US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman speaks during the 16th anniversary memorial ceremony for the victims of 9/11 attacks in a memorial monument in the Jerusalem Hills on September 11, 2017.
Because there is pressure “from above” involved in the issue, however, Friedman and those with whom there is a disagreement have agreed to review the matter, according to the report, leaving the final decision up to U.S. President Donald Trump.
**********************************
Israel’s Kan public broadcaster reported Tuesday that the U.S. State Department has refused to comply with Ambassador to Israel David Friedman’s request that official documents no longer use the term “occupation” in its references to Israel.
Friedman, an attorney, explained (as he has a number of times in the past) that United Nations Resolution 242 was deliberately written at the time in such a way as to reflect that the areas in which Jewish communities were built were always intended to remain with Israel.
Because there is pressure “from above” involved in the issue, however, Friedman and those with whom there is a disagreement have agreed to review the matter, according to the report, leaving the final decision up to U.S. President Donald Trump.
(Back in June of 1950, when North Korea with Stalin’s help and encouragement invaded South Korea, The UN General Secretary telephoned President Truman to say that he regarded the North Korean invasion an assault on the UN. Fortunately, Russia was boycotting the UN to protest its refusal to seat China. Various UN members provided troops to support the UN Command. It was a very different UN back then, the likes of which we are unlikely ever to see again. — DM)
Turtle Bay has been impervious to reform largely because most U.N. budgets are financed through effectively mandatory contributions. Under this system, calculated by a “capacity to pay” formula, each U.N. member is assigned a fixed percentage of each agency’s budget to contribute. The highest assessment is 22%, paid by the U.S. This far exceeds other major economies, whose contribution levels are based on prevailing exchange rates rather than purchasing power parity. China’s assessment is just under 8%.
Why does the U.S. tolerate this? It is either consistently outvoted when setting the budgets that determine contributions or has joined the “consensus” to avoid the appearance of losing. Yet dodging embarrassing votes means acquiescing to increasingly high expenditures.
The U.S. should reject this international taxation regime and move instead to voluntary contributions. This means paying only for what the country wants — and expecting to get what it pays for. Agencies failing to deliver will see their budgets cut, modestly or substantially. Perhaps America will depart some organizations entirely. This is a performance incentive the current assessment-taxation system simply does not provide.
**********************************
As an assistant secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, I worked vigorously to repeal a hateful United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. Foreign diplomats frequently told me the effort was unnecessary. My Soviet counterpart, for example, said Resolution 3379 was only a piece of paper gathering dust on a shelf. Why stir up old controversies years after its 1975 adoption?
We ignored the foreign objections and persisted because that abominable resolution cast a stain of illegitimacy and anti-Semitism on the U.N. It paid off. On Dec. 16, 1991, the General Assembly rescinded the offensive language.
Now, a quarter-century later, the U.N. has come close to repeating Resolution 3379’s original sin. Last week the U.N. showed its true colors with a 128-9 vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
This seemingly lopsided outcome obscured a significant victory and major opportunity for the president. Thirty-five countries abstained, and 21 didn’t vote at all. Days earlier the Security Council had endorsed similar language, 14-1, defeated only by the U.S. veto. The margin narrowed significantly once Mr. Trump threatened to penalize countries that voted against the U.S. This demonstrated once again that America is heard much more clearly at the U.N. when it puts its money where its mouth is. (In related news, Guatemala announced Sunday it will move its embassy to Jerusalem, a good example for others.)
While imposing financial repercussions on individual governments is entirely legitimate, the White House should also reconsider how Washington funds the U.N. more broadly. Should the U.S. forthrightly withdraw from some U.N. bodies (as we have from UNESCO and as Israel announced its intention to do on Friday)? Should others be partially or totally defunded? What should the government do with surplus money if it does withhold funds?
Despite decades of U.N. “reform” efforts, little or nothing in its culture or effectiveness has changed. Instead, despite providing the body with a disproportionate share of its funding, the U.S. is subjected to autos-da-fé on a regular basis. The only consolation, at least to date, is that this global virtue-signaling has not yet included burning the U.S. ambassador at the stake.
Turtle Bay has been impervious to reform largely because most U.N. budgets are financed through effectively mandatory contributions. Under this system, calculated by a “capacity to pay” formula, each U.N. member is assigned a fixed percentage of each agency’s budget to contribute. The highest assessment is 22%, paid by the U.S. This far exceeds other major economies, whose contribution levels are based on prevailing exchange rates rather than purchasing power parity. China’s assessment is just under 8%.
Why does the U.S. tolerate this? It is either consistently outvoted when setting the budgets that determine contributions or has joined the “consensus” to avoid the appearance of losing. Yet dodging embarrassing votes means acquiescing to increasingly high expenditures.
The U.S. should reject this international taxation regime and move instead to voluntary contributions. This means paying only for what the country wants — and expecting to get what it pays for. Agencies failing to deliver will see their budgets cut, modestly or substantially. Perhaps America will depart some organizations entirely. This is a performance incentive the current assessment-taxation system simply does not provide.
Start with the U.N. Human Rights Council. Though notorious for its anti-Israel bias, the organization has never hesitated to abuse America. How many know that earlier this year the U.N. dispatched a special rapporteur to investigate poverty in the U.S.? American taxpayers effectively paid a progressive professor to lecture them about how evil their country is.
The U.N.’s five regional economic and social councils, which have no concrete accomplishments, don’t deserve American funding either. If nations believe these regional organizations are worthwhile — a distinctly dubious proposition — they are entirely free to fund them. Why America is assessed to support them is incomprehensible.
Next come vast swaths of U.N. bureaucracy. Most of these budgets could be slashed with little or no real-world impact. Start with the Office for Disarmament Affairs. The U.N. Development Program is another example. Significant savings could be realized by reducing other U.N. offices that are little more than self-licking ice cream cones, including many dealing with “Palestinian” questions. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) could be consolidated into the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
Many U.N. specialized and technical agencies do important work, adhere to their mandates and abjure international politics. A few examples: the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. They shouldn’t be shuttered, but they also deserve closer scrutiny.
Some will argue incorrectly that unilaterally moving to voluntary contributions violates the U.N. Charter. In construing treaties, like contracts, parties are absolved from performance when others violate their commitments. Defenders of the assessed-contribution model would doubtless not enjoy estimating how often the charter has been violated since 1945.
If the U.S. moved first, Japan and some European Union countries might well follow America’s lead. Elites love the U.N., but they would have a tough time explaining to voters why they are not insisting their contributions be used effectively, as America has. Apart from risking the loss of a meaningless General Assembly vote — the Security Council vote and veto being written into the Charter itself — the U.S. has nothing substantial to lose.
Thus could Mr. Trump revolutionize the U.N. system. The swamp in Turtle Bay might be drained much more quickly than the one in Washington.
Pictured: John Bolton, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, addresses the UN Security Council on October 14, 2006 in New York City. (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)
John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”.
This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
The director of Israel’s Shin Bet security agency on Sunday told a select group of Israeli ministers and lawmakers that the Gaza-based group is being careful to avoid a full conflagration with Israel along the Gaza border, but was actively trying to sow chaos in the West Bank.
The security service’s chief Nadav Argaman said Hamas was preparing for a takeover of the West Bank, and added that the group’s efforts are dangerous especially in light of the political weakness of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
******************************************
TEL AVIV — A top Hamas official said Monday that a senior Iranian official gave him his word that all of Iran’s military might would be available to help the Gaza-based group fight Israel and take over Jerusalem, according to a report in the Times of Israel.
“All our of capabilities and potential are at your disposal in the battle for the defense of Jerusalem,” Yahya Sinwar quoted the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ elite Quds Force Qassem Soleimani as telling him over the phone.
Sinwar’s comments were carried by pro-Iranian Lebanese news outlet al-Mayadeen.
Soleimani, according to the report, told Sinwar that “Iran, the Revolutionary Guards and Quds Force stand with all they have with our people in order to defend Jerusalem so that Jerusalem will endure as the capital of the state of Palestine.”
Since U.S. President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Hamas has been trying to inflame the Palestinian street and issued calls for “days of rage” and a third intifada.
There have been riots near the Old City of Jerusalem after Friday morning prayers, but Israeli security forces have so far succeeded in quelling them with few casualties.
The director of Israel’s Shin Bet security agency on Sunday told a select group of Israeli ministers and lawmakers that the Gaza-based group is being careful to avoid a full conflagration with Israel along the Gaza border, but was actively trying to sow chaos in the West Bank.
The security service’s chief Nadav Argaman said Hamas was preparing for a takeover of the West Bank, and added that the group’s efforts are dangerous especially in light of the political weakness of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
(Might the substantial and increasing Islamisation of “multicultural” Germany be a factor in German hostility to Israel? — DM)
The time has come to reveal the true face of Germany, a country that wages a relentless struggle against Israel in both EU and U.N. institutions at the same time that it claims Israel’s existence and security are integral to its national interests. Germany is Europe’s single largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, but it has never once thought to demand the Palestinians do something for peace in return for all the money it provides, like put an end to the violence and the anti-Semitic incitement. While this should be obvious given Germany’s history, it seems it is not so crystal clear to Berlin. Germany prefers to put pressure on Israel only, by funding radical organizations that slander the Jewish state around the world.
*************************************
Around two weeks ago, and mere days after U.S. President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, one of the most popular tourist attractions in Berlin was opened at the Jewish Museum. Spanning over 1,000 square feet, the “Welcome to Jerusalem” exhibit is huge and includes hundreds of displays and exhibits.
One would have expected this type of exhibit at such an important Jewish museum to emphasize Jerusalem’s unique character as the holiest city in Judaism and also possibly focus a bit on the historical narrative of Zionism and the State of Israel. Such an exhibit could also have presented, in a balanced manner of course, the different religions that coexist in the city in spite of the ongoing conflict. But regrettably, the exhibit does nothing of the sort, but rather serves to strengthen the theory of Muslim-Arab-Palestinian ownership of the city, mainly through a biased presentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A historical documentary about the conflict, one of the exhibit’s highlights, portrays Jews as domineering invaders. It notes the massacres and terrorist acts committed by Jewish paramilitary organizations while completely ignoring those same acts when they were carried out by Arab organizations at the behest of Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini; completely ignores the Arab revolt of the 1930s and Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis; presents a fairly long segment from an interview with late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from the early years of his leadership, in which the then-PLO chief explains that the Palestinians have no choice but to take up arms; and repeats the theory according to which the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is what led to the disintegration of the peace process, as well as the proven lie that then-Opposition Leader Ariel Sharon’s 2000 visit to the Temple Mount sparked the Second Intifada. In short, according to the Jewish Museum in Berlin, the Jews are bad while the Arabs are victims.
Could one have really expected a different approach from a Jewish museum that, as part of its permanent exhibits, presents Israel as part of the “Diaspora” of German Jewry along with images of left-wing German Jews protesting against Israel? One of the curators of the Jerusalem exhibit is Cilly Kugelmann, a former vice director of the Jewish Museum whose post-Zionist views helped turn the museum into a center of activity for those who negate Israel’s existence. It is important to note that the Jewish Museum does not have ties with the local Jewish community and is financed by public funds, meaning the German establishment could influence the content on display and use the museum to relay a message. In fact, that is exactly what it is doing: The Jewish Museum serves the German establishment in its conscious struggle against Israel under the guise of a supposedly Jewish body.
Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital served to reveal Germany’s hypocrisy as far as concerns its ties with the Jewish state: Last week, Germany voted in favor of a U.N. resolution submitted by Turkey and Yemen that called U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “null and void.” Germany, along with the other great nations of the European Union, betrayed its alliance with the United States and Israel in order to align with the world’s most unsavory regimes in negating the Jewish state’s right to determine that its capital is in Jerusalem, the most sacred city to Jews.
The time has come to reveal the true face of Germany, a country that wages a relentless struggle against Israel in both EU and U.N. institutions at the same time that it claims Israel’s existence and security are integral to its national interests. Germany is Europe’s single largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, but it has never once thought to demand the Palestinians do something for peace in return for all the money it provides, like put an end to the violence and the anti-Semitic incitement. While this should be obvious given Germany’s history, it seems it is not so crystal clear to Berlin. Germany prefers to put pressure on Israel only, by funding radical organizations that slander the Jewish state around the world.
Unfortunately, Germany is no friend of Israel. That is at least as long as its current policies remain in place.
According to 2015 documents from the South Korean Defense Ministry, North Korea possesses 13 types of bacteria and viruses that cause disease, known as pathogens. These include anthrax, botulism, cholera, Korean hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid fever, yellow fever, dysentery, brucellosis, staph, typhus fever, and alimentary toxic aleukia.
Seoul estimated Pyongyang could “cultivate and weaponize [the pathogens] within 10 days,” and would prioritize anthrax, because it is highly deadly, and smallpox, because it is highly contagious—and its soldiers are thought to be vaccinated against it.
******************************************
Anthrax antibodies were found in the blood of a North Korean soldier who defected to the South, intelligence sources told Seoul’s media, increasing concerns about the country’s biological weapons production.
The unidentified intelligence official who spoke to South Korea’s Channel A network did not specify which soldier it was referring to; at least four North Korean soldiers have defected in the past seven months. “Anthrax antibodies have been found in the North Korean defector who has escaped this year,” the official was quoted as saying in the news report, which aired Tuesday.
North Korea is thought to be vaccinating top officials against anthrax, while the defectors held lower ranks. Seoul’s intelligence agency is investigating what kind of vaccines stockpiles has the country developed, the report said.
Senior defense analyst Shin Jong Woo of the Korea Defense Security Forum (KODEF) told Channel A the vaccine is likely to have been given to soldiers who handle the bacteria for military purposes, as unconfirmed reports last week indicated Pyongyang was looking to load anthrax on its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Anthrax can infect human beings through either ingestion, inhalation or skin exposure and it affects the normal functioning of the body’s immune system cells. While ingestion or skin exposure to anthrax can sometimes be treated, inhalation is highly fatal, with a mortality rate of at least 80 percent, according to the FDA.
South Korean military biochemical warfare soldiers take part in an anti-terror drill in Seoul on May 3, 2011. A North Korean defector was found to have anthrax antibodies in his blood, an intelligence source told South Korean media. JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Despite concerns about North Korea’s biological weapons production, Seoul’s soldiers are not vaccinated against deadly bacteria, unlike U.S. troops deployed on the peninsula, for whom smallpox and anthrax vaccinations have been compulsory for more than a decade. The two countries regularly hold military training exercises to practice their response to possible biological or chemical attacks.
On Monday, Seoul confirmed it had imported 350 doses of anthrax vaccines this year, which are meant to be stocked for treatment rather than vaccination.
“We purchased the vaccines, not to prevent but to treat the disease, in case of biological terror attacks,” presidential spokesperson Park Soo-hyun said, as quoted in the Korea Herald . He added that the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have acquired anthrax vaccines for 1,000 patients for the same purpose.
While North Korea has never publicly acknowledged the development of biological weapons, its leader Kim Jong Un visited Pyongyang’s Biological Technology Research Institute in June 2015.
According to Melissa Hanham, research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, the facility was not being used as a biological weapons facility at the time—but it could serve that purpose, as she wrote in analysis published on 38 North, a website dedicated to monitoring North Korea.
According to 2015 documents from the South Korean Defense Ministry, North Korea possesses 13 types of bacteria and viruses that cause disease, known as pathogens. These include anthrax, botulism, cholera, Korean hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid fever, yellow fever, dysentery, brucellosis, staph, typhus fever, and alimentary toxic aleukia.
Seoul estimated Pyongyang could “cultivate and weaponize [the pathogens] within 10 days,” and would prioritize anthrax, because it is highly deadly, and smallpox, because it is highly contagious—and its soldiers are thought to be vaccinated against it.
“The Western Wall is the holiest place for the Jewish people, and I decided to call the train station that leads to it after President Trump.”
A new train station that will be built next to the Western Wall will be named after US President Donald Trump, announced Transportation Minister Israel Katz on Tuesday.
“The Western Wall is the holiest place for the Jewish people, and I decided to call the train station that leads to it after President Trump following his historic and brave decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel,” said Katz
Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6 led to almost unanimous support from across the Israeli political spectrum but sparked waves of protests across the world.
US President Donald Trump delivers remarks recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at the White House in Washington, US December 6, 2017. (Reuters)
Yedioth Aharonot reported that Katz approved the construction plans for the train, which will include a three kilometer tunnel from the “Umma” (Nation) station at the entrance to the city to the Kardo in the Jewish Quarter, only a short distance from the Western Wall.
Katz said he sees this project of extending the length of the railway from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as the most important national project, and ordered officials in the Transportation Ministry to define it as a top priority mission.
The high-speed Tel Aviv-Jerusalem railway has been under construction since 2001 and will complement the existing, slower railway that already operates between the two cities. The project has been marked by numerous setbacks and delays.
In May, Trump became the first sitting US president to visit the Western Wall when he visited the site during a tour of several Middle East countries.
When posted the video of Mordechai Kedar speaking on Al-Jazeera TV, I only had a subtitled version of a 2 minute segment. I noted that I didn’t have the full video with English subtitles and that I would update if I found it.
Reader Gideon Kantorovich very kindly sent me the video of the full interview (10 minutes) complete with English subtitles, which I hereby post below.
Enjoy Mordechai Kedar’s wit and his deep knowledge of Islam and Arab culture:
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.
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments