

His Majesty King Abdullah II is in his 19th year of glorious reign; distinguished years that have witnessed exemplary leadership abilities, skillful political expertise, widely recognised wisdom and seasoned diplomatic prowess resulting in momentous accomplishments in the midst of the most troubling times and escalating crises.Besides the hilariously over the top prose, there are two interesting omissions in the brief history of King Hussein's reign.
Nineteen years ago this month, Jordan commemorated a most significant milestone in its history. On February 7, 1999, His Majesty King Hussein Bin Talal departed this world, leaving behind an eminent legacy and monumental achievements.
The late monarch ascended the throne at the young age of 17 following the abdication of his father King Talal in 1952. At that time, Jordan was a nascent country having only won its independence six years earlier. It was still recovering from the first Arab — Israeli war, in which the Jordanian army played a significant role in saving the West Bank and East Jerusalem from the same fate that befell 78 per cent of the historical land of Palestine that was seized by the Zionist occupiers in that disastrous war.
During his 47-year reign in a highly turbulent region that scarcely witnessed peace or stability, the protection of the country was safeguarded through King Hussein’s unique leadership; steering the ship in a perpetual storm to the shores of safety. It was nothing short of miraculous that Jordan managed to endure the heavy impact of the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) and the influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees into Jordan; the Suez war; the toppling of the Hashemite regime in Iraq when Jordan and Iraq had just formed a unity between them; the rabid air war directed against Jordan from Arab countries which were inciting against stable traditional monarchies in favour of military coups; the 1967 war and the loss of the West Bank and Jerusalem with huge swathes of Egyptian and Syrian territories; the 1970 internal war in Jordan whereby a vicious conspiracy was targeting the regime; the Gulf war of 1980 between Iraq and Iran; and the second Gulf war following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
King Hussein’s diplomacy was not only focused on Jordanian issues which would have been manageable. Jordan was immensely affected by all regional troubles being situated at the epicentre of each and every Middle Eastern crisis, and as such all issues landed on the King’s doorstep.
When King Abdullah ascended the throne on that historic day for Jordan, he immediately took up where his departing father left off, thus continuing the honourable legacy.
The transfer of authority, smooth and orderly as it was, even during a time of national mourning for the loss of a beloved grand national symbol and a caring father figure, was perfectly compatible with the line of succession.
At the age of 38 King Abdullah stepped in with unshakeable confidence, clear vision, unwavering resolve and boundless energy for tackling the tasks ahead in an era equally unstable and volatile as during the reign of his late father.
Also on Tuesday, three more Palestinians were caught trying to bring pipe bombs in the area.
A military police officer thwarted two attacks within two months: Sergeant Ilan Nemirovsky uncovered yesterday (Tuesday) an explosive device that a Palestinian tried to bring into the court, after finding a similar device about two months ago.
A 17-year-old Palestinian arrived yesterday at the entrance to the courthouse in Salam and aroused the suspicion of the military police and Border Guard soldiers at the entrance, after he had passed several times at the metal detector post and was being asked to undress.
Sergeant Nemirovsky, a military policeman who served in the Salem court for about two years, said: "He came to this entrance and aroused my suspicion, especially in his dress, I checked him like I do for everyone and passed him through the magnometer. It continued to beep and showed me that the source of the beep was in the area of his pants, and I told him to take off his pants and he showed the device and put it on the table. It was an improvised explosive charge, and the court was immediately closed for entry and exit. A police sapper who was summoned to the scene finally neutralized the explosive charge, which contained explosives, including fragments of knives, to increase the damage.
As noted, Sergeant Nemirovsky is already practiced in such cases. About two months ago, a Palestinian youth , about 16 years old, also arrived at the courthouse and aroused his suspicion. "I felt that something was wrong and I checked him " I asked him to go through the magnometer a few times, and then I performed a skin removal procedure and discovered the cargo in his pants, "Nemirovsky said." We are always alert, know the job and do what we need. "
(h/t Ahron Shapiro)
The episode raises serious questions about Ellison’s judgment and his real ideological convictions.
Ellison has spent much of his political career running away from Farrakhan. His ties to the group almost derailed his first congressional run, in 2006. After it emerged that he had worked with the Nation of Islam for at least 18 months in the 1990s, Ellison wrote a letter to the Jewish community distancing himself from Farrakhan and denouncing his “anti-Semitic statements and actions.” Ellison reiterated his opposition to the group’s “anti-Semitism” and “homophobia” in 2016 when he contested the DNC leadership.
But revulsion at his former associates in the Nation of Islam didn’t stop Ellison from breaking bread with Farrakhan in 2013–bread that was provided by the Tehran regime. So which is the real Ellison: The one who drafts earnest letters of apology to Jewish groups? Or the one who, as recently as 2013, saw it fit to dine with Farrakhan under Iranian auspices?
The Ellison-Farrakhan-Rouhani shindig is also a reminder that progressive Democrats had no compunction about hobnobbing with representatives of an anti-American terror state–until recently, that is. Today, Ellison is among the party’s loudest tub-thumpers regarding claims of Trump-Russian “collusion.” Yet he met privately with the Iranian president two years after the Obama administration’s Justice Department uncovered a plot by the Tehran regime to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil.
Ellison does not appear to have done anything illegal in meeting with Rouhani. Nor does this revelation neutralize or invalidate concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Republicans and conservatives can be forgiven for wondering if the Democrats’ newfound and highly selective hawkishness is a genuine effort to reckon with national-security realities or a ploy in a political game.
A months-long spy operation funded by Qatar's Al Jazeera news network targeting American Jews and pro-Israel groups is fueling a new congressional effort to force the Middle Eastern news outlet to register as a foreign agent under U.S. laws, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.27 years since the Gulf War - why didn't Israel respond?
Al Jazeera, the Qatari government's state-sponsored news organization, recently conducted a months-long spy operation on a slew of American pro-Israel officials and organizations as part of what Al Jazeera says is an upcoming documentary on supposed Jewish influence in the U.S. government.
The spy effort has prompted Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D., N.J.) to begin circulating a letter to his colleagues urging support for an effort to force Al Jazeera to register as a state-backed foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, multiple sources with knowledge of the matter confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon.
The effort is being fueled by Al Jazeera's effort to secretly record American Jews and Israel supporters, according to sources who familiar with the letter.
As part of the upcoming documentary, a mole paid for by Al Jazeera infiltrated these organizations and recorded pro-Israel advocates discussing efforts to combat anti-Semitism and boycotts of Israel.
Ahead of Al Jazeera running this production, it has sent several letters to subjects who were secretly recorded asking them to respond to a range of allegations that the Qatari outlet claims confirm that American Jews are working to influence the American government and block global efforts to boycott Israel, known as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS.
The release recently by the IDF and Defense Ministry archives of interviews with me and the late Lt.-Gen. Dan Shomron, who was defense minister and chief of staff at the time of the Gulf War, has rekindled the debate about whether Israel should have responded to the Iraqi missile attacks during the Gulf War. Thirty-nine Scud missiles were launched from western Iraq against Israeli targets during the five-and-a-half weeks of the war. Only six landed in populated areas, causing considerable property damage and the loss of a single life.
Throughout the war US president George H. W. Bush did his utmost to keep Israel from responding. US deputy secretary of state Larry Eagleburger and undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz arrived in Israel four days before the aerial bombing of Iraq began, on a mission to convince us not to launch a preemptive attack and to stay out of the war. They assured us that the US armed forces would within days eliminate the danger of Scud attacks against Israel, while Israeli participation might well lead to a break-up of the coalition and ensuing difficulties. Should the US not be successful in eliminating the Scud threat to Israel, they said, the US would acquiesce to an Israeli response.
As it turned out, all American attempts to hit the Scud launchers failed, and throughout the war Scuds kept falling on Israel. Raytheon Patriot anti-aircraft missiles sent to Israel by the US, despite a number of attempts, failed to intercept a single Scud. Nevertheless, Bush in almost daily calls to prime minister Yitzhak Shamir urged him to keep Israel out of the war despite Iraqi “provocations.”
Israeli participation could lead to a break-up of the coalition, he insisted.
In an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times, the longtime PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat declared the U.S. ineligible to broker talks between Israel and the Palestinians given, among other sins, its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Noting Erekat’s two-decade history of prevarication—including his absurd and libelous claims of a “massacre” in Jenin in 2002—Elliott Abrams explains why Erekat cannot be taken seriously. The column, writes Abrams, is in fact about something else entirely:Palestinians: Abbas's Lies and Falling Mask
Erekat returns in the Times to the usual, and sad, Palestinian victimhood trope, criticizing President Trump for failing to recognize “the painful compromises the Palestinians have made for peace, including recognizing Israel and trying to build a state on just 22 percent of the land in the historic Palestine of 1948.” It is striking to call those “compromises”: the first requires Palestinians to do no more than recognize reality, and the second to make their best efforts on behalf of their people. Trying to build a state that can live in peace and engage in economic and social development would not normally be called a huge sacrifice.
Erekat’s message in the Times is that peace efforts must now be multinational, with the United States joined as equal partners by the European Union, Russia, India, Japan, South Africa, and China. PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will soon address the UN Security Council on this point. Good luck with that. There is zero chance that such a group could be formed or could possibly do anything to promote a peace agreement. This is not a serious proposal for moving toward peace but a fantasy designed to forestall any real pressure on the PLO for compromises it does not wish to make. . . .
Erekat concludes by writing that “we are planning to move toward national elections in which all Palestinians, including our diaspora, can take part, with the goals of better representation, more support for our refugees, and strengthening our people’s steadfastness under occupation.” But Abbas has refused to hold elections in the area he controls, the West Bank, since 2006, despite repeated promises to do so. Note that his “national elections” will include the diaspora. This suggests that the “national elections” will not be Palestinian Authority presidential and parliamentary elections that could threaten Abbas’s hold on power. . . .
For the past two decades, the anti-Israel rhetoric of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership has radicalized many Palestinians, to a point where they are no longer willing to accept any form of compromise or peace with Israel.
By accusing the Trump administration of hostility to the Palestinians, the Palestinian leadership has delegitimized the US to a degree where many Palestinians now feel that Americans are legitimate targets for violence and terror attacks.
How, exactly, do these condemnations conform with Abbas's other claims that he seeks to resume peace talks with Israel? The mask on Abbas's face has fallen once again. That mask has, in fact, been falling for many years. Perhaps one day the world will even see that.
Gaza is broke. As Monday’s front-page New York Times feature explained at length, the conflict between the Gaza Strip’s Hamas overlords and the Fatah party that runs the West Bank has resulted in a cash crunch that has left many of the area’s two million people without money. Along with Gaza’s inadequate infrastructure, the resulting poverty from this crisis contributes to a general picture of despair for many Palestinians.
Of course, the notion that everyone in Gaza is starving is an exaggeration. As journalist Tom Gross points out, Gaza’s thriving malls continue to operate, as does its water park, restaurants, and hotels — inconvenient facts that are missing from the Times story and most of the coverage of the current crisis.
But even if we concede that the talk of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza is probably exaggerated, there’s no question that most of the people there are poor and have little hope of improving their plight.
This means, as it almost always does, that Israel will be blamed for this awful situation. Since most of the world believes that Israel is still “occupying” Gaza, and is therefore responsible for the coastal territory’s problems, it is only natural that the worse things get there, the more opprobrium will be directed at the Jewish state in international forums and the press.
This is wrong — but not just because Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005.
Parliament Speaker Special Aide in International Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said here on late Tuesday that the moves by some Arab states aimed at normalization of relations with Israeli regime can jeopardize bilateral ties tremendously.
Given the above issue, thawing ties of some Arab countries with the Zionist regime will incur irreparable damage to the Islamic World in the current situation, he reiterated.Even though Amir-Abdollahian only mentioned Arab states, there is a reason he made this point in Azerbaijan: because Israeli ties to the majority Muslim country are quite good.
Amir-Abdollahian made the above remark in his meeting with two heads of political parties in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
He pointed to the longstanding positive relationship between Iran and Republic of Azerbaijan and said, “the relations between Islamic Republic of Iran and Republic of Azerbaijan are influenced by the longstanding and age-old historical ties of the two countries. The two nations share many commonalities in various fields.”
A Palestinian diplomat speaking to students at the United Nations headquarters in New York told them the Palestinians were proud to be throwing stones at Israeli forces and will continue teaching their children to do so.
In a recording obtained by Ynet, Abdallah Abushawesh, who serves as a senior adviser to the UN's Development Group and as a member of the Palestinian UN mission, is heard saying in broken English, "We are very clever and very expert at throwing the stones. We are very proud to do that. We will not stop to learn our kids (to do that)."
To the sound of sniggering from his listeners, Abushawesh went on to say that every Palestinian caught throwing stones by Israel gets sent to jail. "We are very proud that we are stone throwers. I'm one of them. Now I became a little bit older, but I stay resistant in the name of my kids," he continued.
The Palestinian diplomat later told the students about his own past as a stone-thrower during the first intifada. "I was in high school. I never missed an opportunity to throw stones. This is our life. We develop our resistance every day. We're proud of it," he said.
Abushawesh was speaking to a group of international relations students from McGill University who were at the UN for a tour and a series of meetings as part of their program.
Yehuda Shoham, a 5-month-old baby, was killed when a rock hurled by stone-throwing Palestinians crashed through the window of the car he was riding in, crushing his skull (2001)
Asher (25) and Yonatan Palmer (1) were killed when the car Asher was driving was attacked by stone-throwing Palestinians, causing it to crash killing him along with his infant son.(2011)
Tthe Biton's family car was attacked, near neighboring village of Kif el-Hares, with stones which caused it to get out of control and collide with a truck. Adele Biton was critically injured along with her mother and 3 sisters who were moderately injured, and died two years later.(2013)
Demonstrators as victims
It is also interesting to record how the demonstrators twist the events. They had chosen to come onto a campus to disrupt an event. The campus security tried, and partially failed to contain the protest. One demonstrator was not permitted inside because he held a megaphone. An instrument clearly designed (outside a door of an event) to disrupt. This became the tweet of the night:
So as Jewish students are huddled in a room, struggling to hear what their invited speaker against a background of vocal hate, the demonstrators portray themselves as the victims. In the footage, the security man explicitly references the megaphone (see under his arm). The person tweeting this is Ayo Olatunji, who is part of the UCL student union, and was part of the UCL protest and disruption in late 2016. More of a concern was this tweet by Ayo:
He claims he was denied, not because of his behaviour, his intent, or the need to uphold free speech, but because he is black. I saw this weaponisation of racism at Cambridge with Malia Bouattia, and recently being used at Warwick by Nicola Pratt. A truly divisive strategy. There is of course nothing about his colour mentioned in the footage.
The protestors have complained to the university. They are in ‘outrage’. Why? Just as I described their dissatisfaction at events at UCL two week ago:
‘They are disappointed that they are not allowing them to do what they want to do. To permit their demonstration, to deny the other, to allow them entry to the building, to let them disrupt the event, to deny the speaker the platform in the first place. They want to be armed with a security force to impose their demands. A fascist mentality. ‘
What of the Jewish students?
This is all intimidation. And it works. The university is not capable of fighting a war for the Jewish students, because this is not a battle of students. Palestine Solidarity Campaign advertise it, Friends of Al Aqsa live stream it, off-campus ringleaders turn up to assist in the organisation.
How many of those Jewish students who may have been intimidated by yesterday’s events, will not attend another meeting of its type? Will supporters of those Jewish students now look over their shoulder and say to themselves ‘it is not worth it’? How many of those who organised the event, will not organise another? Will invited speakers not want to come?
Intimidation works because it works through intimidation, not debate. Non-democratic forces are undermining our academic spaces. Values of equality, democracy, free speech are all under threat. When you have Jewish students forced to leave a room surrounded by haters screaming ‘shame’, alongside posts on Facebook calling these students ‘cockroaches’, then you have to accept you are in dangerous territory.
#Jews run the gauntlet from @jeremycorbyn @PSCupdates #JewHaters @KingsCollegeLon tonight. What’s changed from #1938 #Vienna? @SamGyimah @COLRICHARDKEMP @GuidoFawkes pic.twitter.com/934YYjYwPZ
— Jewish HR Watch (@jhrwatch) February 12, 2018
Our statement about the event we hosted tonight featuring former #Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Dan Meridor. We must continue to protect free #speech on campus & defeat #intolerance.
— Pinsker Centre (@PinskerCentre) February 12, 2018
READ: https://t.co/ntT2Gfjxr9 pic.twitter.com/aPwgarxSg3
Mahmoud Abbas’s blatantly skewed account of the nature of Zionism and the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should bring Israel’s policymakers and opinion shapers to enunciate anew the story they tell their own people and the world at large.
Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas’s speech at the January 14 meeting of the PLO’s Central Council lasted two hours. Apart from the phrase “May your house be destroyed,” which became the headline for the speech, Abbas’s “historical” survey of the chronicle of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has drawn most of the Israeli criticism. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, the survey underscored the root of the conflict: “The Palestinians’ rejection of the existence of a Jewish state in any borders.”
For the Palestinians, too, particularly the younger among them, much of the speech must have sounded like a tiresome history lesson. Yet political speeches of this kind often have more than one audience in mind. In this case, Israeli society with its various factions and leaders, along with the international community, was the main audience. Appealing to fashionable legal and moral fads, particularly in Western Europe, Abbas again set forth the supposedly problematic aspects of Zionism. His “historical survey” undoubtedly fails the minimum test of facts, but it is uncritically accepted in many circles. This poses a real challenge to Israeli policymakers and opinion shapers.
By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense? (h/t Elder of Lobby)
Buy EoZ's books!
PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!