Diplomatic source tells ‘Post’ that France has been hesitant to take steps against Hezbollah because of French “interests” in Lebanon.
- News Headines
(LONDON DAILY MAIL) In the aftermath of the brutal murder of a soldier, the remarkable courage of three women stands out.
They selflessly confronted the two killers and went to the aid of the victim, praying for him and preventing further carnage.
The first heroine, described as a religious woman in her 50s, bravely approaches the attackers as they roam the streets covered in blood and demands they let her sit next to the dead man.
Special to WorldTribune.com NICOSIA — A senior Hizbullah commander has been killed in heavy fighting in Syria. Arab diplomatic sources said the Hizbullah commander was leading units in the battle for the strategic Syrian town of Qusair on May 19. The sources identified the commander as Fadi Al Jazar, one of at least 30 Hizbullah [...]
The Flag of Jihad against the Jews raised over Paterson, NJ City Hall to screams of "Long Live Palestine"
For those who will want to correct me and say this is a “Palestinian” flag — let me correct you. This flag represents one thing — the ongoing jihad against the Jews. The flag exists for one reason and one reason only: as a banner of promised annihilation of the tiny Jewish state. This flag does not exist. Israel, the tiny Jewish state, is Palestine. This bogus flag has no history. The objective of this flag is a second holocaust. Shame on the Jew-hating political whores (Democrats, of course) Bill Pascrell Jr. and Assemblyman Thomas Giblin , who showed up to give the imprimateur of legitmacy to these annihilationist voters.
PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and US favorite Fayyad have gone on
record saying that no Jews will be allowed to live in Palestine and that
all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods
built in post-67 Jerusalem will have to be emptied out before they will
accept their state. They are demanding a judenrein state.
Shame on Paterson, New Jersey — I don’t care how big their subversive population is. What’s next? An OBL billboard?
Amid flags and cheers, Paterson celebrates Palestinian-Americans North Jersey.com, May 20, 2013 (thanks to Larry E)
— The raising of a flag at City Hall on Sunday was like any of the
dozen or so similar events held in the city each year in a nod to its
Except it wasn’t.
That’s because the flag raised — for the first time in Paterson,
and possibly at any city hall in the United States — was Palestinian.
Symbols or assertions of Palestinian statehood are fraught with
political sensitivities, and Khader Abuassab, the event’s organizer,
said he received harassing phone calls before Sunday’s event.
I don’t believe it. They are lying. That’s what they do. I have a file 3 inches thick. They never have proof.
But no problems were on display Sunday when the flag
was raised in the rain before elected officials and about 150 people.
People cheered, danced, shared sweets and shouted, “Long Live
“Palestine is our country and we are proud of that,” said Clifton resident Salwa Ramadan. “We’re happy [to be] recognized finally.”
had never held the event because no one had asked, Mayor Jeffery Jones
said. The mayor read a proclamation proclaiming May 19 as Palestinian
American Day in the city and honoring the group’s heritage and
He said he wasn’t concerned with potential political backlash.
“If they’re citizens of the city of Paterson,
they have every right to raise the flag,” Jones said. “There’s nothing
that precludes them as long as they follow the process.” Turks,
Haitians, Peruvians and other groups have had had their flags raised at
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-Paterson, and Assemblyman Thomas Giblin, D-Clifton,
showed up — with Pascrell presenting a letter of Special Congressional
Recognition and Giblin presenting an Assembly resolution marking the
Shavonda Sumter and Benjie Wimberly, both Assembly members, and state Sen. Nellie Pou also sent a joint citation.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the United
Nations, said in a speech that the Palestinian leadership thanked the
city for its gesture. He urged local Palestinians to be good citizens
and to continue supporting the struggle for justice in Palestine.
Many Palestinian Americans live and run businesses in South Paterson,
area some call “Little Ramallah” after the West Bank city. Abuassab, a
member of the Arab American Civic Organization, said it was time the
community was recognized.
He put ads in Arabic newspapers about the flag raising
and texted an invitation to friends, community leaders, politicians and
law enforcement officials.
In his remarks at the opening of the Israeli government’s weekly cabinet meeting Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the issue of regional turmoil, asserting that the security of Israel’s citizens topped his government’s agenda.
“The Government of Israel is working responsibly and with determination and sagacity, in order to ensure the supreme interest of the State of Israel – the security of Israeli citizens,” he said.
The Prime Minister specified that the transfer of advanced weapons to terror groups was of primary concern. He pledged to “prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah and to [other] terrorist elements.”
Netanyahu’s statements follow a surprise visit to the country by CIA chief John Brennan, whose visit was reported to have been prompted by U.S. concern over alleged Israeli activity in Syria aimed at preventing the flow of weapons from Syria to terror group Hezbollah.
Netanyahu also unveiled two economic initiatives at the cabinet meeting. He announced plans “to issue a tender for an additional, new port in the State of Israel,” and following his recent trip to China, unveiled a strategy to enhance bilateral economic co-operation with the emerging superpower.
“Regarding China,” he said, “I agreed with Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang that we would establish two committees, a Chinese committee and an Israeli ministerial committee, in order to reduce the bureaucracy for Israeli companies competing in China and in order to submit various projects by Israeli experts and Israeli companies throughout China, and most likely outside China, in third countries.”
Netanyahu has said recently that he expects Chinese-Israeli annual trade to reach $10 billion.
Special to WorldTribune.com ABU DHABI — Saudi Arabia has reported a major cyber attack that crippled the security services. Officials said Saudi government websites were the target of cyber attacks in mid-May. They said several of the sites, including that of the Interior Ministry, were brought down by foreign hackers. The Interior Ministry said an investigation [...]
Editor’s note: This is another in a series of “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
The faux stone columns from his Denver acceptance speech are crumbling, the fireworks have fizzled and the unadulterated adulation of Barack Obama is a sour feeling of disillusion, as a new poll reveals half of Americans wants him impeached, including a stunning one in four Democrats.
“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel, of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll Thursday. It has a margin of error of 4.36 percent.
“Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.”
Actually, on the issue of the Benghazi scandal, where four Americans were killed when in what may have been a politically motivated series of moves, a surging danger to Americans at the foreign service facility there was ignored until al-Qaida-linked terrorists attacked, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.
On the scandal of the Internal Revenue Service intentionally harassing conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.
And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of something that may well have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.
It was only two months ago that respondents to the same poll suggested, although in smaller numbers, that impeachment was appropriate for other Obama scandals. At that time 44 percent said he should be impeached for his campaign to give amnesty to illegal aliens inside the U.S., and 46 percent said he should be impeached for launching the war to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
“What is clear from the data is that Obama is at risk of losing his base,” Wenzel explained. “On each of these questions, about one in four Democrats said they agreed Obama should be impeached. What could be more alarming to the White House is that it appears that most of American is tuned in to these issues now, as 93 percent of registered voters said they get at least one news update on these issues every day.”
He continued, “Of the three issues now in the news, the one that has been there the longest, and the only one that has to do with the death of American citizens, is seen as the most important to Americans. While 49 percent said the Benghazi murders of U.S. diplomatic personnel is the most serious issue, 26 percent said IRS harassment was most serious, and 25 percent said the seizure of AP phone records was most serious. With news still breaking on all three fronts, it is impossible to know which of the three scandals will ultimately be the most damaging to the Obama administration. These findings clearly show Americans are concerned about what is going on in Washington.”
It spells headwinds for Obama, too, as he lobbies American voters to grant him his wish of having a Democrat Congress during the last two years of his reign, Wenzel said.
“What could be most concerning to the White House is that the Democratic Party effort to retake the U.S. House of Representatives next year may be at risk because of these issues. Asked whether they would lean to vote for the Democrat or the Republican in their own congressional district based on what they know about these three situations, 46 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Republican, while 39 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Democrat. Another 16 percent said these issues make no difference in their congressional vote,” Wenzel said.
He said, “The appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it’s now possible to see that day on the far horizon.”
Of those who did not vote in 2012, based on their knowledge of Obama’s administration now, 37 percent say they would have gone back to vote for Republican Mitt Romney, 27 percent for Obama, and others undecided.
That the situation is serious for Obama was confirmed by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan.
“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone,” she said.
“The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”
It’s even being compared to Watergate, that breakin episode that ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.
That was confirmed by no less than Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.
Woodward said recently, “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
A Republican congressman recently brought up the subject.
“I would say yes. I’m not willing to take it [impeachment] off to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CNN.
“We want truth, we want to bring the people who perpetrated the terrorism in Benghazi to be brought to justice, and we want to have the president do what he has said he would always do. And that is be open and transparent. Thus far, the White House has not done that.”
Earlier, Chaffetz was interviewed by the Salt Lake Tribune, and was asked if impeachment were within the realm of possibilities.
“It’s certainly a possibility,” he told the paper. “That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount.”
Chaffetz has been championing the call to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, onslaught at Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Other Republicans have also voiced impeachment as a potential final outcome.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said last week impeachment was possible over the “most egregious cover-up in American history.
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told radio host Rusty Humphries, according to the Hill.
“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his full second term because of his complicity in a cover-up with Benghazi.
Other members of Congress who have uttered possible impeachment for a variety of reasons in recent years include Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Others who have raised the subject?
Rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached, and he’s calling CNN anchor Piers Morgan an “effective idiot” in the battle over the Second Amendment.
Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”
He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”
“It’s so diabolical,” he said.
Nugent made his comments in a recent interview with radio host Alex Jones.
Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.
On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.
See Denis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:
See Texas congressman lobby for impeachment over gun control:
See Andrew Napolitano talk about impeachment over the budget:
WND also compiled a special report on the various offenses Obama is blamed for committing and reported what experts on the Constitution believe should be happening.
See detailed results of survey questions:
The administration of Democrat Barack Obama has still not satisfied congressional and media questions about just what it knew and when it knew it about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. That attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. The Obama administration has changed its explanation of that attack several times since and has so far refused to identify those officials who made key decisions not to send help to stop the attacks, and who decided not to initially call the killings a terrorist attack. Knowing that and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
It has been learned that the Internal Revenue Service, under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama, has purposely targeted conservative and Christian groups for harassment over their tax exempt status while giving liberal nonprofit groups little or no scrutiny. Further, the IRS apparently leaked private tax information from these conservative groups to opposing liberal groups who were able to use that confidential information for political advantage. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
It has been learned that the U.S. Department of Justice under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama secretly obtained confidential telephone records of many reporters of the Associated Press in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his department obtained the phone records without the permission or knowledge of the Associated Press in order to find who in the federal government was leaking information about terrorist plots against America. AP officials have strongly protested this invasion of their privacy but the administration stands by its actions. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
Thinking of the issue regarding the murders of American diplomats in Benghazi, the IRS’s harassment of the president’s political opponents, or the government’s secret snatching of private telephone records without permission, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, which of the three issues do you think is the most serious?
Please tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: None of these three issues involving Barack Obama is enough to trigger impeachment proceedings against him, but the totality of the mishandling or wrongdoing involving all three issues together IS enough to justify impeaching Obama?
Considering the totality of these three issues and their impact on our nation, and knowing that Obama is the head of the Democratic Party, are you more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress or the U.S. Senate in your area so Obama might have more political support in Congress – OR – are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate to counter Obama in the final years of his term?
Thinking about everything you know and have heard about these three issues, if you could go back and change your vote for president because of what you have learned about them, would these current situations cause you to change your vote?
Thinking about everything you know and have heard about these three issues, if you could go back and vote for president because of what you have learned about them, would these current situations cause you to vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama, or would you still not have voted? (Includes only those who did not vote in the November 2012 election.)
Special to WorldTribune.com CAIRO — Egypt has been struggling with a spate of abductions, including those of security officers, in the Sinai Peninsula. Security sources identified the abductors as members of the Al Qaida-aligned Tawhid W’al Jihad, which also maintains a presence in the neighboring Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. “They [insurgents] are monitoring army and police patrols [...]
Walid Shoebat shreds Daniel Pipes' intellectual dishonesty in PJM today. I wrote about it here and Robert Spencer's takedown is here. And Andrew Bostom weighs in here. Pipes' false premise and resultant deduction(s) are an insult to any thinking man, to any student of history, and primarily to the millions of Jews who have suffered under Muslim rule in the past 1,400 years.
Andrew Bostom has offered to debate Daniel Pipes on this — I'd pay to see that takedown.
Islam Vs. Islamism: A Case for Wishful Thinkers Walid Shoebat, PJMA rebuttal to Daniel Pipes' Washington Times op-ed on the question of "moderate Islam."
“Our killer question is ‘How do you propose to defeat
Islamism?’ Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a
simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to
This is what historian and Middle East analyst Daniel Pipes asks in his recent Washington Times article.
To support his argument, Pipes makes an unsubstantiated claim that a majority of Muslims are moderate and that Islamism is only,
supported by 10-15 percent of Muslims…
So how and why did he come up with such numbers? Pipes uses different studies and surveys about which he himself confesses: “These ambiguous and contradictory
percentages lead to no clear, specific count of Islamists.” Why then
use such statistics? It is only to serve the major argument he made in
my first paragraph.
And there are more “confessions.” Pipes writes: “Out of a quantitative mish-mash, I suggested just three days after 9/11
that some 10-15 percent of Muslims are determined Islamists.” This is
in itself contradictory and is even absolutely nonsense mathematically
as he clearly admits. To further support this conservative number, Pipes
Indonesian survey and election results led R. William Liddle and Saiful Mujani in 2003 to conclude that the number of Islamists “is no more than 15 percent of the total Indonesian Muslim population.”
He did this while he ignored his other statement:
In contrast, a 2008 survey of 8,000 Indonesian Muslims by Roy Morgan Research found 40 percent of Indonesians favoring hadd criminal punishments (such as cutting off the hands of thieves) and 52 percent favoring some form of Islamic legal code.
So here we have 52% of Indonesians are extremists, not 15%.
Yet even that doesn’t determine the correct percentages to separate
Muslims from Islamists. To say that “views on 9/11″ or “supporting Hadd”
(Islamic punishment) is the yardstick to measure the percentages is
also absurd and mathematically false. What if a Muslim doesn’t support
9/11 or Hadd but supports the idea that it takes two women in a
court of law to equal the testimony of a man? Will Pipes count him as a
moderate Muslim or an extremist Islamist? If he chooses “moderate,” then
Pakistan got it right. No matter what Pipes chooses, it debunks all his
unsubstantiated claims about moderate Islam.
What if a Muslim couldn’t care less about Sharia, jihad, and 9/11,
yet he kills his sister for marrying a Jew? Is he a “Muslim” or is he an
And what if we even use terrorism as a yardstick as Pipes prefers; in
Saudi Arabia and across the Muslim world, you have many who do not
support al-Qaeda. Are these then counted as moderates? In Pipes’ view
the answer is “yes.” But this is false. Last week I had an exchange with
Sheikh Faisal Al-Harbi, who chastised me on such issues,stating that
his clan (Al-Harbi) would not support terrorism. Indeed, on his clan’s official website they denounce al-Qaeda, adding:
Jihad for the sake of Allah is to go to war with the
infidels and the polytheists to remove these and enforce Unitarianism.
That is after inviting them to Islam and they reject the invitation (Da’wa). This Jihad is then organized and supervised by the Imam.
That cannot be placed in the moderate Islam camp. In light of this
and my other arguments, Pipes’ percentages are escalating dramatically.
The true number for Islamists is 100%. Here, let me add more beef to
my claim. What if a Muslim denounces today’s jihad, sharia, Islamic
state and all? Is he then moderate?
Hardly. The Muslims who take this position take it by claiming that
only the Khalifa or the Mahdi can establish these. Take Hisham Kabbani,
for example, a Sufi Muslim scholar whose photo Pipes posted.
Islam is the fourteen-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis.
Nonsense. Kabbani is Sufi and is in fact a Mahdist as all Sufi Muslims are. In his work Approach of Armageddon (page 231), he writes of an entire invasion of Israel and believes as Ahmadinejad does:
Hadith indicate that black flags coming from the area of
Khorasan [Iran] will signify [that] the appearance of the Mahdi is nigh.
The “black flags” from “Iran” mean the end of Pipes. Just name the
Sufi scholar and I can usually find their Arabic writings and prove they
are moderate for the time being. Sheikh Maulana Nazeem Kibrisi, another
major Sufi scholar, was found in Turkish speaking with the fervor of
Adolf Hitler (watch here).
Kibrisi was no small-time Sufi either; in a speech given in Germany to
Turkish students, with tens of thousands gathered – including then-prime
minister-to-be Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Erbakan of the Refah Islamist
party – Kibrisi is found saying:
Glory and blessing to the Lord of the two worlds who is
the cause of these days. Definitely, the victory belongs to Islam. This
flood of people here is a sign of the rise of the glorious Islam. Do
they not think that this a great sign? When the great sign appears
[Mahdi] the world will shake. Our forefathers made the earth tremble.
This gathering is a memento from our forefathers… You are the grand sons
of the Ottomans who will make the world tremble again. If the Ottomans
do not come back the unbelievers will never be brought down to their
knees…history is made of recurrences, certainly our glorious era has
come, the day being born belongs to Islam…as long as we have Allah we do
not need America, nor do we need the unbelievers in Europe, nor do we
need the unbelievers nor will we go their path.
What about Al-Ghazali, the famous theologian, philosopher, and
paragon of mystical Sufism whom the eminent W. M. Watt describes as
“acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after
Mohammed, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity”? Scholars like
Pipes know the truth, yet completely ignore it. Al-Ghazali said:
One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at
least once a year… one may use a catapult against them when they are in a
fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set
fire to them and/or drown them…. If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab
[People of The Book—Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his
marriage is [automatically] revoked.… One may cut down their trees/…One
must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever
they decide…they may steal as much food as they need.
Pipes even went as low to claim that
Muhammad was a “Muslim not an Islamist” and even distinguished him
since, “Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a
By switching Muhammad from “Islamist” to “Muslim, Pipes must then
answer a crucial question: is Islam defined by its founder or by Mr.
Pipes? Muhammad defined Islam as “Al-Islamu deen wa dawla” (“Islam is a religion and a state”). Pipes then must remove the “and” to substantiate his false case.
Then Pipes makes even more blunders:
Islamism relies heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.
All this from an historian who ignores that much of Islam, including
the Quran, the Hadith and Islamic history, is littered with “conspiracy
theories” in order “to advance its ambitions” by “brutal means.”
So here is my answer to Mr. Pipes’ question: We will fight Islam with
the bible, history, our Constitution, and our laws and even militarily
if we must, while working with any Muslim to bring them on our side of
the fence, including terrorists. I was one myself. We will not do this
by creating an end that justifies the means. Pipes insists we provide a
solution, which according to him is only done by mischaracterizing
the problem at hand, which is: it’s Islam, stupid, and it’s 100% all
the Muslims that believe in it. To add more from history — Mr. Pipes’
favorite subject — Islam was defeated when the Ottoman Empire was
dismantled. And in those times, they didn’t use Pipes’ strategy of
differentiating between Islam and Islamism. Sir Winston Churchill said:
Mohammedanism [Islam] is a militant and proselytizing faith.
Is Pipes wiser then Churchill?
According to the British newspaper, reconnaissance satellites have been monitoring preparations by the Syrian army to deploy surface-to-surface Tishreen missiles.
Special to WorldTribune.com JERUSALEM — Israel has determined that the Hamas regime was establishing an infrastructure for missile and rocket production in the West Bank. The Israel Security Agency determined that Hamas ordered cells in the West Bank to manufacture missiles and rockets. ISA said Hamas operatives were led by a Palestinian attorney and based [...]