Archive for September 2017

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Europe: What do Islamic Parties Want?

September 29, 2017

Europe: What do Islamic Parties Want? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, September 29, 2017

In Belgium, several Islamic parties are preparing to run in the next elections. Dyab Abu Jahjah, apparently behind one of them, while not having presented a formal platform yet, has said he wants to “be part of an egalitarian radical renaissance that will conquer Brussels, Belgium, Europe and the whole world, with new politics of radical equality… defeat the forces of supremacy… of sustained privileges … of the status-quo… in every possible arena”.

How many Europeans are even paying attention to their agendas?

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

Sweden’s Jasin party is not unique. Islamist parties have begun to emerge in many European countries, such as the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, and France.

In the Netherlands, Denk ran on a platform against the integration of immigrants into Dutch society (instead advocating “mutual acceptance”, a euphemism for creating parallel Muslim societies); and for establishment of a “racism police” that would register “offenders” and exclude them from holding public office.

“I consider every death of an American, British or Dutch soldier as a victory”. — Dyab Abu Jahjah, leader of a group called Movement X and possibly starting an Islamist party in Belgium. The Belgian political magazine Knack named Jahjah the country’s fourth-most influential person.

The “I.S.L.A.M” party, founded in 2012, is working to implement Islamic law, sharia, in Belgium. The party already has branches in the Brussels districts of Anderlecht, Molenbeek and Liege. The party wants to “translate religion into practice”.

In France, as the journalist Yves Mamou recently reported, the PEJ has already approved 68 candidates and wants to abolish the separation of church and state, make veils mandatory for schoolgirls in public schools, introduce halalfood in all schools and fight “Islamophobia”.

Sweden’s brand new first Islamic party, Jasin, is aiming to run for the 2018 parliamentary elections. According to the website of the party, Jasin is a “multicultural, democratic, peaceful party” that is “secular” and aims to “unite everyone from the East… regardless of ethnicity, language, race, skin color or religion”. Jasin apparently knows what the Swedes like to hear.

In an interview, the founder and spokesperson of the party, Mehdi Hosseini, who came from Iran to Sweden 30 years ago, revealed that the leader of the new political party, Sheikh Zoheir Eslami Gheraati, does not actually live in Sweden. He is an Iranian imam, who lives in Teheran, but Jasin wants to bring him to Sweden: “I thought he was such a peaceful person who would be able to manifest the peaceful side of Islam. I think that is needed in Sweden,” said Hosseini.

The purpose of the Jasin party, however, does not appear to be either secular or multicultural. In its application to the Swedish Election Authority, the party writes — with refreshing honesty — that it will “firstly follow exactly what the Koran says, secondly what Shiite imams say”. The Jasin party also states that it is a “non-jihadi and missionary organization, which will spread Islam’s real side, which has been forgotten and has been transformed from a beautiful to a warlike religion…”

In mid-September, the Swedish Election Authority informed Jasin that it failed to deliver the needed signatures, but that it is welcome to try again. Anna Nyqvist, from the Swedish Election Authority, said that a political party with an anti-democratic or Islamic agenda is eligible to run for parliament if the party’s application fulfills all formalities. Nyqvist considers it unproblematic that the leader of the party lives in Iran. “This is the essence of democracy, that all views should be allowed. And it is up to them to choose their party leader”, Nyqvist said.

Sweden’s Jasin Party is not unique. Islamist parties have begun to emerge in many European countries, such as the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, and France.

In the Netherlands, two Dutch Turks, former members of the Socialist party, founded a new party, Denk, only six months before the Dutch parliamentary elections. Despite the short timeframe, they managed to get one-third of the Muslim vote and three seats in parliament. The party does not hide its affinity for Turkey: Criticism of Turkey is taboo just as is their refusal to name the Turkish mass-slaughter of the Armenians during the First World War a genocide. The party ran on a platform against the integration of immigrants into Dutch society (instead advocating “mutual acceptance”, a euphemism for creating parallel Muslim societies); and for establishment of a “racism police” that would register “offenders” and exclude them from holding public office.

In Austria, Turkish Muslims also formed a new party, the New Movement for the Future (NBZ), established in January 2017. According to its founder, Adnan Dincer, the NBZ is not an Islamic party or a Turkish party, despite being composed mainly of Turkish Muslims. Several of the party’s Facebook posts are written only in Turkish. Dincer has made no secret of the fact that his party strongly backs Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom it publicly supported at the time of the coup attempt in August 2016, and the subsequent clampdown by the Erdogan government.

In Belgium, several Islamic parties are preparing to run in the next elections. Dyab Abu Jahjah, apparently behind one of them, while not having presented a formal platform yet, has said he wants to “be part of an egalitarian radical renaissance that will conquer Brussels, Belgium, Europe and the whole world, with new politics of radical equality… defeat the forces of supremacy… of sustained privileges … of the status-quo… in every possible arena”.

Jahjah is a Lebanese immigrant, who emerged on the European scene, when he founded the now defunct Brussels-based Arab-European League in 2001. It was a pan-European political group aiming to create a Europe-wide “sharocracy” — a supposedly sharia-based “democracy”. In 2001, after the September 11 terror attacks, Jahjah said that he and many Muslims had felt a “sweet revenge feeling”. In 2004, Jahjah said that he supported the killing of foreign troops in Iraq. “I consider every death of an American, British or Dutch soldier as a victory”. He has also been opposed to the assimilation of Muslims, which he has described as “cultural rape”.

Jahjah used to be considered a Hezbollah-supporting extremist, and, although he describes himself as a “political friend” of Jeremy Corbyn, he was banned from entering Britain. In Belgium, however, he is seen as a respectable activist, leader of a group called Movement X, and formerly with his own weekly column in the Belgian daily De Standaard. The Belgian political magazine Knack named Jahjah the country’s fourth-most influential person, just behind Manchester City footballer Vincent Kompany. In January 2017, however, De Standaard fired Jahjah after he praised a terror attack in Jerusalem. “By any means necessary, #freepalestine,” Jahjah had tweeted after an Muslim ISIS-affiliated terrorist plowed a truck through a crowd of young Israeli soldiers visiting Jerusalem, killing four and injuring countless others.

Dyab Abu Jahjah, named by the political magazine Knack as Belgium’s fourth-most influential person, said after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that he and many Muslims had felt a “sweet revenge feeling”. In 2004, he said that he supported the killing of foreign troops in Iraq. (Left-pane image source: Han Soete/Wikimedia Commons)

Jahjah will likely experience fierce competition from the “I.S.L.A.M” party, founded in 2012, and working to implement Islamic law, sharia, in Belgium. The party already has branches in the Brussels districts of Anderlecht, Molenbeek and Liege. The party wants to “translate religion into practice”. One member explained that, “It’s no coincidence that we started in Brussels. Here there are a lot of Muslims… who are not allowed to come forward with their identity too much…They are therefore frustrated. That can lead to radicalization”.

The party has put forth a mayoral candidate for the Brussels municipal elections in 2018: Michel Dardenne, who converted to Islam in 2002. In his program, Dardenne speaks mainly of how much the party respects Belgian democracy and its constitution, while simply wanting to help an undefined populace against “the elites”. He may have found it easier to appeal to “progressive” non-Muslims that way. Brussels, 25% Muslim, has enormous potential for Islamic parties.

In France, several Islamic parties are also preparing to run in elections. One party is the PEJ, established in 2015 by French-Turkish Muslims and reportedly connected to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP. As the journalist Yves Mamou recently reported, the PEJ has already approved 68 candidates and wants to abolish the separation of church and state, make veils mandatory for schoolgirls in public schools, introduce halal food in all schools and fight “Islamophobia”.

How many Europeans are even paying attention to their agendas?

Categories: Islamic political parties in Europe, Islamisation of Europe
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Court Nominee Upheld Rights of Police Against Holder DOJ Misconduct

September 29, 2017

Trump Court Nominee Upheld Rights of Police Against Holder DOJ Misconduct, PJ Media, J. Christian Adams, September 29, 2017

(The excerpt from an article identifying Tom Perez as the Secretary of Labor was written before Mr. Perez, an Obama appointee, was replaced by President Trump’s appointee R. Alexander Acosta, who was sworn in on April 28, 2017. — DM)

Bernstein is still employed at the Civil Rights Division.

Ironically, Bernstein’s boss is now one Tamara Kessler, an ideological partisan and law enforcement foe in her own right, whom the Obama Civil Rights Division politicos burrowed into a career civil service position at the end of the administration. (Hans von Spakovsky and I have each chronicled Ms. Kessler’s lengthy swamp pedigree before.)

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

President Trump has nominated a slate of solid picks for the federal bench, including a new list of nominees this week. Among them is Kurt D. Engelhardt.

Trump nominated Engelhardt to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a district that covers the area from Alabama to the Rio Grande. Engelhardt already serves as a United States District Court judge in New Orleans.

Engelhardt will be familiar to PJ Media readers.

He is the judge who wrote a scathing 129-page order blistering the misconduct of lawyers at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the local New Orleans U.S. Attorney’s Office in a prosecution of New Orleans police officers. His order offers a look behind the curtain of some of the worst ideological misconduct that occurred at the Obama DOJ.

Misconduct may be an inadequate word to describe the behavior of DOJ lawyers, and Engelhardt saw it all up close. See PJ Media’s “Justice Dept. Lawyer Karla Dobinski’s Misconduct Sends Cops to Prison,” or Hans von Spakovsky writing at National Review: “Grotesque DOJ Misconduct“.

Here’s von Spakovsky on the Holder DOJ’s skullduggery and Engelhardt’s opinion:

Trying to figure out what the prosecutors had done sent the court “on a legal odyssey unlike any other.” But that legal odyssey led the judge on September 17 to grant a new trial to the New Orleans police officers. It is the first time, according to Judge Engelhardt, that federal “prosecutors acting with anonymity used social media to circumvent ethical obligations, professional responsibilities, and even to commit violations of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

The 129-page order, which details the misbehavior of the Louisiana DOJ lawyers and the Civil Rights Division’s Dobinski, is appalling reading. And it isn’t just that Dobinski was a high-level Justice Department lawyer who was posting anonymous blogs about the trial. She also encouraged other anonymous bloggers, who “repeatedly posted vigorous pro-prosecution statements strongly condemning the defendants, their witnesses, and their entire defense.”

If you want to see the corrupt depths that ideological lawyers in the Holder Justice Department would plumb to convict cops, read Engelhardt’s entire order.

It is a tale of deliberate and deceptive violation of the constitutional rights of police officers in order to get a conviction at any price, and of lying to the court. It is a cautionary tale of civil rights enforcement run amok from ideologically driven hatred of police — an issue that even this week continues to resonate in America.

As I wrote at PJ Media, one of the lawyers, Barbara “Bobbi” Bernstein, was criticized by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for misleading Englehardt. Did her behavior hurt her career?

Quite the contrary:

Bernstein even received an award from Attorney General Eric Holder and now-Labor Secretary Tom Perez for her work after the New Orleans police trial where she made statements to the federal judge later proved to be false.

Not only did the DOJ lawyers engage in an anonymous internet campaign against the police, the Justice Department engaged in a broader abuse of power in the prosecution. Again, the federal appeals court:

[A]t least one cooperating defendant felt coerced into pleading guilty, that the sentences meted out to defendants were shockingly disparate, that FBI Agent William Bezak had used coercive tactics against a defense witness, and that the defense was deprived of live testimony by at least three witnesses who refused to testify at trial when DOJ targeted them for possible perjury charges.

Eric Holder and Tom Perez award Bobby Bernstein for New Orleans police case.

Bernstein is still employed at the Civil Rights Division.

Ironically, Bernstein’s boss is now one Tamara Kessler, an ideological partisan and law enforcement foe in her own right, whom the Obama Civil Rights Division politicos burrowed into a career civil service position at the end of the administration. (Hans von Spakovsky and I have each chronicled Ms. Kessler’s lengthy swamp pedigree before.)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals also got a taste of the Justice Department misconduct and upheld Engelhardt’s dismissal of charges against the police. Upholding Engelhardt, the Fifth Circuit wrote:

These prosecutors created an air of bullying against the defendants whose rights they, especially Dobinski, were sworn to respect.

…

Just as a mob protesting outside the courthouse has the potential to intimidate parties and witnesses, so do streams of adverse online comments. The impact is felt not only by the defendants but by codefendants pressed to plead guilty or defense witnesses dissuaded from testifying. Preventing mob justice is precisely the goal of prosecutorial ethical constraints.

Of course, mob justice is not so out of fashion as it once was.

Police groups should take note, and thank the president for the Engelhardt nomination. So should regular Americans who appreciate the men and women who serve as a thin blue line between civilization and anarchy.

Categories: Holder Dept. of Injustice, Kurt D. Engelhardt., Swamp creatures, Trump and law enforcement, Trump judicial nominees
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The new Persian Empire

September 29, 2017

The new Persian Empire, Israel Hayom, Clifford D. May, September 29, 2017

Decades ago, Khomeini envisioned what now seems to be coming to pass. In his 1970 book, “Velayat-e faqih” (also known as “Islamic Government”) he wrote: “We have set as our goal the worldwide spread of the influence of Islam.” Over time, he expected Iran to become so powerful that “none of the governments existing in the world would be able to resist it; they would all capitulate.”

It’s essential that Trump and his advisers grasp what too many others still have not: Iran’s rulers represent a cause, the fulfillment of “a dream of imperial rule,” as Kissinger phrased it. If the United States does not stop them – if, on the contrary, they continue to manipulate Americans into assisting and enabling them in Syria and elsewhere – no one else will stand in their way.

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

Eleven years ago, Henry Kissinger famously said that Iran’s rulers must “decide whether they are representing a cause or a nation.” If the latter, Iranian and American interests would be “compatible.” As for the former: “If Tehran insists on combining the Persian imperial tradition with contemporary Islamic fervor, then a collision with America is unavoidable.”

Since then, Iran’s rulers have left no room for doubt. They’ve been aggressively spreading their Islamic Revolution and constructing what can only be called a new Persian Empire. That will surprise no one who has seriously studied the ideology of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic republic. What might: Their project has received significant support from the United States.

I’m not suggesting that was the intention of American policymakers. But it’s certainly been the result. The toppling of Saddam Hussein by President George W. Bush in 2003 eliminated Iran’s archenemy and rival. That might not have been a serious dilemma had Iraq subsequently been transformed into a reliable American ally.

But you know what came next: an insurgency, waged by al-Qaida in Iraq reinforced by Saddam loyalists. Iranian-backed Shia militias also went to war against American troops in Iraq. Eventually, Bush ordered the “surge.” American troops under the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus fought alongside Sunni tribes brutalized by al-Qaida and fearful of Iran. In the end, this alliance decimated jihadi forces in Iraq – Sunni and Shia alike.

By 2011, Iraq was, as then-President Barack Obama declared, “sovereign” and “stable.” He also called it “self-reliant,” which was incorrect. The U.S. military, in coordination with U.S. diplomats, had been balancing powers and brokering interests among Iraq’s Shia, Sunni and Kurdish communities. Once Obama withdrew American troops, the erosion of Iraq’s stability and sovereignty was inevitable.

Iran’s rulers began twisting arms in Baghdad, in particular encouraging Shia sectarianism. Iraq’s Sunnis now had no defender other than al-Qaida which, with the Americans gone, was revived and reincarnated as the Islamic State.

Which brings us to the present. The U.S. is playing a key role in the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Journalists are reporting that as a victory. Historians of the future may disagree. If the territories taken from the Islamic State are bequeathed to the Islamic republic, American troops will have served, objectively, as Iran’s expeditionary forces.

This would not be the only critical support the U.S. has given to the clerical regime. In the early years of the Obama administration, serious sanctions hobbled Iran’s economy and restricted its offensive capabilities. But the pressure was significantly relieved in exchange for an interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Next came the final agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and the lifting of most sanctions, coupled with the tens of billions of dollars in frozen oil revenues Iran received directly from the U.S. and the hundreds of billions more it will receive from European and Asian trade and investment.

This windfall has allowed Iran’s rulers to defend their Syrian satrap, Bashar al-Assad, both with their own elite forces and those of Hezbollah, their Lebanon-based proxy militia. They also have organized and funded Shia militias in Syria and Iraq.

Thousands of Afghan and Pakistani Shia are being recruited for those militias. They reportedly receive salaries of $600 a month and promises of future employment in Iran, assuming, of course, that they survive. Others may stay permanently in Syria. In other words, Iran’s imperial project is becoming a colonial project as well.

I’m among those who believe President Donald Trump was correct not to give up on Afghanistan. The consequences of defeat at the hands of the Taliban and al-Qaida would have been dire – if not immediately, then over the long term. That said, the strategic value of Afghanistan pales in comparison with that of Syria and Iraq, the heart of the Arab/Muslim Middle East. If we can’t win everywhere – though I hope that, as a superpower, we can – there’s no question where our priorities should lie.

Imagine what it will mean if Iran succeeds in becoming the hegemon in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; also Yemen, which sits on one of the world’s most strategic waterways. Imagine, too, if this incipient empire goes on to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to American targets – an eventuality delayed but not halted under the flawed JCPOA.

Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries would be seriously threatened. Using Syrian ports on the Mediterranean, Iran would extend its influence westward as well.

For Machiavellian reasons, Russia’s Vladimir Putin supports these ambitions. North Korea, a client of China, cooperates with Iran’s rulers – on missile development, illicit financial networks and perhaps nuclear weapons – even as it hones its own ability to threaten Americans.

Decades ago, Khomeini envisioned what now seems to be coming to pass. In his 1970 book, “Velayat-e faqih” (also known as “Islamic Government”) he wrote: “We have set as our goal the worldwide spread of the influence of Islam.” Over time, he expected Iran to become so powerful that “none of the governments existing in the world would be able to resist it; they would all capitulate.”

It’s essential that Trump and his advisers grasp what too many others still have not: Iran’s rulers represent a cause, the fulfillment of “a dream of imperial rule,” as Kissinger phrased it. If the United States does not stop them – if, on the contrary, they continue to manipulate Americans into assisting and enabling them in Syria and elsewhere – no one else will stand in their way.

Categories: Iran and Middle East, Iran and North Korea, Iran and Russia, Iran scam, Iran's new Persian Empire, Iranian global caliphate, Iranian proxies
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

MUST BE SEEN Former Hamas member defends Israel at the UN !

September 29, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsmaRNoLU-E

Mosab Hassan Yousef (formerly of Hamas) shocks the UN Human rights Council by defending Israel against the Palestinian Authority.

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

An epic moment at the UN as former Hamas member speaks up for Israel

September 28, 2017

An epic moment at the UN as former Hamas member speaks up for Israel | Anne’s Opinions, 28th September 2017

This has to be one of the most epic and stunning moments in the history of the UN. Once more the UN Human Rights Wrongs Council was holding a debate on “the human rights situation in Palestine”. All the usual anti-Israel suspects had their say, spouting lies, slander, blood libels and epithets at the one and only free, civilized and democratic country in the Middle East. How the likes of Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and other like dictatorships, who between them have killed millions and imprisoned even more – how they can sit there with straight faces while they accuse Israel of the very crimes of which they are guilty, is a subject for a psychologist to deal with.

And then it was UN Watch‘s turn. We have already seen Hillel Neuer speak at the UN many times, and his is superb. But Mosab Hassan Yousef (aka The Green Prince) was in a class of his own, not only for what he said, but for who he is.

Just watch the faces of the Palestinian delegation and enjoy a bit of schadenfreude from the UN for a change.

The funniest reaction was the face of this Palestinian delegate:

Shock horror at the UN as Palestinian speaks up for Israel

 

This speech was a master-stroke by UN Watch.

Kol hakavod on their persistence and devotion to the cause of Israel’s defence.

Categories: UN and human rights, UN and Palestinians, UN Watch
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Albanian PM Exports Kosovo Approach to all of Europe: Give it or Else (more like AND ELSE)

September 28, 2017

By Pamela Geller – on

Source: Albanian PM Exports Kosovo Approach to all of Europe: Give it or Else (more like AND ELSE) – Geller Report

Threats of  “nightmare” scenario if the Balkans doesn’t get EU membership, calls for an independent Islamic state in Kosovo, the ethnic cleansing of Sarajevo of non-Muslims, the rise of ISIS armies in Bosnian safe havens etc. are all a  predictable result of President Bill Clinton’s Bosnian misadventure, going to war for Muslims in the Balkans against the Christian Serbs.

Here is Julia Gorin’s in-depth analysis of recent threats made by the Albanian Prime Minister to all of Europe.

Albanian PM Exports Kosovo Approach to all of Europe: Give it or Else (In the Final Analysis: AND Else)

By Julia Gorin, September 25, 2017:

THE EU will face a “nightmare” scenario if it does not allow Albania and other Balkan states to join the bloc, the Albanian Prime Minister has claimed. (By Vincent Wood, UK Express, Apr. 18, 2017)

Albania is a formal membership candidate for the EU, but the process has been slowed by the crumbling bloc and member states who do not want to allow new countries into the 28 member union.

Now Prime Minister Edi Rama, a self-avowed friend of Tony Blair, has claimed the Balkans could “go crazy” if their role in Europe is not appreciated.

He warned the bloc rolling back its membership offer could wreak havoc on the continent, saying “the alternative would be a nightmare for the people and countries of Europe.”

Mr Rama said: “There is a lack of understanding, or a lack of vision in not realising that this region needs Europe, but Europe needs this region too, for a secure and safe Europe.

[What’s that saying? “You need us to not wreak havoc”?]

“How can the union be secure and safe if the Balkans will go crazy?

“How can the European Union allow at its own heart a grey zone where other actors can have a larger influence than the EU itself?

“This is nonsense in terms of security, in terms of safety.”

It comes as the county considers creating a union with Kosovo, which has a majority Albanian ethnic population, despite it being explicitly disallowed by the Kosovan constitution.

Speaking to Politico, the Albanian leader claimed the move could be a “possible alternative” to EU membership.

[A[As if they’re not going to go for the Kosovo-Albania merge one way or the other. In fact, the first threat to Brussels after EU membership will be if it doesn’t let Albania have its union within a union. ]p>

Mr Rama added: “The only way to keep the Balkans in this peaceful and cooperative mode is to keep the path to the EU open, to keep the perspective clear, to keep emotions about the EU positive.

[�[’You don’t want Albanians for an enemy. Just look what happened to Serbia.’ Indeed, they’re only “peaceful and cooperative” so long as you’re giving them what they demand.]p>

“No one would like to turn in on themselves and look for smaller unions, everyone would like to unite in the big union.

“But if there’s no hope, no perspective, no space, then, of course, little unions may happen.”

It comes after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker warned over instability in the Western Balkans.

Mr Juncker said to the US Vice President Mike Pence last month: “If we leave them alone – Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Macedonia, Albania, all those countries — we will have war again.”

Unlike the last time we didn’t leave them alone?

Just to refresh our memories on what underlies all this Western talk of “stability vs. instability,” here is a flashback to a BBC item from Jan. 2011:

[T]h[T]nited States and leading EU countries reacted differently to the [Dic[Dick]ty report [whi[which uncovered a murder-for-organs operation by the KLA that involved current Kosovo leaders] after repeating in unison from the beginning that Kosovo should be given independence because this was a precondition for stability.

But [Lon[London School of Economics’ James]-Lindsay said that none were willing to publicly admit that the greatest danger posed to stability were in fact threats made by Kosovo’s Albanians that they would “return to violence” unless given independence.

The British expert also noted that Hashim Thaci was “long believed to be of key importance” in preventing such violence. [i.e[i.e., he turns the violence on or off with a snap of the fingers; yet here he is talking about “fighting crime and organized corruption.”

Now, however, Europeans are beginning to go with the stance that Priština must first fulfill those standards “that were insisted on before independence” [a little late for that!]id Ker-Lindsay, adding that “American interests in Kosovo are different from those of Europe”, and that this difference meant the EU “truly wanted Kosovo to grow into a democratic state that respects human rights”, whereas Washington “still insisted on stability”.

So what that’s saying is, for Europe Kosovo is a reality in its midst, whereas for us it’s a sweepable-under-the-rug abstraction to be used politically as needed, since it’s not our neighborhood that’ll be disrupted by a dysfunctional criminal state. And yet it’s this dysfunctional state that the dysfunctional Albania seeks to unite with — even as Albanians have expressed just how united they feel with Kosovo by fleeing it in droves.

And the band marches on, to make sure there’s no stopping the Kosovo fait accompli: Though technically it’s not even a country yet, the fast-tracked calamity called Kosovo is being insinuated into all kinds of memberships normally reserved for real countries. Real countries such as Serbia, for example, which doesn’t issue threats and which — unlike Kosovo, apparently — isn’t ready for EU membership, according to craven politician Eliot Engel:

“Lobbyists drafting resolution to make Pristina UN observer” (B92, Sputnik, Sept. 8, 2017)

According to Sputnik, lobbyists in America are working on the draft, helped by the Clinton Foundation, and their plan is for Kosovo to gain the status of “an observer state,” modeled after Palestine.

The United States allegedly intends, as Sputnik claims, to in this way circumvent the UN Security Council [just li[just like we did with Kosovo “independence”!]members have veto power — and if Pristina, with the help of the United States, succeeds in achieving its goals before the end of the negotiations in Brussels, talks between Belgrade and Pristina “would exit their status-neutral format.”

At the same time, “Clinton’s America” is in a hurry to realize this idea as soon as possible also because of Turkey, i.e.,”the growing support of Istanbul to the project of ‘Greater Albania’ — because official America is not in favor of redrawing borders in the Balkans.”

[What was [What was that PM Rama was saying about keeping outside influences out?]sovo President Hashim Thaci recently said the United States should officially join the negotiations in Brussels. Also, a letter from US Congressman and Albanian lobbyist Eliot Engel has surfaced, sent to the head of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, that stated Serbia was “not ready for the EU.”
…
“The whole initiative that is coming from Washington, Brussels and Berlin looks like a desire to prevent the creation of ‘Greater Albania’, because, regardless of previous interpretations, the creation of any large state in the Balkans does not suit America, or other great powers. The strengthening of Kosovo’s independence and the presence of Pristina internationally ensure that such a scenario will not happen [really?] [really?]nk it is the interest of the United States to be involved in the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina,” [political[political science professor Stefan]id.
…
Asked if, and to what extent, negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina would change if Pristina succeeded, with the help of America, in “grabbing the UN (chair) in any form,” Surlic said:

“First of all, this initiative should be preceded by a serious diplomatic struggle to secure the votes of two-thirds of the members of the UN, and that would…represent very strong pressure on Serbia. The mere fact that more than two-thirds of the world’s countries would recognize Kosovo as a separate state would mean defeat for Serbia and additional pressure to make concessions to Pristina,” he believes. […]

<[…]kquote>Always the same solution: Pressure Serbia. Get additional concessions from Serbia.Defeat Serbia. It’s like watching a protracted and exponential version of the Oslo “peace process.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 2 Comments

New UNRWA Schoolbooks Teach Hate: Israel, Jews Don’t Belong in Region

September 28, 2017
By Hana Levi Julian

Source: New UNRWA Schoolbooks Teach Hate: Israel, Jews Don’t Belong in Region | The Jewish Press | Hana Levi Julian | 9 Tishri 5778 – September 28, 2017 | JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: ISM Palestine , UNRWA school

Six million Jews living in victorious Palestine will be expelled from the land with the Arab inhabitants present to witness the “extermination of its defeated and scattered remnants,” according to a Palestinian Authority textbook published in 2016, and used in United Nations schools under the auspices of the international body’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

According to a new study released Wednesday by the Center for Near East Policy Research, the Middle East Forum and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the latest texts being used in the hundreds of schools under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Judea, Samaria and Gaza reinforce the deadly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement fed daily to the children of the Palestinian Authority by their government media.

Advertisement

The research was carried out by Dr. Aaron Groiss, an expert in Arab textbooks, in collaboration with the leaders of each of the above-listed groups.

Some 160 textbooks for use in grades one through 12, on various school subjects, were scrutinized through the lens of how Jews / Israelis are depicted. Half of the books were published in the past two years; the curriculum was provided to UNRWA schools by the Palestinian Authority.

What the study revealed was horrifying. The research concluded the Palestinian Authority is using its curriculum – as it does with its media – to reinforce its message of hate via the schools. The United Nations agency now appears to be collaborating.

The contents of the textbooks underlines and reinforces the delegitimization and demonization of Israel and its people, as well as other Jews. Likewise, the children in the Palestinian Authority are being indoctrinated towards violent struggle, rather than towards peace.

“The Palestinian child stood facing the enemy’s bullets like a brave soldier,” one book teaches.

A 2017 text describes firebombing an Israeli public bus as a “barbecue party.”

Another schoolbook praises Dalal Mughrabi, the bloodthirsty Arab terrorist who led the most deadly attack in Israeli history, known as the Coastal Road Massacre; 37 people were killed, including a dozen children, and more than 70 others were wounded.

The State of Israel does not appear on any map and instead has been replaced entirely by “Palestine,” including all pre-1967 areas. Any description of the state is referenced by the phrase, “Zionist occupation,” the researchers wrote.

“Even the former expression ‘the Arab-Israeli conflict’ is now spelled ‘the Arab-Zionist conflict,’” they added. “This change signals an intensification of the non-recognition attitude regarding Israel on the part of the Palestinian educators. While demonization of Jews is less evident in the PA schoolbooks, compared to books of some other Arab governments, Jews are still demonized as opponents of Islam’s revered prophets, namely, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

“The first group of Jewish settlers came to Palestine from Russia in 1882 and the second group was in 1905,” one of the books reads. “The arrival of the Jewish throngs to Palestine continued until 1948 and their goal was taking over the Palestinian lands and then replacing the original inhabitants after their expulsion or extermination.”

The researchers conclude that “UNRWA, in fact, not only does propagate a non-peaceful line contrary to UN resolutions on the Middle East, and not only does allow the presentation of Israel and its Jewish citizens as illegitimate with heavy layers of demonization. UNRWA also betrays its moral obligation toward the Palestinian children and youths’ human rights and well-being, by letting the PA prepare them for a future war with Israel.

“It is now high time that UNRWA change its policy of non-intervention in the contents of local curricula taught in its schools,” the researchers added.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

CAIR Chief Among American Islamists Eulogizing Brotherhood Leader

September 28, 2017

CAIR Chief Among American Islamists Eulogizing Brotherhood Leader, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, September 28, 2017

It’s not uncommon for members of an immigrant community to mourn a prominent figure from their homelands. But Akef led a religious movement which seeks global dominance and which cultivated an Islamist ideology that inspires Sunni terrorist groups throughout the world.

His U.S.-based mourners can continue trying to deny their Brotherhood affinity, but actions speak louder than words. If the leader you pray God places “in the higher paradise with the prophets, the pious, and the martyrs” led a global Islamist movement, sanctioned terrorism and served in a secretive, violent Brotherhood branch, you’ve tipped your hand.

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

A number of U.S.-based Muslim group leaders who vehemently reject evidence connecting them to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in public made a point of publicly mourning the group’s former spiritual guide, who died in prison Friday.

Mohamed Akef was praised as the “Sheikh of the Mujahidin” and received prayers that Allah place him “in the higher paradise with the prophets, the pious, and the martyrs.”

“What kind of tyrannical regime would imprison a sick 90 years old man?” Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad wrote Saturday after Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohamed Akef’s death. “Who resisted the colonizer, and raised generations on righteousness and the love of their country? #Mahdi_Akef, consider not Allah to be oblivious.” His Twitter post was in Arabic, so many of Awad’s U.S. followers may not have appreciated its significance.

Esam Omeish, a past Muslim American Society president who serves on the board of Northern Virginia’s Dar Al-Hijrah mosque, along with a fellow board member, are among the religious leaders and political activists who publicly eulogized the Brotherhood’s leader.

In addition to running an organization which ultimately seeks a global Islamic government, Akef left a long history of extreme rhetoric that his mourners didn’t mention.

Akef led the Muslim Brotherhood from 2004-2010. During his tenure, all members had to swear a religious oath of allegiance to him known as bayah. As supreme guide, his word was absolute for members. He signed a 2004 fatwa written by Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi which said Muslims had “an obligation … to kill American citizens in Iraq, since they are in Iraq in order to assist the soldiers and the occupation forces; it is forbidden however to desecrate their corpses.” Bombings against American soldiers in Iraq and against Israelis in the Palestinian territories were “religious obligation[s],” Akef said months before signing that fatwa during an interview with Egypt’s Al-Arabi newspaper that was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

He rejected calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist, saying the al-Qaida leader was “without a shadow of a doubt – a jihad fighter. I do not doubt the fact that he opposes occupation, nor that he does this in order to get closer to Allah, may He be praised and extolled,” Akef said in a 2008 interview with the website Elaph.com.

Akef was just 12 years old when he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in 1940. He worked closely with founder Hasan Al-Banna and spent more than 20 years in Egyptian prisons. Akef joined the Muslim Brotherhood’s “secret apparatus” that was involved in bombings and assassinations in the late 1940s.

Akef helped inspire the foundation of the Muslim American Society (MAS) during his trips to the U.S. in the early 1990s, a 2004 Chicago Tribune article said.

Brotherhood members founded MAS and continued to be inspired by Brotherhood ideology, Shaker Elsayed, imam of the Falls Church, Va. based Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, told the Tribune.

Elsayed generated controversy last spring after he endorsed partial female genital mutilation during a sermon. He remains on the job.

Omeish, one of Dar Al-Hijrah board members responsible for Elsayed’s continued employment, prayed that Akef be placed “in the higher paradise with the prophets, the pious, and the martyrs, whose company is exalted. The best of people is he who lives longer and perfected his deeds. I remember this giant man, I remembered his smile and the warmth of his faith, as a pious guide, a compassionate father, a decisive leader, and an ascetic laborer.”

Omeish acknowledged his past Brotherhood membership during a 2011 talk at American University, calling it a “wonderful experience.” He also lavished praise on the Muslim Brotherhood last December in another Facebook post.

Similarly, this was not Awad’s first time toeing the Muslim Brotherhood party line. “We congratulate the Egyptian people and their new president on this great achievement in Egypt’s struggle for freedom,” Awad said after the Brotherhood’s 2012 election victory in Egypt.

Other CAIR leaders defended the Muslim Brotherhood on social media against claims it engaged in authoritarian tactics before it fell from power in July 2013. Awad also defended Turkey following last year’s failed coup despite Islamist President Tayyip Recep Erdogan’s transformation of his country into a police state where dissent is illegal.

Awad’s past membership in the Muslim Brotherhood is documented in internal records seized by the FBI. A telephone list places Awad on the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which was tasked with providing political and financial support for Hamas in the United States.

Another pro-Brotherhood individual who serves with Omeish on the Dar Al-Hijrah board eulogized Akef. Akram Elzend, a co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights (EADHR), posted his own tribute to Akef on Facebook: “The Sheikh of the Mujahidin has died #Farewell_Akif,” Elzend wrote.

Elzend also alluded to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in a March 2015 Facebook post emblazoned with the Brotherhood’s crossed sword-logo that linked to an article written by the group’s spokesman vowing to “liberate Egypt from the grip of this bloody coup.” EADHR co-founder Hany Saqr eulogized Akef as someone who could not be described with words.

“May Allah repose the martyr Mr. Mohamed Mahdi Akef and elevate him in the higher paradise and make his blood be upon them who did him injustice,” Saqr wrote on Facebook. Those internal Palestine Committee records which tie Awad to the Brotherhood network also identify Saqr as a onetime “Masul” or leader of the American Brotherhood’s Administrative Office for East America.

Osama Abu Irshaid, a board member of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) together with Awad, joined in the chorus of Akef mourners.

“May Allah repose Akef and all the martyrs of injustice in Egypt; may Allah curse their killers, those who enslave Egypt and their supporters, may Allah reward the liked of Habib according to their malicious acts,” Abu Irshaid wrote.

Abu Irshaid has his own past connection with a Palestine Committee entity. He served as editor of Al-Zaitounah, a pro-Hamas Arabic periodical published by the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). IAP was the Palestine Committee’s propaganda arm.

Support for Akef showed particular intensity among leaders associated with Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFJ), who have shown strong pro-Brotherhood sympathies for years.

President Hani Elkadi eulogized Akef as a hero who “died holding his head high; he asked for no mercy, he did not entreat his jailers, or his executioners. The hero and the martyr died giving an example in patience, defiance, manhood, and steadfastness in truth.”

Elkadi made several other Facebook posts mourning Akef. EAFJ spokesman Mahmoud ElSharkawy hailed Akef as the “sheikh of the revolutionaries” who was martyred while in prison.

“May Allah rest the soul of the captive and the martyr, and we ask Allah to grant us the best of end on the path of truth and martyr without any alteration,” ElSharkawy wrote.

Elkadi and ElSharkawy’s support for Brotherhood-linked Egyptian terrorists is made clear by their numerous social media posts.

Formal memorial services for Akef were arranged by EAFJ-linked people in New York and in New Jersey. A banner at the New Jersey event called Akef the “Sheikh of the Mujahideen” in Arabic and described him as a martyr in both English and Arabic.

EAFJ co-founder Sheikh Mohamed Elbar of Brooklyn’s Islamic Center of Bay Ridge eulogized Akef as a martyr and a “mujahid” or holy warrior. Elbar belongs to the International Union of Muslim Scholars headed by Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and EAFJ co-founder.

“We ask Almighty Allah to elevate Mahdi Akef to the ranks of the martyrs … Oh Allah, he died as a Mujahid for your cause, so grant him the status of the Mujahideen,” Elbar said.

Speaker Hemmi Khairallah likewise described Akef as a martyr and warned that Muslims in America were under attack from “Zionists” and “Crusaders.”

Elbar’s mosque held a separate memorial service for Akef.

It’s not uncommon for members of an immigrant community to mourn a prominent figure from their homelands. But Akef led a religious movement which seeks global dominance and which cultivated an Islamist ideology that inspires Sunni terrorist groups throughout the world.

His U.S.-based mourners can continue trying to deny their Brotherhood affinity, but actions speak louder than words. If the leader you pray God places “in the higher paradise with the prophets, the pious, and the martyrs” led a global Islamist movement, sanctioned terrorism and served in a secretive, violent Brotherhood branch, you’ve tipped your hand.

Categories: CAIR, Islamist infiltration in America, Islamist objectives, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Steve Scalise full address to Congress

September 28, 2017

Steve Scalise full address to Congress, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, September 28, 2017

(Shot and almost killed, he’s back! — DM)

Categories: Steve Scalise, U.S. Congress
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The case for a ‘clean withdrawal’ from the Iran Nuclear Deal

September 28, 2017

The case for a ‘clean withdrawal’ from the Iran Nuclear Deal, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, September 28, 2017

(Please see also, Omni Ceren: Decertification Approaches and How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal by Amb. Bolton. Iran has already received lots of money from Obama’s America and may well have made significant progress on making nukes and the missiles to deliver them. Would Iran forego further nuke-related technological advances to renegotiate the JCPOA with America and her allies? That seems highly unlikely if we withdraw, and even more unlikely if we remain, as McMaster and Tillerson apparently desire. — DM

Now, with the president reportedly determined to “decertify,” Tillerson, McMaster and others who oppose a U.S. withdrawal have shifted gears.  They have intensified their criticism of the Iran deal as deeply flawed and are proposing the president not certify but remain a party to the deal to fix it later.  In addition, they are calling for the JCPOA be sent to Congress for it to impose more sanctions.

Ambassador John Bolton has a far better and more honest option: a clean withdrawal implementing a comprehensive strategy with America’s allies – including Israel – that addresses the full range of threats posed by Iran.

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

There’s a pitched rhetorical battle underway right now in Washington as an October 15 deadline approaches for President Trump to certify to Congress that the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the JCPOA) is in the national interests of the United States and that Iran is in compliance. Although the president said last week he has made his decision, backers and opponents of the agreement are working overtime to convince him to adopt their recommendations.

President Trump has been highly critical of the JCPOA, calling it “the worst deal ever” during the presidential campaign and “an embarrassment to the United States” during his speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 19.

However, the president reluctantly certified the nuclear deal to Congress twice this year due to heavy pressure from his top national security advisers, especially Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster.  After a heated discussion with his advisers, Mr Trump made the last certification in July but indicated he did not plan to do so again.

A few months ago, Tillerson, McMaster and other advisers were telling President Trump he had no choice but to certify the JCPOA because Iran was in compliance and any violations were “not material.”  Many disagreed, including Senators Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, David Perdue, R-Ga., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who spelled out major instances of Iranian noncompliance and cheating in a July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

But the main argument Trump advisers made to certify the Iran deal was that if America withdrew it would alienate European leaders.

Now, with the president reportedly determined to “decertify,” Tillerson, McMaster and others who oppose a U.S. withdrawal have shifted gears.  They have intensified their criticism of the Iran deal as deeply flawed and are proposing the president not certify but remain a party to the deal to fix it later.  In addition, they are calling for the JCPOA be sent to Congress for it to impose more sanctions.

This supposed middle-ground option would allow President Trump to give a tough-sounding speech lashing out at the JCPOA and demanding major changes.  But Iran has made it clear that it will never agree to alter the agreement and Congressional Democrats are certain to filibuster any sanctions legislation that would kill the deal.  As a result, the “decertify but remain in the deal” option is actually a clever ploy to ensure the U.S. never withdraws from the nuclear deal.

Ambassador John Bolton has a far better and more honest option: a clean withdrawal implementing a comprehensive strategy with America’s allies – including Israel – that addresses the full range of threats posed by Iran.

Bolton was tasked to write a plan to do this by former Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in response to the president’s request last July for a policy option to withdraw from the Iran deal.  Worried that the Bolton plan could sway Mr. Trump, senior Trump officials have blocked Bolton from meeting with the president.  Bolton therefore published his “Iran Deal Exit Strategy” in National Review on August 28.

Bolton’s plan has not received a lot of media coverage because senior Trump officials – especially McMaster – have been aggressively working with the press to promote the “decertify but remain in the deal” option.  However, the Bolton plan received a huge boost last week when 45 national security experts sent a letter to President Trump urging him to withdraw from the JCPOA using Bolton’s strategy.

The letter’s signatories included many leading experts in arms control and nuclear nonproliferation such as former Director of Sandia National Laboratory Paul Robinson, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Robert Joseph; former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Gen. William Boykin and dozens of other former State and Defense Department officials.

The proposal being advanced by McMaster, Tillerson and others — that President Trump keep the United States in the JCPOA but not certify to Congress that it is in our national security interests — is absurd, especially after the president called the agreement an embarrassment to the United States.  This option will ensure that this dangerous agreement continues as is and will undermine Mr. Trump’s credibility with the American people and the world.

As the 45 experts said in their letter to President Trump, “It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.”  President Trump should do this by implementing a clean withdrawal from the fraudulent Iran nuclear deal using the plan drafted by Ambassador Bolton.

Categories: JCPOA - renegotiation, JCPOA compliance certification, McMaster on Iranian compliance with JCPOA, Tillerson on Iranian compliance with JCPOA, Trump and Iran, Trump and Iran scam
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »