LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
February 23/17
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The
Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias/english.february23.17.htm
News
Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to go to the LCCC Daily
English/Arabic News Buletins Archieves Since 2006
Bible Quotations For Today
Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s
good pleasure to give you the kingdom
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 12/22-32/:"Jesus said to his
disciples, ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will
eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the
body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they
have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value
are you than the birds! And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your
span of life? If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do
you worry about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil
nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one
of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and
tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you you of little
faith! And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to
drink, and do not keep worrying. For it is the nations of the world that strive
after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead,
strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. ‘Do not
be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the
kingdom.
Brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the
traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter
Second Letter to the 02,13-17/03,01-05/:'We must always give thanks to God for
you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the
first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through
belief in the truth. For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of
the good news, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So
then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you
were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. Now may our Lord
Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and through grace gave us
eternal comfort and good hope, comfort your hearts and strengthen them in every
good work and word. Finally, brothers and sisters, pray for us, so that the word
of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified everywhere, just as it is among
you, and that we may be rescued from wicked and evil people; for not all have
faith. But the Lord is faithful; he will strengthen you and guard you from the
evil one. And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing
and will go on doing the things that we command. May the Lord direct your hearts
to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources
published on February 22-23/17
The populist crescent: Marine Le Pen and the
lands of Lebanon/Makram Rabah/Middle East Eye/February 21/17
Marine Le Pen in Lebanon: mission accomplished/Halim Shebaya/Open Democracy/ 22
February 2017
Trump helped Netanyahu pave road for one-state/Orly Azoulay/Ynetnews/February
22/17
Sweden: Hate Speech Just for Imams/Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/February
22/17
Triangle of underdevelopment at the World Government Summit/Turki Aldakhil/Al
Arabiya/February 22/17
The UAE and the formulas of power and success/Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi/Al
Arabiya/February 22/17
Are Green Zone powers aware of this/Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
When a politician falls by his sword he should put his public persona to
rest/Trisha de Borchgrave/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
Change or be changed and opportunity for Arab youth/Khaled Almaeena/Al Arabiya/February
22/17
Jews Under Assault in Europe/Robbie Travers/Gatestone Institute/February 22/17
Israel Does Not Cause Anti-Semitism/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone
Institute/February 22/17
Christopher C. Hull/The White House Commission on Radical Islam: A
Recommendation//February 22/17
Titles For Latest Lebanese Related News published
on February 22-23/17
Aoun May Call National Dialogue or Consecutive Cabinet Sessions on Electoral Law
FPM Reportedly Accuses Mustaqbal of Not Wanting New Electoral Law
SCC Stages Wage Scale Demo, Warns on Fate of 'Academic Year, Elections'
ISG Renews 'Commitment to Lebanon Security', Urges Electoral Law 'Compromise'
Israeli Troops Cross Electronic Fence, Plant Spy Devices
Israeli Ministry Orders Ammonia Tank Shutdown amid Nasrallah Threats
Report: Iran Official Accuses Detained Lebanese Man of Encouraging 'Decadence'
Berri Meets Rouhani, Thanks Iran for 'Support that Led to President Election'
Reports Say Israel Hit Targets on Lebanon-Syria Border, Hizbullah Denies
Raad Meets Aoun, Says 1960 Law 'No Longer Appropriate for Lebanon'
IDF chief: Hezbollah suffering from crisis of morale
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Expects Iran, Hezbollah to Leave Syria After War
IDF jets allegedly attack Hezbollah targets in Syria overnight
Army needs ongoing U.S. support, Aoun tells senator
Hariri chairs cabinet session, follows up on budget discussions
One wounded in explosion of stun grenade in Sidon's Darb Sim
Corker briefs Rahi on visits to Irbil, Arsal refugee camps
Accused Palestinian handed over to Army Intelligence
Joint statement of the International Support Group for Lebanon
Kahwagi receives Corker
Mahfoud in Riad Solh protest: We don't favor strikes yet we no more bear
procrastinations
Tenants' Rights Committee protests in streets
The populist crescent: Marine Le Pen and the lands of Lebanon
Marine Le Pen in Lebanon: mission accomplished?
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For
Miscellaneous Reports And News published on February 22-23/17
Toronto JDL filing hate crimes complaint
against mosque that called for killing Jews
Jewish Defence League alleges hate crime
US-backed alliance enters Syria’s Deir al-Zor province
Canada to welcome 1,200 Yazidi refugees in $21m operation
Palestinians slam Israel soldier sentence, call it ‘green light’ for crimes
Al-Azhar: The end is near for ISIS
Saudi Arabia donates billions to aid Yemen’s reconstruction
Saudi Aramco may offer discounted shares to citizens
Houthi missile kills senior Yemeni general in Mokha
Russia Asks Syria to Halt Bombing during U.N. Peace Talks
U.S.-Backed Fighters Advance on IS in Syria's East
Russia, Ukraine Clash over Tribute to Late U.N. Ambassador Churkin
U.N. Concerned over New West Bank Demolition Plans
Tunisia Torture Cases Falling but Abuses Persist
20 Arrested as Bahrain Approves Military Trial of Civilians
Links From Jihad Watch Site for on February 22-23/17
Pope Francis: Rejection of refugees “rooted ultimately in self-centredness”
Young Iranian chess grandmaster expelled from national team for not wearing
hijab
UK: Convert to Islam wanted to buy 9-year-old slave girl
Islamic State child jihadi: “We’re here only to support this religion”
Austria: Nine Muslim “refugees” gang-rape woman for two hours, ignoring her
pleas
Islamic State jihad suicide bomber got £1m from UK government after being freed
from Gitmo
Day after Trump ridiculed for Sweden remarks, Muslim migrants riot in Sweden
Missouri: Muslim plotted jihad massacres on Kansas City buses, trains, and train
station
Islamic State vows to massacre Christians: “Allah gave orders to kill every
infidel”
Glazov Gang: Muslim Author Unveils the Left’s Cyber Jihad Against Trump and His
Supporters
UK: Muslim spits in non-Muslim baby’s face and shouts abuse at her mother
Iran’s Supreme Leader calls on “Palestinians” to pursue violent uprising against
Israel
Toronto JDL filing hate crimes complaint against mosque that called for killing
Jews
Links From Christian Today Site for
February 22-23/17
Armed Conflict, Starvation And Sickness: The Forgotten Children Caught Up In
Lake Chad's Crisis
Pastor Describes Walking Out Of Trump's 'Demonic' Florida Rally With His
Daughter 'Sobbing In Fear'
Three Quarters Of White Evangelicals Back Trump's Travel Ban
Former Archbishop Of Canterbury Calls Out 'Horrific Blow' Of Famine In South
Sudan As UK Announces New Aid Package
Donald Trump Has No Need To Apologise For Travel Ban, Says US Bishop Who Was A
Refugee
10 Reasons Why The UK Should Accept More Refugee Children
Bishop Leads Charge For Church's 'Radical Inclusion' Of Gay Couples
Dear Archbishops: What Is 'A Radical New Inclusion'?
Not So Much 'Onward', As 'Repent' Ye Christian Soldiers
Why Do Christians Seem To Think Sex Is More Important Even Than Whether God
Exists?
Latest Lebanese Related News published
on February 22-23/17
Aoun May Call National Dialogue or Consecutive Cabinet Sessions on Electoral Law
Naharnet/February 22/17/President
Michel Aoun might call for a national dialogue among the leaders of the
political parties in Baabda or he might agree with Prime Minister Saad Hariri on
holding consecutive cabinet sessions, with the aim of reaching consensus over a
new electoral law before the March 21 deadline, a media report said on
Wednesday. “The upcoming period could witness an important development in terms
of changing the discussion mechanisms that are being implemented to reach a
political understanding on a new law,” An Nahar newspaper quoted unnamed sources
as saying. The new mechanisms “might speed up efforts to end the crisis, which
can no longer withstand further delay caused by futile mechanisms, such as the
experience of the four-party committee that has failed to reach the minimum
level of agreement on numerous proposals,” the sources added. The sources said
that two scenarios seem to be likely to resolve the crisis. “Either President
Michel Aoun calls for a dialogue among political leaders at the Baabda Palace or
he agrees with the premier on holding consecutive cabinet sessions aimed at
approving an electoral law,” the sources said.
“The pressing deadlines will push the political class and the government to put
an end to procrastination, which has started to threaten negative repercussions
at all levels,” the sources went on to say.
FPM Reportedly Accuses Mustaqbal of Not Wanting New Electoral Law
Naharnet/February 22/17/The Free Patriotic Movement has accused its partner in
the presidential settlement, al-Mustaqbal Movement, of wasting time in the
electoral law deliberations in order to postpone the parliamentary elections, a
media report said on Wednesday. “Mustaqbal does not want an agreement on a new
law. The proof is that the premier's movement either opposes the proposed ideas
or it requests some time to mull some proposals which it categorically rejects,
such as the draft law suggested by Najib Miqati's government, in an attempt to
waste time,” al-Akhbar newspaper quoted FPM sources as saying. “Al-Mustaqbal
Movement is practicing procrastination in a bid to turn the current law into a
fait accompli,” the FPM sources charged. “Mustaqbal's behavior suggests that it
does not want parliamentary elections,” the sources added. High-ranking
Mustaqbal sources meanwhile stressed to al-Akhbar that the movement's stance is
clear “on the need to hold the elections on time and according to a new law.”
“Our movement has agreed to at least two proposals: the hybrid law that we
proposed together with the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party
and the 'one-man, multiple-vote' proposal,” the sources clarified. “Other
parties have rejected the hybrid law, not us,” the sources added, referring to
the PSP.
SCC Stages Wage Scale Demo, Warns on Fate of 'Academic
Year, Elections'
Naharnet/February 22/17/The Syndical Coordination Committee, a coalition of
private and public school teachers and public sector employees, staged a demo
outside the Grand Serail on Wednesday, warning the political class over the fate
of the academic year and the upcoming parliamentary elections should it fail to
approve the long-stalled new wage scale. “Should the Cabinet fail to deal
positively with our outcry, we will resort to major escalatory steps, and let
the ruling class bear the responsibility for the school year and the upcoming
elections,” SCC official Nehme Mahfoud warned during the sit-in. "We had
suspended our protests for two years due to the presidential and political
vacuum,” Mahfoud noted. He also pointed out that the suggested new taxes “are
not aimed at funding the new wage scale,” calling on the government to control
the squandering of public funds at Beirut's airport and port and to seek means
to fund the state budget that do not put a new strain on low-income citizens.
The SCC held its sit-in as the Cabinet convened to discuss whether or not the
new wage scale will be added to the draft state budget. The SCC has been pushing
for the approval of the new wage scale for several years now and has organized
numerous street protests and strikes to this end. In a recent stance, the SCC
has rejected the possible separation of the wage scale from the state budget,
threatening to suspend the school year should the government return the wage
scale to parliament.
“After six years of waiting, we will not tolerate further procrastination and
lying,” Mahfoud told al-Joumhouria newspaper in remarks published Wednesday.
State-run National News Agency meanwhile reported that “private school teachers
in Akkar have abided by the strike called by the SCC as meetings were held in
some schools to follow up on the next moves with the syndical bodies.”Private
and public schools and technical institutions in the northern districts of
Zgharta and Koura have also abided by the strike, NNA said.
ISG Renews 'Commitment to Lebanon Security', Urges
Electoral Law 'Compromise'
Naharnet/February 22/17/The Members of the International Support Group (ISG)
reaffirmed Wednesday “their commitment to the stability and security of
Lebanon,” an ISG joint statement said. “The current political momentum has
re-activated Lebanon's institutions of state,” the statement noted. The ISG
Members “encourage all parties to arrive at an early compromise, which would
present an appropriate electoral framework for Lebanon,” the statement said.
“The timely conduct of peaceful and transparent parliamentary elections are an
important step to preserve Lebanon’s democratic tradition, and to meet the
aspirations of the Lebanese people,” the ISG added, noting that the ISG Members
“stand ready to provide support.”The International Support Group comprises the
governments China, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the UK and the U.S., together
with the European Union and the Arab League. It was launched in September 2013
by the U.N. secretary-general with then-President Michel Suleiman to help
mobilize support and assistance for Lebanon’s stability, sovereignty and state
institutions and to specifically encourage assistance for the Lebanese army,
Syrian refugees in Lebanon and host communities and government programs and
public services impacted by the Syrian crisis.
Israeli Troops Cross Electronic Fence, Plant Spy Devices
Naharnet/February 22/17/A 12-member Israeli force crossed the electronic fence
overnight in the outskirts of the southern border town of Mays al-Jabal in the
Kroum al-Sharqi area, media reports said Wednesday. Troops planted spy devices
consisted of a camera and a transmission instrument that are both solar powered,
the reports added. The development comes amid high tensions between Israel and
Hizbullah that follow an exchange of threats and amid unconfirmed reports of
Israeli airstrikes on Hizbullah posts inside Syria.
Israeli Ministry Orders Ammonia Tank Shutdown amid
Nasrallah Threats
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 22/17/Israel's environment ministry
announced Wednesday it will not renew the license of an ammonia container in the
port city of Haifa as it poses a potentially deadly threat to residents. The
container, which holds 12,000 tons of the toxic, corrosive liquid, puts the
public "at a risk we cannot accept," the ministry said in a statement. From
March 1 the facility will not be permitted to receive any new shipments of
ammonia but it then has three months in which it can supply secondary users
while they find alternative supplies. Located in the northern city's
densely-populated bayside area, it serves as a storage tank for Haifa Chemicals,
which uses the material as a component in the manufacture of fertilizers and
industrial chemicals. "There is no place in Haifa Bay for the tank, which
endangers human life," deputy minister Yaron Mazuz, a Haifa native, said in the
statement. The long-festering issue made fresh headlines last year when
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the 31 year-old ammonia container
would be like "a nuclear bomb" if hit by his group's missiles. Nasrallah, whose
rockets pounded the Haifa area in a 2006 war with Israel, echoed warnings from
experts and activists cited in Israeli media that "tens of thousands of people"
would be killed if the container was struck. Nasrallah has repeated the warning
twice since Thursday. “In the face of Israel's threats to destroy Lebanon's
infrastructure, we will not abide by red lines, especially regarding Haifa's
ammonia and the nuclear reactor in Dimona. Hizbullah possesses the full courage
for this,” said Nasrallah during an interview aired on Monday. Senior
environment ministry officials, however, said Wednesday that security threats
were not part of their remit and their safety fears were based on environmental
dangers alone, including possible consequences of an earthquake. In addition to
the tank itself, there were also environmental risks associated with the docking
and unloading of the tankers which transport the ammonia to Haifa. The ministry
said Haifa Chemicals, an Israeli-based multinational, could continue to use the
tank until March 1 but must not top it up. In addition to its own needs, the
company sells some of its ammonia stocks to other users such as chemical plants,
defense manufacturers and cold stores, as well as for water and sewage
treatment. By June 1 they must find other sources of supply, such as direct
imports from neighboring Jordan, senior officials said. Wednesday's environment
ministry announcement came in the wake of repeated court battles. Responding to
a petition by Haifa city council, a local court ruled on February 13 that the
container must be emptied within 10 days. Haifa Chemicals appealed that decision
and a new court hearing is set for Sunday. A spokesman for Haifa council told
AFP it would demand that the container be drained without further delay. The
environment ministry's decision and court ruling come after a decades-long
struggle of environmental groups opposed to the tank.
Report: Iran Official Accuses Detained Lebanese Man of
Encouraging 'Decadence'
Associated//Naharnet/February 22/17/PressA Lebanese national and U.S. permanent
resident sentenced to 10 years in prison in Iran has confessed that he had tried
to "encourage decadence" in the Iranian society, an Iranian semi-official news
agency has quoted a Revolutionary Guard commander as saying. Nizar Zakka, a
Lebanese with resident status in the United States, disappeared in September
2015 during a trip to Iran to attend a conference. The alleged confession has
not been independently verified. Zakka's supporters deny accusations he is a spy
and note he was invited to Tehran by the government. The Mehr news agency
Wednesday quoted Gen. Sayyari of the Guard's intelligence service as saying that
Zakka tried to corrupt "Iranian women and families." The general was not
identified by his first name. Zakka was sentenced to 10 years and a $4.2 million
fine.
Berri Meets Rouhani, Thanks Iran for 'Support that Led to
President Election'
Naharnet/February 22/17/Speaker Nabih Berri held talks Wednesday in Tehran with
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani.“We
attach great importance to your role in achieving stability in Lebanon and
developing the relations between our two countries. We have no doubt that you
have gone through difficult days but today the situation has improved,” Rouhani
told Berri. Berri for his part said he relayed to Rouhani the greetings of
President Michel Aoun and the Lebanese people, parliament and government. “We
thanked him for all the support that happened and led to developments that were
beneficial for Lebanon, such as the election of a president and the formation of
a government,” Berri added. The speaker also discussed with Rouhani and Larijani
means to improve economic and agricultural ties between Lebanon and Iran,
Lebanon's National News Agency said. Berri is in Tehran for an Iran-organized
conference aimed at supporting the Palestinian people.
Reports Say Israel Hit Targets on Lebanon-Syria Border,
Hizbullah Denies
Naharnet/February 22/17/Israeli warplanes struck Hizbullah and Syrian army
targets in a number of hills in the Syria-Lebanon border region at dawn
Wednesday, media reports said, drawing a rebuttal from Hizbullah sources.
“Suspected Israeli warplanes fired at least six missiles at the al-Qutaifa
mountainous region in Damascus' northeastern countryside, targeting arms depots
in an area where the regime forces' Third Division is deployed,” the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights reported, quoting “a number of credible
sources.”The bombing caused “destruction” but “there are no reports of
casualties until the moment,” the Observatory added. Sky News Arabia meanwhile
said local sources in Syria's Qalamoun region and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley heard
“a series of blasts.”“Hizbullah sources denied that the raids had targeted areas
inside Lebanon,” Sky News Arabia added. Al-Jadeed television meanwhile said
“Israeli warplanes overflew the city of Baalbek and its suburbs at low altitude
around 3:00 am amid reports of strikes from Lebanese airspace against mountains
in the Syrian region of al-Qutaifa.”The Hizbullah-affiliated Military Media arm
meanwhile said “reports claiming that Israeli raids have targeted a region in
Lebanon's Eastern Mountain Belt and resistance posts in the belt and Syria's
Qalamoun are baseless.”In April 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
admitted for the first time that Israel had carried out “dozens” of strikes
inside Syria to prevent Hizbullah from acquiring what he described as
“game-changing” weapons.
Raad Meets Aoun, Says 1960 Law 'No Longer Appropriate for Lebanon'
Naharnet/February 22/17/A delegation from Hizbullah's Loyalty to Resistance
parliamentary bloc held talks Wednesday with President Michel Aoun at the Baabda
Palace. “The 1960 (electoral) law is no longer appropriate for Lebanon and the
Lebanese,” the head of the bloc, MP Mohammed Raad, announced after the meeting.
“All Lebanese components with all their levels must be represented and let them
practice their opposition inside parliament,” Raad added, referring to
Hizbullah's call for an electoral law based on the proportional representation
system.
The country has not organized parliamentary elections since 2009 and the
legislature has since extended its own mandate twice. While al-Mustaqbal
Movement has rejected that the electoral law be fully based on proportional
representation, arguing that Hizbullah's arms would prevent serious competition
in the party's strongholds, Druze leader MP Walid Jumblat has totally rejected
proportional representation, even within a hybrid law, warning that it would
“marginalize” the minority Druze community.The political parties are meanwhile
discussing several formats of a so-called hybrid law that mixes proportional
representation with the winner-takes-all system.
رئيس أركان الجيش الإسرائيلي يعتبر أن تهديدات نصرالله ضد بلاده هي صوتية وعواء دون
امكانية على العض
IDF chief: Hezbollah suffering from crisis of morale
Ynetnews/Yoav Zitun/February 22/17/Eisenkot asserts Nasrallah's recent threats
to fire rockets at sensitive facilities in Haifa and Dimona are merely meant to
create deterrence and maintain the status quo with Israel while his organization
was deep in crisis over its involvement in Syria.
IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot asserted on Wednesday that Hezbollah leader
Hassan Nasrallah was all bark and no bite as his threats against Israel come
while his organization is deep in crisis. Speaking in front of the Knesset's
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee during a closed session, the IDF chief
repeated past military assessments that while Hezbollah's involvement in the
Syrian civil war allowed its fighters to gain significant operational
experience, it sparked a crisis in the terror group affecting both its finances
and its fighters' morale. Eisenkot told the committee members that Nasrallah's
recent threats to fire rockets at the Haifa ammonia facility and the Dimona
nuclear reactor were meant to create deterrence and maintain the status quo with
Israel as he sees it. The IDF chief added that at present, he does not see
willingness among enemies both on the northern front and in Gaza to initiate a
military campaign against Israel. He did note, however, the election of the
radical Yahya Sanwar as the head of Hamas's political wing in Gaza proves that
any distinction made in the past between the Gaza terror organization's
political and military branches was now null and void. Regardless of this, he
said the Gaza front was at the top of the IDF's priorities and that NIS 2.4
billion have been invested this year into handling Hamas's terror tunnel threat.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Expects Iran, Hezbollah to
Leave Syria After War
© Sputnik/ Mikhail Voskresenskiy/February 22/17/TEL AVIV (Sputnik) – The forces
of Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah movement forces, fighting for Damascus in Syria,
will return home as soon as the Syrian civil war is over, Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Oleg Syromolotov, presently on a visit to Israel, told The Jerusalem
Post."I understand the fears of Israel relating to Hezbollah and the
Revolutionary Guards in Syria, and you of course fear that they will stay in
Syria after the war," Syromolotov, who is in charge of counterterrorism, said
Monday, stressing that Iran and Hezbolllah "will leave," as the war in Syria
ends.
Israel demands that Iran be excluded from the Syrian settlement process, saying
that its nuclear program, hostile rhetoric, and support of anti-Israel forces in
the Middle East, including Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah movement, pose a threat to
Israeli national security. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a
number of countries including Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom and
many European states, but not by Russia. Earlier in February, Secretary General
of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah threatened to launch strikes on the Dimona nuclear
facility in southern Israel. In response, Israel’s Minister of Transportation
and Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Yisrael Katz threatened to target
Lebanon.
IDF jets allegedly attack Hezbollah targets in Syria overnight
Anna Ahronheim/Jerusalem Post/February 22/17/The Israel Air Force has reportedly
struck a Hezbollah weapons shipment in Syria overnight. Israeli jets allegedly
struck targets near the Syrian capital overnight on Wednesday, reportedly a
weapons shipment to the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Lebanese media
reported. Syrian media reported witnesses hearing "loud explosion sounds" in the
early morning hours. According to Lebanese media, the targets that were hit
around 3.00 a.m. were affiliated with the Assad regime and were the regime
army's 3rd Division in the al-Katif suburbs of the capital. The report also
claimed that the IDF struck from within Lebanon, circling the Beqaa Valley and
Baalbek, so as not to be blocked by the Russian defense systems operating in the
area. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit declined to comment on the reports as the army
does not respond to foreign reports. The alleged attack comes after a week
during which Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah made several aggressive
statements in an appearance on Iranian television as well as in interviews with
the Lebanese media. The terror organization's leader threatened to attack Israel
in the near future, saying that "Hezbollah will have no red lines in the next
war with Israel," and also warned Israel from entering into a conflict with
Hezbollah: "Israel should think a million times before it goes to war with
Lebanon." Last week Lebanese President Michel Aoun defended the weapons which
Hezbollah has, saying the arms of the terror group are an essential part in
defending Lebanon against Israel.“Hezbollah weapons are not contradictory to the state, but are an essential part
in defending the country. As long as a part of the territory is occupied by
Israel, and as long as the army is not powerful enough to fight Israel, we feel
the need to maintain the weapons of the resistance to complement the army,” Aoun
told the Egyptian TV network CBC satellite channel. Israel and Hezbollah fought
a deadly 33-day war in 2006, which came to an end under UN Security Council
Resolution 1701, that among other things called for the disarmament of
Hezbollah. The border with Syria has been tense since the civil war there
erupted in 2011, and while Israel has never publicly admitted to carrying out
any strikes, Israel is suspected of carrying out occasional retaliatory strikes
on Syria after stray rockets or mortar rounds struck Israeli territory.
Army needs ongoing U.S. support, Aoun tells senator
The Daily Star/February 22/17/BEIRUT: U.S. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, kicked off a series of meetings with senior
officials during a visit to Lebanon Tuesday. Corker met President Michel Aoun at
Baabda Palace, where the president expressed his keenness to continue
cooperation between Lebanon and the United States. In a statement issued by
Aoun’s media office, the president singled out U.S. military aid to the Lebanese
Army, expressing hope that U.S. support would continue “in a manner that helps
maintain Lebanon’s stability.”
Aoun seemingly pointed to the continuing conflict with Israel, using it to
justify his calls for continuing and increasing support to the military. “[Aid
should continue] particularly when there’s no balance between Lebanon’s military
capabilities and the militaries of neighboring countries,” he said. The
statement added that talks focused on local and regional developments. The U.S.
senator arrived for an official visit to Lebanon from Iraq’s Irbil Monday night.
Corker met with Prime Minister Saad Hariri, where they discussed ongoing local
and regional developments. He also met with Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil for
talks focusing on the latest developments in the region, a statement from
Bassil’s press office said. Corker also held talks with Marada Movement head
Sleiman Frangieh. Separately, Hariri met with U.N. Special Coordinator for
Lebanon Sigrid Kaag, where they discussed local and regional changes.
The prime minister also met with a delegation headed by Ruba Jaradat from the
International Labour Organization. “We informed ... Hariri about the role of the
organization, its work and projects in Lebanon. We also presented the aim of the
conference ‘The Future of Work’ that will be held on April 3 in Beirut under the
patronage of Premier Hariri,” Kaag said in a statement sent by Hariri’s media
office. “We also tackled the issue of implementing the proper labor program in
Lebanon in cooperation with the Lebanese Labor Ministry and the social partners,
which are the laborers and employers organizations.”
Hariri also welcomed Daryl Mundis, registrar of the Special Tribunal for
Lebanon.
Hariri chairs cabinet session, follows up on budget
discussions
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, chaired the weekly cabinet
session at the Grand Serail on Wednesday, with Ministers Mohammad Kabbara, Ayman
Chokeir, and Ghattas Khoury abstaining. In the wake of the session, Information
Minister, Melhem Riachi, said that the session mainly followed up on the latest
budget discussions and items, as well as on the lengthily awaited salary scale.
"Discussions were very positive, especially in light of the cabinet's resolve to
safeguard the state's finances by ensuring the needed revenues and
expenditures," Riachy said, adding that the state is also keen on protecting the
citizens' rights. "The state is not in an enviable situation these days,
especially after enduring 12 years without a budget," Riachy added, suggesting
patience as the best option pending the much-aspired solutions. As for his
meeting with the Prime Minister following the cabinet session, the Minister said
that he had presented the Premiere with the files and bills he had earlier
referred to the Council of Ministers, making clear that they will be the subject
of debate in the first cabinet session after concluding budget discussions.
Riachy explained that his project aimed at protecting the media corps in Lebanon
-- print and broadcast media alike. "There is no democratic country without free
and protected media. I am trying and exerting every effort possible to ensure
appropriate exemptions through the draft laws submitted by the state to the
media and to editors simultaneously," the Minister added.
One wounded in explosion of stun grenade in Sidon's Darb
Sim
Wed 22 Feb 2017 /NNA - One person got wounded, named Fahed Ali Merhi, got
injured in the explosion of a stun grenade tossed by unidentified assailants a
while ago near a shop selling alcoholic beverages on Darb Sim Road, south Sidon,
NNA reporter said on. Instantly, security forces arrived at the scene and opened
a probe into incident.
Corker briefs Rahi on visits to Irbil, Arsal refugee camps
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rahi on Wednesday welcomed in
Bkerki Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the US Senate, Robert
Corker, accompanied by US Ambassador, Elizabeth Richard. The meeting reportedly
touched on a number of local and regional issues, most importantly those
involving Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Corker seized the occasion to brief Rahi
on the outcome of his visit to Syrian refugee camps in Irbil and Arsal. He also
got informed about the role that the Maronite church plays in Lebanon at all
levels.
Accused Palestinian handed over to Army Intelligence
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - The commander of Ein Helwe refugee camp security force,
General Khaled el Chayeb, handed over accused Palestinian, Hamadi al-Rayyan, to
the Lebanese Army Intelligence, NNA correspondent said on Wednesday.
Joint statement of the International Support Group for
Lebanon
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - The Members of the International Support Group (ISG)
reaffirm their commitment to the stability and security of Lebanon. The current
political momentum has re-activated Lebanon's institutions of state. The ISG
Members encourage all parties to arrive at an early compromise, which would
present an appropriate electoral framework for Lebanon. The timely conduct of
peaceful and transparent parliamentary elections are an important step to
preserve Lebanon's democratic tradition, and to meet the aspirations of the
Lebanese people. The ISG Members stand ready to provide support. The
International Support Group has brought together the governments of China,
France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the
United States, together with the European Union and the Arab League. It was
launched in September 2013 by the UN Secretary-General with President Sleiman to
help mobilize support and assistance for Lebanon's stability, sovereignty and
state institutions and to specifically encourage assistance for the Lebanese
Army, Syrian refugees in Lebanon and host communities and government programs
and public services impacted by the Syrian crisis.
Kahwagi receives Corker
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - Lebanese Army Chief, General Jean Kahwagi, on Wednesday
received in Yarze Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the US Senate,
Robert Corker, accompanied by US Ambassador, Elizabeth Richard, with talks
featuring high on overall developments in Lebanon and the region. General
Kahwagi hailed the role played by US in supporting the army against
terror.Corker, for his part, praised the security accomplishments of the army.
Mahfoud in Riad Solh protest: We don't favor strikes yet we
no more bear procrastinations
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - Private School Teachers Syndicate head, Nehme Mahfoud,
said, "We are not strike favorers, we are not facing people or school
administrations, yet we no more bear procrastinations and delays."Mahfoud's
stance came Wednesday in a sit-in organized by the Syndical Coordination
Committee (SCC) in Downtown's Riad Solh Square, with the demonstrators raising
banners calling for the endorsement of the long-awaited salary scale.
Demonstrators pushed for the approval of this scale as a means to respect their
rights. "Our demand is for approving a fair salaries scale. We reject imposing
taxes on popular categories and on employees of limited income," said Mahfoud.
"The families of abducted soldiers sitting in the camp deserve to earn salaries
that help solve their problems…The soldier present in Arsal, the abductees and
sons of martyrs deserve the salaries scale."He went on saying, "We are the
keenest on the school year, we moved to street despite our will, don't push us
to move for the second time."
Tenants' Rights Committee protests in streets
Wed 22 Feb 2017/NNA - Our correspondent reported Wednesday that the Tenants'
Rights Defense Committee blocked the Mathaf (Museum) road in Beirut with burning
tires in the context of its protest movement in the street.
The populist crescent: Marine Le Pen and the lands of
Lebanon
Makram Rabah/Middle East Eye/February 21/17
Many Lebanese see Le Pen's visit as a triumph for persecuted Christians, but
they should question her solutions for terrorism - and dual nationals
It is not uncommon for contenders for France’s parliament or even the president
to visit Lebanon and campaign for its almost 20,000 dual nationals.
Just last week, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist candidate for the presidency
visited Beirut in a brief two-day trip to meet some of the local politicians,
but more importantly to lobby the French diaspora in Lebanon who will soon go to
the polls to determine France’s next president.
Any Lebanese dual national who wishes to vote for Le Pen should remember that
once she is in office, there is nothing to stop her from honouring her election
pledges including removing their citizenship
The banality of such trips, however, does not apply to Marine Le Pen, the French
far-right leader and one of the three presidential candidates who arrived in
Lebanon on Sunday night in a somewhat high-profile visit which included a
meeting with the Lebanese President Michel Aoun as well as other senior
officials.
She was scheduled to meet Lebanon's highest Sunni authority, Grand Mufti Sheikh
Abdel-Latif Derian, on Tuesday, but refused to wear a head scarf and left
without meeting him.
Much of the controversy from Le Pen’s visit stems from the fact that this is the
first time she is meeting with a foreign head of state, something which she has
failed to do across Europe, even with leaders who are classically branded as
right-wing.
Marine Le Pen in Lebanon: I refuse to wear headscarf to meet cleric
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canadian Parti Québécois are just a few who,
despite their right-wing credentials, have slammed Le Pen for her racist and
fascist comments.
Le Pen's visit, however, goes beyond much of the controversy that merely
surrounds her as an icon for right-wing European xenophobia and Islamophobia to
a more ominous plan which, if successful, would have dire repercussions not only
on Lebanon but also on the status of the Christians in the Levant.
In the context of Michel Aoun's and Donald Trump's electoral victory, many
Lebanese see Le Pen's trip as a triumph and resurgence for persecuted Christians
in Lebanon and the Levant.
A front to oppose Sunni Islam?
It is no coincidence that Le Pen’s first recreational stop upon her arrival to
Lebanon was to the ancient port city Byblos, a place celebrated for its
Phoenician past which many like to use to dismiss the Muslim elements of the
country.
Beyond the ceremonial aspect of this trip, Le Pen’s trip is meant to communicate
several messages which transcend Lebanon and fall in line with the alliance of
minorities’ debate which calls for a front of non-Muslim factions to oppose the
political hegemony of Sunni Islam.
From this perspective, Le Pen’s meeting with Michel Aoun could be read as an
implicit declaration of an alliance between the chief of the resurgent French
Christian Right and the powerful and legitimate representatives of the Levantine
Christians, which - if Aoun's previous statements are any measure - would
include other heterodox Muslim elements such as the Alawites of Syria.
Michel Aoun: Political survivor finally returns to power
Aoun has insisted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stays in office, while
Le Pen has repeatedly called for engaging with him. And Le Pen has also
previously suggested that France break off its relations with Saudi Arabia and
ally with Iran, while Aoun is a staunch supporter of the Iranian-backed
Hezbollah.
Along with Le Pen, leaders of this new populist front which extend all the way
to Moscow and Washington, accuse Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries of being
the main sponsors of terrorism and extremist movements.
So to follow this front’s perverse logic, the only way to protect the Christians
of the Levant is to instinctually oppose the forces of Sunni Islam whose
ultimate project is to subjugate and enslave the Christians of the East.
Counterproductive strategy
This populist rhetoric, which Le Pen and many of her local Lebanese supporters
share, might seem to many as a legitimate manoeuvre to win more votes, be it in
the French presidential elections or the Lebanese parliamentary elections coming
up this summer.
However, ultimately, these populist gestures, regardless of their intentions,
are a clear message to Muslims in the region and especially Lebanon, that all
forms of Sunni Islam are essentially unacceptable in the eyes of the Christians
or their so-called legitimate leaders.
The BBC and Andrew Marr let Marine Le Pen off easy on Islamophobia
More importantly, anyone who truly intends to combat terrorism and
counter-extremism has to be fully aware that the success of their endeavour
rests on finding moderate and cooperative elements within the same environment
these terrorists operate in.
Therefore, appearing to brand Sunni Muslims in Lebanon or the Levant as
terrorists is categorically counterproductive for a dwindling Christian
population still dwelling on past glories.
More so, to side with Assad who has indiscriminately killed his own people
regardless of their sectarian or racial identity, or to receive a highly
detested figure such as Le Pen, is certainly not a solid investment for the
Christians of the Levant nor for anyone who intends to regain the patronage and
the support of the West.
Ultimately, any Lebanese dual national who wishes to vote for Le Pen or any of
her fellow travellers should remember that once she is in office, there is
nothing to stop her from honouring her election pledges which include the
removal of citizenship from dual nationals.
If such a scenario does occur, those who have been cheering for Le Pen’s visit
to Lebanon will not only lose their passports, but they will also be left alone
in a hostile Sunni environment which has no reason, nor will to continue to be
cordial and neighbourly.
- Makram Rabah is a lecturer at the American University of Beirut, Department of
History. He is the author of A Campus at War: Student Politics at the American
University of Beirut, 1967-1975.
Marine Le Pen in Lebanon: mission accomplished?
Halim Shebaya/Open Democracy/ 22 February 2017
Where to start in discussing Marine Le Pen’s visit to Lebanon? The French “Trump
without the crazy” got her first meeting with a head of state and performed a
successful media stunt.
Irrespective of his political intentions when he signaled his refusal to invite
President Donald Trump to speak in the parliament when he visits the UK, John
Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, cited his opposition to racism and
sexism, as well as his support for an independent judiciary (in reaction to
Trump’s infamous “so-called judge” remark) as reasons that explain his
anti-Trump stance.
For her part, Marine Le Pen seemingly faced no such difficulty convincing the
Lebanese President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Grand Mufti, Maronite
(Catholic) Patriarch, a delegation of parliamentarians, Samir Geagea (Lebanese
Forces) and Sami Gemayel (Phalanges) to meet with her during her two-day visit
to Lebanon on the 20th and 21st of February 2017.
In fact, it was Le Pen’s first meeting with a head of state, President Michel
Aoun, and arguably a successful one, judging from appearances. They discussed
improving the relations between the two countries as well as Lebanon’s refugee
crisis.
She also expressed her concerns for Lebanon’s Christians with foreign minister
Gebran Bassil, Aoun’s son-in-law and leader of the Free Patriotic Movement,
Lebanon’s largest Christian party based on the 2009 parliamentary elections’
results.
Marine Le Pen may well be ‘Donald Trump without the crazy’
On the issue of refugees, and on the need to protect the “Christian presence” in
the Orient and Europe’s “Christian heritage”, it comes as no surprise that Le
Pen and Bassil would see eye to eye. Both have adopted an overt anti-refugee
discourse on countless occasions. Bassil had warned Europe, during one of his
notorious speeches as Foreign Minister in June 2016, about the ill effects of
migration and the influx of refugees that threatened its “diversity and values”
and rendered it vulnerable to terrorist infiltration by Islamic extremists.
It is very difficult to determine where to start in discussing Marine Le Pen’s
visit to Lebanon. In a very unique manner, every word she said, and every move
she made, in addition to the reactions she provoked – both with and against -
provide a microcosm of the political struggle taking place between proponents of
a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, and advocates of a liberal,
multicultural, open and diverse society where Muslims do not pose an existential
threat to the well-being and security of a society.
Marine Le Pen may well be ‘Donald Trump without the crazy’, as one commentator
put it. She manages to carry herself about without provoking outrage in the same
manner in which Trump does. She has not attacked an independent judiciary or the
free press (yet), nor does she blatantly attack intellectualism and reason in
the same way in which Trump has heralded a post-truth world where, for example,
Sweden witnesses an imaginary attack if Trump happens to believe that it did
based on his reliance on Fox News and Breitbart.
To be sure, saying this by no means exonerates Le Pen, or her far-right party,
of their many lies and absurdities that affect real lives and have led to the
rise of Islamophobic, anti-migrant and anti-refugee discourse and hate crimes in
many countries, as documented by their own government and security agencies, in
addition to human rights organisations.
The point here is that there is a difference in dealing with Trump and Le Pen
when it comes to what they say and how they behave.
In other words, Le Pen’s statements in Lebanon cannot be brushed aside in the
same manner in which Trump’s tweets and incoherent statements can almost
automatically turn into the subject of memes and Andy Borowitz jokes. They
cannot be simply laughed off or ignored, regardless of how repulsive they may
be. Le Pen measures her words and understands the impact of what she says on
different audiences in a way in which Trump (deliberately or non-deliberately)
doesn’t.
Taking her remarks after her meeting with PM Saad Hariri (a vocal anti-Assad
Sunni politician) as an example, she did not cry #fakenews or attempt to bully
reporters. Rather, she admitted a ‘difference in analysis’ between the two
politicians.
Her statement was calm, as nuanced as it gets from the mouth of a far-right
extremist, and showed that she had no problem sitting down and interacting with
a “moderate Muslim” politician who disagrees with her, both on the thorny issue
of Syria, Assad’s fate, and her simplistic binary view of “either Assad or ISIS”
- as well as on the dangerous conflation of Islam and terrorism.
Refusing to wear a scarf to meet the Grand Mufti
Furthermore, and perhaps as an example of her preparedness and ability to
anticipate and seize opportunities for positive press and sensational material
beloved to social media users, she brilliantly outplayed the Lebanese Grand
Mufti Abdel-Latif Derian with an outcome of millions of views and likes of the
video in which she proudly and (to her fan base) dignifiedly refuses, on live
camera, to wear a scarf handed to her by a man, telling him:
“you can pass on my respects to the Grand Mufti, but I will not cover myself
up.”
That was political theater at its best. And for Marine Le Pen, it was “mission
accomplie” (mission accomplished)!
A spokesperson for the Grand Mufti responded, drawing a comparison between the
way in which she wants immigrants to respect France’s culture and her refusal to
practice what she preaches in Lebanon.
Le Pen was visiting Lebanon and refused to accommodate the protocol for visitors
Let me be very clear from the outset to avoid a confusion of issues: I am in no
way justifying the right of any person, religious or secular, to dictate to
women or to anyone what they should or should not wear –especially in Lebanon
(and the Arab world) where women’s rights are not respected in full by the
state, and where they are at times victims of injustices and discrimination
perpetrated by the religious courts, both Muslim and Christian.
The issue here is that Le Pen was visiting Lebanon and refused to accommodate
the protocol for visitors when they visit the Mufti. In doing that, she
exploited a very complex and controversial issue that touches upon the
relationship between civil rights (a woman’s right to choose what she wears) and
the expectations for respect of cultural and religious traditions in various
settings.
She also used the incident to reiterate her view that she considers the
requirement to ‘cover up’, specifically when it comes to the Islamic religion,
as a sign of the subjugation of women.
Dealing in depth and comprehensively with said issues is beyond the scope of
this article, and there are no easy answers to whether she was right or wrong in
absolute terms.
The simple point submitted here is that Le Pen managed to use a complex issue
and turn it to her political advantage, since many women and men who are not
naturally sympathetic with Le Pen would commend her choice to wear whatever she
wants regardless of the context, and especially in an Islamic context where
compulsory veiling (and in general, the notion of men dictating to women what
they should wear in public) is considered by many to be an affront to human
rights and a symptom of a patriarchal structure rampant with gender inequality.
Le Pen knew the protocol involved in a visit to the Mufti as she had been
informed beforehand that she would be required to wear the scarf. Instead of
cancelling the visit as a means of protest, she showed up and appeared to be, to
the observer who does not understand Lebanon’s intricacies or her motives, a
defender of women’s emancipation in front of a prime example of patriarchy: a
male handing her a scarf in order to make her ‘fit’ or ‘acceptable enough’ to
meet another male religious figure, and an Islamic one for that matter.
This incident took on particular significance in local and Western press,
especially among the far-right media in light of criticisms against Sweden’s
‘feminist government’ that took on Trump but later “succumbed” to Iran’s
ayatollahs when they agreed to wear the veil.
In 2010, she had compared Muslims praying on the street to the Nazi occupation
during World War II
Florian Philippot, Vice-President of the Front National, turned it into a global
moment for oppressed women tweeting: “In Lebanon, Marine refuses to wear the
veil. A magnificent message of freedom and emancipation sent to the women of
France and of the entire world.”
Le Pen even made sure to say that "the highest Sunni authority in the world [Al-Azhar]
had not had this requirement, so I have no reason to," in what can be seen as a
well-rehearsed statement to remove any hint of hatred or ill-intentions towards
Muslims or Islam.
Make no mistake, however; Le Pen is not a politically correct politician who
makes sure her speech does not include discriminatory or hate-filled innuendos.
In 2010, she had compared Muslims praying on the street to the Nazi occupation
during World War II, and for that reason she is on trial on charges of
“incitement to discrimination, violence or hatred towards a group of people on
the basis of their religion”.
Yet, Lebanon’s Grand Mufti was happy to meet with her - but she eventually
turned out to be the dignified principled person in the story, according to the
narrative espoused by those supportive of her decision to refuse to wear the
veil.
“No other religion is causing problems”
Be that as it may, in the specific context of Le Pen and the background of her
comments on Islam, the veil and burkini since she entered politics, it is worth
remembering her words during the discussion of the burkini ban in France:
“No other religion is causing problems,” she said.
In this light, she will go back to France with yet another example that the only
problem with her entire visit to Lebanon was with the Grand Mufti, thus
confirming in her supporters’ minds the view that Islam is inherently at odds
with western values and Le Pen’s policies to fight the spread of Islamism are
what France needs to protect its values and freedoms.
Old wounds came to the surface due to Le Pen’s Front National ties with
Christian militias during the civil war.
Moreover, she managed to portray herself to her supporters, unlike Swedish
feminist politicians, as someone who intends to fight for her values at home as
well as in a Muslim-majority country, Lebanon - never mind the fact that the
Lebanese President is Christian and that women in Lebanon are not forced to wear
the veil, as in Iran or Saudi Arabia for example.
Le Pen came and left on her own terms. The voices denouncing her visit were
marginal and inconsequential, albeit important in their own right, both on
charges of fascism and support for Zionism.
Thus, Lebanon, the “message of coexistence” between Muslims and Christians,
became the stage for Le Pen’s (from her standpoint) successful visit. Internal
divisions were exposed and old wounds came to the surface due to Le Pen’s Front
National ties with Christian militias or resistance during the civil war. She
told a group over dinner:
« Il n’y a pas de lien plus fort que le lien du sang versé. Nous avons ce lien,
ce lien du sang versé ensemble. Ce lien-là est indissoluble.” (There is no
stronger bond that the one of fallen blood. We have that bond, the bond of blood
sacrificed together. This link is unbreakable.”)
She moves ahead eyeing the Presidency leaving behind a stagnant and struggling
country none the better, none the richer, and none the safer - only with
promises to Christians that she (like Trump) will have their best interests at
heart and will work to make them stronger in their lands, without providing any
evidence that she understands how she would make that happen or whether she
genuinely intends to fulfill such a promise.
Significantly, Christian politician Samir Geagea told Le Pen that there is no
clash between Muslims and Christians, trying perhaps to thwart an image she
tries to portray of Christians forming a homogenous bloc and supporting
far-right candidates like herself and Trump. He also tried to explain to her, as
PM Hariri did the previous day, the notion that “terrorism has no religion”.
Unfortunately, their words will go to waste.
She will go back to France to feed her fan base’s xenophobia and Islamophobia,
remembering only her own words: “no other religion [Islam] is causing problems”.
Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on February 22-23/17
Toronto JDL filing hate crimes complaint against mosque that called for killing
Jews
Christine Williams/Jihad
Watch/February 21/17/It is a shame when citizen’s groups have to take action for
themselves in cases where authorities should be acting. Toronto’s Jewish Defence
League says it will file a “hate crimes” complaint with Toronto Police alleging
there were “troubling” words in sermons at a downtown mosque, including inciting
the “killing of Jews.”The police already knew about this violence being preached
at the Masjid Toronto, but are apparently doing nothing, so now Meir Weinstein
of the Jewish Defense League is taking action against Islamic supremacists and
jihadists to defend the Jewish people (and other infidels) against incitement to
violence. Congratulations to Meir Weinstein and the JDL. We can hope that this
will lead to more such action, not only in Canada, but throughout Western
nations in the interests of national security. Canada and the U.S. should resist
going down the road that Europe is traveling on: politically correct authorities
have abandoned their duty to protect the public, and have allowed chaos to
reign. Throughout Canada, there are mosques and Muslim schools where Muslims are
routinely cursing Christians and Jews and even calling for jihad war and
destruction of the infidel. Masjid Toronto is just one of these. Another budding
problem: Muslim migrants are streaming into Canada unvetted, particularly now
through the Quebec border from the United States. These migrants — arriving from
cultures that fail to respect human rights — are being incited by some mosques
to hate and perpetrate violence against Canadians.
“Jewish Defence League alleges hate crime”,
Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun,
February 20, 2017/Toronto’s Jewish Defence League says it will file a “hate
crimes” complaint with Toronto Police alleging there were “troubling” words in
sermons at a downtown mosque, including inciting the “killing of Jews.” “We are
going to speak with the police,” said JDL National Co-ordinator Meir Weinstein,
who alleged Monday that “these are anti-Semitic hate crimes.”But first the JDL
is to hold an emergency meeting to decide how to proceed after bringing to light
several videos taken from within the downtown mosque Masjid Toronto, part of the
Muslim Association of Canada. The videos, featuring a 2016 sermon in Arabic,
were initially posted online by the mosque. They were subsequently posted on
YouTube by CIJnews co-founder Jonathan Halevi, a linguist who speaks several
languages. According to Halevi, the sermon included the following: “O Allah!
Give them victory over the criminal people, O Allah! Destroy anyone who killed
Muslims, O Allah! Destroy anyone who displaced the sons of the Muslims, O Allah!
Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them, O Allah!
Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!” For clarification, the
“purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews” refers to the famous mosque
in the Old City of Jerusalem. This certainly does not seem very peaceful. It’s
also unbecoming in diverse Canada which celebrates every race and religion and
does not tolerate discrimination. “It’s advocating the killing of Jews,” alleged
Weinstein. “We will send a message to the police.”
And they are deciding whether to pay their own visit to the mosque Tuesday or
sometime this week. “We need to clarify what is going on at this mosque,” said
Weinstein. “Is this a den of worship or a den of hate?” The mosque on Monday
called language used in the prayer video “inappropriate” and said it “condemns”
racism toward any race or religion. And the Imam who delivered one of the
sermons has apologized. “Neither I, Masjid Toronto or the congregation harbour
any form of hatred toward Jews and so I wish to apologize unreservedly for
misspeaking during prayer last Ramadan,” said Ayman Elkasrawy in a statement. “I
firmly believe that all human beings: Muslim, Jews and people of all and no
faith deserve to live a life free of any threat to their safety.”The JDL’s
concerns follows Friday’s protest out front of the mosque by about 20 people —
some of whom were carrying signs with slogans such as “beheadings, honour
killing, suicide bomber, rape” or “Muslims are terrorists” or “No Islam.”This
garnered an angry response from people calling it Islamophobic — and calls for
Toronto Police to investigate some of what transpired as a hate crime. Even
Mayor John Tory tweeted: “Islamophobia has NO place in our city. I’ve visited
Masjid Toronto many times & denounce all acts of hatred towards our Muslim
citizens.” Police spokesman Mark Pugash told me officers are not investigating
the protest as no formal complaint was filed. Premier Kathleen Wynne has also
attended the downtown mosque to show her support for Muslims following the
despicable murders of six innocent people during prayers inside a Quebec City
house of worship. Citing double standards, Weinstein wonders if priorities from
people in power are skewed. “These words should send a chill through everybody
in Toronto and in Canada,” Weinstein insisted….
US-backed alliance enters Syria’s Deir al-Zor
province
By Reuters, Beirut Wednesday, 22 February 2017/The US-backed Syria Democratic
Forces (SDF) alliance has crossed into Deir al-Zor province for the first time
as part of an offensive against ISIS, a Kurdish military source said on Tuesday.
The advance into the province, most of which is under the control of the ultra-hardline
group, is part of an operation to encircle and ultimately capture its de facto
Syrian capital of Raqqa in the north of the country. One aim of the campaign is
to cut ISIS’ supply lines from Raqqa to Deir al-Zor province. The move also
expands the SDF’s area of operations against ISIS, which is being fought by all
sides in the complex Syria conflict. Later on Tuesday, the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights monitoring group reported that at least 11 people were killed
and more than 35 wounded in air strikes in a town in northern Deir al-Zor
province, in an area where US-led coalition warplanes have operated. It was not
clear whose air force had carried them out, or if the incident was linked to the
SDF advance, the Observatory said. “Military operations of the SDF are now
taking place within the provincial boundaries of Deir al-Zor, from the north -
so, via southern Hasaka (province),” the Kurdish military source told
Reuters.The SDF, which includes the Kurdish YPG militia and Arab fighting
groups, captured some 15 villages from ISIS militants in their incursion into
the province, the source added, without specifying when this had taken place.
ISIS controls most of Deir al-Zor province apart from a Syrian government-held
enclave in Deir al-Zor city and a nearby military air base. Different groups in
Syria’s multi-sided conflict are fighting a number of separate battles against
ISIS. Syria’s army and its allies, backed by Russia, have been fighting back
against ISIS assaults in Deir al-Zor city and have engaged in clashes with the
group further west.
Humanitarian concerns
Turkish-backed Syrian rebels, meanwhile, are fighting for control of the
northern city of al-Bab, which monitors say is still mostly in ISIS hands, but
which the rebels have pushed into. That battle has brought the Turkish-backed
rebels into close proximity with Syrian government forces, which had advanced
towards the city from another direction before the rebels entered it. The Syrian
army’s advance towards al-Bab has raised fears of sparking a confrontation with
Turkey. The United Nations said on Tuesday an estimated 5,000 civilians were
trapped by fighting in and around al-Bab and that 300 non-combatants had been
killed since December, many of them by air strikes. Turkey and Russia have both
been carrying out air strikes around the city. “As the operation advances,
parties to the conflict may be preparing for urban battles ... which could place
civilians in the area at heightened risk of death and injury, as well as (making
them) vulnerable to being used as human shields,” the UN’s humanitarian
coordination body said in a statement. The air strikes in the town of al-Sur in
Deir al-Zor on Tuesday hit a garage, petrol station and commercial area, the
Observatory reported.
Canada to welcome 1,200 Yazidi refugees in $21m operation
AFP, Ottawa Wednesday, 22 February 2017/Canada will resettle 1,200 Yazidi
refugees who faced persecution by ISIS, the immigration minister said Tuesday.
Some 400 have already been airlifted to this country. "Our operation is under
way and individual survivors of Daesh have been arriving in Canada for
resettlement in the last number of months and this began on October 25, 2016,"
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, using an Arabic name for ISIS. "Our
government will resettle approximately 1,200 highly vulnerable survivors of
Daesh and their family members in Canada," he added. The initiative follows
Parliament's resolution last fall to take in Yazidis facing "genocide" in Iraq
at the hands of ISIS. The original aim was to bring over women and girls at
risk, but Hussen told a news conference that Ottawa had learned that "Daesh has
also deliberately targeted boys and as such we are helping to resettle all child
survivors of Daesh."Hussen said the migrants are arriving on commercial flights
at a "controlled pace" to avoid overwhelming Canada's refugee system. The
operation is expected to cost Can$28 million (US$21 million). Since coming to
power in late 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government has resettled
40,000 Syrian refugees. The Yazidis taken in have been subjected to
comprehensive security checks and medical examinations, Hussen said. Yazidis are
a Kurdish-speaking minority with a pre-Islamic religion thought partly to have
its origin in the Zoroastrianism of ancient Persia. They are neither Arab nor
Muslim and ISIS considers them polytheistic heretics.
Palestinians slam Israel soldier sentence, call it ‘green light’ for crimes
AFP, Hebron Tuesday, 21 February /The sentencing of an Israeli soldier to 18
months for killing a wounded Palestinian assailant is a “green light” for the
military’s “crimes,” a Palestinian government spokesman said Tuesday. “The
Palestinian government views this light ruling against the murderer soldier as a
green light to the occupation army to continue its crimes,” spokesman Tarek
Rishmawi told AFP shortly after an Israeli military court sentenced Elor Azaria
for the killing of Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in the occupied West Bank in March
2016.
‘Farce’
The family of the Palestinian killed reacted angrily to his sentencing,
labelling the trial a “farce”.Amnesty International said the sentence given to
Elor Azaria, 21, for shooting dead Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in the southern West
Bank was too light, while Human Rights Watch warned against proposals to pardon
him.
Sharif was shot dead in March 2016 while lying on the ground, several minutes
after he and another Palestinian had allegedly stabbed a soldier in the city of
Hebron. An Israeli military court found Azaria guilty of manslaughter and
sentenced him on Tuesday. “A year and a half is a farce,” Sharif’s father Yusri
said. “It is only a mock trial to silence people and the families.” “If one of
us (a Palestinian) killed an animal they would have sentenced him for only God
knows how long.” Magdalena Mughrabi from Amnesty International said in a
statement that Azaria’s conviction a month ago had “offered a glimmer of hope
for accountability for unlawful killings by Israeli forces”. “(But) the 18-month
sentence for Elor Azaria does not reflect the gravity of the offence.”Sari Bashi,
Israel and Palestine advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, called the
conviction an “important message about reining in excessive use of force.”
She warned, however, that pardoning him, as many ministers in Israel’s
right-wing government have proposed, would “encourage impunity”.
Al-Azhar: The end is near for ISIS
Ashraf Abdul Hamid, Al Arabiya.net – Cairo Wednesday, 22 February 2017/In
response to a video issued by ISIS showing the bomber behind the explosions that
targeted a cathedral in Cairo in December, Al-Azhar said that while the group is
trying to export propaganda to seem in control, it is actually in a process of
decay.“ISIS is using sectarian strife as a new trick but the group is nearing
its end,” The Sunni Muslim world’s highest theological institution said in a
statement. “It was clearly obvious that ISIS’ video aims at exaggerating the
group’s actual might, especially after the heavy losses it recently suffered by
losing most of its controlled territories in Mosul in Iraq, Al-Raqqa and Deir
Zour in Syria and Sirte in Libya. “ISIS is trying to send a misleading message
that the group is still capable of carrying out terrorist attacks in order to
deceive and recruit some of the Muslim youth,” the statement added.
Saudi Arabia donates billions to aid Yemen’s reconstruction
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English Wednesday, 22 February 2017/Saudi Arabia is to
donate $10 billion in aid to Yemen, the country’s president, Abed Rabbu Mansour
Hadi revealed in a meeting on Wednesday. Of the total, $2 billion will be given
to the central bank, while $8 billion will be ploughed into reconstructing the
run-down areas, including areas destroyed by the Houthi militia. The meeting
included Prime Minister Dr. Ahmed Obeid bin Daghr and the governors of Aden,
Taiz, Sanaa, Lahij, Abeen, Al-Dhale, Shabouh, Al-Bayda, and Sukotra.The
government placed the priority on streamlining services related to electricity,
health, water, education, roads and telecommunications. Hadi said, “The conflict
is continuing with the terrorist forces represented by the Houthis and Saleh. We
will succeed in overcoming them, because we are in the right and we hold the
nation’s concern in bringing back normal life to our country.”
Saudi Aramco may offer discounted shares to citizens
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English Wednesday, 22 February 2017/Saudi Aramco which
is planned its initial public share offering is also considering discounted
shares for local investors, according to a Bloomberg report, quoting ‘people
with knowledge of the matter’. According to the report, the oil giant is looking
at ways to structure the IPO in various tiers, so that Saudi buyers can receive
the stock at a lower price than overseas investors. This is in line with the
practice in the Kingdom, where shares in government-owned companies have been
offered to nationals at nominal value. The stock market regulator last year
approved new rules to price initial public offerings based on demand. According
to John Sfakianakis, director of economic research at the Gulf Research Center,
it is how the government has in the past shared wealth with its nationals “as
some recent measures have impacted incomes.”The share pricing or listing venue
for the Saudi Aramco IPO has not been decided.
Houthi missile kills senior Yemeni general in Mokha
The Associated Press, Sanaa, Yemen Wednesday, 22 February 2017/A ballistic
missile fired by Yemen’s Houthi militia on Wednesday killed the deputy chief of
staff of the country’s military, officials said. The SABA news agency, which is
controlled by the Houthi militia, said their forces struck the vehicle of Brig.
Gen. Ahmed Seif al-Yafie in the Red Sea port of Mokha. Yemeni military officials
said the missile hit a gathering point for the military commanders. A total of
seven officers were killed, including al-Yafie, and 25 were wounded, they said,
speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to
the media. Yemeni Prime Minister Ahmed Abdu Dagher expressed condolences on
Twitter after the attack, saying the "end of the enemy is near." Mokha, a
strategic Red Sea port, witnessed intense fighting between Houthi militia and
allied forces loyal to the ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh and
pro-government forces. Tens of thousands of people were recently displaced from
the fighting along the western coastline.
Russia Asks Syria to Halt Bombing during U.N. Peace Talks
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 22/17/Russia has called on Syrian
President Bashar Assad to stop his bombing campaign while peace talks take place
this week, but a political breakthrough on the six-year war remains unlikely,
the U.N.'s envoy said Wednesday. Staffan de Mistura's comments came on the eve
of a new round of talks in Geneva between negotiators from Syria's regime and
the opposition after a 10-month hiatus. Persistent violence and deadlock over
the country's political future, notably that of Assad, remain major hurdles.
"Russia announced to everyone... and to myself that they have formally asked the
Syrian government to silence their own skies during the talks," de Mistura told
reporters. But just hours after rival delegations arrived for the resumption of
the U.N.-brokered negotiations, there seemed limited ground for progress on
making peace. "Am I expecting a breakthrough? No, I am not expecting a
breakthrough," de Mistura said, noting that "momentum" toward further talks was
likely the best that can be hoped for. The government delegation is headed by
Syria's U.N. ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari and the main opposition High
Negotiations Committee (HNC) is led by cardiologist Nasr al-Hariri and lawyer
Mohammad Sabra. The ground -- both in territory and diplomatically -- has
shifted since the last U.N.-sponsored talks broke up in April 2016, and the
rebels are in a significantly weaker position. The army has recaptured the rebel
bastion of eastern Aleppo and the United States, once staunchly opposed to
Assad, has said it is reassessing every aspect of its Syria policy under
President Donald Trump. But the toughest issues remain similar to a year ago.
'Bloody message'
The opposition quit the last round in protest at escalating bloodshed and on
Wednesday warned that ceasefire violations were once again a problem. "The
obstacles are clear and one of them is that there is no advance in consolidating
the ceasefire," said HNC adviser Yehya Aridi. The latest truce on December 30
was brokered by opposition supporter Turkey and regime-backer Russia ahead of
separate negotiations that also involved Iran in Kazakhstan. The deal has
reduced violence but fighting flared again this week including a government
bombing campaign on rebel territory around Damascus.The HNC charged that Assad
was trying to send "a bloody message" before the talks resume.
Focus on 'political transition'
A bitter dispute over Assad's fate also continues to divide the camps. The HNC
has insisted he must leave office as part of any deal, while Damascus has said
the president's future is not open for negotiation. "This rule saying
'everything or nothing' hampers any chance or opportunity for a political
solution," Aridi said. HNC spokesman Ahmed Ramadan insisted the opposition were
not the only ones eager to see Assad go. "The Assad issue is already decided,
not only for us but also for many international actors," he told reporters. Even
Damascus's main ally Moscow had told opposition members it was "not concerned by
Bashar Assad and his future, but by the destiny of Syria and the future of the
Syrian state," he said. De Mistura's office earlier said that the talks remain
focused on "political transition".For the U.N., that term can include a broad
range of scenarios but the opposition sees it as implying Assad's removal.
Forcing the Syrian president from power had been the stated goal of Barack
Obama's administration but Trump's election has muddied the U.S. stance and the
opposition's negotiating position. Trump has said that defeating the Islamic
State group is Washington's top priority in the region and that the U.S. would
be narrowly focused on American interests. But in a sign that Washington still
stands behind the opposition, U.S. Syria envoy Michael Ratney met with HNC
advisers on Wednesday. A U.S. diplomatic source told AFP that Ratney aimed to
"remain in close contact" with the opposition delegation during the talks,
insisting "the United States remains committed to a political resolution to the
Syrian conflict." But the HNC's Ramadan warned that the shift in Washington
would compound difficulties in striking a deal. "President Trump's position on
Syria and the Middle East is not yet clear, and therefore the position of the
international community seems unclear regarding how eager the regional parties
are to find a fair political solution for Syria," he told AFP.
U.S.-Backed Fighters Advance on IS in Syria's East
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 22/17/An alliance of Arab and Kurdish
fighters have seized more than a dozen villages in eastern Syria in their drive
to encircle the Islamic State group bastion of Raqa. The U.S.-backed Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) made a major incursion into the oil-rich province of
Deir Ezzor as part of their push for Raqa, field commander Dejwar Khabat "Our
aim is to cut the road to Raqa and besiege IS... We have liberated 15 villages,"
Khabat said Tuesday in the town of Makmaneh, which lies on a major highway
approximately 100 kilometers (60 miles) east of Raqa city.
He said the IS was dispatching suicide bombers but had not been able to slow the
offensive. SDF fighters on Tuesday set up their base on a hilltop in Makmaneh,
digging trenches around it to prevent suicide bombers or car bombs from reaching
them. Backed by air strikes from the U.S.-led coalition, the SDF has seized
swathes of territory in northern Syria from the jihadists. It launched its
offensive for Raqa -- the de facto Syrian capital of IS' so-called caliphate --
in early November. Deir Ezzor province lies just east of Raqa, and is almost
completely held by IS. The jihadists also hold most of the provincial capital by
the same name, and have been battling regime forces to overrun the city. The SDF
alliance is dominated by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), but it
also boasts several units of Arab fighters. "We have entered the first villages
of Deir Ezzor province," said Abu Khawlah, who heads the 1,700-strong Deir Ezzor
Military Council, an Arab component of the SDF. "Our entry into Deir Ezzor was a
big surprise (for IS), and there will be more surprises coming," he said. The
SDF, which has been lobbying for weapons to help them carry out the offensive,
has recently received armored SUVs from the United States. A U.S.-led coalition
has been carrying out air strikes on IS in Syria and neighboring Iraq since
2014. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Tuesday's advance was the
SDF's "biggest incursion" yet into Deir Ezzor province. It also reported 11
people killed on Tuesday in unidentified air strikes on a gas station and
parking garage in an IS-held village in the province. "The death toll could rise
because there are at least 35 people wounded, some of them in critical
condition," monitor head Rami Abdel Rahman said. He could not specify which
airplanes had carried out the bombing raids. The province has been targeted in
the past by both the U.S.-led coalition and regime ally Russia, who has been
waging an air war in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad since September
2015. More than 310,000 people have been killed since Syria's conflict erupted
in March 2011 with protests calling for Assad's ouster.
Russia, Ukraine Clash over Tribute to Late U.N. Ambassador
Churkin
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 22/17/Russia and Ukraine
clashed on Tuesday over a U.N. Security Council tribute to long-serving Russian
ambassador Vitaly Churkin whose death has triggered an outpouring of grief at
the world body. Council ambassadors observed a minute of silence in honor of
Churkin and took turns addressing the chamber in the tribute to the 64-year-old
diplomat who was Russia's envoy at the United Nations for a decade. Ukraine's
Ambassador Volodymyr Yelchenko, who holds this month's council presidency,
offered condolences before leading the council in a moment of silence, but his
remarks were brief. The council issued a statement saying they were deeply
saddened by Churkin's passing but Ukraine blocked plans to release a formal
presidential statement that carries more weight. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow that Ukraine's refusal to allow the
statement was "un-Christian" and "goes beyond the limits of good and evil,"
Interfax reported. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov took a swipe at the
Ukrainians, saying "God will be their judge," but added the spat over the
statement was "not as important as the loss for Russia" of their star diplomat.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said a simple press statement marking
Churkin's passing was "appropriate" and made clear Kiev could not put aside its
bitterness over Churkin's staunch defense of the Kremlin's policy. A skilled
diplomat, Churkin had defended Moscow's actions in the conflicts in Ukraine and
in Syria, in the face of fierce Western criticism at the Security Council. "We
all know that we had a different idea about how to serve our country," Klimkin
told reporters. "We had a fundamental difference, and I mean a fundamental
difference, in the way that he presented his position."More than 10,000 people
have been killed in the war in east Ukraine, where pro-Russia separatist
fighters are battling Kiev's government troops. U.N. Secretary General Antonio
Guterres joined the council in paying homage to Churkin, describing him as "an
outstanding diplomat" and "an extraordinary human being."He had "a remarkable
sense of humor and an enormous warmth that would make us all feel a natural
tendency to become friends," said Guterres. Churkin collapsed on Monday while at
work at the Russian mission in New York and was rushed to a Manhattan hospital.
He died a day before his 65th birthday.
U.N. Concerned over New West Bank Demolition Plans
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 22/17/The United Nations raised concerns
Wednesday over newly announced demolition plans in a Palestinian Bedouin village
in the occupied West Bank that threaten dozens of buildings including a primary
school. Israeli officials have over the past week issued dozens of demolition
orders threatening "nearly every structure" in a part of the village of Khan al-Ahmar,
the U.N. said. The United Nations humanitarian coordinator for the Palestinian
territories, Robert Piper, visited the village where the primary school is among
140 structures at risk of demolition. "Khan al-Ahmar is one of the most
vulnerable communities in the West Bank struggling to maintain a minimum
standard of living in the face of intense pressure from the Israeli authorities
to move," he said in a statement. "This is unacceptable and it must stop."
Israel says the buildings were built without permits. The U.N. says such permits
are all but impossible to obtain for Palestinians. "In the past days
construction termination warrants were served to illegal buildings in Khan Al
Ahmar," Israel's defense ministry body responsible for the Palestinian
territories said. "The enforcement will take place in coordination with state
directives and required legal certifications." Israel has occupied the West Bank
for 50 years in contravention of international law. A number of traditionally
nomadic Bedouin communities are based east of Jerusalem, where rights groups
fear demolitions could eventually clear the way for further Israeli settlement
construction.
This could partly divide the West Bank between north and south while further
isolating the territory from Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem, which the
Palestinians see as their future capital. The U.N. says there are 46 communities
in the central West Bank at risk of forcible transfer, ousting approximately
7,000 residents.
Tunisia Torture Cases Falling but Abuses Persist
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 22/17/Cases of torture in Tunisia are
falling but abuses persist in prisons and detention centers, a rights group said
Wednesday. The Tunisian Organization Against Torture (OCTT) reported 153 torture
cases in the North African country from January to November. There were 250
cases in the previous year. In a report, it accused authorities of abuses
including arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and threats or attempts at rape. The
police were responsible for more than 60 percent of the abuses, followed by
prison wardens and the National Guard, it said. "Until now, there has been no
real, concrete reform within the security and penitentiary institutions," it
said. OCTT president Radhia Nasraoui called for new laws to prevent
torture."Political parties, whether in power or in opposition, must expose the
subjects of violations and human rights," she said. Last year, a group of U.N.
experts said torture was still an issue in Tunisia but the country was "on the
right path" to tackling it.
20 Arrested as Bahrain Approves Military Trial of Civilians
Bahraini police have arrested 20 people in a crackdown on Shiite villages, as
legislators approved a constitutional amendment that could see civilians tried
in military courts in the Sunni-ruled kingdom. The lower house of parliament on
Tuesday voted in favor of a constitutional amendment which drops a clause
restricting military trials to offenses committed by members of the army, police
or other security branches. Under the amendment to Article 105, which also needs
approval in Bahrain's appointed upper house, civilians charged with "damaging
public interest" or with terrorism -- broadly defined -- could now face trial in
a military court. Bahraini authorities have made sweeping use of
counter-terrorism legislation in past weeks as they tighten their grip on
political protests, which have entered their seventh year. Between February 9
and February 19, police arrested 20 residents of Shiite villages, aged between
20 and 65 and including four women, in what the government described as a
crackdown on "terror cells." Those arrested face charges including "plotting
acts of terrorism" and aiding and abetting fugitives. Eight of them are also
charged with having "received military training on arms and the use of
explosives in Iran and Iraq." Authorities in the small but strategic archipelago
state have accused Shiite-dominated Iran of meddling in the domestic affairs of
Arab countries in the Gulf. Iran has consistently denied the charge.
Tightening grip
International rights groups have accused Bahrain of criminalizing dissent on the
Shiite-majority country, ruled for two centuries by the Al-Khalifa dynasty.
Protests demanding a constitutional monarchy with an elected government came to
the streets of Manama in mid-February 2011, centered around the famed Pearl
roundabout which authorities have since razed. Sporadic unrest has gripped the
country since and access remains largely off-limits to foreign journalists.
Demonstrations intensified following last week's anniversary of the launch of
the Manama protests which were crushed the following month with the support of
forces from neighboring Saudi Arabia. On Tuesday night, residents of Nuwaidrat
village, south of Manama, took to the streets to protest the death of Abdullah
al-Ajouz, 22, during a police raid the previous day to arrest him, witnesses
told AFP. In tightening their grip, authorities have outlawed Bahrain's Shiite
opposition and handed many of its leaders long jail terms, several on
"terrorism" charges. The main opposition al-Wefaq lost an appeal this month
against a court order dissolving the group, which was found guilty of inciting
violence, encouraging protests and "harboring terrorism."Al-Wefaq's leader
Sheikh Ali Salman has been behind bars since 2014 after being convicted of
inciting hatred. The country's Shiite spiritual leader, Sheikh Issa Qassem, was
stripped of his citizenship last year for "serving foreign interests," another
allusion to Shiite Iran.
Prominent human rights activist Nabil Rajab has been on trial for tweets deemed
hostile to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The next hearing is scheduled for March 22.
Rajab, who has been denied bail, is also charged with making false accusations
against Bahrain in a series of television interviews in which he criticized the
government.
Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published
on February 22-23/17
Trump helped Netanyahu pave road for one-state
Orly Azoulay/Ynetnews/February 22/17
Op-ed: The meeting with Trump loosened Netanyahu from the shackles of the
two-state proposal. Netanyahu doesn’t have to freeze settlement building, or
face threats and reprimands from Washington. Most importantly, he no longer has
to fake interest in a peace process based on two states. Just an hour before
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boarded his plane from Tel Aviv to meet with
US President Donald Trump for the first time, he stated, matter-of-factly: “We
have to take into account the new president’s temperament.”The White House
didn’t appreciate Netanyahu’s comment, which could be interpreted to question
Trump’s judgment, or worse, whether he's fit for the office. But Netanyahu’s
comment actually reveals more about himself than it did about his relationship
with Trump. Netanyahu was fearful of the vast unknown he was walking into.
Trump’s pronouncements, especially when it came to Israel and the Middle East,
are volatile and contradictory. Behind closed doors, would Trump give Netanyahu
a carrot, or hit him with a big stick? Would he give the green light to
settlement building, or plead—as he has before—“neutrality” with respect to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The meetings with Obama, by contrast, were far
more predictable: there was mutual disdain, clear expectations about what each
leader would say, and the only aim was to maintain appearances of a warm
relationship (mostly unsuccessfully). Netanyahu’s uncertainty about his meeting
with Trump was heightened by National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s abrupt
departure. It was Flynn who was in charge of coordinating the meeting behind the
scenes, and relaying information between the administrations.
During the meeting, Trump stunned the White House staff by departing from the
decades-long US policy regarding the two-state solution. “I’m looking at
two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like,” he said, as
if he were trying to decide whether he wanted Doritos or pretzels. This turned
to be a gift for Netanyahu. It’s understood by all that when the leader of the
free world says "one-state or two, whatever you like," the real message is: no
need for any action. Netanyahu can continue dragging his feet and maintaining
the status quo, which has been his strategy from the start when it comes to the
question of Palestinian statehood.
Netanyahu and Trump had something to bond over in their meeting: both leaders
are at a low in terms of approval ratings. Netanyahu is under serious police
investigation for corruption charges. Trump, on the other hand, had just
suffered the pushback against his draconian executive orders, and is now dealing
with a White House that looks more and more like a madhouse. It’s hard to say
whether Trump has a grasp of what the two-state proposal even looks like, and
whether he has bothered to read about it. It’s a world of a difference from Bill
Clinton, who used to pore over maps and knew the layout of east Jerusalem like
the back of his hand, or Obama, who could draw the proposed border between
Israel and the would-be Palestinian state on a napkin. Trump doesn’t seem
to understand that the one-state, under Netanyahu, would be an apartheid
state—of a different form from South Africa’s version, but apartheid
nonetheless—where Israel would rule over millions of second-class citizens, who
have no right to vote, and who have been living under brutal occupation for half
a century.
It’s no coincidence that throughout decades of US foreign policy, there’s been
bi-partisan agreement on the two-state solution. Two-states, for now, is the
only game in town. When it comes to the relationship between Israel and
Palestine, there are no magic formulas or wheels to be reinvented. But Netanyahu
has no intention of accepting a full Palestinian state. He may settle for
limited Palestinian control over some territories, but not full Palestinian
sovereignty—and for this “pseudo”-state, Netanyahu would be right to say he’s
got no partner on the Palestinian side.
The meeting with Trump loosened Netanyahu from the shackles of the two-state
proposal. Netanyahu doesn’t have to freeze settlement building, or face threats
and reprimands from Washington. Most importantly, he no longer has to fake
interest in a peace process based on two states. Netanyahu left the White House
elated. When I asked him about the meeting with Trump at a press briefing at the
Blair House, he spoke of Trump as if in love: “I met many presidents, and Trump
is the friendliest toward Israel.” When asked about two-state versus one-state,
Netanyahu made no commitments, except to say, “I don’t want to annex two million
Palestinians (in West Bank) and I don’t want them to be our citizens.”He may not
want to, but that’s what he’s doing, and now fully backed by the White House.
Sweden: Hate Speech Just for Imams
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/February 22/17
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9923/sweden-islam-hate-speech
In Sweden, comments that object to sexual violence against women in the Quran
are prosecuted, but calling homosexuality a "virus" is fine.
Antisemitism has become so socially acceptable in Sweden that anti-Semites can
get away with anything, and no one even notices, as Nima Gholam Ali Pour
reports.
One of Sweden's main news outlets, in fact, described anti-Semitism as simply a
different opinion. Clearly, in the eyes of Swedish authorities, neither
homosexuals nor Jews count for much.
Swedish authorities also give large sums of money to organizations that advocate
violence and invite hate preachers who support terrorist organizations such as
ISIS. One of the speakers SFM hired was Michael Skråmo, who has publicly called
on his fellow Muslims to join ISIS and has appeared in propaganda videos, posing
with assault rifles alongside his small children.
Are some individuals receiving preferential treatment under Sweden's "hate
speech" laws? It seems that way.
Under the Swedish Penal Code, a person can be held responsible for incitement if
a statement or representation made "threatens or disrespects an ethnic group or
other such group of persons with regards to race, color, national or ethnic
origin, religious belief or sexual orientation".
In 2015, the imam at Halmstad mosque, Abu Muadh, said that homosexuality was a
"virus" from which parents were obliged to protect their children.
The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Rights
(RFSL) filed a legal complaint in October 2015. "[M]any people are listening [to
the imam] and there is a risk that the opinions and other expressions of
homophobia will spread among believers, as they attach great importance to their
representatives' words", said Ulrika Westerlund, chairman of RFSL.
The Swedish legal establishment however, seemed entirely unconcerned; the imam
was not prosecuted.
"[F]or something to be incitement, it needs to reach a certain level and in this
context, the assessment is that this statement does not reach that level", said
Martin Inglund, acting investigation officer at Halmstad police. He added that
an assessment had been made based on freedom of religion, as well as the
European Convention on Human Rights. It took the police only one week to make
the decision not to prosecute the imam.
"It is a strange decision, said Jonnié Jonsson, chairman of RFSL Halland, "I do
not think anyone has the right to violate other people in the name of religion".
Then there is the recent case of Stefan Vestling, a local politician from the
Sweden Democrat Party. He was recently prosecuted and convicted for "incitement
against an ethnic group", when he wrote the following comment on the official
Facebook page of the Sweden Democrats Party in Norberg in December 2014:
"Muslims who have ended up in the 'diaspora' are at war. A Muslim who lives in
Sweden is thus living in a war zone, where it is allowed to rape a woman, as
this is a Muslim right according to the Quran. [A Muslim] is allowed to have sex
with women who have been conquered in war... that is to say the infidels' women
(Quran Sura 4:3, 4:24). Easiest for 'Swedish' horny Muslims is of course to join
ISIS where they can have their sick, devilish desires fully satisfied".
The prosecutor failed to convince the district court that Vestling had committed
a crime. "Freedom of expression includes the right to convey such information
and opinions and ideas that offend shock or disturb" the court wrote in its
ruling. However, at the Court of Appeals in Svea, in December 2016, the court
found that Vestling's post had been offensive to Muslims. The appeals court
seemingly had no problem with the first part of Vestling's post. It was the last
sentence, "Easiest for 'Swedish' horny Muslims is of course to join ISIS where
they can have their sick, devilish desires fully satisfied", which was
considered to be in violation of the Penal Code. Vestling was handed a suspended
jail sentence and a fine. He has appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court.
Both the statements made by Abu Muadh and the statements made by Stefan Vestling
were offensive; yet the Swedish authorities ended up protecting the imam from
legal repercussions, even though prosecuting him would send an important signal
to other Muslim preachers who view homosexuality in a similar way. That they do
has been documented by a Swedish-Muslim blogger, who wrote:
During my years as a Muslim, I have visited several Swedish mosques from north
to south. In all the mosques, homophobia was the norm. I have heard worse things
than "homosexuality is a virus." In no mosque, I repeat not one, have I come
across teachings that tolerate homosexuality... The fact that the media act as
if they were astonished [at Abu Muadh's statement] shows how little contact they
have with Muslim environments in Sweden. For those who have been on the
"inside", who have visited mosques and spent time with Muslims who are active in
the mosques, the imam's views [sound] completely mainstream.
Swedish experts largely consider Abu Muadh a radical, who moves in Salafist
circles and has encouraged jihad, glorifying martyrdom in the battle to spread
Islam. In a video clip on YouTube, he urges people who have "sinned" to wage
jihad to be forgiven by God. In an interview with Hallandsposten in June 2016,
he said that Muslims should not befriend unbelievers. He has argued that Muslims
must not emulate the dress and haircuts of "kuffars" (infidels) and has declared
95% of all TV programs "haram" (forbidden).
In Sweden, comments that object to sexual violence against women in the Quran
are prosecuted, but calling homosexuality a "virus" is fine.
Homosexuals are not the only ones to find themselves among those groups that
Swedish society apparently no longer count as minorities worthy of protection.
Anti-Semitism has become so socially acceptable in Sweden that anti-Semites can
get away with anything, and no one even notices, as Nima Gholam Ali Pour
reports. One of Sweden's main news outlets, in fact, described antisemitism as
simply a different opinion. Clearly, neither homosexuals nor Jews count for much
in the eyes of Swedish authorities.
In addition, Swedish authorities give large sums of money to organizations that
invite hate preachers who support terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al
Qaeda.
The Gothenburg-based nonprofit organization, Swedish Federation of Muslims (SFM,)
was handed a government subsidy of 535,200 SEK [$60,000] in 2016. This is in
addition to 150,000 SEK [$17,000] that SFM received from the city of Gothenburg.
SFM applied for the money "to combat Islamophobia", which the organization
considers "one of the biggest problems in Sweden right now". One of the speakers
SFM hired was Michael Skråmo, who has publicly called on his fellow Muslims to
join ISIS. Now, calling himself Abdul Samad al Swedi, he has appeared in
propaganda videos, posing with Kalashnikov assault rifles alongside his small
children, outside Kobane in Syria. Abu Muadh is also a regular speaker.
Michael Skråmo, a Swedish convert and ISIS jihadist, brought his family to
Syria. He has also urged Muslims in Sweden to bomb their workplaces.
Terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp said that he was surprised that SFM had been
awarded state grants. "I see lots of question marks. We're talking about a group
that invited hate preachers, whose Salafist orientation is in many ways the
opposite of tolerance", he said. The decision to award SFM government subsidies
also runs counter to the government's agreement with the four conservative
Alliance parties that no public money should go to advocate violence.
What is the Swedish authorities' response to the official granting of money to
organizations that host extremists? "Of course this is serious, and it is our
view that this must be factored into future contribution assessments", said
Daniel Norlander, chief secretary of the National Authority Against Violent
Extremism. The authority apparently does not think that the money should be
returned or that there should be any sanctions. After all, we are only talking
about preachers of violent jihad.
*Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Triangle of underdevelopment at the World Government
Summit
Turki Aldakhil/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
The outcome and topics of the World Government Summit have been consistent with
developments in the region. There have been strange and scary transformations,
which shook many countries across the region while the United Arab Emirates and
Gulf countries remained strong and solid and maintained whatever is left of
institutions in the Arab world. The subject of development was brought up and
His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid further explained it. He referred to
late Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s attempts to create a model of a city that
resembles Dubai.
His Highness sent a delegation to sit with Libyan officials after an Arab
country requested so out of its desire to quit living in the past and enter the
present with all its ramifications and difficulties. However, the delegation was
shocked of the Libyan officials’ interest in making profits. This made working
in a financially corrupt environment extremely difficult.“If a project costs 100
million, some insist it costs 1,000 million. Why do they do so?” Sheikh Mohammed
bin Rashid asked. He said: “prevention of corruption” is the reason behind
Dubai’s and the UAE’s developmental experience and vowed to prevent corruption
from infiltrating institutions. “I and my brother Mohammed bin Zayed will not
accept corruption in the country,” he said.
Qaddafi’s dream
Qaddafi’s dream of building a city like Dubai evaporated due to corrosive
corruption and destruction, which pulled down institutions due to benefits and
favoritism. Development is impossible amid such corrupt circumstances. One of
the other discussed topics was terrorism. We heard the story of colleague
Abdullah bin Bijad al-Otibi with Yusef al-Ayeri, the leader of al-Qaeda
organization in the Arabian Peninsula. Ayeri’s eyes were evil as he looked at
Otibi the last time they met in a restaurant in eastern Riyadh. During the
lecture he delivered at the summit, Otibi said indignation was the most
dangerous evil, which ignites terrorism and he cited a quote that proves Sayyid
Qutb’s role in nurturing violence and terrorism in the world.
Through strong and systematic education, we can maintain what we have managed to
build in Gulf countries and propose this model for the rest of the Arab world –
if they choose to follow it “I will remain indignant. If it were up to me, I’d
establish double the schools which the government has built in order to teach
people one thing: discontent. If it were up to me, I’d establish a school to
teach discontent over this generation of politicians and over those writers and
journalists whom are said to be opinion leaders in the country ... I’d establish
a school to teach discontent over those ministers,” Qutb said.
As for cultural growth, thinker Ibrahim al-Buleihi spoke about advancement
barriers. He’s done a great job describing the problem as underdevelopment is
some sort of falling backwards. He voiced the importance of education at
correcting and not adding perception as right information is gained through
efforts and awareness and not automatically.
Underdevelopment
Every society thinks it is the best even if it happens to be the worst case of
underdevelopment. Education must not guard existing perceptions, opinions and
habits but it must take the path toward change and pave other ways that go
beyond common patterns and blind indoctrination.
Development, resisting extremism and cultural and educational growth are what we
need most in our region. Illiteracy is rising due to wars in Syria, Libya and
Iraq, and there are also security challenges. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin
Rashid noted the UAE’s ability to confront these challenges through appropriate
means considering it is ready. As for cultural growth, it entirely depends on
societies. Will they walk against history and head for extinction or pave the
way of redemption? It is important to believe in visions proposed about tackling
corruption and to be convinced of how dangerous corruption is for sustainable
development. Rising from economic setbacks has been impossible for countries
rich in natural resources and food industries but drowned in corruption. The
World Government Summit discussed the triangle of hazards, corruption, terrorism
and ignorance. Each disease has its vaccine that are transparency, tolerance and
openness. Through strong and systematic education, we can maintain what we have
managed to build in Gulf countries and propose this model for the rest of the
Arab world – if they choose to follow it. Only those who do not know the
impossible know ambition.
*This article was first published in Al-Bayan on Feb. 22, 2016.
The UAE and the formulas of power and success
Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
The United Arab Emirates’ international and regional power formulas are a lot
different than the past. It is currently a very strong and influential state
thanks to the awareness of its leaders, special alliances and rapid development.
The UAE has emerged as a model to the world of our times.
Under the leadership of President His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al
Nahyan, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum and His Highness
Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed efforts are on to further develop this model of a
state. They are fully aware and keen to chart the future with innovative
solutions to all the problems the world suffers from. Keenness to undertake
development projects and succeeding at innovation are important traits but what
is parallel to it is maintaining heritage and culture and strengthening values.
Adhering to the tenets of Islam and defending it is parallel to openness and
co-existence with all religions, cultures and civilizations. As the world takes
pride in modern communication, the UAE takes pride in embracing different
nationalities, which amounts to more than those recognized by an international
organization the size of the UN.
The World Government Summit recently concluded in Dubai. The International
Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) kicked off in Abu Dhabi. This is an
effective way to build and develop the Emirati model, which can be added to
other models of cultural, political, military and economic development in modern
times, such as the Japanese or Singaporean models or other models around the
world.
Conscious thoughts and comprehensive vision are what make nations, governments
and people’s lives different. Finding creative solutions to realistic and
philosophical problems are what either push toward success and victory or loss
and defeat. Imagination and its capacity to deliver must be governed by balanced
realism and rationalism in order to achieve distinguished success and create a
unique model. The UAE found its special solution focusing on development in all
its dimensions and which, at the same time, depends on gradual political
development. This is an exemplary solution for many countries in the region.
It’s a solution through which future can be easily foreseen without having to
leap into the unknown. The models that sought to leap into democracy are
shameful models. The Afghani and Iraqi models are examples of this and they do
not inspire anyone across the world.
Keenness to undertake development projects and succeeding at innovation are
important traits but what is parallel to it is maintaining heritage and culture
and strengthening values
Tradition and modernity
The UAE has also created its special solution in terms of tradition and
modernism. The UAE is a modern and civil state by all standards. There is
tolerance and co-existence among all religions and cultures and everyone finds
their chance there on the condition that they abide by law and do not harm
anyone.
At the same time, many programs have been launched and included in the work of
governments, public institutions, charity organizations and others to teach
young people the established habits, inherited traditions, values and high
morals. The aim is to raise generations that stand on solid ground in terms of
their awareness and culture and that look forward to a bright future. As for the
military aspect, the Emirati army has been well-known for its efficient
participation in UN forces in different areas across the world, such as its
participation in the second Gulf war, liberation of Kuwait in addition to its
participation in Bosnia and Afghanistan. All this was culminates into its major
participation in the Operation Decisive Storm, which aims to restore legitimacy
in Yemen by working with the Arab coalition. The UAE is the second country,
after Saudi Arabia, to fully participate in defeating Iran’s agents, Houthi
militias and forces loyal to deposed president Ali Abdullah Saleh, in Yemen. As
a result, victory is near. This is the Emirati model, which despite all its
distinctions, continues to undergo development and renewal.
**This article is also available in Arabic.
Are Green Zone powers aware of this?
Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
As Iraq launched an offensive to liberate West Mosul, General Stephen Townsend,
commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, said in a
statement published by the American embassy in Baghdad on Sunday that the
coalition supporting Iraqi troops is made up of “more than 65 nations unified to
defeat ISIS.”This strengthens the Iraqis’ hope that this terrorist
organization’s defeat will be certain and that their armed forces will crush
ISIS - as long as it has the support of 65 countries - including all
superpowers.
However, this statement also highlights a major paradox. As the world unites to
support us on the military, intelligence, political and financial fronts, and to
enable us to liberate ourselves and our cities and territories from this
terrorist beast we, on the domestic front, which is the most important in this
war like every other war, are not united. There aren’t even the lowest levels of
harmony to achieve a coherent domestic front that provides strong support or at
least moral support to the troops which are fighting battles and paving the way
towards the peace and stability which are required post-ISIS phase that will be
decisive in deciding Iraq’s fate and future. How many politicians and members of
parliament will at least control their words and abstain from sectarian
incitement? How many television channels and dailies - which are funded by these
parties and their leaders from mostly stolen public funds – will calm down and
stop propagating hate speech?
Quarrels and propaganda wars
Today, political parties, particularly those which are influential in authority,
seem to be busy with their disputes over power, influence and money – just like
they’ve always been. They’re preoccupied with their quarrels and propaganda wars
which are often insulting. These struggles go beyond the society’s components,
Shiite, Sunnis, Kurds and others and include those who present themselves as the
only legitimate representative of these “components.” There are struggles,
quarrels and moral and political battles among different political Islam
parties, whether Shiites or Sunnis. This is also the case among Kurdish, Turkmen
and Assyrian-Chaldean groups. These parties, groups and blocs are busy with
their partisan interests and are preoccupied with their leaders’ personal
concerns. They don’t look after public concerns or national interests as their
entire focus is on gains and posts. They seem uninterested in the details of the
national liberation war that’s currently happening in Mosul. Follow up on this
matter from now on and count how many politicians and members of parliament,
including Nineveh politicians and politicians of the Sunni “components,” will
bother traveling to the liberated eastern side of Mosul or neighboring areas to
personally supervise the course of battles and manage the services provided to
those displaced? How many politicians and members of parliament will at least
control their words and abstain from sectarian incitement? How many television
channels and dailies - which are funded by these parties and their leaders from
mostly stolen public funds – will calm down and stop propagating hate speech?
The 65 nations working with the coalition provide military, logistical and
political support to troops fighting to liberate Mosul. However if 10 or 15
influential parties quit their struggle over authority, money and power, it will
be as important, if not more so, than what these 65 countries provide. Are the
Green Zone powers aware of this?
When a politician falls by his sword he should put his
public persona to rest
Trisha de Borchgrave/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech last week, in which he
pronounced it his “mission” to persuade his fellow citizens to “rise up” and
change their minds on Brexit, will have a minimal impact on rallying Remainers,
and even less on convincing Brexiteers.
The backlash against expert thinking during the referendum campaign is still
felt when it comes to taking direction from an ex-prime minister, especially
when most Britons across the political spectrum view Tony Blair as the leader
who dragged the country into a disastrous war not of their own choosing and
certainly not of their own wanting. So his grasp of Brexit as a complex and
historically significant event, with far-reaching implications for British
security and prosperity, comes across as unsolicited advice from the reckless
decision-maker of fourteen years ago.
Many of the three million who signed a petition to remain in the EU following
the Brexit vote also marched on the streets of Britain in 2003 to protest
against his commitment to back President George W Bush. And, for Brexiteers,
Blair’s informed reasoning is the cherry-picking trickery that hoodwinked them
over the war in Iraq that now blind-sides what they clearly see as their right
to uphold their decision to leave the EU.
There are understandable reasons why he feels he should step in. His Labour
Party is non-functional, with a leader who is at best indifferent to the EU; the
Conservatives are ignoring the interests of the 48 percent who voted to remain;
Europe’s cohesion is under threat, facing a series of populist-led elections and
thrown off balance by an authoritarian US president who equates Russia with
America’s allies, and a NATO alliance that seems powerless in the face of
Russian aggression in Ukraine and growing interference in its ex-Soviet
satellites. Blair’s intervention on Brexit is further complicated by his role in
creating some of the woes that swayed Britons to abandon the EU. Not only did he
strongly support the EU’s enlargement he then contributed to the overwhelming
feeling of powerlessness and loss of national identity
‘Citizens of nowhere’
Blair, however, has become the personification of May’s “citizens of nowhere”;
speaking with an accent that hovers above the waters of the mid-Atlantic, making
statements that may accurately reflect the complexities of an inter-connected
world but that have little to do with the everyday reality of the
opportunity-starved, and possessing the personal wealth that under the
auspicious appointment of “Middle East envoy” grew by the millions in contrast
to his lackluster performance in the job. Britons’ animosity is such that his
sagacious imploring to re-consider the decision to leave the EU is no reparation
for the true act of contrition he has avoided even in the wake of the verdict of
the Chilcot Inquiry.
Sometimes politicians need to accept that they will never be appreciated again,
let alone exert influence. Just as former Conservative Prime Minister David
Cameron will be judged in future history books as having risked the undoing of
his country and Europe in the name of political ambition, with just a footnote
about his earnest belief in the “big society”, so Blair will be forever tainted
with a war that people were deceived into supporting by means of double-speak
and arm-twisting. His argument that Brexiteers were fed unsubstantiated and
misleading facts by the Leave campaigners smacks of hypocrisy.
Blair’s intervention on Brexit is further complicated by his role in creating
some of the woes that swayed Britons to abandon the EU. Not only did he strongly
support the EU’s enlargement to ten new countries in 2004 - mostly from Europe’s
much poorer east - he then contributed to the overwhelming feeling of
powerlessness and loss of national identity that motivated many Brexiteers by
choosing to open access for immigration into Britain from these countries.
The Brexiteers impression
While other EU member states chose to implement the process over a seven-year
period, 1 million people arrived on British shores in two years, leading to the
palpable impression among many Brexiteers that they were sidelined when it came
to public sector services and benefits, in favor of EU nationals. A talented
negotiator-tactician can still make strategic mistakes.
Furthermore, in 2006, Blair reneged on his promise to hold a referendum that
would decide Britain’s ratification of the proposed treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe. He instead supported the new Lisbon Treaty that
parliament voted in without a referendum. This helped generate the obsessive
Conservative fervor and UKIP momentum to re-capture the chance to hold one.
Blair primed the gun; Cameron pulled the trigger.The thick-skinned hutzpah that
drives politicians to secure a seat at the cabinet table, or indeed the
premiership, can often prevent them from deferring to their new status if they
should fall from grace. Even with the combined experience, magnanimity and
wisdom of their older selves, those who die politically were never wise or
selfless enough when it mattered; few ever re-gain trustworthiness in the
limelight, and rarely get a second chance. Blair’s mind and experience should be
put to good use, at most as a byline, and more importantly, in dogged, quiet
legwork behind the scenes in formulating persuasive arguments that others can
voice and express. A dinner lady from Stoke-on-Trent, where 70 percent voted to
leave, has genuinely more chance of converting the swathe of Britain that is
blind and deaf to the exertions of Blairite rationalising. Then again, it might
be too much to ask from a man who is atonal to the divisive effects of his name;
a name that today blocks a country’s receptors to the perilous consequences of
Brexit.
Change or be changed and opportunity for Arab youth
Khaled Almaeena/Al Arabiya/February 22/17
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is one of the few Arab leaders who calls a
spade a spade. He puts forward ideas that are relevant, not only to the present
but to the future. Addressing a panel of the World Government Summit held in
Dubai, he said that the Arab world possesses great potential including human
resources, education, fertile lands and willpower. The only thing missing is
management: the management of governments, economy, resources, infrastructure
and even sports. We are 300 million strong, almost equal to the population of
the USA, but look how many medals they win in the Olympic Games. We have
failures in certain areas that need to be addressed. He could not be more right.
The Arab world despite its “brimming coffers lacks one thing which money cannot
buy – leadership.” This was a line in an editorial in the London Telegraph after
the June 1967 War.
And here today leadership would apply to management, which Sheikh Mohammed bin
Rashid referred to as the missing link. And leaders, innovators and pioneers can
only be nurtured in societies that are free and where critical thinking is
encouraged from childhood. And this is what we should all strive for, and what
should be the prime goal of those in power. Communities grow, develop and
perform when people are made to realize that they are stakeholders in society
and when the decision-making process encompasses their ideas and thoughts
Security and economy
Security and stability come only when there is a flourishing economy and where
the free flow of ideas and thoughts are encouraged. Societal development occurs
when people’s ideas and opinions are not strapped and harnessed. Communities
grow, develop and perform when people are made to realize that they are
stakeholders in society and when the decision-making process encompasses their
ideas and thoughts. It is critical that diversity be the pillar of society that
will then enhance its growth. Arab governments should realize that no matter
what their power or size, they cannot hold on to power without the will and
aspiration of the youth. Hence, their attention should be focused on the young.
Gone are the days of totalitarianism and one-man rule, as social media is the
equalizer and this tool should be utilized to spread goodness rather than become
a vehicle for extremism. Around me, I see young men and women, second to none.
They want to participate in nation building. They are not less than their
counterparts in the West and the East. All that they need is an opportunity.
It’s time to give them that.
**This article was first published in the Saudi Gazette on February 19, 2016.
Jews Under Assault in Europe
Robbie Travers/Gatestone Institute/February 22/17
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9882/jews-attacks-europe
A German court actually ruled that firebombing a place where Jews worship is
somehow different from attacking Jews.
Why was the Israeli embassy not attacked, rather than a synagogue whose
worshippers were presumably not Israeli? Presumably the worshippers were German.
What happened in the German court was pure Nazi-think and the most undisguised
antisemitism: that Jews are supposedly not Germans.
Meanwhile, another German Court again rejected an action against your friendly
neighborhood "sharia police."
In Germany, it seems, firebombing synagogues is merely "anti-Israeli" even if
there are no Israelis there, and "police" who use Islamic sharia law -- without
legal authority and within a system of law that persecutes women, Christians,
Jews and others -- are acceptable and legal.
The anti-Semitism facing Jews at UK universities led the Baroness Deech to
declare British University campuses "no-go zones" for Jews.
Simply defining and identifying anti-Semitism is only the start. It is also
necessary to start tackling the anti-Semitic attitudes of Islamic communities
across Europe and the attitudes of immigrants coming to our nations.
What needs to be made clear is that you are welcome here as long as you respect
Jews, Christians and all others, as well.
Antonio Tajani, the new President of the European Parliament, has made a bold
opening statement of intent: "No Jew should be forced to leave Europe." While
this is an admirable position to hold, it sadly could not be farther from the
truth. The poison of anti-Semitism festers in Europe once again.
Europe is seeing yet again another rise in the number of Jews leaving the
continent. Jonathan Boyd, Executive Director of the Institute of Jewish Policy
Research (IJPR), notes that the number of Jews leaving France is "unprecedented"
The results of the study show that 4% of the French and Belgian Jewish
populations had emigrated those countries to reside in Israel.
The IJPR attributes this demographic transformation to the inflow of migrants
from the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Is this really surprising?
Sadly, when individuals come from nations that have culturally a high dislike of
Jews, many of these immigrants might hold anti-Semitic views that eventually get
spread.
In France, anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled between 2014 and 2015, from
423 reported incidents to 851. From January to July, anti-Semitic incidents in
the UK increased by 11% according to the UK's Common Security Trust. And this
prejudice is increasing.
With such spikes in Jew-hatred, is it surprising that Jews are leaving Europe?
Equally concerning is Europe's blindness to this anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitic graffiti [Illustrative]. (Image source: Beny Shlevich/Flickr)
Recently, a German court decided that the firebombing of a synagogue in
Wuppertal was only the expression of "anti-Israeli sentiment."
Really? Why, then, was not the Israeli embassy attacked rather than a synagogue
whose worshippers presumably were not Israeli? They worshippers were German.
What happened in the German court was pure Nazi-think: the most undisguised
anti-Semitism: that Jews supposedly are not Germans.
The old wine of pure anti-Semitism is now dressed up in new "politically
correct" bottles of criticism of Israel. At heart, however, it is your
grandmother's same old Jew-hate, much of it still based on racist tropes. The
Jews in that firebombed synagogue were German nationals and may have had
absolutely no links to Israel. They do however, have a connection to Judaism.
The German court actually ruled that that attacking a place where Jews worship
is somehow different from attacking Jews. Your pet slug would not believe that.
Meanwhile, another German Court again rejected an action against your friendly
neighborhood "sharia police."
In Germany, it seems, burning down synagogues is merely "anti-Israeli" even if
there are no Israelis there, but "police" who use Islamic sharia law -- without
legal authority and within a system of law that persecutes women, Christians,
Jews and others -- are acceptable and legal.
And people cannot understand why Jews are leaving Europe?
Even though German authorities evidently struggle to identify anti-Semitism, the
Israeli government claims there has been an 50% increase in anti-Semitic
incidents in Germany just since 2015.
Jew-hatred in Europe is spreading to the workplace and the hubs of supposedly
enlightened discourse: universities. At Goldsmith's University, students
scrawled on a public feedback board that they wanted "No more David Hirsch, no
more Zionism -- a bitter Jew."
The message and tone here is clear: Jews are not welcome. The suggestion that
academics would also not be welcome because of their religion is deeply worrying
and should be unacceptable.
Goldsmith's have since condemned the action, but it is telling that someone felt
he could comfortably post such anti-Jewish abuse. The anti-Semitism facing Jews
at UK universities led the Baroness Deech to declare British University campuses
"no-go zones" for Jews.
Students at Exeter University wear T-shirts glorifying the Holocaust; the Labour
Party Chair at Oxford University commendably resigned over members calling
Auschwitz a "cash cow" and mocking the mourners of the Paris terrorist attacks;
SOAS University is under investigation for lectures likening Zionism to Nazism
and delusionally arguing that it was Zionists who were conspiring to increase
anti-Semitism to encourage Jews to leave the UK and go to Israel.
The Israeli government also believes there was an increase in anti-Semitic
incidents in Britain by 62%.
While it is praiseworthy that UK Prime Minister Theresa May has backed and
adopted a new definition of anti-Semitism to attempt to deal with the rising
hate crime, simply defining and identifying anti-Semitism is only the start. It
is also necessary to start tackling the anti-Semitic attitudes of Islamic
communities across Europe and the attitudes of immigrants coming to our nations.
What needs to be made clear is that you are welcome here as long as you respect
Jews, Christians and all others, as well.
**Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director
of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student
at the University of Edinburgh.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Israel Does Not Cause Anti-Semitism
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/February 22/17
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9977/israel-does-not-cause-anti-semitism
In a recent letter to the New York Times, the current Earl of Balfour, Roderick
Balfour, argued that it is Israel's fault that there is "growing anti-Semitism
around the world." Balfour, who is a descendent of Arthur Balfour, the British
Foreign Secretary who wrote the Balfour Declaration a hundred years ago, wrote
the following: "the increasing inability of Israel to address [the condition of
Palestinians], coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish
settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world." He
argued further that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "owes it to the millions
of Jews around the world" who suffer anti-Semitism, to resolve the
Israel-Palestine conflict.
This well-intentioned but benighted view is particularly ironic in light of the
fact that the Balfour Declaration had, as one of its purposes, to end
anti-Semitism around the world by creating a homeland for the Jewish people. But
now the scion of Lord Balfour is arguing that it is Israel that is causing
anti-Semitism.
Roderick Balfour's views are simply wrong both as a matter of fact and as a
matter of morality. Anyone who hates Jews "around the world" because they
disagree with the policy of Israel would be ready to hate Jews on the basis of
any pretext. Modern day anti-Semites, unlike their forbearers, need to find
excuses for their hatred, and anti-Zionism has become the excuse de jure.
To prove the point, let us consider other countries: has there been growing
anti-Chinese feelings around the world as the result of China's occupation of
Tibet? Is there growing hatred of Americans of Turkish background because of
Turkey's unwillingness to end the conflict in Cypress? Do Europeans of Russian
background suffer bigotry because of Russia's invasion of Crimea? The answer to
all these questions is a resounding no. If Jews are the only group that suffers
because of controversial policies by Israel, then the onus lies on the
anti-Semites rather than on the nation state of the Jewish people.
Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu's responsibility is to the safety and security of
Israelis. Even if it were true that anti-Semitism is increasing as the result of
Israeli policies, no Israeli policy should ever be decided based on the reaction
of bigots around the world. Anti-Semitism, the oldest of bigotries, will persist
as long as it is seen to be justified by apologists like Roderick Balfour.
Thought Balfour does not explicitly justify anti-Semitism, the entire thrust of
his letter is that Jew hatred is at least understandable in light of Israel's
policies.
Balfour doesn't say a word about the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership
to accept Israel's repeated offers of statehood to the Palestinians. From 1938
through 2008, the Palestinians have been offered and repeatedly rejected
agreements that would have given them statehood. Even today, the Palestinian
leadership refuses to accept Netanyahu's offer to sit down and negotiate a final
status agreement without any pre-conditions. Nor does Balfour mention Hamas,
Hezbollah, and other terrorists groups that constantly threaten Israel, along
with Iran's publicly declared determination to destroy the state that Lord
Balfour helped to create. It's all Israel's fault, according to Balfour, and the
resulting increase in anti-Semitism is Israel's fault as well.
Roderick Balfour ends his letter by essentially joining the boycott movement
against Israel. He has declared his unwillingness to participate in the
Centenary Celebration of the Balfour Declaration, until and unless Israel takes
unilateral action to end the conflict. So be it. I am confident that the author
of the Balfour Declaration would have willing participated in this celebration,
recognizing that no country in history has ever contributed more to the world –
in terms of medical, technological, environmental and other innovations -- in so
short a period of time (69 years) than has Israel. Nor has any country, faced
with comparable threats, ever been more generous in its offers of peace, more
committed to the Rule of Law, or more protective of civilians who are used as
human shields by those who attack its civilians.
So let the Celebration of the Balfour Declaration go forward without the
participation of Roderick Balfour. Let Israel continue to offer a peaceful
resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians. And let the Palestinians
finally come to the bargaining table, and recognize Israel as the Nation State
of the Jewish people in the way that the Balfour Declaration intended.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Christopher C. Hull/The White House Commission on Radical
Islam: A Recommendation
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/?p=52635
Middle East Forum Plans Out a "White House Commission on
Radical Islam"
News from the Middle East Forum
February 22, 2017
http://www.meforum.org/6544/mef-white-house-commission-radical-islam
PHILADELPHIA – February 22, 2017 – Six months ago, Donald Trump announced his
intention to "establish a commission on radical Islam" early in his presidency,
designed to investigate and explain the "core convictions and beliefs of radical
Islam," identify "warning signs of radicalization," and expose "the networks in
our society that support radicalization."
In an effort to aid President Trump in implementing this pledge, the Middle East
Forum has prepared a comprehensive plan (view online here or download here) for
a White House Commission on Radical Islam.
Written by Christopher C. Hull, a former congressional staffer, the plan centers
around:
· Structure: To be successful, the commission must consist of members selected
by the president and have the power to subpoena documents, compel testimony, and
grant immunity.
· Personnel: The commission should include a mix of experts on political
violence, radical Islam, and technology; elected officials and members of the
military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic communities; Muslim
reformers; and victims of radical Islam.
· Mandate: The commission should expand on Trump's commitment to explain the
core convictions of Islamists, expose their networks, and develop new protocols
for law enforcement. In addition, it should examine how to cut off resources
flowing to Islamists; how to deny them use of the Internet; how to prevent them
from crossing our borders; and how to prevent political correctness from
impeding the fight against radical Islam.
· Implementation: To be effective, the commission must coordinate with federal
agencies to gather data, draft executive orders and legislation, provide
supporting documents, prepare requests for proposals, recommend personnel, and
work out budgets.
The Forum plan emphasizes that the overall goal of the White House Commission on
Radical Islam should be to bring the American people together around a common
understanding of their adversary and how it can be defeated.
The Middle East Forum is dedicated to promoting American interests in the Middle
East and protecting the West from Middle Eastern threats. It does so through
intellectual, activist, and philanthropic efforts.
For more information, contact:
Laura Frank, Communications Director
Frank@MEForum.org
The White House Commission on Radical Islam: A
Recommendation
Christopher C. Hull/February 22, 2017
Executive Summary
Context
Section 1: How Should the Commission Be Structured?
Section 2: What Should the Commission's Mandate Be?
Section 3: Whom Should the Commission Include?
Section 4: How Should the Commission Charge the Government with Implementing Its
Recommendations?
Appendix A: Full Text of Donald J. Trump's Speech on Radical Islam
Appendix B: Selected Presidential Commissions
Appendix C: Sample Executive Order
Appendix D: The Case of the United Kingdom
About the Author
Executive Summary
This paper for the Middle East Forum (MEF) lays out a responsible approach to
implementing President Donald J. Trump's commitment to create a domestic
commission focused on halting the spread of what he termed "radical Islam."[1]
In August 2016, Donald Trump gave a speech on how to "Make America Safe Again"
in which he said, "One of my first acts as President will be to establish a
commission on radical Islam." This paper lays out a responsible approach to
establishing such a commission.
How should the commission be structured?
A responsible commission would be housed in the White House, with members
selected by the President and a chairman reporting to the National Security
Advisor. The commission should include as ex-officio members the Attorney
General, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of the CIA, and Secretary of
Defense, with a designated liaison from each; be empowered by a joint resolution
of Congress to subpoena documents, compel testimony, and grant immunity; and be
prepared that its reports may be used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
The President should delegate responsibility for taking action to his National
Security Advisor. Finally, the commission should be charged to hold field
hearings at sites of important jihadi strikes and events revealing Islamist
subversion.
What should the commission's mandate be?
The commission's mandate should be to explain the core convictions of radical
Islam; chart how Islamists recruit and deploy jihadis and expose networks that
support "radicalization"; develop new protocols for police officers, federal
investigators, and immigration screeners; examine "political correctness" and
how to deal with the problem of radical Islam in an honest way; explore where
radical Islam gets its resources and how they can be cut off; seek ways to deny
radical Islam use of the Internet; recommend what changes should be made to
immigration practices; and summarize how America and its allies can halt the
spread of radical Islam's and ultimately defeat it.
Whom should the commission include?
The commission should include experts on terrorism and radical Islam; voices for
reforming Islam; current or former elected officials; representatives of law
enforcement, intelligence, the military and/or the diplomatic community;
representatives of the technology industry; and victims of radical Islam and
their families.
IV. How Should the Commission Charge the Government with Implementing Its
Recommendations?
Agencies that provide a liaison should be tasked with preparing raw data and
materials for each topic the commission considers. Then, for each of the reports
that it prepares, the commission should produce drafts of supporting documents
such as executive orders; legislation; law enforcement referrals; requests for
proposal (RFPs); memos to state and/or local governments; recommended personnel
changes; and recommended budget changes.
Speaking in Youngstown, Ohio on August 15, 2016, President Trump pledged to
establish "a commission on radical Islam" if elected president.
The Context: Making America Safe Again
On August 15, 2016, then-Republican presidential nominee Trump gave a speech in
Youngstown, Ohio on how to "Make America Safe Again." President Trump began the
speech, "In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and
Communism. Now, a different threat challenges our world: radical Islamic
terrorism."
Trump ticked off Islamist attacks, first in America then in Europe, and other
atrocities Islamic State was committing in pursuit of what he called the
"hateful ideology of radical Islam." He charged that "Anyone who cannot condemn
the hatred, oppression and violence of radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to
serve as our President." Finally, he called for a "new approach, which must be
shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in
the Middle East," namely "to halt the spread of radical Islam."[2]
In that speech, President Trump made this specific commitment:
[O]ne of my first acts as President will be to establish a commission on radical
Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will
hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American
public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to identify the
warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that
support radicalization. This commission will be used to develop new protocols
for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.[3]
Foreshadowing such a shift, on February 2, 2017 Reuters reported that the Trump
administration "wants to revamp and rename" the Obama Administration's
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program so that it focuses solely on Islamist
extremism." According to the report, CVE "would be changed to 'Countering
Islamic Extremism' or 'Countering Radical Islamic Extremism.'[4]
In order to help make certain this shift is fact-based, strategic, and
transcends this one program, this proposal will address the following open
questions pertaining to the proposed commission on radical Islam:
How should the commission be structured?
What should its mandate be?
Who should be on it?
How should it charge the government with implementing its recommendations?
This paper is a first attempt to answer those questions, and to do so through a
responsible lens, recognizing that:
There is a broad space for reform-minded Muslims to operate in America and the
world;
Radicalism and extremism do not permeate all of Islam; and
Radical Islam uses certain tenets of Islam to achieve what are in fact political
ends.
With that perspective, the paper will sketch a commission on radical Islam, with
care to respect America's First Amendment protections of religion and speech,
while confronting the thorny truth that jihadis do, in fact, crown their evil
deeds with Qur'an quotes.
I. How Should the Commission Be Structured?
To maximize the chances of success, a responsible commission would:
1. Be established by executive order, modeled on Appendix C below, which should:
a. Stipulate that the commission be housed in the White House, with members
selected by the President, including one or more from each of the following
categories:
i. Experts on terrorism and radical Islam
ii. Voices for reform of Islam
iii. Current or former elected officials
iv. Representatives of the law enforcement, intelligence, military, and/or
diplomatic communities
v. Representatives of the technology industry
vi. Victims of radical Islam and their families
b. Provide that the chairman should report to the National Security Advisor
c. Include as ex officio members the Secretaries of the following agencies, with
a designated liaison from those agencies selected by the President, or an
alternative by mutual consent of the President and Secretary:
i. The Department of Justice (DOJ): Responsible for retrieving DOJ and FBI
materials requested by the commission, as well as referring potential violations
of federal law identified or uncovered by the commission to be utilized by the
DOJ and/or FBI, as directed by the commission's chairman
ii. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Responsible for retrieving DHS
materials requested by the commission, as well as relevant information
identified or uncovered by the commission back to DHS as directed by the
commission's chairman
iii. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): Responsible for
retrieving intelligence materials requested by the commission, as well as
shepherding intelligence identified or uncovered by the commission back to the
relevant agency, including any findings that might be utilized by the CIA in
particular, as directed by the commission's chairman
iv. The Department of Defense (DOD): Responsible for retrieving military
materials requested by the commission, as well as delivering and implementing
any taskings, as directed by the commission's chairman
d. "[D]elegate responsibility for evaluating and taking action, where
appropriate, with respect to all public recommendations" from the president to
the National Security Advisor for all recommendations deemed appropriate by the
commission, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)[5]
e. Designate the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide fiscal and
administrative support to the commission pursuant to FACA Section 12[6]
f. Provide for a two-year term, which may be renewed by the President or
National Security Advisor by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such
two-year period pursuant to FACA Section 14[7]
2. Described in an advisory committee charter prepared by the staff and approved
by the chairman, to be filed with the Administrator of the GSA and the Library
of Congress, and which pursuant to FACA Section 9(c) must include:
a. The committee's official designation
b. The committee's objectives and the scope of its activity
c. The period of time necessary for the committee to carry out its purposes
d. The agency or official to whom the committee reports
e. The agency responsible for providing the necessary support for the committee
f. A description of the duties for which the committee is responsible, and, if
such duties are not solely advisory, a specification of the authority for such
functions
g. The estimated annual operating costs in dollars and man-years for such
committee
h. The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings
i. The committee's termination date, if less than two-years from the date of the
committee's establishment; and
j. The date the charter is filed.[8]
3. Empowered by a joint resolution of Congress[9] to subpoena documents, compel
testimony, and grant immunity, learning a lesson from the Tower Commission on
the Iran-CONTRA scandal[10]
4. Prepared that the commission reports may be used as evidence in later
criminal proceedings similarly to the Tower Commission, Rogers Commission on the
Space Shuttle Challenger accident, and Warren Commission on the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy[11]
5. Staffed with at least:
a. A staff director, with:
i. A terminal degree in Islamic studies, security studies, international
affairs, American government, or an equivalent
ii. Background in counter-terror public policy work
iii. Experience working within both state and federal governments
iv. Management background including responsibility for staffs of government
employees focused on public policy matters
b. A research director, with:
i. At least a Bachelor's Degree in security studies, international affairs,
political science, or equivalent
ii. Six or more years' experience in conducting terrorism research, including
familiarity with key domestic terrorism and material support cases
iii. Strong subject matter expertise on history and doctrine of radical Islam,
and on foreign and domestic Islamist movements
iv. Experience providing oral and written briefings related to Islamist
doctrine, history and organizations to legislators, law enforcement, and
intelligence officials
c. A staff counsel, with a terminal degree in law and a specialty in
counter-terror and background in prosecution, law enforcement, and/or the
military
d. A legislative director, with both strong counter-terror subject matter
expertise and extensive experience in Congress
e. A communications director, with both strong counter-terror subject matter
expertise and relationships with the media
f. A staff secretary, who should be responsible for meeting the administrative
requirements of FACA Sections 10 and 11 in cooperation with the GSA
6. Charged to hold field hearings at sites of important Islamist terror strikes
and events revealing Islamist subversion, in order to "identify and explain to
the American public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to
identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our
society that support radicalization,"[12] including taking testimony on the
relevant core convictions and beliefs of the perpetrators and how they relate to
radical Islam, to seek potential warning signs before the attacks, and to expose
the networks that initiated and supported the perpetrators' radicalization,
including potentially at:
a. Ground Zero in New York City, NY.
b. The Pentagon, Arlington, VA, which was struck by Flight 77 on September 11,
2001
c. Shanksville, PA, where Flight 93 crashed on September 11, 2001
d. Ft. Hood, TX, the site of the Islamist attack by Nidal Malik Hassan on
November 5, 2009
e. San Bernardino, CA, near the site of the Islamist attack by Syed Rizwan
Farook and Tashfeen Malik on December 2, 2015 at the Inland Regional Center
f. Orlando, FL, near the site of the Islamist attack by Omar Mateen on June 12,
2016 at the Pulse nightclub
g. Boston, MA, near the site of the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013 by
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
h. Little Rock, AR, near the site of the drive-by shooting of two U.S. soldiers
by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe, outside a military
recruiting office on June 1, 2009
i. Philadelphia, PA, where the FBI secretly taped an October 1993 meeting of
Hamas leaders and activists conspiring to conceal cash transfers to Palestinian
terrorists, as well as hatching the concept for what would become the Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR)[13] and/or
j. Dallas, TX, where the Holy Land Foundation trial was held between July and
September of 2007.[14]
II. What Should the Commission's Mandate Be?
Then-candidate Trump already spelled out his first cut of the commission's
mandate, namely:
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American
public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to identify the
warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that
support radicalization.
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers,
federal investigators, and immigration screeners.[15]
In addition, to avoid past challenges with presidential national security
commissions in which "presidential expectations are sometimes unmet, as
commissions issue damning reports with unforeseen and explosive
consequences,"[16] the Administration should spell out in detail the
commission's charge, as recommended below.
Overall, the commission should "begin with a blank piece of paper on American
policy toward the global Jihad movement," as a former Reagan Defense Department
official put it, "thereby providing an objective and independent assessment of
the assumptions and the actual record of the U.S. government since 9/11."[17]
The commission, this official said, should "start with the premise...of an
exercise in competitive analysis," like the so-called "Team B" approach to
accurately assessing the Soviet nuclear threat commissioned by then-CIA Director
George H.W. Bush during the Ford Administration in May 1976, and subsequently
acted upon reactively by the Carter Administration and proactively by the Reagan
Administration, [18] arguably helping ultimately lead to America's Cold War
victory.[19]
Specifically, the commission's mandate should be to consider and as appropriate
issue separate reports and recommendations, rather than a single final report,
on each of the following issues:
1. "[I]dentify[ing] and explain[ing] to the American public the core convictions
and beliefs of radical Islam," as then-candidate Trump set as one of the
commission's goals.[20] Specifically, in order for the public to fully grasp the
challenge that radical Islam represents, the commission should consider
including in its report common Islamist beliefs potentially out of step with
American values, including the following:[21]
i. Adultery should be punished by stoning to death.[22]
ii. A woman should have four adult male witnesses to prove she's been raped or
face charges of adultery.[23]
iii. Homosexuality should be a death penalty crime.[24]
iv. Leaving Islam should be punishable by death.[25]
v. It should be permissible for a parent to kill their own child for any reason
with no legal consequences.[26]
vi. All females should be circumcised to ensure their chastity.[27]
vii. The word of a man in court of law can only be countered by that of two
women.[28]
viii. A female should inherit one-half what her brother inherits.[29]
ix. A man has the right to beat his wife if he thinks she's disobedient.[30]
x. An adult man should be allowed to marry a pre-pubescent girl.[31]
xi. A father should have the right to forcibly marry off his daughters to anyone
he chooses whether she agrees or not.[32]
xii. A husband ought to be allowed to forbid his wife to leave the home without
his permission.[33]
xiii. A man should be allowed to sexually abuse a female baby or child so long
as he doesn't physically injure her.[34]
xiv. A man has the right to multiple wives, but a woman should only have one
husband.[35]
xv. There is no such thing as marital rape, because a man should be able to use
his wife when and how he likes, with or without her consent.[36]
xvi. Slavery should be legal.[37]
xvii. Raping women seized in offensive warfare and keeping or selling them as
sex slaves should be permissible.[38]
xviii. Offensive warfare to force those who don't accept your religion to submit
to it is not only permissible but obligatory before God.[39]
xix. Beheading those who do not believe as you do is what God wants.[40]
xx. Chopping off hands and/or feet is an acceptable legal punishment for
theft.[41]
xxi. Lashing people in public for moral offenses, like having sex outside of
marriage, should be permitted by law.[42]
xxii. Making it a criminal offense to drink alcohol on penalty of public
whipping is acceptable.[43]
xxiii. Verbal or written criticism of your religious beliefs should be
criminalized, possibly even by the death penalty.[44]
xxiv. Only the people belonging to your own religion should have the right to
own a gun.[45]
xxv. Anyone outside of your religion should be forbidden from building or
repairing a house of worship.[46]
xxvi. Laws passed by an elected congress or parliament are by their very nature
illegal and that only laws revealed by the deity of your religion should be
allowed.[47]
xxvii. Any government established by laws and rules other than the ones allowed
in your religion should be overthrown by force or subversion and replaced with
one that only allows your religion.[48]
xxviii. Government should enforce public dress code rules.[49]
xxix. Women and girls should always be segregated in public from men and boys
who aren't part of their immediate family.[50]
xxx. The only food that ought to be allowed to be sold is food that is grown and
processed according to the rules of your religion.[51]
xxxi. Everybody should have to follow the exact same diet and fasting rules that
are obligatory in your religion on penalty of public whipping.[52]
xxxii. Jews are an inferior people who should be denigrated and demeaned and not
treated equally in court.[53]
xxxiii. It's wrong to obey laws or help law enforcement officers if that might
lead to negative consequences for you or someone else belonging to your
religion.[54]
xxxiv. You are allowed to lie if the objective is permitted, and required to if
the objective is required.[55]
2. "[I]dentify[ing] the warning signs of radicalization." As then-candidate
Trump suggested, the commission should chart the ways in which Islamists in the
West recruit, indoctrinate, train, and deploy jihadis in order "to expose the
networks in our society that support radicalization,"[56] including potentially:
a. The list of "Islamist Organizations in America" compiled by The Clarion
Project, perhaps the most recent and up-to-date list publicly available[57]
b. The "List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers" in Attachment
A of U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, et al., [58] as
well as the rest of the materials for that case, which the commission should
subpoena immediately from the U.S. Department of Justice, and ultimately release
as part of this report
c. The "List of Islamist Organizations under U.S. Senate Scrutiny" published by
Middle East Forum (MEF) in 2004 and updated in 2005, which provides an
authoritative guide to the 25 U.S. Islamist groups which at that time the Senate
Finance Committee's chairman and ranking member stated "finance terrorism and
perpetuate violence," including the Holy Land Foundation which was in fact
rolled up by federal prosecutors;[59] and
d. The list of "our organizations and the organizations of our friends" from "An
Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in
North America," the May 1991 memo written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed
Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood.
e. As the author of a scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism put it:
"Identify the infrastructure, across the media, academic, and political
landscape, of the Islamist Supremacist movement." [60]
f. The list of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States having the most
links to illegal activities of any kind, including but not limited to terrorist
attacks, to determine
i. What would be the proper constitutionally-sound and prudent way to monitor
such facilities systematically when probable cause exists, and
ii. Any patterns as to how mosques and Islamic centers linked to radical Islam
are being funded and built, and what existing laws, policy changes, and/or
legislation might be useful in breaking that pattern.
3. The commission should explore potential counteractive steps to
radicalization, according to the author of a scholarly work on the psychology of
terrorism, such as:
a. "Promoting and supporting institutions of pluralistic Islam within the United
States"
b. "Promoting the identity of America in institutions vulnerable to recruiting
efforts by Islamists."
c. "Establishing leadership within Islam in America for advocacy, education and
outreach (to replace CAIR)"
d. "Establishing a means of tracking different political organizations who
advocate Sharia, raise money for terrorist causes abroad, or support Islamism
(political Islam) in the U.S. and creating a due process for the intelligence
community to evaluate said organization and any need to distance it from elected
officials and lawmakers"
e. "Working with Congress to establish anti-lobbying laws that do not allow
political or campaign contributions from Islamist sources and Islamic
theocracies"
f. "Cracking down on undisclosed lobbying contacts by representatives of state
sponsors of terror, by stringently applying existing law"; and
g. "Dismantl[ing] the infrastructures of organizations that seek to impose
Sharia law by force"
h. "Dismantling the infrastructure in campuses and in academia and curriculums
though collaborative initiatives with the Department of Education (DOE) and the
NSA"
i. "Working with Congress to pass laws that prevent endowing positions that
enable embedding curricula that are hostile to American interests"
j. "Re-examining collaborative relationships with hostile countries, including
the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that allow for embedding curricula in
American universities"
k. "Rethink[ing] "exchange" [programs] – we can lend them our academics as
exports, but we will be careful to screen the ideology and educational practicum
of those who seek to educate in the United States."
l. "Cultivat[ing] civic requirements in higher education and college curricula
that specifically educate about the United States' contributions to other
cultures, and other countries"
m. "Requir[ing] students from Muslim countries who study in the United States to
enroll in civics courses that espouse American values and American virtues,
including America's contributions to the rest of the world"
n. "Requir[ing] Middle Eastern study programs to feature curricula about
American contributions to the Arab World"
o. "Dismantling the infrastructure of the Islamist Supremacist movement in the
publicly funded news media though collaborative initiatives with the Federal
Communications Council (FCC) and NSA"
p. "Working with Congress to pass laws to withhold Federal funding from
universities that use curricula that are hostile to American interests"
q. "Develop[ing] legislation to require American public broadcasters [etc.], and
to provide grants for private media companies with foreign operations to air
similar programming"; and
r. "Prohibit[ing] any publicly funded media from broadcasting anything that
promotes Sharia as a political or judicial system"[61]
4. "Develop[ing] new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators,
and immigration screeners,"[62] as then-candidate Trump envisioned, including
by:
a. Designing the "new screening test" that then-candidate Trump called for
during the campaign, saying:
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all
decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country
those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to
develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we
must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its
principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred,
will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant
American society – should be issued visas. [63]
b. Considering which of the specific modifications the Obama Administration made
to U.S. training materials should be reversed by the Trump Administration, and
what further enhancements of those materials it should make
c. Directly and explicitly rebutting both the "Countering Violent Extremism"
narrative of the Obama Administration and the "War on Terror" narrative of the
Bush Administration, laying out instead a new approach along the lines of
President Trump's call to "recognize this ideology of death that must be
extinguished," [64] and translating that approach into protocols for local
police officers, federal investigators and immigration screeners to recognize
and repel Islamists
d. Incorporating into the new protocols the results of a January 14, 2016 Middle
East Forum study, "Islamism Responsible for More U.S. Murders than 'Right-Wing'
Extremism",[65] which debunked the New America Foundation (NAF) report
"Terrorism in America After 9/11" that purported to find the opposite, claiming
terrorists were "as American as Apple Pie."[66]
e. Drawing lessons from success and failures in other countries, including
potentially the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Israel, Egypt, India,
Singapore, and Bangladesh. [See for instance Appendix D: The Case of the United
Kingdom]
5. Examining why, to quote then-candidate Trump, "political correctness has
replaced common sense in our society,"[67] and how we overcome it to deal with
the problem of radical Islam in an honest, bipartisan and rational way.
The lines of inquiry for such an examination might include gathering expert
testimony and documentation on:
i. The philosophical and historical development of political correctness (PC)
ii. The stated objectives of the PC movement identified in that exploration
iii. The evidence that the PC movement is achieving those objectives in the West
iv. The strategies and tactics developed by the PC movement
v. How radical Islam fits into those strategies and tactics
vi. The degree to which Islamists are leveraging the PC narrative
vii. The likely result of continued leveraging of the PC movement by radical
Islam
viii. The likely result of continued cooperation for the PC movement and radical
Islam, based on their stated objectives
ix. The lines of eventual conflict between PC and radical Islam
x. How America might respond to the PC movement and radical Islam to arrive at a
state in which Americans discuss, report and act on Islamist threats openly and
rationally.
6. Exploring where radical Islam is getting its resources, and how can they be
cut off. Specific questions the commission might examine:
a. How do federal, state and local governments subsidize radical Islam,
including in grants and tax subsidies to Islamist organizations, funding to
Islamist research and researchers, trainings that mislead decision-makers about
the nature of radical Islam, etc.?
b. How can we persuade Congress and the State Department to stop funding the
Palestinian Authority, which channels those resources into hatred at every level
of its society?
c. How can we persuade Congress, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for
International Development to stop funding illicit charitable efforts in the Gaza
Strip, which serve to prop up the ruling Hamas regime?
d. How might America redirect resources flowing to the United Nations and
related international fora, where radical Islam is among the best funded and
represented forces, into an international security organization dedicated to
victory over radical Islam?
e. What individuals, universities, companies and foundations are providing
resources to organizations and organizers of radical Islam? How might they be
best warned about the impact of their contributions?
f. How can America get Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States to stop funding
radical Islam in their countries and worldwide?
g. How should America's struggle to achieve victory over radical Islam inform
this Administration's energy policy, especially with respect to oil?
h. What are all of the diversity, cultural sensitivity, and multicultural
programs that the U.S. federal government currently conducts, funds, or
mandates? What effects have these programs had, and are these effects in the
national interest? Which, if any, should be modified, discontinued, or replaced
entirely?
i. How might the federal intelligence community (IC) and law enforcement
agencies best be reformed in order to maximize America's return on investment in
the fight against radical Islam?
7. Seeking ways to deny Islamists' use of the Internet use of the Internet. As
then-candidate Trump said in his speech, "We cannot allow the Internet to be
used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut
down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately."
[68] For the commission, doing so should include potentially:
a. Recognizing that the Internet is not so much a tool as its own battle-space,
that is, another front in the war on radical Islam, which must be treated as
such in order to achieve victory there[69]
b. Taking testimony from and reviewing documents on the performance of
technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google with respect
to radical Islam to understand the degree to which they are acquiescing to
Islamists' demands to stifle free speech without having them imposed on them by
law
c. Creating the online equivalent of the Cold War's Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty in the Muslim world to boldly promote and defend Western values and
sharply contrast failures of radical Islam[70]
d. Learning from the techniques and insights of the hacker the FBI refers to as
the "Batman of the Internet," known only as @th3j35t3r (the Jester), who hacked
into the Global Islamic Media Front, as well into Islamic State itself after the
Charlie Hebdo jihadi attack in Paris on January 7, 2015, including potentially:
i. Creating kinetic effects based on Stuxnet-style cyberattacks on, e.g., state
assets (dams, nuclear weapons centrifuges, etc.) controlled by Islamist
hostiles, including but not limited to Iran and Islamic State
ii. Building counter-jihad botnets (a.k.a. "zombie armies"), that is, networks
of Islamists' private computers infected with software allowing them to be
controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge, specifically to attack
Islamist sites and computers with spam and/or viruses
iii. Redirecting denial-of-service attacks aimed at U.S. sites to hostile sites
or those of the countries in which attacks originate
iv. Studying Cozy Bear, APT29 and The Dukes, the "threat group" operated since
2008 and attributed to the Russian government, which allegedly conducted the
hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) beginning in the summer of 2015
v. Extracting key information from radical Islamists either for intelligence or
publication and shaming purposes
vi. Tapping the wealth of knowledge in private companies in threat mitigation,
intelligence-gathering, counter measures, and offensive capabilities – talent
the Jester says is "chomping at the bit" to help the U.S. government
vii. Targeting and taking down radical Islamist websites, especially as many
smaller sites as possible to "herd" sympathizers to the largest sites which are
"easier to control;" and/or
viii. Setting up thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and ultimately millions
of social media bots to mock, deride, and heap shame on radical Islam's messages
online[71]
e. Replicating on a global scale Internet Haganah, the online operation run by
A. Aaron Weisburd where he:
i. "[T]rawl[ed] online in search of the press statements and videos that
terrorists release to rally their supporters"
ii. "[Went] undercover, logging on to restricted forums (if he has been able to
get a password) and visiting the many open sites advocating jihad"
iii. "[W]ork[ed] to figure out where [the terrorist press releases and videos
were] coming from"
iv. "[E]ither shame[d] service providers into shutting down the sites that host
them or gather[ed] what he terms "intel" for interested parties"
v. "[M]aintain[ed] a blog to rally his own side, providing an outlet for people
eager to contribute their time and money to the fight against terrorism;" and
vi. [B]ecause Weisburd closely monitor[ed the blog's] traffic, he [could] watch
the jihadists watching him."[72]
f. Running industrial-scale social media banning operations along the lines as
those conducted on a one-off basis by counter-jihad blog The Jawa Report[73]
g. Learning lessons from deterring jihadis from the use of cell phones a
generation ago[74]
h. Using kinetic and/or financial means to deter use of online fora to spread
the evils of radical Islam;[75] and
i. Reviewing the proposal made by then-Congressman Mike Pompeo, R-KS, for a
"comprehensive, searchable" database of domestic personal records.[76]
8. Reviewing what changes should be made to immigration practices, both
within the Administration and in law through Congress, to address the threat of
radical Islam, including answering the following questions:
a. Were there any violations of U.S. law in the amnesties provided by the Obama
Administration, including the expenditure of money without Congressional
authorization? If so, they should be referred to law enforcement authorities.
b. How should the refugee, asylum, and (immigration-specific) parole programs be
reformed, redirected, or ended in order to best make America safe again?
c. How might we better track non-citizens within the United States and help
repatriate those found to be participating in the spread of radical Islam?
d. How can the federal government assist states with both resources and
personnel in securing their border facilities, including potentially the use of
National Guard and/or military assets?
e. How might we amend relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(U.S. Code Title 8)? These include both:
i. Existing entry bans that:
1. Bar entry based on activities intended to overthrow or control the U.S.
government by violent or illegal means or totalitarian party membership
2. Bar entry based on terrorist activity or association
ii. Existing bases for denying naturalization:
1. Failure to "positively attach" to the principles of the Constitution
2. Advocacy for the imposition of anti-Constitutional totalitarian rule
Specifically, the commission should consider whether:
iii. 8 U.S. Code Section 1182(3)(C)(iii) should be amended by adding the
following at its end (the current Exception for Officials C (ii) relating to
diplomats and legal representatives of other governments would remain):
Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe, rejects the supremacy of the United States
Constitution, including the laws and regulations enacted and the common law
judicially developed pursuant to it, as the sole governing legal authority or
otherwise seeks to limit that supremacy as the sole governing legal authority
within the jurisdiction of the United States is inadmissible.
Any aliens who advocate, teach, fundraise for, take oaths or pledges in support
of or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or
teaches the overthrow by forceful or subversive means of the government of the
United States to establish a totalitarian form of government applying laws
incompatible with the United States Constitution, either through their own
utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by
or with the permission or consent of or under the authority of such organization
or paid for by the funds of, or funds furnished by, such organization, are
inadmissible.
iv. Changes should be made to a provision granting de facto extension of U.S.
First Amendment protections to non-citizens seeking entry: 8 U.S. Code Section
1182(a)(3)(C)(iii). The statements, beliefs and associations of anyone
attempting to enter the U.S. should certainly be open to scrutiny and
potentially cause exclusion if they evince an attachment to an
anti-constitutional ideology like radical Islam. Non-resident aliens outside the
country should have no expectation of First Amendment or any other rights
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the section entitled "Exception
for other aliens" highlighted below should be repealed.
(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to
restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i)
because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or
associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful
within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines
that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign
policy interest.
v. 8 U.S. Code § 1424 (4)(A) should be amended as follows:
(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any
organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or
other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or
established forms of law; and/or
vi. 8 U.S. Code § 1424 (5)(E) should be amended as follows:
(E)...the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world
Communism, or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian form of
government which supplants the U.S. Constitution; or....
9. Summarizing, given the results of the prior investigations, how specifically
America and its allies can halt the spread of radical Islam, and ultimately
defeat it. President Trump called for a "new approach, which must be shared by
both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the
Middle East," namely "to halt the spread of radical Islam."[77] What should that
new approach be? For instance, the commission might consider:
i. Defeating the ideology of radical Islam just as we defeated the ideologies of
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist Russia – recognizing that each
required a different strategy – working with allies such as Egyptian President
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has explicitly set the same objective;
ii. Restoring respect for the rule of law in immigration, securing America's
borders and enforcing the laws on the books, as well as improving those laws so
that they better defend us from the threat of radical Islam;
iii. Using the West's economy and culture to overpower radical Islam over time,
as we did in the Cold War;
iv. Transforming our view of technology from a tool of radicalization into a
battle space in which we must triumph completely;
v. Cutting off the bloodflow of money to the cancer of radical Islam – not just
to designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), but to the mosques,
Islamic Centers and subversive groups founded and funded by radical Islamists
worldwide, many funded directly by Saudi Arabia and its ilk;
vi. Respecting the self-determination of our allies in the Middle East,
including the Kurds, Balochis, Yezidis, and Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, to
help the people on the ground to redraw the Western-imposed maps that have
created so many unstable and ultimately violent nations; and
vii. Using our kinetic power, backed up with industrial might as we have in the
past – but only as a complement to the other battle fronts, not a replacement
for fighting in them.[78]
III. Whom Should the Commission Include?
The discussion of the commission's structure above included the general
recommendation that the commission should include one or more individuals from
the following categories:
1. Experts on terrorism and radical Islam
The commission should include a core group of those who have deeply studied and
written about the threat America faces. As a former Reagan Defense Department
official pointed out, anyone selected for the commission should be clear-eyed
about Islam's role in creating that threat, and must not be complicit in the
current system's failures.[79]
Those who might be considered include:
· Alan Dershowitz, law professor at Harvard University, author of Why Terrorism
Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge
· Steve Emerson, the Investigative Project on Terrorism
· Prof. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Center for Political Violence
and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore)
· Philip B. Haney, founding member of DHS, author of See Something, Say Nothing
· Sam Harris, author of five New York Times bestsellers, including Islam and the
Future of Tolerance (with Maajid Nawaz)
· Douglas Murray, the Henry Jackson Society (UK)
· Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum, author of Militant Islam Reaches America;
In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power
· Patrick Poole, national security and terrorism consultant with works published
in Middle East Review of International Affairs, the Journal of International
Security Affairs and Middle East Quarterly
· Dr. Michael Welner, forensic psychiatrist, author of Psychopathy, Media, and
the Psychology at the Root of Terrorism
· Sam Westrop, senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute; former head, Stand for
Peace (UK)
2. Voices for Reform of Islam
In his speech, Mr. Trump expressed a desire to "include reformist voices in the
Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and
erase divisions."[80]
Then-candidate Trump selected an excellent criteria for that selection: that
Muslims be "reformist voices."[81] Note the implications of both words: An
information warfare expert in the counter-terror space points out that the call
for those who are "reformist" implies that Islam is in need of reform, which of
course it is. Agreement on that point should be the minimum qualification for
service on or testimony to this commission, the expert argues.[82] And "voices"
means he or she is one of the few courageous Muslims who have spoken out. Unless
a Muslim or former Muslim has previously publicly stated that Islam is in need
of reform, that Muslim simply does not meet the President's criterion.
One reform-minded Muslim, a national leader, recommended including a designated
number of reformist Muslims on the commission – at least two or three – so that
the commission benefits from a range of views. He also urged setting a number of
non-Muslims, which given the number of categories would be a minimum of five,
and a maximum of perhaps eight, such that the commission's size does not become
ungainly.[83]
In addition, among these individuals, there should be one Urdu and one Farsi
speaker. Moreover, according to a founding member of DHS, the commission needs
to have one or two native Arabic speakers. "Without that," he says, "you're
driving blind. Most of the real sources are in Arabic."[84]
Finally, the information warfare expert notes that "We must not allow Muslims
[alone] to define for us what the threat is. If it's something that humans are
capable of perceiving, it's not just Muslims who can do it." That is, those
selecting commission members should keep in mind that being a Muslim neither
uniquely qualifies someone to understand the threat, nor guarantees that the
individual will correctly communicate the threat even were that understanding
perfect.[85]
With all that in mind, those to be considered might include:
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, former member of Jamaa Islamiya
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum
for Democracy (AIFD)
Asra Nomani, author and former Co-Director of the Pearl Project
Shireen Qudosi, writer and editor of Qudosi Chronicles
3. Current or Former Elected Officials
Anyone selected from among the ranks of elected officials must have demonstrated
both a grasp of the perils of radical Islam and the courage to speak plainly
about them.
Some options would include:
U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-GA
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY
Former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra,
R-MI
U.S. Senator Jim Lankford, R-OK
Former U.S. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, D-CT
U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, D-NJ
CIA Director Mike Pompeo, (ex officio), represented by the Deputy Director or
another designee
Attorney General Jeff Sessions (ex officio), represented by the Assistant
Attorney General, National Security Division, or another designee
4. Representatives of Law Enforcement, Intelligence, Military and/or Diplomatic
Community
Those on the front lines facing down the threat know best what it looks like.
For that reason, the commission should include representatives of law
enforcement, the military and/or the diplomatic community, including
potentially:
Amb. John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
David A. Clarke, Jr., Sheriff of Milwaukee County
Richard Higgins, former Defense Department official, Combatting Terrorism and
Technical Support Office, Irregular Warfare Section, and Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict
DHS Sec. John F. Kelly (ex officio), represented by the Director, Homeland
Security Advisory Council or another designee Defense Sec. James Mattis (ex
officio), represented by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
and Global Security Affairs or another designee
Andrew C. McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney who led 1995 World Trade
Center terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey
Robert Reilly, former head of diplomacy at the United States Information Agency
(USIA)
5. Representatives of the Technology Industry
The above-mentioned reformist Muslim leader, Zuhdi Jasser, recommended expanding
the categories of the commission to include a member of the technology community
– someone who understands the latest incarnations of media and social media –
while acknowledging that the Internet is only "the final trigger" by which
Islamists communicate. That, he said, was the lesson of a recent report that
came out: We have exaggerated the problem of so-called "online radicalization."
Evaluating it on a case-by-case basis, it becomes clear that online activity is
only an avenue, not the single path today's jihadis tread.[86]
The challenge with selecting a member of the technology industry, especially in
media and/or social media, is that those leaders have it so uniformly wrong.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, for instance, have all faced criticism – and now
even lawsuits – for allowing Islamist traffic and/or shutting down voices
critical of radical Islam.
Accordingly, those who stand out as likely candidates include:
"Rusty Shackleford," the alias of the Editor-in-chief Emeritus of counter-jihad
blog The Jawa Report
Peter Thiel, the former head of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook
J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., former Annenberg Professor of International
Communication at Institute of World Politics and faculty member at the Naval
Postgraduate School in information operations and strategic influence
A. Aaron Weisburd, founder of Internet Haganah, which "appl[ied] weaponized
information to problems related to terrorism and hostile foreign intelligence
services."[87]
6. Victims of Radical Islam and Their Families
Arguably those with the greatest stake in the outcome of the fight are those who
have already paid the heaviest price. Accordingly, the commission should
represent victims of radical Islam and their families. Ideal candidates include:
Melvin Bledsoe, father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdulhakim Mujahid
Muhammad
Tim Brown, former New York firefighter, 9/11 victim
Daris Long, father of U.S. Army Private William Long, murdered by Carlos Leon
Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
Terry Strada, national chairwoman of 9/11 Families United For Justice
IV. How Should the Commission Charge the Government with Implementing Its
Recommendations?
The commission is not worth establishing if its results will gather dust on a
shelf. Accordingly, the recommendations above include a number of measures to
see that this does not happen.
For instance, note that the structure of the commission includes that the
President delegate responsibility for evaluating and taking action to the
National Security Advisor for all recommendations deemed appropriate by the
commission.[88] Such a delegation might allow for immediate implementation of
findings that are time-sensitive.
Likewise, note that the structure contains not only ex officio membership for
each Secretary but also a liaison from the DOJ, DHS, CIA, and DOD. That
recommendation is intended not only to facilitate gathering necessary materials,
but also to drive implementation of the commission's directions once ordered by
a U.S. official, and to facilitate referring potentially criminal, intelligence,
or national security matters directly to the agencies responsible for each.
Moreover, each of the agencies that provide a liaison should also be tasked with
preparing relevant raw data and materials for each topic under consideration by
the commission, to make certain the commission has the information the agency
considers important in making determinations relative to its areas of authority.
Finally, overall, the commission can increase its impact by, for each of the
reports that it prepares, crafting drafts of:
1. Executive orders and/or tasking memos to federal agencies directing them to
take action to fix a problem that may legally be addressed by the Executive
Branch alone, to be submitted confidentially to the National Security Advisor
for his or her consideration
2. Pieces of legislation embodying any policy changes that require Congressional
approval, to be submitted confidentially to the National Security Advisor for
distribution to relevant agencies and offices for review, and ultimately for
submission to Congress for consideration, hearings, markup, and approval
3. Law enforcement referrals of individuals and/or entities found to be
violating civil or criminal law, along with all relevant public and nonpublic
documentation the commission uncovers, to be submitted confidentially to the
commission liaison from the DOJ for consideration for investigation and/or
prosecution
4. Supporting documents to be provided either to the public as appendices to the
report or confidentially to the CIA for provision to the relevant intelligence
agencies for their utilization as appropriate
5. Requests for proposal (RFPs), including suggested budgets, for goods or
services required in order to implement a recommendation
6. Memos to state and/or local governments from relevant agencies communicating
new requirements in order to receive federal funding for any given program that
the commission deems may legally be made under existing statute and that would
be salutary in defeating radical Islam, for submission to the liaison for the
agency in question and/or the National Security Advisor for consideration
7. Recommended personnel changes, including potentially initiating,
restructuring, increasing, decreasing, or eliminating staffing in a given
department, and/or commendations, recriminations, or terminations recommended
based on specific employee performance, for submission to the commission's
liaison for the agency in question and/or the National Security Advisor for
consideration; and/or
8. Budget changes, including potentially initiating, reallocating, increasing,
decreasing, or eliminating funding in given areas, for submission to the
commission's liaison for the agency in question and/or the National Security
Advisor for consideration.
Appendix A: Full text of Donald J. Trump's speech on Radical Islam
August 15, 2016, as prepared for delivery
Thank you. It is great to be with you this afternoon.
Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.
In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.
Now, a different threat challenges our world: radical Islamic terrorism.
This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war zones of the
Middle East every 84 hours.
Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.
13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood.
The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people, and ultimately left
five dead – including 2 police officers.
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, five unarmed marines were shot and killed at a
military recruiting center.
Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office party in San
Bernardino, another 22 were injured.
In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, and
another 53 were injured. It was the worst mass shooting in our history, and the
worst attack on the LGTBQ community in our history.
In Europe, we have seen the same carnage and bloodshed inflicted upon our
closest allies.
In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was attacked
for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve were killed, including
two police officers, and 11 were wounded. Two days later, four were murdered in
a Jewish Deli.
In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris that
slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. France is suffering gravely,
and the tourism industry is being massively affected in a most negative way.
In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels airport,
killing 32 and injuring 340.
This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck into an
instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men, women and children –
and wounding another 308. Among the dead were 2 Americans – a Texas father, and
his 11-year-old son.
A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded five people in
a gruesome train attack.
Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy France,
forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat before his
congregation.
Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another. Children
slaughtered, girls sold into slavery, men and women burned alive. Crucifixions,
beheadings and drownings. Ethnic minorities targeted for mass execution. Holy
sites desecrated. Christians driven from their homes and hunted for
extermination. ISIS rounding-up what it calls the "nation of the cross" in a
campaign of genocide. We cannot let this evil continue.
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women,
gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread within our own
countries.
We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every threat
we have faced in every age before.
But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.
Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country. Anyone who
cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of Radical Islam lacks the
moral clarity to serve as our President.
The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President
Obama and Secretary Clinton
Let's look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before the
Obama-Clinton Administration took over.
Libya was stable.
Syria was under control.
Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.
Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence.
The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being
extinguished.
Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.
Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton produced?
Libya is in ruins, our ambassador and three other brave Americans are dead, and
ISIS has gained a new base of operations.
Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. ISIS controls large portions of
territory. A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States.
In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the Suez
Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world.
Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose.
ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS was
operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18 countries
with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 – and many believe it is
even more than that. The situation is likely worse than the public knows: a new
Congressional report reveals that the Administration has downplayed the growth
of ISIS, with 40% of analysts saying they had experienced efforts to manipulate
their findings.
At the same time, ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into Europe and the
United States.
Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with $150
billion in cash released by the United States – plus another $400 million in
ransom. Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one state sponsor
of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons.
In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS, destabilized the
Middle East, and put the nation of Iran – which chants 'Death to America' – in a
dominant position of regional power and, in fact, aspiring to be a dominant
world power.
It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama's global
'Apology Tour.'
In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as "arrogant,"
"dismissive" "derisive" and a "colonial power." He informed other countries that
he would be speaking up about America's "past errors." He pledged that we would
no longer be a "senior partner," that "sought to dictate our terms." He lectured
CIA officers of the need to acknowledge their mistakes, and described Guantanamo
Bay as a "rallying cry for our enemies."
Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obama's speech to the Muslim
World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009.
In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted the
superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil Empire.
Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such moral courage
could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of women and gays in many
Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of human rights, or the financing
of global terrorism, President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our
human rights record and theirs.
His naïve words were followed by even more naïve actions.
The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and the
election-driven timetable for withdrawal, surrendered our gains in that country
and led directly to the rise of ISIS.
The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clinton's disaster in Libya.
President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst mistake. According
to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the invasion of Libya was nearly a
split decision, but Hillary Clinton's forceful advocacy for the intervention was
the deciding factor.
With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clinton's policies
launched ISIS onto the world.
Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out well
for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income while she was
Secretary of State.
Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the
judgment, the temperament and the moral character to lead this nation.
Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS, and
all the many adversaries we face – not only in terrorism, but in trade and every
other challenge we must confront to turn this country around.
It is time for a new approach
Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure.
We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and thrive.
I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning – a major difference
between me and my opponent.
Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such matters [were]
not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private doubts about the
invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in an interview with Neil
Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a speedy recovery, that "perhaps [we]
shouldn't be doing it yet," and that "the economy is a much bigger problem."
In August of 2004, very early in the conflict, I made a detailed statement to
Esquire magazine. Here is the quote in full:
"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled
it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful
democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in
their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country?
C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the
meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have
weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.
"What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people
killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to
mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it
turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for
nothing."
So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in. But I have
been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake Hillary Clinton and
President Obama made with the reckless way in which they pulled out.
After we had made those hard-fought sacrifices and gains, we should never have
made such a sudden withdrawal – on a timetable advertised to our enemies. Al
Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated, and Obama and Clinton gave it new life and
allowed it to spread across the world.
By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never have
attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, to push for immediate regime change in
Syria or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt.
One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the oil in
Iraq – another area where my judgment has been proven correct. According to CNN,
ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales in 2014 alone, fueling and funding
its reign of terror. If we had controlled the oil, we could have prevented the
rise of ISIS in Iraq – both by cutting off a major source of funding, and
through the presence of U.S. forces necessary to safeguard the oil and other
vital infrastructure. I was saying this constantly and to whoever would listen:
keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, I said – don't let someone else get
it.
If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic benefits of the
oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the wounded soldiers and
families of those who died – and thousands of lives would have been saved.
This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to guard
our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the
spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq – and our adventures in the Middle East –
was death, destruction and tremendous financial loss.
But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new
course.
If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our new
approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies
overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of
Radical Islam.
All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares
this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends, but we can
never fail to recognize our enemies.
As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal.
We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our
greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and
President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death
that must be extinguished.
We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had previously said
that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal adequately with terrorism;
since my comments they have changed their policy and now have a new division
focused on terror threats.
I also believe that we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against
ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria, and have had their
own battles with Islamic terrorism.
My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military
operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their
funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable
their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a
recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut down their
access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless handling
of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph exact military
plans to the enemy. I have often said that General MacArthur and General Patton
would be in a state of shock if they were alive today to see the way President
Obama and Hillary Clinton try to recklessly announce their every move before it
happens – like they did in Iraq – so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.
The fight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we will
seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We can use existing
UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.
Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling
Islamic terrorism.
But we must use ideological warfare as well
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the
virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from
countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my
Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people
of different faith.
Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the
Middle East, and will amplify their voices.
This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings,
where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or acting in
a way that violates fundamentalist teachings.
Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor killings by
their relatives each year. Recently, a prominent Pakistani social media star was
strangled to death by her brother on the charge of dishonoring the family. In
his confession, the brother took pride in the murder and said: "Girls are born
to stay home and follow traditions."
Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.
One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34 years in jail
for running over his own daughter claiming she had become "too Westernized."
To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a hateful
ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and terrorism to grow.
A new immigration policy is needed as well
The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have recently
occurred on our soil – 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Boston bombing, the San
Bernardino attack, the Orlando attack – is that they have involved immigrants or
the children of immigrants.
Clearly, new screening procedures are needed[.]
A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identified 380
foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorism related offenses
between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.
We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the country –
as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in Minnesota.
Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have brought
their anti-Semitic attitudes with them.
Pew polling shows that in many of the countries from which we draw large numbers
of immigrants, extreme views about religion – such as the death penalty for
those who leave the faith – are commonplace.
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all
decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country
those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to
develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we
must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its
principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred,
will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant
American society – should be issued visas.
To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend
immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world
that have a history of exporting terrorism.
As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the Department of
Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where adequate screening cannot
take place. We will stop processing visas from those areas until such time as it
is deemed safe to resume based on new circumstances or new procedures.
The size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform adequate
screening.
We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year.
Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and visitors
from the same regions. If we don't control the numbers, we can't perform
adequate screening.
By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the flow of Syrian refugees by 550%
percent.
The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that Hillary
Clinton's plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all current
refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to other refugee
programs. This would be additional to all other nonrefugee immigration.
The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of roughly $400
billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare, housing, schooling,
and all other entitlement benefits that are excluded from the State Department's
placement figures.
In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be America's Angela Merkel, and you know what
a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany and the people of
Germany – crime has risen to levels that no one thought would they would ever
see. We have enough problems in our country, we don't need another one.
Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security procedures.
Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our soil is
that warning signs were ignored.
The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications.
The Russians warned us about the Boston Bombers, here on political asylum, and
the attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.
The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a fiancé visa from Saudi Arabia,
wrote of her support for Jihad online. A neighbor saw suspicious behavior but
didn't warn authorities, because said they didn't want to be accused of racially
profiling – now many are dead and gravely wounded.
The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after 9/11. . He
too was interviewed by the FBI. His father, a native of Afghanistan, supported
the oppressive Taliban regime, and expressed anti-American views – and by the
way, was just seen sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a big smile on his face
all the way through her speech. He obviously liked what she had to say.
The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental health
experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red flag after another. He
even proclaimed that "we love death more than you love life!"
These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has replaced
common sense in our society.
That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission
on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community
who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American
public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the
warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that
support radicalization.
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers,
federal investigators, and immigration screeners.
We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed emphasis on human
intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our strategy, but we will also
seek to capture high-value targets to gain needed information to dismantle their
organizations. Foreign combatants will be tried in military commissions.
Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against
anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take
down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal
investigator and prosecutor in the country.
To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical
Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.
Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests
in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home.
To Make America Safe Again, We Must Work Together Again
Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus.
That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.
But just like we couldn't defeat communism without acknowledging that communism
exists – or explaining its evils – we can't defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism
unless we do the same.
This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of
life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.
Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by
parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.
Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion. Our
system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and
will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.
This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a
country.
Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country.
It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.
This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your
greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is treated
equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and
oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture
and values as one American people.
Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again – For Everyone.
Thank you.
Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-terrorism-speech-227025
Appendix B: Selected Presidential Commissions, 1900-2016
Philippine Commission - "Taft Commission" (1900)
Commission on the Organization of Government Scientific Work (1903)
Committee on Department Methods - "Keep Commission" (1905–1909)
President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency (1910–1912)
President's Committee on Economic Security (CES) founded 1934
President's Commission on Administrative Management - "Brownlow Committee"
(1937)
Commission to Investigate the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor - a.k.a. "Roberts
Commission" (1941)
President's Committee on Civil Rights (1946)
President's Scientific Research Board (1946)
Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947)
Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government - Hoover
Commission (1947)
President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed
Services (1948)
President's Committee on Religious & Moral Welfare & Character Guidance in the
Armed Forces (1948)
President's Water Resources Policy Commission (1950)
President's Communications Policy Board (1950)
President's Commission on Migratory Labor (1950)
President's Commission on Internal Security and Individual Rights (1951)
President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation (1951)
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1952)
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations - a.k.a. "Kestenbaum Commission"
(1953)
Presidential Commission on the Status of Women (1961)
The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy - a.k.a.
"Warren Commission" (1963)
President's Review Committee for Development Planning in Alaska (1964)
President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia (1965–1969)
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
(1965–1969)
President's Commission on Budget Concepts (1967–1969)
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1969)
President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel (1969-1970) (urged 60% cuts in Pentagon
staffs)
President's Commission on Campus Unrest (1970)
President's Commission on Financial Structure and Regulation - a.k.a. the "Hunt
Commission" (1970-1971)
National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control (1971)
President's Commission on Olympic Sports (1975)
U.S. President's Commission on CIA activities within the United States - a.k.a.
Rockefeller Commission (1975)
President's Advisory Board on International Investment (1977)
Presidential Advisory Board on Ambassadorial Appointments (1977)
President's Commission on Mental Health (1977)
President's Commission on Military Compensation (1977)
President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (1978)
President's Commission on the Coal Industry (1978)
President's Commission on Pension Policy (1978)
Presidential Commission on World Hunger (1978)
President's Commission on the Holocaust (1978)
President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (1979)
President's Advisory Committee for Women (1979)
President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties (1979)
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine &
Biomedical & Behavioral Research (1979)
Advisory Committee on Small and Minority Business Ownership (1980)
President's Commission on United States-Liberian Relations (1980)
President's Committee on the International Labor Organization (1980)
President's Committee on Small Business Policy (1981)
President's Council on Spinal Cord Injury (1981)
President's Commission on Hostage Compensation (1981)
President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control - a.k.a. "Grace Commission"
(1982)
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983)
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident - a.k.a.
"Rogers Commission" (1986)
President's Special Review Board (Iran-Contra) - a.k.a. "Tower Commission"
(1986)
President's Commission on Organized Crime (1986)
President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management -a.ka. "Packard
Commission" (1986)
President's Commission on the HIV Epidemic (1987)
President's commission on aviation security and terrorism (1990)
President's Commission on Veterans Education (1996)
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States (1998)
President's Commission To Strengthen Social Security (2001)
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2001)
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (2001)
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - a.k.a. 9/11
Commission (2002)
President's Commission on the United States Postal Service (2002)
President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration
Policy (2004)
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding
Weapons of Mass Destruction (2005)
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (2010)
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (2010)
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
(2010)
Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity (2016) – 12 members
Appendix C: Sample Executive Order Creating a White House Commission on Radical
Islam
White House Commission on Radical Islam
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of
the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment.
There is established the White House Commission on Radical Islam (the
"Commission").
Sec. 2. Membership.
(a) The Commission shall be composed of not more than [7-11] members who shall
be appointed by the President those with experience in or representing Experts
on Terrorism and Radical Islam, Voices for Reform of Islam, Current or Former
Elected Officials, Representatives of Law Enforcement, Intelligence, Military
and Diplomatic Communities, Representatives of the Technology Industry, Victims
of Radical Islam and/or their Families, or any other area determined by the
President to be of value to the Commission in carrying out its duties.
(b) The President shall designate from among the Commission members two members
to serve as Co-Chairs.
Sec. 3. Mission.
The Commission shall hold field hearings at sites of important Islamist terror
strikes and events revealing Islamist subversion, and in a series of separate
reports:
(a) Explain to the public the core convictions of radical Islam
(b) Chart how Islamists recruit and deploy jihadis, as well as how they
penetrate society with their doctrines, to expose the networks that support
radicalization
(c) Develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and
immigration screeners
(d) Examine "political correctness" and how we overcome it to deal with the
problem of radical Islam in an honest, bipartisan and rational way
(e) Explore where radical Islam gets its resources and how they can be cut off
(f) Seek ways to counter Islamists' use of the Internet; and
(g) Summarize how America and its allies can halt the spread of radical Islam
and ultimately defeat it.
Sec. 4. Administration.
(a) The Commission shall be housed and officed in the Executive Office of the
President.
(b) The Commission's Chairman shall report in to the National Security Advisor
(c) The President shall name a designated liaison from the Commission to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Department of Defense (DOD)
(d) The Commission shall be empowered by a joint resolution of Congress to
subpoena documents, compel testimony, and grant immunity, and be prepared that
its reports may be used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
(e) The President does hereby:
a. Delegate responsibility for evaluating and taking action, where appropriate,
with respect to all public recommendations of the Commission to the National
Security Advisor for all recommendations deemed appropriate by the Commission,
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
b. Designate the GSA to provide fiscal and administrative support to the
Commission pursuant to FACA Section 12
c. Provide for a two-year term, which may be renewed by the President or
National Security Advisor by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such
two-year period pursuant to FACA Section 14.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the availability of
appropriations, the relevant Agencies shall provide the Commission with such
administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as
may be necessary to carry out its mission.
(b) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)
(the "Act"), may apply to the Commission, any functions of the President under
that Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by the
Administrator of General Services.
(c) The Members of the Commission, if otherwise uncompensated for their
service, shall serve with compensation for their work on the Commission at
Executive Schedule Level 2, and shall be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, to the extent permitted by law for persons serving
intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(1) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating
to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against
the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers,
employees, or agents, or any other person.
[signed]
Donald J. Trump
The White House,
[date].
Appendix D: The Case of the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, according to Sam Westrop, currently Senior Fellow at the
Gatestone Institute and the former head of UK-based non-governmental
organization (NGO) Stand For Peace:
1. Policy was until early 2009 soft on Islamist organizations, including those
close to or backed by Jamaat-e-Islami,[89] originally founded in British India
in 1941 by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi with the original objective of establishing
"God's governance," out of concern that the result of the existing Muslim League
program would "not be an Islamic state based on the Sharia but a mirror image of
Godless, Western, secular democracy."[90]
2. The group followed Indian Muslim, and then Pakistani, immigration to the UK,
and is now regarded as one of the two primary sources of Islamist thought and
organizations worldwide, along with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.[91]
3. The UK decided not just to engage with Islamists like these but actually give
them money as well, which also included local and police grants that likely ran
into the tens of millions of pounds, [92] and which continued even after the 7/7
attacks in London.
4. That changed in 2009, when it emerged that Daud Abdullah, the head of the
Muslim Council of Britain, had signed what was known as the Istanbul
Declaration, [93] which denounced "this malicious Jewish Zionist war over
Gaza."[94]
5. In response, there were immediate calls to cease funding MCB and other
Islamist causes, including from at least one reformist Muslim, Irfan Al Alawi,
international director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism.[95]
6. The UK government began to say to itself, "Maybe we've been funding the wrong
people," according to the former head of the UK-based NGO. After the incident,
left-leaning journalists investigated and found that the UK government had been
giving money to all sorts of hateful and violent Islamists, which was
particularly damaging as the Labor Party entered new elections. What the UK
learned at that time was that Islam in the country was incredibly diverse, with
hundreds of political sects – and that "Islamists did not represent ordinary
Muslims, who didn't like or care about the groups purporting to speak for them."
[96]
7. In a 2007 poll, for instance, a towering 94% of British Muslims said that
they did not believe that the MCB, for instance, represented their views.[97]
8. The lessons culminated when UK Conservative leader David Cameron gave a
speech saying flatly that the multicultural strategy the UK had employed
relative to Islamism had failed. The UK realized that their approach had been "a
bit like turning an anti-Skinhead program over to right-wing groups," said the
former UK NGO head. In response, the UK "government started rolling back every
form of perceived understanding about how to approach the issue" – in
particular, defunding the groups associated with Salafi, Deobandi, and Muslim
Brotherhood Islamism. Some Islamist charities have had millions in tax-exempt
pounds pulled back from them. The government "changed almost completely the CVE"
program that it had put together. Today, the UK government refuses to meet with
or speak to MCB. By now, both the British and French governments have realized
that there's no point in talking to them, because "When you work with them,
you're abandoning Muslim voices to the Islamists."[98]
About the Author
Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., is the President and Campaign Manager of IMI, in
which capacity he has just completed an 18-month contract running the Counter
Jihad Campaign for the Center for Security Policy.
Dr. Hull is a former chief of staff for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in which
capacity he was the internal point person for the Iowa Freedom Summit, which
brought a dozen-odd potential presidential candidates to the Hawkeye State in
early 2015 and helped launch the 2016 nomination contest.
Before joining Rep. King, he spent 15 years in public affairs, including
founding his own online lobbying technology company and serving as Senior Vice
President and Campaign Manager, U.S. Public Affairs, at Hill & Knowlton.
Before moving to public affairs, Chris held politics and policy positions,
serving as a press secretary in the U.S. House of Representatives, a legislative
assistant in the U.S. Senate, a communications aide in a national party
committee, a researcher in a major think tank, and the majority staff director
of a state Senate.
Dr. Hull holds a doctorate in government with distinction from Georgetown
University and an undergraduate degree magna cum laude, also in government, from
Harvard University. He is the author of Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucuses
Help Elect American Presidents, published by Stanford University Press in
November, 2007.
He has been published or quoted in television, print, radio and online outlets
including the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Fox
News, USA Today, NPR, MSNBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, National Journal, CNBC, The
Hill, Hotline, New York Newsday and U.S. News & World Report.
[1] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016. Note that the term "radical Islam"
is itself a recommended topic for the Commission to consider.
[2] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[3] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[4] Julia Edwards Ainsley et al., "Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism
program solely on Islam – sources," Reuters, February 2, 2017, accessed February
2, 2017.
[5] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 6(a).
[6] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 12.
[7] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 14.
[8] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 9(c).
[9] See S.J.Res. 80 — 96th Congress: A joint resolution to confer certain powers
on the Presidential Commission appointed to investigate the ..."
[10] Alan A. Block, "The Origins of Iran-CONTRA," The Organized Crime Community:
Essays in Honor of Alan A. Block (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007), ed.
Frank Bovenkerk and Michael Levi, p. 2.
[11] See Appendix B: Selected Presidential Commissions, 1900-2016.
[12] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[13] P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret
Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America (Los Angeles: WND Books, 2009).
[14] "A Short Course, Part 13: The Holy Land Trial: On the Trail of the Muslim
Brotherhood" Shariah: The Threat to America, Report of Team B II (Washington,
D.C.: The Center for Security Policy, 2010), accessed January 16, 2017.
[15] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[16] See Kenneth Kitts, Presidential Commissions and National Security: The
Politics of Damage Control (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005).
[17] Interview by author with former Reagan Defense Department official, January
17, 2017.
[18] Interview by author with former Reagan Defense Department official, January
17, 2017; see also Richard Pipes, "Team B: The Reality Behind the Myth,"
Commentary Magazine, 82 (4), October 1, 1986.
[19] "America's Cold War victory" is used to refer to the consensus that the
Soviet bloc's collapse marked an important turn of the tide in international
affairs, not to imply a belief that America did, or has, won the ideological
battle with Marxism or its multiple mutant offspring.
[20] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[21] The original list of beliefs on which the following list is based was
compiled by staff at the Center for Security Policy, July 28, 2016. Note that
all sources are to original Islamic texts and readers are encouraged to verify
them for themselves.
[22] Sahih al-Bukhari, "Bab al Janaiz, Vol. 2, p. 90; Vol. 3, "Bab al Wakalah fi
al Hudud", p. 65; Vol. 7, "Kitab al Ayman", p. 218; Vol. 8, "Bab al Rajm," pp.
24. 29. 34, 135; Sunan Al Tirmidhi, "Kitab al Hudud", Vol. 4, pp. 27, 33, 34.
[23] Qur'an 24:4-5.
[24] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o12.0,
The Penalty for Fornication or Sodomy, p. 610-11.
[25] Qur'an 16:106.
[26] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o1.2,
pp. 583-84.
[27] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book E, Purification, Section
e4.3, pg. 59.
[28] Qur'an 2:282.
[29] Qur'an 4:11.
[30] Qur'an 4:34.
[31] Qur'an 65:4.
[32] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m3.4,
p. 518-9.
[33] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m10.4,
p. 538; Section m3.7, p. 520.
[34] "Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom" by Ayatollah Khomeini.
[35] Qur'an 4:3.
[36] Qur'an 2:223.
[37] Qur'an 23:5, Qur'an 70:30, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, p. 137.
[38] Qur'an 33:50, Qur'an 23:5.
[39] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section 01.2, p.
584; Book O, Justice, Section o9.0, Jihad, p. 599, Qur'an 8:39.
[40] Qur'an 47:4.
[41] Qur'an 5:38-39.
[42] Qur'an 24:2
[43] Sahih Al Bukhari, "Kitab al Hudud", Vol. 8, pp. 13, 14, 15.
[44] Reliance of the Traveler/Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One's Tongue,
Section r2.0, Slander, p. 730; Qur'an 49:12; Qur'an 104.1; Qur'an 68:11.
[45] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o11.0,
Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl al-Dhimma), p. 607-9 (Pact of
Umar).
[46] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o11.0,
Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl al-Dhimma), p. 607-9 (Pact of
Umar).
[47] Qur'an 8:39.
[48] Qur'an 8:39; Qur'an 9:5; Qur'an 9:29.
[49] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m2.3, p
512; Section m2.7, pg. 513.
[50] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m2.3,
p. 512.
[51] Qur'an 5:3; Qur'an 6:118-9.
[52] Qur'an 2:183-5.
[53] Qur'an 2:65, Qur'an 5:60, Qur'an 7:166.
[54] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One's Tongue,
Section r7.0, Giving Directions to Someone Who Wants To Do Wrong, p. 743-44.
[55] Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One's Tongue,
Section r8.0, Lying, p. 744-46.
[56] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[57] The Clarion Project, "Islamist Organizations in America," accessed January
25, 2017.
[58] "List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers," Attachment A,
U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, et al.
[59] Daniel Pipes, "That List of Islamist Organizations under U.S. Senate
Scrutiny," Middle East Forum, originally posted January 14, 2004, updated
December 14, 2005, accessed January 25, 2017.
[60] Interview with author of scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism,
January 18, 2017.
[61] Interview with author of scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism,
January 18, 2017.
[62] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[63] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[64] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[65] Johanna Markind ,"Islamism Responsible for More U.S. Murders than
'Right-Wing' Extremism," Independent Journal Review, January 24, 2016, accessed
January 25, 2017.
[66] Peter Bergen et al., "International Security In Depth: Terrorism in America
After 9/11," New America Foundation, accessed January 25, 2017.
[67] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[68] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016. Note that the term "radical Islam"
is itself a recommended topic for the Commission to consider.
[69] Interview by the author with former Defense Department official with
experience in Irregular Warfare Section and Combatting Terrorism and Technical
Support Office, January 28, 2017.
[70] A. Ross Johnson, "RFE/RL History," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
December 2008, ed. Martins Zvaners, accessed January 30, 2017.
[71] See Team Herman, "The world's most patriotic American hacker, the Jester,
gives first ever radio interview," MYNorthwest.com, November 15, 2016; Kim
Zetter, "An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World's First Digital Weapon,"
November 3, 2014; "Group: APT29, The Dukes, Cozy Bear," ATT&CK (Adversarial
Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge), all accessed January 27, 2017.
[72] Nadya Labi, "Jihad 2.0," The Atlantic, July/August 2006 Issue, accessed
January 27, 2017.
[73] See e.g. Howie, "Meanwhile in Austria," The Jawa Report, posted January 26,
2017, accessed January 27, 2017; Howie, "Banned From Jihadtube :Boobies; Not
banned from Jihadtube, Death to America," The Jawa Report, posted January 23,
2017, accessed January 27, 2017.
[74] Interview by author with Member of Congress and chairman of relevant
subcommittee, January 5, 2017.
[75] Interview by author with Member of Congress and chairman of relevant
subcommittee, January 5, 2017.
[76] Mike Pompeo and David B. Rivkin, Jr., "Time for a Rigorous National Debate
About Surveillance," Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2016, accessed January 30,
2017.
[77] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[78] These seven points were drawn from an interview by the author with a Member
of Congress and chairman of relevant subcommittee, January 5, 2017.
[79] Interview by author with former Reagan Defense Department official, January
17, 2017.
[80] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[81] Politico staff, "Full text: Donald Trump's speech on fighting terrorism,"
August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[82] Interview by author with information warfare expert in the counter-terror
space, January 18, 2017.
[83] Interview by author with reform-minded Muslim national leader, January 16,
2017.
[84] Interview by author with Founding Member of the Department of Homeland
Security, January 16, 2017.
[85] Interview by author with information warfare expert in the counter-terror
space, January 18, 2017.
[86] Interview by author with reform-minded Muslim national leader, January 16,
2017.
[87] A. Aaron Weisburd, LinkedIn profile, accessed January 27, 2017.
[88] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 6(a).
[89] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a
UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017; see also Kurt
Barling, "What's the risk to London?" BBC, May 15, 2008, accessed January 19,
2017.
[90] Irfan Ahmad, "The Jewish hand and the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind," in Peter van
der Veer and Shoma Munshi (eds.), Media, War, and Terrorism: Responses from the
Middle East and Asia (London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004), p. 138.
[91] Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1994), p. 35. "The origins of today's Islamist thought and
organisations can be traced to the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood, created by
the school teacher Hasan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, and the Jamaat-i-Islami of
Pakistan, established by [Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi]."
[92] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a
UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017.
[93] Jamie Doward, "British Muslim leader urged to quit over Gaza," The Guardian
(London), March 8, 2009, accessed January 19, 2017.
[94] Vikram Dodd, 'Muslim Council accuses government of undermining
independence,' The Guardian (London), March 26, 2009, accessed January 19, 2017.
[95] Jamie Doward, "British Muslim leader urged to quit over Gaza," The Guardian
(London), March 8, 2009, accessed January 19, 2017.
[96] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a
UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017.
[97] Sam Westrop, "UK: Multiculturalism vs. Islamism," Gatestone Institute,
April 18, 2014, accessed January 19, 2017.
[98] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a
UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017.
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list
Home About Staff Archives Middle East Quarterly Audio Education Fund Press
Releases Employment Mailing Lists Donate MEF @ Facebook MEF @ Twitter
©1994-2017 The Middle East Forum • E-mail: info (at) meforum (dot) org • Tel: 1
(215) 546-5406