Friday, November 13, 2015

Terror Group Leader Appointed to School Board - Joe Kaufman



by Joe Kaufman

CAIR’s she-wolf, Ghazala Salam, is guarding the school house.




Ghazala Salam is a local leader in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). She also helps run annual events for Islamic Relief. Both CAIR and Islamic Relief have serious ties to global terrorist organizations. The two have been named terrorist groups themselves. Knowing this, it is inconceivable that Salam has been appointed to different advisory boards within the Broward County government and was named to a leadership position in the local League of Women Voters (LWV). It is time for Broward to purge itself of this terror-tied individual.

Ghazala Salam, who was born in India in 1965, is the Community and Government Relations Director for the Florida chapter of CAIR. She has served in this capacity since February 2011.

CAIR was established in June 1994 as part of the American Palestine Committee, a terrorist umbrella group headed by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook, who currently resides in Egypt as Hamas’ number two leader. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named by the US Justice Department a co-conspirator for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. Since its founding, a number of CAIR representatives have served jail time and/or have been deported from the United States for terrorist-related crimes. In November 2014, CAIR itself was labeled a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government.

Salam’s CAIR-Florida has followed its parent organization’s pro-terror, anti-Israel activism.
CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly has referred to Hezbollah as “basically a resistance movement” and “absolutely not a terrorist organization” and, in August 2014, wrote, “Israel and its supporters are enemies of G-d...” In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where rally goers shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” Following the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, wrote, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”

In October 2013, CAIR-Florida signed on to help coordinate a nationwide annual event run by Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), the American affiliate of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). The title of the event was ‘Day of Dignity,’ and the contact for the event was CAIR-Florida CEO and Regional Operations Director Nezar Hamze. Participating at the event were Hamze, CAIR-Florida Legal Counsel Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, and Ghazala Salam, all wearing event t-shirts with Islamic Relief logos on them. CAIR-Florida has continued to help coordinate the ‘Day of Dignity.’ In August 2015, Hamze, Salam and Ruiz once again represented Islamic Relief for the event.

Islamic Relief has developed an extensive reputation for involvement with terrorism. The Russian government has accused Islamic Relief of supporting terrorism in Chechnya. Israel has banned the group, labeling it a Hamas front and arresting the organization’s Gaza Program Manager, Ayaz Ali, in 2006, for providing assistance to Hamas. Reports show that Islamic Relief has sent millions of dollars to and received tens of thousands of dollars from groups related to al-Qaeda. And like CAIR, Islamic Relief was named a terrorist group by the UAE government.

The Chairman of IRUSA is Khaled Lamada. Lamada is also the co-chairman of the Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society (ICNA-MAS) national convention. ICNA has been linked to terrorist financing and has used the web to promote a number of terrorist groups, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Taliban. MAS, like CAIR and Islamic Relief, has been named to the UAE government’s list of terrorist organizations. Lamada uses his Facebook page to advocate for such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Apart from her involvement with CAIR and Islamic Relief, Ghazala Salam has as well been associated with Darul Uloom, a radical mosque located in Pembroke Pines, Florida.

A number of al-Qaeda terrorists have spent time at Darul Uloom. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student at the mosque, and now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader there. Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, the mosque’s imam, has been thrown off a number of boards in Broward County for his actions against homosexuals. In February 2005, an article written by him was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God,’ claiming that homosexual sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami.

Al-Hikmat is the media arm of Darul Uloom. A video of Salam being interviewed by Shafayat Mohamed for Al-Hikmat was published on the mosque’s website in June. As well, Salam has been honored in the last three bi-monthly newsletters of Al-Hikmat, and she was the recipient of an award at the 2015 annual Al-Hikmat award ceremony in May. A photograph of her with Shafayat Mohamed is found on the website of the American Muslim Democratic Caucus of Florida (AMDCFL), a group that Salam presides over.

While Ghazala Salam has her hands full with leadership roles in terrorist groups and photo-ops with bigots, it seems that she also has time for activities with government and civic organizations.

In April 2015, Salam was appointed to the Human Relations Committee (HRC) of the Broward County School Board to serve as an advisory member of the board. According to the HRC Bi-Laws, “The committee shall support the work of the district as it pertains to our policies related to diversity, educational/vocational equity, nondiscrimination, inclusion and character education.” The individual who appointed her was elected School Board Member Nora Rupert.

In September 2013, Salam was reappointed to the Broward Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Today, she serves as Chairwoman of CSW. According to CSW, the group is “dedicated to advancing gender equality, empowering women…, recognizing women's accomplishments and initiating collaboration...” In 2013, she was appointed by Commissioner Lois Wexler. In 2011, the appointment was done by then-Commissioner Barbara Sharief.

In August 2015, Salam was named the Action Chair of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Broward County. According to the LWV website, the group is “nonpartisan” and “encourages informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.” LWV describes Salam as “a life-long advocate of human rights and women’s issues.”

Question: How does one advocate for human rights and women’s issues, when that same individual – Ghazala Salam – is involved with terrorist organizations and purveyors of bigotry? The answer is she cannot.

Placing Salam in a position to influence children's education and women's rights issues is a dangerous charade that enables her and the malicious groups she represents to gain a foothold on the community. Her involvement with CAIR, Islamic Relief and Darul Uloom renders her unfit for any job which is supposed to promote democracy and Western values, such as tolerance and equality. Her Islamist worldview and association with hate and violence is antithetical to advancement of civil society and its institutions.

Concerned citizens must make their voices heard and show that they object to the hatred and incitement which Ghazala Salam's leadership in CAIR and activity with Islamic Relief and Darul Uloom epitomize.

She must be removed from her place on the School Board and Broward Commission immediately and be dismissed by the League of Women Voters. Terrorism should never be rewarded or tolerated.

If you wish to do the right thing by speaking out about this, you can do so by contacting the following: Broward School Board Member Nora Rupert by phone at 754-321-2007 or by email at nora.rupert@browardschools.com; Broward Commissioner Lois Wexler by phone at 954-357-7005 or by email at lwexler@broward.org; and the Broward County League of Women Voters by phone at 954-735-1311 or by email at info@lwvbcfl.org.

Please be respectful in any and all communications with these individuals and groups.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.


Joe Kaufman was the 2014 Republican nominee for United States House of Representatives in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District. He is an expert in the fields of counter-terrorism, foreign affairs and energy independence for America. He has been featured on all major cable networks, including Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and C-SPAN. Joe has been instrumental in getting terrorist charities shut down and terror-related individuals put behind bars. Exactly one month prior to the September 11 attacks, he predicted the attacks by stating that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was no aberration and that it would happen again.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260749/terror-group-leader-appointed-school-board-joe-kaufman

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

Why Americanized Muslim Reformers Are Failing - Dr. Stephen M. Kirby



by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby

How Islam prohibits exactly what reformers are trying to do.




For many years we in the United States have regularly heard from a small number of Muslim American “reformers” who aspire to change Islam in ways that will make it more “modern” and compatible with American values such as freedom of speech and religion, and the equality of all people.  According to these reformers, such change would rescue Islam from the “perverted” and “radical” interpretations of the jihadists, and return it to the way the reformers claim Muhammad originally taught it: as a religion that commanded peace and tolerance toward all, and promoted the rights of women.

These aspiring reformers seem to be generally Muslim males who were either born in the United States, or have spent a significant portion of their life in the United States.  They have used the freedoms in the United States to explore Islam and to strike out on their own in providing an interpretation of that religion that conforms largely to American values.  These personal interpretations commonly focus on Islam as a religion of peace that has been perverted by a few radical jihadists, and the aspiring reformers present Islam as such to non-Muslim audiences.  I use the term “Americanized Muslim reformer” as a general reference to these aspiring Muslim reformers.

But what most non-Muslims don’t realize is that Islam prohibits exactly what these Americanized Muslim reformers are trying to do.  Let’s look in the Koran, the holy book of Islam considered by Muslims to consist of the timeless, perfect, unchangeable words of their god Allah.

Islam was Perfected during the Time of Muhammad
Allah states in 5:3 of the Koran that the religion of Islam was perfected and finalized during the time of Muhammad:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion[.]

In 15:9 Allah states that the Koran cannot be changed.  According to Muslim scholars, 2:85 of the Koran prohibits picking and choosing among its verses (e.g., Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, p. 88).

And to reiterate this, the prophet Muhammad said the penalty for denying a verse of the Koran was death:

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever denies a Verse of the Qur'an, it is permissible to strike his neck (i.e. execute him)[.]"
Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2539

And Muhammad talked about being in Paradise to greet the Muslims who died after him, and seeing some of those Muslims taken away because of changes they had made to Islam after he died:

"There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them."  Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said, "I will say those people are from me (i.e. they are my followers).  It will be said, 'You do not know what new changes and new things (heresies) they did after you.'  Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed, did new things in (the religion) after me!'"
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 7050-7051

And once an issue has been decided in the Koran and/or in the teachings of Muhammad, it is blasphemy for a Muslim to disagree with that decision.  This is plainly stated in the Koran, e.g:
It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger, have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.  And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.   (33:36)

Their god and their prophet say that Islam cannot be changed after the time of Muhammad, so what are the Americanized Muslim reformers to do?  Below are some of the major approaches I have found taken among these reformers.  These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the use of more than one of these approaches, or variations thereof, is not uncommon.

The Koran Only
There are Muslims known as “Koranists.”  They believe that the only source of Islamic Doctrine is what is found in the Koran.  The Koranists reject the Sunnah (the teachings and example of Muhammad).

But the Koran itself specifically rejects the premise of the Koranists.  These are some of the Koran verses that stress the importance of the Sunnah of Muhammad:
  • He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad), has indeed obeyed Allah[.] (4:80)
  • And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers' way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination! (4:115)
  • Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much. (33:21)
  • And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).  And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. (59:7)
In the Koran Allah specifically commands Muslims to obey and follow the teachings and example of Muhammad.  So where does a Muslim find such teachings and example, including in matters such as how to pray, actions to be taken during the Hajj, or ablution?  They are not in the Koran, they are in the Sunnah.

The Koranists not only ignore the words of Allah, but they ignore the words of their prophet Muhammad:

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “I have left two things with you.  As long as you hold fast to them, you will not go astray.  They are the Book of Allah and the sunna [sic] of His Prophet.
Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 46.3

So in defiance of the commands and teachings of their god and prophet, the Koranist Muslims ignore the Sunnah.

Personal Interpretations of Salad Bar Islam
This approach is probably the one most used among the aspiring Americanized Muslim reformers and was the genesis for my first article about Fantasy Islam.  With this approach, changing Islamic Doctrine runs the gamut from a few tweaks here and there, to Islam being simply whatever the individual Muslim wants it to be.  The common denominator is that the changes are based on the personal opinion of the aspiring reformer.

With this approach, hadith collections that have been considered authoritative since the 9th Century are questioned, with certain hadiths among them actually being deemed false, solely on the basis of the individual Muslim’s opinion.

Verses of the Koran that are specific can be deemed allegorical, the eternal words of Allah can be judged applicable only to a specific time period, and verses of the Koran can be completely dismissed, solely on the basis of the individual Muslim’s opinion.

With this approach, the Doctrine of Abrogation, based on 2:106 of the Koran, is frequently dismissed. This Doctrine is fundamental to understanding Islam, and it states that if there is a conflict between the messages of two “revelations” in the Koran, then the most recent “revelation” is the one to be followed.  Consequently, a “revelation” made in Medina would supersede a similar, earlier “revelation” made in Mecca if there was a conflict between the messages of the two. The significance is that the “revelations” in Mecca tended to be more peaceful and accommodating toward non-Muslims than the verses later “revealed” in Medina.  The verses from Medina are generally more belligerent and intolerant, and more inclined to make sharp differentiations between Muslims and non-Muslims.  By ignoring the Doctrine of Abrogation, the aspiring Muslim reformer can concentrate on the Meccan verses, which, however, while more appealing to non-Muslim ears, simply don’t carry the weight of Islamic Doctrine anymore.

This approach also dismisses centuries of accepted Muslim scholarship in the form of authoritative Koran commentaries (tafsirs), such as the Tafsir Al-Qurturbi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and Tafsir Al-Jalalayn. This approach also dismisses such 20th Century tafsirs as Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan and Tafsir As-Sa’di.  Dismissing authoritative tafsirs allows the aspiring reformer to then rely on new, personal interpretations of the meaning of verses in the Koran, even though such interpretations might directly conflict with the writings in authoritative tafsirs over the centuries.  These new interpretations are based solely on the individual Muslim’s opinion.

These aspiring reformers apparently ignore the fact that Muhammad had his own opinions about Muslims following this approach:

Muhammad bin Jarir reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Prophet said, 'Whoever explains the Qur'an with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the Fire.' 
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, pp. 32-33
Muhammad said: The most truthful speech is Allah's Speech, and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad.  The worst matters are the newly invented (in religion), every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is a heresy, and every heresy is in the Fire.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 588

Inaccurate Historical Information
It is not unusual to find Americanized Muslim reformers presenting historical information that is simply inaccurate. Here are three common examples:

The peaceful conquest of Mecca:  You will hear that when Muhammad led an army of 10,000 Muslim warriors against Mecca in 630 AD, the Meccans surrendered peacefully and there was no bloodshed.  You might even hear that Muhammad specifically prohibited the killing of any individuals.  In reality, there was some resistance by the Meccans that resulted in the battle deaths of 2-3 Muslims and 12-13 Meccans.  And before entering Mecca, Muhammad had ordered the killing of nine specific individuals, including four women.  Some of these individuals were subsequently captured and killed, while others saved themselves by converting to Islam before they could be killed.  As Muhammad explained it:

If anyone should say, The apostle killed men in Mecca, say God permitted His apostle to do so but He does not permit you.
The Life of Muhammad, p. 555

The Verse of the Sword is a pejorative term created by non-Muslims:  You might hear Muslims claim that non-Muslims created the term “Verse of the Sword” to disparage 9:5 of the Koran.  Here is the first part of that verse:

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush[.]

In reality, Muslim scholars have referred to this verse as the “Verse of the Sword” for centuries (e.g. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, pp. 375 and 377).

The Verse of the Sword was revealed before it was revealed:  You might hear Muslims claim that 9:5 was among the verses “revealed” during the early period of Islam, when aggressive threats by militarily strong non-Muslims were being made against the young, weak Muslim community.  You might also hear the claim that this verse was applicable only to a particular time period and/or circumstance in the past (e.g., Zuhdi Jasser claimed it was “revealed” in and applicable only to 623 AD).

In reality, 9:5 was among the verses “revealed” in late 630 AD and early 631 AD.  By this time Muhammad had already conquered Mecca, and the remaining non-Muslim tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, confronted by the burgeoning Muslim armies, were flocking to Medina to convert to Islam.  And these verses were not related to a specific battle or to a specific tribe, but rather were directed toward all non-Muslims (Life of Muhammad, pp. 617-619; The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, pp. 77-79; and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, pp. 370-376).

And there is no basis in Islamic Doctrine for the claim that 9:5 has no relevance today.  Such a claim ignores the facts that Muslims believe the Koran consists of the eternal words of Allah, and Chapter 9 of the Koran was the last chapter to be “revealed” to Muhammad.  Consequently, the commands found in Chapter 9 were Allah’s final, timeless instructions to the Muslims on how to deal with non-Muslims.

Their Audience Appears to be Mainly Non-Muslims
Americanized Muslim reformers appear on non-Muslim media and in front of non-Muslim organizations on a frequent basis, and almost always after a major jihadist attack.
But what I have yet to hear about is the number of mosques and Muslim organizations that allow these aspiring reformers to come in and advocate for their personal version of Islam.  The Muslim reformers are vocal about their appearances on non-Muslim media and in front of non-Muslim organizations, but when it comes to any occurrence of similar appearances in mosques and in front of Muslim organizations, there seems to be silence.

Based on my research into the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska, I think these Americanized Muslim reformers are silent because they seldom, if ever, are allowed to present their personal version of Islam in a mosque or in front of a Muslim organization.  The Tri-Faith Initiative is an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence between Muslims, Jews, and Christians.  However, in a series of articles I have shown that Islamic doctrine prohibits such a venture and actually maligns, and preaches violence against, Jews and Christians (here, here, here, and here).  And I have also shown that most of the money for this initiative comes from non-Muslim organizations and a few aspiring Muslim reformers, with apparently no support for the initiative from mosques and Muslim organizations in Nebraska (here and here).

When I have corresponded with Tri-Faith partners and proponents, and Nebraska mosques and Muslim organizations, about what Islamic Doctrine teaches and the lack of support for the Tri-Faith from the greater Muslim community in Nebraska, there has been only silence from the Muslims and character attacks on me from the non-Muslims.

Conclusion
Here are reasons why Americanized Muslim reformers are failing:
  1. They create their own versions of Islam, relying on their own personal opinions and interpretations, and arbitrarily dismissing parts of Islamic history and centuries of established Muslim scholarship.
  2. They claim to follow the Koran, but actually go against verses of the Koran by arbitrarily dismissing one of the two columns upon which Islam rests: the Sunnah of Muhammad.
  3. They go against the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad by picking and choosing, and actually dismissing verses in the Koran.
  4. They personally decide which hadiths are authentic, again arbitrarily dismissing centuries of established Muslim scholarship.
  5. As a result, their beliefs are heretical.  And as Muhammad said above, every heresy sends one to the Fires of Hell.
  6. Because these reformers are heretics, they have little, if any support for their reforms from the greater Muslim community in the United States.
  7. Consequently, the reformers have to appeal to non-Muslims to help them reform Islam.  This would be as if Martin Luther had relied on Muslims for his main support during the Reformation.
  8. So what are the chances of success for an Americanized Muslim heretic and his non-Muslim followers to change Islam from that which was taught by Muhammad to that which is advocated by the heretic?  Zero.
Does it really matter that Americanized Muslim reformers are going around trying to create personalized, “modern” versions of Islam?  Yes, because they are relying on non-Muslims for support.  And to get that support, the reformers are presenting “the true” Islam as a religion of peace, similar to Christianity and Judaism, and able to be modified and modernized.  And the reformers are presenting the jihadists as outliers who have perverted and hijacked that religion.  But the reality is that the Muslim reformers are perverting and hijacking the religion, and it is the jihadists who are following the Islam taught by Muhammad.

How one understands a religion, whether correctly or incorrectly, is a major factor in how one welcomes it adherents. In terms of the mass migration of Muslim “refugees” into Europe, the European leadership and many Europeans in general appear to think that Islam is as the aspiring reformers have presented it.  So the Muslim “refugees” have been generally welcomed with open arms.  But would there have been such a welcome if the realization had been more wide spread that the reformers are heretics with little support in the greater Muslim community?

There is support in the United States for the Obama administration’s call to bring in tens of thousands of these Muslim “refugees.”  But before allowing this to happen, we must ask the question that the Europeans should have asked, but for whom now it is too late to ask: Will these Muslim “refugees” follow the Islam of our Americanized Muslim heretics or will these “refugees” follow the centuries-old intolerant, supremacist, violent teachings of their god Allah and their prophet Muhammad?  The fate of Western culture lies in the answer.

Just as it is obligatory to accept the commandments proven by the textual evidence from the Qur'an, and that it is utter disbelief to reject them, so are the commandments proven by the hadeeths of the Messenger of Allah.  It is obligatory to act by them, and it is sheer disbelief to deny them.
Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, pp. 622-623


Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of three books about Islam. His latest is Islam According to Muhammad, Not Your Neighbor.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260743/why-americanized-muslim-reformers-are-failing-dr-stephen-m-kirby

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

Palestinian State of Denial - Bret Stephens



by Bret Stephens

Hat tip: Dr. Carolyn Tal

“When asked hypothetically if Israel’s use of chemical or biological weapons against Palestinians would constitute terror, 93 percent said yes,” notes Mr. Polisar. “But when the identical question was posed regarding the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Palestinians against Israelis, only 25 percent responded affirmatively.”.


In the history of political clichés, has there ever been one quite so misjudged as the line—some version of which is attributed either to Israel’s martyred Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin or fabled Defense Minister Moshe Dayan—that “you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends”?

OK, “give peace a chance” and “nation building at home” are worse. But the Rabin-Dayan line is an expression of the higher mindlessness that passes for wisdom among people who think they are smart. After Monday’s make-nice session between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s time for a reconsideration.

To wit: You do not make peace with enemies. You make peace with former enemies—either because you have defeated them, as we defeated the Axis Powers in World War II; or because they collapse, as the Soviet Union did after the fall of the Berlin Wall; or because they have defeated you and you’re able to come to terms with the outcome from a safe distance. Witness Vietnam.

On rare precious occasions, both sides realize their interests are best served through a negotiated settlement they’re prepared to honor. That was the miracle of 1977, when Egypt’s Anwar Sadat flew to Israel to show he sincerely accepted the Jewish state’s right to exist. He paid for the gesture with his life.

Opinion Journal Video

Watch Touro Institute Professor Anne Bayefsky on today's White House meeting and the prospects for better bilateral relations.
 
Enemies, however, do not make peace. They may desist from open combat, as Pakistan and India have, even as Islamabad continues to support anti-Indian terrorist proxies. They may arrange a long-term armistice of the kind South Korea has with the North. But that’s a peace preserved by 700,000 active-duty South Korean and U.S. troops, plus a million land mines in the DMZ.

For the past 22 years—ever since Rabin signed the Oslo Accord with the PLO’s Yasser Arafat—Israel has been trying to achieve something historically unprecedented: To make peace with an enemy that shows no interest in becoming an ex-enemy. 

Daniel Polisar, an Israeli political scientist, recently published a fascinating study in Mosaic magazine of Palestinian public opinion based on 330 polls conducted over many years. It makes for some bracing reading.

“When asked hypothetically if Israel’s use of chemical or biological weapons against Palestinians would constitute terror, 93 percent said yes,” notes Mr. Polisar. “But when the identical question was posed regarding the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Palestinians against Israelis, only 25 percent responded affirmatively.”

Other details: A 2011 poll found that 61% of Palestinians thought it was morally right to name Palestinian streets after suicide bombers. In December 2014, 78% of Palestinians expressed support for “attempts to stab or run over Israelis” in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Only 20% were opposed. Palestinians have also consistently supported terrorist attacks against Israelis within Israel’s original borders, “often by as much as six to one.” 

Palestinians routinely blame Israel for problems over which it has no control, such as the bloody 2007 coup through which Hamas wrested power from Fatah in the Gaza Strip. Ninety-four percent of Palestinians report a “very unfavorable” opinion of Jews. A majority of Palestinians believe Israel will “destroy the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock mosques and build a synagogue in their place.”

As for the idea of sharing the land, only 12% of Palestinians agreed that “both Jews and Palestinians have rights to the land.” More than 80% felt “this is Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to it.” Most Palestinians also think Israel won’t be around in 30 or 40 years, either “because Arab or Muslim resistance will destroy it” or on account of its “internal contradictions.” 

Where is the sense in agreeing to relinquish through negotiations what is yours by right today and will be yours in deed tomorrow?

None of this is helped by Palestinian leaders who, when not inciting violence or alleging Israeli conspiracies, are peddling the lie that Israel is creating an apartheid state. The only person standing in the way of Palestinian democracy is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who hasn’t held an election in a decade. The only force standing in the way of a Palestinian state are the Palestinian people, who think they can gain their rights by stabbing their neighbors.

Which brings us back to Monday’s Oval Office meeting. Along with the forced bonhomie, the administration has been sounding the usual two-minutes-to-midnight warnings about the supposed end of the two-state solution. “For Israel, the more there is settlement construction, the more it undermines the ability to achieve peace,” says Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, in an interview with Haaretz.

How sweet it would be if all Israel had to do to make peace was dismantle its settlements. How much sweeter if the American president would find less to fault with an Israeli government’s housing policies than a Palestinian political culture still so intent on killing Jews. If Mr. Obama wants to know why he’s so disliked by Israelis, there’s the reason.

Write bstephens@wsj.com.


Bret Stephens

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/palestinian-state-of-denial-1447115768

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

Hungary's Migrant Crisis Ends, Europe's Has Just Begun - George Igler



by George Igler

  • "[H]alf any given year's total migrants arrive by the start of October. The other half arrives between October and the end of December... If these tendencies remain relevant, we should expect the very opposite of a winter break, and should prepare instead for an increasing flood of people." -- Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, September 21, 2015.
  • The UN High Commission for Refugees announced on Nov. 2 that the number of people who illegally migrated to Europe in October alone (218,394) nearly outstripped the number of those who entered throughout the whole of 2014 (219,000).
  • The reality at Hungary's central railway station in Budapest had to be seen to be believed. Hungarians were easily outnumbered 200 to 1 by predominantly young Muslim males. These newcomers engaged in sporadic violence, rioted at the sight of camera crews, and left the station littered with human excrement.
  • According to Björn Höcke, of the populist Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), by the end of 2016 there will be as many Muslim males of military age in Germany (5.5 million), as there are young German men of that age.
  • On Nov. 2, Libya threatened to send to Europe millions of migrants from Africa, unless the EU recognizes its self-declared (Islamist) government.
Earlier this year, Hungary's ferociously articulate Prime Minister Viktor Orbán became the bête noir of European politics. Since then, Orbán has transitioned from being castigated as a threat to European values, into the most recognized defender of his continent's Christian identity.
In a Europe whose central policy-makers seem in thrall to multiculturalism, Hungarians, after centuries of invasions and attempted invasions, appear unapologetically immune to political correctness. Even in their language, the colloquial phrase for communicating with the bluntest possible candor is magyarul mondva, literally "speaking in Hungarian."
As over 400,000 predominantly Muslim migrants crossed illegally into Hungary before the completion of a border fence -- which ground such incursions to an effective halt by the end of October -- there has been a sanctimonious effort in the world's press either to mischaracterize realities on the ground, or omit them altogether.
The concealment of sobering truths, openly reported in Hungary – ironically a nation whose press freedom has been criticized under Orbán's leadership – can only have serious long-term consequences, in migrant-friendly countries such as Belgium, Sweden and Germany, especially the scale.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) announced on November 2 that the number of people who illegally migrated to Europe in October alone (218,394) nearly outstripped the number of those who entered throughout the whole of 2014 (219,000).
The figures, which even shocked members of the UNCHR, constitute the greatest monthly entry of illegal migrants into the European Union to date. Many had apparently felt that the legal imposition of quotas, initiated on September 22, and aimed at relocating migrants across EU member states, would have at least begun to tackle the EU's migrant problem.
The quota scheme, which pivoted on forcing non-consenting member states to accept illegal migrants, has, in fact, been an abject failure. Only Sweden has participated directly.
Meanwhile, crossings from Turkey to nearby islands in Greece, the first step in the so-called Western Balkan route -- the dominant corridor for illegal migrants at present -- have far from peaked, and are accelerating. As winter seas make Mediterranean conditions more difficult, the journey is apparently being offered at a discount.
To observers who speak Hungarian, however, the UNHCR's figures probably come as no surprise.
Addressing his nation's parliament, on September 21, and calling this year's mass migration to Europe an "invasion," Viktor Orbán declared:
There will be no such thing as a winter hiatus with respect to the illegal immigration issue ... If one looks at the tables, graphs and statistics -- often available in the public domain -- which show the month-by-month influx of illegal immigrants to date, what one sees largely is that half any given year's total migrants arrive by the start of October. The other half arrives between October and the end of December.
Unlike his European partners, Orbán sees this year's events not as an unprecedented "crisis," but the result of a steady and entirely predictable escalation, centered on the unwillingness of member states to defend the union's external frontiers from human smuggling, which is an obligation under the EU's freedom-of-movement Schengen Treaty.
Orbán's analysis led him to conclude:
There will be no let up; we should expect escalating pressure. There is no reason for us to think that people-smugglers will arrange their affairs and the routes they exploit any differently this year than they have in previous years. If these tendencies remain relevant, we should expect the very opposite of a winter break, and should prepare instead for an increasing flood of people.
As Hungary constructed its southern border fence, in line with its Prime Minister's calculations and in consultation with Israel, experts worldwide called the move both pointless and counter-productive.
Currently, as Germany is opening new migrant reception centers weekly, Hungary is winding up its own.
On November 3, Hungary's parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the imposition of mandatory quotas, paving the way for legal action against the EU, in concert with the left-wing government of Slovakia led by Robert Fico. Poland is very likely to follow suit.
Many political analysts have concurred that Orbán has cynically exploited the migration issue to shore up waning domestic popularity. This could not be more wrong. Although Orbán's poll numbers certainly took a slide in 2014, analysts similarly agreed in April that his national consultation on migration constituted a catastrophic miscalculation.
It is easy to see why. Hungarians, after the 1956 uprising against the Soviet Union, are extremely conscious of their own historic status as genuine refugees. Some national billboards accompanying the nationwide survey were even defaced, as the consultation had posed robust questions on the likely consequences of mass Muslim immigration, which most Hungarians had yet to witness, and which some found discomfiting.
But public opinion swung firmly in Orbán's favor, with the effective occupation of Budapest's central railway station (Keleti pályaudvar).
The realities on the ground at Hungary's international railway terminus had to be seen to be believed. Hungarians were easily outnumbered 200 to 1 by predominantly young Muslim males. These newcomers engaged in sporadic violence; rioted at the sight of passing camera crews, and left the station littered with human excrement.
Migrants refusing to cooperate with authorities who wanted to take them to reception centers, to participate in the EU's compulsory EURODAC asylum registration process, chanted "no fingerprint" in unison. Frustrated, many charged down motorways towards Austria, a move that led to the closure of major transport arteries.
Unlike the domestic Hungarian media, the international press reported little of the full gravity of events in Hungary. The international press failed to warn nations from Austria to Finland of what was headed their way. Journalists concentrated instead on the handful of children present, to sell a sob story.
Such reporting led Croatia to charge Hungary with the "inhumane" treatment of "refugees," while Austria claimed, astonishingly, that Hungary's behavior was reminiscent of the Holocaust. As migrants arrived in those nations, however, both countries rapidly backtracked.
While Hungary was being castigated for supposed xenophobia and for Orbán's rhetoric, no one seemed to have considered that perhaps the most historically-invaded country in Europe knew what an invasion actually looked like, better than most.
Nor did many of the people criticizing Hungary stop to think that maybe, with such a prominent awareness of once being refugees themselves, Hungarians might be more cognizant of the gratitude, relief and forbearance that marks the conduct of a genuine refugee.
Instead, Hungary was confronted by aggressive economic migrants in numbers so huge that the authorities were "all but submerged." As the migrants demanded transit to welfare states they had paid handsomely to reach, they threw food and water back at the same Hungarian officials being pilloried by the world's media for their own efforts to cope.
The nadir of the global press coverage of Hungary came with a defensive action involving tear gas and water cannons, when, on September 16, its frontier post at Röszke was closed to illegal entry. The false story sold by the world's media led the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, to condemn Hungary.
No mention was made outside the country of how Hungary's police had reacted solely with non-lethal crowd control tactics -- resorting to these only after a three hour standoff that injured 20 police officers, who had resisted persistent violent efforts to storm the country's border.
The most conspicuous press failure, however, concerns the key question: With the EU's border agency Frontex confirming on November 4 that 800,000 have illegally crossed into Europe so far in 2015, each likely paying $1000 to $5000 to a people-smuggler, how is this colossal total expenditure -- entirely outside the means of genuine refugee camp residents in Turkey or Jordan -- being funded?
Georg Spöttle, an Arabic-speaking German national security expert resident in Hungary, with unique access to the intelligence communities in both countries, has been studying the sources of money used by migrants to traverse Europe. He has frequently identified Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as the true source of the funds.
Spöttle has also examined some of the thousands of pictures and videos found on mobile phones discarded by migrants before entering Hungary. Many images, in his view, are likely to be in the possession only "of those either sympathetic to terrorism or terrorists themselves."
For other observers, the most alarming evidence thrown up in central Europe by this year's migrant influx lies in the nature of the identity documents being discarded, at the last stop on the Western Balkan route, before migrants head towards the EU's freedom-of-movement zone.
Thousands of migrants cross illegally into Slovenia on foot, in this screenshot from YouTube video filmed in October 2015.
In Serbia, the price of superglue has increased 100-fold, given that, when spread across a person's fingertips, it temporarily allows an imprint of bogus fingerprints on a biometric EURODAC scanner.
Many of the documents thrown away at the Hungarian border include genuine Syrian civilian and military identity papers that would automatically entitle their holder to residence in Germany. The act seems highly irregular: Serbian identity papers, valid Swedish residency documents, papers confirming political refugee status from Jordan, and European passports, have all been found strewn across the border.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from such evidence collected at the EU's external frontier, argues Hungary's most notable security analyst, is that it points to the behavior of individuals intent on establishing jihadist sleeper cells in Europe. Or alternatively, that many Muslims with criminal records, already resident in the EU, could be exploiting the migrant crisis to establish entirely new identities for themselves before disappearing across the continent.
The only solution to an ever increasing influx, first from the Middle East, and then, in Orbán's view, of even greater numbers from Africa, is to intercept and safely return migrant boats to their points of departure. On May 11, however, this "pushback" policy was utterly repudiated by Federica Mogherini, the European Commission's foreign policy chief. Her announcement may well have acted as the spark for this year's unprecedented migrant figures.
Orbán's proposal, a combined European effort to police the narrow stretch of water between Turkey and nearby islands of Greece, has been rejected by the EU's leaders. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people are still being allowed to enter the EU illegally, thanks to the newly strengthened Islamist government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. At the moment, he is trying to bully Brussels into giving Turkey the features of an actual European Union membership step-by-step.
Hungary, perhaps to demonstrate how a combined border-protection initiative could work, is already using a joint cooperation force to defend its own EU frontier, with local partners from Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland.
The presence and power of Mogherini, whose fondness for political Islam has already been analyzed at the Gatestone Institute, is a damning indictment of the European Union's claim to democratic legitimacy.
Thanks to what many felt was a profound dissatisfaction with mass migration into the EU, Europe experienced a marked turn to the political right in the 2014 European parliamentary elections.
A conservative European Commission was "elected" in turn -- but it nevertheless appointed Mogherini, a former Italian Communist, to the most senior border-protection role in Europe. No matter how its people vote, the commitment of the EU's institutions to a borderless Europe, both internally and externally, appears to remain undaunted.
It is clear, however, from remarks delivered in his nation's capital on October 31, that Viktor Orbán's patience with the EU has finally been exhausted. "Europe is being betrayed," he told a Christian conference in Budapest. "It is being taken from us."
Thousands of migrants shipped to the EU daily, Orbán argued, are "not a result of indecisiveness," but the product of a conscious "left-wing" conspiracy to curb the relevance of Europe's sovereign nation states by undermining their ethnic foundations.
With the EU having no perceptible mandate, this effort amounts to "treason," he said, which must be countered by national democracies turning to their people. If not, he said, these people risk losing the ownership of their continent unless a Europe-wide consultation on mass migration immediately takes place.
The next migrant wave (50,000) is scheduled to arrive at the Austrian border next week. A ferry strike in Greece has caused a backlog, which is now moving its way through the Balkans.
According to Björn Höcke, of the populist Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), by the end of 2016 there will be as many Muslim males of military age in Germany (5.5 million), as there are young German men of that age.
Meanwhile, on November 2, Libya threatened to send to Europe millions of migrants from Africa, unless the EU recognizes its self-declared (Islamist) government.
 
 
George Igler is a political analyst in the City of London and the Director of the Discourse Institute.
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6861/hungary-migrant-crisis-europe

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

Center for American Progress kerfuffle accidentally reveals Palestinians were advising demonstrators in Ferguson - Thomas Lifson



by Thomas Lifson

Does the phrase “outside agitators” ring any bells? How about “interference in the internal affairs” of a nation?

Oops! As a byproduct of an internal dispute at the far left think tank, the Center for American Progress (CAP), it has been revealed that Palestinian advisers were brought into the Ferguson, Missouri demonstrations to advise the rioters. Exactly who paid for them to apparently fly halfway around the world (or otherwise build "strong relationships") and stick their noses into an American political dispute is unclear, though it has been bandied about that George Soros has played a major role in funding the #BlackLivesMatter movement that is ginning up black anger, and presumably 2016 election turnout for Hillary. 

The dispute that led to the shocking disclosure involved the invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at CAP. The left wing journal, The Nation, chronicled the dispute and let slip the incriminating information. Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton write:
There is dissent at the Center for American Progress. Late last month, the Democratic Party–aligned think tank announced that it would, with encouragement from the influential pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, accept an offer from Benjamin Netanyahu’s office to host the right-wing Israeli prime minister for an event. The invite stirred controversy: Many liberals who normally fall within the Democratic Party milieu were miffed that Netanyahu, a figure who has been widely seen over the past several years as openly siding with Republicans and neoconservative ideologues, would be given an opportunity to rehabilitate his image as a bipartisan figure.
A statement of dissent was prepared and delivered at a staff meeting. The Nation, well-connected on the left, obtained a copy and revealed:
The staffers who rose to deliver the statement of dissent said they were left out of the process and now face difficulty returning to the communities from which they come and work with. “It becomes difficult to step outside of our building and say to our allies why this visit is happening, for some of us here we ourselves feel that we were not considered in that decision,” the statement reads. The authors cited, for example, the strong relationships built between Palestinian protesters, who face routine tear-gassing at their demonstrations, and Black Lives Matter activists in places like Ferguson, Missouri. “[I]t’s hard to separate American progress from world progress when young people in Palestine are advising young people in Ferguson on how to deal with tear gas and flash grenades,” they wrote.
Does the phrase “outside agitators” ring any bells? How about “interference in the internal affairs” of a nation?

It has long been clear that #BlackLivesMatter is another Astroturf operation of the left. But the revelation that deep pocket interests, able to engage radical people in from the Middle East (were there any Hamas or Hezb’allah people in Ferguson?) should raise all sorts of red flags.

Hat tips: Carol Greenwald and Karin McQuillan  


Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/center_for_american_progress_kerfuffle_accidentally_reveals_palestinians_were_in_ferguson_advising_demonstrators.html

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

Just who is Europe harming? - Arutz Sheva Staff



by Arutz Sheva Staff

Yesha Council publishes figures, showing 62% of workers in 890 Jewish factories now targeted in EU labeling are in fact Palestinian Arabs.

Following the European Union decision to label Jewish products from Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the Yesha Council on Wednesday published several statistics about the products, factories and workers in Judea and Samaria that are liable to be harmed by the discriminatory move.

In Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley combined, there are currently no less than 14 industrial areas in which 890 industrial and agricultural factories operate.

A full 24,000 workers are employed at the factories, and over 15,000 of them are Arabs who live under the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The number of factories and workers has risen in recent years, despite two laws issued by the PA, one against Arab workers employed by Jews in Judea and Samaria, and the other banning Jewish products from the region.

Despite the PA boycott attempts, between 2011 and 2015 the number of factories in Judea and Samaria rose from 680 to 890, representing a 30% increase.

The number of Arab workers employed at Jewish factories also significantly rose, from 12,300 in 2011 to 15,300 in 2015, showing a growth of 24%.

As of 2015, the Arab workers comprised 62% of the workers in the Jewish factories in the region.

The statistics show a clear relationship between the increase in Jewish factories and the number of Arab workers making a living at the factories.


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/203263#.VkSuF7-zddt

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

US Software Stranglehold Threatens F-35 Foreign Operations - Giovanni de Briganti



by Giovanni de Briganti 

The fear is that an “ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent,”



The F-35 is entirely dependent on the ALIS system for its maintenance, and on US-based 
software laboratories for its mission data loads, so that its operation requires secure and 
high-speed Internet links between its operating bases and the US. (USAF photo)
 
PARIS --- The unilateral decision by the United States to locate all F-35 software laboratories on its territory, and to manage the operation and sustainment of the global F-35 fleet from its territory, has introduced vulnerabilities that are only beginning to emerge.

The biggest risk is that, since the F-35 cannot operate effectively without permanent data exchanges with its software labs and logistic support computers in the United States, any disruption in the two-way flow of information would compromise its effectiveness.

All F-35 aircraft operating across the world will have to update their mission data files and their Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) profiles before and after every sortie, to ensure that on-board systems are programmed with the latest available operational data and that ALIS is kept permanently informed of each aircraft’s technical status and maintenance requirements. ALIS can, and has, prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file.

Given that the United States hopes to sell hundreds of F-35s to allies in Europe, Asia and Australia, the volume of data that must travel to and from the United States is gigantic, and any disruption in Internet traffic could cripple air forces as the F-35 cannot operate unless it is logged into, and cleared by, ALIS.

For example, “Mission data load development and testing is a critical path to combat capability,” Pentagon OT&E director Michael Gilmore said in his fiscal 2014 report. “Accuracy of threat identification and location depend on how well the mission data loads are optimized to perform in ambiguous operational environments.”

Updating and uploading mission data loads depends on a functioning Internet, and as Wired.com noted in an Oct. 29 story, “undersea Internet cables are surprisingly vulnerable.” It quoted Nicole Starosielski, a media scholar at New York University, as saying that “people would be surprised to know that there are a little over 200 systems that carry all of the internet traffic across the ocean, and these are by and large concentrated in very few areas. The cables end up getting funneled through these narrow pressure points all around the globe.”

Recent activity by Russian ships near crucial undersea cables has added to concerns about the vulnerability of Internet, as recently illustrated by the New York Times, which noted that “Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of tension or conflict.”

The fear is that an “ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent,” the article said.

Whatever the other repercussions, such an event would severely limit the ability of the world’s F-35 fighters to fly – due to a loss of ALIS link – and to operate effectively, as their fighting ability would disappear if their software and mission data files could not be updated.

No Internet, No F-35 Operations

In a recent article, Aviation Week explored how F-35 operators “are being compelled to fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats.”

It noted that the MDFs “are twice as large as the equivalent data load in the F-22,” and that there are 12 packages covering different regions.

The JSF program is establishing two centers to produce and update MDFs, at Eglin AFB, Florida, and NAS Point Mugu, California. The latter will support Japanese and Israeli F-35s, Aviation Week reported, while an Australia/U.K. facility and a laboratory to support Norway and Italy will be established at Eglin. (Click here for a description of the Point Mugu reprograming lab.)

Given that the ALIS mainframe is located at Fort Worth, Texas, operating the F-35 will require three very large data conduits to and from these locations, again using Internet cables as the volume of data is too great for satellite transmission.

In fact, if the F-35 performs as advertised, it should gather very argue amounts of tactical data during each mission – data that it will have to transmit to the software labs in the US so they can be used to update the mission data files, adding another large volume data flow in both directions.

In addition, according to the OT&E FY 2014 report, 18,049 Joint Technical Data (JTD) modules have been developed for the aircraft, 3,123 for its engine and 1,775 for Supportable Low Observables; all are required for ALIS to operate as designed. While no information is available as to the data volumes involved, it seems logical to assume it is considerable.

The OT&E report mentions that “Maintenance downloads using the ground data receptacle … usually takes an hour, delaying access to maintenance information.” This is an indication of the data volume involved, especially as the upgraded ALIS runs on a standard Windows 7 operating system.

This was confirmed by Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, in recent Congressional testimony.

“Currently, the pilot debrief timeline is too long as it takes approximately 1.5 hours to download a 1.5 hour flight. This is unacceptable and [we] are in the process of fielding an improved system [which] will decrease the timeline to download mission data by a factor of 8, meaning a 1.5 hour flight will be downloaded in about fifteen minutes,” he told the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on Oct 21.


Giovanni de Briganti

Source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/168580/us-software-stranglehold-threatens-f_35-foreign-operations.html

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