Giving credit where credit is due, The Donald has made an impact, helped shaped the debate and leaves me convinced he would bring a lot of common sense, keen business analysis and judgement to a government that is truly bloated, corrupt and in need of remake.
Still too early to see who breaks through and becomes the final nominee.
===
The strategic challenge Israel faces as America withdraws and our and Israel's enemies rise to take advantage. (See 1 below.)
===
Rejecting the last seven years. (See 2 below.)
Obama's mistakes viewed from London. (See 2a below.)
===
Post withdrawal commentary:
"This email put a big smile on my face. I treasured our conversation because I felt your anecdote gave me a bit of a window into better understanding my "dark cloud grandpa.You have my vote. " E-----
My response: "Thanks but I have withdrawn because of the debate last night. There is enough talent, though some lack my personality and humor. Thanks for your confidence." Me
"We are sorry! You are our candidate!" E-----
My Response: "Unlike some, I do not have a big ego and I know when I do not stand a chance. Thanks for your confidence though probably misplaced." Me
"Dick, Perhaps you should consider running as a Democrat.
Oh, that's right, you speak the truth, aren't faced with a potential jail term, don't plagiarize, don't believe in socialism, so I guess you don't qualify.
I was really hoping for a kosher deli in the White House.
Oh well, maybe next time!
In the mean time, I hope Trump fades as he is quite damaging to the party and Rubio and Kasich surge." B------
My Response:"You are funny. Don't forget, many years ago I opened a deli in The Gaza Strip and named it "Infideli." Yes, I believe Trump has probably peaked as his audience broadens and there are some good candidates that can, hopefully, help reunite us and help to heal the damage Obama has done." Me
"Fiorina won, Trump/Carson lost and Kasich looked like the adult. Kasich/Rubio is looking like a good ticket...Kasich / Rubio wins Ohio and Florida. The math would be hard for any Dem." P------
My Response: "Once again you prove you are a perceptive liberal.
Ah, but Demwits have stolen elections before and I am not sure Rubio wins Florida. JEB would more likely do it but K and R would make a decent ticket but so would Kasich and Carly and it would help with women or Kasich and Carson which would help with the middle. The Republicans have a wealth of opportunity if they do not blow it and have balls as the campaign moves along.
Trump is deserving of his due as well and should he become president he would bring and probably listen to some sound advisors but that is a risk I find more than I can stomach.
Nominating him would be a "Perils of Pauline" method of trying to win. " Me
==
If peace came to the Palestinians, which their leadership has constantly rejected, they would eventually lose the 'victim hood' sympathy of the Bleeding West and their 'blood' money. Then that leadership would have to defend their bankrupt policies and address the tragedy they have imposed on their own people for well over 60 years. (See 3 and 3a below.)
===
ISIS a Syrian Trojan Horse. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-
| Israeli Strategic Challenges and Opportunities in the New Year by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror | |||
| Israeli Strategic Challenges and Opportunities in the New Year by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 307, September 16, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Global upheavals are underway, U.S. foreign policy is changing, and the Middle East is in turmoil. All this presents Israel with multiple threats, and Jerusalem must be ready for any scenario. Deterring Iran and its proxies, and Islamic State, will remain priorities for Israel. Caution and preparedness are the watchwords. Global upheaval is upon us. Europe is being flooded by refugees fleeing dysfunctional Africa and the disintegrating Middle East, and the influx, which it is struggling to deal with, may change Europe’s cultural and social fabric. The fluctuations in China’s economy resonate through global economy, all while Beijing is striving to increase its influence in the South China Sea. And Russia, plagued by economic troubles of its own, refuses to loosen its grip on Ukraine, even at the cost of economically crippling Western sanctions. The Middle East is changing dramatically. Nations are disintegrating, their residents are fleeing, and its rulers are wary of the future, which is clouded by growing Iranian power that troubles both the Sunni states and Israel. The terrorism wielded by radical Islamist groups is drenching the Muslim world in blood as they overrun it, and it threatens the rest of the world, courtesy of “imported” jihadists, who are trained in Syria and Iraq before returning to their homelands. Nevertheless, is seems world powers understand their mutual responsibility for world peace. Wary of seeing international tensions spiral out of control, they try to downplay their differences on global issues, so not to agitate an already volatile situation further. Examples of this can be seen in the prudence exercised by Washington and Beijing regarding the dispute ranging between China and its neighbors over tiny islands in the China Sea; in the patience the world is showing Russia, whose foreign policy tactics breach acceptable norms; and in the EU’s efforts to keep Greece a part of the 28-member union, so not to undermine the framework that has been sustaining Europe peacefully since World War II. On the other hand, recent developments underscore the lack of true leadership among global powers, as there is no one who seems to know what can be done to avoid or overcome these crises. Winds of change Several issues seem to be shaping the global theater at this point in time. It seems the most prominent change is the growing feeling within the international community that the United States is slowly backing away from its role as the free world’s leader, a role it has been shouldering for the past century. This shift in U.S. policy is seen as the source of the troubles plaguing the world, from Beijing to Saudi Arabia. As a result, countries that in the past were wary of antagonizing the U.S. for fear of retaliation are now seeing its reluctance to intervene globally as their chance to improve their position in the international theater, and to aggressively promote their interest. Reality will present the U.S. with challenges that mandate its involvement, reluctant as it may be. Fighting the Islamic State group is one of these challenges. Another change involves the global energy market. The U.S. enjoys near-independence when it comes to meeting its own energy needs, and this change has inspired some of its ability to reduce its involvement in world events. Oil prices have plummeted, causing the economies dependent on it, such as Venezuela and Russia, to encounter serious financial difficulties. Even Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, has been affected, and it is already dipping into its cash reserves. Exploration ventures striking oil and natural gas in new locations worldwide are shaping what seems to be a global economic trend. Most major energy exporters depend on oil prices and a sharp drop in barrel prices could potentially bring some economies to the brink of collapse. The third change is the contradiction between the fact that global interdependence is a crucial factor in world politics and economics, and the fact that there is very little chance that the international community will decide to truly unite in favor of dealing with burning issues. The U.N., the biggest international organization in existence, has become a sad, hollow joke, while other international groups are seen as either biased or powerless, and are seemingly unable to overcome their members’ narrow beliefs. The only issue everyone seems to agree on is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which always to inspire anti-Israel international resolutions. The Israeli Angle The current Jewish year has ended against the backdrop of the nuclear agreement reached between world powers and Iran. As things stand it is hard to predict whether this deal will breed a positive change, in the form of Iran abandoning its nuclear program, or if it will be used as a poor excuse for the West to ease the pressure off Tehran, foster closer ties with the Islamic republic, and acquiescing with its becoming a nuclear regional power. Iran has made it perfectly clear that what little has changed in its nuclear policies will not affect other areas, and that it will continue to support Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, and arm Hezbollah and Hamas. It has stated that it remains committed to eradicating the “Zionist entity,” as well as its ambition to establish its hegemony over the “Shiite Crescent,” a region of the Middle East where the majority population is Shiite, stretching from Tehran through Baghdad to Damascus and Beirut. It remains to be seen if any of Iran’s policies will be mitigated by the nuclear deal, as the West hopes. Since chances for that are slim, Israel will have to devise new methods to generate deterrence opposite Iran. The bloody civil war in Syria, in which tens of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced, rages on with no end in sight. The tragedy has been compounded by the introduction of Islamic State to the sphere, and the jihadi terrorist group has already overrun parts of Syria and Iraq. Despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s determination to annihilate Islamic State, and some partial coalition successes against IS, overall the effort thus far has proven ineffective. Various terrorist groups in Nigeria, the Sinai Peninsula, Asia and Libya have affiliated themselves with Islamic State this year, allowing it to gain momentum, and fueling its desire to expand. Assad has become increasingly dependent on external elements – Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia – for his survival. The end of his regime will be a stipulation of any cease-fire or peace deal brokered in Syria, and world powers are eager for the fighting to end so they can turn their full attention to the war on Islamic State. Israel has so far refrained from intervening in the Syrian civil war, limiting its actions to retaliation over terrorist attacks on the northern border, and to blocking the transfer of game-changing weapons to Hezbollah. The Shiite terrorist group is heavily involved in the conflict raging in Syria, making it hard for it to train its sight on Israel. Hezbollah may be using this time to bolster its weapons arsenal and fighting capabilities, but the threat of the next Israel-Hezbollah conflict is not imminent. Barring a major shift in the balance in power in Syria, a shift that would entrench a regime that is even more dominated by Hezbollah and Iran, there is no reason for Israel to change its policy. Foreign Relations Egypt and the other players on the Middle East change are very concerned by Iran’s new regional position, as well as by the rise in radical Islam among Sunnis. Some Arab states would prefer having closer ties with Israel, which would be very difficult to foster given the volatility of the anti-Israeli Arab street. Such ties would also be hard to pursue given the stalemate plaguing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Israel has a clear interest in the success of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi’s efforts to cement his regime. One of the biggest problems troubling Cairo is its dire economic situation. While Israel should lend a hand, the bulk of that burden falls to Egypt’s long-standing allies in the Persian Gulf. Israel’s relations with Turkey will thaw only if Ankara decides to change its anti-Israel tune. However Turkey is in the midst of political turmoil, compounded by economic and security challenges concerning Islamic State and the Kurds, so its focus is elsewhere. In Saudi Arabia, the kingdom is still reeling from the various changes in its line of succession, and it is unclear whether King Salman has the necessary support to secure his regime. The Saudis, too, are experiencing an economic slowdown over the drop in oil prices, and are wary of both Iran’s growing power in the Gulf and the rise of Sunni radicals. Since the July 14 deal with Iran was inked, the Gulf states have been arming themselves, and Saudi Arabia has stated it will pursue its own nuclear program, to offset Iran’s atomic ambitions. Egypt and Turkey have hinted they may do the same. When it comes to Israel-U.S. relations, Jerusalem must strive to shape them in the spirit of the post-Iran deal era. If anything, the deal demonstrated that on the one hand, when push comes to shove, the U.S. will not necessarily prove unwavering, while on the other hand, Israel does not have the clout needed to change the mind of a determined American president. Nevertheless, Israel’s special relationship with the U.S. remains a cornerstone of Israel’s strength. If reached, long-term agreements can afford Israel operational leeway and provide it with new capabilities. It is important that such deals be reached with the Obama administration, to prevent U.S.-Israel ties from becoming a partisan touchstone. Looming Threats The threats Israel faces are unlikely to change dramatically in the coming year. The most serious threat, posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, seems to have been mitigated for the moment by the deal, but Iran’s potential nuclear armament in the not-too-distant future dictates that Israel develop the ability to counter this threat. Hezbollah and its 100,000 missiles and rockets, and Hamas and the other Gaza Strip-based terrorist groups with smaller arsenals at their disposal, are all deterred and have clear interests in sustaining their cease-fires with Israel. Experience, however, has taught us that imprudent moves may lead to security escalations that spiral out of control within hours. The radical Sunni groups on the northern and southern borders pose no immediate threat, and while they may deliver unpleasant surprises, they have more immediate enemies to fight. Israel, for its part, will have to confront Islamic State in one of two scenarios: A direct attack on Israeli soil, or an attack on Jordan. Ensuring the Hashemite Kingdom remains a functioning state is a key Israeli interest, especially since Israel shares its longest border with Jordan. In the international sphere, Israel must increase its fight against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. While BDS efforts have so far enjoyed only partial success, they must be stopped nonetheless. The international community will most likely try to increase its pressure on Israel with regards to peace talks with the Palestinians, but the Palestinian Authority seems a less-than-eager partner, and the composition of the Israeli government may hinder any progress, as well. Despite the security challenges, Israel must also find the time and resources this year to deal with some fundamental internal problems, from issues pertaining to national identity and governance, to socio-economic gaps and housing prices. Israel has marked some major achievements this year, but it cannot rest on its laurels. It must strive to improve and increase its qualitative advantage, so to ensure its future. Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror is the Greg and Anne Rosshandler Senior Fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and former national security advisor to the Prime Minister. He is also a fellow at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy. He served 36 years in senior IDF posts, including commander of the Military Colleges, military secretary to the Minister of Defense, director of the Intelligence Analysis Division in Military Intelligence, and chief intelligence officer of the Northern Command. BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Voters Are Rejecting the Last Seven Years In this presidential cycle, voters in both parties, to the surprise of the punditocracy, are rejecting experienced political leaders. They're willfully suspending disbelief in challengers who would have been considered laughable in earlier years.
Polls show more Republicans preferring three candidates who have never held elective office over 14 candidates who have served a combined total of 150 years as governors or in Congress. Most Democrats are declining to favor a candidate who spent eight years in the White House and the Senate and four as secretary of state.
Psephologists of varying stripes attribute this discontent to varying causes. Conservatives blame insufficiently aggressive Republican congressional leaders. Liberals blame Hillary Clinton's closeness to plutocrats and her home email system.
But in our system the widespread rejection of experienced leaders ultimately comes from dismay at the leader in the White House. In 1960 Richard Nixon, after eight years as vice president and six in Congress, campaigned on the slogan "Experience counts." No one is running on that theme this year.
Nixon could, because over the preceding quarter-century the majority of Americans mostly approved of the performance of incumbent presidents. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower still look pretty good more than 50 years later.
Barack Obama doesn't. His deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes recently said that the president's nuclear weapons deal with Iran was as important an achievement of his second term as Obamacare was of the first. Historians may well agree.
These two policy achievements have many things in common.
Both were unpopular when proposed and still are now. In March 2010 Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that people would know, and presumably like, what was in the bill after it was passed. But most Americans didn't like it then and most don't today, five and a half years later. As for the Iran deal, Pew Research reports it has only 21 percent approval today, much lower than Obamacare in 2010.
Both Obamacare and the Iran deal were bulldozed through Congress through legislative legerdemain. Democrats passed Obamacare by using the temporary 60-vote Senate supermajority gained through a Minnesota recount and the wrongful prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens. After they lost the 60th vote, they resorted to a dubious legislative procedure.
This year Obama labeled the Iran treaty an executive agreement, and Congress concocted a process requiring only a one-third-plus-one rather than a two-thirds vote for approval. Only 38 percent of members of Congress supported it. Many, such as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, did so only after saying that they never would have accepted it in negotiations.
In 2008 Obama promised he would "fundamentally transform" America, and Obamacare and the Iran deal are indeed fundamental transformations of policy --transformations most Americans oppose.
Obamacare assumed that financial crisis and recession would make most voters supportive of, or amenable to, bigger government. But as National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru points out, polling doesn't show that. Obama assumed that if America could "extend a hand" to such propitiated enemies as the mullahs of Iran, they would become friends with us. Most Americans think that's delusional. No wonder voters are angry.
Republican voters are frustrated and angry because for six years they have believed they have public opinion on their side, but their congressional leaders have failed to prevail on high visibility issues. Their successes (clamping down on domestic discretionary spending) have been invisible. They haven't made gains through compromise because Obama, unlike his two predecessors, lacks both the inclination and ability to make deals.
So Republicans who imposed harsh litmus tests in previous presidential cycles (like asking candidates if they've ever supported a tax increase, or if they've ever wavered in their opposition to abortion) are flocking to Donald Trump, a candidate who would fail every one of them. They are paying little attention to candidates -- Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal -- who advance serious proposals to change public policy.
In polls, Democratic voters have stayed loyal to the president. But to listen to their candidates (and maybe-candidate Joe Biden) you would think we are in our seventh year of oppression by a right-wing administration. You don't hear much about the virtues of Obamacare or the Iran deal -- or "choice."
Most Americans hoped the first black president would improve race relations. Now most Americans believe they have gotten worse.
And so a president who came to office with relatively little experience has managed to tarnish experience, incumbency and institutions: a fundamental transformation indeed.
3)
As Rosh Hashanah began in Israel this week, the most ordinary of events occurred on a road in Jerusalem. Palestinians rained down rocks on what they thought was a car being driven by a Jew. In this case, it was a 64-year-old Jew returning home after a holiday dinner. The result was a fatal crash in which the Jew died. While fatalities from such incidents are not a daily occurrence, attacks on Jewish cars and pedestrians with rocks and fire bombs are so routine, as to be considered not particularly newsworthy even in Israel. But when Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to this and similar incidents by saying his government intended to wage a war on those who hurl such lethal projectiles, you can bet it will be interpreted as further evidence of Israeli belligerence rather than proof that the Palestinians don’t want peace. Like the similar provocations on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount where Muslim harassment of Jewish tourists to the site have gotten out of control, any Israeli effort to push back against terrorism is seen as being somehow the fault of the Jews while Palestinians committing crimes are seen as innocent youths performing what the New York Timesdescribed as a “rite of passage.” But it’s worth asking those Western observers who sympathize with or rationalize these attacks on Jews whether they would consider such attacks on their cars in the U.S. and Europe to be anything but attempted murder.
The supposed justification for the Palestinians using rocks and firebombs in this manner is that they don’t have tanks and jet aircraft to shoot at Jews. It is true that in any conflict, each side will always use whatever weapons are at their disposal. But even if we were to concede this point, the notion that, as the Timesnoted, Palestinians are using rocks and Molotov cocktails in this manner “in order to press for independence and to defend themselves against the Israelis,” is a gross distortion of the truth.
If “independence” were the goal of the Palestinian national movement, it could have achieved that 15 years ago when the Israelis offered the Palestinian Authority a state and sovereignty in almost all the West Bank, a share of Jerusalem and Gaza. The offer was sweetened in 2001 and then again in 2008 by a different Israeli government. Even the supposed “hard line” government of Netanyahu went to the talks promoted by Secretary of State John Kerry with the position that it was prepared to withdraw from territory in order to create a two-state solution only to have the Palestinians refuse to talk.
The goal of rock throwing, which has indeed become something of a national sport for Palestinians, is to injure and kill individual Jews. Like more spectacular forms of terrorism they have tried, like suicide bombings or rocket attacks on Israeli cities from Hamas-run Gaza, the point is not to bring to Palestinian suffering to the attention of the world but to shed Jewish blood. It is the tangible proof of the fact that Palestinian nationalism is still inextricably linked to a belief that the presence of Jewish sovereignty over any part of the country, whether across the 1967 line or inside them, is unacceptable. All Jews, such as Alexander Levlovich, who was killed as the Jewish New Year began, or Adele Biton, the four-year-old Israeli girl who died in February as a result of injuries suffered in a similar incident, are considered fair game for Palestinians because their goal is to eradicate the Jewish state, not to pressure it to make territorial compromises that Israeli governments have already offered to no avail.
But there can be no little doubt that Israeli efforts to crack down on rock and firebomb throwing will be portrayed in the international press as more oppression of the Palestinians. Similarly, the Israeli government’s attempt to rid the Temple Mount of those who use it as a base for harassment of Jews is portrayed as Jewish aggression.
The Temple Mount is an example of how futile efforts to soothe delicate Palestinian sensibilities have been. Israeli governments have always allowed a Muslim Wakf or religious authority to govern the site and even have forbidden Jewish prayer though even though it is the most sacred spot in Judaism in order to prevent Arabs from falsely saying that their goal is to remove the mosques there. But those Jewish tourists who enter the site are still harassed by gangs of Muslims. Palestinians have used it to store rocks and firebombs for riots. But when Israel seeks to defend the status quo and allow free access to all faiths, the Palestinians claim Israel is committing aggression or conspiring against Muslim holy sites. But the international press that has not ceased bemoaning one incident of alleged Jewish terrorism is not interested in discussing the way the Palestinian Authority uses its media to incite terrorism.
At this point, Netanyahu has no choice but to deploy Israeli forces to stop terror and to keep calm in Jerusalem. Those who throw lethal rocks deserve to be punished no matter how old they are, just as would be the case in any American city. Even if you believe Israel should be generous in peace talks, the willingness of the PA to escalate this situation and to encourage further anti-Jewish terror renders criticism of Netanyahu moot.
If Palestinians want peace and a two-state solution, they know very well they can have it. But it will take a sea change in the culture of Palestinian politics before a willingness to embrace peace and coexistence is possible. Those who rationalize acts of terror such as the ones that injure and sometimes kill Israelis on a regular basis are not promoting peace. To the contrary, those who justify rock throwing are actually propping up the cause of endless war and bear as much responsibility for the blood that is shed as the Palestinian leaders who cheer the rock throwers.
3a)Abbas: We won't allow Jews' "filthy feet"
"We bless every drop of blood
that has been spilled for Jerusalem...
blood spilled for Allah...
Every Martyr will reach Paradise,
and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah"
PA: Jews are filth, they desecrate and defile Jerusalem
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Yesterday, Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas described Jews on the Temple Mount as "filth":
"The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours... and they have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."
[Official PA TV, Sept. 16, 2015
and official website of PA Chairman Abbas, Sept. 16, 2015]
In his speech, parts of which were broadcast on official PA TV and posted on his personal website,Abbas also glorified Palestinians fighting against Israel in Jerusalem who are killed in the fighting. Abbas promised that Allah will reward those who "will not allow" Jews to "defile" Jerusalem:
"We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every Martyr (Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah."
The PA has in the past referred to Jews as "filth," as Palestinian Media Watch has documented repeatedly. Jews praying at the Western Wall were called "sin and filth" by PA TV:
Two young girls reciting a poem stating that Jerusalem "vomits" out Jews, who are "impure" were also broadcast on PA TV.
On another occasion, PA TV stated that "the light rain cleanses the steps of the foreigners [Jews] so that the feet [of Muslims] in prayer will not step on impurity."
With the words "we will not allow them to [defile the Al-Aqsa Mosque], and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem," Abbas also endorsed continued violence and riots in Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount. This speech echoed another speech by Abbas last October, when he said that Palestinians have to "prevent" Jews from entering the Temple Mount. Abbas' speech last year, which PA TV chose to broadcast 19 times in 3 days, sparked the wave of Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians in October-December 2014, which killed 11 Israelis:
"We have to prevent them, in any way whatsoever, from entering the Sanctuary. This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. We must prevent them. Let us stand before them with chests bared to protect our holy places."
[19 times on official PA TV, Oct. 17-19, 2014]
The following are excerpts from Abbas' speeches broadcast on PA TV, and reports on his recent speech from WAFA, the official Palestinian news agency and the official PA daily:
Headline: "The President: 'We will defend Jerusalem, we cling to every inch of its land"
"The President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas stated: 'We are in Jerusalem, and we will remain in it. We will protect the places holy to Christianity and Islam, and will not leave our city. We will continue to cling to every inch of its land.' Today, when he [Abbas] met with activists from occupied Jerusalem in the presidential compound in Ramallah, his honor added: 'There is no door that we won't knock on to make the voice of Jerusalem be heard. I am certain that no harm will befall Jerusalem, though the occupation is waging a brutal war against it. However, we will continue to protect it in every situation. We are speaking with everyone, and everyone is asking what we are doing to make the voice of Jerusalem heard.'
His honor [Abbas] saluted the Murabitin (those carrying out Ribat, religious conflict/war to protect land claimed to be Islamic) and stated: 'Every drop of blood that has been spilled in Jerusalem is holy blood as long as it was for Allah. Every Martyr (Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded, Allah willing.'
Likewise, his honor [Abbas] emphasized that the State of Palestine will not exist without Jerusalem, and that the capital of the Palestinian State has to be East Jerusalem, which was occupied in 1967. He noted that we will not allow them to carry out their actions and divide the Al-Aqsa [Mosque], and stated: 'The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours, and they have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."
[WAFA (the official Palestinian news agency), Sept. 16, 2015]
Note: This report did not appear on WAFA's English website, only on the Arabic one.
Division of the Al-Aqsa Mosque refers to physical division and division according to time, referring to a proposed law (May 2013) being reviewed in Israeli Parliament that would allow for both Jews and Muslims to pray on the Temple Mount. The law seeks to implement separate prayer times for Muslims and Jews at the site.
This same report appeared as the lead article on the first page of the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida the day after it appeared on WAFA with the following headline:
Headline: "The President: 'We will protect Jerusalem and will not allow them to defile the Al-Aqsa [Mosque] and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with their filthy feet'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 17, 2015]
Official PA TV News broadcast Abbas' statement at a meeting with "activists for the defense of the Noble Sanctuary" (i.e., the Temple Mount).
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas: "We bless you, we bless the Murabitin (those carrying out Ribat, religious conflict/war to protect land claimed to be Islamic), we bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every Martyr (
Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah. The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is ours, and they have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."
[Official PA TV, Sept. 16, 2015]
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas: "It's not enough for us to say: 'There are those carrying outRibat' (religious conflict / war over land claimed to be Islamic). We must all carry out Ribat in the Al-Aqsa [Mosque]. It's not enough for us to say: 'The settlers have arrived [at the Mosque]'. They have come, and they must not come to the Sanctuary (i.e., Temple Mount). We have to prevent them, in any way whatsoever, from entering the Sanctuary. This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. We must prevent them. Let us stand before them with chests bared to protect our holy places."
[19 times on official PA TV, Oct. 17-19, 2014]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
ISIS Terrorist Arrested in Stuttgart “Refugee” Center; “Boxes” of Fake Syrian Passports Intercepted
An ISIS terrorist posing as an “asylum seeker” has been arrested by German police in a “refugee” center in Stuttgart, and German customs officers have seized boxes containing Syrian passports being smuggled into Europe.
According to a report carried by RTL’s German language service, the terrorist is a 21-year-old Moroccan using a “false identity” who had registered as an asylum seeker in the district of Ludwigsburg. He was identified after police linked him to a European arrest warrant issued by the Spanish authorities. He is accused of recruiting fighters for ISIS, where he acted as a contact person for fighters who wanted to travel to Syria or Iraq.
This first confirmed arrest of a bogus “asylum seeker” came simultaneously with the admission by a German finance ministry spokesman that “boxes” of fake Syrian passports, destined for sale and distribution to the hordes of nonwhite invaders seeking to settle in Europe as bogus “war refugees,” had been seized.
That news, carried in a report by the German Tagespiegel newspaper, also revealed that 10,000 fake Syrian passports were seized by police in Bulgaria, on their way to Germany.
The finance ministry official said both genuine and forged passports were in the packets intercepted in the post. Possession of these passports is a vital part of claiming “asylum” as “war refugees.”
The Tagespiegel also revealed that the fake Syrian passports are being sold for about $1,500 each—and the fact that many of the “refugees” can afford to buy multiple passports is yet another indication of the bogus nature of their claims to be “asylum seekers.”
Significantly, the Tagespiegel article continued, “It is not only Syrians who are interested in Syrian passports. Refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan want to become Syrian in order to secure their recognition as asylum seekers in Western Europe. According to press reports, nine out of ten refugees who came from Macedonia to Serbia claimed they were Syrians.”
The trade in fake Syrian passports was also confirmed by the head of the EU frontier police, Fabrice Leggeri, in a recent interview with the Europe 1 TV station.
Leggeri told Europe 1 that the trade in fake Syrian passports originated in Turkey. “There are people who are now in Turkey, buying false Syrian passports because they have obviously realized that it is a windfall since Syrians get asylum in all Member States in the European Union,” he said.
“People who use false Syrian passports often speak in Arabic. They may originate in North Africa or the Middle East, but have the profile of economic migrants.”
|
No comments:
Post a Comment