Friday, June 9, 2017

Palestinians: Crocodile Tears and Terrorism - Bassam Tawil




by Bassam Tawil

Abbas is against terrorist attacks anywhere in the world -- except in Israel, perpetrated by his own people and prompted by him.

  • This apparent repudiation of terrorism is a startling development for Abbas. The only catch is that when it comes to Israel, Abbas takes quite the opposite line.
  • For the past two years, Palestinians have been waging a new type of "intifada" against Israel -- one that consists of knife and car-ramming attacks, similar to the ones carried out in Britain, France and Germany. This wave of attacks, which began in September 2015, has claimed the lives of 49 people and injured more than 700. Since then, Palestinians have carried out more than 177 stabbings, 144 shootings and 58 vehicular attacks.
  • Adding to the hypocrisy, Abbas and his PA leadership often point an accusing finger at Israel for killing the terrorists. Instead of condemning the perpetrators, Abbas and the Palestinians regularly accuse Israel of carrying out "extra-judicial killings" of the terrorists. In other words, Palestinian leaders save their condemnation for Israeli soldiers and policemen for defending themselves and firing at those who come to stab them with knives and axes or try to run them over with their cars. How would the British or French governments react if someone condemned them for killing the terrorists on the streets of Paris and London?

Who says that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not condemn terror attacks against civilians?

As it turns out, he and his Palestinian Authority (PA) do indeed condemn terrorism -- when it is directed against anyone but an Israeli. Israeli blood, it seems, is different.

Abbas led the international outcry after the June 3 London Bridge terror attack that left seven people dead and 48 injured.

A brief statement issued by Abbas's office read:
"The President of the State of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, on Sunday condemned the terror attack in the British capital of London. His Excellency (Abbas) offered his deep condolences to Britain - its queen, government and people, and to the families of the victims of the terror assault. He affirmed his permanent rejection of all forms of terrorism."
This statement is in line with others Abbas has made recently. Just two weeks ago, Abbas, during a joint press conference with visiting U.S. President Donald Trump in Bethlehem, condemned the May 23 terror attack in the British city of Manchester, the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since July 7, 2005, in which 23 people were killed and 119 were injured, 23 critically.

Abbas described the terror attack as a "heinous crime" and said that the Palestinians were prepared to work with the U.S. as "partners in the war on terrorism in our region and the world."

Two days later, Abbas was among the first leaders to condemn a terror attack that killed 28 Coptic Christians in central Egypt. Once again, Abbas said that he and the Palestinians stood with Egypt and its president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in the war against terrorism.

This verbal charade has been going on for some time.

Last April, Abbas was quick to condemn the terrorist attack that took place on the Saint Petersburg Metro, in Russia, in which 15 people were killed and 45 injured. Abbas, in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that he and the Palestinians support Russia in its war against terrorism.

Abbas also ran to condemn the wave of terrorist attacks that has hit Belgium, France and Germany in the past two years. This apparent repudiation of terrorism is a startling development for Abbas. The only catch is that when it comes to Israel, Abbas takes quite the opposite line.

For the past two years, Palestinians have been waging a new type of "intifada" against Israel -- one that consists of knife and car-ramming attacks, similar to the ones carried out in Britain, France and Germany. This wave of attacks, which began in September 2015, has claimed the lives of 49 people and injured more than 700. Since then, Palestinians have carried out more than 177 stabbings, 144 shootings and 58 vehicular attacks.

This wave of terrorism is the direct result of incitement by various Palestinian groups and leaders, including Abbas himself.

Days before the violence erupted, Abbas stated:
"Every drop of blood that has been spilled in Jerusalem is holy blood as long as it is for Allah. Every martyr (Shahid) will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded, Allah willing. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, and they [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to [defile it], and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."
A few days later, Palestinians heeded Abbas's call by launching the newest wave of terrorist attacks against Israelis. These deadly attacks continue until this day. Abbas's remarks served as a catalyst for the new "intifada", one that is precisely parallel to the attacks we are witnessing on the streets of Paris, London and Berlin.

Yet Abbas, the world's newest renouncer of terror, has chosen to refrain from rescinding his explicit call for Palestinians to butcher Jews in order to prevent them from "defiling" the Aqsa Mosque. Needless to say, Jews have neither desecrated nor caused any harm to the mosque. All they have been doing, as is permitted, is visiting the outdoor Temple Mount compound as tourists. Never have any of these Jews set foot inside the Aqsa Mosque.

But Abbas and the Palestinians have been exploiting Jewish visits to the Temple Mount to incite against Israel, thus triggering the current wave of stabbings and vehicular attacks.

Not only has Abbas failed to withdraw his deadly appeal to Palestinians to engage in terrorism, he has also refused to condemn the attacks that have claimed the lives of scores of Israelis and wounded hundreds of others.

So, here is the take-home: Abbas is against terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. Except in Israel, perpetrated by his own people and prompted by him.

Adding to the hypocrisy, Abbas and his PA leadership often point an accusing finger at Israel for killing the terrorists who are carrying out attacks. Instead of condemning the perpetrators, Abbas and the Palestinians regularly accuse Israel of carrying out "extra-judicial killings" of the terrorists. In other words, Palestinian leaders save their condemnation for Israeli soldiers and policemen, for defending themselves and firing at those who come to stab them with knives and axes or try to run them over with their cars.

How would the British or French governments react if someone condemned them for killing the terrorists on the streets of Paris and London?

Has anyone in the West noticed Abbas's double standards in dealing with terrorism against civilians?
But Abbas not only stays silent when his own people mow down Israelis: he names streets and squares after such "heroes." Moreover, he rewards them and their families financially, with the help of American and European taxpayer money.

Perhaps it is time for Westerners to realize that there is no difference between a terrorist who sets out to kill Jews and a terrorist who kills British, French and German nationals. In fact, it has become clear that the terrorists in Europe have copied the tactics of the Palestinians in carrying out stabbings and vehicular and suicide-bombing attacks.

Abbas's crocodile tears are intended to disguise tears of joy that terrorism is alive and well -- certainly when it comes to the Israeli blood that his own people spill in the name of Allah.


Who says that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not condemn terror attacks against civilians? He is against terrorist attacks anywhere in the world -- except in Israel, perpetrated by his own people and prompted by him. Abbas's crocodile tears are intended to disguise tears of joy that terrorism is alive and well. (Image source: Muhammed Muheisen-Pool/Getty Images)


Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10485/palestinians-terrorism-hypocrisy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Two kosher restaurants in Manchester firebombed - Thomas Lifson




by Thomas Lifson

Slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Jews is underway in Manchester

Slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Jews is underway in Manchester, escaping much notice by the outside world in the wake of the slaughter at the Arianna Grande concert. Antisemitism UK is the source for this report on the culinary terrorism underway:

JS Restaurant, the oldest kosher restaurant in Manchester has been gutted by fire following a suspected arson attack overnight at approximately 4:00.

As can be seen in the picture below, the second wave attack was successful, closing a business that also served as a community center, allowing observant Jews a place to gather and enjoy food together.


Two days ago, Ta’am, another kosher restaurant in the city, was firebombed for the second time, and CCTV captured images of two youths conducting the attack. Last year the same restaurant was also set alight.

Once again, the only term used by police to describe that attackers who were photographed is “youths."

If Labour led by Jeremey Corbin is elected in today's voting, things will get much, much worse for the Jews of Manchester and the UK. But they are only the first target of the conquerors.

Ht tip: Cheryl Jacobs Lewin


Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/two_kosher_restaurants_in_manchester_firebombed.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump and The Article Five Shibboleth - Bruce Thornton




by Bruce Thornton


U.S. president makes another wise move on NATO.



Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The NeverTrump bitter-enders still can’t resist sniping at the president and his alleged éminence grise, Steve Bannon. Now it’s Trump’s “dangerous” refusal––despite advice from his national security advisors, and allegedly fomented by Bannon––to reassure fellow NATO members of his commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty during the ceremonies in May celebrating NATO’s new headquarters in Brussels. According to Commentary’s Noah Rothman, for example, Trump’s snubbing of Article Five emboldens Russia, for it “undermines a credible American deterrence” and “invites Putin to test the parameters of Trump’s resolve, which could be disastrous.”

The inflation of Article Five into the West’s premier bulwark against aggression is one of the best examples of the magical thinking that ritualistic affirmations of toothless multinational treaties will keep the peace and deter enemies.

This belief, however, depends more on half-truths and political marketing than on facts. We often hear that NATO “avoided a major state conflict,” as one NeverTrumper wrote, in postwar Europe, and kept the Soviets at bay during the Cold War. But what kept the peace in Europe was the simple fact that the European nations did not have the means or the will to wage a war. They were too demoralized and too busy rebuilding their shattered economies, financed in part by the Marshall Plan’s $190 billion (in today’s money).

As for deterring the Soviets, it was the 300,000 American troops deployed in Germany between 1950 and 1990, and the 25,000 nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal threatening Mutually Assured Destruction that checked Soviet aggression, not the “military pygmies,” as NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson put it, of the European nations. NATO and Article Five were then and now a fig-leaf for allowing the European nations to hide the fact that their security was a benefit provided by American military power and funded by the U.S. taxpayer, freeing Europeans to concentrate on rebuilding their economies, and then creating their social-welfare, dolce vita EUtopia.

Indeed, the political purpose of Article Five is obvious from its actual language, which questions the common description of it as a mutual defense pact. Article Five states that “an armed attack against one or more of [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” In the event of such an attack, Article Five continues, “each” member will respond “by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [emphases added]. “Considering” an act of aggression to be an attack is inherently subjective, as are the “actions” any country might “deem” to be “necessary.” Such elastic language could make speechifying at the U.N., or imposing economic sanctions, or voting on a Security Council resolution to be a fulfillment of a member state’s treaty obligation. And no, there is no provision for enforcing Article Five, though there is one (Article 13) for leaving NATO.

These loopholes exist for a reason: they serve the political needs of each state, recognizing that the decision to use force will always be made by a sovereign nation’s leaders, who are answerable to their citizens and responsible for seeing to their particular interests. If Article Five had said, “In the event of an attack, each member state shall forthwith mobilize its military and declare war on the aggressor,” such a genuine mutual defense pact would have died in its diplomatic crib. The elasticity of Article Five’s language means it’s highly unlikely that, say, a Russian incursion into Estonia would be countered by military force on behalf of a faraway country about which most European and American voters know nothing.

Defenders of Article Five also make much of the fact that the only time it has been invoked was after 9/11. And some NATO states did send troops and matériel to Afghanistan, the bulk coming from the British Commonwealth countries. We should honor the sacrifice of those Europeans who died in that conflict and later in Iraq. But while we appreciate the help, it wasn’t necessary for defeating either foe. As happened in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya, NATO operations are in reality American ones, for we provide the bulk of men and matériel, and do most of the fighting and dying. Article Five is simply not necessary for our military effectiveness, since as the world’s greatest military and economic power, we can always find allies in other countries willing to bandwagon with the global hegemon. That’s why 34 nations in 1990 joined the coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

NATO’s benefits, then, go mostly in one direction: to provide security for rich countries that refuse to finance their militaries or develop the capacity to defend themselves––which, by the way, is a requirement of the NATO treaty’s Article Three, which states that “each member state must maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” That article has been as ignored as the 2006 requirement that each NATO member spend 2% of its GDP on defense.

More useful for our foreign policy than rhetorical obeisance to Article Five is Trump’s scolding of member states for not carrying their fiscal weight. It’s a scandal that the two biggest economies in the Eurozone, France and Germany, can’t reach the 2% of GDP threshold for military spending required by NATO. Germany is the world’s fourth largest economy, but spends a paltry 1.2% of its $3.35 trillion GDP on defense. This shameful fact––worsened by endemic German anti-Americanism and moral preening––is of more consequence than Trump’s failure to issue rote statements of support for Article Five.

As for deterring Russia, one has to be delusional to think Vladimir Putin, after eight years of Obama’s “reset” and “flexibility” and retreat, will be frightened off by mere rhetoric. Getting NATO members to spend real money on weapons and troops, and rebuilding America’s military capability are the ways to concentrate the minds of all our rivals and enemies.

All this Article Five blather and NATO encomia represent the decayed remnants of idealistic internationalism and its faith in multinational institutions, agreements, treaties, and diplomatic palaver. For nearly a century we have witnessed failure after failure of this ideal: The League of Nations, the Locarno Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand pact, none of which prevented World War II; the U.N. with its pathetic “peace-keeping” forces, coddling of tyrannical regimes, and impotent Security Council resolutions; the numerous arms reduction and arms control treaties invariably violated by the signatories; the fruitless nuclear non-proliferation protocols and negotiations that turned North Korea into a nuclear power, and promise to do the same for Iran––all prove that aggression must be met with deeds, not empty words.

The fact is, sovereign states relate to each other not on the basis of imagined universal principles recognized by all nations, but on their particular interests that sometimes collide, other times agree, and always are subject to changing circumstances. Spain’s participation in the Iraq War, for example, ended after the 2004 Madrid train bombing by al Qaeda, and Italy pulled out after antiwar sentiment helped elect Romano Prodi Prime Minister in 2006. Alliances and treaties are always subject to political change, not lofty universal principles.

When it comes to foreign affairs, the only certainty, as George Washington said, is “the maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bounded by its interests.” It’s high time that we accepted that hard truth and acted accordingly.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266926/trump-and-article-five-shibboleth-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama’s State Department covered up Iranian cyber-attack during nuke deal negotiations - Thomas Lifson




by Thomas Lifson

-- evidence of an Iranian attack during negotiations of the secret side deals in the wake of congressional failure to stop the deal has been ignored. The Washington Free Beacon reports

Our media devote most of their attention to a phony story of Trump collusion with a rival, while actual collusion (by Silence) between the Obama administration and an actual enemy, Iran, is largely ignored.

The entire media establishment is having paroxysms over a leak by a 25-year-old NSA contractor of an NSA report that the Russians carried out spear-phishing attacks just prior to the election. But evidence of an Iranian attack during negotiations of the secret side deals in the wake of congressional failure to stop the deal has been ignored. The Washington Free Beacon reports:
State Department officials determined that Iran hacked their emails and social media accounts during a particularly sensitive week for the nuclear deal in the fall of 2015, according to multiple sources familiar with the details of the cyber attack.
The attack took place within days of the deal overcoming opposition in Congress in late September that year. That same week, Iranian officials and negotiators for the United States and other world powers were beginning the process of hashing out a series of agreements allowing Tehran to meet previously determined implementation deadlines. (snip)
It is unclear whether top officials at the State Department negotiating the Iran deal knew about the hack or if their personal or professional email accounts were compromised. Sources familiar with the attack believed top officials at State were deeply concerned about the hack and that those senior leaders did not have any of their email or social media accounts compromised in this particular incident.
While the Free Beacon report relies mostly on anonymous sources, there is actual hard evidence provided that this happened:
State Department officials in the Office of Iranian Affairs on Sept. 24, 2015 sent an email to dozens of outside contractors. The email alerted the contractors that a cyber-attack had occurred and urged them not to open any email from a group of five State Department officials that did not come directly from their official state.gov accounts.

If the State Department or White House had acknowledged the attack to the public, it would have demonstrated the wrong-headedness of the Iran deal Congress had just punted on. 

Where is the outrage of the Left, obsessed with “collaboration” with Russia ( nation that, unlike Iran, has not launched terror attacks against the United States the way Iran has. What about Obama/Jarret’s collaboration with Iran?

After all, hacking during negotiations is a way to gain an unfair advantage, causing the opponent to give away far too much. Isn’t that exactly what happened? And didn’t the Obama administration cover it up?

Sooner or later, the time will come for a full-frontal pushback against the phony fantasy story of Trump-Russia collaboration. How about Congressional investigations of the Iran deal and Obama administration collusion?

Hat tip: Jack Hellner

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/obamas_state_department_covered_up_iranian_cyberattack_during_nuke_deal_negotiations.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel spearheads threat of mass exodus from UN rights council - Shlomo Cesana, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff




by Shlomo Cesana, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff



U.S. calls on the United Nations Human Rights Council to eliminate its "chronic anti-Israel bias"



Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon
|
Photo credit: AFP


Shlomo Cesana, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=42953&hp=1

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Marwan Kanafani, Former Advisor To Arafat: Palestine Cause No Longer The Most Serious Arab Issue, There Are More Syrian Refugees - MEMRI




by MEMRI

"negotiations to bring about reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah have been going on for ten years, while the U.S. and Iran reached understandings within less than a decade despite their differences"

In a recent TV interview, Marwan Kanafani, former advisor to Yasser Arafat, blamed the Palestinian leaderships and political parties for the "regression" in the Palestinian cause, saying that the negotiations to bring about reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah have been going on for ten years, while the U.S. and Iran reached understandings within less than a decade despite their differences. He was speaking on ON TV on May 27.

Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV 

Capture6055.JPG


Marwan Kanafani: "The Palestine cause is not the most serious issue in the Arab world today. There are more Syrian refugees today than Palestinian ones. More people were killed in Libya than in Palestine or other countries where we lived.


[…]

Capture60551.JPG


"The Palestinian leaders and political parties bear responsibility for our current situation. This is what was going through my mind as I was writing my book. I may be mistaken or too dogmatic about this, but I believe the time has come to talk about our mistakes.


[…]

Capture60552.JPG


"Over the past decade, we Palestinians have not made any progress whatsoever in our cause, and, as much as I don’t like to say it, we have regressed. Of course, we cannot blame the Palestinian people for this. The Palestinian people is not responsible for the split between Gaza and Jericho. The political parties and the factions are responsible for that split. The negotiations to bring about reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] have been going on for 10 years, whereas the negotiations for reconciliation and understandings between the U.S. and Iran took less than ten years, even though they have differences in religion, language, and race, whereas we all belong to the same race and the same heritage.


[…]

Capture60553.JPG


"Not a single revolution in the world ever ended in a knockout. They have all led to negotiations. Negotiations are permitted by Islamic law – the Prophet Muhammad negotiated with the infidels in the Hudaybiyya [Treaty], and the Caliphs [held negotiations], and so on. Negotiations are part of international constitutions, and at the end of the day, negotiations determine the balance of power."




MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/tv/arafat-advisor-kanafani-palestinian-cause-not-most-serious

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

UN Globalists vs. Trump - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein


Anti-Israel UN human rights apparatus also interfered in U.S. presidential election.




The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, went into the lion’s den known as the UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday for the stated purpose of challenging the status quo. Sadly, the status quo won, at least for the time being. The UN’s human rights apparatus, including the Human Rights Council and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, continues to face no consequences for its blatant hypocrisy, anti-Israel bias, and even for its interference in the U.S. presidential election last year.

Ambassador Haley dutifully pointed out to the other Council members something that many of them are quite proud of and have no intention of changing - the anti-Israel bias so prevalent in the Human Rights Council as well as other UN forums. She also urged reforms that would preclude the worst human rights abusing countries such as Saudi Arabia from serving as members of the Council. However, she ducked completely the issue of the UN human rights chief's interference in last year's presidential election. And Ambassador Haley stopped short of turning her pleas for reforms into demands for action. She drew back from threatening to withdraw U.S. political and financial support for the Council and the whole UN human rights apparatus if serious changes were not forthcoming immediately.

Indeed, on the same day as Ambassador Haley delivered her remarks to the Human Rights Council, High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, signaled business as usual in his opening statement to the Council. After going through the motions of declaring that the Holocaust “has no parallel, no modern equal,” Zeid then immediately drew a parallel of his own to his version of the Palestinians’ situation today. “Yet it is also undeniable that today,” Zeid said, “the Palestinian people mark a half-century of deep suffering under an occupation imposed by military force. An occupation which has denied the Palestinians many of their most fundamental freedoms, and has often been brutal in the way it has been realized; an occupation whose violations of international law have been systematic, and have been condemned time and again by virtually all States.”

Aside from his regular Israel-bashing, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who hails from the decidedly non-democratic country of Jordan, decided to stick his nose into the U.S. presidential campaign last year. Moreover, he continues to offer his unsolicited opinions on matters directly impacting America’s national sovereignty, such as protection of its borders.

“If Donald Trump is elected, on the basis of what he has said already, and unless that changes, I think it’s without any doubt that he would be dangerous from an international point of view,” Zeid proclaimed to the press less than a month before the election.

Zeid’s decision to take sides in a U.S. presidential election constituted blatant interference by a senior UN official whose salary is funded more by the United States than by any other member state. Nevertheless, the Obama State Department spokesperson at the time, John Kirby, brushed Zeid’s interference aside. “I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other on that,” Kirby said.

On September 5, 2016, after pronouncing himself “the global voice on human rights, universal rights; elected by all governments,” Zeid claimed that Trump “shares with Da’esh” [another name for ISIS] the “scalpels of the arch propagandist.”

The Left’s obsession with alleged Russian interference in last year’s election is matched, if not exceeded, by the Left’s utter silence over the specter of a senior UN official trying to paint the presidential candidate of one of the two major parties in the United States as “dangerous” and equivalent in some respects to ISIS propagandists. The American people did not elect Jordanian Prince Zeid for anything, or ask him for his opinion on who should serve as the president of the United States. He should have kept his mouth shut, but Zeid did not stop his Trump bashing even after the presidential election was over and Trump won.

Zeid declared that President Trump’s policies on limiting the flow of refugees and migrants into the United States are “in breach of international law, if undertaken without due process guarantees, including individual assessment.” He even threatened to take the United States to court over President Trump’s immigration and refugee policies, which are aimed at nothing more than protecting American citizens from harm. Apparently, the UN Human Rights Commissioner and other Trump haters believe that foreigners from any country seeking to enter the United States for any reason, no matter whether they are from terrorist prone countries and are difficult to vet properly, should have an absolute right favoring their entry that overrides national security considerations. Sorry, but countries still get to decide how best to protect their citizens, not an unelected UN bureaucrat.

Donald Trump was right when he said last year that the “United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It's not a friend even to the United States of America, where as all know, it has its home.”

President Trump should show he means business by delivering a message to all the globalists around the world that the United States will not be pushed around by UN bureaucrats who live high on the hog at American taxpayers’ expense. 

Joseph Klein

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266932/un-globalists-vs-trump-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

CAIR Leader Hassan Shibly Promotes Video Lauding Palestinian Terrorist as Hero - Joe Kaufman




by Joe Kaufman


Shibly previously posted Hamas propaganda and labeled Israel supporters “enemies of God.”





CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations was created by those with deep ties to Hamas. CAIR’s anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian terror beginnings are still being realized today. One place where this extremism exists in a big way is within CAIR’s Florida chapter. At the end of April, CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly promoted a video on social media lauding Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti as a “hero.” For Shibly, this type of radical activity is far from out of the ordinary.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was created in June 1994 by an umbrella group led by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook, called the Palestine Committee. CAIR was later named by the US government as a co-conspirator in federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. CAIR had used its official website to raise money for the defendant in the trials, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Several CAIR representatives have served jail time or have been deported for terror-related activity, including former HLF head and founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, Ghassan Elashi.

CAIR’s Florida chapter reflects the same violence-driven extremism of its parent organization. In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where attendees repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas,” “Let’s go Hamas,” and “Hamas kicked your ass.” Following the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, wrote in Arabic, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”

Leading CAIR-Florida, at the time of the Miami pro-Hamas rally, was (and still is) CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly.

Shibly has a lengthy record of bigoted rhetoric and extremist behavior. In August 2014, he tweeted that “Israel and its supporters are enemies of God.” In November 2006, after the 2006 Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah, Shibly told his university’s publication that Hezbollah was “basically a resistance movement” and “absolutely not a terrorist organization.”

In November 2016, Shibly retweeted a tweet first published by the Palestinian Information Center, the media arm of Hamas, which publishes Hamas communiques, gruesome anti-Semitic cartoons, and praise for murders of Israelis. The tweet included a video of the Arab-Israeli member of Knesset (Parliament) Ahmad Tibi reciting the Azan (Islamic call to prayer) in front of the Israeli Knesset. Tibi, like Shibly’s comment about Hezbollah, has stated, “I never use the expression ‘terrorist organization,’ when talking about Hamas. You will never hear those words out of my mouth.”

Shibly also appears to be an admirer of the extremist cleric Khalid Yasin, who, during a 2005 interview, stated the following about non-Muslims and homosexuals: “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend. If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that’s on most of those clothings is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians.”

In September 2014, then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly pointed out on her show that, for at least four years, Shibly has referred to himself as a “fan” of Yasin on his Facebook page. Shibly has targeted gays himself. In May 2009, Shibly wrote on Facebook, “Pre-Marital Sex and Homosexuality are quick ways to earn God’s wrath.”

On April 30, 2017, Shibly once again showcased his extremism, when he promoted a video on his Facebook page lauding convicted Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti as a “hero.” Barghouti, who is currently leading a hunger strike from an Israeli prison, is the former leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah and a group that is on the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). In June 2004, Barghouti was sentenced to five life terms for the murders of four Israelis and a Greek monk. At the time of his arrest, Barghouti had been charged with nearly two dozen other murders.

The video on Shibly’s page was produced by Al-Jazeera’s AJ+, and it featured Barghouti’s son, Aarab, who created a campaign, titled ‘Saltwater Challenge,’ as a way to stand in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners. According to Aarab, “the prisoners have been living only on saltwater,” though Israel has released footage of his father, Marwan, eating from his prison cell.

According to the video, Barghouti was imprisoned not for all the innocents whose murders he had been involved in, but “for his role in resisting the Israeli occupation.” With his father’s arms stretched upwards and his hands flashing the “Victory Sign,” Aarab states on the video, “I know he’s a hero to Palestinian people.”

CAIR-Florida and its leader, Hassan Shibly, are both proof that CAIR’s roots in Palestinian terror continue to this day. Given its history and present, is there any reason for CAIR or its Florida offspring to still be in existence?

Joe Kaufman was the 2016 Republican nominee for United States House of Representatives in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District. He is an expert in the fields of counter-terrorism, foreign affairs and energy independence for America. He has been featured on all major cable networks, including Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS and C-SPAN. Joe has been instrumental in getting terrorist charities shut down and terror-related individuals put behind bars. Exactly one month prior to the September 11 attacks, he predicted the attacks by stating in an article that “the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was no aberration” and that it would happen again.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266927/cair-leader-hassan-shibly-promotes-video-lauding-joe-kaufman

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Foundations of Global Jihad - Maria Polizoidou




by Maria Polizoidou

U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, by rejecting the term "radical Islamic terrorism," appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad.

  • U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, by rejecting the term "radical Islamic terrorism," appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad.
  • It is as if McMaster believes that the terrorists' war against the West emerged out of nowhere -- unconnected to a multi-pronged logistical foundation and network.
  • A Palestinian state would quickly become a theocracy -- an ISIS clone, denying its citizens exposure to Judeo-Christian culture, as Islamists are currently trying to do in Europe, Australia and Canada.
Despite considering Iran a grave threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world, the U.S. establishment opposes canceling the nuclear deal, and instead apparently prefers to provide the Islamic Republic's theocratic regime with the logistical means to continue developing its nuclear weapons program.

U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, for example, by rejecting the term "radical Islamic terrorism," appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad. It is as if McMaster believes that the terrorists' war against the West emerged out of nowhere -- unconnected to a multi-pronged logistical foundation and network.

The same can be said of the American media, the Justice and State Departments and the intelligence services -- and not only in relation to terrorism.


U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, by rejecting the term "radical Islamic terrorism," appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The American establishment also seems to be suffering from a similar form of tunnel-vision in relation to the Palestinians' quest for a state, by ignoring the fundamental logistics behind it. Under the best circumstances, any state created would not be like Denmark. The reality is that such a state would adopt the political and institutional nature of the totalitarian regimes of the Gulf countries, just as Hamas did in the Gaza Strip after Israel's withdrawal in 2005.

A Palestinian state would survive through funding from regimes such as Iran, Qatar and Turkey, and continue to serve as their proxy in the region. Similarly, it would quickly become a theocracy -- an ISIS clone, denying its citizens exposure to Judeo-Christian culture, as Islamists are currently trying to do in Europe, Australia and Canada. Witness the attacks in Europe on Paris's sports stadium and the Bataclan theater in November 2015, or on young girls listening to music in Manchester on May 22, 2017. Or the attempted Christmas bombing in Australia and attempts further to silence free speech in Canada.

The time for the United States and the rest of the West to tackle global jihad and the extremism that leads to it is long overdue.

Maria Polizoidou, a reporter, broadcast journalist, and consultant on international and foreign affairs, is based in Greece.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10435/global-jihad-foundations

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A Measured Response to Bishop George Browning and Others Interested in the Palestinians - Denis MacEoin




by Denis MacEoin

Should anyone be surprised if Israel uses checkpoints and other security measures to save Jewish, Christian and Muslim lives?

  • Wafa al-Biss is only one among hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians who have tried to smuggle guns, knives, suicide vests and bombs into Israel. Should anyone be surprised if Israel uses checkpoints and other security measures to save Jewish, Christian and Muslim lives?
  • In the wave of terror that has continued for the past eighteen months, Palestinians, including children, have used knives, scissors, and machetes to stab Jews, and cars to ram and kill pedestrians or police. Palestinians also suffer from the security this demands, by having to wait in queues at checkpoints or searches. That is regrettable, but hardly a reason to condemn Israel.
  • The Palestinian narrative and the wider Arab and Muslim demand that Israel must be wiped out is not a Christian narrative. It is an Islamic narrative.
A few days ago, some friends in Australia alerted me to a blog post written by former Bishop George Browning, who had been the 9th Anglican bishop of Canberra and Goulburn. Entitled, "Capitalism, Anti-Semitism & the Judaeo-Christian Ethic" (5 May 2017), this was an anti-Israel rant of biased and profoundly inaccurate misdirection, mixing outright lies with exaggerations. Towards the end, Browning denies that his article is anti-Semitic ("... rather than this critique being anti-Semitic, I believe it to be..."). Is he aware of the leading modern definition of anti-Semitism written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and recognized by some 32 countries? This definition, like others before it such as the European EUMC and US State Department definitions, includes several clauses that identify unfair, incorrect and biased criticism of Israel, the world's only Jewish state, or setting double standards for it, that are anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, Browning's article, as shall be seen, falls without reserve into that definition. It is hard to understand how a man of his intelligence and personal involvement in Israeli-Palestinian matters should not know of or respect the IHRA definition. In order to make this clear, here are two clauses from the IHRA definition:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Now, let me turn to several statements made by Browning.
"Universal justice appears to have become an unwelcome stranger in the land of Israel. Zionism's compulsive identification with land, has replaced justice as its core value."
What on earth can he mean? People all round the world have high regard for their land, and over centuries have fought and died for it. Patriotism is a common position for the Irish, the Scottish, the English, the Americans, the French, the Italians, the Tibetans, and hundreds more. The Palestinians, to whom Browning is intensely loyal -- he is, after all, President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network -- talk about little else but their right to the land and their love for it. But in Browning's mind, Jewish love of their ancestral land, a place to which Jews prayed to return for more than two millennia, supposedly overturns the ancient Jewish love for justice in a way other nations' love for their land does not. That is anti-Semitism.

Just after this he writes:
"The having, holding and conquering of land has seemingly become the arbiter of nationhood..."
Does Browning know so little about history? Jews did not conquer the modern land of Israel: they have lived on that land for three thousand years; and were officially given it first through the League of Nations Mandate system, then the United Nations Partition resolution, both reinforced by UN resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), all internationally-recognized and binding agreements.

In 1947, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the offer of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state, and in 1948, five Arab countries launched an offensive war to drive the Jews out. Although this war failed, the Palestinians lost Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan, but few Palestinian Arabs complained. In 1967, Israel, fighting another defensive war, forced Egypt and Jordan out, but later made peace treaties with both countries, and in 2005 moved out of Gaza completely. Settlements within the West Bank, (originally the Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria) are legal under international law despite claims to the contrary, and all borders will be negotiated when and if the Palestinian leadership agrees to a peaceful resolution. Such offers that have been made in 1947, 1967, 2000, 2001, and 2008, but turned down every time by the Palestinians and their Arab allies.

Browning might do better to talk about the way Muslim Arabs originally seized not only the Holy Land -- by military conquest -- but also, over the centuries, Persia, the Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Greece, northern Cyprus, Spain, and most of eastern Europe. The only reason the Muslims insist on holding land is because of a ruling in jihad law that refuses to relinquish land once conquered, in the instance of Israel, by the Ottoman Empire. Is Browning actually aware of any of this, or is he just making things up as he goes along? Does he, a Christian, know he is advocating for the application of Islamic law? Or does he not care?

The bishop next tackles several positive statements made about Israel, but summarily dismisses them one by one. First is this:
"Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Hang on, no it is not. First of all, on who's [sic] definition of democracy? Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are afforded no rights while Arabs in Israel have differing and reduced rights to their Jewish counter parts."
What guff. First of all, the Palestinians wanted autonomy; Israel gave it to them; and this is how the Palestinians -- not the Israelis -- rule themselves. Gaza was completely evacuated by the Jews in 2005; in 2007, Hamas pushed Palestinian Authority leaders from the top floors of high buildings and threw all Fatah leadership, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, out of Gaza.

Moreover, what other democracies does Bishop Browning know of in the Middle East? Syria? Lebanon, under the control of the Iranian terrorist organization Hizbullah? Turkey, under the increasingly authoritarian rule of President Erdogan? Egypt? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Yemen? Iran?

Israel is neither a dictatorship nor a theocracy. It is by all measures a true democracy in which every adult citizen has the right to vote, to form or join a political party, and be elected to parliament. Arabs in Israel have exactly the same rights as citizens as Jews: they have political parties, they serve in the parliament (the Knesset), some serve as judges in Israeli courts, including the Supreme Court, some serve as diplomats, they are free to worship (whether Muslims or Christians), their places of worship are protected under the Law for the Protection of Holy Places. Unlike all other countries in the Middle East, women in Israel (Muslims, Christians or Jews) have the same rights as men. Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars or go out without male escorts. In Israel, many women are fighter pilots. Not a true democracy?


Arabs in Israel have exactly the same rights as citizens as Jews: they have political parties, they serve in the parliament, and some serve as judges in Israeli courts, including the Supreme Court. Pictured: Israel's supreme court justices, along with PM Netanyahu and President Rivlin. Salim Joubran, an Israeli-Arab Supreme Court justice, is in the middle of the second row. (Image source: Spokesperson unit of the President of Israel)

As for the West Bank, Palestinians certainly have rights. Under the Oslo Accords, the region is divided in three: Area A (where there are no Jews or Israeli settlements) is under the full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority (whose president, Mahmoud Abbas, is now in the undemocratic twelfth year of a 4-year term of office). Area B (also without Jews or Israeli settlements) is under joint Palestinian and Israeli control, and only Area C is under full Israeli control. The Israeli security presence is there to defend Israeli civilians from the thousands of terrorist attacks that have been, and still are, being launched by Palestinians. Since the majority of Palestinians live in Areas A and B, any ill-treatment they may suffer must chiefly be the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.

Israel is not a perfect democracy. Nor is Australia. Nor is the UK. Nor is the US. And so on. So why does Browning both lie about Israel and single it out above other democracies as not a democracy? 68 percent of Israeli Arabs say they would rather live in Israel than in most Arab countries, because there they flourish.

Next comes Browning's most egregious lie:
"Israel is the only country in the Middle East that enables freedom of religion. Well, no. Israel claims to be a Jewish State. By definition the statement excludes those who are not Jews. The idea of Jerusalem as an historical centre for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike is being constantly eroded."
The fact that Israel is a Jewish state (or the Jewish state) no more impinges on freedom of religion there than being a Christian nation deters freedom of religion in the UK, US, Australia or elsewhere. Meanwhile, all the countries around Israel and beyond define themselves as Muslim, and there is no religious freedom in any of them. In fact, minorities are routinely persecuted or worse: Baha'is in Iran, Coptic Christians in Egypt, Hindus in Pakistan, Christians in the West Bank and Gaza all suffer fierce discrimination and often murder.

Take the Baha'is as an example. They are the largest religious minority in Iran, yet they are persecuted, executed, imprisoned and more by the state. All their holy places -- once visited by the author -- have been demolished. In Israel, they have their two holiest shrines, the seat of their international governing body, and their international archives and other bodies. These and their world-famous gardens have won them status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Israel allows them complete freedom. They are as much loved by the Jewish state for their peaceful and tolerant values as they are hated in their homeland.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Christian populations are being slaughtered and expelled in the hundreds of thousands. Israel is the only country in the region where the Christian population has increased year on year since the state's foundation in 1948. One wonders why Bishop Browning doesn't take this into account and prefers the Palestinian territories where hundreds of Christians have been killed or expelled.

Peace-loving Ahmadi Muslims, persecuted in Pakistan and other Islamic countries, live and worship freely in Israel: "Israel is the only country in the Middle East, where Ahmadi Muslims can openly practice their Islamic faith". All the mosques and holy places of Israel's Muslim communities are kept safe and secure, again by the country's Law for the Protection of Holy Places. The Palestinians, to whom Bishop Browning is so partial, kill and persecute Christians, murder apostates from Islam, and teach their children in schools to hate Jews and kill them. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Has Bishop Browning ever set eyes on it?

Finally says Browning:
"Israel is the only country in the Middle East that lives by the rule of law. Well, no, it does not."
Actually, it does. Certainly, it imprisons many Palestinians, but only Palestinians who have gone out to stab, shoot, ram, or bomb Israeli citizens (whether Jews or Arabs). Back in Northern Ireland, we used to imprison people for crimes like that, too. No one was ever imprisoned or interned without due process. Israel never executes its prisoners, even mass-murderers, and its jails are of a higher standard than most in other countries (the only capital crime is genocide, for which the Nazi war criminal, Adolf Eichmann, was put to death). No-one is imprisoned without an open and fair trial requiring Western standards of proof. In 1999, Israel's supreme court banned even the use of moderate physical pressure on terrorist suspects. In other words, there is no torture in Israeli prisons.

Israeli law is based on a series of Basic Laws that act as a constitution, as is England, and Israeli justice is open, transparent, and witnessed by international observers, journalists and countless human rights groups. In 2010, for instance, Moshe Katsav, who was president of Israel from 2000-2007, was sentenced to seven years in prison on rape and sexual harassment charges. The presiding judge at the Supreme Court was one George Karra, a Christian Arab. But I forgot, George Browning insists that Israeli Arabs have few rights.

Problems can indeed arise within the Israeli legal system. But the same applies to all other democracies with equal force. Why does Browning single Israel out and deny its basic lawfulness? Israeli law has remedies for miscarriages of justice, and the country's parliament is empowered to reform specific pieces of legislation should they prove in need of it. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, that are ruled under Islamic law, shari'a, heads are lopped off, limbs amputated, adulterers and homosexuals stoned to death. In Saudi Arabia, women have few rights at all and must suffer greatly in their daily lives. Yet Saudi Arabia now chairs the UN Women's Rights Commission. Why does Bishop Browning not focus on genuine cases of the abuse of law that harm innocent people? Why does he not take his Arab friends to task for their blatant disregard for human rights?

That mention of homosexuals reminds me that there are no laws in Israel against the rights of LGBT persons. In fact, Tel Aviv has a reputation as the most friendly city for gay men and women. Not a single Arab or Muslim country -- including the Palestinian Authority territory and Gaza under Hamas -- affords such rights even to the most limited degree. Come out as gay in Israel and you may be shown the way to the nearest gay bar. Do that in any Muslim state and you will be taken to the nearest high building and thrown from the roof.

In the last section, Browning also writes:
"The occupying force protects the illegal settlers and not the Palestinian civil population. Essential services are provided to the illegal settlers and restricted or denied the Palestinians."
Here again, this is without context or explanation. Browning only knows one side of the story. Israel has handed a large swathe of the West Bank to Palestinian control. As for denial of essential services to the Palestinians, how does Browning explain the fact that Gaza, under viciously anti-Israel rule by terrorist group Hamas, currently receives a thousand truckloads of essential goods daily through the Kerem Shalom crossing with Israel: humanitarian aid continued to be sent even while Hamas was firing thousands of rockets into Israel civilian centres. The amount of water sent to Palestinian territories has increased from 5 million cubic meters per year to 10 million. The Israel Electric Corporation has for years been supplying electricity to Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians often avoid paying for it, and currently owe the corporation about NIS 2 billion (about $555 million, nearly 500 million in euros) in debt.

Every year, thousands of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank are treated in Israeli hospitals. Palestinian children are given heart surgery through an Israeli organization called Save a Child's Heart, along with children from around the world. Currently, hundreds of injured Syrians are treated in Israeli hospitals. Internationally, the World Health Organization has named Israel the leading country in the world for the field hospitals it builds in disaster zones, where Israel is a major player in providing aid. Special treatment for Jews alone? Really?

And here is something Bishop Browning might like to think hard about. In 2005, a young woman from Gaza, Wafa al-Biss, was taken to Israel's Soroka Hospital, where she received over several months treatment for severe burns suffered in a domestic fire. When released, she was given permission to return regularly for out-patient treatment. Not long after, she arrived at the Erez Crossing carrying a bomb strapped to her leg, which had been given to her by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. She had been told to explode it in the hospital in the same unit that had saved her life, and to kill as many children as possible.

Al-Biss is only one among hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians who have tried to smuggle guns, knives, suicide vests and bombs into Israel. Should anyone be surprised if Israel uses checkpoints and other security measures to save Jewish, Christian and Muslim lives? In the wave of terror that has continued for the past 18 months, Palestinians, including children, have used knives, scissors, and machetes to stab Jews, and cars to ram and kill pedestrians or police. Palestinians also suffer from the security this demands, by having to wait in queues at checkpoints or searches. That is regrettable, but hardly a reason to condemn Israel. Or would the good bishop prefer to see all this security abandoned, so that murderers could come onto Israeli streets, as they have done so often before, and take an ever-growing toll of innocent Israeli lives?

Browning is an outright anti-Semite who promotes the Palestinian narrative. He is far from being the only Christian clergyman who does so. What he and they may not realize is that the Palestinian narrative and the wider Arab and Muslim demand that Israel must be wiped out is not a Christian narrative. It is an Islamic narrative.

That demand is also what drives the Palestinian and wider Islamic demands for the creation of a vast Palestinian state that will replace Israel (even though there is already one unofficial Palestinian state: Jordan). Why does a Christian cleric prefer a Muslim understanding of affairs to an understanding of why, from Old Testament times on, Jews have linked their worship of God to the land they believe God gave them? For a Christian, Islamic law should have no standing whatever. But Jesus was a Jew who worshipped in the Temple in Jerusalem and would be, if he returned, dismayed to learn that the Temple Mount is occupied by two Islamic buildings and that Jews are forbidden to go there or to pray there.

I do not take George Browning at his word. He is interested neither in justice nor in peace. He wants to deny the Jewish people the right to live on the only land that historically has been their sanctuary, their sole refuge from another Holocaust (a Holocaust that Browning's Palestinian friends daily threaten to repeat), the sole haven of democracy and Judaeo-Christian values in a troubled, disintegrating and often despotic Middle East. As Christianity declines across the globe and the forces of Islam gain strength, the day may yet come when Browning and his followers turn their eyes to Israel as a model of human achievement and promise for the future. And even perhaps as a refuge for his co-religionists in a region of death and destruction.

Dr. Denis MacEoin (PhD Cambridge 1979) is a former lecturer in Arabic an Islamic Studies at a UK university and currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at New York's Gatestone Institute. He is chairman of North-East Friends of Israel in the UK.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10434/bishop-george-browning-palestinians

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.