Israel, Free World, in Increasing Danger Thanks to U.S. 'Help' - Guy Millière

 

by Guy Millière

The Biden administration also leaves aside that the Palestinian Authority -- which pays its people for life if they murder Jews – is still a terrorist entity, and instead treats it as if it were a legitimate interlocutor.

 

• Hamas not only uses its civilians as human shields, but may be the first government in history that wants to see its own people killed in order to blame another country, Israel, for their deaths. Meanwhile, Israel goes out of its way – seriously risking the lives of its soldiers – not to commit any crimes against humanity or indiscriminately bomb, as Russia does in Ukraine.

• "Israel implemented more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any nation in history," wrote John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point.

• For decades, many of the countries of the Arab world have wanted to erase Israel from the map. Each time, they have failed. Their project consists of trying to destroy the Jewish state and kill every Jew, as Hamas' 1988 Charter requires. No one in a Western country could support it without being seen as an anti-Semite.

• A radical change occurred, however, in 1964. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded and the myth of "Palestinian cause" invented. Zuheir Mohsen (زهير محسن) a leading PLO member responsible for Damur massacre, admitted:

• "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.

• "Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva, and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

• A "national liberation struggle" was, in fact, fabricated by Soviet Union's KGB, according to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served from 1972-1978 as deputy chief of Romania's foreign intelligence service and advisor to Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Pacepa said:

• "The PLO and the Palestinian Narrative was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for 'liberation' organizations."

• "First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, and replaced them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was, therefore, a Palestinian by birth."

• "According to [Soviet leader Yuri] Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep... We had only to keep repeating our themes — that the United States and Israel were "fascist, imperial-Zionist countries" bankrolled by rich Jews."

• Israel was no longer described as a small Jewish state besieged by much larger, powerful Arab countries filled with despicable intentions. Israel was suddenly presented as an "imperialist" power oppressing a small deprived people and supposedly having stolen their land. Anti-Israeli terrorist acts were presented as "resistance". The aim was to seduce the West; and quickly seduced it was.

• An illusory "peace process" began. In reality, it was a war process. The PA areas became a base for bloody anti-Israeli attacks which did not diminish in intensity until a security barrier, begun in 2002, was mostly completed in 2007.

• Called by Andrew Roberts "The Churchill of the Middle East," [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] evidently sees that Israel has no "partner for peace".

• "Palestine" became a member of UNESCO in 2011, even as the Palestinian Authority continued supporting terrorism and is therefore a terrorist entity. This reward for terrorism marked the first time that a terrorist entity was granted a seat in an organization purporting to promote world peace.

• So-called human rights organizations, as well as the media and so-called educational institutions, have been complicit.

• American universities and colleges have received donations "that have no recorded nor reported dates of receipts" currently estimated at $22 billion. ["More than 50% of this has come from authoritarian and antidemocratic Middle East governments..."]

• After these billions, in almost all universities in the US, the history of the Middle East is taught in accordance with the "Palestinian cause". No one says that this "cause" was invented in 1964.

• The Biden administration rarely, if ever, criticizes the Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas and its sponsors Qatar and Iran.

• The Biden administration also leaves aside that the Palestinian Authority -- which pays its people for life if they murder Jews – is still a terrorist entity, and instead treats it as if it were a legitimate interlocutor.

• As the State of Palestine does not actually exist, deciding to "recognize" it will not bring it into being. On the contrary, the announcement will reinforce the belligerent actions of the Palestinian Authority and the leeriness of the Israelis. The Israelis clearly saw the Palestinians violate an official ceasefire on October 7; murder, rape, torture, kidnap and start an unprovoked war; then complain to the international community when the Israelis were inconsiderate enough to fight back.

• The haste of Spain, Ireland and Norway can only lead Hamas leaders and their supporters to think that terrorism works and achieves results. Just wait until they try it again in Europe, especially after Iran has its nuclear bomb.

• If Hamas manages to survive the current war – as its patrons, Qatar, Iran and the Biden administration apparently wish -- Hamas will be able to continue organizing terrorist acts. In fact, Hamas official Ghazi Hamad has vowed to do exactly that:...

• Currently, despite pressures, betrayals and attempts at destabilization, Netanyahu stands firm and fights. He appears under no illusion about what will happen if Hamas, after the fighting is over, is allowed to continue as a terrorist threat.

• Of course, Hamas, Qatar and Iran do not want to stop; they want to have the international community and America tell Israel to stop -- permanently -- and leave them free to continue their attacks.

• Hamas is interested only in a "permanent ceasefire" by Israel, not a temporary pause. Why should they agree to a pause when they see the whole world attacking Israel? To them, everyone is roughing up Israel: it looks as if they are winning. Now the US is reportedly trying to cut a separate deal to release the five American hostages, leaving the other 120 hostages, and Israel, high and dry. Some believe that at least a third of them have been killed. That would be the ultimate triumph: having the US grant the aggressor, the terrorist group Hamas, a big reward for its massacre, to induce it to go to sleep before the November election.

• As far as the Saudis are concerned, the last thing they want is a Palestinian state. They just cannot say so publicly.

• For four years, Israel's enemies were largely powerless and silent. It would be so helpful for the Free World, the US, and even the indoctrinated, abysmally governed Palestinians, to have those policies back.

Hamas not only uses its civilians as human shields, but may be the first government in history that wants to see its own people killed in order to blame another country, Israel, for their deaths. Meanwhile, Israel goes out of its way – seriously risking the lives of its soldiers – not to commit any crimes against humanity or indiscriminately bomb, as Russia does in Ukraine. Pictured: Hamas terrorists let children play with their automatic rifles, in Gaza City, on June 14, 2021. (Photo by Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images)

Last month, a video clip showing the capture of five female IDF soldiers by Hamas terrorists was released along with all the brutality of the terrorists, their intentions to rape and abuse these women, laid bare to see. Even so, the video is far less gruesome than other images of Hamas's murders, torture, rapes and innumerable acts of barbarity on October 7, 2023. Those show what Hamas really is.

Hamas did shock the Western world for a few weeks, but the West quickly forgot. Demonstrations in support of Hamas began the day after the massacres, October 8, before the victims' bodies were cold, and swept across the US, Australia and Europe. A wave of anti-Semitism not seen since World War II has accompanied the protests.

The attention of the mainstream media and Western politicians quickly turned from the slaughtered wounded and kidnapped Israelis to the Palestinian inhabitants of the Gaza Strip.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's response to the massacre of 1,200 of his people and the abduction of 240 more – which he called "equivalent to 29 9/11s in one day and the equivalent of 50,000 Americans slaughtered — burned, maimed, raped, beheaded — and 10,000 Americans taken hostage, including mothers and children" -- was immediately treated as unacceptable and unjustified.

The death figures given by the "Gaza Ministry of Health" under the rule of Hamas -- and which Hamas was soon forced to "correct" -- were quoted by many journalists as if they did not come from a terrorist group.

That Hamas used human shields, deliberately placing their own civilians in harm's way to increase Gaza's death toll -- a strategy which Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar admitted -- was left aside.

"We have the Israelis right where we want them," the Wall Street Journal reported Sinwar writing, calling the Gazans' deaths "necessary sacrifices."

Instead, as Sinwar planned, the Israeli army was accused of deliberately killing women and children.

Israel's war goals were portrayed as impossible to achieve, as if to encourage Israelis to give up defending themselves.

After initially showing support for Israel and supplying weapons to its army, the US, after grumblings from Democrat anti-Israel activists in Michigan, quickly slid towards open hostility to the Israel's defense.

Prominent European leaders, faced with street protests, expressed hostility to Israel and began delivering slanderous accusations against it. "These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed... there is no reason for that," French President Emmanuel Macron said on November 11, 2023. He knew perfectly well, as did the world, that Hamas was responsible for those deaths. He chose not to say that.

On November 16, European Union foreign policy representative Josep Borrell scandalously tried to establish an equivalence between the terrorist group Hamas, who were the aggressors, and the Israeli Defense Forces trying to defend against them. "One horror does not justify another horror", he said.

"We are witnessing a killing of civilians that is unparalleled and unprecedented in any conflict since I am secretary-general", UN Secretary-General António Guterres inaccurately intoned on November 21. He avoided talking about the more than 34,000 civilian deaths caused by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the war in Syria or the ongoing civil war in Sudan, also leaving thousands dead. He wanted to target only one country: Israel.

Soon, false accusations against Israel became even more odious. On March 21, 2024, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken implied that Israel could become "indistinguishable" from Hamas.

On March 25, Macron was the first to accuse Israel of a "war crime."

Borrell, again, although he could not have ignored that there is and has been no shortage of food in Gaza, just corruption in distributing it, accused Israel of using "hunger as a weapon of war. "Nothing can justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people", Guterres said, pointing at Israel instead of the Hamas, who were shooting at civilians trying to take the aid for whom it was intended.

By having said that Gaza's people are experiencing "severe levels of acute food insecurity", but without accusing Hamas, Blinken rustled up an unfounded accusation against Israel. Having said in a recent interview that it is "uncertain" whether Israel commits war crimes, Biden suggested that Israel might be committing war crimes.

The accusations made by International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan against Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant were also totally unfounded. A war crime is the use of cruel treatment, torture or intentional attacks against a civilian population. Israel's actions do not fall into those categories. A crime against humanity is a widespread attack launched against an entire civilian population.

Hamas not only uses its civilians as human shields, but may be the first government in history that wants to see its own people killed in order to blame another country, Israel, for their deaths. Meanwhile, Israel goes out of its way – seriously risking the lives of its soldiers – not to commit any crimes against humanity or indiscriminately bomb, as Russia does in Ukraine.

"Israel implemented more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any nation in history," wrote John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point. How come no one takes any notice?

The demands of Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice, saying that "Israel must... immediately stop its military offensive" in the name of the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" are also unfounded. A genocide is the deliberate mass killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. Israel is not committing any genocidal actions; in fact it goes out of its way and endangers the lives of its own soldiers not to.

Behind this massive Jew-hate and outright lies appears to be a propaganda operation which has continued to gain ground for several decades.

For decades, many of the countries of the Arab world have wanted to erase Israel from the map. Each time, they have failed. Their project consists of trying to destroy the Jewish state and kill every Jew, as Hamas' 1988 Charter requires. No one in a Western country could support it without being seen as an anti-Semite.

A radical change occurred, however, in 1964. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded and the myth of "Palestinian cause" invented. Zuheir Mohsen (زهير محسن) a leading PLO member responsible for Damur massacre, admitted:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.

"Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva, and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

[James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977]

A "national liberation struggle" was, in fact, fabricated by Soviet Union's KGB, according to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served from 1972-1978 as deputy chief of Romania's foreign intelligence service and advisor to Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Pacepa said:

• "The PLO and the Palestinian Narrative was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for 'liberation' organizations."
• "First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, and replaced them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was, therefore, a Palestinian by birth."
• "According to [Soviet leader Yuri] Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep... We had only to keep repeating our themes — that the United States and Israel were "fascist, imperial-Zionist countries" bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidels' occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our characterization of the U.S. Congress as a rapacious Zionist body aiming to turn the world into a Jewish fiefdom."

So, the "Palestinian people" appeared. Israel was no longer described as a small Jewish state besieged by much larger, powerful Arab countries filled with despicable intentions. Israel was suddenly presented as an "imperialist" power oppressing a small deprived people and supposedly having stolen their land. Anti-Israeli terrorist acts were presented as "resistance". The aim was to seduce the West; and quickly seduced it was. The "struggle of the Palestinian people" quickly became a sacred cause for many political parties and movements in Western Europe.

Egypt and Syria, with their large armies launched a war against Israel in 1973. It was the last large-scale conventional war for Israel. Afterwards, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) took center stage. The group, benefitting from the support of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, used terrorism and waged a war of influence. The "Palestinian cause" gained ground.

Western European leaders, then some American leaders, said that the Palestinian people deserve a state. Israel had refused to negotiate with a terrorist PLO. But finally in 1993, yielding to mounting pressure, the Israeli government under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin began secret negotiations with the PLO, in order to reach an agreement.

In 1993, the Oslo Accord was signed. Israel recognized the PLO as the "legitimate representative" of the "Palestinian people" and agreed to give to transfer authority over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the PLO, which became the Palestinian Authority (PA).

An illusory "peace process" began. In reality, it was a war process. The PA areas became a base for bloody anti-Israeli attacks which did not diminish in intensity until a security barrier, begun in 2002, was mostly completed in 2007.

Two Israeli prime ministers proposed the creation of a Palestinian state: Ehud Barak in 2000, Ehud Olmert in 2008. Each time, the leaders of the Palestinian Authority refused, without so much as a counteroffer. In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unconditionally donated the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority, in the hope that they would build a "Singapore on the Mediterranean". Two years later, Hamas forcibly ousted the PA from power and seized control of Gaza.

Since 2009, with the exception of an 18-month period from June 2021 to November 2022, Benjamin Netanyahu has been prime minister of Israel. Called by Andrew Roberts "The Churchill of the Middle East," he evidently sees that Israel has no "partner for peace". Netanyahu has stated that any resumption of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority would need to be conditioned on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which the PA does not seem particularly eager to do. International attempts to relaunch negotiations have led nowhere.

During that time, the PA successfully used international institutions to delegitimize Israel and disseminate an extremely falsified version of the history of the Middle East. In 2011, "Palestine" became a member of UNESCO in 2011, even as the PA continued supporting terrorism and is therefore a terrorist entity. This reward for terrorism marked the first time that a terrorist entity was granted a seat in an organization purporting to promote world peace.

A year later, "Palestine" was granted "non-member observer state" status at the United Nations: the first time that a terrorist entity achieved such status.

By 2012, Hamas had transformed the Gaza Strip into another terrorist entity.

In 2015, the Palestinian Authority became a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- the first time a terrorist entity was admitted into an institution established to combat war crimes and crimes against humanity, which include not just terrorism, but also support for it. Although there is no Palestinian state, the PA nevertheless joined the ICC under the name of the "State of Palestine".

So-called human rights organizations, as well as the media and so-called educational institutions, have been complicit.

American universities and colleges have received donations "that have no recorded nor reported dates of receipts" currently estimated at $22 billion. University World News reported in December 2023:

"More than 50% of this has come from authoritarian and antidemocratic Middle East governments, according to the veteran accountant hired on the recommendation of international accounting firm KPMG..."

After these billions, in almost all universities in the US, the history of the Middle East is taught in accordance with the "Palestinian cause". No one says that this "cause" was invented in 1964.

Even though the Palestinian Authority is still a terrorist entity, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, now in the nineteenth year of his four-year term, is received in the Western world as if he were a legitimate political leader.

Although PA officials have never said that they are ready to live in peace alongside Israel, and have even affirmed their support for the atrocities committed on October 7, most leaders in the West continue insist that they want the creation of a Palestinian State entrusted to the PA.

The Biden administration rarely, if ever, criticizes the Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas and its sponsors Qatar and Iran.

The Biden administration also leaves aside that the Palestinian Authority -- which pays its people for life if they murder Jews – is still a terrorist entity, and instead treats it as if it were a legitimate interlocutor.

Three European countries, Spain, Ireland and Norway, recently decided to recognize a "State of Palestine" and joined the 143 countries which already do. As the State of Palestine does not actually exist, deciding to "recognize" it will not bring it into being. On the contrary, the announcement will reinforce the belligerent actions of the Palestinian Authority and the leeriness of the Israelis. The Israelis clearly saw the Palestinians violate an official ceasefire on October 7; murder, rape, torture, kidnap and start an unprovoked war; then complain to the international community when the Israelis were inconsiderate enough to fight back.

Ironically, Europe's insistence that Israel accept an openly seething, genocidal state on its doorstep will understandably delay the existence of such a state.

These countries in Europe will not have to live with the consequences of such a state next to them. On top of that, to insist that Israel fight under rules more appropriate for gin rummy than for combat, has caused a war that would have ended weeks ago to be dragged out interminably. More importantly, their stance has made their real motivations look distastefully suspect.

If Spain, Ireland or Norway actually had to live next door to a Hamas or an ISIS or an Al Qaeda, their recognition of a state might not have been as fast or enthusiastic. Recognizing a terror state as supposedly legitimate will simply delay that state being born.

"I personally favor the creation of a Palestinian state as a consequence of making best efforts to end terrorism, not as a reward for increasing terrorism as a carefully calculated tactic to achieve statehood", wrote the great lawyer Alan Dershowitz, in The Case for Israel.

The haste of Spain, Ireland and Norway can only lead Hamas leaders and their supporters to think that terrorism works and achieves results. Just wait until they try it again in Europe, especially after Iran has its nuclear bomb.

A recent poll shows that 71% of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank support the October 7 massacre. If elections were held today in the territories governed by the Palestinian Authority and in the Gaza Strip, Hamas would win triumphantly.

The 2017 revised Hamas charter, rumored to be less anti-Semitic than its 1988 Hamas charter, nevertheless states that the Zionist entity must be destroyed by the "armed resistance". That, ostensibly, is supposed to be an improvement.

If Hamas manages to survive the current war – as its patrons, Qatar, Iran and the Biden administration apparently wish -- Hamas will be able to continue organizing terrorist acts. In fact, Hamas official Ghazi Hamad has vowed to do exactly that:

"Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation, and must be finished. We are not ashamed to say this, with full force.... We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.

Currently, despite pressures, betrayals and attempts at destabilization, Netanyahu stands firm and fights. He appears under no illusion about what will happen if Hamas, after the fighting is over, is allowed to continue as a terrorist threat.

The Biden administration, meanwhile continues to betray and defame Israel, and is evidently either unwilling to pressure Qatar and Iran to get Hamas to lay down their arms, return the hostages, and stop.

And Hamad disclosed this month that Egypt and Qatar have exerted no pressure on Hamas whatsoever to accept Biden's proposed ceasefire, and that media reports about threats to expel Hamas leaders from Qatar are false.

Of course, Hamas, Qatar and Iran do not want to stop; they want to have the international community and America tell Israel to stop -- permanently -- and leave them free to continue their attacks.

Biden now seems to want an end to the war as quickly as possible, any end. A war apparently does not correspond to his election campaign agenda. On May 31, he presented a plan, falsely calling it "Israeli", which was actually a Hamas-Qatari-Egyptian plan, calling for the complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the release of "a number of hostages" (not all) in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian terrorists by Israel, and a full and complete ceasefire.

The following day, Netanyahu had to clarify on X:

"Israel's conditions for ending the war have not changed: The destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages, and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel".

On June 3, US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller had to admit that the plan was "almost identical" to Hamas's proposals. On June 6, Hamas rejected it.

Biden's determination to end the war without letting Israel win continues. His apparent plan to increase pressure on Netanyahu and bring down his government is in full swing. This week, an opposition party that was part of the Israeli war cabinet resigned, with its leader and calling for "new elections", professedly because there was no day-after-the-war plan. You could probably bet there is, but thank goodness that Netanyahu knows better than to talk about it, so that the jackals currently interfering in the Middle East will not be able to start interfering in that too.

Israel is in major danger from Lebanon, where Iran would like one of its other proxies, Hezbollah, to finish what Hamas could not. Iran doubtless sees a closing window of opportunity from a US administration that has rescued it from impoverishment and is not remotely a threat. It is likely also trying to achieve nuclear weapons breakout before the US election as well. For the moment, Israel can no longer consider the United States, distracted as it is by a well-funded and well-radicalized base that is anti-Jew, anti-Israel and anti-American, as a reliable ally.

America's November 5 election will be particularly crucial for the future of Israel and the Middle East, as well as for the survival of the US against adversaries such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

There are those in the US administration who say that even if Hamas is dismantled militarily, Palestinians will still remain indoctrinated. One might have said the same after World War II about the populations of Germany and Japan. There are probably still Nazis in Germany but they are not able to do much about it. After ISIS was defeated, the ideology of its former members probably remained the same, but they are no longer a physical threat.

Currently, Biden is trying to "sell" his Hamas-Qatari-Egyptian plan back to Hamas through pressure from the UN. Hamas, unsurprisingly, refused for the umpteenth time, to accept its own plan.

Hamas is interested only in a "permanent ceasefire" by Israel, not a temporary pause. Why should they agree to a pause when they see the whole world attacking Israel? To them, everyone is roughing up Israel: it looks as if they are winning. Now the US is reportedly trying to cut a separate deal to release the five American hostages, leaving the other 120 hostages, and Israel, high and dry. Some believe that at least a third of them have been killed. That would be the ultimate triumph: having the US grant the aggressor, the terrorist group Hamas, a big reward for its massacre, to induce it to go to sleep before the November election.

As far as the Saudis are concerned, the last thing they want is a Palestinian state. They just cannot say so publicly.

The Trump administration crafted the biggest step toward peace in the Middle East in decades: the Abraham Accords. It was expected, before the election of Biden, that the Abraham Accords would lead to the signing of more new peace treaties between Israel and countries of the Sunni Arab world.

By 2021, the mullahs' regime in Iran had been economically asphyxiated and could no longer finance Hamas and Hezbollah, and those two terrorist groups would not have been able to carry out an attack against Israel. For four years, Israel's enemies were largely powerless and silent. It would be so helpful for the Free World, the US, and even the indoctrinated, abysmally governed Palestinians, to have those policies back.

 

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20706/israel-in-increasing-danger

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Election integrity advocates score wins in majority of lawsuits ahead of November - Natalia Mittelstadt

 

by Natalia Mittelstadt

Out of five lawsuits, three have been wins for election integrity advocates and two are ongoing.

 

Several election lawsuits filed recently with significant impact on the 2024 presidential election have been decided in favor of election integrity proponents, ensuring laws remain enforced ahead of the November election.

The lawsuits filed focused on candidate eligibility, different changes in law, and alleged violations of election laws. Most of them have resulted in wins for election integrity, while two are ongoing.

In 2020, there were as many as 400 lawsuits brought by both Republicans and Democrats regarding election procedures and laws as election administration was quickly changed during the COVID-19 lockdowns leading up to the presidential election. All of the lawsuits this year greatly impact how the 2024 presidential election will be conducted. 

Marshall Trigg, junior counsel for Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), wrote for The Daily Caller last month regarding recent election integrity legal wins, “Legislation has been tightened, highly skilled lawyers have taken over cases, COVID hysteria is gone and there are far fewer legal justifications for evading the core issues in the courtroom.”

Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that former President Donald Trump could remain on the 2024 presidential ballot in a decision that came one day before the Colorado Republican primary after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the top Republican contender was ineligible.

In the case of Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson, the Colorado respondents argued that the former president should be taken off the primary ballot because he allegedly "incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021."  

Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado brought the lawsuit. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a ruling of a lower court, deciding that under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment's "insurrection clause" Trump was disqualified from holding the office of president. Trump appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the basis that "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates."

Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Chapman 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in March that Pennsylvania may enforce state law requiring envelopes for mail-in ballots to be dated and include the voter's signature.

In that case, the plaintiff sued the then-acting secretary of the commonwealth in 2022 regarding Pennsylvania’s decision to void mail-in ballots that are either missing a date on the outer return envelopes or have an incorrect date.

Pennsylvania counties were ordered by a lower court following a Republican lawsuit in 2022 to reject undated or incorrectly dated mail-in ballots. The issue was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

After a three-judge panel of the circuit court fuled in favor of the law, the Pennsylvania NAACP requested a rehearing en banc but was denied by the court.

Libertarian Party of MS v Wetzel et. al 

In February, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Mississippi Libertarian Party, challenging a state law that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. In Mississippi, absentee ballots could be received as long as five days following the election. 

Judicial Watch argues that under a recently enacted federal law, there cannot be an extension of Election Day barring any catastrophic events. 

The Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party also filed a lawsuit challenging this election law, and the court consolidated the two cases. The case is ongoing.

Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and Eric Lovelis v. Maricopa County

In February, America First Legal (AFL) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and a voter against Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County recorder. 

The lawsuit alleged that Maricopa County has violated multiple state election laws, such as refusing to maintain chain of custody for ballots and requiring in-person ballot curing for voters, as well as using artificial intelligence for signature verification on ballots instead of only humans.

AFL withdrew the lawsuit and filed a new complaint against the counties of Maricopa, Coconino, and Yavapai in a court in Yavapai County.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled last month in favor of Maricopa County’s motion that the lawsuit against the county should not take place in Yavapai County but instead in Maricopa County.

Susan Liebert et. al v. Don Millis et. al

Last month, a Wisconsin federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to toss out the witness requirement for absentee voting.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson on Thursday granted summary judgment against a lawsuit brought by Democratic-aligned election lawyer Marc Elias' law firm that attempted to cancel the witness requirement for voters who cast absentee ballots. Elias Law Group argued that the witness requirement violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a losing party 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but as of yet no such notice has been filed. 

Natalia Mittelstadt

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/top-election-integrity-lawsuits-result-mostly-wins-ahead-november

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House Judiciary Republicans take aim at ‘climate cartel’ on accusations of antitrust activities - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

"You are evil, and what you are attempting to do and the violations of law that you are engaged in is absolutely stunning,” Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., told the panel of witnesses at the hearing.

 

A new front in the war against environment, social and governance (ESG) was opened this month as House Judiciary Committee Republicans released a report accusing left-wing environmental activists and major financial institutions of colluding to force American companies to adopt anti-fossil fuel policies. 

The GOP committee members followed up the report with a subcommittee hearing last Wednesday in which they grilled representatives from some of those institutions they accuse of being part of a “climate cartel” violating antitrust laws, a charge the witnesses denied. 

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., chair of the Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law subcommittee, said that this “climate cartel” expressly requires investors who join them to pressure the companies they invest in to reach net zero emissions and adopt their desired left-wing policies.

Asset owners and managers, Massie said, then use the investments they control to force companies to disclose carbon emissions and adopt governance mechanisms that enforce climate commitments, even though these are bad for investors and consumers. 

“The climate cartel engages in a series of escalating pressure tactics to force American companies to act against their own self interest and adopt its desired left wing policies,” Massie said. 

Companies that go against this pressure, Massie continued, are targeted with shareholder resolutions demanding that the companies take the actions that the “climate cartel” wants them to take. 

As an example, he pointed to the successful effort in 2021 by the anti-fossil fuel activist group Engine No. 1 to replace three board members at ExxonMobil. 

This amounts to, Massie said, anti-competitive collusion that aims to reduce the number of flights Americans take, get Americans to cut their beef consumption, and to keep fossil fuels in the ground. 

Rep, J. Luis Correa, D-Calif., ranking member of the subcommittee, called the accusations an “attack on shareholders.” He argued that shareholders are owners in a company and have legal rights to hold corporations they invest in accountable. 

“This is called free enterprise. And we should encourage it is pro-competitive, pro-democratic and pro-free market,” Correa said. 

The witnesses, which included a representative from California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), (CalPERS), which oversees $485.8 billion in investments, and Arjuna Capital, which Managing Partner Natasha Lamb said had $500 million in assets under management. 

The witnesses argued that what is being described as collusion is just groups of investors and managers sharing information and collaborating. 

Mindy Lubber, CEO of Ceres, described the work of the nonprofit she heads as working “with investors and companies to make the business case for action as they address some of the greatest global financial challenges facing our world today, challenges like climate change, water scarcity and pollution.” 

Therefore, she argued, it’s part of their fiduciary duty to manage these risks. 

Cajole and coordinate

Ceres, which has over 200 member investors with $44 trillion in assets under management, was the focus of a 2023 report by Consumers’ Research, a consumer advocacy nonprofit. The report accused Ceres of being a “globe-spanning pressure group” that works to “cajole and coordinate members of the finance industry into pushing harmful, anti-consumer ‘net zero’ targets at every major public company in the country.” 

The group has been urging the Judiciary Committee to investigate Ceres for collusion. Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, told Just the News the hearing was encouraging. 

“We're exceedingly pleased to see the House Committee taking this on. We think it's an incredibly important area to be investigated,” Hild said. 

Hild also disputed the witnesses’ characterization of their activities as being just a matter of collaboration between colleagues. He said that they’re getting together to reward and punish companies according to how much they go along with their agenda. 

“When you're talking about financial services companies, who make up large portions of the market share, colluding in the market to use their market share to do that, that's called an antitrust conspiracy,” Hild said. 

Focus companies

With regard to the impacts to consumers, the Republicans on the subcommittee grilled the witnesses on whether or not their goal is to get oil companies to reduce the amount of oil and gas they produce. 

Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., said that what the witnesses described as “engagement” is “designed to fundamentally change business and industries to the detriment of consumers.” This makes the activities, she said, not collaboration, but collusion. 

Hageman said that the modern world has seen in the last 100 years “mind-blowing” technological advances resulting in increased life expectancy and low infant mortality rates. 

“There's one reason why we have seen the prosperity in the last 100 years that’s brought this. It’s never been rivaled in world history. And that's because of the commercial production of affordable energy. Every single one of you and your organizations want to destroy that. You are evil, and what you are attempting to do and the violations of law that you are engaged in is absolutely stunning,” Hageman said. 

Hageman asked Dan Bienvenue, interim chief investment officer of CalPERS, about the goals of Climate Action 100+, an investor group of more than 700 investors and 170 companies, which CalPERS helped found. 

Climate Action 100+, as it explains on its website, has 170 companies that it considers “key to driving the global net zero emissions transition. It focuses on these companies for “engagement,” and 42 of those companies are oil and gas producers. 

Hageman recounted statements made in congressional testimony and depositions by leaders of the various groups the committee report calls the “climate cartel.” These statements explained that the goals of net zero emissions require fossil fuel companies to reduce or eliminate their production. 

“One of the objectives of the Climate Action 100 is for these focus companies to reduce their emissions. Is that correct?” Hageman asked. 

“Climate change is something that is happening,” Bienvenue answered, and Hageman restated the question. Bienvenue said that the goal of Climate Action 100 is to get companies to reduce their emissions. 

Hageman asked Lubber if Ceres and Climate Action have targeted the livestock industry as an industry that must reduce its emissions, which she said would require them to reduce beef production. 

“There are ways to do farming, and there are ways to create energy that are less greenhouse gas emitting. And many of the oil and gas companies that you were talking about, it's not about not producing. It's about creating options and transforming their technologies,” Lubber replied. 

Seismic shift

Hild said that the witnesses’ claims that climate change is a risk and that addressing that risk is part of their fiduciary responsibility ignores many other risks that come with reducing emissions. 

“They seem to think that's the only risk in the world. I don't hear them crowing about supply-chain risk with China. If we were ever again to a hot or lukewarm conflict, or even or even a cold economic conflict with them, it's going to pose risks,” Hild said, adding that these pressure groups exist only to push for a far-left progressive agenda. 

Hild said the pushback against ESG efforts are having an impact, but he said it needs to be measured with balance. Consumers contacting their elected officials is having a “seismic shift,” he said, and they shouldn’t feel that they can’t go up against these big Wall Street firms. 

However, Hild said that proponents of ESG are maneuvering to advance their agenda in a “much quieter conspiracy.” A lot of effort has been made on the state level, where legislatures have passed anti-ESG measures. Hild said, however, ESG firms are now promising to bring more investment capital to those states if they just drop their anti-ESG efforts. 

“We can't take our foot off the gas and assume that we've won the ultimate victory,” Hild said. “We should absolutely be encouraged by the fact that the momentum has shifted in our direction. We just need to finish this fight so that our markets remain adulterated with this kind of obnoxious, collusive behavior that's anti-consumer and contributes to inflation.”

 
Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/judiciary-committee-gop-members-grill-climate-cartel-accusations-antitrust

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Think twice? Bar group tells members it’s OK to criticize, but don’t dare call Trump conviction 'partisan' - Jonathan Turley

 

by Jonathan Turley

Connecticut Bar Association makes chilling claim that calling the case one of political prosecution has 'no place in the public discourse'

 

This week, I received emails from Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) members about a message posted by President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto warning them about criticizing the prosecutions of former President Donald Trump. The message from the bar leadership is chilling for those lawyers who view cases like the one in Manhattan as a raw political prosecution. While the letter does not outright state that such criticism will be considered unethical conduct, it states that the criticism has "no place in the public discourse" and calls on members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.

The statement begins by warning members that "words matter" but then leaves the ramifications for bar members dangling on how it might matter to them. They simply note that some comments will be viewed as "cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric."

According to the CBA, it is now considered reckless and unprofessional to make analogies to show trials or to question the integrity of the legal system or the judges in such cases.

For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan for refusing to recuse himself from the case is considered beyond the pale. Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to President Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict). I have been more critical of his rulings, which I believe were both biased and wrong.

'DESTRUCTION OF DUE PROCESS': RAND PAUL LEADS DOZENS OF SENATORS CONDEMNING TRUMP ‘SHOW TRIAL’ IN NY

Former President Donald Trump headlines a Republican National Committee spring donor retreat, in Palm Beach, Fla., May 4, 2024.  (Donald Trump 2024 campaign)

Yet, the CBA is warning lawyers that such comments can cross the line. The letter assures members that they are free to criticize, but warns that attacking the ethics of a judge or the motivations behind these cases is dangerous and could spark violence.

I have previously denounced overheated rhetoric and share the concern over how such rage rhetoric can encourage violence. After the verdict, I immediately encouraged people not to yield to their anger, but to trust our legal system. I believe that the verdict in New York may ultimately be overturned. I also noted that I do not blame the jury, but rather the judge and the prosecutors for an unfounded and unfair trial.

Of course, the concern over rage rhetoric runs across our political spectrum. While rarely criticized in the media, we have seen an escalation of reckless rhetoric from the left. For example, Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that "when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified."

TRUMP TRIAL WAS ‘ABUSE’ OF THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM

My concern is not with the plea for lawyers to take care that their comments do not encourage such "aggressive tactics." The problem is the suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicization of our legal system.

Judge Juan Merchan presided over former President Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York City. Trump's sentencing is scheduled for July 11, after he was found guilty of all 34 counts last month. (AP Photos)

Like many, I believe that the Manhattan case was a flagrant example of such weaponization of the legal system and should be denounced by all lawyers. It is a return, in my view, to the type of political prosecution once common in this country.

For those lawyers who view such prosecutions as political, they are speaking out in defense of what they believe is the essence of blind justice in America. What is "reckless" to the CBA, is righteous to others. Notably, CBA officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr, or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years.

Likewise, the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecutions and not the continued attacks on conservative jurists like Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published warnings about those calling conservative justices profanities, attacking their religion, or labeling them "partisan hacks" or even other "insurrectionist sympathizers." Liberal activists have been calling for stopping conservative jurists "by any means necessary."

In Connecticut, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative justices to rule correctly or face "seismic changes." That did not appear to worry the bar. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also declared in front of the Supreme Court, "I want to tell you, [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The letter goes further and suggests that lawyers should speak publicly in support of trials like the one in Manhattan, a view that ignores the deep misgivings over the motivations and means used in New York to target an unpopular figure in this city. You have the top CBA officials calling on lawyers to take a public position that is opposed by many lawyers and citizens in defending the integrity of these prosecutions. Imagine the response if the Idaho State Bar called on its lawyers to speak out against these cases and declared that it is reckless or unprofessional to defend them.

I expect that, in the very liberal CBA, the letter is hardly needed. Indeed, this letter is likely to be quite popular. Yet, I would have thought that CBA officials would have taken greater care to respect the divergent opinions on these trials and the need to avoid any statements that might chill the exercise of free speech.

Ironically, the letter only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda. These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to "sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong." Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecutions like the one in Manhattan.

TRUMP 'DID NOT DISPARAGE THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE,' WISCONSIN LAWMAKER SAYS

Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower in New York City, after being found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree on May 30, 2024. (Felipe Ramales for Fox News Digital)

As discussed in my new book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," critics of political prosecutions under the Crown and during the Adams Administrations were often threatened with disbarment or other legal actions for questioning the integrity or motives of judges or prosecutors. It is not enough to say "well that was then and this is now." The point is that the bar association also has a duty to protect the core rights that define our legal system, particularly the right of free speech.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Again, these officials are not threatening action against critics of these cases. However, as evidenced by the emails in my inbox, it is being taken as a warning by many who have misgivings over these prosecutions.

Our legal system has nothing to fear from criticism. Indeed, free speech strengthens our system by exposing divisions and encouraging dialogue. It is orthodoxy and speech intolerance that represent the most serious threats to that system.

Here is the CBA message in its entirety:

Dear Members,

Words matter. Reckless words attacking the integrity of our judicial system matter even more.

In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a "sham," a "hoax," and "rigged"; our justice system is "corrupt and rigged"; the judge was "corrupt" and "highly unethical"; and, that the jury was "partisan" and "precooked." Others claimed the trial was "America’s first communist show trial"—a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.

These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless. Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch. Indeed, such statements have resulted in threats to those fulfilling their civic obligations by sitting on the jury, as evidenced by social media postings seeking to identify the names and addresses of the anonymous jurors and worse, in several cases urging that the jurors be shot or hanged. As importantly, such statements strike at the very integrity of the third branch of government and sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.

To be clear, free speech includes criticism. There is and should be no prohibition on commenting on the decision to bring the prosecution, the prosecution’s legal theory, the judge’s rulings, or the verdict itself. But headlines’ grabbing, baseless allegations made by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in the public discourse.

It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort.

Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system.

 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage" (Simon and Schuster, 2024).

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. 

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/think-twice-bar-group-tells-members-ok-criticize-dont-dare-call-trump-conviction-partisan

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Europe Between Hope and Fear - Amir Taheri

 

by Amir Taheri

In the first mass rally against the success of the National Rally in the election, thousands of "progressive" militants gathered in the Place de la République to "defend French values". However, there was not a single French flag in sight. Instead, we had a forest of Palestinian flags with slogans against the EU leadership, US President Joe Biden, and, of course, Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

• The federal tendency runs counter to the European political tradition based on national sovereignty. In fact, Western Europe, the heartland of the EU, is the birthplace of the very concept of the nation-state, built on the ruins of various empires, a model subsequently adopted by almost all other countries.

• In the first mass rally against the success of the National Rally in the election, thousands of "progressive" militants gathered in the Place de la République to "defend French values". However, there was not a single French flag in sight. Instead, we had a forest of Palestinian flags with slogans against the EU leadership, US President Joe Biden, and, of course, Benjamin Netanyahu.

• Thus the European Union is under attack from both the radical right and the ultra-left, while the center-left is shrinking and the center-right flirting with radical right groups.

• European democracies face the danger that Hobbes warned against two centuries ago: the Leviathan, i.e. the state, being put to death with a thousand cuts. Political fragmentation, encouraged by the proportional representation system, creates scores of small but ultra-active groups wedded to niche ideas, not to say obsessions.

• The latest EU election showed at least one thing: The EU is becoming increasingly unpopular. Under growing pressure from the fringes both of right and left, it is doubling down on some of the policies that occasioned its unpopularity.

(Image source: iStock/Getty Images)

The results of this month's European Parliament elections have prompted two reactions from political analysts in the old continent.

One reaction could be described as the ostrich option, burying one's head in the sand and praying that the storm will blow over. The other could be labeled apocalyptic, pointing at the four terrible horsemen riding across the horizon.

The ostrich party points out that despite the successes scored by radical right parties, the next European Parliament will still be dominated by right-of-center and social-democratic outfits stuck in the past and determined to maintain the status quo.

The apocalyptic analysts, however, warn of looming mayhem, some even claiming that fascism is coming back to Europe.

This month's election was the latest of a series that have pointed to some of the EU's structural problems without posing them as key issues in a broad debate about the future.

One such problem is the EU's growing tendency towards federalism, a hidden but never admitted desire that has set the course for the union since the old days of Jacques Delors.

What started as a grouping of sovereign powers coming together to cooperate in economic and trade issues has morphed into a super-state, expanding into new fields such as science, technology, human rights issues, the environment, and increasingly military affairs, boosted by the current war in Ukraine.

The federal tendency runs counter to the European political tradition based on national sovereignty. In fact, Western Europe, the heartland of the EU, is the birthplace of the very concept of the nation-state, built on the ruins of various empires, a model subsequently adopted by almost all other countries.

Europe, by which we mean Western and northern chunks of the continent, benefited from the diversity in political and cultural structures by welcoming different modes of thinking, believing, and doing things.

The eastern chunks of the continent, dominated by the Russian Empire, however, remained stuck in time by promoting uniformity in the name of unity.

While Western Europe welcomed persecuted thinkers, artists and other immigrants, along with foreign ways of thinking and foreign capital, the eastern portion of the continent tried to retain a fixed identity through pogroms, as expulsions. The result was centuries of despotism and the democratic deficit that continues to this day.

Many critics of the European Union describe themselves as sovereigntists, opposed to a European super-state as a new version of empire.

However, they forget a key feature of the classical European sovereign state, i.e. its openness to immigrants and different ideas, cultural currents, and faiths.

Modern-day sovereigntists reject the idea of a closed empire but wish to rule the nation-state as a mini-empire closed on itself. In at least half of the 27 EU member states, the sovereigntists based their discourse of fear of a "great replacement" on the claim that mass immigration is fundamentally altering the ethno-genetic composition of the European populations.

According to some studies, this fear is shared by many second- and third-generation Europeans from immigrant backgrounds. In France, the rising star of the sovereigntist movement, the National Rally, is Jordan Bardella, a second-generation Italian immigrant. In Scandinavia, second-generation Turkish and Afghan immigrants are among the most active anti-immigration militants.

Paradoxically, the anti-immigrant upsurge comes at a time when net immigration to the European Union is at its lowest for more than two decades.

While anti-Islam and/or Muslim groups form part of the anti-immigration constituency, we also witness the emergence of what might labeled Islamophilia among radical leftist groups.

Touring several polling stations in Paris last Sunday, we saw groups of radical left militants with Palestinian flags and kaffiyehs calling for support for candidates of the pro-Putin France Unbowed (La France insoumise), whose campaign posters call for "Immediate Ceasefire in Gaza".

In the first mass rally against the success of the National Rally in the election, thousands of "progressive" militants gathered in the Place de la République to "defend French values". However, there was not a single French flag in sight. Instead, we had a forest of Palestinian flags with slogans against the EU leadership, US President Joe Biden, and, of course, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Thus the European Union is under attack from both the radical right and the ultra-left, while the center-left is shrinking and the center-right flirting with radical right groups.

European democracies face the danger that Hobbes warned against two centuries ago: the Leviathan, i.e. the state, being put to death with a thousand cuts. Political fragmentation, encouraged by the proportional representation system, creates scores of small but ultra-active groups wedded to niche ideas, not to say obsessions.

In any normal democracy, those actively involved in politics represent between 3 and 5 percent of the population.

The proportional representation system enables them to secure a seat at the table with a small portion of the votes.

The fact that almost half of those eligible to vote do not go to the polls makes it easier for ultra-active minorities to secure a larger chunk of power. In France, for example, the National Rally won 31 percent of the votes cast by half of the electorate, but its victory prompted President Emmanuel Macron, recently trying to act as a one-man government, to dissolve the National Assembly and call for fresh general elections, a decision that even his Prime Minister Gabriel Attal didn't agree with.

The latest EU election showed at least one thing: The EU is becoming increasingly unpopular. Under growing pressure from the fringes both of right and left, it is doubling down on some of the policies that occasioned its unpopularity.

The seemingly endless war in Ukraine, the unnamed flames of inflation, the failure to redefine globalization, the temptation of economic nationalism, the question mark that hangs over the alliance with the United States, the inability to decide whether China is a promise or a threat, and a series of recent corruption scandals have led the EU into deep waters.

Almost five years ago, a combination of the same factors led to Brexit in Great Britain with the results we know. In most 27 remaining members of the EU, Brexit is seen as a warning. French supporters of leaving the EU collected just over one percent of the votes in this month's elections. However, the only enthusiastically "European" list, led by the Socialist Raphael Glucksman didn't reach 14 percent -- something to write home about.

All in all, not a good day for the aging union.

This article originally appeared in 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. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20705/europe-between-hope-and-fear

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Shouting match ensues between senior Arab officials at Blinken meeting - report - Walla

 

by Walla

The sharp confrontation reflects the skepticism regarding the planned reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and the internal disputes between the leaders of the Arab world.

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Secretary General of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Hussein al-Sheikh in Ramallah in the West Bank January 31, 2023.

(photo credit: MAJDI MOHAMMED/POOL VIA REUTERS)

A meeting between US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and a group of senior Arab officials about a month ago devolved into an unusual shouting match between the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates and a senior adviser to the Palestinian president, according to five sources familiar with the details of the incident.

The sharp confrontation reflects the skepticism regarding the planned reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and the internal disputes between the leaders of the Arab world. Both of these could undermine the Biden administration's efforts to formulate a strategy for the day after the war in Gaza.

The meeting took place on April 29 in Riyadh, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a common strategy for the day after the war in Gaza. 

In addition to Blinken, the meeting was attended by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Palestinian Minister Hussein al-Sheikh, who is the closest adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

According to the sources, during the meeting Al-Sheikh said that the Palestinian Authority was carrying out reforms and forming a new government as the US and Arab countries requested, but it was not receiving enough political and economic support.

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah looks on as he meets with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (not pictured) at the GCC Secretariat, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 29, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/EVELYN HOCKSTEIN)

Towards the end of the meeting, the UAE's foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, responded by saying that he had not seen any significant reform in the Palestinian Authority, the sources said.

At the meeting, the Emirati foreign minister called the Palestinian leadership "Ali Baba and the Forty Bandits" and claimed that senior officials in the Palestinian Authority are "useless" and therefore "replacing them with each other will only lead to the same result."

"Why should the United Arab Emirates give financial aid to the Palestinian Authority without real reforms?" he asked.

Al-Sheikh shouted back at the Emirati foreign minister and said no one would dictate to the Palestinian Authority how to conduct its reforms, the sources said.

According to the sources, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan tried to calm the heated exchange and said that reforms take time.

But the meeting was already out of control. Both sides shouted at each other to the point where the Emirati minister got up and left the room in anger.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi left the meeting and returned a few minutes later with the UAE foreign minister, who apologized to Blinken for having to witness the infighting.

A senior UAE official confirmed that the Emirati Foreign Minister expressed himself in this way at the meeting and said: "His Excellency added that if the Palestinian Authority gives its residents similar attention as it gives to security coordination with Israel, the Palestinians will be in a much better situation."

Al-Sheikh and the US State Department declined to comment.

Political and personal differences

The tension between the United Arab Emirates and the Palestinian Authority stems from both personal and political differences. For years there has been a rift between the President of the Emirates Mohamed bin Zayed and  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

One of bin Zayed's closest advisers is Mohammed Dahlan, Abbas's main political rival, which increased Abbas's suspicion of the UAE. In the United Arab Emirates, on the other hand, Abbas and the Palestinian leadership were accused of corruption for years. The Palestinian leadership accused the UAE of betraying them after the Emirates normalized relations with Israel in 2020.

Before the appointment of the new Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa, the United Arab Emirates acted against him and emphasized to the Biden administration that he is one of Abbas' associates.

The Emirates pushed to appoint in his place former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad - who is known to be a critic of Abbas.

Walla

Source:https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805319

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Outrage after IDF announces daily ‘humanitarian pauses’ along south Gaza route - JNS

 

by JNS

The move came a day after eight troops were slain in the Strip's southernmost city of Rafah.

 

Palestinians shop for food in Rafah, the southern Gaza Strip. Nov. 13, 2023. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90.

Right-wing ministers in the Israeli government lashed out on Sunday after the Israel Defense Forces announced it would observe daily 11-hour “humanitarian pauses” in its operation against Hamas terrorists along a route in southern Gaza to increase aid shipments into the area.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir criticized the move, claiming it runs contrary to decisions made by the Security Cabinet.

“The one who decided on a ‘tactical truce’ to introduce humanitarian aid, especially at a time when the best of our soldiers are falling in battle, is evil and a fool who should not continue in his position,” he tweeted.

The announcement came a day after eight Israeli troops were slain in the Tel Sultan neighborhood of Rafah city, marking the deadliest day for the IDF in Gaza in six months.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich charged that humanitarian aid, the majority of which is seized by Hamas terrorists, “keeps it in power and may put the achievements of the war down the drain.

“The way the humanitarian effort in the Gaza Strip has been managed, with most aid reaching Hamas and helping it maintain civilian control over the Strip in direct contradiction to the war’s objectives, has been wrong for months,” Smotrich tweeted on Sunday afternoon.

“This morning’s disconnected announcement in the foreign media about a ‘humanitarian pause’ along the aid supply route from Kerem Shalom to the European Hospital in [Khan Yunis in] the center of the Strip did not reflect any change on the ground,” he stressed. “This route has existed since the start of the Rafah operation and is intended to allow the entry of aid by international organizations, in line with the flawed existing approach.

“The IDF chief of staff and defense minister have adamantly refused for six months the only path to victory: Conquering the Strip and temporarily imposing military rule until Hamas is destroyed. Sadly, Prime Minister Netanyahu either doesn’t want to or cannot force this upon them,” claimed the Religious Zionist Party leader.

According to the IDF, the decision to pause fighting between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. along the Salah al-Din Road leading from the Kerem Shalom Crossing north towards Khan Yunis was made following “additional related discussions with the U.N. and international organizations.”

In an English-language statement, the IDF noted that this is another step in the aid efforts carried out by it and the Defense Ministry’s COGAT unit since the start of the war in the Gaza Strip. “The IDF will continue to support humanitarian efforts on the ground,” the army said.

To increase the volume of humanitarian aid entering Gaza and following additional related discussions with the U.N. and international organizations, a local, tactical pause of military activity for humanitarian purposes will take place from 08:00 until 19:00 every day until… pic.twitter.com/QLXNFZsTYZ

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 16, 2024

Just over an hour after the initial announcement on Sunday of the “tactical pauses,” IDF Spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari clarified in Hebrew that “there is no cessation of fighting in the southern Gaza Strip, and the fighting in Rafah continues. In addition, there has been no change regarding the introduction of goods into the Gaza Strip.”

He emphasized: “The axis carrying the goods will be open during the day, in coordination with international organizations, for the transportation of humanitarian aid only.”

In November, Jerusalem agreed to observe hour-long humanitarian pauses in its operation in northern Gaza following pressure from U.S. President Joe Biden. At the time, the IDF downplayed the truce, emphasizing that “these tactical pauses are limited in time and area.”

JNS

Source: https://www.jns.org/idf-announces-daily-11-hour-humanitarian-pauses-in-southern-gaza/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Government extends age cut off for IDF reserve duty amid heavy criticism - Eliav Breuer

 

by Eliav Breuer

The government gave three-month extension of measure to raise the cutoff age for reserve duty from 40 to 41 for regular soldiers and 45 to 46 for officers

 

Reservists train during a battalion wide exercise in the Golan Heights.

(photo credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

Israel's government on Sunday extended by three months a provision to raise the age at which IDF reservists are released from their duties amidst public debate over the division of the burden of service during the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.

The decision, which was set to expire on June 30 but now will expire on September 30, says that regular soldiers must serve until age 41 instead of 40, and officers must serve until age 46 instead of 45. The goal, according to Israel's defense ministry, is to avoid a scenario in which thousands of soldiers are instantly released in the middle of war due to them having reached the cut off age.

The decision was met with both legal and political criticism.

Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon wrote in his legal opinion of the decision that the government was legally prohibited from extending the burden of service for some while maintaining a blanket exemption for the ultra-Orthodox (haredi) public, despite the fact that this exemption was no longer legal and that the state was required to recruit them.

The government initially requested to extend the provision by half a year until the end of 2024. Limon wrote in his opinion that despite the legal difficulties, the state could extend it for just three months in order to meet immediate security demands. According to Limon, this was contingent on the fact that the defense ministry fulfills its commitment to act immediately to "exhaust the manpower potential in the general population, in order to decrease the burden on those who are already serving, and decrease inequality."

The provision is an amendment to a law, and therefore still requires the approval of Israel's Knesset before coming into effect.

SOLDIERS TAKE PART in an operation west of Nablus earlier this week. (credit: NASSER ISHTAYEH/FLASH90)

Opposition leader MK Yair Lapid said in a statement following the decision, "There is no shame. The reservists and taxpayers are collapsing, and [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and the extremists are loading the burden onto them, continuing evading responsibility, and smiling [while doing so]," Lapid said.

IDF Chief of Staff Hertzi Halevi addressed the issue of the haredi draft on Sunday during a situational assessment and tour in the central Gaza Strip, calling it a "clear need."

“We want to expand the base as much as possible - of those who come to enlist, I tell you that there is an opportunity for change in the ultra-Orthodox community, (the base) is not broad enough, but there is a desire for change," Halevi said.

"We want to move forward, not because it's nice, [but] first of all because it's necessary. A battalion that we establish today, will hold a sector in the Jordan Valley, will hold a sector in Judea and Samaria, will hold a defensive position here. Every such battalion that we establish, an ultra-Orthodox battalion, decreases the need for the deployment of many thousands of reservists thanks to the mandatory service people," Halevi said.

The decision came a week after the governing coalition advanced a bill to regulate the issue of the haredi draft, adopting a text that passed its first reading in 2022 and is widely regarded as insufficient to fulfilling the IDF's manpower needs.

Coalition Knesset members explained that the bill will be modified to meet current requirements during preparation in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee (FADC), which will begin its work on the bill on Tuesday. 

Eliav Breuer

Source:https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-806478

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Armenia is on the Front Line of the Global Jihad - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

And it deserves the support of all free people.

 

[Order a copy of Robert Spencer’s forthcoming book, Muhammad: A Critical Biography, by clicking here.]

[Make sure to attend An Evening With Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov in Los Angeles at the Luxe Hotel on June 18, 2024: Register HERE.]

The Qur’an is clear: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39) This amounts to an open-ended declaration of war against those whose religion is not “for Allah,” and since the beginnings of Islam, Muslims have energetically waged that war. In our age, the key flash points of that war, the front lines of the global jihad, can be found in Israel, Nigeria, India, and a state where the jihad is little understood and seldom recognized as such: Armenia.

The 1,400-year history of jihad is one long tale of military aggression, territorial expansion, ethnic cleansing, cultural appropriation, and enslavement. In a few places it was rolled back, but for the most part the jihad has been an illustration of what Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev said of socialism as he sent troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968: “What we have, we hold.” In the case of Islam, this is due in large part because of its utter ruthlessness in dealing with conquered populations; once Islamic rule has been consolidated, there is little left with which to mount a resistance.

That ruthlessness is on abundant display these days in Armenia. In the fall of 2023, Azerbaijan forced over 100,000 Armenians to flee from Artsakh (also known as Nagorno-Karabakh), an Armenian enclave that is only part of Azerbaijan because Stalin made it so. When both Azerbaijan and Armenia were part of the Soviet Union, Stalin decided that Artsakh would be part of Azerbaijan, despite its long Armenian history and Armenian population, as part of his strategy of keeping tensions high among Soviet republics. This prevented unity among the occupied territories and justified an ongoing Soviet military presence.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the border was not corrected, and so tens of thousands of Armenians lived in Azerbaijan. But no more. And now the Azerbaijanis are systematically erasing all traces of an Armenian Christian presence in the land they have ethnically cleansed. International Christian Concern reported last week that “the 2024 annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) underlined the ongoing Azerbaijani destruction of Armenian Christian heritage in Artsakh. This comes as USCIRF recommended that the State Department name Azerbaijan as a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ (CPC), a designation under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), which applies to ‘countries that commit systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.’”

Like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this is a religious conflict that is widely misunderstood to be a dispute over land. Just as the Palestinians and their allies will not accept the existence a Jewish state of any size, because they believe that the entire region is Islamic land, so also the Azerbaijanis and their allies (which include Turkey) will not accept any Armenia of any size. As is always the case with jihad, a victory is only a prelude for more aggression: Azerbaijan and Turkey have already begun to make new territorial demands against Armenia for a corridor that will link the two countries. The ultimate goal is to create a Turkish-dominated Islamic bloc stretching from Istanbul to Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan; Armenia is the only non-Muslim entity standing in the way, and so it must be destroyed.

Why, then, is Armenia not generally recognized as the primary jihadi target that it is? Primarily because the global jihad is still widely ignored, denied, and misunderstood. Few people, and none of them are in the U.S. State Department, recognize that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a jihad. This analytical failure has deformed the American response to this conflict for decades, and continues to do so. The Israelis themselves have never demonstrated any serious awareness of the fact that they’re dealing with an enemy with whom there can be no lasting negotiated settlement, and ultimately no peaceful coexistence, no matter how many concessions they make.

That may be one reason why Israel is allied not with Armenia, but with Azerbaijan. The Israeli government is not infallible, but its friendship with Azerbaijan is an understandable exercise in realpolitik: Azerbaijan is continually at odds with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which of course would love above all else to destroy Israel. So for Israel to aid Azerbaijan and try to force Iran to have to worry about something other than how to go about eradicating the Jewish state is simple common sense, at least for the short term.

In the long run, however, it could be disastrous. Azerbaijan will accept Israel’s help as long as it is useful, but as it continues its jihad against Armenia, it demonstrates that it is committed to principles that are ultimately incompatible with its alliance with Israel. Will Azerbaijan give up Israel or Islam? Anyone who is aware of the history of Islam and the trajectory of nations that relax Islamic rules and appear more secular for a period will not bet that Azerbaijan will ultimately give up Islam.

Meanwhile, free people everywhere should recognize the uniformity of the Islamic jihad threat against Israel, the United States, Armenia and elsewhere. The motivating ideology behind these threats is the same in each case, and is the same as the ideology that has fueled 1,400 years of jihad. One day, the free world may recognize that it faces a common jihad threat, and unite against it for the defense of humane values. That recognition, however, is not on the horizon.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 28 books, including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, The History of Jihad, and The Critical Qur’an. His latest book is Muhammad: A Critical Biography. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/armenia-is-on-the-front-line-of-the-global-jihad/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter