Archive for July 25, 2017

Temple Mount: What’s the point in praying if you can’t bring your gun?

July 25, 2017

Temple Mount: What’s the point in praying if you can’t bring your gun? HonestReporting, July 23, 2017

According to the blurb beneath the video,

This week a lot of people died in Israel. How did it all happen? What critical facts did the media leave out? And why do some headlines make it look like there’s no moral difference between the victims and the attackers who killed them? We break down the events, the facts and the media failures.

CORRECTION NOTE: The attack on the Temple Mount occurred on a Friday, not Thursday. Apologies for any confusion.

Taliban seizes 3 districts from Afghan government

July 25, 2017

Taliban seizes 3 districts from Afghan government, Long War Journal, , July 25, 2017

Even as the three districts fell, the Taliban is on the offensive in all of the other regions. Afghan security forces, which are sustaining record highs in casualties and desertions, is largely on the defensive in most areas of the country.

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

The Afghan Taliban has overrun three districts previously held by the Afghan government in the provinces of Paktia, Farah and Ghor over the past several days. The Taliban is demonstrating that it can sustain operations in all theaters of Afghanistan. The three districts are located in three different regions of the country.

The district of Jani Khel in Paktia, a known stronghold of the Haqqani Network – the powerful Taliban subgroup that is based in eastern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s tribal areas – fell to the Taliban earlier today after several days of heavy fighting, according to Afghan officials and the Taliban. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that the district headquarters buildings, the police headquarters and all security checkpoints are under his group’s control. Fighting is underway at a nearby military base.

Jani Khel was effectively under Taliban control. At the end of March, the group claimed that all but six percent of the district, including the district center, was under Afghan government control.

The districts of Taywara in Ghor in central Afghanistan, and Kohistan (or Lolash) in Faryab in the northwest fell to the Taliban on July 23 after several days of fighting. TOLONews confirmed that the two districts are now Taliban controlled and “government forces have not yet launched military operations to re-capture these districts.”

The loss of the three districts shows that the Taliban is capable of conducting operations in all regions of the country. Even as the three districts fell, the Taliban is on the offensive in all of the other regions. Afghan security forces, which are sustaining record highs in casualties and desertions, is largely on the defensive in most areas of the country.

The state of play of Afghan districts is often difficult to determine. Often, some districts switch hands multiple times over a short period of time. For instance, Nawa district in Helmand province has gone back and forth between the Taliban and the Afghan government four times over the past year. The Afghan government retook it just last week, but the Taliban are fighting to regain control.

In some cases, such as with Jani Khel or all of the districts in Uruzgan province, the Taliban controls all of the district except for the district center, which hosts the government facilities and police headquarters.

Estimates issued by the US military and the Taliban are not that far apart. The US military estimated in the spring that the Taliban now controls or contests 40 percentof Afghanistan’s districts, while the Taliban in late March claimed the number is closer to 50 percent. [See FDD’s Long War Journal reports, Taliban controls or contests 40 percent of Afghan districts: SIGAR and Afghan Taliban lists ‘Percent of Country under the control of Mujahideen’.]

Afghan forces have ceded control of some rural districts to the Taliban, excusing the districts as strategically unimportant. The Taliban has instead used these districts as bases to attack Afghan forces in more populous districts.

Is Turkey Preparing for war with America?

July 25, 2017

Is Turkey Preparing for war with America? The Point (Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 25, 2017

(Please see also, Secretary of State Shills for Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, which also notes Secretary Tillerson’s affinity for Turkey. — DM)

Those Hillary high fives with Erdogan’s minion really look good now. And Obama’s lectures about how Turkey ought to be a model for moderate Islamic rule even better.

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

Turkey is an Islamist Venezuela with money. Its slow transformation into a Sunni Iran complete with terror backing and suppression of domestic dissent, the latest via a fake coup, was aided and abetted by the left-wing diplomatic corps. 

Despite its latest information leaks revealing the presence of US forces to its Jihadist allies, it remains a member of NATO. The question is for how long.

Turkey has made progress in plans to procure an S-400 missile defense system from Russia and signatures have been signed, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday.

“Steps have been taken and signatures signed with Russia concerning the S-400s. Allah willing we will see the S-400s in our country,” Erdogan told lawmakers from his ruling AK Party at a party meeting in parliament.

That would give Turkey something else in common with Iran.

Why would a NATO member want the S-400? Why, for that matter, does Turkey need it all? Whom is it expecting a possible attack from. Iran wanted Russian air defense systems to ward off an attempt to take out its nuclear weapons program by either America or Israel. Turkey isn’t seriously expecting a strike by Israel. That leaves America or some European countries. The latter is also less likely.

The S-400 won’t integrate into NATO so Turkey isn’t counting on long-term membership. Erdogan may announce a departure from NATO. Even if he doesn’t, he’s making it clear that he views potential enemies as being either in NATO or American allies, whether it’s Israel or America. But the most obvious message here is to the United States. And the message has multiple levels.

Erdogan is telegraphing that he’s going to begin moving Turkey into territory that would involve the risk of an air strike. That will mean an intensification of the current tyranny. It will mean increasing backing for Islamic terrorists. And possibly, WMD programs.

Those Hillary high fives with Erdogan’s minion really look good now. And Obama’s lectures about how Turkey ought to be a model for moderate Islamic rule even better.

State Dept. in ‘Open War’ With White House

July 25, 2017

BY:
July 25, 2017 2:10 pm

Source: State Dept. in ‘Open War’ With White House

The State Department under Secretary Rex Tillerson has been locked in a growing power struggle with the White House that has angered officials in the West Wing and sparked claims that the Trump administration’s top diplomatic organ is now in “open war” with the White House on a range of critical issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, Iran, the crisis with Qatar, and other matters, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the situation.

The State Department is said to be in a state of “massive dysfunction,” with top officials working under Tillerson ignoring White House directives on critical staffing issues and key policy matters, according to multiple sources, including administration allies who are said to be increasingly frustrated with what is perceived as the White House’s inability to control its own federal agencies.

The tensions have fueled an outstanding power battle between the West Wing and State Department that has handicapped the administration and resulted in scores of open positions failing to be filled with Trump confidantes. This has allowed former Obama administration appointees still at the State Department to continue running the show and formulating policy, where they have increasingly clashed with the White House’s own agenda.

The latest flashpoint in this growing civil war is Israel, where a string of terror attacks has sidetracked the Trump administration’s nascent efforts to get the Israelis and Palestinian back to the negotiating table.

Just hours after a Palestinian terrorist murdered several Jewish civilians, the State Department told the Free Beacon that it is not clear what motivates such violent acts. The statement sparked anger within the administration and on Capitol Hill, where many viewed the State Department’s declaration as a sign the agency is openly rebelling against the White House.

“It’s no secret that the State Department is waging an open political war, which includes policy insubordination and press campaigns, against the Trump White House,” according to one veteran foreign policy analyst who regularly briefs the White House and Trump appointees in the State Department.

“Foggy Bottom is still run by the same people who designed and implemented Obama’s Middle East agenda,” the source said. “Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created.”

One of the central points of contention between the White House and State Department has been a plethora of agency vacancies that have yet to be filled. The White House is said to have sent many lists of potential candidates for these jobs, but senior aides to Tillerson have ignored the White House and trashed these lists, according to multiple sources.

This has resulted in key State Department positions remaining unfilled, a situation that has only elevated the roles of former Obama administration officials who still work in the department.

“Those lists [of candidates] literally go nowhere,” according to one veteran Republican foreign policy operative familiar with the situation. “It’s like a sham process. And the reason is not because the White House isn’t behaving professionally. It’s because Tillerson isn’t professional at all.”

The situation has impacted morale within the administration and stoked further tensions between President Donald Trump and Tillerson, who has begun to hint that he will quit his post in the near future.

“This is demoralizing for Republicans, appalling in terms of professionalism, and just depressing for those who know you need a national security apparatus to get things done,” said the source.

As key positions remain vacant, Tillerson has begun to rely on Obama-era holdovers who toe a different policy line than the current administration. Sources pointed to Stuart Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for near east affairs, as just one example of this disconnect.

Jones, a career foreign service officer who has held many postings in the Middle East, has emerged as one of Tillerson’s go-to advisers on the Middle East, a region where the White House and State Department appear to be pursuing wholly separate agendas.

Sources briefed on the matter cited Jones as likely responsible for Tillerson’s erroneous claim recently that the Palestinian Authority has ceased spending U.S. taxpayer funds to pay terrorists, a comment that officials were forced to walk back after heavy criticism.

“Tillerson should have spent time and effort working to help the president undo the Iran deal,” said one GOP insider briefed by administration officials on the situation. “Instead, he’s apparently spending time and effort trying to prevent the president from undoing the Iran deal. And in the meantime he’s elevated the Arabist bullshit artist Stuart Jones to a position of influence in the building—a guy who was perfect for the job in the Obama administration.”

Tillerson and Jones also raised eyebrows earlier this week when both claimed in public remarks that Russia and the United States share similar interests in Syria, a regional hotspot where the Trump White House has been vocal in its criticism of Russian interference in anti-ISIS operations.

One senior former U.S. official familiar with the situation told the Free Beacon that the tensions between the White House and State Department “go very deep.”

“There is almost always some tension between the White House and the State Department, over turf and policy,” the former official said. “What’s new here is that at both ends there is uncertainty whether the top guy [Tillerson] will stay or go, serious tension with the president, and deep morale problems. You can have a happy [National Security Council] staff viciously fighting a happy State Department staff over everything, but today everyone is morose and doubts go very deep.”

Policy differences also have emerged regarding Iran policy, how to deal with the regional impasse over Qatar’s terror financing, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, according to multiple insiders.

“On Iran they refused to lay the groundwork for tearing up the deal, on Qatar even Obama’s holdover ambassador was tweeting criticism of Trump, and on Israel they say we’re going to upgrade U.S. relations with the Palestinians and won’t even condemn Palestinian terror incitement,” said the administration adviser. “Even Trump supporters are beginning to worry, what if the president simply can’t make the State Department implement his policies?”

The White House and State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Egyptian Writers Criticize The Negative Attitude To Christians And Jews Reflected In The Common Interpretation Of The Fatiha, The Opening Surah Of The Quran

July 25, 2017

Egyptian Writers Criticize The Negative Attitude To Christians And Jews Reflected In The Common Interpretation Of The Fatiha, The Opening Surah Of The Quran, MEMRI, July 25, 2016

On January 29, 2017, two days after the publication of Nadi’s article, Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, a columnist for the government daily Al-Ahram, praised Nadi’s article and stated that Quranic interpretations should be reexamined in light of “the impressive and respectable legacy of esteemed [Islamic] reformists.”

“So what does this mean, keeping in mind that we are talking not about the [Quranic] text [itself] but about its interpretation? It means that the issue of reforming the religious discourse is broader and deeper than we think, and we should address it by means of a well-planned academic program, especially [given] that we have [at our disposal] the impressive and respectable legacy of esteemed reformists. All that is left for the relevant authorities to do is monitor what appears in the booklets themselves…”

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

A discussion has recently taken place in the Egyptian media regarding the interpretation of the last two verses (verses 6 and 7) of the Fatiha, the opening surah of the Quran. These verses state: “[Allah,] Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have incurred [Your] wrath or of those who are astray.” According to the common interpretation of these verses,[i] the phrase “those upon whom You have bestowed favor” is taken to refer to the Muslims, while the phrases “those who have incurred [Your] wrath” and “those who are astray” are said to refer to the Jews and the Christians, respectively.  

The discussion in the Egyptian media was sparked by an investigative article published January 27, 2017 in the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm. The article, by journalist Mu’ataz Nadi, stated that booklets handed out at funerals and in mourning tents in Egypt repeat this interpretation that refers negatively to the Jews and the Christians, even though renowned religious scholars, such as 19th-century religious reformist Muhammad ‘Abduh and others, claimed that it is false.

Several Egyptian journalists responded with articles that supported Nadi’s view, rejecting the interpretation that appears in the booklets and rebuking clerics, especially Al-Azhar, for allowing the publication of such materials that they said spread extremism. They added that the booklets are yet another indication of the urgent need to reform the religious discourse.[ii]

The following are excerpts from the Al-Masri Al-Yawm article and from articles that responded to it.

 

Al-Masri Al-Yawm Article: Booklets Circulated In Egypt Interpret The Fatiha As Referring Negatively To Christians And Jews

Mu’taz Nadi’s article, titled “Interpretations of the Fatiha – From Muhammad ‘Abduh to Mourning Booklets,” notes that booklets handed out at funerals and mourning tents “contain various interpretations that present any Christian who comes to comfort [the family] as ‘one who is astray.'” It states further that the interpretation appearing in the booklets, which refers negatively to Christians and Jews, also appears on a website of King Saud University in Riyadh as part of a hadith by ‘Adi bin Hatim, one of the Prophet’s companions. This interpretation, he says, is still commonly cited “even though over a century has passed since Muhammad ‘Abduh,[iii] who served as the mufti of Egypt and was one of the pioneers of religious reform and renewal in his generation, [published a different] interpretation of the last two verses of the Fatiha”…

Commentary on Quran 1:7, explaining that “those who have incurred [Your] wrath” refers to the Jews and “those who are astray” refers to the Christians (image:Al-Masri Al-Yawm, Egypt, January 27, 2017)

Explaining ‘Abduh’s interpretation in detail, Nadi states that, according to ‘Abduh, the phrase  “those upon whom You have bestowed favor” refers not to the Muslims but to “the Prophets, the righteous, the martyrs and the decent men among the ancient nations.” As for the phrase “those who have incurred [Your] wrath,” it refers to “those who abandoned the path of truth after they knew it, [namely] those who were informed about Allah’s jurisprudence and religion but rejected it,” while the phrase “those who are astray” refers to people who never received the message of Islam, or who misunderstood it. Thus, in ‘Abduh’s interpretation, none of the phrases refer to the followers of any particular faith. Nadi notes that this interpretation was endorsed by other prominent Islamic scholars as well, such as Muhammad Metwali Al-Sha’rawi (1911-1998), who served as Egypt’s minister of endowments,[iv] Dr. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy (1928-2010), who was sheikh of Al-Azhar.[v]

The article also quotes Dr. Muhyi Al-Din Al-‘Afifi, director of Al-Azhar’s Academy of Islamic Studies, as saying: “The interpretation spread by [these] mourning booklets is at odds with what is said in the Quran, for the Honorable Quran mentions the Christians, and Allah the Almighty said of them [in Quran 5:82]:  ‘You will find the nearest of [mankind] in affection to the believers those who say, “We are Christians.” That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.’[vi] ‘Afifi called upon Al-Azhar to examine various interpretations, especially of the Quran, that are spread in Egypt, and amend them.[vii]

Interpretation of Quran 1:7 in Tafsir Al-Jalalayn likewise refers to the Jews and Christians

Egyptian Writers: Religious Establishment Allows Extremist Interpretations Of The Quran

As noted, Nadi’s article sparked responses from other Egyptians who said that the interpretation of the Fatiha as referring to the Jews and Christians is wrong and that alternative interpretations proposed by enlightened sheikhs should be upheld. These writers criticized Egypt’s religious establishment, especially Al-Azhar, for allowing these interpretations to be published.

Al-Masri Al-Yawm Owner: Why Are Enlightened Interpretations Rejected In Favor Of Extremist Ones?

Salah Diab, the owner and founder of Al-Masri Al-Yawm, who writes under the pen-name Newton, also addressed this topic in a January 27, 2017 article, titled “Rebuke.” Newton noted that the booklets which contain this interpretation bear a certificate of approval by Al-Azhar, which suggests that Al-Azhar approves this interpretation, which appears in them, and directed criticism at the Sheikh of Al-Azhar for this. He wrote: “Every person has a moral duty to extend condolences to the bereaved. The older we get, the more such visits we make. In most funerals I attend these days, it is customary to give mourners a copy of the Quran as they leave, and I therefore have a whole pile of Qurans. In other cases one is given a booklet containing a few surahs from the Quran, the first of which is the Fatiha. On the margins of each page of these booklets is some commentary, and the back cover bears a photo of an Al-Azhar certificate approving the publication of the booklet, so that various libraries can circulate it.

“The Fatiha, which we recite several times as part of our daily prayers, is easy to understand and requires no explanation, and therefore it never occurred to me to look for an interpretation and I never looked at the margins [of the page] bearing these verses… [But] at the last funeral I attended, I happened to run across a school mate of my son’s, who is Christian. After greeting me, he told me with a smile, referring to the interpretation of the Fatiha on the margins [of the booklet], that the words ‘those who have incurred [Your] wrath’ are said to refer to the Jews, whereas the words ‘those who are astray’ are said to refer to the Christians. I was amazed, and apologized to him, [saying] that [the authors of the booklet] are ignorant and do not understand what they are doing, and [then I] returned to my car, embarrassed.

“Who are ‘those who have incurred [Allah’s] wrath’? Perhaps it is those who blew up St. Peter’s Church [in Al-‘Abassiya in December 2016]?[viii] Are they not the ones deserving of wrath? [Or perhaps other] murderers, or people who abuse their parents? Does not the [Muslim] religion describe such people as deserving of punishment? Or does this [phrase] refer only to our Jewish brethren?  And what about a Muslim who deviates from the directives of his faith and drinks alcohol, fornicates and gambles – is he not worthy of the description ‘one who is astray’? Or does his faith render him immune, regardless of his behavior and [how much] suffering it causes others? Does one have to be a Christian to merit this description?

“I do not know much about religion and I do not purport to be an expert on religious exegesis. But the interpretation that appears [in the booklet] is apparently approved by Al-Azhar, whose certificate appears on the back cover. Why do they reject enlightened interpretations in favor of extremist ones? Why do we discard the enlightened approach of the two noble sheikhs, Imam Muhammad ‘Abduh and Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, who was Sheikh of Al-Azhar in 1958-1963? Both of them said that ‘those who incurred [Allah’s] wrath’ and ‘those who are astray’ could be Muslim, Jewish or Christian, and that the phrases do not refer to the followers of any particular faith. Why do we discard these moderate ideas?…

“At a time when we speak of renewing the religious discourse, so that all faiths lead to [the goal] for which they descended, which is [promoting] peace, coexistence, compassion and acceptance of the other, I cannot but convey a certain [message of] rebuke to our honorable Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayeb…”[ix]

Egyptian Journalist: The Existence Of Different Interpretations Underscores The Need To Reform The Religious Discourse

On January 29, 2017, two days after the publication of Nadi’s article, Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, a columnist for the government daily Al-Ahram, praised Nadi’s article and stated that Quranic interpretations should be reexamined in light of “the impressive and respectable legacy of esteemed [Islamic] reformists.” He wrote: “The excellent investigative article by Mu’ataz Nadi… fascinated me… What did my colleague [Nadi] find in his review of the mourning booklets? He found a copy of the Fatiha with commentary on verse 7… [stating that] ‘those who incurred [Allah’s] wrath’ refers to the Jews, whereas ‘those who are astray’ refers to the Christians.  When my colleague looked into this interpretation, he found that it [also] appears on the website of King Saud University [in Riyadh], but that it is different from the interpretations [proposed by] Sheikh Muhammad ‘Abduh, Sheikh Muhammad Metwali Al-Sha’rawi, and the late Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy.

“Trying to get to the bottom of this, I turned to some sources I have, such as Al-Muntakhab, a [modern] compilation of Quranic commentaries  published by [Al-Azhar’s] Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. The 18th edition [of this book], from 1995, says that ‘those who incurred [Allah’s] wrath’ and ‘those who are astray’ refers to ‘those who merit Allah’s wrath and who strayed from the path of good and of truth because they rejected faith and obedience’ (p. 1). However, this is different from what appears in the ancient commentary by [eighth-century Syrian Quranic exegete] ibn Kathir, which says that ‘those who incurred [Allah’s] wrath’ are the Jews, and ‘those who are astray’ are the Christians. This interpretation also appears on the Ahl Al-Sunnah website.

“So what does this mean, keeping in mind that we are talking not about the [Quranic] text [itself] but about its interpretation? It means that the issue of reforming the religious discourse is broader and deeper than we think, and we should address it by means of a well-planned academic program, especially [given] that we have [at our disposal] the impressive and respectable legacy of esteemed reformists. All that is left for the relevant authorities to do is monitor what appears in the booklets themselves…”[x]

__________________________

[i] See e.g. the popular classical commentaries Tafsir Al-Tabari, by Abu Ja’far Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari (838-923), who was one of the first Quranic exegetes, and  Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, by Jalal Al-Din al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and his student Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti (1445–1505).

[ii] It should be noted that this issue has been debated in the past by Egyptian clerics and media. Islamic preacher Mabrouk ‘Atiyya said at a December 18, 2016 event at the Dar Al-‘Uloum faculty of Cairo University that, contrary to the opinion of many Islamic scholars,  the verse does refer to Christians and Jews, and “whoever interprets it this way understands nothing.” He added: “The Quran makes positive mention of Christians and [Allah] ordered [the believers] to be kind to them. How could the Quran speak positively of certain people and [at the same time] call them ‘those who are astray ‘ [or] ‘those who have incurred [Allah’s] anger’?” (cairoportal.com, December 18, 2017). Egyptian media figure Tamer Amin referred to this issue on a December 2016 television program. He noted that he was amazed to hear that an Egyptian sixth-grade textbook on Islam likewise explains that “those who are astray” in the Fatiha refers to the Christians. He added that the textbook thus presents every religion except Islam as a false religion, and that “this is the way to cultivate [future] terrorists.” He concluded that, “if [this claim about the textbook] is true, it is a disaster” (tahrirnews.com, December 12, 2017).

[iii] Renowned Egyptian Islamic scholar and jurist Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849 –1905), who called for renewal in the Arab and Muslim world, is regarded as one of the key founding figures of Islamic reform and Modernism.

[iv] Egyptian Islamic Scholar and Jurist Al-Sha’rawi was an immensely popular Islamic preacher, and has been called “one of the most prominent symbols of popular Egyptian culture” in the 1970s-1990s.

[v] Tantawy, an influential scholar, also served the grand Mufti of Egypt.

[vi] It should be noted that ‘Afifi ignored the first part of this verse, which refers negatively to the Jews, saying: “You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah.”

[vii] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), January 27, 2017.

[viii] The December 11, 2016 blast near the Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Al-Abbasiya, Cairo, left 25 people dead and 49 injured. See Al-Ahram (Egypt, December 12, 2016.

[ix] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), January 27, 2017.

[x] Al-Ahram (Egypt), January 29, 2017.

77% of Israelis see removal of metal detectors on Temple Mount as capitulati…

July 25, 2017
Poll finds most Israelis are unhappy with Netanyahu’s handling of the crisis; Muslims continue praying outside Temple Mount complex, saying removal of metal detectors not enough; Abbas says PA will not renew ties with Israel until all security measures are removed.

Source: Ynetnews News – 77% of Israelis see removal of metal detectors on Temple Mount as capitulati…

The majority of Israelis think the removal of the metal detectors at the entrance to the Temple Mount constitutes a capitulation by the Israeli government, according to a Channel 2 News poll published on Tuesday.

Seventy-seven percent of participants responded “yes” to the question whether the removal of metal detectors constituted capitulation, while 17 percent said “no” and six percent said they didn’t know.

Respondents were also asked for their opinion on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the crisis. Sixty-seven percent rated his performance “not good” while 23 percent rated his actions “good.”

The Gate of the Tribes after the removal of metal detectors (Photo: Reuters)

The Gate of the Tribes after the removal of metal detectors (Photo: Reuters)

When asked whether it was the right decision to place the metal detectors at the entrances to the Temple Mount in the first place, 68 percent said “yes,” while 23 percent said “no” and nine percent said they didn’t know.

But despite the removal of the metal detectors, the Palestinians said the chosen alternative—smart cameras able to detect hidden weapons or explosives—was still unacceptable.

Thousands of Muslim worshipers gathered outside the Lions’ Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City for evening prayer on Tuesday, maintaining their refusal to enter the Temple Mount complex.

The Waqf, the religious body that runs the Islamic sites in the Al-Aqsa compound, said worshipprs would continue to stay away from the plaza and pray in the streets outside.

A Waqf spokesman said it was awaiting a decision of a technical committee but was demanding the situation revert to the way it was before the metal detectors were installed.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian Authority will not renew its ties with Israel until all security measures are removed.

The Palestinians claim the police did not remove all security cameras at the entrance to the Temple Mount, left barricades instead of the metal detectors, did not open all gates to the Temple Mount and plans to install smart cameras in the near future.

Palestinian President Abbas (Photo: AP)

Palestinian President Abbas (Photo: AP)

Speaking at a meeting of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, Abbas said there will be no change in relations with Israel until the situation returns to what it was before the July 14 terror attack at the holy site, when three Israeli Arab terrorists smuggled weapons into the Temple Mount complex and opened fire at an Israeli police patrol, killing two officers.

“All the Israeli measures on the ground from that date to the present day are supposed to cease to exist and then things will return to normal in Jerusalem, after which we will complete our work regarding bilateral relations between us and them,” Abbas said.

On Friday, Abbas announced he was freezing all ties with Israel, including security cooperation.

“Relations with Israel will be frozen at all levels until Israel commits itself to canceling all its steps against the Palestinian people as a whole and against the city of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in particular, and to committing itself to preserving the historical and legal situation in Al-Aqsa,” he said in a statement.

“We reject to the metal detectors, as they are political moves presented in the guise of security measures, whose sole goal is to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque and escape the peace process, turn the conflict from a political one to a religious one and break up the mosque based on time and place,” the Palestinian leader added.

The installation of the metal detectors set off the bloodiest clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in years. The spike in tensions and the deaths of three Israelis and four Palestinians in violence on Friday and Saturday raised international alarm and prompted a session of the United Nations Security Council to consider ways of defusing the crisis.

“All parties should work to reduce these tensions and we offer whatever assistance we can in helping to do this,” Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council in New York. “At the holy sites, it’s vital that both access and security be ensured.” Washington has already held talks with Israel and Jordan to help resolve the crisis.

 Reuters contributed to this story.

A State Department Gone Rogue on Iran

July 25, 2017

A State Department Gone Rogue on Iran, JerusalemPostMatthew R.J. Brodsky, July 24, 2017

Final round of negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran continue in Vienna November 21, 2014. (photo credit:REUTERS)

According to a recent report, the president assigned a White House team to focus on the Iran deal and sideline the State Department so that he has more options when the issue comes to the fore again in three months.

It’s not just Iran where the president sees a problem; the secretary has been actively tugging in the opposite direction when it comes to solving the Qatar crisis and on a host of issues related to Israel as well.

In many ways, the different view at the State Department should be expected, not just due to institutional issues where diplomats usually prefer finesse to force but because of personnel considerations as well.

Barack Obama holdovers are driving the State Department’s Iran policy.

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

For the second time during Donald Trump’s brief tenure as president, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the State Department won in the inter-administration battle over the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That victory, however, may end up being short lived given the trajectory of the administration’s overall developing policy toward the regime in Tehran and the process by which the reoccurring 90-day certification of Iran took place in April and again on July 17.

The whole ordeal cast a light on the shrinking esteem in which the president seems to hold Secretary Tillerson and the crew of Obama-era holdovers upon whose guidance he relies.

Washington was briefly abuzz on the afternoon of July 17 when rumors began to circulate that President Trump was eager to declare that Iran was in breach of the conditions laid out in the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA).

Those receptive antennas were further heightened given the previous signals sent. After all, the State Department already released talking points to reporters on the decision to recertify Iran. The Treasury Department also had a package of fresh sanctions on over a dozen Iranian individuals and entities ready to announce to appease the hawks who were eager to cut loose from the deal.

But Trump didn’t want to recertify Iran, nor did he want to the last time around in April. That evening, a longtime Middle East analyst close to senior White House officials involved in the discussions described the scene to me: “Tillerson essentially told the president, ‘we just aren’t ready with our allies to decertify.’ The president retorted, ‘Isn’t it your job to get our allies ready?’ to which Tillerson said, ‘Sorry sir, we’re just not ready.’” According to this source, Secretary Tillerson pulled the same maneuver when it came to recertification in April by waiting until the last minute before finally admitting the State Department wasn’t ready. On both occasions he simply offered something to the effect of, “We’ll get ‘em next time.”

That for the second time, Team Tillerson forced the president to recertify Iran because they prepared no other options appears to have left a mark on Trump.

According to a recent report, the president assigned a White House team to focus on the Iran deal and sideline the State Department so that he has more options when the issue comes to the fore again in three months.

It’s not just Iran where the president sees a problem; the secretary has been actively tugging in the opposite direction when it comes to solving the Qatar crisis and on a host of issues related to Israel as well.

In many ways, the different view at the State Department should be expected, not just due to institutional issues where diplomats usually prefer finesse to force but because of personnel considerations as well.

Most pundits have pointed to the dwindling bench of the department’s roster. After all, many positions remain unfilled. When Tillerson chose Elliott Abrams to serve as deputy secretary, a well-known conservative who served under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Trump even intervened to quash the appointment. The problem, however, is more about the people already in the department, rather than those yet to be appointed or hired.

Barack Obama holdovers are driving the State Department’s Iran policy.

They include Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iran in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Chris Backemeyer, who previously served as the director for Iran at the National Security Council (NSC) under Obama; and Deputy Assistant Secretary and former US special envoy for Syria Michael Ratney. The first two were directly involved in the recertification fiasco – twice. They, among others, made their careers selling the Iran deal and are dedicated to its preservation.

In April, the first draft of the language “was full of Obama-era lines” including several falsehoods promoting the utility of the JCPOA, such as the deal verifiably puts Iran a year away from a nuclear weapon, this source explained.

“There was a huge fight after they wrote it because some said it was too pro-deal and it used all kinds of Obama language.”

“The White House went ballistic,” he said, “and they forced rewrites until they had a statement that was just a few lines.”

The revised version praised neither the deal nor Iran’s actions and pointed to the NSC-led interagency review of the JCPOA – a White House victory on the language used but a State Department win on preserving the status quo in policy.

“Backemeyer and Shannon wrote the certification,” the source confirmed, “and they were closely involved in the certification process this time around.”

For an administration that otherwise sounds determined to curtail Iran’s expansionist ambitions, it’s a wonder that the same people who brought the deal across the finish line, made careers out of selling the deal and helped fill Tehran’s financial coffers are still running the show at the State Department.

What’s more, Secretary Tillerson seems supportive of that decision or oblivious to its impact.

In either case, the department is in open insubordination to the White House and neither scenario reflects well on the secretary or his team. Nevertheless, whether or not his days are numbered, the current policy of rubber stamping Iran’s certification certainly appears to be coming to an end.

The author is a senior fellow at the Security Studies Group in Washington, DC, a senior Middle East analyst at Wikistrat and a former director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center. 

Trudeau government to revise Canada’s citizenship test, no longer ban ‘barbaric cultural practices’ or require a job

July 25, 2017

Trudeau government to revise Canada’s citizenship test, no longer ban ‘barbaric cultural practices’ or require a job, American ThinkerThomas Lifson, July 25, 2017

Respecting the human rights of others (unless they are indigenous peoples) is optional!  I wonder how Canada’s homosexuals and Jews feel about this?  Both groups trend progressive.  How many will bite their tongues and go along with the dogma?

Canadians might want to pay attention to Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and other European countries that have welcomed masses of Muslims purporting to be refugees and think carefully about what their government is proposing to do to Canada.

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

Justin Trudeau’s government is redefining what it means to be a Canadian, and in the process, he appears to be opening the door for the Islamization of our northern neighbor.  The Canadian press has obtained a copy of a draft of a new study guide for Canada’s citizenship test, which defines what it means to be  Canadian.

Unsurprisingly, given his progressive inclinations, Justin Trudeau’s government apparently does not want to be judgmental about things like female genital mutilation, honor killings, and the need to get a job if you want to come in and be a Canadian.  Judgmentalism is reserved for the Yankees to the south, apparently.

Respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples, paying taxes and filling out the census are listed as mandatory obligations of Canadian citizenship in a draft version of a new study guide for the citizenship exam.

The working copy obtained by The Canadian Press suggests the federal government has completely overhauled the book used by prospective Canadians to prepare for the test.

The current “Discover Canada” guide dates back to 2011 when the previous Conservative government did its own overhaul designed to provide more information on Canadian values and history.

Some of the Conservatives’ insertions attracted controversy, including increased detail about the War of 1812 and a warning that certain “barbaric cultural practices,” such as honour killings and female genital mutilation, are crimes in Canada.

Getting rid of both those elements was what former Liberal Immigration Minister John McCallum had in mind when he said early in 2016 that the book was up for a rewrite. But although work has been underway for over a year, there’s no date set for publication of a final version.

In the draft version, the reference to barbaric cultural practices is gone, as is the inclusion of getting a job as one of the responsibilities of citizenship.

The “refugees” overwhelming Western European countries also mostly reject jobs, despite the fact that most are young men of military or working age.  They also tend to reject other elements of integrating and becoming self-sufficient, as Breitbart reported:

The Swedish government has found that only between three and four percent of newly arrived migrants with a poor standard of education have any interest in attending further schooling or training.

The new report, which comes from the Swedish Employment Service, shows that only three to four percent of migrants who have come to Sweden in the last two years have shown interest in attending classes to develop their education.

Annie Rubensson, integration and establishment manager at the Employment Service said that the figures could greatly impact migrants chances of employment Sveriges Radioreports.

“This means that their chances of getting a job drops significantly,” Rubensson said adding, “we are working hard to motivate and we will strengthen our efforts in the guidance to inform about what is required in the Swedish labour market.”

The Canadian draft has other things in mind when it discusses requirements of immigrants:

Instead, the proposed new guide breaks down the responsibilities of citizenship into two categories: voluntary and mandatory.

Voluntary responsibilities are listed as respecting the human rights of others, understanding official bilingualism and participating in the political process.

Obeying the law, serving on a jury, paying taxes, filling out the census and respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples are mandatory.

Respecting the human rights of others (unless they are indigenous peoples) is optional!  I wonder how Canada’s homosexuals and Jews feel about this?  Both groups trend progressive.  How many will bite their tongues and go along with the dogma?

Canadians might want to pay attention to Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and other European countries that have welcomed masses of Muslims purporting to be refugees and think carefully about what their government is proposing to do to Canada.

Off Topic | The Enduring Lesson of Charlie Gard

July 25, 2017

The Enduring Lesson of Charlie Gard, Front Page MagazineLloyd Billingsley, July 25, 2017

Connie and Chris have been battling a government monopoly, and in this system patients get only the care the government wants to give them. The British health service didn’t want to give Charlie the experimental treatment available in America. More important, the system also blocked Connie and Chris from taking Charlie to America, even at their own expense. He languished in hospital until, as the parents said, “the point of no return.”

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

Connie Yates and Chris Gard have decided to end their five-month legal battle to take their son Charlie Gard to the United States for treatment. The baby suffers from a mitochondrial condition and on June 30 British officials ordered Charlie’s life support turned off. The child remained on life support as offers of help poured in from, among many others, Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump.

A judge told Connie Yates and Chris Gard that “no parent could have done more for their child,” but that is not quite right. The parents sought to do everything they could to save Charlie, but the British government monopoly health system prevented them from doing so. 

The parents blamed “a whole lot of wasted time” for the deterioration of Charlie’s muscles revealed in a recent MRI scan. As they told reporters, “Had Charlie been given the treatment sooner he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy” adding, “Our poor boy has been left to just lie in hospital for months without any treatment whilst lengthy court battles have been fought.” Their son Charlie, “has been left with his illness to deteriorate, sadly, to the point of no return.”

Charlie Gard was born a healthy baby on August 4, 2016, but at eight months diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. Charlie began to lose weight but in January 2017 Connie Yates found an American doctor willing to offer the trial therapy known as nucleoside.

Connie succeeded in raising enough money to cover Charlie’s travel to America by air ambulance and the cost of the experimental treatment. But then the British legal system handed Charlie a setback.

On April 3, 2017, a High Court judge questioned whether Connie and Chris should be allowed to take Charlie to America for treatment, and whether doctors at the Great Ormond Street Hospital should turn off the baby’s life-support system. On April 11, the court ruled that the doctors were in fact permitted to do so.

The decision devastated parents Connie and Chris, both in their thirties. In late April, more than 110,000 people signed a petition calling on Prime Minister Theresa May to release Charlie for travel to the United States. Charlie remained in hospital and on May 25, three Court of Appeal judges ruled that doctors should end the child’s life-support treatment.

On June 8, three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the parents’ appeal but told doctors to keep Charlie on life support for another day so the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, could consider the child’s case. On June 13, the ECHR ruled that Charlie should be kept on life support until Monday June 19.

On June 27, the European court rejected the parents’ plea to intervene in the case of Charlie Gard.

As the ECHR statement put it, “the decision is final.”

Charlie would be “allowed to die,” and the parents were told that this was in his best interest.  Great Ormond Street Hospital bosses said they would be in no rush to change Charlie’s care and would engage in careful planning and discussion about the child’s fate.

As of this writing Charlie remains on life support. Connie and Chris will “let our son go and be with the angels,” but his story is far from over. Indeed, it brims with lessons for all but the willfully blind.

As the ordeal of Connie and Chris confirms, parents care more for their child than politicians, judges, courts, and hospital bosses. In tragic cases like Charlie’s, the parents need to believe they have exhausted all possibilities to save their child. Despite somber proclamations by British judges, Connie and Chris were not allowed to do so.

Connie and Chris have been battling a government monopoly, and in this system patients get only the care the government wants to give them. The British health service didn’t want to give Charlie the experimental treatment available in America. More important, the system also blocked Connie and Chris from taking Charlie to America, even at their own expense. He languished in hospital until, as the parents said, “the point of no return.”

As Charlie’s case confirms, government monopoly health care can involve a surrender of freedom of movement, the freedom to travel abroad. Once freedom of any kind is lost, it is hard to get it back. So best not to lose it in the first place.

Those working on health reform in the USA can learn a lot from the ordeal of Connie Yates and Chris Gard. The brave parents fought the good fight, but the government prevented them from doing their utmost for their beloved child.  That’s the injustice inherent in the kind of government monopoly system Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want.

Adoption of that kind of system in America could be a point of no return for the people’s freedom of choice in health care. In cases of infants with rare conditions, it could be a matter of life and death. That is the enduring lesson of Charlie Gard, born on August 4, 2016.

An alliance tested

July 25, 2017

An alliance tested, Israel Hayom, Prof. Eyal Zisser, July 25, 2017

In light of all these factors, Israel is a strategic partner of utmost importance. The Jordanians are impeding Islamic State and warding off Iran, while Israel provides Amman with water and gas and lends a significant hand to help with security. This is a real interest for both sides, and it appears, therefore, that despite the current tensions and upheaval, the two countries will maintain their strategic partnership, even if it is hidden from view.

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

The surprising thing about the diplomatic crisis that erupted with Jordan Sunday night is, without a doubt, the concerted effort from both sides — specifically, from our perspective, the Jordanian regime — to demonstrate restraint, lower the flames and allay the furor gripping the Jordanian capital. A solution was indeed found on Monday that allowed the embassy staff to return safely to Israel, and we can assume efforts will keep being made to resolve the Temple Mount crisis, which came to a head last week.

On second thought, however, this is not much of a surprise. This is precisely what one should have expected from the Jordanian regime, which recognizes Israel’s importance to the stability of the Hashemite kingdom and has always preferred the path of dialogue and moderation.

The Jordanian regime’s cool-headed restraint comes after weeks of it repeatedly exposing its darker side, particularly in the form of vicious incitement against Israel, which is rooted in the Palestinians’ considerable demographic weight in the kingdom, as well as the religious radicalization washing over portions of the Jordanian public. It was sobering to see Jordanian intellectuals and public officials opting to pour oil on the flames, such as Jordanian Parliament Speaker Atef Tarawneh, who praised the murderers of two Israeli policemen on the Temple Mount, in the same spot where King Abdullah’s great-grandfather was murdered 66 years ago.

This tension appears to be structured, however, and Israeli-Jordanian relations have always been able to exist in its shadow. On one hand, the countries share deep strategic understandings and cooperate with one another intimately, mostly out of sight. But this all takes place amid extremely anti-Israeli public opinion and an exceedingly hostile and poisonous Jordanian media. It’s possible that letting off steam against Israel is the regime’s way to regulate pressure and temper emotions, thus allowing it to pursue its own interests.

Ultimately, relations with Jordan date back to the state’s inception and even further, to the Hashemite kingdom’s ties to the Zionist movement during the British Mandate. And yet this strategic concord did not prevent Jordan from joining the Arab invasion of Israel in May 1948, or jumping on Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s war wagon in June 1967.

In recent years, Jordan and Israel have united against two enemies. The closer one is the Islamic State group, whose extremist religious screed has influenced swaths of the Jordanian public. Islamic State has also carried out a series of terrorist attacks inside the kingdom, and we cannot forget the downed Jordanian pilot burned alive in Islamic State captivity.

The second enemy, farther afield but of greater importance, is Iran, whose steadily growing foothold in Syria is casting a dark shadow over Jordan and Israel alike.

Jordan is dealing with millions of refugees from Iraq and Syria. It lacks water and energy resources; its economy is faltering. The Palestinian question is also a constant headache for Jordanian rulers. These challenges jeopardize stability and calm inside the kingdom.

In light of all these factors, Israel is a strategic partner of utmost importance. The Jordanians are impeding Islamic State and warding off Iran, while Israel provides Amman with water and gas and lends a significant hand to help with security. This is a real interest for both sides, and it appears, therefore, that despite the current tensions and upheaval, the two countries will maintain their strategic partnership, even if it is hidden from view.