On May 26, a Gazan rocket exploded in Gan Yavne, a region in Israel east of Ashdod and close to the northern border with Gaza, setting off air raid sirens in Ashdod and Lakhish. The rocket was the first mid-range rocket fired at Israel since the final ceasefire of last summer’s Israeli-Palestinian conflict went into effect on August 26, 2014. No one was physically injured, although a fifteen-year-old girl was taken to the hospital after suffering a panic attack.
The Israeli Air Force responded by attacking four targets in the southern part of Gaza early on Wednesday morning, identifying them as “terror infrastructures.” Local residents reported that they were terrorist training camps. No one was hurt, as Israel struck open and evacuated areas in an apparent sign that it wanted to avoid an escalation of violence.
The rocket attack has been blamed on the terrorist organization Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ). PIJ was created in Gaza in the 1970s with the goal of destroying Israel and creating an Islamic state in Palestine. Its leadership has traditionally been located in Syria, with smaller offices in Beirut and Tehran, and in the past, PIJ has received the majority of its funding from Iran. The attack has been reported as resulting from infighting within PIJ over the appointment of a new commander for its military wing in northern Gaza.
Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon released a statement that Hamas, the terrorist organization that currently has control over the Gaza Strip, must restrain Palestinians in order to prevent further escalation from Israel. Hamas already does exercise a great deal of control over the Palestinian people, as evidenced in the Amnesty International report released on May 27 detailing Hamas war crimes in last summer’s conflict. Hamas officials arrested the PIJ members responsible for the attack.
The attack comes one week after Iran completely withdrew its funding from PIJ, forcing the organization’s Secretary General Ramadan Shalah to leave Tehran for Beirut. Jamil Abdul-Nabi, a PIJ official in Gaza, has said that Iran cut its ties to the group after it stayed neutral in regards to Iran’s involvement in the conflict in Yemen. PIJ wants the entire Arab world to support its mission of creating a Palestinian state, which it does not believe it can do by picking sides in other conflicts in the Middle East. Hezbollah, another Iranian-backed terrorist organization, attempted to help PIJ reach an agreement with Iran but was unable to do so. PIJ is currently struggling financially after the withdrawal of support from Iran. It has been forced to shut down Palestine Today, which is the group’s main satellite television channel, and to downsize its offices. It has also not paid its members their full salaries in months.
In 2011, Iran similarly revoked the monetary and political aid it gave to Hamas. Hamas had refused to organize rallies in support of Syrian president Bashar Assad in Palestinian refugee camps in Syria following a popular uprising against him. The money Hamas is believed to have been receiving from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was also diminished because the Brotherhood needed the funds to support the Arab Spring revolution. Like PIJ, the organization had difficulties paying its employees. However, at the time, it was providing (and still does provide) the main governmental infrastructure for Gaza, allowing it to bring in revenue from taxes. It also receives funding from Qatar and Turkey, and today enjoys some renewed Iranian support as well.
A former senior PIJ member, Hisham Salem, recently helped create a new terrorist organization named Al-Saberoon, “The Patient Ones,” which is in complete ideological agreement with Iran. Unlike their PIJ counterparts, Al-Saberoon members have been receiving their full salaries. This new terrorist organization first appeared in the news last year when its name appeared at a funeral.
The organization was called Hesn, which means “fortification” but also serves as an acronym for Harakat as-Sabeereen Nasran li-Filastin, or “The Movement of the Patient Ones for the Liberation of Palestine.” Salem is a large advocate for Shia Islam in the mostly Sunni Gaza Strip, which brought about conflict with other PIJ officials in the past because it contributed to the Sunni-Shia fighting rather than focusing on the destruction of Israel. This organization appears to have been created by Iran, a Shia nation, in contrast to the Sunni groups it has typically supported in Gaza.
Although no statements have been released giving explicit reasons for PIJ’s attack yesterday of Israel, it may have been a desperate attempt by the group to draw in monetary support by proving that it still has military capability and a desire to destroy Israel. Iran has an interest in continued conflict between Israel and Palestine because the fighting allows Iran to extend its influence further into the Gaza Strip by aiding militant organizations. However, Israelis and Palestinians (even those that are members of terrorist organizations) have an interest in a de-escalation of violence: less fighting leads to better negotiations. Iran’s sponsorship of a new terrorist group in place of PIJ is worrisome because if Hamas is unable to control the actions of this new organization, violence could re-escalate and cause another war.
Unless PIJ is able to quickly find another state sponsor, such as Turkey and Qatar, which already support Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, PIJ’s influence in Gaza will probably be substantially diminished and Al-Saberoon’s may increase. As Hamas is currently more willing to negotiate with Israel and maintain a ceasefire, the PIJ is most likely to gain funding by presenting themselves as a more aggressive alternative. Israel’s best interests lie in maintaining peace in the Gaza Strip, because that leads to fewer rocket attacks on its own civilians. Therefore, Israel should not stop Hamas if it works to stamp out PIJ and Al-Saberoon before they are able to find more funding and increase their capabilities. Additionally it should continue to hold Hamas accountable for the actions of other terrorist organizations in Gaza.
On Wednesday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with EU Foreign Minister Frederica Mogherini to discuss the latest developments surrounding the Middle East peace process.
During the meeting, Chief PLO Negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Abbas stressed that he was in favor of resuming the peace process with Israel, but only after the Israeli government accepts the Palestinian demands, which includes the acceptance of the 1967 border two-state solution. This is coming from the same President who less than a year ago said that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Since succeeding Yassir Arafat as Palestinian Authority president and leader of Fatah, The press constantly refers to Abbas as “moderate,” despite the fact that Abbas, Arafat, and a few colleagues founded Fatah in 1959 to “liberate” Israel, not the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.
According to the Arutz Sheva, less than a year ago, Abbas not only provoked his people against Israel, but also described Jews who visit the Temple Mount as a “herd of cattle.”
Abbas is also a Holocaust denier who published his doctoral thesis as a book, “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship between Nazism and the Zionist Movement,” which denied the severity of the Holocaust and claimed “a secret relationship between Nazism and the Zionist movement.
Official PA TV and other media outlets under Abbas’ control frequently describe Israeli cities as part of “Palestine,” exhibiting no inclination to recognize Israel’s right to exist or even the fact of Israel’s existence.
Also during the meeting this past Wednesday, Abbas warned the Israeli government that if they do not comply with his demands, then the Palestinian Authority would continue to internationalize the conflict, drawing in foreign bodies such as the International Criminal Court. According to Haaretz, prior to signing the Rome Statute in December 2014, Nabil Abuznaid, the Palestinian Authority ambassador to The Netherlands, said that going to the ICC represented a “final divorce: one way move, no way back,” and that this move is to be considered “a game-changer, a step after which a negotiated two-state solution may be all but impossible.”
With the Palestinians taking Israel to the International Criminal Court and trying to kick Israel out of the international soccer league, their war against the Jews continues. Despite Abbas’ “acceptance” of the two-state solution, his behavior and Palestinian’s recent behavior, reflect their honest intentions: for the destruction of Israel.
Israel has conducted air strikes on Sudanese military installations and arms factories in the past, as Sudan has often served as a supply source and way station for arms from Iran sent to Hamas. In 2012 combat aircraft, believed to be from the Israeli Air Force, bombed the Yarmouk arms factory south of Khartoum. Some reports have claimed that Yarmouk was owned by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and was producing arms for Hamas and other Iranian proxies. Sudan has had a lengthy history of aiding terrorism.
London’s Arabic-language news source Al-Araby Al-Jadeedhas stated that the alleged Israeli airstrike hit an arms factory that produced Scud missiles and advanced weaponry, a rocket storage site, as well as a convoy heading from Omdurman to Khartoum. The Sudanese armed forces would later claim that they shot down an Israeli UAV. Though the claim has been repeated on the Hezbollah affiliated TV channel Al-Maydayeen and others, the report has not been officially confirmed. Thus far, the Israeli government has not confirmed or denied that they were responsible for the airstrike, as is standard policy for Israel.
Historically, Israel has used airstrikes and other direct action, both in Sudan and also along the Syrian border, primarily to prevent groups like Hamas and Hezbollah from receiving more advanced arms and equipment from Iran. The timing of the strike is particularly significant, as Sudan is a member of the Saudi-led Decisive Storm operation against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, a move which many identified as a possible split with Tehran.
Despite the fact that the Iranian government is the champion for radical Shia Islam and Hamas being armed Palestinian front for the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, the two organizations have had a long history of cooperating in order to confound Israeli interests. Yet, Iran’s support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad during the civil war damaged theretofore close relations between Iran and the political wing of Hamas, who supported the Sunni Islamist factions opposing Assad. At least, until now.
Earlier on Free Fire we spoke about continuing Iranian support for Hezbollah as well as Hamas.Reports state that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have resumed transferring tens of millions of dollars to the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing. The funds were transferred under direct orders of Qasem Soleimani, the head commander of the elite Quds Force, who also created an annual budget devoted to funding Hamas.
Allegedly the funds are primarily to fund the rebuilding of Hamas’ tunnel network that was severely damaged in the Israeli counterstrike to Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli cities, as well as purchase more missiles for future attacks. Despite the sectarian differences between Iran and Hamas, both organizations are dedicated to the destruction of the Israeli state.
Such a move should be no surprise, given Iran’s closer involvement in the Middle East with Iran being active in Iraq,Syria, and Yemen. If Iran can repair their relationship with Hamas, it would give them access to Israel’s southern border. Hezbollah operates along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon.
In response to Iran’s closer ties with Hamas, the Palestinian Authority has urged Saudi Arabia to take a more active and stronger stance against Hamas, even going so far as to request the Saudis launch an attack on the Gaza Strip – despite Hamas condemning Israel for committing war crimes when Israel did the same last year. With Hamas terminating the unity government with the PA back in November, relations between the two organizations are at an all time low. Perhaps Iran and Saudi Arabia will expand their proxy war from Yemen to Israel next.
Russia has revealed plans to continue with a long-delayed sale of surface to air missiles to Iran and the creation of an oil-for-goods swap program. This news comes in the wake of the Iran nuclear talks where eventual lifting of sanctions was discussed. President Putin signed a decree ending the ban on the sale of the S-300 missile system to Iran. A sale of S-300 surface-to-air missiles was discussed in 2007 but strong objections from the United States and Israel led to the sale being suspended by then-President Medvedev in 2010. Russia is one of several nations looking to take advantage of possible business deals with Iran as Iran seeks to bolster their economy and military. Russian Foreign Minister Sergej Lavrov maintains that even if Iran was still covered by UN sanctions, the S-300 missile system is a defensive weapon that poses no threat to Iran’s enemies. That may be the case, but with Iran increasingly becoming more bold in its operations throughout the Middle East, the mullahs are likely to sleep easier knowing their nuclear weapons development sites may soon have an extra layer of security.
Iran has already stepped up support for its proxy Hezbollah as well as Hamas as of late. Israeli intelligence officials have noticed a marked increase in arms supplies coming in from Iran to the two groups. With the recent Iran deal, Israeli officials fear that Iran will have the funding and capability to give even more aid to Hezbollah in order to keep Israel busy in their own backyard. Most troubling are statements made by General Amir Ali Hajizadeh last year where he claimed that Hezbollah had significantly improved their missile capabilities and that Hezbollah could allegedly strike anywhere in Israel. Of course, Iran has a long history of making over exaggerated and unverifiable statements, but their increasing support for Hezbollah is self-evident. Furthermore, Hezbollah was sighted moving missiles to Lebanon at about the same time General Hajizadeh made his comments. January’s attack on an IDF convoy near Har Dov, where Hezbollah militants launched a missile and mortar strike on the convoy, may yet be a preview of worse things to come.
Iran is in a position where they can take a defensive state back home and bolster their air defenses while keeping their enemies abroad on their toes via proxy action, as seen in Yemen and Lebanon, all of which helps in the effort to buy time for the completion of their nuclear endeavor.
Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined the Armstrong Williams show alongside famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz to discuss the ongoing drama of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Dershowitz held his fellow liberals’ accountable, challenging Senator Chuck Schumer, other Democrats, Jews and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Transcript
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Death to America. What impact have those explosive words from Iran’s supreme leader had on delicate nuclear talks as they approach a significant deadline? I’m Armstrong Williams and this is The Right Side Forum. Welcome to The Right Side Forum, I’m Armstrong Williams Thank you so much for joining us. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ameni – Khamenei agreed with a man in the crowd who shouted death to America while he was speaking to, one week ago today. The Ayatollah went on to reject America’s bullying of Iran, a framework deal for these nuclear negotiations is due in three days and this type of language from one of the main negotiating partners isn’t the only thing putting a nuclear court in jeopardy. Joining us to discuss the latest developments are legal scholar, author and activist and my friend, Alan Dershowitz, who is with us via Skype from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Welcome, Mr. Dershowitz, thank you for joining us.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
Hi.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
It’s good to see you. And you look good.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
Thank you.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
You’re welcome. And Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Gentlemen, welcome to the forum. Mr. Dershowitz, let us start with you. When you hear those words, death to America, shall we ignore them? Do they really have meaning? As the White House has said, it’s just meant for a certain public audience in the United States and we should sort of ignore them?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
No. We can’t ignore them. I think history has proved that when dictators call for death, whether it’s death to the Jews in the 1930s or death to America and Israel today, you have to take them at their word. What if it’s only a twenty or thirty percent chance that they would use their nuclear weapons to destroy Israel or to attack American troops or to ultimately destroy the United States with their intercontinental ballistic missiles? Can we take a twenty to thirty percent chance? Would anybody get on an airplane if there were a twenty percent or even five percent chance? So I think we have to assume that Khamenei means it. Right now, he doesn’t have the ability to bring it together, but once he gets his nuclear weapons as this deal would allow him to do in ten years, he would have the motive, the capability, and the opportunity to do it and we ought to stop that. The president himself has said that a nuclear armed Iran is a game changer and apparently he’s allowing the game to be changed.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
Frank Gaffney, I don’t think you would disagree with Attorney Dershowitz, but what should be our response to these chilling dictates from the Ayatollah?
FRANK GAFFNEY:
Not only don’t I disagree, I completely concur. Let me just add, though, this mantra that the Ayatollah spoke of is something that has been consistently, not just the kind of thing that the regime encouraged its population to cite at every rally going back to 1979, but it is part and parcel of the policy of the regime. So much so that another sort of variation on the theme is something that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the previous president used to say, that a world without America was not just desirable, but achievable. And the reason I mention this, Armstrong, is because what Congressman Trent Franks, one of the great leaders on national security in the congress these days, has pointed out is in a recent military doctrine that was translated from Persian, Farsi, recently, there is a reference to something called electromagnetic pulse. Twenty more – or more times. And why that’s so important is a single nuclear weapon detonated by a ballistic missile over our country could in fact take out our electric grid and create a world literally without America. Certainly America as we have known it. America as it exists today. So this is so important that I believe, to answer your question directly, we must stop this negotiation. We must not pursue further this deal on these terms that John Kerry just said, inshallah, we will complete. Now that’s a further indication of how far off the dime we are in this government now.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Let me, Mr. Dershowitz, you know, it does seem as though what you both are saying is lost on world leaders, is lost on the global public, especially here in America. Why is it that we’re not hearing these words and other words and activities of people like the Ayatollah and ISIS and everyone else and we seem to be nonchalant about it?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
Well, I think president Obama is looking for a foreign policy accomplishment. He hasn’t had very many. He’s had some, in my view, good domestic accomplishments. But he’s looking for a foreign policy accomplishment. A deal with Iran, even not a very good one, is an accomplishment. There will probably be some Nobel prizes handed out if it happens. Because we’re kicking the can down the road, perhaps six years, seven years, ten years. But as Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain when he accepted the deal that dismembered Czechoslovakia, he said you had a choice between our honour and war and you sold our honour and you will have war. And I think it’s inevitable that this is going to push us closer to war. First of all, Israel is not going to accept this. This deal – this deal endangers its very existence. Remember that the head of Hezbollah, who’s an Iranian surrogate, said he wished all the Jews in the world would move to Israel so that they could all be destroyed at the same time and he wouldn’t have to go after them one by one. So you can’t expect Israel, who’s been excluded from the talks, to simply sit back and say, all right, you, the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Americans made a deal to put our country at risk and we’re expecting – expected to accept it the way Czechoslovakia accepted their dismemberment which led to its destruction in the 1930s? No. It’s just not going to happen. I think this makes war more likely. It makes nuclear proliferation more likely. Already the Saudis are trying to get nuclear weapons. The Emirates will try to get nuclear weapons. President Obama said he became president in order to impose nuclear non-proliferation and the legacy he will leave will be to increase nuclear proliferation in the most dangerous region in the world.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Alan Dershowitz, Frank Gaffney, we’re devoting the entire show to this very important conversation with Mr. Dershowitz and Gaffney about the nuclear talks and the death to America sentiment in Iran when The Right Side Forum continues.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Welcome back with our guests Frank Gaffney and Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Dershowitz, obviously if Iran is behaving this way and they don’t have nuclear weapons, imagine what they would become if they are able to secure them. Does it concern you how they’re ignoring the IAEA, they’re doing everything they possibly can to make people believe that they’re someone that you can negotiate with and you got the president supporting them in their fight against ISIS in Iraq and you got Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt and all these other Arab nations who have declared war in Yemen to protect their interest there and the United States seems to be lost in the shuffle? What do you make of this latest development in Yemen and the role of the United States?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
It’s very confusing. We seem to be on both sides of the issue. That is, we’re supporting Iran in Iraq and we’re opposing Iran in Yemen. This president, tragically, has managed to alienate not only Israel, but all of its other allies in the Middle East. It’s alienated Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, and I think many of the Palestinian authorities as well. Because it’s not doing a good job of protecting and preventing the region from becoming an Iranian hegemony. Iran is now in Syria, Iran is now in Lebanon, Iran runs Iraq. It basically is in control certainly of the Shia portion of Iraq. It’s trying to take over Yemen. And the idea that with a nuclear weapon, it would be uncontrollable. Remember, Israel stopped Syria from getting a nuclear weapon by destroying its nuclear capacity. Imagine if Assad had a nuclear weapon today that it would use on its own people? And perhaps on the Golan Heights? Imagine if Iraq had a nuclear weapon. Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear weapon in Osirak back in 1981. If it hadn’t done that we would have a nuclear armed Iraq today. And so with its green light, apparently, saying to Iran, you’re going to be a nuclear power in ten years, for purposes of its hegemony, it’s already a nuclear power. All the countries in the Middle East are going to start acting as if Iran is already a nuclear power since the United States and the other nations apparently are giving it a green light within ten years.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
So help us understand, Frank, how is it that the United States finds itself in this situation? Trying to show support to Iran. Iran is using it to exploit – we’re alienating our allies all over the world. Is it ill-advised, do they really believe that there’s the potential that Iran can come to the table and forget about its ambitions of a nuclear program
FRANK GAFFNEY:
I think you have to go back to the very beginning of the administration, Armstrong. And I think it will broaden the lens a little bit. This president came to office with the conviction that he was going to set right what had been a series of mistakes by previous administrations, Republican and Democratic, by the way, in terms of their close alignment with Israel and their relative indifference or distance from various Muslim nations. One of his first foreign – well, his first foreign call was to the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas. He said very explicitly, this is an indication of a change we’re making. We’re going to have more daylight from Israel. He went to al-Azhar University in June of 2009 to go and basically talk to a Muslim Brotherhood populated audience at his insistence. To demonstrate to them that he was going to try to improve relations not just with the Muslim world but with the Islamists. He was silent – as Alan has sort of alluded to, he was silent when those in Iran who wanted to get rid of this horrible, despotic, Islamist regime there were seeking at least some indication that he stood with them. So in every respect, he has been aligning us, I believe, with the wrong side. This business about a legacy is just one piece of it. It’s part of a larger, well, to use his favourite phrase, fundamental transformation not just of the United States but the world. Starting with probably the most dangerous part – I certainly agree with Alan about that, and doing it in a way that is making it vastly more dangerous by the day.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
Mr. Dershowitz, explain to us around the country and especially in the political capitol of the world, what is at stake for all of us?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
What’s at stake for all of us is Iran, a country that knows no limits, a suicide country, a country that is prepared to sacrifice millions of its own citizens in order to bring about some Islamic apocalyptic result, we’re arming it with nuclear weapons when it already has intercontinental ballistic missiles. And I agree with Mr. Gaffney that the potential for an attack on the United States is there. Of course, we have great power and great deterrent force and they would have to be literally suicidal to try to attack us, but remember, they’ve attacked us in the past. They attacked our Marine base, they’ve attacked American institutions. They have encouraged terrorism against the United States. They are essentially at war with America and have been for many, many years. So I think the stake is very great. I think also a Middle East that will blow up. And I think, look, the vast majority of Americans support Israel and want to see it thrive. Israel exports more life saving medical technology than any country in the world per capita. It does so much good in terms of its high technology. It helps everybody in the world. And the idea of seeing Israel placed at risk of nuclear destruction by a country that has said its goal is to destroy Israel I think affects all of us.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Alan Dershowitz and Frank Gaffney are staying with me [UNCLEAR] Right Side Forum on the nuclear talks with Iran. Join us right after this. [MUSIC] [CUT]
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
And welcome back and thank you so much for joining us. I’m Armstrong Williams. We’re back with our guests, Alan Dershowitz and Frank Gaffney. Mr. Dershowitz, listen, congress is not pushing back on what the president is trying to do with Iran. Especially with the sanctions. The congressional black caucus, which is a swing vote, are enabling what the president is doing, you have many leading Jews in this country who are enabling the president in doing what he’s doing. You have the media, who seems to vilify anybody who challenges the president on Iran. They’re making Netanyahu and Israel to be a villain and the enemy of every state. Where is the support? Where will the voices rise to make Americans realise that it’s not just a threat against Israel, but it’s the threat that can happen here in the United States that you so eloquently discussed in the last segment?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
Well, the tragedy is that Israel used to always be a bipartisan issue. And in many respects it still is. Of course, there’s much stronger support among Republicans for Israel. Recent polls demonstrate that conclusively. And Republicans are virtually, to a person, against this deal. And some Democrats are, too. Senator Menendez, who now has some of his own problems, has been a stalwart in trying to make sure that congress has some input on this. We’re going to see now whether or not Senator Schumer steps up. He’s the heir designate to the majority leadership now that Harry Reid has indicated he’s not going to run again. And let’s see if he steps up and does what he ought to do as both the senator from New York and potential national leader. He has to know that this is not a good deal for the United States, for world peace and for Israel. I’m deeply disappointed at the black caucus. I have many friends within that caucus and I spent a lot of time talking to Congressman Charles Rangel who I’ve known for years and I think I helped to persuade him not to boycott the Netanyahu speech when many others in the black caucus did. I don’t ever want to see this become a conflict between the Jewish community and the black community. We’ve worked together so long and so hard and on so many issues and, you know, I am so deeply involved and so many other Jews are in the civil rights movement, I would expect at least some support from many within the black caucus for Israel’s literal survival when it comes to the Iranian threat. So I hope that some members of the black caucus will reconsider and not become just part of the chorus of opposition to everything that Israel seeks because what Israel seeks in this regard is good for America. It’s good for America regardless of your race, regardless of your religion, regardless of your ethnicity. And speaking of religion, the people who are at least of great risk of being killed if Iran gets nuclear weapons are the Palestinians. Nuclear weapons don’t distinguish between Jews and Arabs, between Muslims and Israelis. There is going to be risk to everybody. And I think everybody in the world ought to unite around the checks and balances that our Constitution requires before a deal like this is finalised. Congress must have some input and right now congress is not supportive of the deal as we now know it. The other thing I’m worried about is this, the administration is telling us, don’t complain about the deal now. It’s too early. But once the deal is signed, they’re going to say don’t complain about the deal, it’s too late. But when is the right time? Now is the right time.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
I want to switch real quickly here. Obviously, we cannot ignore what happened with that flight coming out of Germany, headed to Dusseldorf, was it a terrorist attack? It just seemed – It has made all of us who fly the world feel a little eerie that not only do we have to worry about terrorist themselves, but pilots in the cockpit?
FRANK GAFFNEY:
Yeah, as best we could tell from the evidence that’s been presented so far is that you had a disturbed individual who shouldn’t have been in the cockpit, who was being treated for mental illness that should have disqualified him. Can that happen again? Of course, it can. I think that the industry and the, you know, regulators have tried to institute procedures that minimize the chances of that. But yeah, this is the possible problem and we never had an explanation for what happened to that Malaysian jet where it seems as though some effort was made to do violence to the passengers from the cockpit as well. Is this part of a pattern? Is this a couple of anomalous situations? It’s hard to say. But clearly the combination of terrorism that we do know is targeting passengers in planes and these kinds of human problems or vulnerabilities at least make all of us nervous and I think require redoubled effort to try to insure the security of those passengers and that means basically all of us these days, doesn’t it?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Yes. Mr. Dershowitz, we have less than a minute. Listen, if someone decides that they’re a mental case and they hide their behaviour and they get in the cockpit and the pilot goes to the restroom, I don’t care what kind of policy you put in place, it’s going to be very difficult to avoid what just recently happened.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
No, I agree with that. It’s difficult. But there are some technological fixes that we can impose and also the requirement that when somebody has written a letter saying that you’re not fit to fly that day, you would think that the law should require that the employer be notified of that. Also I think some video cameras in the cockpit, some other technological fixes, can reduce the likelihood. Nobody’s ever going to eliminate it completely. We know that. Flying is safe. Living is unsafe today in the world. You never know when you can be a victim of a terrorist attack or just of a complete person who’s not suited to flying. So we have to do everything we can to increase safety, but we’ll never get perfection.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Listen, it was terrific having Frank Gaffney and it’s just a pleasure having Alan Dershowitz join us via Skype. I want to give some love out to his wife for making it all work for us. Thank you both for joining us and when we come back, Marcus Mullins [PH] will be featured among our young leaders. [MUSIC] [CUT]
MARCUS MULLINS:
Hello, my name is Marcus Mullins. I’ve always been a free spirit in the pursuit of making dreams a reality. I’ve developed the patch for people and culture, understanding norms and values has allowed me to understand what is important to them. Learning what’s important to a group of people, you can look for voids in the market. Uncovering those needs leads to the development and the marketing of businesses that are successful everyday. Everyday do something to make your dreams a reality. Read, write, or work on your plan daily. Good things happen through progressive activity.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS:
Impressive, Marcus. Thank you for joining us. Listen, Iran’s mission is to bring about apocalyptic destruction to the world, especially to America. Wake up, America, before it’s too late. Thank you for watching us. Good day.
President Obama called Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Tuesday to inform him that the United States is lifting an arms freeze imposed on Egypt since 2013, and will continue its annual request for $1.3 billion of military assistance to Cairo.
Egypt will receive 12 F-16 fighter jets, 20 advanced anti-ship missiles, and up to 125 tank kits, and will remain the second-largest recipient of U.S. military financing. These weapons and the overall military aid will help Cairo in its fight with Islamic terrorist and insurgency groups throughout the Middle East, a battle for which Egypt has taken a leading role.
The suspension of aid came in 2013 when Sisi, then chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, ousted democratically elected Islamist President Mohamed Morsi from power. The freeze was meant to be modest and temporary, but the Obama Administration, citing increased domestic repression – mainly against the Muslim Brotherhood – continued its policy. Beyond weapons, Washington withheld a $260 million cash transfer, but said some of it would be put towards humanitarian purposes. The U.S., however, has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Egypt in counterterrorism assistance despite the freeze.
Congress has helped slow the aid to Egypt by passing legislation to limit the disbursement of funds and delaying the transfer of ten apache attack helicopters. To receive half of fiscal year (FY) 2014 funding, the administration had to illustrate that Cairo was “maintaining the strategic relationship” and the peace treaty with Israel. For the other half, the Secretary of State has to show that Egypt is governing democratically, or at least progressing towards that end.
There is a catch, however, to the arms freeze being lifted. Until yesterday, Egypt and Israel had been the only two countries able to purchase American arms by “drawing credit from future foreign aid.” Obama will prohibit Egypt from doing this and drawing money in advance from expected FY 2018 funds and beyond.
U.S. officials say this move is supposed to “wean” Egypt from large, expensive weapons that are not conducive to insurgent and terrorist threats and that it will give Cairo more flexibility if its aid is not already allocated. More importantly, this change gives the U.S. greater ability to cut off future aid, making Egypt more vulnerable. Furthermore, because some people are calling Obama’s policy change a capitulation, such a shift could be an attempt to save face with human rights advocates and others who are critical of Egypt.
Prior to this move, Egypt could essentially use American aid however it thought best. Now, all military aid will be allocated to four specific categories: counterterrorism, border security, maritime security, and Sinai security. This fact will limit Egypt’s flexibility and give America more direct oversight over the aid.
The White House said its decision to lift the freeze was “in the interest of U.S. national security,” indicating that the need for an important strategic ally, given the current turmoil in the region, outweighs the president’s consistent calls for democracy and human rights in Egypt. The administration made it clear, however, that this aid does not mean that it feels Egypt has taken the necessary democratic steps, and Obama raised this point during his phone call with Sisi.
The military assistance comes as Egypt announced this weekend the creation of a joint Arab military force at the Arab League Summit meant to combat regional challenges such as the Iranian-backed Houthi coup in Yemen and ISIS’s growing influence. Furthermore, Egypt faces extraordinary security threats on both its eastern border, where Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, ISIS’s Sinai Peninsula affiliate, launches terrorist attacks against Egyptian police and military personnel, and on its western border, where Libya is a failed state overrun by jihadist groups, including ISIS.
Despite significant changes to Egypt’s aid, Obama’s decision to lift the freeze is necessary for American interests in the region. Sisi is not only leading the fight against ISIS and Iranian influence, but also confronting the larger global jihad threat facing the world. Some of Egypt’s policies are repressive – albeit primarily meant to target the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood – but Cairo’s strategic importance – including granting American warships priority access to the Suez Canal, unrestricted flights to American military aircrafts, and maintaining peace with Israel – takes priority today.
The United States will not be speaking at an annual United Nations forum March 23rd on violations committed in the Palestinian territories. U.S. policy since October 2013, when Israel rejoined Human Rights Council activity, has been not to talk at U.N. events where Palestine is the exclusive agenda. The primary issue to be discussed is the 50-day war this past summer in the Gaza Strip between Israel and the Islamist terror organization Hamas. If reports that the Obama Administration may abandon Israel at the U.N. have any truth, it would go against decades of U.S. policy, and leave Israel completely vulnerable to rhetorical attacks by the international community, which could lead to more sanctions and terrorism against it.
Much of the international community has heavily criticized Israel for its conduct in the war despite the fact that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide and initiated the war by launching unprompted rockets into Israel and creating terror tunnels to kidnap and murder Israelis, all while Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
Makarim Wibisono, special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories, described the general argument against Israel and what is expected from the Human Rights Council’s investigation. He expressed how “the ferocity of destruction and high proportion of civilian lives lost in Gaza cast serious doubts over Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law principles of proportionality, distinction and precautions in attack.”
This is a serious mischaracterization of events during the war and illustrates a microcosm of the international community’s consistent blind condemnation of Israel, especially from Europe and the Arab world.
There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, but the U.N. nonetheless condemns Israel for its conduct during the summer war. The U.N.’s anti-Israel bias is not new, however, and is appearing recently in other contexts.
On March 20th, the U.N’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) held its annual meeting and only condemned Israel for violating women’s rights out of 193 U.N. member states, citing the Israeli occupation as the primary hindrance to the advancement of Palestinian women.
Reality contradicts CSW’s conclusion, as Israel is a democracy where women enjoy equality under law. In Saudi Arabia, however, women cannot drive; in Sudan, 88% of women under 50 have undergone female genital mutilation; this does not include mass rape, honor killings, and the countless atrocities committed against women in other U.N. countries. With this contrast, one can only assume that the U.N.’s decision is biased hatred or a deep misunderstanding.
The U.N. has maintained its strong anti-Israel bias for decades and has been a platform for the international community, especially Europe and the Middle East, to delegitimize the Jewish state.
Abandoning Israel at the U.N would be a moral disgrace by the White House that would endanger U.S. and global security. Israel is a beacon of hope in a region on fire and a necessary strategic partner for the West and others fighting terrorism and rogue states.
Just when it seemed Barack Obama couldn’t stoop any lower to undermine Israel – America’s most important and reliable ally in the Mideast – he has plunged to new and deplorable depths. The President has engaged in extortion to compel Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to abandon a position so broadly supported by the Israeli electorate that it gave him a sweeping new mandate.
Team Obama put out the word that, if Bibi didn’t recommit to the establishment of a Palestinian state, the U.S. would stop blocking it at the United Nations. The Prime Minister immediately affirmed he supports such a state, albeit under certain unforeseeable conditions.
Americans don’t want to switch sides on Israel as Obama’s done on Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Ukraine, with disastrous results. We stand with Israel, not with Obama’s agenda.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party won a surprising victory in yesterday’s elections over the Zionist Union headed by Isaac Herzog, despite the efforts of an anti-Netanyahu campaign linked to President Obama. Likud won 30 seats compared to 24 for the center-left Zionist Union, all but guaranteeing Netanyahu being given the first opportunity to form a ruling coalition.
It is no secret that the U.S.-Israel relationship has suffered recently and that Netanyahu and Obama disagree on many policy issues, including the Iranian nuclear program and the peace process of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The disagreement over Iran came to a head as Netanyahu spoke before Congress asserting that the Obama Administration’s negotiations with Tehran enhance the Mullahs’ path to nuclear weapons.
For his part in the peace process, Obama has repeatedly issued strong statements condemning Israeli settlements and calling for a return to 1967 borders. Netanyahu views at least some of the settlement areas as legitimate and considers the 1967 borders indefensible.
These highly visible policy clashes have led to the perception that the leaders have an acrimonious relationship, which has overshadowed the traditional American-Israel alliance.
Whether for personal or policy reasons, evidence has indicated that Obama-linked personnel directly participated in campaigning against Netanyahu. Jeremy Bird, deputy national campaign director for Obama’s 2008 election and national campaign director for the 2012 reelection, was actively campaigning for Herzog. Bird led a team of former Obama campaign operatives with him to help replace Netanyahu.
These Obama-linked individuals were part of the Israel-based Victory 15 Campaign, an organization attempting to replace the Israeli (Netanyahu) government. Victory 15 is a subsidiary of OneVoice Movement, a Washington-based group focusing on Israeli and Palestinian issues that was campaigning against Netanyahu. OneVoice received $350,000 from recent State Department grants, and this funding is under scrutiny.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has started a bipartisan investigation into the $350,000 for OneVoice and Victory 15, especially in light of their connection with the Israeli elections.
OneVoice is a 501(c)3 organization, giving it tax-exempt status. Therefore, the organization cannot legally campaign against Netanyahu. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-NY) wrote a letter in January saying the State Department funded Victory 15. The two men then sent a letter to the IRS earlier this month asking about OneVoice’s nonprofit status. The State Department denies that the funds had any relation to the Israeli election, but many disagree with this assertion.
These questionable incidences do not necessarily mean that Obama actively set up an anti-Netanyahu campaign apparatus, but the evidence does raises suspicions of the Obama Administration’s involvement.
Given the animosity between the Obama Administration and Netanyahu and the ties between Obama and anti-Netanyahu campaign efforts, it is reasonable to suspect the U.S. president had prior knowledge of the effort to unseat Netanyahu. If true, it would mean America intervened in the democratic election of a close ally, in order to achieve political ends.
While the bipartisan Senate investigation will need to do a thorough examination of the evidence in order to shed light on what actually occurred, there are already enough links between the White House and the Israeli elections to raise some eyebrows.
