Posts

INTO THE FRAY: The imperative for incentivized Arab migration & the emerging inevitability of the Humanitarian Paradigm

Once inconceivable, the dismantling of UNRWA; the naturalization of stateless Palestinian residents in Arab countries; and the emigration of Palestinians from Judea-Samaria & Gaza are slowly emerging as realistic outcomes

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth – Sherlock Holmes, in “The Sign of the Four”.

Over a quarter-century ago (in 1992) , I warned of the consequences—for both Jew and Arab—if Israel were to evacuate Gaza.

I cautioned: “…the inevitable implications of Israeli withdrawal can be ignored only at great peril to Israelis and Arabs alike”, observing:“…no measure whether the total [Israeli] annexation or total [Israeli] withdrawal can be reconciled with either Israel’s security needs or the welfare of the Arab population there.” Accordingly, I concluded that the only viable and durable policy was the resettlement and rehabilitation of the non-belligerent Gazans elsewhere—and I underscored: “this was not a call for a forcibly imposed racist “transfer” by Israel, but rather…a humane and historically imperative enterprise”.

Confusing economic enhancement with “ethnic cleansing”

Today, after a more than a decade-and-a-half of bloody confrontations, including three large scale military engagements—imposed on Israel to protect its civilian population from predicted assaults—and a fourth appearing increasingly inevitable; with the Gazans awash in untreated sewage, with their sources of drinking water polluted, and with perennial power outages, my predictions appear to have turned out to be lamentably precise.

Perversely, earlier this month I was excoriated for…being proven right—and my fact-based professional assessment as a political scientist that, because of the overtly unremitting enmity of the Gazans towards the Jewish state: “Eventually there will either be Arabs in Gaza or Jews in the Negev. In the long run, there will not be both”, was denounced as a call for ethnic cleansing.

Of course, my detractors conveniently ignore that, time and time again, I have called for providing generous relocation grants to help the hapless non-belligerent Gazans find more prosperous and secure lives for themselves elsewhere, in third party countries, outside the “circle of violence”; and to extricate themselves from the stranglehold of the cruel, corrupt cliques who have led them astray from debacle to disaster for decades.

Confusing an unequivocal call for economic enhancement with one for “ethnic cleansing”, they apparently believe—in their “infinite benevolence and wisdom”—that compelling the Gazans to languish in their current conditions is somehow more humane.

But, more on these wildly unfounded recriminations against me perhaps in a future column.

A tripartite plan

Several years after my 1992 article, I extended the idea of incentivized emigration to the Arab population in Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the “West Bank”) and in 2004 I formulated a tripartite plan (The Humanitarian Paradigm) for the comprehensive resolution—or rather the dissolution of the “Palestinian problem”, which include the following components:

The first was the dismantling of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), an anomalous UN entity, charged with dealing exclusively with the Palestinian-Arab diaspora (a.k.a. Palestinian “refugees”), displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars with Israel. As I pointed out back then, because of its anomalous definition of who is considered a “refugee” (which extends to the descendants of those originally displaced), and its anomalous mandate (which precludes resettling them anywhere but in the country from which they were displaced), UNRWA is an organization which (a) perpetuates (rather than resolves) the predicament of the stateless Palestinian “refugees”; (b) perpetuates (rather than dissipates) the Palestinian-Arab narrative of “return” to pre-1948 Israel. Accordingly, the continued existence of UNRWA is an insurmountable obstacle to any resolution of the “Palestinian problem”—and hence its dismantling—or at least, radical restructuring—is an imperative precondition for progress toward any such resolution.

The second component was the launch of an international campaign to induce the Arab countries to desist from what is essentially a policy of ethnic discrimination against the Palestinian diaspora, resident in them for decades, and to grant its members citizenship—rather than keeping them in a perpetual state of stateless “refugees”, as a political weapon with which to bludgeon Israel. To date, any such move is prohibited by the mandate of the Arab League.

A tripartite plan (cont.)

The reasoning behind this prohibition was made clear in a 2004 LA Times interview with Hisham Youssef, then-spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, who admitted that Palestinians live “in very bad conditions,” but maintained that the official policy on denying Palestinians citizenship in the counties of decades-long residence is meant “to preserve their Palestinian identity.” According to Youssef: “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine.”

The significance of this is clear.

The nations comprising the Arab League are prepared to subordinate the improvement of the dire humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians, resident throughout the Arab world, to the political goal of preserving the “Right of Return” — i.e. using them as a pawn to effect the elimination of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.

It is to the annulment of this pernicious policy that international pressure must be directed.

The thirdand arguably the most controversial—element was to offer the non-belligerent Arab residents in Judea-Samaria generous relocation grants to provide them and their families an opportunity to seek a better and safer future in third-party host-nations, than that which almost inevitably awaits them—if they stay where they are.

Atomization & de-politicization

To overcome potential resistance to accepting the relocation/rehabilitation grants, I stipulated two elements regarding the manner in which the funding activity is to be carried out: (a) the atomization of implementation of the grant payments; (b) the de-politicization of the context in which they are made.

(a) Atomization: This implies that the envisaged compensation will be offered directly to individual family heads/breadwinners—not through any Arab collective (whether state or sub-state organization), who may have a vested interest in impeding its payment. Accordingly, no agreement with any Arab collective is required for the implementation of payment to the recipients—merely the accumulated consent of fate-stricken individuals, striving to improve their lot.

(b) De-politicization: The incentivized emigration initiative is not cast as a political endeavor but rather a humanitarian one. This reflects a sober recognition that, after decades of effort, involving the expenditure of huge political capital and economic resources, there is no political formula for the resolution of the conflict. Accordingly, efforts should be channeled into dissipating the humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs, which the insoluble political impasse has precipitated.

These two elements–direct payments to individuals and the downplaying of the political nature of the relocation/rehabilitation grants and the emphasis on the humanitarian component are designed to circumvent—or at least attenuate—any claims that acceptance of the funds would in some way entail an affront to—real or imagined—national sentiments.

Once inconceivable, now slowly materializing

For many years, advocating these three elements—the dismantling (or at least the radical restructuring) of UNRWA; the naturalization of the Palestinian diaspora resident in Arab countries as citizens; and the emigration of Palestinian-Arabs from Judea-Samaria and Gaza—seemed hopelessly unrealistic.

However today, all three are slowly but inexorably materializing before our eyes in a manner that would have appeared inconceivable only a few years ago.

Of course, a major catalyst for this nascent metamorphosis has been the Trump administration.

The US administration has—despite hitherto unexplained and inexplicable Israeli reluctance—exposed the fraudulent fiasco of UNRWA. As its erstwhile biggest benefactor, the US has retracted all funding from the organization. But more importantly, it has focused a glaring spotlight on the myth of the “Palestinian refugees” and the spectacularly inflated number of such alleged “refugees”—which even include those who have long acquired citizenship of some other country!

This salutary US initiative has the potential to rescind the recognition of the bulk of the Palestinian diaspora as “refugees”. Thus, even if they continue to receive international aid to help ameliorate their humanitarian situation, this will not be as potential returnees to their alleged homeland in Israel.

Once the Palestinian diaspora is stripped of its fraudulent refugee status, the door is then open to settling them in third party countries other than their claimed homeland,  and to their naturalization as citizens of these counties.

Naturalization of Palestinian diaspora in countries of residence

In this regard, the Trump administration has reportedly undertaken an important initiative–see here; here; and here. According to these reports, President Trump has informed several Arab countries that, at the start of 2019, he will disclose a citizenship plan for Palestinian refugees living in those countries. 

Significantly, Palestinian sources told the news outlet: “Trump informed several Arab countries that the plan will include Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.” According to these sources: “the big surprise will be that these countries have already agreed to naturalize Palestinian refugees.” Moreover, it was reported that senior US officials are expected to seriously raise an American initiative with several Arab countries—including stipulation of the tools to implement it, the number of refugees, the required expenses, and the logistics demanded from hosting countries for supervising the process of “naturalization of refugees”.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of such an initiative, which coincides precisely with the second element in the foregoing tripartite plan. For, it has the potential to remove the ominous overhang of a five million strong (and counting) Palestinian diaspora that threatens to inundate the Jewish state and nullify its ability to function as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

As such, the Israeli government and all pro-Zionist entities should strive to ensure its implementation.

Emigration: The preferred option of the Palestinians?

As for the third element of the tripartite plan, emigration of the Palestinian population to third-party countries, there is rapidly accumulating evidence that emigration is emerging as an increasingly sought-after option. Indeed, earlier this month, Israeli mainstream media highlighted the desire to leave Gaza in order to seek a better life elsewhere. For example, the popular website, YNetnews, ran a piece entitled, Gaza suffers from brain drain as young professionals look for better life, with the Hebrew version appearing a few days previously, headlined The flight from Gaza: What Hamas is trying to conceal from the media. Likewise, the KAN Channel ran a program reporting very similar realities (January 13).

These items come on the heels of a spate of previous articles that describe the widespread clamor among Gazans to find alternative places of abode—see for example For Young Palestinians, There’s Only One Way Out of Gaza (Haaretz) ; Thousands Abandon Blockaded Strip as Egypt Opens Crossing  (Alaraby); As Egypt Opens Gaza Border, A Harsh Reality is Laid Bare (Haaretz); and How Turkey Has Become the Palestinian Promised Land (Haaretz).

The Ynetnews piece describes the fervor to leave: “Leaving Gaza is expensive, particularly for the residents of the impoverished coastal enclave…The demand is high, and the waiting list to leave is long…Those wishing to cut short their wait must pay for a place on a special list, which is run by a private firm in Gaza…The price for a place on this special list is $1,500—a fortune for the average resident of Gaza…”

It would appear then, that the only thing preventing a mass exodus from Gaza is…money. Which is precisely what the tripartite plan proposes providing.

Let their people go: A slogan for April’s elections?

There is, of course, little reason to believe that, if Israel were to leave Judea-Samaria, what happened in Gaza would not happen there. After all, the preponderance of professional opinion appears to hold that, if the IDF were to evacuate Judea-Samaria, it would likely fall to elements very similar to those that seized power in Gaza—and the area would quickly be transformed into a mega-Gaza-like entity, on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv—with all the attendant perils that would entail.

Sadly however, despite its clear strategic and ethical advantages over other policy proposals, few in the Israeli political system have dared to adopt incentivized emigration as part of their platform. The notable exception is Moshe Feiglin and his Zehut party –and, to certain extent, Bezalel Smotrich, the newly elected head of the National Union faction in the Jewish Home Party, previously headed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett.

It is, however, time for the idea of incentivized emigration to be embraced by the mainstream parties as the only viable policy paradigm that can ensure the continued survival of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It is time for the mainstream to adopt an election slogan that sounds a clarion call to “Let their people go”.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Cole Keister on Unsplash.

Why Is Political Islam in Sudan supported by Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia?

by Lieutenant General Abakar M. Abdallah

Sheikh Moza of Qatar with President Bashir of Sudan 3-12-17_jpg SMALL

Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser of Qatar with Sudan President Omar Bashir Khartoum, March 12, 2017.

The Political Islam system in the Sudan spearheaded by the National Congress Party regime is supported by the State of Qatar. The relationship is contributing to growing Islamic extremist groups and international terrorism in the world. Some Salafi movement leaders in Khartoum openly support ISIS; some Sudanese college students are already fighting for Jihad in Libya and Syria. Sudan’s geographical location and the ruling elite’s historical ties with Middle East nations have been the main reasons allowing  the Khartoum regime to support global extremism in both ideology and fighting for Jihad without been stopped.

Those countries fighting in the global war against terrorism failed to understand how Sudan’s Muslim Brotherhood/National Congress Party (NCP) regime functions. The regime is telling the international community one thing and doing something else. For instance, the four Sudanese who killed John Granville, the American who was working in the USAID in Khartoum and his Sudanese driver Abdelrhaman Abass in 2008 were convicted to life sentences. However, the Sudan regime declared that they escaped from prison. These men were convicted to deceive the American government that the Sudan regime was not behind the assassination.  The regime convicted the men to mislead both the US government authorities and the victims’ families that justice had been done. In reality, the Sudan regime released the prisoners under the pretext that they escaped from prison and sent them to fight as part of al Qaeda in Somalia and later to join the Islamic State and fight for ISIS in Libya.

The rise of the Islamic movements in Sudan started in early 1930s. The Sudanese society is characterized by a geographic diversity reflected in its multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious populations. However, the Islamic movements ignored these facts and formed a government based its ideology on sectarian parties, tribalism, and religious extremism that excluded the majority of the Sudan’s population from their basic rights of citizenship. This exclusion has caused Sudan’s perpetual crisis that resulted in an endless civil war that subjugated the population of the country.

Throughout the history of Sudan, the successive regimes have been using the same vicious slogans: “Sudan is an Arab land, Defending Islam, Spreading Islam in Africa, Defending the Palestine Cause, and Defending Arabism.” Using these themes, successive regimes that ruled Sudan able to convince and at times mislead the Middle East nations to secure political, moral, material, and financial support.

It is in the context of this strategy that the NCP regime in Khartoum obtained financial support from Gulf States, because they ignored the majority non-Arab Sudanese people seeing the Sudan as an Arab country; constructing an Islamic Arab state and defending the Arab cause against Africanism, imperialism (America), and Zionism (State of Israel). Such belief is an important part of their political, religious, and social cohesion that generates funding to finance all forms of terrorism not only in the Sudan but also in the African Sahel region and the world. Those countries combating the global war on terrorism should understand these facts.  They should deal with Bashir’s regime committing genocidal war crimes and crimes against humanity against the people of Darfur, Blue Nile and Kordofan.

The NCP regime’s ultimate goal is not to bring peace, stability, justice and the rule of law. Rather it is to spread radical Islamic ideology eventually establishing a Caliphate in the Sudan at the expense of destroying the entire people in the country’s conflict regions through the use of violence to intimidate its opponents. This regime has the habit of forming false alliances to resolve most crises. It also uses racial, ethnic, and tribalism to divide the people and deal with each group separately. The NCP government also uses religion as the word of God to frighten and control people. It uses deception, fomenting and financing of tribal conflicts, use of propaganda through its controlled media, forming alliances with under privileged groups. It uses state funds to bribe opponents to obtain their support consequently weakening them prior to their destruction.  The NCP has not limited itself to the use of these tactics. It has also created Islamic institutions that functions within and outside its government to advance its Islamic extremist ideological vision in the world. These organizations include but not limited to:

  • Leadership Bureau of the National Congress Party. This is where all the powers of the NCP reside. All higher decisions emanate from this office. For example, appointment of executive positions such as ministers, ambassadors, governors, senior military commanders.
  • Islamic Movement (IM). The IM was created to serve as a political base for the NCP. IM unites domestic and international radical Islamist groups under its umbrella. It provides them with ideological guidance seeking to apply Islamic Sharia law to the entire world.
  • Islamic Da’wa organization (IDO). The IDO is a Sudanese Islamic NGO founded in 1992 and designated to work in Africa. The organization is supported and funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf States. IDO is a member of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief (IICDR).  The IICDR is an umbrella of over 100 Islamic organizations most of them associated with Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Hamas. These organizations provide political guidance, ideology, recruitment, and funding for all Islamic Salafi movements in the world. IDO is headed by retired Field Marshal and former President of the Sudan Abderhaman Siwar al Dhahab. He is also the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Union of Good (UOG) member organization. The UOG is designated by the US Department of the Treasury as a terrorist organization providing financial assistance to Hamas.
  • IAU logo khartoum(1)

    International University of Africa logo.

    International University of Africa (IUA). The IUA is a public university located in Khartoum and like any other educational institution, has many faculties. However, it concentrates on two subjects: (1) Islamic Shariah and (2) Islamic studies. This institution is designed to train preachers and educate young African Muslims indoctrinating them with the Salafist view of Islam. The IUA University becomes an important Islamic center for Sub-Sahara Africa educating people in Islamic extremist ideology.

Through these organizations the Sudan government and Gulf States are engaged in spreading extremist Islamic ideology contributing to global extremism. If we look a few years back, we see al Qaeda was present only in small areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today we see Jihads all over the world and they are developing rapidly. We are regularly receiving information that Sudan and Qatar are providing financial and military assistance to Islamic militants in Libya, Mali, and possibly to Boko Harm in Nigeria.

Despite US Government placing financial restrictions to Sudan, Saudi Arabian government regularly donates money to the Sudan regime. Saudi Arabia gave Sudan $1billion in July and August 2015. These funds were given in the form of loans or investments. Recently, the Sudanese authorities mentioned that they expect to receive $4 billion following Khartoum’s decision to join the Saudi-led military coalition against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The flow of money from Saudi Arabia to the Muslim Brotherhood regime in the Sudan contributes to financing Global Jihad.

The IM, IDO, IICDR, and UOG organizations collect funds not only from the oil rich Gulf States but from companies, businessmen, Princes, Sheiks, traders, and ordinary people. These people give donations not for the purpose of supporting terrorism but for the goal of either advancing Pan-Arabism or supporting Islam. Most of these people do not care about what the result of their donation bring; they just give for the purpose of advancing Islam or Arabism.

Sudan President Omar Bashir’s trip to South Africa in violation of the outstanding International Criminal Court warrant for his arrest was settled by the Emir of Dubai. He paid one hundred million dollars to the South African government within the week following the incident. The Emir travelled to South Africa and settled the deal. Why did the Emir pay this money? The Emir paid the money simply because he has business interest in Sudan and was defending Pan Arabism.

Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser, royal consort of Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, visited Sudan on March 12, 2017. She was welcomed by the first lady of Sudan Widad Babiker. She met with President Bashir and discussed development projects for Sudan. The Sheikha also visited North Kordofan State to meet with the notorious Janjaweed leader Ahmed Harun who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court but is still at large. In order to draw away the international community attention Sheikha Mozah visited pyramids in Merowe, Sudan’s historic City in which Qatar and Sudan have joint Archeological projects.

The Sudan government obtains from the Arab League and the oil rich Gulf States through official and nonofficial channels. In 2007 and 2008, the Arab League gave the Sudan government over $500 million in the name of development in Darfur. Sheik Moza who visited Khartoum on March 12, 2017 donated $200 million dollars to Bashir to recruit and train more Janjaweed militias. These funds will be used to finance terrorists and recruit Janjaweed to kill the indigenous people of Darfur, Blue Nile and Kordofan. Even though the money comes in the name of development, they used to recruit, train, and arm Janjaweed militias to kill the people of Darfur. The wealthy oil rich Gulf Emirates, especially Qatar, provide Sudan funding in the name of development projects while secretly working to establish an all Arab Caliphate in Darfur and African Sahel region.

Following the visit of the Qatari State Minister in Darfur, he promised to fund 17 development projects in Darfur.  Since the signing of the Darfur Doha agreement both Qatar and Sudan spoke of developments in Darfur.  Last July Chairman Tijani Sisi of the Darfur Regional Authority mentioned that his organization realized 1800 projects in Darfur. It’s easy to say in words but the fact is that over 3 million people of Darfur are living in internally displaced persons and refugee’s camps. Where are the 1800 projects that Chairman Sisi is talking of that he and his group realized? Where is this large number of projects that could not be seen in Darfur? The truth is that there are no projects in Darfur other than recruiting and training of Janjaweed and terrorists to kill innocent people.

Sheikh Moza with Nkirth Kordofan Children 3-13-17(1)

Sheikha Mozah with innocent school children of North Kordofan, March 13, 2017.

The fact is that the Sudan government recruited and trained 34,000 Arab Janjaweed militias funded by State of Qatar. These Arab tribal militias are currently prepared to secure new settlement projects (construction of villages and digging of water pumps for new Arab settlers) in North Darfur. As I am writing this report, they deployed over 100 armed Toyota Pickup trucks of Rapid Support Forces to provide security protection to dig these water pumps at Wadi Azerk in Wadi Hawar, North Darfur. Their plan is to create 1,200 new Janjaweed villages in the area north of Kutum adjacent to the borders of Libya. Villagers in Disah, North Darfur were told to abandon their villages and move to the IDP camps or to the cities because next year they will not be allowed to cultivate their land. They said that area north of Kutum to the border of Libya is designated for Arab Janjaweed animal husbandry.

Conclusions

The Sudan government is contributing to the growing global Islamic extremist ideology and Jihadism. Eliminating this regime is a necessary requirement for peace. Its removal from Khartoum would greatly reduce the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism in the world. This would eliminate the system of sectarian parties, tribalism, and religious discrimination that successive regimes use to divide and rule Sudanese society. Regime change in Khartoum would call for creation of a secular and Sudanese identity transcending tribal and religious boundaries emphasizing equality and justice for its entire people.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Sweet and Sour Paris Peace Conference

Given a choice, monsieur the diplomat, between two International Peace Conferences-Kazakhstan for Syria or Paris for the Middle East- which would you prefer? Would you like to plough your brain trying to sort out the Islamist rebels from the plain Islamists, finding someone less brutal to replace Assad and a few factions to support him, resisting pressure from the Russians, Iranians, Turks, Hezbollah and the like? Wouldn’t you rather sit around a table in Paris, rubbing shoulders with distinguished ladies and gentlemen, and repeating that it is urgent to settle the “oldest conflict” by finally implementing the oldest solution: two states side by side in security?

For low ranking journalists that didn’t have the chance to come anywhere near the delegations, “covering” the Conference meant  receiving the elevated  address of Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who would present the conclusions reached by the diplomats united in a spirit of sincere friendship for the parties to the conflict. (The day after the Conference, that hasn’t generated much interest worldwide, documents in several languages and videos of some speeches were posted on the Ministry website.)

I easily found a seat in the second row. Most of the people around me were speaking Arabic. I don’t usually cover events in the ministries. My stamping ground is more in the neighborhood of the UPJF, the BNVCA, and defamation hearings at the Palais de Justice. I greeted Gideon Kuntz, didn’t see any familiar faces… until a woman took a seat on my left, turned to me, and said: “I know you.” Right. We met about ten days ago at a party thrown by a journalist friend.  Hustle and bustle near the door. The minister will enter any minute. My fellow American gives me some inside information: “A little while ago I was sitting next to a Palestinian. He told me that the father of one of the female soldiers killed in Jerusalem wrote on his Facebook page, ‘What can you expect when we keep them cooped up like that?'” Brushing aside a dozen reactions that tumbled around in my mind, I answered like a good journalist: “Could be. We’d have to verify it.” She shrugs: “It’s Facebook.” And I say to myself: “It’s a Palestinian.” The minister walks in, accompanied by about 15 people that line up along the wall.

Busy taking notes in my red moleskin notebook with my real fountain pen, I don’t even have the fun of observing the audience. Except for the bald head of Harlem Désir, foreign relations secretary of the Socialist party, seated right in front of me. I wished I could remind him of his gallantry that day in 1990 when a momentous wind storm caught us on the top floor of the Arche de la Défense, during an encounter with delegates from Central Europe. Maybe they represented the new democracies? The wind forced open the sliding glass doors and came barreling into the hall. You could see the wind, it was light green and terrifying. After a long wait someone finally came to take us to an elevator that brought us down to an exit at the top of a long flight of stairs. The wind was too strong, it almost blew me away, I grabbed onto Harlem Désir who escorted me all the way to the metro entrance. Those were different times.

Today, too, the times have changed. The arrogant disdain for Israel that marked the first yeas of the century has morphed here into moderate, measured benevolence, all soft and gentle. Everything about the Conference, from the motivation, hopes, and concerns, to the final recommendations is dipped in the honey of sincere egalitarian friendship. Everything is unanimous, they are all united in the same spirit, they all condemned the horrible terror attack in Jerusalem and all forms of violence and incitement to violence. But. But resolution 2334 of the UN Security Council denounced the colonization; this decision is “stamped with international legality, it’s serious.” To show just how serious that condemnation is, the minister used a strange expression: “it is the voice of the world that spoke.”

And that was the sense of his whole brief speech. The united assembly of more than 70 countries and organizations had acted like a supreme being that observes, weighs, judges, and speaks in a unanimous voice to say the two-state solution, the only viable solution, is in danger. What can be done to reinforce the engagement of the international community and persuade the conflicting parties to resume negotiations? Because direct negotiations are the only way to solve the conflict. The parameters are known: ’67frontières, major UN resolutions, and the 2002 Arab initiative.  Why not “Auschwitz borders?” Jean-Marc Ayrault could have said it straight out in that honeyed voice, the voice of the world, the voice of sincere friendship for Israelis, for Palestinians… He could have said it that way, without a change of tone, without reservations, in his role as honorable spokesman of the international community that says the Law.

The minister repeats that it is urgent to promote the two-state solution, to convince Israelis and Palestinians to resume direct negotiations that, he says again, are the only way to resolve this conflict that has been going on for 50 years, and “produced” 3 wars since 2006. We cannot have stability in the Middle East without peace between Israel and Palestine, peace that is desired by the entire international community. And so on and so forth. Only good things. Peace and friendship and economic development. We are ready to help, says the minister. Help who? The Palestinians that for decades have been swallowing up exorbitant contributions in the belly of corruption? Europe will be able to help the flourishing super high tech Israeli economy that just wants to keep growing without shackles? What encouragement can be expected from France that voted-in sincere friendship and for the good of Israel-for labeling products from the “colonies”?

The minister concludes modestly: we are realists. It’s step by step, little step by little step that we will reach our goal. And sums up: “This Conference is an outstretched hand.”

Three little questions are taken. Q: Will the communiqué be presented tomorrow at the EU foreign affairs Council and on the 17th at the Security Council?  A: Yes for the EU no for the UN.

Q: You said the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem would be a provocation. What will be done if the transfer is in fact made? A: I’ll discuss it with Rex Tillerson.

Q: A few months ago France was prepared to recognize the Palestinian state. Is that still on the table? A: We never said it like that. It was meant to be unilateral. We do not want any misunderstanding on that score. Everything will be done in the spirit of this Conference: subdued, restrained, moderate.

End of story. Gidéon, who had tried in vain to ask a question, drops his arm, exasperated.

I leave the building, brave the icy rain, cross Paris in a packed bus, chilled to the bone, starved (no ministerial petit-four for us), and prepared to face up to one more lost cause before midnight: the second debate of the presidential primaries of the left. But first I dash over to i24 news, the only channel that mentions the peace conference. Big news! The Brits opted out of the voice of the world. They didn’t sign the declaration [and subsequently blocked its adoption by the EU Council]. Did my American neighbor know? How about the Irish correspondent she introduced to me just before we went our separate ways? One thing is certain: Jean-Marc Ayrault knew, all the time he was telling us about the unanimous unanimity. Ça alors

Having struggled for two weeks to find practical information about the venue and accreditation procedures, I had come to think that the dreaded Conference was virtual. Nothing to compare with the urban effervescence last spring, before the weekly demonstrations against the el Khomri labor reform. There were no signs of prestigious delegations in our city or our media.

So it seems that instead of accelerating the tempo of the latest Palestinian diplomatic offensive that began with the UNESCO resolutions forged to slice the bonds between the Jewish people, the land, and the sacred places, the ghost Paris Peace Conference sabotaged it. Hopes of carrying the conclusions to the Security Council where they would be transformed into a binding resolution are apparently dashed.

The closing address like the Conference itself was a sort of non-sequitur: Divorced from reality, as vague as it was pretentious, devoid of concrete details on the chain of words and deeds that have led the peace process to its current impasse. If the conflict persists, it’s not for lack of benevolent attention from the international community. The territorial Israel-Palestinian conflict that could have been solved by the creation of a Palestinian state is imaginary. What is happening and has been going on for more than 50 years, for more than  1400 years, that produces countless wars and atrocities is the old Islamic vindictive hatred* of Judaism. What is playing out in the Middle East is 21st century jihad conquest held in check by a sovereign Jewish state that rejects the suicidal advice poured on it by an ancien régime that calls itself the “international community.”

We owe ourselves a brief moment of satisfaction at the fiasco of the Paris Conference before we face up to the coming episodes of the saga. If it’s true that they cried victory in Ramallah, we should forget the outright refusal of the “Kerry parameters” hammered out by PLO executive committee’s Mustafa Barghouti:

 “First, you cannot make the issue of Palestinian refugees only an issue of compensation; you cannot deny people their right to return to their home,” Limiting the rights of Palestinian refugees to compensation? Unacceptable! “Second, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would deny the right of the Palestinian people who are citizens of Israel and that is totally unacceptable.” Israel cannot be a Jewish and a democratic state at the same time,” concludes Barghouti, he too speaks the voice of the world.

* Daniel Sibony, Islam, Phobie, Culpabilité

RELATED VIDEO: Fatah’s armed wing hold demonstration.

EDITORS NOTE: The original French version of this column was published by Infoequitable.org. 

One Florida Mosque’s History of Close Ties to Terrorists

issb_log_pic3

Islamic Society of Sarasota and Bradenton logo.

Few Floridians know the history behind the Islamic Society of Sarasota and Bradenton mosque located at 4350 N. Lockwood Ridge Road in Sarasota, Florida.

Florida investigator Bill Warner reported in August of 2011:

[T]he Sarasota Fl area was the base of operations for 9/11 Al-Qaeda Hijack Pilots Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, they had a support network entrenched in the area when Al-Qaeda linked Imam Muneer Arafat shows up at the Sarasota-Bradenton Islamic Center (Mosque) in March 2000 just 3 months before the Hijackers show up in the Sarasota area in June of 2000.

See Jan 20, 2003 article about Sarasota Imam Muneer Arafat in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, below, just after he was arrested on Immigration charges by ICE agents in November 2002. Sarasota Imam Muneer Arafat had been the roommate of Al-Qaeda procurement terrorist Ziyad Sadaqa aka Ziyad Khaleel.

2003-1-23-muneer-arafat-sarasota-iman-terrorist-ties2

Fast forward to today and we find sheikh Monzer Taleb, someone with links to the terrorist group HAMAS, sitting with Islamic Society of Sarasota and Bradenton mosque leaders for a fundraiser in support of the organization Helping Hand for Relief and Development (HHRD). The Islamic Society of Sarasota published the attendees list for the event. The list included: Speaker Ali Syed, Speaker Monzer Talilb, Speaker Suleiman Salem, Speaker Tariq AbuKhdeir and Poetry by Remi Kanazi.

Watch the video, below, and you will see Taleb sitting to the left of the imam giving the Eid prayer at the HHRD orphan aide event in Sarasota:

According to the Counter Jihad Report:

Monzer Taleb was an unindicted Co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, identified by Federal prosecutors as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a covert U.S. MB organization with a responsibility for supporting and financing Hamas. Taleb was identified in a captured Palestine Committee document as a member of organization.As a member of the Al Sakhra Band, Taleb helped to raise funds for Hamas at fundraisers thrown by the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Islamic Association for Palestine. (IAP), two organizations created by the Palestine Committee to support Hamas, according to evidence provided by the federal government.

[ … ]

Monzer Taleb appears to remain active in the fundraising business, raising funds for Helping Hands for Relief and Development (HHRD), a charity accused of having close ties to a Pakistani organization known to have financed Hamas. Taleb is additionally listed as a member of HHRD-Jordan. Taleb also fundraises for the Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT), which runs Dallas Central Mosque, which was closely associated with the Holy Land Foundation, and has long been identified as having ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. [Emphasis added]

Read the full article.

On September 11th, 2016 there were thousands of 9/11 memorial and remembrance event. None was more powerful than those held in Sarasota, Florida where Mohammed Atta and two of his terrorist cohorts learned to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It is important to understand that Islam is evil. Evil is raising money under the banner of orphan relief, much like was done with the Holyland Foundation.

Sadly, the money never went to help orphans, rather it went to fund terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sarasota Herald Tribune Never Reported Local Imam Muneer Arafat’s Arrest and Links to Al-Qaeda That Was Front Page News at St. Louis Post-Dispatch So I Will

VIDEO: Life on the Gaza Border — Kibbutz Sa’ad

Join The United West (TUW) and Captain Dan Gordon as we give you a brief glimpse into what life is like living on a Israeli Kibbutz very close to the Gaza Strip and the HAMAS Jihad fighters.

In addition to the thousands of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza over the last two years, the residents of Saad have a new and equally deadly threat.

That threat is from the Hamas tunnels built from Gaza into Israel and recently found 1500 yards from Kibbutz Saad. Captain Dan Gordon informed us that not only were the Hamas terrorists discovered heavily armed but also had zip tie handcuffs with them. The significance of the handcuffs are these Hamas terrorists intended on taking Israeli hostages, which is a relatively new tactic of war used in conjunction with the tunnels.

When Hamas fires a rocket or mortar it takes only 7 seconds to reach Kibbutz Saad. Hamas has fired so many rockets and mortars towards Saad the children instinctively know to run to the nearest bomb shelter along with the adults – this is their normal.

Founded in 1947, Saad is a religious kibbutz in the Negev desert in southern Israel. Located near the Gaza Strip, and the cities of Sderot and Netivot, it falls under the jurisdiction of Sdot Negev Regional Council. In 2006 it had a population of 599.

We at The United West love Israel and work tirelessly educating elected officials, law enforcement, and counter terrorism officials on the nature of Israel’s existential threats. We do this because the Global Jihad Movement which seeks the destruction of Israel also vows to destroy America.

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more visit TUW’s website at TheUnitedWest.org or email me at Tom@TheUnitedWest.org. Please help us to continue our vital work educating America on the threat.

Sanders Campaign Releases Ad Slamming Anti-Muslim Bigotry

Tackling anti-Muslim bigotry and challenging Islamism are complementary rather than contradictory ideas.

Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders released a new campaign video April 18 directly addressing anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States.

Entitled Love Trumps Hate, Sanders argues hatred against Muslims is used in contemporary American political discourse as a sop to distract people from the real problems of wealth inequality and injustice.

He specifically targets Donald Trump in the ad, saying “demagogues like Trump who come along as say ‘I know what the cause of your problem is’.”

“Today it is Muslims, you won’t remember how many years ago we were younger it was the uppity women who were trying to take our jobs as men, it was blacks who wanted to take white jobs that’s what demagoguery is about.”

Sanders is perceived by many as the only candidate in the race addressing concerns that the Muslim community has about rising anti-Muslim bigotry in America. Integration is an important part of the struggle against Islamism and Sanders’ attempts to reach out to the Muslim community are important in promoting that.

Others perceive him as pandering to Islamist apologists. He has met with activists who have spoken out in defense of Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Hamas. The Director of Jews for Bernie, Daniel Sieradski, even praised Hamas, writing “Great insight is to be gained from the remarks of Hamas’ founder, Sheikh Ahemd Yassin, himself, which are much more down-to-earth and pragmatic than any portrayal of Hamas in the right-wing oriented media” according toFrontPage Magazine.

He met with and was endorsed by the head of the Arab-American Association of New York, Linda Sarsour, an organization supported by the Qatar Foundation. The foundation is linked to the Qatari government and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sarsour’s brother-in-law is serving a 12-year sentence in an Israeli prison for involvement with Hamas.

Sanders has taken stances to oppose Islamist extremism as well, currently backing a bill which would enable victims of 9/11 to sue the government of Saudi Arabia over the gulf kingdom’s role in the al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. All other candidates have also backed the bill, except John Kasich who has not yet commented.

Other candidates have focused specifically on the national-security dimension of Muslim integration.

Senator Ted Cruz recently caused controversy by calling for increased patrols of Muslim-majority areas by law enforcement. In December, Trump called for “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Genuine concerns about Islamism must not lead one to fall prey to anti-Muslim bigotry against American Muslims as a whole. Sanders’ advert shows that side of the debate.

Tackling this issue as either “pro- or anti-Muslim” is shortsighted and counter-productive. Only when we are able to robustly challenge Islamism while, at the same time, opposing anti-Muslim bigotry against ordinary Muslims can both toxic ideas be defeated.

To see what all the candidates are saying about Islamist extremism see our profile on the U.S. Presidential Election 2016.

ABOUT ELLIOT FRIEDLAND

Elliot Friedland is the Dialogue Coordinator with the Clarion Project. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Accusations Against Trump Advisor by Islamists Proven False

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intel Org to Deadly Attack on CIA

America Seeks to Charge Aussie With Radicalizing US Citizen

American Jewish Committee to Sanders: Clarify Your Remarks on Israel and Gaza!

NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The American Jewish Committee (AJC) today acknowledged the correction by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, D-VT, of his statement that “over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza” in 2014. At the same time, it called on the Senator to clarify his charge that Israel’s self-defensive response to deadly Hamas rocket fire and tunnel attacks that summer was “indiscriminate.”

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has reported that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in the 2014 war; Israeli authorities estimate that some 1,000 of those killed in its defensive operations were terrorists, while the UN figure is 642. The candidate offered his correction in a phone conversation with Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the organization reported.

Senator Sanders made his comments about Israel in an April 1 interview with the editorial board of The New York Daily News.

“Senator Sanders, in repeatedly calling Israel’s actions in Gaza ‘indiscriminate,’ has leveled a serious charge against Israel,” said AJC CEO David Harris. “This accusation flies in the face of everything we know – and military leaders around the world have testified – about Israel’s extraordinary care in fighting terrorists embedded in civilian populations.

“In Gaza in the summer of 2014, the use by Hamas of residential areas, schools, mosques and hospitals to store and deploy weapons, and launch thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel – wave after wave of rockets and mortars fired against Israeli civilians – made Israel’s response excruciatingly challenging. Indeed, the harsh reality is that, because of the terrorists’ use of the Palestinian population as human shields, innocent lives were lost.

“But Israel’s response was anything but indiscriminate. It repeatedly warned the Palestinian population about imminent strikes. It incurred casualties among its own forces in exercising care to avoid harming civilians. Time and again, it called off strikes when civilians came into view. And, in the fog of war, when soldiers and officers made tragic misjudgments, the IDF command responded appropriately.

“We look forward to Senator Sanders’ clarification of this stinging and unjust accusation against Israel.”

ABOUT THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

AJC is a 501(c)(3) organization that neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bernie Sanders campaign hires anti-Israel campaigner as new Jewish liaison

Why Is the United States Funding a Hamas-Linked Charity — Again?

The U.S. has given $270,000 to Islamic Relief Worldwide, a group which was banned in Israel for funding Hamas and in the UAE for Muslim Brotherhood links.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently gave a grant of $270,000 to a Muslim Brotherhood linked charity, according to The Daily Caller.

Islamic Relief Worldwide, a UK based charity and the largest Islamic Charity in the world, has been banned in Israel and the United Arab Emirates for dispersing funds to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last month it received the money for its work in Kenya, specifically aimed at promoting “global health security as an international priority” as part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s global health security partner engagement initiative.

While the specific program the U.S. government is funding may be perfectly innocuous, the charity itself is not.

“The IRW is one of the sources of Hamas’s funding and a means for raising funds from various countries in the world” Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said in July 2014. “We do not intend to allow it to function and abet terrorist activity against Israel.”

In 2006 Israel arrested and deported Iyaz Ali, IRW’s Gaza branch project director, for working “to transfer funds and assistance to various Hamas institutions and organizations.”

In 2014 Islamic Relief Worldwide announced they had conducted an independent audit which found no ties to terrorism whatsoever.

“Islamic Relief abhors terrorism in all its forms” the group said in a statement. “We are an impartial, independent, purely humanitarian organization whose sole focus is to alleviate poverty and suffering.” They refused to name the auditor due to “sensitivities in the region.”

Israel and the United Arab Emirates rejected the findings and stood by their designations. Israel charged that Islamic Relief Worldwide “funnels millions of dollars a year to Hamas institutions.”

This is not the first time the U.S. government has funded Islamic Relief Worldwide despite concerns being raised about the group’s links to terrorism.

In December 2015 the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded a grant of $100,000, also for the organization’s work in Kenya.

By continuing to fund charities with ties to terrorism, the U.S. government is legitimizing all aspects of their work, not just those areas they are directly supporting.

There are plenty of underfunded and laudable projects around the world with no ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas.

Why isn’t the U.S. government funding them instead?

RELATED ARTICLE: USAID Gives Muslim Brotherhood Tied Charity $100,000

FBI Edits Radical Islam Out of Anti-Terror Video Game: Who Is the Real ‘Puppet’?

The FBI has released a new edition of its anti-terror video game, Don’t Be a Puppet, that conforms to demands from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to exclude Islamic jihad from a list of potential terror threats.

In the game, a player is asked to work through a series of numbered boxes, beginning with “What is Violent Extremism?” and finishing with “Who [sic] Do Violent Extremists Affect?” Completing the activities in each box — watching short videos, reading through short texts, taking a quick quiz — allows the player, string-by-string, to free the puppet.

fbi dont be a puppet screen capture

Screen shot from FBI video “Don’t be a Puppet”.

Despite the fact that Islamic jihadist violence ranks at the very top of global security concerns, though, it is not mentioned anywhere in the FBI’s puppet game. Instead, the game offers a psycho-babble of possible motivations including alienation, anxiety, personal frustration, and an unsupported claim about “twist[ing] religious teachings and other beliefs to support their own goals.” Anyone who actually perseveres through the game is left with the curious sense that they have just passed a Psych 101 class rather than learned anything substantive about Islamic terror.

Execrable grammar aside, Don’t Be A Puppet, does raise some important questions about who is the real puppet here — and who is the puppeteer. The FBI originally released the online game in early February 2016 but then, under pressure from CAIR, decided to scrub all references to Islamic terrorism (aka jihad) from the website. The new and improved version now focuses on animal rights activists, white supremacists, and other “violent extremists” approved for mention by the Muslim Brotherhood.

FBI leadership – as well as top officials at the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, the National Security Council, and the White House – all know that the Ku Klux Klan was dismantled decades ago and that animal rights activists will never threaten the existence of the Republic. They also know that CAIR is not a suitable partner in anti-terror operations. The FBI (officially) cut ties with CAIR in 2009, calling the group “not an appropriate liaison partner” because of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a subversive jihadist organization committed to “destroy the Western civilization from within.” CAIR not only was directly established in the U.S. by HAMAS, but remains closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood as part of the Global Islamic Movement. Although obviously done for political, not actual security reasons (as CAIR has no presence there), the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR to its list of terrorist organizations in November 2014.

That the FBI thinks it appropriate to take advice from an organization linked to Hamas, a group openly dedicated to jihad (“warfare against non-Muslims…to establish the religion“) indicates an advanced stage of infiltration by such forces inside the top levels of U.S. national security. That the FBI submits to blatant pressure in a way that strips an already ludicrous effort at counterterrorism of all relevance in a world being savaged by terrorists acting in obedience to Islamic doctrine only makes it worse.

And while we’re on the subject: what precisely is “Violent Extremism” anyway?

The FBI apparently would have us believe it has something to do with some people, somewhere, who “have very different beliefs and goals” and may be “loosely motivated” by “personal needs, fears and frustrations“… or something. All clear now?

Let us be clear: this level of incoherence is the intended result of a decades-long influence operation by the Muslim Brotherhood in America, which obviously has succeeded in turning the brains of our top counterterrorism experts to mush. Brilliant scholar of Islamic law Stephen Coughlin calls it “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” in his recent book of that title. And it is catastrophic failure, the overt indicator of subversion at the highest levels of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC). As Coughlin notes, such failure is in fact dereliction of duty by the IC. It would be prosecuted were there anyone left in the Department of Justice willing and able to name the Global Jihadist enemy, indict, or prosecute the lot of them.

Once the IC allowed itself to be lured away from what used to be called the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the wake of 9/11, and instead listened to the insidious voices of Islamic dawah, the course was set. A Great Purge of the official lexicon gathered acceptance, and words like Caliphate, Islamic terror, and jihad, along with any instructors knowledgeable about Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture, and their inspirational role in instigating Islamic terrorism, were literally removed from official use and the training curricula inside the U.S. government.

By studiously ignoring a force responsible for at least 28,000 attacks worldwide since September 2001 and instead turning its focus to irrelevant distractions like the FBI’s silly wooden puppet, the U.S. IC is losing ground by the day to the Islamic Republic of Iran (now on the verge of deploying nuclear weapons), Al-Qa’eda (now massively metastasized), the Islamic State (practically weekly receiving new pledges of bayat), and yes, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose tentacles reach deep inside the entire structure of U.S. national security from the White House to Local Law Enforcement (LLE), that must confront a surge of individual jihad (fard ‘ayn) attacks against its communities without knowing why or how to stop them.

It is high time for the FBI puppet to cut the strings that tie it to its Muslim Brotherhood puppeteer, stop letting jihadis pull its strings, and become a real counterjihad warrior.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jawad Al-Tamimi: Analysis: The Retaking of Palmyra from the Islamic State

May: When universities become day care centers

Rubin: Will There Be a Coup Against Erdogan in Turkey?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared Pundicity.

VIDEO: Terrorists to Register 1 Million U.S. Muslim Voters

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), calls for Muslims to use their mosques for Voter Registration and Polling Stations with the aim of registering 1,000,000 Muslim Voters!

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Nihad Awad is among the founders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and serves as its executive director. In that role, he has attained a degree of political clout, invited to stand beside President George W. Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington days after the 9/11 attacks. Before that, Vice President Al Gore appointed Awad to a civil rights advisory panel for the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

These are influential recognitions for a man with past ties to Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States in 1995. In fact, Awad publicly declared “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” during a March 1994 symposium at Barry University.

 

The aim of CAIR is to CHANGE the way AMERICA looks.

Click here to read the full dossier on CAIR.

Voter Survey: Muslims in U.S. Overwhelmingly support Democratic Party

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released the results of a six-state survey indicating that 73 percent of registered Muslim voters say they will go to the polls in upcoming primary elections and that 67 percent will vote for Democratic Party candidates.

According to an Investigative Project report, CAIR:

[P]urports to be a “leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding” and claims to speak for the majority of American Muslims. However, after a careful review of the history, activities, statements, and causes of and by CAIR, it seems that its primary goals are to silence and de-legitimize its critics and redefine what it means to be a moderate Muslim. And when it comes to U.S. efforts to crack down on terrorists and their financiers, CAIR takes an almost visceral stand in opposition. This has the effect of undermining the legitimate security-related concerns and campaigns of the United States and its allies. These conclusions and the summary immediately below are based upon the evidence and examples that follow in this report; beginning with CAIR’s very founding.

The full dossier “CAIR Exposed,” can be found here.

CAIR’s Muslim voter survey also indicated that more than half of respondents said they would support Hillary Clinton in the elections (51.62%), followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (22.03%) and Donald Trump (7.47%).

Growing Islamophobia in America was ranked as the most important issue for Muslim voters. Domestic issues like the economy and health care also topped the Muslim voters’ list of priority concerns in this election. (NOTE: Islamophobia was listed as the third-ranked issue in a similar 2014 CAIR survey.)

CAIR’s survey of almost 2000 registered Muslim voters in California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, andVirginia – the states with the highest Muslim populations – was conducted January 26 using an independent automated call survey provider and asked four questions:

1. “Do you plan to vote in your upcoming state primary election?”
2. “Which political party do you plan to support in your upcoming state primary election?”
3. “Based on your party support which candidate do you plan to vote for in the upcoming state primary election?”
4. “What is the most important issue to you in the 2016 presidential election?”

Survey Results: (NOTE: Results indicate number of respondents and corresponding percentages.)

Question One: Do you plan to vote in your upcoming state primary election?

Yes                 

1417

73.80%

No                     

235

12.24%

Decline to Answer      

268

13.96%

Total Respondents    

1920

100.00%

Question Two: Which political party do you plan to support in your upcoming state primary election?

Democrat              

876

67.33%

Republican            

190

14.60%

Libertarian            

21

1.61%

Green                             

11

0.85%

Other                            

57

4.38%

Decline to Answer      

146

11.22%

Total Respondents    

1301

100.00%

Question Three: Based on your party support which candidate do you plan to vote for in the upcoming state primary election?  

Hillary Clinton     

525

51.62%

Bernie Sanders                   

224

22.03%

Donald Trump                  

76

7.47%

Sen. Ted Cruz               

21

2.06%

Jeb Bush                        

16

1.57%

Sen. Marco Rubio       

15

1.47%

Martin O’Malley          

10

0.98%

Sen. Rand Paul               

6

0.59%

Dr. Ben Carson                       

5

0.49%

Gov. Chris Christie      

4

0.39%

Carly Fiorina                

3

0.29%

Decline to Answer     

112

11.01%

Total Respondents     

1017

100.00%

Question Four: What is the most important issue to you in the 2016 presidential election?  

Islamophobia           

456

29.71%

Economy               

364

23.71%

Health Care            

221

14.40%

Civil Liberties             

103

6.71%

Foreign Affairs                    

95

6.19%

Education                       

86

5.60%

Other                        

78

5.08%

Decline to Answer     

132

8.60%

Total Respondents    

1535

100.00%

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is CAIR a Terror Group? – National Review Online

FBI Chart and Documents Portray CAIR as Hamas-Related

Council on American-Islamic Relations – Discover the Networks

U.S Spying on the Whole World, including their ‘Friends’

Spy craft, especially Electronic Intelligence or ELINT, is one of the tools of the trade used to collect information on enemy activities. It is also used to monitor allies’ activities. Nothing new there. Thus the latest release by Snowden from his base of operations in exile in Moscow lit up the left media. They spotlighted the latest episode of both Britain’s GCHQ and the NSA. GCHQ and NSA were partners in a nearly two decade operations endeavoring to obtain real time video feed from Israel drones and aircraft in operations over Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and possibly Iran.

1-2010 GCHQ hacked picture of IAI Heron TP with Missile

January 28, 2010 GCHQ hacked picture of Israeli Heron TP (Eitan) UAV with Missile.

If you read the underlying story in The Intercept about hacking video feed from Israeli drones with alleged off the shelf software. See: “Anarchist Snapshots: Hacked Images from Israel’s Drone Fleet”. It is more than apparent that the left media used the Snowden revelations about the “Anarchist” operation of GCHQ and NSA to show how vulnerable the Israeli drone capabilities may be to intercept of real time imagery uplinked from drones and fighter aircraft to satellites. Israel is the world’s leading developer and exporter of drones.  The Israelis are not the only ones vulnerable.  US drone activity in Iraq was intercepted by Saddam Hussein’s ELINT group during the Second Gulf War. Moreover, Iran as we saw in news reports and photos flying over the USS Harry Truman has its own drone capabilities and ELINT capabilities as does its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas.

“Anarchist” operations were based in a long term NSA complex at a former Royal Air Force base in the Trodoos Mountains of Cyprus.  The Intercept article reported that the GCHQ has been monitoring Israeli drone video feed since 1998. The atmospheric conditions from that ELINT base are such that it covers virtually most of North Africa and the Middle East.  The NSA listening post may have been involved during the USS Liberty incident in the June Six Days of War of 1967 coupled with airborne ELINT aircraft. The Intercept article describes instances of real time video feed in drone strikes by Israel in Gaza operations against Hamas beginning in 2009.  In one instance, the pictures are from a helmet heads-up display of an Israeli piloted F-16. One of the images captured by “Anarchist” purports to show an Israeli Heron TP  drone armed with missiles under its long wings conflated to be on a possible mission to Iran.

Israel official complaints about Snowden’s revelations from former Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz have focused on the long history of the Anarchist UK-US ELINT ops and recent revelations about U.S. spying on Israeli PM Netanyahu. The Jerusalem Post reported Steinitz saying:

We are not surprised; we know that the. That is disappointing, because for decades we have not spied, collected intelligence or attempted to crack the encryption of the United States.

IAI Heron TP Drone

Israeli Air Force Heron TP (Eitan) UAV.

Israel was alleged to have monitored U.S. negotiations of the nuclear pact with Iran.  It has been common knowledge that Israeli development and tactical use of drones may be the 21st Century offensive weapon of choice. In Israel’s case that is coupled with deep submergence air breathing attack submarines like the five Israeli Navy Dolphin submarines prowling the Arabian Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. They are equipped with both conventional and nuclear warheads, as well as covert intelligence ops capabilities for a second strike in the case of a nuclear attack. Moreover, there is the draconian capability of the Israeli Jericho III ICBM to launch a low yield nuclear warhead capable of creating an Electronic Magnetic Pulse against existential threats. That is Israel’s version of a MAD deterrent capability under the triple anti-rocket and missile shield composed of Iron Dome, David’s Sling and the jointly developed Arrow III, ABM system.

We have written about the Israeli drone prowess in NER articles and Iconoclast blogs over the past seven years.  In a 2009 Israeli strike against a convoy of Iranian weapons in the Sudan we noted in an NER article:

The London Times revealed in a later report that Israel may have used armed UAVs, the Hermes 450 manufactured by Elbit that is equipped with two Hellfire missiles.  A Hermes UAV squadron is based at Pachamim air base south of Tel Aviv.  Mossad may have developed the target intelligence. Further, the Israel Air Force may have used the larger Heron TP Eitan UAV with a wingspan of 110 feet to possibly refuel the Hermes UAVs. The Hermes 450 UAV can remain aloft for 24 hours, while the Eitan can stay up for 36 hours.

[…]

What should not be lost on Iran and the Sudan is that the alleged IAF raid on the convoy in January was within the same operational radius of approximately 700 nautical miles-equidistant from Jerusalem to both Port Sudan and Tehran.

When there was speculation in early 2012 about a possible strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities we interviewed Yediot Ahronoth intelligence columnist Dr. Ronen Bergman and had this exchange:

Gordon:  The recent crash of a heavy lift Hermes Drone, disclosed that Israel has the capability of reaching Tehran with UAV’s. Could Israel launch waves of drone attacks on Iranian Nuclear projects and missile sites with any degree of success?

Bergman:  The question refers to my remarks on using drones. I did not say and I didn’t mean that Israel is capable of launching a strategic strike using drones alone. Far from it; however, Israel is using drones for various surveillance and operational activities. These can be very useful in a possible strike. Deploying drones, especially drones that can stay in the air for 48 hours and carry a payload of up to one ton, would be a powerful weapon when you have many of these involved in a massive, coordinated strike over Iran.

Then there was the Israeli attack in 2012 on the Sudan Yarmouk weapons factory that prompted this comment about the use of Israeli drones equipped with the equivalent of the Boeing CHAMP missile capable of producing non-nuclear EMP effects in an Iconoclast blog post:

An AP story in a 2012 Washington Times report successful bomb damage assessment by a disputed IAF raid on the Yarmouk munitions factory near Khartoum in the Sudan drawn from satellite imagery studies.  As noted in the AP/Israel Hayom news story, “Satellite Images Shed Light on Sudan Weapons attack”, Israeli commentators confirmed our NER/Iconoclast assessment that Israel has the conventional capability to attack Iranian nuclear and missile development facilities.  As we commented in that post, Israel may also have unconventional means equal to recent US tests of new high energy electronics killer cruise missiles, as well.

Some Israeli commentators suggested that if Israel did indeed carry out an airstrike that caused the Sudan blast, it might have been a trial run of sorts for an operation in Iran. Both countries are roughly 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away from Israel, and an air operation would require careful planning and in-flight refueling.

Israel could have a new unconventional capability given Boeing’s development of the CHAMP cruise missile that could produce high energy non-nuclear EMP effects to take out electronics.  Note this recent Digital Journal report, “New cruise missile will fry electronic targets, change warfare”.

The three IDF operations against Hamas in 2009, 2012 and the 2014 fifty day summer war clearly demonstrated the prowess and accuracy of Israeli drones and aircraft Israeli military maintain disciplined silence about attack victories. For example Operation Orchard in 2007 that took out the Syrian plutonium reactor built with North Korean assistance and some believe paid for by Iran. Launching ground hugging cruise missiles with CHAMP capabilities from Hermes heavy lift drones in a swarming attack against Iranian nuclear facilities just could be Israel’s future prowess. It beats sending in young men and women in aging F-15s and F-16s in what could be suicidal missions.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

PODCAST: The War against the Infidels

LISTEN to this podcast of the January 10, 2016 Lisa Benson Show on KKNT 960 The Patriot.  Lisa Benson and New English Review Senior Editor Jerry Gordon co-hosted this show with the assistance of Board of Advisors member, Richard Cutting.

Col. Richard Kemp, (ret.) CBE, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and noted commentator on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, discussed why Israel is the outpost of civilization in the Middle east. He urged Queen Elizabeth to visit Israel in 2017, the 100th Anniversary of the liberation of Jerusalem from the Turks to honor ANZAC fallen.  He drew attention to British Prime Minister Cameron who has spoken before Israel’s Knesset and his designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.  He suggested that perhaps the Administration might follow suit.

He considers the Muslim Brotherhood as an evil organization seeking to spread Islamist hatred of Israel Europe and the West. Hamas he pointed out had links to the Muslim Brotherhood with objectives similar to that of ISIS.   An ISIS he said was spreading its barbaric Islamic doctrine across the Muslim Ummah from Syria and Iraq to North and sub-Sahara Africa and South Asia.

With regard to the resurgence of the Taliban in a 14 year war in Afghanistan with NATO forces, he said that some of it was attributable to the role of Pakistan intelligence service.  The Pakistanis and Afghans he noted are enemies.  He called attention to the internecine war between the Taliban and ISIS endeavoring to gain power as enemies of the democratic government in Afghanistan. A government plagued with corruption hobbling the country’s security forces.  He called attention to a generational long struggle against Islamist Jihadism in which the West cannot relax. It must stand up and fight.   He noted in passing that the US Administration has taken its eye off the ball with outreach to an enemy, Iran. He attributed some of the present difficulties in the Middle east and South Asia to both the pullout of US forces in Iraq and pull down of ISAF troops in Afghanistan.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka addressed the number one issue in polls taken of Americans, national security and domestic Islamic terrorism.  He suggested that the Administration had to jettison the canard of lone wolf terror acts. The Boston Marathon Bombers, the shooting in Chattanooga, the massacre in San Bernardino and the recent attempted murder of a police officer by a convicted felon and convert to Islam in Philadelphia he said was reflective of the connective tissue of Global Jihad doctrine. That doctrine viewed America and the West as antithetical to Jihadist aims.

He viewed the ability of the US and the EU to vett the millions of migrants and refugees flooding the west as well nigh impossible.  While referencing the intense scrutiny of his parents, refugees from the 1956 Hungarian rebellion against Soviet Communism, he suggested that could only be done under intense and repeated questioning by counterterrorism security echelons using a data base to check documents and bona fides.  He suggested that the US is hobbled by the lack of manpower and a data base to vett, for example, the stream of Syrian Refugees.

Having visited a Syrian refugee camp during the recent Christmas New Year’s holiday, he was struck with two takeaways. He commended the Kingdom of Jordan, without the resources of oil revenues of an incredible job of s country of 6 million handling an influx of 1.5 million Syrian refugees. He tasked the oil rich Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to offer financial and resettlement assistance.  He said there was no sense to send Syrians to the EU or the US. Rather it was incumbent on the contending powers, especially the US, to resolve the conflict, hereby enabling the Syrians in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon to return home.

Regarding the recent settlement between New York City and Muslim and civil liberties advocacy groups ending  the NYPD Muslim community profiling program, Gorka  said in a recent House Armed  Services Committee testimony  that after 9/11, the NYPD had been let down by Federal law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies. The NYPD he noted undertook to build perhaps the best counterterrorism intelligence and surveillance program to monitor and protect the Muslim community in New York against Islamist inroads. Effectively he commented to the House Committee that politics continued to get in the way of national security.

When asked about the current rising Sunni Shiite divide between Saudi Arabia and Iran, he referred to a comment from Israeli PM Netanyahu, who said it was a Game of Thrones pitting the Saudi Wahabbist Sunni Caliphate against the Mullahs of the Shia Mahdist Caliphate in Nuclear Iran.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

UK’s Cameron breaks with Obama on the Muslim Brotherhood

When even David Cameron, thoroughly compromised to Islamic supremacists and in near-total denial about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, is tougher than Obama on a stealth jihad group such as the Muslim Brotherhood, you know we’re in deep trouble.

MuslimBrotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood logo.

“UK breaks with U.S. on Muslim Brotherhood,” by Steve Emerson and Pete Hoekstra, Washington Examiner, December 24, 2015:

The United Kingdom broke from the largely complacent U.S. position on radical Islamists in a startling indictment of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

“Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities … run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs,” Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement. Cameron further states that “association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.”

As the West attempts to pinpoint potential terrorists, the Brits tell us where to look, and that is to the MB and its associates.

The new account — resulting from an 18-month-long exhaustive investigation by respected foreign policy experts — presents a brutally honest examination of the movement. In breaking from the U.S., the UK has shifted closer to Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia in identifying it as a terrorist organization.

The UK position sharply contrasts with that of the Obama administration, which sought to strengthen ties to the Brotherhood. Just a few years ago Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the MB as “largely secular…” and “which has eschewed violence.”

The Obama administration quickly condemned the UK report in an email to the IPT, citing the MB’s stated commitment to nonviolence and that pushing back against the organization would lead to the radicalization of a minority of its followers.

We’re not sure that they even read the report. Since founding the group in 1928, former schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna, “accepted the political utility of violence, and the Brotherhood conducted attacks, including political assassinations and attempted assassinations against Egypt state targets and both British and Jewish interests during his lifetime,” it says….

RELATED ARTICLES:

No Christmas celebration in Sudan: Muslims burn and demolish churches

India: Muslim abducts, tortures, sexually assaults woman, forces her to convert to Islam to marry him

Congressional Democrats Visit Radical Mosque in “Anti-Islamophobia” Act

In the wake of the California Islamist terrorist attack, a group of congresspeople visited the extremist Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia in an ‘show of solidarity’ with ordinary, non-extremist Muslims in America.

The idea for the visit was conceived before the California Islamist terror shooting but after the Paris attack. “We just thought it was really important to continue to reiterate to the many, many peace-loving Muslim Americans that they were still a welcome part of our community,” Representative Don Beyer (D-Virgina), one of the organizers of the visit, told The New York Times.

Speaking the day after the California attack and just one day before the visit, Beyer said, “Yesterday does make it a little harder. It’s just another unfortunate data point. So, I think it’s more necessary than ever to go talk to the people who have nothing to do with that [editor’s emphasis].”

Either Beyer and his group of lawmakers failed to research the history of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, or they are incredibly naïve. Both are enormous problems and speak volumes about the inadequate strategy currently in place in the United States government for weeding out radical Islamists before they wreak more havoc on an already traumatized country.

Dar al-Hijrah is one of the most radical Islamic centers in America. Its history of extremism dates back decades to one of its founders, Ismail Elbarasse, who was an assistant to a senior Hamas official. In 2002, a government document written by the Customs and Border Protection stated Dar al-Hijrah was “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” A December 2007 document says it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing.”

Click here for a complete history of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Other salient points about Dar al-Hijrah include:

  • Dar al-Hijrah’s imam from 2001 to 2002 was Anwar al-Awlaki, who later became a senior al-Qaeda operative. His sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers and Nidal Hassan, who carried out a terror shooting at Fort Hood in 2009.
  • It’s imam from 2003 to 2005, Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh justified Palestinian suicide bombings and  was a member of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood. He was previously the regional director of the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was labeled by the U.S. Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Terrorist organization because of its links to Osama Bin Laden and Hamas.
  • The current imam of Dar al Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed, said the teachings of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, are the “closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life.” He has also called for Muslims to arm themsleves for jihad (see video below).
  • In 2010 and 2013, radical texts teaching that Muslims are to wage violent jihad in order to resurrect the caliphate, destroy Israel and implement sharia governance were found at the mosque.

Watch Dar al-Hijrah Imam Shaker Elsayed call for armed jihad:

All congresspersons are equipped with numerous staff members who are specifically hired to do research for their employer. A simple Google search by one of them would have yielded the above information.

Perhaps for Rep. Beyer and his fellow Dar al-Hijrah visitors, these facts were just more “unfortunate data points.”

But for the majority of the population, including “peace-loving Muslim Americans,” who are concerned about the radicalized Islamists in our midst, these are data points that are too deadly to ignore.

To check if there is an extremist mosque near you, click here for Clarion Project’s Islamist Organizations in America project

ABOUT MEIRA SVIRSKY 

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Are We Defeating ISIS?

Trump Asks Us to Choose: The Boot or the Feather

Obama’s Take on Terror: The Good and the Bad

Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link