The Fragile State of the Palestinian Authority Under Mahmoud Abbas, the West Bank could now be one protest away from a full-blown crisis. By Jonathan Schanzer and Grant Rumley see note please

Oh Puleez! Abbas, like his predecessor vermin is a thug put in place and maintained by successive American administrations in their never ending quest to process peace by demanding impossible security risks from Israel….. The only thing that can stop a full blown crisis and protect Jordan is heightened Israeli control over Judea and Samaria….rsk
A Palestinian court on Thursday postponed municipal elections scheduled for Oct. 8 because Palestine’s two largest political factions, Fatah and Hamas, couldn’t agree on terms. The stalemate has been in place since 2006, the last time Palestinians voted, and even led to an internecine war the following year. The Palestinians, split between two separate governments ruling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have never recovered.

For Fatah, which rules the West Bank, things are going from bad to worse. The canceled elections come on the heels of a large protest held last weekend in Nablus. An estimated 12,000 Palestinians took to the streets after the West Bank government’s security forces reportedly beat to death Ahmad Halawa, a commander from the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade, a splinter of Fatah. Halawa’s funeral quickly gave way to angry protests against the provisional government of President Mahmoud Abbas.

All of this should serve as a warning to the 81-year-old Mr. Abbas. The Nablus protest, in particular, conjures images of the First Intifada, which broke out after a funeral in 1987, gave way to massive protests against Israel, and in the end lasted for a half decade.

There was a time when Mr. Abbas would have tried to leverage public discontent. Today, a protest of nearly any size is too dangerous to harness for the aging Mr. Abbas, who has every reason to fear that any angry public gathering could quickly turn against him.

The Palestinian Authority, like any other autocratic Arab regime, has never welcomed spontaneous protests. But now Palestinian opinion polls show a majority of voters want Mr. Abbas to resign. What’s more, since 2006, the only forms of democratic expression under the Abbas government has been a local election or student-council vote; and in each of those, Mr. Abbas’s Fatah party has lost. As Mr. Abbas enters the 12th year of his four-year presidency, even minor elections are increasingly seen as referendums on his rule.

Exacerbating this instability is the uncertainty of who will succeed Mr. Abbas. The leader himself refuses to name a successor, which has inspired a heated debate among the Palestinian elite but also sporadic factional violence across the West Bank. Armed gangs regularly skirmish with Palestinian Authority forces, while Mr. Abbas’s rivals, such as the exiled Palestinian leader Mohammad Dahlan, continue to foment opposition. CONTINUE AT SITE

An Inherited Culture of Hate by Tharwa Boulifi

“I hate Christians and Jews. I don’t know why. I don’t have any apparent reason to hate them but I always hear my mom talking badly about them. She hates them too, and this is why I hate them, I guess. Mom has always told me that Muslims are Allah’s favorite people,” — F., a 15-year-old Tunisian girl.

“They said that non-Muslims deserve to die; we should have no pity for them. They will burn in hell, anyway.” — M., a 16-year-old Tunisian boy.

People who do not read tend to fear things they do not know, and this fear can turn into suspicion, aggression and hate. These people need to fill the void, to remove the discomfort, so they turn to terrorism to create a goal in their lives: defending Islam.

As most Tunisians do not read, they watch TV a lot. “After watching ‘The Sultan’s Harem,’ I wanted to be one of the Sultan’s concubines, to live in the Ottoman Empire era; I wanted to be like them,” said S., a 14-year-old Tunisian girl.

A Pew Research Center report, published in 2013, entitled, “The World’s Muslims, Religion, Politics and Society,” explored attitudes and opinions of Muslims around the world regarding religion and its impact on politics, ethics and science.

A sample of 1450 Tunisian Muslims from all the 24 governorates of Tunisia were interviewed between November and December 2011. According to the study, 50% of Tunisians consider themselves living a conflict between their religion and the modern world. According to the report, 32% of Tunisians consider divorce unethical — the highest rate in the Arab and Muslim world — compared to 8% in Egypt, 6% in Lebanon and 3% in Jordan. Although 46% respondents said that religion is compatible with the modern world, the study indicated that the Tunisian population is more prone to advocate individual choice — with 89% favoring — in wearing the niqab (face-veil).

Similarly, based on the United Nations report and research from the Quilliam Foundation in 2014, Tunisian terrorists represent the highest number (3,800) of foreign terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Syrian authorities also confirmed that the number of Tunisian terrorists is more than 10,000, out of a total of 48,000 terrorists in Syrian territory.

What are the main reasons for Tunisia’s high rate of terrorism?

The Middle East: The Other Main Sources of Law by Burak Bekdil

Apparently what Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal understands of democracy is totally different than what the term means in more civilized parts of the world.

If Prince Al-Waleed so passionately defends democracy, he should spend less of his office time in showing solidarity with undemocratic leaders, and more in giving at least a bit of democratic breathing space to his own people.

In the Saudi Kingdom, the primary source of law is the Islamic sharia, based on the principles of a school of jurisprudence (Hanbali) found in pre-modern texts. Ultra-puritanical judges and lawyers form part of the country’s Islamic scholars.

But there is another main source of law: royal decrees. Simple death penalty along with beheading, stoning to death, amputation, crucifixion and lashing are common legal punishments. In the three years to 2010, there were 345 beheadings. But the legal system is usually too lenient for cases of rape and domestic violence.

The common punishment for offenses against religion and public morality such as drinking alcohol and neglect of prayer is usually lashings. Retaliatory punishments are also part of the legal system, such as, literally, an eye for an eye. Saudis can also grant clemency, in return for money, to someone who has unlawfully killed their relatives.

It is not surprising to anyone that Saudi Arabia is widely accused of having one of the worst human rights records in the world — the Kingdom is one of the few countries in the world not to accept the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is capital punishment for homosexuality. Women are not allowed in public places to be in the presence of someone outside the kinship. They are not allowed to drive.

Rep. Gowdy Tears into Rep. Cummings for Dragging Colin Powell into Clinton’s Email Mess By Debra Heine

During today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing examining FOIA compliance at the State Department, Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) strayed from his prepared remarks to address Democrat ranking member Elijah Cummings’ opening statement, which Gowdy said he found “instructive if not predictable.”

Cummings yesterday released an email exchange in which former secretary of state Colin Powell advised Hillary Clinton on the use of personal email and devices shortly after she was sworn in as secretary of state.

“I hope to catch up soon [with] you, but I have one pressing question which only you can answer! What were the restrictions on your use of your blackberry?” Clinton asked Powell, who served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush.

Clinton wanted to continue using her Blackberry in her new position and Powell responded saying he didn’t have one and developed another system instead that allowed him to communicate with people without it going through servers at the State Department.

“What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers,” Powell wrote. “I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.”

Democrats are citing this email exchange to argue that Powell had influenced Clinton’s decision to circumvent the rules.

Gowdy was having none of it.

“Secretary Clinton said that she followed all State Department rules and regulations, but the truth is, she did not,” the fiery former prosecutor began. “Secretary Clinton said her unique email arrangement was approved by the State Department but it was not. Secretary Clinton said she used one device for convenience but she did not. Secretary Clinton said she did not send or receive classified material. But she did. She said that she turned over all of her work-related emails. But she did not. She said her attorneys personally reviewed each email. But they did not. So when faced with a series of demonstrably false statements, utterly impeached by both fact and logic, the ranking member did what lots of criminal defense attorneys do — which is blame the investigator. And when that didn’t work, they throw the Hail-Mary pass of all criminal defense attorneys: ‘Other people did it too!’ Which brings me to General Colin Powell, one of the most respected people in our country’s history.”

He continued, “Hillary Clinton said to the FBI — and I’ll concede that she says different things to the public than she says to the FBI, but she told the FBI that Colin Powell’s advice had nothing to do with her decision to set up her unique email arrangement with herself.”

Gowdy repeated himself to drive the point home: “Secretary Clinton told the FBI — under penalty of not telling the truth! — that Colin Powell’s advice had nothing to do with her decision to set up that unique email arrangement with herself!”

Suspected Fifth North Korea Nuclear Test Also the Biggest, Says Seoul By Bridget Johnson

North Korea reportedly conducted its fifth — and largest to date — nuclear test just hours after President Obama wrapped up a meeting with Asian allies in Laos.

Obama was due to arrive back at the White House from the ASEAN summit shortly after midnight Friday — which is North Korea’s National Day.

The U.S. Geological Survey detected a blast as powerful as a moderate earthquake at 9 a.m. Pyongyang time.

“Possible explosion, located near the location where North Korea has detonated nuclear explosions in the past,” the USGS said of the magnitude 5.3 event. “If this is indeed an explosion, the USGS National Earthquake Information Center cannot determine what type of explosion it may be, whether nuclear or any other possible type.”

North Korea said it conducted a “nuclear warhead explosion” in response to perceived U.S. hostility. “We sent out a message that if the enemies attack us, we can counterattack.”

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff called it “an artificial quake” that was detected near North Korea’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site.

Pyongyang previously held nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2011 and this past January, which was followed by a UN Security Council resolution in March. “We estimate the North has carried out the biggest-ever test,” the South Korea statement said.

“We are aware of seismic activity on the Korean Peninsula in the vicinity of a known North Korean nuclear test site,” National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said. “We are monitoring and continuing to assess the situation in close coordination with our regional partners.”

Yonhap news agency reported that South Korean lawmakers will convene for an emergency session today. “It would be a crucial violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution if it turns out to be an actual nuclear test,” Rep. Yeom Dong-yeol of South Korea’s ruling Saenuri Party said.

South Korean President Park Geun-hye condemned the test and called for “much stronger sanctions” along with utilizing “all possible means” to stop Kim Jong-un’s nuclear program. Without elaborating, Park’s office said she spoke with Obama about the test.

Last month, Japan’s Kyodo News reported that North Korea has openly restarted plutonium production and is on pace to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons “as scheduled.”

“We have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel rods removed from a graphite-moderated reactor,” North Korea’s Atomic Energy Institute said, a move in response to what Kim views as threats from Washington. Pyongyang hinted at the time of an upcoming nuclear test.

Yes, Hillary Knows Classified Information Does Not Always Come with a ‘Header’ BY Andrew C. McCarthy

Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton’s oft-repeated canard — “I never sent or received any e-mails marked classified” — has been so thoroughly discredited that it now poll-tests poorly. Hence, she broke out a new wineskin for the same old rotgut at last night’s candidate forum: the “header.”

The issue arose when she was bluntly questioned by a military vet who pointed outthat, had he recklessly mishandled classified information the way she did, he’d have been prosecuted. She countered:

Classified material has a header that says “top secret,” “secret,” “confidential.” None of the emails sent or received by me had such a header. What we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked. There were no headers, there was no statement … “top secret,” “secret” or “confidential.”

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is tactically morphing “marked” into “header” because some of her emails were marked classified.

Were she to repeat the “nothing marked classified” lie and leave it at that, the public would be reminded not only that she is known to have lied about this (FBI director Comey acknowledged as much in his House testimony); but also that she fibbed in ludicrous fashion when called on the markings in her FBI interview — claiming to have believed the “(C)” designation had to do with putting paragraphs in alphabetical order. (Of course, it refers to classified information at theconfidential level, something well known to Clinton because, among other reasons, she was for a decade a heavy-duty consumer of classified documents, in which the “(C)” designation is ubiquitous.)

We’re in trouble when the FBI director is this controversial By Silvio Canto, Jr.

As someone who grew up watching that wonderful FBI series on TV, it is shocking to see what people are saying about Mr. Comey, the FBI Director. I guess that’s what happens when you say that there is no evidence of intent on July 5th and then we spend the next two months learning that everything that Mrs. Clinton did was intended to evade the rules.

Roger Simon is calling for Mr. Comey to resign. He won’t be the last one. This is Mr. Simon’s argument:

If were I an FBI agent, I would despise James Comey. He has humiliated the FBI and all its employees. The institution will never be the same, at least not for decades to come. The FBI is no longer an instrument of justice. It is the reverse. It is an obfuscater of justice and an enabler of the rich and powerful. How depressing and disgusting.God help our republic.

Exaggerated? Not in the slightest.

Consider this:

Hillary Clinton, who had told us she had one cellphone, turned out to have had thirteen such phones and five iPads, all of which have mysteriously disappeared, two having been smashed by hammers — this, although the information on all of them was legally government property. Was she arrested for this or even cited? Did the FBI even ask why she did this or why she had so many phones? Some wag on television said she must have been a crack dealer.

More importantly, did the FBI even ask her the most obvious of questions: why in the world did she put ALL her government emails on a private home-brew server (and then have them deleted with the most advanced data eradication software available — five stars on CNET — two days after these emails came under subpoena)? Was that because the equally obvious answer — to avoid any possible public scrutiny of her actions (for a variety of suspicious reasons) — is itself felonious?

The Patrick Murphy Zika Filibuster Democrats vote down anti-virus funding to win a Senate seat.

Maybe Democrats aren’t so confident anymore about retaking the Senate in a romp. This would explain why they’d rather reserve the Zika crisis as political ammunition for the campaign than pass the bipartisan $1.1 billion bill to wipe out the mosquito-borne virus that can cause birth defects.

On Tuesday Senate Democrats for the third time this year filibustered the Zika rescue legislation, which failed 52-46. They have claimed for months that more money is urgently needed for prevention, research and health services. Mosquitos are now carrying Zika in the continental U.S. and some 16,800 and rising Americans are infected, mostly in Puerto Rico with more than 700 in Florida.

A Zika funding bill passed the Senate 89-8 in May, with the support of every Democrat, but then Harry Reid ambushed the House-Senate compromise conference report, which has passed the House and can’t be amended. The decoy that Democrats settled on for this double cross is that the bill “bans” Zika money from flowing to Planned Parenthood and its ProFamilias affiliate in Puerto Rico. This is a transparent falsehood that even the dumbest Democrats aren’t dumb enough to believe.

The legislative text appropriates block grants “for health services provided by public health departments, hospitals, or reimbursed through public health plans.” The notional basis for the Democratic opposition is that it does not specifically single out Planned Parenthood and ProFamilias as grant recipients. That’s it. Congress isn’t banning anything.

The intended beneficiary of this obstruction appears to be Patrick Murphy, the House Democrat who is challenging Marco Rubio for the Florida Senate seat. “We can’t keep putting ideology above the health and safety of Florida families,” Mr. Murphy said Tuesday. CONTINUE AT SITE

Obama, Merkel and ‘The Right Side of History’ : Edward Alexander

“US Sends Iran Two More Loads of Cash.” So blared the headline on the front page of the September 7 issue of The Wall Street Journal about the latest transfer of enormous amounts of money ($1.3 billion in this latest installment) by President Barack Obama from the US Treasury to the government of Iran.

This is the very same genocidal regime whose leaders proclaim at every opportunity their intention to destroy the state of Israel, and whose (treaty-violating) nuclear-capable ballistic missiles are marked, in Farsi, with the motto “Israel must be erased from history,” as well as the declaration, in Hebrew no less, “Israel must be erased from the earth.”

President Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry had already agreed to “return” $130 billion to the mullahs as a kind of signing bonus for their consent to the scandalous JCPOA nuclear “deal,” a vast addition to Iran’s ability to make war — which it has in fact already done, directly in Syria and Iraq, and indirectly against Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas. Earlier news had been of a mere $400 million — paid secretly, and in Mafia-style cash bundles — as ransom for some, though by no means all, Americans held hostage by Iran.

The mind reels, the heart sinks: can anyone, even his harshest critics, imagine President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after Adolf Hitler had made clear, in the Nuremberg laws (1935), in Kristallnacht (1938), and in countless speeches, his intention to destroy European Jewry, lavishing billions of American dollars in courtship of the Nazi regime?

Just a week earlier, on August 30, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a written response to a pro-Israel German parliamentarian named Volker Beck, declared (not for the first time) that Germany will not “normalize” relations with Iran until Tehran recognizes the state of Israel and its “right to exist.” Merkel is unusual among European heads of state in assigning importance to moral considerations, especially where Jews (dead or living) are concerned. Despite her party’s recent electoral setbacks, she still stands at the head of a country that, in the years 1933-45, destroyed European Jewish civilization. That was (to use one of President Obama’s favorite locutions) “the verdict of history” pronounced by Europe upon its Jewish minority, which it is now replacing with a rather different (and much more quarrelsome) Muslim minority. European Christendom, over the course of centuries, had, in Raul Hilberg’s famous formulation, progressed from the historical verdict, “You [Jews] have no right to live among us as Jews,” to “You have no right to live among us,” to “You have no right to live.”

Of Course Hillary’s Health Is Relevant Why shouldn’t she face the same scrutiny as every other presidential nominee? By Kevin D. Williamson

Of course Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health is a legitimate issue for the 2016 election.

So is Donald Trump’s. So is Gary Johnson’s. So is that of any presidential candidate.

Mrs. Clinton’s media allies (which is to say, the media, more or less) are circling the wagons on this issue, and it is curious.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza made an unpersuasive attempt to explain why it was legitimate to treat John McCain’s health as a campaign issue in 2008 but illegitimate to do the same with Herself in 2016. McCain, he points out, would have been 72 years old at the time of his election, the oldest person ever elected to the office; Herself will, if elected in November, be a sprightly . . . 69 years of age. McCain bore the scars of Vietnam and Arizona: He was grievously wounded — and tortured — by the Vietnamese, and he suffers from a recurring melanoma, which necessitates occasional trips to the doctor to have a patch of dodgy skin removed. Skin cancer is no joke, but millions of Americans live with melanoma of the sort McCain has with very little effect on their lives other than inconvenience.

Mrs. Clinton, in spite of her probably fictitious attempt to join the military, was never a prisoner of war, nor does she, so far as any record made public shows, suffer from cancer or any other chronic condition.

Still, she is not exactly the picture of health. As Cillizza notes, she suffered a concussion as a result of an unfortunate tendency to fall down, purportedly stemming from an upset stomach. There is at least one thing that leaps to mind that causes both digestive revolt and falling on one’s ass, and it is whispered that Mrs. Clinton drinks immoderately, though there is no evidence that this is in fact the case. She sometimes requires a helper step to get into the SUVs that whisk her hither and yon in her pursuit of the presidency.

RELATED: My Brain Injury Made Me Forget, but My Health Is Not an Issue!

Mrs. Clinton is also remarkably forgetful: During a midsummer interview with FBI agents investigating her furtive and illegal e-mail practices, Mrs. Clinton used the words “I cannot recall” or similar formulations more than 40 times. Doctor Johnson once remarked that the prospect of being hanged “concentrates the mind wonderfully,” and perhaps it is the case that the prospect of being brought up on federal charges related to the handling of classified material has the opposite effect, producing a kind of special-purpose dementia.

Mrs. Clinton of course inspires the conspiracy kooks, an effect that is very much amplified by the fact that her opponent in 2016 is a big-league conspiracy kook leading a team of minor-league conspiracy kooks. Louis Brandeis was absolutely correct about sunlight’s being the best disinfectant, but Mrs. Clinton is a creature of the shade. Given her history of rampant, craven, deep, broad, sustained, overarching, continuous, relentless dishonesty about practically every aspect of her personal and public lives, is it really so implausible that she’d lie about her health? No. She’d lie about her health even if there were nothing to lie about, just to keep in practice.