New Year Speech to the Muslim World - Nonie Darwish

by Nonie Darwish

Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah's law, sharia, on the world.

• By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia law that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
• The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a two-way street between people that share common values of respect of each other's culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam.
• It really does not matter what is "true Islam". That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is "true Islam" and what is not.
• Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim] Jews, Christians and Pagans.
• Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah's law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists.
• As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation.
• Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.
• After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America -- or any country -- not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?
• Our doors will be reopened to citizens from Islamic nations only when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed, that they have ended once and for all their obsessive jihadist propaganda and hate education prevalent in the Muslim world.
• Until then, all kinds of visas from such troubled areas will be suspended, except for the few who would be properly vetted. Such actions will surely expedite the reformation of Islam and Islamic education in Muslim nations who are desperate to give us their excess unhappy population.

Obama's first major speech after his election in 2008 was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama's hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11, even if they were not directly responsible for it. No Arab leader publicly announced an end to the Islamic jihadist and anti-Western hate education and Arab media propaganda. Instead, the Muslim world got an apology from Obama.

After Obama left Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood was empowered, and military rulers weakened and brought down one after another. By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim Brotherhood and then ISIS quickly filled the vacuum and the Muslim world is now on fire.

Obama's first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama's hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11. (Image source: White House)

A huge storm of Islamic darkness, spilling over and sweeping across our planet, headed towards the West. Let us never allow our freedoms, built by generations of Americans, be lost to fear and terror. It is time for the West to unite and send a firm message to the Muslim World -- a message that should have been sent by Obama back in 2009.

With the election of President-elect Donald J. Trump, citizens of the West have renewed their hope to make America again the leader of the free world and human rights for all, as should be. Trump hopefully will rally leaders of the free world to give a firm message to the Muslim world:

The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a Two-Way Street between peoples that share common values of respect of each other's culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam. America, Europe and Australia have been the safe haven of people from all over the world -- different nationalities, religions and races. We love the Muslim people as we love all people but our love to people of the world should never supersede our number one duty, which is to protect of our citizens, our freedoms, our way of life, and yes, our Biblical-based, Judeo-Christian values.
Today the Middle East is on fire, overrun and ravaged by terrorists and extremists who have no respect for their own governments or law and order. Groups such as ISIS and others brought back ancient barbarity that humanity had mistakenly thought it had transcended. We keep hearing that this has nothing to do with Islam and that Islamic terrorists are just a small number of misguided Muslims who misinterpret true peaceful Islam.
But now it is our turn to tell you what is on our mind: It really does not matter what is true Islam and what is not. When a terrorist plows through a crowd with a truck aiming to kill, the last thing anyone cares to hear is whether "the driver was a true Muslim or not". That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is "true Islam" and what is not.
Middle Eastern governments-run schools still teach hate propaganda against the West, Jews and Christians. They still teach their children lies such as that Yasser Arafat died from poisoning by Jews. They still teach in their public schools that jihad is a holy war against non-Muslims; that killing apostates and honor killing of girls is a duty under Islamic law and those who do it will not be prosecuted, but will be rewarded with virgins by Allah. Muslim Imams spread their hatred and incitement right under the noses of the so-called moderate Muslim leaders, on your government-run television screens. Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim], Jews, Christians and Pagans.
We have done enough appeasing and looking the other way when it comes to the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit: that Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah's law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists. The world understands the plight of Islamic leaders who must fulfill their sharia obligation before their Islamists, otherwise they are "toast." Solving this problem is not the responsibility of the West, but it is a major problem that the Muslim world must address in the open and deal with.
While Muslim people and governments develop the courage openly to settle their issues over their jihad duty, the unholy alliance game played by Islamic governments and terror groups must be exposed for what it is, and emphatically rejected. The West cannot afford to participate in such a dishonest game anymore.
As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation. Islamic nations that continue to breed terrorists in their media, schools and mosques and then act innocent of the crime must be held accountable. Muslims themselves have no tolerance for one Western cartoonist who offended them with a cartoon of Muhammad. Instead of saying that this cartoonist does not represent all Western nations, the Muslim public rioted, burned and killed several Westerners and their embassies in retaliation for the actions of one, over a cartoon. That is from the same nations that flooded the world with terrorists that use airplanes, guns, explosives, knives and even trucks to kill non-Muslims. Muslims need to live by the saying "If your house is of glass, do not throw rocks at others."
Any Western nation that does not protect its own citizens first and foremost should be a pariah among civilized nations. Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.
It would be insane for Western governments not to use extraordinary measures for self-preservation. The doors of immigration to Muslim citizens from nations overrun by terror will be closed. After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America -- or any country -- not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?
Absorbing refugees from terror run Syria is not only bad for the West, but also for Syria. If we take the moderate Muslims out of Syria, then who will be left to fight ISIS and rebuild the country?
Our doors will be reopened to citizens from Islamic nations only when the war on Islamic terrorism is won and when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed, that they have ended once and for all their obsessive jihadist propaganda and hate education prevalent in the Muslim world. Until then, all kinds of visas from such troubled areas will be suspended, except for the few who would be properly vetted. Such actions will surely expedite the reformation of Islam and Islamic education in Muslim nations who are desperate to give us their excess unhappy population.
We are looking forward to the day when moderate Muslims will be able to take control of their governments, their educational systems, and their law and order, so the Western world could resume mutual constructive relations based on friendship and respect. The whole world is looking forward to that day and praying for a peaceful Middle East. The ball is now in the Muslim world's court.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of "Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values."

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9695/new-year-speech-muslim-world

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Since when did the Palestinians become entitled to a state? - Ted Belman

by Ted Belman

Everything is twisted to label Israel a violator of law, when in fact it is the UN that is the violator. All this on behalf of an invented people who didn’t exist 50 years ago.

As Newt Gingrich said in 2011, “The Palestinians are an invented people.”

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed to liberate Palestine through armed struggle. But it took years for the notion of a Palestinian people to crystalize. In 1967, they were not recognized as such, nor were they considered a party to the conflict. Security Council Resolution 242 passed after the ’67 war, made no mention of them.

The US as a matter of policy, promoted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and forced Israel to accept them in peace discussions at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

In 1993, Israel signed along with them the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I) and in 1995 the Interim Agreement on the West Bank (Oslo II) but these Accords made no mention of giving them a state.

Surprisingly, President George W. Bush gave it the first official nod for the first time in his vision speech of 2002. This speech came about in response to enormous pressure from Saudi Arabia which was demanding the creation of such a state. Even so, it was conditioned on the Palestinians fighting terror, not aiding it or abetting it. In fact, there were many other pre-conditions to the creation of the state. But the US and the world quickly forgot about the preconditions and went forward with the idea that the Palestinians were entitled to a state.

Then in 2004, Bush gave a very important letter of assurances to PM Sharon in order to support his plans for disengagement.

“The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.
“Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.[..]
“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.”

In this letter, which amounted to a contract, Bush committed the US to prevent any other plan being imposed. He also committed the US to Israel’s security and reiterated Israel’s right to defensible borders. By affirming Res 242, he was affirming that Israel need not vacate 100% of the land.

Within a couple of months of President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, he repudiated this contract. In response to this and other indicators, I wrote that Obama intended to impose a solution on Israel. I explained on these pages in 2009 that he had to repudiate it because the contract if allowed to stand, committed the US to oppose the imposition of any other plan.

Obama then forced Netanyahu to recognize a Palestinian right to a state in his Bar Ilan Speech in June 2009 in which Netanyahu said:

“In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.”

He went on to stipulate two demands or preconditions: namely the new state must be demilitarized and must recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people. This was the first time Netanyahu or his party embraced the two state solution. Obama was satisfied even with all the pre-conditions and stipulations. He got what he wanted. He would ignore the stipulations. And this resolution does just that.

Next, he backed the Arab Peace Initiative, which called for 100% withdrawal, contrary to Res 242, albeit with mutually agreed swaps.

Then he demanded a complete building freeze, even in Jerusalem. Even so he could not get any concessions from either the Arab League or from the PA as compensation. Having no other choice, he backed the PA’s demand that, as the price of the PA entering negotiations, Israel should release over 100 Arab prisoners with blood on their hands. Israel agreed, though no one had any expectations that the PA would compromise. This prisoner release was in effect another freebie for them.

After strenuous efforts to achieve an agreement, Obama backed off but demanded that there be a continued freeze and nothing be done to make untenable the two-state solution.

But he hadn’t given up. By engineering the passage of Security Council Resolution 2334 declaring “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity” and demanding 100% withdrawal, he, in effect, was getting the Security Council to back his parameters for a peace agreement, namely ’67 lines plus swaps, with a divided Jerusalem.

This, in other words, is a demand by the international community that all lands east of the ’67 lines be free of Jews (judenrein, as the Nazis used to put it). That would include the Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem. Thus, the lands east of the ’67 lines must be ethnically cleansed of the 900,000 Jews that live there. A majority of which Jews were born there.

The Security Council underlined “that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations….” Thus the Jews were denied the Temple Mount, the Old City, including the Jewish Quarter, the Holy Basin and the Western Wall, otherwise known as the Kotel.

This resolution completely overturned Res 242, which was passed 50 years ago and which was the cornerstone of all subsequent initiatives like the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap and the Bush letter of ’04. Throughout this entire period, all US presidents stressed the need for direct negotiations to settle all disputes. Any concessions that Israel made along the way were conditioned on the basis of direct negotiations to come.

This resolution removed from such negotiations, the ultimate borders, the fate of the settlements, the requirement that the borders be defensible and whether to create a state.

In the Oslo Accords, Israel made major concessions to the Palestine Liberation Organization representing the Arabs by inviting them into the territories and granting them autonomy in Areas A and B as demarcated by the Accords, believing that all Israeli safeguards in the Accords would protect her. Keep in mind that the Accords did not promise the Arabs a state nor did they proscribe settlement activity.

Prior to signing these Accords, Israel insisted that the PLO accept Res 242 as binding. This was important to Israel because it stipulated that Israel need only withdraw to “recognized and secure” borders. This new resolution negates all Israeli safeguards but not the concessions made by Israel. To do so is unconscionable.

On the one hand, the UN continually accuses Israel of violating international law and declares the settlements illegal by international law; yet, on the other hand, it ignores salient facts and binding contracts. The resolution thus violates the international legal order itself. The UN should be governed by law not by caprice.

Another example of invoking a law that doesn’t exist is the clause which cites “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”. Howard Adelman makes short shrift of this proposition. There is no such law.

This resolution is built upon the proposition that the settlements are illegal by international law. But what if they aren’t? The UN holds that the lands in question are subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies whenever a High Contracting Party (HCP) i.e., a country which signed the convention, belligerently occupies the land of another HCP. But in this case the lands in question were not the land of a HCP but were unallocated land under the Palestine Mandate.

PM Netanyahu appointed a commission consisting of one retired High Court Judge and two senior lawyers to study the matter. In 2014, it issued the Levy Report, which concluded that the FGC does not apply. But even if it does apply, it doesn’t prevent Jews from voluntarily settling on the lands. And keep in mind that the Palestine Mandate gave Jews the right of close settlement on these lands, which right has never been terminated, nor can it be.

This matter has never been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and thus the UN has no right to treat it as settled law.

To use the vernacular, Israel is being railroaded into creating a Palestinian state on all the territories captured 50 years ago, contrary to law, the facts, and existing agreements. Everything is twisted to label Israel a violator of law, when in fact it is the UN that is the violator. All this on behalf of an invented people who didn’t exist 50 years ago.

Ted Belman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/since_when_did_the_palestinians_become_entitled_to_a_state_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Republicans seek to disapprove 'anti-settlement' resolution - Ben Ariel

by Ben Ariel

Two Republican lawmakers in both chambers to introduce resolutions formally disapproving UN Resolution 2334 which condemned Israel.

Two Republican lawmakers in both chambers are planning to introduce resolutions formally disapproving the recent United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) was quoted by The Hill as having said on Friday that he will introduce a measure on Tuesday expressing support for Israel and throwing the "sense of the Senate" behind disapproving the United Nations resolution.

“Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has made a series of blatantly misguided choices when it comes to working with our strongest ally in the Middle East,” Moran said in a statement.

He added the Trump administration will "have to work overtime to repair the damage President Obama has done."

Separately, Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL) said Friday he is offering a resolution condemning President Barack Obama and the United Nations "for their dangerous anti-Israel actions", according to The Hill.

It remains unclear when the House or Senate resolutions could get a vote. Lawmakers will return to Washington on Tuesday to kick off the 115th Congress.

The Obama administration chose to abstain last Friday during the vote at the UN Security Council on Resolution 2334 instead of using its veto power, thus allowing the anti-Israel resolution to pass.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who defended the UN vote, have come under fire from Republican lawmakers over their treatment of Israel.

Kerry's speech earlier this week, in which he criticized “settlements” as being an obstacle to peace, appeared to further inflame criticism from lawmakers that the UN vote made it harder to reach a two-state solution.

"Secretary Kerry further provoked Israelis and all who stand as allies to Israel with his remarks this week," Moran added, according to The Hill.

Moran said on Friday that he is "committed to working with both Republicans and Democrats to make sure we stand with Israel and that the United Nations cannot be used as a forum to create policies that hurt our nation and its allies.”

Following Wednesday’s speech, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) accused Kerry of undermining America's moral standing in the world.

"The greatest immediate threat to the future of Israel is not a stalled peace process, or settlements, but the abandonment of the Jewish state by the current U.S. administration at a time when it needs America’s support more than ever," said Rubio.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Obama and Kerry would be remembered in history as “relentless enemies of Israel”.

The Texas Senator has also called on the United States to withhold funding to the United Nations until it reverses the anti-Israel resolution approved by the Security Council.


Ben Ariel

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222568

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Middle East now looks to Moscow - Prof. Eyal Zisser

by Prof. Eyal Zisser

Two significant events last week illustrated more than anything that Russia is the new adult in the room and, befitting of the status, is conducting affairs in a responsible fashion.

Ahead of the new American administration's upcoming inauguration, the Middle East has been busy making preparations to welcome the new sheriff in town. No, this does not necessarily mean Donald Trump, the newly elected U.S. president, rather Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been able to exploit the mistakes and failures, and mainly the displays of weakness of the Obama administration to replace the U.S. as the preeminent superpower in our region.

Two significant events last week illustrated more than anything that Russia is the new adult in the room and, befitting of the status, is conducting affairs in a responsible fashion. Meanwhile, the U.S. is increasingly being pushed aside over its childish, emotional, and outright pathetic conduct.

On the eve of the new year, Russia has managed to strike a cease-fire deal in Syria, signed by most of the players fighting there, among them Iran and Turkey, but also the Syrian regime and the majority of rebel groups. It's quite possible the budding arrangement is unjust; it certainly won't bring liberty and democracy to those millions of Syrians rose up against Bashar Assad's regime. It is also clear that without Russian military intervention and without its methodical bombardment of large swathes of the country, Moscow would not have arrived at its intended results -- breaking the rebels' morale and securing the existence of a Syrian state, with Assad ruling over a considerable portion. The fact is, however, that Russia was willing to act decisively and aggressively, flex its muscles, and use military force -- something the Americans avoided.

In doing so, the Russians showed that unlike the Americans they were committed to their friends and allies, and were prepared, without hesitation or reckoning, to protect them in international bodies and on the ground.

Russia, however, did more than simply exert its military power; it prudently held dialogue with the adversary -- Turkey and the rebels -- showing restraint and willingness to compromise at the crucial junction, just when Aleppo, the second-largest city in Syria, appeared on the verge of falling to the regime. While the cease-fire agreement does not yet signal the end of the war, it is undoubtedly an important step in that direction. And it was achieved, incidentally, without Washington but with its ally Turkey, which felt safer pinning its hopes on Putin than on U.S. President Barack Obama.

Russia was also active in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, much like it was in Egypt, in an effort to save the U.S. from itself. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a dejected U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that Russia would not be dragged into taking childish, unhelpful measures that could possibly pose future obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

In their handling of the Middle East, it appears the Russians are approaching the magnitude of the responsibility with the appropriate modicum of maturity and good judgment. When the region served as boxing ring between Moscow and Washington, the Russians were belligerent, defiant and uncompromising. Now that the U.S. has faded away, the Russians have proceeded with prudence, an appreciation for the region's complexities and with an understanding of the problems facing it.

Finally, even in the cyberwar between Washington and Moscow, Putin chose to sidestep a clash whose entire purpose, at least from Obama's perspective, was retaliation for the U.S. election results and to ensnare the Trump administration in a public and unnecessary conflict with the Russians.

On January 20, a new boss, Donald Trump, will enter the White House, determined to fix Obama's mistakes and return America to greatness. Trump, however, is liable to find that the damage to America's standing in the region is unfixable, and that the undisputed facts on the ground, created by Putin in his exploitation of American weakness, will be hard to change.

Prof. Eyal Zisser

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=18055

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Turkey's "Long Arm" in Europe - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

Turkey is exporting its political wars and tensions to Europe. That is not a good sign for the Old Continent.

Turkey has finally won the title of having the world's first spook-imams.

Officially, Turkey's General Directorate for Religious Affairs (Diyanet in Turkish) has a mission about offering institutional religious services independent of all political ideologies. In practice, Diyanet's understanding of "offering institutional religious services" can be different from what the term should mean. Recently, the office of Istanbul's mufti, an official of Diyanet, described the location of a mosque as "... it was [in the past] a filthy Jewish and Christian neighbourhood." After press coverage, the depiction was removed from the web page.

Diyanet's "institutional religious services" may sometimes even overlap with what in other countries people call intelligence. In a briefing for a parliamentary commission, Diyanet admitted that it gathered intelligence via imams from 38 countries on the activities of suspected followers of the US-based preacher Fetullah Gülen, whom the Turkish government accused of being the mastermind of the attempted coup on July 15. As if it is the most normal thing in the world, Diyanet said its imams gathered intelligence and prepared reports from Abkhazia, Germany, Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.

After several other political absurdities, Turkey has finally won the title of having the world's first spook-imams -- and that is official.

This is unnerving for many European countries hosting millions of Turks. In October, a Turkish-German political scientist, Burak Copur, warned that growing support for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could lead to Germans of Turkish descent creating a violent Turkish nationalist movement. In July, Cem Ozdemir, an ethnic Turk and leader of Germany's Greens Party, warned of the influence of the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), which he claimed took its funding and its orders directly from Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP). A similar statement was made the month before by integration commissioner Aydan Ozoguz.

The Dutch government has warned people about "agent imams" from Turkey, and has solicited complaints about malfeasance.

The Netherlands also said it would challenge every instance of the "long arm" of Ankara extending to its territory, after a report that the Turkish embassy had sent home many Dutch Turks who might have sympathized with July's failed coup. Turkey's ambassador to The Hague was summoned after reports that a Diyanet official acknowledged he had compiled a list of "Gülenists".

Germany was less diplomatic in expressing its discontent about Turkish spies. Earlier in December, German police arrested a 31-year-old Turkish man suspected of providing information on Kurds living in Germany to Turkish intelligence agencies, according to the German federal prosecutor's office. A statement from the office said:

"The accused is strongly suspected of working for the Turkish intelligence agency and providing information about Kurds living in Germany, including their whereabouts, contacts and political activities".

Turkey is exporting its political wars and tensions to Europe. That is not a good sign for the Old Continent.

Mehmet Gormez, President of Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs. (Image source: İlke Haber video screenshot)

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journaists, was just fired from Turkey's leading newspaper, Hurriyet, after 29 years for writing what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9640/turkey-long-arm-in-europe

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Man of the Year: Chief Trump Strategist Stephen K. Bannon - David Horowitz and Matthew Vadum

by David Horowitz and Matthew Vadum 

A tribute to an unsung hero.

TIME magazine named Donald Trump “Person of the Year” for 2016, and we could have done the same. But this would have been to over-simplify a victory that millions of Americans believe has brought this nation back from the brink of destruction, and has done so against what seemed impossible odds. In the just completed election campaign, a vicious partisan press substituted character assassination for reporting and joined malicious Democrats in demonizing Trump and his supporters as racists, sexists, Islamophobes, xenophobes and religious bigots, while dismissing the candidate as “unfit to sit in the White House.”

From the outset Trump distinguished himself as a self-confident warrior who refused to be “politically correct.” Trump won the primaries and eventually the election because, unlike Republicans before him, he refused to be intimidated by leftist witch-hunters and their reputation-burning attacks.

But Trump’s very fearlessness, self-confidence and disregard for progressive bigotry – his indisputable strengths – came with a downside that threatened to undo him. Even as he responded to the defamation from whatever quarter it came, his campaign message was pushed into the background until it was in danger of being altogether lost. Questions began to be raised and not only by opponents. Could Trump be presidential? Could he stick to a winning message? Lackluster polling numbers sparked a panic among feckless Republicans who began demanding that Trump be replaced as the nominee. Even in the camp of the faithful, supporters began to wonder if their candidate was too thin-skinned and undisciplined to win, and – equally important - whether such a strong-willed individual could listen to a voice that was not his own. Could he ever trust and then avail himself of a counselor, who would focus his message and keep him on course?

The answer came within four months of the election when Trump, then trailing in the polls, shook up his team and made Stephen K. Bannon the CEO of his campaign. Within weeks the Trump ship began to turn around, then move forward until the final long push through the battleground states where the shape of a presidential winner at last came into view. While Donald J. Trump on his own had already changed the political landscape, if he had not hired Steve Bannon as his chief executive officer, it is doubtful he would be president-elect today.
A former naval officer, investment banker, movie producer, documentary filmmaker, and publisher of the online news giant Breitbart.com, Bannon was a kindred spirit to Trump and also a complementary one. “I come from a blue-collar, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats,” Bannon said in a Bloomberg Businessweek profile last year. “I wasn’t political until I got into the service and saw how badly Jimmy Carter f---ed things up. I became a huge Reagan admirer. Still am. But what turned me against the whole establishment was coming back from running companies in Asia in 2008 and seeing that [George W.] Bush had f---ed up as badly as Carter. The whole country was a disaster.” Explaining his disdain for the Bushes, Bannon said: “[They are] not as cinematic as the Clintons, with their warlords and Russian gangsters and that whole cast of bad guys, Bush is more prosaic. It’s really just grimy, low-energy crony capitalism.”

In a sense Bannon and Trump were brothers under the skin. They both went to Ivy League schools (Trump to Wharton at U. Penn and Bannon to Harvard) and yet both had an affinity for working Americans, the blue-collar voters who eventually put Trump over the top. Both were businessmen who turned to politics to repair the damage they saw being done to their country. Both were passionate patriots, distressed over America’s progressive decline, determined to restore the values and virtues that had made it a symbol of liberty and national greatness to the world at large. Both were instinctively combative and not shy about using political speech as a blunt instrument to counter the attacks of the politically correct. Both were fed up with the accommodations Republicans had made to the destructive agendas of a Democratic Party that had become captive to its leftwing.

To this shared outlook, Bannon brought crucial additions. First, unlike Trump he had for decades been involved as a conservative partisan in the political and cultural wars that traditional Republicans were losing. He knew the terrain and its pitfalls as Trump, whose careers were in the popular culture and business could not.

Second, Bannon brought Trump his experience as an entrepreneur who in Breitbart.com had built one of the largest media sites in the world. Unlike others, Bannon was never horrified by candidate Trump’s stream-of-consciousness Twitter feed though he saw the need for more discipline in its contents. Unlike Trump’s critics, Bannon understood how important it was for the candidate to break free from the mainstream media filter that was busy crucifying him. With a feed that reached 40 million followers, Trump was able to speak directly to a larger audience than the hostile networks or the cable news shows could provide. Bannon helped Trump narrow his Twitter focus and become more effective as a candidate.

He also helped to persuade him to use teleprompters at his public events. This limited the degree to which the news media could distort his remarks and turn them against him. The teleprompters helped Trump to stay on message although the impulsive personality and direct address that so endeared him to his followers was still evident in the ad libs and asides which spiced his remarks. The results were immediately positive, as Trump began to climb in the polls.

Most importantly, Bannon and Trump shared a courage unique in Republican quarters. Call it character. The ability to stand firm under fire. The absence of this quality is the primary reason the Obama left has been able to steamroll Republicans in the past. Eight long years of incessant, in-your-face race-baiting by President Obama, attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, and the left-wing networks served to cow Republicans and cause them to abandon their own agendas. Even when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, President Obama still managed to get his major legislative priorities through. The millions of voters who flocked to the Trump camp understood and appreciated these facts. They had been waiting eight years – and more likely 28 years – for a candidate like Trump backed by a strategist like Bannon to stand up for them.

For Bannon and Trump getting things done - getting America back on track - took precedence over hurt progressive feelings. They did not back down under even the heaviest left-wing fire. Trump was maligned from the outset as Hitler, a misogynist and a racist. Once Bannon joined the Trump campaign, he too was smeared in the same dark colors. He was called a white nationalist, a racist and an anti-Semite. Yet he didn’t allow these calumnies to become a political distraction. He didn’t fire back. He worried about the candidate, not his personal reputation.

In these battles against the libels of the hate-driven left, epitomized by Hillary’s “basket of deplorables,” Trump has emerged as a paladin of integrity and common sense - therefore the nemesis of the politically correct. For they count on Republicans backing off for fear of their slanders. Faced with similar smears against his top political aide there is absolutely no other Republican president-elect who would have failed to throw Steve Bannon under the bus. Just to appease the left. Trump’s faith in Bannon and readiness to stand by him against those scurrilous attacks is an emblem of why Trump is the next president, and why Americans can take confidence in his ability to lead them in the predictable wars ahead.

But it is also the basis of Trump’s bond with Bannon whose own courage, bluntness, media-savvy, love of working Americans and ardent patriotism reflects his own. Donald Trump is America’s champion and deservedly TIME’s “person of the year.” But in the absence of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the promise he now holds out for America - and freedom lovers everywhere - might never have reached the White House, the seat of power where he will have the ability to implement his agendas. Which is why an unsung hero, Steve Bannon, is our “Man of the Year.”

David Horowitz  was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”
Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265290/man-year-chief-trump-strategist-stephen-k-bannon-david-horowitz

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Obama: A Political Corpse - Clarice Feldman

by Clarice Feldman

In his remarks, he may finally have done what eight years of Obama’s anti-Israel acts have failed to do -- made clear the anti-Semitic basis of this animus, thereby weaning more Jews from the Democratic Party.

My mother’s almost ninety-eight years old. While in relatively good physical and mental health considering her advanced age, she has in recent years developed a very strong denial of death and its effects, infusing a level of irrationality to some exchanges with her.

On a recent visit, we had this conversation:

Mother: “I can’t understand why your father doesn’t call.”

Me: “Mother, you know he’s been dead for eleven years.”

Mother: “Yes, I know that, but I still don’t understand why he hasn’t called.”

Me: “Dead men can’t call.”

(Brief pause)

Mother: “He could call collect.”

Obama’s political death -- the Russians have tagged him “a political corpse” -- is spurring him and his administration to deny it by undertaking a series of ever more outrageous acts to preserve what he considers his "legacy." Michael Walsh summed up Obama’s week: “Stab Israel, provoke Russia, grab land -- even the nuttiest Leftist has to admit Obama is out of control.”

Obama hopes his party’s diminished power over his two terms will be without effect. President-Elect Trump and those who support him see it differently -- the corpse is spewing toxic pathogens, which will not survive a thorough cleansing.

As a culmination of his eight years in office in which he was unsuccessful in persuading Israel to commit suicide by caving in to further Palestinian demands to give up yet more land for no peace or even a recognition of its right to exist, he manipulated a UN resolution which would have the same effect.

Secretary of state Kerry followed up with an attempted justification of the betrayal of Israel in the UN. The speech was so outrageous that Britain and Australia rebuked it. I Indeed, it was so bad that it resulted in a rare show of bipartisanship as leaders of both parties were critical of it: 

In his remarks, he may finally have done what eight years of Obama’s anti-Israel acts have failed to do -- made clear the anti-Semitic basis of this animus, thereby weaning more Jews from the Democratic Party.

In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.” Presumably, Kerry was referring to the fact that Israel has a significant Arab-Muslim population. He conveniently did not mention, since it must never be mentioned, the vow of Mahmoud Abbas (the Palestinian leader Kerry sees as Israel’s “peace partner”) that, “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- soldier or civilian -- on our lands.” Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles -- notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.

As the author makes clear, the Department of State had no problem when it oversaw the drafting of the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic Islamic states.

Democratic Party efforts to defeat Trump through ginned up riots, slanderous accusations of racism, homophobia, sexism and anti-Semitism having failed to schlep the unappealing Hillary Clinton into the winner’s circle, moved on to Obama’s efforts to delegitimize his successor. Electoral College intimidation, riots, pointless recounts weren’t enough to do that job. This week, Obama claimed that Russians “hacked” the election. No proof of this has been offered up, nor can it. Even Rolling Stone was not persuaded and found that the joint FBI/Homeland Security report released by the administration didn’t make that case.

This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.
[snip]
But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.
[snip]
Nothing quite adds up.

Nevertheless, ignoring how unsecure were Hillary’s and the DNC communications systems, using this pretext, Obama decided to expel 35 Russians with diplomatic standing and shut down two of their compounds.

Rolling Stone called this “an oddly weak and ill-timed response”

Tom Lipscomb had a stronger characterization: “Never in the diplomatic history of the United States have 35 members of any diplomatic mission been sent home while our nations were not at war. Obama is clearly insane. There was no consultation with any other branch of the government on this, I would have him interned in Hawaii pending mental examination and swear in Biden for the duration.”

David Goldman was more temperate but not the least bit less critical: “Let's see: John Podesta and the DNC rig the Democratic primaries to favor Clinton against Sanders, which is blatant abuse of power if not outright criminality. Someone leaks the emails and exposes Podesta's misdeeds. This makes the DNC look bad. And now Obama et. al. claim that LEAKING the evidence of DNC misdeeds was the crime, rather than the misdeeds themselves. That's a better (if less economical) definition of Chutzpah than the fellow who kills his parents and asks for leniency on the grounds that he's an orphan.”

Iowahawk also had some thoughts on this.

John Podesta, like 100% of everyone who has ever had a email account, received a password phishing email. He fell for it.
According to some accounts, the phishing email had Russian fingerprints/characteristics in its metadata.
Whatever the case, the password purloiners downloaded his emails, which eventually got into the hands of Wikileaks, who made them public.
The emails were mildly embarrassing, revealing frequent circle jerking between the DNC and journalists. Mostly embarrassing to media.
At the time of their release (Oct) they were hardly covered by any media, and largely dismissed as a big fat nothingburger.
Not one of the people whose emails were revealed has ever disputed their authenticity or provenance.
Fast forward to December. The October nothingburger has now magically transformed into “vote hacking” and “election hacking.”
New narrative: treasonous Trump operatives conspired with Putin to hypnotically mesmerize Clinton voters into pulling the wrong lever.
This is not Alex Jones or angry conspiracy kook Facebook uncles, it’s the NYTs, the WaPo, our beloved State Radio.
How effective has this been? If polls are to be believed, 50%+ of Democrats believe the Russians literally modified vote tallies.

Vladimir Putin swatted away the administration’s response, and in this statement from the Kremlin clearly refused to be baited by this untoward provocation:

We regard the recent unfriendly steps taken by the outgoing US administration as provocative and aimed at further weakening the Russia-US relationship. This runs contrary to the fundamental interests of both the Russian and American people. Considering the global security responsibilities of Russia and the United States, this is also damaging to international relations as a whole.
As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.
The diplomats who are returning to Russia will spend the New Year’s holidays with their families and friends. We will not create any problems for US diplomats. We will not expel anyone. We will not prevent their families and children from using their traditional leisure sites during the New Year’s holidays. Moreover, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year and Christmas children’s parties in the Kremlin.
It is regrettable that the Obama Administration is ending its term in this manner. Nevertheless, I offer my New Year greetings to President Obama and his family.
My season’s greetings also to President-elect Donald Trump and the American people.
I wish all of you happiness and prosperity.

With less publicized actions, the administration is cranking out thousands of regulations in an effort to tie the incoming administration’s hands.

President Obama's lame duck administration poured on thousands more new regulations in 2016 at a rate of 18 for every new law passed, according to a Friday analysis of his team's expansion of federal authority.
While Congress passed just 211 laws, Obama's team issued an accompanying 3,852 new federal regulations, some costing billions of dollars.

He’s also instituting “job killing midnight lawsuits” and rushing to fill job openings in federal agencies.
He’s still grabbing up ever more land and placing it under federal control.

When you think of a national monument, you probably think of a beautiful statue or some stately structure that honors a former president. They're nice to have, nice to go look at. You probably don't think of a "national monument" as 1.5 million acres of land that contains crucial natural resources the nation needs, but thanks to the national monument designation, can't touch.

Welcome once again to the final days of the Obama presidency, in which the whole point is to take abuse of executive power to new and, Obama hopes, irreversible new heights. Screw your neighbors. Screw your own country. You've got nothing to lose at this point, and you think you've come up with a way to do it that leaves your successor helpless to reverse your abuses once you're gone. One day it's drilling in the Atlantic and the Arctic. The next it's the de facto declaration of war against one of your best allies.

Now you've decided to make official what you've long believed -- that all property ultimately belongs to the state, whose primary interest in said property is to prevent said land from ever benefiting the people in any way. And if that means you're seizing 1.5 million acres on the thinnest of premises, hey, you're Barack Obama. At this point, it's what you do:

[snip]

Obama sees governing as a form of ideological combat. However much he may pretend he wants to help Trump get off to a good start, his actions say exactly the opposite. This gigantic federal land grab is only the latest example of Obama cleverly abusing executive powers in his waning days to hamstring the incoming administration, while structuring his actions in such a way that Trump can't simply revoke what Obama has done.


President-elect Trump is cutting short the usual inaugural parade and limiting the number of balls so he can hit the ground running. He’ll need to if he is to purge these toxic actions.

Happy New Year to you all. It’s going to be a new day here in the nation’s capital and, I hope, around the country and world.


Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/obama_a_political_corpse.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Canada's Conservatives blast Liberals' silence on Israel - Ben Ariel

by Ben Ariel

Canada’s Conservatives blast Trudeau government over its silence on anti-Israel resolution passed by the UN Security Council.

Peter Kent

Reuters

Canada’s opposition Conservatives issued a scathing criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government over its silence in the wake of the anti-Israel resolution passed by the UN Security Council.
Peter Kent, the Conservative Critic for Foreign Affairs and Member of Parliament for the largely Jewish riding of Thornhill, Ontario, issued a statement on Thursday in which he said his party “strongly rejects” the wording of the resolution.

“Conservatives will always recognize Israel’s right to exist, its right to defend itself, by itself, and the historic fact and right of a Jewish presence in Jerusalem. We strongly reject the wording of this United Nations resolution which appears to suggest that the Western Wall and East Jerusalem should become part of a Palestinian state. We are also disappointed in the actions of the outgoing Obama administration, which abandoned historic United States precedent by refusing to veto this one-sided and prejudiced resolution,” said Kent.

“Now, more than ever, Israel needs its friends and allies. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Israel had no greater friend than Canada. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. And the reasons for this are purely political,” he stated.

“Every action the Liberals have taken to date in terms of their foreign policy has been towards one goal and one goal only: securing a seat on the United Nations Security Council,” charged Kent, adding, “Standing up for Canada’s national interests, and the interests of our allies, has come second to the Liberal Party goal of appeasing the UN. The silence from the Liberal government on this anti-Israeli resolution is shameful, but it is not surprising.

“Conservatives will never sacrifice principle for a go along to get along approach. The fact is Israel is a democratic, pluralistic, peaceful and scientifically advanced country. People from all faiths and walks of life contribute to Israeli governance and civil society. With this resolution, the United Nations Security Council has needlessly damaged the peace process,” he wrote.

“The deafening silence on this resolution from Canada’s Liberal government, and especially from Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, has once again shown that Liberals put their political goals ahead of standing up for Canada’s allies and our national interest,” concluded Kent.

Former Prime Minister Harper was a staunch supporter and ally of Israel. Trudeau has continued the policy started by Harper in which Canada votes against anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, but has also tried to get closer to Muslims.

In November, Trudeau’s government announced it will renew funding for the United Nations Relief and Works (UNRWA), despite its well-documented ties to the Hamas terrorist organization.

Since winning the election last year, Trudeau has taken the view that Islam is "not incompatible with the Western secular democracy."

Kent is not alone in his criticism of the Liberals. Kellie Leitch, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party, vowed this week to move the Canadian Embassy to Jerusalem if elected as Prime Minister.


Ben Ariel

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222565

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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