Archive for September 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Ending the Palestinian Exception

September 27, 2016

Ending the Palestinian Exception, Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, September 27, 2016

palestinian_demonstration_against_demolish_of_the_village_susya-e1433517117362

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Ahead of Monday night’s first presidential debate, Rudolph Giuliani – former New York mayor and Republican nominee Donald Trump’s current adviser – spoke at the Israeli American Council’s annual conference. Four days of intense debate preparation with Trump preceded the talk. Giuliani insisted the time has come for the US to “reject the whole notion of a two-state solution in Israel.”

It can only be hoped that regardless of who prevails in November, Giuliani’s statement will become the official position of the next US administration.

In his speech before the UN General Assembly last week PLO and Fatah chief and unelected Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said many things to drive home the basic point that he is not interested in peace with Israel. He is interested in destroying Israel. But one particular demand stands out.

It stands out not because it is new. It isn’t new.

Abbas says it all the time and his advisers say it all the time. They say it to Palestinian and international audiences alike, and it always is met with support or at least sympathy.

Abbas demanded that Israel stop arresting Palestinian terrorists and release all Palestinian terrorists from its prisons. That is, he demanded that Israel allow thousands of convicted terrorists to walk free and refrain from doing anything to interfere with terrorists engaged planning and carrying out the murder of its citizens.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians support this demand. And so does the US government.

During US Secretary of State John Kerry’s failed peace process in 2013-14, President Barack Obama and Kerry embraced Abbas’s demand that Israel release 104 terrorist murderers from its prisons as a precondition for agreeing to negotiate with the Jewish state.

Bowing to US pressure, Israel released 78 terrorists from its jails in three tranches. Ahead of the fourth scheduled release, Abbas and his advisers bragged that they would cut off talks with Israel as soon as the last group of terrorist murderers were released.

That is, they admitted that the negotiations, such as they were, were nothing more than a means to achieve the goal of freeing murderers.

Rather than condemn Abbas and his colleagues for their cynical bad faith and repulsive immorality, the Obama administration chastised Israel for refusing to play along. When Israel responded to their statements by refusing to release the last group of 26 convicted terrorists, the administration accused Israel of breaching the terms of the negotiations.

Obama, Kerry and their advisers held Israel responsible for the talks’ failure.

It’s important to consider what Abbas’s demand for free-range terrorists says about him. It is important to ponder what the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are partners in this demand says about them as a society.

And it is worth pondering as well the strategic rationality and moral stature of a US government that supports this position.

As far as Abbas and the Palestinians are concerned, their refusal to view mass murderers as criminals tells us a great deal about who they are and what they want.

The Palestinian national movement they have come to embody was never about a deep-seated desire for national liberation. It was never about building “Palestine.”

From the time it was created by Amin el-Husseini in 1920, Palestinian identity has been about the negation of the Jewish national liberation movement – Zionism. And since Israel achieved independence in 1948, the Palestinians have defined themselves by their collective dedication to annihilating the Jewish state – hence their support for terrorists who kill Jews.

Husseini’s heir Yasser Arafat shared his view that terrorism was a both strategic goal in and of itself and a means to achieve the ultimate end of the Palestinian movement – that is, the violent eradication of Israel.

As the heir to both men, Abbas, like his sometimes partners and sometimes rivals in Hamas, has never been interested in building anything. And indeed, he hasn’t.

Consider what is loosely referred to as the “Palestinian economy.”

In an article published this week by the Hebrew-language online journal Mida, economist Uri Redler showed that the Palestinian economy isn’t actually an economy. It is an extortion racket.

Using World Bank data, Redler showed that the Palestinian economy is an optical illusion. In its 22 years of existence, the PA has almost entirely destroyed the private sector in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Seventy-five percent of its tax income comes from indirect taxes that Israel collects for it on imports. Forty percent of its budget comes from donors. Only 18% of it income comes from direct taxation. And most of that comes from deduction at source of PA employees.

Since Operation Protective Edge in 2014, only 15% of foreign aid toward the reconstruction of Gaza has been used for reconstruction projects. The rest of the money has been used as discretionary funds by Hamas. Seventy percent of the funds have come from American and EU taxpayers. This means that the US and the EU have been directly funding Hamas terrorists.

It is not surprising that the aid has been diverted.

And it is not surprising that the US and the EU have continued to provide money they know is being diverted by Hamas.

Hamas, like Fatah, has no interest in developing a Palestinian economy. Economic development doesn’t bring in the money. Terrorism does. Palestinians with economic freedom won’t be dependent on the likes of Abbas and his Hamas counterparts for their livelihoods. So they block all independent paths to prosperity.

Rather than build roads, the PA and Hamas pay people to kill Jews. The more Jews you kill, the more money you receive.

They can maintain this policy because the US and Europe pay them to do so. The more terrorism they commit, the more headlines the Palestinians receive. And the more headlines they receive, the more money they are paid by the UN and Western governments – to advance the cause of the “twostate solution.”

This then brings us to the US and Europe, and their unstinting support for Palestinian demands for the release of terrorists. What are they thinking? Earlier this month Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University Law School and the Kohelet Forum published a paper on the international community’s general interpretation of paragraph 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Protocol from 1949. The relevant clause states that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

As Kontorovich noted, this clause the forms the basis of the international community’s constant refrain that Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are illegal.

In other words, it forms the basis of the West’s case against Israel and, by extraction, for the Palestinians’.

Just last week during his speech before the UN General Assembly, Obama attacked Israel for its continued settlement activity.

Kontorovich investigated the same international community’s view of communities built by citizens of a dozen other states in lands occupied by their governments in armed conflicts.

He noted that the activities of Moroccans in the Western Sahara, of Turks in Northern Cyprus, of Indonesians in East Timor and of other nationals in multiple other territories are legally indistinguishable from Israel’s activities in the areas it took control over from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israel war.

In none of these other cases, however, has the US, EU, UN or any other international or national authority ever invoked the Fourth Geneva Convention or otherwise claimed that those activities are a breach of international law. In other words, the legal basis for the criminalization and political condemnation of Israel in relation to the Palestinians is entirely specious and discriminatory.

In other words, US support for the so-called two state solution, like the international community’s support for it, is really just a means of discriminating against Israel. It does not advance the cause of peace or justice, for Israelis or for Palestinians. It merely empowers terrorist gangsters to kill Israelis and extort both the Palestinians and the international community.

So again, Giuliani is absolutely right.

Categories: Abbas, Fatah, Israel - release of Palestinian terrorists, Israel and human rights, Israel settlements, Israeli security, Obama and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian economy, Palestinian heroes, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Two state solution, United Nations
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

After meat cleaver jihad attack and jihad bomb, New York launches ad campaign against “Islamophobia”

September 27, 2016

After meat cleaver jihad attack and jihad bomb, New York launches ad campaign against “Islamophobia”, Jihad Watch, , September 27, 2016

A Muslim slashed a New York cop with a meat cleaver on September 15. Another Muslim planted bombs in New York and New Jersey; one went off, wounding 29 people in Chelsea on September 17. In response, the city of New York is launching a campaign against jihad terror, calling on Muslims to institute honest, transparent, and inspectable programs inside New York mosques, teaching Muslims why they must reject jihad violence and any attempt, violent or stealthy, to bring Sharia to the U.S. They’re starting a “Stop Jihad” ad campaign on buses and subway cars.

I’m kidding, of course. None of that is happening. In reality, New York City is starting a campaign against “Islamophobia.” Because as far as New York authorities (and many others) are concerned, whenever Muslims attack non-Muslims, the real victims are…Muslims. The one thing we must remember after every jihad attack is that Muslims are victims who deserve special accommodation.

Imagine if FDR after Pearl Harbor had launched a campaign: “I am Japanese. I am USA.” He would have been accused of defeatism at best, and treason at worst. Muslims attacked New York City twice in September because they consider themselves to be jihadis at war with the United States. The proper response would be to fight that war, not to focus on the putative victimhood of other people who share the belief system and ideology of the enemy combatants.

iammuslim_banner

“New York launches ad campaign to fight anti-Muslim rhetoric, violence,” by Ellen Wulfhorst, Reuters, September 26, 2016:

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – New York City kicked off a social media advertising campaign on Monday to combat negative perceptions of Muslims and counteract increasing instances of threats and violence, officials said.

Showing an array of photographs of Muslim men and women, the campaign reads “I am Muslim. I am NYC”, according to the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

The campaign is aimed at addressing negative depictions and rhetoric, officials said.

Anti-Muslim sentiment has been playing a major role as the U.S. presidential race has heated up. Republican nominee Donald Trump claimed he saw thousands of people cheering after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and has called for shutting down mosques and banning Muslims from certain countries from entering the United States.

In New York, an Afghan-born man is accused of wounding 31 people in a bombing on Sept. 17 that authorities called a “terrorist act”. The suspect had embraced militant Islamic views, authorities say.

“Now more than ever, it is important for every New Yorker to stand united as one city and reject hate and violence,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement announcing the ad campaign.

“In New York, everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, agnostic and atheist — it doesn’t matter,” he said. “We are all New Yorkers and we all deserve to live safely and free from hatred or discrimination.”

Some 3.3 million Muslims live in the United States, and thousands live in New York City, according to the commission.

The ads will be placed on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram with the hashtag #IamMuslimNYC….

Categories: Islam in America, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, New York City
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Turns Blind Eye to Iranian Offenses in UN Speech

September 27, 2016

Obama Turns Blind Eye to Iranian Offenses in UN Speech, Clarion Project, Jennifer Breedon, September 27, 2016

obama-un-address-2016-hpU.S. President Barack Obama addresses the UN General Assembly on Sept. 20, 2016. (Photo: video screenshot)

The Iranian leader rightfully fears a future administration that may not be willing to tolerate a total disregard for international law or human rights, given that even President Obama’s positive nod to Iran at the UN was met with the label of “continued animosity.” 

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

In 2015, President Obama stated that Iran’s “support for terrorism” and “its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the Middle East” was problematic, despite the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the nuclear deal) that had been reached by that time that allowed Iran access to millions of previously frozen funds.

Yet, bafflingly, just five minutes after mentioning terror proxies in his 2016 UN address last week, President Obama seemed to turn a blind eye to Iran’s ongoing offenses by saying, “When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program, that enhances global security and enhances Iran’s ability to work with other nations.”

Today, Iran is poised to move funds to its global terror proxies more easily due to the infusion of cash created by the unfreezing of their assets.  Even John Kerry admitted in 2015 that some of the money going back to Iran through sanctions relief would undoubtedly go to fund terrorism.

So, we all know it is happening and yet nothing is being done to stop them or to even state this obvious fact aloud before the very body that is designed to protect against such international violations.

The UN Convention that prohibits terrorism financing explicitly outlines the illegality of any government that commits such an offense when it

“directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out . . . act(s) intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act” (Article 2(1)).  

Iran is guilty in spades of all of this.

Additionally, the Iranian government remains the U.S. State Department’s top proxy war and terror sponsor. Previous reports from the U.S. State Department note that Iran remains “unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaeda (AQ) members [and has] previously allowed AQ facilitators to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran.”

The State Department has also highlighted Iran’s provision of “hundreds of millions of dollars in support of H[e]zballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters . . . in direct support of the Assad regime in Syria” as well as terrorist groups in Palestine (Hamas), Yemen (Houthis) and “throughout the Middle East.”

President Obama’s appeals to the oppressive government of Iran have clearly fallen on deaf ears.  In a one-on-one with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd merely 24 hours after Obama’s UN speech, Iranian President Rouhani stated, “If the future administration of the United States wishes to continue animosity, it will receive the appropriate response.”

The Iranian leader rightfully fears a future administration that may not be willing to tolerate a total disregard for international law or human rights, given that even President Obama’s positive nod to Iran at the UN was met with the label of “continued animosity.”

No amount of vocal, material or financial appeasement can ease relations with the State Department’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.  Despite repeated efforts by President Obama, it will not get better until the Iranian regime abandons its practice of funding terrorism, inciting proxy wars throughout the Middle East, and oppressing their own people by using their resources to build and test weapons before providing the infrastructure needed to create a stable economy and free society for their people.

While Iranian civilians and citizens were in dire economic straits with very little government reprieve or resource allocation to ease their conditions prior to the Nuclear Deal sanctions relief, the Iranian regime was spending over $6 billion per year to support the Assad regime in Syria in its efforts to ensure a Shiite majority in the region.

The Iranian regime must be held accountable for its non-adherence to international law and its desire to finance terror globally in places like Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.

It must be held responsible for using funds to bankroll violence and oppression instead of providing basic necessities and freedoms for its own people.  As Obama said at the UN this year, Iran must “listen to voices of young people everywhere who call out for freedom, and dignity, and the opportunity to control their own lives.”

Rouhani made it clear that, despite all of the steps we’ve taken, including acknowledging them positively at the UN General Assembly, nothing the U.S. has done has thawed our relationship with Iran or helped to improve the security of people living in the areas ruled by Iran or its terror proxies.

Our leaders must continue to speak out against Iran’s human rights violations and the financing of terror if we ever hope to see change and remain a positive beacon of democracy and freedom.

 

Categories: Iran - human rights, Iran and international law, Iran and terror, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Obama and Iran, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama at the UN, Rouhani
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Abbas to Arab Leaders: Go to Hell!

September 27, 2016

Abbas to Arab Leaders: Go to Hell!

by Khaled Abu Toameh

September 26, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Abbas to Arab Leaders: Go to Hell!

 

  • Abbas and Fatah leaders in Ramallah claim that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (the “Arab Quartet”) are using and promoting Abbas’s rival, Mohamed Dahlan, in order to facilitate their mission of rapprochement with Israel.
  • Many Palestinians were surprised to see veteran Palestinian official Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister and one of the architects of the Oslo Accord, come out in favor of the Arab plan, which basically envisions ousting Abbas from power.
  • This, and not Israeli policy, is Abbas’s true nightmare. After all, he knows that without Israel’s presence in the West Bank, his regime would have long fallen into the hands of Hamas or even his political rivals in Fatah.
  • The “Arab Quartet” plan shows that some Arab countries are indeed fed up with Abbas’s failure to lead his people towards a better life. These states, which have long been politically and financially supportive of the Palestinians, have had enough of Abbas’s efforts to secure unending power — at the direct cost of the well-being of his people.

In his speech last week before the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas trotted out his usual charges against Israel, citing “collective punishment,” “house demolitions,” “extrajudicial executions” and “ethnic cleansing.” However, Abbas’s thoughts seem to be elsewhere these days. He is facing a new challenge from unexpected parties, namely several Arab countries that have come together to demand that he reform his ruling Fatah faction and pave the way for the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership.

Yet this was not included in the UN speech. Indeed, why would Abbas share with world leaders that his Arab brothers are pressuring him to introduce major reforms in Fatah and end a decade-long power struggle with Hamas that has resulted in the creation of two separate Palestinian entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Abbas, his aides admit, is today more worried about the “Arab meddling” in the internal affairs of the Palestinians than he is about “collective punishment” or “settlement activities.” In fact, he is so worried that he recently lashed out at those Arab countries that have launched an initiative to “re-arrange the Palestinian home from within” and bring about changes in the Palestinian political scene.

The Arab countries behind the initiative — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates — are being referred to by many Palestinians as the “Arab Quartet.”

In an unprecedented critique of these countries, Abbas recently declared:

“The decision is ours and we are the only ones who make decisions. No one has authority over us. No one can dictate to us what to do. I don’t care about the discomfort of Washington or Moscow or other capitals. I don’t want to hear about these capitals. I don’t want the money of these capitals. Let’s free ourselves from the ‘influence’ of these capitals.”

Although he did not mention the four Arab countries by name, it was clear that Abbas was referring to the “Arab Quartet” when he was talking about “capitals” and their influence and money. Abbas’s message: “How dare any Arab country tell me what to do, no matter how wealthy and influential it may be.” Abbas sees the demand by these Arab countries for new Palestinian leadership, unity and reforms in Fatah as “unacceptable meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians.”

So what exactly is it in the new Arab initiative that has so enraged Abbas, to the point that he is prepared to place at risk his relations with four of the Arab world’s preeminent states?

According to reports in Arab media outlets, the “Arab Quartet” has drafted a plan to “activate the Palestinian portfolio” by ending the dispute between Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas. The plan also calls for ending the schism within Fatah by allowing some of its expelled leaders, including Mohamed Dahlan, to return to the faction. The overall aim of the plan is to unite the West Bank and Gaza Strip under one authority and end the state of political anarchy in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The “Arab Quartet” has even formed a committee to oversee the implementation of any “reconciliation” agreements reached between Fatah and Hamas and Abbas and his adversaries in Fatah. According to the plan, if such an agreement is not reached, the Arab League will intervene to “enforce reconciliation” between the rival Palestinian parties.

When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN General Assembly on Sept. 22, 2016, he did not share with world leaders that his Arab brothers are pressuring him to introduce major reforms in his Fatah faction, and allow some of its expelled leaders, including Abbas’s rival Mohamed Dahlan (inset), to return.

Abbas’s main concern is not a “reconciliation” with Hamas. In fact, he has repeatedly expressed his readiness to form a unity government with Hamas and end the dispute with the Islamist movement. In recent weeks, there has even been renewed talk of Fatah-Hamas talks in Qatar to achieve “unity” and “reconciliation” between the two rival parties. Rather, it is the attempt to coerce Abbas into reconciling with Dahlan that is really getting to the PA president. In the view of a source close to Abbas, he (Abbas) would rather make peace with Hamas than “swallow the cup of poison” of patching things up with Dahlan.

Abbas harbors a very particular dislike for Dahlan. Until five years ago, Dahlan was a senior Fatah official who had long been closely associated with Abbas. Once, Abbas and Dahlan, a former security commander in the Gaza Strip, formed an alliance against Yasser Arafat, the former president of the PA. But the honeymoon between Abbas and Dahlan came to an end a few tears ago after the Abbas and his lieutenants in Ramallah began suspecting that Dahlan has ambitions to replace or succeed Abbas. At the request of Abbas, Dahlan was expelled from Fatah and accused of murder, financial corruption and conspiring to overthrow Abbas’s regime. From his exile in the United Arab Emirates, Dahlan has since been waging a campaign against the 81-year-old Abbas, accusing him and his two wealthy sons of running the PA as if it were their private fiefdom.

Such is Abbas’s contempt for Dahlan that last week he reportedly instructed the PA authorities to ban Dahlan’s wife, Jalilah, from entering the Gaza Strip. Jalilah runs and funds a number of charities in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Her activities are seen by Abbas as an attempt to build power bases for her husband and pave the way for his return to the political scene. Abbas’s decision to ban her from entering the Gaza Strip came following reports that she and her husband were planning to organize and fund a collective wedding for dozens of impoverished Palestinian couples. The funding, of course, comes from the United Arab Emirates, whose rulers have been providing the Dahlan couple with shelter and money for several years.

When Abbas says that he “does not want the money” of certain Arab capitals, then, he is referring to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. He strongly suspects that these two wealthy countries are investing funds in Dahlan as part of a scheme to replace him and pave the way for the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership. For Abbas, who has refused to name a deputy or promote a potential successor, this is a very serious threat to his autocratic rule and a “conspiracy” by outside parties against him and his Palestinian Authority leadership.

Abbas and Fatah leaders in Ramallah are convinced that the “Arab Quartet” members are actually planning to pave the way for promoting “normalization” between the Arab world and Israel — all at the expense of the Palestinians. They claim that the four Arab countries are using and promoting Dahlan in order to facilitate their mission of rapprochement with Israel. These countries have reached the conclusion that as long as Abbas and the current PA leadership are around, it would be very difficult to initiate any form of “normalization” or peace treaties between Arab countries and Israel. The PA leadership’s position has always been that peace between the Arab countries and Israel should come only after, and not before, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved.

According to Palestinian political analyst Mustafa Ibrahim:

“The plan of the Arab Quartet prepares for the transitional post-Abbas era and negotiations for peace between Arab countries and Israel. The plan is designed to serve the interests of Arab regimes more than ending divisions among the Palestinians. The goal is to eliminate the Palestinian cause and find an alternative to President Abbas.”

This analysis reflects the views of Abbas and his veteran Palestinian Authority leaders in Ramallah, who continue to be extremely wary of any talk about succession in the PA leadership.

Interestingly, the “Arab Quartet” initiative for now seems to have divided Palestinian officials, with some welcoming it, and others rejecting it.

Criticizing Abbas and the Fatah leadership for coming out against the plan, Hassan Asfour, a senior Fatah official and former PA minister of state, urged Abbas to reconsider his “impractical, irrational and hasty” decision to dismiss the initiative of the four Arab countries. Asfour pointed out that Abbas’s recent criticism of these countries was “harmful” and “unjustified.” Abbas’s close aides have retorted by claiming that Asfour was a political ally of Dahlan and therefore has a clear agenda.

Many Palestinians were surprised to see veteran Palestinian official Ahmed Qurei, a former PA prime minister and one of the architects of the Oslo Accord, come out in favor of the “Arab Quartet” plan, which basically envisions ousting Abbas from power. Abbas’s close advisors claim that Qurei has joined Dahlan in his effort to bring about regime change in Ramallah.

Dahlan, for his part, has launched his own initiative by calling for an “expanded” gathering of Palestinian factions in Cairo, to discuss ways of bringing about real change in the Palestinian political arena. Thus, Dahlan has moved from behind-the-scenes activities to topple Abbas to public moves. And in this he enjoys the political and financial backing of at least four important Arab countries that would also like to see an end to the Abbas era. This is the first time that a senior Palestinian official has openly challenged the PA leadership with the support of Arab countries. It is predicted that at least 600 people will attend the Dahlan-sponsored conference in the Egyptian capital. The PA leadership is now threatening to retaliate against anyone who attends the conference by cutting off their salaries. This will only deepen the crisis in Abbas’s Fatah and yield yet more infighting.

Abbas undoubtedly had these thoughts in mind when he addressed the UN General Assembly — the new Arab “conspiracy” to replace him with Dahlan, or someone else. This, and not Israeli policy, is Abbas’s true nightmare. After all, he knows that without Israel’s presence in the West Bank, his regime would have long fallen into the hands of Hamas or even his political rivals in Fatah.

The “Arab Quartet” plan shows that some Arab countries are indeed fed up with Abbas’s failure to lead his people towards a better life. These states, which have long been politically and financially supportive of the Palestinians, have had enough of Abbas’s efforts to secure unending power — at the direct cost of the well-being of his people. It will not take long before we see whether these Arab countries, now mocked by Abbas, will succeed in ridding the Palestinians of leaders who lead them toward nothing but ruin.

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

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Clinton is not a friend of Israel

September 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton is not a friend of Israel, Israel National News, Aviel Shewin-Stevens, September 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton is campaigning on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as she did in the Senate, and Obama did twice for the presidency. As Secretary of State, she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period when she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State. American voters should not let her get away with hiding her true self. Israel-focused Americans should vote for Republicans in Senate and congressional races, as well as for Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton has collapsed her election.

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

Hillary Clinton has a lifetime of anti-Israel positions. She said she was a big supporter of Israel when she was in the U.S. Senate, when she needed campaign contributions from American Jews and New York’s Jewish voting bloc. She has not been pro-Israel since her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009.

When Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, she helped Barack Obama craft his anti-Israel positions. Like other presidents, Obama made his own policy; he fundamentally transformed America’s foreign policy. He reoriented America’s Middle East policy in favor of the ayatollahs, to make Iran the regional superpower, disadvantaging America’s traditional allies: Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab monarchies. Like other secretaries of state, Hillary had the option of resigning if she did not agree with the foreign policy, but she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama.

Hillary Clinton made an official visit to the Middle East in November 1999, when her husband was the president. During the visit, Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestine leader Yasser Arafat, made slanderous allegations in her presence: “Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.” Suha Arafat also accused Israel of contaminating the water sources used by Palestinians with “chemical materials” and “poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.”

Hillary listened to a real-time translation of the accusations without objections. She also hugged and kissed Suha Arafat when she finished speaking. Twelve hours passed without a word from Hillary. Only when she saw the public outcry did she call Suha Arafat’s words “inflammatory.” She also called on all sides to refrain from “inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations,” including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.

Then Hillary did what she and her husband often do when they mess up: She blamed others. First she blamed the translator, though the Palestinians would have assigned one of their most capable translators to handle a major speech by the wife of the Palestinian leader. She then tried to blame the Americans traveling with her, who, she said, told her that Suha Arafat’s remarks were “not worthy of any particular comment.” She also blamed her husband: If she were not the First Lady, she could have spoken up sooner.

Hillary should not have been there. Her advisers told her that traveling to the Territories in the middle of a difficult peace process and her own Senate race was to court disaster. Perhaps the sumptuous trappings of overseas travel as First Lady won out. When Republicans questioned her actions, she responded with arrogance: “It is unfortunate that there are any questions about what was a very straightforward occasion.” Most Americans would not agree that public accusations that an American ally was engaging in chemical genocide make for a “straightforward occasion.” Till now, Hillary Clinton has not specifically contradicted nor denounced the lies uttered by Suha Arafat in her presence.

Hillary Clinton became a supporter of Israel in her Senate years because she needed the Jewish vote and campaign contributions. After becoming the Secretary of State, one of her first actions was to call for the end of construction of new homes for Jews in existing neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Territories, contravening an existing U.S./Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. This was a major error by the Hillary Clinton State Department, compounded by the inclusion of Jerusalem. Elliot Abrams, who negotiated the agreement for the U.S., stated that the agreement was valid.

In early 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded the “settlement” freeze and was quickly supported by Obama. The Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue as an opportunity to avoid negotiations. They used the demands for a “settlement” freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before she became Secretary of State.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced a ten-month “settlement” freeze. It was approved by the Israeli cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from America, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first nine months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.

As the end of the “settlement” freeze approached, the U.S. asked Israel to extend the freeze. Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, based on their experience with Hillary denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration. The written offer never came; Hillary was not negotiating in good faith.

In 2011, speaking at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the left-wing Brookings Institution, Hillary Clinton attempted to delegitimize Israel as a free nation by expressing concern for Israel’s social climate in the wake of limitations regarding female singing in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel. She said the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing reminded her of the situation in Iran. Whereas, in Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel the women sang, but some people, exercising their personal freedom, felt it was against their religious beliefs and were allowed to walk out. In the IDF, most senior officers supported the women’s right to sing.

Hillary Clinton also spoke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women, at the request of both men and women who are stringently Orthodox, and compared it to the segregation era in America. She said “it’s reminiscent of Rosa Parks.” Her statement was part of the continued attempt to de-legitimize Israeli democracy by the Obama administration.

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s email scandals, the media coverage of her emails from her close friend Sidney Blumenthal has mostly been about his recommendations about Libya; however, he also sent many emails about Israel. Some of them consisted of forwarding articles from his anti-Semitic son, writer Max Blumenthal, but others were recommendations of policies describing Israel as the oppressor.

As reported by the National Review Online: Blumenthal sent dozens of e-mails advising Clinton on Israel in 2010. Before her March speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Blumenthal sent Clinton an article from left-wing Israeli writer Uri Avnery accusing the Netanyahu government of “starting a rebellion” against America and defending interests that diverge from America’s. Clinton responded: “I have to speak to AIPAC tomorrow…How — and should I — use this [sic]?” Blumenthal said he will send another memo the next day.

In that memo, he told Hillary to “hold Bibi [Binyamin Netanyahu]’s feet to the fire” on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: “Perhaps most controversial would be to remind [AIPAC] in as subtle but also direct a way as you can that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion. Bibi is stage managing US Jewish organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster) against the administration. AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, specifically Likud.” Whereas, AIPAC favors Israel’s left-wing parties, and is becoming more so in reaction to J-Street, the group formed to give political cover to Obama among liberal Jews. J-Street professes to be pro-Israel, and pro-peace, but its public pronouncements regularly attack the policies of the Israeli government, and back all pressure Obama directs at Israel.

On May 17, Blumenthal forwarded Hillary an article on the Israeli government’s decision to deny pro-Palestine activist Noam Chomsky access to the Territories. Blumenthal wrote that: “Barring him for his political opinions has created a needless PR disaster. The US should not be a passive onlooker…The US effort on his behalf to gain entry should be part of the story.” Hillary forwarded the memo to her staff with instructions to “pls print 3 copies.” Chomsky is anti-Israel and has been fierce in his opposition to Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism, and had been banned from the country since 2010.

In an e-mail from May 31 entitled “Several observations on the Israeli raid,” Blumenthal blamed Netanyahu’s family “inferiority complex” for his decision to launch a raid on the “Gaza Flotilla,” a group of ships seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza: “Bibi desperately seeks his father’s approbation and can never equal his dead brother.” Blumenthal then hinted that the raid was deliberately orchestrated to kill the peace process and humiliate Obama before his scheduled visit with the prime minister. Hillary forwarded the message to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department, and she wrote: “FYI and I told you so.”

On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks published a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to WikiLeaks. The DNC is the governing body of the United States’ Democratic Party. The leak caused the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda. The leak revealed attempts to smear Bernie Sanders, a candidate in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, with information that might damage him. Wasserman Schultz called Jeff Weaver, manager of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, a “damn liar.” The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

The DNC wanted to use Sanders’s Jewish heritage and lack of religious belief against him. In one of the email chains, Marshall told Dacey that someone should ask Sanders if he is an atheist: “Get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God [sic]. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” The DNC announced Wasserman Schultz would not gavel open the Democratic Party’s convention. Hillary subsequently appointed Wasserman Schultz chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign’s “50 state program.”

There is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. The most important job she ever held was as the Secretary of State, heading the U.S. Department of State, principally concerned with foreign affairs. Under her watch as Secretary of State, American foreign policy had one setback after another, separated by disasters. She orchestrated the U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, which led to terrorist chaos in Libya and Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt.

Under Hillary’s watch as Secretary of State was the radical transformation of American foreign policy and the historic catastrophe — permitting Iranians to develop nuclear  weapons while making it difficult for Israel to stop them. Obama’s years-long negotiations with Iran allowed time to multiply, disperse, and fortify Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Obama administration’s leakage of Israel’s secret agreement with Azerbaijan, allowing Israeli warplanes to refuel if attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, sabotaged any Israeli attempt to destroy Iranian facilities.

In the 2009 Iranian Green Movement, in which protesters demanded the removal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from office, Hillary Clinton was intent on “engagement” with the world’s most dangerous regime and vilest state-sponsor of terrorism. She cut funding to organizations supporting Iranian human rights, then sat by as thousands of Iranians were imprisoned, tortured and executed. She repeatedly watered down sanctions against Iran, and it was during her tenure that negotiations began with the Ahmadinejad regime, culminating in the Iranian deal, which she supported, and still supports: Iran could develop nuclear weapons and the ayatollahs get $150 billion.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, Libya, Syria and Yemen are the dark forces in Israel’s neighborhood. They could have looked different today had Hillary not betrayed America’s democratic values with her “smart power.” Hillary, as well as Obama, sought to put distance diplomatically between America and Israel.

She berated Netanyahu publicly for announcing Jerusalem home building, compared Israel to an apartheid regime, correlated the status of women in Israel to that in Iran, demanded reckless concessions from Israel to promote “peace talks” while never making serious demands of the Palestinian Authority or ever holding it accountable, granted legitimacy to George Soros-sponsored J Street, made a false equivalency between terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s attempts to defend itself, questioned Israel’s commitment to its American alliance, rejected the legitimacy of all Jewish construction across the Green Line including Jerusalem neighborhoods, etc.

Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration when he talked about the truth of the internationally supported Palestinian Arab demand that Israel must transfer control over Jerusalem and the Territories to the Palestinians Jew-free. From its first days in office, the Obama administration rejected the civil rights of Jews as Jews in these areas and seeks the complete negation of their rights through destruction, mass expulsion, and property seizure: ethnic cleansing. So if Hillary were elected president, her administration could be an Obama third term: the American people could be left unprotected from Islamic terrorists, and Israel could face unprecedented pressure to submit to Palestinian Arab terrorists.

The Republicans have become the pro-Israel party. Democrats talk about their commitment to Israel, but when Hillary and Obama were abusing Israel diplomatically, there was no pushback from congressional Democrats. Even the Jewish Democrats in Congress always stood with the administration. Whereas, Republicans have stood up for Israel unapologetically, and just passed the most pro-Israel platform in American history.

The blatant anti-Semitism displayed at the 2016 Democratic National Convention merits a mention: Booing any mention of Israel, chanting “Intifada”, burning the Israeli flag, etc. The Democrats do not even try to disguise their disdain for Jews any more. Nevertheless, a vast majority of American Jews could still vote for Hillary and other Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is campaigning on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as she did in the Senate, and Obama did twice for the presidency. As Secretary of State, she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period when she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State. American voters should not let her get away with hiding her true self. Israel-focused Americans should vote for Republicans in Senate and congressional races, as well as for Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton has collapsed her election.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump and Israel, Hillary Clinton and Israel, Obama and Israel
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Jihadists Target Spain: “The actions of your ancestors are the reason for our actions today.”

September 27, 2016

Jihadists Target Spain “The actions of your ancestors are the reason for our actions today.”

by Soeren Kern

September 27, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Jihadists Target Spain: “The actions of your ancestors are the reason for our actions today.”

  • The Islamic State document said that since the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478, Spain “has done everything to destroy the Koran.” It said that Spain tortured Muslims, including burning them alive. Therefore, according to the Islamic State, “Spain is a criminal state that usurps our land.” The document calls on jihadists to “reconnoiter airline and train routes for attacks.” It also calls on followers to “poison food and water” with insecticides.
  • “We will kill any ‘innocent’ Spanish infidel we find in Muslim lands, and… whether we are European in origin or not, we will kill you in your cities and towns according to our plan.” — Islamic State document, May 30, 2016.
  • “We will recover al-Andalus, Allah willing. Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you. No Muslim can forget Córdoba, Toledo or Xàtiva. There are many faithful and sincere Muslims who swear they will return to al-Andalus.” — Islamic State video, January 31, 2016.
  • “Spain is the land of our forefathers and we are going to take it back with the power of Allah.” — Islamic State video, January 7, 2016.

Islamic militants are stepping up a propaganda war against Spain. In recent months, Islamic State and other jihadist groups have produced a flurry of videos and documents calling on Muslims to reconquer al-Andalus.

Al-Andalus is the Arabic name given to those parts of Spain, Portugal and France occupied by Muslim conquerors (also known as the Moors) from 711 to 1492. Many Muslims believe that territories Muslims lost during the Christian Reconquest of Spain still belong to the realm of Islam. They claim that Islamic law gives them the right to re-establish Muslim rule there.

A recent Islamic State document includes a list of grievances against Spain for wrongs done to Muslims since the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa on July 16, 1212, when the Christian forces of King Alfonso VIII of Castile routed the Almohad Muslim rulers of the southern half of the Iberian Peninsula. More than 100,000 Muslims were killed in the battle, which was a key victory in the Catholic Monarchs’ “Reconquista” of Spain.

The document said that since the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478, Spain “has done everything to destroy the Koran.” It said that Spain tortured Muslims, including burning them alive. Therefore, according to the Islamic State, “Spain is a criminal state that usurps our land.” The document calls on jihadists to “reconnoiter airline and train routes for attacks.” It also calls on followers to “poison food and water” with insecticides.

The document concludes: “The actions of your ancestors are the reason for our actions today.”

On July 15, 2016, Islamic State released its first propaganda video with Spanish subtitles. The high quality of the Spanish translation, both in writing and in syntax, led some analysts to conclude that that the translator’s mother tongue is Spanish and that the subtitling may even have been done inside Spain.

On June 3, Islamic State released a video — “Month of Ramadan, Month of Conquest” — which mentions al-Andalus four times. Spain is the only non-Muslim country mentioned in the video.

On May 30, Islamic State released a two-page document in Spanish in which it issued threats directly against Spain. The document states:

“We will kill any ‘innocent’ Spanish infidel we find in Muslim lands, and if not we will reach your land. Our religion and our faith lives among you, and even though you do not know our names or what we look like and do not even know whether we are European in origin or not, we will kill you in your cities and towns according to our plan, in the same way that you are killing our families.”

On January 31, Islamic State released a video in which one of its Spanish jihadists warned Spain that it would “pay a very heavy price” for expelling Muslims from al-Andalus. The eight-minute video included the following statement:

“I swear by Allah that you will pay a very heavy price and your demise will be very painful. We will recover al-Andalus, Allah willing. Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you. No Muslim can forget Córdoba, Toledo or Xàtiva. There are many faithful and sincere Muslims who swear they will return to al-Andalus.”

An armed, masked Islamic State jihadist appears in a propaganda video, where he warns Spain that it would “pay a very heavy price” for expelling Muslims from al-Andalus hundreds of years ago. The Spanish subtitle above reads “Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you. No Muslim can forget Córdoba, Toledo or Xàtiva.”

On January 7, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which is fighting Islamic State for hegemony of North Africa, released a video calling for jihadist attacks in Madrid as a strategy to help Muslims recover the Spanish North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.

Another Islamic State video vowed to liberate al-Andalus from non-Muslims. A jihadist speaking in Spanish with a heavy North African accent said:

“I say to the entire world as a warning: We are living under the Islamic flag, the Islamic caliphate. We will die for it until we liberate those occupied lands, from Jakarta to Andalusia. And I declare: Spain is the land of our forefathers and we are going to take it back with the power of Allah.”

Meanwhile, 33 jihadists were arrested in Spain in 17 different raids during the first nine months of 2016, according to the Spanish Interior Ministry.

Most recently, two Spanish citizens of Moroccan origin — Karim El Idrissi Soussi, 27, and a second man identified as 18-year-old O.S.A.A — were arrested in Madrid on jihad terror charges. One of the detainees is a 27-year-old computer science student who watched jihadist propaganda videos in class and threatened to massacre his fellow students.

According to the Interior Ministry, Soussi tried to join the Islamic State but was detained by Turkish authorities while attempting to cross the border into Syria. He was deported and just recently returned to Spain.

The Interior Ministry said Soussi’s penchant for radical Islam became evident in November 2015, when the secondary school where he was studying computer science held a moment of silence to honor the victims of the jihadist attacks in Paris. According to teachers and students, Soussi shouted slogans in support of the attacks which killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan Theater.

On other occasions, Soussi publicly justified jihadist attacks by Islamic State, which he said was the ideal form of government for all Muslims. According to the Interior Ministry, Soussi visited a public library almost daily to connect to the internet and browse jihadist websites. He allegedly created fake profiles and posted jihadist material on social media sites. Soussi also criticized so-called moderate Muslims and expressed hope that someday Spain would become an Islamic emirate.

Soussi allegedly watched Islamic State propaganda videos during his computer science class and repeatedly threatened to bring weapons to school to kill his classmates.

The other jihadist, O.S.A.A., was arrested for the offenses of “glorifying jihadist terrorism” and “self-indoctrination for terrorist purposes.” The Interior Ministry did not provide further details.

A total of 636 jihadists have been detained in the country since the March 2004 Madrid train bombings, in which nearly 200 people were killed and more than 2,000 injured.

A recent study by the Madrid-based Elcano Institute found that of the 150 jihadists arrested in Spain during the past four years, 124 (81.6%) were linked to Islamic State and 26 (18.4%) to al-Qaeda.

Of those linked to Islamic State, 45.3% were Spanish citizens, 41.1% were Moroccans and 13.6% had other nationalities. In terms of birth, 45.6% were born in Morocco and 39.1% were born in Spain. Only 15.3% were born in other countries.

In terms of immigration, 51.7% were first-generation immigrants, 42.2% were second- or third-generation immigrants, and 6.1% had no immigration background, which implies they are Spanish converts to Islam.

In terms of residency, 29.8% were arrested in Barcelona, 22.1% in Spain’s North African exclave of Ceuta, and 15.3% in Madrid. The others were arrested in more than a dozen other localities across the country.

Islamic State has suffered setbacks on the battlefields of the Middle East, but the jihadist terror threat remains undiminished. In the words of Spanish terrorism analyst Florentino Portero: “Islamic State is answering military defeats with more terror.”

 

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

Comments: Be the first to comment

Arab MK Hanin Zoabi describes how she wants to destroy Israel

September 27, 2016
Published on Sep 11, 2016

One, state, two state – it doesn’t matter as long as there is no Jewish or Zionist state.

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

Comments: Be the first to comment

After First Debate, ‘Nobody Knows Anything’

September 27, 2016

After First Debate, ‘Nobody Knows Anything’ PJ Media, Roger L Simon, September 26, 2016

I can’t say I’m surprised, as others have noted (okay I took a few peaks), that moderator Lester Holt asked no questions about Hillary’s emails, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation. That’s what the mainstream media are paid for — to be silent and practice omertà concerning anything embarrassing to Democrats. (Ironically, this leaves a big opening for one person — Julian Assange. And don’t think he doesn’t know it.)

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

In his Adventures in the Screen Trade, screenwriter William Goldman famously wrote of Hollywood that “Nobody knows anything.”

He was mostly right about the movie business, except that sequels of Star Warsdo tend to make a lot of money (until they don’t).

But applied to politics, his words are one hundred percent correct. Nobody does know anything. Nevertheless, as in Hollywood, a lot of people are paid big bucks to pretend they do.

Goldman’s was the first phrase that came to my mind after watching the Greatest Debate That Ever Lived or whatever anyone wants to call the extravaganza Monday night that turned out not to be nearly as dramatic as some were expecting.

Who won? Beats me. Does it matter? Also beats me. (Well, I do have a suspicion, but I’ll get to that in a minute.)

I do notice that as of this moment (8:20PM PT) the Drudge Report is showing Donald up 90% to 10% in its online poll.  That’s basically meaningless considering the source.  If Drudge’s poll had shown Trump winning by less that 80% it would have spelled disaster.

As for the pundits, I can’t stand watching them. They make my head explode.  And they’re basically useless. No one is more disconnected from the American public than a television pundit. When have you ever heard one say something you haven’t thought of a hundred times before? Well, maybe once in a blue moon. (You’re free to dial off me now.  I’m no better.)

But, being a good pundit, I will say the painfully obvious. Both candidates basically got what they wanted.  Hillary didn’t have a coughing fit or fall over. Donald seemed plausibly presidential. He didn’t assault Clinton or bite her head off (not that she didn’t deserve it). In the end, he may have gotten more.  (As I said, more of that in a moment)

I can’t say I’m surprised, as others have noted (okay I took a few peaks), that moderator Lester Holt asked no questions about Hillary’s emails, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation. That’s what the mainstream media are paid for — to be silent and practice omertà concerning anything embarrassing to Democrats. (Ironically, this leaves a big opening for one person — Julian Assange. And don’t think he doesn’t know it.)

What did surprise me is that Trump barely brought much of this up himself. He had a huge opportunity when the subject of cyber security came up but didn’t take it.  Was this deliberate or an oversight?  If the former,  and I suspect it largely is, it’s a clever strategy. Everyone knows about Hillary’s email/Foundation veracity issues. Trump didn’t have to make a big deal about them, especially if his goal was to appear presidential, to not seem crazy or mean to those few remaining independent voters who are not attracted to Hillary but want to be reassured about Trump. And we have to remember, the polls at this moment show him practically even or ahead and surging, a great position.

Interestingly, as I continue to write, Drudge has abandoned his own poll and is linking to another online poll being run by Time magazine. It is currently showing Trump ahead 60-40 with well over 540,000 votes cast. That’s a significant number with a big spread and, unlike Drudge, Time is no conservative icon.

What does this mean? Well, there was a link from Drudge and it may be his fans coming over. As I said, “Nobody knows anything.” Another round of polls will be coming out in a few days and we will be told what to think.

Meanwhile there’s this: Trump concentrated his fire on Hilary actually having done nothing of substance in her 30 (later corrected to 26) years of public service — just talk talk talk. That approach may ultimately prove more lethal than the more obvious “Crooked Hillary.” I wonder if it was poll-tested. We’ll have to ask Kellyanne.

But before I sign off, I have to comment on what I think was the most significant moment of the debate and it came at the end. Hillary had just gone after Donald on the sexism issue — the beauty contest nonsense, etc. — and it seemed for a moment that Trump was going to come back at her on her dreadful family life the whole world knows about.  But then he stopped himself.  He didn’t turn into the mean Donald and turn off a whole bunch of people.

On Fox, immediately after the debate, Trump explained his decision to Sean Hannity. The candidate saw Chelsea in the audience and decided it was the wrong thing to do. Well done, Donald.  This is the moment that may resonate in the weeks to come.

So now I have one last online poll to report.  It’s from the ultra-liberal Slate and shows Trump in the lead by 9% with 42,000 votes cast. I assumed there were no Drudge links, but I checked anyway. There weren’t.

So did Trump win?  Possibly. He seems not to have lost anyway, which was all he needed.

But remember, in 2012, after the first debate, the pundits (mostly the same ones) were pronouncing Obama dead. All together now, “Nobody knows anything.”

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Lester Holt, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Takes on Holt and Hillary

September 27, 2016

Trump Takes on Holt and Hillary, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 27, 2016

kl_0

Like small boys jumping into a mud pile, media personalities had been urging each other on for weeks to abandon even the pretense of objectivity and just go after Trump. That’s what Holt did in his awkward and impotent way. And it proved to be ineffective as he quickly lost control of the debate. Holt, like the rest of his media cohort, had failed to understand that overt bias makes them less effective.

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

Donald Trump’s main opponent in the first presidential debate wasn’t Hillary Clinton. It was NBC anchor Lester Holt. Hillary, with forced smiles as brittle as china and an eerie fake laugh, continued her primary debate strategy of repeating canned talking points while waiting for the moderator to knock off her opponent. Hillary wasn’t there to debate, but to once again seem like the only possible option.

Holt’s job was to make her seem like the only possible option by targeting Trump.

There were fears that Lester Holt would be another Candy Crowley. That was unfair to Crowley. The entire debate was structurally biased. Its general topics were framed in narrow left-wing terms, instead of discussing the economy and moving the country forward, Holt defined the topics as class warfare and racial divisiveness. Even national security was narrowed down to Obama’s favorite battlespace, cyberspace, rather than the actual battlefield.

Trump was hit with repeated personal attacks and gotcha questions by Holt, who then took to arguing with him over the facts. Hillary, despite having been under investigation by the FBI, received only a perfunctory offer from Lester Holt to comment on her emails after Trump had raised the issue.

But Holt’s overt bias also proved to be his undoing. Candy Crowley had been effective because her interjection into the debate between Obama and Romney had come as something of a surprise. Holt made his agenda clear at the outset. And it also made him easy to ignore, as Trump frequently did.

Like small boys jumping into a mud pile, media personalities had been urging each other on for weeks to abandon even the pretense of objectivity and just go after Trump. That’s what Holt did in his awkward and impotent way. And it proved to be ineffective as he quickly lost control of the debate. Holt, like the rest of his media cohort, had failed to understand that overt bias makes them less effective.

Hillary’s role in the debate was to grit her teeth and smile awkwardly, then deliver a few scripted attacks and lines that would allow her media allies to hail her as the winner. It was an easy job that she botched.

The media headlines were pre-scripted. And the same stories would have run even if Hillary had gone full Linda Blair spinning her head around 360 degrees or been devoured by a herd of wild dingoes during the debate. Here’s CNN. “Clinton puts Trump on defense at first debate.” And here’s the Washington Post. “Trump vs. Clinton: Her jabs put him on the defensive in first debate.”  This is what happens when the Clinton campaign writes your stories for you. They all sound the same.

But the only thing Hillary accomplished was to remind Americans of how unpleasant, insincere, untrustworthy and irritating she was. The pathological sense of entitlement, the political narcissism, the empty promises, the hollow rhetoric and the artificial attempts to connect to people whom she clearly despised were all on display here. The lady in red had nothing new to offer, either in policy or in her attacks on Trump. Like her, it was all reruns. And it was grating enough not to bear rewatching.

Hillary claimed to want to discuss policy, but she launched the first personal attack and between her and Holt, these supposedly serious personalities took the debate into the arena of petty malice. A country full of people who had lost hope had not tuned in to hear about Trump’s taxes or his comments about Rosie O’Donnell. In a particularly surreal moment, Hillary claimed to have brought an architect who had suffered at Trump’s hands. Because whom could working class people relate to better than an architect.

And it was obvious why Hillary and Holt had to embark on these desperate stunts.

Hillary’s message was a contradictory mess of promises to fix problems that existed for inexplicable reasons under Obama. Everything is already okay and she has a plan to fix all that. When Trump exploited this contradiction, her messaging completely collapsed into its own black hole.

The real agenda of the debate was to discredit Trump. Instead he came out appearing presidential, patiently listening to another Hillary rant, gamely sipping a glass of water every time she touted her website, and enduring it with the same wry expression that much of the audience was wearing.

Trump was at his best when puncturing the media and Hillary’s hypocrisy. Asked about his taxes, he demanded that Hillary release her emails. Challenged on Iraq, he pushed back on Libya. Where Hillary offered artificial bonhomie, pasting on plastic smiles and uploading fake laughs, he was natural. Nothing about Trump’s reactions or responses were faked. And that still remains a shock to the system.

And it is very much a system that we saw on display here tonight. It’s a system that Lester Holt and Hillary Clinton are a part of. It’s a system that has run this country deep into the ground.

Instead of destroying Trump, Holt’s bias brought the system out onto the stage. It reminded everyone that the national election was being hijacked just as the Democratic primaries had been. It showed viewers that the system was rigged and that it was rigged to select Hillary Clinton for the White House.

The fundamental question of this election is whether this country will be run by the people or the system. Trump reminded everyone that he was not the candidate of the system. The media’s post-debate analysis will tell us what the system thinks about the debate. But everyone already knows that. The system wants its own perpetuation. It wants, in Hillary’s words, more “investments.” That is the system’s euphemism for spending. It wants to export more jobs and import more migrants.

It wants to transform America into a grotesque reflection of its own warped processes.

Hillary Clinton is the perfect embodiment of the system. Artificial, unnatural and corrupt. And Lester Holt took on his role as the system’s feeble gatekeeper. But it’s not the system that the public wants. It seeks someone to smash the system. That is the source of Trump’s popularity. It is what makes him so threatening.

The debate was not about any of its topics, not the official ones or unofficial ones. It was about the subtext of the system. It was about what the system does to protect itself. Instead of a debate, what the people witnessed was the media hive trying to destroy an intruder while protecting its queen.

And once again, the system failed. Its media gatekeeper drone failed. The queen is in check.

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Hillary and media, Trump and media
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR’s Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of “War on Islam”

September 26, 2016

CAIR’s Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of “War on Islam” Investigative Project on Terrorism,  September 26, 2016

It might be one of the few things on which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree: President Obama was wrong Friday when he vetoed the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.”

The bill, which passed the U.S. House Sept. 9 after passing the Senate May 17, would allow Americans victimized by foreign terrorist attacks to sue countries responsible. Specifically, 9/11 victims could sue Saudi Arabia, which generated 15 of the 19 hijackers who struck the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers fought back.

But in an interview with the Arabic-language Al Sharq Al Awsat, Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad cast the legislation as an anti-Muslim attack.

The bill “is a continuation of the series of [actions] attaching terrorism to Islamic societies, the Islamic world and Islamic countries, as well as Islamic personalities, since it aims to demonize Islam,” an Investigative Project on Terrorism translation of Awad’s remarks said. “… so that things have reached the point of attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia, which is the heart of the Muslim world, and accusing it is an accusation of Muslims all over the world.”

He compared the bill to campaigns against mosque construction in the United States and said it is pushed by the same ideology that “supports the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that those who voted for the resolution in the Congress are those waging war on Islam and they always vote for wars and conflicts, and are exploiting the families of the victims in this crisis.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored and advocated for the bill, which enjoyed bipartisan support. In a statement, he pledged to make this President Obama’s first veto to be over-ridden by Congress.

More importantly, Awad’s description that the bill’s supporters “are those waging war on Islam” is especially dangerous and reckless. That message, that the West is at war against Islam, is considered the most effective at radicalizing Muslims.

CAIR officials used to repeatedly invoke that message, but seemed to have backed away from it in recent years. Awad’s revival was directed at an Arabic-speaking audience.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, who served as co-chairman of a congressional 9/11 inquiry, has long advocated for the release of 28 pages of his committee’s report focusing on the hijackers’ connections to Saudi government officials. Those pages were released in July. In a New York Times oped earlier this month, Graham said they raise more questions and advocated for the release of more investigative material still deemed classified.

His motivation for this campaign, and for supporting JASTA, had nothing to do with Muslims, he explained.

“It can mean justice for the families that have suffered so grievously. It can also mean improving our national security, which has been compromised by the extreme form of Islam that has been promoted by Saudi Arabia,” Graham wrote.

President Obama claims he vetoed the bill out of concern for unintended consequences, that it might open the door to similar litigation against U.S. military and government officials in other countries and “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Both Trump and Clinton said they would sign the bill if elected president, CNN reported.

Categories: 9/11, CAIR, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Obama and 9/11, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, U.S. Congress, War on Islam
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »