Archive for September 11, 2016

« WarSclerotic home page

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex”

September 11, 2016

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex” Jihad Watch, , September 11, 2016

He is “deradicalized,” he has renounced al-Qaeda, he’s comfortably “moderate” now. Now blames the U.S. for jihad terror, wants to dismantle the U.S.’s entire counterterrorism apparatus (such as it is), and wants to provide “holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah” to fighting against jihad activity. And this man is teaching at George Washington University.

jesse-morton

EXPOSED: Writings of GWU’s ‘ex-jihadist’ reveal he’s not so reformed after all,” by Benjamin Weingarten, Conservative Review, September 11, 2016:

Among the inexplicable ways in which the United States has responded to Islamic supremacism in the 15 years since September 11 — beyond enabling the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad in Iran, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other “moderate jihadists” over relatively secular strongmen, and transitioning from a global war on terror (a tactic) to a program against “violent extremism” (a nebulous non-entity) — a recent story out of the American academy is quite telling.

George Washington University has given a research position within its Center for Cyber and Homeland Security to Jesse Morton (formerly known as Younus Abdullah Muhammad), an ex-jihadist sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for threatening the creators of “South Park” for depicting Muhammad in a bear suit.Having chosen to serve as an informant for the FBI because of his expertise ‘jihadizing’ fellow Americans through Revolution Muslim (the Al Qaeda-supporting “activist” group that he led on U.S. soil), law enforcement officials and GWU firmly believe Morton is not only no longer a threat, but also an asset.

They believe there is much that can be learned from his experience transforming from regular American to jihadist and back again.

In his defense, some like Nadia Oweidat of the New America think tank have said that Morton’s decision to come out publicly as someone working to counter “radicalism” puts Morton’s life at risk.

Morton himself claims to have been rehabilitated through hours spent in prison supposedly grappling with the great works of the Western canon, such as the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine, and his interactions with certain friendly law enforcement officers.

He asserts that he is contrite and seeks to rectify his actions according to an interview with CNN, stating:

This is an opportunity for me to make amends, to some degree … I realize that I was completely wrong in my perspectives.

I suffer from a tremendous amount of guilt … I have seen things that people have done and to know that I once sympathized and supported that view — it sickens me.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith as in the case of other notable ex-Islamic supremacists like Hirsi Ali or ex-Communists like Whittaker Chambers.

Interestingly, Morton publicized his release from prison on an Islamic website, but that announcement as well as the website have since disappeared. As The Washington Post noted earlier this year:

Efforts to locate Morton, a father of two who has a master’s degree from Columbia University, were unsuccessful. The Bureau of Prisons website indicates that he was released in February 2015, and he appears to have announced it on the website islampolicy.com.

“While I am no doubt bewildered by the prospects of facing the currents of American society, labeled American Al-Qaeda, I do want to remain cognizant that this opportunity to be a freeman, a husband, a father, and citizen comes from Allah alone,” he wrote.

It turns out that Islampolicy.com was the successor website to Revolution Muslim. And this quotation captured by the Post, indicates that Morton remains a Muslim and harbors a victim-like mentality rather than acknowledging that he was the aggressor.

Thanks to the web archives, we can read further into Morton’s statement upon his release:

I remember being flown home in a private government jet after five months of incarceration in Morocco and finding out I was facing life imprisonment in the United States. At that moment, when one’s freedom seems to be lost forever, simply for speaking their mind, the soul has nothing left to do but turn to Allah, aza wa jaal. Today I can guarantee that a relief from hardship comes in ways that are mostly unexpected. The reflective one realizes that Allah relieves hardship in ways that oftentimes connect to pathways of deeper, spiritual healing the. Therefore, we must always pay attention to the experiences Allah puts us through, and try to remember that there are lessons to be learned from each and every passing wind. [Emphasis mine]

Clearly Morton viewed his arrest and release as being intrinsic to his Islamic experience and believed his arrest was unjustified. After all, he was just exercising his right to free speech.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith.

He continues:

I have been particularly intrigued by what has been classified as countering violent extremism (CVE). While this has led me to contemplate ways of preventing others from throwing their lives away, I remain staunchly opposed to the national security or counterterrorism state and its connection to the elite, neoliberal order, or what Dwight D. Eisenhower referred to as far back as 1961 as the ‘military-industrial complex.’ I believe that today’s counterterrorist, or national security state isn’t merely dangerous to Islam and Muslims, but to humanity and civilization generally.

I must also emphatically state that I absolutely reject the conception that terrorism is justified in any which way and by anybody. I ask Allah to accept repentance for my not having made that absolutely clear in the past. It seems to me definite that we are suffering from an era the prophet (saws) foretold; one marked by ignorant youth who recite the best of speech but do not embody it. If we are to truly stand for the ummah’s liberation, we will have to locate a balanced position between the day’s extremes. [Emphasis mine]

Morton’s views morphed from the jihadist notion that the Great Satan must be destroyed to the Left’s notion that efforts to root out and defeat jihadis represent an immoral, un-American, tyrannical enterprise.

Further, Morton puts forth the argument echoed by many Islamic supremacists that “terrorism,” is never justified. But as Daniel Greenfield has written, while some Islamic leaders have gone so far as to issue fatwas against terrorism, they fail to define the term:

Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics … is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

How to square these sentiments? As Stephen Coughlin notes in his magnum opus, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” the Quran’s definition of terrorism is essentially the killing of a Muslim without right. Is this the definition Morton had in mind when he proscribed terror?

In a later post from August 19, 2015 (note: the Wayback Machine page takes a few moments to load), “Obama’s Support for Sisi’s Counterterrorism Legislation Highlights the Hypocrisy of War on Radicalization,” Morton asserts,

[T]he global war on terror, having been rebranded as a war on Islamic extremism under Obama, has become a war on radicalization that now threatens the very essence of free expression democratic societies depend on.

Morton believes that targeting of individuals on the basis of jihadist ideology is in fact detrimental and that the goal of U.S. policy is to end “Islamism” (which of course would appear to be the exact opposite of President Obama’s policy with respect to the growing global jihad):

Legislation that concentrates on ideology conflates radical belief with violence and will only guarantee perpetual conflict. This seems to be the intended effect of counterterrorism policy everywhere. It suggests that the counterterrorism community itself desires confrontation to the end, until the very existence of Islamism on earth is eradicated.

This sentiment has expanded by way of rising right-wing and anti-Islamic populism. It is aided and abided by an Islamophobia industry that serves to brandish all conservative Muslims as barbarian. Whether in London, Paris, Cairo, or Washington, governments everywhere are utilizing counterterrorism policy and practice to silence dissent and criminalize critique of government policy, particularly if one is an Islamist.

Islamists apparently are the real victims during this age of jihadist metastasization.

While recasting himself as an agent for good with a new home in the academy, he airbrushes his views to make them palatable to a progressive audience.

Morton contends, hyperbolically, that ideology is not the key driver of jihadist violence, but rather that Western (imperialist) actions are the sine qua non of jihad — that again, jihadists are merely reacting to Western aggression:

[I]t is argued that all Islamists, nonviolent and violent, must be silenced. That position, given credence by way of government allegiance with ‘moderate Muslims’, is girded in the belief that radical political preachers create the ‘mood music to which suicide bombers dance.’ That’s a fancy way of saying that radical beliefs precede and incite violent action. In fact, very few of those holding radical beliefs ever go on to commit acts of terrorism and there is no established empirical evidence for such a causal relationship.

The one common denominator in the overwhelming majority of empirical research into violent Islamic extremist incidents is actually an attempt to justify or frame violence as a reaction to western policies. Yet, this fact conveniently goes missing from most expert analysis. When pointed to as the actual cause, any citation of western policy is ruled out as conspiracy theory or paranoid delusion. It is important to note that in exposition after exposition, Osama bin Laden claimed that jihadists were engaging in terrorism not because they hate democracy but “because you (the United States) attach us and continue to attack us.”

In other words, we create jihadis with our policy.

Apparently, ISIS also never cared about the West, until we meddled:

[T]he western press hardly recognizes that ISIS mostly rejected the ‘far enemy’ doctrine and instead preferred regional or localized violence, at least until Obama announced his plan to “degrade and destroy” the movement.

Most dumbfounding of all is this quote:

Were the U.S. and its allies not in such blatant betrayal of the very “set of core principles” Obama claimed to defend at the time of the Egyptian coup, there might be a diminishing appeal of jihadism. Instead, it’s viewed as the only alternative. The only solution is a global grassroots movement dedicated to ending such blatant hypocrisy. This movement must focus on dismantling the entire counterterrorism component of the military-industrial complex. Only then might a paradigm unfold that could first rid that “one indispensable nation” of its own despots and dictatorship, and thereby encourage people across the globe to do the same. Until then, terrorism at the hand of the state and Orwellian legislation will only enhance radicalization, at home and abroad. [Emphasis mine]

Thus, this deradicalized ex-jihadist proclaims that the way to end jihadism is to dismantle the “entire counterterrorism component” of American policy. No wonder he has been so welcomed at an American institution of higher education….

One thing I realize about some of my previous work at Revolution Muslim was the way it allowed authoritiesto [sic] fulfill their own agenda. It was a lesson that all those seeking authentic Islam could benefit from. May Allah aza wa jaal liberate this ummah from its ignorance and give us insight to see through a massive propaganda war. We should be at the forefront of providing holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah. [Emphasis mine]

Read the rest here.

Categories: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Western Publishers Submit to Islam

September 11, 2016

Western Publishers Submit to Islam, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, September 11, 2016

♦ For criticizing Islam, Hamed Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house. This is what the Soviets did to destroy writers: destroy their books.

♦ At a time when dozens of novelists, journalists and scholars are facing Islamists’ threats, it is unforgivable that Western publishers not only agree to bow down, but are often the first to capitulate.

♦ A Paris court convicted Renaud Camus for “Islamophobia” (a fine of 4,000 euros) for a speech he gave in 2010, in which he spoke of the replacement of the French people under the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. Another writer, Richard Millet, was fired last March by Gallimard publishing house for his ideas on multiculturalism.

♦ Not only did Rushdie’s publishers capitulate; other publishers also decided to break rank and return to do business with Tehran. Oxford University Press decided to take part in the Tehran Book Fair along with two American publishers, McGraw-Hill and John Wiley. Those publishers chose to respond to murderous censorship with surrender.

♦ It is as if at the time of the Nazis’ book-burnings, Western publishers had not only stood silent, but had also invited a German delegation to Paris and New York.

When Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses came out in 1989, Viking Penguin, the British and American publisher of the novel, was subjected to daily Islamist harassment. As Daniel Pipes wrote, the London office resembled “an armed camp,” with police protection, metal detectors and escorts for visitors. In Viking’s New York offices, dogs sniffed packages and the place was designated a “sensitive location”. Many bookshops were attacked and many even refused to sell the book. Viking spent about $3 million on security measures in 1989, the fatal year for Western freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, Viking never flinched. It was a miracle that the novel finally came out. Other publishers, however, faltered. Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Most Western publishers are now faltering. That is the meaning of the new Hamed Abdel-Samad affair.

The Muslim Brotherhood gave Abdel-Samad all that an Egyptian boy could wish for: spirituality, camaraderie, companionship, a purpose. In Giza, Hamed Samad became part of the Brotherhood. His father had taught him the Koran; the Brotherhood explained him how to translate these teachings into practice.

Abdel-Samad repudiated them after one day in the desert. The Brothers had given all the new militants an orange after they had walked under the sun for hours. They were ordered to peel it. Then the Brotherhood asked them to bury the fruit in the sand, and to eat the peel. The next day, Abdel-Samad left the organization. It was the humiliation needed to turn a human being into a terrorist.

Abdel-Samad today is 46 years old and lives in Munich, Germany, where he married a Danish girl and works for the Institute of Jewish History and Culture at the University of Munich. In his native Egyptian village, his first book caused an uproar. Some Muslims wanted to burn it.

Abdel-Samad’s recent book, Der Islamische Faschismus: Eine Analyse, has just been burned at the stake not in Cairo by Islamists, but in France by some of the self-righteous French.

The book is a bestseller in Germany, where it has been published by the well-known publisher, Droemer Knaur. An English translation has been published in the U.S. by Prometheus Books, under the title Islamic Fascism. Two years ago, the French publisher, Piranha, acquired the rights to translate Abdel-Samad’s book about “Islamic Fascism” into French. A publication date was even posted on Amazon: September 16. But at the last moment, the publisher stopped its release. Jean-Marc Loubet, head of the publishing house, announced to Abdel-Samad’s agent that the publication of his book is now unthinkable in France, not only for security reasons, but also because it would reinforce the “extreme right”.

For criticizing Islam, Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house. This is what the Soviets did to destroy writers: destroy his books.

Mr. Abdel-Samad’s case is not new. At a time when dozens of novelists, journalists and scholars are facing Islamists’ threats, it is unforgivable that Western publishers not only agree to bow down, but are often the first to capitulate.

1856For criticizing Islam, Hamed Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house.

In France, for criticizing Islam in a column titled “We refuse to change civilization” for the daily newspaper, Le Monde, the famous writer, Renaud Camus, lost his publisher, Fayard.

Before he suddenly became “unpopular” in the Paris’s literary establishment, Renaud Camus had been friends with Louis Aragon, the famous Communist poet and founder of surrealism, and was close joining “the immortals” of the French Academy. Roland Barthes, the star of the Collège de France, had written the preface to Renaud Camus’ most famous novel, Tricks, the cult-classic book of gay culture.

Then a Paris court convicted Camus for “Islamophobia” (a fine of 4,000 euros), for a speech he gave on December 18, 2010, in which he spoke of “Grand Replacement“, the replacement of the French people under the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. It was then that Camus became persona non grata in France.

The Jewel of Medina, a novel by the American writer Sherry Jones about the life of the third wife of Muhammad, was first purchased and then scrapped by the powerful publisher Random House, which had already paid her an advance and launched an ambitious promotional campaign. Sherry Jones’s new publisher, Gibson Square, was then firebombed by Islamists in London.

Then there was Yale University Press, which published a book by Jytte Klausen, “The Cartoons That Shook the World“, on the history of the controversial “Mohammad cartoons” that were published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, and crisis that followed. But Yale University Press published the book without the cartoons, and without any other images of the Muslim prophet Mohammad that were to be included.

“The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn’t even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism — particularly Muslim religious extremism — that is spreading across our culture,” commented the late Christopher Hitchens. Yale was possibly hoping to get in line for the same $20 million donation from Saudi Arabia’s Prince Al-Wwaleed bin Talal that he had just bestowed upon George Washington University and Harvard.

In Germany, Gabriele Brinkmann, a popular novelist, was also suddenly left without a publisher. According to her publisher, Droste, the novel Wem Ehre Geburt (“To Whom Honor Gives Birth“) could be judged as “insulting to Muslims” and expose the publisher to intimidation. Brinkmann was asked to censor some passages; she refused and lost the publishing house.

This same cowardice and capitulation now pervades the entire publishing industry. Last year, Italy’s most prestigious book fair in Turin chose (then shelved) Saudi Arabia as its guest of honor, despite the many writers and bloggers who are imprisoned in the Islamic kingdom. Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and a 10-year sentence, and a $260,000 fine.

Many Western publishers are now also “rejecting works by Israeli authors“, according Time.com, despite their political views.

It was after Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses that many Western publishing houses first bowed to intimidation. Christian Bourgois, a French publishing house, refused to publish The Satanic Verses after having bought the rights, as did the German publisher, Kiepenheuer, who apparently said he regretted having acquired the rights to the book and chose to sell them to a consortium of fifty publishers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, gathered under the name “UN-Charta Artikel 19.”

Not only did Rushdie’s publishers capitulate; other publishers also decided to break ranks and return to do business with Tehran. Oxford University Press decided to take part in the Tehran Book Fair, along with two American publishers, McGraw-Hill and John Wiley, despite the request of Rushdie’s publisher, Viking Penguin, to boycott the Iranian event. Those publishers chose to respond to murderous censorship with surrender, willing to sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of business as usual: selling books was more important than solidarity with threatened colleagues.

It is as if at the time of the Nazis’ book-burnings, Western publishers had not only stood silent, but had also invited a German delegation to Paris and New York. Is it so unimaginable today?

Categories: Censorship, Islam - submission, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom, Publishers, Western civilization
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign

September 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign, Washington Post, Chris Cillizza, September 11, 2016

(Here’s a short video of Hillary collapsing after today’s September 11 event.

The YouTube videos continue to get taken down as fast as I can post them. L/t LS for finding this.– DM)

A coughing episode is almost always just a coughing episode. But when coupled with Clinton’s “overheating” on Sunday morning — with temperatures something short of sweltering — Clinton and her team simply need to say something about what happened (and why the press was in the dark for so long.)

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

Hillary Clinton falling ill Sunday morning at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days.

“Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen,” spokesman Nick Merrill said. “During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter’s apartment and is feeling much better.”

What that statement leaves out is that a) it came 90 minutes after Clinton left the ceremony b) reporters — or even a reporter — were not allowed to follow her and c) the temperature in New York City at the time of Clinton’s overheating was in the low 80s. (A heat wave over the eastern United States broke last night/this morning.)

She later left her daughter’s apartment, saying she was “feeling great” and waving at the crowd, per the Associated Press.

Whether Clinton likes it or not, her “overheating” episode comes at a very bad time for her campaign. Thanks to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and a small but vocal element of the Republican base, talk of her health had been bubbling over the past week — triggered by a coughing episode she experienced during a Labor Day rally.

That talk was largely confined to Republicans convinced that Clinton has long been hiding some sort of serious illness. I wrote dismissively of that conspiracy theory in this space last week, noting that Clinton had been given an entirely clean bill of health by her doctors after an episode in which she fainted, suffered a concussion and then was found to have a blood clot in late 2012 and early 2013.

Coughing, I wrote, is simply not evidence enough of any sort of major illness that Clinton is assumed to be hiding. Neither, of course, is feeling “overheated.” But those two things happening within six days of each other to a candidate who is 68 years old makes talk of Clinton’s health no longer just the stuff of conspiracy theorists.

Whereas Clinton and her campaign could laugh off questions about her health before today, the “overheating” episode makes it almost impossible for them to do so. Not only has it come at a time when there was growing chatter — with very little evidence — that her health was a problem but it also happened at a 9/11 memorial event — an incredibly high-profile moment with lots and lots of cameras and reporters around.

Her campaign may well try to dismiss this story as nothing more than an isolated incident, meaning nothing. (Democrats were already pushing the story of George W. Bush fainting in 2002 after choking on a pretzel, via Twitter.)

But the issue is that Clinton kept reporters totally in the dark for 90 minutes after her abrupt departure from the 9/11 memorial service for a health-related matter. No reporter was allowed to follow her. (Clinton has resisted a protective pool for coverage because Donald Trump refuses to participate in one.) This is, yet again, the Clinton campaign asking everyone to just trust it. She got overheated! But she’s fine now!

Clinton may well be totally fine — and I certainly hope she is. But we are 58 days away from choosing the person who will lead the country for the next four years, and she is one of the two candidates with a real chance of winning. Taking the Clinton team’s word for it on her health — in light of the episode on Sunday morning — is no  longer enough. Reasonable people can — and will —  have real questions about her health.

I wrote this on Tuesday morning:

The simple fact is that there is zero evidence that anything is seriously wrong with Clinton. If suffering an occasional coughing fit is evidence of a major health problem, then 75 percent of the country must have that mystery illness. And I am one of them.

Well, that is no longer operative. Context matters. A coughing episode is almost always just a coughing episode. But when coupled with Clinton’s “overheating” on Sunday morning — with temperatures something short of sweltering — Clinton and her team simply need to say something about what happened (and why the press was in the dark for so long.)

And as the New York Times’s Adam Nagourney tweeted on Sunday morning, now might be a good time for Clinton to release a fuller record of her medical history.

Categories: Hillary Clinton's health, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: ,

Comments: 6 Comments

Prince Hussein on Trump and Farage as ‘Demagogues and Fantasists’

September 11, 2016

Prince Hussein on Trump and Farage as ‘Demagogues and Fantasists’, American Thinker, Paul Austin Murphy, September 11, 2016

Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein — a Jordanian of the Hashemite tribe (which traces itself back to Muhammed) — has just called various right-wing Western politicians “demagogues and political fantasists”. Mr. Hussein did so while addressing a security conference in The Hague.

Here’s a few words on the Prince himself.

Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He’s the son of Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid, the former Lord Chamberlain of Jordan. Hussein himself was once Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

A Jordanian as a UN human rights chief? That’s the same Jordan that doesn’t allow a single Jew to become a citizen and which is a specialist administrator of torture. (Jordan does allow Israelis and Jewish tourists.) This also squares well with all those Saudis at the United Nations who preach to the rest of the world about interfaith, terrorism and, believe it or not, human rights.

Here’s Wikipedia on Jordan’s current record:

“ — limitations on the right of citizens to change their government peacefully;

— cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, poor prison conditions, impunity, arbitrary arrest and denial of due process through administrative detention, and prolonged detention;

— breaches of fair trial standards and external interference in judicial decisions;

— infringements on privacy rights;

— limited freedoms of speech and press, and government interference in the media and threats of fines and detention that encourage self-censorship;

— restricted freedoms of assembly and association…

— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern…

— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;

— loss of Jordanian nationality by some citizens of Palestinian origin;

— restricted labor rights; and

— cases of abuse of foreign domestic workers.”

Prince al-Hussein included Geert Wilders, Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage in his broad generalisations. However, he singled out the Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, as an especially bad “bigot”.

Then Trump and Farage came in for an attack. Apparently they use the same tactics as the Islamic State. Yes, you read that correctly.

Well, if Geert Wilders is a “demagogue and political fantasist”, so too are very many people in the Netherlands, because opinion polls have just told us that Wilders’ party — the Freedom Party (PVV) — is leading the polls in that part of the world.

Wilders, like Nigel Farage, has also recently addressed the American people. More precisely, Wilders addressed the U.S. Republican Party National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, last month.

Prince al-Hussein went into more detail when he spoke at the inauguration of the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation.

Firstly, he said that he was speaking directly to Geert Wilders and his “acolytes”. Indeed, he was speaking to all the populists, demagogues, and political fantasists who inhabit Europe and America.

Prince Hussein continued:

“I am a Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab. And I am angry, too, because of Mr. Wilders’ lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear.”

Isn’t it strange when European political/economic elites and Arab princes (in this case) cast disparaging remarks about “populists” and populism? It’s as if populism is as culpable as racism is nowadays. It’s also interesting to hear Hussein say that because he’s white, this ends up being “confusing to racists”. Really? But, Prince Hussein, Islam is not a race and neither do Muslims constitute a single race. So why should patriots and counterjihadists be confused by Hussein’s whiteness? Is he mixing-up patriots and counterjihadists with those very many Leftists who see everything in terms of race? Or, instead, is he confusing them with the very many Muslims who use the “race card” to quell all criticisms of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims)?

Prince Hussein returned to his themes of populism and Mr. Wilders. His said that the PVV’s (Wilders’ party) manifesto is “grotesque” and that Wilders has much in common with Donald Trump, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, and UKip’s Nigel Farage. Moreover, he called for decisive political action to be taken against populism and patriotism. (Whatever could he mean by that?)

In one news piece I read, Prince Hussein talked about “half-truths” and “oversimplification” when it comes to Islam. In detail, he said:

“But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.”

That’s strange really because Hussein, at least here, seems not to have given any examples of such “half-truths” or “oversimplifications”. However, since Hussein pretends to believe that all the critics of Islam think that there can be no such thing as a white or a yellow Muslim, perhaps he’s mistaking Islam’s critics for other people.

I said earlier that International Socialists (i.e., Leftists) see everything in terms of race (as National Socialists also do), and that Muslims use the charge of racism to help them install sharia blasphemy law, so here’s Hussein elaborating on this. He said that “humiliating racial and religious prejudice fanned by the likes of Mr Wilders” had become official policy in some countries.

Mr. Hussein also warned that such racism and populism could easily and quickly descend into “colossal violence”. The only places in which there is colossal violence nowadays are Muslim countries. These Muslims, however, aren’t the victims of white racism or populism: they are victims of Muslim-on-Muslim “hate”. As for Europe and the United States, it will almost a certainty be the case that most of the violence which happens in the future in these countries will be the responsibility of Muslims. And Prince Hussein himself will bear some of the responsibility for that.

Prince al-Hussein finished off his speech with the following words:

“Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?”

Sorry, Mr. Hussein, I see much more bigotry and violence coming from the Muslim quarter than I do from anywhere else in the world. And, in a certain sense, such violence is partly a result of what Hussein and his United Nations are attempting to bring about in European and American — i.e., sharia blasphemy law.

 

Categories: Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Islam and human rights, Islamic hatred of others, Jordanian human rights, Nigel Farage, Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, Racism, UNCHR
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Bumpy Ride of Our Flight 93

September 11, 2016

The Bumpy Ride of Our Flight 93, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, September 10, 2016

flight-93-view-from-the-sacred-ground-sized-770x415xt‘Flight 93’ – View from the Sacred Ground

There is a scene in the first episode of Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie’s Jeeves and Wooster series that bears on the current presidential election. Bertie Wooster, at the direction of his Aunt Agatha, has motored down to Ditteredge Hall, seat of Sir Roderick and Lady Glossop, to cozy up to their hearty daughter Honoria. The former head-girl at Girton is not keen on the match: “He doesn’t shoot, he doesn’t hunt, . . . he doesn’t work even.” But Lady Glossop points out that Honoria will be twenty-four the following week. “He is not all your father and I would have hoped for you, I agree, but . . .”

But consider the alternative.

Regular readers know that I have not been part of the Donald Trump Cheerleading Cavalcade. I first wrote about him a year ago July. After saying that I didn’t think he would be the candidate, I concluded with this advisory:

He has raised some issues that the high and mighty dispensers of conventional wisdom would do well to ponder. Moreover, he has done it in a way that, though terribly, terribly vulgar, is catapulting Trump to first place in the polls. What does that tell us?  That the people are stupid and need to be guided by the suits in Washington?  If you believe that, I submit, you are going to be profoundly disappointed come November 2016.

Well, as Samuel Goldwyn remarked in another context, we’ve passed a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Back in June, Donald Rumsfeld summed up the position that, in subsequent weeks, many (not all) anti-Trump conservatives have come to adopt. Reprising his famous epistemological mot that distinguished between “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns,” Rumsfeld said that, of course he was voting for Trump. Trump was an “unknown known,” perhaps dubious in some ways, but all the world knew exactly what Hillary Clinton represented.

This was the essential point made in a more colorful way in the most remarkable essay I have read in some time, “The Flight 93 Election,” which appeared a few days back in that indispensable journal, the Claremont Review of Books. I have no idea who “Publius Decius Mus”—the putative author—really is, though I speculate on stylistic and philological grounds that he is not unacquainted with the works of Leo Strauss.  The historical Decius Mus was a Roman consul during the first Samnite and Latin wars. In 340BC, he sacrificed himself at the Battle of Vesuvius in order to secure a great victory for the Romans. That story, for those who are interested in such things, is told in Book 8 of Livy’s The History of Rome.

Presumably, Claremont’s Publius adopted the name of that self-sacrificing Roman in order to remind his readers of the existential stakes in this election (as well as, of course, concealing his real identity from the wrath of NeverTrump vigilantes). Publius reworks Donald Rumsfeld’s point with a metaphor—with two, in fact: “2016,” he begins, “is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die.”

You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.

Here’s the second metaphor:

a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

I think this is about right—or, rather, I used to think this about right.  I’ll come to my second thoughts in a moment. First, let me quote a bit more from this sinewy and intelligent essay. Publius begins by noting some of the contradictions that beleaguer contemporary American conservative thought. On the one hand, conservatives have a long list of dire diagnoses that, if accurate, spell doom. If, says Publius, conservatives are right about the national debt, about the fabric of society, about national security threats, and on and on, then “they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.”

But—and here’s the “on the other hand”—it is quite clear that they believe no such thing. On the principle that actions speak louder than words, what they actually believe is that things will putter along more or less they way they always have.

Well, which is it?

To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.

Which brings us to this uncomfortable observation:

If you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.

What do you think? I think that #3 is indisputable, as is # 2, and that the protasis of #1 is mistaken: things cannot go as they have without fundamental change, ergo we need not admit, on this argument, that conservatism is wrong about human nature, politics, etc., etc.

Two more bits from Publius. First, on what a Hillary presidency would look like: “A Hillary presidency,” he writes, “will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments.” Yep. And that’s not the worst of it:

It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

I think this is correct. And I think Publius is right that the demonization of the Right would only accelerate in a Hillary Clinton administration. Which brings Publius—and me—to Donald Trump. “Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect, “ he admits. “So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time.” Publius goes further than I would. “Trump,” he says,

alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

There were others, in my opinion, who fit this bill, including Ted Cruz.  But Ted Cruz is not a candidate for the presidency in 2016. Donald Trump is.  Which brings me back to my second thoughts about Trump. As recently as a few weeks back, I was a lesser-of-two-evils, reluctant Trump supporter: classic Russian roulette vs. the loaded semi-automatic that is a Hillary Clinton victory.

But then Trump embarked on a series of high-profile speeches and rallies.  I liked what he said about taxes and economic policy. I liked his list of possible SCOTUS nominees.  I liked what he said about supporting the police and the plight of blacks in the inner cities.  I liked what he said about combatting Islamic terrorism (what Barack Obama calls “workplace violence”). I even liked most of what he said in his immigration speech in Arizona.  I thought it was courageous and “presidential” for him to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. I thought he did the right thing in going to lend moral, and even a bit of material, support to the victims of the floods in Louisiana. I was grateful when he released a video commemorating the canonization of Mother Teresa. I was happy to see him supporting school choice, standing up for religious freedom, and criticizing those who mock Christians and people of faith.

I know there will be some who object, “But how do you know he will do all things things.” The answer is, I don’t.

But I do know what Hillary would do: Obama on steroids. She’s a known-known.  She would, as Publius warns, complete the “fundamental transformation” of this country into a third-world, politically correct socialist redoubt.

There is a fair amount of hysteria among NeverTrumpers about “The Flight 93 Election,” which I guess underscores just how potent its argument is. (The fact that Rush Limbaugh read it aloud on his radio show redoubled that potency.) As I say, I’ve come around to thinking that there are plenty of good reasons for someone of conservative principles to support Trump. I know, and have repeatedly rehearsed, the standard litany of criticisms about Trump.  But they fade if not into insignificance then at least into near irrelevance in the face of his actual program (see above) and, most of all, in the face of the horror that is his opponent. I’ll give the last word to Publius: “The election of 2016 is a test . . .  of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.”

The great James Burnham once remarked that where there is no alternative there is no problem. Fortunately, we do have an alternative, and, my, we do have a problem.  I was wrong when I predicted that Donald Trump would not be the candidate. I hope I will be proved wrong about my prediction that, were he the candidate, he would not win. The trends are promising, I think, but it would be foolish to deny that there are madmen in the cockpit or that many of the passengers are scared, apathetic, deluded, or just plain cowardly. We need a real-life Decius Mus who is willing to say “Let’s roll” and make a concerted charge. It may be the last chance we have.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, Western civilization
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

President Obama Delivers Remarks at the Memorial Observance Ceremony

September 11, 2016

President Obama Delivers Remarks at the Memorial Observance Ceremony via YouTube, September 11, 2016

(Obama’s remarks begin at approximately 46 minutes into the video. He tells us that our strength is in diversity and does not mention who brought us the September 11th attack or about their Islamist ideology. Please see also, Can We Remember the Americans Murdered on 9-11 Without Mentioning the Murderers? — DM)

Categories: 9/11, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

How the world has changed since 9/11

September 11, 2016

How the world has changed since 9/11, Israel Hayom, Clifford D. May, September 11, 2016

The 15th anniversary of 9/11 should be a time to think hard about what happened and why and what we are prepared to do to stop those determined to do it again.

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

The 15th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 should be a time for mourning, commemoration, reflection — and strategic planning.

But many people prefer to avoid thinking too much about how life was interrupted on that sunny Tuesday morning: mothers and fathers making one final phone call to their children; office workers who moments earlier were deciding where to have dinner now deciding whether to be consumed by flames or leap to their deaths; dutiful police and firefighters rushing into the World Trade Center, never to come out again; a long plume of smoke rising from the grey rubble of what had been great edifices bustling with commercial activity, as America-haters, domestic and foreign, began to babble about chickens coming home to roost.

In much of the media, what happened will no doubt be described as a tragedy, rather than what it was: an act of war and an atrocity. We’ll hear only a little about al-Qaida’s current status, and next to nothing about its relationship to the Islamic State group and the Islamic Republic of Iran, about how the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Shabab, Boko Haram and Lashkar-e-Taiba fit into the picture.

President George W. Bush responded to 9/11 with energy and determination. But his approach was flawed: “Terrorism” is not the enemy; it is only a weapon deployed by the enemy. As for the misused word “terror,” it is a synonym for fear, and a “war on fear” is not a serious concept.

President Barack Obama’s approach has been worse: He has maintained that we face nothing more than “violent extremists” motivated by “grievances.” That obfuscates rather than explains who our enemies are, what they believe, and what they intend.

Fifteen years ago, most of those who watched the passenger planes crashing into the twin towers and the Pentagon understood that the world was about to change. And it has. For one thing, it should now be apparent that the vision many people had of the world becoming a “global village” — with everyone interconnected and interdependent, holding similar views, and wanting more or less the same things — was incorrect.

On the contrary, the world is divergent.

The civilization that has evolved in the West is pluralistic and tolerant. Go to any major city in America or Europe or Israel, for that matter: You’ll see a broad variety of religious and ethnic groups coexisting, their basic human and civil rights protected.

The same cannot be said about what we have come to call the Islamic world.

In what used to be Syria and Iraq, Christians, Yazidis and other minorities are facing genocide. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Ahmadi Muslims have been fleeing Pakistan for decades. Jews were driven out of Baghdad, Cairo and Damascus more than half century ago, and the small Jewish community left in Iran, along with the remaining Zoroastrians and Christians, are inferiors under the Islamic republic’s laws, while the Bahai suffer unrelenting persecution. Wherever Islamists establish themselves, from Mali to Bangladesh to Indonesia, Muslims with moderate rather than militant interpretations of their faith are targeted.

The divisions are only deepening between the multicultural world, where those who wield power accept and even welcome the “other,” and the increasingly monocultural world where medievalists enslave, expel and slaughter the “other.”

Those who argue that the waves of Middle Eastern and North African migrants arriving in Europe are simply an inevitable aspect of “globalization” have been misinformed. There’s nothing “global” about it. Raqqa, Tehran and Gaza City are not becoming more like Western cities. Western cities could, however, end up more like Raqqa, Tehran and Gaza.

Of course, many of the migrants in Europe will treasure the freedom they find. Many will embrace human rights and what we call “universal values” — which are, I’d argue, actually Western, post-Enlightenment values — as well as “modernization,” by which I suspect we really mean “Westernization.”

But some will not. Instead, they will live in separate communities that also may be thought of as ghettoes, or colonies. They will insist on the supremacy of their divinely inspired laws over rules made by mere mortals.

They will not engage in respectful debate with those who disagree. They will label them infidels or apostates or blasphemers. They will threaten them and, if that does not produce acquiescence, they will murder them (as they have done several times in Paris and Nice). From their perspective, the democratic experiment of recent centuries has been a mistake and a failure. They will do what they can to hasten its demise.

Their success is not inevitable. But it is hardly impossible. And, if Western leaders continue on the present course, it may be likely.

The 15th anniversary of 9/11 should be a time to think hard about what happened and why and what we are prepared to do to stop those determined to do it again. Many of us are tired of fighting. Many of us — including many on our campuses, of all places — are no longer inspired by what previous generations called “liberty.” Such people talk about “rights” and “social justice,” but what they really mean are “entitlements.”

But some of us are convinced that nothing is more urgent than defending Western civilization, its diverse cultures and ways of living. If we do not, on the 9/11 anniversary in a generation or two, the world may indeed look like a global village — with those in power celebrating, rather than mourning, what happened on a sunshiny Tuesday morning long ago.

Categories: 9/11, Islamic hatred of others
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Can We Remember the Americans Murdered on 9-11 Without Mentioning the Murderers?

September 11, 2016

Can We Remember the Americans Murdered on 9-11 Without Mentioning the Murderers? Breitbart, Tom Tancredo, September 10, 2016

(Caution: “Islamophobia!” — DM)

twin-towers-640x480Spencer Platt/Getty Images

At a community college in California last week, a student group was denied permission to hold a 9-11 commemoration because it would make some students “uncomfortable.”

We shake our heads in bewilderment at such extremes of political correctness. And yet, the rest of the country is not far behind in towing the line.

Many of the prominent 9-11 “remembrance” ceremonies announced for the 15th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attack have something missing. The really uncomfortable thing is that we all know what that missing something is: there will be no naming of Islamic radicalism as the motivation and the instrument of the murder of thousands of innocent people on that beautiful September morning fifteen years ago.

Yes, there will be mention of this documented fact in some news commentaries and obviously, in personal conversations by millions of Americans — because we all know it to be true. But it is significant and profoundly disturbing that in the OFFICIAL 9- 11 commemoration ceremonies across the country, it will be considered “islamophobic” to name Islamic radicalism as the reason for that horrific loss of life.

What is going on here? Do we commemorate the sinking of the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg? Do we commemorate the Civil War without mentioning slavery? Do we commemorate Pearl Harbor Day without mentioning Admiral Tojo or D-Day without mentioning Hitler? No. But we are commemorating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil without mentioning who attacked us. Why?

The answer is as simple as it is troublesome: We are allowing the political establishment to hold our 9-11 remembrance ceremonies hostage to political correctness. Everyone laughs at political correctness run amok in our entertainment industry, our universities, and our news media, but who will stand up to it when it captures and corrupts our national recognition of both our loss and a war that is not yet won?

My home state of Colorado is no different. Our Governor will preside over a colorful and patriotic ceremony at Denver’s Civic Center Park involving a flyover, bell chimes commemorating the 9-11 victims, and special recognition of the over 400 firefighters and law enforcement officers who died at the World Trade Center.

And, of course, there will be rock music bands as part of the “remembrance” — how else can they attract 40,000 citizens to Civic Center Park on a warm Sunday afternoon in September? But in between the rock music and the military spectacles and the chimes, there will be no mention by the Governor of Colorado of the identities or motivations of the 19 terrorists who attacked our nation that day– or of the continuing jihad waged against America by radical Islam.

Like other ceremonies across the nation, the afternoon of September 11, 2016 will be a recognition of the bravery and sacrifice of our military and our first responders, and all that is all good and necessary. Every day we have reason to be grateful for their sacrifices. But on this very special day, any mention of the REASON for this event, the REASON we gather in solemn remembrance, would be considered in bad taste. No one must spoil the festive atmosphere by reminding people of who killed thousands of Americans fifteen years ago and who continue to plot more bloody massacres while we celebrate the healing powers of diversity.

The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado represents dozens of religious faiths in dedication to social justice and human rights. Presumably, human rights are threatened by terrorism, but the progressive organization’s web page is silent on terrorism. The organization’s events calendar finds space for listing a late September event held in support of a higher Minimum Wage, but strangely, it has no room for mention of the September 11 remembrance rally in Denver. Evidently, the rock bands were not enough.

Making some Americans “uncomfortable” by the mention of Islamist radicalism is a small price to pay compared to the price our military and first responders are asked to pay every day of the lives.

College students or young urban millennials who demand we love all mankind and all religions equally might not be as “uncomfortable” as the first responders rushing into a burning building, the police officers confronting an Islamist terrorist armed with a suicide belt, or the parents of a soldier killed in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban, an Islamist outfit not well known for its celebration of diversity.

Mentioning radical Islam as the culprit in our remembrance of both heroes and victims of the 9-11 attacks would indeed make some people “uncomfortable.” But forgive me for thinking that maybe that is what we need this September as much as candles, chimes and rock music.

Categories: 9/11, Radical Islam
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Paul Simon at Ground Zero- Sounds of Silence – Hebrew Subtitles

September 11, 2016

 

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

US seethes over PM’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ video

September 11, 2016

Source: US seethes over PM’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ video – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

Netanyahu: A Palestinian state with pre-condition of no Jews is outrageous

 PM Netanyahu: Dear Arab citizens of Israel–take part in our society in droves. (photo credit:screenshot)

 Washington expressed outrage on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized as “outrageous” the world’s apparent acquiescence in the Palestinian demand for a future state without Jews.

While Israel has nearly two million Arabs living inside its borders, the Palestinian leadership “actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: no Jews,” Netanyahu said in a video released by his office.

“There’s a phrase for that,” Netanyahu said. “It’s called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous.”

What is even more outrageous, he added, is that the world “doesn’t find this outrageous.

Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”

Since when, he asked, is “bigotry a foundation for peace?” Within hours of the video being uploaded on Friday on Netanyahu’s Facebook pages, State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau was asked about it at the daily press briefing, and roundly condemned it.

“We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank.

“We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful. We share the view of every past US administration, and the strong consensus of the international community, that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution,” she added.

Netanyahu began the brief, two-minute video by saying that he has always been “perplexed” by the notion that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, since no one would seriously claim that the Arabs living inside Israel are an obstacle.

Trudeau did not respond to that part of Netanyahu’s message, focusing instead on continued settlement activity.

“Let’s be clear,” she stated. “The undisputed fact is that already this year, thousands of settlement units have been advanced for Israelis in the West Bank, illegal outposts and unauthorized settlement units have been retroactively legalized, more West Bank land has been seized for exclusive Israeli use, and there has been a dramatic escalation of demolitions resulting in over 700 Palestinian structures destroyed, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians.

“As we’ve said many times before, this does raise real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank.”

Asked whether the administration was going to ask Netanyahu to “walk back” the video, Trudeau said, “We’ll have our conversation with our Israeli allies and friends and we’ll see where that goes.”

The brief video is the eighth that Netanyahu has made since David Keyes took over from Mark Regev as Netanyahu’s English spokesman in March. The Prime Minister’s Office views these videos as a very effective way to get the premier’s unfiltered message out to millions of people. Some 750,000 people have seen this video since it was uploaded Friday, and the number of those who have seen the others – which have dealt with issues varying from Israeli Arabs to gay rights – have been seen by tens of millions of people.

The PMO, not wanting to get into a tit-for-tat with the State Department, had no response to Washington’s sharp reaction.

One government official, however, advised not looking for any meaning in the timing of the video, saying it was designed to highlight an “outrageous Palestinian demand.” The “ethnic cleansing” argument that Netanyahu stressed in the video has been tucked into previous speeches he has made, but never underlined to such a degree.

The official said this was “one step” in the direction of getting the world to pay attention to this demand.

Palestinian leaders have on a number of occasions stressed that all settlements would have to be completely removed from a future Palestinian state. For instance, in July of 2013, just prior to the start of US-led Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists in Cairo that “in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.”

And at a dinner in 2010 with Jewish leaders in the US hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, he said, “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.

We are not against the Jews.

We are against the Israeli occupation.”

The Zionist Union’s Tzipi Livni responded to the video, saying that the US is now saying that all the settlements are obstacles to peace, including those inside the large settlement blocs, while in the past Israel received recognition for those blocs.

“I worked to get diplomatic benefit while paying a political price, while Netanyahu is trying to get political benefit while paying a diplomatic price,” she said.

Ayman Odeh, head of the Joint List, slammed Netanyahu for comparing Israeli Arabs to “settlers.”

Netanyahu, he said, “is comparing a minority born here, who has lived in the place for generations, which Israel came and foisted itself upon, to settlers that were transferred against international law to occupied territory, all the while trampling the human rights of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza.”

But reality, he said, “never bothered Netanyahu.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment