Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Britain's "Routine and Commonplace" Anti-Semitism - Richard Kemp and Jasper Reid

by Richard Kemp and Jasper Reid

The consequences of Western politicians' continued weakness and appeasement are far greater than encouraging anti-Semitism and undermining the State of Israel. It is the fatal and irreversible descent of their own countries.

  • Each of these politicians accused of anti-Semitism was voted into power by an electorate who knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views, they would not have been elected.
  • "Anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace." — Mehdi Hasan, British Muslim political journalist.

Battle-hardened British soldiers were moved to tears by the horrors they witnessed at the Nazi charnel house of Bergen-Belsen when they liberated the concentration camp in April 1945. Yet seventy years after thousands of troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march across Europe.

In just one week, a British student leader, a Labour Party constituency MP, a London council leader, a member of Labour's National Executive Committee and even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all been accused of being mired in Jew-hatred.

It is the tip of the iceberg. Each of these people was voted into power by an electorate that knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views they would not have been elected.

All are on the political left, but the problem does not stop there. The cancer of Jew-hatred today spreads from right to left throughout European nations and in all supranational bodies including the European Union and the United Nations. It is led by politicians, human rights groups and the media, whose contorted worldview has contaminated ordinary people on a scale unimaginable possibly even to the arch-propagandist Dr. Josef Goebbels himself.

Seventy years after thousands of British troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march. Left: A British soldier talks to an emaciated prisoner after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen in April 1945. Right: An anti-Israel protestor in London holds up a sign saying "Hitler you were right," in July 2014.

In the 21st Century, outside the Middle East, it is hard to express hatred of Jews publicly. So Jew-haters everywhere have adopted a proxy: the Jewish state. Israel is the acceptable target of their hate. That is why Labour MP Naz Shah's "solution," with chilling echoes of Reinhard Heydrich, was to "transport" all the Jews out of Israel, with the obvious implication that this would be done forcibly and violently.

It is why National Union of Students President Malia Bouattia advocated violence against Israel and accused the international media of being "Zionist-led." It is why Muhammed Butt, a London Labour council leader, shared a Facebook post denouncing Israel as "a terrorist state like ISIS." It is why former London Mayor and Labour National Executive member Ken Livingstone sought to discredit Zionism by his assertion that Hitler supported it.

Where does all this hatred come from? Its long lineage begins with the Muslim prophet Muhammed and its modern form pre-dates Hitler. Back in the 1920s and 30s, murderous Arab gangs attacked Jewish communities in post-Ottoman, British Mandated Palestine and tried to drive them into the sea. They were stopped by Britain's Captain Orde Wingate, who taught the Jews to defend themselves, fighting alongside British troops.

A few years later Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, made a deal with Hitler to bring the final solution to the Middle East, but the German advance was halted in its tracks at El Alamein by General Montgomery's Eighth Army. As soon as the State of Israel was established, 68 years ago this month, by resolution of the United Nations, five Arab armies fell on her with the intent of annihilation. They failed, and ever since have been trying to destroy the Jewish state by military assault and terrorism in all its forms.

Recognizing their collective inability to eliminate Jews from their historic homeland by force, the Arabs have waged a pernicious and all-pervading propaganda war to demonize the Jewish State. Their lies have included the blatant falsehoods that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal under international law; that the Israeli government operates an oppressive apartheid state; that the IDF is strangling Gaza under an unprovoked and illegal siege; that successive Israeli administrations have been the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East; and that Israeli security forces deliberately murder innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Understanding that the might of the pen is magnified by the flash of the sword, the Palestinian leadership and their Iranian paymasters have frequently used violence to seize international attention. Provoking the Israelis into killing Palestinian people to ensure global condemnation was the true purpose behind the Gaza rocket wars and the recent wave of murderous knife attacks and car-rammings.

Why does the West pander to this religiously inspired hatred and bigotry? There are three fundamental reasons. First, Europe especially is consumed by imperial guilt. Those that are seen to have been historically oppressed and exploited can today do no wrong; Westerners must prostrate themselves at their feet.

Second, every European country depends on Arab oil for its continued existence and relishes the return of its petrodollars through arms sales and massive investment into their economies.

Third, Western governments understand the power of their ever-increasing Islamic populations. They fear the extremism of those who reject Western values and want to violently replace them with the ways of Islamic sharia law. And they calculate the mathematics of the Muslim vote at the ballot box.

They know that among these communities there is widespread and innate hatred of Jews and of Israel. Mehdi Hasan, a British Muslim political journalist, has confirmed: "anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace." Our politicians believe that by appeasement they will satiate the blood lust of the jihadists and gain the support of Muslim voters.

This is why we see Western leaders condemning Israel for insufficient restraint while defending itself from lethal Hamas rockets, when they know full well Israel has done all it can to avoid civilian deaths. It is why not one single EU member state had the courage to vote against the false condemnation of Israel for war crimes in the UN Human Rights Council last year. It is why the British government unequivocally asserts that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal when it knows they are not. It is why Prime Minister David Cameron, a friend and supporter of the Jewish state, accused Israel of turning the Gaza Strip into a 'prison camp' when he knew it had not.

These false and malicious condemnations fuel hatred of Israel and of Jewish people everywhere. They are driven and intensified by a media that is dominated by strident, virulent and unyielding anti-Israel bias.

What of the future? Imperial guilt in Europe shows no sign of diminishing. In fact, the ideology behind it is gaining strength as the EU seeks to undermine national identity in its drive for ever-closer union and the creation of a superstate.

Despite developing energy technologies, there is no prospect of significantly reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the foreseeable future. And with the vast influx of refugees from Muslim countries into Europe, the urge to appease their anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes can only increase dramatically.

This means Israel and the Jews are going to come under even more intolerable pressure, leading to a greater exodus of Jews from many Western nations and the increasing international isolation of the Jewish state.

But there is an alternative. It is that Western political leaders find the courage to reject the virulent anti-Israel prejudice. To speak what they know to be the truth about the situation in the Middle East. To stop encouraging Palestinian leaders to believe their campaign against Israel is going to achieve its goal of destroying the Jewish state. And rather than supporting Palestinian hate with Western dollars, to impose sanctions against their racist and destructive behaviour.

The consequences of Western politicians' continued weakness and appeasement are far greater than encouraging anti-Semitism and undermining the State of Israel. It is the fatal and irreversible descent of their own countries. By allowing this anti-Semitic hatred, they are betraying the millions of citizens who have fought and died to oppose the sort of malevolent ideologies that are now incubating it.
Colonel Richard Kemp was Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan. He served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Balkans and Northern Ireland and was head of the international terrorism team for the UK Joint Intelligence Committee. Jasper Reid is a British analyst specializing in politics, defense and international security.

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

Reversing Israel on the Golan Heights - Shoshana Bryen

by Shoshana Bryen

“The Golan Heights have been an integral part of the land of Israel since ancient times; the dozens of ancient synagogues in the area around us attest to that".

Chinese Ambassador Liu Jieyi, who held the April UN Security Council presidency, announced last week that the status of the Golan Heights “remains unchanged.” That is, of course, true -- like the old "Saturday Night Live" running gag, “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.”

He meant it belongs to Syria, and he was responding to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told a meeting of the Israeli Cabinet on the Golan, “The Golan Heights have been an integral part of the land of Israel since ancient times; the dozens of ancient synagogues in the area around us attest to that. And the Golan is an integral part of the state of Israel in the new era. I told [Secretary of State John Kerry] that I doubt that Syria will ever return to what it was.”

That is, of course, also true and entirely unremarkable. But thus begins another round of UN condemnation of Israel resting on silly propositions. In this case:
  • That Syria -- ruled by a war criminal in the midst of a civil war with other groups that include war criminals -- has a valid claim to anything; and
  • That Israel is wrong because the UN is miffed.
A bit of relatively recent history is useful here.

An Israeli was raised in the Galilee sleeping every night in a bunker to avoid Syrian shelling from the Golan Heights -- Hamas and Hizb’allah are latecomers to the war crime of indiscriminately firing at civilians. As a child, he helped on the family farm. While riding the tractor, his father couldn’t hear the mortars fired by the Syrians down into the fields. The child’s job was to be within eyesight of the tractor along the edge of the field near some trees. When the mortars began, he would wave a large red flag to catch his father’s attention, at which his father would slip off the tractor and hasten for shelter. Not exactly milking the cow.

Things changed in June 1967 when, after intensified shelling by the Syrians, the IDF captured the Golan. Israeli soldiers stood on the Heights and looked down into Israel’s Jezreel Valley.  Their new understanding of the dire circumstances at the bottom shocked them, and they left a marker that remains today. “From here,” it reads, “You look ten feet tall.”

At great cost in the lives of military personnel, Israel retained the Heights in 1973 after Syria launched an offensive on Yom Kippur.

Israel would have been within its rights to annex the Golan Heights -- in 1967 or in ’73. The UN line about “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force” (ever applied only to Israel) to rational observers means the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by offensive force; otherwise defense would have no meaning. Israel acquired the Golan in defense, and retained it in defense.

It was understanding that insecure boundaries could result in additional wars -- in the case of Israel, not least because the Arab countries were/are still working to overturn the 1948 independence of Israel by force -- that the 1967 UN Resolution 242 contained the security promise to Israel of “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

Although Israel could have annexed the territory, it did not. In 1981, the government did end the application of military law on the Heights and institute Israeli civil law; the change in status applied to people, not to rocks. Even in its frenzy to condemn, the 1981 Security Council correctly described Israel’s actual actions as less than annexation, calling it a “decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights,” and said that anyhow it was “null and void and without international legal affect.”

It may not have had “international legal affect” but for the 12,000 Druze living there, it had enormous economic and social affect, allowing them to live and prosper along with Jews, while Israel created its most peaceful border. Even now, during the horrific Syrian war -- complete with barrel bombs, chemical weapons, starvation, beheadings, crucifixions, and ethnic cleansing -- the Israeli side of the Golan remains so secure that Israel has been able to open its border, cautiously, to some casualties from the Syrian side for treatment in Israeli hospitals.

But still it is the Israeli part of the Golan that transfixes the UN.  

One could not do better to make Israel’s case than to cite Moshe Arens -- retired Israeli diplomat, Defense Minister, and aeronautical engineer. “According to the second law of thermodynamics there are no reversible processes in nature. Nothing can return exactly to its original state. This law may not hold in international relations, but the exceptions are few and far between.”

Syria is unlikely to return to its “original state” which, in fact, was only its state determined by colonials and held for a few decades in the middle of the 20th Century. The UN, however, may believe it has a better chance of reversing the laws of thermodynamics than of bringing the war of Syrians and others parties to an end.

Shoshana Bryen


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

The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party - Kimberly Bloom Jackson

by Kimberly Bloom Jackson

Facts are stubborn things.  Let’s take a closer look.

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels?  How about Joseph Hayne Rainey?  If not, you’re not alone.  I taught history and I never knew half of our nation’s past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda. 

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it’s the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties.  Luckily, we can still venture back into America’s real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things.  Let’s take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they’re all Republican!

From left to right: 

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901):  Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War.  He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America’s first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894):  Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman.  He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868.  In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874):  Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868.  From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905)Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops.  He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled.  Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901)Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man.  However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses.  But that didn’t stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House. 
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887):  Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884)Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina.  He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872.  In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.
Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. How can this be? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party.  Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic’s founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation.  Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress.  This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead.  Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864.  Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise.  Then there’s the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males.  Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office.  For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935! 

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era.  This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate.  The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard.  But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof.  For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they’ve scratched even more history.  Apparently, they believe it’s easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s.  Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent roll in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!” 

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.  

The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other.  Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process.  Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills.  Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress.  Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions.  Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work.  Instead, they do it themselves.  You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state’s new right-to-work legislation stating, “Whoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.”  An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, “There will be blood!”

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It’s a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today’s Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms.  This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled.  If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself.  There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition. 

Kimberly Bloom Jackson is a former actress turned teacher who holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology. Her many writings on Hollywood, education, and culture can be found at


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

Israel's Palestinian Dilemmas - Dr. Efraim Inbar

by Dr. Efraim Inbar

The hopes for peace that were generated by the Oslo process in 1993 have been replaced by the stark realization that violent conflict will not end soon.

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 341, May 3, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel has gradually come to realize that the Palestinians are neither a partner for peace nor capable of establishing a viable state. Therefore, Israel's recent governments have adopted a de facto conflict-management approach, rather than a conflict-resolution strategy. This prompts several questions. Should Israel speak explicitly about the dim prospects of a two-state solution, or play along with the illusory preferences and pretensions of the international community? Should Israel apply more “stick” than “carrot” to the hostile Palestinian Authority? Would the collapse of the Palestinian Authority serve Israel's interests? And how diplomatically active should Israel be on the Palestinian issue?

Ever since the Palestinian terrorist wave began in September 2000, the Israeli body politic increasingly has resigned itself to the probability that there is no partner on the Palestinian side with which to reach a historic compromise with the Jewish national (Zionist) movement. The hopes for peace that were generated by the Oslo process in 1993 have been replaced by the stark realization that violent conflict will not end soon.

Moreover, the hostile messages about Israel purveyed in the Palestinian Authority (PA) educational system and official media leave little doubt about the rabid anti-Semitism prevalent in Palestinian society, which ensures that conflict with the Jews will continue. And thus, the central premise of the Oslo process seems exceedingly improbable. The premise was that partition of the Land of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian political entity (what is known as the two-state paradigm) would bring peace and stability. Alas, this paradigm has been deeply discredited.

Aside from and beyond the assessment that the PA has no intention of accepting a Jewish state in any borders, the fact remains that the two sides remain far apart on most of the concrete issues to be resolved. Palestinian demands for control of the Temple Mount and the so-called “right of return,” for example, are insurmountable obstacles. Any pragmatic impulse that might otherwise have emerged in Palestinian politics is consistently countered by Hamas, whose growing influence reflects the Islamist tide that is surging across the wider region.

To make matters worse, the assumption that the Palestinians are capable of establishing a state within the parameters of a two-state paradigm has not been validated. The PA was unable to get rid of multiple militias and lost Gaza to Hamas, mirroring the inability of other Arab societies in the region to sustain statist structures.

Finally, protracted ethno-religious conflicts end only when at least one of the sides becomes war-weary, and runs out of energy for sustaining the conflict. That is not true of either Israeli or Palestinian society.

As a result of these trends, Israel essentially, if not formally, has given up on conflict resolution in the short run, and instead effectively has adopted a strategy of patient conflict management. But such a strategy brings policy dilemmas of its own.

The first dilemma is whether or not to admit that Israel no longer believes that negotiations can lead to a durable agreement in the near term.

Truth has its virtues, but much of the world does not want to hear this particular truth and is still committed to an unworkable formula. There is, in any case, something to be said for acceding to the wishes of the international community by continuing to participate in negotiations. Doing so signals that Israel is ready to make concessions, which maintains the domestic social cohesion necessary for protracted conflict (management) while projecting a positive image abroad.

On the other hand, negotiations toward the doubtful “two-state solution” keep a fictitious formula alive and prevent fresh thinking about alternative solutions from emerging. Moreover, the “peace process” requires moderation, which entails swallowing Palestinian provocations and restraining punitive action.

A second dilemma is related to the “carrot and stick” approach toward the Palestinians. In the absence of meaningful negotiations, Israel, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has advocated the promotion of “economic peace” as a part of conflict management, on the assumption that Israel has nothing to gain from hungry neighbors. This is why Israel does not oppose international financial support for the PA, despite the corruption and inefficiency of the latter. Jerusalem also provides water and electricity to the PA, and to Hamas-ruled Gaza, so that Israel’s Palestinian neighbors do not dive into total desperation.

But the carrot mitigates the impact of the stick. The Palestinians, it must be recalled, wage war on Israel. Exacting pain from opposing societies is what war is all about, and pain can have a moderating effect on collective behavior. Egypt, for example, decided to change course with regard to Israel because it grew reluctant to pay the costs of maintaining the conflict.

Since the Palestinians have chosen to pursue their goals by causing Israel continued pain – rather than by accepting generous peace deals offered by Ehud Barak (2000) and Ehud Olmert (2007) – Israel has every right to punish them, in the hope that a bit of pain might influence their future choices in a productive direction. But by adopting an “economic peace” approach, Israel creates disincentives to Palestinian moderation, and signals its desperation at the prospect of changing Palestinian behavior.

A third dilemma implicit in the conflict management approach is what to do about the hostile PA, which survives largely because of Israel’s security measures and economic backing. The collapse of the PA is one possible outcome of a succession struggle after Mahmoud Abbas leaves the political arena.

Whether or not the collapse of the PA is desirable is debatable. On the one hand, the PA propagates vicious hatred toward Israel in its educational system, conducts an ongoing campaign of international delegitimization against Israel, and denies Jewish links to the Land of Israel and to Jerusalem in particular. It glorifies terrorists and allows them to be role models in its schools. It deliberately reinforces the hostility that fuels the conflict, preventing the emergence of a more pragmatic Palestinian leadership.

On the other hand, the PA conveniently relieves Israel of the burden of responsibility for more than one million Palestinians living in the West Bank. PA security forces help combat Hamas influence in the West Bank (although far less than the PA is given credit for). The functioning of the PA, however imperfect, also keeps the Palestinian issue off the top of the international agenda – something that is very much in Israel’s interests. A descent into chaos resulting from the total collapse of the PA would invite international intervention.

An additional question for Israel to consider relates to the appropriate level of diplomatic activism on the Palestinian issue. Many advocate Israeli diplomatic initiatives in order to prevent unfavorable plans from being placed on the agenda by global actors. The nature of such initiatives is usually unclear, but activism is part of the Israeli Zionist ethos and “taking initiative” appeals to the impatient Israeli temperament.

On the other hand, a patient wait-and-see approach allows others to make mistakes and gives Israel the latitude to wait on a more favorable environment. In fact, this was the approach favored by David Ben-Gurion. He believed in buying time to build a stronger state and in hanging on until opponents yield their radical goals.

Each of these dilemmas leads to a policy gamble. The short-term existential security imperatives of a small state further complicate Israel’s choices. Even if Israel’s leaders are correct in opting for a conflict management approach for the moment, they are in an unenviable position.


BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Dr. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.


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

Hypocrisy on the Golan Heights: An "occupational" hazard - Dr. Rafael Medoff

by Dr. Rafael Medoff

Who are the Security Council members who are so "concerned" about Israel controlling the Golan?

Fifteen countries that are illegally occupying other countries' territories have denounced Israel for refusing to surrender the Golan Heights. It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry--or perhaps just turn the page.

The current president of the United Nations Security Council, Chinese ambassador Liu Jieyi, this week chaired a closed meeting of the 15 council members and announced afterwards that they share a "deep concern" about Israel's position that it will not retreat from the Golan. They insisted that Israel's presence on the Golan is illegal.

Ambassador Jieyi represents a Chinese regime that has been illegally occupying Tibet since 1950. China also illegally occupies various islands in the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands, which it seized from Vietnam in 1974, and the Scarborough Shoal, from which it has blocked Phillippines forces since 2012.

Who are the other Security Council members, who are so "concerned" about Israel controlling the Golan?

Among the permanent members of the Council, there's Russia, which occupied a large portion of Ukraine just two years ago. There's France, which occupies assorted islands in the Indian Ocean (near Madagascar) and Antarctica. And there's Great Britain, which occupies a long list of small territories around the world, of which the Falkland Islands are the best known because of Argentina's unsuccessful 1982 attempt to oust the islands' British occupiers.

Among the non-permanent current members of the U.N. Security Council who are angry at Israel, there's Spain, which occupies the Canary Islands (near Morocco), as well as the cities of Ceuta and Melilla and seven other enclaves on Africa's northern coast.

There's Angola, which since 1975 has been occupying the territory of Cabinda. Somebody should ask the spokesmen for the Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave and the Republic of Cabinda Government in Exile what they think about Angola's concern regarding the Golan.

Don't forget Malaysia, which occupies North Borneo, a territory that the Philippines claim as its own. Not to mention Venezuela, which occupies Ankoko Island against the wishes of neighboring Guyana. Or Japan, which occupies the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, despite the protests of Taiwan and Communist China. Or Egypt, which occupies the Elba Mountains and the Hala'ib Triangle, territories that are claimed by Sudan.

The only Security Council member that tried to inject even a modicum of reason into the Golan Heights discussion was the United States. Although State Department spokesman John Kirby reiterated the standard U.S. opposition to Israeli administration of the Golan, he at least he acknowledged that "the current situation in Syria makes it difficult [to change the status of the Golan] at this time."

That, perhaps, is the most important point to be made in this discussion. If Israel were to do as the U.N. Security Council is demanding, the Golan Heights would be in the control of the genocidal Assad regime or the equally genocidal forces of ISIS.

Anyone who does not appreciate what that would mean for Israel, should read Hugh Nissenson's classic, Notes from the Frontier, a poignant chronicle of the months he spent on a kibbutz near the Syrian border in 1965--that is, when the Golan was in Syria's hands. "The Syrian mountains [of the Golan] are about a thousand feet above us, and their fortifications on the slopes completely dominate our settlements," a kibbutznik explained to Nissenson shortly after his arrival. "They shell us anytime they like, and there's nothing we can do about it…"

Keeping in mind that Assad and ISIS possess weapons far more dangerous than those of 1965, it's hardly surprising that Israelis are not anxious to return to the days of being attacked "anytime they like," and being unable to do anything about it. Today, there is something that Israelis can do about it: they can ignore the occupiers who hypocritically complain about others' occupations.

Dr. Rafael Medoff is author of 16 books about Jewish history.


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

Shut down jihadi education - Dr. Ephraim Herrera

by Dr. Ephraim Herrera

Although the Oslo Accords obligate the Palestinians to cease teaching hatred, Israel is not taking enough practical steps to put an end to this destructive phenomenon, which has also spread to some Arab schools inside the Green Line.

For the third consecutive year, a Hamas-affiliated ticket won the student council elections at Birzeit University in the West Bank. We already know that the poor and uneducated are not the only ones who support jihadi ideology. As early as 2004, research by Professor Shaul Kimhi showed that about one-third of the suicide bombers who have targeted Israelis were students or graduates of universities in the Palestinian Authority.

The education systems in the PA, Gaza Strip and Muslim states in the region breed support for Islamist ideologies. In Hamas preschools, the children are taught to stab Jews for the purpose of purifying the world and liberating Islamic lands. As early as the second grade, children in PA schools learn that their duty is to hate Jews and use violence against them. They learn that the term "jihad" has only one meaning, which is war according to Allah.

Although the Oslo Accords obligate the Palestinians to cease teaching hatred, Israel is not taking enough practical steps to put an end to this destructive phenomenon, which has also spread to some Arab schools inside the Green Line. Israel must understand what the leaders of some Muslim states have come to realize in recent years. The first such leader was Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. As early as 2013, el-Sissi began instituting deep educational reforms, particularly pertaining to the textbooks used in schools. For instance, references to the bounty and slaves won in the Islamic wars have been erased. El-Sissi also disqualified all textbooks encouraging violence (on the basis of Islamic texts). He banned the sale of books espousing Muslim Brotherhood ideology, including those written by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Two weeks ago we saw Moroccan King Mohammed VI follow in el-Sissi's footsteps, as he ordered the "cleaning" of some 400,000 textbooks. This cleaning includes the banning of texts promoting gender-based discrimination. Ahead of the 2017 school year, all Islamic textbooks in the country will be modified to compliment Morocco's "moderate and tolerant Islam," both in the country's public and quickly growing private school systems.

The media also does its part to fan the flames of hatred. It took years to shut down two Palestinian radio stations in Hebron that were broadcasting incitement. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, which is extremely popular and anti-Israel, and even has offices in Israel, continues to air its tendentious reports. It is not for nothing that senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar thanked Al Jazeera after Operation Cast Lead. In this respect, too, we should learn something from the Egyptian president, who as early as 2011 closed Al Jazeera's offices in his country and disrupted the station's broadcast transmissions. Last week, the Iraqi government shut down Al Jazeera's offices in Baghdad.

As long as we fail to stem the flow of hatred and violence, we will continue to suffer the consequences. 

Dr. Ephraim Herrera is the author of "Jihad -- Fundamentals and Fundamentalism."


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

Palestinians: Preparing Their People for Statehood? - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Rather than striving to improve the lives of Palestinians, Fatah leaders spend their time playing at being gangsters, settling scores.

  • The internecine strife in Fatah no longer appears restricted to the loyalists of Dahlan and Abbas. It is threatening to erupt into an all-out war between contesting camps. Some Palestinians see the internal strife as the most serious challenge to Abbas's rule over Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, especially in wake of growing criticism among Palestinians against Abbas's policies and autocratic regime.
  • The criticism has escalated following last week's humiliating defeat of Fatah to Hamas at the student council election of Bir Zeit University, near Ramallah.
  • Hamas is thriving on the mayhem among the top brass of Fatah and disgust with Abbas and the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank. Rather than striving to improve the lives of Palestinians, Fatah leaders spend their time playing at being gangsters, settling scores. Meanwhile Abbas continues his charade of lies with the international community that he and his Fatah faction are ready for a sovereign state.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction is supposed to be preparing its people for statehood. But it seems to be busy with other business.

According to sources in the Gaza Strip, Hamas security forces recently uncovered a scheme to assassinate a number of senior Fatah officials living there.

The sources claimed that ousted Fatah operative Mohamed Dahlan, who has been living in the United Arab Emirates for the past five years, was the mastermind of the alleged scheme. Dahlan's men in the Gaza Strip were planning to assassinate Fatah officials closely associated with his rival, Abbas, the sources revealed.

Dahlan's hit list included Ahmed Abu Nasr, Jamal Kayed, Emad al-Agha and Mamoun Sweidan.

After the alleged plot was uncovered, Hamas summoned a number of top Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip and asked them to take precautionary measures to ensure their safety.

Abbas and Dahlan have, for the past five years, been at each other's throats. The two were once close allies and had worked together to undermine the former Palestinian Authority president, Yasser Arafat.

But the honeymoon between Abbas and Dahlan, a former security commander in the Gaza Strip and an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), ended several years ago.

Abbas woke up one morning and discovered that his erstwhile ally and friend, Dahlan, was an in fact a bitter enemy. On instructions from Abbas, Palestinian security officers raided Dahlan's residence in Ramallah and confiscated documents and personal belongings. Dahlan fled the West Bank and has not set foot since in Ramallah or any other Palestinian city.

Next, Abbas had Dahlan dismissed from Fatah on charges of murder and financial corruption. Since then, Dahlan, who has become an "advisor" to the rulers of the United Arab Emirates, has been waging a fierce smear campaign against Abbas and his Fatah loyalists.

Now, the sources in the Gaza Strip are claiming that Dahlan was behind a plot to eliminate those loyalists.

The claim came after clashes erupted between Dahlan and Abbas supporters in parts of the Gaza Strip in recent weeks.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (left) and Mohamed Dahlan (right), a former Fatah commander and minister, have, for the past five years, been at each other's throats. The two were once close allies and had worked together to undermine the former PA president, Yasser Arafat. (Image sources: U.S. State Dept., M. Dahlan Office)

Last week, the Fatah leadership expelled from its ranks nine Dahlan supporters. They were accused of attacking the home of Abdullah Abu Samhadanah, a senior Fatah official and Abbas loyalist.

Earlier, loyalists to Abbas and Dahlan were busy hurling chairs and stones at each other. The incident took place at a rally to commemorate slain PLO leader Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), assassinated by Israeli commandos in Tunisia in 1988. On May 1, another scuffle broke out between the two sides, this time in the Gaza Strip's Jebalya refugee camp. That incident occurred during a rally held on the occasion of International Workers' Day.

This internecine Fatah strife no longer appears restricted to the loyalists of Dahlan and Abbas. It is threatening to erupt into an all-out war between contesting camps. Some Palestinians see the internal strife as the most serious challenge to Abbas's rule over Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, especially in wake of growing criticism among Palestinians against Abbas's policies and autocratic regime.

The criticism has escalated following last week's humiliating defeat of Fatah to Hamas at the student council election of Bir Zeit University, near Ramallah. Many in Fatah hold Abbas and his veteran old guard leaders personally responsible for the defeat.

In a move that shows that the plot inside Fatah is thickening, sources close to Hamas claimed this week that another senior Fatah official in the West Bank was behind a plan to liquidate top members of the faction in the Gaza Strip.

According to reports published on a number of Hamas-affiliated websites, the former head of the General Intelligence Force in the West Bank, Tawfik Tirawi, was the mastermind behind the alleged scheme. The reports claimed that Hamas summoned Ahmed Nasr, a top Fatah official, and informed him of Tirawi's purported plan to kill other Fatah leaders as well as Nasr himself. Nasr has confirmed that he was asked by Hamas to take precautionary measures to avoid any attempt on his life.

Hamas claims that Tirawi's alleged plot was uncovered during the interrogation of Marwa al-Masri, a senior Fatah member. Hamas security forces arrested her as she was about to leave the Gaza Strip for Ramallah.

Dahlan and Tirawi, who were once viewed by many Palestinians as potential successors to Abbas and promising new leaders representing the "young guard," apparently had different motives behind their alleged schemes.

While Dahlan may have sought revenge against Abbas and his loyalists, Tirawi apparently wanted to create instability in the Gaza Strip by blaming Hamas for the assassination of top Fatah officials.

Dahlan sought revenge against Abbas for expelling him from Fatah and making him into a "refugee" in the United Arab Emirates. Tirawi, for his part, wished to undermine Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip by killing some of his own colleagues in Fatah.

Tirawi and al-Masri, who has since been released from dentition by Hamas, have vehemently denied that they were plotting to eliminate senior Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip.

Whether true or not, Fatah's credibility is crumbling, not only among the Palestinian public, but also among its own supporters. Hamas is thriving on the mayhem among the top brass of Fatah and disgust with Abbas and the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank. Rather than striving to improve the lives of Palestinians, Fatah leaders spend their time playing at being gangsters, settling scores. Meanwhile, Abbas continues his charade of lies with the international community that he and his Fatah faction are ready for a sovereign state.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

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


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

Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist's Family - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

Alleged supplier of material support now also charged with marriage fraud.

The 9/11 Commission came to regard immigration fraud and visa fraud as the key means by which international terrorists enter the United States and embed themselves.  Yet, these issues are seldom, if ever, discussed or reported on by the media or politicians- especially those politicians who are determined to foist a massive legalization program involving unknown millions of illegal aliens on the United States.

Immigration fraud and visa fraud have long been of great concern where issues of national security are concerned.  In point of fact, on May 20, 1997 I participated in a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the topic, “Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.”

That hearing was predicated on two terror attacks carried out in 1993 by terrorists from the Middle East including those who had engaged in visa fraud and also filed fraud-laden applications for immigration benefits.  

In January 1993 a Pakistani national, Mir Aimal Kansi, stood outside CIA Headquarters with an AK-47 and opened fire on the vehicles of CIA officials reporting for work on that cold January morning in Virginia.  He killed two CIA officers and wounded three others.

Just one month later, on February 26, 1993 a bomb-laden truck was parked in the garage under the World Trade Center complex and detonated. The blast nearly brought one of the 110 story towers down sideways.  Six innocent people were killed, over one thousand people were injured and an estimated one-half billion dollars in damages were inflicted on that iconic complex of buildings located just blocks from Wall Street. 

The Clinton administration abjected refused the learn the lessons that should have been learned from those attacks thereby literally and figuratively leaving the door wide open for the terrror attacks of 9/11.

Since the attacks of 9/11 we have witnessed a long list of terror attacks and attempted terror attacks that involved foreign nationals who gamed the visa process and/or the immigration benefits program.

Just six months after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was discovered that incredibly, two of the dead terrorist/hijackers had been granted authorization to change their immigration status to attend flight school in the United States.  I testified at the Congressional hearing convened by the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on March 19, 2002 on the topic, “INS'S March 2002 Notification Of Approval Of Change Of Status For Pilot Training For Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta And Marwan Al-Shehhi.”

This hearing was covered by C-SPAN.  Every member of Congress should be required to watch that  C-SPAN video.  Virtually none of the promises made at that hearing by the indignant members of Congress at that hearing, to remedy the failures of the immigration system that were behind that glaring example of incompetence, have been effectively addressed- to this very day. 

The Summer Edition of The Social Contract includes my article, “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”  My article focused on the continuing failures of the government to address the myriad failures of the immigration system in violation of the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, with immigration fraud being a major issue.

The Clinton administration abjected refused the learn the lessons that should have been learned from those attacks, thereby literally and figuratively leaving the door wide open for the terrror attacks of 9/11.

On May 5, 2005 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Claims and Border Security’s hearing on the topic,“New "Dual Missions" of the Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”  The hearing focused on how the creation of the DHS by the Bush administration had hobbled efforts at effective immigration law enforcement especially from within the interior of the United States.

The Obama administration's policies however, have wrecked havoc, in unprecedented ways, on the entire immigration system, undermining national security, public safety and the well-being of America and Americans.

Obama's executive orders have provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with lawful status without interviews or field investigations under the aegis of the DACA (Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival Program), virtually inviting fraud-laden applications to be filed by illegal aliens whose true identities may never be accurately determined.

And now we come to the arrest of individuals closely connected to the San Bernardino terrorists.

On April 28, 2016 three individuals were arrested and charged with participating in a marriage fraud while a fourth individual, Enrique Marquez Jr., currently in custody- charged with providing material support to the two terrororists who carried out the murderous rampage, has additionally been charged with participating in a marriage fraud conspiracy.

The arrest of these individuals was widely reported in the media.  An AP report posted by WTVM about this case began this way:

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - Three people with close family ties to the couple responsible for the San Bernardino terror attack were arrested Thursday in an alleged marriage-fraud scheme involving a pair of Russian sisters.
The accused include Syed Raheel Farook. His brother and sister-in-law, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, died in a shootout with police after killing 14 people and wounding 22 others on Dec. 2.
Also arrested in the marriage-fraud case were Syed Raheel Farook's wife, Tatiana, and her sister, Mariya Chernykh. Prosecutors say Mariya's marriage to Enrique Marquez Jr., the only person charged in the shootings, was a sham designed to enable her to obtain legal status in the U.S. after overstaying a visitor visa in 2009.
Marquez confessed to the scheme when authorities questioned him about the shootings, and he acknowledged getting $200 a month to marry Chernykh, according to his criminal complaint.

The report stated that there was no information indicating that any of these individuals had prior knowledge of the December 2, 2015 terror attack.

Inasmuch as the investigation is ongoing it would be premature to arrive at any conclusions about the relationships between the individuals charged with marriage fraud conspiracy and the terror attacks or what their ultimate goals and intentions might have been.

Additionally, as the New York Post reported about this case, “Their phony marriages were the basis for filling out immigration papers, obtaining bank accounts and driver’s licenses, officials said.”

On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case under the title, “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.” 

Here is an important excerpt from that press release (Note: HSI is a division of ICE):
“Last year’s tragedy in San Bernardino showed yet again how our nation’s legal immigration system can be subverted and exploited by those intent on doing this country harm,” said Joseph Macias, special agent in charge for HSI Los Angeles. “As the second largest presence on the nation’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, HSI special agents, in collaboration with their JTTF partners, are using their unique skills and authorities, including their immigration expertise, to pursue individuals and organizations that pose a threat to domestic security. As this case underscores, that vigilance extends to those whose actions directly or indirectly put our communities and our country at risk.”

Nevertheless, there is an abject shortage of ICE/HSI agents across our nation even though it is obvious that immigration is a major factor where international terrorists and transnational criminals are concerned. 

It is my contention that the lack of resources dedicated to enforcing our immigration laws is not a matter of ineptitude but intentional.  This was the theme of my April 19, 2016 article for FrontPage Magazine, “Immigration Failure -- By Design - Doing the bidding of the Open Borders anarchists.

Furthermore, as I noted in my March 18, 2016 article for FrontPage Magazine outrageously, managers at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) the division of DHS, barred ICE agents from entering their offices the day after the terror attack at San Bernardino.  These ICE agents, working with the JTTF, went to that office hoping to encounter Marquez who was scheduled to be interviewed with his “spouse” in conjunction with their immigration petition.  

Inexplicably, the ICE agents were obstructed not assisted by DHS managers.

My article was entitled, “Are DHS Leaders Seeking an MVP Award From ISIS? - The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, why exactly did USCIS managers block a team of ICE agents from entering their facility?

Where cranking out immigration benefits are concerned, it is clear that under the Obama administration the orders of the day amount to, “Damn the terrorists- full speed ahead!”

A final thought-

I has been widely reported that the allegations of marriage fraud were developed during the terror investigation.  I cannot help but wonder if an investigation into the bona fides of the marriage in this case would have been independently initiated if that investigation would have uncovered the terror plot before the carnage of December 2, 2015.

Immigration law violations are not “victimless crimes.”

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


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget