Posts

Joe Biden’s Policy: Set up and blame the Jews for his own failure

Lee Smith, writing in Tablet Magazine, describes the situation that Biden finds himself in since Russia invaded Ukraine. Given his weakness, Israel is now at the front and center of Russian-Ukraine war negotiations. Biden is putting Israel in the line of fire, as Smith points out.

At the end of last month, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called upon the Israeli government to “be quiet on Russia” and focus on Iran, the archenemy of Israel. While Israel has indeed been focusing on its interests, since it shares with Russia the common goal of wanting to oust Iran from Syria, Israel now finds itself with an albatross of a responsibility in the middle of a war.

Biden is the most disrespected president globally in the history of the United States. He is mentally deficient and highly dishonest. He oversaw a fiasco in Afghanistan, as well as with his immigration policy, and is now on the brink of another with the new Iran nuke deal, for which he gave all negotiating power over to Russia. He is completely lost regarding the war, after making a fool of himself by talking big about standing up to the “bully” Putin and threatening that Putin’s “days of tyranny” would be over once he became president.

Now Biden is on the defensive and will throw anyone under the bus. The State of Israel is a prime target. I wrote on March 16:

Israel is faced with a bigger risk than any other country would be taking on, by undertaking the role of mediating the two sides: the constant historic threat of antisemitism, which frequently manifests itself in the Jewish state being unreasonably blamed for every problem that goes wrong.

The historic scourge of antisemitism has escalated globally in recent years. We see it blatantly every time the Palestinians launch rocket attacks on Israel. The world expects Israel to do nothing, to allow itself to be annihilated in accordance with the Palestinian National Charter, the Hamas Charter, and the ambition of every jihadist in the world.

Israel is busy enough as is without taking on the role of mediator between Russia and Ukraine. It is resettling many Jewish refugees, and going far beyond that as well: fully 90% of the refugees arriving in Israel are ineligible to immigrate according to Israel’s Law of Return. And Israel has already made it abundantly clear that it is not about to abandon its own interests, given the ever-present existential threat to its Jewish nation. As reported previously on the Left Column: Israel’s “strategic interests in the Russia-Ukraine crisis cannot be ignored. Four months ago, Israel and Russia were collaborating on the common goal of ousting Iran from Syria, and established a ‘deconfliction hotline to keep the sides from getting tangled up and accidentally clashing over Syria.’”

The saving grace for Israel is if Bennett manages to strike a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. But the longer the war drags on with Israel remaining central to negotiations, the more the Jewish State risks being scapegoated by Joe Biden (and others). Israel’s enemies will be all too happy to join in Jew-bashing.

Biden Blames the Jews for His Ukraine Policy

by Lee Smith, Tablet Magazine, March 15, 2022:

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by assurances from China, Germany, and the United States that each of Russia’s major trading partners either backed his position or had zero interest in getting in his way. President Joe Biden’s invitations to Putin to bite off more chunks of Ukraine made it clear that America was not interested in a fight with the Russian dictator in his own backyard. Surely, the mighty Putin would make quick work of the Ukrainians. After all, he helped put down the Syrian rebellion to preserve Iran’s stake in Syria, and thereby sealed Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with the clerical regime in Tehran. So why make a big fuss, especially since at the same time Putin is intent on breaking Ukraine, he is also brokering the new Iran deal with U.S. negotiators in Vienna?

The problem for Biden is that Putin is not winning his war in anything like the quick and easy fashion that the White House and other world powers apparently expected. Moreover, the prospect of a dictator murdering thousands of Ukrainians in Europe in a prolonged war may be a tougher pill to swallow for so-called Western elites than the same dictator helping to murder half a million Syrians.

Biden’s position has thus become difficult, even with a captive media eager to read from a script in which the president of the United States bravely rallies NATO to do something, while in fact doing as close to nothing as politically possible. Luckily, the White House has a playbook for situations in which the contradictions between appearance and reality threaten to overwhelm the ever-changing storylines about who is responsible for, say, $6 per gallon gas. The playbook, like the Iran deal, is a legacy of the Obama administration, and a variation on an age-old incantation: “Blame the Jews.”

In the case of Ukraine, blaming the Jews might seem like a stretch—the Jewish state is a regional power in a region far from Ukraine. But senior Capitol Hill sources told Tablet that the Biden administration is trying to put Israel in the line of fire by pushing Jerusalem to mediate between Kyiv and Moscow. The point is to position Israel to catch the blame if Putin doesn’t relent, or the stubborn Ukrainians prove unwilling to surrender enough territory to end the war on terms that the Russian president finds acceptable.

Sources explain that the Israelis have reluctantly relayed messages between the two states but don’t want to get further involved, for two reasons: First, with Russian forces on their Syrian border, the Israelis don’t want trouble with Putin; second, they see that the White House is setting them up for failure by forcing them into taking a stand against Putin.

Team Biden’s PR offensive blaming Israel for the failure of two-faced U.S. policy has included Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland’s warnings to Jerusalem not to help hide “dirty money” belonging to Putin-allied oligarchs. Nuland also said that Israel should join the international sanctions regime targeting Russian assets—a regime that notably does not include world powers like China and India, which Nuland failed to mention.

The administration’s misdirection campaign also relied on Biden validators from the foreign policy establishment. Richard Haass and Aaron David Miller tweeted to the effect that if Israel wants to be an American ally, it should stand with America’s values, embodied by its moral stance toward Russia, which includes impoverishing ordinary Russians by crashing the ruble.

The coordinated operation to embroil Israel culminated in a story last week pushed out by the White House’s communications infrastructure inside Israel, whose lead publicist, Axios reporter Barak Ravid, proved his value during the Obama years. The story, which quickly went global, claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms of surrender. A “senior Ukrainian official claimed Bennett initiated the call,” according to an account sourced to an anonymous Ukrainian official and given to Ravid. The source claimed that Bennett “recommended Zelensky take the offer.”

Was the story true? The Ukrainian government said it was false, and moved to correct the record the next day. Zelensky adviser Mikhail Podolyak wrote on Twitter that Israel did not push the Ukrainians to accept the concessions Putin demanded to end the invasion. Zelensky’s adviser tweeted that Bennett, “just as other conditional intermediary countries, does NOT offer Ukraine to agree to any demands of the Russian Federation.” Instead, he wrote, “Israel urges Russia to assess the events more adequately.” He also pointed out that the source could not have been on the call, which was private, and was probably not in Ukraine.

But whether the surrender story is true or not, shouldn’t the Israelis be openly and proudly pro-Zelensky? Ukraine’s president has won the affection of decent—and smart—people the world over, who have festooned their Facebook pages and Twitter feeds with the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag. And he’s Jewish! Why doesn’t Israel join in?

The reality is that Israel has frequently stood up for Ukraine against Russia, and with little to show for it. But the issue in this case is simple: The Russian military is on Israel’s border, kind of like it was on Ukraine’s border before it invaded. The difference is that the Russian-Ukrainian border is a geographical fact. Russia is only on Israel’s border due to a geostrategic power play that Moscow implemented with the acquiescence of the U.S. political faction now trying to drive Israel toward conflict with Putin.

The purpose of the Biden team’s anti-Israel smear campaign is not just to make the Israelis look like they sympathize with a tyrant while offering to hide the blood money of their Russian co-religionists……..

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Russia: Muslim leaders issue fatwa quoting Qur’an to justify Ukraine invasion, say Muslims killed in it are ‘martyrs’

Germany: Critical research results on Islam banned and criminalized at universities

UK: Greater Manchester Police endorse ‘community event’ at mosque attended by jihad mass murderer

Pakistan: Christians concerned that new government body will increase Islamization of the country

Scotland: Hijabbed Muslim women in their 40s learning to ride bicycles, no discussion of safety issues

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Wrong Again

Patrick Kingsley is the Jerusalem Bureau Chief of the New York Times, who has a great deal of trouble getting his facts right about Israel and the Palestinians. He has had help from the rest of the resident staff, but that hasn’t rescued him from error. A report on the ineffable Kingsley is here: “How Many Helpers Does the New York Times Have to Hire for Error-Prone Jerusalem Bureau Chief?,” by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, February 14, 2022:

The New York Times’ error-prone Jerusalem bureau chief, Patrick Kingsley, is at it again.

A full page of Sunday’s New York Times was devoted to a Kingsley dispatch from the West Bank, with reporting “contributed by Rami Nazzal and Hiba Yazbek from Burin, Myra Noveck from Yitzhar and Givat Ronen, Jonathan Shamir from Tel Aviv, and Rawan Sheikh Ahmad from Haifa.” What did this team of error-prone chief Kingsley and five helpers come up with?

More mistakes. Kingsley and Co. report:

Settlers injured at least 170 Palestinians last year and killed five, UN monitors reported. During the same period, Palestinians injured at least 110 settlers and killed two, UN records show. The Israeli Army said that Palestinians had injured 137 Israeli civilians in the West Bank last year.

But if the numbers are roughly comparable, the power dynamic is different … Settlers, unlike Palestinians, have the protection of the military and are rarely in danger of losing the land they live on.

It’s not accurate that Israeli settlers “are rarely in danger of losing the land they live on.”

Let’s look at the history.

In 586 BCE, when the first Temple was destroyed, the Jews were deported to Babylonia.

After 70 CE, when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and sacked the Second Temple, the Jews dispersed to various places. They were expelled from England in 1290, from France in 1306, and from Spain in 1492. Those who settled in central and eastern Europe had their property seized from them by the Nazis and the Communists.

Jews kept being expelled from one country after another in Western Europe, “losing the land” they lived on, as well as whatever other property they possessed: from England in 1290, from France in 1306, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497. Those who lived in Central and Eastern Europe had centuries of persecutions an pogroms to contend with, losing their land and their lives during the Khmelnitsky Uprising in the Ukraine in the mid-17th century; Jews were again deprived of their land, and their lives, during the Nazi Holocaust; Jews again lost their property in Eastern Europe and Russia under the Communists.

In the land of Israel, Jews who lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and elsewhere in eastern Jerusalem had their property taken away by Jordan, which seized the territory in the war initiated by the Arabs in 1948 to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel.

Let’s also remember the 850,000 Jews who were either expelled or fled from Arab countries between 1948 and 1953. They lost their homes and land, their businesses, their property. That is why many Jews, including those in Israel, have internalized, as a kind of folk memory, the loss of their land over so many centuries, and in so many places.

Despite that history of Jews repeatedly having their land taken away from them, Patrick Kingsley insists that today’s Jewish settlers in Israel “are rarely in danger of losing the land they live on.” But that is not true, as the settlers well know.

Even the Israeli government has uprooted a series of settlements as part of a series of peace agreements.

In 1982, the Times itself reported that in turning over the Sinai peninsula to Egypt, Israel relinquished “16 civilian settlements.” The last of these was Yamit.

Tearfully but Forcefully, Israel Removes Gaza Settlers,” was the headline over another 2005 New York Times article. “By nightfall, the army said it had cleared the settlements of Morag, Bedolah, Kerem Atzmona, Ganei Tal, and Tel Katifa. Gadid, Peat Sadeh, Rafiah Yam, Shalev, Dugit and Nisanit were already empty or nearly so.”

Loss of land in Gaza, where 9,000 Jewish settlers were forcibly uprooted in 2005; loss of land, too, in the West Bank, where some settlements were also closed down by the IDF. And every single one of the half-million Israelis living in the West Bank has to worry about a “peace” that will establish a Palestinian state that will include all of the West Bank and Gaza – squeezing Israel back within the 1949 armistice lines. Of course they fear “losing the land they live on.”…

The Times’ formulation that “Violence has long been deployed by both Israelis and Palestinians” makes no distinction between illegal terrorist violence and lawful warfare.

Palestinian violence is deployed in terrorist attacks on Jewish men, women, and children. Israeli violence is deployed by the police and the IDF who track down, and arrest, or kill those same terrorists. These are not equivalent uses o violence. But Kingsley doesn’t appear to see the difference.

Kingsley needs to remember that Israel has faced both enemy states and terrorist groups; it has never been the aggressor. The day after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the armies of five Arab states invaded to snuff out the young life of the Jewish state. Israel has had to fight three wars for its very survival, in 1948, 1967, and 1973. It has also had to fight eight other campaigns: in the Sinai in 1956, to stop the attacks on Israeli civilians in the Negev by Egyptian fedayin; a campaign to oust the terrorist PLO from Lebanon; two wars against the terrorist Hezbollah, and four campaigns against Hamas terrorists in Gaza. It is the Arabs who have constantly rejected a peace deal with Israel. They rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947, and in response to Israel’s invitation to make peace with the Arabs after the Six-Day War, the Arabs answered with the “three Nos” of Khartoum:”No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel. Yasser Arafat walked away from a generous peace offer from Ehud Barak in 2000; Mahmoud Abbas walked away from an even more generous deal from Ehud Olmert in 2008. Since then Abbas has refused to deal unless Israel agrees that the “1967 borders” – that is, the 1949 armistice lines – will be the basis of negotiations.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians of Hamas, the PIJ, the PFLP, and those, too, who belong to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade of Fatah, carry on their terrorism against Israel. And the P.A. raises another generation to hate Israelis, and want to kill them, by continuing to use textbooks filled with antisemitic filth.. None of this Palestinian rejectionism, terrorism, and antisemitism, as Ira Stoll notes, makes it into Kingsley’s highly inaccurate reports. For him, it’s only the “occupation” and the “settler violence” that matters. There is scarcly a single report by Patrick Kingsley from Israel that has not had to be corrected. Given that record of bias and error, perhaps it’s time for the Times to replace him.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Adidas ad features Muslima who denounces ‘France’s obsession with banning the hijab and niqab’

Iran: Converts from Islam to Christianity begin prison sentences for spreading ‘Zionist’ Christianity

India: Islamic seminary says necktie is Christian emblem that is unlawful and against the Islamic spirit

Pakistan: Court frees brother who confessed to murdering his sister, a social media star, in honor killing

Report shows that the Islamic State transferred large sums of money through Turkey

Germany: Muslim leader justifies murder attempt, rails against ‘Jewish dogs’ on social media

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Lebanon and Kuwait ban Israeli actress Gal Gadot’s new movie because she served in the IDF

It is mandatory for every Israeli over 18 to serve in the army (Israeli Arabs have a choice to opt out). Why? Because Israel has been under the threat of jihadist obliteration since the day of its birth. Even before that, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, lead the Arab Revolt to keep Jews out of the region.

Gadot’s tweet below led to a firestorm back in May during Operation Guardian of the Walls, when Israel was left with no other alternative but to defend its citizens from a barrage of Hamas rocket fire:

To Israel’s antagonists, Israel does not deserve to live “as a free and safe nation.” In their view, Israel only deserves to be obliterated, as documented in the charter of every major Palestinian organization, and as is evident from the attack on Israel by surrounding Arab nations on the day of its birth. Those nations were of one accord….

“It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.”
— Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League,
October 11, 1947

Islamic antisemitism is rooted in Islam, and it spreads under the guise of opposing the State of Israel because of its status as an “occupying,” “apartheid” state, regardless of the falsity of these claims.

“Death on the Nile” banned in two Middle East countries over Gal Gadot’s Israeli military service

by Jesse O’Neill, New York Post, February 12, 2022:

Israeli movie star Gal Gadot’s new Hollywood film will reportedly not appear on the big screen in Lebanon and Kuwait due to her connection to the Israel Defense Forces.

“Death on the Nile” was being released in the rest of the Middle East over the weekend, according to Deadline.

Gadot, 36, served in the Israeli armed forces for two years, as is required of all young Israelis, before she entered show business.

It’s not the first time the former Miss Israel’s nationality has caused controversy as tensions persist between the two warring nations. Lebanon also blocked her “Wonder Woman” films over her IDF ties.

The ban was in accordance with a law that boycotts Israeli products and bars Lebanese citizens from traveling to Israel or having contacts with Israelis.

Kuwait banned “Death on the Nile” after a barrage of protests on social media, according to The Daily Mail, which cited the Arabic language newspaper Al-Qabas….

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: ‘Conditions no longer in place’ to fight jihadis in Mali

Burkina Faso: Muslims attack Catholic seminary, destroy cross, burn two dorms, classroom, and vehicle

Pakistan: Enraged Sunni Muslim mob attacks Shi’ite scholar for ‘blasphemy’

France: Muslims enraged over focus on Islam in upcoming elections

Saudi Arabia bombs telecommunication system in Houthi-held Sanaa

India: 49 Muslims convicted for 21 jihad bombings in Ahmedabad in 2008

UK petition demands government continue publishing number of daily illegal Muslim migrant entries  

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Frees Gitmo Terrorist Linked to Chanukah Murder of Israeli Children

He “can quote Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King like teenagers quote Taylor Swift.”

On Chanukah 2002, four Hercules planes bearing hundreds of people evacuated from Africa landed in Israel. The passengers included Israeli families who had been vacationing in Kenya, some alive, some wounded, and some children returning to their homeland in small coffins.

Now, Biden has decided to release Mohammed Abdul Malik Bajabu, an Islamic terrorist who, “participated in the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks”, from Guantanamo Bay..

2002 had been a bad year in Israel. 457 Israelis were murdered by terrorists in one of the worst years of the Islamic campaign of genocide against the country’s indigenous Jewish population. By the time fall came around, families in a terrorized nation were looking to get away from a year of suicide bombings, shootings, and brutal atrocities. Families, many working class, scrimped and saved to be able to afford a Chanukah trip somewhere safe out of the country.

On the eve of Chanukah, a group of Israeli tourists had just arrived at the Paradise Hotel in

Mombasa, while another group was flying back to Israel.

The Islamic terrorists timed their attack precisely: two missiles lifted off targeting the Israeli plane with 271 passengers and crew on board. The aircraft momentarily trembled, but few of the passengers noticed that anything had gone wrong. The missile damaged the plane’s tail, but the aircraft was able to continue flying on and landed safely with all of its passengers in Tel Aviv.

The Israeli captain thought that a bird had hit the plane.

The terrorist attack at the Paradise Hotel proved more successful. The booby trapped SUV smashed past a barrier to get through to the hotel. One of the terrorists wearing a bomb vest ran out shouting, “Allahu Akbar”, and blew up, and the driver smashed the vehicle into the hotel, while the remaining terrorist detonated the bomb inside filling the entrance with shrapnel.

A surviving video shows a final moment of a Paradise Hotel employee telling the Israelis, “Welcome to Africa”.

Two decades ago, Ayelet, then 15 years old, saw the carnage firsthand. “Everything was burning. I thought my sisters were inside the fire,” she told reporters.

When I contacted Ayelet today, she was shocked to learn that Bajabu would be released.

“Thank God, my family and I got back home safely from Mombasa, but I am sure that those who have lost their beloved children, parents or partners won’t be able to understand how come this kind of person is getting free.”

“I would like to see justice done,” Ayelet told me.

Few in America or Israel understand the manic obsession with which the Obama and Biden administrations have pursued the release of some of the worst Islamic terrorists on the planet. Some advocates have even tried to use false accusations of racism to justify their crusade.

Lee Wolosky, Obama’s point man for freeing Gitmo terrorists, recently argued, “If these detainees had been white and not brown or black, is there any realistic chance the United States… would imprison them without charge for decades?”

And yet the victims of the terrorists whom Obama and Biden have worked so hard to set loose were “brown or black”, Africans and Middle Eastern Jews, often poor or working class.

Albert de Havila, the tour guide leading the trip, a Jewish immigrant from Morocco, had been struggling financially. The trip was his opportunity to turn things around. He was killed where he stood in the lobby, his daughter, who later moved to America, was not injured.

Upstairs, the Anter family, who also originated from the Muslim world, was just getting settled. Rahamim Anter, who worked in a rope factory, had carefully saved money to take his three children somewhere safe to enjoy Chanukah after a year of murderous Islamic terrorism.

A week earlier, the family had celebrated Noy Anter’s 12th birthday. The trip had been a surprise from their parents for Noy, his fourteen year old brother Dvir, and their 8-year-old little sister.

Ora Anter, their mother, wanted to get some refreshments downstairs. The two boys joined her.

Noy had been excited to take his first trip out of the small country he had lived in all his life.

It was his final trip.

The Islamic terrorist attack killed Noy and his brother Dvir, described as a smart and shy boy, and left their mother Ora hooked up to a respirator.

“Suddenly there was an explosion. I jumped up and saw fire through the window. I ran outside and looked everywhere for them, trying with all my might to save them,” Rahamim described.

Mercy Neema Mwagambo, the hotel’s receptionist, was seeing to the guests when the bomb went off. Covered in burns, she crawled to the swimming pool and jumped in. The Israelis flew her and her mother, along with other wounded staff, out to a Jerusalem hospital.

Other hotel employees who were closer to the blast were not so lucky. Ten of them were killed.

“It was a giant explosion. I saw a lot of people injured, covered with blood,” one woman said.

Seven years later, a few days after the latest 9/11 anniversary, Operation Celestial Balance took out Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, Al Qaeda’s Somalia boss, and the FBI’s third most wanted terrorist.

After helicopters shot up the convoy, Seal Team Six went in and confirmed that Nabhan was dead. The Somali Al Qaeda leader had been linked to some of Al Qaeda’s earliest operations against America, the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the Paradise Hotel attack. The operation would later be seen as prep for getting Bin Laden.

A few years earlier, the Kenyans had already captured Mohammed Abdul Malik Bajabu and turned him over to the United States. And from there he was sent on to Gitmo.

According to Bajabu’s lawyer, he is a peace-loving man who “can quote Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King like teenagers quote Taylor Swift.”

That raises the question of which hotel full of Jews Martin Luther King have bombed.

A Gitmo terror threat assessment noted that Bajabu “admitted that he participated in the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks in Mombasa, which included the bombing-of the Israeli-owned Kikambala Paradise Hotel and a missile attack on an Israeli airliner.”

The peace-loving Bajabu who can’t stop quoting Gandhi was also allegedly “involved in a plot to attack the Kenyan Anti-Terrorism Headquarters located in Nairobi, and the Mombasa Marathon,with the intent of killing Americans and Israelis.”

Other terrorists said that they “discussed future operations at detainee’s home, to include potential attacks on US and Israeli Embassies”.

While no copies of Gandhi or MLK speeches were found at Bajabu’s home, the assessment noted that he “stored rockets, anti-aircraft missiles, explosives, and mines at his residence”.

After abortive discussions during the Obama administration about turning over Bajabu to the Israelis to face justice for the Chanukah massacre, the Biden administration is setting him free.

Bajabu’s lawyer claims that the terrorist has a “a large and loving family” in Somalia.

After the attack, Rahamim Anter called his brother, shouting, “I have no children. Noy ​​and Dvir have gone.”

The pro-terrorist leftist lawfare groups, like Human Rights Watch, that labored to help the terrorists are celebrating Bajabu’s release. There are no celebrations in Kenya or Israel.

The Paradise Hotel terrorist attack has left deep scars in both nations. Thirteen people, most of them Kenyans, were killed in the Paradise Hotel attack. Many others, including a number of other Israeli teenagers and children, were wounded. Some still live with the trauma to this day.

“I think these kinds of people should stay behind bars, not just for what they did, but for their intentions as well,” Ayelet told me. “I think that a long time won’t pass before he will do something like that again, the minute he will have the chance.”

Last year we learned that 229 former Gitmo detainees had returned to terrorism. And yet last month, Biden complained that the defense spending bill prevented him from closing Gitmo.

Bajabu is one of five Islamic terrorists freed by Biden from Guatanamo Bay. The radical administration is determined to free as many of the enemy as possible to kill again.

“Today’s decision is wonderful news,” the terrorist’s lawyer declared, and claimed that his client “longs to be reunited with his family.”

That is a privilege forever denied to the families of his victims.

Biden has relentlessly exploited the death of his son for political gain, but he has shown no empathy for the losses and suffering of the children killed by the terrorists he is protecting, whether in the Palestinian Authority, in Hamas, or even in our custody in Guantanamo Bay.

Rahamim Anter said that he had taken his family on vacation, “to look for calm far from the intifada to take the children on safari, but I brought back their little bodies to put them in the ground”.

When Biden addressed the anti-Israel J Street lobby group, he closed with a poem by Seamus Heaney,  “History says, Don’t hope, On this side of the grave, But then, once in a lifetime, The longed-for tidal wave, Of justice can rise up.”

Whatever justice comes to the Islamic terrorists of Gitmo and to their victims whose coffins rode those four planes on a Chanukah two decades past, it will not come on this side of the grave.

Or at least not if Biden and his pro-terrorist administration have anything to say about it.

After the attack, the Israeli Defense Minister had vowed that the “killers of children” would face a reckoning. “Our hand will reach them.”

Biden, his radical regime, the multitude of lawyers who lobbied for the terrorists, hoped to help Bajabu, but they may have instead ensured that he faces justice on “this side of the grave.”

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Mentally unstable,’ ‘Poor teacher’s son’ – how the media whitewashes Islamic terrorists  

Before Afghanistan: The Somalia Debacle (Part One)

Erdogan Triumphs as Putin Stabs His Own Best Ally in the Back

Texas synagogue jihadi said last year: ‘I want to kill Jews,’ cops did nothing

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. ambassador to Israel: ‘The Biden administration believes it must take care of the Palestinian people’

At his first interview with the Israeli media in early January the new American ambassador was asked If he would be visiting any of the settlements. No, he said, “I absolutely will not.” This went over well in the Muqata in Ramallah, but left most Israelis feeling a blend of amazement, chagrin, and fury.

There was more to come. “New US envoy says ‘absolutely won’t’ visit settlements, to avoid inflaming tensions,” by Jacob Magid, Times of Israel, January 14, 2022:

Pointing to another difference between the current and previous American administrations, the US ambassador said, “The Biden administration believes it must take care of the Palestinian people. That is the difference between us and the Trump administration.”

“The Biden administration believes it must take care of the Palestinian people”? Since when did that become an American duty? We have no historic connection to, no special affection for, no duty towards, the soi-disant “Palestinian people,” who, thanks to UNRWA’s ever-increasing largesse, are better provided for than any of the hundreds of millions of real refugees created since World War II.

Some of us – the better-informed some of us — don’t accept the existence of a separate “Palestinian people” whom Ambassador Nides thinks we must “take care of.” We know that their invention was a propaganda effort, suggested to Arafat by the KGB. The head of the Palestinian terror group As-Saiqa, Zuheir Mohsen, explained in an interview he gave to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977: “Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation […] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.”

Mohsen repeated – and reinforced — the point: “The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.”

Nides may think “we have to take care of the Palestinian people,” but many will reject – as you and I do – both parts of that bizarre proposition.

Nides pointed to Biden’s renewal of hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians that was cut by Trump, amid Ramallah’s refusal to engage with his administration.

Asked if he’s had any meetings with Palestinian officials since his arrival, the envoy admitted that he had yet to cross the Green Line, but said he well might do so in the coming weeks if asked.

While the Palestinian Authority has renewed its ties with the Biden administration, it has maintained an overall boycott of the US embassy, objecting to its relocation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The boycott hasn’t always been maintained though, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas has met with the head of the embassy’s Palestinian Affairs Unit George Noll — which operates in lieu of the Jerusalem Consulate that Trump shuttered in 2019.

Nides repeated the Biden administration’s assertion that the US plans to reopen the consulate that historically served as the de facto mission to the Palestinians. However, he did not provide any additional details, including a timeline for when the matter will be seen through.

Biden is a year into his term as President, and while he promised to reopen the consulate to the Palestinians very early on, it looks as if it’s not going to happen. Biden has a lot on his plate: a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine, a Chinese threat to Taiwan, the North Korean missiles, the endless wrangling with Iran in Vienna. The Palestinians are small beer. The Abraham Accords show how little they matter to the other Arabs. He’s already thinking of the 2024 election, his sinking numbers in the polls, and likely Democratic losses in 2022. Why unnecessarily antagonize Israel’s supporters by trying – in vain — to reopen that consulate to the Palestinians in east Jerusalem?

Besides, Biden would need to obtain the approval of Israel to open that consulate, and he knows that under the Vienna Convention of 1963, to which both Israel and the US are signatories, a consulate cannot be opened without the agreement of the host state. A unilateral reopening of the consulate would contradict the convention, custom, and common sense. Both Prime Minister Bennett and Foreign Minister Lapid have insisted that Israel will never give such approval. Biden is stuck.

And the Bidenites have gotten the message.

Three sources familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel last month that Washington has effectively decided to shelve plans to reopen the consulate amid strong Israeli resistance to the move. The news has deeply angered PA leaders, who warned ToI [Times of Israel] that the move would have consequences on US-Palestinian relations moving forward.

Oh dear. America, you have been warned. There will be “consequences on [sic] US-Palestinian relations” if that consulate is not reopened. What might they be? Will the Palestinians refuse to cash those generous checks the Bidenites have been sending to Ramallah? No one in the U.S. will be losing sleep over that.

Nides asserted that despite declarative efforts to reopen the consulate, “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the American ambassador works and lives there.”

Beyond that, he said that the US hopes the final status of Jerusalem will be determined through direct negotiations between the parties.

I hate to break it to Ambassador Nides, but the “final status” of Jerusalem was decided some 3000 years ago, when it became the center of Jewish life, the place where Jews lived uninterruptedly for thousands of years. There have been updates to the story since, as the city changed rulers, but not its central significance to Jews. The last major change was in 1980, when the modern state of Israel formally annexed all of Jerusalem. Its “status” is not subject to “negotiations between the parties.” Sorry, Mr. Ambassador. No can do.

As for the Biden administration’s support for Israel more broadly, Nides characterized it as “unconditional.”…

“Unconditional”? Not if the Bidenites are willing to violate the Taylor Force Act and provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the P.A. despite its continuing to reward past, and incentivize future, terrorist acts through the “Pay-For-Slay” program that is Mahmoud Abbas’ proudest achievement. Not if it is willing to let the PLO, which has Israeli blood on its hands, reopen an office in Washington.

“Unconditional”? Not If the Biden Administration refuses to admit that Israel has a very strong claim to retain all of Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank), based on Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, which encourages “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land that the League of Nations assigned to the Palestine Mandate for the Jewish National Home. That land extended from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. Have the Bidenites read, and understood what the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine signifies? Are they aware that Article 80 of the U.N. Charter committed the U.N. to fulfill the requirements of any League of Nations mandates still remaining? Does Biden, does Blinken, does Sullivan understand that Resolution 242 of the U.N. Security Council allowed Israel to retain the territory it deems necessary in order to have “secure [i.e. defensible] and recognized boundaries”? I have an awful feeling that Ambassador Nides has paid no attention to, inter alia, the Mandate for Palestine, the Treaty of San Remo, Article 80 of the U.N Charter, and Resolution 242 of the Security Council. It’s time, Ambassador Nides, for you to hit the books, and burn the midnight oil.

“Some of the conversations are meant to calm your anxiety. If I were Israeli, I would be anxious too. I respect that with all my heart,” Nides said.

They’d be a little less anxious in Israel, Mr. Ambassador, If you’d do the right and handsome thing, and announce that “upon reconsideration, I intend to visit the five settlement blocs that Israelis keep telling me, will remain part of Israel, whatever else may be subject to negotiation. Yes, I’d like to see some things in the West Bank for myself. And I will.”

Impotent rage from the rais in Ramallah, feeling betrayed. Quiet satisfaction in Jerusalem. A highly desirable denouement.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Terror Regime: Biden Halted Terror-Vetting Procedures Which Would Have STOPPED Texas Jihadi From Entering the Country

Palestinians refer to Jesus in terms reserved for jihad terrorists

After synagogue incident, Muslim spokesmen ignore Islamic antisemitism, focus on ‘Islamophobia’ and criticize Israel

Why Was Texas Synagogue Jihadi Allowed Into U.S. Two Weeks Ago Despite ‘Long Criminal Record’?

In Wake of Texas Synagogue Hostage-Taking, Anti-Defamation League Warns Against ‘Islamophobia’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Is Anti-Israelism Included in Antisemitism?

“Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality.”  – Edgar Allan Poe


In my controversial novel, The Second Catastrophe:  A Novel About a Book and its Author, the protagonist is a Professor, son of a Holocaust Survivor, who writes a book during the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada, claiming that a Second Holocaust has begun.  He perceives that the genocidal nature of Iranian, Islamist and Arab attitudes to the Jewish Homeland, and the empathy of Western leftists with Arab and Iranian threats, along with the double standards used with respect to the Jewish state, are beyond mere dislike, and are approaching exterminationalism, fortunately stopped to date by Israeli military superiority.

How else can one understand the successes of the so-called Palestinians, where every evil act of terrorism increases support in Europe, America, and particularly in the universities, for the murderers, who in the world of intersectionality, are allowed to be “the oppressed” rather than the “oppressors”.  Every time the Palestinians get to set the “narrative” by controlling the meaning of words like “occupied”, “oppressed”, “apartheid” and succeed in using words like “protest” to describe violent riots, then Israel and its friends lose another battle in this endless war about words where Hasbara seems almost as important as missile defense.

The writings on antisemitism are endless;  the purpose of this contribution is to focus on contemporary attempts to split off anti-Israelism from the term antisemitism, so that genocidal attempts to create a second Holocaust can be viewed as having nothing to do with antisemitism.   These attempts now come mainly from the Left, while so many Jews are locked into an atavistic framework where they say the only threats come from neo-Nazis and white nationalists, where it is obvious to me that the threats today are from leftist groups, together with their intersectional friends in BLM, and politicians in the U.S. like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who bring anti-Israel antisemitism to the younger supporters of the Democratic Party there.

I fear that a bright young 18 year old in the West who has ambitions to be a political and/or cultural leader, will, after a period of looking around the university, become a latter-day Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, a leader of the 1848 French Revolution, who is reputed to have declared, “There go my people.  I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.”   Today, they are eager to become “progressives” which involves anti-Israelism, rather than conservatives, because not many students want to conserve a world which the media has labeled “right wing”, especially when the best jobs are in the now-woke corporations, like High Tech censorial Zuckerberg’s and in education and government.

When the University of Toronto became the first university to host the bizarre “Israel Apartheid Week”, I wrote to then university President Naylor pointing out that whatever one thinks of Israeli responses to Arab terrorism and advocacy of genocide against Jews, the word “Apartheid”, given its essential ingredient in South Africa being complete separation of races, was in no way what is happening in Israel.  There, Arab doctors work alongside Jewish doctors, Jewish and Arab patients receive equal medical care in adjoining beds, universities like Haifa University have one-third Arab students, and  those Arabs who are willing (mostly Druze) serve in the army, the diplomatic corps and as Judges, alongside their Jewish colleagues.  After the last election, Israel now has an Arab party in the governing coalition, whatever one thinks of that..

I wrote to him that a political dispute, whether as the Left says, is a dispute over land, or whether it is, as the Right says, an unwillingness by Islamists to allow a Jewish presence on any land ever controlled by Muslims, is not helped by distortion of facts.

I wrote to President Naylor (whose background was Medicine) that the issue was not one about free speech or diversity of opinion but was in my view one about the intellectual standards to be enforced by the University before allowing its space to be used for such an event.  I asked him: “Would you allow a conference to take place at the University called “All U. of T. Professors are Fascists”?   I suggested that he would not, and the reason is that we require our universities to meet certain standards of truth as to the facts underlying opinions.  Otherwise, distorted facts and distorted opinions  might well conduce, in this case, to the ideology of anti-Semitism. University events about Israel and the Jewish people using double standards, demonization or delegitimization, are anti-Semitic and there is no reason for the University to provide support.

Of course, I was unsuccessful in my argument, and now “Israel Apartheid Week” has spread to many if not most universities in Canada and the United States.  At the same time, anti-Semitism sweeps the west and while Islamist Muslims hunt everywhere for evidence of “Islamophobia”, anti-Semitism in the West remains the most prevalent form of racial hatred.

As the University of Toronto refused to even discuss the issue with me, I became ashamed of my two degrees and returned them for cancellation. My background as a Lawyer, Historian and child of a Holocaust Survivor obviously makes me more sensitive than most people to certain ideologies and certain facts.

IN 2004, the great Soviet Jewish refusenik Natan Sharansky made yet another contribution to world Jewry. In a seminal essay in Jewish Political Studies Review, he outlined an important conceptual approach to antisemitism.   He started his essay thus:

“When I was a dissident in the former Soviet Union, one of my regular activities was monitoring anti-Semitism, and smuggling out evidence and records of such activity to the West. I believed then that the free world, particularly after the Holocaust, would always be a staunch ally in the struggle against anti-Semitism.”

“Unfortunately, I was wrong. Today, as a minister in the Israeli government in charge of monitoring anti-Semitism, I find myself regularly summoning the ambassadors of West European states to protest anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in their countries and the often meek response of their governments…

“Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state. Since this anti-Semitism can hide behind the veneer of legitimate criticism of Israel, it is more difficult to expose. Making the task even harder is that this hatred is advanced in the name of values most of us would consider unimpeachable, such as human rights.

And so Sharansky came up with his “3D test” to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism, as follows:

“The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

“The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

“The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.”

Sharansky was particularly concerned about the antisemitism coming out of Muslim nations.

The extent to which his 3D Test is discussed less and less is the extent to which anti-Israel ideologues wish to separate anti-Israelism from its ideological foundation in antisemitism.

The next major initiative defining antisemitism arose from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Founded by a Swedish politician  IHRA’s membership consists of 35 member countries, “each of whom recognizes that international political coordination is imperative to strengthen the moral commitment of societies and to combat growing Holocaust denial and antisemitism.”

The IHRA seeks to use trusted experts to “share their knowledge on early warning signs of present-day genocide and education on the Holocaust. This knowledge supports policymakers and educational multipliers in their efforts to develop effective curricula, and it informs government officials and NGOs active in global initiatives for genocide prevention.”

So far, so good.   However, how does the IHRA define antisemitism and does it follow Sharansky’s concerns including the 3D test?

The IHRA says it  worked to build “international consensus around a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism. Note that this is “non-legally binding” and it is a “working definition”.

In 2016, it set out its working definition this way:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Where is the recognition that current antisemitism is connected to anti-Israelism?  The IHRA instead of mentioning the 3Ds as an integral part of the definition only gave as an example “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”, whatever that means, but it is sure to note that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

It did give 11 examples in total, and 6 of these examples related to Israel:

  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Whether omitting Israel from the definition itself, detracts from the mentioning of 6 examples is a good question.  But it seems to me that the IHRA was starting to feel the heat from so-called “progressive” organizations, including Jewish ones, because it noted in January 2021 that certain groups identified as the Progressive Israel Network were opposed to the codification of the working definition with its examples due to the “potential for misuse”.   The groups were:  Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror North America, Hashomer Hatzair World Movement, Jewish Labor Committee, J Street, New Israel Fund, Partners for Progressive Israel, Reconstructing Judaism and T’ruah.”Pledging that they “care deeply” for the State of Israel, they stated:

“the effort to combat antisemitism is being misused and exploited to instead suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights. In particular, the effort to enshrine in domestic law and institutional policy the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, with its accompanying “contemporary examples,” risks wrongly equating what may be legitimate activities with antisemitism.

“This effort has created opportunities for abuse and politicization by the outgoing Trump administration and others, undermining the moral clarity of the effort to dismantle antisemitism.

“We respect the original creation of the IHRA Working Definition as an illustrative tool and as part of a larger and ongoing conversation about the nature of antisemitism. While we maintain no substantive objection to the core definition itself, our concern with its adoption as a legal tool is with the IHRA definition’s “contemporary examples,” which have been included as integral to the definition. We fear its adoption in law or policy at the state, federal and university level and in corporate governance has the potential to undermine core freedoms, and in some cases already has. For this reason, the Progressive Israel Network opposes the codification in US law or policy of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.”

And so, we see that the groups that call themselves “progressives” (but who I call “regressives”) are attempting to cleanse definitions of antisemitism of any reference to anti-Israelism despite Sharansky’s work..  It bothers me that we tolerate such groups claiming that they are Progressives, and that they stand for “progress.”  Treating the Jewish Homeland as the (hated) Jew amongst the nations is indeed antisemitic.   Tolerating the United Nations Human Rights Council with its explicit agenda to uniquely punish the Jewish people is also antisemitism, but the progressives ignore it at the same time as they “virtue signal” that they care deeply about Israel – which is surrounded by Iranian terrorist proxies and bloodthirsty Palestinians urged by the dictator Mahmoud Abbas again just this week to continue their “martyrdom” operations against Jewish civilians.

These “progressives” argue that former Secretary of State Pompeo’s declarations that  “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism” and that “the Global BDS Campaign [is] a manifestation of anti-Semitism” represent a harmful “overreach”. They say that this overreach is primarily aimed at shielding the present Israeli government and its occupation from all criticism.  And they allege that such is made possible by the use of the Working Definition’s “contemporary examples.”

Alas, the Progressive network is so concerned with “overreach” that it fails to understand that in Israel’s neighborhood,  under reach could be fatal.  Jews have for so long been treated hatefully that sometimes, like abused persons, we sometimes blame ourselves inordinately: the Jewish right to live trumps the Jew-haters right to incite the death of another six million Jews in a Second Shoah, this time in our homeland.  The clever students studying political theory, gender studies, and sociology, don’t know what the Torah says to do about Amalek and think that toleration of evil will somehow turn out well.  (See my book, Tolerism:  The Ideology Revealed.)

In a world where they practice “cancel culture” the Progressive network says that they insist that activists and academics that they support must have the right to express a wide range of political opinions without fear of being suppressed or smeared by the government. This includes critiques of the legitimacy of Israel’s founding or the nature of its laws and system of government.    But it is only the anti-Israel positions of the radical left and its intersectional allies that are so supported by the progressives that they want them to be featured in any definition of antisemitism.  It is only the progressives who view Israel’s very founding (and thus its existence”) as a “racist” endeavor.

I must say that I trust Sharansky’s work more than theirs.   The fight against the vile BDS which if not countered and defeated could jeopardize the existence of the State of Israel, now surrounded by Iranian terrorist proxies and threatened with annihilation by the apocalyptic Iranian Mullahs.   These groups would be trusted more if they would be as concerned with Israel hatred in the United Nations and the grave security threats exacerbated by anti-Israelism becoming the norm rather than the exception in Europe.

Most mainstream Jewish organizations belong to  the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in which 51 of its 53 member-groups have adopted the definition for their own use.

But to the progressives the mere mention of Israel in the examples as opposed to the more narrow 39 word text was enough to arouse their anger, showing the deep divide between the mainstream and the anti-Israel, pro BDS progressives.   For example, Morriah Kaplan, strategic director at IfNotNow, which is focused on opposing the Israeli “occupation”, said of the organizations backing the definition, “these are not people I trust to go after antisemitism.”

The progressives tend to be those who we might term Trumpophobes, who could not accept any of Trump’s policies towards Israel or domestically to be valid.  Since these progressives religiously are Reform, Reconstructionist, secular, or Renewal, the fact that Trump has an Orthodox Jewish daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren was not a reason to support Trump but to dislike him.   Perhaps they sense that he is more certain than they are to have Jewish grandchildren.

Historian Deborah Lipstadt has been nominated to fill the vacant U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy for Combating and Monitoring Anti-Semitism.  However her nomination has been held up due to some intemperate highly political comments she made.  She, like so many Democrats, has been unable to put aside her Trumpophobia and keep politics out of the fight against anti-Semitism.   As Jonathan Tobin recently noted in an essay in Jewish News Syndicate: Lipstadt may have deserved the post, but no one should be under any illusion that the decision didn’t have a lot to do with her willingness to play the partisan in 2020 by endorsing a shameful ad from the Jewish Democratic Council of America that likened the Trump administration to the rise of Nazi Germany. She followed that up by co-authoring an op-ed in The Washington Post in which she compared those who raised questions about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election to Holocaust-deniers.   Tobin, although supportive of Lipstadt, acknowledged that she is an example of how “politics and combating anti-Semitism don’t mix”.

The intermarriage rates in America are now so high amongst progressives, there is a serious schism between the Orthodox and the Reform.  (The Conservative or Masorti movement seems to be in a state of terminal decline) which is based on fundamental Halachic differences in addition to the views on Israel and antisemitism.  Another is that progressive Jews and many in the mainstream view the modest number of extremists on the right, including white supremacists and neo-Nazis, as more of a problem than the antisemitism and anti-Israelism of the Left, including the intersectional Blacks and Islamists.   The Left do not see the long term threat to our children and grandchildren posed by anti-Israel students, including Muslim Islamists whose aggressive behaviour is a feature of American universities.  The Jewish Federations of North America sent a memo to the new Biden administration, outlining the organization’s priorities for fighting antisemitism. The document listed ISIS and Al Qaeda as threats to American Jews, but did not name right-wing antisemitism.   The progressives were very upset.   For example, Rabbi Alissa Wise, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace, which is anti-Zionist and supports the BDS Movement, said that seeing anti-Israel college students as more of a threat that right-wing antisemitism was to her “unconscionable”.

Public opinion polls show that American Jews are so inward looking that 75% said in an American Jewish Committee survey last year that the political right posed a serious antisemitic threat, compared to 32% who said the same about the political left.

“The IHRA definition is the most authoritative and internationally accepted definition of antisemitism,”  said William Daroff, chief executive of the Conference of Presidents, as quoted by Forward .

But critics say that the definition is now being weaponized to shut down “legitimate” criticism of the Israeli occupation (sic) of what they call the West Bank and Israel’s friends call Judea and Samaria.

The progressives cannot tolerate even the mildest support for Israel, which recognizes that the Trump Plan for middle east peace and the Abraham Accords were together the best future for all.  The “Peace to Prosperity” plan called for a demilitarized Palestinian state in all of Gaza, roughly 70% of the West Bank, and portions of Israeli land near those two territories. Roughly 30% of the West Bank would become part of Israel. The plan also called for wide scale economic cooperation across the region and a $50 billion investment to help Palestinians improve their education system, create 1 million new jobs, and establish reliable government institutions.  The full plan can be seen here.

The fight over the definition of antisemitism and how much anti-Israelism is part of that antisemitism, is a sad commentary on the disunity of American Jewry.  The election polls tell us that 70% of Americans in their support of Biden/Harris do not recognize the centrality of Israel,  After the ill-fated Oslo Accords and the terrorism that Israel suffered as a result, Israelis moved politically to the right. An America whose Jews have, at the same time,  moved to the left reflects that a hatred for Trump exceeds their love for Israel.

Hopefully they will start to understand that in Israel, the progressives have, according to Mordechai Nisan’s brilliant book, suffered The Crack-up of the Israeli Left. We can only hope that, like so many totalitarian regimes, based on lies, their movement that aims to hide the antisemitism inherent in anti-Israelism, will also end up in the dustbin of history.

©Howard Rotberg. All rights reserved.

Ocasio-Cortez: Comes the Moment to Decide

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the infamous group of four Congresswomen known as the “Squad,” which includes two Muslims — Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, and Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American – and Ayanna Pressley. Tlaib and Omar are consistently, virulently, anti-Israel; Ocasio-Cortez just a tad less so in her public pronouncements. She did not vote “No” with Tlaib and Omar on a bill to provide extra funding to Israel for its Iron Dome anti-missile defense, but after voting “Present,” she proceeded, in a fit of remorse, to have a good cry in Congress about that very vote.

Now it turns out that a recently-hired legislative assistant in her office, one Hussein Altamimi, has made some outrageous and false claims about Israel on Instagram.. Ocasio-Cortez has been asked to discharge him. Robert Spencer discusses the case here, and an additional report on Altamimi’s accusations against Israel, and the call on Ocasio-Cortez to fire him, is here: “ZOA calls on Ocasio-Cortez to fire staffer who called Israel ‘racist European ethnostate,’” JNS, January 7, 2022:

…”Hussain Altamimi has made false, hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel accusations on Instagram,” ZOA national president Morton Klein said in a letter sent to Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday [Jan.5}. He added that Altamimi’s “vitriolic posts are likely to add to the atmosphere of anti-Semitism and hatred that has fueled increasing, frightening, violent attacks on Jews in New York and throughout the United States.”

Fox News reported that Altamimi, who joined Ocasio-Cortez’s office in November, shared on his Instagram story on Dec. 24 a post from an account called “Let’s Talk Palestine,” which falsely accused Israel of “apartheid” and of having a “racial hierarchy.” Altamimi accompanied the post by writing: “Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!”

In his letter to Ocasio-Cortez, Klein insisted that “the racist dictatorship in the area is the Palestinian Authority.”

As he explained, “the Palestinian Authority states that no Jews will be allowed to live in their entity; condemns Arabs to death for selling property to Jews; and pays Arabs’ lifetime pensions to murder Jews and Americans. The P.A. also names schools, streets and sports teams after Jew-killers.”

Klein said the ZOA urges Ocasio-Cortez to fire Altamimi, as well as “publicly condemn these hateful odious remarks” made by him.

Well, let’s see. Hussein Altamimi’s remarks are certainly unpleasant – “hateful” and “odious,” according to Morton Klein – but are they true? Altamimi first posted, with evident approval, a statement he came across at the site “Let’s Talk Palestine,” that accused Israel of being an “apartheid” state and of having a “racial hierarchy.” So forgive us the need to repeat, endlessly, the same rebuttal as we have posted a dozen times before.

In Israel, Arabs sit in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court, go abroad as ambassadors for their country. An Arab party, Ra’am, is part of the current governing coalition. The chairman of Israel’s largest bank, Bank Leumi, is an Arab. Jews and Arabs study together in universities, work in the same offices and factories, provide care to Jewish and Arab patients, and receive treatment from Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses, in the same hospitals. Jews and Arabs play on the same sports teams and in the same orchestras. They act together on the stage, on television, and the movies. None of that would be possible in a real “apartheid” state as South Africa was until the 1990s. There is only one difference in the treatment of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Jews must, while Arabs may, serve in the military.

Is there a “racial hierarchy” in Israel? Do Jews lord it over Arabs? Nowhere, and in nothing. There is complete legal equality between Jew and Arab, Muslim and non-Muslim. There are no professions in Israel that Arabs cannot practice, unlike the Palestinians in many Arab lands, such as Lebanon, where they are shut up in camps, and prohibited from practicing dozens of professions.

Altamimi accompanied that post from “Let’s Talk Palestine” by writing in his Instagram: “Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!” Is Israel a “European ethnostate”? This is one of the staples of Palestinian propaganda – that “the Jews” all came to Israel from Europe, and are not indigenous to the Middle East; they have no business laying claim to any part of Israel. But we know that Jews have been living continuously for 3000 years in the Land of Israel; there is extensive archaeological evidence – pottery, coins, scrolls from the Dead Sea, ancient synagogues, mosaics, and so much more – of that Jewish presence. And Jews were not only in Eretz Israel, but spread from there across the Middle East and North Africa and into Europe. The Jews who remained in the Middle East and North Africa are called Mizrahi Jews; there is nothing “European” about them; in 2005 61% of Israeli Jews claimed Mizrahi or part-Mizrahi ancestry.

Less than one-third of Israeli Jews claim Ashkenazi or part-Ashkenazi ancestry, which would link them to Europe. Of course even those Ashkenazi Jews did not originate in Europe; like all Jews, they originated in the Land of Israel; through the centuries some Jewish populations appeared in Europe The only reason for Hussein Altamimi to make his preposterous claim that Israel is a “European ethnostate” is that he wants to deny the indigeneity of the Jews, the claim that they originated in the Land of Israel,, and are not outside invaders who came as European conquerors to the Middle East. There are whole museums of archaeology and anthropology that offer incontrovertible evidence that Altamimi has it wrong. But his narrative depends on the “white, European, colonial-settlers” coming from outside, arriving in Palestine where, in his narrative, the Muslim Arabs have been living for thousands of years, and proceeding to “steal their land.” No one has been able, for obvious reasons, to find any evidence of that Muslim Arab presence before the seventh century A.D., about 2300 years later than the Jews first appeared in the Land of Israel.

Hussein Altamimi claims that “Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!” Which is the indigenous population – the Arabs who came out of Arabia in the seventh century and conquered large swathes of the Middle East and North Africa, or the Jews who since 3000 B.C. had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel? The Jews did not “steal [the Arabs’] land. It was the Jews who were dispossessed of their land by various conquerors – Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman Turk – but who finally, in the 20th century, were encouraged by the ideology of Zionism to return to the Land of Israel, not to “steal land,” but to buy it from Arab and Turkish landowners. The sums the Jews spent in this effort were exorbitant: in 1941, Jews buying scarcely arable land in Mandatory Palestine were paying more to their Arab owners than was then being charged for the richest farmland in the world, in Iowa. The Palestine Mandate, Article 6, calls on the holder of the Mandate, Great Britain, to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage “close settlement by Jews on the land.” In addition, “state and waste lands” were to be made available for Jews to settle on. The only time that Israel took land that it did not buy, or inherit as “state and waste land,” was in the immediate aftermath of the 1948 war. Arabs who had left the area, having been encouraged to do so by Arab broadcasts that promised that if they left the places where fighting was taking place in Palestine, they would soon be able to return with the victorious Arab armies. They left, but the “victorious Arab armies” never appeared. Israel saw no reason, since the Arabs who left were clearly not going to return, not to allow Jews to settle on these lands deserted by their owners. The Israelis did not “steal land” but put to use land that had been permanently abandoned. There is a difference.

Hussain Altamimi has made a series of damning charges. He claims that Israel is an “apartheid” state, but provides no evidence for this preposterous claim, for there is none. He insists there is a “racial hierarchy” in Israel, but again, offers no evidence for Jews lording It over, whether in law or in custom, Israeli Arabs. He calls Israel a “European ethnostate,” though almost two-thirds of Israel’s Jews are Mizrahis, descended from people who never left the Middle East and North Africa. He charges Israel with “stealing” land from the Arabs, ignoring the fact that all the land the Zionists acquired before the 1948 war was bought at very high prices from Arab and Turkish landowners. The land left by Arabs who fled just before, during, and after that war, was taken by the State of Israel and settled on by Jews. Those same Jews in many instances had fled for their lives from Arab lands, leaving them bereft of tens of billions of dollars in property. Israel put t use the land abandoned by Arabs. What else should Israel have done? Left those lands forever empty?

Hussain Altamimi has made a series of accusations against the Jewish state that are false. He has maligned the State of Israel. What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plan to do? Will she shut her ears to those who have complained about Altamimi, or will she do the right thing, and look into his claims, and If she finds them to be false, say so publicly? Or will she remain silent, which will be interpreted as constituting an endorsement of his statements as true? The only honorable course for her is to investigate the truth or falsehood of his remarks, and when she finds them — as she surely will — to be false, both to denounce Hussain Altamimi’s lies, and to let him go. He won’t remain unemployed for long. Even now they are ready to take him on board as a “legislative liaison with Congress” at that samaritan institution, CAIR, where Israel-bashing is never out of style.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Taliban defense minister threatens to put 2,000 jihad suicide bombers at Afghan embassy in DC

Iran: ‘Hard Revenge’ for Soleimani Killing Will Come From ‘Within’ the U.S.  

Canada: Arabic-language publication praises jihad terror groups, calls for destruction of Israel

Khamenei: ‘The factor of saving the country in different trying times is the religious zeal of the Iranian nation’

UK: Man converts to Islam, screams ‘Allahu akbar, we cut people’s heads off,’ threatens group with knife

UK: Muslim cleric tells woman not to report rape claim to police, says she will need four witnesses as per Qur’an

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Muslim staffer for AOC calls Israel ‘racist European ethnostate’ built on ‘stolen land’

AOC and her friends and allies won’t care about this. They believe the same thing. Get the truth in The Palestinian Delusion.

Ocasio-Cortez staffer calls Israel a ‘racist European ethnostate’ that was built on ‘stolen land’

by Houston Keene, Fox News, December 30, 2021 (thanks to Henry):

FIRST ON FOX: A staffer for “Squad” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., referred to Israel as a “racist European ethnostate” on social media.

Hussain Altamimi joined Ocasio-Cortez’s office in November as a legislative assistant, posting shortly after a picture of him and the congresswoman on Instagram with the caption “New beginnings.”

Then, last week, Altamimi targeted Israel in an Instagram story calling the U.S.’s key Middle Eastern ally a “racist European ethnostate.”

“Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!” Altamimi wrote on Christmas Eve, according to a screenshot obtained by Fox News Digital.

Altamimi’s comments were in response to a post he shared from an account with the handle “Let’s Talk Palestine,” which claimed there is a “racial hierarchy” in Israel.

“This reveals the principle underpinning Israeli apartheid: It’s not about where you’re born,” the shared post reads. “It’s about whether you’re Jewish or non-Jewish. Your ethnicity determines your rights [and] level in the racial hierarchy.”

“Israel is an exclusive ethnostate, established to serve one ethnic group at the expense of another,” the post continued….

RELATED ARTICLES:

AOC Claims Republicans Criticize Her Because Of ‘Deranged Sexual Frustrations’

Hardcore Harpy Ocasio-Cortez Blasted After Being Caught In Miami Beach As NYC Sets Pandemic Record: ‘AOC Loves DeSantis’

Iran: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps simulates launch of missiles and suicide drones at Israeli targets

Nigeria: 16 Christian orphans abducted, abused and forcibly converted to Islam

Iran: IRGC’s Salami warns ‘Zionist regime’s officials’ that ‘if they make mistakes, we will cut off their hands’

Pakistan: 70,000 Arabic teachers hired for compulsory teaching of Quran

EDITIORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Florida Public Universities Expected to Reject Boycott of the Jews (BDS), Governor DeSantis Says

Governor Ron DeSantis is without question the best governor in America. #DeSantis2024.

Florida Public Universities Expected to Reject BDS, Governor DeSantis Says

By Algemeiner, December 26, 2021

The office of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said on Wednesday that it expects Florida State University to prevent the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), with which it is an institutional partner, from operating a boycott of Israel on its campus.

Earlier this month, MESA members voted during their annual meeting to hold a referendum next year on a resolution endorsing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Responding Wednesday to questions about the proposed MESA boycott posed by Legal Insurrection, DeSantis’ office shared a statement rejecting “discrimination against the State of Israel or the Israeli people, including boycotts and divestments targeting Israel (the BDS movement).”

“It is our expectation that Florida State University will not permit MESA to operate a boycott of Israel through a public institution, will not accept the academic boycott of Israel, and will not allow university funds to be paid indirectly or directly to any organization that endorses BDS,” the statement continued. “The same goes for any other institution that receives state funding.”

Several other MESA institutional partners, including California State University, University of Arizona, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and University of Michigan, are also in states that have adopted measures against using public funds to support BDS.

The Academic Engagement Network, which opposes efforts to delegitimize Israel on campus, said this month that a MESA boycott “will inevitably and inequitably — discriminate against, exclude, and isolate Israeli scholars by singling out the Israeli academy for boycott.”

The proposed boycott was also lambasted as a threat to academic freedom by a group of progressive academics earlier this week.

Florida State University did not return The Algemeiner‘s request for comment.

RELATED ARTICLE: In Israel, Florida’s governor hailed for making the sunshine state ‘most pro-Israel’ in America

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Biden Waives Iran Sanctions as Iran Retracts Nuke Compromises

The more concessions you make to terrorists, the harder they push. That’s been the defining dynamic of the Iran negotiations, the PLO negotiations, and all the negotiations with Islamic terrorists.

The Biden administration is living up to that dynamic.

The Biden administration quietly waived sanctions on Iran to allow the hardline regime to sell electricity to Iraq, according to a non-public notification obtained by the Washington Free Beacon that was provided to Congress just as nuclear talks between the United States and Tehran resumed this week.

The timing of the waiver notification—which was signed Nov. 19 but not transmitted to Congress until Nov. 29, the day nuclear negotiations resumed—has prompted accusations the Biden administration is offering concessions to Tehran to generate goodwill as talks aimed at securing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal restart following a months-long standoff.

Iran is repaying the concessions in exactly the way you would expect a terror regime to do.

A US official said Saturday that Iran had backed away from all its previous compromises on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal and that the US would not allow Iran to “slow walk” the international negotiations while at the same time ramping up its atomic activities.

The warning came a day after Washington hit out at Iran, saying talks with world powers on a return to the 2015 nuclear accord had stalled because Tehran “does not seem to be serious.”

“We can’t accept a situation in which Iran accelerates its nuclear program and slow walks its nuclear diplomacy,” said a senior US administration official — echoing a recent warning by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Speaking to reporters after returning from the Austrian capital, the official said Washington was not yet planning to walk away from the indirect talks that it resumed with Tehran last week in Vienna, but hoped Iran would return “with a serious attitude.”

The Biden administration will not be trifled with. It won’t walk away from the talks or stop offering concessions, but it will warn Iran that it’s time to shape up and get serious about these negotiations… or it’ll offer up some more concessions.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senators seek sanctions on Iran over alleged plot to kidnap journalist on U.S soil

Biden’s handlers ask Israel not to carry out intelligence operations against Iran

National Endowment for Humanities: ‘To say that Jews were subject to restrictions in the Middle East is nonsense’

Islam’s Crisis and Osama bin Laden

Iraq: Muslims fire-bomb Catholic shopkeeper’s house because he sold liquor

Colorado: Muslim who murdered 10 people at grocery store ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hamas-linked CAIR’s Zahra Billoo: ‘Know your enemies,’ oppose even ‘the polite Zionist’

Elder of Ziyon notes: “Billoo declares that practically every Jewish organization in America is an enemy of Muslims. Not only that, but any organization that supports a two state solution is an enemy of Muslims. She doesn’t call them out explicitly, but that includes J-Street, that includes Peace Now, that includes Breaking the Silence. And she explicitly says that Hillels, the ADL, the Jewish Federations and even essentially all synagogues in America are the enemies of Muslims.”

Will this speech herald a crack in the coalition between Leftist Jews and Islamic supremacist groups? Stay tuned.

Original video:

MEMRI excerpt:

“CAIR Official Zahra Billoo: The Two-State Solution Is ‘Laughable’; Any Organization That Promotes It Is An Enemy; ADL, Jewish Federation, ‘Zionist Synagogues,’ Hillel Chapters Will Throw You Under The Bus,” MEMRI, November 25, 2021:

American activist Zahra Billoo, the executive-director of the San Francisco Bay Area branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), said in a panel at the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) Annual Conference, which took place in Chicago on November 27, 2021, that the two-state solution is “laughable” and that any organization that supports it is an enemy. She told the audience that the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federation, “Zionist Synagogues,” and Hillel chapters on “our campuses” are not their friends. Billoo said that they will throw the Muslims under the bus. She further urged the audience to donate monthly to AMP, because if they pay U.S. taxes, this means that they financially support “apartheid” every month.

The panel was streamed live on the American Muslims for Palestine YouTube channel, and CAIR executive-director Nihad Awad also participated in the panel (see MEMRI TV clips 9208, 3536, 3701, and 5279). Attendees included Linda Sarsour (see MEMRI TV clips nos. 6935, 6808, and 6111), Lamis Deek (see MEMRI TV clip no. 3430), and Taher Herzallah (see MEMRITV clip no. 7071).

Zahra Billoo: “We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses, because just because they are your friends today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights.

“So oppose the vehement fascist, but oppose the polite Zionist too. They are not your friends. They will not be there for you when you need them. They will take your friendship and throw your Palestinian brothers and sisters under the bus. Oh! You get along because you are all in Girl Scouts together? Talk to them about what is happening in Palestine, and see how that conversation goes.

“And so, when we think about Islamophobia and Zionism, let’s be clear about the connections. There is no difference between domestic policy and foreign policy when it comes to our human rights. There is no difference between domestic policy and foreign policy when it comes to those who seek to target us.

[…]

“By the way, you should be a monthly donor to American Muslims for Palestine. Build it into your budget and forget about it. Make it your monthly contribution, because you are contributing to the apartheid monthly. It is a part of your budget. You are paying your taxes, so you should be giving money to AMP monthly.

[…]

“The list goes on. Know who is on your side. Build community with them, because the next thing I am going to tell you is to know your enemies. And I am not going to sugarcoat that, they are your enemies. There are organizations and infrastructures out there who are working to harm you. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could, and they very often do behind your back. I mean the Zionist organizations, I mean the foreign policy organizations who say they are not Zionists but want a two-state solution. I am not a Palestinian myself, but it is my understanding that that is laughable. So know your enemies.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Like Obama, Biden Silent on Iran Mullahs Killing Peaceful Protesters

CAIR’s Nihad Awad declares Tel Aviv ‘occupied,’ prays for its ‘liberation’

Afghanistan: Taliban had sleeper agents in every major city, dressed like Westerners

PA TV program glorifies murder: ‘The blood of the martyrs draws the borders of the homeland’

UK soap opera shows ‘the positives of the Islamic faith and the shocking Islamophobia of far right groups’

RELATED VIDEO: Is Islam More Violent than Christianity? Dr. Javad T. Hashmi vs. Robert Spencer.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bidenites Warn Israel to Stop its Attacks on Iran

The U.S. has issued a warning about Iran’s nuclear program. No, it wasn’t a warning issued to Iran, telling the Supreme Leader that the U.S. was getting fed up with Iran’s stalling tactics, or that it was determined to “lengthen and strengthen” the 2015 Iran deal, or that it was now looking at “all other options” that it might employ to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Instead, it was a warning issued to Israel, the country that is in the gravest danger from Iran’ nuclear program. The Bidenites apparently do not think it “helpful” for Israel to continue its sabotage of Iran’s nuclear facilities and want it to stop. A preliminary Jihad Watch report on this scarcely believable development is here, and more on this is here: “US Warns Israel Attacks on Iran Nuclear Facilities ‘Counterproductive,’” i24 News, November 22, 2021:

US officials have warned Israel that attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are “counterproductive” and are encouraging Tehran to speed up its nuclear program, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

So the Americans – that is, the Bidenites – apparently believe that every attack by Israel intended to slow down Iran’s nuclear program only prompted Tehran “to speed up its nuclear program,” as if it were not already moving as fast as it could. Israel manages to introduce the Stuxnet computer worm into Iranian computers that then cause 1,000 centrifuges to speed up so fast they destroy themselves, and what happens? Iran builds even more, and faster, centrifuges to replace those destroyed. But who is to say that they would not have built more, and faster centrifuges, even without Stuxnet? Israel destroys the nuclear facility at Natanz through sabotage by Mossad agents, and then builds another facility at Natanz, but this time it’s built 50 meters underground, and yet it is also destroyed. But this, we are supposed to believe, is what led Iran to build another facility deep inside a mountain at Fordow. No one can say that the Fordow facility was built because of Israel’s sabotage at Natanz. It might have been in the works before that sabotage. The Israelis are convinced that their many, and various, attacks are working; they have slowed down Iran’s progress toward a bomb, possibly by as much as several years.

I trust the judgement of the IDF and Mossad. They are convinced that attacks meant to slow down Iran’s nuclear project have indeed done exactly that instead of speeding up Iran’s program, as the Bidenites now want Israel to believe, and that Israel’s information from Mossad agents who report on deep demoralization within the Iranian military because of so much successful sabotage by Israel, should be believed. The Stuxnet computer worm, the saboteurs responsible for four major explosions, two of them destroying the nuclear facilities at Natanz, the killing of five top Iranian scientists, have done exactly what Israel hoped: set back Iran’s nuclear project by years. And the Israelis keep coming up with new ways to delay Iranian progress. Perform the gedankenexperiment, the thought experiment, and imagine that there had never been a Stuxnet computer worm, nor assassination of Iran’s best nuclear scientists, nor sabotage of the two Natanz centrifuge plants. Where would Iran’ nuclear program be today? The Bidenites insist we should believe them, not Israel’s Mossad, in their insistence that Israeli sabotage accomplished the reverse of what was intended. All those successful attacks by Israel on nuclear facilities and scientists, we are expected to believe, merely served to speed up, rather than slow down, Iran’s nuclear project. This not only sounds absurd – it is absurd.

Citing officials familiar with the private talks between Washington and Jerusalem, the report said that Israeli officials dismissed the warning and said that they have no intention of changing the strategy.

The Israelis, hard-headed as usual, simply waved away the Bidenites’ advice. They are not about to bring an end to their impressive record of throwing so many spanners in the works of Iran’s nuclear project. Even now they surely have a half-dozen “projects” in the works, including an attack on the facilities inside the mountain at Fordow, which will make use of a new compact MOP (Multiple Ordnance Penetrator), or bunker buster, weighing 5,000 pounds but packing the punch of the 30,000-pound bunker buster in the American armory, the latest advance by Israeli scientists that keeps Iranian generals up at night in Teheran.

The report [about the Bidenites insistence that Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear project were counterproductive] was published ahead of the resumption of talks between Iran and world powers on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal that former US president Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. The negotiations are scheduled to take place in Vienna starting on November 29.

Talks stalled in June following the election of hardline president Ebrahim Raisi.

According to the report, the US cautioned that Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities may be “tactically satisfying,” but that Iran has been able to resume enrichment, often installing newer machines that can enrich uranium faster.

Iran can resume enrichment of uranium, but it takes time to build facilities to replace those destroyed. And time is what Israel is trying to buy, hoping to set back Iran’s program so that it keeps receding into the distance. And if Iran has newer machines that can enrich uranium faster than was previously possible, it will install them with or without Israel’s destruction of those slower models. The Americans are assuming that these “new machines” were put in service only because Israel had destroyed the previous model. This is the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy with a vengeance. What are Biden and Blinken and Sullivan drinking these days?

The US cited four explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities attributed to Israel and the killing of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by Mossad operatives….

So contrary to the beliefs of the Israelis – what do they know, the Bidenites think, about what works and what doesn’t in trying to slow down Iran’s race to the bomb? – those four explosions that they set off at Natanz and elsewhere not only didn’t slow Iran down, but spurred it on, ever faster, as it hopes to race to the finish and to build that bomb. Also sprach Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan. And the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh? The Americans must think his reputation as Iran’s top nuclear scientist was exaggerated, or perhaps they believe he was replaced by someone even more impressive, who had been waiting in the wings.

Of all the things that the Biden Administration has done wrong, surely this attempt to convince the Israelis not to act against a mortal threat to the Jewish state is among the worst. The Bidenites’ attempt – I don’t know whether to call it Orwellian or Kafkaesque — to convince Israel that its attacks to slow down Iran’s nuclear project have only caused it to speed up, is both absurd and sinister. The Bidenites don’t want Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear project not because such attacks are counterproductive, but because they make Iran less likely to accept a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, and the Bidenites have their hearts set on achieving that goal. It would be a feather in Biden’s hat, and Blinken’s, they apparently think, to tell the world they “managed to persuade” Iran to return to the 2015 deal which “will accomplish all that we wanted,” because “Iran will now be committed to the original deal.”

In fact, an Iranian return to the terrible 2015 deal would not prevent Iran from its building a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, would do nothing to limit Iran’s aggressions in the Middle East through its allies and proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen, the Kataib Hezbollah militia in Iraq, the Alawite-led army in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and – most worrisome – would allow Iran in 2030 to produce nuclear weapons without any limit.

The Israelis were right to dismiss the Bidenites’ request that they stop attacking Iran’s nuclear sites. Prime Minister Bennett, and IDF Chief Aviv Kochavi and Mossad Head David Barnea know what they are doing while the Bidenites, it is my sad duty to report, know not what they do. Keep up those extraordinary acts of derring-do. Only the Israelis – not people sitting way out of Iran’s missile range in Washington, and desperately eager to make a deal with Iran — can decide what must be done to keep their state and people safe from possible catastrophe.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

German public broadcaster makes Jerusalem jihad mass murderer into a victim

Islamic States uses TikTok to recruit jihad suicide bombers for Christmas jihad massacres

UK: Mosque complains after councillor stops working with its manager, who praised Taliban prayer

Pakistan: Hindu community decides to pay fines imposed on 11 Muslim leaders involved in attack on Hindu temple

Iran deported over 1,000,000 Afghan migrants this year, 28,000 in one week

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Republicans Introduce Bill to Stop Jerusalem Consulate for Palestinians

In the face of the Biden administration’s lack of support for Israel — from its open rebuke of Israeli settlement policies in Judea and Samaria, to establishing a Jerusalem consulate to Palestinians — some Republicans have introduced a bill to stop the latter, which is welcome news.

Although Biden has said he won’t reverse Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he proceeded with a move that would in effect symbolically neutralize Trump’s gesture. Reopening the Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem is inappropriate, given the Palestinian goal to annihilate Israel. It provides a further opportunity for the Palestinians to target Israel and exacerbate divisions in Jerusalem. We can hope that Israel will block Biden’s plans.

Biden’s overall stance on Israel has far-reaching implications; he is encouraging the jihad and antagonism against Israel. America’s stance will likely have an adverse impact in the next round of Palestinian jihadist rocket fire against Israel, which is inevitable, so that when Israel defends itself, pro-Palestinian protests, accompanied by antisemitic flareups, will likely gain even more momentum, as was already seen in May during Operation Guardian of the Walls.

Also, last month, the Squad “forced Iron Dome funding to be pulled from a bill to keep the United States government funded.” The Iron Dome intercepts incoming rockets on Israeli territory, thus saving many lives, while Palestinian leadership has no problem with using their own people as human shields.

GOP bill seeks to stop Jerusalem consulate for Palestinians

by Lahav Harkov, Jerusalem Post, October 26, 2021:

US Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, along with 33 other Republican senators, introduced a bill on Tuesday meant to block the Biden administration from opening a consulate serving Palestinians in Jerusalem.

The Upholding the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Law Act of 2021 is meant to ensure the full implementation of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act and stop what Hagerty views as the Biden administration’s attempted subversion of that law.

US President Joe Biden has said he will not reverse former president Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

However, Biden promised in his election campaign that he would reopen the consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, which was merged into the US Embassy to Israel in 2018, when Trump implemented the 1995 law and moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other US officials have said they will reopen the consulate, which was historically in a building on Agron Street in downtown Jerusalem.

The US would need Israel’s approval to open a consulate, and the current Israeli government opposes the move.

Hagerty said: “It is regrettable that the Biden administration insists on making moves that divide the United States and Israel when our two nations should be laser-focused on stopping Iran’s terror-sponsoring regime from going nuclear, on countering growing threats from Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iran-backed terrorist groups, and on strengthening and expanding the historic Abraham Accords that truly have increased peace in the Middle East.”

“The Trump administration kept its promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish State, and Congress must do everything in our power to strengthen our posture,” he added.

The new act quotes the 1995 law, which states, “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city,” and calls for it to be recognized as the capital of Israel and the relocation of the US Embassy.….

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLE: Impeach Kamala Harris for Afghanistan Betrayal

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Iran Successfully Hacked Over 250 Microsoft Accounts Linked to U.S. and Israeli Defense Technology Companies

In plain language: the jihadist regime of Iran has hacked into the private accounts of US, EU and Israeli defense tech companies, and however Iran chooses to use this information, no one is announcing what the fallout might potentially be. Microsoft only admitted that the breach “supports Iranian government tracking of adversary security services and maritime shipping in the Middle East.”

On a larger scale than this latest breach, much is falling into place in the “national interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Not long ago, Iran was in a losing battle with the former US administration, but it is now enjoying a lucky break and the potential to expand its operations unimpeded. Furthermore, Biden is all too eager to continue stuffing Iran’s coffers with billions of dollars under the guise of a revived Iran deal, despite the fact that Iran is enriching uranium at rates only seen in countries making bombs. And in a gesture of humiliating disrespect, Iran recently “rebuked” Biden, and made further demands for “far more sanctions relief than it received under the 2015 nuclear deal,” a deal it has admitted to breaking.

Iran hacked US and Israeli defense tech companies – Microsoft

Jerusalem Post, October 12, 2021:

The Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) announced on Monday that Iranian hackers successfully targeted US and Israeli defense technology companies.

More than 250 Microsft [sic] Office 365 accounts linked to the US, EU and the Israeli government were hacked into through extensive password spraying.

In addition, Persian Gulf ports of entry and global maritime transportation companies with business presence in the Middle East were also targeted.

The hacking “likely supports the national interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Microsoft said.

The companies hacked included defense companies that support US, EU, and Israeli government partners producing military-grade radars, drone technology, satellite systems, and emergency response communication systems…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

University of California Santa Cruz prof: ‘Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism — blame colonialism’

Bangladesh: Muslim riots over Qur’an ‘desecration’ continue, two Hindus dead, 150 injured, 88 Hindu temples attacked

Pakistan: Muslims brutally beat Chinese workers, smash tiles they claim insulted Muhammad

Egypt: Muslim woman’s coworkers beat her severely and pull her by her hair for not wearing hijab

COLUMN BY

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.