Friday, August 11, 2017

Even Naftali Bennett apparently does not understand the nature and magnitude of the Iranian threat. Scary!

“In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning.  At the End of Time, there will be general destruction  anyway.  What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement... “

Thursday, August 10, 2017

On Radical Islam, Trump Has Lost His Focus

There’s no ‘extreme vetting,’ no outreach to moderates, and too much coziness with Riyadh.

By  Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Candidate Donald Trump vowed to take a fresh approach to Islamic extremism. He ditched the politically correct language of the Obama administration by declaring that we were mired in an ideological conflict with radical Islam, which he likened to the totalitarian ideologies America had defeated in the 20th century.

Mr. Trump also promised, as part of his immigration policy, to put in place an “extreme vetting” system that screens for Islamic radicalism. He vowed to work with genuine Muslim reformers and concluded with the promise that one of his first acts as president would be “to establish a commission on radical Islam.”

Mr. Trump has had more than six months to make good on these pledges. He hasn’t gotten very far. The administration’s first move—a hastily drafted executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries—backfired when it was repeatedly blocked in court.

Worse, subsequent moves have tended to run counter to Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges. Aside from a new questionnaire for visa applicants, there has been no clarity regarding the promised “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants and visitors. The promise to work with and empower authentic Muslim reformers has gone nowhere. The status of the promised commission on radical Islam remains unclear.

Perhaps most discouragingly, the administration’s Middle Eastern strategy seems to involve cozying up to Saudi Arabia—for decades the principal source of funding for Islamic extremism around the world.

Some administration critics have blamed the loss of focus on Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who became White House national security adviser in February. The most charitable formulation of this criticism is that military men who slogged their way through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have an aversion to the argument that we face an ideological opponent, as opposed to a series of military problems.

But I put the responsibility on Mr. Trump. With regard to radical Islam, he simply seems to have lost interest.

Is all hope of a revamped policy on radical Islam lost? Not necessarily. Prominent members of Congress—among them Sens. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Reps. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) and Trent Franks (R., Ariz.)—understand that Islamism must be confronted with ideas as well as arms.

And this need not be a partisan issue. In the early years after 9/11, Sens. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) worked together to analyze the threat of Islamist ideology. Even President Obama’s former representative to Muslim communities, Farah Pandith, who visited 80 countries between 2009 and 2014, wrote in 2015: “In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence . . . Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams.” In 2016, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) sounded the alarm over Islamist indoctrination in Pakistan, noting that thousands of schools funded with Saudi money “teach a version of Islam that leads . . . into an . . . anti-Western militancy.”

We have already seen one unexpected outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington this summer, over tightening sanctions on Russia in retaliation for President Vladimir Putin’s many aggressions.

I propose that the next item of cross-party business should be for Congress to convene hearings on the ideological threat of radical Islam. “Who wants America on offense, with a coherent and intelligible strategy?” Newt Gingrich asked in 2015, when he called for such hearings. Then as now, if the executive branch isn’t willing—if the president has forgotten his campaign commitments—lawmakers can and should step up to the plate.

Ms. Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and founder of the AHA Foundation.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

A conditio sine qua non to understanding the Middle East

Letters to the Editor,   August 7, 2017

Melanie Phillips, in “An open letter to Jared Kushner” (As I See It, August 4), is spot on. But in order to understand why Ms. Phillips is right, Mr. Kushner needs to read these three books first: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, Ibn Warraq’s The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas and Ideology, and Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. (Murray’s book may well be the one that changes the course of European history.) Mr. Kushner and his father-in-law, US President Donald Trump, had better read, learn and not repeat the mistakes Europe has made.


Friday, August 4, 2017

The facts that shock: The economy of North Korea is 1/50th the size of South Korea’s economy

Was reading The Economist,  and got a shock when I read this:

“IT IS odd that North Korea causes so much trouble. It is not exactly a superpower. Its economy is only a fiftieth as big as that of its democratic capitalist cousin, South Korea.

 A fiftieth?   So I went to the CIA world factbook, and indeed:

                                                                S Korea                                 N.Korea
 GDP (purchasing power parity):  $1.934 trillion (2016 est.)           $40 billion (2015 est.)
 Population                                    50,924,172 (July 2016 est.)        25,115,311
 GDP - per capita (PPP):               $37,900 (2016 est.)                   $1,700 (2015 est.)

The above facts may be obvious to economists and journalists who closely follow the conflict.  To me, it came as a surprise. The last time I reacted similarly was when I realized that the economy of Belgium is greater than that of all Africa put together, excluding South Africa.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Dennis Prager to Bret Stephens: Read the book I am sending you, "The Strange Death of Europe"

My Response to Bret Stephens 
Written by Dennis Prager

Your new colleagues' beliefs tell you all you need to know about the real threat to the West

Bret Stephens devoted his New York Times column last week to admonishing me for my tweet from two weeks ago and critiquing my follow-up column last week explaining the tweet.

The tweet reads, "The news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does."

Since he wrote the column as a "Dear Dennis" letter to me, I will respond in kind.

Dear Bret: I'll try to respond to the most salient arguments you made. I'll begin with one of the most troubling.

You wrote: "Wiser conservatives — and I count you among them, Dennis — also know that when we speak of 'the West,' what we're talking about is a particular strain within it. Marx and Lenin, after all, are also part of the Western tradition, as are Heidegger and Hitler."

I was taken aback that such a serious thinker could write that nihilist communists and nihilist Nazis are all "part of the Western tradition." 

That's what the vast majority of professors in the social sciences teach: There's nothing morally superior about Western civilization — it's as much about Hitler and Lenin as it is about Moses and Thomas Jefferson. And, anyway, Moses never existed and Jefferson was a slaveholding rapist. Among those professors' students are virtually all those who dominate the Western news media.

Am I wrong? Do you think your colleagues at the Times or the Washington Post or Le Monde or BBC believe in the moral superiority of the West? 

Of course they don't. Most believe in multiculturalism — the doctrine that all cultures are equal — and it is therefore nothing more than white racism to hold that Western civilization is superior. Didn't nearly all of your (nonconservative) colleagues who commented on President Trump's speech in Warsaw call it a dog whistle to white supremacists?

On those grounds alone, my tweet was accurate. 

I am surprised that anyone — especially you — thinks Vladimir Putin's Russia poses a greater threat to the survival of Western civilization than the Western left. No external force can destroy a civilization as effectively as an internal one — especially one as powerful and wealthy as the West. The Western left (not Western liberals) is such a force. Western liberals always adored the West.

I was also stunned by your saying, "I'm not sure that Justin Trudeau declaring there is 'no core identity, no mainstream in Canada' counts as a Spenglerian moment in the story of Western decline."
The prime minister of Canada announces with pride that his country has no core identity and you don't think that counts as an example of a declining civilization?

And here's another upsetting sentence: "To suggest that Vladimir Putin is a distant nuisance but Maggie Haberman or David Sanger is an existential threat to our civilization isn't seeing things plain, to put it mildly."

The reason I found that troubling is I never cited Haberman or Sanger, and you well know that no generalization includes every possible example — that's what makes it a generalization. But I did specifically cite the writers in The Atlantic who equated Western civilization with white supremacy, and your substitution of your New York Times colleagues for The Atlantic commentators allowed you to avoid dealing with The Atlantic writers' and others media attacks on Western civilization.

Despite the fact that neither my tweet nor my column said a word about Trump, you devoted almost half your column to denouncing the president. Yet, as I wrote in the column, my tweet would have been just as accurate had I sent it out during former President Obama's administration or Hillary Clinton's, if she were president.

Bret, to your great credit, you are a lonely voice of strong support for Israel at your newspaper (your readers should see the videos on the Middle East you made for Prager University; they have eight million views for good reason). Doesn't the almost uniform hostility toward Israel in the media and academia trouble you? Does it trouble you that most Democrats in America hold a negative view of Israel? That Jewish students at many American, not to mention European, universities fear expressing support for Israel or just wearing a yarmulke on campus? That so many young American Jews, influenced by the media and their professors, loathe Israel? I am certain all of that greatly troubles you. Is any of that Putin's doing? Or is it all the result of the media and academia? 

You mentioned that you will be sending me a birthday gift, a book about Putin's Russia, "Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible" by Peter Pomerantsev. I promise to read it. And I request a promise in return: Read the book I am sending you, "The Strange Death of Europe" by the eminent British thinker Douglas Murray. The book describes Europe's suicide at the hands of its progressive elites — in particular, its multiculturalism-affirming political leaders and mendacious news media. To the best of my recollection, in describing the death of European civilization, Murray doesn't mention Putin once. (Regarding the mendacious media, read the report published this week in Germany about the dishonesty in the German media, which routinely substitutes left-wing opinion for facts in reporting the immigrant crisis in Germany.)

Perhaps the most troubling part of your response was your penultimate line: "Don't be a hater, Dennis."

Where did that come from? You cite not a single hateful word in my column — because there are none to cite. And "hater" has become the all-purpose left-wing epithet to dismiss all conservatives. Why would my friend Bret Stephens use it?


Indeed. Bret Stephens should read The Strange Death of Europe.  It is the only book I’ve recently read which could change the course of European history.  Bret Stephens should read the book first and only then respond to Dennis Prager. 

Bret Stephens's New York Times  article:

Wednesday, July 19, 2017


Oren praised the additional sanctions placed on Iran but stated Israel should discuss the sunset clauses of the nuclear deal.

Israel should urge the US to revisit the Iranian nuclear deal and do away with sunset clauses that lift restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program if the Islamic Republic abides by the deal, Deputy Minister for Diplomacy Michael Oren said on Tuesday.

Oren’s comments came a day after the US State Department – after getting President Donald Trump’s agreement – certified to Congress that Iran remains in compliance with the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. The certification is required every 90 days by law.

Even though Trump reportedly agreed to only re-certify the deal begrudgingly after arguing with his top national security team for nearly an hour, Oren said Trump was “clearly not ripping up the deal any time soon.”

During the election campaign, Trump called the JCPOA the “worst deal ever,” and vowed to tear it up.

While Oren praised the US decision on Monday to slap additional sanctions on some Iranian entities and individuals for support of terrorism and for developing ballistic missiles, he said Israel should enter into discussions with Washington regarding the sunset clauses in the deal.

These clauses sets expiration dates on the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program if it abides by the deal.

Under one such clause, Iran will be able to increase its centrifuges beyond its current limit of 6,000 in 10 years’ time, and in 15 years it will be able to increase its stockpile of low-enriched uranium beyond its 300-kilogram cap.

If Iran abides by the deal, Oren said the restrictions will be lifted and “you will have a situation where Iran is going to remain the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism; is complicit in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Syrians; is going to try to build bases and ports in Syria, and missile laboratories in Beirut; is attacking in Iraq and Yemen; and is publicly committed to destroying the one and only Jewish state. But that country is going to have all the restrictions lifted from its nuclear program.”

In addition, Oren said, all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact.

“Some of it is detached, some unplugged, some mothballed, but it is all there,” he said, adding that Israel should be working with the US “to ensure that the sun never sets on the sunset clause, until there is a different Iranian regime.”

Oren said he has discussed this situation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“We are already two years into the agreement,” Oren said, adding that the time before the sunset clause kicks in is not that long. He said one remark Netanyahu once said about the deal resonates very true: “Ten years is a young man’s idea of a long time.”

For the Iranian regime, Oren said, a decade is no time at all, “because they are very much in control. There is nothing shaking this regime,” he said, noting that there has not been a single protest against the regime since June 2009 and the green revolution that the government crushed with an iron fist.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

The Ha’aretz Antidote

What should be done? We need something to protect us from this absurdity. But what?  I remember that until 2014 the home front in Israel had been distributing gas masks kits which contained a sarin antidote.  So we need an antidote, a Ha'aretz antidote..  Here it is.  It consists of three books I’ve read which I believe if Ha'aretz journalists read them, Ha'aretz as we know it would cease to exist.

Unfortunately, the problem is that Asaf Ronel does not have the intellectual courage to read them. So the antidote is for everyone else who wants to remain sane. 

This is for the French who stumbled onto this blog looking for the Israeli who contradicted Macron:

Que faire?? Nous avons besoin de nous protéger de l’absurdité du Haaretz. Mais quoi? Je me souviens que jusqu'en 2014,  l’armee Israelienne distribuait des kits de masques à gaz contenant un antidote sarin. Nous avons donc besoin d'un antidote, d'un antidote Ha'aretz: . Il s’agit de trois livres que j'ai lus et je crois que si les journalistes Ha'aretz les lisaient, le Ha'aretz, d’aujourd’hui cessera d'exister. Malheureusement, le problème c’est qu’Asaf Ronel n'a pas le courage intellectuel de les lire. Donc, l'antidote est pour tous ceux qui veulent rester sain d'esprit.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

The Strange Death of Europe

In my review of Michel Houellebecq’s Submission,   I asked:  Can a novel wake up a civilization?  And my answer was - I certainly hope so.  

But perhaps a non-fiction book can do even more? The reaction Submisson created in France when it was originally published is now being matched by Douglas Murray’s non-fiction The Strange Death of Europe. Not only it is on The Sunday Times bestseller list but the interview with the author got 96661 hits in one day!   

What is it that Douglas Murray has done right? To quote Orwell -   in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.  Douglas Murray has told the truth eloquently and with the knowledge of the subject unmatched by anybody else, so that after having read the book one can only say – this is so clear, how come no one had done this before? 
Murray shows that the utter mess Europe has got itself into through massive immigration is not the result of some conspiracy, but of politicians never fully understanding the consequences of their actions and then once realizing that something was amiss, doing everything but confronting the truth, constantly lying to everyone and themselves, in order to safeguard their own short term goals, even if it ultimately meant the death of the whole continent, or at least Western Europe.

The ‘tiredness’ felt by Europeans who have lost faith in their own values creates a passivity and  a vacuum easily filled by immigrants whose belief system is completely incompatible by the values Europeans once used to have.

To me living in Israel this European passivity and the belief that nothing can be done is truly   shocking. Despite all its daily problems, we here feel we are alive and masters of our own fate despite the opprobrium by the rest of the world.  

There were times in the book that I gasped and asked myself, how is this possible? Here is one of them:

In the meantime elected officials and bureaucrats continue to do everything they can to make the situation as bad as possible as fast as possible. In October 2015 there was a public meeting on the small city of Kassel in the state of Hesse. Eight hundred immigrants were due to arrive in the following days and concerned residence had a meeting to ask questions of their representatives. As the video recording of the meeting shows, citizens were calm, polite but concerned. Then at a certain point their district president, one Walter Lubcke, calmly informs them that anybody who does not agree with the policy is ‘free to leave Germany’.  You can see and hear on the tape the intake of breath .amazed laughter, hoots and finally shouts of anger. Whole new populations are being brought into their country and they are being told that if they don’t like this they are always free to leave. Do not politicians in Europe realise what could happen if they continue to treat European people like this?

How come Eastern Europe is different? Having lived in the USSR and Yugoslavia, I knew the answer.   

"Why is Eastern Europe so different? Why has its attitude throughout the migrant crisis, towards borders, natural sovereignty, cultural cohesion and many other points  besides been so much at odds  with that of Western Europe? "

"Chantal Delsol noticed the seeds of this difference in the mid-1990s. Spending time in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, she saw that Eastern Europeans 'increasingly considered us as creatures from another planet, even while at a different level they dreamed  of becoming like us. I later became convinced that it was in these eastern European societies that I should seek some answers to our question -- the divergence between us and them led me to the belief that the last fifty years of good fortune had entirely erased our sense of the tragic dimension of life'. That tragic dimension of life had not been erased in the East. And nowhere have the consequences of this been more clearly displayed than in the attitudes of Eastern European leaders, with the support of their publics, to the migration crisis." 

Douglas Murray is not very optimistic about the future.  The last chapter, What will be, is pretty bleak. I, on the other hand, am a bit more optimistic. It seems that the awakening has finally begun and this book is the perfect vehicle to help it accelerate 


Update July 14

I just got a link to the trailer for Darkest Hour (2017) where Gary Oldman plays Winston Churchill   during the 1940  War Cabinet  Crisis  between May 25 and May 28 when Churchill stood up to Lord Halifax and saved the West.  Boris Johnson writes about this decisive day in his book The Churchill Factor. 

Churchill on May 28, 1940:

"I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man [Hitler]. But it was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get better terms than if we fought it out. The Germans would demand our – that would be called disarmament – our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Government which would be Hitler's puppet would be set up – under Mosley or some such person. And where should we be at the end of all that? On the other side we have immense reserves and advantages. And I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."

We have reached a very similar point today.

Monday, July 3, 2017

All Four Stanzas By Isaac Asimov

I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.
The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.
I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.
This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.
"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."
I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.
Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.
More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.
So now let me tell you how it came to be written.
In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.
At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.
Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England. The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.
The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.
On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.
As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.
As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, trying to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"
After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.
Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key
Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
W hat so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.
In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.
During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.
And don't let them ever take it away.
--Isaac Asimov, March 1991

Monday, June 26, 2017

US Supreme Court allows a subset version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect

This is a major victory for everyone who wants to defend the US from jihadists. Thank you Founding Fathers for coming up with the US system of checks and balances. And the victory is not so partial after all. The ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Which was not the gist of what Trump wanted  to achieve so Trump’s revised travel ban is going to be enforced after all. 

A quote from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, "The Challenge of Dawa", on immigration:

“The administration, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), should subject immigrants and refugees to ideological scrutiny, as happened during the Cold War.

 Individuals requesting temporary entry to the United States, permanent residency, or citizenship must be asked about their commitment to Islamism and related concepts such as the death penalty for apostasy and support for sharia law and the subjugation of women. If individuals are found to have lied in their immigration or citizenship applications about their commitment to the US Constitution by engaging in subversive dawa activities after establishing residency, their residency or citizenship must be revoked."

Note that the emphasis is on ideological  scrutiny.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Stopping terror

Letters to the Editor, Jerusalem Post, June 21, 2017 

The reaction of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas after the terrorists involved in the murder of Hadas Malka and a simultaneous attack nearby were killed by the police was to issue a statement that their deaths were a “war crime.”

The jihadists live in an alternate ethical universe. This is the time to expose it to the world.

Where does it come from? Ibn Warraq, the pen name of one of the great Islamic scholars of today, wrote recently: “Again during the caliphate of Umar, al-Mughirag b. Shu’bah says to his Persian adversary Rustam, ‘If you kill us, we enter Paradise; if we kill you, you shall enter fire,’ while the Muslim commander, Zuhrah b. Hawiyyah al-Tamimi, says to Rustam, ‘We do not come to you looking for things of this world; our desire and aspiration is the hereafter.’”


Monday, June 19, 2017


The Islamic Republic of Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is governed by an apocalyptic radical Islamic regime and is expanding its presence and influence across the Middle East by the use of intimidation, aggression and terrorism. Still, many in the West have been eager to re-engage with Iran in terms of trade and sanctions relief.

Fortunately, thanks to a new administration in the White House and a renewed sense of urgency among the Sunni Arab states, the Iranian threat is back at the top of the international agenda. These positive developments have created the right conditions for more countries, especially within the EU, to understand the true nature of the Iranian regime, the threat it poses to the world, and ultimately deal with it in accordance with reality instead of wishful thinking.

The regime that controls Iran with an iron fist, led by Ayatollah Khamenei, is guided by the Shi’ite version of Islamism. Islamism is a political ideology with roots in Muslim scriptures that calls for the destruction of Western society and the establishment of Sharia law (Islamic law) worldwide.

While Sunni Islamism generally calls for the incremental implementation of Sharia worldwide, many within Shi’ite Islam believe that when the world is on the verge of destruction the Twelfth Imam, the Shi’ite messiah, will suddenly return to rule the world through a worldwide Islamic caliphate. The prophecy does not specify who should be responsible for the destruction and therefore the Iranian regime may take it upon themselves to create the right conditions for the return of their messiah.

For Ayatollah Khamenei and many other leaders in Iran, this religious prophecy is not just about faith but rather their main guide when it comes to implementing policy. This conviction is the reason they enforce Sharia with such ruthlessness domestically and why they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on terrorism abroad instead of investing in their own population.

Implementing this doomsday ideology goes far beyond rhetoric and even policy, it is their raison d’être.

Hence, when Iranians chant “Death to America” and call to wipe Israel “off the map,” it would be in the best interest of the West to take them more seriously, even literally. This prophecy is so deep-rooted in Iranian culture that their leaders have stated publicly that they are willing to let millions of their own people die in order to fulfill it. This was infamously expressed by former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani who in 2001 said that a nuclear bomb “would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

It is imperative for the West to realize that this is not empty rhetoric; it is their ideology, policy and conviction.

For the Iranian regime (and other Islamists) death is not the end – dying for Allah is the ultimate victory, the ultimate achievement of one’s life.

Aside from downplaying the Iranian regime’s ideology, most Western countries have yet to realize the severity of the threat that Iran poses and instead focus on the much less significant threat posed by the Islamic State (ISIS). While ISIS has managed to conduct and inspire recent terrorist attacks on Western soil, Iran is a vastly greater threat as its economy is several hundred times larger, it has a tremendously more advanced army with intercontinental ballistic missiles, an air force and a navy, and is on the path to developing nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, Iran is indirectly in control of four other governments in the Middle East, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, and has a global terrorism network that operates in over 30 countries across all continents. Just one of its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah, currently has a stockpile of over 130,000 rockets, more than the combined arsenal of all 28 NATO countries, with the exception of the US.

While their ideologies are very similar, the capabilities of ISIS pale in comparison to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Those in the West who believe that engagement with Iran will lead to moderation fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the regime. Nothing illustrates this better than Iran’s behavior since signing the catastrophic nuclear deal in 2015. The nuclear deal awarded Iran enormous financial benefits and re-engagement with the international community in return for an unverified pause in parts of its nuclear program. Since the nuclear deal Iran’s executions and human rights abuses have reached record levels, funding for terrorism and military spending have increased, it has become more aggressive in the region, accelerated the development of ballistic missiles, and is well on its way to establishing a land corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean.

Moreover, the West is not sufficiently alarmed by Iran’s repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map because many do not realize that Israel is an extension of the West. Just like many in the West believe that Israel is a target of terrorism because of “the occupation,” they are equally in denial that Iran’s threat against Israel is also a threat against the West.

Because of the new US administration, the renewed sense of urgency among Sunni Arab states, and because more Western countries are starting to take the threat of radical Islamic terrorism more seriously, the time is ripe to get the EU and other countries on board to at last treat Iran as the devastating threat to the world it truly is.

The civilized and democratic world cannot afford to continue with its double standards of claiming to fight terrorism while at the same sponsoring the Iranian regime through increased trade and sanctions relief with a fatally false sense of hope that it will improve its behavior.

The author is a member of the Jewish Diplomatic Corps, a flagship program of the World Jewish Congress, and a board member of the Zionist Federation of Sweden. Follow him on Twitter: @GabRosenberg.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Obama Administration Rejected Arab Pleas to Bomb Iran, Kerry Reveals

the algemeiner

Former Secretary of State John Kerry addresses the 2017 Oslo Forum

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry revealed at a public forum in Norway this week that the Obama administration resisted Arab entreaties to “bomb” Iran and instead pursued negotiations to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program.

Speaking on Wednesday at the Oslo Forum, which brings together leading foreign policy officials from around the world, Kerry claimed that before negotiations with the Iranian regime began, “We were hurtling toward conflict.”

“I mean, there’s just no other way to describe it,” he added.

“Leaders in the region were saying to me personally, and to the president, President Obama, ‘You should bomb these guys — that’s the only way to resolve this issue,’” Kerry continued.

But, he said, “we chose a different path.”

“What we did is to find a mutually acceptable way to guarantee that both sides were able to agree on a path forward that met both sides’ needs,” Kerry — who negotiated the July 2015 six-power nuclear deal with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and other Iranians officials — told an audience that included EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini and Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende, as well as Zarif himself.

Saeed Ghasseminejad — an Iran fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank — told The Algemeiner on Thursday that Kerry was correct in depicting the deal as beneficial to the Islamic Republic.

“The deal meets Iran’s needs to have a pathway toward making a nuclear bomb in future, when the ‘sunset clauses’ kick in,” Ghasseminejad said. The deal set expiration dates — or “sunset clauses” — on the limits imposed on Iran’s nuclear program.

Ghasseminejad added, “The deal Mr. Kerry signed without congressional support does not meet the needs of the US and its allies in the region to put an end to the nuclear program of a rogue government.”

Iran, he went on to say, “is the most dangerous state sponsor of terror in the world, is involved in religious cleansing and crimes against humanity in Syria, and continuously calls for annihilation of Israel.”

Since leaving office, Kerry has become something of a hate figure in much of the Arab press. In its report of Kerry’s reunion with Zarif in Oslo, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya reproduced a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., the son of the current US president, charging that the former secretary of state was “still fighting for Iran.”