Is it Iran’s Middle East Now?


The Middle East is currently in the midst of widespread instability, civil strife and the collapse or contraction of state authority. Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Turkey, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Tunisia and Egypt have all experienced major instability over the last half decade. The first four of these areas have effectively ceased to exist as unitary states, and are now partitioned de facto between warring entities, organised according to ethnic, sectarian or tribal loyalty. The Palestinian territories too are divided into areas controlled by the Islamist Hamas movement in Gaza and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank.

In this fractious landscape, powerful regional states are seeking to gain advantage, extend their own power, and diminish that of their rivals.

The collapse of states has in turn brought with it the decline of the national identities which supposedly underlay them, and the growth of sectarian identification as a political factor. The result is the emergence of Sunni-Shia conflict as a major overt presence in the Middle East. In Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in a more complex way in Syria, Sunni-Shia rivalries form a central dynamic, which are also important in terms of the geo-strategic rivalries among major states competing in the Middle East.

Perhaps the single best organised and most aggressive alliance active currently in the Middle East is the bloc of states and movements gathered around the Islamic Republic of Iran. Motivated by clear strategic goals and by powerful ideological motivations, and with long experience of subversion particularly relevant to the current period of instability in the Middle East, Iran and its allies are powerful players in the regional contest.

Prior to the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme, signed on 14 July 2015, it had appeared that Iran might be approaching a point of overstretch. Tehran was committed to assist a large portfolio of clients engaged in conflict across the region, at a time when Tehran was itself subject to biting economic sanctions. The continued civil war in Syria and the opening of conflicts in Iraq and Yemen – in which the Iranians were heavily committed – seemed to introduce this possibility.

However, the conclusion of the nuclear agreement – and with it the prospect of release of impounded funds as part of sanctions relief – has immediate implications for the related subject of Iranian regional ambitions and outreach. The precise sum likely to become rapidly available to Iran following the signing of the agreement and sanctions relief remains unclear and disputed. Estimates range from $150 billion (the sum frequently quoted by opponents of the nuclear deal) to $56 billion (the likely sum according to US Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew).

But even if one assumes the lower estimate, and combines this with additional sums likely to become available to Iran because of renewed economic ties with the outside world as an element of sanctions relief, it may be concluded that the risk of overstretch, and a consequent inability on the part of Iran to sustain its regional commitments, has effectively disappeared as a result of the signing of the JCPOA.

As a result, Iran is well placed in the current period to continue its practice of supporting proxy political-military organisations in a variety of regional locations, in pursuit of Iranian strategic goals.


Iran is currently actively supporting proxies in major conflicts in the following areas: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. In addition, there is evidence that Iranian agencies are active among Shia populations – as yet without major effect – in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Tehran also has a strategic relationship with (Sunni majority) Sudan.

Iranian aims

Iran’s strategic goal is to emerge as the dominant power in the Middle East and, eventually, the entire Islamic world. It seeks to roll back US influence in the region and to work towards Israel’s destruction.



In all areas of Iranian regional ‘outreach’, a common pattern exists. Iranian regional policy is characterised by the establishment and/or sponsorship of proxy political-military organisations. In every case noted, (with the partial exception of Lebanon) the result of the Iranian involvement is not Iranian strategic victory and the constitution of the state in question as an ally of Iran. Rather, Iranian outreach prevents the defeat and eclipse of the local Iranian ally, while ensuring division and continued conflict in the area in question.

This Iranian modus operandi – and its centrality in Iranian regional strategy – as well as the far reaching nature of Iranian goals as outlined above, mean the notion that a post JCPOA Iran can form a partner for stability in the region is deeply flawed, and will quickly be contradicted by the facts.

The export of chaos has the merit, perhaps, of keeping disorder far from Iran’s own borders by ensuring that rivals to Tehran are kept busy engaged in proxy conflicts elsewhere. However, it is difficult to see how it can result in regional hegemony and leadership.

This Iranian penchant for fomenting chaos also places them on a different trajectory to the Russians. This is important, because the Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, from September 2015 has been characterised in some quarters as the birth of a new strategic alliance between Tehran and Moscow. Ibrahim Amin, editor of the pro-Hezbollahal-Akhbar newspaper, happily called this supposed new bloc the ‘4 + 1’ alliance (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia and Hezbollah).

But Russia has no interest in strategic support for Islamist proxies in the Middle East. Rather, it seeks powerful state allies, without particular concern as to their internal electoral arrangements or ideological proclivities. The Iranian model of creation and support of proxy Shia Islamist forces contrasts with Russia’s desire for powerful, centralised forces with which it can do business. This means that Russia and Iran have different and even opposed regional orientations, even if there is currently an overlap with regard to the Assad regime in Syria.

As a result of the JCPOA, Iran is likely to increase its support for its portfolio of proxy organisations across the region. The net effect of this will be to increase regional disorder and foment continued conflict. However, because of the built in limitations of Iranian methods and because of the sectarian nature of the conflicts in question (which means Iran finds it very difficult or impossible to pursue really lasting alliances with non-Shia Arab clients), it is unlikely that this will result in the attainment by Iran of its strategic goal of regional leadership/hegemony. Iran is a spoiler par excellence. But despite its ambitions and pretensions, it does not look like the founder of a new Middle Eastern order.

Read it all

Also see:

The Palestinian Authority’s Sinister Sleight of Hand

palestinian protestNational Review, by Alex VanNess, Oct. 26, 2015:

A good magician hones his craft by spending countless hours mastering sleight-of-hand techniques. The audience is distracted by one hand while the other hand is executing the illusion.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) pulled off an amazing sleight-of-hand trick this month by erasing Jewish ties to the Land of Israel.

Last week, the PA, with the backing of six Arab countries, successfully shepherded a resolution through the U.N. Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) listing the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as Muslim sites, and condemning Israel for archeological excavations near the Temple Mount.

The resolution followed weeks of violent encounters, which started as a series of riots at the al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount, where Palestinians had stockpiled rocks, firebombs, and other weaponry. After the riots, Palestinians alleged that the status quo over the Temple Mount, where Jews are allowed to visit but not pray, was being threatened by Israel. These allegations were repeated, and exacerbated, by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who accused Jews of contaminating Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem with their “filthy feet.”

By stoking riotous violence on the Temple Mount, the PA gave itself a pretext for demanding concessions from UNESCO, and it pounced, overreaching at first to establish a bargaining position. Its original proposal asked that the Western Wall, officially known by its Hebrew name, “Kotel,” be rechristened as the Arabic “Buraq,” and recognized as belonging to the al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Even UNESCO’s director-general Irina Bokova condemned this power grab, stating that it would “further incite tensions” and was inconsistent with the organization’s “mandate and efforts.”

Though Israel maintains control over Jerusalem, administration of the city’s holy sites is entrusted to their respective religious authorities. The PA failed to win the Kotel as part of al-Aqsa, but its leaders will no doubt try again, and use the concessions they did win to agitate for Islamic stewardship of any number of other contested sites. When they do not get what they want, a slew of U.N. Resolutions will rain down condemning Israel’s refusal to hand over control of “Muslim” property. The PA will then proceed to incite its people to violently demand what they couldn’t take through diplomacy, and the process will repeat itself, the Palestinians winning incremental concessions each time.

The PA has continuously denied Judaism’s historical and religious ties to the region. During the 2000 negotiations at Camp David, then PA President Yasser Arafat refused to acknowledge Jewish ties to the Temple Mount and claimed that a Jewish Temple never existed there.

Before Israel took control of the region, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and desecrated, and Jews were denied access to many of them, including the Kotel. Muslims have built mosques directly on top of some Jewish shrines in order to lay claim to them.

Even now, Jewish sites in PA-controlled areas are subject to violent assaults. Last week, a Palestinian mob set fire to Joseph’s Tomb, a Jewish holy site located in the West Bank. While the Muslim administrators of the Temple Mount have official visiting hours for non-Muslim visitors, such visitors are forbidden from praying there. Just visiting the Temple Mount is difficult for non-Muslims, who are subject to harassment as soon as they set foot on the site: Muslim youths are paid salaries to harass Jewish and Christian visitors. These professional bullies even accosted a U.S. Congressional delegation visiting the mosque.

With one hand, the Palestinians are claiming that Israel is performing a power grab in an attempt to change the status quo of the Temple Mount. With the other hand, the Palestinians are co-opting religious sites, changing the status quo of the Temple Mount in their favor, and attempting to erase Jewish connections to contested Holy lands. All of this is being done in plain sight, with the tacit acceptance of the international community. It’s some magic trick.

— Alex VanNess is the manager of public information at the Center for Security Policy.

Netanyahu Answers the Big Lies Against Israel

PM Netanyahu at the UN Photo Credit: vi Ohayon/GPO

PM Netanyahu at the UN
Photo Credit: vi Ohayon/GPO

Jewish Press, by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, October 21st, 2015:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the opportunity during his speech to the 37th World Zionist Congress, to speak from his Zionist heart to the hearts of Zionists everywhere.

Netanyahu used the occasion to rally supporters of Israel and to call upon them to spread the truth about Zionism and Israel. He spoke during the midst of a wave of terror in Israel unlike any in recent time. The stabbing, shooting, car-ramming attacks on Israeli citizens just during the month of October alone has unnerved many. Once again the media and the outside world uses moral equivalency or worse to condemn Israel for the terror unleashed against its citizens.

Netanyahu’s rock steady speech enlisted all supporters of Israel in the battalion of truth tellers about Israel. The physical attacks are being endured solely by Israelis, but the fight against the vilification of the Jewish State is something in which everyone can and must participate.

The ammunition Netanyahu provided the troops he enlisted consists solely of truth. The truths that can and will deflate the myths perpetuated by so many against the Jewish State.

In all, Netanyahu summarized into Ten Big Lies being told about Israel, and he provided answers to all of them. The entire speech can be found here.

The First Big Lie: Israel is trying to change the Status Quo on Har Habayit (Temple Mount). No, Israel is not. But here are additional facts you need to back up this categorical statement. First, King Solomon built the Temple Mount 3,000 years ago. That’s 1,500 years before the birth of Islam. The current arrangement, despite Israel’s victory in a defensive war against Jordan in 1967 which previously controlled the site, is that Muslims may visit the Temple Mount and pray there, while non-Muslims are permitted to visit only between Sunday and Thursday and Jews are not permitted ever to pray there. Over the past year, three and a half million Muslims visited the Temple Mount, 80,000 Christians and a mere 12,000 Jews.

The Second Big Lie: Israel is trying to destroy Al-Aksa Mosque. Netanyahu told an anecdote about how, just after his grandfather arrived in Israel, there was a terrorist attack because Arabs claimed Jews were trying to destroy the Al-Aksa Mosque. That was in 1920. Jews were attacked based on this false claim again in 1921, and in 1929. And it’s still happening today. So, Netanyahu explained, “this lie is about a hundred years old. It fomented many, many attacks. The Temple Mount stands. The al-Aqsa Mosque stands. But the lie stands too, it persists.”

The Third Big Lie is that there has been a surge in settlement construction, Netanyahu explained. The truth, however, is that the number of units built in the “settlements” has gone down from 5,000 annually under Ehud Barak, to 1,900 under Sharon, down to 1,700 under Olmert. Under Netanyahu’s reign, the number is down to 1500. As Netanyahu said, “some surge.”

The Fourth Big Lie is that Israelis are executing Palestinians. Netanyahu used Abbas’s public charge that Israel executed a young teenager, Ahmen Mansara, to show the absurdity of this charge. In fact, Mansara had just viciously stabbed a 13 year old Israeli boy riding on his bicycle. Israelis stopped Mansara, but they certainly didn’t kill him. In fact, Mansara was treated in Hadassah Hospital and released. The Israeli victim, however, is still in that hospital, desperately trying to live.

The Fifth Big Lie is that Israel uses excessive force. To this claim, Netanyahu asks people to consider what the police forces in New York or Paris or Moscow would do if people ran through the streets of their cities trying to stab their citizens with knives or screwdrivers. Israel’s instructions are clear: if there’s a threat to life, take action to neutralize it. Period.

The Sixth Big Lie is that the increase in terrorism is due to the stagnation in the peace process. Netanyahu explained that terrorism in Israel rises and falls completely independently of the peace process or of the status of Israel. There was terrorism against the Jews before Israel was established, before the acquisition of the territories, while the peace process was ongoing and even when the peace process was at its peak. The peace process has no bearing on the increase in terrorism. What gives rise to the terrorism is the fact that the State of Israel exists.

The Seventh Big Lie is that Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate. Abbas just said “I welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.” He glorifies the killers. He hasn’t condemned a single one of the 30 plus terrorist attacks on Israelis over the last month. Abbas is no moderate.

The Eighth Big Lie is that international observers will restore calm on the Temple Mount. Netanyahu categorically rejects that notion. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry did earlier this week, also.

The Ninth Big Lie is that the violence is erupting because there isno Palestinian State. The reality is, Netanyahu explained, the Palestinian Arabs have repeatedly rejected every single offer of a nation-state for their people. The only nation-state the Palestinian Arabs will accept is one with no Jewish State next to it.

The Tenth Big Lie supporters of Israel must denounce is the claim that “the core of the Middle East conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For the past four years, Netanyahu reminded everyone, ever since the “Arab Spring,” Syria is disintegrating, Iraq is disintegrating, Libya is disintegrating, Yemen is unraveling, there is chaos in the Sinai and terror across North Africa. Millions are displaced, hundreds of thousands are being butchered. None of that has anything to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Nothing.

The core of the conflict in the Middle East, the Israeli Prime Minister said, is “the battle between early medievalism, very primitive, very violent, forms of militant Islam, and modernity. The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the continued absolute refusal by the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state within any boundaries”.

Netanyahu closed his speech with the following exhortation: “The biggest battle we have to fight is the battle for the facts. The facts win over the fiction if they’re repeated clearly, responsibly, firmly. This is what I ask all of you to do for the sake of the Jewish state and for the sake of the Jewish people.”

Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the U.S. correspondent for The Jewish Press. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email:

Also see:

Moral Equivalence in the Middle East


The West has developed a dangerous concern for ‘proportionality.’

National Review, by Victor Davis Hanson — October 20, 2015:

In the current epidemic of Palestinian violence, scores of Arab youths are attacking, supposedly spontaneously, Israeli citizens with knives. Apparently, edged weapons have more Koranic authority, and, in the sense of media spectacle, they provide greater splashes of blood. Thus the attacker is regularly described as “unarmed” and a victim when he is “disproportionately” stopped by bullets.

The Obama State Department has condemned the use of “excessive” Israeli force in response to Palestinian terrorism. John Kirby, the hapless State Department spokesman, blamed “both” sides for terrorism, and the president himself called on attackers and their victims to “tamp down the violence.”

In short, the present U.S. government — which is subsidizing the Palestinians to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year — is incapable of distinguishing those who employ terrorist violence from the victims against whom the terrorism is directed. But why is the Obama administration — which can apparently distinguish those who send out drones from those who are blown up by them on the suspicion of employing terrorist violence — morally incapable of calling out Palestinian violence? After all, in the American case, we blow away suspects whom we think are likely terrorists; in the Israeli instance, they shoot or arrest those who have clearly just committed a terrorist act.

RELATED: The One-State Solution, Ctd.

Two reasons stand out.

One, Obama’s Middle East policies are in shambles. Phony red lines, faux deadlines, reset with Putin, surrendering all the original bargaining chips in the Iranian deal, snubbing Israel, cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood, dismissing the threat of ISIS, allowing Iraq to collapse by abruptly pulling out all American troops, giving way to serial indecision in Afghanistan, ostracizing the moderate Sunni regimes, wrecking Libya, and setting the stage for Benghazi — all of these were the result of administration choices, not fated events. One of the results of this collapse of American power and presence in the Middle East is an emboldened Palestinian movement that has recently renounced the Oslo Accords and encouraged the offensive of edged weapons.

RELATED: The Obama Intifada

Mahmoud Abbas, the subsidized president of the self-proclaimed Palestinian State, and his subordinates have sanctioned the violence. Any time Palestinians sense distance between the U.S. and Israel, they seek to widen the breach. When the Obama team deliberately and often gratuitously signals its displeasure with Israel, then the Palestinians seek to harden that abstract pique into concrete estrangement.

Amid such a collapse of American power, Abbas has scanned the Middle East, surveyed the Obama pronouncements — from his initial Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech to his current contextualizations and not-so private slapdowns of Netanyahu — and has wagered that Obama likes Israel even less than his public statements might suggest. Accordingly, Abbas assumes that there might be few consequences from America if he incites another “cycle of violence.”

RELATED: Palestinian Reasoning: Yield to Our Crazy Religious Intolerance or We’ll Kill You

The more chaos there is, the more CNN videos of Palestinian terrorists being killed by Israeli civilians or security forces, the more NBC clips of knife-wielding terrorists who are described as unarmed, and the more MSNBC faux maps of Israeli absorption of Palestine, so all the more the Abbas regime and Hamas expect the “international community” to force further Israeli concessions. The Palestinians hope that they are entering yet another stage in their endless war against Israel. But this time, given the American recessional, they have new hopes that the emerging Iran–Russia–Syria–Iraq–Hezbollah axis could offer ample power in support of the violence and could help to turn the current asymmetrical war more advantageously conventional. The Palestinians believe, whether accurately or not, that their renewed violence might be a more brutal method of aiding the administration’s own efforts to pressure the Israelis to become more socially just, without which there supposedly cannot be peace in the Middle East.


But there is a second, more general explanation for the moral equivalence and anemic response from the White House. The Obama “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” administration is the first postmodern government in American history, and it has adopted almost all the general culture’s flawed relativist assumptions about human nature.

Affluent and leisured Western culture in the 21st century assumes that it has reached a stage of psychological nirvana, in which the Westernized world is no longer threatened in any existential fashion as it often was in the past. That allows Westerners to believe that they no longer have limbic brains, and so are no longer bound by Neanderthal ideas like deterrence, balance of power, military alliances, and the use of force to settle disagreements. Their wealth and technology assure them that they are free, then, to enter a brave new world of zero culpability, zero competition, and zero hostility that will ensure perpetual tranquility and thus perpetual enjoyment of our present material bounty.

RELATED: There Is No God But Hephaestus — And Fire Is His Messenger

Our children today play tee-ball, where there are no winners and losers — and thus they are schooled that competition is not just detrimental but also can, by such training, be eliminated entirely. Our adolescents are treated according to the philosophy of “zero tolerance,” in which the hero who stops the punk from bullying a weaker victim is likewise suspended from school. Under the pretense of such smug moral superiority, our schools have abdicated the hard and ancient task of distinguishing bad behavior from good and then proceeding with the necessary rewards and punishments. Our universities have junked military history, which schooled generations on how wars start, proceed, and end. Instead, “conflict resolution and peace studies” programs proliferate, in which empathy and dialogue are supposed to contextualize the aggressor and thus persuade him to desist and seek help — as if aggression, greed, and the desire for intimidation were treatable syndromes rather than ancient evils that have remained dangerous throughout history.

Human nature is not so easily transcended, just because a new therapeutic generation has confused its iPhone apps and Priuses with commensurate moral and ethical advancement. Under the canons of the last 2,500 years of Western warfare, disproportionality was the method by which aggressors were either deterred or stopped. Deterrence — which alone prevented wars — was predicated on the shared assumption that starting a conflict would bring more violence down upon the aggressor than he could ever inflict on his victim. Once lost, deterrence was restored usually by disproportionate responses that led to victory over and humiliation of the aggressive party.

The wreckage of Berlin trumped anything inflicted by the Luftwaffe on London. The Japanese killed fewer than 3,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor; the Americans killed 30 times that number of Japanese in a single March 10, 1945, incendiary raid on Tokyo. “They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” was the standard philosophy by which aggressive powers were taught never again to start hostilities. Defeat and humiliation led to peace and reconciliation.

The tragic but necessary resort to disproportionate force by the attacked not only taught an aggressor that he could not win the fight he had started, but also reminded him that his targeted enemy might not be completely sane, and thus could be capable of any and all retaliation.

Unpredictability and the fear sown by the unknown also help to restore deterrence, and with it calm and peace. In contrast, predictable, proportionate responses can reassure the aggressor that he is in control of the tempo of the war that he in fact started. And worse still, the doctrine of proportionality suggests that the victim does not seek victory and resolution, but will do almost anything to return to the status quo antebellum — which, of course, was disadvantageous and shaped by the constant threat of unexpected attack by its enemies.

Applying this to the Middle East, the Palestinians believe that the new American indifference to the region and Washington’s slapdowns of Netanyahu have reshuffled relative power. They now hope that there is no deterrent to violence and that, if it should break out, there will be only a proportionate and modest response from predictable Westerners.

Under the related doctrine of moral equivalence, Westerners are either unwilling or unable to distinguish the more culpable from the more innocent. Instead, because the world more often divides by 55 to 45 percent rather than 99 to 1 percent certainty, Westerners lack the confidence to make moral judgments — afraid that too many critics might question their liberal sensitivities, a charge that in the absence of dearth, hunger, and disease is considered the worst catastrophe facing an affluent Western elite.

The question is not only whether the Obama administration, in private, favors the cause of the radical Palestinians over a Western ally like Israel, but also whether it is even intellectually and morally capable of distinguishing a democratic state that protects human rights from a non-democratic, authoritarian, and terrorist regime that historically has hated the West, and the United States in particular — and is currently engaged in clear-cut aggression.

NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

UAE Strikes ISIS in Iraq – Jordan Masses Troops to Prevent Retaliatory Attacks

February 11, 2015 / /

As we’ve stated in yesterday’s article titled “IA Preps to Retake Mosul as King’s Rage Continues,” the UAE and Jordanian Air Forces had appeared to have initiated a series of airstrikes inside Iraq that was in support of the IA’s coming Mosul offensive. In yesterday’s piece we also stated that the Islamic State would probably try to launch a series of attacks in Baghdad and quite possibly attempt to target Jordan and Saudi Arabia in order to open up another front in response to Jordan’s air campaign. Apparently the Jordanian government seems to agree, since they’ve massed thousands of troops along the Jordan-Iraq border with POE Trebil being heavily reinforced. POE Trebil is important due to the fact that its the gateway to Jordan and the most direct route to Amman other than the highway leading from Deraa of Southern Syria. These troops are likely deployed to serve as a blocking force to keep IS fighters from entering the country to stage attacks. We assess that any Jordanian ground operation inside Iraq will be limited to Jordanian Special Operations Forces (JSOF) forces conducting search and rescue OPs in the event IS shoots down any of their aircraft.

Jordan masses ‘thousands’ of troops on Iraqi border to counter IS

IA Preps to Retake Mosul as King’s Rage Continues


JSOF: Drawing the line in the sand against IS

The support hub that will likely have the most affect on IS’ ability stage operations into Jordan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter) is Ar Rutbah. The ISF’s border checkpoint at POE Trebil had already fallen to IS in JUN 14, which resulted in Jordan increasing security at the border checkpoint on the Jordanian side of the border. We assess that future Jordanian/UAE airstrikes will include targets in the Rutbah-area to degrade IS’ ability to send supplies and reinforcements to forward-deployed units. However, we will likely begin to start seeing the Jordanian Air Force decreasing their daily sorties in order to conserve ammo and not place their airframes under too much stress. However, they will eventually be forced to request more material support from the US government to sustain even a minimal strike capability. Without it, we don’t see the Jordanian’s effectiveness lasting beyond this month.


The graphic above depicts how IS fighters stage from Rutbah to conduct attacks targeting IA border checkpoints along the Jordan and Saudi borders.
Source: Veoz

With that said, the Jordanian government is concerned that IS fighters from Rutbah will be dispatched to assist sleeper cells that are already operating inside Jordan to launch attacks – which is why the Army has massed troops along the border. The disrupted 2012 plot IS – still known at the time as AQI/ISI (as in the Islamic State of Iraq) – had planned to launched a Mumbai-style attack remains firmly lodged in the minds of all senior General Intelligence Directorate (GID) official’s minds. A big reason for their concern is the fact that the sleeper cell in question had received considerable support from IS fighters in Iraq’s Anbar Province. The attack planned called for an 11-man assault force executing diversionary attacks targeting two shopping malls with suicide bombers. While security forces were responding to the bombings, the main force would move on to their primary targets in the Aboun District, which is the home for many western diplomats and their families who were also on the target deck. The gunmen were to have engaged security forces and bystanders with small-arms while wearing SVESTs with the intent of fighting their way to the objective at which time they would detonate themselves. This attack was to have been culminated with mortars being fired into the district by a separate support element. By the way, this also happens to be one of the game plans IS sleeper cells inside the US may be planning. For more info on the Mumbai Attack model see the following article from our Target America series:

ISIS: Target America

Jordan ‘foils major al-Qaeda plot’

jordan terror plot

The 11-man sleeper cell that Jordanian security forces arrested in 2012.
Source: The Daily Telegraph (UK)

JSOF and other Jordanian security forces will have their hands full in securing the border and disrupting IS sleeper cell attempts at executing attacks inside major population centers such as Amman. The 2012 plot was only a taste. In fact, the past year saw several security sweeps in the country targeted IS support nodes. Already we’re seeing indicators that JSOF units stationed near Amman are on full-alert, which suggests a series of counter-terror operations may be executed in the near-future. JSOF personnel are also operating along both the Syrian and Iraqi borders. We expect Jordan’s conventional ground forces and JSOF units to maintain a defensive posture along both borders and interdict infiltration attempts by jihadists. However, we’re not so sure they will be able to completely stop the cells already located inside Jordan’s major population centers – and there will be attempts by ISIS to launch attacks inside Jordan. They won’t try to “invade” Jordan as some have speculated since they have plenty of fighters already in the country. You can also expect for IS’ propaganda machine to increase videos and postings targeting Jordan’s refugee population to incite further unrest – and we’re not just talking about the refugees from Syria either. We may see IS make a direct appeal to Jordan’s Palestinian population (some of which are Syrian refugees themselves), which would likely be an extension of their Gaza IO operations. We assess the conditions at the refugee camps and treatment of the Palestinian community in the country – both real and perceived – will become recurring themes in IS’ IO messaging. Last summer’s riot at the Zaatari Camp is a possible indicator of what may be in store for Jordan. The next few months are going to get very, very interesting…

Jordanian escalation against ISIS may lead to surge in terror attacks in Kingdom

Worried about terror attacks at home, Jordan steps up arrests of suspected Syria jihadists

Why Jordan Doesn’t Want More Palestinians

Jordan admits to barring entry of Palestinian refugees from Syria

Jordan fears new wave of Palestinian refugees,7340,L-4591284,00.html

Syria crisis: Deadly clash in Jordan’s Zaatari camp

For more info on how Jordan fits into the scheme of things, check out the following articles:

Jordan Steps Up Attacks Against ISIS, Egypt Launches New Sinai Offensive

Rage of the King: Jordan Strikes Back

The Islamic State Burns Jordanian Pilot Alive

The ISIS-Held Japanese and Jordanian Hostages: The Bergdahl Factor

Jordanian Fighter Jet Crashes in Syria – Pilot Taken Prisoner by ISIS

Trouble in Jordan and Jordanian ISIS Connections

Islamic State Using Social Media and Expanding Campaign to Jordan and Saudi Arabia

The Strategic Importance of Egypt to ISIS

Additional info on IS’ Gaza efforts:

ISIS in Gaza Update

Islamic State’s Presence in Gaza

Egyptian Army Hits Back at ISIS in Sinai

ISIS Efforts to Open Up an Egyptian Front

Egyptian Army and the IDF Take on ISIS Supporters in the Sinai

Palestinians Chose Hamas and the Mass-Murder of Civilians—Including Their Own

palestinians_jrl109_l1h5k_16298By Andrew C. McCarthy:

I argued in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy that the illusion’s signature feature is a fantasy: By holding free elections, a people is choosing freedom: joining modernity, adopting pluralism and tolerance, rejecting revolutionary violence and totalitarianism.

Today, we are yet again being inundated with tales of Palestinian woe after Hamas’s familiar barbarism has provoked an Israeli military response. It thus bears remembering thatthe Palestinian people chose Hamas. What ever happened to all those Democracy Project paeans to self-determination? Hamas is Palestinian self-determination. Hamas was not forced on Palestinians. Hamas did not militarily conquer Gaza. No, Hamas swept parliamentary elections freely held in the Palestinian territories in 2006 – thrashing its rival, Fatah, which is only marginally less committed to the destruction of Israel.

Hamas did not suddenly become a terrorist organization after it was elected. Hamas was elected because it was a jihadist organization. It was elected because, by its own declaration, Hamas connects Palestinians to something they find attractive: the global Islamic-supremacist movement. Palestinians widely reject Israel’s right to exist. They regard not just Gaza, Judea and Samaria but all of Israel as “occupied Palestine.” Even those Palestinians who purport to accept the “two-state solution” see it as a way-station on the march to a one-state solution in which the Jewish state eventually ceases to be. Palestinians chose Hamas precisely because Hamas was seen as more dedicated than Fatah to the achievement of that goal—not to mention, more brutally competent.

At the time of its election, Hamas was well known to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian terrorist wing. It has been formally designated as a terrorist organization by the United States since the mid-nineties. Indeed, shortly before Palestinians endorsed Hamas at the ballot box, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted several Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case, a multi-million dollar terrorism financing conspiracy orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in which several of the Brotherhood’s American affiliates—CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, among others—were proved to be complicit in the promotion of Hamas and thus designated as unindicted co-conspirators.

The Wall Street Journal gets close to the heart of the matter in its fine editorial this morning about Hamas’s “civilian death strategy”:

The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation.

What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low; children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore.

To make matters worse, Gazans sheltered terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside ottoman sofas and dirty diapers. When Israel warned them of impending attacks, the inhabitants defiantly refused to leave.

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

It also calls your parenting skills into serious question. In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows closed, a social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on MSNBC where they can call Israel a genocidal murderer.

I say this “gets close to the heart of the matter” because it pulls up just short. The problem in the Palestinian territories is not Hamas; it is the Palestinians. Hamas is a natural outgrowth of the Islamic supremacist ideology that is dominant among Palestinians. It is not just that the Palestinians chose Hamas with eyes open. It is that the Palestinians are Hamas. That Hamas Charter speaks for Palestinians, particularly in its scripturally-based Jew hatred. “[O]ur struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave,” its Introduction proclaims, “so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”

That is just a warm-up for Jew-hatred that pervades the Charter’s Article Seven:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.

This is what Palestinians voted for. The highlighted section of Article Seven comes straight from Islamic scripture, from the authoritative Bukhari and Muslim collections of hadith (the sayings and doings of the prophet Mohammed). It foretells an eternal struggle until the end of time, when, with Allah’s intercession, the rocks and trees will help Muslim battalions find and kill every remaining Jew.

Read more at PJ Media

Pope Francis: Mahmoud Abbas is a “Man of Peace”

pa1-450x307by :

AP reported Sunday that “Pope Francis delivered a powerful boost of support to the Palestinians during a Holy Land pilgrimage Sunday, repeatedly backing their statehood aspirations, praying solemnly at Israel’s controversial separation barrier and calling the stalemate in peace efforts ‘unacceptable.’”

Not only that, but “Palestinian officials hailed Francis’ decision to refer to the ‘state of Palestine.’ In its official program, the Vatican referred to President Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the ‘state of Palestine,’ and his Bethlehem office as the ‘presidential palace.’ He pointedly called Abbas a ‘man of peace.’”

This is not really all that surprising. After all, this is the Pope who wrote last November that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” If “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” then Abbas is certainly a “man of peace.”

Abbas is the “man of peace” who said on March 15, 2013: “As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.” He said that while undoubtedly knowing that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna is quoted in the Hamas Charter as saying: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV has featured a music video that proclaimed: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.”

The “man of peace” heads up Fatah, which is hardly more “moderate.” Palestinian Media Watch reported on May 14 that “on one of its official Facebook pages the Fatah movement, which is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, yesterday posted a warning to Israelis. A sign showed an assault rifle and a map of ‘Palestine’ that included both PA areas and all of Israel. In Arabic, Hebrew, and English it said: ‘Warning. This is a land of a Palestinian state and the occupation to leave immediately’ (English original).”

Likewise, in mid-March, Palestinian official Abbas Zaki, a close friend of the “man of peace,” declared: “These Israelis have no belief, no principles. They are an advanced instrument of evil. They say, the Holocaust, and so on – fine, why are they doing this to us? Therefore, I believe that Allah, will gather them so we can kill them. I am informing the murderer of his death.” Fatah has also vowed to “adhere to the option of armed resistance until the liberation of all of Palestine,” and threatened to “turn the beloved [Gaza] Strip into a graveyard for your soldiers, and we will turn Tel Aviv into a ball of fire.”

Read more at Front Page

The Malevolence of the ‘Zionism Unsettled’ Authors

zaby :

The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) considers itself to be peace loving and fair. Today’s “progressive” churches, including the PCUSA, believe that taking the Bible seriously means it cannot be taken literally. This “progressive” outlook has largely given up on biblical prophecy and biblical truth, and taken on a multi-culturalist, moral relativist, and politically correct (PC) worldview. God’s love therefore, embraces all persons equally; no matter their gender, race, or sexual identity. They believe in diversity, tolerance, and inclusivity, except when it comes to Israel. This lingering strain of anti-Semitism has crept in among a determined group of activists within the church, who issued last January a monograph titled “Zionism Unsettled – A Congregational Study Guide.”

The Congregational Study Guide was released in January, 2014 ahead of the PCUSA biennial General Assembly (GA), taking place this June in Detroit. The gathering will once again consider recommendations that it divest from companies that deal with Israel’s military. Similar resolutions have been narrowly defeated in the past. The Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) 68-page guide accompanied by a DVD is meant to influence the GA delegates.

The IPMN, which is responsible for the study guide, is made up of “progressive” Christians influenced by “Liberation Theology” and tainted by a Marxist worldview.

They have mobilized on behalf of the Palestinians (no word from them about the mass killings in Syria or the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world) and against “Zionist” Israel, a code-word for Jews. Failing in their BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction) efforts against Israel in recent General Assemblies of the PCUSA, these BDS activists raised the ante a notch by publishing “Zionism Unsettled,” which argues that Zionism, or the Jewish State of Israel is inherently discriminatory toward the Palestinians, and that the very idea of a homeland for the Jewish People is illegitimate.  The authors (IPMN) have no problem with the reality of 22 Muslim states, which are governed by Sharia Islamic law. The Congregational Study Guide states that “the fundamental assumption of this study is that no exceptionalist claims can be justified in our interconnected, pluralistic world.”

According to the authors of the IPMN study guide, national-particularism cannot be justified in the case of Zionism. Yet, Palestinian Arabs who considered themselves part of the Arab nation until 1964, and speak Arabic like the rest of the Arab world, profess the same religion as the rest of the Sunni-Islam Arab states, and share the same cultural milieu as the rest of the Arab world, are acceptable in an “interconnected, pluralistic world” of the IPMN. Their malevolence is as transparent as their hypocrisy!

Read more at Front Page

Guest Column: The Palestinian Country of Lies

‘There Are 1,700 Hamas Millionaires in Gaza’

Ismail Haniyeh (R) with Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal Reuters

Ismail Haniyeh (R) with Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal

Arutz Sheva, By Dalit Halevi, Ari Yashar:

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction went on the offensive Thursday, claiming that Hamas in Gaza is corrupt and “doesn’t represent the Palestinian people.”

Fatah Spokesman Ahmad Assaf told Erem News that Hamas’s attempts to influence Egypt’s inner workings are “unacceptable,” noting the ties between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of which have been outlawed in the Nile state for their part in terror attacks.

Egypt has done more for the Palestinian Arabs than Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, who merely spew empty slogans and sell religion according to Assaf. Hamas on Tuesday criticized Egypt for closing the Gaza border with Sinai, calling it a “crime against humanity.” The siege has led to power outages.

The Fatah spokesman claimed that while Gaza is one of the poorest places in the world, there are 1,700 millionaires among Hamas members, hinting that the terror group imposes steep taxes on its citizens for goods entering from Egypt and Israel, and that this money finds its way into Hamas officials’ pockets.

Assaf finished by praising Abbas, the “Palestinian President,” for standing behind his principles and treating any concessions in peace talks as red lines. The spokesman stated Hamas had returned the situation to the way it was before 1967, a somewhat confusing remark, given that it was in 1967 that the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria came to an end, in the Six Day War.

Widening cracks in Fatah-Hamas relations

The Fatah criticism comes after Middle East expert Prof. Rafi Yisraeli assessed that Abbas’s life is in imminent danger from Hamas, which may try to supplant him. In doing so, the group would be aided by the fact that Abbas’s term of office ended in January 2009, giving Hamas claims of legitimacy.

Tensions between Fatah and Hamas have been high, with Hamas police in Gaza cracking down on demonstrators supporting Abbas on Sunday, with 13 demonstrators arrested and many reportedly beaten.

Those tensions have also been expressed in Hamas’s energy crisis. Hamas refuses to pay the exorbitant fuel taxes imposed by PA on fuel bought for the Gaza government from Israel, a key factor in the Hamas-enclave’s repeating fuel shortages.

On Sunday, Gaza was left without power for another day following an outage starting the day before, after the PA transferred only 100,000 liters of the 500,000 liters of fuel it had agreed to sell to Hamas.

Obama’s Betrayal of Israel as a Jewish State

Kerry-450x322by :

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has flatly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Such recognition is a key condition that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded for reaching an acceptable peace agreement on a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained the importance of such Palestinian recognition, which would amount to an expression of the Palestinians’ good faith intention to truly end the conflict by accepting Israel’s right of self-determination to once and for all live in peace as the Jewish state its founders envisioned:

“The central question at the end is of course ‘Are you willing to recognize that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish nation?’. If you don’t have the brunt of the agreement, then why turn to the leftovers. Concentrate on the central and difficult questions that they need to provide an answer for, but they don’t provide an answer. If they do give an answer — its negative. They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table. So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders? We are a lot of things, but we are definitely not fools.”

Incredibly, the U.S. State Department backs Abbas’ position. The spokeswoman for the State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview Saturday with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

Psaki is ignoring the Palestinians’ intent to throw out any Israelis still living in an independent Palestinian state. Abbas, for example, declared that “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.” He denied that he was against the Jews per se, but such antipathy is precisely what animates the xenophobic, anti-Jewish Palestinian ideology. This ideology starts with the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to falsely re-write the history of the Jewish homeland, denying that Jews have any historic connection to the land at all. Official Palestinian Authority outlets broadcast this lie over and over again. For example, in a documentary appearing last December on an official Palestinian Authority TV station, a woman proclaimed:  “I’m not against Jews. They can live. They can live on Mars, Allah willing, but they cannot take over places that are not their places, or land that is not their land and a homeland that is not their homeland.”

On January 7, 2014, the official spokesperson for President Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, accused the Israeli government of “falsifying history.”

Then there is the provocative statement by Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in a sermon delivered in the presence of Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV. Al-Habbash said that any peace agreement reached with Israel is just the first step towards defeating Israel, citing as the “model” Mohammed’s conquest of Mecca just two years after he had signed a treaty that gave his forces time to gain enough strength to carry out the conquest.

Recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state would be contrary to the Palestinians’ goal of returning millions of the descendants of the original refugees to pre-1967 Israel. In other words, while insisting that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 lines to make way for an independent Palestinian state devoid of any Israeli Jews, the Palestinians still demand the right to undermine the Jewish character of Israel, even as it existed pre-1967, by flooding Israel with so-called “refugees” (actually many descendants several generations removed from the original refugees) rather than giving them real homes in an independent Palestinian state.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Hamas: Teaching Human Rights is Against Palestinian, Islamic Culture

Gatestone Institute, by Khaled Abu Toameh:

Hamas’ real problem with the UNRWA curriculum is that it could spoil the Islamist movement’s ongoing efforts to stir the hearts and minds of Palestinian children to wage jihad against the “enemies” of Islam. Hamas wants Palestinian children to be taught how to become suicide bombers and seek the death of Jews and “infidels.”

Palestinian schoolchildren in the Gaza Strip have been denied the opportunity to learn about human rights after the Hamas government determined that such a subject “dangerously contravenes Palestinian and Islamic culture.”

Hamas’s announcement came in response to an attempt by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to include a course on human rights in schools run by the agency in the Gaza Strip.

The UNRWA bid drew strong condemnations from the Hamas government, whose representatives accused the international agency of seeking to “brainwash” Palestinian children.

Mutasame al-Minawi, a senior official with the Hamas-run Ministry of Education, explained that the main reason why his government was opposed to the human rights subject being taught in Palestinian schools is because it “ignores the nakba [catastrophe] of the Palestinian people, seeks to scrap the right of return for Palestinian refugees [to Israel] and promotes the culture of peaceful resistance and submission as a way of restoring our rights.”

Al-Minawi said that UNRWA proposed two years ago to include in its school curriculum the subject of human rights. UNRWA was hoping, he added, that the subject would be taught to children from Grades 7-9.

According to the Hamas official, his government back then expressed reservations about some of the contents of the subject, prompting UNRWA to amend about 40% of the material.

But recently, UNRWA decided to go ahead with its plan to teach human rights in its schools in the Gaza Strip, ignoring warnings from the Hamas government, al-Minawi claimed. “UNRWA is acting as a state-within-a-state,” he charged. “They need to know the limits of their power and that they are committed to the curriculum taught in areas under UNRWA’s jurisdiction.”

The Hamas official said that UNRWA’s human rights course was aimed at making Palestinian children develop “negative sentiments towards the armed resistance although it is legitimate for a people under occupation.”

What is also worrying Hamas is that UNRWA is seeking to teach Palestinian children about the disastrous repercussions of wars and violence by depicting a child burning a military uniform. “This does not serve the cause of human rights,” the Hamas official said. “They want to raise children on calmness.”

The Hamas protests forced UNRWA to suspend its plan to teach the subject of human rights in its schools. Some Palestinians criticized UNRWA for “succumbing” to threats, while others said they were aware that the international agency had no choice but to comply.

In an attempt to calm Hamas, UNRWA denied that its school curriculum contravened Palestinian tradition and culture.

A spokesman for UNRWA said that his agency consults with “all components of Palestinian society” about its human rights courses.

Hamas’s real problem with the UNRWA curriculum is that it could spoil the Islamist movement’s ongoing efforts to stir the hearts and minds of Palestinian children to wage jihad against the “enemies” of Islam.

Hamas wants Palestinian children to be taught how to become suicide bombers and seek the death of Jews and “infidels.”

Hamas does not want Palestinian children to learn about civil rights heroes such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. These people were opposed to violence and therefore their ideology, according to Hamas, is in violation of Palestinian and Islamic culture.

Hamas wants Palestinian children to glorify suicide bombers and terrorists who mercilessly kill innocent people, including many Muslims, on a daily basis. Hamas’s summer camps are all about training children in the use of weapons and injecting them with more hatred towards Israel and the US.


Palestinian children at a Hamas summer camp in June 2013. (Image source: IDF YouTube video)

“Hamas is behaving in the Gaza Strip as if it were an independent state,” wrote Palestinian columnist Hassan Khader.

Khader also criticized the Palestinian public and political factions for failing to pay enough attention to the controversy between Hamas and UNRWA over the school curriculum.

For now, Hamas appears to have succeeded in preventing UNRWA from teaching Palestinian children about human rights. The two parties are now negotiating an end to the crisis, which does not seem likely unless UNRWA officially joins Hamas’s ideology and starts preaching for jihad and anti-semitism.


A Mockery of Peace

obama mapby Justin O Smith:

Israel gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as the world has not God. -Jacques Maritain

The modern racism, which yearned to eliminate Jews from society as a gardener would root out weeds, the sort of racism that allowed pogroms to flourish across Russia and Europe in the 1890s and culminated in the death camps of the 1940s in Nazi Germany, is on the rise once more in Europe and America, with U.S. president Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry leading the way. In an overt act of anti-semitism, Kerry recently remarked in the affirmative and in agreement with several European leaders that boycotts and sanctions against Israel may be needed to force Israel to accept the Kerry Plan for “peace” and a two state solution, as if Israel does not want peace and the Palestinians’ claims in the area are not specious and false.

While the Kerry Plan does call for the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people, two of its main points certainly must be non-starters for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is to withdraw from the West Bank to the 1967 borders, and East Jerusalem will become the Palestinian capital.

Since the land of Israel in 1948 accounted for less than a fourth of the land originally designated “Palestine,” and Jordan, an Islamic/Palestinian state that forbids Jews settlement rights by law, was carved out of the Palestinian “Jewish National Home,” how can the Arabs be said to have been excluded from a “Palestinian homeland”?

Just how much land will Israel have to relinquish in order to achieve real peace? All of it according to Yasir Arafat, former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, when he spoke with world renown journalist Oriana Fallaci in Amman, Jordan in March 1972.

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and head of the Fatah Party recently proposed an old NATO security proposal for the area that was favored by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert and former U.S. President George W. Bush. Abbas will accept a U.S. led NATO and Jordanian force into the Palestinian state indefinitely to prevent the sort of terrorism that occurred after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2004. Abbas also allows that a “third party” can stay in the newly demilitarized West Bank “for a long time…to reassure the Israelis and to protect us” (the Palestinians).

No, this plan should not offer Israel any comfort. Abbas and the Palestinians will be the only winners, gaining their new state. Israel’s national security will be compromised, as they attempt to defend a barely defensible position from behind the 1967 borders. This places Israel at a severe disadvantage from the start, should any new conflict arise. With NATO’s ability to ensure any real security suspect at best, for Israel, it is like starting a chess game without one’s queen.

Many so-called experts are discussing this framework agreement, as though it is a morally superior endeavor to all previous peace talks. However, whether we speak of the 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Treaty, the 1922 British Mandate and through each successive agreement to the Kerry Plan, most of the world has sought to undermine the State of Israel, while proclaiming otherwise. And now, the U.S. government too is underminig Israel, America’s long-time ally.

Netanyahu does not trust the Palestinians to negotiate honestly, as he stated recently: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want another state that will start attacking us.” And, intuitively, Netanyahu rightly does not trust Obama and Kerry, as was evident three weeks ago when he said, “Israel does not have to agree with everything America presents.”

The peace talks, scheduled to end April 29, nearly ended prematurely, when the Israelis announced on January 10, 2014 that they intended to build 1400 housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, was highly upset, but Erekat and all involved in this framework agreement process understood that settlement construction would continue full force during negotiations.

Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political base opposes the Kerry Plan, Netanyahu sees a two state solution of some sort, as necessary for Israel’s integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with healthy ties to Europe and the West for the sake of Israel’s economy. In this light, John Kerry’s coercion and economic blackmail are especially egregious, despicable and unnecessary; Kerry has damaged any future peace process, harmed Israel and damaged U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations, but many Americans did not expect anything less from a man of such low character.

Once one reviews the historical record and understands that the British gave away Jewish land to the landless Arab/Muslims who were displaced by Islamic fuedal practices and extortionate taxation, not by the Jews, and, in conjunction one reads various quotes from decades past, one realizes anti-semitism never goes away; it just becomes more glib: “The greatest contemporary hero (in the Muslim world) is Hitler.” – John Gunther, ‘Inside Asia’, 1939; in 1974, Syrian PLO leader, Zuheir Muhsein explained, “Our purpose…it (a Palestinian state) will be a point of departure…This State will be the backbone of our struggle against Israel.” This mindset prevails today across the Middle East.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands against diplomatic storms that threaten to annihilate Israel eventually__God forbid__and liberal Jews in Israel’s Labor Party and in America who are advocating the Kerry Plan are making Israel’s situation tragic and unbearable. Bibi Netanyahu must reject outright this plan and Kerry and Obama, with all their bias towards the Palestinians, as Israel seeks new allies and economic partners; Bibi must reject Oslo and all previous accords. He must find the political will and support to annex Gaza and the West Bank, as he proceeds with a forced removal/repatriation of the Palestinians to Jordan or the rest of the Arab world. The world uttered not a peep when this was done to 2 million Russians, against their will, under the Marshall Plan after WWII, but listen to the outcry when this proves necessary for Israel. And, if the tragedy of Bethlehem under Palestinian control is any indication of things to come, at the very least, Jerusalem must always stay united and complete as the proper capital of Israel. All of this is preferable to a sham “peace” agreement that only serves Israel’s enemies.

Genesis 12:2__I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great.

John Kerry’s Blackmail

17763891-450x337Front Page, by :

American Secretary of State John Kerry continued the Obama Administration’s record of bullying, saying on Saturday, “for Israel there is an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it, there is talk of boycott and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that?” Kerry is pressuring Israel to make very difficult compromises, claiming if not there will be a “high risk” of increased boycotts, and a higher likelihood of international isolation for Israel. This, in English would be called blackmail.

This administration has repeatedly pushed through controversial, executive action policies that the majority of Americans oppose – and the Middle East is no different. Instead of standing with America’s closest ally, Kerry spent the weekend threatening violence and boycotts against Israel if the Jewish State doesn’t make sacrifices to placate the Palestinian Arabs. Despicable incitement which provides moral encouragement to those who seek to kill Jews and are also enemies of the West.

Why haven’t the Palestinians been threatened if peace talks break down? As a fellow Front Page Mag columnist previously noted, Palestinians cheer while America mourns. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, Palestinians in Gaza cheered, “danced in the streets and handed out candy and sweets to motorists and pedestrians alike.” “Similarly, after the 9-11 attacks that killed 3,000 people, the Palestinian response was quite similar. Old women were seen shrieking in jubilation while children passed out sweets and men cheered approvingly.”  And these are the people American officials support?

Lest one forget, there were mass protests against America amongst Palestinian Arabs during President Barack Obama’s visit to the region.  Palestinians are no friends of the Christians, and stand as allies of Arab fundamentalists who are also anti-American.  Israel remains the only place in the Middle East where American flags aren’t burnt.

In November, John Kerry encouraged the Arabs to commit violence against Israel when he asked, “I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?” Kerry said Israel’s “isolation” would be their own fault if a peace deal with the Palestinians falls through. Kerry further warned the Israelis that “the alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos.” Tantamount to incitement by saying either give in or accept attacks. Despicable.

Simply, John Kerry is telling Israel that if it does not sacrifice land to the Palestinian Arabs, then they can deal with Arab violence. What Kerry neglects is that if Israel does sacrifice, it will also deal with Arab violence, and the Arabs won’t stop attacking as long as there is a Jewish State. The Palestinian Arabs have massacred Jewish men, women and children before there was a state of Israel, and don’t need John Kerry to encourage them to continue to do so.
These are Israel’s so-called “peace partners.” These are the people who are demanding that Kerry and Obama forget that America and Israel share common Christian-Judeo values, and Israel is a staunch ally of America.  It is time for Kerry to wake up and realize that Israel is not the problem in the Middle East – the Palestinian Arabs are.

As Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon noted, the county “will not negotiate with a gun put to our head,” and “We will make decisions that protect the interests of the state of Israel – If we had made decisions according to every boycott threat, we would not be here today.” Zionist prophet Ze’ev Jabotinsky said many years ago: “At the root of our 2000 years of suffering is our refusal to surrender. The history of the Jewish people in the exile is not the history of what they did, but the history of what was done to them.”

John Kerry: Leave Israel Alone and stand with Israel, not with those who celebrate the Boston Massacre and 9/11.


Also see: