in a public declaration on May 9, 1950, by the then-French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman.
  
• Only on March 25, 1957, was the first European Community established with the signing of the Treaty of Rome. Britain was not one of the founders and builders of the EU. Its efforts to be accepted under certain conditions were rejected out of hand, and in 1967 General de Gaulle cast a veto. Incidentally, this was the same de Gaulle who, during the Second World War, after being sentenced to death for treason by the Vichy regime, had escaped from France and found political refuge in London. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “A state is the coldest of all cold monsters.” Interests are all that matters.
  It was only after wearisome negotiations lasting many years and after a referendum was conducted in 1975, that Britain was accepted into the Common Market.
  
• Britain, however, remained outside the Eurozone, continuing to use the pound sterling currency. It did not sign the Schengen Agreement on abolishing borders and customs, was not a member of the institutions dealing with the continent’s legal and social affairs, and strongly opposed the joint discussions on European security despite being a full member of NATO. Clearly, then, Britain always pursued a certain separatism, and indeed was only a member of the immense European Free Trade Area.
  

Britain’s exit from the EU, then, will undoubtedly entail less economic damage than was initially believed. At the same time, it is clear that Europe has been weakened diplomatically, and that the special weight of its role will be very much missed when Europe arrives at major decisions. 

Why Britain Left

Apart from the factors related to domestic English politics, three cardinal issues led the British to leave the EU:

• The cumbersome administration and rigid bureaucracy in Brussels, in which unelected clerks from 28 different countries and various committees assume excessive powers and take important decisions in every sphere, especially those connected with personal security.
  
• The influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe and, more recently, of refugees from Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
  
• The terror attacks committed by European subjects who are inspired by Islamic organizations such as the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda. The attacks in Brussels and in Paris exposed a lack of coordination and conflicts of interest between the security services, and a complete failure of the intelligence services.
  

Moreover, thus far the EU has failed completely in the domain of foreign policy. These are the main instances just in recent years:

• Europe’s encouragement of the ouster of Gaddafi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, respectively, along with its support for the Arab Spring, has fostered crises and upheavals that still beset the whole of the Middle East and the Maghreb, as well as, indirectly, Europe itself.
  
• The indifference about finding a solution to the civil war in Syria, along with President Assad’s ongoing slaughter of his people and the empowerment of the Islamic organizations including the emergence of the Islamic State, has led to the mass emigration of millions. Instead of solving the problem when the time was appropriate, the Europeans are now confronted with uncontrolled immigration and a danger of terror attacks.
  It should also be stressed that the U.S. administration has given the Europeans a cold shoulder and has persistently failed to find workable solutions. Indeed, Britain’s exit from the EU constitutes a sharp rebuff to the Obama administration. In his recent visit to London, the U.S. president himself called on Britons to vote to remain. His voice, however, went unheeded.
  
• The crisis in Ukraine and the unnecessary tension with Vladimir Putin caused by the sanctions on Russia.
  

Europe Looking for Itself

At present, Europe is confused and in search of itself. Amid the immigration concerns and the multiplying terror attacks, it is indeed waging a fight for the home front. The threat of terror is constant. The European leadership’s helplessness and inability to find solutions to the many problems are reminiscent of the dangers that arose in the 1930s, as Hitler took power in the run-up to the Second World War. The terror attacks have induced a mood of emergency, panic, and uncertainty about the future.

The British, for their part, did not want to follow along behind a failing leadership; they preferred to deal with the problems on their own, without help from the outside. Britain has overcome crises in the past, and it is capable of dealing with the present crisis.

In the 1980s, immigration from Muslim countries was not seen as entailing any problems; the Europeans needed working hands. The left-wing parties that were then in power easily agreed to allow family unifications. Yet, despite all the predictions, 30 years later the Islamic revolution has accelerated remarkably, and religion, instead of the secular ideology, has assumed prominence in Europe. At the same time, as the Islamic influx intensified, Islamophobia has grown.

As long as the Muslims do not internalize the fact that they, like the Jews in their time and all the other immigrants, must acclimatize and accept the rules of the host countries, the situation will get even worse. Most Europeans are not prepared to grant the Muslim community a status that is separate in all regards from Western civilization. 

On foreign policy issues, great frustration still exists in Europe, which took root at the time of the joint French-British-Israeli “Kadesh Operation” in 1956 and the relinquishment of the colonial lands. From a standpoint of conservatism and the Old World order, it is difficult for some to cope with the technological and social innovations of the era of the internet and the smartphone.

The EU has made several strategic errors over the years. The first was to widen the Union to include anyone who desired to join in it. Five additional countries, including Turkey, have officially submitted their candidacy. Clearly, it makes a huge difference whether a united Europe functions with 9 or 12 countries, or with 28 or more. Another mistake was the abolishing of the borders, which put an end to trade protectionism and facilitated an influx of goods from China, leading in turn to the closing of European enterprises and growing unemployment. The removal of the border checks and of the borders themselves gave rise to the free immigration of foreigners.

One Issue United Europe for Now

There is only one issue on which the European community demonstrates unanimity, namely, solving the Palestinian problem. The new French initiative, with the accompanying international conference, is especially indicative of the European approach to resolving the conflict.

Britain’s exit will not change Europe’s policy in our region, and Israel must prepare itself accordingly. Unlike Britain, which has managed to cope with large-scale crises by itself, Israel cannot allow itself to be isolated and will always need real friends and alliances. Some in Israel claim that, from this point onward, Israel should focus on the attractive Asian markets and abandon Europe because of its pro-Palestinian policy. This approach, however, is mistaken; even today, despite its weakness, one should not underestimate the European community’s economic power. It will continue to constitute an important economic and diplomatic power for Israel, one that is umbilically connected to us, from geographic, historical, and cultural standpoints.

It should also be noted that Europe is not of one cloth, and there are substantial differences between Western and Eastern Europe. Israel has bilateral relations, and in all spheres, with every one of the countries. With some of them relations are closer and friendlier; with others, they are less so and there is room for improvement. Brexit should not damage Israel’s relations with Europe or its exports to it. Israel is indeed a member of the important and well-respected Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It is a signatory to many agreements and has common interests with Europe in all the economic domains, science, and energy. It will also continue to be an active member of Project Horizon 2020, the EU’s massive, seven-year research and innovation program. And now, for the first time, Israel has opened a mission at NATO headquarters in Brussels.


It can reasonably be hoped that Israel’s bilateral relations with Britain, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, will be further strengthened, despite the calls that are made by far-left organizations and BDS activists in the UK.

Incidentally, it should be emphasized that the election of Sadiq Khan, a Muslim, as mayor of London has not harmed the Jewish community and has indeed prompted a fascinating and important dialogue with the leaders of the moderate Muslim community.

Meanwhile, extreme left-wing or right-wing organizations must be prevented from exploiting Britain’s exit for ultranationalist, populist, and racist agendas. These are likely to focus at first on Muslim immigrants and foreign minorities, and later on the Jews and, indirectly, on Israel. 

In sum, Brexit will give Britain greater diplomatic and economic room to maneuver. London will no longer answer to the whims of Brussels bureaucrats when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian problem. Israel must pursue a wise diplomatic approach, ensuring that it will maintain this valuable asset of Europe.


Amb. Freddy Eytan

Source: http://jcpa.org/article/post-brexit-future-european-israeli-relations/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Clinton Cash - Marion DS Dreyfus

by Marion DS Dreyfus

If only a portion of the film is factual and true, the Clintons are, as Roger Stone’s new book repeatedly characterizes them, epic grifters.  Con men for the ages.

Clinton Cash

Director: M.A.Taylor

The important doc to see, talk about, bruit to neighbors and associates afield, is Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash – the weapon of choice to launch at the mentally softened, perhaps unthinking, nepotistic, or chauvinist-without-cause HRC voter.

Seen at a private showing with a particular audience in attendance, we hoped C.C. would get maximal showings – whether that involves movie venues, TV, cable, or other screenings in the lower 48, Hawaii, and Alaska.

The film originates from the best-selling 2015 eponymous book by Peter Schweizer, detailing his investigation into the 1997 Clinton Foundation’s alleged pay-to-play deluges of cash donations in the millions of dollars for alleged favors by the then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the concomitant spiked speaker fees for ex-President Bill Clinton.

Clinton Cash outlines the behind-the-scenes money reservoirs that fall into Clintonian hands, be it directly by country leaders or by organizational heads squirreling funds for favors rendered, or via  the Clintons’ “charitable” foundation.  It’s no secret these deals went largely unchallenged, despite “creative accounting” that whitewashed and disappeared many of these windfalls that never made their way to the storm-ravaged or earthquake- or disease-infested victims of calamity.

Divulgence extraordinaire to say that the foundation set up for charitable purposes, so-called, provides a meager 10% of its available monies to actual charities.  Most of the bequests are actually through-lines to other, more open-handed and monitored real charities.

In a sense, the Clinton Foundation parallels Planned Parenthood in that thousands of comprehensive clinics exist that provide multiple health care services, while Planned Parenthood, reaping the annual governmental underwriting bumper crop of close to half a billion of struggling taxpayer dollars, is a thin wedge of a provider.  This is a service provider that, were it to disappear, would make no discernible difference in overall women’s “health,” which proponents seem to conflate with abortion services, not a health care concern at all.  A pregnant woman is not ill.  She is not in need of health care per se.  The ancillary few services provided over abortion are easily trumped by the myriad clinics across the fruited plain.

In just such a fashion, the Clinton Foundation lines its own and staff pockets, deigns to drop a sliver of its impressive foreign funding to a few chosen and often partisan recipient charities.  It boasts a lot of mysterious sources in its 19-year history.

The film covers the earthquake relief efforts in Haiti, various African dictatorships, and East Asian satrapies, all of which somehow entertained the Clintons lavishly in one way or another, yet failed, curiously, to notice any dent or appreciable difference in the ordinary populace presumably needing benefits promised by the lustrous headliners being entertained and paid for their “advice” or “aid.”

As a documentary, it is adequate, but the value of the doc lies far beyond an assessment of just its production values and narrative fealty, lushness of cinematography, or the like.  Investigative efforts like this take many hundreds of hours of research, late-night toil, uncomfortable quarters, fact-checking, back-stopping, and…money.

It is a wonder the film – or the book – got made at all, given the many tricks up the Clintonian sleeves, and the many unexplained disappearances of unwelcome reporters or witnesses, whatevers.

Understandable and SOP that Hillary acolytes and proponents will debunk or try to pooh-pooh the contents.  If only a portion of the film is factual and true, the Clintons are, as Roger Stone’s new book repeatedly characterizes them, epic grifters.  Con men for the ages.

Most of us already knew that.  Still, it is instructive to see how corrupt this imperial family has been and continues to be.  If one is wavering before the coming election, this is more potent, and more damning, than anything connected to Trump steaks, wine, or water.

Look for Clinton Cash from your various providers.  Ask for it at your multiplex.

Marion DS Dreyfus

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/emclinton_cashem.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Huma admits under oath that Hillary burned her daily schedule - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

It’s no smoking gun, since we can’t point to specific meetings, but it is a smoking burn bag.

During her deposition given to Judicial Watch under court order for its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Huma Abedin made a startling admission.  Daniel Halper, who recently moved from the Weekly Standard to the New York Post, reports:

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those very public records. (snip)
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that . . . that certainly happened on . . . on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the e-mails lawsuit. (snip)
Clinton has admitted to destroying “private personal e-mails” as secretary of state. But Abedin’s admission that she used so-called “burn bags” — a container material is placed inside before it is destroyed — for some of her schedules is the first time anyone close to her has disclosed destroying public records.

To say the least, this was not standard operating procedure at the State Department:

“I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations.
“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag — because every one of them had a state.gov e-mail address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law.”

Only because her email system was private could Hillary hope to keep her daily schedule secret – from America’s enemies, from historians, and from America’s legal system – by burning her schedule.  It’s no smoking gun, since we can’t point to specific meetings, but it is a smoking burn bag.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/huma_admits_under_oath_that_hillary_burned_her_daily_schedule.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Qur’an Test in Dhaka - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

The final exam is a killer.

As Ramadan draws to a merciful close, we have in Bangladesh yet another Islamic jihad massacre, followed by the now drearily familiar attempts to obscure the Islamic character of the massacre, and to keep the public ignorant and complacent regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. But with this particular mass killing it will be harder for the political and media elites to cover up the attackers’ motives and goals, since they subjected their victims to an increasingly familiar feature of jihad attacks: the Qur’an test.

After Islamic State jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered twenty hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on the night of July 1, the serially deceptive Islamic apologist Qasim Rashid tweeted: “In #Ramadan’s final 10 days, Daesh has mass murdered dozens in three Muslim majority nations Please tell me more about how Islamic they are.” In another tweet, he included a photo captioned: “So you’re telling me they killed Muslims during Ramadan and you still blame Islam? Are you that incompetent or that bigoted?” To that, Rashid added: “Likewise, how I feel when I hear Islamophobes claim Islam was somehow behind the #DhakaAttack.”

Echoing Rashid was no less illustrious a personage than Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who insisted: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”

Unfortunately for Hasina and Rashid, however, the killers themselves made it abundantly clear what they were all about. According to Rezaul Karim, the father of a young man who was held hostage inside the Holey Artisan Bakery for more than ten hours, “The gunmen were doing a background check on religion by asking everyone to recite from the Quran. Those who could recite a verse or two were spared. The others were tortured.”

A Qur’an test for determining who was tortured and who wasn’t? That certainly seems to have something to do with Islam. Nor is this the first time that Islamic jihadis have employed this tactic. In September 2013, Islamic jihadis murdered 68 people at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. According to the Daily Mail, “the attack saw men, women and children slaughtered if they could not recite the Koran or name the mother of the [Islamic] Prophet Mohammed.”

In June 2014, again in Kenya, in the coastal town of Mpeketoni, Muslims murdered people who could not pass an Islam quiz. In November 2014, Muslims hijacked a Kenyan bus and murdered 28 non-Muslims who couldn’t recite Qur’an verses. 

Then in April 2015, Islamic jihadists murdered 147 people at Garissa University College, once again in Kenya. The jihadis here again ordered their captives to recite passages from the Qur’an. Then, screaming “Allahu akbar,” they gunned down those who could not.

The practice wasn’t limited to Kenya. In November 2015, Muslims firing guns and screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed the luxury Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali, and took 170 people hostage. Those hostages who could recite Qur’an verses were freed. Around 27 others who could not expatiate on the glories of Allah and the torments awaiting unbelievers were massacred.

And now this test has come to Dhaka, and its import is plain. Those who insist that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that we must look elsewhere to discover the terrorists’ motives and goals, should kindly explain why the textbook for this sinister and murderous little exam is always and everywhere the Qur’an. Terrorists never demand that their captives recite, on pain of death, passages from the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita, or Das Kapital. 

Not coincidentally, the Qur’an is singular among books that are by some considered holy in containing clear, open-ended and universal commands to believers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5; see also 9:29, 47:4, 8:60, 8:39, 8:12, etc.). What the political and media elites would have us believe is that Islamic jihadis misunderstand the clear import of those passages, foolishly assuming that “kill the idolaters” means something like, say, “kill the idolaters,” when every right-thinking person knows that if only one understands the nuances of classical Arabic, it really means “give the idolaters a hug.” They would further have us believe that any Muslim who actually goes out to kill those whom he deems to be idolaters is gravely misunderstanding the message of the Qur’an and Islam.

The time for these comforting fictions is long past. Sheikh Hasina and Qasim Rashid (to whom Megyn Kelly recently accorded a platform for his slick falsehoods) are just two exponents of a years-long campaign of deception and lies that now must be decisively repudiated. If authorities don’t drop their politically correct fantasies and address the jihad threat realistically, we will be seeing the Qur’an test administered inside the U.S. before too long. Instead of studying to pass, Americans should be making it abundantly clear to those administering such tests, and to the deceivers running interference for them in government and media, that their days of perpetrating their evils unchallenged are rapidly drawing to a close.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263386/quran-test-dhaka-robert-spencer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Britain: Labour Party Finds Itself Innocent! - Douglas Murray

by Douglas Murray

The findings of this inquiry have now been published and amazingly the Labour party has found itself innocent.

Readers who have followed the UK Labour party's recent travails will be surprised to hear the results of the party's latest inquiry into its own behaviour. After a slew of anti-Semitic comments emanated from a Member of Parliament, a number of councillors and a member of the party's executive committee, party leader Jeremy Corbyn finally ordered an inquiry into anti-Semitism in the party. The findings of this inquiry have now been published and amazingly the Labour party has found itself innocent. But even that has not gone down without incident.

The Labour party's anti-Semitism problem began to be exposed at the start of this year when stories of routine anti-Semitism emerged from a junior wing of the party -- specifically the Oxford University Labour Club. That scandal involved a number of resignations, and revelations of the use of anti-Semitic language as routine and commonplace among Labour students at Britain's most prestigious university. An inquiry into these events, ordered by the party and conducted by Labour's own Baroness Royall, promptly found "no evidence" of "institutional anti-Semitism."

Then came the scandal of Naz Shah MP, who was suspended from the party pending an investigation into messages on social media, as well as the suspension of a number of Labour councillors for posting anti-Semitic content on Facebook and other sites.

Kerosene was promptly thrown onto this smouldering fire by National Executive Committee member, Ken Livingstone. The former Mayor of London used the opportunity of an anti-Semitism row to go on the BBC and talk about which early policies of Adolf Hitler's he thought the Jewish people had agreed. The resulting firestorm culminated in Mr Livingstone locking himself in a disabled lavatory at the BBC while journalists shouted questions about Hitler under the door. Sensing that his party was in difficult public-relations waters, Jeremy Corbyn ordered an inquiry into the Labour party's anti-Semitism problem, and asked left-wing campaigner Shami Chakrabarti to conduct the inquiry. Chakrabarti promptly joined the Labour party and started work.

On Thursday of last week Chakrabarti produced her findings. At an event in London organised by the Labour party, she announced that the Labour party was not in fact overrun by anti-Semitism "or other forms of racism," but conceded that there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere." She also added that there was "too much clear evidence... of ignorant attitudes."

UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn (left) appears at a press conference with left-wing campaigner Shami Chakrabarti (right), to present the findings of an inquiry into the Labour party's anti-Semitism, June 30, 2016.

The man she was helping to vindicate, Jeremy Corbyn, then took to the stage and called for an end to Hitler and Nazi metaphors, and an end to comparisons between different human rights atrocities. He went on to say, "Racism is racism is racism. There is no hierarchy, no acceptable form of it." In the hands of anyone else that might have been an end of it, but this is the modern Labour party of Jeremy Corbyn, and in the modern Labour party of Jeremy Corbyn no opportunity for a public relations catastrophe is ever missed. And so it was that at the launch of an inquiry into anti-Semitism a set of anti-Semitic incidents occurred.

First, there were the words of the leader himself. In his remarks attempting to curb anti-Semitism in the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn said,

"Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic states or organisations."

This none-too subtle linkage between Israel and ISIS was promptly seized upon by commentators and religious leaders. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis condemned the comments as "offensive," and stated that rather than rebuilding trust with Britain's Jewish community, Corbyn had in fact caused even "greater concern."

Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called Corbyn's comments "demonisation of the highest order, an outrage and unacceptable." He went on to say that the comments showed "how deep the sickness is in parts of the left of British politics today."

Meanwhile, in the audience of the event, a Labour MP who is Jewish -- Ruth Smeeth -- found herself the victim of anti-Semitic slurs from one of Jeremy Corbyn's hard-left grassroots supporters. This individual insisted that Ms Smeeth was working in collusion with the "right-wing media" -- an anti-Semitic trope of precisely the kind at which the Chakrabarti report had been meant to look. Corbyn failed to intervene, so the Jewish MP walked out of the event.

Smeeth subsequently joined the majority of Labour MPs who have already -- for a whole multitude of reasons -- called on Corbyn to resign. By failing to intervene in an anti-Semitic incident going on right in front of him, Corbyn had, she said in a statement, shown a "catastrophic failure of leadership," adding:

"It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti's report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing."

Yet here we are. It is 2016 and in British left-wing politics you cannot even clear yourself of accusations of anti-Semitism without having an outbreak of it right there and then. There are those who have long noticed this fact. There are also those who have long rued this fact. But only the current leadership of the Labour party can imagine that they are going to get away with avoiding this fact.

Douglas Murray is a current events analyst and commentator based in London.

Related Video: Douglas Murray on "Anti-Semitism in Britain's Labour Party"

• Follow Douglas Murray on Twitter

Douglas Murray is a current events analyst and commentator based in London.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8364/uk-antisemitism-inquiry

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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