Archive for the ‘Western media’ category

How the Media Glorifies Palestinian Female Terrorists

April 26, 2017

How the Media Glorifies Palestinian Female Terrorists, Clarion ProjectRachel Avraham, April 26, 2017

Inset Photos (L-R): Suicide bombers Wafa Idris, Ayat al-Akhras and Hanadi Jaradat

JerusalemOnline news editor and political analyst Rachel Avraham, who recently published a book titled Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media, explains how the international media continues to justify Palestinian female terrorism from the Second Intifada to our times.

Brian Jenkins proclaimed, “Terrorism is theater.” According to my recently published book titled “Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media,” terrorists do not engage in meaningless violence. Each terrorist act is carefully choreographed in order so that they can obtain maximum publicity for their cause. For the terror organizations, the goal is not to harm the immediate victims although that is certainly a bi-product of their wanton destruction but rather to solicit the attention of the wider spectators via the international press.

Women and Jihad argues that during the Second Intifada in Israel (September 2000 – February, 2005), the Arab, American and even the Israeli media gave into the publicity objectives of the Palestinian terror groups.  The media in the Arab world for the most part glorified Palestinian terrorism, thus rallying the Arab masses behind the Palestinian cause.

For example, the first Palestinian female suicide bomber Wafa Idris was compared to the Mona Lisa, Jesus Christ, Joan D’Arc and Khadija (the first wife of the Prophet Mohammed).  Suicide bomber Ayat Al Akhras was described to be “as tender and beautiful as a rose” and her suicide bombing was deemed to be “the height of bravery.”

Meanwhile, media outlets in the United States and sometimes even in Israel justified Palestinian terrorism in the name of covering the news objectively.   For instance, following the suicide bombing of Andaleeb Takafta, ABC’s Nightline interviewed a number of Palestinian officials, a Palestinian psychiatrist and an Israeli official.  Despite the asymmetrical nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Nightline related to them all as sources with equal credibility.

This worked to the benefit of the Palestinian terror groups.  On the program, Palestinian psychiatrist Dr. Iyad Sarraj declared, “We are so desperate.   We have nothing left except our bodies to turn into bombs.”  And following the suicide bombing of Hanadi Jaradat, Israeli newspaper Yedioth Achronot described the terrorist as “a pretty girl dressed in Western clothes like young Israeli girls.”   By describing the terrorist in this way, the terrorist was humanized.

My book argues that if the terrorist is a female, the media is eight times more likely to give the Palestinian terror group positive publicity. The atmosphere that existed in the American press following each Palestinian female terror attack during the Second Intifada also affects Israel during this present wave of terror as the American media relates to the female terrorists of our times in a similar manner.

This helps to create an atmosphere abroad where BDS motions, lawfare against Israeli officials, anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, anti-Israel reports by human rights organizations and other anti-Israel actions flourish.

Under this atmosphere of intense international pressure, the Palestinian terror groups hope that Israel will be forced into withdrawing to the 1967 Armistice Lines without the Palestinian Authority having to give Israel much in return and this will make it easier for the Palestinian terror groups to obtain their ultimate goal, which is the destruction of the State of Israel.

Abbas reiterates: All of Israel is ‘occupation’

April 6, 2016

Abbas reiterates: All of Israel is ‘occupation’ Israel National News, Ari Soffer, April 6, 2016

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has once again referred to the entire State of Israel as “occupied” territory, highlighting the wide gulf between his rhetoric in Arabic and his image as a moderate within much of the international media.

In an interview with official PA TV in mid-March, translated by Palestinian Media Watch, Abbas echoed similar comments he made late last year by claiming Palestinian Arabs have been “occupied” since 1948 – the date of the State of Israel’s founding. Such rhetoric lies in stark contrast to perceptions in the West that Abbas’s PA only desires a state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – territories liberated from Arab rule in 1967.

“We have been under occupation for 67 or 68 years,” Abbas said. “Others would have sunk into despair and frustration. However, we are determined to reach our goal because our people stands behind us.”

The extent of Abbas’s doublespeak is apparent when comparing such statements to the more conciliatory tone he takes when addressing foreign audiences.

One example highlighted by PMW was carried by Al-Hayat Al-Jadida later in March, when Abbas met a delegation of Jews.

“We strive for peace through the establishment of the Palestinian state, which will live in peace and stability alongside Israel,” he told them.

Abbas similarly told a Druze audience: “We must hurry building peace here, and find the ideal solution, which is simple – the Palestinians and the Israelis will live in two states that will exist side by side in peace and stability, because we want our children and grandchildren to live a good, normal, and prosperous life.”

Israeli officials often point towards Abbas’s doublespeak to illustrate how they say he manipulates Western audiences with messages of peace, while encouraging his own Arab population to continue fighting to destroy Israel.

Other PA officials have often been far more direct in their statements, describing any future “two-state solution” as only the first stage in destroying Israel, and describing a “West Bank state” as “just a phase” before wiping Israel out entirely.

The unfair media bias

April 3, 2016

The unfair media bias, Israel Hayom, Steven Emerson, April 3, 2016

The willful blindness of the Western media and intellectual elites to Palestinian incitement and their hyper-focus on any incident they can use to portray Israel in a negative light were on abundant display last week when footage emerged of an Israel Defense Forces soldier shooting a wounded and disarmed Palestinian terrorist.

Since then, The New York Times and The Washington Post have run no fewer than 16 stories about the incident. This volume of coverage reinforces the patently mendacious Israel-is-evil “narrative” promoted by the mainstream media, the liberal elites in bed with Palestinian and jihadist killers, the demonstrably one-sided United Nations, and the sanctimonious rants of several congressional leaders who claim they are speaking out in the name of human rights.

Meanwhile, these same news outlets consistently fail to speak out against the massive and ongoing denial of human rights, suppression of basic freedoms and daily torture meted out to any Palestinian dissident by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Many of these violations have been investigated and documented in horrific detail by the courageous Palestinian human rights advocate Bassam Eid.

No, the “narrative” does not allow mainstream news outlets to file negative reports on Palestinian human rights violations, their rampant corruption, and most importantly, their massive incitement to terrorist violence, which is being promoted by the very leadership of the Palestinian Authority. This includes vile lessons in how to kill Jews, taught in U.S.-sponsored Palestinian schools and universities, and instructional videos on stabbing and murdering Jews being shown to thousands of Palestinian schoolchildren.

The latest incident to manifest the “narrative” took place on March 24, when two Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron stabbed an Israeli soldier. Soldiers then shot them in self defense, killing one and leaving the other critically wounded and lying on the ground. Video of the incident taken by an activist belonging to the left-wing group B’Tselem showed an IDF soldier shooting the wounded Palestinian in the head, in clear violation of military rules. The IDF says it intends to seek manslaughter charges.

The shooting took place in the midst of a six-month wave of terrorist attacks by Palestinians, who have been attacking Israeli civilians at random, not just in the West Bank, but throughout Israel. Palestinians have slaughtered at least 34 Israelis — stabbing them to death in stores, in synagogues, in their apartments and on the street, and ramming them to death with their cars. Daring to step out onto the street almost anywhere in Israel has become a game of Russian roulette these days.

The B’Tselem footage went viral and sparked a major debate in Israel. The attention that the two newspapers have given to this story rivals the attention they have given to major, far more lethal, terror attacks, clearly demonstrating their anti-Israel bias. They have disproportionately played up the support for the soldier among the Israeli public, minimizing the significant number of Israelis who, according to polls, condemn this soldier’s actions. More egregiously, they have disproportionately underreported the massive anti-Israeli incitement that the Palestinian Authority government, educational institutions and media have engaged in for years — especially these last six months — that helped incite these terror attacks against Israeli civilians.

Make no mistake. This is the real scandal: the deliberate suppression of this news that is vital to an informed public.

Contrary to what the Western media would have us believe, particularly in light of the torrent of stories in the Post and Times, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF unreservedly condemned the soldier’s actions from the moment it was reported to them.

“What happened in Hebron does not represent the values of the Israel Defense Forces,” Netanyahu said on the day of the shooting. “The IDF expects its soldiers to behave level-headedly and in accordance with the rules of engagement.”

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon likewise condemned the shooting: “Even when our blood is boiling, we must not allow such a loss of sense, such a loss of control. … Woe to us if we act contrary to our moral values and our conscience.”

IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz stated: “The chief of staff [Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot] views the incident with severity and has ordered a full probe. This is not the IDF, these are not the values of the IDF and these are not the values of the Jewish people.”

Yet instead of giving equal attention to these condemnations, the Times and Post have continued to play up the support within Israel for the soldier, who has claimed in his defense that he feared the wounded Palestinian was wearing a suicide vest and still posed a threat. Worldwide media coverage — led by the two newspapers — has faithfully followed the “narrative” in portraying Israel as violating all the norms of civilized nations regarding warfare.

In reality, the IDF is one of the most moral armies in the world, a fact attested to in 2014 during Operation Protective Edge by the widely respected former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, retired Col. Richard Kemp.

“No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage,” he stated after studying Israeli tactics, which included warnings to civilians in advance of airstrikes. “The U.S. and the U.K. are careful, but not as much as Israel.”

Between March 24 and March 30, the Times and the Post published a total of 12 stories focusing on this one episode, twice as many as they published on the suicide bombing in Pakistan last week that killed 70 civilians. That’s four times the number of stories the two papers published on the massive Palestinian incitement during the six months of the latest terror wave, involving knifings, shootings and other terrorist killings.

In contrast to the Times’ and Post’s obsessive interest in the story of the Israeli soldier, it is important to note what happens when a Palestinian terrorist kills an Israeli civilian. How do the New York Times and Washington Post cover such incidents? The answer is simple: They barely cover them, and when they do, they are sure to assert with equal weight the Palestinian rationalization for such terrorism. Say, if the Post and Times were held to equal journalistic standards covering terrorism, why don’t we read about Islamic State’s justification of beheadings and massive executions?

In the past six months alone, the veteran and highly regarded organizations Middle East Media Research Institute and Palestinian Media Watch have documented scores of incidents of official Palestinian governmental and institutional incitement to carry out terrorism against the “Jew” and the “infidel.” Both MEMRI and PMW have recorded and translated dozens of videos and Palestinian media recordings of Palestinian leaders, reporters, Islamic leaders, school teachers, and schoolchildren glorifying horrific acts of terrorism, wildly celebrating the murders of Israeli mothers, teaching 10-year-olds how to fatally stab Jews, allowing mosques and schools to be staging grounds for acts of terror, or simply making one incendiary accusation after another, such as accusing Israel of being behind the Brussels terror attacks.

None of these stories received any coverage in the New York Times or Washington Post:

• A Palestinian Authority columnist claimed that Israel carried out the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels in order to punish Europe. Muwaffaq Matar, a columnist for the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, wrote: “I do not want to point fingers, but why is it that ISIS’s crimes and massacres in France and Brussels coincided with Europe’s first attempt to liberate itself from Israel’s blackmail and from the [guilt] complex over the persecution of the Jews in Europe? [Why did they coincide] with the European parliaments supporting the Palestinians’ right [to a state], for the first time?” He concluded: “ISIS does not have the ability to strike wherever and however it pleases. Some element or elements have infiltrated it to the core, and are using it as their current tool to take revenge on Europe and rip out its heart” (MEMRI, March 28).

• Ramallah District Governor Laila Ghannam met with the family of one of the murderers of 16-year-old Israeli Ofir Rahum; Ramallah’s Facebook page later praised the killer as a “heroic prisoner” (PMW, March 20).

• The Palestinian Authority’s message on International Women’s Day was that the female terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who was responsible for murdering 37 Israelis, was “one of the fighting sisters, and it may be that she paved the way so the sisters could continue. She was a source of pride for the Palestinian woman” (PMW, March 10).

• Fatah, which is controlled by “moderate” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, lavished praise on the murderers of Taylor Force, an American tourist, West Point graduate and Iraq war veteran who was stabbed to death on a trip to Israel with an American university, and numerous other victims who were slashed to death (PMW, March 9).

• Palestinian Authority TV news dubbed Force, a decorated American war hero, a “settler” and hailed his murderer as a “holy martyr” (PMW, March 9).

• Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV featured two Hamas-affiliated clerics, Yunis Al-Astal and Wael Al-Zard, saying that the Jews were the “enemies of mankind” who “wallow in the shedding of blood” (MEMRI, Feb. 25).

• Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash, whose bombs murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings on buses and in malls and cafes, was killed in 1996 but is remembered as a hero among Palestinians. In February, Palestinians praised him on social media as “the first to arrange free collective death rides for the Zionists.” Another claimed: “He embarrassed the enemy with his actions, and was the first figure to pave the way to liberation and the arrival in Jerusalem. May his soul rest in Paradise, and may his students endure and be victorious” (PMW, Feb. 12).

• Fatah hailed the three Palestinian terrorists who murdered 19-year-old Israeli police cadet Hadar Cohen as “role models” (PMW, Feb. 4).

The Times and Post also ignored Israeli Arab terrorist Nashat Milhem’s plan to slaughter Israeli children in kindergarten. Milhem, who brutally murdered three Israelis in Tel Aviv on New Year’s Day, was recently discovered to have plotted to enter a Tel Aviv kindergarten and kill the children inside. Coverage of it in the Western media noted that “while The Washington Post chose to write about Hamas’ hacking attack, no mainstream U.S. media outlet, including The New York Times, saw fit to report on a terrorist’s plan to massacre Israeli schoolchildren.”

Milhem’s premeditated plan to slaughter civilians got nothing approaching the attention given to the IDF shooting in the Western media. As we have noted in the past, imagine the headlines if the roles had been reversed, and an Israeli had been discovered to be plotting an attack on Palestinian youngsters. The coverage would have continued for days. Storylines would have included detailed examinations of the Israeli public’s reaction and what the incident meant about the wellbeing of Israeli society.

We are seeing that very dynamic play out in response to the shooting episode.

The irony is acute. Hundreds of Palestinians have brutally murdered innocent Israelis in terrorist attacks, only to be praised as “martyrs” by the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian society, with their families even being paid stipends. But none of this praise and glorification of the Palestinian terrorist attacks — which goes on all the time in Palestinian media and society — draws the attention of the Western media the way this shooting by an IDF soldier has.

Yet we never see anything parallel to these condemnations in Palestinian society when it comes to killing Israelis. Instead, Palestinians pass out candy and celebrate in the streets when Israeli civilians are murdered. But these facts are little known in the West because of the viciously biased reporting of the Times, the Post and the rest of the mainstream media. We rarely see any of the Palestinian glorification of terrorism in the Western media.

This bias has a devastating effect. Ten Democratic Party lawmakers, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), formally requested that the State Department investigate Israel for human rights violations. In a letter explaining their request, they referred to media reports claiming that Israeli forces were torturing and killing Palestinians. Netanyahu responded with a reminder of the truth that has been obscured by the media double standard: “The [IDF] and the Israel Police do not engage in executions. Israel’s soldiers and police officers defend themselves and innocent civilians using the highest moral standards against bloodthirsty terrorists who come to murder them. Where is the concern for the human rights of the many Israelis who’ve been murdered and maimed by these savage terrorists?”

Not in The New York Times or The Washington Post. “This letter,” Netanyahu continued, “should have been addressed instead to those who incite youngsters to commit cruel acts of terrorism.” He is right; but Leahy would never have been able to read about such people in the United States’ leading newspapers.

The American media, led by The New York Times and The Washington Post, is not just grossly negligent and dishonest. It is complicit in Palestinian terrorism when it ignores Palestinian incitement. This indirectly exonerates Palestinian terrorists of all responsibility for their acts.

By ignoring Palestinian culpability for terrorism and deliberately not reporting on the massive Palestinian incitement to carry out terrorism, The Washington Post and The New York Times have essentially become co-conspirators with the Palestinians, letting them get away with murder.

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism

March 16, 2016

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, March 16, 2016

trump

Donald Trump’s success in the primaries and his rhetoric have sparked troubled meditations about an awakening of fascist impulses among his supporters. Bret Stephens has drawn an analogy with the Thirties, “the last dark age of Western politics,” and compared Trump to Benito Mussolini. On the left, Dana Milbank, in a column titled “Trump Flirts with Fascism,” wrote about a campaign rally at which Trump was “leading supporters in what looked very much like a fascist salute,” a scene New York Times house-conservative David Brooks linked to the Nuremberg party rallies.

Much of the rhetoric that links Trump to fascism or Nazism is merely the stale ad Hitlerum fallacy used by progressives to demonize the candidate. They did the same thing when they called George W. Bush “Bushitler.” This slur reflects the hoary leftist dogma that conservatives at heart are repressed xenophobes and knuckle-dragging racists lusting for a messianic leader to restore their lost “white privilege” and punish their minority, immigrant, and feminist enemies. As such, the attack on Trump is nothing new or unexpected from a progressive ideology whose totalitarian inclinations have always had much more in common with fascism than conservatism does.

What Auden called the “low dishonest decade” of the Thirties, however, is indeed instructive for our predicament today, but not because of any danger of a fascist party taking root in modern America. Communism was (and in some ways still is) vastly more successful at infiltrating and shaping American political, cultural, and educational institutions than fascism ever was. But the same cultural pathologies that enabled both fascist and Nazi aggression still afflict us today. These pathologies and their malign effects are more important than the reasons for Trump’s popularity–– anger at elites, economic stagnation, and anti-immigrant passions–– that supposedly echo the “waves of fear and anger” of Auden’s Thirties.

The most important delusion of the Thirties still active today is the idealistic internationalism that had developed over the previous century. A world shrunk by new communication and transportation technologies and linked by global trade, internationalists argued, meant nations and peoples were becoming more alike. Thus they desired the same prosperity, political freedom, human rights, and peace that the West enjoyed. Interstate relations now should be based on this “harmony of interests,” and managed by non-lethal transnational organizations rather than by force. Covenants and treaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and institutions like the League of Nations and the International Court of Arbitration, could peacefully resolve conflicts among nations through diplomatic engagement, negotiation, and appeasement.

The Preamble to the First Hague Convention (1899) captures the idealism that would compromise foreign policy in the Thirties. The Convention’s aims were “the maintenance of the general peace” and “the friendly settlement of international disputes.” This goal was based on the “solidarity which unites the member of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” Two decades later, the monstrous death and destruction of World War I should have shattered the delusion of such “solidarity” existing even among the “civilized nations.” Despite that gruesome lesson, Europe doubled down and created the League of Nations, which failed to stop the serial aggression that culminated in World War II.

But the League wasn’t the only manifestation of naïve internationalism. The Locarno Treaty of 1925 welcomed Germany back into the community of nations with a seat on the League of Nations council. Nobel Peace prizes, and wish-fulfilling headlines like the New York Times’ “France and Germany Bar War Forever,” were all that resulted. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 “condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it as an instrument of national policy” in interstate relations. The signing powers asserted that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

All the future Axis Powers signed the treaty, and they all soon shredded these “parchment barriers.” In the next few years, Japan invaded Manchuria, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in gross violation of the Versailles Treaty, and Italy invaded Ethiopia. By the time Germany annexed Austria, and Neville Chamberlain’s faith in negotiation and appeasement handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, all these treaties and conventions and conferences were dead letters, and the League of Nations was exposed as a “cockpit in the tower of Babel,” as Churchill suggested after the First World War.

However, such graphic and costly evidence showing the folly of “covenants without the sword,” as Hobbes put it, did not discredit this dangerous idealism over the following decades. Indeed, it lies behind the disasters of Obama’s foreign policy. Just consider his “outreach” to our enemies, his acknowledgement of our own “imperfections,” his reliance on toothless U.N. Security Council Resolutions, his preference for non-lethal economic sanctions to pressure adversaries, and his belief that negotiated settlements and agreements can achieve peace and good relations even with our fiercest enemies. All reflect the same failure to recognize that our adversaries in fact do not sincerely want to reach an agreement, for the simple reason they are not in fact “just like us,” and so they do not want peace and prosperity and good relations with their neighbors and the “world community.”

The catalogue of Obama’s failures is long and depressing. The “reset” with Russia and promise of “flexibility,” the empty “red line” threats against Bashar al Assad, the arrogant dismissal of a metastasizing ISIS as a “jayvee” outfit, the alienation of allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the cultivation of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the ill-conceived overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi, and the rhetoric of guilt and self-abasement are just the most noteworthy failures. The nuclear deal with Iran, of course, is the premier monument to this folly. Yet despite the increasing evidence of its futility­­––Iran’s saber-rattling in the Gulf, capture of U.S. military personnel, genocidal rhetoric, and testing of missiles in blatant violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution–– Obama still clings to this internationalist delusion.

A recent article in The Atlantic on Obama’s foreign policy shows, despite his protestations of hardheaded “realism,” that he has not learned from his failures. Thus he still thinks that the vigorous use of force is usually an unnecessary and dangerous mistake, and that verbal persuasion and diplomatic engagement are more effective. He also still believes that “multilateralism regulates [U.S.] hubris” of the sort that George W. Bush showed when he recklessly invaded Iraq, and that American foreign policy has frequently displayed.

Obama’s delusional faith in rhetoric, especially his own, comes through in his rationale for the infamous 2009 Cairo speech: “I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.” The idea that Obama’s mere words could start a “discussion” that would transform 14-century-old religious doctrines fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, human rights, and all the other Western goods we live by, is a fantasy. Obama’s self-regard recalls Neville Chamberlain’s boast after his meeting with Hitler at Bad Godesberg that he “had established some degree of personal influence with Herr Hitler.”

Or consider Obama’s take on Vladimir Putin:

He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.

A “player,” in Obama’s foreign policy universe, is a leader who uses “smart power” like diplomacy and negotiated deals, and recognizes that the use of force will backfire and lead to costly “quagmires.” As Secretary of State John Kerry suggested, Putin is using outdated “19th century” instruments of foreign policy like military force in a world that presumably has evolved beyond it.

In contrast, a genuine “player,” as Obama fancies himself, attends summits and conferences, such as the useless climate change conference in Paris, and “sets the agenda.” And like his rationale for the Cairo speech, as the leader of the world’s greatest power, his rhetoric alone can be a force for change. Thus just saying that Syria’s “Assad must go,” while doing nothing to achieve that end, is still useful, and refusing to honestly identify the traditional Islamic foundations of modern jihadism will build good will among Muslims and turn them against the “extremists.”

Meanwhile, Putin and Iran fight and bomb and kill in Syria and Iraq, and now they are the big “players” in a region that the U.S. once dominated, but that now serves the interests of Russia and Iran. I’m reminded of Demosthenes’ scolding of the Athenians for refusing to confront Phillip II of Macedon: “Where either side devotes its time and energy, there it succeeds the better––Phillip in action, but you in argument.”

In other words, for Obama as for Chamberlain, appeasing words rather than forceful deeds are the key to foreign policy––precisely the belief that led England to disastrously underestimate Hitler until it was too late. And that same belief has turned the Middle East into a Darwinian jungle of clashing tribes, sects, and nations.

Obama wraps his foreign policy of retreat in claims to “realist” calculations of America’s security and genuine interests, and buttresses his claim by citing his strategically inconsequential drone killings. But such rhetoric hides an unwillingness to risk consequential action and pay its political costs. And it reflects a commitment to the internationalist idealism that gives diplomatic verbal processes an almost magical power to transform inveterate enemies into helpful partners. Europe tried that in the Thirties, and it led to disaster. That’s a much more important lesson from that sorry decade’s history than the lurid fantasies about fascism coming to America on the wings of Trump’s rhetoric.

U.S. Media Ignore Tel Aviv Shooter’s Plan to Attack Israeli Kindergartens

March 14, 2016

U.S. Media Ignore Tel Aviv Shooter’s Plan to Attack Israeli Kindergartens, Investigative Project on Terrorism, March 14, 2016

The terrorist who shot and killed three Israelis in Tel Aviv on New Year’s Day hoped to slaughter Israeli kindergarten students, Israel Police reported Sunday.

Nashat Milhem indiscriminately fired a submachine gun killing two Israelis outside of a bar on a popular Tel Aviv street before running off. An hour later, the terrorist also killed a Bedouin taxi driver. After a week-long manhunt, Israeli forces killed Milhem following an exchange of fire near his home in northern Israel.

Two days after the attack, police uncovered Milhem’s plans to “carry out an attack on Tel Aviv kindergarten students.” However, the terrorist “felt he was being chased” and “focused on survival,” instead of going through with the plot to murder Israeli pre-schoolers.

Milhem’s attack was among those lauded in a Hamas video which aired Friday after the terrorist group hacked into Israel’s Channel 2 feed. “The year started in Tel Aviv and we have already returned to Dizengoff,” Hamas threatened, referencing the famous street in Tel Aviv where the terrorist attack took place.

“Terror will never end,” the video said, telling Israelis to “get out of our country.”

While the Washington Post chose to write about Hamas’ hacking attack, no mainstream U.S. media outlet, including the New York Times, saw fit to report on a terrorist’s plan to massacre Israeli schoolchildren.

The Times and Washington Post reported extensively on follow-up plots after November’s terrorist attacks in Paris. However, a heinous terrorist plot targeting Israeli kindergarten students following a New Year’s Day shooting spree apparently does not rise to the level of meriting a new story for American readers.

These types of glaring omissions are consistent with the misleading reporting associated with the initial Jan. 1 Tel Aviv shooting attack.

In a Jan. 5 article, the Times indicated officials remained unsure whether the shooting attack was a terrorist attack or criminal in nature.

But by Jan. 2 – a day after the attack – a growing consensus among Israeli security officials considered the shooting a terrorist attack.

Nevertheless, a week after the shooting spree, the Post argued that “the motive for the Tel Aviv attack also remains unclear…”

Imagine the headlines if the roles were reversed, and an Israeli was found plotting an attack on Palestinian youngsters. The coverage would last for days. Story lines would include detailed examinations of public reaction and what the incident means about the wellbeing of Israeli society. Why, then, is Milhem’s shocking plan failing to attract a word of coverage?

Houston Muslim Charged With Lighting His Own Mosque On Fire

December 30, 2015

Houston Muslim Charged With Lighting His Own Mosque On Fire, BreitbartJohn Nolte, December 30, 2015

Arsonist

Using surveillance video from other area businesses to identify the arsonist, Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, was arrested and charged with starting the Christmas Day fire that devastated a Houston, Texas mosque. Moore is a devout Muslim who attended this same mosque for years, praying up to five times a day every day of the week.

Also up in smoke is the DC Media’s hoped-for anti-GOP Narrative. Before any facts were known, numerous DC Media outlets immediately exploited the tragedy to place the blame for the fire on Donald Trump.

CBS News:

Advocacy groups believe there has been a spike in anti-Muslim incidents across the United States in recent weeks that can be linked to the mass shooting in California and the inflammatory rhetoric of Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. And they say that Muslims are fearful the backlash could lead to further harassment and violence.

CNN:

The Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on authorities to investigate the fire for an anti-Muslim motive.

“Because of the recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide, we urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire,” Mustafaa Carroll, the chapter’s executive director, said in a statement.

NBC News:

The Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on authorities to investigate a possible bias motive in the case, citing what it called a “recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide.

Now that a devout Muslim has been charged, the DC Media will forget all about the incident.

The media’s playbook is always to immediately use any disaster or crime as a means to make the GOP answer for it. Then, once the facts come out and point to a member of the Protected Class, the story is memory-holed and the accusation against the Republican lingers.

 

America’s hidden jihad

December 23, 2015

America’s hidden jihad, Washington Times, Daniel Pipes, December 22, 2015

12222015_b3-pipe-yusuf-ibrah8201_c1-0-2933-1710_s885x516Yusuf Ibrahim Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

[In a different case in 2013,]  the police, politicians, the press and professors (i.e., the Establishment) have shown not the slightest interest in the Islamic angle, treating the double beheadings and amputations as a routine local murder. Symptomatic of this, the police report about Ibrahim’s arrest makes no mention of motivation; on the basis of this lack of mention, left-leaning Snopes.com (which describes itself as the “definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation”) goes so far as to dismiss as “false” the allegation that the mainstream media “deliberately ignored” this incident. The wagons have been circled.

If the body politic understood the full extent of jihad in America, the alarm would be much greater; the percentage of those calling terrorism a critical issue would rise much higher than the current 75 percent. That, in turn, might push the Establishment finally to get serious about confronting jihad.

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

 

The police and press did an impressive job of sleuthing into the lives and motives of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the married couple who massacred 14 people on Dec. 2, in San Bernardino, Calif.

We know about their families, their studies and employment histories, their travels, their marriage, their statements, and their preparations for the assault. Most importantly, the cascade of background work reveals that the pair had jihadi intentions, meaning they attacked in their role as pious Muslims spreading the message, law and sovereignty of Islam.

We are all better off for knowing these facts, which have had a powerful impact on the body politic, making Americans far more concerned with jihadi violence than at any time since just after Sept. 11, 2001, as they should be. For example, in 2011, 53 percent told a pollster that terrorism was a critical issue; that number has now reached 75 percent.

But what about the case of Yusuf Ibrahim? In early 2013, when he was 27, this Egyptian-born Muslim lived in Jersey City, when he allegedly shot, then cut off the heads and hands and knocked the teeth out of two Coptic Christians, Hanny F. Tawadros and Amgad A. Konds, then buried them in Buena Vista Township, N.J.

He is charged with two counts each of murder, felony murder, kidnapping, robbery, desecration of human remains, and other crimes. In addition, he has pleaded guilty to a Dec. 22, 2011, carjacking and a Sept. 20, 2012, armed robbery, both in Jersey City (in the latter, he shot his victim in the foot). Early in 2015, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for these later crimes.

The twin beheadings were spectacular, gruesome and replete with jihadi (or in police parlance, “terrorist”) elements. Historian Timothy Furnish explains that “ritual beheading has a long precedent in Islamic theology and history,” making it a distinctly Muslim form of execution. A Muslim killing a non-Muslim fits the ageless pattern of Islamic supremacism. It also fits a tragic pattern of behavior in the United States in recent years.

Yet the police, politicians, the press and professors (i.e., the Establishment) have shown not the slightest interest in the Islamic angle, treating the double beheadings and amputations as a routine local murder. Symptomatic of this, the police report about Ibrahim’s arrest makes no mention of motivation; on the basis of this lack of mention, left-leaning Snopes.com (which describes itself as the “definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation”) goes so far as to dismiss as “false” the allegation that the mainstream media “deliberately ignored” this incident. The wagons have been circled.

Almost three years after the event, we know next-to-nothing about Ibrahim, his motives, his possible connections to others, or his institutional affiliations. We also do not know the relationship of the accused attacker to his victims: Was he a criminal who fell out with his accomplices, a friend who had drunk too much, a would-be lover knocking off his rivals for the affections of a woman, a family member eliminating aspirants for an inheritance, a crazy man randomly shooting passers-by? Or was he perhaps a jihadi seeking to spread the message, law, and sovereignty of Islam?

I cannot answer those questions because the case lingers in total obscurity, popping up from time to time only in connection with some technical procedural matter (such as the amount of Ibrahim’s bail or the admissibility of his confession) that sheds no light on the motives for his alleged crime.

Nor is the Ibrahim case unusual. There are long lists of other potential instances of jihadi violence in which the Establishment has colluded to sweep the Islamic dimension under the rug, treating the perpetrators as common criminals whose biographies, motives and connections are of no interest and, therefore, remain unknown.

This silence about possible jihad has the major consequence of lulling the American public (and its counterparts elsewhere in the West) into believing jihadi violence is far rarer than is the case. If the body politic understood the full extent of jihad in America, the alarm would be much greater; the percentage of those calling terrorism a critical issue would rise much higher than the current 75 percent. That, in turn, might push the Establishment finally to get serious about confronting jihad.