Overlooked in the Immigration Debate: Gender-based Violence

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security released a report this week showing that 3 out of 4 individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016, are foreign-born individuals who entered the United States through our immigration system.

Recent reports from DOJ and DHS also draw attention to an issue often lost in the immigration debate: gender-based violence.

  • A 2011 Government Accountability Office report found that criminal aliens were convicted of 69,929 sex offenses between fiscal years 2003 and 2009.
  • A 2014 study estimated that approximately 1,500 forced marriages occur in the U.S. every year.
  • That same 2014 study showed there to be an average of 23 to 27 honor killings in America each year—with 90 percent of victims murdered for being “too westernized.”

Numbers like these show that regardless of political affiliation, all Americans should want an immigration system that supports and defends our values.

Read more about how our current immigration system jeopardizes American security.

3 Out of 4 Convicted Terrorists Came to U.S. Legally Via Current Immigration System

Illustrating the national security threats created by the nation’s immigration system, the overwhelming majority of individuals convicted of terrorism are foreigners who entered the United States legally through various federal programs. Three out of every four convicted terrorists between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2016 are foreign born and came to the United States through our immigration system, according to a new report issued jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

At least 549 individuals were convicted of terrorism-related charges in American federal courts since 2001 and 402 of them—approximately 73%–were foreign-born, the report says. Here’s the breakdown by citizenship at the time of their convictions; 254 were not U.S. citizens, 148 were naturalized and received American citizenship and 147 were U.S. born. Additionally, 1,716 foreigners with national security concerns were removed from the United States. The Trump administration stresses that figures include only those aliens who were convicted or removed and therefore do not represent the total measure of foreign terrorist infiltration of the United States. Statistics on individuals facing terrorism charges who have not yet been convicted will be provided in follow-up reports that will be made available to the public.

This DHS/DOJ report, issued this month, is disturbing enough and reveals that a significant number of terrorists entered the country through immigration programs that use family ties and extended-family chain migration as a basis for entry. Among them is Mufid Elfgeeh, a national of Yemen who benefitted from chain migration in 1997 and was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison for attempting to recruit fighters for ISIS. Sudanese Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan came to the U.S. in 2012 as a relative of a lawful permanent resident and eventually pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS. Pakistani Uzair Paracha was admitted to the U.S. in 1980 as a family member of a lawful permanent resident and in 2006 was sentenced to more than three decades in prison for providing material support to Al Qaeda. Khaleel Ahmed, a national of India, was admitted to the United States in 1998 as a family member of a naturalized United States citizen. Ahmed eventually became an American citizen and in 2010 was sentenced to more than eight years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Other convicted terrorists came to the U.S. through the controversial visa lottery program, the multi-agency probe found. Among them is Abdurasaul Hasanovich Juraboev, a national of Uzbekistan who was admitted into the country as a diversity visa lottery recipient in 2011. In 2015, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to support ISIS and in 2017 Juraboev was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Sudanese Ali Shukri Amin was admitted to the U.S. in 1999 as the child of a diversity visa lottery recipient and subsequently obtained American citizenship through naturalization. In 2015, he was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS. Amin admitted to using social media to provide advice and encouragement to ISIS and its supporters and facilitated ISIS supporters seeking to travel to Syria to join the terrorist group. Amin also helped a Virginia teen named Reza Niknejad get to Syria to join ISIS in 2015.

“The United States faces a serious and persistent terror threat, and individuals with ties to terror can and will use any pathway to enter our country,” the new DHS/DOJ report states. “Accordingly, DHS has taken significant steps to improve the security of all potential routes used by known or suspected terrorists (KST) to travel to the United States to ensure that individuals who would do harm to Americans are identified and detected, and their plots are disrupted. These figures reflect the challenges faced by the United States and demonstrate the necessity to remain vigilant and proactive in our counterterrorism posture.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judicial Watch Statement on Federal Court Order for FBI to Turn Over Comey Memos for Court Review by Next Week

Inside Judicial Watch: Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, & the Clinton Email Scandal

Every Friday @ 4 PM Catch Tom Fitton’s Weekly Update Live on JW’s YouTube Channel

Dumb & Dumber: A Hawaii government employee sends out false missile alert, a ‘progressive’ veterans group blames the POTUS

Sometimes movies are parodies of real life. It appears that the movie Dumb & Dumber is a parody of a progressive veterans group. According to Google:

Since it began tracking such responses seven years ago, nine states have consistently ranked among the top 10 most-Democratic each year. They are Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, California, Hawaii, Delaware and Illinois.

The Governor of Hawaii is David Ige, a Democrat. Hawaii’s congressional politics are typically dominated by Democrats. The state has elected just one Republican U.S. senator, Hiram Fong, who served from 1959 to 1977, and two GOP House members. The rest have been Democrats. Hawaii is currently represented in the Senate by Democrats Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz.

On January 13th something went very wrong in Hawaii. 

At 8:07 a.m. on Saturday, January 13, 2018, the Emergency Management authorities in Hawaii sent out an emergency alert advising all residents that there was a ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii, that they should seek immediate shelter, and that this was not a drill. This alert left some people crying and screaming. The false alert has drawn the attention of FEMA and a federal investigation has been launched.

On January 14th, 2017 the self identified “progressive” organization VoteVets.org sent out the following in a fundraising email titled “Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill”:

By now you’ve heard the news: yesterday morning, people in Hawaii received an emergency alert on their phones that a ballistic missile attack was imminent.

Obviously, the good news is that it was a mistake. But the truth of the matter is the extraordinary international reaction to the error is a testament to the perception of how unsafe we are as a nation with Donald Trump as our Commander in Chief. [Emphasis added]

This is not the first time a Hawaiian government agency has sent out a false alert. On January 3rd, 2017 at 8:07 the Honolulu Department of Emergency Management inadvertently activated the emergency sirens while preparing for a scheduled test of the emergency notification system.

The VoteVets.org email went on to state:

Thankfully Trump was at the golf course when this happened and it didn’t come across the screen on Fox and Friends during his “executive time.”

This president is dangerous. That’s why we are organizing veterans who have seen war in Korea to speak out. We can’t wait for you to hear from them.

Chip in $3 today…

QUESTION: Why is a progressive veterans group blaming President Trump for sending out the false missile alert in Hawaii?

Is it proper for any veterans organization to use this event, caused solely by a Hawaii government employee that frightened many thousands of citizens, families and visitors, to raise money and denigrate the Commander-in-Chief?

VoteVets.org needs to take a serious look at itself in the mirror.

President Trump is not unsafe, did not cause this error, does not have “executive time” on Fox & Friends and the state of Hawaii, run by the Democratic Party, is now taking action, in conjunction with the federal government, to insure this does not happen again.

RELATED ARTICLE: Troubling Information Coming From FCC Investigation of False Hawaii ‘Incoming Missile Alert’

House Republicans Roll Out Immigration Bill Packed With Border Security and Immigration Reforms

A group of Republican lawmakers unveiled Wednesday a bill that pairs granting legal status to younger illegal immigrants with a laundry list of conservative immigration reforms and border security enhancements, including President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

The proposal contains all of the changes to immigration law that Trump has demanded as part of a deal to replace the now-canceled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a Obama administration order that shielded hundreds of thousands of younger illegal immigrants from deportation.

dcnf-logo

It also incorporates several immigration enforcement measures long advocated by immigration hawks, including penalties for sanctuary cities and foreign nationals who overstay their visas.

Dubbed the Securing America’s Future Act, the bill was teased by its sponsors—GOP Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Michael McCaul of Texas, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, and Martha McSally of Arizona—in a Tuesday op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. The official rollout Wednesday comes a day after Trump met with a bipartisan group lawmakers to discuss the framework of a bill that would legalize DACA recipients before the program expires in March.

The bill’s authors say the DACA negotiations present an opportunity to enact tougher immigration law and stave off pressure for a future amnesty of illegal immigrants.

“Americans have been debating how to best fix the country’s immigration system for decades,” they wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “Congress has a unique opportunity to act now, before the country ends up with another large population who crossed the border illegally as children.”

A summary of the bill’s provisions reads like an immigration hawk’s wish list. It would fulfill Trump’s four-point plan for a DACA compromise: legal status for DACA recipients, end to the Diversity Visa Lottery, limits on chain migration, and full funding for the border wall.

The bill also includes several provisions that Trump has not said are necessary to reach a DACA deal, but that immigration hawks have long argued are needed to eliminate the “pull factors” for illegal immigration. Among them are Kate’s Law, which enhances penalties for illegal immigrants who re-enter the country after being deported, and mandatory use of E-Verify, an electronic employment authorization system.

Democrats are almost certain to balk the GOP bill, especially because it does not offer a path to legal permanent residence or citizenship for DACA recipients. The bill instead allows beneficiaries to receive a three-year renewable legal status, essentially reviving the DACA program for the roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants who received protection under the original order.

Despite slim chances of garnering more than a few Democratic supporters, the bill could serve as a starting point for negotiating a DACA replacement.

At Wednesday’s meeting with lawmakers, Trump said he would be willing to place a DACA fix within a “bill of love,” but did not specify what such legislation would entail. The White House clarified Wednesday that any DACA compromise must also do away with chain migration and the Diversity Visa Lottery while also funding the border wall.

RELATED ARTICLE: Who ‘Dreamers’ Really Are and Why They Cost $26B Over 10 Years

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of demonstrators standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol during a demonstration against the repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by President Donald Trump, Dec. 6, 2017. (Photo: Alex Edelman/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Israel Boycotts the BDS Boycotters and They Don’t Like It

Nothing makes Palestinian supporting BDS boycotters squeal louder than when they themselves become  victims of their own tactics.

Israel Strategic Affairs Ministry will deny entry for BDS activists if they fall into one of these four categories.

  1. Individuals with senior positions or significant roles in a BDS promoting organization, such as senior staff, board chairman, or board members.
  2. Key activists who take a consistent and continuous role to promote BDS.
  3. Institutional officials, such as mayors, who promote BDS in an active and ongoing way.
  4. People who arrive in Israel as representatives of one of the 20 designated  BDS supporting groups.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a Palestinian led economic campaign against the State of Israel.  The Palestinian terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO are responsible for the terrorism, murder, and violence against the Israeli people.  The Palestinian BDS Movement is the economic arm these Islamic terrorist groups use against Israel.

When the Arab countries of the Middle East could not stop the UN from declaring Israel’s Statehood in 1948, they chose war.  Israel’s Arab neighbors joined forces in 1948, 1967, and 1973 to once and for all destroy Israel, just as Mohammad did to the Jewish tribes of Medina (Yathrib) in 627 AD.

The Israelis however, did not cooperate and die, but instead humiliated their Arab enemies on the field of battle.  In the 1967 Six Day war the Israelis won additional lands in the Sinai, West Bank, Gaza, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan.  The Arab Muslims tried again to wipe Israel off the map in 1973 and were again defeated.

We all know that if Israel lost any of these wars against her neighbors she would cease to exist. There would be a wholesale slaughter of Israeli men, women, children, that would make ISIS look like amateur sadists and murderers.

How The Arabs Betrayed The Palestinians 1948 & 1967

The Arab armies instructed the Muslims living in Israel to leave their villages and return after Israel was defeated in both the 1948 and 1967 wars.  Many Arab Muslims left Israel voluntarily and many stayed.

You know the old saying, no good deed goes unpunished?  After Israel won the 1948 War of Independence,  Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir declared, “ The Jews should treat the remaining Arabs with civil and human equality, but it is not our job to worry about the return of those who have fled.”  It is that human decency shown by the Israelis to their defeated enemies that haunts them to this day.

The reality set in very quickly the Arab Muslims could not defeat the Israelis in battle so they came up with a scheme demanding all the Arab Muslims who voluntarily left Israel to have the ‘Right of Return’.

Over the years just about every Muslim in the Middle East declares themselves a Palestinian Refugee along with their kids and their kids now totaling some four million people unconfirmed sources say.

The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency For Palestine) created in 1949 has been providing money and aid to ‘Palestinian Refugees’ transforming itself into a lucrative cottage industry.  The UNRWA website lists their 2010-2011 Budget at $1.23 Billion.

It has been argued the Palestinian leadership would rather keep the Billion plus dollars a year in refugee money flowing in,than risk getting cut off if a peace deal with Israel is accepted.  Keeping the UN money revenue stream flowing is Hamas and the PLO  maximizing their own self interests.  How you ask?

The Palestinians and her Arab Muslim neighbors ultimate goal is to destroy the State Of Israel.  How do I know this and you don’t?  It’s in the Hamas Charter,

“”The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. “….”Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”

The facts and evidence presented above shows the Palestinians are not interested in peace or land,  only the destruction of Israel.

The Palestinians and their Arab Muslim neighbors can’t destroy Israel militarily so they now use a combination of bloody violent terrorism and the BDS Movement as a means to an end.

As the enemies of Israel bide their time, we learned the UNRWA funds Hamas and the PLO over 1 Billion dollars a year keeping this conflict in the financial black.  The BDS supporters are knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abetting in this deadly battle – it frankly doesn’t matter if they connect the dots or not because their anti Jewish and anti Israel world views are driving them in many cases.

President Trump is cutting off the $260 Million earmarked through USAid to the Palestinians.  Pres. Trump rightly believes if the Palestinians don’t want peace its foolish to keep funding them.  President Trump has seen this Palestinian/Israeli conflict continue in the same old predictable ways from one administration to the next.  Breaking this never ending cycle of unrest begins with cutting off the UN funding that fuels it.

Conclusion

Israel is now denying BDS leaders and activists entry into the State of Israel.

Jewish Voices For Peace (JVP)  is one of the Palestinian BDS groups Israel is boycotting.  JVPs leadership response to being boycotted is so hilarious I couldn’t stop laughing.

On the JVP website in a January 8, 2018 article titled, “To Our Members Who Are Concerned About The Israeli Ban On JVP Activists” they offer this advice to their traumatized membership.

  1. Community Huddle:  We can use this time to ask questions, share knowledge, swap ideas, and offer support to one another.
  2. Pastoral Care:   If you’d like to be connected with a rabbi to help you process your feelings or emotions related to the ban, please fill out this easy form or email lerman@jvp.org.

JVP are the people who have chosen to ally themselves with the Jewish hating terrorist groups Hamas and the PLO to inflict as much economic harm on the State of Israel, in the name of some false peace through the BDS Movement.

When Israel employs the same tactics JVP uses against them, by boycotting their leadership entry into Israel, it results in their members needing a group hug and pastoral care.

JVP has no concern for the Palestinians who lost all their rights and are brutalized in Iraq by the Shia militias.  JVP has no concern for the innocent Israelis murdered by their BDS partners Hamas, PLO, and Hezbollah.

JVP ignores the calling for the “obliteration of Israel” in their partners Hamas Charter.  JVP is ignorant to the fact that there Hamas and  PLO partners hatred of the Jewish people applies to them too. When Hamas finds the  Jews of JVP no longer useful Hamas will turn their long knives on them too.

And so it goes……

How to successfully stop illegal immigration: Follow Israel’s model

By Christine Douglass-Williams

Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.

“From 2007-2012, about 61,000 illegals were able to infiltrate Israel,” yet this tiny nation has survived, despite being surrounded by mortal enemies that have sought its destruction since its birth.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared what should be obvious to every Western nation and be expected from citizens: that “every country has an obligation to protect its borders.”

While the West is now faced with border invasions, there is another parallel problem that Israel has long dealt with. America and Canada are now confronted with the Muslim Brotherhood Plan to “sabotage its miserable house” and conquer it; Israel, meanwhile, has been faced with documented charters to obliterate it:

  • Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”, vowing that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
  • According to the PLO Charter: “Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement..a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.” So therefore, justification is made to obliterate the Jewish state in the name of a warped view of peace and harmony. In fact, the PLO manifesto’s stated purpose is the for “liquidation of the Zionist presence”.
  • The Fatah Charter describes “the Israeli existence in Palestine” as “a Zionist invasion.”

Compared with Israel, the West is lagging in dealing with issues of jihad threat and terror. What has now arrived to torment the West and usurp its democracy, Israel has been contending with for decades, and has earned its place as a model.

“How to Successfully Stop Illegal Immigration: Follow Israel’s Model”, by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, January 9, 2018:

EILAT, Israel – Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.
“Every country has an obligation to protect its borders,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week while announcing new steps to deport illegal migrants currently residing in Israel. “Protecting the borders from illegal infiltration is both the right and the fundamental obligation of a sovereign country.”

Here are Israel’s five primary methods of fighting illegal immigration.

1 – Build a barrier.

While most people are familiar with Israel’s West Bank security barrier, constructed to thwart terrorist infiltration, less well known is that Israel in 2013 completed a barrier that runs the length of the vast Israel-Egypt border to stem the flow of illegal African migrants entering the country. Upon completion of the barrier, the numbers of illegals crossing into the Jewish state slowed to a trickle and entirely stopped this past year.

From 2007-2012, about 61,000 illegals were able to infiltrate Israel, with most originating from Africa. The first half of 2012 saw 9,570 illegals enter Israel, but that number was slashed to only 34 the first six months after most of the barrier was constructed. 2015 brought with it 213 border breaches, prompting Israel to raise the height of the fence from 5 to 8 meters along a vulnerable stretch of the barrier. Israel’s Defense Ministry documented only 11 successful infiltration attempts in 2016. Israel says that not a single illegal migrant successfully infiltrated in 2017.

The Egypt-Israel barrier consists of warning systems, an electronic “smart” fence and information collection centers. Critically, Israel’s borders are patrolled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

The West Bank barrier is another successful model. Israel began construction of it in 2002 at the height of the second Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war of shootings and suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. That intifada was launched after PLO leader Yasser Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state during U.S.-mediated negotiations in the summer of 2000.

Upon the completion of a significant continuous section of the security fence in 2003 and the implementation of security checkpoints, Israel saw a marked decrease in the number of suicide bombers able to penetrate Israeli cities.

About 95% of the barrier consists of a chain-link fence backed up by high-tech surveillance systems and IDF patrols and not the concrete barrier routinely shown by the news media. The concrete barriers are usually only located in areas where the wall intersects with Israeli communities and roads, including areas of previous Palestinian shooting attacks.

2 – Forcibly deport illegal immigrants.

The infiltration of illegal aliens brought with it rises in crime rates and impacted the security of Israeli cities, especially south Tel Aviv, where many residents complain of no longer feeling safe. According to UN statistics from 2013, some 77% of the Africans that infiltrated Israel are males between the ages of 18 and 35. Very few of the infiltrators are refugees fleeing persecution. Most are economic migrants looking for work. The illegal migrants were also opposed by Palestinians since they provided cheap labor and competed with Palestinians for some jobs.

Over the past year, 4,012 illegals voluntarily left Israel after security forces here started to step up deportation efforts. Last week, the Knesset approved the Infiltrator’s Bill, which allows the country to forcibly deport illegal infiltrators, with exceptions for children, the elderly, parents of dependent minors, those with refugee applications pending and victims of slavery or human trafficking.

3 – Provide incentives for illegals to leave on their own.

Israel has given notice to all illegals that they have 90 days to vacate. If the illegal migrants go willingly during that time period, they will be provided $3,500 and can depart to their home countries or to third countries. After the 90 day grace period, Israel has warned that illegals will be imprisoned or deported.

4 – Cut off all government funds.

Israel’s Knesset last month also advanced a bill to close the country’s Holot detention facility, where the Israeli government currently pays for food and housing for illegal infiltrators.

5 – Crack down on employers who hire illegals…..

ABOUT CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

Christine Douglass-Williams is author of the book The Challenge of Modernizing Islam. She is a regular writer for Jihad Watch, Public Affairs and Media Consultant to the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem Canada and on the board of advisors for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Christine is also a former-federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and past advisor to the former Office of Religious Freedom in Canada. Christine has conducted over 1,700 live television interviews as a current affairs talk show host and television producer on CTS TV in Burlington, capturing six international awards (including the Telly, Videographer and Omni Awards). A past political and crime news reporter and news room editor, Christine has also served as a regular national columnist with Metro News where she also provided news analysis on political and diversity issues. Her writings have appeared in many publications including: the Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage Magazine, USA Today Online, Wall Street online and the Gatestone Institute in New York where she has been on the Board of Governors.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Trump: Immigration Deal Has ‘Got to Include the Wall’

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would not sign an immigration bill without funding for a border wall—clarifying some doubt left over from a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress a day earlier about reaching a deal on the policy for the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

Asked during a joint White House press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg if he would sign a deal that didn’t include the wall, Trump responded, “No, no.”

“It’s got to include the wall. We need the wall for security,” the president said. “We need the wall for safety. We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in. I would imagine that the people in the room — both Democrat and Republican —I really believe they’re going to come up with a solution to the DACA problems.”

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, proposed legislation Wednesday to allow illegal immigrants brought to the country as minors receive protection from deportation to get a three-year renewal; to provide $30 billion for construction of the wall, adding  5,000 Border Patrol agents, and another 5,000 Customs and Border Protection officers; defund sanctuary cities; and require employers to use E-Verify to ensure the legal status of workers. Co-authors of the legislation are Reps. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, and Martha McSally, R-Ariz.

When meeting with members of Congress Tuesday, the bipartisan group decided to address four issues: DACA, border security, chain migration, and the visa lottery system.

During the meeting, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked the president about doing a “clean” DACA bill and saving the other issues for a second phase of a “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Trump, at first, seemed to be warm to the idea.

“We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive,” Trump said in response to Feinstein. “I think a lot of people would like to see that. But we need to do DACA first.”

After that, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., jumped into explain the need for border security.

Trump later said during the meeting: “To me, a ‘clean’ bill is a bill of DACA. We take care of them, and we also take care of security, and the Democrats want border security, too. … Then we go to comprehensive later on.”

DACA stemmed from President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action that shielded an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation brought to the country as minors. Comprehensive immigration reform has in past proposals included providing legal status to the more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Last fall, the Justice Department announced it was reversing DACA, under threat of a lawsuit from 10 state attorneys general, giving Congress a deadline of March for legislating a replacement. However, on the same day as the bipartisan meeting, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to maintain the program. The Justice Department announced it would appeal the ruling.

Trump also took questions about the possible interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, named to investigate possible collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

“There is collusion, but it is really with the Democrats and the Russians far more than it is with the Republicans and Russians,” Trump said.

Many legal experts said they believe Mueller if focused less on Russia and more on building an obstruction of justice case against Trump or associates.

“When they have no collusion, and nobody’s found any collusion, at any level, it seems unlikely that you’d even have an interview,” Trump said.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump: Judge’s move to protect DACA shows court system is ‘broken and unfair’

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump and Prime Minister Solberg of Norway hold joint news conference

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump answering questions from reporters during a joint news conference with Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway Wednesday in the East Room of the White House. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/Newscom)

Implications of the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria

By Pnina Sharvit Baruch

INSS Insight No. 1007, January 8, 2018

Photo: Abbas Momani / AFP

The voices calling for the application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, or parts thereof, have recently grown louder. The main problem with this measure is the disregard of the repercussions of this course of action for the Palestinians in this territory and the future of the Palestinian Authority, and the ensuing ramifications for Israel, both on the domestic and international levels. The Israeli government can decide that despite arguments against the move, it wants to advance courses of action to extend sovereignty as part of fulfilling an ideological vision. However, such a decision should only be reached after serious strategic deliberations that consider all of the expected ramifications and consequences, and as part of a comprehensive policy intended to advance the permanent status that the government deems desirable – and not as a partial tactic deriving from internal political motivations.

The voices calling for the application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria have recently grown louder. The proposals vary in scope: some relate to the entire area; others relate to Area C, i.e., the area outside the Palestinian urban areas and villages governed by the Palestinian Authority (Areas A and B); and some propose that sovereignty be extended over a portion or all of the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. The application of the Israeli law over the territory is, in essence, the application of sovereignty, and the application of sovereignty is, in essence, annexation. The difference in terms is a matter of political sensitivity and semantics, but there is no material legal difference between them.

The proposals raised are generally based on ideological arguments about the Jewish people’s right to Greater Israel, but other arguments also focus on the rights of Israelis who live in these territories and find themselves treated as “second-class citizens,” since Israeli law is not fully applied in their communities.

In 1967, Israel gained control over much territory, including Judea and Samaria. Notwithstanding its claims to the territory, Israel did not apply its sovereignty over all of these territories, but rather only on East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. As far as the international community is concerned, the entire territory, including East Jerusalem, has the status of occupied territory and Israel has no right to annex it. Accordingly, the annexation of East Jerusalem was not recognized, and the world, including the United States, does not relate to East Jerusalem as territory of the State of Israel. Elsewhere in the territories, Israel actually applied the laws of belligerent occupation, since according to international law, this is the relevant system of laws when territory is seized during war, and due to the need to have a legal regime to regulate the Israeli government’s powers and responsibilities vis-à-vis the residents of the territory.

In Judea and Samaria, therefore, there is no applicability of Israeli law. The local law that applies is based on the laws that existed prior to 1967 and security legislation, i.e., orders issued by the IDF GOC in the region. However, the military commander issued municipal orders in relation to all of the Israeli settlements, which adopt many arrangements from Israeli law by way of referral, such as in relation to education, welfare, local government, and so forth, so that there is significant synchronization between the two systems of laws. It was also reported recently that at the request of the Israeli Minister of Justice, directives were issued to improve and shorten the process of adapting the laws applying to the settlements to the amendments to Israeli law. This means that a significant portion of the existing legal gaps relating to Israelis residing in the settlements may be resolved without having to apply Israeli law in its entirety on the territories. The main material gap relative to settlement residents relates to the laws applying to land and infrastructure.

The main problem with applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, or over parts thereof, is the disregard of the repercussions of this course of action for the Palestinians in this territory and vis-à-vis the future of the Palestinian Authority, and the ensuing ramifications for Israel, both on the domestic and international levels.

Steps to apply sovereignty within Judea and Samaria will impact directly on the Palestinians residing in the annexed areas. Between two and three hundred thousand Palestinians live in Area C. If Area C becomes part of Israel, these Palestinians will become permanent residents of Israel, with all the accompanying rights, including freedom of movement and a right to National Insurance. They will also have a right to apply for Israeli citizenship, although presumably they will remain with a status similar to that of residents of East Jerusalem who did not receive citizenship – a status that in and of itself is problematic.

The application of sovereignty over all of Area C will also affect the Palestinians who live outside this area (in Areas A and B). First of all, there are lands, infrastructure, and other property in Area C that belong to these Palestinian residents or that supply their subsistence needs. Moreover, in order to travel from place to place in Areas A and B, there is no other choice but to pass through Area C (which constitutes about 60 percent of the territory). A glance at the map makes this point patent. Furthermore, there are familial and other ties between Palestinian residents of Area C and residents of Areas A and B. Impinging on the Palestinians’ rights in the area and restricting their movement will trigger material allegations that Israel is violating the Palestinians’ basic human rights. The granting of different rights to different populations in the area annexed to Israel will be difficult to align with the basic rights prescribed in Israeli law. An institutionalized regime that differentiates between peoples may be cast as an apartheid regime.

In addition, such a course of action will trigger a major crisis in Israel’s relations with the Palestinian Authority and their cooperation in security and civil realms alike. At issue is a course of action that expressly contravenes the agreements between the parties and indicates that Israel has no intention of arriving at a negotiated solution for the conflict. Another ramification will be the sense of despair created among the Palestinians regarding any prospects of realizing their national aspirations, which is liable to increase the motivation for terrorism and violence.

Complete severance of the ties with the Palestinian Authority will obligate the IDF to expand its activities deep in Palestinian territory. Moreover, such a measure, which would deal a mortal blow to the two-state solution, may well lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, either as a result of the internal pressure on it or as a conscious decision on its part. In such a scenario, Israel might find itself responsible for the entire Palestinian population throughout the territory in all spheres of their lives. There are many repercussions to this, both in terms of increased security threats and the required organization due to the necessity of conducting constant activities throughout the territory, and in terms of the heavy economic burden of providing full solutions for the needs of about 2.5 million Palestinian residents. It is also quite possible, if not probable, that the flow of external contributions and support to the Palestinians will dry up.

On the domestic level, the institution of discriminatory and inequitable arrangements over time vis-à-vis the Palestinian population, both in the annexed territory and beyond, imposes a heavy burden on Israeli democracy and the preservation of the state’s values, and paves the way for clashes within Israeli society. One of the first victims can be expected to be the Israeli Supreme Court, which will have to choose between continuing to protect human rights, at the price of a head-on collision with the political leadership, and waiving its primary judicial review role in relation to these matters, at the price of the collapse of its standing as the gatekeeper of Israeli democracy and justice in general.

The application of the Israeli legislation solely within the bounds of the Israeli communities would to a certain extent reduce the repercussions of the course of action on the Palestinians. However, this could still reinforce the allegations of apartheid, due to the existence of separate systems of laws that discriminate against Palestinian residents in favor of Israeli residents. It can also be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, mainly the security cooperation, and to increase the risk of a significantly debilitating effect on the Palestinian Authority’s performance.

On the international level, any course of action that applies Israeli sovereignty over the territories, even if only in the boundaries of the Israeli settlements, will be perceived as another tactic to thwart the two-state idea and will ascribe the blame to Israel for the ongoing conflict. This course of action will also be perceived as a blatant violation of international law and international resolutions. The Advisory Opinion of 2004 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague with regard to the security fence expressly stated that the annexation of a portion of the territory constitutes a violation of international law and of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016 expressly states that the Security Council will not recognize any changes to the 1967 lines other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations. Such a course of action will likely destabilize the peaceful relations with Egypt and Jordan and severely hamper any attempt to improve relations with other countries in the region.

It is indeed probable that the current US administration will block any operative Security Council decision against Israel; however, measures would be expected in all other international fora and by the European Union and EU member states, even to the point of the imposition of sanctions on Israel. There is also considerable concern that future American administrations, particularly Democratic administrations, would allow operative Security Council decisions against Israel, since the Democrats will not feel obliged to continue the path of the Trump administration relative to Israel and the settlement policy.

There is no doubt that annexation would cause severe damage to international cooperative ventures with Israel, and prompt a demand that no agreement, plan, or enterprise apply to the annexed territory. Memberships in organizations such as FIFA and others can also be expected to be made contingent upon this demand. Israel would have to decide whether it is prepared to forfeit all these agreements, while damaging its economic, scientific, and cultural interests.

A decision to annex territories is also likely to heighten the potential for international criminal proceedings. A preliminary examination is already underway by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which also relates to the settlements, which are defined in the court’s constitution as a war crime. A decision to annex is certainly liable to influence the decision about opening an investigation, and may also lead to indictments. Such indictments could also be filed against ministers and even against the Prime Minister, because the ICC does not grant immunity to incumbent heads of state.

Clearly, the decision to apply Israeli sovereignty over the territories has grave implications, both on the domestic and the international levels. The Israeli government can decide that despite arguments against the move, it wants to advance courses of action to extend sovereignty as part of fulfilling an ideological vision. However, such a decision should only be reached after serious strategic deliberations that consider all of the expected ramifications and consequences and as part of a comprehensive policy intended to advance the permanent status that the government deems desirable, and not as a partial tactic deriving from internal political motivations.

Publication Series: INSS Insight | Topics: Israeli-Palestinian RelationsLaw and National Security

עברית

About the Author

Pnina Sharvit Baruch

Pnina Sharvit Baruch

Senior Research Fellow, head of the Program on Law and National Security.

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s time to annex Judah and Samaria by David Horowitz

As American Women Put Their Pink Hats Back On, Women in Iran Rip Off Their Hijabs [Video]

As American women prepare to put on their pink hats for a second time to protest President Donald Trump on the anniversary of his inauguration, women in Iran are taking off their hijabs, protesting an oppressive theocratic regime.

For nearly 40 years since the 1979 revolution, Iranian women have been forced to follow the country’s mandatory dress code, which includes long, loose garments and headscarves known as hijabs. While wearing a hijab here in the United States is a sign of female empowerment, taking them off in Iran is the ultimate sign of defiance.

The anti-regime protests in Iran ignited days after the American press declared 2017 the “Year of the Woman,” where women here in the United States took to the streets by the millions to protest Trump, and shared their #MeToo moments of sexual harassment and assault. Given this, you’d think it’d be a no-brainer to align themselves with women reportedly leading their protests in search of freedom in cities like Isfahan.

But no. The Women’s March along with celebrity feminists have been silent, instead, choosing to tweet about their own happenings here in the First World.

According to Human Rights Watch, women in Iran are routinely and systematically discriminated against and oppressed. They’re banned from sports stadiums, even when their husbands, brothers, or sons are playing in the game. If they’re married, they can’t leave the country without their husband’s permission. And according to the BBC, they can’t even be “Happy.”

In 2014, three men and three women were reportedly arrested for the crime of dancing on camera to Pharrell Williams’ song “Happy.” They were sentenced up to 91 lashes and one year in jail.

And yet, liberal feminists in America such as Joy Behar think it’s us that have the problem. Speaking on “The View,” Behar compared what’s happening in Iran’s oppressive autocratic regime to protests against Trump.

Here’s a wake-up call for American women who can’t seem to open their eyes to the true intolerances against women worldwide. In America, when men and women take to the streets to protest a democratically-elected president who they don’t like, they have police putting their lives on the line to protect them.

In Iran, when men and women dare to speak out against their government, they’re suppressed and sent to jail. Seven days into these rallies, at least 20 people are dead.

So let’s be clear: The uprise happening in Iran is far more important for women’s rights than any of our First World problems here in the United States. Instead of being silent—or worse, trying to draw parallels between Iranian women and ourselves—American women should support them. Because in Iran, unlike the United States, women’s lives may actually depend on it.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran Nuclear Deal: Trump Should Kill It, for the Dissidents and Protesters

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Iran News Agency labels Council on American Islamic Relations as ‘an offshoot of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood’ [Video]

Iran Mehr News Agency

The idiom “it takes one to know one” appears to apply in the case of the Iranian News Agency Mehr labeling the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as an “extremist” organization. Iran appears to agree with the United Arab Emirates who added CAIR and the Muslim American Society to its list of terrorist organizations in 2014.

The Iranian Mehr News Agency in a column titled “Muslims 2nd largest religious group in US by 2040” reports:

TEHRAN, Jan. 06 (MNA) – According to the latest report issued by Pew Research Center, the population of Muslims in US is growing and by 2040, they’ll replace Jews’ demographic status in US.

Pew Research Center came out this week with an updated estimate of the American Muslim population, which is sure to cause a stir on all sides of the issue.

The new numbers come in at 3.45 million Muslims living legally in the US in 2017. That represents only 1.1 percent of the US population but it’s up, by Pew’s estimates, from 3.31 million in 2016.

The US Muslim population grows by about 100,000 every year, according to the Pew study.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, says Pew’s estimates are way off, and that the true number is roughly double, in the 6 to 8 million range – and that was more than two years ago.

“Muslim advocacy groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations routinely cite a span of 6 million to 8 million people in describing the size of Islam in America. That would be between 2 percent and 3 percent of the US population and make Muslims greater in number than Mormons or Jews,” CAIR stated on its website in March 2015.”

If CAIR, an offshoot of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, is correct and there are at least 6 million Muslims living in the US, that would represent 2.4 percent of the total population and exceed the number of Jewish Americans by about a million. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

The Center for Security Policy in a 2016 book titled “C.A.I.R. is HAMAS: How the Federal Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism” noted:

(Washington, D.C.): Since its founding in 1993, the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  From that time to this, however,the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

photoshop-ccscreensnapz004

Click on the image to read the report.

Evidence of CAIR’s true character as a U.S.-based instrument for political warfare and fundraising for Hamas – and the federal government’s certain knowledge of the truth – did not come to light until the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.  In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself.  Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:

The production of this proof of CAIR’s jihadist nature is especially timely as legislatures in states around the country are considering resolutions seeking to discourage their agencies from interacting with this Hamas front and as the U.S. Congress considers legislation calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. CAIR is Hamas should be required reading for lawmakers, other officials at every level of government, the press and ordinary Americans misperceiving CAIR’s true jihadist and subversive nature.

Read the full report C.A.I.R. is HAMAS by clicking here.

Discover the Networks reports this about CAIR:

CAIR has strong ties to the terrorist group Hamas:

  • “[CAIR] was formed not by Muslim religious leaders throughout the country, but as an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). Incorporated in Texas, the IAP has close ties to Hamas and has trumpeted its support for terrorist activities.” Former chief of the FBI’s counter terrorism section, Oliver Revell, called the IAP “a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.”
  • CAIR’s head, Nihad Awad asserted at a 1994 meeting at Barry University, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.”
  • Former FBI counter terrorism chief, Steven Pomerantz, stated publicly that, “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

CAIR promotes extremist views and a radical Islamic vision:

  • At a speech in Fremont, California, Omar M. Ahmad of CAIR proclaimed that, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

It appears the idiom “the proof is in the pudding” applies when it comes to CAIR.

War between Israel and Iran is inevitable, and there is one person to blame: Barack Obama

By 

In 2015, President Barack Obama was successful in passing the controversial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear deal. The deal received quite a response. President Trump has called the JCPOA “the worst deal he has ever seen.” Senator Ted Cruz has called the deal “catastrophic.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal an “existential threat to Israel.” Alan Dershowitz, the famed lawyer, former Harvard legal professor, and longtime Democrat, believes that Obama may eventually be compared to Neville Chamberlain, the late Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who signed a peace pact with Adolf Hitler.

The philosophy was simple: delay Iran’s nuclear program for a decade. After the decade was up, and the sunset clause went into effect (which sees the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program lifted), Iran would have moderated. Obama wanted this deal badly, and he was willing to do almost anything to get the insane agreement signed. He gave up the right to “anytime inspections.” He was willing to excuse the havoc that Iran’s leaders wreak across the Middle East. He was also willing to dismiss the fact that Iran finances terrorism in dozens of countries across the world. If that was not enough, he handed the terror regime $150 billion to seal the agreement. There are also new reports that Obama gave a free pass to Hezbollah’s drug trafficking and money laundering operations inside the U.S.

To soften the blow to Israel, Obama invited PM Netanyahu to the White House to discuss a new military aid package. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was designed to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge in the Middle East. During the negotiations, Obama’s animus towards Israel became even clearer. The “appeaser in chief” whom the Iranian negotiators routed was nowhere to be found. He rejected Israel’s request of $4.5 billion in annual military aid. He also insisted that Israel make two damaging concessions. The first was that Israel would not be able to lobby congress for more money in the event that war broke out. He also demanded that Israel not be allowed to use 25 percent of the aid money for Israel’s domestic military industry. The MOU was a source of outrage to many in Israel’s military establishment, and also many within the Republican Party. Senator Lindsay Graham encouraged PM Netanyahu to reject the MOU and wait for a new administration. PM Netanyahu rightfully chose not to take such a reckless gamble and accepted the $38 billion dollar aid package.

Since the Iran deal has gone into effect, the results have been devastating to Israel. In Gaza, Iran has escalated its proxy war against Israel by showering Hamas with millions of dollars, enabling the terrorist organization to substantially boost its military capability. In early 2017, Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar bragged that Hamas has “restored relations with Iran, and is “gearing up for future hostilities with Israel.” In 2016, Iran pledged 70 million dollars to the Gaza terrorist group Islamic Jihad, allowing the terror group to step up its terrorist activities, while providing salaries to the families of terrorists killed by the Israeli Defense Forces.

Yet the threats in Gaza pale in comparison to what is happening on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon. Lebanon has now essentially been taken over by Iran’s proxy Hezbollah, which has now once again focused its attention on Israel, with ISIS now on the run. Iran has provided tens of millions of dollars (if not billions) to Hezbollah, whose capability now exceeds that of many state militaries. The IDF has called Hezbollah the most powerful non-state military in the world, and for good reason. Hezbollah is now an army of 50,000 strong. Hezbollah now possesses 150,000 missiles and rockets, which is more than the combined armies of 27 NATO countries. Many of these missiles (all provided by Iran) have long range capability. Israel has bombed dozens of Hezbollah targets since the signing of the JPCOA, as the terror group tries to smuggle weapons into Lebanon from Syria. Recently Israel bombed an Iranian military base in Syria, killing 12 Iranian Revolutionary guards.

However, the most frightening and glaring indication that Iran is preparing for war with Israel is the land corridor that Iran is constructing from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and all the way to Lebanon. This presents a grave danger to Israel, since once complete, it will put the Iranian military, on Israel’s border with Syria and Lebanon. Eventually Israel is going to say “enough,” and when that happens, Israel will be at war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. The UN will undoubtedly blame Israel, as it always does, during any conflict. However, the real blame should go to former President Obama, for financing Iran’s genocidal war on Israel.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

President Trump: Palestinians unwilling to talk peace, so ‘why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?’

For years the U.S. has been showering billions upon various entities, hoping to buy their loyalty or at least compliance. We’ve been played for easy marks by the sharpies of the world. President Trump is calling a halt. He is the first President even to threaten to call a halt. This is the first administration to show that intimidation and bullying are no longer currency in the White House.

“Trump threatens stop to Palestinian aid over Jerusalem row,” BBC, January 3, 2018:

The US may stop aid payments to Palestinians who are “no longer willing to talk peace”, President Trump said.

On Twitter, Mr Trump said the United States received “no appreciation or respect” in return for its aid.

He also said his controversial recognition of the contested city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital took the hugely divisive issue “off the table” for new peace talks.

Palestinians had said the move showed the US could not be a neutral broker.

Soon after Washington’s decision was announced in December, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would not accept any US peace plan for the Middle East.

The decision on Jerusalem was also overwhelmingly condemned at the United Nations, where 128 countries voted against Mr Trump’s fulfilment of a campaign promise.

The US president was following up earlier comments about aid payments to Pakistan, in which he said the US had received only “lies and deceit” in exchange for billions of dollars in aid.

Jerusalem is one of the world’s most contested sites.

Israel claims the whole of the city as its capital. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Mr Trump, however, decided to formally recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite being warned it could cause unrest in the region.

He also said he would move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, where all other nations have their consulates.

For the Palestinians, Mr Abbas said: “The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process.”

He also called Jerusalem the “eternal capital of the state of Palestine”.

How did the Palestinians respond to Mr Trump’s threat to cut aid?

Angrily. A Twitter feed of the governing Palestine Liberation Organisation accused Mr Trump of sabotaging their “search for peace”.

What kind of aid does the US send to Palestinians?

Mr Trump’s tweets followed remarks from Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the United Nations, in which she said the US would stop contributing to the UN’s relief agency for Palestinian refugees.

The agency runs education, health, and social programmes. The United States is its largest governmental donor, handing over almost $370m (£270m) in 2016.

Speaking at a news conference, Ms Haley said: “The president has basically said that he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians are agreeing to come back to the negotiation table.”…

Ambassador Haley: ‘The UN must speak out. We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom.’ [Video]

“The U.N. must speak out. We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom.”

Of course, she is speaking to a thoroughly compromised organization under the essential control of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), but it is good that she has challenged their hypocrisy.

“Nikki Haley addresses Iran protests, North Korea at United Nations,” CBS News, January 2, 2018:

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley addressed the deadly protests in Iran and the North Korea nuclear threat on Tuesday at the United Nations. Haley said the U.N. “must speak” on the issue and that the U.S. will call for emergency sessions in the coming days.

“The Iranian dictatorship is trying to do what it always does, which is to say that the protests were designed by enemies. We all know that is complete nonsense,” Haley said on Tuesday.

At least 450 people have reportedly been arrested in the last three days as violent protests against the country’s leadership spread across the Islamic Republic. The demonstrations began Thursday, CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports, with a single demonstration in the eastern Iranian city of Mashhad, over economic hardship, and a dramatic jump in food prices in particular.

“The U.N. must speak out,” Haley said Tuesday. “We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom.”

But Alireza Miryousefi, a spokesman for the Iranian mission to the U.N. blasted Haley’s comments in a tweet Tuesday night, saying, “The world will not believe these nauseating crocodile tears from Haley and other US officials on #Iran.”…

UPDATE: Uprising In Iran 2017-2018

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a report titled “Uprising In Iran 2017-2018 – Update” by A. Savyon and Yigal Carmon. Savyon and Carmon report:

After seven days of mass demonstrations across Iran, in major cities and with the participation of protestors who appear to be middle class, not only in smaller, far-flung cities with the participation of working class people, it can be said that the uprising has the following characteristics:

  • The uprising is clearly against the regime of the Islamic Republic. The regime is trying to neutralize this aspect of it, by ostensibly consenting to the holding of demonstrations demanding improved economic conditions, but protestors are demanding the following: “death to the dictator,” “death to Khamenei,” the end of the regime of the Islamic Republic, no compulsory hijab, no more sending of Iranian wealth to Syria and Gaza (with the slogan “No Syria, no Gaza, my life is for Iran”), and more. On social media, the following demands are circulating: a referendum, abolition of the regime of the Rule of the Jurisprudent, free elections, no compulsory hijab, fair distribution of wealth, an independent judiciary, a free press, separation of religion and state, and gender equality.
IA1368j.png

Poster of protestors’ slogans circulating on social media. Source: Twitter.com/pessarbad/status/948452946232119296, January 3, 2018.

The following MEMRI TV clip, published November 20, 2017, shows a protest in Tehran that was a precursor to the current uprising:

Protesters In Tehran: Our Money Is Sent To Iraq, Lebanon, And Syria, While Our Men Steal And Our Women Sell Their Bodies Out Of Poverty – November 20, 2017IA1368b.JPG

  • This popular uprising has no known leadership that speaks in its name. OnJanuary 3, 2018, announcements of cities, locations, and times of the day’s demonstrations, signed by an entity calling itself “Iran Azadi [“Free Iran”] – The Headquarters for Coordinating the Demonstrations,” were circulated on social media, but no more details about this entity are known.
IA1368h.jpg

Twitter.com/iranazadi1395/status/948478702383456258, January 3, 2018.

  • The Iranian regime has not called out the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to suppress the uprising; it has assigned this task to the Basij and the police, apparently out of fear that extensive use of force, as in 2009, would fan the flames of the popular uprising against it.
  • The most prominent figures in the reformist camp, which was banished from power and from public life, have joined the regime’s attempts to calm the people. The regime is trying to use them as a bridge to the protestors in order to prevent the uprising from spreading, and the Interior Ministry has, to this end, called a meeting of all the parties in Iran, including the banned reformist parties, to discuss the economic problems raised by the protestors.
  • In contrast to the uprising in Syria, there has been no known significant defection of security personnel to the protestors. The tweeted clip below shows a policeman explaining to protestors that he did not “become a soldier to fight” his own people, and is applauded by the crowd:
IA13683i.png

Source: Twitter.com/ArminNavabi/status/948001957884542977, January 1, 2018.

IA1368c.JPG

  • During the first days of the uprising, no member of the senior leadership of the ideological camp addressed the situation publicly. The only political figure to appear was President Hassan Rohani, to deliver a conciliatory message expressing understanding of the protestors’ motives but trying to set restrictions for the protests. For his part, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called a conference of families of martyrs, and in his statements to them accused Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. of being behind the uprising.

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei Blames Popular Uprising On Iran’s Enemies: ‘All Those Who Oppose The Iranian Regime… Have United’

  • President Rohani blamed the regime for the economic crisis, and explained that most of the country’s budget – that is, 200 billion of a total 360 billion toman (360 billion toman is about $100 billion) – is not under his control at all. This means that most of the national budget is controlled by Supreme Leader Khamenei and the IRGC.
  • In the regime, a dispute has broken out over the question of who is to blame for the uprising. The ideological camp blames President Rohani and his economic policy, which includes cutting direct public subsidies and raising taxes and the prices of basic commodities, and accuses him of corruption. Rohani, like his mentor, the late Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has spoken out against Supreme Leader Khamenei’s and the IRGC’s policy of exporting the revolution and establishing Iranian hegemony in the region, which has for years required that tremendous resources go to military development and to funding proxies instead of to the Iranian public. The MEMRI TV clips below show statements by Rafsanjani on this subject and Khamenei’s rebuttal:

Iranian Expediency Council Head Rafsanjani Protests Against Regime’s Oppression of Its Citizens – January 22, 2016

Read The Full Report

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Once Manipulated by Obama Administration on Iran, Media Still Peddles Wrong Narrative

The Protest Movement in Iran: A Significant Challenge to the Regime

“Exodus in Progress?”: Mystery Aircraft Leave Iran With “No Callsign, Origin, or Destination” As Protests Rage (PHOTOS)

Germany: Muslim Migrants Caused 92% of Increase in Violent Crimes

The Voice of Europe reports:

study in the German state of Lower Saxony has clearly linked the increase of violent crime with the arrival of migrants in the area.

Lower Saxony saw an increase of 10.4 percent in reported violent crimes in the years 2015 and 2016. According to the two-year study of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, 92.1 percent of the increase was attributable to migrants.

Screenshot ZDF / Facebook video

Two thirds of the victims of migrant crimes are Germans, the study says. Migrants from North Africa were most likely to commit violent crimes compared to migrants from Syria and Iraq.

An earlier study showed that the crime rate among migrants in Germany rose by more than 50 per cent to 174,438 in 2016.

The findings show what a lot of people had predicted: There’s a (strong) relationship between crime and Migration from Muslim majority countries in Africa and the Middle East.

RELATED ARTICLE: US Catholic Bishops received over $95 million from U.S. taxpayers in 2016 for refugee/migrant care