In its official responses to the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Saudi Arabia fully supported the U.S. and its policy, while stressing the strong alliance between the two countries. This was expressed, inter alia, in a conversation between Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and U.S. President Donald Trump, and in the Saudi Foreign Ministry statement on the topic.[1]
Conversely, many articles about Al-Baghdadi's death in the Saudi press directed criticism at the U.S., questioned the timing and character of the operation, and even accused the West of causing terror in the Middle East. Notable in this context was a polemic between Khaled Al-Suleiman, a columnist for the Saudi daily 'Okaz, who wrote an article titled "Has Al-Baghdadi's Role Ended?", and 'Abdallah bin Bakhit, an author and a columnist for the Al-Riyadh daily, who responded with an article titled "Has Al-Baghdadi's Role Ended, Sherlock?" Al-Suleiman wrote in his article that Al-Baghdadi was as an agent of the West, which assassinated him once he was no longer useful, and that the West was mostly responsible for the rise of terrorist organizations like ISIS. In his response article, Bin Bakhit rejected the conspiracy theories spread by many Arabs, which hold that outside forces, including the U.S., are responsible for Al-Baghdadi's terrorism, and accused Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world at large of cultivating the ideology of terrorist organizations and of figures like Al-Baghdadi and Osama bin Laden. He also complained about the support for Al-Baghdadi that prevailed in the Arab and Muslim public, and criticized the Arabs' and Muslims' disregard of their role in cultivating extremism, xenophobia, hostility to art and culture and the degradation of women in their societies.
On the one hand, leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA) condemn Facebook for "surrendering to Israeli pressure" and taking action against those who incite terrorism and hate speech. On the other hand, the same PA leaders keep pressuring Facebook to silence Palestinians who demand an end to financial and administrative corruption in the PA.
"[E]very time Fatah posts a new terror message on Facebook encouraging violence or presenting murderers as role models, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are given more motivation to kill Israelis. Facebook still chooses to do nothing to stop it." — Itamar Marcus, Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2019.
What Abbas and his senior officials apparently fear is that the current wave of anti-corruption protests sweeping Lebanon and other Arab countries may reach the West Bank. They appear nervous that their critics and political rivals will use social media to encourage Palestinians to revolt against corruption and tyranny.
For these leaders, when they turn to Facebook to clamp down on criticism and voices calling for reform and democracy, that is good government. However, when Israel tries to silence those who seek to spill more Jewish blood -- well, that is criminal.
Hundreds of Hizbullah and AMAL Movement supporters, some wielding sticks, on Tuesday attacked a protest camp set up by anti-government demonstrators in downtown Beirut, burning some of its tents and dismantling others.
The violence came shortly after dozens of other Hizbullah and AMAL supporters, also wielding sticks, attacked a roadblock set up by the protesters on neighboring Ring highway, a main thoroughfare in the capital.
Groups of protesters eventually returned to the main squares and began repairing their tents, while others went back to blocking the roads. They could be heard chanting one of the main slogans of the protests, "All means all," which is seen as referring to all of Lebanon's political factions, including Hizbullah and its allies.
It was unclear how many people were wounded. Fights broke out in places and security forces could be seen beating some people with batons.
The protesters armed themselves with wooden batons and metal poles as the Hizbullah and AMAL supporters approached but fled when the counterdemonstrators arrived in larger numbers. Security forces later fired tear gas to disperse them, but only after they had destroyed and set fire to several tents.
"There are political orders to attack. This was not spontaneous," said one demonstrator alluding to AMAL and Hizbullah, neither of which were spared by protesters, including from their own base.
The violence comes on the 13th day of Lebanon's anti-government protests, which have been an unprecedented expression of anger that's united millions of Lebanese against what demonstrators say is a corrupt and inefficient political class in power for decades since the 1975-1990 civil war.
But in recent days, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah grew critical of the protests, claiming they have been backed and financed by foreign powers and rival political groups. He called on his supporters to leave the rallies, and urged the protesters on Friday to remove the roadblocks. The mass rallies have paralyzed a country already grappling with a severe fiscal crisis.
Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei also said that the protests were being orchestrated by Zionists and Sunni Arab countries.
Apparently, Khamenei and Nasrallah decided that they stand to lose less by attacking the protesters than showing sympathy as Hezbollah did earlier.
Recently, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah appeared on Khamenei's website to say that Iran's leader was involved in creating his organization from the start:
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was heavily involved in the establishment of the Iranian proxy group Hezbollah, said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the terrorist organization. In a five-hour interview with Khamenei.ir, the supreme leader’s website, Nasrallah said that during “the early years of the establishment of [Lebanon’s Hezbollah organization], he [Khamenei] was involved in everything. The principles, goals, foundations, criteria, and guidelines that we had, [he] provided a solution to every issue.”
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Mohsen Lorestani, (born Mohsen Pourmast) an extremely popular Iranian-Kurdish singer, has been charged with “corruption on earth” for allegedly discussing having sex with a man over Instagram. If convicted, he can be sentenced to death.
As first reported by the Kurdistan Human Rights Network, Lorestani who began his career as an Islamic eulogizing singer or Maddaah, was originally arrested at his mother’s house in Tehran on March 2nd of this year, and has been imprisoned without charges until this month. The announcement of the charges only came after rumors began spreading on social media that Lorestani had died or been killed in prison.
According to Lorestani’s defense attorney, Seyyed Kazem Hosseini, the singer was charged with “corruption on earth” in Branch Four of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court on October 7th. Neither the singer, nor his attorney, was present at the arraignment hearing, and they were only informed of it afterwards.
Corruption on earth is a broad legal term for offenses, coined by Ruhollah Khomeini based on a quotation from the Koran, that the regime has used to refer to almost anything that it considers “un-Islamic.” At least 38 Iranians were executed for “corruption on earth” last year. Hosseini later elaborated that the incidents that led to Lorestani’s arrest were private messages on Instagram. “No physical thing occurred,” the lawyer stated. He then explained that by “physical thing,” he meant sexual relations and that he had had the same type of discussions with women as well.
Thousands of gays have been executed since the Iranian revolution.
On November 8, the UN Human Rights Council will perform a review of human rights in Iran, for the first time in five years. It will be interesting to see if it finds anything negative.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The anonymous author makes his intentions clear at the start:
Dear Brethren,
AS fellow creatures, and many of you as fellow Britons the benevolent design of this address to you is to persuade you to become fellow Christians. In my humble opinion, I cannot evince more, to your and my own satisfaction, my love and friendship for you, than by endeavouring to convince you, from the testimony of your own prophecies, delivered by God to your forefathers, that the suffering Jesus of the Christians was your Messiah, of the seed of David, and that your dispersion throughout all lands, as strangers and sojourners, will continue, so as that you will not be able to obtain a settlement, or the rights of citizenship, in any part of the earth, till you believe in, and acknowledge the first past advent of your Messiah.
The nature of his "love and friendship" is more explicit later on.
Be assured then, you will still be outcasts from every civil community on the face of the earth, till you believe that the crucified Jesus was your predicted Messiah.
If you don't want to be hated, then just abandon Judaism and all will be well!
See how much the author loves Jews?
This attitude continues today, but instead of coming from mainstream Christians, it comes from the anti-Zionist Left. They love Jews - as long as they abandon their land and their people!
Nothing antisemitic about that!
Jews can join their causes - as long as they denounce the 90+% of Jews who believe that a Jewish state is important.
It is all out of love!
Many Muslims also let us know that they like the Jews as well, as long as they accept that Muslims are their natural protectors and Jews must pay a tax and make publicly clear that they are second-class citizens. If they refuse, well, it is their own fault they don't follow the rules and they must accept their inevitable and deserved punishment. Just like the poor Jews of England of 1783 who refuse to accept Christianity are doomed to never be accepted as members of society.
Amazing how everyone loves the Jews - as long as the Jews abandon their own beliefs and millennia-old aspirations.
The only people who admit they hate the Jews (at least in the West) are the far right antisemites. All the other antisemites are really Jew lovers - as long as the Jews meekly do what these Jew-lovers demand they do.
But it is all for their own good. It is all out of friendship and love. They aren't antisemitic - just ask them!
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Earlier today I was interviewed by David Schulberg of Jewish Australian Internet Radio about the J-Street Conference. You can hear the interview here (queued to start at about 31:00):
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
In a chilling incident, a yeshiva in Toronto managed to keep two potentially dangerous people from entering the Jewish school thanks to good security procedures.
Over the last months, we have worked to enhance our security infrastructure and procedures. While we believe that our well-being is ultimately in the hands of the Ribbono Shel Olam ["Master of the Universe" - EoZ], we must still do our part to address the threats that we face in these troubled times.
This morning there was a “security incident” at the Yeshiva. During Shacharis [morning prayers], two unidentified men – clearly of foreign background – tried to enter the building representing themselves as Rogers repairmen. All the doors were locked in accordance with our procedures. They were forced to come to the front door and use the intercom/bell to gain entry. Rabbi Joshua responded to the call and asked for identification – also in accordance with our procedures. The two men were unable to produce I.D. and were sent away. We were able to confirm with Rogers that no servicemen were sent to the area and that there were no service outages in the general area of the Yeshiva.
The police have been informed.
This is what Jewish parents, children and teachers in North America have to worry about.
Thank God the yeshiva had proper security equipment and procedures for exactly this kind of scenario. It seems possible that a bloodbath was averted.
Hopefully these men will be captured by police soon and we can find out more about their motivation. But I think it has to do a little with Jew-hatred.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
“Our aid is not intended to be a blank check,” J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami, stated on October 27, at the organization's annual conference.
This type of so-called "conditioning," "linking," and/or "squeezing" of Israel over US aid and support has an unfortunately long history in Washington and it is time for it to stop, once and for all. It's unseemly and the US - Israel relationship loses its value for both nations every single time this road is gone down.
Ben-Ami's proposed tactics seem very close to those actually employed by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Kissinger is due to speak at an upcoming Jewish conference in New York, and it’s worth considering the real cost of this type of rhetoric and strategy.
Distinguished Israeli diplomat Yehuda Avner (1928-2015) saw this close up in his role as a speechwriter, secretary, or adviser to five different Israeli prime ministers, from both sides of Israel's political spectrum—Golda Meir, Levi Eshkol, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and Shimon Peres. He also served as Israel’s ambassador to both Britain and Australia, as well as in other senior diplomatic positions.
In his widely-acclaimed book, The Prime Ministers, Avner shared numerous remarkable anecdotes—including some troubling episodes involving Secretary of State Kissinger during both the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1974-1975 shuttle diplomacy between Egypt and Israel.
Avner bluntly refers to American officials—meaning Kissinger—who “tied” Golda’s hands on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, telling her “in no uncertain terms not to fire the first shot,” and even “warned” her “against full-scale mobilization” of Israel’s reserve forces. Over 2600 Israeli soldiers died as a result.
Kissinger did not want Israel to win a decisive victory because he thought that would make it hard to wring concessions out of the Israelis after the war.
It’s widely accepted that Israeli society has drifted to the political right since the breakdown of the Oslo process. Palestinian terrorism played a significant role in destroying faith in the peace process and the political left, and enabled the more risk-averse and security-minded Benjamin Netanyahu to become the dominant political figure of the age.
Outrageously however, for Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, an Israeli “peace activist” writing in The Independent, it’s not Palestinians who are responsible for terrorism but Israelis:
Although easier to paint “the other” as the guilty party, it’s more painfully honest, especially for promoting healing of that trauma, to acknowledge at least partial Israeli responsibility for those suicide bombings.
Yes, you read that correctly – Israel is partially responsible for the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of its own people in Palestinian suicide bombings.
This, Godfrey-Goldstein attributes to an environment of right-wing incitement, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, the election of Benjamin Netanyahu and the appalling massacre of Palestinians at Hebron’s Cave of the Machpela by Baruch Goldstein in February 1994.
In Godfrey-Goldstein’s alternative reality, the absence of peace is not due to Palestinian violence but primarily the figures of Yigal Amir, Baruch Goldstein and Benjamin Netanyahu.
While it is legitimate to argue the impact these people and their actions have had on the peace process, treating Palestinians as incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming Israeli victims for terrorism is not.
On September 8, 2019, Syria’s state news agency published an article about the beginning of the Third International Trade Union Forum in Damascus, which hosted “dozens of intellectuals, journalists, (and) political and social activists from Arab and foreign countries.” Among the attendees were the American journalists Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek.
If you want to know why Blumenthal and Khalek were welcome at an event organized “under the auspices of Bashar al-Assad”—aside from the fact that they’re frequent contributors to the Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and Russia Today—the rest of the article should give you an idea. It condemns the “aggressive terrorist war” launched against Syria, along with the “economic war that constitutes terror in and of itself” (a reference to U.S. sanctions). It calls for a media campaign to galvanize world public opinion in support of the Syrian government and “reveal the truth about the U.S. policy of besieging independent and free countries.” It points out that the “real goal of the war on Syria is to stop it from being a force that opposes U.S. and Israeli plots in the region.” And it emphasizes the importance of “exposing the practices of international imperialism.”
In other words, Syrian government propaganda is almost perfectly aligned with the arguments Blumenthal and Khalek have been making for years. Like the Syrian Ministry of Information, they present the Assad regime as an embattled and encircled victim of a jihadist-led coup backed by the United States and other Western powers.
For example, Blumenthal constantly emphasizes the atrocities of jihadist groups like Jaish al-Islam and al-Nusra because they give him moral and political cover for defending Assad, who has committed atrocities on a far greater scale. When he posted a picture of himself in a “neighborhood east of Damascus occupied by the Saudi-backed Jaish al-Islam until early last year,” he didn’t bother mentioning the fact that he was also surrounded by notorious government interrogation sites that are part of what Human Rights Watch describes as the regime’s “torture archipelago.” Nor did he mention that he was just down the road from the sites of the Ghouta chemical attacks in August 2013, which HRW reports “killed hundreds of civilians, including large numbers of children” and which can “almost certainly” be blamed on government forces.
White ( non Venezuelan) Cosplay socialists Max Blumenthal & Ben Rubenstein assaulted an older women who’s an actual Venezuelan and part of the altercation IS recorded... and now they’re upset that they’re being held accountable.. 🎻 pic.twitter.com/TXynY2a0ZK
On January 28, 2010 -- just one day after Holocaust Remembrance Day -- Udo Pastors made a speech, where he stated that "the so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes" and condemned a "barrage of criticism and propagandistic lies" and "Auschwitz projections"
At the time, Pastors was a member of the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, so his speech got some attention.
Enough attention so that in August 2012 a district court convicted him of violating the memory of the dead and of intentionally defaming the Jewish people.
In March 2013, he launched an appeal -- and it was dismissed.
the court found that Mr Pastörs had used terms which amounted to denying the systematic, racially motivated, mass extermination of the Jews carried out at Auschwitz during the Third Reich. The court stated he could not rely on his free speech rights in respect of Holocaust denial. Furthermore, he was no longer entitled to inviolability from prosecution as the Parliament had revoked it in February 2012.
The Court found in particular that the applicant had intentionally stated untruths to defame Jews. Such statements could not attract the protection for freedom of speech offered by the Convention as they ran counter to the values of the Convention itself. [emphasis added]
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. [emphasis added]
Of course, Mr. Pastor's own rights had to be taken into account, which the court addressed in their conclusion:
Summing up, the Court held that Mr Pastörs had intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered. The interference with his rights also had to be examined in the context of the special moral responsibility of States which had experienced Nazi horrors to distance themselves from the mass atrocities.[emphasis added]
Here the court is apparently claiming that beyond the law, those countries that experienced "Nazi horrors" have a special "moral responsibility" to protect Jews from those who try to defame them with the Holocaust.
Logo of The European Court of Human Rights
This may be something new.
According to The European Court:
o It is a fact that the Holocaust happened o To say otherwise is a lie o Holocaust Denial is against the law not only because it is a lie, but because it defames: it damages the reputation and character of Jews o Europe has a special obligation "to distance themselves from the mass atrocities"
But is this really such a breakthrough?
Is this ruling good news for the Jews of Europe who are facing a sharp increase in antisemitic attacks across Europe?
Probably not.
Not if Europe limits its recognition of antisemitism to the speech of right-wing extremists, while ignoring the actual attacks by others.
o In 2003, Sebastian Selam, was stabbed to death by a Muslim who said afterward: “Mother, I’m going to heaven. I killed a Jew!” The murderer, Adel Amastaibou, was found unfit to stand trial -- even though he had no previous history of mental illness.
o In February 2006, Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and held for 3 weeks for ransom. He was tortured by his captors, led by a Muslim immigrant, and died from the injuries. French police initially dismissed the idea of antisemitism, even after one of the suspects confirmed it.
o In 2015, a Muslim man, Farid Haddouche, was deemed unfit initially to stand trial for his stabbing attack of Jews in Marseille -- because of mental issues. He shouted about Allah during the attack. He had no history of mental illness. After protests by Jewish groups, Haddouche was sentenced to four years in jail.
o Sarah Halimi, a Jewish physician, was murdered in Paris in 2017 by Kobili Traore, a Muslim. A review by an independent panel of psychiatrists determined that Traore was generally mentally competent, but because not on the night of the murder, because he consumed cannabis. The judge in the case went so far as to order a third psychiatric examination -- independent of the defense attorney. More recently, in February 2018, the investigator finally admitted in writing that the attack was antisemitic. But by May 2019, Traore was still being considered unfit for trial.
But even in Germany, recognition of antisemitism seems only to extend to speech --
There appears to be a certain ease with which neo-nazis and fascists can be publicly condemned for their expressions of Jew-hatred, and that does not extend to Muslims.
This apparent effectiveness in censoring hate speech is itself deceptive, when attacks on Jews can be reinterpreted as protests against Israel.
Meanwhile, back in the US, a recent poll indicates that a growing number agree with The European Convention of Human Rights that free speech should be limited.
Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution "goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America" and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make "hate speech" a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.
Yet, over the past few years, we have seen the difficulty and unreliability of policing "hate speech." Just look at all of the stories about Facebook, YouTube and Twitter stepping over the line and targeting conservatives in particular, while confusing those who merely publish examples of hate with those who are actually disseminating it.
Even if the proposed decision would be made by a court, not everyone will be so obliging as Mr. Pastors. If the accusations of hate speech and racism tossed back and forth on Twitter are any indication, we are a long way from any kind of consensus of definition, and the whole idea may well be nothing more than an attempt to weaponize hate speech against political opponents.
And that is likely to leave Jews once again as defenseless in the US as they are in Europe.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Clarify that US assistance to Israel is to be used solely for the country's defense and that the United States will not foot the bill for annexation or pay for... a one state outcome. An important conversation has been started in this campaign about American policy regarding the uses for which American assistance to Israel can be put. Already in this presidential campaign we are hearing real conversations, real proposals, from several leading candidates, around ensuring that our assistance isn't being put to uses that actually deepen Israel's security challenges, whether it's annexation or settlement expansion. Current law is actually explicit as to the purposes that US security assistance can and can't be put by recipient countries including Israel. Our aid is not intended to be a blank check. Congress and the next administration at a minimum should take the necessary steps to gain visibility into how our assistance is being used, how our dollars are being spent, and to ensure that all existing laws regarding those uses are being followed.
Ben Ami is right about one thing: existing US laws allow for only certain uses of foreign aid.
But what he is demanding - and what some candidates are happily parroting from him - already exists. There are already audits as to how American money is being spent.
The US looks closely at how its aid is used, and when it finds a violation, it calls it out. The last time this happened for Israel was in 2006 when, as a recent Congressional Research Service report says,
After Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon, the State Department issued a preliminary report to Congress concluding that Israel may have violated the terms of agreements with the United States that restrict Israel’s use of U.S.-supplied cluster munitions to certain military targets in non-civilian areas.
No violations have been found since then.
In 2016 - during the Obama administration - some members of Congress formally asked for an investigation into whether Israel used American funds to allegedly extrajudically kill some specific Palestinians. The State Department investigated and found that no American money was involved in the incidents.
Similarly, the CRS report says that there is some aid to Israel that is specifically meant to be used within the Green Line - for immigrant absorption and for some binational foundations, such as the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and this is audited as well.
99.8% of US aid to Israel is earmarked for specific military purposes - the vast majority for missile defense systems, F-35s and anti-tunnel defense systems. None of that money can be repurposed. The remaining 0.2% goes to immigrant absorption and homeland security - research into technologies for first responders and early warning systems that can be used in the US.
This demand by J-Street to further investigate that which is already being carefully vetted is a straw man to imply that Israel has been misusing US aid. As such, it is a slander. It is also a slander against the US government by saying that the existing extensive audit mechanism is not adequate, and that Israel can somehow pull the wool over the eyes of the US.
If that is true, then aid to other countries really need to be looked at more closely as well. But J-Street doesn't care about whether US aid to Jordan or Egypt is audited and money secretly going to terrorists. They only accuse Israel of using American money to break the law.
This is reprehensible. But then again, this is J-Street.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Obama’s impulse to dismiss the threat posed by Islamist insurgents in the wake of bin Laden’s death explains why he was so quick to dismiss the first wave of ISIS terrorists even as they sacked Iraqi cities. “The analogy we use around here sometimes,” the former president told the New Yorker’s David Remnick, “is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Obama’s commitment to this narrative applied not only politically but in terms of policy, too. Though he conceded that “terrorism” remained a threat to the American homeland in a May 2014 address to cadets at West Point, the former president also claimed that the terror threat could not be alleviated by military means alone. “A strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable,” the president insisted. By the end of the year, though, ISIS would have conquered vast swaths of territory in the Middle East, and American troops and airpower would again be unleashed on targets in both Iraq and Syria.
And though Obama would eventually acknowledge his failure to anticipate ISIS’s rise or to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat it, his administration still stubbornly refused to acknowledge the obvious when it came to radical Islamist terror. As late as the summer of 2016, following the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, administration officials made a concerted effort to “shift the conversation more to hate and not just terrorism,” according to CBS News reporter Paula Reid. Indeed, it’s hard to explain why the Justice Department scrubbed references to ISIS and al-Baghdadi in the transcript of the shooter’s confessional 911 call in the absence of a directive aimed at minimizing the revivified Islamist terror threat.
Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seems committed to the idea that ISIS has been “decimated” and can no longer recruit foreign fighters or effectively export terrorism. He’s been saying as much since February, and the death of ISIS’s chief executive will only make that narrative more irresistible. The evidence that Trump has begun to believe his own hype is not hard to come by. Experts have warned that the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces from forward positions in Syria would sow the seeds for an ISIS resurgence at least since Trump began to flirt with the prospect last December. If anything, those expert analyses underestimated the humanitarian and strategic setbacks that would follow such a withdrawal. American military and diplomatic officials appear clear-eyed about the potential for an ISIS comeback, but the president remains far more sanguine about the Islamist terrorist threat than his subordinates.
The dispatching of al-Baghdadi is a welcome development, but it does not make up for the strategic initiative sacrificed in the lead-up to this weekend’s successful operation. Today, as American special forces reportedly retake Syrian positions they’d abandoned only weeks or days earlier, U.S. positions in eastern Syria are reinforced with mechanized forces, and the State Department rallies a Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS in anticipation of the worst, it would behoove Trump to internalize a lesson his predecessor learned too late. He’d do well to hedge his bets.
In Lebanon and in Iraq, millennials have taken to the streets to protest their respective governments. It stands to reason — in both countries, services are minimal, jobs are non-existent, and the best way to make a living is to leave. Garbage piles up in the streets of Beirut and forest fires have decimated the country. In Iraq, corruption is endemic. But in both countries, there is more afoot.
The demonstrators, representing a variety of religious and ethnic groups in countries that have been wracked by sectarian fighting, are in agreement that the presence of Iran and its proxies in their homelands has deformed politics and economics alike.
Young people want Iran out.
Association with the Islamic Republic means that assets are taken and used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not by the civilian government, and it means religious and ethnic tensions are stoked to ensure that a unified public cannot impede Iran’s regional ambitions. Iran wants Iraq for the oil and also for the passageway through Sunni territory to Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea. It helped create the instability of ISIS in Iraq by “offering” to help contain the threat via Shiite militias commanded by Iranian officers. Those Shiite militias remain in the largely Sunni western part of Iraq and in the Kurdish areas.
The story in Lebanon goes back farther — to the early days of the Islamic Republic. Iran created Hezbollah and had its hand in the 1982 Marine barracks bombing that killed 244 Americans. It fostered and enlarged Hezbollah and planted an arsenal of rockets and missiles in southern Lebanon (in violation of U.N. Resolution 1701) and missile factories closer to Beirut. Lebanese civilians live between the Iranian/Hezbollah arsenal and potential Israeli retaliation if that arsenal is used.
Permanent revolution, permanent warfare, permanent upheaval — stoked by an outside force — makes it impossible to create the workable, modern, growing economy millennials demand; particularly in Lebanon, where there is a well-educated generation that crosses sectarian divides.
Announcing ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's death, President Trump didn't hold back on Sunday. Baghdadi, Trump said, "died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way."
That was only the first of a number of insults Trump lobbed at Baghdadi and the Islamic State during his speech. But while some are condemning the president's rhetoric, I believe it was both morally justified and strategically valuable.
Although it might appear that Trump was resorting to standard-fare rhetorical excesses, the president seems to have intended his words to carry a broader strategic effect here. Note, for example, Trump's repeated focus on dogs, an animal regarded by most Islamic teachings as unclean and unworthy of companionship. Describing Baghdadi's desperate attempt to escape, Trump noted how "our dogs chased him down." Trump later observed that many ISIS fighters are "very frightened puppies" and concluded by saying that Baghdadi "died like a dog — he died like a coward."
This canine focus is extremely odd unless it is intentional, which I suspect it is. And that would be a good thing. ISIS presents itself as the holiest citadel of warriors, as a group serving God's pure and ordained will on Earth. But when the leader of ISIS's most hated adversary mocks its deceased caliph (emperor) as a fool who ran into a dead-end tunnel while being chased by lowly dogs, it erodes ISIS's credibility. It underscores how the organization, which at one point nearly qualified for its own seat at the United Nations, is now perceived as a sad joke.
This story from JIMENA has not received the publicity it requires:
The Cultural Property Advisory Committee at the U.S. Department of State has been signing Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) agreements with foreign governments that blockade the entry of cultural property to the USA and deny Jews and Christians from Arab countries the rights to their historic heritage. Through the MOU process, our government is transferring ownership of confiscated Jewish property to various Arab governments that expelled or forced their Jewish populations to flee antisemitic persecution under duress. Despite the protestations of Jewish communal organizations, including; ADL: The Anti-Defamation League, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, B’nai Brith International, Simon Wiesenthal Center, World Jewish Congress of North America, and many others, MOU agreements have been signed with Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria.
The signing of the MOUs is done under the auspices of The Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). This law provides for the US to enter into agreements with foreign nations to temporarily restrict the import of “significant” cultural items as part of a multi-nation effort to deter looting of ancient archeological sites. Over time the State Department has broadened the scope of the law to provide for “near permanent” bans on the import of ALL cultural items to the present time. The MOUs recognize those nation’s claims and seizures of all cultural property, including the personal property of individuals and the communal property of religious and ethnic groups.
The MOUs are based on a flawed premise – that Jewish cultural property constitutes the national heritage of Arab governments. In fact, under the color of law, Jewish cultural property in Arab countries was expropriated from private homes, schools, and synagogues. It is the heritage and patrimony of the Jewish people. Arab governments have done little to preserve the remnants or memory of Jewish history in the countries and verified reports describe Jewish synagogues, pilgrimage sites, homes, and cemeteries being looted and destroyed. Jewish holy sites throughout the Middle East and North Africa have been appropriated and many demolished.
There are hearings on this topic today and tomorrow to review the MOU for Yemen and Morocco.
Hopefully the State Department will realize that their stated desire to save cultural identity is actually erasing it.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Yesterday at the J-Street conference Bermie Sanders said that as president he would tell Israel, “If you want military aid, you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship with the people of Gaza. In fact, I think it is fair to think that some of that $3.8 billion should go to humanitarian aid to Gaza.”
Others have already noted how crazy what he said was:
Just when you thought Bernie Sanders couldn’t get any more radical, he outdid himself. He wants to take money we give to Israel to defend itself from terrorists, and give it to Gaza, which is run by terrorists?? Unreal. Why isn’t every other Dem pres candidate saying he’s wrong?
But Sanders doesn't even have his facts about Gaza right.
Gaza is a hellhole, no doubt about it. But Israel has been working to help the innocent people of Gaza, a fact that the media largely ignores.
Israel decided this year to allow day laborers into Israel from Gaza. Nearly 4000 Gazans now have entry permits into Israel, and another thousand are approved.
The number of Gazans entering Israel every month is now nearly double what it was in 2018.
The number of Gazans entering Israel is more than double the number that enter Egypt.
Sanders claimed that many of the items denied by Israel into Gaza were items that could not be used for military purposes. This hasn't been true for many years. If Gazans can order the items and find a seller, they can get it.
Israel allows and promotes infrastructure projects in Gaza. The amount of waste Gaza spills into the sea is now half what it was in January. The desalination plant is up and running.
Surprisingly, Gaza now imports about twice as much fuel from Egypt as from Israel, almost certainly because the PA cannot tax the fuel from Egypt so Hamas can get it for cheaper.
(Most of these statistics come from the UN.)
Israel has worked closely with Qatar to bring in aid to Gaza. The relationship started when Egypt refused to allow Qatar to ship construction materials into Gaza through its border. It was Israel that agreed with an Arab country that is friendly with Hamas in order to help ordinary Gazans.
The shortages of medicine and power in Gaza are usually more the fault of the Palestinian Authority which has been trying to use economic warfare against Hamas, collectively punishing all Gazans. When was the last time you heard the word "collective punishment" used against Palestinians that was not blaming Israel?
Israel has done other things but reserves the right to modify them (like how far Gaza fishermen can go into the Mediterranean) when there are rockets or other attacks from Gaza. Lately, things have been quieter and as a result things are getting slowly better for Gazans.
In many ways, Israel is helping Gazans more than any Arab country (including the PA) outside of Qatar. (Iran, meanwhile, payrolls Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, a small fact that wouldn't be mentioned at J-Street either.)
So what would Bernie propose, specifically, that Israel do more than it already is? Gaza's problems are a result of Hamas and Palestinian Authority infighting, Hamas prioritizing terror over governance, and Arabs at large sick and tired of supporting the Palestinian issue.
It isn't the blockade. It's not as if Gaza is exporting goods to Egypt. Nothing is stopping that - except Egypt doesn't want to buy. Would Bernie force Israel to buy Gaza goods it doesn't want?
Living in Gaza is awful. Israel is doing a great deal that the media (and of course J-Street panelists and speakers) do not report on, because demonizing Israel is the order of the day.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
A Gay Old Time in Gaza
-
[image: A Gay Old Time in Gaza]
The second video of the new Israellycool animated series, done with
talented Israeli animator Yair Barnatan.
Continue rea...
An Ally
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Abraham Accords, War, Oct 7,Iran, Jews, Jewish,
Israel, Palestine, Gaza,]
The way the game is played in the Middle East.
* * * ...
Weekend long read
-
1) At Foreign Affairs, Matthew Levitt explains ‘What Hamas Wants in Postwar
Gaza’. “In seeking to force a new governance structure on Gaza and...
The pos...
Weekend long read
-
1) At Foreign Affairs, Matthew Levitt explains ‘What Hamas Wants in Postwar
Gaza’. “In seeking to force a new governance structure on Gaza and...
The pos...
The Jewish Cordoba
-
I have blogged multiple times here on what I see as a parallel between the
conflict between Catholics and Moslems over the Cordoba Cathedral and that
of ...
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust
-
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust IsraelSeen.com
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust Faith After the Holocaust Rabbi
Sacks responds to the ...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
