Archive for March 2, 2017

PLO Ambassador To Iran: We Will Liberate Palestine ‘From The River To The Sea’ – With Everything From Stabbing And Vehicular Attacks To Launching Rockets

March 2, 2017

PLO Ambassador To Iran: We Will Liberate Palestine ‘From The River To The Sea’ – With Everything From Stabbing And Vehicular Attacks To Launching Rockets, MEMRI, March 2, 2017

“Providing a political analysis of what is happening with the Palestinian cause today, Al-Zawawi said: ‘We are not facing an ordinary enemy, or a small-scale plan. Rather, we are fighting the most dangerous international plan, especially after the U.S. adopted the [idea the Palestinians must recognize Israel as] a Jewish state. The U.S. transitioned from one phase to the next, fully aware of what its next step will be, and we were deceived.’ He added: ‘The ethnic and sectarian conflicts taking place today – their purpose is to take over and dismantle the region’s resources and spark wars among the Arabs in order to distance them from Palestine – [all this] promotes the establishment of Greater Israel.’

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

A March 1, 2017 article in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar about PLO Ambassador to Iran Salah Al-Zawawi included excerpts of an interview with him focusing on the PLO-Iran relationship. Al-Zawawi also stressed in the interview that armed struggle using all means was a legitimate path to liberating Palestine “from the river to the sea.”

It should be noted that on February 19, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that “the ambassador of the state of Palestine in Iran, Salah Al-Zawawi” would be part of the Palestinian delegation to the Sixth International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada, held in Tehran on February 21,[1] and that the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website also lists him as Palestine’s ambassador to Iran.[2]

Following are excerpts from the article, including statements by Al-Zawawi:

alzawawiSalah Al-Zawawi at the the Sixth International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada (image: Tasnim, Iran, February 21, 2017)

“In February 1981, the late [Palestinian Authority (PA)] president Yasser Arafat appointed Salah Al-Zawawi as PLO envoy to Tehran, after the late Hani Al-Hassan retired and left for Beirut. Following the signing of the Oslo Accords between the PLO and the Zionist enemy, Iran refused to recognize the PA that was born of this agreement, and also rejected the replacement of Al-Zawawi and the appointment of a new ambassador. Thus, Al-Zawawi remained in office, and has spent the past 32 years of his life in Tehran.

“Al-Zawawi reminisced about the opening of the [PLO] embassy [in Tehran], which was attended by Abu ‘Ammar [Arafat], [then-PLO ambassador to Tehran] Hani Al-Hassan, Ahmad Khomeini [son of the leader of the Iranian revolution, Ruhollah Khomeini], and former Iranian foreign minister Ebrahim Yazdi. During it, [he said], the Palestinian flag was raised over the former Israeli Embassy building. He expressed his pride in the fact that Arafat was the first official to visit Tehran, and added: ‘After the victory of the Imam Khomeini’s revolution, Arafat said: “Starting today, my front stretches from Tyre to Khorasan…” [Al-Zawawi added:] ‘Palestine-Iran relations run deeper than any political differences the two sides face, and even after the PLO’s recognition of Israel, ties between the two revolutions remain…’

“Underlining the [PLO-Iran] relations that have existed since time immemorial, Al-Zawawi said: ‘Our relationship with the Imam Khomeini began back when he was still in exile. The Imam’s revolution [i.e. Iran’s Islamic Revolution] was based on two main foundations: Islam, and Palestine [including Jerusalem, which is], the first direction of prayer [for Muslims, and the location of] the third-most important mosque [Al-Aqsa]. Once the Imam Khomeini’s revolution had triumphed, he said: Today Iran, and tomorrow Palestine, and added: Without restoring Palestine, Iran’s independence will remain lacking as well.’ Al-Zawawi added: ‘The Imam [Khomeini] adopted our [Palestinian] revolution when he was in the [Iraqi] city of Al-Najaf, which is holy [to Shi’ites], and it was then also that he issued his historic fatwa regarding the transfer of zakat [alms] and one-fifth [of a person’s income] to the Palestinian fighters who risk their lives.’

“Al-Zawawi speaks lovingly of Khomeini, saying: ‘The Imam would see in his mind’s eye the future of Palestine, and he declared the last Friday of Ramadan to be International Qods [Jerusalem] Day, [because] he could see what [ordinary] people do not see.’ [Al-Zawawi continues:]I look at the dark days we live in now: the Zionist enemy is attempting to swallow up the West Bank, annex Jerusalem, and see it as the capital of the Zionist entity. This is in addition to [the Zionists] stepping up settlement construction and allowing [themselves] to harm Al-Aqsa mosque.’

“The Palestinian ambassador likes repeating the history of [Palestinian-Iranian] ties even prior to the victory of the Islamic Revolution [in Iran]. He stresses that most Iranian commanders were trained at Fatah camps in Lebanon, that some of them died as martyrs fighting alongside Palestinian fighters and are still on the list of Palestinian martyr families, and that [Fatah] continues to pay allowances to their families in Iran.

“[Al-Zawawi continues:] ‘The Iranian ideological compass is linked to Palestine, so that wherever you go in Iran, you will find a street or monument named for Palestine. In the holiest site for [Shi’ite] Islam, that is, the seat of the [Eighth Shi’ite] Imam Ali Al-Ridha in Mashhad, there is a large courtyard, the Al-Quds Courtyard, that features a model of the Dome of the Rock, and after every prayer the Iranians chant anti-U.S. and anti-Israel slogans…’

“The Palestinian ambassador was careful to mention anything [that the Palestinians have] in common with Iran, saying: ‘We are facing a U.S.-run Western plan, which will not end except through combat and jihad, carried out by all means. The regime here was established on the basis of Islam and the Shi’ite sect, and we as a movement connect to it in the martyrdom aspects of Karbala and Hussein. The Imam Hussein’s rebellion is a fundamental matter in the Shi’ite conscience, and the principle of the victory of the bloody sword underlines that the few can also triumph [over the many], and that those with few weapons can defeat those with an abundance of them…’

“[Al-Zawawi], one of the most veteran Palestinian diplomats, does not deny [that there are Palestinian] disagreements with Iran, but [explains that] ‘every side has to understand the other side’s tendencies, and we must fight to liberate Palestine. For our people in the 1948 territories [meaning Israeli Arabs], a different kind of fighting is needed than the kind needed for the people of the West Bank, and the West Bank requires a different kind of fighting than Gaza. [Additionally,] there is the diplomatic struggle.’ He added: ‘Certainly, everyone should fight in their own way, from carrying out stabbing and vehicular attacks to launching rockets. That is how we will liberate Palestine from the river to the sea… Some [types of?] jihad aredictated by geography, and everyone should contribute from where they are, using the means at their disposal and in accordance with their various situations. All means of combat are legitimate in order to realize Allah’s promise for liberation: From [the traditional dance] Dabke to armed struggle.’

“Providing a political analysis of what is happening with the Palestinian cause today, Al-Zawawi said: ‘We are not facing an ordinary enemy, or a small-scale plan. Rather, we are fighting the most dangerous international plan, especially after the U.S. adopted the [idea the Palestinians must recognize Israel as] a Jewish state. The U.S. transitioned from one phase to the next, fully aware of what its next step will be, and we were deceived.’ He added: ‘The ethnic and sectarian conflicts taking place today – their purpose is to take over and dismantle the region’s resources and spark wars among the Arabs in order to distance them from Palestine – [all this] promotes the establishment of Greater Israel.’

“The Palestinian ambassador no longer believes in the Oslo Accords. Moreover, he says: ‘When the PLO signed the agreement, a Palestinian state was supposed to be established in the West Bank and Gaza in 1999, but it did not happen.’ Eighteen years have passed since then, and therefore Al-Zawawi determines that Israel and the U.S. will not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state. He said decisively: ‘Oslo is bankrupt. U.S. President Donald Trump is the Zionist face of this enterprise. Additionally, the futility of dialogue with the enemy is now becoming clear.’

“For the Palestinian ambassador, the internal [i.e. intra-Palestinian] division adds fuel to the fire: ‘Can you believe how divided we are and how we are unable to unite[?] I do not accept any excuses whatsoever [for this] from the factions.’ He added: ‘At this time, we have no choice but to unite because the enemy is taking advantage of our division to Judaize Palestine, which is slipping away before our very eyes.’

“As for the Sixth Conference to Support the Palestinian Intifada, he believes that it expresses Iran’s commitment to the Palestinians: ‘The belief of fellowship [between us and the Iranians] is known to all. [The Iranians] are the bearers of the black standard, who leave Khorasan for Jerusalem.’ He added: ‘If we see the conference as a political and media phenomenon, then it has achieved what it was expected to achieve under these harsh conditions, when everyone seeks to eliminate the Palestinian cause. The conference gave us a chance for dialogue amongst ourselves. Furthermore, it was attended by heads of parliament from Arab countries and around the world, who discussed the next phase of the Palestinian struggle.'”[3]

___________________________

[1] Wafa.ps, February 19, 2017.

[2] Mofa.gov.ps.

[3] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), March 1, 2017.

Presidential Payback For Media Hubris

March 2, 2017

Presidential Payback For Media Hubris, Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson, March 1, 2017

Trump is the media’s Nemesis—payback for its own hubris.

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

Donald Trump conducted a press conference recently as if he were a loud circus ringmaster whipping the media circus animals into shape. The establishment thought the performance was a window into an unhinged mind; half the country thought it was a long overdue media comeuppance.

The media suffer the lowest approval numbers in nearly a half-century. In a recent Emerson College poll, 49 percent of American voters termed the Trump administration “truthful”; yet only 39 percent believed the same about the news media.

Every president needs media audit. The role of journalists in a free society is to act as disinterested censors of government power—neither going on witch-hunts against political opponents nor deifying ideological fellow-travelers.

Sadly, the contemporary mainstream media—the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), the traditional blue-chip newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times), and the public affiliates (NPR, PBS)—have lost credibility. They are no more reliable critics of President Trump’s excesses than they were believable cheerleaders for Barack Obama’s policies.

Trump may have a habit of exaggeration and gratuitous feuding that could cause problems with his presidency. But we would never quite know that from the media. In just his first month in office, reporters have already peddled dozens of fake news stories designed to discredit the President—to such a degree that little they now write or say can be taken at face value.

No, Trump did not have any plans to invade Mexico, as Buzzfeed and the Associated Press alleged.

No, Trump’s father did not run for Mayor of New York by peddling racist television ads, as reported by Sidney Blumenthal.

No, there were not mass resignations at the State Department in protest of its new leaders, as was reported by the Washington Post.

No, Trump’s attorney did not cut a deal with the Russians in Prague. Nor did Trump indulge in sexual escapades in Moscow. Buzzfeed again peddled those fake news stories.

No, a supposedly racist Trump did not remove the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the White House, as a Time Magazine reporter claimed.

No, election results in three states were not altered by hackers or computer criminals to give Trump the election, as implied by New York Magazine.

No, Michael Flynn did not tweet that he was a scapegoat. That was a media fantasy endorsed by Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, Daniel Payne of the Federalist has compiled a lengthy list of sensational stories about Trump’s supposed buffooneries, mistakes, and crudities that all proved either outright lies or were gross exaggerations and distortions.

We would like to believe writers for the New York Times or Washington Post when they warn us about the new president’s overreach. But how can we do so when they have lost all credibility—either by colluding with the Obama presidency and the Hillary Clinton campaign, or by creating false narratives to ensure that Trump fails?

Ezra Klein at Vox just wrote a warning about the autocratic tendencies of Donald Trump. Should we believe him? Perhaps not. Klein was the originator of Journolist, a “left-leaning” private online chat room of journalists that was designed to coordinate media narratives that would enhance Democratic politicians and in particular Barack Obama. Such past collusion begs the question of whether Klein is really disinterested now in the fashion that he certainly was not during the Obama administration.

Recently, New York Times White House correspondent Glenn Thrush coauthored a report

about initial chaos among the Trump White House staff, replete with unidentified sources. Should we believe Thrush’s largely negative story?

Perhaps. But then again, Thrush not so long ago turned up in the Wikileaks troves as sending a story to Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta for prepublication audit. Thrush was his own honest critic, admitting to Podesta: “Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything.”

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has become a fierce critic of President Trump. Are his writs accurate? Milbank also appeared in Wikileaks, asking the Democratic National Committee to provide him with free opposition research for a negative column he was writing about candidate Trump. Are Milbank’s latest attacks his own—or once again coordinated with Democratic researchers?

The Washington Post censor Glenn Kessler posted the yarn about Trump’s father’s racist campaign for New York mayor—until he finally fact-checked his own fake news and deleted his tweet.

Sometimes the line between journalism and politicians is no line at all. Recently, former Obama deputy National Security advisor Ben Rhodes (brother of CBS news president David Rhodes) took to Twitter to blast the Trump administration’s opposition to the Iran Deal, brokered in large part by Rhodes himself. “Everything Trump says here,” Rhodes stormed, “is false.”

Should we believe Rhodes’s charges that Trump is now lying about the details of the Iran Deal?

Who knows, given that Rhodes himself not long ago bragged to the New York Times of his role in massaging reporters to reverberate an administration narrative: “We created an echo chamber They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” Rhodes also had no respect for the very journalists that he had manipulated: “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Is Rhodes now being disinterested or once again creating an “echo chamber”?

His boss, former UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor in the Obama administration, Susan Rice (married to Ian Cameron, a former producer at ABC news), likewise went on Twitter to blast the Trump administration’s decision to include presidential advisor Steven Bannon in meetings of the National Security Council: “This is stone cold crazy,” Rice asserted, “After a week of crazy.”

Is Rice (who has no military experience) correct that the former naval officer Bannon has no business participating in such high strategy meetings?

In September 2012, Rice went on television on five separate occasions to insist falsely to the nation that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were the work of spontaneous rioters and not a preplanned hit by an al Qaeda franchise. Her own quite crazy stories proved a convenient administration reelection narrative of Al Qaeda on the run, but there were already sufficient sources available to Rice to contradict her false news talking points.

There are various explanations for the loss of media credibility.

First, the world of New York and Washington DC journalism is incestuous. Reporters share a number of social connections, marriages, and kin relationships with liberal politicians, making independence nearly culturally impossible.

More importantly, the election in 2008 of Barack Obama marked a watershed, when a traditionally liberal media abandoned prior pretenses of objectivity and actively promoted the candidacy and presidency of their preferred candidate. The media practically pronounced him god, the smartest man ever to enter the presidency, and capable of creating electric sensations down the legs of reporters. The supposedly hard-hitting press corps asked Obama questions such as, “During these first 100 days, what has …enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most…?”

Obama, as the first African-American president—along with his progressive politics that were to the left of traditional Democratic policies—enraptured reporters who felt disinterested coverage might endanger what otherwise was a rare and perhaps not-to-be-repeated moment.

We are now in a media arena where there are no rules. The New York Times is no longer any more credible than talk radio; CNN—whose reporters have compared Trump to Hitler and gleefully joked about his plane crashing—should be no more believed than a blogger’s website. Buzzfeed has become like the National Inquirer.

Trump now communicates, often raucously and unfiltered, directly with the American people, to ensure his message is not distorted and massaged by reporters who have a history of doing just that. Unfortunately, it is up to the American people now to audit their own president’s assertions. The problem is not just that the media is often not reliable, but that it is predictably unreliable. It has ceased to exist as an auditor of government. Ironically the media that sacrificed its reputation to glorify Obama and demonize Trump has empowered the new President in a way never quite seen before. At least for now, Trump can say or do almost anything he wishes without media scrutiny—given that reporters have far less credibility than does Trump.

Trump is the media’s Nemesis—payback for its own hubris.

Cartoons and Video of the Day

March 2, 2017

Via Latma-TV

The best part starts at about 2:07 into the video

H/t Follow the Money

moloch

 

H/t Town Hall

pressconf

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

lo

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

americanotgreat

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

seat-of-power-1

 

UK woman opened home to Muslim “12-year-old refugee,” he was really adult jihadi, said “I’ll kill you all”

March 2, 2017

UK woman opened home to Muslim “12-year-old refugee,” he was really adult jihadi, said “I’ll kill you all”, Jihad Watch

“Julie said she later found that Abdul had been visiting extremist websites on his mobile phone and an interpreter relayed messages, sent to family and friends, where he had been joking about tricking the British government into thinking he was a child.”

The British government was doubtless too busy hounding foes of jihad terror and banning foreign ones from entering the country to pay much attention to a trivial matter such as trying to prevent Islamic jihadi “refugee children” from terrorizing Britons.

“She later found out he was not the person he said he was and had been arrested while posing as a child refugee in Belgium.”

But he still got into Britain by posing as a child again. It would have been “Islamophobic” to keep him out, right? In the same vein, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.

The UK Home Office recently admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”

May’s government also recently admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. And of course, May banned me from entering the country for saying: “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers,” which is like banning me for saying humans need oxygen to breathe.

child-refugee-julie-loose-women-uk

“Mother-of-two reveals she opened her home to Afghan ’12-year-old refugee’ but was shocked when he turned out to be a grown man who threatened to KILL her family,” by Alex Matthews, Mailonline, March 1, 2017:

A mother-of-two opened up her home to a grown man posing as an Afghan ’12-year-old refugee’ who later attacked her family.

The woman said she lives in fear after the man, who said his name was Abdul, threatened to kill her family after he was arrested for assaulting her relatives.

During an emotional interview on ITV’s Loose Women, the mother, who was renamed Julie for anonymity reasons, has now called on the Government to carry out proper age checks on refugees coming to the UK.

She told presenters Ruth Langsford and Saira Khan that she had taken in the asylum seeker after being asked to look after him for a ‘few nights’ by social services.

Julie recalled: ‘When I walked into the room, I didn’t think he was the person they were referring to. He looked about 19. He was very quiet and very timid.

‘I didn’t want to hurt his feelings, but I don’t usually take teenagers. I take younger children. But I just thought he needed a home and didn’t think anymore of it.’

Despite her initial misgivings regarding the boy’s age, Julie generously opened up her home up to the youngster.

However, she became suspicious of his true identity after a dental examination.

She said: ‘We went to a dental appointment and the dentist age-assessed him between 18 and 21.

‘They had to give him the benefit of the doubt and because he claimed he was 12 and the dentist aged him as 21, they placed him at 16. They averaged him.’

Julie said that at first her new arrival was pleasant and well behaved, but soon he turned nasty.

She later found out he was not the person he said he was and had been arrested while posing as a child refugee in Belgium.

She said: ‘He was lovely in the beginning. Very humble, very polite, very thoughtful. But as the weeks went by I started to notice a change in him. I was comparing him to my boy and he was more mature than my boy was.

‘He had been arrested in Belgium. He had a bone density x-ray there and they said ‘‘you aren’t 12’’ and sent him on his way.

‘I found out that he claimed asylum there as 17-year-old. I couldn’t understand why that information wasn’t passed on to me.’

‘I became very frightened, he became quite menacing after I set up a Facebook account for him.

‘I was hoping to help him find his family and then shortly after he was receiving these phone calls where his manner would change dramatically and he became intimidating and quite threatening.

Julie said she felt scared to be alone with Abdul in her own home but didn’t want another family placed with such a temperamental and possibly dangerous man.

She said: ‘I was concerned because if they asked to re-home him, I didn’t want him to go to another family because he wasn’t who he claimed to be.

‘I can remember one day he went up to the fridge and he was looking at a photo of me and my daughter, as if he was trying to intimidate me through my daughter.

‘My daughter was stood there and I can remember thinking, ‘‘don’t turn around’’. I knew and I could see what he was doing in the corner of my eye, but I kept on wiping up.

‘He walked right up behind me and I can still feel his breath on the back of my neck and I can remember feeling petrified.’

Julie said she later found that Abdul had been visiting extremist websites on his mobile phone and an interpreter relayed messages, sent to family and friends, where he had been joking about tricking the British government into thinking he was a child.

She said: ‘I was so shocked. I can remember thinking, ”Oh my god! Who is this person?’’

A permanent home was found for Abdul and it was then that he started to lash out at Julie and her family.

She said: ‘There were other homes that had been offered to him and it wasn’t where he wanted to go.

‘When another home came up he became very aggressive about it.

‘He started [attacking] verbally and then a member of my family got in between us, in fear of me getting hurt, and then he pushed them back and started punching.

‘I ran to get the police and I was just pleading with him to calm down and just said ”why are you doing this?”.

Abdul was arrested for the assault but now Julie lives in fear of him coming back and attacking her family

She said: ‘He did make threats to us before the police took him, to me and the children. He did say when he was removed: ‘I’ll kill you all. I know where you live’

‘I’m very frightened since he was removed. I know that he’s not being properly watched and he could at any time, turn up at my house. I panic if I’m not at school on time.

‘He knows the school runs, he’s knows everything. We changed the locks at the house and I’m constantly vigilant of everything.’…

Israeli jets, tanks strike Hamas targets in response to – Arab-Israeli Conflict

March 2, 2017

Source: Israeli jets, tanks strike Hamas targets in response to cross-border fire – Arab-Israeli Conflict – Jerusalem Post

By
March 2, 2017 15:01

Israeli jets and tanks retaliated to the shooting with strikes on three Hamas posts in the Strip.
tanks

The IDF carried out an airstrike and artillery shelling against two Hamas targets in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip following gunfire towards IDF troops, the army stated on Thursday.

IDF troops carrying out routine security activities near the security fence along the Gaza border had come under fire, and while no injuries were reported, a military tractor suffered light damage.

Moira Dror from the border community of Netiv Ha’asara told The Jerusalem Post that despite the shelling by the IDF “the outpost is still standing.” Dror, who can see the outpost from her kitchen window, said that even the antenna of the post was still there, adding “perhaps this is a warning to them.”

According to Dror, it’s been really quiet since the end of Operation Protective Edge, “we’ve been living a normal life not thinking about where and when the next rocket will come. But recently things have been heating up,” referring to a rocket that was launched from the Gaza Strip towards Israel on Wednesday night.

No incoming rocket siren sounded as the projectile was headed towards open territory, landing in an open area near the Ashkelon coastline. There were no reports or injuries or damage from the rocket which was reportedly fired from Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip.

The rocket was found on Thursday by security forces who had been sweeping the area.

The United Nations’ special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, Nickolay Mladenov, condemned the attack, saying that “such provocation seek only to undermine peace.”

“This is the third such incident in the past 30 days after a period of almost four months of quiet,” he said, calling on both sides to restrain in order to avoid escalations “that jeopardize the lives of Palestinians and Israelis.”

While there were around 20 rockets launched in 2016 towards Israel from the Gaza Strip, Wednesday evening’s  incident marks the fifth rocket to have been launched at Israel within the last month, including two incidents by the Islamic State Group in Sinai.

Most of them have been claimed by small jihadist groups, many times as a means for pressuring Hamas by raising tensions between the terror organization and Israel. Hamas has cracked down on these small groups, recently carrying out a wave of arrests among Salafi, jihadist, pro-Islamic State organizations.

There has been no official claim of responsibility for the launching of Wednesday’s projectile, but Israel holds Hamas responsible for all fire coming from the Strip.

On Monday IDF jets struck 5 Hamas terror targets in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for a rocket which had launched from the Gaza Strip.

Following last week’s strikes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that  “We are not ready to accept any drizzle of rockets. We will respond to every firing to our territory. That is what we did today and that is what we will also do in the future.”

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman stated that while Israel has no intention to initiate any military action in Gaza, “we have no intention to continue to absorb drippings (of rockets out of the strip). Hamas must take responsibility and relax.”

Hamas, on their official Twitter account denied responsibility for the rocket and stated that “we place full responsibility for the continuation of this dangerous escalation in Gaza on the Israeli entity, which is targeting the Palestinian resistance and the people of Gaza.”

 

US-Gulf Front Proposed to Eliminate ISIS, and End Iran’s Influence

March 2, 2017

US-Gulf Front Proposed to Eliminate ISIS, and End Iran’s Influence, Iran News Update, March 2, 2016

bunchatroops

An idea has about how to fight the war against ISIS that isn’t limited to additionally weaponry or forces in Raqqa and Mosul, but rather, forming a [group] that will ferociously fight ISIS, on the condition that areas liberated from ISIS will not [be] occupied by Iran or by militias affiliated with Iran.

In exchange for a contribution in the war against ISIS, whether in Iraq or Syria, Iran must not be inside these areas. This must be made clear to the Iraqi government. Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, stated that the US will continue to support Iraq even after it’s liberated from ISIS, but all agree, there must be an end to the Iranian expansion in Arab capitals. A united front not only insists on the exit of Iranian forces from Iraq and Syria, but that also desires the end of Iranian influence. The message was conveyed by  Gulf countries and the US.

The next phase will be the establishment of a US-Gulf front.

According to an article by Sawsan al-Shaer for Al Arabiya, “If Iraq wants Gulf countries to support its security and stability by cooperating with the US, it must act to address the security chaos caused by Iranian militias on its land.”

A major goal is the exit of foreign forces and militias supported by Iran from Syria and Iraq. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, said in an interview with the German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, “Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries announced they’re willing to participate with special troops alongside the US. Some countries from the Islamic Alliance to fight terrorism and extremism are also ready to send troops. We will coordinate with the US to know what the plan is and what is necessary to execute it.”

Additionally, US President Donald Trump ordered Mattis to draw up a plan within 30 days to combat ISIS. According to the German daily’s interview with Jubeir, he expects these plans to be proposed soon. “The major idea is to liberate areas from ISIS and to also guarantee that these areas do not fall in the hands of Hezbollah, Iran or the (Syrian) regime,” Jubeir said.

Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, said on January 4, that the Syrian regime must go back to the negotiating table and deal directly with the opposition to achieve peaceful political transition in Syria. “We must send a strong message in which we demand that all foreign militias exit Syrian territories immediately,” he said, and emphasized the importance of the withdrawal of all militias from Syria in the end of 2016 after what was known as the Russian-Iranian-Turkish document was announced. This document led to calling for the Astana conference in Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, talk is already begun about the post-ISIS phase in Iraq. In early January, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki rushed to visit Iran, and met with Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s international affairs advisor. On January 4, Al-Arabiya.net reported that according to the Mehr news agency, Maliki said he went to Iran to meet with Khamenei to discuss what he called “possible threats post-ISIS.”

Al-Arabiya’s report added: “This is a new political term in international and regional politics especially that the war against ISIS has not ended yet in Iraq and Syria. The point of Maliki’s statements that he went to Iran to discuss possible threats post-ISIS with Iranian officials are unclear as the extremist organization is not present among the Iranians and ISIS does not have any announced military activity in Iran.”

McMaster and Gorka: Unfit For Duty

March 2, 2017

Understanding the Threat

Published on Feb 26, 2017

General H.R. McMaster and Deputy Asst. Sebastian Gorka are clueless when it comes to understanding the threat of Islam. They are either unwilling or ignorant about what is clearly laid out in Islamic law according to the texts from leading Islamic scholars regarding Sharia and Islamic Jurisprudence. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.