Connect with us

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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

U.S. EPA Unveils Carbon Dioxide Regulations That Could End Coal and Natural Gas Power Generation

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By Tim Benson Tim Benson

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new regulations on April 25 that would force coal-fired power plants to reduce or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2039, one year earlier than in the rule originally proposed in May 2023.

Other newly announced coal regulations include a final rule “strengthening and updating the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired power plants, tightening the emissions standard for toxic metals by 67 percent, finalizing a 70 percent reduction in the emissions standard for mercury from existing lignite-fired sources,” and another rule to “reduce pollutants discharged through wastewater from coal-fired power plants by more than 660 million pounds per year.” The EPA also issued an additional rule to require the safe management of coal ash in locations not previously covered by federal regulations.

“Today, EPA is proud to make good on the Biden-Harris administration’s vision to tackle climate change and to protect all communities from pollution in our air, water, and in our neighborhoods,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “By developing these standards in a clear, transparent, inclusive manner, EPA is cutting pollution while ensuring that power companies can make smart investments and continue to deliver reliable electricity for all Americans.”

EPA estimates its new regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047 and create $370 billion in “climate and public health net benefits” over the next twenty years.

Coal in a Regulatory Decline

Partially due to increasingly stringent regulations, electricity generation from coal has fallen from 52 percent of the nation’s total output in the 1990s to just 16.2 percent in 2023. Critics of the new regulations, including Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, argue that EPA’s new rules would make it impossible to open new coal plants and will effectively force those already online to shut down operations.

“These rules are a direct attack on an important and necessary source of American energy—one of our most affordable, reliable resources, and one that is essential here and growing in use around the world,” said Isaac. “The ignorance of this administration is negligent at best, criminal at worst, relegating the least among us to more expensive energy, or even none at all, as millions of Americans are finding out by having their electricity disconnected.

“On one hand they push to electrify everything and then with the other leave us with unreliable electricity,” Isaac said. “The Biden administration is hell bent on destroying coal and reaching new levels of recklessness.”

‘De Facto Ban’ on Coal

The new regulations almost assuredly will face legal challenges from the coal industry and others, says Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com.

“Another unconstitutional EPA rule from the Biden regime that will be DOA at [the Supreme Court] but not until much harm has been caused,” said Milloy. “Congress has not authorized EPA to issue regulations that operate as a de facto ban on coal plants, yet that’s what this regulation amounts to because it mandates emissions control technology (i.e., carbon capture and sequestration) which does not, and will never, exist for coal plants.”

EPA, by contrast, says carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the “best system of emission reduction for the longest-running existing coal units” and a “cost-reasonable emission control technology that can be applied directly to power plants and can reduce 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the plants.”

“The requirement for imaginary technology violates Clean Air Act notions of only requiring the best available and adequately tested technology,” Milloy said. “The de facto ban violates the 2022 [Supreme Court] decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which established the major questions doctrine, under which agencies cannot undertake significant new actions, like banning coal plants, without authorization from Congress.”

Natural Gas Targeted, Too

Coal plants were not the only target of new EPA regulations, as natural gas power plants are also now required to eliminate or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2032, three years earlier than called for when the draft rule was originally proposed in 2023.

The EPA is acting as if it has absolute power unconstrained by the law and prior court rulings, Darren Bakst, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center on Energy & Environment, says in a press release.

“The [EPA] absurdly thinks its authority to regulate means it has the authority to shut down businesses,” said Bakst. “Establishing new regulations for power plants does not mean the agency can effectively force them out of business.

“This is Clean Power Plan Part II, but like with many sequels, it is worse,” Bakst said.

Tim Benson ([email protected]) is a senior policy analyst with Heartland Impact.

For more on the Biden administrations power regulations, click here.

Continue Reading

conflict

America Is Really Bad At Foreign Interventions. Why Does Biden Think Ukraine Will Be Any Different?

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By MORGAN MURPHY

 

One of the very first operations undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) after its founding in 1947 was to create an army to fight the Soviets in Ukraine. Dubbed Operation Nightingale, the CIA aimed to reconstitute Nazi death squads in Ukraine that the Germans called Nachtigall.

The newly created U.S. intelligence community figured we’d partnered with communists to destroy fascism. Now, post war, we could team with the fascists to destroy communism.

Unsurprisingly, Nightingale was a spectacular failure. The Kremlin’s spies discovered every aspect of the plan well before it was initiated.

In its early years, the CIA lurched from one fiasco to another. On Sept. 20, 1949, CIA analysts declared the Soviet Union would not produce a nuclear weapon for at least another four years. Three days later, Truman had to tell the country that Russia had the bomb.

Sadly, things are hardly better today.

In 2021, U.S. intelligence agencies looked into their crystal ball and told senior congressional leaders that Afghanistan’s national security forces could keep the Taliban at bay for a year or perhaps longer. The Taliban took Kabul in a matter of hours.

“Clearly we didn’t get things right” on that intelligence, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby dryly remarked later.

The next year, U.S. intelligence took the opposite tack on Ukraine, predicting the capital, Kiev, might fall within days of Russia’s 2022 invasion. Two years in, Kiev is still in the Ukraine column.

Bonehead analysts even offered to evacuate Volodymyr Zelensky — evidently having learned nothing from the disastrous U.S. evacuation of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

What did they get right? Avril Haynes, the Director of National Intelligence, applauded her agency for correctly predicting that Russia planned to invade Ukraine. “We assess President Putin is prepared for prolonged conflict,” she testified in May 2022. You don’t say? The 100,000 troops Putin amassed on Ukraine’s border were likely a helpful clue.

Many in our intelligence community scoffed at Putin’s criticism of America’s heavy hand in Ukraine. Those who dared point out that the CIA had injected former Nazis into Ukraine after World War II were labeled stooges of Russian disinformation. They’d prefer we not recall the U.S.’s more provocative recent history in Ukraine, much of it based on bad American intelligence.

During Ukraine’s Maidan demonstrations in 2013, U.S. officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, saw an opportunity to fulfill the predictions of President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who postulated that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

By pulling Ukraine closer to Europe, NATO and the U.S., they reasoned we could de-claw the Russian bear. Thus, the U.S. supported ousting the democratically-elected Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych. Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, boasted that the United States had “invested” $5 billion to build Ukraine’s credentials to join the European Union.

She passed out actual cookies during the coup. Nuland was later caught on tape plotting who would be Ukraine’s post-coup president and getting Joe Biden to give an “attaboy” that would “F**k the EU” for not being aggressive enough with Moscow.

On cue, Biden endorsed Ukraine’s uprising: “Nothing would have greater impact for securing our interests.” Yanukovych was ousted and in the months that followed, Nuland pushed the U.S. to arm Ukraine and carefully crafted the media message, “I would like to urge you to use the word ‘defensive system’ to describe what we would be delivering against Putin’s offensive systems.”

If Nuland’s regime-change playbook sounds familiar, stop a moment and ponder that her resume also includes serving as Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal deputy national security advisor. Her husband, Robert Kagan, was among the chief proponents of America’s swell idea to bring democracy and stability to Iraq by toppling Saddam Hussein.

Other U.S. players meddled in Ukraine as well. On April 12th, 2014, CIA Director John Brennan secretly visited Ukraine, kicking off a new covert war with Russia.  In a recent report by The New York Times, turns out the CIA has operated a dozen secret bases in Ukraine since his visit. Little wonder Brennan feared a Trump victory.

Trump’s surprising win in 2016 undermined all this maneuvering. “I really hope that you and President Putin can get together and solve your problem,” Trump told Zelenskyy. “That would be a tremendous achievement.” Trump lowered the temperature, but pausing weapons delivery to Ukraine became the root cause of his first impeachment.

Within six weeks of taking office, the Biden administration cranked up aid to Ukraine, delivering $125 million in March 2021. As of two weeks ago, that figure now tops $185 billion.

America holds a long list of failed interventions based on bad intelligence: Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Panama, Haiti, Serbia, Grenada, Iran, South Vietnam, Congo, Cuba, Guatemala, Albania and the Dominican Republic, among others.

It doesn’t take an intelligence genius to predict the ultimate outcome of our latest dalliance in Ukraine.

Morgan Murphy is a former DoD press secretary, national security adviser in the U.S. Senate, a veteran of Afghanistan.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X