Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) meets with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. (Omar Rashidi/Flash90)
Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are incensed at Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas over his reaction to US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, according to Israeli media reports.
Israel Hayom quoted a Jordanian official as saying, “The Palestinians’ efforts to sway public opinion have been a complete failure, and as a result, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has created a rift between us [the Arab world] and Trump. We are once again left with the demagogic, hollow and inflammatory rhetoric of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”
Officials also expressed dismay at Abbas’ attempts to punish the US on the international stage. Referring to the recent UN General Assembly attempt to annul the recognition move and declare it illegal, the Jordanian source stated, “Washington has made its views clear and said it would take action against those nations that voted against it at the UN General Assembly last week. Now, when it is clear Trump is indeed going to punish those that voted against the US, most countries are trying to cut their losses.”
The official added that Palestinian declarations that the US will no longer be part of the peace process and is not an honest broker, as well as attempts to internationalize the issue, have added to the Arab states’ frustration with Abbas, especially on the part of Jordan. He also pointed to the lackluster protests from Palestinians despite daily incitement from the PA.
“We are very worried about the Palestinians’ actions over Jerusalem,” he said. “Their efforts to shun the US from the peace process and their insistence on international intervention are a double-edged sword that could hurt first and foremost Jordan’s status in Jerusalem and could bring about the exact opposite of the intended result. Many more countries could do what the US has done after seeing that the region has not been destabilized and only a few thousand protesters have taken to the streets.”
In response, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are reportedly freezing out the Palestinians and forming their own committee to deal with the issue. “The decision to establish this committee was, in effect, imposed on the Palestinian Authority by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan in a move that was backed by the Arab League,” the source noted. “This is a super committee that is headed by the secretary general of the Arab League, and it effectively puts the Arab League in charge of the policy on Jerusalem, taking it away from the Palestinians.”
For his part, however, Abbas appears to be doubling down on his current strategy. The Times of Israel reported that Abbas has decided to cut off all diplomatic contacts with the US, including with the American Consulate in Jerusalem, which has served as an unofficial embassy to the PA.
According to the report, this amounts to “throwing away the key” to any relationship with the US.
(Terrorism is obviously bad and we need to do our best to prevent it. However, my principal concern is about political Islam, aka Islamism. Islamists often do not need to engage in terrorism; they can rely instead on whatever democratic processes are available to Islamise nations. Look at Canada, for example. “Islamophobia” laws restrict free speech about Islam and its anti-democracy, pro-theocracy tendencies. In America, CAIR fights “Islamophobia” as well as organizations which want Muslims to respect American law. Here’s video on America and Sharia law.
(– DM)
On Nov. 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker and writer Theo van Gogh left his home and set off to work, riding his bicycle as he did most days through the quiet streets of Amsterdam.
Minutes later, 26-year-old Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim angered by van Gogh’s writings and films about radical Islam, fired eight shots at the filmmaker. As Van Gogh stumbled, Bouyeri shot again, then stabbed him with a butcher knife, piercing straight through his chest. Then he sliced across Theo van Gogh’s throat in a failed effort to decapitate him before stabbing him one final time. It was, as many later said, the country’s 9/11, the arrival of Islamist terrorism to the tranquil tulip fields and calm canals of the Netherlands.
Mohammed Bouyeri acted alone, but he was a leading member of what later became known as the Hofstadgroep (Hofstad Group), a loosely-knit circle of Dutch Muslim youth from Amsterdam and The Hague with extremist ideas and half-hatched plans to execute terrorist attacks around the country. In the days following Van Gogh’s death, police raided a home in The Hague, arresting seven Hofstadgroep members after a standoff lasting several hours.
Their trials, and the trials of other members, have shaped much of the Dutch understanding of Islamist terrorism both for citizens and law enforcement. Above all, the cases showed definitively that European Muslims could be radicalized, and that even Muslims raised in the West had become a threat.
In fact, as Bart Schuurman, a research Fellow at the International Centre for Counterterrorism in The Hague, argues in his upcoming book,Becoming A European Homegrown Terrorist, the Hofstadgroep case ultimately came to define homegrown jihadism in Europe. Thanks, too, to the work of Dutch journalists Janny Groen and Annieke Kranenberg, studies into the women in and around the Hofstadgroep have provided important insights into the radicalization of Muslim women in the West, and their role in homegrown jihad.
For his research, Schuurman spoke with Hofstadgroep members and studied the police interviews with the Hofstadgroep to better understand their actions and thought processes.
On the eve of the publication of his new book, Schuurman talked to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) about his findings, what they say about the making of a homegrown terrorist, and how his research can help bring new insights to the fight against Islamist terror.
Abigail R. Esman: The Hofstadgroep was limited to the Netherlands, and the group preceded (by over a decade) the rise of ISIS and even social media. How is knowledge about that group still useful for a more global and more contemporary analysis of home-grown terrorism?
Bart Schuurman: The Hofstadgroep is indeed an older case as it was active between 2002 and 2005. As such, it was part of what could be called the first wave of European homegrown jihadism. I argue that insights we can derive from how and why people became involved in the Hofstadgroep are still relevant now for several reasons. First of all, like the current foreign fighter phenomenon, the Hofstadgroep’s extremist inner-circle also initially tried to join jihadist insurgencies overseas. Only when this failed, did some of them begin to consider and plan terrorist attacks in the Netherlands. Secondly, the Hofstadgroep was not a phenomenon unique to the Netherlands, but one example of the broader phenomenon of European homegrown jihadism that is still with us today. While much has changed in terms of context, such as a shift in focus from Afghanistan to Syria, many of the underlying dynamics driving involvement in this type of terrorism remain unaltered. I think that the field of terrorism studies sometimes has the unwarranted tendency to see every development in the terrorist threat as heralding a fundamentally ‘new’ situation to which our previous explanations and theories are of little to no utility. I’d argue it’s exactly the opposite; especially because it’s relatively easier to access high-quality data on older cases, they are a great resource for informing the ongoing debate on what can motivate (and prevent!) people from becoming involved in terrorism.
ARE: Are there any other groups like the Hofstadgroep today, either in the Netherlands or elsewhere?
BS: In ideological terms, the Hofstadgroep could be broadly characterized as driven by an extremist Salafi-Jihadist worldview and focused on waging a ‘defensive’ jihad against what they saw as Western geopolitical aggression and the threat posed by heresy and apostasy. I think it’s safe to say that such views have continued to be embraced by Islamist extremists in the Netherlands and Europe more broadly, although it is difficult to assess the scale on which this has occurred. But it is crucial to distinguish between holding radical or extremist views and becoming involved in any capacity in terrorist violence. The vast majority of radicals never cross this threshold. What I think we see today in Europe is that relatively small numbers of (would-be) jihadist terrorists continue to pose a serious threat and that they are embedded in a broader ‘radical milieu’ from which they draw support. While this threat is a very real one, I think it is important to keep in mind that these individuals and groups are not representative of the Muslim community as a whole. A key observation that we sometimes miss, is that Muslims are in fact the number one victims of groups like [ISIS] and al-Qaeda when we look at the violence in countries like Syria and Iraq.
ARE: What did you learn about the personalities of those likely to join such groups, or to act as lone wolves? (Is there also a similarity between those who join groups and lone wolf attackers?)
BS: Most researchers would agree that there is no such thing as a terrorist profile, at least not one of any practical utility. Most terrorists are relatively young and most are male; beyond that considerably diversity has been observed in terms of socioeconomic background, family obligations etcetera. None of which means that personality factors cannot play a role at all. In fact, things like past involvement in violence or previous socialization to extremist beliefs can be important parts of the explanation for why someone became involved in terrorism. Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from my Hofstadgroep study in terms of the influence of personality factors, is that extremism and terrorism cannot simply be explained as stemming from psychopathology or deprivation. On the whole, group-based terrorists are not driven (primarily) by mental health problems or lack of opportunities to pursue alternative career paths in society. The uncomfortable truth is that, for many of these individuals, involvement in terrorism is a more or less conscious decision. An interesting finding about lone actors is that many of them did not ‘go it alone’ for tactical considerations, but because they failed to join or form a terrorist cell of their own. This may tie into the higher prevalence of mental health problems among lone actor extremists, which can make them appear untrustworthy or simply disagreeable and therefore prevent them from being truly accepted by other extremists.
ARE: Is there a difference between those who join local groups and the lone wolf types who are influenced by ISIS and Al Qaeda? That is to say, do they see the larger terror groups in the same way Hofstadgroep members saw their own group?
BS: Again, while some lone actors (Unabomber, Breivik) make a conscious decision to operate alone, many would have liked to join others but failed to do so. But both lone actors and participants in groups like Hofstad are generally heavily-influenced by the larger radical milieu of which they are a part; taking inspiration from videos, writings, speeches etc. of leading figures and groups.
ARE: You distinguish between radicalization and fanaticism in your work. Can you explain what these are?
BS: I have been critical of the concept of radicalization for a long time. Although it has become a household term since 2004, it doesn’t really explain how and why people become involved in extremism and terrorism. Radicalization suffers from lack of a clear definition and it is inherently subjective. A century ago, those in favor of extending voting rights to women were often labeled radicals by their opponents. Few would (hopefully!) dare make that same argument now. Not only do our views of what is ‘radical’ change over time, but by associating radicalization so closely with terrorism, we have lumped together activists who, although we may disagree with them, are essentially advocating change while remaining within the limits of the liberal democratic order, with individuals and groups committed to the use of extreme violence to get what they want. If that isn’t problematic enough, most interpretations of radicalization continue to overstate the degree to which beliefs influence behavior. Saying someone was ‘radicalized’ prior to committing a terrorist act doesn’t really help us understand that act; there are millions of people with radical or extremist views and the vast majority of them never become involved in terrorism in any way, shape or form. So while extremist beliefs are usually an important component of the overall picture of why people commit terrorism, they are insufficient by themselves to function as an explanation. For that reason, I think we should stop talking about radicalization and instead study the pathways to lead to involvement in terrorism, as this implicitly draws attention to the multitude of factors that constitute such processes. Fanaticism struck me as a more useful concept because, as it was developed by British psychologist Max Taylor, it recognizes that not all ‘fanatics’ will act on their beliefs but stipulates conditions under which they are more likely to do so. “Fanaticism” is thus able to overcome, at least to some degree, “radicalization’s” greatest shortcoming; namely, why the vast majority of radicals never become terrorists.
ARE: Why are fanatics more likely to become violent?
BS: It is more a question of when, rather than why. Fanaticism (or radicalism, if you will) is more likely to actually lead to violence when 1) the beliefs adhered to are distinctly militant; 2) when the fanatic/radical also holds to millenarian views, such as that the apocalypse is nigh and can be hastened by the individual believer; and 3) (to me most importantly) when the radical/fanatic is not exposed to contrarian views that can challenge his/her extremist convictions or inject some grey into a black/white world-view.
ARE: You also indicate that the Hofstadgroep members were less concerned with creating change than with making a statement about their own Islamic identity. In a way, it seems you are saying it was more about themselves than about the world. That’s an interesting perspective for me, because it parallels my own ideas about terrorists being narcissists, and I wonder if this isn’t in fact true of other terrorists and terror groups – not just Islamist. Is this a view or an approach to terrorism we have overlooked? Maybe we’ve been missing the real picture. Or is it some of both?
BS: I am always a bit careful using terms like narcissism because people can then be quick to pathologize such statements. But there is definitely something interesting going on in terms of identity. A key question for me is always; why would anyone join a terrorist group? The most likely outcomes are death or a life in prison. Now, while jihadists (at least profess to) want to die for their beliefs, terrorism has a much longer and broader history than Islamist extremism alone. There have been many secular terrorist groups who were not keen to go to an afterlife. So, what does terrorism offer that can make some people takes these risks? A large part of the answer lies, I believe, in the attractions of group membership. Things like status within a particular community, the notion of being part of something grandiose and important, the feeling of living an important and exciting life, the comradeship formed under fire, these are key factors binding people to terrorist groups, whether we’re talking about [ISIS], the IRA or the Italian Red Brigades. I think it would be great to delve more deeply into such factors in future research.
ARE: Finally: How can your research help counterterrorism analysts and law enforcement going forward?
BS: I hope that my work will be able make a contribution to the work of counterterrorism policymakers and practitioners in two ways. First of all, by providing a unique primary-sources based account of how and why involvement in a key example of European homegrown jihadist group occurred, I hope to contribute to their subject-matter expertise. More importantly, I hope that my findings will challenge counterterrorism professionals to keep critically re-examining the assumptions about such processes that they use to guide their own work.
It’s hard to get away from the men at the top of the two governments most important to these fingers. They appear to be close to one another with respect to policies of mutual interest, and they are both at the focus of severe criticism, with many of their countrypeople, and some of their party colleagues wanting them out of office.
Ongoing actions of both, and ongoing official inquiries invite yet another comparative pondering of what they are accomplishing, the benefits and damages assignable to each, and associated larger issues.
The reach and implications of what the US President does, says, does not do, and does not say are worldwide.
For us in this little place, most prominent have been comments admitting the realities that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city, that the Western Wall is sure to remain Israeli in any conceivable negotiations, vetoing a Security Council resolution meant to counter those statements, and–most recently–asserting that Israel is not at the heart of the world’s problems in the Middle East.
“For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as t he prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region . Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region’s problems. States have increasingly found common interests with Israel in confronting common threats.”
While none of those actions seem to go beyond a simple recognition of what is real and highly probable with respect to the foreseeable future, they have brought forth hyperbolic protests from Palestinians and their supporters, along with predictable demonstrations, injuries and deaths.
Palestinians and their friends take comfort in the total support given their effort in the UN Security Council, except from the United States. Likewise the vote of the UN General Assembly. Cynics can see the same actions as governments uncomfortable with Trump going along with the Palestinians in the confidence that nothing will happen of real import.
Trump’s controversies within his country go far beyond what he has contributed to Israelis’ expression of satisfaction and Palestinians’ expressions of rage. They include campaign issues associated with Russians, past actions and recent comments with respect to women, and responses ranging from applause to shrill damnation with respect to policy efforts for health care, migrants, and taxes.
Less than a year into his presidency, it seems to rank among the most volatile, and perhaps at the top of that list, going as far back in history as one cares.
He’s run into trouble with key parts of his program, i.e., a revision of health care and control of immigration. He’s done better on tax reform, but under a storm of criticism from social activists and economists.
It’s no surprise that he is a target of women aroused by the movement Me too, and remains a topic for mental health professionals and others preparing material for possible impeachment or a declaration that he is unfit to serve..
Those are high barriers, not yet breached in American history.
Americans and the rest of us should expect to be gritting teeth and hoping for minimum damage for the next three or seven years.
Assessments of his Israeli friend, ally, or copycat have recently been less concerned with the drama of public policy than with personal messes uncovered by police investigations of himself, wife, son, and close associates. Our questions deal with the prospects of one or another of those in the focus of police inquiries ending up in jail, and how long that might take.
Allegations and counter assessments, along with media blather are no less confused than American and international assessments of Trump’s personality, his tweets, womanizing, and official actions.
There seems no doubt that Bibi and family members have broken Israeli laws with respect to officials’ acceptance of gifts. Yet how serious the give and take, or what he has actually done for the gift givers may confuse, delay, and produce no outcome from whatever judicial proceedings go forward.
Also iffy are allegations–clearly affecting more serious matters–involving his associates and weighty dealings touching on a great deal more money and the sensitive issues of national defense and communications. To date, and without convincing explanation, these issues have not produced police investigations of the Prime Minister.
Given the well established tendency of Israeli police, prosecutors, and judges to dither at great length with frequent delays, especially on matters touching individuals in high office, the prospects of an early end, or even of early indictments that could trigger key resignations seem remote.
Closer to what is probable is the spread of political problems focused on the Prime Minister. Not only his own vulnerability, but those of David Bitan, once his prime aide as Knesset leader of the coalition, are adding to those among Bibi’s former supporters who are explicitly doubtful, or said to be doubtful about his staying in office.
There is no end to the scenarios imaginable by those familiar with the politics of Israel or the US.
Most certain is that anything like a peace process is either dead, dying, or on indefinite hold.
More pressing is whether the previous level of accommodations between Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians can return to the status quo ante.
Betting should be positive, given the advantages to all involved.
Against this is the power of Muslim rhetoric, shown in the past to not only go way beyond reality, but to have the capacity to change reality.
The city of Jerusalem itself is thriving as perhaps never before in its long and turbulent history. The population is at an all-time high and every neighborhood in the city is experiencing new construction and refurbishment. The light rail system has proven to be a success and the good old green Egged buses are still plying their routes more or less in an orderly fashion and on a scheduled timeline.
The city has enjoyed an economic upturn and its government has improved many of the services, quietly and without boastful fanfare. The Arab citizens of Jerusalem – they are a little more than 30% of the population here – enjoy a standard of living and opportunity unmatched anywhere else in the Middle East.
Yet, this means nothing regarding the attitude of much of the world as far as Israel and Jerusalem is concerned
******************************
The Jewish people and the world generally were witness this past week to yet another fulfillment of a biblical prophecy. The prophet said that a day will come when all of the nations – or at least a sizable portion of them – will attack Jerusalem and attempt to dislodge the Jewish people from their capital city and its holy environs. 128 nations voted for a UN General Assembly resolution denying the right of Israel and the Jewish people to claim Jerusalem as its capital.
Among the nations that voted for this resolution were the usual culprits – dictators, slaveholders, warmongers and many others of this ilk. And naturally the hypocritical democracies of Europe never have been able to overcome their anti-Jewish bias, developed over centuries of persecution and discrimination against Jews also supported this nefarious resolution.
There were countries, led by the United States of America, who voted against the resolution and spoke up about its bias and impracticality. In the long view of history those nations who defended Jewish rights eventually were blessed for their wisdom and kindness. The United States of America is the world’s leading democracy and with all of its warts and faults remains a shining beacon of fairness and opportunity for individuals all over the world.
Supporting Israel’s claim to Jerusalem is just simply choosing right over wrong and realistic history over illusory plans and policies. The United States committed its error in supporting an anti-Israel resolution last year under the Obama administration. And it made good on its policy of long-standing to protect Israel from these continued efforts by the United Nations to undermine its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
There is no use arguing this matter logically or even realistically. It matters little to the world that Jerusalem, for the first time in many centuries, is free for worship to all faiths and peoples. It also matters little that Israel has all of its government offices located in Jerusalem and that Israel as a sovereign nation has long chosen Jerusalem to be its capital. None of this matters because it is not so much that the world wants Jerusalem – after all it was a wasteland and backwater location for many centuries whether under Christian or Moslem rule – it is simply that the world does not want the Jews to have Jerusalem.
There is absolutely no logical explanation for this position but there it is anyway. The terrible virus of anti-Semitism affects all attitudes and positions regarding the state of Israel and certainly regarding Jerusalem. I certainly agree that there are religious difficulties for both the Christian and Moslem worlds regarding the status of Jerusalem as being a Jewish city and the capital of the state of Israel. However just as portions of the Christian clergy and Moslem nations have learned to live with the reality of the existence of the state of Israel – itself a religious difficulty to the theology of these faiths – so too I am confident that they will be able to adjust to the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state. Reality eventually affects beliefs and previously held opinions, even those that were once represented as being sacred and immutable.
The city of Jerusalem itself is thriving as perhaps never before in its long and turbulent history. The population is at an all-time high and every neighborhood in the city is experiencing new construction and refurbishment. The light rail system has proven to be a success and the good old green Egged buses are still plying their routes more or less in an orderly fashion and on a scheduled timeline.
The city has enjoyed an economic upturn and its government has improved many of the services, quietly and without boastful fanfare. The Arab citizens of Jerusalem – they are a little more than 30% of the population here – enjoy a standard of living and opportunity unmatched anywhere else in the Middle East.
Yet, this means nothing regarding the attitude of much of the world as far as Israel and Jerusalem is concerned.
The United Nations resolution, shameful as it is, is nevertheless nonbinding and non-enforceable. It is another one of the paper propaganda victories that the Palestinian Authority revels in, which brings them no closer to a state of their own, which by now most of us suspect they really don’t want anyway.
Jerusalem was supposed to be a bargaining chip to extract greater concessions from Israel on any final agreement. Somehow that chip may now be lost and no longer in play.
Did an investigative report give US officials the smoking gun after a year of rhetoric?
Hezbollah displays a pick-up truck mounted with a multiple rocket launcher in a parade in the southern Lebanese city of Nabatiyeh in 2014. (photo credit: MAHMOUD ZAYYAT / AFP)
An explosive and controversial report alleging the Obama administration soft-pedalled investigations into Hezbollah’s drugs and weapons trade due to the desire to get the Iran deal done is making waves in Washington. It could have major ramifications for the region as well, particularly because the Trump administration has Hezbollah in its crosshairs.
Politico published on December 18 a major investigative report by Josh Meyer titled “The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook.” Now US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has given the go-ahead to the Justice Department to look at the accusations. Former Obama administration members have critiqued the report.
In an interview with NPR, Meyer said he spent months interviewing dozens of people and reviewing court records, documents and emails. The probe into Hezbollah’s actions as an “international crime syndicate” was code-named Project Cassandra by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Some investigators believed Hezbollah was “collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities,” Meyer wrote.
However, Project Cassandra’s efforts, which began in 2008 and included 30 US and foreign security agencies, were hampered at the highest levels. “The Justice and Treasure departments delayed, hindered or rejected their requests… and the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.” Meyer’s article asserts that there was a connection to the Iran Deal, and he says Obama administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity “said they were guided by broader policy objectives, including de-escalating the conflict with Iran, curbing nuclear weapons program and freeing at least four American prisoners held by Tehran.”
For the Trump administration, which rolled out a major policy to confront Iran in October, this report comes at an opportune time.
According to Meyer, two officials involved in Project Cassandra “have been quietly contacted by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans,” even before his December report was published. This is because of a previous April report about Obama’s “hidden Iran deal concessions.”
David Asher, who came from the Pentagon to help Cassandra, had initially been “tracking the money used to provide ragtag Iraqi Shiite militias with sophisticated weapons for use against US troops,” including IEDs. He had connected a Hezbollah envoy to Iran named Abdallah Safieddine to connections in South America and funneling money “to kill Americans soldiers” in Iraq.
The connection of Hezbollah to Iranian-supported militias in Iraq is also of interest to the current US administration because Secretary of Defense James Mattis urged action against these Iranian-supported units in 2011, but he was stymied in his efforts, according to a report in The Washington Post.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo has also been key to the Trump administration’s view of Iran. In October, he was interviewed at an event held by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and described Hezbollah as “at the center of so much turmoil in the Middle East.”
In contrast, the Politico piece points a finger at former CIA director John Brennan as urging “greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system.” In 2010, Brennan, then an assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, had said that “certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us, what they’re doing, and what we need to do is find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and try to build up the more moderate elements.”
Trump has made Hezbollah a centerpiece of his rhetoric. In his May speech in Riyadh to 50 Muslim countries, he applauded the Gulf Cooperation Council “for blocking funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror and designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization last year.” He praised Saudi Arabia specifically. His speech gave wind to Riyadh’s decision to cut ties with Qatar the next month.
In September, Trump again mentioned Hezbollah at his UN speech, encouraging countries to “drive them out.” In September, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley wrote an oped in The Jerusalem Post asserting that Hezbollah was a “proxy for the outlaw Iranian regime,” and that it would not give up its terrorist goals. She said the US and UN were “stepping up our efforts against them.”
In November, Saudi Arabia engineered Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s resignation. On November 10, Riyadh and Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah traded accusations that each had “declared war” on the other.
The revelations accusing the Obama administration of going easy on Hezbollah will encourage a reappraisal of the efforts against the organization as the Trump administration looks at ways to pressure Iran that do not involve tearing up the Iran deal itself.
The US is still funding and equipping the Lebanese army even as it critiques the role of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government.
Jonathan Schanzer, a senior vice-president at FDD says that the recent revelations will add urgency to the fight against Iran’s proxies in Syria and Iraq. “That being said this is more of a western hemisphere issue, so bureaucratically the focus will shift south of the border,” because of the connections to drug trafficking. It will also shine a greater light on the previous administration’s deficiencies in tackling the Iranian threat network he argues.
The Politico article could be just thing to get the ball rolling on the administration’s goals for 2018.
Media reports portray Dreamers as college-educated immigrants who were just a few years old when their parents brought them into the country illegally. (Associated Press/File)
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The Obama administration did not check the background of each DACA beneficiary, despite a requirement that they have no felony convictions and pose no threat to national security. Only a few randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.
This may explain why, by August this year, more than 2,100 DACA beneficiaries had had their eligibility pulled because of criminal convictions and gang affiliation. Even if a random background investigation produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA if he wasn’t convicted.
History shows that providing amnesty will attract even more illegal immigration and won’t solve our enforcement problems. Congress shouldn’t even consider such relief unless and until we have a sustained period of concentrated enforcement that stems illegal entry and reduces the illegal alien population in the U.S.
Congress should instead concentrate on providing the resources needed to enforce our immigration laws and secure our border.
******************************
When members of Congress battled over the budget, some threatened to block funding unless Congress provided amnesty to illegal alien Dreamers who benefited from President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which President Trump announced he is ending.
Conscientious members of Congress should not give in to this threat. Amnesty will encourage even more illegal immigration — just as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act did.
That bill provided citizenship to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Yet by 1995, another 5.7 million illegal aliens were residing in the U.S. Many of them crossed the border to join their newly legalized friends and family. Others, no doubt, believed that since the U.S. provided amnesty once, it would do so again.
However Congress decides to deal with Dreamers, it should be based on the real demographics of the DACA populace, not the glamorized image typically presented by the media.
Watching television reports concerning Dreamers, one would think that the DACA program applied only to college-educated immigrants who were just a few years old when their parents brought them into the country illegally. We are led to believe that most are so fully Americanized that they would now have trouble speaking their native language and are all but ignorant of their birth countries’ cultural norms. Thus, we are supposed to believe, returning them to their native lands would be a cruel hardship.
In fact, many DACA beneficiaries came here as teenagers. All were eligible for the program as long as they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday. By that time, there is no doubt that they spoke the language of their native countries fluently and knew their culture intimately.
DACA had no requirement of English fluency, as evidenced by the application form that had a space to list the translator used to complete the form. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”
Unfortunately, many Dreamers are poorly educated. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education, even though a majority are now adults. And while military service could also qualify an illegal alien for DACA, out of the current 690,000 DACA beneficiaries, only 900 are serving in the military.
The Obama administration did not check the background of each DACA beneficiary, despite a requirement that they have no felony convictions and pose no threat to national security. Only a few randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.
This may explain why, by August this year, more than 2,100 DACA beneficiaries had had their eligibility pulled because of criminal convictions and gang affiliation. Even if a random background investigation produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA if he wasn’t convicted.
Thus, it seems that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries have serious limitations in their education, work experience and English fluency. What’s the likelihood that they’ll be able to function in American society without being substantial burdens to U.S. taxpayers?
Without changing the sponsorship rules, any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit beyond the immediate DACA beneficiaries. Giving lawful status to Dreamers will allow them and their families to profit from illegal conduct.
History shows that providing amnesty will attract even more illegal immigration and won’t solve our enforcement problems. Congress shouldn’t even consider such relief unless and until we have a sustained period of concentrated enforcement that stems illegal entry and reduces the illegal alien population in the U.S.
Congress should instead concentrate on providing the resources needed to enforce our immigration laws and secure our border.
⦁ Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department lawyer. He is a co-author of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”
The Times of Israel is liveblogging Tuesday’s events as they unfold.
Japanese FM invited Netanyahu to Tokyo meet with Abbas
Visiting Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a four-way meeting in Tokyo with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and US envoy Jared Kushner, Channel 10 reports.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono (L) meets with President Reuven Rivlin at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem on December 25, 2017. (AFP Photo/Pool/Heidi Levine)
Quoting a senior official, the channel’s diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid says that Netanyahu responded positively, but conditioned it on US agreement.
The Walla news site also reported the offer.
The Palestinians have refused to deal with the Americans since US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Japan’s foreign minister reportedly invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to a four-way peace summit in Tokyo that would also include Jared Kushner, who is overseeing US President Donald Trump’s efforts to revive peace talks.
According to a report by the Walla news website, Taro Kono extended the invitation to Netanyahu and Abbas during his separate meetings on Monday with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Jerusalem and Ramallah.
According to Channel 10, Netanyahu said he was open to attending, but only if the US agreed.
“If Kushner is there, I will also be there,” the report quoted Netanyahu as telling Kono.
The TV channel said the proposal was first made to Netanyahu by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe when the two met in New York during the UN General Assembly in September.
It said Netanyahu told Abe he would only attend if the summit was coordinated with the US, which has traditionally been the arbitrator of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The reports did not say how Abbas responded to Kono’s proposal.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono (L) meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah on December 25, 2017. (AFP Photo/Abbas Momani)
The reported Japanese proposal came as ties between the US and the Palestinian Authority have hit a nadir following Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on December 6.
In protest of the move, Abbas declared that the Palestinians no longer view the US as an honest mediator for peace talks.
An adviser to Abbas also said the PA would no longer meet with US officials regarding peace efforts, including Kushner and peace envoy Jason Greenblatt.
Despite international criticism of Trump’s declaration, the move has been widely praised by Israeli politicians.
While meeting with Kono on Monday, President Reuven Rivlin compared Israel’s capital to Japan’s Tokyo.
“For us, Tokyo is absolutely the only capital of Japan, and Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel,” the president said.
While Kono did not publicly criticize the US recognition in his meetings with Rivlin and Netanyahu, Japan last week voted in favor of a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution condemning the American move.
Although Japan has never played an influential role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Monday’s reports said the proposal was meant to mark 10 years since the founding of the Jericho agro-industrial park, which was set up by Japan as part of the Corridor for Peace and Prosperity Initiative aimed at promoting economic cooperation between Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan.
American funding for UNRWA is problematic itself because the organization is inextricably intertwined with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This may be the right time to review the number of Palestinian “refugees” in the world and the world’s obligation to them.
Ten years ago, in a forum on Capitol Hill, then-Rep. Mark Kirk called for an international audit of UNRWA. Kirk admitted he was unsuccessful, despite such accounting anomalies as a $13 million entry for “un-earmarked expenses” in an audit conducted by UNRWA’s own board.
Palestinians are the only “refugee” group that hands the status down through generations, which is why they are governed by UNRWA; all other refugees are under the care of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which has a mandate to settle refugees so they can become citizens of new countries.
Palestinian refugees are a slippery population — but when 285,535 of them go missing from a small country such as Lebanon, it should raise eyebrows.
UNRWA in Lebanon reports on its website that 449,957 refugees live under its protection in 12 camps, but a survey by Lebanon’s Central Administration of Statistics, together with the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, could only find 174,535. The Lebanese government said the others “left.” Okay, maybe they did — Lebanon constrained them viciously, so it would make some sense. What does NOT make sense, then, is the UN giving UNRWA a budget based on nearly half a million people when, in fact, there are far fewer than a quarter of a million. Who is paying and who is getting the money?
We are and they are.
The UNRWA website shows a budget of $2.41 billion combined for FY 2016 and 2017. The U.S. provides more than $300 million to UNRWA annually, about one-quarter of the total. In August 2017, UNRWA claimed a deficit of $126 million. A former State Department official said the budget shortfalls are chronic but that “the funds seemed eventually arrive” after pressing others for more money — some of that additional money is from the U.S.
American funding for UNRWA is problematic itself because the organization is inextricably intertwined with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon; see here, here and here. And specifically for Lebanon, the connection goes as far back as 2007. But stay with the “floating” population problem for a moment.
A July 2015 street celebration in Lebanon’s Ain al-Hilweh camp, which is administered by UNRWA. (Image source: Geneva Call/Flickr)
The huge discrepancy in Lebanon suggests that UNRWA may have trouble counting refugees in the West Bank, Jordan, Gaza, and Syria as well. (We’ll give them a pass on Syria for now.) The problem is not new, but that Palestinian agencies were running the census may help the United States overcome its own long-term obstinacy when it comes to counting and paying.
Ten years ago, a forum on Capitol Hill, then-Rep. Mark Kirk called for an international audit of UNRWA. Kirk admitted he was unsuccessful in generating demand among his colleagues despite such accounting anomalies as a $13 million entry for “un-earmarked expenses” in an audit conducted by UNRWA’s own board. An amendment to the 2006 Foreign Assistance Act had called for $2 million in additional funds for UNRWA, specifically for an investigation of finances, but the amendment was withdrawn at the request of the State Department.
As a Senator, Kirk offered an amendment calling for the State Department to provide two numbers to Congress: the number of Palestinians physically displaced from their homes in what became Israel in 1948, and the number of their descendants administered by the UNRWA. The State Department denounced the amendment, saying:
“This proposed amendment would be viewed around the world as the United States acting to prejudge and determine the outcome of this sensitive issue.”
Far from prejudging the outcome, a review of the number of Palestinian “refugees” in the world and the world’s obligation to them would provide an honest basis from which to make policy.
In 1950, the UN defined Palestinian “refugees” as people displaced from territory that had become Israel after having lived there for two years or more — this is distinct from every other population of refugees that must be displaced from their long-term homes. Furthermore, Palestinians are the only “refugee” group that hands the status down through generations, until there is a resolution of the status of the original group — which is why they are governed by UNRWA; all other refugees are under the care of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has a mandate to settle refugees so they can become citizens of new countries. UNRWA, naturally, produces the only population of refugees that grows geometrically over time rather than declining as the original refugees die and their children are no longer stateless. (See Vietnamese refugee resettlement for an example of how this works for others.)
The original population of refugees was estimated at 711,000 in 1950. Today, there appear to be 30-50,000 original refugees remaining, and UNRWA claims to care for 4,950,000 of their descendants. But 285,000 of them appear to have disappeared from Lebanon.
It has long been understood that there is an undercount of deaths in UNRWA refugee camps — to admit a death means UNRWA loses that member in the accounting for the international community. It also wreaks havoc with Palestinian insistence that there are 6 million refugees (not UNRWA’s 5 million) and that a million people are not registered, but should still have a “right of return” to homes their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents claim to have had inside the borders of Israel.
The numbers game also exists with people who do not live in refugee camps. The Palestinian Authority counts as residents 400,000 Palestinians who have lived abroad for over a year, and according to Deputy Palestinian Interior Minister Hassan Illwi, more than 100,000 babies born abroad are registered as West Bank residents — both in contravention of population-counting norms. Jerusalem Palestinians are double-counted – once as Palestinian Authority residents and once as Israeli Palestinians. The PA, furthermore, claims zero net out-migration; Israeli government statistics differ.
How many Palestinians would there be in these territories if a proper census was taken? How many “refugees” would disappear from UNRWA rolls as they did in Lebanon? How might that affect the budget?
Can we please find out?
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.
The Washington Post is worried. The lead headline in today’s paper edition reads: “Mueller criticism grows to a clamor — FBI Conspiracy Claim Takes Hold — Driven by activists, GOP lawmakers, Trump tweets.”
Turnabout is fair play. Last year around this time, an honest newspaper could easily have written: “Trump criticism grows to a clamor — Russia Collusion Takes Hold — Driven by activists, Democratic lawmakers, leaks.”
A year ago, an honest newspaper could not have written that the Trump collusion criticism was driven by the FBI. The facts supporting such a headline were not known. Now we have good reason to suspect that the FBI was, in fact, advancing the collusion claim.
The FBI reportedly offered money to Christoper Steele to continue his work on the anti-Trump dossier (in testimony before Congress Rod Rosenstein refused to say whether the FBI paid or offered to pay for the dossier). The FBI may well have used information in the dossier to secure approval of surveillance efforts from the FISA court.
The FBI also helped push the dossier into the public’s consciousness. Its general counsel, James Baker, reportedly told reporter David Corn about the dossier, thus enabling Corn to write about it just before the election. And FBI director Comey briefed president-elect Trump on the dossier, which led to publication of its contents by BuzzFeed.
We also know about the quest of Peter Strzok, a high-level FBI man, for an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
But let’s return to the Washington Post’s story about growing criticism of Mueller. The three distressed Post writers are less than fully open when it comes to informing readers what — other than activists, GOP lawmakers, and Trump tweets — is causing criticism of Mueller to grow to a clamor.
They acknowledge that it has something to do with Strzok’s role as Mueller’s former top investigator. However, they do their best to make Strzok seem innocuous.
The story introduces him by noting that he called Trump an “idiot” and predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide — statements that don’t distinguish him from tens of thousands of government employees and millions of other Americans. They also quote a former colleague of Strzok who says:
To think Pete could not do his job objectively shows no understanding of the organization. We have Democrats, we have Republicans, we have conservatives and liberals. . . . Having personal views doesn’t prevent us from independently following the facts.
The problem with peddling this happy narrative is that it ignores Strzok’s anti-Trump zeal, his obvious desire to impress his mistress, and his damning statement about the need for an “insurance policy” against Trump becoming president. The Post, in fact, never mentions that statement.
The Post also manages to ignore the hyper-partisan nature of Mueller’s staff, even excluding Strzok, whom he reassigned. There is a passing reference to Andrew Weissmann’s gushing note to Sally Yates praising her for her resistance to Trump, but no discussion of the ideologically one-sided composition of Team Mueller — a marked contrast to Ken Starr’s balanced staff.
Even with that diverse staff, Starr was successfully portrayed as spearheading a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It’s not surprising that as more and more evidence emerges of bias within Mueller’s team, criticism mounts and takes hold.
Mueller himself is a Republican. But he is also a friend of James Comey, another fact the Post ignores. The steady stream of evidence of Comey’s anti-Trump animus and manipulative conduct has contributed to declining faith in Mueller.
And then, there’s the fact that Mueller appears to have come up empty so far on “collusion” by Trump. A prosecutor investigating a president is bound to lose credibility if, after an extended period of time, he neither produces evidence against the president nor exonerates him of the set of crimes that supposedly underlie the investigation.
A prosecutor who cannot credibly be accused of bias — either personal or within his team — buys himself time and patience from the public. Mueller is not that prosecutor.
In sum, the Post’s account of how Mueller lost the “near-universal support” he enjoyed earlier is shallow.
The Post’s story is significant, nonetheless. Clearly, the Post is concerned that, as it states, the growing criticism of Mueller “threatens to shadow his investigation’s eventual findings.”
It does, indeed. A recent Harvard poll found that 54 percent of voters believe that “as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey,” Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Meanwhile, only 35 percent believe that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia has been found.
I’m sure Mueller believes his own press-clippings, but the public no longer does. The press, it seems, is beginning to realize this.
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments