April | 2016 | WarSclerotic | Page 8

Archive for April 2016

The Self-Contradictory Liberals

April 23, 2016

The Self-Contradictory Liberals, Gatestone Institute, Denis MacEoin, April 23, 2016

♦ Many liberals — not least the large numbers of students involved in campus demonizations of Israel, Jews, white people and other supposed public enemies — are morally and politically confused, not to say profoundly selective and bigoted, often in direct contradiction to their own expressed principles of peace, tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.

♦ These liberals repeatedly contradict their own ideals, not least when it comes to free speech, Israel, the Middle East, Islam, and the rights of Muslim women. Many self-declared liberals behave much as did the Nazis of the early years of the Third Reich.

♦ It would appear that, whatever Israelis and their government do may be dismissed as mere “whitewashing” to cover Israel’s original “sin” of being Jewish.

♦ Using an abusive form of political correctness and insisting on an absolutist version of multiculturalism, many devotees of liberalism often betray the ideals for which earlier human rights activists, feminists, anti-racists, and freedom fighters fought and even gave their lives.

♦ Amnesty International, a left-wing non-governmental organization (NGO) put its pro-Muslim politics above women’s rights — a remarkable step for the world’s best-known human rights agency.

It is no secret that politicians on both the “right” and “left” lie, dissemble, equivocate, misrepresent, misinform, falsify, whitewash and cover up. Not even the noble and honest Cicero was immune to fudging and shifting sides. It is the nature of politics. For much of the time we put up with it until it grows so far-fetched, we can no longer shut our eyes and let ourselves be lulled into further acquiescence. We all put up with this, do our best to spot the lies, or rely on investigative journalists to dig beneath the surface of what governments claim or their opponents hide.

But something strange has been happening to people calling themselves liberals. (Note: The term “liberal” differs enormously between the U.S. and the UK. Americans use it to describe anyone from the Democratic Party through to those even farther to the left. But the British use it for people from the political centre towards the right, and it has no connotations of far left extremism. It is used here in the American sense.) The far left — the Marxists, Trotskyites etc. — the campus extremists, even the new leadership of Britain’s Labour Party have started to contradicting their own ideals, not least when it comes to free speech, Israel, the Middle East, Islam, and the rights of Muslim women.

All sides of the political spectrum share many ideals in their original form: advocacy of human rights, equal justice under the law; the rights of racial and religious minorities, homosexuals, workers, women. They also share an opposition to racism, anti-Semitism, fascism, and religious fundamentalism. These are ideals in any democratic nation — views demonstrated by modern legislation across a host of democratic parliaments.

But many liberals appear to distort all this. They take extreme positions, guided by three linked but often confused issues: political correctness, cultural relativism and moral relativism. There seems to be a deep-seated belief, not only that all cultures possess and practice different values (the original premise of neutral cultural relativism in anthropology); or that, God forbid!, Western values are better than non-Western ones. Many liberals appear, instead, to think, that non-Western values are better or certainly no worse, than Western ones.

The idea that Western states, heirs to imperialism and still practitioners of indirect colonialism, have imposed their values on the rest of the world, makes the values of the “victim” — the “oppressed” and the “occupied” — superior to those of the West. But it is precisely Western values and laws that have been responsible for the very concept of human rights, for efforts to free former colonies, to bring aid to Third World countries, to grant rights to minorities, to introduce high-quality education, to advocate for women’s rights, and more.

No other former imperialists, not least those of the many Muslim empires throughout history, have acted in this way towards the subjects of their former colonies. Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed liberals have responded to this commitment to human rights by charging the West with some form of original sin requiring Europeans and Americans to carry a heavy weight of guilt (as documented so well by the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in books such as The Tyranny of Guilt).

One of the greatest examples of the excessive focus on the West is universal condemnation of the transatlantic slave trade, supposedly divorced from the Muslim/Arab slave trades, which continues without protest from these liberals in some places to this day. This, even though the Islamic trade was larger and longer-lasting than the Western one. Mauritania today holds anti-slavery protestors in prison, despite slavery there having been outlawed since 1981.

It is not hard to see why so many liberals– not least the large numbers of students involved in campus demonizations of Israel, Jews, whites and other supposed public enemies — are morally and politically confused, not to say profoundly selective and bigoted, in direct contradiction to their own expressed principles of peace, toleration, diversity, and multiculturalism.

If this sounds a little abstract, here are some examples to show this confusion at its worst.

As a telling example of hypocritical behaviour, for many years now, a range of LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders) organizations have campaigned against the state of Israel. They have marched, carrying rainbow banners, alongside far-left extremists and far-right Muslims, shouting abuse against Israel and calling for an end to the “occupation” of the West Bank.

The annual National Conference on LGBT Equality, Creating Change, is an event held by the US National LGBTQ Task Force, based in Washington D.C., one of the most important bodies in the struggle for gay rights. The 2016 Creating Change conference was held in the Hilton Chicago between 20 and 24 of January.

Writing about this event, leading human rights and pro-LGBT activist and lawyer Melanie Nathan declared that, “This week will go down in history as one of the saddest and most destructive, ever, in the lives of LGBTQ Jews. We became the target of antisemitism disguised as protesting alleged ‘Israeli oppression.’ Anyone who truly understands the history, the context and milieu will clearly access the bottom line and that came in the form of the chant that served to helm the onslaught by LGBTQ protesters at the Creating Change 2016 Conference, who yelled: ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’.” As is well known, the river is the Jordan and the sea is the Mediterranean, meaning that Israel will be replaced by a large Palestinian state from which Jews will have been ethnically cleansed.

A pro-Israel LGBT organization, A Wider Bridge, had planned to host an all-inclusive Shabbat reception on Friday 22^nd, with the aim of introducing delegates to visiting Israeli LGBT guests. On the 18^th, however, conference organizers caved in to anti-Israel demands and banned the reception. Many people strongly objected to this divisive move; on the following day the banning decision was reversed. Clearly, trouble lay ahead, and, true to form, an enormous band of Anti-Israel demonstrators from the LGBT community disrupted the reception, chanting the rhyming slogan above while carrying printed and home-made posters saying “Zionism sucks,” “No Pride in Apartheid”.

That Palestinians sometimes beat and kill gay men is irrelevant to their way of thinking, as is the moral inconvenience that homosexuality is illegal in all Muslim states, and punished there by imprisonment, execution, or mob violence. These facts are of no apparent interest to those determined to slander Israel at all costs.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East — and most of Africa and Asia — where gay rights are guaranteed by law, where Gay Pride parades are held, and where gay tourism is encouraged. Yet, surprisingly, LGBT groups in the West never march or demonstrate to condemn countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others where gay men are hanged from cranes, beheaded, stoned or thrown from high buildings.

LGBT attacks on Israel and the distortion of gay rights as “pinkwashing” — claiming that the state of Israel uses its freedoms for all its gay inhabitants in order to whitewash its supposedly evil persecution of the Palestinian people — represent something psychologically troubling. Israel should be a major source of pride and admiration for LGBT people. Yet the very idea of rights for the LGBT community is simply cast aside in favour of deeply distasteful, profoundly misguided, and frequently anti-Semitic agitation that calls for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state. Liberal politics, post-colonialism, and a staggering inverted moral relativism work together to cancel out all the good that Israel does and all the safety it offers to all its citizens.

The charge of “pinkwashing” carries an even broader message. It would appear that, whateverIsraelis and their government do may be dismissed as mere “whitewashing” to cover Israel’s original “sin” of being Jewish — whether it be the remarkable international aid it provides in disaster-stricken regions or even the work of Israeli volunteers rescuing and feeding refugees in the enemy state of Syria, the 17 field hospitals and surgical centres Israel runs to help Syrians, its many advances in life-saving medical treatment, or the protection it affords to many persecuted minority religious communities from Christians to Baha’is. This blanket condemnation of Israel also carries another message: that whatever crimes other nations commit — from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Sudan, or whatever acts of terror Muslim groups or Palestinians carry out — these may be passed over in silence or even supported. And they are. There is even another clear message: that even the most positive side of the people we hate is really just a cover for sinister conspiracies. This view falls in line with the conspiracy theories familiar from Tsarist Russia, the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq. Those are never healthy models to follow, above all for those who think of themselves as moral or enlightened.

Supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the Palestinians, members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, member states of the UN, and hundreds of other anti-Israel and anti-Zionist campaigners, supposed intellectuals, and politicians repeatedly argue that Israel is an illegal colonial entity, and that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law. In fact, Israel’s presence in the West Bank is perfectly legal.[1]

If there are allegations that Israel has taken land by force and claimed sovereignty contrary to international law, it has not. All Israel’s wars have so far been defensive. Either Israel was attacked first or has responded to a legitimate casus belli (legal cause for war) such as the closure by Egypt of the Strait of Tiran in 1967). There are allegations that Israel carries out “ethnic cleansing;” it does not — and much more.[2]

But when Israel’s supporters point out that its opponents are referring to lies that have no relevance to Israel — and when these supporters list UN resolutions (notably resolutions 181, 242, and 338), League of Nations rulings establishing the Palestine Mandate, and a host of other documents designed to enforce international law — Israel’s opponents shout and declare all these legal instruments to be invalid — for no apparent legal reason, but presumably that they demonstrate the falsity of their own claims. In other words, they show themselves to be not in the least respectful of international law. International law seems respected by them only if it can be distorted to be used as a weapon against Israel.

On the face of it, liberals often claim to share values that the rest of us hold, too. They declare themselves to be anti-racist, they call for rights for women, for sexually anomalous people, for the restoration of rights for people living in former colonies, for the rights of formerly oppressed people to self-determination, and much else that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But they seem never satisfied by the straightforward promotion of these rights through democratic processes. They appear to prefer angry demonstrations, occasional rioting, and even sometimes terrorism.[3] Using an abusive form of political correctness and insisting on an absolutist version of multiculturalism, many devotees of liberalism often betray the ideals for which earlier human rights activists, feminists, anti-racists, and freedom fighters fought.

Take racism: Liberals rightly work against discriminating against people of colour. But when it comes to the Jewish people, history’s most abused and persecuted ethnic and religious community, the pretence of being anti-racist is dropped and hardline liberals explode into racist fury, adopting all the techniques of far-right anti-Semites. In Europe, large numbers of liberal activists have joined forces with ultra-conservative Muslims to march through the streets of Britain, the Netherlands and elsewhere chanting “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas,” or listening as their terror-supporting Muslim allies sing “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahud: Jaysh Muhammad sa ya-ud” (which loosely translates as “Remember the Battle of Khaybar, O you Jews: the army of Muhammad is coming back.” Khaybar refers to the 629 A.D. assault led by Muhammad against the last Jewish tribe in Arabia.

697

July 2014: Demonstrators in The Hague, Netherlands chant “Death to the Jews”, while flying the black flag of jihad. (Image source: Twitter/@SamRaalte)

Were these left-wing demonstrators to chant and march and threaten to exterminate any other race, they would be known for the racist thugs they really are. But Jews are apparently fair game. Many self-declared liberals behave much as did the Nazis of the early years of the Third Reich.

This clear anti-Semitism by the liberal-Islamist alliance is given another ironic twist that seeks to cover its racism by placing the argument on what appears to be a purely political footing. Although the UN Charter and other mainstream instruments call for the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, as in Ireland, Turkey, South Africa, India, Pakistan and elsewhere liberal support for self-determination is betrayed by an almost total refusal to recognize the rights of one ethnic (and ultimately indigenous) people: the Jews. Of the post-imperialist states, one alone is singled out for opprobrium: Israel. Rhetoric about Israelis being imperialists, colonizers or fascists, leads one to think that Israel’s enemies know nothing about the vast Ottoman empire that was the last legitimate regime to control the territories from which Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the disputed territories all spring. The “Palestine will be free” marchers evidently know nothing much about history. Israelis — just like citizens in their neighbouring states — are a people freed from the tyranny of the Muslim Ottomans and awarded a new destiny precisely because Europe’s imperial powers, the League of Nations, and the United Nations, relinquished their right to rule in favour of Jewish sovereignty.

Today’s new anti-Semites ignore or are wholly ignorant of the long and unprecedented history of the Jewish diaspora.[4] No other people has longed for self-determination for so long or with such sustained intensity.

To leave Israel for a moment, we can find an important anomaly among liberal feminists who actively support the wearing of the Muslim veil and even choose to turn a blind eye to the misogyny of Islamic law, forced marriages, child marriages, female genital mutilation, honour killings and the stoning of women accused of adultery. This is, perhaps, the most hideous example of hypocrisy and double standards — finding fault with even the most trivial of Western attitudes to women while doing nothing to protect Muslim women simply because it supposedly is “racist” to condemn Muslims. It appears that the fear of being called racist is more important to many than a genuine concern for the human rights of a group that is clearly oppressed. A Western man calling women “chicks” may expect the full force of feminist wrath, but a Muslim man who beats his wife because the Qur’an advises him to, is exonerated because wife-beating is part of his different and purportedly inviolable culture.

Writing in Tablet magazine last year, Heather Rogers relates how she at first dismissed criticism of misogyny within Muslims communities because “Westerners have no right to tell Muslims how to live” and downplayed arguments about the rate of Islamic honour killings. It was only on later reflection, she said, that she began to pose questions such as, “Why aren’t more non-Muslim feminists speaking up about violence against women in Muslim-majority countries?” She then gives an example of how liberal feminists distort matters. “In searching the Internet,” she writes, “I begin to find the vestiges of a discussion of the subject among Leftists, which suggests some reasons why many non-Muslim feminists choose to stay silent. One controversy is to do with an essay Adele Wilde-Blavatsky wrote in 2012 for The Feminist Wire, an online women’s studies journal. Her piece says the hijab is a symbol of male oppression. A storm ensued. One response, signed by 77 academics, writers, and activists, said the essay was an assertion of Wilde-Blavatsky’s “white feminist privilege and power.” Instead of facilitating a discussion, however, The Feminist Wire editorial collective took down the comments, pulling the essay along with them.”

Rogers then cites the 2010 case when Amnesty International fired the head of its Gender Unit, Gita Sahgal, who had protested the charity’s alliance with a former Taliban fighter and misogynist, Moazzem Begg, an extremist who still refuses to condemn the stoning to death of women. Sahgal’s credentials as a secular Asian woman defending the rights of Muslim women in general were and are undeniable. But Amnesty International, a left-wing non-governmental organization (NGO) put its pro-Muslim politics above women’s rights — a remarkable step for the world’s best-known human rights agency.

It is surprising, yet all too predictable, to find pro-peace organizations and political leaders supporting violent and intolerant opinions and groups. The simplest example is the current leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn regards war as a last resort and has been active in a number of anti-war movements, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the hyper-pacifist Stop the War Coalition, which informs his current position in parliament. He continues to oppose renewing Trident, Britain’s nuclear missile capacity. We have to assume that Corbyn is, in principle, opposed to the use of violence except in extreme circumstances. How, then, is it that he has described the brutal terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah — the latter declared on 11 March to be a terrorist state by the Arab League — both of which have an open agenda of committing genocide against Jews, as “my friends”? He explains this as “diplomatic language in the context of dialogue.” Dialogue? This answer confirms that Corbyn has read neither the Hamas Covenant nor Hezbollah’s Risala maftuha (Open Letter). How does a man of peace enter into dialogue with Hamas? Here are two sentences from its Covenant/Charter:

“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.” [Author’s emphasis]

I have an Arabic copy of the Covenant in front of me: the translation is perfectly correct.

Here, from the Hizbullah Open Letter, is much the same thing:

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev’s and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity. [Author’s emphases]

Dialogue, anyone? In his obsession with dialogue, Corbyn has gone further. In a notorious interview with Stephen Nolan on Radio Ulster last year, Corbyn was asked six times, “Are you prepared to condemn what the IRA did?” — referring to their use of terrorist violence. Each time he refused to give a straight answer. As Nolan himself put it at the beginning of the interview, quoting from a Daily Telegraph article in June: “This is a man who sympathised with violent Irish republicanism in the 80s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and at a Troops Out meeting in 1987 he stood for a moment’s silence for eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush.” He is also a man who invited Hamas and Hezbollah representatives into the UK parliament. Even The Guardian, regarded by many as anti-Israeli, has castigated Corbyn for this and his other associations with terrorists and anti-Semites.

It does not stop there. During an interview with one of Britain’s most eminent political journalists, Andrew Marr, Corbyn called for dialogue with Islamic State. A week later, in The Spectator, Toby Young wrote an article entitled, “Jeremy Corbyn and the hard left are wilfully blind to the evils of Islamist Nazis.” Of course, Corbyn himself did not volunteer to fly out to Raqqa to have a cosy chat with Islamic State’s self-proclaimed leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a spirit of dialogue.

What is the reason for this staggering naïveté? You can find some of the answer by looking at again at the Hamas Covenant and Hizbullah’s Open Letter. Here are some sentences from the former:

The Islamic Resistance Movement [i.e. Hamas] found itself at a time when Islam has disappeared from life. Thus rules shook, concepts were upset, values changed and evil people took control, oppression and darkness prevailed, cowards became like tigers: homelands were usurped, people were scattered and were caused to wander all over the world, the state of justice disappeared and the state of falsehood replaced it. Nothing remained in its right place.

Here is a single statement from the latter:

As for our friends, they are all the world’s oppressed peoples.

In other words, both Hamas and Hizbullah supposedly exist to fight for the rights of the oppressed, Franz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth,” the victims of Western imperialism and colonialism, of American arrogance, of a worldwide Jewish/Zionist/Masonic conspiracy. What socialist would not reach out to condemn his own people and his own culture, would not repudiate his own history, merely to reach out to these victims? If Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic State, al-Qa’ida, the Iranian regime, and all the other promoters of violence proclaim themselves to be the champions of the downtrodden masses, are they then to be applauded, rewarded and financed?

It is not just the “hard left” that does this. The broad liberal press, newspapers — such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Haaretz — together with a broad consensus of politicians and church leaders, are always happy to tell us that when terrorist groups maim and kill innocent civilians it is not their fault, for the conditions of oppression under which they live have purportedly given them no choice other than to fight back; that the Palestinians have given up hope, that they and their children have no other choice but to shoot and stab their way to yet more years of failure, despair and security measures.

Most of us in the West have much to thank many real liberals for: the abolition of slavery, the cause of civil rights and anti-racism, recognition of the rights of homosexuals, empathy for the disabled, free education, the campaign against religious intolerance, and much more. Liberals share these achievements with many others from the “right” and centre, with Jewish and Christian ethical standards, with a growing sense of a shared humanity as set out in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But many pseudo-liberals have betrayed these same values and proven themselves unworthy of the work of their own ancestors — men and women who would never have sat side by side with terrorists, lied about Israel, fostered anti-Semitism or tolerated the abuse of women and children.[5] In all likelihood they would never have denounced the values of Western civilization, or valued the monstrous over the humane.

Dr. Denis MacEoin is an academic and journalist specializing in Islam and the Middle East.

[1] The occupation is perfectly legal in international law under UN Resolution 242 (1967), and was reaffirmed in the Oslo II Accord, Article XI. See Alan Baker, “The Legal Basis of Israel’s Rights in the Disputed Territories,” Jan. 2013.

[2] For a very full and wholly tendentious list of these “violations” see here.

[3] Liberal support for terrorism has recently been demonstrated by the new leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who has famously described Hamas and Hezbollah as his “friends.”

[4] For a broad discussion of this, see Kenneth Marcus, The Definition of Anti-Semitism, Oxford U.P., 2015, chapter 6

[5] For a detailed and eloquent account of how the political left lost its way through the twentieth century and the early twenty-first, see Nick Cohen, What’s Left? London, 2007.

Categories: Cultural equivalence, Feminists, Freedom of Expression, Hamas, Hezbollah, Human rights, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Israel, Jewish occupation of Israel, Jews, Leftists, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terrorists, Progressives, Sharia law, Thought police
Tags: Cultural equivalence, Feminists, freedom of expression, Hamas, Hezbollah, human rights, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Israel, Jewish occupation of Israel, Jews, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terrorists, Progressives, Sharia law, Thought police

Comments: Be the first to comment

Washington Says Not Opposed to Foreign Banks’ Trade with Tehran

April 23, 2016

Washington Says Not Opposed to Foreign Banks’ Trade with Tehran, Tasnim News Agency, April 23, 2016

Iran and banks

On Thursday, US State Department Spokesman John Kirby said Washington had scrambled expert teams, “akin to a roadshow,” to assure world bankers that they can do trade with Iran.

“We certainly are not trying to become an obstacle in any way of foreign banks and institutions working with Iran through the sanctions relief process,” Kirby said.

************************

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington is not against foreign banks’ investment and presence in Iran following the removal of anti-Tehran sanctions, stressing that the banks are free to do business with the Islamic Republic.

“The United States is not standing in the way and will not stand in the way of business that is permitted with Iran since the (nuclear deal) took effect,” Kerry told reporters on Friday, sitting alongside Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a New York hotel, AFP reported.

“I want to emphasize we’ve lifted our nuclear-related sanctions as we committed to do. And there are now opportunities for foreign banks to do business with Iran,” he further said.

The Iranian foreign minister, for his part, said Iran “has implemented its part of the bargain.”

“We hope that the statement made today by Secretary Kerry will begin to open the difficult path that had been closed because of concerns that banks had about the US approach toward implementation of the commitments under the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement). We see serious implementation of all the JCPOA benefits that Iran should derive from this agreement,” he added.

Zarif also emphasized that serious differences still remain between Tehran and Washington.

On Thursday, US State Department Spokesman John Kirby said Washington had scrambled expert teams, “akin to a roadshow,” to assure world bankers that they can do trade with Iran.

“We certainly are not trying to become an obstacle in any way of foreign banks and institutions working with Iran through the sanctions relief process,” Kirby said.

While the JCPOA, the 159-page nuclear agreement between Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) came into force in January, some Iranian officials have complained about the US failure to fully implement the accord.

Last month, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said Americans have yet to fulfill what they were supposed to do as per the nuclear deal.

Iran still has problems in its banking transactions or in restoring its frozen assets, because Western countries and those involved in such processes are afraid of Americans, Imam Khamenei said, criticizing the US for its moves to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the sanctions removal.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Kerry
Tags: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran Scam, Kerry

Comments: Be the first to comment

OMRI CEREN: Analyze This,

April 22, 2016

OMRI CEREN: Analyze This, Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 22, 2016

Omri Ceren writes from The Israel Project with the latest development in our partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Omri writes:

Heavy water is a relatively rare form of water that is used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The nuclear deal forbids Iran
from stockpiling more than 130 tonnes of heavy water at any given time.

But the Iranians have been overproducing. In February they violated the nuclear deal by going over the 130 ton cap, and they had to ship out their excess material to get back into compliance [a][b]. Instead of halting heavy water production in the aftermath of the violation, they continued producing and now may be in danger of violating the deal again.

So – per the Wall Street Journal this morning – the Obama administration will buy the heavy water from Iran in order to “safeguard its landmark nuclear agreement.” The Iranians will be saved from their own overproduction causing them to violate the deal. Some things to look out for:

1) The purchase will almost certainly involve dollars, and therefore indirect access to the U.S. financial system. The administration is refusing to clarify that:

U.S. law still bans Iran from entering the American financial system or conducting business in dollars. The Obama administration is deliberating ways to help Iran conduct dollarized trade without allowing it to directly access the U.S. system, according to U.S. officials. U.S. officials wouldn’t specify how the Department of Energy would pay Iran for the heavy water.

2) The money will almost certainly be taxpayer money, and it may be going to fund terrorism. Congress is trying to get answers on those questions from the administration:

The chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), wrote Mr. Moniz on April 18 to seek clarity on the terms of the deal. He specifically asked how the U.S. would pay for the heavy water and what guarantees the administration had that the funds wouldn’t be used by Tehran to fund its military or terrorist groups.

3) The Obama administration will be keeping alive a part of Iran’s nuclear program that can be turned around and used for producing nuclear weapons:

Some nuclear experts said the U.S. move comes close to subsidizing Iran’s nuclear program in a bid to keep the agreement alive. They said Tehran’s production of heavy water will remain a concern, especially when the constraints on its nuclear program are lifted after 10 to 15 years as part of the agreement. “We shouldn’t be paying them for something they shouldn’t be producing in the first place,” said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank.

4) The administration’s broader goal for the sale is to mainstream Iran’s nuclear program and encourage other countries to begin relying on Iran for nuclear materials. That’s not extrapolation. It’s their actual spin, which is already appearing elsewhere this morning in sympathetic articles: that thanks to this purchase, Iran’s nuclear program will no longer be an international pariah and other countries will begin purchasing nuclear material from Iran [c]. Those countries will potentially be beyond future U.S. pressure, should a future administration want to limit Iran’s heavy water production:

The U.S. hopes its initial purchase will give other countries the confidence to purchase Iran’s heavy water in the coming years… U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said… “That will be a statement to the world: ‘You want to buy heavy water from Iran, you can buy heavy water from Iran. It’s been done. Even the United States did it.’”

[a] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov-2016-8-derestricted.pdf
[b] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0VZ2D1
[c] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/us-goes-shopping-iran-s-nuclear-bazaar-will-buy-heavy-water-science

Categories: Iran - Arak heavy water reactor, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and terror, Iran scam, Iranian heavy water sales, Iranian nukes, nuclear material, Obama and Iran
Tags: Iran - Arak heavy water reactor, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and terror, Iran Scam, Iranian heavy water sales, Iranian nukes, nuclear material, Obama and Iran

Comments: 1 Comment

Arab Press Reports On U.S.-Russia Understandings Allowing Assad To Remain In Power In Syria During Transitional Phase

April 22, 2016

Arab Press Reports On U.S.-Russia Understandings Allowing Assad To Remain In Power In Syria During Transitional Phase, MEMRI, N. Mozes*, April 22, 2016

(The analysis does not mention the Arab press’ reaction to the Putin – Obama agreement to turn Golan over to Syria. — DM)

According to many reports in the Arab press in recent days, alongside the indirect talks in Geneva between the Syrian regime and opposition that are being mediated by UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, the U.S. and Russia have been conducting separate secret talks to draw up understandings on resolving the crisis. The reports state that the U.S. is inclined to accept the position of the Syrian regime and its Russian ally, namely, that the idea of a transitional governing body should be abandoned in favor of a joint regime-opposition body, and that the Syrian regime should remain in the hands of President Bashar Al-Assad, at least in the transitional phase.

Concurrently, during his talks with the regime and opposition delegations, de Mistura presented an idea that he claims he did not initiate, which involves Assad remaining as a figurehead president and appointing deputies to whom he would delegate his political and military authority. It is hard to imagine that the U.S. and Russia were unaware of this proposal, which is in line with what has been reported on their own understandings regarding Assad’s remaining president during the transitional period. These reports, if true, show that the U.S. has backed down even further from its position vis-à-vis Assad and the Syrian opposition, and that it is disregarding the clause in the 2012 Geneva I communique calling for the establishment of a transitional body with full authority.

Arab press reports on these U.S.-Russia efforts increased greatly after Secretary of State John Kerry’s March 24, 2016 meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin. Following the meetings, Kerry said that both sides had agreed to step up their efforts to achieve a political transition in Syria and had agreed on a timetable and that a draft constitution would be submitted in August 2016.[1] On April 8, Kerry confirmed reports that the U.S. was further backing down from its previous position when he told the Saudi Al-Arabiya TV channel that while Assad can no longer lead his country in light of the many crimes he had committed, he would still be present at the start of the transitional phase. He added that if Assad would facilitate this phase, then a safe exit for him could be discussed.[2]

According to the Arab reports, the U.S.-Russia understandings would be imposed on the parties involved, as with the February 12, 2016 agreement on cessation of hostilities. In another similarity to that agreement, the Assad regime will be the main one to benefit.

This paper will review the reports on U.S.-Russia understandings on the Syrian crisis:

27751

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov (image: Orient-news.net, April 17, 2016)

Anti-Assad Media: American-Russian Deal Includes Assad Remaining In Power

On April 16, 2016, three days after the start of the third round of indirect talks in Geneva between the Syrian regime and opposition under the mediation of UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that Western diplomats “are warning that there will be a U.S.-Russia deal on Syria before the summer.” According to the report, it is the Americans who are pressuring the Russians to arrive at understandings that are to be “very close to the Russia proposal regarding the nature of the transitional phase, the regime, the constitution, and the elections.” The diplomats cited in the report said that the U.S. is trusting Moscow to find a solution for the Syrian crisis while ignoring Western and regional elements.[3]

The following day, the newspaper reported that the U.S. and Russia were discussing not only “regime leader Bashar Al-Assad’s remaining in power during the transitional phase, but also the central role he would play in it, including in drafting a constitution and in the elections set for 18 months after the start of negotiations between the sides.”[4] In a later report, the paper cited Western sources who warned against recycling “the Yemen model” under which Yemen president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh had officially been removed but had in effect remained in control of the armed forces and in possession of many political cards.[5]

On April 17, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat also reported on the U.S.-Russia talks. According to the daily, Robert Malley, the White House Coordinator for the Middle East and chief advisor to President Obama on Syria, and Putin’s Syria envoy Alexander Lavrentiev were holding intensive talks behind the scenes with the aim of drawing up “constitutional and political principles” based on a “political partnership” between the regime and the opposition, “in accordance with an improved Lebanese model.”[6] Under this proposal, the regime and opposition would share executive, military, security, legal, and constitutional authority. The newspaper also stated that Obama would present these understandings during his visit to the Gulf states on April 21, and that the Russians would present them to Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Qods Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who recently visited Moscow. The understandings would then be brought before Syrian regime representatives, and a “select list” of oppositionists who agree to a political solution.[7]

On April 18, 2016, the London-based daily Al-Arabi Al-Jadid reported that in light of the Geneva talks’ failure so far to bring the sides closer together, representatives of presidents Obama and Putin are working in Geneva to formulate an alternative plan in the event that the negotiations fail; this plan would be imposed on the sides via a UN Security Council resolution, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Two main proposals to resolve the crisis were presented at these U.S.-Russia Talks: The first is based on the principle of a “political partnership” among all elements of Syrian society, which would be more comprehensive than the 1989 Taif Agreement and would include leaving Assad in power, because he controls the main power base in Syria. The second proposal includes the establishment of a transitional council comprising eight technocrats; this council would lead the transitional phase.[8]

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov denied the reports about secret U.S.-Russia talks, stressing that they were “routine consultations.”[9] However, during the regime-opposition Geneva talks, de Mistura brought the delegations a proposal “from an expert” that also involved Assad’s remaining in power, at least temporarily. Under this proposal, he would continue to serve as president and would appoint three deputies to whom he would delegate his political and military authority and who would manage the country during the transitional phase.[10] It is hard to imagine that the U.S. and Russia, who sponsor the Geneva talks, were unaware of this proposal, which is in line with what has been reported on their own understandings regarding Assad’s remaining president during the transitional period.

As noted, these reports come in addition to similar reports in the Arab press following Kerry’s March 24 visit to Moscow that focused on a U.S.-Russia convergence on the issue of the Syrian crisis. Thus, the London-based Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported on March 29, 2016 that the U.S. and Russia had drawn up the general details of a three-point plan that includes general parliamentary elections under UN auspices, a new constitution, and creation of a presidential election mechanism allowing Assad to run “even though the U.S. would prefer that Russia persuade him not to do so.” The report also added that the president’s authority would be downgraded.[11] Al-Hayat reported on March 31 that Kerry had informed Arab countries that the U.S. and Russia had arrived at understandings that included Assad’s exit to another country, but not a timetable for it.[12]

On April 11, 2016, a Syrian oppositionist website reported that Russia had prepared an alternative plan in case the Geneva talks failed; it dictated the establishment of a military council comprising both regime and opposition elements; this council would rule the country and prepare for parliamentary and presidential elections. Under this plan, there would be no transitional phase and no interim ruling body, as neither are compatible with the current Syrian constitution. Russia reportedly presented this plan to Kerry during the latter’s Moscow visit, and Kerry assured his hosts that the U.S. would not oppose it but that Russia would have to persuade the opposition to accept it.[13]

Kerry: Assad Should Remain For Start Of Transitional Phase

The American administration’s statements on resolving the Syrian crisis are rife with internal contradictions. For example, officials repeatedly state that Assad is illegitimate because of his crimes against his people, and that he cannot unite Syria, but at the same time Kerry said that Russia and the U.S. have agreed that he should remain for the start of the transitional phase. This effectively confirms reports that the American position is moving closer to the Russian one, and that the former no longer objects to Assad’s remaining in power during the transitional phase.

In an April 8, 2016 interview, Kerry told the Saudi Al-Arabiya TV: “During the transitional phase, Assad will remain in power in accordance with the Geneva [I] communique, since this communique required joint [regime and opposition] consensus regarding the phase. This means that both Assad and the opposition must join this consensus… The U.S. and Russia have reached an agreement that was reached also with many other countries, that is, there is no escaping a transitional phase followed by a united, secular, and non-sectarian Syria… Likewise, we agreed that Assad should be present at the start of the transitional phase…

“The Russians have made it clear that Assad has assured them that he will participate in the transitional phase and support the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of presidential elections. If he does not meet his commitments, I do not believe the Russians will continue to support him.”

In response to the question of whether Assad would be allowed safe passage out of Syria if he agreed to step down, Kerry responded: “… If Assad is willing to be a constructive factor in the efforts to make peace in Syria, this safe passage would receive significant attention, and the sides should seriously consider this effort and enable Assad to live safely, which is what I wish for him…”[14]

On April 16, a Syrian opposition website also reported that the U.S. had agreed to postpone the debate on Assad’s fate, and stated that Kerry, on his April 7 visit to Bahrain, had told the Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers that Assad’s withdrawal from power should not be discussed at this time.[15]

U.S.-Russia Military Coordination

Although U.S. administration officials reject the prospect of military coordination with Russia and the Syrian regime against the Islamic State (ISIS), there are indications of U.S.-Russia coordination regarding military activity in Syrian territory. Thus, the Syrian Democratic Forces – an umbrella organization of Kurdish and Sunni Arab forces fighting ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra, and Islamist opposition factions – received aerial support from both the U.S.-led international coalition and the Russian air force during its takeover of the city of Al-Shaddadi in southern Al-Hasakah in northwest Syria.[16] On March 24, the Pentagon reported that international coalition jets had bombed an ISIS post near Tadmur.[17] A Syrian oppositionist website reported that this attack was carried out as regime forces, backed by the Russian air force, reached the outskirts of the city.[18]

The Syrian Opposition Fears That The U.S. Will Back Down Still More From Its Original Position

The Syrian opposition, represented by the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) that was established in Riyadh, expressed grave concern at the reports of an imminent U.S.-Russia deal enabling Assad to remain in power, and displeasure at the U.S. for not updating it on the details of such a deal. [19] On April 2, 2016, HNC general coordinator Riyad Hijab said: “It is clear that the U.S. has agreed with Russia on vague matters of whose nature we are not being informed… We do not fear rapprochement between the U.S and Russia, but rather the vagueness and opaqueness of these relations.”[20] Basma Qadmani, a member of the HNC delegation to the Geneva talks, stressed: “The American ambiguousness is disturbing to the Syrian opposition… We do not know what the U.S. discussed with Moscow. There are all sorts of rumors, and we are waiting for the U.S. to confirm that it still opposes leaving Assad in power.”[21]

In light of this ambiguity, HNC officials stressed that the purpose of the current Geneva talks was to establish a transitional governing body with full authority in accordance with the Geneva I communique, which they interpret as including Assad’s departure and a replacement of the existing regime.

* N. Mozes is a research fellow at MEMRI.

Endnotes:

[1] Nytimes.com, March 24, 2016.

[2] Alarabiya.net, April 8, 2016.

[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 16, 2016.

[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 17, 2016.

[5] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 18, 2016.

[6] A reference to the 1989 Taif Agreement that ended the Lebanese civil war and distributed political, civil, and military authority in the country along sectarian lines. Past reports indicated an intention to implement the Lebanese model in Syria as well.

[7] Al-Hayat (London), April 17, 2016.

[8] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), April 18, 2016.

[9] Sputniknews.com, April 18, 2016.

[10] Webtv.un.org, April 18, 2016.

[11] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), March 29, 2016.

[12] Al-Hayat (London), March 31, 2016.

[13] Orient-news.net, April 11, 2016.

[14] Alarabiya.net, April 8, 2016.

[15] Alsouria.net, April 16, 2016.

[16] Orient-news.net, February 19, February 20, 2016.

[17] Defense.gov, March 24, 2016.

[18] Zamanalwsl.net, March 24, 2016.

[19] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6280, Syrian Opposition On Eve Of Geneva Talks: U.S. Made ‘A Scary Retreat’ From Its Former Position, January 27, 2016.

[20] Etilaf.org, April 2, 2016.

[21] Orient-news.net, April 3, 2016.

Categories: Arab media, Assad, Foreign policy, Iran - Syria war, Kerry, Obama and Russia, Obama and Syria, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: Arab media, Assad, Foreign Policy, Iran - Syria war, Kerry, Obama and Russia, Obama and Syria, Russia - Syrian war

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama: Uncontrolled Migration a “Major National Security Issue”

April 22, 2016

Obama: Uncontrolled Migration a “Major National Security Issue” Power Line, John Hinderaker, April 22, 2016

In Europe, that is. CNN, covering President Obama’s trip to the U.K., tweeted a little while ago:

CNN Breaking News

Obama: “We consider it a major national security issue that you have uncontrolled migration into Europe.”

11:51 AM – 22 Apr 2016

Huh. The same principle apparently doesn’t apply here. Maybe someone should tell him about the news story that Scott linked to this morning:

One of the American men accused in Minnesota of trying to join the Islamic State group wanted to open up routes from Syria to the U.S. through Mexico, prosecutors said.

Gules Ali Omar told the ISIS members about the route so that it could be used to send members to America to carry out terrorist attacks, prosecutors alleged in a document filed this week.

Millions of Americans have been trying to tell Obama and Congress for some years now that uncontrolled migration into the U.S. is a “major national security issue.” Funny how the same standard doesn’t seem to apply here.

Categories: Europe, Illegal immigration, Islamic State, Obama and European Union, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, U.S. borders
Tags: Europe, Illegal immigration, Islamic State, Obama and European Union, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, U.S. borders

Comments: 1 Comment

Top Senate Democrat chides Netanyahu over ‘untimely’ Golan remarks

April 22, 2016

Top Senate Democrat chides Netanyahu over ‘untimely’ Golan remarks, Jerusalem Post, April 22, 2016

(So Netanyahu should remain silent when Obama and Putin propose to give Golan to Israel’s long time enemy, Syria? — DM)

Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, counseled Israel to focus more on peace with the Palestinians.

Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said declaring Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights was not “timely” while Syria was mired in civil war.

He counseled Israel to focus more on peace with the Palestinians.

“Syria is in a state of war, the whole area is in flux,” Cardin, D-Md., said Thursday when he was asked about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration this week that “the Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands.”

“I don’t think it’s timely to figure out what’s happening in the north when there is an active war in Syria,” Cardin said of Netanyahu.

“Ultimately you’re going to need to have some type of recognition factor and you don’t have a government you can negotiate with and talk with in Syria,” said Cardin, who was meeting foreign policy reporters during a break from Senate votes.

The Obama administration this week reiterated longstanding US policy that the strategic plateau captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War was not part of Israel, and that its fate should be determined through negotiations.

“I would love to see a peace process and deal with the West Bank and Gaza,” he said. “And that to me is the most important chapter for Israel right now, is to advance the peace process toward a two-state solution for the Palestinians and Israelis. That to me is the most urgent need.”

Cardin is close to pro-Israel groups and has made clear in the past that he believes it is wrong to place the burden on Israel to renew talks, saying that the Palestinians must end incitement and return to talks with Israel suspended in 2014.

He was one of just four Senate Democrats who voted last year against the Iran nuclear deal, which Netanyahu vehemently opposed, and the senator was in the region just weeks ago, and met with Netanyahu.

Cardin also said he favors renewing the Iran Sanctions Act, due to expire this year, although Obama administration officials fear its renewal would rankle Iran and undercut the sanctions relief for nuclear rollback deal.

Cardin said there was broad agreement in Congress that the act needs renewing in order to keep in place sanctions that would be revived if Iran violates the deal. Obama administration officials say the president has the discretion to kick in sanctions should he need to.

The senator said he also hopes to pass new sanctions against Iran for testing ballistic missiles, a violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Current Republican proposals to renew the Iran Sanctions Act or to sanction Iran for its missile testing seem aimed at undercutting the Iran deal, Cardin said, a path he opposes even though he voted against the deal.

Categories: Democrats, Golan, Israel borders, Netanyahu, Syria, U.S. Congress
Tags: Democrats, Golan, Israel borders, Netanyahu, Syria, U.S. Congress

Comments: 1 Comment

I Love Islam

April 22, 2016

I Love Islam, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, April 22, 2016

Islamic schools in US

What Muslim-American children are being taught.

What are Muslim-American children being taught in private Islamic schools? We can learn about some of it by looking at the I Love Islam series used to teach elementary-level Muslim-American children about Islam. This series consists of five textbooks, each with a corresponding workbook and teacher/parent guide. It is published by the Islamic Services Foundation (ISF). According to the introduction to the series, its purpose is to gradually introduce Muslim students “to the essentials of their faith” by bringing “to light the historic and cultural aspects of Islam.” And according to the ISF website, the I Love Islam series “is one of the best-selling Islamic curriculums in the US and Canada.”

So what does this series teach?

It’s Palestine, not Israel

When it comes to showing the State of Israel, this series takes two approaches in depicting maps of the Middle East.

In the first approach, the geographical boundaries of the State of Israel are shown, but Israel is not named. The first example of this is on p. B7 of I Love Islam 1. Here states such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt are named; but there is no such mention of Israel. An interesting addition is found when this same map is used again on p. B2 of I Love Islam 2. On this map, the geographical boundaries of the State of Israel are now labeled “Palestine.” On p. A24 of I Love Islam 4, there is another map titled “Map of Palestine”; it includes the geographical boundaries of the State of Israel. This map shows the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, which is labeled “Occupied by Israel”; this is the only mention of Israel on that map.

With the second approach, Israel is mentioned on other maps used in this series. However, these maps are noticeably different from the maps mentioned above, in that these latter maps have more details and the print can be much smaller. The nature of these maps is so different from the ones used in the first approach that they appear to have been taken from some type of geography book. So if one looks closely (a magnifying glass helps), the name “Israel” can be found on the following three maps: I Love Islam 2, p. D13 (a map focusing on Egypt); and I Love Islam 4, pp. F8 and F24 (maps focusing on the African continent). But the small print and the extensive details on these maps would most likely deter the average elementary school-age student from examining them closely.

So in reality the Muslim-American children are being taught that the State of Israel does not exist. And, correspondingly, throughout this series the location for the city of Jerusalem is repeatedly stated as being in “Palestine”.^{^[i]}

Christians are in the “lowest status”

The Muslim-American children are taught this about Christians:

Many Christians believe that God has three parts:

God the father,
God the son, or Jesus Christ
God the Holy Spirit

In Christianity this is known as the Trinity. It says that the one God consists of three people. AstaghfiruAllah!^[[ii]] This is also a major form of shirk. As Muslims we know that God is the only Creator of the Universe. God or Allah does not have a father or a son and cannot be divided into two or three parts.

I Love Islam 5, p. A41

Shirk is the worst sin in Islam. The Muslim-American children learn that those who commit Shirk fall “from a very high status to the lowest one,” and are “forbidden” to enter Heaven.[iii] So Christians have fallen to “the lowest status” and are forbidden from entering Heaven.

The Muslim-American children learn that a person who commits Shirk is called a Mushrik.[iv] And the plural form ofMushrik is Mushrikun, so Christians are Mushrikun.

But why does it matter if Muslim-American children are being taught that Christians are Mushrikun? Because they are also being taught to learn and practice the teachings of the Koran.[v] So what does the Koran say about Mushrikun?

Here are some verses dealing with Mushrikun from a popular, authoritative translation of the Koran: Interpretation of The Meanings of the Noble Qur’an:[vi]

9:5 – Muslims are commanded to kill Christians unless the Christians convert to Islam:

Then when the Sacred Months (the 1^st, 7^th, 11^th, and 12^th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (the prayers), and give Zakat (obligatory charity), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:28 – Christians are impure and forbidden from entering Mecca:

O you who believe (in Allah’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year…

9:33 – Islam will be superior to Christianity, even though the Christians don’t like it.

It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

9:113 – Muslims are forbidden from asking Allah to forgive Christians who die as Christians:

It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allah’s forgiveness for the Mushrikun ((polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in a state of disbelief).

15:94 – Muslims are to shun Christians.

Therefore proclaim openly (Allah’s Message – Islamic Monotheism) that which you are commanded, and turn away from Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, and disbelievers).

98:6 – Christians are among the worst of creatures (there is a double-tap here).

Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun, will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

So the I Love Islam series ultimately teaches that Christians commit the worst sin in Islam; they are impure and forbidden from entering Mecca; Muslims are to shun them and not pray for them, but rather are to fight against them; that Christians are among the “worst of creatures”; and Islam is to be superior to Christianity.

The Example of Muhammad

Rasoolullah [Muhammad] was the best Muslim ever, and his job was to show all the Muslims the best way to do things. If we follow him, we will have a better understanding of how to practice Islam.

I Love Islam 4, p. C19

Throughout this series Muhammad is continuously lauded as the perfect role model to be followed if one wants to become an excellent Muslim. And it is specifically mentioned that the Sira (Seerah) of Muhammad “is there for us to learn lessons from.”[vii] The Sira is the authoritative biography of Muhammad, titled The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah).^{^[viii]} Here are some of the examples of Muhammad found in the Sira that “show all the Muslims the best way to do things”:

Muhammad ordered adulterers to be stoned to death – pp. 266-267, 652, and 684.
After a tribe was defeated, Muhammad would distribute some of the captured women and children among the Muslim warriors, and sell others of the captives – pp. 466, 511, and 791, n. 914.
Muhammad possessed and gave away slaves – pp. 499, 511, 576, 593, and 677.
Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 captured Jewish males – p. 464.
Muhammad said that Muslims could beat their wives, “but not with severity” – p. 651.

Children, try your best to be like the Prophet, to think and act like him. This is why it is so important for us to learn the Seerah!

I Love Islam 2, p. B46

Conclusion

Elementary school is where children really start learning about the world around them. Beliefs and attitudes can be formed that may be difficult or impossible to later change. This brief overview of the I Love Islam series gives us an insight into what many Muslim-American children are being taught about Israel, Christians, and proper conduct in their lives. These “essentials” of Islam should not be comforting to non-Muslims.

____________________________

[i] I Love Islam 1, p. D47; I Love Islam 1, Teacher/Parent Guide, p. 115; I Love Islam 2, p. D28; I Love Islam 3, p. D63; I Love Islam 3, Workbook, Unit D, Chapter 6, Exercise 2; I Love Islam 4, pp. A21 and A24; and I Love Islam 4, Teacher/Parent Guide, p. 24.

[ii] I seek forgiveness from Allah! – An expression of shame or disapproval.

[iii] I Love Islam 5, pp. A46 and A48.

[iv] I Love Islam 5, p. A39.

[v] I Love Islam 2, p. C7.

[vi] Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007).

[vii] I Love Islam 2, Teacher/Parent Guide, p. 57.

[viii] Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Categories: Islam and Christianity, Islam in America, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic tolerance, Islamism, Islamists in America, Israel, Palestinians and Jews
Tags: Islam and Christianity, Islam in America, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic tolerance, Islamism, Islamists in America, Israel, Palestinians and Jews

Comments: 2 Comments

The Intellectual Case For Trump II: Trump Is The Culture Warrior We Need

April 22, 2016

The Intellectual Case For Trump II: Trump Is The Culture Warrior We Need, The Federalist, Mytheos Holt, April 20, 2016

A candidate like Donald Trump should be impossible. A loud, unscripted, hard-edged reality show-style candidate with exceedingly flexible positions on many hot-button issues would be laughed out of contention for the Republican nomination in other years. A man whose serial gaffes and willingness to stick his thumb in the eye of the gatekeepers of good taste would be cooked before he stepped onto the debate stage. An utterly inexperienced politician, who describes our rights and privileges as particular to us as Americans rather than universal moral mandates, would be rejected by both parties at any other time in the modern era.

But in Trump’s case, these supposedly disqualifying positions and attributes have proven to be the basis for unexpected success. Why? In part, it is because he corrects massive ideological failures by the Right, which have enabled unmitigated cultural overreach by the Left, eliminating the social and cultural basis that permits a Western liberal order to exist.

For decades, the institutional Right has ceded American culture to the Left, in spite of many voices who pointed out ample areas where the Right could carve out a countercultural movement against leftist domination, or even co-opt some of modern culture for itself.

The cause of this is partially a denial of how swiftly the culture has moved Left, leaving the institutional Right under the false impression it is still fighting the culture war of the 90’s and early 2000s. The Right’s obsession with 90’s-era battles over sex, drugs, and rock and roll is more than just an anachronism: it represents a self-inflicted wound that ignored how the Left used the culture to repeatedly make the case for their vision of an ideal society. We now know the Left won that war, and in this context, Trump represents the first candidate for whom success could only come after a culture war apocalypse.

The Right of the ‘Young Fogies’

The culture wars permitted the Right to be taken over by what Jeffrey Hart—Richard Nixon speechwriter, sometime National Review editor, and all-around conservative giant—described as “young fogies.” Hart describes the phenomenon in an essay titled “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to a Modern American Conservatism,” in which he envisions as a dialogue between himself and a younger woman of the era. Here is Hart’s warning:

A lot of my students are not sold on conservatism.[…] They think conservatives are preppies who are against sex. […] In some visible cases, the main content of ‘conservatism’ seems to be a refusal of experience. We have more than our share of young fogies. I could name some names, but what the hell. In my view, young fogie American conservatives…place an altogether disproportionate emphasis on sex and sex-related moral questions. […] Some conservatives appear to confuse Victorian morality with the Western tradition, and even with Christianity.

Hart wrote those words in 1982, when candidates like Ronald Reagan were still winning young voters. But the “young fogie-ism” Hart warned against was already becoming a significant portion of the Republican brand, one that extended through the anti-video game, anti-rap, anti-sex, anti-sideboob, anti-violence handwringing that became an integral part of the Republican persona over the next two decades.

Trump is many things, but a fogie he is not. On the surface, Trump’s gold-plated lifestyle is nothing like the old Hollywood-style glamour of the Reagan White House. But for an era where most Americans have moved far beyond the culture wars of the past, where reality stars are our new tastemakers and Kim Kardashian is an icon mothers encourage their daughters to emulate, he offers an aspirational vision of wealth and accomplishment that appeals to the same combination of glitz and celebrity.

The Left Turns the Market Against the Right

Obsessing over the lost culture wars of the past is an error for the Right. But the real problem is that even if the Right hasn’t moved on from its previous losses, the Left has moved on from its previous victories. They remain focused on advancing their vision and building on their victories, to the point of eradicating any opposition from the public square. As a result, the character of the Left has fundamentally changed in a way that today’s Right seems quite incapable of grasping.

Hannah Arendt once quipped that the fiercest revolutionary becomes a devoted conservative after the revolution. This is certainly true of the Left, which has, since its culture war victories, co-opted much of the dogma of earlier conservatives and poisoned it. The old Left cast itself as transgressors against mainstream morality. This Left enforces and controls mainstream morality. The old Left championed transgressive free speech. This Left despises it.

Most importantly, the old Left cast itself as outside of capitalism. This Left is thoroughly corporatist, and only occasionally pretends otherwise. As a result, conservatives have stood by, oblivious and helpless, as the Left began to turn all our best weapons—especially the free market—against us.

This brings us to a second point: the inadequacy of the institutional Right at anticipating and explaining free markets. Conservatives and libertarians have been warning of capitalism cannibalizing itself since at least 1942, when Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter opened his book “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy” with disturbing news for his free market-sympathetic peers.

“I felt it my duty to take, and to inflict upon the reader, considerable trouble in order to lead up effectively to my paradoxical conclusion: capitalism is being killed by its achievements,” Schumpeter wrote. Much later on in the book, he observed even more cuttingly that “capitalism, inevitably and by virtue of the very logic its civilization creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.”

Cultural Neutrality Is Not Possible

Schumpeter was right then, and he is distressingly right now. The cancer of leftism has spread through capitalism even further than it had in 1942. The general assumption of the American people in the aftermath of the financial crisis and the collapse and bailouts of Wall Street is that they were witnessing failures of capitalism, and the Right has done little to correct this impression.

Trump’s brazenness in admitting to past acts of cronyism is another aspect that would, for any other politician, spell his doom. Instead, it has fostered a greater degree of trust from his supporters. This is because Trump alone seems to understand that capitalism has weaknesses at all, having been a capitalist himself. The greatest of those is the fact that capitalism—and its defenders—assume it can operate from a position of cultural neutrality. It can’t.

In the latest season of “South Park,” the titular town is overrun with advertisements masquerading as human beings: soulless robots who use gentrification and political correctness (“mental gentrification,” the show wryly notes) to eliminate actual human beings from the area. This idea that a certain species of capitalism might actually drive political correctness is daring and interesting, and relatively unremarked upon by those on the Right today.

The Left Treats Race and Sex as Brands

One of the key tactics of advertisers is to make consumers feel their life is missing something without whatever product the advertiser is selling. If you look at ads that attempt to showcase the difference between, say, data packages from different cell phone carriers, you’ll often see the competition depicted as holding back their customers from the awesome data package they could have because of greed, technological incompetence, or some other abstraction that, of course, the advertised carrier doesn’t suffer from.

Once someone buys a product, you want them to feel allegiance to it, a degree of brand loyalty that can sometimes resemble political tribalism (see Apple). The aim is to make customers believe that someone who consumes that particular product belongs to a community of other buyers, who just happen to be a particularly desirable community to be a part of!

When you distill it down to its essence, the worst forms of modern leftist politics play on all of these same tactics, playing down the ramifications of policy agendas to speak to a much deeper and emotional desire to be a good person. Did you vote for Barack Obama because you wanted to feel good about yourself, but still feel life’s missing something? Vote for Bernie Sanders, and he’ll deliver on the promise to give you everything you need. Not getting the wage you could be getting? It’s the patriarchy, so switch carriers and join our feminist army for Hillary instead.

The Left treats race and sex as brands, operating with messaging and tactics that are more than just organizing techniques: they’re a brilliant technique to capture someone without the insight to see through the pitch. The Left has realized it can succeed by creating cultural turf wars among different demographics as a substitute for a policy agenda that speaks to their real needs.

The Political Equivalent of Gawker

In this, they break from the past in many respects. Bill Clinton himself revealed how significant this shift was when he challenged Black Lives Matter. Clinton was advancing a policy argument in defense of his approach to crime in the 1990s, in the face of protesters who would hear none of it. His arguments were based on the facts, where the BLM protesters’ signs were based on the equivalent of brand loyalty to a cultural movement. No matter how correct Clinton’s case was, it inevitably fell on deaf ears.

The point is that the post-culture war Left has not laid down their arms. Instead, they have become the political equivalent of Gawker: a divisive industry seeking cultural flashpoints to exploit and highlight, devoted to manufacturing mutual hate for their own benefit. They thrive on the click-war hate that pits groups against each other.

It is not enough that women face challenges within a post-feminist society—they must be told that half the country is participating in a war on their priorities. In an atomized culture, breaking down people to the elements of ethnicity, sex, and gender is the Left’s go-to method of redefining society according to their priorities.

This is a key point that cannot be ignored. Because of the modern Left’s sophisticated use of advertising techniques, they have done something with their hatemongering that the Left of the past could only dream of: they have made it profitable. In so doing, they have turned a capitalist tactic on the culture that sustains it, and thus, on itself.

The Right Needs a New Cultural Vision

The Right must fight back against that. Yes, free markets remain the best economic system ever created, and a necessary precondition for a free society, but not a sufficient one. Does this mean the state has to get involved? Not necessarily. Conservatives could use another weapon to limit the spread of this kind of poison, and that’s culture.

Unfortunately, what little of a cultural vision we possess on the Right is so dated as to be largely hokey and irrelevant to the experience of Americans today. Because this new Left has become the dominant culture, the Right is obliged to form a counterculture. But countercultures are no place for young fogies. Countercultures shoot sacred cows, scandalize “respectable” norms, and generally wreak havoc for the sake of breaking down the hypocrisy and weakness of the dominant culture. By and large, it’s still the young fogies who run the show, and expecting them to create a counterculture, let alone a counterculture that produces actual art, is ludicrous.

The Right doesn’t have to conjure up its own art from scratch. It can and occasionally has co-opted modern entertainment as well. After all, don’t films like Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” series make the most powerful statement about the tension between chaos and civilization since John Ford? Don’t Nietzschean fairy tales like “Breaking Bad,” “House of Cards,” or even “True Detective,” not to mention most video games, utterly brush aside the Left’s fantasies about Rousseauistic, universal human goodness? Well, yes—but once again, Hart’s warning looms large, and fogie-ism rears its head.

An excellent example of this is an article titled “A Counterproductive Alliance,” discusing the increasing friendliness to right-wing ideas among video game fans after the #Gamergate controversy. The gist of the article can be summed up as: “How will we maintain our air of moral superiority if people show up to CPAC in costumes instead ofblazers and bowties?” Never mind that #Gamergate and movements like it were the most successful backlash against political correctness: for some “conservatives,” sayingyes to potential allies was too much to bear if it meant hobnobbing with the sorts of people who’ve never read a Bible or owned a varsity jacket.

Beat Dominant Culture at Its Own Game

This leaves the Right in a vulnerable and very unenviable spot: the most anachronistic elements of right-wing politics have rendered us too unimaginative to create a counterculture of our own, and too snobbish to appropriate the elements of the dominant culture that could serve as building blocks.

What’s a conservative who wants to stop culture, and thus politics, from being dragged to the far Left do? Answer: He or she has to hope that some part of mainstream culture co-opts the Right. Pray, in other words, that some Prometheus comes along who’s willing to steal fire from his fellow cultural elites to give to the Right’s forgotten constituencies, even if it annoys their more refined leaders.

Perhaps, say, some titanic elite figure who knows leftist pop culture’s weaknesses from the inside, and is willing to lose his cozy insider status to go at it like a wrecking ball? You know, the sort of person with enough cultural cachet to turn an episode of “Saturday Night Life” into an hour-long infomercial for his political vision, rather than a source of endless sneering gags about Republicans? The kind of person who can get away with barking orders at MSNBC hosts? That kind of person?

Oh look, it’s Donald Trump. Trump, alone among the 2016 Republican candidates, has been willing to seize the banner of the Right in the current culture war, and plant it straight in the backs of his fallen leftist antagonists. Trump did this the way countercultural warriors are supposed to win fights: he beat the dominant culture at its own game by rejecting their assumptions about what was allowed.

Hoisted on Their Own Petards

Compared to Trump at his most mocking and satirical, Gawker is tame. Compared to Trump at his most daring and impetuous, even the most ruthless of Hollywood’s antiheroes look peevish. Compared to Trump’s seemingly oblivious moments of benevolence, Upworthy looks mawkish and saccharine. Trump has made destroying the young fogies on the Right and Left the greatest thing on TV.

If the leaders of the Right are scared of Trump because he will say anything; the Left is scared of Trump precisely because he will say anything. He does not play by the rules, and that makes him less predictable and more dangerous. What Ronald Reagan and Trump have in common is obvious: an incredible capacity to use the media to captivate the American people. One learned this in Hollywood, the other in reality TV, but both deployed this skill to great effect.

There is, of course, a big difference, as well: everyone knows Reagan cast himself as a sunny, heroic figure. Trump, on the other hand, is taking his cues from his time as a pro-wrestling heel personality, i.e., a comically larger-than-life villain. But there’s a neat thing about villains, or at least well-done ones: they get to show where people’s ideas of good and evil fall flat. Trump does this brilliantly to the Left. He has taken the humiliating mockery that the media has trained so effectively on “hicks,” Christians, and Republicans, and turned it round to expose the smug, mostly leftist Babbits and young fogies of the Acela Corridor as no less ridiculous.

That’s a good start for someone who wants to make America great again, rather than letting America succumb to its eventual, leftist-driven death by a thousand clicks.

Categories: 2016 elections, American culture, Democrats, Donald Trump, Leftists, Rightists
Tags: American culture, Democrats, Donald Trump, Leftists, Rightists

Comments: 4 Comments

Happy Passover! Celebrate Freedom with the IDF!

April 22, 2016

Happy Passover! Celebrate Freedom with the IDF! IDF via YouTube, April 22, 2016

And Happy Passover from Warsclerotic!

Categories: IDF, Passover
Tags: IDF, Passover

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama: Britain Should Stay in the EU Because Of Iran, Climate Change, TTIP, And Because Sovereignty Is Outdated

April 22, 2016

Obama: Britain Should Stay in the EU Because Of Iran, Climate Change, TTIP, And Because Sovereignty Is Outdated, Breitbart, Raheem Kassam, April 21, 2016

Obama and EU

Getty

U.S. President Barack Obama has penned an opinion column in Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper outlining why he believes Britain should remain in the European Union (EU). The core of his arguments are: that Britain’s voice would be lost without Brussels bureaucrats; his failing deal with the largest state sponsor of terrorism; the pro-mass-privatisation TTIP deal; and the fact that dead American servicemen are buried in Europe.

One might argue that he has failed to read the room.

Just as President Obama parodied himself in his multitude of snubs to Britain during his tenure, he has, probably unknowingly, lampooned himself again – which hasn’t gone unnoticed by staff at the Telegraph themselves, when tweeting out his column tonight.

✔‎@MichaelPDeacon

Introducing the Telegraph’s new columnisthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you-that-the-eu-makes-britain-even-gr/ …pic.twitter.com/g7zCGlA5m0

✔‎@MichaelPDeacon

He’ll be doing a weekly notebook column plus the occasional gig review

4:55 PM – 21 Apr 2016

President Obama begins by talking up the United Nations and NATO: institutions that are increasingly being called into question not just in Britain, but across Europe and further afield. And he acknowledges the timing of his visit is poor to say the least, jesting:

“I realise that there’s been considerable speculation – and some controversy – about the timing of my visit. And I confess: I do want to wish Her Majesty a happy birthday in person.”

But his op-ed column takes a turn for the bizarre when he mentions the U.S. servicemen who died defending sovereignty and freedom in Europe. This is perhaps especially concerning when he is effectively backing a new German takeover of the continent. He writes:

“The tens of thousands of Americans who rest in Europe’s cemeteries are a silent testament to just how intertwined our prosperity and security truly are. And the path you choose now will echo in the prospects of today’s generation of Americans as well.”

And then comes the attack on the idea of sovereign nations themselves. President Obama insists that “collective action” is more pressing than the idea of independent countries: a notion that those same American servicemen died fighting against:

“And in today’s world, even as we all cherish our sovereignty, the nations who wield their influence most effectively are the nations that do it through the collective action that today’s challenges demand.”

President Obama then goes on to cite the nuclear deal with Iran that has emboldened the country – the globe’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and enemy of the Western world and its allies:

“When we negotiated the historic deal to verifiably prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it was collective action, working together with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, that got the job done. And the EU’s seat at the table magnified the United Kingdom’s voice.

“When the climate agreement in Paris needed a push, it was the European Union, fortified by the United Kingdom, that ultimately helped make that agreement possible.”

Finally, President Obama discusses the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal – now widely known to be a corporate lobbyist effort to privatise Britain’s National Health Service en masse and give corporations the right to sue governments. It is massively unpopular with the socialist left and the nationalist right, yet he says:

“When it comes to creating jobs, trade, and economic growth in line with our values, the UK has benefited from its membership in the EU – inside a single market that provides enormous opportunities for the British people. And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests, and establish the high-standard, pro-worker rules for trade and commerce in the 21st century economy.”

Just this week France threatened to derail the entire deal.

Conclusively, one might argue that President Obama’s op-ed is a litany of unpopular, establishment narratives. The most worrying thing about it? Most people aren’t likely to have a clue what he’s talking about.

Categories: Britain, European Union, Obama and European Union
Tags: Britain, European Union, Obama and European Union

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives