Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Palestinians: No Difference Between Fatah and Hamas - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

The glorification of terrorists and the denial of Jewish rights and history have always been a main pillar of the ideology of Abbas and Fatah.

  • Sometimes it seems as if Fatah and Hamas are competing to show which party hates Israel and the US more.
  • This call is a clear message to Palestinians to launch more terror attacks. This, in fact, is the real "license to kill" that Fatah has been talking about. It is not Trump who gave Israel a "license to kill." The real license is being issued here by Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah.
  • The glorification of terrorists and the denial of Jewish rights and history have always been a main pillar of the ideology of Abbas and Fatah. They have worked hard over the past two decades to create the false impression that they differ from Hamas. It now appears that the jig is up: their true colors are showing for all to see.
Is there any difference between the "moderate" Fatah faction headed by Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas?

In recent weeks, Fatah, which is often described by Westerners as the "moderate" and "pragmatic" Palestinian faction, has escalated its rhetorical attacks against Israel and the US to a point where one can no longer distinguish between its rhetoric and that of Hamas.

Like Hamas, Abbas's Fatah regularly glorifies terrorists and encourages Palestinians to take them as role models. This is the very Fatah that is supposed to be Israel's peace partner and whose leader, Abbas, claims that he is still committed to the "two-state solution."

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and chairman of the Fatah faction. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The latest example of Fatah's glorification of terrorists came last week, when the Israel Defense Forces killed Ahmed Ismail Jarrar, of Jenin, in the northern West Bank. Jarrar belonged to a terror cell whose members murdered Rabbi Raziel Shevach two weeks ago.

Although Jarrar is believed to be a member of Hamas, Fatah was quick to publish posters depicting him as one of its "martyrs." In one of the posters, Fatah described the slain terrorist as a "hero" and "martyr of Jerusalem."

Fatah's student faction at Al-Quds University also confirmed that Jarrar was one of its members. In a statement published hours after the terrorist was killed, the Fatah Shabiba [Youth] Movement at Al-Quds University boasted that he was "one of our prominent leaders and a member of our administrative body."

Palestinian activists in Jenin claimed that Jarrar had served as an officer with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces in the West Bank. However, a Palestinian security official denied the claim. The denial is seen as an attempt by the Palestinian Authority to distance itself from the involvement of one of its members in terrorism. The Palestinian Authority has good reason to be worried: its security forces are funded and trained by American and European experts.

By heaping praise on the terrorist and endorsing him as one of its "heroes" and "martyrs," Abbas's Fatah is sending a message to Palestinians that murdering a rabbi and father of six is a noble act. By describing the terrorist as a "martyr of Jerusalem," Fatah is also implying that Rabbi Shevach was murdered in response to President Donald Trump's announcement from last December in which he recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Since Trump's announcement, Fatah has been spearheading a new Palestinian campaign of incitement against Israel and the US. Fatah leaders, who often appear in Western media outlets as "moderate" and "pragmatic" figures, have since been urging Palestinians to take to the streets to protest against Israel and the US. The Fatah leaders employ the same rhetoric used by their colleagues in Hamas to such an extent, that sometimes it seems as if Fatah and Hamas are competing to show which party hates Israel and the US more.

Consider, for example, the following remarks by Fatah official Samer Abu Khalil, who accused Trump of giving Israel a "license" to kill Palestinians:
"President Trump's announcement on Jerusalem gave Israel a license to kill Palestinians. Trump has committed a crime against the Palestinians, who will never give up their lands and holy sites."
Referring to Trump's purported plan for peace in the Middle East, the senior Fatah official added: "The Palestinians won't allow this conspiracy to pass. The era of peace is over. Now, the era of resistance has begun". "Resistance" is a Palestinian euphemism for terrorism against Israel.

Similarly, here is what senior Hamas official Salah Arouri had to say about Trump's announcement on Jerusalem: "This is a criminal and bad announcement. Trump is in collusion with the Zionist entity."

In addition to glorifying terrorism, Fatah and Hamas appear to agree on the need to "escalate" the violence against Israel in response to Trump's announcement.

Hardly a day passes without a call by both Fatah and Hamas for another "day of rage" against Israel.

Abdel Jaber Fukaha, a senior Hamas official, recently called for escalating Palestinian and Arab protests against Trump's announcement by staging violent demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fukaha also repeated calls by some Fatah leaders to the Arab countries to cut off their ties with the US and any country that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Fatah issued a similar call on January 19. In a statement published in Ramallah, Fatah called on Palestinians to "escalate the popular and comprehensive resistance" against Israel. Fatah also called on Palestinians to "turn the lives of Jewish settlers into hell." This call is a clear message to Palestinians to launch more terror attacks like the one that resulted in the murder of Rabbi Shevach. This, in fact, is the real "license to kill" that Fatah has been talking about. It's not Trump who gave Israel a "license to kill." The real license is being issued here by Abbas's Fatah.

Moreover, there are growing signs that Fatah and Hamas were coordinating their policies regarding Vice President Mike Pence's visit to the Middle East. Hours before Pence's arrival in Israel, Fatah and Hamas issued separate statements calling on Palestinians to boycott the vice president. Again, the language used by the two Palestinian groups is strikingly identical.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said that Pence was "unwelcome in Palestine," adding that there was no "justification for any Palestinian official to meet with Pence and called on Palestinians to "thwart Israeli-American schemes directed against the Palestinians and their rights."

In Ramallah, Fatah spokesman Osama Qawassmeh echoed the Hamas position verbatim (although he also used harsher language): "Pence is unwelcome. Fatah and the Palestinian people reject Pence's visit and we call on our Arab brothers to boycott him." The Fatah official, who is closely associated with Abbas, went on to accuse Pence of being a "racist" and "extremist."

Such examples, which showcase how hard it has become to distinguish between Fatah and Hamas, can easily be multiplied. Abbas himself is also beginning to sound like a Hamas leader. His recent speech, in which he described Israel as a "colonial project that has nothing to do with Jews," sounds as if it were taken directly from the mouth of Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar.

Make no mistake about it, however; neither Fatah nor Abbas woke up one morning and decided to change its position towards Israel and the US.

For those who have been following the rhetoric and actions of Abbas and his Fatah faction, the extremist anti-Israel and anti-US views and remarks do not come as a surprise. The glorification of terrorists and the denial of Jewish rights and history have always been a main pillar of the ideology of Abbas and Fatah. Abbas and Fatah have worked hard over the past two decades to create the false impression that they differ from Hamas. It now appears that the jig is up: their true colors are showing for all to see.

Indeed, Trump's announcement helped to expose the true sentiments of Abbas and Fatah. It is all out in the open -- Fatah and Hamas belong to the same school of thought: both advocate violence; both propagate the same hostility towards Israel and the US, and both seek the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews -- as many as possible.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11776/palestinians-fatah-hamas

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Abbas' EU comfort zone - Eldad Beck

by Eldad Beck

By coddling the Palestinians and contemplating signing a "partnership agreement" with Ramallah, the EU has established itself as the greatest obstacle to Middle East peace.

While U.S. Vice President Mike Pence visits the Middle East in an effort to promote a new American peace initiative between the Arab states and Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is on his way to a meeting with European foreign ministers in Brussels. Although Abbas' arrival to the capital of the European Union was scheduled before the dates of Pence's visit were announced, there is great symbolism in his finding "refuge" from the American administration in the lap of the European Union.

Instead of making bold moves and dealing with reality, Abbas has adopted the policy of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, a man to known to have avoided making decisions by flying off to destinations that supported his unyielding positions. By doing so, Abbas is escaping to his comfort zone and working to ensure the continuation of the conflict with Israel under the auspices and encouragement of the EU.

The EU's silence in light of the unprecedently aggressive rhetoric Abbas directed at Trump earlier this month serves as conclusive proof that the EU is uninterested in finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was not the first time that Abbas – a certified Holocaust denier – has used sick conspiracy theories to distort Jewish history and Zionism. This man, who during his tenure acted to increase anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement among his people, cannot be a partner to any type of peace process.

Europe, with its own historical experience, should have understood that, and responded to Abbas' crazy speech by canceling its ministers' meetings with him. But just as the EU has found it difficult to stop the flow of funds to the PA and demand the Palestinians finally do their part to aid in the peace process, so too has Abbas not been punished for his comments but rather met with a warm embrace.

The U.S. decides to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? The EU responds by loudly voicing its opposition, and in Luxembourg, offering European recognition of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. The U.S. cuts its funding of UNRWA? Belgium responds by sending in a donation.

Abbas knows full well that he does not need to do a thing to advance the peace process because Europe will always have his back. At a time when the EU is knee-deep in its own internal issues, being anti-Israel has become the ultimate glue holding European identity together. Instead of using the many tools at its disposal to force the Palestinians to reach some type of settlement, the EU coddles the Palestinians with perks and is now contemplating signing a "partnership agreement" with the Palestinians, in response to the so-called "pro-Israel policies of the Trump administration." In so doing, the EU has established itself as the greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East.   

Eldad Beck

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/abbas-eu-comfort-zone/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Analysis: A new anti-Israel axis is forming - Yochanan Visser

by Yochanan Visser

At the northern front a new anti-Israel axis is planning its next moves.

With Hamas running out of options in its terror war against Israel from Gazan soil, the Islamist terrorist organization is looking for other options to hit Israel.

After Israel proved it can virtually neutralize every rocket launched at southern Israel from Gaza and developed what is dubbed ‘an underground Iron Dome’ in order to combat the increasing threat of Hamas’ terror tunnels, the Palestinian terror group is now threatening Israel from the north.

Last week, senior Hamas official Mohammad Abu Hamza Hamdan escaped an assassination attempt on his life in the coastal city of Sidon in southern Lebanon, when a bomb which was planted underneath the driver’s seat of his expensive BMW destroyed the vehicle, but only moderately wounded the terrorist.

Mohammad Abu Hamza Hamdan is the brother of Osama Hamdan, the official Hamas envoy to Beirut and the co-author of Hamas’s new charter which continues to call for the destruction of Israel.

Lebanese media later reported an Israeli plane or drone had been spotted in the skies above Sidon at the moment the booby-trapped car exploded, fueling speculation the Mossad had something to do with the assassination attempt.

The Hezbollah affiliated paper al-Akhbar reported this weekend that Lebanese intelligence found out Ahmed Battiyah, a Dutch Muslim, had been recruited in Amsterdam by the Mossad and was tasked with preparing the assassination plot.

Israel’s Minister of Intelligence Yisrael Katz responded to the accusations by Hamas and Hezbollah about a "Zionist plot" by denying any involvement in the assassination attempt and said if Israel had been involved Hamadan wouldn’t be alive now.

Whether Israel was involved in the attempted assassination or not will probably remain an open question, but the fact is Hamas is cooperating with Hezbollah in south Lebanon and is building “a terror infrastructure” in the country, according to Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman.

“The sudden friendship between senior Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri and Hezbollah (leader) Nasrallah is something we are following, and every development will have an appropriate response,” Liberman said last week.

Al-Arouri, who was expelled from Qatar a few months ago, is now living in Dahiyah, the Hezbollah stronghold in the Lebanese capital. Beirut. He was the brain behind the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Iran and is in charge of Hamas' terror operations in Judea and Samaria.

In October, he led a Hamas delegation which visited Tehran and conducted talks with high-ranking Iranian government officials including Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister.

Al-Arouri reportedly also met with Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, who is currently working to strengthen the "resistance" against Israel.

“Iran’s support to the resistance is the main priority now,” Soleimani said after the meeting with the Hamas leader.

Thereafter, al-Arouri spoke with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah about increasing cooperation between the Palestinian terror groups and the Iranian proxy in Lebanon.

"Both parties stressed the intersection between resistance movements and solidarity against the Zionist aggressions and all that is being plotted against the resistance movements in the region," read a statement released after the meeting.

Hamas is very blunt about the increasing cooperation with Hezbollah.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said on Saturday his organization was “developing relations” with Iran and its Lebanese proxy and admitted Israel was closely following the movements of Hamas officials in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is also cooperating with Fatah, the movement of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, who last week drove the final nail into the coffin of the 'peace process' by delivering a two-hour anti-Israeli and anti-American rant with anti-Semitic undertones.

At the end of December, last year senior Fatah official Azzam al-Ahmad met with Nasrallah in his hide-out in Lebanon to talk about the opening of a real front in Judea and Samaria.

The Hezbollah-affiliated Al Mayadeen TV network reported at the time the two discussed cooperation on instigating a new ‘Intifada’ after Fatah called for days of rage in response to the American decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and to move the US embassy there.

Hezbollah’s Unit 133 has been tasked by Iran with recruiting Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria and is training and funding new terror cells, according to military affairs analyst Yaacov Lappin.

Lappin told the Media Line that Unit 133 is a major headache for the intelligence services in Israel and claimed the Hezbollah division is also active in Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula.
There’s more.

Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon appear to be looking for a casus belli in order to start a new conflict with Israel.
President Michel Aoun, a lackey of Tehran, said last week Lebanon doesn’t consider the so-called Blue Line, the internationally recognized border between Israel and its northern neighbor, “a final border”.

During a meeting with UNIFIL commander Major General Michael Beary, the Lebanese president claimed that there are 13 points along the Blue Line which Lebanon has “reservations about.”

"Lebanon doesn't consider the Blue Line to be the final border. It is a temporary measure that was used following (Lebanon’s) liberation in 2000 and Israel's withdrawal,"Aoun told Beary while adding he considers the building of a new security fence along the Lebanese border by the IDF a threat to stability and security.

The only good news about Hezbollah’s activities in Lebanon and beyond is that Western countries are finally starting to realize something must be done to contain the threat the Iranian proxy poses not only to Israel but to the West as well.

Last week, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the establishment of a new task force which will finally deal with Hezbollah’s drugs cartel in the U.S. after the Obama Administration willfully let the Iranian proxy off the hook in order to secure the controversial nuclear deal with Tehran.

In Great-Britain, the House of Commons is expected to discuss new legislation which will finally designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization as a whole and not only its military arm, as has been the case until now in most EU countries.

The changing European stance on Hezbollah is influenced by reports the terror organization has sleeper cells in Germany and other European countries and by the decisionof the Arab League to blacklist the Iranian proxy as a designated terrorist organization.

As for Israel, almost all operational IDF plans deal with a future conflict with Hezbollah and other Iranian Shiite militias now operating in Syria and trying to take over the Kuneitra area on the Syrian Golan Heights.

Liberman has repeatedly warned that the ‘next war’ will be fought on multiple fronts.
The latest developments regarding the cooperation between Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon seem to justify his concerns.

Yochanan Visser is an independent journalist/analyst who worked for many years as Middle East correspondent for Western Journalism.com in Arizona and was a frequent publicist for the main Dutch paper De Volkskrant. He authored a book in the Dutch language about the cognitive war against Israel and now lives in Gush Etzion. He writes a twice weekly analysis of current issues for Arutz Sheva

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/240977

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The age of Neo-Stalinism - Alexander Maistrovoy

by Alexander Maistrovoy

Judges have real and huge power. Unlike heads of states and parliamentarians, they are not elected by anyone, which provides a solid ground for manipulation. Poland, which decided to limit judicial power, is being punished by the EU.

Courts have been turned into leverage for destruction of national democracies by the totalitarian system

In late December, the European Commission announced punitive measures against Poland using the so-called “nuclear option”, Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty. The reason was the decision of Warsaw to limit the power of judges. The EU considered this an infringement on "freedom, democracy and the rule of law".

In fact, the "nuclear option" of the EU has no relation to freedom, democracy, or the rule of law. Its goal is to establish a totalitarian supranational system in Poland, the leading country of the Visegrad Fronde, in order to supersede democratic national institutions of power.

The judicial system in a democratic state should guard rights of citizens. Together with the executive and legislative powers, it must guarantee "the enjoyment of life and liberty" of free citizens (The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776), or according to Jeremy Bentham, the founder of British utilitarianism, ensure "the greatest happiness of the greatest number".

The problem is that judges have real and huge power. However unlike heads of states, governments and parliamentarians, they are not elected by anyone, which provides a solid ground for manipulation.

Today, the judicial system has turned into a disgusting parody of itself; supported by politicians, Academia, media and NGOs, it is now a powerful lever used by prominent people to promote the ideology of political correctness and multiculturalism.

The goal of this ideology is ethnic and cultural substitution and, as a consequence, Islamization. It is not actively displayed, although it is not concealed.

In 2001, the former French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement called for integration of 75 million migrants from Africa and Asia within 50 years.

In July 2008, the Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Phillips declared that it was inevitable to recognize Sharia courts in Great Britain.

In September 2015, at the peak of the crisis with migrants, the journalist Ralf Schuler ("Bild") reported the EU was planning to receive additional 5 million refugees from Asia and Africa.

In September 2017, the EU financed the exhibition in Brussels called "Islam, It's Also Our History!". According to Isabelle Benoit, a historian from the Tempora organization, “We want to make it clear to Europeans that Islam is a part of our civilization”.

On February 22, President of France Emmanuel Macron said: “French culture does not exist. There is a culture in France and it is diverse… French art? I have never seen it!”.

According to Finance Minister of Germany Wolfgang Schäuble, Germans need to learn humanistic values of Islam, and Islam is “a constituent part of Germany”.

This aim is realized in three stages.

Stage one - corruption of society, impo‎sition of barbarous archaic customs, destruction of the national culture, eradication of Judeo-Christian values.

Stage two - support of Islamic occupation and migrant violence, legalization of the Sharia.

Stage three - suppression of dissent at all levels.

It is obvious that a healthy and cohesive society would resist turning it into slavery. Therefore it is necessary to undermine its foundations, to swap values: virtue should be presented as evil, barbarity - as cultural originality, abnormality - as the norm. Courts are the main leverage in this game. Below are some of the examples of this phenomenon.

In May 2013, a British court decided to grant a political asylum to 27-year-old Kenyan John Thuo. Thuo, the leader of the murderous Mungiki sect, personally butchered 400 of his compatriots with a machete and took part in a disgusting female genital mutilation ritual.

In 2006, a party called “Charity, Freedom and Diversity,” which advocates legalization of pedophilia, all kinds of drugs, bestiality and child pornography, was registered in Netherlands.

In August 2013, the Swedish Court set free Sture Bergwall - the sadist and cannibal who confessed that he had raped, tortured, and eaten his victims.

In February 2007, a German court released the former member of The Red Army Faction (RAF) Brigitte Mohnhaupt, who had murdered 9 people in 1970s. She didn’t express any regret for her crimes.

In July 2017, The National Health Service (NHS) reported 5391 cases of female genital mutilations. Although this disgusting procedure was banned in the UK in 1985, not a single person was convicted.

This is only a marginal part of thousands of similar verdicts, which under the guise of humanism and human rights impose chaos and all kinds of perversions.

On the other hand, Christian values are also being consistently destroyed.

A French court ordered to remove the cross from the statue of Pope Saint John Paul II in Ploërmel, because it violated the law imposing a strict separation of Church and State.

In August 2017, Dutch prosecutors found nothing illegal in filming a porn movie in a Church confessional.

In January 2018, British High Court decided, that the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values. (The Telegraph).

When the foundation of the society is undermined, the second stage of destruction begins.

In the Rule of Law, laws should be applied to all citizens - otherwise the very idea of democracy and justice loses its meaning.

Today, parallel Sharia law legally operates in Western Europe. The so called Laws of the Jungle reign in "black holes" of "no-go-zones", and courts condone lawlessness and savagery.

During the period of 1999 to 2001, two teenage girls from Fontenay-sous-Bois (outside Paris) were gang-raped by 14 Muslim teenagers. Ten of the rapists were acquitted, two persons were sentenced to only one year in prison, one person was sentenced to six months in prison, and the last one out of 14 was charged with a suspended sentence.

In January 2006, a French Jew, Ilan Halimi, was kidnapped by a gang calling themselves "Barbarians,” headed by Yusuf Fofana. They tortured him, doused with gasoline and burned alive. 24 members of the gang were sentenced to terms between 6 months to 18 years only. Two "Barbarians" were freed.

In May 2016, at the school of Lund (Sweden) a Muslim migrant teen raped a 14-year-old girl. The girl was transferred, but the rapist remained at the same school. He was only punished with 100 hours of detention.

In October 2016, the Gothenburg District Court sentenced a migrant Abdul to 10 months of youth care (only!) for raping of a 14-year-old girl, but Supreme Court of Western Sweden abrogated Abdul because he suffered from ADHD syndrome and "didn’t understand no”.

In July 2017, Malmö District Court sentenced a 19-year-old Afghan Muslim migrant to one month in prison for raping of a 13-year-old boy. And so on.

According to official statistics, only every fifth migrant rapist in Sweden (and only 13 percent of migrant pedophiles) are deported to their home countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia or Iraq.

This is not characteristic of Sweden in particularly. In December 2016 in Vienna, 20-year-old Amir from Iraq raped a 10-year-old boy in a toilet of a swimming pool. The District Court sentenced him to six years, but the Austrian Supreme Court overturned it "for lack of evidence."

In December 2013, the British High Court concluded that Abdul-Hakim Belhaj, the ex-leader of an Islamist group that fought the Qaddafi regime, had a "well-founded claim" against the former head of counter-terrorism at MI6, Mark Allen.

Pakistani members of Rochdale child sex abuse ring (with the exception of their leader Shabir Ahmed) were sentenced to ridiculous terms from 4 to 9 years.

In 2014, a 40-year-old preacher Suleman Maknojioa was accused of harassing an 11-year-old girl. He was sentenced to 40 weeks' imprisonment only, but did not stay in prison a single day as he was the only breadwinner.

In Germany in January 2017, a 47-year-old Syrian migrant was sentenced to one year and 9 months of imprisonment only for raping a mentally disabled woman – “because when he is drunk, he is unpredictable”. By that time he committed 23 various offenses, including assault, robbery and fare evasion.

In March, a migrant with a machete attacked an 80-year-old man in Düsseldorf and remained free. In Hamburg, 6 people were injured when two migrants used tear gas on a train. They remained free too. At Dresden-Zschachwitz station, two asylum seekers from Morocco and Libya pushed a 40-year-old man onto the tracks of an oncoming train. He survived miraculously. The Chief Prosecutor dropped the charges against them.

There are hundreds of similar examples…

In June this year, three underage Muslim migrants severely raped a 5-year-old girl in Idaho. In the court room their lawyers advocated that the so called “boys” were decent and trustworthy and they suffered from Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD).

In April 2012, for the sake of "Freedom of ex‎pression" the Spanish Supreme Court freed 9 Islamists who were planning terrorist attacks in the name of "liberation of Spain".

The Western legal system openly sabotages decisions of the executive and legislative branches of power.

The best evidence of this is courts blocking Trump’s ban on the reception of migrants from Middle East. This has nothing to do with humanism, since those who need help most of all, are deprived of it. It’s not only about Christians and Yazidis. In September 2017, Britain denied refuge to 34-year-old Nneka Obazee - a Nigerian lesbian woman and her stepchild, although she was doomed to a death penalty in her home country. After this happened, the poor woman tried to commit suicide.

In Israel, the High Court of Justice deliberately replaces the executive branch: it prevents destruction of houses of terrorists and deportation of terrorists, cooperates with left NGO to demolish Jewish houses, and blocks deportation of illegal African migrants to third countries.

EU laws literally ensure safety for terrorists. Imam Abdelbaki Es Satty, who organized a terrorist attack in Barcelona, was brought to trial on drug business charges in 2014, but Judge Pablo de la Rubia dismissed his deportation, as it was deemed a violation of EU laws.

In August 2012, two Al-Qaeda terrorists, one of whom plotted to kill thousands of people in a bomb attack in a British shopping center, applied to the European Court of Human Rights against MI5. Officials at the European Court allowed their application to go ahead.

The European Court of Human Rights and the British Court of Appeal didn’t deport Abu Qatad, Palestinian Al-Qaeda activist, to the Hashemite Kingdom for 10 years because of “humanitarian considerations.”

The third stage is elimination of dissenters of any age and social status.

Stalin asserted that repression should be based on laws, and indeed Stalin’s terror was based on the progressive Stalinist Constitution of 1936. The legislation of Western countries, which is quite liberal, opens limitless possibilities for justice.

The French pioneered the path to Muslim colonization. The starting point on the way to ethnic and cultural substitution, according to Eric Zemmur, was the Pleven law on racism (1972), which was then supplemented with even more radical laws.

Germany went even further by deciding to set censorship - fines of up to $56,000,000 for "hate speech" in order to protect freedom of speech, according ex-Justice Minister Heiko Maas.

The last major and successful case was the deprivation of the parliamentary immunity of Marin Le Pen by the French prosecutor's office after she published images of ISIS atrocities in Twitter.

The Swedish prosecutor's office accused Peter Springare, a police officer from Orebro, of spreading hatred and racism. All he did was listing police reports compiled in one week and naming criminals and countries of their origin.

Aboriginals are defenseless in the face of their colonial barbarians, because the judicial system sides with the latter always and everywhere.

A mere suspicion of Islamophobia can cause fatal consequences.

In August 2017, a 53-year-old man from Stockholm was hit with a 5000 kroner fine for eating a bacon sandwich in front of three Muslim women wearing headscarves.

In May 2017, a 70-year-old Swedish woman from Dalarna was prosecuted for inciting hatred. She did not like that Muslim teenagers “set fire to cars, urinate and defecate on the streets”.

In 2016, 35-year-old Kevin Crehan made a joke by leaving a half-eaten sandwich with bacon on the doorstep of a mosque in Bristol. He was accused of racist attack, sentenced to one year in prison and died there under strange circumstances.

Any doubt on the purity of Islam is ruthlessly punished. In August 2017, the German journalist Michael Stürzenberger was sentenced to a half-year in prison after posting of a photo on Facebook where a ranking Nazi was shaking hands with Amin al-Husseini - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

No totalitarian system is ready to tolerate heretics within its realm. That’s why it hates Trump so much. That’s why it strives to undermine Israel, defames Victor Orban and seeks to bring Poland to its knees – because of its striving for sovereignty and national democracy.

Alexander Maistrovoy is a graduate of Moscow Univ. in Journalism, worked there in his field and made aliyah in 1988. He works at the Russian language newspaper Novosty Nedely, has had articles posted on many internet sites and authored “Ways of God” about different religious and ethnic groups in the Holy Land, and with Mark Kotliarsky the Russian book Jewish Atlántida.  Author of Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger)”, published recently by Xlibris, Available at Amazon and Barnes & Nobl.

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21589

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Erdogan to US: Get out of the way so we can kill Kurds - Kenneth R. Timmerman

by Kenneth R. Timmerman

Turkey under Erdogan has long ceased to behave like a NATO ally.

​Over the weekend, the killing began in earnest.

Turkey used its U.S.-supplied fighter jets to bomb more than one hundred targets in the predominantly Kurdish province of Afrin in Northern Syria on Saturday, killing civilians and YPG fighters alike. 

On Sunday, Turkish ground troops crossed the border, invading Syria. 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made his intentions abundantly clear, vowing repeatedly to crush the Kurdish-led democratic government in Afrin, on Turkey’s southern border. 

But it was Erdogan’s threats last week to U.S. troops serving as advisors to Kurdish fighters in northern Syria that were the real show stopper.

"This is what we have to say to all our allies: don't get in between us and terrorist organizations, or we will not be responsible for the unwanted consequences," Erdogan said in a speech in Ankara.

"Either you take off your flags on those terrorist organizations, or we will have to hand those flags over to you, Don't force us to bury in the ground those who are with terrorists," he said.

In other words, Get out of the way, or you die.

Erdogan was ostensibly responding to a statement from a U.S. military spokesman a few days earlier, who revealed that the U.S. was working with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) “to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force.”

The inaugural class of the new border security force, currently in training, was just 230 persons. But the goal was “a final force size of approximately 30,000,” the spokesman said.

When he heard that, Erdogan went ballistic, absolutely insane.

He declared that Turkey would “strangle” the border force “before it is even born,” and kill any American found working with the Syrian Kurds, who just by the way have never carried out a terrorist attack in Turkey, have never ventured into Turkey, and have established a free, self-governing enclave in northern Syria that puts the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government to shame for its inclusiveness and transparency.

So, of course the United States government immediately put Erdogan on notice that he was out of line. Right? Because the U.S. has a strategic interest in seeing a free, democratic, secular enclave flourish in northern Syria.

Secreatary of State Rex Tillerson rushed up to Vancouver, Canada, to meet with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavosoglu on Tuesday. When he returned to Washington the next day, he ate his hat.

The “entire situation” in Syria “has been misportrayed, misdescribed,” Tillerson said. “Some people misspoke. We are not creating a border security force at all,” he added. 

So much for American credibility. 

The Pentagon next tried to walk back its own statements. Spokesman Eric Pahon explained that the new “security forces” the U.S. was training were not a new army or a conventional border guard force. They were merely “internally-focused to prevent ISIS fighters from fleeing Syria.”

Small wonder that the back-peddling and hat-eating weren’t enough to appease Erdogan, a dictator who knows a lack of resolve when he smells it.

I had the opportunity this past summer in northern Iraq to meet Asiya Abdallah Osman, the co-president of the Democratic Union Party, the PYD, part of the governing coalition in the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria.

“We are an independent political party that belongs to Syria and to the Kurds,” she told me. “We have a project for all of Syria, and we want American help – not just militarily, but politically. 

“We see the fight against ISIS as strategic. But after the ISIS war, help us to achieve a democratic, federal Syria.” I published more from that interview in these pages, here.

The civil administration in Syrian Kurdistan – Rojava – is not perfect. But it has attempted a monumental task of not only including representatives from all ethnic and religious communities, but of bringing the modern world into a predominantly tribal society. And it has been a haven of stability in the killing fields of the Syrian civil war.

“We have been working on the women from all communities, not just the Kurds,” a prominent Kurdish women’s activist, Nilufer Koc, told me recently in Brussels.

Ms. Koc, who also co-chairs the Kurdish National Congress, has spent much of the past five years in Rojava working on women’s issues. “One sheikh [Muslim religious leader] told us, Daesh [ISIS] was better than you,” she told me. “At least they didn’t try to change our way of life. What he meant was, they don’t try to get us to change the way we treat our women. But that’s exactly what we have to help them change.”

Kurds from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria all look to Rojava as the “success story” of Kurdistan, and that is precisely why the Turkish government wants to break its back.

Many Kurdish leaders from Iran and Syria see the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq as a failure, brought down low by the monumental corruption of the ruling Barzani clan. “There are people in the KRG government who now have billions of dollars in overseas bank accounts,” one Kurdish activist told me recently at an international conference in Brussels. “They haven’t earned this money because they are developers, or financial geniuses. They have stolen it from the Kurdish people.”

The PYD in Syria, just as PJAK in Iran, both draw their inspiration from the ideology of PKK founder, Abdallah Ocalan, who has been in a Turkish prison for the past 18 years. Both of them seek to form governments that are broad-based, democratic, secular, and that grant equal rights to women.

“We don’t want one any one group to dictate a vision, including ourselves,” PJAK co-chairman Siamond Moieni tells me. “We don’t want a communist or a socialist system, but a democratic system, such as you see in Rojava.”

While I was in Suleymania, Iraq, last summer, I met with Serhat Wartu, a Central Committee member of the PKK. Mr. Wartu openly asked for U.S. support.

“Your ‘ally,’ Turkey, is fighting you,” he said. “We have more in common with you than Turkey does. Turkey was a U.S. ally during the Cold War. But today, Turkey is opposing the United States on many fronts. For example, Turkey makes it hard for the U.S. to fight Iran. If the U.S. wanted to fight Iran, the U.S. would first have to make changes in Turkey.”

Turkey, Iran, and Syria claim that the PKK is the Wizard of Oz of Kurdistan, and somehow controls PJAK in Iran, and the YPD in Syria. While both groups express an admiration for the philosophy of PKK leader Abdallah Ocalan – most notably, his insistence on secularism and the equal treatment of women – each group separately elects `its own leaders and determines its own policies. 

As Wartu put it, “We are not one party. We do have a consensus and a common understanding and a common front. You can see that when people adopt Ocalan’s ideas. But PJAK is not the PKK. YPG is not the PKK. We are the ideological base, not the command center.”

I have written about the differences among these Kurdish parties here, here, here. On several occasions I have visited their training camps in the Qandil mountains in northern Iraq, and interviewed their leaders.

What remains abundantly clear is that Erdogan views any successful Kurdish entity as a threat, and he will intervene militarily, whenever he thinks necessary, to crush it.

Here is where U.S. and Turkish interests collide. 

Does the United States believe that its engagement alongside Kurdish fighters in northern Syria is in our national security interest, not just in the fight against ISIS, but in the broader war against jihadi Islam in the Middle East and beyond? 

If so, we should be telling Erdogan to go home, with a big “or else” behind it.

If not, well, we may as well abandon the fight, because the Kurds in Afrin are on the front lines of the battle President Trump has declared to be the generational struggle his administration has engaged to eradicate Islamic terrorism, with Turkey’s Erdogan clearly on the other side, aiding and abetting ISIS.

This is it, folks. Are we serious about defeating jihadi Islam? Or is it just words?

The proof of the pudding will be found in Afrin. 

Kenneth R. Timmerman

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269093/erdogan-us-get-out-way-so-we-can-kill-kurds-kenneth-r-timmerman

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

‘Deplorable’ Professor Fights Back Against Campus Totalitarians - Mark Tapson

by Mark Tapson

An interview with the “Anti-PC NYU Prof.”


“In the fall of 2016,” New York University professor Michael Rectenwald recently told The Daily Caller, “I was noting an increase of this social justice ideology on campuses, and it started to really alarm me. I saw it coming home to roost here at NYU, with the creation of the bias reporting hotline, and with the cancellation of the Milo Yiannopoulos talk because someone might walk past it and hear something which might ‘trigger’ them.”

Rectenwald, himself a leftist, created an initially anonymous Twitter account, @antipcnyuprof, to speak out against that ideology and the “absolutely anti-education and anti-intellectual” classroom indoctrination he was witnessing, as well as the collectivist surveillance state that the campus was becoming, as students were urged to report each other for the sin of committing microaggressions.

In October of that year, he outed himself as the man behind the controversial Twitter account, and “all hell broke loose.” He swiftly found himself the target of shunning and harassment from his colleagues and the NYU administration. In true Cultural Revolution fashion, several colleagues in his department in the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group published an open letter declaring him guilty of incorrect thinking. “The thing that is interesting here is that they were saying that because I don’t think like them, I am sick and mentally ill,” Rectenwald said to the Daily Caller.

Instead of kowtowing to the campus totalitarians, Rectenwald declared himself done with the Left in a February 2017 tweet (“The Left has utterly and completely lost its way and I no longer want anything to do with it.”) and has gone on to become an even more fervent defender of free speech and academic freedom. He has appeared often in conservative media to discuss those issues and the harassment he has received from the Left.


Recently Rectenwald even filed a lawsuit against NYU and four of his colleagues for defamation. He consented to answering some questions for FrontPage Mag about his conflict with the NYU ideologues.

Mark Tapson:  A year ago on Twitter you wrote, “Goodbye to the Left, goodbye.” Can you describe your intellectual journey from “left-liberal activist” to outspoken “deplorable” and what drove that seemingly sudden transition?

Michael Rectenwald:  In hindsight, I think that the transition was less sudden than it might have appeared. I had gone from a left-liberal activist to a left communist before I became “deplorable.” I narrate the history of the transition in my book, discussed below. But I’ll tell something of the transition here.

My public criticisms of “social justice” ideology and politically correct authoritarianism resonated with large swaths of the political right. I gained a sizeable new audience and support network – through Twitter, Facebook and via hundreds of supportive emails. I also drew backing from “cultural libertarians,” as Paul Joseph Watson dubbed this newly-emergent “counterculture.” It should come as no surprise that many Trumpists backed me, especially given Trump’s regular (although non-specific) criticisms of political correctness.

Criticism of political correctness was supposed to be the exclusive province of the rightwing. For most observers, it was almost inconceivable that an anti-P.C. critic could come from another political quarter. Unsurprisingly, then, the majority of people who discovered my case, including some reporters, simply assumed that I was a conservative. As one Twitter troll put it: “You’re anti-P.C.? You must be a rightwing nut-job.” But as I explained in numerous interviews and essays, I was not a Trump supporter; I was never a right-winger, or an alt-right-winger; I was never a conservative of any variety. I wasn’t even a classical John Stuart Mill liberal.

In fact, for several years, I had identified as a left or libertarian communist. My politics were to the left (and considerably critical of the authoritarianism) of Bolshevism! I published essays in socialist journals on several topics, including a Marxist critique of postmodern theory, analyses of identity politics and intersectionality theory (here and here), analyses of political economy (here and here), and an examination of the prospects for socialism in the context of transhumanism. I became a respected Marxist thinker and essayist. I had flirted with a Trotskyist sect, and later became affiliated with a loosely organized left or libertarian communist group.

It wasn’t only strangers who mistook me for rightwing or conservative. So too did many who knew better. An anti-Trump mania and reactionary fervor now gripped liberals and leftists of nearly all stripes. Previously unaffiliated and warring left and liberal factions consolidated and circled the wagons. Anyone who failed to signal complete fidelity to “the resistance” risked being savaged.

After my appearance on Fox Business News, such rabid ideologues ambushed me. The social-justice-sympathetic members of the left communist group to which I belonged denounced me in a series of group emails. Several members conducted a preposterous cyber show-trial, bringing charges against me and calling for votes on a number of alleged transgressions. From what I could tell, my worst offences included appearing on Fox News, sounding remotely like a member of an opposing political tribe, receiving positive coverage in right-leaning media, and criticizing leftist milieus just as Trump became President.

I denied that these self-appointed judges held any moral authority over me and declared their arbitrations null and void. Meanwhile, the elders of the group (one a supposed friend of mine) had remained silent, allowing the abuse to go on unabated for a day. When the elders finally chimed in, they called for my official expulsion. I told them not to bother as I wanted nothing further to do with them; I quit. In their collectivist zeal, they later stripped my name from three essays that I’d written for publication on their website, and assigned their authorship to someone else entirely. Upon discovering this fraudulence, I publicly berated them for plagiarism. A prominent member of the American Association of University Professors noticed my complaint and investigated the alleged breach of intellectual integrity. Verifying my authorship of the essays, he condemned the group’s actions in a popular blog. Only then did the benevolent dictators return my name to the essays’ mastheads.

Friends and acquaintances from other communities also turned on me with a vengeance, joining in the groupthink repudiation. After my appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News, the Twitter attack was so fierce, vitriolic, and sustained that my associate Lori Price and I spent a whole night blocking and muting tweeters.

But the worst banishment came from the NYU Liberal Studies community – to which I had contributed a great deal, and of which I had striven for years to be a well-regarded member. Soon after the open letter appeared, I recognized a virtual universal shunning by my faculty colleagues. One after another, colleagues unfriended and blocked me on Facebook. The few that didn’t simply avoided me entirely, until I saved them the trouble and unfriended them. Most stinging were the betrayals of those who once relied on my generosity, some whose careers I had supported and considerably advanced.

Despite the harsh treatment doled out to me by the social justice left and the warm reception I received from the right, I did not become a right-winger, or a conservative. But after the social-justice-infiltrated left showed me its gnarly fangs and drove me out, I could no longer identify as a leftist.

MT:   As a staunch First Amendment defender, do you think it is possible to reverse the culture of politically correct totalitarianism that seems to be dominating academia today, and how can we do that?

MR:  It is possible but reversing a forty-year trend that has finally resulted in what we have today – the complete takeover of academic pedagogy, philosophy, and policy by “social justice” ideology – will take a long, sustained effort, and the support of elements of the culture outside of academe, including media pundits, writers, independent scholars, public intellectuals, and a growing body of disaffected and vocal academic apostates and other renegades willing to take risks – as Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, and others, including myself, have done. The way will be treacherous because the “social justice” left controls academic departments and administrations almost entirely, and everyone else within academia has been cowed into submission for fear of being “called out” as well. We are dealing with a Maoist-like Red Guard as we undergo a soft cultural revolution of our own. David Horowitz has been right all this time about the communists lurking in academia. Their impact has now been manifested through the “social justice” movement.

I put “social justice” in scare quotes because this term is a misnomer if there ever was one. Although the movement trades on a euphemistic name and the good will that movements that have gone by the same name have earned, including the Civil Rights movement, contemporary “social justice” has nothing to do with justice and is anything but benevolent. It is a movement based on postmodernist theoretical notions and as I have pointed out (here and here), the postmodern adoption of Stalinist and Maoist disciplinary mechanisms, such as “autocritique” and “struggle sessions.” It is totalitarian through and through. We must learn from and employ the tactics that served to defeat totalitarian leftism in the past.

MT:  Apart from personal vindication, of course, is there some larger objective you are hoping to accomplish through this defamation lawsuit against NYU?

MR:  I want to make clear that social justice activists cannot get away with replacing the First Amendment with their own speech codes. They are not the official arbiters of acceptable speech, despite their self-arrogation as such.

The First Amendment does not protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence. It does not protect defamation, slander, or libel. The First Amendment does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech.

The “social justice” leftists are now claiming that I am a hypocrite because I am suing over insults, and that I am seeking a safe space of my own. But they apparently do not understand the difference between an incidental a differing opinion, an insult, and the real damages of defamation. I never claimed to be a free speech absolutist. And my own exercise of free speech and so-called academic freedom amounted to criticism of the “social justice” ideology and the mechanisms prevalent in academia and beyond. I never once mentioned any individuals by name. I never once engaged in ad hominem argumentation.

My attackers, however, showed no such restraint. In fact, they maliciously and mendaciously attacked me using official university email list servs, with the explicit aim of damaging my professional reputation and destroying my career.

Meanwhile, irony, contradiction, and hypocrisy are all on their side. Based on the postmodern theoretical notion of “social and linguistic constructivism,” the “social justice” left deems language use a material act. Thus, they excuse shutting down speech they disapprove of, “by any means necessary.” Yet “social justice” leftists actually have no problem with truly damaging language use – as long as it’s being undertaken by them, that is. While Antifa, the “social justice” extracurricular infantry, burns down campuses to prevent the airing of “dangerous” speech, the “social justice” leftists seek safe spaces – not as protection from the violence of their compeers, but from the so-called “discursive violence” of non-PC-left speakers. Yet “social justice” ideologues undertake the most virulent forms of libel and defamation when dealing with speakers who express views at variance with their own.

Ironically, precisely while calling me a “racist,” “sexist,” “bully,” and “Satan,” I was bullied, abused and pelted with racist, sexist and other remarks that denigrated me on the basis of my race and sex or gender. The irony, double standard and hypocrisy are astounding. If the reverse had been the case, all hell would have broken loose. The defendants apparently thought that individual rights are not real and that because I am of a certain category they could make such statements with impunity. But the law doesn’t agree.

So, while this suit is not merely symbolic – I have actually suffered from defamation, from malicious and mendacious speech intended to destroy me professionally and otherwise – it is also meant as a symbolic case in point, as an example to demonstrate the intent and scope of the First Amendment, which differs markedly from “social justice” speech rules. The main “social justice” speech rule is this: “social justice” leftists can say (and do) whatever they want to say (and do). And they can shut down whatever they don’t want said (or done) – “by any means possible.” The only problem is that they are legally wrong.

MT:  You have a new book in the works about the postmodern roots of social justice ideology. Can you tell us a little about that and when we can expect it?

MR:  The book is a memoir whose central argument is that the contemporary “social justice” creed and movement is the child of postmodern theory, while also incorporating some of the methods of Stalinism and Maoism. Just as postmodern theory lay dying in the academy, it gave birth to a child: “social justice” ideology.

I demonstrate the genealogy of “social justice” by recalling and retracing my own graduate education in Critical Theory (The Frankfurt School) and postmodern theory (deconstruction, poststructuralism, Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, third-wave feminist theory, Science Studies, gender and transgender theory, and so on). The book explains just how social justice derives from postmodern theoretical notions and how and why these notions are not only philosophically wrong but also extremely pernicious. I recall my own indoctrination into these schools of thought, as well my emergence from them. The book is 95% complete, so hopefully it will appear in matter of a few months. The tentative (and hopefully final) title is Springtime for Snowflakes: ‘Social Justice’ and Its Postmodern Parent. (I am currently on the market for a new publisher.)

MT:   With a title like Springtime for Snowflakes, it's bound to be a great read. Thanks, Professor Rectenwald, and congratulations on your escape from the dark side into the light!

Mark Tapson is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of TruthRevolt.org.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269079/deplorable-professor-fights-back-against-campus-mark-tapson

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.