President Hillary Won’t Stop a Nuclear-Armed Iran - Shoula Romano Horing

by Shoula Romano Horing

Hillary Clinton in her last six months as Secretary of State helped open the door to a dramatic shift in US policy towards Iran by suggesting that the US will concede to let Iran continue enriching Uranium at small levels in order to convince, a bankrupt and internationally isolated Iran, to hold negotiations with the Obama Administration

Hillary Clinton has been running as the status quo U.S. presidential candidate while Donald Trump has been running as the candidate of change. Neither the United States, Israel, nor the rest of the Middle East can afford what will amount to a third term of Obama’s failed foreign policy. Particularly the continued implementation of the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal.

The facts show that on Hillary Clinton’s watch as Obama’s Secretary of State she initiated the Iran deal, embraced it fully when it was signed, and has been a silent cheerleader ever since. This in spite of the warning signs of an emboldened and cheating Iran. Under Hillary’s watch as president there is high probability, based on her poor judgment and weakness as Secretary of State, that when Iran attempts to finally acquire a nuclear weapon, which they will surely do, she will not take any military action to deter it. Although the U.S. may impose unilateral sanctions, in the end, her efforts will fail to dissuade Iran to give up its program just as the U.S. failed to stop North Korea after her husband Bill Clinton signed a similar nuclear deal as president. Consequently, for the first time in history, a jihadist Islamic state, which has been publicly declaring for years, their willingness to wipe the Jewish state off the map and be destroyed for the sake of Allah, will possess the bomb. 

As the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on September 8, 2015, Hillary Clinton in her last six months as Secretary of State helped open the door to a dramatic shift in US policy towards Iran by suggesting that the US will concede to let Iran continue enriching Uranium at small levels in order to convince, a bankrupt and internationally isolated Iran, to hold negotiations with the Obama Administration. In July 2012, Mrs. Clinton ‘s closest policy aide, Jake Sullivan, was the first one to meet in secret with Iranians diplomats in Oman, with many meetings to follow, while Holocaust denier President Ahmadinejad was still in power. As Mr. Sullivan, who now serves as Mrs. Clinton’s top presidential campaign advisor, said “she recognized the difficulty of reaching a solution, with zero enrichment”. Mrs. Clinton left the state department in early 2013 and later that year, the Obama administration agreed publicly that Iran could continue to enrich Uranium.

When the Iran deal was signed, she endorsed it fully as “an important step in putting a lid on Iran’s nuclear program,” and “the most effective path... to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

However, in reality the deal does not derail or abolish Iran’s quest for the bomb, but merely slows it down, and in less than 10 years the deal makes it legal for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.

But in the meantime, it fundamentally unraveled the global sanctions regime against Iran, and no one except the U.S. will ever try to bring it back. Iran has been infused with multiple billion dollars’ trade and military deals with Russia, China, and Europe. This is in addition to $150 billion dollars paid to them by the U.S., including $1.7 billion in cold cash from the U.S., paid as ransom for the release of four American hostages, which in all likelihood will be used to fund terrorism. In addition, the WSJ just reported that on the same day Iran released the American hostages, Obama agreed in secret to remove UN and EU sanctions emplaced eight years earlier on Iran’s main missile financing banks. Iran has conducted up to 10 ballistic missiles tests since the forging of the nuclear agreement in July 2015.

Moreover, now that they have more financial resources and international breathing room to expand their influence in the Shiite world, and increase military intervention and terrorism in the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America in order to build an anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Sunni axis.

Hillary has repeatedly stated that the agreement “will have to be enforced vigorously, relentlessly", but in reality the Iranians have already broken the agreement and she and the administration appear to have chosen silence.

According to the German intelligence agency’s annual report issued in July, Iran has been cheating and has a “clandestine” effort to seek illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level.” Moreover, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that “Iran continued unabated to develop its rocket program in conflict with the relevant provisions of the UN Security Council.”

When Hillary stated in 2015 that she will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, she was bluffing or lying in order to assuage Jewish-American voters’ concerns. Any honest assessment of Clinton’s tenure in office would conclude that she was among the weakest secretaries of state, undermining and deserting allies and protecting and appeasing enemies.

After the success of General David Petraeus’ military “surge” in Iraq defeated the terrorists there, as Secretary of State she supported Obama’s decision in 2011 to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, without keeping a small force behind as the generals recommended Obama to do. This created a power vacuum which ISIS took advantage of to form, flourish, and expand.

Secretary Clinton assured us for months that Assad was a “reformer”, and supported Obama’s decision not to attack or remove Assad even when he crossed the red line by using chemical weapons against his own civilian population. She delayed and postponed providing arms and aid to the anti-Assad Syrian rebels, until ISIS spread to Syria too. Because of her misjudgment, she left a human catastrophe of 500,000 dead Syrians and millions of refugees streaming into Syria’s neighbors and Europe. She supported bringing Russia back to the Middle East and Syria to supposedly fight ISIS which only helped to sustain Assad, its patron Iran, and therefore the civil war.

She was in favor of U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests which led to Islamic jihadists’ taking over in those nations. In Libya, this resulted in the murder of the American ambassador and the flourishing of ISIS.

It is true that president Obama has made his own foreign policy, but Hillary Clinton had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it but in reality she shares Obama’s central vision and judgment about the Middle East and the success of the Iran deal.

If Hillary is elected, almost certainly she will continue Obama’s kowtowing to the Iranians and facilitate any further concessions they may request instead of confronting their lies and ambitions of regional aggression and hegemony.

If Trump is elected, a change from the disastrous past eight years is likely. Even though there is no certainty of Trump’s actions as president, it seems that he possesses a better sense of judgment and the willingness to change America’s ongoing downhill course. Trump has consistently been against the signing of the Iran deal and campaigned against it, at the time saying “I never seen something so incompetently negotiated,” suggesting that he will re- negotiate it if elected. He has also been publicly critical of Obama’s weakness and silence regarding a newly strengthened Iran.

A Trump presidency is the only thing that will restore deterrence and American leadership in the world while protecting its allies and confronting evil.


Shoula Romano Horing is a Law Professor. Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/president_hillary_wont_stop_a_nucleararmed_iran_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

FBI agreed to destroy evidence in Clinton email investigation immunity deals - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

The FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton secret and private email server used to conduct government business and then “bleached” of tens of thousands emails looks a lot like a cover-up.

The FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton secret and private email server used to conduct government business and then “bleached” of tens of thousands emails looks a lot like a cover-up.  The latest revelation, coming in a letter from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to A.G. Lynch, is a stunner: the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of the immunity deal it made with them, once its investigation was closed.

Fox News reports:

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday. 
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public -- in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.

Here is the letter Chairman Goodlatte sent:

There was no need whatsoever to destroy the laptops, particularly since the two women were given immunity from use of whatever was found on them.  But the destruction affirmatively hinders future investigations:

Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.

The entire immunity agreement was unnecessary, if a grand jury had been convened, for subpoenas easily could have been issued.  But convening a grand jury seems to have been ruled out.  There is an expression known as a “runaway grand jury” when members of the public, outraged at the evidence they see, break free from the constraints of what the prosecutors desire and move ahead on their own initiative.

That was obviously something that the investigators wanted to avoid.

So with a month left until the election, we now know that not only did James Comey and the FBI take steps to cover up their own investigation, but they took steps to make sure that future investigators would not have critical evidence.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/fbi_agreed_to_destroy_evidence_in_clinton_email_investigation_immunity_deals.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Dunbar High School After 100 Years - Thomas Sowell

by Thomas Sowell

Lessons from the destruction of an educational success story for black students.

One hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways.

Prior to 1916, the same high school had existed under other names, housed in other buildings — and with a remarkable academic record.

In 1899, when it was called "the M Street School," a test was given in Washington's four academic public high schools, three white and one black. The black high school scored higher than two of the three white high schools. Today, it would be considered Utopian even to set that as a goal, much less expect to see it happen.

The M Street School had neither of two so-called "prerequisites" for quality education. There was no "diversity." It was an all-black school from its beginning, and on through its life as a high quality institution under the name Dunbar High School.

But its days as a high quality institution ended abruptly in the middle of the 1950s. After that, it became just another failing ghetto school.

The other so-called "prerequisite" that the M Street School lacked was an adequate building. Its student body was 50 percent larger than the building's capacity, a fact that led eventually to the new Dunbar High School building. But its students excelled even in their overcrowded building.

Some students at the M Street School began going to some of the leading colleges in the country in the late 19th century. The first of its graduates to go to Harvard did so in 1903. Over the years from 1892 to 1954, thirty-four of the graduates from the M Street School and Dunbar went on to Amherst.

Of these, 74 percent graduated from Amherst and 28 percent of these graduates were Phi Beta Kappas. Other graduates from M Street High School and Dunbar became Phi Beta Kappas at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other elite institutions.

Graduates of this same high school pioneered as the first black in many places. These included the first black man to graduate from Annapolis, the first black woman to receive a Ph.D. from an American institution, the first black federal judge, the first black general, the first black Cabinet member and, among other notables, a doctor who became internationally renowned for his pioneering work in developing the use of blood plasma.

How could all of this come to an abrupt end in the 1950s? Like many other disasters, it began with good intentions and arbitrary assumptions.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of "Brown v. Board of Education" that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court.

A higher percentage of Dunbar graduates went on to college than the percentage at any white public high school in Washington. But what do facts matter when there is heady rhetoric and crusading zeal?

There is no question that racially segregated schools in the South provided an inadequate education for blacks. But the assumption that racial "integration" was the answer led to years of racial polarization and turmoil over busing, with little, if any, educational improvement.

For Washington, the end of racial segregation led to a political compromise, in which all schools became neighborhood schools. Dunbar, which had been accepting outstanding black students from anywhere in the city, could now accept only students from the rough ghetto neighborhood in which it was located.

Virtually overnight, Dunbar became a typical ghetto school. As unmotivated, unruly and disruptive students flooded in, Dunbar teachers began moving out and many retired. More than 80 years of academic excellence simply vanished into thin air.

Nobody, black or white, mounted any serious opposition. "Integration" was the cry of the moment, and it drowned out everything else. That is what happens in politics.

Today, there is a new Dunbar High School building, costing more than $100 million. But its graduates go on to college at only about half the rate of Dunbar graduates in earlier and poorer times. Politics can deliver costly "favors," even when it cannot deliver quality education.

Thomas Sowell

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264391/dunbar-high-school-after-100-years-thomas-sowell

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Turkey's Night of Long Knives - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

There are warnings, mostly going unnoticed by the ruling party, that the Turkish purge violates basic civil liberties.

^{Slightly edited version of an article originally published on September 18 under the title "The 'Great Turkish Purge': Guilty Without Trial."}


In the twelve days ending on July 2, 1934 the Nazi regime carried out a series of executions against its remaining political opponents, claiming they were involved in plots by Sturmabteilung (SA) commander Ernst Röhm and others to overthrow the government. Hundreds were killed.

The regime did not limit itself to a purge of the SA. Having already imprisoned social democrats and communists, Hitler used the so-called "Röhm Putsch" as an excuse to move against conservatives. More killings followed, including Kurt von Schleicher, Hitler's predecessor as Chancellor, and von Schleicher's wife. The Gestapo also murdered several leaders of the disbanded Catholic Center Party.

Just a few years later, the Soviets' own purge would be called Yezhovshchina ("Times of Yezhov"), after Nikolai Yezhov, head of the Soviet secret police. From 1936 until 1953, Yezhovshchina not only meant being expelled from the party; it came to mean almost certain arrest, imprisonment, and often execution.

The Great Turkish Purge of 2016 brings tragedy to millions suspected of supporting Fethullah Gulen.

The purge, in general, was Stalin's effort to eliminate past and potential opposition groups. Hundreds of thousands of victims faced charges of political crimes such as espionage, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, and conspiracies to prepare uprisings and coups. Most victims were quickly executed by gunfire or sent to the Gulag labor camps, where many died of starvation, disease, exposure and overwork.

Several decades later, the Turks are luckier: no Gestapo, no executions, no summary killings and no labor camps. But the "Great Turkish Purge" brings tragic misfortunes to millions of Turks who are suspected of having allied with Fethullah Gulen, once President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's best political ally, now his worst enemy and the prime suspect behind the failed coup of July 15. Gulen, in self-exile in the United States since 1999, is an Islamic preacher believed to have millions of loyalists in Turkey and more than 150 other countries, where he runs schools and charity work.

Since Turkey's failed July 15 coup attempt, tens of thousands of people have been jailed and over 100,000 civil servants have been fired from their jobs.

During the month and a half after July 15, the Turkish government aggressively purged more than 100,000 civil servants and military personnel, and arrested tens of thousands, including nearly half of Turkey's active-duty admirals and generals. Anyone can be the target: journalists, academics, teachers, pilots, doctors, businessmen -- even the owner of the small grocery store on the corner, if its owner kept his savings at a bank that the government claims financed Gulen's illegal activities.

Some of Turkey's biggest companies are also under the spotlight. In August, a court appointed trustees to Boydak Holding, on charges of the multibillion-dollar group's alleged ties with Gulen. The family-based group's 42 companies have interests in furniture, textiles, chemicals, marketing, logistics and energy. The group employs a staff of more than 14,000.

In September, 18 companies operating under Koza-Ipek Holding, worth $10 billion, were brought under the control of a state fund. According to a cabinet minister, the Turkish state has so far seized more than $4 billion worth of assets belonging to suspected Gulenists.

A Turkish prosecutor claims that journalist Ahmet Altan (left) and his brother, professor Mehmet Altan, sent out seditious "subliminal messages" during a TV debate.

On a single day, September 8, Turkey arrested 27 businessmen and 50 military officers. Two days later, prominent journalist Ahmet Altan and his brother, academic and columnist Professor Mehmet Altan, were detained for questioning. A prosecutor claims that during a recent TV debate, the suspects had given "subliminal messages suggesting a military coup."

During the purge, even the simplest universal legal norms are being systematically ignored. In one instance, the wife of the former editor-in-chief of the daily Cumhuriyet was banned from flying to Germany, and her passport was seized. Dilek Dundar's husband, Can Dundar, is on trial on charges of "revealing state secrets," after he ran front-page stories showing arms shipments from the Turkish government to radical fighters in Syria. In another case, a file photo shows 64-year-old Hatice Yildirim in a wheelchair, with police officers around her. The elderly woman was detained because she is the mother-in-law of one of the coup suspects, Adil Oksuz.

As in Germany and the Soviet Union in the 1930s Turkey's purge is spreading to another group of usual suspects: Kurds. On September 8, Turkey suspended more than 11,000 schoolteachers for suspected links with the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a group that is on the list of terror organizations of Turkey, the U.S. and the EU. The mass suspension came without a court ruling to determine that all of these people were tried on charges of terror and all were found guilty, with their appeals rejected. No, the schoolteachers were not even on trial when they were informed that they had been suspended. Guilty without trial.

On September 11, Turkey's Interior Ministry appointed trustees to 28 local municipalities across the country's predominantly Kurdish southeast, on the grounds that they allegedly provided support to the PKK and Gulen's network. Elected mayors, too, were suspended without a court ruling that proves they have links with terror groups.

There are warnings, mostly going unnoticed by the ruling party, that the Turkish purge violates basic civil liberties. "If you try to run the country with the feelings of revenge and hatred, then you will cause suffering for many innocent people. This is the point we have reached now. A total witch hunt has been launched in many fields," said Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the main opposition Social Democrat party.

According to Thorbjorn Jagland, secretary general of the Council of Europe (which enforces human rights in the European Court of Human Rights), Turkey must produce clear evidence in pursuing participants in a failed coup, and avoid targeting teachers and journalists simply because they worked for firms run by the Muslim cleric Ankara portrays as its mastermind. Otherwise, Jagland said, Turkey may be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Times after attempted coups are always turbulent. With the excesses of a witch-hunt, Erdogan is now adding millions to an already long list of Turks who deeply dislike him. Meanwhile, Turkey is getting more and more distant from the utopia of becoming a country of peace and order.


Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/6312/turkey-night-of-long-knives

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Egypt, Russia stand against forceful regime change in Middle East: Egyptian parliament - Gamal Essam El-Din

by Gamal Essam El-Din

The statement was issued after a meeting between Egyptian parliament speaker Ali Abdel-Al and a Russian parliamentary delegation led by deputy speaker Ilyas Umakhanov on Tuesday.

The Egyptian and Russian parliaments said Tuesday that they must take a unified stand against the forceful changing of Middle East regimes by foreign powers.

A statement by Egypt’s parliament said on Tuesday that Egyptian-Russian relations have achieved significant progress in recent years, and that the two parliaments will coordinate together during the coming round of meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Geneva.

"We decided that we should rally support among as many world parliaments as possible against intervention in the internal affairs of Middle East countries and reject any attempts aimed at changing regimes by force in this region," said the statement.

The statement also indicated that the agriculture committees in Egypt and Russia’s parliaments will forge greater contacts in the coming period to help eliminate any obstacles that might stem the flow of Egyptian agricultural exports – especially potatoes – into the Russian market.

The statement was issued after a meeting between Egyptian parliament speaker Ali Abdel-Al and a Russian parliamentary delegation led by deputy speaker Ilyas Umakhanov on Tuesday.

The statement said Egypt and Russia have historic relations that go back to the era of late president Gamal Abdel-Nasser.

"We decided that these relations must be further strengthened in the coming period in order to eliminate any obstacles that might stand in their way," said the statement.

Parliament speaker Abdel-Al said Egypt highly appreciates Russian president Vladimir Putin's support of the 30 June revolution of 2013, which led to the removal of the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Speaker Abdel-Al said that he has high hopes that a high-profile delegation from the Russian parliament will join celebrations intended to mark the 150th anniversary parliamentary life in Egypt at the Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh on 9 October.

Abdel-Al said Tuesday that speakers from as many as 16 countries will attend next week's celebrations in Sharm El-Sheikh.

Russian deputy parliament speaker Umakhanov said a high-profile Russian delegation will attend the Sharm El-Sheikh celebration.

"We also invited the Egyptian parliament to attend the coming meetings of the parliamentary assembly of the newly independent states as an observer," said Umakhanov, adding that he also asked speaker Abdel-Aal to send a young parliamentary delegation to participate in the 2017 Festival of Youth and Students which will be held in Russia, aiming to host 120,000 young people from 190 worldwide countries.


Gamal Essam El-Din

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/245212/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt,-Russia-stand-against-forceful-regime-change.aspx

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Idea Of Jordanian-Palestinian Confederation Resurfaces, Only To Be Rejected By Both Sides - C. Jacob

by C. Jacob

Even those who expressed support for confederation stressed that it could only be implemented after a Palestinian state has been established and the issues of the permanent settlement have been resolved.

Alongside the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, alternative ideas are sometimes proposed, such as one-state solutions or a return to the Jordanian option, which involves a political connection between Jordan and a Palestinian entity, for example in the form of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation. The stance of the Palestinian and Jordanian leaderships on this option has long been that a confederation would only become possible following the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and that any discussion of the matter at an earlier stage is harmful for the Palestinian cause.
 
Lately, the Jordanian option has once again become a topic of public debate in both the PA and Jordan, after Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh[1] mentioned it in a March 27, 2016 interview with the Palestinian online daily Dunya Al- Watan. Furthermore, in meetings held recently between Palestinian and Jordanian figures in the PA and Jordan, these figures express support for the confederation option: former Jordanian prime minister 'Abd Al-Salam Al-Majali referred to the Jordanian option as "ideal," though he later clarified that he had only been voicing his private opinion. Jordanian MP Muhammad Al-Dawaimeh arranged for a delegation of Palestinians from Hebron to visit Jordan to discuss a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation. 

It should be noted, however, that with the exception of Nusseibeh, the figures discussing the notion of a confederation seem to be seeking publicity or have stressed that their statements represent only their private position.

Reactions to these statements in the PA and Jordan were not long in coming, most of them rejecting the idea of confederation at the present stage. Many regarded the renewed interest in this option as indicating disillusionment with the Palestinian leadership and despair of achieving the two-state solution. Both Jordanians and Palestinians argued that any discussion of this option before a Palestinian state has been established serves only Israel and harms the rights of the Palestinians and their hope for a state. They stressed that Israel, which has thwarted the two-state solution, must not be presented with alternatives that are less desirable for the Palestinians. Even those who expressed support for confederation stressed that it could only be implemented after a Palestinian state has been established and the issues of the permanent settlement have been resolved.

Given that the confederation idea found few supporters, and that even the figures who recently raised it did not present any coherent plan for its implementation – and perhaps even did not mean for it to be taken as a feasible option – it seems that conditions are not currently ripe for the promotion of the of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation.

This report reviews the statements made recently regarding the Jordanian option and the responses to them in the Jordanian and the PA media.     

"Jordan and Palestine" (image: Gazajordan.wordpress.com, May 5, 2016) 

Efforts To Promote The Confederation Proposal

Sari Nusseibeh: Confederation With Jordan Is The Palestinians' Last Remaining Option 

As mentioned, several Palestinian and Jordanian figures recently brought the Jordanian option back into public debate, the first of them being Sari Nusseibeh in a March 2016 interview. This is not the first time Nusseibeh has mentioned a confederation: in December 2011 he defended the idea of an Israeli-Jordanian confederation (rather than a Jordanian-Palestinian one) in an article he posted on the Maan News website.[2] In his recent interview, he spoke of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, stressing that this was the Palestinians' only remaining option in light of the impasse in the political process. He said: "In the past I firmly opposed this option, but after many years, and especially today, we badly need this option. However, it is possible that Jordan is not yet able to bear this burden." Nusseibeh said that the solution to the Palestinian problem that he had proposed 14 years ago with Ami Ayalon, then a leader of Israel's Labor Party (i.e., the People's Voice initiative) is no longer feasible, for every proposal has an expiry date. "The solutions and proposals [we suggested then] were suitable for that period... Today no solutions or negotiations between the two sides are on the horizon, especially considering the increasing [rate of] construction in the settlements and the miniscule chance of implementing the so-called two-state solution... We have no other way out of the current situation, because we have no army with which to liberate Palestine or even half of it. [That kind of] strategy relies on power, and we have no power, especially considering the conflicts among the Arab and Muslim countries, which does not help us, strategically. If we read the situation and the future [objectively, we see that] no solution that can meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people."[3] 

On May 13, 2016, a research institute affiliated with Al-Najah National University in Nablus published the results of a survey indicating that 42% of Palestinians support the establishment of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation and 39% oppose it.

Reports On Jordanian And Palestinian Figures Promoting Confederation

In May 2016, two months after Sari Nusseibeh's interview, there were reports about efforts by various figures to promote the confederation proposal. Jordanian MP Muhammad Al-Dawaimeh launched an initiative called "One Million Hebronians," as part of which Al-Dawaimeh visited Hebron, and later a delegation from the city visited Jordan and was hosted by the community of Hebronian Palestinian there (a community which, according to Al-Dawaimeh, numbers over a million people). According to a May 22 report in the Jordanian daily Rai Al-Yawm, the purpose of the delegation's visit to Jordan was to promote a confederation, and the Hebron delegation was to meet with King Abdallah to discuss this issue. The daily also reported, citing prominent figures in the Hebronian community in Jordan, that Al-Dawaimeh was acting on behalf of the king. However, Al-Dawaimeh denied this, saying that the Jordanian authorities were in no way involved in the initiative.[4] 
 
In response to Al-Dawaimeh's initiative, prominent figures from the Hebronian community in the PA and Jordan issued a joint statement against "the attempts to revive the Village Leagues."[5]   The statement harshly condemned the initiative, calling it "a plot intended to harm both Jordan and Palestine," adding that those behind it were figures with "suspicious positions" who sought to normalize relations with Israel and who frequently visited the "Zionist entity."[6] 

Jordanian columnist Bassam Badarin described Al-Dawaimeh as "a controversial figure," and claimed: "Al-Dawaimeh visited Hebron only to have his picture taken with some dignitaries from Hebron and its villages and environs..."[7] 
 
Another figure who raised the confederation option was former Jordanian prime minister 'Abd A-Salam Al-Majali. On May 21 he visited Nablus and attended a gathering of some 100 dignitaries from the city that was convened in his honor by former Nablus governor and PLO executive committee member Ghassan Al-Shak'a. In his speech at this gathering, Al-Majali said: "Personally I believe in a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, but not right now, only after the establishment of a Palestinian state. A confederation of the two states is considered the ideal and optimal solution for [both] the Palestinians and Jordan. The [Jordanian] kingdom cannot exist without Palestine and Palestine will not be able to live without Jordan – but we must wait."[8] Al-Shak'a, for his part, called to "continue discussing the many ideas raised by 'Abd A-Salam Al-Majali."[9] 

Several days later, on June 2, Al-Majali denied the existence of any plan for confederation and clarified that he had been expressing his private opinion and did not represent any official element.[10] 
 

Al-Majali (center) speaking at the Nablus gathering (image: Maannews.net, May 21, 2016)


The Nablus gathering (image: Maannews.net, May 21, 2016)

Some suggested a connection between Al-Majali's visit to Nablus and the attempt made on Al-Shak'a's life several days later,[11] but Al-Shak'a denied this. In an interview with the Israeli Arab magazine Al-Sonara, he said: "This is not the first time 'Abd A-Salam Al-Majali has visited my home. We are friends and we honor and respect one another... [Al-Majali] spoke of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, but the legal basis for confederation is that it involves two states, not an entity called the Palestinian Authority and an existing state [Jordan]."[12]  

Negative Palestinian And Jordanian Responses To The Notion Of Confederation 

The Palestinian and Jordanian leaderships refrained from responding to these efforts to promote a confederation, but these efforts did spark popular and media responses, including in the Palestinian and Jordanian press.

In The Palestinian Press: Opposition To Confederation 

The Palestinian press featured many columns and articles, including by senior PA officials, attacking Nusseibeh's comments and opposing the confederation proposal, on the grounds that there it is not certain that Jordan would welcome it and that a confederation could only be formed after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. Some also held that a confederation would be a prize for Israel, absolving it of the need to pursue a two-state solution. As of this writing, there have been no pieces published expressing support for the idea.  

Criticism of Nusseibeh: His Ideas Emanate From Despair; The Palestinians Aspire To Put Down The Roots Of Their National Identity In Their Own Land 

Hani Al-Masri, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, wrote that in expressing his idea for a confederation, Nusseibeh had spoken out of disappointment and a sense of a Palestinian leadership vacuum, adding that this was no justification for reviving the Jordanian option. He wrote: "If [Nusseibeh's] claim that there is no leadership is accurate – and [I believe that] it is indeed partly accurate – it is necessary to examine the reason for this and [also to examine] how a Palestinian leadership can be created – unless Nusseibeh believes that this absence of a leadership is divinely decreed." Al-Masri went on to note that there was no indication that Jordan was interested in the option of a confederation and that Nusseibeh was speaking out of despair, and added: "Today Jordan is among the enthusiastic supporters of an independent Palestinian state, which is the first line of defense against the Zionists' expansionist ambitions."

Likewise, 'Omar Al-Ghoul, a former advisor to former Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad and a columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, responded to Nusseibeh's comments by stating that both Jordanian and PA leaders had expressed a clear and agreed-upon position that a confederation would only be formed after the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. He added: "The Palestinian public does not respond to this option [of a confederation]... because it seeks to put down the roots of its national identity in its own Palestinian land. Despite the deep crisis in which the Palestinian political enterprise finds itself, the [Palestinian] leadership and people have not yet lost hope of realizing the goal of independence and a state."[13] 

A Confederation Would Be A Prize For Israel And Create Problems With Jordan

Al-Ayyam columnist Muhammad Yaghi wrote that the Jordanian option is not aimed at restoring the pre-1967 borders, with the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem returning to Jordanian sovereignty; rather, what it really aims to do is allow Israel to return to Jordan parts of the West Bank that are densely populated by Palestinians, while retaining its control of the rest. He wrote: "Why must we facilitate the export of the occupation's problems to someone else? [If] the two-state solution has been thwarted, that does not mean [we should suffice with] autonomy in Area A [of the West Bank, i.e., the areas currently under full PA control] or with  annexing [territory] to Jordan and creating a problem with the Jordanians, who aren't interested in this solution. Rather, we should adopt the one-state option."[14] 

Al-Ayyam columnist Rajab Abu Suraya argued that a confederation was a bad solution for the Palestinians, as it would not meet their minimal aspirations, rights, and goals. He wrote: "It seems that Arab countries – the Gulf, Egypt, and, to some extent, Jordan – need a swift resolution of the Palestinian problem in order to open up channels for normalization and warm [relations] with Israel, which may even lead to a military or security alliance vis-à-vis the Iranian challenge... A confederation is tempting for Israel, because if Israel agrees to Israeli-Arab talks instead of Israel-Palestinian ones, it will take the Golan Heights and the right of return off the table and negotiate only on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as per the confederation approach – that is, without the condition of establishing a Palestinian state on all the land [occupied in] 1967."[15] 

In The Jordanian Press: Opposition To Confederation – At This Stage

The Jordanian press featured articles by officials and columnists reiterating Jordan's official position, which is that the option of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation could only be discussed after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. According to these writers, no confederation with the PA (rather than a Palestinian state) is possible, and it could even do damage to the Palestinian people and to its demand for an independent state; even a discussion of it at this point would be harmful. Other articles rejected the idea of a confederation out of hand, arguing that the Palestinians had their own identity, and that such a move could lead Israel to abandon further implementation of the Oslo Accords and allow most West Bank residents to be transferred to Jordan. 

Former Jordanian Minister: Jordan's Option Is To Establish A Palestinian State

Former Jordanian minister Saleh Al-Qallab wrote in the government Jordanian daily Al-Rai: "Jordan declared its agreement to the resolution of the Rabat Summit [i.e. the 1947 Arab League Summit] naming the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and it has [since then?] addressed all matters concerning the Palestinian problem in accordance with this resolution. [Jordan] was also the first to treat the PA as an independent state, and exchanged ambassadors with it in a format that is maintained to this day and that will likely be in place until the Oslo Accords are implemented and the occupation withdraws from the West Bank and beyond. This has been our permanent position over time, and it relies on the unshaken belief in the need to respect the will of [our] Palestinian brothers...

"With regard to the Palestinian problem, Jordan and Jordanians have no option other than to support the Palestinian people. This is our people. We are of it, and it is of us. We will support the Palestinians in every way, with everything we have, including with [our] lives, until the desired Palestinian state is established with holy Jerusalem as its capital. After that, we will decide. Even if we insist that we are one people and one nation, there can be no return whatsoever to the Jordanian option... Jordan's option is to realize the dream of the independent Palestinian state on the basis of Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank to the June 4, 1967 borders, obviously including Jerusalem."[16] 

At This Point, Discussing A Confederation Only Does Harm

In another article on May 26, Al-Qallab added: "There is no dispute that the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are one, and that the future of Jordan-Palestine relations is unity, whether [as a single] merged [entity], as it was prior to the resolution of the famous 1947Arab League Summit in Rabat that recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, or as part of a confederation or federation. In order for this transition to be safe and free of negative impact, we must ask whether Jordanians and Palestinians should take this step today, when the state of Palestinians is unstable, or [only] after Israel withdraws from all the territory it occupied in 1967 and the Palestinian people attains self-determination with the establishment of a Palestinian state with an independent East Jerusalem as its capital... 

"There is a fear that Israel will take advantage of the venture in question – that is, a confederation – and of conditions in the region and the dire situation in the world to transfer most West Bank residents to the eastern shore of the Jordan River, on the pretext of sending them back to their homeland and their families. In such circumstances, it will do no good to change our minds or to run to the UN – because if the UN could have deterred the aggressor, it would have [already] implemented its resolutions and forced Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, which in 1967 was the other half of the Hashemite Jordanian kingdom. In addition, Israel, which closely follows every development in this matter, tells the world that there is no need to continue the peace process based on the Oslo Accords or any other agreement so long as a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is on the horizon and so long as the Palestinians in the West Bank can move to the East Bank [i.e. to Jordan]...

"The world, and the Israelis, do not realize that the introduction of the [idea] of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation at this point stems only from the boredom afflicting the Jordanians and Palestinians, and that it is merely a thought exercise for those who fear mental atrophy. Reintroducing this issue now and under these circumstances could lead to very grave developments. The question is whether the 'geniuses' making this dangerous proposal in this dire situation want the PLO to abandon the resolution of the famous summit in Rabat that decreed it the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and want a delegation [representing] this imaginary virtual confederation to replace the PA, the PLO, and the Palestinians in the difficult negotiations that were halted at a certain point."[17] 

 

Jordanian Columnist: Talk Of Confederation Prior To Palestinian Independence Is Useless And Is A Conspiracy Against The Palestinians 

Rahil Muhammad Ghuraiba, a columnist for the Al-Dustour daily, wrote: "Talk of a confederation before Palestine is liberated and before the Palestinian people gain their independence is meaningless and is a kind of conspiracy against the sacrifices made by the Palestinian people and by [other] Muslims and Arabs for half a century. Furthermore, it ignores the martyrs, the blood, and the weeping wounds, and wastes years of struggle by all resistance factions and by anyone who threw a stone or lost years of his life in the occupation's dungeons... Anyone proposing a confederation before the Palestinian land and people are liberated, and before the independent [Palestinian] state is established on their land, is rushing to please [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu and [Israeli Defense Minister] Lieberman, even if they call this 'thinking outside the box'...

"When the Palestinian people is liberated and can establish its state on its liberated land, and when it attains full sovereignty and can freely make independent decisions, then we will consider proposing projects for merging or unity with the neighboring Arab countries."[18] 

Jordanian Official: A Confederation Is A Zionist Idea Aimed At Circumventing Palestinian Rights – And Must Be Opposed

Former Jordanian government spokesman Samih Al-Ma'aita wrote: "Anyone who knows Jordan and the Jordanians understand that the idea of federation or confederation is not a possible [solution for] the Palestinian problem. We all know that this idea is a Zionist initiative [aimed at] circumventing the Palestinian rights and Jordan's demand for establishing a true Palestinian state on Palestinian land. It is the occupation, no one else, that needs to pay [compensation to] the Palestinian people, but we have grown accustomed to hearing in our circles occasional claims, interpretations, and rumors regarding a Jordan-Palestine confederation. Everyone in this country should perhaps treat this idea with political contempt, as it is clear that digging it up from time to time in this way is aimed at keeping it alive, at provoking us Jordanians, at sowing dissent among our social and political elements, and at causing us to open the gates to civil war... Therefore, it is our duty as Jordanians to decide on our own options and to be sure that the state, the leadership, and all Jordanians have no wish to solve Israel's problems or to realize the goals of the merchants of civil war...

"Even if for the sake of the argument we say that we enthusiastically accept confederation or federation or something similar – with whom will it be established?! With a [Palestinian] Authority that cannot control its own affairs, with a territory and a people under occupation? [An authority] restricted by agreements that prevent it from attaining even the same status as a true municipality? Would we establish a confederation or federation with a divided Palestinian territory and a Palestinian people split into all sorts of factions, with two governments whose hostility [towards each other] surpasses their hostility towards the occupation? An authority whose economy is weak and dependent on the Zionist economy[?] Even its power plants halt operations when the occupation stops providing them with fuel. [Could we establish] a confederation with a political entity that is corrupt, paralyzed, and sick – including with the malady of the coup that Hamas carried out in Gaza [in 2007]?... 

"Those who spread this Zionist idea do not believe in the rights of the Palestinians but have made a decision, especially regarding the displaced and the refugees, the right of return, and the idea of the Palestinian state. Under the auspices of the Zionists, they spread the idea of confederation with Jordan, because eventually this idea will enable resettlement [of the Palestinians in Jordan] with no turning back. It will bury the right of return and the idea of an independent [Palestinian] state. And it will force Jordan to pay the price, instead if the occupation." 

Al-Ma'aita added: "We should firmly oppose these Zionist ideas. We believe that all Jordanians, chiefly the regime establishment, have decided against anything that harms the identity of the Jordanian state and the right of the Palestinian people to establish its independent state in its homeland, and we believe that the occupation should pay the price for this, rather than any Arab element – [especially] not us Jordanians. There should only be a truly independent Palestinian state, though we can expect this issue [of  confederation] to be raised from time to time."[19] 

Al-Dustour columnist Hussein Al-Rawashdeh wrote: "I suspect that this confederation stew was set to cook in the context of regional changes. It is true that Jordan's historic position is that a confederation is conditional upon the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. But who knows what will happen if the two-state solution fails or backslides. I just want to warn our society openly. We will not be blackmailed, because if we want to we will emerge from this trap, even at a hefty price."[20]  

Jordanian Journalist: Palestinians Have Their Own Identity And They Cannot Be Annexed To Another Country

Similarly, Al-Ghad columnist Fahd Al-Khitan wrote: "It has been said many times that confederation means suicide for Jordan. But no one believed or wanted to believe this. Moreover, we responded to attacks on us from a defensive position, without launching a serious initiative that ties positions to actions. 

"Those who dance to the tune of confederation are generally disregarding the position of a large sector of the Palestinians, especially those who cling to their land. For the most part, these [Palestinians] adhere to the option of an independent state; they also include a stream that wants no union of any kind with Jordan, even after the Palestinians actualize their right to an independent state... 

"The Palestinian identity coalesced in the course of the bitter conflict with the Zionist movement. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not just residents who can be annexed to another country. Despite everything that is said about Israel's position, it has recognized them as a people and has also recognized their right to an independent state. How can we, after [the Palestinians] travelled this long road awash with blood and sacrifice, again call them just 'residents,' as in the old Zionist texts?"[21] 

 * C. Jacob is a research fellow at MEMRI. 

Endnotes: 

[1] Sari Nusseibeh, who belongs to a distinguished Muslim family in East Jerusalem, is a professor of philosophy and the former president of Al-Quds University. He is considered a pragmatist and advocates non-violent struggle. He is one of the only Palestinian public figures who have openly suggested forgoing the right of return in return for an Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa. In June 2003 Nusseibeh and former Israeli Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon launched the "People's Voice" (aka "National Consensus") peace initiative. Its key proposals were two states for two peoples; borders based upon the June 4, 1967 lines with Jerusalem as an open city, the capital of two states; Palestinian refugees will return only to the Palestinian state, and Palestine will be demilitarized.

[2] Maannews.net, December 20, 2011.

[3] Alwatanvoice.com, March 27, 2016.

[4] Ammonnews.net, May 8, 2016.

[5] The Village Leagues were established in the second half of the 1970s by Palestinian figures who sought to form a Palestinian leadership alternative to the PLO that would be willing to negotiate with Israel.

[6] Alquds.co.uk, May 26, 2016.

[7] Alquds.co.uk, May 19, 2016.

[8] Samanews.com, May 22, 2016.

[9] Maannews.net, May 21, 2016.

[10] Amad.ps, June 2, 2016.

[11] The assassination attempt was part of recent violent clashes in Nablus. See MEMRI...

[12] Sonara.net, July 22, 2016.

[13] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), April 16, 2016.

[14] Al-Ayyam (PA), June 3, 2016.

[15] Al-Ayyam (PA), May 31, 2016.

[16] Alrai.com, May 8, 2016.

[17] Alrai.com, May 26, 2016.

[18] Addustour.com, May 24, 2016.

[19] Ammonnews.net, May 23, 2016.

[20] Addustour.com, May 22, 2016.

[21] Alghad.com, May 23, 2016.

C. Jacob is a research fellow at MEMRI.

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9486.htm

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Kul 'am wa'antum bikhayr – A happy new year to all - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

It has been an eventful year in the Middle East, and there are four processes that sum it up.

As the Jewish year 5776 draws to an end, it is a good time to sum up the four main developments defining what took place in our part of the world over the year:

1. Syria continued its disintegration 

The most significant development of the past year was the continued disintegration of Syria, a country that was once the main strategic threat to Israel and is no more. The rebellion against Assad broke out in March 2011 and has left half a million dead, over a million injured and given rise to about 10 million refugees, more than half the population. Some of the refugees have spread around the world and some wander about Syria, fleeing for their lives from the Assad regime's barrel bombs.

The organizational aspect of Syria as a nation-state has fallen apart, with what is left of it trying to function in parts of Damascus and the northwestern Allawite region. Most of the country is under the control of the hundreds of militias, gangs and organizations vying for power, with Islamic State (which has also taken over parts of Iraq) at the head, followed by the Islamic Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al Nusrah) which has local aspirations, the Free Syrian Army supported by the West and others.

The country's infrastructure is in ruins: electricity lines, water systems, sewers, roads, railroad tracks, all were badly damaged during the last few years, and hundreds of thousands of residential buildings that were destroyed in bombing attacks and are unfit for human habitation must be torn down to avoid their endangering the lives of those who might want to return to them.

Rebuilding Syria, if that does happen one day in the future, is going to cost billions and there is no economic power on the horizon able to take this project on, even if what seems like a pipe dream of political calm and security ever does come true.

For the past few weeks, the fighting is centered on the industrial city of Aleppo, with the regime's jets systematically destroying the eastern sections of the city where the rebels are concentrated. Tens of women, children and elderly people whose only crime is living in an area infiltrated by rebels are killed daily with the gruesome sights shown in the media continuing to shock viewers.

The fact that the regime, a dictatorship fighting for its own survival, does not stop at anything, including chemical warfare -  and is responsible for most of the death and destruction,  is the most horrifying part if it  all. All the country's citizens  want now is to rid themselves of the despotic rule of the heretic Allawites over a country of Muslims.

Israel must draw two main conclusions from the Syrian debacle: One, that if they could, Israel's enemies would do to Israel exactly what they do to one another and two, that the world, which sees exactly what is happening and does nothing, will do the same if we find ourselves in a similar situation to that of Syria's civilian population.

2. Russia took the place of the United States

The existing security and governmental vacuum in Syria is what drew Russia into the fray. After three years of watching from the sidelines, Putin decided that the time had come to get involved in order to prevent Assad's regime from crashing. He put his air force at Syria's disposal along with bombers capable of launching all kinds of missiles, including bunker busters, and has wholeheartedly joined the battle against the rebels.

President Obama, wittingly or unwittingly, left the Syrian equation three years ago when he decided to do nothing even though it became incontrovertibly clear that Assad had crossed Obama's red line and used chemical weapons against civilians and rebel forces. The red line turned pink , white and then transparent when Assad agreed, with Russian mediation, to give up his chemical weapons.

The entire world warned Obama that Assad had no intention of keeping that agreement, but Obama ignored the critics, whose predictions have come to pass with the renewed use of chemical weapons against the rebels.

In addition to the Russian presence in Syria, Russia's ties with Iran have been strengthened, and in one instance at least, Russian bombers took off from Iran on their way to bomb Syria. Turkey's relations with Moscow have also improved while Israel has continued to maintain its previous understandings with Russia.  

There is no doubt that Russia has become an international power that decides what is to happen in the Middle East. America, burned in Afghanistan and Iraq, has come to the conclusion that it has nothing to look for in this problematic region.

America's obsession with the presidential elections over the past year kept the Middle East off the charts as far as the American public's interest is concerned. Many Americans express the feeling that the entire Middle East can go to hell. Israel is paying the price of receiving less affection from Americans, some of whom actually see the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the cause of the trouble in the Middle East.

3. Iran's strength continued to increase 

The nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers enhanced the status of the Ayatollahs' homeland in the Middle East.  The United States gave the Iranians 1.7 billion dollars in cash at the beginning of the year, some of it in currency. This money is not being invested in Iran's crumbling and neglected infrastructure, but in fanning the flames of insurrection in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, buying Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon and building a foundation for Shiite terror all over the globe.

This past year, Iran increased its military presence in Syria to the point where entire Syrian army units are under direct command of the Quds Iranian forces. Hezbollah, the Lebanese tentacle of the Iranian octopus, has taken control of swathes of Syrian land and is now encamped, like a regular army, on the Syrian Hermon and southward along the border with Israel up to Kunetra in the Golan Heights.

Iran continued its massive support for the Shiite rebels in Yemen and even sent a few heavy missiles over towards Saudi Arabia. The Gulf States fear that the US in particular and the West, as a whole, now that it has alternate energy sources, have left them on their own to face the Iranian threat. Iran has been turning its eyes on Afghanistan, and is waiting impatiently to see the Americans leave that splintered and failed country whose land is filled with natural treasures that Iran is just waiting to despoil.

Behind the scenes there is a contest being waged between Iran and Russia on the portions of Syria at which each of them is nibbling away, but this is still in the background. The Ayatollahs feel they are on a high since the Great Satan (the US) succumbed to Iranian intransigence and agreed to a situation that allows Iran to continue its nuclear projects, its ballistic missiles and its destruction and death all over the Middle East, paid  for by US dollars – in cash.

4. The migrants flooded Europe

Thousands of people in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa continue to flood Europe from Libya, Egypt and Turkey, travelling in leaky boats that cross the Mediterranean in the dark of night. Some never arrive and their passengers drown in the deep sea waters, but some reach Greece and Italy, continuing northward to Germany, France and Scandinavia. Close to two million migrants, mostly men between the ages of 20-30, arrived in Europe over the past two years. Germany alone has taken in over a million of them.

Most of the migrants are people who only want to turn to a new, pleasant page in their miserable lives, but some are terrorists who were planted among the migrants in order to sow death and panic in Europe. This was clearly accomplished during the past year in Belgium and France

The security situation in Europe is deteriorating mainly due to the inability of its security services to apprehend terrorists before they carry out their attacks, especially the lone ones who simply wait for the right moment to sow murder and suffering around them.

The problem is going to get worse with time, because as soon as a migrant becomes a European citizen he can travel anywhere, including the US and Israel, in order to carry out his private Jihad against anyone he defines as an "enemy of Islam." 

The security forces of these countries will have to sharpen their senses in order to prevent  this possibility.

 A Happy New Year to all.

Translated by Rochel Sylvetsky


Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19566

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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