Archive for December 5, 2014

10 Ways the Mafia and Islam Are Similar

December 5, 2014

10 Ways the Mafia and Islam Are Similar

And an explanation for the reason why.

December 5, 2014 – 9:00 am

by Raymond Ibrahi

via PJ Lifestyle » 10 Ways the Mafia and Islam Are Similar.

Earlier this year on HBO’s Real Time, host Bill Maher declared that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Maher was likely referring to Islam’s “blasphemy” laws, which ban on pain of death any “insult” — as found in a statement, a picture, a book — to Islam and especially to its prophet Muhammad.

While Maher has been criticized for his “Islamophobic” assertion, he and others may be surprised to learn that the similarities between Islam and an organized crime syndicate such as the mafia far exceed punishing those who say, draw, or write “the wrong thing.” In what follows, we will examine a number of these similarities.

We will begin by looking at the relationship between Allah, his messenger Muhammad, and the Muslims, and note several parallels with the relationship between the godfather, his underboss, and the mafia.

Next, we will examine the clannish nature of the mafia and compare it to Islam’s tribalism, especially in the context of the Islamic doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity.” For example, in both Islam and the mafia, members who wish to break away, to “apostatize,” are killed.

We will consider how the mafia and Islam have both historically profited from the “protection” racket: Islam has demanded jizya from non-Muslims under its authority/territory, and the mafia has demanded pizzo from people that fall under its jurisdiction.

Finally, we will consider what accounts for these many similarities between Islam and the mafia, including from a historical perspective.

1. Allah and Muhammad/Godfather and Underboss

The padrino of larger mafia organizations and families — literally the “godfather” or “boss of bosses” — has absolute control over his subordinates and is often greatly feared by them for his ruthlessness. He has an “underboss,” a right-hand man who issues his orders and enforces his will. The godfather himself is often inaccessible; mafia members need to go through the underboss or other high-ranking associates.

Compare this with the relationship between Allah and his “messenger” Muhammad (in Arabic, Muhammad is most commonly referred to as al-rasul, “the messenger”). Unlike the Judeo-Christian God — a personal God, a Father, that according to Christ is to be communed with directly (Matt 6:9) — Islam’s god Allah is unreachable, unknowable, untouchable. His orders are revealed by his messenger, Muhammad. The Judeo-Christian God calls on the faithful to “come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18); Allah says “Do not ask questions about things that, if made known to you, would only pain you” (Koran 5:101). Just follow orders.

2. A “Piece of the Action”

The godfather and his underboss always get a percentage of all spoils acquired by their subordinates. Allah and Muhammad do as well: Koran 8:41 informs Muslims that “one-fifth of all war-booty you acquire goes to Allah and the messenger,” followed by Muhammad’s family, and finally the needy.

3. Assassinations

The godfather, through his underboss, regularly sends men to assassinate those deemed enemies of the family. So did Allah and his messenger.

One example: A non-Muslim poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, insulted Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered — on condition that to get close enough to assassinate Ka‘b he be allowed to lie to the poet.

Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that the poet took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim, and when Ka‘b’s guard was down they slaughtered the poet. The poet’s head was brought to Muhammad, accompanied by triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar.”

4. Circumstance is Everything

While the mafia adheres to a general code of conduct, the godfather issues more fluid orders according to circumstances. This is reminiscent of the entire “revelation” of the Koran, where later verses/commands contradict earlier verses/commands depending on circumstances. This is known in Islamic jurisprudence as al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh, or the doctrine of abrogation.

Whereas Allah supposedly told the prophet that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256), once the messenger grew strong enough, Allah issued new revelations calling for all-out war/jihad until Islam became supreme (Koran 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, etc.). While other religions and scriptures may have contradictions, only Islam rationalizes them through “abrogation.” Islam gives prominence to later verses, which are seen as the “latest” decision of the deity.

5. Clan Loyalty

Loyalty is fundamental in the mafia. Following elaborate rituals of blood oaths, mafia members are expected to maintain absolute loyalty to the family on pain of death. Similarly, mafia members are expected always to be available for the family — “even if your wife is about to give birth,” as one of the mafia’s “ten commandments” puts it — and to defend the godfather and his honor even if it costs their lives.

Compare this to the widespread violence and upheavals that occur when Allah or his prophet is offended by non-Muslim “infidels” blaspheming them, as Bill Maher referenced. Islam’s “Loyalty and Enmity” doctrine (al-wala’ wa’l bara’) — which calls on Muslims to be loyal to one another even if they dislike each other — is especially illustrative. Koran 9:71 declares that “the believing [Muslim] men and believing [Muslim] women are allies of one another” (see also 8:72-75). According to Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him. … All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor,” precisely the three things mafia members respect among each other.

U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan’s “worst nightmare” was to be deployed to fight fellow Muslims.

6. Death to Traitors

Once a fledging mafia member takes the oath of loyalty, including the Omertà code of silence and secrecy, trying to leave the “family” is seen as a betrayal and punishable by death. Any family member, great or small, is given authority to kill the traitor, the “turncoat.”

To be born to a Muslim father immediately makes the newborn a Muslim — there are no oaths to be taken, much less any choice in the matter. And, according to Islamic law, if born Muslims at any point in their lives choose to leave Islam, they are deemed “apostates” – traitors — and punished, including by death. Any zealous Muslim, not just the authorities, is justified in killing the apostate. Muslim families that kill apostate children are rarely, if ever, prosecuted.

In the words of Muhammad: “Whoever leaves his Islamic faith, kill him.”

7. Distrust and Dislike of “Outsiders”

Aside from loyalty to the family, mafia members are also expected not to befriend or freely associate with “outsiders,” who by nature are not to be trusted, as they are not of the “family,” unless such a “friendship” helps advance the family’s position.

Similarly, the second half of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity — the enmity (al-bara’) — calls on Muslims to maintain distance from and bear enmity for all non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them.” According to the mainstream Islamic exegesis of al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community.” That is, an apostate, an enemy.

Similar scriptures include Koran 4:89, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22. The latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims: “Even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.” Koran 60:1 declares: “O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy [non-believers] for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth [i.e., while they deny Islam]?” And Koran 4:144 declares: “O you who believe! Do not take the infidels as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah [“godfather”] a clear case against yourselves?”

8. Deception and Dissimulation

As mentioned, close relations to non-mafia individuals that prove advantageous to the family (for example, collaboration with a “crooked cop”) are permissible — as long as the mafia keeps a safe distance, keeping the outsider at arm’s length.

Compare this to Koran 3:28, which commands “believers not to take infidels for friends and allies instead of believers … unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” According to the standard Koran commentary of Tabari, “taking precautions” means: ”If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [but know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.”

After interpreting Koran 3:28 as meaning that Muslims may “protect” themselves “through outward show” when under non-Muslim authority, Ibn Kathir, perhaps Islam’s most celebrated exegete, quotes Islam’s prophet as saying: “Truly, we smile to the faces of some people, while our hearts curse them.”

Similarly, a few years ago, Sheikh Muhammad Hassan — a leading Salafi cleric in Egypt –asserted on live television that while Muslims should never smile to the faces of non-Muslims, they should smile, however insincerely, if so doing helps empower Islam.

The idea of hating “outsiders” is apparently so ingrained in Islam that another leading Salafi cleric, Dr. Yasser al-Burhami, insists that while Muslim men may marry Christian and Jewish women, they must hate them in their heart — and show them that they hate them in the hopes that they convert to the “family” of Islam.

(For more on the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity,” including references to the exegetical sources quoted above, see al-Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman Zawahiri’s comprehensive treatise by that name in The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 63-115.)

9. “An Offer You Can’t Refuse”

Although the novel-turned-movie The Godfather is fictitious, it captures much of the mafia’s modus operandi. Consider, for example, that most famous of lines — “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse” — spoken by the Godfather to one of his “godsons,” an aspiring actor and singer. After being turned down by a studio director for a role that he desperately wanted, the godson turned to his Godfather for aid.

As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that the offer that can’t be refused consists of nothing less than violence and death threats: after the Godfather’s messenger to the director asking that the actor be given the role is again rejected, the director awakens the next morning to find the bloodied and decapitated head of his favorite stallion in bed with him. The godson subsequently gets the movie role.

Throughout the context of the entire Godfather trilogy (which captures well the mafia’s approach to business) making someone “an offer they can’t refuse” means “do as I say or suffer the consequences,” possibly death.

Compare this to Islam’s threefold choice. On Muhammad’s orders, whenever Muslims conquer a territory in the name of Islam, its non-Muslim inhabitants are given three choices: 1) convert to Islam, 2) keep your religious identity but pay tribute (jizya, see below) and live as an “outsider,” a subjugated dhimmi, or 3) execution.

Throughout history, converting to Islam has been an “offer” that countless non-Muslims could not refuse. In fact, this “offer” is responsible for transforming much of the Middle East and North Africa, which were Christian-majority in the 7th century when the jihad burst forth from Arabia into the “Muslim world.”

This offer is still alive and well today. For example, several older and disabled Christians who were not able to join the exodus out of Islamic State-controlled territories opted to convert to Islam rather than die. Like the mafia, Islam’s offer to conquered non-Muslims (“outsiders”) is basically “join our ‘family,’ help us and we will help you; refuse and we hurt you.”

10. The “Protection” Racket

Once the mafia takes over a territory, one of the primary ways it profits is by collecting “protection money” from its inhabitants. While the protection racket has several aspects, one in particular is akin to an Islamic practice: coercing people in the mafia’s territory to pay money for “protection,” ostensibly against outside elements. In fact, the protection bought is from the mafia itself — that is, extortion money, or “pizzo.” Potential “clients” who refuse to pay for the mafia’s “protection” often have their property vandalized and are routinely threatened and harassed.

Compare the collection of pizzo with the Islamic concept of jizya: The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”

In the hadith, Muhammad regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya from non-Muslims: “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something. According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. As one medieval jurist succinctly puts it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya” (Crucified Again, p. 22).

Just as the mafia rationalizes its collection of “protection money” by portraying it as money that buys mafia protection against “outsiders” when the money/tribute serves only to protect the client from the mafia itself, so too do Islam’s apologists portray the collection of jizya as money meant to buy Muslim protection from outsiders. In fact, the money/jizya buys protection from Muslims themselves.

“Mafia”: What’s In a Word?

What accounts for the similarities between Islam and the mafia? One clue is found in the word “mafia,” which means “hostility to the law, boldness.” It is derived from the Arabic word mahya, which means “bragging, boasting, bravado, and swaggering.”

This etymology is a reminder that Sicily, birthplace of the mafia, was under Arab/Islamic domination for over 200 years. Aside from a borrowed etymology, could some of the mafia’s modus operandi also have been borrowed from Islam? Isolated on their island, could native Sicilians have co-opted the techniques of social controls that they had lived under and learned from their former overlords, albeit without an Islamic veneer?

The mafia is not the only historical example of a non-Muslim criminal organization to be influenced by Islam. The Thuggees — whence we get the word “thug” — were a brotherhood of allied bandits and assassins who waylaid and savagely murdered travelers in India, often by first feigning friendship. Along with assassinating his opponents, including through treachery, Muhammad also personally engaged in banditry, ransacking the caravans of enemy tribes.  Although the Thuggees were later associated with the Hindu cult of Kali, the original Thuggees were all Muslim. As late as the 19th century, a large number of Thuggees captured and convicted by the British were Muslim.

When Bill Maher recently proclaimed that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book,” he was just scratching the surface of the similarities between the mafia and Islam.

Can President Obama Pass Disraeli’s Test?

December 5, 2014

Can President Obama Pass Disraeli’s Test? American ThinkerKen Blackwell and Bob Morrison, December 5, 2014

(Please see also Reports: Obama Mulling Sanctions on Israel. — DM)

Applying the Disraeli Test to this administration, President Obama’s policies fail on every count. No wonder our present foreign policy seems to stray so far from true American principles and interests.

***************

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli famously said: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Winston Churchill was an avid student of Disraeli’s “Tory Democracy” and passed Disraeli’s test easily, as Steven Hayward wrote recently in the Weekly Standard.

This raises a most interesting question: How would President Obama fare on a Disraeli test? His policy toward the Jewish State of Israel leads us to question whether this outstanding student, this graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, could pass a simple, three-question test suggested by one of the Nineteenth Century’s leading statesmen.

President Obama made it a point to skirt around Israel during the entire four years of his first term, while making it his point to go to Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in those years.

First, what about Turkey? In 2009, President Obama congratulated that secular republic on its commitment to democratic rule. Turkey is the only member of NATO with a Muslim majority. As such, Turkey’s 50-year alliance with the U.S. and its longtime support for Israel — the only Muslim land in the Near East to give such support — were certainly an important factor worthy of consideration in U.S. foreign policy. But under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has moved farther and farther away from the United States and closer to Russia.

As to Israel, Turkey has become a leading sympathizer of the Hamas terrorist-led regime in Gaza, attempting to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza and charging Israel with violating the human rights of the Arabs of Palestine. Interestingly, while Israel formally supports the idea of statehood for Palestinian Arabs, Turkey denies statehood for its hugeKurdish minority of 20 million. In fact, the Kurds are by far the largest ethnic group in the Mideast denied a state.

Does President Obama hold the Turks to the same standard that he applies to the Israelis? Not at all. He has not begun to press the Turks on Kurdish rights. Until 2000, it was illegal for a person holding Turkish citizenship to identify himself as a Kurd. Contrast this with Israel, where Arabs not only can so identify, they actually sit in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as Arabs and form legal Arab political parties.

Now, what of this administration’s view of Egypt? President Obama speedily recognized the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt headed by Mohamed Morsi. Morsi — educated in the U.S. but strongly rejecting American principles of religious liberty and constitutional government — quickly brought Egypt to the brink of chaos. Morsi planned a visit to the U.S. — one eagerly anticipated by the Obama administration — even though Morsi announced he would press the White House to pardon a terrorist.

Morsi wanted Obama to release Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, in prison for his part in the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. That attack killed seven Americans in 1993.

National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy provided this stunning profile of Mr. Obama’s obeisance to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Reports that the State Department was discussing a transfer of the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt surfaced months ago, in the context of a potential swap for democracy activists the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was then detaining. The administration then issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the Islamic Group — the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist organization, to which it is a felony to provide material assistance. The purpose was to invite Eldin to, yes, the White House, for consultations with top American national-security officials on prospective relations between the United States and the new, Islamist Egypt. As the administration had to know he would do, he pressed his top agenda item: The United States must return the Blind Sheikh as a “gift to the revolution.”

Fully willing to give hundreds of millions in U.S. aid to Morsi, Mr. Obama promptly yanked that aid when Egypt’s military finally pulled the plug on the Muslim Brotherhood’s misrule in Egypt.

That leaves Saudi Arabia as the final question in Mr. Obama’s “Disraeli Test.” It is illegal for a Jew to live in Saudi Arabia. Any Saudi national who converts to Judaism is beheaded for apostasy. In February, 1945, President Roosevelt appealed to Saudi Arabia’s founding monarch, Abdulazziz, for the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. Even then, the Saudis were unyielding. FDR, hoping to touch the desert despot’s heart, told him that three million Jews had been murdered in Poland. It was one of the first confirmations by a world statesman of the plight of European Jewry. Abdulazziz’s reaction to this horrific news? There was obviously no need for a Jewish state in the Mideast since there would now be plenty of room for Europe’s surviving Jews — in Poland!

Despite this history of no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no compromise with Israel, President Obama shamefully bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. No American president had ever bowed to anyone before.

Applying the Disraeli Test to this administration, President Obama’s policies fail on every count. No wonder our present foreign policy seems to stray so far from true American principles and interests.

 

ISIS in Gaza

December 5, 2014

ISIS in Gaza, Gatestone InstituteKhaled Abu Toameh, December 5, 2014

When One Radical Group Believes Another Is Not Radical Enough

Now almost everyone is talking about the Islamic State threats in Gaza against poets, writers and women. The leaflets mention the poets and writers by name — a move that has created panic. The leaflets also include an ultimatum to Palestinian women to abide by Islamic attire or face the Islamic State style of punishment — presumably being stoned to death.

Of course, all this is taking place while Hamas continues to insist that that the Islamic State is not operating in Gaza. Those who are taking the threats seriously are the writers and women whose names appeared in the leaflets.

Islamic State flags can already be seen at football stadiums, on windshields of vehicles, mosques, educational centers and wedding invitations.

It is also clear that if and when the Hamas regime collapses, the Gaza Strip will not fall into the lands of the less-radical Palestinians.

It is important to keep in mind that the counties in Europe now voting for a Palestinian state may effectively be paving the way for a takeover by Islamic State.

It is always dreamlike to see one Islamist terror group accuse the other of being too “lenient” when it comes to enforcing sharia laws. But it is not dreamlike when a terrorist group starts threatening writers and women.

That is what is happening these days in the Gaza Strip, where supporters of the Islamic State are accusing Hamas of failing to impose strict Islamic laws on the Palestinian population — as if Hamas has thus far endorsed a liberal and open-minded approach toward those who violate sharia laws.

825Members of Islamic State, in Gaza. (Image source: Islamic State YouTube video)

Until this week, the only topic Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were talking about was how to rebuild homes and buildings that were destroyed during the last war between Hamas and Israel.

Now, however, almost everyone is talking about the Islamic State threats against poets, writers and women.

It is no secret that the Islamic State has a presence in the Gaza Strip. According to sources there, many disgruntled members of Hamas and other radical salafi-jihadi groups have already joined the Islamic State, with some fighting together with ISIS groups in Syria and Iraq.

Earlier this year, it was revealed here that Islamic State has already begun operating inside the Gaza Strip — much to the dismay of Hamas.

Hamas, nevertheless, continues to deny any presence of Islamic State inside the Gaza Strip. “There are no members of Islamic State in the Gaza Strip,” said Eyad al-Bazam, spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry.

Many Palestinians, however, do not seem to take Hamas’s denials seriously, and remain unconvinced.

Over the past few days, two separate leaflets signed by Islamic State threatened to target Palestinian poets and writers for their “wantonness” and “atheism.” The leaflets mention the poets and writers by name — a move that created panic among many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The leaflets also included an ultimatum to Palestinian women to abide by Islamic attire or face the Islamic State style of punishment — presumably being stoned to death. The threat leaves one with the false impression that, under Hamas, women can wear swimming suits at the beach and walk around the streets of Gaza City in mini-skirts.

But this is what happens when one fundamentalist group believes that the other is not radical enough.

“We warn the writers and poets of their wanton sayings and atheist deeds,” one of the leafletsread. “We give the apostates three days to retract their apostasy and wantonness and enter the religion of Islam anew.”

The threats issued by Islamic State have drawn strong condemnations from many Palestinians. This is the first time that such threats have been made against poets and writers or women.

Although Hamas has denied any connection to the threats, Fatah officials in the West Bank were quick to accuse the Islamist movement — which has been in control of the Gaza Strip since 2007 — of being behind the leaflets.

Palestinian political analyst Naji Sharab explained that any attempt to deny the presence of Islamic State terrorists in the Gaza Strip was “unrealistic.”

“There’s no denying that Islamic State exists [in the Gaza Strip] as a small group or as individuals,” he said. “The leaflets that were distributed this week could not have come from any Palestinian organization.”

Palestinians point out that the two leaflets were not the only sign of the presence of Islamic State inside the Gaza Strip. They say that Islamic State flags can be seen in many parts of the Gaza Strip, especially at football stadiums and public buildings. In addition, Islamic State stickers can be seen on the windshields of many vehicles.

More recently, Palestinians say, families have begun attaching the Islamic State emblem to wedding invitations sent out to friends and relatives. Photos of Palestinians who were killed while fighting with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria appear in many places, especially mosques and educational centers.

Of course, all of this is taking place while Hamas continues to insist that the Islamic State is not operating in Gaza.

Those who are taking the threats seriously are the women and writers whose names appeared in the leaflets.

Amal Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Women’s Union, expressed deep concern about the threats made by Islamic State. “We are headed toward the worst in the Gaza Strip,” she complained. “We hold the Hamas security forces responsible for the leaflets of intimidation and terror.” She and a large group of women in the Gaza Strip held an emergency meeting to discuss the repercussions of the threats.

Judging from reactions, it is clear that many Palestinians — including Hamas — are extremely worried about Islamic State’s presence in the Gaza Strip. Even if the terror group still does not have many fighters in the Gaza Strip, it already has countless followers and admirers.

It is also clear that if and when the Hamas regime collapses, the Gaza Strip will not fall into the hands of less-radical Palestinians.

The Gaza Strip has already been turned into an “Islamist Emirate” that is run by Hamas and other radical groups such as Islamic Jihad.

While Islamic State may have succeeded in infiltrating the Gaza Strip, its chances of entering the West Bank are zero. This is thanks to the presence of the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas are well aware that without the Israeli security presence in the West Bank, the area would easily fall into the hands of Hamas or Islamic State.

It is important to keep in mind that the countries in Europe now voting for a Palestinian state may effectively be paving the way for a takeover by Islamic State

Putin: Crimea is Russia’s Temple Mount

December 5, 2014

Putin: Crimea is Russia’s Temple MountRussian president compares former Ukraine region to flashpoint Jerusalem site in bid to justify Russia’s annexation of Crimea; says West trying to destroy Russia, but will fail, just like Hitler.

Ynet, Reuters

Published: 12.04.14, 17:16 / Israel News

via Putin: Crimea is Russia’s Temple Mount – Israel News, Ynetnews.

 

The Crimean Peninsula “is of huge importance for the Russian nation, just as the Temple Mount is for people of Jewish faith,” Russian President Valdimir Putin said Thursday in an attempt to defend Russia’ annexation of the formerly Ukrainian region.

In a fiercely patriotic state of the union speech, the Kremlin leader trumpeted his annexation of the peninsula, praised the Russian people for their strength, accused the West of “pure cynicism” in Ukraine and said economic sanctions must drive Russians to develop their own economy.

 

Russian President Valdimir Putin  (Photo: AP)
Russian President Valdimir Putin (Photo: AP)

 

“We are ready to meet any challenge of the times and win,” he declared to applause from an audience of 1,000 dignitaries, almost all of them loyal supporters.

In wake of Russia’ incursion into the Ukraine, tensions between the Kremlin and the Western world have been at an all time high. Putin slammed the West for attempting to divide and conquer Russia, comparing the move to what Hitler attempted to do.

“The west wanted to run Yugoslavian scenario in Russia. Just as Hitler failed to destroy Russia with his misanthropic ideas, everybody should just remember how these things end. Our army crushed the Nazis and liberated Europe,” Putin said

Continuing with his World War Two analogy, Putin said that there was also a need to cooperate to prevent such large scale wars, which he said was being threatened by US exceptionalism.

“We also can’t forget the terrible events of 1941/2. This brings us to issues of international security. The US continues to build global missile defense system, effecting everyone’s security. This gives them this sense of impunity, and raises risks. We are not going to get ourselves dragged into an expensive arms race, but will address our security … We have unorthodox ways for that. Nobody will gain a military edge over Russia.”

“We are strong and we are confident. Our purpose is to have as many reliable partners as possible, both in the West and the East. We are not going to roll back our relationship with Europe and the US under any circumstances, but at the same time we’ll continue to develop ties with Africa and the Middle East,” Putin said.

But the ruble fell as he delivered a speech that showed no sign of a retreat from policies that have brought his country to confrontation with the West unseen since the Cold War.

Disappointing the hopes of many investors, he produced no grand plan to pull the economy out of a crisis aggravated by falling oil prices and Western sanctions over his policies toward Ukraine.

So determined was the West to destroy Russia, he said, that sanctions would have been imposed even without the crisis in Ukraine.

“I am certain that if all this did not take place… they would come up with another reason to contain Russia’s growing capabilities,” he said, flanked by a Russian flag on either side. “Whenever anyone thinks Russia has become strong, they resort to this instrument.”

Even when he pledged to keep Russia open to the world, he adopted an aggressive posture: “We will never pursue the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and search for enemies. All this is a manifestation of weakness, while we are strong and self-confident.”

 

 

Reports: Obama Mulling Sanctions on Israel

December 5, 2014

Reports: Obama Mulling Sanctions on Israel
BY: Adam Kredo December 4, 2014 3:10 pm via Free Beacon


(You cannot hide your true self forever. Apparently, Obama is no exception. It’s going to be a rough two years for us all.-LS)

The Obama administration is refusing to discuss reports that emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem.

The classified meetings were reportedly held several weeks ago and included officials from both the State Department and White House, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which first reported on the meetings.

The possibility of sanctioning Israel for its ongoing construction sends a signal that the Obama administration is willing to go further in its denunciations of Israel then any previous White House.

At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran.

When asked to address the reports Thursday afternoon, Harf declined to take a stance.

“I’m obviously not going to comment one way or another on reported internal deliberations,” she said. “We’ve made clear our position on settlement activity publicly and that hasn’t changed.”

When pressed to address whether the White House has reached a point at which it believes its harsh rhetoric against Israel is not enough, Harf again demurred, stating that she would not “address hypotheticals.”

A White House National Security Council (NSC) official also would not comment on the report when contacted Thursday by the Washington Free Beacon.

News of the supposed meeting leaked to the press though Israeli officials who were apparently apprised of the discussion.

Senior Israeli officials told Haaretz “that White House officials held a classified discussion a few weeks ago about the possibility of taking active measures against the settlements,” according to the report.

The discussion about levying sanctions on Israel reportedly began after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s October meeting at the White House and the subsequent battle between Washington and Jerusalem over settlement construction.

The thought of the White House leveling sanctions on Israel as it works to lessen those already imposed on Iran prompted consternation on Capitol Hill and throughout the pro-Israel world.

One senior congressional aide who works on the issue of Israel expressed shock that a White House could even discuss such action.

“If these reports are true, this would mark a new era of unprecedented hostility from the White House against our strongest ally in the Middle East,” the source said. “It’s impossible not to notice the irony of the administration mulling sanctions on Israel while threatening to veto new sanctions against Iran.”

The aide added: “The president should be forewarned that taking such action against Israel would yield tremendous pushback from Congress.”

Those in the pro-Israel world expressed a similar view when reached for comment.

“Even this administration, which has been historically hostile to our Israeli allies, even as they worked overtime to bomb the enemies of Iranian proxies across the Middle East, could not possibly be so aggressively committed to undermining our alliances as to levy sanctions against Israel at the same time they’re lifting them on Iran,” said one senior official with a pro-Israel organization who agreed to speak only on background.

Others took a more critical view.

“The Obama administration is against sanctions on Iran, but for them on Israel,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the pro-Israel organization Emergency Committee for Israel. “Is [White House deputy national security adviser] Ben Rhodes wearing a green headband to work these days?”