Posts

In Listing Hamas as a Terror Group, Australia Shows the Bankruptcy of the Left

Australia finally got around to listing the infamous jihad terror group known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, and better known as Hamas, as a terrorist group on Thursday. That’s great, even though it should have been done years ago. The way that Australian authorities chose to do it, however, once again demonstrated the moral cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy of the Left: the Australians had to find a way to condemn Hamas without appearing to be “Islamophobic.” They found a way to do that, but they didn’t find a way to avoid appearing to be woke, politically correct fools.

The Associated Press reported Thursday that Australia has “added the U.S.-based far-right extremist group National Socialist Order and planned to add the entirety of the Palestinian group Hamas to its list of outlawed terrorist organisations as concerns rise about radicalised children.”

Now, it’s easy to see why Hamas is being added to the list of outlawed terrorist organizations. Just in the past few days, its plan to target Israelis living in the Philippines was thwarted. It celebrated the murder of a 91-year-old Holocaust survivor. Before that, it sent rockets into Israel on New Year’s Eve. The leader of the Hamas Women’s Movement has claimed that all the Muslim women in Gaza are ready to blow themselves up in jihad suicide bombings.

And that’s just recently. For decades now, Hamas has called for and worked toward the total destruction of Israel, which would necessarily involve a new genocide of the Jews. For years, its website featured a “Glory Record” detailing its murders of Israeli civilians. Hamas also receives funding from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is just as genocidal and anti-Semitic as Hamas itself.

At the same time as it announced intentions to list Hamas as a terror group, Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews announced that it had also added “the National Socialist Order, formerly known as Atomwaffen Division,” to its terror list. It seems that the National Socialist Order “advocates a global ‘race war’ and the collapse of democratic societies.” This is not the first “far-right” group that Australia has added to its terror list: “The Base, a neo-Nazi white supremacist group formed in the United States in 2018, was listed in December and the British-based Sonnenkrieg Division was listed in August.”

Undeniably, neo-Nazis are horrible people, and I have no doubt that the National Socialist Order thoroughly deserves to be listed as a terrorist group. But why did Australia have to add the National Socialist Order to its terror list as it added Hamas? Have you ever even heard of the National Socialist Order before reading this article? The ADL says that the Atomwaffen Division “is a small neo-Nazi group,” and that “a series of arrests in 2019-20 decimated the group’s active membership.” It adds that “in July 2020, AWD was disbanded, and the National Socialist Order emerged under the remaining AWD leadership.”

So the National Socialist Order is a rump group formed out of another that collapsed, and is likely to be an insignificant band of potbellied LARPing sociopaths, or else FBI agents trying to validate a “far-right” threat. That hardly compares to Hamas, an organization that for years has terrorized a nation with jihad rocket attacks and attacks on civilians. Hamas has international support, most notably from the Islamic Republic of Iran, while no nation has or ever will given support to the National Socialist Order.

So why has Australia only listed Hamas as a terror group in tandem with this insignificant band of Nazi idiots? The answer is clear. Australian authorities are trying to prop up the National Socialist Order as some kind of moral equivalent to Hamas, in order to try to avoid enraging its Muslim population, among whom are numerous Hamas supporters, and to avoid giving the impression that the Australian government is “Islamophobic” and is targeting only Islamic terrorists while ignoring non-Muslim terrorists.

This sort of thing isn’t limited to Australia, of course. I myself am banned from Britain in the British government’s absurd attempt to smear me as a “far right” leader on par with jihad terrorists. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May said in 2016: ““And I acted to keep those who peddle hatred and extremism out of our country. I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones – because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred. And I stopped people like Dieudonne coming to Britain. Because nothing excuses antisemitism – not comedy, not satire, not even irony. Antisemitism is just hatred. And it is just wrong.”Spen

So as far as May was concerned, Pamela Geller and I were the “Islamophobic” equivalents of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. Abu Hamza is in solitary confinement in a super-max U.S. for, among other things, conspiring to set up a training camp for jihad terrorists in Bly, Oregon. Abu Qatada was convicted of plotting the jihad massacre of Americans and Israelis in Jordan. Neither Geller nor I have ever advocated or condoned any violence at all. But May needed some “far-right extremists” to balance her actions against jihadis and appease Muslims in Britain, and so she didn’t hesitate to smear us.

In fact, calling the National Socialist Order “far-right,” the same term that is used for people (including me) who aren’t remotely Nazi and are simply enunciating unwelcome truths, shows how the term is employed as a weapon to stigmatize, demonize, and marginalize all those whom the elites hate. Lump us in with some Nazi idiots, and the job is done.

It’s good that Australia will list Hamas as a terror group. But the way Australian officials have done it shows them to be Leftist cowards and self-deluded fools.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Was There a Firefight After the Jihad Suicide Bombing at Kabul Airport?

Germany: Muslim ‘asylum seeker’ has been living in the country for 11 years, ten years after being obliged to leave

Malaysia: Mufti rules that Hindu children unilaterally converted as minors by Muslim ex-husband must remain Muslim

India: Murdered Hindu activist had received death threats from Muslims for ‘blasphemy’

India: Muslim sentenced to death for jihad massacre says ‘For me, the decisions of the Koran are supreme’

Qatar sentences woman who was sexually assaulted to 100 lashes and seven years in prison

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.

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.

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.

Biden Administration Praises Taliban’s ‘Openness’ to Women’s Rights

What happens when you learn nothing from history.

In 2001, the Taliban blew up the giant Buddha statues. Now they’re charging tourists five bucks each to go see the statues that aren’t there. Considering the Islamic knack for destroying statues, tombs, historic buildings, and anything that isn’t a mosque, tourism can be tough.

Fortunately the Taliban have the opium business to fall back on.

While officially the Taliban deplore drugs, their takeover was partly backed by the country’s drug lords who were eager for an end to America’s war on drugs. Planting season has arrived and everyone is expecting a lot of drug money to start flowing into the Taliban’s terrorist coffers.

The Taliban response to international complaints has been the familiar drug shakedown.

“If the international community recognizes our government and we receive aid and development assistance, then poppies will definitely disappear,” a Taliban governor told the media.

Former U.S. administrations had offered aid in exchange for suspending the drug business. And while Afghanistan’s only real cash crop didn’t go away, the Jihadist bosses of the opium OPEC were willing to occasionally reduce production in exchange for cash from Uncle Sam.

The Biden administration is directing over a hundred million in aid to Afghanistan, but what the Taliban really want is the $9 billion in money from the former government they had overthrown.

That includes the $1.3 billion in gold sitting in Manhattan vaults near Ground Zero.

The Taliban would like that gold, but so would the families of the victims killed by the Taliban’s Al Qaeda allies on September 11.

The 9/11 families had sued the Taliban and won $7 billion in damages. But back then the Taliban didn’t have money just sitting around in downtown Manhattan.

That’s no longer the case.

Biden’s problem is the familiar one facing the Obama administration over judgements won by terror victims against Iran and the PLO. How do you funnel money to the terrorists without letting their victims get hold of it? The answer is that you pay secret ransoms or send “humanitarian aid”. Withholding money from terror victims to pay terror bosses looks tacky, so just turn the money into ransom for American hostages or medicine for crying local children.

And so despite the fact that the Taliban negotiate with all faiths other than their own in bad faith, the Biden administration is still negotiating with the terrorists who broke every previous deal.

A week after Thanksgiving, some of Biden’s boys from the State Department, USAID, the Treasury Department, and assorted spooks, flew off to talk turkey with the Taliban in Qatar.

The assortment of departments and agencies in the delegation to the terrorists was an interesting one. The State Department’s diplomats love to appease terrorists, USAID is there to dole out “humanitarian aid”, the spooks are there to ask the terrorists for info on the other terrorists, and the Treasury Department is there to discuss economic sanctions.

And how to bypass them.

All it takes is certifying that the Taliban are nice folks now and it’s time to work with them on feeding and clothing the Afghan people, not to mention educating the girls of Afghanistan.

A week after the Taliban banned women from television, Biden’s State Department spokesman Ned Price released a statement praising the Taliban’s “openness to engaging with the international community on full access to education”.

Price further claimed that the Islamic terrorist group which closed most schools to girls had actually “welcomed efforts to verify and monitor progress to enroll women and girls in school at all levels.”

The Taliban, apparently, also “asked for support in the education sector.”

Preferably in the form of cash, heroin, or Black Hawk helicopter parts.

According to the Taliban, 75% of girls are back in school. And if you believe that, you probably work for the State Department.

The Taliban’s newfound feminism is as suspect as that of Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden, but they want money and Joe Biden wants to give it to them.

The levers for extracting that cash are a combination of blackmail and victimhood.

The Taliban will cash in on opium while the people starve. And then ask for money in exchange for shutting down the drug trade and then getting the people something to eat. The remaining Americans and Afghan visa recipients are also hostages who can be traded for more dollars.

That’s another reason why so very few of the visa recipients ever made it to the airport. And why the majority of those who did had no visas and no vetting, but probably did pay off the Taliban.

The Taliban can only make so much money from charging tourists to see the missing Buddhas.

The last year should have been a comprehensive education in why the Taliban can’t be trusted. After agreeing not to conquer Afghanistan, they went ahead and did it anyway. While they were doing that, the Biden administration, which is almost as trustworthy as the Taliban, assured the media, which is almost as trustworthy as the Biden administration, that everything was fine.

Now everything is fine again.

When the Taliban aren’t beheading members of female sports teams, they’re showing a great deal of “openness” to “engaging with the international community” on their feminism.

They’ll even field a fully progressive approved all-female sports team of men in burkas.

The Biden administration promised to leave Afghanistan, but the United States never leaves anywhere. Aside from taking in tens of thousands of Afghans into our country, we’re still on the hook for feeding, clothing, and educating the Afghans in Talibanland, not to mention Pakistan.

Even once the Taliban get their billions and their UN seat, we’ll still be sending them aid.

In December 2000, the State Department boasted that it had sent $113 million in “humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people”. It further bragged that the “United States is the largest single donor of assistance to Afghans, and has a long record of providing such assistance.”

All the while it acknowledged that the Taliban were mischievously harboring Osama bin Laden.

That money stolen from American taxpayers covered “food, housing, health and education programs” for the Afghans. And the State Department shamefully bragged that “of every ten dollars” in aid, “nine dollars is a United States contribution.”

Next year the Taliban contributed four airplanes directed at killing thousands of Americans.

Having learned nothing in twenty years, the Biden administration and its career diplomats expect Americans to continue funding a Taliban welfare state.

This time the Taliban really believe in feminism, they insist. This time they’re really committed to fighting terrorism. And this time they surely won’t host another terrorist attack on America.

As long as we pay them enough.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center specializing in investigative reporting on the Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Invites Pro-Taliban Pakistan to ‘Democracy Summit’

France: Muslim who murdered two people with knife complained about living in land of infidels

France: Teacher says Muslims students are ‘problem’ in Catholic schools, is suspended, fears for his life

Germany: Afghan Muslim asylum seeker rapes two girls, ages 11 and 13

RELATED VIDEO: David Wood and Robert Spencer on This Week in Jihad.

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

Just When You Thought The World Couldn’t Get More Idiotic

Here’s the latest installment in the Annals of Idiocy: “Inclusiveness: a European Commissioner recommends no longer using ‘Christmas,’ ‘Christian’ names and the masculine,” translated from “Inclusivité : une commissaire européenne recommande de ne plus utiliser “Noël”, les noms “chrétiens” et le masculin,” Valuers Actuelles, November 29, 2021 (thanks to Medforth):

European Equality Commissioner Helena Dalli launched an internal guide for inclusive communication at the end of October. This prohibits a number of expressions deemed to be stigmatizing according to gender, sexual identities, ethnic origins or culture, the Italian daily Il Giornale revealed on Sunday (November 28). These recommendations aim to “reflect diversity” and to fight against “stereotypes deeply rooted in individual and collective behavior.”

One “stereotype” that racists have is that many black people have names like “Dequan” and “Lashonda” and “Takeesha.” So in order to combat that stereotype, all such names should be banned. No sense giving white racists grist for their mill.

Using Italian names for gangsters in movies about the Mafia simply reinforces stereotypes about “Italo-American” criminals. The only solution is to make sure that no Italian names are used for Mafia members. “Henry” and “Charles” are acceptable as gangster names, but “Enrico” and “Carlo” are not. No Mafia gangster should be shown either cooking, or eating, a plate of pasta. Garlic should also not be mentioned.

Similarly, in a movie about Mexican drug traffickers, their names must not lead anyone to think that they are in any way “Mexican”; that would not be fair, as such names would only reinforce a “stereotype” that far too many of us unthinkingly accept. Give them names like “Randolph” and “James” and “Alice.” Under no conditions should any Mexican drug trafficker be called “El Chapo” or “El Gordo” or “El Mata Amigos.”

In general, the report suggests that no one should be identified on the basis of their particularity or in a way that is not [sic] offensive. For example, the use of the masculine form “by default” should be prohibited and the salutation “Dear Sir or Madam” should be replaced by “Dear Colleague.” Gender-specific terms such as “workmen” should also not be used. As the document – Dalli’s internal guide –is written in English, some recommendations are not applicable to other languages. The text also provides that one should never ” imply ” a person’s sexual orientation or even their gender identity. Similarly, it considers that a reference to elements of Christian culture “assumes that all people are Christians.” It therefore recommends deleting the reference to Christmas and speaking instead of “holidays.” Christian names such as “Mary” or “John” should be banned, according to the Commissioner.

But how can you write, say, an application letter for an academic job and use as your salutation — as Helena Dalli recommends – “Dear Colleague”? You aren’t anyone’s “colleague” yet – that’s what you are applying to be – and use of that salutation would merely come across as presumptuous, and likely nip in the bud your chances to be hired.

To eliminate all gender specific names, start with the easy ones. Thus “workman” can become “worker.” But what do we do when we come, say, to weddings, where there is an insufficiently “inclusive” focus on the “man” and the “woman”? Revise the text. “Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband” should instead become “Do you take this man or woman or non-binary other, to be your lawful wedded husband or wife or non-binary other”? Eventually it might be a good idea to provide a single word that can refer equally to both “husband” and “wife.” We’re working on it.

Using the “masculine” form “by default” should. be avoided, according to Helena Dalli, EU Equal Opportunities Commissioner, working tirelessly to make the world a better place by erasing all distinctions. But “Dear Sir or Madam” doesn’t use the “masculine” form “by default” – it carefully allows, in full diversity-inclusivity-equity mode, both the masculine and the feminine possibilities.

The claim that a reference to “elements of Christian culture” necessarily “assumes that all people are Christian” is utter nonsense. If I mention “the Bamiyan Buddhas,” does this make me guilty of assuming “that all people are Buddhist”? If I write that “the holiday of Diwali is observed differently by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists, creating a rich tapestry of cultural traditions and customs,” have I thereby assumed that everybody in the world is either “Hindu, Jain, Sikh, or Buddhist”? If I mention “Hanukkah” or a menorah, or show on YouTube a lesson on “how to spin a dreidl,” have I assumed that everyone in the world is “Jewish”? Should all references to the Bible be eliminated, because such references would be unacceptable, as “too Christian” or too “Judeo-Christian”? Surely we can’t have that in our brave new world that hath such creatures in it as Helena Dalli. Indeed, as the Bible itself is a venerable vehicle for what we now recognize as sexism, why not go beyond forbidding the reading of the Bible, and make possession of the book itself a crime?

Helena Dalli, the powerful EU Commissioner, thinks we need to rid the world of names that are too linked to Christianity. She mentions as examples of names that must no longer be used “Mary” and “John.” But these are just the names that come immediately to mind. We need to get rid as well of other names smacking of Christianity, including “Peter,” “Simon,” Thomas,” “Joseph,” “Martha,” “Christopher,” George” (which makes one think of “Saint George”), “Andrew,” “Samuel” and so many more names that are “too Christian” for Christians – or anyone else — to use.

But why does Helena Dalli not mention the need to abolish names that are “too connected” to the religion of Islam? Why should “Mary” and “John” be eliminated, but “Mohammed” and its many variants — Mahmoud, Ahmad, Muhammad, Magomed, Mahmad, Mehmet, Mamadou, Muhammadu, Mahamed, Mohamad, Mohamed, Mohammad, and so on – be tolerated inside the EU? Helena Dalli should provide us with a list of names that she believes are unacceptably linked to religions other than Christianity, the sole faith she mentions and for which she appears to bear a deep animus. Then we can get to work banning those names as well.

She’s also against mention of the very word “Christmas.”

Even the expression “colonizing of Mars” is considered negative, as it would be reminiscent of colonialism, and should be replaced by the phrase “sending people to Mars.” The report [by Helena Dalli] also advocates a form of positive discrimination. It suggests not convening working groups where only one gender is represented and thinking about inviting people from different ethnicities to events and photo shoots. Helena Dalli has already been criticized for the polemical campaign “Freedom with the Hijab” and the participation of Islamist associations in the campaign.

It will be fascinating to see if the EU Commissioner manages to make every single working group at the EU “gender diverse.” How will such a rule work in practice, particularly with the Muslims, whose unequal treatment of men and woman is legitimized in the Qur’an itself and who insist even on separating male from female worshippers in the mosque?

A verse in the Quran – 4:34 – gives husbands the right to “beat” their wives if they even suspect them of “disobedience.” Honor killings by Muslim men of their wives, daughters, sisters, and daughters-in-law – which may be prompted by a multitude of sins committed by females in the family, such as refusing to wear a hijab, or being seen talking to a non-Muslim boy – lead to very light punishment or in some cases to no punishment at all. The misogyny of Islam can also be seen in the fact that a Muslim woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, and a daughter inherits only half what a son receives. Will Helena Dalli be able to force Muslim males to include females in their meetings? I suspect she will not even try. Her desire to impose restrictions of all kinds on “religions” ends up with her applying her humorless and bizarre restrictions to one religion only – Christianity.

As for doing away with the very word “Christmas,” the cast of Seinfeld, trying to be as ridiculous as possible, already provided some years ago a different word for that day, even less “Christian” than the word “holiday” (which derives from “holy day”); they called it “Festivus.” That should please Helena Dalli. A Festivus Tree, Festivus Lights, Festivus Presents, Festivus Cards. What’s not to like?

I know what you’re thinking. You are thinking that her idiocy will be rejected all those who have kept their wits about them, that the thinking world will rise up and laugh to scorn Ms./Mrs.Mr./Non-binary/Equal opportunity Helena Dalli. But she’s not just some Hyde Park Corner lunatic; she’s the EU Equal Opportunities Commissioner. In that post she can do – she’s already done — a lot of damage. She needs not just to be laughed at, but to be relieved of her position. Please, EU, put her, and therefore us, out of her misery.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Another Muslim rape gang busted, 39 men plus three women who allowed premises to be used

Turkey: One in three women has been a victim of domestic violence

France: Government organizes Islamic exhibitions to teach the French to accept cultural differences

Ilhan Omar plays audio of death threat she claims she received on her voicemail

Australia: Muslim family stabs daughter at shopping center because she was dating a Christian

UN holds pro-Palestinian conference on anniversary of recognizing Israeli statehood

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.

Just What You’ve Been Waiting For: Benetton is Now Offering a Unisex Hijab!

My latest in PJ Media:

As American society, and Western society in general, progresses from glory to glory and grows more woke by the day, the trendy Italian brand United Colors of Benetton is offering an exciting new item, just in time for the Christmas season: a unisex hijab. It’s described as a “unisex hijab in stretch fabric. Multicolor monogram print with Benetton logo joined to the G of Ghali. Small logo printed on the left side. This accessory belongs to the ‘United Colors of Ghali’ capsule collection, created by Ghali.”

One wonders who Benetton execs think will want this item. After all, the hijab is prescribed in Islamic law specifically for women. The idea of a man wearing one would be considered absurd because the whole idea of a hijab is to remove the source of temptation for men. If a man is tempted anyway and a woman ends up being sexually assaulted or raped, it’s her fault. Because the hijab is an important part of a woman’s responsibility under Sharia, many women have been brutalized and even killed for not wearing it.

There are, unfortunately, numerous available examples of this brutalization, and many others whom we will never know because such matters are often not considered news fit to print in Sharia states. In Mississauga, Ontario a few years ago, Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia, was also murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. 40 women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. Fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment.

A mid-October incident in Egypt reinforced the idea that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women, and a pretext for their brutalization. A female pharmacist named Isis Mustafa went to work as usual at a health facility in the village of Kfar Atallah; however, on this day something was different: Mustafa was not wearing a hijab. According to the Arabic-language El Balad, Mustafa’s female colleagues were enraged. They set upon her, beat her, and dragged her by her uncovered hair.

So why would a man wear a hijab? To ward off the advances of other men? To remove a source of temptation from gay Muslims? In a majority-Muslim country, a man who wore a hijab would likely be considered insane. In the woke West in 2021, such a man is making a fashion statement.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Yemen: Model charged with ‘violating Islamic dress codes’ imprisoned for five years

Finally: Pentagon Ratcheting Up Efforts to Get Americans Out of Afghanistan

The UK Muslim, CIA Operative, and Author of ‘I Posed as a Man Online for Sex’ Behind the Dems’ Censorship Campaign

Germany: Churches criticized for remaining ‘incredibly mute’ in the face of ‘Muslim contempt for Christians’

Mozambique: Islamic State grows in strength and brutality, while broadening international ties

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

WASHINGTON STATE: High School Claims Being White Male Christian Heterosexual Brings One Extra ‘Privilege’

As we have documented here many times, just the opposite is true. Victimhood is so much of a currency that Muslims not infrequently fake hate crimes so as to be able to claim victim status. In American culture today, Muslims, non-white people, women, and gays are focused upon, coddled, celebrated, and again and again cast as victims when it is those who aren’t in these groups who are really marginalized.

Teachers Force-Fed a Slice of ‘Privilege Pie’ at Washington High School

by Ryan Mills, National Review, September 27, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):

It’s still two months until Thanksgiving, and already one school district in Washington is serving up pie to its staff. Not pumpkin pie. Not apple or cherry. Rather, teachers at Tumwater High School recently were force-fed a big slice of “privilege pie.”

According to one employee, teachers in the district were required to attend diversity training where they were asked to examine their privilege. As part of the training, the teachers were instructed to color in a “privilege pie” – a pie chart with several so-called privileges, including being white, cisgender male, Christian, heterosexual, and U.S. born.

“The more we colored in, the more privileged we were,” the teacher, whose name was not released, told Parents Defending Education, a nonprofit that fights classroom indoctrination and activist-driven agendas in U.S. schools.

“I was so upset because we have so much to do and I would really prefer to use that time to design effective instruction or communicate with families,” the teacher said, according to a quote released by Parents Defending Education. “Instead, I’m sitting there for two hours learning about how I am privileged because of my skin color and about micro-aggressions.”…

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

While Afghanistan Fell, Military and CIA Focused on Diversity

Milley should have studied Muslim rage, instead of white rage.


“I want to understand white rage, and I’m white,” Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whined at a congressional hearing.

He might have done better to understand Muslim rage.

A week after his testimony, the Taliban had not only doubled their number of districts, but possessed hundreds of captured U.S. armored vehicles, along with artillery and drones.

The Pentagon’s spokesman told reporters to ask the Afghan military about the gear.

In May, Milley had shrugged off questions about whether the Afghan military would survive. “We frankly don’t know yet. We have to wait and see how things develop over the summer.”

The Afghan military was beginning to fall apart while Milley was defending critical race theory.

A week earlier, the New York Times had described “demoralized” Afghan forces “abandoning checkpoints and bases en masse.” Two days after Milley’s disgraceful performance, the media reported that even the Taliban were “surprised” at how fast they were advancing.

At the beginning of July, the Biden administration abandoned Bagram Air Force Base. A week later the Taliban reclaimed the Panjwayi District where the Jihadist movement had gotten its start, seized the largest border crossing with Iran and the millions in revenue that came with it.

The United States Army responded by announcing that it was putting “a renewed emphasis on diversity, inclusion, and equity” or DEI. Had the brass ordered it as diversity, inclusion, and equity, the resulting acronym would have been more reflective of the real world.

While the Taliban were conquering Afghanistan’s rural provinces and then moving on to besieging its cities, the Army was wrestling with the “effective messaging that demonstrates why DEI efforts are critical to the success of the Army”. The new messaging would explain how the “talents of a diverse workforce” that included “language, race, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity” were vital to whatever its mission was.

The Taliban, who were mostly Sunni Islamist Pashtun tribesmen, would spend the next two months demonstrating that diversity was not a strength, but a serious weakness.

While the Afghan government and its military were divided between diverse tribal factions, some of whom would flee to Iran and others to Uzbekistan (depending on whether they were Hazaras or Uzbeks) while the Pashtuns would surrender to their fellow Taliban tribesmen, the Taliban showed that unity would stomp diversity in the face and then dance on its grave.

Meanwhile the military brass in this country, as discussed in my recent pamphlet, Disloyal: How the Military Brass is Betraying Our Country, was busy dividing our own military from within in pursuit of diversity, pitting black and white service members against each other in “critical conversations” and urging them to accuse their country and services of “systemic racism”.

As the Army brass were striving to establish the “Army as a global leader in DEI”, America’s enemies were plotting to become global leaders in land, power, and military victories.

By late July, Milley admitted that, “Strategic momentum appears to be sort of with the Taliban.”

By “sort of”, Milley meant that the Taliban had more than doubled their territory again and were marching on half of the provincial capitals.

Few reporters asked follow-up questions about the “sort of” because the leading story in D.C. was an anti-Trump book which flatteringly portrayed Milley as preventing a Trump “coup”.

No one, from the media to Milley, cared about the actual coup underway in Afghanistan.

“This department will be diverse. It will be inclusive,” Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin insisted. “I’m committed to that. This department is committed to that. The chairman’s committed to that.”

While Biden’s brass were pledging allegiance to diversity, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi welcomed Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to the People’s Republic of China. Yi praised the Taliban as a “a pivotal military and political force” and mocked the United States.

The United States Army was busy “developing and implementing a strategic plan to advance DEI across the Total Force” as the Taliban seized the capitals of Helmand and Herat.

But the Navy faced its own crisis when Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. John Nowell Jr. warned at a DEI panel at the Sea Air Space conference that removing photos from promotion boards, a diversity measure from last year, actually undermined diversity because the brass no longer knew exactly how many minorities they were artificially promoting to fit diversity quotas.

While the Navy was grappling with this dark night of the soul, Staff Sgt. Nicholas Jones with the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion received the Navy Cross for his heroism during a six-hour battle with ISIS last year during which he rescued a French ally and risked his life to try and rescue two wounded comrades.

Jones “continued fighting until forcibly evacuated”.

Sadly, Jones is a straight white man from Kansas, and doesn’t really fit the DEI template, but in happier diversity defense news, the new Navy Secretary is an immigrant,  the first female sailor graduated from Naval Special Warfare training, and the Naval Institute published a confession by Lieutenant Commander David Elsenbeck that he was “unconsciously biased” and a “member of the dominant group in a society suffering from institutionalized and historically ingrained bias”.

Eisenbeck urged immediate “bias education”.

American POWs used to be starved, beaten, and had bamboo shoots driven under their fingernails without repeating the Marxist dogma they were being indoctrinated with. But hardly a week goes by now without another litany of Marxist confessions at military struggle sessions.

The Taliban, who actually are a member of the dominant group, began swallowing up a series of provincial capitals and marrying off young girls to their Jihadists. Back home, the Virginia Military Institute’s first-ever Chief Diversity Officer, Jamica Love, announced that she intended to pursue “institutional change” to transform the VMI’s culture. That’s what the Taliban were also up to.

While the Taliban advanced, CIA Director William Burns commented that increasing “diversity and inclusion” was among his top priorities. “We cannot be effective around the world if everybody looks like me,” he complained. To that end the CIA had unrolled an ad campaign featuring a Latina cisgender intersectional worker wearing a pink gender power clenched fist t-shirt. But the widely hated woke ad was only the tip of the agency’s diversity iceberg.

“At CIA, we don’t just leverage diversity, equity, and inclusion; we embrace and celebrate it,” an agency diversity report insisted. “This ethos must be woven in to our day-to-day tasks.”

How were diversity and equity woven into the task of monitoring the Taliban’s advance?

No one knows. But, like the military, the CIA went on holding “critical conversations” in which minority employees were encouraged to spout racism accusations.

Sonya Holt, Deputy Associate Director of CIA for Talent for Diversity and Inclusion, who had started out as a mere recruiter, assured that through DEI, “the Agency will be better prepared to address intelligence challenges and support its customers.”

While CIA officers were learning “how diversity, equity, and inclusion are essential to mission success”, the agency began belatedly considering how to extract its assets from Afghanistan.

Recent intelligence reports “warned that Kabul could fall to the Taliban within years”.

But while the CIA tried to figure out how it would collect intelligence on the Taliban after the withdrawal, its employees did have the benefit of 15 affinity groups including ANGLE (Agency Network of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Officers and Allies), DAC (Deaf Advisory Council) and SALAAM (South Asian Leadership and Advisory Membership.)

The CIA was also working to hire “neurodiverse” personnel, which it defined as people suffering from ADD, Dyslexia, or Tourette’s Syndrome. Or as the CIA ‘wokely’ put it “differences labeled with” these syndromes.

Key Afghan figures had warned that there was a conspiracy underway to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. The drumroll surrenders of cities and much of the Afghan military appeared to confirm that backroom deals had been made. The obvious players able to pull off such deals were Pakistan’s ISI spy agency, the original backers of the Taliban, along with Turkey and Qatar.

Biden’s CIA director had turned to Pakistan in the hopes of allowing the agency to run a spy base in the country that had harbored Osama bin Laden. The Biden administration’s military and diplomatic response to the Taliban was being run out of Qatar. And it had handed security at  Kabul Airport over to Turkey before frantically taking it back when the Taliban took the city.

The CIA should have been on top of this, but it had better things to do with its time.

An unclassified intelligence community report did warn that the Taliban was “broadly consistent in its restrictive approach to women’s rights.”

The Taliban have now taken over Afghanistan, but it’s not all bad news on the military front

.”While Trump administration Pentagon nominees were overwhelmingly white and male, the Biden administration says 54% of its national security nominees ― to the Pentagon, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development ― are women, 40% are people of color, and at least 7% identify as LGBTQ,” the publication thrillingly reports.

Better yet, “recent weeks saw two LGBTQ women confirmed to top military positions. Air Force Undersecretary Gina Ortiz Jones is the first out lesbian to serve as undersecretary of a military branch, while Shawn Skelly, the assistant secretary of defense for readiness, is the first out transgender person in the job and highest-ranking out transgender defense official in U.S. history.”

The State Department is doing its part by asking the Taliban to form an “inclusive and representative government.” And if they refuse to have as many neurodiverse black transgender defense officials as us, Biden won’t give them any more humvees, artillery, choppers, or drones.

The Taliban may have won Afghanistan, but we’re winning the diversity race. And since diversity is more important than winning wars or being a military superpower, we’re beating the Taliban. Not to mention Russia, China, and Iran in the field of transgender defense officials.

As I warned in the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s booklet, Disloyal: How the Military Brass is Betraying Our Country, wokeness is leading our military to disaster, disgrace, and defeat.

Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity, (sorry, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is at “the heart of everything” that Biden’s military does and our performance reflects the focus on DEI.

Afghanistan is a disaster, but we’ll have the most diverse military in the world or DEI trying.

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:

Schiff Contradicts Biden: Intel Agencies Warned of Rapid Taliban Takeover

Canada: Muslim ‘Minister for Women and Gender Equality’ refers to Taliban as ‘our brothers’

Afghanistan: $2.26 Trillion of Your Money Spent, Much Squandered on Lavish Palaces for Corrupt Officials

University of Michigan Professor: Taliban Doesn’t Equal Islam, News Coverage ‘Disserves a Great Religion’

Our Mistaken Ideas About Human Rights Failed Us in Afghanistan

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

‘Batman’ cartoonist Frank Miller dropped from comic convention over accusation of ‘anti-Muslim hate’

Frank Miller himself is not defending “Holy Terror,” so I’m certainly not going to defend it on his behalf, and I don’t endorse torture or killing of innocent people, as his hero seems to in the illustration. But that is not what the controversy is about here. It’s over the claim that “Holy Terror” is “anti-Muslim.” I myself am frequently accused of being anti-Muslim, but the claim is false, baseless, and defamatory. It is no more anti-Muslim to oppose jihad violence than it was anti-German to oppose Nazism. It is worth nothing that “Holy Terror” is described below as “a graphic novel in which an original character known as The Fixer sets out to battle Al-Qaeda.” Meanwhile, “many believed the story depicted the religion of Islam, rather than the specific terrorist group of Al-Qaeda, as the book’s villain,” but no evidence is offered to substantiate that claim. Nor does Miller state this in his disavowal of his work. Maybe it’s true. I don’t know; I’ve never read “Holy Terror.” However, it is also true that it is routine for Islamic supremacist groups in the West to claim that opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women is opposition to Islam itself. They also routinely conflate criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims, and numerous people fall for this, although they have no trouble whatsoever seeing the distinction between criticism of Christianity and hatred of Christians. If Frank Miller had written a comic book about fighting against Christian “right-wing extremists,” and some people accused him of attacking Christianity itself, would this convention had dropped him? Of course not. It would be celebrating him as a hero.

Frank Miller Removed From Thought Bubble Comic Convention Guest List After Being Accused Of Propagating ‘Abhorrent Anti-Muslim Hate

by Spencer Baculi, The Mix, July 29, 2021 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Legendary comic book industry veteran Frank Miller, whose bibliography includes Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Daredevil, and 300, has been removed from the guest list for the upcoming Though Bubble UK Comic Convention after a number of attendees threatened to boycott the event based on their belief that the creator “is responsible for propagation of abhorrent anti-Muslim hate”.

Miller was first announced as a guest for the North Yorkshire, England-based comic convention on June 2nd, with his name being emphasized to the same degree as fellow special guests Joëlle Jones (Wonder Girl) and Christian Ward (New Mutants) on a promotional poster for the event released that same day.

Though Miller’s initial invitation announcement seemed to come and go without any incident, on July 27th, award-winning cartoonist and small press publisher ShortBox founder Zainab Akhtar revealed that they would “no longer be attending Thought Bubble festival this November” in protest of Miller’s attendance.

In a statement announcing her protest of the convention, Akhtar asserted, “As a proud Muslim woman, I cannot in good conscience attend a festival that deems it appropriate to invite and platform Frank Miller, a person who is responsible for the propagation of abhorrent anti-Muslim hate, particularly via his work.”

“Anti-Muslim bigotry is repugnant and condemnable yet has become so deeply rooted, so widely accepted in society that it is not even given a cursory consideration, as evidenced once again in this situation,” Akhtar continued. “I cannot comprehend how time and time again, festivals and communities within comics espouse values regarding inclusivity, diversity, ‘comics being for everyone’, zero tolerance on hate, but all that lip-service evaporates when they are asked to enact those same values.”

In a follow-up tweet, Akhtar stated that though she had “first contacted Thought Bubble about this privately, 8 weeks ago” and had been “assured action would be taken”, Miller’s continued invitation made her feel as if “it’s been communicated to me that I am the acceptable loss: repercussions to my career/income over repercussions to theirs.”

Though Akhtar does not cite any specific instances of anti-Muslim bigotry from Miller, it is assumed that she is referring to his creation of Holy Terror, a graphic novel in which an original character known as The Fixer sets out to battle Al-Qaeda.

Originally developed for DC as a Batman story, Holy Terror would release to widespread criticism, as many believed the story depicted the religion of Islam, rather than the specific terrorist group of Al-Qaeda, as the book’s villain.

However, while Miller stood by his work upon its publication in 2006, he has since changed his opinion of the self-admitted “propaganda” story.

“When I look at Holy Terror, which I really don’t do all that often, I can really feel the anger ripple out of the pages. There are places where it is bloodthirsty beyond belief,” Miller told The Guardian’s Sam Thielman in 2018. “I don’t want to go back and start erasing books I did,” he replies. “I don’t want to wipe out chapters of my own biography. But I’m not capable of that book again.”

As Akhtar’s tweet soon sparked calls to boycott the entire convention amongst her supporters, Though Bubble ultimately announced on July 28th that “Frank Miller will not be attending Thought Bubble.”

“Over the last fourteen years Thought Bubble has grown into an amazing community of comic creators and fans who we love, trust and respect. We have let you down, and in our commitment to maintaining Thought Bubble as a safe space for all, we have fallen short,” read the convention organizer’s statement. “We exist to share the art form and its worlds with people. If any individual, group or community feels uncomfortable or excluded from our show then we’ve failed.”

“We know that many of you are disappointed in us, and have been expecting a comment on this before now,” they continued. “We are sorry for our silence while we’ve been trying to fix this. Frank Miller will not be attending Thought Bubble.”

Continuing their statement, the organizers further affirmed that they were “deeply sorry, particularly to those who we should be standing up for the most,” and hoped “that you can give us the opportunity to make this better and we thank you for holding us accountable.”

“We know there is still more to discuss and we will be replying to those who have been in touch, we hope you can bear with us while we do this,” the statement concluded. “We won’t let you down again.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al-Qaeda calls for vehicular jihad attacks in U.S., calls truck ‘the ultimate mowing machine’

Qatar: Indian woman abused and tortured, ‘they told me I was a slave they had bought’

UK: Man converts to Islam, travels to the Islamic State, shares jihad beheading videos

Germany: Muslim migrant stabs man, then beheads him

Muslim migrant suspected of raping and murdering 13-year-old flees to London despite international arrest warrant

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

U.S. borders open to any and all, including jihad terrorists — but not Cubans fleeing Communism

Recently the Cuban people did an almost unheard-of thing. Risking life and limb, they took to the streets to protest their horrific treatment under the Communist regime that has kept the nation in slavery since the putsch that put the Castro brothers in power in 1959. Today, the Cuban people have had enough as the failed Communist economy denies them even life’s most basic necessities. “There’s no food, no medicine, there is no freedom. They do not let us live,” one protester told the BBC.

While this was happening, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made a stunning statement. Directly addressing the Cuban people, he said, “Allow me to be clear: If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States.”

What makes this even more amazing is that Mayorkas himself is a Cuban immigrant. He knows, or should know, just how bad the Cuban people have it. And while he overtly denies entry to Cubans that may consider fleeing that nation for their own survival, the Biden administration has flung the borders wide open to all but those with a clearly legitimate reason to seek asylum in the U.S.

In another astonishing statement to the House Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, Mayorkas claimed that “the border is secure and the border is not open.” Meanwhile, we have learned that not only is the border surge unprecedented in numbers, with the administration doing nothing to stop it, but Tucker Carlson recently cited irrefutable evidence that, with the explicit complicity of the U.S. military, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is utilizing Laughlin Air Force base in Texas to covertly fly illegal aliens to communities throughout the U.S. in the dead of night.

Most, if not all of these illegals are not legitimate asylum seekers; they are economic migrants. In an interview with Dinesh D’Souza, TV commentator Steve Cortes stated, “They are coming from troubled countries, yes. Places like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras; but those countries, while they are tough neighborhoods, they are not places of systemic political persecution.”

He is exactly right. Refugees and asylum seekers fit under a very specific definition that requires “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Few, if any, Central American migrants meet this standard. The government’s own statistics prove it. For the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2021 (which started October 1, 2020), a total of 191 refugees have been admitted from Latin America and the Caribbean under the State Department’s refugee admittance program.

Even that doesn’t tell the whole story. The State Department no longer provides access to its daily refugee tracking statistics, which provided up-to-the-minute resettlement statistics, including refugee religion and other useful information. Why did they stop?

The Trump administration reduced annual refugee numbers to a trickle. In FY 2020, that total was 11,814, the lowest in the program’s history. Yet despite the Trump ban on immigration from countries of terrorism concern, 25 percent of all refugees came from Islamic countries known to harbor terrorists, as shown in the table below.

Refugee Resettlement
Muslim Nations 2020
Afghanistan        604
Eritrea        475
Ethiopia        116
Iran        137
Iraq        537
Pakistan        169
Somalia        149
Sudan        254
Syria        481
Subtotal     2,922
Total Refugees   11,814
Muslim Nations 25%

The table may not paint a complete picture. A portion of the 2,115 refugees from Burma (Myanmar) resettled in 2020 were likely Rohingya Muslims. While they represent less than two percent of Burma’s population, they comprise 42.7 percent of the population of Myanmar’s Rakhine State. They are considered pariahs throughout the nation and are not recognized by the government. The Rohingya joined the pan-Islamic movement in the 1970s, but have engaged in an insurgency since Myanmar declared independence in 1948.

Increasing numbers of Rohingya Muslims have been resettled to the United States in recent years — about 15,000 since 2009. The State Department formerly banned resettlement of Rohingya Muslims, but today, State seems intent on resettling the most problematic populations throughout the world. And because State no longer provides real-time tracking statistics, it is impossible to know the demographic breakdown of Burmese refugees — there is little doubt, however, that it is substantial number.

The Biden administration lifted President Trump’s FY 2021 refugee cap from 15,000 to 62,500 and promises to raise that number to 125,000 in the next fiscal year, but so far has been unable to replicate the massive refugee program pushed by President Obama. Through June 30, 2021, a total of 4,780 refugees have been admitted for FY 2021. This, however, excludes the Special Immigrant Visa program (SIV), which provides resettlement to Iraqi and Afghan interpreters and others who worked with the U.S. military and other agencies during the conflicts in those nations.

On its face, the SIV program would seem appropriate. Those who assist the U.S. military risk death at the hands of our enemies. During the Vietnam War, we left millions to fend for themselves after we abandoned South Vietnam in 1975. The Vietnamese Communists persecuted many and continue persecuting Vietnam’s indigenous Montagnards because of their assistance to U.S. forces during that war.

Following the Biden administration’s abrupt exit from Afghanistan in the middle of the night, fears mounted, justifiably, that Biden would leave many behind to face firing squads or worse at the hands of the Taliban. Biden has now promised to resettle Afghans (and their families) who worked for the U.S. military — as many as 50,000 or more.

Refugee resettlement expert Ann Corcoran has pointed out however, that 70,000 SIVs have already been admitted to the U.S. “How many interpreters can there be?” she asks.

Over the past four years alone, 43,523 Afghanis have been come to the U.S. under the SIV program.

According to Mary Doetsch, a former State Department employee who worked the refugee program for many years, much of the refugee resettlement program, including the SIV program, is fraught with fraud. Authorities are currently reviewing over 104,000 cases of possible Iraqi refugee and SIV fraud.

Never mind the question of how many actually qualify as “interpreters,” it is impossible to know how many of these may have terrorist intentions, or pose some other security risk. In 2011, two Iraqi nationals granted refugee status were discovered trying to supply terrorists. They were also implicated in IED explosions in Iraq that claimed American lives. That discovery slowed down the SIV program until vetting was improved.

But more generally, European nations have begun to discover the problem with the large Afghan populations now living there. Rampant crime and especially rape have become epidemic, forcing some municipalities to stop accepting any refugees. The mayor of the Austrian city of Tulln, who initially supported the influx of refugees, said, “We’ve had it.”

In 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service processed 706,000 naturalization applications of 970,900 received. This was down from 2019 due to COVID, but the U.S. has been granting legal permanent residence to approximately one million people every year. So our nation is being inundated with refugees and immigrants, some of whom have questionable motives at best.

Yet it is still not enough. The Biden administration wants to import as many illegals as possible. In a little-reported development on this front, the Democrats intend to insert an amnesty provision in the latest budget reconciliation proposal that would fund government operations for the coming year. If successful, that change would provide a path to citizenship and voting for 22 million or more illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. This is twice the number touted by the Census Bureau for the past decade. Because most would likely vote Democrat, this would guarantee Democrats a monopoly of political power for the foreseeable future. If you think what is happening in Cuba is bad, just wait to see how bad it will become here.

The Democrats earlier attempted to pass H.R. 1, the horribly misnamed “For the People Act,” which would have federalized elections and outlawed most efforts, like voter ID, to prevent vote fraud. Because current Senate rules require a 60/40 vote to overcome a filibuster, this bill fortunately did not pass. But never to be discouraged, Democrats are now proposing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. This proposal, named after civil rights icon John Lewis, is yet another example of the Democrats misleading use of language.

The kind of support it is receiving tells you all you need to know about what they hope to achieve. It was recently touted on the Indivisible website. Indivisible is the extremist group initiated with a manual written by Democrat Congressional staffers calling for people to resist the newly elected Trump administration. Indivisible personified the #RESIST movement during President Trump’s term. Like most overtly partisan leftist groups, Indivisible was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS in 2017 and received millions from the radical Left Tides Foundation and others.

Democrats continue to raise the specter of abolishing the filibuster — which is one of the few arrows in our quiver preventing Democrats from ramming through such unethical, and clearly self-serving legislation. Without a clear path forward for this legislation as long as the filibuster remains in place, Democrats are now looking to amnesty to deliver them the totalitarian power they seek. This is the primary reason Biden has flung the borders open, and why despite almost universal opposition to this nationwide crisis, they will not lift a finger to stem the flow.

Budget reconciliation only requires a simple majority vote. However, it also has some stops that can prevent amnesty from sneaking through. The current Parliamentarian issued a restrictive ruling before, keeping a federal minimum wage out of a previous reconciliation bill. The Byrd Rule prohibits extraneous matters from being included in reconciliation bills. Senators can raise a point of order to enforce the Byrd Rule. It’s up to us to make sure they do. The reconciliation bill includes $126 billion to create a pathway to citizenship for certain categories of illegal aliens. We need to make sure the GOP Senate does its job by preventing this from getting through.

The endless trickery, lies and misinformation peddled by the Biden administration, Democratic legislators and their media propagandists, coupled with their radically destructive agenda, are enough to make one’s head explode. But as I explained in my latest book, Who Was Karl Marx?, this is their intention. The Left has pulled out the stops in its latest power grab. Part of the strategy is to make life intolerable, while at the same time marginalizing anyone who expresses any kind of opposition. The purpose is to push citizens to two extremes, revolt or submit. Neither are acceptable.

Revolt, as the Cubans have now found, will result in a crushing response. Yes, even here in the U.S. The January 6 “insurrection” which was almost certainly set up by the Democrats, as Rep. Louie Gohmert claimed at CPAC Texas this week, is the canary in the coal mine. It demonstrates how viciously the institutional Left are willing to treat opponents under the thinnest of pretexts. Hundreds remain jailed without charge, almost all of whom did little more than enter the Capitol once the doors were open.

A Daily Mail report listed the abuses faced, including solitary confinement, assaults and degrading treatment by jail guards and other abuse. One attorney was quoted as saying, “The DC Central Detention Facility has become Guantanamo Bay for American citizens.”

One claimed to have been “savagely beaten” by guards.

Violence has never been an option. To suspect Trump supporters of engaging in it defies reality. The only organized violence witnessed in this country over the past year has been instigated by the Left, often with the concurrence of Democrat leaders. Submission, however, is not an option either. It would simply grant Democrats the absolute power they seek. And that would not end the pressure. Americans would find that the pressure only increases, as the Left used its newfound power to fleece our nation of every resource we have and ruthlessly punish anyone who objects.

While our eyes are averted, this theft has already been occurring. Much of the trillions in spending already authorized for COVID has actually gone to bail out Democrat spendthrift states and line the pockets of Democrat allies. But other sleazy maneuvers have accomplished similar outcomes.

As of June, 23 states have joined a law suit targeting Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone pipeline. Biden did this as part of the effort to reverse the Trump administration’s success in making America energy independent. It has cost thousands of jobs. Most people are unaware, however, that Biden did not cancel the competing “Line 3” pipeline being constructed by Canadian oil and gas firm Enbridge that traverses indigenous lands in Minnesota. Domestic policy advisor Susan Rice owns millions in shares of Enbridge and convinced Biden to keep that one open, despite broad opposition from the Left. This kind of bottomless corruption and hypocrisy is endemic within the Democrat Party.

Democrats seek absolute power and the wealth that goes with it. The only viable alternative to this overt power grab is overwhelming victory at the polls in 2022 and 2024. We are already seeing a building momentum as citizens across the nation respond to public education’s efforts to indoctrinate our children to the divisive Critical Race Theory and horrifically destructive transgender agenda. Governors in Florida, South Dakota, Texas and other red states are taking action, offering attractive alternatives.

Citizens are voting with their feet to find these islands of sanity, and as this has shown, the Left’s destructive agenda is wildly unpopular. Yet with most media, the education establishment and other institutions of culture in their grip, too many people remain ignorant. Our only option is to fight at every level to maintain the freedom that has made America a lantern to the world for centuries. We cannot go silent into this good night.

COLUMN BY

James Simpson is a bestselling author, investigative journalist, businessman and economist. His latest book is Who Was Karl Marx? The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today’s Rampaging American Left.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer Video: Who Collected the Qur’an?

Can the Hamas-Linked AP Any Longer Be Considered a News Source?

Nigeria: Senate passes bill proposing 10 years prison for using ‘hate speech’ to ‘stir up religious hatred’

Germany: Economics Ministry advisory board wants to eliminate freedom of the press, criminalize criticism of Islam

Algeria: Muslim athlete withdraws from Olympics to avoid facing Israeli opponent

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

Biden Brings in Islamic Activists to Investigate U.S. Military for ‘Extremism’

Muslim Brotherhood supporters to help Biden destroy American soldiers.


A decade ago, Hina Shamsi was fighting on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation whose leaders had been convicted of providing material support to Hamas.

As the head of the ACLU’s National Security Project, Shamsi, a Pakistani citizen, had fought fiercely for the Islamic terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. “We all must pledge — not one person more in Guantanamo, not in our names,” she recently declared.

But now the Pakistani advocate for Islamic terrorists has a new job: going after our soldiers.

Shamsi (pictured above left) is one of the terror lawyers who appears on a list of partners for the Biden administration’s crackdown on “extremism” in the military. The only kind of extremism that Shamsi appears to be an expert on is the Islamic kind and her expertise has been in denying it.

Furthermore, at least as of 2017, Shamsi had described herself as a Pakistan citizen with permanent legal residency in America.

She’s not the only apparent Pakistani citizen tasked by Biden to go after our troops.

Take Faiza Patel, another Pakistani immigrant, who co-wrote an article arguing against designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The article claimed that “the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious organization, a political party, and a social service provider” and that it had “disavowed violence decades ago.”

That would come as news to Hamas and its other active Jihadist network members.

In another co-written article, Faiza Patel claimed that laws against Sharia were Islamophobic.

Patel has worked for international organizations in Europe, including the International Criminal Tribunal, and was a member of a UN Human Rights Council working group which listed her as a member from Pakistan, not the United States, raising questions about her citizenship.

And yet Shamsi and Patel aren’t the worst of the list of partners for the Biden administration’s Countering Extremism Working Group (CEWG) published by OANN correspondent Jack Posobiec

While Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had announced the CEWG group to counter supposed “extremism” in the military, the list of CEWG partners contains a lot of Muslim lawyers and activists. In addition to Shamsi, there’s fellow Pakistani ACLU activist: Manar Waheed.

The list includes Wael Alzayat in his role as the CEO of Emgage. The national co-chair and founding member of the Islamic group is Khurrum Wahid who has been described as one of the country’s most prominent terror lawyers and whose clients include an Al Qaeda operative who plotted to kill President George W. Bush and Sami al-Arian who was linked to Islamic Jihad.

Wahid had been placed on a terrorist watch list and Emgage, as counterterrorism researcher Joe Kaufman noted, “holds events at terror-linked mosques”: including one founded by al-Arian.

Emgage’s board includes Dhabah ‘Debbie’ Almontaser who was forced out of her old job over t-shirts reading “Intifada NYC”. Nada al Hanooti, Emgage’s Executive Director for Michigan, is the daughter of Muthanna al Hanooti, a former CAIR leader who was accused of working for Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s intelligence agency.

Is that the kind of extremism expertise that the Department of Defense really needs?

Also on the list of Biden’s CEWG partners is Iman Boukadou:, the staff attorney for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC has a long history of defending and excusing Islamic terrorism. “I know many people in Hamas. They are very respectable,” its former president Hamzi Moghrabi had said. Former ADC president Hussein Ibish called Hezbollah “a disciplined and responsible liberation force” whose members “conducted themselves in an exemplary manner.”

Boukadoum was most recently hard at work fighting for Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who had been convicted of obstruction of justice in a case involving the flow of money to Hamas.

Ashqar ran for president of the Palestinian Authority while awaiting trial in the United States. He had argued that the evidence against him had come from a time when “Hamas was not designated as a terrorist organisation” and boasted that, “they wanted me to testify against my people. I said I’d rather die than betray my commitment to freedom and justice for Palestine.”

American military personnel are being put at the mercy of advocates for their worst enemies.

Biden’s DOD radicals have assembled a list of activists who have absolutely no credibility when it comes to extremism. Multiple “partners” for Biden’s Countering Extremism Working Group have appeared at events for CAIR, ICNA, and other terror-linked organizations. Some have appeared at events featuring advocates for Islamic terrorism, sharia, and violence against non-Muslims. They’re the extremists that Americans should be concerned about.

It was not surprising that Biden’s CEWG partner list would include multiple personnel from the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center including Heidi Beirich, formerly of the SPLC, currently running her own organization, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, which barely has a website.

Or that the only conservative on the list is the First Liberty Institute. FLI’s Michael Berry also appears to be the only person on Biden’s list who is qualified for this role as a Lt. Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve who works as FLI’s Director of Military Affairs.

But to Biden, defending Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorists, is the only qualification needed for going after American soldiers. That tells us everything we need to know about Biden’s goals.

Biden’s Secretary of Defense Austin falsely claimed that, “this is not about politics or political views.” His list of partners makes it abundantly clear that this is entirely about politics.

The list consists almost entirely of organizations and individuals who supported Biden.

And that makes this look even more like a political purge of the military by a radical administration that began its time in office by abusing the military for political purposes, and has made it clear that it intends to eliminate any opposition within the military to its political views.

But it’s striking that a third of Biden’s CEWG partners are Muslim. Especially since the Biden administration isn’t looking for another Nidal Hasan in the hopes of averting another Fort Hood Massacre, but is instead trying to rewrite history to pretend that the greatest threat to our national security comes from Biden’s political opponents rather than from his Islamist backers.

The Obama administration infamously dismantled our counterterrorism programs and replaced them with Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). Biden is dismantling CVE and siccing Islamist activists and their lawyers on the military to implement a ruthless purge of American soldiers.

Witnessing Gitmo lawyers licking their lips at the prospect of bringing the Jihad into the heart of the military against soldiers who bravely served our country but have no defense against being betrayed by their own government is as disheartening to us as it must be to them.

“Did we lose a war?” the ordinary American confronted with this reversal of terror may wonder.

And the answer is, “Yes, we did.”

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:

Another Poll Tries to Convince Us Americans Are Worried About What Democrats Are Worried About

Pakistan Islamic party top dog: ‘Palestine will be free through jihad,’ but ‘Muslim rulers are slaves of America’

California: Imam says Jews use ‘religious texts to justify criminal activities,’ in Islam ‘we don’t have this’

As Biden ‘Rebuilds’ Gaza Infrastructure, Hamas Brags It Turned Water Pipes Into Rockets

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

Biden’s Team of Israel-Haters

Just days after Joe Biden was inaugurated, pro-Erdogan Turkish journalist Hakkı Öcal, according to Ahval News, “highlighted a report on the strong presence of Jews in the cabinet of U.S. President Joe Biden.” The report claimed that there was an “over 50 percent Jewish presence in the new U.S. cabinet,” and pointed Secretary of State Antony Blinken and CIA Deputy Director David Cohen, among others. But Öcal was off base: among Biden’s handlers, Jewish and non-Jewish, there are few, if any, staunch friends of Israel. After just a few months in office, it was clear that Joe Biden’s handlers’ administration was shaping up to be the most anti-Israel presidency since the founding of the modern State of Israel.

Robert Malley, Special Envoy to Iran, has become notorious over the years for his support for Iran’s Islamic regime and pronounced distaste for Israel. The Washington Times revealed in February 2021 that back in July 2019, “Iran’s smooth, English-speaking foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, met with Robert Malley, who was President Obama’s Middle East adviser, in an apparent bid to undermine the Trump team and lay the groundwork for post-Trump relations.”

Malley (pictured above left) was a good choice for such an assignment. An Israeli security official noted in February 2008 that Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hizbullah and offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.” Obama dropped Malley in May 2008 after it came to light that he had met with representatives of Hamas, but six months later sent him as an envoy to Egypt and Syria.

Meanwhile, Reema Dodin is a deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. According to the Jerusalem Post, “during the Second Intifada, in 2002, Dodin spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with residents of Lodi, California, saying that ‘suicide bombers were the last resort of a desperate people.’” Also, “in 2001, Dodin took part in a demonstration at UC Berkeley calling for the university to divest from Israel….The demonstrators compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.”

In a similar vein, Biden’s handlers appointed Maher Bitar the Senior Director for Intelligence on the National Security Council. In 2006, while a student at Georgetown University, Bitar was a member of the executive board of the viciously pro-jihad, anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, and was seen dancing in front of a banner that said “Divest from Israel Apartheid.”

The Deputy Secretary of State is Wendy Sherman, who was the lead negotiator of Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. The State Department’s undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights is Uzra Zeya. According to the Jewish News Service, Zeya “worked for the magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and its publishing group, American Educational Trust. The Washington Report has questioned the loyalty American Jews have to the United States; published accusations against the ‘Jewish lobby’; claimed American Jews control the media; and accused the Mossad of perpetrating the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-Palestine is Hady Amr. In an unhinged 2002 rant, Amr repeated Palestinian jihad propaganda, declaring: “I have news for every Israeli: a very large proportion of the more than 150 million children and youth in the Arab World now have televisions, and they will never, never forget what the Israeli people, the Israeli military and Israeli democracy have done to Palestinian children.”

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy is Colin Kahl. According to Israel Hayom, “Kahl has quite the anti-Israel record. He thinks the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq was 1981 was a mistake. In 2012, he acted to remove recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from the Democratic party’s platform. In 2015, he was among those to formulate the Iran nuclear deal. In 2016, at the end of his term, then-US President Barack Obama tasked him with enlisting support for the anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that determined Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were a violation of international law.”

Have Biden’s handlers appointed a balancing group of strong supporters of Israel, who will move to prevent this unsavory group (which is larger than just those named here) from disrupting America’s relationship with its strongest, most reliable ally in the West? Is there any brake to the ability of the anti-Israel group in Biden’s administration to force Israel to make potentially life-threatening concessions to the Palestinian jihad force. The answer to both questions is no.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s handlers mulling wholesale rollback of most stringent Trump sanctions on Iran in bid to revive nuke deal

France: Muslim who stabbed woman to death was in touch with pro-jihad Islamic cleric

Simon & Schuster employees declare they don’t want to publish, edit or promote books advocating ‘Islamophobia’

Nigeria: Muslims murder 33 Christians in one week

Texas: Muslim gets 10 years for hiding his father, a Most Wanted fugitive in honor killing of his two daughters

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

Deborah Lipstadt’s Distorted Antisemitism Definition

“Many Jews involved with progressive causes are increasingly feeling this tug, if not outright war, between their Jewish and political identities,” wrote antisemitism historian Deborah E. Lipstadt in her 2019 book Antisemitism: Here and Now. President Joe Biden’s decision to resume American aid to the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority (PA) on Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day only highlighted this ongoing conflict for Jewish Biden supporters such as Lipstadt.

Lipstadt in her book strove to give an impartial review of modern antisemitism across the ideological spectrum, but her evident political biases marred otherwise insightful analysis. Particularly her antipathy towards Donald Trump stood out, as she equated this uniquely pro-Israel president with the notoriously anti-Semitic British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. “I don’t know if either of these men is an anti-Semite,” she wrote, but “both have facilitated the spread of antisemitism.”

This Trump-Corbyn “comparison is so flawed as to be absurd,” correctly countered conservative Jewish writer Ben Cohen wrote in a 2019 review of Lipstadt’s book. As he explained:

Trump may be guilty of occasionally encouraging or even enabling anti-Semites in small ways, but Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and one with a public and considered fondness for the world’s most vicious and bloodthirsty haters of Jews.

As Lipstadt’s own book documents for quizzical readers, Corbyn’s scandalous record includes defending viciously anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists and calling Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists “friends.” By contrast, she discussed certain truly troubling Trump statements, including his 2015 comments during the Republican presidential primaries to the Republican Jewish Coalition. “None of this, however,” Cohen accurately assessed of Trump, “places him remotely in the same corner as Corbyn, who is blatantly guilty not only of enabling but of fomenting anti-Semitism as an integral element of his ideological worldview.”

Lipstadt in her book offered a leftist apologia for Corbyn’s antisemitism. “Fundamental to Corbyn’s political weltanschauung is an automatic—critics might call it knee-jerk—sympathy for anyone who is or appears to be oppressed or an underdog.” Thus she concluded:

It is doubtful that Corbyn deliberately seeks out anti-Semites to associate with and to support. But it seems that when he encounters them, their Jew-hatred is irrelevant as long as their other positions—on class, race, capitalism, the role of the state, and Israel/Palestine-are to his liking.

By contrast, Lipstadt demonized Trump as a bigot, even though President Trump actually denounced white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other extremists on numerous occasions. “Trump was, and still seems to be, unwilling to castigate, much less mildly criticize, actions by the white supremacists, racists, and anti-Semites who voted for him and who continue to support him,” she wrote without substantiation. In this context rang hollow her qualification that “I’m not suggesting, of course, that they represent all of Trump’s supporters.”

Bizarrely, Lipstadt in her anti-Trump screeds overlooked the history of openly racist Democratic presidents such as Woodrow Wilson. “In the United States, for the first time in many decades—perhaps for the first time ever—these haters believe that they have sympathetic allies in the White House.” Trump “has not disabused them of that notion,” she wrote, even though anti-Semites such as the perpetrator of the 2018 mass shooting at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue repeatedly denounced Trump for being too pro-Jewish.

A vaguely defined “alt-right” loomed large in Lipstadt’s book. She defined Milo Yiannopoulos, a pro-Israel, ex-gay man who once “married” a black man, as among this hateful “movement’s ideologues.” His former employer, the conservative Breitbart News (where this author has written), and its former editor, the Trump adviser Steve Bannon, also drew Lipstadt’s scorn. Without any particular examples, she criticized:

There is no credible evidence that Bannon is himself an anti-Semite, but it is extremely distressing that right-wing Jewish groups that trumpet his support for Israel ignored the racism, anti-immigrant, and white nationalist views promulgated by Breitbart News when he ran it.

Again without citing evidence, Lipstadt fretted that under Trump “alt-right” members “have managed in recent years to establish direct links to people with influence, including those in high-level government positions.” In addition to his pro-Israel record, Trump strengthened federal government efforts against college antisemitism, won increased black support with his economic growth policies, and appointed the first openly gay man to cabinet rank. Yet she counterfactually wrote:

Trump’s anti-Semitic followers believe that his dog whistles give them free rein to openly acknowledge their contempt for racial minorities, Muslims, homosexuals, and Jews. They are convinced, not without reason, that they have had a direct impact on government policy.

Any anti-Trump rant would be incomplete without myths about the violent 2017 Charlottesville, Virginia, protests. Trump had rightfully condemned “many sides” here among battling white supremacists and leftist extremists such as Antifa, whose destructiveness has only become clearer in subsequent years. Yet Lipstadt whitewashed the latter by condemning Trump for “moral equivalency between racists and the counterdemonstrators.”

Lipstadt also promoted in her book and subsequently the ubiquitous Charlottesville hoax that Trump had praised racist demonstrators there as “very fine people.” While condemning these racists, he had used these words in general reference to people debating and protesting on both sides in Charlottesville over a Robert E. Lee Confederate war memorial. But Lipstadt scolded Trump for praising “‘very fine people’ marching with the white supremacist protesters.”

Concerning Islamic antisemitism, Lipstadt stood on firmer ground. She recognized that “within sectors of the Muslim community, particularly in Europe, there is endemic antisemitism” and some Muslims “have been raised to hate Jews.” She observed:

Various studies, including one conducted in 2017 by the University of Oslo, have shown that attacks on European Jews, particularly physical assaults, come in the main from radicalized Muslims. Interviews with German Muslims, including well-educated professionals, feature comments about Jews that sound as though they have come directly from the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Brief hints of this antisemitism’s historical basis in Islamic doctrines, which define the subjugated dhimmi status of Jews and other non-Muslims under Islamic rule, appear in Lipstadt’s book. Under various European and Islamic religious discriminations, “Jews were hated because they refused to accept Christianity and, later, Islam.” Jews had “centuries-long second-class treatment in Islamic lands” and even today Muslim-majority states are rife with discrimination against Jews and other religious minorities. In Israel, Islamic rages arise when Jews “return to their ancient homeland, which was for centuries part of the Islamic empire.”

Rather than critically analyze this history, Lipstadt offered more politically correct explanations for Islamic antisemitism. She suggested that European Muslim antisemitism “is part of a larger problem of integration” and referenced not Islamic, but “leftist antisemitism,” when analyzing the notorious Palestinian-American political activist Linda Sarsour. Meanwhile Lipstadt invoked the totalitarian neologism “Islamophobia” amidst her warnings against “demonization of Muslims.”

Lipstadt also insightfully examines economic warfare against Israel in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, a “direct descendant of Marxist antisemitism and anti-Zionism.” A key BDS demand is a “right of return” to Israel of millions of descendants of some 600,000 Arabs who fled what became Israel in its 1948 independence war. This demographic destruction of Israel’s Jewish state, she wrote, or “negation of Jewish nationhood is a form of antisemitism, if not in intent, then certainly in effect.”

Irrespective of practical political effects, Lipstadt noted, BDS aims “to toxify Israel” by presenting it as uniquely evil among the world’s nations. In American academia, this “impact of BDS on Jewish students is quite real. Jewish students running for office in student government have also been uniquely targeted by Israel-bashers.” This demonstrates that a “myopic focus on Israel is anti-Semitic in consequence, if not in intent.”

Lipstadt’s anti-BDS stance makes ironic her acclamation of Biden’s victory days after the November 2020 presidential elections. In Biden she saw a “leader of the country who will unequivocally condemn antisemitism and extremism.” Yet his numerous anti-Israel administration appointees have included BDS supporters.

Such matters must appear secondary to Lipstadt, whose apocalyptic denunciations of Trump during and after the 2020 elections angered many Jews with what they condemned as Holocaust-trivializations. She helped launch on September 29, 2020, a Jewish Democratic Council of America campaign advertisement that compared Trump’s presidency to the 1930s rise of Nazi Germany. She later coauthored a Washington Post editorial that analogized Trump’s “democracy denial” challenges to the election results to “Holocaust denial.” Jewish legal scholar Nathan Lewin castigated this “shameful Holocaust denial” in a “rant with a blatant political bias,

Israeli Jews, 70 percent of whom supported Trump’s reelection in surveys, have greater fear of Biden resuming the Middle East policies of President Barack Obama, whom Lipstadt supported in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. Biden, for example, has already lifted sanctions imposed by Trump on the dangerous, nuclear-proliferating Islamic Republic of Iran. Biden also seems to agree with Lipstadt’s hackneyed analysis in her book that the “current situation in the West Bank is untenable” and the “most reasonable solution would be two states,” Israel and Palestine, with secure borders. By contrast, Israeli Jews have personally experienced how Islam’s “endemic antisemitism” precisely in the Muslim-majority Middle East has only turned Israeli “land for peace” territorial withdrawals into jihadist bases for attacks on Israel.

“Fight the good fight,” Lipstadt penned in autographed book copies she distributed to a November 19, 2019, audience at the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, including this author. Yet many would agree with the book reviewer Cohen that her analysis is unfortunately “deeply unsatisfactory” in places, such as her book endnotes, where she uncritically relies upon Southern Poverty Law Center leftist smear merchants. “Although she is by no means blind to left-wing anti-Semitism, her eyesight must be adjudged impaired—as indeed it also is on the subject of Islamist anti-Semitism,” Cohen wrote in 2019 in words only more valid today.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Leaders Enraged, Demand Apology as Jay-Z Wears T-Shirt with Image of Mosque on It

India: Supreme Court dismisses as ‘frivolous’ petition calling for removal of Qur’an verses that promote hatred and terror

Germany: Muslim who stabbed two says ‘areas in which Islam does not rule are war zones’

Vienna: Mosque in which jihad murderer was active and which supported his jihad activities is reopened

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