‘Attack again, and I’ll launch a missile at Ben Gurion airport’

Posted January 28, 2018 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized

Syrian President Assad sends threat to Israel via Russian President Putin: ‘Syrian honor above all else.’

Mordechai Sones, 28/01/18 10:29

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/241243

Syrian missiles iStock

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad today sent a threat to Israel through Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that if Israel attacked them again, Syria would respond by firing Scud missiles at Ben-Gurion Airport. “Syrian honor above all else,” Assad told Putin, who replied that he would convey the message to Israel.

Assad, Putin Reuters

About three weeks ago, the Syrian army announced that Israel had carried out a series of attacks on an Assad army base in the eastern Kalmon Mountains, north of Damascus, confirming reports by media outlets close to the regime and as reported by Mako news. According to the army’s announcement, Israel carried out three attacks with fighter jets and missiles. “The air defense forces opened fire at the sources of the fire and hit aircraft,” the statement said. In Israel no confirmation was forthcoming regarding damaging aircraft.

According to the official report, the series of attacks began at 2:40 am when planes fired missiles from Lebanon’s airspace towards the Al-Katifa area. Then, at 3:40 am, another attack was carried out using surface-to-surface missiles launched from the Golan Heights. At 4:15 a third attack was carried out by four missiles fired from the Tiberias area. The Syrian army also claims that in response, its air defense forces opened fire at the aircraft and the missiles, and succeeded in intercepting or destroying some of them.

Free Syrian Army fighters fire anti-aircraft weapon צילום: Reuters

Syria repeatedly warns of the dangerous consequences of Israel’s attacks and promises to continue fighting the rebel groups, which are called “Israel’s terrorist affiliates”. Media outlets belonging to the Syrian opposition and rebels reported that the targets of the attack were ammunition depots in which long-range missiles were stored. The Syrian Center for Human Rights said that weapons warehouses belonging to Hezbollah and the Syrian army were damaged in the attack and that there was a fire and damage to the buildings. It also said that no injuries were reported as a result of the attacks.

About a month ago, foreign media reported an attack on the Jamariya area on the outskirts of Damascus. According to reports on the Russian television network RT and Syrian television, at around 23:30, Israel attacked a Syrian military post located on the outskirts of Damascus with missiles.

Syria’s state television reported that local anti-aircraft forces had intercepted three missiles fired by Israel while they were still in the air: “Air defense forces were hit by an Israeli missile attack,” the official SANA news agency reported, “The target was a military site in the suburbs of Damascus.” Other media outlets in the country reported that Israeli aircraft were shot at.

Ben Gurion airport Flash 90

Comments: 3 Comments

Under Pressure From Pro-Israel Groups, New Orleans Repeals BDS Resolution

Posted January 28, 2018 by Louisiana Steve
Categories: Anti-Israel
Tags:

January 27, 2018 at 9:23 am Written by Middle East Eye

Source: Under Pressure From Pro-Israel Groups, New Orleans Repeals BDS Resolution

{New Orleans has always been proud of it’s diversity and this native New Orleanian is proud they stuck to their roots. – LS}

(MEE) — The New Orleans City Council rescinded a human rights resolution backed by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) advocates after pressure from pro-Israel politicians and groups.

The short-lived resolution, which was withdrawn on Thursday, recommended removing corporations that violate human rights from the city’s list of contractual partners, but it did not specifically mention Israel or Palestine.

The New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee had pushed the measure, known as R-18-5, which drew the ire of Israel’s supporters immediately after its passage.

Max Geller, a member of the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee, said city officials had been “cowardly” in succumbing to pressure from the Israeli lobby.

Still, opponents of the measure had called the resolution bigoted and unjustified.

“The BDS movement, which has inherently anti-Semitic components, is designed to challenge Israel’s economic viability and very right to exist,” the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans (JFGNO) said in a statement on 12 January, a day after the measure was passed.

In a joint statement, JFGNO and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) welcomed scrapping the resolution, saying that BDS “does not advance the discussion towards meaningful resolution and peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or a workable two state solution.”

The BDS movement started as a call by Palestinian civil society activists for a peaceful means to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. They liken their movement to boycott calls against the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1960s.

BDS critics accuse it of anti-Semitism because it targets Israel.

Geller told MEE that Israel’s supporters are only interested in maintaining the “apartheid practices” of the Israeli government.

“There’s nothing anti-Semitic about non-violently resisting state violence,” Geller said in defense of BDS. “There’s nothing anti-Semitic about putting an end to ethnic cleansing and allowing people to stay on their own land.”

Council members felt a backlash from pro-Israeli groups “immediately” after the resolution was passed.

“Almost immediately, my fellow council members and I received sharp criticism for the manner in which the resolution was passed, as well as the unintended, but serious consequences of its passage,” Mayor-elect LaToya Cantrell said in a statement.

Although she authored and introduced the measure, Cantrell added that its “unintended impact does not reflect my commitment to inclusivity, diversity, and respect and support for civil rights, human rights and freedoms of all New Orleanians.”

New Orleans-based Republican State Senator Conrad Appel‏ had called the pro-BDS resolution “absurd.”

Outgoing Mayor Mitch Landrieu also said in a statement that the resolution does not represent the policy of the city, calling the measure “gratuitous.”

Even outside New Orleans, pro-Israel politicians slammed the resolution, with South Carolina State Representative Alan Clemmons calling for a boycott against the southern city.

One after another, council members started distancing themselves from the pro-BDS measure that they had approved.

Council President Jason Williams, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he had to educate himself about BDS and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after R-18-5 was passed.

“Let me be very clear to citizens of New Orleans and citizens of the world; this city council is not anti-Israel,” Williams said in a statement. “That sentiment is inconsistent with the council’s actions and certainly mine personally.”

However, BDS activists say city officials knew exactly what they were voting on, and Williams had cited the boycott against apartheid in South Africa while discussing the resolution.

The council president did not return MEE’s request for comment.

Geller said council members are acting like they did not know the aim of R-18-5, which “doesn’t jive with reality”.

He said Palestinian rights activists had had dozens of interactions with council members before 11 January and every single time, they introduced themselves as the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee.

Despite the disappointment, Tabitha Mustafa, an organiser for the Solidarity Committee, said the repeal of the resolution is not a loss for BDS.

She explained that the affair has put Palestinian suffering and Israeli abuses in the public eye.

“We haven’t lost anything. This is a victory. I would like to say thank you to the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans for getting out the word about Palestinian human rights and Israeli apartheid violations of human rights.”

Comments: 1 Comment

Tillerson: Washington and Europe to start work on Iran nuclear deal

Posted January 28, 2018 by Louisiana Steve
Categories: Iran nuclear deal
Tags:

By REUTERS January 27, 2018 17:56

Source: Washington and Europe to start work on Iran nuclear deal

(There’s a new sheriff in town. – LS)

WARSAW – US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Saturday that working groups on fixing what the US sees as flaws in the Iranian nuclear deal have already begun to meet, trying to determine the scope of what is needed and how much Iran needs to be engaged in it.

Tillerson, ending a week-long European trip in Warsaw, said that he had secured support from Britain, France and Germany – all parties to the 2015 agreement – to work on the deal that President Donald Trump has warned he will walk away from unless changes are made.

“It’s always darkest before the dawn,” Tillerson told journalists. “The working groups have already begun to meet on efforts to agree principles, what is the scope of what we attempt to address and also how much we engage Iran on discussions to address these issues,” he said.

The nuclear deal gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in return for curbs on its atomic program.

Trump vowed to stop waiving US sanctions unless the Europeans agreed to strengthen the deal’s terms by consenting to a side agreement that would effectively eliminate provisions that allow Iran to gradually resume some advanced atomic work. Trump also wants tighter restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Iran has rejected any renegotiation.

Tillerson said the nuclear deal was only a “small” part of US policy in the Middle East and Washington was more immediately concerned about other issues including Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen and its supplying weapons to militias in the region.

“Our work group also is intending to identify areas of greater cooperation (with) Europe to push back on Iran’s malign behaviour,” he said.

RUSSIA BLAMED

Despite statements from Russia earlier this week that Washington’s accusations against Moscow that it and the Syrian army were behind a chemical attack in eastern Ghouta were “unfounded”, Tillerson reiterated that ultimately Russia bore responsibility.

“I stand by my comments,” he said.

“The chemical weapons … are being used to hit the civilian population, the most vulnerable – children inside of Syria … We are holding Russia responsible for addressing this. They are (Bashar al-) Assad’s ally.”

Russia is providing direct military support in Syria against various rebel groups trying to oust Assad, and giving diplomatic cover in the UN Security Council.

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. Coalition Forces ‘Well Prepared’ to Defend Against Turkish Offensive in Syria

Posted January 27, 2018 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized

Turkish offensive risks direct confrontation between NATO allies

U.S. Coalition Forces ‘Well Prepared’ to Defend Against Turkish Offensive in Syria

Turkish troops advance near the Syria border at Hassa, Hatay province

Turkish troops advance near the Syria border at Hassa, Hatay province / Getty Images

BY:

U.S. coalition forces stationed in the Syrian Kurdish town of Manbij are ready to guard against a threatened Turkish offensive that risks direct confrontation between the NATO allies, a coalition spokesman said Friday.

Turkey last week launched an air and ground assault on the northern Syrian enclave of Afrin in an attempt to oust the American-backed People’s Protection Units, or YPG, which Ankara considers a terrorist group. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to extend the operation 60 miles east to Manbij, where, unlike in Afrin, the Pentagon maintains U.S. troops.

“Our forces there are well prepared to defend themselves,” coalition spokesman Col. Ryan Dillon told the Washington Free Beacon. “We have air coverage over all of our troops so we’re always prepared to defend ourselves, whether it’s from ISIS or any other threat.”

Dillon reaffirmed American support for the Kurdish YPG fighters who make up the backbone of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a key U.S. partner in the campaign against the Islamic State. The Trump administration has continued to provide weapons, training, and air support to SDF troops over the protests of Turkey.

“They have played a role in making sure we can stay focused on defeating Daesh,” Dillon said, using an alternative name for ISIS. “That threat still exists, there’s still hardcore fighting happening, and that’s what we are still focused on and we don’t want anything to distract from that.”

Turkey on Thursday again urged the United States to withdraw its support for Kurdish YPG fighters or face “confrontation” with its troops. Erdogan has repeatedly called on President Donald Trump to remove American troops from Syria.

Relations between Washington and Ankara hit a new low last month when the United States and its Kurdish partners announced the creation of a border force in northern Syria to prevent Turkish and American-backed forces from clashing.

Dillon said the patrols will continue until the military is directed otherwise.

In a phone call with Erdogan on Wednesday, Trump pressed Turkey to curtail its military assault and warned it to “avoid any actions that might risk conflict” between the two countries, according to the White House. Turkey disputed the White House account.

Comments: 2 Comments

US promises Turkey to stop arming Syrian Kurds – media

Posted January 27, 2018 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized
https://www.rt.com/news/417158-syria-turkey-arming-kurds/
FILE PHOTO: A Kurdish fighter from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) fires heavy machine-gun at Islamic State militants in Raqqa, Syria © Goran Tomasevic / Reuters
The US told Ankara it will not deliver any more weapons to the Syrian Kurdish PYD/YPG fighters, Turkish media report. The news comes as the Turkish operation ‘Olive Branch’ in northern Syria has entered its eighth day.

Turkish Presidential Spokesman Ibrahim Kalin and US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster held a phone call on Friday evening, Anadolu news agency said. McMaster confirmed that Washington would no longer provide weapons to fighters of the Kurdish People’s Protection units (YPG) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD).

Later on Saturday Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Washington should immediately withdraw from northern Syria’s Manbij region, located some 100 km from Afrin. Speaking to reporters, the top official said that the US should take steps to end its support of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.

READ MORE: ‘Operation Olive Branch’: Key points of Turkish military campaign against Syrian Kurds

This is not the first time the US has promised to stop supporting Kurdish militias in Syria with arms: In December 2017, US Defense Secretary James Mattis made a statement to similar effect. Asked if the US indeed intends to halt its arming of the Kurdish forces in Syria, Mattis said, “Yes.” However, at that time Washington did not release any clear statement of the White House’s position on that matter.

Read more

A member of Turkish police special forces stands guard in Azaz, Syria. © Osman Orsal US troops must leave Syria’s Manbij – Turkey’s Foreign Minister

The military operation launched by Turkey in and around Afrin follows Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s promise to “strangle” the new Border Security Force (BSF) in Syria. Earlier in January the US-led coalition announced that it would help create the 30,000-strong BSF, half of which would be comprised of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) alliance.

Turkey was angered by the fact that the major force behind the SDF is the Kurdish People’s Protection units (YPG), linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) which is designated as terrorist by Turkey.

Shortly after the operation in Afrin was launched, Erdogan turned on Ankara’s allies, insinuating that the US in particular was providing massive military support to Kurdish YPG in Syria. “Now, apart from 5,000 trucks, there are weapons and ammunition from around 2,000 planes.” the Turkish leader said.

During the week-long operation in northern Syria, Turkey has repeatedly urged the US to stop arming Kurdish militias. “Those who support the terrorist organization will become a target in this battle,” Turkish deputy prime minister Bekir Bozdag said on Thursday. “The United States needs to review its soldiers and elements giving support to terrorists on the ground in a way to avoid a confrontation with Turkey.”

The US and Turkey have long argued over the status and future of Syria’s Kurds. Ankara has repeatedly slammed Washington for delivering military supplies to Kurds in Syria. According to a Hurriyet Daily News report from December 2017, US President Donald Trump approved arming the Syrian Kurds, including with anti-tank, anti-aircraft and mortar weapons, due to be delivered in 2018. The US authorities didn’t comment on the report.

Comments: Be the first to comment

US troops must leave Syria’s Manbij – Turkey’s Foreign Minister

Posted January 27, 2018 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized
https://www.rt.com/news/417159-turkey-us-warning-manbij/
A member of Turkish police special forces stands guard in Azaz, Syria. © Osman Orsal / Reuters
The US must withdraw its troops from Syria’s northern Manbij region and put an end to its support for Kurdish militia in the area, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu demanded Saturday.

Cavusoglu told reporters on Saturday that the US needs to immediately withdraw from the region near the city of Manbij, adding that Washington providing guns to the YPG must also stop. The foreign minister said Turkey wants to see proactive steps from the US, not simply promises.

Turkish forces are conducting an offensive, codenamed ‘Olive Branch’, targeting Kurdish fighters linked to the People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia in and around Afrin, Syria. Russia has expressed concern over the developments, urging all parties to respect Syria’s borders.

Turkey’s operation has frayed relations between the Trump administration and Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s office over the US provision of weapons and support to Kurdish forces in the fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

READ MORE: Turkey’s Erdogan says will rid Syria’s Manbij of terrorists after Afrin op

The minister’s call on the US to remove its support for Kurdish fighters came after Erdogan warned that Turkish forces plan to move beyond Afrin to the Syrian city of Manbij. US soldiers are currently stationed there, supporting Kurdish YPG militias. Last Thursday, Trump reportedly raised concerns about Turkey’s actions in a call to Erdogan, suggesting ‘Olive Branch’ is a destabilizing move.

“President Trump relayed concerns that escalating violence in Afrin, Syria, risks undercutting [sic] our shared goals in Syria,” a White House spokesperson said. “He urged Turkey to exercise caution and to avoid any actions that might risk conflict between Turkish and American forces.”

Turkey’s incursion into Syria has been documented through the Instagram accounts of their own soldiers. RT.com found that the number of geotagged Instagram posts has risen sharply during the time Turkish troops have been there.

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. seeks to boost case against Iran with U.N. Washington visit

Posted January 26, 2018 by Louisiana Steve
Categories: Iran nuclear deal
Tags:


FILE PHOTO: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks at UN headquarters in New York Thomson Reuters

By Michelle Nichols January 26, 2018 Reuters and Business Insider

Source: U.S. seeks to boost case against Iran with U.N. Washington visit

{Setting the stage for the ‘art of the deal’. – LS}

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United States will seek to boost its case for United Nations action against Iran when Security Council envoys visit Washington on Monday to view pieces of weapons that U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley says Tehran gave to Yemen’s Houthi group.

Haley and her 14 council colleagues will also lunch with President Donald Trump, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations said Friday.

The Trump administration has for months been lobbying for Iran to be held accountable at the United Nations, while at the same time threatening to quit a 2015 deal among world powers to curb Iran’s nuclear program if “disastrous flaws” are not fixed.

The U.N. ambassadors will visit a military hangar at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling near Washington, where Haley, the U.S envoy to the United Nations, last month presented remnants of what the Pentagon said was an Iranian-made ballistic missile fired from Yemen on Nov. 4 at Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh, as well as other weapons.

A proxy war is playing out in Yemen between Iran and U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Iran has denied supplying the Houthis with such weaponry and described the arms displayed in Washington as “fabricated.”

However, experts reported to the Security Council this month that Iran had violated U.N. sanctions on Yemen because “it failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer” of short-range ballistic missiles and other equipment to the Iran-allied Houthi group.

The independent experts said they had “identified missile remnants, related military equipment and military unmanned aerial vehicles that are of Iranian origin and were introduced into Yemen after the imposition of the targeted arms embargo.”

Haley said last month she was exploring several U.N. options for pressuring Iran to “adjust their behavior”. But she is likely to struggle to convince some Security Council members, like veto powers Russia and China, that U.N. action is needed.

Most sanctions on Iran were lifted at the start of 2016 under the nuclear deal, which is enshrined in a U.N. Security Council resolution. The resolution still subjects Tehran to a U.N. arms embargo and other restrictions that are technically not part of the nuclear deal.

Haley has said the Security Council could strengthen the provisions in that resolution or adopt a new resolution banning Iran from all activities related to ballistic missiles. To pass, a resolution needs nine votes in favor, and no vetoes by the United States, Britain, France, China or Russia.

Under the current resolution, Iran is “called upon” to refrain from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years. Some states argue that the language of the resolution does not make it obligatory.

A separate U.N. resolution on Yemen bans the supply of weapons to Houthi leaders and “those acting on their behalf or at their direction.”

The United States could propose people or entities to be blacklisted by the council’s Yemen sanctions committee, a closed-door move that would need consensus approval by the 15-members.

Diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, say Haley has not signaled which accountability option she might pursue or when.

Comments: 1 Comment

New poll shows Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace, under ANY circumstances

Posted January 26, 2018 by Louisiana Steve
Categories: "Palestinians"
Tags:

Friday, January 26, 2018 Elder of Ziyon

Source: New poll shows Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace, under ANY circumstances

{Something you won’t be seeing on the six o’clock news. – LS}

A joint poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows that Palestinians are against any possible solution to the conflict.

Their press release doesn’t say it, but the poll itself does.

A series of options are given to Palestinians:

Mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. The agreement will mark the end of conflict, Israel will fight terror against Palestinians, and no further claims will be made by either side. 56.9% oppose.

The independent Palestinian state which will be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be demilitarized (no heavy weaponry) 77.4% oppose

A multinational force will be established and deployed in the Palestinian state to ensure the security and safety of both sides. Support or oppose? 60.5% oppose

The Palestinian state will have sovereignty over its air space, its land, and its water resources, but Israel will maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. Support or oppose? 67.2% oppose

The Palestinian state will be established in the entirety of West Bank and the Gaza strip, except for several blocs of settlement which will be annexed to Israel in a territorial exchange. Israel will evacuate all other settlements. 62.7% oppose

The territories Palestinians will receive in exchange will be similar to the size of the settlement blocs that will be annexed to Israel. Support or oppose? 70.6% oppose

East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the capital of the Israel. Support or oppose? 71.6% oppose

In the Old City of Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian quarters and al Haram al Sharif will come under Palestinian sovereignty and the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall will come under Israeli sovereignty. Support or oppose? 71.4% oppose

The only provision they supported was “right of return”:

Palestinian refugees will have the right of return to their homeland whereby the Palestinian state will settle all refugees wishing to live in it. Israel will allow the return of about 100,000 Palestinians as part of a of family unification program. All other refugees will be compensated. Support or oppose? 52.4% supported

For the majority that opposed a package deal of “demilitarization of the Palestinian state, equal territorial exchange, the family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and the end of the conflict,” they were asked if any further sweetening of the deal would change their minds:

If in addition to the above items of the permanent settlement package, Israel agreed to accept the Arab peace initiative and in return all Arab countries supported this peace treaty? Support or oppose? 69.9% oppose.

The agreement states that the state of Palestine will have a democratic political system based on rule of law, periodic elections, free press, strong parliament, independent judiciary and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities as well as strong anti-corruption measures. 58.6% oppose.

The agreement includes formal guarantees by the US, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who will create a joint commission to ensure proper implementation on both sides. 68.1% oppose.

The agreement states that Palestinians, including refugees, are allowed, if they wish, to live as permanent residents inside Israel while maintaining their Palestinian citizenship, as long as they are law abiding 70.4% oppose

The agreement allows the current Palestinian National Security Force to become an army with light weapons but without heavy weapons 80.8% oppose

The agreement states that Israel recognizes the Nakba and the suffering of refugees, and provides compensation to refugees? 58.1% oppose

Also, when given a choice of options (status quo, armed resistance, unarmed resistance, peace treaty) a plurality of Palestinians preferred armed resistance over peace, 38% to 26%.

The only thing that Palestinians agree on is that they do not want peace.

The poll didn’t ask the obvious question, because the people behind it don’t want the world to know the answer, but the real question should have been: Do you hope to see Israel destroyed and replaced by Palestine?

Other questions that would illuminate how Palestinians feel might include “would you support an Iranian nuclear attack against Tel Aviv, even if it would kill thousands of Arabs in Jaffa?”

These polls dance around the real feelings of the Palestinians because the answers would far more explicitly show that they have no desire for a real, permanent peace with Israel. Yet one only has to look at these (unpublicized) results from the poll to see that this is exactly what they feel.

Don’t expect the media to notice, though.

Comments: 2 Comments

The Unrepentant Terrorist

Posted January 26, 2018 by Louisiana Steve
Categories: Fighting Islamist terrorists
Tags:

by Patrick Dunleavy IPT News January 26, 2018

Source: The Unrepentant Terrorist

{Maybe they should find a way to send them to Gitmo. – LS}

“My judge is a kaffir, my lawyer is a kaffir, my prose[c]utor is a kaffir, and my jury are all kaffirs…”

With those words, convicted Islamic terrorist Ahmad Khan Rahimi revealed both his disdain for the American criminal justice system and his lack of remorse for the evil acts he committed. Rahimi, better known as the Chelsea Bomber, was convicted in federal court on a number of charges including using weapons of mass destruction. Rahimi set off a series of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the New York/New Jersey area in September 2016 which wounded as many as 30 people. He also was involved in a shootout with police before being captured.

Rahimi has claimed to be a holy warrior following the path of a jihadist. He sits in a cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in lower Manhattan awaiting a Feb. 13 sentencing hearing where he could face life in prison. According to the prosecution’s sentencing memorandum, Rahimi not only lacks remorse, but has made light of the terrorist attacks. He even boasted of his notoriety, telling his friends and family, “I don’t need to watch the news because I am the news.”

The memorandum goes on to describe him as someone who “was committed to waging his holy war against Americans years before he carried out his attack. Even today, he appears to remain steadfast in that commitment and has shown no remorse.”

His current confinement has not slowed him down. Quite the opposite. The U.S. Attorney’s office recently discovered that Rahimi was radicalizing other inmates in MCC. He shared sermons by the late American-born al-Qaida ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki with his fellow Muslim inmates during Jummah services, along with copies of al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and other jihadist literature which contained instructions for making IEDs. This egregious breakdown in security procedures by BOP staff not only encourages jailed jihadists, but it is the antithesis of the FBI Correctional Intelligence Initiative’s stated goal to “detect, deter, and disrupt efforts by terrorist and extremist groups to radicalize or recruit within all federal, state, territorial, tribal and local prison populations.”

Should we be surprised that a terrorist continues down the path of death and destruction even when faced with life in prison? Is this some new unprecedented phenomena? Not when we consider this warning from another convicted terrorist spoken 25 years ago: “If the devil leaders of New York think placing me in [prison] will end the war, they are wrong; this is only the beginning.” Those are the words of El Sayyid Nosair as he was being taken from New York to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ maximum security facility in Florence, Colo. to serve a life sentence for his part in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and a conspiracy to destroy additional landmarks. He committed those crimes while he was an inmate in Attica state prison. Was he deterred, remorseful? Not a chance.

A terrorist is not rendered harmless while in prison. He will act if he can. If he can’t, he will influence. The jailed terrorist often provides a vehicle for others to be radicalized.

What, then, should prosecutors seek in addition to the life sentence they recommend for Rahimi? Clearly special administrative measures must be put in place to restrict the time Rahimi is allowed out of his cell to interact with other inmates. Restrictions should also control who visits him, and whom he is allowed to communicate with on the telephone. In light of the case against Lynne Stewart, the attorney for “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman who was convicted of facilitating “a communications network that enabled a convicted and imprisoned terrorist, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to perpetuate his position as the spiritual leader of his terrorist organization, the Islamic Group,” these restrictions should also include Rahimi’s legal counsel. These conditions are neither cruel and unusual punishment nor torture. These are effective methods used by prison administrators to prevent future criminal acts by incarcerated terrorists.

When we consider the fact that there is currently no effective de-radicalization prison program for Islamic terrorists in either the United States or the European Union, the outlook for Rahimi’s rehabilitation while incarcerated does not look promising. We therefore urge U.S. District Judge Richard Berman to attach the most stringent conditions of confinement allowed under law to Rahimi’s sentence. Prisons are not designed to be enjoyable and they certainly shouldn’t become playgrounds for undeterred terrorists to ply their trade.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Column One: Pence and Pew, present and future

Posted January 26, 2018 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Column One: Pence and Pew, present and future – Opinion – Jerusalem Post

BY CAROLINE B. GLICK
 JANUARY 25, 2018 21:47
Israel’s efforts to explain itself will not crack through the closed intellectual circle of identity politics and partisanship.
Column One: Pence and Pew, present and future

 US Vice President Mike Pence touches the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem’s Old City. (photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)

Vice President Mike Pence gave an epic speech at the Knesset this week. His was the most powerful embrace of Zionism and the Jewish people any foreign leader has ever presented. Pence’s fluency in Jewish history, and his comprehension of the centrality of the both the Bible and the Land of Israel in the vast flow of that history in far-flung-exile communities across time and space was spellbinding. He touched the hearts of his audience, causing knots in the throats of most of the people sitting in the Knesset on Monday afternoon.

Pence’s speech was rendered poignant and the friendship he bore became tinged with urgency with the publication, the very next day, of the latest Pew Center survey on American views of Israel.

Speaking in the name of the American people he represents, Pence said on Monday: “The friendship between our people has never been deeper.”

And when it comes to the Republican voters who elected President Donald Trump and Vice President Pence a year and two months ago, Pence is certainly correct. But the Pew data showed that on Israel, as on so many other issues, the cleavage between Republicans and Democrats is vast and unbridgeable.

Most of the coverage of the Pew survey focused reasonably on its main finding. The good news is that overall American support for Israel over the Palestinians remains more or less constant, and overwhelming. Forty-six percent of Americans support Israel over the Palestinians while a mere 16% of Americans support the Palestinians against Israel. The numbers haven’t changed much since polling began in 1978.

But then the news becomes more fraught. The disparity between Republican support for Israel and Democratic support for Israel has never been greater. Whereas 79% of Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians, only 27% of Democrats do. Moreover, the further one goes to the Left among Democratic voters, the more anti-Israel the respondents become. Liberal Democrats are now nearly twice as likely to support the Palestinians over Israel as they are to support Israel over the Palestinians. Thirty-five percent of liberal Democrats support the Palestinians against Israel. A mere 19% support Israel more than the Palestinians.

Conservative and moderate Democrats still support Israel far more than they support the Palestinians with 35% of moderate and conservative Democrats supporting Israel over the Palestinians, and 17% supporting the Palestinians more than Israel. But the level of support for Israel among this demographic has dropped precipitously in the last year and a half. In the previous survey, which took place in April 2016, support for Israel was 53%, or 19 points higher.

In other words, the last year and a half has seen a precipitous drop in Democratic support for Israel even as Republican support for Israel has grown ever higher.

For Israel’s leaders, as distressing as these numbers are, they don’t give an indication of how Israel should relate to the vast disparities in US support for Israel as they plot policies for the future.

The survey does provide that answer though. The last question in the survey asked respondents about the viability of the so-called two-state solution.

They were asked, “Can a way be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully or not?”

The answers were notable. While among the general population, faith in the two-state solution runs 49% to 39%, that support is indirectly proportionate to respondents’ support for Israel. The more they support Israel, the less they believe in the two-state solution.

Americans who support the Palestinians more than they support Israel, believe in the viability of the two-state solution runs 64% to 28%. Americans who support Israel more than the Palestinians view the two-state solution as nonviable by a margin of 40% to 51%.

On the face of things, this seems like an anomaly. For a generation, three successive administrations have insisted not only that the two-state solution is the only path to peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all insisted that Israel’s very survival as a Jewish state is contingent on it surrendering land it has held for 50 years to the PLO. Americans have been told that the only way to truly care about Israel is to support the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

And here we see that the US public has reached the opposite conclusions. Americans who oppose Israel support the establishment of a Palestinian state along the lines set out by Clinton, Bush and Obama. Americans who support Israel view such a prospect as impossible.

What explains this disparity? Two data points in the survey point to a reasonable explanation.

According to the survey, the greatest leap in Republican support for Israel occurred since 2001. In the past 17 years, Republican support for Israel leaped from 50% to 79%.

On the Democratic side, an opposite trend occurred. Since 2001, Democratic support for Israel has dropped from 38% to 27%.

Two events occurred in 2001 that set the parties on disparate paths: the September 11 attacks and the disputed results of the 2000 presidential race between Al Gore and Bush.

The September 11 attacks caused Republican voters to study the Middle East, including Israel, more closely than they ever had before. And the more familiar they became with Islamism, jihad and the other pathologies of the Arab world, the more supportive of Israel they became. The fact that the Palestinians rejected peace at the Camp David summit in July 2000 and that by the time the September 11 attacks occurred they were engaged in the largest terrorist onslaught against Israel in history, reinforced the sense among Republicans that Israel is the US’s closest ally in the war on Islamic terrorism.

On the other hand, the Democrats’ rejection of the legitimacy of the 2000 election results set the party on a course of radicalization. The best indication of the Democrats’ radicalization on Israel came with the precipitous downfall of senator Joseph Lieberman.

Lieberman was a liberal hawk, an ardent supporter of Israel and a proud Jew. In 2000 his positions had sufficient traction among Democratic voters to cause Gore to select him as his running mate in the presidential election.

Just six years later, a transformed Democratic party rejected Lieberman when he ran for reelection to his senate seat in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. His challenger, Ned Lamont, defeated Lieberman after running a campaign laced with antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Lieberman’s longtime ally, then-senator from New York Hillary Clinton, who was looking forward to the 2008 presidential race, refused to support him.

Today Democratic presidential hopefuls like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker have discarded their previous support for Israel to satisfy their party’s increasingly radical, anti-Israel base.

The Democrats’ move to the Left has caused them to ascribe increasingly to identity politics as the basis for policy-making. Identity politics dictate a pecking order of victims. The greater a group’s status as victim, the more the Democrats support it. In this taxonomy, Israel has been determined to be an oppressor, and the Palestinians are defined as the victims.

The problem with identity politics, at least insofar as Israel is concerned, is that there is no basis in fact for the determination that Israel is the bad guy and the Palestinians are the good guys. To the contrary. As the steep rise in Republican support over the past 17 years demonstrates, the more you know, the greater the likelihood that you will support Israel.

Rather than being a fact-based conclusion, the determination that Israel is bad and the Palestinians are good is an ideological dictate. And this presents Israel with an intractable problem as far as Democrats are concerned.

Israel cannot reason Democrats out of an anti-Israel position that they weren’t reasoned into. Israel has no ability whatsoever to convince the Democrats to rethink their animosity, when they never thought about it to begin with. They simply accepted the dictates of their political and ideological camp.

This brings us back to Pence, and the Trump administration’s extraordinary, voter-supported friendship for Israel and what it means for Israel today, as the prospect of an impossibly hostile Democratic administration in as little as three years lurks in the corner.

The most significant “news” that Pence announced in his address was Trump’s determination to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem by the end of 2019. This is important because, given the hostility of the Democrats, there is every reason to believe that if a Democratic administration takes power in 2021, Trump’s decision to move the embassy will be canceled if it hasn’t already happened.

Just as this is the time for the US to move its embassy to Israel’s capital, now is also the time for Israel to ditch the failed two-state model before it is too late.

Israel will never have a better opportunity than it has today to convince an American administration to abandon the anti-Israel narrative at the foundation of the two-state formula. That narrative, which asserts that there is no peace because there is no Palestinian state, places the blame for the absence of peace between the Palestinians and Israel on Israel alone.

Today there is an administration that is open to hearing an alternative narrative that portrays Israel properly as the good guy, and the Palestinians as the hopelessly intransigent foe that they have always been.

Now is the time for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his colleagues in the government to be speaking this plain truth in one voice. And now is the time for them to decide on, explain and implement a policy based on Israel’s rights and interests that will secure Israel’s strategic viability and position vis-à-vis the Palestinians for years to come. Such a policy, which will involve applying Israeli law over large swaths of Judea and Samaria, is clear, easy to explain and will successfully ensure the civil rights of Jews and Arabs alike for generations.

No, Israel’s efforts to explain itself will not crack through the closed intellectual circle of identity politics and partisanship. But that is why Israel needs to act now so that the new policy is explained and implemented along the same timetable as the US Embassy moves to Jerusalem.

By the time the 2020 US election campaign begin, Israel should have already determined and implemented its new policy. As Pence demonstrated so eloquently at the Knesset this week, Israel has a friend the likes of which it has never seen in the White House today. And if President Trump is not president in January 2021, Israel will face an administration that will make us miss Obama.

Pence and Pew showed us what we have and what awaits us. Now is the time for Israel to act.

http://www.CarolineGlick.com

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »