Archive for May 17, 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

White House Pro-Iran ‘Propaganda Operation’ May Violate Law

May 17, 2016

White House’s Pro-Iran ‘Propaganda Operation’ May Violate U.S. Law Obama admin lambasted during investigation into Iran deal deception

BY:
May 17, 2016 2:15 pm

Source: White House Pro-Iran ‘Propaganda Operation’ May Violate Law

The Obama administration’s efforts to create a so-called “echo chamber” meant to mislead reporters and lawmakers about the substance of last summer’s comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran may have violated U.S. laws against the establishment of domestic propaganda outfits, according to testimony to Congress by a former Pentagon adviser.

Top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, may have fallen victim to a massive spin operation helmed by White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who has come under intense scrutiny following a magazine profile detailing his efforts to mislead the American public and prominent D.C. insiders about the Iran deal, according to testimony offered Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee.

The administration late Monday declined to make Rhodes available to testify to Congress about his press operation, which was run out of the White House by Rhodes and other top members of the National Security Council.

In lieu of Rhodes, the Oversight Committee invited three former U.S. officials to discuss the ways in which the pro-Iran effort intentionally misinformed Congress and negatively impacted American national security.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser who testified, told the Washington Free Beacon following the hearing that Congress has grounds to launch an investigation into whether these efforts may have violated U.S. laws against the establishment of domestic propaganda campaigns targeting Americans.

“Rhodes essentially bragged about creating a propaganda operation,” Rubin told the Free Beacon. “It wasn’t simply about spin, rather, it was about denying facts he knew to be true, feeding outright lies into the mainstream press through sympathetic enablers and supposed independent experts on the Ploughshares trough whom he knew were anything but independent.”

“In effect,” Rubin explained, “he was running a propaganda operation against the American public and other officials. There are laws against that. Unfortunately, it seems that Kerry himself—a person whom even staffers have described as too credulous—got caught in that web.”

Questions remain about whether Kerry ever received impartial information from experts functioning outside of Rhodes’ so-called echo-chamber, Rubin said.

“In essence, did Rhodes—working from the National Security Council, a body that was always supposed to coordinate policy across agencies and not run a spin war room—craft propaganda that was fed to State Department leaders through unofficial channels by a network of experts who had financial incentive to amplify what he said?” Rubin asked.

Rubin further explained during his testimony how Rhodes may have deceived Kerry as part of the operation, a situation that raises questions about whether the secretary of state was negotiating with Iran from a sound position.

“Rhodes has placed the security of the U.S. and its allies at risk,” Rubin testified. “Certainly any dissemination of falsehoods to Congress and the American people warrants a broader investigation. National security and Congress’ credibility are at risk.”

Rubin expressed concern that “by creating an echo chamber and only talking to people in it, in effect, what Rhodes did was create a propaganda operation in which he entrapped none other than Secretary of State John Kerry. Did Secretary of State Kerry talk to people outside the echo chamber? If not, then he’s a victim of Ben Rhodes as well.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), the committee’s chairman, expressed frustration at the White House’s decision to bar Rhodes from testifying. Chaffetz has suggested that Rhodes could be subpoenaed to testify in the future.

“The White House on Thursday claimed that this wasn’t about exec privilege, then, less than 24 hours, before this hearing they reversed course,” Chaffetz said. “Now who’s being inconsistent?”

“You had plenty of times, Mr. Rhodes, to go out and talk to your media friend in the echo chamber” before showing up to testify, he said.

Michael Doran, a former senior director of the White House National Security Council under George W. Bush, said that the White House still has not publicly revealed the complete contents of the nuclear deal.

“In my view, the creation of the echo chamber and war room [by Rhodes] constitutes a deception of the American people,” Doran said at the hearing. “We do not actually know what is in the Iran deal. We still to this day do not know.”

The White House’s spin operation effectively created a false narrative about Iranian moderates rising to power in the Islamic Republic, according to Doran, who explained that this false narrative set the stage for negotiations to take place.

The deepening scandal surrounding the White House campaign prompted a call from leading senators on Monday for President Barack Obama to fire Rhodes, according to a letter sent to the White House and first reported by the Free Beacon.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Glazov Gang-Michael Cutler Moment: Obama’s Pathway to the “Borderless World”

May 17, 2016

The Glazov Gang-Michael Cutler Moment: Obama’s Pathway to the “Borderless World” via YouTube, May 16, 2016

Categories: Globalism, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Kerry, U.S. borders
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Exclusive: US warplanes intervene in Syrian war

May 17, 2016

Exclusive: US warplanes intervene in Syrian war, DEBKAfile, May 17, 2016

US-16-fighter-jets_Operating_in_Syria_B_17.5.16.jpg

On Tuesday, May 17, the US expanded its involvement in the war in Syria, and for the first time since the war began in 2011, US F-16 fighter-bombers bombed radical Syrian rebels fighting Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah forces near Aleppo,DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources say in an exclusive report.

According to the sources, the targets were mainly troops, positions, and transportation routes of rebel groups such as ISIS and the Nusra Front that also threaten moderate Syrian rebel groups in the area. But there is no doubt that the American airstrikes will help Syrian President Bashar Assad, just like the Russian bombings have done.

The US warplanes took off from Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey and entered Syrian airspace over Idlib province in northern Syria.

Our sources said that the airstrikes were coordinated with the Russian air force command at Hmeymim airbase next to Latakia, and via American and Russian officers operating from the Jordanian capital Amman.

There is no doubt that the intervention was a turnaround by the administration of President Barack Obama that until now had opposed any US air force operation inside Syria due to concern over tipping the balance in favor of one of the warring sides.

There are now no less than ten air forces engaged in the Syrian war: those of the US, Russia, Israel, Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Syria, Turkey and Jordan.

Last week, ahead of the US air force’s entry, the Pentagon reinforced the American special forces troops at Remalan airbase, located in northern Syria next to the Kurdish city of Hassakeh.

Obama previously announced that 250 troops had been deployed to reinforce the 50 already on the ground. But DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the actual number of US soldiers at the base is much higher, and that the troops have attack and transport helicopters that can deliver them within a short period of time to any of the fronts in Syria.

The US air force attacks on the Aleppo and Idlib fronts are expected to continue in the coming days.

Categories: Obama and Syria, U.S. Air Force in Syria war
Tags: ,

Comments: 1 Comment

22 Percent of Resettled Refugees in Minnesota Test Positive for Tuberculosis

May 17, 2016

22 Percent of Resettled Refugees in Minnesota Test Positive for Tuberculosis, Breitbart, Michael Patrick Leahy, May 17, 2016

Somali-Minnesota-AP-640x480Jim Mone/AP

One of every five refugees resettled in Minnesota by the federal government tested positive for latent tuberculosis in 2014, according to the state’s Department of Health.

Only 4 percent of the general population in the United States tested positive for latent tuberculosis in the most recent report provided by the Centers for Disease Control.

The April 2016 edition of the Refugee Health Quarterly, published by the Minnesota Department of Health reports that:

Minnesota had 150 cases of TB in 2015, compared to 147 cases in 2014 (a 2 percent increase). The most common risk factor for TB cases in Minnesota is being from a country where TB is common.

TB screening is offered to all refugees during the domestic refugee health exam.

In 2014, 22 percent of refugees screened tested positive for LTBI (latent tuberculosis infection).

26 percent of all foreign born cases of tuberculosis in Minnesota were from people born in Somalia. Somalians almost exclusively enter the state through the refugee resettlement program.

More than 70,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States annually for the past three decades by the federal government. It’s not just tuberculosis being brought in by these resettled refugees. Measles, whooping cough, diptheria, and other diseases that were on their way to eradication are also coming in across the borders of the United States.

A recent outbreak of measles in Memphis, Tennessee, a center for refugee resettlement, began at a local mosque, as Breitbart News reported previously.

The alarming public health report from Minnesota comes on the heels of news from the Centers for Disease Control that in 2015, the incidence of tuberculosis in the United States increased.

“Data from 2015 show that the number of TB cases has increased (by 1.7 percent) nationally [in the United States] for the first time in 23 years, with a total of 9,563 TB cases reported,” the Minnesota Department of Health reports.

As the Star Tribune, Minnesota’s largest daily newspaper, reports:

The CDC is still trying to determine the reason for the uptick.

The goal set by the CDC, in 1989, of eliminating TB by 2010 — defined as less than one case in a million people — remains elusive. Even if the trend of declining cases had continued, the United States would not have eliminated TB by the end of this century, the CDC said.

“We are not yet certain why TB incidence has leveled off, but we do know it indicates the need for a new, expanded approach to TB elimination,” said Dr. Philip LoBue, director of the CDC’s Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, in an email.

A dual approach is needed: continue to find and treat cases of disease and evaluate their contacts, as well as identify and evaluate other high-risk persons for latent TB infection, he said.

There may be a positive correlation between the increase in the number of refugees resettled in the United States during this period and the sudden increase in the incidence of tuberculosis, a disease that many thought was on the path to eradication in the United States.

As the Centers for Disease Control report:

In 2014, a total of 66% of reported TB cases in the United States occurred among foreign-born persons. The case rate among foreign-born persons (15.4 cases per 100,000 persons) in 2014 was approximately 13 times higher than among U.S.-born persons (1.2 cases per 100,000 persons).

“Today four states – California, New York, Texas and Florida – have more than half the nation’s active TB cases, though they have only a third of the country’s population. The four states have the highest numbers of foreign-born residents,” according to the Star Tribune.

A person with latent tuberculosis is not infectious and does not have symptoms of the disease. A person with active tuberculosis is infectious and has symptoms of the disease.

Ten percent of those with latent tuberculosis develop active tuberculosis if not treated,according to the World Health Organization.

As the Star Tribune reports:

TB is an airborne infectious disease caused by bacteria that spreads through the air, person to person, when someone coughs or sneezes. One in three people worldwide have latent TB, according to the World Health Organization. In the United States, up to 13 million people have been exposed to TB and could develop the disease.

Every year, tuberculosis claims 1.5 million lives worldwide and 500 to 600 in this country.

“Tuberculosis (TB) has surpassed HIV as the leading cause of death from infectious disease worldwide,” the Minnesota Department of Health reports.

Tuberculosis is airborne and can be spread when a person active tuberculosis coughs, sneezes, or otherwise transmits the infection to a previously uninfected individual.

Treatment for tuberculosis is long and expensive. If caught early, it typically takes about nine months for a person with active tuberculosis to improve to latent tuberculosis. Not everyone diagnosed with active tuberculosis, however, improves. Mortality rates for those with active tuberculosis are much higher than health professionals would like, even in the United States.

According to the Star Tribune:

Treating TB patients is labor intensive. To ensure that TB patients complete the course of drugs that lasts six months or longer, Directly Observed Therapy programs require a health care worker – not a family member – to watch patients with active TB swallow every dose. If a patient cannot get to a clinic, a health care worker goes to the person’s home. The worker monitors patients for side effects and other problems.

Care also involves communication and cultural challenges. In Michigan, where the number of active TB cases rose from 105 in 2014 to 130 last year, the health department reaches out to Detroit’s large Arab and Bangladeshi populations. In other parts of the state, Burmese immigrants have different needs, said Peter Davidson, Michigan TB control manager.

“Some local health departments have strong partnerships with translation services. Some rely on a less formal mechanism – a private physician or someone on staff at the hospital who speaks the language,” Davidson said.

The cost of treating an active TB case that is susceptible or responsive to drugs averages $17,000, according to the CDC. Care of patients with drug-resistant TB, which can result from taking antibiotics prescribed before TB was properly diagnosed, costs many times more: $134,000 for a multidrug-resistant patient and $430,000 for an extensively drug-resistant one.

Minnesota public health officials point to the high treatment rate of those refugees diagnosed with latent tuberculosis as a reason for optimism.

“Eliminating TB in the U.S. will require increased attention to the diagnosis and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI),” the April 2016 Refugee Health Quarterly reports.

“Minnesota’s LTBI treatment completion rate for refugees who start treatment is one of the highest in the nation at 86 percent in 2013,” the report adds.

An alternative public health policy–one that the United States used for decades in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century–is to test immigrants and refugees for infectious disease before they are allowed into the country.

In that earlier era, those who tested positive were sent home. Today, however, many are welcomed in and pose a risk of infecting the rest of the American population.

(Note: Valley News Live in Fargo, North Dakota was the first broadcast outlet to report on the 22 percent incidence of latent tuberculosis among refugees in Minnesota.)

Categories: Illegal immigrants, Immigration, Islamic immigration, Somalia, Somalis in Minnesota, tuberculosis
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

“Palestinians” Attempt to Appropriate “Star of David” as Muslim Symbol

May 17, 2016

“Palestinians” Attempt to Appropriate “Star of David” as Muslim Symbol, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 17, 2016

fatah

The whole “Palestinian” identity is a parasitic entity that can only exist in terms related to its hostility to the indigenous Jewish inhabitants. The desperate attempts to appropriate Jewish identity has now led Fatah, the core terrorist organization behind the “Palestinian” state to claim that the Jewish Star of David is really an Islamic symbol.

This comes from the official Facebook page of Fatah which claims that the Star of David was used in Arab-Islamic architecture hundreds of years before the rebirth of the State of Israel.

Considering that the symbol dates back to the House of David, thousands of years ago, that’s pretty much last week. Also the Islamic six pointed “stars” referenced tend to look like Chinese checkers boards and not like the very distinctive ‘knot’ design of the Star of David.

Why even bother doing this? Because the entire fake Palestinian identity is a colonial Islamic effort based on erasing the identity of the Jewish indigenous population. That means claiming that classic Jewish historical figures were Muslim or, even more ridiculously, Palestinian. It means claiming that the Star of David is an Islamic symbol.

Meanwhile Muslim students in the US protest that Israelis are “culturally appropriating” falafel.

Categories: Fatah, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians and Jews, Star of David
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims

May 17, 2016

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims, PJ Media, Robert Spencer, May 17, 2016

Petrayus

David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of CENTCOM, published a piece in the Washington Post last Friday entitled “Anti-Muslim Bigotry Aids Islamist Terrorists.”

Wrote Petraeus:

[I am] increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

Petraeus’s target isn’t just Donald Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is referring to all speech that some Muslims might find offensive, and this has sweeping and ominous implications.

Petraeus doesn’t just oppose what Trump now characterizes as “just a suggestion“ solely as a policy measure. Petraeus is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made; that just to speak them is damaging:

[T]he ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.

He feels simply speaking such thoughts may:

 … compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.

How will these words do that? Well, you see:

[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the United States. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because he says it will enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against America. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.

His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Petraeus has done this before. When he headed up the international coalition in Afghanistan, he said this of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Qur’an:

[It] was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.

He warned that the Qur’an-burning would endanger American troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He issued a statement saying that he hoped:

 … the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.

I opposed the Qur’an-burning, but not for the reasons Petraeus did.

I don’t like the burning of books. And I’d rather that the contents of the Qur’an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known.

However, Jones was free to do what he wanted to do. Petraeus would have done better to have told the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker.

He would have done better to tell them that their murderous rage over any burning of the Qur’an was an outrageous overreaction, and that bloodshed over such burnings was a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they thought Jones was committing.

The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy’s worldview and perspective and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts — not just the military one — to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.

Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would likely respond: “Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur’an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation.”

This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression. This also ignores the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an to justify violence and win recruits.

Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should have defended Jones’ freedom of expression, and used the burning as a teaching moment in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have said:

We are going to defend our vision of society no matter what you bring against us. The U.S. will always defend American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional freedoms.

The OIC’s effort to compel the West into censoring itself regarding criticism of Islam is going very well.

In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech. Instead, they opted to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.

The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it so that they won’t join the jihad.

In reality, this argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do, because they now have proof this tactic works. They are in fact already doing this. In the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, Petraeus is saying that the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want. Conform our speech to suit them.

If we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more. More aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving the West a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.

Categories: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The French Peace Initiative: From de Gaulle to Haaretz

May 17, 2016

The French Peace Initiative: From de Gaulle to Haaretz, Gatestone Institute, Fred Maroun, May 17, 2016

♦ France’s peace initiative is French President François Hollande’s equivalent of de Gaulle’s betrayal of Israel.

♦ France has already announced that if the peace initiative fails, France will recognize a Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rightly concluded that “this ensures that a conference will fail.”

♦ France knows that the peace initiative is pointless, but it is using it for theatrical value to embarrass Israel’s government and curry favor with Arab regimes.

♦ Those who claim to support peace, but who in fact work to undermine it, are partly responsible for the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel. They should be prominently named and exposed for collaborating with bigots, anti-Semites, and terrorists.

When I hear about the current French peace initiative for Israel and the Palestinians, I have to keep pinching myself to make sure that I am not dreaming. After the powerful United States tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to bring peace between these protagonists, what makes the French think that they can do better?

France’s boldness is particularly shocking, since France long ago lost the right to be considered a friend of Israel. In 1967, French President Charles de Gaulle imposed an arms embargo on Israel when the Jewish nation was under threat from a coalition of Arab countries. In doing so, de Gaulle threw the Jews under the bus in order to improve France’s relations with the Arab world. Thanks to Israeli ingenuity and resiliency, Israel still defeated the Arab coalition in the Six Day War and impressed the United States, which then replaced France as Israel’s main ally.

France’s peace initiative, which includes an international summit in Paris on May 30 to discuss the “parameters” of a peace deal, is French President François Hollande’s equivalent of de Gaulle’s betrayal of Israel. France has already announced that if the peace initiative fails, France will recognize a Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rightly concluded that “this ensures that a conference will fail.”

1602France’s peace initiative, which includes an international summit in Paris on May 30 to discuss the “parameters” of a peace deal, is French President François Hollande’s equivalent of de Gaulle’s betrayal of Israel.

It is clear that no solution would be acceptable to Israel unless it protects Israel against continued Arab aggression, and unless it finds a solution to the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees with which the Arab world insists on flooding Israel.

There is no sign that the Arab world, including the Palestinians, are anywhere close to accepting these conditions. France’s recognition of “Palestine” without any deal would mean that France does not consider those two conditions necessary.

France’s recognition of “Palestine” without any deal would provide no solution for Palestinian refugees. It would provide no solution to Palestinian terrorism. It would not make the concept of a Palestinian state any more real than it is today. It would not provide Israel with secure borders.

France’s unilateral recognition of “Palestine” would simply provide one more moral victory for the corrupt Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and one less reason for him to negotiate peace in good faith or to give his people what they really need: a thriving economy and a functioning civil society.

If France’s initiative had any chance of success at all (which is doubtful considering the U.S. failures under more favorable circumstances, when the Palestinian leadership was keener on negotiations and when Hamas was weaker), France eliminated that chance by announcing that it would recognize “Palestine” regardless of what happens.

Is the French government so naïve that it would play into Abbas’ hands and sabotage its own initiative? Maybe, but the more likely explanation seems to be that France knows that the peace initiative is pointless, but it is using it for theatrical value to embarrass Israel’s government and curry favor with Arab regimes.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is often more “pro-Palestinian” (read anti-Israel) than the Palestinians, demands that Netanyahu accept the French initiative.

Haaretz takes the position that “there is no reason to reject the French initiative, which, even if it doesn’t resolve the fundamentals of the conflict, will at least put it back on the global agenda.” The theory that the conflict remains unresolved due to it not being on the “global agenda” is mind-boggling, considering the vocal and vicious worldwide anti-Israel movement. The conflict is very much on the “global agenda” — too much so, in fact — compared to other conflicts that are deadlier and get far less attention.

Haaretz claims that the French initiative “may also generate some original ideas and steps toward a solution.” Considering the attention that this conflict receives, the lack of “ideas” is far from being the problem. Pro-Israel and anti-Israel editorialists and bloggers have generated an immense body of “ideas,” most of which are totally impractical, and all of which are unrealistic until the Arab side of the conflict stops promoting hate against Israel and starts negotiating in good faith.

Haaretz‘s pathetic defense of the French initiative is followed by wholesale accusations, which have no substance, against Netanyahu. Haaretz, for instance, tries to convince readers that Netanyahu’s willingness to negotiate without conditions is itself a condition! As Haaretz is into the business of redefining words, why not say that the conflict is not really a conflict and be done with it!

Haaretz concludes by saying that Netanyahu “should give it [the French initiative] substance that will ensure the security and well-being of Israel’s citizens.” If this were possible, that would indeed be commendable, but as France, by promising the Palestinians recognition without negotiation, destroyed what little chance of success the initiative might have had. Asking Netanyahu miraculously to give the initiative “substance” is at best naïve, and at worst treacherous.

It could also be a trap to set Netanyahu up for failure, which, considering Haaretz‘s antipathy towards Israel’s Prime Minister, is likely.

Contrary to Haaretz‘s assertion that “there is no reason to reject the French initiative,” as the initiative is almost certain to fail, its failure will be one more weapon used by anti-Israel activists to demonize Israel, so there is every reason to not lend the initiative a legitimacy it does not deserve.

Israel survived de Gaulle’s betrayal, and it will likely survive Hollande’s betrayal. But one more failed initiative and one more meaningless recognition of “Palestine” will push peace and Palestinian statehood even farther away.

As Alan Dershowitz wrote recently, those who aided the Nazis in killing Jews, even indirectly, hold a part of the responsibility for the Holocaust. Those — in France, at Haaretz, or elsewhere — who claim to support peace but in fact work to undermine it, are partly responsible for the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel. They should be prominently named and exposed for collaborating with bigots, anti-Semites, and terrorists.

Categories: Abbas, France, Haaretz, Hollande, Human rights, Israel, Israel and France, Israel settlements, Israel's elite leftists, Israeli media, Israeli security, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian terrorists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why Is The Iran Report On The Treatment Of U.S. Sailor’s Still Classified?

May 17, 2016

Why Is The Iran Report On The Treatment Of U.S. Sailor’s Still Classified? Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, May 17, 2016

US Sailors

[T]he full details of the treatment of the sailors after they were taken into custody is obviously known to Iran . . . it is simply not known to the American people.

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

We previously discussed how the government has kept 28 pages classified in the 9-11 Report to protect Saudi Arabia from a public backlash of its alleged involvement (or at least the involvement of Saudi officials) in the attacks. Now, a report on the treatment of U.S. sailors by Iran in seizure of Navy boats earlier this year will reportedly remain classified for some time. That is rather curious since Iran already knows how it treated the sailors. Again, there is a suspicion that the Administration simply does not want the public to know the full details of the mistreatment, which Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says are far worse than has been made public. Recently, the Navy fired the commander in the incident.


The 10 sailors were captured and their high-speed special boats were seized when they drifted into Iranian waters around Farsi Island. They were held for 16 hours and the Iranians used videotapes of sailors apologizing and crying for propaganda purposes.

Now, Forbes (who was given a classified briefing) alleges that the Administration is keeping details of the incident classified for a year or longer. He stated “I think that when the details actually come out, most Americans are going to be kind of taken aback by the entire incident, both how Iran handled it and how we handled it.”

I fail to see why the description of the treatment cannot be released immediately. I can understand the need to review and potentially classify the conditions leading to the seizure. There are issues of communications and diplomatic exchanges are likely sensitive. However, the full details of the treatment of the sailors after they were taken into custody is obviously known to Iran . . . it is simply not known to the American people.

Source: Fox

Categories: Iran, Iran scam, Iranian navy, Obama and Iran, U.S. Navy
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Former al-Qaida Terrorist Sought Asylum in Norway

May 17, 2016

Former al-Qaida Terrorist Sought Asylum in Norway, Investigative Project on Terrorism, May 17, 2016

Norwegian police arrested a former Syrian al-Qaida fighter who sought asylum in Norway, the UK’s Daily Express reports.

Police arrested the 26-year-old man Friday at an asylum center after officers received a search warrant. Anne Karoline, a lawyer representing the Norwegian police, confirmed the arrest but could not provide further details concerning the indictment. Her client admitted to being a former operative of Jabhat al-Nusra – al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria – when he sought asylum in 2015, Karoline said.

The suspect came to Norway with his underage brother and denies any wrongdoing. Norwegian police are trying to keep the former al-Qaida fighter in custody for a month.

Many critics of Europe’s refugee policy argue that radical jihadist organizations, including the Islamic State and al-Qaida, could attempt to infiltrate the West by planting operatives among waves of Middle Eastern refugees.

In a December 2015 white paper, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) explored gaps in the American Immigration system which could enable terrorists to enter the country as refuges, to apply for asylum once in the U.S., or to enter as passport holders from the 38 countries in the Visa Waiver Program.

Weaknesses in the U.S. system include the tendency to offer refugees and asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt in their accounts of their plight and background; the rapid speed with which lawful permanent resident status is granted to asylees and refugees; the problems that arise concerning refugees who cannot provide documentation of their birth dates; inconsistency in the vetting process; and inadequacies featured in various application forms.

Click here to read the IPT’s white paper and its recommendations.

Categories: Islamic immigration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamists in America
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s Soft War Against America

May 17, 2016

Iran’s Soft War Against America, Gatestone Institute, Lawrence A. Franklin, May 17, 2016

♦ Iran’s sophisticated employment of asymmetrical tactics such as “soft war” — which relies on the other side’s wishes, conscious or not, to be taken in — is apparently part of Tehran’s strategy to level the playing field against the U.S., despite America’s overwhelming military superiority.

♦ Iran is now being treated by most of the world as a normal nation-state rather than the revolutionary, terror-supporting, totalitarian regime that in reality it is.

Iran is waging a “soft war” offensive — media, social media, charm — against the United States. Tehran believes it is scoring significant victories in this war, and it clearly has, as can be seen by the so-called “Iran deal” — technically no “deal” at all: one side, Iran, got everything.

Iran’s sophisticated employment of asymmetrical tactics, such as “soft war” — which relies on the other side’s wishes, conscious or not, to be taken in — is apparently part of Tehran’s strategy to level the playing field against the U.S., despite America’s overwhelming military superiority.

Tehran seems to think, with justification, that it has successfully exploited the Obama administration’s uncorseted desire for better bilateral relations into granting Iran concessions that are not part of the original Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA).

One of these concessions is granting Iran access to the U.S financial system; U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spent last week trawling through Europe, imploring bankers to do business with Iran, despite that minor detail that America will not.

Another concession is the U.S. offer to buy Iran’s heavy water, a product of its planned plutonium bomb-making reactor in Arak.

Still another concession is the U.S. administration’s failure to increase sanctions on Iran for repeatedly launching potentially nuclear-capable ballistic missiles — in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The Iranian regime may well attribute these American concessions to its employment of the “jang-e-narm” (soft war) tactic of “smile diplomacy”: the media-friendly demeanor of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

767 (1)The Iranian regime may well attribute recent American concessions to its employment of the soft war tactic of “smile diplomacy”: the media-friendly demeanor of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Pictured: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during talks in Vienna, Austria, July 14, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

Not surprisingly, those are the same tactics that Iran is accusing Washington of using against Iran. Iran has been alleging that the U.S. has been waging soft war attacks against it, via Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, supposedly — according to Iran — to develop sympathies within Iran’s elites for Western culture, policies, and ideals. Presumably the next concession is that the U.S. be quiet and let Iran keep expanding as far as it likes. The other day, Iran threatened to block the transport of oil by closing the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

This is the problem: Iran is now being treated by most of the world as a normal nation-state rather than the revolutionary, terror-supporting, totalitarian regime that in reality it is.

Iran also is using this narrative of an American-led soft war against Iran to institute tighter controls on Iranian citizens. Iran recently dispatched Basij paramilitary teams to elementary schools to instill revolutionary Islamic values in the students. Iran has also established “Atlas,” a new, government-controlled press agency modeled upon Qatar’s Al-Jazeera network. Iranian authorities most likely hope that this news service will counteract any untoward thoughts of liberalization that the “Arab Spring” might have conjured up to question the regime’s “stability.”[1]Iran has also stepped up internet censorship as well as efforts by the government’s plainclothes police to sever contacts between Western NGO personnel and Iran’s civil society activists.

Evidence of how seriously Iran views the potential of America’s supposed soft war tactics was its establishing a National Data Center to filter messages coming into Iran from Western media, in addition to Tehran’s sponsorship of its first National Forum on Soft War, in the autumn of 2015.

Meanwhile, pursuing both its hard war and soft war offensives, Iran continues to trumpet its ability to produce new weapons systems, including novel and illegal ballistic missiles.

The regime also boasts about its acquisition of weapons from outside the country, such as Russia’s S-300 air defense system.

Not surprisingly, this soft war saber-rattling by Shi’ite Iran has been increasing the security concerns of its neighboring Sunni Arab States. These concerns, in turn, cause the Gulf countries and others to demand that their American ally demonstrate that it is serious about halting Iranian expansion in the region. Recent visits to the Sunni states by high-level American political leaders (President Obama), ranking diplomats (Secretary of State John Kerry), and senior military figures (Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dunford) have sought to allay these fears; it is still not clear with what.

Meanwhile, Iran’s aggressive involvement in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq is clearly creating the impression among Gulf states and others that regional leadership is passing from Sunni Saudi Arabia onto a toxic Shi’ite Iran.

Categories: Free world, Iran scam, Iranian "moderates", Kerry, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries