Thursday, January 18, 2018

The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Why No Peace? - Richard Kemp




by Richard Kemp

The jihadist aim is to isolate Israel politically; to influence political leaders, public opinion, international institutions and international organizations so that on the day their planned offensive begins, no one will be there to support Israel and the Jews.

  • The jihadist aim is to isolate Israel politically; to influence political leaders, public opinion, international institutions and international organizations so that on the day their planned offensive begins, no one will be there to support Israel and the Jews. The Palestinian Authority, the PLO and the Arab/Muslim states will be unhampered to do what Hitler was unable to do in historic Palestine -- make it Judenrein (free of Jews).
  • Terror is "to achieve Palestinian political goals, to influence Israeli politics, to favor a given Israeli candidate for the post of Prime Minister, to compel the Israeli government to conceal more land, to prevent a final peace settlement by maintaining a state of conflict that could eventually lead to total war, to erode Israeli and American resolve and to demonstrate to Arab population that peace is not an option and that the existence of the Jews on their land cannot be recognized". Some of the attacks occurred just when foreign representatives landed in Israel, "to prevent the revival of the peace talks." Mr. Jason Greenblatt should take that into consideration.
  • The same jihadist war is also underway against the Americans and all "infidels": Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Hindus, Buddhists, and in a general manner all those who do not believe in the "religion of truth", namely Islam; and against those Muslims who compromise with such so-called infidels.
The critical question of why the Middle East seems unable to achieve peace has just been rigorously considered again, this time by Michael Calvo, an international lawyer, in an important new book, The Middle East and World War III: Why No Peace? It is worth being read by all political leaders, academics, journalists, students and anyone who wants to understand why there is no peace and what may happen.

The book analyzes why the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim conflict has not been resolved, in spite of the Oslo Accords and many years of active involvement by the European Union, individual European states, the U.S., Russia and the United Nations.

The long-term Palestinian use of terror, for instance, looked at chronologically:
"to achieve Palestinian political goals, to influence Israeli politics, to favor a given Israeli candidate for the post of Prime Minister, to compel the Israeli government to conceal more land, to prevent a final peace settlement by maintaining a state of conflict that could eventually lead to total war, to erode Israeli and American resolve and to demonstrate to Arab population that peace is not an option and that the existence of the Jews on their land cannot be recognized".
Some of the attacks occurred just when foreign representatives landed in Israel, "to prevent the revival of the peace talks." Mr. Jason Greenblatt should take that into consideration.

There is, according to Calvo, also a psychological and religious preparation for armed conflict with Israel, the manipulation of the media and of minds, the practical preparation of the armed conflict and its planned outbreak, as well as its control by the Palestinian leadership. The terrorists are elevated to heroes and role models. Palestinian policeman, armed individuals, adolescents and adults, sometimes a father or even a mother of young children, are ready to kill Jews by any means and even to blow themselves to pieces for their cause to reach paradise. But they were not born jihadists. They were, and are still, being incited to become jihadists.

The terrorists simply "did what the Palestinian Authority ordered them to do," said Mahmoud Abbas.


(Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)

Muhammad Dahlan has said that, "Forty percent of the Martyrs in this Intifada belonged to the Palestinian security forces... and the Palestinian Authority has hidden Hamas members against Israeli counter-actions".

In the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the role played by Hamas's terrorism to increase the pressure on Israel: "Abbas has an ally in Hamas to multiply jihads".

According to a legal analysis under International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute, to "deliberately attack and kill civilians constitute a crime against humanity." It is also a crime of genocide, "since the intention is to deliberately destroy, in whole or in part, a religious group, since only Jews were targeted, including Jews visiting of studying in Israel." If there is an international criminal responsibility, there is also a lack of prosecution.

The internationalization of the conflict is made clear -- especially the role played by Arab and Muslim countries, including Jordan and Egypt which signed a peace treaty with Israel -- to prepare the world to accept the destruction of the Jewish State.

The legal propaganda in war against Israel is analyzed. It covers many fields and how to answer. Are the territories of Judea Samaria (West Bank) occupied, disputed or liberated? To whom do they legally belong?

The jihadist aim, as convincingly described in the book, is to isolate Israel politically; to influence political leaders, public opinion, international institutions and international organizations so that on the day their planned offensive begins, no one will be there to support Israel and the Jews. The Palestinian Authority (PA), the PLO and the Arab/Muslim states will be unhampered to do what Hitler was unable to do in historic Palestine -- make it Judenrein (free of Jews).

The propaganda war, to achieve this aim, warns Calvo, consists largely of: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), Israel apartheid weeks, the delegitimization, demonization and dehumanization of Israeli Jews; and the actions before UNESCO, the World Health Organization, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

The strategy to destroy Israel is implemented through both governments and non-governmental organizations, funded mainly by the European Union and its member states, primarily Norway and Switzerland. It includes a malignant alliance of anti-Semitic individuals, anti-Jewish Christian churches, questionable Catholic societies, radical Leftists and radical Muslims of all countries. This alliance has one aim: to discredit, damage, demonize and eventually destroy Israel.

This conflict has been considered a territorial conflict by all states and dealt with as such, even by Israel: everyone had reasonable hope that a compromise over land would bring peace. The author's wider perspective, however, leads to the provocative conclusion that because of misguided ideology and theology, there is and will, for the medium term, be no peace in the Middle East.

At the moment, Arabs and Muslims are in a jihadist religious conflict, a theological/metaphysical conflict with Israel's Jews, however much the West may refuse to see it. Understanding the problem must begin at its roots.

Leading experts and Pope Francis have said that the world has already entered World War III, but no world leader other than Israel's has dared to share their analysis. Are they afraid?

If one looks at ISIS and the world through Palestinian/Arab/Muslim eyes, Jews in Israel and abroad are not their only enemies to be destroyed, he stresses. The same jihadist war is also underway against the Americans and all "infidels": Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Hindus, Buddhists, and in a general manner all those who do not believe in the "religion of truth", namely Islam; and against those Muslims who compromise with such so-called infidels.

The Palestinian leaders, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, most of the Muslim states, the Iranian mullahs and government, all from whichever Islamic persuasion, share the same jihadist ideology, encapsulated in one sentence, the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:
"Allah is our goal, the prophet is our ideal, the Qur'an is our constitution, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is our aspiration".
This ideology is used to justify killing Jews and infidels whoever they are and wherever they are found, from New York to Mumbai, Paris, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Moscow, Berlin, Manchester and London; and as far away as China, Buenos Aires, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and the Philippines.

The dilemma of confronting Iran and its proxies, such as Hezbollah, is compounded by what may yet happen in Lebanon and Russia's role in all this. Whatever happens, America, Europe, Israel, the Muslim states, Russia, India, China, and all other states will still face World War III from within.

Of the familiar collusion between Iran and North Korea regarding their nuclear programs, Calvo concludes: "Their endgame plan to intimidate and paralyze America is simple." The distance from Pyongyang to Los Angeles is the same as between Tehran and New York.

Unless a forthright strategy against radical Islamic terrorism, whether by Sunni or Shia, whether from the "fertile crescent" or from the Iranian Empire, is engaged by all states and primarily by the United States, the author lays bare, World War III will soon get even worse; a war with devastating, perhaps nuclear, consequences.
This article, in a slightly different form, is taken from Colonel Richard Kemp's Foreword to "The Middle East and World War III – Why No Peace?" by Michael Calvo.

Colonel Richard Kemp is a retired British Army officer who commanded British Forces in Afghanistan and headed the international terrorism intelligence team in the UK Prime Minister's office.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11748/arab-israel-conflict-peace

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal - John R. Bolton




by John R. Bolton

Most important, there is no evidence Iran's intention to obtain deliverable nuclear weapons has wavered.

President Trump seemingly served notice Friday that the days are dwindling for Barack Obama's Iran agreement. Although deal proponents also gained time to pursue "fixes," this is a forlorn option. No fix will remedy the diplomatic Waterloo Mr. Obama negotiated. Democrats will reject anything that endangers his prized international contrivance, and the Europeans are more interested in trade with Tehran than a stronger agreement.

There is an even more fundamental obstacle: Iran. Negotiating with Congress and Europe will not modify the actual deal's terms, which Iran (buttressed by Russia and China) has no interest in changing. Increased inspections, for example, is a nonstarter for Tehran. Mr. Obama gave the ayatollahs what they wanted; they will not give it back.

Most important, there is no evidence Iran's intention to obtain deliverable nuclear weapons has wavered. None of the proposed "fixes" change this basic, unanswerable reality.

Spending the next 120 days negotiating with ourselves will leave the West mired in stasis. Mr. Trump correctly sees Mr. Obama's deal as a massive strategic blunder, but his advisers have inexplicably persuaded him not to withdraw. Last fall, deciding whether to reimpose sanctions and decertify the deal under the Corker-Cardin legislation, the administration also opted to keep the door open to "fixes" — a punt on third down. Let's hope Friday's decision is not another punt.

The Iran agreement rests on inadequate knowledge and fundamentally flawed premises. Mr. Obama threw away any prospect of learning basic facts about Iran's capabilities. Provisions for international inspection of suspected military-related nuclear facilities are utterly inadequate, and the U.S. is likely not even aware of all the locations. Little is known, at least publicly, about longstanding Iranian-North Korean cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile technology. It is foolish to play down Tehran's threat because of Pyongyang's provocations. They are two sides of the same coin.


Pictured: The perimeter defenses of the underground nuclear fuel enrichment plant in Natanz, Iran. (Image source: Hamed Saber/Wikimedia Commons)

Some proponents of "strengthening" the deal propose to eliminate its sunset provisions. That would achieve nothing. Tehran's nuclear menace, especially given the Pyongyang connection, is here now, not 10 years away. One bizarre idea is amending the Corker-Cardin law to avoid the certification headache every 90 days. Tehran would endorse this proposal, but it is like taking aspirin to relieve the pain of a sucking chest wound.

Putting lipstick on this deal will not fix it. Why would Democrats facilitate Mr. Trump's inclinations to withdraw from the deal entirely? If he's going to abrogate it, why be complicit by adding new conditions that Iran will fail to meet? Sen. Ben. Cardin has correctly observed the president already has all the authority he needs.

To avoid that danger, some senators have suggested restricting the president's ability to withdraw from the deal without congressional approval. This folly is so obviously unconstitutional it fully warrants a Trump veto.

Europeans are collectively following a Micawberesque approach of counting their revenues and hoping for the best. They rightly fear that if U.S. intellectual property again falls under sanctions, they will be barred from selling Tehran products containing that technology. U.S. withdrawal is therefore critical to breaking Europe's addiction to Iranian commercial prospects.

U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has reasonably asked what the alternative policy would be. Iran's recent widespread demonstrations against the ayatollahs provide the answer. Tehran's rulers are far more unpopular than previously believed. Like many seemingly impregnable authoritarian regimes, the facade belies the reality. Iran's opposition needs external support, material as well as rhetorical, to continue its momentum. It would be tragic not to torque up the economic pressure by reactivating all sanctions now under waiver, and adding more.

America's declared policy should be ending Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution before its 40th anniversary. Arab states would remain silent, but they would welcome this approach and might even help finance it. Israel can also remain silent but pressure Iran's forces, as well as its clients, in Lebanon and Syria, to maximize the stress on Iran's security assets.

Recognizing a new Iranian regime in 2019 would reverse the shame of once seeing our diplomats held hostage for 444 days. The former hostages can cut the ribbon to open the new U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal

John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad".


Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11756/beyond-iran-nuclear-deal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Bad Ideas Behind Attacks on Trump’s Blunt Truth - Bruce Thornton




by Bruce Thornton

What hysterical attacks by the president's detractors are designed to hide.




Donald Trump’s leaked alleged comments about “sh*thole countries” to some Congressmen in a closed-door meeting has triggered the Dems’ and mainstream media’s usual hysterical recourse to their all-purpose smear, “racism.” With no arguments that can answer Trump’s concrete successes, the left relies on its favorite question-begging epithet to create a smog of invective in the hopes that it can distract people from Trump’s policy improvements. And other criticisms are based on ideas that are just as questionable, but remain the received wisdom of our ruling elite.

Over at Townhall one can find a selection of reactions that show how irrational and ideologically opportunistic have been the responses to Trump’s statements about Haiti and Africa. Never missing an opportunity to weaponized grievance, the Black Congressional Caucus is ginning up a Congressional resolution to censure the president for his “bigoted fear mongering,” and for insulting countries that “produce immigrants that are remarkable and make significant contributions to our country.”

This hysteria relies on taking Trump’s comments out of context. Trump was talking about getting rid of chain migration and the visa lottery, policies that some Congressmen in the meeting were negotiating to keep basically intact. But Trump believes correctly that randomly admitting immigrants without any of the standards of selection that most countries rely on has been harmful to our country. The point is to admit the best, not just anybody who accidentally has a relative already here, or got lucky in the lottery. Particularly when there are so many politically, socially, and economically dysfunctional countries whose citizens are eager to emigrate, which is why Democrats insist on accepting refugees from them. But taking in randomly selected people from such countries creates a much higher probability those immigrants will be harder to turn into productive Americans than those from other countries less dysfunctional. 

Of course, good candidates exist in Haiti and everywhere else, people who can make “significant contributions” to our country. That is precisely why we need a clear-cut set of criteria for admission that can find those people, criteria based on what skills and qualities they have that will benefit both the U.S. and themselves. The current admission policies seemingly are based on some implied right of anybody from anywhere to become a U.S. citizen. This is patently absurd just as a matter of domestic and international law. Every sovereign nation determines the criteria of admission according to its own customs, mores, and national interests. Try immigrating to Saudi Arabia if you’re a Christian or Jew, or to Canada if you’re broke and badly educated.

The implication, then, from representatives of both parties that Trump was talking about race, and so his comments were “racist” or a “racial delusion,” as leaker Senator Durbin said, rather than referring to culture, government, and ways of living, is itself actually racist. It reflects how thoroughly obsessed we remain with the superficial traits used to define race and assign collective identities, even as we ignore the much more significant factors such as culture and the qualities, talents, and virtues of distinct individuals. This obsession with race is simply the perfumed version of the old arguments for segregation and white supremacy, the bad habit of taking people as a simplistic collective rather than as complex individuals. 

Then there are John McCain’s comments, which take refuge in banalities and recycle the whole “nation of immigrants” cliché favored by the peddlers of amnesty. Seemingly confused about the American political order created by the Founders, McCain tweeted, “Respect for the God-given dignity of every human being, no matter their race, ethnicity or other circumstances of their birth, is the essence of American patriotism.” 

But McCain’s tweet is a non sequitur. Yes, all men are created with certain inalienable rights that give them their dignity. But those rights are a starting point in a life of actions and choices, and their true meaning and dignity lie in how people live, what they believe, and what motivates their actions. Moreover, a dysfunctional culture, or one that doesn’t believe in those inalienable rights, reinforces behaviors, customs and mores that violate that notion of natural rights fundamental to being American. A secular government charged with the protection of its citizens and the fundamental beliefs of their political community must look to how people live before granting them the privilege of American citizenship. The “essence of American patriotism” is accepting those who live up to their God-given rights, and who respect the political order that makes possible the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

McCain’s next tweet––“People have come to this country from everywhere, and people from everywhere have made America great. Our immigration policy should reflect that truth, and our elected officials, including our President, should respect it” ––is equally banal and simplistic. Some of the people from “everywhere” did help make America “great.” Some didn’t. The Italian immigrants who created the mafia certainly didn’t. The MS-13 and cartel thugs ravaging many of our communities aren’t helping to make America great. Neither are the immigrants legal or not who are disproportionately imprisoned in our federal penitentiaries. 


This means our immigration policy should “reflect” that truth as well. Large numbers of immigrants will not assimilate, will not respect our foundational principles, will not discard the old-country ways that are incompatible with ours, or will see America as a source of hand-outs or a venue for crime. That’s why we need a rigorous selection process that sorts out the wheat from the chaff, something chain migration and visa lotteries don’t do well.

Then there are the seemingly more pragmatic criticisms that Trump’s rhetoric damages our interactions with other countries and hence damages our foreign policy. The State Department seems to think that the essence of foreign policy is convincing other countries that we like or respect them. A spokesman from State said that Trump’s remarks make that job “extra hard.” Diplomats now must convince other countries that the U.S. commitment to them “hasn’t wavered.” Republican Congressman Mike Simpson repeated the same bad idea, saying Trump’s remarks were “stupid and irresponsible and childish,” because “America’s influence and power in the world has really been about our ability to persuade because of our leadership, and he’s just destroying that.”

This notion of foreign policy as social work and flattering other countries’ self-esteem is a tenacious fallacy predicated on a naïve, if not delusional, understanding of interstate relations. National interests, not flattery or sensitivity to feelings, are the heart of foreign relations, and so “no nation,” as George Washington said, “can be trusted farther than it is bounded by its own interests.” Whatever its diplomats’ lofty rhetoric, every nation calculates its relationship with us based on how our interests either serve or hinder their own, not whether or not they like us or our rhetoric, or find it “persuasive.” And that calculation in turn reflects their estimation of our strength or weakness. 

Our concern, then, should not be whether they like us, but whether we like them and deem them useful for our own interests. Our leadership depends not on therapeutic outreach, but on showing strength and confidence, and behaving like the unprecedented global power we are. Our rivals and allies may not like us, but they will respect us and seek to gain our favor. Going around the world apologizing for our president’s remarks about our domestic policies does not project strength or confidence. Barack Obama was beloved in foreign capitals even as they serially picked his geopolitical pocket.

The president’s main job as a leader is to protect the interests and security of American citizens. Immigration policy should be based on the same calculus: admitting those who have something to offer us, who are eager to be good and loyal Americans worthy of the privilege of U.S. citizenship. For half a century, our immigration policy has benefitted us to a certain degree, but it has harmed us as well by letting in deadbeats and criminals. All Trump is proposing, in his trademark crude way of speaking truth, is that we make American interests and security the primary goal of our policies. 

But that job is harder to do when political advantage or factional interests take precedence over truth and principle. The cry of “racism” is a reflexive smear that diverts attention from the pursuit of partisan advantage. The Dems and the Black Congressional Congress are trying to leverage Trump’s remark in order to keep immigration policies like chain migration that benefit them politically. The State Department, filled with deep-state bitter-enders, is protecting its institutional received wisdom that deferential “engagement” and “outreach,” rather than enhancing our prestige by projecting strength and confidence, are the most important instruments of foreign policy. The “gang of amnesty” faction of Republicans wants to keep our borders permeable and immigration high in order to get cheaper labor both skilled and unskilled, and to preen morally about their “inclusiveness” and lack of racist taint. And John McCain is just being John McCain, seizing every opportunity to flog the upstart outsider who exposed the entrenched Republican elite’s long history of rolling over for Democrats.

We won’t know until 2018 and 2020 if Trump’s words are more important than his accomplishments. Will coarse talk and successful deeds trump decorous words and failed policies for most voters? The only thing we may know for certain is that Trump has faced relentless outrage from his opponents since the inception of his candidacy, and it did not succeed in derailing his electoral prospects the first time around.


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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269031/bad-ideas-behind-attacks-trumps-blunt-truth-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Europe's Betrayal of the Iranian People - Guy Millière




by Guy Millière

Leaders of Western Europe know exactly what the mullahs' regime is -- but they prefer to play deaf and dumb.


  • The alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States seems intended to contain the Iranian regime, and not, as falsely advertised by President Barack Obama, to prevent a nuclear program.
  • Leaders of Western Europe know exactly what the mullahs' regime is, and what its goals and activities are. They know it is the world's main sponsor of Islamic terrorism. They know the disastrous state of Iran's society and economy, but they prefer to play deaf and dumb. All they think about, it seems, are the contracts they sign with the mullahs to get more money. They do not care about the suffering of Iranians; the chaos, massacres and destruction caused by the regime. They know that the nuclear deal is constantly violated by the self-policing regime, and that a nuclear bomb is in the making. They are aware that the regime has close ties with North Korea, and that both are global threats.
  • The EU's chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, has hypocritically called "all parties concerned to abstain from violence", as if there were a moral equivalence between unarmed protesters and killer militias with weapons of war. Meanwhile, in Iranian prisons, protesters were being arrested and tortured to death.
  • Leaders of Western Europe like to boast how they respect human rights, yet they are the ones trampling on them.
It is hard to know exactly the current situation in Iran, but the uprising seems to be fading . The mullahs' regime might survive a little longer.

The overthrow of a totalitarian regime takes place when the security forces -- which ensure the survival of a regime that has been ruling through repression and fear -- begin to falter, or else when the number of angry people becomes so big that a tidal wave sweeps away all in its path.

This time, Iranian security forces remained loyal to the regime and angry people were too few. The regime could manage the situation by killing a few dozen protesters, arresting four thousand more, torturing and murdering some of them, and cutting off access to digital networks. It is a defeat not only for the Iranian people, but for all who defend freedom.

The defeat, however, is temporary.

What happened now was different from what happened eight years ago. The 2009 protests took place mostly in Tehran and opposed a rigged election. No one questioned the system. This time, the protests spread throughout the country and opposed the entire system. Slogans referred to Ali Khamenei and Hassan Rouhani as dictators. Some protesters spoke favorably of Reza Shah, the founder of the dynasty overthrown in 1979. The protests also overflowed with fury that the regime had supported terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The $100 billion in assets unfrozen by the July 2015 nuclear deal were expected to be used to improve the well-being of Iranian citizen. That did not happen.

The regime can only calm the pervasive anger if it changes its policies radically. That is the one thing it cannot do.

The mullahs' reign, born from an Islamic revolution, derives its "legitimacy" from that and the promise of carrying it further. The regime cannot stop supporting terrorism without ceasing to be itself. Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, constantly speaks of "apocalypse" and "holy war against America and the West." He speaks about the urgent need to destroy Israel and "liberate" Jerusalem. He cannot give a different speech without undermining himself and being called an impostor by those who still support him. President Hassan Rouhani has no real power; he is just there to provide a "moderate" façade for people who still want to fantasize that a moderate actually exists in a regime that is fanatic.

Even if the mullahs decided to give a few crumbs to the population, politically they cannot do it.

Iran's economy is in terrible shape. Much of the infrastructure is worn out. Water resources, badly managed, are vanishing. The banking system has disintegrated: in 2017 alone, five banks and investment funds collapsed; in coming months, others will, too. Pension funds are bankrupt: hundreds of thousands of old people have lost everything they owned. Millions of young Iranians, highly qualified, cannot find jobs; they are unemployed and frustrated. Drugs and prostitution are widespread. Venereal diseases proliferate. The birth rate is in free fall, condemning the society to aging rapidly.

The vast sums of cash made available in 2015 by US President Barack Obama have already been wasted or spent. They have sunk into the circuits of corruption and bank accounts of terrorist organizations that the regime supports. They have also been invested in deadly acts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

No miraculous "savior" exists; even if one did, the regime would quickly eliminate him. Iran is heading for a massive collapse. The regime's leaders know it.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is more than ever the regime's Praetorian guard and ready to defend it to the end. The IRGC would not hesitate to massacre just about everyone. This year, more than twenty people were killed; if things get worse, if the regime feels threatened, the number will be far higher.

The regime has not stopped its race for nuclear might. It has already given the terrorist groups it controls sophisticated weapons that many armies do not own. Hezbollah has at least 150,000 long-range missiles and rockets; it is, according to estimates, the world's "best-equipped non-state fighting force."

If the regime feels near its end, it will fight. Europeans, nonetheless, are trying to avoid a confrontation.

Western governments could limit the damage by telling the Iranian people that they are not alone and pressuring the regime.

Unlike the Obama administration, US President Donald J. Trump seems to have been going his better instincts and allowing his timid State Department the benefit of a doubt.

The alliance between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf monarchies, Israel and the United States seems intended to contain the regime, and not, as falsely advertised by former US President Barack Obama, to prevent a nuclear program.

Revising the nuclear deal with Iran opens the door to sanctions against the regime, but enables the mullahs to buy more time in which to complete their nuclear program.

President Trump's speech to the United Nations last fall denounced the danger of the regime while reaching out to Iranians. During recent protests, President Trump said, "the world is watching" and "that the good people of Iran want change". Nikki Haley, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said that "a long-oppressed people is rising up against their dictators," and that "all freedom loving people must stand with their cause."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also sees the regime as the main threat to his country, the region and the planet.

Leaders of Western Europe are following a very different line. They know exactly what the mullahs' regime is, and what its goals and activities are. They know that the regime has been, and is, the world's main sponsor of Islamic terrorism. They know the disastrous state of Iran's society and economy, but they prefer to play deaf and dumb. All they think about, it seems, are the contracts they sign with the mullahs to get more money. They do not care about the suffering of Iranians; the chaos, massacres and destruction caused by the regime. They know that the nuclear deal is constantly violated by the self-policing regime, and that a nuclear bomb is in the making. They are aware that the regime has close ties with North Korea, and that both are global threats. Yet, they choose appeasement at its venal worst. During the uprising, they were on the side of the oppressors. The Europeans were just waiting for the mullahs to prevail, so they could resume doing business as if nothing had taken place.

French President Emmanuel Macron says he is planning an official visit to Tehran. He did not have a single word of support for the people of Iran or for the victims of the terrorist groups armed and financed by the regime. He criticized neither Khamenei nor Rouhani; he focused all negative remarks instead on the Trump administration and Israel. He said that by placing themselves on the side of freedom for the Iranians, they were "creating a risk of war."

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called for "calm" in Iran and asked the United States to "re-engage" with the men whom the protesters called dictators. EU's chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, has hypocritically called "all parties concerned to abstain from violence", as if there were a moral equivalence between unarmed protesters and killer militias with weapons of war. Gabriel and Mogherini decided to invite to Brussels Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. He came and met them, along with French and British Foreign Ministers, on January 11. Zarif said that the meeting showed a "strong consensus" between all those present. Meanwhile, in Iranian prisons, protesters were being arrested and tortured to death and their families intimidated.


The EU's chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, has hypocritically called "all parties concerned to abstain from violence" in Iran, as if there were a moral equivalence between unarmed protesters and killer militias with weapons of war. Pictured: Mogherini (left) stands with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during her August 2017 visit to Iran. (Image source: European External Action Service/Flickr)

Leaders of Western Europe like to boast how they respect human rights, yet they are the ones trampling on them. The minute they think their interests might be at stake, they are the first to practice pre-emptive surrender and fraternize with the men shooting into the crowd if they think there is something to gain from it.

This is not the first time that they reacted like this; it is exactly what they did when Hitler showed up. Now, since Trump announced that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, they call to create a "Palestinian State" as quickly as possible, meanwhile knowing full well that this "Palestinian State" would be filled with terrorists. Their continuing support for the murderers of Jews is not acceptable.

Nearly eight decades ago, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier went to Munich and came back with an agreement they professed would bring "peace in our time". Winston Churchill famously warned at the time: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war. "

Leaders of Western Europe have again chosen dishonor. They are betraying the values they claim to embody -- and again increasing the chances of war.

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11750/europe-iran-betrayal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Sanctuary City Politicians May Be Prosecuted - Matthew Vadum




by Matthew Vadum

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says the Justice Department is on the case.




Federal prosecutors are considering filing criminal charges against elected officials harboring illegal aliens in so-called sanctuary cities, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told lawmakers at a hearing dominated by Democrats hectoring her over whether President Trump used profanity during a closed-door negotiating session about immigration reform. 

Jailing the leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions is long overdue.

The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers use the dreadful euphemism "civil liberties safe zones" to describe sanctuary jurisdictions. The phrase blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S.

These sanctuary cities really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States. They may as well be flying the Confederate battle flag at city hall in their modern-day campaign of massive resistance against federal immigration authorities.

Nielsen’s comments came in response to a question from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. Harris noted that Thomas D. Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within DHS, told Fox News on Jan. 4 this year that the U.S. Department of Justice had been asked to “look into criminal charges for elected officials with sanctuary policies as they are harboring illegal aliens.”

“I believe the request was made,” Nielsen said. "The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available.”

“The context of this is of course not only putting my ICE officers at risk but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws,” Nielsen said.

Harris’s home state of California may become ground zero in the battle over enforcement of the nation’s long-neglected immigration laws. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed “sanctuary state” legislation Oct. 5, dramatically curtailing the power of state and local law enforcement to hold, question, and transfer detainees at the request of federal immigration authorities. The law, which took effect New Year’s Day in the state that is home to more than 2 million illegal aliens, has been attacked as “unconscionable” by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is trying to block federal crime-fighting grants from flowing to sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Trump administration is gearing up to hit California with a series of major immigration raids to reinforce the primacy of federal immigration law, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

U.S. immigration officials have begun preparing for a major sweep in San Francisco and other Northern California cities in which federal officers would look to arrest more than 1,500 undocumented people while sending a message that immigration policy will be enforced in the sanctuary state, according to a source familiar with the operation. […] The campaign, centered in the Bay Area, could happen within weeks, and is expected to become the biggest enforcement action of its kind under President Trump, said the source, who requested anonymity because the plans have not been made public.
The operation will focus on individuals who have been ordered deported and those with criminal backgrounds, the newspaper reports.

ICE’s Homan previously warned that “California better hold on tight.” If local politicians “don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will.”


The hearing came as a new DHS report concluded that “U.S. federal courts convicted at least 549 people with international terrorism-related charges between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2016,” according to CBS News. “Seventy-three percent of them were foreign-born, and 148 of those convicted had become naturalized U.S. citizens.”

Apart from Harris, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee weren’t too interested in what the Trump administration planned to do in sanctuary cities.

They preferred to spend most of the hearing browbeating and bullying Secretary Nielsen over naughty words President Trump may have used in a meeting with lawmakers last Thursday over potential immigration reforms. A suspect Washington Post report based on unidentified sources claimed Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and nations in Africa as “shithole countries.” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). who attended the sit-down and has a track record of lying about Republicans, claims Trump used the language and that it somehow constitutes proof that the president is a racist. Trump, Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) strenuously deny Trump used the vulgarism.

At the hearing, Nielsen, who also attended the White House meeting, also denied Trump said it, saying she didn’t remember the phrase being used at the meeting.

The conversation was very impassioned. I don’t dispute that the president was using tough language. Others in the room were also using tough language. The concept, and the context, I believe, in which this came up was the concept that the president would like to move to a merit-based system.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) cut her off. “Did he use what would be considered vulgar language referring to certain countries?”

“The president used tough language in general, as did congressmen in the room, yes sir,” Nielsen replied.

Ranting, his eyes bulging like a madman’s, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) tried to raise money for his 2020 presidential campaign by tearing into Nielsen, claiming the real America was on the verge of resembling the fictional semi-apartheid America described in the typical Southern Poverty Law Center fundraising letter.

“Your silence and your amnesia is complicity,” Booker told her after blathering on about a supposed increase in white-supremacist violence in the country that has so far been invisible to criminologists.

This is a preview of Democrats’ 2018 campaign platform.

They can’t accept that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton so they plan to keep tearing the country apart over race. Eight years of Barack Obama’s race-baiting and polarizing wasn’t enough, as they see it.


Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269048/sanctuary-city-politicians-may-be-prosecuted-matthew-vadum

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right - Karin McQuillan




by Karin McQuillan

Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.


Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, "a fecalized environment."

In plain English: s--- is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Last time I was in Paris, I saw a beautiful African woman in a grand boubou have her child defecate on the sidewalk next to Notre Dame Cathedral. The French police officer, ten steps from her, turned his head not to see.

I have seen. I am not turning my head and pretending unpleasant things are not true.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures' terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I relished the feeling of the brotherhood of man. People were open, willing to share their lives and, after they knew you, their innermost thoughts.

The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can't understand anything in Senegal using American terms.

Take something as basic as family. Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins. All the men in one generation were called "father." Senegalese are Muslim, with up to four wives. Girls had their clitorises cut off at puberty. (I witnessed this, at what I thought was going to be a nice coming-of-age ceremony, like a bat mitzvah or confirmation.) Sex, I was told, did not include kissing. Love and friendship in marriage were Western ideas. Fidelity was not a thing. Married women would have sex for a few cents to have cash for the market.

What I did witness every day was that women were worked half to death. Wives raised the food and fed their own children, did the heavy labor of walking miles to gather wood for the fire, drew water from the well or public faucet, pounded grain with heavy hand-held pestles, lived in their own huts, and had conjugal visits from their husbands on a rotating basis with their co-wives. Their husbands lazed in the shade of the trees.

Yet family was crucial to people there in a way Americans cannot comprehend.

The Ten Commandments were not disobeyed – they were unknown. The value system was the exact opposite. You were supposed to steal everything you can to give to your own relatives. There are some Westernized Africans who try to rebel against the system. They fail.

We hear a lot about the kleptocratic elites of Africa. The kleptocracy extends through the whole society. My town had a medical clinic donated by international agencies. The medicine was stolen by the medical workers and sold to the local store. If you were sick and didn't have money, drop dead. That was normal.

So here in the States, when we discovered that my 98-year-old father's Muslim health aide from Nigeria had stolen his clothes and wasn't bathing him, I wasn't surprised. It was familiar.

In Senegal, corruption ruled, from top to bottom. Go to the post office, and the clerk would name an outrageous price for a stamp. After paying the bribe, you still didn't know it if it would be mailed or thrown out. That was normal.

One of my most vivid memories was from the clinic. One day, as the wait grew hotter in the 110-degree heat, an old woman two feet from the medical aides – who were chatting in the shade of a mango tree instead of working – collapsed to the ground. They turned their heads so as not to see her and kept talking. She lay there in the dirt. Callousness to the sick was normal.

Americans think it is a universal human instinct to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's not. It seems natural to us because we live in a Bible-based Judeo-Christian culture.

We think the Protestant work ethic is universal. It's not. My town was full of young men doing nothing. They were waiting for a government job. There was no private enterprise. Private business was not illegal, just impossible, given the nightmare of a third-world bureaucratic kleptocracy. It is also incompatible with Senegalese insistence on taking care of relatives.

All the little stores in Senegal were owned by Mauritanians. If a Senegalese wanted to run a little store, he'd go to another country. The reason? Your friends and relatives would ask you for stuff for free, and you would have to say yes. End of your business. You are not allowed to be a selfish individual and say no to relatives. The result: Everyone has nothing.

The more I worked there and visited government officials doing absolutely nothing, the more I realized that no one in Senegal had the idea that a job means work. A job is something given to you by a relative. It provides the place where you steal everything to give back to your family.

I couldn't wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.

For the rest of my life, I enjoyed the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country's problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here.

We are lectured by Democrats that we must privilege third-world immigration by the hundred million with chain migration. They tell us we must end America as a white, Western, Judeo-Christian, capitalist nation – to prove we are not racist. I don't need to prove a thing. Leftists want open borders because they resent whites, resent Western achievements, and hate America. They want to destroy America as we know it.

As President Trump asked, why would we do that?

We have the right to choose what kind of country to live in. I was happy to donate a year of my life as a young woman to help the poor Senegalese. I am not willing to donate my country. 

Karin McQuillan

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/what_i_learned_in_peace_corps_in_africa_trump_is_right.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Labor party head's plan is two-state destruction - Mark Langfan




by Mark Langfan

Labor party chairman Avi Gabbay wants the 2-state solution, but he does not take into account what would happen if an Arab state was established in Judea and Samaria.

Avi Gabbay, Chairman of the “Zionist Union,” recently spoke at a “diplomatic” conference and repeated the messianic mantra that he saw “the two-state solution for two peoples as the solution for our security.”  Gabbay further preached that the two-state solution would “keep Israel democratic” while “enabling us to keep the Jewish spirit of our nation.”  

As I have written before in How to get 1 million more terrorists into the Palestinian Authority, a "West Bank" Palestinian Arab state would enable any Palestinian government to import not only all the 5 Million+ UNWRA Palestinian Arab "refugees", but millions of Islamic terrorists of all stripes.  

Gabbay’s messianic two-state “cure” would mean national-suicide, much worse than the problems of having to keep order among the "West Bank" Arabs, 95% of whom live under self-rule..  

Now for the good news. Former Likud Education Minister, Gideon Saar, speaking recently at the Jabotinsky Leadership Conference said Palestinian statehood along Israel’s eastern border would spark a massive wave of Arab immigration into the area, threatening regional stability.  In specific, he stated, “We cannot agree to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. The establishment of a Palestinian state would lead to Palestinian control over the borders. Immediately after such a state would be established, there’d be a flood of ‘refugees’ from Syria and other countries into the area.  Can anyone really guarantee us that within this flood of [migrants] there won’t be Islamist radicals who have sworn to destroy the ‘Zionist entity’? Zionism will be pushed backwards – the Zionist enterprise will be destroyed.”  
Saar’s statement, in plain politically-incorrect English, said: A "West Bank" Palestinian Arab State will be out to annihilate the State of Israel and, if the 6 million Jews don't leave, there will be an attempt to enact another Holocaust. 

Saar, went on to say that, faced with the threat posed by Palestinian Arab statehood, there must be unity among Israeli Jews, warning that a split between the right and left could itself be a serious threat to the Jewish state.  “Our political opponents are our brothers and sisters, even if they’re wrong. We need to respect them and foster dialogue among ourselves.”
Now, who’s right? Who’s solution is national-suicide? Gabbay’s allowing millions of Arabs to flood the "West Bank", or the Saar proscription of stabilizing and controlling that area?  While no one would claim Saar has solved the “problem,” Gabbay’s “solution” is the annihilation of Israel.  Gabbay is absolutely wrong and his success equals the end of Israel. Saar is right and his success allows Israel to live and try to solve the conflict.
These two quotes bring us to a third. Recently, Mr. Gabbay admitted to trying to bring down Israel’s current government.  He purpose: to install a two-state solution government that will implement the two-state plan.
I ask every reader to ponder this simple hypothetical: Imagine if you were a Jew in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s.  And, on the one hand, your leftist “leaders” are telling you that “Hitler isn’t all that bad,” and “Hitler doesn’t mean everything he says,” and you have to quietly march off to Auschwitz borders, or “there will be problems” for the shtetl.  At the same time, your “rightist” leaders show you explicit proof that Auschwitz is a extermination camp for murdering Jews  (modern transformation:. Katyusha rockets from a Palestinian Arab state will blanket pre-1967 Israel like the Gaza rockets now blanket the Gaza Belt, and Abbas will bring in another 5 million Arabs with hundreds of thousands of additional terrorists).  What would you do?  Would you believe cowering leftist politicians, or the truth of your own eyes and your own logic?

Every reader of this article has his or her own choice.  One can either continue to believe in a fraudulent “two-state solution" one can get involved and email this article, and others like it to friends and family in Tel Aviv, joining the mind-to-mind combat for the survival of Israel.

Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  Well, everyone, it is time to start doing something, or we could face an evil "West Bank" Palestinian state with another 5 million refugees and thousands of Katyusha rockets aimed at Tel Aviv and Netanya.  We can not allow delusional Israeli politicians like Avi Gabbay, financed by leftist American Jews, the opportunity to railroad the Jewish people into another genocide.


Mark Langfan is Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) and specializes in security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21570

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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