Triple 666 behind of covid19?

Triple 666 behind of covid19?

triple 666 behind of covid19 More »

Systemic Hypocrisy  by Judith Bergman

Systemic Hypocrisy by Judith Bergman

“Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 83 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, More »

Amerika yategetse Ubushinwa gufunga ibiro by’ubuhagarariye i Houston

Amerika yategetse Ubushinwa gufunga ibiro by’ubuhagarariye i Houston

Abazimya umuriro batabajwe nyuma yaho hagaragaye amashusho y’abantu batamenyekanye batwika impapuro aho bajugunya imyanda mu nyubako y’uhagarariye Ubushinwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika zategetse Ubushinwa gufunga ibiro by’ubuhagarariye (consulat/consulate) mu mujyi wa Houston More »

Ivuka ry’Urunani (Rwandan Alliance for Change) ryahungabanije ubutegetsi bw’Ikigali,byaba byatewe niki? N’umutwe w’iterabwoba wa RNC!!!

Ivuka ry’Urunani (Rwandan Alliance for Change) ryahungabanije ubutegetsi bw’Ikigali,byaba byatewe niki? N’umutwe w’iterabwoba wa RNC!!!

Ikiganiro inyangenewss.com yongeye kugirana nabasesenguzi ba politike yo mu karere ko mu biyaga bigari.Twibutse ko iki kiganiro kigizwe naba basesenguzi ba politike yo mw’si baturuka kumigabane itandukanye. More »

Nimwirinda ikinyoma cya republika itemewe n’amategeko,bizabatunganira

Nimwirinda ikinyoma cya republika itemewe n’amategeko,bizabatunganira

Kamana Achille, umuvugizi w’Urunana Nyarwanda Ruharanira Impinduka Mu mujyi wa Ottawa muri Canada havutse ishyaka rishya ritavuga rumwe n’ ubutegetsi buriho mu Rwanda. Urunana Nyarwanda Ruharanira Impinduka (Rwandan Alliance for Change) tariki More »

 

Ellison Was Defeated by His Own Actions Not by Any Smear by Alan M. Dershowitz

The close vote by the Democratic National Committee to reject Keith Ellison as its chairperson was a victory for basic decency and a defeat for the kind of bigotry represented by Ellison’s past associations with Louis Farrakhan and his current voting record against Israel’s Iron Dome. Ellison’s loss is not attributable to any “smear campaign,” as some of his supporters have falsely alleged, but rather to his own actions, both past and present. Would anyone call it a smear if a candidate’s history of sexism, racism or homophobia had been exposed? Why then it is a smear to have raised questions based on Ellison’s past associations with anti-Semitism and his current voting anti-Israel voting record? Nor was it a smear to question Ellison’s credibility when he said that he was not aware that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite, when Farrakhan himself was publicly boasting about his Jew hatred.


The smear charge itself reflects the kind of double standard within elements of the Democratic Party that worry centrist pro-Israel voters. Both Democrats and Republicans alike must have the same zero tolerance for anti-Semitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia.

The growing influence of intolerant hard left extremists endangers both our country and the Democratic Party. Democrats must recognize the reality that the United States is not a hard left country. Unlike some European countries, we have never had significant Communist or socialist parties. Nor are we a hard right country, with a history of fascist parties. We govern from the center, alternating centrist liberals, such as Obama and Clinton, with centrist conservatives like the Bushes and Reagan.

When the Democrats tried to move leftward, even with such moderate leftists as McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, they have been overwhelmingly defeated. The combined electoral votes of these three leftish candidates would not have been enough to win a single election. The Republicans experienced similar rejection when they went to the far right of their party and nominated Barry Goldwater.

Had Sanders won the Democratic nomination, he would have won no more than a handful of states. It is far easier for the hard left fringe of the Democrats to win primaries and conduct loud demonstrations than to win national or state wide elections. If the Democratic Party fails to understand this reality they will emulate the British Labor Party, which rejected the kind of moderate liberal leadership represented by Tony Blair in favor of the extreme leftist Jeremy Corbyn. The Corbyn led Labor Party is popular among left wing extremists, but today it could not be competitive in a national election. Nor would the Democrats be competitive if they allow themselves to be taken over by the Sanders fringe.

Great Britain has a far greater proportion of hard left voters than the United States. Yet even there, the radical Corbyn left cannot attract enough voters to be competitive– even in the post Brexit environment. It would be worse– much worse — for the Democrats if they become the party of the extreme left

Those who believe that Democrats can win by attracting the kind of hard left radicals who voted for Green Party candidates such as Jill stein or Ralph Nader are blinking reality. The Democrats could never nominate a winning candidate far left enough for those hard left ideologues to abandon their extremist candidates. Extremists like Susan Sarandon seem to believe that a vote for Trump will hasten the revolution. This is how she put it: “Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.”

Nor can the Democrats win by emulating the tactics of the Republican Party. The Tea Party did move the Republicans to the right by their uncompromising and obstructionist approach. But the United States has more tolerance– unfortunately in my view — for rightward movement (as long as it’s not too extreme) than the Democrats gave for leftward movement.

The current leadership of the Democratic Party is reacting short term to a long term problem. They are responding to the loudest, shrillest and most demanding voices– voices that are hardly representative of the tens of millions of voters they will need to remain competitive in upcoming races.

The Democrats can win only by regaining their traditional base among working class rust belt voters they lost to trump. These voters will never support the kind of radical left wing candidates promoted by the Keith Ellison wing of the party.

Ellison’s appointment as the deputy to Tom Perez the man who defeated him elevated unity over principle. His past history and current voting record should have disqualified him for any office within the Democratic Party. But despite that unfortunate appointment, I will remain in the Democratic Party and work from within to move it back to its vibrant liberal center and away from its radical fringe. I will also work to maintain bipartisan support for Israel and against efforts by the hard left to abandon the only democracy in the Middle East.

It will be a daunting task but it is worth the effort. We won the fight against Ellison, though it was close. We must continue to win if the Democratic Party is to remain competitive.

Electronic Doomsday for the US? The Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) by Peter Huessy

  • The recent North Korean nuclear and the Iranian ballistic missile tests are serious deadly threats to the United States. North Korea’s latest bomb test is being widely dismissed by “experts” because the apparent yield is around 10 kilotons or less – which just so happens to be exactly the right amount for an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) explosion.

  • An EMP attack on the U.S. would leave the country with no electricity, no communications, no transportation, no fuel, no food, and no running water.
  • “Our increasing dependence on advanced electronics systems results in the potential for an increased EMP vulnerability… and if unaddressed makes EMP employment by an adversary an attractive asymmetric option.” — EMP Commission
  • The recent military writings and exercises of potential adversaries would combine EMP with cyber-attacks, sabotage, and kinetic attacks against the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures.

Contrary to some “expert” analysis, both the recent North Korean nuclear and the Iranian ballistic missile tests are deadly serious threats to the United States.

The danger to the United States is particularly consequential due to the close military cooperation of North Korea and Iran. Their combined capabilities, as demonstrated recently, could very well signal a future nuclear attack of the electromagnetic pulse type, for which the U.S., at the moment, is totally unprepared.

The threat to the United States from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack — the high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon over the United States — is so potentially catastrophic that both the 2004 and 2008 reports of the Congressional EMP Commission said so openly — probably in the hope that the public warning would spur the nation and the Department of Defense to action. [1]

Even an EMP attack from a single 10-kiloton nuclear weapon — of the type now in North Korea’s arsenal — could cause cascading failures which could black out the U.S. Eastern Grid for months or years, and devastate the civilian economy. An EMP, detonated at an altitude above 30-70 kilometers, could be delivered by a short-range missile fired off a freighter, hundreds of kilometers off U.S. shores.

The result would be no communications, no transportation, no fuel, no food, and no water for a decade or more. That would be true for at least the entire eastern half of the United States, where most of the population lives. National Geographic has described it as an “Electronic Armageddon.”

An illustrative rendering of an EMP attack on the United States. (Image source: Video screenshot from “33 Minutes”)

Despite these previous warnings and North Korea’s recent bomb test — its fourth known nuclear test since 2006 — “experts” are dismissing a nuclear threat from North Korea as of little concern because the apparent yield of the bomb was in the neighborhood of 10 kilotons or less.

Hydrogen Bombs, or thermonuclear weapons, which is what North Korea claimed to have detonated, produce yields higher than those.

In fact, however, these experts may be way off base. The yield of an EMP explosion is lower. The North Korean bomb capability that was tested may therefore well be that of a super-EMP.

Neutron bombs, or Enhanced Radiation Weapons such as Super-EMP weapons, are essentially very low yield H-Bombs. They typically have yields of 1-10 kilotons, exactly like North Korea’s device. Indeed, because of their very low yield, all four North Korean nuclear tests look like Super-EMP weapons.

A Super-EMP weapon is designed to produce special effects (gamma rays, in the case of Super-EMP). A Super-EMP warhead, while having a seemingly insignificant explosive yield, could be far more deadly and dangerous to the United States than the most powerful H-Bomb ever built.

Russia’s Tsar H-Bomb, (known as Tsar Bomba), the most powerful H-Bomb ever detonated, produced during its test in October 1961 a yield of 60 megatons. It would have been capable of flattening everything in the state of Rhode Island. [2]

A Super-EMP weapon, however, detonated 300 kilometers above the center of the U.S., could destroy the entire nation’s industrial and military capacity, and kill a large percentage of the American people, by taking down the U.S. electrical grid. Once destroyed, the grid’s elements would take decades to rebuild.[3]

Even if the U.S. were to protect its electrical infrastructure from such a threat — legislation to protect the grid is now in Congress, primarily thanks to Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona) — the parallel vulnerability of U.S. military forces to an EMP attack would be just as serious.

We know the Department of Defense has testified to Congress that 99% of the electricity for continental U.S. military bases comes from the civilian grid. Our military bases would thereby be without electrical power for decades as well. Unfortunately, the thousands of electrical transformers destroyed by an EMP attack were not primarily built in America. Even if they were, they require at least a five-year lead-time for production.

Overseas power-projection from U.S. military bases would be effectively impossible without an operational grid. Moreover, after such an EMP attack, the national focus would be on saving millions of Americans from mass starvation and preserving societal existence, not on going “over there” to fight a war or defend U.S. interests.

If the EMP attack were executed anonymously, say, by a missile launched off a freighter at sea close-in to the United States, we would probably not even know against whom to retaliate. Thus, classical deterrence would not work, further “inviting” such an attack.

In 1999, for example, at a high level meeting in Vienna of a Congressional delegation with senior members of the Russian government, Vladimir Lukin, the chairman of the Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, angry with American policy in the Balkans, issued the following threat: “If we really wanted to hurt you with no fear of retaliation, we would launch a Submarine-launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), [and] we would detonate a nuclear weapon high above your country and shut down your power grid.”

Congressman Curt Weldon, (R-PA), the American delegation chair, who understood Russian, turned to his Maryland colleague, (Roscoe Bartlett, D-MD) and asked, “Roscoe, did you hear what he said?”

The chairman of the State Duma Geopolitics Commission, Alexander Shabanov, smiled and said, “And if that one doesn’t work, we have plenty of spares”.[4]

Thus a nuclear weapon designed specifically for EMP attack, what Russian experts call a “Super-EMP” warhead, would constitute a worst-case threat.

A single Super-EMP warhead, detonated in the sky 300 kilometers over the center of the U.S., would generate such a powerful EMP field over all 48 contiguous United States that, not only would a protracted nationwide blackout result, but even the best protected U.S. military forces and C3I on all military bases—if not sufficiently protected– could also be at risk.

The technology to protect the electrical grid is relatively straightforward and inexpensive. But only with action now could the grid be protected sufficiently to give the US industrial and economic capability a fighting chance to survive an “Electronic Armageddon”.

It is also possible to protect military assets through “hardening,” but doing so after production and the fielding of equipment is time-consuming and costly. The sooner the U.S. starts with hardening its equipment, sooner the job will get done. The U.S. is seriously behind schedule in what is required to protect it.

It is not as if the threat is “over the horizon.” Russia and China already have Super-EMP warheads. Moreover, according to the Congressional EMP Commission, the design of Super-EMP warheads is no secret: “Certain types of relatively low-yield nuclear weapons can be employed to generate potentially catastrophic EMP effects over wide geographic areas, and designs for variants of such weapons may have been illicitly trafficked for a quarter-century.”

The EMP Commission warned that non-state actors — terrorists — could also pose an EMP threat: “What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP threats are difficult to deter — they can be terrorist groups that have no state identity, have only one or a few weapons, and are motivated to attack the U.S. without regard for their own safety.”

The EMP Commission also warned that the Department of Defense has failed to maintain adequate EMP protection for U.S. military forces since the end of the Cold War:

“The end of the Cold War relaxed the discipline for achieving EMP survivability within the Department of Defense, and gave rise to the perception that an erosion of EMP survivability of military forces was an acceptable risk. EMP simulation and test facilities have been mothballed or dismantled, and research concerning EMP phenomena, hardening design, testing, and maintenance has been substantially decreased. However, the emerging threat environment, characterized by a wide spectrum of actors that include near-peers, established nuclear powers, rogue nations, sub-national groups, and terrorist organizations that either now have access to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles or may have such access over the next 15 years have combined to place the risk of EMP attack and adverse consequences on the US to a level that is not acceptable.”

The EMP Commission further warned that even U.S. strategic forces and C3I may be at risk from an EMP attack:

“Current policy is to continue to provide EMP protection to strategic forces and their controls. The Department of Defense must continue to pursue the strategy for strategic systems to ensure that weapons delivery systems of the New Triad [land, sea and air] are EMP survivable, and that there is, at a minimum, a survivable ‘thin-line’ of command and control capability to detect threats and direct the delivery systems.”[5]

U.S. strategic forces today are also relatively more vulnerable than they were during the Cold War: they are far less numerous and located on fewer bases, so an adversary could more easily target peak EMP fields on each base. Compared to Cold War era systems, the more modern and sophisticated C3I systems for command and control of U.S. strategic forces could be vulnerable to EMP, unless they are hardened to withstand such electromagnetic pulse attacks. This is also true for the entire industrial infrastructure, the most critical of which is the electrical grid.

The EMP Commission also warned that as U.S. conventional forces become more dependent upon high-technology, they also become more vulnerable to EMP attack:

“The situation for general-purpose forces (GPF) is more complex. The success of these forces depends on the application of a superior force at times and places of our choosing. We accomplish this by using a relatively small force with enormous technological advantages due to superior information flow, advanced warfighting capabilities, and well-orchestrated joint combat operations. Our increasing dependence on advanced electronics systems results in the potential for an increased EMP vulnerability of our technologically advanced forces, and if unaddressed makes EMP employment by an adversary an attractive asymmetric option.”

The above alarming assessments about the vulnerability of U.S. military forces to EMP attack are what the EMP Commission decided must be stated publicly, in its unclassified Executive Summary. The EMP Commission submitted a separate, classified, report to the Department of Defense analyzing these and many other vulnerabilities in far greater detail.

What progress has the Department of Defense (DoD) made to protect itself and the nation from EMP attacks since the reports were completed?

When the EMP Commission terminated in 2008, it was on the understanding that DoD would move aggressively to protect U.S. military forces from EMP, and report biennially to Congress on progress being made implementing the EMP Commission recommendations. The only unclassified biennial report from DoD indicates that there were still serious deficiencies in protecting U.S. military forces from EMP in 2011.

On April 7, 2015, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) chief, Admiral William Gortney, announced that NORAD was moving critical assets back into the nuclear bunker inside Cheyenne Mountain and spending $700 million to harden the mountain further against a potential nuclear EMP attack from North Korea. That the nation’s most critical C3I node is just now being adequately protected does not bode well for the preparedness of U.S. military forces as a whole for an EMP Doomsday scenario.[6]

Fortunately, Congress re-established the EMP Commission in the recently completed and passed Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, to serve as a watchdog on U.S. preparedness and the fast-evolving EMP threat.

The recent military writings and exercises of potential adversaries, for example, combine EMP with cyber-attacks, sabotage, and kinetic attacks against the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures — a decisive new way of warfare described by Russian experts as a “Revolution in Military Affairs.”[7]

The U.S. response has recently gotten some important traction. The House, on November 16, 2015, unanimously passed the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA — House of Representatives bill number HR 1073).

CIPA directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to educate emergency planners and first responders at all levels of government about the EMP threat, and to prepare plans to protect and recover the electric grid and other critical infrastructures from an EMP attack and from natural EMP that can be generated by a rare solar super-storm. The House Energy and Commerce Committee also passed provisions to secure the electric grid from EMP, including by stockpiling spare parts and incorporating the SHIELD Act, which gives new authorities to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to protect the grid.

Protecting the national electric grid from EMP is necessary to preserve the existence of American civilization, to sustain U.S. military power-projection capabilities, and it would also mitigate worst-case threats from cyber warfare, sabotage, kinetic attacks, and even severe weather. CIPA and SHIELD are the crowning achievements of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), who for years has been the conscience of the Congress, warning about the existential threat from EMP. [8]

While both bills now await action in the Senate, there is an increasing threat from Iran, which recently successfully tested two nuclear-capable missiles, and from a North Korean satellite, the KSM-3, which regularly orbits over North America at the optimum trajectory to evade U.S. national missile defenses. If the KSM-3 were to carry a nuclear weapon, it would project an EMP field over all of the 48 contiguous United States.

North Korea is Iran’s strategic partner, and there is a treaty between the two countries that obligates the sharing of scientific and military technology.

North Korea’s military recently carried out what some have described as an attempted test from a submerged barge, an indication that an earlier test failure has not derailed its underwater missile program, according to U.S. defense officials.

Add North Korea’s missile capability and a super EMP weapon to this potential, and the significance of the recent North Korean nuclear test comes into better focus. The possibility of a North Korean or Iranian EMP attack seems to be gathering strength.

We may have already seen what such an attack might look like. During the 2014 Gaza War, Hamas, the Syrian Electronic Army, and Iran attempted mass cyber-attacks, coordinated with massive missile strikes, on Israel’s electrical grid. Hamas launched over 5000 rockets and missiles against Israel. Prepared, Israel’s cyber defenses defeated the cyber-attacks, and the Iron Dome missile defense system shot down all the missiles aimed at the Israeli grid.[9]

There are important lessons here. Missile and cyber defenses work: they are critically important parts of any national security strategy.

Israel had also made a prior decision to harden its grid against threats by EMP attacks. The combined efforts of this crucial ally of ours gives us a roadmap to follow: robust missile defenses to defend the homeland from EMP-armed missiles; cyber defenses to protect critical assets and the infrastructure; and EMP defenses to protect national security and defense assets and the electrical grid from attack.

Both the 2004 and 2008, EMP Commission reports urged America’s leaders to protect against such threats as EMP. The House of Representatives has now passed the necessary legislation to protect the grid. The Senate has a champion — Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who has pledged to secure Senate passage.

But there are serious pressures working against its passage. Too many “experts” currently dismiss any such threat to the American homeland.

Just recently, for instance, a former intelligence specialist in the U.S. government, Paul Pilar, argued in The National Interest that Iranian ballistic missiles were “here to stay” and were simply elements of Iran’s defenses – and, despite repeated Iranian calls for “Death to America,” were no threat to the United States homeland or its overseas interests.[10]

Such conventional complacency, such as calling ISIS the jay-vee team, is not uncommon in Washington, D.C. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran in 2007 argued that Iran had stopped all its nuclear weapons work in 2003[11]; the International Atomic Energy Administration has now determined that Iran’s nuclear work had continued to at least 2009.[12]

Unfortunately, there is real-world experience — in Israel — that such threats from missiles and cyber-attacks are constantly serious and looming: the entire job of an adversary is to look for weak spots to attack.

There always seem to be those who wish to downplay all threats and are reluctant even to invest in an “insurance premium.” The consequences of failing to protect America against such threats, however, will be far more serious than future embarrassment for some head-in-the-sand bureaucrats.

An EMP attack would shut down the country; lead to the loss of millions of lives, and set it back into effective defenselessness.

It is a threat as serious as any estimates of what a mushroom cloud at the height of the Cold War would have entailed. Instead, it kills by sending the country back to what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has described as early 18th century America: people would not be able to function in even the simplest of ways. Buildings would be left standing but the ability to live in them would not. People would be unable to move about, eat, drink, shop or communicate.

It therefore requires full attention, in this era of increased cyber-sophistication, especially among enemies of the West, to see that an EMP attack is never “invited” to happen in the U.S.

Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland and Senior Defense Consultant to the Mitchell Institute of the Air Force Association and a guest lecture at the US Naval Academy on nuclear deterrent policy and the founder of the 36 year AFA-NDIA-ROA Congressional Breakfast Seminar Series on Nuclear Deterrence, Missile Defense, Arms Control, Proliferation and Defense Policy.


[1] Previous such threat analysis had been classified; the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, July 2004 and April 2008 was issued in both classified and unclassified versions; see also Henry F. Cooper and Peter Vincent Pry, “The Threat to Melt the Electric Grid,” Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2015; and Former Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey, testimony before the U.S. Congress, May 21, 2013.

[2] “Big Ivan”, The Tsar Bomba”, Viktor Adamsky and Yuri Smirnov, 1994, “Moscow’s Biggest Bomb”.

[3] EMP Commission, April 2008.

[4] Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, July 22, 2004, Hearing on the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the US from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack.

[5] “Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack”, Volume I: Executive Report; hereinafter cited as EMP Commission Report 2004.

[6] EMP Commission Report 2004, p. 47.

[7] “Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on the Survivability of Systems and Assets to Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and other Nuclear Weapon Effects (NWE)”, Summary Report No. 1, Interim Report of the DSB Task Force, 2011. See also Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Apocalypse Unknown: The Struggle to Protect America from an Electromagnetic Pulse Catastrophe, Task Force on National and Homeland Security, 2013, pp. 158-164.

[8] For a good history of these efforts, see Congressman Trent Franks, remarks at the AFA-NDIA-ROA Congressional Breakfast Seminar, December 17, 2015, transcript available from Peter Huessy at AFA (Phuessy@afa.org).

[9] Information from Uzi Rubin, President of Rubicon, to the authors.

[10] See an excellent rejoinder by Emily Landau and Shimon Stein, INSS, National Defense University, “Iran’s Ballistic Missiles Are Actually a Huge Problem“, January 5, 2016.

[11] Paul Pillar spoke approvingly of the 2007 NIE at “The Iran National Intelligence Estimate and Intelligence Assessment Capabilities”, December 20, 2007, the Brookings Institution.

[12] IAEA Board Report: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action implementation and verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), Resolution adopted by the Board of Governors on 15 December 2015.

Egypt’s President General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has come up with a new and surprising solution to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Establish a Palestinian state in the Sinai.

Egypt’s President General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has come up with a new and surprising solution to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Establish a Palestinian state in the Sinai.

Egyptian President Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has reportedly proposed to Palestinian Authority (PA) head Mahmoud Abbas to extend the Gaza Strip into the Sinai area and establish a Palestinian state there.


 

According to the plan, Egypt would provide a 1,600-square-kilometer area in the Sinai Peninsula near the Gaza Strip, making the Strip five times its size, where a Palestinian state would be established under full control of the PA. The Palestinian refugees would go to that state, which would be demilitarized.

In addition to the new state south of Gaza there would be full Palestinian autonomy in PA-administered cities Judea and Samaria. In return, Abbas would relinquish the Palestinian demand for a return to the ’67 borders.

Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas at a conference in June. (Photo: Flash90)

According to IDF Radio, al-Sisi told Abbas that if he does not take this offer, those who succeed him will take it, but Abbas was not convinced and rejected the proposal. IDF Radio further reports that the Americans are also in the picture and have given a green light to the plan.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reportedly advised of the program, but according to a preliminary investigtion by the radio station, he has not updated his staff on the proposed solution.

The radio journalist pointed out that a similar program had been suggested by Israeli academics in the past as well as by former National Security Council head Giora Eiland. Eiland claimed at the time that the area of Gaza is too small to support more than a million residents and therefore must be increased at the expense of the Sinai. However, when this idea was presented a few years ago, Egypt rejected it outright.

Serious Responses to the Egyptian Proposal

Responding to the offer on IDF Radio, Member of Knesset Yaakov Perry said that al-Sisi’s generosity was surprising but that there were many issues outstanding. “Questions must be asked, and we do not yet have enough details, regarding the status of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. We should address the offer seriously, even if Abu Mazen (Abbas) has turned it down,” Perry, who is a former head of the Shabak (Israel’s Security Agency), said.

Minister of Transportation Yisrael Katz welcomed al-Sisi’s proposal, which he praised as “the Egyption President’s amazing offer.”

“This is the End of Days. The Americans are in support [of the proposal]. All that is left is to convince Abu Mazen, who is in pursuit of the Palestinian right of return to Israel, and the Israeli Left, who are eager to relinquish land.”

Egypt and the PA Deny the Report

Egypt’s Foreign Ministry denies that al-Sisi ever made such an offer to the Palestinian Authority, i24 News reports.

Abbas’ office likewise denies the report. PA Secretary-General Al-Tayyib Abd Al-Rahim told the Palestinian Ma’an news agency that the report was “fabricated.” He added that Abbas would not accept any alternative to a Palestinian state on the 1949 Armistice lines with eastern Jerusalem as its capital. Abbas’s representative further claimed that Egypt shares the PA’s position on this issue.

Author: Aryeh Savir
Staff Writer, United with Israel

Egyptian Scholar Admits Temple Mount Mosque Not Sacred to Muslims

An Egyptian scholar denounces Muslim claims to the Temple Mount as false and politically motivated.


Renowned Egyptian scholar and novelist Youssef Ziedan conceded in a recent interview that the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is not the Al-Aqsa Mosque referred to in the Quran, and that the Temple Mount complex in the heart of Israel’s capital is not sacred to the Muslims.

Citing ancient scholars, Ziedan said that the Al-Haram Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque were “on the road from Mecca to Ta’if.”

“Neither we nor the [Jews] have anything to do with it,” he said in the interview, according to a transcript by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). “It’s all politics.”

He also contested the authenticity of other stories related to Mohammed in Muslim tradition

(In fact, the Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site, where the First and Second Holy Temples stood. There are many artifacts discovered by archaeologists as well as historical documentation that demonstrate these ties to the site.)

Ziedan’s comments have caused an uproar in Egyptian religious circles and society, but he stood by them, even under attack.

When asked during an interview on Egyptian CBC TV channel, Ziedan explained that “Hamikdash [the Temple] is a Hebrew word [which Muslims also used for the Temple Mount]. This is a Hebrew concept. The Christian [name of Jerusalem] is “Aelia.” The Al-Aqsa Mosque, in my view, is not the one [in Jerusalem]. It cannot be.”

He also pointed out that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is not the first direction of prayer for Muslims.

“Our ancient religious scholars – Al-Waqidi, Al-Tabari, and many others – said that the Al-Aqsa Mosque… They said that the Prophet Mohammed, after being harassed by Quraysh [in Mecca], went to the city of Tai’f. On the road to Ta’if, there were two mosques: Al-Adna Mosque [“the nearest”] and Al-Aqsa Mosque [“the farthest”]… Therefore, Al-Waqidi and others said that these two mosques were on the road from Mecca to Ta’if,” said Ziedan.

“The Al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] did not exist back then, and the city was not called Al-Quds. It was called Aelia, and it had no mosques,” the Muslim scholar pointed out.

Ziedan also said there is no justification for a war over Jerusalem, and that Muslims should just leave Al-Aqsa, which would lead to peace.

Palestinian terrorists have committed a long series of almost daily terror attacks throughout Israel over the course of the past three months, claiming the lives of 21 victims and wounding some 220. The terror wave was sparked by Palestinian rioting on the Temple Mount over rumors that Israel somehow intended to overrun it.

“So this is a political conflict, and the dream of liberating [Al-Aqsa], and slogans like ‘millions of martyrs are marching to Jerusalem’ are nothing but nonsense, as is the war led by the Jews for their temple and so on?” then interviewer asks.

“They are also lying,” Ziedan bluntly replied.

By: United with Israel Staff

Israelis are Under Attack. Do You Support Israel?

Want to do something important for Israel? Make a donationto help fight against Palestinian incitement and terror.

The Palestinians’ self-proclaimed knife intifada is the latest result of ongoing incitement against innocent Israelis. Israelis are being stabbed, shot and run over. Yet the world is silent. Help Israel to fight and win the war against terror. The time to act is now!

Now more than ever, Israel needs your help to fight the battle of public opinion. Israel’s enemies are using social media to incite brutal terror against innocent civilians. You can help to remove Facebook pages and Youtube videos calling for the murder of Israelis. The People of Israel need your help to do even more!

Egypt: New Attacks on Christians by Raymond Ibrahim

  • After appearing, the police stood back and allowed the mob to continue destroying the house and setting more Christian homes and vehicles on fire.

  • Last month in Egypt, a 70 year old Christian woman was stripped naked, beaten, and paraded in the streets of her village by a mob of 300 Muslim men.
  • “How long will these acts continue with impunity — will they never stop?” — Dr. Mona Roman, host of the Arabic-language news show, Behind the Scenes.

In a chronically familiar scene, angry, rioting Muslims in Egypt burned down around 80 Christian homes on June 17. In the words of one of the victims, Moses Zarif,

“On Friday afternoon, after noon prayers, a large number of Muslims gathered in the front of the new house of my cousin because a rumor had spread in the village that it would be turned into a church. They were chanting slogans against us: ‘By no means will there be a church here’ and ‘Egypt will remain Islamic!'”

According to the report, rioting Muslims beat the two cousins, attacked the building, destroyed all construction materials, and threw rocks at any Christian trying to intervene. Then they “turned their wrath on the Christian homes adjacent to the building, hurled rocks, looted houses and set fire to any Christian property in their wake.”

When the local priest heard what was happening, he rushed to the scene — only to be attacked while in his car; the Muslims climbed on it, stomped on it, and damaged it.

Currently the Christians of al-Bayda village, where the incident took place, have no church. They have to walk four miles in Egypt’s sweltering heat to attend another church.

The Arabic-language news show, “Behind the Scenes,” played short video clips of the incident as it transpired, made by phone cameras.

On June 17, 2016, rioting Muslims in Egypt attacked Christians and their property, and burned down Christian homes. (Image source: “Behind the Scenes” video screenshot)

The Muslim mob, which appears to have consisted of hundreds of people surrounding the building, included veiled women and children. There were shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” [“Allah is Greater!”]; women in hijabs clapped and whistled and ululated. At one point, almost in unison, the mob can clearly be heard chanting, “We’ll burn the church, we’ll burn the church.”

Egyptian TV reported the one-sided attacks from the Muslim majority on the Christian minority as “clashes.” After arriving, the police stood back and allowed the mob to continue destroying the house and setting more Christian homes and vehicles on fire. The Muslims then performed their afternoon prayers outside those Christians’ homes they had not destroyed — with loudspeakers pointed at their doors.

“No one did anything and the police took no pre-emptive or security measures in anticipation of the attacks,” said Anba Makarios, a representative of the normally diplomatic Coptic Christian church of the incident. Instead, a report notes that,

“In the end, police arrested six Muslim men, all of whom were released that evening, and six Christian men, who were released on the following day. The police station in Amirya charged the six men with erecting a building without permit and holding prayers without permission.”

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this latest attack on Egypt’s Christian minority is that every aspect of it has been repeated over and over in countless other incidents.

Violent riots and attacks on Christian homes and property, at the mere mention that a Christian church might be built or just renovated, are commonplace in Egypt (see here for several recent examples).

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi, Egypt’s president, agreed to build a memorial church in the village of Al-Our, which was home to 13 of the 21 Christians beheaded in February 2015 by the Islamic State in Libya. The families of the victims still live there. Muslim mobs from the village rose in violence in response, on April 3, 2015. There they also shouted that they would never allow a church to be built, and that “Egypt is Islamic!” Molotov cocktails and stones were thrown at another Coptic church, cars were set ablaze — including one belonging to a relative of one of the those Christians decapitated by the Islamic State — and several people were injured.

Even tents used by churchless Christians for worship are not spared.

Collective punishment — punishing all Christians for the real or perceived offense of one Christian — is common (as documented here). It is the reason that 80 Christian homes are torched on the rumor that one Christian might be turning his home into a church. Last month in Egypt, a 70-year-old Christian woman was stripped naked, beaten, and paraded in the streets of her village by a mob of 300 Muslim men.

The woman’s son was rumored to be romantically involved with a Muslim woman — a relationship strictly banned by Islam.

All these attacks take place on took place on a Friday: the one day of the week when Muslims meet in mosques to pray and hear sermons — possibly whipping them up against all things “infidel,” Christians chief among them.

The attack on the church had the bonus of occurring during Ramadan as well, when pious Muslims possibly become even more radical and intolerant of uppity Christians who dare to build churches.

During the coverage of this attack, Dr. Mona Roman, the host of “Behind the Scenes,” said:

“Throughout Egypt, we are accustomed to seeing Muslims laying out their carpets and praying wherever they want, and no one bothers them. Why must Christians be so hounded for trying to worship, prevented from building churches or even meeting in homes? Where is this equality we often hear about?”

She concluded by asking what must be on the mind of every Christian in Egypt: “We all know the authority of Egypt’s government, that whenever it intends on doing something, it does it. How long will these acts continue with impunity — will they never stop?”

Raymond Ibrahim is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (published by Regnery with Gatestone Institute, April 2013).

Page 417 of 463
1 415 416 417 418 419 463
Skip to toolbar