Archive for October 22, 2015

Germans plan “new Aleppo” Muslim city built around a mosque

October 22, 2015

Germans plan “new Aleppo” Muslim city built around a mosque, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 22, 2015

(If, consistently with Palestinian demands, Jews are driven out of Israel, will Germany build a small scale Jerusalem for them, complete with a synagogue? Or will one of Germany’s old death camps suffice? — DM)

hell

In classic colonialism, the colonized didn’t roll out the welcome wagon for their colonizers. But the Muslim colonization of Europe is certainly going that way. Here’s a German architect’s plan, laid out in the Die Welt newspaper, for building a New Aleppo. (Because battling Muslim gangs shot the old one up.)

Now most refugees are still living in shelters. But soon they will need their own apartments. Planners are already developing concepts – up to an entire city with a mosque in the center.

Because having a mosque in the center is why the old Aleppo is on fire. So let’s learn nothing from history.

Manfred Osterwald is an architect and general planner. He has experience designing entire cities in China, in Iran, in Lebanon. And now he has the vision to build a new home for refugees in Germany. “Smart Home City” he calls his idea… Osterwald thinks big, very big.

The city for Refugees will be equipped with everything a city can offer its inhabitants: apartments, supermarkets, schools and hospitals, sports facilities, cinemas and shops, greenery and especially a central square with a mosque.

How much would this utopia cost? A pittance. A mere 567 million dollars. For 30,000 Muslim migrants.

Bright and colorful, with architectural elements from the homeland of the residents – so that they will find their identity, he says.

You wouldn’t want them integrating or anything.

Meanwhile some refugees are threatening to set fire to their tents. They already wrecked the real Aleppo. The New Aleppo will be a hellhole before you can shout Allahu Akbar.

But some enterprising folks are flooding Muslim colonist settlements as soon as they’re built.

In Erfurt, a block of flats meant to house migrants was flooded in the latest act of sabotage against planned refugee shelters.

Looks like the natives are restless.

Israel must leave the UN

October 22, 2015

Israel must leave the UN, Israel Hayom, Judith Bergman, October 22, 2015

The U.N. is abusive. Just like an abused spouse who is unable to ‎fight back because the abuser is so much bigger, stronger, or simply vicious and uninterested in ‎fostering anything positive in the relationship, Israel needs to face that facts and leave the U.N.‎

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

UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization — stated in a ‎resolution on Tuesday that it condemned Israel for what it called the “aggression and illegal ‎measures taken against the freedom of worship and access of Muslims to Al-Aqsa mosque and ‎Israel’s attempts to break the status quo since 1967.” It also “deeply deplores the recent ‎repression in East Jerusalem, and the failure of Israel, the Occupying Power, to cease the ‎persistent excavations and works in East Jerusalem particularly in and around the Old City.” It ‎also called for “prompt reconstruction of schools, universities, cultural heritage sites, cultural ‎institutions, media centers and places of worship that have been destroyed or damaged by the ‎consecutive Israeli wars on Gaza.” Finally, UNESCO now considers the Cave of the Patriarchs in ‎Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to be Muslim sites.‎

Initially, the resolution had been drafted to include the Western Wall as an Islamic ‎site also, or rather as an extension of Al-Aqsa mosque, but this was dropped after ‎widespread condemnation. Only six countries voted against the resolution — the United States, ‎Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Estonia.‎

One can hardly exaggerate the extent to which UNESCO has lost its way. The organization and most of its member states have been ravaged by utter derangement. For the ‎U.N. to so unequivocally and unabashedly aid the ongoing Arab effort to delegitimize the Jewish ‎connections to Judaism’s holiest sites in Israel is an act of supreme perfidy. ‎

Although it is far from the first time that UNESCO commits this kind of blatant Israel-bashing, ‎the timing of this particular resolution, its duplicitous and smearing content, at a time when ‎Arabs in Israel are stabbing, shooting and car-ramming Jews for sport and celebrating with ‎candies afterward, is beyond anything that civil discourse can properly convey. The resolution ‎amounts to a match being thrown on an already raging fire, further augmenting the incitement ‎and the lies of the Palestinians regarding the Temple Mount.

However, who is truly surprised by this? UNESCO has worked consistently against Israel for over ‎‎40 years and even the current decision to designate Rachel’s Tomb a Muslim site has a very ‎recent precursor. Five years ago, in 2010, UNESCO categorized Rachel’s Tomb as a “Muslim ‎mosque” and criticized Israel’s decision to include both it and the Cave of the Patriarchs in ‎Hebron on its list of national heritage sites. UNESCO furthermore made it clear that it views ‎both sites as Palestinian. Rachel’s Tomb is the third holiest place in Judaism and a Jewish ‎pilgrimage site. It meant nothing to UNESCO that Rachel’s Tomb had never been a mosque. At ‎the time, only the U.S. voted against this absurd decision.‎

What the above means is that the decision to designate the Western Wall as a Muslim site may have ‎been put on ice for now, but that efforts to have it designated as such will certainly be resumed at a more opportune time. ‎

At universities across the world, students are taught that the U.N. is an instrument of world ‎order, a respectable international body of member states who have it as their ultimate goal to ‎follow the precepts of international law. The U.N. Charter is studied diligently by law students ‎everywhere, as if what it says has any meaning at this point in time. Member states prolong the ‎life of this disgrace of an institution by continuing to support it with their citizens’ tax money ‎and diplomats — the more-than-willing executioners of all these shameful policies — give it ‎credibility by treating it as an honorable institution. ‎

The U.N. is an instrument of world disorder and it lost credibility decades ago when it voted to ‎equate Zionism with racism. That vote was instrumental in legitimizing and stoking the anti-‎Semitic hatred that is now sweeping away sanity and decency everywhere, where the latter ‎should rather be the governing norm. ‎

The denigration and dehumanization of Israel and the Jewish people is ongoing and met with ‎general silence or worse — with tacit or explicit approval. The pernicious, perfidious mainstream ‎media reporting of the current terror onslaught and the demonstrations of “solidarity” with the ‎murders of Jews in Israel in Sweden and Denmark recently, as well as on select U.S. university ‎campuses, are ugly and openly skewed and derisive of Israel at a time when anti-Semitic ‎hatred has finally become socially acceptable, even trendy in certain circles.‎

Israel has no need for the U.N. It is the U.N. that needs Israel. If there were no Jewish people, ‎no Israel, the U.N. would have to invent it. Israel needs to turn its back on the U.N. and simply ‎walk away. There can be no “dialogue” with an organization that so openly allies itself with ‎our enemies. ‎

The U.N. is abusive. Just like an abused spouse who is unable to ‎fight back because the abuser is so much bigger, stronger, or simply vicious and uninterested in ‎fostering anything positive in the relationship, Israel needs to face that facts and leave the U.N.‎

Netanyahu accurately describes the Mufti’s role in the Holocaust

October 22, 2015

Netanyahu accurately describes the Mufti’s role in the Holocaustelderofziyon2 via You Tube, October 22, 2015

 

There is Nothing to Negotiate

October 22, 2015

There is Nothing to Negotiate, American ThinkerDan Calic, October 21, 2015

(But shouldn’t Israel commit suicide to satisfy Abbas, the US, the EU, the UN and others? It would be the warm and fuzzy thing to do. — DM)

Some hard realities need to be faced about the Middle East “peace process.” The US, EU, UN and others have said the “settlements” are an obstacle to peace. The Arabs point to the “occupation.”

However, neither of these are the core issue…. and frankly, they never have been. Why? Keep in mind there was no “occupation” or “settlements” in 1948 when the surrounding Arab nations attacked the fledgling Jewish nation one day after declaring independence.

Moreover, where were settlements or occupation in 1967?

So if it isn’t the “occupation,” or “settlements,” what is the real issue? While many consider these to be legitimate issues, the Arabs are using them as a deliberate smokescreen.

The core issue is the Muslim’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It’s as simple as that. This is the main reason why the first attempt at a two-state solution (the 1947 UN partition plan) was not successful. The Muslims would not allow a Jewish state on land which they consider theirs. Its size or borders didn’t matter. It was, and remains, its mere existence.

Case in point: in 2000 when Yasser Arafat met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak under the auspicious of President Bill Clinton at Camp David ll, the real Muslim goal became evident.

During those discussions Barak made an unprecedented offer to Arafat. He was willing to turn over 95% of Judea/Samaria, commonly called the “West Bank.” He okayed the return of many of the so-called “refugees” and offered compensation for others. He was willing to split Israel in two by virtue of a contiguous road between Judea/Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

Plus, he offered to divide Jerusalem, which included handing most of the Old City over to the Muslims.

President Clinton felt Barak went above and beyond his expectations in an effort to achieve a breakthrough in the decades old conflict. Yet in the end, Arafat rejected it, without even making a counter offer. Why? An agreement would require compromise, which Muslims viewed as giving in to American demands. From their point of view this was (and remains) unacceptable, thus his rejection of the offer.

President Clinton was furious with Arafat, telling him “I am a failure and you have made me one.”

These days, with Arafat long gone, Mahmoud Abbas is in charge of the PA and considered by the U.S., EU, and others to be “sincere” and a “moderate.” However, very little has changed since the days of Arafat.

In some respect things have worsened. For example Abbas has repeatedly said he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This in spite of Israel’s repeated willingness to recognize ‘Palestine’ as a state, side by side with Israel.

Abbas’s refusal to accept the Jewish state of Israel is reflective of some longstanding Muslim views.

For example-

  • Muslim thinking has always been once they have controlled someplace, it’s considered theirs forever. It doesn’t matter if they get defeated in war. They view anyone in control of “their” land as “occupiers,” who need to be driven out or destroyed. To back away from this position is seen as compromise, which is unacceptable in Muslim thinking for at least two reasons.
  • Compromise is seen as weakness. Weakness is intolerable in their culture. Keep in mind the Saudi flag contains the official credo of Islam (“there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger”) which includes the image of a sword. The clear inference being they prefer to die upholding their beliefs than live by compromise.
  • Plus, compromise, from a fundamentalist perspective is also viewed as breaking a foundational tenet of the faith. Breaking a tenet of the faith is considered blasphemy, which is punishable by death in Islam.

Mahmoud Abbas has acted in accordance with these views. When one understands how Muslim’s view anyone in control of land they consider theirs, you understand his actions. It also becomes clear the conflict is not about borders. The Jews are seen as “occupiers” of Muslim land. A Jewish state has no right to exist on “Muslim” land.

If there is any doubt of this take a look at the charters of the PLO, Hamas, or Fatah, which is the party Mahmoud Abbas is president of. Moreover, all three, the PLO, Hamas, and Fatah by virtue of their emblems leave no doubt their goal is not a two-state solution. Each emblem shows only one state — Palestine, covering all of Israel. The goal of each group is the complete elimination of Israel. Every inch of land which makes up Israel today is considered “occupied Palestine.”

Why aren’t the voices criticizing Israel for “settlement” activity also demanding the charter of Abbas’s party reflect peaceful co-existence with Israel, instead of its destruction?

In order for a two-state solution to be achieved negotiations are required. Negotiations by their very nature require compromise. How is Israel supposed to negotiate when its very existence is considered unacceptable?

There is nothing to negotiate.

 

Secret U.S.-Russia Deal Calls for No Targeting, Close Flybys

October 22, 2015

Secret U.S.-Russia Deal Calls for No Targeting, Close Flybys McCain calls deal immoral for legitimizing Russian strikes on anti-Assad rebels

BY:
October 22, 2015 5:00 am

Source: Secret U.S.-Russia Deal Calls for No Targeting, Close Flybys – Washington Free Beacon

The moral of the morality 

The secret deal between Moscow and Washington aimed at preventing aerial accidents calls for U.S. and Russian pilots to avoid targeting or shooting at aircraft engaged in military strikes, according to defense officials.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told reporters Tuesday that details of the agreement, reached this week, are being kept secret at the request of the Russians.

According to other defense officials, the accord states that aircraft, including both jets and unmanned drone aircraft, will not illuminate aircraft from other countries with targeting radar or fire upon them.

Also, the agreement bans aerobatic maneuvers, such as barrel rolls, or what pilots call “thumps”—close passes by aircraft that involve gunning engines and causing target aircraft to be shaken by jet wash.

The agreement also covers any other unsafe aerial encounters, the officials said.

In addition to U.S. aircraft, coalition nations that are conducting airstrikes and will be covered by the accord include Australia, Canada, Denmark (which suspended operations in August), France, Jordan, the Netherlands, and Britain.

The agreement also sets up a communications mechanism on the ground that will permit officials in U.S. and Russian operations centers to talk, should other electronic communications prove insufficient.

Since Russian jets began conducting bombing missions in Syria, mainly against Syrian rebels and in support of the military forces of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus, there have been what Cook said were “a handful” of unsafe aerial encounters between Russian and U.S. aircraft, involving both piloted jets and unmanned drones.

In one case, a Russian jet came with 1,500 feet of U.S. aircraft in an unprofessional encounter. Russian jets have also flown close to U.S. Predator drones engaged in surveillance missions.

Cook, the Pentagon spokesman, said the memorandum of understanding (MOU) covering what the military calls the “deconfliction” of air operations, was not intended to legitimize Russia’s military operations in support of the Assad regime.

“The MOU does not establish zones of cooperation, intelligence sharing, or any sharing of target information in Syria,” Cook said. “The discussions through which this MOU has developed do not constitute U.S. cooperation or support for Russia’s policy or actions in Syria. In fact, far from it, we continue to believe that Russia’s strategy in Syria is counterproductive and their support for the Assad regime will only make Syria’s civil war worse.”

In Moscow, however, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said the memorandum was an important step toward joint cooperation between the two militaries against what he said were terrorist elements, the Associated Press reported.

“The memorandum contains a complex of rules and restrictions aimed at preventing incidents between Russian and U.S. aircraft,” Antonov said.

The communications between the two militaries will include 24-hour channels and “mutual assistance in crisis situations.”

“The Americans have promised to get the agreed rules to all participants of the anti-[Islamic State] coalition they lead, so that their pilots proceed from those agreements,” Antonov said.

According to the Russian official, the memorandum promises “a big potential for cooperation between Russia and the U.S., including in the fight against terrorism, which we are ready to expand and deepen.”

On Capitol Hill, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) harshly criticized the agreement, calling it “immoral.”

“This ‘de-confliction’ agreement with Russia means that the United States will now be watching and moving out of the way while Russian aircraft, together with Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah ground forces, attack and kill brave young Syrians, many of whom our country has supported and encouraged to fight back against a brutal dictator who has slaughtered nearly 250,000 Syrians and driven half the population from their homes,” McCain said.

“This is not only self-defeating and harmful to our national interests; it is immoral.”

McCain said Syrian rebels had placed their trust in the United States in hopes U.S. backing would help them succeed in the civil war.

“Now we are breaking those promises in our haste to give [Russian President] Vladimir Putin clearer skies from which to bomb our partners,” he said.

Russia began airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30 using jet fighters and attack helicopters. It then launched a series of long-range cruise missile strikes, firing 26 SS-N-30 Kalibr missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea.

Russian military intervention in Syria followed Moscow’s complaints that U.S. military efforts to stop the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq were failing to stem the terrorist group’s advance.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Iraq that he has secured assurances from the Iraqi government that Baghdad will not seek Russian airstrikes against Islamic State-controlled regions of that country.

“I said it would make it very difficult for us to be able to provide the kind of support that you need if the Russians were here conducting operations as well,” Dunford told reporters, according to a Reuters account.

“Both the minister of defense and the prime minister said: ‘Absolutely.’ There is no request right now for the Russians to support them, there’s no consideration for the Russians to support them, and the Russians haven’t asked them to come in and conduct operations.”

Dunford said the air safety accord will permit the U.S. and allied forces to continue airstrikes.

“I’m not going to tell you there’s not going to be friction,” Dunford said, noting possible course changes for U.S. jets in response to Russian flights.

“What I’m telling you is the basic execution of the plan is going to continue.”

US, Turkey angered by Assad’s ‘red carpet’ visit to Moscow

October 22, 2015

US, Turkey angered by Assad’s ‘red carpet’ visit to Moscow

Published time: 22 Oct, 2015 01:52

Edited time: 22 Oct, 2015 09:18

Source: US, Turkey angered by Assad’s ‘red carpet’ visit to Moscow — RT News

The US and Turkey, two of the Syrian President Bashar Assad’s key opponents, have not cheered his visit to Moscow, with the White House slamming it as a “red carpet welcome.” Russian and Syrian leaders were meeting for crisis consultations and planning.

The White House criticized the way the Syrian leader was received, saying it resembled a “red carpet welcome.” In that same statement, the US also accused Assad of using chemical weapons against his own people and questioned Russia’s interests in a political transition of power in Syria.

“We view the red carpet welcome for Assad, who has used chemical weapons against his own people, at odds with the stated goal by the Russians for a political transition in Syria,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

Assad has stressed on multiple occasions in the past that Western claims that his government had used chemical weapons against the Syrian population are “an insult to common sense” and “nonsense.”

READ MORE: Accusations that Syria used chemical weapon ‘against logic’ – Assad 

The State Department added that it was not shocked by Assad’s visit to Moscow considering the relationship between the two countries. “It’s not surprising that Bashar Assad would travel to Moscow, given the relationship that Syria has with Russia, and given the recent military activities by Russia in Syria on behalf of Bashar al-Assad,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said at a briefing.

In addition, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu offered sarcastic comments on the topic, stating Assad should have “stayed in Moscow” in order to kick start the transition process.

Embedded image permalink

camp in Istanbul trained children as terrorists http://on.rt.com/6u9k 

If only he could stay in Moscow longer, to give the people of Syria some relief; in fact he should stay there so the transition can begin,” Davutoglu told reporters.
Davutoglu once again reiterated that resolving the crisis in Syria should be about Assad’s departure and not about a transition with him remaining in power.

Both the US and Turkey are meeting Russia for negotiations on Friday, along with Saudi Arabia. The foreign ministers of all four countries have also agreed to meet for talks on Syria in Vienna.

Despite the negative rhetoric, these are concrete steps being taken by key players to resolve the crisis in Syria, perhaps signaling a positive shift, RT’s Egor Piskunov said.

“It is quite rare that these key players in the Syrian crisis come together, especially Saudi Arabia, which has been on the side of the rebels fighting against Assad all along, and now they may be talking about a transition,” Piskunov said in a news report. “If we are looking at the creation of a new diplomatic quartet here on Syria, perhaps eventually the Syrian government even may be included into a political resolution of this crisis.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad held talks in Moscow on Tuesday.

“Yesterday evening Syrian President Bashar Assad arrived in Moscow for a working visit,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday. “President [Putin] was informed in detail by his Syrian counterpart about the current state of affairs in Syria and the long-range plan.”

Syria is a country friendly to Russia, and Moscow is ready not only to assist with fighting terrorism, but also in reaching a peaceful political settlement to the Syrian conflict in cooperation with other global and regional powers, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

“The decisive word, without any doubt, must belong solely to the Syrian people,” Putin stressed.

The Russian President and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, talked about Assad’s trip following the visit.

“The situation in Syria was discussed,” Peskov said. “In this context, the leader of Russia informed his Turkish counterpart about the results of Syrian President al-Assad’s visit to Moscow.”

Embedded image permalink

to at Moscow talks: Terrorists would seize larger areas if Russia did not act http://on.rt.com/6ubw 

The two leaders conducted lengthy negotiations, which then continued in the presence of Russia’s top policymakers.

Some experts have been suggesting that the West needs to reconsider its position on Assad if it wants to solve the crisis in Syria. Middle East journalist Karin Leukefeld told RT that Assad’s visit to Moscow needs to be viewed as the Syrian leader showing his willingness to negotiate.

“He wants to signal that he is ready to go outside his country to talk and to find a solution for his country and for the Syrian people. I think it is something the West should consider … The West needs to find a face-saving way to change their political line and to change their attitude towards Syria and to the Syrian president,” Leukefeld said.

 

The Mufti, Hitler and the Palestinians: The Facts

October 22, 2015

The Mufti, Hitler and the Palestinians: The Facts The father of the modern Palestinian movement and his role in the Final Solution.

October 22, 2015

David Bedein

Source: The Mufti, Hitler and the Palestinians: The Facts | Frontpage Mag

The following article is excerpted from a paper delivered at an Israeli Knesset Forum on Holocaust Remembrance Day, 2012.

The titular leader of the Palestinian Arab community in the previous generation, Haj Amin Al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, forged a pact with Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941, one week before the Wannasee conference, originally scheduled for December 7, 1941, yet was postponed by one month, due to the attack on Pearl Harbor on that very day.

The protocols of the Hitler-Mufti pact that were presented as evidence against the Mufti in the Nuremberg war crimes trials explicitly state that Hitler would exterminate the Jews in Europe, while the Mufti would enlist Nazi aid to exterminate Jews in Palestine, so as to establish a “Judenrein” state of Palestine.

To that end, the Mufti ensconced himself in Hitler’s bunker, from where he recruited an Islamic unit of the Waffen SS, which actively engaged in the mass murder of Jews, while issuing Arabic language appeals on Nazi radio which incited Moslems to join the Nazi cause and to prepare for mass murder of Jews in Palestine.

The Protocols of the Nuremberg conviction of the Mufti were published in the 1946 book, Mufti of Jerusalem, authored by Journalist Maurice Pearlman, who was appointed in 1948 as the first director of the Israel Government Press Office.

Pearlman cited affidavits of senior SS prosecution witnesses who testified that the Mufti, working directly under Eichmann and Himmler, identified the Mufti’s instrumental role in making sure that millions of Jews were murdered, and not ransomed.

Added by JK

In April 1943, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, was invited by Berger to assist in organising and recruiting Muslims into the Waffen-SS and other units. He was escorted by von Krempler, who spoke Turkish.[20] The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše.[21]

The Germans emphasised that al-Husayni had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo in order to bless and inspect the division. During his visit to Bosnia al-Husayni also convinced some important Muslim leaders that the formation of the division was in the interests of Islam.[22]

The Mufti insisted, “The most important task of this division must be to protect the homeland and families [of the Bosnian volunteers]; the division must not be permitted to leave Bosnia”, but the Germans paid no attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_%281st_Croatian%29

No one denies the Mufti’s Arabic language radio broadcasts, his recruitment of the Islamic SS unit, and his active involvement in SS round-ups of Jews in Yugosolvia.

And there is no doubt that the Mufti was aware of the Final Solution, fully supported it, and sought to extend it to the Arab world.

The affidavit of one of Eichmann’s subordinates, SS Hampsturmfuerer Dieter Wisliceny, who appeared as a witness for the Nuremberg prosecution, speaks for itself:

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry for the Germans and had been the permanent collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan…According to my opinion, the Grand Mufti, who had been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with who[m he] had been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures…

In 1961, when Eichmann was brought to justice in Jerusalem, Israel’s then foreign minister, Golda Meir, called for the Mossad to apprehend the Mufti and to sit him alongside Eichmann on trial in Jerusalem.

Maurice Pearlman traces the Mufti’s escape to Cairo, where Pearlman reported how the Mufti influenced the newly formed Arab League to spawn the charter of the Arab League, with an explicit statement that its purpose was to wipe out any Zionist entity that would soon come about.

Indeed, the Mufti-inspired charter of the Arab League would soon form the basis of the Arab league declaration of war to destroy the nascent state of Israel in 1948.

The refusal of the UK to arrest the Mufti in Cairo, described by Pearlman, caused the head of the Zionist revisionists in the United States at the time, Ben Zion Netanyahu, father of Israel’s current Prime Minister, to launch an unsuccessful campaign to push the US to demand the arrest of the Mufti in Cairo.

A little known fact concerns the Mufti’s special relationship with a young relative in Cairo, to whom the Mufti would affectionately give the name “Yassir Arafat.” In December 1996, Haaretz interviewed Yassir Arafat’s younger brother and sister, who said that the Mufti performed the role of a surrogate father figure and mentor to the young Arafat.

The failure of the Arab League, in 1948, to mobilize the Arabs of Palestine into an active war against the newly formed Jewish state led the Mufti to urge the Arab League, in 1964, to launch the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, whose stated covenant of purpose was almost identical in language to the charter of the Arab League: to exterminate the new state of Israel. Yet the focus of the PLO was to organize Arabs who remained in Israel along with the Arab refugees who languished in UNRWA refugee camps to organize an effective grass roots effort to liberate Palestine, all of Palestine, from Jewish rule.

Today, the new curriculum of the Palestinian Authority is imbued with the legacy of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini, whose vision of a Jew-free Palestine is taught in every educational institution of the Palestinian Authority, together with the armed struggle to liberate Palestine, as an ideal for Palestinian Arab students.

On January 4, 2013, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke glowingly of the legacy of the Godfather of the PLO, the Mufti of Jerusalem, via video link on a wide screen to the masses in Gaza, who gathered to celebrate the founding of Fatah (Arabic word for “conquest”), otherwise known as the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Abbas praised the Mufti as a man whose ways should be emulated by all Palestinian Arabs. “We must remember the pioneers, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Hajj Muhammad Amin Al-Husseini, as well as Ahmad Al-Shukeiri, the founder of the PLO,” Abbas said, according to a translation of the speech made by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

France’s War Against the Jews

October 22, 2015

France’s War Against the Jews The attack on Israel’s sovereignty over the Temple Mount is just the beginning.

October 22, 2015

Caroline Glick

Source: France’s War Against the Jews | Frontpage Mag

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

France’s plan to use its position at the UN Security Council to bring about the deployment of international monitors to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been condemned by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers as biased, unhelpful and detached from reality.

Certainly it is all those things. But France’s decision to use its diplomatic position to advance a plan which if implemented would end Israeli sovereignty over Judaism’s holiest site is first and foremost a French act of aggression against the Jewish state.

Contrary to what the French government would have us believe, France’s Temple Mount gambit is not an effort to quell the violence. French protestations of concern over the loss of life in the current tempest of Palestinian terrorism ring hollow.

France doesn’t really oppose Palestinian terrorism.

To the contrary, it facilitates it.

Every year, the French government pays millions of euros, dollars and shekels to Palestinian NGOs whose stated goal is to destroy Israel. Through its NGO agents, France finances the radicalization of Palestinian society. This French-financed radicalization makes Palestinian terrorism inevitable.

Much of the current rhetoric used by the Palestinians to reject Israel’s legitimacy and justify violence against Jews is found in strategic documents that France paid Palestinian NGOs to write.

According to NGO Monitor, between 2010 and 2013, France gave $6.5 million to a consortium of Palestinian NGOs called the NGO Development Center. It paid for the NDC to put together a strategic plan to advance its members’ goals. That French-initiated and financed document includes a list of activities not aimed at promoting peace, enhancing the daily lives of Palestinians, or expanding economic growth.

Rather, the French-financed strategic planning document provides a list of activities that the NGOs will undertake to delegitimize and criminalize Israel and ensure that Palestinians hate the Jewish state and view it as the cause of all their suffering.

The paper called for “Establish[ing] monitoring databases by relevant NGOs on sectoral issues and themes (expansion of colonies, [i.e. Israeli neighborhoods and towns beyond the 1949 armistice lines,] construction of Separation and Annexation Wall, Gaza siege, Jerusalem, house demolitions and evictions, water resources, environment, political prisoners, etc.)”; “Implement[ing] and disseminat[ing] in depth thematic studies about Israeli violations of human rights in the occupied territories”; “Development of a unified NGO strategy for international advocacy.”

A 2008 NDC document required all member groups to ban all “normalization activities with the occupier, [both] at the political-security [and] the cultural [and] developmental levels.”

The document went on to call for Israel to be destroyed. No action on the part of any Palestinian entity can be carried out it said, “if it undermines the inalienable Palestinian rights of establishing statehood and the return of refugees to their original homes,” that is, the immigration of millions of foreign-born Arabs to the ruins of Israel.

The “international advocacy” referred to in the document includes lobbying foreign governments and societies to wage economic war against Israel. To this end, for instance, the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the French government, uses racist language to demonize Jews and Israel by among other things assaulting the so-called “Judaization of Jerusalem” and attacking Palestinians who work with Israeli companies.

In 2011, PARC sabotaged a trade delegation in France comprised of Israeli and Gazan farmers organized by Agrexco, Israel’s main exporter of agricultural products. Rather than welcome Israel’s actions on behalf of Gaza farmers, PAR C organized a boycott of the delegation – causing direct harm to Gazan farmers.

In its press release following its action, the beneficiary of French government financing wrote, “PARC salutes all activists and international supporters for the BDS campaign and especially our French friends and partners who were able to frustrate the Agrexco attempt to conduct a joint press conference with a few exploited Palestinian producers.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but these are not the actions that peaceful groups interested in a non-violent, peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel undertake. By paying these groups to carry out these sorts of activities, the French government has made clear that far from seeking to advance the cause of peace, its actual goal is to block all prospects of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

These sorts of actions are the norm, rather than the exception in France’s treatment of Israel. And France makes no bones about its hostility toward the Jewish state.

On December 2, 2014, barely a week after two jihadists from Jerusalem butchered like sheep four rabbis in prayer at a synagogue in the city and murdered a policeman who tried to rescue them, the French parliament recognized the non-existent “State of Palestine.”

That Islamic State-styled massacre was part of a larger Islamic terrorism offensive against Jews in Jerusalem that was incited by the leaders of “Palestine.”

Just as it does today, last fall the Palestinian Authority, led by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, spread the lie that Israel was planning to destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount and called on the Palestinians to attack Jews.

The French government’s policies on the ground in Israel and the PA are a natural complement to its anti-Jewish policies at home.

Whereas France seek to reward Islamic terrorists on the international stage by helping them to weaken the Jewish state, back home the French government is willing to place its own Jewish community at risk in order to pretend that Islamic terrorism doesn’t exist.

Since Jews are among the top targets for French jihadists, the French government’s policy of refusing to acknowledge or combat Islamic extremism and violence in France is an anti-Jewish policy.

Last January, in the wake of the jihadist massacre at the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris, which had followed the massacre at Charlie Hebdo magazine, French President Francois Hollande refused to acknowledge that the murderous violence was rooted in Islam. To the contrary, Hollande perversely insisted, “These terrorists and fanatics have nothing to do with the Islamic religion.”

In a further act of hostility toward the grieving Jewish community, two days after the massacres Hollande told Netanyahu to stay away from Paris and not participate in his solidarity march with the victims of the attacks.

When Netanyahu insisted on participating in the march anyway, Hollande invited Mahmoud Abbas to participate as well, despite his direct sponsorship of anti-Jewish terrorism.

French authorities tried to push Netanyahu to the second row of marchers to prevent anyone from seeing him. Ahead of the march, they left him exposed, in an unsafe area, where his life was in danger every second, as he waited for a bus to pick him up and take him to the event.

In the evening after the march, Hollande refused to appear with Netanyahu at the memorial ceremony for the victims of the Hyper Cacher massacre. In a tangible snub, Hollande left the synagogue where it was being held before Netanyahu arrived.

In the nine months since the attacks, rather than go after the Islamic communities of France that infect their members with Nazi-like Jew hatred marinated in Koranic dispensations for murder, French authorities have forced French Jewry to live under lock and key. Jewish communal institutions are required to shoulder astronomical security costs as their buildings have come to look more like military garrisons than elementary schools and synagogues.

As a French professor writing under the pen name Alain El-Mouchain explained this month in Mosaic Magazine, the French government’s “refusal to identify either the culprits [of anti-Semitic violence] or their [Jewish] victims by their proper names… has perversely combined with the swift posting of police and military guards at Jewish institutions to make Jews feel that at best they have become ‘protected citizens’ in their own country, reinforcing the idea that they are no longer at home in France but are rather a new kind of dhimmi [a minority group that lives at the pleasure of the ruling Muslims].”

In rejecting France’s bid to destroy Israel’s sovereignty over the Temple Mount, Netanyahu and his ministers have all noted that such a position will do nothing to protect the Temple Mount or guarantee freedom of religion. Only Israeli control of the holy site, Netanyahu explained, protects members of all faiths.

Again, while their statements are correct, they miss the point. It isn’t that France is doing nothing to ensure freedom of religion. Through its actions, France has shown that it isn’t even vaguely interested in promoting freedom and peace. The policy of the French government, revealed yet again by its bid to end Israeli control of the Temple Mount, is to delegitimize Israel and curry the favor of jihadists at the expense of the Jews of Israel and of France alike.

Hillary’s Libyan Lies: Muslim Brotherhood, Terror and Dirty Money

October 22, 2015

Hillary’s Libyan Lies: Muslim Brotherhood, Terror and Dirty Money Hillary Clinton is still lying about her illegal war.

October 22, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Source: Hillary’s Libyan Lies: Muslim Brotherhood, Terror and Dirty Money | Frontpage Mag

Hillary Clinton has only one accomplishment; the Libyan War. Bombing Libya in support of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover was Hillary’s pet project.

Obama unenthusiastically signed off on a war that he had told members of Congress “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter.”

The Pentagon fought Hillary’s illegal war every step of the way. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs opposed Hillary’s plan to bomb Libya. One of the Chairman’s top aides said that he did not trust the reports coming out of the State Department and the CIA, then controlled by Clinton loyalist Leon Panetta. When it was clear that the Clintonites had gotten their war on, an irritated Secretary of Defense Gates resigned after failing to stop Hillary’s war and was replaced by Panetta.

As the State Department set the military agenda, the Pentagon retaliated by taking over the diplomatic agenda attempting to arrange a ceasefire with the Gaddafi regime over Hillary’s objections.

Hillary was using the State Department to start a war while the military was trying to use diplomacy to stop a war. The Pentagon lost the power struggle and one of her minions took over the military to make sure that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadists would be able to overrun another country.

Huma Abedin had beaten the Secretary of Defense.

Panetta, unlike Gates, shared Hillary’s Arab Spring agenda. After the war, he paid a visit to Tripoli and claimed that similar “uprisings” would be taking place around the Middle East, including in Syria.

Military people never stopped loathing Hillary Clinton for her war and its consequences, the usurpation of a defense matter, the Al Qaeda training camps and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi. That came to the surface during the Democratic debate when Senator Webb challenged Clinton on Libya.

Hillary Clinton smugly recited the same old lies about Gaddafi “threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people” and European allies begging her to stop a “mass genocide.”

In reality, Hillary Clinton was the source of the claim that Gaddafi was about to commit genocide. This claim had no basis in reality and defense officials quickly shot it down. But that didn’t stop Obama from claiming during his war speech that he had bombed Libya to save Benghazi from a massacre. There was no massacre in Benghazi. At least not until Obama helped make a massacre of four Americans happen.

By September, the New York Times was asking where all the dead were. Morgue records showed that the dead on both sides actually numbered in the hundreds. The International Red Cross put the number of missing persons at around a thousand. The largest mass grave found had 34 bodies.

Obama claimed that he had seen Gaddafi “kill over a thousand people in a single day.” That never happened. It never happened when Gaddafi had actually captured a rebel city before.

“Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered,” Hillary Clinton had said. That would be more than the entire number of people, combatants and civilians, who had died in the Libyan Civil War.

Gaddafi was an insane dictator, but he had never done anything on that scale, nor were his forces, which had been beaten by Chad in the Toyota War (Chad militias had fought using Toyota pickups), remotely capable of pulling off Saddam level of atrocities or he might have won the war.

Hillary Clinton claimed at the debate, “We had the Arabs standing by our side saying, ‘We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi.’” But by the second night of bombing, the Secretary-General of the Arab League had already condemned the “bombardment of civilians.”

“We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya,” Hillary Clinton said. That’s technically true and also a lie. It was Panetta’s CIA people who were on the ground.

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, two of the Americans murdered in Benghazi, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were working as contractors for the CIA. American soldiers still died in Libya. They were just officially contractors, more of the CIA’s “Sneakers on the Ground” approach that let hacks like Hillary and Obama claim that there were no American soldiers on the ground.

“The Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951,” Hillary Clinton said. “And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy.”

When Hillary says “moderate”, she means Islamist. The election was fake. It was rigged between the “moderate Islamist” Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate Islamist” National Forces Alliance. While the media was repeating talking points about the fake election, fighting in Benghazi continued. But even though Hillary and Obama had used Benghazi as the basis for the war, no one was paying attention.

That would change soon enough. And before long every American would know the name Benghazi. But Benghazi was only an early warning. Before long entire Libyan cities would fall to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Hillary closed by insisting, “Unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk.”

Sending diplomats to dangerous places means providing them with adequate security.

Hillary’s State Department failed to do that. Even the whitewashed report of her cronies admitted that much. Benghazi’s compound was being protected by “moderate Islamist” terrorists who overlapped with the other “moderate Islamist” terrorists who attacked the diplomatic compound.

While Hillary’s State Department was spending fortunes on bad art, the Benghazi compound didn’t meet security standards in a city that had more terrorists than police officers.

And, best of all, the Muslim Brotherhood Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade terrorists Hillary was paying to protect the ambassador, hadn’t even been paid.

Benghazi was a city that was effectively under the control of Jihadists, some of them blatantly identifying with Al Qaeda. Hillary Clinton might as well have sent Ambassador Stevens into an Al Qaeda training camp with terrorists providing his security. And that’s effectively what she did.

Her dismissive line about sending diplomats to dangerous places whitewashes what happened.

Now that we’ve cleared away Hillary’s lies, let’s get to the truth. The Libyan War, like the rest of the Arab Spring, was about empowering the Muslim Brotherhood.

And there were cruder motives in the mix.

Hillary Clinton hid emails discussing the exploitation of Libya’s oil fields. The Clintons had made an art out of merging their political and financial agendas. They had extensive ties with figures in the energy industry and the companies that dug into Libya’s energy sector, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were Clinton Foundation donors.

Some of the deleted emails discussed this with Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal, who was also providing Hillary Clinton with supposed intel from business interests while promising that the Libyan War would be an easy matter. Blumenthal encouraged “shock and awe” bombing in Libya.

According to Congressman Gowdy, who has been investigating the events in Benghazi, “Blumenthal pushed hard for a no-fly zone in Libya before the idea was being discussed internally by senior U.S. government officials.” He blasted Obama for being “unenthusiastic about regime change in Libya.”

Blumenthal called for providing the Jihadists with “armor piercing weapons” and called Secretary of Defense Gates a “mean, vicious little prick” who is “losing” the debate. Blumenthal also offered the very specific “national interest” argument that Obama would later echo, suggesting that he was unknowingly repeating the talking points of a man he loathed which had been handed to him by Hillary Clinton.

He also told Hillary Clinton that the war had to be ramped up or Obama would lose the election.

Having dragged Obama into Hillary’s war, Blumenthal was now pushing Hillary to blackmail him with the threat of losing the election if he didn’t escalate the conflict. Meanwhile he was pursuing his interest in getting the Libyans to pay for military training from a private military company he was linked to.

The entire nightmarish mess of Democratic conspiracy theories about Iraq, Blood for Oil, politicians fighting wars to win elections, corporate conflicts of interest and even private military companies are all here and no one will touch it. A roster of Democratic candidates still running against the Iraq War won’t talk about an illegal dirty regime change war that took place with their backing and support.

Bernie Sanders, who sputters incoherently about the Iraq War, co-sponsored the Senate resolution supporting a No Fly Zone in Libya. This was the Senate resolution that Obama exploited as a fig leaf of Senate approval for his illegal war.

Senator Sanders can’t criticize Hillary’s illegal war because he helped make it happen.

Hillary’s war has been an unmitigated disaster. Her lies about the war have been disproven. But not even the Democrats running against her are ready to hold her accountable for it.

Kerry urges Benjamin Netanyahu to ‘move beyond rhetoric’

October 22, 2015

Kerry urges Netanyahu to ‘move beyond rhetoric’ and take steps to end wave of violence

October 22, 2015, 9:50 am

Source: Kerry urges Benjamin Netanyahu to ‘move beyond rhetoric’ and take steps to end wave of violence – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Berlin on Thursday, saying that the time had come for Israel and the Palestinians to agree on the steps that must be taken to “move beyond condemnations and rhetoric” and stop the current round of terror attacks plaguing Israeli cities.

Kerry was beginning a four-day trip to Europe and the Middle East aimed at deescalating the violence which has seen ten Israelis killed in terror attacks and dozens of Palestinian attackers and rioters killed by Israeli forces.

Netanyahu reiterated his assertion that the current wave of terror is “driven directly” by incitement from Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

Added by JK

Attacks on Israelis will go on, Hamas chief says in South Africa
At Cape Town rally organized by ruling African National Congress party, Khaled Mashaal urges continued terror attacks
http://www.timesofisrael.com/attacks-on-israelis-will-go-on-hamas-chief-says-in-south-africa/

I want to thank you and the US for condemning the terrorist attacks against Israel, for standing up for our right of self defense,” the prime minister told Kerry.

“We remain committed to the status quo. We’re the ones that protect all the holy sites,” Netanyahu said, refuting Palestinian claims that Israel is seeking to change the status quo at the Temple Mount.

“Israel is acting to protect its citizens as any democracy would in the face of such wanton and relentless attacks,” he said in response to charges that Israel has used excessive force in stopping the attacks.

“To generate hope, we have to stop terrorism. To stop terrorism, we have to stop the incitement,” he stated.

“It’s time that the international community told President Abbas to stop the incitement and hold him accountable for his words and his deeds,” he added.

Kerry said that “it is absolutely critical to end all incitement, to end all violence and to find a road forward to build the possibility which is not there today for a larger process.”

“So we have to go steps, but today you and I can really rekindle that process,” he added.

Kerry said that he had spoken to Jordan’s King Abdullah and Abbas, and had received the impression that “everyone wants this to deescalate.”