The Hamas-Fatah Consensus on Israel By Dan Diker and Harold Rhode

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ engagement with Kerry during the past nine months of diplomatic talks cost the Palestinian leader points with the Palestinian public.

The word “reconciliation” rings of hope and optimism to the Western ear. Reconciliation means leaving past grievances behind, letting bygones be bygones. Optimism over reconciliation may help us understand why the United States is prepared to support and fund a new Hamas-Fatah interim government.

But do Hamas and Fatah understand the newly formed consensus government as the West does? For students of Islam and the Near East, the meaning of the freshly-minted reconciliation government is more aptly expressed as “sulh” which means that both sides are “licking their wounds” or “taking a breather” until one side regains the ability to impose its will on the other.

Palestinian reconciliation is not a case of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority moderating Hamas. The opposite is true. In fact, Hamas and Fatah are competing for Palestinian public support. That’s why both organizations rejected US Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace plan. And that’s why both organizations call for “resistance” against Israel. Hamas still calls openly for jihad, while the Fatah leadership calls for an “armed popular revolution” to liberate “Palestine,” meaning Israel and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria – the former West Bank of Jordan.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ engagement with Kerry during the past nine months of diplomatic talks cost the Palestinian leader points with the Palestinian public. Abbas would have faced the Palestinian guillotine for selling out the Palestinian cause in a compromise deal with Israel.


Sky News reported on June 3 that senior leaders at three schools in Birmingham alerted the government more than two decades ago about the rising influence of Muslim extremists in the school system, but that their concerns were dismissed because of political correctness.

Separately, the BBC reported on May 28 and June 2 that [there were similar warnings] in 2010 and 2008. But no action was taken in either case.

“Some staff told Her Majesty’s Inspectors that thy feel afraid to speak out against recent changes in the academy for fear of losing their jobs.” — Inspection report, Oldknow Academy.

British regulators have placed five Muslim-dominated public schools in the city of Birmingham under “special measures” after inspectors found that pupils there were being systematically exposed to radical Islamic propaganda.

Ofsted, the agency that regulates British schools, carried out emergency inspections of 21 primary and secondary public schools in Birmingham after a document surfaced in March 2014 that purported to outline a plot—dubbed Operation Trojan Horse—by Muslim fundamentalists to Islamize public schools in England and Wales.

The inspection reports, which Ofsted made public on June 9, show that Muslim hardliners are indeed seeking to run at least five public schools in Birmingham according to a “conservative Islamic perspective.” But the report does not cite evidence of an organized plot by extremists.

Ofsted inspectors found that one school was playing the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers in the playground, while another was found with books promoting stoning, lashing and execution. Yet another school had invited a Muslim hate preacher known for his support of militant Islam to speak to students.

In some schools, girls are actively being dissuaded from speaking to boys and from taking part in extra-curricular visits and activities. Boys and girls are also taught separately in religious education and personal development lessons.

The inspection report for the Nansen Primary School reveals that when teachers wanted pupils to take part in a nativity play, Muslim administrators “insisted on vetting a copy of the script for its suitability and told staff they must not use a doll as the baby Jesus.” The report also says:

“Pupils do not get a broad education. Subjects such as art and music have been removed for some year groups at the insistence of the governing body.


As readers of this blog know I am engaged at Family Security Matters in a one of a kind election survey of candidates- incumbents and challengers in every single state. It continues to amaze me that the strongest support for Israel, with very few exceptions is coming from Republican contenders. I alluded to this in a column for Mideast Outpost the monthly publication of Americans for a Safe Israel. There is more, much more on this subject on the way. Stay tuned. rsk

I know that “profiling” is considered taboo in politically correct circles. However, it is often an accurate way of predicting behavior–both good and bad. So here is my profile of reliably pro-Israel legislators.

I don’t mean the milk and honey type that twist themselves into pretzels defending Israel and repeating the requisite “democracy which needs to live in peace within secure borders compatible with a two states solution…yabadabadaba…..” I also don’t mean the ones that go into a self-righteous snit about the BDH (Boycott, Divest and Hate) movement but hint, ever so gingerly, that some of it is brought about by Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. I certainly don’t mean those who wring their hands and whine that Israel is turning into a “theocracy” with obdurate insistence on terms that the “moderate” wings of Hamas and Hezbollah cannot accept. They are neither friends, nor reliable.

I mean those legislators who crop up in almost every single state, (excluding Connecticut and Massachusetts), who will aver proudly that their support for Israel is based on its strategic partnership with the United States, its history and its religious rights within historic Palestine.
Here are some random examples:

In California a Congressman states:
“The United States must make it clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option. I fully support aggressive diplomacy and crippling sanctions in dealing with this dangerous regime that continues to make belligerent threats against Israel. Israel is more than just the only stable democracy in the region, a nation that shares our values, and a source of critical intelligence. Israel is one of our closest allies and I will never waver in my commitment to providing them with American support and funding to protect their people who continue to be a beacon of peace and liberty in the most dangerous part of the world.”

A challenger in a different district in the same state says:
“There is no more important issue of foreign policy than the principled support of Israel, not only for reasons of trade, strategic interests and goodwill, but because Israel is our friend and one true ally in the Middle East. Israel has for many years preserved concepts such as democracy and individual liberty in an area of the world where it is surrounded by people who view this as a threat. No effort or level of support should ever be spared when it comes to the defense of Israel and its people against their adversaries in the Middle East and as a Congressman, I promise to never waiver in the fight against anyone who threatens Israel’s right to exist and live as a free people. We should always stand with Israel.”

In Colorado a Congressman declares:
“My efforts in the area of foreign affairs are focused on supporting Israel and protecting our national sovereignty. As the co-chair of two Israel caucuses, I am one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress. Israel is a key ally in the global war against terrorism and has been a model of democracy and a pillar of humanity in the Middle East. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has claimed that the existence of Israel is ‘an insult to all humanity.’ Rather than dwell on the mendacity of that lie, it is far more beneficial to declare the truth. The existence of Israel is a blessing to all humanity.”

And, in a different district of Colorado:
“Israel is the strongest ally that the United States has in the Middle East and shares our strategic interest in the region. Israel wants peace and is better able to resolve their differences with the Palestinians without the interference of the United States.”

In February 2014 two Congressmen, one from Ohio and one from West Virginia, went to Israel. They visited Judea and Samaria and addressed students at Ariel University in Samaria on February 24. Both evoked their faith (Christian) that makes them love the Jewish people and their state.

In Florida a Hispanic challenger in a district with no Jewish voters states this:
“I firmly support Israel’s right to exist and chart its own path to peace with its neighbors, as well as our government acknowledging that Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel. Israel must be allowed to govern its own affairs, and we can no longer dictate to Israel where it can build its settlements as it safeguards its security and pursues peace in the region.”

In Georgia, and not from districts like Savannah, Atlanta and Augusta which have a significant Jewish population, here is what a Congressman says:
“As your Representative of Congress, a top priority of mine will always be ensuring the safety and security of our great nation. Central to this belief is the recognition that the national security of the United States is directly tied to the strength and security of the State of Israel. My commitment to the security of Israel has been unwavering. In recent months, we have witnessed a succession of mass protests and turmoil in many Middle East nations. This regional upheaval clearly underscores the importance of Israel as the preeminent, stable democracy in the Middle East and America’s strongest democratic ally in the region.”

From a Missouri legislator:
“I have expressed my support for Israel publicly on the floor of the House of Representatives in order to express disappointment with President Obama’s proposal for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders….The borders that were established in 1967 followed three wars launched against Israel. For Israel, acceptance of the 1967 borders would mean that Israeli sacrifices were for nothing. We all want to see peace in the Middle East. However, it is unrealistic and naive to think that peace will come as a result of Israel – the only democratic state in the region – making more concessions. Restoring the pre-1967 borders would be a victory for Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel’s demise….Peace can only come about through the Palestinians and other Middle Eastern countries accepting Israel’s right to exist. We must stand strong for Israel.”

I could list dozens more, but here comes the “profiling.” What do these legislators–men and women–have in common?

They are all faithful and observant Christian Conservatives. They are pro-life and pro-Second Amendment, and resist the perverse coercive regulations of the faux environmentalists. Their support of Israel draws on their love of their biblical heritage.

In the meanwhile Jewish voters continue to look for love from liberals, fund their campaigns and enthusiastically support issues that offend conservatives.
For their affection and commitment to Israel those who have been “profiled” here get dismal ratings from the American Arab Institute, James Zogby’s political group, and disinterest from liberal Jews who curry favor among people who take them for granted–except when it comes to fund-raising.


That Europe depends on Mario Draghi and the European Central Bank (ECB) to combat deflation and to drag the EU into more rapid economic growth is a manifestation of political dysfunction – an inability to implement fiscal reform has meant dependency on monetary policy. On Thursday, Mr. Draghi said he hopes the measures he has taken will give time for the “structural reforms” he has advocated in the past. Europe’s political leaders, however and like ours, are caught in the web of unrealistic promises regarding healthcare and pensions. Like politicians going back several decades, they have chosen to leave the hard choices for future generations.

Typically, sharp and deep recessions have been followed by complementary sharp and steep recoveries. Stephen Moore wrote in the June issue of The American Spectator: “…if our economy had grown as fast under Obama as it did during the first five years of the Reagan recovery, American GDP would be more than $2 trillion larger today.” But not this time. In part that was because the fiscal crisis necessitated consumer and financial institution deleveraging. But, slow growth has also been a consequence of a failure to enact tax and regulatory reform. In fact, in the U.S. taxes have risen and regulation has become more severe. According to the Americans for Tax Reform, there have been 21 federal tax hikes since Mr. Obama took office. The Federal Register of Regulations shows 13,000 final rules that were published between 2009 and 2013.

In the U.S., fear of rising deficits obscured the necessity for tax reform. Lobbying by special interests, along with ObamaCare and a more aggressive EPA, killed any possibility of regulatory reform. Because central bankers were willing to attempt innovative and creative means of addressing the financial crisis, politicians were able to duck behind the skirts of their non-elected, central banker brethren. The failure, in 2010, of the Simpson-Bowles Commission is exhibit A.

The Federal Reserve (and the Treasury) took drastic measures at the height of the crisis in the fall of 2008. TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), a Treasury plan, was initially aimed at removing low-quality, non-performing loans from the balance sheets of banks. Besides lowering rates to near zero on December 16th of that year, the Federal Reserve began engaging in quantitative easing – the direct purchasing of Treasuries and mortgage securities, the purpose being to keep longer term rates down. Last Friday Mario Draghi had the ECB cut its main refinancing rate from 0.25% to 0.15%. He also said the bank would charge banks 10 basis points for parking cash at the Central Bank. The ECB also announced a “funding for lending” program (TLTRO) – a tool designed to encourage bank lending. Finally, they announced a plan to buy asset-backed securities, an asset category not widely used in Europe.


Extreme turbulence in the Middle East provides an opportunity for Israel to assert its right to annex Samaria, Judea and East Bethlehem.

Secretary of State John Kerry heads to Jordan for a meeting with Palestinian Authority Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas finalized a Unity Government with Ismail Haniyeh leader of the terrorist group Hamas of Gaza; which kills Israeli civilians in suicide bombings and continued missile attacks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemns the Unity Government and urges the international community not to recognize the entity which was announced on June 1st. The Unity Government violates OSLO principles.

King Saul ruled the Kingdom of Israel in 1020 BC in the area known in recent times as Palestine. Subsequently it was ruled by Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. Jews revolted under leadership of Simon bar Kokhba but defeated by Emperor Hadrian who named it Syria Palestina. Killed and persecuted, Jews did not abandon the area.

During WW I the Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine. A letter from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild in 1917 announced that it favored the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The League of Nations entrusted the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

Winston Churchill produced a two state solution. He wrote the 1922 White Paper re-asserting the Balfour Declaration within the Palestine Mandate. Churchill created Transjordan for Palestine Arabs and split the Mandate area at the Jordan River to establish the Emirate. The Jewish homeland was west of the River, to the Mediterranean; Arabs were not required to leave. Britain remained Civilian Administrator of both areas. Arabs resisted British Rule; bloodshed continued until the start of WWII.

Germany bombed Tel Aviv and Haifa, Italy invaded, and Rommel came north towards the Suez Canal. Jews formed the Palmach, a highly trained unit of the Haganah to fight. Arab leaders saw German victory as a way of taking the Jewish Homeland from Britain and the Jews. Heinrich Himmler enlisted the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin Al Husseini, who assisted Hitler’s efforts.


For a considerable period I have argued that President Obama’s foreign policy was feckless, a function of inexperience and amateurish advisement. The overarching goal of removing the U.S. from harm’s way seemed absurd since even if you want to avoid war, it sometimes has a way of finding you. But there is logic in a foreign policy position that avoids overreaching.

However, I now believe I was wrong. Based on the diplomatic trade of one American, an apparent deserter and critic of national policy, for five terrorists who have killed Americans and have vowed to kill more, I now hold the view that this president is malevolent, that his hatred for the United States takes the form of “high crimes and misdemeanor.”

Without providing Congress with the “required” 30 days notice before releasing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the president acted, claiming “unique and exigent circumstances.” The real story lies in a president who thinks of himself above the law. For him Congress is irrelevant.

The presidents’ pursuit of Sergeant Bergdahl led directly to the loss of six Americans in Afghanistan, even though the president asserts “we do not leave Americans on the battlefield.” Do we retrieve deserters? This incident that now puts American lives at risk across the globe is worse than lawlessness; it is a violation of trust that imperils innocent life. If ever there was time to consider the exquisitely made arguments in Andrew McCarthy’s book, Faithless Execution: Building The Case for Obama’s Impeachment, it is now. This president does not abide by the rule of law. He is the law and a dangerous law at that.

This “deal” is seemingly timed to push the V.A. (Veterans’ Administration) scandal off the front page. Better to have a new scandal, rather than a developing old one. But it is increasingly difficult for this administration to either admit to having made a mistake or avoid making new ones.


PoliceOne Critical Alert

PoliceOne warns officers that people of middle eastern ethnicity are changing their names or presenting themselves as hispanics in order to disguise their ethnicity and better blend into their communities. While this has been common practice among immigrants in the past, it presents a technique that possible terrorists or members of sleeper cells could use to escape notice.

The Texas Department of Public Safety informed the San Antonio Division Joint Terrorism Task Force that individuals of Middle Eastern descent are obtaining new Texas driver’s licenses with Hispanic surnames.

Approximately 20 individuals of Middle Eastern origin are utilizing the Travis County (Austin, Texas) District Court each week to change their names and driver’s licenses from Middle Eastern to Hispanic surnames.

The process involves submitting a form and fingerprints to the District Court. The Austin JTTF is investigating the applicants and application process with the Texas Department of Safety and investigators from the Travis County District Attorney’s office. At this time it is unknown as to how widespread these driver’s license changers are.

San Antonio has multiple concerns about these driver license changes. Foremost is the change in identity and ability to mingle in the predominantly Hispanic community without arousing suspicion, because of their darker skin tone, resembling local Hispanics.

Second is the lack of security afforded the fingerprint cards, allowing the possibility of substitution by individuals of concern by individuals who would not arouse suspicion. These driver license changes may not be limited to Hispanic surnames but might involve common names or other ethnicities.

Considering the current threat reporting and the frequent presence of President Bush within the State of Texas, San Antonio would like to determine how widespread this practice of driver’s license change is in border states and nationwide.

San Antonio Division will focus on determining the true identity, background and reason for those individuals of Middle Eastern descent who have changed their identity to Hispanic.

If you have any questions regarding the information in this report, please call El Paso I.C.A.T., 915-872-5775.

Source: Tucson Intelligence Unit; Texas Dept. of Public Safety; Austin, Tex. JTTF

Obama’s New Bow to the Islamic World — on The Glazov Gang

This week’s Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Superstar Josh Brewster and joined by titans Nonie Darwish, author of “The Devil We Don’t Know,” Michael Hausam, a conservative writer and activist, and Karen Siegemund, founder of Rage Against the Media.

The Gang discussed: Obama’s New Bow to the Islamic World, analyzing who the Radical-in-Chief really wants to be admired by the most.

The dialogue occurred within the context of Why Obama Did the Prisoner Swap.

Don’t miss it:

Obama Lied, Americans in Afghanistan Died Posted By Daniel Greenfield

After presiding for six years over a war in which over 1,600 Americans were killed fighting the Taliban, Obama did not mention the enemy during his West Point Commencement Address.

That wasn’t unusual. Obama has a curious habit of avoiding the “T-word” in his official speeches. Even when delivering his Rose Garden speech about Bergdahl’s return, the Taliban were never mentioned.

Obama’s mentions of the Taliban vary by context. When speaking to the military he might say that the United States is at war with the Taliban. In international diplomatic settings however he emphasizes that the conflict is really a civil war between the Taliban and the Afghan government with the United States there to act as a stabilizing force.

The President of Afghanistan claimed that Obama had told him, “The Taliban are not our enemies and we don’t want to fight them.”

Joe Biden had expressed similar thoughts, stating, “The Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical.” White House spokesman Jay Carney awkwardly defended Biden by arguing that the United States was fighting the Taliban, but was there to defeat Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan however had already been defeated by Bush.

During the campaign and once in office, Obama had proposed outreach to the “moderate” Taliban. Biden estimated that only 5% of the Taliban were incorrigible while 70% and then another 25% could be reasoned with.

According to Biden, these Taliban were expected to end all ties with Al Qaeda, accept the Afghan constitution and offer equal treatment to women. Obama issued the same demand last year. The Taliban who hold strict religious beliefs about the evils of democracy and the inferiority of women did not rush to take Obama and Biden up on their offer.


A catalog of government lawlessness is more discomforting to contemplate when the catalog is contemporary. We are all familiar with tales of mischief, corruption and abuse of power from other ages and in other places. We call it history. But the new book Obama’s Enforcer by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund documents the rank lawlessness that has saturated Eric Holder’s Justice Department, and thus, the Obama presidency.

Von Spakovsky and Fund’s book releases June 10. It details the radical nest that the Justice Department has become. Their book echoes what I still hear from Justice Department employees across the Department still stuck working for a lawless radical attorney general: you simply cannot believe what is happening inside DOJ.

Eric Holder is Obama’s enforcer. The authors catalog Holder as an enforcer for a progressive gang spanning across all agencies of the federal government. Obama’s enforcer has successfully turned the power and prestige of the Justice Department into a radicalized agency for fundamental change. Holder is the enforcer that has used his power to turn America away from post-racial possibilities and toward race-obsessed legal policies. According to the authors, Holder is the single most important change agent inside the single most important change agency.

The book also covers territory never before touched – namely, why is Holder so radicalized?

I’ve worked at the Justice Department, written a New York Times bestseller about the DOJ, and never discovered what the authors reveal: how Holder’s wife played a central role in turning Holder into a racialist radical.

The authors secured an interview with one of Holder’s old buddies – Craig Donsanto. Donsanto was a lawyer at the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. Donsanto worked with Holder early in Holder’s DOJ career and spent many long days travelling with Holder on DOJ business. What Donsanto shares might explain Holder’s radicalism about race, most famously on display when he described “my people” before a committee of Congress.

Holder “changed” after his marriage, says Donsanto. Holder himself admitted that his wife has an “edge” that he doesn’t have because he “never saw the reality of racism or felt the insecurity that comes with it.”