Egyptian expert says Muslim claims over al-Aksa mosque are baseless.

From JPost, 23 Dec 2015, by JACKIE HOGI:

Egyptian philosopher, expert on Arabic and Islamic studies, says Muslim claims over al-Aksa mosque are baseless.

screenshot

Dr. Youssef Ziedan was insistent on pronouncing the words "Beit Hamikdash," or, Temple in Jerusalem, clearly and in Hebrew.

An Egyptian philosopher and expert on  Arabic and Islamic studies,  Ziedan sat in the Egyptian CBC studios and explained at length to his host why, in his opinion, Muslim claims over al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem are baseless. The CBC interviewer, Khairy Ramadan, challenged Zieden while taking in his words eagerly.

..."Beit Hamikdash is a Hebrew term," Ziedan insisted in his interview. "Hence, in my opinion, the al-Aksa mosque isn't legitimate. Al-Kuds, the temple, is an ancient Hebrew word, and Muslims adopted the word." He turned to his Muslim brethren and said: "You're annexing the city, annexing the word, and claiming that it is holy to you. But from where exactly? Can you tell a Jew that Jerusalem is not his?"

... Youssef Ziedan, [is] a Muslim from birth, who has never been to Israel or been a particular fan of the Jewish nation, and remains one of the most important researchers on religions in Egyptian academia.

Jerusalem is not explicitly referenced in the Koran. In their claims on the Temple Mount, Muslims reference the term "Al-Aksa Mosque," which does appear in the holy book, sans a geographic pinpoint. Ziedan claims that interpretation claiming that the mosque is situated precisely in Jerusalem, is baseless.

The Muslims base their claims on the first verse in chapter 17 of the Koran, titled, "The Night Journey," which reads: "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque."

Based on the Muslim faith, the verse speaks of a miracle bestowed on Muhammad by God, in which the messenger (Muhammad), was led in the middle of the night from the mosque in the city of Mecca (the "Holy mosque) to a mosque in another city (the "further mosque), further away, believed to be al-Aqsa mosque, which, for generations, was interpreted as having been located in Jerusalem.

Ziedan however, has his own, alternative theory. He claims that the phrase "Al Aksa" refers to a mosque on the outskirts of the city of Ta'if, west of Mecca. He bases his hypothesis on the teachings of the ancient Muslim historian Al-Waqidi, born 100 years after the appearance of Muhammad, who made similar claims.

"Al Aksa mosque didn't exist back then," said Ziedan, "there was no city named al-Quds and modern teachings claiming this are disastrous."

Khairy Ramadan challenged Ziedan, and asked him why he believes Muslims today insist on the holiness of Jerusalem. Ziedan attributed the stubbornness to politics.

"The religious aspect in the Arab-Israeli conflict is intentionally political."

Ziedan claimed that Al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem was built by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the 5th caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty in Damascus, 73 years after the founding of Islam. If this is true, then Al-Aksa could not have been in existence when Muhammad made the overnight journey in the Koran's 17th chapter. Ziedan said that Marwan built al-Aksa in order to infringe on the prestige of Mecca, which at the time was controlled by his political enemies.

"Al-Aqsa mosque was a pawn in a political game, led by ibn Marwan," said Ziedan.

Ziedan's controversial interview surfaced at a sensitive time - a time when Palestinians and Israelis are engaging in violent confrontations in the West Bank, while the Muslim world is echoing cries of concern over Al-Aksa, claiming that it is in danger due to Jewish presence on site.

In his CBC appearance, Ziedan went further, clearing the Israeli government of responsibility from Palestinian claims that it was at fault for the 1982 massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Ziedan said that, since the massacre was carried out by the Kataeb Party, also known as Phalange - predominantly Christian Lebanese and right-wing - there is no reason to blame Ariel Sharon, Minister of Defense at the time.

The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Dustour, mocked Ziedan for these comments and coined him as the "occupation's defense attorney."

A Regular Critic

Dr. Youssef Ziedan, 57, a lecturer at the University of Alexandria, is a philosopher and expert in Arabic and Islamic studies. He is secular and outwardly opposes the Muslim Brotherhood. Ziedan has written a number of novels in the past decade, many of which have been best-sellers in the Arab world. His most known work, titled Azazeel, has been translated into 16 languages and has awarded Ziedan international recognition.

His most recent CBC interview is not the first instance at which he speaks up against mainstream Islam.

In a televised interview a year ago, Ziedan proposed that Egypt reevaluate its relationship with the Jewish nation. He explained that a historic rivalry with Judaism negatively influenced Muslims, and, in modern days, is used by politicians as a means of manipulation in order to seed provocation. "Whoever wants to win over the public, must curse Israelis" Ziedan said, "but after they rise to power, they treat them nicely."

"It's idiotic," he explained, "and exploits the ignorance of the public."

Reactions to Ziedan

The Egyptian public remained relatively calm and unmoved following Ziedan's claims.

...Despite harsh criticism, no one demanded that Zeidan face extreme, harsh repercussions for his statements - such as revoking his position at the university, or inflicting physical punishment on him. No court complaint was filed against him, and should one be filed, it is likely that it will mysteriously disappear.

Translated by Coral Braun.

IDF Soldiers ask NY Jews: Don’t aid terror supporters

From Behind the News (Blog), 21 Dec 2015:



An unusual letter from 20 IDF reservists, including officers, was delivered Monday to Rabbi Gordon Tucker and the Leadership of Temple Israel of White Plains, New York, regarding the community’s donations to the New Israel Fund. Similar letters were sent to 100 other NIF donors.

The letter notes that the community donates significantly to the New Israel Fund, and asks that the community demand that the New Israel Fund cease supporting organizations that defame IDF soldiers, in Israel and around the world, and protect terrorists....

The full text of the letter follows:

“In recent years, you have donated significantly to numerous Israeli organizations and associations. The goal that you sought to achieve with your donation was to support Zionism and support organizations working for human rights and against anti-democratic activities. You support organizations that you believe work towards creating a better, saner, more democratic, and more moral Israel.
“The reason why you donate funds is not in doubt, nor has it ever been. However, the funds you donate are not being used to serve the purpose for which you donated them. We also know that you donate to the New Israel Fund and we wholeheartedly believe that you love the New Israel Fund, support its activities, and want to strengthen it. We won’t argue the point.
“However, there is one thing we ask, and, as active-duty and reserve soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces, we feel it is our right to ask.
“Please demand that the New Israel Fund cease and desist from supporting organizations that defame us IDF soldiers, in Israel and around the world.  These include organizations such as Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, Yesh Din, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, and Machsom Watch.
“Please demand that the New Israel Fund cease and desist from supporting organizations which protect terrorists who have attacked and stabbed Israelis, even in the current wave of terror which has been plaguing Israel for over a year. These organizations, which are supported by the New Israel Fund, include: B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual, Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, Bimkom – Planners for Planning Rights, Ta’ayush, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-IL), and Rabbis for Human Rights.
“Just this week, Israel’s Minister of Defense, Moshe Ya’alon, forbade the entrance of Breaking the Silence to all IDF bases. This is an extraordinary move expressing how deeply Israeli society perceives that is has been hurt by this organization. Israel’s Minister of Education, Naftali Bennett, announced that he forbade the entrance of Breaking the Silence to all Israeli schools.
“Those same organizations are delegitimization organizations. Their purpose is solely to defame the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces and the State of Israel around the world. The activities of Breaking the Silence are extremely anti-Israeli and are perceived as such by the majority of Israeli society.
“The organization works in various ways against Israel: They lie both within Israel and around the world, claiming that many IDF soldiers are ‘war criminals.’ Several of these organizations deal with promoting lawsuits against IDF soldiers and officers in Israel and around the world. They hold events at the United Nations and participate in conventions held by the European Union, where they falsely present the State of Israel as an apartheid state, a state that practices ethnic cleansing, and other horrifying lies. In interviews to the international media they claim that the soldiers of the IDF are war criminals, that the State of Israel is a war criminal. They defend terrorists in court, even those who were caught in the act, and file petitions for their release and against revoking their Israeli citizenship. These organizations take legal action to prevent the destruction of terrorists’ houses by the state, and defame the state of Israel in every arena possible.
“Their actions, the things they say and write against the State of Israel and IDF soldiers in the foreign press feeds anti-Israel and anti-Zionist campaigns, and even terror organizations such as Hamas quote from things Breaking the Silence say during Hamas actions against the State of Israel on the international stage.
“The worst of it is not that you support and fund these organizations, but that so do European countries and Palestinian foundations. Palestinians fund their actions.  The question is whether you, dear donor, knew of this activity. Does it reflect your values and do you agree that this is the use for the money which you donate to these organizations?
“Dear lover of Israel – don’t let these Foreign Agent organizations, funded by foreign governments, tear away at Israeli democracy. Don’t let them tamper with the State of Israel.
“With regards,
Sergeant Bar Shalev, Judea and Samaria Division
Air Force Officer Daniel Salame
Lieutenant Ofir Levine, Engineering Corps
​Staff Sergeant Ori Moskovich, Unit 926
Sergeant Major Matan Milles, 3 Squadron, The Navy
Staff Sergeant Chaim Prince, Engineering Corps
Staff Sergeant Aviad Harush, Unit 7002
Staff Sergeant Ilana Valdman, The Home Front Command
First Sergeant Hanani Ladel, Regiment 188
Staff Sergeant Almog Qashty, The Military Police
​Sergeant Major Ze’ev Lev, Unit 7012
Staff Sergeant Eli Baraz, Regional Brigade Binyamin
Staff Sergeant Matan Haratz, Unit 710
Sergeant Major Lev Liberman, Central Command
Sergeant Major Matan Arad, Supply Unit 91
Staff Sergeant Naama Carmel, Intelligence
Staff Sergeant Tzur Ofir, Unit 9135
Staff Sergeant Ariel Iskov, Unit 868
Staff Sergeant Uria Peled, Air Defense Forces
Sergeant Major Nadav Simantov, Unit 43

Fatah Hails Terror Master Samir Kuntar

From Algemeiner, 21 December 2015, by Ruthie Blum:

        

The video clip of a speech Samir Kuntar gave in Lebanon, posted on Fatah’s official Facebook page on the day of his funeral. Photo: Screenshot.

The official Facebook page of the Fatah political faction, headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, on Monday lauded Hezbollah official and arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar, assassinated on Saturday night in Damascus...

Fatah uploaded a video clip of a speech Kuntar gave in Lebanon, to coincide with his funeral there on Monday.

In the video, Kuntar says,

“I returned today from Palestine, but believe me… I am prepared to go back to Palestine.”

Among the comments below the posting are sentiments such as, “Allah rest his soul.”

...this honoring of Kuntar – whom Israel is accused of assassinating – comes not from terrorist organizations, such as Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, but rather from Fatah, considered by the international community to be moderate, two-state-solution-seekers.

“This is an extreme case where every civilized person must be appalled by a terrorist who took credit for killing a four-year-old child,” said Dr. Dan Schueftan, director of the National Security Studies Center at Haifa University.

Schueftan, an expert on Mideast affairs, was referring to Kuntar’s particularly heinous slaughter of an Israeli family in Nahariya in 1979, when he was 16 years old.

But, Schueftan told The Algemeiner,

“It turns out that nothing is too low or too barbaric — even for the mainstream of the Palestinian national movement — to adulate when it comes to killing innocent Jews. Though Fatah at the moment is reluctant to use massive terrorism, for fear of Israeli counter-measures, it still educates its public to call a child-murderer a hero and a saint.”

Kuntar served 30 years in an Israeli jail, until his release in 2008, as part of a prisoner swap with Hezbollah, which returned the bodies of IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, kidnapped and killed during the 2006 Second War in Lebanon, in exchange for five Palestinian terrorists.

Both Shi’ite and Sunni jihad are on the march

From JPost, 17 Dec 2015, by Caroline Glick:

For the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy

 At some point between 2006 and 2008, the American people decided to turn their backs on the world. Between the seeming futility of the war in Iraq and the financial collapse of 2008, Americans decided they’d had enough.

In Barack Obama, they found a leader who could channel their frustration. Obama’s foreign policy, based on denying the existence of radical Islam and projecting the responsibility for Islamic aggression on the US and its allies, suited their mood just fine. If America is responsible, then America can walk away. Once it is gone, so the thinking has gone, the Muslims will forget their anger and leave America alone.

 

Sadly, Obama’s foreign policy assumptions are utter nonsense. America’s abandonment of global leadership has not made things better. Over the past seven years, the legions of radical Islam have expanded and grown more powerful than ever before. And now in the aftermath of the jihadist massacres in Paris and San Bernadino, the threats have grown so abundant that even Obama cannot pretend them away.

 

As a consequence, for the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy. But are they too late? Can the next president repair the damage Obama has caused?

 

The Democrats give no cause for optimism. Led by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls stubbornly insist that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s foreign policy. If they are elected to succeed him, they pledge to follow in his footsteps.

 

On the Republican side, things are more encouraging, but also more complicated.

 

Republican presidential hopefuls are united in their rejection of Obama’s policy of ignoring the Islamic supremacist nature of the enemy. All reject the failed assumptions of Obama’s foreign policy.

All have pledged to abandon them on their first day in office. Yet for all their unity in rejecting Obama’s positions, Republicans are deeply divided over what alternative foreign policy they would adopt.

 

This divide has been seething under the surface throughout the Obama presidency. It burst into the open at the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night.

The importance of the dispute cannot be overstated.

 

Given the Democrats’ allegiance to Obama’s disastrous policies, the only hope for a restoration of American leadership is that a Republican wins the next election. But if Republicans nominate a candidate who fails to reconcile with the realities of the world as it is, then the chance for a reassertion of American leadership will diminish significantly.

 

To understand just how high the stakes are, you need to look no further than two events that occurred just before the Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.

 

 

Iran enters the home straight.

On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to close its investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. As far as the UN’s nuclear watchdog is concerned, Iran is good to go.

The move is a scandal. Its consequences will be disastrous.

 

The IAEA acknowledges that Iran continued to advance its illicit military nuclear program at least until 2009. Tehran refuses to divulge its nuclear activities to IAEA investigators as it is required to do under binding UN Security Council resolutions.

 

Iran refuses to allow IAEA inspectors access to its illicit nuclear sites. As a consequence, the IAEA lacks a clear understanding of what Iran’s nuclear status is today and therefore has no capacity to prevent it from maintaining or expanding its nuclear capabilities. This means that the inspection regime Iran supposedly accepted under Obama’s nuclear deal is worthless.

 

The IAEA also accepts that since Iran concluded its nuclear accord with the world powers, it has conducted two tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, despite the fact that it is barred from doing so under binding Security Council resolutions.

 

But really, who cares? Certainly the Obama administration doesn’t. The sighs of relief emanating from the White House and the State Department after the IAEA decision were audible from Jerusalem to Tehran.

 

The IAEA’s decision has two direct consequences.

 

First, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday, it paves the way for the cancellation of the UN’s economic sanctions against Iran within the month.

 

Second, with the IAEA’s decision, the last obstacle impeding Iran’s completion of its nuclear weapons program has been removed. Inspections are a thing of the past. Iran is in the clear.

 

As Iran struts across the nuclear finish line, the Sunni jihadists are closing their ranks.

Hours after the IAEA vote, Turkey and Qatar announced that Turkey is setting up a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf emirate for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Their announcement indicates that the informal partnership between Turkey and Qatar on the one side, and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State on the other hand, which first came to the fore last year during Operation Protective Edge, is now becoming a more formal alliance.

Just as the Obama administration has no problem with Iran going nuclear, so it has no problem with this new jihadist alliance.

During Operation Protective Edge, the administration supported this jihadist alliance against the Israeli-Egyptian partnership. Throughout Hamas’s war against Israel, Obama demanded that Israel and Egypt accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms, as they were presented by Turkey and Qatar.

Since Operation Protective Edge, the Americans have continued to insist that Israel and Egypt bow to Hamas’s demands and open Gaza’s international borders. The Americans have kept up their pressure on Israel and Egypt despite Hamas’s open alliance with ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula.

So, too, the Americans have kept Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at arm’s length, and continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate political force despite Sisi’s war against ISIS. Washington continues to embrace Qatar as a “moderate” force despite the emirate’s open support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and ISIS.

As for Turkey, it appears there is nothing Ankara can do that will dispel the US notion that it is a credible partner in the war on terror. Since 2011, Turkey has served as Hamas’s chief state sponsor, and as ISIS’s chief sponsor. It is waging war against the Kurds – the US’s strongest ally in its campaign against ISIS.

In other words, with the US’s blessing, the forces of both Shi’ite and Sunni jihad are on the march.

And the next president will have no grace period for repairing the damage.

Although the Republican debate Wednesday night was focused mainly on the war in Syria, its significance is far greater than one specific battlefield.

And while there were nine candidates on the stage, there were only two participants in this critical discussion.


Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz faced off after weeks of rising contention between their campaigns.

In so doing, they brought the dispute that has been seething through their party since the Bush presidency into the open.

Rubio argued that in Syria, the US needs to both defeat ISIS and overthrow President Bashar Assad.
Cruz countered that the US should ignore Assad and concentrate on utterly destroying ISIS. America’s national interest, he said, is not advanced by overthrowing Assad, because in all likelihood, Assad will be replaced by ISIS.

Cruz added that America’s experience in overthrowing Middle Eastern leaders has shown that it is a mistake to overthrow dictators. Things only got worse after America overthrew Saddam Hussein and supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak.

For his part, Rubio explained that since Assad is Iran’s puppet, leaving him in power empowers Iran. The longer he remains in power, the more control Iran will wield over Syria and Lebanon.

The two candidates’ dispute is far greater than the question of who rules Syria. Their disagreement on Syria isn’t a tactical argument. It goes to the core question of what is the proper role of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s commitment to overthrowing Assad is one component of a wider strategic commitment to fostering democratic governance in Syria. By embracing the cause of democratization through regime change, Rubio has become the standard bearer of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Bush’s foreign policy had two seemingly contradictory anchors – a belief that liberal values are universal, and cultural meekness.

Bush’s belief that open elections would serve as a panacea for the pathologies of the Islamic world was not supported by empirical data. Survey after survey showed that if left to their own devices, the people of Muslim world would choose to be led by Islamic supremacists. But Bush rejected the data and embraced the fantasy that free elections lead a society to embrace liberal norms of peace and human rights.

As to cultural meekness, since the end of the Cold War and with the rise of political correctness, the notion that America could call for other people to adopt American values fell into disrepute. For American foreign policy practitioners, the idea that American values and norms are superior to Islamic supremacist values smacked of cultural chauvinism.

Consequently, rather than urge the Islamic world to abandon Islamic supremacism in favor of liberal democracy, in their public diplomacy efforts, Americans sufficed with vapid pronouncements of love and respect for Islam.

Islamic supremacists, for their part stepped into the ideological void without hesitation. In Iraq, the Iranian regime spent hundreds of millions of dollars training Iranian-controlled militias, building Iranian-controlled political parties and publishing pro-Iranian newspapers as the US did nothing to support pro-American Iraqis.

Although many Republicans opposed Bush’s policies, few dared make their disagreement with the head of their party public. As a result, for many, Wednesday’s debate was the first time the foundations of Bush’s foreign policy were coherently and forcefully rejected before a national audience.

If Rubio is the heir to Bush, Cruz is the spokesman for Bush’s until now silent opposition. In their longheld view, democratization is not a proper aim of American foreign policy. Defeating America’s enemies is the proper aim of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s people claim that carpet bombing ISIS is not a strategy. They are right. There are parts missing from in Cruz’s position on Syria.

But then again, although still not comprehensive, Cruz’s foreign policy trajectory has much to recommend it. First and foremost, it is based on the world as it is, rather than a vision of how the world should be. It makes a clear distinction between America’s allies and America’s enemies and calls for the US to side with the former and fight the latter.

It is far from clear which side will win this fight for the heart of the Republican Party. And it is impossible to know who the next US president will be.

But whatever happens, the fact that after their seven-year vacation, the Americans are returning the real world is a cause for cautious celebration.

 

 

US lawmakers condemn EU labelling of settlement products

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-lawmakers-condemn-eu-settlement-product-labeling/

From The Times of Israel, 17 Dec 2015, by Rebecca Shimoni Stoil:

Bipartisan resolution accuses Europe of encouraging boycott of Israel, setting back prospects for peace

Palestinian workers on November 11, 2015 at a date packaging factory in the Jordan Valley in the West Bank. This produce will be labeled if exported to the EU as "Product of the West Bank (Israeli settlement)." (Melanie Lidman/Times of Israel)

 

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of Congress members introduced a resolution Thursday expressing staunch opposition to guidelines issued recently by the European Union mandating the labeling of products manufactured in Israeli West Bank settlements and in the Golan Heights.

 

Democratic representatives Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey, and Republicans Peter Roskam and Ed Royce – all legislators with strong pro-Israel records – co-authored the resolution. In a statement released after the resolution was submitted, the four accused the EU of advancing a general boycott of Israel.

 

The guidelines, they said, “only encourage and prompt consumers to boycott all Israeli goods.”

“This is counterproductive to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, harmful to U.S. national security interests, and contributes to the deeply misguided anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement,” the four complained. “Boycotts chip away at economic integration, which negatively affects Israelis and Palestinians alike. The establishment of the European Economic Community was predicated on the notion that peace and security are achieved through trade, economic cooperation, and job creation – not boycotts and isolation. The same is true for Israelis and Palestinians.”

 

The resolution itself expresses alarm that “politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel represent a concerted effort to extract concessions from Israel outside of direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, and undermines efforts to achieve a negotiated two-state solution,” a position that the sponsors wrote was itself in contravention of longstanding US policy.

 

“The United States has long opposed efforts to impose solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside of direct negotiations between the two parties,” they noted, adding that “the United States has historically been at the forefront of combating economic pressure against Israel and has enacted legislation to counter both the Arab League Boycott of Israel and the BDS movement.”

The resolution also cited recent legislation – at both the federal and state levels — that discourage support for BDS actions, and even call for US negotiators to discourage potential trading partners from engaging in such actions.

 

It noted a law passed earlier this year as part of a trade negotiating package states that the United States should discourage potential trading partners from adopting policies to limit trade or investment relations with Israel when negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with European countries.

 

At the same time, multiple state legislatures – including Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina and New York — have passed laws and resolutions rejecting BDS practices, and in some cases, divesting state funds from any body that engages in BDS.

 

The text of the resolution itself calls upon all of the European governmental bodies “to oppose any boycott, divestment, or sanctions initiatives aimed at singling out Israel, to refrain from actions counterproductive to resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and to work on bringing the parties back to the negotiating table.” It also encourages EU states “to exert prudence in the implementation of the European Union labeling guidelines.”

 

The legislators noted that the European Union is Israel’s largest trading partner, arguing that as such, “the European Union should play a constructive role to help bring the parties back to the negotiating table and resolve their differences, not try to extract one-sided concessions and feed into politically-motivated acts to boycott Israel.”

 

The resolution is included as part of the omnibus funding package, and is set to go through its first rounds of voting on Friday. The package is considered must-pass legislation in order to stave off the risk of a government shutdown – and has been hammered out in a series of bipartisan trade-offs.

If the resolution stays in the package, its chances of passing are considered good, since Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and the Obama administration both have indicated that they hope to see the omnibus spending bill’s speedy passage.

 

Left-wing groups, such as Americans for Peace Now, have complained that throughout the past year, there has been an increase in Congressional moves that they say violate longstanding US policy differentiating between the legal status of lands claimed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and lands within Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries.

 

This resolution’s sponsors noted in their statement that when it came to boycott, divestment or sanctions actions, they did not in fact make any differentiation. “This resolution expresses our opposition to the EU labeling decision and all other boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts directed against Israel or Israeli-controlled territory,” the four noted.

 

At the same time, the text of the resolution “reaffirms” Congress’s “strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish State of Israel and a viable, democratic, Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.”

Hamas and ISIS cooperating to fight Egypt

From The JPost, 17 Dec 2015, by Ariel ben Solomon:

Salafists in Gaza fly ISIS ( Islamic State) flags. 
(photo credit: REUTERS)

 

Hamas and Islamic State in Sinai have been cooperating in the smuggling of weapons, demonstrating that while Hamas is a nationalist Islamist movement, it also has common roots from which to build a functioning relationship with jihadists.

“Over the past two years, IS Sinai helped Hamas move weapons from Iran and Libya through the peninsula, taking a generous cut from each shipment,” according to a Washington Institute for Near East Policy report on Tuesday by Ehud Yaari, a Lafer international fellow at the think tank.

Yaari, a Middle East commentator for Channel 2, points to a secret visit by Islamic State in Sinai’s military leader, Shadi al-Menai, to Gaza this month to hold talks with Hamas’s military wing.

Both Hamas and Islamic State trace their origins to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna.

Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and until its official founding in 1987, it ran its activities through the Islamic Association founded in the mid-1970s and headed by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

It was the first intifada that led the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza to embark “upon a direct and violent confrontation with Israel,” as explained in detail by Anat Kurz and Nahman Tal in a 1977 article for the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies titled, “Hamas: Radical Islam in a National Struggle.”

“The operational turn was marked by an organizational change – the establishment of Hamas,” they wrote.

While all Islamist movements, including Islamic State and al-Qaida, are offshoots from the more pragmatic Muslim Brotherhood, they have no patience and use violence to seek immediate results to achieve their goals.

Despite some shared goals between Salafist jihadists and Hamas, such as wanting to establish a caliphate to rule the world, they go about it in different ways.

Islamic State, for example, totally rejects the modern concept of nationalism, while Hamas, and its mother movement the Muslim Brotherhood, accept the reality in order to build its power base in each state over time.

In addition, “Hamas rejects the Salafi jihadist concept of declaring Muslims as apostates (takfir), if they fail to follow the strict Salafi interpretation, and the declaration of jihad against irreligious Muslim rulers,” says Prof. Meir Litvak, the director for the Alliance Center of Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University in a journal article “‘Martyrdom is Life’: Jihad and Martyrdom in the Ideology of Hamas.”

Litvak, an expert on Hamas, told The Jerusalem Post that while Hamas and Islamic State have ideological differences, they have a common enemy now, which is the Egyptian government.

“Hamas needs the Salafi jihadists to break the Egyptian siege on Gaza. The Salafists need Hamas’s technical know-how to produce short-range rockets and other weapons,” he said. “Hence, they ignore their ideological differences for the time being and cooperate.”

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told the Post, “Hamas has always been part of the global jihad movement, despite persistent claims that it is a nationalist terrorist group with strictly nationalist aims.”

Hamas and al-Qaida trained together in Sudan during the early 1990s and the two terrorist groups maintained close ties for more than a decade, said Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the US Department of the Treasury.

Furthermore, Hamas also cooperates with other Shi’ite terrorist supporters and is plugged into the Iran-sponsored terrorist network, he commented.

The Gaza-based group’s “deep ties to Hezbollah have yielded finance and operational gains over the years,” added Schanzer.

“It is further instructive to note that illicit channels of finance are often shared by multiple actors."

In this case, Islamic State and Hamas appear to be sharing the same channels for weapons smuggling and perhaps other financial means.

“In some cases, this is simply a marriage of convenience. In others, it is a deeper strategic cooperation,” continued Schanzer, adding that in the case of these two terrorist groups, the shared disdain for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government could be an indication of the latter.

Most Israelis want the New Israel Fund banned

From A7, 17 Dec 2015:

Poll conducted Tuesday shows 53% support a law preventing the radical [New Israel Fund] from operating in Israel...

NIF's CEO, Daniel Sokatch

 

A poll conducted Tuesday shows that 53% of the Israeli public support a law that would prevent the New Israel Fund (NIF) from operating in Israel, while 24% oppose it, and the rest have either not heard of the NIF or have no opinion.

 

A much larger majority – 67% – said that they support Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon's (Likud) recent decision to ban the ultra-leftist Breaking the Silence from entering IDF bases.

A full 58% of the public said that Breaking the Silence should be outlawed, while 31% opposed this and 11% had no opinion on the matter.

Two thirds of the Israeli public – 66% – support outlawing B'tselem. A whopping 80% of respondents from the religious sector supported the change.

The NIF is an ultra-leftist fund that has been accused of attempting to subvert Israeli society by supporting hostile organizations like Adalah and B'tselem. NIF-funded organizations provided 92% of the Israeli quotes in the infamous Goldstone Report that followed Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008-9. The Fund has also set up a network of women's organizations whose opponents accuse them of fomenting strife between women and men, encouraging divorce and encouraging a breakdown of the family.

Breaking the Silence has been accused of inciting against Israel on the global stage by accusing it of "war crimes."

The organization was banned earlier this week by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon from entering IDF camps and engaging with IDF soldiers, and Education Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) later banned the extremist organization from operating within Israel's school system.

Arabs living in the West: no morals and no excuses

From The Times of Israel, 18 Dec 2015, by Fred Maroun:

Anti-Semitism has reached nauseating levels, and while some Western politicians recognize this, they have done little to address the problem. The world is highly biased against the one and only Jewish state, non-Israeli Jews are increasingly victims of violence, and Israeli Jews are under threat from multiple fronts while the criminals attacking their civilians are called a “resistance” movement.

A terrorist attack on French civilians raised the world’s ire, but almost daily stabbings of Israeli civilians over weeks and months go practically unnoticed. In fact, Jews are blamed for defending themselves. We live in an age of heightened human rights awareness, but human rights abuses against Jews are considered unimportant.

There are three parties mainly responsible for this anti-Semitism:

 

The Arabs who refused to accept the 1947 UN partition plan, fought over a dozen wars trying to destroy Israel, and continue to promote hatred against Jews.

The Muslims who blindly support anti-Zionism while using Israel as an excuse for their own crimes.

The modern West that has allowed anti-Semitism to disguise itself as anti-Zionism and infect its universities and much of its media and political class.

As an Arab immigrant in the West, I am implicated twice in this crime, first as an Arab and then as a citizen of the West. It is my duty to do my part in reversing the anti-Semitism that is promoted in my name.

 

But only tiny minorities of Arab and Muslim immigrants are doing their part. The guiltiest are those who advocate anti-Zionism, and the slightly less guilty are those who remain silent and let the haters, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, speak in their name.

 

While Jews in the West spontaneously help us when we need help (such as with the Syrian refugee crisis), we Arabs do less than nothing for the Jews. We in fact maliciously battle against Israel’s right to exist, and we threaten the security of Jews in the West.

 

While Jews endorse a two-state solution, lobby the Israeli government, and denounce the slightest ethical transgression by Israel, we Arabs routinely lie about Israel and about Palestinian terrorism, and we demand nothing less than the end of the Jewish state.

 

If we Arab immigrants were not morally bankrupt, we would demand that Palestinians work genuinely towards a viable two-state solution, we would support peace by supporting Israel, and we would fight the BDS movement.

 

If we Arab immigrants told the truth openly and without fear, the anti-Semitism of so-called “pro-Palestinian” organizations would be exposed. We have the power to do great good, but we choose to do great harm.

 

When I note that Israel has many organizations promoting peace with the Palestinians while the Palestinians have zero organizations promoting peace with Israel, I am told that Palestinians are afraid to create such organizations because their society is controlled by thugs. But what about us, Arab immigrants? What is our excuse?

 

We Arab immigrants are the accomplices and the enablers of the crime of anti-Semitism. We lament our wars and dictators, but then we move to the West and we support both while enjoying the West’s economic opportunities and freedoms.

 

This is absolutely disgusting, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

From Toronto 1991 to San Bernardino 2015

by Norman L. Roth, Toronto Canada

The conventional media, inclusive of Canada’s “official” Jewish branch, have air-brushed out of existence, a methodically planned 1991 Islamic terror plot, targeting 4,500 people in the Toronto metropolitan area. In retrospect, It can now be viewed as part of a deeply ingrained pattern of high-frequency behaviour, that has since been expanded to a global scale.

In 1991, five “Black Muslim” followers of the Pakistani based Jamaat Al Fuqra, stood accused of conspiring to blow up, simultaneously, two buildings in  Toronto’s Greater Metro Area.

If successful, the superbly organized cross-border operation would have resulted in the mass-murder and horrendous injuries  to as many as 4,500 Hindu Canadians. At the time, these events seemed isolated criminal activity. Now it is clear that they are structurally  linked to other events: Beads in a  quarter century  time-line  of well-planned, organized Jihad terror; Arising from the very core of Islamic practice and belief. Not the actions of a ‘small minority’ of misguided and deviant individuals, who are “unrepresentative of the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims”.

The target sites were:

1. The India Center Cinema, capacity 500 plus staff, on Gerard St. East in downtown Toronto.
2. The VISHNU Temple [capacity about 4000 worshippers] in Richmond Hill.

The attacks were timed diabolically  for the ancient  Festival of Lights, Diwali, when both sites are usually filled to capacity.

At the end of the trial in 1993 the presiding judge addressed the guilty parties:

“...A cold blooded conspiracy....Your actions are despicable; and represent a challenge to the fabric of our society”

 

The plot was enabled locally, on the Canadian side, by one “Glenn Wesselle Ford” a native of Trinidad, who described himself as a convert to the Muslim faith. He immigrated to Toronto and founded a branch of the Jamaat Al Fuqra movement founded by Sheikh Mubarik Ali Gilani headquartered in Lahore Pakistan - the very same individual whom Daniel Pearl was to have met before he was kidnapped and murdered in 2002.

 

“Our mission” declared Sheikh Gilani, “is to lead Muslims to OUR final victory over Communists, Zionists, Hindus and deviationists” [from his published book, “MOHAMMEDAN REVELATIONS”].

The book was taken as evidence at trial by Toronto’s Police Services. At trial it was revealed that “Glenn W. Ford” had travelled at least twice to Lahore Pakistan {which figured strongly in the infamous assault on Mumbai in 2008}. There he “studied” at the INTERNATIONAL QUARANI OPEN UNIVERSITY, whose staff included ‘teachers’ from Pakistan’s various security & intelligence services...Just like those who trained the “Shaheeds” who attacked Mumbai in 2008. 

“Ford”, whose capabilities should not be demeaned, imported three American “Soldiers of Allah” from Texas: Tyrone Cole, Albert Wesley and Caba Jose Harris. Purely by chance, the three were apprehended by alert American border staff at the Niagara Falls crossing. The evidence they found was shocking at the time. But is now anticipated as “the usual” ...especially the instructions on how to install military grade explosives around  natural gas lines, so as to maximise casualties and carnage.

Another document led to an address in Brooklyn New York, where a cache of assault rifles, seven hand guns and 2000 rounds of ammunition was stowed for pick-up by the three “Texans”.

But the outcomes of the trials were disappointing when viewed in retrospect. Five of the culprits “beat the big rap”....Conspiracy to commit [mass] murder. The three “Texans”, all members of Louis Farrakhan’s NATION of ISLAM, were convicted of the much lesser charge of “conspiring to commit mischief endangering life”. Each was sentenced to 12 years. And subsequently released and deported to the United States in 2006. 

Al Fuqra’s {Lahore Pakistan} superior planning skills, were subsequently linked  to the first assault on the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers in 1993, casualties, six dead and 1042 wounded.