PMW: Fatah glorifies the second Intifada, promises more terror
Fatah’s Bethlehem Branch glorified the Palestinian Authority’s terror campaign (2000-2005) – the second Intifada, posting on Facebook the photo above with the text:
“A souvenir picture from the Al-Aqsa Intifada The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades – Bethlehem.”
[Facebook page of the Fatah Movement – Bethlehem Branch, Oct. 26, 2017]
Over 1,000 Israelis, of which the vast majority were civilians, were murdered during the PA terror campaign, mostly in suicide bombings by Hamas and Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades is considered a terror organization by the US and the EU. The image shows rows of masked men, apparently belonging to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, dressed in black clothes, wearing keffiyehs (Arab headdresses) and yellow Fatah headbands, and carrying various types of rifles.
Palestinian Media Watch has documented numerous times that Fatah continues to promote violence and refuses to lay down its weapons. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor Sultan Abu Al-Einein wrote: “The only way to freedom and liberation is resistance to the occupier… There is no honor for the weak
.” [Facebook page of Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor to NGOs Sultan Abu Al-Einein, Nov. 2, 2017]
“Resistance” is in PA terminology often a euphemism for violence and terror.
Washington’s liberal foreign-policy establishment sees an ambitious would-be autocrat overreaching at home and abroad. But the Saudi leadership was never going to sit still in response to Tehran’s growing hegemony, a threat that was abetted by the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy and failure to check Iranian aggression across the geopolitical board. Feeling abandoned by Washington, and with their own system’s weaknesses bearing down on them, the Saudis were due for a big shakeup.
MBS’s [Mohammed bin Salman] project makes sense against this backdrop. His reform vision is by no means democratic. But it is populist, nationalist, and shorn of illusions. Which is to say, it is deeply attuned to the needs of the Arabs today and the worldwide spirit of the age.
Start with populism. By targeting graft, MBS is vindicating average Saudis, who stewed as they watched the well-connected cash in on public money. By granting women the right to drive and loosening social restrictions that made the kingdom one of the worst places to be young, MBS is creating a constituency that is invested in his success. Saudis won’t shed tears for princes locked up in the Riyadh Ritz.
Then there is nationalism. By liberalizing the economy and seeking revenue beyond oil, MBS is shoring up the national foundations of Saudi power–crucial in the confrontation with Tehran. With oil prices depressed, Riyadh can no longer afford to run a colossal welfare state. Weaning Saudis off petro-entitlements is likely to foster a healthier, more accountable sense of belonging and citizenship than the kingdom has afforded citizens since its founding. More philosophically, MBS views the nation-state form as an enduring mechanism for confronting 21st-century challenges. MBS is thus one among a rising group of like-minded world leaders, including Narendra Modi, Benjamin Netanyahu, and, of course, Donald Trump.
Finally, MBS’s reform vision is realistic. As the likes of Bernard Lewis warned and subsequent events showed, Arab society isn’t configured to representative democracy as we in the West understand it. With the precious exception of Tunisia, Arab “democracy” has yielded Islamism, state failure, and civil war. Top-down change, driven by a popular figure like MBS, promises a less perilous path to reform and prosperity for the Saudis and their neighborhood. The U.S. should embrace this vision–and lend a hand.
Caroline Glick: Saudi purges and duty to act
There can be little doubt that there was coordination between the Saudi regime and the Trump administration regarding Saturday’s actions. The timing of the administration’s release last week of most of the files US special forces seized during their 2011 raid of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was likely not a coincidence.
The files, which the Obama administration refused to release, make clear that Obama’s two chief pretensions – that al-Qaida was a spent force by the time US forces killed bin Laden, and that Iran was interested in moderating its behavior were both untrue. The documents showed that al-Qaida’s operations remained a significant worldwide threat to US interests.
And perhaps more significantly, they showed that Iran was al-Qaida’s chief state sponsor. Much of al-Qaida’s leadership, including bin Laden’s sons, operated from Iran. The notion – touted by Obama and his administration – that Shi’ite Iranians and Sunni terrorists from al-Qaida and other groups were incapable of cooperating was demonstrated to be an utter fiction by the documents.
Their publication now, as Saudi Arabia takes more determined steps to slash its support for radical Islamists, and separate itself from Wahhabist Islam, draws a clear distinction between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Given Saudi Arabia’s record, and the kingdom’s 70-year alliance with Wahhabist clerics, it is hard to know whether Mohammed’s move signals an irrevocable breach between the House of Saud and the Wahhabists.
But the direction is clear. With Hariri’s removal from Lebanon, the lines between the forces of jihad and terrorism led by Iran, and the forces that oppose them are clearer than ever before. And the necessity of acting against the former and helping the latter has similarly never been more obvious.
Elliott Abrams: ‘Game of Thrones’ Comes to Saudi Arabia
Is this centralization of power a good thing for the United States, or even for Saudi Arabia? That question will best be answered retrospectively, in about a decade. What’s clear now, though, is that Crown Prince Mohammed has announced ambitious economic and social changes, from allowing women to drive and mix with men in sports stadiums, to selling off a part of the kingdom’s key asset, the Aramco oil company, to challenging the ideology of the Wahhabi clerics. He appears to believe that such moves require sheer power, both to overcome resistance and to move the kingdom’s poorly educated and youthful population (roughly half are under the age of twenty-five) of 33 million into the 21st century.
Crown Prince Mohammed has spoken of a more modern Saudi Arabia, at least when it comes to the role of religion and the rights of women. Last month he called for “a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions.” But political liberalization is not in the cards. Indeed, a serious crackdown has been under way for the last two years, including lengthy prison terms for tweets that criticized the Saudi authorities. The message from the palace is clear: get on board or pay the price. That message applies not only to commoners, but to the entire royal family.
Few were in doubt about Crown Prince Mohammed’s ambition. Now there will be equal certainty about his determination.
Israel has not faced such a powerful threat since the 1973 war, and confronting the Iran-Hizballah-Assad coalition will tax the IDF heavily. . . . [Such a conflict’s] daunting tactical challenges also, as in the past, generate strategic and geopolitical problems. The perception of victory often counts more than the battlefield result, both in the region and in the larger international contest.
Nasrallah excels at spinning defeat into victory. [In 2006, notwithstanding Hizballah’s considerable losses], survival became triumph, a bit of propaganda that caught on in outlets such as the Economist, which declared, “Nasrallah wins the war.” By now even many Israelis, especially on the political left, concur. . . . The standard of victory for Israel remains almost impossibly high.
Despite the gloomy view of the past and the foreboding about the future, it is also the case that since 2006 Israel’s northern border has been remarkably quiet. That’s even more remarkable considering the chaos that’s ripped Iraq and Syria apart and catapulted Iran to the fore. This is a ceasefire worth preserving. It particularly behooves the United States to try to do so. . .
At the same time, the looming war presents an important opportunity. . . . Should deterrence fail and conflict resume, it will be important for the United States to back the Israelis clearly and forcefully. . . . A decisive Israeli victory against the Tehran-backed Hizballah forces would be an unparalleled opportunity to stem the regional Iranian tide, thereby serving a prime U.S. national-security interest. Such a victory would both reassure and relax America’s Arab allies, particularly in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Egypt—those most nervous about a flagging U.S. commitment in the Middle East. It would also remind the world that, despite Vladimir Putin’s meddling, the United States remains the most powerful external force in the region. . . . Just as Israelis have begun to prepare themselves for this [prospective conflict], so should [the U.S.].
Israel’s government waged financial warfare on terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which became a model for most states battling terrorism today, according to members of a once secret Israeli task force called Harpoon.
The operations ranged from financial operations that caused terrorist groups to lose tens of millions from bad investments, to commando raids on banks linked to the funding of suicide bombings, to targeted assassinations of terror group financiers.
“Harpoon showed the world that there must constantly be new angles to attack terrorist groups and infrastructure,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, coauthor with Samuel M. Katz of a new book, Harpoon: Inside the Covert War Against Terrorism’s Money Masters, to be published Tuesday.
“The Israeli task force realized ahead of everyone else that money was the oxygen for the terrorist networks and you could badly damage them by choking it off,” she said.
Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Israel, led by Gen. Meir Dagan, a commando veteran who later headed the Mossad intelligence service for nine years, combined old and new spy methods to squeeze the finances of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the regimes and paymasters behind them. The operations greatly reduced the deadly suicide and rocket attacks used by both groups against the Jewish state.
Dagan advocated targeting terrorist financing as a top priority. He died of cancer last year, and the book highlights the major role he played in leading Israel’s covert war against terrorists and supporters like Iran.
After the recent Islamic terrorist vehicular attack in Lower Manhattan, people ask me as an Israeli: “what is Israel’s secret to living daily with Palestinian Arab terrorism and the country’s ability to prosper in spite of it?”
The answer is: Israel’s secret weapon is the Israeli civilians who feel responsible for each other and therefore are willing to sacrifice themselves fighting and defeating terror to save others. The Israeli public does not hide or run away from the terrorists to save themselves, but rather confronts the terrorists in an effort to save their fellow citizens. From airline hijackings, suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings, and vehicle attacks, Israel has seen them all and has adapted accordingly
While other countries in the West rely solely or mostly on the police and security services to stop terrorists, in Israel the public is a full, independent partner in the fight. Thirty percent of terrorist attacks have been thwarted by civilians in Israel, who fight back by striking the terrorists with everything they had such as a pizza tray, an umbrella, a selfie stick, a guitar, chairs, pepper spray, and guns. While in England the police want the schoolkids to be taught the message of “hide, run, tell,” a child growing up in Israel, is encouraged always to think what will he do proactively if he or she were facing a terrorist.
The most popular YouTube videos posted online are those that show the heroic actions of citizens fighting back or impeding a terrorist. Family, friends, and society applaud, admire, and approve of such actions to defeat terrorism in order to survive, and those people are treated as heroes.
The annual national conference of the Israeli American Council concluded on Monday. The speakers in the final plenary session included members of Congress from both parties, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, as well as philanthropist and businessman Sheldon Adelson, who spoke for the second night in a row.
The conference is believed to be the largest gathering of Israelis in the United States ever recorded. The speakers touted the special relationship between Israel and the United States.
California Congressman Brad Sherman, who chairs the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said that bipartisanship on Israel must be paramount. He also said that regime change in Iran must be a top priority.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent a video message, telling the crowd – numbering almost 3,000 – that Israel has never been stronger.
Adelson, who is the chief financial backer of the IAC, said Sunday that he decided to start contributing heavily to the organization several years ago because of its potential in supporting Israel unconditionally.
“There are times when we cannot have equivocation, when we need a group of people to advocate for Israel unequivocally, and I felt if there was an organization called the Israeli American Council, that council and that organization would unequivocally always without question and irreversibly support Israel when it needed it,” Adelson said
The UN turned to anti-Israel extremist Rashid Khalidi as guest of honor at an event intended to demonize and delegitimize the UN member state of Israel. His comments, and those of his audience, were rife with antisemitic overtones. The event, entitled “100 years of the Balfour Declaration and its impact on the Palestinian People”, was sponsored by the UN’s committee dedicated to promotion of the Palestinian narrative and held at the UN on November 2, 2017. The Balfour Declaration, signed in 1917, is when the British government expressed that it “view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”
During the event, Khalidi described the Balfour Declaration as a “gun pointed directly at their heads” in reference to Palestinians, as well as a “declaration of war.” This war, Khalidi alleged, was waged in part by the “Zionist movement with money, legal means, [and] propaganda…” Khalidi apparently had no problem entertaining questions and comments from audience members, such as: a representative of Oman inquiring about what “leverage” Jews had to make Britain forget about its interests in the Arab world, an Arab “TV presenter” accusing Israel of “rape of sanctity lands,” and a Palestinian “attorney activist” accusing Israel of “coloniz[ing] for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.”
In their words:
Khalidi: “For the Palestinians, this declaration, this statement was a gun pointed directly at their heads, particularly in view of the colonialist ambiance of the early 20th century. As I will try to show this afternoon, the Balfour Declaration, in effect, constituted a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population of the land it was promising to the Jewish people as a national home. This declaration launched what has become a century long assault on the Palestinian people aimed at implanting and fostering this national home at their expense… For the next few decades, this war was waged in several ways. It was waged by the Zionist movement with money, legal means, propaganda, and finally with mortars and car bombs.”
Representative from Oman: “Can you please shed a light on the background of the Balfour Declaration. What has made the British government give such a promise to the Jewish people even though it has an interest in the Arab world from Suez to the Gulf? What leverage has the Jewish, or Zionist at that time to influence the British?”
In the ensuing [post-referendum] violence, voters were beaten with clubs, dragged by their hair, and shot with rubber bullets [by Spanish police]. Nearly 900 civilians were treated for injuries. . . . A senior cabinet minister warned [subsequently] that Spain will use force, if necessary, to compel Catalonia to submit. . . .
[Nonetheless], the Spanish government unhesitatingly proclaims support for Palestinian sovereignty. . . . How can Spain, so ready to endorse a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, aggressively oppose one for its conflict with Catalonia?
The phenomenon isn’t limited to Spain. Iraq also backs statehood and full UN membership for the Palestinians—but not for the Iraqi Kurds who decisively voted for independence last month. . . . As recently as July, the Chinese president Xi Jinping hosted Mahmoud Abbas in Beijing and endorsed a “settlement of the Palestinian issue on the basis of the two-state solution.” But under no circumstances will China contemplate a “two-state solution” for Tibetans, an ancient people with a unique linguistic, cultural, and religious identity. . . .
Only when it comes to Palestinians is the international community obsessed with a “two-state solution.” That isn’t because Palestinians are uniquely qualified for sovereignty. The dysfunctional, violent, and corrupt Palestinian Authority is about as ill-suited to statehood as any entity can be. Rather, the unending agitation to create a Palestinian state is a reflection of the world’s restless preoccupation with Jews—and, since 1948, with the Jewish state.
Have you ever suffered the embarrassment of dancing only to have the seam of your pants break when you were trying to impress with your dance moves. The moral of this story is that the seam is always the weakest link, and the most likely to fail when the pressure is on.
What does this have to do with US Middle East USCENTCOM combatant command structure? Everything! For the US Combatant Command’s Areas of Responsibilities has been structured in such a way as to put Israel on the seam of three different US Combatant commands. But Israel is now the weakest link of the US Combatant Command instead of the strongest link. And, if the arch-foe of CENTCOM is Iran, Israel should be the center of CENTCOM’s defense architecture.
What is the US Combatant Command? The world is broken up into various “Areas of Responsibility” under which the various US regional commands operate and that they are “responsible” for. For instance, US Central Command, or CENTCOM, is responsible for the Middle East. But, where logically Israel is part of the Middle East, Israel is attached to US European Command or EUCOM. For even more confusion, Egypt is part of CENTCOM even though it is to the west of Israel. Egypt is not part of Africa Command, and neither is Israel.
Israel is disconnected from both AFRICOM, and CENTCOM, and geographically separated from EUCOM. Israel sits astride a triple-witching seam between EUCOM, CENTCOM, and AFRICOM. Israel is, in effect, the black hole, or orphan-child, of the US Combatant Command when it really should be the core of the CENTCOM command structure, critically connecting to EUCOM.
Britain’s international development secretary apologized Monday for holding meetings with top Israeli officials, among them Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, without informing the Foreign Office beforehand.
Priti Patel met with Netanyahu, Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and other officials while on a family vacation in Israel in August. UK ministers are required to notify the Foreign Office when conducting official business overseas, but Patel admitted that she failed to do so.
On Friday Patel said that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was aware of the meetings, but on Monday she issued a full apology.
“In hindsight, I can see how my enthusiasm to engage in this way could be misread, and how meetings were set up and reported in a way which did not accord with the usual procedures,” she said. “I am sorry for this and I apologize for it.”
Opposition MPs called for her to resign if she breached the ministerial code of conduct, but a spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that May had accepted Patel’s apology and considered the matter closed.
So let’s put this in some proper perspective:
The IDF’s field hospital on the Golan Heights treats injured victims of the Syrian civil war in an amazing display of humanitarianism as shown in this recent AFP feature.
The British politician responsible for distributing the UK’s considerable foreign aid budget, whether correctly following protocol or not, went looking for an effective way of channeling some of that aid to injured Syrians.
That channel happened to be run by the military of a country that has strong bilateral ties with the UK.
This is certainly not the same as The Guardian’s headline implies.
The Guardian’s story concludes:
Just half an hour before Number 10 confirmed that Patel had considered giving money to the Israeli army, officials from her department declined to confirm or deny whether she had asked her officials to see if Britain could support humanitarian operations in the occupied Golan Heights area.
Instead, the department answered a question that had not been asked and released a statement which said: “Dfid [the Dept. for International Development] doesn’t provide any financial support for the Israeli army and the secretary of state agrees with our existing approach.”
So where’s the story?
The real story behind The Guardian’s latest coverage is an underhand effort to insinuate more wrongdoing on the part of Priti Patel by falsely implying Israeli military linkages.
What should the headline really say?
Despite growing tension between the United States, Israel and Qatar, a small group of Jewish leaders is currently visiting the Gulf state in what appears to be an attempt to open a dialogue aimed at advancing a possible prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The senior rabbinic figure on the delegation is Menachem Genack, an Orthodox rabbi and the head of the Orthodox Union’s (OU) Kashrut Division. The trip was organized by Nick Muzin, a prominent Jewish Republican operative who is on retainer by the Persian Gulf nation to establish ties with the American Jewish community. The group is scheduled to meet with the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.
Allen Fagin, the OU’s Executive Vice President, said that Genack’s visit was private and was not connected to his work with the Jewish organization.
“Rabbi Genack is traveling in his personal capacity as a private individual and this trip is not under the auspices of the OU,” Fagin told the Post.
Genack made news during the last election when he came out against Donald Trump and openly supported Hillary Clinton for president.
The Post has also learned that the delegation’s trip to Qatar this week comes on the heels of a visit Prince Mohammed, the Emir’s brother, made to New York last month during which he also tried to meet with influential Jews.
A major Jewish donor to Israel is believed to be among the shareholders in an anonymous company that last year purchased several acres of former Greek Patriarchate land in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Givat Oranim and Old Katamon.
The well-known hedge fund manager and property developer Michael Steinhardt is said to be one of the investors in Oranim Limited, registered last year by an Isle of Man company, Trident Nominees.
Another shareholder is reportedly David Sofer, an Israeli businessman and Middle Eastern art collector living in London.
Steinhardt and Sofer are also two of the three directors of Abu Tor Properties Limited, which bought a long-term lease — as opposed to land — from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate for a roughly one-hectare (2.5-acre) hilltop site in Abu Tor, just south of the Old City, on which they plan to build 61 luxury apartments.
That site is believed by Christians to be the original Hill of Evil Counsel, where, according to the New Testament, the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas and his advisers decided to betray Jesus to the Romans.
Oranim Ltd is one of several anonymous companies that has been buying land from the country’s cash-strapped Greek Orthodox Church over the last five or so years. Those companies are registered in overseas tax havens, and the names of their investors have been kept firmly under wraps.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday pledged 200 million shekels ($57 million) to build safe bypass roads for the residents of Judea and Samaria. He said he planned to budget another NIS 600 million ($170 million) for further infrastructural improvements in the area.
Residents of Judea and Samaria have been demanding the paving of new bypass roads and increased security infrastructure for some time, protesting outside the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem against what they called a cavalier approach to their safety.
Facing bereaved families of those killed in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria at a Likud faction meeting, Netanyahu assured them the government was committed to improving the roads, as well as the lighting and cellular coverage there to help prevent such attacks.
“We have a clear commitment to solve or help solve the problem of the bypass roads in Judea and Samaria. I just came from a meeting with the finance minister and we decided together to immediately allocate 200 million shekels to paving roads. We’re not just talking, we’re doing. Our actions are consistent, systematic and determined.”
But the move met with scathing criticism from the bereaved families.
Interrupting the prime minister, some said they have “had enough of promises.” They said they would go on a hunger strike until the funds are officially appropriated.
IDF Blog: The Blue Flag Exercise is Taking Off
The military wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, an organization that orchestrated terrorist attacks that killed scores of Israelis over the years and has been classified by both the United States and the European Union as a terrorist entity, released on Tuesday a threatening video against the Jewish state and in particular its army.
The video depicts IDF vehicles moving along the security barrier between Israel and the Gaza Strip, and as one vehicle emerges a text appears in Arabic and in Hebrew on the screen saying: “In the line of fire.”
The video also shows Palestinian snipers aiming their weapons at Israeli combat engineering units that operate in the area in order to ensure the safety of other military units as well as uncover terror tunnels being dug into Israeli territory with the intent of harming the country’s population.
“We can reach the crimes and the aggression of Israel against the Palestinian people,” the video says. “The way of resistance is armed resistance, as long as the occupation sits on the land of Palestine.”
A trustee at one of London’s best-known mosques is a senior member of ‘terrorist organisation’ Hamas’s political wing, it was reported this morning.
Mohammed Sawalha holds the role of trustee at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, which was formerly linked to extremism but which insists it has since undergone an ‘complete overhaul’.
It emerged today that Mr Sawalha represented the militant Palestinian organisation Hamas at recent talks in Moscow.
Sawalha, who lives in London, was appointed a trustee of the mosque in 2010 and is legally responsible for overseeing the mosque’s management, The Times reported today.
He was one of five senior figures from the Islamist organisation who were sent to Moscow in September, where they met Russia’s deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov and other Kremlin officials.
One of the group told Middle East news website Al-Monitor that the meeting between Hamas and top Russian officials was ‘an important milestone’
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Monday launched a tirade on Twitter, in which he accused U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, of being responsible for the latest political crisis in Lebanon.
“Visits to the belligerent #KSA have proved hazardous to regional health. Trump visit led to Bahrain repression followed by Qatar debacle. Visits by Kushner & Lebanese PM led to Hariri’s bizarre resignation while abroad. Of course, Iran is accused of interference,” tweeted Zarif.
“#KSA bombs #Yemen to smithereens, killing 1000’s of innocents including babies, spreads cholera and famine, but of course blames Iran. KSA is engaged in wars of aggression, regional bullying, destabilizing behavior & risky provocations. It blames Iran for the consequences,” he added.
Saudi Arabia’s crown prince said Iran’s supply of rockets to militias in Yemen is an act of “direct military aggression” that could be an act of war, state media reported on Tuesday, remarks reflecting sharply heightened strains between Riyadh and Tehran.
Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s comments were published after Saudi air defense forces intercepted a ballistic missile they said was fired towards Riyadh on Saturday by the Iran-allied Houthi militia which controls large parts of neighboring Yemen.
Saudi-led forces, which back the internationally-recognized government, have been targeting the Houthis in a war which has killed more than 10,000 people and triggered a humanitarian disaster in one of the region’s poorest countries.
The supply of rockets to the Iran-allied rebel Houthi movement could “constitute an act of war against the Kingdom,” state news agency SPA on Tuesday quoted Prince as saying in a call with British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson.
Iran has denied it was behind the missile launch, rejecting the Saudi and US statements condemning Tehran as “destructive and provocative” and “slanders”.
In reaction to the missile, the Saudi-led military coalition said on Monday it would close all air, land and sea ports to the Arabian Peninsula country.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Monday accused Hezbollah, with Iranian support, of launching a missile on Saturday that targeted its capital of Riyadh, declaring the move as a potential “act of war.”
In an interview with CNN, Jubeir said that “the missile launched from Yemen to Riyadh is an Iranian missile launched by Hezbollah, an area occupied by the Houthi rebels.”
“It could be considered as an act of war,” he added.
Afterwards, Jubeir tweeted that Iran is destabilizing the Middle East and vowed to protect his country’s national security.
“Iranian interventions in the region are detrimental to the security of neighboring countries and affect international peace and security. We will not allow any infringement on our national security,” he wrote, adding, “The kingdom reserves the right to respond in a timely manner to the hostile actions of the Iranian regime.”
In his August 28, 2017 column in the Egyptian Al-Watan daily, Mahmoud Khalil praised the Egyptian 30-part television drama series Horseman Without a Horse, which depicts the alleged implementation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the series was originally broadcast by Egyptian government TV and the privately-owned Dream TV channel during Ramadan (November-December) 2002. Khalil stresses how faithfully the series presents the truth, and calls for more reruns of it to be aired “in order to give the new generations an opportunity to know it and to the old generations a chance to refresh their memory [of it].”
According to series creator and star Muhammad Subhi, the Mubarak regime in Egypt complied with external pressure to remove some scenes from it, but the uncut original version was broadcast in 2012 after the Muslim Brotherhood took power in the country with the election of Mohammad Morsi as president. In September 2013, several months after President Abd Al-Fatah Al-Sisi was elected, the series was again aired, on Dream TV, to mark the 40th anniversary of the October 1973 war.
As early as October 2001, before the series even aired, it was much discussed in Egypt and across the entire Arab world. It was widely criticized in the West as well, including by the U.S. administration, Congress, and the American press.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.