Archive for July 11, 2016

The Arabs’ Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel ( a must read )

July 11, 2016

The Arabs’ Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel

by Fred Maroun

July 10, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: The Arabs’ Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel

A top notch peace !

  • We Arabs managed our relationship with Israel atrociously, but the worst of all is the ongoing situation of the Palestinians. Our worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947.
  • Perhaps one should not launch wars if one is not prepared for the results of possibly losing them.
  • The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are.
  • Jordan integrated some refugees, but not all. We could have proven that we Arabs are a great and noble people, but instead we showed the world, as we continue to do, that our hatred towards each other and towards Jews is far greater than any concept of purported Arab solidarity.

This is part one of a two-part series. The second part will examine what we Arabs can do differently today.

In the current state of the relationship between the Arab world and Israel, we see a patchwork of hostility, tense peace, limited cooperation, calm, and violence. We Arabs managed our relationship with Israel atrociously, but the worst of all is the ongoing situation of the Palestinians.

The Original Mistake

Our first mistake lasted centuries, and occurred well before Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948. It consisted of not recognizing Jews as equals.

As documented by a leading American scholar of Jewish history in the Muslim world, Mark R. Cohen, during that era, “Jews shared with other non-Muslims the status of dhimmis [non-Muslims who have to pay protection money and follow separate debasing laws to be tolerated in Muslim-controlled areas] … New houses of worship were not to be built and old ones could not be repaired. They were to act humbly in the presence of Muslims. In their liturgical practice they had to honor the preeminence of Islam. They were further required to differentiate themselves from Muslims by their clothing and by eschewing symbols of honor. Other restrictions excluded them from positions of authority in Muslim government”.

On March 1, 1944, while the Nazis were massacring six million Jews, and well before Israel declared independence, Haj Amin al-Husseini, then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, declared on Radio Berlin, “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”

If we had not made this mistake, we might have benefited in two ways.

Jews would likely have remained in the Muslim Middle East in greater numbers, and they would have advanced the Middle Eastern civilization rather than the civilizations of the places to which they fled, most notably Europe and later the United States.

Secondly, if Jews felt secure and accepted in the Middle East among Arabs, they may not have felt the need to create an independent state, which would have saved us from our subsequent mistakes.

The Worst Mistake

Our second and worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947. UN resolution 181 provided the legal basis for a Jewish state and an Arab state sharing what used to be British-controlled Mandatory Palestine.

As reported by the BBC, that resolution provided for:

“A Jewish State covering 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) with a population of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs; An Arab State covering 43.53% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem), with 807,000 Arab inhabitants and 10,000 Jewish inhabitants; An international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem, where the population was 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs.”

Although the land allocated to the Jewish state was slightly larger than the land allocated to the Arab state, much of the Jewish part was total desert, the Negev and Arava, with the fertile land allocated to the Arabs. The plan was also to the Arabs’ advantage for two other reasons:

  • The Jewish state had only a bare majority of Jews, which would have given the Arabs almost as much influence as the Jews in running the Jewish state, but the Arab state was almost purely Arab, providing no political advantage to Jews within it.
  • Each proposed state consisted of three more-or-less disconnected pieces, resulting in strong geographic interdependence between the two states. If the two states were on friendly terms, they would likely have worked in many ways as a single federation. In that federation, Arabs would have had a strong majority.

Instead of accepting that gift of a plan when we still could, we Arabs decided that we could not accept a Jewish state, period. In May 1948, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition: that, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” We initiated a war intended to eradicate the new state in its infancy, but we lost, and the result of our mistake was a much stronger Jewish state:

  • The Jewish majority of the Jewish state grew dramatically due to the exchange of populations that occurred, with many Arabs fleeing the war in Israel and many Jews fleeing a hostile Arab world to join the new state.
  • The Jews acquired additional land during the war we launched, resulting in armistice lines (today called the green lines or pre-1967 lines), which gave Israel a portion of the land previously allocated to the Arab state. The Jewish state also acquired much better contiguity, while the Arab portions became divided into two parts (Gaza and the West Bank) separated by almost 50 kilometers.

Perhaps one should not launch wars if one is not prepared for the results of possibly losing them.

In May 1948, Azzam Pasha (right), the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition: that, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

More Wars and More Mistakes

After the War of Independence (the name that the Jews give to the war of 1947/1948), Israel was for all practical purposes confined to the land within the green lines. Israel had no authority or claim over Gaza and the West Bank. We Arabs had two options if we had chosen to make peace with Israel at that time:

  • We could have incorporated Gaza into Egypt, and the West Bank into Jordan, providing the Palestinians with citizenship in one of two relatively strong Arab countries, both numerically and geographically stronger than Israel.
  • We could have created a new state in Gaza and the West Bank.

Instead, we chose to continue the hostilities with Israel. In the spring of 1967, we formed a coalition to attack Israel. On May 20, 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated, “The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” On May 27, 1967, Egypt’s President Abdul Nasser declared, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”. In June, it took Israel only six days to defeat us and humiliate us in front of the world. In that war, we lost much more land, including Gaza and the West Bank.

After the war of 1967 (which Jews call the Six-Day War), Israel offered us land for peace, thereby offering us a chance to recover from the mistake of the Six-Day War. We responded with the Khartoum Resolutions, stating, “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel”.

Not having learned from 1967, we formed yet another coalition in October 1973 and tried again to destroy Israel. We achieved some gains, but then the tide turned and we lost again. After this third humiliating defeat, our coalition against Israel broke up, and Egypt and Jordan even decided to make peace with Israel.

The rest of us remained stubbornly opposed to Israel’s very existence, even Syria which, like Egypt and Jordan, had lost land to Israel during the Six-Day War. Today Israel still holds that territory, and there is no real prospect for that land ever going back to Syria; Israel’s Prime Minister recently declared that, “Israel will never leave the Golan Heights”.

The Tragedy of the Palestinians

The most reprehensible and the most tragic of our mistakes is the way that we Arabs have treated Palestinians since Israel’s declaration of independence.

The Jews of Israel welcomed Jewish refugees from Arab and other Muslim lands into the Israeli fold, regardless of the cost or the difficulty in integrating people with very different backgrounds. Israel eagerly integrated refugees from far-away lands, including Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Brazil, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia. By doing so, they demonstrated the powerful bond that binds Jews to each other. At the same time, we had the opportunity similarly to show the bond that binds Arabs together, but instead of welcoming Arab refugees from the 1947/48 war, we confined them to camps with severe restrictions on their daily lives.

In Lebanon, as reported by Amnesty International, “Palestinians continue to suffer discrimination and marginalization in the labor market which contribute to high levels of unemployment, low wages and poor working conditions. While the Lebanese authorities recently lifted a ban on 50 of the 70 jobs restricted to them, Palestinians continue to face obstacles in actually finding employment in them. The lack of adequate employment prospects leads a high drop-out rate for Palestinian schoolchildren who also have limited access to public secondary education. The resultant poverty is exacerbated by restrictions placed on their access to social services”.

Yet, Lebanon and Syria could not integrate refugees that previously lived a few kilometers away from the country’s borders and who shared with the country’s people almost identical cultures, languages, and religions. Jordan integrated some refugees but not all. We could have proven that we Arabs are a great and noble people, but instead we showed the world, as we continue to do, that our hatred towards each other and towards Jews is far greater than any concept of purported Arab solidarity. Shamefully to us, seven decades after the Palestinian refugees fled Israel, their descendants are still considered refugees.

The worst part of the way we have treated Palestinian refugees is that even within the West Bank and Gaza, there remains to this day a distinction between Palestinian refugees and native Palestinians. In those lands, according to the year 2010 numbers provided by Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet at McGill University, 37% of Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza live in camps! Gaza has eight Palestinian refugee camps, and the West bank has nineteen. The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are. Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas claims a state on those lands, but we can hardly expect him to be taken seriously when he leaves the Palestinian refugees under his authority in camps and cannot even integrate them with other Palestinians. The ridiculousness of the situation is rivaled only by its callousness.

Where We Are Now

Because of our own mistakes, our relationship with Israel today is a failure. The only strength in our economies is oil, a perishable resource and, with fracking, diminishing in value. We have not done nearly enough to prepare for the future when we will need inventiveness and productivity. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, “Although Arab governments have long recognized the need to shift away from an excessive dependence on hydrocarbons, they have had little success in doing so. … Even the United Arab Emirates’ economy, one of the most diversified in the Gulf, is highly dependent on oil exports”.

Business Insider rated Israel in 2015 as the world’s third most innovative country. Countries from all over the world take advantage of Israel’s creativity, including countries as remote and as advanced as Japan. Yet we snub Israel, an innovation powerhouse that happens to be at our borders.

We also fail to take advantage of Israel’s military genius to help us fight new and devastating enemies such as ISIS.

Worst of all, one of our own people, the Palestinians, are dispersed — divided, disillusioned, and utterly incapable of reviving the national project that we kidnapped from under their feet in 1948 and that we have since disfigured beyond recognition.

To say that we must change our approach towards Israel is an understatement. There are fundamental changes that we ourselves must make, and we must find the courage and moral fortitude to make them.

The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are.

Fred Maroun, a left-leaning Arab based in Canada, has authored op-eds for New Canadian Media, among other outlets. From 1961-1984, he lived in Lebanon.

ISIS Comes to Gaza

July 11, 2016

ISIS Comes to Gaza

by Khaled Abu Toameh

July 11, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: ISIS Comes to Gaza

  • Recent reports leave no doubt as to cooperation between Hamas and ISIS groups in Sinai. These reports, the Egyptians and Palestinian Authority argue, provide further evidence that the Gaza Strip remains a major base for various jihadi terror groups that pose a real threat.
  • The report said that terrorists wanted by the Egyptian authorities were admitted to the Gaza Strip hospital in return for weapons given to Hamas by the Islamic State in the Sinai.
  • Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA) can continue to talk all they want about a Palestinian state that would be established in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. But when ISIS-inspired groups are active in Gaza and there are no signs that the Hamas regime is weakening, it is rather difficult to imagine a Palestinian state.
  • The jihadi groups clearly seek to create an Islamic emirate combining the Gaza Strip and Sinai. Abbas might thank Israel for its presence in the West Bank — a presence that allows him and his government to be something other than infidel cannon fodder for the jihadis.

Hamas denies it up and down. Nonetheless, there are growing signs that the Islamist movement, which is based in the Gaza Strip, is continuing to cooperate with other jihadi terror groups that are affiliated with Islamic State (ISIS), especially those that have been operating in the Egyptian peninsula of Sinai in recent years.

This cooperation, according to Palestinian Authority security sources, is the main reason behind the ongoing tensions between the Egyptian authorities and Hamas. These tensions have prompted the Egyptians to keep the Rafah border crossing mostly closed since 2013, trapping tens of thousands of Palestinians inside the Gaza Strip.

In 2015, the Egyptians opened the Rafah terminal for a total of twenty-one days to allow humanitarian cases and those holding foreign nationalities to leave or enter the Gaza Strip.

This year so far, Rafah has been open for a total of twenty-eight days. Sources in the Gaza Strip say there are about 30,000 humanitarian cases that need to leave immediately. They include dozens of university students who haven’t been able to go back to their universities abroad and some 4,000 patients in need of urgent medical treatment.

Surprisingly, last week the Egyptians opened the Rafah terminal for five days in a row, allowing more than 4,500 Palestinians to leave and enter the Gaza Strip. The unusual gesture came on the eve of the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr. However, the terminal was closed again at the beginning of the feast on July 6.

The renewed closure of the Rafah terminal coincided with reports that efforts to end the tensions between Hamas and Egypt hit a snag. According to the reports, the Egyptian authorities decided to cancel a planned visit to Cairo by senior Hamas officials. The decision to cancel the visit, the reports said, came in the wake of the dissatisfaction of the Egyptians with the way Hamas has been handling security along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. The closure of the border crossing came as a blow to Hamas’s efforts to patch up its differences with Egypt and pave the way for easing severe travel restrictions imposed by Cairo on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

In recent weeks, Hamas announced that it had deployed hundreds of its border guards along the shared border with Egypt in order to prevent infiltration both ways, especially of jihadi terrorists who have been targeting Egyptian security personnel and civilians in Sinai. However, the Egyptian authorities remain extremely skeptical about Hamas’s measures.

Egyptian security officials are convinced that Hamas is not serious about preventing jihadi terrorists from crossing the border in either direction. Moreover, the Egyptians suspect that Hamas maintains close relations with some of the ISIS-affiliated groups in Sinai, and is providing them with weapons and medical treatment.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has refused to conduct high-level contacts with Hamas since he came to power in 2013. His regime views Hamas as a threat to Egypt’s national security. The few meetings that did take place between the two sides were restricted to security issues; that was why Sisi entrusted his General Intelligence officials to conduct the discussions with the leaders of the Islamist movement who visited Cairo in the past months.

Apparently, the Egyptian skepticism towards Hamas is not unjustified.

In recent weeks, reports have surfaced that leave no doubt as to cooperation between Hamas and ISIS groups in Sinai. These reports, the Egyptians and Palestinian Authority argue, provide further evidence that the Gaza Strip remains a major base for various jihadi terror groups that pose a real threat not only to Egypt’s national security, but also to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, as well as neighboring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon.

Reports have also emerged that some of the jihadi terrorists in Sinai have been receiving medical treatment in hospitals in the Gaza Strip, with the approval of Hamas. The terrorists, who are wanted by the Egyptian authorities, are believed to have entered the Gaza Strip through smuggling tunnels along the border with Egypt.

According to one report, one of the terrorist leaders from Sinai, Abu Sweilem, was documented lying in bed at the Abu Yusef al-Najjar Hospital in the city of Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip. The report said that Abu Sweilem was hospitalized under the heavy guard of members of Hamas’s armed wing, Ezaddin al-Qassam. It said that he, and other terrorists wanted by the Egyptian authorities, were admitted to the Gaza Strip hospital in return for weapons given to Hamas by the Islamic State in Sinai, which is known as Wilayat Sina’.

Another report by the same source claimed that Mohamed Abu Shawish, a senior member of Ezaddin al-Qassam in the Gaza Strip, has been helping train and organize the jihadi terrorists in Sinai. Hamas claimed that the man had fled the Gaza Strip to join ISIS and was wanted by its armed wing for defection. The report, however, noted that Abu Shawish was moving freely between the Gaza Strip and Sinai and was even using Hamas vehicles to commute between the two areas. It added that Abu Shawish has even set up a vast network of relations along the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt to facilitate the smuggling of weapons and terrorists in both directions.

The report goes on to reveal that the top Hamas operative is in touch with Eyad al-Khaldi, the owner of a clothing factory in the Gaza Strip, who has been supplying him with military uniforms and other equipment for the terrorists in Sinai. The report cites this as evidence of the growing activities of the Sinai-based jihadi terrorists inside the Gaza Strip, which is taking place with the blessing of top Hamas officials.

Hamas has in the past indeed cracked down on ISIS-affiliated groups and individuals in the Gaza Strip. But this happens only when they seem to pose some kind of a threat or challenge to Hamas’s rule over the Gaza Strip.

This crackdown, however, has clearly not stopped Hamas members, especially those belonging to Ezaddin al-Qassam, from collaborating with other groups that are linked to ISIS and that are engaged in terror attacks against the Egyptians in Sinai. Isolated and desperate for cash in the Gaza Strip, Hamas seems prepared to cooperate with anyone in order to retain its control and survive.

Some Palestinians in the Gaza Strip argue that the double standard Hamas employs in dealing with the jihadi terrorists is the result of a split between its political and military wing. While the top political leaders of Hamas appear to be keen to distance themselves from the jihadi terrorists, the commanders of Ezaddin al-Qassam are acting independently and working with anyone who hands them weapons.

These Palestinians also point out that an increasing number of Ezaddin al-Qassam members have in recent years fled the Gaza Strip to join ISIS in Sinai, Syria and Iraq — a development that continues to worry the political leadership of Hamas. Those who have not been able to flee the Gaza Strip are joining other jihadi groups that are operating inside the Gaza Strip.

Reports indicate that an increasing number of Hamas gunmen have in recent years fled the Gaza Strip to join ISIS in Sinai, Syria and Iraq. Pictured above: An August 2014 image of terrorists from the Islamic State in Sinai (then known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis), preparing to behead four Egyptians they accused of spying for Israel.

Last month, further evidence of this trend was provided by the death of Khaled al-Tarabin, a former Hamas operative killed while fighting alongside ISIS in Syria. He is the seventh Hamas-affiliated Palestinian to be killed while fighting alongside ISIS in Iraq and Syria in recent months, according to sources in the Gaza Strip.

Regardless of the level of cooperation between Hamas and jihadi terrorists in Sinai, the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip will pay the price. Reports about this cooperation simply entrench in the minds of the Egyptians the need to close the borders, humanitarian needs be damned.

As for the Palestinian Authority, all it can do for now is watch the Gaza Strip — which it is hoping will become part of a future Palestinian state — descend into hell.

Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of the Palestinian Authority can continue to talk all they want about a Palestinian state that would be established in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. But when ISIS-inspired groups are active in the Gaza Strip and there are no signs that the Hamas regime is weakening, it is rather difficult to imagine a Palestinian state. Abbas has not been able to set foot in the Gaza Strip since 2007. Even his private residence in Gaza City is off-limits to him. But Hamas is just the beginning of the story for Abbas. The jihadi groups clearly seek to create an Islamic emirate combining the Gaza Strip and Sinai. The Palestinian Authority president might thank Israel for its presence in the West Bank — a presence that allows him and his government to be something other than infidel cannon fodder for the jihadis.

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

New PM for Britain by Wednesday

July 11, 2016

David Cameron gives Theresa May full support After becoming clear that Theresa May is the only candidate for the head of the Conservative party, the resigned British prime minister said that he would leave his position on Wednesday and that May receives his full support.

Jul 11, 2016, 8:26PM
Judith Abramson

Source: New PM for Britain by Wednesday | JerusalemOnline

Cameron and May Reuters/Channel 2 News

After Theresa May became the last candidate to become the UK’s prime minister, David Cameron announced today (Monday) that he will hand in his resignation on Wednesday afternoon.

“Theresa May will receive my full support,” said Cameron tonight. He added that he believes May to be just the strong leader the country so needs. According to estimates, Theresa May should move into Downing 10 that very evening and will become the UK’s new prime minister – just two weeks after Brexit.

May strongly objected leaving the EU, but made very clear that she will abide by the voters’ decision: “Brexit means Brexit – as prime minister, I will make sure that we leave the EU or rejoin through the back door.”

The Case for Kurdish Statehood

July 11, 2016

The Case for Kurdish Statehood, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Noah Beck, July 11, 2016

1691

Why has the West been so supportive of Palestinian nationalism, yet so reluctant to support the Kurds, the largest nation in the world without a state?

The Kurds have been instrumental in fighting the Islamic State (ISIS); have generously accepted millions of refugees fleeing ISIS to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG); and embrace Western values such as gender equality, religious freedom, and human rights. They are also an ancient people with an ethnic and linguistic identity stretching back millennia and have faced decades of brutal oppression as a minority. Yet they cannot seem to get sufficient support from the West for their political aspirations.

The Palestinians, by contrast, claimed a distinct national identity relatively recently, are less than one-third fewer in number (in 2013, the global Palestinian population was estimated by the Palestinian Authority to reach 11.6 million), control land that is less than 1/15th the size of the KRG territory, and have not developed their civil society or economy with nearly as much success as the Kurds. Yet the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, and other international bodies have all but ignored Kurdish statehood dreams while regularly prioritizing Palestinian ambitions over countless other global crises.

Indeed, in 2014 the UK and Sweden joined much of the rest of the world in recognizing a Palestinian state. There has been no similar global support for a Kurdish homeland. Moreover, Kurdish statehood has been hobbled by U.S. reluctance to see the Iraqi state dismantled and by regional powers like Turkey, which worries that a Kurdish state will stir up separatist feelings among Turkish Kurds.

With an estimated worldwide population of about 35 million (including about 28 million in the KRG or adjacent areas), the Kurds are the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East (after the Arabs, Persians, and Turks), and have faced decades of persecution as a minority in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

The 1988 “Anfal” attacks, which included the use of chemical weapons, destroyed about 2,000 villages and killed at least 50,000 Kurds, according to human rights groups (Kurds put the number at nearly 200,000). Several international bodies have recognized those atrocities as a genocide.

The Kurds in Turkey have also suffered oppression dating back to Ottoman times, when the Turkish army killed tens of thousands of Kurds in the Dersim and Zilan massacres. By the mid-1990s, more than 3,000 villages had been destroyed and 378,335 Kurdish villagers had been displaced and left homeless, according to Human Rights Watch.

The drive for Kurdish rights and separatism in Iran extends back to 1918, and – during its most violent chapter – cost the lives of over 30,000 Kurds, starting with the 1979 rebellion and the consequent KDPI insurgency.

A 2007 study notes that 300,000 Kurdish lives were lost just in the 1980s and 1990s. The same study states that 51,000 Jews and Arabs were killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict from 1950 until 2007 (and, because that total includes wars with Israel’s Arab neighbors, Palestinians are a small fraction of the Arab death toll).

Perhaps because of the Kurds’ own painful history, the KRG is exceptionally tolerant towards religious minorities and refugees. The KRG has embraced its tiny community of Jews, and in 2014, the Kurds rescued about 5,000 Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar after fleeing attempted genocide by ISIS. Last November, the Kurds recaptured the Sinjar area from ISIS, liberating hundreds more Yazidis from vicious oppression.

The KRG absorbed 1.8 million refugees as of December, representing a population increase of about 30 percent. The KRG reportedly needs $1.4 to 2.4 billion to stabilize the internally displaced people in its territory.

“Most of the refugees [in the KRG] are Arab Sunnis and Shia, Iranians, Christians, and others,” Nahro Zagros, Soran University vice president and adviser to the KRG’s Ministry of Higher Education, told the  IPT. “Yet there is no public backlash from the Kurds. And of course, we have been helping the Yazidi, who are fellow Kurds.”

The Kurdish commitment to gender equality is yet another reason that Kurdish statehood merits Western support. There is no gender discrimination in the Kurdish army: their women fight (and get beheaded) alongside the men. Last December, Kurdistan hosted the International Conference on Women and Human Rights.

The Kurds are also the only credible ground force fighting ISIS, as has been clear since the ISIS threat first emerged in 2014. ISIS “would have totally controlled the Baji oil field and all of Kirkuk had the [Kurdish] Peshmerga not defended it,” said Jay Garner, a retired Army three-star general and former Army assistant vice chief of staff who served during “Operation Provide Comfort” in northern Iraq. “Losing Kirkuk would have changed the entire war [against ISIS], because there are billions of dollars [per] week in oil flowing through there. The Iraqi army abandoned their equipment [while the Kurds defended Kirkuk, which has historically been theirs].”

Masrour Barzani, who heads the KRG’s intelligence services, says that Kurdish independence would empower the Kurds to purchase the type of weapons they need without the delays that currently hobble their military effort against ISIS. Under the present arrangement, Kurdish weapons procurement must go through Iraq’s Shia-led central government, which is also under heavy Iranian influence.

Besides bolstering the fight against ISIS, there are other geopolitical reasons for the West to support Kurdish statehood: promoting a stable partition of Syria, containing Iran, balancing extremist forces in the Middle East, and giving the West another reliable ally in a volatile region.

Now that Syria is no longer a viable state, it could partition into more sustainable governing blocs along traditional ethnic/sectarian lines with Sunni Arabs in the heartland, Alawites in the northwest, Druze in the south, and Kurds in the northeast. KRG leader Masrour Barzani recently argued that political divisions within Iraq have become so deep that the country must transform into “either confederation or full separation.”

Southeast Turkey and northwest Iran also have sizeable Kurdish areas that are contiguous with the KRG, but those states are far from disintegrating, and would aggressively resist any attempts to connect their Kurdish areas to the future Kurdish state. However, the Kurdish areas of former Syria should be joined to Iraqi Kurdistan as a way to strengthen the fledgling Kurdish state and thereby weaken ISIS.

In a recent article, Ernie Audino, the only U.S. Army general to have previously served a year as a combat adviser embedded inside a Kurdish Peshmerga brigade in Iraq, notes that Iran currently controls the Iraqi government and Iran-backed fighters will eventually try to control Kurdistan. He also makes the point that Western support for the Kurdish opposition groups active in Iran would force the Iranian regime to concentrate more on domestic concerns, effectively weakening Iran’s ability to pursue terrorism, expansionism, and other destabilizing activities abroad.

Because the Kurds are religiously diverse moderates who prioritize their ethno-linguistic identity over religion, a Kurdish state would help to balance out the radical Mideast forces in both the Shiite and Sunni camps. The Kurds are already very pro-American, thanks to their Western-leaning values, the U.S.-backed-no-fly zone, and the 2003 toppling of Saddam Husssein that made the KRG possible.

A Kurdish state would also have excellent relations with Israel, another moderate, non-Arab, pro-Western democracy in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed Kurdish independence in 2014, and Syrian Kurds – after recently declaring their autonomy – expressed an interest in developing relations with Israel.

By contrast, the Palestinian Authority slanders Israel at every opportunity: Abbas recently claimed in front of the EU parliament that Israel’s rabbis are trying to poison Palestinian drinking water. The Authority raises Palestinian children to hate and kill Jews with endless anti-Israel incitement coming from schools, media, and mosques. Palestinians have also shown little economic progress in the territories that they do control, particularly in Gaza, where Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses that donors bought for them in 2006 and instead, have focused their resources on attacking Israel with tunnels and rockets.

By almost any measure, a Kurdish state deserves far more support from the West. After absorbing millions of Syrian refugees while fighting ISIS on shrinking oil revenue, the KRG is battling a deepening financial crisis. Aggravating the situation, Iraq’s central government has refused – since April 2015 – to send the KRG its share of Iraqi oil revenue. The economic crisis has cost the KRG an estimated $10 billion since 2014.

U.S. Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced House Resolution 1654 “to authorize the direct provision of defense articles, defense services, and related training to” the KRG. Fifteen months later, the bill is still stuck in Congress.

Helping the Kurds should be an even bigger priority for the European Union, which absorbs countless new refugees every day that ISIS is not defeated. If the EU were to fund the KRG’s refugee relief efforts and support their military operations against ISIS, far fewer refugees would end up on their shores.

 

Trump: I am the Law and Order candidate, email scandal shows Clinton is deceitful and incompetent

July 11, 2016

Trump: I am the Law and Order candidate, email scandal shows Clinton is deceitful and incompetent, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, July 11, 2016

Facebook charged with aiding terror in billion dollar lawsuit

July 11, 2016

Facebook charged with aiding terror in billion dollar lawsuit Relatives of Israeli-Americans killed by Arab terror sue over social media giant’s failure to remove pro-terror incitement.

Arutz Sheva Staff, 11/07/16 11:30

Source: Facebook charged with aiding terror in billion dollar lawsuit – Defense/Security – News –

The families of five Americans and Israeli-Americans killed or wounded by Arab terrorists in Israel have filed suit against the social media giant Facebook, claiming one billion dollars in damages over the website’s failure to rein in on rampant pro-terror incitement.

The lawsuit, filed by the Shurat Hadin organization on behalf of the five families, contends that Facebook knowingly provided services to terrorists – including the Hamas organization – to spread anti-Israel incitement.

Citing the 1992 Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which forbids all American corporations from providing any and all aid to terror groups or their leaders, the five families filed the suit Monday morning in a federal court in New York.

Shurat Hadin, a Tel Aviv-based law center, tracks anti-Israeli incitement and targets terror organizations and their backers in legal cases around the world.

The plaintiffs in the case claim the social media site is liable under the 1992 ATA for terror attacks carried out by the Hamas terror organization, which the suit notes has active accounts with Facebook and uses the website as a platform to spread its propaganda and incitement to violence.

The families behind the suit include the relatives of Taylor Force, an American Army veteran who was murdered in a stabbing attack in Tel Aviv in 2016; the family of Menachem Mendel Rivkin, who was seriously wounded in a stabbing attack in Givat Zeev in 2016; relatives of Richard Leikin, a 76-year old man who was shot and killed by a terrorist on a bus in Jerusalem in 2015; the family of Chaya Zisel Braun, the baby murdered by a Hamas terrorist in Jerusalem in 2014, and relatives of Yaakov Naftali Frankel, one of the three youths kidnapped and murdered by Hamas in 2014.

While Monday’s lawsuit is the largest such claim made against Facebook, it is not the first suit faced by the social media giant in connection to terrorism.

Last month the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year old California college student who was murdered in last year’s ISIS attack in Paris, sued Facebook, Twitter, and Google for providing what they called “material support” for the ISIS terror group.

The claim, which was filed in a federal court in California, was immediately rejected by all three defendants cited in the suit.

Facebook claims the company works “aggressively to remove” terrorist content “as soon as we become aware of it.”

Did Justice Ginsburg Just Violate Judicial Ethics in Her Criticism of Donald Trump?,

July 11, 2016

 Did Justice Ginsburg Just Violate Judicial Ethics in Her Criticism of Donald Trump?, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, July 11, 2016

(Reason #5,684 to vote for Trump: If he is elected Ginsburg may leave the country. — DM)

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portrait

Ginsburg did violation judicial ethics but it doesn’t matter. For just nine jurists, judicial ethics remains a purely advisory set of rules that are often honored in the breach.

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

I have long been a critic of the Supreme Court justices engaging in public appearances where they hold forth on contemporary issues and even pending matters before the Court. I have been particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Associated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who clearly relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups. I have called this trend the “rise of the celebrity justice.” Now, Justice Ginsburg has started another firestorm over public comments where she joked that she would move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected. Canon 5 of the judicial ethical rules expressly prohibits “make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” The problem is that the Court has long maintained that ethical codes are not enforceable against its members as opposed to every other jurist in the country. This absurd position has continued because Congress has failed to act, something that I have previously criticized. Ginsburg’s statements this week reflects the continued sense of impunity enjoyed by justices who violate the core maxim that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.” The justices are the judges of their own ethical cases and they show vividly why that is a dangerous and corrupting power.

Ginsburg left no question as to her opposition to Donald Trump. She stated “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She then added a reference to something that her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, said: “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

The sense of impunity reflected in Ginsburg interview was equally evident in her criticism of the GOP for failing to act on President Obama’s nominee to the Court and her defense of Obama’s right to get things done in his final year. She also clearly endorsed the qualification of nominee Judge Merrick B. Garland.

In my view it was a reckless and highly unethical exchange for any jurist. It undermined the integrity of the Court and demonstrates the lunacy of a Court that maintains that justices must be their own judges of ethical misconduct. In the past, justices have dismissed ethical rules like they are pesky matters for lesser jurists. Various justices have ruled in cases where they have clear financial interests. Many justices have embraced the celebrity status by appearing before a type of ideological base where they throw red meat to ecstatic liberal or conservative groups. It has to end. Congress has to act.

So the answer to the question above is that Ginsburg did violation judicial ethics but it doesn’t matter. For just nine jurists, judicial ethics remains a purely advisory set of rules that are often honored in the breach.

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting

July 11, 2016

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, July 11, 2016

Omar-Mateen-Noor-Salman-HPNoor Salman and Omar Mateen (Photo: Video screenshot)

Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist renowned for his work both in cutting-edge legal cases and research on criminal evil, explained to Clarion Project that important questions about the wife of Omar Mateen, who attacked a gay club in Florida, remain unanswered.

He also explained how political correctness and the difficulties in discussing Islamism are undermining our ability to combat the ideology.

You can read our previous interview with Dr. Welner here. Below is the latest interview between Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro and Dr. Welner :

1. Clarion Project: What’s the significance of Omar Mateen’s wife’s role in Mateen’s actions based on what we currently know?   

Dr. Welner:  Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, was aware of his objectives to carry out a mass casualty attack, and she could have easily engaged his or her own support system to stop him from doing so.

Mrs. Salman accompanied Mateen during a visit to Disneyworld that caught the attention of Disney security in April. Salman knew Mateen was purchasing offensive weaponry. And not just any gun, but an assault weapon (MCX Sig Sauer) far more expensive than needed for a mass killing – even as Mateen was quite underemployed.

Ms. Salman did not stand in the way of her husband’s activities that would “martyr” himself, knowing that her child would be fatherless and she would be without financial support. Or is there more?

The San Bernadino killers, who long planned the mass killing yet bore a child together, was the watershed of ISIS in America. ISIS has redefined Islamic feminism by embedding women in vital support roles in terror (martyrdom), recruitment and facilitation.

That Mateen was willing to leave a child behind and Salman accepting of same is an idea unthinkable to Americans and to terrorism in America. But it is a mindset indoctrinated in Palestinian life.

Salman, born of Palestinian parents and raised with traditional Islamic restrictions, was first wed in an arranged marriage with a man from the West Bank. She divorced her first husband. Yet she stayed with Mateen, who long claimed aspirations to be a martyr.

Salman did more than stay with Mateen, she admittedly participated with him in preparations for his eventual attack, including driving him to Pulse to case the nightclub. She thus actively supported her husband’s efforts, even she had family living nearby where she could separate herself. She agreed, with Mateen, to sign over the deed to their house two months before the attack on the Pulse nightclub.

Facilitators, collaborators, and handlers are the unseen support of Islamist suicide terror – especially in the Palestinian theater. How did Mateen get the resources for an MCX Sig Sauer? How did he pay for the upscale accommodations of his overseas travel? How does his wife anticipate supporting herself financially in the face of the attack – and having divested herself of her home?

Did he expect to survive, as had the San Bernadino attackers? And what then would have happened? How is it that we do not even know the identity of her first husband’s family? How is it that there is no public discussion about Mateen’s mosque or the influences who inspired him?

2. Clarion Project: When Mateen had outbursts of extremism at work, such as declarations of support for terrorist groups, he blamed it on anti-Muslim discrimination by his colleagues, basically saying that Islamophobia causes Islamic terrorism. Is this just a standard deflection tactic or is there more involved with Islamists’ incessant use of the Islamophobia card?   

Dr. Welner: The American dialogue about the Islamist supremacist movement and, in fact, all of Islam is not based in fact. This is because public impressions and the nature of the dialogue we have are carefully controlled by at least three sources of influence:

1) Unregulated and below-the-radar financial influence on American lawmakers by countries ruled by sharia law,

2) intellectuals and other American media and thought-leader proxies funded by dogmatic Saudi Arabia and Qatari deep pockets. These funding resources, whose assets tie back to their respective governments, export the spread of sharia as a neoconservative would aim to export democracy. Funding now heavily influences university education, think tanks and media and promotes impression management by respected academia deliberately dissimulates and whitewashes Islamist terrorism and its broader goals, and

3) CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who have been ceded standing by the press to speak for Muslims in America despite a legacy of apologia and of actively teaching the Muslim community to impede law enforcement’s investigations of terror inquiries.

Islamic supremacist advocates and, more importantly, the organizations empowered to speak for Islam are very sensitive to American public opinion and the buttons to push among social activists.

At a time that enhanced interrogations and waterboarding came under scrutiny in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, for example, al-Qaeda was teaching its conscripts to assert that they were tortured when they went into custody.

They could rely upon an academia-media complex that grasped at any opportunity to attack a Republican president through the safe space of declared “social justice.” Al-Qaeda exploited these willing opinion soldiers to fuel public sentiment against Guantanamo Bay and to delegitimize the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The Islamic supremacists have also cynically co-opted national sensitivities on other fronts. Recognizing the mainstream news media’s identification with black grievances against the police, the Islamists have successfully fused the idea of blacks targeted for their skin color to advance the notion that Muslims are victimized as a direct result of discussion of the centrality of Islam to Islamic supremacist terror incidents.

President Obama, has been the highest authority to subscribe to this false canard. The President has famously disassociated Islamic supremacist terrorism from Islam, often with servile platitudes that embellish Islam’s history in America or submissive deference to “The Prophet.”

The administration has promoted a CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) program that emphasizes the purported risks of “right wing terrorist” groups in America. While the facts demonstrate otherwise, an imposed groupthink has rooted out teaching and training from among law enforcement that engages the Islamist threat with any appreciation for its urgency and current relevance.

References to Islamic terror have been literally erased, right down to “Allah” being airbrushed from transcripts of the Mateen 911 calls.

Political correctness extinguishes any criticism of Islam or its intolerance to alternative lifestyles. This includes speech laws in many otherwise free countries that equate criticism of Islam with hate speech, laws which are enforced particularly as they relate to Islam.

With freedom controlled, even where expression is normally free, the public submits. The psychological intimidation by legal repercussion extends what is accomplished by terror or, if not, by threat of terror.

The consequences have filtered all the way through American life, as they have in Europe. A migrant gang sex assault in Idaho of a small child is suppressed by the local authorities. Nidal Hassan’s advocacy of martyrdom is not sufficient to remove him from active military duty, and when he later embarks on a mass shooting of the troops to whom he was to apply a Hippocratic Oath, the military – which answers to the Commander-in-Chief – insists that it is a work accident.

Unquestionably dangerous prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay, only to return to attack and kill American servicemen and Ankara airport-goers alike.

Surveillance programs that would monitor mosques in which attendees are particularly poisoned to support terrorism shut down, despite court support of their legality and police respect for their effectiveness.

Americans who cared about their country reported concerns about Mateen to entrusted law enforcement agencies, only to have investigations shut down. All of these systemic errors feed back to the active thought control and stifling of free thinking about efforts of the Islamic supremacist movement to gain submission of non-believers.

The first of those affected are Muslims themselves, because open-mindedness is crushed by sharia advocacy as opposed to pluralism advocacy among Muslims.

The only solution is a nonviolent but defiant revolt of free speech that demands that leaders and the news and information media stop lying to our free society about terrorism and its origins.

Only from that point can collaboration then begin between the general public and Muslims who are invested in a pluralistic America to undertake a constructive anti-terror policy that wins the war that we are now losing.

____________________

(We are currently) not losing by terror, but by the success of our Machiavellian enemy (who has been able to) buy the influence of those who do not appreciate that non-violent war is more destructive than terrorism and who exploit our inherent empathic nature as Americans as the first step on the road to submission.

Obama and Company Decline to Speak Honestly about Dallas

July 11, 2016

Obama and Company Decline to Speak Honestly about Dallas, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, July 11, 2016

Before he received his just reward, Micah Johnson left no doubt about why he had gone on his killing spree in Dallas. Johnson wanted to kill white people, especially white officers, he told the police officers who were closing in on him.

Clearly, Johnson hated white people. He was driven by racism.

Johnson’s statement wasn’t good enough for President Obama, though. According to Obama, it is “very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”

Nonsense. One might discuss the origins of Johnson’s intense hatred for whites and whether mental illness contributed, as Obama seemed to suggest. But Johnson’s motive is clear. It’s as clear as Dylann Roof’s motive for killing blacks in Charleston, South Carolina — a motive no one had trouble untangling.

By making such a foolish statement, Obama loses credibility. He creates the impression that he’s glossing over obvious black racism, which ought to disqualify him from being taken seriously when he talks about race relations, and will disqualify him in the view of many whites. (This may be why the mainstream media doesn’t seem to be reporting Obama’s statement.)

Not to be outdone, Jeh Johnson, Obama’s head of DHS, stated today that “it’s still relatively early” to conclude that Micah Johnson’s shooting were a hate crime. CBS’s John Dickerson asked:

You said there’s no link to a terrorist organization here, but the shooting in Dallas was by any definition terrorism and a hate crime, wasn’t it.

Johnson replied:

Well, there’s still an investigation being conducted by the Dallas police department and the FBI supported by many resources from the local government and the federal government. So it’s still relatively early.

What does Johnson think will occur in the investigation to show that Johnson didn’t commit a hate crime? Will the “many resources” of the government put the killer back together again so he can take back his acknowledgment that he wanted to kill whites?

Jeh Johnson isn’t stupid and neither is President Obama. They deny the obvious because they are unwilling to speak honestly about race when black racism is involved.

I won’t try to untangle the motives behind this dishonesty. I do know this: racially motivated dishonesty by national leaders won’t improve race relations; it will only make them worse.

Refugee Activists Worry Anti-Rape Laws Will Hurt Muslim Migrants

July 11, 2016

Refugee Activists Worry Anti-Rape Laws Will Hurt Muslim Migrants, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 11, 2016

(Please see also, Germany’s New “No Means No” Rape Law. — DM)

four_lions_menus_3 (1)

This is one of those clarifying moments that show what the left really stands for. The left claims to fight for women. It claims to want gay rights. And yet Muslims come first. They always come first.

After mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, the German Parliament voted Thursday in favor of a stricter sexual-assault law that also could ease deportation rules for refugees convicted of sex-related offenses.

The changes appear aimed at two overlapping targets: closing legal loopholes over sexual assaults amid complaints that German codes are too lax and addressing mounting public backlash after the country absorbed the bulk of the wave of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and beyond last year.

But some lawmakers and activists oppose linking the two issues, claiming it could further stigmatize refugees and others as German public opinion increasingly turns against them.

Further stigmatize them… after the mass rapes that they carried out in which 2,000 men assaulted 1,200 women. This was the sexual assault equivalent of 9/11.

The parliamentary vote came on the same day that a court in Cologne sentenced two men in the New Year’s Eve assaults. Iraqi national Hussein A., 21, and Algerian Hassan T., 26, were handed suspended one-year sentences. They were the first suspects to be convicted over the assaults. Both had arrived in Germany in the past two years, a court spokesman said.

They got off with a slap on the wrist. But let’s not stigmatize them.

Bernward Ostrop, an expert on asylum law at the Berlin office of the Catholic charity Caritas, said Germany’s new sex assault law would most probably not make the country safer and was instead meant to send a message to voters. “We already have very good possibilities to deport persons who have committed crimes,” Ostrop said.

Yes, that would be why Hassan and Hussein got suspended one-year sentences.

Opposition politicians and activists have argued that amending the law to make it easier to deport foreign nationals guilty of sexual offenses could create the impression that foreigners are more likely to commit such crimes, stoking tensions further.

I wonder what could possibly create that impression?

A. The fact that it’s true

B. The fact that it’s true

or

C. The time that 2,000 Muslims sexually assault 1,200 women in one day

Halina Wawzyniak, a lawmaker from the Left Party, said that she was generally in favor of stronger sexual-assault laws but that sex assaults and immigration should not be linked.

Wawzyniak said she feared that the new law could lead to “disproportionate” sanctions for relatively minor offenses by asylum seekers and that they could face a “double punishment” by being deported.

This is the left. Remember that. They pretend to be feminists, but they put Muslim rapists over female victims.