Archive for February 2017

Former Ambassador John Bolton: Trump Needs to Renegotiate ‘One China’ Policy

February 27, 2017

Former Ambassador John Bolton: Trump Needs to Renegotiate ‘One China’ Policy, Washington Free Beacon, February 27, 2017

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton on Friday urged President Donald Trump to upend  four decades of precedent by renegotiating the “One China” policy that denies Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Bolton told the Washington Free Beacon in an exclusive interview that the One China policy, which was established during President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, is “ahistorical” and fails to reflect the current reality in East Asia, where natives of Taiwan overwhelmingly identify as “Taiwanese” rather than “Chinese.”

“The One China policy is inherently ambiguous,” Bolton said. “China thinks it means one thing, we think it means another.”

Beijing maintains that One China means the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate China, encompassing Taiwan.

But the Shanghai Communiqué agreed to by the United States and China explicitly says the United States “acknowledged” that “all Chinese” on either side of the Taiwan Straight believe “there is but one China.” The pact does not deny Taiwan’s sovereignty on its face.

“A clear relationship with both Beijing and Taipei on this would help all concern rather than [having] this phrase which means anything and nothing,” Bolton said.

Earlier in the day, Bolton told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside of Washington, D.C., that the Trump administration needs to “make clear” there will never be reunification between China and Taiwan without the “express, overwhelming consent” of those living in Taiwan.

“It’s time for constructive clarity,” Bolton said. “We support the people of Taiwan. We support their continued self-government, independent of China.”

Bolton predicted that China will be the top strategic issue facing the United States in the 21st century. He said the president needs to immediately demand that China back down in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.

Bolton also suggested the Trump administration pressure China to pursue Korean reunification to “eliminate” the North Korean regime. He urged the president to end the Iran nuclear deal “as soon as possible” and said the United States needs to renegotiate the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia so that the United States can rebuild its nuclear deterrent in the face of Moscow’s ongoing treaty violations.

“There’s only one country in the world that’s bound by this treaty—China’s not bound by it, North Korea and Iran aren’t bound by it, theoretically Russia is, but they don’t pay any attention to it,” Bolton said. “There’s only one country that can’t build intermediate-range nuclear forces and that’s us.”

Bolton is a vocal advocate of an expansive U.S. foreign policy that promotes American values abroad. He says the greatest threat to the nation is “self-induced weakness” that was characteristic during the Obama years.

The former ambassador told the Free Beacon he believes Trump would be successful in reversing many of former President Obama’s foreign policy initiatives within his first term, especially if he models his actions after the Reagan administration.

“It took Reagan a substantial amount of time to create a defense expenditure buildup to give us the kinds of military force that we needed to speak from a position of true strength, and I think Trump is going to have to go through the same process with correcting the mistakes of the eight Obama budgets,” Bolton said.

“At the same time, Reagan said right from the beginning that he was going to pursue a very different foreign policy and the political strength of his determination to do that gave us cover while we rebuilt the military and I think Trump should follow that approach too … It would’ve been a lot different if we had a Clinton administration and had not just an eight-year hole to climb out of but a 12-year hole,” he added.

Bolton was a finalist to fill the national security adviser position left open by the resignation of retired Gen. Mike Flynn.

Trump said the administration would ask Bolton to serve in a “somewhat different capacity” after it announced the selection of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster for national security adviser on Monday.

“John is a terrific guy. We had some really good meetings with him. Knows a lot,” Trump said from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “He had a good number of ideas that I must tell you I agree very much with. So we’ll be talking with John Bolton in a different capacity.”

Bolton did not comment on those talks.

Rift widens between Egyptian president, Al-Azhar

February 27, 2017

Rift widens between Egyptian president, Al-Azhar, Al Monitor

(A debate/discussion between President Sisi and Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser about the reformation of Islam would be interesting. Perhaps something can be arranged when President Sisi visits President Trump in Washington.– DM)

al-sisi-and-islamistEgyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (R) meets with Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb at the Ittihadiya presidential palace in Cairo, Feb. 26, 2017. (photo by Reuters/Egyptian Presidency)

Al-Azhar’s rejection of Sisi’s proposal places the religious institution on a direct collision course with the head of state, signaling a marked shift in the relationship and possibly the beginning of a tug of war for greater autonomy for the institution — perceived as “politicized” by some analysts. In the meantime, Sisi’s push for religious reforms hangs in the balance. 

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

When Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, then defense minister, gave a televised speech on July 3, 2013, announcing that President Mohammed Morsi had just been overthrown, he was flanked by Egypt’s top religious leaders, Pope Tawadros, the head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, and Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar. Tayeb, who had earlier called on Morsi  — the country’s first democratically elected president — to step down to end the bloodshed, threw his weight behind the military man who helped rid Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood, since designated by the country as a “terrorist group.”

Now, nearly four years later, cracks have appeared in the alliance between Sisi (himself a devout Muslim), who became president in 2014, and Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s oldest seat of learning. Al-Azhar has resisted repeated appeals by Sisi to “renew Islamic discourse” and “modernize the faith.” Any doubts skeptics might have had about Tayeb and Sisi not seeing eye to eye in regard to “modernizing Islam” vanished when the president publicly took a jab at the grand imam last month, telling him, “You wear me out.” While the remark was made jokingly, it signaled underlying tensions in their relationship, suggesting Sisi’s patience with Al-Azhar’s intransigence on reforms may be wearing thin.

Sisi first made his impassioned plea for what he called a “religious revolution” two years ago during a New Year’s Day speech at Al-Azhar, lamenting that ”radicalized thinking is antagonizing the entire world and tearing the umma [Islamic nation] apart.” His bold comments earned him praise from Western supporters who noted that Sisi had done something that no Western leader had had the courage to do. Skeptics, however, cautioned that Sisi was an unlikely reformer as “he champions the application of Islamic law [Sharia].” Furthermore, Sisi had given no specifics regarding the revolution he seeks, argued Daniel Pipes in an article published by the Middle East Forum think tank he heads.

At home, Al-Azhar scholars took Sisi’s exhortations for religious reforms with a grain of salt. “Any change must come from scholars of Islam, not from the government,” an Al-Azhar official, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the press, told Al-Monitor. Hinting that Al-Azhar preachers resent state interference in their religious affairs, he criticized the decision by the Ministry of Religious Endowments to unify sermons at Friday congregational prayers in mosques across the country.

“The Ministry of Religious Endowments decides on the topics the imams will be preaching on each week, but often the sermons prepared by the ministry are insensitive to the circumstances of the place where they are being delivered,” he complained. “A sermon on cleanliness may be well received by mosque-goers in Cairo but would be unsuitable when preached in mosques in the northern Sinai town of el-Arish, a hotspot for violence in recent months.”

He also rejected claims by some critics that Al-Azhar’s curriculum promotes fundamentalism and violence. “Tens of thousands of students — local and foreign — study at Al-Azhar. How many of them have become terrorists?” he asked. The grand imam, too, has rebutted the allegation that the centuries-old Islamic institution was spreading radical ideas, insisting that “Al-Azhar is the pulpit of moderate, centrist and tolerant Islam.”

A special committee of educational experts, created in 2015 at the behest of Sisi, has been reviewing and updating Al-Azhar’s educational curriculum, weeding out content perceived to be inciting violence. Meanwhile, a YouTube channel launched two years ago and overseen by Al-Azhar scholars has the declared aim of “countering Islamic State propaganda.” Plans are also underway to launch a new Al-Azhar TV channel in the coming months ”to promote moderate thought.” While these are all steps in the right direction, they fall well short of Sisi’s aspiration of “revolutionizing Islam.” Much more needs to be done if Al-Azhar wants to show it is serious about combating the surge in terrorist attacks and curbing the spread of extremism, alongside the government, which is battling IS-affiliated groups in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Azhar‘s senior scholars have thus far refused to accuse IS of heresy, arguing that “Islam prohibits accusations of heresy as only God knows what is in someone’s heart.” They claim that IS cannot be considered heretical as long as its members have uttered the shahada (the Muslim declaration that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet.) The institution’s clerics have also failed to back calls by rights activists to annul the country’s controversial blasphemy laws that allow citizens to be prosecuted for “insulting religion” despite Sisi’s giving a nod to such calls.

Islamic thinker and TV talk show host Islam El-Beheiry spent the most part of 2016 behind bars on the charge of contempt of religion for questioning the authenticity of various religious texts interpreting the Quran and calling for their revision on his show on the privately owned Al-Kahira Wal Nas Channel. A legal complaint was filed against him by a private citizen after Al-Azhar demanded the suspension of his show for “defaming Islam.” Beheiry was originally handed down a five-year sentence that was reduced to one year by an appeals court in December 2015. He was released in November after Sisi granted him amnesty and has since vowed to continue to speak out against “radical thought.” In his first television appearance on the privately owned Al-Mehwar channel days after his release, he denied having committed a crime and paid tribute to Al-Azhar. However, he said that “the problem lies with the Salafists within the institution who continue to defend problematic religious texts upon which IS practices are based. Al-Azhar condemns the actions of IS, saying IS members are misinterpreting the texts. They are not; the texts tell them to kill and it is these texts that should be condemned.”

Beheiry told Al-Monitor that Sisi is serious about reforming Islamic discourse, but unifying the sermons in mosques will not change anything. “To counter the threat of terrorism, Al-Azhar needs to acknowledge that the problem lies in outdated Islamic heritage books that were written in the medieval period or earlier. These books promote jihad [holy war] and intolerance. Terrorist attacks will continue as long as these books are available, poisoning people’s minds,” he said.

Eslam Abdel Raouf, an assistant professor of journalism at Al-Azhar, acknowledged that there are internal divisions within the institution. “Like any other institution in the country, Al-Azhar has reformists and ultraconservatives. The former group supports Sisi’s calls for reform while the latter is against it,” he told Al-Monitor. “The dominant view among Al-Azhar clerics is that change is welcome as long as it does not touch the fundamentals of the religion. While it is fine to modernize religious discourse to make it more appealing to the youth, state interference in religious edicts [fatwas] is considered a red line that must not be crossed.”

Sisi was perceived by the clerics as having crossed that line when he recently called for a law banning verbal divorce in Egypt in an attempt to reduce the country’s burgeoning divorce rate, which in 2015 went up by 10.8%, according to Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics. Sisi had lamented in a speech he gave at the Police Academy on the eve of National Police Day on Jan. 25 that 40% of all marriages in Egypt end within the first five years. He urged the grand imam, who was present in the audience, to lend his support to the proposed legislation.

In a rare show of defiance, however, Al-Azhar rejected the plan, drawing a clear line between religion and politics. A statement released by Al-Azhar’s Council of Senior Clerics stated, “Verbal divorce, when meeting all the conditions — the husband has to be fully conscious and of sound mind when uttering the words ‘I divorce you’ — has been an undisputed practice since the days of the Prophet Muhammad.“

Al-Azhar’s rejection of Sisi’s proposal places the religious institution on a direct collision course with the head of state, signaling a marked shift in the relationship and possibly the beginning of a tug of war for greater autonomy for the institution — perceived as “politicized” by some analysts. In the meantime, Sisi’s push for religious reforms hangs in the balance.

 

Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017

February 27, 2017

Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017, Right Side Broadcasting via YouTube, February 23, 2017

In posting the above video, The Gates of Vienna stated,

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert who focuses on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. She is a former career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

Ms. Lopez spoke at a CPAC event on Thursday. Below is a video of the brief talk she gave about stealth Islamization and sharia in North America:

 

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist

February 27, 2017

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist, Clarion Project, February 27, 2017

rasmea-odeh-screenshot-640-320Rasmea Odeh speaking at the International Working Women’s Day 2016 (Photo: Video screenshot)

The liberal left has teamed up with extremist and violent Islamists in its next salvo against newly-inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump.

On March 8, International Women’s Day, a follow-up event to the January 21 Women’s March on Washington, will be staged.

One of the co-authors of the “militant” manifesto behind the nationwide event is convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Yousef Odeh.

Odeh was convicted in Israel in 1970 for being involved in two fatal bombings. Odeh spent 10 years in jail before she was released in a prisoner exchange in 1980.

She moved to the U.S. by omitting her terror conviction on her immigration papers and served as the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago and later as an ObamaCare navigator. In 2014, she was convicted in the U.S. for concealing her past and thus illegally obtaining U.S. citizenship.

After claiming she forgot about her conviction and imprisonment in Israel due to post traumatic stress disorder, she was awarded a new trial which is currently pending.

The women’s event manifesto, printed as an open letter in The Guardian, calls for “striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work” and “boycotting” pro-Trump businesses.

All women are requested to wear red in solidarity for a day of “anti-capitalist feminism.”

Odeh’s co-authors include Angela Davis, a self-professed communist professor (now retired), who was a supporter of the original Black Panthers and a 1960s radical icon. Davis was prosecuted and acquitted in 1972 for an armed takeover of a California courtroom that resulted in the murder of a judge.

The January 21 Women’s March on Washington was organized by Islamist apologist and activist Linda Sarsour, a supporter of shariah law.

Shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics,tweeted Sarsour.

As for women with whom she does not agree, Sarsour tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Good Riddance

February 27, 2017

Good Riddance, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, February 27, 2017

hijabmodel

The establishment media has found a new heroine: Rumana Ahmed, a hijab-wearing Muslim woman who worked at the National Security Council during the Obama administration and for eight days into the Trump administration, at which point she quit. 

Ahmed explained: “I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim.” That’s enough to send the media into self-righteous ululations of anti-Trump fury, but as always, there is more to this story than what the media is telling you, and a good deal about Rumana Ahmed that they would prefer you did not know.

In her piece in The Atlantic explaining why she left the Trump NSC (and it is important to note that she wasn’t fired by her supposedly “Islamophobic” new bosses; she quit), Ahmed sounds themes of post-9/11 Muslim victimhood that have become familiar tropes among Leftists: after recounting her idyllic life “living the American dream,” she says: “After 9/11, everything would change. On top of my shock, horror, and heartbreak, I had to deal with the fear some kids suddenly felt towards me. I was glared at, cursed at, and spat at in public and in school. People called me a ‘terrorist’ and told me, ‘go back to your country.’”

Not surprisingly, Ahmed made no mention of the fact that this Muslim victimhood narrative has been sullied, if not vitiated entirely, by the high number of “anti-Muslim hate crimes” that turn out to have been faked by Muslims. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques and even murders: a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

Ahmed blamed yet another murder on “Islamophobia”: “A harsher world began to reemerge in 2015,” she wrote in The Atlantic. “In February, three young American Muslim students were killed in their Chapel Hill home by an Islamophobe. Both the media and administration were slow to address the attack, as if the dead had to be vetted before they could be mourned. It was emotionally devastating.”

In reality, there is no evidence that the Chapel Hill murders were committed by an “Islamophobe.” U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand declared the day after the murders: “The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina.” Rand said that there was “no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.” Nor has any emerged since then, although that fact has not stopped Islamic advocacy groups from routinely treating these murders as evidence of a wave of anti-Muslim hatred in the U.S. Ruhana Ahmed in The Atlantic abets this cynical and disingenuous agenda.

In the same vein, Ahmed claims: “When Trump first called for a Muslim ban, reports of hate crimes against Muslims spiked.” In reality, as MRC Newsbusters noted in late November, “A number of these incidents have been debunked already, though the scant details on the majority of stories would be near impossible to disprove (or prove!).”

Ahmed is not only dishonest; she’s connected. Before she went to work for the Obama administration, she was an officer of George Mason University’s Muslim Students Association (MSA). According to Discover the Networks, the “was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that ‘many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,’ the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami.” The MSA is “a radical political force and a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam, telling students that America is an imperialist power and Israel an oppressor nation. MSA speakers routinely spew anti-Semitic libels and justify the genocide against the Jews which is promoted by Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and by the government of Iran.”

What’s more, “a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood internal document — titled ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America’ — which named MSA as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded ‘organizations of our friends’ that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These ‘friends’ were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims ‘that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.’”

It is hard to imagine how someone who had served as an officer in an organization dedicated to “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” would so quickly be appointed to the National Security Council, but that was Barack Obama’s America. The Trump administration is indeed setting a strikingly different tone, one that Rumana Ahmed finds unacceptable. Her dissatisfaction and departure from the NSC are good reason for every patriotic American to applaud.

​The next war: Hizballah tunnels, pocket drones

February 27, 2017

The next war: Hizballah tunnels, pocket drones, DEBKAfile, February 27, 2017

(Until January 20th, Israel had to deal with the anti-Israel Obama administration. Had Israel killed Hamas rather than allowing it to live and recover, U.S. policy toward Israel would have been even worse. Remember the complaints about Israel’s “disproportionate” response to Hamas rockets? With a pro-Israel president in Washingon, it seems reasonable to hope that the “no-winners, no-losers doctrine” military doctrine will quickly atrophy and die. — DM)

threatshamashizballah480eng

After years of denial, the IDF is now ready to admit that Hizballah has built two kinds of tunnel running from Lebanon under the border into Israel. One type is meant as a pathway for Hizballah Radwan Force commandos to infiltrate northern Israel and seize Galilee villages, in an area up to the Mediterranean town of Nahariya. The other type will be crammed with hundreds of kilos of explosives for remote detonation.

For Israel, this no-winners, no-losers doctrine has saved the radical Palestinian Hamas from ever having to hoist a white flag. It caused the IDF’s two successful anti-terror Gaza wars of Dec.2008-Jan. 2009 and July-Aug. 2006 to be stopped halfway through. The troops were left to cool their heels until the government decided how to proceed. In both conflicts, the troops were ordered to stop fighting in mid-operation and pull back behind the border. Although the second operation managed to halt Hamas’ long rocket barrage from the Gaza Strip and allow Israelis living within range normal lives, Hamas was left in belligerent mode.

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

Leaks from the State Comptroller’s report, due out Tuesday, Feb. 28, have sparked a storm of recriminations among the politicians and generals who led the IDF’s 2014 operation, which ended nearly a decade of constant Palestinian rocket fire on southern Israel. The argument centers on how the security cabinet headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the military, led then by defense minister Moshe Yaa’lon and former Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, prepared for and grappled with the threat of terror tunnels. A cabinet member, the hawkish education minister, Naftali Bennett, accuses them of falling down on the job.  They charge him with going after political capital.

DEBKAfile’s military sources take exception to the furious focus on a past war – the post mortem  of any conflict will always pick at faults – when the new menaces staring Israel in the face should be at the forefront of the national discourse.

Some of the most striking examples are noted here:

1. President Bashar Assad has just informed Iran that he is willing to place Syrian territory at the disposal of the Revolutionary Guards and Hizballah for shooting missiles into Israel.

Israel’s policy of non-intervention in Syria’s six-year civil war has therefore become a boomerang. Hizballah has been allowed to relocate a second strategic missile arsenal to the Qalamoun Mountains in Syria, after procuring advanced weapons systems from Iran, and gaining combat skills on the Syrian battlefield. The Shiite terrorist group has learned out to fight alongside a regular big-power military force, such as the Russian army.

It is therefore not surprising to hear Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah bragging confidently about his ability to vanquish Israel.

So what is Israel doing to counter this peril? Not much. From time to time, the IDF mounts an air strike against a weapons arsenal or missile depot in Syria. That has as much effect on the military threat building up in Syria as the tit-for-tat air strikes against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

How was Hizballah allowed to attain a capability for shooting thousands of rockets a day at Israeli cities from two countries? Why were the air strikes staged over Syria not directed against Hizballah’s rocket depots in Lebanon?

Many words have been poured out over the Hamas tunnels from the Gaza Strip., but what about Hizballah’s tunnels from Lebanon? After years of denial, the IDF is now ready to admit that Hizballah has built two kinds of tunnel running from Lebanon under the border into Israel. One type is meant as a pathway for Hizballah Radwan Force commandos to infiltrate northern Israel and seize Galilee villages, in an area up to the Mediterranean town of Nahariya. The other type will be crammed with hundreds of kilos of explosives for remote detonation.

How are Israel’s army strategists addressing this threat?

One answer came a few days ago from Maj. Gen Yoel Strick, commander of the home command, who is about to step into his new appointment as OC Northern Command.

He recently disclosed a plan to evacuate entire locations which are potentially on the front line of a conflict with Hizballah. He is aware of the shock effect on the country, which abides by the national ethos of never retreating before an enemy. But he also argues that the only way the IDF can effectively fight Hizballah invaders and eject them from Israeli soil is to keep civilians out of the way of the battle.

4. On Thursday, Feb. 23, an Israel Air Force fighter knocked down a miniature unmanned flying object over the Mediterranean coast of the Gaza Strip. It is already obvious that drones of one type or another, including the cheap and easily available quadcopter pocket drone, will serve the enemy in any future war, in large numbers.

When scores of pocket drones loaded with explosives are lofted, some may be shot down by Israeli warplanes and air defense systems, but some will escape and drop on target, because they are too small to be detected by the radar of air defense systems like Iron Dome and blown out of the sky.

Nevertheless, Israel can address these dangers, provided its generals embrace a major change of strategy, or doctrine. It is incumbent on the IDF to discard the doctrine which holds that modern wars can never end in a straight victory or defeat. This preconception has ruled the thinking of Israeli generals in the 11 years since the 2006 Lebanon war, although it is alien to the Middle East conflict environment.

Take, for example, the Syrian civil war. The Russian, Syrian, Iranian and Hizballah’s armies have clearly won that war and preserved a victorious Assad in power.

In Yemen, too, the Saudi army and its Gulf allies are fighting to win the war against the Houthi rebels but falling short of victory, notwithstanding their superior Western armaments.

In 2014, the Islamic State beat the Iraqi army and captured vast swathes of Iraq and Syria. The jihadists are still holding onto most of this territory – even against US-backed military efforts three years later. They will do so until they are vanquished on the battlefield.

For Israel, this no-winners, no-losers doctrine has saved the radical Palestinian Hamas from ever having to hoist a white flag. It caused the IDF’s two successful anti-terror Gaza wars of Dec.2008-Jan. 2009 and July-Aug. 2006 to be stopped halfway through. The troops were left to cool their heels until the government decided how to proceed. In both conflicts, the troops were ordered to stop fighting in mid-operation and pull back behind the border. Although the second operation managed to halt Hamas’ long rocket barrage from the Gaza Strip and allow Israelis living within range normal lives, Hamas was left in belligerent mode.

Because of this doctrine, Hizballah, like Hamas, feels free to build up its arsenal ready for the next war. Iran’s Lebanese proxy watches the IDF withholding action for containing its buildup. Certain that Israeli generals won’t be fighting for victory, Hizballah and Hamas have always felt they were in no danger of being wiped out.

Hamas, therefore, chose the tactic of inflicting maximum damage and casualties on Israel, without fear of major reprisals. Hence, in the early 2000s, the Palestinian terrorists ruling Gaza began shooting primitive Qassam rockets at Israeli civilian locations, moving on over the years to more advanced missiles, followed by terror tunnels and are now building an air force of exploding pocket drones.

If State Comptroller Joseph Shapiro had addressed those present and future threats when he exposed the mishandling of the tunnels of 2014, his report would have served an important security and national purpose. But since he confined himself to determining who said what to whom – and why – his report is just a platform for political bickering.

EU Lawmakers Urge “Federal Union” For European States… Or Else

February 27, 2017

The leaders of the lower chambers of parliament of Germany, Italy, France, and Luxembourg have called for a European “Federal Union” in an open letter published in Italian newspaper La Stampa on Sunday.

Source: EU Lawmakers Urge “Federal Union” For European States… Or Else | Zero Hedge

The leaders of the lower chambers of parliament of Germany, Italy, France, and Luxembourg have called for a European “Federal Union” in an open letter published in Italian newspaper La Stampa on Sunday.

In the letter, four representatives of EU governments – Claude Bartolone of the French National Assembly, Laura Boldrini of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Norbert Lammert of the German Bundestag, and Mars Di Bartolomeo of the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies – say that closer cooperation is essential for dealing with problems that no one EU state can tackle on its own, such as immigration, terrorism, and climate change. As RT notes, the letter’s authors also warn that the European integration project is currently more at risk than ever before, with high unemployment and immigration problems driving populist and nationalist movements. The EU must also come to grips with the fact that, last June, the United Kingdom decided to leave the union after holding a national referendum, aka Brexit, becoming the first member nation to opt out of the bloc.

In less than a month, on March 17 next, we Presidents of the national parliaments of the EU we will meet in Rome, how will the representatives of governments, for the sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty from which it began: our Union.

But it is plain for all that recurrence requires much more than just a historical commemoration. Birthday comes the most critical stage ever crossed by the European project. 

In such a situation we should not be paralyzed by fear, or by concerns related to the upcoming elections in some of our countries. We must act now, before it’s too late. And take the opportunity of the anniversary to return to the vision and the spirit of the Founding Fathers and relaunch the construction of Europe on foundations refurbished.

We are convinced that in the face of crisis, we need more Europe, although we have to face headwinds. We can not ignore the social impact that the disastrous economic and financial measures have had on tens of millions of families. We need to focus on growth and jobs that Europe can have no charm for young people if they do not offer them credible job prospects. We must have the courage to share sovereignty in many sectors in which the action of individual States is now totally ineffective and doomed to fail: from global warming to energy policies, from financial markets to the rules for immigration, tax evasion to the fight against terrorism.

Now is the moment to move towards closer political integration: Federal Union of States with large skills. We know that the prospect stirs up strong resistance, but the inaction of some can not be the paralysis of all. Those who believe in the European ideal is to be able to revive rather helplessly to its slow decline. And the United States who do not want to join immediately in that closer integration should be able to do it later. 

On Sunday, a number of EU states, including Germany, France and Italy, called for the UK to pay a hefty price as a “divorce settlement.”

The letter was published in the run-up to a meeting of parliamentary leaders in Rome on March 17 to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community (EEC). The treaty’s signing by six countries– Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, West Germany and the Netherlands – in 1957 eventually paved the way for the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union in 1991.

In September of 2015, Lammert, Bartolone, Boldrini and di Bartolomeo also signed a declaration calling for deeper and faster European integration. However, greater European integration is being increasingly challenged by a number of Eurosceptic parties around the continent, including the Alternative for Germany, the National Front in France, and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. Upcoming elections could bring these parties closer to power.

According to the European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, the European Union must reform, or it risks disappearing under a barrage of internal and external attacks.

European Union Parliament moves to censor “offensive speech”

February 27, 2017

European Union Parliament moves to censor “offensive speech”, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, February 27, 2017

This is a story which would never take place in the United States, at least not yet and not with the official permission of the government. The European Union has obviously become increasingly alarmed over trends in popular sentiment rippling through their member countries. This started with Brexit, but has more recently cropped up with the candidacies of Marie Le Pen and Geert Wilders. Clearly such rabble rousing is not to be tolerated in the largely socialist paradise so something had to be done. The solution? The EU has passed new rules which will allow them to cut the broadcast of any “hate speech or offensive material” and then purge such speech from the official record. (Associated Press)

With the specter of populism looming over a critical election year in Europe, the European Parliament has taken an unusual step to crack down on racism and hate speech in its own house.

In an unprecedented move, lawmakers have granted special powers to the president to pull the plug on live broadcasts of parliamentary debate in cases of racist speech or acts and the ability to purge any offending video or audio material from the system.

Trouble is, the rules on what is considered offensive are none too clear. Some are concerned about manipulation. Others are crying censorship.

To be clear here, they are obviously not talking about concerns over any of the members giving speeches endorsing slavery, a new Holocaust or racial purging. They are talking about so-called “nationalist” platforms supporting some of these upstart candidates who threaten the permanence of the European Union Parliament itself. With more “exits” being threatened in places like France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland, supporters of the EU clearly feel they are in danger.

Anyone who is acting surprised clearly hasn’t been paying attention to the news. This is representative of most of Europe in a nutshell. Despite the fact that we tend to think of most of our allied nations on the continent as being “westernized” in nature, their citizens (and indeed their lawmakers as well) do not have the same freedoms in terms of speech, religion and other things which Americans take for granted. It is still standard practice in many European countries for laws to remain on the books which allow for the prosecution of people who are overheard saying unpopular things, even if that option is not frequently exercised. Let’s not forget that Geert Wilders was recently convicted of a crime for chanting the word “fewer” at a political rally when asking how many Moroccan immigrants the crowd wanted to see.

This censorship at the European Union Parliament may be going even one step further. The Associated Press article brings up the fact that they are already looking at some sort of delay button for the live broadcast of parliamentary speeches. We have such things in the United States to prevent the seven dirty words from being heard on network programming (and yes, we’re looking at you, Joe Scarborough) but such a thing is not employed to prevent the airing of political diatribes, even when they include unpopular speech.

The only conclusion I can draw at the moment is that candidates like Le Pen and Wilders really have the wizened heads at the European Union in a panic. The lesson we can take from this is found in observing the response. Actual freedom requires a robust rebuttal and persuasive argument against real hate speech. But in the EU they can simply make your speech disappear, and the powers that be get to determine what qualifies as acceptable.

HUMOR | ‘We’re Making Real Progress,’ Say Last 17 Commanders In Afghanistan

February 27, 2017

‘We’re Making Real Progress,’ Say Last 17 Commanders In Afghanistan, Duffel Blog, February 27, 2017

afghanprogress

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — The past 17 commanders of international forces in Afghanistan, as well as other US leaders, say the coalition is making “real progress” towards defeating the Taliban insurgency and stabilizing the country, sources confirmed today.

That positive outlook has offered new hope for peace and stability as the current commander, Gen. John Nicholson, looks to deploy “a few thousand” more troops to theater to build upon all the progress that has already been made

Gen. Tommy Franks served as commander of US Central Command from 2000-2003, and was in charge of operations in the Middle East when the Taliban was conclusively defeated in 2002.

“What a difference 10 months makes in a country like Afghanistan,” Franks said in an interview that year. “Taliban’s gone.”

Many other commanders have talked about the incredible progress that has been achieved in Afghanistan, where NATO has crippled the Taliban and put them against the ropes. As most terror analysts note, the terror group can barely hold on after more than 15 years of fighting.

In 2005, Gen. John Abizaid, who succeeded Franks at CentCom, promisingly judged that international activity in Afghanistan had “shown interesting progress.” He also noted the coalition was making progress in “reconstruction projects that showed some tangible progress” and “the cessation of hostilities after 25 years worth of hostilities in the vast majority of the country.”

And Gen. Dan McNeill, who served as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 2007-2008, prudently assessed that “there is significant progress in the forward move of the Afghan National Army,” while scrupulously reminding the audience that “NATO’s an interim force in Afghanistan.”

Still, there have been setbacks.

In 2009, Gen. David McKiernan was fired from his post as ISAF commander after brashly stating that the US “must define winning in Afghan terms: meaning improved security, reduced civilian casualties, trustworthy government, economic and social progress.”

He went on to suggest that a satisfactory outcome in Afghanistan would take a decade or more to achieve, despite historical precedent to the contrary and Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were won back in 2004.

After taking the post from McKiernan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal was rightfully relieved in 2010 after failing to recognize the great progress that was being made.

Fortunately, Gen. David Petraeus replaced McChrystal and masterfully implemented a grand strategy to inject more progress into the campaign for progress. In a letter to the troops in July 2010 he declared, “progress has been achieved in some critical areas, and we are poised to realize more.”

Full progress in Afghanistan was achieved definitively in May 2011 with a high-profile raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Vice President Joe Biden then drove a proverbial stake through the heart of the war when he said in 2012, “we are leaving [Afghanistan] in 2014. Period.”

Gen. John Allen paved the path to victory for his successors, stating in 2013, “I think we are on the road to winning,” as he turned over command to Gen. Joseph Dunford.

Before “Fightin’ Joe” closed out the war in 2014, he offered a more somber assessment, saying, “At this point we have made significant progress, but we are not yet at the point where it is completely sustainable.” He also reassured Americans that though there would be a US presence in Afghanistan after 2014, “the actual fighting on a day-to-day basis will all be done by Afghans.”

And as ISAF transitioned to the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) at the end of 2014, Gen. John Campbell maintained a bright outlook.

“Together, we have lifted the Afghan people out of the darkness of despair and given them hope for the future,” he said during the transition ceremony.

Gen. Nicholson, the current RSM commander, is looking to continue the progress made by his predecessors over the past 15 years. He has big shoes to fill, as at least two presidents and perhaps a dozen commanders have successfully won the war thus far.

But his plans are on track, as he stated in a press briefing in July 2016, “I would say overall our mission in Afghanistan is on a positive trajectory.”

Interestingly, Mullah Mohammed Omar, who served as the sole Taliban leader from 1996 until his death in a jet ski accident in 2013, also says the Taliban is making “real progress” in the region.

 

New DNC Chair Perez Engaged Islamists, Ignored Reformers

February 27, 2017

New DNC Chair Perez Engaged Islamists, Ignored Reformers, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, February 27, 2017

tom-perez-640-320Tom Perez (Photo: Justice Department)

Tom Perez has defeated Rep. Keith Ellison in the race to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee, but don’t rest easy: Perez also has a concerning record and chose Ellison as his deputy chairman.

When he was the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, he included Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and their allies in discussions about counter-terrorism training and investigations and laws punishing alleged “hate speech” against the religion of Islam. Muslim and non-Muslim critics of such Islamist groups were not a part of Perez’ outreach on these issues.

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor responsible for locking up the “Blind Sheikh” behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, rightly pointed out at the time that the result of excluding the Islamist groups’ rivals is that officials like Perez “are making these Islamist groups into the representatives of Muslims in the United States.”

In 2012, Perez wouldn’t answer what should have been a very easy question posed by Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ) while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution :

“Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

His answer was a series of stammers and assertions that it was hard to answer. (See  shocking video below:)

Then, as Secretary of Labor, Perez continued to give groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) a platform while excluding the other side. In May 2015, CAIR-Florida Communications Director Wilfredo Amr Ruiz was invited to take part in a roundtable with Perez about immigration and wage issues.

Keep in mind, Perez invited a group that FBI policy officially prohibits from being involved in outreach programs.

Counter-terrorism investigator Joe Kaufman has followed Ruiz and CAIR’s Florida branch closely, documenting their radicalism and links to other Islamist extremist entities here and here.

Ruiz appeared on Newsmax TV with me in March 2016 where he made the ridiculous statement that there have been no terrorist networks in America since 2001. You can watch the segment here. He subsequently told Newsmax he would not appear on the show with me ever again.

The good news is that enough Democrats took Ellison’s record seriously to stop him from becoming the DNC chairman, to the point that prominent Democrat Alan Dershowitz said he’d leave the party if Ellison won.  However, Ellison is still the deputy chairman and Perez’s record leaves much to be desired.

As deputy chairman, Ellison is still positioned to make the DNC adopt the talking points of Islamist groups like CAIR.