Friday, December 23, 2016

Europe's Compassionate Hatred of Israel - Bat Ye'or




by Bat Ye'or

European countries recognize terrorism everywhere except in Israel, where they themselves are allies of these terrorists whom they call "freedom fighters" or "militants", against "occupation".

  • The Jerusalem Declaration of UNESCO seeks to Islamize, with the help of many governments in Europe and other Christian countries, the ancient history of the people of Israel.
  • But what does this declaration mean for Europe and Christianity? Wasn't Christianity born out of Israel? Wasn't Jesus a Judean Jew, as were the apostles and evangelists? Or was it Islam that Jesus was preaching, in Arabic and in the mosques?
  • Where are the great Catholic or Protestant voices to protest against this Islamization of Christianity? This passivity, this indifference makes you think that Europe will soon look more like Lebanon.
  • This alliance has ruined Europe -- because the enemies of Israel are also enemies of Christianity and of Europe. How can you ally yourself with those who want to destroy you, without in fact dying yourself?
  • The same obsessive hatred Hitler had for Israel, which led to the ruin of Europe, has persisted today in the European Union against the Jewish State. The great irony is that in trying to destroy Israel, Europe has destroyed itself.
Today we are witnessing the coming of the worldwide caliphate. This expression means that the Muslim view of history is currently prevailing in international institutions. We see it with the Jerusalem Declaration of UNESCO, this palace of revisionism. The Jerusalem Declaration seeks to Islamize, with the help of many governments in Europe and other Christian countries, the ancient history of the people of Israel.

The Venice Declaration of 1980, issued by the European Community, which tried to force Israel to survive in an indefensible territory, already prescribed its disappearance and replacement with a people that had never even manifested itself before 1969 -- and all with the assistance of the Soviet Union and especially France. The Islamization of Jerusalem and the delegitimization of the State of Israel were already set out in the Venice Declaration, which to this date the European Union has continued to view as valid.

The Venice Declaration of 1980 was a gift from the European Community to the Arab League, aimed at reestablishing good economic relations with Arab countries, which had been angered by the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, a peace Europe had not been able to prevent. Jewish holy sites and the survival of the Jewish State were sacrificed by the European Community in exchange for petrodollars.

Since that time, the European Union has expressed remorse for the Holocaust and love and compassion for Israel, but has continued to support, fund and encourage a population whose mission is the destruction of Israel, as proclaimed in its doctrine, and with which Europe is quite familiar. European countries zealously spend billions to promote a worldwide Palestinian campaign of hatred against the State of Israel. They recognize terrorism everywhere except in Israel, where they themselves are allies of these terrorists, whom they call "freedom fighters" or "militants", against "occupation". The so-called "Jewish occupation" of Judea and Samaria refers to land that was conquered by war and occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, and from where Palestinian Jews were killed, or dispossessed and expelled.

Does not this policy, championed by France, remind you of something? During WW II, the Pétain-Hitler and the fascists' alliance with the Mufti of Jerusalem, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, sought the extermination of the Jewish people, whom they accused of being the cause of evil. Today, this same policy, this same alliance, has set itself the same objective with the same motivation: Israel, to them, is the cause of the wars in the Middle East and must be wiped out. Men from the 1940s have passed away, but their heirs kept their policy, disguising it under compassion and love, driving Israel to suicide "for its own good". Of course!


During WW II, the alliance of Pétain and Hitler with the Mufti of Jerusalem sought the extermination of the Jewish people, whom they accused of being the cause of evil. Today, this same policy, this same alliance, has set itself the same objective with the same motivation: Israel must be wiped out.

Now, with the declaration of UNESCO, we are witnessing the suppression of the history of the Israeli people - the "Holocaust of Memory", as defined by Giulio Meotti -- with the EU joining in.

But what does UNESCO's declaration mean for Europe and Christianity? Wasn't Christianity born out of Israel? Don't churches tell the history of the people of Israel in their paintings, sculptures and stained glass windows? And isn't the Bible, this historical shrine of the people of Israel for more than two millennia, left open on every pulpit of these churches? Hasn't it been read? Commented on for twenty centuries? Wasn't Jesus a Judean Jew, as were the apostles and evangelists?

Or was it Islam that Jesus was preaching, in Arabic and in the mosques?

If Israel never had a history in Judea, then Christianity and the Bible are lies. Are the ancient texts attesting to the existence of Israel from the time of the Pharaohs, Assyria, the Greeks, the Romans all lies? And the Arch of Titus in Rome, did that Menorah on there come from the mosque? There were not even any mosques around at that time -- not even in Arabia.

What the UNESCO's declaration is forcing us to accept is not just the destruction of our identity and culture, and the replacement of Christianity -- a graft of Israel -- with the Muslim faith, but also the destruction of the principle underlying Western civilization itself: reason, the very thing that lifts man above the beasts. We see that Israel, in its defense of the historical principle of its legitimacy, is also theologically protecting the legitimacy of Christianity, also linked to the Bible.

But if this declaration is not true, then the Jewish State's sovereignty over Jerusalem is legal. And if it is legal, why has no one heard the protests of human rights defenders? How many Christians are there in the world? Two and a half billion? How many of these protested? A million? A hundred thousand? Ten thousand? Fifty, if that? And where are the great Catholic or Protestant voices to protest against this Islamization of Christianity? This passivity, this indifference, makes you think that Europe will soon look more like Lebanon.

This UNESCO declaration, to which Europe raised no objections -- with the exception of four countries, whose abstention was not a protest, but an act of cowardice -- is the very charter of the Islamization of Europe and of Christianity. It details a policy that dovetails with what we see unfolding with mass-immigration and its consequences starting in 1973, the date when the European Community allied itself with the enemy of Israel, the PLO. It is this policy of alliance with the enemies of Israel that led to the abandonment of the Lebanese Christians when they were attacked by the Europe-supported Palestinians. It was this policy that led to the denial of the history of jihad, of dhimmitude and of the tragedy of Christians, hostages in the Arab world -- because Palestinians embody jihadist and dhimmitude values against Jews, Christians and Europe.

Europe's alliance with the enemies of Israel, for the purpose of delegitimizing and destroying it, has simply continued the policies of Hitler and Pétain; but how can you destroy Israel without destroying Christianity? What would Christianity be without the Bible, the prophets, a Jewish Jesus, the universal values that these teach? This alliance has ruined Europe -- because the enemies of Israel are also enemies of Christianity and of Europe. How can you ally yourself with those who want to destroy you, without in fact dying yourself?

The same obsessive hatred Hitler had for Israel, which led to the ruin of Europe, has persisted today in the European Union against the Jewish State. The great irony is that in trying to destroy Israel, Europe has destroyed itself.

The people of Europe will regain their freedom and identity by extricating themselves from this Euro-Arab alliance that joins them in a genocidal scheme against Israel and the West, in which they themselves are both protagonists and victims. Then and only then will they be able to help those Muslims who are bravely struggling to release their brethren from the hatred disfiguring the human face -- jihadi hatred -- and persuade them to accept human diversity. We have neglected these Muslims. They have been fighting alone for both them and us. It is imperative to help them.


Bat Ye'or is the author of several books on dhimmitude, including Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Her forthcoming book, Understanding Eurabia, will be published by Gatestone Institute and RVP Publishers in 2017.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9613/europe-hatred-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump’s Israel Ambassador Will Drain the Two-State Solution Swamp - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield


It’s time to end the “Palestinian” hijacking of the US-Israel relationship.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Ten years ago, a guy from Queens made a trip out during a snowstorm to pay a condolence call to a guy on Long Island on the passing of a Rabbi who was also his father. The guy from Queens is now President-elect and the man he was visiting became his close adviser and his choice for ambassador to Israel.

Last week, Trump gave his pro-Israel Jewish supporters an early Chanukah gift. He picked an ambassador who actually likes the Jewish State and hates Islamic terrorists.

It’s supposed to be the other way around.

Ambassador Dan Shapiro, Obama’s emissary to the country he hated almost as much as America, had denounced Israel on the day that a Jewish mother of six who died protecting her children from an Islamic terrorist encouraged to kill Jews by the Palestinian Authority, was being buried.

Shapiro has warned that our backing for Israel is contingent on Israel’s support for a PA-Hamas Islamic terror state inside its own borders and that Netanyahu’s lack of enthusiasm for that terror state “raises questions about Israel’s real intentions.”

But Trump has decided to go with David Friedman, a friend of Israel, instead of an enemy. And the enemies of the Jewish State are united in their fury against Ambassador David Friedman.

"J Street is vehemently opposed to the nomination of David Friedman to be Ambassador to Israel." the Soros funded anti-Israel group declared. Friedman has been a longtime critic of the hate group, comparing its support for Islamic terror against Israel to its key funder’s Nazi collaborating past.

The head of J Street is so upset that he appears to have found religion. "Lord help friends of Israel if someone like David Friedman is making US policy on Israel rather than John Kerry," Jeremy ben Ami whined.

The Lord just might be helping Israel by sending Kerry back to Nantucket and David Friedman to Jerusalem. The anti-Israel media was already sputtering early this month when Friedman skipped Kerry’s rant against Israel to attend an event for the Israeli town of Beit El (Bethel or House of God) where Judah Maccabee had his command center in the battle against Antiochus IV that gave us Chanukah.

Our next ambassador chose the House of God and the Maccabees over John Forbes Kerry.

Trump had personally donated to a Jewish school in Beit El. “If I would have known he would be elected president, I would have saved the check,” the town's co-founder said.

This infuriates the left which believes that the House of God ought to be turned over to Muslim terrorists to become the House of Allah, Jihad and of Kassam rockets falling on Israeli cities.

Letty Cottin Pogrebin of Peace Now, who has charged Israel with apartheid, claimed that it blows up Palestinian babies and praised the “positive consequences” of the racist Muslim terror intifada against the Jews, was most unhappy.

“This man will dismantle everything … State Department policy on the settlements, two states … It’s beyond comprehension,” she sputtered.

To which the only rational response can be… good.

There is no Two State Solution. And there never was. The Islamic terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank want one Islamic state just as much as ISIS does. They stopped even pretending to negotiate years ago. The term “Two State Solution” is an excuse for funding Islamic terrorists inside Israel on the pretext that after decades of rejecting peace and co-existence, they will one day change their minds and play nice.

As long as Israel offers them enough land to build their terror state on.

The “settlements”, a bigoted reference to Jews living in parts of Israel conquered by Muslim invaders in 1948 and liberated by Israelis in 1967, is their excuse for why Muslim terrorists still haven’t made peace.

You can’t expect the Palestinian Authority, funded by US taxpayers, to stop stabbing Israeli mothers as long as there are Jews living in parts of Jerusalem that they want to incorporate into their terror state.

Ambassador David Friedman wants to toss these Goebbelsian lies about Israel aside. He doesn’t believe that a Two State Solution in which an Islamic terror state cuts Israel in half will solve anything except the problem of Israel’s existence.

He knows that the lack of peace isn’t caused by Jews living in Jerusalem, but by Muslim terror.
The Two State Solution allowed Muslim terrorists in Israel to take the US-Israel relationship hostage. These Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority got veto power even over the location of our embassy in Jerusalem. Trump and Friedman want to free our relationship with Israel from the terrorists.

But much of the establishment wants to keep the Palestinian Authority hostage crisis going by appointing hostile hacks to poison the relationship and keep the terrorists in charge. The Foggy Bottom hacks we dispatch to Israel and around the world aren’t supposed to like Israel. Despising the Jewish State is a basic qualification for the job.

Our man in Tel Aviv, in a bizarrely out of touch embassy located more than half the country’s width away from its center of government, must ceaselessly lecture the Israelis on the evils of Jews living in Jerusalem while warning them that our support is based entirely on Israel’s to efforts to create an Islamic terror state inside its borders. Meanwhile the Jerusalem consulate will focus on outreach to the Islamic terror state while refusing to even admit that there are Jews in Jerusalem.

That’s why the establishment is madder at Friedman than a wet cat soaked in a barrel of gasoline.

David Friedman is a “hard-liner” and “right-wing”. David Remnick at the New Yorker fumes that Friedman is a bankruptcy lawyer from Long Island. He probably doesn’t even get invited to any of Remnick’s cocktail parties. But the President of the United States wasn’t supposed to be a guy from Queens who went to Wharton, but a Yale or Harvard type. And the ambassador to Israel is supposed to be a career Foreign Service Officer who has been around the region since the invention of syphilis. 

Not a guy from Long Island who doesn’t know enough to bemoan Israel’s “rightward” drift with the best of them at a Georgetown bar. Like so much else, this wasn’t supposed to happen.

The media whines that David Friedman is unfit because he isn’t a professional diplomat. It didn’t have a thing to say when Obama handed out ambassadorships to the UK, Canada, Italy, Germany and France to anyone who raised over six figures for his dirty campaigns.

Obama gave John Kerry’s cousin, married to the heiress of the Jack Daniel’s liquor empire, the ambassadorships of Sweden and the United Kingdom after raising millions for him. Not only isn’t anyone involved in this disgusting affair ashamed of it, but the “ambassador’s” official bio on the embassy site boasts that he was “among the first to join Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee”.

Obama made a soap opera producer who raised over $500K, the ambassador to Hungary and the producer of Dr. Dolittle 2, who raised millions for him, the ambassador to Denmark.

When the media lectures on Friedman’s unfitness, remember what they and their boss consider “fit”.

Behind all that outrage about Friedman is the fear that the Big Lie which has fed Islamic terrorism in Israel, America and around the world is about to come toppling down. Trump is threatening to drain the swamp of Foggy Bottom where the State Department has long sabotaged our relationship with Israel.

And the Two State Solution, the Palestinian Authority with its hundreds of millions in stolen taxpayer money, the professional critics of Israel who blame a thousand years of Muslim anti-Semitism on a Jewish family living in Jerusalem, and all of Foggy Bottom are a swamp that badly needs draining.

A decade ago, a guy from Queens visited a guy from Long Island to pay his respects. Next year the two men may transform our foreign policy toward Israel and drain the swamp of the Two State Solution.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265185/trumps-israel-ambassador-will-drain-two-state-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Keith Ellison’s Hamas Ties - Robert Spencer




by Robert Spencer


He disavows Louis Farrakhan, but is speaking next week for the Hamas-linked Muslim American Society.




Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has called his previous defense of Louis Farrakhan “the mistake in my past,” but those who are ready to proclaim him a “moderate” and anoint him head of the Democratic National Committee should consider carefully the fact that he is the keynote speaker for Muslim American Society (MAS)/ Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) annual convention next week. The ties to Hamas are numerous – not that Hamas ties are likely to give Democrats pause.

The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando noted that “the MAS convention Ellison will address will hear from radical speakers such as Ali Qaradaghi (alternately spelled Al-Qurra Daghi in the MAS-ICNA program), the secretary general of the pro-Hamas International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), which is one of the world’s most influential groups for Sunni Islamist clerics. It counts former Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh as a member.”

Yet Ellison has longstanding ties to MAS: in 2008, he accepted $13,350 from MAS to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. It isn’t surprising that he would have no trouble sharing the MAS stage next week with Hamas supporters, in light of the fact that he has been caught on newly-released audio of Ellison speaking at a fundraiser for his 2010 Congressional reelection campaign, saying that a vote for him was a vote against Israel’s supposed control of U.S. foreign policy. “The message I want to send to you by donating to this campaign,” he declared, “is positioning me and positioning Muslims in general to help steer the ship of state in America….The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?”

Ellison also boasted that “there is a growing awareness in the US Congress and in the executive branch that everything anyone does, including Israel, is not fine. And there are real questions being asked.” He revealed that in meetings with his Jewish constituents, he challenged them to stand with Barack Obama against Israel: “Do you stand with the President on stopping settlements in east Jerusalem, because that is the policy of my president and I want to know if you’re with the President. Are you with the President?”

Ellison proposed that U.S. aid to Israel be tied to the Israeli building projects in East Jerusalem: “Why are we sending $2.8 billion a year over there when they won’t even honor our request to stop building in East Jerusalem? Where is the future Palestinian state going to be if it’s colonized before it even gets up off the ground?”

He offered an alternative aiding Israel: “We should be building the bilateral business relationships between the United States and the Muslim world….Morocco, we gotta build it up. Saudi Arabia, we gotta build it up. The Gulf countries, we gotta build them. Pakistan, we gotta build them.” (Saudi Arabia?) This would be done so that ultimately  Muslims in the U.S. would be able to make demands upon the government: “We need to have so much goods and services going back and forth between this country and the Muslim world that if we say we need this right here, then everyone is saying, OK. Understand my point? You’ve got to be strategic….These business relationships can be leveraged to say that we need a new deal politically.”

MAS has links not just to Hamas, but to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Chicago Tribune reported back in 2004 that “in recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” In a validation of the accuracy of this report, it is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.)

The links between MAS and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are not simply the conjectures of “right-wing” counter-jihad activists. A Muslim scholar, al-Husein Madhany, wrote this in a 2010 email to fellow Muslim and Leftist activists: “When I said that I believe MAS halaqas [religious meetings] to be a national security threat, it was only part in jest. My caution comes from what I have personally heard said at MAS halaqas during my time in graduate school and based on what I know about their ideological (but financial) ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.”

It doesn’t end with MAS, either: there is abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to other anti-Semitic groups as well. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

Also, CAIR raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Even as the evidence mounts of Ellison’s anti-Semitism and dalliances with Hamas-linked groups, however, he remains very much in the running for DNC Chair. That is telling in itself.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265223/keith-ellisons-hamas-ties-robert-spencer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Fantasy Islam (Kafir Edition) - Dr. Stephen M. Kirby




by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby 


John Esposito’s fairy tale version of Islam.



Fantasy Islam (Kafir Edition): A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Kafir (non-Muslim) strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.
John Esposito is Professor of Religion and International Affairs and Professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University.  He is also the Founding Director of the Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  He is the author of What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, a book in its second edition and presented as “the best single source…for answers to basic questions about Islam…”

The reality is that with his well-known book, Esposito played the Kafir Edition of Fantasy Islam.  Here are some examples:

70 Virgins waiting in Paradise? – On pp. 143-144 Esposito wrote that there was nothing in the Koran that supported the idea of martyrs being rewarded with 70 virgins in Paradise.  He noted that:

The reward of seventy virgins to martyrs is based on a “weak” Prophetic tradition used in medieval times to encourage Muslims to military activities…
Esposito is half right.  There is no mention in the Koran of 70 virgins as a reward.  However, he is wrong with his numbers and when he ascribes it simply to a “weak” tradition.  In reality, Muhammad himself promised martyrs the reward of 72 virgins in paradise, and the following is from one of the six authoritative collections of Muhammad’s teachings (hadiths) compiled in the ninth century:

Al-Miqdam bin Ma'diykarib narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "There are six things with Allah for the martyr…he is married to seventy-two wives among Al-Huril-'Ayn [virgins] of Paradise…"
Jami' At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, No. 1663, p. 410
At-Tirmidhi himself stated this hadith was “Hasan Sahih” (lit. Good Sound/Authoritative).  Was a “Professor of Islamic Studies” not aware of Jami' At-Tirmidhi?

Greater Jihad vs. Lesser Jihad – On pp. 133-134, and again in the Glossary, Esposito made a distinction between the Greater Jihad, supposedly the struggle with oneself, and the Lesser Jihad, supposedly fighting in defense of Islam.  He claimed this distinction was based on a “well-known Prophetic tradition.”

The reality is the opposite.  Such a distinction between Jihads is based largely on two things: 1) Weak or fabricated hadiths; and 2) The 19th Century commentary inserted into Reliance of the Traveller, a 14th Century Shafi’i manual of Sharia Law; this commentary has been erroneously considered to be part of the original manual.  I covered this fabricated distinction in more detail on pp. 115-123 of my book Islam According to Muhammad, Not Your Neighbor.

Jihad and Holy War – On p. 134 Esposito wrote that Jihad “is not associated with the words holy war anywhere in the Quran.”  This is mildly interesting, but, on the other hand, Esposito did not mention numerous examples of other works where such an association is made, e.g.:
  1. Jihad: Striving, holy warDictionary of Islamic Words & Expressions.
     
  2. …the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur'anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war…The Message of the Qur’an, n. 167, p. 51.  This is the translation of the Koran endorsed and distributed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
     
  3.  …he was taken prisoner in a jihad - that is, a holy war…The Message of the Qur’an, n. 72, p. 284.
     
  4. …a woman taken captive in a "holy war" (jihad)…The Message of the Qur’an, n. 58, p. 727.
     
  5. And He (Allah) said: Jihad (Islamic holy war) is ordained for you (Muslims)… - Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, The Call to Jihad (Fighting For Allah’s Cause) in the Qur’an.
     
  6. The holy war (jihad) is a collective duty… – “The Book of the Holy War (Kitab al-Jihad),” The Mainstay Concerning Jurisprudence (Al-‘Umda fi ‘l-Fiqh), p. 313.
Birth Control in Islam – On p. 174 Esposito wrote:
The Quran does not address family planning measures, but a few hadith (traditions) mention coitus interruptus.
Here is a well-known hadith about coitus interruptus that includes, to a certain degree, family planning.  It addressed the problem of whether or not the ransom the Muslims were expecting for particular female captives would be affected if the captives were returned pregnant.  In response to the question about whether the Muslim warriors should therefore engage in coitus interruptus with their rape victims, Muhammad, instead of prohibiting the rapes, merely said that coitus interruptus would not matter because every soul that was destined to be born would be born:

O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (SAW) mentioning al-'azl [coitus interruptus]? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (SAW) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq.  We took captive some excellent Arab women.  We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl...But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (SAW), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, No. 1438, p. 373
Jesus returns to Earth – In the spirit of ecumenical harmony, Esposito wrote that Islam teaches that Jesus would return to earth to “establish justice, and reign over the world for forty years as an upright and just ruler” (p. 29).  But that is not how Muhammad had described Jesus’ return.  Here is what Muhammad said:

He [Jesus] will descend…He will break the cross, kill the pig, and banish the Jizyah and will call the people to Islam.  During his time, Allah will destroy all religions except Islam...'Isa [Jesus] will remain for forty years and then will die...
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, p. 32
So during those forty years after he returned, Jesus would be destroying Christianity and calling the people to Islam.

And, according to Muhammad, Jesus would also be judging mankind by the laws of the Koran:
Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah's Messenger said, "How will you be when the son of Maryam (Mary) ['Isa (Jesus)] descends amongst you, and he will judge people by the law of the Qur'an and not by the law of the Gospel."
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, No. 3449, p. 412
Islam teaches that Jesus will return to earth to destroy Christianity, call the people to Islam, and judge by the Koran; according to Esposito this is an example of Jesus establishing “justice” and ruling as an “upright and just ruler.”

The Apostasy Law was Man-Made – On p. 74 Esposito wrote that

Prominent Muslim scholars maintain that the Islamic law on apostasy, which prescribes the death penalty, was not based on the Quran but was a man-made effort in early Islam to prevent and punish the equivalent of desertion or treason…
On the contrary, in 4:89 of the Koran Allah commands Muslims to take hold of those apostates who have left Islam and “kill them wherever you find them.”  So the death penalty for apostasy from Islam is in the Koran.

In addition, Muhammad said that death was the penalty for a Muslim who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 6878, p. 20).  And Muhammad even specified the nature of that death:

If someone changes his religion - then strike off his head!
 Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in a section titled “Judgement on Abandonment of Islam.”
Are these “prominent Muslim scholars” really saying that the Koran and the words of Muhammad were “man-made”?

Muslim Women in the Afterlife – On p. 31 Esposito wrote about the rewards the Koran says are waiting for women in paradise, pointing out that the Koran “makes no gender distinction as to the reward or punishment of the afterlife.”  But Esposito left out the fact that Muhammad made such a gender distinction:

Imran b. Husain reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority.
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, No. 2738, p. 253
And where was the final destination for most women?

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, No. 3241, p. 290
It is interesting to note that on p. 13 Esposito had pointed out that Sahih Muslim and Sahih Al-Bukhari were two collections of Muhammad’s teachings that “enjoy special authoritative status” in most of the Muslim world.  These two collections did not enjoy that same status in this section of Esposito’s book.

Homosexuality – On p. 173 Esposito wrote that while homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, “Muslims are divided over how to respond to gay Muslims.”  This is strange because Esposito wrote in a number of places about Muhammad embodying the Koran and providing the example for Muslims to follow (pp. 11-12, 128, and 159), and Muhammad was explicit about what to do with homosexuals:

Ibn 'Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah said, "Whoever you catch committing the act of the people of Lut (homosexuality), then kill both parties to the act."
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 402
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said concerning those who do the action of the people of Lut: “Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.”
Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, No. 2562, p. 469
Conclusion

Esposito wrote about the “common future” of the West and the Muslim world, and he stressed the importance of the “knowledge of what Islam teaches” (xv-xvi).  Unfortunately, Esposito chose instead to play Fantasy Islam.

But there is more to Esposito’s game playing.  Part 2 will look at Esposito’s version of the Koran.

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/265178/fantasy-islam-kafir-edition-dr-stephen-m-kirby

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The warmist thumb on the scale at the Department of Energy - Jack Hellner




by Jack Hellner

The scathing analysis comes in the wake of a report that the Department of Energy refused to turn over to Donald Trump's transition team the names of its staff members who worked on climate change issues for the Obama administration.

The Obama administration fired a scientist, intimidated staff at the Department of Energy, and allegedly ordered officials to obstruct Congress – all in order to push its climate change agenda, a House committee report asserted.

The Washington Free Beacon detailed Tuesday a report released by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which is chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.  The report charges that senior Obama administration officials retaliated against the scientist, Dr. Noelle Getting, who was manager of a radiation research program, and devised ways to block a congressional inquiry into the radiation research.

"Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming," Smith said in a statement, the Free Beacon reported.

"In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line."

The scathing analysis comes in the wake of a report that the Department of Energy refused to turn over to Donald Trump's transition team the names of its staff members who worked on climate change issues for the Obama administration.

The Free Beacon reported that the analysis goes into congressional efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, which aimed to test the impact of radiation on human beings.  The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.

Lawmakers introduced the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014 late that year to regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects, the Free Beacon noted.

During an October 2014 briefing on the matter, Getting testified, and less than a month later, she was "removed ... from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by" Congress during the briefing, the report stated.

Jack Hellner

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/the_warmist_thumb_on_the_scale_at_the_department_of_energy.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iran: Why the Mullahs Will Not Reform from Within - Heshmat Alavi




by Heshmat Alavi

This regime will only change if the entire Supreme Leadership structure, along with all its linked organs, especially the IRGC, are annulled and dissolved.

  • Iran's entire power structure and most of its civil society is centralized under the personal control of the Supreme Leader. In this way, Iran's dictatorship is every bit as entrenched as North Korea's, making the idea of traditional regime change a pipe dream.
  • The mullahs created a regime -- an entrenched revolution -- specifically designed to resist change or reform, adopting a unique theocratic structure that uses both Islamic ideology and brutal force to maintain absolute power.
  • There is but one regime, and it has no interest in "reform."
  • The membership of every single one of the many official-sounding bureaucratic organs is personally approved by the Supreme Leader. Indeed, any individual, or coalition of individuals who might serve as a check on his absolute power is, in fact, completely beholden to Khamenei's whims, making him the most complete and powerful dictator on the planet.
  • Elections in this regime are not indicative of any form of "democracy". Instead, they are merely a process of choosing among individuals vetted by the Supreme Leader. There are no factions based upon ideological differences, there is mere jockeying for position and the personal favor of the Supreme Leader.
  • Western governments' policy of providing concessions to the Iranian regime in order to empower "reformist" factions is based on a fantasy -- a fantasy which the Iranian regime deliberately encourages in order to fool naïve foreign leaders into easing sanctions and turning a blind eye to the nuclear program. In reality, Western concessions are strengthening Khamenei -- further reducing the possibility of change, and increasing the likelihood of outright war.
Ever since Iran's mullahs rose to power in 1979 and established an "Islamic Republic", they have worked to consolidate power both at home and abroad. Given Iran's growing belligerence toward its neighbors, persistent crackdowns on domestic dissidents, and frightening nuclear ambitions, foreign analysts often talk about the possibility of regime change in Tehran. But there is very little understanding of the obstacles to dethroning the mullahs -- namely, that the entire power structure and most of civil society is centralized under the personal control of the Supreme Leader. In this way, Iran's dictatorship is every bit as entrenched as North Korea's, making the idea of traditional regime change a pipe dream.

The mullahs created a regime -- an entrenched revolution -- specifically designed to resist change or reform, adopting a unique theocratic structure that uses both Islamic ideology and brutal force to maintain absolute power.

The official name of this system is Velayat-e Faqih ("custodianship of the clergy") and it places all religious and legal authority in the hands of the Supreme Leader. What this means, in both theory and in practice, is that the Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei (like Ruhollah Khomeini before him) plays a direct role in all the country's affairs; and no individual, group, or committee in the country has the right to question or hold him accountable.

Khamenei exercises his authority through a morass of official-sounding bureaucratic organs, including the "Guardian Council", "Expediency Council", "Supreme Council of Leader, "Supreme National Security Council", "Strategic Council of Foreign Policy", and of course a "Council of Cultural Revolution". What one must understand is that the membership of every single one of these organizations is personally approved by the Supreme Leader. Indeed, any individual, or coalition of individuals who might serve as a check on his absolute power is, in fact, completely beholden to Khamenei's whims, making him the most complete and powerful dictator on the planet -- perhaps exceeding even Kim Jong-un in unrivaled control of North Korea.

The Guardian Council is the Khamenei's most important instrument; it has titular oversight of both the executive and legislative branches. All candidates for presidential or parliamentary election must be approved by this council, allowing him to exert his personal control over the outcome of elections. Likewise, all acts of parliament and new legislation must be confirmed by the Guardian Council.

Even decisions of the Guardian Council are subject to the Grand Ayatollah's veto; he reserves the right to reject legislation or winning candidates. And some decisions, like senior judicial appointments, do not go through the Council at all. Meanwhile, the entire domestic and foreign financial system is controlled through a parallel system of committees and "foundations" which are likewise under Khamenei's personal control.

While the Khamenei is the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, his most feared weapon is the parallel army founded by his predecessor: the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Fiercely loyal to the Supreme Leader and brutally ruthless, the IRGC is lethally efficient in protecting the regime at home and exporting the "revolution" abroad, in places as varied as Yemen and South America.

As commander-in-chief of all armed forces Khamenei appoints the joint chiefs of staff, commander of the IRGC, and senior commanders of the army and all security forces, making the possibility of a military coup extremely unlikely.

Iranian civil society is an illusion; all of the government and by extension most of the private sector are mere extensions of the Grand Ayatollah's personal will. Velayat-e Faqih is the only state ideology; the only differences of opinion are about how it should be implemented.

Therefore, elections in this regime are not indicative of any form of "democracy". Instead, they are merely a process of choosing among individuals vetted by the Supreme Leader. There are no factions based upon ideological differences, there is mere jockeying for position and the personal favor of the Supreme Leader.

Traditional "regime change" in Iran is inconceivable. The Western obsession of labeling the regime's factions as "reformists" or "hardliners" is laughable. There is but one regime, and it has no interest in "reform".


Traditional "regime change" in Iran is inconceivable. The Western obsession of labeling the regime's factions as "reformists" or "hardliners" is laughable. There is but one regime, and it has no interest in "reform".
This regime will only change if the entire Supreme Leadership structure, along with all its linked organs, especially the IRGC, are annulled and dissolved. Otherwise, whether the president is the "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the "reformist" Hassan Rouhani, the regime's policies will remain the same.

Western governments' policy of providing concessions to the Iranian regime in order to empower "reformist" factions is based on a fantasy -- a fantasy which the Iranian regime deliberately encourages in order to fool naïve foreign leaders into easing sanctions and turning a blind eye to the nuclear program. In reality, Western concessions are strengthening Khamenei -- further reducing the possibility of change, and increasing the likelihood of outright war.


Heshmat Alavi is a political and rights activist. His writing focuses on Iran, ranging from human rights violations, social crackdown, the regime's support for terrorism and meddling in foreign countries, and the controversial nuclear program. He tweets at @HeshmatAlavi & blogs at IranCommentary

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9597/iran-reform

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

New pre-military academy caters especially to Bedouin youth - Daniel Siryoti




by Daniel Siryoti

"It is important to me to contribute to the country and to have the opportunity to serve, to study, to work and to succeed, just like everyone else here," says Annan Hujirat, a member of the Bedouin community who plans to enlist in the IDF this year.



Members of the new pre-military preparatory academy
|
Photo credit: Ma'ase Center, Rashi Foundation


Daniel Siryoti

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=38989

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Islam's Tenuous Connection to Jerusalem - Eli E. Hertz




by Eli E. Hertz

Indeed, Jerusalem's importance in the Islamic world only appears evident when non-Muslims (including the Crusaders, the British, and the Jews) control or capture the city.

Despite 1,300 years of Muslim Arab rule, Jerusalem was never the capital of an Arab entity. Oddly, the PLO's National Covenant, written in 1964, never mentioned Jerusalem. Only after Israel regained control of the entire city did the PLO "update" its Covenant to include Jerusalem.

Overall, the role of Jerusalem in Islam is best understood as the outcome of political pressure impacting on religious belief.

Mohammed, who founded Islam in 622 CE, was born and raised in present-day Saudi Arabia; he never set foot in Jerusalem. His connection to the city came years after his death when the Dome of the Rock shrine and the al-Aqsa mosque were built in 688 and 691, respectively, their construction spurred by political and religious rivalries. In 638 CE, the Caliph (or successor to Mohammed) Omar and his invading armies captured Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire. One reason they wanted to erect a holy structure in Jerusalem was to proclaim Islam's supremacy over Christianity and its most important shrine, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

More important was the power struggle within Islam itself. The Damascus-based Umayyad Caliphs who controlled Jerusalem wanted to establish an alternative holy site if their rivals blocked access to Mecca. That was important because the Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca was (and remains today) one of the Five Pillars of Islam. As a result, they built what became known as the Dome of the Rock shrine and the adjacent mosque.

To enhance the prestige of the "substitute Mecca," the Jerusalem mosque was named "al-Aqsa." It means "the furthest mosque" in Arabic, but has far broader implications, since it is the same phrase used in a key passage of the Quran called "The Night Journey." In that passage, Mohammed arrives at "al-Aqsa" on a winged steed accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel; from there they ascend into heaven for a divine meeting with Allah, after which Mohammed returns to Mecca. Naming the Jerusalem mosque "al-Aqsa" was an attempt to say the Dome of the Rock was the very spot from which Mohammed ascended to heaven, thus tying Jerusalem to divine revelation in Islamic belief. The problem however is, that Mohammed died in the year 632, nearly 50 years before the first construction of the "al-Aqsa" Mosque was completed.

Jerusalem never replaced the importance of Mecca in the Islamic world. When the Umayyad dynasty fell in 750, Jerusalem also fell into near obscurity for 350 years, until the Crusades. During those centuries, many Islamic sites in Jerusalem fell into disrepair and in 1016 the Dome of the Rock collapsed.

Still, for 1,300 years, various Islamic dynasties (Syrian, Egyptian, and Turkish) continued to govern Jerusalem as part of their overall control of the Land of Israel, disrupted only by the Crusaders. What is amazing is that over that period, not one Islamic dynasty ever made Jerusalem its capital. By the 19th century, Jerusalem had been so neglected by Islamic rulers that several prominent Western writers who visited Jerusalem were moved to write about it. French writer Gustav Flaubert, for example, found "ruins everywhere" during his visit in 1850 when it was part of the Turkish Empire (1516-1917). Seventeen years later Mark Twain wrote that Jerusalem had "become a pauper village."

Indeed, Jerusalem's importance in the Islamic world only appears evident when non-Muslims (including the Crusaders, the British, and the Jews) control or capture the city. Only at those points in history did Islamic leaders claim Jerusalem as their third most holy city after Mecca and Medina. That was again the case in 1967, when Israel captured Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem (and the Old City) during the 1967 Six-Day War.


Eli E. Hertz

Source: http://www.mythsandfacts.org

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hamas cell that plotted attacks around country uncovered - Ido Ben Porat




by Ido Ben Porat

Shin Bet and the IDF break up massive Hamas terror cell plotting numerous suicide bombings and shootings against Israeli civilians.



Weapons and materials seized from Hamas cell
Weapons and materials seized from Hamas cell
Shin Bet
The Shin Bet, working in conjunction with the IDF, uncovered a Hamas cell in Shechem which had plotted a series of terrorist attacks across the country, it was revealed Thursday.

The cell was preparing to carry out a series of suicide bombings in major Israeli cities and shooting attacks in Judea and Samaria. A cache of munitions and explosives was seized when the 20-member cell was taken into custody.

Most of the cell members were recidivists who had been released from Israeli prison after having been previously arrested for participation in terrorist activities and attacks against Israeli citizens.

During the months from May until August, 2016, the cell produced 7 kg (about 15 lb) of explosive material in an explosives lab in Shechem, which was intended to be used for suicide bombings in Jerusalem, Haifa, and at bus and train stops.

The terrorists also purchased M-16 assault rifles to carry out shooting attacks against Israeli civilians.

Four bombers were recruited to carry out the suicide bombings across Israel.

The cell received logistical support from a wide network of collaborators who helped it procure and hide the weapons and explosives, as well as providing funding for the terrorist activities.

A senior Shin Bet official said: "The Shin Bet investigation revealed a Hamas cell which was hierarchically organized, and that if not foiled would have perpetrated a serious terrorist attack. Thanks to the intelligence gathering and operational activity of the Shin Bet and the IDF, which was on high alert, this cell - which was going to carry out deadly suicide bombings - was stopped beforehand."

"This investigation reveals, once again, the extent to which Hamas is investing in building infrastructure in Judea and Samaria in order to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel." the official said.


Ido Ben Porat

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222140

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Change Is Coming and Change Can Be Good - Shoshana Bryen




by Shoshana Bryen

Friedman, an Oslo-skeptic, has said he believes that, "Notwithstanding 'agreements' reached at Camp David, Oslo, Wye Plantation and elsewhere, neither Yasser Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas ever had any intentions to observe the minimal conditions required of a two-state solution."

  • Palestinian statehood demands should be taken seriously only within the context of bilateral negotiations with the government of Israel. American attention should be paid to the non-democratic excesses of Palestinian leadership.
  • U.S. economic support and general support for the Palestinian Authority should be attached to improvements in press freedom, human rights and economic opportunity supported by the PA government.
President-elect Trump's choice of David Friedman as Ambassador to Israel appears to be an excellent decision. It has already brought howls of protest from people invested heavily in the Oslo and subsequent accords, the "peace process" and the concept of the United States as an "evenhanded" broker between Israelis and Palestinians. Friedman, an Oslo-skeptic, has said he believes that, "Notwithstanding 'agreements' reached at Camp David, Oslo, Wye Plantation and elsewhere, neither Yasser Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas ever had any intentions to observe the minimal conditions required of a two-state solution."

On the other hand, he said of Israel that he would work "tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries," correcting the relationship between two democratic, transparent, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, free market, countries -- one large and one small. Israel goes from an impediment to American interests in the Middle East to a partner in a vital region -- innovative, experienced, and successful.

It is worthwhile to review the parameters of the Oslo Process, negotiated in 1993 without the participation of the U.S., but adopted formally by President Clinton, because its underlying assumptions are about to be challenged.


Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. President Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accord signing ceremony on September 13, 1993. It is worthwhile to review the parameters of the Oslo Process, negotiated without the participation of the U.S., but adopted formally by President Clinton, because its underlying assumptions are about to be challenged. (Image source: Vince Musi / The White House)

The idea was that Israel would give and the Palestinians would give. Israel would get legitimacy and security (not an indefinable "peace") and the Palestinians would get a state, or something just short of a state. But Oslo was based on two unproven assumptions:
  • That Palestinians would be satisfied with a split, West Bank/Gaza state squeezed between a hostile Israel and a more hostile Jordan, and not demand land west of the Green Line, i.e., "pre-67 Israel"; and
  • There was a price Israel, the United States, and Europe could pay to the Palestinians that would overcome any remaining Palestinian objection to Jewish sovereignty in the region.
Israel's "gives" were concrete -- withdrawing from Palestinian cities on the West Bank; permitting the establishment of a Palestinian "police force" that has morphed into an army; tolerating textbooks produced by the Palestinian Authority (PA) for children that are ahistorical and contain incendiary material; providing water, electricity and sewage for which the Palestinians are supposed to pay but do not; removing Israeli communities from Gaza; and more. The Palestinian "gives" were rhetorical, but even the rhetorical "gives" were elusive:
  • Changes to the Palestinian Covenant to which Arafat agreed but were never ratified or made.
  • The renunciation of violence, which was mocked by the so-called "intifada" and the Hamas rocket wars against Israel. The U.S. generally waves off Israeli objections to violent and anti-Semitic Palestinian rhetoric and complains about what it incorrectly calls Israel's "disproportionate" response to the rocket wars.
  • The Palestinians' refusal to sign "end of conflict/end of claims" -- meaning that whatever agreement established the Palestinians state would be the last Palestinian claim on Israeli territory. This was specifically rejected by Mahmoud Abbas
By comparison, the Israel-Egypt Camp David Accords (the opening for which was also a surprise to the American government) were different because the United States was the patron of both countries, allowing President Carter to approach both from a position of strength. Israel's "gives" included the entire Sinai. Sadat's biggest, and essential, "give" was his appearance at Israel's Knesset, formally acknowledging the legitimacy of the Jewish State, followed by agreement to demilitarize the Sinai. Yes, after Sadat was assassinated, it was for decades a cold peace, but Egypt's exit from the circle of hostility made it possible for Jordan to sign a peace with Israel as well.

Almost 40 years later, the Jordan-Israel-Egypt axis works brilliantly.

Oslo, however, did not work. The last 23 years of "peace processing" and on-and-off "peace talks," included periodic open warfare initiated by the Palestinians. It also included warfare among Palestinian factions, Palestinian veneration of violence against Jews and of the perpetrators of that violence, and the absence of any democratic evolution among the Palestinians. The Obama administration generally imputed this to "settlements" and insufficient Israeli input. Hillary Clinton called Israel "lacking in generosity and empathy for oppressed Palestinians." Secretary of State Kerry opined that the "peace process" faltered because, "People in Israel aren't waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity."
While President Obama and Kerry have said there is no progress to be made at this time, their preferred path has been to freeze the situation in place -- or at least freeze Israel in place. That way, if the Palestinians are some day ready to meet their obligations (or at least meet with the Israeli Prime Minister), they can start from where the Arabs left off in 1948 with no penalty. For example, land east of the 1949 Armistice Line should remain as empty of Jews as possible so a future Palestinian state can be Jew-free; "settlements" are therefore illegitimate. The descendants of Palestinian refugees of 1948/49 should retain refugee status and their demand to live in parts of Israel from which their grandparents and great-grandparents claim to have fled. Jerusalem, the eastern part of which was occupied illegally by Jordan in 1949, should remain frozen as "East" and "West" so the Palestinians can believe the city could be redivided; certainly the American Embassy cannot move even to the western side.

To enforce its position, the Obama Administration has threatened to withhold its traditional veto of anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council.

Instead of pushing Israel harder and giving the Palestinians a free pass, it would make more sense to lower the priority of Palestinian statehood in the context of Middle East politics and widespread warfare. Palestinian statehood demands should be taken seriously only within the context of bilateral negotiations with the government of Israel. American attention should be paid to the non-democratic excesses of Palestinian leadership -- and U.S. economic support and general support for the Palestinian Authority should be attached to improvements in press freedom, human rights and economic opportunity supported by the PA government.

Perhaps in the next administration; perhaps by the next Ambassador.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9620/us-palestinians-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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