Archive for August 18, 2014

The Islamic State is winning

August 18, 2014

The Islamic State is winning, Dan Miller’s Blog, August 18, 2014

The threats posed by the Islamic State are palpable and growing. While the Obama Nation and much of the West think short term and lead from behind, our enemies think long term and lead from the front.

Scorpion

The Long War Journal is run by Paul Hanusz and Bill Roggio. Thomas Joscelyn is the senior editor. The following video was posted at You Tube on August 18th and is of a recent lecture by Mr. Joscelyn presented at the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

Mr. Joscelyn compares the rise of initially unexceptional ideologues such as Hitler, Mao and Stalin to the rise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his Islamic State (IS). Will Baghadadi enjoy successes similar to those of Hitler, Mao and Stalin, will they be shorter-lived and less deadly or will they be longer lasting and even more deadly?

Islam has been the “I word” that shall not be mentioned negatively. However, the IS is beginning to give Islam a negative media connotation, and that is much resented by many Islamists — not because what Islam’s creature, the IS, has done is seen as evil, but due to the negative public relations impact it might have on the religion of peace death.

As Mr. Joscelyn argues, the IS is growing and presents substantial long term dangers to the United States and other nations around the world. Obama’s America — along with much of the rest of a decreasingly free world — is focused, to the extent focused at all, on short term objectives such as winning the next election. Baghadadi’s IS is intensely focused on long term objectives. The IS is indoctrinating young children, as well as those now capable of fighting their enemies, so that the movement can survive its current leaders. Unless and until our prevailing short term focus and media depictions of Islam change, we will continue to face serious threats, some in the near future and some involving greater danger later.

This video illustrates how the IS is trying to realize its long term objectives by indoctrinating youthful followers.

Obama and Iraq

Unfortunately, it’s not only Iraq.

Shopping for un-Kosher trouble in anti-Semitic Britain

August 18, 2014

Shopping for un-Kosher trouble in anti-Semitic Britain | by anneinpt, Anne’s Opinions 18th August 2014

Two stories making the rounds on social media clearly illustrate the rising levels of antisemitism in Britain today, fuelled by unreasonably hysterical and vitriolic anti-Israel hatred, and disguised – of course – as “only” anti-Israel protests.

In Birmingham a Tesco supermarket was trashed by “Gaza protestors” – i.e. protestors who object to Israeli produce being sold anywhere in the UK:

Tesco store trashed by anti-Israel protestors who threw Israeli products to the floor

Police officers were attacked and stock was thrown around during a protest against the Gaza conflict at a Tesco store on Saturday.

Demonstrators, who want the supermarket to stop selling Israeli food, entered Tesco in Hodge Hill, Birmingham, threw produce to the floor and shouted at staff and shoppers.

Pictures show a large number of police officers at the scene and stock strewn across the floor of the store.

West Midlands Police said one person was arrested for assaulting its officers during the protest.

Speaking on social media, a customer said: “I was just in the Tesco in Hodge Hill, scanning my items and I heard chanting.

“Then a group of Asian men holding Palestinian flags came walking in and starting to push products over and getting aggressive with staff and shoppers.

“Police officers tried to stop them but I ran out.”

About 100 people had gathered outside the store to demonstrate, calling on Tesco to stop all trade with Israeli agricultural companies.

When the British press write about “Asian men” or Asians in general, it is code-speak for Muslims. Keep that in mind whenever you read about anti-Israel protests in Britain.

Following shortly afterwards, the Holborn (central London) branch of the Sainsbury’s supermarket chain took it upon themselves to remove all the Kosher food from their shelves! Colin Appleby tweeted the story

And then the happy denouement:

Another Sainsbury’s came under attack by protestors (via Harry’s Place), including a disgraceful display by a Labour MP:

In both cases the Jewish community and its supporters, and also ordinary well-meaning citizens, did not sit quietly by.

In the Tesco case, people took to the social media:

Tesco customers were not impressed by the riot and went on social media to castigate the behavior as Idiotic” and “disgusting,” among other adjectives.

“Peace protest? I think not. Disgusting!” one tweet stated. Another tweeter with the Arabic-sounding name, of Wagar Ahmed, wrote, “This isn’t helping the Palestinian cause. In fact, it’s doing the opposite.” Mehr Ali tweeted, “How is this going to help Gaza. Idiots.”

Reaction against the Sainsbury’s kosher-boycott was much fiercer. Jonathan Sacerdoti, an Anglo-Jewish reporter and pro-Israel activist, recorded his phone complaint to Sainsbury’s (via Israellycool who also has the full transcript) and it was most revealing:

Some key points that he made:

* Why is it considered a good reaction to remove products of interest to Jews from the shelves when there’s going to be some sort of violent intervention rather than to stop the violent intervention.

* But why don’t you stop them doing that? If I told you I was going to go into the store and start trashing Halal products from the shelves, would you remove them all?

– Of course not. that is a…

* But that’s what you did with the Kosher products.

– This was one store that decided to do that with the store manager, and it has all been rectified now.

* So you mean it was a mistake to do that?

– No, I didn’t say it was a mistake. You’re putting words in my mouth. I did say that it has been sorted out. There was an issue with it, and it has been sorted.

* As you told me there was a threat that people were going to come in and throw products onto the shop floor, you took the kosher products off the shelves so that Jewish people during that day would be unable to buy them., ad yet you can’t understand the comparison that if there were a similar threat to halal products you’ve told me you wouldn’t have the same line of action, and you can’t understand why that’s a fair comparison.

Read it all and watch the video.

The level of anti-Israel discourse in Britain today is disgraceful and extremely worrisome.

Hamas in West Bank ‘planned to topple Palestinian Authority’

August 18, 2014

Hamas in West Bank ‘planned to topple Palestinian Authority’

By YAAKOV LAPPIN 08/18/2014 17:23

Shin Bet says plot was orchestrated by Hamas overseas headquarters located in Turkey, and centered on a string of mass casualty terror attacks on Israeli targets; 93 suspects arrested so far.

via Hamas in West Bank ‘planned to topple Palestinian Authority’ | JPost | Israel News.

 

Hamas operatives in Gaza. Photo: REUTERS
 

A large-scale Hamas terrorist formation in the West Bank and Jerusalem planned to destabilize the region through a series of deadly terror attacks in Israel and then topple the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority, the Shin Bet said Monday.

The plot was orchestrated by the Hamas overseas headquarters located in Turkey, and centered on a string of mass casualty terror attacks on Israeli targets, the Shin Bet added.

The end goal was to destabilize the Palestinian territories and use the instability to carry out a military coup, overthrowing the government of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Hamas infrastructure relied on support from cells in neighboring Jordan, and on couriers who delivered terrorist finances, totaling at least two million shekels, which were used to purchase weapons and homes that were used as hideouts, according to the investigation.

Ninety three Hamas members are in Israeli custody, and 46 have been questioned by the Shin Bet so far. Security forces plan to indict some 70 suspects. The investigation began in May, and is ongoing, security sources said.

Some 600,000 shekels have been seized by the Shin Bet, as well as 30 firearms, seven rocket launchers, and large amounts of ammunition. Security sources stressed that the plot was uncovered at an early stage.

The Shin Bet named senior Hamas leader Salah Al-Aruri, who is currently based in Turkey, as the mastermind behind the terrorist infrastructure.

Al-Aruri, originally from the village of Arura near Ramallah, spent years in prison for terrorism offenses, and left the region in March 2010, as part of an agreement with Israel. He has since served as the head of the West Bank sector in Hamas’s overseas wing.

According to the investigation, the plot began in 2010, as Al-Aruri was driven to the Allenby Border Crossing after agreeing to leave, following his release from prison.

In the car, Al-Aruri recruited his driver, Riad Nasser, another senior Hamas West Bank figure, the Shin Bet added.

Nasser, a resident of the Palestinian village of Dir Kadis, near Ramallah, was allegedly appointed by Al-Aruri as the local commander of the entire West Bank Hamas infrastructure.

Nasser served multiple prison sentences for terrorist offenses in previous years, and was taken into administrative detention in December 2013. The Shin Bet began questioning him on May 27 over his alleged involvement in the setting up of large numbers of terrorist cells.

“This infrastructure stretched from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south. It is one the biggest we’ve seen in Judea and Samaria since Hamas’s formation in 1987,” a senior Shin Bet source, responsible for securing the Jerusalem district, told reporters on Monday. “They planned to carry out a coup and topple the Palestinian Authority,” he added.

A second Shin Bet source said the investigation serves as a warning over Hamas’s designs to replace the Palestinian Authority.

The infrastructure’s local nerve center was in Ramallah, where the PA is based, but cells branched out throughout 46 Palestinian cities, towns and villages.

Khaled Mashaal, Hamas’s overseas wing leader in Qatar, was aware of the plot, the sources said, though there was no involvement from Hamas in Gaza.

“The terrorists planned to undermine security, and launch a third intifada. They planned disturbances in the Temple Mount to rile the Palestinian masses. They were waiting for talks between the Israel and PA to collapse,” the source said.

During questioning, Riad Nasser allegedly said all of the operatives worked according to a plan devised by Al-Aruri designed to lead to a collapse of the PA’s rule.

According to Al-Ariri’s plan, a number of major terror attacks in Israel cause sufficient instability to facilitate a Hamas coup.

Hamas recruited many members, including students and academics, particularly those studying chemistry and engineering.

The terror cells allegedly kept in contact with Hamas member in Jordan, including Uda Zaharan, who originally hails from the village of Abu Mash’al in the West Bank, and who moved to Zarka, Jordan, in 2006. Zaharan allegedly maintained a system of couriers connecting various Hamas branches in Turkey, Jordan, and the West Bank, and transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars via multiple smuggling runs to operatives in the West Bank.

Additional suspects in custody include Majdi Mafarja, from the Palestinian town of Bet Likia , who holds a doctrate in computing. Security sources described Mafarja as representative of “a new generation of Hamas members,” adding that he is “highly intelligent” and fluent in computer programing.

Mafarja was sent by Hamas to Malaysia, where he trained in message encryption and computer hacking, the Shin Bet said. He was arrested on May 22.

Saleh Brakat, an Israeli citizen from Bet Safafa in east Jerusalem, was arrested on July 1 for allegedly transferring operational messages from Hamas in Jerusalem to members of the terror organization who are overseas. Brakat is active in Hamas’s Da’wa system, a civilian outreach network that offers social services to Palestinians.

Mahmoud Abu Daoud, of Hebron, was arrested on July 1 on suspicion of setting up terror cells that specialized in various attacks. He allegedly set up cells for for kidnappings, others for bombings, and shooting attack cells.

Muhammad Kafia, a resident of Beitunia, near Ramallah, heads a Hamas student cell at Abu Dis University. He was arrested on June 27, and turned over 19 automatic rifles and five handguns, security forces said.

Yahya Ata, a resident of Dir Abu Masha’al, near Ramallah was arrested on June 28 on suspicion of being recruited by Al-Arurir to set up a terror cell.

“The exposure of this infrastructure, one of the largest we have encountered, underlines the high danger posed by Hamas’s overseas headquarters,” the Shin Bet said in a statement.

The investigation uncovered deep ties between Hamas operatives in Turkey and operatives in Judea and Samaria, as well as Hamas’s strategy to topple the Palestinian Authority, it added. Some of the planned attacks were meant to take place in recent weeks, during Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza, in order to open a second front of fighting, the intelligence agency added.

Works and Days » Our ‘Face in the Crowd’

August 18, 2014

Our ‘Face in the Crowd’

by Victor Davis Hanson

August 17th, 2014 – 7:36 pm

via Works and Days » Our ‘Face in the Crowd’.

 

 

Elia Kazan’s classic A Face in the Crowd is a good primer on Barack Obama’s rise and fall. Lonesome Rhodes arises out of nowhere in the 1957 film, romancing the nation as a phony populist who serially spins yarns in the most folksy ways — confident that he should never be held to account. Kazan’s point (in the film Rhodes is a patsy for conservative business interests) is that the “folks” are fickle and prefer to be charmed rather than informed and told the truth. Rhodes’s new first name, Lonesome, resonates in the film in a way that Barack does now. Finally, an open mic captures Rhodes’s true disdain for the people he champions, and his career crashes.

So what is collapsing the presidency of the once mellifluous Obama? It is not the IRS, AP, VA, or NSA scandals. Nor did the nation especially fault him for Benghazi or the complete collapse of U.S. foreign policy, from failed reset to a Middle East afire. In each case, he either blamed Bush or denied there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing on his part.

Certainly, the stampede at the border, as disastrous as it was, did not ipso facto sink Obama’s ratings. Ditto the embarrassing Bergdahl deal, in which we traded a likely deserter for five Islamist kingpins. Was it the ISIS ascendance that is leading to genocide and a nascent caliphate? Not in and of itself.

We could go on, but you get the picture that it was all of the above that finally became too much, as Americans turned Obama off because they were all lied out. In all of these scandals a charismatic Barack wheeled out the teleprompter, smiled, dropped his g’s, soared with “make no mistake about it” and “let me perfectly clear,” and then, like Lonesome Rhodes, told the “folks” things that could not be true or at least were the exact opposite of what he himself had earlier asserted.

The result is that should Obama claim again that he is going to lower the seas, cool the planet, or that he is the man whom we are waiting for, Americans would laugh. They would chuckle about more promised recoveries, millions of new green jobs, an expanding economy, or a safer world abroad. Again, we are just too lied out to believe anything our slick version of Lonesome Rhodes says anymore. And that fact may best explain his 39-41% approval rating.

Barack Obama is once again lamenting the charge that he is responsible for pulling all U.S. peacekeepers out of Iraq, claiming that the prior administration is culpable. But Obama negotiated the withdrawal himself. We know that not because of right-wing talking points, but because of the proud serial claims of reelection candidate Obama in 2011 and 2012 that he deserved credit for leaving Iraq. That complete pullout prompted Joe Biden to claim the Iraq policy was the administration’s likely “greatest achievement” and buoyed Obama to brag that he was leaving a stable and secure Iraq. Think of the logic: pulling all soldiers out of Iraq was such a great thing that I now can brag that I am not responsible for it.

In regards to Syria, does Obama remember that he issued red lines should the Assad regime use chemical or biological weapons? Why then would he assert that the international community had done so, not Barack Obama? Think of the logic: I issued tough threats, and when my bluff was called, someone else issued them.

If Obama were to readdress Benghazi, would anyone believe him? What would he say? That he was in the Situation Room that evening? That he was correct in telling the UN that a (suddenly jailed) video maker prompted the violence? That the consulate and annex were secure and known to be so? That Susan Rice was merely parroting CIA talking points? Think of the logic: a video maker was so clearly responsible for the Benghazi killings that we will never have to mention his culpability again.

Does anyone believe the president that ISIS are “jayvees,” or that al Qaeda is on the run, or that there is no connection between the ascendance of ISIS and the loud but empty boasting of red lines in Syria and complete withdrawal from Iraq? (If we had taken all troops out of South Korea in 1953 — claiming that we had spent too much blood and treasure and that the Seoul government was too inept — would there be a Kia or Hyundai today, or a North Korea in control of the entire Korean peninsula?) Think of the logic: the ISIS threat is so minimal that we need not be alarmed and therefore Obama is sending planes and advisors back into Iraq to contain it. If Obama truly believes that pulling all troops out made Iraq more secure, what will putting some back in do?

Was there any Obama boast about his Affordable Care Act that proved true: Keep your doctor? Keep your health plan? Save $2,500 in annual premiums? Lower the deficit? Lower the annual costs of health care? Win the support of doctors? Simplify sign-ups with a one-stop website? Enjoy lower deductibles? Think of the logic: you will all benefit from a new take-over of health care by a government whose assertions of what it was going to accomplish were proved false in the first days of its implementation.

There are many possible explanations about why the president of the United States simply says things that are not true or contradicts his earlier assertions or both. Is Obama just inattentive, inured to simply saying things in sloppy fashion without much worry whether they conform to the truth? Or is he a classical sophist who believes how one speaks rather than what he actually says alone matters: if he soars with teleprompted rhetoric, what does it matter whether it is true? If Obama can sonorously assert that he got America completely out of Iraq, what does it matter whether that policy proved disastrous or that he now denies that he was responsible for such a mistake?

Is Obama so ill-informed that he embraces the first idea that he encounters, without much worry whether these notions are antithetical to his own prior views or will prove impossible to sustain?

On a deeper level, Obama habitually says untrue things because he has never been called on them before. He has been able throughout his career to appear iconic to his auditors. In the crudity of liberals like Harry Reid and Joe Biden, Obama ancestry and diction gave reassurance that he was not representative of the black lower classes and thus was the receptacle of all sorts of liberal dreams and investments. According to certain liberals, he was like a god, our smartest president, and of such exquisite sartorial taste that he must become a successful president. In other words, on the superficial basis of looks, dress, and patois, Obama was reassuring to a particular class of white guilt-ridden grandees and to such a degree that what he actually had done in the past or promised to do in the future was of no particular importance.

Then there is the media, the supposed public watchdog that keeps our politicians honest. In truth, Obama winks and nods to journalists, in the sense that as a good progressive Obama is about as liberal a president as we have ever had — or will have. Obama sees cross-examination as a sort of betrayal from journalists, who, for reasons of some abstract adherence to “journalistic integrity,” would by their own reporting subvert a rare chance of a progressive agenda. Obama’s anger is not just directed at Fox News and talk radio, but rather reflects a sense of betrayal that even slight fact checking by liberal journalists exists: why must Obama tell the truth when he never had to in any of his earlier incarnations?

In A Face in the Crowd, the charismatic Andy Griffith character could more or less get anything he wished by saying anything he wanted, largely because he said it mellifluously and in cracker-barrel fashion of an us-versus-them populism. His admirers knew that they were being lied to, but also knew that Lonesome knew that they did not mind. Lonesome had contempt for hoi polloi, largely because of his own easy ability to manipulate them for whatever particular careerist cause he embraced.

So Obama has disdain for those who passed out at his lectures, who put up the Greek columns at his speeches, who came up with his Latin mottoes, and who gushed at his teleprompted eloquence. He knows that we know he is not telling the truth, but likewise he knows that we don’t care all that much — at least until now. The secret to Lonesome’s success was to hide his contempt for those he lied to. When he is caught ridiculing his clueless listeners, he finally crashes and burns — sort of like Barack Obama serially vacationing with the 1% whom he so publicly scorns, or golfing in the aristocratic fashion of those who, he assures us, did not build their businesses.

Lonesome did not end up well, and neither will the presidency of Barack Obama.
(Artwork created using multiple elements from Shutterstock.com.)

Fmr. Israel Navy Chief: A Gaza Seaport Would Be an Iranian Seaport

August 18, 2014

Fmr. Israel Navy Chief: A Gaza Seaport Would Be an Iranian Seaport

VIDEO August 17, 2014 11:29 am

via Fmr. Israel Navy Chief: A Gaza Seaport Would Be an Iranian Seaport VIDEO | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

 

F.r Israel Navy chief, Vice Admiral (Ret.)
Eliezer Marom Photo: Wikipedia
 

Allowing Hamas to open a Gaza seaport would only serve to allow Iran direct access to rearm the Islamic terror group, the former chief of the Israeli Navy told Israeli Army radio Sunday.

“Let’s say an Iranian ship docked at Gaza Port for a visit. We know that Iranian military vessels smuggle munitions nearly every time they hoist anchor. But, because this is a military craft, we can’t inspect it,” Vice Admiral (Ret.) Eliezer Marom, stressed.

“And thus, without even noticing, we’ve established an Iranian port two hours away from Ashdod,” Marom said, and pointed out that, “Israel security doctrine is that we are responsible for security on all crossings…”

“The security challenge would be immense, and it would be very difficult for us to keep an eye on things,” he said.

However, Hamas representatives to indirect talks with Israel in Cairo over extending a cease-fire set to end at midnight Monday night, demanded a seaport, “or the talks were off,” Army radio reported.

Noting that the issue of securing such a port has been in discussion for two decades, Marom pointed out that he was in the original team that was tasked with offering the government solutions to the thorny issue, but said at the time that “we had very few answers.”

Also on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cabinet members that “security needs of the State of Israel,” were paramount for representatives at indirect talks with Hamas in Cairo.

“Only if there is a clear response to our security needs will we agree to reach understandings. In the past month Hamas has taken a severe military blow,” the PM said.

“We destroyed its network of tunnels that it took years to dig. We intercepted the rockets that it had massed in order to carry out thousands of deadly strikes against the Israeli home front. And we foiled the terrorist attacks that it tried to perpetrate against Israeli civilians – by land, sea and air,” according to Netanyahu.

Watch a recent interview with Marom, in which he discusses Israel’s chief maritime threats, including from underwater vehicles:

‘If Hamas renews fire, Israel will respond with full force’

August 18, 2014

If Hamas renews fire, Israel will respond with full force’

Israel is prepared for potential resumption of Gaza fighting, with five-day cease-fire set to expire at midnight on Monday

Israeli officials: If fire at Israel is not renewed, it is possible we will enter a state of calm without an agreement.

Mati Tuchfeld, Daniel Siryoti and Israel Hayom Staff

via Israel Hayom | ‘If Hamas renews fire, Israel will respond with full force’.

 

IDF troops on the Gaza border are prepared for the potential renewal of fighting
 

With the five-day cease-fire set to expire at midnight on Monday, Israel is preparing for the possibility Hamas will renew rocket fire.

“If the fire [from Gaza] resumes, Israel will respond with full force,” a senior Israeli official said. “If fire at Israel is not renewed, it is possible we will enter a state of calm without an agreement. Patience is necessary. The operation is not over and it could take more time. The greater the resilience of the public, the more we will be able to achieve.”

Egypt is trying to prevent a collapse of the indirect cease-fire talks being held in Cairo. Egyptian and Palestinian media outlets reported that Egypt has proposed that the sides declare a permanent cease-fire and that talks on a long-term arrangement resume next month. These talks would reportedly deal with all matters on the table, including Hamas’ demand for an airport and seaport in Gaza and Israel’s demand for the return of the remains of fallen soldiers Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul.

Meanwhile, Israel has lifted some the restrictions that were put in place in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge. On Sunday, Israel permitted Gaza fishermen to go back to work and fish up to three nautical miles from the Gaza coastline.

At the start of Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are in the midst of a combined military and diplomatic campaign. From the first day, the Israeli delegation to Cairo has worked under clear instructions: Insist on the security needs of the State of Israel. Only if there is a clear response to our security needs will we agree to reach understandings.

“In the past month, Hamas has taken a severe military blow. We destroyed its network of tunnels that it took years to dig. We intercepted the rockets that it had massed to carry out thousands of deadly strikes against the Israeli homefront. And we foiled the terrorist attacks that it tried to perpetrate against Israeli civilians — by land, sea and air.

“If Hamas thinks that it can cover up its military loss with a diplomatic achievement, it is mistaken. If Hamas thinks that continued sporadic firing will cause us to make concessions, it is mistaken. As long as quiet is not restored, Hamas will continue to take very harsh blows. If Hamas thinks that we cannot stand up to it over time, it is mistaken.”

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri issued a quick response, saying, “Netanyahu is throwing dust in the eyes of the Israeli public, because he is afraid Israelis will be furious when they find out the real results of the campaign. The Palestinian resistance forces caused hundreds of deaths and injuries in the Israeli army.”

Numerous cabinet ministers are calling for Israel to show no flexibility toward Hamas. International Relations, Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said Israel must insist on the demilitarization of Gaza. Steinitz said a seaport or airport in Gaza would be nothing more than “duty free for rockets.” Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) called for an end to the talks in Cairo.

“The situation in which we bite our nails while we wait for an answer from a murderous terrorist organization must stop,” Bennett said. “We must immediately stop the negotiations with Hamas and take our own destiny in our hands with a simple formula: humanitarian — yes, terror — no.”

As usual, the various Palestinian groups were not on the same wavelength on Sunday, and divisions were also evident within Hamas itself. Arab media outlets reported that chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat met in Doha over the weekend with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and urged him to accept the Egyptian cease-fire proposal.

The Al-Hayat newspaper reported that the U.S. has agreed to serve as a guarantor that Israel will uphold what has been agreed to in Cairo. The report also said the Egyptian cease-fire proposal has won the support of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials are saying that the demilitarization of Gaza is not in the cards.

“We will not agree to give up weapons which we use for self-defense,” Islamic Jihad official Khaled al-Batesh said. “It would be preferable to return from Cairo without an agreement than with a humiliating agreement that in effect represents a surrender agreement.”

A Hamas official threatened, “The next campaign against the Zionist enemy will be held inside the Zionist entity, on the lands of Ashkelon.”

Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing

August 18, 2014

Contentions Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 08.17.2014 – 8:00 PM

via Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing « Commentary Magazine.

 

Historians will have the rest of the century to unravel the mess that is the Barack Obama presidency. While they can explore these years of foreign policy disaster and domestic malaise at leisure, the rest of us have 29 more months to see just how awful things can get before he slides off to a lucrative retirement. But those who want to start the post-mortem on this historic presidency would do well to read Jackson Diehl’s most recent Washington Post column in which he identifies Obama’s hubris as the key element in his undoing.

As our Pete Wehner wrote earlier today, the president’s reactions to what even Chuck Hagel, his less-than-brilliant secretary of defense, has rightly called a world that is “exploding all over” by blaming it all on forces that he is powerless to control. As Pete correctly pointed out, no one is arguing that the president of the United States is all-powerful and has the capacity to fix everything in the world that is out of order. But the problem is not so much the steep odds against which the administration is currently struggling, as its utter incapacity to look honestly at the mistakes it has made in the past five and half years and to come to the conclusion that sometimes you’ve got to change course in order to avoid catastrophes.

As has been pointed out several times here at COMMENTARY in the last month and is again highlighted by Diehl in his column, Obama’s efforts to absolve himself of all responsibility for the collapse in Iraq is completely disingenuous. The man who spent the last few years bragging about how he “ended the war in Iraq” now professes to have no responsibility for the fact that the U.S. pulled out all of its troops from the conflict.

Nor is he willing to second guess his dithering over intervention in Syria. The administration spent the last week pushing back hard against Hillary Clinton’s correct, if transparently insincere, criticisms of the administration in which she served, for having stood by and watched helplessly there instead of taking the limited actions that might well have prevented much of that country — and much of Iraq — from falling into the hands of ISIS terrorists.

The same lack of honesty characterizes the administration’s approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear negotiations with Iran, two topics that Diehl chose not to highlight in his piece.

Obama wasted much of his first term pointlessly quarreling with Israel’s government and then resumed that feud this year after an intermission for a re-election year Jewish charm offensive. This distancing from Israel and the reckless pursuit of an agreement when none was possible helped set up this summer’s fighting. The result is not only an alliance that is at its low point since the presidency of the elder George Bush but a situation in which the U.S. now finds itself pushing the Israelis to make concessions to Hamas as well as the Palestinian Authority, a state of affairs that guarantees more fighting in the future and a further diminishment of U.S. interests in the region.

On Iran, Obama wasted years on feckless engagement efforts before finally accepting the need for tough sanctions on that nation to stop its nuclear threat. But the president tossed the advantage he worked so hard to build by foolishly pursuing détente with Tehran and loosening sanctions just at the moment when the Iranians looked to be in trouble.

On both the Palestinian and the Iranian front, an improvement in the current grim prospects for U.S. strategy is not impossible. But, as with the situation in Iraq, it will require the kind of grim soul-searching that, as Diehl points out, George W. Bush underwent in 2006 before changing both strategy and personnel in order to pursue the surge that changed the course of the Iraq War. Sadly, Obama threw away the victory he inherited from Bush. If he is to recover in this final two years in office the way Bush did, it will require the same sort of honesty and introspection.

But, unfortunately, that seems to be exactly the qualities that are absent from this otherwise brilliant politician. Obama is a great campaigner — a talent that is still on display every time he takes to the road to blame Republicans for the problems he created — and is still personally liked by much of the electorate (even if his charms are largely lost on conservative critics such as myself). But he seems incapable of ever admitting error, especially on big issues. At the heart of this problem is a self-regard and a contempt for critics that is so great that it renders him incapable of focusing his otherwise formidable intellect on the shortcomings in his own thinking or challenging the premises on which he has based his policies.

Saying you’re wrong is not easy for any of us and has to be especially hard for a man who has been celebrated as a groundbreaking transformational figure in our history. But that is exactly what is required if the exploding world that Obama has helped set in motion is to be kept from careening even further out of control before his presidency ends. The president may think he’s just having an unlucky streak that he can’t do a thing about. While it is true that America’s options are now limited (largely due to his mistakes) in Syria and Iraq, there is plenty he can do to prevent things from getting worse there. It is also largely up to him whether Iran gets a nuclear weapon or Hamas is able to launch yet another war in the near future rather than being isolated. But in order to do the right things on these fronts, he will have to first admit that his previous decisions were wrong. Until he shed the hubris that prevents him from doing so, it will be impossible.

The Final Death of Western Civilization

August 18, 2014

The Final Death of Western Civilization

via The Final Death of Western Civilization | Gates of Vienna.

 

Last week in the Austrian daily Die Presse Michael Ley about the new anti-Semitism and the role of the Left in the Islamization of Europe. JLH, who has kindly translated the piece, includes this note:

The Muslims’ faithful reprise of Mohammed’s original temper tantrum at the Jews makes Sicilian vendettas and Appalachian feuds look like cocktail party spats. Modern leftist Jew-hatred, on the other hand, is an echo of the age-old search for a scapegoat — any scapegoat — guided by the Alinskyite technique of identify, isolate, destroy, but older than socialism and its acolytes. Just think Fiddler on the Roof.

This is a very effective picture of how and why Islam and Leftism suit each other so well, and how they are bound by anti-Semitism. The example of wheat happened to the Left after Khomeini at least offers some ironic feeling of poetic justice.

 

The translated article:

Who Owns the World?

Criticism of Islam is often denounced as “the new racism.” Hostility to Jews, on the other hand, is as old as Islam itself.

Taking aim at the new anti-Semitism.

by Michael Ley

Anti-Semites like to compare Jews, Zionists and Israelis to Adolf Hitler. Recently, Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey certified that the Israelis are worse than Hitler. “What Israel is doing to Palestine and Gaza is beyond what Hitler did to the Jews.” In the Arab world, this equivalence has the status of legend. It was not only Yasser Arafat who made use of this smear. It is a part of Arab identity. This extreme hatred of Jews has long since spilled over into European societies and spread quickly through the Muslim parallel societies. The image of the radical rightist anti-Semite is overdue to be augmented by the Muslim Jew-hater. The French political scientist Pierre-André Taguieff determined years ago: “The originators of violence against Jews are no longer mostly from the extreme right. They are recruiting above all among young immigrants, especially from the Maghreb*.” Hatred of Jews is a part of their cultural identity.

For several years sociologists have been confirming a “new anti-Semitism” which is above all else a Muslim anti-Judaism. The contemporary violent excesses and Jew-hostile slogans of the Muslim mob are energetically supported by many from the Left and are also sympathetically received by leftist media personnel. In the leftist daily taz the editor Stefan Reinicke recently wrote: “In a free country, it must be possible to question Israel’s right to exist.” From there to questioning the right of Jews in general to exist is a shorter step.

Hostility to Jews is nothing new among Muslims or leftists — it is as old as socialism or Islam.

Islam exhibits an extreme anti-Judaism. The Koran is permeated by Jew-hostile stereotypes overlapping with those of Christians. The Jews have the hardened hearts of the uncircumcised; they have broken the bond with God and killed the prophets; they lie and have falsified God’s word; they do not honor treaties; they are usurers; they steal money; they do not believe in the afterlife. The Jews appear in the Koran as evil characters. Thus the battle cry: “Fight against them until they are humiliated and pay the tax.” (9:29) The Koran portrays Jews as not only warmongers guilty of every misdeed on earth, but also curses them as “apes and pigs” and assigns them the lowest, subhuman rank: “And you have surely known those among you who broke the Sabbath. Then we said to them: ‘Be outcast pigs and apes!’’ (Surah 2:56) Because the Jews did not recognize Allah, they were dehumanized and became as animals: “Say this: ‘Shall I teach you of those whose penalty from Allah is even worse than that? They are those who have cursed Allah and whom he has scorned and made into apes, pigs and idolaters. They are in an even worse situation and have wandered still further from the right path.’” (Surah 5:60) This motif occurs again and again.

Islam’s end-times prophecy sees the annihilation of the Jews. The pertinent Hadith says: “In the final hour, Muslims will fight against Jews. Since Jews belong to the army of Satan and Muslims are the soldiers of the Prophet Jesus, they will fight against each other, and the Muslims will be victorious until every stone and tree will say: ‘Come here, Muslim. A Jew is hiding behind me. Kill him.” But Islamic anti-Judaism is only the tip of the iceberg in the battle against the infidels.

Jihad is the highest duty in Islam and no Muslim may evade it. Martyrs of jihad go directly to paradise, while Muslims who refuse jihad are threatened with “the torments of Hell.” So long as Muslims are a minority in a non-Muslim country, there can be no offensive, militant jihad. If Muslims expand to an appropriate percentage of the population, they must arm for the forthcoming battle: “And arm yourselves against them with men and horses a much as possible, in order to menace Allah’s enemy.” (Surah 8:60) If Muslims have enough power and influence, then they must pursue jihad. Every Muslim is duty-bound to kill infidels who refuse to convert. “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in ambush for them in every nook and cranny.” (Surah 9:5) The only alternative to conversion is subjection as a dhimmi and payment for “protection.”

From the Islamic point of view, the world belongs to Allah. Theologically, jihad is simply re-conquest of Islamic territories. Jihad signifies permanent war against infidels and precludes any peace with them. The battle against non-Muslims may only be interrupted by a “truce” and this may not last longer than ten years. Truce based on treaties may be rescinded by Muslims at any time. The holy war knows no lasting peace. However, jihad can also be prosecuted peacefully: by conversion, propaganda and bribery.

Class war was the secular left’s jihad, through which the original, perfect world was to be restored. Many anarchists, socialists and communists saw in the Jew the spear-point of the class enemy. In his diatribe “On the Jewish Question,” Karl Marx wrote: “Let us not seek the secret of the Jew in his religion, but the secret of the religion in the real Jew. What is the worldly basis of Jewry? Practical need, self interest. What is the worldly cult of Jews? Usury. What is their worldly god? Money. The ultimate meaning of Jewish emancipation is emancipation of humanity from the Jews.” Marx is in the tradition of an older, leftist hatred of Jews. Early French socialists at the beginning of the 19th century dreamed of a worldly redemption of humanity, and proclaimed a political religion whose flip-side was anti-Semitism. They secularized, so to speak, Christian anti-Judaism to modern, political anti-Semitism.

Charles Fourier preached a utopian socialism and saw himself as the new prophet, claiming to recognize the Jews as the bane of humanity. His students, Pierre Leroux and Alphonse Toussenei, likewise saw absolute evil in the Jews. Toussenei warned of Jewish world domination. The philosopher, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, proclaimed: “The Jew is the enemy of humanity. This race must either be sent back to Asia or annihilated.” His anti-Semitism became the model for modern Jew hatred, which the left has to this day not been able to discard.

In the postmodern era, proletarians are no longer the subject of human salvation. They have been replaced by immigrants, who are the new stylites** of the leftist utopia for an old, doomed society, still bourgeois in places. Millions of immigrants will dissolve old Europe to make way for a new culture of multiculturalism. It will be national identities making way for diversity in ethnicities, religions and identities.

Western apologists for Islam and those who represent the interests of Islamic organizations never tire of denouncing any criticism of Islam as “new racism.” The new definition of racism is: Anyone who seeks the causes of Islamic terrorism and the lack of desire to integrate on the part of many Muslims in the religion of Islam, and does not overwhelmingly hold the Crusades, colonialism, imperialism and European xenophobia responsible for it, is displaying a racist attitude toward Islam and Muslims.

Every criticism of Islam must be denounced as “racism” or “Islamophobia” and this is preparatory to eliminating all religious, cultural and social criticism of Islam. Consequently, doubt is cast on all the positive cultural and political achievements of the modern West in favor of a multi-ethnic state whose basis is relativistic values. A society that gives up its own obligatory norms and values is preparing for its own disposal. Exclusive social self-criticism and compulsive xenophilia are the expression of a serious collective neurosis and testify to an incomparable political foolishness.

The political goal of the mainstream Left — transforming society with massive immigration — will be reached in the foreseeable future. But the result will shock the most naïve of do-gooders. The goal of orthodox Islam and its organizations is the Islamization of European society, and in this context, the Left plays the role of the useful idiot who believes it has found in orthodox Islam an ally in the struggle to overcome the despised bourgeois society.

Islam’s representatives, however, are not in the least interested in the utopia of a new human being in the sense of multiculturalism or diversity. They want to overcome any life form that is not Islamic. If Islam should succeed in several decades, the leftists would be the first victims of this most dangerous political religion of the 21st century. The Left did not learn this lesson in its fight alongside Ayatollah Khomeini against the hated Shah. After the takeover, they were ruthlessly persecuted and liquidated.

The goal of orthodox Islam and the Islamists is Islamic theocracy, which has no place for decadent Western society. Therefore, all radical organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, the Wahhabis, and/or groups infiltrated by them, as well as the foreign representatives of the Turkish religious authorities must be banned.

Radical imams and their mosques must have no place in an open, pluralistic society. Islam’s jihad is the greatest threat to the freedom of Europe and signifies no more nor less than a new descent into slavery, the final death of Western civilization.

Report: US exerting pressure on ICC not to open war crimes probe against Israel

August 18, 2014

Report: US exerting pressure on ICC not to open war crimes probe against Israel

By JPOST.COM STAFF08/18/2014 15:09

The Guardian’ quotes lawyers and former court officials as saying that western pressure has influenced decision not to open probe;

ICC probe reportedly among issues being discussed at Cairo cease-fire talks.

via Report: US exerting pressure on ICC not to open war crimes probe against Israel | JPost | Israel News.

 

International criminal court Photo: REUTERS
 

The US and other western powers have exerted pressure on the International Criminal Court at the Hague to prevent a war crimes probe of Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip, The Guardian reported on Monday, quoting former court officials.

During Operation Protective Edge, the Palestinian Authority has threatened to request that the court look into allegations that the civilian deaths in Gaza during the IDF’s operation constitute a war crime.

According to the report, the issue is among the matters being discussed at cease-fire talks in Cairo.

Palestinians requested that the court probe Israel for war crimes in 2009 , following Operation Cast Lead, however that request came before the Palestinians were recognized as a non-member observer state at the United Nations in 2012.

The ICC itself is divided on whether or not it has jurisdiction to probe the matter based on the 2009 request, or whether a new request would have to be submitted, according to The Guardian. The Palestinian factions would have to agree on submitting a new request, a difficult task, as Hamas would also be opening itself up to a war crimes inquiry.

The Guardian reported that western pressure has prevented the ICC from taking the view that the 2009 request gives the court jurisdiction to open a war crimes investigation into Israel’s actions.

Both current ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and Luis Moreno Ocampo, who was prosecutor at the time of the 2009 Palestinian declaration, argue that a new Palestinian request would have to be made to allow the court to open an investigation. However, The Guardian quoted another former official of the court as saying, “They are trying to hide behind legal jargon to disguise what is a political decision, to rule out competence and not get involved.”

The French lawyer representing the Palestinians, Gilles Devers, was quoted by The Guardian as saying that “there is enormous pressure not to proceed with an investigation. This pressure has been exerted on Fatah and Hamas, but also on the office of the prosecutor.

“In both cases, it takes the form of threats to the financial subsidies, to Palestine and to the International Criminal Court,” he added.

‘Fifth Column’ Arab MKs Visit Qatar and Meet with Former MK-Traitor

August 18, 2014

The good news that Zoabi and two of her Knesset pals left the country. The bad news is that they are coming back.

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: August 18th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » ‘Fifth Column’ Arab MKs Visit Qatar and Meet with Former MK-Traitor.

 

Picture of Arab MK Hanin Zoabi superimposed on an Iranian passport.
 

Knesset Members Hanin Zoabi, arguably Israel’s most hated MK, Jamal Zahalka and Basel Ghattas Hamas’ benefactor Qatar last week and reportedly met with former colleague Azmi Bashar, who fled the country seven years ago after being indicted for spying on behalf of Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

The Balad party MKs appeared on Al Jazeera, where they espoused their criticism of the Israeli government.

Al Jazeera is financed b and based in Qatar, which also has financed Hamas terror and has provided technology for Hamas to launch rockets from underground in Gaza by pressing on a computer button in Qatar.

Knesset Members from Yesh Atid and Likud asked Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to investigate the connection between the three Arab MKs and Bashara as well as Qatar.

Weinstein previously has shown himself to be feeble when it comes to investigating incitement and alleged terrorist connections among Arab Mks, particularly Zoabi, who was on the IHH flotilla when terrorists brutally beat IDF navy commandos before the soldiers were able to overcome the Mavi Mamara ship trying to break the maritime embargo on Gaza.

The Knesset Ethics Committee got tough with Zoabi this year by suspending her for a period of time from the Knesset for hateful speech, including epithets at Arab security guards who escorted her out of the legislature after inciting remarks.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beitenu party, said he will continue to whatever has to be done to prevent the Balad party’s fifth column from representing a terrorist organization in the Knesset.”