Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Palestinians: Why a "Regional Peace Process" Will Fail - Khaled Abu Toameh




by Khaled Abu Toameh

Abbas and his Ramallah cohorts are already up at night worrying about the talking between Israel and some Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

  • Many Palestinians sometimes refer to Arab leaders and regimes as the "real enemies" of the Palestinians. They would rather have France, Sweden, Norway and Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries.
  • Hani al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, echoed this skepticism. He, in fact, believes the Arabs want to help Israel "liquidate" the Palestinian cause.
  • The Jordanians are worried that a "regional solution" would promote the idea of replacing the Hashemite kingdom with a Palestinian state. Former Jordanian Minister of Information Saleh al-Qallab denounced the talk of a "regional conference" as a "poisonous gift and conspiracy" against Jordan and the Palestinians.
  • The Lebanese have for decades dreamed of the day they could rid themselves of the Palestinian refugee camps and their inhabitants, who have long been subjected to apartheid and discriminatory laws.
  • Israel as a Jewish state is anathema to Palestinian aspirations. Any Arab or Palestinian leader who promotes such compromise is taking his life in his hands. And Palestinian history will record him as a "traitor" who sold out to the Jews and surrendered to American and Israeli pressure.
  • Abbas and his Ramallah cohorts are already up at night worrying about the talking between Israel and some Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Such "normalization", in the view of the PA, is to be reserved for after Israel submits to its demands.
  • Any "regional solution" involving Arab countries would be doomed to fail because the Palestinians and their Arab brethren hate each other. Any solution offered by the Arab governments will always be regarded as an "American-Zionist dictate."
  • Here is what Palestinians really want: to use the Europeans to impose a "solution" on Israel.
Here is a fundamental misapprehension: Arab countries can help achieve peace in the Middle East by persuading, or rather pressuring, the Palestinians to make concessions to Israel.

This misapprehension is both misleading and baseless.

Recently, officials in Israel and Washington started talking about a "regional approach" to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this view, as many Arab countries as possible would be directly involved in the effort to achieve a lasting and comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Advocates of the "regional approach" believe that Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have enough leverage with the Palestinians to compel them accept a peace agreement with Israel.

The Palestinians, however, were quick to dismiss the idea as yet another American-Israeli-Arab "conspiracy to "liquidate" their cause and force them to make unacceptable concessions. Chief among these "unacceptable concessions" are recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and giving up the demand for a "right of return" for millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel.

What the recent Washington-Israeli notion misses is that Palestinians simply do not trust their Arab brothers. The Palestinians consider most of the Arab leaders and regimes as "puppets" in the hands of the US and its "Zionist" allies. Worse, Many Palestinians sometimes refer to Arab leaders and regimes as the "real enemies" of the Palestinians. They would rather have France, Sweden, Norway and Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries.


Palestinian leaders would rather have France, Sweden, Norway and Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries. Palestinians simply do not trust their Arab brothers. Pictured: French President Fran├žois Hollande (L) hugs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a press conference in Ramallah, on November 18, 2013. (Image source: Oren Ziv/Getty Images)

In general, Palestinians have more confidence in Western countries than they do in their Arab brothers. That is why the Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbas continues to insist on an international conference as its preferred method for achieving peace in the region and not a "regional approach" that would give Arab countries a major role in solving the conflict. Arab involvement in a peace process with Israel is, in fact, the last thing Abbas and other Palestinians want.

Hani al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, echoed this skepticism concerning a potential role for Arab countries in the Middle East peace process. He, in fact, believes the Arabs want to help Israel "liquidate" the Palestinian cause.

He also predicted that the recent rapprochement between Israel and some Arab countries would embolden "all opposition and jihadist groups" that are fighting against the Arab regimes. According to al-Masri, it is not even clear that any Arab states, especially Israel's neighbors, are keen on a "regional solution." The Jordanians, for example, are worried that a "regional solution" would promote the idea of replacing the Hashemite kingdom with a Palestinian state.

Echoing this fear, former Jordanian Minister of Information Saleh al-Qallab denounced the talk of a "regional conference" as a "poisonous gift and conspiracy" against Jordan and the Palestinians.

The Egyptians, for their part, are worried that a "regional approach" would mean giving up land from Sinai to the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip -- a highly unpopular idea in Egypt. The Egyptians have good reason to be worried: some Arab leaders and countries have expressed interest in this idea.

Likewise, the Lebanese are worried that a "regional solution" would force their country to grant full citizenship and equal rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in that country. The Lebanese have for decades dreamed of the day they could rid themselves of the Palestinian refugee camps and their inhabitants, who have long been subjected to apartheid and discriminatory laws.

Another adjacent state, Syria, is far too preoccupied with own implosion to think about peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Besides, when have the Syrians ever expressed concern for the Palestinians? Since the beginning of the civil war five years ago, more than 3,400 Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured. In addition, more than 150,000 Palestinians have been forced to flee Syria to neighboring Arab countries or to Europe. The Syrian regime does not care about its own people, who are being massacred in large numbers on a daily basis. Why, then, might it be expected to care about Palestinians? It would be a Syrian nightmare to resettle Palestinians and grant them full rights and citizenship. Like most Arab countries, Syria just wants its Palestinians to disappear.

Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria are rather wary, then, about a "regional solution." And no wonder: it poses a massive threat to their national security. So, which Arab countries would help to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Kuwait? Oman? Tunisia? Morocco? Really?

Israel as a Jewish state is anathema to Palestinian aspirations. No Arab leader in the world can persuade the Palestinians to give up the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees or accept a solution that allows Israel to retain control over certain parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Any Arab or Palestinian leader who promotes such compromise is taking his life in his hands. And Palestinian history will record him as a "traitor" who sold out to the Jews and surrendered to American and Israeli pressure.

Moreover, Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are far from interested in any Arab-Israeli rapprochement. Abbas and his Ramallah cohorts are already up at night worrying about the talking between Israel and some Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. This is "normalization" -- plain and simple. Such "normalization", in the view of the PA, is to be reserved for after Israel submits to its demands.

Abbas's foreign minister, Riad al-Malki, made it clear this week that the Palestinians reject the idea of a "regional solution" that would give Arabs a role in the peace process. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he said, was mistaken to think that rapprochement between Israel and some Arab countries would produce anything good. Al-Malki denounced Netanyahu's "regional approach" as a "twisted policy," adding: "Netanyahu thinks that by establishing ties with Arab governments he could force the Palestinians to enter negotiations with Israel." According to him, the Palestinians wish to see the Europeans, and not the Arabs, at their side when they "negotiate" with Israel.

The Palestinian foreign minister is saying that the Palestinians would rather have the Europeans in their court than their Arab brothers when it comes to trying to squeeze the life out of Israel. The Palestinians think that this is a better bet.

In any event, any "regional solution" involving Arab countries would be doomed to fail because the Palestinians and their Arab brethren hate each other. Moreover, even if Abbas were to accept terms dictated to him by such an alliance, his own people would reject them. Any solution offered by the Arab governments will always be regarded as an "American-Zionist dictate."

Here is what Palestinians really want: to use the Europeans to impose a "solution" on Israel. That is why Abbas sticks to the idea of an international conference like a dog that holds for dear life onto his bone.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9983/regional-peace-process

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Aliens Trespassing - Michael Cutler




by Michael Cutler


Sen. Schumer, his congressional cohorts, and leftist hypocrisy.




In order to minimize the dangers posed by aliens who run our borders and evade the inspection process, open borders / immigration anarchists insist that such illegal aliens are simply entering “Undocumented.”  However, the unmistakeable truth is that these aliens are, in the parlance of immigration enforcement personnel, “Entering Without Inspection” (EWI).

For decades, beginning with the duplicitous efforts of President Jimmy Carter: Originator Of The Orwellian Term 'Undocumented Immigrant' to blur the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, globalists inside as well as outside our government, have sought to undermine the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Recently, many journalists have whined that illegal aliens who purportedly have no “serious criminal histories” have been arrested by ICE under the Trump administration, ignoring that aliens who enter the United States illegally or violate the terms of lawful admissions are subject to arrest and removal (deportation) irrespective of whether or not they violated any other laws.

An alien who enters without inspection violates Title 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien and may face up to 2 years in prison if he/she has done this more than once.

Furthermore, an alien who has been previously deported and subsequently reenters without authority commits a felony that may, if the alien has a serious criminal history, carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens.

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have attacked President Trump for his plans to secure the U.S./Mexican border and effectively enforce our immigration laws.

McCain and Graham have aligned themselves with Senator Chuck Schumer likely because of their shared globalist views on immigration.  They were, after all, members of the “Gang of Eight” or, as I have come to refer to them, “The Eight Gangsters.”

Schumer was, arguably, that gang’s ringleader and has strongly advocated for providing millions of  illegal aliens with lawful status and pathways to U.S. citizenship although, in a manner of speaking, aliens who evade the inspections process trespassed on America.   These aliens’ true identities, backgrounds, countries of citizenship or even dates or manners of entry into the United States cannot be verified thus creating opportunities for massive levels of fraud.

Immigration fraud was identified by the 9/11 Commission as a Key entry and embedding tactic of international terrorists.

Trespassing has been defined as:
[intransitive] trespass (on something) to enter land or a building that you do not have permission or the right to enter.
However, Schumer has hypocritically taken an extremely tough position on trespassing where it concerns landmarks and critical infrastructure.

On October 13, 2014 Schumer posted a press release on his official website that disclosed that because of the threat of terrorism, he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.

His press release stated:
Currently NYC Law Has Max. Penalty for Trespassing of Under 1 Year – In Light of Terrorism, Fed Law Should Make Loud & Clear, Particularly to Trespassers from Overseas, That Wrongdoers Should Stay Off Bridges, WTC, Statue of Liberty or Other Critical Infrastructure
Schumer Said NYPD Has Done Great Work Pursuing Cases, But Available Punishments Are Too Weak
Here is another excerpt:
“With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.”
Schumer said that regardless of a trespasser’s intention, this dangerous behavior puts the individual, tens of thousands of commuters, tourists and first responders like the NYPD at serious risk.  Schumer’s legislation would state that anyone who willfully trespasses or enters upon any critical infrastructure used in interstate commerce will be committing a federal crime and fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
Schumer’s press release even cited a 16 year old boy’s prank as justification for imposing a five year prison sentence on trespassers:

In March, a 16-year old boy climbed to the top of the World Trade Center to take a photo of himself, and has since been arrested for climbing a water tower in New Jersey, yet another example of critical infrastructure.
The 9/11 Commission warned that immigration fraud and visa fraud were key entry and embedding tactic of terrorists.

However, Schumer has blithely ignored the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that identified border security and effective immigration law enforcement, as essential to national security and to defend America against international terrorists.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel - Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
Page 61 contained this passage:
Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists
In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.
This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
President Trump made it clear that effective immigration law enforcement not only saves American lives but the jobs of Americans.

Incredibly, however, administrators of “Sanctuary Campuses” and mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” shield illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents thereby undermining public safety and national security, ignoring Immigration and the Terrorist Threat and the undeniable fact that our borders and immigration laws are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense against aliens with dangerous communicable disease and severe mental illness as well as transnational criminals and international terrorists.

The inspections process conducted at ports of entry is critical, enabling CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Inspectors to vet foreign visitors and also create a record of their entry into the United States.

Many leaders in our government as well as many Americans have rightly voiced profound concerns about the inability to effectively vet refugees from war-torn parts of the world, particularly Syria.  However, Entry Without Inspection = Entry Without Vetting.

The inspections process is statutorily mandated under:INA: ACT 235 - Inspection By Immigration Officers, consider:
(3) Inspection.- All aliens (including alien crewmen) who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers.
Applicants may be required to make a sworn statement about his or her intentions in seeking entry into the United States as noted:
(5) Statements.-An applicant for admission may be required to state under oath any information sought by an immigration officer regarding the purposes and intentions of the applicant in seeking admission to the United States, including the applicant's intended length of stay and whether the applicant intends to remain permanently or become a United States citizen, and whether the applicant is inadmissible.
You cannot tell a “good guy” from a “bad guy” without a score-card.  “Undocumented aliens” have no scorecards.

Ignorance is not bliss; what we don’t know can get us killed.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265928/aliens-trespassing-michael-cutler

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Free Speech Smackdown - Lloyd Billingsley




by Lloyd Billingsley


California Democrats toss state senator Janet Nguyen for comments on Tom Hayden.




On Tuesday, February 21, California’s senate Democrats memorialized the late Tom Hayden, a former state senator, husband of Jane Fonda, and leading figure in the New Left. On Thursday, February 23, southern California Republican Janet Nguyen rose to speak, first in Vietnamese, then English.

“Today I recognize in memory the millions of Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees who died in seeking for freedom and democracy,” she said. “On Tuesday you had an opportunity to honor Sen. Tom Hayden. With all due respect, I would like to offer this historical perspective. . . ”

As the Sacramento Bee reported, at that point Sen. Ricardo Lara, Bell Gardens Democrat, cut off Nguyen, who continued to speak even after Democrats shut off her microphone. When she refused an order to take a seat, Lara had Nguyen “forcibly removed” by the Sergeant at Arms. The Democrats also shut down the feed to the California Channel, preventing viewers statewide from hearing Nguyen’s statement. Senate Republicans called it a violation of free speech, but it was more than that.

“He [Hayden] was one of the great visionaries. He was a guy with a lot of courage.” That was John Burton, a former senator and California Democratic Party Chairman, one of several prominent Democrats cited in Patrick McGreevey’s Los Angeles Times report on the February 21 Hayden memorial.

“He was a maverick. He was an independent thinker. He was an intellectual. He was a true progressive. He dedicated his life to the betterment of our state and our great country through the pursuit of peace, justice and equity.” That was the current senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, Los Angeles Democrat.

“He was a rabble-rouser,” said senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Santa Barbara Democrat. He was raising hell about this war.” That requires some explanation and the Democrats’ tribute bears little if any resemblance to the real Tom Hayden, especially in regard to Vietnam.

The conflict pitted the Communist North, backed by the Soviet Union, against the non-Communist South, backed by the United States. Many Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the conflict, for a variety of reasons.

Many questioned whether, based on American interests, the United States needed to be involved, and on that people of good faith could differ. The United States intervened on the basis of its post-World War II containment doctrine, shared by Republicans and Democrats. As John F. Kennedy put it, the USA would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty,” then under assault from Communist imperialism.

Some questioned whether young Americans should be conscripted to fight, arguing for an all-volunteer military. Many others, such as Martin Luther King’s colleague Richard John Neuhaus, protested the way the USA conducted the conflict. As Neuhaus and other activists learned, some of those in the so-called anti-war movement were not against war in principle, just opposed to U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Beyond that, Tom Hayden wanted the National Liberation Front (NLF), backed by North Vietnam, to win. As the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) chant had it “Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win.” The North Vietnamese Stalinists were so grateful, they used Tom Hayden in other creative ways.

The North deployed Soviet surface-to-air missiles and shot down American pilots, including Fred Cherry, an African-American who endured torture during his seven years as a prisoner of war. So did Lee Ellis, author of Leading with Honor: Leadership Lessons from the Hanoi Hilton, in which he described American POWs kept in cages and punished with tortures such as the “pretzel.”  The POW’s legs were tied together and arms laced tightly behind his back until the elbows touched. Then the torturer would push the bound arms up and over the head. But the torture wasn’t all physical.

The captors piped in propaganda and, Ellis explains, “the afternoon broadcasts were especially disheartening because they featured Americans spouting words that could have been written for them in Moscow and Hanoi.” American Tom Hayden “was a regular speaker,” later joined by his wife “film star Jane Fonda.” For this pair, American POWs were war criminals and their reports of torture were lies.

In 1973, the United States pulled out of Vietnam but Tom Hayden did not oppose the war that continued. When the Soviet tanks of the North rolled into Saigon, Hayden cheered their victory, a fulfillment of the SDS chant. Then he turned his wrath on those fleeing the “re-education” camps of a Stalinist regime more repressive than its Soviet sponsors.

The Communist regime renamed Saigon Ho Chi Minh City, the birthplace of Janet Nguyen in 1976. Her family joined the fleeing “boat people,” but as she told George Skelton of the Los Angeles Times, “every time my parents attempted to escape, my father would be put in prison.” The regime jailed her mother after her father and brother fled to Thailand.

Janet, her mother and sister eventually made to Thailand. She made it to California at the age of 5 in 1981. In 2014 she became the first Vietnamese American state senator in U.S. history. On February 23, 2017, Janet Nguyen was speaking the truth from experience. So little mystery why the California Democrats had to smack her down.

Senator Nguyen’s only misstatement was “with all due respect” because Tom Hayden deserves not the slightest respect from anyone. He should be remembered as the Uncle Tom of totalitarianism, and the man who provided the soundtrack for Communist torture sessions of American POWs.

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265918/free-speech-smackdown-lloyd-billingsley

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Die-hard traditions of the Dreyfus Affair - Dr. Inna Rogatchi




by Dr. Inna Rogatchi

Since October 2015 France has been galvanized by what is known as the Bensoussan Trial. 

Michael Rogatchi co-authored this article.

Just a few months ago, in October 2016, there was a crowded celebration in France. The Swiss city of Mulhouse, bordering France, was celebrating the unveiling of a statue of Alfred Dreyfus, who was born in the city, in commemoration of the 110th anniversary of his rehabilitation. It took them a while, we thought at the time.

Today, witnessing the scandal around the trial of distinguished scholar George Bensoussan, it is hard to withstand the temptation to recall the Dreyfus Affair and rename the present case the Dreyfus-Bensoussan Affair.

We know George Bensoussan personally, and we were honoured that he hosted and was our co-speaker at the French national premiere of “The Lessons of Survival” film at the Memorial de la Shoah in Paris in the spring of 2015. We also know his academic work and many books on the Holocaust in which George Bensoussan has proved himself as an outstanding historian, very honest scholar, and very deep thinker who has contributed to a large extent to the understanding of the Holocaust as a process.

George Bensoussan also is a highly reputed authority in the specialized area of Jewish communities in Arab countries. He is hard-working, thoughtful, productive academic who has contributed to humanitarian causes in a big way.

Observing the current macabre-trial-in-progress, one cannot help but think of just two possibilities regarding this incomprehensible, completely irrational behaviour of the French public organizations and the juridical authorities alike: either Dreyfus Affair’s essence has never died in the country of the officer who was utterly loyal to his country but had ‘sin by default’ - that of being born Jewish; or the atmosphere, functioning and way of life of French society in the 21st century is prone to a recurrence of the one of the most shameful episodes of its history today.

 It looks as though the current resurrection of the Dreyfus Affair is perceived by a certain part of the French public and juridical institutions with shocking enthusiasm.  Since October 2015 France has been galvanized by what is known as the Bensoussan Trial.  

The Stalin show-trials are alive and well

The chronicle of the scandal around the distinguished historian George Bensoussan is in the public domain. To recapulate briefly, in October 2015 the head of the editorial department of the Memorial de la Shoah was invited by the famous French philosopher and member of the French Academy Alain Finkielkraut to participate in a radio programme and discussion. In a course of the discussion, Bensoussan, who was born in Morocco and knows the reality of life in the Arab world first-hand, referred to previous passages on the topic of anti-Semitism among the Arab families in France which were said publicly, on record, in a film shown on the French TV3, by Smain Laacher, professor at Strasbourg University, Algerian by origin.

In his portrayal of the anti-Semitic atmosphere which has become the norm in the Arab milieu of France, but still is regarded as a taboo in the country, Laacher in extensive elaboration described the phenomenon of what he called ‘domestic anti-Semitism’ in Arab families, with such details as “one of the parents’ insults to their children when they want to reprimand them, is to call them ‘Jews’ “. Laacher also said on the record, in the movie broadcasted on the French TV3,  that “anti-Semitism in Arab families is first of all domestic (...), it is in the air that one breathes” – all this according to the transcript of the film.

In the radio program discussion which became threatening for him, George Bensoussan praised professor Laacher for his bravery, and mentioned, re-phrasing Laacher: “ as Laacher very bravery said ( ...), in France, in Arab families ( ...)  anti-Semitism is imbibed with a mother’s milk”.    

It took only three days before the group of pro-Islamic activists brought their claim against George Bensoussan to the French media watch-dog, CSA, accusing the historian of propagating ‘biological racism”.  The snowball of absurd accusations started to roll along with maddening energy and speed. The absurd does have the characteristic of multiplying in no time. George Orwell was a great expert on that.

The pro-Islamist organization  Le Collectif Contre l'Islamophobie en France (Collective Against Islamophobia in France, CCIF) wasted no time in bringing the case against George Bensoussan to the Paris prefecture which, in a significant move, decided to prosecute.

That, in our view, was and is the essential point of yet another shameful public trial in France, so astonishingly similar to the Stalin show-trials, in so many details.

There are many organizations involved by now in the Bensoussan Affair, and the French public is also observing the intensifying battle within French Jewry divided on the position regarding the arrogant witch-hunt of the distinguished Jewish historian.

But in our opinion, these are not essential things to concentrate on, even only because all of this is hardly surprising.

The core of the matter as we see it, is a prompt decision of the Paris prefecture  back in November 2015 to prosecute the distinguished historian in criminal court for paraphrasing another academic. Not only France, but the rest of the world ought to know the name of the prosecutor and anyone else who has contributed to the legal decision that has led to the Kafkian realities occurring in Paris in late January 2017 when the trial took place. George Bensoussan himself perceptively attested to it as ‘intellectual terror.’ 

We have a chilling feeling upon realizing that George, his friends and people in similar positions in France all are living in a literally Kafkian reality.

Remarkably, the film in which sociologist Laacher went on in a long tirade explaining the roots of the current anti-Semitism in Arab families in France had been aired in France back in 2015 two weeks after George Bensoussan talked about it, without any consequences for Laacher. Moreover, he had published several articles in the leading French media, including Le Monde, both before and after the radio programme in which George Bensoussan mentioned him, with very much the same analyses, with no reaction from any of those enthusiastic organizations and activists, and no prosecutor’s interest in him at all.

In the process of the public defense of Bensoussan, several more well-known academics of Arab origins were named who are honestly analysing the phenomenon of the anti-Semitism in Arab families in their works and who all are publicly expressing the same opinion, facts, and analyses; none of them had ever become the subjects of any reprimand.  

The court hearings in Paris in the end of January 2017 were surreal, with witnesses for the prosecution stating that ‘anti-Semitism, indeed, is rooted in many Arab families in France, but not in every family’; with experts prosecutors issuing delusional opinions like ‘while Arab families indeed are calling their children Jews, it is not regarded as an insult, but rather a norm of a language and life conditions.’

It seems that in modern France, both Kafka and Orwell are grossly outdated. But not Emil Zola, not his the trial, at least. The Bensoussan trial, in fact, is a 120 year old copy-cat of the first Zola trial, that other shame of France.

 George Bensoussan: Emil Zola 120 years later

When people compare renowned Jewish historian Bensoussan to Dreyfus, it is a quick and understandable click of the mind. In fact, the essence of the criminal case and trial of Bensoussan and the way it proceeded is astonishingly similar to the first trial of Emil Zola back in 1898 when that great French writer decided to come to the defense of Dreyfus.

The criminal case against Zola had been brought just in a few days after the publication of his now famous J’Acusse article on the front page of the Aurora journal. Like the Bensoussan case, the accusations were brought against both Zola and the media (in the Bensoussan case, the radio discussion of French Culture programme).

120 years ago, three passages were taken from a very big Zola article to sue him for defamation and libel. Today, two phrases were the reason for the claims against Bensoussan.

Zola was convicted to the maximum punishment for the accusation, one year in prison and a 3,000 franc fine, a huge sum back in 1898.

How progressive France has become today, one can be relieved: George Bensoussan was not in sent into exile awaiting the verdict, as Zola was; and during his trial, the prosecutor demanded a modest enough penalty of 1 500 Euro.  So shall we laugh and shrug off the persecution of the historian as absolute nonsense? Absolutely not.

What about the very reason for prosecuting him, a distinguished historian, with an impeccable record of deep and honest research and many books to his credit, a man of high international reputation -  in criminal court for a metaphor? Why did George Bensoussan had to have a criminal record, independent from the verdict of the trial? What about his and his family's nerves, health, and emotions? What about the moral consequences of this ongoing witch-hunt, persecution and trial?

What about the very fact of prosecuting a person for a alluding to another person’s statement?

Under the circumstances, it feels really farce-like to mention anything about freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, and any freedom of the individual in France today. We can see all these ‘freedoms’ as prisoners in the grotesque realities of the present-day French legal system and public atmosphere.   

It is also far from farce to learn that well-known academic has been forced to start to collect money from his friends and supporters to be able to pay the legal expenses in the over 16-month continuing absurd litigation.

Dead-end of the human rights cause in France

The French media are full of articles describing the case, in the very same way they did with both the Dreyfus and Zola trials. From that coverage, one is astonished – or not – to see that there are several French visible human rights organizations,  including  LICRA, the Jewish left-wing body, which are attacking Bensoussan alongside with the pro-Islamic Collective Against Islamophobia, as well as the French Human Rights League. There are also the Muslim SOS Racism organization, called by Le Monde a ‘human-rights body which was developed into political movement’ and Movements Against Racism and Friendship with People.

Public organizations can be affiliated in any way they choose, but it is ironic to see an originally Jewish human-right body as LICRA transformed into what it is today. In general, the tendency of organizations proclaiming their devotion to human-rights, but acting in screamingly biased ways is a worrisome growing phenomenon everywhere, not only in France. What is really serious here is the fact that in France such activities not only find their ways to criminal courts, but are heard there with alarming sympathy.

One cannot help but remember the phrase of Pascal Bruckner, well-known French philosopher and writer, from his classic work “The Tyranny of Guilt”: “Europe relieves itself of the crime of the Shoah by blaming Israel (...)”.  In the same work, Bruckner also wrote of what he called ‘quiet re-legitimization of the hatred of the Jews” masked under the disguise of ‘the Palestinian question’.

In the decade since the publishing of that modern classic, its author Pascal Bruckner has felt his verdict turned on himself, literally: in the same way as George Bensoussan, he was tried in the Paris courts in January 2017 for his words during a TV appearance at ARTE in 2015 where he called for naming the people and organizations who were ‘collaborators in the murders of twelve journalists at the Charlie Hebdo office’. As in the case of George Bensoussan, many French intellectuals of the highest calibre went to the defense of Bruckner. In his case, the court rejected the claims. His supporters celebrated ‘the victory of the freedom of expression’ in today's France in an exalted way, which is really shocking. We are not discussing North Korea here, are we? 

The verdict on the George Bensoussan case is expected on March 7th, 2017.

Farce? No, Alarm. 

The unbelievable facts of the George Bensoussan trial, the deeds of the Paris prefecture, the actions of the organizations claiming defense of human rights, the atmosphere in that large European country where today a distinguished academic is actually being tried for a paraphrase, could be called ‘a farce’ if it all would be written in a form of a political fable, a mini-anti-utopia. But as it all is reality, it does indicate, along with the trial of Pascal Bruckner, an alarming breach of real human rights and freedom in one of the biggest Western countries. 

Not surprisingly, many well-known figures in France were outraged in what the member of the French Academy Alain Finkielkraut called ‘a trial of an opinion’. They are defending George Bensoussan actively and tirelessly.

We are joining their ranks and are calling to all our friends and colleagues, all those people who does not feel indifferent towards the reincarnation of Zola and Dreyfus trials to protest the trial of George Bensoussan strongly and to support the renowned historian and very good man with all our strength and determination.

It would be worthwhile to recall some critically important historical facts that have become the direct consequence of the Dreyfus trial back in the end of the 19th century: The Antisemitic League of France was officially launched as a legitimate organization in 1889 thus paving way for legitimized racial hatred – and we do know the price that French Jewry and thousands and thousands Jewish people who were in France paid for that during the Second World War.  

Of the other consequences, The League for defense of Human Rights, the first ever organization for defending human rights was established by several leading defenders of Dreyfuss led by senator Ludovic Trarieux, former French Minister for Justice, in 1898, as their way of organized defense of Dreyfus. All of them had been electrified by Emil Zola’s J’Accuse which directly prompted their action.

The Dreyfus Trial resulted in an awful public ceremony of the officer’s degradation, and the general atmosphere of hysterical and violently anti-Semitic France at the time,  made a profound, shocking impact on journalist Theodor Herzl who covered the trial for the Austrian Neue Freir Presse. Significantly, Herzl completed the first version of the book which has become the manifesto of modern Zionism, in the few months following the Dreyfus trial.

In the final version of Der Judeenstaat, Herzl wrote: “If France – bastion of emancipation, progress and universal socialism – [can] get caught up in a maelstrom of anti-Semitism and let the Parisian crowd chant 'Kill the Jews!', where can they be safe once again – if not in their own country? Assimilation does not solve the problem, because the Gentile world will not allow it - as the Dreyfus affair has demonstrated so clearly”.

People who act with such bias, such open hatred, and such bigotry towards historian George Bensoussan in France today seem to be genuinely unaware of the real strength of history which always pays back tangibly to those who ignore it. 

For those who would like to support George Bensoussan, please follow the link - https://www.leetchi.com/c/solidarite-avec-historien-georges-bensoussan

Detailed coverage of the Bensoussan Affair can be found here - https://www.facebook.com/HistorienGeorgesBensoussan/?fref=ts

Inna and Michael Rogatchis are co-founders of The Rogatchi Foundation – www.rogatchifoundation.org, and is internationally renowned artistic and philanthropic couple. Inna Rogatchi is writer, scholar and film-maker; Michael Rogatchi is renowned artist. Both are active international public figures.   


Dr. Inna Rogatchi is president of the Rogatchi Foundation. Her forthcoming book is "Stars of Despair, Stars of Hope: Personal Reflections on the Holocaust in Modern Times".

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20217

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

With Obama's Iran Deal, Iran's Goons Get Busy Again - Reza Shafiee




by Reza Shafiee

[The IRGC] is not a national force, but a terrorist organization and in every way deserves a spot on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization list.

They say old habits die hard. In the case of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), it is certainly true. There are two seemingly unrelated events out of Iran in the past few days: One, the mullahs' renewal of Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa (religious decree) for Salman Rushdie’s head, which forced the London-based writer into hiding for fear of his life. The other was an interview with Anis Al-Naqqash, a well-known terrorist imprisoned for his crimes in France for a decade.
Coming at the same time, the two events send a message that that Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the most active agent of Iran's state-sponsor of terrorism mission, have not seen the Obama administration's vaunted Iran Deal as any obstacle to going back to their old barbaric activity. In fact, they may have tried to hide their true colors to the Obama administration to soften sanctions, but these acts indicate they will not hesitate to use their old tactics.
Such actions are second nature to IRGC simply because it was founded on the idea of saving the regime at all costs. They may be updating their tactics but under the surface, it is the same work of the same masterminds in Tehran. They still threaten world peace as they always have -- from running a proxy war in Syria, to fomenting trouble in Iraq, to bankrolling a rebellion in Yemen -- and they remain an instrument in the hands of the Iranian regime for suppressing their citizens internally and harboring terrorists from around the region. This is not a national force, but a terrorist organization and in every way deserves a spot on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list.
My more detailed article about this can be read here.

Reza Shafiee

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/with_obamas_iran_deal_irans_goons_get_busy_again.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Biological girl who wants to be a boy wins TX state girls wrestling title - Rick Moran




by Rick Moran

We are going to be hearing more and more stories about transgender athletes competing where they shouldn't, or enjoying an unfair advantage over their opponents.

A biological girl who goes by the name Mack Beggs because she is transitioning to the male gender won the Texas state girls wrestling title in the 110 pound class.

On the surface, this would appear to be perfectly normal. And in a way it is, given that a girl won a girl's title. But as Paul Harvey used to say, "and now, for the rest of the story." The transgender community is up in arms because the state of Texas won't let Beggs compete as a boy. And many girl wrestlers also think Beggs should have competed as a boy because she's taking male hormones, including testosterone. 

Testosterone is considered a performance enhancing drug (PED) in all sports. But in Texas, if a girl is transitioning to a male and a doctor prescribes the hormone it is perfectly legal - even if the drug gives the girl additional strength and endurance she wouldn't have had without it.

It's a mess.
Reuters:
In some of his first media comments since the story was widely reported, Beggs said “I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for my teammates,” the Dallas Morning News reported on its website.
“That’s honestly what the spotlight should’ve been on, my teammates,” he added.
Beggs’ family has sought to have him wrestle as a boy, and some of his opponents have said he has an unfair advantage among girls because of the testosterone he is taking as a part of his transition.
The University Interscholastic League, which governs school sports in Texas, said that the state’s education code allows the use of a banned drug such as steroids if it “is prescribed by a medical practitioner for a valid medical purpose”.
About a week ago, Beggs won a regional championship after a female wrestler from a Dallas-area high school forfeited the final.
The parent of another girl who wrestles for the same Dallas-area high school had filed a lawsuit trying to block Beggs, saying his use of testosterone increases his strength, which could pose a risk to opponents.
Nancy Beggs, Mack Beggs’ grandmother and guardian, told the Dallas Morning News after the forfeit in the regional championship match: “Today was not about their students winning. Today was about bias, hatred and ignorance”.
According to transathlete.com, which provides information for transgender athletes, Texas is one of seven US states with policies it sees as discriminatory against transgender athletes.
Lou Weaver, who runs transgender programs for the LGBT rights group Equality Texas, said Beggs is abiding by current state rules, which need to be updated, “so that guys like Mack can wrestle with their peers, which would be on the boys’ team.”
The obvious question is how good a female wrestler Beggs would be without the testosterone. I don't think there's any doubt that she would have been an above average wrestler, but probably not a state champ. 

Taking testosterone by itself does not build sufficient strength and endurance to become a champion athlete. The athlete needs to work hard to get to that next level of competition. But there is also no doubt that the testosterone gave her an advantage that other girls did not have. So in the end, this is a question of fairness, having little to do with the transgender issue except as it makes it legal for Beggs to take the male hormone. 

We are going to be hearing more and more stories about transgender athletes competing where they shouldn't, or enjoying an unfair advantage over their opponents. Eventually, even "tolerant" parents and school districts will revolt given the obvious fairness issue involved. The issue can only be ignored for so long before an outcry occurs calling for a change.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/biological_girl_who_wants_to_be_a_boy_wins_tx_state_girls_wrestling_title.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Reshaping NATO? - Joseph Puder




by Joseph Puder


Should the new Trump administration transform the Western military alliance?




During the 2016 election campaign, candidate Donald Trump called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) irrelevant.  Bloomberg reported on January 15, 2017, that “Repeating criticism of NATO he made during his campaign, Trump said that while Trans-Atlantic military alliance is important, it has problems.”  In an interview with the German Newspaper Bild, President Trump described NATO as “obsolete,” and added, “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should, and NATO didn’t deal with terrorism.”   Trump is right on all three assertions.

Since the Cold War began in the late 1940’s, the Atlantic Alliance was instrumental in deterring Soviet expansionism in Europe.  NATO kept the Soviets out of Western Europe, the U.S. Marshall Plan created economic stability, while hundreds of thousands of U.S. G.I.’s stationed in Europe, insured peace and security.  The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s put into question NATO’s mission, which was hitherto designed to block Soviet aggressive expansionism, and protecting European democracies.

At that juncture, there were a number of high powered voices calling for the dismantling of NATO, and it was thought that a weakened Russia no longer posed a threat.  Others however suggested keeping the alliance as a safety net.  The civil war in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s provided NATO and its advocates with a renewed purpose.  NATO became a multinational force able to act on the periphery of the Continent, able to enforce relative peace among the warring parties.  Peace enforcement then became the heart of NATO’s mission.

On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda’s attack on America compelled NATO to activate for the first time in its history Article 5, which is defined as ‘an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all members.’ The U.S. launched an attack on Al-Qaeda bases and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. Regretfully, with the exception of the British forces, the U.S. European allies didn’t possess the capabilities to be effective in an arena such as Afghanistan, and the U.S. carried the brunt of the burden, as it did in the 2003 Iraq war that toppled the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein.

In an article published in the British Telegraph newspaper (February 13, 2017) titled “NATO needs to reform into a global alliance against Islamic Terrorism - or become obsolete,” Col. Richard Kemp, commander of British forces in Afghanistan and Rafael Bardaji, former National Security adviser to the Spanish government, pointed out that,  “NATO from 1989 to today has basically opted out of the major strategic issue of our time - Islamic terrorism, and generated mixed results at best in its out-of-area operations without becoming more efficient in its traditional mission to keep peace in Europe.”  Kemp and Bardaji added, “NATO should accept that we are all under attack by Islamic extremist forces of all kinds.  President Hollande said that France was at war, and the rest of the allies cannot sit idle by his side.  NATO must make the fight against Islamic terrorism its core mission.”

Bardaji and Kemp recommended that “in order to reinforce our Western world, (NATO) must invite member countries that are alike in the defense of our values and with the willingness to share the burden in the civilizational struggle.  NATO should invite Israel, Japan, India, and Singapore to become members.”

It has become apparent that Western democracies must now defend themselves against Islamic terrorists that have declared war on them.  It is particularly true on the Western European turf.  That also means that the West as a whole is in a global struggle rather than one limited to the defense of Europe.  It implies moreover, that several actors who share the democratic values of the West as well as the threats could join the alliance.  This would naturally apply to Israel, and India in particular.

President Trump argued that countries aren’t paying what they should, and he is absolutely correct.  According to World Bank data, the EU countries spent on average 1.5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense in 2015.   The U.S. spent 3.3% ($664.1 billion) of its GDP on defense at the same time. (Declining from a high of 5.6% in 1988.) Germany, the fourth largest economy in the world, spent 1.2% ($40.7 billion) of its GDP on defense.  Britain spent 1.9% ($60.3 billion) on defense, France 2.1% ($43.6 billion), Spain 1.2%, and Italy 1.3%.  Israel’s defense budget, according to the World Bank was at 5.4% of its GDP in 2015, and India’s was 2.4%.  Clearly the EU countries in general, and Germany in particular, are not carrying their weight.  Germany and other Western European states have relied on U.S. protection for too long without dipping into their own taxpayer pockets.  While providing immigrants large welfare payments, the EU countries have done little to upgrade their defense budgets.

Israel is on the first line of defense against Islamic terrorism.  Its long struggle with Palestinian (and Lebanese Hezbollah) terrorism has made the Jewish state an experienced and skilled combatant against terrorism.  In fact, Israel provided the U.S. with expertise in fighting terror in Iraq.  This reporter wrote a paper in 1999 which showed that Israel should rightly be a NATO ally, and receive American support from the U.S. Defense Department budget rather than from the State Department’s foreign assistance program.  Israel, unlike its European NATO allies, does not require the stationing of U.S. troops.  Israel defends itself with its own forces.  Israel has moreover provided the U.S. with invaluable intelligence, and has demonstrated the superiority of U.S. weaponry over that of the Soviet Union, now Russia, in real combat situations.  Israel, moreover, spends almost four times as much on defense from its GDP than the European NATO allies’ average.   As Kemp and Bardaji suggested, Israel should be enlisted as a member of NATO.

India, facing Islamic terror, and being the largest democracy in the world, has similarly a place in the alliance.  Islamic terror is no longer confined to the Atlantic Ocean and the lands on its shores. It is a global menace threatening democracies everywhere.

The European Union members of NATO must now focus on defending their own states. It is true for France and Germany, as well as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway, to name a few.  The influx of over a million immigrants from Islamic countries into Europe brought along the potential for ongoing Islamist terror.  In addition,  Iran’s development of long-range ballistic missiles on top of the certainty of the Islamic Republic becoming a nuclear power in a decade or less, must be of concern to the architects of a reshaped NATO.
The new U.S. President Trump and his administration, with vision and willpower, serves as an opportunity to transform and reshape the Western military alliance, making it larger, more resourceful, and above all strategically focused on the challenges of tomorrow.

Joseph Puder

Source:  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265926/reshaping-nato-joseph-puder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinian Ambassador To Iran: I Pray That Iran Will Produce 1,000 Nuclear Bombs - MEMRI




by MEMRI

In a February 20 interview on Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV, Palestinian Ambassador to Iran Salah Zawawi warned against what he called the "Western enterprise" to establish the Greater Israel and to turn the Arabs into "servants, if not slaves in our region."



Salah Zawawi: "Our war is not only with this Zionist enemy. We are fighting a 100-year-old Western enterprise, which is ongoing. This enterprise does not target a part of Palestine, or even Palestine in its entirety. Its goal is to establish the Greater Israel, which would control disintegrated Arab and Islamic countries, and indeed, this is happening today in our Islamic world. This way, our enemy along with its defenders and masters, would complete their plan to turn us into servants, if not slaves, in this region, and to plunder our resources.


"When they talk about the signing of the nuclear agreement and whatever, they are truly terrified. If Iran produces a nuclear bomb - and I pray to Allah that Iran will produce 1,000 nuclear bombs - it will not be directed against any Arab or Islamic country. It will be used to defend, at the very least, the Islamic republic and its principles."


MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/tv/palestinian-ambassador-iran-i-pray-iran-will-produce-1000-nuclear-bombs

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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