Posted tagged ‘Palestinians’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A (Much) Better Year

February 5, 2016

A (Much) Better Year, Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, February 5, 2016

ob

[A] of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

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

On Wednesday the U.S. media interrupted its saturation coverage of the presidential primaries to report on President Barack Obama’s visit to a mosque in Maryland. The visit was Obama’s first public one to a mosque in the US since entering the White House seven years ago. The mosque Obama chose to visit demonstrated once again that his views of radical Islam are deeply problematic.

Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. During Operation Protective Edge, the leaders of the mosque accused Israel of genocide and demanded that the administration end US support for the Jewish state.

According to The Daily Caller, the mosque’s former imam Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh was active in the Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity deemed a terror group in 2004 after the US Treasury Department determined it had transferred funds to Osama bin Laden, Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

El-Sheikh left the Baltimore mosque to take over the Dar el-Hijra mosque in northern Virginia. He replaced Anwar al-Awlaki as imam after Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2003. In Yemen Awlaki rose to become a senior al-Qaida commander.

Awlaki radicalized many American jihadists both through direct contact and online. He radicalized US Army major Nidal Malik Hasan, and inspired him to carry out the 2009 massacre of 13 US soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood in Texas. Awlaki was killed by a US drone strike in 2011.

In 2010, a member of the Islamic Society of Baltimore was arrested for planning to attack an army recruiting office. According to the Mediaite news portal, the mosque reportedly refused to cooperate with the FBI in its investigation.

Obama’s visit to the radical mosque now is a clear signal of how he intends to spend his last year in office. It tells us that during this period, Obama will adopt ever more extreme positions regarding radical Islam.

Obama’s apologetics for radical Islamists is the flipside of his hostility for Israel. This too is escalating and will continue to rise through the end of his tenure in office.

The US Customs authority’s announcement last week that it will begin enforcing a 20-yearold decision to require goods imported from Judea and Samaria to be labeled “Made in the West Bank,” rather than “Made in Israel,” signals Obama’s intentions. So, too, it is abundantly clear that France’s plan to use the UN Security Council to dictate Israel’s borders was coordinated in advance with the Obama administration.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

On the Democratic side, neither candidate is a particularly energetic supporter of Israel or counter- jihad warrior. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recently released email discussions of Israel with her closest advisers indicate that all of Clinton’s closest counselors are hostile to Israel.

For his part, Vermont’s socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders harbors the far Left’s now standard anti-Israel attitudes. Not only did Sanders – like Clinton – support Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the Joint Houses of Congress where Netanyahu laid out Israel’s reasons for opposing the deal. Sanders gave television interviews condemning Netanyahu for making the speech, accusing him of electioneering on the back of the US Congress. Sanders criticized Israel during Operation Protective Edge and supports decreasing US military aid to Israel.

For all their anti-Israel sensibilities, though, neither Clinton nor Sanders gives the impression that they are driven by them as Obama is.

Unlike Obama, neither appear to be animated by their hostility toward Israel. Neither seem to be passionate in their support for Muslim Brotherhood- affiliated groups or in their desire to realign the US away from Israel, from its traditional Arab allies and toward Iran. This lack of passion makes it safe to assume that if elected president, while they will adopt anti-Israel policies, they will not seek out ways to weaken Israel or strengthen its sworn enemies.

On the Republican side, the situation is entirely different. All of the Republican presidential candidates are pro-Israel. To be sure, some are more pro-Israel than others. Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, is more supportive than his competitors. But all of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

It hasn’t always been this way. And it doesn’t have to remain this way.

Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush.

Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel.

On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel.

Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably.

Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel.

Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points.

The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites.

Last summer, pollster Frank Luntz conducted a survey of US elite partisan opinion on Israel. His data were devastating. According to Luntz’s data, 76% of Democratic elite believe that Israel has too much influence over US foreign policy. Only 20% of Republicans do.

Nearly half (47%) of highly educated, wealthy and politically active Democrats think that Israel is a racist country. Thirteen percent of their Republican counterparts agree.

And whereas only 48% of Democrats believe that Israel wants peace, 88% of Republicans believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors.

These trends affect voting habits. According to Luntz, while only 18% of Democrats say they would be more likely to vote for a politician who supports Israel, 31% said they are less likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate. In contrast, 76% of Republicans say they want their representatives to support Israel.

Forty-five percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who is critical of Israel and 75% of Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for an anti-Israel candidate.

These data tell us two important things. Today Democratic candidates will gain nothing and may lose significant support if they support Israel.

In contrast, a Republican who opposes Israel will have a hard time getting elected, much less winning a primary.

Partisan sensibilities aren’t the only reason that Israel is will be better off if a Republican wins in November. There is also the issue of policy continuity.

Even though neither Clinton nor Sanders share Obama’s anti-Israel passion, their default position will be to maintain his policies. Traditionally, when an outgoing president is replaced by a successor from his own party, many of his foreign policy advisers stay on to serve his successor.

Moreover, if American voters elect a Democrat to succeed Obama, their decision will rightly be viewed as a vote of confidence in his policies.

Obama has radicalized the Democratic Party in his seven years in office. When Obama was inaugurated, the Blue Dog caucus of conservative Democratic members of the House of Representatives had 54 members. Today only 14 remain.

Obama’s Democratic Party is not Bill Clinton’s party.

A party that isn’t forced to pay a price for its policies isn’t likely to change them. If the Democrats are not defeated in the run for the White House in November, their party will not reassess its shift to radicalism and reconsider its increasingly hostile stance on Israel.

That then brings us to the state of the presidential race following the Iowa caucuses and ahead of next Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses showed a significant gap in enthusiasm among partisan voters. Participation rates in the Republican caucuses were unprecedented.

Cruz shattered the record for vote getting in the state that saw participation rates up 30% from 2012. On the Democratic side, participation rates were below the 2008 level.

On the Republican side, the three top candidates – Cruz, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio – are all backed by committed, fervent supporters. On the Democratic side, Clinton’s supporters are reportedly diffident about her. And while Sanders enjoys enthusiastic support from voters under 45, he can’t seem to convince people who actually know what socialism is to support him.

If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, on the face of it, it is difficult to see his path to victory in the general election. Whereas Obama was elected by hiding his radical positions, Sanders is running openly as a socialist and attacks Obama from the Left. Whether America is a center-right or center-left country, the undisputed truth is that it is a centrist country.

As for Clinton, the likelihood grows by the day that by the general election, her inability to inspire her base will be the least of her problems.

The FBI’s ongoing probe of her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state is devastating her chances of getting elected.

The State Department’s revelation last week that 22 of Clinton’s emails were too classified to be released, even with parts blacked out, makes it impossible to dismiss the prospect that she will be indicted for serious felony offenses. Yet, as Jonah Goldberg argued Wednesday in National Review, with her narrow victory in Iowa, Clinton blocked the opening for a less damaged candidate – like Vice President Joe Biden or former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg – to step into the race.

In other words, the Republican nominee will have an energized base and will face either a legally challenged or openly socialist Democratic opponent.

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, before Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, he asked the FBI for its opinion of the mosque. FBI investigators informed Obama of the mosque’s ties to terrorism. They urged him not to confer it with the legitimacy that comes with a presidential visit.

Obama ignored the FBI’s advice.

The next 11 months will be miserable for Israel.

But we should take heart. By all accounts, next year will be better. And judging by the way the presidential race is shaping up, next year may be a much, much better year.

Categories: Democrats, Foreign policy, Fundamentalist Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamophobia, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Israel, Obama mosque visit, Palestinians, Republicans
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

The IDF’s Misplaced Trust in the Palestinian Authority

February 3, 2016

The IDF’s Misplaced Trust in the Palestinian Authority The new major threat inside Israeli communities enters a new phase.

February 3, 2016 Caroline Glick

Source: The IDF’s Misplaced Trust in the Palestinian Authority | Frontpage Mag

Amjad Sakari made no effort to hide his feelings and intentions towards Israel. The soldier in the Palestinian security forces filled his Facebook page with paeans to Saddam Hussein. Last weekend he published two posts indicating his imminent plan to carry out a terrorist attack.

In other words, if the PA forces he served had been serious about preventing their members from carrying out terrorist attacks, they could have easily prevented Sakari from driving to an IDF checkpoint between Ramallah and Beit El Sunday morning, opening fire and wounding three soldiers – one critically. Sakari, who was killed in the course of his attack, was the third member of the US-backed PA security forces who engaged in terrorism in the past two months.

On December 3, Mazen Ariba, an officer in the PA’s US-sponsored Preventive Security Forces opened fire on Israelis at the Hizma checkpoint north of Jerusalem. Ariba wounded two Israelis – one critically – before he was shot and killed.

Ariba, was PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat’s nephew. Erekat made a very public condolence call to Ariba’s home. Ariba was posthumously hailed as a hero.

Two weeks ago, the Shin Bet arrested Ala’a Barkawi, an officer in the PA’s US-supported intelligence services. Barkawi was a member of a three-man terror cell that carried out a shooting attack against IDF forces operating in Tulkarm earlier last month.

Sunday night Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu demanded that PA President Mahmoud Abbas condemn the terrorism carried out by forces operating under his command. Abbas rejected Netanyahu’s demand and instead doubled down in supporting terrorism.

According to Channel 2, in US-mediated discussions between the two leaders, Abbas demanded that Israeli hand over Sakari’s body.

The IDF’s relationship with the Palestinian security forces is becoming a source of concern. The now five month old Palestinian terror campaign is entering a new phase, with direct attacks inside Israeli communities becoming a new major threat.

While many commanders on the ground in Judea and Samaria hold few illusions about the long-term viability of their cooperation with their US-trained Palestinian counterparts, senior IDF commanders serve as their greatest advocates and apologists. Following the murders of Dafna Meir and Shlomit Krigman late last week, the IDF’s senior commanders insisted yet again that Israel must do nothing to harm the PA security forces.

Sakari’s attack didn’t dampen their enthusiasm.

In a radio interview Monday morning, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon reported that Palestinian forces foil about twenty percent of the terror plots. In so proclaiming the day after a Palestinian security officer gunned down three IDF troops, Yaalon made clear that the IDF will change nothing in its cooperative position towards them.

For their part, almost immediately after word got out that Sakari served in the PA forces, senior IDF commanders set out to control the damage. Sakari, they told reporters, was but a marginal figure in an unimpressive unit. He did not serve in any of the seven battalions deployed to the Palestinian population centers that were trained by the US military in Jordan. His actions, they insisted, were not indicative of a wider phenomenon within the PA security forces.

Both Yaalon and his senior commanders were doubtlessly telling the truth. But that doesn’t mean that all is well with the PA security forces.

Sakari served as a driver for the PA’s General Prosecutor Ahmed Hanoun. As such, he may have been a member of an unimportant unit, although certainly he had access to some of the most senior members of the PA. But as intelligence officers, Ariba and Barkawi were members of the core of the forces.

But in the final analysis, whether or not Ariba, Barkawi and Sakari were important operatives is beside the point. The main problem with the Palestinian security forces is that by their very nature, they are inherently hostile to Israel and supportive of terrorism.

PA forces are commanded by terrorists from Fatah and other affiliated PLO terror groups. The tens of thousands of men under arms in these forces are recruited from these terrorist groups.

The Palestinian Authority which they serve itself supports terrorism. On a practical level, as Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely relayed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week, the PA spends 16 percent of its donor financed annual budget paying salaries to terrorists jailed in Israeli prisons and stipends to their families. Moreover, the PA’s heroes are all terrorists. Its media and school system daily incite Palestinians to take up arms against Israelis and murder them. Murad Adais, who murdered Dafna Meir in her home in Otniel two weeks ago told investigators that he decided to murder Jews after watching incendiary PA media broadcasts.

In trusting the security cooperation they receive from the PA, our military leaders are mistaking inputs for outputs. That is, they assume that because they receive cooperation from these forces, these forces are inherently friendly. But again, the opposite is the case.

The PA is cooperating with the IDF today for two reasons. First, at present, Abbas believes that he has more to gain from cooperating with Israel than he does from Hamas. Second, at present, Abbas controls the bulk of his forces.

Both of these variables are likely to change, and Israel can do nothing to keep them constant.

In the past, both Abbas and his predecessor Yassir Arafat assessed at various points that they were better off cooperating with Hamas against Israel than with Israel against Hamas. Their decisions in 1996, from 2000 to 2007, and intermittently ever since, have had little to do with Israel’s positions. Indeed, their shifts from Israel to Hamas have often occurred at times when Israel did the most to support them.

As for Abbas’s control over his forces, this too can change on a dime. For years, Palestinian sources have insisted that these forces feel no intrinsic loyalty to Abbas. They stay with Abbas because he pays them.

Ideologically, these men under arms are free floaters. Nothing they believe is a bar for shifting their loyalties to Hamas. More to the point, all the US financial transfers to the PA security forces won’t stop any of the US-trained Palestinian forces from moonlighting as Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah terrorists. They’ve done it in the past and they will do it again.

The instrumental, and necessarily temporary nature of Palestinian security cooperation with the IDF tells us three things.

First, the IDF needs to ditch its current counterterror strategy which is based on the wrongheaded assumption that we can rely on the PA security forces. Central Command needs to develop contingency plans for neutralizing these forces. These contingency plans don’t need to be made public. But to the extent that aspects of the plans can be quietly implemented, they should be implemented as quickly as possible.

Second, IDF commanders need to stop praising these hostile forces. At some point in the not so distant future the IDF will be required to fight these forces. When that day comes, the IDF’s enthusiastic tributes to their great cooperation with these terror-supporting forces will come back to haunt us. How will we be able to explain why our actions are necessary to allies to whom we have praised these hostile forces? This brings us to the final thing we need to recognize about these Palestinian forces. It was a major strategic blinder for Israel to support the US’s decision to train them. By supporting the US training program, Israel has given the US an incentive to deny the hostile nature of these forces.

Even worse than guaranteeing that the US will be unwilling to accept that in training these forces its military built a terror army, is that threat these forces pose. Today seven US-trained Palestinian combat battalions are deployed close to Israel’s major urban centers. Their fighting skills far surpass anything Israel has had to deal with in campaigns to date against Palestinian terror onslaughts.

As IDF commanders have warned over the years, due to the American training these terror-supporting anti-Israel forces have received, they can overrun small Israeli communities. They can carry out mass terror onslaughts in larger ones, on both sides of the armistice lines.

Following Sakari’s attack, Monday morning the IDF encircled Ramallah, barring non-residents from entering the city. The move was first announced by Palestinian security forces. So clearly the IDF coordinated the move with them before implementing it.

It is all well and good that the Palestinians continue to cooperate with the IDF, to the extent that the do. But Sakari’s attack must serve as a wake-up call. The defense establishment needs to quit relying on and praising this cooperation.

Because it will end. And if we are not prepared, the end will be very bad for Israel, and for the IDF.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

 Critical Injuries in Jerusalem Attack, 3 Terrorists Dead [video]

February 3, 2016

By: David Israel Published: February 3rd, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Critical Injuries in Jerusalem Attack, 3 Terrorists Dead

ID cards of the three terrorists who carried out attack at Jerusalem's Damascus Gate.

ID cards of the three terrorists who carried out attack at Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate.
Photo Credit: social media

A young female Border Guard officer was critically injured Wednesday afternoon in a combined stabbing and shooting attack by three terrorists at the Shechem (Damascus) Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem. Another female Border Guard police officer was seriously wounded and a third person was less severely injured. Numerous others were badly traumatized from the scene.

Aftermath of attack at Damascus gate entrance to Old City of Jerusalem.

Security forces initially prevented the Magen David Adom paramedics from going near the attackers for fear of a pipe bomb the terrorists were carrying.

According to Jerusalem police, three terrorists armed with Carl Gustav M/45 sub-machine guns, knives and explosives arrived at the Damascus Gate and were immediately identified by Border Guard officers at the site. They stopped them for questioning; one terrorist handed his ID card, the other pulled out his gun and started shooting. Two female Border Guards were injured and all three of the terrorists were neutralized.

The critically injured female officer, 20, was rushed to the Trauma Center at Hadassah Mount Scopus Medical Center, as was the second female officer, 19, who was stabbed in the neck. A man, 21, was injured lightly; he was treated at the scene and then evacuated to the hospital as well.

Two pipe bombs were successfully dismantled by sappers from the security force, according to Israel Police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld.

The three terrorists were residents of Qabatiya, in the Jenin area of Samaria, with no prior history of security offenses, according to Israeli security sources.

All three of the attackers — Ahmed Rajeh Zakarneh, Mohamed Ahmed Kmail and Ahmed Najeh Abu Al-Rub – were killed.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama’s Source for Israel Says Country Run by Evil “Elders of Zion”

February 1, 2016

Obama’s Source for Israel Says Country Run by Evil “Elders of Zion” Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 1, 2016

(Shocking, perhaps, but not surprising. — DM)

amirahass

Anti-Zionism is just Anti-Semitism misspelled. The Anti-Zionist left continues to remind us of that.

Haaretz is a crazed anti-Israel paper operating out of Israel even though a number of its high profile writers have publicly announced that they refuse to live in the country. It’s also the voice of Israel’s left-wing establishment. A voice that is growing crazier and crazier by the minute.

Obama however is [sic] a phone. Addressing the last HaaretzQ conference, at which the Israeli flag had to be taken down, he said, “As Israel’s oldest newspaper, Haaretz has never been afraid to speak truth to power. Over the years, I’ve turned to you as well for your reporting and analysis.”

This is the kind of deranged anti-Israel hate that Obama has “turned to” for understanding Israel.

After the last election, Haaretz’s Gideon Levy, who really hates Israel demanded “The nation must be replaced. Not another election for the country’s leadership, but general elections to choose a new Israeli people – immediately.”

He has justified Muslim terror attacks against Israelis. Gideon Levy demanded, “Did Israel Really Think Hamas Would Turn the Other Cheek”. Levy pushes BDS and calls for the destruction of Israel via a “one state solution”.

But then there’s Amira Hass, who justifies Muslim violence against Jews and tried to live in Gaza. She claimed that Jews moving to Israel are committing a crime, calls Israel an “apartheid state” and called Gaza a “concentration camp”. She claimed that throwing stones at Jews is, “a metaphor for resistance.” Hass is the official Haaretz correspondent.

In Haaretz’s race to the bottom, Amira Hass decided to invoke the Elders of Zion just to remind everyone once again that the left is anti-Semitic and that it’s opposition to Israel is based entirely on its hatred of Jews.

As David Collier reports,

“Amira Hass said was that what we see today is the result of deliberate planning by a hidden group of Jews called the ‘Elders of Zion’. It was all planned. In a liberal democracy that bends to the will of the elected government, the idea of hidden plans and puppet masters is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. This is a conspiracy about Jews and secret plans for domination. You can listen to the comment itself here:”

Here’s the direct quote from Hass, whose last name appropriately enough means hate.

“Did the Elders of Zion really sit together at the beginning of the seventies and then during the nineties and planned, and have all these military decrees, military orders and changes? Viewing this tremendous change, I believe that they were.”

And this is Obama’s source for analysis and reporting on Israel. If a Republican candidate had named a source synonymous with crazed bigotry as a source for understanding Israel, there would have been outrage. But Obama gets a pass for viewing Amira Hass and Gideon Levy as legitimate sources for understanding what is going on in Israel.

 

Categories: Elders of Zion, Haaretz, Hamas, Israel, Leftists, Obama and Israel, Palestinians, Palestinians and Jews
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Ya’alon: The conflict might never be resolved

January 22, 2016

Ya’alon: The conflict might never be resolved Defense Minister pessimistic about Israel-Palestinian conflict, says it has no solution so long as the PA incites against Israel.

By Kobi Finkler

First Publish: 1/22/2016, 5:46 AM

Source: Ya’alon: The conflict might never be resolved – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva

Ya’alon at WIZO conference                                               Eli Dassa

The conflict with the Palestinian Arabs will “never be solved” so long as the Palestinian Arabs continue to incite their children against Israel, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Thursday.

Speaking at the World WIZO conference in Tel Aviv, Ya’alon hailed Israel’s success in stopping mass terrorist attacks, a success which, he claimed, has caused the enemy to change its plans and carry out “lone wolf” attacks.

“Due to our success in preventing mass casualty terrorist attacks, our enemies are employing attacks by individuals. We will defeat this wave of terror as well. Israel has the ability to cope with any challenge and develop security measures to protect against all forms of terrorism,” he stressed.

He then went on to express a pessimistic view of the conflict with the Palestinians.

“As long as the Palestinians educate their children to hate us, to kill us, to admire the martyr – the conflict will never be resolved,” said the Defense Minister, adding, “We must implement a policy of the stick against terrorism and the carrot to Palestinians who simply want to live their lives. We must find a way to live our lives in which most Palestinians do not threaten us and benefit from the Israeli economy. We are here, they are here and we must learn to live together.”

Ya’alon also referred to the Hezbollah terror cell from Tulkarem which was exposed by Israeli security forces and was operating under guidelines received from Juad Nasrallah, son of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

“Hezbollah is indeed operating in Judea and Samaria, as do other terrorist groups such as the Islamic Jihad; they are all metastases of Iran. Hezbollah, via Iran, is trying to lure Palestinians and Israeli Arabs to carry out terror attacks within Israel,” he said.

As for Iran, the Defense Minister said that Iran is the greatest threat to Israel today, repeating comments he made earlier this week.

“While the nuclear program is currently suspended due to the agreement with the international community, within 10-15 years and possibly earlier than that, when they feel comfortable financially, they will continue to develop nuclear weapons,” he warned.

Meanwhile, stressed the Defense Minister, the Iranians are working to arm Hezbollah with missiles and weapons. “They finance Hamas in its jihadist war against Israel, and are also working along the northern border,” he said.

Finally, Ya’alon stressed the importance of Israeli public diplomacy within the international community in order to combat the Palestinian propaganda.

“The Marmara which was sent under the auspices of Turkey was made up of jihadists, European statesmen whom I call naive, and anti-Semites,” said Ya’alon.

“When an Israeli officer ordered the Marmara to retreat, the answer he received was ‘go back to Auschwitz.’ The Marmara is an expression of the spirit among some members of the international community who are acting against Israel. The propaganda war is very difficult because it is driven by widespread anti-Semitism and delegitimization of Israel, and so it is hard to fight it,” he added, noting that the international community does not understand how much it is led astray by the pro-Palestinian propaganda.

“Israel’s public diplomacy war requires each of us to become a warrior on social networks, and to speak up for Israel. I call on you, the women of WIZO, to take part in this fight,” said Ya’alon.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Palestinians: Western Media’s Ignorance and Bias

January 21, 2016

Palestinians: Western Media’s Ignorance and Bias by Khaled Abu Toameh January 21, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Palestinians: Western Media’s Ignorance and Bias

 

  • Foreign journalists based in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have for years refused to report on the financial corruption and human rights violations that are rife under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas regimes. Palestinian “suffering” and the “evil” of the Israeli “occupation” are the only admissible topics.
  • Another Ramallah-based colleague shared that a few years ago he received a request from a cub correspondent to help arrange an interview with Yasser Arafat. Except at that point, Arafat had been dead for several years. Fresh out of journalism school and unknowledgeable about the Middle East, the journalist was apparently considered by his editors a fine candidate for covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • Western reporters would do well to remember that journalism in this region is not about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Rather, it is about being “pro” the truth, even when the truth runs straight up against what they would prefer to believe.

Two Western journalists recently asked to be accompanied to the Gaza Strip to interview Jewish settlers living there.

No, this is not the opening line of a joke. These journalists were in Israel at the end of 2015, and they were deadly serious.

Imagine their embarrassment when it was pointed out to them that Israel had completely pulled out of the Gaza Strip ten years ago.

You have to have some pity for them. These foreign colleagues were rookies who aimed to make an impression by traveling to a “dangerous” place such as the Gaza Strip to report on the “settlers” living there. Their request, however, did not take anyone, even my local colleagues, by surprise.

These “parachute journalists,” as they are occasionally called, are catapulted into the region without being briefed on the basic facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, correspondents such as these are more the rule than the exception. A particular clueless British reporter springs to mind:

When Israel assassinated Hamas’s founder and spiritual leader, Ahmed Yasmin, in 2004, a British newspaper dispatched its crime reporter to Jerusalem to cover the event. To this reporter, the region, as well as Hamas, were virgin territory. His editors had sent him to the Middle East, he said, because no one else was willing to go.

Well, our hero reported on the assassination of Ahmed Yassin from the bar of the American Colony Hotel. His byline claimed that he was in the Gaza Strip and had interviewed relatives of the slain leader of Hamas.

Sometimes one feels as if one is some sort of a lightning rod for these tales. Another Ramallah-based colleague shared that a few years ago he received a request from a cub correspondent to help arrange an interview with Yasser Arafat. Except at that point, Arafat had been dead for several years. Fresh out of journalism school and unknowledgeable about the Middle East, the journalist was apparently considered by his editors a fine candidate for covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the three decades of covering this beat, journalists of this type have become quite familiar to me. They board a plane, read an article or two in the Times and feel ready to be experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some of them have even assured me that before 1948 there was a Palestinian state here with East Jerusalem as its capital. Like the ill-informed young colleagues who wished to interview the nonexistent Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip of 2015, they were somewhat taken aback to learn that prior to 1967, the West Bank had been under the control of Jordan, while the Gaza Strip had been ruled by Egypt.

Is there some difference between an Arab citizen of Israel and a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip? My foreign colleagues may well not be able to say. Does the Hamas charter really state that the Islamist movement seeks to replace Israel with an Islamic empire? If so, my international co-workers may not be able to tell you.

One memorable journalist, several years ago, asked to visit the “destroyed” city of Jenin, where “thousands of Palestinians had been massacred by Israel in 2002.” She was referring to the IDF operation in the Jenin refugee camp where nearly 60 Palestinians, many of them gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers were killed in a battle.

Pity aside, this degree of incomprehension — and professional laziness — is difficult to imagine in the Internet age.

But when it comes to covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ignorance apparently is bliss. Misconceptions about what goes on here plague the international media. The binary good guy/bad guy designation tops the list. Someone has to be the good guy (the Palestinians are assigned that job) and someone has to be the bad guy (the Israelis get that one). And everything gets refracted through that prism.

Yet the problem is deeper still. Many Western journalists covering the Middle East do not feel the need to conceal their hatred for Israel and for Jews. But when it comes to the Palestinians, these journalists see no evil. Foreign journalists based in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have for years refused to report on the financial corruption and human rights violations that are rife under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas regimes. They possibly fear being considered “Zionist agents” or “propagandists” for Israel.

Finally, there are the local journalists hired by Western reporters and media outlets to help the cover the conflict. These journalists may refuse to cooperate on any story that is deemed “anti-Palestinian.” Palestinian “suffering” and the “evil” of the Israeli “occupation” are the only admissible topics. Western journalists, for their part, are keen not to anger their Palestinian colleagues: they do not wish to be denied access to Palestinian sources.

Thus, the international media’s indifference in the face of the current wave of stabbings and car-rammings against Israelis should come as no surprise. One would be hard-pressed to find a Western journalist or a media organization referring to Palestinian assailants as “terrorists.” In fact, international headlines often show more sympathy toward Palestinian attackers who are killed in the line of aggression than toward the Israelis who were attacked in the first place.

Of course, the above tales hardly apply to all foreign journalists. Some correspondents from the US, Canada, Australia and Europe are both very knowledgeable and very fair. Unfortunately, however, these represent but a small group among mainstream media in the West.

Western reporters, especially those who are “parachuted” into the Middle East, would do well to remember that journalism in this region is not about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Rather, it is about being “pro” the truth, even when the truth runs straight up against what they would prefer to believe.

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

January 20, 2016

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

My chair

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

speech

Categories: Humor, Iran scam, Israel, Obama and Iran, Palestinians, SOTU
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Report: Kerry May Have Exposed Israeli Collaborator on Erekat’s Team

January 18, 2016

Report: Kerry May Have Exposed Israeli Collaborator on Erekat’s Team

By: David Israel Published: January 18th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Report: Kerry May Have Exposed Israeli Collaborator on Erekat’s Team

Palestinian Authority official Seab Erekat meets John Kerry Wednesday under photo of the golden-domed mosque on the Temple Mount.

Palestinian Authority official Seab Erekat meets John Kerry Wednesday under photo of the golden-domed mosque on the Temple Mount.
Photo Credit: Flash 90

Following reports that an employee of the PLO negotiation affairs department who worked for 20 year as an aide to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in Ramallah was arrested for “collaborating with Israel,” on Monday the London-based Arabic daily Rai Al-Youm revealed that the order to search for an Israeli spy on the negotiations team came two weeks ago from PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who realized private conversations of PA seniors regarding their political position were known to the US based on Israeli information.

According to Rai Al-Youm, the protocols from secret high level meetings in Ramallah had been leaked to Israel for many years, and the Israelis regularly passed them on to Washington. As State Department officials were turning on the pressure on Abbas to reach a political compromise in the peace negotiations, they revealed their knowledge of intricate details of the Palestinian position, which raised Abbas’s suspicions about a leak. The chairman began questioning European officials, who confirmed to him that the US was receiving a regular flow of information about PA internal meetings from Israel.

Apparently, part of the reason why the arrest of the PLO Israeli collaborator has only taken place this week had to do with the attempt to keep the internal investigation away from Saeb Erekat himself, who only learned about the arrest a week ago. Erekat has been the PLO chief negotiator for years and was renowned for his uncompromising position.

The final round in the negotiations opened in July 2013, with Tzipi Livni heading the Israeli team, vs. Erekatr at the head of the Palestinian team. The talks came to a halt April 2014, when Israel balked on releasing the fourth group of security prisoners, and in response the PA applied unilaterally to join 15 UN institutions, in violation of the peace accords. The anxious negotiator at that part of the encounter was Secretary of State John Kerry, who was desperately trying to push both sides to continue the negotiations.

At some point there, in April 2014, Kerry apparently cited raw information the US was not supposed to have, thus exposing a 20-year operation Israel maintained inside the PLO top command.

About the Author: David writes news at JewishPress.com.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

ISIS Followers Plan to Take over Gaza Strip

January 13, 2016

ISIS Followers Plan to Take over Gaza Strip

by Khaled Abu Toameh

January 12, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: ISIS Followers Plan to Take over Gaza Strip

  • In the video produced by the pro-ISIS Palestinian Islamic Army (PIA), Hamas leaders are denounced for aligning themselves with moderate Arab leaders in the Gulf, who are described as “criminals and enemies of Islam.”
  • Apparently, Hamas has been too kind to Christians living in the Gaza Strip. The narrator blasts Hamas leaders for offering greetings to Christians on their holidays.
  • It seems that there may be valid reasons for Egypt’s reluctance to reopen the Rafah border crossing with Gaza, as well as to Israel’s opposition to lifting the naval blockade on Gaza — initiated to prevent weapons from being imported to Hamas and other extremists in Gaza. The PIA video provides proof that the Gaza Strip has become a hub for jihadi groups posing a murderous threat not only to Israel and “the West,” but also to Muslims who are deemed by the terrorists as lacking in religious standards.

A new group calling itself the Palestinian Islamic Army (PIA) has popped up in the Gaza Strip, signaling incontrovertibly the growing influence of the Islamic State (ISIS) among Palestinians.

A thirty-minute video put out by the PIA shows its followers pledging allegiance to ISIS “Caliph” Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, and paints Hamas leaders as “apostates” and “infidels” for failing to implement Islamic sharia law in the Gaza Strip. The video constitutes proof positive that the ISIS ideology has infiltrated Gaza — a truth that Hamas has unsuccessfully been trying to conceal for the past year.

A frame from the recent video produced in Gaza by the Palestinian Islamic Army (PIA), in which the PIA followers pledge allegiance to ISIS “Caliph” Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

In the video, Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal are denounced for aligning themselves with moderate Arab leaders in the Gulf, who are described as “criminals and enemies of Islam.” Apparently, Hamas has been too kind to Christians living in the Gaza Strip. The narrator blasts Hamas leaders for offering greetings to Christians on their holidays and condolences on the death of some of the community’s members. Hamas leaders are featured making visits to Christian “polytheists” in the Strip.

Yet Christians are not the only bedfellows prohibited to Hamas by the PIA. The video also damns Hamas leaders for their alliance with the Shiite Muslims of Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah. For the PIA, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is a “Satan” waging war on Sunni Muslims. And this “Satan” is in good company: “The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip is a sect of apostasy and blasphemy,” the PIA video declares. Muslims are urged vigorously to distance themselves from the heretical Hamas.

The PIA holds Hamas responsible for the deaths of 11 of its members in the Gaza Strip. “The Hamas members executed them in front of their mothers, and left the wounded to die after preventing ambulances from reaching them,” the video charges. “One of those killed in this massacre was brother Saeb Abu Obaida, who was executed by Hamas in cold blood.” According to the video, Abu Obaida was the “emir” of the PIA in the Gaza Strip.

One of the leaders and founders of the ISIS-affiliated PIA, Mu’taz Daghmash (known by his nickname Abu Al-Majd), was killed in an Israeli airstrike two years ago — much to the satisfaction of Hamas. The video reveals that arch-terrorist Daghmash was involved in the 2006 abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and the assassination of two Palestinian security commanders in the Gaza Strip — Musa Arafat and Jad Tayeh.

A second jihadi mentioned in the video, Sultan Al-Harbi, is described as a senior member of ISIS who received military training in Yemen, Sudan and Libya before returning to the Gaza Strip. He too was killed last year in an Israeli airstrike.

Nidal Al-Ashi (aka Abu Huraira) was another PIA member in good standing, before becoming the first Palestinian to be killed in Syria while fighting for ISIS. Al-Ashi participated in multiple rocket attacks on “the enemies of Allah, the Jews,” and attacks on churches and other Christian targets in Gaza, as well attacks as on Western journalists and diplomats.

Egyptian security officials have attested repeatedly that the Gaza Strip has become a major exporter of jihadis to Sinai. Events have proven those officials correct. It seems that there may be valid reasons for Egypt’s reluctance to reopen the Rafah border crossing with Gaza, as well as to Israel’s opposition to lifting the naval blockade on Gaza — initiated to prevent weapons from being imported to Hamas and other extremists in the Gaza Strip. The PIA video provides definitive proof that the Gaza Strip has become a hub for jihadi groups posing a murderous threat not only to Israel and “the West,” but also to Muslims who are deemed by the terrorists as lacking in religious standards.

Hamas has brought nothing but havoc to its people in the Gaza Strip. As for the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, all that is left for them is to be grateful for the presence of Israel in the West Bank. Without the Israeli military, Hamas and ISIS would eat Abbas and his Palestinian Authority for breakfast. One wonders: Is this the sort of state that Palestinians are seeking to establish?

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Strategy to Defeat Islamic Theo-fascism

January 7, 2016

A Strategy to Defeat Islamic Theo-fascism, American Thinker, G. Murphy Donovan, January 7, 2016

Surely, whatever passed for American foreign or military policy in the past three decades is not working. Just as clearly, in case anyone keeps score these days, the dark side of Islam is ascendant at home and abroad. What follows here is a catalogue of policy initiatives that might halt the spread of Islamic fascism and encourage religious reform in the Ummah.

Some observers believe that the Muslim problem is a matter of life and death. Be assured that the need for Islamic reform is much more important than either. The choices for Islam are the same as they are for Palestine Arabs; behave or be humbled. Europe may still have a Quisling North and a Vichy South; but Russia, China, and even America, at heart, are still grounded by national survival instincts – and Samuel Colt.

Call a spade a spade

The threat is Islam, both kinetic and passive aggressive factions. If “moderate” Islam is real, then that community needs to step up and assume responsibility for barbaric terror lunatics and immigrants/refugees alike. Neither America nor Europe has solutions to the Islamic dystopia; civic incompetence, strategic illiteracy, migrants, poverty, religious schisms, or galloping irredentism. The UN and NATO have no remedies either. Islamism is an Ummah, Arab League, OIC problem to solve. Absent moral or civic conscience, unreformed Islam deserves no better consideration than any other criminal cult.

Western Intelligence agencies must stop cooking the books too. The West is at war and the enemy is clearly the adherents of a pernicious ideology. A global war against imperial Islam might be declared, just as angry Islam has declared war on civilization.  A modus vivendi might be negotiated only after the Ummah erects a universal barrier between church and state globally. Islam, as we know it, is incompatible with democracy, civility, peace, stability, and adult beverages.

Oxymoronic “Islamic” states need to be relegated to the dustbin of history. If the Muslim world cannot or will not mend itself, Islamism, like the secular fascism of the 20th Century, must be defeated, humbled in detail. Sooner is better.

Answer the Ayatollahs

Recent allied concessions to Tehran may prove to be a bridge too far. If the Persian priests do not abide by their nuclear commitments, two red lines might be drawn around Israel. Firstly, the ayatollahs should be put on notice, publicly, that any attack against Israel would be considered an attack against America — and met with massive Yankee retaliation. Secondly, any future cooperation with NATO or America should be predicated on an immediate cessation of clerical hate speech and so-called fatwas, those arbitrary death sentences.

Clerical threats to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” and “death to America” injunctions are designed to stimulate jihad and terror globally. The only difference between a Shia ayatollah and a Sunni imam in this regard these days seems to be the torque in their head threads.

Ostracize the Puppeteers

Strategic peril does not emanate from Sunni tacticians like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Abu Bakr al-Baghadadi. Nor does the real threat begin with or end with al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezb’allah, Hamas, or the Islamic State. Lethal threat comes, instead, on four winds: toxic culture, religious politics, fanatic fighters, and furtive finance, all of which originate with Muslim state sponsors. The most prominent of these are Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

Put aside for a moment the Saudi team that brought down the Twin Towers in New York. Consider instead, the House of Saud as the most egregious exporter of Salifism (aka Wahabbism) doctrine, clerics, imams, and mosques from which ultra-irredentist ideologies are spread. The Saudis are at once the custodians of Islam’s sacredshrines and at the same time the world’s most decadent, corrupt, and duplicitous hypocrites. Imam Baghdadi is correct about two things: the venality of elites in Washington and Riyadh. The House of Saud, an absolutist tribal monarchy, does not have the moral standing to administer “holy” sites of any description — Mecca, Medina, or Disneyland.

The cozy relationship between Europe, the European Union, and Arabia can be summarized with a few words; oil, money, arms sales, and base rights. This near-sighted blend of Mideast obscenities has reached its sell-by date. The “white man’s burden” should have expired when Edward Said vacated New York for paradise.

Jettison Turkey and Pakistan

What Saudi Arabia is to toxic ideology in North Africa, Turkey and Pakistan are to perfidy in the Levant and South Asia. Turkey and Pakistan are Islam’s most obvious and persistent grifters. Turkey supports the Islamic State and other Sunni terror groups with a black market oil racket. Pakistan supports the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS with sanctuary and tolerance of the world’s largest opium garden. Oil and drug monies from Arabia, Turkey, and South Asia are financing the global jihad. Turkey also facilitates the migration of Muslims west to Europe while sending Islamist fighters and weapons south to Syria and Iraq.

With the advent of Erdogan and his Islamist AKP, Turkey has morphed into NATO’s Achilles Heel, potentially a fatal flaw.  Turkey needs to be drummed out of NATO until secular comity returns to Ankara. Pakistan needs to be restrained, too, with sanctions until it ceases to provide refuge for terrorists. Pakistani troops harassing India could be more prudently redeployed to exterminate jihadists.

Sanctions against Russia and Israel are a study in moral and political fatuity whilst Arabs and Muslims are appeased midst a cultural sewer of geo-political crime and human rights abuses. If NATO’s eastern flank needs to be anchored in trust and dependability, Russia, Kurdistan, or both, would make better allies than Turkey. Ignoring Turkish perfidy to protect ephemeral base rights confuses tactical necessity with strategic sufficiency.

Recognize Kurdistan

Aside from Israel, Kurdistan might be the most enlightened culture in the Mideast. The Kurds are also the largest ethnic group in the world not recognized as a state. While largely Muslim, the Kurds, unlike most of the Ummah, appreciate the virtues of religious diversity and women’s rights. Indeed, Kurdish women fight alongside their men against Turkish chauvinism and Sunni misogyny with equal aplomb. For too long, the Kurds have been patronized by Brussels and Washington.

While Kurdish fighters engage ISIS and attempt to control the Turkish oil black market, Ankara uses American manufactured NATO F-16s to bomb Kurds in Turkey and Syria. Turkish ground forces now occupy parts of Iraq too. In eastern Turkey, Ergdogan’s NATO legions use ISIS as an excuse for bookend genocide, a cleansing of Kurds that might rival the Armenian Christian genocide (1915-1917).

195876_5_Kurdish angel of death

All the while, American strategic amateurs argue for a “no-fly” zone in contested areas south of Turkey. Creating a no-fly zone is the kind of operational vacuity we have come to expect from American politicians and generals. Such a stratagem would foil Kurdish efforts to flank ISIS and allow the Erdogan jihad, arms, and oil rackets to flourish. A no-fly zone is a dangerous ploy designed to provoke Russia, not protect Muslim “moderates.”

Putin, Lavrov, and the Russians have it right this time; Turkish and Erdogan family subterfuges are lethal liabilities, not assets.

Washington and European allies have been redrawing the map in Eastern Europe, North Africa, South Asia, and the Mideast since the end of WWII. The time has come to put Kurdistan on the map too. Kurdistan is a unique and exemplary case of reformed or enlightened Islam; indeed, a nation that could serve as a model for the Muslim world.  If base rights are a consideration, Kurdistan would be an infinitely more dependable ally than Turkey or any corrupt tribal autocracy in Arabia. America has a little in common with desert dictators — and fewer genuine friends there either. Indeed, at the moment America is allied with the worst of Islam.

Create New Alliances

NATO, like the European Union, has become a parody of itself. Absent a threat like the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, Brussels has taken to justifying itself by meddling in East Europe and resuscitating a Cold War with the Kremlin. Indeed, having divided Yugoslavia, NATO now expands to the new Russian border with reckless abandon; in fact, fanning anti-Russian flames now with neo-Nazi cohorts in former Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine.

NATO support for the Muslims of one-time Yugoslavia is of a piece with support for Islamic troublemakers in Chechnya and China too. Throughout, we are led to believe that jihad Uighurs and caliphate Chechens are freedom fighters. Beslan, Boston, Paris, and now San Bernardino put the lie to any notion that Islamists are “victims” (or heroes). Indeed, the Boston Marathon bombing might have been prevented had Washington a better relationship with Moscow.

Truth is, America has more in common with Russia and China these days than we do with any number of traditional European Quislings. Indeed, it seems that Europe and America can’t take yes for an answer.

The Cold War ideological or philosophical argument has been won. Moscow and Beijing have succumbed to market capitalism. Islamism, in stark contrast, is now a menace to Russian, Chinese, and American secular polities alike. The logic of a cooperative or unified approach to a common enemy seems self-evident. America, China, and Russia, at least on issues like toxic Islam, is a match made in Mecca.

The late great contest with Marxist Russia and China was indeed a revolution without guns. Now the parties to that epic Cold War struggle may have to join forces to suppress a theo-fascist movement that, like its Nazi predecessor, will not be defeated without guns. The West is at war again, albeit in slow motion. Withal, questions of war are not rhetorical. Saying that you are not at war does not make it so. Once declared, by one party or the other, the only relevant question about war is who wins and who loses. Losers do not make the future.

If America and Europe were as committed to Judeo/Christian secular values as Islamists are committed to a sick religious culture, then the war against pernicious Islam would have been won decades ago. Or as Jack Kennedy once put it: “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.”

Trump Footnote

Donald Trump made several policy suggestions on the Islamism issue, one on immigration, the other on Mideast oil. On the former, he suggests a hiatus on Muslim immigration until America develops a plan or reliable programs to vet migrants. On Arab oil, he suggests, given the lives and treasure spent liberating Kuwait and Iraqi oil fields, America should have held those resources in trust and use oil revenues to finance the war against jihad, however long that takes. The problem with both Trump ideas is that they come perilously close to common sense, an American instinct in short supply these days.

 

Categories: Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran - Middle East, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic reformation, Islamic State, Israel, Kurdish fighters, Kurdistan, Middle East, NATO, Obama - Middle East, Obama and Iran, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic State, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Pakistan, Palestinians, Russia, Saudi Arabia
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »