Iran's Mullahs Celebrate More Rewards from the 'Nuclear Deal' - Majid Rafizadeh

​
by Majid Rafizadeh

In short, thanks to the previous administration, the Iranian regime, the top state sponsor of terrorism, is about to be legally free to buy and sell, and import and export advanced weapons across the world.

• On June 30, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo urged the United Nations Security Council to extend the arms embargo on Iran. The Security Council was reluctant to do so. The UN Security Council's unwillingness seems yet another indication of why the United States, having pulled out of the Human Rights Council and threatening to pull out of the World Health Organization in 2021, should finally go all the way and pull out of the whole "Club of Thugs" that the United Nations has become... At the very least, as has been suggested, "We pay for what we want. We insist [on] what we get, what we pay for. We abolish the system of mandatory contribution...."
• The United Nations seems to have turned into a place that, instead of preventing war, preserves war.
• "Iran is already violating the arms embargo, even before its expiration date. Imagine if Iranian activity were sanctioned, authorized by this group, if the restrictions are lifted. Iran will be free to become a rogue weapons dealer, supplying arms to fuel conflicts from Venezuela, to Syria, to the far reaches of Afghanistan." — Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, UN Security Council, June 30, 2020.
• In short, thanks to the previous administration, the Iranian regime, the top state sponsor of terrorism, is about to be legally free to buy and sell, and import and export advanced weapons across the world.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently told the UN Security Council: "Iran is already violating the arms embargo, even before its expiration date. Imagine if Iranian activity were sanctioned, authorized by this group, if the restrictions are lifted. Iran will be free to become a rogue weapons dealer, supplying arms to fuel conflicts from Venezuela, to Syria, to the far reaches of Afghanistan." (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

While Iran's ruling mullahs have been celebrating their rewards from the nuclear deal -- which, by the way, Iran never signed -- according to its terms, the arms embargo against the Islamic Republic is scheduled to be lifted on October 18, 2020.

On June 30, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo urged the United Nations Security Council to extend the arms embargo on Iran. The Security Council, however -- particularly China -- was reluctant to do so. The UN Security Council's unwillingness seems yet another indication of why the United States, having pulled out of the Human Rights Council and threatening to pull out of the World Health Organization in 2021, should finally go all the way and pull out of the whole "Club of Thugs" that the United Nations has become. At the very least, as has been suggested, "We pay for what we want. We insist [on] what we get, what we pay for. We abolish the system of mandatory contribution...."

Rather than being the cure for world peace, the UN is now a major obstacle to world peace. The Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky, once suggested at a meeting attended by Gatestone that if delegates to the UN are not allowed to vote in their own countries, they also should not be allowed to vote at the UN. The United Nations appears to have turned into a place that, instead of preventing war, preserves war.

The primary objective of any nuclear talks with Tehran should have been to halt Iran's nuclear program permanently, thereby eliminating the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the region and removing the strategic threat that a nuclear armed Iran would pose to the world.

However, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told the Council on Foreign Relations at the time, "Let's establish a mechanism for a number of years. Not 10, not 15 — but I'm willing to live with less."

So, the "sunset clauses" -- a glide-path to legitimate nuclear capability -- were given to the ruling mullahs -- in exchange, apparently, for nothing. The sunset clauses essentially allow the Iranian regime, after the period of the agreement, to resume enriching uranium at a level they desire, spin as many advanced centrifuges as they want, make its reactors fully operational, build new heavy water reactors, produce as much nuclear fuel as it desires for its reactors, and maintain higher uranium enrichment capability with no restrictions.

The previous US administration submitted to Zarif's demands and accepted the deal, which promised shortly to repeal all sanctions on Iran's regime and pave the way for lifting the UN arms embargo against it.

According to Reuters, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in November 2019:

"When the [arms] embargo...is lifted next year we can easily buy and sell weapons... This is one of those important impacts of this [nuclear] agreement... By remaining in the deal, we would reach a huge political, defensive and security goal [in 2020] ... It would be a huge political success."

Indeed, with the removal of the UN arms embargo, Iran would be allowed legally to export and import advanced weapons.

Most likely, then, sophisticated weapons could fall into the hand of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Iran's terror and militia groups such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) -- which is a conglomerate of more than 40 militia groups -- causing yet more conflict and instability in the Middle East.

The previous administration granted that dangerous reward to the ruling mullahs of Iran with total disregard to the concerns of other countries in the region. As Pompeo told the UN Security Council last month:

"Don't just take it from me or the United States, listen to countries in the region, from Israel, the Gulf, countries in the Middle East who are most exposed to Iran's predations are speaking with a single voice: extend the arms embargo".

In June 2020, the UN also found that the missiles which had slammed into a Saudi oil complex last year were of "Iranian origin". UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres pointed out in the semi-annual report which was sent to the Security Council that "these items [weapons used in the attack] may have been transferred in a manner inconsistent with" UN resolutions.

According to the UN Resolution 2231:

"... all States are to take the necessary measures to prevent, except as decided otherwise by the Security Council in advance on a case-by-case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer of arms or related materiel from Iran by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran."

However, not only has the UN been refusing to take any action, such as imposing sanctions on the Iranian regime, despite Iran's smuggling weapons and munitions to militia groups; the international body also appears perfectly willing to lift the arms embargo against Iran.

As Pompeo highlighted:

"Iran is already violating the arms embargo, even before its expiration date. Imagine if Iranian activity were sanctioned, authorized by this group, if the restrictions are lifted. Iran will be free to become a rogue weapons dealer, supplying arms to fuel conflicts from Venezuela, to Syria, to the far reaches of Afghanistan."

In short, thanks to the previous US administration, the Iranian regime, the top state sponsor of terrorism, is about to be legally free to buy and sell, and import and export, advanced weapons across the world.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16224/iran-nuclear-rewards

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sheer Lunacy Rules the Day - Eileen F. Toplansky

​
by Eileen F. Toplansky

What is the social justice endgame?

In a world that appears to be tottering off its axis with sheer lunacy ruling the day, here is a small sampling of the dangerous ideas gaining traction and the cowardice displayed by so many.

• In Great Britain, where grooming gang crimes exist, "British women who drew attention to 'Asian' [Pakistani and South Asian] sex grooming gangs, are also being attacked by the 'woke' establishment" because "if the victim is white and the rapist is not, she is no victim at all; worse, she is a 'racist' and 'hater' who, if anything, apparently deserves what she got and more." In fact, far-left extremists and radical feminist academics "don't care about anti-white racism, because they appear to believe that is doesn't exist." Thus, the idea that "Western women are to blame for being raped by Muslim men" gets a free pass for fear of Islamophobia. The "Left validates Islam's sexual fantasies and victimization of Western women."
• Critical discussion of Islam is now deemed hate speech, so when Ortega Smith of Spain expressed concern in 2019 about the "Islamist invasion" and the application of sharia law, prosecutors worked to determine whether he was guilty of a hate crime.
• The City of Seattle's Office of Civil Rights sent an email inviting "White City employees" to attend a training program to help white workers examine "their complicity in the system of white supremacy" and "interrupt racism in ways that are accountable to Black, Indigenous and People of Color."
• Administrators at Princeton banned such words as "fireman," "chairman," and "mankind" because they omit the 32+ genders the left now asserts exist.
• College students support socialism even though they can't explain what it is.
• An adult coloring book titled "I Am So Sick of White Guys" is "a full-throated attack on white privilege and power."
• University of Connecticut student government leaders resign because they are white.
• The vast billion-dollar infrastructure of organizations that are Jewish in name only willingly support anti-Semite Chelsea Handler, who told "Jews to go f--- themselves."
• Despite the fact that "America is the best place on the planet to be black, female, gay, trans or what have you," as explained by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who fled Somalia and now lives in the United States, the School of Architecture at the University of Texas maintains that "the legacy of slavery and a prolonged history of social segregation and economic and political disenfranchisement of African-Americans continues to undermine the power of urban diversity." Thus, "socially just" architecture is needed to fix it. Apparently, white skin privilege means "being held responsible for slavery when white America accounted for less than 1% of the African slave trade globally." In fact, the slave trade "was mainly run by 'people of color,' while white America led the world in abolishing slavery, an institution which still exists in non-white Africa today."
• "Intersectionality" is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. Consequently, "[f]or the intersectional activists, the U.S. is the world's biggest oppressor. Not Saudi Arabia or Iran." In July 2020, David Bukay highlights intersectionality — the leftist plague where "people should never be exposed to contrary point of views [sic], which is one of the basics of scientific research, since it might upset someone else's identity and/or sensibilities and/or personality's ambitions."
• A communist-style power-grab is occurring at the National Book Critics Circle as the left continues its nonstop infiltration into every cultural arena it can overwhelm.
• Hofstra University might as well move to Cuba now that its president has no understanding of what the Declaration of Independence means for liberty and freedom.
• Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters have targeted a 9/11 memorial in Washingtonville, N.Y. honoring fallen firefighters who lost their lives as first responders g the World Trade Center bombings.

What is the social justice endgame? David Azerrad explains.

After confronting us with the injustices visited upon women, black people, homosexuals, and any number of other victimized groups, social justice arbiters then claim for themselves the exclusive right to mete out justice. On one side are the baddies, who are at best unaware of America's structural inequities and their own unearned privilege, or at worst just plain bigoted. On the other side are the good guys, the identitarian coalition of the woke and the oppressed fighting for social justice. You're either a racist or an anti-racist.
The progress of social justice, it turns out, always comes at the expense of certain core natural and civil rights. Freedom of association [has] to be sacrificed to end discrimination. Free speech will suffer the same fate if hate speech is to be eradicated. More 'rights' for more people means fewer rights for some people.

Universities are now working on "creating a closer match between the ethnicity of the faculty with the ethnicity of the students." Does this mean that a black instructor cannot teach Isaac Bashevis Singer's stories because she is neither white nor Jewish? Libby Emmons maintains that we "are now living through a climate of identity culture" where "white writers who write outside of their ethnic or racial background will be skewered on long sticks and roasted over the fires of social media."

Crucial to the rabid ideas of the left is Critical Race Theory, which is an "academic discipline that maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation's legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid."

Thus, "members of 'oppressed' racial groups are entitled — in fact — obligated to determine for themselves what traditions have merit and are worth observing." Such ideas as "meritocracy, equal opportunity and colorblind justice are just empty slogans," and "favoring blacks in employment and higher education is not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent bigotry of white people[.]"

Ralph de Toledano ([1]), author of Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-Down and How It Happened, wrote of Karl Lewin (1890–1947) who laid "the groundwork, lecturing world-wide and solidifying the advocacy of violence as long as it was directed at white society." Toledano asserts that Lewin was one of the theoreticians for the obliteration of all who disagreed with Critical Theory.
Toledano asks, "How can the radical faction of the establishment, though it controls the educational establishment and the foundations with their vast funds, create the kind of society which will collapse of its own stupidity?" He responds by explaining that Lewin's "contribution was to take the idea of 'democracy' and to redefine it to include every left-totalitarian concept, every aberrant behavior, every form of anti-social violence, and every 'multicultural' and 'diversity' cause, thereby transmogrifying it into 'the permanent cultural revolution.'"

Now consider that on October 3, 2003, former Colorado governor Richard D. Lamm gave a speech titled "How to Destroy America." His prescience is frightening.

• First make America a bilingual/bicultural country. History shows ... that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
• Then invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal ... there are no cultural differences that are important ... and the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
• Make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec.' The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
• Encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. Make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated and add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. [Consider the no-go zones that Muslims have now established.]
• Get the big foundations and Big Business to give these efforts lots of money. [Consider that in 2016, "the Ford Foundation was pledging to raise $100 million over six years for the Movement for Black Lives, a self-described 'united front' of the original Black Lives Matter."]
• Invest in ethnic identity, and establish the cult of victimology. Start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population. [Think Al Sharpton and company.]
• Establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. 'Celebrate diversity.' It stresses differences rather than commonalities. [Read Dennis Prager on diversity.]
• Place all subjects off limits — make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' Find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century — that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate.

Sound chillingly familiar some 17 years later?

---

[1] Ralph de Toledano. Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened. Anthem Books, 2006, pp. 137-140.

Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/sheer_lunacy_rules_the_day.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Students defending cancel culture raise alarms - Douglas Herz

​
by Douglas Herz

The WSJ presented five responses from college students, and the results were most concerning.

The online Wall Street Journal opinion section has a feature called "Future View," where the opinions of college students are aired on the issues of the day. The subject Wednesday was "cancel culture." The WSJ presented five responses from college students, and the results were most concerning.

Two of the five students rightly and roundly condemned cancel culture as poisoning modern discourse, enabling hostility rather than understanding, and fostering Orwellian behaviors such as employing physical force to shut down events in the name of free speech.

The other three responses, however, defended cancel culture. One student explained it thus: "Opinions are one thing. It's entirely different to use abusive or threatening language that expresses prejudice on the basis of race, sex, gender or religion." Apparently, the irony of this statement was lost on the student who expressed it, for cancel culture is itself abusive and threatening to those who are canceled and others of like mind and serves only to expose the prejudice of the canceler. Just ask the New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer editors who recently lost their jobs by expressing widely held, almost innocuous viewpoints.

A second response in favor of cancel culture compares it to exile, banishment, and shunning, or the natural functioning of social norms. Again, the young author misses the point entirely, for the concern with cancel culture is, first, that it destroys lives for the most common of everyday sentiments, such as expressing support for a diversity of viewpoints or mentioning that "Buildings Matter Too" to rioters, and, second, the opinions of the cancelers are usually leftist sentiments held by a few but that are amplified by the social media feeding frenzy. That is not the equivalent of a government punishing someone, for example, for breaking laws such as spying or treason, after legal procedures such as Miranda rights, presumption of innocence, due process, legal representation, trial by jury of peers, etc. have occurred that could lead to exile or banishment.

A third response was somewhat more nuanced, arguing that those whose lives have been canceled should be afforded a path to redemption and forgiveness. But this again misses the point, for to whom should the offender apologize, and for what offense? It seems this young person is arguing that adults must grovel before college students like her in order not to be canceled...and why? Because the young are somehow imbued with the wisdom of the ages? These are the same college children who spit on the Great Books and the Bible, which truly do contain great wisdom...if one takes but a moment to seek it out. 

It is also worth noting that the two responses condemning cancel culture as intolerant (and doing it rather well) were submitted by male college students, while the three responses defending intolerant cancel culture were written by female students. For more on this point, feel free to review the unfortunate "woke white woman" disorder that is covered in detail elsewhere, and that appears, sadly, to be increasing its prevalence on campus.

Douglas Herz

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/students_defending_cancel_culture_raise_alarms.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lebanon's New 'Great Satan' - Khaled Abu Toameh

​
by Khaled Abu Toameh

For several weeks now, a hashtag titled "Nasrallah has ruined the country" has been trending on Twitter, with many Lebanese and Iraqis accusing the Hezbollah leader of destroying their countries.

• Hezbollah's financial crisis is the result of US sanctions on its patrons in Iran, which had been supporting the terrorist group annually with about $700 million from oil revenues.... — Fahim al-Hamid, Saudi journalist, okaz.com.sa, March 22, 2020.
• For several weeks now, a hashtag titled "Nasrallah has ruined the country" has been trending on Twitter, with many Lebanese and Iraqis accusing the Hezbollah leader of destroying their countries.
• "Nasrallah has taken Lebanon hostage and accused the US of Lebanon's economic collapse. Hezbollah is a major partner of the network that looted the Lebanese treasury and banks. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization running an entire country." — Video clip posted on social media platforms.
• "No one has the right to drag us into the place they want, and no one has the right to impose on us a lifestyle that we do not want.... We do not want to live in isolation and be cut off from the West, Arabs and the entire world." — Sami Gemayel, Lebanese Member of Parliament, Asharq Al-Awsat, June 18, 2020.
• Hezbollah (Arabic for "Party of God") has long been functioning as a state-within-a-state in Lebanon and its leader, Nasrallah, is the de facto ruler of the country. Now that he is having trouble paying salaries to his terrorists, Nasrallah is hoping that the US will step in and rescue Lebanon (and Hezbollah) from collapse.

The Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah has long functioned as a state-within-a-state in Lebanon and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is the de facto ruler of the country. Now that he is having trouble paying salaries to his terrorists, Nasrallah hopes that the US will rescue Lebanon (and Hezbollah) from collapse. Pictured: Lebanese supporters of Hezbollah, carrying the flag of the group and a portrait of Nasrallah, at an anti-American demonstration near the US Embassy in Awkar, northeast of Beirut, on July 10, 2020. (Photo by Joseph Eid/AFP via Getty Images)

Has Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah changed his mind about the US, which he always considered a great enemy of the Arabs and Muslims? Not likely. More likely is that he is trying to dupe the Americans into giving Lebanon money to prevent the collapse of his Iranian-backed terrorist group.

Dominated by heavily-armed Hezbollah, Lebanon is currently facing the worst economic crisis in its history. The crisis is seen as the biggest threat to stability since the 1975-90 civil war in Lebanon. The World Bank warned last November that if conditions worsened, the proportion of Lebanese living in poverty could rise to 50%. Since then, the economy has been further hit by the restrictions imposed to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, so the crisis has only deepened.

As the country's currency collapsed to an all-time low against the US dollar, thousands of Lebanese have been protesting by blocking roads with burning tires and setting fire to banks.

This mess, which has resulted in an increase in the crime rate, was made by a corrosive confluence of government malpractice, economic instability and external interference. In the first four months of 2020, murders in Lebanon doubled compared to the same period last year. Burglaries increased by 20% and car thefts by nearly 50%.

Many Lebanese hold Hezbollah responsible for the crisis, mainly because of its wars with Israel and its support for Iran in conflicts with Sunni-led Gulf states.

Until recently, Nasrallah referred to the US as the "Great Satan." Earlier this year, Nasrallah's Iranian-backed terrorist group sent a warning to the US:

"We warn the Great Satan, the bloodthirsty and arrogant regime of the US, that any new wicked act of further aggression (against Iran) will bring about more painful and crushing responses."

In another statement, in January, Nasrallah said:

"America, the Great Satan, is responsible for Israel and all its crimes against the Palestinian people. America built ISIS (Islamic State terrorist group) to destroy our countries, our culture, history, and our future. We must never forget this, that America is our true enemy."

The "Great Satan" has been an integral part of Nasrallah's fiery anti-Israel and anti-American speeches for several years.

On July 7, however, Nasrallah, who regularly encouraged his followers to chant "Death to America, death to Israel," surprised many Arabs and Muslims when he seemed to adopt a conciliatory tone toward the US.

"Although it is our enemy, we won't stop America from helping Lebanon solve its economic crisis," Nasrallah said in a speech.

"I would like to make some corrections; with regards to turning eastward, I was clear in my last speech that this did not mean turning our back on the West. We can take help from all countries, except Israel. Even the US, which is an enemy, can help us. Any country on earth, with the exception of the usurper entity [Israel], which can help us in any way -- we are completely open to this. Some have accused us of trying to change Lebanon's economic structure by turning to China -- making it communist or socialist. This is not true. We must open and explore all possible routes now for staving off Lebanon's collapse."

Nasrallah went on to urge the Lebanese people to engage in an "agricultural, manufacturing jihad resistance."

"Today, we are in the battle of agriculture and manufacturing, and we will commit ourselves to this wholeheartedly. We must all become farmers and manufacturers. Wherever we have potential arable land, even a front yard, even balconies and rooftops, we are going to plant."

Nasrallah's talk about his country's readiness to accept aid from the US has raised eyebrows in Lebanon and other Arab and Islamic states, where cynics wondered why the terrorist leader was suddenly prepared to deal with the "Great Satan."

Lebanese journalist Jerry Maher scoffed at Nasrallah's statement:

"To Hassan Nasrallah, whatever you say and do, nothing will change in Lebanon before surrendering your weapons and bringing leaders of your group to trial."

Fahim al-Hamid, a Saudi writer, said that Nasrallah's statement "reflects the severe financial crisis that the terrorist Hezbollah is experiencing," particularly regarding paying the terrorists it sends to Syria to protect Bashar Assad's "bloody regime."

Al-Hamid pointed out that Hezbollah's financial crisis is the result of US sanctions on its patrons in Iran, which had been supporting the terrorist group annually with about $700 million from oil revenues, as well as the US war on the money laundering and drug trafficking operated by Hezbollah's international networks. "According to reliable sources, Nasrallah ordered a 60% reduction of the salaries of his fighters," he revealed. "Hezbollah also stopped recruiting new members as a result of the financial crisis. Now he is humiliating himself by begging for help from the US, which he used to consider the 'Great Satan.'"

For several weeks now, a hashtag titled "Nasrallah has ruined the country" has been trending on Twitter, with many Lebanese and Iraqis accusing the Hezbollah leader of destroying their countries. The Iraqis are accusing Hezbollah of meddling in their internal affairs by establishing Iranian-backed terrorist cells in Iraq. The Lebanese, meanwhile, are accusing Nasrallah of ruining their country by dragging it into wars with Israel, destroying Lebanon's economy and smuggling flour and fuel to neighboring Syria.

"Hezbollah should receive the same treatment as ISIS and the terrorist Nasrallah should receive the same treatment as [slain] ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi," wrote social media user Ahmad Faqira.

"Government corruption and mismanagement, outdated laws, dominance of Hezbollah, sectarian tension, money laundering, wretched infrastructure are all challenges to economic empowerment," Abdul Aziz El-Bodon commented on Twitter.

"Lebanon cannot breathe -- Hezbollah and Amal militias in the streets of Beirut are claiming to restore peace after their thugs destroyed and looted the city," said another social media user called Joyce. (Amal is a Lebanese political and military party associated with Lebanon's Shia community.)

Some Lebanese mocked Nasrallah's call for waging "agricultural and manufacturing resistance" and noted that the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture has been under the control of Hezbollah for the past 15 years.

Others pointed out that Hezbollah controls Beirut Airport and the Port of Beirut, occupies private and public land illegally, constantly threatens the Lebanese population; runs a global smuggling ring and counterfeit money operation; manufactures [illicit] drugs of all sorts; has rockets in civilian areas; pays no taxes; gets free electricity while others pay; controls gangs that loot and steal; provides protection for corrupt Lebanese politicians; is killing civilians in Syria and Iraq; and brainwashes children from the age of six.

"Nasrallah has taken Lebanon hostage and accused the US of Lebanon's economic collapse," says a video clip posted on social media platforms. "Hezbollah is a major partner of the network that looted the Lebanese treasury and banks. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization running an entire country."

Several Lebanese politicians have blamed Hezbollah for the country's severe financial crisis.
Member of parliament Sami Gemayel said that Lebanon was paying the price for Hezbollah's policy. "No one has the right to drag us into the place they want, and no one has the right to impose on us a lifestyle that we do not want," he said. "We do not want to live in isolation and be cut off from the West, Arabs and the entire world."

Addressing Nasrallah, another Lebanese politician, Fares Soueid, said: "You give us nothing but sedition and backwardness."

It is good to see that many Lebanese now realize that Hezbollah and its masters in Tehran have brought nothing but disaster and destruction to their country. Hezbollah (Arabic for "Party of God") has long been functioning as a state-within-a-state in Lebanon and its leader, Nasrallah, is the de facto ruler of the country.

Now that he is having trouble paying salaries to his terrorists, Nasrallah is hoping that the US will step in and rescue Lebanon (and Hezbollah) from collapse. Arabs and Muslims are perfectly aware of Nasrallah's desperate attempt to drag the US into propping up his country and organization. Accordingly, they now mock his damning of the US as the "Great Satan" by describing Hezbollah as the "Party of Satan."

• Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16241/lebanon-hezbollah-great-satan

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Beinart's Final Solution: End Israel as Nation-State of the Jewish People - Alan M. Dershowitz

​
by Alan M. Dershowitz

Peter Beinart's New York Times op-ed advocating the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is a study in historical ignorance, willful deception and arrogant rejection of democracy.

• If Israel were to end its existence as the nation-state of the Jewish people — as Beinart advocates — and become a Jewish "homeland" in a single binational, bi-religious state, a demographic war would become inevitable, in which Jews and Muslims would compete to become a majority. As soon as a Muslim majority materialized, the Jewish "homeland" would become precisely the kind of "Bantustan" that Beinart has railed against in the context of South Africa.
• The Jewish minority would be ruled by the Muslim majority, even if it were given some degree of autonomy. Their protection would be largely in the hands of the Muslim majority, many of whom believe there is no place for a Jewish entity anywhere in the region.
• A Palestinian majority would not allow persecuted Jews from around the world to seek asylum, as they can today under Israel's Law of Return. Instead, the Palestinian state would enact its own law of return that would allow millions of exiles to "return" and assure a permanent Muslim supermajority.

Pictured: Alan Dershowitz in the US Senate Reception Room on January 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Peter Beinart's New York Times op-ed advocating the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is a study in historical ignorance, willful deception and arrogant rejection of democracy.
Beinart proposed that a single binational, bi-religious state in what is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip replace current Israel, whose Jewish population would then be given a "homeland" within the new nation. But Beinart is woefully ignorant of previous attempts to create or maintain binational or bi-religious states.

Beinart ignores the lessons of history surrounding the former Yugoslavia — Tito's failed effort to create a single artificial nation from different ethnicities and religions — which ended in genocide, tragedy and its breakup into several states now living in relative peace. He omits any mention of Lebanon — a failed experiment in sharing power between Muslims and Christians. He writes as if Hindu India still included Muslim Pakistan, instead of having been divided after considerable bloodshed and divisiveness. He focuses instead on two countries, Northern Ireland and South Africa, which bear little relationship to current-day Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Northern Ireland is a country whose population is ethnically similar, with only religious differences at a time when religion is playing a far less important role in the life of many secular Northern Irish. South Africa was a country in which a tiny minority of whites dominated a large majority of Blacks, and is now a dominantly Black nation.

Israel and the Palestinian territories are totally different. The population of Israel is a mixture of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, Muslims and Christians. The West Bank and Gaza are comprised almost exclusively of Muslim Arabs.

There used to be a mixture of Muslim and Christians, but most Christians have been forced out. The combined Muslim Arab population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is close in number to the Jewish population of Israel. If Israel were to end its existence as the nation-state of the Jewish people — as Beinart advocates — and become a Jewish "homeland" in a single binational, bi-religious state, a demographic war would become inevitable, in which Jews and Muslims would compete to become a majority. As soon as a Muslim majority materialized, the Jewish "homeland" would become precisely the kind of "Bantustan" that Beinart has railed against in the context of South Africa. The Jewish minority would be ruled by the Muslim majority, even if it were given some degree of autonomy. Their protection would be largely in the hands of the Muslim majority, many of whom believe there is no place for a Jewish entity anywhere in the region.

It was precisely this fear that led to the creation of political Zionism in the 19th century. Theodor Herzl and others experienced the anti-Semitism of Europe and the inability of the Jewish minority there to protect itself against pogroms and discrimination. Placing the safety of Israel's Jewish population in the hands of a potentially hostile Muslim majority would be an invitation to possible genocide.

Beinart is insistent that today's Israelis and Jews must ignore the lessons of the Holocaust. But those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. And Jews cannot afford to see a repetition of their tragic past.

Beinart never discusses the issue of who would control the armed forces and, most particular, Israel's nuclear arsenal, under a binational and bi-religious state. Recall that the current Hamas constitution demands that a Palestinian state be an Islamic nation bound by Sharia law. Even if the Palestinian majority state would allow the Jewish minority homeland to have its own domestic laws, the state itself, with its Muslim majority, would presumably control the armed forces. This would create yet another Islamic state, among the many that currently exist — but this one would have a nuclear arsenal. A Palestinian majority would also not allow persecuted Jews from around the world to seek asylum, as they can today under Israel's Law of Return. Instead, the Palestinian state would enact its own law of return that would allow millions of exiles to "return" and assure a permanent Muslim supermajority.

• Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook

This article was originally published by Newsweek  


Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, November 2019. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16242/peter-beinart-final-solution

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Open Borders Biden - Daniel Greenfield

​
by Daniel Greenfield

President Trump calls out Biden’s betrayal of American workers.

“There’s probably never been a time when candidates are so different. We want law and order. They don’t want law and order. We want strong, closed borders with people able to come in through merit, through a legal process. They don’t want to have any borders at all. They’re going to rip down the wall,” President Trump declared.

Trump called out Biden’s immigration extremism in the Rose Garden. Earlier, task forces from the Biden and Sanders campaign had released the Biden-Sanders unity policy recommendations.

The co-chair of the immigration task force, Marielena Hincapie, is the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center which is funded, by among others, George Soros. Other members of the task force included Marisa Franco, who had called for "dismantling ICE", and Javier Valdes, the executive director of Make the Road which supports abolishing ICE and letting illegal aliens vote in state elections.

Make the Road was part of an anti-Trump coalition funded by Soros.

The Biden campaign had outsourced its policymaking to a radical Hungarian billionaire with a passion for open borders. The attack on our immigration system that President Trump called out was the result.

“And these are actual key elements of the Biden Sanders unity platform,” President Trump said.

Open Borders

“Well, basically, as you know, what they’re going to do is they’re going to rip down the wall. They’re taking it down. They want to take down the wall,” President Trump warned in the Rose Garden.

The Biden-Sanders task force proposal actually goes beyond that, promising that Democrats will "rescind President Trump's fabricated 'National Emergency'" and end the wall. The proposal claims that the wall, which was meant to stop the huge influx of migrants, is “unnecessary”. It's unnecessary because Biden and most Democrats don't believe that America should have borders or immigration restrictions.

 The Democrats want to go back to the days when Biden last held office and the function of the border patrol was to hand out snacks to illegal migrants and help them enter America.

Catch and Release

The Biden-Sanders plan calls for "community-based alternatives to detention." 

As President Trump succinctly put it, "abolish immigration detention, no more detention. You come in here illegally, no more detention."

There’s no border enforcement without detention. Just as there’s no criminal justice system without detaining criminals. Once illegal migrants are released, few of them ever show up for a hearing. Why would they? Their whole goal is to enter the country and work here illegally. Few of their claims of persecution would stand up at a hearing and they know it.

“Catch and release is gone. So many different things have taken place. We used to catch them, take their name, and release them into our country. We don’t do that anymore. We now release them back where they came from. Sometimes we’ll bring them back to their country,” President Trump said.

Catch and release has been tried for decades. And it’s failed.

America’s huge illegal alien population is partly due to catch and release policies. Catch and release policies are why massive illegal alien caravans have headed for our border, knowing that they will be released, instead of detained. Biden would like to bring back the worst catch and release days of the Obama administration and his call for community detention is just catch and release by another name.

Mass Illegal Alien Amnesty

“Grant mass amnesty. Everybody gets amnesty, mass amnesty. Think of that. And this has created a roadmap to citizenship for massive, massive numbers,” President Trump warned.

"Democrats believe it is long past time to provide a roadmap to citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers," the Biden-Sanders proposal demands.

How many millions is that? The Biden-Sanders task force carefully doesn’t clarify.

But, as the country staggers under the weight of mass unemployment, mass amnesty is a monumental betrayal of American workers, cutting off their dreams, and denying them any hope of a job.

But Biden doesn’t care because what the Democrats really want are illegal alien votes. And if millions of Americans lose their jobs and their homes, that’s a small price to pay for millions of illegal alien votes.

Jihadis Welcome

"We will immediately terminate the Trump Administration's discriminatory travel and immigration bans that disproportionately impact Muslim and African people," the Biden-Sanders task force vows.
“End all travel bans including from Jihadist regions,” President Trump warned against such a foolish and destructive policy. “We have a very strong travel ban, and we don’t want people that are going to come in and blow up our cities.”

The Democrats not only want them, but the Biden-Sanders task force promises to invite any potential terrorists whose visas were denied because of the travel ban to "re-apply to come to the United States."

The Islamic terrorist attacks of tomorrow will be brought to you by Biden’s terror amnesty.

If Your Country Has a Crime Problem, Apply for Refugee Status

The refugee system was created for people fleeing oppression, not bad neighborhoods. But the Biden-Sanders task force promises to go back to the broken policy of allowing asylum requests by people complaining about gang violence. The so-called "victims" of gang violence are often involved in it and allowing them to apply for asylum has helped boost the gang violence problem in America.

And gang violence is the main cause of gun violence in America.

Mass immigration from gang countries, like El Salvador, just like mass migration from Jihadist countries, like Syria and Iraq, brings gang violence to America. The Democrats claim that they want to end gun violence by banning guns. That didn’t work in Europe and it won’t work here. The best way to stop gun violence is to cut off the flow of new gang members to America by ending open borders asylum.

Instead, Biden is telling Americans that if they like their MS-13 beheadings, they can keep them.

Free Health Care for Illegal Aliens

"They want government healthcare for all illegal aliens. This is part of their plan. I’m not making this up. This is all down in their plan from last week," President Trump said.

And, indeed, the Biden-Sanders plan calls for expanding ObamaCare to DACA illegal aliens and rushing new immigrants into Medicaid without a waiting period.

"Sign new immigrants up for welfare immediately. This is Joe Biden. So they walk off and they come in and they put a foot into our land, and we sign up new immigrants up for welfare. We sign them up immediately. They get welfare benefits. United States citizens. Don’t get what they’re looking to give illegal immigrants. Think of that,” President Trump expressed his frustration. “Sign up. It’s hard to believe I’m even reading that, new immigrants for welfare immediately. Not to mention the cost of this which is incalculable. The cost of this is so crazy.”

The Biden-Sanders plan claims that illegal aliens need free health care because of the Wuhan Virus.

But, as President Trump points out, Democrat support for open borders is what really spread the virus.

“The wall was so timely because it stopped people coming in from heavily infected areas of Mexico. If we had that, we would be in trouble like you wouldn’t believe,” President Trump said.

Come to America, Get on Welfare

"End requirement for immigrant self-sufficiency and maximize their welfare. Now, this is us writing this. Who’s not coming to the United States? Every person from South America is going to pour in,” President Trump fumed.

The Biden-Sanders plan not only wants quick Medicaid for immigrants, but promises to "immediately halt enforcement of and rescind the Trump Administration's un-American immigrant wealth test."

Determining whether new immigrants can support themselves, or whether they will become a burden on taxpayers, is not a wealth test and it's not un-American.

It's how America's immigration system was always meant to work.

The Biden-Sanders plan will force the citizens of a country already struggling with the economic havoc of the pandemic lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter riots to shoulder the burden of welfare migrants.

“Every person from other countries, they’re going to be pouring in. End requirement, think of that, for immigrant self-sufficiency and remember to maximize welfare. So we give it a maximum. Then we have massively expand immigration during a global pandemic, taking jobs from unemployed Americans," President Trump pointed out.

Are You an Illegal Alien? Welcome Back to America.

The Biden-Sanders plan really rolls out the red carpet for illegal aliens who had been banned from returning to America.

"The task force calls for eliminating "immigration barriers, such as the 3- and 10-year bars, and remove the 10-year waiting period for waivers to the permanent bars."

The 3- and 10-year bans are for illegal aliens who were living in the United States.

The Biden-Sanders plan would make it very easy for those illegal aliens to emigrate to the United States if they have family members already living here.

Chain Migration Puts American Taxpayers in Chains

“Vastly expand low-skilled immigration to the United States. So they want a lot of people come in with low skills," President Trump said.

As the president had already pointed out, quite a lot of American low-skilled workers had lost their jobs because of the pandemic lockdowns. Bringing in large numbers of low-skilled workers would cripple the American workforce.

Especially the African-American workforce.

But the Biden-Sanders plan doubles down on the Democrat commitment to chain migration, declaring that it will build immigration policy around "family unity".

Chain migration means lots of low-skilled and welfare immigrants flooding America.

Protecting Illegal Aliens and Their Employers From the Law

The Biden-Sanders plan calls for making every place illegal aliens work into a "sanctuary" workplace.

The task force promises to "end workplace and community raids".

The proposal would effectively end domestic immigration enforcement. As President Trump said, “abolish immigration enforcement against illegal workers. Think of that.”

The victims of this policy will be the American workers and unemployed Americans who won’t even have a shot because their jobs will be taken by illegal aliens who will be protected from workplace raids.

The plan sends employers of illegal aliens the message that Joe Biden has their back.

A Radical Attack on American Workers

As President Trump said, “This is Biden. Biden’s gone radical left.”

The Biden-Sanders open borders, amnesty, and welfare plan goes beyond Obama. It incorporates proposals from Soros grantees and Sanders allies that would end America as an independent nation.

These proposals would break the back of American workers and reduce much of the population to welfare status. They represent the worst attack on the American working class in history.

President Trump is now under attack for condemning the Biden-Sanders plan in the Rose Garden. Meanwhile the Democrats, who claim to care about workers, refuse to condemn Biden’s descent into a radical extremism that puts illegal aliens first and American workers last.


Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow exploring the influence of the radical Left on America.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/open-borders-biden-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden's Nicaraguan Back Story - Lloyd Billingsley

​
by Lloyd Billingsley

Joe Biden has been “wrong on every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”.

Eden Pastora passed away at 83 in Nicaragua last month, an event of significance for the 2020 presidential race and an educational opportunity for millennials and such. Back in 1978, “Comandante Zero,” as he was known, led a raid on Nicaragua’s national congress, freeing 60 political prisoners of the Somoza regime. Not present that day were Humberto and Daniel Ortega, comfortably sheltering in Cuba.

“They wanted to copy the Cuban model and failed and they didn’t listen to me,” Pastora told reporters in 2003. “I never wanted to be in charge nor to be the figure, but they shoved me aside to the point of obliging me to armed dissidence.” Pastora led an anti-Sandinista force on the southern front. The “Contras” fought in the north, and Sen. Joe Biden opposed U.S. aid for their cause.

Under President Reagan, it was aid to the Contras that forced the Communist FSLN to hold elections. In 1990, the people of Nicaragua voted the Sandinistas out of power. It was not the first, or last, time Biden would be on the wrong side. In the 2013 Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, Robert Gates charged that Joe Biden has been “wrong on every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

Sen. Biden supported the Soviet-backed “nuclear freeze” campaign and opposed Ronald Reagan’s military buildup and Strategic Defense Initiative. Those moves accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the liberation of millions. Vice president Biden was against the operation to take down Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the worst attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor in 1941. 

The deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 came on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas, when Maj. Nidal Hasan, a self-described “soldier of Allah,” gunned down 13 American soldiers and wounded more than 30 others.

“Jill and I join the president and Michelle in expressing our sympathies to the families of the brave soldiers who fell today,” Biden said in a statement. Biden’s thoughts and prayers were with the Fort Hood community “as they deal with this senseless tragedy.” No mention of terrorism or Hasan, and not even a condemnation of “gun violence.”

Despite his record, Biden drew rave in-house reviews. According to White House mouthpiece Jay Carney, “As a senator and as a vice president, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time and he has been an excellent counselor and adviser to the president for the past five years.” In the years to come, little would change.

“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” Biden said in May of 2019. “I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.”

Last October, President Trump green-lighted a raid that took down Islamic State terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Joe Biden said he was glad Trump ordered the mission, “but as more details of the raid emerge, it’s clear that this victory was not due to Donald Trump’s leadership. It happened despite his ineptitude as commander-in-chief.”

In January, after President Trump authorized the takedown of Iranian master terrorist Qassem Soleimani, Biden proclaimed. “This was avoidable,” adding, “The seeds of these dangers were planted by Donald Trump himself on May 8, 2018 — the day he tore up the Iran nuclear deal, against the advice of his own top national security advisers.”

During the current campaign, Robert Gates has expressed few if any second thoughts about Biden’s wrong-sided record. Gates’ observations in Duty about Biden’s boss are also of interest.

Presidents normally express gratitude to soldiers for service, and explain why their cause is just and why they need to prevail. “President Obama never did that,” Gates recalled. “Troops risking their lives need to be told that their goal is to ‘defeat’ those trying to kill them. But such terms were viewed in the White House as borderline insubordinate political statements.” This is the man who picked Joe Biden to be his vice president.

For his part, Biden has expressed few if any second thoughts about his record on Nicaragua. The Communist regime, aligned with the USSR, Cuba and East Germany, held ten times as many political prisoners as the regime it overthrew. As filmmaker Werner Herzog documented in Ballad of the Little Soldier, the ruling FSLN junta targeted Nicaragua’s Miskito Indians.

The FSLN campaign, the New York Times noted, “resulted in the Miskitos being ruthlessly uprooted, their villages destroyed, their crops burned, their livestock butchered and the systematic massacre of all recalcitrants – men, women and children.” Kids of ten and twelve took up arms against the FSLN. So did “Comandante Zero,” Eden Pastora, but Joe Biden opposed U.S. aid for the anti-Communist fighters.

Democrats John Kerry, Tim Kaine and Bill de Blasio were also supporters of the FSLN regime. After a tour of Nicaragua in the 1980s, Bernie Sanders proclaimed, “Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America.”

* * *
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/bidens-nicaraguan-back-story-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter