Posted tagged ‘USA’

Poll: Hamas Would Rule Judea and Samaria in New Elections

September 2, 2014

Hamas won the war in political terms, but that won’t stop Kerry.

By: Tzvi Ben-GedalyahuPublished: September 2nd, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » Poll: Hamas Would Rule Judea and Samaria in New Elections.

 

Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh would replace Abbas chairman of the Palestinian Authority if elections were held today.
Photo Credit: Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash 90

 

Hamas would win election in Judea and Samaria and well as Gaza and Ismail Haniyeh would defeat Mahmoud Abbas if elections were held today, according to a new poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

Before the war in Gaza, Abbas had a 12 point margin over Haniyeh, 53 percent against 41 percent.

The new survey was carried out on the last day of the war and during the first four days of last week’s cease-fire. If elections were held today, Haniyeh would trounce Abbas by a 2-1 margin, with 61 percent support of the voters as opposed to only 32 percent for Abbas.

The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said that Abbas probably will recoup some of his losses because Hamas’ popularity previously fell after battles after mini-wars with Israel, but a 2-1 gap will be hard to overcome.

More worrisome, the poll revealed that 86 percent of the respondents think that Hamas should resume rocket attacks on Israel if the partial blockade is not completely lifted, and only 15 percent think that Hamas should be dis-armed after all sanctions are lifted.

In addition, 72 percent of Arabs in Judea, Gaza and Samaria support the Hamas strategy of using arms to attack Israelis in Judea and Samaria.

An overwhelming majority of 79 percent believe that Hamas won the war.

Hamas has not enjoyed such high support in Judea and Samaria since 2006, shortly after it ousted Abbas’ Fatah faction from Gaza in a bloody terrorist militia war.

 

 

To a certain extent, Abbas’ propaganda machine is directly responsible for Hamas’ overwhelming support. Years of demonizing Israel and Jews in the school system and in Palestinian Authority media has produced the desired effect of widespread hate and distrust of Israel and Jews.

False, malicious and twisted reporting have convinced Arabs in Judea and Samaria that the “occupation” is the cause of all or their problems, and a recent on-the-street survey by a Canadian living in Israel discovered that most Arabs that Israel carried out a “holocaust” in Gaza. Most of those interviewed also are ignorant of the Holocaust or think that the numbers of those butchered by the Nazi was grossly exaggerated, as seen in the video below.

Last month, the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) announced that a Hamas network, directed from Turkey, was planning a coup to overthrow Abbas. Haaretz reported Tuesday that a partial transcript of the investigation revealed that the plan actually was to wait for the Palestinian Authority to collapse and then take over power.

However, Hamas propaganda has consistently tried to undermine the Abbas regime, and every terrorist attack in Judea and Samaria weakens Abbas’ image that he is able to provide security.

Abbas has made a Frankenstein out of the “Peace Process,” demanding everything and accepting no compromise. The longer he cannot come up with the goods, the more his popularity falls. His only hope to force Israel to agree to impossible demands, such as allowing mass immigration of millions of so-called “refugees” and giving up land to connect Gaza with Judea and Samaria, is to go to the United Nations and the International Court. That process, which would provide doubtful result but in any case could take years, and the Arab street has lost its patience.

If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry still thinks he can fall out of the clouds with his precious peace process, which has proved to be a war process, he will have a hard time pretending that Hamas is not in the picture.

US missiles to be released ‘soon’ — whatever the Hellfire that means

August 29, 2014

US missiles to be released ‘soon’ — whatever the Hellfire that means

Delay in arms shipment to Israel may –- or may not –- end in coming days, but Obama administration will continue increased scrutiny

By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil August 29, 2014, 1:44 pm

via US missiles to be released ‘soon’ — whatever the Hellfire that means | The Times of Israel.

 

Illustrative photo of Hellfire missiles (photo credit: CC BY-Wikipedia)

 

WASHINGTON — Exactly how bad are Israel-US relations today? Who the Hellfire knows.

What is clear is that two weeks after the revelation that the US had added an additional level of scrutiny to resupplying the IDF with weapons, business was anything but usual regarding the military-to-military relationship upon which Israel relies.

The administration in Washington is hunkered down tight on the transfer of Hellfire missiles to the IDF — a transfer that would most likely have been routine until the additional level of scrutiny was applied. And, despite optimism that the transfer would soon go ahead as planned, no such action has been confirmed by Washington.

Details on the timeline for the release of the Hellfires have proven elusive. Even on Capitol Hill, the sense is that the missiles will be released “soon” — a word repeated in numerous off-the-record conversations on the subject — but neither the timeline, nor the mechanism for their release, is clear.

Washington has, in fact, been extremely closed-lipped about the Hellfires.

It has been two weeks since The Wall Street Journal first reported that the White House had been caught off-guard by transfers of military equipment from the Pentagon to the IDF in the course of Operation Protective Edge.

According to that report, the administration responded to the surprise by tying up further arms transfers in an additional multi-agency review process. Some transfers requested by the IDF have since been released, but a request for additional Hellfire missiles remains unfulfilled.

Asked about the Hellfires almost two weeks ago, State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf said that “we generally don’t talk about specific deliveries after they’re requested and before they’re delivered, but I will say that things are being — things that have been requested from Israel are — we’re taking a little bit of additional care now given the situation, and if there were requests for such missiles, that would fall under that.”

Harf downplayed the significance of the “additional care”, arguing that “when there’s an ongoing crisis that senior people are involved with, whether it’s Secretary Kerry trying to get a ceasefire, whether it’s other folks on the ground, obviously we believe there’s an inter-agency process that needs to be at play here, and there always is for these.”

But, along with the State Department, neither the Pentagon nor the National Security Council would clarify any details about the process itself, including the timeline, the considerations involved, or the mechanism for the missiles’ release.

The report of the “additional care” emerged after a much-reported dust-up between Washington and Jerusalem over Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempts to broker an Israel-Hamas ceasefire, in consultation with Qatar and Turkey. The timing reinforced perceptions that political — and even personal — considerations may be involved in the decision to freeze the transfer.

Harf responded to that charge too, saying that she “strongly disagreed with the notion” that “the additional care is being taken because of some sort of diplomatic or political wrangling.”

Instead, in repeated statements, the State Department emphasized that the additional scrutiny was tied to the ongoing military in Gaza.

With a ceasefire in its third day on Friday, however, there was still no word from the administration regarding a timeline for the missiles’ delivery.

In fact, on Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the ceasefire had not impacted the additional level of scrutiny that the transfer of weapons to Israel has faced in recent weeks.

The relative quiet on the issue in Washington has been compounded by a number of factors.

It is late August, a period in which Washington goes on vacation. Issues get put on hold, unless they are really pressing, e.g., a Russian invasion of Ukraine, or a terror group decapitating American journalists.

Congress, which has traditionally taken a very vocal front seat on issues related to Israel’s defense, is on its summer recess and will only return for a whirlwind two-week session before departing Washington for another week.

In addition, mid-term elections are around the corner, a fact that generally redirects the focus to domestic topics.

Although there was some anticipation that Congress might address the missile transfer, should the munitions remain undelivered when Congress returns to work next week, the silence thus far has been dominant — if not entirely deafening.

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered a solitary tweet on the topic, asking why arms sales to Turkey were underway while the transfer to Israel had been stalled. But many Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike have indicated that they were told that the Hellfires would be released “soon” — and that there was no reason to worry or to act to speed them up at this juncture.

On Tuesday, Israeli media also reported that the delay was ending and the weapons would be transferred “soon” — but once again, no specific timeline was given by an unnamed military official quoted in a Haaretz article.

Such delays are not unprecedented. Previous administrations — and this administration — have put a temporary kibosh on weapons transfers to Israel in the past when relationships between Washington and Jerusalem have soured.

In late 2006, following the Second Lebanon War, the Bush administration delayed transferring weapons requested by Israel to replenish stockpiles, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition. In that period as well, State Department officials emphasized that Israeli requests for munitions were not rejected, just merely under examination.

There are different claims as to why that defense slowdown occurred, but it likely reached an even broader scale than the current “additional scrutiny.” The US went so far as to block military contractor Northrop Grummond from revealing details on US-made missile defense technology that Israel hoped to purchase, effectively suspending the deal altogether. An Israeli military delegation to the US was canceled as the media reported that relations had hit an all-time low for the Bush administration.

Even before that, in the early days of the Second Intifada, the US also threatened to stop the supply of spare parts for the Apache helicopters in protest at Israel’s use of targeted assassination — a threat that receded in the months following the September 11 terror attacks. At that time, Hellfires were also at the center of the controversy — the Apaches were the launching platform for Hellfire missiles used in the strikes, such as the November 2000 killing of Tanzim official Hussein Mohammed Abayat.

In the case of the Apaches, however, there was a clear ultimatum delivered: Stop targeted killings, or else. In this case — at least publicly — there has been little explanation as to why the precision missiles have been singled out for extra, protracted scrutiny.

It is, ultimately, a scrutiny that, according to all sources, will be over “soon.” But how long “soon” means, and what steps Israel is meant to take in the meantime, are anything but clear.

FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism

August 29, 2014

FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism

Internal report labels white supremacists, black separatists, militias, abortion extremists main domestic extremists

BY:
August 29, 2014 5:00 am

via FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism | Washington Free Beacon.

 

 

The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.

Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.

They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.

“Domestic extremist violence continues to be unpredictable and, at times, severe,” the report states.

A copy of the unclassified, 60-page National Threat Assessment for Domestic Extremism, dated Aug. 14, was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. It warns that the threat of domestic-origin extremism was moderate in 2013 and will remain so for this year.

“Domestic extremists collectively presented a medium-level threat to the United States in 2013; the FBI assesses the 2014 threat will remain close to this level,” the report said.

On black separatists, the report warned that a “high-profile racially charged crimes or events” could lead to an expansion of black separatist groups. The report identified three such groups as the New Black Panther Party, the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, and the Black Hebrew Israelite group as extremists under FBI scrutiny.

An alternative assessment section in the report warned that radical black activists could “reinitiate violence at the historically high levels seen for the movement during the 1970s, when bombings, assassinations, hijackings, and hostage-takings occurred.”

 

 

“Such a scenario could occur as an extreme response to perceptions of devolving racial equality or perceptions of racially-motivated police brutality, or racially-biased injustice, oppression, or judicial rulings,” the report said. “Indicators include increased weapons procurement, reports of sophisticated plots, and development of an explosives capability.”

Black extremist groups may also seek “stronger ties to foreign governments in exchange for financial resources,” the report said.

The report was written before the racial unrest in Ferguson, Mo. However, it mentions that black separatist extremists stepped up threats against law enforcement officers, the U.S. government, and non-blacks following the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012.

“FBI investigations reveal black separatist extremists engaged in financial crimes, and drug and weapons trafficking, possibly to finance activities and maintain access to weapons,” the report said.

FBI intelligence sources reported that domestic extremist groups “aspired” to carry out violent attacks. “Of a sample of 50 credible violent threat intelligence reports analyzed for this assessment, nearly 60 percent expressed lethal violence as an ultimate goal,” the report said, noting militias seeking the overthrow of the U.S. government, sovereign citizens, white supremacists and black separatists were among those seeking to conduct deadly attacks.

“Lone actors and small cells will continue to present the greatest threat in 2014,” the report says. “Some of these individuals will engage in lethal violence, although it is most likely the majority of violent criminal acts will continue to be characterized as serious crimes, such as arson and assault, but which are not, ultimately lethal.”

The Bureau anticipates an increase in activity by animal rights and environmental extremists, such as releasing animals and damaging property, as both movements began expanding in late 2013. Additionally, a similar level of activity is expected this year for anarchist, anti-government militias, white supremacy, and sovereign citizen extremists.

For abortion extremism, the report says violence prone groups fall into two categories, “anti-abortion” and “pro-choice,” but notes the primary threat of abortion extremism comes from lone individuals, not groups.

Puerto Rican nationalist extremists were described as “followers of Marxist-Leninist ideology,” have targeted the U.S. government for destabilization, and are seeking to create an independent island nation.

The FBI estimates domestic extremists caused more than $15 million in financial loses in 2012 and 2013, mainly through animal rights and environmental activities that targeted U.S. agriculture.

“It is highly likely extremists will continue to exact financial losses in 2014, with the agriculture, construction, and financial sectors serving as the most probable targets.”

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson had no immediate comment on the report.

One indirect explanation for the omission of Islamist extremism in the report is provided in a footnote to a graphic describing an “other” category of domestic extremism not included in the report. “The ‘Other’ category includes domestic extremist [sic] whose actions were motivated by beliefs which fall outside the eight designated [domestic terrorism] subprograms,” the footnote stated.

The footnote indicates the FBI has separated Islamist terrorism from other domestic extremism.

The Obama administration in 2009 adopted a new policy that substituted the vague term “violent extremism” as a replacement for terrorism.

The graphic showed that domestic extremists killed 43 people from 2003 to 2013 carried out by five categories of terrorists—abortion extremists, black separatists, sovereign citizens, white supremacists, and “others.”

The report left out all references to the April 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and injured some 264 others. Two brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who were motivated by Islamist extremist beliefs, carried out the bombing. They learned the techniques for the homemade pressure cooker bombers from an al Qaeda linked magazine.

The FBI had been warned in advance of the attack by Russian security services that the brothers may have links to Chechen terrorists but failed to act.

The FBI report also made no direct reference to the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, by radicalized Army Maj. Nidal Hasan. The mass shooting left 13 dead and more than 30 injured.

Former FBI Agent John Guandolo said he was not surprised the report did not include any reference to domestic-origin Islamic terror.

“It should not surprise anyone who follows the jihadi threats in the United States that the FBI would not even include ‘Islamic terrorism’ in its assessment of serious threats to the republic in an official report,” Guandolo said.

“Since 9/11, FBI leadership—as well as leaders from Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council—relies on easily identifiable jihadis from the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, al Qaeda and elsewhere to advise it on how to deal with ‘domestic extremism.’”

Patrick Poole, a domestic terrorism expert, also was critical of the report’s omission of U.S. Islamist extremism, blaming “politically correct” policies at the FBI for the problem.

“At the same time we have senior members of the Obama administration openly saying that it’s not a question of if but when we have a terror attack targeting the United States by ISIL, we have the FBI putting on blinders to make sure they don’t see that threat,” Poole said.

“These politically correct policies have already allowed Americans to be killed at Fort Hood and in Boston,” he added

Guandolo said the failure to recognize the domestic Islamist threat had allowed domestic jihadist groups and their sympathizers to shape U.S. government create policies that do not acknowledge jihad as the root cause for the current global chaos.

An example, he said, is that the FBI has appointed a domestic Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas support organization leader to an FBI advisory council at the Washington headquarters.

Additionally, the FBI is failing to train agents and analysts on the Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States, Guandolo said.

“The FBI, no matter how diligent its agents are in their pursuit of ‘terrorists’, will never defeat this threat because its leaders refuse to address or even identify it,” he said. “This level of negligence on the part of the FBI leaders and their failure to understand the jihadi threat 13 years after 9/11 is appalling.”

Poole said the failure of the FBI to understand the domestic Islamist threat led to the U.S. government categorizing the 2009 Fort Hood shooting Army Maj. Nidal Hasan as “workplace violence.”

“In the case of Fort Hood, the FBI was monitoring Maj. Hasan’s email communication with al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki but the FBI headquarters dismissed it because they were talking about ‘religious’ subjects,” Poole said.

“In the Boston bombing case the FBI cleared Tamerlan Tsarnayev with nothing more than a house visit after receiving a tip from Russian intelligence, and never making the connection that he was attending a mosque founded by an imprisoned al Qaeda financier and previously attended by two convicted terrorists,” Poole added.

As a result “we have more than a dozen dead Americans killed here at home because of these politically correct FBI policies, and with threats emerging from all corners this doubling-down on political correctness when it comes to Islam is undoubtedly going to get more Americans killed,” he added.

The domestic threat assessment is the latest example indicating the FBI has been forced by Obama administration policies from focusing on the domestic terror threat posed by radical Islamists.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) said in a 2012 House floor speech that the FBI was ordered to purge references to Islam, jihad, and Muslims in its counterterrorism “lexicon” guidelines for its reports.

As a result, the FBI is hamstrung from understanding the threat of terrorism from groups like al Qaeda that have declared jihad, or holy war, on the Untied States, Gomert said.

Guandolo, the former FBI agent, said the vast majority of U.S. Islamic organizations were identified in recent U.S. terrorism trials as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent group for the Palestinian terror group Hamas. Thus, these groups are aligned with the same objectives as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al Qaeda, and others, he said.

“Our FBI is not teaching their agents and analysts this information; they are not sharing it with local and state law enforcement officials; and they are not investigating and pursuing the very individuals and organizations which are supporting and training jihadis in America,” Guandolo said.

Guandolo said former FBI director Robert Mueller testified to Congress that he was unaware that the Islamic Society of Boston was the organization behind the radicalization of the Tsarnaev brothers. “That tells you all we need to know about the FBI’s leadership about the threat here in America from the Islamic Movement—they are clueless,” he said.

Qatar’s ties with US deterring Israel from all-out diplomatic offensive, official says

August 25, 2014

Qatar’s ties with US deterring Israel from all-out diplomatic offensive, official says

By HERB KEINON 08/25/2014 18:14

The Israeli official’s comments came a day after the “New York Times” published an op-ed piece by Israel’s ambassador to the UN calling Qatar the “Club Med for Terrorists.”

via Qatar’s ties with US deterring Israel from all-out diplomatic offensive, official says | JPost | Israel News.

 A MUST READ !

President Mahmoud Abbas, Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani and exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal arrive for a meeting in Doha. Photo: REUTERS
 Israel has not launched a full-court diplomatic campaign against Qatar for aiding and abetting terrorism because of concern that the closeness of US-Qatar ties would render such a campaign futile, according to a senior diplomatic official.

The official’s comments came a day after the New York Times published an op-ed piece by Israel’s ambassador to the UN calling Qatar the “Club Med for Terrorists.”

“In recent years, the sheikhs of Doha, Qatar’s capital, have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza,” Prosor wrote. “Every one of Hamas’s tunnels and rockets might as well have had a sign that read ‘Made possible through a kind donation from the emir of Qatar’.”

Even though that is the case, and even as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continues to raise Qatar’s negative role in private meetings with US Congressman and world leaders, the senior diplomatic official said that there is no concerted campaign that has been accompanied by directives to Israel’s representatives abroad to underline Qatar’s singularly negative role in supporting terrorism and in the Gaza crisis.

Prosor’s piece, he said, was the envoy’s own “improvisation” and not part of a bigger Israeli diplomatic push against the Persian Gulf country.

Qatar is too big an ally of the US and the West, the official said, and any such campaign would be tantamount to “banging our heads on the wall.” He said Jerusalem is not interested in going “toe-to-toe “with Washington over the issue.

Qatar is the home of the US Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center, and is the location of three US air bases, including its largest one in the Middle East. It also recently signed contracts to purchase some $11 billion in US arms and weapons systems.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu – in a meeting last week with US Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) – did raise the subject of Qatar’s support of Hamas. As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa is in a prime position to put Qatar’s role high on the agenda in Washington.

However, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, in an interview earlier this month with The Post, cautioned against exaggerating the leverage Qatar has over the terrorist organization.

Qatar was hosting Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Doha, and funding them handsomely, to ensure that they only operate outside Qatar, Liberman said. He characterized this as Qatar paying “protection money” to the terrorist organization.

“It is paying protection money in order to ensure security and quiet and calm inside Qatar, so they would work only outside,” he said. “I don’t know how much they are able to influence Hamas. I think Hamas has more influence on Qatar, than Qatar does on Hamas.”

Prosor, known for his sarcasm, wrote in the Times, after mentioning the tiny country’s petrol billions, that “it is time for the world to wake up and smell the gas fumes. Qatar has spared no cost to dress up its country as a liberal, progressive society, yet at its core, the micro monarchy is aggressively financing radical Islamist movements.”

He said that the “petite petrol kingdom” needed to be isolated internationally.

“In light of the emirate’s unabashed support for terrorism, one has to question FIFA’s decision to reward Qatar with the 2022 World Cup,” he said, stopping just short of launching a campaign to strip Qatar of the right to host the marquee soccer event.

Given Qatar’s alliances and influence, Prosor wrote, the prospect for many western countries of isolating Qatar is “uncomfortable.” Yet, he added, “they must recognize that Qatar is not a part of the solution but a significant part of the problem. To bring about a sustained calm, the message to Qatar should be clear: Stop financing Hamas.”

GOP Demands Obama Take Action on ISIS

August 25, 2014

GOP Demands Obama Take Action on ISIS

via GOP Demands Obama Take Action on ISIS.

 


Rep. Mike Rogers. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Monday, 25 Aug 2014 09:16 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald

 

President Barack Obama returned from his two-week vacation in Martha’s Vineyard on Sunday night to a rising chorus of demands from Republicans wanting to know what strategy he plans to use for defeating the Islamic State before more American lives are lost to the terrorist group.

Republicans have been demanding answers about the IS situation for some time, but after the president’s much-maligned response to the beheading of American journalist James Foley, the questions dominated most of the Sunday morning news programs.

While Obama has been roundly criticized for being on vacation during the Foley murder and the rioting in Ferguson, Missouri, over the shooting death of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, many lawmakers commenting Sunday said they didn’t really begrudge the president taking some time off.

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who is from Foley’s home state, told CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer  that she does not mind that the president took a vacation with his family, but said he needs to examine the perception he caused when he went golfing the day after he addressed the nation about Foley’s killing.

“What I want from him is a strategy to defeat ISIS,” Ayotte, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said of the terrorist group, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). “A containment strategy is not going to cut it: we need a strategy to defeat ISIS.”

And South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham  told CNN “State of the Union” host Candy Crowley that Obama and lawmakers should be looking at ISIS “as a direct threat to the United States, a threat to the region that cannot be accommodated. The strategy has to meet the threat.”

But still, Graham said that he wants a full explanation from Obama if he decides to spread the U.S. action to Syria.

“My concern is that the president’s strategy of leading from behind and [having a] light footprint has failed,” Graham told Crowley. “He has to realize, as President George W. Bush did, that his strategy is not working. President Bush adjusted his strategy when it was failing, and he brought about a surge that worked. President Obama has to admit to himself, if no one else, that what he’s doing is not working.”

Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers,  who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, called ISIS a “a very real threat” that is “one plane ticket away from U.S. shores.”

“One of the problems is it’s gone unabated for nearly two years, and that draws people from Britain to across Europe, even the United States, to go and join the fight,” Rogers said on NBC’d “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

“They see that as a winning ideology, a winning strategy, and they want to be a part of it,” he explained to NBC’s Senior White House correspondent Chris Jansing. “And that’s what makes it so dangerous.”

Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., also on “Face the Nation,” said that he gets the sense that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey “understand the gravity of the situation,” reports The Hill.

However, the onetime vice presidential nominee said that he doesn’t necessarily want to hear the president’s response to victories such as the retaking of the Mosul Dam, which had been captured by ISIS earlier this month.

“What I want to hear from our commander in chief is that he has a strategy to finish ISIS off. To defeat ISIS,” Ryan said. “If we don’t deal with this threat now thoroughly and convincingly, it’s going to come home to roost.”

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also demanded Sunday that Obama expand his airstrike plan to Syria, so that ISIS will not have a base of operation, reports The Hill.

“There is no boundary between Syria and Iraq,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday,” telling host Chris Wallace that “one of the key decisions the president is going to have to make is air power in Syria. We cannot give them a base of operations. And we have got to help the Free Syrian Army.”

He said Foley’s killing would hopefully push the Obama administration to define its strategy not only for Iraq, but other parts of the world.

“This is an administration, which the kindest word I can use is ‘feckless,’ where they have not outlined a role that the United States has to play. And that is a leadership role,” he said. “No more ‘leading from behind,’ no more ‘don’t do stupid stuff,'” he added.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, now a CBS national security analyst, said the ISIS threat is “the most complex terrorism problem that I have ever seen,” but “there are no magic bullets,” CBS News reports.

“We have to take away their safe haven, their territory. That requires a political solution in Iraq, which is going to require us to continue to press the Iraqis to do the right thing, our Gulf Arab allies to press the Iraqis to do the right thing, Iran to press the Iraqis to do the right thing, and then we need to get a solution in Syria to take that territory away,” Morell said. “The other thing we need to do is take the leadership off the battlefield. We need to identify them through intelligence and then either capture or kill them.”

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Obama administration has “been watching this group for quite a long time.”

The White House has been “assessing its strength and working with partners on the ground, particularly in Syria, the moderate opposition, to help them develop capabilities to go against ISIS … we are actively looking at what other options we have, what other tools we can use now to try to degrade this terrorist group’s capability,” Harf said.

Meanwhile, House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that should Obama decided to expand the United States’ attacks against ISIS into Syria, he should consult with Congress. House here has been a call to expand the United States’ efforts against ISIS, and McCaul said that if President Barack Obama is considering that action, his administrations should be in consultation with Congress.

“So far, they have, under the War Powers Act,” said McCaul. “Once that period of time expires, we believe it’s necessary to come back to Congress to get additional authorities and to update, if you will, the authorized use of military force.”

Whatever Obama’s strategy is, McCaul said, the United States should not try to act alone when it comes to defeating ISIS, as “we have allies that can bring a lot of pressure.”

Meanwhile, the ISIS fight can’t be won with Obama’s containment plans.

“His administration, thus far, has only dealt with containment,” said McCaul. “We need to expand strikes to ultimately defeat ISIS. I would rather eliminate them there than in the United States.”

Washington Post correspondent Bob Woodward, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,”  said nobody knows just what Obama plans to do.

“One key point about Obama is he doesn’t like war, and he’s trying to avoid the next one,” said Woodward. “But let’s not kid ourselves. There’s an inconsistency here. I mean, Hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs have said — and [John] Kerry, the secretary of state, made it very clear, all options are on the table, and the president has said no boots on the ground.”

UK and US special forces form hunter killer unit to “smash the Islamic State”

August 25, 2014

UK and US special forces form hunter killer unit to “smash the Islamic State”

Robert Spencer Aug 25, 2014 at 7:42am

via UK and US special forces form hunter killer unit to “smash the Islamic State” : Jihad Watch.

 

 

This will be interesting. Will these forces actually do what they have to do to topple the Islamic State, or will they be hampered by impossible politically correct rules of engagement that hamstring their ability to do much of anything beyond act as a shooting gallery for local jihadis, as in Afghanistan?

And will Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. such as Hamas-linked CAIR that have issued vague and pro-forma denunciations of the Islamic State applaud this attempt to “smash” it, or will they start whining about the victimization of Iraqi civilians and disproportionate force?

“SAS and US special forces forming hunter killer unit to ‘smash Islamic State,’” by Aaron Sharp, Mirror, August 23, 2014:

Elite British and US special forces troops are forming a hunter killer unit called Task Force Black – its orders: “Smash the Islamic State.”

The undercover warriors will aim to “cut the head off the snake” by hitting the command structure of the Islamist terror group responsible for a trail of atrocities across Iraq and Syria, reports the Sunday People.

PM David Cameron has told the SAS and UK spy agencies to direct all their ­resources at defeating IS after a video of US journalist James Foley being beheaded shocked the world.

British special forces will work with America’s Delta Force and Seal Team 6. The move sees a rebirth of top secret Task Force Black, which helped defeat al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq .

This time the counter-terrorist ­experts will be targeting Abu Bakr ­al-Baghdadi, leader of IS and now the world’s most wanted terrorist.

A source said: “We need to go into Syria and Iraq and kill as many IS members as we can. You can’t ­negotiate with these people.

“This is not a war of choice. They are cash rich and have a plentiful ­supply of arms. If we don’t go after them, they will soon come after us.

“In Iraq, Task Force Black was carrying out strike operations every night.

“It was an unrelenting, intelligence-led assault on al-Qaeda. It took a lot of hard work and no small amount of sacrifice – but it worked.

“Defeating IS cannot be done by air strikes alone. You have to get on the ground and take out the commanders – cut off the snake’s head.

“The organisation will then begin to collapse. IS targets civilians and has yet to get into a real fight with a ­modern Western military.

“The SAS and US special forces will do untold damage to them.

“They’ll focus on the high command. This is going to be a long campaign, probably lasting years.

“And it will be like nothing the West has ever had to confront before.”

The new task force will comprise a squadron of the SAS, special forces aircrews from the RAF and agents from MI5 and MI6.

The operation will be led by America’s CIA spy agency….

Jihadi cancer thrives in London

August 25, 2014

Comment: Jihadi cancer thrives in London

By BEN CASPITLAST UPDATED: 08/25/2014 13:46

We’ve been told that if given welfare, education and comfortable lives that the bog of hatred from Islamic terror will dry, however in London this does not appear to be true.

via Comment: Jihadi cancer thrives in London | JPost | Israel News.

 

ISIS fighter Photo: REUTERS A Hummer at the background how comes ?

To British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond: I read what you wrote when you learned that “Jihadist John,” who decapitated American journalist James Foley, is London-born Majd Abed el-Bary, a British citizen.

According to you, Mr. Foreign Secretary, “sooner or later they will try to attack us on our own land” and you accused that same jihadist of “an utter betrayal of everything the British people stand for.” You added: “It is horrifying to think that the perpetrator of this heinous act could have been brought up in Britain.”

Tell me, Mr. Foreign Secretary, do you live in Britain? And if you do, are you deaf, blind and dumb? Because if you are not, I have to ask myself, what is it that so amazes and horrifies you? If you are indeed familiar with the UK, and take the occasional walk in London and try to walk through the neighborhoods and boroughs that Islamists have occupied in recent years, and try to understand what they are preaching to their congregations in those same mosques that are springing up like mushrooms after the rain, you really shouldn’t be surprised. Incidentally, Mr. Hammond, try doing it dressed like an Orthodox Jew.

I wonder if you’ll survive, and in what condition.

I don’t mean to mock you, Mr. Foreign Secretary, or the UK. Here in Israel we have enormous respect for Britain; because its leadership still knows how to discern between good and bad and I am sure that, in an anonymous poll, both Prime Minister David Cameron and yourself would vote for Israel in its war against Hamas. It would have to be anonymous because otherwise you are liable to pay too heavy a political price in your constituencies.

We can all count and we all know the number of Muslim citizens there are in the UK these days and how influential they are. Here in Israel there are quite a few staunch supporters of Britain; me included. We consider you to be among the more enlightened nations in the world. Not only were you a military and political empire, but you are also responsible for most of the cultural treasures, music, theater, art, innovation, humor and creativity known to man.

Only two months ago the Rolling Stones performed in Tel Aviv (it seems as if it was 20 years ago) and, despite the exorbitant price of tickets, they managed to draw an audience of 50,000 excited fans to Yarkon Park.

But, Mr. Foreign Secretary, the UK has not only cultural heroes, but a surplus of ordinary heroes.

We shall never forget that Britain was the first and only country to step up and look Hitler in the eye and not turn away; to fight Hitler against all odds and to beat him.

Then you had Winston Churchill, a highly admired leader to this day, even among the best of our own leaders. Britain has known strength, determination and survivability.

I wonder if you still have those traits, Mr. Hammond? I refer mainly to survivability. I am not sure.

Medically, there are still signs of life. What then are your chances of surviving the Islamic tsunami and preserving your culture, your character, your personality? I don’t know.

Your spirit lives, still, here and there. For example, a few weeks ago Hamas rockets threatened our international airport and caused panic that resulted in many airlines (led by the US, oddly enough) to cancel flights to and from Israel. It lasted a day-and-ahalf, until everyone realized that Ben-Gurion Airport is the safest in the world.

But in that time, British Airways proved that it is made of the same stern stuff as before and continued flying, did not delay or cancel a single flight, and rightly so. We salute them.

We visit London frequently, Mr. Hammond. Nothing beats British football, nothing like British music, theater, art, humor or the British spirit.

But these visits are becoming increasingly hard. Your streets have changed. You don’t need to be much of a researcher to know how dangerous the penetration of radical Islam is to Europe’s capitals; how overbearing Islam can be; how alien it is to tolerance, to acceptance of the other, to integrate into the existing culture.

Thirty minutes of surfing the Internet, Mr. Foreign Secretary, will reveal to you the horrifying worlds that are flourishing in your backyard.

You’ll see religious preachers, seeped in hatred for everything Western, for everything Jewish, for everything Christian, for everything that does not identify with them.

You’ll see fury in the streets, violence toward everyone who comes to demand the freedom to live as they wish. I especially recommend a video of an ostensibly moderate Muslim preaching his creed to a congregation of seemingly moderate Muslims and, after they have all finished defining themselves “moderate Muslims” he asks all those who support the Islamic laws of punishment – in which women are stoned to death for adultery, for example – to raise their arms. All the hundreds of men present raise their arms as one. And these are moderates.

For decades, we have been told that Islamic terror is the result of ignorance and poverty. Give them welfare, education, comfortable lives and you’ll dry the bog of hatred. Well, that’s not quite true. The al-Qaida terrorists who attacked America 13 years ago were immigrants who enjoyed very comfortable lives in the American democracy. Your own British citizen, Mr. Hammond, who beheaded the American journalist, came from an elegant Maida Vale home and a life of comfort.

It is hate, Philip, and nothing else; education to hate, to hate the other, to intolerance, to a thirst for blood and murder. And here we come to our mutual interests, Mr. Foreign Secretary.

Soon you will understand, for good or for bad, that Israel is not a burden on the West. Israel is not stuck here like a bone in a Muslim throat. Getting rid of Israel will solve nothing. I think you may have already understood that. All you need do is listen to radical Islam. It talks; sometimes in English. It is exact; it is accurate.

It declares and reiterates its real objective – to annihilate the West. To annihilate the infidels.

Not only in Syria, or Iraq, or the Middle East, but everywhere.

There is no need to chart the map of extremism and distinguish between Hamas and Islamic State, for example. They are arms of the same octopus. For 14 years, Hamas has been shooting rockets on women and children, even after Israel withdrew unilaterally from every last inch of the Gaza Strip. Why? Because they want to drive us out of here. How do I know this? They say so every day, explicitly, repeatedly.

So why is the world silent? Good question, Mr. Hammond.

You know that one day your own jihadists will come back home, don’t you? And it’s time to start doing something, isn’t it? To say something. Maybe, next time an incited mob demonstrates in the streets of London and calls for “Murder to Israel,” some brave British politician will stand up and tell these people the truth, in his voice, in his language.

Or, alternatively, imagine, Mr. Hammond, what would have happened if the next generation of Hitler’s murder machine had grown up in your own country, in your London?

DUNETZ: Obama’s Strategy For Fighting Terrorism: ‘Except When The Terrorists Are Targeting Jews’

August 23, 2014

DUNETZ: Obama’s Strategy For Fighting Terrorism: ‘Except When The Terrorists Are Targeting Jews

8.22.2014 Commentary Jeff Dunetz

via DUNETZ: Obama’s Strategy For Fighting Terrorism: ‘Except When The Terrorists Are Targeting Jews’ | Truth Revolt.

 

 

he pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are confused about President Obama’s strategy for fighting terrorism. He seems to say one thing and then a few days later orate something quite different. Ye his recent actions have made his strategy clear. As a service to readers of TruthRevolt and the political punditry of America, we will explain Obama’s terrorism-fighting strategy, which in his administration seems to be outspoken “except when the terrorists are targeting Jews.”

This is how it works.

While talking about ISIS and the murder of Jim Foley on Wednesday, President Obama said:

They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

A few hours after Obama’s speech, Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu gave one of his own, accurately explaining that Hamas is guilty of the same horrific acts as ISIS.

Hamas is ISIS. ISIS is Hamas. They’re the enemies of peace, they’re the enemies of Israel, they’re the enemies of all civilized countries, and I believe they’re the enemies of the Palestinians themselves.

Netanyahu explained that the Foley beheading “shows you the barbarism, the savagery of these people,” He added:

We face the same savagery. People who wantonly rocket our cities and conduct mass killings, and when they can, they murder children, teenagers, shoot them in the head, throw people from the sixth floor, their own people, and use their people as human shields.

During the daily State Department briefing that same day, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf was asked about Netanyahu’s comparison. Harf refused to concede that the two terrorist groups were similar.

I think by definition, they are two different groups. They have different leadership, and I’m not going to compare them in that way. I’ll let him [Netanyahu] speak for himself, but I’m not going to use that comparison.

Why would the Obama administration refuse to accept the Netanyahu comparison? There is one major difference between ISIS and Hamas. As the President said above, ISIS attacks people of all religions including their own. On the other hand, Hamas’ primary target is the Jewish people. Their stated objective is killing all of the Jews in Israel and once that is done, killing all of the Jews in the rest of the world.

Civilian casualties are another example of the “Except when the terrorists are targeting Jews” strategy.

Since the start of the Gaza war, President Obama has constantly attacked Israel for the tragedy of civilian casualties despite the fact that Israel goes even further than the U.S. to avoid civilian casualties and that Hamas uses its population as human shields.

During an interview with the New Yorker this past January, Obama told David Remnick that he “wrestle[s]” with civilian casualties. But he also said he has

“a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans — killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American blowing up American planes. That’s not speculation. It’s their explicit agenda.”

Why would Obama go out of his way to criticize this country’s number one ally in the Middle East about civilian casualties when he knows that Hamas puts non-combatants in the line of fire and the lengths Israel goes to avoid killing civilians? That’s because the President believes Netanyahu’s “solemn duty and responsibility” to keep his citizens safe is different than Obama’s. Each of the countries has pluralistic societies recognizing the freedom of its people, but only one of them is comprised mostly of Jews.

Obama believes the civilized world should weed out and fight terrorism wherever they may find it, except, of course, if the terrorists are targeting Jews.

During that same Wednesday speech the President said:

From governments and peoples across the Middle East there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer, so that it does not spread. There has to be a clear rejection of these kind of nihilistic ideologies. One thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century.

Since the start of the Gaza operation, Obama has allowed Israel to go only so far in trying to destroy Hamas before demanding a cease-fire. Contrary to America’s ally Israel, Obama’s strategy is to bring Hamas to the negotiating table as opposed to extracting “this cancer, so that it does not spread.”

Why is Obama’s goal to eradicate ISIS but only to bring Hamas to the bargaining table? There can be only one answer, as there is only one difference between the two terrorist groups: unlike ISIS which targets everyone, Hamas’ primary target is the Jews, not only in Israel, but in America, and indeed across the world.

Talking heads on both sides of the aisle have declared their consternation about President Obama’s strategy for fighting terrorism. It’s quite easy to understand when one realizes there is one rule for the terrorists who want to kill the Jews and a different rule for the terrorists who target a broader range of people.

Gen. Dempsey: ISIS Cannot be Defeated Without Going Into Syria

August 22, 2014

Gen. Dempsey: ISIS Cannot be Defeated Without Going Into Syria

Friday, 22 Aug 2014 08:38 AM

By Melissa Clyne

via Gen. Dempsey: ISIS Cannot be Defeated Without Going Into Syria.

 

And for hamas  is it different ?

 

Without confronting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inside Syria, the United States cannot defeat the militant terror organization that recently beheaded kidnapped American journalist James Foley,  says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said Dempsey, who spoke alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at press conference, according to the New York Times.

“Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Thus far, President Barack Obama has restricted airstrikes and military action to Iraq but there are growing concerns about ISIS’ ability to maintain a safe haven inside Syria, which borders Iraq. And the calls to act against ISIS militarily are growing.

Hagel indicated that strategy could be changing course, saying the administration is “looking at all options” concerning airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria.

Dempsey characterized the border between Iraq and Syria as “nonexistent” and noted that that the battle to root ISIS out will be a lengthy one that must be fought by “a coalition in the region,” according to the Associated Press.

“ISIS will only truly be defeated when it’s rejected by the 20 million disenfranchised Sunni that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad,” Dempsey said.

With the use of captured American equipment, including Humvees, at least one heavily armored troop transport vehicle, and 20 Russian tanks in Syria, ISIS is well-equipped to wreak havoc on the region, according to the Times. The group, an offshoot of al-Qaida, is operating with a “decentralized command and control,” and has the ability to seamlessly replenish its ranking members with experienced militants, according to the Times.

“They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess,” Hagel said. “…This is beyond anything we have seen, and we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely hard look at it and get ready.”

“If there is anything (ISIS) has learned from its previous iterations as al-Qaida in Iraq, it is that they need succession plans because losing leaders to counterterrorism operations is to be expected,” an intelligence official told the Times. “Their command and control is quite flexible as a result.”

Obama may have to authorize an expanded military action against, ISIS, the Associated Press reported.

The president may continue helping Iraqi forces try to reverse the group’s land grabs in northern Iraq by providing more arms and American military advisers and by using U.S. warplanes to support Iraqi ground operations.

But what if the militants pull back, even partially, into Syria and regroup, as Hagel on Thursday predicted they would, followed by a renewed offensive?

“In a sense, you’re just sort of back to where you were” before they swept into Iraq, said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who quit in February in disillusionment over Obama’s unwillingness to arm moderate Syrian rebels.

“I don’t see how you can contain the Islamic State over the medium term if you don’t address their base of operations in Syria,” he said in an interview before an intensified round of U.S. airstrikes this week helped Kurdish and Iraqi forces recapture a Tigris River dam near Mosul that had fallen under control of Islamic State militants.

On the other hand, Obama has been leery of getting drawn into the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011.

More immediately perhaps, Obama faces choices in Iraq, whose sectarian divisions and political dysfunction created the opening that allowed Islamic State fighters to sweep across northern Iraq in June almost unopposed. They captured U.S.-supplied weapons that Iraqi forces left behind when they fled without a fight.

Among his options:

—Sending more troops to Baghdad to strengthen security for the U.S. Embassy, as requested by the State Department. Officials said the number under consideration is fewer than 300. They would be in addition to the several hundred U.S. troops already in the capital to help protect U.S. facilities and personnel.

—Speeding up the arming of Iraqi and Kurdish forces. The administration has been supplying Iraqi government forces with Hellfire missiles, small arms and ammunition, but critics say the pace has been too slow. The administration has been reluctant to openly arm the Kurds, since their militia, known as the peshmerga, is a semi-autonomous force seen in Baghdad as a threat to central government authority.

—Increasing the number and expanding the role of the dozens of U.S. military advisers who are in Baghdad and the Kurdish capital of Irbil to coordinate with Iraqi forces. They could be given more direct roles in assisting the Iraqis on the ground by embedding with Iraqi or Kurdish units in the field or scouting targets for U.S. airstrikes.

—Committing U.S. ground troops in Iraq. Obama has said repeatedly he would not do this. “We’re not the Iraqi military. We’re not even the Iraqi air force,” Obama said Monday. “I am the commander in chief of the United States armed forces, and Iraq is going to have to ultimately provide for its own security.”

—Extending the Iraq air campaign to Islamic State targets in Syria. Stretches of eastern Syria are a sanctuary for the group, also known by the acronyms ISIL or ISIS. The U.S. has warplanes available in the Middle East and Europe that could vastly increase the number and intensity of strikes in eastern Syria if Obama chose.

At a Pentagon news conference Thursday, Hagel appeared to leave the door open to extending U.S. strikes into Syria.

“We’re looking at all options,” he said when asked whether airstrikes inside Syria were a possibility.

This is hardly the first time Obama has faced options for military action in Syria.

The White House on Wednesday disclosed that Obama authorized a covert mission this summer to rescue American hostages in Syria, including journalist James Foley. The mission failed because the hostages had been moved before the rescuers arrived, officials said. On Tuesday, the militants released a video showing the beheading of Foley and threatened to kill a second hostage if U.S. airstrikes in Iraq continued.

A year ago, Obama put on hold a plan to attack Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons, arguing that he would not act until Congress had a chance to vote on the use of military force. The vote never came, however, because the government of President Bashar Assad accepted a U.S.-Russian brokered deal to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

U.S. Has Not Expressed Concerns Over Hamas Leader in Turkey

August 21, 2014

U.S. Has Not Expressed Concerns Over Hamas Leader in Turkey

Turkish official says no ‘concerns’ expressed to Turkey following Hamas coup plot

BY:

August 20, 2014 5:00 am

via U.S. Has Not Expressed Concerns Over Hamas Leader in Turkey | Washington Free Beacon.

 

AP
 

he Obama administration has not expressed to Turkey any concerns over recent reports indicating that a senior Hamas operative operating in Turkey had been implicated in a coup plot to overthrow the Palestinian government in the West Bank and wage war on Israel, according to a Turkish official.

The State Department on Monday defended new missile sales to Turkey just hours after news emerged that Ankara is hosting a senior Hamas operative who Israel accused of hatching a plan to violently overthrow the Palestinian Fatah government in the West Bank.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf did not respond yesterday to Free Beacon requests for comment on whether the Obama administration had related any concerns to Ankara over its reported sheltering of Hamas official Saleh Al-Arouri, who is said to have been responsible for planning the kidnapping of three Israeli teens who were killed by Hamas.

A Turkish official confirmed to the Free Beacon late Tuesday that the Obama administration has not reached out to express concerns over the reports about the alleged coup and rejected allegations that Turkey may be aiding Al-Arouri.

“Turkey strongly condemns and rejects such allegations. As a matter of fact Turkey’s strong support to the National Unity Government in Palestine and to the President [Mahmoud] Abbas himself is self-explanatory and refutes such accusations,” the official said.

The Turkish official further noted that “U.S. authorities are well aware” of Turkey’s support for Abbas and his government.

“Since U.S. authorities are well aware of Turkey’s aforementioned position, there has been no such concern [expressed by the Obama administration] as you mention in your email which has been conveyed to the Turkish side,” the official said.

Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also addressed the controversy in a statement issued Tuesday in Turkish.

“Turkey is at the top of the list of countries that have supported the Palestinian reconciliation” between Hamas and Fatah, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said in the statement, which was translated for the Free Beacon by Merve Tahiroglu, a research associate for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). “In this regard, our country has welcomed and supported the Palestinian unity government that was formed on June 2.”

Turkey views this unity government as “an indispensible element” for peace in the region and “the welfare of the Palestinian people,” the statement adds.

Turkey maintains that is has not “overlooked any attempts to overthrow the Palestinian national unity government,” according to the statement. “We strongly reject and condemn such slander. Turkey’s close contact and strong cooperation with the Palestinian administration will, just as it has been in the past, continue with determination in the future.”

A heated back-and-forth between reporters and Harf broke out at the State Department’s daily briefing on Monday and Tuesday when questions emerged about why the administration is going through with the transfer of U.S. missiles to Turkey while simultaneously holding up similar weapons shipments to Israel.

Harf again on Tuesday ducked questions by reporters asking if the U.S. government had conveyed concerns to Turkey over the plot.

“Do you have any concerns at all about the apparent role of Turkey in this?” AP reporter Matt Lee asked Harf.

“I don’t have any more details on this, Matt. I’m happy to check with our team,” Harf responded.

“Okay. Because I did ask this yesterday. You weren’t aware of the incident, but … now, the Israelis say that this is all being planned and funded from Turkish territory,” Lee followd up.

“Well, as I said, I think it involves some Hamas militants and cash, but let me check on that piece of it. I certainly have nothing to confirm that,” Harf told Lee.

“I’m most curious to know if you guys are planning to raise any concerns with the—I don’t know, maybe you don’t have any concerns … if you’ll raise them with the Turks,” Lee responded.

Harf responded that she would “check on that.”

Harf maintained on Monday that the Turkish and Israeli arms shipments are completely separate matters.

“Turkey is also a NATO ally,” she told reporters. “So for all of us who are—talk a lot about the importance of the NATO alliance, particularly when it comes to Russia and Ukraine and what’s happening there, we think it’s important to provide our NATO allies with resources. We think that’s an important use of our resources. The two [cases] aren’t comparable, but those are the facts behind them, I would say.”

Additionally, Harf could not explain to reporters the exact process taking place behind the scenes regarding the hold up in Israeli arms shipments.

“I don’t know how the process specifically works in that granularity,” she said, when faced with questions about who in the government holds veto power over the arms shipments.

When asked later in the briefing to comment on reports about the Turkey-backed Hamas coup, Harf could not provide much information.

“I don’t have anything to confirm those [reports],” she said. “I hadn’t heard about that otherwise. I can check,” she told reporters.