Archive for February 26, 2016

Off Topic:  Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected – WSJ

February 26, 2016

Source: Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected – WSJ

( CHRIS CHRISTIE JUST ENDORSED TRUMP !!!  “Donald is a man who keeps his word…” – JW )

Why political professionals are struggling to make sense of the world they created.

Donald Trump supporters at a Nevada caucus Feb. 23. Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact of the Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.

I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things?

In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious.

But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.

Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five.

But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that.

Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.

In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against the Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.

What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.

You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

And a country really can’t continue this way.

In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.

Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.

Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.

I don’t know if the protected see how serious this moment is, or their role in it.

Lecha Dodi – Greet the Sabbath bride

February 26, 2016

 

 

How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism

February 26, 2016

How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 26, 2016

(Wouldn’t that suggest that terrorists are Muslims? Unthinkable! — DM)

mn

 

A century before American soldiers fought Muslim terrorism in the Middle East, they fought it in the Philippines. Their attackers were Moro Muslims whose savage fanaticism appeared inexplicable. A formerly friendly Muslim might suddenly attack American soldiers, local Muslim rulers promised friendship while secretly aiding the terrorists and the yellow left-wing press at home seized on every report of an atrocity to denounce American soldiers as murderers whose honor was forever soiled.

Much of what went on in that conflict, including the sacrifices of our soldiers, has been forgotten. The erasure has been so thorough that the media casually claims that the American forces did not use pig corpses and pig’s blood to deter Muslim terrorists. Media fact checks have deemed it a “legend”.

It’s not a legend. It’s history.

The practice began in the Spanish period. A source as mainstream as the New Cambridge History of Islam informs us that, “To discourage Juramentados, the Spaniards buried their corpses with dead pigs.”

Juramentados was the Spanish term for the Muslim Jihadists who carried out suicide attacks against Christians while shouting about Allah. American forces, who had little experience with Muslim terrorists, adopted the term and the Spanish tactics of burying Muslim terrorists alongside dead pigs.

It was a less sensitive age and even the New York Times blithely observed that, “The Moros, though they still admire these frenzied exits from the world, have practically ceased to utilize them, since when a pig and a man occupy a single grave the future of the one and the other are in their opinions about equal.”

The New York Times conceded that the story “shocked a large number of sensitive people,” but concluded that, “while regretting the necessity of adopting a plan so repugnant to humane ideas, we also note that the Moros can stop its application as soon as they choose, and therefore we feel no impulse either to condemn its invention or to advise its abandonment. The scheme involves the waste of a certain amount of pork, but pork in hot climates is an unwholesome diet, anyhow, and the less of it our soldiers and other ‘infidels’ in the Philippines have to eat the better for them.”

Colonel Willis A. Wallace of the 15th Cavalry claimed credit for innovating the practice in March 1903 to dissuade the Muslim terrorist who believed that “every Christian he kills places him so much closer in contact with the Mohammedan heaven.”

“Conviction and punishment of these men seemed to have no effect,” Colonel Wallace related. After a “more than usually atrocious slaughter” in the marketplace, he had the bodies of the killers placed on display and encouraged “all the Moros in the vicinity who cared to do so to come and see the remains”.

“A great crowd gathered where the internment was to take place and it was there that a dead hog, in plain view of the multitude, was lifted and placed in the grave in the midst of the three bodies, the Moro grave-diggers themselves being required to do this much to their horror. News of the form of punishment adopted soon spread.”

“There is every indication that the method had a wholesome effect,” Colonel Wallace concluded.

Colonel Wallace was certainly not the only officer to bury pigs with Muslim terrorists in the Philippines, though he was apparently the only one to discuss it in such great detail.

Medal of Honor winner Colonel Frank West buried three pigs with three Muslim terrorists after the murder of an American officer. He appears to have done so with the approval of General Perishing. Some stories mention Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry becoming so celebrated for it that he was known to Moro Muslims as “The Pig”. One contemporary account does describe him burying a pig with the corpse of a Muslim terrorist who had murdered an American soldier.

Rear Admiral Daniel P Mannix III had contended that, “What finally stopped the Juramentados was the custom of wrapping the dead man in a pig’s skin and stuffing his mouth with pork”.

Media fact checks have claimed that General John “Black Jack” Perishing would not have offended Muslims by authorizing such a course of action and that any claims of his involvement are also a legend.

General Perishing however wrote in his autobiography that, “These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig. It was not pleasant to have to take such measures, but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.”

We can be certain then that the practice of burying Muslim terrorists with pigs was indeed real and fairly widespread. Was pig’s blood also used on Muslim terrorists as a deterrent to prevent attacks?

The Scientific American described just such an event. In a hard look at the area, it wrote of a place where, “Polygamy is universally practiced and slavery exists very extensively. Horse stealing is punishable by death, murder by a fine of fifty dollars. The religion is Mohamedan.”

A Muslim terrorist, the magazine wrote, “will suddenly declare himself ‘Juramentado’, that is inspired by Mohammed to be a destroyer of Christians. He forthwith shaves his head and eyebrows and goes forth to fulfill his mission.”

The Scientific American described how a Muslim terrorist who had disemboweled an American soldier was made an example of. “A grave was dug without the walls of the city. Into this the murderer was unceremoniously dropped. A pig was then suspended by his hind legs above the grave and the throat of the animal cut. Soon the body lay immersed in gore… a guard stood sentry over the grave until dusk when the pig was buried side by side with the Juramentado.”

“This so enraged the Moros that they besieged the city. Matters became so grave that General Wood felt called upon to disperse the mob resulting in the death of a number of Moros.”

It is clear from these accounts which encompass General Perishing’s autobiography, the New York Times and the Scientific American that the use of pig corpses and pig’s blood in the Philippines was not a legend, but fact. It was not carried out by a few rogue officers, but had the support of top generals. It was not a single isolated incident, but was a tactic that was made use of on multiple occasions.

American forces in the Philippines faced many of the same problems that our forces do today. But they were often free to find more direct solutions to them. When Muslim rulers claimed that they had no control over the terrorists whom they had sent to kill Americans, our officers responded in kind.

“Shortly after General Bates’ arrival on the island, the Sultan sent word that there were some half dozen Juramentados in Jolo over whom he had no control. General Bates replied, ‘Six hundred of my men have turned Juramentado and I have no control over them.’”

Another version of this story by Rear Admiral Mannix III had Admiral Hemphill dispatching a gunboat to shell the Sultan’s palace and then informing him that the gunboat had “turned Juramentado”. As with pig corpses and blood, such blunt tactics worked. Unfortunately political correctness makes it difficult to utilize them today. And political correctness carries with it a high price in American lives.

It is important that we remember the real history of a less politically correct time when American lives mattered more than upsetting those whom the New York Times deemed “sensitive people” and what another publication dismissed as the “sensitive spirit” of the Muslim terrorist.

But as that publication suggested, “It is not necessary to go into spasms about the insult to the Mahometan conscience. Every Christian that walks the earth is a living insult to that ‘sensitive spirit’”.

“The murderer may feel that he is unduly treated by being defiled with the touch of the swine, but he can avoid it by refraining from becoming a practical Juramentado. Our sympathies, if anywhere, are with the innocent pig slaughtered for such a purpose and buried in such company.”

These days we do not bury pigs with Muslim terrorists. Our political and military leaders shudder at the thought of Muslims accusing us of blasphemy. And so instead we bury thousands of American soldiers.

Story Time: Bill Reads a Hillary Clinton Children’s Book!

February 26, 2016

Story Time: Bill Reads a Hillary Clinton Children’s Book! Bill Whittle via You Tube, February 26, 2016

CAIR vows to Save us from ‘the Trumps, the Cruzs, the Palela Gelleers, the Robert Spencers’

February 26, 2016

CAIR vows to Save us from ‘the Trumps, the Cruzs, the Palela Gelleers, the Robert Spencers’ Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, February 26, 2016

jacob_bender

Jacob Bender, the non-Muslim Useful Idiot who heads up Hamas-linked CAIR’s Philadelphia chapter, boasted Wednesday on the organization’s website: “What CAIR can do, however, and what it has been doing superbly for 10 years now, is to oppose the anti-Muslim ideology of the Trumps, the Cruzs, the Pamela Gellers, the Robert Spencers…” Notice that he doesn’t say that Hamas-linked CAIR is opposing the ideology of the Syed Rizwan Farooks, the Mohammed Abdulazeezes, the Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs, the Nidal Malik Hasans.

As for those he does mention, Hamas-linked CAIR is opposing us so superbly that Trump actually has a chance to become President of the United States, and whether he does or not, he has moved the public discourse to a place where the issues of jihad terror and Islamization can be discussed more honestly in the mainstream than has been possible for years. Cruz has outlasted most of the Republican candidates to remain one of Trump’s chief rivals. Pamela Geller is planning an exciting new initiative and I am busier than ever, having just completed a new book and busy traveling to speak all over the country: yes, Hamas-linked CAIR is doing its job of demonization and marginalization of foes of jihad terror superbly.

More importantly, Bender here repeats the common and hysterical claim that “Muslims are the new Jews,” which has been answered many times — as often as it has been asserted. Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong, Leftist “journalist” Jeffrey Goldberg, Iranian front group Board member Reza Aslan, Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison,Nicholas Kristof, and Canadian Muslim leader Syed Sohawardy, among many others, have repeated it. The blazingly brilliant Daniel Greenfield takes it apart in this video.

And in 2014, Bill Maher noted: “Jews weren’t oppressing anybody. There weren’t 5,000 militant Jewish groups. They didn’t do a study of treatment of women around the world and find that Jews were at the bottom of it. There weren’t 10 Jewish countries in the world that were putting gay people to death just for being gay.” Indeed, and no one is calling for or justifying genocide of Muslims now; there is no individual or group remotely comparable to the National Socialists in any genuine sense.

The late Christopher Hitchens also refuted this idea when writing a few years ago about the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero: “‘Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,’ Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like.”

The purpose of this claim is to intimidate people into thinking that criticism of Islamic supremacism leads to the concentration camps, and thus there must be no criticism of Islamic supremacism. The unstated assumption is that if one group was unjustly accused of plotting subversion and violence, and was viciously persecuted and massacred on the basis of those false accusations, then any group accused of plotting subversion and violence must be innocent, and any such accusation must be in service of preparing for their subversion and massacre. It is simply a method to foreclose on any criticism of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

Jacob Bender, who is himself Jewish, ought to pause before making such a reckless and baseless comparison – especially in light of the fact that the new Jews are not the Muslims at all, but are none other than the old Jews: anti-Semitic hate crimes remain much more common in the U.S. than “Islamophobic” hate crimes, and Jews all over Europe face an increasingly dangerous and precarious situation because of the anti-Semitism of the rapidly increasing Muslim population. CAIR’s Hamas ties don’t seem to trouble him either. In his complacency and willful ignorance, as well as his active work for CAIR, Bender could be the poster child for our blinkered age.

‘If I win, I will be Israel’s true friend in the White House’

February 26, 2016

‘If I win, I will be Israel’s true friend in the White House’ Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, February 26, 2016

They said that he wouldn’t run for president, and then they said that if he did run, he would crash and burn. But in the meantime, Donald Trump is mainly winning • I like the idea of relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, he tells Israel Hayom.

Trump IsraelRepublican presidential candidate, businessman Donald Trump pauses in the Spin Room after a Republican presidential primary debate at the University of Houston, Thursday | Photo credit: AP

Everything has already been said about the stand-out Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump — that the Republican establishment is wary of him, that he intentionally makes provocative declarations, that in the grand scheme of the 2016 election he is nothing more than a passing fad, that he will ultimately fail. So what? In the meantime, the billionaire from New York has won three consecutive primaries and managed to draw support from almost every sector, making him the race’s hottest commodity.

Last December, I met with Trump in Las Vegas just before the Republican debate there. In that interview, he leveled some harsh criticism at incumbent President Barack Obama, made a great deal of promises regarding what he would do if he entered the White House and showed quite a bit of love for Israel. This week, after his big victory in Nevada, I sat him down for another interview.

Q: Mr. Trump, yesterday, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tried to question your support for Israel. How is his commitment to Israel stronger than yours?

“My friendship with Israel is stronger than any other candidate’s. I want to make one thing clear: I want to strike a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It is what I aspire to do. Peace is possible, even if it is the most difficult agreement to achieve. As far as I understand, Israel is also interested in a peace deal. I’m not saying I’ll succeed, or even that an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is within reach, but I want to try. But in order for an agreement to happen, the Palestinians need to show interest. It’s a little difficult to reach an agreement when the other side doesn’t really want to talk to you.

“Don’t get confused there in Israel: I am currently your biggest friend. My daughter is married to a Jew who is an enthusiastic Israel supporter, and I have taken part in many Israel Day parades. My friendship with Israel is very strong.”

Q: This week you spoke very negatively about the Iran nuclear deal. You even said that in some cases, violating deals is permissible.

“This deal was the worst deal that Israel could have gotten. Think about it: Beyond the deal itself, Iran also received $150 billion. And to think that they signed that deal without discussing it with Israel! As far as I’m concerned, this deal is the worst thing that ever happened to Israel. There is a clause in it that stipulates protecting Iran’s nuclear facilities should they come under attack. You have to read it to believe it. It may very well be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. I don’t understand what it means, that America will attack Israel if Israel attacks Iran? That’s ridiculous.”

Q: Many presidents have promised to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. What is your position on the issue?

“I can only say that I like the idea.”

Q: I’ve been covering the U.S. elections for many years now. The pundits said that you wouldn’t run, then they said that you would crash and burn, then they said that the voters wouldn’t vote the way they said they would in the polls. In reality, you are crushing everyone. Let’s play the pundit for a moment — explain the Trump phenomenon to me.

“The pundits misread the intense anger that exists in the U.S. today. No one foresaw the anger of the American people — toward the administration, toward the bad deals that the U.S. has signed, like the trade agreements and the Iran nuclear deal. What do you think? That the American people liked the deal? The deal with Iran is also one of the reasons for the great anger that exists in the U.S. today. It was a terrible mistake. And look at the way the administration is handling the military: We are not winning any wars. America is not winning, and America always needs to win. It is important for America, and it is important for the world.

“President Obama isn’t good. For Israel, he has been the worst president in history. Look at how frustrated Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu was every time he visited Washington. All of Netanyahu’s claims are correct; he is 100% right. Is this any way to treat our friends? I will make sure that changes.”

Q: Am I speaking with the next president of the United States?

“There is still a long way to go, but we are on the right track. If I make it to the White House, you will have a true friend there.”

Q: Thank you for the interview, Mr. Trump.

“Shalom.”

Fundamentalists and Revolutionary Guards steal Iran’s elections

February 26, 2016

Fundamentalists and Revolutionary Guards steal Iran’s elections, DEBKAfile, February 26, 2016

Rafsanjani_RouhaniOpposition leaders to Khamenei Hashemi Rafsanjani (l.) and President Hassan Rouhani

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Kerry fondly hoped that the nuclear agreement signed with Iran would bring to the surface a new type of leader – more liberal and less liable to restart the nuclear program – in the twin elections taking place in the Islamic Republic Friday, Feb. 26.

They are in for a disappointment, say DEBKAfile’s Iran analysts.

But one change is almost certain. The Iranian voter will be choosing for the first time on one day a new parliament (Majlis) and the Assembly of Experts, the only body competent to choose the republic’s next supreme leader. The incumbent, 75-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not expected to outlast the four-year term of the next Assembly of Experts. He has been struggling with prostate cancer for more than five years. Treatment and surgery have failed to halt its spread to other parts of his body. And strong medication is necessary to keep him looking alert and vigorous in his public appearances.

Speculation is already rife in Tehran about who the next Assembly of Experts will choose as his successor.

Seen from the perspective of Iran’s Islamic regime, the supreme leader’s overarching duty is to continue the legacy of its revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his successor, Ali Khamenei.

Rather than meeting the expectations of the US president, his main job is to continue strengthening Iran on its path of religious extremism, ideological subversion, export of the Shiite revolution (by terror) and the continuation of the nuclear program.

The biggest political bombshell of the election campaign was a proposal by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to establish a national leadership council now, instead of choosing a new leader later. This was intended to replace the single dictatorial rule of the supreme leader by a collective leadership.

Iran’s fundamentalists, especially the powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), were in uproar about a proposal they viewed as so dangerous for the regime that they threatened to confiscate the Rafsanjani clan’s extensive property and put him on trial for corruption and fraud.

His beloved son Mahdi has already been in jail for months on those charges.

But Rafsanjani is not easily cowed. He knew that if he backed down, the extremists would crack down on him still harder.

So this week, he announced that he had pulled the strings which gave Hassan Rouhani victory in the last presidential election. And, in the campaign leading up to the Assembly of Experts vote, he threw his support behind a moderate cleric, Hassan Khomeini, who happens to be the grandson of the Islamic regime’s iconic founder.

The IRGC and radical mullahs thereupon launched an offensive to thwart what they believed to be Rafsanjani’s dangerous plan to establish a triumvirate with Rouhani and Khomeini Junior to head a future government.

Senior radical clerics, such as ayatollahs Ahama Alam-Alhoda, Mohammad Mesbah-Yazdi, Ahmad Jannati, and Mohammad Yazi, slandered him and fought to remove his candidates for the twin slates.

They branded the former president and members of a “reformist” list as British agents, a particularly malicious charge because the UK is still seen in Iran as a symbol of colonialism and meddler in foreign politics.

Ayatollah Khamenei himself harshly denounced “foreign agents” as “addicted to foreign influence,” who should be barred from the Assembly of Experts.

Young Khomenei saw the light and withdrew his candidacy for its membership. But Rafsanjani stood out to the last as a central figure in the two campaigns, even after a majority of the candidates condemned as “moderates and reformists” were barred from the elections.

In the end, the two slates were left with no more than 30 moderate candidates out of a total of 3,000 vying for the 375 seats in the two bodies.

Their defeat as a group was predestined, and the two elections leave Iran more politically and religiously radicalized than before.

A key figure expected to take center stage in the new parliament is Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, whose daughter is married to Khamenei’s mover-and-shaker son. Another is Haddad-Adel, one of Khamenei’s top advisers, who heads a faction of religious fundamentalists and IRGC officers. He is the frontrunner to succeed Ali Larijani as Speaker of the next Majlis.

They are all expected to gang up to prevent President Rouhani from running for a second term when it runs out in two years – contrary to the Obama administration’s hopes. They will also do their best to make him a lame duck and whipping boy for all the country’s economic ills for the remainder of his presidency.

He will find the new parliament less cooperative than the outgoing House under Larijani when he tries to introduce liberal policies.

Unofficial results of the two elections are expected to be released Friday night. The extremists and hardliners have engineered them so that they will win big and set Iran on a course that it is even more radical than before on such key issues as its nuclear weapons program and intervention in Syria and other Middle East conflicts. They will keep the feud with Saudi Arabia alive and pursue every possible means of venting their bottomless hatred of Israel and seeking its destruction.

U.S., Europe Fund Torture by Palestinian Authority

February 26, 2016

U.S., Europe Fund Torture by Palestinian Authority

by Khaled Abu Toameh February 26, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: U.S., Europe Fund Torture by Palestinian Authority

  • A report by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,391 cases of Palestinians arbitrarily arrested by the two Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, in 2015.
  • Systematic torture in Palestinian prisons in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was documented in the report — at least 179 cases of torture in Palestinian Authority (PA) prisons in 2015.
  • The PA security forces are trained and funded by several Western countries, including the US. This establishes a direct line between these Western donors and the arbitrary arrests, torture and human rights violations that have become the norm in PA-controlled prisons and detention centers.
  • The report also revealed that the Palestinian Authority regularly disobeys court orders by refusing to release detainees, showing contempt for its courts and judges.
  • Before our eyes, two police states are being built: one in the West Bank and a second in the Gaza Strip — in the face of talk by international parties of establishing an independent Palestinian state. But the last thing the Palestinians need is another police state.

Palestinians who incite violence against Israel are called Palestinian leaders. Palestinians who beg to differ with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas or one of his friends are called criminals and can expect to be interrogated and/or imprisoned.

The PA leadership has always clamped down on its critics, including journalists, editors, academics, human rights activists and parliament members. In this regard, the PA and its president show a distinct similarity to the other dictators that run the Arab world.

Like the legendary Japanese monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, the international media regularly turns a blind eye to blatant Palestinian Authority abuses. But here’s a newsflash for them: Say you don’t like Abbas and you face arrest or interrogation on charges of “insulting His Excellency.”

Take, for example, the case of Professor Abdul Sattar Qassem, who teaches Political Science at An-Najah University in Nablus.

Qassem, a long-time critic of President Abbas and the Oslo Accords, was arrested earlier this week by Palestinian security forces on charges of “incitement.” Qassem was arrested on the heels of a television interview in which he stated that those who collaborate with Israel should receive the death penalty, according to the PLO’s “Revolutionary Law.” The Palestinian leadership considered this statement “incitement” against President Abbas and Palestinian security personnel.

Professor Abdul Sattar Qassem (left) stated in a TV interview that those who collaborate with Israel should receive the death penalty. The Palestinian Authority leadership considered this “incitement” against President Mahmoud Abbas (right), and arrested Qassem.

Qassem was released on bail after three days in detention, although a Palestinian court had ordered him remanded in custody for 15 days. It is still unclear whether he will be officially charged and put on trial.

No stranger to Palestinian prison, Qassem has been arrested at least three times in the past few years for publicly criticizing President Abbas and other senior Palestinian officials. His outspokenness has also exposed him to violence: his car was torched while parked in front of his home in Nablus, and he escaped an assassination attempt when unidentified gunmen shot several rounds at him outside this home.

The culprits have never been caught. Palestinian sources say the assailants are unlikely to ever be apprehended. Had the perpetrators posted critical comments about President Abbas on Facebook, however, these sources say that they would have been locked up long ago.

A recent report published by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,391 cases where Palestinians were arbitrarily arrested by the two Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, in 2015.

The report noted that the bulk of the arrests (1,274) had taken place in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Among those arrested were 35 Palestinian journalists and civil rights activists, and 476 students and academics.

Cameras and computers were confiscated from the detained journalists before they were interrogated about their work and activities on social media, the report said.

Now let us go to Gaza. How is Hamas doing on this score? Hamas authorities last year arrested “only” 23 journalists and civil rights workers, 24 university students and five teachers and academics.

Thus, the figures show, we might say, some arresting facts: Hamas has a better record than the Western-funded Palestinian Authority when it comes to assaults on public freedoms and human rights violations. The report also revealed that the Palestinian Authority regularly disobeys court orders by refusing to release detainees. In other words, the Palestinian Authority, which repeatedly boasts that it has managed to build an “independent and credible judiciary system” with the help of Western donors, shows contempt for its courts and judges.

Systematic torture — scores of cases — in Palestinian prisons in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was also documented in the report. In 2015, there were at least 179 cases of torture in Palestinian Authority prisons, as opposed to 39 cases in Hamas prisons during the same year.

The Palestinian Authority security forces are trained and funded by several Western countries, including the United States. This establishes a direct line between these Western donors and the arbitrary arrests, torture and human rights violations that have become the norm in Palestinian Authority-controlled prisons and detention centers.

Yet there is silence — until the word “Israel” pops up. Then Western news outlets, including those based in Israel that are tasked with covering Palestinian affairs, go into high gear.

This criminal indifference — one is tempted to say negligence — on the part of the international community permits and even promotes Palestinian Authority and Hamas human rights abuses.

We are witnessing how the two Palestinian parties approach the task of building state institutions. Before our eyes, two police states are being built — one in the West Bank and a second in the Gaza Strip. This is taking place in the face of talk by the same donors and other international parties (at least in relation to the PA) of establishing an independent Palestinian state. But the last thing the Palestinians need is another police state.

President Abbas, who has just entered the 11th year of his four-year term in office, has no cause to be concerned about the human rights violations committed by his security forces. In fact, he has every reason to continue clamping down on his critics. Why should he worry? The international community absolves him of the abuses perpetrated under his rule.

That is why this week Abbas instructed his security forces to launch an investigation into the behavior of a legislator, Dr. Najat Abu Baker. Dr. Abu Baker, it seems, had the temerity to demand an inquiry into the financial practices of a Palestinian cabinet minister.

Soon after she lodged charges of financial wrongdoing, Dr. Abu Baker, an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, was summoned by the Palestinian prosecutor general for interrogation on charges of “slander” and “incitement.” This is quite a way to respect Dr. Abu Baker’s parliamentary immunity.

Dr. Abu Baker’s case is yet a further example of the disregard that the Palestinian Authority shows not only for the judicial system, but also for the legislative body that is meant to serve as a watchdog over the executive branch. But even watchdogs know their owners. By summoning Dr. Abu Baker for interrogation and threatening to arrest her, Abbas is sending a message of deterrence to his detractors, namely that even a member of parliament cannot escape the long arm of the Palestinian security forces.

For now, the international community has some choices. It could continue to close its eyes to the police states being erected with its monies. Alternatively, it could choose a new path: to hold the Palestinian Authority accountable for its actions, including the torture that takes place within its very core. But the West had better hurry up. The PA repression is far from lost on the Palestinians, who are being driven by it into the waiting arms of Hamas and other such groups.

Proper state institutions for the Palestinians is a laudatory goal; what the Palestinians have today are two banana republics.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Pacific Commander Warns China Not to Impose New Air Defense Zone

February 26, 2016

Pacific Commander Warns China Not to Impose New Air Defense Zone ADIZ over South China Sea would be ‘destabilizing and provocative,’ admiral says

BY:
February 26, 2016 4:58 am

Source: Pacific Commander Warns China Not to Impose New Air Defense Zone

China’s imposition of an air defense zone over the disputed South China Sea in the future would be “destabilizing and provocative,” and will be ignored by the United States, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific warned on Thursday.

“With regard to ADIZ, or air defense identification zone, I am concerned about the possibility that China might declare an ADIZ,” Adm. Harry Harris told reporters at the Pentagon.

“I would find that to be destabilizing and provocative,” he said. “We would ignore it, just as we did with the ADIZ they put in place in the East China Sea.”

Harris said concerns about a new Chinese air defense zone over the South China Sea were raised by Secretary of State John Kerry, who urged China not to impose such a measure. Kerry held talks this week with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

“So let’s give China a chance here and see if they’ll opt for a more stabilizing, less tense situation, or whether they’ll opt to be a provocative, destabilizing influence in the region,” Harris said.

Defense officials said the recent introduction of advanced HQ-9 air defense missiles on Woody Island in the Paracels, along with the arrival of a small number of J-11 and JH-7 jet fighters, along with the construction of a large radar in the region, have all stoked concerns that China is preparing to declare the air defense zone.

Harris said Chinese military bases in the sea could be removed militarily but that is an option of last resort.

China announced in November 2013 it was unilaterally imposing an air defense zone over the East China Sea and warned that all aircraft there risked being shot down unless they first sought approval from Beijing before entering the zone. That zone includes Japan’s Senkaku Islands, which China claims as its territory and calls the Diaoyu Islands.

In Beijing, a Defense Ministry spokesman did not answer directly on Thursday when asked if China is close to announcing the imposition of a South China Sea ADIZ, after building runways on islands and in response to U.S. naval patrols.

“To establish an air defense identification zone is within the sovereign rights of a country,” said Col. Wu Qian. “And whether to establish such a zone and when to establish it depends on the threat that China faces in the air and the level of such kind of threat. And various factors have to be taken into consideration.”

Wu also criticized statements by Harris before Congress that China is seeking hegemony in the South China Sea by deploying weapons and equipment on the islands.

“In China, hegemonism is a word reserved for a certain country,” he said. “That country is supposed to know well about that.”

The colonel also said Harris’ comments were aimed at obtaining more defense funds from Congress. “You have the right to do that, which we do not object, but, it is inappropriate to get more money by carelessly smearing China,” Wu said.

Wu said the United States is behind militarization in the South China Sea. “It is very necessary for China to deploy defense facilities on the islands and reefs of the South China Sea,” he added.

Harris said he views China’s island building over the past several years in the South China Sea as a scheme to set up military bases and deploy high-tech weapons that will threaten trade and freedom of navigation in the vital strategic waterway.

Following two days of congressional testimony, Adm. Harris spoke to reporters at the Pentagon as part of a world tour that included a stop in Japan and an upcoming visit to India.

The Pacific commander elaborated on his concerns about Chinese military encroachment in Asia and said he is concerned the Chinese military buildup will result in a Beijing takeover of what the United States and other regional states regard as international waters.

A total of $5.3 trillion trade transits the sea, including over $1 trillion in U.S. trade. Also, Chinese control threatens strategic undersea cables used for the Internet and other communications.

“And I think that short of war, for the United States, China will exercise de facto control of the South China Sea if they continue to outfit the bases that they have claimed there,” he said.

Harris, the most blunt-spoken commander of U.S. forces in Asia in decades, also said the U.S. military is exercising its international rights by conducting warship passages within 12 miles of disputed islands in the Paracels and Spratlys, where China is building the military facilities.

Two sail-by operations have been conducted so far, one in October and January, prompting harsh responses from Beijing calling the maneuvers a military provocation.

“We’re going to do more, and we’ll do them at some frequency… I think we have to continue to do these operations to exercise our freedom of navigation and airspace in the international space,” Harris said. “More is better.”

“We must exercise our freedom of navigation or we risk losing it, in my opinion,” he added.

Harris would not say if future warship transits would include other nations’ naval vessels, such as those from Japan or Australia.

But the admiral said he would welcome international warships to visit the region because the sea is international territory.

Harris voiced serious concerns about Chinese military activities over the past several years.

“I am of the opinion that they are militarizing the South China Sea,” he said. “And when they add their advanced fighters to Woody Island, up the Paracels and when they put their advanced missile systems on the Paracels and when they build three 10,000-foot runways in the Spratlys on bases that they’ve reclaimed, when they do all that they’re changing the operational landscape in the South China Sea. So that’s what’s changed.”

Harris said U.S. naval and air patrols over the sea have not really changed, and are part of a regular military presence.

“So I would say it’s China that’s changed it behavior.”

The aggressive behavior by China has resulted in closer alliances and security ties between other nations in the region, he noted.

On China’s opposition to the deployment of advanced U.S. air defenses in South Korea, Harris said Beijing’s protests are “preposterous.”

“THAAD is not a threat to China,” Harris said of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system.

The system, if deployed, would be used to protect the Korean people and American forces in the country from North Korean missile threats.

Harris said if China wanted to exert influence to prevent THAAD from being deployed it could use its leverage against North Korea.

Earlier Thursday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a speech in Washington that THAAD’s powerful X-band radar can reach into China, and thus threatens Chinese national security. He did not elaborate.

China has the world’s largest missile forces, including short-, medium- and long-range missiles.

Wang sought to play down tensions in the region, saying the South China Sea is stable. He defended “some military deployments” in the region as part of a normal development program that included civilian infrastructure such as lighthouses on the islands.

Regarding China’s economic problems, Harris said he does not believe China’s communist leaders are increasing their aggressiveness in the South China Sea to divert attention from internal Chinese domestic problems.

“It’s a possibility, we’re looking out for it, but I don’t see that today,” Harris said.

The Pacific commander urged the United States to continue with its Asia rebalancing. As part of that strategy, the Pentagon needs to modernize its forces, maintain combat readiness, and use diplomacy to influence China, he said.

Terrorist wanted by Israel killed inside Palestinian Embassy in Bulgaria

February 26, 2016

Terrorist wanted by Israel killed inside Palestinian Embassy in Bulgaria Omar Zayed had fled to embassy to escape extradition; Palestinians say Israel assassinated him, while Jerusalem denies involvement

By Itamar Sharon February 26, 2016, 12:28 pm

Source: Terrorist wanted by Israel killed inside Palestinian Embassy in Bulgaria | The Times of Israel

Protesters outside the Bulgarian Embassy in London in January 2016 call on the Bulgarian government not to extradite Omar Nayef Zayed to Israel. (YouTube screen capture)

A fugitive Palestinian terrorist wanted by Israel was murdered in Bulgaria Friday morning, Palestinian media reported, in a killing some Palestinians have ascribed to the Jewish state, though Jerusalem denied involvement.

Omar Nayef Zayed, 52, was found dead in the yard of the Palestinian Embassy in Sofia, with some reports that he fell to his death. Paramedics were rushed to the embassy but were forced to declare Zayed dead at the scene. Palestinian officials in Ramallah confirmed that Zayed had been killed, and said they were investigating the circumstances of his death.

 Zayed, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) had been living in Bulgaria for the past 20 years. In 1986 he was convicted in the murder of yeshiva student Eliyahu Amedi — whom he stabbed to death in Jerusalem’s Old City — along with two other Palestinian assailants. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Four years after beginning his sentence, Zayed began a hunger strike and was moved to a mental health facility, from which he managed to escape. He then fled Israel and in 1994 arrived in Bulgaria. However, two months ago Israel asked Bulgarian authorities to extradite him. When Bulgarian police prepared to arrest him, Zayed sought sanctuary in the Palestinian Embassy.

According to a report on the Ynet news website, Israel, Bulgaria and Palestinian officials had been holding discussions since that time to facilitate Zayed’s surrender.

The Palestinian Authority’s minister of prisoner affairs, Issa Qaraqe, said Israel was behind Zayed’s death. PA President Mahmoud Abbas demanded a comprehensive probe.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied any involvement, saying Israel had first learned of Zayed’s death from the media.