America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Monday, May 17, 2021
AMERICAN TAX DOLLAR FUNDED PALESTINIAN TERRORISM
The Dark Face of Palestinian Terror
A death cult reignites its terror against Israeli civilians.
The "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is spinning out of control toward another possible all-out war. Blame should, of course, fall on the Palestinian terrorists operating from Gaza, who have once again fired hundreds of rockets inside Israel against civilian targets. This time, the terrorists deliberately escalated what began as a local fracas over the possible eviction of Palestinians from homes they have been occupying in an area of East Jerusalem known as Sheikh Jarrah. Israeli Jews claim that this land belongs to them. After a barrage of rocket attacks, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) struck back. The Palestinians are complaining. Here we go again.
The pattern is very familiar by now. Palestinians use a pretext to start a riot. The Israeli police and security forces respond proportionately. The Palestinians up the ante, prompting a further Israeli response. Then Palestinian terrorists in Gaza use the territory they control to launch rocket attacks into Israel against civilian targets. Israel warns the terrorists to stop the rocket fire, which the terrorists ignore. After the Israeli military retaliates proportionately in an effort to target the terrorists responsible for the rocket attacks and their facilities, Palestinian government leaders cry foul. They point to unintended Palestinian civilian casualties, which are often caused by the Palestinian terrorists putting the civilians, including women and children, in harm’s way. Then, with their usual crocodile tears, Palestinian diplomats run to the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and other globalist forums to reprise their false narrative of victimhood at the hands of the “oppressor,” “murderous,” “apartheid” Israeli regime. The Palestinians can count on leftist support for their cause in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.
In short, Palestinian militants provoke violence to which Israel responds. Palestinian terrorists target innocent civilians deliberately. Israel targets the terrorists and their facilities, with policies and practices in place to minimize civilian casualties. And like the youth who kills his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he’s an orphan, the Palestinians ask the so-called “international community” to rally around them.
The Israeli Supreme Court had not even ruled yet on the Sheikh Jarrah dispute before Palestinian agitators exploited the situation. They used the dispute, together with a peaceful Jerusalem Day parade celebrating Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem following Israel’s victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, as an excuse to riot. Israeli police responded, leading to an outbreak of violence in and around the Temple Mount.
Then Hamas and Islamic Jihad entered the fray by firing hundreds of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel and several rockets into the Jerusalem area. Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas’s armed wing, said it had launched “a rocket strike against the enemy in the occupied Jerusalem in response to their crimes and aggression against the holy city and its aggression against our people in Sheikh Jarrah and Al-Aqsa mosque.” This was the first time since the 2014 Gaza War that Hamas has aimed its rockets at Jerusalem.
While Israel’s Iron Dome defense system managed to intercept some of the rockets, others got through and killed at least two Israeli civilians, injured scores of other Israelis, and destroyed homes.
On Tuesday evening, as reported by the Jerusalem Post, Palestinian terrorists launched rockets reaching the Tel Aviv region. One of the rockets hit a bus, causing several injuries, including to a 5-year-old girl.
"The terrorist organizations in Gaza have crossed a red line," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. "Whoever attacks us will pay a heavy price," he added, warning that the fighting could "continue for some time." As usual, the Palestinian terrorists did not listen.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) made good on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s threat. The IDF responded to the Palestinian terrorist attacks by striking Palestinian terrorists and their facilities in the Gaza Strip. Israel’s airstrikes were deadly to be sure but aimed squarely at killing the terrorists, such as the head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s special rocket unit, Samah Abed al-Mamluk, and other senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives. The IDF also targeted Hamas military installations, a Hamas tunnel, and rocket launchers.
Israeli forces try to provide warnings where possible to give Palestinian non-combatants, if any, the opportunity to leave before a building believed to be used by terrorists is destroyed. Any Palestinian civilian casualties are the collateral consequences of the decision by Palestinian terrorists to operate or hide among the civilian population. Also, some of the Palestinian civilian deaths reported by the Gaza health ministry could well have been caused by rockets the terrorists launched that landed in Gaza.
The dispute in Sheikh Jarrah, which helped ignite the current conflagration, involves land that two Jewish trusts bought from Arab landowners in 1876. After Jordan captured the area and illegally occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the Jordanians seized the Jewish-owned lands to build homes for Palestinians. Following Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967, Israel returned ownership of the Sheikh Jarrah homes to the Jewish trusts, which later sold them to Jewish settlers who are trying to evict the Palestinians now living there. The Palestinian residents who signed an agreement in 1982 accepting Jewish ownership of the land in return for which they were allowed to live in the homes there as protected tenants may have had a decent case to remain, except for one thing. They repudiated the agreement, thereby forfeiting their protected status. This protected status does not suddenly return if other Palestinians move in as squatters. In any event, the issue is up to Israel’s Supreme Court to resolve.
Leftwing Democrats have added their own fuel to the fire by reflexively taking the Palestinians’ side rather than waiting for the judicial process to take its course. Democratic-Socialist Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, for example, wrote last week that “We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Israeli forces are forcing families from their homes during Ramadan and inflicting violence. It is inhumane and the US must show leadership in safeguarding the human rights of Palestinians.” (Emphasis added)
The ”we” includes Senator Elizabeth Warren. The progressive senator said that “the forced removal of long-time Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah is abhorrent and unacceptable. The Administration should make clear to the Israeli government that these evictions are illegal and must stop immediately.” The Israeli government should make clear to Senator Warren that she lacks any understanding of the background of the dispute and should mind her own business.
The Biden administration has reportedly expressed its displeasure to Israeli authorities over the possible Sheikh Jarrah evictions, as well as Israel’s construction plans in other parts of East Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is said to have dismissed the objections. His position is that “Jerusalem is not a settlement, but the capital of Israel.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu no doubt wishes that Donald Trump was still in the White House. President Biden’s attempt to go back to the so-called even-handedness approach of the Obama-Biden administration and to put some distance between the United States and its closest ally in the Middle East has enabled much of what is now happening. Biden's recent decision to restore millions of dollars of funding to the Palestinians has also encouraged the Palestinians to become more aggressive against Israel without fearing a Trump-style response.
The Biden State Department has at least condemned the Palestinian terrorist rocket attacks as “an unacceptable escalation.” The State Department spokesman, Ned Price, called on “all sides” to show restraint, but acknowledged “Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.”
That’s helpful, but it's just words. What will the Biden administration do if another one-sided, anti-Israel resolution pushed by the Palestinians and their friends comes before the UN Security Council? The Security Council has already met behind closed doors to discuss the current crisis.
Will the Biden administration abstain like the Obama-Biden administration did in 2016, allowing the infamous Security Council Resolution 2334 to pass? Probably it will, under pressure to go along with the globalist "consensus." Resolution 2334 declared that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law…” The Biden administration would have no problem allowing another resolution to pass that reaffirms Resolution 2334's proclamation and declares that any Israeli evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem are also illegal under international law.
As usual, the current crisis should not be considered in a vacuum. Palestinian leaders are hoping that the escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza puts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back on the front pages. They are hoping that Israel’s forceful response to the terrorists’ rocket attacks will create a major split between Israel and the Arab countries seeking better relations with the Jewish state.
This strategy may be succeeding. The back-and-forth of terrorist rocket attacks and Israeli retaliatory airstrikes is dominating the news. An Arab League meeting of foreign ministers was convened to discuss the situation, resulting in a statement that placed the blame for the violence solely on Israel.
Reuters has reported that at the conclusion of the Arab League meeting, the foreign ministers issued a statement holding Israel "fully responsible for whatever follows due to its crimes, which constitute glaring violations of U.N. decrees, international law and human rights law." The statement called on international organizations including the UN Security Council to "immediately stop the Israeli aggression and provide the necessary protection for the Palestinian people and uphold their right to worship freely and safely."
The Palestinian terrorists’ current escalation also reflects in part the ongoing power struggle within Palestinian leadership ranks. Hamas wants to show Palestinians that it is best equipped to look after their interests after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas decided to postpone indefinitely the first Palestinian elections in 15 years, scheduled for May 22nd. Abbas reportedly feared that Hamas would not only hold onto its power in Gaza but would also fare better than the Fatah Party factions still supporting him would in the West Bank. Hamas called the election postponement a “coup.” It is trying to force Abbas’s hand by showing him up as an ineffectual, out-of-touch bureaucrat.
Hamas may also be trying to destabilize Israel politically as Israel tries to put together a working governing coalition. However, the terrorists’ attacks are more likely to have the opposite effect.
If the past is prologue, some combination of Egypt, Qatar and UN officials will try to mediate a ceasefire in return for which Israel will have to make one or more concessions. The Palestinians may get to stay put in homes on land they do not own without the owners’ consent after all.
Conned by Khan
Muslim terrorists pretend reform - and the West eats it up.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The degree to which Muslim terrorists can feign remorse for their crimes and convincingly pretend to have reformed—while secretly despising and plotting to murder non-Muslims—was on recent display.
After his prison evaluators had determined that Usman Khan, who was serving time for terrorist-related activities, had reformed and repented of his ways, they freed him early, in December 2018. Less than a year later, however, he murdered two people, a man and woman, and injured three others at Fishmongers Hall near London Bridge.
During a recent inquest, the Rev Paul Foster, a prison chaplain, admitted that he was one of those to have been “conned” by the falsely “remorseful” Khan.
Foster said that “Khan had engaged positively with programmes looking at his offending and the impact of his crimes.” Khan, moreover, “had conversations with me about wanting to change and make a fresh start—to pay more attention to the ripple effect of his actions.”
Mr Foster also said Khan had spoken “openly and emotionally” during a discussion session with a victim of crime.
He added: “We were being presented with a lot of positive things about his behavior—even some of the prisoners were telling me... in one instance a chap lost his son to a murder and Usman was the person at his door offering his condolences and asking if he could help.”
The chaplain described one session with Khan in which he professed “some shame” about the impact his crime had on the Muslim community.
“He appeared to show remorse for what he had done,” Mr Foster said.
In the end, it was all a charade. During the inquest, Foster expressed shock on learning that, during the same time period that Khan was feigning repentance, so too was he the “main inmate for radicalising others and had been involved in ‘forced conversations.’”
“[H]e was obviously presenting himself in a way that was likely to deceive the likes of myself and others,” Foster concluded: I'm open to say I am wrong, and it is possible I have been conned.”
Indeed, not only was he conned by Khan; but many other well-meaning prison employees and evaluators have been conned by many other “reformed” Muslim terrorists. Worse, such cons appear to be the rule not the exception.
According to a 2020 study published by Kings College London’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) and titled “Prisons and Terrorism,” “‘False compliance’ seems to have become more widespread, especially among jihadist prisoners, though its true extent is unknown. This can be a major issue in relation to risk assessment and release arrangements.”
The ICSR report documented several other examples beyond Khan of jihadi prisoners pretending to have reformed and “de-radicalized.” One of the two Muslims who beheaded 85‑year‑old Catholic priest Jacques Hamel in his church in France in 2016 had twice earlier been apprehended for trying to go to Syria and fight for the Islamic State. All he had to do, however, was tell the judge what he wanted to hear: “I am a Muslim who believes in mercy, in doing good, I’m not an extremist … I want to get back my life, see my friends, get married.” Based on these words, the judge released him, and soon thereafter this “Muslim who believes in mercy” slaughtered the elderly priest.
Similarly, “many of the 40 female inmates in Fleury‑Mérogis prison in Paris have joked about how they tricked the judge or magistrate—by eating pork, for example, which is forbidden in Islam—to receive more lenient sentences.”
Sadly, the only ones learning from the interaction between Muslim prisoners and European authorities are the terrorists themselves:
From their perspective, prison is also an opportunity to understand how the authorities operate, and—in a sign of their growing awareness of counterintelligence and countersurveillance—jihadists have actively looked to pass their time in prison without incident or arousing the suspicions of the authorities.
Relatedly, the incarcerated terrorists “see prison as a test of their commitment to the cause and a place to recover from Islamic State’s battlefield losses and the wider upheaval in the jihadist scene.”
The ICSR report goes on to invoke the word taqiyya—Islam’s premiere doctrine of deceit:
[O]ffenders may try to ‘game’ a risk assessment if they are in contact with other inmates who have already participated in the process. Part of this involves knowing what to say to tick the right boxes. Much of this is seemingly the use of what is referred to as taqiyya, which is a (mostly) Shiite concept used to describe deception and dissimulation to hide one’s true intentions…. [T]he true scale of taqiyya may be greater than commonly understood… Yet the assumption that jihadists are more willing to engage in deception than non‑terrorist prisoners can pose a conundrum, whereby anything less than admitting to holding jihadist ideas and intentions is thought of as a form of taqiyya.
It is, admittedly, somewhat surprising, refreshingly so, to see a normally politically correct Western think tank even use the term taqiyya. For example, after “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception”—an article that Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst (a defense intelligence agency founded in 1898) had commissioned me to write on taqiyya—was published in September 26, 2008, its (since fired) editor called me in a panic: his superiors were outraged that he had allowed such an article to appear; part of their “damage control” was to publish another article refuting mine.
The great “crime” of my article was that it went against academic orthodoxy on taqiyya, which has long insisted that the doctrine permits Muslims to deceive others only when their lives are under threat. My article argued what the ICSR report is now saying—well over a decade later: that the application of taqiyya, or deceit, is hardly limited to life threatening situations and is often employed in any way that can be seen as helping Muslims against non-Muslims.
As for the typical (and wrong) caveat offered by the ICSR, that “taqiyya … is a (mostly) Shiite concept,” this is not true—as evidenced by the simple fact that the prison subjects in ICSR’s own study are overwhelmingly if not entirely Sunni. As Dr. Sami Nassib Makarem, the foremost authority on taqiyya, wrote in his seminal book, Al-Taqiyya fi’l Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”):
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.
Taqiyya was associated with Shiites because, historically, they had more reason to employ it, being minorities surrounded by hostile Sunni majorities. Today, however, Sunnis in the West are the primary Muslim minorities surrounded by their historic enemies—non-Muslims, “infidels”—and thus they, no less than Shia, employ taqiyya. (For those interested in more detailed expositions on Islam’s doctrines of deceit, see here, here, and here.)
So long as the West fails to appreciate the significance and widespread nature of taqiyya, so long will it continue to be duped by its practitioners—often, as highlighted by Usman Khan’s example, with fatal consequences.
The degree to which Muslim terrorists can feign remorse for their crimes and convincingly pretend to have reformed — while secretly despising and plotting to murder non-Muslims — was recently underscored. RAYMOND IBRAHIM
The degree to which Muslim terrorists can feign remorse for their crimes and convincingly pretend to have reformed — while secretly despising and plotting to murder non-Muslims — was recently underscored.
After his prison evaluators had determined that Usman Khan, who was serving time for terrorist-related activities, had reformed and repented of his ways, they freed him early, in December 2018. Less than a year later he murdered two people, a man and woman, and injured three others at Fishmongers Hall near London Bridge.
During a recent inquest, the Rev. Paul Foster, a prison chaplain, admitted that he was one of those to have been "conned" by the falsely "remorseful" Khan.
Foster said that "Khan had engaged positively with programmes looking at his offending and the impact of his crimes." Khan, moreover, "had conversations with me about wanting to change and make a fresh start — to pay more attention to the ripple effect of his actions."
Mr Foster also said Khan had spoken "openly and emotionally" during a discussion session with a victim of crime.
He added: "We were being presented with a lot of positive things about his behavior — even some of the prisoners were telling me... in one instance a chap lost his son to a murder and Usman was the person at his door offering his condolences and asking if he could help."
The chaplain described one session with Khan in which he professed "some shame" about the impact his crime had on the Muslim community.
"He appeared to show remorse for what he had done," Mr Foster said.
In the end, it was all a charade. During the inquest, Foster expressed shock on learning that, during the same time period that Khan was feigning repentance, so too was he the "main inmate for radicalising others and had been involved in 'forced conversations.'"
"[H]e was obviously presenting himself in a way that was likely to deceive the likes of myself and others," Foster concluded. "I'm open to say I am wrong, and it is possible I have been conned."
Indeed, not only was he conned by Khan, but many other well-meaning prison employees and evaluators have been conned by many other "reformed" Muslim terrorists. Worse, such cons appear to be the rule, not the exception.
According to a 2020 study published by Kings College London's International Centre for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) and titled "Prisons and Terrorism," "'[f]alse compliance' seems to have become more widespread, especially among jihadist prisoners, though its true extent is unknown. This can be a major issue in relation to risk assessment and release arrangements."
The ICSR report documented several other examples beyond Khan of jihadi prisoners pretending to have reformed and "de-radicalized." One of the two Muslims who beheaded 85‑year‑old Catholic priest Jacques Hamel in his church in France in 2016 had twice earlier been apprehended for trying to go to Syria and fight for the Islamic State. All he had to do, however, was tell the judge what he wanted to hear: "I am a Muslim who believes in mercy, in doing good. I'm not an extremist. ... I want to get back my life, see my friends, get married." Based on these words, the judge released him, and soon thereafter, this "Muslim who believes in mercy" slaughtered the elderly priest.
Similarly, "many of the 40 female inmates in Fleury‑Mérogis prison in Paris have joked about how they tricked the judge or magistrate — by eating pork, for example, which is forbidden in Islam — to receive more lenient sentences."
Sadly, the only ones learning from the interaction between Muslim prisoners and European authorities are the terrorists themselves:
From their perspective, prison is also an opportunity to understand how the authorities operate, and — in a sign of their growing awareness of counterintelligence and countersurveillance — jihadists have actively looked to pass their time in prison without incident or arousing the suspicions of the authorities.
Relatedly, the incarcerated terrorists "see prison as a test of their commitment to the cause and a place to recover from Islamic State's battlefield losses and the wider upheaval in the jihadist scene."
The ICSR report goes on to invoke the word taqiyya — Islam's premiere doctrine of deceit:
[O]ffenders may try to 'game' a risk assessment if they are in contact with other inmates who have already participated in the process. Part of this involves knowing what to say to tick the right boxes. Much of this is seemingly the use of what is referred to as taqiyya, which is a (mostly) Shiite concept used to describe deception and dissimulation to hide one's true intentions. ... [T]he true scale of taqiyya may be greater than commonly understood. ... Yet the assumption that jihadists are more willing to engage in deception than non‑terrorist prisoners can pose a conundrum, whereby anything less than admitting to holding jihadist ideas and intentions is thought of as a form of taqiyya.
It is, admittedly, somewhat surprising — refreshingly so — to see a normally politically correct Western think-tank even use the term taqiyya. For example, after "Islam's Doctrines of Deception" — an article that Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst (a defense intelligence agency) had commissioned me to write on taqiyya — was published in September 26, 2008, its (since fired) editor called me in a panic: his superiors were outraged that he had allowed such an article to appear. Part of their "damage control" was to publish another article refuting mine.
The great "crime" of my article was that it went against academic orthodoxy on taqiyya, which has long insisted that the doctrine permits Muslims to deceive others only when their lives are under threat. My article argued what the ICSR report is now saying — well over a decade later: that the application of taqiyya, or deceit, is hardly limited to life-threatening situations and is often employed in any way that can be seen as helping Muslims against non-Muslims.
As for the typical (and wrong) caveat offered by the ICSR, that "taqiyya ... is a (mostly) Shiite concept," this is not true — as evidenced by the simple fact that the prison subjects in ICSR's own study are overwhelmingly if not entirely Sunni. As Dr. Sami Nassib Makarem, the foremost authority on taqiyya, wrote in his seminal book, Al-Taqiyya fi'l Islam ("Taqiyya in Islam"):
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. ... We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. ... Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.
Turkey’s President Erdogan Claims Europe an ‘Open-Air Prison’ for Muslims
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has claimed that Muslims in Europe live in what amounts to an “open-air prison” and that Islamophobia was as dangerous as the Wuhan coronavirus.
The Turkish leader made his statements earlier this week during a television broadcast in which he criticised European countries for “Islamophobia”, saying: “The Islamophobia virus, as dangerous as coronavirus, is spreading rapidly, especially in European countries.”
According to a report from the Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency, President Erdogan went on to add: “Europe, where 35 million Muslims live today, including six million Turks, is increasingly turning into an open-air prison for our brothers and sisters.”
“In many Western countries, especially in France, being a Muslim, living in a Muslim way, is enough to be discriminated against. Women wearing headscarves, in particular, are the biggest victims of this growing wave of hatred in Europe,” Erdogan said.
The Turkish president also claimed that “racist fascists” were attacking Muslims in the streets, on public transport, and in other areas “almost every day”.
He also referred to a debate between French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin and populist National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, who Erdogan called “the leader of a racist party”, and stated the debate was “embarrassing”.
The February debate shocked many observers as Darmanin accused Le Pen of being “soft” on Islam.
“You are starting to show softness, you need to take vitamins again. You are not ready to legislate on religion and you say that Islam is not even a problem,” Darmanin said.
Erdogan’s comments come after months of tensions between him and French President Emmanuel Macron after the latter decided to crack down on political Islam and Islamist groups in the wake of the beheading of teacher Samuel Paty.
Erdogan even accused Macron of being mentally unstable in October after the French president defended free speech, just days after Paty was beheaded in the street by a Chechen refugee for showing cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed to his class.
“What’s the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?” Erdogan had said, adding: “Macron needs treatment on a mental level.”
In March of this year, President Macron warned that Erdogan and his government would likely make attempts to interfere in next year’s French presidential elections, saying: “Obviously, there will be attempts at interference for the next election. They’re written, and the threats are not veiled.”
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJor email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com
No comments:
Post a Comment