Tag Archives: Netanyahu

Hamas Continues Attacks on Israeli Citizens, US Places Sanctions

On February 6th, in the village of Yamun near Jenin, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli Security Forces (ISA) killed Hamas commander Ahmed Nasser Jarrar in a raid in the early morning. Ahmed Jarrar was a leader of Hamas’s Izz al-Din al Qassam Brigades. Hamas praised Jarrar following the announcement of his death.

According to the IDF, the building Jarrar was found inside was surrounded by security forces. Jarrar armed with an M-16 rifle emerged from the building and was shot dead.

Following the raid, Israeli security forces clashed with dozens of Palestinians. According to the Palestinian Red Crescent two Palestinians were wounded by rubber bullets and 7 Palestinians were hurt from inhaling tear gas. No Israeli forces were reported injured.

Israeli security officials held Ahmed Jarrar responsible for the January 9th drive by shooting which killed Rabbi Raziel Shevach on the road near his home. Shevach was in his car when men opened fire on him.

Ahmed Nassar Jarrar is the son of Nassar Jarrar, Nassar was a senior Hamas commander and was the leader of Hamas’s forces in Jenin, playing a significant role in the 2nd Intifada until he was killed by Israeli troops in 2002.

This is not the only incident of a Rabbi being murdered this year in Israel. On February 5th a Rabbi named Itamar Ben-Gal was violently stabbed to death at a bus stop outside of the city of Ariel. Israeli security forces believe a man named Abed al-Karim Adel Assi who is linked with the Palestinian Authority (PA) carried out the murder.

President Netanyahu referenced the successful Israeli operation “determined and complex” in a statement, highlighting the raid as an example of Israeli justice.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh vowed that attacks would continue, referencing the “liberation of Jerusalem” Jerusalem has been front and center of Hamas’ calls for action following an operation on the Temple Mount killed two Israeli police officers in July of last year; and has remained a propaganda focus following the announcement of the U.S. decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Over the last month the US has laid out new sanctions that target individuals and entities connected to Hamas, including Haniyeh. The designations are at least partially in response to news that Haniyeh was the preferred Hamas leader of the Iranians, who have renewed financial support of the Palestinian terror group.

The US Treasury Department placed Haniyeh on a sanctions blacklist that will freeze any US based asset he may have and prohibit any individual or company from doing business with him.

Haniyeh has said that these sanctions delegitimatize the US as a peace broker between Israel and Palestine. Hamas reacted to the sanctions by saying it shows the “depth” of US bias toward Israel.

It seems likely that continued low level terror attacks by Hamas will continue against Israeli targets, as part of a long running campaign that has sometimes been called the “knife intifada” due to the relatively unsophisticated attack methods that have been prevalent. Still it seems unlikely that Hamas would choose to substantially escalate this low intensity conflict with Israel in the short term, as it continues to reestablish ties to its Iranian backers.

Trump Should Shred Iran Deal During Netanyahu’s Visit

One of President Trump’s many achievements this week was repairing our relationship with Israel. The president told Sean Hannity during an exclusive interview on Jan. 26 that he has already repaired these relations that were seriously damaged by the anti-Israel policies of Barack Obama.

Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke on Jan. 22.

During the call, the president invited Netanyahu to visit the White House in early February. The Israeli leader said after the call that President Trump understands the danger of the Iran nuclear deal.

Here’s a way President Trump can best celebrate his mending of U.S.-Israel relations: Trump and Netanyahu should jointly tear up the nuclear deal with Iran when the Israeli leader visits the White House.

This would be a powerful and meaningful rejection of the dangerous nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As I explained in my 2016 book “Obamabomb” and in National Review Online (NRO), the JCPOA is a fraud that has not halted the threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb.

There is clear evidence Iran has cheated on this agreement. Iran also was given secret exemptions for not meeting its requirements. We still do not know the full extent of JCPOA secret side deals that exempted parts of Iran’s nuclear program.

President Obama also promised Americans that the JCPOA would improve both U.S.-Iran relations, and Iran’s behavior. Not only did this not happen, Iran’s behavior significantly worsened.

Iran has conducted several ballistic missile tests since the agreement was announced.

Some of these missiles had the words “Israel must be wiped off the map” written on their sides. Iran also increased its support to terrorist groups, the Assad regime in Syria and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Iran briefly captured and humiliated 10 U.S. sailors and held them at gunpoint last January on the day of President Obama’s last State of the Union address. Other U.S. citizens and green card holders have been taken prisoner by Iran since the nuclear deal was agreed to.

There has been a sharp increase since July 2015 of Iran harassing and threatening ships in the Persian Gulf, including U.S. Navy vessels. Houthi rebels — probably with Iranian assistance — fired anti-ship missiles at American and United Arab Emirates (UAE) ships in the Red Sea last September.

Another reason the JCPOA is a fraud is the fact that President Obama rammed it though without ratification by Congress as a treaty even though it was submitted for ratification by the Iranian parliament. A majority of Congress voted to oppose the JCPOA, including the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Congress was unable to block the agreement because of the bizarre Corker-Cardin Act which required JCPOA opponents in Congress to get veto-proof and filibuster-proof majorities.

But the worst aspect of the JCPOA is that even though it would have a huge impact on Israel’s security, the agreement was negotiated over Israel’s objections and behind its back.

It also was negotiated behind the backs of America’s other friends in the Mideast.

It was an act of extreme arrogance for the Obama administration to negotiate this terrible deal with zero input from regional states who are most affected by Iran’s nuclear program.

By contrast, when the Clinton and Bush administrations held nuclear talks with North Korea, Japan and South Korea were always kept full informed and were usually at the negotiating table.

A new nuclear deal with Iran must actually halt its nuclear program and also require that Iran cease its missile program, sponsorship of terrorism and meddling in regional disputes. Such a deal must use a new negotiating group that includes Israel and other regional states.

By tearing up the JCPOA with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump would celebrate America’s important relationship with Israel and make amends to Israel and our Mideast friends and allies on the dangerous nuclear deal with Iran.

Mr. Trump also would declare an important principal of his presidency: the Trump administration will not will not support or stand by fraudulent agreements that endanger American and global security.

Educating John Kerry and Barack Obama on Islam’s Denial of Israel’s Right to Exist, in One Minute

John Kerry, and Lame Duck POTUS Barack Obama, who have shamefully rationalized U.S. failure to veto an odious U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s legal right to build settlements in its ancestral homeland should consider two complementary fatwas, one written January 5, 1956, by then grand mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Hasan Ma’moun, and another January 9, 1956, signed by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar University—Sunni Islam’s Vatican—and the major representatives of all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. I elucidated the gist of those simultaneous fatwas in a one minute clip from a December 27, 2016 interview with Tom Trento, embedded below:

These rulings elaborated the following key initial point: that all of historical Palestine—modern Jordan, Israel, and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza—having been conquered by jihad, was a permanent possession of the global Muslim umma (community), “fay territory”—booty or spoils—to be governed eternally by Islamic law.

Muslims cannot conclude peace with those Jews who have usurped the ter­ritory of Palestine and attacked its people and their property in any manner which allows the Jews to continue as a state in that sacred Muslim territory. [As] Jews have taken a part of Palestine and there established their non-Islamic government and have also evacuated from that part most of its Muslim inhabitants. . . . Jihad . . . to restore the country to its people . . . is the duty of all Muslims, not just those who can undertake it. And since all Islamic countries constitute the abode of every Muslim, the Jihad is impera­tive for both the Muslims inhabiting the territory attacked, and Muslims everywhere else because even though some sections have not been attacked directly, the attack nevertheless took place on a part of the Muslim territory which is a legitimate residence for any Muslim… Everyone knows that from the early days of Islam to the present day the Jews have been plotting against Islam and Muslims and the Islamic homeland. They do not propose to be content with the attack they made on Palestine and Al Aqsa Mosque, but they plan for the possession of all Islamic territories from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Although free of eschatological references, i.e., that Jews, per the prophet of Islam, Muhammad’s diktat in the “traditions” of the creed (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985), must be annihilated to usher in Islam’s “messianic age,” the January 1956 Al Azhar fatwas’ language and arguments—pronounced from Sunni Islam’s most esteemed religious teaching institution—are otherwise indistinguishable from those employed just over three decades later by Hamas (in its 1988 covenant), revealing the same conjoined motiva­tions of jihad, and conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred.

Recent polling data indicate that these traditionalist Islamic views—espoused, in our era, across a continuum of 61 years by Al Azhar University, and Hamas—resonate with the Palestinian Muslim population. American pollster Stanley Greenberg performed what was described as an “intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” As reported in July, 2011 these data revealed that seventy-three percent of Palestinian Muslims agreed with the dictates of the apocalyptic hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985; included in the 1988 Hamas Covenant, and repeated in 2012 by the “moderate” Palestinian Authority Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who serves under “moderate” PA “President” [For Life?]Mahmoud Abbas) calling for the annihilation of the Jews, to bring on the messianic age. Eighty percent supported the destruction of Israel by jihad, and the need to recruit the entire global Muslim community, or “umma” in this quintessential Islamic cause.

Israel re-settling its ancient homelands in Judea-Samaria, in full accord with the post-World War I League of Nations Mandate for Palestine—all of it—being a recognized homeland for the Jews, is no “obstacle” to a “peace” never obtained despite two existing Sharia states in 80% of that Mandate, i.e., Jordan (78% of it), and Gaza/Hamastan (another 2% of it). The annihilationist jihadism and conjoined Islamic Jew-hatred of so-called Palestinian Muslims, and the global Muslim umma, sanctioned by Islam’s highest religious authorities, including the Al-Azhar “spiritual” leaders of Sunni Islam, remain the true obstacle to just peace.

Contrary to White House Claims, Netanyahu Laid Out How to Beat Iran

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress yesterday shows the depth of understanding and clarity of policy that can be achieved when a leader knows his adversary.

Netanyahu used the opportunity to present the case that the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran is principally ideological, and cannot be overcome with a procedural debate over the structure of a proposed nuclear deal. This was best illustrated by the prime minister’s reference to the dominant role the concept of jihad plays in the regime’s founding documents.

While the prime minister did not quote from the document itself, the Iranian constitution says the following about jihad:

…the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them” [8:60]).

Thus, as Netanyahu noted, Iran is fundamentally a jihadist state. It was completely reasonable to compare the Iranian regime to the Islamic State. The prime minister correctly noted that the difference was not a moral one, as both engaged in terror, massacred its opposition, including executing homosexuals, but merely a question of capabilities. In particular he noted that while they may be opponents, both are motivated by the desire to fulfill violent ideological objectives. The difference being that risk posed by Iran is one where as Netanyahu said, “Militant Islam is married to a nuclear weapon.”

Netanyahu also took a shot at what some have considered the essentially Pro-Iranian nature of the U.S. response to the Islamic State. While Netanyahu did not expressly say so, the United States has permitted Iranian-backed Shia militias to purge Sunnis and Kurds, seize U.S. equipment and dominate key Iraqi ministries, all in the name of preventing the expansion of the Islamic State. As Netanyahu warned sometimes, as in Iraq, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

Netanyahu related the history of Iran’s terror war against the West, particularly the United States, including the seizure of the Embassy, the Marine barracks bombing, The AMIA bombing and the targeting of U.S. troops in Iraq. He also noted how Iran itself has crowed about establishing its control over four separate Arab capitals (Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana’a).

Contrary to what the White House and its surrogates have implied, this recitation of the Islamic Republic’s evils provided a useful segway into a method of dealing with the Iranian regime.

Instead of linking the easing of economic sanctions on Iran to its willingness to engage in diplomacy as the Obama administration has done, Netanyahu essentially proposed linking sanctions to Iranian behavior. Not solely as regards its nuclear program, but rather as regards the real threat, which is the nature of the regime itself.

Destabilizing the region, supporting terrorism, threatening genocide, all of these behaviors which express the fundamental militant Islamist nature of the Iranian regime, should incur additional sanctions, while ceasing support for terror groups, loosening repression of dissidents, and recognizing the state of Israel would be reasons to loosen sanctions.

Rather than a sunset clause that grants Iran a nearly unlimited ability to conduct a nuclear breakout after an arbitrarily defined 10-year time limit, we should be seeking to sunset the Iranian regime itself. We must make clear that they can keep their virulent ideology and sanctions, or they can change, and be welcomed back into the international system.

The prime minister’s speech tracks perfectly with the proposed Secure Freedom strategy offered by the Center for Security Policy. Netanyahu truly outlined the threat on the basis of its ideological nature, and related a strategy to use economic pressure (and there are other methods to apply pressure as well), which seeks to undermine and eventually defeat Iran’s Islamic Revolution.

We can only hope that the administration will heed his advice.