Displaying posts categorized under

ISRAEL

Terrorists and tiaras by Ruthie Blum

It is hard to feel sorry for Lebanese-Swede Amanda Hanna, who was stripped ‎of her Miss Lebanon Emigrant 2017 title this week — some nine days after ‎being crowned in the annual expat beauty pageant — when it was discovered ‎that she had visited Israel last year as part of an academic tour.‎

Hanna, who expressed her gratitude on Facebook at having won the August 12 ‎finals, was declared unfit to fill the role of best-looking Lebanese expat in a ‎statement released by the organizers of the event, held in Dhour El Choueir. ‎‎”After communicating our decision with Lebanon’s minister of tourism,” the ‎communique read, “he decided that Hanna should be stripped of her title ‎because her visit to Israel violates our country’s laws.” ‎

Hanna should have known this was going to happen, and not only because ‎Lebanon is the Jewish state’s sworn enemy. Indeed, had she done her ‎homework, she would have learned that any contact with Israelis in Lebanon is ‎punishable by imprisonment. She also might have discovered that the movie ‎‎”Wonder Woman” was banned from its theaters because it stars Israeli actress ‎Gal Gadot. A simple Google search, too, would have revealed that Miss ‎Lebanon Saly Greige came under heavy fire two and half years ago for ‎appearing in a selfie with Miss Israel, Doron Matalon, during the Miss ‎Universe pageant in Miami. After Matalon posted the photo (of herself with ‎Miss Slovenia, Miss Japan and Greige) on Instagram, Greige was criticized ‎widely in her country for being a traitor. To defend herself against the ‎accusations, Greige said that she had been taking a photo with Miss Slovenia ‎and Miss Japan, when suddenly “Miss Israel jumped in.” ‎

It is not Hanna’s fault that Lebanon is one large base for the Shiite terrorist ‎organization Hezbollah. But it was her choice to participate in an event ‎sponsored by the powers-that-be in Beirut, who are not only evil in and of ‎themselves, but who enjoy warm relations with the regime in Tehran.‎

This makes perfect sense to anyone who has been paying attention, since ‎Hezbollah is the Islamic Republic of Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. Furthermore, ‎Lebanese President Michel Aoun and his government, headed by Prime ‎Minister Saad Hariri, are openly pro-Hezbollah. In fact, Aoun met with Iranian ‎Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari ‎on Monday morning at the Baabda Palace in Beirut, and received an invitation ‎from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani for an official visit to Tehran for the ‎purpose of enhancing their relationship. ‎

Iran’s burgeoning position next door to Lebanon, in Syria, was the focus of ‎Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Russia this week. In a meeting with Russian ‎President Vladimir Putin at the Black Sea resort of Sochi on Wednesday, ‎Netanyahu warned that he would take military action, if necessary, to prevent ‎Tehran from expanding its presence in Syria. Like Lebanon, Syria borders ‎Israel in the north. Hezbollah fighters, Shiite militias and Iranian Revolutionary ‎Guard Corps soldiers, who joined forces to safeguard the regime of Syrian ‎President Bashar Assad against Islamic State and other Sunni rebels — all of ‎whom also promote jihad against the Jews — pose a grave danger to the Jewish ‎state.‎

‎”We cannot forget for a single minute that Iran threatens every day to ‎annihilate Israel,” Netanyahu told Putin, who has been supporting Assad and ‎his Tehran-backed allies since 2015. “Israel opposes Iran’s continued ‎entrenchment in Syria. We will be sure to defend ourselves with all means ‎against this and any threat.”‎

U.S. Officials Meet With Israeli, Palestinian Leaders in Bid to Revive Talks Benjamin Netanyahu’s office calls meeting ‘constructive and substantive,’ but details are scarce By Rory Jones

TEL AVIV—White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and other U.S. officials on Thursday met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the final leg of a Middle East diplomacy tour, as President Donald Trump attempts to revive dormant peace talks between the adversaries.

Mr. Kushner, who is also the president’s son-in-law, spoke first with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem before sitting down with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

The White House had indicated that it would present a strategy for negotiated peace to both sides Thursday. But details of such a plan weren’t immediately released following the meetings. Mr. Trump has made reaching peace between Israelis and Palestinians a key foreign policy priority, calling it the “ultimate deal.”

A brief statement from Mr. Netanyahu’s office called their meeting “constructive and substantive,” and expressed his appreciation to the Trump administration for its “strong support of Israel.” The Israeli leader looked forward to talking further with U.S. officials in the weeks ahead, it added.

“Things are difficult and complicated,” Mr. Abbas said in a statement released as he met with Mr. Kushner. “But nothing is impossible in the face of good efforts.”

Mr. Kushner was joined on the trip by Jason Greenblatt, the White House’s special representative for international negotiations, and Dina Powell, the deputy national security adviser. The group also met with officials from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan to discuss the peace process. It was unclear when the delegation would leave Israel.

Mr. Trump’s attempts to advance peace talks are unlikely to yield progress in the short term, according to Western diplomats and analysts.

Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition government is reluctant to agree to enter negotiations for a Palestinian state that right-wing hawks believe will risk Israel’s security.

Palestinian officials, meanwhile, aren’t willing to enter peace talks that don’t entertain the notion of statehood.

“There are likely to be a lot of ups and downs on the way to peace and making a peace deal will take time,” a White House official said ahead of Thursday’s meetings.

Mr. Trump has shifted from the long-held U.S. policy of supporting a two-state solution to the conflict, saying he would instead support a solution on which both Israelis and Palestinians agree. CONTINUE AT SITE

First Hurdle in Trump’s Mideast Peace Gambit: Persuading Adversaries to Talk Jared Kushner leads delegation to try to advance talks between Israelis, Palestinians—but two sides are stuck over basic question of statehood By Rory Jones in Tel Aviv and Paul Sonne in Washington

President Donald Trump, who has pledged to broker the “ultimate deal” between the Israelis and Palestinians, faces major obstacles to getting them to even negotiate as his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner arrives in Israel this week.

The White House says the discussions will focus on “the path to substantive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks,” combating extremism and economic and humanitarian issues in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Mr. Kushner’s delegation is set to meet with Israeli and then Palestinian officials separately on Thursday.

But the U.S. hasn’t received assurances that the two sides will talk to one another—let alone take steps to resolve the decadeslong conflict. A White House official emphasized that the U.S. is still in the initial stages of the process and has yet to formally propose a new peace dialogue.

The Palestinians’ quest for statehood is among the biggest hurdles to direct negotiations.

Many Israeli officials won’t support the creation of a Palestinian state; Palestinian officials don’t want to negotiate without statehood as the goal. The White House hasn’t said how it plans to bridge the gap, say Israeli and Palestinian officials.

The deadlock underscores the tough task Mr. Trump faces in forging Middle East peace—a signature foreign policy goal that has eluded American leaders for decades. Mr. Trump in February backed off the U.S.’s longstanding commitment to a two-state strategy, saying he would support whatever solution both parties prefer.

Mr. Trump has deputized Mr. Kushner, a 36-year-old former real-estate developer with no experience negotiating foreign conflicts, to spearhead the peace efforts.

In leaked comments from an off-record meeting with congressional interns this month, Mr. Kushner said “there may be no solution” to the conflict but said he would try because it was “one of the problem sets the president asked us to focus on.”

Accompanying Mr. Kushner on the trip is Jason Greenblatt, a former Trump Organization lawyer turned White House special representative for international negotiations, and Deputy National Security adviser Dina Powell. They will also meet with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt over the peace process and other issues. CONTINUE AT SITE

Intersectionality, the BDS Scam and Imperial Japan The lethal fairy tale of all “victimized” groups being interrelated. Kenneth Levin

With the coming start of another academic year, American college and university campuses will undoubtedly witness once more the screaming anti-Israel onslaught of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) crowd. As before, it will be led by the largely Muslim ranks of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and continue their campaign seeking – as founders of both SJP and the BDS movement have explicitly acknowledged – the annihilation of the Jewish state.

And, as in recent years, SJP and others in the forefront of the BDS movement will seek to win support by invoking their particular version of “intersectionality.” The term refers to the concept that all victimized groups and identities are interrelated and face shared challenges. In the BDS version, members of all such groups and bearers of all such identities ought to join together and, in particular, rally to the Palestinian cause as the world’s paradigmatic example of victimization. They ought to work with their BDS brethren for the world-repairing fix of Israel’s destruction.

The BDS intersectionality ploy has, in fact, fallen on fertile ground in the current campus milieu. Campus groups ranging from feminist circles and LGBT advocates to ethnic and racial minorities – some African-American bodies, Asian-American associations, Hispanic organizations, Native American societies and others – have fallen in line behind the BDS pipers.

Many others have pointed out obvious absurdities in this phenomenon: feminist groups supporting a cause whose chief adherents, both within Palestinian society and in the broader Arab and Muslim worlds, are overwhelmingly abusive of women, subjecting them to enforced subservience and widespread physical, not infrequently murderous, assault; LGBT advocates embracing those who uniformly mete out the most horrific treatment to LGBT individuals in their midst.

But the incongruence also extends to ethnic and racial minority groups that sign onto the BDS version of intersectionality. The supposed reasoning behind BDS outreach to these groups, and the latter’s responsiveness, is the claim of shared victimization by Western imperialism and white supremacism. But in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this formulation sets reality on its head.

In fact, it was the Palestinians who were the benefactors of Western colonialism. In the post-World War I break-up of German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and creation of new states on former imperial lands, the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate for creation of a Jewish National Home on a small part of former Ottoman lands. Yet Britain, pursuing what it saw as its own colonial interests, worked to subvert its Mandate responsibilities to the Jews and advance Arab interests, not least because it believed the Arabs would be more accommodating of British colonial policy. Thus, it fostered widescale Arab immigration into Mandate territory while repeatedly blocking Jewish access. In the course of doing so, and seeking to prevent Israel’s creation, it betrayed its commitments vis-a-vis both the League of Nations and, subsequently, the United Nations charter.

But the Big Lie at the heart of the BDS version of intersectionality and the BDS appeal for support from ethnic and racial minorities on American campuses goes beyond the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is a lie that can perhaps best be elucidated by analogy to a ploy adopted by Imperial Japan before and during World War II.

As it conquered huge swaths of territory from Manchuria in the north, down the eastern coastal regions of China, and then across southeast Asia, the East Indies, the Philippines, and elsewhere, Japan developed and promoted the concept of a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” That is, it sought to cast its conquests as liberating lands from Western colonial powers and opening the way for a new, shared prosperity. Japan did indeed replace Western powers – particularly Britain, France and the Netherlands – in some of the territories it conquered. But, as in, for example, myriad atrocities against local populations from Nanking in China to the Philippines, Japanese forces brought not “co-prosperity” but a cruel new imperialism.

The BDS version of “intersectionality” is a variation on Japan’s “co-prosperity sphere,” a ploy hiding another flavor of supremacism and imperialism.

Lone Soldiers Land in Israel to Serve “First Jewish Army in 2,000 Years” by Tzivia Fox

In a strong show of faith and solidarity with Israel, Nefesh B’Nefesh, an organization founded in 2002 to make immigration to Israel easier, is celebrating bringing approximately 2,000 immigrants to the Holy Land in the summer of 2017. Included in this number are 82 future lone soldiers (Israel Defense Force soldiers without family in Israel).

“Moving to a foreign country in the Middle East is not an easy choice in the best of circumstances,” noted Dr. John A.I. Grossman, Chairman of LIBI USA, the official welfare fund of the IDF, to Breaking Israel News. “Taking all that upon oneself in order to volunteer for Israel’s army is truly extraordinary.”

Israel’s consul-general in New York, Dani Dayan, told the new immigrants that they represented a “mortal blows to the delegitimization of Israel”. “They take notice of it in Tehran,” he said. “When Hezbollah threatens Israel, they know that you will defeat it.”

Turning specifically to the group of future IDF soldiers, Dayan added, “You are the commanders of the Jewish people… My young friends, you are about to join the first Jewish army in 2,000 years.”

While enlistment in the IDF is a known and expected rite-of-passage for native-born Israelis, lone soldiers can face tremendous cultural and emotional obstacles. Though each lone soldier on the Nefesh B’Nefesh flight displayed a brave and excited face, LIBI USA recognizes that the road ahead for them can be lonely and challenging.

“These immigrant soldiers rarely have a full command of the Hebrew language and often have no family or friends to turn to during the holidays and time off,” continued Grossman. “Therefore, LIBI USA funds IDF educational and cultural programs as well as special holiday gifts and activities specifically for lone soldiers.”

Natan Sharansky, the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, shared at the flights welcome ceremony, “There are anti-Semites on the right and anti-Semites on the left. Our best answer is what you’re doing. We continue to build together our home, the State of Israel.”

Hannah Partney, a 22 year-old from Connecticut, said that she was eager to join an IDF combat unit, even though she lacks close family or roots in Israel. “I’ve always been interested in military service,” she said. “I thought about the US military but ultimately didn’t go that way. I’m interested in the discipline and the challenges. I don’t want to live in Israel on a free ticket. I want to do a service. That’s really important to me.”

Joshua Eisdorfer, a 22-year-old from Rockville, Maryland, referred to the Bible, stating, “Israel is my home and birthright, and the homeland of every Jew. In Bamidbar (the Book of Numbers), Moses says, ‘Shall your brothers go to war, and you sit here?’ Israel is the defense of world Jewry, and I want to be in the vanguard.”

“The August 15 flight is particularly noteworthy as a quarter of those on board have volunteered to serve in the IDF,” continued Grossman. “That’s a humbling reality which should send a message to all of us. Each individual who cares about Israel should do their part to support the Holy Land and its dedicated soldiers.”

Getting Settled: EvelynGordon’s Review of ‘City on a Hilltop’ By Sara Yael Hirschhorn

Sara Yael Hirschhorn’s City on a Hilltop starts with two eminently reasonable premises. First: If you want to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you must understand Israeli settlers, since they’re one of the players. Second: If you want to understand the settlers, you must move beyond the popular caricature of them as ultra-nationalist, ultra-religious fanatics, since most are neither.https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/getting-settled/

Hirschhorn’s book is an attempt to do exactly that, which is all the more admirable given her own political views: She characterizes any Jewish presence beyond the 1949 armistice lines—including the large Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, whose tens of thousands of residents she also labels “settlers” (in a footnote)—as an illegitimate colonialist occupation. Yet despite the obvious sincerity of her effort, her inability to rise above her own biases ends up undermining the final product.

Hirschhorn explores the settlement movement by focusing on one particular subset of it: American immigrants from what she terms “the 1967 generation.” This has the obvious advantage of making her subjects more recognizable to non-Israeli readers.

As she notes, these immigrants grew up in the same towns, attended the same colleges, followed the same career paths, marched for the same liberal causes, and even voted for the same party as their peers who remained in America; even today, when Republicans have replaced Democrats as the more pro-Israel party and are far more supportive of the settlements, only one of her interviewees self-identified as Republican. And while popular perception dictates that most settlers, and especially most American settlers, are Orthodox, most of the settlers in Hirschhorn’s focus group were non-Orthodox.

The only major difference between the two groups is that most of the settlers whom Hirschhorn looked at came from “strongly Jewish” backgrounds that were “highly atypical of Jewish-American households at the time.”

The downside of this narrow focus is that it makes American immigrants seem far more important to the settlement movement than they actually are. For instance, over half the book is devoted to in-depth descriptions of how American Jews co-founded three settlements. That may sound impressive, until you realize there are currently more than 120 settlements, the vast majority of which were founded by Israelis with no American help. Indeed, as the book itself makes clear, even those three settlements would probably never have arisen had the Americans not had Israeli partners, since the Israelis were the ones who knew how to work the government bureaucracy.

The same goes for Hirschhorn’s estimate that Americans make up 15 percent of the total settler population (about 60,000 out of 400,000), which she repeatedly cites as proof of their importance. The accuracy of that estimate is open to question; she admits that no “accurate and objective headcount” exists and that she herself is “neither a professional statistician nor a demographer.” But even if she’s right, that still means there are 340,000 non-American settlers. In other words, the settlement movement would be flourishing even if it didn’t include a single American.

Hirschhorn also hypes the role that Americans have played in vigilante terror, despite correctly acknowledging that most American settlers—and most settlers in general—shun such vigilantism. For instance, she spends seven pages on one American involved in the Jewish Underground (1980–87) without ever explicitly saying that the other 26 suspects were Israelis.

But the book’s far more serious problem is that readers emerge from it with no clear understanding of what drives the settlement movement. This isn’t surprising, since Hirschhorn admits in her conclusion that she herself has no such understanding: “After discussions with dozens of Jewish-American immigrants in the occupied territories, I still struggled to understand how they saw themselves and their role within the Israeli settlement enterprise.”

Birth of a fighting force for Zionism Jews from the UK comprised almost one third of the five battalions of the Royal Fusiliers — now known to history as the Jewish Legion. Colin Shindler

One hundred years ago in August 1917, the London Gazette published an official announcement that “a Jewish regiment” had been established. Based on the international regiments of small oppressed nations in Europe that had fought in foreign armies against great empires during the 19th century, it heralded the Israel Defence Force in 1948. Its formation marked the success of attempts by Chaim Weizmann and Vladimir Jabotinsky to symbolise the rebirth of a Jewish nation.

Most Zionists did not wish to take sides during World War I as it was unclear who would be victorious. However Turkey’s entry into the war in November 1914 suggested that a British military force would probably invade Ottoman-controlled Palestine from Egypt. Weizmann and Jabotinsky understood that the presence of a Jewish army at the war’s end would be a bargaining-counter in the diplomatic tussle to secure a state of the Jews.

Within weeks of Turkey’s entry into hostilities, mainly Russian Jews were expelled from Palestine to Egypt since the Tsar was the ally of Britain and France. Many were housed at Gabbari camp near Alexandria. Jabotinsky and Yosef Trumpeldor, a Jewish officer who had served in the Tsar’s army, swiftly created a police force to ensure order. Many from this motley group placed their signatures on a document in March 1915 which stated: “At Alexandria, a regiment of Jewish volunteers has been formed. It places itself at the disposal of the British government in order to participate in the liberation of Palestine”.

This approach was opposed by many in the British government, not least by Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister, and Lord Kitchener, the Minister for War. Neither wanted a Jewish regiment nor wished to launch an offensive in the east.

Although the Jews were permitted to form a Zion Mule Corps which saw service at Gallipoli, doors in Whitehall were firmly bolted to Jabotinsky’s proposals for a Jewish military force.

By 1916, the political landscape assumed a different hue — the war was not going well and the United States had kept out of the conflict. Lord Kitchener was lost when HMS Hampshire was sunk off the Orkneys by a German U-boat in June and David Lloyd-George replaced Asquith as prime minister in December. The British suddenly became interested in a written declaration of recognition of Jewish national interests in Palestine – and the formation of a Jewish fighting force to aid the allies.

In early February 1917, Sir Mark Sykes, a Conservative MP and diplomat met Zionist leaders and hinted at what was now possible if “international Jewry” offered its undivided support to the war effort. Weizmann pandered to this delusional belief in the power of the Jews to secure his diplomatic goals. But unbeknown to Weizmann and his colleagues, Sykes had already signed an agreement with the French to divide up the Middle East after the conflict’s successful conclusion.

The war in the Middle East was not going to plan. Successive British attempts to take Gaza failed. At a breakfast with Weizmann in April 1917, Lloyd-George asked what use could be made of the remnant of the Zion Mule Corps. It became clear that he was particularly interested in enlisting the tens of thousands of Russian Jews, congregated mainly in London’s East End, into the British army. While British Jews were serving King and Country — why not their Russian cousins, living in the capital?

Leading Zionists including Sokolov, Nordau and Ahad Ha’am had hitherto opposed the formation of a Jewish military force. In addition to compromising the movement’s neutrality, they feared Turkish reprisals in the fashion that had been visited upon the Armenians — massacre and persecution.

Hezbollah Is Running Rings Around U.N. Monitors in Lebanon The Security Council should expand the force’s mandate—and make sure they do their jobs. Danny Danon

Mr. Danon is Israel’s ambassador to the U.N.

Over the past year, I have given dozens of United Nations ambassadors tours of Israel’s border with Lebanon. During a recent visit with my American counterpart, Nikki Haley, Israel Defense Forces officers identified Hezbollah positions along our northern border. Our guests appropriately asked where the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon was, and why nothing was being done to stop Hezbollah terrorists from blatantly violating numerous Security Council resolutions.

Our answer was simple. The Unifil force is there, but they are not effectively fulfilling their mandate. The good news is that when Unifil’s mandate comes before the Security Council later this month, there are practical steps that can be taken to ensure that this important U.N. force succeeds and another conflict with Hezbollah is avoided.

Unifil was established in 1978 with the goal of restoring “international peace and security” and assisting the Lebanese government in extending its authority over southern Lebanon. The force was altered in 1982 after the First Lebanon War and again in 2000 when Israel completed its withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

In August 2006, following the Second Lebanon War and the subsequent Security Council Resolution 1701, Unifil’s mandate expanded to include monitoring the cease-fire. Most importantly, Unifil was charged with ensuring that the territory south of the Litani River remained free of weapons and fighters other than the Lebanese army.

Unfortunately, these efforts have failed. Over the past year alone, we have shared with the Security Council new information detailing how border towns have become Hezbollah strongholds. One out of three buildings in the village of Shaqra is now being used to store arms or launch attacks on Israel. We also shared with the council intelligence revealing how the Iranians use civilian airlines to smuggle dangerous arms into southern Lebanon. When the Second Lebanon War ended, Hezbollah had around 7,000 rockets. Today, they have more than 100,000.

Hezbollah is lately stepping up its efforts to destabilize the region. In April its fighters posed for pictures with rocket-propelled-grenade launchers during a media “tour” of their positions along Israel’s border. Unifil forces did nothing to halt this live, televised violation of Security Council resolutions.

In June, Israel reported to the U.N. that Hezbollah has established a series of border outposts under the guise of an agricultural organization called Green Without Borders. Our intelligence services have determined that these positions are used regularly for reconnaissance operations against Israel. In this instance too, Unifil insisted on turning a blind eye, claiming that it lacked authority to investigate.

To rectify this situation, and avoid a new conflict, the Security Council must make real changes to Unifil’s mandate. In addition to generally improving Unifil’s performance, the council should insist on three vital steps.

First, Unifil must increase its presence in the territory. This includes meticulously inspecting the towns and villages of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah strongholds, like the one in Shaqra, must be dismantled, and other villages must be kept free of rockets and weapons aimed at Israeli population centers.

Barcelona is not Charlottesville Ruthie Blum

Last weekend’s car-ramming in Charlottesville, Virginia immediately became upstaged on ‎Thursday when scores of people were mown down by a speeding van on a bustling street in ‎Barcelona. The terrorist attack in Spain, on a packed tourist promenade, not only claimed the ‎lives of many innocent people, but served as a bloody reminder of what Islamic State terrorists ‎have been up to while Americans continued to scream about the ostensible rise of neo-Nazism in ‎the United States, and bicker over the question of whether President Donald Trump has been ‎encouraging white supremacism and anti-Semitism.‎

According to unfolding reports in the Spanish and international press, at least 14 tourists and ‎locals were killed, and another 100 were injured, when they were run over ‎by a van plowing down the iconic Las Ramblas thoroughfare. The vehicle was rented by 28-year-‎old Driss Oukabir, a Moroccan with a Spanish passport. When his photo was released after the ‎attack, however, Oukabir entered a nearby police station to declare that his documents had been ‎stolen, perhaps by his 18-year-old brother.‎

Nevertheless, according to Spanish media reports, Oukabir’s Facebook page included a video ‎about a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and angry posts about the metal detectors that ‎had been placed on — and removed from — the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the site of the July 14 ‎terrorist attack outside of Al-Aqsa mosque. The page has since been deleted.‎

While the details of two suspects in custody and a third who apparently committed suicide were ‎being investigated and sorted out, the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the carnage. This may have ‎included one death in a possibly related accidental explosion on Wednesday night of a house that ‎served as a makeshift bomb factory or storage facility, full of propane gas tanks. It is now ‎believed that the canisters were intended for the van, which would have made Thursday’s attack ‎even more lethal. ‎

The pattern is a familiar one by now, particularly in European capitals. ISIS, which is being ‎pushed back in Syria and Iraq, is increasing its calls on sympathizers residing in the West to go ‎out and kill “infidels.” After conducting a cost-benefit analysis, the terrorist group realized that it ‎was no longer worth it for would-be jihadists to travel to the Middle East to be trained and then ‎return to their countries to commit random slaughter; they can simply, and more cheaply, stay ‎home and do it on their own, with a little help from instructional videos from more experienced ‎killers.‎

The November 2016 issue of the Islamic State publication Rumiyah outlined the advantages of ‎car-ramming, for example. “Though being an essential part of modern life, very few actually ‎comprehend the deadly and destructive capability of the motor vehicle and its capacity of ‎reaping large numbers of casualties if used in a premeditated manner,” it stated. No kidding.‎

It is interesting to note that more recently, in February this year, a British government report ‎revealed that last summer ISIS began recruiting Spanish-speakers and translators to spread the ‎jihadist message and issue “direct threats” on tourist hot spots in Spain. The Barcelona massacre, ‎then, could have been predicted. At the very least, it should have been anticipated.‎

Indeed, with ISIS openly using the web — promoting jihad through its online magazine in several ‎languages, and through Telegram, a network with more than 100 million active users — it is ‎unbelievable that European security forces are caught off guard with each new Islamist ‎bloodbath. ‎

It is not surprising at all, however, that Trump’s statement of solidarity with Barcelona and ‎condemnation of the terrorists would be ridiculed, and not only by the liberal media. French ‎President Emmanuel Macron took the opportunity of the van-ramming to tweet: “We stand ‎beside those who fight racism and xenophobia. It is our common fight, in past and present. ‎‎#Charlottesville.” ‎

Even in the midst of defeat on the battlefield, ISIS fighters paused to have a good laugh.‎

Ruthie Blum is an editor at the Gatestone Institute.

THERE THEY GO AGAIN! ANOTHER PEACE PROCESSING SAFARI

What Do the Palestinians and the North Koreans Have in Common? By Roger Simon

Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt are heading to the Middle East for yet another go at Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Yawning already, dear reader? Well, we all know why. They have a chance in you-know-where of succeeding.

Nothing against Messrs. Kushner and Greenblatt, but this roundelay has been going on numerous times since the 1993 Oslo Accords. Discussions are held between the two sides (directly or indirectly), the Israelis asked for good faith concessions, the Palestinians asked to refrain from violence. Actual substantive negotiations (occasionally) occur. (Everyone has known the parameters of a successful negotiation for years.) At the last minute the Palestinians walk away, even when offered 95% of their demands, as they did during negotiations with Israeli PM Olmert. (Bill Clinton is said to have followed Arafat down the stairs, begging the aging terrorist to sign.)

Reason: The Pals don’t want a two-state solution. Virtually everyone vaguely honest knows it. If they wanted a state of their own alongside a Jewish state, they could have had one decades ago. They don’t or, more specifically, only a very small number of them do. The vast majority want a one-state solution — theirs.

Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part of these negotiations. Money. Each time the Palestinians get a lot of it. From the U.S., Europe and Japan.

Most of this largesse goes, as everyone also knows, through or to their leaders who are billionaires in Savile Row suits. This even includes the bloody Hamas terrorists who enjoy the good life in places like Qatar as well as only the slightly less violent PA.

These leaders have no incentive to make peace for the most obvious “gravy train” financial reasons and also, needless to say, because they have no interest in ending up like Anwar Sadat. It’s all a game.

Who could be surprised then that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas thumbed his nose at President Trump, not to mention most of the leaders of the free world and the UN Security Council, by extending his congratulations the other day on North Korea’s national day to his brother-in-crime Kim Jung-un.

In a telegram, the PA president said that the Korean people made “the greatest sacrifices for the sake of its freedom and dignity,” according to Wafa, the official PA news site.

Abbas also expressed appreciation for “Korea’s solidarity in support of our people’s rights and its just struggle to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.

Indeed, the Palestinians and the Norks do have much in common. They create crises and threaten to blow up the Middle East and/or the world in order to extort as much money as possible from the West, including the ever-generous Uncle Sam, only to knife him in the back and start all over again.

So what are Messrs. Kushner and Greenblatt to do? At minimum, start over, don’t repeat the Oslo pattern, and heed the words of H. L. Mencken who famously said, “When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.” And, boy, this is about the money.

Cut it off.

The Palestinians will, of course, scream. They will wail about their poor, suffering people, Gaza, etc. Kushner and Greenblatt should tell them to sell their fancy suits and Mercedes and empty their Swiss bank accounts if they’re really so worried about the poor Palestinians. That will shut them up fast. CONTINUE AT SITE