Time for Iran to Face a Reckoning - Bruce Thornton

​
by Bruce Thornton

The mullahs can only be stopped by means of “the mailed fist.”

While the media obsess over chimeras like the president’s obstruction of justice for nonexistent crimes, and AG Barr’s impeachment for obeying the law, a collision between the U.S. and Iran is brewing in the Middle East. The question now is whether Iran will finally face the reckoning it has invited and deserved for 42 years, or the latest crisis will peter out into U.S. saber-rattling and empty threats.

Donald Trump has made a good start at ending our nearly half-century appeasement of a regime that has declared war on the U.S. and backed it up by murdering Americans and working to create nuclear weapons that would make even more difficult, or even prohibitive, the price of punishing them for their aggression.

Since Jimmy Carter’s timid, feckless response to the 1979 American embassy hostage crisis, we have signaled to the mullahs that we will not exact a cost for their aggression. And this failure has been a bipartisan effort. When in 1983 Iranian proxies murdered 241 of our military personnel in Beirut, the Reagan administration pulled out even as the French and the Israelis strafed and bombed “Little Tehran,” the terrorist camps set up in the Beqaa Valley by Tehran, which nurtured the attackers. Since then Iran has been implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and periodically taken hostage American citizens and sailors. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s Quds Force, the regime’s shock troops of global terror, have facilitated and participated in the murder of our soldiers. And it has continued to train and financially support terrorist gangs like Hezbollah and Hamas.

More recently, under the leadership of Al Quds chief Qassem Soleimani, Iran has been working to establish bases in Syria, and has sent thousands of Iranians and mercenary jihadists to help prop up thuggish Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, it has been building up an armed presence on Israel’s northern border in preparation for Iran’s long-time goal to “wipe Israel off the map.” Closer to home, Iran has sent forces to Venezuela to prop up caudillo Nicolás Maduro and maintain a friendly base for developing terrorists to sneak into America and attack the homeland.

After 42 years of U.S. appeasement of Iran’s aggression, Trump is pushing back. He has withdrawn the U.S. from Obama’s disastrous “Iran deal,” which removed economic sanctions and paid a $1.5 billion bribe just to buy at best a 10-15-year delay in the mullahs’ acquisition of nuclear weapons. Trump has restored punitive sanctions and is imposing “maximum pressure,” as National Security Advisor John Bolton put it, on the regime to starve it of the oil revenue it uses for its adventurism in Syria and its clandestine nuclear weapons and missile programs. In addition, Trump has placed the Republican Guard Corp, the mullah’s private security firm at home and fomenters of terror abroad, on the list of terrorist organizations, and put sanctions on the Guard’s extensive economic assets.

And the impact on Iran’s economy is starting to bite. A deteriorating economy and runaway inflation––in the last month prices for food, drink, and tobacco have risen 85%–– have roiled the country. According to Middle East analyst Shoshanah Bryen as quoted by Michael Ledeen, there have been scores of public demonstrations in multiple cities; chants praising Reza Shah, the ruler and Westernizing reformer overthrown by the jihadists in 1979; calls for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to “leave the country alone”; and continuing nationwide strikes against the regime by truckers, bazaar merchants, teachers, students, farmers, and railway workers. The government has jailed and killed protestors, but economic conditions continue to worsen, and Iran seems heading closer to civil war.

Feeling the pressure, the mullahs have responded to Trump’s plan to end sanctions waivers for countries still buying Iranian oil by announcing Iran’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal––which we know from Israeli intelligence it has been violating anyway––if the sanctions are not lifted,; and by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which passes a fifth of the world’s oil. Hamas’ recent 36-hour, 600-missile barrage against Israel on May 4 and 5 was also likely an Iranian-ordered response to Trump’s increasingly tough moves. And an attack last weekend on two Saudi oil tankers and a Norwegian ship near the Gulf likely came from Iran.

According to DEBKA, intelligence reports have also uncovered an Iranian plot to use its proxies to attack the U.S.’s Al Tanf garrison in eastern Syria, strategically located near where the Syrian, Iraq, and Jordanian borders meet. According to CNN’s Barbara Starr, PJ Media reports, US officials have said that “the threats from Iran included ‘specific and credible’ intelligence that Iranian forces and proxies were targeting U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq and at sea. There were multiple threads of intelligence about multiple locations.” In preparation for these attacks, Iranian missiles of varying ranges have been deployed in western Iraq.

In response to these threats, the Trump administration has planned sanctions on Iranian metal exports, its second biggest source of export revenue. More important, he has ordered to the Red Sea the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group, accompanied by the USS Arlington warship; and deployed bombers, stealth aircraft, Patriot anti-missile batteries, and fighter jets throughout the region. We have also made it clear to the Iranians that we will hold them responsible for any attack by their proxies on American forces, and retaliate against Iranian territory and Revolutionary Guard bases.

Such events could be converging towards a violent showdown between the U.S. and Iran. How, then, to respond? On the one hand, Iran could be bluffing, using bluster and histrionic threats to save face. Its domestic economicl weakness and military puniness compared to the U.S. may concentrate the mullahs’ minds and restrain its actions. In Iran’s war with Iraq in the late Eighties, the mullahs attempted to create chaos in the Persian Gulf by attacking international shipping and the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors and injuring 21.  We responded with operation Earnest Will, which destroyed Iranian naval vessels and mine-layers, and Revolutionary Guards bases located on oil platforms. Iran stopped the attacks. The mullahs may not be ready yet to provoke our military might again.

In that case Iran may try to wait out Trump in the hopes that he will be removed from office in 2020, and replaced by a weak-kneed Democrat who like Obama finds “diplomatic engagement” a convenient excuse to avoid action. Given how eagerly our European “allies” want to do business with Iraq and circumvent sanctions, not to mention China’s insatiable appetite for oil, it’s not an unreasonable bet to wait for regime-change in America to restore the appeasement status quo ante. After all, even if Iran has slowed down its nuclear development in recent years, it still maintains the expertise and infrastructure for manufacturing nuclear weapons that can be mounted on missiles capable of reaching most of Europe. As the dysfunctional pygmy-state North Korea has shown, possession of nuclear weapons deters not just weak sisters like the EU, but also a superpower like ours despite the most powerful military in history.

On the other hand, we should not be hasty in assuming that Iran is merely blustering. Its economic weakness and domestic disaffection with its expensive adventurism abroad are seismic forces building towards a political earthquake. And we can’t be sure how the mullahs will respond. They and their praetorian Revolutionary Guards may be just a corrupt gang out for self-enrichment, and will hurry to jet off into exile when the end is near. Or they may be religious fanatics, true believers in an apocalyptic cult that will welcome the domestic and regional violence as an opportunity to destroy Israel and usher in the global triumph of Islam. Can we afford to wait and settle the question with experience, the teacher of fools?

We can’t. We are approaching the time when Iran must face a reckoning and pay for its decades of aggression against us and our interests. More delay brings us closer to Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons, which will radically increase the costs of action and endanger our most important ally, Israel. A Democrat U.S. president and Congress in power will return us to Obama’s appeasing policies that have facilitated Iran’s increasing aggression. Finally, sanctions take time, and economic collapse could spark a civil war that will create chaos with unpredictable consequences.

For now, Iran has given the West 60 days to ease sanctions waivers, and Trump has postponed the sanctions on metal exports for 90 days. But we can’t afford to wait any longer. The president’s actions over the last two years have stopped the appeasement and put the mullahs on notice that we will no longer participate in the kabuki theater of “diplomatic engagement” and unenforced swiss-cheese treaties and “plans of action” that remain all “plan” and no “action.” But all that is just step one. The next step requires mind-concentrating action. If Iran makes good on its threats to close the straits, or if its proxies attack and kill American troops in Syria, then our response must be devastating and linked to escalating levels of destruction until the mullahs get their minds right.

To paraphrase Duff Cooper’s comments about Neville Chamberlain’s infamous deal with Hitler in 1938, the mullahs cannot be stopped “through the language of sweet reasonableness,” but only that “of the mailed fist.” The Europeans and our own globalists will counsel even more of the former, relying on a Micawber foreign policy based on the hope that “something will turn up” to save them from the politically risky costs of action. We should not listen to them. It’s time for Iran to feel the “mailed fist.”


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273761/time-iran-face-reckoning-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tehran Apologists Should Change Their Tune - Amir Taheri

​
by Amir Taheri

-- there are those who see the Khomeinists on the side of angels simply because they are, or pretend to be, anti-American, even if their anti-Americanism is little more than a pose.

• Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has acknowledged that.... if anyone notices the Islamic Republic it is because its leaders are or pretend to be anti-American. In other words, anti-Americanism upgrades a ramshackle and incompetent regime that is visibly incapable of running a kebab-shop let alone a modern developing society. Zarif says that without anti-Americanism we would, at best, "be something like Pakistan". And, he adds, who cares about Pakistan?
• "Our solution is clear. In response to the cost of economic sanctions imposed on us we have to impose costs on the other side so that this war is no longer one-sided.... We have a free hand in striking economic blows at the enemy. America's allies in the region, that is to say Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, are heavily dependent on two things: oil and the glass towers they have built around the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea... We must absolutely, hit the vital vein of those two countries, that is to say their oil exports. And we can do this in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. Such an operation will, without a doubt, force Saudi and Emirati leaders to seek peace with Iran." — Kayhan, the day before the sabotage of four ships in the UAE port of Fujairah.
• It is not enough to be anti-American or even anti-Trump to be automatically classed on the side of the angels. It is possible to be anti-American and anti-Trump and yet be a thoroughly obnoxious oppressor of the people and warmonger.

Pictured: The port of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. (Image source: Rizwan Ullah Wazir/Wikimedia Commons)

One of the problems with a dispassionate discussion of matters related to Iran today is that the issue has become too ideological to allow rational, not to say clinical, examination. Taking part in a televised panel the other evening to discuss the "sabotage" of four ships in the UAE port of Fujairah, I noted that there was as yet no evidence to show who had been behind the operation. At the same time, I noted that a leading daily in Tehran had urged the launching of precisely such operations just a day before the Fujairah attack.

Needless to say, I was attacked on all sides. Some claimed that by suggesting there was no evidence regarding the authorship of the attack, I was trying to whitewash the mullahs. Others claimed that by reminding people that such an operation had been urged in the daily Kayhan, representing the views of "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei, meant that I wished to incriminate Tehran to please "American warmongers."

In a series of subsequent media programs, a range of personalities, including two former British ambassadors to Tehran, appeared as apologists for the mullahs while two former British defense and foreign secretaries spoke as if they had solid evidence that Tehran was involved.

On the one had we have those who, not always without reason, are suspicious of anything remotely connected with Islam, even if that connection is spurious. On the other, there are those who see the Khomeinists on the side of angels simply because they are, or pretend to be, anti-American, even if their anti-Americanism is little more than a pose.

In his twisted carpet-merchant's style, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has acknowledged that. He says that if anyone notices the Islamic Republic it is because its leaders are or pretend to be anti-American. In other words, anti-Americanism upgrades a ramshackle and incompetent regime that is visibly incapable of running a kebab-shop let alone a modern developing society. Zarif says that without anti-Americanism we would, at best, "be something like Pakistan". And, he adds, who cares about Pakistan?

I am inclined to think that the British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn agreed to work for the Revolutionary Guard television not only for money but mainly because Iran is anti-American, exactly the same reason that turned him into a mouthpiece for the Venezuelan regime.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have France's Marine Le Pen who, her dislike of all things Islamic notwithstanding, acts as an apologist for the mullahs because they are anti-American and, as a bonus, also hate the Jews.

In the United States, the whole thing is more complicated. The Islamic Republic has become the cause célèbre of the Democrat Party and the bête-noire of the Republicans.

At a private dinner in London the other night, we listened to one of the US Democrat Party's grand seigneurs repeating almost word-by-word the nonsense that the mullahs mouth every day in justifying their weird behavior. What mattered to the grand seigneur was that the mullahs were challenging Donald J Trump, the common foe.

Not surprisingly, all Iran-controlled and financed lobbies in the US have been reorganized as campaigning tools to help drive Trump out of the White House.

Where preferring the mullahs to the Americans seems difficult, the trick is to cast the former as peace-lovers and the latter as warmongers. Thus Trump, his National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Brian Hook, the man supervising the Iran dossier, are depicted as the four horsemen of the Apocalypse while Khamenei and his cohorts are portrayed as messengers of peace and harmony.

Federica Mogherini, the lady who acts as the European Union's foreign policy spokesperson, whatever that means, never tires of pretending that the mullahs' aggressive behavior is due to American "bullying."

Well, let's go back to Fujairah. I still don't know for sure who did the sabotage. But here is what Kayhan advised before the event:

"Our solution is clear. In response to the cost of economic sanctions imposed on us we have to impose costs on the other side so that this war is no longer one-sided.... We have a free hand in striking economic blows at the enemy. America's allies in the region, that is to say Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, are heavily dependent on two things: oil and the glass towers they have built around the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea... We must absolutely, hit the vital vein of those two countries, that is to say their oil exports. And we can do this in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. Such an operation will, without a doubt, force Saudi and Emirati leaders to seek peace with Iran."

And here is how the Revolutionary Guards news agency Tasnim's news director Amin Arabshahi jubilated about the Fujairah attack immediately after the incident:

"The port of Fujairah, the only vital route for exporting Saudi and Emirati oil, has been set on fire. Only a few steps away from the Strait of Hurmuz, the sons of Resistance have opened fire. Those who trade in fear should know that the war has been going on for years and we are heading for its final phase."

Corbyn, Mogherini, John Kerry and other apologists for the mullahs should consider this. It is not enough to be anti-American or even anti-Trump to be automatically classed on the side of the angels. It is possible to be anti-American and anti-Trump and yet be a thoroughly obnoxious oppressor of the people and warmonger.

Apologists for the Tehran's antediluvian regime do not necessarily do it a service. By justifying its destructive behavior, they encourage the continuation of policies that have led the Islamic Republic into a deadly impasse which, if not breached, could lead to something worse. True friends of the Islamic Republic, if not of Iran as a nation, should tell the mullahs to dismount their high horses and understand that they cannot gallop around imitating Saddam Hussein without suffering consequences.

This article was originally published by Asharq al-Awsat

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14245/iran-apologists-fujairah

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Burkina Faso: The New Land of Islamic Jihad and Christian Slaughter - Raymond Ibrahim

​
by Raymond Ibrahim

Of 2,869 schools in Burkina Faso, 1,111 have been closed in the last three years as a direct result of Islamic extremist violence." — James Murphy, The New American, May 16, 2019.

• "The assailants asked the Christians to convert to Islam, but the pastor and the others refused. They ordered them to gather under a tree and took their Bibles and mobile phones. Then they called them, one after the other, behind the church building where they shot them dead." — Local Christian, reported by World Watch Monitor, May 2, 2019.
• "Much of the Islamic anger in Burkina Faso has to do with the teaching of so-called Western thoughts and ideals. Besides churches, schools are also a favorite target of the militants, who are pushing to make the country an Islamic state and impose Sharia Law... Of 2,869 schools in Burkina Faso, 1,111 have been closed in the last three years as a direct result of Islamic extremist violence." — James Murphy, The New American, May 16, 2019.
• As with other African Islamic terror groups, the motivating ideology fueling the terrorists of Burkina Faso is distinctly Islamic and jihadi in nature. For example, after eight Muslims were arrested for their role in terrorist attacks that killed 14, their prosecutor said, "they all carried on their foreheads or had white bands on which were written in Arabic the following expression — translated as — 'there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.'" — Africa News, July 3, 2018.

When five assailants opened fire on the French embassy in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso in March 2018, they were heard to cry the jihad's ancient war cry, "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the greatest."). Pictured: A street in Ouagadougou. (Image source: iStock)

Last Sunday, May 12, in the small West African nation of Burkina Faso, as many as 30 armed Islamic terrorists stormed a Catholic church, slaughtered at least six Christian worshippers — including the officiating priest — then burned the church to the ground.

Ousmane Zongo, the mayor of Dablo, where the attack occurred, recalled the incident:

"Towards 9:00am, during mass, armed individuals burst into the Catholic Church... They started firing as the congregation tried to flee.... They burned down the church, then shops and a small restaurant before going to the health centre where they searched the premises and set fire to the head nurse's vehicle.... The city is filled with panic. People are holed up at home. Shops and stores are closed. It's practically a ghost town."

Discussing the situation in the country — which is 60% Muslim, 23% Christian, and 17% animist or other — the BBC reports that "Jihadist violence has flared in Burkina Faso since 2016.... Fighters affiliated to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group as well as the local Ansarul Islam [Champions of Islam] have been active in the region."

Sadly, while a total of 12 Islamic terror attacks were registered in 2016, nearly 160 were reported in just the first five months of 2019.

Last Sunday's assault is, in fact, the third church attack in only five weeks. On Sunday, April 28, in Silgadji, Islamic terrorists stormed a Protestant church near the end of the service and killed six Christian worshippers, including the pastor, 80-year-old Pierre Oult, and his two sons. According to a local Christian:

"The assailants asked the Christians to convert to Islam, but the pastor and the others refused. They ordered them to gather under a tree and took their Bibles and mobile phones. Then they called them, one after the other, behind the church building where they shot them dead."

On April 5, Islamic gunmen entered another Catholic church and murdered four Christians. The same report adds that "the fate of a Catholic priest kidnapped a month ago remains unclear."

Considering the usual fate in store for Christians kidnapped in Burkina Faso, optimism is not warranted. For example, in February, Muslim terrorists abducted and murdered Antonio Cesar Fernandez, a 72-year-old Christian who had served as a missionary in Africa since 1982. Others — including Kirk Woodman, a Canadian — were also kidnapped and later found slaughtered.

The Islamic terrorists operating in Burkina Faso seem to be similar to other African jihadi groups, such as Nigeria's Boko Haram and Somalia's Al Shabaab. Like them, when not terrorizing churches and slaughtering Christians, they target anything else that might be associated with the West. According to one report:

"Much of the Islamic anger in Burkina Faso has to do with the teaching of so-called Western thoughts and ideals. Besides churches, schools are also a favorite target of the militants, who are pushing to make the country an Islamic state and impose Sharia Law... Of 2,869 schools in Burkina Faso, 1,111 have been closed in the last three years as a direct result of Islamic extremist violence."

"A lot of schools have been torched," elaborated one head teacher whose own school was set ablaze in the town of Foubé.

The jihadis have also targeted a hotel (20 killed) and a restaurant (18 killed) popular with Western people.

As with other African Islamic terror groups, the motivating ideology fueling the terrorists of Burkina Faso is distinctly Islamic and jihadi in nature. For example, after eight Muslims were arrested for their role in terrorist attacks that killed 14, their prosecutor said, "they all carried on their foreheads or had white bands on which were written in Arabic the following expression — translated as — 'there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.'"

Similarly, when they opened fire on the French embassy in Ouagadougou, the five assailants were heard to cry the jihad's ancient war cry, "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the greatest.").

Needless to say, such clear indicators of motive have not caused the establishment to revise its narrative. When interviewed on last Sunday's church carnage, Sten Hagberg, a Swedish professor of anthropology at Uppsala University, offered the usual fare: The attack, he said, "has, to my mind, much more to do with politics and economics than religion."

The situation in Burkina Faso is a reminder that, if groups like the Islamic State are on the wane in Iraq and Syria, the jihad continues to spread like wildfire in more obscure and forgotten nations around the world, and to consume countless nameless and faceless innocents.

• Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14243/burkina-faso-jihad-terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Jews Who Became like Arabs: The Early Days of Israeli Intelligence - Janet Levy

​
by Janet Levy

A new book unveils the daring exploits of the Arab Section, the embryonic Israeli intelligence service.

When Israel was still a dream, an idea far from plausible reality, Jews from the Arab world risked their lives for the nascent state and went undercover in enemy territory: Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. This special Palmach unit, dubbed the “Arab Section” or the “Ones Who Become Like Arabs,” received cursory training in spycraft, intelligence gathering, and sabotage. Resources -- cars, cameras and radios -- were in short supply, as was money to cover ordinary expenses and even salaries. Yet, the Arab Section infiltrated Arab communities, gathering useful intelligence and radio reports, carrying out acts of sabotage and even attempting an assassination. 

The exploits of this elite unit of the Haganah, the Jewish underground army in Palestine, are told through the lives of four of its Arab-Jewish recruits in Spies of No Country: Secret Lives at the Birth of Israel (Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2019). Author Matti Friedman uses material from interviews, Israeli military archives, unclassified Haganah documents, published histories and unpublished testimonies from participants to tell the story of four of the men who helped establish what would become Israel’s intelligence services.

These young men, Jews born in Middle Eastern communities, could easily navigate between two worlds, but were, for the most part, amateur spies who survived mainly by their wits. They paid close attention to Arab morale, their opponents’ military strength and schemes, any potential subterfuge plans, and most importantly, what was happening around them.
In 1947, the British announced their departure from Palestine. For more than 25 years, the British had struggled to cope with rising tensions and the increasingly difficult task of governing two hostile populations at odds with each other. The United Nations decided that the British Mandate for Palestine would be divided into two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab. Although the U.N. had no way to enforce this plan and it was unclear how it would be resolved, Jews rejoiced at the long-promised creation of a Jewish state in their ancestral land. Arab Muslims reacted with fury. In Arab-Muslim countries, Arab rioters burned Jewish homes, stores, and synagogues in Jewish communities that had existed for centuries. The U.N. and other international agencies failed to intervene, and many Jews fled, abandoning their property and belongings. 

This violent civil war evolved into full-scale war. When Israel’s War for Independence began in late 1947, it wasn’t clear that a state of Israel would ever exist. At that time, British authorities believed the Arabs would prevail. To further complicate matters, British soldiers and police were still on the ground, and the British navy continued its efforts to keep Jewish Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine. 

During this turmoil, the four men portrayed in Spies of No Country became recruits in the Palmach Arab Section. They were Gamliel Cohen from Damascus, Isaac Shoshan from Aleppo, Syria, Havakuk Cohen of Yemen, and Yakuba Cohen, born in Jerusalem. Friedman describes how they often operated alone in isolated, hostile environments without the backing of an established intelligence agency or even an existent country, as the Israeli state was not yet a reality. An incorrect word or clothing, a gesture, an accent could engender suspicion, blow their covers and result in torture and death.

The author also discloses an uncomfortable reality at the time for these Mizrahim, or Middle East Jews, as they were called. They didn’t feel fully accepted by most of the inhabitants of what was to become the Jewish state. European Jewish refugees, or Ashkenazis, with their Left-leaning, secular ideas about Zionism, viewed the “otherness” of Arab Jews with discomfort and referred to the them as “blacks.” With this intrinsic bias, it was difficult for the Palmach to place these spies in training on kibbutzim for instruction purposes.

Thus, the goal for the Arab Section was to create agents who could pass as Arabs. They had to learn about Arab culture and Islam and practice Muslim prayer rituals. “They had to become the people they fled,” Friedman writes. While undercover, the agents struggled to keep a distance from Jewish residents of the Arab communities. Sometimes, they succumbed to their emotions and visited family members, which proved to be a dangerous, life-threatening proposition for several agents.

Despite the bias and dangers, the Mizrahim played a crucial role during the first stage of the war that was fought inside Palestine by Jewish and Arab irregulars. This fighting preceded the 1948 fall of Haifa and the later invasion by regular Arab armies into the area partitioned for the Jews. In one early reconnaissance operation described by the author, an Arab Section agent noticed a suspicious vehicle in Haifa. It turned out to be a truck bomb destined for the Jewish part of town. It could have caused much destruction and many deaths, but the alert agent and a cohort had the truck blown up and a catastrophe was avoided. 

As part of another mission in Beirut, a letter written by a German serving the Arab cause was intercepted. It contained information about a yacht that had formerly belonged to Hitler and on which 20 escaped German POWs in Beirut were working to install new armaments for the Egyptian navy. The ship posed significant danger for Israeli coastal areas. Three Arab Section spies rigged the ship with explosives, eliminating the threat.

On another operation, a Muslim cleric was targeted for assassination. After several failed attempts on his life, a two-car team was employed: one to make a positive identification, the second to follow with a hit. Although the operation went awry and the sheikh was only wounded, he sufficiently feared for his life after the incident and fled from Israel to Beirut.
Agents of the Arab section also proposed to blow up a refinery in Tripoli in northern Lebanon. The operation was seriously considered but shelved because of concerns about the safety of local Jews and the political repercussions that could arise from European companies with financial interests in the refinery.

By then, the course of the war had shifted with Jews becoming more successful in the fight against the disorganized Arabs. It began to appear that the Jews would prevail and establish their state. At this point, the new government jettisoned the partisan militias and disbanded the Palmach. Toward the end of 1948, the Arab Section became a unit of the Israel Defense Forces.

The state of Israel was already beginning to evolve from a secular solution to Europe’s long-standing, pathological anti-Semitism to more of an amalgamation of European Jews and Jews from the region. As fleeing Arab Jews began populating the state, its character was altered by their culture, deeply tied to Jewish tradition and community. Their profound appreciation for the importance of religion and strength empowered a changing view of Israel from a refugee camp for the Jews of Europe to a country that had resisted, fought, and suffered in the Arab world.

The daring exploits of the Arab Section, or the “doctrine of Arab cover,” were later codified and organized into formal Israeli intelligence courses. The “One Who Becomes Like an Arab” was dismantled in favor of a more professional intelligence service and was replaced with brief operations to arrest or kill suspects rather than a unit of rugged individuals that lived like Arabs. Friedman quotes one Palmach agent who said, “Israel’s intelligence doctrine was built on their backs.” The author concludes that with present-day Arab-Jews far removed from their roots and a well-established Israeli identity, the modus operandi of the Arab Section would be very difficult to duplicate in today’s world.

Janet Levy

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_jews_who_became_like_arabs__the_early_days_of_israeli_intelligence.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

And a Little Child Shall Lead Them - Mark Tapson

​
by Mark Tapson

Why the Left puts children at the forefront of its agendas.

In this recent video clip from a news channel’s interview with 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, it is clear that the young girl has no special insight to offer, only canned platitudes (“If everyone does something, huge changes can happen”). And yet the older male interviewer fawns over his teenage subject as if she is a credible, informed expert and a wise Cassandra whose dire warning we ignore at our peril. He does so not in spite of her youth, but precisely because of it. Why? Because the leftist media, and the left generally, love propping up gullible, politically indoctrinated children as authoritative mouthpieces to promote their agendas.

Swedish schoolgirl Thunberg attracted worldwide media attention at age 15 for her activism against weather, and is now the deadly serious face of the left’s climate change hysteria. Recently nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, Thunberg is following in the carbon footprints of environmental activist Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez who, at the age of 15, entreated the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 to take action against purportedly human-caused climate change.

After the Parkland school shooting in Florida on Valentine’s Day, 2018, student activists David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez (pictured above), 17 and 18 respectively at the time, were ubiquitous in the media coverage about the atrocity – not because their thoughts on the incident were any more insightful than those of any of their fellow students, but because of their forceful calls for stricter gun control and their eagerness to demonize the hated National Rifle Association. Parkland students who didn’t take a strong anti-gun stance quickly found themselves ignored by the news media. Hogg, whose bumper-sticker mentality proved to be no barrier to getting into Harvard, shot to prominence overnight as the face of the gun confiscation movement in America.

Jazz Jennings, born male in 2000, was only six years old when he began making television appearances – including an interview with Barbara Walters – to discuss his gender dysphoria. He went on to become the media darling of transgender activism, with his own reality TV show about transgender teen drama and his gender reassignment surgery. Similarly disturbing, child drag performer Desmond is Amazing has been the young, garishly made-up face of LGBTQ activism for years, celebrated as a trailblazer on national talk shows and in gay pride parades. He is only eleven.

These are just a few recent examples of the leftist habit of ushering children to the forefront of their various agendas. Those on the right rarely if ever do this. This is not to say that young conservative activists don’t exist; 16-year-old CJ Pearson, for example, was politically active in grade school and was still only twelve years old when he began attracting national media attention as young, black, and conservative. But Pearson is not a leading rightwing personality, much less the face of any particular right-leaning policy, and every other young conservative activist I can think of is at least college-aged.

The exploitation of child activists is a purely leftist strategy. Why? The simple answer is that the left is for children of all ages and the right is for adults of all ages. From Greta Thunberg, 16, to George Soros, 88, leftism attracts people who cling to their youthful, utopian delusions of societal perfection; conservatism attracts people, both young and old, who are grounded in the reality of human nature and of life experience. Leftism stems from passionate – if not obsessive – idealism (regardless of the fact that their ideals wreak widespread destruction) and a lust for the power necessary to enforce those ideals. Conservatism stems from an acknowledgement of our fallen and imperfect nature, and a wariness of power, both of which come with maturity.

One might think that putting children on the political front lines is an easily-countered strategy, but in fact it is shrewd and effective for the obvious reason that a very young spokesperson – the younger the better, within reason – is emotionally manipulative, and the left is nothing if not emotionally manipulative. Using a child to push an agenda cuts cleanly through the right’s logic and facts like Alexander the Great’s sword through the Gordian knot. Actually, a better analogy might be that it allows the left to completely circumvent logic and facts, which are the left’s Kryptonite. Rational argument from an adult can be disarmed by the presumed beautiful innocence of children, especially articulate children with a sense of self-importance inflated by their adult handlers. Any grownup who dares challenge their emotion-based sloganeering can be easily dismissed as a heartless bully. When little totalitarians like David Hogg or Greta Thunberg condemn you for bequeathing to them a bleak future, only a jaded, selfish meanie would scorn their earnest desire for a better world. After all, the future belongs to them; we adults had our shot and we screwed things up, they tell us, so it’s time for smug young know-it-alls to clean up our mess.

How can the right counter this frustrating, exploitative strategy? The best defense is a scorched-earth offense. Don’t play their game, ever. Ignore the left’s appeals to emotion and irrationality. Barrage them relentlessly with facts and reason and evidence and, most of all, with ridicule, because nothing can survive ridicule – least of all humorless leftists, who are unaccustomed to being on the receiving end of it. Be the adults in the room – adults who aren’t afraid to discipline their children when required.

The Romantic poet William Wordsworth once waxed sentimental about the clear-eyed wisdom of a child: “Thou, whose exterior semblance doth belie Thy soul's immensity; Thou best philosopher,” he gushed. But contrary to what Wordsworth and today’s Democrats would like to believe, wisdom comes not from fresh-faced innocence but from deep humility, lifelong learning, and broad experience. A civilization shaped by a sentimentalist, childlike worldview is doomed to self-destruct.

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Journalism Fellow on Popular Culture at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273767/and-little-child-shall-lead-them-mark-tapson

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A new and growing strain of anti-Semitism - Amil Imani

​
by Amil Imani

There is a new strain of violent anti-Semitism now widespread throughout the Left, permeating well into the Democratic Party.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota, a Somalian by birth, and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan, of Palestinian descent, are the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the U.S. Congress. They have been given carte blanche to do and spew anything they wish without any retribution or repercussions.

These two freshman Jew-haters and anti-Semites did not waste any time to attack Israel and the Jewish people the moment they arrived at Capitol Hill. Like their fellow Muslims, they consider Jews and Israel the sworn enemies of Islam. This hostility dates to the time of Muhammad's own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews "people of the book" and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath upon them.

"Israel has hypnotized the world," Omar tweeted in 2012. "May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

Anti-Semitic sentiment has always existed throughout the ages for no valid reason. However, there is a new strain of violent anti-Semitism now widespread throughout the Left, permeating well into the Democratic Party's lowest and highest echelons and their left wing. It is a raw Jew-hatred that covers itself as "anti-Zionism."

For days, the Democrats struggled with whether or not to discipline Omar for her anti-Sematic views, arguing over whether Omar should be singled out, what other types of bias should be decried in the text, and whether the party would tolerate opposing views on Israel. But they could not come up with a way to condemn her simply because she is a Muslim. Muslims all over the world get a free pass simply because elected officials are fearful of being labeled racist, even though Islam is not a race. 

By granting Omar a free pass, the Democratic Party officially announced that using anti-Semitic diatribes will be tolerated. It did not comfort when 22 Senate Democrats, including five presidential candidates, voted against legislation aimed at curbing the anti-Semitic boycott movement.

It appears that anti-Semitism is being normalized at the top levels of government. Is it shocking that the hatred of Jews has seeped into academe, where thousands of professors support the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement?

Many universities in the U.S. are bastions and incubators of useful idiots. Far-left professors do more than teach their specialty subjects. They feel that they have license to pontificate on any and all matters. That is why they are called "professors." These self-appointed prima donnas cover themselves with the shield of academic freedom. Academic freedom is like liberty — it can be abused often and abused greatly. That is the price of freedom. Yet these abusers of freedom, the far left, will be among the first to be buried under the rubble of a free society's collapse they work so doggedly to bring about.

An example: A university professor refused to write a letter of recommendation for his student when he discovered she was planning to study in Israel. Then more than 1,000 of his collogues signed a petition stating they would do the same thing. It is unconscionable to witness such bigoted behavior on display at an American university.

Unfortunately, social media have become a gutter filled with websites, posts, and comments that reinforce, encourage, and publicize Jew-hatred. I personally have been banned by both Twitter and Facebook for telling the truth and posting a picture of a Palestinian terrorist. There is no accountability whatsoever as to why Muslim terrorists and their fellow Democrats are free to say and post anything without any repercussions, but a conservative is banned or his account is closed for expressing his fact-based opinion. 

It is long overdue to have responsible journalists and editors oversee news and editorials, who will put an end to the anti-Israel or anti-Jews bias — which often has anti-Semitic undertones — and present the unfiltered facts.

This does not imply that Israel cannot be criticized, but it does mean that it should be covered with the same level of objectivity as other countries and that its actions be placed in historical and synchronous context.

In short, the Democratic Party has officially joined other anti-Semitic groups all over the world.

The Democratic Party has deliberately put America on a precarious path to lose its freedom, American values, and religious freedom plus many more. We must not only reject, but be as vocal as possible to declare the current Democratic Party as an adversary of the United States and our Constitution. The Democrats' racist and tacit actions against the Jews must be condemned at all levels. The Democratic Party is no longer the party of JFK or Harry Truman. It has become the greatest threat to our national security and America's survival as a nation.

Amil Imani

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/a_new_and_growing_strain_of_antisemitism.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Palestinians Oppose Economic Prosperity - Bassam Tawil

​
by Bassam Tawil

For Palestinians, the financial aid is a cynical attempt to lure them away from their struggle against Israel

• To advance his goal, Ashraf Jabari recently announced the establishment of a new party that calls for focusing on economic prosperity for Palestinians. The Reform and Development Party seeks to solve the economic problems of the Palestinians, particularly high unemployment, he said. "We have an army of university graduates who are unemployed. We've reached a situation where a young [Palestinian] man holding a Master's degree in law has to work as a street vendor because he can't find work."
• Instead of giving Jabari a chance to carry out his initiative, Palestinians have waged a massive smear campaign against him, with many denouncing him as a "traitor" and "collaborator" with Israel and Jews. Some Palestinians have even gone as far as calling for his arrest or execution.
• The upcoming peace plan, according to various reports, talks about giving the Palestinians billions of dollars and raising money for them from wealthy Arab countries. Yet, as Jabari's case makes clear, the Palestinians are less invested in gaining economic stability than they are in hating Israel.
• For Palestinians, the financial aid is a cynical attempt to lure them away from their struggle against Israel -- and no Palestinian leader has the stomach to face the threats that Jabari is currently confronting. So, far from any "deal of the century," the Palestinian leaders long ago struck a dirty deal of their own: they put their stock in Israel-hatred rather than in their own people.

Ashraf Jabari, a 45-year-old Palestinian businessman from the West Bank city of Hebron, recently launched a new economic initiative with some of his Jewish friends, to advance joint entrepreneurship between Israelis and Palestinians there. (Image source: iStock)

In most normal societies, a businessman who seeks to improve the living conditions of his people by boosting the economy and creating job opportunities for the unemployed -- including a host of jobless university graduates -- is treated with respect. The Palestinians, however, do not seem to belong to those societies.

Ashraf Jabari is a 45-year-old businessman from the West Bank city of Hebron. A member of a large Palestinian clan in the city, Jabari believes in economic cooperation and peaceful coexistence with his Jewish neighbors, including settlers living in the West Bank.

Earlier this year, Jabari and some of his Jewish friends launched a new economic initiative to advance joint entrepreneurship between Israelis and Palestinians there.

"We are working on taking down borders, and both Israelis and Palestinians need to take part in this," Jabari explained. "We need to breach this wall. We must first create good links and good relationships not just in the West Bank, but all over Israel so we can achieve our desired goal."

To advance his goal, Jabari recently announced the establishment of a new party that calls for focusing on economic prosperity for Palestinians:

The Reform and Development Party, he said, seeks to solve the economic problems of the Palestinians, including high unemployment. "We have an army of university graduates who are unemployed," he said. "We've reached a situation where a young [Palestinian] man holding a Master's degree in law has to work as a street vendor because he can't find work."

One would expect a message like that to be welcomed by Palestinians. Here is a man who is talking about helping his people put food on their tables. Here is a man who is saying: "Let's put aside our political differences and focus on ways of achieving economic stability for our people."

Instead of giving Jabari a chance to carry out his initiative, Palestinians have waged a massive smear campaign against him, with many denouncing him as a "traitor" and "collaborator" with Israel and Jews. Some Palestinians have even gone as far as calling for his arrest or execution.

The campaign against the Palestinian businessman reached its peak on May 13, after he hosted at his home several Jews for the Ramadan break-the-fast meal, Iftar. It is not unusual for Muslims to host non-Muslims for the Iftar meal. In this instance, however, Jabari seems to have invited the "wrong" guests: Jews.

As soon as photos of the Ramadan meal appeared in various media outlets, many angry Palestinians took to social media to voice their strong condemnation of Jabari.

In the face of the widespread protests and resentment, Jabari's clan was forced publicly to denounce and disown him. "Ashraf Jabari is a criminal, and he doesn't enter the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories," said Arif Rubin Jabari, a leader of the clan. "Our family already disowned this fraud back in 2002. He doesn't represent anyone from our clan or Hebron."

The clan leader further claimed that Israel was "using Jabari to carry out its suspicious schemes against Palestinians." He called on Palestinian Authority officials to "study Israel's attempt to give prominence to Jabari by presenting him as an alternative to the current Palestinian leadership."

The clan's public denunciation of Jabari, however, has failed to placate many Palestinians, who are now calling for severely punishing the him for his words and deeds.

The Palestinian news website Wattan, based in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the Palestinians, called for bringing Jabari to trial for treason. "The [Palestinian] security services must act immediately to arrest him," Wattan said in an article published on its website.

"According to Article 135 of the Revolutionary Penal Code of the PLO (1979), the punishment for treason is prison with hard labor. The law states that anyone who offers accommodation, food or clothes to an enemy soldier or a spy or helps him escape, should be punished. Dozens of spies have already been punished in accordance with this law. Article 140 of the same law stipulates the death sentence for anyone who serves as an informant for the enemy. Indeed, many spies have been executed."

Judging from the reactions of the Palestinians, they are angry with Jabari mainly for two reasons: engaging in "normalization" with Israelis and promoting the idea of "economic peace." The Palestinians' "anti-normalization" movement is strongly opposed to any form of relations with Israel -- including sports and cultural events. Now, it seems that they are even opposed to seeing Palestinians and Jews eating together.

Jabari offended many Palestinians because he dared to invite his Jewish friends to the Ramadan meal at his home.

Moreover, his talk about "economic prosperity" for Palestinians has turned him into a public enemy. How dare the man discuss seeking ways to improve the living conditions of his people and create jobs for the unemployed?

In the eyes of many Palestinians, the struggle against Israel should be paramount, even if they have to eat and drink that struggle instead of the food they could buy through engaging in economic initiatives such as those proposed by Jabari.

Had Jabari joined Hamas or Islamic Jihad, or one of the anti-Israel organizations in the West Bank, he would have been idolized. Had he called for boycotting Israel rather than working -- and eating -- with them, he would have been lauded among his people and his clan.

In light of the uproar sparked by the Palestinian businessman's actions and statements, it is safe to assume that his new party will never succeed in winning the hearts and minds of Palestinians. It's also hard to see how any of the economic enterprises he's talking about will ever materialize.

The unprecedented campaign of hate and intimidation against Jabari comes weeks before the US administration rolls out its long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the "deal of the century."

The upcoming peace plan, according to various reports, talks about giving the Palestinians billions of dollars and raising money for them from wealthy Arab countries. Yet, as Jabari's case makes clear, the Palestinians are less invested in gaining economic stability than they are in hating Israel.

For Palestinians, the financial aid is a cynical attempt to lure them away from their struggle against Israel -- and no Palestinian leader has the stomach to face the threats that Jabari is currently confronting. So, far from any "deal of the century," the Palestinian leaders long ago struck a dirty deal of their own: they put their stock in Israel-hatred rather than in their own people.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14236/palestinians-oppose-economic-prosperity

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

UK: Muslim MP rejects “islamophobia” definition, says the term is “weaponized by hardline groups” - Christine Douglass-Williams

​
by Christine Douglass-Williams

"We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality.”

“England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law.  Labour’s Khalid Mahmood… said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.” He further stated: “I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality.”

Jihad Watch covered the rejection of the working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group. The definition, “as put forward by the British Muslims determined that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The latter term is undefined and downright ludicrous.

The victimology subterfuge is often used by Islamic supremacists to beat down critics of Islam.  MP Khalid Mahmood also warned that “‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media'”. But for fellow Muslim Labor MP Naz Shah, the UK government’s rejection of the term was rather upsetting to her as it was to many Muslim groups. She stated:

If it is down to women to define the experience of feminism, the experiences of people of colour to define racism, the experience of Jews to define anti-Semitism, the experience of the LGBTQ+ communities to define homophobia, I ask the minister how dare he tell the British Muslims that our experiences can not define Islamophobia.

Aside from dislike of “Muslimness” which could be interpreted to mean dislike of the sharia, deemed be divine in Islam, the term “Islamophobia” was also defined in Canada by the National Council of Canadian Muslims to be: “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”

So, no, it is not up to Muslims to impose the term “Islamophobia” upon Western societies as Naz Shah would have it. If Muslims want to address their experiences of discrimination, then they have every right to do so, and to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, but “Islamophobia” is a loaded term that has no place in any free democracy.

While Naz Shah is pushing “Islamophobia”, she cares nothing about Muslims victimizing innocents. She retweeted for the young victims of Muslim rape gangs to shut up for the good of diversity.


“MPs rail against plan to define Islamophobia in law that would ‘divide the country’ after the government rejected it and experts warned it would limit free speech”, by Martin Robinson, Daily Mail, May 16, 2019:

England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law.
Labour’s Khalid Mahmood, who represents Birmingham Perry Barr, said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.
He told the Commons during a debate on the issue: ‘I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality’.
Supporters of the idea including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims.
But Mr Mahmood said: ‘I have been the victim of hate mail and actions from the far right and the Islamist community as well. I am proud to be a British Pakistani Muslim MP – the first Muslim to be elected in this Parliament from England. I will take no lessons from anyone who says I’m an Islamophobe or too much or a Muslim’.
Mr Mahmood also said the proposed definition focussed too much on what a Muslim man or woman would traditionally wear – rather than protecting British Muslims who choose to dress differently.
He said: ‘How do you protect those Muslims who dress normally in society but have the religion in their heart? The definition of ‘Muslimness’ as it is described in this report categorises people who dress a particular way and those who don’t. By defining it in this way you are excluding those who don’t’.
Yesterday he said the term ‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media’.
Downing Street said last night the suggested definition of Islamophobia had not been broadly accepted, adding: ‘This is a matter that will need further careful consideration.’
More than 40 religious leaders and experts including Mr Mahmood wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid yesterday, telling him that the definition could be a ‘backdoor blasphemy law’ and limit free speech.
Naz Shah, who represents Bradford West, said Muslims in Britain were being denied the same rights as other races or religions in the UK.
Proposals for an official definition of Islamophobia were rejected by the Government yesterday after advice from anti-terror police and concerns it could be a ‘back door’ blasphemy law.
What is the UK law on Islamophobia?
There is no specific law against Islamophobia in the UK.
However, there are numerous laws which might be used to prosecute offenders.
Stirring up religious hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.
It can carry a sentence of up to seven years in prison.
Criminals may also be handed longer sentences for other offences if they are found to have been motivated by racial or religious hostility.
There are separate laws covering online abuse.
In addition, the Equality Act 2010 stops discrimination based on ‘protected characteristics’ including religion.
If a new, official definition is adopted, it could be used to block government actions in the courts.
Terror legislation could be subject to such judicial reviews, it is claimed.
An unofficial 1997 wording defined Islamophobia as ‘unfounded hostility towards Muslims’.
The suggested new one says: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’
Supporters of the idea say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims. ….

Christine Douglass-Williams

Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/uk-muslim-mp-rejects-islamophobia-definition-says-the-term-is-weaponized-by-hardline-groups

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter