Islamic and Alt-Left Extremists Declare that Normalization With Zionists Is Against Sharia Law

The Islamic spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, addressed the Muslim world on May 7, 2021 to inspire them to reject any peaceful relations with the Jewish State and its supporters. He said that “Israel is not a state, but a terrorist camp against the Palestinian people and other Muslim peoples” and that “Muslim and Christian scholars must declare that normalization is forbidden by Sharia.” He encouraged Palestinian youth to battle the “usurping entity” and urged the 14 million Palestinians around the world to return to “the Holy Land” to decide “the fate of the [Jewish] foreign settlers.

The focus of this [Muslim] unity should be internal jihad and distrust of enemies. And Palestinian politics should not depend on the main enemy of the Palestinians, namely America, the British and the vile Zionists.

Islamic spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, May 7, 2021

Khamenei concluded his remarks calling for waging war: “The Palestinian Mujahideen [militant jihadists] must ably continue their legitimate and moral struggle against the usurping entity [Israel] until this entity acquiesced [surrenders].

Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei

These sentiments were echoed in California by the San Francisco Executive Director of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Zahra Billoo, six months later. While addressing the American Muslims for Palestine conference, she made clear that all Zionists are enemies. “Know your enemies, and I’m not going to sugar-coat that. They are your enemies. There are organizations and infrastructure out there who are working to harm you. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could, and they very often do behind your back. I mean the Zionist organizations, I mean the foreign policy organizations that say they’re not Zionists but want a two-state solution. I’m not a Palestinian myself but it’s my understanding that that is laughable. So know your enemies.” Billoo listed some of them: “We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Because just because they’re your friend today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights. So oppose the vehement fascists but oppose the polite Zionists too. They are not your friends.

Billoo continued that “We have to connect the dots between the organizations that promote Zionist agendas, materials, marketing and legislation are the same ones that want to ban Muslims, are the same ones that want to pass anti-sharia legislation.

CAIR came out strongly to support Billoo’s remarks, stating it “continue[s] to proudly stand by Zahra and all American Muslim leaders who face smears and threats because they dare to express an opinion about Palestinian human rights.

CAIR Executive Director Zahra Billoo addressing American Muslims for Palestine, November 27, 2021

A Massachusetts-based socialist extremist group that stands against “the colonization of Palestine, US imperialism, policing, displacement, and other interlocking systems of oppression” produced an anti-Semitic “Mapping Project,” which embraced the anti-normalization of any Zionist – person or organization. The group falsely claimed that “institutional support for the colonization of Palestine is structurally tied to policing and systemic white supremacy.” It listed names and addresses of organizations like Yachad New England which helps individuals with disabilities. The site called out this aid organization as “complicit in propaganda/normalization of Zionism.” It included Yachad’s address so extremists can easily track down and target disabled Jews.

Amalek would blush.

Socialists have bonded with Islamic extremists in Iran and the United States in calling for a jihad against anyone who supports the rights of Jews to live in the Jewish holy land and to have self-determination. These jihadists are branding Zionists and their supporters as enemies not just to Palestinians, but to the entire world.

Anti-normalization is now enshrined in Sharia and Progressive law, and is coming to a community near you.

Related articles:

Attacking Jews & Zionists: Arabs and Muslims

The Insidious Jihad in America

Is Ilhan Omar’s Mentor the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

The Banners of Jihad

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel

Hamas Charter, Article 33

Article 33 of the Hamas Charter is a call for global jihad against the Jewish State.

Article Thirty-Three:

The Islamic Resistance Movement, being based on the common coordinated and interdependent conceptions of the laws of the universe, and flowing in the stream of destiny in confronting and fighting the enemies in defence of the Moslems and Islamic civilization and sacred sites, the first among which is the Aqsa Mosque, urges the Arab and Islamic peoples, their governments, popular and official groupings, to fear Allah where their view of the Islamic Resistance Movement and their dealings with it are concerned. They should back and support it, as Allah wants them to, extending to it more and more funds till Allah’s purpose is achieved when ranks will close up, fighters join other fighters and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty while loudly proclaiming: Hail to Jihad. Their cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.

“And Allah will certainly assist him who shall be on his side: for Allah is strong and mighty.” (The Pilgrimage – verse 40).

Hamas truly believes it is acting at the direction of Allah and that all Muslims around the world are duty-bound to supply “more and more funds” and other support “while loudly proclaiming ‘Hail to Jihad’” until “Allah’s purpose is achieved,” defined as being when “liberation is achieved [and] the invaders [are] vanquished.” For Hamas, defeating Jews is an Islamic religious calling and therefore not subject to compromise nor question.

And the Palestinian Arabs elected Hamas to 58% of the parliament with this charter, the United Nations pushes for Hamas to be part of a unity government, and the media talks of “Islamic resistance” as a peaceful and natural endeavor.

Related First One Through articles:

“Mainstream” and Abbas’ Jihad

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

Jordan’s King Abdullah gave a flowery speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015. To the casual listener, his words sounded progressive in his call for “loving our neighbour, showing respect to those different from us,” and to “amplify the voice of moderation,” especially from a region so caught up in violent Islamic extremism.

abdullah jordan
Jordanian King Abdullah addressed the 70th session of the United Nations
General Assembly on September 28, 2015. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)

To a listener who was more familiar with Jordan’s history in the region, some of the king’s comments appeared as a welcome change from the actions of his late father. Others could question whether Abdullah harkens to his own voice. Consider Abdullah’s call:

let us recognise deceit. When we examine the motives of these outlaws, the khawarej – and indeed, the motives of extremists on all sides – we find hunger for power and control: of people, of money, of land. They use religion as a mask. Is there a worse crime than twisting God’s word to promote your own interests?”

“nothing can be more important and can have more impact in framing this respect and coexistence than Jerusalem. The Hashemite Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian Holy Sites is a sacred duty, and we join Muslims and Christians everywhere in rejecting threats to the Holy Places
and the Arab character of this Holy City.”

When it comes to “respect and coexistence in Jerusalem,” let’s remind the Jordanian king of some plain facts:

  1. Jordan attacked Israel in 1948, together with four Arab armies in an attempt to completely destroy the new Jewish State, and then Jordan illegally seized the eastern half of Jerusalem.
  2. Jordan evicted all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in 1949, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  3. Jordan explicitly denied Jews citizenship when it granted Arabs in its conquered territory citizenship in 1954.
  4. Jordan barred any Jews from even visiting their holy sites when they controlled Jerusalem from 1949-1967.
  5. Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967 and lost the area it had illegally annexed.
  6. Jordan condemned the 2010 rebuilding of a prominent synagogue in Jerusalem that Jordan itself had destroyed in 1949.

Despite Jordan’s complete lack of religious tolerance for Jews and hostility towards Israel, Israel has always sought to maintain religious freedom and coexistence in the holy city:

  1. Israel granted the Jordanian Islamic Waqf custodian rights to the Temple Mount when it reunified Jerusalem in 1967.
  2. Israel enshrined the religious protections of all religions in its laws and safeguarded access to holy sites for all religions.
  3. Israel reiterated the special role that Jordan plays on the Temple Mount in the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in 1994.
  4. Today, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly reiterates that Israel will maintain the “status quo” of the Jordanian Waqf’s anti-Semitic edict of barring Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount.

When the Jordanian king spoke of “rejecting threats to the Holy Places and the Arab character of this Holy City [Jerusalem]” in a speech that was theoretically about tolerance, did he once mention Judaism? Did he make a passing reference to the Jerusalem being the holiest city to only one religion – Judaism? Did he mention that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 1860s? A passing comment about the Jewish Temples or Western Wall? Or did he define the holy city as solely having an “Arab character”?

In his choice of the phrase “threats to the Holy Places,” was Abdullah suggesting that Jews should no longer be permitted to visit the Temple Mount, or that Israeli police should be prevented from protecting Jewish visitors from Arab harassment and stone throwers, even though the Jordanian peace treaty with Israel specifically gave Jews and Israel both of those rights?

To Abdullah’s comment of gathering “Muslims and Christians everywhere,” was he suggesting gathering 2 billion people against Israel on a trumped up non-existent threat to Islamic holy places? Was Abdullah calling for a global jihad in “twisting” facts to create a religious battle to promote a greater role for himself? Was that his idea of “amplify[ing] the voice of moderation”?

It is Abdullah that must “recognize his own deceit” and “hunger for power and control” of Judaism’s holiest spot in the capital of Israel. His opening line taken from the Jewish bible of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “showing respect to those different” was a red herring in his call to cast himself as a loving moderate while calling for a global jihad against Israel on a non-existent cause.

The “progressive” voices attacking Jews and the Jewish State are becoming more numerous and growing louder.  Beware of the velvet tongue as much as the iron fist.

Related First One Through articles:

The Arguments over Jerusalem

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

The United Nations “Provocation”

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

Summary: The New York Times has sought to educate people to fear Republican terrorists more than Muslim extremists.

“Right-Wing” versus “Muslim Extremism”

In June 2015 the New York Times ran some articles and editorials claiming that domestic terrorism was more of a problem than radical Islamic terrorism.

  • A June 16 op-ed “The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat” quoted a police officer that “said that “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism’”. The paper quoted statistics from The Global Terrorism Database which counted 65 attacks at the hands of “right-wing ideologies and 24 by Muslim extremists since 9/11”. It added another source, “the International Security Program at the New America Foundation identifies 39 fatalities from “non-jihadist” homegrown extremists and 26 fatalities from “jihadist” extremists.
  • On June 24, the NYTimes had an article entitled “Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11”. The paper stated that “Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.” That data looks to be the same as the International Security Program, but included the nine black church-goers who had just been gunned down. Another statistic in the article stated that “Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such [ideological] attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants.”

The Washington Examiner questioned the definition of “right-wing terrorists” to include a very broad group of people. How did neo-Nazis and racists get lumped in with the “right-wing”?  Before exploring the Times deliberate grouping of all non-Muslim extremism under a single banner, consider a brief education about relative numbers versus absolute numbers.

Main cover story in the New York Times

 Absolute versus Relative

A cursory review of numbers could lead to a quick conclusion: 48 people killed is a greater total than 26 people killed. A total of 19 attacks is more than seven attacks. As such, the quotes in the article such as “Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists” would appear accurate on its face as there were more than two times the number of attacks and almost twice the number of fatalities from non-Muslim attacks.

However, a review of the statistics on a relative basis would yield a very different result.

According to the Pew Research Center, Muslims accounted for 0.9% of Americans in 2014. That means that there are 99 times more non-Muslims than Muslims in the US. If one were to assume that the percentage of Muslims who are radical that would commit an act of terror is the same as the broad group of right-wing and anti-government terrorists within the non-Muslim population, one would expect the right-wing terrorists to have 99 times the number of attacks and fatalities, not two times.  This implies that an average Muslim is 49 times more likely to commit an act of ideological terror than a non-Muslim in the United States.

(By the way, the statistics deliberately exclude the jihadist terrorism of 9/11 which killed nearly 3000 people.)

 The New York Times Warning of Terrorism by Conservatives

After the Times led its readers to focus on “homegrown extremism” as the actual threat of terrorism (compared to jihadists), it lumped all of those non-Muslim fanatics into the Republican party:

 On several occasions since President Obama took office, efforts by government agencies to conduct research on right-wing extremism have run into resistance from Republicans, who suspected an attempt to smear conservatives. A 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security, which warned that an ailing economy and the election of the first black president might prompt a violent reaction from white supremacists, was withdrawn in the face of conservative criticism.”

Even if one were to use the liberal paper’s biased assumptions that all anti-government and racist fanatics must exclusively come from the Conservative and Republican parties (which account for roughly 45% of the population according to a June 2015 Gallup poll), it would still suggest that an average Muslim is over 20 times more likely to commit an ideological attack as a “homegrown [Conservative] extremist.”

That would suggest one of the following conclusions:

  1. Non-Muslim terrorists have nothing to do with the Conservative/ Republican parties; OR
  2. An average Muslim is much more likely to commit acts of terror than an average non-Muslim

Either way -or both – these are the exact opposite conclusions that the New York Times sought to convey in its articles.

Related FirstOneThrough article:

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism



Bibi’s Paris Speech in Context

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu came to Paris, France in January 2015 to show his support for free speech and to confront anti-Semitism in the wake of terror attacks at the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket. He addressed a large Jewish audience at the Grand Synagogue where he invited the Jews to make aliyah – to move to Israel.netanyahu paris shul

“Any Jew who chooses to come to Israel will be greeted with open arms and an open heart, it is not a foreign nation, and hopefully they and you will one day come to Israel.”

Many people criticized his statement including, not surprisingly, his Israeli political opponents during an election season.  The French were also unhappy with the call to move to Israel. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that “if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”
French President Francois Hollande made a similar statement a few days later: “French people of the Jewish faith, your place is here, in your home. France is your country.

It is right and proper that the leaders of France seek to assure the country’s Jewish citizens that France is their home and they should not flee the country from fear.  But to berate Netanyahu for his remarks does not take into account the climate in which the invitation to move to the Jewish State was made.

Consider that Netanyahu did not come to France and invite the French Jews after attacks targeting their community in 2012 or 2006. But he felt that the situation for Jews in Europe had deteriorated significantly throughout 2014 which compelled him to invite the largest Jewish population in Europe, with an estimated 500,000 people, to move to Israel:

In summary, the year before the Paris shootings was a cascade of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activities in Europe.  The year 2014 began with Netanyahu releasing terrorists to push forward a peace initiative (of which he was very skeptical) at the urging of the USA and Europe.  It proved meaningless to the peace process and world opinion; Israel and Jews in Europe were attacked throughout the year, first by Palestinians and then by Europeans.

For Netanyahu, the prior twelve months had:

  1. Israel release prisoners, including Palestinian murderers of Israeli civilians, at the direct urging of allies
  2. Their Palestinian counter-party break peace talks by joining with Hamas and international organizations
  3. A summer in which: three teenagers were abducted and murdered; Israel located an extensive Hamas tunnel network from Gaza into Israel to launch attacks; Israel combated thousands of incoming missiles from Gaza. Yet Israel was still criticized by Europe and the global community for defensive actions
  4. European cities launch multiple riots against Jews
  5. European countries reward the Palestinians with admission to more world bodies and votes of endorsement
  6. The European Union remove Hamas from its terrorist list

For Netanyahu – and many Jews – the year in Europe echoed back 75 years to a period in which the continent nearly annihilated its Jewish citizens.  It was bad enough that Israelis contend with Palestinian Arabs that are more extreme than the Nazis of the 1930s.  But that Europeans embraced this ideaology was truly frightening, particularly as it stood in contrast to values they claimed to support.

In 1939, at the early stages of the Holocaust, Britain drafted the White Paper at the behest of Arabs in the Middle East, which limited Jewish immigration to Palestine at the outset of the Holocaust – a move which likely killed over 100,000 Jews – despite the specific mandate to facilitate the immigration of Jews to their homeland.

In 2015, the Prime Minister of Israel heard the calls to kill Jews, and made clear that a world with an established Jewish State will not allow a repeat of the European Holocaust.

Related First One Through articles:

Europe hurting the peace process:

Europe penalizing Israel even though Palestinians are the reluctant peace partner:

Jews continue to move out of Europe to Israel and the US music video (Diana Ross):

Ignoring Jihad only when it comes to Israel:


Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel

Summary: According to the Times, terrorists in Europe and Israel are very different and have different motivations.  If they weren’t, the hope that two states (Israel and Palestine) could live side-by-side in peace would obviously disappear.

The New York Times has taken to breaking the universe of Islamic terrorists attacking civilians into two camps: those that are hardened and trained to commit attacks, and those that do so as a result of their personal situation as opposed to their beliefs.  Curiously, that line is defined by geography.

Consider the January 17, 2015 reporting about the raids that prevented a terrorist attack in Belgium. The Times discussed “the expanding threat from radical jihadists, many of them battle-hardened in Syria and Iraq.” Another article on the same day questioned why Lunel, a small town in France “has come to earn the dubious distinction as a breeding ground for jihadists.” A third article that day clearly stated that attacks in Paris against the magazine Charlie Hebdo were by “jihadist gunmen”. In Europe, the Times is clear that attacks against civilians are done by radical jihadists. While the articles discussed Muslim anger at the insult to their prophet Mohammed by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that ultimately instigated the attacks, that anger was only the final motivating factor to unleash actions embedded in the radical jihadist philosophy.

The Times does not view attacks against Israelis the same way.

On January 23, 2015 the NY Times explored the motivation of a Palestinian who stabbed a dozen Israeli civilians on a bus in Tel Aviv. Over and again the Times referred to the man as “angered by the war in Gaza… and tensions over the revered Aqsa Mosque.” The article stated that “the family was in debt and struggling” and described this assailant as well as another who attempted to assassinate a Jewish activist as stories of “dislocation”. The New York Times deliberately kept the motivations away from any categorization of “radical jihad” by saying that the assailant “was not considered an extremist.”

This description fits consistently with the Times narrative as written in its editorial page on January 1, when it described the Palestinians as “desperate.” The opinion piece suggested that the Palestinians are “deeply frustrated” by their lack of a state. The Times does not feel that Palestinians are engaged in a radical jihad against Israel in the same way European cities are facing Islamic extremism. It is curious that they arrive at such a conclusion when there are Palestinian polls and elections that consistently show an overwhelming support for Hamas, which mentions “jihad” against Israel 36 times in its charter (see the FirstOneThrough article below).

Several articles in the Times mentioned the anti-Semitism harbored by Amedy Coulibaly, the French Muslim who shot a policeman and four Jews in a kosher supermarket in Paris. They discussed his allegiance to the Islamic State which seeks to build a new state in the Middle East ruled by Islamic sharia law. However, the New York Times never mentioned that the Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people in the world, with 93% of the population holding anti-Jewish views. It neglected to inform its readers that the popular Hamas party seeks to completely destroy Israel and set up an Islamic state ruled by sharia law.

Why does the Times continue to relay different motivations and narratives for jihadists in Europe and Israel?

The liberal newspaper would like to see a new State of Palestine established in the Middle East, whereas it is comfortable with the borders of countries elsewhere. The conundrum is that the Times’ hope for a new moderate secular Palestinian state alongside Israel is in conflict with the reality that the Palestinians are much more radical than the paper pretends.

To conceal the radical nature of the Palestinians today, the Times editorials and articles follow specific guidelines in reporting that:

  • The Palestinians and its leadership are moderates
  • The Palestinians only take to violence because they are desperate and alienated
  • The Israelis are at fault for lack of a two-state solution

In Israel, people see the jihad in Iraq, France, Nigeria and in their own country as a single violent movement of Islamic extremism. That is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Hamas and Islamic State as “branches of the same poisonous tree”. Should the Times ever decide to detail the full nature of Hamas beyond simply being a “militant group” and also discuss the huge support it receives by Palestinians, it would undermine the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace. Therefore, the pages of the Times state that Europe faces “radical jihadists” while Israel faces desperate, isolated and alienated Palestinians (who are in that situation only because of Israel).

However, hope is hardly honest reporting.


Netanyahu comment on Hamas:

Palestinians proudly elcebrating murderer of Israeli civilians:

Related First One Through articles:

Palestinians “Desperation Move”:

Palestinians are not “resorting” to violence:

Hamas is mainstream:

Abbas pivot to Hamas positions:

The extremism of the Palestinian positions:

“Mainstream” and Abbas’ Jihad

Abbas’ call to Jihad is to put Fatah into the mainstream.

According to the Webster dictionary, “mainstream” means “a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence”. defines it as “belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style”.

It is perhaps telling (or sad?) that mainstream media does not understand what “mainstream” actually means. Consider the New York Times usage regarding acting-Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party. Time and again it refers to Fatah as “mainstream”:

  • November 6, 2014: “…the attacks on Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian party led by President Mahmoud Abbas…”
  • August 18, 2014: “Hamas and its main rival, the mainstream Fatah faction..”
  • June 2, 2014: “…which is dominated by the mainstream Fatah faction, and its rival Hamas…”
  • May 29, 2014: “…which is dominated by the mainstream Fatah faction, and its rival, …”

However, polls show that both a majority of Palestinians support Hamas and the direction of support is increasing. Consider the quote from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research on October 10, 2014:

the public still favors Hamas’ “way” over negotiations, and Hamas and Haniyeh
are still more popular than Fatah and Mahmud Abbas”

Further, the trend of the polls shows Fatah continuing to lose support. In legislative elections, Fatah support declined from 43% (March) to 40% (June) to 36% (September). It is Hamas, not Fatah that represents the “current direction or influence” of the Palestinians.

September 25, 2014 poll:

  • Hamas and Haniyeh remain more popular than Fatah and Abbas”
  • “satisfaction with Abbas remains low”
  • “presidential elections if held today: Ismail Haniyeh would win a majority of 55% and Abbas 38%”
  • “If new legislative elections were held today with the participation of all factions… 39% say they would vote for Hamas and 36% say they would vote for Fatah, 5% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 21% are undecided.”

June 5, 2014 poll:

  • “If new presidential elections are held today and only two were nominated, Abbas would receive 53 % and Haniyeh 41%”
  • “If new legislative elections are held today, 32% say they would vote for Hamas and 40% say they would vote for Fatah, 9% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 19% are undecided”

March 20, 2014 poll:

  • “If presidential elections were between three: Mahmud Abbas, Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, Barghouti would receive the largest percentage (36%) followed by Abbas (30%), and Haniyeh (29%)”
  • “If new legislative elections are held today…28% say they would vote for Hamas and 43% say they would vote for Fatah, 12% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 17% are undecided.”

The Palestinians still want a war against Israel. Post Operation Protective Edge, over 79% of Palestinians want rocket fire to continue from Gaza into Israeli cities. Over 25% of Palestinians – in every Palestinian poll taken throughout 2014 – want a complete destruction of Israel.

Abbas knows this, and has used his soapbox afforded by his phony presidential credentials to incite more anger and violence as the Palestinian masses desire. Abbas and Fatah may eventually find their way to the “mainstream” of the Arab public by waving the banner of Jihad, just as its rival Hamas proclaims in its charter.

Quotes of Abbas, October and November 2014:

  • “Keep the settlers and the extremists away from Al-Aqsa and our holy places. We will not allow our holy places to be contaminated. Keep them away from us and we will stay away from them, but if they enter Al-Aqsa, [we] will protect Al-Aqsa and the church and the entire country.”
  • Israel is “leading the region and the world to a destructive religious war,”
  • “It is not enough to say the settlers came, but they must be barred from entering the compound by any means. This is our Aqsa… and they have no right to enter it and desecrate it,”
  • “It is important for the Palestinians to be united in order to protect Jerusalem,”
  • “We have to prevent them, in any way whatsoever, from entering the Sanctuary. This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. We must prevent them. Let us stand before them with chests bared to protect our holy places.” “


FirstOneThrough on Extreme becoming Mainstream:

Palestinian Survey:

Pick your Jihad, Choose your infidel:

The banners of Jihad:

Abbas’ new Jihad:

Fatah call to kill sellers of land to Jews:

The Banners of Jihad

Jihad is a war that Muslims fight against non-Muslims. It is considered a holy crusade that each Muslim must take according to the Quran.

There are different ways that jihad can be waged. According to the Quran and Hadith, it can be fought with the heart, the tongue, the hand, or the sword.

The nature of the battle changes according to place and enemy. A non-believer who lives as a dhimmi – a second-class citizen in an Islamic country – is fought with the heart, not violence. Countries or people that do no accept dhimmi status, that live in or influence lands that are considered to be “Muslim lands” are combated with force.

In modern times, the banners of jihad first appeared on the battlefields.  It spread to Muslim countries and then to the center of western cities.  It can now be found on college campuses. There are already news reports that it is arriving in smaller communities – perhaps like your neighborhood.

The banners will be different, depending on the makeup of your town and country. But make no mistake, the jihad is the same.

jihad burndenmark2 burnaustralia burnswitz burnfrance burnuk burnsweden burnus norway a4bia massacre parisstreets shariafrance shariauk enddemocracy netherlands holocaust jihad uk UK israel nazi stop israel streets protest cairo behead gaza antiUS bokoharam hamas al shabaab isis bds


Jihad definition:

FirstOneThrough on the global/local nature of Jihad:

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel

The rise of Islamic extremism is not new. It is not a surprise. The mission of jihadists has been clearly broadcast for years – the destruction and annihilation of non-Muslim people and non-Islamic countries by Muslims and replacing them with Islamic states:


The Hamas Charter was drafted in 1988. It mentions the word “jihad” 11 times in the charter. Its enemy is spelled out clearly: Jews.

In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews,
we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it

Jew/s/ish is mentioned 12 times in its charter. “Zion/ism/ist” is mentioned 20 times.

Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people in 2006 to carry out a war against the Jews and to destroy Israel. The attacks against Israel in the summer of 2014 that continue to this day are a consistent part of its mission.


Hamas jihadist


Al Qaeda did not suddenly appear on 9/11/2001. In 1998, it stated its goal of killing all Americans:

we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military —
is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it
in any country in which it is possible to do it

Al Qaeda has not backed down on its pledge while the US has enlisted the world support to defeat the group.


The kidnapping of over 200 Christian girls in Nigeria in April 2014 shocked the world. Boko Haram made no secret of its targeted enemy a few years earlier: Christians.

 “The Nigerian state and Christians are our enemies
and we will be launching attacks on the Nigerian state
and its security apparatus as well as churches
until we achieve our goal of

establishing an Islamic state in place of the secular state.

The world tweeted its support to bring back the girls and has provided support to find the attackers.

Many extremist groups continue to operate around the MENA region: Al-Shabaab, ISIS and Khorasan are only a few. Their aims are clear. Their path is jihad. Only the name of the infidel changes based on where the jihadists operate.

What is the world reaction to each of these extremist groups? Is the global community clear in its response?

A few years ago, the United Nations established an anti-terrorism unit. Its directive has noble goals for combating terrorism such as stopping the flow of funds and people to these groups.  However, the committee has not been clear about who the terrorists are, as it only mentions Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as terrorist groups. These other jihadists could thereby escape sanctions.

Jihad is Jihad.  Terrorism is Terrorism.  The world must unite to stop it.  The goal must be clear and unequivocal.

The Jihadists are.


Hamas Charter 1988:

Al Qaeda 1998 fatwa:

Boko Haram 2012:

Boko Haram kidnapping girls:

Al Shabaab:

ISIS February 2014:


UN terrorism agency:

FirstOneThrough on NY Times preference for Hamas:

Palestinian antiemetism, Holocaust denial and call for jihad: