Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Joseph Klein: Netanyahu’s Truth in a Den of Lies



by Joseph Klein




2557147983

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a powerful and sobering speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 29th.  He said he came from Jerusalem to speak on behalf of the Israeli people and to “expose the brazen lies spoken from this very podium against my country and the brave soldiers who defend it.”

“Truth must always be spoken, especially here, in the United Nations,” the prime minister said to an audience of government leaders and delegates not used to hearing the truth spoken in the UN on issues relating to the Jewish state.

Israel’s leader emphasized that his country’s fight against Hamas was part of the larger global fight against “militant Islam” which is “on the march.” He added that “Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas.”  They share a “fanatical creed,” which they ultimately seek to impose on the world.

“The Nazis believed in a master race, militant Islamists believe in a master faith; they just disagree on who will be the master of the master faith,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “The question before us is whether militant Islam will have the power to realize its violent ambitions.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu backed up his melding of ISIS and Hamas with quotes from leaders of both jihadist groups, proving their common violent ambitions. Islamic State head al-Baghdadi said that a day will come when the world will see Islam as a master who will destroy the idol of democracy. Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’s political leader, said: “Our nation will sit on the throne of the world.”

The truth about Hamas does not faze Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  Last week he wasted an opportunity, in his own UN General Assembly speech, to publicly distance the Palestinian Authority from the ISIS look-alike, Hamas. Instead of unequivocally condemning Hamas’s crimes against humanity in launching rocket attacks against Israeli civilians while using Palestinian children and other civilians as human shields, Palestinian President Abbas served as Hamas’s mouthpiece on the global stage. He was Hamas’s propaganda sword and shield, falsely accusing Israel of committing “genocide” and “absolute war crimes” in Gaza.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rebuttal to Abbas’s blood libel was right to the point. Holding up a picture of a rocket launcher in Gaza next to children playing, taken by a French news photographer, he delivered this message to President Abbas:
Ladies and gentleman, this is a war crime, and I say to president Abbas these are the crimes, the war crimes committed by your Hamas partners in the national unity government you created and which you are responsible for … and which you should have spoken out against in your speech last week.
In remarks to the press before Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered his General Assembly speech, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Abbas had “lost his way.” Mr. Lieberman characterized Abbas’s speech as a “message of hatred and incitements,” and expressed doubts as to Abbas’s “legitimacy” to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people.

In further rebuttal to Abbas’s lies, Mr. Netanyahu listed in his speech the unprecedented steps that Israel took, at risk to the lives of its own troops, to minimize civilian casualties during the Gaza war. And he challenged the General Assembly audience to consider how they would react if their towns were under attack by a barrage of rockets, forcing their citizens to seek cover with only seconds to spare.

The prime minister said that the UN Human Rights Council, which he characterized as an “oxymoron,” was helping Hamas in its propaganda war. Its singular condemnation of Israel, while giving Hamas a pass on it use of civilians as human shields, earned it the title “terrorist rights council.”

Turning to Iran, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned about the smooth-talking charm offensive of Iran’s president and foreign minister, which masked the Iranian regime’s relentless drive to become a nuclear armed state while getting the sanctions lifted. He accused the Iranian regime of playing games to “bamboozle its way to an agreement that will leave it with thousands of centrifuges. The world’s most dangerous regime will obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

The prime minister said that it was not enough for the world to focus its attention on ISIS and destroy it, as important as that goal is to achieve.  The world must not lose sight of the overriding threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

“To disarm ISIS but leave Iran with the bomb would be to win the battle but lose the war,” he said, drawing applause from supporters of Israel in the General Assembly hall gallery but only silence from the world leaders and delegates seated at their desks on the main floor. “Would you let ISIS enrich uranium … develop ICBMs? Of course you wouldn’t. Then you mustn’t let Iran do those things either,” he added.

Mr. Netanyahu mocked Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s lament last week in his General Assembly speech about the rise of terrorism in the world, which Rouhani blamed on the West. The Israeli prime minister called this double-talk, coming from the president of a leading state sponsor and practitioner of global terrorism. “You can ask him to call off Iran’s global terror campaign,” the prime minister declared.

Israel wants peace, Prime Minister Netanyahu said. However, Israel also insists on “rock solid security arrangements.” Israel saw what happened after it vacated Lebanon and Gaza, as “militant” Islamists filled the void and unleashed their weapons of terror against Israeli civilians.  He said that “as prime minister of Israel I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the survival of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. I will not waver.”

Finally, Mr. Netanyahu expressed some hope that “Peace can be realized with the active involvement of Arab countries.” He said that there is “a new Middle East” in which the Arab countries can play an “indispensable” role in helping bring about a genuine peace with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu concluded his General Assembly speech quoting from the Prophet Isaiah: “for the sake of Zion I will not be silent, for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be still.” And then he called upon the assembled world leaders and delegates to “light a torch of truth and justice to light our future.”

As the prime minister was finishing his speech and about to leave the podium, loud applause could be heard in the General Assembly hall. But, as normally happens at the UN, the slander and lies against the Jewish state will continue long after Mr. Netanyahu’s speech and the applause become a faint memory.


Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/netanyahus-truth-in-a-den-of-lies-2/

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

Caroline Glick: Kicking the PLO Habit



by Caroline Glick


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post
 
The signs are everywhere that the time has come for Israel to abandon the PLO.

So long as the PLO remains in power, the lives of Israelis and Palestinians will only get worse.

PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas’s speech last Friday at the UN General Assembly where he repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide was not merely an abandonment of direct peace negotiations with Israel. Abbas abandoned the very concept of peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians.

Abbas called for the UN to pass a resolution that will require Israel to cede Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in their entirety to the PLO within a set period of time. No Israeli consideration can be taken into account. No Israel concern can be attended to.

As he put it, “Palestine refuses to have the right to freedom of her people, who are subjected to the terrorism by the racist occupying Power and its settlers, remain hostage to Israel’s security conditions.”

As is always the case, the immediate victims of Abbas’s blood libels are the Israeli Left. The politicians and media elite that have hitched their horse to the PLO were again left stuttering by the wayside.

For some, like Meretz chair Zehava Gal-On, stuttering is a fine option. So she pushed out an endorsement of Abbas’s genocide speech.

Gal-On said, “Meretz supports Abbas’s international efforts to bring the end of the occupation and to get international recognition as a [Palestinian] state and member of the UN before and as a corridor to reaching peace in bilateral negotiations between equals,” And she joined Abbas in blaming Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for Abbas’s rejection of peace.

As the center-left commentator Dan Margalit noted in Yisrael Hayom, Gal-On and Meretz are basically alone in their embrace of Abbas today.

But they are far from alone in maintaining their slavish devotion to the idea that the only way to improve the situation is by giving Abbas whatever he wants.

And here the circle of victims of Abbas’s hostility expands from the Left to the entire country.

In a Facebook post on Saturday, Opposition leader and Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog latched all of Israel to the Left’s position by seeming to condemn Abbas while insisting that he is Israel’s only hope.

Herzog wrote that Abbas’s remarks, “were disappointing but not surprising.

“I have met with [Abbas, aka] Abu Mazen dozens of times: He is not a friend or a sympathetic ally. He is someone we have to make a deal with,” Herzog insisted.

Herzog then repeated the same points he and his fellow leftists have made for decades: that Abbas is better than Hamas, that Israel’s security cooperation with the PLO is really great, and that he only way to get the world to be nice to us is by maintaining our allegiance to Abbas and the PLO.

Herzog concluded by joining Gal-On and Abbas in attacking Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and blaming him for Abbas’s open transformation into Israel’s enemy.

The first problem with Herzog’s statement is that if it is true that he has always known that Abbas is our enemy, then he just told us that he is a liar.

Like all his friends on the Left, Herzog has continuously embraced Abbas and insisted that he is a man of peace and a moderate and interested in making a deal with Israel.

Yet far worse than his apparent serial dishonesty is Herzog’s insistence that Israel remain in the same policy straitjacket of embracing the PLO.

It is true that Israel gets some security cooperation from the Palestinian security forces. But it is also true that the only guarantor of Israel’s security is the IDF. Were the Palestinian security forces to disband tomorrow, Israel would be better off, not worse off.

This is the case because as Abbas showed, the PA views Israel as its enemy. For tactical reasons PLO militias do work with the IDF from time to time. But their strategic goal – Israel’s destruction – is unchanging. Any doubts that this is the case were dispelled by Abbas’s remarks in New York.

As for the PLO being preferable to Hamas, the PLO is Hamas’s coalition partner. Abbas staunchly expressed his commitment to the unity government he forged with Hamas in his UN speech.

Supporting the PLO in Gaza is the same as supporting Hamas.

Finally, Israel’s international position is continuously degraded, and has been since 1993 as a direct result of its embrace of the PLO. As Abbas showed yet again on Friday, the PLO is leading an international campaign to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. By embracing the PLO, Israel is legitimizing the campaign against it.

Due to our adoption of the Left’s catechism, that Israel has no choice but to continue its embrace of the PLO, we find ourselves at this juncture — where the PLO no longer even tries to hide its rejection of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state — unable to mount a concerted defense of our rights and legitimate concerns.

If we have no choice but to cut a deal with a group that openly seeks our annihilation in collaboration with Hamas, a terrorist group supported by Iran, then how can we defend ourselves and ensure our rights are respected and our interests are secured? The short answer is that we cannot. Since the PLO seeks our destruction, everything we do to strengthen it weakens us. Abbas made clear in his UN speech that he is playing a zero-sum game with Israel. Everything he gains comes at our expense.

Herzog and his comrades are right about one thing. Chances for peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians will increase in an environment where the Palestinians enjoy civil rights and economic opportunities. The problem is that the PLO has harmed, and will continue to harm both for as long as it remains in power.

In large part because the PLO recognizes that freedom and economic opportunity engender social happiness and peace, for the past 21 years they have taken active steps to repress freedom and strangle economic opportunities. Only a Palestinian society that is poor, immiserated and indoctrinated to hate Jews will agree to serve as foot soldiers in a perpetual war.

To this end, the PLO has stolen billions in international aid funds, imprisoned and tortured its critics, built an economy based on graft and protection, and brainwashed the Palestinians with a narrative of hating Jews and blaming Israel for the misery to which the PLO has reduced them.

Israel has two options going forward to secure its rights and protect its interests. Both options are preferable to remaining where we are. But to adopt either of these policies, we first need to abandon the pretense that the PLO is a credible, legitimate actor.

The first option is to adopt Economy Minister Naftali Bennett’s plan to apply Israeli law over Area C of Judea and Samaria – that is, the land lacking a significant Palestinian population, and agreeing to Palestinian self-rule in the Palestinian population centers.

For this option to work, Israel will have to cultivate a security and social environment among the Palestinians that is conducive to the emergence of a genuinely moderate leadership. This new leadership could replace the PLO and lead the Palestinians to a better, freer life based on peaceful coexistence with Israel and freedom in a self-governing territory.

The second option is to adopt the policy I set out in my recent book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. That policy involves implementing Israeli law over all of Judea and Samaria and providing the Palestinians with equal rights under Israeli law.

Palestinians will receive permanent residency status as the Arab residents of Jerusalem and the Druse of the Golan Heights received in 1967 and 1981. Like them, Palestinians will have the right to apply for Israeli citizenship. Those who abide by the criteria of Israel’s citizenship laws will receive citizenship.

Both of these options will improve chances for peace. Both policies with secure the lives of Israelis and Palestinians and foster their rights and prosperity.

Friday Abbas told clearly that he is our enemy, and indeed the enemy of the Palestinians whose lives he insists on imperiling and embittering by locking them into a perpetual war for the destruction of Israel.

He told us to move on.

And move on we must, first and foremost by kicking our PLO habit.


Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/kicking-the-plo-habit/

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

Steven J. Rosen: Why State Dept. Defends UNRWA's Artificial "Refugee" Designations



by Steven J. Rosen


The U.S. State Department has chosen to act as UNRWA's patron and the protector of its mission, perpetuating and expanding the refugee issue as a source of conflict against Israel.
Apparently more Israeli houses hurt peace, but multiplying the number of refugees is fine.

Here is a paradox: UNRWA, the United Nations agency that manages the Palestinian refugee issue, follows rules that contradict United States law and policy, and its practices result in perpetuating and multiplying the refugee problem rather than resolving it. Yet the U.S. Department of State gives unquestioning support to UNRWA's refugee designation rules[1], even on occasion defending them in detail. How can this be?

For example, almost two million Palestinians who have long been settled in Jordan and have for decades enjoyed Jordanian citizenship[2], are routinely counted as "refugees" by UNRWA, and the State Department supports it. This, in spite of the fact that, under U.S. law, a person who has citizenship in the country where he resides, and enjoys the protection of that state, cannot lawfully be eligible for refugee status.[3] How can State justify this contradiction?

Here is a second example: Another two million Palestinians already settled in the West Bank and Gaza, and who, by their own account, lived in the declared Palestinian state as its citizens under a Palestinian government, are registered as "refugees" by UNRWA.[4] By American legal standards, these Palestinians are "firmly settled" and therefore ineligible for "refugee" status[5]. Further, according to American policy reaffirmed by three Presidents, these Palestinians already reside in their own future state, the place where Palestinian refugees are meant to be settled.[6] Yet the State Department supports UNRWA's decision to count two million Palestinians well established in the West Bank and Gaza as "refugees," too.

Here is a third example: Under U.S. laws and regulations, only an individual who was personally displaced, or is a spouse or an underage dependent of such an individual, can be eligible for refugee status or derivative refugee status.[7]

Grandchildren and great-grandchildren are specifically not entitled to inherit refugee status merely because their ancestor was a refugee.[8] But under UNRWA practices, any descendant of a male refugee, no matter how many generations and decades have passed, is automatically entitled to be counted as a "refugee."[9] More than 95% of today's UNRWA "refugees," in fact, were not even alive when Israel was born in 1948; were never personally displaced by Israel's creation, and are listed by UNRWA as "refugees" only because of this peculiar practice of inheriting refugee status as a birthright .

Amazingly, the State Department defends all this, sometimes with great specificity. In response to critics of the descendancy principle, for example, the State Department recently reported, with approval, that UNRWA is not the only UN agency following this inheritance rule; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) occasionally does, as well.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told Foreign Policy magazine on May 25, 2012, "For purposes of their operations, the U.S. government supports this guiding principle."[10] (State ignores that UNHCR grants inherited refugee status only occasionally and as a special exception, while UNRWA treats it as the normal practice, justifying 95% of its "refugee" designations.)

The State Department is also inconsistent. If UNHCR were its standard, State would reject UNRWA's practice of counting Jordanian citizens as refugees. In not a single case does UNHCR count a person with citizenship as a refugee, while 40% of UNRWA's registrants are citizens of Jordan. In fact, UNHCR's authorizing statute, and the Refugee Convention that undergirds the agency, both explicitly forbid continuing "refugee" status when a person attains citizenship.[11] UNRWA's authorizing document does not.

State is sanguine even about the fact that these UNRWA practices steadily inflate the number of alleged Palestinian refugees year after year, from 750,000 in 1950 to more than 5 million today, a sevenfold increase. "In protracted refugee situations, refugee groups experience natural population growth over time," State cheerfully affirmed in 2013.[12]

The State Department has shown that it will resist any change in its policy toward the UNRWA practices that exacerbate and perpetuate the refugee problem. When Senator Mark Kirk introduced an amendment to the 2013 State Department Appropriations bill to force the Department to change, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides fiercely objected:[13] "Legislation which would force the United States to make a public judgment on the number and status of Palestinian refugees would be viewed... as the United States acting to prejudge a final status issue and determine the outcome."

This is the same State Department that, on more than 20 occasions during the Obama years, has ferociously and publicly castigated the government of Israel for constructing homes in disputed areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank, also a final status issue to be resolved between the parties. 

Apparently more Israeli homes hurt peace, but multiplying the number of refugees is fine.

Nides said that any divergence from UNRWA's rules would "hurt our efforts to promote Middle East peace, ....undercut our ability to act as a mediator and peace facilitator, ... damage confidence between the parties, [and]...hurt our efforts to prevent the Palestinians from...pursuit of statehood via the United Nations." He continued that it would also "generate very strong negative reaction" because this is "one of the most sensitive final status issues" that "strikes a deep, emotional, chord," especially at this "particularly fragile...[and] sensitive time." It would, he claimed, "be seen as a diminution of support for the Palestinian people" and "put at risk the humanitarian needs of this large, poor, and vulnerable refugee group." And, he added, it would "risk a very negative and potentially destabilizing impact on key allies, particularly Jordan."

This frightening Parade of Horribles was assembled by the State Department bureaus to scare away a compromise amendment that would leave UNRWA intact as a social service delivery agency, remove not one person from its beneficiary rolls, and cut not a dime from its budget. All the amendment had said, in effect, was that the UNRWA beneficiaries may be needy people deserving of assistance, but they are not "refugees." Yet those are the words State cannot bear to be uttered.

The government of Israel would agree with Nides' that "UNRWA serves as an important counterweight to extremist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah" and that "any void left by UNRWA would be likely be filled by terrorist elements." But supporting UNRWA's schools and hospitals, and its stabilizing role, does not require that the United States government continue to call UNRWA beneficiaries "refugees" when they are not. UNRWA's own Consolidated Eligibility & Registration Instructions do not require UNRWA beneficiaries to be classified as "refugees"-- its Section III.A.2 and Section III.B create classes of UNRWA beneficiaries not registered as "refugees" but who are nonetheless eligible for UNRWA services.[14]

The sad reality is that the United States' Department of State does not want such simple reforms. The U.S. State Department has, instead, chosen instead to act as UNRWA's patron and the protector of its mission, perpetuating and expanding the refugee issue as a source of conflict against Israel.
Steven J. Rosen is Director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.

[1] In a September 2013 statement to the Congressional Research Service, the State Department defended "United States' acceptance of UNRWA's method of recognizing refugees". Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, July 3, 2014, p. 24.
[2] Articles 3 and 9 of Jordan's Nationality Law No. 6 of 1954.
[3] 8 USC 1101(a), INA 101(a) section 42.
[4] "Where We Work," UNRWA.
[5] Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(2)(A)(vi) (2006), Section 208(b)(2)(A)(vi).
[6] Obama; Clinton; Bush.
[7] Section 207 of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.
[8] Cf. Form I-730, the USCIS Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition.
[9] UNRWA's Consolidated Eligibility & Registration Instructions, Section III.A.1
[10] "Did the State Department just create 5 million Palestinian refugees?", Foreign Policy, May 25, 2012.
[11] General Assembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950, Sections 6 and 7;
[12] Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, July 3, 2014, p. 24
[13] Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides May 24, 2012 letter opposing the Kirk Amendment.
[14] These classes of eligibility are listed as "Other Registered Persons" and persons "eligible to receive UNRWA services without being registered in UNRWA's Registration System."


Steven J. Rosen is Director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4742/unrwa-refugee-designations

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

Soeren Kern: Anjem Choudary, in His Own Words





by Soeren Kern


"In the Quran it is not allowed for you to feel sorry for non-Muslims. I don't feel sorry for him." — Anjem Choudary.
"Eventually the whole world will be governed by Shari'ah & Muslims will have authority over China Russia USA etc This is the promise of Allah." — Anjem Choudary.
"Under the Koran the sale of alcohol is prohibited and if one were to also drink alcohol, that would be 40 lashes." — Anjem Choudary.
"We [Muslims] take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money." — Anjem Choudary.

The British Islamist firebrand Anjem Choudary has been released from police custody after he was arrested for allegedly being a member of a banned terrorist group.

Choudary and nine other radical Muslims were detained during dawn raids in London on September 25 as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism.

Choudary—one of the most high-profile jihadists in the United Kingdom, and well known for his relentless resolve to implement Islamic Sharia law there—is a former spokesman of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: The Emigrants).

Al-Muhajiroun—which repeatedly celebrated the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001—was banned under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, in January 2010.

Since then, al-Muhajiroun has repeatedly reinvented itself under an array of successor aliases. These include, among others: Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, Islamic Dawa Association, London School of Sharia, Muslims Against Crusades and Need4Khalifah, all of which have also been proscribed.

A study published by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.

An investigative report published by the British anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was "the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history."

Al-Muhajiroun—founded by Choudary and the exiled preacher, Omar Bakri Mohammed—is said to have also played a major role in radicalizing Michael Adebolajo, who was found guilty of murdering (and attempting to decapitate) the British soldier Lee Rigby outside London's Woolwich Barracks in May 2013.

Choudary said Rigby would "burn in hellfire" as a non-Muslim, and also praised Adebolajo as a "martyr." He said:
"Allah said very clearly in the Koran 'Don't feel sorry for the non-Muslims.'
"So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.
"That's what I believe so I'm not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.
"We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don't, then obviously if they die like that they're going to the hellfires."

Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary (right) praised one of the murderers of British solider Lee Rigby (left) as a "martyr" and said Rigby would "burn in hellfire" as a non-Muslim.

According to police, over the past several months, groups believed to be successors to al-Muhajiroun have been circulating material highly sympathetic to the jihadist group Islamic State [IS], which has declared that it wants to establish an Islamic theocracy in the Middle East, and has threatened to attack targets in Europe and North America.

British police said the nine men, aged between 22 and 51, were arrested on suspicion of being members of a proscribed organization and supporting a proscribed organization, contrary to Section 11 and 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and of encouraging terrorism, contrary to Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

After a day of questioning, Choudary and eight others were released on bail on September 26. The men have been ordered to return to police stations in central London in January. In the meantime, police say they will continue their investigation.

A close friend of Choudary, Trevor Brookes (aka Abu Izzadeen), remains in custody after being charged with breaching his obligations under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, for allegedly failing to notify police that he had moved to a new address.

Choudary—whose bail-restrictions include a ban on foreign travel and public preaching—said his arrest was a "politically motivated" effort by the government to silence him on the eve of a Parliamentary vote on military intervention in Iraq.

On September 26, the House of Commons voted 524 to 43 to approve a request by British Prime Minister David Cameron to join the American-led coalition against the jihadist group Islamic State, albeit only in Iraq and not in Syria.

Speaking to the Guardian newspaper minutes after he was released, Choudary said:
"I think that David Cameron has plunged Britain into a very bloody war, which will manifest itself on the streets of London. We saw it before with 7/7 [July 7, 2005 bombings in London], 9/11 [Sept 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S.], it's inevitable, if they are going to attack Muslims abroad.

"I'm not involved in any terrorism. I have and will continue to expose the British government for their foreign policy. I fight ideas with ideas."
Until now, Choudary, a lawyer by training, has managed to tread the fine legal line between the inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic supremacism and the right to free speech. He has never been convicted of any offense, presumably much to the frustration of British authorities.

Nor has Choudary expressed a fear of being imprisoned. "If they arrest me and put me in prison," he has said, "I will carry on in prison. I will radicalize everyone in prison."

Police say that Choudary has become far more brazen since the IS proclaimed the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria in June 2014. Since then, they say, he has repeatedly crossed the legal threshold for criminal prosecution for encouraging terrorism, such as recently justifying the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley.

In an interview with the Washington, D.C.-based Clarion Project, Choudary said that the beheading of Foley by IS operatives is authorized under Sharia law because as a journalist, Foley attacked the IS. Choudary said:
"Muslims who abide by the Sharia and follow the jurisprudence do not make a distinction between civilians and army. This fellow [Foley] was not just a civilian of America. He was a journalist."
Separately, Choudary has insisted that he does not know the knifeman who decapitated Foley. "I'd recognize his voice if it was someone I knew," he said. But he refused to condemn the execution:
"There are circumstances in Sharia where there is capital punishment for crimes that have been committed. Now I do not know anything about these journalists, why they were there, whether they were spying or in fact part of the military. Often it turns out that people have other roles as well."
Choudary is, however, adamant that the United States is responsible for the murder of Foley:
"If you look at the death of James Foley, you only have to listen to the person who is executing him to know that the blame is the Americans' because of their own foreign policy. The fact is that decades of torture, cruelty and mass murder will have repercussions."
Choudary also said he feels no sympathy for another British hostage, Alan Henning, a volunteer aid worker marked as the next individual to be beheaded by the IS. Choudary said:
"In the Quran it is not allowed for you to feel sorry for non-Muslims. I don't feel sorry for him."
In an August interview with the UK-based Fubar Radio, Choudary admitted that pro-IS protesters in London were his students.

Radio host Jon Gaunt asked Choudary: "Are these students of yours... the ones handing out the leaflets?" Choudary responded: "Yes... I have known them for several years, they have attended many demonstrations... many lectures of mine. Very good chaps."

And in a Tweet sent hours before his arrest, Choudary condemned U.S. air strikes against the IS:
"The Islamic State could not wish for a better rallying call for Muslims worldwide to join them than for the USA to start bombing again."
Another Tweet stated:
"FACT: The war being waged by the US/UK & co is a war against Islam & Muslims. The objective is to take Muslims away from the Shari'ah (Islam)."
Yet another Tweet said:
"Eventually the whole world will be governed by Shari'ah & Muslims will have authority over China Russia USA etc This is the promise of Allah."
In September 2014, Choudary said that IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is "the caliph of all Muslims and the prince of the believers."

Choudary has also been insistent in his demands that Sharia law be enforced in the UK.

In December 2013, for instance, Choudary led a group of more than 60 Muslim protesters on a march through east London to demand that businesses stop selling alcohol:
"What we did is we posted a notice to the shop owners saying that under Sharia and under the Koran the sale of alcohol is prohibited and if one were to also drink alcohol, that would be 40 lashes.
"We were there to teach them that just because they are living among non-Muslims is no excuse because Sharia law will be implemented in Britain, and so they should be aware that just because it is not Sharia today, they can't just do whatever they like.
"There will be no more pubs, no more gambling houses, no more national lottery.
"All women would have to be covered up appropriately and wear the niqab or veil and so there will be no prostitution. By 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim country.
"It will be the end of freedom of democracy and submission to God. We don't believe in democracy, as soon as they have authority, Muslims should implement Sharia. This is what we're trying to teach people."
Choudary said the group, known as the Shariah Project (which police say is a successor to al-Muhajiroun), would be arranging many more similar rallies in the future. "This is just the beginning," he promised.

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for, year after year, by British taxpayers. In 2010, the newspaper The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 ($40,000) a year in welfare benefits.

In February 2013, Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims, and a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In a video, Choudary said:
"We [Muslims] take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money."
Choudary added: "Hopefully there's no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this."

In a recent interview with the American news outlet, Fox News, Choudary warned that Westerners have no choice: "Sharia law is coming to a place near you."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4745/anjem-choudary

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

Thomas Lifson: Obama will pay a price for blaming intelligence services for ISIS failures



by Thomas Lifson


President Obama’s 60 Minutes interview, taped last Friday and aired Sunday, is turning out to be a disaster for him, and may even be a tipping point of sorts. There are six dimensions to the disaster.

1.  By blaming the intelligence community for his failure to act on the ISIS threat, he ensured that a series of damaging leaks will be coming, and they are already starting.

The UK Daily Mail, always far less constrained than the American media when it comes to revealing information damaging to the American progressive establishment, quotes “an administration insider,” summarized in its own bullet points:
  • A national security staffer in the Obama administration said the president has been seeing 'highly accurate predictions' about the rise of the ISIS terror army since 'before the 2012 election'
  • Obama insisted in his campaign speeches that year that America was safe and al-Qaeda was 'on the run'
  • The president said during Sunday's '60 Minutes' program that his Director of National Intelligence had conceded he underestimated ISIS
  • But the administration aide insisted that Obama's advisers gave him actionable information that sat and gathered dust for more than a year
  • 'He knew what was at stake,' the aide said of the president, and 'he knew where all the moving pieces were'
  • Obama takes daily intelligence briefings in writing, he explained, because no one will be able to testify about warning the president in person about threats that the White House doesn't act on
This may be a foretaste of what is to come, as intelligence officials realize they will be sacrificial lambs.

2. Obama has now handed his political opponents a big issue. He has failed in his duty to protect America.

Republicans are not remaining quiet. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted in The Hill saying that
...the intelligence community had warned President Obama about the threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria for "over a year."
"This was not an Intelligence Community failure, but a failure by policy makers to confront the threat," Rogers said in a statement Monday.
3.  The media, which had invested so much in his success for so many years, is having a hard time coping with such a naked demonstration of personal irresponsibility on such grave matters.

Yesterday, Josh Earnest faced the unenviable task of walking back the president’s remarks without ever giving a sense that he made a mistake:
"The president’s commander in chief and he’s the one who takes responsibility for ensuring that we have the kinds of policies in place that are required to protect our interests around the globe," Earnest said.
This so clearly contradicts Obama’s blamethrowing that it can only provoke more outrage from those paying attention.

Even Ron Fournier of the National Journal (and former AP White House correspondent), no raging rightie, could not restrain himself, and tweeted:
I, me, my. It's their fault. I, me, my. It's their fault. I, me, my. It's their fault. I, me, my. It's their fault. I, me, my ...
4. There is a substantial public record that Obama was warned on not just ISIS but several related national security issues, and ignored them for political benefit – to maintain his 2012 election narrative that Al Qaeda was decimated and on the run.  As Rick Moran pointed out yesterday, the on-the-record evidence that Obama was amply warned is substantial, as Eli Lake documented. Today, David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon adds to the list with historical depth.

All of these factors affect only those people paying attention, and as everyone knows, it is the low information voters who hold the fate of the nation in their hands. So, the question becomes: what impressions will they be gaining? And here is where the tipping point analogy becomes hazardous for Obama.

5. National security is a gut-level issue, and Obama is forming an image of someone unable to muster the level of concern or leadership necessary to protect us. The startling images of Americans being beheaded by ISIS (and by a Muslim convert in the heartland) have penetrated the low information bubble, and people realize that we face a serious threat.

Once the impression is created that Obama is irresponsible in his duty to protect us, it will be very hard indeed for him to escape a degree of scorn, particularly if the threat from ISIS and domestic terrorists (including lone wolves who may not be done with beheadings) continues to produce dramatic images. One thought that keeps me up at night is that we already have over a thousand “advisors” wearing boots that are on the ground in Iraq and probably Syria, and these troops are at risk of being captured and beheaded on camera. What would be the response of the public if an American soldier suffers this fate and it is on the internet?

The expression “security moms” was created to encapsulate a large sector of the Democrats’ female base that becomes uneasy when they perceive a security issue that could affect their loved ones. There can be plenty of security dads, too.

6. There is disturbing evidence that Obama is just not interested enough in the hard, detailed, and potentially boring minutiae of national security. He has attended less than half (42.7%) of the Presidential Daily Briefings in the first 2079 days of his presidency. And when he reads a memo, he does so on an iPad.


I love my iPad, and use it a lot. But that is in casual settings, often while watching TV. Is Obama watching sports as he consults his iPad? It does not connote responsibility.

With an election in a bit over a month, the timing could not be worse. Obama may face a reckoning. Unfortunately, so will America.


Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/obama_will_pay_a_price_for_blaming_intelligence_services_for_isis_failures_the_only_question_is_how_high_it_will_be.html

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

Battle against Islamic State Creates new Alliances



by The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff


Saudi Arabia and Qatar, among the most active supporters of the armed opposition seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, are now part of the coalition that appears to be helping him militarily, even if unintentionally.

Jordan hopes to use radical al-Qaida-linked preacher Abu Qatada (center right) and jihadi ideologue Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi (center left) as assets in containing the spread of Islamic State in the country
|
Photo credit: AP


The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=20431

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

Share It