Friday, April 28, 2017

Golan tension: Pro-Iran troops move on Quneitra - debkaFile




by debkaFile

Lieberman: “Israel will not allow the concentration of Iranian and Hizballah forces on its Golan border.”



Early Thursday, April 26, a mixed Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah force embarked on a general offensive in southern Syria ready for a leap on Israel’s Golan border. They moved forward in the face of Israeli warnings that were relayed from Moscow to Tehran and Hizballah.

This latest warning was issued by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is visiting the Russian capital this week to attend an international security conference. After meeting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defense Minister Gen. Sergey Shogun, the Israeli minister stated clearly on Wednesday: “Israel will not allow the concentration of Iranian and Hizballah forces on its Golan border.”  

 
By Thursday morning, it was evident that a decision had been taken in Moscow, Tehran, Damascus and Beirut to ignore Lieberman’s warning.

debkafile’s military sources report that early Thursday, Shiite militias under the command of Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers, alongside Hizballah troops, organized as the Southern Shield Brigade, launched their offensive at Mt. Hermon southwest of Damascus, on their way to the Syrian-Israeli Golan border in the region of Quneitra. The Syrian contingents taking part in this push are the Syrian army’s elite 42nd Brigade and elements of the 4th Mechanized Division.

Their first objective is to capture a string of villages held by Syrian rebel groups in the region of Hadar on the Hermon slopes. They are advancing towards the Golan along the Beit Jinn route.

There is no word yet on whether the warning issued by the defense minister from Moscow has produced a direct Israeli response to the provocation. Very possibly the five explosions and ball of fire they set off at Damascus international airport Thursday morning may prove to be connected to that response.


debkaFile

Source: http://debka.com/article/26026/Golan-tension-Pro-Iran-troops-move-on-Quneitra

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Sanction Iran's Regime, Add IRCG to Terrorist List - Majid Rafizadeh




by Majid Rafizadeh

Would any modern Western country really wish to appear to be on the side of this barbaric regime, or in any way to assist it?

  • It would seem that sanctions should be enforced and the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) placed on the U.S. list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations -- to show that the U.S. stands for human rights, protects the innocent and tries to save the lives of those sentenced to death by Iran's corrupt government.
  • Bills to sanction Iran that are being presented in Canada or other Western countries are, in fact, receiving scant attention. Canada has been talking about reopening its Iranian embassy, and pro-Iran advocates, such as the Iranian Canadian Congress, are pushing back against legislation that condemns Iran.
  • Would any modern Western country really wish to appear to be on the side of this barbaric regime, or in any way to assist it?
A subtle, but dangerous force is spreading throughout the West. It has been seeping into the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Middle East, the United States, South America and much of Europe.

Who are they?

They are pro-Iran regime advocates. They appear to be Westerners, but pursue a unique agenda. Under the guise of being average Western citizens, they have been infiltrating the social, political, economic and religious sectors of most Western societies.

These are not my words. They came directly out of the mouth of Iran's Minister of Intelligence, Mahmoud Alavi. In a rare, recent interview on Iran's state media, he stated that many Westerners with a dual citizenship "have a lobby group for the Islamic Republic of Iran."
"We should not accuse them and say things that discourage them about the ancestral homeland, this is not good, and losing this capital is not good for the regime... It is wrong to say that all dual nationals are traitors, spies, or foreign agents; many of these dual nationals love Iran, and are a capital for Iran.
"Many who live in Canada, London, or the United States [are devoted] to the [Islamic] revolution and the supreme leader ... In those places some attend religious ceremonies. [Those people] love the [Islamic] Revolution."

Mahmoud Alavi, Iran's Minister of Intelligence, recently stated that many Westerners with a dual citizenship "have a lobby group for the Islamic Republic of Iran... Many who live in Canada, London, or the United States [are devoted] to the [Islamic] revolution and the supreme leader." (Image source: Mohammad Ali Marizad/Wikimedia Commons)

Not long after Alavi's remarks came to light, an Iranian-born Canadian was arrested in Washington state.
"An Iranian-born Canadian arrested in a Washington city on the U.S.-Canadian border has been charged with conspiring to ship a piece of testing equipment used to calibrate missile guidance systems into Iran.
"Federal prosecutors claim Ghobad Ghasempour and two other men smuggled restricted items out of the United States to Iran through China. Ghasempour was charged Tuesday by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C."
This is not an isolated incident. It has been part of an growing trend.

Is it fair to eat the fruit of the West, while at the same time promoting the Iranian regime that keeps repeating "Death to America"?

Those who appear to pursue appeasement policies toward Iran seem to focus on two issues: preventing any new sanctions on the Iranian government and maintaining the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that will enable Iran soon to have nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

In Canada, for example, the Senate is currently taking into consideration the Bill S-219, "An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations" (to be named the "Non-Nuclear Sanctions Against Iran Act"). If the bill is passed, it would impose at least some economic sanctions on the Iranian regime for its unspeakable human rights abuses.

Iran still boasts pride of place as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to according to the U.S. Department of State.

Iran is also the number one country, per capita, when it comes to executions.

The Iranian regime executes children, gays, lesbians, human rights activists, and, it seems, anyone who disagrees with it. Its abuses go beyond murdering its own citizens. The Iranian regime suppresses every freedom of its people, by torturing, imprisoning, beating and killing them. Iran persecutes religious and ethnic minorities, and leaves only one choice when it comes to religious belief, which is the same as no choice at all. The country in the grasp of an iron fist; because of this, the majority of its people are silenced.

It would seem that sanctions should be enforced and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Coprs (IRCG) placed on the U.S. list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations -- to show that the U.S. stands for human rights, protects the innocent and tries to save the lives of those sentenced to death by Iran's corrupt government. One would think that such bills would pass easily in any Western government that hails about human rights and freedoms. Right? Not so fast.

Bills to sanction Iran that are being presented in Canada or other Western countries are, in fact, receiving scant attention. Canada has been talking about reopening its Iranian embassy, and pro-Iran advocates, such as the Iranian Canadian Congress, are pushing back against legislation that condemns Iran, explaining in a recent statement:
"Global Affairs Canada states its position that Bill S-219 (Non-Nuclear Sanctions Against Iran Act) would hinder the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Iran. The Iranian Canadian Congress has expressed its concerns about Bill S-219 since the bill was first introduced to the Senate....We have also consistently asserted that this bill directly contradicts the Government's stated intention to re-engage with Iran by placing legislative and diplomatic hurdles before this process. In a recent letter to members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Affairs Canada has agreed with our position regarding S-219.
"With the opposition already formed in the Senate against S-219, we have a golden opportunity to block this bill at the Senate Chamber. Currently we are contacting all Honourable Senators to once again ask them to take into account all evidence and expert advice provided in opposition to the bill and vote against Bill S-219 when it comes for a vote at the Senate Chamber. We need all supporters of peace and diplomacy to help us and take action against these proposed sanctions on Iran. In the next few days we will issue an announcement about next steps that can be taken by community members."
It is critical to understand that the Iranian government needs these appeasement policies, including the so-called "nuclear deal", and that it needs the West to turn a blind eye to Iran's human rights records and military expansionism.

Those who appear to pursue policies of appeasement toward Iran often attempt to justify them by arguing that they will benefit the West. Or they will argue that sanctions against Iran's human rights violations will harm the West. On the contrary, continuing the nuclear agreement and the appeasement policies are what have harmed the West, by providing the Iranian regime with billions of dollars in extra revenues as well as enhanced global legitimacy.

And what does the Iranian regime do with this Western favor? It has been transforming this gift from the West into funds for promoting anti-Western sentiments, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism; for suppressing and murdering its own people, sponsoring terrorism around the globe, and promoting Islamist ideals.

As Iran continues to flaunt its determination to engage in human rights violations, cruelty, terrorism, torture, and murder, Western governments should act; Western funds should at least stop flowing into Iran, lending its militia legitimacy and supporting actions that should not be tolerated. Would any modern Western country really wish to appear to be on the side of this barbaric regime, or in any way to assist it?

  • Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, a world-renowned businessman, political scientist and Harvard University scholar, is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He is also the author of "Peaceful Reformation in Iran's Islam". He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10285/iran-ircg-terrorists-sanction

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Agenda for the Trump-Abbas Meeting - Caroline Glick




by Caroline Glick


There's a time limit on the Trump administration's tolerance of Palestinian shenanigans.



Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

The day after Israel celebrates its 69th Independence Day, US President Donald Trump will greet PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas at the White House. The date of their meeting, May 3, is notable not least for its timing.

The timing of the meeting presumes a linkage between the establishment of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is not merely obnoxious, it is also blind to reality.

In reality, an independent state of Palestine has existed for the past 12 years in Gaza. Rather than build that up and declare independence, Abbas and his comrades surrendered Gaza to Hamas in 2007.

Hamas, in turn, transformed independent Palestine into a base for jihad.
Abbas’s failure to declare independence in 2005 – and the subsequent failure of his US-trained forces to defend their control over Gaza in June 2007 from Hamas terrorists – is generally overlooked. But it is critical that Trump understand the significance of his behavior before he meets with Abbas.

Since the inception of the peace process between Israel and the PLO in 1993, the professed goal of the PLO has been to establish an independent Palestinian state on any territory over which it was able to take control from Israel. Yet 12 years ago, when Israel withdrew its citizens and military from Gaza, the PLO refused to take responsibility for the area insisting ridiculously that Gaza was still controlled by Israel.

Then 10 years ago, US-trained PLO forces fled to Israel rather than defend their control of Gaza when Hamas took up arms against them.

There are, it seems, two main reasons for Abbas’s behavior. The first is directly related to how he understood Israel’s decision to withdraw.

In December 2003, then-prime minister Ariel Sharon stunned the country when he adopted the platform of the Labor Party – which he had just massively defeated in the general elections – and removed all Israeli communities and military installations from Gaza, including from the border with Egypt, by the end of 2005.

Israeli society was nearly torn apart in the one year and eight months between Sharon’s surprise announcement and the expulsion of Gaza’s Jews in August 2005. The media hemorrhaged with continuous propaganda that demonized the Israeli residents of Gaza and the religious Zionist community in general.

A reminder of that toxic period came earlier this month, when Haaretz published a column by veteran reporter Yossi Klein in which he alleged that religious Zionists posed a graver danger to the State of Israel than Hezbollah.

Abbas and his lieutenants viewed the domestic chaos that engulfed Israel at the time as proof of Israel being on its way off the stage of history.

If this was how Israelis reacted to the destruction of 21 communities in Gaza (and four in northern Samaria) and the dispossession of 10,000 Israelis, it was clear to Abbas and his comrades that Israeli society would collapse if Sharon carried out his plan to reenact the Gaza withdrawal tenfold in Judea and Samaria after the 2006 elections.

Why accept Gaza if all of Israel was about to be destroyed – by its own hand? The second reason that Abbas didn’t declare independence in Gaza, is because he had no interest in being held accountable for his behavior – as leaders of independent states are. If he accepted sovereign power, then the Palestinians as well as Israel and, presumably, the rest of the world would be able to hold him to account for what happened within the territory he controlled. His ability to blame Israel for his failures would be diminished, at least in theory.

Far better, Abbas concluded, to pretend that Israel’s withdrawal was meaningless and blame Israel for his failure to govern his own territory.

Both reasons for Abbas’s rejection of responsibility over Gaza are important because they also reflect the views of the Palestinians as a whole.

Dan Polisar, from Shalem College, summarized in a recent article in the online magazine Mosaic, his study of more than 400 public opinion surveys of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza taken by professional pollsters over the past 23 years.

Like Abbas in 2005, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians believe that Israel isn’t long for this world.

In one 2011 survey, for instance, a mere 23% of Palestinians said they were certain that Israel will continue to exist 25 years hence. 44% were certain it would not.

The fact that more than three quarters of Palestinians are uncertain if Israel will survive is not only a function of Israel’s own self-destructive behavior – it is premised as well on Palestinian ideology.

The vast majority of Palestinians reject Israel’s right to exist. Indeed, a mere 12% of Palestinians believe that Jews have ties to the land of Israel.

Polisar showed that, whereas a plurality to a bare majority of Palestinians accepts the premise of a twostate solution, the overwhelming majority reject any deal that would leave Israel intact as a viable state capable of defending itself. Equally importantly, 68% of Palestinians believe that even if a Palestinian state is established in Gaza, Judea and Samaria with Jerusalem as its capital, they should continue to aspire to Israel’s destruction.

In other words, even if the PLO signs a deal with Israel that says the conflict has been resolved, for 68% of Palestinians the conflict will continue. They oppose ending the education of their children to seek Israel’s destruction and accepting Israel as a peaceful neighbor.

This then, brings us to Trump’s visit with Abbas, the day after Israel’s 69th birthday.

What does he intend to discuss with Abbas? From media reports, it appears that Trump intends to discuss the Palestinian Authority’s subsidization of terrorism to the tune of $300 million each year, which it pays out as salaries to terrorists in Israeli prisons and as stipends to their families.

In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News earlier this week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu urged Trump to hold Abbas to account for his massive budgetary outlays to terrorists and their families. He asked that Trump demand as well that Abbas stop the PA ’s indoctrination of the Palestinians to seek the annihilation of Israel and the murder of its citizens.

This is well and good. But it seems a bit beside the point. The point is that 69 years ago, the Jews established our state. A Palestinian state was not established then or since, not because Israel was unwilling for such a state to come into being, but because the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

If any good is to come from Trump meeting with Abbas – on May 3 or at any other time – then he should send the following message to Abbas and to the rest of the world.

To date, the US has supported the goal of Palestinian statehood, because it convinced itself that the Palestinians were interested in a state that would live at peace with Israel. The US pressured Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians in order to encourage them to accept Israel. And the US funded the PA thinking that doing so would advance the cause of peace. It trained and armed PA security forces for the same reason.

To date, the Palestinians, the PLO and the PA have not lived up to their side of the bargain – on anything.

They have not come to terms with Israel’s existence; they have not abjured terrorism; and they have not accepted responsibility for the areas under their control, either in Gaza, or in Judea and Samaria.

Since his is a new administration, Trump is willing to give Abbas the benefit of the doubt for three months. In that time Abbas needs to stop all financial transfers to terrorists and their families – in and out of prison; he needs to change the names of all the public sites now named after terrorists; and he needs to purge all anti-Jewish content from his PA -controlled media and mosques.

If Abbas fails to do all of these things by August 3, then the Trump administration will abandon its support for Palestinian statehood and its recognition of the PLO .


Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266527/agenda-trump-abbas-meeting-caroline-glick

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Patriot missile fired at drone entering Israeli airspace from Syria - Anna Ahronheim




by Anna Ahronheim

The missile reportedly intercepted a unmanned aerial vehicle that penetrated into Israeli airspace from Syria.


Quneitra
A UN observation tower is seen overlooking Syria, next to the Quneitra border crossing between the Golan Heights in Israel and Syria.. (photo credit:REUTERS) 

The IDF confirmed on Thursday that Israel fired a Patriot anti-ballistic missile at a target in the Golan Heights, Israel's northern region bordering Syria.

Israeli media said residents in the northern Israeli town of Safed reported seeing two missiles being launched and of explosions occurring afterwards. It was initially unclear whether the target, which media said was an unmanned drone, was shot down over Syria or Israeli-controlled territory. The IDF was reportedly checking whether the drone was Syrian or Russian.


The interception comes hours after Israel allegedly struck a Hezbollah arms depot near Damascus International Airport, which led to condemnation by Russia which called it a “gross violation of Syrian sovereignty.”

Israel has in the past used the Patriot system against suspicious aerial vehicles, most recently in July 2016 when two Patriot missiles were fired at a suspicious drone that crossed into Israeli airspace from Syria. Both missed their target and the unmanned aircraft returned to Syria.

In August 2014, a Patriot missile successfully shot down a drone that entered Israeli airspace from the Quneitra region Syria close to the Israeli border.

In March, Syria warned that scud missiles would be fired towards Israeli targets if Israel carried out any further airstrikes in the war-torn country. Lebanon’s Al-Diyar newspaper said that Damascus prepared 4 Scuds out of their arsenal of 800 Scud missiles which carry half a ton of explosives, and would launch them without any prior warning if Israel carries out any new strikes, “as Israel does not announce their raids against Syrian targets.”

The report came following an Israeli strike on a Hezbollah-bound weapons convoy and the firing of a SA-5 missile towards Israeli jets which was intercepted by an Arrow missile.

Israel’s air defense systems include the Iron Dome, which is designed to shoot down short-range rockets, the Arrow system, which intercepts ballistic missiles outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, and the newly operational David’s Sling missile defense system, which is designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles, medium-to-long-range rockets, as well as cruise missiles fired at ranges between 40 to 300km.

David’s Sling missile defense system is meant to replace the ageing Patriot system.

Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the terror group is able to hit “the entirety of occupied Palestine with missiles,” but according to a senior IDF officer in the Air Defense Command, with the addition of the David’s Sling to Israel’s Air Defenses, there is now the ability to protect more territory from enemy rockets or missiles.

The border with Syria has been tense since the war erupted in 2011, and while Israel is suspected of carrying out strikes against Hezbollah weapons convoys in Syrian territory, it rarely publicly admits to them. With various heavily armed radical groups battling President Bashar Assad, Syria is Israel’s most unpredictable and unstable neighbor and poses one of the largest risks for a sudden escalation. 



Anna Ahronheim

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Breaking-Missile-fired-at-drone-violating-Israeli-airspace-489196

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Sharia, Arkansas Style - Bruce Bawer




by Bruce Bawer



Yet another disgraceful episode in the ever-lengthening chronicle of campus compromise and cowardice on the topic of Islam.




On April 13-15, the King Fahd Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Arkansas held a symposium on so-called “honor violence,” as exemplified by honor killings, forced marriage, and other such delightful acts. I'll get back to this – but first of all, am I the only person who still finds it jarring to see words like “King Fahd Center for Middle East Studies” in the same sentence as words like “University of Arkansas”?

The Center, as its website informs us, “was founded with a $20 million endowment from the Saudi government in the mid-1990s.  An initial endowment of $2 million, dedicated toward language, literary translation and publication was followed by a much larger $18 million gift designed to spark the foundation of a comprehensive Middle East Studies program at the undergraduate and graduate levels.”

Of course, this isn't the only so-called “Middle East Studies” shebang based at a Western university, named for a Saudi royal, and funded by Saudi cash. Georgetown University famously boasts the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding – which, when you stop to think about it, is a strange name for a unit of a university, where you'd imagine that the idea would be not “understanding” in the touchy-feely sense suggested by the phrase “Muslim-Christian Understanding” but, rather, “understanding” in the sense of becoming informed about a subject. But anyway.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the regal moneybags behind Georgetown's lavish propaganda operation (as of last year he was the 41st richest person in the world) is also responsible for the Alwaleed Centre at the University of Edinburgh, the Alwaleed Bin Talal Islamic Studies Program at Harvard, and the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Islamic Studies at Cambridge, plus centers for American Studies bearing his name in Beirut and Cairo. In addition, according to Wikipedia, he's “Citigroup's largest individual shareholder, the second-largest voting shareholder in 21st Century Fox, and owns Paris' Four Seasons Hotel George V and part of the Plaza Hotel,” presumably the one in New York.

A quick look at the prince: he's tweeted that he wouldn't “visit Jerusalem...until its liberation from the Zionist enemy.” He's the guy who, after fifteen of his fellow Saudis laid down their lives for their God on September 11, 2001, gave then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check and a lecture about the terrorist attack's supposed roots in U.S. policies. (Giuliani, to his everlasting credit, turned down the check, in response to which the prince suggested that he'd done so out of fear of “Jewish pressures.”)

But back to Arkansas's King Fahd Center, named for the ruler of Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 2005 and son of that nation's glorious founder. Some fun facts on Fahd: when he was still just a princeling, he was named Minister of Education, even though he is believed to have been functionally illiterate at the time. His contributions to Saudi history, following his ascent to the throne, include (and here I'm quoting from Wikipedia, which notoriously whitewashes and euphemizes anything untoward about Islam) his strengthening of the “separation of the sexes and power of the religious police” and his endorsement of the idea that young Saudis should “avoid the path of evil by not travelling to Europe and the United States.”

Some might consider Fahd a wee bit of a hypocrite, given his love of Monte Carlo, where he frequently gambled, drank, smoked, drove top-of-the-line Cadillacs, and consorted with more than one hot babe at a time. In 1991, when he feared that Saddam Hussein might follow up his conquest of Kuwait with an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Fahd, abandoning his deep concerns about the Western moral pollution of his holy kingdom, allowed infidel U.S. forces to sully it by their presence in order to defend it from Iraq.

Who better to name an American center of education after?

Anyway, I bring up the King Fahd Center – which, by the way, is within shouting distance of the Sam M. Walton School of Business and the Frank Broyles Athletic Center (sorry, I just can't get over the outrageous cultural incongruity) – because of this recent “honor violence” symposium, which would seem to mark some kind of advance. After all, if they're willing to acknowledge and discuss this appalling aspect of Islam, there must be something other than pure Islamic propaganda going on there, right?

The most impressive sign of all was that one of the individuals invited to participate in the Arkansas symposium was Phyllis Chesler, who has researched honor violence extensively and may well be the world's foremost expert on the topic. Chesler, a psychotherapist and bestselling author whose name will be familiar to readers of this site, is a remarkable figure in many ways – one of the marquee names of second-wave feminism, a co-founder of such groups as the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women's Health Network, and a founding mother of Women's Studies.

In recent years, however, Chelser has been all but read out of the very movement she help[ed] found. Her 1979 book With Child recounted her own experience of pregnancy and new motherhood with a sensitivity and seriousness that unnerved some feminists, for whom the topic uncomfortably recalled old-fashioned conceptions of female roles. In Women's Inhumanity to Women (2002), Chesler committed the crime of admitting that the feminist concept of perfect sisterhood is an inane utopian fantasy.

But Chesler's principal offense has been her recognition – and her readiness to say out loud, notably in The Death of Feminism (2005) – that the systematic misogyny she has spent her career decrying reaches its apex in Islamic cultures, and that all too many of her former feminist allies, motivated by a misguided multiculturalism, refuse to address this fact. Indeed, while today's feminist establishment has a problem with Chesler's criticism of Islam, it has no trouble welcoming into its ranks pro-sharia Muslims such as Linda Sarsour (a leader of the recent Women's March in Washington).

It was, therefore, refreshing – shocking, actually – to learn that a Center for Middle Eastern Studies named for King Fahd of Saudi Arabia had invited Chesler to take part in a symposium on honor violence. Had the world suddenly gone sane?

Alas, no. In an anonymously leaked e-mail sent to Thomas Paradise (yes, Paradise), head of the Fahd Center, three Center faculty members – Joel Gordon, Ted Swedenburg, and Mohja Kahf – slammed Chesler as “a prominent Islamophobe” who expresses anti-Muslim “bigotry,” commits “hate speech,” and has been published by “the ultra-right Breitbart forum” and other “right-wing platforms.” (It's true that, of late, Chesler has written less often for leftist than conservative outlets, this one included: she's done so because the latter tend to be far more open to a diversity of views than the former.) Chesler's views, the three Arkansas professors wrote, were so far out that they simply could not be “tacitly accepted as part of the discourse.” But then, what else can you expect from lackeys of a foreign government that exerts severe and (when necessary) violent control over “the discourse” – in addition to denying religious freedom, imprisoning dissidents, and executing gays and apostates?

There ensued an e-mail exchange between Paradise and the Center's Lisa Avalos in which Paradise was palpably panicking (“It is getting ugly and they are rallying”), worrying that “campus Muslim organizations” would make noise over Chesler's presence, and insisting that despite his “disagree[ment] with issues of stifling free speech” (yeah, right) there was no choice but to disinvite Chesler. And so – voilà! – Chesler was disinvited.

The result: a symposium at which none of the participants was a published scholar on the subject. (They were all either activists or law-enforcement officers.) “Being dis-invited,” Chesler e-mailed me the other day when I asked her for a comment, “confirms that the Western academy is ruled by Brown-Shirts; that the professoriate are willing dhimmis; and that even the good people are too terrified to stand against those who wish to close their minds to truth and to shut honest inquiry down and replace it with Orwellian propaganda.” In short: yet another disgraceful episode in the ever-lengthening chronicle of campus compromise and cowardice on the topic of Islam.


Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and "The Victims' Revolution." His novel "The Alhambra" has just been published.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266455/sharia-arkansas-style-bruce-bawer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinians: This is How We Intimidate Journalists - Bassam Tawil




by Bassam Tawil

Repressive measures are aimed at silencing critical voices among the journalists and deterring others from reporting stories that reflect negatively on the Palestinian leadership in particular and Palestinians in general.

  • In the world of the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership, a journalist's loyalty to his leaders and their cause supersedes his loyalty to the truth. In a word, it is the truth vs. Abbas's security forces.
  • As the international media relies heavily on Palestinian journalists and "media assistants" in covering Palestinian affairs, this intimidation of Palestinian journalists heavily colors the reporting of Western journalists. The stories Palestinian journalists tell their Western colleagues are limited to ones that will not endanger their own lives. This censorship, whether by the Abbas's security forces or self-imposed, explains why one rarely reads or sees a story in Western mainstream media about negative things happening in the PA-controlled territories.
  • Even when their Palestinian colleagues are beaten and arrested by Abbas's security forces, these "journalists" fail to report such incidents. This makes some sense: should they open their mouths with the truth, Abbas and his cohorts might indeed stop inviting them to press conferences and banquets in the fancy restaurants of Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jericho.
Seven Palestinian journalists are the latest victims of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) continued crackdown on the media.

The repressive measures are aimed at silencing critical voices among the journalists and deterring others from reporting stories that reflect negatively on the Palestinian leadership in particular and Palestinians in general.

In the view of President Mahmoud Abbas and his PA, Palestinian journalists exist to write stories slamming Israel or praising PA leaders. Media, for them, is defined as a mouthpiece for Abbas, the PA leadership and the Palestinian cause.

Any journalist who dares to think outside this checkpoint is subject to severe punishment. Under Abbas and the PA, there is no room for an independent media.

The three major Palestinian newspapers -- Al-Quds, Al-Ayyam and Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda -- are controlled, directly and indirectly, by the PA.

Although Al-Quds, the largest Palestinian daily, is privately owned and published in Jerusalem, it too serves as a mouthpiece for the PA. The newspaper's publisher and editors know that if they publish any story that is critical of Abbas or the PA leaders, they will face punitive measures, such as banning the distribution of Al-Quds in PA-controlled territories. As such, the editors and journalists have long resorted to self-censorship. This forced silencing explains the absence, for example, of any news items about Palestinian corruption or human rights violations in Al-Quds and the two other newspapers.

Al-Quds suffered heavy financial losses after Hamas banned its distribution in the Gaza Strip several years ago. The newspaper was banned from sale in Gaza because of its affiliation with the Palestinian Authority and criticism of Hamas.

Al-Ayyam and Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda were founded by the PA after the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, more than two decades ago. The PA appoints the editors and reporters, who receive their salaries from the Palestinian government. The two dailies are the Palestinian version of Pravda ("Truth"), the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

But the truth is hardly on the minds of the Palestinian editors and journalists employed by the PA. Their only truth concerns stories that blast Israel. The pages of the two newspapers are packed with reports of Israeli "wrongdoings." The Palestinians, it seems, are rather blameless from their point of view. A glance at the PA newspapers leaves one with the impression that President Abbas is the greatest leader of the greatest regime on earth.

Abbas's television and radio stations are no different. They too serve as a modern version of the Soviet Union's Pravda. They too specialize in anti-Israel rhetoric, striving to depict Israel as a war-mongering "racist" and "apartheid" country. The anti-Israel incitement in the PA media has radicalized Palestinians to a point where many of them are no longer willing to accept any form of compromise with Israel.

We like to think that things can get better over time. Yet, a new generation of Palestinian journalists is being raised on the notion that their entire reason for being is to serve as spokesmen for their leaders and government. In the world of the Palestinian Authority leadership, a journalist's loyalty to his leaders and their cause supersedes his loyalty to the truth. In a word, it is the truth vs. Abbas's security forces.

Last month, four Palestinian journalists came to learn the hard way what happens when you defy the PA leadership.

During a peaceful anti-PA protest in Ramallah on March 12, Palestinian security officers brutally assaulted four journalists who were covering the event. The four are Hafez Abu Sabra, Mohammed Shusheh, Jihad Barakat and Ahmed Milhem.


Palestinian Authority police assault journalists at a protest in Ramallah, on March 12, 2017. (Image source: Roya News video screenshot)

Shusheh said security officers in plainclothes approached him and tried to snatch his camera. When he resisted, he was beaten with clubs, he said. When his colleague, Abu Sabra, came to his help, he too was beaten on the face with fists and clubs. The other two journalists recounted undergoing similar assaults.

The assault on the four journalists was aimed at preventing them from reporting on the demonstration in Ramallah, which was organized in protest against the Palestinian Authority's decision to prosecute three Palestinians on charges of illegal possession of weapons.

The journalists would not have been beaten had they arrived to cover a rally in support of President Abbas and the PA leadership.

In a bid to contain the anger of Palestinian journalists over the assault on their colleagues, the PA promised to launch an investigation into the police brutality. No one in Ramallah, however, is expecting the PA to punish those responsible for the assaults on the journalists. Moreover, PA leaders have rather poor credibility among Palestinians on the issue of defending freedom of speech and the media.

Why should anyone believe the PA leaders when their actions go against their words and promises?

After the Ramallah incident, where the four journalists were roughed up by Abbas's officers, the Palestinian Authority security forces detained three more journalists: Amer Abu Arafeh, Sameh Manasrah and Qutaiba Qassem. The three were interrogated for "incitement" against the PA on social media -- meaning that they had voiced criticism of Abbas and his security forces. The journalists crossed the red lines by daring to express their opinion in a way that angered Abbas and his PA officials.

Abbas's policy of intimidation seems to be working. Palestinian journalists living under his rule in the West Bank are afraid to report stories that are not favorable in the eyes of the PA leadership.

As the international media relies heavily on Palestinian journalists and "media assistants" in covering Palestinian affairs, this intimidation of Palestinian journalists heavily colors the reporting of Western journalists. The stories Palestinian journalists tell their Western colleagues are limited to ones that will not endanger their own lives.

This censorship, whether by the Abbas's security forces or self-imposed, explains why one rarely reads or sees a story in Western mainstream media about negative things happening in the PA-controlled territories.

The Palestinian journalists, like their leaders, give Western journalists only the dirt on Israel. Many Western journalists, for their part, have adjusted themselves to this reality and are willing partners in the bash-Israel campaign.

Even when their Palestinian colleagues are beaten and arrested by Abbas's security forces, these "journalists" fail to report such incidents. This makes some sense: should they open their mouths with the truth, Abbas and his cohorts might indeed stop inviting them to press conferences and banquets in the fancy restaurants of Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jericho.
Bassam Tawil is an Arab Muslim scholar based in the Middle East.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10116/palestinians-journalists-intimidation

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Volcanoes, CO2, and climate change - Robert Truner




by Robert Truner

While Greenies treat anthropomorphic increases in CO2 as determinative in rising CO2 levels, their understanding remains severely limited in regard to the volume of CO2 produced by natural mechanisms beyond our control.

In a study recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, geologists at the Royal Holloway University report finding a massive lake of molten carbon the size of Mexico located some 217 miles below the earth’s surface across the western United States. The volume of the earth’s upper mantle carbon reservoir is now estimated to be 100 trillion metric tons, which will gradually make its way to the earth’s surface through volcanic eruptions and slowly contribute to global warming, we are told, unless there should be a sudden release which could have “dire consequences.”


Have you ever noticed that any discovery relating to the carbon cycle always seems in one way or another to include the potential for dire consequences? If 100 trillion metric tons of molten carbon will be released into our atmosphere over time through the natural process of volcanism, does that not dwarf the 10 billion metric tons that, according to EPA estimates, was released into the atmosphere in 2011? I would suggest that this study may provide legitimate questions in regard to the usefulness of draconian government regulation in regard to carbon emissions (see California law regulating cow flatulence)?

With 80% of the earth’s land mass said to be volcanic in origin, volcanism at some past time obviously occurred in much greater volume than at present. At such time atmospheric CO2 would of necessity have been at much higher levels than today. Remarkably, the world seems to have survived these high CO2 levels. How many volcanoes today are erupting on ocean floors of which we are unaware? How many fissures in the ocean floor are releasing CO2? How many known volcanoes are currently erupting? How many dormant volcanoes presently serve as conduits allowing the escape of CO2 trapped in the upper mantle of the earth? While estimates are attempted, the fact of the matter is we simply do not know how many metric tons of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere by these natural means during the course of a year.

In addition, it could be argued that our knowledge of the effects of higher levels of CO2 is not exhaustive. With elaborate computer modeling it was theorized that increases in atmospheric CO2 would result in significant global warming (even if falsified data were necessary to achieve the predicted result). A troublingly inexplicable 20 year hiatus in warming resulted in substitution of the term “Climate Change,” in place of global warming, the obvious advantage being that whether temperatures rise or fall, one can still claim success in ones predictions. 

In determining risk assessment, global warming zealots seem oblivious to possible positive effects of higher levels of CO2. What of the greening effect on plant life caused by s greater abundance of CO2? How would a slight increase in world temperatures impact the length of growing seasons or increase land available for agricultural use in more northern latitudes? What potential does increased CO2 have for increasing food production, etc.? 

And while Greenies treat anthropomorphic increases in CO2 as determinative in rising CO2 levels, their understanding remains severely limited in regard to the volume of CO2 produced by natural mechanisms beyond our control. By the same token, how much CO2 will be absorbed by the expanded plant life thereby caused and how much additional oxygen will be released through photosynthesis?

And then there are the predictions. Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming and the United States was going to see more and more devastation from hurricanes. What happened? It was a full decade before another hurricane hit the U.S. mainland.

The drought in California was the result of global warming. Drought was the new reality that would be expanding throughout the West. But, all of a sudden the drought is over. In fact they don’t know what to do with all of the water. It was just a normal cycle that has likely repeated itself hundreds of times.

And of course, dire predictions of starving populations by 1990 or 2000 failed to materialize, indeed catastrophe after catastrophe seems to have somehow been avoided so the question arises, why do we bother to listen? Actually, except for the college age generation who have been so indoctrinated by their progressive professors, we don’t listen, as is obvious by how few Americans see global warming or climate change as a crisis.

I am sure that Bill Nye the science guy would collapse at the thought that the gospel of global warming theory is being questioned and we have any number of green enthusiasts who will call me a climate change denier or an ignoramus, but isn't time to stop calling each other names and recognize anthropomorphic global warming as a theory rather than an absolute truth? This may also be the time to stop referring to climate change with the politically correct but very unscientific term the left uses when it can't substantiate a claim, “settled science.”

Robert Truner

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/volcanoes_co2_and_climate_change.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Portland cancels annual Roses Parade after threats from 'resistance' - Rick Moran




by Rick Moran

The family oriented event was threatened with disruption by thugs who promised to "stab to death" marchers associated with the Multnomah County Republican Party.

The city of Portland decided to cancel the annual 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade after email threats were received promising violence if the event went forward.

The family oriented event was threatened with disruption by thugs who promised to "stab to death" marchers associated with the Multnomah County Republican Party. After consulting police, organizers decided they couldn't protect marchers or bystanders and ended up cancelling the event.

Oregonian:
At least two protests were planned for the day of the parade, one by Oregon Students Empowered and another by Direct Action Alliance. Both events were mentioned in an email sent to parade organizers on Saturday, threatening to shut down the event with hundreds of protesters in the street.
"You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely," the anonymous email said, telling organizers they could cancel the Republican group's registration or else face action from protesters. "This is non-negotiable."
The parade is organized by the 82nd Avenue of Roses Business Association, a part of the neighborhood business organization Venture Portland. Representatives from neither organization returned calls for comment.
The cancelation isn't necessarily a win for the protest groups. Jacob Bureros, an organizer with the Direct Action Alliance, said the organization - which intended to speak out against fascism and white supremacy during the parade - is sad to hear the news.
"We are disappointed that the parade was canceled," he said. "We're members of this community and this is an awesome parade."
James Buchal, chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Party, said his group was ready to march despite the protesters. He said the party had no hand in cancelling the event, and was taken by surprise when they heard the news. After seeing the email last weekend, they had no plans to back out.
"We weren't willing to just walk away quietly," he said. "The next thing we knew the whole thing was canceled."
Organizers pulled out after contacting Portland police, according to Rich Jarvis, spokesman for the Rose Festival Foundation. When police said they couldn't offer any additional security for the parade, organizers decided to cancel it due to safety concerns.
"The showdown was imminent," Jarvis said. "They were boxed into a corner, they simply had no choice. In order to avoid a violent outbreak, they had to cancel the parade."
Lined up to oppose the thugs were pro-Trump supporters who promised to confront the thugs. These were the same two groups who clashed in Berkeley earlier this month and rather than having to deal with potential chaos in the streets, organizers decided to retreat. 

But at what cost? The parade is a "soft target" for the thugs. With families guaranteed to attend, they knew full well their threats would lead to cancellation - especially since their unreasonable demand that parade organizers ban the local GOP from marching could not be met. Any protestation they make about not wanting to disrupt the parade is a lie.

That said, there is an object lesson here for other cities. Unless the police are willing to strictly enforce the law and play hardball with the black shirts, they may as well roll up the sidewalks. These threats will only increase now that the thugs have been successful in their efforts. Any gathering of political opponents of the antifa movement will be targeted. 

When people's constitutional right to peacefully assemble or speak is curtailed by a mob, only strong action by government to forcefully, if necessary, guarantee those rights is possible. No other option is satisfactory. And that appears to be where we're headed if the violent thugs don't cease and desist their efforts to violate the rights of their political opponents.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/portland_cancels_annual_roses_parade_after_threats_from_resistance.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Pope Heads to Egypt to Defend Islam - Robert Spencer




by Robert Spencer


Catholics take note: his favorite religion isn’t yours.




Reuters reported Tuesday that “Pope Francis hopes to mend ties with Muslims on his trip to Egypt on Friday but faces criticism from church conservatives for meeting Islamic religious leaders after a spate of deadly attacks against Christians.”

He has to mend ties? After Palm Sunday jihad massacres at two churches in Egypt, shouldn’t it be Egyptian Muslims who are reaching out to him to mend ties?

“A main reason for the trip,” Reuters explains, “is to try to strengthen relations with the 1,000-year-old Azhar center that were cut by the Muslim side in 2011 over what it said were repeated insults of Islam by Francis’s predecessor, Pope Benedict.”

What did Benedict say? Andrea Gagliarducci of the Catholic News Agency explains that after a jihad terrorist murdered 23 Christians in a church in Alexandria 2011, Benedict decried “terrorism” and the “strategy of violence” against Christians, and called for the Christians of the Middle East to be protected.

Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb, whom Pope Francis welcomed to the Vatican in May 2016, was furious. He railed at Benedict for his “interference” in Egypt’s affairs and warned of a “negative political reaction” to the Pope’s remarks. In a statement, Al-Azhar denounced the Pope’s “repeated negative references to Islam and his claims that Muslims persecute those living among them in the Middle East.”

Benedict stood his ground, and that was that. But in September 2013, al-Azhar announced that Pope Francis had sent a personal message to al-Tayeb. In it, according to al-Azhar, Francis declared his respect for Islam and his desire to achieve “mutual understanding between the world’s Christians and Muslims in order to build peace and justice.” At the same time, Al Tayyeb met with the Apostolic Nuncio to Egypt, Mgr. Jean-Paul Gobel, and told him in no uncertain terms that speaking about Islam in a negative manner was a “red line” that must not be crossed.

So Pope Benedict condemned a jihad attack, one that al-Azhar also condemned, and yet al-Azhar suspended dialogue because of the Pope’s condemnation. Then Pope Francis wrote to the Grand Imam of al-Azhar affirming his respect for Islam, and the Grand Imam warned him that criticizing Islam was a “red line” that he must not cross. And he hasn’t, and won’t. But all those who think that it’s marvelous that the Pope is “respectful” and refuses to “poke them in the eye” should remember: Benedict’s supposed insults to Islam were denunciations of jihad attacks on Christians. Pope Francis won’t be so indelicate. In contrast to Benedict, Francis energetically defends Islam, and leaves the persecuted Christians twisting in the wind, so he is acceptable to al-Azhar.

The worst part about this is the fact that because this man is Pope, all too many Catholics, including some in positions of high authority, treat him as if he were a divine oracle, his every utterance to be revered, respected, studied, and followed. Because of the statement of the Second Vatican Council that “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra,” and “must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will,” Catholic leaders and publications tend to think that they must adhere to anything the Pope says about anything.

This leads them into impossible positions. When Pope Benedict XVI appeared to criticize the aspects of Islam that incite and justify violence, they allowed for criticism of Islam. When Francis showed himself to be an Islamic apologist, they became Islamic apologists. All too many Catholic leaders and institutions, in other words, are more interested in being papists than in being truthful. They would rather show loyalty to the Pope, no matter how damaging his utterances, than stand for the truth on the own against the Pope.

The contradiction is clear, and absolute. If the Catholic Church has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters, then those who are aware of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, have to make some decisions about where they stand.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266521/pope-heads-egypt-defend-islam-robert-spencer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Thursday, April 27, 2017

A Palestinian State or an Islamist Tyranny? - Giulio Meotti




by Giulio Meotti

What happened to Yahiya's novel contains the real reason for the failed negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

  • Abbad Yahiya's novel takes aim at Palestinian taboos such as fanaticism, Islamic extremism and homosexuality. The novel's publisher has been arrested and a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Yahiya.
  • The head of the Union of Palestinian Writers, Murad Sudani, attacked the writer and called for an exemplary punishment. Ghassan Khader, a Facebook user, wrote on his page that Yahiya "should be killed".
  • We could go on with this list of Palestinian intellectuals who paid a high price for daring to speak the truth to Mahmoud Abbas and his corrupt circle on many issues: coexistence with the Jews, secularism, sexual freedom, freedom of conscience, human rights, or telling the truth about the Holocaust.
  • A Palestinian state created with the current Palestinian Authority would destroy freedom of conscience for journalists and writers; exile Christians and homosexuals; torture Arab inmates; impose sharia as the only law, and put people to death for "atheism" and "apostasy" (read, conversion to Christianity).
From the United Nations to the European Union and the mainstream press, it seems that the Jews living in Judea and Samaria are the obstacle for the Middle East coexistence. But have these well-known "observers" really observed what is going on in the areas self-governed by the Palestinian Authority, and that two-thirds of the world's nations want to turn into another Arab-Islamic state?

Recently, one of the brightest Palestinian novelists, Abbad Yahiya, saw his fourth book, Crime in Ramallah, seized by the Palestinian police in the West Bank. The order came from Palestinian Attorney General Ahmed Barak, who ruled that the book "threatens morality". The novel's publisher was arrested and a warrant was issued for Yahiya's arrest.


When Palestinian novelist Abbad Yahiya recently published his fourth book, Crime in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority police seized all copies the book, claiming it "threatens morality". The novel's publisher was arrested and a warrant was issued for Yahiya's arrest. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

His novel revolves around the murder of a Palestinian girl in Ramallah, and follows the lives of three other boys, from a homosexual to a drinker of alcohol. The novel takes aim at Palestinian taboos such as fanaticism, Islamic extremism and homosexuality. The young gay protagonist of the novel ends up moving to France.

"I do not know what to do", said Yahiya, who fled to Qatar. "If I return, I will be arrested".

The head of the Union of Palestinian Writers, Murad Sudani, attacked Yahiya and called for an exemplary punishment as happened with Boris Pasternak and other Soviet novelists. According to Sudani, Yahiya's novel "violates national and religious values". He went on to say that "my freedom as a writer ends when the freedom of the country begins". So Palestinian writers should behave like the Soviet "engineers of souls", then at the service of Communism, now of Islamic extremism and the Palestinian war against Israel.

Yahiya was also threatened on social media. Ghassan Khader, a Facebook user, wrote on his page that Yahiya "should be killed". Yahiya should apparently meet the same fate of the Algerian writer Tahar Djaout, murdered by Islamists in 1994. Yahiya's publisher, Fuad Akleek, was arrested in a library "in a very humiliating way". The Palestinian police are reported to have entered five hundred libraries and bookshops of the West Bank to seize all the copies of the novel.

Yahiya's fate is reminiscent of many others under the Palestinian Authority:
  • Waleed al Husseini is a Palestinian blogger who has spent ten months in a Palestinian prison for the same "crime" as the one for which the Charlie Hebdo magazine's journalists were murdered: "Blasphemy". Like the gay man in Yahiya's novel, Waleed now lives in France, protected and blessed by Europe's freedom.
  • Haidar Ghanem, the Palestinian human rights activist, was less lucky. He was shot to death by Islamic extremists.
  • Mohammed Dajani, the Palestinian professor who took his students on a field trip to Auschwitz, had to resign to save his own life after months-long campaign of death threats, campus riots and intimidation. He broke the Palestinian taboo of Holocaust denial. "I put my job on the line to expose the double-talk we live", Dajani told Haaretz. "We say we are for democracy and we practice autocracy, we say we are for freedom of speech and academic freedom, yet we deny people to practice it".
  • Many Palestinian Christian activists have also been found dead.
We could go on with this list of Palestinian intellectuals who paid a high price for daring to speak the truth to Abbas and his corrupt circle on many issues: coexistence with the Jews, secularism, sexual freedom, freedom of conscience, human rights, or telling the truth about the Holocaust.

Famous Israeli writers such as David Grossman, Amos Oz and Abraham Yehoshua, the "peaceniks" most pampered by the Western newspapers, should, instead of blaming their own country, ask themselves what Abbad Yahiya's case means for the Arab-Israeli conflict, and if they should denounce the Palestinian Authority for what it is doing to him.

What happened to Yahiya's novel contains the real reason for the failed negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Negotiations did not founder over few houses in Judea and Samaria. The failure is the result of the abyss between an open society, Israel, and a closed regime, the Palestinian entity; between a democracy based on Western liberal principles and a gangster autocracy based on an Islamic dictatorship determined to destroy the Jewish state.

And that abyss is just four kilometers wide, the distance between the Palestinian town of Tulkarem and the Israeli city of Netanya.

A Palestinian State created with the current Palestinian Authority would ethnically cleanse Jews, as Jordan did when it attacked and seized Jerusalem in 1948.

It would be led by Holocaust-enablers such as Hamas, or by a Holocaust-denier such as Mahmoud Abbas. It would destroy freedom of conscience for journalists and writers; exile Christians and homosexuals (hundreds of Palestinian gays now live beyond Israel's security fence); torture Arab inmates; continue to accept funding from Iran and Sunni Islamic extremists in the name of "the caliphate or death"; impose sharia (Islamic law) as the only law; put people to death for "atheism" and "apostasy" (read, conversion to Christianity). It would most likely oblige women to wear burqas and hijabs as in Saudi Arabia; commemorate terrorists and baby-killers who butchered 1,500 Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada; abolish democratic elections; fill libraries with anti-Semitic and anti-Western books; ban alcohol in public, and ask plainclothes officers to stop young couples to show marriage licenses, as in Iran.

How would you describe that state, if not as a carbon copy of a Nazi government? And what is the only country that would allow the creation of such a state on its own shoulders? The world's only Jewish State? Of course.


Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9966/palestinian-state-islamist-tyranny

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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