Archive for August 2017

USAF test-fires Minuteman III missile days after N. Korean ICBM launch

August 2, 2017

Source: USAF test-fires Minuteman III missile days after N. Korean ICBM launch — RT News

© boeing.com

The US Air Force test-launched a Minuteman III missile, just days after North Korea fired its latest ICBM into the Sea of Japan (also called the East Sea). The US missile, carrying no warhead, is expected to hit a mock target on a Pacific atoll.

An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) lifted off at 2:10am local time from the US Air Force North Vandenberg base, some 210km (130 miles) northwest of Los Angeles, AP reported.

Read more

FILE PHOTO © kcnawatch. co / Global Look Press

The launch is said to “validate and verify the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system,” according to Colonel Michael Hough, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command’s 30th Air Wing.

“Team V is postured to work with Air Force Global Strike Command to test launch the Minuteman III missile,” Hough said in a statement. “Our long history in partnering with the men and women of the 576th Flight Test Squadron shows that the Western Range stands ready and able to create a safe launch environment.”

This will be the fourth Minuteman ICBM launched from the Vandenberg base this year. The first 2017 test took place in February, involving a Minuteman III that traveled to the Marshall Islands, carrying a non-explosive warhead. Another test was conducted by the Air Force on April 26. Days later, a third test missile launched from Vandenberg base.

The latest Minuteman launch happens days after North Korea test-fired a long-range projectile assessed by the US and South Korean militaries as an ICBM. The missile has been launched last Friday from an area in Mupyong-ni, traveling about 1,000km (621 miles) before landing into the Sea of Japan.

The move has drawn wide condemnation in the international community as the projectile may have crossed paths with commercial airliners flying through the area. Numerous media reports said an Air France flight 293, traveling from Tokyo to Paris on the day of the missile test with 323 people on board, passed through trajectory of the missile just 10 minutes before it plummeted from above.

The White House released a statement in response to the missile launch, saying, “North Korea’s test launch today of another intercontinental ballistic missile – the second such test in less than a month – is only the latest reckless and dangerous action by the North Korean regime.”

Earlier in July, Pyongyang claimed it conducted its first-ever launch of an ICBM, the Hwasong-14, which reportedly flew 933km in 39 minutes, reaching an altitude of 2,802km.

Notably, the preceding Hwasong test occurred on July 4, specifically sending a message to the US as it celebrated Independence Day. Though the Pentagon said the missile was an ICBM, South Korea’s intelligence maintained that the reclusive state did not appear to be technologically capable of building intercontinental ballistic missiles or have testing facilities for them.

READ MORE: N. Korea promises more ‘gift packages for Yankees’ after first ICBM test

Russia also provided evidence indicating that the missile launch on July 4 was a test of an intermediate range rocket, much smaller in size and with lower capabilities than a conventional ICBM.

The Minuteman III is a silo-based ICBM, manufactured by Boeing. It entered service with the US military in 1975 having an expected 10-year life span. In 1993, the corporation upgraded the missile’s avionics to extend its service life beyond 2020.

The Administrative State Declares Independence

August 2, 2017

The Administrative State Declares Independence, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, August 1, 2017

Yates argues for a permanent bureaucracy in Washington that is impervious to the wishes of the voters, who may occasionally be so imprudent as to elect a Republican president. In Yates’s view, that must not be an obstacle to the liberal policies of the Justice Department or, by analogy, any of the dozens of other federal agencies that are manned nearly exclusively by liberal Democrats.

The administrative state is by far the greatest contemporary threat to the liberty of Americans. The appalling Sally Yates urges that the Constitution be left in the dust, and that unelected bureaucrats be elevated above the president whom they ostensibly serve. It is hard to imagine a theory more at odds with our Constitution or our political traditions.

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

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, recently authored one of the most pernicious columns within memory in the New York Times. Her column was titled, “Protect the Justice Department From President Trump.” Yates argued, in essence, that there exists an Executive Branch that is independent of, and superior to, the President–at least as long as that Executive Branch is staffed pretty much exclusively by Democrats. This is, of course, a boldly unconstitutional theory.

The invaluable Manhattan Contrarian deconstructed Yates’s novel theory:

As I have pointed out multiple times, there is nothing complicated about the constitutional law on presidential control of the Justice Department. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution places all of the executive power of the federal government in the President: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The Justice Department is an executive agency, and therefore reports to the President in every respect. That of course does not mean that it is a good idea for the President to get personally involved in day-to-day prosecutorial decisions; but he is perfectly entitled to do so if he wants. And he certainly has final say on all policies of the Department.

Yates has a different view. Here are a few key quotes from her op-ed:

The president is attempting to dismantle the rule of law, destroy the time-honored independence of the Justice Department, and undermine the career men and women who are devoted to seeking justice day in and day out, regardless of which political party is in power. . . . [Ed.: When liberals refer to the “rule of law,” they nearly always mean rule by liberal lawyers, having no reference to any actual laws.]

The Justice Department is not just another federal agency. It is charged with fulfilling our country’s promise of equal and impartial justice for all. As an agency with the authority to deprive citizens of their liberty, its investigations and prosecutions must be conducted free from any political interference or influence, and decisions must be made based solely on the facts and the law. To fulfill this weighty responsibility, past administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have jealously guarded a strict separation between the Justice Department and the White House when it comes to investigations and prosecutions. While there may be interaction on broad policies, any White House involvement in cases or investigations, including whom or what to investigate, has been flatly forbidden.

Yates doesn’t trouble herself to give us a citation of something in the Constitution that supports her position. Nor does Yates inform us of the origin of what she calls the “time honored” “strict separation between the Justice Department and the White House” that has supposedly been followed by “past administrations, both Democratic and Republican.” … If we’re going to talk about “dismantl[ing] the rule of law,” how about the rule that says that every four years the people get to elect a new guy, with policies different from the prior guy, and the new guy gets to implement his policies?

This is the heart of the matter, of course. Yates argues for a permanent bureaucracy in Washington that is impervious to the wishes of the voters, who may occasionally be so imprudent as to elect a Republican president. In Yates’s view, that must not be an obstacle to the liberal policies of the Justice Department or, by analogy, any of the dozens of other federal agencies that are manned nearly exclusively by liberal Democrats.

The permanent staff of the Department of Justice, which Yates wants to be independent of, and superior to, any president who is actually elected by American voters, is relentlessly left-wing. The Contrarian documents this in great detail at the link; this is just a sample:

Just in case you have the exceedingly naive impression that the lawyers at the Department of Justice really are neutral and apolitical, and just “seeking justice,” perhaps it is time for a brief history lesson focusing on the years of the Obama administration. Here goes:

* First, Jonathan Swan at The Hill on October 26, 2016, helpfully did a comprehensive analysis of political contributions made by bureaucrats in the various federal agencies in the 2016 election cycle. Here’s the result for the Justice Department: “Employees of the Department of Justice, which investigated Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations. Trump received $8,756 from DOJ employees compared with $286,797 for Clinton.”

The administrative state is by far the greatest contemporary threat to the liberty of Americans. The appalling Sally Yates urges that the Constitution be left in the dust, and that unelected bureaucrats be elevated above the president whom they ostensibly serve. It is hard to imagine a theory more at odds with our Constitution or our political traditions.

My conversation with the expert Edward Luttwak about Iran and Israel

August 2, 2017

Source: My conversation with the expert Edward Luttwak about Iran and Israel – Blogs – Jerusalem Post

US President, Donald Trump, and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have always been sure about one thing: Iran is the main enemy of the West. During the ‘Riyadh Summit’, in Saudi Arabia, Trump had defined the Islamic Republic of Iran as the biggest lender of terrorism.

Despite sanctions applied by neighboring countries and US warnings, Iran has always refused to negotiate seriously. Indeed, its President Hassan Rouhani doesn’t worry about what the United States and its allied are doing, showing day by day new provocations.

The last one? The successful test of the ‘Simorgh’ space launch vehicle, also known as Safir-2, whose rockets would can carry 700kg satellites in space up to 1,000km from our planet.

“We speak of a poor country, whose government is expressed as if it were a noble and advanced country. It is true that they produce missiles, or rather, import them from North Korea. They program them and launch them.  Instead of accepting the agreement and withdrawing from nuclear power, interrupting relations with terrorist associations, they reacted, doubling.  They have stopped investing in nuclear power to invest on tradedirect365.com.au instead. They live like miserable peasants, most in absolute poverty, whose government spends the money of poor in ballistic missile and to finance militias like Hezbollah, against Israel, they could really use forbrukslån help with no doubt. This is their choice: a clerical dictatorship, which sometimes makes elections among candidates that they themselves have chosen”. 
So, speaking about Iran the international policy expert and strategic advisor to the US Government, Edward Nicolae Luttwak. The scholar, originally from a Jewish family in Arad, Romania, fled to Italy during the Second World War escaping from the Soviets. Responding to my request for an email interview, he invited me to contact him on the phone. He answered from Washington, where he served as counsellor at the Office of the Defense Ministry, the National Security Council and the US Department of State.

Being well-known for its harsh and provocative attitude, outlined by its ‘Give War a Chance’ paper, which suggests the uselessness of peace missions and humanitarian activities by non-governmental organizations, I appreciated the cultural honesty very much and kindness with which he answered to my questions.

Other to design missiles and be a poor and backward country, as Iran sees it? Will there be reactions after this provocation?
First, Iran is the country that has, in the northern part, the largest mineral deposits in the world. Because of their political system, their regime, their synthesis between corruption and religion has managed to do nothing and not develop. We have a country with more than 80 million people with a heavy dependence on the hydrocarbon business and it is absurd. This economic model can be valid for smaller countries such as Qatar and the UAE, which can afford to sit as fat as you can with their servants working for them. Income from gas trading brings very little per capita wealth to a country with more than 80 million inhabitants. They are very unproductive, so they are condemned to poverty in the gas and oil sectors too. More generally they are uncompetitive: they do not export almost anything, they cannot produce clothing, shoes or cars, or anything that can be sold on the market. It will not happen much because a regime such as the Iranian one can last for a long time, until it collapses in various rotations in various sizes. Nobody invades them, nobody removes them until they attack the Israelis, and then they will pay a very high price. If they ever attack Israel, Netanyahu will then erase them, as every time they have sent ships to Hamas in Palestine and have been sunk.
We are right in Israel: after the escalation of tension from the July 14 attack where two guards died in Jerusalem yesterday, Netanyahu dismantled the metal detectors and reopened the site for Muslim Friday.
The tensions with Jordan, but the most imminent threat for the State of Israel seems to be Hezbollah, which has missile bases not only in Lebanon, but also in Syria. Protestant Arab protesters yesterday against Israel, have shown waving yellow Hezbollah flags in Iran. Do you think we are close to a new war?
Yes, surely the highest concentration of rockets in Hezbollah’s hands is in Lebanon. I believe that if Hezbollah launches missiles, a small part will not be intercepted at the beginning, but Israel will have no difficulty getting rid of them in a short time.
 What you think about  who speaks of boycotting Israel in the West, and to a growing public opinion in favor of the Palestinians?
There is no, and no way, to boycott  Israel. Only in the last week were created 22 new connecting lines from Tel Aviv airport to Europe, Slovakia and China. Not to mention the dense diplomatic network Israel has, one of the most developed, technological and advanced countries in the world. Bibi Netanyahu’s government is a hard, right-handed government that does not make any concessions to anyone. It does not discount Palestinians, with nothing and no one. The Israeli economy, with its ever-increasing presence in the world, is constantly expanding. I believe that continuing this way, Israel will increasingly be the least-boycotted country in the world. There may be street manifestations with Palestinian flags, a shame that Palestinians hate Europeans as much as Americans. But the Swedish government, for example, loves the Palestinians without doing anything for them: companies and Sweden are doing business with Israel; It’s all a matter of pretense. Of all the peoples who are in trouble in the world, people have chosen the Palestinians, believing in lies believed by the Palestinians themselves.
The same thing happened with Unesco, then?
Certainly, because those who vote for UNESCO’s culture are illiterate, with illiterate people who decide on world culture, while countries like Italy stop and leave them to do. For example, they decided that the Jews had nothing to do with Jerusalem because this text, called ‘The Bible’, is a Jewish fantasy. Burkina Faso, Sudan, Iran and other countries have said that ‘The Bible’ are all stories and are not part of their historical knowledge of the texts. Therefore, Jerusalem must belong to the Palestinians, because if Jewish history doesn’t exist, Jerusalem will belong to the Palestinians, it cannot belong to the Portuguese. The United States has already cut funds to UNESCO, can be abandoned: the cultural association of illiterates in the world can get out. They could easily rewrite the history of Sicily, making it an Arab region. Yet these stories, these lies do not harm the Jews, but to themselves: saying ‘bales’ can also work, but telling them to themselves never works.
In recent years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone a little under silence in the West, perhaps because since 2014 the world has been more focused on ISIS and terrorism?
It has been silent because it is a trivial conflict. Israelis who can only kill all Palestinians without a minimum of effort, do not; While the Palestinians who want to destroy the state of Israel and see the flow of blood do not even have a grub of this force. Consequently, in a Middle Eastern scenario upset by a major civil war in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, where 200/300 people per day die, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is almost nothing. In this scenario, how can the killing of two people in Syria be reported?
Israel is the most solid, indeed perhaps the only real US ally in the Middle East, do you think Trump will continue to let them do?
Yes, because the United States has no reason to intervene, because now for example more people die in the city of Baltimore.  The journalists deal with it, because the world’s media are in Israel, they can live there and send children to school. So as soon as there is a dead person, the news, the first page, the television service comes out. If die 600 persons in Yemen, the same day, the news will end on page 22. It’s not a real phenomenon, it’s a media phenomenon: if you turn off the television, the phenomenon doesn’t exist, even with the TV off you will see thousands of Syrian refugees coming in Italy. The Syrians are teasing around the Palestinians, who are not moving a finger to help the Syrian people. When Assad bombs the city of Aleppo, Palestinians didn’t even spend a word. Palestinians, compared to all other Arabs people, are fine but they would like to keep everyone awake at night for their problems.
A final note question: what are the biggest concerns of US foreign policy?
Korea and China represent 90% of the agenda, the rest a 10%.

 

WATCH: ‘Jerusalem in Ours,’ Say Hundreds of Jews Marching Around Old City

August 2, 2017

 

Source: WATCH: ‘Jerusalem in Ours,’ Say Hundreds of Jews Marching Around Old City | United with Israel

Several hundred people, Jews and non-Jews, participated in the annual march around the Old City of Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the State of Israel.

Each year, Women for Israel’s Tomorrow, popularly known as Women in Green, a non-profit “dedicated to safeguarding our God-given biblical homeland,” leads a march around the Old City of Jerusalem on the eve of Tisha b’Av, when Jews commemorate the destruction of the Holy Temple.

Women in Green co-head Nadia Matar asks, “What is so special about this year’s event?”

In fact, she continues, why do Jews still mourn on Tisha b’Av, when they have the Jewish State of Israel?

What was the “terrible reminder” this year that tells us there is still so much to do to attain full sovereignty and why was this year’s walk so important?

Why is Jerusalem considered by some as the safest city in the world?

Watch the video to learn more about Jewish history and how it relates to current events in Israel and the Middle East.

 

Congressional Investigation Into Wasserman Schultz IT Scandal Moves Forward

August 1, 2017

Congressional Investigation Into Wasserman Schultz IT Scandal Moves Forward, Washington Free Beacon, , August 1, 2017

SUNRISE, FL – MAY 11: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) speaks with the media after she held a meeting with immigration advocacy group leaders met on May 11, 2017 in Sunrise, Florida. The round table meeting was held to address the growing concern about President Donald Trump’s Executive Orders and the increase in detentions and deportations of immigrants. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The scandal is said to have rocked the halls of Congress, despite little mainstream media coverage, sources said.

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

Congress is advancing an investigation into a growing scandal surrounding IT staffers working for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), who are accused of stealing sensitive computer equipment from House lawmakers’ offices, according to senior congressional sources who told the Washington Free Beacon the Democratic leader’s refusal to answer questions could “merit resignation.”

Congressional leaders have now requested a formal briefing by Capitol Police into its investigation of several Pakistani House IT staffers who are accused of stealing sensitive computer equipment and of illegally penetrating congressional networks.

Imran Awan, one of the staffers who worked for Wasserman Schultz and several other Democratic members of Congress, was arrested this week when trying to travel to Pakistan and charged with bank fraud after a months-long investigation that found he wired nearly $300,000 to that country. Several other staffers tied to Awan are the focus of an investigation into claims they stole sensitive equipment and illegally penetrated the House IT network.

Leading members of Congress are growing frustrated with the pace of the criminal investigation and have moved to conduct their own independent prove into the scandal, according to multiple sources who indicated that the relevant congressional committees are making moves to start an investigation, which could include compelling testimony from Wasserman Schultz, who has been accused of stonewalling on the issue.

As more information about the nature and scope of the IT staffers’ collection of privileged congressional information becomes public, lawmakers are seeking to immediately begin their own investigation into the situation.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Oversight Committee and chair of its National Security Subcommittee, formally requested a briefing from the Capitol Police on Tuesday, telling the Free Beacon that the situation amounts to “one of the all-time congressional scandals in the last 30 years.”

Other senior congressional sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation described Wasserman Schultz’s lack of cooperation in the investigation as unsettling, and said that her continued payments to these staffers even after evidence of their illegal activity became public may merit her resignation.

“I’m pushing very heard to get a full briefing from Capitol Police as soon as possible,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon. “There’s clearly criminal elements to this and I think there will be more going on. There’s probably going to be ethics issues on why these [taxpayer] funds were spent that [Wasserman Schultz] and others will have to deal with.”

“We have to know what happened now and we can’t wait for a criminal case to be done,” DeSantis added. “We need an immediate briefing from the Capitol Police.”

The congressional investigation into the matter is likely to be helmed by the House Committee on Administration, which has jurisdiction over these issues, in conjunction with House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) office, according to sources apprised of the situation.

The scandal is said to have rocked the halls of Congress, despite little mainstream media coverage, sources said.

“The extent of the potential breaches has been made more clear” in recent weeks, according to one senior congressional source who would only speak on background when discussing the sensitive matter. “The inexplicable nature of the conduct of Wassermann Schultz and others has broadened” congressional interest.

Lawmakers are confused as to why Wasserman Schultz continued paying Awan and other staffers implicated in the breach for several months after this information came to light.

“At best for her that is gross misapplication of public funds that could merit resignation alone,” the source said. “There’s got to be more to that story.”

The accused staffers are believed to have had access to sensitive intelligence information related to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as lawmaker’s personal information, prompting concerns the breach could be far deeper than initially suspected.

Lawmakers such as DeSantis and others have become increasingly interested in questioning Wasserman Schultz about the situation and her behavior.

“Yes, we could ask for her [Wasserman Schultz] to testify” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas), told the Free Beacon late last week.

Gohmert described the situation as “incredible” and troubling given these staffers’ access to privileged information on the internal House computer network.

“You don’t have to be all that great at hacking to hack into almost anyone’s email and calendar,” Gohmert said. He noted this information is not classified or privileged because it pertains to official congressional business.

LISTEN Leaked intern AUDIO of Jared Kushner: We “got the Israelis to take down the different forms of surveillance” – Geller Report

August 1, 2017

By – on August 1, 2017

Source: LISTEN Leaked intern AUDIO of Jared Kushner: We “got the Israelis to take down the different forms of surveillance” – Geller Report

So now we know. The Trump administration forced Israel to remove security measures from the Temple Mount after the slaughter of Israeli police officers. Terrorism wins. Shame on Trump.

A couple of quick items: are senior members of the Trump administration so clueless that they allow phones or recording equipment into an off the record meeting? Worse still, the meeting was prefaced by a leak advisory. Concern was expressed at the outset of the meeting about leaking information from the very meeting the leaked audio came from.

Was it a White House intern who leaked it? Congressional? Which Congressman/woman?

“This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them,” Patru said. “If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

So what precautions did these clowns take?

Kushner discussed in detail the U.S.’s dealings in working with Israel and Palestine after two Israeli guards were killed at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Kushner noted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got “beaten up” in the press after metal detectors were placed at the entrance — which he referred to as “not an irrational thing to do.”

“So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with,” Kushner revealed. “And we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.”

We now know it was Trump pressure that forced the Israelis to remove gun detectors from the Temple Mount after a jihadi opened fire and killed two Israeli policemen there.

Jared Kushner spoke to congressional interns during an off-the-record summer series on Monday, and may have shared some insider information on how he negotiates with the Middle East.

A recording of Kushner’s Q&A session with interns obtained by WIRED reveals answers the adviser gave relative to his handling peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians — including a moment where he offered the admission that “there may be no solution” regarding the Middle East conflict.

In his White House role, Kushner has been tasked with spearheading Middle East peace negotiations, revamping the government’s technology systems and looking at criminal justice reform and the opioid crisis as well. The Middle East, though, has been Kushner’s most publicly time-consuming duty — and has sent him to Iraq, Ramallah and Jerusalem since January.

The inherently delicate nature of foreign policy discussions involving Palestine and Israel makes discussing this subject with anyone without proper security clearance a tricky task. Before he began speaking, Deputy staff director Member Services, Outreach & Communications Katie Patru offered a warning to the assembled audience.

“This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them,” Patru said. “If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

Kushner discussed in detail the U.S.’s dealings in working with Israel and Palestine after two Israeli guards were killed at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Kushner noted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got “beaten up” in the press after metal detectors were placed at the entrance — which he referred to as “not an irrational thing to do.”

“So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with,” Kushner revealed. “And we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.”

Here are a few highlights from the transcript of Jared Kushner’s remarks WIRED provided:

“…I think you need to be able to probe people in private for them to have the confidence that it’s not going to be used against them, and that it’s not going to leak out in the press, which would be very, very hurtful. That’s been a big advantage, which has allowed us to really have a lot of very interesting conversations.”

“So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.”
breaking-news logo

Sign up for Breaking News by AOL to get the latest breaking news alerts and updates delivered straight to your inbox.negotiates with the Middle East.

A recording of Kushner’s Q&A session with interns obtained by WIRED reveals answers the adviser gave relative to his handling peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians — including a moment where he offered the admission that “there may be no solution” regarding the Middle East conflict.

In his White House role, Kushner has been tasked with spearheading Middle East peace negotiations, revamping the government’s technology systems and looking at criminal justice reform and the opioid crisis as well. The Middle East, though, has been Kushner’s most publicly time-consuming duty — and has sent him to Iraq, Ramallah and Jerusalem since January.

The inherently delicate nature of foreign policy discussions involving Palestine and Israel makes discussing this subject with anyone without proper security clearance a tricky task. Before he began speaking, Deputy staff director Member Services, Outreach & Communications Katie Patru offered a warning to the assembled audience.

“This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them,” Patru said. “If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

Kushner discussed in detail the U.S.’s dealings in working with Israel and Palestine after two Israeli guards were killed at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Kushner noted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got “beaten up” in the press after metal detectors were placed at the entrance — which he referred to as “not an irrational thing to do.”
AdChoices

“So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with,” Kushner revealed. “And we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.”

Here are a few highlights from the transcript of Jared Kushner’s remarks WIRED provided:

“…I think you need to be able to probe people in private for them to have the confidence that it’s not going to be used against them, and that it’s not going to leak out in the press, which would be very, very hurtful. That’s been a big advantage, which has allowed us to really have a lot of very interesting conversations.”

“So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.”

Wired here:

On Monday, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner spoke to a group of congressional interns as part of an ongoing, off-the-record summer lecture series. During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Kushner may have inadvertently offered some insight into the negotiating tactics he is using in the Middle East.

Prior to Kushner’s talk, Katie Patru, the deputy staff director for member services, outreach, and communications, told the assembled interns, “To record today’s session would be such a breach of trust, from my opinion. This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them. In this business your reputation is everything. I’ve been on the Hill for 15 years. I’ve sat in countless meetings with members of congress where important decisions were being made. During all those years in all those meetings, I never once leaked to a reporter…. If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

WIRED has obtained a recording of Kushner’s talk, which lasted for just under an hour in total.

The speech—which was peppered with self-deprecating jokes, as reported by Foreign Policy—offered a rare insight into the man who President Trump has tasked with criminal justice reform, managing the opioid crisis, updating the government’s technological systems, and creating peace in the Middle East, among other tasks. It’s the latter, though, that’s both the most deeply personal for Kushner (a staunch supporter of Israel) and that prompted him to embark on his longest, most rambling answer during yesterday’s question-and-answer session.

While the recording doesn’t catch the entirety of the question, it appears to have centered on how Kushner plans to negotiate peace between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as why he believes he’ll be successful where every other administration has failed. He doesn’t directly answer either question, but he does reveal that, in his extensive research, he’s learned that “not a whole lot has been accomplished over the last 40 or 50 years.” He also notes that he’s spoken to “a lot of people,” which has taught him that “this is a very emotionally charged situation.”

Later in the clip, Kushner expresses frustration at others’ attempts to teach him about the delicate situation he’s been inserted into, saying, “Everyone finds an issue, that ‘you have to understand what they did then’ and ‘you have to understand that they did this.’ But how does that help us get peace? Let’s not focus on that. We don’t want a history lesson. We’ve read enough books. Let’s focus on: How do you come up with a conclusion to the situation?” He then goes on to lament the press’s treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a family friend who he’s known since childhood.

Kushner’s dismissal of the nuances of the conflict has already been an issue. Last month, when Kushner met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Palestinian official told Haaretz that Kushner “sounded like Netanyahu’s advisers and not like fair arbiters” and that they were “greatly disappointed” after the meeting. Abbas himself was “reportedly furious.”

Finally, Kushner closed with the following statement of reassurance: “So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.”

You can read and listen to Kushner’s answer in its entirety below. WIRED has reached out to the White House for comment, and will update if and when we receive a response.


So first of all, this is one of the ones I was asked to take on, and I did with this something that I do with every problem set you get. Which is you try to study the historical context to understand how something got to where it is, who was successful, and who wasn’t successful. And you try to [unintelligible] is research it and look at the conventional sources but also try to get some unconventional sources as well. And what I’ve determined from looking at it is that not a whole lot has been accomplished over the last 40 or 50 years we’ve been doing this.

And the other thing about it I’d say is that the variables haven’t been changed much, so at some point it’s just one of those things where you kind of have to just pick and choose where you draw conclusion. But that was the other observation I had.

The third one is that I have tried to look at why people haven’t been successful in the negotiations, so I looked and studied all the different negotiations. I spoke to a lot of people who have have been part of them, and I think the reason why is that this is a very emotionally charged situation. Look at what happened this past 10 days—a lot of seemingly logical measures taken on the different [unintelligible] part somehow became a little bit incendiary. But we were able to calm it down by having a lot of really great dialogue between Jordan and the Palestinian authority and the Israelis.

I’d say what makes me hopeful about it is the fact that, a) we’ve had two achievements so far that I think are actually quite noteworthy, which I’ll talk about in a second. The reason why we haven’t been able to do that is the trust that we have with all sides. So if you’ve noticed about this conflict, and [unintelligible] nothing’s leaked out. So nothing has leaked out which I think gives the parties more trust, and more ability to really express and share their viewpoints. And ultimately, if you do a deal that when somebody had to compromise somewhere—all right so there’s a stated set of positions on one side. There’s a stated set of positions on the other side. And there’s a lot of viewpoints all around that people have, which may or may not be conducive to a solution. So I think you need to be able to probe people in private for them to have the confidence that it’s not going to be used against them, and that it’s not going to leak out in the press, which would be very, very hurtful. That’s been a big advantage, which has allowed us to really have a lot of very interesting conversations.

So the two successes that we’ve had so far is—I don’t know if you’re familiar with the deal we’ve had on the water with the Jordanians and the Israelis and the Palestinians—so I was saying that they’ve talked about in concept for a lot of years where [unintelligible] and we were able to figure out how we were going to negotiate a solution which simply [unintelligible] talking for a very, very long time. But again, that happened just because we’re talking to all sides. We don’t let them get caught in the past.

You know everyone finds an issue, that, “You have to understand what they did then,” and “You have to understand that they did this.” But how does that help us get peace? Let’s not focus on that. We don’t want a history lesson. We’ve read enough books. Let’s focus on how do you come up with a conclusion to the situation. That was one thing that we achieved, which we were quite happy about—which is, you know, small thing, but it’s actually a pretty big thing over there. But something that we thought was a pretty big step.

The other thing was working through, in this past week, it really showed us how quickly things can ignite in our history, and you have some people who don’t want to see and achieve an outcome of peace. And other people sometimes thrive in the chaos, and they thrive [unintelligible] and that’s not new to politics and its not new to that conflict. It’s just the way it is, and you always have people on all sides [unintelligible] .

And again, all these people make arguments about why they feel the way they do. So as tensions were really mounting, I don’t know if everyone is familiar, but there were two people—two Israeli guards killed at the Temple Mount (and that’s the first time in many, many, many years that that happened, so Israelis [unintelligible] putting up metal detectors on the Temple Mount, which is not an irrational thing to do. You know when you have—police officers were just killed, and weapons that were used to [unintelligible] the weapons to check them—so then what happens is they start inciting it.

They say look, you know, this is a change to the status quo. The Temple Mount is a [unintelligible] occupation of Israel, and Israel was saying we don’t want anything to do with that, we just want to make sure people are safe. And that really incited a lot of tension in the streets.

So we’re going to work with them [unintelligible] to take down the metal detectors there, and then I think one of the Palestinians’ religious leaders was saying, “If you go through the metal detectors, then your prayers don’t count.” And that is not a very helpful thing to have said. And then there was a lot of rage. And there was an Israeli family that three people killed in their home, which was absolutely terrible. You know, so, “I’m going to do this to free the Temple Mount.” So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with, and we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.

And then ultimately they said, “Okay, we took down the metal detectors but there’s still a bridge up somewhere.” And they said, “Okay, we’ll take that down, too.” And so Bibi was getting beaten up by the press in Israel, because that was very politically unpopular for him to do. At the same time we got a situation in Jordan where an Israeli security diplomat in Jordan was attacked by two Jordanian men, and in self-defense he killed the attackers. So then it worked out where the Jordanians got the Israelis to accept their people from the embassy back to Israel.

[Unintelligible]

My point is that these things are very, very combustible, and very, very delicate in terms of how you can do, but I think the fact that all these conversations were all done in quiet and nothing leaked out [unintelligible]. But I think we were able to keep things quiet. But I mean, any day something could happen.

So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.

Europe: The Censored Film They Do Not Want You to See

August 1, 2017

by Stefan Frank
August 1, 2017 at 4:00 am

Source: Europe: The Censored Film They Do Not Want You to See

  • The way WDR broadcast it, however, was unique: at the beginning of the film and in brief intervals throughout, warning signs were inserted again and again, indirectly urging viewers not to believe what they saw in the film.
  • The film is not about anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis; it is about its acceptance by the mainstream mass media, politicians, left wingers, Muslim “Palestine” activists, rappers and church organizations.
  • “France is the Western country with the highest number of Jews murdered in the 21st century. Fourteen people were killed because they were Jews. All of them were killed by Muslims, not by right-wing extremists. ARTE would never want its viewers to find that out. The filmmakers… exposed the lies and thereby ARTE’s false narrative.” — Jean Patrick Grumberg, a journalist at the French-language news website Dreuz.

A Franco-German film that no one in Europe is legally allowed to see has become the source of a major scandal, and its creators the targets of unprecedented smear and hate campaigns from Germany’s public broadcasters.

At the center of the scandal is one of Europe’s biggest media companies, the Westdeutsche Rundfunk (WDR) — with 4,500 employees and an annual budget of 1.4 billion euros — and the Franco-German culture channel, ARTE.

The television documentary, “Chosen and Excluded – the Hate for Jews in Europe”, will be shown in the United States for one night only, on August 9. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles announced that it would screen the film after the German and French networks tried “to bury the documentary, before it could contaminate the viewing public with the truth,” according to the Center’s Associate Dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, in an interview with Gatestone Institute. “It is a film that needs to be viewed by anyone concerned about anti-Semitism and anyone concerned about the democratic future of Europe. It is a truth-telling, and ‘PC’-busting documentary”, he said.

The truth is that in today’s Europe, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell the truth.

ARTE had commissioned the film with the support of the WDR, but is now seeking to hide it. The film is not about anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis, but about its acceptance by the mainstream mass media, politicians, left wingers, Muslim “Palestine” activists, rappers and church organizations. Initially, it was said that the film was “a provocation”, that it “fans the flames”, and that “because of the terror situation in France, it cannot be broadcast.”

Later, “technical journalistic shortcomings” were cited as the reason why the film could not be released from the hazardous materials closet.

Murderers of Jews as Honorary Citizens

ARTE, as part of its programming, broadcasts films such as “The Little Stone Thrower of Silwan” — a report sympathizing with sweet Arab children in Jerusalem who just want to make their neighborhood “Jew-free”.

Would the station ever show a serious film about anti-Semitism?, Gatestone asked the journalist Jean Patrick Grumberg, of the French-language news site Dreuz. Grumberg replied:

“France is a country in which Communist mayors celebrate Palestinian murderers of Jews as honorary citizens. If the directors of ARTE France had even been suspected of harboring pro-Israel or conservative sentiments, they never would never have been hired. Being radical, though, is welcomed.”

According to Grumberg, journalists in France are “almost unanimously anti-Israel.” Anyone who is pro-Israel must conceal it, or deal with the threat of repercussions.

“In this incredible environment, the TV channels France Television and ARTE are the worst among the Islamo-liberals. Initially, the French program management team refused even to countenance the production of a documentary about anti-Semitism in Europe because they were well aware that Muslim antisemitism would come up — a subject that is taboo in France, especially among those on the Left and in the media.

“You have to bear in mind that France is the Western country with the highest number of Jews murdered in the 21st century. Fourteen people were killed because they were Jews. All of them were killed by Muslims, not by right-wing extremists. ARTE would never want its viewers to find that out.”

ARTE Germany, however, was prepared to implement the project. But, says Grumberg, ARTE then learned that the filmmakers, Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner, “had taken this farther than merely condemning the hatred of Jews among European Muslims.”

“The filmmakers had conducted research on the anti-Israel agitation by NGOs financed by the European Union, and exposed the fictitious media narrative by investigating whether there were any grounds for the allegations against Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. There were none. They exposed the lies and thereby ARTE’s false narrative.”

Censorship and Smear Campaign

As soon as the two broadcasters became aware of the film’s contents, they severed all contact with the filmmakers. Since then, they have been publicly maligning the work.

The responsible WDR editor, who had accepted the film as being in accordance with the contract, faced such an amount of hostility, harassment and mobbing by her colleagues that she chose”early retirement“. It was only in the face of great opposition that the film was publicly screened twice — and then only after enormous pressure. Historians and journalists who saw the film published newspaper articles calling for its release. The Central Council of Jews in Germany also backed that call. The premiere of the film, however, on June 13, was actually illegal. Germany’s largest and most popular tabloid, BILD, streamed the original version on its website for 24 hours, without the permission of WDR. (The film was posted by someone on YouTube, before being blocked.) Subsequently, the debate on censorship became so heated that the WDR felt it had to broadcast the film.

The way WDR broadcast it, however, was unique: at the beginning of the film and in brief intervals throughout, warning signs were inserted again and again, indirectly urging viewers not to believe what they saw in the film. They were to read the “ostensibly necessary additions and explanations” on the WDR website — a “fact check” consisting of 30 texts. In one example, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas claimed, falsely, in a speech to the European Parliament:

“It was just a week ago that Israeli rabbis issued a clear statement: They demanded that their government poison the water in order to kill Palestinians.”

From this, according to WDR, one should not “deduce the assertion” that “Abbas’s speech was part of a tradition that since the Middle Ages has alleged that Jews were poisoning the wells,” since: “after all, Abbas is not talking about ‘wells’ here.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas receives a standing ovation at the European Parliament in Brussels, after falsely claiming in his speech that Israeli rabbis were calling to poison Palestinian water. Abbas later recanted and admitted that his claim had been false. (Image source: European Parliament)

The anti-Semitic NGO Business

The film also accurately shows that several church organizations support trying to destroy Israel through economic means, by boycotting people and products. The WDR claims that this assertion is wrong, and as evidence, cites statements put out by these organizations, rejecting any association with a boycott movement. However, it is WDR’s claim that is the lie. The organization NGO Monitor, which calls for transparency in the Israeli NGO sector, substantiated the lie in a comprehensive response to the “Fact Check”:

“The NGO farce is finally being unmasked,” according to Olga Deutsch, director of the Europe desk at NGO Monitor in a telephone interview.

“Civil society is necessary and crucial, but the NGOs are granted such huge sums of money and so much power to work in one of the most fragile and conflict-ridden regions of the world, with absolutely no requirement for transparency and accountability. Among other things, the film also demonstrates this.”

There had already been a similar debate in Germany in early 2015, when Tuvia Tenenbom’s book, Catch the Jew, was published in German. In this report on his trip to Israel, the author also described the anti-Semitism of many European-funded NGOs in Israel, and exposes, for instance, the chief investigator of the organization B’Tselem, which is financed by the European Union, among others, as a holocaust-denier. In an interview with Gatestone, Tenenbom said:

“The European ‘elites’ are far more antisemitic than the average Muslim. What the Europeans are doing in Israel is nothing but the continuation of the Nazi theology of the past — using the NGOs to finish the job that their grandparents did not get to complete in World War II.”

“Parisian Intifada”

Towards the end of the film, several Jews are interviewed in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles. A boy of about 13 years old says: “I dream of making aliyah [moving to Israel] and fighting in the Israeli army.” In an interview with Gatestone, one of the film’s authors, Joachim Schroeder, recounts:

“We asked the boy if he had any experience with the invading mob of hooligans, and how he feels in everyday life here in Sarcelles. If I had to deal with this day in and day out, I would also say: I want to get out of here.”

The original soundtrack from the film documents an attack in Sarcelles, complete with images of demolished cars and store windows, by “pro-Palestinian activists” in July 2014:

Until the summer of 2014, Sarcelles was considered to be a model of functioning multiculturalism. Jews, Christians and Muslims living side by side and together in city districts with 60,000 inhabitants. Then came Sunday, July 20, 2014. “Palestine: Come armed with mortars, fire extinguishers and clubs, come in large numbers, we’re going to gang up on the Jewish district of Sarcelles,” is what it says in one of many exhortations. More than 3,000 demonstrators show up. Molotov cocktails fly against the synagogue. Policemen prevent the storming of the area. The crowd screams: “Death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right”. The violent mob plunders a pharmacy run by Jews and a kosher supermarket. Both are set on fire. The police talk about a “Parisian Intifada”.

For Jewish adolescents who had experienced “anti-Semitism from their very birth”, it was a form of “redemption to go to Israel“, says François Pupponi, the socialist mayor of Sarcelles in an interview in the film:

French Jews feel that they have no future in France, that they have to leave their country to be able to live safely and in peace. But to tell them that they are wrong is also not the right thing to do. I tell them that they are right. But then I appeal to them to stay. Because if they leave, France is dead. Why? Because if a Jew cannot live by his faith here, then this secular republic, with our world-famous idea of religious freedom, no longer exists.

Anti-Semitism as Mainstream

The scandal surrounding the film shows how things really are in terms of the culture and freedom of expression in Europe. “The WDR ranks among those whom we criticize in this film,” says Schroeder. “Up to that point, one could only speculate about this [anti-Semitism], but the way they dealt with this broadcast made it very clear.”

Anti-Semitism in Europe does not come from fringe groups. It is primarily left-wing liberals — “intellectuals” — who fuel the hatred. At the end of the film, retired Parisian police commissioner Sammy Ghozlan, a Jew who fled to France from Algeria, says:

“I am convinced that the Arabs in France would never have turned to violence against the Jews if they had not been convinced by others that it was their duty to demonstrate their solidarity with their coreligionists in Palestine. Otherwise, they would never have done that. They were persuaded that this was necessary. And since some of those who hold power, mayors or ministers, took the liberty of doing such a thing, for them, it justified the attacks so they supported them.”

“That is one of the key messages of our film,” Joachim Schroeder said to Gatestone. “Who was it that encouraged them to do this? It was not just their brothers and sisters; it was the French and German mainstream.”

Stefan Frank is a journalist and author based in Germany.

 

The Federal Program Funding Hamas Supporters on College Campuses

August 1, 2017

The Federal Program Funding Hamas Supporters on College Campuses, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 1, 2017

When President Trump presented his budget, he defunded Title VI from $72 million to zero. But it’s up to Congress to make it happen.

What’s Title VI?

Title VI of the Higher Education Act set out to fund international studies that would promote our national security. But on many campuses, Title VI centers undermine our national security by supporting Islamic terrorists.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act mandated that Title VI centers reflect a “wide range of views”. Instead when it comes to the Middle East, Title VI centers have only one point of view.

Title VI centers are the organizing points for Islamist and anti-Israel activities on college campuses.  The attacks on Jewish speakers and students, the BDS resolutions and terror support begin with Title VI. So do the pro-Hamas speakers who spew hatred on campuses across America.

Instead of a wide range of views, 6 Title VI Middle Eastern studies directors have backed an academic boycott of Israel. Not only do they not promote a range of views, but they suppress pro-Israel views.

Title VI faculty play a crucial role in supporting campus hate groups from SJP to JVP to MSA. And Title VI material then finds its way from colleges into school classrooms.

All of this hatred is funded by taxpayers. But it doesn’t have to be.

Rep. Grothman, joined by Rep. Allen, Rep. Garrett and Rep. Lamborn are trying to defund Title VI and move funding over to the National Security Education Program (NSEP).  But they face an uphill battle.

Defunding Title VI would do a great deal to neutralize the ugliness and hatred on campuses.

Take the Center for Near East Studies at UCLA. The Center is busy touting a faculty member’s attack on Trump. The faculty includes Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, a leading authority on Sharia Islamic law, whom Daniel Pipes named a “stealth Islamist.” El Fadl provided an “Affidavit of Support” for top Hamas terrorist Abu Marzook. He donated to and defended the Holy Land Foundation: a Hamas front group.

In more recent articles, Abou El Fadl has defended Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. He distinguished between “countries and movements adhering to ideologies of resistance” including “Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas” in contrast to the “moderate” appeasers of America and Israel.

“Why is Saudi Arabia so hostile to political Islam movements such as Hamas, Hizbullah, or the Muslim Brotherhood?” El Fadl asks. And the answer is that the Saudis have become “westernized and secular”.

El Fadl has been touted as a moderate because he criticizes the Wahhabis. But his criticism is not moderate, but Jihadist. He complains that Wahhabis care more about whether a Muslim woman wears a veil than “about the invasions of Iraq, Gaza, or the fate of Jerusalem.”

Should Title VI be in the business of funding centers that echo Osama bin Laden?

“Israel wants to destroy Hamas because Israel wants to continue controlling the fate of Palestinians, neutralizing their nationalism and ideological foundations, and breaking their will to resist,” El Fadl rants.

Should Title VI be in the business of funding Hamas propaganda?

But you don’t have to be an Islamist at the Center for Near East Studies to hate Israel and defend the terrorists.

Take Gabriel Piterberg, the Center’s former director. Piterberg has been at the center of a firestorm, not over his support for terrorists, but over allegations that UCLA officials had attempted to cover up accusations that he had tried to shove his tongue into the mouths of two female grad students.

Piterberg was forced to resign as director of the Center for Near East Studies, but is still on staff.

Gabriel Piterberg backs an academic boycott of Israel and associates with Students for Justice in Palestine. He appeared at a American Muslims for Palestine event. AMP has links to Hamas. He has described Islamic terrorist attacks on Israel as “a frightening piece of consciousness raising.”

Sexual harassment and contempt for the victims of terrorism are all part of the Title VI package.

Piterberg appeared at a Center for Near Eastern Studies event on a panel with Richard Falk. The Gaza and Human Rights symposium came complete with chants of “Zionism is Nazism” and F___ Israel”. Falk is a 9/11 Truther and a fan of the Ayatollah Khomeini who has supported domestic terrorism. His ugly behavior was so extreme that he was condemned by the UN Secretary General.

Falk had described the Boston Marathon bombings as “blowback” to “American global domination.” He was on good terms with an anti-Israel activist had written a book in which he wondered whether “Hitler might have been right.”

A UCLA conference organized by Piterberg included Falk and the latter had been present at a number of CNES events. That is a truly notable accomplishment for a man who had been condemned by the United States government even while it kept on funding Title VI. But that is what Title VI gets you.

UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies is notorious, but it’s not unique.

“For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity,” explained Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

The Islamic Studies professor was justifying Islamic sex slavery.

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them,” he had claimed in the past. And, he asserted, “It’s not immoral for one human to own another human.”

The School of Foreign Service has been a recipient of Title VI funding.

John Esposito, a professor at the School of Foreign Service, testified on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation’s money men for Hamas. Esposito has defended some terrorist attacks by Hamas. He complained that, “despite HAMAS’ victory in free and democratic elections, the United States and Europe failed to give the party full recognition and support.”

Georgetown’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies is Title VI supported. Elliot Colla, who is affiliated with the Center, signed on to a letter claiming that Hamas’ “missile assault was in direct response to Israel’s terrifying the entire population of the West Bank”. Fida Adely, of the Center, pushes BDS and has denounced Israel for raids on Hamas. At a Center event, George Mason University professor Noura Erakat complained that Israel was indiscriminately targeting Hamas people.

These are a few examples out of many. The Freedom Center, the Amcha Initiative, the Canary Mission, Stand With Us, and a great number of other groups have been battling campus anti-Semitism.

This is an opportunity to make a difference.

Defenders of Title VI claim that it will help us fight terrorism. But how can Title VI help us fight terrorism when it promotes terrorism?

While we fight terrorists abroad, Title VI spreads terror at home.

Title VI has become an outlet for anti-Semitism and for anti-American propaganda on campus. If we can change that, then we will send a message that the college campus is no place for terrorists and bigots.

“The Battle over Jerusalem Has Just Begun”

August 1, 2017

“The Battle over Jerusalem Has Just Begun” Gatestone Institute, Bassam Tawil, August 1, 2017

(Please see also, Israel’s public diplomacy challenge. — DM)

The Palestinians, feeling triumphant now that Israel has complied with their demand to remove the metal detectors and security cameras, have been clarifying that it is only the first step in their fight to eradicate any Israeli presence in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

They admit that this is a battle over sovereignty on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, the real battle is over who controls Jerusalem and its holy sites. The real battle, in their eyes, is over the Jews’ right to live in their own state in the Middle East. Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist, and that is what this battle is really about.

The Palestinians have added it up just right. In their own words, they aim at an escalation of violence because they believe that what Israel did is the first step toward even more concessions and even further retreat.

The Palestinian “victory” celebrations that took place after Israel removed metal detectors and surveillance cameras from the entrances to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem bode badly for the future of stability and peace in the Middle East.

To the Palestinians and many Arabs and Muslims, the Israeli move is viewed as a sign of weakness. In their eyes, the removal of the security cameras and metal detectors is capitulation, pure and simple.

How do we know this? Easy: look at the Palestinian response. Rather than acknowledging the conciliatory nature of the Israeli government’s decision, aimed at easing tensions and preventing bloodshed and violence, the Palestinians are demanding more.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the controversy over the Israeli security measures at the Temple Mount, which came after three terrorists murdered two Israeli police officers at the holy site on July 14, is part of a larger battle with Israel.

We have reached a new level in this discourse: Palestinian Authority (PA) officials are now openly admitting that it is not the metal detectors or security cameras that are at issue.

Instead, they admit, this is a battle over sovereignty on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, the real battle is over who controls Jerusalem and its holy sites. The real battle, in their eyes, is over the Jews’ right to live in their own state in the Middle East. Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist, and that is what this battle is really about.

The Palestinians, feeling triumphant now that Israel has complied with their demand to remove the metal detectors and security cameras, have been clarifying that it is only the first step in their fight to eradicate any Israeli presence in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

No one explained this Palestinian position better than the PA foreign minister, Riad Malki, who announced on July 27 that the Palestinians consider the Israeli decision to dismantle the metal detectors and security cameras as surrender. He also confirmed what many Israeli and Palestinian political analysts have been saying for the past few weeks — that the conflict over Israel’s security measures was merely an excuse used by the Palestinians to force Israel to make political and territorial concessions.

In a speech before the Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Malki explained: “The issue is not metal detectors or cameras, but who is in charge and who has sovereignty over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Malki went on to explain that the Palestinians do not see the recent conflict as a security issue, but rather as a purely political matter. “The battle over Jerusalem has just begun,” he said, adding that the wave of Palestinian protests over the Israeli security measures had succeeded in “thwarting” Israel’s “conspiracy” to change the historical and legal status quo at the Temple Mount.

Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Malki (pictured above in 2009) said last week in a speech: “The issue is not metal detectors or cameras, but who is in charge and who has sovereignty over the Al-Aqsa Mosque… The battle over Jerusalem has just begun.” (Image source: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

We are witnessing a rare moment of truth from the PA foreign minister, in which, ironically, he refutes claims by many in the international community and media to the effect that the recent conflict was sparked by metal detectors and surveillance cameras.

The Palestinian protests that came in response to the security measures indicated that it was more about hating Israel and trying to force it to its knees than about the removal of metal detectors and cameras. During these protests, especially at the entrances to the Temple Mount, Palestinians chanted slogans that included threats to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

“We are marching toward Al-Aqsa (Mosque), and we will sacrifice millions of martyrs,” was one of the chants at the protests, which were led by top Palestinian religious and political leaders. Another chant: “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaish Mohammed sa yaoud” (“Khaybar Khaybar O’ Jews, the army of Mohammed will return”) — a reference to the Battle of Khaybar in the year 628 between Prophet Mohammed and his followers against the Jews living in the oasis of Khaybar. The Jews were forced to surrender after being slaughtered and were thereafter permitted to live in Khaybar on condition that they give half of their produce to Muslims. The protesters also chanted slogans calling on Hamas’s military wing, Ezaddin Al-Qassam, to launch terror attacks against Israel.

For the most part, the foreign journalists covering the protests did not perceive these chants as intimidating or anti-Semitic. The protests were largely reported in a positive sense as peaceful “civil disobedience.” This is precisely the rhetoric, however, that fuels the Palestinian fire to take to the streets and hurl stones and petrol bombs at Israeli police officers and civilians.

Eighteen-year-old Omar Al-Abed, however, is one Palestinian who paid careful attention to such rhetoric. On July 22, he stormed the home of a Jewish family in Halamish, in the West Bank, and stabbed to death a grandfather and his son and daughter during a dinner to celebrate the birth of a grandchild. Shortly before setting out on his murderous mission, Al-Abed posted a note on his Facebook page in which he echoed many of the slogans from the protests, and went further by describing Jews as “sons of pigs and monkeys.”

The carnage in Halamish was perpetrated by a single Palestinian. Perhaps he acted alone, without having been indoctrinated to murder Jews and without communal support for doing so? Well, let us check: how did the Palestinian street react to his murderous rampage? How did Al-Abed’s own mother respond? The terrorist’s mother was filmed handing out sweets to visitors in celebration of her son’s decision to take the lives of the three Jews. “I’m proud of my son because he has raised our heads high,” she declared.

Perhaps the pride in the terrorist was simply a local affair? No, even that hope is smashed: as many Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, took to the streets to celebrate the brutal murder, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh phoned the terrorist’s father to tell him, “Your son brought pride to the nation.”

The Halamish bloodshed brought intense pride to the terrorist’s mother, to those around her, and to the Palestinian world at large.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who never misses an opportunity to paint himself as a peacemaker par excellence, chose to remain quiet about the murder. Make no mistake: his loud silence over the Halamish terror attack is being interpreted by many Palestinians as an act of condoning the murder of three Jews. Whether condoning the atrocity or terrified of his own people, one thing is certain: Abbas and most Palestinian leaders have trained the Palestinians well. When they smell Jewish blood, they attack.

This is precisely what is going on in the Temple Mount mayhem.

Now that Israel has complied with their demands regarding the security measures, Palestinians feel more emboldened than ever. Murder and incitement, in their case, does indeed pay. They got away with the murder of the two police officers at the Temple Mount; they got away with the murder of the three family members in Halamish, and, in their view, they also got away with the recent violent protests and incitement against Israel.

Buoyed by the Israeli “capitulation,” the Palestinians are now talking about a “historic victory” over Israel. They are boasting that they have twisted Israel’s arm and forced it to “retreat.” Palestinian cartoonists and commentators have expressed similar sentiments, arguing that the removal of the metal detectors and security cameras is largely the result of their violence, terrorism and threats.

Once again, an Israeli gesture is being misinterpreted by the Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims as weakness. This sort of deliberate misreading is far from new. Yet every time it occurs, it sets the stage for another cycle of violence. The result of Israeli conciliation is invariably Palestinian violence.

The Palestinians have added it up just right. In their own words, they aim at an escalation of violence because they believe that what Israel did is the first step toward even more concessions and even further retreat.

Bassam Tawil is an Arab Muslim based in the Middle East.

IT Intrigue at the DNC

August 1, 2017

IT Intrigue at the DNC, Front Page MagazineLloyd Billingsley, August 1, 2017

Awan’s lawyer, Christopher Gowen, explains that the accusations are “the product of an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job targeting his client and his client’s family.” 

Imagine a Russian-born IT man working for, say, House Speaker Paul Ryan. Imagine if this man smashed up computers, and purloined secret material from the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. Imagine if he was kept on the job despite financial misconduct, then attempted to flee to Russian with a wad of cash. The likely explanation would not be Russophobia, and even the old-line establishment media might think there was something to it.

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

Debbie Wasserman Schultz made a name for herself last year when the Democrats booted her as Democratic National Committee boss. Now she’s back with a vengeance in a tale centering on her top information technology man, Pakistani-born Imran Awan.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, not limited to issues related to Russia, had been investigating Awan for theft and abuses related to cybersecurity. Awan had been feeling the heat and attempted to flee to Pakistan last week but the FBI arrested him at Dulles airport on a charge of bank fraud.

According to Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman, there’s a bit more to the story, even though Awan and his family have indeed been involved in swindles. As McCarthy has it, “this appears to be a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.”

Awan started as an IT man for Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, then shifted to Wasserman Schultz. The Florida Democrat empowered him to add to the payroll his wife Alfi – she attempted to flee the country in March while a criminal suspect – brother Abid, Abid’s wife Natalia Sova, and Awan’s brother Jamal. As McCarthy notes:

“Awan and his family cabal of fraudsters had access for years to the e-mails and other electronic files of members of the House’s Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. It turns out they were accessing members’ computers without their knowledge, transferring files to remote servers, and stealing computer equipment — including hard drives that Awan & Co. smashed to bits of bytes before making tracks.” The smashing tactic recalls the Clinton crew during the last election cycle.

McCarthy wonders how Awan and his family achieved access to highly sensitive government information, which requires a thorough security clearance. In his judgment, the Awan cabal could not possibly have qualified for such clearance.

As the IT intrigue unfolded, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been pushing back at investigators, and objecting strenuously to inspection of a laptop belonging to Awan. McCarthy doesn’t know what information Awan and company may have ripped off, or whether he sent it to Pakistan. But the former prosecutor is certain that “this is no run-of-the-mill bank-fraud case.”

The Daily Caller has been all over the story and according to investigative reporter Luke Rosiak Wasserman Schultz employed Awan and his wife and “refused to fire either of them even after U.S. Capitol Police said in February 2017 that they were targets of the criminal investigation.” Wasserman Schultz charged the Awans were victims of anti-Muslim profiling.

Other members of Congress had dumped Awan and Company but Wasserman kept him on board and was going to pay him, “even while he was living in Pakistan.” Rosiak also observes that Wasserman Schultz’s record on cybersecurity is shaky and the Hillary Clinton ally “was the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee when it was hacked.”

Last Thursday, President Trump reposted a Townhall tweet charging “ABC, NBC, And CBS Pretty Much Bury IT Scandal Engulfing Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Office.” That prompted a New York Times piece by Nicholas Fandos headlined, “Trump Fuels Intrigue Surrounding a Former I.T. Worker’s Arrest.”

Fandos wonders if the ongoing intrigue is “the stuff of a spy novel, ripe for sleuthing,” but quickly shifts gears. Awan’s lawyer, Christopher Gowen, explains that the accusations are “the product of an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job targeting his client and his client’s family.”

DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa, called the security charges “laughable,” claiming that Awan was never employed by the DNC and that “the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia was behind the DNC hack.” As for the attempt to flee, with bundles of cash, Gowen said Awan received threats online and traveled to Pakistan to stay with family and save money.

As Cheryl Chumley observed in the Washington Times, Awan’s first employer, Gregory Meeks, suggested the authorities are targeting Awan because he was born in Pakistan and ethnicity “is a factor” in the attention the family is receiving. And now Democrats are rushing to defend Awan, Chumley writes, “saying he’s the target of massive federal Islamophobia. What a crock.”

True to form, with smashed computers, cybersecurity lapses and such, the idea that Awan might be some kind of spy is entirely plausible. So is the concept that, as Sean Hannity has suggested, Awan was the source of Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.

Those who dismiss it all as Islamophobia, or a simple case of bank fraud, might consider this scenario.

Imagine a Russian-born IT man working for, say, House Speaker Paul Ryan. Imagine if this man smashed up computers, and purloined secret material from the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. Imagine if he was kept on the job despite financial misconduct, then attempted to flee to Russian with a wad of cash. The likely explanation would not be Russophobia, and even the old-line establishment media might think there was something to it.

In the style of Andrew McCarthy, some journalist might even flag “a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.” In the ensuing investigation, government investigators would doubtless leave no stone unturned.

Meanwhile, Awan has pleaded not guilty to one count of bank fraud, ordered to wear a GPS monitor, and surrender his passport. More details about his activities may emerge before his preliminary hearing on August 21.