Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Globalizing intifada is the same as globalizing jihad: Hussain Ehsani

Published

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Hussain Ehsani

Canadian authorities must realize that calls for “intifada” constitute hate and even potentially an incitement to violence

When ISIS conducted its terrorist attacks on Mosul, Iraq in June 2014, several Mosul residents celebrated it as a victory for the terror group and welcomed them to the city. In March 2019, ISIS was defeated in a fight with Kurdish special units Peshmerga, Iraqi Forces, and the international coalition, and this time, five years later, Mosul celebrated the defeat of ISIS. Mosul had learned its lesson under ISIS’ reign of terror. Likewise, the fantasy of celebrating Islamic Jihadist and terrorist groups as liberators has disappeared, for the most part, across the Middle East.

However, the same cannot be said about the veneration of terror in the West. Less than 24 hours after the brutal October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on civilians and the Jewish state, Canada witnessed horrific and unimaginable scenes. People across the country paraded with Palestinian flags, chanting “Allah Akbar,” “Free Palestine,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Long live Intifada” — celebrating the Hamas attack that resulted in the murder of 1,200 Israelis. The scenes reminded me of Mosul’s celebration of ISIS’ victory in 2014, but this time they took place in in Mississauga, Ontario.

As Israel began its counter-terror operation the mobs became more aggressive – organizing rallies across the country, blocking intersectionsthreatening Jewish Businesses, attacking synagogues with guns and Molotov cocktails, and issuing bomb threat against the largest Jewish high school in Canada.

Although Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are listed as terrorist organizations by the Government of Canada, these groups are being praised by the pro-Jihadi mobs. They have flown the flag Hamas and the PFLP, they have worn green headbands representing Hamas, and yellow armbands of PIJ. Some in Toronto even raised the flag of the Taliban. Others have worn jackets with the symbols of Jihad, martyrs, and Al Qaeda symbols during protests. All while they scream “Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada,” “Globalize the intifada,” and “There is only one solution, intifada, revolution” – unmistakable calls for violence against Jews that refer to the bloody Palestinian terror campaigns of the late 80s and early 2000s.

Despite the clear connection between the terror groups and this violent call, law enforcement across the country have been reluctant to act and make arrests on those shouting “Intifada.” This refusal encourages the pro Hamas mobs to continue their antisemitic rallies and disguises calling for violence as a progressive solution for the Palestinian cause.

There is no doubt that calling for intifada is calling for violence. This is most clearly demonstrated by the Second Palestinian Intifada which consisted of suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, and other terror tactics. These tactics have been used by other major Islamic Jihadist groups such as the Taliban, ISIS, and Al Qaeda. In April 1993, during the first Intifada, Hamas suicide bomber Saher Tamam Al Nablusi detonated the switch under the seats in his car and blew himself up on the West Bank. Based on the result of this attack, Hamas and its allies kicked off massive campaign of suicide attacks up against Israel. According to the statistics of Israeli institutions and studies, during two phases of Intifada, Hamas, PIJ, and PFLP conducted more than 130 suicide attacks. In the aftermath of the Intifada, the tactic of car bombs was vastly used by the Haqqani network in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

And Intifada is not restricted to terror attacks but includes a clear strategy undergirded by religious ideology. For example, the book “Palestinian Resistance against Israel in Jerusalem” lays out the rhetoric and chants that Palestinians shouted in protests during the first Intifada, including:  “Khaybar Khaybar O Jewish! The Mohammad Army will come back.” This chant refers to the Battle of Khaybar in which Muslims fought against the Jews in the first era of Islam in the Khaybar district of Medina in Hejaz in early 628 CE, which led to the victory of Muslims. “Mohammad Army” in this context is a metaphor for all Muslims around the world, and the chant is calling all Muslims to assemble another Khyabar, which strives to provoke and unite all Muslims against Jews. Another example “Praise the God O Muslim – explode the head of Zionist.” This chant was yelled in Toronto, Ontario. This has no other meaning except Jihad and the militarization of Muslims around the world to eliminate Jews and Israelis.

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and their allies are utilizing Jihadi tactics to pursue their objectives here in Canada. Calling for “Intifada” in the streets, malls, subway stations, and university campuses in Canada is a direct call for Jihadism and its principles to be enacted in the West. This is why the globalization of Intifada means globalizing the Jihad. It means globalizing violence against Jews.

Canadian authorities should realize that calls for “intifada” constitute hate and even potentially an incitement to violence. If they fail to, it will not be long until we see ISIS flags and chants for reviving the Caliphate. They are one and the same and we cannot allow this hate to fester unaddressed.

Hussain Ehsani is a Middle East affairs expert focused on the Abraham Accords and Canadian foreign policy.

armed forces

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Former FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’

Published on

Chris Swecker on “Anderson Cooper 360” discussing terror threat

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker warned Friday on CNN that terrorists are “well embedded” within the United States, stating the threat level should be “higher” following an attack in Germany.

A 50-year-old Saudi doctor allegedly drove his car into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany on Friday leaving at least two people dead and nearly 70 injured so far. On “Anderson Cooper 360,” Swecker was asked if he believes there is a potential “threat” to the U.S. as concerns have risen since the “fall of Afghanistan.” 

“I think so,” Swecker said. “I mean, we’ve heard FBI Director Chris Wray talk about this in conjunction with the relative ease of getting across the southern border. And, you know, there’s no question that terrorists have come across that border, whether they’re lone terrorists or terrorist cells. And they’re well embedded inside this country.”

WATCH:

“I’ve worked terrorist cases. Hezbollah has always had a presence here. They raise funds here, and they can always be called into action as an active terrorist cell,” Swecker added. “So I think the alert here, especially around Christmas time, is elevated. It probably ought to be higher than what it is right now, because I mentioned that complacency earlier. And I fear that complacency as someone who has a background in this field.”

Concerns over the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the U.S. southern border have raised questions over the vetting process of illegal immigrants entering the country.

On Tuesday United States Border Patrol (USPB) Chief Jason Owens announced in a social post that an unidentified South African national who was “suspected of terror”  was arrested in Brooklyn, N.Y. The illegal immigrant had originally been detained in Texas for criminal trespassing but was released due to the “information available at the time.”

In August an estimated 99 individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list had been released into the country after crossing through the southern border, according to a congressional report. The report found that between fiscal years 2021 and 2023 USBP agents encountered more than 250 illegal migrants on the terrorist watchlist, with nearly 100 of those individuals being later released into the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security.

Continue Reading

Trending

X