web analytics
July 2, 2016 / 26 Sivan, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘donald trump’

Analysis: Trump Giving Israel a Bad Name with ‘Profiling’ Comment

Monday, June 20th, 2016

“I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country,” GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, using Israel as an example for a place where this method is flourishing and yielding results. “You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully. And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense,” he said.

Sadly, as Israel is being drawn with increasing frequency into the US presidential elections, with the Democrats using the Israeli-Arab conflict as a battle field between the Sanders and Clinton proxies, bits of prejudice and misinformation about the life and politics of the Jewish State are coming to the fore and, more often than not, spreading more ignorance than knowledge about it.

Donald Trump’s cartoon depiction of Israel’s security forces’ strategies is a case in point. A few years ago, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was elected on a promise to do away with police racial profiling, because it perpetuated decades of abuse when African-Americans and Latinos would be routinely stopped and frisked by police. But predictive profiling, which takes into account multiple elements in an individual’s manner and appearance, is a crucial component of law enforcement work, and it’s much more complex than just skin color and religion.

Not according to the BBC, which informed its listeners on Sunday: “Profiling uses ethnicity, race and religion to determine whether a person has or is likely to commit crimes.”

And, sadly, this is probably what Trump meant when he shared with Face the Nation what he had taken from Israel’s security strategies. In a sense, Trump’s and the BBC’s notions of profiling come down to the store detective who spots a black person coming in and sticks to them expecting that they are more likely than others to shoplift.

If Israel’s security forces had used this yardstick in their approach to predictive profiling it would have choked not just its international airports, but traffic on the streets in many cities, too. If all you need to be in order to trigger security response is dark-skinned or Muslim, three-quarters of Israelis would spend their days and nights in police stations.

Chris Weller, who last year reported in Business Insider about his experience as a foreign, non-Jewish traveler at Ben Gurion airport, noted that “no flight leaving Ben Gurion has ever been hijacked, and the airline servicing Israel, El Al, hasn’t seen an attack in more than 30 years.” And yet, dozens of El Al and other flights leave Ben Gurion every day, and passenger traffic is brisk and efficient.

Israel employs, on the streets of its cities as well as in its airports, an intelligence driven system that relies on good communication, alert operatives, and multi-layered screening. Daniel Wagner, co-author of the book “Global Risk Agility and Decision Making,” cites Raphael Ron, a former director of security at Ben Gurion for 5 years, who said the passenger-oriented security system there is focused on the “human factor,” and is “based on the assumption that terrorist attacks are carried out by people who can be found and have been stopped through the use of this simple but effective security methodology.”

Unlike all US airports, departing passengers in Ben Gurion are not asked to take off their shoes during physical screening processes. Instead, passengers are interviewed by trained agents before they get to the check-in counter. So that the area in front of the check-in is not conceded to potential terrorists, as was the case recently in the Brussels airport attack. The interviews last one or two minutes for the most part, so that the line of passengers is moving quickly, and when the agents (they work in pairs) do suspect someone, based on factors such as vocabulary, general behavior, dress, age, race, religion and destination—they may be detained and questioned for as long as it takes.

But the scrutiny at Ben Gurion begins well ahead of the passenger’s arrival at the terminal itself. Every vehicle first passes through a security checkpoint where armed agents examine it, have a brief exchange with the driver, and assess their risk level. Meanwhile, the vehicle is gauged by a weight sensor, and an undercarriage scan. Then, outside and inside the terminal building agents are always mingling with the crowd pouring in, aided by hidden surveillance cameras that are monitored around the clock. Suspicious people would be challenged without waiting for them to reach a counter or a metal detector. An agent would approach them and strike a conversation to assess their mental state and risk level.

All of that well coordinated system relies on a broader intelligence infrastructure that uses informants, social network scrutiny and surveillance — traditional police methods which Israel’s security forces have been using and improving over the past decade and a half both in green line Israel and in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Chris Weller offered an excellent example for the way Israel combines computer technology with the human factor, to create a smooth, reliable, fast and effective communication system regarding predictive profiling. “I learned that before any passenger ever gives up his luggage to the fine folks at Ben Gurion International, an employee places a neon yellow sticker on the back of your passport. On it is a 10-digit number. The first number, ranging from one to six, indicates your perceived threat level to whomever else you’re passed along. I got a five.”

And so, with a simple bar-coded sticker, the first agent who meets the passenger communicates his impressions to the next agent down the line without having to exchange one word or even a gesture. Leftwing writer Lia Tarachansky complained a few years ago about the same system:

“So I enter the line … My Israeli-Palestinian roommate tells me he’ll wait while I answer the security lady’s questions. She sees I speak Hebrew, she asks if I packed my own bags and she gives me a ‘1’ as expected. I’m white and I’m an Israeli, therefore I’m probably a Zionist. High from excitement and privilege I ask if my friend can come with me to the check-in. She says of course and asks for his ID. Her face changes.

“Where it says the Jewish birth date the line in his ID is blank. i.e. not Jewish. i.e. Palestinian.

– you know this man?

– yes

– how?

– he’s my roommate

– where?

– Jaffa

– wait here.

“She looks at his last name. It’s Christian, i.e. Arab. She disappears with our passports. The roommate looks at me and we both know what’s going to happen. When she comes back her smile is gone. She tears the ‘1’ off my bags and angrily puts on a ‘3’ as though to say ‘you didn’t tell me you have an Arab friend!’ Her face says ‘don’t you see you’re [expletive] it all up for us?!’”

Tarachansky described in her vivid style just how unhappy she was with the Israeli security system, but the fact is that even in her anti-Israeli narrative one can see that no one was hurt in the encounter she described, no one was manhandled, no one even missed their flight. But the system quickly spotted and responded to the potential threat, and the response was to replace a passport sticker. This hostile depiction of the Israeli method is, in fact, a song of praise to a rational, sophisticated and effective security system.

One wonders whether Donald Trump, or the media, understand the full depth of this system when he describes Israel’s success in police work and security as “profiling.”

JNi.Media

Donald Trump Says US Must ‘Think About’ Preventive Security Profiling

Sunday, June 19th, 2016

Presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump told the CBS News program “Face the Nation” on Sunday (June 19) that America is “going to have to start thinking about” profiling for preventive security.

Trump’s remarks, in a phone interview, came in context of a discussion about the Orlando nightclub massacre by a radical Islamic terrorist last week.

“Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads,” he said. “It’s not the worst thing to do.”

Omar Mateen was a homegrown Muslim killer whose parents immigrated to the United States from Afghanistan in the 1980s. Two months prior to the rampage on the Pulse Nightclub that took the lives of 49 people and injured 53 others, he signed over his property to his sister for the sum of $10. Although his wife claimed she and their two children had no clue about his activities, evidence cited by media shows the two were in contact via text and Facebook just before and during his attack.

It’s not the first time a Muslim extremist has killed after being inspired and incited by the Da’esh (ISIS) terrorist organization over the internet.

Just a day later, a deputy police chief in a Paris suburb and his female partner were murdered at their home. Their 3-year-old son was spared because a police SWAT team charged the home and shot him dead. Police broke in, knowing the situation was critical — they were monitoring the musings of the terrorist as he wondered via live stream on Facebook ‘what he should do with the child.’

“They’re doing it in France,” Trump pointed out. “In fact, in some instances they’re closing down mosques. People don’t want to talk about it. People aren’t talking about it,” he said, underscoring the discomfort among most Democratic societies facing a terrorist threat. “But look at what they’re doing in France,” he continued. “They’re actually closing down mosques.”

Trump also called for members of the Muslim community to come forward and report suspicious activity.

“When you look at, when you look at people within the Muslim community and where people are living and they don’t report, and a good example of that would be San Berndardino,” he said. “I mean, they had bombs all over their apartment floor and people saw it and nobody reported them, and 14 people were killed, many injured,” he reminded.

The Orlando killer also showed many “red flags” before he attacked, Trump commented. “You look at his past – I mean, I’ve never seen a past quite like that. You look at his record in school, you look at a lot of other things. There were a lot of red flags. This was not a very good young man.”

Trump said he is working with the NRA (National Rifle Association) on a policy to ban those listed on the terror watch list from purchasing guns.

Although many media outlets have claimed Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. The statement is taken out of context and is only a partial truth. In fact, Trump called for a suspension, not an outright ban, of Muslim immigration – with obvious exceptions to be made – until the government could plug the holes in the current screening process that allow entry of Muslim extremists such as those who carried out the San Bernadino terror attack a few months ago.

Media reports revealed the terrorists were given visas without their beliefs and values even being questioned by interviewers prior to receiving a visa.

Hana Levi Julian

TnT – Who’s Better for Israel? Trump Or Hillary? [audio]

Thursday, June 16th, 2016

The Dynamic Duo are fighting again on everything from Trump to cheesecake. Listen in for laughs and information on life in Israel and elections in the USA!

TnT 15Jun – PODCAST

Israel News Talk Radio

The Orlando Massacre

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

President Obama has long rankled with his preposterous, mantra-like refusal to mention or allow anyone in his administration to mention Islam in the same breath as “terror” or “terrorism.”

He would not even allow the use of the phrase “radical Islam” which, to most, would only signify a possible hijacking of a faith to one’s own use. This, even though terrorist attacks for years have almost invariably been committed by marauders invoking Allah in the course of their murderous rampages.

Mr. Obama’s reason for this has been straightforward: Determined to reset the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world, he was fearful that even tangential linkage as a matter of American policy would thwart that goal by alienating many Muslims. And in that regard, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton stood by him. But in the wake of the Orlando shooting on Sunday at the hands of an American-born Muslim who swore allegiance to Islamic State, that seems to have changed.

Donald Trump reacted to the Orlando shooting by doubling down on his uncompromising, hard-line, theoretical  linkage to terrorism of Muslims generally and some of the teachings of Islam, and by reiterating his call for  restricting their entry into the U.S.

Mrs. Clinton at first echoed President Obama’s paean to diversity and “our values.” She dismissed Mr. Trump’s overall approach and tried to downplay any connection between Islam and the Orlando terror. She reiterated the need for gun control, deplored Mr. Trump’s “inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric,” and said the “murder of innocent people breaks our hearts, tears at our sense of security, and makes us furious.”

And she rhapsodized that “America is strongest when we all believe we have a stake in our country and our future…. Our open, diverse society is an asset in the struggle against terrorism, not a liability.”

But she didn’t even hint at the notion that Islamic terrorism or radical Islam played a role in the Orlando attack.

Mr. Trump responded with a call for President Obama to resign and for Mrs. Clinton to withdraw from the presidential race over their refusal to recognize the Islamic threat to Americans’ safety.

Mrs. Clinton then did a stunning about face, as reflected in her exchange with CNN’s Chris Cuomo:

 

Cuomo: “One of the criticisms in these situations is that President Obama won’t use the words ‘radical Islamic terror.’ That it seems to be either a fear or a protective instinct about blaming the religion. You are now coming under scrutiny about what you will call this, what this means to leadership. Do you believe that this is radical Islamism? Will you use those words, and if not, why?”

Clinton: “Well, first of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. And I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. And, you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing; I’m happy to use either.”

 

While there is still a trace of diplomatic gobbledygook, it seems clear that, under pressure from Mr. Trump,  Mrs. Clinton has broken from President Obama on a singular theme of his administration. Time will tell whether she will be as vulnerable to future Trump verbal barrages respecting other controversial positions the leader of her party has espoused. If nothing else, she has signaled a recognition that events may force her hand.

 

The Sarona Attack

As soon as the dust settled on the Palestinian terrorist attack on Tel Aviv’s Sarona café last week in which four Israelis were killed and many more wounded, Israel announced several immediate countermeasures –which included refusing to send the bodies of the terrorists to their families, imposing travel restrictions on Palestinians, and deploying thousands of troops in the West Bank.

Editorial Board

AIPAC ‘Deeply Disappointed’ Obama Won’t Up Israel’s Missile Defense by $445 Million

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) issued a statement criticizing the White House Office of Management and Budget’s “Statement of Administration Policy” which threatened to veto the Senates $576 billion defense spending bill, among other reasons because the statement of policy “opposes the addition of $455 million above the FY 2017 Budget request for Israeli missile defense procurement and cooperative development programs.”

Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $600 million in funding for 2017, which represents an increase of $455 million over the president’s original request.

The statement of administration policy released Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget reads: “The bill is inconsistent with the [Bipartisan Budget Act], and the administration strongly objects to the inclusion of problematic ideological provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation. … If the president were presented with H.R. 5293, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

One of those “problematic ideological provisions” is the increased allocation for Israel’s missile defense research and development.

The White House used the same tactic against the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which the president also threatened to veto.

AIPAC said in a statement that it was “deeply disappointed” with the White House’s choosing to include the increase in defense spending on Israel’s missile programs in the components of the budget to which it objected. “On a bipartisan basis, Congress has increased funding above administration requests this year, as it has done for well over a decade,” AIPAC said. “These cooperative programs—including the Arrow, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome—are critical for Israel’s defense against a growing array of missile threats and make an important contribution to US missile defense programs. We applaud Congress for consistently supporting these key programs, and urge their full funding in both the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts.”

Incidentally, on the same day the White House announced it would not increase the funding for Iron Dome, among other programs, DefenseNews reported that after five years of a stellar performance in which Iron Dome has been credited with more than 1,500 operational intercepts—a 90% success rate, and despite a reported widespread global interest, government and industry sources say Israel’s Iron Dome anti-rocket intercepting system, developed by state-owned Rafael Ltd., has not yet been sold to a single customer.

“Who else in the world is constantly threatened by rockets?” former head of Israel’s Missile Defense Organization Uzi Rubin asked DN, noting: “It’s essentially only us and perhaps sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, where for obvious reasons, we do not yet export.”

Rubin did not mention that in other, saner parts of the world, persistent rocket attacks from, say, Mexico, against, say, the US, would result in a one-time search and destroy response, rather than with a technological solution such as Iron Dome that contains those unceasing rocket attacks. You don’t have to be Donald Trump to figure that one out.

David Israel

Trump Implies Obama Responsible for Orlando Shooting, Calls for Resignation [video]

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Yes, it’s difficult to believe, but the presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been implicating President Obama with the Orlando, Fl. mass murder of 50 Americans. He doesn’t actually point the finger at the president, but his innuendo, in several interviews Monday morning, has been unmistakable: the president is somehow involved in the shooting.

Speaking on Fox News, Trump said about President Obama: “He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands—it’s one or the other and either one is unacceptable.”

“If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said. “Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen — and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can’t afford to be politically correct anymore.”

Trump responded to Obama’s short address to the nation on Sunday, when the president said the nightclub massacre was being investigated as an “act of terror,” but would not blame radical Islam for it.

Trump later essentially called on Obama to resign, saying, “Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind—you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.”

Trump also said Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton should leave the race if she takes the same approach as the president.

Speaking on NBC’s Today show Monday, Trump accused Obama of turning a blind eye on Islamic terrorism: “There are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn’t want to get it,” Trump said, this while, as Trump had told Fox News, “You have many, many people, thousands of people, already in our country that are sick with hate. And people that are around him, Muslims, know who they are, largely. They know who they are. They have to turn them in. They know who they are. They see them.”

Speaking on ABC’s Good Morning America, Trump was asked to comment on the fact that his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US would not have prevented the Orlando shooting, because the mass murderer, Omar Mateen, was a US Citizen.

“We have many people coming in whose hate is equal to his and just as bad and even worse, frankly, and we have to stop people from coming in,” Trump responded, without really answering the question. He added, “The problem was that we have a maniac, we have a madman. He could have used a bomb. He could have used other things, just as easily, just as easily. It would have been, probably, even more devastating. So that’s not the problem.”

David Israel

Poll: Saudis, Egyptians, Want Regional Peace, Shun Trump, Palestinian Deal

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Ahead of the 16th annual Herzliya Conference, the Institute for Policy & Strategy (IPS) at IDC Herzliya has released the results of two surveys conducted in Egypt and Saudi Arabia relating to the upcoming US Presidential elections.

The key findings of the polls were as follows:

Q: Should the next US President promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement or a regional peace agreement?

Egypt: 25.5% – Israeli-Palestinian Agreement 32.1% – Regional Agreement 42.3% – Should Not Promote Peace with Israel

Saudi Arabia: 18.9% – Israeli-Palestinian Agreement 41.6% – Regional Agreement 39.4% – Should Not Promote Peace with Israel

Q: Will the next US President change relations between the US and the Arab world?

Egypt: 31.7% – Change for the better 19.2% – Change for the worse 49.0% – No change

Saudi Arabia: 27.6% – Change for the better 27.4% – Change for the worse 45.0% – No change

Q: Was President Obama a good president for the Muslim world?

Egypt: 2.5% – Very Good 14.2% – Good 38.1% – Mediocre 24.5% – Bad 20.7% – Very Bad

Saudi Arabia: 2.6% – Very Good 17.5% – Good 36.1% – Mediocre 23.8% – Bad 20.1% – Very Bad

Q: Will the next US President cancel the nuclear agreement with Iran?

Egypt: 19.7% – Will cancel 80.3% – Won’t cancel

Saudi Arabia: 13.6% – Will cancel 86.4% – Won’t cancel

Q: Will the next US President be ready to send ground troops to fight ISIS?

Egypt: 32.3% – Yes 48.3% – No 19.4% – Don’t know

Saudi Arabia: 17.9% – Yes 58.1% – No 24.0% – Don’t know

Q: Which (Presidential) candidate do you prefer?

Egypt: 35.9% – Hillary Clinton 3.8% – Donald Trump 8.5% – Bernie Sanders 10.4% – Ted Cruz 41.4% – None of them

Saudi Arabia: 30.2% – Hillary Clinton 6.0% – Donald Trump 7.3% – Bernie Sanders 6.0% – Ted Cruz 50.3% – None of them

The polls were conducted in Arabic over the past 6 weeks using a random sampling from the regions of each country.

471 respondents in Egypt; margin of error +/- 4.5% 464 respondents in Saudi Arabia; margin of error +/- 4.6%

The 16th annual Herzliya Conference starts tomorrow, June 14 and runs through June 16.

JNi.Media

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/poll-saudis-egyptians-want-regional-peace-shun-trump-palestinian-deal/2016/06/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: