I decided to table this posting for a couple of days because of the horrendous terror attack in Florida.
For all those who lost dear ones in that obscene assault, or who were wounded, I extend deepest compassion. May they know healing.
What is painfully ironic is that what I had originally planned to write about in this post and what subsequently happened in Orlando are thematically connected.
Let’s start with the attack in Orlando that killed at some 50 people and wounded at least as many more. According to a number of news reports, the terrorist appeared to have ISIS connections:
“According to CNN citing a police source, Omar Mateen, 30, a US citizen born to Afghan parents, was holed up inside the club with hostages for several hours and communicated with police on a number of occasions. In one of the calls, he swore allegiance to the terror group that has claimed several deadly attacks around the world in recent months, including the Paris attacks in November 2015 and Brussels several months later.
“An FBI spokesman later confirmed that a call to police in which a ‘general allegiance to the Islamic State’ was made.”
A number of reports had it that he shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he aimed his assault weapon.
While, of course, claims are not documentation, this is enough to make people sit up and take notice:
ISIS, in a radio broadcast on Monday, claimed the Orlando terrorist as “one of the soldiers of the caliphate in America.”
Soldiers of the caliphate in America? Is this just crazy talk?
See this article in American Thinker, which states (emphasis added throughout):
”While the Middle East remains a hotbed for terrorists, we’ve got our own jihad training compounds set up in rural areas across the United States. They are run by an organization called Muslims of America (MOA). Law enforcement describes these compounds as ‘classically structured terrorist cells.’”
Author Carol Brown provides, first, background on the Muslims of America:
”Let’s start with the founder: El Sheikh Gilani. Prior to MOA, he founded Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terror organization. MOA is the American version of ul-Fuqra…
“Gilani emigrated from Pakistan around 1980. He settled in Brooklyn, NY, where he began preaching at a mosque frequented by African-American Muslims. This is where he started to recruit for jihad in Afghanistan, often targeting black criminals who converted to Islam in prison — a source of recruits for jihad that continues to this day.
“Then Gilani took things a step further and set up a terror-training compound in a rural area of upstate New York. There are now numerous MOA compounds across the United States. Estimates vary regarding how many there are, ranging from 22 to 35. As of this writing, states where MOA has set up shop are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
“In other words, they’re just about everywhere.
In some states there is more than one location. New York’s ‘Islamburg’ (located in the town of Hancock) is the largest operation and serves as the headquarters…
“There is no doubt that MOA is a terror organization operating on American soil. It is well documented by the FBI whose records state that MOA has the infrastructure to plan and carry out terror attacks (here, and overseas) and that MOA leaders urge their members to commit jihad against enemies of Islam.”
She sites from a Christian Action Network (CAN) report:
“MOA trains men, and women, to become jihadists poised to attack Americans when Gilani gives the order. Toward this end, MOA maintains a stockpile of illegal weapons. Residents are taught that jihad is their life’s purpose…
“Compounds are completely insular, with their own stores, mosques, and graveyards, as well as guard posts to intercept visitors… All members follow Sharia law and consider themselves to be above local, state and federal authority…
“There are as many as four generations of people living in these camps, all of whom have been taught from the outset to distrust Americans and to prepare for jihad. For some members, life in the camp is all they’ve ever known…”
Then she explains how the Muslims of America get away with what they are doing:
“…factors that reflect a combination of deception, political correctness, and public policy that inhibits the FBI’s ability to do their job. First, the FBI wants to avoid the appearance that it is scrutinizing Muslim organizations and/or is infringing on religious freedom. Second, MOA sets up religious/charitable causes to mask their illicit activities, intertwining good with bad. This enables them to play the victim card during investigation attempts.
“In other words, suicidal political correctness overrides our safety as United States law enforcement allows itself to be intimidated by faux charities that provide cover for terrorists.
“But perhaps the most significant barrier to our ability to take action is the fact that our State Department refuses to designate ul-Fuqra a terrorist organization despite unequivocal evidence that they are.
“…as Ryan Mauro, national security researcher for CAN stated back in 2009: ‘law enforcement authorities do not have the tools they need to search these compounds…members involved in terrorist and criminal activity are being treated as if they are isolated incidents; rogue followers of an otherwise innocent cult.’
“So we’ve got jihad training camps and sleeper cells scattered all across the United States ready to attack. And what are we doing about it? Precious little.”
The current resident of the White House may speak of “terror,” when confronting what happened in Orlando. But he will not say “Muslim” or “jihad,” and certainly doesn’t speak of a “caliphate.” The terrorist who took 50 lives is represented as one angry man. An “isolated incident,” as above. He declines to confront the truth of the situation.
The question, then, is whether the American people are ready to deal with reality.
Dry Bones gets it so very right:
On this subject, I also recommend you read Caroline Glick’s latest: “Is ISIS a GOP franchise?” (emphasis added):
“…as the president sees things, if you oppose limitations on firearm ownership, then you’re on Mateen’s [the terrorist’s] side…
“To say that Obama’s behavior is unpresidential is an understatement. His behavior is dangerous. It imperils the United States and its citizens.
”Adolf Hitler did not go to war against Great Britain because he opposed parliamentary democracy. Hitler went to war against Britain because he wanted to rule the world and Britain stood in his way.
”Just so, Islamic jihadists are not sides in America’s domestic policy debates about gun ownership and gay rights. Islamic jihadists like Mateen, the Tsarnaev brothers from Boston, Nidal Malik Hassan at Ft. Hood, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi at Garland, Texas, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernadino didn’t decide to slaughter innocents because of their passionate opposition to the liberal takeover of the US Supreme Court.
“They killed Americans because they thought that doing so advances their goal of instituting the dominion of Islamic totalitarians across the world. They oppose freedom and democracy because democracy and freedom stand in the way of their goal to subordinate humanity to an Islamic caliphate.
”…The most devastating, and at this point clearly premeditated, outcome of Obama’s refusal to name the cause of the violence is that he has made it illegitimate to discuss it. He has made it controversial for Americans to talk about Islamic supremacism, extremism, violence and war for world domination.
”He has made substantive criticism of his policies tantamount to bigotry. And he has rendered the public debate about the most salient strategic threat to American lives, liberty and national security a partisan issue.
”Today in Obama’s America, only Republicans use the terms Islamic terrorism or radicalism or jihad. Democrats pretend those things don’t exist.”
Here in Israel, as my readers know, we had a terror attack last Wednesday night. There was one man present who was shot in the head at close range, twice. Miraculously, he survived. His father was quoted in the news, as he opined that, “The solution [to terror attacks] is obviously diplomatic. Until we have a two-state solution, we have to protect our children.”
This father is not the only one who thinks this way, and yet his comment – his supposition that terror would cease if we gave the Palestinian Arabs a state – left me absolutely aghast. And determined to counter his “observation” with a solid, albeit necessarily abbreviated, dose of reality.
It occurred to me then, as it has innumerable times in the past, that, in a situation such as this, we see a primary difference between those politically on the left and those on the right. On the left there is a tendency to believe that every problem has a solution, which can be approached via reason and kindness. On the right we recognize the existence of evil, with which it is impossible to bargain.
A few facts:
The attack was perpetrated by members of Hamas.
Hamas has never even pretended to be seeking a “two-state solution.” Says the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, with regard to the Hamas Charter (emphasis added):
“overtly anti-Semitic and anti-West, radical Islamic in outlook, it stresses Hamas’ ideological commitment to destroy the State of Israel through a long-term holy war (jihad).
Main points of the Charter:
“?? The conflict with Israeli is religious and political…
“?? All Palestine is Muslim land and no one has the right to give it up…
“?? The importance of jihad (holy war) as the main means for the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) to achieve its goals: An uncompromising jihad must be waged against Israel and any agreement recognizing its [Israel’s] right to exist must be totally opposed. Jihad is the personal duty of every Muslim.”
By what stretch of the imagination, then, could we come to the conclusion that giving Hamas a state next to Israel would convince them to withdraw their commitment to destroy Israel?
Of course, at least in theory, Israel is expected to negotiate a “two-state solution” with the PLO/Palestinian Authority, anyway, not Hamas. Hamas would be a party to nothing. But what is clear from a security perspective is that Hamas is eager to overthrow the PA; were there – Heaven forbid! – to be a Palestinian state under PA/PLO auspices, Hamas would attempt to take it over as quickly as possible. Then we would have Hamas at our eastern border. That would put a quick end to terrorism, right? Just like in Gaza.
But let’s take a look at the Palestinian Authority for a moment. While the PA adapts an ostensibly more moderate stance, in the end its goals are no different from those of Hamas.
It should be noted that twice very generous (excessively generous) offers regarding a state have been made to the PA by Israeli leaders. Once by then PM Ehud Barak, and again by then PM Ehud Olmert, whose terms were even more generous (a capital in eastern Jerusalem, 94% of Judea and Samaria, 5,000 “refugees” brought in). But they were both turned down. This is not how an entity that truly wants a state acts.
The Palestinian National Charter of 1968 – which has not been altered since – reads in part (emphasis added):
“?? Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people…
“?? Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit…
“?? The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine.
“?? Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it…
“?? The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine…
Sounds rather like the Hamas Charter, does it not?
In 1974, recognizing that Israel could not be defeated all at once, the PLO adopted the “Phased Program,” which speaks of “liberation steps.” Any “step” that paved the way for the final goal of “complete liberation” was considered acceptable. That included negotiations, if they weakened Israel, for the sake of the final goal. As part of this policy, it was decided to give the impression of moderation.
Said Palestinian Minister Nabil Sha’ath in 1996:
“We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step…Should Israel continue [to negotiate] – no problem…if and when Israel says ‘enough’…in that case…we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers…” (www.mideastfacts.com/quotes.html)
That impression of moderation is nurtured to this day in English and there are those who persist in allowing themselves to be deluded by it. When one studies what Palestinian Arab leaders say to their own people in their own language, however, it is quite another story. See the Palestinian Media Watch (www.palwatch.org) for unending instances of incitement, support for terrorism (which includes a convoluted system for paying salaries to terrorists in Israeli prisons), claims to all of the land – with identification of Israeli cities such as Haifa as “Palestinian,” and maps that show “Palestine” in all of the land, with Israel gone.
From the Facebook page of Fatah, the main party of the PA:
The delusion of an America safe from Islamic radical threat, and the delusion that Israel can find security in a “two-state solution,” are close cousins then. And they are both exceedingly dangerous.
I will return to my regular format with good news (which does exist) and lots of pictures, next I write.
Please share this very widely.
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.