Archive for June 9, 2017

Trump’s demand, Abbas’ dilemma

June 9, 2017

Op-ed: The US president wants the Palestinian leader to adopt Egypt and Jordan’s commitment to a real war on terror. If Abbas agrees, it will be the end of the dream to ‘liberate Palestine through an armed struggle.’ How will he explain that to Palestinian refugees and to the offspring the people he marched with on the paths of terror?

Moshe Elad|Published:  09.06.17 , 23:19

Source: Ynetnews Opinion – Trump’s demand, Abbas’ dilemma

 

US President Donald Trump’s statement in his meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem, that “peace won’t come where terror is rewarded,” is nothing less than a historical and pivotal statement, as it touches the more exposed nerves of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump yearns to implement the moderate Arab-Sunni model in the “territories”—like Egypt and Jordan, for example.

The extent of anti-Israeli incitement in the two countries, which have peace agreements with us, is just as high as in the “territories.” The verbal attacks launched by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah on Israel’s leaders, as a sort of tax they are paying oppositional elements in their countries, are pretty “legitimate” as well in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Egyptian president and Jordanian king’s commitment to a real war on terror is the model that the United States would like to see in the Palestinian Authority territories as well. Will this happen with Abbas?

 

The chances for that are not high. People argue that in spite of Trump’s short time in office, he rushed to draw operative conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems to me that in light of the current state of affairs across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, he was uncompelled to study the issue too intensively and thoroughly. Trump immediately realized that even if Abbas wears a suit, talks quietly and moderately and repeats again and again that he is “extending a hand towards peace,” the Palestinian leader is still committed to terror.

Trump is seeking to replace the Palestinian people, but may actually lead to the replacement of Abbas (Photo: EPA)

Trump is seeking to replace the Palestinian people, but may actually lead to the replacement of Abbas (Photo: EPA)

Abbas, Trump believes, is not mature enough yet for the changes the US is planning in the Middle East, which is why the American president raised the bar very high for Abbas in Bethlehem: He is willing to let the Palestinians keep the spots, as long as they bid farewell to the leopard traits.

What is this about? It’s not just the high monthly salary paid to whoever sheds more Israeli blood, or the monuments and streets commemorating terrorists who murdered Israeli babies in their beds. It’s not just the glorification, which the West has finally began detesting, of “freedom fighters” like terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered at least 37 Israelis in the bus massacre in March 1978 with her accomplices. It’s not just the kindergartens in the “territories,” which display suicide bombers’ explosive belts on the doll and puzzle shelves. It’s also Abbas himself.

Abbas has a proven terrorist reputation. It has been claimed that he was one of the masterminds of our athletes’ murder in the 1972 Munich Olympics and stood by Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad in the most difficult junctions of terror. Western leaders are eager to grant terrorists a sort of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, until today, not a single American leader has demanded that the Palestinians change, but really change. Neither Barack Obama nor Bill Clinton, and not even the George Bushes, held a gun to any Palestinian leader’s head and demanded that he take a step which almost means political suicide. Abbas is required to give up the splendid idea which every Palestinian has been educated on since the day he was born—the liberation of all of Palestine through an armed struggle and the Palestinians’ return to Palestine.

Abbas is supposed to ignore the refugees in the camps, who are dreaming of returning to the occupied homeland. He is supposed to turn his back on the second and third generations of the people who marched with him on the paths of terror for years. In fact, Trump had demanded that Abbas betray the path and doctrine of Mufti Amin al-Husseini and Sheikh al-Qassam, and disconnect from the ideological basis that Fatah and the PLO were founded on. The meaning, without a doubt, is loss of control for the rais over the street, over the organization and over the Palestinian people.

Trump, therefore, is seeking to replace the Palestinian people… He may actually, however, lead to the replacement of Abbas.

Col. (res.) Moshe Elad, PhD, is a lecturer at the Western Galilee College and has served in the past in senior positions in the territories.

Hamas tunnel discovered underneath UNRWA school

June 9, 2017

Hamas terrorist tunnel discovered under a school run by UNRWA in Gaza.

Elad Benari, Canada, 09/06/17 20:38 | updated: 21:49

Source: Hamas tunnel discovered underneath UNRWA school – Israel National News

Terror tunnel  Flash 90

A Hamas terrorist tunnel was discovered under a school in Gaza run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), Israeli media reported on Friday.

The tunnel was discovered a week and a half ago, according to the reports.

The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, confirmed the discovery of the tunnel in a post on his Facebook page in Arabic.

“The tunnel was discovered underneath a school for boys in Al-Maazi…It is clear that the entire Arab world understands that it is the Hamas terror organization that destroys Gaza and eliminates any chance of a good future for Gazans,” wrote Mordechai.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon reacted harshly to the revelation of the existence of the terror tunnel.

“This tunnel verifies what we have always know, that the cruelty of Hamas knows no bounds as they use the children of Gaza as human shields. Instead of UN schools serving as centers of learning and education, Hamas has turned them into terror bases for attacks on Israel,” said Ambassador Danon.

This case follows a number of incidents exposed recently of ties between UNRWA personnel and the terrorists of Hamas. Ambassador Danon called on the Secretary General and the Security Council to intervene to ensure the implementation of strict oversight over the UN body.

“The UN must act immediately to ensure that their structures and institutions are not being used to harbor the terror infrastructure of Hamas,” Ambassador Danon concluded.

Hamas has been busily reconstructing its terror tunnel network breaching into Israeli territory which was targeted by Israel during the 2014 counterterror Operation Protective Edge.

A senior Israeli security official estimated several months ago that the terror group continues to dig 10 kilometers in tunnels leading into Israel per month.

Digging a tunnel underneath a building used as a school is nothing new for Hamas, which regularly uses civilians as human shields and hides rocket launchers in places such as schools and soccer fields.

During the 2014 counterterrorism Operation Protective Edge, Hamas rockets were discovered inside an UNRWA school building.

Likewise, a booby-trapped UNRWA clinic was detonated, killing three IDF soldiers. Aside from the massive amounts of explosives hidden in the walls of the clinic, it was revealed that it stood on top of dozens of terror tunnels, showing how UNRWA is closely embedded with Hamas.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

Trump defends decision to back Qatar isolation, as Tillerson calls for de-escalation

June 9, 2017

Trump defends decision to back Qatar isolation, as Tillerson calls for de-escalation, Washington TimesCarlo Muñoz, June 9, 2017

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, left, listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, Friday, April 7, 2017, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Trump defended his decision to back a Saudi-led effort to isolate the small, oil-rich nation of Qatar on Friday, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for a de-escalation of tensions between Qatar and its Arab neighbors, saying the ongoing diplomatic row in the region is harming American interests.

“Do we take the easy road or take a hard and necessary action?” Mr. Trump said regarding his decision during a joint press conference with Romanian president Klaus Iohannis at the White House. “The time has come to call on Qatar to end that [terrorism] funding.”

The decision to back Riyadh’s efforts against Qatar came during Mr. Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia last month, the president’s first overseas diplomatic visit since taking office. Characterizing Qatar as “historically a funder of terrorism at a very high level,” Mr. Trump did say his decision could be the beginning of bringing Qatar “back among the unity of responsible nations,” adding the U.S. is “not done solving that problem, but we will solve that problem. We have no choice.”

Hours before Mr. Trump’s comments, Mr. Tillerson called upon Saudi Arabia and its backers within the Gulf Cooperation Council to scale back its efforts to segregate Qatar

“We call for calm and thoughtful dialogue with clear expectations and accountability among the parties in order to strengthen relationships. We ask that there be no further escalation by the parties in the region,” he said Friday in his first public statement since the harsh diplomatic and economic sanctions against Doha were put in place.

Trump says he ‘100 percent’ would speak under oath on Comey conversations

June 9, 2017

Trump says he ‘100 percent’ would speak under oath on Comey conversations, Washington Examiner, Josh Siegel, June 9, 2017

President Trump said Friday that he would “100 percent” be willing to testify under oath that he never told former FBI Director James Comey that he “hoped” Comey would drop the bureau’s investigation of former national security adviser Mike Flynn.

In a news conference in the Rose Garden with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Trump also said he would be “glad” to tell his side of the story to special counsel Robert Mueller.

“I didn’t say that,” Trump said when asked whether he asked Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn. “I will tell you, I didn’t say that. And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I’ve read today, but I did not say that.”

Trump also denied Comey’s account that the president had asked his former FBI director to pledge loyalty.

“I hardly know the man,” Trump said of Comey. “Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance? Who would do that?”

Tom Fitton discussing Comey Lawlessness, Smoking Gun Clinton Email, & New JW Lawsuits

June 9, 2017

Tom Fitton discussing Comey Lawlessness, Smoking Gun Clinton Email, & New JW Lawsuits, Judicial Watch via YouTube, June 9, 2017

 

Pakistani Law Makes Ramadan a Dangerous Time for Religious Minorities

June 9, 2017

Pakistani Law Makes Ramadan a Dangerous Time for Religious Minorities, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Ammar Anwer, June 9, 2017

Irfan Masih

The unconscious man rushed to a Pakistani hospital was covered in filth. Irfan Masih was a sewer cleaner, and stricken by poisonous gases trapped inside a sewer hole. Time was of the essence. But emergency staff at the hospital in Pakistan’s Sindh province refused to treat Masih, a 30-year-old Christian, until he was thoroughly washed.

It is Ramadan and the doctors were fasting.

They cleaned Masih and pumped oxygen into him, but the pump was empty. Lying in the corner of the hospital, Irfan died gasping for air.

“My brother died during the process of cleansing the filth from his body,” Irfan’s brother, Parvez, told a local newspaper. Although Muslim medical professionals across the world do interact with patients in all sorts of conditions during Ramadan but according to Irfan’s mother, the doctors refused to treat him because they were fasting and said her son was ‘napaak’ (unclean).

In Pakistan, people from the Christian community face severe discrimination, and are often given jobs in sanitation. Angered at the doctors’ negligence, people from the Christian community staged a protest outside the press club in Umerkot.

During Ramadan, Muslims abstain from eating, drinking and having sex during daylight hours. For non-Muslims in Pakistan, the holiday can be a dangerous time. Last year, police severely beat an elderly Hindu man for eating publicly during the holiday. He was eating food given to him by a charity.

Similarly, a 2013 video showed a man who said he was beaten up for eating publicly during the Muslim fasting month.

Critics blame Pakistan’s Ehtram-e-Ramadhan ordinance for creating this intolerant environment. Enacted in 1981, the ordinance seeks to ensure that the sanctity of the month of Ramadan is preserved.

Minorities are attacked even though article 3 of the ordinance refers to people who follow Islam:

1. No person who, according to the tenets of Islam, is under an obligation to fast shall eat, drink or smoke in a public place during fasting hours in the month of Ramadhan.

2. Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Although the law does not mention non-Muslims, the closing of all hotels, restaurants and even common food stores during the day does affect their lives.

The law defines a public place as “any hotel, restaurant, canteen, house room, tent, enclosures, road lane, bridge or other place to which the public have access.” It further requires that those places remain closed during fasting hours.

The ordinance states that it intends to protect the holiness of Ramadan, but while doing so it clearly violates the principles of fundamental freedoms. It forces all Muslims and non-Muslims not to eat in public, an act that could lead to fines and even imprisonment.

An amendment passed last month hikes the fine from Rs.500 to Rs.25,000 (about $388) for hotel owners who would violate the law. Television channels and theaters would pay a minimum fine of Rs.500,000 (about $7,7670) for violating the law.

I wonder whether we could protect the sanctity of any “blessed month” by adopting such harsh, coercive and tyrannical measures. Respect is earned, not imposed.

When the state starts legislating on religious grounds, it creates an environment of intolerance toward religious minorities and legitimizes discrimination. Pakistan has done this with the “Ehtram-e-Ramadhan ordinance.” Just last week, four people were arrested by the police for eating during fasting hours.

This ordinance enshrines intolerance and violates basic human rights. By closing down all the restaurants and food stores, it not only infringes upon the rights of various religious minorities in Pakistan, but also on those Muslims who do not want to comply with the ordinance.

Silence from the local media and Pakistani human rights groups over this controversial law that continues to allow maltreatment of minorities during the entire month of Ramadan is quite depressing.

Ammar Anwer is an ex-Islamist who writes for The Nation, Pakistan Today and other media outlets. He believes in secularism and democracy and aspires to see Pakistan become a pluralistic state.

Encouraging integration in united Jerusalem

June 9, 2017

Encouraging integration in united Jerusalem, Israel Hayom, David M. Weinberg, June 9, 2017

Koren and Avrahami believe that more and more residents of east Jerusalem understand that there is no alternative to Israeli control of the city on the horizon, and that they will always be better off under Israeli administration. In fact, the last Washington Institute survey in east Jerusalem, conducted in June 2015, found that 52% of Arab residents would prefer to become citizens of Israel, whereas only 42% would want to be citizens of the Palestinian state, even after a peace accord.

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

Last week, I wrote about Turkey’s and other radical Islamist groups’ growing influence in east Jerusalem political and social affairs, as reported recently in the Israeli journal for thought and policy Hashiloach.

This week, I wish to present the more optimistic side of the situation, focusing on trends among east Jerusalem Arabs toward integration into Israeli society, and on the policies being implemented by Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat to increase an Arab sense of belonging in united Jerusalem.

There are some 320,000 Arab residents in Jerusalem (plus 50,000 West Bank Palestinians who reside in the city illegally or by virtue of family reunification). They constitute about 37% of Jerusalem’s population and 20% of the Israel’s overall Arab population. About 100,000 of Jerusalem’s Arabs live in chaotic neighborhoods that lie within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem but are on the other side of the security fence.

The Arabs of Jerusalem are relatively young and impoverished. According to the National Insurance Institute, 83% of the children in east Jerusalem are below the poverty line, as opposed to 56% of Israeli Arab children and 39% of Israeli Jewish children in west Jerusalem.

Residents of east Jerusalem have the legal status of permanent residents, which in practice is the same as that of foreign nationals who want to live in Israel for an extended period. This status grants them the right to live and work in Israel without requiring special permits (unlike Palestinians in Judea and Samaria). It also entitles them to benefits under the National Insurance Law and the National Health Insurance Law. As permanent residents, they are eligible to vote in municipal but not in national elections.

Obviously, these social and health benefits rank high among the reasons why Palestinians prefer to live within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, even though they could obtain cheaper and better housing elsewhere.

East Jerusalem Arabs “are entangled in a thicket of contradictions,” Dr. David Koren and Ben Avrahami, the advisers on east Jerusalem affairs for the Jerusalem Municipality, write. “They assert their Palestinian national identity alongside an unprecedented demand for Israeli citizenship; throw stones at the light rail while using it; harass visitors to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus but value the care that Arabs receive in its clinics and wards; protest the enforcement of planning and building laws in Arab neighborhoods while calling for an increased police presence there to maintain public order; campaign against any manifestation of normalization with Israel in tandem with a tremendous interest in learning Hebrew and an increasing preference for the Israeli rather than the Palestinian matriculation certificate…”

Koren and Avrahami believe that more and more residents of east Jerusalem understand that there is no alternative to Israeli control of the city on the horizon, and that they will always be better off under Israeli administration. In fact, the last Washington Institute survey in east Jerusalem, conducted in June 2015, found that 52% of Arab residents would prefer to become citizens of Israel, whereas only 42% would want to be citizens of the Palestinian state, even after a peace accord.

As mentioned, there has been a marked increase in the numbers of east Jerusalemites filing applications for Israeli citizenship; more than 1,000 in 2016. Other indicators of belonging are the many programs to learn Hebrew that have been established in east Jerusalem in recent years; the mounting preference to send children to schools that lead to Israeli high school matriculation; and the soaring demand in east Jerusalem for pre-university preparatory programs subsidized by the Israeli government.

Arab Jerusalemites have also enthusiastically welcomed the municipality’s initiatives in east Jerusalem, such as employment centers, community councils at the neighborhood level, and a high-tech incubator.

In addition, the Jerusalem municipality’s major effort to reduce disparities and improve the level of services and infrastructure in Arab neighborhoods, with an emphasis on roads (more than 50 million shekels — $14 million — a year) and classrooms (500 million shekels over the coming decade) has not gone without notice.

“In our eyes,” write the municipality Arab affairs advisers, “even the protest demonstrations by east Jerusalemites in Safra Square, in front of City Hall, are not nuisances, but rather a welcome phenomenon that expresses a de facto recognition that the municipality is the appropriate address for solving their problems. This is the fruit of normalization.”

“We believe that, despite their Palestinian national identity, broad sectors of the east Jerusalem Arab population have come around to a pragmatic attitude about Israeli authorities. Increasingly, they see Israel not only as a culprit to be blamed for their difficulties but as the only possible source for solving their problems and turning their lives around.”

“There are many Palestinians in east Jerusalem who have reached the instrumental level of exploiting the advantages offered by the western half of the city and would now like to participate in Israeli society at a deeper level — learning from it, mingling with it, and even joining it. An expression of this is the growing number of east Jerusalem teenagers who are enlisting to civil service programs after high school.”

Koren and Avrahami argue that Israel must invest in these propitious trends, for they have strategic implications both for the unity of the city and its security. “In another decade or two, the teenagers who today engage more deeply with Israeli society will be the pragmatists who moderate Palestinian society.”

During recent rounds of violence, they note, teachers and principals went out into the streets to get their pupils to curb their emotions and avoid attacking innocent persons, both Arabs and Jews. “In another decade, perhaps these teachers will be joined by businesspeople, community activists and cultural figures who endeavor to introduce mutual respect and sensitivity to the turbulent reality of Jerusalem.”

David M. Weinberg (http://davidmweinberg.com/) is director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Qatar – the end of the road?

June 9, 2017

Qatar – the end of the road? Israel National News, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, June 9, 2017

(Please see also, Qatar, Trump and Double Games. — DM)

The Emirate of Qatar is a peninsula that juts out from Saudi Arabia into the Persian Gulf. The only overland route out of Qatar is by way of Saudi Arabia and if that route is blocked, the only way to reach Qatar or leave it is by air or sea. However, flights to and from Qatar pass over Saudi air space part of the time and ships from or to Qatar have to pass through Saudi territorial waters. This means that Saudi Arabia can in effect declare a total blockade on Qatar if it so desires. It has never done so before, but it began the process on June 5th.

In addition to a blockade, the Saudis, joined by the United Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Mauritius, the Philippines and the Maldives, cut off diplomatic and consular relations with Qatar.  Egypt, Libya and the Emirates declared that they would ban Qatari plans and ships from their air space and territorial waters. In 2014, these countries took much milder steps in order to punish Qatar, cancelling them once Qatar agreed to accept the dictates of the Umma and signed the Riyadh agreement along with the rest of the Arab nations.

The reasons provided by the countries involved for the unprecedented severity of the current steps against Qatar included: “Qatar aids the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS and Jebhat al-Nusrah” and “The Emir of  Qatar has declared that Iran is a good nation” as well as “Qatar destabilizes our regime,” as well  as ” Qatar provides hiding places and shelter to Muslim Brotherhood leaders who fled there from Egypt,” and “Qatar is giving aid to  the Houthi rebels (read Shiites) in Yemen.”

Another and most subtle reason, whose source is a Kuwaiti commentator, appears on al Jazeera‘s site: “Qatar refused to meet Trump’s financial demands.” This odd remark relates to a rumor on Facebook and other social network sites claiming that before Trump agreed to come to the Riyadh Arab League Conference, he demanded the Gulf Emirates purchase US arms in the legendary sum of one and a half trillion dollars, to be divided among Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Emirates. The three agreed, but Qatar pulled out at the last minute, causing the Emirates to follow suit, and leaving the Saudis holding the bill demanded by Trump.   The falling through of this deal, the largest in history, may have been the reason for Trump’s noticeably grim face in Riyadh.

Claiming that Qatar causes the destabilization of regimes is a veiled hint referring to al Jazeera which broadcasts from Qatar. Every since it began broadcasting in 1996 from the capital city of Qatar, Doha, al Jazeera has infuriated Arab rulers because it constantly carries out a media Jihad against them also aimed at others such as  Israel, the US, the West and Western culture. The channel also promotes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots such as Hamas, al Qaeda and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel headed by Sheikh Raad Salah. Al Jazeera‘s media strategy is determined by Qatar’s Emir and is carried out down to the last detail by its very professional leading broadcaster and editorial policy setter, Jamal Rian, a Palestinian born in Tul Karem in 1953, who moved to Jordan where he was active in the Muslim Brotherhood until expelled by King Hussein.

Every so often other Arab regimes, chief among them Egypt under Mubarak, attempted to close down al Jazeera‘s offices in their countries after overly harsh criticism was aimed at the ruling government, only to reopen them when al Jazeera simply stepped up its attacks

The general feeling is that any government official – or anyone at all – who opposes a ruling regime (and there is no shortage of these people in any Arab country) leaks embarrassing information to  al Jazeera all the time, so that the channel is always poised to expose the information when the time is ripe and especially if the now-cornered victim has been unfriendly to it and to Islamists. The thought of this happening is enough to paralyze every Arab leader who would like to clamp down on al Jazeera in his country.

Every time a conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas, al Jazeera comes out in favor of the terrorist organization because of Qatar’s support of it. Hamas leader Haled Mashaal, makes his home in Qatar and the Qatari Emir is the only Arab leader so far to visit Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Emir has give billions to Hamas, enabling the organization to develop its  terror infrastructure.

Qatar has budgeted half a billion dollars to “buy” organizations such as UNESCO (whose next head will, unsurprisingly, be from Qatar), as well as media, academic and government figures to advance the goal of removing Jerusalem from Israeli hands. Al Jazeera runs a well publicized and organized campaign in order to ensure this outcome. This is the face of media jihad.

Saudi Arabia has never allowed al Jazeera‘s reporters to work from within the country, but does allow them to cover special events once in a while, mainly the Hajj. The Saudis know exactly what the Emir had up his sleeve when he founded a media network that would rule over Arab monarchs by means of recording their slip-ups, taking advantage of the Arab obsession with avoiding public humiliation by broadcasting from a satellite that can reach every house in the Arab world with no way of blocking it.

The last reports are that the Saudis blocked access to the al Jazeera internet site from their territory.  It is harder to block al Jazeera‘s satellite channel reception legally and it can still be accessed throughout the monarchy. Arab media attribute the blockage to declarations supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah made by the Emir of Qatar after Trump’s speech in Riyadh in which the US president included Hamas and Hezbollah in his list of terror organization, equating them with al Qaeda and ISIS.

Sorry, but I do not buy that story. Declarations about third parties (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah) are ordinarily not the reason a public dispute erupts between Iranian monarchs. In my opinion, the reason for blocking the al Jazeera site in Saudi Arabia is a photograph posted on the al Jazeera site while Trump was in Riyadh.

This photo shows King Suleiman of Saudi Arabia awarding the Gold Decoration, the highest honor of the Saudi monarchy, to Donald Trump, but that is not the reason it was posted on al Jazeera. The reason has to do with the woman appearing in it and standing between Suleiman and Trump. I do not know what her name is, but she accompanied Trump during his entire stay in Riyadh standing just behind him and carrying a briefcase. Perhaps she is an interpreter. She is carrying a briefcase filled with important documents that have to be with Trump all the time in one picture as he, of course, would not be seen carrying a briefcase and standing be[hind her].

What is interesting about this woman is that she spent the entire time in the royal palace with her hair uncovered, like Melania Trump, the First Lady, did, even though women with uncovered hair are not to be seen in Saudi Arabia. In the palace, women are also not allowed to b e seen in the company of men. Al Jazeera posted this photo intentionally, in order to embarrass the king who granted Trump an award even though he was accompanied by women who, like those in the picture, who do not cover their hair. That photo of the king was the last straw and the Saudis blocked al Jazeera.

Qatar is now under great pressure. The nations that broke off relations with Qatar have stopped recognizing the Qatari Rial as a viable currency and have confiscated all the Qatari Rials in their banks. As a result, Qatar cannot purchase goods with its own currency and must use its foreign currency reserves. The supermarket shelves in Qatar have been emptied by residents hoarding food for fear that the blockade will not allow food to be imported. Long lines of cars can be seen trying to leave for Saudi Arabia to escape being shut up in the besieged, wayward country.

Qatar is trying to get the US to help improve the situation. The largest American air force base in the Gulf is located in  Qatar and it is from there that the attacks on ISIS are generated. Qatar also hosts the US Navy Fifth Fleet as well as the Central Command and Control of US forces in that part of the world. Qatari media stress the US concern about the siege that the Saudis have put on Qatar.

As part of its efforts to enlist US aid, Qatar has begun a counterattack: Qatar media have publicized that the U.A.E. ambassador, Yousef Al Otaiba , said on US election eve: “What star could make Donald Trump the president?” This is intended to cause a rift between the US and the Gulf Emirates, but will certainly not improve Qatar’s own relations with the Emirates.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the Emirates have ejected Qatar from the coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen, and there are rumors that they will also remove Qatar from the Council for Cooperation in the Gulf. The Saudis could suspend Qatar’s membership in the Arab League and other organizations if this dispute continues, raising the pressure on the Emir’s al-Thani clan.

The next few days will decide Qatar’s future. There  is a distinct possibility that the foreign ministers of Qatar and the Arab nations taking part in the boycott against it will meet in some neutral spot, perhaps Kuwait, Qatar will give in and new rules will be set by Arab leaders, that is by King Suleiman, to keep Qatar in line. They would include: toning down al Jazeera and perhaps even switching its managerial staff, ending the support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations, ending cooperation with Iran and above all, listening to what the Saudi “Big Brother” says about issues, especially those having to do with financial dealings with the US. Once the conditions for Qatari surrender are agreed upon, we can expect the ministers to meet the press, publicize a declaration on the end of the intra-family dispute, shake hands before the cameras and smile – until the next crisis.

There is, however, another scenario: Qatar does not give in, the Saudis and its allies invade, their armies eject the Emir and Mufti of Qatar, and also Jamal Rian, the guiding brain behind Al Jazeera’s  policies. They would then appoint a new Emir from the ruling family, one who knows how to behave, one who listens to the Saudis.  No one except for Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas would oppose this solution, and the soft-spoken condemnations will not succeed in hiding the world’s joy and sighs of relief if the Saudis actually carry out that plan.

Winners and Losers from Comey Hearing

June 9, 2017

inners and Losers from Comey Hearing, BreitbartTony Lee, June 9, 2017

The mainstream media, left-wing Democrats, and “Never Trump” Republicans all breathlessly hoped for weeks that former FBI director James Comey’s testimony on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee would be the beginning of the end of President Donald Trump’s presidency.

Mainstream media cable networks like CNN had countdown clocks. Broadcast networks covered the hearing as if it would go down as one of the most seminal events in the history of the country. “Never Trump” Republicans were getting ready to be used as the mainstream media’s useful idiots and get their predictable television hits and quotes in mainstream media publications. Left-wing Democrats were dreaming of drafting articles of impeachment. They lionized Comey as their hero who would help them destroy Trump once and for all.

Not so fast.

After nearly three hours of testimony, Comey established that Trump did not collude with Russia and, as Breitbart’s Joel Pollak pointed out, “all but destroyed any hope Democrats had for bringing a case of obstruction of justice.”

The press and anti-Trump forces on the left and right were still hoping for “new information” that would destroy Trump. But to their surprise—and chagrin—the only new bits of information Comey revealed actually made Comey, the mainstream press, and Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton and then-President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, look bad before a captivated national audience.

In the end, Comey, Democrats, Never Trumpers, and the mainstream press turned out be losers while Trump, especially because the mainstream media so overhyped the hearing, emerged as the victor.

LOSERS:

Mainstream Media

NBC’s Chuck Todd set the table on Sunday for the mainstream media’s breathless coverage, predicting that Comey’s testimony “may well join those rare historic moments when the whole country stops to watch. Think Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. Watergate hearings in 1973. Oliver North’s testimony in the Iran Contra hearings in 1987, and of course Anita Hill at the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991.”

But the media got the sense that Comey’s testimony would be a dud for them on Wednesday when Comey released his introductory statement in which he confirmed Trump’s account that Comey had told Trump on multiple occasions that the President was not under FBI investigation.

Before, during, and after Comey’s testimony, the mainstream press looked as deflated as Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James did after Golden State’s Kevin Durant drained a go-ahead pull-up three-pointer in the waning moments of game three of the NBA Finals on Wednesday evening.

Trump felt “vindicated” by Comey’s introductory remarks, which may be why Comey conveniently decided not to read them before a captivated national audience.

“I’ve submitted my statement for the record, and I’m not going to repeat it here this morning,” he said.

Comey, though, revealed some information that further discredited the mainstream press that had deliberately ginned up talk of impeachment. They did so by using stories based solely on anonymous sources and double hearsay—some of which have since been discredited.

The former FBI director told Senators that the New York Times’ February 14 article, based on four anonymous sources, that suggested Trump’s campaign possibly colluded with Russians a year before the 2016 presidential campaign was “not true.”

Sen. James Risch (R-ID) pointed out that after the story’s publication, Comey “sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual.”

“In the main, it was not true,” Comey said of the story. “And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don’t. The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on, and going on are not talking about it. We don’t call the press to say, hey, you don’t that thing wrong about the sensitive topic. We have to leave it there.”

Comey said there were many more mainstream media articles about the FBI’s Russia investigation, based on anonymous sources, that were “dead wrong.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) asked Comey: “Have there been news accounts about the Russian investigation or collusion about the whole event or as you read the story you were wrong about how wrong they got the facts?”

“Yes, there have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff but about Russia that are dead wrong,” Comey responded.

On Wednesday, ABC and CNN falsely reported, based on their anonymous sources, that Comey would dispute Trump’s claim that Comey told him he was never under investigation. When he fired Comey, Trump wrote: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”

Before Comey released his introductory remarks, CNN’s Gloria Borger claimed “Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation.” CNN, citing an anonymous source, reported that Comey would “refute” Trump during his testimony and “say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.” CNN then had to issue this embarrassing correction:

CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published.

In addition, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) pointed out that the only bit of information that the Deep State did not leak to the mainstream press was the fact that Trump was not under investigation.

Comey also revealed that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch pressured him into misleading the public about the FBI’s “investigation” of Hillary Clinton’s emails. And yet, the mainstream media never dug enough to report that bit of inconvenient news.

James Comey

Comey’s surprising revelation that he orchestrated the leaking of his “contemporaneous” memo to the mainstream media raised more questions than answers.

When Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) asked Comey if he showed his memos to anyone outside the Justice Department, Comey matter-of-factly revealed that he asked his friend to leak his memo to the mainstream media.

“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons,” he said. “I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it.”

Comey revealed that his “close friend” is a professor at Columbia law school. Reporters later determined that that person is Daniel Richman. Richmond’s Columbia University bio states that he “is currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.”

“I asked—the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there’s not tapes,” Comey stated. “I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn’t dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might a tape. My judgement was, I need to get that out into the public square.”

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said he found “Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint.”

“Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents?” he asked. “Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media. The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly.”

He added that “it is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property. What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.”

“Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak. Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey not the cause of a Special Counsel,” Turley added. “It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely. More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.” There are also questions about whether Comey may have lied under oath about when he actually leaked his own memo.

Comey, after accusing Trump of lying about and defaming the FBI, also tried to paint Trump as a serial liar.

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document,” he said. “That combination of things I had never experienced before, but had led me to believe I got to write it down and write it down in a very detailed way.”

He added, “my common sense, again I could be wrong, but my common sense told me what’s going on here is, he’s looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job.”

But the bottom line is on the most important point—whether Comey told Trump on multiple occasions that he was not under investigation—Trump was telling the truth all along, even though mainstream media outlets like the Associated Press did everything to make American doubt Trump.

Obama Administration/Loretta Lynch

Comey’s testimony revealed that there may be just as many—if not more—questions surrounding the Obama administration regarding possible malfeasance.

When asked if former President Bill Clinton’s infamous tarmac meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch led him to go public with the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, Comey said, “yes,” adding that the incident was conclusively “the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the justice department.”

Comey later revealed that he felt “queasy” when Lynch “had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.”

“I don’t know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that,” he said. “It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling.”

Even CNN’s Chris Cilizza had to begrudgingly admit that Loretta Lynch “is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony.”

Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony

 As Breitbart’s John Hayward noted, the “big takeaway from the Comey hearing” may have been the “urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction.”

Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction

 Left-wing Democrats and Never Trumpers

Liberals and left-wing activists in places like San Francisco reportedly took the day off of work to attend various “viewing parties.

As soon as Trump fired Comey, the usual “Never Trump” suspects like Ana Navarro, Jennifer Rubin, and Max Boot immediately started floating the idea of “impeachment.” Boot predicted that “if Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment.” Rubin added that “House R’s should consider: Either a special pros/select committee now or impeachment if D’s take House.”

But it was a bad day for Democrats and Never Trumpers looking to ramp up their impeachment demands.

Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had to concede that Comey’s testimony revealed that there is no case to be made that Trump colluded with the Russians.

And as Breitbart’s Pollak pointed out, Comey’s exchange with Risch destroyed their hopes of bringing an “obstruction of justice” against Trump. Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitz also declared that there is “no plausible case” that Trump obstructed justice. In his memo, Comey recalled that Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

As Risch pointed out, Comey may have “taken it as direction but that’s not” exactly what Trump said:

RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that’s not what he said.

COMEY: Correct.

RISCH: He said, I hope.

COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct.

RISCH: You don’t know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?

COMEY: I don’t as I sit here.

Having no case for impeachment after Comey’s Thursday testimony, it is not surprising that there has was not a peep about impeachment from left-wing Democrats like Rep. Maxine “Get Ready for Impeachment” Waters (D-CA). Instead, Waters was railing against Wall Street. Mainstream media journalists were complaining about Trump’s character, mendacity, and temperament. Showing her Trump Derangement Syndrome, Rubin, though, continued to bring up potential impeachment.

Senators confused if they think only spec pros decides if Comey or Trump truthful. House in impeachment and Senate in trial must decide

“The saturation of Watergate analogies in the media however seems wildly detached from either the actual testimony or history. If Watergate was a cancer growing on the presidency, this is still little more than a canker sore — not great to look at but hardly life threatening,” Turley continued. “It could get worse but what Comey described in his testimony was boorish and even brutish but not necessarily an indictable or impeachable offense. Article I is not a book of etiquette for presidents. If Trump said these things to Comey, they are incredibly improper and ill-advised. Yet, the Nixon comparison works in favor of the position of Trump more than it does Comey.”

WINNER: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

Is he getting tired of winning yet?

Liberal anchors like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews conceded that there is no case for collusion. Comey’s exchange with Risch will make it difficult to bring an “obstruction of justice” against Trump. It turned out that Comey initiated the first one-on-one meeting with Trump during the transition period.

During his testimony, Comey reiterated that Trump never asked him to stop the FBI’s Russia investigation and was never under investigation in the first place. He also revealed that it is normal for foreign governments to reach out to officials in the incoming administration. He vindicated Trump’s claims about the “fake news” mainstream media. He reminded Americans that “the law required no reason at all” for Trump to fire an FBI director.

Comey testified that he was “confident” that no votes in the 2016 presidential election were altered. “When I left as director I had seen no indication of that whatsoever,” he said.

The bottom line is the media hyped Comey’s hearing so much that Trump would have emerged as the winner so long as Comey didn’t have a “smoking gun” or dropped a “bombshell” that proved Trump colluded with the Russians.

Though Trump reportedly decided the night before Comey’s testimony that he would not live-tweet rebuttals, the fact that he did not feel compelled to tweet during Comey’s testimony said it all. It turns out that when it came to the most important points, Trump did not have much to rebut.

Trump ends remarks on Comey Day without mentioning the word “Comey” or directly referencing the testimony.

Op-Ed: Israel’s F-35s may not be able to beat Iran

June 9, 2017

The lowdown on why the spanking-new US ‘stealth’ fighter may be a more dangerous proposition than old-fashioned F-15s.

Chana Roberts, 08/06/17 23:02

Source: Op-Ed: Israel’s F-35s may not be able to beat Iran – Israel National News

F-35 stealth fighter iStock

Israel has already acquired several F-35 stealth fighters from the US, and we’re set to acquire about fifty more, if the rumors are true.

But are F-35s in Israel’s best interest?

Assuming we don’t need F-35s to fight Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, or “lone-wolf” terrorists, the main enemy our pilots will fight is Iran.

The problem is that the F-35 may not be able to eliminate Iran’ stockpile of nukes.

What’s so special about the F-35, and why does Israel want it?

The F-35 is a spanking-new stealth fighter, incredibly difficult to track via radar. Its stealth capabilities help pilots evade sophisticated missile systems, and the plane itself can carry a relatively wide array of weapons.

The F-35 travels at a supersonic speed of about 1,200 miles (1,900 kilometers) per hour (a speed of March 1.6).

Though the seat’s headrest partially blocks the pilot’s view, cameras mounted on the plane provide 360-degree vision. Plus, the stealth fighter has both night vision and thermal vision.

The pilot’s helmet includes an operating system, and the data appearing on its visor is also shared elsewhere.

In short, the F-35 is a plane with lots of advanced capabilities.

The dangerous catch? Easily spotted = easily reported.

While the F-35 is considered to be the best fighter in the world, in reality, it has a few serious flaws. First and foremost, it’s easily reportable. All Iran needs in order to know we’re there is an alert civilian living on the border.

Why? Because that plane makes a racket.

No, seriously. If you don’t live near enough to an army base for training to be going on over your head (I do), you don’t know. The F-35 may be flying a few kilometers above you, but you won’t be able to hear anything other than its noise until the plane has passed far enough away. Let’s say…for about 45 seconds.

Worse, its sound is different than any other plane’s. So different, in fact, that once you hear an F-35 a few times, you can’t mix it up with anything else.

Let’s say there’s an Iranian citizen living on the country’s border. He knows what the planes flying over his head sound like, because he hears them every day. They’re part of the background music.

Suddenly, he hears something much, much louder. By the time he looks out the window, he can’t see anything. But he sure can hear it – and he knows it’s a plane.

Our civilian goes over to the phone, calls the authorities, and says, “Are we at war? Did you get new planes? A massively loud plane just flew over my head, and it sure doesn’t belong to us!”

And not all of the Negev’s citizens are faithful to Israel. I’m sure some of my Bedouin neighbors have learned to recognize the F-35 – and I’m also sure that some of those neighbors are more faithful to Iran and terror groups than they are to the State which provides them with free health care, good education, and a Western lifestyle. Proof: They steal weapons from the IDF, right, left, and center.

Iran may not even need an alert citizen on the border, if they have intelligence from a Bedouin that our F-35s are heading their way.

Or maybe, our nice Bedouin will call his Iranian friend.

“Hey, Mahmoud! A bunch of F-35s just flew over my head. They seem to be going your way – keep your eyes peeled. If I’m right, they’ll reach you in about an hour and a half.”

Israel may be able to take out Iran’s nukes before that alert goes out to the Iranian Air Force. And it may not.

Either way, there’s a high chance our pilots will have to dogfight before coming home.

And that’s the other problem: If an F-35 pilot is forced to dogfight because a squadron of Iranian fighter planes has been called up to meet our squadron…

The F-35 pilot will lose. Can he outspeed his opponent? Possibly – that depends on what he’s facing. He may not be able to outrun an F-14, F-15, or F-22. And either way, we need to take out Iran’s nukes. Just because they found us out, doesn’t mean we can back down.

What it means is that some of our pilots will have to fight so the bombers can do their job. And if our pilots have to fight, some will die.

Why not borrow F-14s or use F-15s, disguise them as Iranian, and do the deed undercover?

No, seriously.