Who is sovereign on the Temple Mount this Tisha b'Av?
Monday evening, July 31, 2017 marks the eve of the Fast of the Ninth of Av (Tish b’Av) commemorating the Babylonian Destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE, the Second Temple in 70 CE and a series of catastrophes that befallen the Jewish people over two millennia at or close to this date culminating in the Nazi final solution the murder of Six Million European Jewish men, women and children.
The foundation of the modern State of Israel and the 50th commemoration of the recapture of the Old Ciity of Jerusalem to the cries, "the Temple Mount is in our Hands" should have assured the sovereignty of an eternal undivided capital of the Jewish nation of Israel.
The past 17 days since the Temple Mount crisis began with the killing of two Israeli Druze police officers by three Israeli Arab extremists of the Northern Branch of the Islamic movement. The placement of metal detectors at the Lions gate and Arab protests and incitement led to the deaths of three members of the Salomon family (Baruch Dayan ha'Emet BDE (Hebrew: Blessed Is the True Judge) in Halamish.
The protests from across the Muslim ummah, Kingdom of Jordan that appoints the Waqf that administers the Mosques atop the Temple Mount, the Palestinian Authority, its President and appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem have challenged the sovereignty of the State of Israel. That led to the withdrawal of the metal detectors and surveillance cameras.
Once, again this episode deminstrates why dissidence and disunity among Jews contributed to both the destruction of the first and second Temples and the recent events of the past two weeks.
Laitman's kabbalist drash or commentary is timely this Ninth of Av as he emphasizes based on commentaries and histories the core message of unity, the core meaning of Yehudi or Jews.
It is no secret that the Arab smear campaign in the media and the organized “popular” protests against the placement of metal detectors at the entrances to the Temple Mount have nothing to do with security measures. From the perspective of the Wakf (the Islamic organization controlling and managing the Temple Mount), and the rest of the Arab world, the resistance to the detectors represents the resistance to Israel’s sovereignty on Temple Mount in particular, in the city of Jerusalem, and in all of Israel. The longer this campaign lasts, the more the Arabs will gain the favor of the world, and Israel will increasingly be seen as the bully in the neighborhood.
By now, hardly anyone remembers that the detectors were placed at the entrances because three terrorists opened fire on Israeli police, killing two officers and wounding a third. All that everyone sees now is that Israel is not letting Muslims pray in their holy site, when in fact, the only people keeping worshippers outside the Temple Mount are the Wakf, who are telling worshippers not to enter in protest of the placement of detectors.
The Temple—the Unity of Israel
Not only the Wakf objects to Israel’s authority on Temple Mount. The resolutions of UNESCO denying the Jewish history on Temple Mount, Jerusalem, and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron represent the view of the entire world that we do not belong here. If the UN were to vote today on the establishment of a Jewish state, who would vote “Yes”? Probably not even America.
To be a sovereign in the land of Israel, and particularly on Temple Mount, you must understand what the Temple represents and lead your life accordingly. The book Netzah Israel (Chapter 4) writes, “The House was ruined due to unfounded hatred, for their hearts divided and they parted and were unworthy of a Temple, which is the unity of Israel.”
If we honestly reflect on our society, on what we project to the world, it is clear that we are deeply divided and project disunity and discord everywhere. The Maharal of Prague writes in Hidushey Avot (Gittin 55b): “The Temple should be the wholeness of the entire world, not of Israel alone. …Since the Temple is the wholeness of the entire world, the nations included, it was not ruined by the nations, but only by unfounded hatred and division, when Israel divided.”
In other words, the Temple does not belong to any one nation or faith; it represents the unification of the world. Therefore, only those who advocate and execute unity merit being there. The Hebrew word Yehudi (Jew) comes from the word yihudi, meaning united(Yaarot Devash, Part 2, Drush no. 2). When we, Jews, united “as one man with one heart,” it was the first and only time in history when people of different, often rival clans from all over Babylon and the Near East united and forged a nation. Our unity, therefore, was a model for the entire world to follow. As a result, immediately following the establishment of our peoplehood, we were commanded to be “a light unto nations,” to take our method of unity to the rest of humanity.
The book Sefat Emet (Shemot, Yitro) describes what it means to be “a light unto nations”: “The children of Israel are guarantors in that they received the Torah [the light of unity] in order to correct the entire world.” But if we are not united, and therefore do not project unity to the rest of the world, can we truly regard ourselves as the “children of Israel”? And if we are not truly the children of Israel, united like the children of Israel are meant to be, can we claim sovereignty over the land?
The Sedition Conquered the City, and the Romans Conquered the Sedition
Jewish-Roman historian Josephus Flavius lived at the time of the ruin and witnessed many of the events first hand. He wrote very clearly about the causes of the ruin of the Temple and the exile (The Wars of the Jews, Book IV, Chapter 6): “The sedition [among the Jews] conquered the city, and the Romans conquered the sedition.” In the days of the Temple, Flavius details, “The attribute the [Jews] lacked most was mercy. …They transferred their rage from the living to the slain, and from the slain to the living [of their own people]. The terror was so great that the survivors called the dead ‘happy,’ as they were already at rest. … These men trampled upon all the laws of men [love of others], and ridiculed the words of the prophets. Yet, these prophets foretell … that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burnt by war when a sedition invades the Jews, and their own hand should pollute the Temple. Now these zealots … made themselves the instruments of the fulfillment [of the prophecies].”
When you think of the current hatred between the two sides of the political map in Israel, or between the two sides of the political map among US Jews, the similarities to the enmity among our ancestors are too striking to ignore. “At the end of the period of the Second Temple,” writes the book A Letter from Elijah (Part 3), “strife and hatred intensified in Israel, and pride was the root of the desire for absolute dominance. This brought them into hatred of their fellow person until they could not stand the very existence of the other. From that root of pride also emerged the audacity to sin shamelessly, for they did not perceive the contradiction between their actions and their views, and their conscience did not cause them to conceal their actions. And if they do not care about the conflict between their views and their actions, then they are regarded as ‘all sin.’ These are the things that caused the ruin of the House.”
A Land without a Sovereign
Today, we have a state, and we seemingly have sovereignty. But the name, “The State of Israel,” is still devoid of content. Our intolerance toward each other, our disdain toward our own people is skyrocketing. If we do not realize that we are repeating the same crime of unfounded hatred we committed two millennia ago, we will be banished from this land again until we are ready to unite above our differences as did our forefathers in the desert.
This Monday evening, we will mark the ninth of Av, the date when the Temple was destroyed. But it was destroyed in our hearts long before the bricks were set ablaze. With these compelling words, The Hida describes this inner ruin (Devarim Achadim, Tractate no. 6): “What can we say when we regret all day the ruin of the House and the [absence of] redemption? …It was all ruined because of unfounded hatred, and if we are disunited now and there is unfounded hatred, how can the House be built, since the cause of our ruin has not ceased from us? How can we say that we await Your salvation all the day while there is still unfounded hatred in our midst? Woe, how can man do good deeds as long as his impurity of baseless hatred is still in him?”
To be the landlords in the land of Israel, we must become once more the people of Israel, yehudim [Jews] from the word, yihudi [united]. Unless we reconstruct our unity and reassume our commitment to be a beacon of unity unto nations, the world will not support our being here and we will be expelled once more.
Sovereignty in the land of Israel is unlike the sovereignty in any other land—acquired by military might. This land has no sovereign; its dwellers are people who are willing to connect, to unite above their hatred, just like our forefathers. If we can learn the lesson from the horrors of our ancestors and transcend our selfish egos, we will merit staying here, and the entire world will be behind us. But if we opt once more for enmity, then we will suffer the hostility of the entire world, but not before we scuffle with each other once again.
Michael Laitman has a PhD in Philosophy and Kabbalah and an MSc in Medical Bio-Cybernetics. He was the prime disciple of Kabbalist Rav Baruch Shalom Ashlag (the RABASH). Laitman has written over 40 books, which have been translated into dozens of languages. Click Here to visit his author page.
Could $7.3B Federal Appellate decision against Sudan for 1998 African Embassies Blasts upset Sanctions Relief?
by Lt. Gen Abakar M. Abdallah, Jerry Gordon and Deborah Martin
US Embassy Nairobi, Kenya bombing August 8, 1998
On Friday, July 28, 2017 the US Federal Appellate Court in Washington in a ruling affirmed a District of Columbia Appellate Court ruling granting an award of $7.3 billion against Sudan. That was compensation for US and potentially non-US African victims in the 1998 Al Qaeda bombings that destroyed two US Embassies in the east African nations of Kenya and Tanzania. The Federal Appellate court ruling comes near the 19th anniversary on August 8, 1998 of the “simultaneous bombing at US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people. More than 5,000 were wounded. Twelve of those killed in Kenya were US citizens.” Sudan and Iran had been implicated in providing sanctuary, funding and training bases for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists,12 of who were indicted. Sudan continued funding Al Qaeda, after the alleged departure of Bin Laden in 1996.
These attacks were allegedly retribution by al Qaeda for US coalition forces “despoiling the holy lands” of Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War in Kuwait against the regime of the late Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. The African Embassies bombings followed a similar revenge truck bombing at Khobar Towers on June 25, 1996 that were grounds for Bin Laden allegedly departing the Sudan. The Khobar, Saudi Arabia bombing was perpetrated by Iran and proxy Hezbollah‘s terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyah. 19 US service personnel and one Saudi national were killed, and 498 others were wounded.
The Federal Appellate Court decision in Washington last Friday comes amidst the Trump Administration review of the Obama Administration Executive Order No. 13761 signed on January 13, 2017 temporarily lifting the 20 year sanctions against the regime of ICC-indicted Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. President Trump signed an executive order on July 11, 2017 deferring a decision on permanently lifting the Sudan sanctions until October 31, 2017. How this Federal Court ruling will materially impact on the ultimate Trump Administration decision is a matter of speculation. Further, it might complicate possible recent permission granted the Khartoum regime by the US Treasury that allegedly may enable Sudan to use the international financial transaction system.
The Hillreported on the background and outstanding implementation questions that now face the DC Appellate court regarding compensation of American and non-US victims, “Court upholds $7.3B judgment against Sudan over embassy bombings.”
A federal appeals court on Friday ordered Sudan to pay more than $7 billion in damages to American families of victims of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that Sudan was liability for the bombings at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
However, it threw out the $4.3 billion in punitive damages and is seeking to clarify whether the non-American victims’ families [also] qualify for a chunk of the more than $7.3 billion in damages.
The ruling, written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee, affirmed much of the lower courts’ ruling and rejected arguments from Sudan’s government that the court had considered “inadmissible evidence” to make their final determination.
"We’re obviously very pleased that the D.C. Circuit has affirmed [a lower court] decision after what has been a long struggle in court [for] the families,” said Stuart Newberger, a lawyer for the U.S. families at the law firm Crowell & Moring. “We are hopeful that with this ruling, the Americans who were killed in [the attacks] get closer to reaching a final resolution to the tragic saga in their lives and finally get some closure.”
Lawyers for the Sudanese government argued that the entire case should have been thrown out for several reasons, foremost by challenging the court’s interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), which was revised in the middle of the 15-year legal proceeding.
Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan until the government kicked him out in 1996. The court took the side of expert witnesses that said the country continued to fund the terrorist group al Qaeda, which carried out the attacks that killed 200 people — including 12 Americans.
Sudan has denied its responsibility, saying that it tried to offer bin Laden to the U.S.
The federal appeals court is now asking the D.C. Court of Appeals, the top local court in the District of Columbia, if the families of non-American victims are eligible for compensation, because those provisions fall under state and not federal laws.
The ruling comes against the background of increased lobbying by both the American family members and the Sudanese government, which is working to lift U.S. sanctions.
The victims this week hired a lobbying firm, Kamins Consulting, to help obtain compensation for U.S. government workers injured or killed in the attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.
Scott Kamins has worked at both the Republican National Committee (RNC), where he served as its liaison to Capitol Hill, and at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.
They also have Monument Policy Group, Morris J. Amitay — who worked as a Foreign Service Officer at the State Department from 1962 to 1969 — and McGuireWoods Consulting.
The firms are working to keep and expand a program that provides money to any American victims of terror attacks who also “have a federal judgment of liability and a separate judgment for a damage award,” said Frank Donatelli of McGuireWoods, who works on the account.
Previous attempts to set up a fund for the victims proved unsuccessful, but lobbyists eventually were able to tuck a provision into an update [of] a law that pays for healthcare for 9/11 first responders.
It put billions of dollars into an account with money obtained from fines paid by a French bank that violated sanctions levied against Sudan, Cuba and Iran. It also set aside $1 billion for the victims of the U.S. embassy bombings. Earlier this year, those families collected a total of $230 million.
“If they’re going to have access to our financial system, part of the removal of the sanctions should involve compensating American victims of terror that they’ve been found liable for harming,” Donatelli said.
Donatelli said that paying the reparations would likely improve diplomatic relations with the U.S. and pave the way for lifting sanctions on Sudan.
The lobbying firms on retainer, which hadn’t yet been paid by the families, received contingency fees for the successful effort. The three firms made about $600,000 each for two years of work.
Meanwhile, Sudan recently hired Squire Patton Boggs to advocate on its behalf with executive branch officials and Congress on improving relations with the U.S. — including lifting sanctions and paving the way for an increase in foreign investment.
It also [hired] boutique law firm Cooke Robotham on retainer.
Charlie Gard, hope, hate and us: Exploring what made so many people so angry at the Great Ormond Street Hospital
by Theodore Dalrymple
Is it better to live in false hope than in no hope at all? It depends, of course, and varies from case to case; but it is possible that the false hope of a miracle cure given to the parents of Charlie Gard, the English baby with a rare genetic disease, will embitter them for the rest of their days.
They will continue to believe that, but for the malignity of the staff of Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, who opposed Charlie being sent to New York for experimental and unproved therapy, their baby would have survived and lived happily ever after. This thought will gnaw at them to no good purpose.
They fought in the courts and lost. This raised the question of who “owns” a baby in a conflict such as that between Charlie’s parents and the hospital. Who has the right to decide?
Normally, we don’t like the idea of the state telling parents what to do and how to bring up their child. On the other hand, the world is full of cranks. My initiation into just how far people would go to impose their strange ideas on their own children occurred more than 40 years ago, when as a student I examined a baby who was bright orange.
The baby’s parents, who believed in everything alterative and that carrot juice was the perfect food, gave the child nothing else but carrot juice. In these circumstances, could one just leave the parents to get on with it, and in effect kill their baby?
Future historians (if there are any) will look back on the case of Charlie Gard with amazement, and perhaps amusement. Why should the case have captured the attention of the world, such that both the President of the United States and the Pope (whose judgment on many things is reliably bad) found the time to comment on it? Is it not strange that in world of several billions, and in which war, famine and disease have not been eliminated, the fate of a single baby, whose fate was certain to be terrible whatever was done, should have captured so much attention?
Perhaps the case will be taken as bearing out Stalin’s brutal and cynical epigram, that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
A single case appeals to the imagination as a million cases do not, and probably never can. That is why thousands of people contributed money towards Charlie’s hypothetical therapy, though from the point of view of saving human life those funds could have been much better employed elsewhere.
But people are sentimentalists, not statisticians; their hearts rule their heads, and probably it can never be any other way. We will never be just calculating machines.
But there is another side to sentimentality, as there is always another side to a coin, and that is senseless rage and even brutality. It is curious that, while thousands were contributing funds supposedly to save Charlie, thousands were sending messages of hate and even threats to the staff of Great Ormond Street Hospital, irrespective of whether or not they were personally involved in the case — as, of course, most of them were not. Great Ormond Street Hospital, after all, treats many thousands of patients a year.
This behavior is very curious and rather frightening. Part of the problem is that it is so quick and easy to send a message nowadays: Hardly any time intervenes between thought (or emotion) and message. Not so very long ago, the type of person outraged by the hospital’s conduct in the case would have had to put pen to paper, and gone to the trouble of finding the hospital’s address, posting the letter, etc. There is nothing like having to make an effort for reducing enthusiasm for expressing of your rage. Thirty years ago, Great Ormond Street Hospital would not have received the same number of letters as it received electronic insults, threats and menaces.
The question, then, is whether, 30 years ago, all the rage expressed by these insults, threats and menaces existed but simply went unexpressed, or whether the ability to express it actually called it into existence. Does our ability now to communicate the first thing that comes into our head alter the nature of the first thing that comes into our head? After all, anger is a habit like any other and, as everyone knows (if he is honest with himself), there is a certain pleasure in being angry.
In addition, if you express anger on behalf of someone else — Charlie Gard, for example — you have the additional pleasure of thinking that you must be a good, generous soul concerned for the welfare of others.
The next time you are angry, therefore, lay down your smartphone, send no message, and wait for at least twenty-four hours, if not forever. The chances are that you when you are angry you are enjoying yourself, and that there is something bogus in your rage. That is the most valuable lesson of the Charlie Gard case.
Theodore Dalrymple, almost singlehandedly, revived the languishing Essay and in so doing became Britain s answer to Montaigne. In this, his first foray into the Short Story form, he proves himself a rival of Anton Chekhov.
His many devoted fans will be delighted.
Once encountered, Theodore Dalrymple has become for many of us a shared treasure the cultured, often mordantly funny social commentator who was for many years a psychiatrist at a British prison. No one else writes so engagingly and so candidly about the world as it is, not as the politically correct would have it be.
—Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart
Universities UK headquarters hosted Islamic extremist group, despite national student union ban
A radical Islamist group which the Government has threatened to ban was invited to give a talk at the headquarters of Universities UK, The Telegraph has learned.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Salafi movement which is proscribed in parts of Europe and much of the Middle East, has called for the establishment of a caliphate and the introduction of Shari’ah law throughout the Islamic world.
It has been “no platformed” by the National Union of Students and a number of universities have cancelled events after learning that Hizb ut-Tahrir speakers were due to attend.
Universities UK is the 'Voice of Universities' in the UK. Its London office is in Tavistock Square. At an event for university vice-Chancellors, Jamal Harwood of Hizb ut-Tahrir was billed as a headline speaker. He is Canadian born, a convert, who considers himself British. His field is Islamic economics, and the superiority of the Kaliphate. He was allowed to speak at the University of Westminster in 2012.
Earlier this year he also spoke at another Universities UK venue, the Woburn House Conference Centre on the subject “Is the Caliphate a viable alternative for the Middle East?”
All speaker events at universities are supposed to follow government Prevent Policy guidance and Hannah Stuart, co-head of the security and extremism unit at Policy Exchange, said it is “astonishing” that Universities UK hosted an event featuring Hizb ut-Tahrir on its own premises.?
However UUK say that Woburn house was hired by an outside organisation, for what they described as a 'Great Debate'. had they known that a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir was to speak they would not have permittted it; they were misled by the organisers and they wil not be doing business with them (whoever they are) again.
Netanyahu: Insisting That He’d Ne’er Relent — Relented
by Hugh Fitzgerald
After two Israeli guards were shot to death on the Temple Mount on July 14, Israel promptly did what it should have done long ago: it installed metal detectors at the entrances to the Temple Mount, in order to make it harder for weapons to be smuggled onto it. There was nothing particularly unusual about such metal detectors. They are all over the world, most noticeably at every airport. Entrances to both the House and the Senate require visitors to pass through metal detectors. Metal detectors are now at the Houses of Parliament and the Palace of Westminster in London. They are at the provincial legislatures in Canada and at Parliament Hill in Ottawa. After the attacks on Bataclan in Paris and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, more and more nightclubs have installed metal detectors. Government office buildings all over America have them. Courts have them. You can’t look at the riches in the Louvre until you pass through metal detectors. Metal detectors, too, guard the Musee D’Orsay. Even to approach the Eiffel Tower, you have to pass through metal detectors. In Washington, the Air and Space Museum, the Museum of American History, and the Natural History museums all use metal detectors. Fabled Fenway Park has metal detectors. The Taj Mahal has metal detectors. So does the Indian Parliament. At St. Peter’s Basilica, there are metal detectors. There are now even metal detectors at checkpoints leading into St. Peter’s Square. This year, for the first time, there were metal detectors at the Cannes Film Festival.
And in the Middle East, no important mosque or shrine is without its metal detectors. In fact, a lot of lesser-known mosques all over the world now have their metal detectors. No one seems to mind; everyone understands they are there to save lives. The Saudis have metal detectors at every entrance to the Great Mosque of Mecca. The Sayyeda Zainab Mosque (Shiite) in Damascus has metal detectors. So does the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini in Teheran. As for the Imam Reza Shrine in Mashhad, it, too, has metal detectors. There are metal detectors at the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi. And by now you can probably guess, not to be outdone are the Egyptians, with metal detectors at the Mosque of ibn Tulun in Cairo. And you would not be surprised to learn, I’m sure, that the Al-Abbas Holy Shrine in Karbala, Iraq has — you guessed it!– metal detectors. In Tehran, at the university, for Friday Prayers, everyone must pass through — a metal detector!
But there is one place where metal detectors are apparently an unforgivable offense. In Jerusalem, there are metal detectors for those wishing to visit the Western Wall, but that’s okay, because it’s Jews who are being checked on. But it’s the other metal detectors, the ones put in place less than two weeks ago, that have become a source of rage among the “Palestinians.” And while Prime Minister Netanyahu gave the impression he would not allow Israel to be swayed, he rather quickly changed his mind, and “insisting he would ne’er relent, relented.” The Israelis removed the metal detectors and instead installed security cameras. Again,the “Palestinians” appeared on the streets, ready to rage. Again they prostrated themselves in prayer on the street outside the Lion’s Gate entry to the Temple Mount. Again they demanded the removal of security equipment, meaning now the security cameras. Again the Israelis gave the impression that in no uncertain terms, they would not back down. And then, still in no uncertain terms, Israel backed down again, and removed the security cameras, giving the “Palestinians” the victory they so richly undeserved.
If there is any conceivable reason to justify these soft retreatments, it may have to do with the unofficial understanding Israel now has with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are friends of convenience, for all three countries share an abiding fear of Iran. It may be that the Israelis were given to understand that those alliances would be endangered if the Arab “street’” were to be whipped up by the manufactured hysteria of the “Palestinians,” and that it was more important to maintain a common front against Iran than to insist on enhanced security at the Temple Mount. In any case, there may be other ways that the Israelis can enhance security without publicizing their methods. Who knows what the extremely clever Israelis may manage to come up with? Eyes in the sky, with ever-improving technology for eagle-eyed drones that neither slumber nor sleep.
The Israelis should now announce that should there ever be another attack on Israeli soldiers on the Temple Mount, soldiers who are there only to assure order, and to prevent projectiles being hurled on Jewish worshippers below, then the metal detectors will be reinstalled. And Prime Minister Netanyahu should make sure to add that those metal detectors will remain to provide security for everyone, Muslim, Christian and Jew, just as similar metal detectors now provide security all over the world, at the American Congress and the British Parliament and at Muslim sites, too, including the Great Mosque in Mecca, the Mosque of ibn Tulun in Cairo, the Imam Reza Shrine in Mashad, etc. etc., and, of course, the munificent mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — gone but not forgotten — in Tehran.
I don’t think the “Palestinians” will, even now, simmer down. They’re exhibiting what Churchill famously attributed to Muslims in general, that is “a fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog.” So let the dogs bark, while the caravan moves on.
The former Sunderland player was offered protection by Islamic inmates after several other convicts threatened to slash his throat. Subsequently, the convicts said the 30-year-old must convert to Islam as part of the protection deal. Johnson has been spotted praying but has yet to join the religion.
Johnson, who is serving a six year sentence after engaging in sexual activity with a 15-year-old fan, is said to have asked to be moved from Moorland Prison, in South Yorkshire, but his request has been rejected.
One source said: 'At first he was unwilling to take up the offer because he thought he was going to get a transfer out of Moorland, but that’s a non-starter. . . Johnson looks like a dead man walking. The only group willing to look after him are a group of Muslim hardcases. They are very devout and pray five times a day. No-one gives them any trouble. They always offer to help vulnerable inmates, but the price is that anyone they help must convert to Islam. When Johnson discovered he was being targeted they immediately offered him protection. . . "
Australia: Counter-Terrorism Raids Intended to Foil Attacks
Got Muslims? Got Jihad. All over the lands of the infidels, whether first-world or third-world, wherever colonies of mohammedans have become established, our police and associated law enforcement agents are being run off their feet trying to keep ahead of a/ the criminal activity so often engaged in by mohammedans nd b/ seditious and usually mass-murderous jihad terror plots hatched by mohammedans. There have been plenty of similar raids and arrests in the past, carried out in order to nip jihad plots in the bud; and until and unless Australia stops importing mohammedans and starts figuring out how to evict those already established, there will be many more.
Breaking news, as reported by our ABC this morning (there is, of course, no mention of the M-word, the J-word, or of That Which Must Not Be Named, no reference to You-Know-Who and You-Know-What, but the location of certain of the raided premises - heavily-Islamised Lakemba, and similarly-Islamised Punchbowl - still gives it away).
'Sydney Counter-Terrorism Police Carry Out Raids Aimed at Foiling Attacks, Prime Minister Says".
'Police have carried out raids at several properties across Sydney to disrupt plans for terrorist attacks in Australia", Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.
He would never be brave enough to utter the words, "to disrupt Muslim plans for terror jihad attacks on Australian infidels". But that is what he should have said. - CM
'Four homes across Sydney were raided by heavily-armed police on Saturday evening as part of a terrorism investigation.
Note that the police went in 'heavily-armed'. Sydney police have learned from bitter experience that when dealing with the Mohammedan mob one must be prepared both to display and use overwhelming force. - CM
'Australian Federal Police (AFP), ASIO, and New South Wales Police conducted operations in the inner-city suburb of Surry Hills, and the south-west suburbs of Lakemba, Wiley Park, and Punchbowl.
Surry Hills is a bit unexpected - but Lakemba and Punchbowl are among the most heavily-Islamised parts of Sydney and indeed, Australia. Wiley Park is also inhabited by Muslim families already known to have produced jihadis. - CM
'The AFP said four men had been taken into custody.
'A source has told the ABC the plot was believed to relate to an attack on an aeroplane, but it was understood police are trying to work out whether the threat was credible.
'A woman has told the ABC her son and husband were arrested after her Surry Hills house was raided denied they had any links to terrorism.
That's because in the Muslim mind - assuming she is Muslim, which is a safe bet - 'terrorism' is what happens when Infidels refuse to Submit to Islam. In Saudi Arabia you are a 'terrorist' if you are an atheist. Muslim aggression of all kinds against Infidels, undertaken in order to force the Infidels to Submit to Muslim dominance, whether as converts or as near-slave Dhimmis, is not 'terrorism'; it is seen as perfectly justified and justifiable. - CM
"I love Australia", she said, as she was accompanied to a waiting car by police.
Oh sure she loves 'Australia' - meaning by 'Australia' the large chunk of turf, packed full of potential booty for mohammedan robbers and rapists. It's Infidel Australians she doesn't love at all - that, indeed, she views with murderous contempt and hatred - if she is a Mohammedan. - CM
'The Prime Minister's Office released a statement saying the operations were "designed to disrupt and prevent plans to undertake terrorist attacks in Australia".
"I have been kept closely briefed on the progress of the operations by the heads of our relevant security agencies", Mr Turnbull said.
"However, as the operations are ongoing, it is inappropriate to provide further detail at this stage."
Watch this space. More, no doubt, to come.
And there will be more, and more, and yet more, jihad plots - and sooner or later, one or more or many that will evade surveillance until it is too late, bringing about the deaths of one or many or hundreds or even thousands of despised Aussie Infidels, attacked by Muslims to punish them for their outrageous refusal to Submit totally to Muslim despotism and Muslim laws and customs - unless and until the authorities in Australia put a complete stop to all further Muslim immigration, evict all non-citizen Muslims already within the country, and then intern the rest as a potential public danger, pending changes in the law to make possible strippings of citizenship and mass deportations to the dar al Islam. - CM
Why is the Trump Administration denying Justice in the Z Street v IRS case?
by Jerry Gordon
The Wall Street Journal published an opinion article on July 27, 2017 by Philadelphia lawyer Jerome Marcus, “Obama IRS Abuse Should Unite Trump and Sessions.”. Note the tag line, “Career Justice Department lawyers are still defending the old administration’s indefensible positions.” See Marcus’ WSJ opinion article, republished in Real Clear Politics and FoxNews below.
Jerome Marcus, Esq., is the husband of long term friend and founder of embattled Z Street, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, and he has represented the organization in its long legal struggle against the viewpoint bias of the Obama administration's IRS against Israel. For full disclosure I am a member of the founding board of Z Street.
We have posted in the New English Review and its blog The Iconoclast the chronicle of litigation since 2010 against the IRS in the Federal Courts, first in the Philadelphia District court then, following referral, to the DC district and appeals courts.
This important pro bono case was brought because of the blatantly discriminatory treatment of Z Street's tax exemption application by Obama's IRS, because of the organization's differing viewpoint from Obama Administration policy regarding Israel. One defense by the IRS for its special treatment of Z Street was that Israel was where terrorism occurred (!). This case is vitally important because of viewpoint bias by the government in violation of the First Amendment. Counsel Jerome Marcus has won decisions in the matter at both the DC District and Appellate Court levels, most recently in a 3 to 0 decision in 2015.
Yet, even under the present Administration, Justice Department lawyers for the IRS continue to engage in legal tactics delaying justice reflective of the Obama Administration attempt to deprive Z Street of not only its not for profit designation – which was withheld for more than six years- but more importantly its exercise of free speech on behalf of the Jewish nation of Israel.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has written more than a half dozen opinion pieces critical of the IRS and the Obama Department of Justice regarding Z Street’s plight. Now, WSJ editorial page editor James Taranto, has provided an assist by running Jerome Marcus’ op ed. Taranto has been an important ally in this legal battle for justice for free speech under our First Amendment.
The Z street case, and the others like it, affords a mechanism by which the administration can advance its own policy agenda while simultaneously striking a blow for civil rights and revealing Obama administration corruption. The District court opinion in the Z Street case — upholding the legal merit of its claims, and rejecting the Obama administration defenses — was written by an African American woman who had been appointed to the bench by President Obama. The panel of the DC Circuit that affirmed her (and that excoriated the Justice Department at oral argument) was presided over by Judge Merrick Garland. Thus the President could obtain an important victory on civil rights (against viewpoint discrimination), exposing the anti-Israeli policies of the former President and helping non-profits whose views were deemed wrong by the Obama administration.
What follows in Jerome Marcus, Esq.’s Wall Street Journal op ed.
Obama IRS Abuse Should Unite Trump and Sessions
Career Justice Department lawyers are still defending the old administration’s indefensible positions.
President Trump has been feuding this week with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over matters related to last year’s campaign. But here’s an issue on which Messrs. Trump and Sessions should be able to find common ground: The Justice Department should stop defending Obama administration corruption.
I’m referring to the cases, still on file today, challenging or seeking to expose Internal Revenue Service policies that delayed applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups. That’s viewpoint discrimination, a clear First Amendment violation.
The Obama Justice Department fought these cases intensely. It tried to get them thrown out of court before the plaintiffs had the chance to gather evidence. When that failed, Justice lawyers resisted discovery, to prevent disclosure of documents showing what the Obama administration was really doing.
That’s normal behavior for a defendant in a lawsuit. But since Jan. 20, the Justice Department has reported to Mr. Trump, who denounced each of the corrupt policies at issue in these cases.
So why is the department handling the cases as if it were still run by Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch ? Because many of the career lawyers who were put on these cases by Obama Justice Department officials continue working on them, with no supervision from this administration. Those lawyers are still doing now what they have always done: fighting as hard as they can to prevent disclosure of what the Obama IRS, and the rest of the Obama administration, was doing to the country.
In one of these cases I represent the plaintiff. Z Street is a pro-Israel nonprofit that educates on Zionism and how to oppose terror. It applied in 2009 for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. For months, Z Street’s lawyers fielded duplicative IRS requests for information about its board of directors, but after long delays the IRS hadn’t made a decision on the application. In July 2010 Z Street asked why, and an IRS agent revealed that the applications of many organizations connected to Israel “are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the [Obama] administration’s public policies.”
We sued to stop and expose this clear violation of Z Street’s First Amendment rights.
Justice Department lawyers representing the IRS argued that the case should be thrown out even if Z Street was right about its constitutional claim, because a statute allowed the organization to sue in court for tax-exempt status nine months after its application date. In 2015 the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected that position by a 3-0 vote. During oral argument Chief Judge Merrick Garland observed that the department’s position would mean “the government is free to constitutionally discriminate against its citizens for 270 days.”
Since then we’ve been in discovery, and Justice has been fighting to prevent Z Street from learning how the IRS policy was formed, by whom, and at whose direction. The IRS finally granted Z Street its tax-exempt status last year, after the D.C. Circuit made clear that was a necessary condition for throwing out the case.
Other important cases are in the same posture. A class action is pending in Ohio brought by many other nonprofits victimized by policies similar to the one that delayed Z Street’s application by over six years. Judicial Watch is suing to force the IRS to release information on its Obama-era policies of viewpoint discrimination. And the problem isn’t limited to the IRS. Judicial Watch has also sued the State Department seeking release of Hillary Clinton’s emails and document-retention policies.
The government lawyers in all these cases are working hard to prevent anyone from finding out what the Obama administration was doing. Cleta Mitchell, who has represented tea-party organizations in the IRS viewpoint-targeting scandal, says Justice Department lawyers “have been stalling, obfuscating and doing all they can in these cases to avoid holding the IRS accountable.”
That’s true even though all these lawyers now work for President Trump. And it’s true even though Mr. Trump knows full well that the Obama IRS violated the Constitution by discriminating against opposing viewpoints, and that the Obama State Department wrongfully shielded Mrs. Clinton’s emails from public view.
Messrs. Trump and Sessions, as well as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, should all be able to agree on this. The executive branch, through the Justice Department, can on its own agree to release the desired information and end these cases, without any permission from Congress or CNN. That would lighten the workload at Justice and shine sunlight on clearly improper Obama policies.
A famous Justice Department lawyer said long ago that “the government wins when justice is done.” Now’s the time for the Department of Justice to do justice.
Grey Parrot Disappointed To Discover Rest Of Aviary A Bunch Of Idiots
The Onion: PITTSBURGH—Saying he didn’t know how long he could put up with his enclosure companions, an African grey parrot was reportedly disappointed Monday to discover that the other birds in his new aviary are a bunch of idiots. “They seemed cool when I got here last week, but the more I talk to them, the more I realize they’re all morons,” said the 33-year-old bird, adding that he found it impossible to relate to the cockatoos and parakeets who “sit there squawking at their own stupid reflections in the mirror all goddamn day.” “Every bird here is dumber than the last. I was using a twig to retrieve food from a hole, and the entire time this dipshit toucan was just staring at me with seeds all over his dumb beak. And half of them just march up and down the same fucking branch literally nonstop, but they’re so fucking idiotic they never get bored of it.” At press time, the exasperated African grey realized he either had to escape or wait for the other stupid birds to break their necks flying into the walls of the cage.
Simone Veil, the French politician most responsible for the passage of the law to legalise medical termination of pregnancy in France, died recently at the age of 87 in what I would be tempted to call, if France were not so militantly secular a country, the odour of sanctity. She was incontestably a redoubtable woman, a survivor of the German camps to which she was deported at the age of 16; but the effects of the law that she so assiduously promoted soon escaped her control and went far beyond its original intentions, as so many reformist laws are inclined to do. Very few reformers, however, ever take this tendency into account, perhaps because, for many of them, reform is the whole purpose and meaning of their lives.
The French law was intended to relieve the suffering consequent upon the prohibition of deliberate abortion; but, just as it had in Britain several years before, it rapidly became something else entirely, in effect the guarantee of a human right now deemed to be as fundamental as, say, protection against arbitrary arrest. If the French had looked across the Channel in 1975 (the year the law was passed), they would have seen how quickly abortion under certain prescribed conditions had become, in effect, abortion on demand; but despite (or perhaps because of) the proximity of the two countries, neither ever condescends to learn from the experience of the other.
Before long, there were cases of abortion in Britain granted to women who did not want to be pregnant during their holidays. Like the French law, the British was ostensibly intended to avoid the suffering caused by the prohibition of abortion: but if you offer an incentive for people to be miserable, then misery (or at least claims to misery) is what you will get. It is true that doctors were excused on grounds of conscience from signing the requisite forms recommending termination, but they were obliged to point women in the direction of doctors who would sign the forms, so that the requirement was a dead-letter; and in any case, it was soon argued that, statistically-speaking, termination was safer than any pregnancy carried to term, and therefore that termination was always justified under the terms of the law.
Whether the original framers of the law intended this outcome or not (I suspect that some of them did), abortion on demand was its outcome.
However, the issue of abortion never became quite as heated or divisive in Britain or France as it became, and as I suspect it remains, in the United States. But if my understanding of the controversy in the United States is correct, the debate is carried out in rather crude terms. On the one side there are those who say that the fertilised ovum is a full human being and therefore to kill it is as much murder as to shoot dead a passer-by in the street; on the other are those who claim that a woman’s body is her own and she has an inviolable right to do with it what she chooses. East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.
It seems to me that both sides in this dialogue of the deaf are mistaken and grossly oversimplify reality. It seems to me intuitively absurd to claim that killing a conceptus is no different from killing a child or a grown man, even if that conceptus is growing in a twelve year-old child who has been raped. Likewise, supposing (per impossibile) that one were faced with the choice of saving either the mother or a conceptus by causing the death of the other, it would be absurd to claim that the choice was a morally neutral one. And if someone were to mourn (as against regret) a spontaneous miscarriage in the same way and to the same extent as the death of a child or parent, one would think him or her not merely very odd, but morally unbalanced.
The other side is no better, however. In the first place, to say that one owns oneself and can therefore dispose of oneself as one chooses is wrong. To say of one’s body that one owns it is a peculiar way of describing the relationship between one’s self and one’s body: I don’t own my face like I own my computer, for example.
Moreover, ownership does not imply, or necessarily imply, an infinite right, either legal or moral, to disposal of what is owned. I own my house, but I have no right to burn it down if I see fit to do so. And if I own a Vermeer, I may have a legal, but surely not a moral, right to destroy it. Morally speaking, I do not own the Vermeer; I am its temporary custodian. It is otherwise with the lead pencil on my desk, which I likewise own. It seems to me that our bodies are more like Vermeers than they are like lead pencils.
Furthermore, a conceptus is not just part of a woman’s body, and the fact that she carries it, and will eventually give birth to it in pain and sorrow, does not give her infinite rights over it. Her interest in it may be greater than anyone else’s, no doubt, but it is not unique or exclusive. For one thing, the conceptus is partly the father’s, at least until such time as humans replace themselves purely by parthenogenesis. One would hope that children were most often the product of a loving mutual decision of the mother and the father; and a world in which mothers militantly put their supposed rights above such decisions in importance would be a truly horrible one, deeply savage and uncivilised.
In general, though, women do not consider abortion an operation just like any other (though some do); it is not for them the same as the removal of a blemish of the skin, say, or even the removal of a gall bladder. They apprehend, perhaps not fully or coherently, that abortion is not simply another operation, but has a much profounder significance; and they apprehend it even if they have no religious belief.
So how do you frame a law that avoids the indisputable cruelties and hardships occasioned by total prohibition, while not acceding to the uncouth and ill-founded demands of the other side, and avoiding the bogus jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade? Arguments that rely solely on competing rights can result only in shouting matches; they have the psychological effect of limiting the moral imagination. On the other hand, the law must lay down with reasonable predictability and consistency what is permissible and what is not.
There is a limit to what the law can achieve if it is not to become, in effect, the absolute arbiter or dictator of our lives. Therefore, it is up to the population to exercise virtue, because:
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
This week, the Republicans in the Senate put the screws to any hopes of replacing and repealing Obama Care. First, seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting No on a repeal of Obama Care. Then on Friday, three Republicans, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, joined every Democrat in voting No on a so-called skinny repeal, a lesser version. At the end of the day, Obama Care stands and the promise that the Republican party has made to its voters for seven years has been broken.
Remember the time when Republicans told us voters that we needed to give them back the House so they could oppose Obama's policies and work to repeal Obama Care? We gave them the House. Then they told us we needed to give them the Senate. We did that too. Then they proceeded to let Obama do whatever he wanted. They told us we needed to elect a Republican president. In 2016, that happened. Republicans now hold the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House.They still can't get anything done. Chuck Schumer basically runs the Senate.
In addition, the Republicans had seven years to design a quality plan to replace Obama Care. They couldn't do it. All they did was rush out a hastily drawn up plan that still left the government controlling too much of health care.
I ask you: What good is this Republican party?
Full disclosure: I am not a Republican. I don't belong to any political party, but I vote Republican because the Democrats are so far to the left and so corrupt it turns my stomach. But the events of this week are the reason I have never joined the Republican party.
Conservative commentator Michael Medved often points out that voting for third party candidates is an exercise in electing the one you oppose. The examples of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are a testament to that. Without Perot, Bill Clinton would probably not have been president, and we would have been spared the tawdry career of Hillary Clinton. Without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would likely have been president. There is also the added governmental confusion that would result if we had more than two viable parties with coalition governments being cobbled together as they are in Europe.
But at some point, the two party system,which has served us so well for so long, loses it appeal if one party is so ineffective and feckless as are the Republicans. When the Democrats hold all three parts of the government, they get (bad) things done. The Republicans are getting nothing done once you get past Trump's executive orders. It is Trump who is having his federal law enforcement agencies round up MS-13, the vicious Salvadoran street gang. It is Trump who nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It is Trump who has reversed so many of Obama's executive orders.
At some point, conservatives need to bite the bullet and consider a truly conservative and committed third party. Call it the Conservative Party. Call it the Tea Party. Call it what you will, but it should leave no doubt that people like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and others like them are not welcome.
And while we're at it, we also need to bring in term limits, but that is a topic for a separate discussion.
For decades, The Economist steadily built up its sales in the United States as it found a market that was constantly growing in wealth and numbers and that could not be reached by the banalities of Time and Newsweek. Henry Luce’s American Century at Time tapered off into trite American vanity expressed in sophomoric attempts at sly writing. Newsweek was just the leavings shaken out of the Washington Post and finally ended up offering no news at all, only a series of tired opinion columns, as if any sane person would pay to have such material printed on glossy paper and stapled. The Economist’s world reach, authoritative departments, robust Oxbridge English, clever photos and covers, and even smart Fleet Street photo captions, plus its enlightened conservatism, were a winning formula in the U.S. (At the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, it ran a black-and-white cover of a riot scene with charging mounted police and clouds of tear gas over the title “In This United Kingdom.”)
For a long time The Economist had too much faith in big and bossy government, and more concentration on apparent competence at execution and at the parliamentary despatch box or Washington press conference than on sound public policy. But The Economist, for a time, understood America. It was engulfed in the Watergate inundation and joined the righteous tide, unlike much of the continental European media that saw it all (accurately) as a pious exercise in Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy covering the crucifixion of a capable and successful president (and there remains no convincing evidence that Richard Nixon committed any illegalities). But The Economist also saw, unlike almost all of Europe, that Ronald Reagan was the man in 1980; that Jimmy Carter was too insipid and indecisive to lead; that the Soviet Union was effectively out of control in Afghanistan, Central America, and Angola; and that the United States was starting to resemble “the pitiful helpless giant” that Mr. Nixon had warned it could become.
After the end of the Cold War, The Economist took its stance inflexibly for an integrated federal Europe, world free trade and almost open borders regardless of the resulting disruptions of immense flows of desperate people and dumped goods, the disgorgement of hundreds of billions of dollars to fight chimerical climate change, and a depressingly misguided or passive America. The Economist had reservations about George W. Bush’s harebrained pursuit of democracy, as it produced democratically elected anti-democratic governments. It has been magnificent in its exposé of the failure of the American War on Drugs and absurd over-sentencing and incarceration levels, and is generally fairly strong in non-political areas.
But The Economist did not understand at all the intolerable failures for America of one-sided trade deals, open borders, a bungled retreat from Alliance leadership, over-taxation, and opening the welfare floodgates and flat-lining economic growth while enthroning political correctness and embracing a foreign policy that consisted chiefly of inviting America’s enemies and allies to change roles and places. Like the corrupt, morally bankrupt media apologists for the Obama-Clinton failures and peculations, and the fatigued snobs of highbrow conservatism who have deserted the Trump Republicans, they rose out of the water like salmon in anger at Donald Trump’s rough but effective campaigning methods, but completely failed to notice that he was the only candidate speaking for the country and the national interest, (though Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz rounded up those on the far left and right).
The U.K. magazine has lost no opportunity to denigrate Trump.
There is plenty of room to criticize Trump’s career and his official performance, but it is unprecedentedly unprofessional for The Economist to sandbag an incoming U.S. president, giving him no benefit of the doubt and admitting no possibility of success. In their edition dated July 1, summarizing his first five months, their special report is a disjointed travelogue and the lead editorial is just an onslaught on the president. It prejudges his tax-reform bill, yet to appear, as a giveaway to the rich, and falsely claims that he has “undermined the courts, the intelligence services, the State Department, and the [EPA].” It blames Trump, not the obstructionist Senate Democrats who are actually responsible, for the slow confirmations of administration officials,. It spuriously implies improprieties in current relations between the government and Trump’s business interests, and, fantastically, it blames the confection of the Frankenstein Monster of canards about election collusion with Russia on Trump, and not on the bloodless assassins of the Democratic party and their parrots in the national media. The Economist defends the boobs in the Congressional Budget Office (who have never predicted anything correctly in living memory) and blames lack of bipartisanship exclusively on Trump.
To The Economist, Trump already is and will remain “a bad president” who is responsible for America’s failed state education system and uneven health care (after five months in office). Trade deals that import unemployment into the U.S. are desirable and the fatuous Paris Accord was a “forum where countries [would] work together to solve problems.” I had to check that this was The Economist I was reading and not a handout from the Democratic National Committee or CNN (interchangeable). Most of Trump’s official and media enemies are venal hypocrites and incompetents who created this crisis of American decline these last 20 years, and if Trump fails, they will complete the disaster they began. It is distressing to see The Economist in such company. Walter Bagehot (founder of the publication), and some of his recent successors, would be appalled. I still believe Trump will succeed, because he must, and that The Economist will return to its editorial senses.
A man shouting "Allahu Akbar" stabbed to death one person and wounded six others in a supermarket in the German city of Hamburg on Friday.
The attacker, who was born in the United Arab Emirates, was overpowered by passers-by and arrested.
Olaf Scholz, the mayor of Hamburg, said the attack had been motivated by "hate" and added that the suspected attacker was a failed asylum seeker whose deportation had been blocked because he lacked identity papers.
"I am outraged by the vicious attack that killed at least one Hamburger today," he said. "It makes me especially angry that the perpetrator appears to be a person who claimed protection in Germany and then turned his hate against us."
Citing security sources, Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reported that the 26-year-old perpetrator was known to police as an Islamist. News agency DPA reported that security authorities were investigating evidence the man had Salafist ties.
"Suddenly I saw a man smeared with blood running along the other side of the road with a knife," an eyewitness identified as Ralf W. told Bild. "He shouted out 'Allahu Akbar' as he was running."
A female witness standing in line at the supermarket till also told NTV rolling news channel that "as he was running out... he held up his arms and shouted 'Allahu Akbar'."
But "people were running after him with improvised weapons, chairs and sticks... they ran after him into a side street," Ralf W. told Bild.
"People chased after the killer with chairs, they were throwing them at him," bakery worker Shaylin Roettmer told DPA.
Anti-terror officers armed with automatic weapons patrolled the scene and onlookers gathered behind strips of red-and-white police tape.
While the attacker's motives remain unknown, Germany has been on high alert about the threat of a jihadist attack,
Police in Hamburg have confirmed the arrest of a man on suspicion of killing at least one person and injuring four others in a supermarket in the city on Friday.
Die Welt reports that the man entered the shop in the Barmbek district shortly after 3pm and attacked people at random with a knife, killing one and injuring four others. He then fled the scene but was arrested shortly afterwards.
German daily Bild published a picture of the attacker in the back of a police car with a white, blood-soaked bag over his head, and reported that he cried "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest) in the supermarket. The suspect has not yet been identified.
One man, captured in the video on the Local website, told German media that he saw the man holding a knife and heard him shout "Allahu Akbar"