Dear Family & Friends,

Today was a lovely cool day with gorgeous sun. Both of my Israeli families were here for a celebratory meal & lots of fun. Three babies to get acquainted with & older cousins for aunts & uncles to enjoy.

Tomorrow is the concluding Chag (holiday) for Pesach – when we Jews reached the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea. The next night & day are Shabbos so we have 2 ‘no work’ holidays together. I hope I ‘see’ you Saturday night after Shabbat.

Have a great Chag, day & night and a wonderful Shabbat, night & day.

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

1. Trump blasts Obama over Israel, pledges to block Iran nuke

2. More in common with an Evangelical president than a Jewish one

3. Cruz chooses Fiorina as VP

4. Romantic Israel By Shmuley Boteach

5. InterNations Report: Israel Fourth Best Place to Raise Your Children

6. Hebron Launching 6 Day War Jubilee Celebrations Early

7. Obama Admin Accused of Misleading Congress on Cash Release to Iran

8. Sykes-Picot and the Golan By Zalman Shoval, Israel Hayom

9. History Can Deligitimise the Deligitimisers By Nomi Benari

1 Trump blasts Obama over Israel, pledges to block Iran nuke

After crushing GOP rivals in Tuesday’s primary votes, Republican frontrunner lays out his foreign policy vision in keynote address. By David Rosenberg ARUTZ SHEVA First Publish: 4/27/2016, 7:44 PM / Last Update: 4/27/2016, 8:25 PM

Donald Trump – Reuters

Speaking at the Center for the National Interest, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump laid out his vision for American foreign policy on Wednesday, attacking the Obama administration for a whole host of issues, including the president’s treatment of Israel and the controversial Iran nuclear deal.

After dominating all five of Tuesday’s east coast primary votes, Trump gave his most comprehensive foreign policy speech since his presidential bid began last summer. The appearance came just hours ahead of a “major announcement” by Ted Cruz scheduled for 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

Echoing past comments, Trump claimed that America’s allies needed to share more of the burden in global affairs, arguing that “our allies are not paying their fair share.”

Trump condemned President Obama’s handling of foreign policy, saying that he had empowered hostile states like Iran, while turning away trusted American allies.

“We have a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies.”

The Manhattan real estate mogul criticized last year’s Iran nuclear deal and pledged emphatically to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic weapon.

“Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon – cannot be allowed – remember that – cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Under a Trump administration, it will never, ever be allowed to have that nuclear weapon.”

Turning to Israel, Trump blasted the Obama White House for alienating America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.

“Your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it. And the world will be a better place.”

“Israel our great friend, and the one true democracy in the Middle East, has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity.”

Trump cited as an example Vice President Joseph Biden’s recent comments at a J Street gala criticizing Israeli policy.

“Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel – a force for justice and peace – for acting as an impatient peace area in the region.”

“President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He’s treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power. Iran has indeed become a great, great power in just a very short period of time because of what we’ve done. All of the expense – and at the expense of Israel, our allies in the region, and most important, the US itself.”

The GOP frontrunner promised to repair relations with allies like Israel, and to become more aggressive in confronting the ISIS terror group.

“To our friends and allies, America is going to strong again. American is going to be reliable again.” “ISIS will be gone very, very quickly.”

2. More in common with an Evangelical president than a Jewish one

by Tuly Weisz JPost.com 04/26/2016 21:41

While Bernie Sanders enjoys bagels and lox as much as any good Jew and even toiled in the fields of an Israeli kibbutz, his hostility towards the Jewish State is frightening.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. (photo credit:Reuters

With months to go before the Presidential election, almost anything can still happen with the unconventional candidates on the ticket.
Even if it appears to be a long shot at this point, should it come down to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders against Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, American Jewry will be faced with a daunting dilemma: whether to vote for a progressive Jew or an Evangelical Christian for president.
For American Jews, it has long been the highest aspiration to finally see one of our own sitting in the Oval Office, the ultimate sign of having made it in America. What could be better for the Jews than having a member of the tribe in the White House? Yet, in the upcoming election, I certainly won’t be voting for the first Jewish candidate, since, as a religious Zionist, I sadly have come to realize that I have more in common with an Evangelical Christian than one of my own.

While Bernie Sanders enjoys bagels and lox as much as any good Jew and even toiled in the fields of an Israeli kibbutz, his hostility towards the Jewish State is frightening.
Sanders represents the secular, liberal Jewish community that has bought the Palestinian narrative hook, line and sinker and whose misguided “Jewish values” present a dangerous threat to the welfare of Israel.
On the other side of the aisle stands Ted Cruz, whose blood runs blue and white almost as much as it does red, white and blue. You can’t get more pro-Israel than this Texas son of an Evangelical pastor, who has promised that his first item of business as President will be to move America’s embassy to Jerusalem.
As someone dedicated to teaching Christian Zionists about Israel through my websites Israel365.com, BreakingIsraelNews.com, and TheIsraelBible.com, I have had many heartfelt conversations with Evangelicals.
On a regular basis, my Christian friends have impressed me with their Biblically-rooted love for the Jewish State, which has led so many of them to honor the G-d, the people and the land of Israel. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that today’s Christian Zionists are not our grandparents’ goyim.
Rejecting centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, tens of millions of Evangelicals around the world have become staunch in their support for Israel without the associated proselytizing that Jews have been legitimately concerned about. Their devotion to Israel runs deep. Their tourists come to visit even when Jewish groups cancel their flights for security concerns. While you may not see many buildings around Jerusalem named for Christian donors, millions are in fact contributing to Israeli charities, without strings attached. Christian Zionist philanthropists are not demanding plaques on the wall nor conversations about Jesus.
The possible presidential showdown between an Evangelical Christian and a progressive Jew raises profound questions for American Jewish voters who may not have noticed how far both communities have shifted until now. With secular Jewry moving away from Israel and Evangelical Christianity moving towards it, it’s time for the Jewish community to take action.
First, we must call out those Jews who have taken their knee-jerk loyalty towards liberal movements too far and distance ourselves from progressive causes that undermine our own well-being, such as BDS. Second, we must do more to cultivate meaningful relationships with Christian Zionists built upon our common Biblical heritage and appreciation for Israel. It is time for the Jewish community to get beyond the stereotypes that reject all Christians who “either want to kill us or convert us”, and get to know what makes our Evangelical allies tick. When we get to know them better, we will realize just how much we have in common.
In the end, whether the election comes down to Sanders and Cruz or not, the question it raises for Jewish voters will have implications lasting far beyond any four year presidential term. In light of the realignment of liberal Jews away from Israel and Evangelical Christians towards it, I for one, would put my faith and fate in the hands of a Christian Zionist president over a progressive Jewish one.
The writer is the founder of Israel365.com, BreakingIsraelNews.com and TheIsraelBible.com, websites that educate Christian Zionists about the Biblical significance of the Land of Israel.

3. Cruz chooses Fiorina as VP

Hoping to re-energize his campaign after Trump’s sweeping victories on Tuesday, Cruz announces his VP choice should he win GOP nomination. By David Rosenberg Publish: 4/27/2016, 9:31 PM

Cruz and Fiorina ahead of announcement

Kevin Kolczynski/Reuters

Ahead of a scheduled “major announcement” by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Politico has revealed that the GOP presidential hopeful is set to declare former HP CEO Carly Fiorina as his choice for Vice Presidential candidate, should he secure the Republican nomination in July.

Three sources have reportedly confirmed that Fiorina, who ended her own presidential campaign in February, had been selected as Cruz’s running mate for a general election.

Fiorina, who was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in 2009, registered to run against incumbent California Senator Barbara Boxer while still recovering from her chemotherapy treatment. Fiorina went on to lose the 2010 election in the reliably Democratic state by a 10-point margin, 52-42.

Cruz hopes that the announcement will help him regain some much-needed momentum after Tuesday’s east coast primary votes, which GOP frontrunner Donald Trump swept by wide margins.

The Cruz campaign is also banking on Fiorina’s ties to California, which holds its primary on June 7th. With 172 delegates – the most of any state in the union – California could make or break Trump’s bid to secure 1,237 delegates outright, and thus win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention.

Experts polled by FiveThirtyEight estimate that Trump must win more than 90 of the state’s 172 delegate in order to react 1,237 before the July convention.

But California’s winner-take-most system, whereby 159 of the 172 delegates are allotted by congressional district, could give Cruz an opening to concentrate on more conservative districts and siphon off enough delegates to keep Trump under 1,237.

Fiorina is slated to give the keynote address at this week’s California GOP convention.

In September Trump drew criticism when he mocked Fiorina’s physical appearance, saying “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”

A week later Trump withdrew his comments, calling Fiorina “beautiful”.

As rumors of the VP pick emerged, Trump renewed his ridicule of Fiorina, calling the choice “cute”.

“Carly did not resonate at all with people,” said Trump. “[S]he had the one good debate… then she dropped like a rock”.

4 Romantic Israel by Shmuley Boteach

JPost.com 04/25/2016 21:12

Israel, they say, is a country with roads, cities, towns and town squares, like any other.

There is a tendency among some not to romanticize Israel. For them the country is like others, albeit with far greater security challenges.
Israel, they say, is a country with roads, cities, towns and town squares, like any other.
For me, Israel is the most romantic country in the world. Some nations are built on a dream. Israel is the dream itself. Arriving as a visitor you awake fully to bountiful beauty, and it never grows old. Visiting for the fiftieth time is like visiting for the first.

And in truth there are no visitors. Arrive in Israel and you are instantly family. My daughter and son-in-law were pushing a stroller in the sand two days ago. In a minute four young men jumped to their feet to help carry the children. Israel is a family.
My son serves in the IDF. Seeing him in his uniform at the airport was staggering. For 2,000 years the Jews have been slaughtered. They were given no choice but to die. They did so with valor knowing that the only act of defiance available to them was to die proudly as Jews.
Then, in April 1943 at Passover Mordechai Anielewicz summoned his ragtag group of 700 Warsaw Ghetto fighters. Armed with nothing but a few pistols and firebombs, he informed them their choice was not between life and death; they would certainly fail in their fight against Nazi Germany, the most powerful army in Europe. Like so many Jews before them they had no choice but to die. But, he told them, unlike generations before them they had a choice as to how they would die. They would either fall as free men who had fought for their liberty or they would die at the hands of the SS in the crematoria.
They died as some of the bravest Jews who had ever lived. Anielewicz remains to this day the father of all modern Jewish resistance.
But a short five years later the Jews had finally pushed the limits of choice to their logical conclusion: not whether to die as free men but rather to live as free men and women. They could, in their ancient homeland, fight back in 1948 against five seven invading Arab armies promising a renewed genocide, and establish a democratic nation, free of the Arab tyranny that surrounded them.
Writers before me point out that perhaps the most sinister contribution of the Nazis to history was the Musselmen, the living dead, the men & women of the concentration camps haunting the barbed wire enclosures, with hollowed-out eyes, bereft of any human spirit, reduced simply to the search for rotten bread.
The Nazis had succeeded – among those kept alive for work – not only in enslaving a once-free people but in making them living corpses in whom the divine spark had been all but extinguished. That is how the American, British and Russian liberators found them: emaciated bags of bones barely capable of even begging for soup.
Not long ago I asked Elie Wiesel, the living face of the six million, about the searing honesty he expressed toward the end of his Holocaust classic, Night, when he revealed that his father, consumed with fever, asked him in the death camp barracks for water. Wiesel, emaciated, starving, infirm and famished, had hoped that after spending weeks taking care of his typhoid-ravished father he would finally be liberated from his care.
When his father begged him for water in the middle of the night, Wiesel, freezing and barely holding on to life himself, could not summon the energy to even respond. In the morning the pleas had ceased. Wiesel’s father had expired. Wiesel was free at last.
“How did you write those haunting words?” I asked.
“I wrote them because if I was not honest in the book there was no point in writing it,” he said.
But not only would Elie Wiesel become reanimated, he would become the greatest chronicler of the greatest crime in human history, thereby lending dignity and eternity to the six million martyrs, among whom were 1.5 million children. In the process, he would become a great Jewish light unto the nations, winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
But the point remains: the Nazis had reduced even a soul that bright to the necessities of simply staying alive. The Nazis sought to transform human beings into animals.
The difference between an animal & a human is that an animal can focus on nothing save survival. Lacking dreams, absent of vistas & horizons, the animal has no conception of maximizing its potential.
The Nazis sought to reduce the Jews to beasts, bereft of human ambition, striving and feeling.
Yet just a few short years later the Jews did not just aspire, they dreamed the ultimate dream: to return their ancient homeland and reconstitute themselves as a nation prepared to fight for independence, identity, dignity and human rights.
That dream courses through the arteries of all that Israel. To miss it is to overlook Israel’s magic. It’s to be blind to the defiant nature of Israelis.
Israel is not Sparta, committed as that ancient city-state was to victory for its own sake. Israel fights simply to defend life and because Jews deserve better that simply being granted the choice of to how to die.
In Israel, everything lives. From the beautiful spring flowers that are now in bloom, to the settler communities surrounded by danger but who live fearlessly, to young men and women like my son and daughter who serve in the military without any bravado or militaristic inclinations save to defend the innocent civilian population from attack.
Am Yisrael CHai! Israel is alive! The author is the founder of The World Values Network and is the international best-selling author of 30 books, including his forthcoming, The Israel Warriors Handbook.
Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

5 InterNations Report: Israel Fourth Best Place to Raise Your Children

By: JNi.Media JewishPress.com Published: April 26th, 2016

Israeli kibbutz children circa 1980 / Photo credit: Kibbutz Gan Shmuel archive

According to the InterNations survey’s Family Life Index, in a roundup of the world’s 41 top countries to raise a family in, the best three countries are Austria, Finland, and Sweden. And right behind those wealthy, industrialized European nests of socialized everything and the baskets of goodies from the nanny state, in fourth place, you’ll find a country that’s been fighting for its life for almost 70 years, with a huge security budget, supposedly enormous gaps between rich and poor, and ceaseless ethnic strife — and there, according to the survey’s criteria, is the fourth best place on the planet to raise your children. Go figure.

For comparison — the UK came in at 22nd place. The US in 25th place. France in eighth. New Zealand came fifth. Saudi Arabia is in 41st place, so, in case you were planning to go raise your kids in the Kingdom, we can advise you, based on these findings — don’t.

After the success of InterNations’ first Expat survey in 2014, the second annual survey report involved 14,400 expatriate respondents, in one of the biggest topical surveys worldwide. The information benefits mainly the group’s 1.8 million members, who are interested in moving, living, and working abroad. By providing insights into expat life in 64 countries, from Argentina to Vietnam, the report is a valuable resource for people seeking temporary or long-term relocation.

The Expat Insider survey included questions on demographics, basic facts about moving abroad, and daily life in the respective country. The questionnaire especially emphasized individual satisfaction with various aspects of expat living. Survey participants cover a variety of people from 170 countries of origin and all kinds of backgrounds. The section regarding the “family life index” evaluates the best places to raise children, based on three categories:

Availability of Childcare and Education — Israel was ranked 4th, behind Austria, Finland and Sweden. The US ranked 12th, France 13th, the UK an abysmal 24th.

Cost of Childcare and Education — there Israel was ranked 13th, with Sweden, Austria, Finland and Denmark at the top of the list for state-paid education for everyone. France was ranked 8th, the US 37th, right behind the United Arab Emirate, and the UK was in 31st place.

Quality of Education — OK, Israel was ranked only 16th on that one, which could, to be honest, bring into question the entire celebration we’ve been having here. So, it’s available and it’s relatively cheap, but maybe you get what you pay for? Finland, Austria and Singapore—where they cane you for spitting on the sidewalk—lead the bunch, with Kenya, surprisingly, in 7th place (it’s where US presidents get their diplomas, after all). The UK is in 9th place (which is still behind Kenya), France is 11th, the US is 25th. ‘Nuff said.

Finally, there’s the category of Family Well-Being — Israel is ranked 3rd on that one, behind Australia and Austria. Because, let’s face it, Israel is essentially one big family, occasionally happy. The US is 16th (better than we expected, to be honest), Sweden is 10th (on account of the suicides and those truly depressing movies), The UK is in 21st place, and France in 24th.

So the result of the survey, in terms of recommendations to Jews wishing to move abroad with their families, has to be Israel, because, let’s face it, if you’re making the move because you fear the growing anti-Semitism in your country, are you really going to move to Austria or Sweden?

JNi.Media About the Author: JNi.Media provides editors and publishers with high quality Jewish-focused content for their publications.

6 Hebron Launching 6 Day War Jubilee Celebrations Early

By: JNi.Media JPress.com Published: April 26th, 2016

Chief Rabbi David Lau at the Hebron festivities

Two Ministers, two Deputy Ministers, four Knesset Members, Israel’s Chief Rabbi and other VIPs joined leaders of Judea, Samaria, and Hebron, three Biblical patriarchs and three matriarchs, as well as 30,000 “regular” Jews in marking the Passover holiday in Hebron and kicking off the jubilee celebrations of the return of the Jewish people to the city of our forefathers and to all the rest of the Land of Israel.

The celebrations of 50 years since the Jewish nation has received the divine gift of completing the conquest of western Eretz Israel, in the Six-Day War of 1967, have begun a little early, to prepare us to be ushered into the actual jubilee, ending fifty years that started on June 5th, 1967, the 26th of Iyar, 5727. In fact, next year will mark four miraculous events in Jewish history, starting with the first Zionist Congress, launching modern political Zionism, 120 years ago in 1897; followed by the 100th anniversary of the November 2, 2017 Balfour Declaration, in which the world’s most dominant empire at the time recognized the Jews’ right to a homeland in the Land of Israel; followed by all the nations of the world 70 years ago, on November 29, 2017, voting to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel; and then, at the conclusion of the process, the divine gift, 50 years ago.

And while leftwing groups are laboring even as we speak on a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign for 2017 dubbed “Save Israel-Stop the Occupation” (SISO), the folks at Hebron are working on a long gratitude list each Jewish person should contemplate in the coming year (14 months, really).

So busses filled with Israelis and pilgrims from around the world took part in the Hebron festivities Monday, visited the rarely opened Isaac Hall in the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, experienced the multi-million dollar 4D presentation on Hebron at the Beit Hadassah Hebron museum and were entertained by musicians Chaim Yisrael, Udi Davidi, Uzziah Zadok, Itzik Dadya & Binny Landau.

The visiting leaders addressed the crowd from a large stage situated in the Machpelah plaza.

Habayit Hayehudi and Likud ministers and MKs at the Hebron festivities. Also (extreme right) Temple Mount activist Rabbi Yehuda Glick.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) said, “I am certain that in this city Jews are going to continue to live, as the saying goes ‘from antiquity to eternity.’ This spirit, which brought you to settle in the City of our Fathers inspired others to climb other hilltops and raise their new communities… and this same spirit will lead us, your representatives in the Knesset and government, to give you support, to fulfill your great vision — the vision of settling the land.”

Deputy Minister of Regional Cooperation Ayoob Kara (Likud) addressed the Arab population of Hebron in Arabic, saying, “Only under Israeli sovereignty in this area will your rights and your lives be insured. Without Israel there is ISIS.”

Chief Rabbi David Lau spoke said, “This large and holy crowd has gathered here to begin the jubilee celebrations of the liberation of Judea and Samaria… We have come here to mark 50 years that we can finally return, and this time it is a full return because we’ll never have to stand at the [Muslim rulers’ limit of the] ‘7th step’ in order to pray with Mother and Father. As we have merited this, may we merit to have full return and to settle the nation of Israel in its land.”

Other speakers included Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi), Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben Dahan (Habayit Hayehudi), MKs Oren Hazan (Likud), Shuli Mualem-Rafaeli (Habayit Hayehudi), Bezalel Smotrich (Habayit Hayehudi), and Nissan Slomiansky (Habayit Hayehudi), as well as Rabbi Chaim Druckman and representatives of the Council of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish community of Hebron.

Director General of the Jewish community of Hebron Uri Karzen said, “Throughout the years, the lack of clarity from the State of Israel created a narrative as though we are the occupiers and are suppressing others. Enough of this treatment as though we are the occupiers! Enough feeling that we are colonizers in our own home.”

Other notables who came to Hebron yesterday included the Israel Police Commander of the Judea and Samaria Region and American rabbi and author Shmuely Boteach.

JNi.Media About the Author: JNi.Media provides editors and publishers with high quality Jewish-focused content for their publications.

7 Obama Admin Accused of Misleading Congress on Cash Release to Iran

“While bragging to J Street, Secretary of State Kerry inexplicably claimed Iran has only ‘received’ $3 billion in sanctions relief under the nuclear deal,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) told the Free Beacon. “The administration and its supporters won’t hold Iran fully accountable for ballistic missile tests and now they are obfuscating the nuclear deal’s financial benefits to Iran.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-misleading-congress-iran/

Obama Admin Accused of Misleading Congress on Cash Release to Iran

Lawmakers say administration offering contradictory facts about payouts

John Kerry <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-misleading-congress-iran/>

John Kerry / AP

By Adam Kredo <http://freebeacon.com/author/adam-kredo/>Washington Free Beacon 4/26/16 12pm

The Obama administration faces accusations it has been misleading Congress about the amount and destination of sanctions relief being provided to Iran as part of last summer’s nuclear agreement, according to lawmakers and congressional sources who expressed anger at the administration over a range of contradictory facts being offered about the payouts.

Secretary of State John Kerry came under scrutiny last week after saying in a statement that Iran has received only about $3 billion <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-unsure-iran-3b-terrorism/> in sanctions relief to date—a figure far smaller than the $100 billion estimate administration officials had previously said Iran would receive under the deal. It also contradicts statements from top Iranian officials <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-claims-100-billion-now-freed-in-major-step-as-sanctions-roll-back/2016/02/01/edfc23ca-c8e5-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html> that they had regained control of $100 billion in foreign reserves unfrozen under the deal.

The statement came amid congressional allegations, detailed by the Washington Free Beacon, that Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javid Zarif are engaged in a campaign to facilitate even more sanctions relief than Iran is entitled to under the deal. Congressional sources suggested that Kerry’s statements about the amount and nature of this money might be part of that campaign.

The issue has frustrated lawmakers who remain concerned that Iran will use this newly available money to fund its global terrorism operations.

Attempts by congressional offices to clarify the source of Kerry’s claim have gone unmet by the State Department, which also declined repeated requests from the Free Beacon to provide specific estimates as to how much money Iran will be able to access under the deal.

“Do you remember the debate over how much money Iran was going to get?” Kerry asked during a recent speech before supporters of the left-leaning advocacy group J Street. “You heard—sometimes you hear some of the presidential candidates putting a mistaken figure out of 155 billion. I’ve never heard—we never thought it would be that.”

“Others thought it would be about $100 billion because there was supposedly $100 billion that was owed, and so forth,” Kerry said. “We calculated it to be about $55 billion when you really take a hard look at the economy and what is happening. Guess what, folks—you know how much they have received to date as I stand here tonight? About $3 billion. So what we said to people was true.”

The State Department has been unable to provide congressional officials with specific details regarding the source of Kerry’s claim, prompting accusations from some that the administration is obfuscating details about the amount of money Iran will gain access to under the nuclear deal.

“The secretary was making the point that the claims that $100 or $150 billion in Iranian assets would be unfrozen were, as we always knew, wrong,” a State Department official informed congressional sources following a request for information on Kerry’s figure, according to a copy of that exchange obtained by the Free Beacon. “We have estimated that as a result of this lifting of financial and banking secondary sanctions, Iran’s usable liquid assets are about $50 billion, of the approximately $100 billion in its own funds in overseas accounts.”

This estimate “is based on our awareness that Iran nominally has about $100 billion dollars total in foreign exchange assets overseas, with about $50 billion already committed,” the official said. “On the specific amount of money the Iranians have used so far, I don’t have anything to add. I don’t think anyone would have expected that Iran would use all of its estimated $50 billion abroad in three months since implementation day.”

The State Department did not respond to further attempts by congressional officials to discern the source of these claims.

A State Department official would not provide the Free Beacon with a total estimate of how much Iran would receive in unfrozen assets as a result of the deal.

The situation has left some in Congress frustrated over what they call attempts by the administration to mislead about the total amount of money Iran will receive.

“While bragging to J Street, Secretary of State Kerry inexplicably claimed Iran has only ‘received’ $3 billion in sanctions relief under the nuclear deal,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) told the Free Beacon. “The administration and its supporters won’t hold Iran fully accountable for ballistic missile tests and now they are obfuscating the nuclear deal’s financial benefits to Iran.”

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a member of the House intelligence committee, also criticized the administration for rebuffing attempts to fully determine the amount of sanctions relief being awarded to Iran.

“Secretary Kerry himself has acknowledged that some of this money will end up in the hands of terrorists,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “The State Department’s inability, or refusal, to accurately estimate the amount of money the Islamic Republic of Iran is receiving raises even more serious questions.”

“Whether Iran has received $3 billion in sanctions relief so far, as Secretary of State John Kerry seems to think, or whether it will get $150 billion, as other experts estimate, it is all far too much money to be flowing to the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” Pompeo said.

The claim also has rankled senior Republican foreign policy aides in Congress, who recently circulated an internal email in the Senate disputing Kerry’s claim.

With the subject line “When does $100 billion = $3 billion?”, the email reads, “When you’re the secretary of state trying to mislead the American people about the economic benefits redounding to Iran under the nuclear agreement,” according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.

“It is completely misleading for Secretary Kerry to suggest that the economic benefit Iran has received under the JCPOA thus far is only $3 billion,” the email continues. “Iran has been given access to $100 billion in its foreign exchange reserves and its economy receives the benefit of that, even if it chooses not to repatriate all those funds. In fact, it would be financial malpractice for it to repatriate all of those reserves immediately. Having access to all of those funds, while keeping some of them outside the country, presents an economic benefit to Iran.”

“No matter how the secretary of state may wish to minimize the economic benefits accruing to Iran under the JCPOA, the simple fact remains, the Iranian economy is benefiting from access to $100 billion as a function of sanctions relief under the Iran nuclear agreement,” the email concludes.

One senior congressional aide who works on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the State Department may not be able to prove Kerry’s claim.

“The Iranian government says the nuclear deal gave them access to roughly $100 billion <http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/02/01/448226/Iran-frozen-assets-sanctions-Nobakht/> in previously frozen assets in foreign accounts, yet Secretary Kerry went before J Street to claim that Iran only received ‘about $3 billion’ in sanctions relief,” the source said. “I don’t know why the administration adamantly refuses to detail the facts underlying Secretary Kerry’s curious claim, unless there are no facts to actually detail.”

A recent investigation <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/private-government-report-iran-spending-billions-to-pay-terrorist-salaries/> by the Congressional Research Service determined that Iran has been spending billions to pay terrorist fighters. Iran’s defense budget is believed to range anywhere from $14 billion and $30 billion a year, with a large portion of that going to fund terrorist groups and rebel fighters in a number of countries.

8 Sykes-Picot and the Golan By Zalman Shoval, Israel Hayom

Just under a century ago, on May 16, 1916, France and the United Kingdom signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which shaped the borders of our region and to a certain extent helped lead to the fulfillment of the Zionist vision. France and the U.K. were driven by their geopolitical interests, but other factors played a role as well, including the ambitions of Arab nationalists, for whom the expected benefits of helping the French and British in World War I against the Germans and Turks did not pan out.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement determined that the areas that would become the future states of Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan would fall under British control, while France would get the areas that would later become Syria and Lebanon (and also a small part of Turkey).
Mark Sykes, the British negotiator, was a Christian Zionist who viewed the establishment of a Jewish entity in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland as a historic, moral and religious directive. He also believed that political support of Jews from around the world, particularly in the U.S., could help Britain achieve victory over Germany. He thought a Jewish national home in Palestine would naturally serve British interests in the region after the war. These views were shared by Zionist movement leader Chaim Weizmann, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement had a considerable influence on the formulation of the Balfour Declaration, issued in 1917.

The original Sykes-Picot Agreement was approved and expanded upon at the San Remo conference in 1920. British pressure led to this approval also covering the Balfour Declaration, but the matter of final borders was not determined, due to the consequences for the Golan Heights. At the end of World War I, the Zionist movement claimed territory up to the Litani River (in current-day Lebanon) and the area where the sources of the Jordan River are located. Originally, the Upper Galilee region was supposed to fall under French control, but in 1924 the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine was expanded northward, largely due to the establishment of the Jewish settlements of Metulla, Tel Hai and Kfar Giladi in what is now known as the Galilee panhandle. However, the Litani River, the sources of the Jordan River, Mount Hermon, most of the Golan Heights (up to 10 meters from the Sea of Galilee shoreline) and the Banias River remained under French control (and later became part of Syria).

This situation lasted until the Six-Day War in 1967, when the status of the Golan Heights was restored to what it was supposed to have been according to the original agreement.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement is today a sensitive matter, not only because of the future of the Golan Heights, but due to the fact that most of the countries whose borders were artificially delineated by the agreement have collapsed into pieces along tribal and religious lines. What is going on in these countries now and in the coming years will have a huge impact on the region, Europe and perhaps even America. From our perspective in Israel, the greatest impact will be on our security.

9 History Can Deligitimise the Deligitimisers By Nomi Benari

]T. Belman. I received the following article from Nomi with this note:

“You are so right.

Palestinians nowhere in sight before twentieth century

This is the message we have to get out there. Here is the UK even those who call themselves Zionists do not know the facts, and Zionist organisations do not want to touch the subject. I attach one piece I wrote on in after doing a lot of research. I hope you find it interesting.
Lets keep at it.”

I asked her who she was and she replied:

“My name is Nomi Benari. I run ‘Middle East Education’ which gives talks in mainstream schools on ‘The Arab-Israeli conflict, both sides of the story’, a Jewish speaker together with a Muslim speaker. We tell the students we are not pro- one side or the other, but are pro truth.
I am a member of, but not very active with the ZF and SWU UK.

My father, Yehuda Benari, was Jabotinsky’s personal secretary. My grandfather David Jochelman attended the first Zionist Congress. “[

By Nomi Benari

At a time when the very legitimacy of Israel is being increasingly questioned, the following is not simply dry history, but rather exposes the ignorance of those deligitimisers.

Inhabitants of ‘Palestine’ during the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate

For those who want to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict and the differing historical, legal and political claims of both sides, it is necessary to look at the history of the area at least from as far back as the beginning of the Ottoman Empire’s control. We can learn a lot by referring to statements by independent witnesses OFficial documents from 1517-1948, which are explored below.
The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire (1517-1917)

After a number of consecutive Muslim Caliphate rulers, the territory came under the control of the Ottoman Empire. For the Ottomans (Turks), the area was merely an unimportant and distant outpost of the Empire and, while ensuring that each area was governed by Turkish officials, they did not maintain or invest in it and, according to many independent travellers, the land had for centuries been barren and sparsely populated. For example:

“The land in Palestine was lacking in people to till its fertile soil”. Thomas Shaw, British Archaeologist, ‘Travels and Observations’, London, 1767

“Palestine is a ruined and desolate land”. Count Constantine François Volney, French author and historian , ‘Travels Through Syria and Egypt in years 1783, 1784, 1785’, London 1788, vol. 2, p142

“The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population”. James Finn, British Consul, Report to Foreign Office, 1857

“Above all other countries in the world, [Palestine] is now a land of ruins. In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that…for miles and miles there is no appearance of present life or habitation”. Cook’s Tourist Handbook for Palestine and Syria, Thomas Cook & Son, Ludgate Circus, E.C, 1876

“A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We never saw a human being on the whole route”. Mark Twain, American author and humorist, ‘Innocents Abroad’, 1869

When the Ottomans gained control of the area in 1517, the sparse population consisted of: Jews whose ancestors had never left, some who had returned after the expulsions, some who had gradually settled in the country, and some who had returned more recently. In 1492 a small number of refugees from the Spanish Inquisition were allowed in; Muslims, some of whom arrived or converted during the spread of Islam in the 7^thcentury, and others who came later from other parts of the Empire; Samaritans, Christians whose ancestors may have been Jews, and others. Most of the inhabitants, Jews and others, lived in five towns: Jerusalem (where some historians say Jews were the majority since at least Turkey’s first census in the first half of the 19^th century), Safed, Jaffa, Tiberias, and Haifa.

As the Ottoman Empire began to lose territory, Muslims from the conquered areas arrived in Syria and southern Syria (the area now known as ‘Palestine’). In 1802 two million Circassians fled Bulgaria and Rumelia [i]. Today many inhabitants of three villages in Israel claim Circassian ancestry: Abu Gosh, Rehaniya and Kfar Kama. They maintain their own culture, and are a tourist attraction.

During the late 18^th century 3000 Albanians recruited by Russia were settled in Acre [ii], and in 1856 Algerians expelled by the French occupation settled in Syria and Palestine [iii].

Between 1831-1840 thousands of Egyptians who refused to serve in the Egyptian military fled to what is now northern Israel, and thousands of Sudanese immigrants followed. In 1850 Egyptian soldiers were brought in to defend the borders, and a small number of Jews – Hovevei Zion – were also permitted to settle from 1850 onwards [iv].

Between 1838-1880 Armenians, Greeks and Italians joined Jewish merchants in Jaffa port [v].

Small numbers of Druze, Sudanese, Persians and those from the east of the river Jordan also arrived, encouraged by large land-owners who sponsored colonisation by encouraging peasants and semi-nomadic tribesmen to work their land. Land in Palestine was granted to Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina [vi]. By 1878 the Jezreel Valley was a sanctuary for Bedouin from east of the Jordan.

During the 19^th century, some villages became populated wholly by settlers from other parts of the Turkish Empire[vii]. In 1872 the Turks put Circassians in what later became the capital of Jordan: Amman.

However, it was not until the 1880s that substantial immigration occurred: as the Ottoman Empire began to lose land in wars, Muslim refugees from these areas were permitted to settle in large numbers. Immigration was encouraged from Arab countries for building infrastructure, for example the Jaffa-Jerusalem railway in 1892.

By 1914 half the Muslims in Safed were from Algeria and the rest were immigrants from Syria and Bedouin from the Jordan Rift Valley[viii].

This large immigration is confirmed by Palestinians who, for example, today say “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity…yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel”.

Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Dept leader of PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977

In 1881 a small number of Jews were also allowed in. Edmond James de Rothschild bought land from absentee Turkish, Lebanese and other landlords, land which was of little use to them as it had become barren and malaria ridden, in areas deemed later, according to maps produced by the Mandate, to be uninhabitable. Using modern farming methods, the Jews began to work the barren land and, as Churchill said, to ‘Make the desert bloom’.

British Mandate

In 1920, the League of Nations allocated what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan to the British Mandate: “Recognition has hereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstructing their national home…The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”. League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Article 6

The area was known as Judea and Samaria from Biblical and Roman times until 1920.

The British Mandate handed over 78% of the territory to Trans Jordan (later Jordan), while renaming the remaining area – that is, the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the river Jordan, ‘Palestine’, and all its inhabitants ‘Palestinians’. The Jews accepted but the Arabs living there refused: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” Prof. Philip K. Hitti, distinguished Arab historian, author of the authoritative book “The Arabs”, testifying at the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry).

In a televised address in March 2012 Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security, Fathi Hammad stated: “Every Palestinian…throughout Palestine can prove his Arab roots, whether from Saudi Arabia or Yemen or anywhere…personally, half my family is Egyptian, we are all like that.”

The British described the inhabitants as follows: “For the sake of convenience it is usual to speak of the Moslem population as ‘Arabs’, though the actual Arab element in the blood of the people is probably confined to what is really a landed Aristocracy”. Report of the Court of Inquiry by Order of H.E The High Commissioner and Commander in Chief 12^th April 1920. Pages 1 and 2

“The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arab speaking…. In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race.” Handbook published by the British Foreign Office 1922

In 1920, I.Kligler, a Jewish scientist arrived in Palestine to, as he said ‘come to grips with malaria’ which was by now endemic. For example, Petach Tikvah, one of the first new Jewish villages, was abandoned as most of its inhabitants became ill or died, as did many Arabs in the area. “The villagers (of Samaria Village in the Beisan Area) state not one child out of ten born in the village ever reaches maturity. (Malaria) carries them off before they are 10 years of age [ix]. Report of ‘Malaria in Samaria Village’, 9/12/1922.

Dr. Kligler’s methods were simple: to keep stagnant water moving where possible, to drain swamps, and above all, to educate the inhabitants – Jews, Arabs, and even itinerant Bedouin. He engaged the help of the British authorities, and world maps today show that his methods were successful, and Palestine is now an oasis of malaria-free land.

“Much of the land [where Jews had settled] now carrying orange groves [was] sand and uncultivated when it was purchased. The shortage of land is due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” Peel Commission Report, July 1937

The British began to restrict Jewish immigration, while stating that they were unable to prevent people from neighbouring areas from entering the region:

“This illegal [Arab] immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery”. Palestine Royal Commission Report, London, 1937

As a result by 1946 there were about 543,000 Jews, and 1,267,037 non-Jews in Palestine (attracted by the enhancement of the land by the Jews and by increased job opportunities afforded by the British). This latter figure included mostly Muslims as well as Christians, Druze, Circassians, etc.

A British Partition Plan was rejected by the Arab League in 1938, and in 1947 the UN voted for partition of the land west of the Jordan River and the creation of two states, one for the those referred to as the Arabs of Palestine, and the other for the Jews. This led to the creation of Israel in May 1948. However, the Arab League invaded, Jordan annexed roughly the area designated for a state for the Arabs, and the state was not established.

Jews claim that, even though the League of Nations and the United Nations have permitted Jews from all over the world to return to their homeland, it is in any case the place from which they were originally expelled, and that no-one else has ever had a state there or their capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim their ancestors have always lived in the land, from long before Moses brought the Jews from Egypt, and that they, themselves, were expelled in 1948-9. However, although there were indeed expulsions, many Palestinian leaders and witnesses denied this:

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians…but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate”. Abu Mazen, Member of PLO in “Al-Thaura”, official publication of PLO, March 1976.

“The Arab High Command asked us to leave the country. They told us: ‘A cannon cannot tell the difference between a Jew and an Arab. Leave the country for two weeks and you will come back victorious’”. Salim Joubran, Arab citizen of Israel, February 1962

A large number of Jews were forced out of the Arab world after the establishment of the State of Israel, and many of them and their descendents now comprise about 50% of Israel’s inhabitants. Unique in the Middle East, the Christian population in Israel continues to grow.

The unification of the disparate Arabic-speaking inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967, when Yasser Arafat announced: “The Palestinian people have no national identity. I, Yasser Arafat, man of destiny, will give them that identity through conflict with Israel”. Alan Hart, ‘Arafat, Terrorist or Peace-maker?’, Sedgewick Jackson, Ltd, 1984.

This unification has finally been achieved, and they have become an internationally recognised people, the Palestinian people.

Bibliography

“Encyclopaedia Britannica 1885” “Encyclopaedia Britannica”, 11^th edition, vol. XX p604

· “Jewish Virtual Library.org”

· “La Syrie”, Syrian daily newspaper, 12/9/1934

· Abbasi Mustafa,“The Arab Community of Safed 1840-1918 A Critical Period”, Palestine Quarterly, 17/2/2003

· Asfoura A, “The Circassians of Palestine”

· Avneri A,“The claim of dispersion”, Herzl Press, 1982

· Baldensperger Philip, (Swiss geographer), “The Immovable East: Studies of the People and Customs of Palestine”, 1913

· Ben Zion I, The Old City’s African Secret, The Times of Israel, 6/4/2014

· Ben-Tekoa S, “Phantom Nation”. 1985

· Blumberg Prof. Arnold, “Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880”

· Buhler Dr Jurgen, “Jesus and the Palestinians”, ‘Word from Jerusalem, ICEJ, pp6-9, April 2014

· Condor Claude.R, “Tent Work in Palestine” – 2 Vol, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1878

· De Haas, “History” p258, The MacMillan Co, 1934

· Finn and Lehman M.R., From ‘Bosnia – Motherland of Palestinians’, British Consul, letter 1851

· Foreign Office, “Syria and Palestine”,Handbook prepared for the League of Nations under the direction of the Historical Section of the Foreign Office, No 50, Published by H.M. Stationery Office, London 1920

· Gill M,”The Political History of Jerusalem During the Early Muslim Period”, in Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai (eds), The History of Jerusalem, the Early Muslim Period, 638-1099, New York University Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1996, pp. 1-35.

· Hartmann Richard, “Palestina unter den Araben, 632-1516”, Leipzig 1915

· Hasselquist Frederich, “Reise nach Palastine, etc 1749-52” p598, Rostock 1762

· Hertz E.E,“Palestinians’ Peoplehood. Based on a Big Lie”

· Josephus Flavius,“The Jewish War”, Penguin Books, 1959

· Kligler J.L,“Malaria in Rural Settlements in Palestine” , Journal of Hygiene, vol XXIII, no 3, pp300-301

· Melville, Herman, “Clarel: A poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land ”, 1876, e-book published by dePrograme, Program Inc, 2013

· Milligram A, “Jerusalem Curiosities”,Publication Society, 1990, pp255-256

· Mills E, BA., OBE, Assistant Chief Secretary Superintendent of Census (Alexandria, 1933), “Census of Palestine – 1931, volume 1, Palestine, Part 1, p147

· Oliphant L, “Haifa”, pp238-39, Harper and Brothers, 1886

· Parkes James, “Whose Land?” p212, Pelican 1949

· Parsons David, “Aliya Timeline 1882-2014”, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, June 2014, int.icej.org/aid/aliya

· Relande A,“A Tour and Census of Palestine 1695”, translation from Latin and commentary on “Palaestina, ex monumentis veteribus illustrate”, published by Trajecti Batavorum: Ex libraria G.Brodelet 1714, Robert Spencer 28/4/2014

· Reports on the Tour of Investigation in Palestine 1925. League of Nations Health Organisation.

· Roger F.Eugene, “La Terre Sainte”, Paris 1637, P331

· Shafir G, “Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1882 -1914,University of California Press

· Taylor George Henry, “Lessons on the geography and history of Palestine”, 1851

· The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 1884-1942, “Arabs flocking into Palestine”, 17/12/1936

· Tristam H.B (British geographer),“The Land of Israel – a Journal of Travels in Palestine from 1865”, 1865

· White D, “Knowing Israel’s History”, compilation of articles by and for Christian Friends of Israel, CFI Communications

· K.W., “Rhythms of Time: Reconnecting Palestine’s Past, 2013, BenBlackBooks, ISBN 970-0-9575406-1-3, reviewed by E.Alex Knauf, in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Vol. 146, Number 2, June 2014, pp 168-170

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ReF4UUa4E

[i] “The Circassians of Palestine” Adeeb Asfoura, Palestine, Issue No 112, August 2007

[ii] Encyclopaedia Britannica”, 11^th edition, vol.XX, p604

[iii] “Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1882-1914”, G. Shafir, University of California Press

[iv] The Circassians of Palestine”, Adeeb Asfoura, Palestine, Issue No 112, August 2007

[v] ”Reise nach Palestina, etc 1749-52”, p598, Hasselquist F, Rostock, 1762

“The Immovable East: Studies of the People and Customs of Palestine” , Philip Baldensperger, 1913, California Digital Library

[vi] “Bosnia – Motherland of Palestinians”, Manfred Lehman

[vii] Whose Land”, James Parkes, p212, Pelican 1949

[viii] “The Arab Community in Israel”, Mustafa Abbasi, Palestine Quarterly, 17/2/2003

[ix] Kligler J.L,“Malaria in Rural Settlements in Palestine” , Journal of Hygiene, vol XXIII, no 3, pp300-301

10 The Death of Free Speech: The West Veils Itself by Giulio Meotti, GATESTONE INSTITUTE April 26, 2016 at 6:00 am

· The West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of the several bloggers butchered, flogged or jailed last year for criticizing Islam.

· Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, sided with the Turks. She condemned the German comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult,” then approved the filing of criminal charges against him for insulting the Turkish president.

· The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.

· Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, just released an interview with Italy’s largest newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, where he suggested a kind of grand bargain: We Iranians will discuss with you our human rights situation, if you Europeans suppress freedom of expression on Islam.

Last week, Nazimuddin Samad sat at his computer at home and penned a few critical lines against the Islamist drift of his country, Bangladesh. The day after, Samad was approached by four men shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is great!”) and hacked him to death with machetes.

These killings have become routine in Bangladesh, where many bloggers, journalists and publishers are being killed in broad daylight because of their criticism of Islam. There is a hit list with 84 names of “satanic bloggers.” A wave of terrorism against journalists reminiscent of that in Algeria, where 60 journalists were killed by Islamist armed groups between 1993 and 1997.

But these shocking killings have not been worth of a single line in Europe’s newspapers.

Is it because these bloggers are less famous than the cartoonists murdered at Charlie Hebdo? Is it because their stories did not come from the City of Light, Paris, but from one of the poorest and darkest cities in the world, Dhaka?

No, it is because the West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of these bloggers butchered last year.

From Bangladesh, we now receive photos of writers in pools of blood, laptops seized by police looking for “evidence” and keyboards burned by the Islamists. We receive images reminiscent of the riots in Bradford, England, over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in 1989, ten years after the Ayatollah Khomeini had revolutionized Iran into a stronghold of Islamic extremism.

Yet the stories of these bloggers from outside Europe remain shrouded by a ghastly transparency, as if their death has been only virtual, as if the internet had become their grave, as if these fallen bloggers did not deserve the virality of social networks.

There is also the case of Raif Badawi, in Saudi Arabia, sentenced to 1,000 lashes, ten years in jail and a fine of $270,000 for blogging thoughts such as, “My commitment is…to reject any repression in the name of religion…a goal that we will reach in a peaceful and law-abiding way.” The lashing order added that he should be “lashed very severely.” In addition to that, Badawi’s human rights lawyer, Walid Abu al-Khayr, was sentenced on July 6, 2014, to 10 years in prison. He was accused of: “inciting public opinion,” “disobedience in matters of the sovereign,” “lack of respect in dealings with the authorities,” “offense of the judicial system,” “inciting international organizations against the Saudi kingdom” and, finally, for having founded illegally, or without authorization, his association “Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.” He was also forbidden to travel for fifteen years after his release, and fined 200,000 riyals ($53,000)according to Abdullah al-Shihri of the Associated Press.

Also in Saudi Arabia, in a clear violation of international law, according to Amnesty International, on March 24, the journalist Alaa Brinji was sentenced to five years in prison, an eight year travel ban and a fine of $13,000 for a few tweets allegedly “insulting the rulers,” inciting public opinion,” and “accusing security officers of killing protestors in Awamiyya,” the kingdom’s eastern province where the oil fields and the Shiites are.

Unfortunately, Western governments never raise Badawi’s case when they visit Saudi Arabia’s rulers, and turn a blind eye to the way this country treats its own citizens.

Look also at what happened not in the poor & Islamic Bangladesh, but in the wealthy & secularized Germany, where a comedian named Jan Böhmermann mocked & insulted Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a television show. The prosecutor of Mainz just opened a case against Böhmermann under paragraph 103 of the German Penal Code, which provides up to five years in prison for insulting a foreign head of state. Chancellor Angela Merkel sided with the Turks. She condemned the comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult” then approved the prosecution against him.

Meanwhile, the German public television station, Zdf, removed the video from their website, and Böhmermann raised the white flag by suspending his show. The comedian, after Islamist death threats, got police protection.

The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.

Theo van Gogh (left) was murdered by an Islamist because he made a film critical of Islam. Salman Rushdie (right) was lucky to stay alive, spending many years in hiding, under police protection, after Iran’s Supreme Leader ordered his murder because he considered Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses “blasphemous.”

A few weeks ago, at Rome’s Capitoline Museum, a famous repository of Western antiquities, the government of Italy called for “respect” for the sensibilities of Iran’s President Rouhani and placed large boxes over nude sculptures.

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif, just released an interview with Italy’s largest newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, where he suggested a kind of grand bargain: We Iranians will discuss with you our human rights situation, if you Europeans suppress freedom of expression on Islam: “Human rights are reason for concern for everyone,” Zarif said. “We are ready to dialogue. We shall make our observations on alienation of the Muslim communities in many European societies, or how freedom of expression is abused to desecrate the symbols of Islam.”

And that is exactly what is happening right now — of course with no mention of how freedom of speech or human rights are abused in “many Muslim societies.” Or how violent repression there “is abused to desecrate the symbols of the free world.”

The Iranian ayatollahs recently added to the bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie. And as it happened with Saudi Arabia’s or Bangladesh’s bloggers, nobody in Europe protested and Mrs. Merkel has been willing to abandon the German comedian to the autocratic Turkish Islamists.

In Pakistan, a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, is now fighting for her life in prison, where, condemned to death for “blasphemy,” she awaits her fate. European public opinion, which is always generous in rallying against “the persecution of minorities,” did not fill the streets and the squares to protest Asia Bibi’s imprisonment.

Further, for Europe’s journalists and writers, it has become increasingly difficult to find publishers. This is true of, for instance, Caroline Fourest, author of the French book Eloge du blasphème. “The treatment of her work by the publishing industry shows how much has been lost” wrote the British journalist, Nick Cohen. “No Anglo-Saxon publisher would touch it, and only fear can explain the rejection letters.”

“No American or British publisher has been willing to publish the book” Mrs. Fourest told this author. “‘There is no market for this book’, I was repeatedly told, to justify their desire not to touch something explosive. It was an important project which Salman Rushdie tried to sponsor with his own publishing houses. It is alarming because more & more I see that my colleagues behave as useful idiots.”

Europe is also suppressing freedom of expression for the very few moderate Islamic voices. On January 31, 2016, an Algerian writer named Kamel Daoud published an article in the French newspaper Le Monde on the events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany. What Cologne showed, says Daoud, is how sex is “the greatest misery in the world of Allah.”

A few days later, Le Monde ran a response by sociologists, historians and anthropologists who accused Daoud of being an “Islamophobe,” Jeanne Favret-Saada, an orientalist at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, wrote that Daoud “spoke as the European far-right.” Daoud has been defended only by a few other Arab writers exiled in Europe.

The affair is the mirror of Europe’s forsaking freedom of expression: a great Arab writer expresses precious truths and the mainstream European media and intellectuals, instead of protecting Daoud while Islamists threatened him with death, press the novelist to choose silence.