What she didn’t say


by Tabitha Korol

Islam is a totalitarian ideology, its laws believed to be the literal word of Allah and, therefore, immutable in every respect through eternity. Their adherents are under obligation to “rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy.”  Among the many methods of warfare is lying.  War is deceit, Allah is the “master of all scheming,” and deception has become an artform in Islam. Further, because lying is permissible in Islam, lies are not discernible because the deceiver bears no conscious guilt. 

Although it is true that deception within Islam is subtle and sophisticated, it is only effective on willing subjects, those who already have a root of bitterness toward Israel, the Jews and/or Western civilization.  Islam serves to formulate their contempt and justify it.

With this as background, an internet acquaintance sent an Israeli video to a friend who had taken a Holy Land tour years before.  The friend replied she had been to the West Bank (ancient Israel’s Judea and Samaria) and had
“nothing but contempt for Israel.”  Her statements are presented in bold face, and I will provide the backstory – what she didn’t say.   

“We went to a Christian Palestinian school and heard how the Israeli soldiers terrorized the school children.  The IDF constantly goes into the West Bank to arrest and terrorize Palestinians, especially the young children.”

She was already deceived.  What she didn’t say was why soldiers would spend their time entering the area to arrest children.  Does she choose to be oblivious of the many countries that use their children in armed conflict, 14 noted, 7 in Africa.  Closer to home,  America’s left is using our school children against our country, and encouraging groups like BLM and Antifa to burn cities and harm our protective forces, the police.  Children do commit crimes worthy of arrest, in the West Bank and worldwide, and those not arrested in America may be our own undoing. 

In Islam, the entire family unit is compelled to further the cause of Allah and the Palestinians are notorious for putting their women and children in harm’s way, at rocket launches or on roofs of building where explosives are stored, so that their deaths, whether self-inflicted or caused by retaliatory fire, will increase the casualty count for world pity. Older children are used to discharge ignited kites and incendiary balloons over Israel, while smaller children are placed on road embankments with a supply of rocks to throw at passing cars, often causing crashes and death.  They are also used in tunnel construction, expendable should the tunnels collapse. The children are raised without interests in reading, music, or Little League games, but with an obsession for Mohammed’s 1400-year war against the Jews, willing to accept martyrdom should they go up in smoke.   

The silence of the Christian schools and of the World Council of Churches (WCC) amounts to complicity in the ruination of the Palestinians’ children and the murder of Israeli’s. 

The friend attached a film that showed the IDF handling themselves in exemplary fashion, with one speaking calmly to the five-year-old boy, not harassing or brandishing weapons, while the other five or six were standing at a distance, unmenacingly, not looming over the child.  Questioning is not harassment, and the boy was holding the hand of another, in his late teens, perhaps an older brother.  Of course, the child is frightened because he did something wrong, but had he been terrified, he’d have tried to hide behind his brother.  He may have caused a fatal crash and knew he was being reprimanded – or feared worse, depending upon the lies that permeate their culture.  There is no doubt that the soldier would be stern to make him understand that he’d caused irreparable harm, perhaps killed a child like himself.  He was escorted to the IDF car calmly with his brother, presumably heading for headquarters.  Although he would be lectured about right and wrong, there is no doubt that he would be given a chocolate bar. 

The IDF take their representation of Israel very seriously and see themselves as goodwill ambassadors. The Israeli soldier understands that this could be the difference between a child who recalls a reasonable outcome or one who will seek jihadi revenge.  Research shows that there is a total disconnect between the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) accusations against Israel and the reality on the ground. 

“The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) is now present in the small village of Yanoun,” wrote the person with contempt for Israel, implying that their presence was necessary to keep an eye on Israeli abuse.

What she didn’t say is that Yanoun is one of many Bedouin encampments, often with camels, that settle illegally on Israeli land that is impermissible to all because it lacks infrastructure – electricity, sewage, water, health and welfare services.  America has many areas not zoned for housing, and all sovereign countries are justified in granting or withholding building rights.  The Israel High Court approved the order to demolish the village, according to laws that apply to all, and Israel usually offers alternative housing to the nomads, but they refuse.  The EAPPI, founded by the World Council of Churches, has been maintaining a round-the-clock presence in Yanoun since 2003, working with the Palestinians against Israeli law.  They maintain an antisemitic, adversarial position toward the State of Israel, which includes lying about a mismanaged, Palestinian-caused water shortage.  They appear to be trained in Islamic lies.

One frequent accusation is that the IDF soldiers rape Arab women, a familiar act of violence by Arab men worldwide – again, this is projection.  It is documented that one anti-Israel activist, a professor, asked an Israeli soldier if he knew how many Palestinian women were raped by IDF forces.  The soldier replied, “none,” as far as he knew.  She triumphantly responded that he was right, because, she said, ‘You IDF soldiers don’t rape Palestinians because Israelis are so racist and disgusted by them that you won’t touch them.’”

“Jewish people have come into Yanoun and burned down their olive trees.  The people have been so terrorized that there are only about 50 Palestinians left,” she continued.

What she didn’t say is why Israelis raze certain homes and destroy trees.  Families of murderous terrorists lived in those homes and constructed terror tunnels under the groves to penetrate Jewish villages and murder the residents.  This is an all-too-familiar theme in Palestinian children’s propaganda stories.  Any destruction, therefore, becomes necessary as security as well as a means of punishment and deterrence.   

According to Regulation 119 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations that Israel inherited from the British Mandate (1947), the military commander may order the destruction of any house, structure or land suspected of being the source of “any firearm fired illegally, bomb or hand grenade or any explosive thrown, blown up or detonated.”  Did no one tell the woman that immediately after the Six-Day War, Israel offered to negotiate land for peace with Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, but was refused each time?  Israel did not want the responsibility of administration over the area, but while it was thrust upon her, she improved infrastructure, schooling and life expectancy for the Palestinians.  Nevertheless, Israel began the destruction of terrorists’ homes after the first Intifada of violent riots (1967).  By 1994, Israel began turning over administration to the Palestinian Authority. 

“We went to a Christian Palestinian school . . .,” she said, and spoke negatively.

What she didn’t say is that the ecumenical accompaniers serve the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Palestinian areas.  They report of soldiers who search teachers, harass residents, and close the schools, but never reveal the causes – the Palestinians’ daily violence, tear gas and riots.  Apparently, it breaks the hearts of those reporting that Palestinian children are escorted in and out of their communities, but there is no comparable sympathy for Israeli children escorted in and out of their shelters or hospitals after the Palestinians explode their weapons or themselves in a crowd.

EAPPI fears for the West Bank children who are harassed, but not for the Israeli children who are blown up in school buses by Palestinian terrorists, or for such as the three Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped on June 12, 2014, and killed, their  bodies found in the West Bank field on June 30, 2014 – and other similar events.

The WCC, which trains volunteers to promote boycotts of Israel and engage in antisemitic rhetoric, is funded by several Western governments, the EU, and the UN.  Their EAPPI program, which consists of 350 member churches in 110 countries and 500 million Christians worldwide, has been in place for 15 years, with a stated mission of “Christian unity,” which shamefully includes anti-Israel advocacy.  Their activism has explicit antisemitic overtones, as they have repeatedly compared Israel to Nazi Germany, accused Israel of apartheidism, and continue to instigate a broad-based boycott, divestment and (total) sanctions (BDS) on Israel.  Their numerous lies and accusations include blaming Israel for planting knives in Palestinians who were shot after attempting to stab Israelis, and for attempting Palestinian depopulation.  While the WCC claims not to “countenance” Israel with Nazi Germany, they do not discourage their representatives’ denunciations, and continue to favor boycott products of Jewish “settlements.” 

This warrants an additional note about “settlements.”  The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favor, 4 votes against, and 11 abstentions, recognized that indigenous people (also known as first people, aboriginal people or native people) have the right to the lands, territories and resources, which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired and that the exercise of these rights shall be free from discrimination of any kind.  According to international law, the Jews are the indigenous people of the lands referred to as Judea, Samaria, Palestine, Israel, and the Holy Land, and therefore fulfill the criteria required by international law. The Jews are the original ethnic group that settled Judea and Samaria 3,500 years ago, when the land was bestowed upon the Jews by the Almighty.  Statements to the contrary are political, not legal.

What she didn’t say was that the Arabs from the neighboring states, who now call themselves Palestinians, are the invaders, interlopers, and aspiring conquerors, and the WCC is a blight on America for not supporting one of America’s most dedicated allies.  

One final word about the woman who has “nothing but contempt for Israel.”  We would give her the benefit of the doubt to suggest that she doesn’t know the facts, but the reality is more likely that she visited the West Bank under the auspices of the WCC in support of their anti-Israel agenda.  Once ripe for deception, she is now a zealous missionary of outright lies and half-truths. 

Please share if you care

By Tabitha Korol

PLO and Hamas must hold elections or let their citizens emigrate


The PLO and Hamas should be spurned world-wide until they let their citizens emigrate

David Singer image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 22, 2020

 

PLO and Hamas must hold elections or let their citizens emigrate

The PLO’s continuing refusal to negotiate with Israel on President Trump’s Peace Plan—whilst also denouncing the peace treaties signed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain with Israel—sees West Bank and Gazan Arabs remaining captive to accepting these disastrous PLO decisions without any rights to vote or emigrate.

These disenfranchised, beleaguered and long-suffering populations have seen the PLO reject proposals for peace flowing from:

  • 1993 Oslo Accords,
  • 2000 Camp David Summit,
  • 2003 Bush Road Map,
  • Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza 2005
  • 2007 Annapolis Conference,
  • 2014 Kerry negotiations and
  • Trump’s 2020 deal of the century—reportedly endorsed by Qatar.

Financial assistance to improve their miserable lives has been lost—including:

  • $750 million annually from direct American aid
  • $360 million per annum in American aid to UNRWA
  • America terminating its payment of 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget following UNESCO’s admission of the “State of Palestine” as a member contrary to American domestic law and in contravention of UNESCO’s own constitution
  • $28.5 billion that would have flown from international donors at the Manama Conference held on June 25/26, 2019 if the Trump Peace Plan was implemented.

The UAE voiced its support for the Manama Conference and what it hoped would be achieved:

“The UAE supports all international efforts aimed at supporting economic progress and increasing opportunities in the region, and alleviating the suffering of people in the region, particularly our brothers in Palestine…  It (the Conference) aims to lift the Palestinian people out of misery and to enable them for a stable and prosperous future,”

Hamas and the PLO violently opposed and boycotted the Manama Conference.

Hamas—which turned Gaza into a hell hole following Israel’s unilateral disengagement in 2005—had the gall to warn the Manama Conference Arab attendees:

“We warn Arab states against the malicious activities aimed to pave the way for normalisation with the Israeli occupation and involvement in the deal of the century,”

The UAE and Bahrain wisely rejected this advice at the White House last week.

PLO spokesman Saeb Erekat—expressed his opposition to the Manama Conference claiming:

“there will be no economic prosperity in Palestine without the end of the occupation.”

Tens of millions of desperate people have fled their birthplaces for economic reasons in recent years seeking to enter other countries illegally.

Policies espoused by both Hamas and the PLO in relation to Israel have wrought disaster:

  • Materially affecting West Bank and Gazan Arabs’ personal lives and
  • Wrecking hopes for peace and a brighter future for themselves and their families.

Many West Bank and Gazan Arabs would want to emigrate after Erekat’s depressing prediction—especially to Arab countries prepared to accept them legally.
Employment, economic prosperity and better lives tantalisingly beckon West Bank and Gazan Arabs in:

  • Saudi Arabia’s NEOM project—a planned US$500 billion mega city.

The project includes a bridge spanning the Red Sea, connecting the proposed city to Africa.

Some 25,900 square kilometres—the size of Israel—has been allocated for the project—which will be close to the borders of Jordan and Egypt.

  • The planned relocation of the Egyptian Government offices from Cairo to a new $58 billion administrative capital city 45 km east of Cairo covering an area of 741 square km.

West Bank and Gazan Arabs—caught up in three decades of disastrous decisions and continuing internecine in-fighting between their corrupt governments—should be allowed to vote with their feet and move—with international financial assistance—to other countries willing to accept them.

The PLO and Hamas should be spurned world-wide until they let their citizens emigrate.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

UN Secretary General Speaks to the Press Before 75th UNGA Meeting


Sadly, the United Nations, under Mr. Guterres’ leadership, is legitimizing the Palestinian leaders’ deceptions and exploitation

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 16, 2020

UN Secretary General Speaks to the Press Before 75th UNGA Meeting

The member states of the United Nations plan to adopt a declaration next week marking the 75th anniversary of the United Nations and committing to a reinvigorated multilateralism, according to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. They will also invite the Secretary General “to report on our common agenda for the future,” Mr. Guterres told reporters at a press conference in which reporters participated both in person and virtually. “This will be an important process of reflection and I will report back with analysis and recommendations.”

Secretary General presented a false choice between “global solidarity” through globalist institutions like the United Nations versus “go-it-alone nationalist approaches”

One wonders why the Secretary General is not already prepared to offer his concrete analysis and specific recommendations for keeping the UN relevant in the years ahead. It’s not as if he is new to the job. Secretary General Guterres is in his fourth year of a five-year term and presumably has already been thinking ahead to a possible second term. However, the Secretary General was short on specifics in his opening remarks to reporters. He fell back instead on his usual platitudes, calling for global solidarity to deal with climate change, the coronavirus, a global ceasefire, eradicating poverty and the like. Secretary General Guterres said nothing about trying to fix the UN’s own problems of trust caused by its lack of accountability for misdeeds by UN personnel and its lack of transparency.

“People are thinking big – about transforming the global economy, accelerating the transition to zero carbon, ensuring universal health coverage, moving towards a universal basic income and making decision-making more open and inclusive,” Secretary General Guterres said. “They are also expressing an intense yearning for global solidarity – and rejecting go-it-alone nationalist approaches and divisive populist appeals. Now is the time to respond to these aspirations and realize these aims. In this 75th anniversary year, we face our own 1945 moment.”

The Secretary General presented a false choice between “global solidarity” through globalist institutions like the United Nations versus “go-it-alone nationalist approaches.” There is a responsible third choice that is most consistent with the UN Charter – smart, targeted multilateralism to address manageable transnational problems without giving up each nation’s sovereignty in the process.

United Nations does not have the authority “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”

The Charter of the United Nations, as designed by the victors of World War II who created the UN seventy-five years ago, does not compel the UN’s member states to forfeit their sovereignty to a global governance body. Quite the opposite. The United Nations was founded to bring sovereign nations together for the purpose of cooperating to solve common problems while taking collective action where warranted against threats to international peace and security. In fact, the United Nations Charter specifically recognizes the sovereign status of the member states. It stipulates that the United Nations does not have the authority “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

Only the Security Council has enforcement powers under Chapter VII of the Charter to impose sanctions and authorize the use of collective military force to maintain or restore international peace and security, subject to the veto power of its five permanent members. Everything else about United Nations governance outside of paying assessed dues is voluntary.

As President Trump said in his remarks to the UN General Assembly last year, “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.” At the same time, President Trump stressed that the United States “is ready to embrace friendship with all who genuinely seek peace and respect. America knows that while anyone can make war, only the most courageous can choose peace.”

While Secretary General Guterres speaks in abstract about a “collective push for peace,” President Trump has worked with other nations in a multilateral fashion to achieve real results in the pursuit of peace.

UN’s myopic obsession on the Palestinian cause

Most notably, on September 15th at the White House, peace agreements were signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain. Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain will establish embassies, exchange ambassadors, and embark on a cooperative relationship involving such matters as trade, healthcare, and security.

Inexplicably, Secretary General Guterres neglected to mention these historic agreements in his opening remarks. In response to a question about the agreements, Secretary General Guterres claimed they “managed one very important result, and that was the suspension of the annexation of occupied territory.”  Typical of the UN’s myopic obsession on the Palestinian cause, the Secretary General downplayed the importance of two Arab countries reaching peace accords with Israel for the first time since Israel and Jordan signed their Treaty of Peace 26 years ago. The only other peace agreement signed by Israel with an Arab country was the Camp David Accords with Egypt in 1979.

As commentators in the Arab world are increasingly recognizing, Middle East peace is not all about satisfying the Palestinian leadership’s maximalist demands. The commentators were disgusted with the Palestinian leaders’ reflexive denunciations of normalizing relations between Israel and the two Arab Gulf countries. They are beginning to see through the Palestinians’ lies and self-dealing at the expense of the Palestinian people and genuine peace.

A Saudi writer, for example, wrote the following, as transcribed by MEMRI:

The UN is continuing its decades-old role as the enabler of Palestinian rejectionists

“The situation of our Palestinian brothers is regrettable. For over 60 years, their politicians have cashed in on their cause, and persisted in not reaching an arrangement, in destroying the negotiations, and in opposing every peace initiative, whether proposed by the Israelis or by the other international elements. The Palestinian politician has inflicted this on his cause and his people in order to profit from leaving things as they are, since the way he has chosen for decades was the only way to guarantee that he would remain in the picture and [benefit from the] influx of funds, donations and aid flowing from all directions, particularly from the Arab and Islamic world, into his coffers and his European bank accounts. Today, the situation is different, because the peoples who once identified with the Palestinian cause are completely aware of this manipulation and the way it is done.”

A Saudi Member of Parliament wrote, as transcribed by MEMRI:

“The Palestinians must understand… that today’s Arabs and Muslims are different than the past [generations], for the young generation has gained awareness and can no longer be deceived or exploited. The Palestinians have kept their cause exclusively under their own control, traded in it, and missed opportunities one by one, until their rights evaporated.”

Sadly, the United Nations, under Mr. Guterres’ leadership, is legitimizing the Palestinian leaders’ deceptions and exploitation. The UN is continuing its decades-old role as the enabler of Palestinian rejectionists who still insist on a Palestinian state stretching from “the river to the sea.” This is not the way to move forward successfully with Mr. Guterres’ desired “collective push for peace.”

FILE UNDER FACTITIOUS


by Tabitha Korol

I found The Book of Trees, by Leanne Lieberman, to be an unusual reading experience.  I was struck by  its inauthenticity, as the author clearly had a list of grievances and concocted a story line to convey them.  Her intent was to disparage and delegitimize Israel as a nation and the Jews as a people – indeed to challenge their very existence – revealing her opinion through Mia.

 ***

Mia is the 17-year-old daughter of unwed parents in Canada.  Her mother is an irreligious, Jewish, Bohemian-type remnant of the 1960s; her father, an atheist, lapsed Catholic, and a travelling musician who was often absent.  She is lonely, in need of spiritual grounding.  Alluding to her Jewish grandmother, she responded to a Jewish outreach poster and accepted a scholarship to study in Israel with a friend, Aviva Blume, for the summer between high school and university.

From the first day that she can run off on her own, Mia finds beauty in the endless desert and in the mosque on the Temple Mount and the Armenian church within the Old City.  She disparages all else – Mrs. Blume, who hosted Mia’s first Shabbat dinner in Canada, as “frumpy”; Mr. Blume, as “fat and middle-aged,” although Mia was touched by the evening and the traditional love song.  In Israel, she finds the tourists “dorky,” the Kotel “just a stone wall,” and the wigs worn by orthodox women for modesty weirded me out.”  The young man in class is cute, butgeeky.”  The teacher’s kerchief is “ugly and classes about the laws of kashruth (Jewish religious laws of the suitability of food) are “ridiculous” and “disappointing.”  She is often dizzy, her head aches from clenching her teeth, and she was “nauseated” during prayers.  However, she finds the non-Jewish American guitarist, Andrew, attractive, and she makes a feeble attempt at limiting her association.  The author’s opinions about Judaism and Jews have become obvious.

She takes her first bus trip with Aviva into the Judean Desert, its name derived from Judah, one of the sons of the Jewish Patriarch, Jacob, also known as Israel, but the author has obvious reasons for overlooking the connection.  Also ignored are the 3,000 years of recorded Jewish history on this land, including verified accounts of kings, prophets, characters that define the people, their artifacts and values, preferring to imagine credibility for Arabs who have no historical ties whatsoever.

Mia criticizes a grove of neatly spaced trees that had been planted by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), saying they looked unnatural, lacking the undergrowth of a northern forest. “It felt dead, like a tree graveyard.” She belittles the monument that commemorates the soldiers who took the hill in the 1948 War of Independence, battling five Arab armies that attacked the new sovereign state.  Aviva suggests that the trees were probably planted over what had been an Arab village, to which Mia responds, “I guess they were determined to keep their homeland,” again endorsing the Muslim story line.

Rather than fact-check prior to writing, Lieberman recently reviewed her own book for credibility; book sales are weak, perhaps due to her tenacious bias. Mia cries for trees she imagines have been planted over Arab villages, but not for the Israelis murdered by those Arab villagers, or for diners killed, crippled or blinded by a jihadi’s explosive belt; or for the homes and playgrounds and thousands of agricultural acreage and wildlife preserves burned to cinders by their youths’ incendiary balloons.  She repeats the Palestinian lie of Israeli oppression, and accuses Israel of apartheid, the charges never substantiated.  During the pandemic, the Palestinian Authority continues to prioritize payments to convicted terrorists and their families over their people’s well-being. Even though Israel’s economy has suffered and people have died, the Jewish state continues to send aid to the PA and Gaza.

Muslim citizens enjoy more rights in Israel than they do under Islamic rule.  The 20th century is packed with Arab raids, terrorism, massacres, revolts, numerous wars, intifadas, and suicide bombings worldwide.    Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League, declared of Israel on May 15, 1948, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”  Islam has been the cause of mass slaughter, devastation and annihilation since its inception and responsible for the more than 37,483 deadly attacks, worldwide (to 8/18/20), since 9/11.  They have never declared a desire for peace as Lieberman suggests. and have never enacted laws to abolish slavery or grant individual freedoms. The Book of Trees is a mission in deception for the Palestinian narrative, and it is time to drop the legend of indigenous Palestinians.

The 600,000 – 750,000 Arabs who left Israel according to their own armies’ commands were part of the displaced masses from the Arab-initiated war, and should have been welcomed back to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.  Egypt is 36:1 the size of Israel, Iraq 15.7:1, Syria 6.6:1, and Jordan 3.2:1, and the Naqba is the betrayal by their own.  Lieberman’s hope that Israel will welcome their avowed enemy and descendants is a wish for Israel’s annihilation.  She does not advocate that the 850,000 displaced Jews be permitted to return to the Islamic countries from which they fled at the same time.  Yasser Arafat declared that a Palestinian state would be Jew-free, yet the author and others expect Israel to be overwhelmed by their enemy.

From her new lover, Andrew, Mia learns that the Palestinians are “a poor native people who have been uprooted,” and that they want clean water and good schools – basic human rights.  She does not know that Israel supplies large amounts of water from its own provisions to Palestinians and Jordan because this desert country has become a world leader of water conservation and desalination, overcoming almost insurmountable obstacles, while Hamas-controlled Gazans refuse to cooperate to improve their lot, and use the water as a political issue.  Similarly, Mia seems not to know that Palestinians refused every opportunity to create their own country on land offered by the UN and Israel, and unaware that their children are raised to be murderous jihadis.  And how is “good schools” defined when they teach hate against Israel and all Jews, and how to behead their perceived enemy.  After the Arabs lost their War of 1967, they still declared, NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, and NO negotiation with Israel.

Mia learns about the checkpoints, but not of their effectiveness at apprehending terrorists before they can gain entry into Israel and discharge their explosive devices among the citizens.  Lieberman describes the West Bank as a third-world country, with no infrastructure, their economy in ruins, but appears to be unaware that their more-than-generous funding (among the world’s largest per-capita aid recipients) gets funneled to Palestinian officials, for armaments against Israel and for mothers of jihadi martyrs.  Funds earmarked for cement for housing are instead used to construct miles of terror tunnels, and the elite reside in grandeur.

Andrew tells Mia that he volunteers to teach music and tutor English at a Palestinian school, and he rebuilds Arab homes razed by the Israeli military.  Once again, Lieberman withholds why these homes have been destroyed.  Some were built as illegal acts of defiance by the United Nations against Israeli law; others were erected by nomadic tribes on land that lacked infrastructure and  deemed unsuitable for housing (Israel offers to move Bedouins!); and still others were intentionally demolished as reprisal for the families of murderous martyrs.

Upon seeing the Kotel, the remaining Western Wall of the ancient Jewish Temple and Jewry’s holiest shrine (built in 2nd century BCE, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE), Mia criticizes their prayer customs of thousands of years.  (Doubtful that she would be this respectful with other religions.)  Lieberman uses Andrew to remind the reader once again, that the Palestinians were “violently” expelled in 1948, their trees and groves destroyed, the innocents killed or imprisoned by the Israeli army.  (Read Arab accounts here)   Lieberman’s choices of informational sources are no different than if she had contacted Josef Goebbels for data about the Holocaust.

Despite the attempts to discredit and delegitimize Israel, the truth is known.  Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, an Arab Muslim leader, told the Peel Commission in 1937: “There is no such country as Palestine!  Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.  (TK – The Romans invented the term as an affront to the Jews.)  There is no Palestine in the Bible.  Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”  In 1946, Arab-American historian Philip Hitti testified before the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry:  “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not,” – meaning that there had never been a nation bearing this name.

Syrian President Hafez Assad told Yasser Arafat, “Palestine is an integral part of Syria,” and Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly said, on February 2, 1970, “Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine.”

PLO executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein, said, “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”  in short, its only purpose is to oppose Zionism and this is one of many war tactics.

Of the numerous Muslim-majority states worldwide, they may all have begun as small parcels of land,  no-go zones within cities that expand by force under Islamic rule, but an independent Arab Palestine has never existed – not under Ottoman rule or British rule, not under the United Nations Partition Plan, and not under Jordanian or Egyptian rule.  For now, it remains a myth based on deception, and Lieberman’s book for vulnerable children and young adults a sad symptom of our times.

 

Tabitha Korol

www.amazon.com/dp/B08CP9DMZH  Please note new link, pls change accordingly; thanks)

All Lies Matter


by Tabitha Korol

 

This is my fifth review of a children’s propagandist library book.  “Tasting the Sky” described Barakat’s childhood.  “Balcony on the Moon” covers her high school years and her ongoing pursuit for Palestine. 

***

Ramallah-born Ibtisam Barakat, a kind, intelligent child, has become a thoughtful, accomplished young woman.  She excelled in her studies and defied Islamic custom by breaking free of an early arranged marriage to pursue her education.

In her book, Balcony on the Moon, she explains that she was born in “Palestine,” but questions why it appears nowhere on a map.  Except for the nineteen years of Jordan’s rule over its “West Bank,” it was historically Judea (from which is derived “Jew”) and Samaria.  The name Palestine was a Roman-contrived insult to the Jews, a taunt of their ancient Cretan enemies, the Philistines.

Ibtisam’s surname, Barakat, is Egyptian.  Her mother is Bedouin, a nomadic people.  There is no history, government, language, culture, literature, monetary system, or archaeological evidence of a Palestinian nation.

As further explanation, the following is my abridgement of Efraim Karsh’s The Privileged Palestinian“Refugee.”

After World War II and the displacement of millions, the UN General Assembly organized the International Refugee Organization (IRO) in December 1946.  Only the Arab escapees of the 1948-49 war received their own relief agency with 110 times the money allocated to others worldwide, although they did not meet the conventional refugee concepts.  They were not unprovoked victims, but the aggressors who should have compensated their Jewish and Israeli victims.  They were not displaced victims because they remained in their country of nationality, and they had no fear of persecution because Israel did not persecute them.  Israel’s future prime minister, Ben Gurion, promised them equality without exception, no harm, no expulsion, but peaceful coexistence with Israel’s Arab population.  Nevertheless, the UN blindly registered the false claimants as refugees, a lie, even adding new non-Palestinian arrivals to the roster.

They could not return to their dwellings in Judea and Samaria, Jordan’s West Bank, because Egypt and Jordan prohibited them, and Israel was awaiting a workable peace plan.  Those who fled to Jordan became Jordanian citizens.  And had King Hussein not attacked, there would have been no war, no refugees, and the West Bank would have remained Jordan’s.

Within months of its creation, UNRWA should have yielded control to the host countries and ended UN support for the works program on June 30, 1951, but it didn’t.  The Arabs refused to improve their condition and, instead, demanded increased and improved medical and education services.  The works program became a relief operation for an exaggerated number of Arabs; the mission of reintegration was all but abandoned by 1956.

Seventeen thousand displaced Jews in Israel plus hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed into Israel’s citizenry, but the Arabs perpetuated their entitlement status of welfare recipients for generations, now in its 72nd year of eternal refugeedom.  Each time the Arabs were offered a large expanse of land, they refused and went to war.  They remain in the West Bank and in Gaza, hoping to someday conquer Israel and rename it Palestine for themselves.

             Ibtisam Barakat’s Author’s Note begins: “When I mention that I am Palestinian, I am often asked: but where is Palestine on the map?”  She defines it geographically as an area ruled by many nations, Ottoman governance until World War I and a British military mandate until 1948.  (TK-This was followed by Jordanian control for 19 years following its attack on Israel, until Jordan lost another attack in 1967, when Israel, the victor, was forced into administering the territory.  It is now called “disputed land,” not Palestine.)

Ibtisam continued that Israel became a state because of the Holocaust, an incorrect, perpetuated lie.  Theodore Herzl, journalist, playwright, and visionary began bringing the centuries of love of Zion (Israel) to the world in the 1800s.  Ibtisam said that Britain had suppressed Palestinian aspirations for freedom, not true, a lie, and that Israel had been established on three-quarters of the mandate, also untrue, a lie.  The Jews were betrayed in several ways over 100 years, one being that 78% of the land originally promised to them became Jordan, and the Arabs west of the Jordan River declined statehood.  They were Egyptians, Yemenites, Iraqis and sundry nomadic tribes, not Palestinians.  They adopted the term in 1967 to support their victimhood narrative (a lie) with its lure of financial aid and the eventual goal of eradicating the Jews.  They eschewed statehood and independence.

During and after the Holocaust, many Jews returned to their homeland (then a borderless swath of land known as Palestine) and embraced Zionism, the movement to re-create the Jewish state.  After tirelessly petitioning for an independent state in their homeland, Israel became a UN-recognized, independent nation in 1948.  Tension between Jews and Arabs a constant, now escalated, and the neighboring Arabs immediately waged war against the nascent state.

Lest Ibtisam or the reader continue the belief that the upheaval rests with Israel’s rebirth, we must return to the history of Islamic Jihad, beginning with Mohammed’s slaughter of Meccan Jews in 620 CE to the present.  The Quran commands violence.  Muslims must convert or eliminate all non-Muslims.  Mohammed founded the deadly cult of Islam, his words encouraging Islam’s children to relinquish their lives so as to take the lives of others.  Only Islam has this unique fanaticism of a self-sustaining religious component that feeds on the psychological weaknesses of humans who fear the unknown and need a secure hereafter.  This is what drives them to accept suicide bombings, fight holy wars, force conversions, and slaughter humans – the comfort that their view is must be followed by the rest of the world.

Ibtisam continues her story of family and school, surrounded by war and war stories.  She is never taught that their leadership refuses statehood and independence at every opportunity, and that her people’s political narrative of victimhood is a fallacy, another lie.  Just as she seeks independence, so too could her people have done the same.  The key was in their own hands.

In ninth grade, she learns about Dalal al-Mughrabi, the female terrorist  responsible for the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in Israel, killing 39 Israeli civilians, including 13 children, and compares 30 hours of fierce offensive terrorism with Menachem Begin’s defensive actions.   Attempting to equate an act of terror and slaughter with Israel’s self-protection is an invention, a lie.  She learns to create her own newspaper by reversing roles, featuring the terrorist Dalal as the embodiment of heroism, courage and resistance.

With each bomb explosion, she believes that armed Israeli settlers are taking Palestinian property.  She has bought the war of words, using settlers to mean colonizers, when these Jews are the progeny of the indigenous people of thousands of years before who hold the legal title deed to the land of Israel.  Not only can the Jewish people claim an eternal covenant to the land of Canaan given them by God in Genesis 13-17, but upon their return from exile in the late 1890s, they bought the desolate land at exorbitant prices from the absentee Arab landlords who had laid claim to the land under the Ottoman Empire.

Our writer looks back, but not far enough. For her, the conflict began when Jews said they would rebuild Israel on Jewish land, and purchased or restored fallow or swamp land in the early 1900s.  But it began long before.  From the Prophet’s jihad against Arabs (622-634);  to the Jewish tribes (624), to Zoroastrians (634-651), to Byzantine Christians (634-1453), Berbers (650-700), Hindus (638-1857), Christian Coptic Egyptians (640-655), Nubians (650), Turks (651-751), Spaniards (711-730), Franks (720-732), Chinese (751), Sicilians (812-940), Armenians and Georgians (1071-1920), Mongols (1260-1300), Albania (1332-1853), Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334-1920), Romania (1350-1699), Bulgaria (1350-1853), Croatia (1389-1843), Poland (1444-1599), Indonesians and Malays (1450-1500), Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks (1450-1853), Russia (1500-1683), Hungarians (1500-1683), Germany (1529 – ongoing), Yazidis (1640), Austrians (1683), and into modernity – Israelis, Americans, British, Russians, Norwegians, Swedes, Thais, Nigerians, Australia –jihad is now global.  The International Union of Muslim Scholars calls on all Muslims to spread incitement to terror and extremism, for Palestinians to “seek death so as to be given life.”

Certainly, Ibtisam has not studied true Islamic history and she would be shocked to learn of the centuries of bloodshed, and it is possible that she would deny that history.  In Islam, lies are acceptable if the purpose is deemed worthy.  Mohammed set the laws: it was right to take land from others, to steal women from conquered men, and to make and break treaties for conquest.

The concept was significant when Ibtisam was taking her final high school exam, and her proctor asked if she would help a girl who was crying because she had no student enough to complete the questions.  Ibtisam reasoned that this would not qualify as cheating because Islam justifies lying if it is done to help a fellow Muslim.  She did not reason that if this incompetent student is accepted into college and subsequently drops out, the space she appropriated from a capable student is now lost.  The help for one came at the expense of another, and the lie has now become theft, perhaps even life-altering.

The Palestinians who once identified with other Arab countries came to Israel and now occupy land they lost in their war of aggression against Israel, previously Jordan’s, previously Ottoman, previously a host of other ruling entities.  Wars change boundaries.  Until Israel chooses to annex the area, the Palestinians will continue to have meager health services because their huge funds are funneled to the PA for weapons and awards for mothers of martyrs.  Today’s Arabs are tired of Arab corruption and more freely express that they prefer life under Netanyahu.  They want an Israeli ID to work freely in Israel, a parliamentary democracy.

Saudi writer Abdulhameed Al-Ghobain tells the Arabic media that he and others support Israel’s annexation of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.  He states, “There was a call for establishing a Palestinian state. The Palestinians, the Arabs, and even the Arab league refused to recognize that there should be a Palestine state.  Maybe if a Palestinian state had been established, the situation would be different.  So for us to be waiting all these years, destroying our Arab nation, destroying our economies and not achieving anything . . . I arrived at the conclusion that this cause has not been a real and just cause at any point in history.  The Palestinian cause is an illusion … nothing to do with reality.”

 

Tabitha Korol

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

 

RAISED IN UNREALITY


by Tabitha Korol

This is another in a series of children’s propagandist story books distributed to libraries nationwide and in other countries, another facet of the many war strategies used against the west, overtly about Israel, but covertly about changing opinions and accepting Islam.  The facade of victimhood is usually at play; one need only be alert to recognize how it’s employed.  

*****

Tasting the Sky, by Ibtisam Barakat, is a story told through the memories of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl in Ramallah, West Bank, the heartland of Biblical Israel and known through the centuries as Samaria.  it is categorized to be read by Middle Graders, ages 6 and up, who know nothing of the region’s history.   Without guidance, analysis and clarification, they would conclude that Israel is the interloper and Palestinians the natives, and by extension, western civilization is evil.  This is Islamic indoctrination, inappropriate for distribution.

It begins with a sketchy historical note that the conflict over the State of Israel, the background of the story, continues to this day, but the conflict’s origin is ignored.  For over fourteen centuries, Arabs have been following Mohammed’s decrees by attacking and slaughtering the Jews within the land and brutalizing Christians, Romans, Persians, Ethiopians, Berbers, Turks, Visigoths, Franks, Egyptians, Indians, and more, elsewhere.  Unable to deny 1400 years of Jewish presence in the land, the Arabs embellish the discord with lies of shared history, prophets, and archaeology.  But the land has only ever been the ancestral homeland of the Jews, who reestablished their national independence in Israel after 2,000 years, its legality endorsed by the United Nations, in 1948.  Israel also received the recognition of Yusaf Diya al-Khaldi Mayor of Jerusalem (1899), Lord Robert Cecil (1918), Emir Faisal, leader of the Arab World (1919); and Sir Winston Churchill (1920).

To devalue Israel’s legitimacy, the author alleges that the State of Israel was founded solely because of the Holocaust, but that is not the case.  “Zion” is the age-old name for Jerusalem; “Zionism” is love of Zion, and the national liberation movement begun in the late 1800s with the creation of 20 new Jewish cities in what was then called Palestine (a Roman appellation).  It is also the political movement of restoration and return founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897, decades before the Holocaust.  After World War I, when Iraq, Lebanon and Syria were created from the defeated Ottoman Empire, so were Palestine’s boundaries created and recognized as the Jewish homeland.  This is what Mohammed’s successors repudiate.  Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, established 1000 BCE, has held a majority Jewish population since the late 1860s.

Barakat’s personal story begins at age 19, returning home from Birzeit, West Bank, where activist students ignore the barbaric crimes of Islamist groups – lynching, beheading, whipping, crucifixion, castration, rape-to-death, burning alive and other unspeakable tortures – but fight with Israeli soldiers, protesting the “occupation.”  “Occupier” is legal terminology that does not apply to Israel, as Israel’s legal title and rights were established in the San Remo resolution, adopted by the Allied Powers after World War I, confirmed by the League of Nations, and incorporated into the UN charter. Calling Israel an occupier is equal to calling the Arabs occupiers of Arabia.   This is “projection,” attributing one’s own qualities or ideas to another.  After losing their aggressive war in 1967, they self-identified as Palestinians and occupy this land as their strategy.

In the book, Ibtisam is returning to Ramallah, once a Christian city, now renamed “Hill of Allah” by Arab forces that took the town in the first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-49.  When her bus is stopped at an Israeli checkpoint, she expresses fear for passengers’ showing their ID and tickets, although identification is commonplace at border crossings between jurisdictions.  Because Palestinians have proven an aggressive people, Israelis also check for weapons or passengers swathed in explosives, their parents’ sacrifices to Allah for monetary reward.  The naïve readers are influenced to fear.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operate on strict commands that, as representatives of Israel, they must behave with humanity.  Passengers are not raped, tortured, or beheaded.  Rather, once cleared, they are free to proceed.  In fact, Palestinians have begun producing fictitious film enactments to blame Israelis for mistreatment because they cannot confirm their claims, Israelis being known for their morality.  The author even writes that one soldier attempts to return her fare because they will be rerouted to the  Military Rule Center, a detention center.

As her story unfolds, she is three years old when an Israeli soldier comes to their house and allegedly makes sexual gestures to her mother.  Mother tells Father that she fears rape if he returns, but I question why he didn’t rape her right then.  The accusation is possible but since Ibtisam’s story is fraught with fabrications, both the checkpoint accusation and this one might be projections.   Muslim men have endangered the streets of Germany, France, and London, and made Sweden the Rape Capital of the West and India, the Rape Capital of the World. Mother could assume the same of Israeli soldiers.

Israelis are held accountable for their actions under Israeli law; rape is not sanctioned as in Islam.  A noteworthy phenomenon: reports indicate the lack of Israel’s military rape, which “merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”   A Seattle university professor declared at a BDS event, “You IDF soldiers don’t rape Palestinian women because Israelis are so racist and disgusted by them that you won’t touch them.”  In any case, Father accepts Mother’s word and they leave.

As Ibtisam’s bus is en route to the detention center, she ponders her postal box, her foreign pen pals, and recalls her father’s nightmares as he relived his loss of freedom in 1967.  He’d told his children that the war came to them, not that five Arab nations initiated an offensive against the new Israel in 1948.  He excluded that the Arabs ignored the UN and Israel’s decision to designate Jerusalem an international city, home to Israelis and Arabs.  Instead, they forced the Jews out, destroying graveyards and at least 50 percent of the city’s synagogues.  Nineteen years later, 1967, following Israel’s warning that Nasser’s closure of the Straits of Tiran against Israeli shipping and his forces mobilized at the border would be casus belli, Israel preempted Egypt’s action by destroying its air force and initiating a ground offensive.  The result was Israel’s acquisition of the West Bank/Judea-Samaria, the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, and Gaza.  Although Israel immediately offered to return land for peace, the Arab governments refused to talk or recognize Israel.  Father’s story is misleading; the reader misled.

The author recalls June 5, 1967.  She is three when Father returns from work without his usual treats, announcing that Israeli planes are targeting Palestinians, soldiers combing their homes and butchering everyone.  Again, this is untrue, but projection.  (Mohammed’s conquests included beheading the men and enslaving the women.)  The Arab countries initiate, and Israeli forces repel, the onslaught, yet the Israeli government nevertheless invites the Arab residents to remain safely in their homes and become citizens.  Some families stay, but many heed their own army’s orders to go to Jordan or the caves, expecting to return triumphant.  Mother and children escape with the rest; father leaves to see if he can be of help.

Yes, Ibtisam remembers gun shots, air raids, but she cannot name the aggressor, and the reader assumes they run to escape the Israelis.  The child knows they lost the war, her home, and her shoes. and they cannot return to Ramallah.  Her mother is 24,  with three children in tow, ages 8, 7, and 3,  and she soon gives birth to her fourth child.  Father is 44.  At the time of their marriage, Mother was 15, Father 35.  In a culture where there is no loving courtship, marriage is described as a series of rapes interrupted by childbirth.

When a little boy has drowned in the river, they say the water stole him.  We often see signs of Islamic projection.  The young reader cannot alone grasp that Muslims take no responsibility for their behaviors, attacks or plight, and lies are routine.   With the announcement that they “lost Palestine” comes the stinging victimization, not the realization that their wounds were self-inflicted.

Radio announcements of refugees who may return to the new Israel include Ibtisam’s family, but many are refused entry to their countries of origin, the surrounding countries that pursued war.

And because so much of the humanitarian aid is redirected to the Palestinian Authority, for weapons and payments to families of “martyrs” who are killed while killing Israelis, the dispossessed are destined for neglect for generations to come, their victimhood worsened, their futures bleak.  To this day, they blame Israel for “colonizing their land,” when there is no evidence that “Palestinians” were ever an identifiable people, with history, government, culture or language.  They were Arabs from surrounding lands or nomadic Bedouins.

Facts are facts: Jews (Hebrews) are the indigenous people of what the Romans called Palaestina.  Despite Israel’s overtures of peace, unilaterally returning land to Egypt and Lebanon, and signing a peace treaty with Jordan, Palestinians continue their attacks.  Do the young readers see Israel’s offers of peace and opportunities to prosper?  Do they know that the Palestinians refuse?

Back in Ramallah, the Israeli soldiers marching in formation down the streets, armed but carrying Israeli flags and “chanting” (singing), are a source of anxiety and entertainment.  When Ibtisam hears “sounds of war,” she does not know that they are the Palestinians’ ongoing, daily attacks against Israelis – throwing rocks and missiles at Israeli vehicles, firing rockets and mortar into Israel, or youths hurling firebombs at troops who then return fire with their weapons.   The Palestinians are consistent.  They will continue to attack until one day, with Allah’s help, they expect success.  Meanwhile, generations of people endure in stagnant misery and perceived victimhood.

When Jamel Abdel Nasser dies, Father exclaims, “Now we are all orphans.”  It is likely that Father, if not mother also, has his roots in Egypt.  “Barakat” is a Muslim name, and common to Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh; its definition is “blessings.”  When the women of the family gather for the boys’ circumcision, dressed in “the styles of hundreds of years,” the embroidery may indicate their country’s design, or that of the nomadic Bedouin.  It cannot represent a Palestinian country that never existed.

Ibtisam’s family has survived whole, parents and six children, but there are others who have endured much hardship.  She does not  speak of the many victims of the Palestinian leadership’s greed and complete disregard to the people’s suffering.  During the same years since 1948, while Israelis create a prosperous nation, are happy, and live in comparative freedom and security, generations of Palestinians wallow in poverty, hardship, self-pity and resentment – squandered lives with the fear of another war looming over their heads.    This book has hidden many truths, and a new generation of readers grows up to take on Mohammed’s legacy of war, to side with the tyranny of Islam and resent the freedoms of Israel and America.   Rather than reading propaganda, American children should be learning more about the humble beginnings and magnificence of America’s ideals and, by extension, Israel’s.

 

Tabitha Korol

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

Ascent to the Summit   


by Tabitha Korol

Can two men who meet in the name of peace be truly capable of declaring what is right and just for the entire world?

 

Early February 2019 ushered in a momentous event, the joint signing of a covenant, “The Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,“ by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb, the head of Sunni Islam, and the Roman Pope Francis for a One World Religion.  The historic ceremony was held in front of religious leaders of other faiths as a call for peace between nations, religions and races, although historically, Islamic peace is never achieved and it is they who continue to wage war.  The declaration of peace, freedom, and women’s rights is indeed a beautiful document as described by Vatican News.  Yet the imam is one man and the Islamic blood lust has maintained its presence in our world for 1400 years as a tribute to its founder, affecting even its own with intimidation and rules of torture, murder and suicide. Islam is the one religion that has been incompatible with the others and the Pope would do well to question whether Catholicism and the others would be willing to relinquish their own laws to accommodate the one that demands their elimination, in the quest for peace and a one-world religion.

Indonesian Muslim scholars also agreed to boost harmony and spirituality over the violence of the past by encouraging a school curriculum for “teaching Islamic history that contains the compassionate character of the prophet.”  The suggestion is hardly comforting if it is the same prophet who beheaded the 600 to 800 Jewish men of Medina and enslaved the women and children, and whose descendants continue to engage in the same art of decapitation by the sword and bondage into the perpetual future.

Islam is a complete 100% system of life with religion being the camouflage for the legal, political, economic, social and military components.  The Koran is designed to emotionally and physically control  every aspect of human life for the devotee and the kafir (non-Muslim) through mind control via five-times-daily prayers and speech control, as well as through threats and wanton violence. Worldwide, Muslims exercise a disproportionate influence on others and work to get the ruling government of the nation they invade to permit them self-rule, sharia, first within the confines of their limited living quarters but eventually with the immutable goal of establishing Islamic law throughout the land.   They are commanded never to assimilate in their host culture, and to destroy crosses and overtake churches.  Thus are the indigenous people victimized and engulfed.   It is safe to say that Muslims, through hijrah, are making headway in virtually all the countries of the world, although recognizably not at the same pace or using the same technique.  Muslims are a factor in 95% of the world’s wars and gaining ground, so that a totalitarian regime’s signature to such a virtually submissive pact is suspect.

Islam sees itself as superior to all other peoples and takes offense at signs of progress accomplished by cultures that preceded it.  To that end, its goals are to destroy those cultures’ histories and replace them with their own – to present themselves as the original and best of humanity when all others are gone.  Allah’s Messenger said: “By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] ….” (Bukhari 3:2222)

Christians who do not accept Muhammad and the Qur’an are considered the most vile of created beings: “Nor did those who were given the Scripture become divided until after there had come to them clear evidence. And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakah (alms). And that is the correct religion. Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the most vile of created beings.” — Qur’an 98:6  It is prudent to note that while most religions give alms (tzedakah, in Hebrew), and Israel is invariably the first responder to any nations in need of help during natural disasters, Islam specifies that alms and aid not be given to those who do not honor Islam.

Just as Mohammed captured and has since had full control over Mecca and Medina, Islam established a mythic link to overtake Jerusalem, and Rome is in its sights once again as its fourth holiest city.   Vatican City is 100% surrounded by massive, 39-foot-high walls built in the 9th century for protection against the Saracen pirates who pillaged St. Peter’s in 846.  From that first jihad attack into Rome in 846, Islam declared Rome would follow the fate of Constantinople 500 years before, and the Christian basilica would become a mosque.   This, then, is tyrannical globalism and its underlying raison d’etre, with which the Pontiff has signed a peace pact.  Although his is a noble mission, without written rules of agreement and, indeed, trustworthy mutual compromises, it may still be too soon to prepare for celebration.

There is no doubt that there were some globalist spectators to the historic event, who, if included in the event, would tirelessly campaign for eliminating nationalism and border sovereignty.  To facilitate the control of the world population, they prefer overarching establishments, such as the EU (European Union) and WTO (World Trade Organization) to have control and make decisions for all others.  Can we – and should we – trust someone at the top to decide our fuel needs? food and quantity requirements? How about medicines and treatment accessibility?  our education, entertainment, and available technology?  Can the administrator be capable of making impartial, unemotional judgments, and what if he/she allows personal biases to direct the making of decisions that affect the rest of us?  We must be guided by our own local supply and demand issues, the obtainability of goods and services or be overtaken by a socialist economy that always results in scarcity, poverty, hunger, and death.

if one or some of the attendees hold communist leanings, with the belief that man is incapable of self-governing, the stronger master will be put in charge. Such an ideology controls the information circulated, the art produced, the leaders to follow and the thoughts to ponder, and leads to arrests without due cause, punishment without trial, forced labor by humans owned by the state.  Contrary to the Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, private property will be eliminated, goods commonly owned, production controlled and distributed to others, and the freedom to earn and benefit in accordance with the individual’s productions seized.

Judaism has been a persistent annoyance to Islam for 1400 years.  Would the Roman Catholic Church now consider joining Islamic forces or would Islam agree to lay down its billion swords?  Is the Holy Father aware that Islam’s open warfare has already declared, “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday,” meaning, once Judaism is obliterated, Christianity will follow.  Yet, how can there be an agreement when even word definitions differ so drastically?  To the Pontiff, peace is the absence of war and the hope of amity throughout the lands. To the imam, peace is Allah’s blessing to make war against the infidel and bring all to submission, and it is the submission of all that is seen as peace.

Although I have no personal investment in anyone’s belief choice, I am fully attentive regarding their future deeds. I favor the continuation of the Church’s position of “subsidiarity,” which is to support, but to not interfere with, a community’s internal life, whereas Islam has its finger firmly positioned on every aspect of human and communal life.  Would Islam agree to altering the Koranic dictates and eliminate corporal  punishment in its rule or would the pope acquiesce to meting out severe pain for select insubordination?  How would their view change the people’s autonomy over their own culture, health and safety and over individual national sovereignty?  Would any group that’s given complete dominion over how we live, how we conduct our personal lives or our business affairs, and how our wealth is spent, truly rule with our best interests in mind?  Globalists seek a dictatorial society.

History has provided us with many leaders.  Would the ruler of the new globalist world be a Pericles? a Moses? a Charlemagne?  Or a Mugabe? a Pol Pot, or a Hitler?

Does the Pope understand that his new friend may represent his steadfast adversary?  Putting our future in the hands of a few is a decided threat to the United States Constitution.  We have had enough history to learn what should be obvious, that the more power is removed from the people, the more power would be consolidated to those in control.  This is a menace not to be ignored, no matter who sits at the summit.

 

Tabitha Korol


https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

Humiliation, a Pretext for Murder


by Tabitha Korol

I discovered a paper by the accomplished social scientist, Dr. Evelin Lindner, regarding her theory that the humiliation of a people may cause them to react in anger.  The summary by Brett Reeder, Conflict Research Consortium, of “Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict,” confirmed that this was, indeed, her intent.  However, a violent reaction is by no means inevitable, but a matter of choice, and by broadcasting her assumption, she has merely provided another excuse for claiming victimhood.

By the third paragraph, it had become apparent that there would be the accusations I’d come to expect.  With a deft twist, the authoress had crafted two unproven theories as facts in order to support her beliefs. Her first statement, not in quotes by Reeder, was:

 The Versailles Treaty’s treatment of Germany after World War I is widely believed to have been a major impetus for the rise of Hitler and World War II.

Widely believed may be credible, but not factual.  Can anyone seriously posit that, had the Treaty been more reasonable, Hitler would not have risen to power?  His belief in the innate superiority of the Aryan race and its destiny to rule the world would have supplied sufficient impetus for such an amoral megalomaniac.  Guided by his personality, Hitler made a choice.

One error invariably unleashes another, and Lindner applies her humiliation-causes-anger theory to the Arab-Israeli situation:

The treatment of Jews in the Holocaust certainly contributed to Israelis’ feelings of victimhood, which is manifested, in part, by their humiliating treatment of Palestinians.

It is offensive to suggest that humiliated Holocaust survivors vented their anger on the Palestinians, but more notable is that she portrayed the first two groups, Nazis and Jews, as humiliated-turned-aggressor, but Palestinians as humiliated-remaining-passive.   A theory cannot be credible if it lacks consistency.  The good doctor displays her bias in favor of the Palestinians and against the Jews.

History has shown the Palestinians to be violent, not passive, and the question is whether their violence can be traced to alleged humiliation by the Israelis.  To do so, she had to overlook Islam’s entire 1400-year history of expansionism, atrocities, enslavement, rape and bloodshed in every nation they invaded, killing more than  669 million people.  The Palestinian heritage is Islam, and the writer ignored the innumerable pogroms against the Jews, the Armenians, and others before Israel’s sovereignty in 1948.  The Muslim attackers were neither humiliated by Israel nor passive.

Oddly, Lindner said, “humiliation destroys everything in its path,” and it “brings about depression and victimhood.”  However, despite the trials of centuries and the harsh rules under which Jews have been forced to live, they did not succumb to humiliation with anger and war, but spent their lives improving their lot.  They held fast to their identity, faith, morality, and God’s promise of returning to Zion. They comforted each other through the Inquisition, ghetto confinement, pogroms and concentration camps; and once liberated, rebuilt their vibrant country out of desert and malarial swamp.  The small country’s exceptional success reflects their confidence and innovation, energy and industry, not victimhood and humiliation. Life is a gift to be treasured, not squandered.  Given the choices of sanity and madness, the Jews chose the former.  Further, their countless offers of peace to the Palestinians indicate magnanimity, not the bitterness of past humiliation.

Victimhood is a choice that the Palestinians continue to make because it garners cash and sympathy from the world.  Israel recently delivered hundreds of coronavirus-detection kits to Gaza, but Palestinian leaders chose to foster their victimhood by concealing that help from their own and the international community and to condemn Israel for their heightened death toll.

The Palestinians elected to not to build their own country concurrently when the Jews were rebuilding theirs, during the same time and climatic conditions – although the Arabs had the oil money and funds from Europe, America, Israel and UNWRA.  They chose the victim personae.

To verify Lindner’s views that Palestinian violence is caused by the Jews’ mistreatment of them, we must examine the cherished, savored victimhood of the Palestinians and recognize that, as with a painting’s canvas, the personality must also be primed.

Islam is the basis of the blame/shame culture in which Muslims, and Palestinians specifically, are raised.  The social and psychological phenomenon of humiliation is one in which the fault in a crime is attributed entirely to the victim.  This is a coping mechanism of transference, of rationalization, characteristic of borderline personality disorder.  It is found in cultures that produce jihadis, in the children’s early nonverbal communication, their psychotic attachment to their mother, play activities that reveal their traumatic early-life experiences, and their body language that communicates emotional instability, the sadism from their earliest terrors.

The jihadi (or female jihada) has often been described as having masochistic personality disorder, obtaining gratification from the persistent degradation by humiliation, self-sacrifice and indulgent misery, thus creating the victimization.  Described as an unconscious self-punishment that results from the damaged bond with the devalued, hated mother, the jihadi is capable of committing crimes against humanity.  In mass masochism, the jihadis fuse in a non-thinking, regressed group to commit crimes and sacrifice that the population celebrates, a form of mass hysteria. The Islamic antisemitism and terrorism are stabilized in the inherently fragile, violent jihadi personality.

These traits are clearly found among Gaza’s Palestinians.  The boy’s experiences are harsh. In the family of as many as four wives and multiple children to one husband, the sons are ignored by the father and raised among the women for his first seven years, when he terror-bonds with his mother and accepts her worthlessness. It is an atmosphere of envy and rivalry among the wives as well as the children.  When the father does take control of his education, his mother has already exposed him to a painful betrayal, where he is raped and humiliated into submission by other men.  Despite the veneer of Islamic disgust about homosexuality, Arab poetry is replete with the joys of sodomy.

A boy’s friendships and education are strictly limited but they may come together as a group, faces covered, humiliation hidden, to take out their aggression on Mohammed’s sworn enemies, the Jews.  They work in unison when throwing rocks or incendiary missiles across Israel’s border.  Our social scientist, Lindner, appears oblivious of the ruinous upbringing experienced by the future jihadis, their eagerness for death and martyrdom, instead she attributes their violence to imagined humiliation by the Jews.

Neither is the daughter spared her own childhood nightmare.  In such a family unit, she experiences her own terror and distrust of her family when she undergoes Female Genital Mutilation.  The indignation of being restrained on a table while a stranger imposes on her privacy to inflict severe pain that negates her femaleness also brings her humiliation.  Raised in this household, forced into a loveless marriage to an older man and raped at will, the daughter, still in need of motherly nurturing, must be the mother to the numerous children.  Covered from head to toe, unseen by the world, restricted in her every move, can this be anything but humiliation?  From one generation to the next, the child terror-bonds with her mother, has no outlet for calm and affection, no education save memorization of the Koran, no expressions of art and music, no friends or courtships – and no credibility in a court of law if she seeks a way out.

The daughter has a role to play in the Islamic war against humanity.  She is responsible for creating more children for Allah’s army and martyrdom or to emulate the jihadi’s function.  The jihada is exemplified by Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, as well as by the exploits of female terrorists.  Yet we are to believe the Palestinian violence is caused by an outside source of humiliation. 

Ironically, Lindner inadvertently suggests that the Jews played no part in Palestinian humiliation, clarifying that humiliation is a hierarchal, ranking scale to maintaining social cohesion.  Israelis lives are filled with study and time spent in service to the country, and Israeli Arabs have the same opportunities.  They are encouraged to have a career, to marry and raise a family – the very activities not available to the Arab children of Gaza.  A successful neighbor can either inspire emulation or humiliation, the choice is given.

            The Palestinians have been primed – humiliated by their culture and dishonest circumstances. The invading Arab nations were bent on Israel’s destruction, and encouraged and caused the bulk of the Arabs to flee Israel, telling them they would return victorious.  Now, after all they endured by their people, from their people, and for their people, the piece de resistance, the final slap-in-the-face, the grand humiliation occurred when their armies lost and these individuals were abandoned, discarded and forbidden from ever returning to their lands of origin – Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan.  While they saw that the Jews who fled mistreatment from Arab countries were welcomed by their Israeli brethren, how demeaning to be told that they were not wanted, must never more identify with their history, their heritage, and other family members.  They were going to be used once again, as pawns.  With no distinguishing language, religion, or culture, and no lineage to this land back more than four generations, they had to create an identity out of whole cloth. This was indeed the ultimate cause for humiliation, and it was their own kith and kin who did the humiliating.

 

Tabitha Korol

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

Despite DOJ Objections – Judicial Watch Wins Court Order Forcing Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills to Sit for Depositions…


A federal judge has ruled that Hillary Clinton and her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills must sit for a deposition within 75 days (full ruling pdf below).   Judicial Watch won the court ruling despite the ongoing efforts by the DOJ to block their inquiry. [JW Link]

From the Ruling – “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

Here’s the Ruling:  [Also Pdf Available Here]

.

benghazi4

We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the night of the attack. Unfortunately we also know during the November 2012 Thanksgiving holiday a mysterious fire took place in that building. Well, actually directly above her exact office – cause undetermined.

A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.

We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.

We also know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.

We know the Libyan “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places. Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Northeastern Libya.

We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.

We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.

Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013

In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.

We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.

We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.

However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely unaware of the operation, this aspect remains murky.

Both Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place when Operation Zero Footprint began but retired from their jobs in Sept of 2011, and were replaced by Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey respectively.

Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary of Defense.

However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012. Because of his previous role in constructing Zero Footprint, Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State Dept/Cia mission in Benghazi, Dempsey may not have.

We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero Footprint was National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.

With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW” of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward.

March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:

        • President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
        • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
        • CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
        • *CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
        • NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
        • White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
        • White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
        • White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
        • Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
        • Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
        • House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
        • Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
        • Senate Minority Leader – Mitch McConnell (Rep)
        • Senate Majority Leader – Harry Reid (Dem)
        • Senate Intel Chair – Diane Feinstein (Dem)
        • Minority Senate Intel Committee – Saxby Chambliss (Rep)
        • [State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
        • [State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
        • [State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams

Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar). [and later, 2012 Turkey]

Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:

        • Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Sufian Ibriham Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu – Darnah Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia
        • Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Khattala – Commander of an Islamist militia group called the Abu Obaida bin Jarrah Brigade (17th Feb Brigade) Benghazi – Ansar Al Sharia

*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013Khattala was later arrested.

Mustafa-Abdel-Jalil-POTUS

In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional Government Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included in this list of people who knew of operation Zero Footprint while it was underway.

Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.

This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:

To wit you can easily add:

        • CIA Director General David Petraeus
        • Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel
        • U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
        • President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
        • President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
        • President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
        • Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
        • Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes

Focusing on the post 9/11/12 team for a moment:

This photo was taken at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

This photo was taken on 9/11/12 at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jack Lew (far right) was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Donilon and McDonough had just left Tommy Vietor in the situation room to update POTUS in the Oval Office. POTUS and VPOTUS had just hung up the phone.

We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was Chief of Staff at the time.

In addition we know from former White House National Security spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on events.

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June 30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept 2011).

[*Note* it is important to remember when the 2nd authorized CIA program began in 2012 for Syria Petraeus would have been included]

Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If it blew up, it was not his political problem – THIS MADE PETRAEUS A RISK.

We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistleblower” popped up and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.

We also know that Eric Cantor told AG Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller about the claim and Mueller began an investigation of Petraeus in the Summer of 2012 before the Benghazi attack in September.

However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor) informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.

Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.

Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his place.

General David Petraeus and Paula BroadwellLeon-Panetta-and-Michael-Morell-via-the-Secretary-of-Defense-Public-Domain

We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them than Petraeus.

Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.

Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.

After Morrel testified to congress about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the CIA by John Brennan.

We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.

While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.

If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in, “Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.

Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.

Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment avoidance makes perfect sense.

Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.

OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.

Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANT because it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.

Duty - by Robert Gates

A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert operation:

[…] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.

Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on(link)

From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:

2011 […] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.

The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them. (link)

In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta carrying it out.

The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.

We now know against the March/April 2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether even getting involved was a good idea.

The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.

Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates, *knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons delivery possible*:

2011 – […] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.

And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis(link)

There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part of the team coordinating the shipments.

Samantha Power - Susan Rice - President Obama

Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 time frame is when “Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to fully support “the rebels”.

Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc (State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.

Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is ever publicly wrong.

If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.

Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publicly wrong.

Libya Banner 3

Operation Zero Footprint Becomes Political and Legal Risk

It should be noted, and actually emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.

We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in actions within Libya to identify a course of action.

We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.

Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.

During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.

While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint, there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions) flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.

From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House goal in the entire region.

      • Ben Ali removal -Tunisia- seemed OK to the administration, Obama and Clinton.
      • Hosni Mubarak removal -Egypt- seemed even more ok to Obama and Clinton.

Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White House.

However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.

The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East nation – again in March/April 2011.

We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.

Gaddafi being shotDead-Gaddafi

From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.

The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.

The TNC (pictured below 4 days later) may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.

Abdel Jalil and the Libyan National Transitional Council

We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2014), a hotbed of radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the very people who benefitted from the arms that were part of Zero Footprint.

We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the Spring/Summer.

December 2011 – New York Times:

“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.

The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said. (link)

We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was killed:

“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force to Benghazi.

Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya.

[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”

We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.

If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political consequences.

But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).

Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias.

But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of 2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse – much worse.

Syria Banner

The uprising in Syria was only a few months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.

Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous, and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.

The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much. At least in 2011; by mid 2012 that sentiment appears to have changed.

Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.

Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given arms that ultimately might be used against them.

Additionally, you would think there’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And the White House was not about to do a known and official covert operation which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.

But they did.

Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton? That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly.

Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.

Arming jihadist fighters in Syria likewise ended up being stupid but by all appearances NOT illegal.

obama-hillary-holding-hands-wh-photo

In August 2012, one month before the attack on the Benghazi Compound, the following Reuters article appeared. This is how we find out about the SECOND presidential findingwhich again authorized covert CIA involvement, this time in Syria:

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 [2012] (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.

‘NERVE CENTER’

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.

This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.

European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.

NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.

On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had “not obtained any such weapons at all.” U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.

Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.

Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a “memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.

Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.

Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it. (read more)

Note how the FSA says they didn’t get missiles, and yet missiles were shipped. This is important against the backdrop of the reality the extreme elements we now call ISIL were operating in Syria and openly laughing at our inability to identify them:

“NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.

But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.

They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.

[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.

“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.

The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.

In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”

At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”

“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)

Against the backdrop of ISIL 2014 does this Sound familiar ?

It should also be noted this is the exact time (August 2012) when the U.N. and Kofi Annan gave up trying to influence a peaceful outcome in Syria – things had escalated beyond any hope for a diplomatic resolution.

We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.

Turkey would be used as the distribution hub, and the U.S. had Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -who were more than willing to see Assad removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a concern for what could happen to Israel.

For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, against the shadow of Operation Zero Footprint, without going extensively through congress, could be done covertly and easily. Either ship weapons just like Operation Zero Footprint, Saudi=> Qatar=> Turkey=> Syria, OR, buy back the weapons already floating around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirect them to Syria through Turkey.

OR both.

The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.

We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012; and we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in Benghazi around the same time. We also now know this is around the EXACT time of the second Presidential CIA Directive.

Looking at the historical timeline, and knowing the contacts developed, gives a great perspective into what would have spurred the CIA/State Department to set up a more expansive presence and operation in the coastal region of Eastern Libya May/June 2012.

The official U.S. State Dept Libyan presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011 when the embassy personnel were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012 reconstruction phase.

What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria. While coordinating a second covert action to arm the Syrian resistance.

A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their visible cover.

In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the 2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.

Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of any additional shipments.

But there was in 2011/2012 – as noted in the above articles – an ideological rift between the newly emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.

By the time of the second presidential directive, as Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside the FSA. Arguably in hindsight they were the majority element.

The Syrian opposition had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also operated in Libya:

      • Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
      • Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
      • Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues, which later became ISIL, that any diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013. Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global attention.

ISIS John McCain - Abu Mosa

https://twitter.com/ThinkAgain_DOS/statuses/502449737011068928

al-Qaeda with flags

And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was armed by the U.S. inside Syria and Turkey. They were more likely trained, in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence; by the same CIA operatives used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah back in Libya.

If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.

But that’s hindsight for ya….. or as Secretary Clinton would say “Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?

By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus. According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”

The Reuters article in August 2012 confirms the earlier report.

We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun.

The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.

Operation Zero Footprint

In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):

Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.

The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”No visible footprint.

We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.

We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.

We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.

All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’was also covert – No visible footprint.

Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?

Such a request would have travelled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.

Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.

To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.

In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.

Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilables surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.

The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?

The short answer is, we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.

Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?

Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.

The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves.

The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.

It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.

Unfortunately for the administration they are not that good.

Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operations “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.

How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.

The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.

Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the backstory – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.

Back to the FALL of 2012 – On September 5th/6th 2012 the Turkish vessel “Al Entisar” docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. 400 tons of serious cargo including weapons destined for Syrian “rebels”.

In the U.S. that September 5th night former President Bill Clinton was introducing Candidate Barack Obama at the DNC convention in Charlotte North Carolina. In Afghanistan that night something happened that had already become a serious concern for the operatives within “Operation Zero Footprint”.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Thalia Ramirez. Ramirez was killed when her OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan Sept. 5, 2012. Ramirez was assigned to Troop F, 1-17 Air Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. Photo: Photo Courtesy Pro Image Digital;Inc., Courtesy / U.S. ArmyAt the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, of San Antonio and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, of San Juan, in the Rio Grande Valley, were killed while flying an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Defense Department news release stated.

On September 5th 2012 – A U.S. organized ship loaded with weapons including missiles was offloading at a Turkish port. Bill Clinton was introducing Barack Obama, and the first black female combat pilot was shot down and killed by a shoulder fired missile in Afghanistan.

The relationship between the three events reflects the absolute political fear that revolved around Operation Zero Footprint.

The CIA and Intelligence community had stated earlier the biggest concern anyone held about arming the Libyan Rebels was the possibility those weapons might leave the Libyan conflict and travel to other locations where they would be used against our own soldiers. More and more evidence of this happening was growing.

In 2011 a total of four air assets were destroyed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. Two of those helicopters happened at the same time in August 2011 when we lost the Navy Seal unit that killed Osama Bin Laden. 22 Americans killed.

We had been in close quarter full combat operations in Afghanistan for 10 years, and we never had a problem with close air support. We had never faced the concern of our enemy having MANPADS.

From 2002 through 2010 Combat Operations saw zero occurrences of SAMS, Stingers, or MANPADS in general.

Within months after delivering weapons to the Benghazi and Darnah rebels (May, June and July 2011) we began facing MANPADS in Afghanistan.

Four instances in late in 2011 including the 22 lives lost in what came to be known as Operation “Extortion 17”.

In 2012 it got worse, much worse: June 1st AFGHANISTAN:

A combined patrol discovered a weapons cache containing three shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, three anti-tank mines, 423 RPGs, 118,600 7.62 mm rounds, 30 rifles and other ordnance in the Tarin Kot district of Uruzgan province. The cache’s contents were destroyed.(link)

We had a serious problem and it was picking up speed exponentially. June 6th 2012 we lost another crew. July 25th 2012 yet another. August 16th 2012 again more losses. September 5th 2012 more deaths. It just kept getting worse.

By September 5th 2012 in the preceding nine months we had lost 11 helicopters to shoulder fired missiles in Afghanistan. The following headline hit the media:

America Suffers Worst Airpower Loss Since Vietnam

One of the incidents revealed details of what was being faced. The July 25th 2012 downing of a CH-47 which was found to have been hit with a “new generation” stinger missile. The risks were no longer mere worries, they were real:

[O]n July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.

They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.

The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.

The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.

Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.

The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet ­jihad.

Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.

Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.

My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the ­Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.

They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. (link)

In Afghanistan the DoD field response was immediate; all Close Air Support was cancelled.

The White House had a problem – “Operation Zero Footprint” missiles were now being used against us, but DoD didn’t know the origin because the Defense Department did not know about Zero Footprint, the State Department and CIA did.

The killing of Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, might not have been the final straw – but their September 5th 2012 deaths coincided with an absolute change in direction.

While the ISIS-minded Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army were arguing over who gets what from aboard the Turkish vessel, back in Benghazi, Libya it was obvious the ideology of the Syrian factions were too extreme and the CIA could no longer control who would use such weapons.

God forbid DoD ground commanders in Afghanistan find out the MANPADS they were facing originated by our covert efforts in Libya.

Tayyip Erdogan - Turkey, David Cameron - U.K.

Tayyip Erdogan – Turkey, David Cameron – U.K.

Strangely one must give credit to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As unbelievable as it might sound he was the lone Islamic voice in March 2011 saying “don’t arm the Benghazi rebels“:

March 2011 – Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.

Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”

Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”. (read more)

Erdogan and U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates were of the same mindset.

“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” (link)

However, for Syria in 2012 Erdogan had a divergent opinion. He was all for arming the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. This article, again from August 2012 – one month prior to the attack against Chris Stevens, outlines the goal of both Erdogan and President Obama:

(August 2012) President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone Monday “to coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria,” the White House said.

This “would include the departure of (Syrian leader) Bashar Assad and be responsive to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people,” the statement said.

Obama and Erdogan shared their concerns over the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition “and the deteriorating humanitarian conditions throughout Syria as a result of the regime’s atrocities.”

Both [Obama and Erodgan] promised to coordinate efforts to help the growing numbers of Syrians displaced by the violence within Syria or forced to flee over the border to take refuse in Turkey or other nations in the region.

The statement said US and Turkish teams “would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the United States can work together to promote a democratic transition in Syria.” (link)

Obama Erdogan - Turkey

Alas, given the backstory of DoD not wanting to arm the rebels, and given the unintended consequences of 2011/2012 from Operation Zero Footprint, and given an upcoming election in November 2012, you can see why in post September 11 of 2012 the Obama administration would want to discontinue this operation and throw a bag over the events of the past 17 months.

Perhaps following the fiasco at the Port of Iskenderun a week earlier, Turkish Diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin arrives at the Benghazi Mission on Sept 11th 2012 to talk about the ongoing efforts to support Syria.

Perhaps, the conversation was about the increasing risk of arming a rising group of radicals against the backdrop of MANPADS being used against U.S. forces in other fields of combat.

Regardless of motivation Ali Sait Akin and Stevens were most certainly discussing the current situation with Turkey suffering the consequences and pushing a greater sense of urgency.

Indeed Turkey’s border region was filled with historic numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting which was completely out of control. The Scale of the crisis was staggering and out of control. Over 500,000 Syrians were now seeking shelter in Turkey.

Meanwhile the ideology of the radical elements controlling the arms shipments was openly becoming a danger to the entire region, and especially U.S. interests beyond Syria.

This would have put Stevens (U.S.) and Akin (Turkey) as opposing ends of the issue.

What we now know as ISIS – originated inside this group of Zero Footprint recipients, and Erdogan while willing to see Assad removed, was also well aware that these elements do not believe in borders. These rabid ideologues (now known as ISIS-2014) were quickly evolving into a risk for the region.

The U.S. policy team would have viewed the risk far differently than Turkey.

As the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 2012 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

We can only imagine the conversation within the Benghazi compound as both Ali Sait Akin and Chris Stevens parted ways for the final time on September 11th 2012.

Outside the compound walls, the 17th Feb Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia – were also assembled to deliver their final goodbyes.

The Turkish delegation was able to navigate the roadblocks without issue. And within 30 minutes of Consul Akin leaving the venue, Ansar Al Sharia executed their attack.

The Benghazi and Darnah Brigades already knew the compound inside and out, as well as the CIA ANNEX compound, a kilometer away, which contained four warehouse type buildings used by the CIA during the collection, distribution and delivery of Zero Footprint’s objectives over the past 17 months.

In June of 2009 the primary Benghazi Mission compound looked like this:

In March of 2011, when Operation Zero Footprint began, the Tactical Operations Command building (TOC) was added and it looked like this:

.

In December of 2005 the area which became the CIA Annex compound held two buildings:

.

In 2009 two more buildings were added bringing the total to FOUR:

.

By the time the CIA took over 2011, and when the compound came under mortar fire 2012, it looked like this:

 

Author’s notes:

patriotThe primary reason for outlining this brief is to deliver a greater understanding of why things happened the way they did in the post 9/11/12 attack media frenzy.

If you understand what took place from March 2011 through the night of the attack itself all of the contradictions reconcile, and most of the questions become answered.

Factually, I would challenge anyone who reads this brief to actually have a question left unanswered.

The events of the attack itself are gut wrenching and troubling. Our brave operations folks had to fight their way out of a situation where they literally were on their own due to the political risks inherent in carrying out their objectives.

However, they knew they were beyond the wire – they knew there was no manner, method or possibility of protection…. And this is the point everyone seems to miss:

THEY KNEW THE DoD WAS IN THE DARK ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY. There was NOTHING the Pentagon could have done to help them. Those people inside the Eastern Libya City of Benghazi, operating on behalf of the administration, were, for all intents and purposes, GHOSTS. They did not “technically” exist.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the mission they were tasked to carry out, there is no doubt they worked honorably to serve their nation. Ultimately the leadership within the State Department, The CIA, and the White House are responsible for the outcomes of policy.

Our hope is that this outline will stimulate journalists to question those who were at the heart of these two operations. Ultimately the Trey Gowdy select committee will find there is no venue to discuss intelligence operations with public sunlight. While both Zero Footprint in 2011, and the Unnamed CIA operation in 2012 were flawed policy – they were not necessarily illegal.

There is a matter of an unidentified State Dept $6 billion contractor fund missing from Hillary’s term as Secretary of State; that might bear investigation. However, beyond those smaller questions there is little if anything to gain.

FUBAR.

~ Sundance

Common Questions: The AFTERMATH – “The Cairo Protest VS The Benghazi Attack”

Here is where people get confused – because the U.S. State department wanted people to get confused.

On 9/11/12 the State Department was originally trying to deflect attention away from the Cairo Embassy Protest.

CNN correspondent Nick Robertson interviewed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Al Zawahiri on the morning of the planned Cairo protest 9/11/12. Zawahiri and team told Robertson they were rallying and protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik.

The protest turned violent and the U.S. Embassy was overrun by extremists who eventually hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda within the compound.

The State Dept was trying desperately to cover their ass and frame the narrative so the optics of the al-Qaeda onslaught to the Embassy could be controlled.

To hide the intentions of the protesting mob (release of the Blind Sheik) the U.S. State Department fell back on a story about the Mohammed video – which they found out about two days earlier.

Against the backdrop of an upcoming election, and with Republicans beating up Democrats over the short-sighted foreign policy, the State Dept did not want the Muhammed Al Zawahiri narrative. The compound being overrun was a political embarrassment so they used the silly video to explain the protest:

(Remember this is all early in the day – prior to the Benghazi attack)

However, Mitt Romney jumped on this State Dept. Press Release to make the case that the U.S. appeared weak and apologetic. It created an immediate stir.

Unknown at the time was an UNRELATED attack was taking place at the Benghazi compound. The attack at Benghazi Libya had nothing to do with the protests at the Cairo embassy.

However, once the Benghazi attack took place, the State Dept needed a cover story which would sell to the U.S. electorate to explain the Benghazi issues. What Hillary and team did was sell/use the Cairo story as an explanation for Benghazi.

This is how the YouTube video came into play.

The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Cairo Embassy Protest.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

Nothing about the YouTube story was correct. It was all manufactured excuse-making, strategically put into the media cycle to protect the administration from the reality of flawed policy.

The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Embassy protest in Cairo, nor the Benghazi attack in Libya. By now I think everyone would concur, albeit the media never went back to the Cairo motive to discuss because it became a secondary issue.

Did the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Cairo, or specifically Muhammed Al Zawahiri, coordinate in some way with Ansar al Sharia in Libya, specifically on 9/11/12?

That’s a good question – unfortunately however, it’s a question without a factual answer. I don’t know; and an argument can be made that given all of the players and the influx of their communication it’s quite possible there was some coordination of effort.

What is factually certain is any communication they did have had nothing to do with a ridiculous U-Tube video.

The Cairo protest was 100% certain to be about the release of the Blind Sheik.

Was the Benghazi attack related in some effort to gain a hostage (Chris Stevens) as leverage toward that Al Zawahiri effort? Possible. I’ve seen that argument made, but have not been able to definitively connect the two.

It is a hard question to answer because the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Al Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman Al Zawahiri), and the leadership of Ansar Al Sharia were not necessarily telling the foot soldiers the plans or larger objectives.

I do, however, believe the answer, if known, would be known by Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and his team of military and intelligence people. The most reasonable approach is to listen to the Egyptian intelligence leadership on this point

DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney Dies of Gunshot Wound – Amador Sheriff Rules Suicide…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

Several new outlets have been reporting today on the death of Philip Haney, a DHS whistleblower who became well known for outlining how the Obama administration downplayed issues surrounding domestic radical Jihadist activity and Islamic terrorism.

It is being reported by Amador County, CA, sheriff’s office that Haney died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  However, many people are questioning the finding.

CALIFORNIA – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead in Amador County, Calif., on Friday, according to local authorities.

Haney, 66, “appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound,” the Amador County Sheriff’s Office said in a release. Sheriff and coroner Martin A. Ryan shared the initial details of the case.

“On February 21, 2020 at approximately 1012 hours, deputies and detectives responded to the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth to the report of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound,” the release read.

“Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time,” the office added. (read more)

DocWashburn@DocWashburn

Phil Haney was murdered last night. When BHO became President, Phil’s work identifying those (who come here to kill us) was scrubbed from intelligence training manuals & hard drives. Here’s my interview w/Phil about his book, “See Something, Say Nothing”. https://soundcloud.com/docwashburnradio/phillip-haney-5-23-17-karn 

809 people are talking about this

Kevin Shipp@Kevin_Shipp

Whistleblower Phil Haney shot dead last night. I knew Phil. He was exposing the penetration of the US government by Islamic cultural jihadists. He was instrumental in exposing Keith Ellision and Obama’s concealment of radical Islam in America.

View image on Twitter
7,395 people are talking about this

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: The late DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was owed tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid royalties for his bestselling book, “See Something, Say Nothing,” and at one point had sought a class-action lawsuit with other authors stiffed by the publisher

1,302 people are talking about this