How ISIS Plans to Destroy Israel

Screen-Shot-2015-04-16-at-8.03.04-PMPJ Media, By Bridget Johnson,April 16, 2015:

The Islamic State laid out its plans for carving a path to Israel and overcoming the Jewish state’s defenses, from working with establish jihadists in the region to hoping for impassioned geeky converts like Edward Snowden.

The new 150-page book distributed on file sharing sites this week follows other titles in the ISIS series including an e-book on how the jihadists plan to sack Rome.

The title has been expected for months, and declares that the “beginning of the end of Israel” will happen in 2022 — two years after they plan to take Rome.

“Many Christians have been misguided by their priests over the centuries into thinking that if they do not support the Jewish people – blindly, they will earn the wrath of Allah (God),” the book states. “This increases the support group of the Jewish State of Israel even more in the world.” Repeating centuries of blood libel, the book questions why modern Judaism is “imitating the Satanic culture.” The Star of David is referred to as “a symbol of sorcery.”

It cites the hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as source material as the writer gives the ISIS version of Jewish history and aims. Their summary of the Holocaust: “Then World War 2 would begin, some Jews would be put in concentration camps by Germany, only for the survivors to be rewarded with Palestine (why not Germany?) as compensation. No questions were asked.”

The book argues that the names Palestine or Jerusalem aren’t important, but “what matters is the moral nature of the people ruling such a blessed place.”

“If they are righteous believers, then they make the people living under them good and righteous in this holy land, but if they are not righteous and cause corruption in this holy land – then that makes them Allah (God)’s enemy. Allah will purify this land from corrupt people, even if they were God’s chosen people.”

It goes through the Palestinian militant movements over the years, calling the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) “a Communist movement who didn’t really care about Islamic teachings.”

The state of Israel is compared to “Florida in America… packed with sunshine, shopping malls, clubs and beaches” and is called “like GTA Vice city more than the chosen land for God’s chosen people,” referring to the video game Grand Theft Auto. “Israel is the country most similar to America in the Middle Eastern world. It is filled with crimes; murder, drugs, corruption, and even adultery and homosexuality is widespread within this holy land. People within Israel live a life of hedonism and materialism, and the whole system from the top to bottom is run on bribery, blackmail and favours.”

The book talks about Israel’s intelligence apparatus, claiming that they control Facebook and Twitter and that “any intelligence” the National Security Agency collects is “directly forwarded” to Israel. It swears that Israel’s public relations strategy is based on “the dark arts of black magic,” much like “a fake kebab burger made out of soya,” including using magic to jam the weapons of mujahedin.

Jihadists are encouraged to learn Krav Maga to better fight an Israeli soldier in hand-to-hand combat, and are advised to recite certain Quranic verses to protect themselves from “black magic.” They’re also told to exploit Jews’ “strong hatred towards each other” and fear of “life and also death.”

And while the PLO is viewed as weak, Hamas gets props as “an organisation whose goal is to liberate Palestine entirely and to leave no trace of Israel on the map.” However, ISIS stresses that they and al-Qaeda disagree with Hamas participating in elections because “democracy is shirk (polytheism).” The book labels this a “difference in politics” that has led to fights between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda/ISIS, but lauds Hamas for transitioning Palestinian women from jeans and uncovered hair to “modest clothing” and hijab.

“From rocks, slingshots and Molotov’s in the 1st Intifada, to guns and martyrdom operations in the 2nd Intifada, and now an Islamic army firing rockets at Israel!”

The book credits the June 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli youths — Naftali Fraenkel, 16, Gilad Shaer, 16, and Eyal Yifrah, 19 — to “Palestinians’ who had loyalty to the Islamic State.” Two Hamas suspects, Marwan Kawasmeh and Amar Abu-Isa, were killed in a shootout three months later.

ISIS calls the Hamas-Israel battles, from the use of Qassam rockets to underground tunnels, “a testing ground for the Mujahideen” and Hezbollah’s 2006 Katyusha rocket barrage “a perfect war model.” Palestinians will “explode” like in previous intifadas, they predict, but “much more violently, because in the coming future they will all be seeking martyrdom.” They argue that since Israelis have compulsory military service, every civilian is a legitimate target.

“Hamas’s military arm, the Izzadeen Qassam Brigades, have men (Muraabiteen) who are guarding the frontlines all the time. There are also other armed groups in Gaza such as the Iranian backed al-Jihadi Islami (‘the Islamic Jihad), and Majlis al-Shura (a group allied to the Islamic State). They fire rockets into Israel, sometimes even without the permission of the governing Hamas, which causes Hamas to have some bitterness against them when it makes a ceasefire with Israel.” It says that some members of Hamas, upset with Shiite Iran’s backing of the terror group, “have decided to shift their loyalty to the Islamic State.”

The book notes debates in Europe over whether to continue to brand Hamas as a terrorist organization, arguing that by granting Hamas some legitimacy they’re hoping the group will beat back any ISIS forces who try to use the Gaza Strip as a base for attacks on Israel. “Hamas-ruled Palestine will now be a buffer zone, guarding Israel from the advance of the Islamic State fighters. This is the power of global politics. Allah is replacing Hamas leadership with another people who are more sincere, and who will rely on Him more, who do not fear the blame of the blamers. Many fighters from Izz al-Deen Qassam Brigades have realised this reality and are now leaving Hamas, and instead joining the Islamic State fighters in Palestine.”

It suggests using “open-source technology” such as 3-D printers and reverse engineering to mass produce replicas of captured Israeli weapons.

ISIS pegs the year 2022 as the “beginning of the end” for Israel because of late Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s quote in 1982 during the war with Lebanon about a “historic period of peace for Israel” — “and the land was quiet for forty years.” In addition to citing a Jew for their apocalyptic prophesy, this ISIS book gives some wiggle room on the 2020 timing for the fall of Rome — “Allah only knows best.”

The e-book cites not only Hamas conversions as key to taking Israel, but ISIS forces battling Egypt in the Sinai and “growing” ISIS cells within Israel.

It called the ISIS and al-Qaeda goal “smashing borders till we meet in Jerusalem” like some jihadi A-Team “so Muslim Mujahideen (fighters) can call each other for backup from anywhere in the world, and there is no border or king to stop them.”

“The Islamic State is trying to break all borders till it can make a corridor pathway into Palestine towards Israel… The Zionists are aware of the Islamic State’s expansionist project, so they are ensuring they always have a ‘buffer wall’ infront of them as a barrier to protect themself from attacks. So the Arab king of Jordan is told by Israel that if you do not fight the Islamic State, then your kingdom will fall to the Islamic State. This then makes the Arab armies fight the Islamic State instead of Israel. Someone might ask, why doesn’t the Islamic State just negotiate with the Arab kings and make an alliance against Israel? The answer is these puppet Arab kings have been the greatest traitors to the Islamic cause for the entire past century (since the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924). The Mujahideen have tried to negotiate with them in the past but were locked up and tortured instead. These Arab puppet kings cannot be negotiated with.”

Hamas, meanwhile, “remains ineffective in the overall picture of liberating the entire Muslim world from Zionist subjugation.” ISIS says it will carve its “corridor” to Israel, “train and arm all the Palestinians, and take the fight deep into Israel.”

“If Israel destroys this batch of fighters, it doesn’t matter; the corridor allows even more reinforcements of Mujahideen from different parts of the Muslim world to continue the fight.” ISIS claims it is “making allegiances with other Jihadi groups surrounding Israel to make wide corridors of Jihad towards Israel from every side.” Plus, they plan to have a northern pathway into Israel after defeating Lebanon, “which is the Islamic State’s first goal.”

“It is important to note that Hamas continued to remain victorious in its battles against Israel even though it was the poorest nation in the world against the richest (Israel), so imagine the Islamic State with an unlimited amount of fighters without any borders or barriers to stop their influx of fighters and weapons?”

ISIS claims it can cause “information overload” in Israel’s intelligence services by simply having too many fighters “using different creative techniques in their irregular/assymetric types of warfare.”

“There simply won’t be enough manpower for Israelis’ to devise a plan to counter every strategy used by the Mujahideen … Even if Israel has an ‘unlimited’ amount of money, the mere fact that it has an enemy who is coming on the attack from all sides, all the time will itself exhaust it and keep it in a state of constant fear. As a result of this frustration, Israel will resort to mass bombardment and carpet bombing of the entire Muslim world to end the global Jihad, but it will not be able to end the Jihad in its entirety.” Their strategy counts on all Muslims having become mujahedin by this point. “If they target hundreds of Mujahideen, there are bound to be a few who will be able to make an ingenius plan based to evade man-made machines, and to slip into the capital of Israel to cause damage.”

And they’re not just counting on jihadist help: “Good, honest people (like Edward Snowden) who are willing to sacrifice the comforts of life for something greater will most likely be the type of converts who will join the guided Islamic cause.”

“The freedom fighters and truth seekers in Europe will range from left wingers, to even right wingers and those in between. They will be able to see the open mindedness and mercy of Islam and the Mujahideen after many years of deception on the media. They will be like the early converts after the Conquest of Makkah, meaning – they will join the Jihad straightaway after accepting Islam. They will be a good replenishment for the losses Muslims have faced in the Armageddon (Malhamah),” the book continues. “It’s important to note that during this time period, Christianity and the Pope in the Vatican will be fully engulfed by the Zionist system, and many truth-seekers from the Christians will look into Islam.”

Tech geeks will be among the converts, ISIS predicts, helping the Islamic State in the cyber battle.

“If the world is shocked at the Islamic State’s ‘world class expertise’ in ground IED’s, then wait till they make Drone IED’s filled with explosives.” ISIS has released drone images over the past week of support operations as jihadists move in on Ramadi, Iraq.

The book states that the final showdown with the Antichrist, with the Mahdi at the side of the mujahedin, will be at Ben Gurion International Airport — the “Gate of Lod” — where they’ll hunker down and wait for Christ to arrive.

ISIS appears ready to announce expansion to Gaza

isis-flag (1)WND, by Aaron Klein, April 16, 2015:

TEL AVIV – Internet forums and group chatter among ISIS supporters indicate the brutal jihadist organization is debating when to declare the Gaza Strip part of its expansive caliphate, WND has learned.

Informed Middle Eastern security officials said Hamas has been preparing a major crackdown on Salafist cells supportive of ISIS ideology, fearing the group could indeed make such a declaration of control over Gaza.

The officials further said Hamas has been trying to bribe Salafist ideologues away from ISIS by providing them with salaries while integrating them among the ranks of Hamas’ salaried security forces.

Asked by WND for comment on the report, Mushir al Masri, a member of Hamas’ parliament and a media spokesman for the group, denied ISIS was even present in the Gaza Strip.

“This is not the first time Israeli and Western media tried to pit us against ISIS. There is no truth to these claims, and ISIS is not in the Gaza Strip,” he said.

Masri further clarified that “anyone caught breaking the law will be dealt with just like all lawbreakers according to the criminal justice system in Gaza.”

However, just last week Hamas reportedly arrested a prominent ISIS-aligned preacher from Gaza after the terrorist group went on a rampage earlier in a Palestinian camp in Syria.

ISIS last month took control for a time of the Yarmouk camp in Syria, home to one of the largest Palestinian camps outside of Gaza. The group took responsibility for beheading several Palestinian men in the camp and reportedly raped some of the women there.

This week, in an apparent attempt to gain sympathy with the Gazan population, ISIS supporters reportedly gave away Israeli-made space heaters adorned with ISIS logos. ISIS supporters also have been giving other so-called charity to Gaza’s Palestinian population.

According to informed Middle Eastern security officials, Israel is so concerned about the prospect of ISIS rising in Gaza that the Jewish state has helped to step up the transport of civilian goods into the territory. Israel fears a shortage could provoke a discontented population to turn closer to ISIS, which has been trying to endear itself to Gazans with numerous Islamic charity initiatives.

Last July, WND reported an attempt by jihadist organizations in the Gaza Strip to unite under the common ISIS banner. Contacted by WND at the time, Abu Saqer, one of the leaders of Jihadiya Salafiya, which represents al-Qaida ideology in the Gaza Strip, confirmed the attempt to organize various jihad groups to fight Israel under the ISIS umbrella.

Sinai to Gaza

Any ISIS gains in Gaza would pose a major threat to both Israel and neighboring Egypt.

The moderate regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has been fighting an ISIS and Salafist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula and beyond. The jihadists seek to connect the Sinai with the Gaza Strip to form one big territory.

ISIS allies took responsibility for a roadside bomb attack on an armored vehicle in Egypt’s northern Sinai that killed six Egyptian soldiers last Sunday.

Also over the weekend, a group formerly known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, now fighting under the ISIS banner, released a video that featured the graphic killing of an Egyptian soldier captured April 2 in the northern Sinai.

In December, WND reported Egypt arrested dozens of foreign jihadists in the Sinai Peninsula, stoking fears ISIS militants were seeking to open a new front.

In February, WND was first to report that thousands of foreign jihadists were attempting to infiltrate Egypt, with plans of a coming destabilization campaign akin to the insurgency in Syria, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

The officials warned at the time of a troubling development taking place among the al-Qaida-linked organizations already inside Egypt. They said there is information the militant groups are forming a de facto chain of command, with alarming coordination between the various jihadist factions embedded around the country.

The terrorist infrastructure is being set up beyond the Islamist stronghold of the Sinai Peninsula. The officials said al-Qaida-linked groups in Egypt have been forming divisions replete with leadership and assignments to specific territories, including in the Sinai, Suez regions, outside Cairo and along the delta.

Sisi has appealed to the Obama administration and international community for help in battling the insurgency.

In a Fox News interview last month, Sisi appealed for an increase in U.S. military aid.

“It is very important for the United States to understand that our need for the weapons and for the equipment is dire, especially at the time when the Egyptians feel they are fighting terrorism and they would like to feel the United States is standing by them in that fight against terrorism,” he said.

Russian System Should Be Treated As Part of Iran’s Nuke Program

S-300 anti-aircraft missile system at the Victory Parade, Red Square, 9 May 2009. (Wiki Commons / www.kremlin.ru)

S-300 anti-aircraft missile system at the Victory Parade, Red Square, 9 May 2009. (Wiki Commons / http://www.kremlin.ru)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, April 15, 2015:

The U.S., Germany and Israel condemned Russia’s announcement that it will change course and sell the advanced S-300 air and missile defense system to Iran. Anonymous officials are relaying feelings of near panic to various press outlets, saying the delivery of the system would essentially eliminate the military option to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Russia repeatedly threatened to sell the system to Iran and Syria since 2007 but relented under Western pressure. The Iranian regime even sued Russia for $4 billion for going back on its agreement to deliver the system. Russia’s formal announcement and request that Iran drop the lawsuit indicates Moscow is genuine in its stated intention to deliver the system.

The Russians will reportedly be paid $800 million by Iran for the system. Its advanced abilities include targeting 24 missiles or 30 aircraft simultaneously; a reach of 19 miles into the air and a distance of 155 miles. It can intercept aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Russia has already trained Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps personnel in how to use it.

Earlier, Israel strongly suggested delivery of the S-300 system to Syria was a red line and it would be attacked before it became operational. It is widely assumed the same standard would apply to Iran because a potential strike on its nuclear program is already a very complicated and hazardous scenario.

The Daily Beast’s headline declares the system “could make U.S. attacks on Iran nearly impossible.” If the system terrifies U.S. officials, then the fear of Israeli officials must be exponentially greater because of their government’s more limited military capabilities.

“[The S-300 is] a complete game changer for all fourth-gen[eration] aircraft. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it,” a senior Marine Corps aviator told the publication.

A senior Air Force commander said it “essentially makes Iran attack-proof by Israel and almost any country” without fifth-generation aircraft like the F-35. The U.S. has sold the F-35 to Israel but those aircraft may not be able to destroy important targets buried deep underground like the Fordow site.

Read more

***

Kyle Shideler on Fox News: Could Russia arms deal with Iran impact nuclear talks?

***

Also see:

The Greatest Threat to Our National Security

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, April 10, 2015:

When President-elect Obama declared that he was going to “fundamentally transform” America, not many Americans understood what that meant. They certainly did not understand that he did not believe in America’s exceptionalism and greatness. They were also unaware of his past Marxist indoctrination, blaming America for many of the world’s problems. Therefore, anything that undercuts and withdraws America’s power and influence is seen as being objectively progressive. This is fundamental to understanding why President Obama shows empathy with American’s enemies, e.g., Iran, Cuba, Russia, and China.

It is also key to understanding our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, as well as the loss of our influence in the region with the rise of Islam. President Obama apparently shares the view that the colonial powers unjustifiably suppressed Islam for the better part of two centuries. Therefore, the best way to rectify that situation is to withdraw the U.S. and let Islam rise again. Of course, this actually started under the Carter administration with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism when the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Complicating the current Mid-East chaos is the fact that the administration has great difficulty in identifying the enemy. The President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said it best, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Make no mistake – ISIS is Islam. The barbarism and atrocities they commit are sanctioned by the Quran and Islam’s Shariah law. We must face facts, ISIS is impervious to any rational dialogue. They must be killed into submission.

As I have previously stated, symbols matter throughout the world, but no more so than in the Middle East. When President Obama delivered his June 4, 2009 Cairo “Outreach to Muslims” speech, with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood leadership sitting in the front row, and declared that it was part of his responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear – that said it all!

Furthermore, there should have been no doubt remaining after his September 2012 UN General Assembly speech when he stated in reference to the Benghazi tragedy, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Islam.” No matter how many excuses President Obama makes for Islam and Muslim sensitivities, freedom of speech for the civilized world will not be silenced.

In yet another indication, the Obama Administration continues to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood even though their creed is to destroy the United States from within (silent jihad) by our own hands and substitute our Constitution with Islam’s Shariah law. The Muslim Brotherhood have been able to successfully penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. They are now institutionalized. Their impact on our policies cannot be overstated.

The Kabuki dance just completed in Switzerland produced a “framework” of “understandings” which is supposed to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons program is already being disputed by Iran. Of course, this is to be expected with no agreed upon text.

According to Fred Fleitz of the Center For Security Policy, the framework as now understood legitimizes and actually advances Iran’s uranium-enrichment program. All the core elements of Iran’s program remain in place. They do not have to dismantle anything and be allowed to keep their heavily fortified Fordow underground enrichment facilities — a major, unbelievable, concession by the United States. In effect, we have rewarded Iran for ignoring (plus lying and cheating) UN Security Council resolutions for a decade. They do not have to destroy any of their ICBMs nor stop their aggression throughout the Middle East. More importantly, the Obama administration has dismissed the fact that the Iranian government has caused the loss of life of thousands of Americans. At the end of the day, there is only one option that guarantees Iran will not achieve a nuclear weapon capability, and that is a military strike.

To show their disdain for President Obama, an Iranian spokesperson stated that the destruction of Israel is “non-negotiable.” So much for the two state peace process! Of course, death to America is a recurring theme.

The Middle East is not the only place our influence is being challenged. We are being challenged by China in the Western Pacific. In Europe, we are standing idly by as NATO is being emasculated by Putin’s aggression in the Ukraine. Many believe the “reset button” with Russia has failed. Actually, it is working quite well – for Russia.

The Obama administration has allowed the KGB thug Putin to conduct a policy of aggression in the Ukraine unopposed. President Obama’s refusal to provide legitimate defensive military equipment to Kiev appears to be part of the reset button “understanding.” It is the same understanding that applies to the withdrawal of our commitment to place anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Furthermore, President Obama’s refusal to meet with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (during his 3 days visit to Washington) was another signal to Putin.

There is no doubt our influence and status as a great power and reliable ally is being challenged. Our enemies don’t fear us and our allies don’t trust us – a formula for disaster. President Obama’s refusal to call for a reformation of Islam, plus his empathy with our enemies, combined with our unilateral disarmament, place our national security in jeopardy. The greatest threat to our national security today clearly is the Obama administration policies, which must be reversed. Americans must stand up and demand that Congress act now.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Former Israeli Amb. Compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain, Says “US is Deteriorating Relationship w/Israel” (VIDEO)

The Gateway Pundit, by Jim Hoft, April 10, 2015:

Former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain

The Obama White House mocked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday on Twitter over his Iranian nuclear concerns.
Notice the picture of the bomb in the White House tweet.

WH tweet

The Obama administration used the same bomb picture that Benjamin Netanyahu used in his speech at the United Nations in September 2012.

OB-UT309_0927bo_G_20120927143341

Today former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman responded to this latest insult to Israel.
Gillerman told FOX:

I think this is a very ominous message. The president has been all over the place trying to explain the deal with Iran, trying to sell the deal with Iran. I think he’s being a terrible salesman. I think by the White House doing this they are deteriorating the relationship between the United States and its only ally in the region to a very, very low point… This is not about your watch this is about the life of our children and grandchildren as well as your grandchildren. So if you don’t care what happens in 20 months after you leave the White House, we do.

And those words, “This will never happen under my watch,” echo very ominously the words of Neville Chamberlain the Prime Minister of England who came back from Munich and said there would be peace in our time and ended up bringing this world its worst war, World War II. And I think the way that the president is trying to appease Iran is very similar to the appeasement of Hitler.

Also see:

The diplomatic track to war

Iran negotiations. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Iran negotiations. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Jerusalem Post, by Caroline Glick, April 3, 2015:

The world powers assembled at Lausanne, Switzerland, with the representatives of the Islamic Republic may or may not reach a framework deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But succeed or fail, the disaster that their negotiations have unleashed is already unfolding. The damage they have caused is irreversible.
US President Barack Obama, his advisers and media cheerleaders have long presented his nuclear diplomacy with the Iran as the only way to avoid war. Obama and his supporters have castigated as warmongers those who oppose his policy of nuclear appeasement with the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism.

But the opposite is the case. Had their view carried the day, war could have been averted.

Through their nuclear diplomacy, Obama and his comrades started the countdown to war.

In recent weeks we have watched the collapse of the allied powers’ negotiating positions.

They have conceded every position that might have placed a significant obstacle in Iran’s path to developing a nuclear arsenal.

They accepted Iran’s refusal to come clean on the military dimensions of its past nuclear work and so ensured that to the extent UN nuclear inspectors are able to access Iran’s nuclear installations, those inspections will not provide anything approaching a full picture of its nuclear status. By the same token, they bowed before Iran’s demand that inspectors be barred from all installations Iran defines as “military” and so enabled the ayatollahs to prevent the world from knowing anything worth knowing about its nuclear activities.

On the basis of Iran’s agreement to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, the US accepted Iran’s demand that it be allowed to maintain and operate more than 6,000 centrifuges.

But when on Monday Iran went back on its word and refused to ship its uranium to Russia, the US didn’t respond by saying Iran couldn’t keep spinning 6,000 centrifuges. The US made excuses for Iran.

The US delegation willingly acceded to Iran’s demand that it be allowed to continue operating its fortified, underground enrichment facility at Fordow. In so doing, the US minimized the effectiveness of a future limited air campaign aimed at significantly reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

With this broad range of great power concessions already in its pocket, the question of whether or not a deal is reached has become a secondary concern. The US and its negotiating partners have agreed to a set of understanding with the Iranians. Whether these understandings become a formal agreement or not is irrelevant because the understandings are already being implemented.

True, the US has not yet agreed to Iran’s demand for an immediate revocation of the economic sanctions now standing against it. But the notion that sanctions alone can pressure Iran into making nuclear concessions has been destroyed by Obama’s nuclear diplomacy in which the major concessions have all been made by the US.

No sanctions legislation that Congress may pass in the coming months will be able to force a change in Iran’s behavior if they are not accompanied by other coercive measures undertaken by the executive branch.

There is nothing new in this reality. For a regime with no qualms about repressing its society, economic sanctions are not an insurmountable challenge. But it is possible that if sanctions were implemented as part of a comprehensive plan to use limited coercive means to block Iran’s nuclear advance, they could have effectively blocked Iran’s progress to nuclear capabilities while preventing war. Such a comprehensive strategy could have included a proxy campaign to destabilize the regime by supporting regime opponents in their quest to overthrow the mullahs. It could have involved air strikes or sabotage of nuclear installations and strategic regime facilities like Revolutionary Guards command and control bases and ballistic missile storage facilities. It could have involved diplomatic isolation of Iran.

Moreover, if sanctions were combined with a stringent policy of blocking Iran’s regional expansion by supporting Iraqi sovereignty, supporting the now deposed government of Yemen and making a concerted effort to weaken Hezbollah and overthrow the Iranian-backed regime in Syria, then the US would have developed a strong deterrent position that would likely have convinced Iran that its interest was best served by curbing its imperialist enthusiasm and setting aside its nuclear ambitions.

In other words, a combination of these steps could have prevented war and prevented a nuclear Iran. But today, the US-led capitulation to Iran has pulled the rug out from any such comprehensive strategy. The administration has no credibility. No one trusts Obama to follow through on his declared commitment to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

No one trusts Washington when Obama claims that he is committed to the security of Israel and the US’s Sunni allies in the region.

And so we are now facing the unfolding disaster that Obama has wrought. The disaster is that deal or no deal, the US has just given the Iranians a green light to behave as if they have already built their nuclear umbrella. And they are in fact behaving in this manner.

They may not have a functional arsenal, but they act as though they do, and rightly so, because the US and its partners have just removed all significant obstacles from their path to nuclear capabilities. The Iranians know it. Their proxies know it. Their enemies know it.

As a consequence, all the regional implications of a nuclear armed Iran are already being played out. The surrounding Arab states led by Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear weapons. The path to a Middle East where every major and some minor actors have nuclear arsenals is before us.

Iran is working to expand its regional presence as if it were a nuclear state already. It is brazenly using its Yemeni Houthi proxy to gain maritime control over the Bab al-Mandab, which together with Iran’s control over the Straits of Hormuz completes its maritime control over shipping throughout the Middle East.

Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Eritrea, and their global trading partners will be faced with the fact that their primary maritime shipping route to Asia is controlled by Iran.

With its regional aggression now enjoying the indirect support of its nuclear negotiating partners led by the US, Iran has little to fear from the pan-Arab attempt to dislodge the Houthis from Aden and the Bab al-Mandab. If the Arabs succeed, Iran can regroup and launch a new offensive knowing it will face no repercussions for its aggression and imperialist endeavors.

Then of course there are Iran’s terror proxies.

Hezbollah, whose forces now operate openly in Syria and Lebanon, is reportedly active as well in Iraq and Yemen. These forces behave with a brazenness the likes of which we have never seen.

Hamas too believes that its nuclear-capable Iranian state sponsor ensures that regardless of its combat losses, it will be able to maintain its regime in Gaza and continue using its territory as a launching ground for assaults against Israel and Egypt.

Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq have reportedly carried out heinous massacres of Sunnis who have fallen under their control and faced no international condemnation for their war crimes, operating as they are under Iran’s protection and sponsorship. And the Houthis, of course, just overthrew a Western-backed government that actively assisted the US and its allies in their campaign against al-Qaida.

For their proxies’ aggression, Iran has been rewarded with effective Western acceptance of its steps toward regional domination and nuclear armament.

Hezbollah’s activities represent an acute and strategic danger to Israel. Not only does Hezbollah now possess precision guided missiles that are capable of taking out strategic installations throughout the country, its arsenal of 100,000 missiles can cause a civilian disaster.

Hezbollah forces have been fighting in varied combat situations continuously for the past three years. Their combat capabilities are incomparably greater than those they fielded in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. There is every reason to believe that these Hezbollah fighters, now perched along Israel’s borders with Lebanon and Syria, can make good their threat to attack and hold fixed targets including border communities.

While Israel faces threats unlike any we have faced in recent decades that all emanate from Western-backed Iranian aggression and expansionism carried out under a Western-sanctioned Iranian nuclear umbrella, Israel is not alone in this reality. The unrolling disaster also threatens the moderate Sunni states including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The now regional war in Yemen is but the first act of the regional war at our doorstep.

There are many reasons this war is now inevitable.

Every state threatened by Iran has been watching the Western collapse in Switzerland.

They have been watching the Iranian advance on the ground. And today all of them are wondering the same thing: When and what should we strike to minimize the threats we are facing.

Everyone recognizes that the situation is only going to get worse. With each passing week, Iran’s power and brazenness will only increase.

Everyone understands this. And this week they learned that with Washington heading the committee welcoming Iran’s regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities, no outside power will stand up to Iran’s rise. The future of every state in the region hangs in the balance. And so, it can be expected that everyone is now working out a means to preempt and prevent a greater disaster.

These preemptive actions will no doubt include three categories of operations: striking Hezbollah’s missile arsenal; striking the Iranian Navy to limit its ability to project its force in the Bab al-Mandab; and conducting limited military operations to destroy a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear installations.

Friday is the eve of Passover. Thirteen years ago, Palestinian terrorists brought home the message of the Exodus when they blew up the Seder at Netanya’s Park Hotel, killing 30, wounding 140, and forcing Israel into war. The message of the Passover Haggada is that there are no shortcuts to freedom. To gain and keep it, you have to be willing to fight for it.

That war was caused by Israel’s embrace of the notion that you can bring peace through concessions that empower an enemy sworn to your destruction. The price of that delusion was thousands of lives lost and families destroyed.

Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.

Frank Gaffney joins Armstrong Williams and Alan Dershowitz on Iran negotiations

!cid_image004_jpg@01D06CDDCenter for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined the Armstrong Williams show alongside famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz to discuss the ongoing drama of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Dershowitz held his fellow liberals’ accountable, challenging Senator Chuck Schumer, other Democrats, Jews and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Transcript

U.S. Lifts Weapons Freeze to Egypt but with Major Change

sisiobamaCSP, by Aaron Kliegman, April 1, 2015:

President Obama called Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Tuesday to inform him that the United States is lifting an arms freeze imposed on Egypt since 2013, and will continue its annual request for $1.3 billion of military assistance to Cairo.

Egypt will receive 12 F-16 fighter jets, 20 advanced anti-ship missiles, and up to 125 tank kits, and will remain the second-largest recipient of U.S. military financing. These weapons and the overall military aid will help Cairo in its fight with Islamic terrorist and insurgency groups throughout the Middle East, a battle for which Egypt has taken a leading role.

The suspension of aid came in 2013 when Sisi, then chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, ousted democratically elected Islamist President Mohamed Morsi from power. The freeze was meant to be modest and temporary, but the Obama Administration, citing increased domestic repression – mainly against the Muslim Brotherhood – continued its policy. Beyond weapons, Washington withheld a $260 million cash transfer, but said some of it would be put towards humanitarian purposes. The U.S., however, has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Egypt in counterterrorism assistance despite the freeze.

Congress has helped slow the aid to Egypt by passing legislation to limit the disbursement of funds and delaying the transfer of ten apache attack helicopters. To receive half of fiscal year (FY) 2014 funding, the administration had to illustrate that Cairo was “maintaining the strategic relationship” and the peace treaty with Israel. For the other half, the Secretary of State has to show that Egypt is governing democratically, or at least progressing towards that end.

There is a catch, however, to the arms freeze being lifted. Until yesterday, Egypt and Israel had been the only two countries able to purchase American arms by “drawing credit from future foreign aid.” Obama will prohibit Egypt from doing this and drawing money in advance from expected FY 2018 funds and beyond.

U.S. officials say this move is supposed to “wean” Egypt from large, expensive weapons that are not conducive to insurgent and terrorist threats and that it will give Cairo more flexibility if its aid is not already allocated. More importantly, this change gives the U.S. greater ability to cut off future aid, making Egypt more vulnerable. Furthermore, because some people are calling Obama’s policy change a capitulation, such a shift could be an attempt to save face with human rights advocates and others who are critical of Egypt.

Prior to this move, Egypt could essentially use American aid however it thought best. Now, all military aid will be allocated to four specific categories: counterterrorism, border security, maritime security, and Sinai security. This fact will limit Egypt’s flexibility and give America more direct oversight over the aid.

The White House said its decision to lift the freeze was “in the interest of U.S. national security,” indicating that the need for an important strategic ally, given the current turmoil in the region, outweighs the president’s consistent calls for democracy and human rights in Egypt. The administration made it clear, however, that this aid does not mean that it feels Egypt has taken the necessary democratic steps, and Obama raised this point during his phone call with Sisi.

The military assistance comes as Egypt announced this weekend the creation of a joint Arab military force at the Arab League Summit meant to combat regional challenges such as the Iranian-backed Houthi coup in Yemen and ISIS’s growing influence. Furthermore, Egypt faces extraordinary security threats on both its eastern border, where Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, ISIS’s Sinai Peninsula affiliate, launches terrorist attacks against Egyptian police and military personnel, and on its western border, where Libya is a failed state overrun by jihadist groups, including ISIS.

Despite significant changes to Egypt’s aid, Obama’s decision to lift the freeze is necessary for American interests in the region. Sisi is not only leading the fight against ISIS and Iranian influence, but also confronting the larger global jihad threat facing the world. Some of Egypt’s policies are repressive – albeit primarily meant to target the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood – but Cairo’s strategic importance – including granting American warships priority access to the Suez Canal, unrestricted flights to American military aircrafts, and maintaining peace with Israel – takes priority today.

Mischief at the U.N.

NETANYAHU AND OBAMA SHARE A WARM MOMENT, MAY 20, 2011. NEWSCOM

NETANYAHU AND OBAMA SHARE A WARM MOMENT, MAY 20, 2011.
NEWSCOM

Weekly Standard, By John Bolton, March 30, 2015:

Immediately after Israel’s March 17 election, Obama administration officials threatened to allow (or even encourage) the U.N. Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state and confine Israel to its pre-1967 borders. Within days, the president himself joined in, publicly criticizing not just Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom Obama has had notoriously bad relations, but sectors of Israeli opinion and even Israel itself.

The administration leaks suggesting that Israel be cut adrift in the Security Council in effect threatened “collective punishment” as a weapon in U.S.-Israel relations. This is especially ironic coming from “progressives” who have repeatedly accused Israel of “collective punishment” by forcefully retaliating against terrorist attacks. But more important, exposing Israel to the tender mercies of its Security Council opponents harms not only Israel’s interests, but America’s in equal measure. Roughly half of Washington’s Security Council vetoes have been cast against draft resolutions contrary to our Middle East interests.

America’s consistent view since Council Resolution 242 concluded the 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that only the parties themselves can structure a lasting peace. Deviating from that formula would be a radical departure by Obama from a bipartisan Middle East policy nearly half a century old.

In fact, Israel’s “1967 borders” are basically only the 1949 cease-fire lines, but its critics shrink from admitting this tedious reality. The indeterminate status of Israel’s borders from its 1948 creation is in fact a powerful argument why only negotiation with relevant Arab parties can ultimately fix the lines with certainty.

That is why Resolution 242’s “land for peace” formula, vague and elastic though it is, was acceptable to everyone in 1967: There were no hard and fast boundaries to fall back on, no longstanding historical precedents. Prior U.N. resolutions from the 1940s, for example, had all been overtaken by events. Only negotiation, if anything, could leave the parties content; externally imposed terms could only sow future conflicts. Hence, Resolution 242 does not call for a return to the prewar boundaries, but instead affirms the right of “every State in the area” to “secure and recognized boundaries.” Ignoring this fundamental reality is fantasy.

So what drives Obama to conjure his Security Council threat? Obviously, deep antipathy for Netanyahu is one reason. Obama didn’t like Netanyahu before Israel’s recent election, and liked him even less after Bibi’s speech to a joint session of Congress. Hoping to motivate lukewarm or indifferent Likud voters to pump up his election-day support, Netanyahu emphasized his opponents’ efforts to turn out anti-Likud Arab voters, and Obama flayed him for it. Obama also opposed Netanyahu’s preelection criticism of the “two-state solution” and disdained Netanyahu’s efforts to clarify his comments after he won.

So Obama’s list of complaints about Netanyahu is long and getting longer. But if the criticisms were really about Netanyahu’s campaign tactics, threatening to let slip the dogs of political war in the Security Council would hardly be an appropriate response. Obama’s punishment would simply not fit Netanyahu’s crime.

Far more disturbing, Obama’s postelection statements demonstrate something much deeper than just animosity toward Netanyahu. Obama said that “Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don’t believe in a Jewish state, but it also, I think, starts to erode the meaning of democracy in the country.”

With these comments, Obama is criticizing not just Netanyahu, but the very legitimacy of Israel’s democracy, giving an implicit green light to those prepared to act violently against it. Obama’s remarks are substantially more egregious than Secretary of State John Kerry’s 2014 criticism that Israel’s unwillingness to follow the White House lead in the Palestinian negotiations made it understandable if there were another Palestinian intifada or further efforts by the international “boycotts, sanctions, and divestiture” movement against Israel.

Obama is thus going well beyond acting unpresidential or even immature. Whether one takes his or Netanyahu’s side, the administration’s approach is now squarely contrary to America’s larger strategic interests. And the global harm that will be done to common U.S. and Israeli interests through Security Council resolutions if Washington stands aside (or worse, joins in) will extend far beyond the terms of one prime minister and one president.

Consider the inevitable damage merely from the sort of council resolution threatened by Obama’s leakers. Declaring that a Palestinian state exists outside of Israel’s 1967 boundaries would instantly terminate all bilateral Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy on these central issues. What else would there be to talk about? Resolution 242’s basic premise would be upended; rather than enhancing the role of diplomacy between Israel and the relevant Arab parties, a Palestinian statehood resolution would eliminate it.

The reverberations would echo even wider. Already, Obama’s representatives on the U.N. Human Rights Council declined to defend Israel during the HRC’s annual festival of Israel-bashing, another first from our transformative president.

More seriously, Israel’s “occupation” of West Bank lands would immediately render it in violation of the statehood resolution, thus exposing it to international sanctions, including from the Security Council if Obama continued to stand aside. Prosecutions of Israeli officials in the International Criminal Court would instantly have a jurisdictional basis, and those officials would also be exposed to “universal jurisdiction” statutes that have become all the rage with the international left in recent decades. And won’t the White House be surprised when “Palestine” gains admission to the entire U.N. system, triggering a statutorily required cut-off of U.S. contributions to each agency that admits the new state!

No end of mischief will flow from even one undisciplined Security Council resolution, let alone whatever else Obama is prepared to allow. Obama’s criticisms, with the implied charge of racism not far beneath their surface, have once again brought Israel’s very legitimacy into question. We are all too close to resurrecting the U.N.’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution. Daniel Patrick Moynihan would not recognize Obama as a president from the Democratic party.

Obama needs reminding that petulance is for teenagers, not presidents. U.S. interests extend beyond personalities and temporary frustrations. As in many other policy areas, Obama’s “l’état, c’est moi” approach is laying foundations for enormous problems both today and long after he leaves office. If anyone wants a convincing argument why national security must be at the very center of America’s 2016 presidential contest, Obama has surely supplied it.

John R. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
in 2005-06.

Also see:

Anti-Semitism and Support for Terrorists on College Campuses

AMERICAN COLLEGE CAMPUSES: ISRAEL, NO; ISIS, YES

by Rachel Molschky, March 27, 2015:

To support Israel is racist; to support ISIS is a demonstration of diversity. This is the atmosphere at American college campuses today. “Higher learning” has become synonymous with “liberal brainwashing.”

It is important to remember that Israel is America’s ally- not just any ally, but America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Despite President Obama’s blatant hatred for Israeli PM Netanyahu and his Administration’s obvious moves against our only truly democratic friend in the region, at the end of the day, Israel is still a close ally of the United States.

Yet at America’s colleges and universities, which celebrate diversity, the extremely diverse, humanitarian and peaceful Israel (whose population is made up of multiple races and religions), is the enemy.

A few examples:

Connecticut College professor Andrew Pessin is accused of racism for supporting Israel against Gaza terrorists.

After his Facebook post described Gazans as a wild pit bull in a cage, which attacks violently whenever let out of that cage, all hell broke loose from the anti-Israel camp. The Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity at Connecticut College and the history department condemned the “hate speech,” “dehumanizing language,” “bigotry,” and the celebration or incitement of “violence and brutality.”

A screenshot of the professor's Facebook post.
A screenshot of the professor’s Facebook post.

The professor is actually against violence and brutality according to what he’s written. Those who disagree with his post are the ones who are supporting violence.

As a matter of fact, Pessin spoke the truth. Gaza is ruled by Hamas. Hamas is a wild pit bull, and no matter how much anyone tries to pretend that Gazans do not support Hamas, the terrorism and support for terror against innocent Israeli civilians and even Jews in Diaspora speaks for itself. Over the summer of 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, anti-Israel rallies around the world turned into anti-Jew violent riots. The pro-Palestinians showed their overwhelming support for Hamas and their hatred for Jews.

Yet this professor is the one accused of hate speech and celebrating violence.

[Palestinian rockets killed more Gazans in 2014 war: Amnesty]

You can start an ISIS “humanitarian” club and training camp at Cornell.

Joseph Scaffido, the Assistant Dean of Students for Student Activities at Cornell University, one of the most prestigious universities in America, spoke on hidden camera to an undercover journalist posing as a student from Morocco who hopes to attend the Ivy League school next year. The “student” asked about starting an ISIS humanitarian group, raising awareness for the “freedom fighters,” obtaining funding to bring over a terrorist to give a speech, and even starting a training camp. The Dean’s responses were all “yes, yes, yes,” explaining that Ithaca, where Cornell is located, is a very liberal community.

Apparently “liberal” now means “terror supporting.” Incidentally, as liberal as President Obama is, and although he is unwilling to admit that ISIS is Islamic, he at least recognizes that it is a terror group.

ISIS is an enemy of the United States. Israel is a friend.

More examples:

A Jewish UCLA student was initially denied a spot in student government because being Jewish was not in line with the values of the student group.

Being Jewish was called “a conflict of interest.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who speaks out against the abuse of women in Islam, was offered an honorary degree from Brandeis University, but after Muslim cries of Islamophobia, the university took back its offer. 

Any advocacy of women’s rights is deemed “Islamophobic.”

Ali was raised Muslim and herself is the victim of atrocities like female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage. She was once a pious Muslim, but after the Somali native was granted political asylum to the Netherlands and received an education, she began to reflect on Islam and its teachings. After the 9/11 attacks, she picked up the Qur’an and hadith, and it wasn’t long before she renounced her faith.

Ali’s AHA Foundation “works to protect and defend the rights of women and girls in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture”: http://theahafoundation.org/

Apparently defending the rights of women and girls is “Islamophobic.”

The decision of Brandeis University to revoke its offer to Ali is pure hypocrisy. Why? Because the school has given such honors to anti-Semites in the past. Jay Bergman, Professor of History
Central Connecticut State University, writes for FrontPage Magazine in an open letter to the university:

“You say that you are withdrawing the award because Ms. Hirsi Ali’s views violate what you call ‘the core values’ of the university.  But Brandeis saw nothing wrong in awarding an honorary degree to Tony Kushner, who has called the creation of the state of Israel a mistake and falsely accused it of ethnic cleansing; and to Desmond Tutu, an anti-semitic bigot who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany.  From this one could reasonably conclude — since Tutu’s anti-semitism did not cause Brandeis to refrain from awarding him a degree — that anti-semitism is either one of the core values of your university or is not inconsistent with these values.

“It is clear that at Brandeis University Israel can be smeared and those who do so are rewarded, but someone who properly criticizes Islam is unfairly attacked and dishonored.”

Anti-Semitism is allowed at a school founded by the Jewish community, but legitimate concerns regarding the mistreatment of women in Islam go against what the university stands for?

What’s more, anti-Israel professors are teaching Middle Eastern studies at American universities; 
Hamas is on campus under the guise of the MSA (Muslim Students Association) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine);
and there are multiple cases of Jewish students receiving threats or other acts of anti-Semitism like the swastikas painted on a Jewish fraternity at Emory University last year, chants of “Heil Hitler,” and anti-Israel speeches by former President Jimmy Carter.

Terror_connections

The result of a growing Muslim population in America is a growing anti-Semitic population. But it is worse than that. Now our young adults, who attend colleges and universities in the hopes of getting a good education, a higher degree and eventually beginning a successful career, some becoming our future politicians and practically all of voting age already, are being taught that our ally is our enemy, and our enemy is our friend. They are in effect, being taught that it is racist to say anything which might be considered “negative” against terrorists.

So bring on the ISIS terrorist speakers but condemn the Israel-supporting professors. Welcome to university life in America today.

***

PDF of the Muslim Hate Groups On Campus pamphlet

***

A new war against the ‘oldest hatred’ by Phyllis Chesler

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism — two sides of the same coin — are raging yet again. They are brutally alive in the Middle East, Europe and even here in America.

Yet now, at long last, there is some pushback, at least on the “battlefield of ideas.”

It comes in the form of a new academic institute championed by a hardened veteran of this war, and its presence at universities throughout the world is blossoming.

In this country, we hear shouts of Jew-hatred at every pro-Palestinian demonstration.

We read all about it in the biased left-liberal, anti-Israel media and see it in President Obama’s overt hostility to Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Perhaps most troubling, though, is its presence on the American campus, where it is at full boil.

There, Israel-bashing is embraced as an expression of politically correct, divine truth — rather than called out for what it often really is: unadulterated racism.

Professors disguise their hatred of Jews by presenting it as a “politically righteous” stand against Israel, since the Jewish state is, in their portrayal, a colonialist, apartheid nation.

A 2015 report by the National Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students found 54 percent of 1,157 college students polled at 55 American campuses have experienced and/or witnessed anti-Semitic incidents.

Enter Prof. Charles Small — to the rescue. Small founded the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy after running a successful similar program at Yale from 2005 to 2011.

The Yale program was superb; experts there examined contemporary Islamic Jew- and infidel-hatred and terrorism in new academic ways — that is, openly and honestly.

That doomed it. The program was squashed and he was forced out by leftist pressure and a campaign by Arab and pro-Palestinian students, faculty and advocates.

Now, he’s back, and his new effort is also seeing success. The institute is proving a powerful force, one the Western academic world (not surprisingly) abhors.

He’s offering a rigorous scholarly program dedicated to the study of contemporary global anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism may be the “oldest hatred,” but no such program focusing on its current-day manifestation has ever before existed.

Instead, America today is awash with well-funded anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western Middle Eastern studies departments. Small says he is “fighting anti-Semitism on the battlefield of ideas, not in university corridors, not at campus demonstrations.”

By 2012, ISGAP had a foothold at Fordham and Harvard law schools, Stanford and McGill. It’s now at Columbia Law, Sapienza University in Rome and the University of Paris-Sorbonne. In two weeks, it will debut at the University of Chile.

In the 2014-2015 academic year, ISGAP presented more than 100 seminars in English, French and Italian.

Through the guidance of executive-committee Chairman Lawrence Benenson, funding is diverse, coming from “both right of center and left of center.”

The effort has not always been easy. The powers that be at the Sorbonne said “anti-Semitism is not important, not relevant” — their exact words.

Grudgingly, they let Small stage an event “just once,” thinking nothing would come of it; instead, 80 people showed up.

At another seminar after the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket attacks, 150 people turned out. ISGAP was later given military protection and invited to formally join the Sorbonne as a “recognized research center.”

This is an extraordinary victory. “The French now understand that those who are profoundly anti-Semitic are threatening the foundations of their society,” says Small.

This coming summer, ISGAP will be training professors at Oxford. Applications have poured in from Canada, the United States, the UK, Russia, China, Brazil and Argentina.

Yet already, it boasts a prestigious staff, including experts like Robert Wistrich, Martin Kramer, Bassam Tibi, Shimon Samuels, Valentina Colombo, Irwin Mansdorf, Meir Litvak, Richard Landes and others.

Despite the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (a campaign by “Israel-deniers”), the campus Israeli “apartheid” hate-fests and the indoctrination taking place in social sciences and departments of Middle East studies, we now have the beginning of a successful “fight back” strategy. Let’s hope it continues to rise to the enormous challenge it faces.

***

Crises and “Root Crises”

300px-AlgerHissUNConference

Soviet GRU officer and Acting UN Secretary General Alger Hiss of the US State Department presiding over the opening of the United Nations in San Francisco, 1945. Next to him sits is his real boss, Soviet foreign minister Molotov. 

By Diana West, March 19, 2015:

There are crises, and there are what I am going to call “root crises.”

Crises are what we read about in the headlines: Obama’s latest post-Constitutional/dictatorial act; the most recent episode in population replacement; the next terrifying Supreme Court decision; the predictable disaster of Iranian nuclear negotiations, or continued American military presence in Afghanistan; the looming threat of the United Nations empowered by an “internationalist” US president.

“Root crises,” however, don’t make headlines, are never addressed, and are rarely articulated, especially by elected officials and others with lawful authority or even media platforms. For this reason, the crises that grow from root crises only multiply, and are never dispatched.

A recent, incipient exception — and ray of light — was Sen. Cotton’s website letteraddressed to the theocratic rulers of Iran. Cotton exposed the root crisis from which the crisis of Iranian nuclear negotiations arises  — the Constitutional crisis at home in which an administration (not the first) runs amok, unbounded by checks and balances.

Behold the flak Sen. Cotton drew. The wild hysterics on the Left and the Establishment Right (same difference) tells me that there is much righteous power to be drawn from bringing such root crises to light. But Cotton and his 46 GOP colleagues have to keep the light shining and more.

They need to realize that the unaddressed “root crisis” of broken checks and balances has a root crisis, too — many of them. If they dig deeper, it will become clear that Congress, a co-equal branch of government, itselt is in crisis. It has not just permitted, it has enabled the executive branch to engage in the Constitutionally illegal behaviors that the Senator’s letter warns of. Obama could not do this without help. Congress has flouted its Constutitional responsibility just as much as President Obama has by failing to to impeach him — a big root crisis, heretofore unaddressed. Continuing to ignore this, continuing to flinch at “political considerations,” will leave this systemic crisis to metasticize further.

Digging deeper still, we arrive at the time before this president — not the first — overturned, with Congress’ collusion, the system of checks and balances. Here, we find still another root crisis that has never been addressed: President Obama does not have clean identify documents. As I have written in many syndicated columns and posts before — to no particular avail, I suppose, but for the pride of the record — the “birth certificate” the White House website hosts and passes off as a copy of an official paper document has been demonstrated to be a fraud. That no public official in the entire country (and forget 99.9 percent of the media) — with the magnificent exception of Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio — has made this case to the conned, victimized American People is a root crisis, indeed.

It shows the cowardly soul — the most serious root crisis there is.

As a result of this and more, then, the unbounded and fraudulent Obama administration is, of course, reaching for more powers through the use of the “internationalist” United Nations, whether in dealings with Iran or, it seems, Israel. “Internationalist,” of course, is a euphemistic adjective that describes the movement toward what is euphemistically known as “world government.” This latter term is not used too much, possibly because it frightens people who grasp that denizens of such a “world government” are “subjects,” not “citizens,” ruled by the fiat of “transnational” elites.

This should not be a mystery. It is a fact and a root crisis that the euphemistically named “United Nations,” seat of the euphemistically named “Security Council,” was fostered into being in the final years of World War II and originally presided over by a decorated Soviet GRU officer/US State Department official named Alger Hiss.

These roots run deep.

***

After Ralph Peters expounds on Obama’s behavior towards Israel, which he explains is to be expected based on Obama’s roots, Claudia Rosett lays bare the fraud of the United Nations and echoes Diana West in her warning of the dangers of internationalism – “A path to global governance is very dangerous to all of us”

Reposting: EMET/CSP panel addresses the question “What are Iran’s True Intentions”

iran20a (1)Center For Security Policy, Published on Jan 16, 2014:

As the Obama Administration continues to move forward negotiating with Iran, there has been little attention paid to the underlying motivations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is the Iranian end game? What are the ideological motivators of the Islamic regime in its conflict with the United States of America and Israel? Are the genocidal threats issued by Iranian leaders to”wipe Israel off the map” and achieve a “world without America” only posturing? Or are these goals the Iranian regime is committed to achieving?

EMET and the Center for Security Policy have put together a great panel of experts to address these questions and answer, what are Iran’s true intentions?

 Introduction

Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr Phares briefs and testify to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He has served on the Advisory Board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism. Dr Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He has published several books in English, Arabic and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West; The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

Clare Lopez

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Andrew Bostom

Dr. Andrew Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed works The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: from Sacred Text to Solemn History, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism and the recent monograph The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred: What the Nazis Learned from the “Muslim Pope.” Dr. Bostom’s forthocoming monograph is entitled, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran. Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in the New York Post, Washington Times, The New York Daily News, Pajamas Media, National Review Online, The American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, and other print and online publications. More on Andrew Bostom’s work can be found at his:http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

Mark Langfan

Mark Langfan is a noted security analyst who in 1991 created a 3 dimensional topographic raised-relief map system of Israel. Viewing the 3D Israel map one can easily and quickly be informed of many of the underlying resource and security issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict such as West Bank water resources and Israeli ‘defensible’ borders. Over the past 20 years, Mark has briefed many Congressional and Senate offices, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Israel Desk, and the New York Times Editorial Board. Mark wrote and published seminal articles concerning the Israeli/Middle East region including the 1992 “Demilitarization Risks” warning of future Palestinian Katyusha rocket barrages from vacated Israeli territory, the 1995 “US Troops on Golan Quicksand” warning of the unique topographic dangers of deploying US Troops to the Golan Heights, and the 2006 “Iran: The 4th Reichastan” exposing the Iranian arming of Iraqi Insurgents against US forces, and of Iran’s other regional and strategic goals. Mark has published numerous articles in newspapers and security journal. For more information visit www.marklangfan.com.

This presentation by Mark Langfan with Erick Stakelbeck shows the maps better:

Also see the Clarion Project’s Fact Sheet: IRANIAN SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM

5 Ways The Obama Camp Has Shown Its Hatred Towards Bibi

Netanyahu obama israelCSP, by Alex VanNess,March 18, 2015:

During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a Joint Session of Congress, he stated that he would always be grateful for President Obama’s support for Israel.  Additionally, President Obama continues todescribe the bond between Israel and the U.S. as unbreakable.  Despite both leaders attempts to reassure people of the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the Obama administrations animus towards Netanyahu is unprecedented in the history of the U.S./Israel relationship.

  1. Obama badmouths him to other world leaders.  During the 2011 G20 summit in Cannes, it was reported that former French President Nicolas Sarkozy described Netanyahu as a “liar” that he cannot stand.  The Presidents response was less than presidential, responding to Sarkozy by saying: “You’re fed up with him?  I have to deal with him every day.”
  2. Obama’s staff feels comfortable berating him.  It has been reported that officials in the Obama administration use a lot of terms to described Netanyahu. This list includes recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.”  Last year, a senior Obama official even went so far as to describe Netanyahu a “chickens**t.”
  3. Obama threw a hissy fit when Netanyahu spoke in front of Congress.  After House Speaker John Boehner decided to move around the White House to invite Netanyahu to speak to Congress, the President declined to meet with Netanyahu during his visit. The President also chose to skip Netanyahu’s speech altogether.  This led to a double-digit number of Democrats boycotting the speech.
  4. Obama officials chose not to meet with Netanyahu, but did meet with his opposition.  The President’s excuse for not meeting with Netanyahu was that he did not want to be seen as interfering in the Israeli election process.  However, this didn’t stop Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry from meetinginformally with Netanyahu’s opposition, Isaac Herzog in Munich a few weeks prior to his speech.
  5. Obama campaigners are actively working to manipulate Israeli elections.  Following Netanyahu’s address to Congress, a group of Obama campaign veterans arrived in Israel to lead the campaign against Netanyahu.  Obama’s 2012 field director Jeremy Bird is now leading a group, called OneVoice, a U.S. taxpayer funded 501(c)(3), engaging in political activity in Israel.  OneVoice is funding V-2015’s “Just Not Bibi” campaign.

These are only a few of the many assaults on Netanyahu by the Obama machine and the contempt goes beyond the Prime Minister.  The Obama administrations current Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power has shown herself to be hostile to Israel in the past.  She has regarded Israel as a human rights abuser and called for the US to shift Israeli military aid to Ramallah and to deploy forces to protect Palestinian.  Secretary Kerry has described Israel as a country on the road to becoming an “Apartheid state.”  There have even been reports that the Obama administration threatened to shoot down Israeli planes.

Additionally, there is a growing hostility towards Israel in the Democratic Party.  During the 2012 Democratic National Convention, party officials had difficulty hearing each other through all of the Boo’s as they voted to reinsert “Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital into the Party platform.

Following a dramatic come from behind turn in the morning hours on Wednesday, the Likud party emerged as the clear winner with 30 seats in the Knesset.  This will mean Netanyahu will return to the post of Prime Minister.

Netanyahu coming back in power will be a blow to the Obama team, especially because the administration has no interest in dealing with any type of opposition to their negotiations with Iran.  Even though the President talks about the unbreakable bond between the U.S. and Israel, we are likely to see more confrontations, nasty remarks, and blatant anti-Israel sentiments coming out of this administration and the Democratic Party.

The post-election hostility has already started.  Following Netanyahu declaring victory, Obama’s former strategist and political adviser David Axelrod decided to tweet his contempt for the election results and Netanyahu.

axlegrease tweet

Axelrod’s distasteful tweet towards the Prime Minister is just a glimmer of the things to come in the U.S./Israel relationship, as the Obama administration and Democratic Party as a whole starts to divorce themselves from support for Israel.

***

Also see:

New Israel Fund Is No Friend of Israel

israelflag_1Truth Revolt, By Hank Sheinkopf, Ronn Torossian and George Birnbaum, March 16, 2015:

As President Harry Truman said, “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

Recently, many have stood up and told the truth about New Israel Fund’s support for the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, their actions to harm Israel Defense Forces personnel, and cooperation with the United Nation’s Anti-Israel activities.  In response, NIF supporters and friends of NIF donors have unleashed hell upon those of us who have told the truth about the dangers of this organization.

What they have not done is address the issues which are serious and real.  We applaud Birthright Israel who has banned The New Israel Fund from partnering with them, and urge others to follow suit.

The masses of Jews – on the left and right – shun those extremist Jews who sympathize with Israel’s enemies, whom represent a tiny portion of world Jewry – but are given an oversized prominence in the media – and unfortunately amongst Jewish leadership. We are outraged about the cancer called the New Israel Fund, as they must be rooted out of the realm of acceptability.

While we welcome political debate, there are limits.  Shouting “fire in a crowded theatre” is not acceptable, so too must boycotts of Israel be deemed unacceptable for any friends of Israel.

Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychiatrist has noted that Jewish self-hatred is in part a result of Stockholm syndrome, where “population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous.” The Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Yoni Chetboun said, “The main goal of the NIF is to undermine the Israeli Army, by knowingly financing left-wing Israeli groups that try to get young Israeli soldiers prosecuted for war crimes.”

While Jane Eisner and Deborah Lipstadt of The Forward defend their friends, they cannot ignore the fact that these viewpoints are as mainstream in Israel as Lyndon Larouche is in the United States. Your defense of your friends does not address those who have no decency, encourage boycotts against the Jewish state, and harm the Jewish Army.

As Naftali Bennett said, “Yes, New Israel Fund, I will boycott whoever persecutes Israeli soldiers. I will not apologize for it. Members of the New Israel Fund, listen carefully: Whoever harms, slanders and persecutes Israeli soldiers are not my brothers. The NIF works methodically and consistently to attack our Israeli soldiers, accuse them of war crimes of torturing Palestinians and intentionally attacking women and children. They turn to the UN and to the committees that are most hostile to Israel and try their best to convince them that Israel is a war criminal. I repeat: They say that our soldiers- you, I, your friends and your families, your children and their friends – that we are all war criminals. The New Israel Fund invests large amounts of money through its organizations with one purpose- to harm IDF soldiers who are physically protecting us with their bodies.”

As PM Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Everyone should know what the letters B-D-S really stand for: bigotry, dishonesty, and shame. And those who oppose BDS, like Scarlett Johansson, they should be applauded.”

Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse has said “the rapid demoralization of Jews in the face of anti-Zionism… shows the depth of the influence of the past, for many have yet to achieve the simple self-respect that has been eluding the Jews collectively since the dawn of modernity.”

While each of us earns our livings in the field of communications, we welcome debate and discussion – but we do not welcome hatred of the Jewish State.  No matter how difficult it is, all self-respecting Jews must renounce the New Israel Fund.

They may be nice people, they may do good things on other fronts – but those who support the New Israel Fund stand against the Jewish people.

Hank Sheinkopf is CEO of Sheinkopf Communications and a leading Democratic strategist. His clients have included former President Bill Clinton, former NY Mayor Bloomberg and others.

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, one of the 20 largest independent American PR firms.

George Birnbaum is an international political consultant, who is partners with Arthur Finkelstein. Birnbaum formerly served as chief of staff for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Also see:

Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali Denounces Anti-Semitism on Campuses as New Film Debuts

Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-ap

Breitbart, by DR. SUSAN BERRY, March 14, 2015:

Somali-born free speech and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave the keynote address at a sold-out event in Boston Wednesday that centered on rising anti-Semitism on college campuses in North America.

Hirsi Ali’s address, and a panel featuring a rabbi and three student activists, followed the premiere of a new Jerusalem U film titled Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus, which can be viewed in its entirety online. The film demonstrates how anti-Israel activities on college and university campuses are being organized to alienate and intimidate those who support Israel, and how reasonable criticism of Israel “crosses the line” into anti-Semitism.

As a press release about the Boston event notes, Hirsi Ali said the film demonstrates how students are being “misled.” Denouncing “virulent anti-Semitism” on college campuses, she asserted, “The least we can do is boycott, divest, and sanction campuses that compromise academic freedom.”

Excerpts of Hirsi Ali’s address are as follows:

It is appalling that only seventy years from the Holocaust, crowds in Europe chant, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” It is even more appalling that 10,000 soldiers in Paris are needed to protect Jewish sites. That is the continent that promised never again. The men and women who were in the concentration camps, who are tattooed, some are still here. And it is happening again.

Watching Crossing the Line 2: the New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus was like having a bucket of ice water being poured over my head. I saw the film last week. And I watched it again last night. And I couldn’t sleep. The more we pretend that this is happening somewhere far away, the more hopeless and helpless we feel. But this is not happening far away. This is happening on American campuses, British campuses, Canadian campuses. The filmmakers who made this film made it because it is important that we listen to this message while it is at a smaller stage.

I have a different acronym for BDS. They call themselves Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. I call them Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage. Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage the only society that is free in the Middle East. BDS. On campus, if you care about issues like justice and injustice, we really need to show it. You need to do it. Where is the BDS movement against the Islamic State? Where on campuses is the BDS movement against Saudi Arabia? The Iranian regime, who for decades have promised to wipe Israel off the map, who are developing a bomb. And there’s no BDS movement against them on campus. Why? Last year in Nigeria, 200 girls were kidnapped. They were sold into slavery. There was no BDS movement against Boko Haram.

“Anti-Israel activities on campus cause students today to feel embarrassed to be pro-Israel, or could even lead them to hold negative opinions about Israel” said Amy Holtz, president of Jerusalem U, in a statement in the press release. “Raising awareness of this growing problem is crucial. We made this film in order to give students the knowledge to differentiate between education and intimidation, debate and hate. They must be able to identify when it is ‘Crossing the Line.’”

***

Published on Sep 30, 2014 by Hamas On Campus

The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is Hamas on Campus. An organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.

***

Also see: