Friday, August 14, 2015
Dear Family & Friends,
Much good reading for Shabbat. Very thought-provoking. Good for family table discussions.
Have a beautiful Shabbat night & day. All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta 2/Mom
Our Website: WinstonIsraelInsight.com
1.US voters shape the Iran debate by Yoram Ettinger
2.Dangerous rhetoric by Dr. Limor Samimian-Darash
3.Netanyahu Hails Major Offshore Gas Deal
4.15 Nobel Prize laureates, top scientists expected at conference in Israel
5.How to Ensure the Future of Iraq’s Minority Groups Dr. Mordechai Kedar
7.Moshe Feiglin on Administrative Detention: A Country Should Never Deny Liberty of Citizens
8.Moshe Feiglin: No Administrative Detention–Except for Settlers?
9.Moshe Feiglin: If PM Intends to Abandon Settlers, Leave them their Fair Share of Military and Financial Means to Defend Themselves
10.Powerful Muslim Organizations Intimidate Hollywood Producers to Portray Islam Positively
11.Islamist Influence in Hollywood
12.How Iran Plans to Destroy Israel By Ehud Ya’ari
13.Anti-Jihadists Are ‘Dirty Jewish Zionist Thugs” Says US University Professor
| |
1.US voters shape the Iran debate  by Yoram Ettinger
U.S. voters’ position on the nuclear deal with the ayatollahs — and thereby the position held by Congress — is shaped by their worldview in general and U.S. homeland and national security considerations in particular. According to RealClearPolitics’ most recent polls, a major rift has evolved between U.S. policymakers and their constituents when it comes to foreign policy and national security. U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy enjoys a mere 38.5% approval rating. A recent CNN poll Albert Sadikov/JINI documented a majority disapproval of Obama’s handling of Islamic terrorism, and a majority backing for the use of military force against the Islamic State group. The chasm between most constituents and the White House is highlighted by the congressional debate on the nuclear deal with the ayatollahs. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are committed to compliance with agreements and to moderation. Most critically, they refrain from linking dramatic benefits to the ayatollahs to dramatic changes in their anti-U.S., destabilizing and warmongering policies. In sharp contrast, U.S. voters’ deep distrust of the ayatollahs is well-documented in the annual Gallup poll on country ratings. This poll reflects a realization that there is an inherent contradiction between Iran’s ostensible compliance with agreements and moderation and Iran’s support of terrorism, subversion, repression, anti-U.S. hate education and policies, apocalyptic ideology and systematic noncompliance. In the poll, Iran ranked as Americans’ second least favored country with only 11% favorability (ahead of North Korea with 9% and behind Afghanistan (14%), Syria (14%) and the Palestinian Authority (17%). Israel, however, received a score of 70% favorability among Americans. In addition, the poll demonstrates that 77% of Americans regard a nuclearized Iran, and 84% regard international terrorism, as “critical threats.” Gallup indicates that “Americans’ views on [the ayatollahs] have remained unchanged for 26 years.” According to an August 3, 2015 poll conducted by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute (cited for its high level professionalism and independence), the agreement between the ayatollahs and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany has the support of a meager 28% of the U.S. electorate (including a lukewarm 52% of Democrats). Unlike all other democratic systems, the U.S. federal system features the constituent as its chief axis. The 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators directly serve their constituents, not the president or party leaders. The political life expectancy of legislators is different from the political life expectancy of the president, but their political careers are controlled by their constituents. Adherence to the worldview of their voters, in their particular districts and states, is the prerequisite for their electability, while departure from that worldview votes legislators out of office. Morally and politically, legislators are mostly loyal to their voters, who keep reminding them: “We shall remember in November.” While voters — and therefore legislators — are mostly preoccupied with domestic issues, the threat of the ayatollahs is perceived as a critical concern with devastating domestic (homeland security and economic) implications. It could become a political game-changer. According to Gallup, voters’ rejection of key presidential policies have dealt sweeping defeats to the incumbent president’s party in the “six-year-itch” midterm election — in 2006 (George W. Bush) and in 2014 (Obama) — unseating legislators who supported unpopular policies. For example, in 2006, veteran Republican legislators who used pork-barrel politics to benefit their districts, such as Reps. Anne Northrup (Kentucky), Nancy Johnson (Connecticut), Clay Shaw (Florida), Jim Leach (Iowa) and Charles Bass (New Hampshire), were swept by the anti-Bush tide — proof of voters’ dissatisfaction with Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. The Bush effect also contributed to the 2006 defeat of Republican Senators Jim Talent (Missouri), Conrad Burns (Montana), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania), Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) and George Allen (Virginia). In 2014, Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu was defeated, largely due to her support of the Affordable Care Act, also known as ” ‘Obamacare,” which most Louisianans oppose. She lost despite her seniority and chairmanship of the Senate Energy Committee, which produced a boon for her state, and her “Blue-Dog Democrat” claims. Support for Obamacare in defiance of their constituents also played a role in unseating other Democratic senators. In 2015, will members of the House and Senate ignore or reflect the position of their voters on the nuclear deal with the ayatollahs, whose approval would compound the current significant threats posed by the conventionally armed ayatollahs, triggering an unprecedented wave of Islamic terrorism, an avalanche of toppled pro-U.S. oil-producing Arab regimes and consequent economic implications, nuclear proliferation, and a nuclear war? |
| | US voters shape the Iran debate by Yoram Ettinger
2.Dangerous rhetoric  by Dr. Limor Samimian-Darash
Something dangerous is lacing political discourse in the U.S. It began with U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent address, in which he commented on the American Jewish lobby’s financial clout, and continued with the lambasting of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose opposition to the nuclear deal reached with Iran prompted some 170,000 Americans to sign a petition condemning Schumer’s views. More explicitly, the Daily Kos website posted a caricature showing Schumer as a bear holding the Israeli flag and explaining why he opposes the deal, alluding to Schumer’s dual loyalty to both Israel and the U.S. The delegitimization and demonization of those opposing the Iran deal are not new, but recently they have taken a dangerous turn to include highly problematic rhetoric. It began with Obama practically labeling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an enemy of the state for daring to oppose the emerging deal, and once it became clear that, like Netanyahu, most Knesset members oppose the deal, the rhetoric expanded to include Israel and the Israeli public. Next, it was the Jewish lawmakers’ turn. Once Obama began his attempts to convince hesitant lawmakers to support the deal, their heritage suddenly became relevant, and the “Jewish” label found its way into the conversation. It is as if someone has opened the can containing the “Jewish discourse,” which immediately spilled over, obscuring the real danger the deal poses. U.S. senators are no longer identified by the party they serve or the state they represent, but by the adjectives preceding their name: “Jewish senator.” First it was the three Jewish representatives who publicly announced their opposition to the Iran deal: Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), who were “outed” by the American media as the “first Jewish Democrats” in Congress to oppose the deal. Then came the criticism of “Jewish” senators Chuck Schumer and Eliot Engel, both from New York, while the support voiced for the deal by another “Jewish” senator, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, was used to counterbalance Schumer’s opposition. The Los Angeles Times listed the names of 12 senators who may tip the scale of the congressional vote, identifying three of them as “Jewish,” while sufficing with generic details about the others and making no mention of their religious affiliation. CNN’s supposedly general coverage of the deal parroted the rhetoric, with a headline reading, “American Jews support deal,” and highlighting polls suggesting the ratio of American Jews who support the deal is higher than that of the general public. The opposition to the Iran deal voiced by non-Jewish senators such as Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) was not linked to their religious roots. Schumer’s and Schatz’s positions on issues that do not pertain to Israel have nothing to do with their Jewish identity as far as the media coverage goes. Still, they are Jewish and someone wants the public to know that about them, especially over their support, or lack thereof, for the nuclear deal. In other words, the use of their Jewish identity is deliberate, and this affiliation is used to label and at times tarnish them. This trend is evident in mainstream American media, and not by chance. The Obama administration knowingly exploits the Jewish discourse and it deliberately places Jewish members of the Senate and House of Representatives under scrutiny, to undermine their public legitimacy if they oppose the deal, and bolster their position if they support the administration’s policy. On both cases, this discourse is wrong. Schumer has said that, prior to making the decision to vote against the deal, he discussed the issue with Obama and senior officials such as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, who led the talks with Iran, and Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Kissinger and former Secretary of State George Shultz expressed their concerns in April, in a joint editorial published by The Wall Street Journal in which they listed the accord’s shortcomings and claimed it would make Iran a nuclear threshold state. Clearly, the opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with the Jewish blood running through its opponents’ veins, but rather with the dangerous reality Iran is forcing on the world, and the anxiety stemming from the global support its dangerous ambitions are receiving. |
Dangerous rhetoric by Dr. Limor Samimian-Darash
3.Netanyahu Hails Major Offshore Gas Deal
After long struggle over offshore gas production, Israeli PM praises deal that ‘will bring in hundreds of billions of shekels’ to Israel. By Arutz Sheva Staff First Publish: 8/13/2015, 12:53 PM
Netanyahu speaks after swearing-in of the government
Yonatan Sindel/Flash90
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced on Thursday a major agreement between his government and a consortium on natural gas production in the Mediterranean Sea.
A framework plan will be submitted for the government’s approval on Sunday, during its weekly Cabinet meeting.
Negotiations have long been under way with a consortium including Noble Energy and locally based Delek Group, with talks involving natural gas pricing for Israeli reserves and future production.
Noble and Delek have since 2013 produced gas from the Tamar field off the Israeli coast. They have also teamed up to develop the offshore Leviathan field, considered the largest in the Mediterranean.
The negotiations have been controversial in Israel, with critics fearing regulations would overly favor the companies involved.
In May, antitrust commissioner David Gilo said he was resigning over his opposition to the dominant position of Noble and Delek in the Leviathan and Tamar fields.
According to Haaretz, Netanyahu’s negotiators offered Noble Energy to base the price of future natural gas contracts for the Tamar gas field on pre-determined electricity production contracts, in which the price of gas is set at $5 per million BTU.
The government has also agreed to implement only minor milestones for the development of the Leviathan offshore gas field. These include a $1.5 billion commitment to providers over the next two years and a gas supply within the next five.
“The agreement will bring in hundreds of billions of shekels to Israeli citizens over the coming years,” Netanyahu said, commending the deal in a televised statement, without specifying details.
I shall bring this agreement to the cabinet on Sunday. I’m sure it will pass by a large majority of votes,” he added.
AFP contributed to this report.
Netanyahu Hails Major Offshore Gas Deal
4.15 Nobel Prize laureates, top scientists expected at conference in Israel by Ilan Gattegno IsraelHaYom.com |
Inaugural World Science Conference Israel, expected to be the largest conference of its kind in the world, will have more than 400 participants from over 70 countries • Initiative of Foreign Ministry, Science Ministry, Hebrew University, and PM’s Office.
| Photo credit: Gil Yohanan |
The Hebrew University Givat Ram Campus in Jerusalem
The inaugural World Science Conference Israel, expected to be the largest conference of its kind in the world, begins this weekend in Jerusalem. The conference, first reported by Israel Hayom, will host 15 Nobel Prize laureates, Wolf Prize and Fields Medal winners, as well as more than 400 budding scientists and other prominent scientists from around the world.
The 400 science students, carefully chosen for their outstanding skills, represent more than 70 nationalities, and will be joined by their country’s leading scientists.
The conference, which is being held at the Hebrew University’s Edmund J. Safra Campus at Givat Ram, is the joint initiative of the Foreign Ministry, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Science, Space and Technology Ministry, and the public diplomacy department in the Prime Minister’s Office.
The students will enjoy a full week of activities and opportunities to meet leading scientists from around the world. They will learn about the scientists’ projects in the fields of physics, chemistry, the life sciences and mathematics. The students will get the chance to study in small groups with Israel’s top scientists and with the Nobel laureates.
Some 60 press teams from various countries are expected to attend the conference as well.
Organizers plan to make the conference an annual tradition, bringing young scientists to Israel each year.
Foreign Ministry organizer Guy Kivetz said, “One of the goals of the project is to turn the conference into a sort of ‘Taglit-Birthright for science.’ We will bring hundreds and even thousands of young scientists, who will become the next generation of leading scientists in their home countries and the world.”
15 Nobel Prize laureates, top scientists expected at conference in Israel
5.How to Ensure the Future of Iraq’s Minority Groups Dr. Mordechai Kedar
A concrete idea that can put an end to the increasingly successful attempts to eradicate ancient ethnic groups and cultures. Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com Published: Thursday, August 13, 2015 1
Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.
The entire world is appalled at the tragedy that has befallen the Yazidis of northern Iraq. An ethnic group whose culture spans thousands of years and who survived a problematic history, is facing extermination at the hands of Islamic State, which has been murdering the men and selling the women, girls and children in the slave market.
The world watches and is for the most part silent; there are no words strong enough to describe the dismay and disgust that the world feels at the decimation of these people. But what is the world doing? Precious little: a rare article, a rarer news report, and here and there a demonstration. Very little effort is being made to give the Yazidis protection from the air, because the entire world trembles before the Islamic State Jihadists.
he only power located anywhere near the Yazidis is the Kurdish militia in Iraq, the Pesh-Merga, but the real tragedy is that in northern Iraq there is an understanding, perhaps even an agreement, between ISIS and the Pesh-Merga to the effect that as long as the Kurds do not defend the Yazidis, they can live in peace. The Yazidis relate that the Kurds are no less cruel to them than the Islamists. Two conclusions may be drawn from this: one, that we obviously cannot rely on the Kurdish militias to save the Yazidis, and second, that the Pesh-Merga are not going to be the ones to fight ISIS with enough will to destroy it, because they are incapable of and unwilling to do so.
Can anything be done to save the Yazidis? This question is just as applicable to all the other persecuted Christian groups in Iraq, such as the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Nestorians and Arameans, whose lot is the same as that of the Yazidis, except that many of them have managed to escape from Iraq.
In addition, there are other non-Islamic groups in Iraq who are suffering Islamic persecution, such as the Saba’is,Mande’is, Zoroastrians, Bahais, all of them considered heretic and pagan idol worshippers whose fate is to be identical to that of the Yazidis and Christians.
It is worth noting that except for the Bahais, all these ethnic groups and religions are more ancient than Islam and have been in Iraq – as the Jews were – for hundreds and thousands of years, way before Iraq was conquered by Islam in the 7th century C.E.
Any solution to the problem of Iraq’s minority groups must be based on the premise that Iraq is incapable of protecting either its territory or citizens. A quarter of the country is in the hands of ISIS and another fifth is a nearly autonomous Kurdish region that does not obey dictates from the central government. The political paralysis that ailed Iraq from the minute it was freed from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in 2003 has been going on for 12 years, and no one sees a way to bring the country to the point where it can rule effectively over the territories to the north of Bagdad that are under Sunni Islamist and Kurdish control.
I would like to suggest a possible solution – and in my opinion, the only solution – for the persecuted ethnic groups in Iraq, one that may bring the suffering of all non-Muslim minorities in Iraq to an end. The solution is to establish a political entity in an area of northern Iraq, to which all the minorities can move, there to be protected by an international force.
For the purposes of this article, let us call the area “Mesopotamia”, the ancient name given by the Greeks to the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Many questions may arise as a result of the establishment of “Mesopotamia”. Here is a list of some of them: What will its borders be and who will mark them? Will it be independent of Iraq or simply an autonomous region like that of the Kurds? What will its legal standing be in international law? What kind of government will it have? Will it have an army? What kind of relations will it have with the Kurdish region to its north and the Shiite region to its south? What will be the basis of its economy? Who will ensure its security?
In my opinion, the answers to these questions must be decided at a founding conference which should take place at the UN, and includes representatives of all the above-mentioned groups along with representatives from Europe, the US, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and any other country interested in founding “Mesopotamia.” Long and complex discussions will deal with diametrically opposed views. Iraq, Turkey and Iran will be against the idea, because establishing “Mesopotamia” means the continued dissolution of Iraq, with a possible domino effect on Iran and Turkey whose minorities may want to adopt the idea themselves.
There is no escaping a comparison between the current situation of Iraq’s minorities and that of the Jews a hundred years ago when the Balfour Declaration was proclaimed. Iraq’s disintegration parallels the Ottoman Empire’s demise at that time, while the persecution of non-Islamic minorities in Iraq parallels what the Jews suffered during 2000 years of exile.
The solution for the Jews was an independent state in their historic homeland – the exact same solution can help Iraq’s persecuted peoples on their historic lands, exactly as the Kurds have finally succeeded in doing. This is a combination of historic justice and modern problem solving.
This week in Jerusalem, I met Juliana Taimoorazi, a Christian woman whose ethnic origin is Assyriac. She has established an organization named “The Iraqi Christian Relief Council” whose job it is to offer humanitarian aid to suffering Iraqi Christians. The ideas in this article were discussed with her, and it was decided to try to push for them in international forums.
The establishment of Mesopotamia is urgent due to the Islamist advance in Syria – that is, Jebhat al Nusra and Islamic State – who are getting close to the point where they will declare extremist Sharia rule over Syria’s ruins. It is possible that Christians and other groups will seek refuge in a more secure area, perhaps the buffer zone Turkey plans to create in northern Syria – or in long-needed, overdue “Mesopotamia”.
The world must make immediate decisions on this matter so as to deal with the catastrophes now taking place in the Middle East and those that are going to occur in the near future. Every delay in finding a solution adds to the number of men, women, children and young girls who will be murdered, wounded, attempt to reach Europe in flimsy rafts, be sold as slaves or forced to embrace Islam and join the death units of ISIS. The longer it takes to agree on a plan, the harder it will be to bring it to fruition and the higher the price paid for it will be.
In the Middle East, like everywhere else, if a problem isn’t treated while it is relatively small, it does not disappear; instead, it becomes an enormous problem.
It is imperative that the world establish “Mesopotamia” as a refuge for persecuted minorities as soon as is humanly possible!
Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by A7 Op-ed and Judaism Editor, Rochel Sylvetsky
How to Ensure the Future of Iraq’s Minority Groups Dr. Mordechai Kedar
· Aug-12-2015
While everybody is congratulating Senator Chuck Schumer’s decision to vote against the Iran deal, I want to make it very clear that this vote – even if the deal is rejected – will not solve Israel’s “Iranian problem”. Senator Schumer will vote against the deal because it is bad for America which is exactly the way he should think and act.
Let’s be honest for a minute and put our emotions aside; The job of a US Senator is to do what’s good for his state and his country and not necessarily what is good for Israel. Yes, many times what is good for Israel is also good for America but many times that is also not the case.
I am very comfortable with the fact that a USA politician – from Congressman to Senator to Mayor to Governor to Commander in Chief – must first do what is good for America and not worry about Israel. He/she is paid by Americans, was elected by the American people and must therefore first and foremost do what is good for the people he/she represents!
This deal is bad for America! It gives Iran money, power and freedom which they will use for evil. Very soon this evil will find its way to the shores of NY and other American cities, similar to the way that Arab terror and suicide bombers started in Israel but wound up in downtown Manhattan. This is why Schumer will vote against it and he is right in his thinking.
The question that remains, however, is simple: Where does that leave Israel? As written above, this deal – even if totally rejected – will not make Iran melt away. The Iranians are obsessed with wiping Israel off the map and will stop at nothing until they either achieve that goal (G-d forbid) or are wiped off the map first (G-d willing).
Allow me to make matters even worse by giving you information you probably won’t read anywhere else: Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has been running around the world telling everyone that Israel’s two biggest enemies; Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are “proxies of Iran”. Bibi has correctly pointed out on several occasions that these terror groups are funded, armed and trained by Iran. Therefore, he says, this Iran deal will strengthen – not only Iran – but also the ones they support; meaning Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a scary thought and therefore all lovers of Israel oppose the deal and are trying to stop it. This is well known and well documented, so where is the information I promised that “you won’t read anywhere else”?
Here it is: Not only are Hamas and Hezbollah proxies of Iran but the Palestinian Authority is one as well! The leaders of the so called “Palestinians” are called by a very politically correct name, “Palestinian Authority”, but their real name – to this very day – is PLO/FATAH. The founder of PLO/FATAH is Yasser Arafat.
Back in the ‘70’s, and long before Persian Jews lived in Great Neck and Los Angeles, life was very good for Jews in Iran. The ruler was the Shah and he treated the Jews with tremendous respect and dignity. All of this came to an end with the Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. He spearheaded a violent and deadly revolution which drove the Shah out of power and killed and exiled many Jews.
Did you ever ask yourself where Khomeini received his weapons from? How about who trained his guerrilla fighters? To answer that question, allow me to quote from the NY Times, Feb 19, 1979; “Mr. Arafat’s group sent arms to the revolutionary forces and trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970’s”!! As a matter of fact, when Khomeini celebrated his victory, the first foreign dignitaries invited to Iran – to celebrate with him – were Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas (who is today the president of “Palestine”). As a gift to Arafat and Abbas, for training and arming his fighters, Khomeini gave them a beautiful office to use as PLO/FATAH headquarters; the former Israeli embassy in Teheran!
What does all this have to do with today? Simple. That deep relationship between Iran and PLO/FATAH continues to this very day. Abbas calls himself President of Palestine and maintains deep ties with the current Iranian regime. That regime is led by two men; Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran. Both of these men are students and followers of the Ayatollah and Ali Khamenei was recently quoted as saying that, “Israel has no cure but must be annihilated”.
Over the years, many media outlets reported that the terror bombings across Israel, including the Sbarro pizza bombing was supported by Iran via a division of PLO/FATAH called “The Al-Aqsa Brigade”. As an example, the Sunday Telegraph of October 14, 2004 reported that, “Much of the Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Brigade has come under Iran’s sway, especially in the West Bank”.
When Arafat died, the leader of the Al-Aqsa Brigade, Zakaria Zubeidi, supported Abbas to take over and pledged him his full loyalty. In short, the connection runs very deep.
I could go on and on and list more names and events that connect these dots but the conclusion is simple and extremely disturbing. Today’s “Palestinian Authority” is a direct proxy of Iran and they are far more dangerous than Hamas and Hezbollah since they sit in the middle of Israel!
The obvious question is why are they being offered a state by the same leaders who warn against Iran? On one hand, Bibi runs and delivers a strong speech in the US Congress against the Iranian deal while on the other hand he is 100% in support of a Palestinian State in the middle of Israel which will bring Iran within a few miles of Jerusalem, Netanya and Ben Gurion Airport! Does that make any sense to you???
Don’t be fooled for even one second. When Israel sends a team to negotiate with the “Palestinians” they are really negotiating with Iran… the same Iran that Bibi says we must not negotiate with!
Crazy is not the word and this is yet another example of why the present Israeli leadership must be replaced by those who will state the truth, lead by authentic Torah values and turn Israel into a strong and proud Jewish state. Finally, this strong leadership must punish today’s Iranian regime with the same punishment given to Haman, the last trouble-maker we had from Persia!
For more information on the connection between Iran and PLO/FATAH please see the website of Historical and Investigative Research, edited by Dr Francisco Gil-White: www.hirhome.com
“Administrative detention, which the cabinet approved for use this week against Jews suspected of nationalist activities, is bad. Very bad,” said Moshe Feiglin. “The identity of the detainees doesn’t matter. A country should never deny the liberties of its citizens or of the civilians under its jurisdiction without a trial.”
“A person who is not a citizen and is suspected of being hostile toward the state should promptly find himself on the other side of the border,” Feiglin continued.
“The situation in which we live now, in which we are incapable of saying who we are, where our borders are drawn and who are our enemies – brings about a much more profound blow to human rights in Israel than if we were to expel hostile non-citizens or bring charges against them,” Feiglin concluded.
Yesterday I visited with Boaz Albert, the father of 6 from Yitzhar who is in prison after refusing to abide by an administrative order prohibiting him from entering Judea and Samaria. Boaz is a farmer. His vineyards and winery need his constant attention.
The administrative order prevents him from being with his family and also means financial ruin. Boaz was arrested at his home and jailed. He has no idea what he is being charged with, but is sure that it is nothing more than suspicion of involvement with “Price Tag” activities: In other words, “criminal” graffiti.
Attorney General Weinstein just announced that he opposes administrative detention against organized crime leaders in Israel. In the case of organized crime, the suspicions against the leaders are murder, extortion, trafficking and more – not graffiti.
I agree with Weinstein: Arrest without trial must completely disappear from our justice system. But to allow it against Boaz Albert while negating it for some of Israel’s most dangerous mafiosos? Is Weinstein simply afraid? Or are his judicial decisions tainted by his political inclinations?
The share of the settlers in Israel’s security – in blood and money – is greater than that of any other sector in Israel’s population. As is widely known, there are a disproportionately large number of soldiers from the settlements fighting in combat and elite units. What is less widely known is that the settlers are the most economically productive sector in Israel – the true middle class. As such, their share in taxes paid to the State, which trickle down to the military budget – is proportionately the highest in Israel.
The idea of abandoning them to the thugs of the PLO and Hamas is evil and cruel. But if someone means this seriously, it is only right that the settler’s proportional part in the IDF be left in their hands, so that they can defend themselves.
11.Powerful Muslim Organizations Intimidate Hollywood Producers to Portray Islam Positively  Posted: 12 Aug 2015 10:30 AM PDT 
Movies not only entertain, they inform, they influence emotions and they can affect the general public’s worldview. Powerful Muslim organizations use harassment and intimidation to coerce Hollywood producers to give their audience a positive view of Islam.
“Organizations which sympathize and associate with jihadists,” says Deborah Weiss, are given influence “over what the film industry says about Islam and Muslims.” In a recent article, Weiss says, “several of CAIR’s former leaders are now in jail on terror-related convictions. Moreover, virtually all of CAIR’s leadership supports Hamas and Hezbollah,” both of which are designated by the United States as terrorist organizations. “Nevertheless, CAIR is actively instructing Hollywood on how to depict Islam and Muslims. Here are some examples from Weiss’s excellent article: Paramount Pictures’ “Sum of All Fears” was based on a book by Tom Clancy and starred Ben Affleck. The original plot was about Muslim terrorists who shot down an Israeli jet flying over Syria, which was carrying nuclear weapons.
CAIR complained about “negative stereotyping of Muslims” and lobbied to get the script changed for two years prior to the film’s release. Eventually, the villains were altered from Muslim terrorists to Australian neo-Nazis. [Gail Sez: “Sum 0f All Fears” shows the best realistic filming of a Nuclear Bomb blast in Baltimore’s football stadium when the U.S. President is enjoying football. It’s a real wake-up call.]
Twentieth Century Fox produced “True Lies,” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis, a movie about an Islamic terrorist and a spy with an unfaithful wife. CAIR demanded a meeting with the producers. When it was declined, CAIR issued leaflets and held numerous activities protesting the film. Eventually, FOX made a disclaimer stating that the film is a work of fiction and doesn’t represent the actions or beliefs of any particular religion.
“Kingdom of Heaven,” also produced by Twentieth Century FOX, starred Liam Neeson and Orlando Bloom. It concerned the Crusades and the battle for Jerusalem.
To avoid problems, the producers gave CAIR a special pre-screening of the film and hired a Muslim consultant who is anti-Israel and believes America is a racist society. Accordingly, several scenes were cut prior to the film’s release. In the end, the movie was a skewed account of the Crusades, not only depicting the Christians as murderers and hypocrites, but the Muslims as morally superior.
CAIR-NY has gone so far as to demand that CBS stop airing all films, TV and radio shows on the subject of Islamic terrorism, whether fact or fiction, claiming that these “defame” Muslims. CAIR-NY argued that the shows cause discrimination and subject Muslim children to harassment. “Not Without My Daughter,” starring Sally Field, and several Chuck Norris movies were among the films that CAIR wanted off the air. To boycott all CBS radio and TV shows from both the CBS News and entertainment divisions as well as their advertisers, CAIR-NY started an online petition. Consequently, CBS changed the title of a Chuck Norris film, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2003 that in an upcoming film on terrorism it would remove all portrayals of Muslims.
“24 Hours” was a hit syndicated TV series produced for the FOX Channel. It was about a counter-terrorism agent who tried to thwart cyber, biological and chemical terrorist attacks. It won numerous awards, including a Golden Globe and an Emmy. It showed villains from a range of backgrounds, including German, Russian, American and Muslim.
After one episode which portrayed a Muslim family as part of a sleeper cell, CAIR met with FOX to complain. FOX capitulated, cutting additional scenes that presented Muslims negatively. FOX also issued a statement explaining that the show is fiction and assumes people can distinguish fiction from reality. FOX also allowed CAIR to air public service announcements of Muslims from different ethnicities, stating “I am an American Muslim.” CAIR is not the only Muslim organization influencing Hollywood in this way. Read the rest of the article here: Islamist Influence in Hollywood.
CAIR and other organizations do all this with impunity and very little resistance because there is not enough pushback from people who know better. And there is not enough pushback because not enough people understand the disturbing nature of Islamic doctrine. That’s where you come in. |
|
Human Events, by Deborah Weiss, August 8, 2015:
Americans are clearly alarmed about Islamic terrorists who are encouraging and spreading violence across the globe, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as relentlessly threatening violence to the United States. So readers might be surprised to learn that organizations which sympathize and associate with jihadists are yielded a major say over what the film industry says about Islam and Muslims.
Hollywood, for instance, regularly capitulates to The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on how to portray Muslims, even though many in CAIR’s leadership are sympathetic to Islamic terrorists. As Steve Pomerantz, the FBI’s former Chief of Counterterrorism, has bluntly stated: “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”
CAIR’s connection to the Holy Land Foundation is central to this assessment. On May 27, 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and five of its leaders on convictions of providing material support to Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group whose charter vows to obliterate the State of Israel through violence. CAIR was labeled an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the HLF trial, the largest terrorist financing trial in the history of the United States.
Additionally, several of CAIR’s former leaders are now in jail on terror-related convictions. Moreover, virtually all of CAIR’s leadership supports Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are United States – designated terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, CAIR is actively instructing Hollywood on how to depict Islam and Muslims.
Nihad Awad, Founding Member of CAIR and current Executive Director of CAIR National, boasts that he has successfully negotiated with Hollywood to combat “negative stereotypes of Muslims.” In a 2010 speech, Awad made the inaccurate claim that one Hollywood company created in the prior three decades 800 films that presented Muslims from “an Israeli point of view.” In fact, no Hollywood company can be found to have created that many films of any type.
Here are some examples of CAIR’s successes in Hollywood: [See above article.]
…….
It’s important to understand that none of these films alleged all Muslims are terrorists. But CAIR wants no Muslims to be viewed in this light. And it’s obviously unconcerned with reciprocity, like discouraging the negative stereotyping of Jews that is rampant in the Arab media.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), founded by Muslim Brotherhood members, has condemned as a “crime” the Oslo accords in which the Palestine Liberation Organization agreed to recognize the State of Israel. Moreover, MPAC officially opposed the designation of both Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, giving Palestinian violence a pass, and repeatedly condemning Israel’s defense of itself against the onslaught of thousands of rockets launched from Gaza. According to MPAC, the greatest violence taking place in Gaza and the West Bank is Israeli “occupation” and its leadership has likened Israel to Nazi Germany.
Yet, MPAC has a Hollywood Bureau which indoctrinates film-makers on Islam and offers consultations for script approval. It also provides awards to those in Hollywood who depict Islam and Muslims in a positive light. Past winners have included Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore. The bureau also connects aspiring film makers, writers and actors with Hollywood professionals and provides Muslim youth with tips on how to succeed in business.
Both new media and traditional media, including Hollywood movies, influence young minds and help shape their worldviews. Instead of appeasing Islamist organizations, Hollywood should fight for classical liberal values, including free speech, artistic license and critical thinking. It should not be complicit with Islamist groups that aim to persuade America there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.
Islamist Influence in Hollywood
« Bandar: Obama intentionally made a bad deal with Iran………Front Page………Israel to European governments: Stop funding illegal Palestinian building »
12.How Iran Plans to Destroy Israel By Ehud Ya’ari, AMERICAN INTEREST
The mullahs seem dead serious about wanting to destroy Israel, but exactly how they plan to go about it remains studiously cryptic.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been committed for the past 36 years to a doctrine aimed at wiping Israel off the map. Statements to this effect still pour out of Tehran almost daily. President Hassan Rouhani has somewhat softened his predecessor’s language, but does not refrain from expressing his loyalty to this objective. All rival factions within the regime, and many outside too, agree that the destruction of the Jewish State constitutes an important tenet of their devotion to Islam, reflecting a deep ideological conviction in the indispensability of annihilating the “Zionist entity.”
Now, some pro-Iranian apologists in the West have claimed that the goal of annihilation does not mandate military means to achieve it, the intimation being that Israel will be destroyed through the deployment of truth, faith, and divine power—or through a highly improbable referendum (more on this below). In calling for Israel’s demise, Tehran has adopted the line that Israel is an artificial, weak, and split society that will easily implode under pressure—a “spider web” in the words of Hizballah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. At the same time, the Iranians present Israel to their audience as an aggressive, agile opponent that benefits from generous Western support. At the very least, the regime is signaling that a military effort would be essential to bring about a collapse in Israel.
Consequently, much rhetoric is devoted to mobilizing popular support toward achieving this goal. “Death to Israel” is chanted at rallies all across the country, and the mantra is inscribed on a variety of weapons systems in military parades. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s mouthpiece, the daily newspaper Kayhan, once summed up Iran’s stance as follows: “The belief that Israel must be eliminated is a condition of our adherence to Islam. . . . [E]ach and every one of our officials should reiterate our responsibility of the need to destroy this cancerous tumor of Israel.” Only some members of the suppressed Green Movement have voiced reservations regarding the regime’s prioritization of aiding Israel’s adversaries.
Besides demonstrating ideological purity, the disciples of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini see practical benefits in their virulent anti-Israeli posture. Through their repetitive, venomous tirades against Israel they posit Iran as the one true, trustworthy champion of Palestinian rights. The token of this policy has been continuous Iranian support for Palestinian “resistance” movements, the more radical the better. This they contrast with many Arab regimes that seek accommodation with the enemy. Iran thus presents itself as more dedicated to this noble Arab cause than the Arabs themselves. In this way the regime strives to advance Iranian interests by acquiring popularity among Sunni Arabs, thus driving a wedge between the Sunni “street” and its governments.
Yet Iran’s policy toward Israel transcends regional posturing and rhetorical ritual. Over the years Tehran’s hostile activities support the assessment that Iran is engaged in a sustained campaign to shape the regional landscape for an eventual effort to draw Israel into a doomsday war.
Iran is engaged in a sustained campaign to shape the regional landscape for an eventual effort to draw Israel into a doomsday war. This effort started in 1982 with the establishment of Hizballah and evolved into the creation of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and a military alliance with Hamas. A year ago Iran formed a new militia in Gaza, “al-Sabeerin” (HSN), and more recently it extended itself through attempts to operate proxy groups in Syria along its borders with both Israel and Jordan. Iran has made sure that missiles provided to its partners in the “Axis of Resistance” can reach every coordinate in Israel, and it has invested lavishly in developing and deploying hundreds of long-range missiles capable of hitting Israel from its own territory. These actions testify to the seriousness with which Iran regards its mission.
The Islamic Republic’s quest for nuclear weapons offers yet more evidence of its intention to take on Israel at some future date, but not necessarily evidence that it will use these weapons to attack Israel directly. It may be that Tehran seeks a nuclear deterrent to Israeli nuclear weapons, so that the “spider web” can be dispatched without danger to the Iranian homeland. Thus from the Iranian perspective, a nuclear weaponization program is not essential to a final confrontation with Israel. Iranian military strategists seem to think they can eventually destroy the Israeli state without using nuclear weapons.
It is a typical Western liberal conceit to dismiss the threats of autocratic regimes. And it is true that the Iranian regime has proven ready in the past to ignore its declared policies on a variety of issues and change course when politically expedient. Thus, fairly specific threats directed toward the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other actors have been dropped without explanation at different junctures.
But its commitment to destroy Israel is a pillar of the Islamic Republic, and so it would seem politically impossible merely to drop it. At the same time, the Iranian regime has consistently refrained from clarifying what role it might play in fulfilling this “religious obligation.” Does Iran plan to spearhead, at the appropriate moment, an offensive against Israel? Would Iranian armed forces be directly engaging Israelis on the battlefield? Or would they rather restrict their contribution to arming other combatants and orchestrating their strategy? In short, does the Islamic Republic aspire to become the “liberator” of Jerusalem, or merely a sponsor from afar? Do Iran’s leaders envision Arabs celebrating in Palestine, or Iranian troops themselves?
No one knows the answers to these questions, including, very likely, the Iranian leaders themselves. Not everything has gone the mullahs’ way, either, in the run-up to achieving their goal. The regime used to have very close relations with Hamas, for example, but the sectarian divisions opened up by the Syrian civil war have introduced great tension into that relationship. Indeed, the deepening of the sectarian divide in recent years has neutered the Iranian attempt to use the Palestine issue to harm Sunni Arab regimes.
Perhaps such perturbations help explain why over the past four decades Iranian leaders have remained ambiguous, never explicitly threatening an assault on Israel at some future date, but never ruling it out either. They have also studiously avoided clashes with the Israeli military, mounting no retaliation for Israeli attacks on ships loaded with Iranian arms in the Red Sea, strikes against storage facilities for Iranian missiles in Syria and Sudan, and even the killing of an Iranian general on the Syrian Golan. They keep stressing the need for “Muslim unity”, bringing together rival states for the common purpose of attacking Israel. But they have never gone kinetic directly against it.
Needless to say, the call for Muslim unity is widely understood, including in Israel, to be no more than lip service to an elusive dream. More credible is the Iranian emphasis on the potential role of an effective Palestinian “resistance” that would confront Israel aided by allies such as Hizballah. Still, the Iranians themselves never address the question of whether such a coalition would be capable of defeating the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on its own.
None other than Iran’s favorite proxy, Hizballah Secretary General Nasrallah, referred in April to these unanswered questions in a lengthy interview granted to Syrian official television. “We are not claiming that Hizballah is capable of launching a war”, he said. “We are incapable of this. Are we expected to lie to the people or to ourselves and say that we are capable of launching a war against Israel and wiping it off the map and liberating Palestine? We have never claimed anything like this.
Nasrallah also stated that, contrary to previous warnings, he cannot promise that Hizballah fighters could capture any part of the Galilee and certainly “not all the area on the way to Tel Aviv and Eilat.” His conclusion was that none of the resistance movements are up to this task, and therefore that a decision to wage a war of this magnitude should be made by “partners who are able to accomplish the goal.” He was clearly implying that said partner would be Iran. On the occasion of the recent Qods Day Nasrallah explicitly said that Iran remains “the only threat” to Israel’s existence.
Nasrallah’s exceptional statement amounts to an open admission that Iran’s active participation in a war against Israel would be indispensable, and therefore the decision to launch a war belongs to Tehran. Although overlooked at the time by most Western media, this interview reveals Nasrallah’s true calculation of the balance of power in the region; it certainly reflects, as well, Hizballah’s significant losses incurred fighting in the Syrian civil war.
The Iranian government has refrained from all official comment on Nasrallah’s statement, which was mentioned only briefly in the Farsi press. Iranian authorities, it would seem, were not overly pleased with their protégé’s insinuation that, at the end of the day, everything rests in Tehran’s hands.
Iran’s stated policy, as recently refined by President Rouhani, is to proceed with a strategy of “active deterrence.” Upgrading the accuracy of Iranian missiles is, in his view, both “moral and humane” because it can deter Israeli attack. Yet Iranian officials declare repeatedly that the regime has no desire to threaten or attack anybody, or to seek territorial expansion. Iranian analysts occasionally reinforce these proclamations by noting that for two centuries Iran has not initiated a war on any front. Indeed, the last major Iranian military campaign took place on Iranian soil when Reza Shah recaptured the city of Ahwaz, in Khuzestan province, from its rebellious Arab emir, Sheik Khaza‘al, in 1925.
With regard to Israel, no record exists of any official military threats beyond the context of retaliation for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. The Iranians have simply escalated their warnings in line with their growing confidence that Israel either lacks a credible military option or has become less inclined to employ it. Khamenei himself led this escalation of retaliatory threats, which was invariably echoed by the top brass of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) and the regular army.
The escalation consisted of four distinct stages. First, Khamenei reacted to the public debate in Israel concerning the wisdom of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear installations by declaring that no “hit-and-run” attack against Iran’s atomic program was possible. This was interpreted by the Iranian media as indicating “that there could be no possibility that an attack against Iran would go unanswered.”
The second stage was Khamenei’s adoption in public of a “threat for threat” posture that signaled, according to pro-regime analysts, “that in addition to being ready to thwart all kinds of threats, Iran was actually posing new threats against its enemies.”
The third step occurred on February 3, 2012, when the Supreme Leader proclaimed, following the Pillar of Defense operation in Gaza, that Iran will help and support anyone prepared to engage the Israelis. One Iranian commentator explained that, “these threats against Iran, having failed to push the Islamic Republic into passivity, have further emboldened it to prepare itself for long term and energetic confrontation with its enemies.”
Shortly thereafter, on March 20, during a public address in Mashhad, Khamenei swore explicitly “to raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground” in response to an Israeli strike. The message is clear: Iran’s missiles are on the alert to hit Israel. Other regime spokesmen pointed to the nuclear reactor in Dimona as an additional likely target for instant retaliation.
The threat to Dimona is something of an old story. As early as August 17, 2004, General Mohammed Baqer Zolqadr of the IRGC noted:
If Israel fires one missile at the Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about its Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequences of this move.
General Yadollah Javani, head of the IRGC’s Political Bureau, said such a retaliatory attack would be carried out by “Shehab-3” long-range ballistic missiles. Other Iranian officials mentioned, among other possible targets, Israeli gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean.
As such statements attest, in order to obtain robust retaliatory capabilities, Iran is relying on its rapidly growing arsenal of long-range missiles. It has also provided tens of thousands of shorter-range rockets and missiles to clients such as Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, which could be urged to help respond to an Israeli strike. Iranian officials often take pride in the fact that missiles with ever improving guidance systems stationed in Lebanon—and to a lesser extent in Gaza—can now reach Israel’s entire territory.
Iran’s missile development in general since 1980 is beyond the scope of this essay; suffice it to say that the leaders have long emphasized to Iranian military commanders the need to develop missiles that can reach Israel in particular. This began with Khamenei’s order for missiles with a 1,000-kilometer range that, if launched from Iran’s western border, could hit Israel. Still later, Khamenei instructed his commanders to acquire missiles with a 2,000-kilometer range, allowing for a successful hit on Israel from most of Iran’s territory.
And later still Khamenei personally ordered that the accuracy of the missiles should be dramatically improved. Not surprisingly, therefore, the IRGC’s Aerospace Force and Missile Unit commander, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and his deputy, Majid Mousavi, stated directly that the unit was established in order to attack Israel. Mousavi elaborated last year on the logic of the missile program, saying that, “the Supreme Leader set a particular goal for us based on the assumption that the Zionist regime is our main enemy, and that, if it is decided that we should confront it, missiles with a 2,000-kilometer range would be sufficient.”
According to current estimates, Iran deploys approximately 400 missiles capable of hitting Israel. The missile brigades are based in some two dozen locations in central and western Iran. This would allow the Iranians to fire volleys that compound the challenge to Israel’s Arrow defense batteries.
Besides their impressive missile arsenal (the largest in the region), the Iranians have so far acquired only limited additional capabilities for engaging Israel directly—other than resorting to terrorist operations. Their aging air force has a poor chance, if any, of reaching Israel. Their new domestically produced ships and submarines would face major difficulties in reaching the Red Sea and Mediterranean but could theoretically attempt to impose, together with the Houthi militias of Yemen, a blockade on Israeli shipping through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, similar to the blockade imposed there by the Egyptian Navy in 1973. Iran’s ground forces for the foreseeable future are unprepared to mount any large-scale multidivisional attack on the distant Israeli frontier, though some elite IRGC units could be sent to Syria to join Hizballah in Lebanon.
Of course, all this may change if Iran decides to allocate resources, derived from the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of its financial assets abroad, as a result of a P5+1 nuclear deal, to a major effort to project military power beyond its borders. The S-300 air defense batteries to be supplied from Russia could also greatly improve Iran’s defensive posture, while other deals for offensive weapons systems are being considered, or are at least rumored to be. One such deal is the possible purchase of 250 Sukhoi-30 MKM fighters from Russia and/or J-10s from China, and the purchase of dozens of IL-78 MKI aerial tankers. Yet it is obvious that Iran’s reliance on its long-range missile arsenal will remain for a long time the backbone of its military strategy with regard to Israel.
As for calls within Iran to take it to Israel offensively, rather than simply prepare to counter an Israeli strike, these have been rare—notably by the now imprisoned former presidential candidate Ahmed Tavakoli—and have received a decidedly cool reception from the regime elite. Instead, that elite, at its very apex, has from time to time spoken in frankly ridiculous terms about how to destroy Israel. The most authoritative, and coldly detached, interpretation of the “death to Israel” slogan came from the Supreme Leader himself in his November 2014 plan titled “9 Key Questions about the Elimination of Israel”, posted on his Twitter account. “The proper way of eliminating Israel”, he wrote, is through a “public referendum” for all of the “original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians, and Jews wherever they are.” However, the “Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine do not have the right to take part.” Following such a referendum, the new government will have to decide if “non-Palestinian emigrants” can remain in the country. Khamenei commented further that destroying Israel does not mean the “slaughter of the Jewish people in the region” but he then went on to call for “arming the people of the West Bank.” There was no mention of Iranian involvement in forcing Israel to accept the proposed referendum.
The “arming of the people of the West Bank” had been articulated as a policy shift even before Khamenei’s nine-point plan arrived. The logic of this approach requires little explanation. Turning the West Bank into a second Gaza, armed with missiles, trained militias, and controlled by the resistance (Hamas and Islamic Jihad), would create a threat to the heart of Israel. And this, at least, has not been empty talk. Since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, the IRGC’s “Qods Force” has been smuggling money into the West Bank, mainly through Jordan and Turkey, or via Israeli Arabs, and by using exchange bureaus.
Both Hizballah and Hamas are trying to enlist West Bank operatives and furnish them with the know-how to manufacture homemade rockets. The importance allocated by Iranian strategists to the West Bank may explain why Tehran does not rule out the establishment of a rump Palestinian state, since IDF withdrawal from it [Judea & Samaria] would enhance the prospects of reviving resistance groups there.
The Iranians are likewise investing much effort lately to establish a “resistance” base for operations along parts of the Golan Heights frontier. The goal is to extend the Hizballah-Israeli front in South Lebanon to the Syrian Golan. Though this effort has not been crowned with great success so far, the Iranians seem bent—together with Hizballah—on using Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s dependence on their support to turn southern Syria into a new arena of operation against Israel. Under IRGC commanders, Hizballah is busy recruiting local Druze and others to stir up the Golan frontier by planting IEDs and lobbing occasional mortar shells. Iranian commentator Amir Moussavi summarized this new effort as being aimed at turning the Golan into “a free military area”, thus abandoning Assad’s traditional objection to heating up the front.
The Iranians’ short-term vision thus has Israel squeezed by four fronts of moqawama(resistance): Lebanon, southern Syria, Gaza, and, most importantly, the West Bank. Such a scenario would provide them with plenty of opportunities to keep their proxies engaged with Israel, paving the road to a long-term war of attrition masterminded by Tehran and backed by its missile arsenal, with or without nuclear warheads. As Khamenei put it last year, “the only solution is its [Israel’s] annihilation and liquidation. Of course, until that moment, the determined and armed Palestinian resistance and its spread to the West Bank are the only way to deal with that bestial regime. . . . [T]herefore, it is my belief that the West Bank should be armed just like Gaza.”
Affirming this commitment in July 2014, Basij commander Mohammed Reza Naqdi urged all resistance factions to conclude a defense pact against Israel to resurrect the old, pre-Syrian civil war military cooperation agreement between Hizballah and Hamas and expand it to include other resistance factions. The objective would be to present Israel with the specter of a two- or three-front challenge in any future outbreak of fighting in Gaza or on the Lebanon-Syrian front.
Assuredly, it is no easy task to topple the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or to achieve freedom to mobilize underground networks and then deliver arms to them. But the Iranians claim that even under the current circumstances they have devised smuggling routes to transfer weapons to the West Bank. Still, so far, security cooperation among Israel, the PA, and Jordan has managed to foil Hamas’s attempt to resurrect a military wing in the West Bank. Several attempts to establish workshops for missile production in the West Bank have been uncovered at an early phase.
Iran’s idea of besieging Israel with a “resistance wall” constitutes yet another dimension of its thinking. Some Iranians imagine the creation of a land corridor from Iran through Shi‘a regions in Iraq to its desert al-Anbar province and from there to Syria and Lebanon. Establishing such a corridor would require at least the tacit cooperation of the authorities in Bagdad (where Iran already enjoys predominance) or the power brokers in Iraq’s southern provinces. It would definitely require the Iran-sponsored “Popular Mobilization” units and the various other IRGC-backed Shi‘a militias to overcome the Islamic State’s current control over key sectors of western Iraq so that it could link up with the Euphrates River Valley in Syria. As yet, the deployment of Shi‘a militias into western Iraq has only been tentative, but the issue is under debate. Some militiamen have made it all the way to Damascus to protect that capital from a Sunni onslaught, so anything is possible.
If ISIS loses ground in Anbar and eastern Syria as a result of U.S.-led coalition strikes, and if Damascus remains a member of the “Axis of Resistance”, the Iranian corridor to the Israeli frontier could come about in due course, allowing in the more distant future the transport of military supplies and even personnel through the desert to the frontlines. Such a development might even encourage Iranian planners to contemplate launching an expeditionary force in the event of a confrontation.
The Islamic Republic regards its commitment to the destruction of Israel as a long-term project that would require major shifts in the regional political landscape. While displaying a great deal of ambiguity concerning its direct role in a decisive confrontation with Israel, for obvious reasons, Tehran emphasizes its ongoing effort to improve the capability of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian resistance movements to face Israel. The main, immediate target is turning the West Bank into a solid base for military operations.
Obviously, the Iranians are well aware that Israel is determined to prevent a takeover of the West Bank by hostile groups. At the same time, they realize that, despite their enormous investment in Hizballah, the group cannot be expected to carry out a “final” war with Israel, especially when it is spending most of its blood and treasure fighting and dying in Syria.
The Iranians are bent on strengthening their influence in the Arab world, with a priority on achieving a land link from Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Such a link, once obtained, would allow Iran not only to beef up the resistance movements with Iraqi and Syrian militias, as well as volunteers from far away Afghanistan, but also to open the way to the ultimate introduction of Iranian troops to the lines of confrontation, especially on the Golan. Not for no reason have Iranian generals been strutting around up there lately (and sometimes meeting an untimely demise).
For the United States, which wants to avert an eventual Iran-Israel war, a major priority should be preventing the creation of this land corridor. This will require further efforts to strengthen the government in Baghdad and diminish the power of Iranian-led Shi‘a militias operating there. Helping the Iraqi army achieve effective control of Anbar province is likewise crucial. But, as has been shown lately, this is far from easy.
Weakening and ultimately ousting the Assad regime should also remain a top U.S. priority, despite the temptation to discount Damascus as a threat given the danger of ISIS. Iran’s strategic planning would suffer a severe blow if the Assad regime were toppled and Syria no longer served as an ally of Hizballah and a base for Iranian supplies. The recent setbacks suffered by pro-Assad forces present an opportunity to increase military pressure on the regime and its Iranian sponsors. The recent setbacks suffered by pro-Assad forces present an opportunity to increase military pressure on the regime and its Iranian sponsors. On this count, the most promising sector for a rebel push toward Damascus is southern Syria, where combinations of rebel militias have managed to block the regime’s counter-offensive and maintain positions close to the capital’s southern outskirts. As Nasrallah himself put it bluntly in May, the fall of Assad and his Iranian allies would mean the “fall of Hizballah, too”, since it will be locked into a small enclave within Lebanon.
Naturally, Jordan must be assisted in its efforts to frustrate Iranian activities aimed at undermining the Kingdom and recruiting local Palestinians and east Jordanians along Israel’s longest border. Indeed, Jordan’s precarious stability would be worsened by Iranian hegemony over neighboring Syria and Iraq. Until now, Tehran has been cautious in its effort to obtain followers and influence in Jordan, but few doubt that Jordan is regarded by Iran as an important potential staging area for future operations against Israel.
Finally, it is absolutely imperative to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here one need only to recall the infamous statement by ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani on Qods Day, Dec. 14, 2001:
If one day, the Islamic World is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.
Such a statement has not been repeated since, given consistent Iranian denials about seeking a nuclear weapon. However, Rafsanjani’s declaration evoked Palestinian warnings—including by Hamas leader Khaled Meshal—that Iran should take into account that not only Israelis, but many Palestinians, would die in a nuclear bombing of Israel.
Whatever the risks, nuclear bombs will boost Iran’s claim to hegemony in the region and will encourage its leaders to pursue even more aggressive and adventurous policies with respect to Israel. Such policies will be advanced by a coalition of terrorist groups, equipped with thousands of state-of-the-art missiles under a nuclear umbrella. One should assume that if Israel concludes that such a threat is imminent, it will see itself as having no other choice than to undertake a preemptive military strike that would trigger a wide confrontation.
Iran, then, must be kept away from nuclear weapons and at the same time kept as far as possible from Israel’s borders, if Washington and its allies wish to avoid a direct Iran-Israel confrontation. Along these lines, a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 might keep Iran from a breakout for a decade or so, but it will at the same time allow Iran to improve its pursuit of different weaponization options, once a decision is made to proceed along those lines.
In the meantime, efforts should be directed at curtailing Iran’s drive to broaden the “Resistance Wall” around Israel. This requires not only Israeli measures to insulate the West Bank from Iranian penetration and foil attempts to establish a new front on the Golan Heights, but also a determined U.S.-led effort, together with regional allies, to prevent an Iranian victory in Syria and curb Iranian predominance in Iraq. A direct connection exists between the battle for the Levant and the danger of a war between Iran and Israel. The emergence of an Iran-led “Shi‘a crescent”, as depicted first by Jordan’s King Abdullah, will surely energize the Islamic Republic’s oath to destroy Israel.
[Note: After this article went to press, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei published a 416-page book with the title “Palestine.” His directions on how to proceed toward the destruction of Israel support most of the preceding arguments concerning Tehran’s strategy.]
Ehud Yaari is an Israel-based Lafer International Fellow of the Washington Institute and a Middle East commentator for Israel’s Channel Two television.
How Iran Plans to Destroy Israel By Ehud Ya’ari
13.Anti-Jihadists Are ‘Dirty Jewish Zionist Thugs” Says US University Professor By: Hana Levi Julian JewishPress.com Published: August 13th, 2015
A Pennsylvania university professor calls anti-Jihad activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer “dirty Jewish Zionist thugs.”
Pamela Geller, co-director of American Freedom Defense Initiative.
A university professor in Philadelphia this week called anti-Jihad activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer “dirty Jewish Zionist thugs.”
Kaukab Siddique, an associate professor of English at Lincoln University, told thePhiladelphia Inquirer in an interview on Monday, “I would say it again.”
Siddique slammed Geller for activities carried out by the group she heads with Spencer, the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The group has sponsored the recent controversial “Draw Mohammed” cartoon contests – one of which drew terrorist gunfire in Texas from an irate Muslim jihadist.
“She did the worst, other than killing us,” Siddique said. By violating what is “most sacred to us, we can talk about her, that she is Jewish and she is white and she’s a supremacist and she is doing this to us,’ he said.
Siddique has also publicly expressed doubt about the truth of the Holocaust, referring in speeches to the work of Holocaust denier David Irving who has said there is no evidence that Jews were murdered in gas chambers.
“I have read things from both sides and therefore I think that for any study of the Holocaust, we need to know what the critics say,” Siddique said. “Were there ovens?. . . If you study the pictures of Auschwitz, there are no ovens there.”
Spencer, who also heads “Jihad Watch,” responded in an email commentary Wednesday, “Siddique calls our defense of free speech ‘cultural genocide’ when in fact, Shari’a(Islamic law) is cultural genocide. Islamic history is built upon cultural annihilations, jihad wars and enslavements.”
In response to Siddique’s odd question about the gas chambers during the Holocaust, Spencer charges, “This poisonous Holocaust denier is teaching our children. How did we get here? The silence of reasoned, the rational. The silence of everyone who stood silent when they came after us, fearing they’d be labeled ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’ by Jew-haters and radicals…
“Worst of all, back in May, when ISIS first issued its fatwa (edict) calling for me to be murdered, Siddique wrote on Facebook:
“Very cleverly, the corporate media are trying to present the Texas situation as ISIS vs. Geller. The Prophet Muhammmad [sic], pbuh, (ed: “peace be upon him”) is the , [sic] leader of the ENTIRE UMMAH, not just of ISIS. Two of ISIS gave their lives for the honor of the Prophet, pbuh. We can’t do that, but the law of this land gives us the right to speak out. ISNA, ICNA and CAIR think you can simply ignore blasphemy. Millions embraced Islam because of Malcolm. (ed: Malcolm X) Imagine what America’s oppressed people think of us when we don’t speak even when our greatest sanctity is violated? Muslims, we are waiting for Allah’s wrath to descend on us.”
Siddique did not condemn ISIS, Spencer pointed out. “He says that ISIS is part of the umma, in arguing that the entire umma should be trying to kill me, not just ISIS. Siddique is, like ISIS, trying to enforce Shari’a blasphemy laws by force, trying to intimidate the West into silence in the face of the jihad threat.”
Other past Facebook postings have included such gems as: “Know the Jews and you’ll know your enemy” and references to renowned Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz as “that Zionist Jewish dog Derschowitz (sic).”
In his interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Siddique also slammed the U.S. military, saying it had “fallen below Hitler” in treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.
But in the classroom Siddique claimed, “My policy with students is to help them to think, not tell them what to think.”
The professor, age 72 and a native of Pakistan, teaches at a mosque and community center in Baltimore, where he lives with his wife, outside of the university. He also publishes an Islamic magazine.
He has been criticized for his remarks which have hurt the university where he lectures, but since he has spoken off-campus and on his own personal time, he allegedly cannot be fired.
Anti-Jihadists Are ‘Dirty Jewish Zionist Thugs” Says US University Professor