Ex-Muslim Christian apologist Nabeel Qureshi dies at age 34

Nabeel Qureshi was that rarest of things today: an honest man. A man who would pursue the truth no matter where it took him, and no matter what the cost.

I didn’t know him well. I had the honor of meeting him in Ohio in 2009, at Pamela Geller’s rally for his fellow ex-Muslim, Rifqa Bary. He was true then, and consistent.

May his memory be eternal.

“Nabeel Qureshi Dies at Age 34,” CBN News, September 16, 2017:

Ex-Muslim turned Christian apologist, Nabeel Qureshi, passed away Saturday after a year-long battle with stomach cancer.

The 34-year-old left behind a wife and two-year-old daughter.

The very man who led Nabeel to Christ, David Wood, announced his death on Twitter saying, “My beloved bother Nabeel, rest in peace and joy with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ.”

Qureshi was born and raised in the United States to a devout Pakistani Muslim family.

“My earliest memories are of my mother everyday sitting me next to her and having me put on my skull cap and showing me how to recite the Qur’an letter by letter. I finished the Qur’an when I was five-years-old,” Qureshi explains in a video about his journey to Christ.

He also learned how to defend the doctrines of his Muslim faith and would often challenge non-believers to debates during his time in school.

Qureshi finally met his match when he attended Old Dominion University in Virginia and met David Wood. He challenged Wood’s Christian faith when he saw him reading a Bible by himself. Thus began a two and a half year period where the pair challenged each other on the doctrines of their faiths.

Eventually, Qureshi realized his arguments for Islam crumbled under the evidence for Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and divinity.

“At the end of my research, the arguments for and against Islam still hung in the balance, but one thing was abundantly clear: they were far from approaching the strength of the case for Christianity,” Qureshi said.

But it wasn’t just the physical evidence that convinced Qureshi. He had three prophetic dreams about Christ that eventually won him over.

Qureshi accepted Christ as his savior and faced the difficult task of telling his parents.

‘When my parents did find out it was probably the most painful day of my life,” Qureshi said. “To have Christ in my life makes every loss worth it.

He went on to study Christian Apologetics at Biola University, while also getting his medical degree from Eastern Virginia Medical School. He later completed a degree in religion at Duke University and entered a phD program in New Testament studies at Oxford University. Qureshi also became an itinerant speaker with Ravi Zacharias’ International Ministry.

Qureshi published three books, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity, and Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward, and No God but One: Allah of Jesus? A Former Muslim Investigates the evidence for Islam and Christianity.

Qureshi made the official announcement of his cancer diagnosis August 2016.

“This is an announcement that I never expected to make, but God in his infinite and sovereign wisdom has chosen me for this refining, and I pray he will be glorified through my body and my spirit. My family and I have received the news that I had advanced stomach cancer and the prognosis is quite grim,” he said in a Facebook post….

PLEASE WATCH NABEEL QURESHI NQMINISTRIES YOUTUBE CHANNEL BY CLICKING HERE.

RELATED ARTICLE: “Moderate” Malaysia: Photo of atheist get-together leads to government crackdown on ex-Muslims

Total Number of U.S. Terror Plots Since 9/11/2001 — Ninety Seven

Lionel Williams, 27, of Suffolk, Virginia, just pleaded guilty in federal court to plotting with ISIS to launch terror attacks in Syria, Iraq and America.

In court, prosecutors said Williams, a year ago, was trying to conduct a lone-wolf attack in the United States, on behalf of ISIS. Luckily, FBI agents were able to uncover the plot and put a halt to the attack.

But it’s not the only terror plot FBI agents have thwarted in recent times.

Lionel Williams

In fact, since the devastating terror attacks that hit America’s soil in September 11, 2001, the feds have uncovered nearly 100 more Islamic-tied terror plots against U.S. spots.

The Daily Signal, which keeps a running count, puts the number of thwarted attacks at 97.

Look at this, from The Daily Signal:

[The Williams] case will be discussed as part of a seminar, “16 Years After 9/11: The Current Status of Islamist Terrorism,” on Sept. 8 at The Heritage Foundation.

Williams’ plot brought the total number of Islamist terrorism plots and attacks against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 to 97.

In March 2016, a former associate of Williams tipped off the FBI that Williams was posting ISIS materials on his Facebook page and that he had purchased an AK-47-style rifle the day after the deadly December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

Local police reported that Williams had been practicing with the rifle near his home.

An FBI agent then contacted Williams through Facebook, pretending to be a radical Islamist. Williams then met with an undercover agent, stating that he supported attacks on “hard targets,” likely referring to police or military targets.

Williams stated that the only reason he hadn’t already carried out an attack was because he was caring for his grandmother.

Williams said he wanted to provide funding to ISIS in the meantime. Through multiple undercover agents, he sent $250 to an individual he was led to believe was working for the Islamic State. He thought the money purchased a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and ammunition.

While he was funding ISIS, Williams continued to discuss a “martyrdom operation,” or attacks at home that would result in his death. He believed that unless he had something to live for, his attack might not be pure, and his death would be considered a suicide rather than martyrdom.

To solve that problem, he arranged a marriage to a woman outside the U.S., which led him to conclude that after he married her, “the next time I see her will be in [heaven].” He went on to say he was planning to send the rest of his money to ISIS so that he would die without a dollar to his name.

With Williams clearly moving toward an attack and already in possession of firearms, the FBI arrested him in December 2016.

On Aug. 16, he pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to provide material support to ISIS and will be sentenced on Dec. 20. He faces up to 20 years in prison.

As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. must remain vigilant to the threat of Islamist terrorism.

With the decline of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the number of terrorist plots in the U.S. have fallen substantially. In 2015, the U.S. faced 17 Islamist plots and attacks; in 2016, 13. So far in 2017, the U.S. has faced only three.

It should go without saying that what happens outside America’s borders does not necessarily stay there. The violent ideology of Islamist terrorist groups drives many to fight for their cause, especially when these groups appear to be having success or when they are allowed to plot and plan from the safety of a chaotic region.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Boston: Gruesome jihad videos nixed for terror trial jury in plot to BEHEAD Pamela Geller

Quran Reciting Barbie

Pinterest BANS Pamela Geller

Ivanka Trump teams with Grover Norquist to boost tax-reform efforts

ISIS Urges Jihadis to Poison Food in US Supermarkets with CYANIDE

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

The Geo-Politics of the Temple Mount Crisis: An interview with Seth Frantzman

By Mike Bates and Jerry Gordon.

On Friday morning July 14, 2017, three Israeli Arabs from the town of Umm al-Fahm in the Haifa district entered the Temple Mount and secured homemade Carlos submachine guns and knives brought by a fourth accomplice to the Al Aqsa Mosque. They were identified as 29-year-old Muhammad Ahmad Mahmoud Jabarin, 19-year-old Muhammad Ahmed Fadel Jabarin, and Muhammad Hamed ‘Abd al-Latif Jabarin. Near the Lions’ gate, they shot and killed two Israeli police officers from the loyal Druze sect, 30-year-old Hail Stawi, from Maghar, and 22-year-old Kamil Shanan, from Hurfeish, both in northern Israel. Officer Shanan was the son of former Israeli Druse Knesset member Shakib Shanan. The perpetrators, who injured two other Israeli police officers, were promptly killed by return fire from other Israeli border police.

Watch the video of the Temple Mount attack on July 14th.

Israeli police did the only rational thing. They closed the Temple Mount andplaced metal detectors and surveillance cameras at each gate entrance to the Noble Shrine of the two Mosques atop the platform of what is the revered Jewish holy site of the Second Temple. Then they reopened it. That security measure triggered protests from Muslim worshippers, who refused to pass through. It triggered protests from across the Ummah-the global community of Muslim believers. The administrators and Imams of the Waqf, or trust, appointed by the King of Jordan, Abdullah II, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem appointed by the Palestinian Authority falsely claimed that “al Aqsa is in danger,” that is, from Israel.

That was the incitement that came from Salafist Sheikh Ra’ed Salah of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement based in Umm al-Fahm, who has been perennially arrested and jailed by Israeli authorities. As further evidence of the extremism of this Israeli Arab community, two brothers, Naim and Mahmoud Abdel Karim Qassem Jabarin were arrested in July, 2017, and later indicted in mid-August in the Haifa District Court. They were accused of making those Carlos submachine guns, copied from the Swedish Carl Gustave weapon. They planned to cross into Syria to join the Islamic State. Sheik Salah was once again arrested for incitement and is awaiting a trial and sentencing.

Palestinian terrorism provoked by the Temple Mount Crisis took the lives of three members of the Israeli Jewish Salomon family, Yosef Salomon, 70, his daughter Chaya Salomon, 46, and son Elad Salomon, 36 in the community of Halamish on July 21, 2017. 19-year-old Hamas supporter Omar al-Abed from a village near Ramallah burst into a Shabbat dinner celebrating the birthday of a grandson stabbing the grandfather, son and daughter. Al-Abed was promptly shot and wounded by an IDF soldier on leave. When the IDF searched the Abed residence, his mother said that she was “proud” of him. She was subsequently arrested for incitement.

The Halamish episode resonated in Washington. Just before Congress recessed on August 4, 2017, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a version of the eponymous Taylor Force Act named for a West Point Graduate and US Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US full Senate is likely to pass it upon return in September. The PLO denounced it as an “unacceptable act.” Force was stabbed and killed by a Palestinian terrorist at a restaurant in Tel Aviv in March 2016. The Act is directed at impounding US funds supporting various projects of the Palestinian Authority given the PLO/Fatah funding of a so-called “pay for slay” program. This program pays stipends to jailed terrorists such as al-Abed and their families. He would receive the equivalent of $3,100.00 a month for his murderous act. Estimates suggest that more than half of the foreign aid funds in the PA budget for 2018 of $693 million are allotted for these payments.

The hypocrisy of Muslim objections to Israeli Police taking security precautions is reflected in the significant bio-metric and electronic measures used by Saudi Authorities for the annual Haj of the faithful at the Grand Mosques in Mecca and in Medina to deal with possible terrorist threats. The terrorist takeover of the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979 prompted those security measures. Because of global terrorist threats the Vatican and India have taken security measures to protect religious shrines as has the Muslim Ismaili sect in Pakistan.

The persistent calls for removal of the offending Israeli security measures persisted, even being characterized by autocrat Turkish President Erdogan as an offensive “challenge to the Islamic character” of the Noble Shrine. The government of Iran promptly paid for thousands of packaged meals provided to Muslim protesters at the Temple Mount. They came with a flyer quoting Ayatollah Khamenei: “With the help of God, Palestine will be freed. Jerusalem is ours.”

King Abdullah II of Jordan was immediately incensed and arranged for a rare meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. Jordan relinquished claims to the West Bank in 1988. The motivation for Abdullah is to forestall more restiveness in Jordan amid increasing opposition to his alliances with Israel and even the US.

Following the uproar, perhaps prompted by calls for restraint from the Trump Administration in Washington, the Netanyahu government relented and removed both the metal detectors and surveillance cameras. It has been suggested that Israeli security feared another Intifada. During a Channel 2 interview in late July, suggestions were made by Likud MK Avi Dichter, former Shin Bet director and head of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, to make the Muslim Noble Sanctuary atop the Temple Mount into a “sterile area” through technical means to prevent the two mosques of the so called Noble Sanctuary from ever again being turned into a weapons storage area.

Seth Frantzman, in a Jerusalem Post op-ed on the Temple Mount Crisis, citedthe astute comments of Palestinian expert, Jonathan Schanzer of the Washington, DC-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Schanzer noted the Netanyahu stance towards the Palestinian Authority amidst the developing tacit relationship with Arab monarchies and emirates over the common threat of hegemonic Iran. Schanzer said:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision to cut off ties with Israel “gives him leverage with regard to the so-called regional architecture, where he was being left out.”

This would give him an opportunity to weigh in with the Arab states.

Netanyahu is not willing to cede that leverage and this might explain his unwillingness to bend to the demands of the Palestinians right now.

The UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are still focused on pressuring Qatar to end what many commentators in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi say is an Iran-Qatar axis of extremism spreading instability throughout the Middle East.

Frantzman Responded:

In short, what is happening so far in Jerusalem is not an existential crisis for those countries with which Israel shares a worldview in the Middle East.

But Netanyahu should know that the main concern of these countries is instability.

The instability to which Frantzman referred was the outcry from King Abdullah of Jordan over the shooting deaths of two Jordanian teenagers who had attacked an Israeli security guard, Ziva Moyal, at the legation in Amman on July 23, 2017. That prompted Netanyahu to invoke the Treaty of Vienna and an evacuation of the entire legation staff headed by Ambassador Einat Schlein and the security officer back to Israel. King Abdullah called out Israeli PM Netanyahu for hugging Moyal, calling it “unacceptable and provocative behavior.” Enmity among Jordanians toward Israel had antedated this episode. In any event, the Israeli security guard was interviewed by Israeli police to determine the facts in the attack.

In the midst of the Temple Crisis, the Trump White House announced it was dispatching the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Special Middle East Envoy Jason Greenblatt, and National Security Council official Dina Habib Powell to Jerusalem and Ramallah for consultations. PA President Mahmoud Abbas described these dispatches of officials a “pointless” exercise. Moreover, Kushner’s remarks caught on audio and published in WIRED magazine at a meeting with Congressional interns discussing his role in calming the Temple Mount crisis suggested that “there may be no solution” to the Palestinian Israeli impasse on the moribund peace process.

In August, another contretemps arose over allegations that Gen H.R. McMaster, National Security Adviser, had fired staffers who were pro-Israel or were so-called “hawks” on overturning the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal. A dossier on McMaster’s views on the Israel and Iran contretemps was prepared and promoted by the Zionist Organization of America seeking the firing of the National Security Adviser by President Trump. There is still a dispute as to whether major Trump-backer and friend of Israeli PM Netanyahu, gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, had backtracked from his initial condemnation of McMaster.

PM Netanyahu was at the center of a number of police investigations  questioning alleged corruption that have yet to surface in possible charges. The major turn in those on-going investigations came when a Likud ally American born Ari Harrow apparently became a cooperative witness in the on-going investigations.

Against this background, we reached out to interview Seth Frantzman, opinion editor of The Jerusalem Post and writer of the weekly Terra Cognita column.

    
Mike Bates, Seth Frantzman and Jerry Gordon

Mike Bates: Good afternoon and welcome to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. This hour we are doing one of our periodic Middle East round table discussions and I have with me in the studio Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog, The Iconoclast. Welcome Jerry.

Jerry Gordon: Glad to be back Mike.

Bates: And joining us by telephone for the first time Seth Frantzman, Opinion Editor for the Jerusalem Post and writer of the weekly column, Terra Incognita. Seth Frantzman, welcome to Your Turn.

Seth Frantzman: Great, thanks a lot for having me.

Bates: Seth because this is your first visit with us I was reading your bio so my opening question is somewhat of a personal one, not a political one. How did you go from being an infant in the State of Maine to being the Opinion Editor at the Jerusalem Post in Israel?

Frantzman: That is a long, complicated story. Basically, I grew up in a sporting lodge in Maine. We didn’t even have electricity when I was a kid because my parents were into getting back to nature and all that. They wanted to provide people with a really rustic feel and so I was home-schooled through the age of seven. At some point, I ended up going to regular public school in Maine and went away to boarding school in Arizona. After completing University in Arizona I was working in the mortgage business. If people remember back then, 2001 to 2003, that was before the big crash with the entire sub-prime mortgage business at the time. I felt that was kind of a soulless business and I always wanted to go back to school and get an MA or a PhD in History. I had an interest in the Middle East and I had been reading a lot about Israel and the region. I thought here was an opportunity to go to the Middle East; but one of the problems back then was, of course, that there was the Second Intifada.

Very few people were interested in coming here at the time which is probably a kind of good thing for me, so I happened to come to Jerusalem to study for a master’s degree at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. They still have an English language program there at the Rothberg International School. So, I came to Israel, and I basically have stayed ever since in Jerusalem and Israel and I spent a lot of time reporting from the region. I have done a lot of reporting from Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt. In many ways, Jerusalem and this conflict are sort of a center, I think, of so much that goes on in the world. I mean, it may not want to be a center, but it happens to be because of the nature of where it is and the world’s religions.

Bates: I do consider Israel, and specifically Jerusalem, to be the center of the universe for many reasons, so let’s talk about what is happening in Jerusalem. I would like to begin with the Temple Mount crisis of July 14, 2017 that ultimately resulted in the metal detectors being installed and then later removed. Let’s talk first about what instigated that. Tell me about the policemen who were shot.

Frantzman: What happened that day which was if you remember back on July 14th which was a Friday, there were three young men who came to Jerusalem. They came from an Arab town, almost a city, inside Israel’s Green Line called Um al Fahm. They came to Jerusalem and with a fourth man whose identity has not been revealed but has been detained. The fourth man brought weapons onto the Temple Mount which is of course the holy site where you have the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque. Obviously, it is the place where the second Jewish Temple existed.

These three Israeli-Arab perpetrators obtained their homemade weapons there and then they shot and killed two policemen. There are nine gates that lead to the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is really big. It’s like the size of a few football fields. Each gate has several border policemen there whose job it is to stand there and watch people going in and out. The perpetrators then killed two of these policemen, then the three terrorists fled back onto the Temple Mount and they were shot and killed. The two policemen happened to be from the Druze minority in Israel which is a small sect unique to Israel and the other states surrounding it like Syria and Lebanon.

Bates: I want to put the whole thing in context in terms of the metal detectors as a result of those attacks. Previously, Muslim worshippers could ascend the Temple Mount without any encumbrance of magnetometers or any kind of check like that. Israel then imposed, in my view, very reasonable requirements that they go through a security screening. People need to understand that there are eleven gates to access the Temple Mount. Muslims may use eleven of them at any time of the day or night minus certain times when security reasons might temporarily shut down the gates. Non-Muslims may only use one gate and that is the Mughrabi Gate near the Western Wall. The Mughrabi Gate has metal detectors and it has airport style security screening to x-ray any backpacks or purses or whatever may be brought in. So, security to access the Temple Mount isn’t new, it’s just new for Muslims so what’s the problem?

Frantzman: As you pointed out not just the Temple Mount but most holy sites in the world these days have security of some sort, often involving nowadays metal detectors and plain clothes police. For instance, if you go on Hajj or wherever to Saudi Arabia you will go through a security regime when you get to the two shrines in Mecca and Medina. This is usually directed against Islamic extremists or also their fear of Iranian agents. If you go to the Vatican you will find much higher levels of security than ten years ago because of Islamic extremists. If you go to holy sites in India you will find more security than in the past. So, the fact that there is security is nothing new. I think with the Temple Mount you have a very sensitive area and it’s not like there wasn’t security there before because the very fact that there were two policemen there who were killed is evidence of that fact. There is a higher level of security for non-Muslims who are allowed to enter the Temple Mount basically only once or twice a day and not on Fridays.

Bates: Right.

Frantzman: The main difference here, from the prospective of the Waqf for the Islamic authorities that run the Temple Mount area, is they are not the ones that wanted the security. They feel it is an encumbrance or a change in the status quo. I think we have to understand that it’s not about the metal detectors; it’s about this much larger issue of who owns the Temple Mount, who runs it. This feeling is expressed in many mosques, not only here but even in the U.S., that somehow the “Jews” are defiling the Temple Mount. That is something that you can actually hear in sermons in Mosques in Montreal, in California, and many other places. The issue is much more pervasive than just the idea of one metal detector.

Bates: Now, I have an opinion/question—but you are, after all, the Opinion Editor of The Jerusalem Post, so I trust you have no problem giving your opinions. In your opinion, did the Netanyahu government cave when they removed the metal detectors or are the security cameras truly going to be adequate protection?

Frantzman: In a sense they did cave, in the sense that they wanted to put them there and then decided to take them away. I’m not even sure if even the cameras were then removed. It was a very rational response from the police’s point of view. Two policemen get killed, what do you do the next day? You put up a new type of metal detector. That’s the way the way U.S. Airports respond, right? When they hear about a threat involving a shoe bomber the next day everyone has to remove their shoes even though actually there is no more threat from shoe bombers. When we heard about the liquid explosive threat then all of the sudden we had to dispose of liquids like bottled water. From a law enforcement perspective, it makes sense. The Israeli law enforcement authorities said okay, our policemen were killed; we should have metal detectors now. Because of the political/religious aspect, I think it was a bad decision-making process to put these things there and then take them away. As you said it makes it look like he caved and it made Israel appear it had backtracked.

Gordon: Seth, what was the Israeli response and those from the U.S., particularly the Muslim reactions? What we saw looked very peculiar. We saw the King of Jordan coming to Ramallah to make common cause, which he hasn’t done in years, with Mahmoud Abbas over this incident. What role did the Waqf play in this episode and what is the Palestinian Authority’s role in terms of management of the Temple Mount?

Frantzman: The King of Jordan’s involvement is interesting because the Kingdom of Jordan had relinquished its claims to the West Bank but it has never relinquished its role as a protector of the holy place. It views itself as closely connected to the Waqf and closely connected to protecting or defending the Temple Mount. The Jordanian relationship with the Temple Mount is both very special and very unique. The Jordanians as you said have another relationship with what goes on in Ramallah and Mahmoud Abbas. If we look back to the beginning of the Trump administration, Trump originally wanted to move the Embassy. One of the first that Trump met with after he was inaugurated was the King of Jordan. I think the King of Jordan has conducted more business to Washington than any other foreign leader in the last six months The King of Jordan thinks that if there is a change in the status quo in Jerusalem, it could turn into an Intifada. That could also lead to some form of repercussions inside the Kingdom. Which could lead to his possible removal. His trip to the West Bank of course was to pay lip service to showing that he is standing by the Palestinians and, of course, the faithful.

Gordon: Seth, there appears to be a power struggle going on between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas in Gaza. There also is a figure who was thrown out of Gaza in 2006, who has suddenly reappeared on the scene as a power broker. He has been living in exile in the UAE. What is, in fact, going on in those political dynamics and what can we expect?

Frantzman: Obviously, the power broker you referred to is Mahmoud Dahlan, right?

Gordon: Yes, that is correct.

Frantzman: Dahlan was supposed to be the strong man who had an iron grip on Gaza and he was also a friend of the West. He was a young up-and-comer in Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas and other Fatah/PLO leaders were born in the 1930s or 1940s. Dahlan is obviously much younger. However, in 2006 his forces basically disappeared from Gaza when Hamas started killing them. They didn’t put up much of a fight and he just happened to be away from Gaza at the time. The reality is that there is a stagnating decay in the Palestinian Authority. Because Fatah/PLO terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti is in prison, it is really hard to judge how much legitimacy Dahlan really has among the Palestinian people. Is there any way that he could actually find his way back to power? I kind of suspect that is not going to happen. It is just media hype.

Bates: I have a question, Seth, about a different power grab regarding electricity to Gaza. What limited reporting has been done on that in the United States portrays Israel as the big, bad oppressor who doesn’t want the residents of Gaza to be able to turn on their lights or have any electricity. The reality is that the Palestinian Authority isn’t paying the full electric bill on behalf of Gaza. What is the full story?

Frantzman: First of all, you have an electric plant in Gaza. It is part of Gaza’s overall dependence on Israel, the Palestinian Authority and also Egypt. Because it is such a small territory and it has limited financial resources, the Palestinian Authority can cut off money for this power plant and it doesn’t get transferred through Israel. At the end of the day, the blowback is always on Israel. Because if something happens in Gaza and people are starving, who has to transport the food into Gaza? Israel—not the Palestinian Authority. It is a double game where the Palestinian Authority wants to punish Hamas but of course Israel also looks like the bad guy. That is just a strange fact of life that Gaza is very much dependent on Israel for virtually everything.

Bates: That is why I wanted to ask the question, Seth, because Israel is portrayed as the bad guy but the facts don’t support that portrayal.

Frantzman: Don’t let facts get in the way! This is the nature of the media narratives because the Palestinians and everyone else would like to put the blame on Israel. They themselves don’t want to take the blame for anything so Israel is the scapegoat, because Israel is the more powerful player. It controls the ports which makes it easy for opponents to make their case despite the fact.

Bates: So, do you see Hamas weakening over this or not?

Frantzman: Weakening is an interesting concept. Hamas is like the North Korean regime, right? It’s an isolated regime and an isolated place with large numbers of poor people who are kept in a cage mostly by Hamas. However, it’s always a Catch-22. If you fight Hamas then they get stronger. If you don’t fight them then they will just kind of stay there. It is never clear how to tackle a regime like Hamas or North Korea or even regimes like Iran. Because no matter what you do empowers the regime. If you open the borders, the regime gets rich. If you close the borders and lay them under siege then they all cry and play the victim. It is a very strange vicious circle. I don’t think anyone has figured out how to solve this conundrum.

Gordon: Seth, just before Congress recessed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the Taylor Force Act. It was named in memory of an American graduate of West Point who served as an officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He was killed in a Tel Aviv restaurant, March 8, 2016. The Act may sequester upwards of four hundred million in U.S. aid to the PA because of its so-called “pay for slay” policies in which they were making payments to jailed Palestinian terrorists and their surviving families. That is going to significantly impact on foreign aid for PA. It was roundly objected to by the PA. What is going on there?

Frantzman: For the Palestinians, it makes sense to have a regime that pays, as you said, if someone is a terrorist or pays his family. It is an incentive to kill people. The US is “why don’t we try to take away some of the money that’s going to the terrorist or the terrorist families?” From other perspectives, if you take away these funds, these people become poorer and may decide to become terrorists anyway. If the US denies funds, perhaps they make up for the money by going to the Iranians or they go to some other bad actor. This could destabilize the Palestinian Authority because, at the end of the day, the Authority has obligations to pay those families. I assume that they would find that money from some other part of the budget so the idea that you could get the Palestinian Authority to stop paying for these prisoners and terrorists I think is just something that is not in their playbook. They are going to keep doing this somehow.

Bates: Seth, when you say they have an obligation to pay those families, what do you mean? Is this a legal contractual obligation to pay the families of these so-called martyrs?

Frantzman: I think that from their context it is. It is not one I agree with. That is how the Palestinian Authority has set things up. If you are a convicted terrorist or a martyr from their point of view you have done something wonderful for the Palestinian cause. Therefore, the Authority will pay his family or pay him. To try and wean them from that would be great but it’s like a lot of things in the region. If you asked the Palestinians, they would agree that the guy that blows up a bus or someone who hacks kids is not only a martyr but is some sort of hero. You can see that in the way in which public squares, parks or streets are named in the Palestinian Authority. It is very overt.

Bates: They certainly have made that promise. Whether it’s a legally enforceable promise or not remains to be seen. One of the objections that people who oppose that Act are saying is that the U.S. doesn’t fund those payments; the U.S. funds infrastructure. We are building parks and hospitals and day care centers. That is where American money goes. The reality is money is fungible and so if we weren’t funding that then they would have to use other money to fund it. That is definitely a vantage point and a perspective that needs to be considered by those who are looking into passing the Act.

Gordon: Seth, why have Iran and its proxy Hezbollah emerged as the principle threat to the region, especially on Israel’s northern frontier? I reference a report that came out recently indicating that there are satellite photos of another underground missile factory being built in Syria by Iran. We have threats coming out of Iranian President Rouhani to end the nuclear deal because of new U.S. sanctions and accelerate development. They have also announced a large missile program in defiance of U.N. sanctions. They have announced sending a fleet to the Western Atlantic probably to visit Mr. President Maduro in war-torn Venezuela. So, what is going on?

Frantzman: I think Iran is making its play for regional hegemony. It feels—especially after the Iran deal—that there is basically nothing that’s holding it back. From an Iranian point of view, they are doing pretty well. They have built up Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hezbollah basically runs the government of Lebanon. In Syria, they are winning the war. Their proxies and their friend Bashar al-Assad are obviously linked in alliance with the Russians. In Iraq, they control the interior ministry and a very powerful Al Hashd al Sha’bi Shia militia force of about one hundred thousand fighters that is basically part of the Iraqi government now. They control parts of Yemen. Iran basically thinks that it is on the march so it can do whatever it wants and no one is ever really going to push back against it. Iran, for instance, is harassing shipping in the Persian Gulf. Every time you see a report you hear that the US Navy fired warning shots among them and then we ran away because no one really wants to basically confront them which is odd because Iran is not that powerful a regime. It could be confronted. It is just that most people don’t want to.

Gordon: Seth, you have written a rather stunning series about what you have discovered on the ground both in the Golan and on the Lebanese border. What did you find there that seemed to be menacing towards Israel?

Frantzman: We saw the Hezbollah flags flying at the Lebanese border basically sitting there overlooking Israel. The fear in the Golan is the Iranian regime is slowly creeping closer to the border although it is sort of a static front line. At some point with this current deconfliction peace deal in Southern Syria involving Russia, the US and Jordan, I think the idea is that the Iranian supportive regime of Syria will reach the Israeli border. Until now, the Syrian regime and Israel, you know, had a kind of cold peace for many years. They didn’t have to fight each other and Assad was not a good neighbor but he was a quiet neighbor. The problem is now Assad is very weak and the Iranians are very strong in Syria. So, what comes back to the border will be very different than what was there in 2010.

Bates: What is the situation with Iranian involvement and bases in Syria? What kind of threat does that pose to Israel? What is Israel going to do about it, if anything?

Frantzman: With the latest news, Iran is alleged to (be) building a missile factory in Northern Syria, very close to the coastline near Baniyas. It is not far from the Russian Naval Base at Tartus in Latakia province. That is a base for production of missiles and long-range rockets. If you examine the satellite imagery, they reveal buildings there are very similar to buildings at facilities in Iran used for the same types of production. It is a large site, several kilometers long, located in a valley. You can see it on Google Earth. It is not that secretive. The Iranians don’t even feel that they need to be secretive. As we know, Israel has always worked to interdict weapon flows to Hezbollah from Iran. That usually takes the form of alleged Israeli strikes on convoys of weapons near Damascus. What that means is weapons are flown from Teheran to Damascus and then they are trucked over the hills to Lebanon. Many of those convoys have met with an accident along the way. Most of those strikes are not admitted by Israel. I think the only one that was admitted was the one near Palmyra where the Israeli planes were then attacked by Syrian air defense systems on the way back to Israel. Iranian bases in Lebanon are probably a Red Line. The question is, “Okay, you have a very large Iranian base being constructed in Northern Syria. Is that a Red Line?” I think the answer to that question is yes. That base is only a few miles from a very large air base for Russian operations. Just as there are Russians vessels at the Tartus Naval Base. That means Israel would have to fly through Russian supplied Syrian air systems. I don’t think Israel wants to do that at this point.

Gordon: Seth we had an interesting development in Jerusalem. We had Prime Minister Netanyahu stand up before a visiting Congressional delegation and say that “Israel supports an independent Kurdistan,” which probably ruffled the feathers of the folks in Teheran. How complicated are the Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish aspirations for autonomy given the rejection by the Assad regime, Baghdad and Iran, for openers, and where does the U.S. versus Israel stand on an independent Kurdistan?

Frantzman: The Israeli government basically supports an independent Kurdish region in Iraq, currently called the Kurdistan Regional government. It has announced a referendum on independence originally scheduled for September 25th. The Kurdistan region in Iraq is a highly developed region. People will be surprised that it’s in Iraq because if you fly into the airport at Erbil which is a Turkish built airport it’s very modern. If you go into Erbil it appears not quite a western city but it a nice functioning city with highways and lots of new buildings and a lot of potential. So that is why Israel would be on board with backing Kurdish independence. Many Western countries have thrown cold water on that and said we don’t support the Kurdish referendum, we don’t support independence. This is hypocritical considering the fact that America and many other countries in the world declared independence. It is kind of strange the Americans would say, well, of course in 1776 we had a right to declare independence but, well, no, the Kurds have to be part of Iraq. The Iraqi regime committed genocide against Kurds and today is partly controlled by Iran. Why do we want the Kurds who are probably one of our closest friends in the region to be forced into that? The Syrian-Kurdish region is a whole different ball game. It is a region that is much less developed and it has only gained semi-autonomy in the last few years fighting against ISIS, and has a very close relationship with U.S. forces there.

Gordon: Seth, a bit of history on the Kurdish side. A lot of people don’t remember what happened in March 1988, when the infamous Saddam Hussein unleashed a poison gas attack on hundreds of villages, and thousands of Iraqi Kurds were killed. We don’t recall that very often but that essentially was part of the genocidal operation that Saddam Hussein was conducting against the Kurds. What happened in the period of the 1960s through 1975? Wasn’t Israel providing covert support for the Kurds at that time and why did it end?

Frantzman: As you said, in the 1960s and 1970s, Israel at that time was really looking for allies—any allies it could get because, in those days, it had an iron wall of enemies surrounding it committed to its destruction. The policy of Israel at that time was, okay, you have a whole bunch of Arab countries that hate us but all the countries outside of that ring of Arab countries basically are non-Arab. Many of them are people we can do business with. Then, Israel was very close to Turkey. Israel was also close to Iran in those days, under the Shah. Israel had close relations with the Kurds in Iraq and Israel reached even further had close relations with most of Sub-Sahara in Africa up until the ’73 Yom Kippur War. I think the Kurds were one of those relationships. Israeli state leaders knew little about Kurds at the time. There were Kurdish Jews, but they did find this common cause. The Kurds and Jews have faced similar enemies. They faced, you know, the genocidal aspirations of people like Saddam Hussein. They both had to fight against Arabization and Arab extremism and in those days Arab nationalism. The Israelis feel that they have shared enemies over the years. Many of the Kurds look to Israel as a model of a country that successfully obtained independence against all odds. That is something they have wanted to do for the last sixty or a hundred years since the Western powers basically denied them that right.

Gordon: Seth, the Trump White House is dispatching a team consisting of the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, and a new name, Dina Habib Powell, to check on the pulse of the Middle East peace process between the PA and Israel. What is going on there?

Frantzman: The Trump Administration has been bitten by the peace bug. The role of any American administration is that they always think that wouldn’t it be great if they could (pull) off a peace deal. The Trump people paid lip service to that. Some of these people like Jared Kushner and US Ambassador Friedman know that there is no peace process. The reality is that there is peace without a peace process because, in fact, things are quite peaceful. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is the most peaceful part of the whole region. Chicago is far more dangerous apparently, in terms of murders, than anything you see with the conflict here. That doesn’t mean of course that there couldn’t be another Intifada. There could be eventually. Obviously, Hamas and Hezbollah know what issues are involved. I just don’t see anything happening on this and I don’t know why anyone would imagine that anything will happen.

Bates: Well, speaking of the White House, Seth, what is the Israeli view of National Security Advisor General McMaster and his impact on maintaining the U.S. Strategic Alliance with Israel?

Frantzman: I am sure that the Israeli view is complex and has lots of different voices. However, I think there was a campaign that was launched briefly against McMaster connected to the Zionist Organization of America and some other pro-Israel voices. More recently, all that has been walked back because Ambassador Friedman, Sheldon Adelson and many other voices have basically put the brakes on this and said H.R. McMaster is a friend of Israel. He’s not anti-Israel, he’s not connected with all these radical leftists that people claim he is. There is a feeling that the attacks on McMaster actually would really be bad for Israel because it means that it will offend both him and other members of the Trump administration. That is not actually helpful in the long run. This U.S. Administration is friendly to Israel; basically, all U.S Administrations have been friendly to Israel in the last decade notwithstanding the fact that in every U.S. Administration there is usually one or two people that don’t love Israel that much but their non-love for Israel doesn’t translate into fewer weapons, deals, or less support. It just means they don’t have a warm feeling for the country.

Bates: Seth, you just said that all recent administrations were friendly with Israel. Would you include the Obama administration in that? It seemed to me that it was pretty contentious.

Frantzman: I would say the same thing about the Obama Administration; that you could say that McMasters isn’t loving of Israel. The Obama administration was critical of Israel. Obama personally didn’t like Bibi Netanyahu but actually the Obama Administration signed off on forty billion dollars of weapons and military support. You know, John Kerry waited until the last day of his term as Secretary of State to give a speech about the settlements. If you read his speech it’s all about how, you know, he loved Israel so much that it’s all about tough love. I mean the narrative of these people is never anti-Israel. It’s always, we have Israel’s best interest at heart and of course you could reply to that and say, yeah, well if the road to hell is paved with good intentions . . . That could be it, but the fact is they don’t do anything against Israel. It’s just that (the) Obama administration people, I think, didn’t really like the Israeli leadership. They basically preferred what’s called, like, liberal Zionism or that kind of leftist thing. That is the kind of Israel they like. It’s not that they hated Israel, they disliked Netanyahu.

Bates: Well, the Obama administration we know interfered with Israeli elections trying to oust Benjamin Netanyahu and then, late in his Presidency, abstained in a UN Security Council resolution proposed by New Zealand and threw Israel “under the bus” through that abstention.

Frantzman: From their perspective, their refusal was good for Israel because they think that the settlements will lead to the bi-national state. That would destroy Israel and turn Israel into what happened in South Africa. From their perspective, they’re “saving” Israel. Now, you could make all the arguments you want, but their perspective doesn’t come from a place of hatred of Israel. It just comes from a place of hatred of what happened in the West Bank and a feeling that it is not helpful for Israel’s policy. It’s like if I am opposed to America’s involvement in Afghanistan I’m not necessarily anti-American I just think that the policy there is stupid. My reading of these people is not that they dislike Israel. My reading is that they may be misguided and only like Israel in a certain way.

Gordon: What are the views of Israelis about the several police investigations into allegations of corruption and the impact on the continuity of the Likud government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Frantzman: Corruption scandals are kind of slowly working their way through the investigations as they tend to do in Israel. The current Defense Minister, Avigdor Liberman, was under investigation for like a decade. Netanyahu is at the center of two different investigations but neither of them actually tag him as personally corrupt. They mostly think the people around him are corrupt. There are allegations against his wife, and allegations against people involved in the submarine deal. However, if you read through the small print it doesn’t usually reach the highest office. It could be that he gets brought down by this but I am skeptical. I think that he’s a survivor. Netanyahu seems to have survived a lot of controversies. He wants to be the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history and that will happen next year so he wants to hang on. Netanyahu has sort of a Messianic kind or Churchillian complex. He thinks that he is basically saving Israel and he has to keep fighting so that he can save it because the other people around him can’t do it. When you ask who do you think will replace him you know the problem is that many Israelis think that others are (up) to the task. That being said, of course at the end of the day, many countries in the world end up being lead by people that are not up to the task. I think that America had a president named Millard Fillmore so, and America still exists.

Bates: Seth, it was very easy for me to dismiss the allegations against Bibi Netanyahu in the beginning but then he recently had an aide that turned against him.

Frantzman: Yes.

Bates: At that point I thought, well, they wouldn’t have granted the aide immunity if he didn’t have something to say. Is there cause for concern there?

Frantzman: There is cause for concern. But, if he’s proven to be corrupt then he’s corrupt and he probably shouldn’t hold his office. However, you know, it’s a question of what eventually comes out in all of this. As I said, I think Ari Harrow is the person who has been turned but, you know, we just don’t know what will actually come out and what the allegations fully are. I mean, is it kickbacks or who knows where it will lead? We have to wait. These disputes just go on and on.

Bates: Time will tell. But time is something we don’t have anything left of for this program but Frantzman thanks so much for joining us.

Listen to the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Seth Frantzman.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Czech Prime Minister: ‘When we see problems in other European countries, we do not want Muslims in the Czech Republic’

Noting that there was only a small, non-radicalised Muslim community in the Central European country, the prime minister told Austrian newspaper Die Presse: “When we see problems in other European countries, we do not want Muslims in the Czech Republic.”

Like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Polish leader Beata Sydlo, Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobatka has not budged in the face of political correctness and pressure. His priority, like theirs, remains to protect the people of his country.

Sobatka will undoubtedly continue to be challenged as an “Islamophobe” by the radical left agenda drivers. A shocking report emerged in May about a Czech girl scout who confronted Neo-Nazi demonstrators and stated that even though immigrants may rape her, “she’ll get over it.” Insanity knows no boundaries in radical left ideology. Unfortunately, innocent citizens are being sacrificed to a destructive social experiment that protects Islamic supremacists over law-abiding citizens of the West who value the price paid for democratic freedoms.

Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka

“‘We Do Not Want More Muslims in Czech Republic’: Prime Minister”, Victoria Friedman, Breitbart,  August 30, 2017:

Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka does not want the Muslim community to grow in the Czech Republic, saying he has seen what problems large Muslim populations have caused in other European countries.

Noting that there was only a small, non-radicalised Muslim community in the Central European country, the prime minister told Austrian newspaper Die Presse: “When we see problems in other European countries, we do not want Muslims in the Czech Republic.”

“We would greatly appreciate if Europe would better protect its external border. Receiving refugees should always be the responsibility of nation states,” Mr. Sobotka added.

In comments alluding to crime, sex attacks, and terrorism committed by Middle Eastern and African migrants in Western Europe since 2015, the prime minister said: “In Europe too often we see problems with the integration of people coming from another cultural or religious environment.”

The Czech Republic has around 22,000 Muslims living in the country who are described as well-integrated and not particularly committed to or fundamentalist in the expression of their faith.

The comments come in the same week Czech President Miloš Zeman defended burkini bans at swimming pools across the country, saying: “In Czech swimming pools there is no reason for anyone bathing in Arab clothes.”

Sobotka pointed to the country’s commitment to assisting in tackling the migrant crisis, telling the Austrian newspaper the Czech Republic is financially supporting the Libyan coastguard and migrant camps as well as sending policemen to assist border patrols in the Balkans.

Like the other three countries in the Visegrád Group (Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary), the Czech Republic rejects the European Union’s forced migrant relocation programme.

The prime minister made the point that the country is “helping people coming from Eastern Europe”.

Similarly, President Zeman has said people fleeing the Ukraine, following the Euromaidan protests, should be included in the migrant redistribution programme given the numbers absorbed by the Visegrád group. Poland has issued nearly 1.3 million visas to Ukrainians last year, including those claiming asylum…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sweden: Man convicted of eating bacon in front of three Muslims, must pay each $625, plus $1125 fine

UK: Muslim former soldier calls for “killing unbelievers”

ISIS threatens Pope Francis and Catholic Church in new video

The Pope has all but submitted to Islam. And yet it doesn’t matter. More accommodation gives way to more demands, more submission, and in the end, they kill you anyway. So why not stand up and be righteous and fight for what’s right?

“ISIS threatens Pope Francis and Catholic Church in new video,” Catholic Herald, August 25, 2017:

ISIS has released a video showing its fighters ripping up photographs of Pope Francis and threatening to come to Rome.

Filmed in the Philippines, where the terrorists have been fighting the government for control of the city of Marawi, the video also shows the destruction the group have wreaked on a Catholic church.

The jihadists brag about how they have freed inmates from a local jail, with one addressing the camera saying: “Remember this, you kuffar [non-Muslims] – we will be in Rome, we will be in Rome, inshallah [god willing].”

The video also shows them destroying a crucifix and a statue of the Virgin Mary. It finishes with the church in flames, and one of the terrorists explaining: “After all their efforts, it would be the religion of the cross that would be broken.”

“The crusaders’ enmity toward the Muslims only served to embolden a generation of youth,” he adds….

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Jihad plot to blow up plane with bomb hidden in Barbie doll

Lebanon’s interior minister has claimed a terror cell attempted to blow up a flight from Australia with bombs hidden in a Barbie doll and a meat grinder….Amer Khayyat planned to detonate an improvised explosive device 20 minutes into an Abu-Dhabi bound flight with 400 passengers onboard.

The Islamic State is said to have been involved in the plot, and surveillance was being run on the two brothers for a full year since one of them travelled to Syria, yet still this near catastrophe continued to unfold.

The randomness of improvised explosive devices (IED’s) makes their impact particularly dangerous. During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, statistics as of 2013 indicted that over half to two-thirds of Americans killed and wounded were victim of IED’s.

Western nations continue to be sitting ducks, as jihadists continue to hide among the general populace, having the same freedoms as law-abiding citizens. Jihadis are traveling in and out of Western countries, joining foreign jihad wars and returning back “home” with renewed vigor, hatred and drive to wage jihad.

“Components for the IED were sent through international cargo” from members of the Islamic State to Australia.

“Australian terror plan to hide plane bomb in Barbie revealed”, BBC News, August 21, 2017:

Lebanon’s interior minister has claimed a terror cell attempted to blow up a flight from Australia with bombs hidden in a Barbie doll and a meat grinder.

He said Amer Khayyat planned to detonate an improvised explosive device 20 minutes into an Abu-Dhabi bound flight with 400 passengers onboard.

The plan was allegedly only aborted after the luggage containing the devices was deemed overweight.

Four men were arrested in Sydney counter-terrorism raids in July.

Two were released but Lebanese-Australian brothers Khaled Khayat, 49, and Mahmoud Khayat, 32 were charged with “preparing for, or planning, a terrorist attack”.

Australian authorities at the time confirmed the arrests related to a credible plot to bring down an aeroplane.

It then emerged the target was an Etihad flight from Sydney on 15 July.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Deputy Commissioner Michael Phelan described the plan as “one of the most sophisticated plots that has ever been attempted on Australian soil”.

He said components for the IED were sent through international cargo from IS members to the men in Australia.

It is claimed a fourth brother, Tarek, is a senior member of the so-called Islamic State in Raqqa.

At a news conference on Monday, the Lebanese Interior Minister Nohad Machnouk said Amer Khayyat was forced to abandon the plan and to travel to Lebanon without the luggage after the bag was deemed overweight.

His story contradicts Australian authorities who previously claimed the travelling brother had the bomb planted on him unknowingly.

The minister said his country co-ordinated extensively with the Australian government over the plot.

He also claimed the brothers had been under surveillance for over a year since their brother travelled to Syria….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer video: 6 ways Leftists are working to curtail the freedom of speech

Kenya: Muslims hack Christians to death for refusing to recite the Islamic confession of faith

H.R. McMaster endorsed a book telling U.S. military to kiss the Qur’an

McMaster is proceeding on the theory, which is almost universally taken for granted by the foreign policy establishment, that showing respect for the Qur’an and Islam will take the teeth out of the jihadi claim that the U.S. is at war with Islam, and win hearts and minds, resulting in reciprocal gestures of respect. But in reality, jihadis see this solicitude for the Qur’an as a sign that the Infidels know that Islam is true, and that Allah is granting the Muslims victory over them. And they look with contempt upon American weakness.

This is the kind of thinking that Trump seemed to have promised to sweep out. Instead, it is more entrenched than ever.

H.R. McMaster

“H.R. McMaster Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies,” by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, August 20, 2017:

TEL AVIV — A book on terrorism endorsed and touted by H.R. McMaster, the embattled White House National Security Adviser, calls on the U.S. military to respond to any “desecrations” of the Quran by service members with an apology ceremony, and advocates kissing a new copy of the Quran before presenting the Islamic text to the local Muslim public.

The book’s author further demanded that any American soldier who “desecrates” the Quran be ejected from the foreign country of deployment, relieved of duty and turned over to a military judge for “punishment.”

“Desecration” of the Quran, according to the McMaster-endorsed book, includes such acts as “letting the Quran fall to the ground during a search, or more blatant instances.”

The book, reviewed in full by this reporter, was authored by U.S. military officer Youssef H. Aboul-Enein and is titled Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat.

McMaster provided a glowing blurb for the book jacket, referring to Aboul-Enein’s book as “an excellent starting point” for understanding terrorist ideology.

McMaster also promoted the book in ARMOR, the journal of the U.S. Army’s Armor Branch, published at Fort Benning, Georgia, where McMaster served as commanding general at the Ft. Benning Maneuver Center of Excellence.

McMaster wrote in his blurb for the book: “Militant Islamist Ideology deserves a wide readership among all those concerned with the problem of transnational terrorism, their ideology, and our efforts to combat those organizations that pose a serious threat to current and future generations of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”

In the blurb, McMaster revealed his own views on terrorism, claiming that “terrorist organizations use a narrow and irreligious ideology to recruit undereducated and disenfranchised people to their cause.”

Aboul-Enein is listed as a senior adviser and analyst at the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency, a position that he also held under the Obama administration. He is an officer in the Navy Medical Service Corps and Middle East Foreign Officer, and an adjunct military professor and chair of Islamic studies at the National Defense University.

Besides endorsing Militant Islamist Ideology, McMaster also wrote a forward for another Aboul-Enein book, this one titled Iraq in Turmoil: Historical Perspectives of Dr. Ali al-Wardi, From the Ottoman Empire to King Feisal.

Quran ‘Desecration’

In the book, Aboul-Enein warned that “incidents of desecrating the Quran, such as letting the Quran fall to the ground during a search, or more blatant instances, allow our adversary to capitalize on outrage and to score points in the arena of public opinion.”

Any such “desecration” of the Quran, the author wrote, “would be considered an offense not only by Militant Islamists but by Islamists and wider Muslim community as well.”

Aboul-Enein recommended that “desecrations” of the Quran should be “quickly acknowledged, with unconditional apologies and reassurances to the public that the accused do not represent the United States or its military, that they have been ejected from the country and referred to their service’s judge advocate general for punishment.”

Besides ejecting the service member from the country of deployment and turning the soldier over to a judge for “punishment,” Aboul-Enein pointed to a May 2008 incident in which a U.S. Army sniper reportedly used the Quran for target practice. He upheld the response by Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, as forming, in Aboul-Enein’s opinion, the minimal official U.S. military reaction to such desecrations.

The response included an “apology ceremony” at which a U.S. official kissed a copy of the Quran before presenting the text to the local community as a “humble gift.”

Aboul-Enein writes that Hammond took the following steps, “which in my opinion formed the basis by which American officials and Iraqi tribal leaders fighting al-Qaida can at least alleviate the emotionalism of such an event”:

  • Hammond held “an apology ceremony, not a press conference, and he issued this statement, flanked by Iraqi Sunni leaders of the Radwaniyah District, where the incident had happened: ‘I come before you here seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.’”
  • A U.S. official “kissed a new copy of the Quran and ceremoniously presented it to the tribal leaders.”
  • Hammond read the following letter from the shooter: “I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together. … My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious.”
  • The offending sniper was “relieved of duty and reassigned.”
  • Hammond himself commented, “The actions of one soldier were nothing more than criminal behavior. … I’ve come to this land to protect you, to support you—not to harm you—and the behavior of this soldier was nothing short of wrong and unacceptable.”

The section on Quran “desecration” is not the only controversial part of the book. Breitbart News reported last week that Aboul-Enein’s book also calls Hamas an “Islamist political group” while failing to categorize the deadly organization as a terrorist group, and refers to al-Qaida attacks and anti-Israel terrorism as “resistance.”

The work frames jihad as a largely peaceful “means to struggle or exert effort,” such as waking up early in the morning to recite prayers. It argues that groups like al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations have hijacked the concept of jihad to wage war using such tactics as suicide bombings.

Hamas an ‘Islamist Political Group’

Throughout the McMaster-endorsed Militant Islamist Ideology book, Aboul-Enein struggles to properly categorize Hamas; but at no point does he call Gaza’s murderous Islamist rulers a terrorist organization.

Hamas is a terrorist group responsible for scores of deadly suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. Hamas’s official charter calls for the obliteration of the Jewish state, and proclaims that there is “no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” Hamas leaders routinely demand the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

Yet Aboul-Enein struggles to properly classify Hamas. At one point, Aboul-Enein differentiates between “militant Islamists” and Hamas, grouping the latter among “Islamist political groups.”

In the book’s introduction, he writes:

Militant Islamists alienate not only the United States but even Islamist political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It is time for a more nuanced definition of the threat.

At another point, the author calls Hamas an “Islamist” group. He writes (page 131): “For instance, Zawahiri condemns Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas for participating in the electoral process.”

Despite its clear terrorist activities, Aboul-Enein suggests (page 2) that Hamas does not “fit into a neat category.” He asks an open question about whether Hamas “is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” but he does not provide an answer.

He writes (page 3):

There are also Islamists who do not fit into a neat category, such as the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas. On one hand, Hamas provides social services, won 44 percent of the electorate in 2006, and is the government of the Palestinian territories. On the other hand, it has failed to compromise effectively with other Palestinian rejectionist and secular groups to form a governing coalition, and it has failed to provide social services for a wider Palestinian populace. In addition, it has conducted suicide operations directed against Israeli civilians – though it has not widened its campaign beyond targeting Israel. Further, al-Qaida senior leaders have viciously attacked Hamas for participating in electoral politics. The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group.

Aboul-Enein fails to note that the U.S. government already answered that so-called question, designating Hamas as a foreign terrorist group.

In another section of the book, Aboul-Enein defines (page 193) Hamas as straddling “the Islamist and Militant Islamist divide, using its proficiency in suicide-bomber operations to strike at Israeli targets, yet it is currently in government.” He also writes (page 215) that Hamas “is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization and political party.”

Al-Qaida, Palestinian ‘Resistance’

In the book, Aboul-Enein refers to the deadly terrorism of al-Qaida in Iraq as “resistance.” Besides its worldwide mayhem, Al-Qaida has been responsible for countless terrorist attacks across Iraq that have targeted civilians, U.S. troops and Iraqi government institutions.

Aboul-Enein relates a struggle between the goals of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) and those of the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) in terms of “resistance” locally versus a global fight against the West.

Aboul-Enein writes (page 101):

In post-Saddam Iraq, among the Sunni insurgency there are other stressors that undermine al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), such as the tensions between the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) and al-Qaida in Iraq. The IAI struggles with AQI over the concept of this fight being for Iraq’s Sunnis and not a wider pan-Islamist struggle; the IAI has narrower objectives than AQI. It is a tension between Jihad as muqawama (resistance) and Jihad for a wider pan-Islamist objective.

He refers to support for “resistance” against the U.S. presence in Iraq. He does so when documenting the rise of Muslim Brotherhood political parties and public criticism of an al-Qaida hotel bombing in 2005 in Amman, Jordan.

He writes (page 46):

This has split the Muslim Brotherhood, as there is deep hostility toward the U.S. presence in Iraq, support for muqawama (resistance) and for the Muslim Brotherhood concept of wasatiyah (moderation), and recognition of the need for grassroots representation of the Ahl-al-Sunnah (formal term for Sunni Muslims).

Aboul-Enein also categorizes deadly terrorist raids on Jewish settlements in the 1930s as “resistance,” even though those operations targeted and killed civilians.

He states: (page 138)

No study of Militant Islamist ideologues and the cleavages between Militant Islamist and Islamist groups can be complete without delving into the life, actions, theories, and legacy of Abdullah Azzam. Militant Islamist operatives take the nom de guerre “Abu Azzam” in his honor. A witness to increased Jewish immigration into Palestine in World War II, Azzam was reared on the stories of resistance by the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, which led guerrilla raids against the British and then Jewish settlers.

The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades is currently the namesake of Hamas’s so-called military wing. Aboul-Enein was referring to deadly attacks carried out by the original Brigade, founded around 1930 by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a Syrian Muslim cleric who popularized the concept of jihad against Jews during the British civil administration of Palestine.

“Islamist” vs. “Militant Islamist”

The core of Aboul-Enein’s endeavor, and one that may help to elucidate McMaster’s views, is to differentiate between what he terms “Islamist” and “Militant Islamist,” and to show that “militant Islamists” present a distorted, dishonest view of Islam. The thesis might clarify McMaster’s aversion to using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”

In seeking to differentiate between “Islam,” “Islamist,” and “Militant Islamist,” Aboul-Enein comes up with the following basic definitions:

  • Islam is “the religious faith of Muslims, involving (as defined in Merriam-Webster’s) belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet.”
  • He defines Islamist as “a group or individual advocating Islam as a political as well as a religious system. Chief Islamist objectives include implementing sharia (Islamic) law as the basis of all statutory issues and living as did the earliest adherents to Islam. Many Islamists also assert that implementation of sharia law requires the elimination of all non-Islamic influences in social, political, economic, and military spheres of life.”
  • Militant Islamists, Aboul-Enein claims, consist of a “group or individual advocating Islamist ideological goals, principally by violent means. Militant Islamists call for the strictest possible interpretation of both the Quran (Muslim book of divine revelation) and the hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s actions and deeds). This narrow interpretation opposes the beliefs of Muslims and non-Muslims alike; Militant Islamists stand against Western democracies, Middle Eastern institutions of government, and Islamist political parties that participate nonviolently in elections.”

Defining Jihad

Aboul-Enein frames jihad as a largely peaceful “means to struggle or exert effort,” a term that has been hijacked by “militant Islamists” to wage extremist warfare.

Aboul-Enein posits, for example, that jihad “can be as simple as struggling to get up in the early morning to say your dawn prayers or struggling to learn and improve yourself spiritually or intellectually. It also can mean struggling in the path of God, which does not necessarily mean engaging in warfare but might be making time to teach Islam to children or providing financial support for an Islamic project.”

Jihad, in other words, is a struggle to fulfill one’s obligations to Allah, according to the author.

Islamists, he states, define jihad as a “means to expend every effort fighting against the disbelievers.” However, Aboul-Enein attempts to cloak this violent struggle in the shroud of morality.

He writes (page 34): “Islamists delineate who can fight and when; unlike Militant Islamists, they generally set rules and limits for engaging in fighting in the name of God. … It makes Jihad obligatory upon all Muslims only if the enemy has entered Muslim lands and if the imam calls for Jihad.”

Some Islamists, he relates, “prescribe a protocol of warfare in which a noble Muslim warrior should be free of arrogance and conceit,” and espouse “etiquette” such as “warnings not to kill noncombatant women and children.”

Aboul-Enein describes the seemingly legitimate, moderate jihad as different from the jihadist views advocated by “militant Islamists,” who “use women, children, and the mentally infirm as suicide bombers, who reduce Jihad to fighting or supporting the fighting through financial means, and who make Jihad incumbent upon all Muslims, with no distinction between communal and individual responsibility.”

Islam experts, meanwhile, have pointed out that mainstream Islamic scripture advocates a violent jihad to spread Islam worldwide….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hugh Fitzgerald: Saudi Arabia, Our Friend And Ally

Globe and Mail: “Social networks should treat far-right extremists like Islamic State”

No place is truly safe from jihad attacks! Why is that?

“No place in Western Europe is truly safe from the warriors of Islam.”

And why is that? Because of the Muslim migrant policies that Western European leaders have pursued with indefatigable single-mindedness, while smearing all opponents of these suicidal policies as “racists” and “Islamophobes.” Theresa May, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and François Hollande, et al — these are the destroyers of Europe.

“No Place Truly Safe,” by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, August 17, 2017:

We hadn’t traveled together outside the country—the country, in our case, being Norway—all summer, so a few weeks ago we decided to plan a brief, cheap trip to somewhere else in Europe. We put together a list of our favorite cities, plus a few we haven’t yet gotten to. We checked out airfares and hotel prices. And we consulted a color-coded map of Europe that I’d run across online. The darker the color of the country, the greater the likelihood, according to experts, that it will be a terrorist target in the near future. We love Berlin and Munich, but Angela Merkel’s madness has made those cities unappealing destinations, so we crossed them off immediately. We also love Paris, but the recent terrorist attacks there, not to mention the ever-worsening immigrant crime situation and the pictures we’d seen of refugees camped out on the streets, led us to cross it off our list.

Mind you, it’s not just a matter of not wanting to be blown up. It’s about the fact that places like Paris and Berlin just don’t feel the same. It’s also about not wanting to make even a piddling contribution to the economy of a country that has pursued irresponsible immigration and integration policies. London? No. I don’t want to spend my vacation money in a country that lets in jihad-preaching imams while banning Robert Spencer….

So we decided on Barcelona. We’d been to Spain multiple times, but never its second most-populous city. It seemed a sensible choice: it didn’t come up often in discussions of possible terrorist targets….

A quick search just now led me to an article from last May noting that terrorism fears had diminished American tourism to Paris, London, and Berlin. Barcelona, however, perceived as safer, had “become one of Europe’s tourism hotspots,” with La Rambla “packed from morning well into the evening” during the summer months.

Forget the color-coded maps. It’s all a crapshoot, all guesswork. No place in Western Europe is truly safe from the warriors of Islam. Their goal is nothing less than the conquest of the continent. They’re at war with us, and the easiest victims for them to pick off are those of us who—on holiday in some unfamiliar city, map and camera in hand—are, for the moment anyway, the least aware that we, too, whether we like it or not, are at war with them.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Muslims to Europe: One day all of this is ours

Finland: Muslim identified as perp in stabbing attack, now officially a terror investigation

CNN, MSNBC, The Atlantic publicize SPLC’s Left-biased and defamatory “hate group” map

George Soros Ratchets Lobby Funding to Sway U.S. Politics, Policy

George Soros, the billionaire globalist who masks his intents to take over sovereign governments in a philanthropist cloak, is ratcheting his progressive lobby efforts in the United States’ Congress.

George Soros

According to an analysis from the Washington Free Beacon, the Open Society Policy Center, funded by Soros money, has paid out more money in the first few months of 2017 for its lobbyists to conduct business in Washington, D.C., than it did the entire year of 2016.

Prepare for the Republican concessions to Democrats to continue. When it comes to Soros money, the GOP quickly loses its free market mind in favor of funding and Soros-drive socialism.

From the Free Beacon:

The deep-pocketed Democratic financier increased lobbying expenditures on a range of foreign issues, including efforts to oppose laws described as a direct attack on his funding of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in his native country of Hungary.

The Open Society Policy Center, a D.C.-based nonprofit that focuses on advocacy efforts and is a separate entity from the Soros grant making Open Society Foundations, has spent nearly as much on lobbying in the first half of 2017 as the group did in the entirety of 2016.

The Open Society Policy Center reported spending $4.6 million in the first and second quarters, which runs from Jan. 1 to June 30, according its disclosure forms filed to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The group has three in-house lobbyists who lobby the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State.

Soros drastically extended the policy scope of his lobbying efforts as the year progressed, including to issues that have been seen as a direct strike against the Hungarian-born billionaire.

From January to March, Soros’s group lobbied on three issues. From April to June, the group lobbied 17 different issues, including the Bill on Foreign Funded Organizations in Hungary (LexNGo), Hungary’s crack down on foreign-funded organizations in the country.

Hungary’s parliament approved the law that targets foreign-funded organizations in June, which they have said “can threaten the country’s political and economic interests and interfere with the functioning of its institutions,” according to text of the law.

Although the law does not mention Soros by name, politicians in Hungary previously said they wanted to “sweep out” organizations tied to Soros.

Soros’s Open Society Foundations has given money to a number of prominent NGOs in Hungary. The group has said that the country’s bill “seeks to suppress democratic voices in Hungary.”

The lobbyists also worked on issues such as the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, among others.

Soros’s lobbying efforts have quietly skyrocketed in recent years.

The policy center reported spending $19,120,000 on lobbying for policy and legislative efforts with Congress and government agencies between 2002 and 2012, which averages out to $1.9 million per year.

The amount Soros spent on lobbying shot up to $11 million in 2013, a drastic increase from the $3.4 million the group had spent in 2012. The uptick could be attributed to the group’s push for “comprehensive immigration reform” during this time.

The center upped its lobbying expenditures to $12.4 million in 2012. In 2015, the group spent $8.5 million. The amount spent on special interests dipped to $5.6 million in 2016.

Now the group’s lobbying expenditures are trending upwards again. The center is on pace to spend $9.2 million this year. …

The amount the group has spent over the last four and a half years on its lobbying efforts ($41.6 million) is more than double what they had spent during the ten-year period from 2002 to 2012 ($19.1 million).

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Why is President Trump letting USAFRICOM treat Sudan like an ally?

USAFRICOM official visits Khartoum, Sudan.

Al Arabiya reports that it may be a prelude to ending 20 years of sanctions against ICC indicted regime of President Bashir.

The US has invited Khartoum to participate in maneuvers with Egypt. Curious as the two neighbors in Africa are in a dispute over a long standing border disputes and Sudan’s role in transfer of weapons to Islamic terrorists and,Hamas via the Sinai Peninsula.

Then,as we have reported, there are allegations that Sudan and Qatar are involved in alleged efforts to overthrow the Libyan National Army regime of Marshal Hafter and the Chad regime.

Then there is the deception that Khartoum provided useful counterintelligence on the whereabouts of notorious Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army. Despite representations about improvements in Human Rights there is .continual genocidal ethnic cleansing of Darfur, Nuba Mountains, South Kordofan and the Blue Nile State that involve the barrel bombing and use of chemical weapons by Sudan Armed Forces. The perpetrators of Sudan genocide are the Arab tribes and recruited Jihadists from across the Sahel and Syria and Iraq for the Rapid Support Force/Janjaweed militias.Those Arab and foreign jihadists are trained in 16 camps in the Khartoum region. Ethnic cleansing that Qatar has backed with $200 million to pay for training , arms and those ubiquitous Toyota pickup trucks armed with heavy machine guns used to plunder and kill and displace millions of black African indigenous in the conflict zones of Sudan.

That Saudi backed Al Arabiya news is promoting this is an indication that King Salman is backing this rapprochement with Sudan by inking tens of billions in loans to Sudan during the recent meeting with President Bashir at the Saudi King’s summer sojourn residence in Tangier , Morocco. A rendezvous protested by Moroccan human rights and civil society groups because of the ICC indictment and outstanding arrest warrant against President Bashir.

You recall that when President Trump deferred a decision on permanently lifting sanctions that Sudan received permission from the US Treasury to use the international financial system to enable the flow of $6 billion dollars in overseas remittances. Could it be might be used for deliveries and purchases of weapons and parts with a certain rogue regimes currently threatening this country, North Korea.

After all some say the reason for the delay in lifting Sudan Sanctions was a 2009 report of Sudan purchase of missiles from North Korea and a 2013 $6.4 million sale of air to ground missiles prohibited under UN sanctions. That is Khartoum announced that it was cutting off both military and diplomatic relations according to a South Korean new agency reported last November.

So, is our country about to reward evil? That is the question before, President Trump.

Read this Al Arabiya report against these realities and,ask why we are doing this?

Trump official visits Khartoum as US seems poised to end Sudan sanctions

Despite a delay, Sudanese officials are broadly optimistic that more than 20 years of US sanctions

ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET