Displaying posts categorized under

WORLD NEWS

U.S. Syria Policy: Incoherent, Reckless By:Srdja Trifkovic

The United States is in danger of descending into the Syrian quagmire. There are clear signs of mission creep devoid of logic or strategic rationale. It is not too late yet to step away from the brink. This would require swift action by President Donald Trump to rein in the war party before it takes America into yet another unwinnable and costly Middle Eastern war. And yet the President is said to have displayed relative indifference to the subject of Syria as the crisis escalated, focusing his attention instead on various domestic issues.

On June 27, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley tweeted that “[a]ny further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.” A day earlier the White House issued an ominous warning to Syria’s president against launching another chemical assault (“A heavy price will be paid”), and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson presented a similar message to Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.

Such statements provide direct inducement to terrorists to stage false-flag attacks which would be used to invite large-scale U.S. intervention. For example, over 80 people died in a suspected chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun last April 4. The U.S. immediately blamed the incident on government forces, with no proof, and used it as pretext to launch the missile strike on the morning of 7 April against the Shayrat Airbase controlled by the Syrian government. This was the first unilateral military action by the United States targeting Syrian government forces since the civil war started in 2011. President Trump declared shortly thereafter that it is “in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

Cui bono? The Syrian government has no motive to use chemical weapons against civilians. It is winning the war, contrary to most expectations. The jihadist opposition, by contrast, is desperate for America to come to its rescue. Early prospects looked bright after former President Barack Obama recklessly drew a “red line” in 2012. He declared that he would intervene if “we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” The predictable result was a massive sarin nerve gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in August 2013. As Seymour Hersh and others have subsequently established on the basis of documents obtained from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Nusra Front—the Syrian affiliate of al Qaeda—had access to the nerve agent and carried out the attack.

To his credit Obama refrained from ordering an all-out attack on Assad’s forces. His then-Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was able to dissuade the President—according to a recently published book by the German Middle East expert Michael Lüders—after a British military laboratory established that the gas traces found at Ghouta were of a different chemical composition to the type Syrian army had. Furthermore, the attack took place while UN weapons inspectors were in Syria, on Assad’s invitation. He is an energetic, even ruthless man, but he is not stupid or insane.

Cyberwarfare Is On by Rachel Ehrenfeld

The latest and most damaging attacks, which have supposedly originated in Ukraine, are said to be using a variant of the code “Eternal Blue,” which reportedly was stolen from the National Security Agency (NSA). This malware was allegedly designed to take control over or destroy computers running an older Microsoft Windows program without leaving any known detectable trace. Demand for a ransom of $300 in Bitcoins appears on the screen, but paying the ransom, as done with last month’s WannaCry attack does not guarantee the computer hard-drive was not corrupted. The special features of this cyber-weapon allow it to access all your information, including whatever has been stored on a cloud.

The ongoing attack, dubbed Petya or GoldenEye (apparently named after Ian Fleming’s inspired 1995 James Bond film of the same name), has shut down the computers of large domestic and international corporations around the world, including the second largest pharma company in the U.S., Merck, Russia’s largest oil company, Rosneft, Ukraine’s State power distribution company, airports, transportation companies, banks and hospitals.

GoldenEye is also wrecking havoc in the operations of the world’s biggest cargo and freight carrier company, the Danish Maersk Line, which operates 590 containers from 374 offices in around the world. “Last year Maersk shipped approximately 12 million containers around the globe, making 46,000 port calls in 343 ports in 121 countries.” Delays in arrival and departure of Maersk container ships are also disrupting ground transportation and have already upset delivery of products. The longer the computers are down, the greater the confusion and damages.

The more attacks, the more advice from cyber security companies could be found online – if you can turn on your computer. The more attacks, the larger the budgets allocated to future attacks. But as we are witnessing, again and again, the majority of cybersecurity advisors seem to be lagging behind, unable to prevent the next attack.

Golan Ben-Oni, the CIO at IDT, the New Jersey-based international telecommunication company seems to have been the first to identify the footprints of GoldeEye, the current cyber-weapon last April. “The World isn’t ready” for this kind of cyber attack, Mr. Ben-Oni warned in the New York Times. “Time is burning…This is really a war,” he said. And five days after the paper run his story, the world was hit with “GoldenEye.” Alas, the prevailing attitude, especially in the U.S. seems to reject the notion of preparing for the unknown.

The damage and cost of recovering from attacks, even less destructive the GoldenEye, are impossible to measure, if only because there are so many accumulative unknown and hidden elements that are difficult to track.

Ian Fleming, the former British naval intelligence officer, realized early on that the capability to launch modern warfare is not limited to nations, but that well-funded rogue individuals or groups have the potential to launch devastating attacks on whichever target they choose, the kind his hero, Bond, succeeded defeating.

Today’s cyber warfare, as Fleming predicted seven decades ago, is not limited to nations. Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean hackers sometimes compete with and sometimes are joined by global criminal and terrorist groups. All these perpetrators are sometimes assisted by rogue insiders who are willing to sell out their nation’s or employer’s secrets.

What Might be Missing in the Muslim World? by Denis MacEoin

Recently, Chinese, Japanese and other educators have found that rote learning and endless drills produce high achievers without creativity, originality, or the ability to think for themselves. Western academic standards of rationality and objectivity have been behind most of the West’s achievements.

“The campus has three mosques with a fourth one planned, but no bookstore. No Pakistani university, including QAU, allowed Abdus Salam to set foot on its campus, although he had received the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his role in formulating the standard model of particle physics.” — Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy, commenting on Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, the second-best university among the 57 Muslim states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The very thought that “Islamic science” has to be different from “Western science” suggests the need for a radically different way of thinking. Scientific method is scientific method and rationality is rationality, regardless of the religion practiced by individual scientists.

In April this year, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shaykh ‘Ali Gomaa, told an interviewer what he meant as a flat statement of fact: that there are no female heart surgeons, as such work required strength and other capabilities that no woman possesses. He put it this way:

“You may have noticed that there is not a single female heart surgeon in the world… It’s amazing. It’s peculiar. Why do you think that there are none? Because it requires great physical effort — beyond what a woman is capable of. That’s in general. Along comes a woman who challenges this, and she succeeds in becoming a surgeon. But she is one woman among several million male surgeons.”

Now even a child could have carried out a simple Google search and realized that there are countless female surgeons and many female heart surgeons. It would not have taken long to find, for example, the US Association of Women Surgeons, which includes heart surgeons — and that would have settled his hash. But apparently deep-seated, pre-formed judgements about women’s abilities prevented Gomaa from using whatever powers of reasoning and intelligence he may possess.

Sadly, there often seems a profound absence of scientific probing within the Muslim world.

It seems reasonable to assume that levels of intelligence are pretty well the same around the world, regardless of race, gender, or religious affiliation. As human beings, we share the same brainpower, just as we share all other physical functions. Mercifully, earlier views of racial inequality have in most places been replaced by a more fact-based understanding of human characteristics. Today, theories put forward in the last two centuries of a supposed “racial supremacy” of white people have been happily discarded. In democratic societies, white supremacists are universally loathed.

In the OECD’s 2015 PISA science results, seven out of the top ten countries, based on achievements at school level, were in the Far East — including Japan and China, with Korea at eleven. The United States was number 25. In mathematics, the results were even more striking: the top seven countries ranged from Singapore to Korea, with the United States at 39, well below most European nations. While such results show that Asian students are indeed intelligent, there is a price to pay for those outstanding results. Students put in long school days and long school years, and live regimented lives. Recently, Chinese, Japanese and other educators have found that rote learning and endless drills produce high achievers without creativity, originality, or the ability to think for themselves. Often, as we shall see, rote learning in the Middle East seems to lead to poor educational outcomes.[1]

For all that, we are all aware that different nations, different cultures and different religions achieve varied and even conflicting levels of intellectual achievement. The Western democracies, including Israel, have for some time now been the highest achievers in fields such as science, technology, medicine, information technology, astronomy and the exploration of space, as well as in modern academic disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, critical history, economics, analytical politics, statistics, and unbiased religious studies, among others. Western academic standards of rationality and objectivity have been behind most of those achievements. Sadly, many scholars in Western countries, not least the US, have abandoned even a semblance of neutrality on and off campus, following a deep politicization of many humanities subjects, above all the Middle East and related studies.

Violence against Women: Some Inconvenient Data for the Corrupt UN by Burak Bekdil

The last (worst) rankings of the Global Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum, from 128th to 144th, are without exception overwhelmingly Muslim countries, including Turkey at the 130th place.

A 2016 study by Turkey’s Family and Social Policies Ministry revealed that no fewer than 86% of Turkish women have suffered physical or psychological violence at the hands of their partners or family.

So, tell us, Ms. Simonovic: Do Turkish men beat and sometimes kill their wives because of Israeli occupation? Is there “a clear link” between Turkey’s rising numbers indicating violence against women and “Israel’s prolonged occupation?”

The United Nations panels lovingly practice hypocrisy all the time. In 2016, a UN debate revolved around the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), which voted to blame Israel for Palestinian domestic violence. This year’s show was hardly different in the content of nonsense. The executive director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, asked Dubravka Simonovic, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, at a session on June 12: “Ms. Simonovic, in other words, what you are saying is as follows: ‘When Palestinian men beat their wives, it’s Israel’s fault.'”

At first glance it sounds like dark humor, but it is not. Not just one but two reports presented before the UNHRC by Simonovic argue that Israel is to blame for Palestinian violence against women, through “a clear linkage between the prolonged occupation and violence”.

Where, Neuer asked Simonovic, is the data? There is data, but not the kind that Simonovic would prefer to believe exists.

According to the Global Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum, there is not a single overwhelmingly Muslim nation in the best 50 scoring list of countries. In contrast, the last (worst) rankings of the index, from 128th to 144th, are without exception overwhelmingly Muslim countries, including Turkey at the 130th place. Turkey’s case is important to note, as the increasing supremacy of Islamist politics in daily life in the country has boosted patriarchal behavior and worsened gender equality since 2002, when President (then Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power. In other words Turkey, the 17th biggest economy in the world, is the 15th-last country in terms of gender equality.

The United Nations Population Fund grimly observed in a report:

“… women and girls are still exposed to violence, being abused, trafficked, their access to education and political participation is refused and face with many other human rights violations … The fact of violence against women as a concept emerged through gender inequality is widespread in Turkey”.

A 2013 Hurriyet Daily News survey found that 34% of Turkish men think violence against women is “occasionally necessary,” while 28% say violence can be used to discipline women; a combined 62% approval of violence against women.

In 2014, Turkey’s Family and Social Policies Ministry reported that its domestic violence hotline received over 100,000 calls, and estimated that the number of unreported cases is three to five times that number.

A 2016 study by the same ministry revealed that no fewer than 86% of Turkish women have suffered physical or psychological violence at the hands of their partners or family. According to the ministry’s findings, physical violence is the most common form of abuse, as 70% of women reported they were physically assaulted.

The Balfour Declaration Was More than the Promise of One Nation By affirming the right of any Jew to call Palestine home, it also changed the international status of the Jewish people.Martin Kramer ****

In 1930, the British Colonial Office published a “white paper” that Zionists saw as a retreat from the Balfour Declaration. David Lloyd George, whose government had issued the declaration in 1917, was long out of office and now in the twilight of his political career. In an indignant speech, he insisted that his own country had no authority to downgrade the declaration, because it constituted a commitment made by all of the Allies in the Great War:

In wartime we were anxious to secure the good will of the Jewish community throughout the world for the Allied cause. The Balfour Declaration was a gesture not merely on our part but on the part of the Allies to secure that valuable support. It was prepared after much consideration, not merely of its policy, but of its actual wording, by the representatives of all the Allied and associated countries including America, and of our dominion premiers.

There was some exaggeration here; not all of the Allies shared the same understanding of the policy or saw the “actual wording.” But Lloyd George pointed to the forgotten truth that I sought to resurrect through my essay. In 1917, there was not yet a League of Nations or a United Nations. But, in the consensus of the Allies, there was the nucleus of a modern international order. The Balfour Declaration had the weight of this consensus behind it, beforeBalfour signed it. This international buy-in is also why the Balfour Declaration entered the mandate for Palestine, entrusted to Britain by the League of Nations. Those who now cast the Balfour Declaration as an egregious case of imperial self-dealing simply don’t know its history (or prefer not to know it).

Nicholas Rostowdoes know it, and we should be grateful for the efforts he has made to inform wider audiences about the legal foundations of Israel. “It is not just that ignorance of the past can lead to unnecessary policy error,” he writes. “As we know all too well from UN resolutions and opinions of the International Court of Justice, such oblivion, willed or not, can and in this case emphatically does lead to gross injustice.”

Of course, some of this ignorance and oblivion is indeed deliberate. Consider the way in which Britain “forgot” its own understanding of the Balfour Declaration. In 1922, an earlier British “white paper” interpreted the declaration in light of postwar conditions. Its key determination was that the Jewish people “should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance.” The mandate then interpreted the declaration to mean that the country’s nationality law should be “framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

The Balfour Declaration may or may not have implied a Jewish state, but by affirming the right of any Jew to call Palestine home, it changed the status of the Jewish people. There was one small spot on the globe in which Jews had a natural right to take up abode, by virtue of their “historic connection.” (The Balfour Declaration thus anticipated Israel’s own “Law of Return” of 1950, guaranteeing that “every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.”)

In issuing yet another “white paper” in 1939, the British took theopposite position. That document stipulated that after a five-year period of reduced immigration, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.” The Jewish right had disappeared; Jews would henceforth be in Palestine on (Arab) sufferance.

The British justification? Between 1922 and 1939, the British had admitted 300,000 Jews to Palestine, and Jews now formed a third of the population. Wasn’t that enough?

At that time, there were 9.7 million Jews in Europe. Six years later, six million of them were dead, and even then the British were determined to keep the remnant out of Palestine. They reasoned that if the Jewish proportion was held to a third of the population, the Jews would never be able to found a state. And so the British “forgot” their own determination of 1922, that the Jewish people was in Palestine “as of right.”

In the end, a third of Palestine’s population, comprising 600,000 determined Jews, was enough to found Israel even in the teeth of pan-Arab opposition and British hostility. The act of reminding, with which Rostow credits me, should be commended to Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been invited to London by Theresa May, the British prime minister, to “mark” the Balfour centennial. Netanyahu should be sure to link the history of 1917 to that of 1939. The former is a noble chapter; the latter, a shameful one.

Al-Shabaab Complains About ‘Fake News,’ Anonymous Sourcing Terror group makes case for Sharia-compliant journalism after couple who left Shabaab tell all. By Bridget Johnson

Al-Shabaab issued a lengthy slam against a report that the group decried as fake news, laying out a Sharia case against using anonymous sourcing and trying to shore up their defense with a list of terror leaders who think they’re great.

The terror group is taking issue with “Why My Wife and I Left Shabab in Somalia,” a two-part Skype interview featuring two Europeans, unnamed and with their faces covered and voices altered, who described life with the terror group and their imprisonment upon attempting to flee Al-Shabaab. The interviews were posted by New Yorker Bilal Abdul Kareem, who runs a video channel called On the Ground News.

Shabaab expresses “dismay” that the lengthy interviews were “nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations and sweeping statements that sought to delegitimize the Mujahideen of East Africa by portraying them as an oppressive band of crooks and criminals,” and accused “brother Bilal” of deviation from “the expected journalistic integrity and Islamic etiquettes required from a Muslim reporter.”

In a document penned earlier this month by Abu Muhammad Al-Muhajir — he says he came from another country and has fought with Al-Shabaab for nearly a decade — and distributed online by al-Qaeda’s Global Islamic Media Front, the group then lays out what they believe to be those journalistic standards.

“Entertaining allegations and presenting them as facts without double-checking their veracity is something unjustified, both from a Shari’ah as well as from a journalistic perspective,” the document states, accusing the video site of giving the couple “a platform to spread a one-sided, gloomy depiction of the Jihad in East Africa.”

Al-Shabaab’s second piece of advice says it’s against Islamic law to use anonymous or obscured sourcing.

“Of course, one might argue that hiding their identities was done out of concern for their safety. The rules, however, are binding considering the harmful effects of accepting disparaging testimonies from anonymous sources,” Al-Muhajir writes.

“For argument’s sake, even if the identities of these individuals were known to the reporter, then that still would not justify accepting their version of events to be true without verifying them, for that would be great injustice and bias,” the document continues. “Furthermore, it is imperative to ask ourselves, is the disparagement of these two unknown individuals enough to discredit an established Jihadi organization that has been recognized, recommended and respected by the senior leadership of all the Jihadi groups worldwide?”

“This is a group that has been praised by the likes of Shaikh Osama ibn Laden, Shaikh Abu Basir Nasir Al-Wuhayshi, Shaikh Abu Umar al-Baghdadi, Shaikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, Shaikh Abu Yahya Al-Libi, Shaikh Anwar Al-Awlaki, Shaikh Mustafa Abu Yazid, Shaikh Ayman Ad-Dhawahiri and others. Is it therefore logical or acceptable from a Shari’ah standpoint, for brother Bilal to cast away the praise and recommendations of such revered Islamic leaders based on the accusations of two anonymous individuals?”

Al-Muhajir also questioned whether the couple were “coerced by the apostate intelligence agencies” after leaving Al-Shabaab and whether they were part of a “new media strategy” against jihadists.

“Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations and the damaging consequences they may cause, it would have been befitting for brother Bilal to carefully scrutinize the profile of Abdurahman ‘Doe’ and Saffiyah ‘Doe’ to know whether these anonymous individuals were trustworthy sources of information before disseminating their narratives to the world as facts,” the document adds.

Later on, the author admits that Al-Shabaab, as in “every Jihadi arena,” acknowledges “mistakes which have occurred and will continue to occur because error is something innate in human nature,” but insists mistakes — “if we were to hypothetically say that innocent people were killed during some of [Al-Shabaab’s] military operations” — don’t “render their Jihad illegitimate.”

The group claims that the couple were detained because the terror organization was trying to find a safe route by which they could go home. Al-Muhajir then complains that the couple didn’t talk about crimes against Muslims by “Crusaders” during their hourlong interview, “as if the couples’ personal dilemma is more important than the greater struggle” of jihad.

“In Islam, there is absolutely no room for entertaining unfounded accusations and merely claiming that ‘everyone knows’ will never hold water in the court of Shari’ah,” adds the rebuttal.CONTINUE AT SITE

Cyberattacks Hit Major Companies Across Globe Experts said the attacks, which hit Merck, Rosneft and others, appeared to be ransomware By Robert McMillan, David Gauthier-Villars and James Marson

Cyberattacks wreaked havoc across Europe and the U.S. on Tuesday in a confidence-shaking attack that appeared to stem in part from an obscure Ukrainian tax software product.

The virus, whose victims included major global companies from Merck MRK -0.58% & Co. to PAO Rosneft , bore similarities to last month’s global ransomware attack but was in some ways more insidious, security experts say.

The attack, which security experts dubbed Petya, exposed fresh weakness in the computer systems that run modern-day societies as the virus rapidly spread unimpeded across Ukraine, Russia and other European and U.S. locations.

Researchers were still investigating late on Tuesday the source of the outbreak, which locked digital files and demanded payment for them to be returned at more than 100 companies and institutions.

But two companies investigating the outbreak say that a software update from Kiev-based Intellekt Servis was a principal—and inadvertent—source. The company described itself as a victim of Tuesday’s attack, saying the virus had disrupted its own operations. It said that when it released its latest software on June 22 it didn’t contain any virus.

Some experts disagreed with that assessment. The software was pushed out to customers five days ago and then quietly spread within corporate networks before being triggered on Tuesday, said Craig Williams, security outreach manager with Cisco Systems Inc., a networking hardware company, Kaspersky Lab ZAO, an antivirus company, also cited Intellekt Servis as a main source of the outbreak but saw no evidence of triggering mechanism.

The cyber security department of Ukraine’s national police warned on its Facebook page that preliminary analysis suggested the accounting software was “only one of the vectors of the attack.” The Russian security firm Group-IB agreed, saying it saw companies infected via malicious email attachments. CONTINUE AT SITE

Auto Da Fé Car-fire jihad comes to Oslo. Bruce Bawer

As one major European city after another gives way to the invader, one measure of how far along the conquest has advanced is the frequency of car-burnings.

These acts of arson are especially common on one annual holiday – New Year’s Eve – and during one season, namely summer. Earlier this year Robert Spencer quoted an article that traced the “custom” of European car burnings back to “Strasbourg, Germany and eastern France during the 1990’s.” They’re since spread elsewhere, notably to Muslim neighborhoods in the Swedish cities of Stockholm Gothenburg, and Malmö. They’re also especially big in Paris and other French cities, where in on New Years Eve 2012-13, at least 1,193 cars were torched.

On January 3, 2013, Time ran a piece by Bruce Crumley that, bizarrely, made light of all the car-burning. “Burn out the old year; torch in the new,” Crumley began, joking that France had kicked off 2013 “in its uniquely pyromaniac fashion.” He quipped about “France’s distinctive car-burning penchant,” about its “auto roasts,” about “flame-happy France,” about France’s “flaming-auto fetish.” Although Crumley brushed up against the truth – referring euphemistically to the fact that all these acts were taking place in “disadvantaged areas” and the so-called “projects” – he was careful to avoid using the word “Islam” or “Muslim.” No, the whole point of his piece was to spin the annual car fires as a quirky French tradition.

But then it’s par for the course for journalists, politicians, and police spokespeople alike to treat these car fires as a joke, a quirk, a temporary problem, a minor inconvenience – and, most important, to pretend not to know who’s setting them and why. “This crime is very hard to investigate,” said Malmö cop Lars Forstell last January. “We don’t see any patterns and we don’t have any suspects.” Last August, responding to the fact that car-burning was now becoming a familiar activity in Copenhagen, police spokesman Rasmus Bernt Skovsgaard said, “It is still too early to say anything on the extent to which this could have a connection to the fires that have happened in Sweden.” A month later, in a report on the Copenhagen car-burnings, the New York Times quoted a Danish detective inspector, Jens Moller Jensen, as saying: “It is a mystery why this is happening, and there has been a big increase over the last few months and that is worrying.” Jensen added: “I am working on several hypotheses….One theory is that cars in Denmark are being burned by individuals from an angry underclass in a country where far-right groups have organized bitter protests against immigration, calling it a threat to the nation’s identity.” In other words, the firebugs are immigrants whose feelings have been hurt by far-right bigotry. So the fires are, ultimately, the fault of Islamophobes.

Routinely, the mainstream media attribute the car fires to unnamed perpetrators whom they vaguely identify as “youths” and “hooligans.” Last September, the Atlantic’s urban-policy website, CityLab, actually ran a piece headlined “The Mystery of Scandinavia’s Car-Burning Spree.” Noting that dozens of cars had been set ablaze over the summer in Stockholm, Gothenberg, and Malmö, and that Copenhagen was now not far behind, author Feargus O’Sullivan spent 500 words puzzling over the phenomenon. What could possibly be the cause of all this arson? After all, “no particular group [was] claiming responsibility.” Could car owners themselves be doing this to collect insurance money? Could these crimes be “an expression of rage from young men who see no other outlet for it, or find that the attention it gets them a kick”? Like Crumley, O’Sullivan then brushed against the truth, noting that the car burnings “have mainly been concentrated in relatively deprived areas such as Malmö’s Rosengård, neighborhoods where social and ethnic segregation and a perceived lack of opportunities have left many young people, especially those from a non-Swedish background, frustrated that their futures are being overlooked.” In short, the car burnings are a cry for help by those who’ve been “deprived” and “overlooked.”

Our World: The PLO’s IDF lobbyists Caroline Glick

Should the United States pay Palestinian terrorists? For the overwhelming majority of Americans and Israelis this is a rhetorical question.

The position of the American people was made clear – yet again – last week when US President Donald Trump’s senior envoys Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt met with Palestinian Authority chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and repeated Trump’s demand that the PA cut off the payments.
Not only did Abbas reject their demand, he reportedly accused the presidential envoys of working as Israeli agents.

Abbas’s treatment of Kushner and Greenblatt was in line with his refusal to even meet with US Ambassador David Friedman, reportedly because he doesn’t like Friedman’s views.

The most amazing aspect of Abbas’s contemptuous treatment of the Trump administration is that he abuses Trump and his senior advisers while demanding that Trump continue funding him in excess of half a billion dollars a year, and do so in contravention of the will of the Republican-controlled Congress.

Abbas’s meeting last week took place as the Taylor Force Act makes its way through Congress.

Named for Taylor Force, the West Point graduate and US army veteran who was murdered in March 2016 in Tel Aviv by a Palestinian terrorist, the Taylor Force Act will end US funding of the PA until it ends its payments to terrorists and their families – including the family of Force’s murderer Bashar Masalha.

The Taylor Force Act enjoys bipartisan majority support in both the House and the Senate. It is also supported by the Israeli government.

Given the stakes, what could possibly have possessed Abbas to believe he can get away with mistreating Trump and his envoys? Who does he think will save him from Congress and the White House? Enter Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), stage left.

CIS is a consortium of 260 left-wing retired security brass. It formed just before the 2015 elections. CIS refuses to reveal its funding sources. Several of its most visible members worked with the Obama administration through the George Soros-funded Center for a New American Security.

Since its inception, CIS has effectively served as a PLO lobby. It supports Israeli land giveaways and insists that Israel can do without a defensible eastern border.

Last Wednesday CIS released a common-sense defying statement opposing the Taylor Force Act.

The generals mind-numbingly insisted the US must continue paying the terrorism-financing PA because Israel needs the help of the terrorism-incentivizing PA to fight the terrorists the PA incentivizes. If the US cuts off funding to the PA because it incentivizes terrorism, then the PA will refuse to cooperate with Israel in fighting the terrorism it incentivizes.

If you fail to follow this logic, well, you don’t have what it takes to be an Israeli general.

Time for a U.S.–India Rebalance Trump and Modi could forge a defining partnership for the next century. By Arthur Herman & Husain Haqqani

The meeting this week between President Trump and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi could be one of the most important of the Trump presidency. Certainly the time is ripe for a major transformation of U.S.–Indian relations, and both Modi and Trump are uniquely positioned to bring it about. They must overcome domestic political distractions to forge what could be a defining partnership for the next century.

Both men are deeply committed to the interests of their countries, and both see the need to expand the economic opportunities that flow from modern post-industrial growth (in India’s case, estimated to be almost 7.5 percent this year) to the entire society. Both also lead countries that share many of the common cultural characteristics of the Anglosphere, including the English language and a belief in the rule of law and constitutional democracy. Both countries combine rich ethnic and religious diversity with a strong sense of national pride.

The U.S. and India also confront similar challenges on the international front. Both face the daily threat of Islamist terrorism, with the horrors of 9/11 and the attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando paralleled by the deadly assault in Mumbai in 2008 that killed or injured more than 500 people, including several Americans. The terrorists who threaten both countries also share a sanctuary — namely, Pakistan — that has provided safe haven for groups responsible for terrorist strikes in India as well as for attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Both also confront the rise of an aggressive, militarized China. Beijing’s efforts to push the U.S. Navy out of the East China and South China Seas are matched by its growing geopolitical presence in the Indian Ocean. In addition to massing formidable military forces on its common border with India, China has plans for a major naval base at Gwadar, Pakistan, which would bring it to the doorstep of the Persian Gulf. China’s multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects in Pakistan, part of the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, also expand China’s reach to India’s western doorstep.

Fortunately, Prime Minister Modi fully understands the extent of the China challenge and the importance of the U.S. strategic partnership as a counterbalance. Now it’s time for the U.S. to step up and assume the role of partner and guide.

The first step would be to encourage more energy trade and cooperation, so that the U.S.’s new oil and natural-gas export boom can flow directly to the benefit of India. Differences over trade deficits and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have masked both countries’ interest in increasing the bilateral trade of energy. India would much rather get its oil and natural gas from the United States than from Russia and Iran, while India’s own rich natural energy resources, including its shale-gas reserves, could benefit from cooperation with U.S. energy companies.