Archive | September 2016

Palestinian “Pay-To-Slay” Program

By Ziva Dahl/Algemeiner.com

.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his government incite their citizens to hate Israelis and incentivize them to murder civilians using a “pay-to-slay” lethal form of welfare that makes killing and maiming far more profitable than working at a regular job.
.
On the morning of June 30, a 17-year-old Palestinian Arab terrorist, Muhammad Taraireh, stabbed to death a 13-year-old Israeli child, Hallel Ariel, as she slept in her bed.
.
It was an attack of unimaginable barbarity and viciousness. Hallel was stabbed dozens of times. Her assailant turned over her lifeless body to stab her in her back for good measure. The terrorist was killed after he stabbed another Israeli who rushed to the child’s bedside.
.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 4:23 PM0
Why Is Israel Paying US Jewish Groups to Shy From Fighting BDS?
Imagine if the US government were to earmark millions of dollars for fostering democracy in the developing world, but neglected to require…
.
The killer’s mother, knowing that she will receive a premium reward for her sacrifice, bragged to the press that her son was a “hero,” a “martyr” who made her “proud” and urged others to kill Jews in the name of Allah. The Palestinian Authority (PA) declared Taraireh a “shahid,” or martyr, the highest honor achievable in Islam. This murder came days after a senior adviser to Abbas said in an interview, “Every place you find an Israeli, cut off his head.”
.
Hallel, a vivacious teen who just graduated from the 8th grade, wanted to grow up to be a zoologist. Her 17-year-old killer had a very different goal. On his Facebook page he expressed his desire to be a martyr because, as he had been taught, dying for Islam was a privilege.
.
Now, according to PA law, his family will receive a one-time payment of about $1560 and a monthly stipend of about $364 from the Palestinian government’s “martyr fund.” Had Taraireh been married, his wife would receive an additional monthly stipend of $104 plus $52 per child. Had he been a member of the PA military force, they would receive additional funds depending on rank.
.
The minimum amount paid to imprisoned terrorists is equivalent to the average wage of a jobholder in the territories and 40% higher than the average wage for Gazans. The more gruesome the attack and the longer the prison sentence, the higher the financial reward. The maximum stipends paid are considered an unimaginable fortune within Palestinian society.
.
You have to hand it to Abbas — this is definitely the way to instigate terror!
.
In the last 9 months, Palestinians committed 155 stabbings, 96 shootings, 45 vehicular attacks and one bus bombing, resulting in 40 people were killed and 511 people injured. The killing and maiming continue, as do the bounty payments.
.
The Palestinian “pay-to-slay” program provides approximately $300 million per year to terrorists and their families for killing Jews. In the PA’s 2016 budget, $137.8 million is earmarked for prisoners and their families, and $172.5 million for the families of “martyrs” — 5-10% of the government’s total budget.
.
The PA receives around $1 billion in foreign aid every year. By underwriting the PA, international donors, including the US, are helping to fund blood money to terrorists like Muhammad Taraireh.
.
Thanks to public exposure of the “pay-to-slay” program, Congress passed legislation in 2014 requiring the US to deduct from its development assistance to the PA an amount equal to the PA payment of blood money for terrorism. Then Abbas circumvented this law by transferring the responsibility for subsidizing terrorism from the PA to the PLO to create the appearance that the PA wasn’t involved. The US State Department willingly bought into this fiction. Western dollars for terrorism continue to flow.
.
Indiana Republican Senator Dan Coates has introduced new legislation to counter this Palestinian ruse and cut US aid to the Palestinians “by an amount… equivalent to the amount expended by the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization and any successor or affiliated organizations, as payments for acts of terrorism.” If this legislation is passed, it will be up to the State Department to implement it.
.
Despite their incitement to hate and incentive to kill programs, Palestinians remain the perennial “victims du jour” in the minds of the misguided West and the corrupt UN. Hallel Ariel and other Israelis, the real victims, are blamed for the terrorism visited upon them.
.
Only in this world of moral inversion, where truth is trashed, lies are lauded and the depraved are empowered, would the Palestinian Authority have the audacity to say about Western funding of their “pay-to-slay” policy, “The world owes the Palestinians money for enabling Israel’s establishment.”

Eastern Europe: The Last Barrier Between Christianity and Islam

By Giulio Meotti/Gatestone Institute

.

Perhaps it was a coincidence that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and tipped to be the next Pope, chose September 12, the anniversary of the Siege of Vienna, when Turkey’s Ottoman troops nearly conquered Europe, to deliver a most dramatic appeal to save Europe’s Christian roots.
.
“Many Muslims want and say that ‘Europe is finished’,” Cardinal Schönborn said, before accusing Europe of “forgetting its Christian identity.” He then denounced the possibility of “an Islamic conquest of Europe.”
.
Konrad Pesendorfer, head of the Austrian Office of Statistics, said that by 2030, 40% of the population of Vienna will be foreign-born, thanks to internal demography and migration flows (60,000 arrivals in just one year).
.
Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453, much of Eastern Europe’s Christian population spent centuries under Islamic occupation, particularly under the Ottomans. It now seems that the clock has reverted to 1683, when Ottoman armies were at the gates of Vienna.
.
It is not a coincidence that the fierce resistance of Eastern Europeans has been the main impediment to a unified response by the European Union to the migrant crisis. It was these Eastern states that forced German Chancellor Angela Merkel to halt the massive flux of migrants. Today, where there is no border, migrants keep coming en masse. In August alone, 23,000 migrants arrived in Italy.
.
Brussels is whipping up a propaganda war to cast the Western Europeans, who favor unvetted Muslim migration, as cosmopolitan and tolerant, and Eastern Europeans as a bunch of xenophobic bigots, if not outright neo-Nazis.
.
Europe’s educated elite might do well to listen to their Eastern brethren. These countries, ironically, are the core of the “new Europe,” the last to join the European project and the very countries, having escaped from authoritarian regimes, which should have revived it. Brussels’ policy is now pushing this Eastern bloc back under Russia’s sphere of influence.
.
The Eastern Europeans’ reluctance to open the doors to massive Muslim migration can be explained by the economic crisis, falling birth rates, their relatively homogenous societies, the persecution of the Christians under Communism, memories of a conflict with Islam dating back to the Middle Ages, and the attempt by Brussels to impose a cultural agenda.
.
The European Parliament, in fact, has constantly passed resolutions pressuring conservative East European member-states such as Poland, Hungary and Croatia, to legalize same-sex marriage and abortion on demand.
.
The President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, calls him “Viktator” Orbán. But Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, defiant, is going ahead with the construction of a wall on Hungary’s border with Serbia.
.
When Communism fell, Hungary was the first country to open the Iron Curtain and let people out. Now it is first country to erect a fence to keep people out. Orbán is also planning an additional fence along that border.
.
Orbán is the Eastern nemesis of the European elite. No one else in Europe except him speaks about defending “Christianity.” The “Visegrad-4,” the alliance between Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria and Slovakia, want to distinguish between Christian and Muslim immigrants. Orbán has the support of Hungarian bishops who oppose Pope Francis’ open-armed policy toward migrants.
.
In an opinion piece for the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, Orbán wrote:
.
“Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.”
.
Orbán’s rebelliousness goes back to his student days in 1989, when he was at the funeral of Imre Nagy, who led the anti-Soviet insurrection of 1956 — Orbán had the courage to demand the withdrawal of the communist invaders.
.
Orbán later led Hungary into NATO.
.
Son of a communist and a Calvinist mother, Orbán has a devout Catholic wife and five children. To those who question whether he is a reactionary, Orbán replies: “I eat with a fork and a knife, but we are not nice guys from the mainstream.” For him, the European Commission is a kind of new politburo. “We did not tolerate being dictated to from Vienna in 1848 nor from Moscow in 1956 and 1990,” Orbán said. “Now we’re not going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by anyone from Brussels or anywhere else.”
.
Orbán’s speeches are full of historical references, as when he asked Hungarians to behave with the same courage shown by their ancestors “in the war against the Ottoman armies.”
.
The Hungarian constitution is unique in Europe; it protects “life from conception” and says that marriages can take place only between a man and a woman.
.
Orbán’s approach has been adopted by other ex-communist members of the EU. Poland’s President Andrzej Duda complained about “dictates” from Brussels to accept migrants flowing into the Continent from the Middle East and Africa.
.
Meanwhile Poland’s Law and Justice Party leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, appealed “to an old historical viewpoint, according to which Poland is a bulwark for Christianity in the East and must save Europe from itself.”
.
“Since its adoption of Christianity in 966, Poland has often played the role of Antemurale Christianitatis, a bastion of Christendom,” according to Crisis Magazine.
.
“From halting the European advance of Mongols at the Battle of Legnica in 1241, to saving Europe from Muslim colonization when King John III Sobieski defeated the Turks at Vienna in 1683, this has been reinforced. Communism failed to extinguish Polish Catholicism, when John Paul II was elected pope in 1978 and inspired the rise of the Solidarity movement, which playing a crucial role in ending communism. More recently, Polish immigrants have filled hitherto empty pews in Western Europe. During the current Vatican synod on the family, Polish bishops have been among the most vocal defenders of tradition.”
.
The prime minister of another Eastern European country, Robert Fico of Slovakia, said his country will accept only Christian refugees; that Islam “has no place” in his country and that “multiculturalism is a fiction.”
.
Czech President Milos Zeman also attacked multiculturalism. Even Socratis Hasikos, Cyprus’ interior minister, said that his country would accept refugees but wanted them to be Christians. For many Cypriots, the line that divides the island is a frontier between Greek Christianity and Turkish Islam, just as the Berlin Wall was a frontier between democracy and communism.
.
As the prestigious American Catholic magazine First Things noted, “in Hungary, Croatia, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, a pro-family, pro-life revolution and a rediscovery of Christian roots is occurring.”
.
Like it or not, the last chance to save Europe’s roots might well come from the former communist members of the EU — those who defeated the Ottomans in 1699 and now feel culturally threatened by their heirs.
.
Cypriots know much better than the comfortable bureaucrats of Brussels the consequences of a cultural collision. Ask about their churches on the Turkish side of the island; how many of them are still standing?

Obama’s Final UN Speech Promotes A ‘Liberal World Order’ And A Palestinian State

By Michael Snyder / End Of The American Dream.
 .
During Barack Obama’s eighth and final address to the United Nations he let his true colors show. He staunchly defended globalism, he took several not very subtle shots at Donald Trump, and he boldly declared that Israel “cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land”.
.
That statement about “Palestinian land” was extremely alarming to many, because there are indications that Obama may decide to support a UN Security Council resolution that establishes the parameters for a Palestinian state during his final months in the White House.
.
Barack Obama has promised to squeeze every ounce of “change” out of the remainder of his term that he possibly can, and his last UN speech showed what is on his heart at this moment.
.
According to the Washington Post, Obama’s final UN address represented “an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order”…
.
President Obama, in his final speech to the United Nations Tuesday, made an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order that he admitted was under growing threat from wars in the Middle East and rising nationalism at home and in Europe.
.
Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly for the eighth and last time as president, Obama sought to rise above the conflicts of the moment and outline a future of international cooperation, stressing the importance of the global liberal institutions formed after World War II, including the United Nations.
.
Barack Obama is a true believer in internationalism. He appears to be completely convinced that the best path forward for humanity involves more integration on all levels – political, economic and even spiritual. Just check out this excerpt from his speech…
.
“I believe that at this moment we all face a choice,” Obama said. “We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration or we can retreat into a world sharply divided and ultimately in conflict along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion. I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward and not back.”
.
Obama’s obsession with globalism is one of the reasons why he has so much disdain for Donald Trump, and his speech at the United Nations contained quite a few comments that seemed specifically targeted at him. The following comes from CNN…
.
He painted a dark picture of the future awaiting Americans, and the world, if the forces of “aggressive nationalism” or “crude populism” win out. And he specifically inveighed against building a wall — a centerpiece of Trump’s proposal on border security.
“A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” Obama declared to the assembled representatives of the UN’s member states.
.
But even more alarming than his defense of globalism was his wording about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I can’t remember any previous president ever using the phrase “Palestinian land” before. Obviously a “two-state solution” is already an inevitable outcome in Obama’s mind. Here is the full quote for those that have not seen it yet…
.
“Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel. But Israel must recognize that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.”
.
To me, this statement is a major red flag.
.
Could it be possible that Barack Obama plans to stab Israel in the back by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that permanently divides the Holy Land before his time in the White House is done?
.
On Wednesday, Obama is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As you can see, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says that a discussion about a “two-state solution” will be on the agenda…
.
Obama plans to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday to “discuss the need for genuine advancement of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the face of deeply troubling trends on the ground,” according to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
.
Barack Obama knows that he only has until January 20th, 2017 to take any action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
.
If he supports a UN Security Council resolution formally recognizing a Palestinian state and granting them East Jerusalem as their capital, the next president would not be able to go back and undo that. So this may be a way for Obama to “leave a legacy” in the Middle East, and he may especially be tempted to do this if it looks like Donald Trump could win the election…
.
A looming Donald Trump presidency would make it more likely for lame-duck US President Barack Obama to support a United Nations Security Council resolution laying down the basic parameters for the creation of Palestinian state, a former top US official said Sunday.
.
“I suspect that if Trump wins, the president would be more inclined to go for a Security Council resolution to try to do something that binds, creates standards for the future that the next president couldn’t undo,” Dennis Ross said at a conference on the future of Zionism and the US-Israel relationship. “If Clinton wins, I suspect he [Obama] would be more sensitive to her concerns as to whether this helps or hurt her.”
.
Less than a week ago, I wrote an article about how UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also appears to want to see movement toward a Palestinian state before his term ends, and he reaffirmed this position very strongly on Tuesday…
.
Earlier on Tuesday, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told the UN General Assembly that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a two-state solution, and that the one-state option would “spell doom” for both sides.
.
“This is madness. Replacing a two-state solution with a one-state construct would spell doom: denying Palestinians their freedom and rightful future, and pushing Israel further from its vision of a Jewish democracy towards greater global isolation,” said Ban.
.
Of course Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon are both dead wrong about this.
.
If the UN Security Council passes a resolution that sets the parameters for a Palestinian state, it would be one of the worst things that they could possibly do, and it would set the stage for a major war in the Middle East.
.
But the pressure is on, and the world community seems to sense a real opportunity to divide the land of Israel.
.
Every year, the World Council of Churches observes a “World Week for Peace” during the month of September, and the focus is almost always on the Middle East.
.
This year, the work of the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum will be highlighted during the “World Week for Peace”, and it is an organization that is strongly affiliated with the World Council of Churches. On their website, the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum has just released a poem that declares that “it’s time for Palestine”. This is how that poem begins…
.
It’s time for Palestine.
It’s time for Palestinians and Israelis to share a just peace.
.
It’s time to respect human lives in the land called holy.
It’s time for healing to begin in wounded souls.
It’s time to end more than 60 years of conflict, oppression and fear.
It’s time for freedom from occupation.
.
It’s time for equal rights.
It’s time to stop discrimination, segregation and restrictions on movement.
It’s time for those who put up walls and fences to build them on their own property.
It’s time to stop bulldozing one community’s homes and building homes for the other community on land that is not theirs.
It’s time to do away with double standards.
.
Overall, I don’t know if I have ever seen such an international push for a Palestinian state like we are seeing right now.
.
And the man that holds all the power is Barack Obama, because a potential U.S. veto is all that stands in the way of a UN Security Council resolution that divides the land of Israel and establishes a Palestinian state.
.
At this moment we are in the danger zone. Obama has only four months left to pull the trigger, and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both stated that they do not plan to support such a resolution once they take office.
.
So if something is going to happen, it is almost certainly going to be before January 20th, 2017.
.
It is unclear what Obama is going to do at this point, but it is not exactly comforting that the fate of the land of Israel lies in his hands.

Israeli Victory Is the Only Way to Bring Peace

By Gregg Roman/Middle East Forum

.

At his first security briefing, Avigdor Liberman, Israel’s Defense Minister, declared that Israel no longer has “the luxury of conducting drawn-out wars of attrition.” 100 days into his term, with no sign of the decades-long conflict slowing, it is clear that the time has come to apply that principle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
 .
In order for there to be peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel must win and the Palestinians must lose.
.
For most of human history, military victory ended wars. The Pax Romana, a period of 200 years of relative peace within the Roman Empire, began only when Augustus defeated Marc Antony in the Battle of Actium. When the North ravaged the South in the American Civil War, it caused the seemingly intractable conflict that claimed three quarters of a million lives over four years to fade away.
.
The South, knowing it was defeated, never made trouble again. German and Japanese ill-will toward Western democracies in World War II rapidly dissipated, thanks to the bitter pill of defeat; friendship soon followed.
.
Today’s conventional wisdom holds that conflicts are best resolved through negotiation and compromise. But let’s look at the facts. After 40 years of negotiations to reunite Cyprus, the island remains divided, and 60 years of standoff over the Korean peninsula have achieved little.
.
In Syria, the killing continues unabated despite five years of talks to reconcile Sunnis and Alawites. And at the same time, years of diplomatic efforts to roll back Iran’s nuclear program ended with the West’s capitulation to Tehran’s demands.
.
The crux of the conflict is simple: Israel wants to survive; the Palestinian leadership wants to destroy it. Some Palestinian leaders make no secret of this. Hamas leaders’ open incitement to violence spawned the so-called “stabbing intifada,” and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas praises the Palestinian “martyrs” and names streets after them.
.
Others talk peace but demand a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel, a requirement that would effectively eviscerate the Jewish state by allowing millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to resettle permanently within Israel’s borders. But no matter their angle, all Palestinian leaders preach hatred towards Israel.
 .
American policy has long been to prevent Israel from achieving a decisive military victory over its adversaries. In 1956, President Eisenhower forced Israel to abandon its territorial gains from the Suez Crisis. Similarly, following the 1967 Six Day War, the U.S. helped engineer a U.N. resolution calling on Israel to return unspecified “territories occupied” in the war.
.
The Reagan administration stopped Israel from obliterating Yasser Arafat’s PLO forces in Lebanon in 1982, and, most recently, the Obama administration pressured Israel to limit its objectives in its 2014 war with Hamas. These concessions, which are often unilateral and irreversible, include settlement freezes, prisoner releases and forfeiture of territory.
.
Such policies deliver pernicious results; American “restraint” of Israel encourages its enemies to take risks. Much like government bailouts encourage banks to make high-risk, high-payoff investments by removing the consequences of failure, Israel’s adversaries need not fret over irrevocable loss because they know the international community will admonish Israel for any gains it achieves.
.
Moreover, restraining Israel legitimizes and nourishes Palestinian rejectionism, defined as the refusal to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty and right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland. Because it knows there will be no consequences for its sophisticated propaganda war, the Palestinian Authority can continue to demonize Israel.
.
“To become a normal people, one whose parents do not encourage their children to become suicide terrorists, Palestinian Arabs need to undergo the crucible of defeat,” writes Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes.
.
When Israel has licensure, without American opprobrium, to unleash its military might after a Palestinian rocket or terror attack, as when Liberman ordered over 50 airstrikes on Hamas military infrastructure in Gaza in response to one rocket, the Palestinians retreat. The fear of crushing defeat is a potent weapon in neutralizing Palestinian resistance.
.
America’s handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict is preventing the kind of metamorphosis in Palestinian thinking about Israel that peace requires. It’s time for Washington to allow Israel to demolish the Palestinian dream of a one-state solution, free of Jews. As Ronald Reagan said regarding the US fight against communism, the only way to “win is if they lose.”
.
This doesn’t mean the U.S. should support a winner-take-all settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But we must dispense with the fallacy that Israel is only a concession or two away from an American-brokered diplomatic breakthrough. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur said famously, “there is no substitute for victory.”

Islamism, Europe and Elections

By Zalman Shoval/Israel Hayom

.

The defeat of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union in her home state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is a warning sign for the ruling party in Germany and proves that the United States may not be the only country where a political drama will be unfolding over the next few months.
 .
The potential for political transition exists mainly in Germany and in France, but Britain beat them to the punch with the Brexit vote in favor of separating from the European Union.
.
Each one of the political storms now waging, and those expected to begin shortly, occur due to specific reasons, but behind all of them is, in one form or another, concern about Islamism and its implications — whether in terms of terrorism or in terms of destroying the cultural fabric and upsetting the demographic balance.
.
Popular Swiss daily Neue Zurcher Zeitung published a detailed article about the incremental strategy used by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi movements in their efforts to take over the world: a small concession here, a small concession there, apparent setbacks on unimportant issues like dress or education, promoting Sharia law, etc.
.
All this on the pretense of equality and human rights — until the walls of Western democratic society are completely breached in a decisive attack. The article’s author is not a character like French writer Michel Houellebecq, who describes the Islamist victory over France as a near foregone conclusion, but rather a respected professor of political science and Middle Eastern history at the University of Zurich.
.
While Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump leverages the Islamist threat, in Merkel’s Germany, it is already a reality. In a country that absorbed about a million immigrants, the vast majority of them Muslims, and which will take in a further 300,000 before year’s end — all this on top of the near 3 million Turkish immigrants already living there — the Islamist issue has become a political and electoral time bomb.
.
Merkel herself stands at the flashpoint, as her opponents, and even some of her supporters, blame her — as Vice Chancellor and Social Democratic Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel has expressed — for miscalculating the challenges facing her liberal immigration policy.
.
Gabriel is calling to limit immigration to Germany, and even Merkel, though she opposes this step, has recently called on Germany’s Muslim residents to demonstrate greater loyalty to the country’s social and democratic values.
.
As a result of this situation, alongside the growing power of figures among the extreme Right — some of them bearing fascist overtones — we are hearing calls to replace the leadership in the elections this coming year. It is not likely to happen, but nonetheless, Germany’s political stability has been badly cracked.
.
In France too, even more so than in Germany, Islamism is set to play a central role in the upcoming presidential election, and even in the earlier race for centre-right candidacy, which has become a close battle between former French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his rival, Bordeaux Mayor Alain Juppe.
.
In the previous election, leftist French President Francois Hollande defeated Sarkozy thanks to the Muslim vote, and it seems now that Juppe has chosen to follow in his footsteps. Instead of focusing his campaign on the war on terrorism, as Sarkozy did, he is calling on France to embrace its Muslim citizens.
.
For Israel, it doesn’t make much of a difference who ultimately ends up in Elysee Palace. All the candidates admit that Israel is an important friend to France — though so are the Palestinians — but the deciding factor is the traditional stance of the French Foreign Ministry since the Venice Declaration in 1980 that sought to include the PLO in any negotiations on the Palestinian issue, and its position taken in 1967, siding with the Arabs and Russia on U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.
.
While France is not currently a major player in the Middle Eastern arena, despite its best efforts, what happens there now may determine its character more than some failed attempt at foreign policy. In any event, the developments in France, in Germany and in other places testify to the fact that Islamism will play an increasingly larger role in the politics of the free world.

Germany Readies Internal War On Terror, Prepares For Terror Attacks

By Joshua Krause/The Daily Sheeple

.

There have been several alarming developments in Germany over the past few weeks. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the German government has told its citizens to begin stockpiling food and water.
 .
And not long after announcing that, the government suggested that they may bring back the draft, which was abolished in 2011 after it was deemed to be archaic and unnecessary.
.
Initially the government was reluctant to bluntly spell out exactly why they wanted to bring back conscription or why their citizens should start stockpiling necessities. But based on some of the reports that have come from the German government since then, it’s obvious that they’re preparing for terrorist attacks.
.
And not the kind of run of the mill attacks that Germany has seen over the summer. It seems like Germany is preparing for the kind of terror attacks that could break down their society.
.
For instance, the German military admitted in August that dozens of Islamic extremists had infiltrated the armed forces. However, that’s nothing compared to what Germany’s interior minister recently admitted.
.
Speaking in an interview with Bild newspaper, Thomas de Maiziere said there were currently at least 520 “potential attackers” in the country, which has been on edge since two Islamic State-inspired attacks in July.
.
He said another 360 “relevant” people were known to police because of their close proximity to the potential attackers.
.
Many Germans fear that fighters belonging to the Islamic State jihadist group could have slipped into Germany with the roughly one million of refugees from Syria, North Africa and Asia who arrived last year.
.
“The terror threat now stems from foreign hit teams as well as fanatical lone wolves in Germany,” de Maiziere said in the interview ahead of the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, which were partly coordinated from Germany.
.
And when you think about it, 520 could very well be a conservative estimate. The German government allowed over a million refugees into its borders. For all we know there could be well over a thousand of these lunatics lurking in Germany.
.
In any case, you have wonder what the German government is going to do about this threat. If a dozen terrorists decided to coordinate several attacks in a short period of time, it could disrupt the whole country for days.
.
But if Germany is bombarded with hundreds of terror attacks, it could lead to a total breakdown of society. That’s probably why the German government is getting ready for the day when they may have to deploy their soldiers domestically.  From NBC News..
.
MAINZ, Germany — Germany is preparing to train troops to be deployed within its borders for the first time since World War II amid fears of terrorist attacks.
.
The country’s armed forces will hold joint drills with police early next year, officials confirmed.
.
Authorities stress that counterterrorism measures will primarily remain the responsibility of police.
.
However, the potential for large-scale attacks have made the use of German military assets “conceivable, even probable,” according to Lt. Gen. Martin Schelleis, the Bundeswehr’s chief of joint support services.
.
Obviously, Germany is preparing for something big and messy on their own soil. The only question that remains, is will their society prevail after it’s all said and done?

European Leaders Discuss Plan For European Army

By Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute

.

European leaders are discussing “far-reaching proposals” to build a pan-European military, according to a French defense ministry document leaked to the German newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
 .
The efforts are part of plans to relaunch the European Union at celebrations in Rome next March marking the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Community.
.
The document confirms rumors that European officials are rushing ahead with defense integration now that Britain – the leading military power in Europe – will be exiting the 28-member European Union.
.
British leaders have repeatedly blocked efforts to create a European army because of concerns that it would undermine the NATO alliance, the primary defense structure in Europe since 1949.
.
Proponents of European defense integration argue that it is needed to counter growing security threats and would save billions of euros in duplication between countries.
.
Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal (see Appendix below) of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.
.
Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit the June 23 decision by British voters to leave the EU and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.
.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that it had obtained a copy of a six-page position paper, jointly written by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen. The document calls for the establishment of a “common and permanent” European military headquarters, as well as the creation of EU military structures, including an EU Logistics Command and an EU Medical Command.
.
The document calls on EU member states to integrate logistics and procurement, coordinate military R&D and synchronize policies in matters of financing and military planning. EU intelligence gathering would be improved through the use of European satellites; a common EU military academy would “promote a common esprit de corps.”
.
According to the newspaper, the document will be distributed to European leaders at an informal summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, on September 16. France and Germany will ask the leaders of the other EU member states not only to approve the measures, but also to “discuss a fast implementation.”
.
Specifically, France and Germany will for the first time activate Article 44 of the Lisbon Treaty (also known as the European Constitution). This clause allows certain EU member states “which are willing and have the necessary capability” to proceed with the “task” of defense integration, even if other EU member states disapprove.
.
According to Süddeutsche Zeitung:
.
“In the wake of the British referendum to leave the European Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have decided to demonstrate the EU’s strength and to push the remaining member states to show more unity. Especially in defense policy, many projects were put on hold because Britain vetoed them. Without London, the two EU founding states, France and Germany, hope for swift decisions.”
.
On September 8, Defense News reported that the creation of a European army was the central focus of an August 22 meeting between the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in Naples, where the three declared “the beginning of a new Europe.” That meeting was followed by a meeting of defense ministers from the three countries in Paris on September 5.
.
According to Defense News, Italy is lobbying France and Germany to “back a plan for European tax breaks and financing for joint European defense procurement and development programs, as part of a bid to build a European army.”
.
A confidential draft document circulated by Italy calls for “fiscal and financial incentives to support new EU cooperative programs for development and joint purchases of equipment and infrastructure supporting the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy.”
.
In a September 8 interview with La Repubblica, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called for the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters in Brussels that would manage all current and future EU military operations. “This could become the nucleus around which a common European defense structure could be built,” she said.
.
Mogherini insisted that “we are not talking about a European army but about European defense: something we can really do, concretely, starting now.” She also stressed that EU defense policy would remain under the control of European governments rather than the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the EU.
.
On September 7, however, The Times reported that Mogherini will present EU leaders attending the summit in Bratislava with a “road map” and a “timetable” for creating EU military structures, which are “the foundation of a European army.” According to newspaper, her plans for military structures able “to act autonomously” from NATO have led to fears that “the EU is seeking to rival the transatlantic alliance.”
.
The Times quoted Mogherini as saying she was taking advantage of the “political space” opened by the Brexit vote:
.
“It might sound a bit dramatic but we are at this turning point. We could relaunch our European project and make it more functional and powerful for our citizens and the rest of the world. Or we could diminish its intensity and power. We have the political space today to do things that were not really doable in previous years.”
.
On May 27, the Sunday Times reported that steps towards creating a European army were being kept secret from British voters until the day after the June 23 referendum:
.
“In an effort to avoid derailing the Prime Minister’s ‘Remain’ campaign, the policy plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britons vote. Until then, only a small group of EU political and security committee ambassadors, who must leave their electronic devices outside a sealed room, can read the proposal.”
.
On June 28, just days after the British referendum, Mogherini presented European leaders attending an EU summit in Brussels with the “EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy.” The document explicitly calls for European defense integration, and implicitly calls for the creation of a European army.
.
According to the document, the EU strategy “nurtures the ambition of strategic autonomy for the European Union.” It adds: “Gradual synchronization and mutual adaptation of national defense planning cycles and capability development can enhance strategic convergence between member states.”
.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Liam Fox, a former defense secretary who served under former Prime Minister David Cameron, said:
.
“Those of us who have always warned about Europe’s defense ambitions have always been told not to worry, but step-by-step that ever closer union is becoming a reality. We cannot afford to be conned in this referendum as we were conned in 1975.
.
“The best way to protect ourselves is to stay close to the US. The US defense budget is bigger than the next 11 countries in the world put together. Europe’s defense intentions are a dangerous fantasy and risk cutting us off from our closest and most powerful ally.
.
“We’re always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We’ve been too often conned before and we must not be conned again.”
.
The Conservative Party’s defense spokesman, Geoffrey Van Orden, said the implications of the EU’s defense ambitions are worrying:
.
“We can all see that the EU might play a useful role in conflict prevention and in some civil aspects of crisis management. But its ambitions go beyond that. The EU motive is not to create additional military capability but to achieve defense integration as a key step on the road to a federal EU state.
.
“The US and indeed the UK are being misled if they imagine that such moves will enhance NATO the key guarantor of our collective defense. On the contrary, creation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies.”
.
Mike Hookem, the defense spokesman of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), said his party had been warning about the dangers posed by the EU army concept for years:
.
“I’m pleased to see people are finally waking up. An EU army is not some Eurosceptic fantasy, there are many in Brussels hell-bent on making it happen.”
.
Soldiers from the Eurocorps on parade in Strasbourg, France, on January 31, 2013. Eurocorps is an intergovernmental military unit of approximately 1,000 soldiers from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain, stationed in Strasbourg. (Image: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
.
Appendix
.
Select quotes regarding a European army
.
European federalists have been calling for the creation of a European army in one form or another since 1950. Although a European army is still a long way away from becoming reality, the ultimate goal of European federalists is full defense integration leading to a European military under supranational control.
.
Since the Lisbon Treaty, which forms the constitutional basis of the European Union, entered into force in December 2009, the political momentum toward European defense integration has picked up steam. The drive toward European defense integration has accelerated during the Obama administration, which has often appeared indifferent to Europe and transatlantic relations. Another important obstacle to European defense integration was removed when Britons voted in June 2016 to exit the European Union.
.
What follows is a collection of quotes from senior European officials regarding a European army and integrated defense.
.
September 9. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said:
.
“I believe a window of opportunity has been opened to give life to a European defense. I wanted to send the message that, despite the British exit, Europe can and must move forward with the process of integration. The prospect of Brexit offered an opportunity not to be slowed by the country that was always most determinedly opposed to the idea of pooling the instruments of defense.”
.
August 26. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a staunch critic of the EU’s migration policies, said a joint European army was needed to keep migrants out. At a news conference after a meeting between Central European member states and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Warsaw, Orbán said: “We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army.”
.
August 22. Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka called for greater European military integration:
.
“Our experiences with the last migration wave have shown the importance of Europe’s internal borders. In the face of uncontrolled mass migration, even states in the center of Europe have realized that internal borders must be better controlled. Aside from better coordinated foreign and security policy, I also believe that in the long term, we will be unable to do without a joint European army.”
.
July 23. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said:
.
“The withdrawal of the British from the EU has led to a significant reduction in the continent’s military strength, and from a military policy perspective we must not remain in this defenseless position… A European army must protect the continent from two sides, from the East and from the South, in terms of protecting against terrorism and migration. Europe cannot even continue to exist without an alliance a joint EU army.”
.
July 13. The German Defense Ministry released a white paper outlining the country’s future defense and security policies. The document calls for steps leading to the creation of an EU army, such as the integration of military capabilities and defense industries. “We are aiming to establish a permanent European civil-military operational headquarters in the medium term,” it says. The white paper also says that citizens of other EU countries could be allowed to serve in the German army. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:
.
“Britain has paralyzed the European Union on the issues of foreign and security policy. This cannot mean that the rest of Europe remain inactive, but rather we need to move forward on these big issues.”
.
June 28. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier released a joint document titled “A Strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties.” It states:
.
“The security of EU member states is deeply interconnected, as these threats now affect the continent as a whole: any threat to one member state is also a threat to others. We therefore regard our security as one and indivisible. We consider the European Union and the European security order to be part of our core interests and will safeguard them in any circumstances.
.
“In this context, France and Germany recommit to a shared vision of Europe as a security union, based on solidarity and mutual assistance between member states in support of common security and defense policy. Providing security for Europe as well as contributing to peace and stability globally is at the heart of the European project.
.
“France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent and global actor able to leverage its unique array of expertise and tools, civilian and military, in order to defend and promote the interests of its citizens. France and Germany will promote integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all EU policy instruments.
.
“The EU should be able to plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively, with the support of a permanent civil-military chain of command. The EU should be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces and provide common financing for its operations. Within the framework of the EU, member states willing to establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defense or to push ahead to launch operations should be able to do so in a flexible manner. If needed, EU member states should consider establishing standing maritime forces or acquiring EU-owned capabilities in other key areas.”
 .
June 26. In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok, called for the immediate creation of a joint military headquarters and for the eventual establishment of an EU army:
.
“We need a common military headquarters and a coalition of the willing in accordance with the permanent structural cooperation of the EU Treaty. An EU army could eventually arise from such a group. This could help to strengthen the role of Europeans in the security and defense policy, together better fulfill the responsibility of Europe in the world and also to achieve more synergies in defense spending.”
.
June 24. French President François Hollande said:
.
“Europe needs to be a sovereign power deciding its own future and promoting its model. France will therefore be leading efforts to ensure Europe focuses on the most important issues: the security and defense of our continent, to protect our borders and preserve peace in the face of threats.”
.
May 29. British Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt said: “A centrally controlled army would be a massive step to the EU’s goal of full political integration, but it would be a very dangerous move.”
.
February 4. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen confirmed an agreement to integrate some 800 German soldiers into the Dutch navy. While in Amsterdam, where she met with the Dutch Defense Minister, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, von der Leyen called the plan a “prime example for the building of a European defense union.”
.
December 15, 2015. The European Commission proposed creating a European Border and Coast Guard. The proposal, which was put forward in response to the ongoing European migrant crisis, called for a rapid reaction force of 1,500 officers who would be able to deploy even if a member state did not ask for its help.
.
October 15, 2015. The president of the European People’s Party (EPP), Joseph Daul, said: “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.”
.
September 12, 2015. An unpublished position paper drawn up by Europe and Defence policy committees of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party (CDU) was leaked to The Telegraph. The document sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe. It calls for “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.” It adds:
.
“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.
.
“In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterized by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.”
.
June 15, 2015. Michel Barnier, Special Adviser on European Defence and Security Policy to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, wrote:
.
“Member States are slow to accept that they need to go beyond a model where defense is a matter of strict national sovereignty…. It is time for a reckoning: traditional methods of cooperation have reached their limits and proved insufficient. European defense needs a paradigm change in line with the exponential increase in global threats and the volatility of our neighborhood. The past has shown that European defense does move ahead if and when there is political will.”
.
March 9, 2015. In an interview with Die Welt, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU should establish its own army to show Russia it is serious about defending European values:
.
“Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy too, we are not taken seriously. A common European army would show the world that there will never again be war between EU countries. Such an army would help us to build a common foreign and security policy and allow Europe to meet its responsibilities in the world. With its own army, Europe could respond credibly to a threat to peace in a member country or in a neighboring country of the European Union.”
.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said they support Juncker’s proposal for a European army. In an interview with Tagesspiegel, Steinmeier added:
.
“The long-term goal of a European army is a major policy objective and has been part of the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) party program for many years. Given the new risks and threats to peace in Europe we now need, as a first step, a rapid adaptation and updating of the common European security strategy.”
.
March 8, 2015. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:
.
“I think that the German army is ready, under certain circumstances, to be subordinated to the control of another nation. That is the goal, that in the European Union we step by step more firmly establish our cooperation, especially in security policy. This intertwining of armies with a view to having a European army is the future.”
.
May 15, 2014. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European People’s Party lead candidate for president of the next European Commission, wrote:
.
“I believe that we need to work on a stronger Europe when it comes to security and defense matters. Yes, Europe is chiefly a ‘soft power.’ But even the strongest soft powers cannot make do in the long run without at least some integrated defense capacities. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the possibility, for those Member States who want to do so, to pool their defense capabilities in the form of a permanent structured cooperation.”
.
December 19, 2013. The speaker of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, called for the creation of a European army: “If we wish to defend our values and interests, if we wish to maintain the security of our citizens, then a majority of MEPs consider that we need a headquarters for civil and military missions in Brussels and deployable troops.”
.
November 15, 2009. In an interview with The Times, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said it is a “necessary objective to have a European army.” He added:
.
“Every country duplicates its forces, each of us puts armored cars, men, tanks, planes, into Afghanistan. If there were a European army, Italy could send planes, France could send tanks, Britain could send armored cars, and in this way we would optimize the use of our resources. Perhaps we won’t get there immediately, but that is the idea of a European army.”
.
May 6, 2008. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for the establishment of the European army “as soon as possible.” He said he had been in talks with his French counterpart to discuss “future structures” of a European army.
.
December 10-11, 1999. European officials meeting in Helsinki agreed to develop a European Rapid Reaction Force. Also known as the Helsinki Headline Goal, EU member states pledged that by 2003 they would be able to deploy a European military force of 60,000 troops within 60 days and for a period of potentially one year. This goal has never been met.
.
December 3-4, 1988. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac met at the French port city of Saint-Malo to discuss future EU defense integration. The summit declaration, which laid the political foundation for a common European defense policy, stated:
.
“The European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage… The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises.”
.
October 24, 1950. The Pleven Plan, named after French Prime Minister René Pleven, was the first plan to create a unified European army. It proposed the “immediate creation of a European army tied to the political institutions of a united Europe.” It stated:
.
“A European army cannot be created simply by placing national military units side by side, since, in practice, this would merely mask a coalition of the old sort. Tasks that can be tackled only in common must be matched by common institutions. A united European army, made up of forces from the various European nations must, as far as possible, pool all of its human and material components under a single political and military European authority.”
.
The Pleven Plan was rejected by the French Parliament because it infringed on France’s national sovereignty.