A Two-State Solution For Europe?

Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

• A poll conducted this summer found that 29% of French Muslims found Sharia to be more important to them than French laws. It also found that 67% of Muslims want their children to study Arabic, and 56% think it should be taught in public schools.


• A 2016 UK poll showed that 43% of British Muslims "believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea". Another poll from 2016 found that 23% of all Muslims supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, 39% agreed that "wives should always obey their husbands," and 52% of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.


• French President Emmanuel Macron blamed France, not Islam, for the increased radicalization, which he said should lead France to "question itself." According to Macron, then, the parallel Islamic societies of France, have nothing to do with Islam. They are the fault of the French republic. Did the French republic impose sharia and the subjugation of women in the suburbs, described by one female survivor as "hell"? Was the French republic behind the recent distribution of leaflets stipulating "if you meet a Jew, kill him"?

A French intellectual, Christian Moliner, recently suggested that France should establish a Muslim state-within-a-state that adheres to sharia law, inside the borders of France, to avoid a civil war. Warning against refusing to deal with the problems of Islamism in Europe because of political correctness, he stated:

"Out of the fear of appearing Islamophobic, to satisfy this bustling fringe of Muslims, governments are ready to accept the spread of radical practices throughout the country.... [some] territories are outside the control of the Republic. The police can come only in force and for limited durations... We can never convert the 30% of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia law to the merits of our democracy and secularism. We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name."

Moliner"s solution?

"... Establish a dual system of law in France... one territory, one government, but two peoples: the French with the usual laws and Muslims with Qur"anic status (but only for those who choose it)... The latter will have the right to vote... but they will apply Sharia in everyday life, to regulate matrimonial laws (which will legalize polygamy) and inheritance... They will no longer apply to French judges for disputes between Muslims... conflicts between Christians and believers will remain the responsibility of ordinary courts..."

Moliner"s proposal represents a total surrender to political Islam and is of course outrageous, especially considering that Muslims only comprise a little more than five percent of the French population. What he suggests, however, merely formalizes the status quo that already exists -- and not only in France -- even if it abandons reform-minded Muslims and eventually, with their collapsing demography, the non-Muslims there.

In France, the no-go zones with their Islamization and Islamic law, sharia, and most noticeably the subjugation of women, has already spread from the suburbs (banlieues) to the cities themselves. As Gatestone"s Yves Mamou described:

"... no-go zones are no longer relegated to the suburbs, where migrants and Muslims have usually been concentrated. No-go zones, through mass migration, have been emerging in the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon -- districts "privatized" here and there by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted".

Last year, French TV aired a documentary about women disappearing from public view in certain areas, where parallel Islamic societies had taken hold. The program named Sevran in the district of Seine-Saint Denis -- a suburb of Paris described by French political scientist Gilles Kepel as "the capital of French Islam". There are 1.4 million people living in the district of Seine-Saint-Denis. More than 600,000 of them are Muslims. The French postal service recently said that it will no longer supply its Chronopost delivery service to Seine-Saint-Denis -- the danger to their delivery drivers is too high. Last year, 51 of its delivery drivers were reportedly attacked while doing their rounds.

Riot police muster in the northern Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel, France. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)

In France, a poll conducted by Institut Montaigne this summer found that 29% of French Muslims found sharia to be more important to them than French laws. It also found that 67% of Muslims want their children to study Arabic and 56% think it should be taught in public schools.

A 2016 UK poll, apparently the largest poll ever done on the subject in the UK, showed that 43% of British Muslims "believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea". A different poll, also from 2016, found that nearly a quarter (23%) of all Muslims supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that "wives should always obey their husbands", compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population. According to the same poll, 52% of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

According to a 2014 study of Moroccan and Turkish Muslims in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, an average of almost 60% of the Muslims polled agreed that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam; 75% thought there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible and 65 % said that Sharia is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they lived. The specific numbers for Germany were that 47% of Muslims believe Sharia is more important than German law. In Sweden, 52% of Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.

As the polls show, there already are "two peoples" in France and large parts of Europe, who wish to live according to completely different standards, as Moliner suggests. Politicians persist in ignoring these facts or downplaying them. So why be shocked at the suggestion of a "two-state solution" for France? How do these politicians, who do not even acknowledge the problems, propose to tackle the fact that large percentages of their population would rather live under sharia law? They do not propose anything. They pretend that this information does not exist.

French President Emmanuel Macron, is an example of such immunity to facts: "Radicalization has taken hold because the French Republic has resigned," Macron said recently about the Islamization of the French suburbs. Macron blamed France, not Islam, for the increased radicalization, which he said should lead France to "question itself". Macron noted that, "We allowed, in too many cities, too many districts, representatives of a distortion of a religion, which are full of hate and disenfranchisement to provide solutions that the Republic no longer gives."

According to Macron, then, the parallel Islamic societies of France, have nothing to do with Islam. They are the fault of the French republic. Did the French republic impose Sharia and the subjugation of women in the suburbs, described by one female survivor as "hell"? Was the French republic behind the recent distribution of leaflets stipulating "if you meet a Jew, kill him"? Did the French republic force the mother of Mohammed Merah, the man who killed a little Jewish girl at school by shooting her in the head, while screaming "Allahu Akbar", to say that "the prophet permits the killing of Jewish children"?

France, as well as the rest of Europe, is -- wittingly or unwittingly -- heading towards the "two-state solution" outlined by Moliner, whether it wants it or not. That fact, however, does not appear particularly to bother the political establishment.

Sweden"s New Government Censorship Exposed

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

• In the report, placing the word "refugees" in quotation marks, as well as "unaccompanied children," is supposedly an expression of "hate". (Many, if not most, migrants classified as "unaccompanied children" have turned out to be grown men).


• Government agencies are going out of their way to protect the "integrity" of possible jihadists out of concern for a "democratic society" -- the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy -- and are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the "integrity" of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up?


• Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children. Far from countering "hate", Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.

The Swedish government is now officially questioning free speech. A government agency has declared so-called Swedish "new media" -- news outlets that refuse to subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxies of the mainstream media -- a possible threat to democracy. In a government report, tellingly called "The White Hatred" written by Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (Total Defense Research Institute), a government agency under the Swedish Ministry of Defense, Swedish new media such as Samhällsnytt (formerly known as Avpixlat), Nyheter Idag and Nya Tider are lumped together with neo-Nazi media such as Nordfront.

"Hate" is defined broadly to include violent extremism, "hateful expressions", jokes, internet trolling and even the use of certain quotation marks. For instance, in the report, placing the word "refugees" in quotation marks, as well as "unaccompanied children," is supposedly an expression of "hate". (Many, if not most, migrants classified as "unaccompanied children" have turned out to be grown men).

"One might find," according to the report"s conclusion, "that pluralism of information sources... is a positive addition in a democratic society where freedom of speech is an important foundation", but "the new media... stretch the limits of free speech," which "threatens other democratic values". The report further alleges that society risks becoming tolerant of the intolerant. That is rather rich coming from the authorities of a European country that has accepted Islamic intolerance to an astounding degree. There is even a proposal from a government minister to reintegrate returning ISIS fighters, who might still wish to destroy the tolerant society that houses them.

The report is part of a series commissioned by the Swedish government to conduct quantitative mapping and analyses of violent extremist propaganda spread in Sweden by the internet and social media. The survey is supposed to include violent extremist environments in Sweden: right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism and Islamic extremism.

A previous report, "The Digital Caliphate," supposedly looks at Islamic extremism, but is rendered useless in a Swedish context by explicitly refusing to engage with concrete ISIS propaganda in Sweden for "ethical" reasons:

"It is not in itself illegal to sympathize with violent ideologies. Our work is not about mapping the views of private people, as that would be incompatible with an open democratic society. Our analyses have therefore been limited to protect the integrity of private persons. No data has been collected from pages protected by passwords, closed Facebook pages or other types of Facebook pages or social media where the user has sought to keep the material within a closed group. All the material comes from open sources... this means that the material analyzed is limited as a large part of ISIS propaganda happens in closed channels..."

Government agencies in charge of national security, in other words, are going out of their way to protect the "integrity" of possible jihadists out of concerns for a "democratic society" -- the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy. Meanwhile, these agencies are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the "integrity" of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up? Furthermore, this desire to protect the privacy of potential jihadists means that the most vital part of the work -- mapping the extent of Islamist violent propaganda in Sweden -- is still left undone.

Sweden"s government agencies in charge of national security are going out of their way to protect the "integrity" of jihadists -- people like Mikael Skråmo, a Swedish convert to Islam and jihadist who went to fight for ISIS in Syria, and urged Muslims in Sweden to bomb their workplaces.

At the same time, the Swedish establishment has its own private vigilante mob acting as the thought police. A 76,000-member closed Facebook group, called "Jagärhär" ("I am here"), is a private initiative founded by journalist Mina Dennert to attack opinions on social media with which its members disagree. "She noticed that there were people around us who had been frightened into believing all these images painted by "alternative media" of people of foreign backgrounds as violent criminals... " explains Dennert"s husband, one of the group"s administrators, who works for Swedish state television. The network has already won four prizes for its "work" in Sweden, including a prize from the Swedish group "Equalisters" ("Rättviseförmedlingen"), which awarded the network their annual prize, naming it the group that had done the most for equality in 2016. Dennert was also awarded the Anna Lindh Prize.

The methods of "Jagärhär" vary. One tactic is to send mass complaints against a Facebook profile, causing it to be removed by the social media giant. This verdict by mob rule is what happened to the Swedish-Czech author Katerina Janouch, whose profile was shut down several times by Facebook -- the apparent result of publishing, among other things, a satirical guide to political correctness. The network, which is one year old, is believed to be closely associated with Sweden"s national public television and the Social Democratic party.

Mina Dennert, also with close connections to the Swedish government, had her network apply for half a million Swedish kroner (nearly $60,000) government grant to support its work, which involved shutting down dissent on social media. Her network, however, recently withdrew its application after its dubious "work" had been revealed by none other than the new media in Sweden. The Jagärhär network has apparently inspired similar projects in other countries, such as #IchBinHier in Germany.

Meanwhile, Islamic extremists in Sweden continue their work. In Malmö, Group 194 -- a Swedish-Muslim group that glorifies terrorism and actively sympathizes with the Arab terrorist group Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) -- participated in one of the DFLP"s activities in Malmö in 2016. At the meeting, in which Swedish socialists apparently also participated, the participants reportedly celebrated the Ma"alot massacre, an Arab terrorist attack on an Israeli school in 1974 in which 115 hostages (including 105 children) were taken and 25 were murdered. The group, it seems, also routinely carries posters of Arab terrorists when it marches in the streets of Malmö on International Workers" Day. Group 194"s entire work is focused on virulent anti-Israeli activism, as evidenced by its Facebook page. Sweden clearly has no problem with allowing hate speech from DFLP terrorists in Malmö.

This Swedish-Muslim group, bizarrely, is part of an initiative to make Malmö safe (Trygg Malmö or "Safe Malmö"). As part of this work, it is responsible for patrolling Rosengård -- one of the most problematic no-go zones in Malmö -- at night. The group was awarded SEK 10,000 (about $1,000) recently by the Malmö municipality -- together with the other groups in Trygg Malmö -- for its work in Rosengård. Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children.

Originally, a Swedish administrative court, in a recent decision, ruled that there was no basis for denying the Muslim organization Young Muslims of Sweden (SUM) its state subsidy. Young Muslims of Sweden, which is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, had been denied state subsidies by the Swedish Ministry of Youth and Civil Affairs, as Young Muslims of Sweden and its member organizations "have been identified as an environment" where some individuals do not respect the ideas of democracy. The Swedish court did not think that there was sufficient evidence for taking away the state subsidy, so Young Muslims of Sweden may soon find its activities funded by taxpayers once more.

Far from countering "hate", Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.

The MbS-Blackwater Marriage Of Convenience

Authored by Ghassan Kadi via The Saker blog,

Mohamed Bin Salman’s (MBS) royal Saudi coup is still in the making and its stories of mystery and intrigue are unfolding.

Some recent articles written about this unprecedented Saudi development have focused on whether or not MBS was actually desirous of instigating reform within the kingdom of sand and capable of putting together the infrastructure that made such reform possible and how. Other more cynical articles have cast little doubt on his ability to create any change and classified him as yet another puppet of the legacy that his grandfather King Abdul Aziz, the founder of the Saudi dynasty, has forged with the West. In between the two extremes, many perhaps waited in anticipation to see what was to happen next in the now quick-changing kingdom that did not change at all in essence for nearly a hundred years.

To put recent developments into perspective, we must objectively look at MBS’s achievements and failures since his rise to prominence; with a special emphasis on the developments of the last few weeks.

MBS has failed to turn previous Saudi Government failed policy on Syria to his advantage by distancing his own legacy from it. If anything, the outcome of the Syrian opposition conference that was held in Riyadh was a farcical outcome of Saudi diplomacy. Not only did this conference coincide with the 20^th of November 2017 Putin-Assad Sochi victory summit, but it is still “demanding” the removal of Syrian President Assad from power.

The arrogant and seemingly naive Saudis seem to be still under the illusion that they are able to dictate terms of settlement of the “War on Syria” despite the fact that they have put all of their efforts into winning it but have lost decisively.

However, the more painful fact for them is that they lost without a single bargaining chip remaining for them to capitalize on.

Whilst MBS can be “excused” for not being able to find a face-saving way out of Syria, he has failed abysmally in the war that he orchestrated in Yemen, and as this war drags on, the international community is beginning to wake up to the atrocities and genocide that the Saudi-led coalition is inflicting upon Yemen, and no one can be held more accountable for this military failure and crime against humanity than MBS himself.

MBS also failed to contain the loss he “inherited” from the failures of previous Saudi policies in Lebanon and Iraq. If anything, his determination to remain steadfast with these has turned regional Saudi policies into a total joke.

So where did MBS score any success, if any at all?

In my previous related articles and herein, I have mentioned and reiterate that MBS is increasingly gaining popularity within the ranks of young and educated Saudi men and women of all ages and in general amongst the grass-roots of the population. Hence, in this venture, he is scoring two birds with a single stone. In rounding up more popular support, he is confiscating and freezing badly-needed cash under the pretext of corruption.

The estimates of the number of incarcerated Saudi princes and businessmen are not any less subject to a game of guess work than the funds involved in this kerfuffle. Ignoring how many men have been put under detention, the tally of funds confiscated and frozen is estimated at a minimum of USD 150 bn to a maximum of USD 800 bn.

Given that the total official Saudi savings reserve is in the tune of “only” USD 700 bn after decades of high financial times, even the low estimate of USD 150 bn is a huge sum by proportion and by any proportion of course. It is little surprise that MBS is trying to replenish into the coffers of the state such sums, and if he manages to do it, it would be to his credit.

Whilst on the subject of official Saudi savings, after many decades of huge petroleum exports and at elevated prices, the Saudi savings reserve figure should be in the vicinity of a few trillion dollars. But a huge proportion of Saudi petro-dollars has been squandered on royal funds, holidays yachts, prostitutes, drugs, bribes, theft, corruption at all levels, and on this account and this account only, MBS can be acknowledged for bringing corrupt individuals to account.

But whether or not MBS is able to stamp out corruption and/or whether or not he is guilty of the same charge, as his cousins and some others argue, how much command does he have over the affairs of the kingdom, and over the royal family he staged a coup against?

Inside, unconfirmed reports allege that whether or not MBS has any command on traditional local troops that he can rely on, he is not taking any second chances.

To elaborate, the reader ought to be reminded that the Al-Saud legacy built its reign of power (and terror) on Wahhabism and money.

Wahhabism was used as the doctrine, and money was the catalyst for buying loyalty and support.

With MBS’s purge on the royals, no traditional royal supporter with known wealth is left feeling safe. How can they feel safe if they hear reports of news of princes like Al-Walid bin Talal not only being in custody, but also getting tortured and his assets frozen and sieged by the state?

In my previous article, The Second Saudi Dynasty: MBS’s Reset Button, I wondered how can MBS count on any local supporters. Apparently, he is not.

Recent inside information that was later on published in various media, reports that MBS has been using Blackwater to do his dirty work.

If those reports are true, MBS has hired Blackwater to arrest, with orders to kill whoever resists arrest, Saudi princes and high-ranking businessmen, and to answer to no one but him.

In retrospect, the fatal shooting of Prince Abdul Aziz, son of former King Fahed, was highly unlikely to have been done by a Saudi as this would attract a death sentence in the event of the coup failing.

It has even been reported that Blackwater personnel are driving around in tinted Saudi Police and security agency personnel vehicles in a manner that is totally unbeknown and hidden from the Saudi public.

This cannot be corroborated any more than they can realistically be dismissed.

If true, such reports indicate that MBS’s coup is not over. They indicate that he is not taking any chances, but most practically, they indicate that he trusts no one; no one expect Blackwater.

Most importantly and significantly however, such news, if confirmed, indicates that MBS does not have a true hold on power.

If such is the case, and seeing the ambition he has, there is more reason to believe that MBS is going to have no choice but to go with his cousins all the way to the wire and until he has destroyed them all and confiscated all of their assets.

After all, he needs their money to achieve his dreams and get his kingdom out of its financial mess. He needs to blame his failure on them. He needs to eliminate any possible claim they can make for the throne.

Almost overnight, MBS has changed Saudi Arabia from a kingdom of sand upon which Al Saud reigned with a solid foothold and strong base, to a kingdom of quick-sand upon which princes and power brokers no longer have a leg to stand on. They either have to pledge total and unconditional loyalty to MBS or fear persecution. On the other hand, if they do pledge that loyalty, and MBS’s coup fails as a result of a counter-coup, then they will risk being seen as enemies of the winners of the counter-coup. It is a damned if you do and a damned if you don’t situation.

Not any less perplexing than the dilemma of the princes is the dilemma of the lower tiers of power in Saudi Arabia; especially senior military officers and their subordinates. With its tribal mentality, Saudi Arabia has had several tiers of armed forces, some of whom are loyal to particular princes rather than to the state itself. Prince Mutaib for example, the son of former King Abdullah, was until the 4^th of November, the Minister of the National Guard. The hierarchy within the National Guard are loyal to him personally, and now the big boss is in jail. MBS therefore has a few options; either to coerce those military officers to become loyal to him under the risk of them stabbing him in the back, or, to throw everyone in jail and bring his own people in. But, where would he bring his own people in from and who are they to begin with? After all, and despite all the great power he gave himself, he is Mr Johnny-come–lately and he hasn’t had the advantage of time to slowly build his own army. His practical alternative was based on pragmatism and securing his own safety, and to that effect, he cannot find a more faithful and better trained army than Blackwater. And even though Blackwater does not come cheap, but clearly to MBS the objectives he seeks justify the costs.

Some may argue that Blackwater can also be bought by counter coup leaders and even foreign governments. Whilst this is possible, MBS remains to have no better alternative. However, one would imagine that for a company like Blackwater, to guarantee its business success and continuity, it would have a strict code of conduct that stipulates that it will refrain from entering contractual agreements that can generate conflict of interest between its clients. After all, and irrespective of its criminal and underhanded mercenary modus operandi, who would hire it knowing beforehand that it is in the habit of breaking contracts and replacing them with ones with the adversaries? Whilst it is arguable as to whether or not any client of Blackwater can actually take legal action against it and win is another story because, without any doubt, Blackwater, inhumane and criminal as it is, cannot afford to see its reputation ruined.

To sum it up therefore, whilst MBS’s coup is still in the making and its final outcome remaining unclear, what is evident is that MBS does not have enough local Saudi power base that he can rely on in the upper echelons of power. Whilst his grass root popularity among the general population is on the rise, traditional power brokers can neither be supportive of him, seen to be supportive or seen to be against him. Either way, and even though some of them could potentially become strong and faithful proponents of MBS, at the moment any pledges of allegiance are highly risky for all involved.

In his reliance on Blackwater however, MBS is achieving a more guaranteed short term objective. However, this policy can backfire very violently; because it is allowing certain key Saudi power brokers to sit on the fence for a little longer until they see who is the final winner in all of this for them to eventually back.

"Groveling In Excrement": Thomas Friedman Mercilessly Mocked For Bizarre Saudi Puff Piece

On the same day that New York Times columnist Thomas "suck on this" Friedman penned what reads like a fawning hagiography of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and which glowingly presents the soon to be king as a modernizing reformer intent on liberalizing Islam, Human Rights Watch issued a report exposing a new Saudi counterterrorism law as little more than a dictator"s tool for crushing dissent.

The new law, published on November 1 of this year, replaces a 2014 law which defined specific acts of terror and corresponding sentencing guidelines; however, the November decree is described as incredibly vague and broad in its application while allowing for severe consequences for so much as criticizing the king or crown prince. The kingdom has long aggressively rooted out dissent, arresting and prosecuting individuals for engaging in protest, even if merely on social media.

According the Human Rights Watch (HRC) report:

It includes criminal penalties of 5 to 10 years in prison for portraying the king or crown prince, directly or indirectly, “in a manner that brings religion or justice into disrepute,” and criminalizes a wide range of peaceful acts that bear no relation to terrorism.

The law also brings terror-related cases under the direct administrative oversight of the king. HRW provides examples of the types of vague protest related activities that Saudi Arabia can now deem "terrorism":

The new law, however, does not restrict the definition of terrorism to violent acts. Other conduct it defines as terrorism includes “disturbing public order,” “shaking the security of the community and the stability of the State,” “exposing its national unity to danger,” and “suspending the basic laws of governance,” all of which are vague and have been used by Saudi authorities to punish peaceful dissidents and activists. Prominent human rights activists Abdullah al-Hamid and Mohammed al-Qahtani are serving 11-year and 10-year sentences respectively, based on charges that contain similar language. Human rights activist Essam Koshak is currently on trial on similar charges.

Though HRW has consistently shown itself to be merely critical of countries and regimes considered enemies of the West (for example rarely criticizing US/UK allies while focusing on Syria or Russia), the report comes amidst growing public awareness of the long ignored and forgotten Saudi-US bombing of Yemeni civilians, and consequent humanitarian disaster still unfolding.

Even less known is that fact that Saudi Arabia recently flattened an entire civilian town, Awamiya, in the country"s restive Shia-dominated east in a sectarian driven campaign to crush dissent with overwhelming military force. The siege of Awamiya last summer was well documented, with Saudi war crimes caught on video, yet fawning pro-Saudi journalists in major newsrooms in the West have never so much as raised the issue with the Saudis or their US State Department backers.

But of course, most astute observers of developments in the Saudi kingdom of horrors hardly need convincing that Saudi"s rulers are among the most backwards and repressive on earth, which makes Thomas Friedman"s interview and column on MbS all the more absurd and laughable.

Over multiple courses of lamb in Riyadh, the Saudi Crown Prince easily convinced Tom Friedman that he"s a genuine reformer, mega-popular dude, and an all around super awesome guy https://t.co/dn2MgLECfU?

— Avi Asher-Schapiro (@AASchapiro) November 24, 2017

In honor of Thomas Friedman’s latest love letter to Saudi here is 70 years of the NY Times describing #Saudi royals in the language of #reform.

— Abdullah Al-Arian (@anhistorian) November 24, 2017

In Dante"s Inferno the second pit of the eighth circle of hell is occupied by sycophants, groveling in excrement that represents the insincere flattery of their words. There’s not, we will likely find out, a pit deep enough—nor feces potent enough—suitable for Thomas Friedman. https://t.co/5vUpE4UgUK

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 25, 2017

Friedman is now being roundly mocked on social media, and surprisingly even among some mainstream media pundits who tend to me more reserved in their sycophant tendencies.

I get that people don"t like that Tom Friedman interview with MbS. Curious, though: What should the crown prince of Saudi Arabia do instead?

— Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) November 24, 2017

*****

Below are some of the more obscene and comical highlights from Friedman"s "Saudi Arabia"s Arab Spring, at last".

Friedman introduces the current MbS crackdown as "the most significant reform process underway in the Middle East today:

I never thought I’d live long enough to write this sentence: The most significant reform process underway anywhere in the Middle East today is in Saudi Arabia. Yes, you read that right. Though I came here at the start of Saudi winter, I found the country going through its own Arab Spring, Saudi style.

Friedman gets worn out by the "fire hose of new ideas" from the late night session with the charming young dictator:

After nearly four hours together, I surrendered at 1:15 a.m. to MBS’ youth, pointing out that I was exactly twice his age. It’s been a long, long time, though, since any Arab leader wore me out with a fire hose of new ideas about transforming his country.

The kingdom"s recent spate of mass arrests, which now include allegations of torture and asset shakedowns by the state, is based in the supposedly heroic vision of noble-minded MbS: 

...his government arrested scores of Saudi princes and businessmen on charges of corruption and threw them into a makeshift gilded jail — the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton — until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten gains. You don’t see that every day.

And apparently Friedman knows what the "silent majority" thinks while being entertained at one of the royal family"s private palaces:

The Saudi silent majority is clearly fed up with the injustice of so many princes and billionaires ripping off their country. While foreigners, like me, were inquiring about the legal framework for this operation, the mood among Saudis I spoke with was: “Just turn them all upside down, shake the money out of their pockets and don’t stop shaking them until it’s all out!”

With zero substantive evidence, we are assured MBS is a liberalizing and moderating force who will deliver universal human rights and equality to the Wahhabi kingdom:

MBS is on a mission to bring Saudi Islam back to the center. He has not only curbed the authority of the once feared Saudi religious police to berate a woman for not covering every inch of her skin, he has also let women drive. And unlike any Saudi leader before him, he has taken the hard-liners on ideologically. As one U.S.-educated 28-year-old Saudi woman told me: MBS “uses a different language. He says, ‘We are going to destroy extremism.’ He’s not sugarcoating. That is reassuring to me that the change is real.”

"It blew my mind" says Friedman:

But as someone who has been coming here for almost 30 years, it blew my mind to learn that you can hear Western classical music concerts in Riyadh now, that country singer Toby Keith held a men-only concert here in September, where he even sang with a Saudi, and that Lebanese soprano Hiba Tawaji will be among the first female singers to perform a women-only concert here on Dec. 6.

"Perfect is not the menu" concludes Friedman as the Saudis kill and maim tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians just across the border:

But can MBS and his team see this through? Again, I make no predictions. He has his flaws that he will have to control, insiders here tell me. They include relying on a very tight circle of advisers who don’t always challenge him sufficiently, and a tendency to start too many things that don’t get finished. There’s a whole list. But guess what? Perfect is not on the menu here. Someone had to do this job — wrench Saudi Arabia into the 21st century — and MBS stepped up. I, for one, am rooting for am rooting for him to succeed in his reform efforts. 

MBS a liberal icon of "moderate" Islam:

Indeed, MBS instructed me: “Do not write that we are ‘reinterpreting’ Islam — we are ‘restoring’ Islam to its origins — and our biggest tools are the Prophet’s practices and [daily life in] Saudi Arabia before 1979.” At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, he argued, there were musical theaters, there was mixing between men and women, there was respect for Christians and Jews in Arabia. “The first commercial judge in Medina was a woman!” So if the Prophet embraced all of this, MBS asked, “Do you mean the Prophet was not a Muslim?” 

Friedman concludes by quoting an anonymous woman on "hope" and "change" and a clichéd line, "anything is possible":

And the fact that starting in June that will never again be so “gives me so much hope. It proves to me that anything is possible — that this is a time of opportunity. We have seen things change and we are young enough to make the transition.”

"Unprecedented" Saudi Crackdown Targets Regime Loyalists As King Prepares To Abdicate

Are we seeing early signs of an "Arab Spring" coming to Saudi Arabia, or will the next king emerge stronger than ever? The kingdom is now in the midst of an unprecedented crackdown of both dissidents and even loyalists perceived as less than enthusiastic about Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman"s consolidation of power as he prepares to ascend the throne of his aging and increasingly senile father. It was only last June that King Salman shocked the world by suddenly and unexpectedly removing next in line for the crown Muhammad bin Nayef, which made Mohammed bin Salman heir apparent to the throne.

In a rare front page story airing sharp criticism of the kingdom, The Wall Street Journal assessed the scope of the crackdown today:

In the past week, Saudi authorities have detained more than 30 people, roughly half of them clerics, according to activists and people close to those who have been detained. The campaign goes beyond many of the government’s past clampdowns, both in the scope of those targeted and the intense monitoring of social media posts by prominent figures. It is not known if any charges have been filed.

WSJ further mentions that several senior princes have been essentially under house arrest as they are barred from traveling abroad, which even includes a brother of King Salman. The kingdom has been tight lipped amidst the crackdown, refusing to engage with the media since as the story began breaking early this week.

Current Defense Minister and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Image source: Alayham News

King Salman himself has at times appeared barely able to function or speak coherently in public or government addresses, and aides have had to closely assist when he does make such rare appearances. Prince Mohammed has become the de facto ruler on a day-to-day level.

As the WSJ explains, preparations are underway for the king"s early abdication:

“Mohammed bin Salman is definitely preparing to become king,” said a Saudi adviser to the government. “He wants to tackle the internal debate about him becoming the king and focus on consolidating his power, rather than doing that while being distracted by dissidents.”

The government has denied an abdication is planned, but several people close to the royal family say preparations have already started. The transfer of power, which several people close to the royal family had expected to occur this month, is likely to take place late this year or early next year, these people say.

Analysts point to the fact that most of the detained in the latest crackdown have large social media followings and have expressed criticism of Saudi Arabia"s diplomatic and economic war with Qatar, if not expressing outright support for Qatar. The crown prince is considered a hawk when it comes to the Qatar crisis, and himself had a huge role in the kingdom"s policy of strong arm tactics targeting its small oil and gas rich neighbor. Saudi law further makes membership in the Muslim Brotherhood a punishable offense, and has accused many of those detained with ties with the group.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been the favored political proxy backed by Qatar for much of the "Arab Spring" movements in Egypt, Syria, and throughout the region. The Brotherhood has also historically been active in short-lived protests within Saudi Arabia, such as the so-called Islamic Awakening anti-government protests which occurred in the wake of the first Gulf War as the US military was allowed to assemble in Saudi territory. But the Brotherhood now carries the double stigma of being seen as an arm of Qatari foreign subversion. Saudi state media has lately warned of “intelligence activities for the benefit of foreign parties” within the country.

Last weekend Saudi authorities detained prominent clerics which had previously taught and preached from within the heart of the country"s Wahhabi establishment, including Salman al-Awdah, Awad al-Qarni and Ali al-Omary. Though such recently detained clerics hold religious views which do not depart from the state Wahhabi religion, religiously driven criticisms of the royal family tend to focus on impurity, excess, and compromising relations with Western democracies. And lately it appears that the crown prince may even be quietly opening up to Israel, which we predicted could create dissent and instability among the Saudi domestic population. Various reports hint at calls for protests to take place both within and outside the country this weekend. Al-Qaeda itself called for the overthrow of the ruling monarchy with the message, "How can the grandsons of the Prophet and his Companions become slaves of the Family of Saud and its fool headed tyrants?".

Though most international reporting is playing up the current crackdown as targeting figures that are loosely "oppositionist", it appears the nature of the move is more nuanced. According to Middle East history professor and expert on Saudi affairs, As"ad AbuKhalil, the crackdown is primarily aimed at regime insiders and prominent voices who threaten push-back against the crown prince"s vision for Saudi foreign policy:

Unlike what some in the media are writing on social media, this crackdown is not directed against dissidents.  Many of those arrested are loyal propagandists for the Saudi regime.  They are being punished not for what they say but for what they are not saying: they are being punished for not being vocal against Qatar and against the Muslim Brotherhood. 

AbuKhalil, who authored a book which examined internal Saudi regime fault lines called The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power, provides a somewhat comical example of how regime insiders are being publicly humiliated should they not fall in line. In the below case, two pro-Saudi writers with connections to the monarchy battled it out on Tuesday:

AbuKhalil translates and describes the Twitter exchange between the two highly visible pundits as follows: Nasir Salih As-Sirami (above) is commenting on the latest tweet by Jamal Khashoggi who wrote - "You arrest Isam Az-Zamil!! Isam was here in DC serving his country accompanying an official delegation. Those are the best of the sons of my country. What is happening?"  So As-Sirami says: "Don"t worry, brother Jamal.  Enjoy America and your spacious home which was bought to you by Saudi Arabia as an adviser to its embassy then.  And don"t forget the London home too."

Ironically, Isam Az-Zamil is actually close to the Saudi regime as a prominent economic analyst. His recent arrest did much to increase the general climate of fear now descending on those who previously felt themselves safe as firmly within the loyalist camp. As AbuKhalil notes even those with close government ties are now being accused of harboring sympathies for the kingdom"s enemies: "The arrests seem to target those who were accused of Islamist Ikhwan sympathies or Qatar sympathies or Turkish sympathies."

So it seems Prince Mohammed bin Salman"s rule may be faltering before it really even begins. Or alternately, his aggressive stance against dissent will induce enough paranoia for everyone to fall in line the moment his father abdicates. Regardless, once imperceptible cracks in the "stable" kingdom are now beginning to show as external geopolitical pressures (such as the Qatar and Iran rivalries) are being brought to bear.

The Islamic Future Of Europe

Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,

• European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories. They see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam.


• Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement whose actions are totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

The terrorist attack in Barcelona received the same reaction as all the large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe: tears, prayers, flowers, candles, teddy bears, and protestations that "Islam means peace ". When people gathered to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Muslims organized a demonstration to defend Islam; they claimed that Muslims living in Spain are the "main victims" of terrorism. The president of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Societies, Mounir Benjelloun El Andaloussi, spoke of a "conspiracy against Islam" and said that terrorists were "instruments" of Islamophobic hatred. The mayor of Barcelona, ?? Ada Colau, cried in front of the cameras and said that her city would remain an "open city" for all immigrants. The governor of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, used almost the same language. Spain"s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, a conservative, was the only one who dared to call jihadist terrorism by its name. Almost all European journalists said Rajoy"s words were too harsh.

After the attack in Barcelona, Spain, when people gathered at the site to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Pictured: "Anti-fascists" beat a man who they claimed is a "right-wing sympathizer" at Las Ramblas, Barcelona, on August 18, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Mainstream European newspapers describing the horror once again sought explanations to what they kept calling "inexplicable". The leading Spanish daily newspaper, El Pais, wrote in an editorial that "radicalization" is the bitter fruit of the "exclusion" of certain "communities," and added that the answer was more "social justice". In France, Le Monde suggested that terrorists want to "incite hatred", and stressed that Europeans must avoid "prejudice". In the UK, The Telegraph explained that "killers attack the West because the West is the West; not because of what it does" -- but it spoke of "killers", not "terrorists" or "Islamists".

Anti-terrorism specialists, interviewed on television, said that the attacks, carried out across the continent at an ever-faster pace, will become deadlier. They noted that the original plan of the Barcelona jihadists had been to destroy the Sagrada Família Cathedral and kill thousands of people. The specialists parroted that Europeans will just have to learn to live with the threat of widespread carnage. They did not offer any solutions. Once again, many said that terrorists are not really Muslims -- and that the attacks "had nothing to do with Islam".

Many leaders of Western European countries treat Islamic terrorism as a fact of life that Europeans must get used to -- as some kind of aberration unrelated to Islam. They often avoid speaking of "terrorism" at all. After the attack in Barcelona,?? German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a brief reproach about a "revolting" event. She expressed "solidarity" with the Spanish people, and then moved on. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted a message of condolence and spoke of a "tragic attack."

Throughout Europe, expressions of anger are conscientiously marginalized. Calls for mobilization, or any serious change in immigration policy, come only from politicians scornfully described as "populist."

Even the slightest criticism of Islam immediately arouses almost unanimous indignation. In Western Europe, books on Islam that are widely available are written by people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Tariq Ramadan. Books that are "politically incorrect" also exist, but are sold under the counter as if they are contraband. Islamic bookstores sell brochures calling for violence without even hiding what they do. Dozens of imams, similar to Abdelbaki Es Satty, the suspected mastermind of the attack in Barcelona, continue to preach with impunity; if they are arrested, they are quickly released.

Submission reigns. The discourse everywhere is that despite increasing threats, Europeans must live their lives as normally as possible. But Europeans see what threats exist. They see that life is not even slightly normal. They see policemen and soldiers in the streets, proliferating security checks, strict controls at the entrance of theaters and shops. They see insecurity everywhere. They are told just to ignore the source of the threats, but they know the source. They claim they are not afraid. Thousands in Barcelona shouted, "No tinc por" ("We are not afraid"). In fact, they are scared to death.

Polls show that Europeans are pessimistic, and think the future will be bleak. Polls also show that Europeans no longer have confidence in those who govern them, but feel they are left with no choice.

This shift in their lives has occurred in such a short time, less than half a century. Before then, in Western Europe, only a few thousand Muslims were present -- mostly immigrant workers from former European colonies. They were supposed to be in Europe temporarily, so were never asked to integrate.

They soon numbered hundreds of thousands, then millions. Their presence turned permanent. Many became citizens. Asking them to integrate grew unthinkable: most seemed to consider themselves Muslim first.

European leaders gave up defending their own civilization. They slipped into saying that all cultures should be viewed the same way. They appear to have given up.

School curricula were altered. Children were taught that Europe and the West had plundered the Muslim world -- not that the Muslims had, in fact, invaded and conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, most of Eastern Europe, Greece, Northern Cyprus, and Spain. Children were taught that Islamic civilization had been splendid and opulent before colonization supposedly came to ravage it.

Welfare states, established in the post-war period, began to create a large underclass of people permanently trapped in dependency, just when the number of Muslims in Europe redoubled.

Social-housing neighborhoods suddenly were Muslim neighborhoods. The rise in mass unemployment -- mainly affecting less qualified workers -- transformed Muslim neighborhoods into mass-unemployment neighborhoods.

Community organizers came to tell unemployed Muslims that after purportedly looting their countries of origin, Europeans had used Muslim workers to rebuild Europe and were now treating them as useless utensils.

Crime took root. Muslim neighborhoods became high-crime neighborhoods.

Extremist Muslim preachers arrived; they reinforced a hatred of Europe. They said that Muslims must remember who they are; that Islam must take its revenge. They explained to young, imprisoned Muslim criminals that violence could be used for a noble cause: jihad.

Police were ordered not to intervene lest they aggravate the tension. High-crime areas became no-go zones, breeding grounds for the recruitment of Islamic terrorists.

European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories.

Riots took place; leaders made even more concessions. They passed laws restricting freedom of speech.

When Islamic terrorism first hit Europe, its leaders did not know what to do. They still do not know what to do. They are prisoners of a situation they created and cannot control anymore. They appear to feel helpless.

They cannot incriminate Islam: the laws they passed make it illegal to do that. In most European countries, even questioning Islam is branded as "Islamophobia". It leads to heavy fines, if not trials or prison time (as with Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Geert Wilders or George Bensoussan). They cannot re-establish law and order in no-go zones: that would require the intervention of the army and a shift towards martial law. They cannot adopt the solutions proposed by parties they have pushed into opposition at the margins of European political life.

They cannot even close their borders, abolished in 1995 with the Schengen agreement. Re-establishing border controls would be costly and take time.

Europe"s leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them. Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create "deradicalization" programs that do not work: the "radicals," it seems, do not want to be "deradicalized."

Europe"s leaders try to define "radicalization" as a symptom of "mental illness"; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. Then, they talk about creating a "European Islam", totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth. They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain "open" to immigrants. Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.

European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist. They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.

But there is a lot they can do; they just do not want to -- it might cost them Muslim votes.

Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, you will have war." The same is true today.

Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement that is totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

Barcelona"s Sagrada Família Cathedral was spared only thanks to the clumsiness of a terrorist who did not know how to handle explosives. Other places may not be so fortunate.

The death of Europe will almost certainly be violent and painful: no one seems willing to stop it. Voters still could, but they will have to do it now, fast, before it is too late.

Bankrupting Terror: Blocking the Saudi Aramco IPO

Background here.

By Kristen Breitweiser, one of the four 9/11 widows – known as the “Jersey Girls” – instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks. Follow Kristen Breitweiser on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kdbreitweiser.

Who’s the most reviled person you know? David Duke? Bernie Madoff? Vlad Putin? Kim Jong Un? Well, whomever it is, just imagine how you would feel if they weren’t held accountable for their bad acts? Worse, what if they were not held accountable, but actually rewarded and enabled to continue to do more of their bad acts. Worse still, if they were not held accountable, rewarded and enabled to continue their bad acts—by your very own family and friends. How would that make you feel?

That’s kind of what has happened to the 9/11 Families with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the past 16 years since the September 11th attacks. Our most reviled entity, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who we want to see held accountable for their alleged financial and logistical role in the mass murder of 3,000 on September 11th seems to continually evade accountability, get rewarded for its bad behavior, and encouraged to continue its bad acts with the help of the very same people who should be holding the Saudis accountable and protecting Americans.

Yet, maddeningly, it seems that many leaders in the United States would prefer to reward and enable the Kingdom so it can continue to carry out its bad acts that are far too often connected to lethal terrorism.

Whether its Congress signing off on $100 billion weapons deals that give Saudis a stockpile of weapons and machinery to be used against innocent people in places like Yemen and Syria. Or, giving Saudi officials CIA Medals of Honor for their dubious counterterrorism achievements. Or, giving a seat to the Kingdom to serve on the UN Commission on the Status of Women and a second seat to serve on the UN Human Rights Council. Or continuing to let Saudi Royals off the hook for crimes they commit because of diplomatic and/or sovereign immunity. Or, the most recent example of Wall Street Executives and others bending over backwards to try and win the Saudi Aramco IPO. Why do such intelligent individuals, agencies, or entities seemingly continue to kowtow to the Kingdom? How can they overlook the Saudis track record of human rights abuses, funding of Sunni radical terror groups, horrific treatment and oppression of women, and alleged participatory role in the 9/11 attacks.

Within the next 6 months or so, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will choose the venue for its Aramco IPO. Stock exchanges around the globe are jockeying, wooing, and coddling the Saudis to try and win this business. Admittedly, because of the size of Aramco, this IPO will be one of the largest in history. This explains why the exchanges in Hong Kong, London, and the U.S. are vying to win the deal. Yet, as someone whose husband worked on Wall Street until he was killed on September 11th while working at his desk on the 94th floor of Tower 2, WTC, I find the collective fervor of these stock exchanges disappointing; and those of the American exchange particularly appalling. Et tu Brute? Nothing like inviting criminals back to the scene of the crime to gloat, cash in and make a cool trillion. So much for hallowed ground.

So while Wall Street head honchos like Jamie Dimon are likely dropping to their knees drooling for such a whale of a Saudi deal, a few blocks away the 9/11 Families (16 years out from the 9/11 attacks) are still in federal court trying to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable for its alleged role in the 9/11 attacks that killed our loved ones—many of whom worked on Wall Street. When you are a family member of a U.S. victim of terrorism, you must live within the short blocks of such incongruities and disloyalties. And, learn to be patient in your pursuit of justice.

Indeed, we are now on our third U.S. President since the 9/11 attacks and not one of these Presidents (or any of the ones before them for that matter) has seen fit to hold the Kingdom accountable for their participatory role in Sunni radical terrorism, in general, or the 9/11 attacks, in particular.

How does President after President give speech after speech continuing to take us into foreign land after foreign land to fight terrorists from al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, yet never crack down on the one country in the world that is constantly and consistently the biggest benefactor of those very same terror groups—year in and year out. Indeed, think–tank, after think–tank, after think–tank, and report, after report, after report after report and classified cable, after classified cable, reveal that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continues to fund and logistically support the very terror groups that our U.S. military has been fighting against for nearly two decades. Our leaders talk about their mistakes of relying on bad intelligence; believing in nation building and the false promise of spreading democracy; and/or accidentally creating power vacuums. Yet, not one of these men seems to have the principled realism to see and acknowledge the one constant connected to terrorism decade after decade: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its oil dollars.

Truly, without Saudi flowing dollars, where would terrorism be? Which brings us back to the Saudi Aramco IPO and my bewilderment as to why anyone is supporting it.

The Saudis need the Aramco IPO because they are running extremely short on cash; they’re in a cash crunch. Indeed, several reports have indicated that the Saudis are behind on payments, and being forced to instill austerity upon their people since they can no longer afford to pay such large subsidies to their citizens. The result of this belt tightening is an increasingly disgruntled Saudi population that had grown accustomed to large government handouts. In short, the natives are restless and that’s never a good thing especially for a Monarchy full of Royals who rule because god says so.

Some would say that in situations like this, cash goes a long way to snuff out those flames of discord and discontent. Yet, without the cash raised by its impending Saudi Aramco IPO, the Saudis wouldn’t be able to pay their way out of their current situation. Again, would that be such a bad thing? What would happen if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia went broke and its Saudi citizens were less able to give such large amounts of money to zakat? Would it break the cycle of Saudi funding to Sunni radical terror groups? Bankrupt and no longer flush with cash, it’s fair to assume that most Saudi donations earmarked to fund and logistically support radical Sunni Islam would dry up and ultimately come to an end—undoubtedly going a long way in making the world a safer place.

When President Trump gave his speech on Afghanistan last week, he mentioned that our foreign policy must take on a more principled realism. I don’t know how much more real and principled you can get than centering a “pillar” of our national security on the bankrupting of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in order to stop Sunni radical terrorism.

Without the influx of Saudi funds, Sunni mosques and madrassahs would not likely get built and supported; textbooks that spew hate and violence would not likely get written and distributed around the world to brainwash disciples; websites, chat rooms, and social media accounts would likely quickly go dark and quiet; and training camps in places like Afghanistan would likely be abandoned, as well. Gee, that sounds like a net win. And, not one American soldier’s life would be lost in the process.

The facts are clear. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia funds and logistically supports terrorists that are killing us around the globe in places like London, Paris, Belgium, Finland, Spain, and the United States. Our banking executives and governmental officials should ward against financially propping up the Kingdom merely so it can survive another day to continue to fund terror and radical Sunni terrorist groups that wreak havoc upon us. Doing so is in our direct national security interests since the Saudi Aramco IPO is nothing short of a crowd-funding campaign for jihad. And none of us should invest a dime.

Moreover, isn’t blocking the Saudi Aramco IPO merely giving the Saudis a potent dose of their own medicine particularly given the Saudis recent embargo and sanctioning of Qatar because Qatar funds and supports terrorism? As reported by Reuters, “Saudi foreign minister Adel al Jubeir said there would be no negotiations over demands by the Kingdom and other Arab states for Qatar to stop supporting terrorism. Jubeir said, ‘We made our point, we took our steps, and now it is up to the Qataris to amend their behavior and once they do things will be worked out but if they don’t they will remain isolated.’” I wish our U.S. leaders and ‘ministers’ of finance would share a similar “cut and dry” approach towards accountability and terror funding. Additionally, I’d suggest Mr. Jubeir take a good hard look in the mirror and hold his own Kingdom to the same standards he sets for Qatar. Because Adel, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

To me, anyone who looks to host the Saudi Aramco IPO is akin to being an accomplice before the fact of any future terrorist attack that is carried out by Sunni radical terror groups. Just like any individual investor looking to become a shareholder of Saudi Aramco should be made aware that they’re also knowingly buying a share of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and are, therefore, financially propping up and morally tied to all of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni radical policies and ideologies that contribute to the death and destruction of human lives. Indeed, as a Saudi Aramco shareholder you are financially supporting: the horrific oppression of women; the trafficking and slavery of human beings; the draconian doctrine of Sharia law with its canings, beheadings, eye-gougings, stonings, and torture; and most likely the continued funding of Sunni radical terror groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban that may someday kill someone you love.

Why would anyone ever want to buy into a share of that?

Do Jamie Dimon, Ken Moelis, and Michael Klein like terrorist attacks? Do they realize that hosting the Saudi Aramco IPO is akin to “signing off” and supporting terrorism? Do these three Americans condone people like my husband Ron getting slaughtered and blown to bits by radical Sunni terrorists? And groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban continuing to get infused with their Saudi funded life-blood so they can continue to chop off more “infidel” heads? Does the collective greed of these three men and their Wall Street brethren truly eclipse our entire nation’s right to be safe from terrorists? I think not.

Why do we all have to suffer the carnage of their greed?