Make use of the Bible in diplomacy - Dror Eydar

by Dror Eydar

It looks like the Africans still haven't been corrupted by the common diplomatic discourse, which has been cleaned of any religious, historical, or cultural content.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni's speech at Entebbe at a ceremony marking 40 years since Operation Jonathan met with smirks and laughter. He didn't remember the name of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but what's so bad about that? Let Ahmadinejad rot. He also got mixed up between Lord Arthur Balfour and Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary who suggested to Theodor Herzl that the Jews be repatriated to East Africa under what was known as the "Uganda scheme." Fine. But unlike the wave of laughter, the speech was far from "delusional." In effect, it illustrated the element lacking in Israel's foreign policy: using religious language and thinking as another valuable tool in the diplomatic arsenal. Given the growing religious extremism we face in global Islam, it's particularly important to find common ground between the State of Israel and the Jewish people and the various forms of Christianity, as well as with the moderate leaders and streams of Islam. The people who laughed at the Ugandan president were laughing at themselves. 

Here is a key sentence from the speech, which evaded the attention of pundits: "On the issue of Israel/Palestine, we in Uganda are guided by the Bible." What do you think about that? Throughout his entire speech, Museveni made reference to the Bible. He could have focused on the Entebbe operation alone, the differences between justified battle and despicable terrorism, said a few words of congratulations and it would have been sufficient. That's how an American or European leader would have behaved. It looks like the Africans still haven't been corrupted by the common diplomatic discourse, which has been cleaned of any religious, historical, or cultural content. 

The Ugandan president ranked the rescue of the Entebbe hostages along with other biblical and historical events that linked Africa to the Jewish people and the Middle East in similar circumstances: Distress that turned into salvation. The story of Joseph, who was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken from Canaan (the land of Israel) to Egypt (which is Africa). As a devout Christian, there is great significance to the connection Museveni drew between the hostages being rescued and the baby Jesus being rescued from Herod's soldiers and being given shelter in Egypt until it was safe to return, as related in the New Testament (Matthew 2). 

The president even enlisted Muhammad's flight from Mecca was compared to the rescue of the Israeli hostages. He might have confused the first and second hijras, but the principle is what matters. In 614, Muhammad's followers "came out" as Muslims. After a year of persecution by the pagan establishment in Mecca, Muhammad sent about 100 of his followers to the king of Ethiopia, a Christian, who gave them amnesty until 622, until they joined the second hijra, when the prophet of Islam left Mecca for Medina. 

The president also countered the lies of his counterparts in Arab states and Iran that the Jews are strangers in their own land and in the Middle East "because they came from Europe" be pulling out a Bible and quoting Genesis 11:31: "Terah took Abram his grandson ... and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there." You see, Museveni told Ahmadinejad, the Jews absolutely belong to the region. They came from Mesopotamia and settled in Haran and later in Canaan; just like you, the Iranians, are perpetuating the Persian Empire that appears in the Bible. 

Museveni used Abraham's two wives: Sarah, the matriarch of the Jews and Hagar, the matriarch of the Muslims, to propose a solution for the conflict between us and the Arabs. Both peoples, he said, belong to the region. He determined that attempts to compare Israel to South Africa under apartheid rule were nonsense, that the two countries were "totally different stories," and offered his services as a go-between on the mission to achieve peace. 

The same parts of Israeli media (and politics) that are devoid of knowledge of Jewish texts and religious issues scorned what looked like a mixture of politics and myth, just like intellectuals in Europe dismissed the Islamist religious awakening in their streets. 

But anyone who is well-versed in the our people's ancient knowledge and spirit realizes the great potential that lies before Israeli statesmen (and also people in trade and economics) if they bring in the religious dimension as more common ground with their colleagues in the world. Israel renewing its relations with African nations is crucial historic event that could help break down the diplomatic wall that Israel's enemies have worked to build against it. The Israelis came to the memorial event at Entebbe, but the president of Uganda and many Africans along with him saw the representatives of the historic Jewish people, the people of the Bible. Only a blind person could miss this opportunity.

Dror Eydar

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16617

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Russians are coming.......to Cuba? - Silvio Canto, Jr.

by Silvio Canto, Jr.

This is a slap in the face to U.S. businesses who bought into the idea that the Obama-Castro deal would open new markets.

Guess what happens when you go to a ball game and legitimize a Cuban dictator? Raul Castro turns around and gives the Russians a big piece of business -- the air traffic control system in the island.    

This is from Sabrina Martin of the Pan Am Post:

The largest Russian manufacturer of electronic devices for civil aviation will be in charge of creating a new air traffic control system for Cuba.
The news comes days after the Cuban government refused visas to US congressmen who were traveling to the island to inspect and certify the conditions of airports before regular flights between Cuba and the United States can resume.
The Russian company Azimut signed a contract with the Cuban state company Aviaimport to transfer technology, information, and research in civil aeronautics for air traffic control on the island.
The deal includes the delivery of the source-code and the execution of tests. Likewise, the Russian company will offer training for the Cuban employees who will be in charge of the system’s operation.
The agreement between the state-owned firm and Azimut will last until June 2017 and the system is expected to be implemented in 10 international airports in Cuba.
Currently, Cuban airports use an ORACLE-based system, acquired from Canada in 2000, which officials deem outdated.
It’s worth noting that six airlines were authorized by the US government to operate 155 weekly flights for almost 20,000 passengers between five US cities and nine Cuban destinations.

This is a slap in the face to U.S. businesses who bought into the idea that the Obama-Castro deal would open new markets. At the end of the day, Raul Castro selected the Russians, and all of the potential security challenges that it brings.    

He also denied visas to a U.S. House delegation that wanted to check the Cuban airport security systems. Wonder why? The decision to bring in Vlad Putin answers that question!

Russia is back in the Middle East and Cuba. We can thank Obama for that!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Silvio Canto, Jr.

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

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Russia revamps air force array in Syria & Mid East - debkaFile

by debkaFile

debkafile’s military sources say there are six reasons why Russia has shifted is reliance in Syria and the Middle East on helicopters rather than on bombers and fighter planes.

 
Moscow has decided to send additional advanced aircraft, including K-52 helicopter gunships, to Syria “in order to strengthen the Russian military grouping that takes part in anti-terrorist operations" - Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuriy Ivanovich Borisov announced this week. The new consignment, he said, would replace the bombers and Su-25 fighter jets which will be recalled to Russia.

The Ka-52, 'Alligator'- NATO codename “Hokum-B” - is a two-seat attack helicopter which fits the requirements of the different battle sites in Syria. Rated one of the world’s most sophisticated of its kind, it is highly maneuverable, capable of abruptly altering flight directions and angles without prior adjustments.

Alligator is equipped with an advanced battlefield management system for running contact and exchanges of data with other helicopters/airplanes and ground units. The battlefield management system can also serve as an airborne headquarters for ground and air forces in battle.

The Ka-52 has six external hardpoints for different combinations of weapons, among which are Vikhr and Vikhr-M anti-tank missiles and Igla-V air-to-air missiles. The helicopter also carries bombs and rockets. For targeting armored forces, these helicopters carry 12 Vikhr ATGMs laser-guided anti-tank missiles with a range of up to 8km and the ability to pierce 950mm-thick armor. The helicopter is also equipped with extra-strong advanced casing against ground fire.

On July 7, Russian Navy headquarter in Moscow announced that the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov will be deployed in the Mediterranean opposite Syrian shores. In October, the carrier will begin military operations against terror organizations in Syria and in particular against ISIS. On its decks are 15 Su-33 and MiG-29K/KUB bombers and fighter jets, and 10   Ka-52K, Ka-27 and Ka-31 helicopters.

debkafile’s military sources say there are six reasons why Russia has shifted is reliance in Syria and the Middle East on helicopters rather than on bombers and fighter planes.

1. To adapt is aerial assets to expanded military cooperation with the US air force in Syrian air space. It is possible that we will soon see US and Russian helicopters attacking Syrian terror targets together, especially ISIS. Russian helicopters may even be deployed in support of US special operations forces in this arena.

2. US-Russian negotiations on joint air force operations are already underway, with a couple of provisos set by the Obama administration, especially the discontinuation of Syrian air force strikes against Syrian rebel groups supported by the US.

debkafile counter-terror and intelligence sources report that Washington and Moscow have not agreed on which of these rebel forces are to be immune. The debate centers on rebel groups close to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other radical Muslim organizations.

3. The continued US failure to successfully wield CIA-trained and armed Syrian rebel forces is forcing the Americans to fall back increasingly on the Russian forces in Syria. In recent weeks these pro-US forces were repeatedly beaten back by ISIS before achieving their mission.

The latest examples are: the bitter defeat of The New Syrian Army near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, and the failure of Syrian Democratic Forces – SDF, another pro-US force, operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border, to capture Manjib from ISIS, despite aerial support.

4. As the US has withdrawn its aircraft carriers from the Mediterranean, the arrival of the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier ready to go into action in October will make the Russian navy the only military force to deploy an aircraft carrier in the region.

5. Since Moscow and Ankara buried the hatchet earlier this month, the Russian air force no longer needs to maintain advanced fighters jets in Syria against the Turkish air force.

6. The Russians are also aiming to reach an agreement with Turkey for joint aerial operations against terror targets in Syria.


debkaFile

Source: http://www.debka.com/article/25525/Russia-revamps-air-force-array-in-Syria-Mid-East

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

No Sacred Cows? The Washington Post Continues Carrying CAIR's Water - Steven Emerson

by Steven Emerson

The newspaper, which rarely hesitates to investigate the backgrounds of politicians, companies and more, has never seen fit to delve into CAIR's checkered history.

Let's say the Church of Scientology launched a program it said was aimed at creating healthy work environments and bridging family divides, even those involving church critics.

What would the news stories read like? After all, there are ever-expanding accounts of former Scientologists who say they were physically abused, or who were cut off from loved ones deemed hostile to the church.

Virtually any news story about the new program would cover this context in detail. It's reasonable to expect major news outlets would devote entire stories comparing the new claims to the church's history. It would be inconceivable to omit that background even if the new program proved to be a smashing success.

This is what makes the Washington Post's coverage of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) so confounding. The newspaper, which rarely hesitates to investigate the backgrounds of politicians, companies and more, has never seen fit to delve into CAIR's checkered history.

Independence Day brought yet another story casting CAIR as a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and Islamist extremism. CAIR's Florida chapter, the headline says, "is doing what the government has so far failed to do." It tells the story of "intervention teams" on alert in South Florida to help cases of radicalized Muslims who might be thinking of committing violence. Some of the seven individuals identified so far have been referred to law enforcement, the story says.

There's no way to know if that assertion is true. It is a claim taken at face value.

There's also no way – short of doing their own independent searches – for readers to know that CAIR itself has direct, court-acknowledged connections to a terrorist group. They don't know because the Post didn't mention it in this, or any other story, since the information came to light in 2007.

From its first days, CAIR was a cog in a Hamas-support network called the Palestine Committee, records show. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood created the committee to help Hamas "with what it needs of media, money, men and all of that."

At least three original CAIR officials, Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad and Nabil Sadoun, are on the Palestine Committee's telephone list. Mousa Abu Marzook, a longtime Hamas political leader, is the first name listed. Ahmad, who sometimes was identified as "Omar Yehya," also is listed on the Palestine Committee's executive board.

Eyewitnesses told federal investigators that Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood connections shared by CAIR founders were widely known when the organization was founded.

Bylaws establish that the Muslim Brotherhood executive office created the Palestine Committee "to serve the Palestinian cause on the U.S. front." A 1991 document repeatedly refers to the Brotherhood's role directing Palestine Committee activities. Among the instructions that year: "Collecting of donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] from the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] and others."

Another report from around that time explicitly states that the committee sees its charge as "defending the Islamic cause in Palestine and support for the emerging movement, the Hamas Movement."

This is the mission into which CAIR was born.

Omar Ahmad, a co-founder and longtime CAIR national chairman, was described as "a leader within the Palestine Committee" in testimony by FBI Special Agent Lara Burns.

Nihad Awad, the only executive director in CAIR's history, joined Palestine Committee colleagues during a weekend-long emergency meeting in 1993 to discuss ways to "derail" the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords. The deal was hailed as a potential peace breakthrough and created an autonomous Palestinian Authority.

That was unacceptable to the Palestine Committee because it sidelined the Islamists in Hamas, and because it included Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence. Concerned that the American public would see them as terror supporters, the group's officials instructed members never to mention Hamas by name, instead choosing to reverse the spelling and talk about "Samah." Awad, in this FBI transcript, did just that.



The group also discussed creating "a new organization for activism" which might be better received publicly because "we are marked."

CAIR was created the following summer, where it promptly appeared on the Palestine Committee's next meeting agenda.



The exhibits described above have never been reported in the Post.

When the Post has written about CAIR's background, it has been at the most superficial of levels: CAIR minimizes its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas Hamas-financing trial in which these documents became public record; a "fact-check" which concludes that the unindicted co-conspirator label "is one of those true facts that ultimately gives a false impression."

Would the Scientologists receive similar kid-glove treatment? Would a candidate for office?

This is not a case of differing perspectives. The documents were seized from the participants and reflect real-time Palestine Committee activities.

While CAIR was never charged, prosecutors made it clear in court filings that they had evidence showing CAIR was part "of the conspiracy" and acted "in furtherance of the conspiracy."

"CAIR has been identified by the Government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew," they wrote.

The Post is led by Marty Baron, a man who has demonstrated the tenacity to take on religious organizations as mighty as the Catholic Church when they might be engaged in improper activity. So far, however, that same gritty determination has not been focused on the Islamists who run CAIR, despite their profile and their organization's checkered history.

That is a shame.


Steven Emerson

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/5486/no-sacred-cows-the-washington-post-continues

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

CNN omits Judea and Samaria in report on terror - Ben Ariel

by Ben Ariel

CNN publishes updated map of places in which terror attacks took place this month, fails to include attacks on Judea and Samaria.

CNN logo

Thinkstock

 

CNN on Tuesday published an updated map showing places in the world in which terrorist attacks had taken place during the Muslim month of Ramadan – but failed to include Judea and Samaria.

“Updated map: This graphic shows the extent of terror attacks throughout Ramadan in 2016,” the network tweeted.

The map identifies places such as Orlando, Paris, Istanbul and Lebanon, and also lists the June 8 attack on the Sarona Market in Tel Aviv in which four people were murdered.

It does not, however, point out the two attacks last week against Israeli citizens of Judea and Samaria in which 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel and Rabbi Michael Mark were murdered.

Several Twitter users pointed out that the network had not mentioned the attacks in Judea and Samaria, including the Twitter account for the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

Another user sarcastically wrote, “@CNN Israel 1 attack? because attacks on 'settlers' in 'occupied territories' don't count. #LCE we think Green Line; they think Shoreline.”

The incident is, of course, not the first time that CNN has showed an anti-Israel bias. In its original report on the Sarona Market attack, the network wrote that two terrorists were captured after the attack but placed the word “terrorists” in quotation marks.

The biased report caused outrage among readers, and Israeli diplomats reportedly let CNN know they were angry and expected the network to do something about the matter.

CNN later apologized for this and clarified the attack was “undoubtedly” a terrorist attack.


Ben Ariel

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214553#.V30AqaKzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The deadly cost of trying to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report confirms what we pretty much already knew. The Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completely politicized this country’s foreign policy in order to ensure the reelection of Obama and to serve the future presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Along the way Obama, Clinton et al. made dangerous decisions, such as establishing the consular outpost in Benghazi, and ignoring the consul’s pleas for more security. They also ignored the many warning signs of incipient attacks, bungled the response to the attack on September 11, 2012, and then obfuscated, spun, and outright lied in the aftermath. The House report adds new details that flesh out the story, but enough had already been leaked to confirm Clinton’s despicable sacrifice of American lives on the altar of her obsessive ambition.

Toxic ambition, sheer incompetence, and the self-serving politics of the individuals involved mean they bear the primary responsibility for this disaster. But Benghazi illustrates as well the climate of bad ideas that make such decisions possible. Bad politicians eventually go away, but malignant ideas and received wisdom are deeply rooted in our institutions, transcending individuals. The Benghazi fiasco illustrates two particularly tenacious ones.

The military intervention in Libya, the origin of the Benghazi tragedy, was another act of Western wishful thinking about “democratizing” and “reforming” the Muslim world. Despite the failure of George W. Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions encouraged the Wilsonian “freedom and democracy” promoters in 2011 to make Libya yet another poster-child for this doomed project. Moreover, intervention seemingly could be done on the cheap. No troops need be deployed, since jets and missiles could topple the psychotic Muammar Gaddafi––an autocrat straight out of central casting, whose genocidal bluster gave the West a pretext for intervention.

For Hillary and Obama, this was the perfect opportunity to show those neocon militarists what “smart power” was all about, and strike a contrast with the “cowboy” Bush’s “unilateralist” bumbling in Iraq. A UN resolution was secured, and a NATO-led coalition of 19 states assembled for enforcing a no-fly zone. The mission soon escalated into bringing about regime change and the death of Gaddafi.

For a while, this was a perfect, low-cost, quick little war that would illustrate the various shibboleths of moralizing internationalism: international diplomatic approval for the use of force, multilateral coalition building, a reliance on air power that minimized casualties among participating militaries, and a smaller role for the US, which would be “leading from behind,” as an Obama advisor said. This last idea reflected Obama’s belief that the US needed to diminish its role in world affairs and avoid the arrogant overreach that stained its history abroad, most recently in Iraq. This notion of America’s global sins is another bad idea reflecting ideology, not historical fact.

For Secretary of State Clinton, the Libya intervention would be the showcase of her tenure at State and proof of her superior foreign policy skills and presidential potential. Of course, we all know that the toppling of Gaddafi has been a disastrous mistake. Gaddafi was a brutal creep, but he kept in check the jihadists from Libya eager to kill Americans in Iraq and foment terror throughout the region. His departure created a vacuum that has been filled with legions of jihadist outfits across North Africa, including ISIS franchises. They are armed in part with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals such as surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles, machine guns, mines, grenades, antitank missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. Yet eager to protect her defining foreign policy achievement, Hillary kept open the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi even as other nations pulled out their personnel because of the increasing danger caused by the new Libyan government’s inability to control and secure its territory.

Four dead Americans were the cost of political ambition and adherence to the bankrupt idea that liberal democracy can be created on the cheap in a culture lacking all of the philosophical and institutional infrastructure necessary for its success: inalienable rights, equality under the law, transparent government, accountability to the people, separation of church and state, fair and honest elections, and the freedom of speech and assembly. The folly of expecting democracy in a culture alien to it became clear in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s Draft Constitutional Charter proclaimed, “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” The idea of exporting democracy, however, still has a tight hold on many in the West both on the left and the right, which means we have not seen the last of its bloody and costly failures.

Equally bipartisan has been the next bad idea: that al Qaeda, ISIS, et al. are fringe “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” grieved by this tarnishing of their noble faith. It was George W. Bush who said in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” establishing the model for his administration’s policy of “outreach” to Muslims. Obama has taken this delusion to surreal extremes, refusing in the face of mountains of evidence to link the numerous ISIS attacks of the last few years to Islam, and proscribing “jihad” and “radical Islamist” from the government’s communications and training manuals.

It was this imperative to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots in traditional Islamic doctrine that in part accounted for the lies that Hillary, Obama, and their minions like National Security Advisor Susan Rice told in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. They peddled the narrative that a spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video insulting Mohammed had morphed into a violent attack. This lie traded in the delusional belief that despite its 14-century-long record of invasion, murder, slaving, colonization, and occupation­­––all in fulfillment of the divine commands “to slay the idolaters wherever you find them” and “to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah” –– Islamic doctrine could not possibly justify the actions of modern terrorists. So powerful was the need to protect this belief and, of course, her political future that Clinton lied to the faces of the parents of the four dead Americans, promising to “get” the hapless filmmaker, even as she knew on the very night of the attacks that there was no protest against the video near the consular outpost.

Nor are the various pretexts for this evasion of historical fact convincing. The worst is that making explicit the link between jihadism and Islam will endanger innocent Muslims and stoke “Islamophobia.” There is no evidence that this is the case, and hate crimes against Jews still vastly outnumber those against Muslims. Not much better is the notion that pious Muslims, supposedly offended by “blasphemers” like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, will not cooperate with police and the FBI if we state simple facts about their faith and its history.

This idea is psychologically preposterous. It assumes that Muslim pique at infidel statements about their religion trumps their assumed desire to stop the violent “distorters” of their beloved faith. It also assumes that to Muslims, such insults justify keeping quiet about the planned murders of innocents––a damning indictment of the very people whom the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd are so anxious to mollify. Worse, it confirms the unique triumphalism of Islam, whose adherents expect from non-believers deference to their faith, even as Muslims across the globe are slaughtering and torturing people simply because they are non-believers. Such careful monitoring of our discourse about Islam, at the same time Muslim intellectuals routinely attack the West for its alleged historical sins against Islam, is a sign of weakness and fear that encourages our enemies to hit us again.

We’ve been operating by this double standard for decades, and terrorist groups have expanded across the globe, while jihadist violence has murdered Americans in Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando, to name just the deadliest attacks. It’s safe to say that the tactic of flattering Muslims and confirming their sense of superiority to infidels has failed to keep us safe.

But if we really want to be honest, we won’t just rely on the weasel-word “Islamist,” which still suggests that the beliefs of the jihadists are somehow a doctrinal aberration. Those of both parties who continually talk about “moderate Muslims” and use the word “Islamist” to distinguish them from jihadists should heed Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.” Using “Islamic” rather than “Islamist” will recognize the continuity of modern jihadism with traditional Islamic doctrines. Whitewashing that fact has done nothing to stop jihadist violence, and it is an enabler of those ordinary Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Islam’s illiberal and violent doctrines.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the opprobrium history will inflict on them for sacrificing our security and interests to their personal ambition and ideological obsessions. But bad ideas had a hand in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, and those bad ideas will continue to cripple us until we discard them and start facing reality.

Bruce Thornton

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263391/bad-ideas-created-benghazi-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Moral Equivalence Has Become a Moral Atrocity - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

The international community's failure to distinguish good from evil -- and the victims it produces.

 
Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 


We have reached the point where moral equivalence has become a moral atrocity.


The smart set in the West has insisted for over a generation that Israel and the Palestinians are morally equal. There are extremists, on both sides, they say. Both sides are responsible for the absence of peace.


The first serious outcry against this lie came immediately after the Palestinians began their terrorist war against Israel in September 2000. That war, incited, directed, funded, commanded and celebrated by Yassir Arafat and his henchmen, including his successor Mahmoud Abbas, began two months after Arafat overturned the table at Camp David in response to then prime minister Ehud Barak’s offer to withdraw from 95 percent of Judea and Samaria, all of Gaza and half of Jerusalem to enable the establishment of an independent state of Palestine in the areas.


The areas in question, Barak said, would be handed over to the PLO Jew free. The hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the areas set to become Palestine, would be forcefully evicted from their homes to ensure that the delicate, sensitive Palestinians, wouldn’t be troubled by the Jews with their “dirty feet,” in the words of Abbas.


That, of course, wasn’t enough for Arafat. And it was insufficient not because Barak failed to give him what he demanded. It was insufficient because his demands were insatiable. Arafat was never interested in peace.


As his deputy Faisal Husseini said at the time, the peace process was a “Trojan Horse.” 


Its purpose was to get the PLO bases of operation inside of Israeli territory in order to expand its ability to destroy the Jewish state. This is the reason that despite the fact that the international community has given them more financial assistance than any other people in the history of humanity, the Palestinians have not built a society. They have received tens of billions of dollars in development aid and failed to develop an operating economy.


This failure isn’t due to incompetence or corruption.


It is simply that the Palestinians don’t want those things. They chose not to develop independent institutions.


They do not want to build a state. They have spent the money to transform Palestinian society into the most anti-Semitic society in the world where the vast majority of its people want to kill Jews and destroy Israel. They have transformed Palestinian society into a place where Jews have no right to live – not because of some sort of occupation, but because they are Jews, and Jews, they have been indoctrinated to believe, are an abomination.


Anyone with eyes in his head can see this. It has been obvious for 16 years.


The smart set’s failure to note reality back in September 2000 marked the beginning of its descent into moral oblivion.


Its first step down that road was when its members coined the pernicious term, “cycle of violence.”


“Cycle of violence,” means that there is no moral distinction between a murderer and a policeman, between a society geared toward annihilating its victim and its victim’s actions to prevent that from happening.


The latest consequence of this moral depravity came on Friday with the publication of the so-called Middle East Quartet’s much awaited report that is supposed to show us the way to peace. That report – like its predecessors insisted that a Jewish “settler” is the moral equivalence of a Palestinian murderer.


The day before the report was released, we saw – yet again – the evil empowering nature of that claim.


Thursday morning, a hate-drenched, demonic Palestinian murderer took a knife and stole into the town of Kiryat Arba – a “settlement.”


He broke into the Ariel family’s home. He walked into their children’s bedroom. He found 13 year old Hallel Yaffa asleep in her bed.


He stabbed her repeatedly. When there was no place left to stab her in her face and chest, he turned her over and continued stabbing her in the back.


The murderer set off the sensors in Kiryat Arba’s security fence when he traversed it. It took but three minutes for the community’s security team to get to the house. They shot and killed the Palestinian assailant and so prevented him from moving to the adjacent high school and transforming his slaughter into a massacre.


But Hallel was already gone.


The next day, the Mark family was driving along Highway 60. A Palestinian car carrying murderers drove up beside them and opened fire on Michael Mark, his wife Chavi and their children. Mark was murdered, his wife and daughter seriously hurt and his son was wounded as the car flipped over and over, after Mark lost control of the wheel.


On cue, the Palestinians began celebrating the murders and the murderers. The PLO governor of Hebron paid a condolence call at the home of Hallel’s killer.


The Palestinian media celebrated their crimes. And a new high quality animated film was released on Facebook directing viewers to murder MK Yehuda Glick. The film included driving directions to Otniel, and images of terrorists burrowing under the security fence to enter the community and avoid detection.
Amidst all of this, the Quartet released its report.


And although the report struck the tone of neutrality – both sides need to do this and both sides need to do that, the fact is that after 16 years of Palestinian atrocities against Israelis, the Quartet’s determination that they are the same is a moral atrocity.


The Quartet recommends that both sides “de-escalate tensions.” But of course, only the Palestinians are escalating tensions.


Both sides, the wise men tell us, “should take all necessary steps to prevent violence and protect the lives and property of all civilians.”


But only one side is fomenting violence and deliberately targeting civilians.


Both sides, the Quartet says, should “exercise restraint and refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric.”


But only one side is engaging in provocative actions and rhetoric, unless the Quartet says that Israel responding angrily to the slaughter of its children and families is acting provocatively – which of course is what they are implying here.


And it gets worse. The report includes an empty call for the Palestinians “to act decisively and take all steps within its capacity to cease incitement to violence and strengthen ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including by clearly condemning all acts of terrorism.”


The Palestinians of course, will do no such thing.


Abbas is the engine of the incitement and the violence.


He always has been. And the fact that he’s been able to get away with this since taking over from Arafat 12 years ago shows that the moral miasma of the West has become a danger to world peace.


After pretending that the people who transformed Palestinian society into the hate-filled, murder applauding mob it has become are interested in doing the opposite, the Quartet turned its guns on Israel.


Israel needs to deny Jewish property rights. Israel needs to expand the powers of the Palestinian death cult into Area C – where all the Israeli communities are located and but two percent of the Palestinians live.


Israel needs to expand its security cooperation with Abbas’s US-trained militias that have been marinated in the same Jew hatred as the rest of the Palestinians, and have often propagated.


Sunday afternoon, hundreds of people stood silently outside the Ariel home in Kiryat Arba, waiting to enter the modest home to console the family. The landscape outside is pastoral.


The Ariels live off of their vineyard and the wine they produce.


Surrounded by the vines, and the hills, the Ariel’s homestead looks like the sort of place where nothing bad can happen. A quiet family of profound faith, the Ariels were just going about their quiet lives, raising their daughters, tending to their vines when the evil beyond their gate entered their home and struck.


That is the difference between the two sides. One wishes to tend his vineyard. The other wishes to destroy it.


It is black and white. It is a clear distinction.


The international community’s pernicious refusal to recognize this basic fact, after so many years, is a major reason that there is no peace, and there is so much bloodshed

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

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263401/moral-equivalence-has-become-moral-atrocity-caroline-glick

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Does Islam Belong to Germany? - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society.

• "Former German President Christian Wulff said: 'Islam belongs to Germany.' That is true. This is also my opinion." — Chancellor Angela Merkel, January 12, 2015.
• "Angela Merkel's statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies." — Thilo Sarrazin, renowned former central banker and a member of the Social Democrats, January 20, 2015.
• "Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat." — Alexander Gauland, AfD party leader for Brandenburg, April 17, 2016.
• "An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with Sharia judges." — AfD Manifesto.
• "Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam." — Henryk Broder, German journalist, May 16, 2016.

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society.

In a similar poll conducted in January 2015, 37% of Germans said that Islam belongs to Germany, 15% more than now. The results indicate that German attitudes toward Islam are hardening after Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow more than 1.1 million mostly Muslim migrants to enter Germany in 2015.

The poll has opened yet another chapter in the decade-long debate over the phrase, "Islam belongs to Germany." The words were first uttered in September 2006 — at the time there were 3.5 million Muslims in Germany, compared to nearly six million today — by then Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

Speaking ahead of the first-ever German-Islam Conference, the first institutionalized dialogue between representatives of the German government and of Muslims in Germany, Schäuble said: "Islam is a part of Germany and a part of Europe. Islam is a part of our present and a part of our future. Muslims are welcome in Germany."

The phrase was repeated in October 2010 by Germany's then president, Christian Wulff, during a keynote speech to mark the 20th anniversary of German reunification. Wulff proclaimed that "Islam belongs to Germany" because millions of Muslims now live there:

"Christianity doubtless belongs Germany. Judaism belongs unequivocally to Germany. This is our Judeo-Christian history. But now Islam also belongs to Germany (Der Islam gehört inzwischen auch zu Deutschland)."

Wulff then quoted the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who in his West-Eastern Diwan (West–östlicher Divan, 1819) wrote: "He who knows himself and others will understand: East and West are no longer separable."

Since then, a debate has raged over the increasingly contentious question of Muslim immigration, integration and the role of Islam in German society. The University of Bonn launched a research project entitled, "How much Islam belongs to Germany?" The Konrad Adenauer Foundation published a paper: "Which Islam belongs to Germany?" According to the head of the Lutheran Church in Germany, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, only "Democratic Islam" belongs to Germany.

What follows is an abridged historical review of the phrase "Islam belongs to Germany."

March 3, 2011. In his first press conference as German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich said that Islam does not belong to Germany: "To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history at any point." He added that Muslim immigrants should respect the "Western Christian origin of our culture." His comments set off a firestorm of criticism from the guardians of German multiculturalism.

March 4, 2011. Wolfgang Bosbach, of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU), defended Friedrich: "I like politicians who say what they think. Islam is part of the reality of Germany, but it is not part of German identity."

March 5, 2011. Alexander Dobrindt, the General Secretary of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's CDU, said: "Of course there are Muslims in Germany. But Islam is not part of the German mainstream culture (Leitkultur)." CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said: "Islam has not shaped our society in the past and it does not do so today. Therefore, Islam does not belong to Germany."

May 31, 2012. The new German President, Joachim Gauck, distanced himself from Wulff's comments: "The reality is that many Muslims live in our country. I would have simply said that the Muslims who live here belong to Germany." He added: "Where has Islam shaped Europe? Did Islam experience the Enlightenment, or even a Reformation?"

January 12, 2015. Chancellor Angela Merkel, during a meeting in Berlin with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, declared: "Former German President Christian Wulff said: 'Islam belongs to Germany.' That is true. This is also my opinion." She stressed the need to "strengthen the dialogue between religions because there is still too much ignorance."

January 13, 2015. Hans-Peter Friedrich, the former interior minister, challenged Merkel's claim that Islam belongs to Germany:

"The Muslims who live in this country, who are committed to this country, belong to Germany, no question. There is nothing to deny and nothing to relativize. But I can see nowhere that Islam belongs to Germany. Islam is not a formative, constitutive element of the identity of our country.
"The issue revolves around the question of what is constitutive, of what makes the identity of this country. And the identity of this country, developed over centuries, is not Islam but a Christian culture, based on Christian and Jewish roots.
"Islam is not a defining element of the identity of this country. Anyone who travels through Germany can see this. They can see churches and paintings, they can listen to music that comes from many centuries of ecclesial roots; they can see art and architecture which are marked by Christianity.
"Whether Islam will be a defining element of Europe or Germany in centuries from now, only time will tell."

January 20, 2015. Thilo Sarrazin, a renowned former German central banker and a member of the Social Democrats (SPD) who has been warning Germans for years about the consequences of mass migration, criticized Merkel:

"When the Chancellor says she is of the opinion that Islam is part of Europe's tradition and culture, she is mistaken. When Angela Merkel says that Muslims should enjoy full citizenship in Germany and will be welcome if they integrate, her statement is true, although banal."

He said that Islam "with all its radical, violent manifestations" arrived in Germany only in the last 40 years due to "unplanned and uncontrolled mass immigration into German society." He added: "In addition, Angela Merkel's statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies."

June 30, 2015. Merkel, speaking in Berlin after an Iftar, an evening meal that breaks the daily fast during Ramadan, declared: "It is indisputably obvious that Islam now belongs to Germany."

September 21, 2015. Edmund Stoiber, the Honorary Chairman of Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) said: "I cannot accept the phrase, 'Islam belongs to Germany.' Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not. Islam is not a core element of German culture and has not shaped our intellectual history and tradition."

April 17, 2016. Beatrix von Storch, the Deputy Chairperson of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the third-most popular political party in Germany, said: "Many Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not belong to Germany. Islam is at base a political ideology that is not compatible with the German Constitution."

Alexander Gauland, the leader of the AfD in Brandenburg, elaborated: "Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat."

May 1, 2016. The AfD adopted a manifesto calling for curbs to migration and restrictions on Islam. The document calls for a ban on minarets, Muslim calls to prayer and full-face veils:

"Islam does not belong to Germany. The AfD views the spread of Islam and the growing number of Muslims in Germany as a great danger for our country, our society and our system of values. An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with sharia judges. The AfD wants to prevent Muslims from radicalizing and turning to violent Salafism and religious terrorism."

May 5, 2016. CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said that Christian Wulff's choice of words in 2010 were "well-intentioned but imprecise." He said that while Muslims belong to Germany, Islam certainly does not: "Germany has not been historically or culturally shaped by Islam." According to Kauder, Islam has many manifestations, "some of which we can never accept in Germany." He added: "For us, religion is never above the state." He said that religious freedom is not unlimited, but is restrained by the German Constitution.
May 16, 2016. The German journalist Henryk Broder wrote:

"Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam. The 'Euro-Islam' desired by many is a chimera, as was 'Euro-communism' during the Cold War.
"This would significantly facilitate peaceful coexistence on a firm foundation. It would also be the end of all debates — about the equality of men and women, marriage for all, headscarves in the civil service, the separation of power in politics, separation of church and state, caricatures and satires. We would save a lot of time and could turn to the really relevant questions. For example: Was Jesus the first Muslim?"

In a speech on October 22, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that she agreed with the statement of former German President Christian Wulff, that "Islam belongs to Germany."

 

 

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

Source:  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8392/islam-belongs-to-germany

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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