Islam and Jews | WarSclerotic | Page 6

Posted tagged ‘Islam and Jews’

Sharia in Denmark

March 22, 2016

Sharia in Denmark, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, March 22, 2016

♦ Documentary filmmakers in Denmark conducted an undercover investigation, with hidden cameras, into claims that imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims within Denmark.

♦ Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque, told Fatma that her husband is entitled to take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his “sexual rights,” even when he is violent.

♦ The imam of the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque gave Fatma the same answers she had received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without her husband’s permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her, she must not contact the police.

♦ Umm Abdullah told Fatma that she should only meet with Danish people in order to tell them about Islam. This is necessary, she said, to save the Danes from hell, and the only reason Muslims should interact with Danes.

The issue of parallel Muslim societies has sparked renewed debate in Denmark after a three-part television documentary, “The Mosques Behind the Veil” was aired at the beginning of March on Danish TV2.

The documentary consists of an undercover investigation into claims that Muslim imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims within Denmark.

The filmmakers had two young Muslims — brought from outside Denmark — go undercover in Gellerupparken, an area best described as a predominantly Muslim ghetto in Aarhus, Denmark’s second city. For three months, the two lived as a fictitious couple, Fatma and Muhammed, while visiting eight different mosques in Aarhus, Odense and Copenhagen — the three largest cities in Denmark — with hidden cameras. The goal was to hear what imams say behind closed doors about Danish law and authorities, gender equality and general contact with Danish society, such as Muslim women participating in the Danish job market. There are approximately 140 mosques in all of Denmark.

The film is similar in concept to the British BBC Panorama documentary, “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils,” which aired in April 2013. The BBC went undercover to document the discrimination practiced in British sharia councils against Muslim women. (The existence of British sharia councils were no secret to the British; the Danish film, it turned out, documented a Danish sharia council for the first time).

For the purpose of the documentary, Fatma was given a personal cover story — based on real-life dilemmas — for which she would seek advice from the different imams: Her husband is violent, and she does not wish to have sex with him. She cannot get pregnant and his family has found a second wife for him. She consulted with a Danish girlfriend about the violence, which has left her bruised, and the girlfriend told her to go to the police.

What do the imams think she should do?

The series begins in the Grimhøj mosque. The mosque has been in the Danish headlines for years, especially since police statistics in 2013 showed that 22 out of the 27 Muslims from Aarhus who left to fight with Islamic State in Syria had frequented it. The head of the mosque, Oussama El Saadi, has, in fact, said that he hopes the Islamic State will win and that there will be an Islamic world government. The imam of the same mosque, Abu Bilal, was sentenced last year in Germany for inciting hatred against both Jews and non-Jews, and fined €10,000.

1520

Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque in Denmark, was fined €10,000 last year in Germany, after being found guilty of inciting hatred against both Jews and non-Jews. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

Fatma, during her visits to the mosque, learned from imam Abu Bilal that married women who commit infidelity should be stoned to death, and that Muslims who leave Islam may be killed. He makes no reservations about these teachings. She also learned that young children who refuse to pray should be beaten (a woman asks the imam specifically, how she should conduct those beatings). Fatma was also informed that a woman may not take a job without her husband’s permission.

Abu Bilal further says that her husband is entitled to take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his “sexual rights,” even when he is violent. When she asks the imam if she should involve the police, the answer is an emphatic “no.”

Officially, the spokesman of the Grimhøj mosque, along with spokesmen from three of the eight mosques, professes that the mosque respects Danish law. But behind closed doors — on hidden camera — he advocates polygamy and beating children. He also instructs Fatma to go back to her abusive spouse and to let him commit what amounts to rape.

Fatma attended three other mosques in Aarhus, one of which publicly claims to be “moderate.” All of the clerics gave her the same answers. Some told her that violence is not allowed, but made it clear that there is nothing she can do. The imam at the Fredens mosque added that she might be able to obtain a divorce, if necessary, from their sharia council.

Muhammed, reporting what he experienced in the mosques, told TV2 news that he had been warned in the mosques against the Danes; informed that they were kuffar (unbelievers), and that he should avoid them and their social functions, such as birthday parties. One imam told the couple that they should “not melt into Danish society,” but simply surround themselves with other Muslims.

In Copenhagen, Fatma consulted the leader of the female section of the Islamisk Trossamfund mosque, Umm Abdullah. The claim at Islamisk Trossamfund is that it is in contact with several thousand Muslims every week, and thus among the biggest mosques in Denmark. Umm Abdullah tells Fatma that she must not go to birthday parties; there would be, she says, alcohol and mixed male and female company — and she should only meet with Danish people in order to tell them about Islam. This is necessary, says Umm Abdullah, to save the Danes from hell, and the only reason why Muslims should interact with Danes. When Fatma asks her about her personal problems, Umm Abdullah tells her that she must not contact the police about the violent husband. “Why should you become a laughing stock in front of the infidels?” she rhetorically asks.

Fatma also went to see the imam at the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque in Copenhagen, better known in Denmark as “Stormoskeen” [“the big mosque”]. Named after the former emir of Qatar and fully sponsored by him, it opened in 2014. The organization behind the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque, the Danish Islamic Council, has claimed that the people who operate the mosque have chosen a moderate interpretation of Islam that is compatible with Danish society.

On camera, the spokesman from the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque confidently assured the journalists from TV2 News that the mosque thoroughly respects Danish laws. He even assured them that women enjoy even better rights than men.

When Fatma spoke to the imam of the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque, however, and filmed it with a hidden camera, she was given the same answers she had received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without her husband’s permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her, she must not contact the police. This most “moderate” of all the Danish mosques also advocated polygamy, and the right of the husband to his wife’s body, even when she might prefer to refuse him.

One of the questions Danes are asking themselves after viewing the documentary, is whether Danish Muslims actually listen to the imams and do what they say. According to a poll conducted in October 2015, 40% of all Danish Muslims believe that the law in Denmark should be based solely on the words of the Quran and 77% believe that the Quran should be followed to the word. Ten years ago, the figure was 62%. The poll showed that 50% of all Danish Muslims pray five times a day; ten years ago, the figure was 37%.

While the working assumption has been that with time, Muslims would become less, not more, religious, these numbers fly in the face of the wish that Muslims might be comfortably assimilated into Danish culture.

At the end of the documentary, Fatma and Mohammed visit the sharia council — which, since the documentary aired, has been dismantled, but others are believed to exist — at the Fredens mosque in Aarhus. Here, Fatma pleads over ten times for a divorce from her violent husband, but the council refuses, telling her to go back home and try again.

These were exactly the same responses as those given by the imams of the British sharia councils in the BBC Panorama documentary from 2013. Genuinely abused women pleaded in vain for divorce, and sometimes had to wait for ten years to obtain it. The answers they received from the imam were identical with the answers that Fatma heard from the eight different imams in Denmark: Go back to your violent spouse and try to work it out.

TV2 presented the secret recordings to all the mosques that had been investigated, but the mosques refused to comment on them.

Instead, 31 Danish mosques and Islamic organizations decided to react to the exposure of their goings-on by collectively condemning the way that TV2 had portrayed the Islamic organizations in the documentary. The organizations held the TV station responsible for the “way that it was destroying the integration that the organizations had worked on for the past 30 years in Denmark” and claimed that “Danish Muslims are an integral part of Danish society and play a positive role in integrating Muslims into Danish society.” They also reaffirmed that “Muslims have a right to seek advice about Islam, Islamic rules and Islamic sharia in Denmark.”

The ongoing public debate that has followed the broadcast, shows — unsurprisingly — that neither politicians, opinion makers nor so-called “experts” have any workable plans for how to deal with what the TV documentary revealed. Some have suggested that imams get a special university education or go through a licensing process. Others have suggested closing the Grimhøj mosque — an act that would doubtless be regarded as provocation, and one that would not solve anything in other, similar, mosques. Still other observers have suggested looking more closely at possibilities in the Danish constitution for dealing with the problem. One thing is clear: Denmark is as far away from solving this problem as the rest of Europe — and it is not going to get any easier.

Categories: Denmark, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Sharia law
Tags: Denmark, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Germany’s Merkel to Voters: “No Change to Migration Policy”

March 18, 2016

Germany’s Merkel to Voters: “No Change to Migration Policy” Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, March 18, 2016

♦ Chancellor Angela Merkel ‘s migration policy is causing security mayhem in Germany, where mostly Muslim migts are raping and assaulting women and children with virtual impunity.

♦ Merkel’s party was defeated in two out of the three federal states voting in March 13 regional elections. By contrast, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) — an upstart anti-establishment party campaigning against Merkel’s liberal migration policy — surged to double-digit results in all three states.

♦ Political and media elites are ramping up a months-long campaign to delegitimize AfD voters as agitators, arsonists, far-right extremists, fascists, Nazis, populists and xenophobes.

♦ Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has called on German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD, presumably in an effort to silence critics of the government’s migration policy. Gabriel has called for Germany to take in even more migrants by airlifting them into the country directly from the Middle East.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has vowed to continue her open-door migration policy — despite heavy losses in regional elections that were widely regarded as a referendum on that very policy.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) was defeated in two out of the three federal states voting on March 13. By contrast, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) — an upstart anti-establishment party campaigning against Merkel’s liberal migration policy — surged to double-digit results in all three states: Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt.

In a press conference after the election results were in, Merkel remained defiant. She reprimanded German voters for questioning her handling of the migration crisis: “There are people who did not listen to us at all and simply cast protest votes. We need to solve this [migrant] problem, not through theoretical debates, but by finding a [European] solution to the problem.”

The elections were the most important in Germany since Merkel allowed more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to enter the country in 2015. Merkel’s migration policy is causing security mayhem in Germany, where mostly Muslim migrants are raping and assaulting women and children with virtual impunity.

With immigration now the dominant issue in German politics, Merkel’s refusal to reverse her open-door migration policy has alienated many of her traditional supporters, scores of whom are flocking to the AfD to protest Germany’s pro-immigration, pro-EU political establishment.

The AfD was founded as a Eurosceptic party in 2013 by German economists advocating the abolition of the European single currency, the euro, and opposing financial bailouts of profligate eurozone countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

At the time, the AfD was widely ridiculed by Germany’s mainstream media. In July 2013, for example, the Rheinische Post published an “analysis” which referred to the AfD as the “unlucky professor’s party” that “does not have many chances” as a political party. Nevertheless, in 2014 and 2015, the AfD secured seats in five of Germany’s 16 regional parliaments, and seven seats in the European Parliament.

After an internal power struggle, Frauke Petry — a 40-year-old chemist, entrepreneur and mother of four who hails from the former East Germany — assumed leadership of the AfD in July 2015. Since then, Petry has broadened the party’s initial focus on economics to immigration.

The AfD — now the third-largest party in Germany — poses a significant challenge to the political status quo in Germany. If its momentum holds, the AfD is on track to cross the 5% threshold in general elections in 2017 to qualify for seats in the national legislature, the Bundestag.

1515

In recent regional elections, the CDU party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (left) suffered heavy losses to the upstart anti-establishment party Alternative for Germany, led by Frauke Petry (right).

The left-leaning German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, long hostile toward the AfD, acknowledged that the party has achieved a “breakthrough” and called the election result “Black Sunday” for Merkel:

“For a long time she had hoped, despite considerable popular opposition to her refugee policy, to win two chancelleries in the southwest of the country. This has come to nothing. Merkel will now have to live with the accusation that she has allowed the AfD finally to establish itself [as a democratic alternative] to the right of the CDU.”

The leader of the AfD, Frauke Petry, said the fact that her party won big in two states in western Germany — Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate — showed that “the AFD is an all-German party and that citizens in all regions of Germany want a change of politics.” In a Facebook post, she added:

“Yesterday we made a first important step in the right direction to break the cartels of consensus parties. Already, it has been indicated that they [mainstream parties] will not accept the will of the people. We will probably see the most colorful combination of political coalitions, just so they can continue to stay in power and further marginalize voters of the AfD.”

Petry was referring to Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, who said that despite her electoral drubbing, Merkel will not reverse course on migration:

“The Federal Government will continue to pursue its refugee policy, with full determination, at home and abroad. At home, we will ease the path to integrate those people who have sought and found protection here. At European level, the goal must be a common, sustainable European solution that leads to a reduction in the number of refugees in all member states of the European Union.”

The CDU’s general secretary, Peter Tauber, echoed the view that there is no alternative to Merkel’s migration policy: “Considering what we have already achieved, I recommend that we continue on the path we are on.”

Some German commentators have tried to downplay the AfD’s gains by arguing that although Merkel lost the election, she actually won the election because the majority of Germans voted for mainstream parties. Bernd Ulrich, editor of Die Zeit, wrote:

“These three elections, which were in fact a plebiscite on the refugee policy, sent an encouraging message of approval. On average, two-thirds of voters cast ballots for parties that support the relatively liberal refugee policies of Angela Merkel.”

Writing in Der Spiegel, columnist Jakob Augstein argued:

“On Sunday Angela Merkel achieved an unlikely feat: her party was trounced, but her refugee policy was confirmed and strengthened… How did the chancellor do on Election Day? In truth, she has been strengthened. The fact is: a large majority of voters support the chancellor.”

According to Augstein, Merkel is “the right woman in the wrong party” because she has moved the center-right CDU to the left on so many issues, including migration policy, that the party is now virtually indistinguishable from its coalition partner, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). What Augstein failed to mention is that Merkel’s move to the left is responsible for creating a political vacuum to the right of the CDU — a vacuum that is now being filled by the AfD.

Other political and media elites are ramping up a months-long campaign to delegitimize AfD voters as agitators, arsonists, far-right extremists, fascists, Nazis, populists and xenophobes.

German media are also churning out stories — many of which are based on hearsay — aimed at discrediting the AfD. The magazine, Stern, published this headline: “Reports of Nazi Songs at AfD-Election Party.” The Berliner Kurier: “Former Teacher Calls AfD Leader Frauke Petry a Liar.”Die Welt: “AfD Candidate Accused of Running Escort Service.” Berliner Morgenpost: “After AfD Coup, Saxony-Anhalt’s Hoteliers Are Anxious.” Stern: “AfD and Donald Trump: Hate is the Main Issue.” Die Zeit: “AfD Principles: Not So Important.”

On Election Day, Die Zeit ridiculed the AfD’s 70-point political platform by using the following bullet points:

“More popular referendums, more monitoring of citizens, stiffer penalties for criminals, dissolve the EU, shrink the state, lower taxes, cut social spending, put women back in the kitchen, ban employment quotas for women, make it harder to file for divorce, abolish abortion, close borders, harass Muslims, ruin the climate, expand nuclear power, expand the military, more private weapons, etc.”

Taxpayer-funded ZDF public television broadcast an interview with Thomas Kliche, a German psychologist, who compared AfD voters to “children who are stubborn and unreasonable.” The only way to deal with such people, he said, is “just have patience, ignore the stupidity, and confront it with rationalism.”

According to Kliche, AfD voters are suffering from “macro-social stress” induced by globalization (i.e., mass migration):

“People react with various forms of shock management. This begins with retrograde, regressive, childish fantasies that everything can be as it was before. Some believe that by shouting ‘We are the People!’ [the main slogan of anti-government demonstrators in East Germany in 1989-1990, reminding their leaders that Germany should be ruled by the people, not by an undemocratic party claiming to represent them], the migrants will disappear…. They have no solutions, just fantasies. Building a fence — this is a fantasy. Separate yourself from the world — that is a fantasy.”

Meanwhile, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has called on German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD, presumably in an effort to silence critics of the government’s migration policy. Gabriel — who leads the SPD, which also suffered significant losses on March 13 — has called the AfD a party of “right-wing extremists” who “use the language of the Nazis.” At the same time, Gabriel has called for Germany to take in even more migrants by airlifting them into the country directly from the Middle East.

By contrast, Horst Seehofer, the head of the Christian Socialist Union (CSU), the CDU’s sister party in Bavaria, said the rise of the AfD amounts to a “tectonic shift in the political landscape of Germany.” He warned that tectonic shifts trigger earthquakes that cause irreversible changes. Seehofer demanded that Merkel reverse course: “It cannot be that after such an election result, the answer to the electorate is: everything will go on as before.”

CSU politician Hans-Peter Uhl summed it up this way: “I expect the chancellor clearly to admit: ‘Yes, we have understood. We are going to return to the voters. Politics must move toward the voter, not the other way around. This is called democracy.'”

Merkel has not said if she plans to run for a fourth term in 2017.

Categories: Germany, Islam - submission, Islam and girls, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Merkel
Tags: Germany, Islam - submission, Islam and girls, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Merkel

Comments: 1 Comment

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals”

March 16, 2016

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals” Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, March 16, 2016

♦ These novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people.

♦ What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

♦ Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision.

What is the only country about which can be said that its very existence is disputed? Clue: Not Zimbabwe, not Tuvalu, not even overrun Tibet. Which country’s boundaries, bought with blood in wars initiated by others, are challenged by all nations, who now seem determined to destroy it through boycotts, unjust defamation and purported “laws” that are applied to no other nation?

Which country fully respects the rights of women and every kind of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, notwithstanding that it is condemned at the United Nations for being “the worst violator of women’s rights” — worse than Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan?

Which country provides its own enemy with water, electricity, food and medical treatment? Its military, to avoid enemy civilian casualties, warns its enemy to evacuate buildings before attacking them, and — instead of simply carpet bombing the enemy as all other nations do, including most democracies — sends its own soldiers possibly to die in ground operations?

The country is Israel — the only country that even famous writers, intellectuals and Nobel laureates target, demonize and criminalize.

There was a time when Nobel laureates for Literature, such as the German Heinrich Böll, the French Jean-Paul Sartre and the Italian Eugenio Montale, rushed to denounce injustice. Earlier, in the name of best Europe’s values — justice, freedom and solidarity — they condemned the threats to the State of Israel’s existence.

But today, these novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred towards the same place. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people. In Germany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is the new best-seller. In Europe today, you can even find a great number of books that wipe Israel off the map. And a provincial council near Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, banned Israeli books from local libraries.

In the chorus of those who speak from journals, poems and novels, there have been a few noble exceptions. The Albanian writer Ismail Kadaré, a Muslim candidate positioned every year to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, turned down a request to boycott the tiny Jewish State. Israel, he says, faces “the threat of disappearance,” and he compared Israel to Albania under Nazi occupation. Also the author of the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling, refused to add her name to the list of Israel’s boycotters.

Their brave, solitary gestures highlight the sluggish, uninquiring conformity of the “intelligentsia’s” campaign to pile unmerited calumnies on Israel.

Worse, supposed “intellectuals” often spout raw anti-Semitism while giving a pass to the truly barbarous people among us. If the Nobel Committee had any decency, it would revoke the prizes it awarded for “Peace” to such “humanitarians” as Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat. It is painful to watch the Nobel Committee make a fool of itself year after year, and it is painful to watch these so-called intellectuals be so unaware and filled with prejudice against the people who least deserve it.

An Italian writer, Dario Fo, a laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, just gave an interview to the newspaper, La Repubblica. Fo, talking about the Jewish patriarch, Moses, said: “Moses was killing women and children because they worshiped idols.” Mr. Fo went on blaming “the Jews’ brutality against those who follow other religions, as it happens today.” Excuse me? Is it the Jews who are burning people alive, drowning them in cages, slitting throats or crucifying anyone for following a different religion?

Mr. Fo’s comparison is as wrong as it is ghastly. It is not the Jews who suicide-bomb Palestinian buses, cafes, wedding halls and discotheques. It is not the Jews who now try to mow down Palestinians with cars or stab them in the street. It is the reverse — and has been for years.

The daily newspaper La Stampa charged Dario Fo with “recycling anti-Semitic stereotypes.” Fo is not new at this. In the 1970s, in one of his theatrical operas, “Resistance: Italian and Palestinian people speak,” the future Nobel Prize laureate compared Nazism to Zionism and the Palestinian fedayeen terrorists to the anti-Fascist partisans.

A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Fo also said that,

“the great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.”

Who gave this famous writer the right to defame, earlier, not only Israel’s name but also 9/11’s victims?

Another Nobel prize-winning novelist, Mario Vargas Llosa, as well as the Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Eggers, are among a group of international novelists who will contribute to a book of essays next year about “50 years of Israeli occupation” that will be published by Harper Collins, one of the publishers that wiped Israel off the map.

The book is part of an initiative by Breaking the Silence, a non-governmental organization (NGO) which makes sweeping charges against the Israeli army “based on anonymous and unverifiable hearsay ‘testimonies.'” while refusing to disclose the names of the Israeli soldiers who “testified.” Worse, it is being funded specifically “to incriminate the IDF” (Israel Defense Forces) and, was explicitly directed by European charities to prove that Israel acted improperly. In an article entitled, “Europe to Breaking the Silence: Bring Us As Many Incriminating Testimonies As Possible,” the watchdog group NGO Monitor disclosed that:

Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.

Are these “prestigious” writers aware of the organization’s predetermined bias which is going to fund their new book?

There is also, of course, the problem of double standards and hypocrisy. These writers did not decide to put their pen at the service of the Syria’s civil war victims or the Christians and Yazidi who are suffering a genocide in Iraq. No, these writers targeted Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and its supposed “occupation” — which they fail to disclose was backed by the Palestinians themselves in the Oslo II Accord of 1995, Chapter 3, Article XVII Jurisdiction [1], which in fact turned the Palestinian people into the most protected Arab population in the entire Middle East. Go to Ramallah and Jenin and you will see the difference between how they live compared to the people living in Aleppo, Sana’a and Mosul.

The most prolific novelists in the Israel-Bashing Industry are, sadly, the British. “Sadly,” especially as Iran has within the last month raised the bounty offered on the head of a British citizen, Salman Rushdie, by another $600,000, in addition to the $3 million issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. That brings the incentive for murdering a novelist to roughly $4 million. About that, the British government has been shamefully silent. The only condemnation so far seems to have come from the Iranian journalist, Amir Taheri, the British journalist, Douglas Murray and from PEN.

Another “intellectual,” John Berger, a Booker Prize winner, called for artists to decline being published by Israeli publishers and to undertake a boycott of the Jewish State. Harold Pinter, the late Nobel Laureate playwright, has gone so far as to declare Israel “the central factor in world unrest,” presumably forgetting about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan. Showing how thin is the line separating criticism and anti-Semitism, Tom Paulin, poet, essayist and academic at Oxford, said Jewish “settlers” in Israel “should be shot dead.” A Scottish National Poet, Liz Lochhead, also joined a group calling for the boycott of Israel.

Dozens of the world’s literary stars, including Nobel laureates in literature such as J. M. Coetzee, Herta Mueller, Orhan Pamuk and the late Irish poet Seamus Heaney, added their names to a petition against Israel’s “occupation’s giant, cruel hand.” What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

Donald Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico, the Arab sheikhdoms are closing the border with Oman, Spain built fences to keep out Moroccans, India is walling off Bangladesh, South and North Korea share a fortified border, Cyprus is divided by walls and Belfast is a fenced city of barriers.

But only Israel’s fence — built for defensive, humanitarian reasons, merely not to get blown up — is condemned by the International Court of Justice and receives round-the-clock coverage on CNN and front page stories in the New York Times. Why? Because the security barrier that saves lives was perverted by unjust people into an unjust barrier, with no mention of what happened to Israelis before that fence was put up. To paraphrase attorney Alan Dershowitz: If you made a fair and objective list of all the countries in the world that comply with human rights, from best to worst, Israel would have to be near the top, among the best.

One of the most chilling accusations against Israel has come from a northern European writer, Jostein Gaarder, an ostensible humanitarian, whose book, “Sophie’s World,” was translated into 53 languages, and with 26 million copies sold. Penning an article in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Gaarder wrote:

“If the entire Israeli nation should fall … and part of the population must flee to another Diaspora, then we say: may their surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. Shoot not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now — like snails without shells! … Give the Israeli refugees shelter; give them milk and honey!”

Gaarder envisages the expulsion of the entire Jewish people from their land, and again dependent on European charity — in recent years not exactly a commodity in great supply.

Israel has been humiliated also by a German writer and Nobel Prize for Literature, Günter Grass, who published a poem in several European newspapers, in which he treated Israel as the purveyor of all ills and the instigator of every type of disorder. According to Mr. Grass, it is Israel that threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide, not the reverse.

This sanctimony should not have come from that writer: Grass, in fact, served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force and defined East Germany’s Communism “a comfortable dictatorship.”

After a visit in the Palestinian Authority’s de facto capital, Ramallah, during the Second Intifada, after there were about 1,500 Jewish dead from terrorism, another winner of Nobel Prize for Literature, José Saramago, stated that the Israeli blockade of Ramallah was “in the spirit of Auschwitz” and “this place is being turned into a concentration camp.” A year later, Saramago commented that the Jewish people no longer deserve “the sympathy for the suffering they went through during the Holocaust.”

1512

Nobel laureates who demonized: German novelist Günter Grass (left), who served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force, claimed that Israel threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide. Portuguese novelist José Saramago (right), gave credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel.

Mr. Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, shopping malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel, and the transformation of the Jewish State — the historical home of the Jews for nearly 4000 years, and lately the only sanctuary not to turn away Jews being persecuted or rounded up for death — into an “imperialist base.”

It is by repeating lies that Europe even accepted the big Mohammed al-Dura lie: a boy supposedly riddled to death with Israeli bullets, but there was not one drop of blood! Not only that, but after he was dead, he moved his hand to look out. Quite a feat. For a time, the lie even became the favorite table conversation for Europe’s upper classes.

This is how millions of Europeans have been persuaded to see Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinian terrorists as the victims. They read the inverted, Orwellian revision of history every day on the front pages. Look at what is happening now during this “Third Intifada”: it is filled with knives, stabbings of Jews, even charts on the internet showing where to stab a Jew to do the most damage. The many dead Israeli civilians and soldiers have totally disappeared from the television screen, but when Israeli soldiers shoot a Palestinian in the process of stabbing a Jew, they are labelled by a corrupt and racist media as “illegal executioners.”

What would these supposed intellectuals do if citizens were being stabbed in London, Rome or Berlin? The “intellectuals” and the media seem to be trying to make the Jews unable to defend themselves. The “intellectuals” and the media are preaching for Israel’s destruction.

_____________________

[1] From the Oslo II Accord — Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, September 28, 1995, CHAPTER 3 – LEGAL AFFAIRS, ARTICLE XVII  — Jurisdiction:

4. a. Israel, through its military government, has the authority over areas that are not under the territorial jurisdiction of the Council, powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council and Israelis.

b. To this end, the Israeli military government shall retain the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law. This provision shall not derogate from Israel’s applicable legislation over Israelis in personam.

Categories: Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Europe, Foreign policy, Human rights, Islam and Jews, Israel, Leftists, Media, Middle East, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Palestinians and media
Tags: Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Europe, Foreign Policy, human rights, Islam and Jews, Israel, Leftists, Middle East, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Palestinians and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

Judge Hopes Muslim who Shouted “Kill the Jews” isn’t Prejudiced

March 6, 2016

Judge Hopes Muslim who Shouted “Kill the Jews” isn’t Prejudiced, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, March 6, 2016

Kill the Jews

I certainly hope so. Calls for genocide are bad enough. But prejudiced calls for genocide are even worse.

After getting stuck in London traffic, Rashal Miah got out of his Mercedes and started shouting that he would “kill all the Jews” at an Orthodox Jewish school-bus driver in front of a bus full of young children.

During Miah’s sentencing, Judge Murray Shanks in the UK called the driver’s behavior “horrible.”

“I accept this was mainly driven by you being wrongly angry and suffering from road rage, as well as being arrogant about what you were entitled to do on the road,” Shanks told Miah. “I hope it doesn’t indicate some underlying prejudice.”

Surely shouting “Kill all the Jews” because you’re angry at a Jewish bus driver in no way indicates some underlying prejudice.

“If this was the other way around and Muslims were being insulted, I have a good feeling you would feel strongly. You need to understand that before you open your mouth,” the judge said.

Well of course he would feel strongly. But that’s different. Because Muslims are the Master Race.

These condescending liberal lectures are great, but Muslims don’t see themselves as a minority. Our friend Rashal has been informed by the Koran that Jews are accursed by Allah. He recites this every day in his prayers. His preachers tell him the Hadiths that the apocalypse won’t come until Muslims kill all the Jews.

So the “How would you feel” lecture doesn’t work at all because Rashal doesn’t share the universalist premises of Western multiculturalism that other people are basically like him. His religion tells him otherwise. And who is a British judge to argue with Islam?

Miah also reportedly called the bus driver “Yehudi,” the word for “Jew” in Hebrew and similarly in Arabic.

Yahoodi is basically a slur among Muslims. It is used to insult other Muslims and non-Muslims the way they might call a man a dog. But no underlying prejudice. Genocide without prejudice is the Muslim way since we know that Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance that kills people without any hatred.

Categories: Britain, Islam and Jews, Islamic invasion, Islamisation
Tags: Britain, Islam and Jews, Islamic invasion, Islamisation

Comments: Be the first to comment

Caution – Politically Incorrect | The Vicious Snake

February 27, 2016

The Vicious Snake, Donald Trump via You Tube, January 18, 2016

H/t Puma by Design, February 7, 2016 and 1389 Blog, February 26, 2016. I had missed it. According to Puma by Design, “Donald Trump began reciting the lyrics to a song entitled “The Snake” at his rallies, a few weeks back, as not reported by the mainstream media.’ The video is apparently “going viral” in Europe.- DM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeJ-iv3MOTo

Categories: Donald Trump, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Snakes
Tags: Donald Trump, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Snakes

Comments: Be the first to comment

Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech – Selectively

February 19, 2016

Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech – Selectively, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, February 19, 2016

♦ According to the court decision, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism.

♦ Conversely, when a Danish imam called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police for breaching § 266b, but no legal charges were ever filed against him.

♦ In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

Last week, a Danish district court ruled that what a Danish citizen had written on Facebook in November 2013 violated the Danish criminal code.

In response to a debate about the local activities of a radical Islamic organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which works for the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate, he wrote: “The ideology of Islam is as loathsome, disgusting, oppressive and as misanthropic as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating thing to happen to Danish society in recent history.”

According to § 266b of Denmark’s criminal code, it is prohibited and punishable by fine or prison publicly to threaten, insult or demean a group of persons because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

The man was fined 1600 Danish kroner (approximately $240), which makes it unlikely that he will be allowed to appeal the sentence: the fine is so small that an appeal to the Higher Court requires special permission.

The Danish district court found that the man’s statements about Islam were “generalizing statements” that were “insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.”

The district court reached this conclusion despite the defendant’s testimony, according to which he specifically wrote “the ideology of Islam” in order to make a distinction between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islam. The defendant explained that, “‘Islamist’ is a normal term for extremist groups, who commit crimes against humanity and do the most terrible things, whereas Islam is a peaceful religion.”

The district court decided to disregard “the defendant’s explanation that a distinction should be made between the ideology of Islam and the religion of Islam”.

The court reasoned that

“the statements that the defendant has made should be seen in the societal and historical context of the fall of 2013, and in this context the court sees the statements about ‘the ideology of Islam’ as pertaining to Islam generally and not only the extreme part of Islam. In this regard, the court has furthermore emphasized that the quoted statements were written on 29 November 2013 at 17.13 and that at 17.27 on the same day — as pointed out by the defense — the defendant wrote in the same [Facebook] thread that “Islam wishes to abuse democracy in order to get rid of democracy.”

For the incredulous reader, it should be pointed out that the court presumably meant that in 2013, Islamism as an ideology had not manifested itself through terrorism in Denmark and Europe in the same way as it has today, a few years later. This is, of course, nonsense, as pointed out by the defendant’s lawyer, Karoly Nemeth: “I believe the court is expressing a lack of historical understanding. The ideology of Islam has existed for over 1,000 years,” he said.

According to this court decision, then, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism. Despite this decision being wrong in every single aspect, the court did, however, get one thing right: It refused to distinguish between Islam as an ideology and Islam as religion. The prosecutor, Bente Schnack, said it did not make a difference whether the defendant spoke of the ideology or the religion of Islam. “It is pretty difficult to tell the difference,” she said.

While the court’s decision was widely criticized in Denmark, two leading professors of Danish criminal law agreed with it. One professor, Gorm Toftegaard Nielsen, said that, “§ 266b is about subjecting a group of people to hatred by threatening, insulting or demeaning them. When you group Islamists with Nazis, then it is not a compliment.”

The following question, of course, inevitably arises: Since when is public debate supposed to be restricted to complimenting each other?

The professor continued: “When he [the defendant] says ‘the massive immigration of Islamists,’ it can easily be interpreted as meaning that those people are as immoral as Nazis… It is not nice to compare those two groups. But that is what he does indirectly and that amounts to subjecting a group to hatred.”

What the Danish district court did was what the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation has long sought: the establishment of Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of a religion a criminal offence. The UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18 does exactly that, although it is non-binding — except presumably for the countries that want it to be. Infractions, as in Denmark now, are punishable by law. The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Conversely, in October 2014, when Mohamed Al Khaled Samha, a Danish imam from the Odense mosque, called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police, and local Danish police began an investigation of the imam with a view to charging him for breaching § 266b, but as far as Gatestone Institute has been able to ascertain, no legal charges were ever filed against him. (Incidentally, this imam was among the group of imams who traveled to the Middle East presumably to stir up anti-Danish sentiment in the aftermath of Jyllands-Posten newspaper’s printing of the Mohammed cartoons). In his sermon, Samha also said, “”Palestine has been and will remain the land of Islam. It is the land of the great battle, in which the Muslims will fight the Jews, and the trees and the stones will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'”

In July 2014 another Danish imam, Abu Bilal Ismail, from the Grimshøj mosque, prayed for the death of Jews at a sermon in a Berlin mosque. “Oh Allah, destroy the Zionist Jews. They are no challenge for you. Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don’t spare a single one of them,” Ismail said. This, too, was officially reported to the Danish police, who never acted against that imam, either.

Instead, it was German authorities who criminally charged him. In December 2015, he was sentenced to a €10,000 fine for inciting hatred against Jews as well as non-Jewish groups in Germany. The Berlin court found that Ismail targeted “Jews with hatred, as well as all other non-Muslim groups living in Germany.”

The German court also said that the Lebanese-born cleric had shown deep contempt for the United States and Europe in his sermon, and that his assault on European civilization and Zionists had met the definition of incitement. The verdict said that Ismail considered Jews as “criminals who kill prophets and children, and Jews are worse than wild beasts in the world of the jungle,” and that “Allah should kill Jews.” Since Ismail had already been convicted in Germany, and a person cannot be punished twice for the same criminal act, the Danish police decided not to press charges.

In another, ironic, development regarding the use of § 266b of the Danish penal code, the state Prosecutor decided that Hajj Saeed, who incited against Jews in the Masjid Al-Faru mosque in Copenhagen, on February 13, 2015 — the very same sermon, in fact, that the terrorist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Husseini attended the day before he murdered Dan Uzan at the Copenhagen synagogue — will not be prosecuted for his statements. In his sermon, Saeed said that the Western “infidel” civilization has led non-Muslims “to an abyss of deprivation and corruption and has reduced them from being human to being at the level of animals”. He incited Muslims to wage war against Jews:

“Our prophet Muhammad had Jewish neighbors in Medina. Did he talk about closer ties, harmony and dialogue with them — in the same way as the UN and those who call for reconciliation between what is true and what is false? Or did he tell them to worship Allah? When they broke their promise and did not accept his calling, well, you know what he did to them… He declared war against the Jews.”

Danish police investigated the imam and recommended that the state prosecutor indict him under the same provision of the penal code, § 266b, for inciting hatred and threatening a particular group of people because of their ethnicity — in this instance because they were Jews. The state Prosecutor, for reasons that are unknown at this point, evidently thought otherwise.

Ironically, the mosque in question, Masjid Al-Faru, is connected with Hizb-ut-Tahrir; and the imam, Hajj Saeed, is considered to be one of the organization’s “rising stars” in Denmark.

In 2002, in fairness, the spokesman at the time for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Fadi Abdullatif, was sentenced for violating § 266b, when his organization handed out flyers against Jews with the words, “And kill them, wherever you may find them and banish them from where they banished you.”

1476

Members of the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir demand a worldwide Islamic Caliphate during a demonstration in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2006. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Epo)

After the February 2015 terrorist attacks in Copenhagen against the synagogue, where Dan Uzan was murdered, and the Krudttønden café, where film director Finn Nørgaard was murdered, Hizb ut-Tahrir told Muslims not to condemn the terrorist attacks, but instead “put things in their right context.”

In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a packed mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

Categories: Denmark, Europe, Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Multiculturalism
Tags: Denmark, Europe, Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Multiculturalism

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR Intertwines with US-based, Terror-Linked Fuqra Group

February 9, 2016

CAIR Intertwines with US-based, Terror-Linked Fuqra Group, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, February 9, 2016

Gilani-HP_1

Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, the radical head of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist organization fronted in the U.S. by Muslims of the Americas.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “moderate” image is suffering from a self-inflicted wound now it has become intertwined with the Muslims of the Americas, a radical anti-Semitic front for the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group.

CAIR’s Massachusetts chapter now shares an official with MOA and two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference.

The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR recently chose MOA’s general counsel, Tahirah Amatul Wadud, as a board member. CAIR, a U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity banned for its own terror links in the UAE, wisely omitted mention of MOA. It described her generically as a “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.”

Wadud reportedly posted an article by MOA’s Pakistan-based leader, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, on her Facebook claiming the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is a puppet of the British government and a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated the attacks on Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001. The Clarion Project was the first to report on the inflammatory article.

“There was no need for America to go to war against Hitler. Hitler was not the enemy of America or the American people. There was a mutual animosity between Hitler and the Jews. So, the American people paid a very heavy price for fighting someone else’s war,” Gilani wrote.

American Taliban _ Mauro-240x145

Two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference, which included a poster featuring the faces of the “American Taliban” that included Clarion Project national security analyst Ryan Mauro. They were CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid and CAIR-ArizonaExecutive Director Imraan Siddiqi. Walid was one of the CAIR officials who have questioned whether Muslims should honor fallen U.S. servicemen on Memorial Day, sparking a backlash from Muslims who appreciate the U.S. military.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra is led by Gilani. It is best known for a series of terrorist attacks and plots in the 1980s and early 1990s and for setting up “Islamic villages” across the country, including at least two that were shut down by the authorities. These “villages” are known to have been used for guerilla warfare training. Fuqra now goes primarily by the name of Muslims of the Americas (MOA), among other names. The group says it has 22 such “villages” in the U.S.

The Clarion Project obtained video of female members receiving basic paramilitary instruction in military fatigue at its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York. The date of the footage is cut off, only stating “Jan. 28 20,” presumably meaning it was made in 2000 or after. The best explanation MOA members have come up with is that it was a “self-defense class.”

View the video here:

The Clarion Project identified a Fuqra “village” in Texas in 2014 and retrieved an FBI intelligence report from 2007 that stated MOA “possess an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” and “the documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

The FBI also said “members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Gilani.” In 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas P. Gallagher testified in court that “individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, N.Y., and if they pass the training in Hancock, N.Y., are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani.”

After Clarion Project identified the Texas site and published the FBI report, a dozen Muslim groups have signed a statement calling for Fuqra’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Of course, CAIR isn’t one of them. CAIR actually came to Fuqra/MOA’s defense. And now CAIR and Fuqra have shared leadership through CAIR-Massachusetts and hold events together.

CAIR Two Officials Siddiqi Walid-240x323

MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference took place at the Muslim Community Center of the Capital District in Schenectady, New York. CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi is listed as a member of the Board of Directors, indicating he played more than a speaking role in setting the MOA event up.

The MOA’s event featured delegates representing the U.S., Canada, Pakistan, Senegal, India, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Egypt. Siddiqi was the delegate representing India. MOA flyers also list headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela and Las Lomas, Trinidad & Tobago. The MOA claims it had nearly 300 attendees and thousands watched online. It announced it would start a new political coalition named the “International United Muslim Forum.”

Ironically, MOA has tried to excuse itself from its terrorist and criminal history by claiming that it was infiltrated by Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood operatives who were sent to undermine Sheikh Gilani. It even claims that one operative was a shape-shifter who could go “through physical changes before speaking to people as if he were Sheikh Gilani.”

And now MOA is collaborating with a known Muslim Brotherhood entity. You can read our documented profiles of CAIR and MOA here and here.

Categories: CAIR, Islam and Jews, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Moderate Muslims, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America
Tags: CAIR, Islam and Jews, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisatin, Islamophobia, Moderate Muslims, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America

Comments: Be the first to comment

A (Much) Better Year

February 5, 2016

A (Much) Better Year, Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, February 5, 2016

[A] of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

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

On Wednesday the U.S. media interrupted its saturation coverage of the presidential primaries to report on President Barack Obama’s visit to a mosque in Maryland. The visit was Obama’s first public one to a mosque in the US since entering the White House seven years ago. The mosque Obama chose to visit demonstrated once again that his views of radical Islam are deeply problematic.

Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. During Operation Protective Edge, the leaders of the mosque accused Israel of genocide and demanded that the administration end US support for the Jewish state.

According to The Daily Caller, the mosque’s former imam Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh was active in the Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity deemed a terror group in 2004 after the US Treasury Department determined it had transferred funds to Osama bin Laden, Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

El-Sheikh left the Baltimore mosque to take over the Dar el-Hijra mosque in northern Virginia. He replaced Anwar al-Awlaki as imam after Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2003. In Yemen Awlaki rose to become a senior al-Qaida commander.

Awlaki radicalized many American jihadists both through direct contact and online. He radicalized US Army major Nidal Malik Hasan, and inspired him to carry out the 2009 massacre of 13 US soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood in Texas. Awlaki was killed by a US drone strike in 2011.

In 2010, a member of the Islamic Society of Baltimore was arrested for planning to attack an army recruiting office. According to the Mediaite news portal, the mosque reportedly refused to cooperate with the FBI in its investigation.

Obama’s visit to the radical mosque now is a clear signal of how he intends to spend his last year in office. It tells us that during this period, Obama will adopt ever more extreme positions regarding radical Islam.

Obama’s apologetics for radical Islamists is the flipside of his hostility for Israel. This too is escalating and will continue to rise through the end of his tenure in office.

The US Customs authority’s announcement last week that it will begin enforcing a 20-yearold decision to require goods imported from Judea and Samaria to be labeled “Made in the West Bank,” rather than “Made in Israel,” signals Obama’s intentions. So, too, it is abundantly clear that France’s plan to use the UN Security Council to dictate Israel’s borders was coordinated in advance with the Obama administration.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

On the Democratic side, neither candidate is a particularly energetic supporter of Israel or counter- jihad warrior. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recently released email discussions of Israel with her closest advisers indicate that all of Clinton’s closest counselors are hostile to Israel.

For his part, Vermont’s socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders harbors the far Left’s now standard anti-Israel attitudes. Not only did Sanders – like Clinton – support Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the Joint Houses of Congress where Netanyahu laid out Israel’s reasons for opposing the deal. Sanders gave television interviews condemning Netanyahu for making the speech, accusing him of electioneering on the back of the US Congress. Sanders criticized Israel during Operation Protective Edge and supports decreasing US military aid to Israel.

For all their anti-Israel sensibilities, though, neither Clinton nor Sanders gives the impression that they are driven by them as Obama is.

Unlike Obama, neither appear to be animated by their hostility toward Israel. Neither seem to be passionate in their support for Muslim Brotherhood- affiliated groups or in their desire to realign the US away from Israel, from its traditional Arab allies and toward Iran. This lack of passion makes it safe to assume that if elected president, while they will adopt anti-Israel policies, they will not seek out ways to weaken Israel or strengthen its sworn enemies.

On the Republican side, the situation is entirely different. All of the Republican presidential candidates are pro-Israel. To be sure, some are more pro-Israel than others. Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, is more supportive than his competitors. But all of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

It hasn’t always been this way. And it doesn’t have to remain this way.

Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush.

Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel.

On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel.

Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably.

Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel.

Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points.

The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites.

Last summer, pollster Frank Luntz conducted a survey of US elite partisan opinion on Israel. His data were devastating. According to Luntz’s data, 76% of Democratic elite believe that Israel has too much influence over US foreign policy. Only 20% of Republicans do.

Nearly half (47%) of highly educated, wealthy and politically active Democrats think that Israel is a racist country. Thirteen percent of their Republican counterparts agree.

And whereas only 48% of Democrats believe that Israel wants peace, 88% of Republicans believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors.

These trends affect voting habits. According to Luntz, while only 18% of Democrats say they would be more likely to vote for a politician who supports Israel, 31% said they are less likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate. In contrast, 76% of Republicans say they want their representatives to support Israel.

Forty-five percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who is critical of Israel and 75% of Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for an anti-Israel candidate.

These data tell us two important things. Today Democratic candidates will gain nothing and may lose significant support if they support Israel.

In contrast, a Republican who opposes Israel will have a hard time getting elected, much less winning a primary.

Partisan sensibilities aren’t the only reason that Israel is will be better off if a Republican wins in November. There is also the issue of policy continuity.

Even though neither Clinton nor Sanders share Obama’s anti-Israel passion, their default position will be to maintain his policies. Traditionally, when an outgoing president is replaced by a successor from his own party, many of his foreign policy advisers stay on to serve his successor.

Moreover, if American voters elect a Democrat to succeed Obama, their decision will rightly be viewed as a vote of confidence in his policies.

Obama has radicalized the Democratic Party in his seven years in office. When Obama was inaugurated, the Blue Dog caucus of conservative Democratic members of the House of Representatives had 54 members. Today only 14 remain.

Obama’s Democratic Party is not Bill Clinton’s party.

A party that isn’t forced to pay a price for its policies isn’t likely to change them. If the Democrats are not defeated in the run for the White House in November, their party will not reassess its shift to radicalism and reconsider its increasingly hostile stance on Israel.

That then brings us to the state of the presidential race following the Iowa caucuses and ahead of next Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses showed a significant gap in enthusiasm among partisan voters. Participation rates in the Republican caucuses were unprecedented.

Cruz shattered the record for vote getting in the state that saw participation rates up 30% from 2012. On the Democratic side, participation rates were below the 2008 level.

On the Republican side, the three top candidates – Cruz, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio – are all backed by committed, fervent supporters. On the Democratic side, Clinton’s supporters are reportedly diffident about her. And while Sanders enjoys enthusiastic support from voters under 45, he can’t seem to convince people who actually know what socialism is to support him.

If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, on the face of it, it is difficult to see his path to victory in the general election. Whereas Obama was elected by hiding his radical positions, Sanders is running openly as a socialist and attacks Obama from the Left. Whether America is a center-right or center-left country, the undisputed truth is that it is a centrist country.

As for Clinton, the likelihood grows by the day that by the general election, her inability to inspire her base will be the least of her problems.

The FBI’s ongoing probe of her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state is devastating her chances of getting elected.

The State Department’s revelation last week that 22 of Clinton’s emails were too classified to be released, even with parts blacked out, makes it impossible to dismiss the prospect that she will be indicted for serious felony offenses. Yet, as Jonah Goldberg argued Wednesday in National Review, with her narrow victory in Iowa, Clinton blocked the opening for a less damaged candidate – like Vice President Joe Biden or former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg – to step into the race.

In other words, the Republican nominee will have an energized base and will face either a legally challenged or openly socialist Democratic opponent.

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, before Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, he asked the FBI for its opinion of the mosque. FBI investigators informed Obama of the mosque’s ties to terrorism. They urged him not to confer it with the legitimacy that comes with a presidential visit.

Obama ignored the FBI’s advice.

The next 11 months will be miserable for Israel.

But we should take heart. By all accounts, next year will be better. And judging by the way the presidential race is shaping up, next year may be a much, much better year.

Categories: Democrats, Foreign policy, Fundamentalist Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamophobia, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Israel, Obama mosque visit, Palestinians, Republicans
Tags: Democrats, Foreign Policy, Fundamentalist Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamophobia, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Israel, Obama mosque visit, Palestinians, Republicans

Comments: 2 Comments

European Governments Ignoring Security Warnings?

January 30, 2016

European Governments Ignoring Security Warnings? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, January 30, 2016

♦ “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” — From a leaked German intelligence document.

♦ The mayor of Molenbeek, Belgium ignored a list she received, one month prior to the Paris attacks, “with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area,” according to the New York Times. “What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists,” Mayor Schepmans said.

♦ In October 2015, Andrew Parker, director general of Britain’s Security Service, said that the “scale and tempo” of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK.

The head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), Benedicte Bjørnland, was recently a participating guest at a security conference in Sweden, where she warned against further Muslim immigration.

One cannot,” she said, “assume that new arrivals will automatically adapt to the norms and rules of Norwegian society. Furthermore, new arrivals are not homogenous and can bring ethnic and religious strife with them… If parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments emerge in the long run,” she added, “We will have challenges as a security service.”

The changes Bjørnland speaks of — parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments — are nothing new; they have been proliferating throughout Western Europe for years. The Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, which was home to two of the perpetrators of November’s terror attacks in Paris, is known as a “terrorist den.” Yet the mayor of Molenbeek ignored a list she received, one month prior to the Paris attacks, “with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area,” according to the New York Times. “What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists,” Mayor Schepmans said. “That is the responsibility of the federal police.”

This statement is, in many ways, symptomatic of the European failure to deal with the security problems that Europe faces. The problem is always supposed to be somebody else’s.

Anders Thornberg, the head of the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO), literally begged Swedish society for help: “The Islamist environments have grown considerably in the past five years,” he said “and tensions are growing between various population groups. We need all of society to help fight the radicalization, there are limits to how much faster a security service can run.”

These are sentiments that are rarely, if ever, voiced by official Norway or Sweden. Apparently, the fear of offending Muslim sensitivities has thus far overridden security concerns. But even Sweden, which sees itself as a “humanitarian superpower,” and up until recently had sworn to keep its doors open to all migrants and refugees, has had to reassess its policy. At the end of November 2015, Sweden’s Deputy-Prime Minister Asa Romson, reluctantly and in tears, said that the government had been “forced to take reality into account,” given the huge number of migrants that entering the country. Sweden (and Denmark) tightened their border controls a few weeks ago.

It is questionable, however, whether the warning cries of the Scandinavian security services will have any noticeable impact on the fundamental political course of their political leaders, especially if the latest statements by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven are anything to take into account.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Löfven declared that it was “wrong” to mix up either sexual assaults on European women or the threat of ISIS with the mass migration into Europe: “Sexual harassment is not automatically binding to migration and immigration. We have had sexual harassment in Sweden for many, many years, unfortunately,” Löfven told CNBC, thus pretending that the imported Middle Eastern pastime of Taharrush Gamea [collective harassment] of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, had nothing to do with migrants.

“What it now takes is to be very clear that this is not appropriate, it is absolutely out of line and we need to take a very clear message now to show to these young girls and women they are of course entitled to walk in the city… without sexual harassment,” Löfven added. No, the girls and the women are not the ones in need of a “clear message.” The men harassing and raping them are — especially in a country now known as the rape capital of the West.

The Swedish prime minister’s refusal to “deal with reality” — including that ISIS terrorists enter Europe together with the migrants — is disturbing and should be of immense concern to Swedish citizens. It also displays the huge gap in perception of the current situation between the Swedish Security Services and the Swedish government.

The head of the Swedish Security and Intelligence Services has every reason, it turns out, to beg Swedish society to help fight the security challenges Sweden is facing. Considering current Swedish government, he is going to need all the help he can get.

The additional gap between the genuine concerns of national intelligence and security services on one hand, and governments’ fear of offending Muslim sensibilities and venturing beyond the politically correct “narratives” on the other hand, is not confined to Sweden, but evident across Western Europe.

European intelligence and security services have warned for a long time that — given the increase of mainly Muslim migration and the ensuing growth of parallel societies and extremist environments — they cannot keep up with the ever-increasing threats of jihadist terrorism, which in the past decade have grown exponentially.

In the Netherlands, the Dutch jihadist movement began a far-reaching process of becoming more professional in late 2010, and adopted propaganda methods developed by British jihadists. “The increasing momentum of Dutch jihadism poses an unprecedented threat to the democratic legal order of the Netherlands,” stated the Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, in the autumn of 2014.

In Germany, the intelligence agencies warned in the early fall of 2015 that, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” Four major German security agencies made it clear that “German security agencies… will not be in the position to solve these imported security problems and thereby the arising reactions from Germany’s population.” Still, this dire warning, which was leaked to the German press, did not cause Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to change her open-door policy. While Germany has introduced border controls, 2000 asylum claims are still processed there every day.

In Britain, the MI5 has openly declared that it cannot stop all terrorist attacks on English soil. In October 2015, Andrew Parker, director general of the Security Service, said that the “scale and tempo” of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. He warned that while the threat to the UK from ISIS is on the rise MI5 can “never” be confident in stopping all terror plots.

Little wonder. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists who are willing to carry out attacks on the UK, British security sources have warned. That is a 50% increase in less than a decade. Already in November 2014, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, told an international terrorism conference that 25% of the population growth in the UK had arrived in London in the last 10 years, and posing big challenges for the police force, who could not keep up with the pace of immigration.

The difficulties in properly monitoring so many extremists and effectively preventing them from committing acts of terror has also become a tremendous challenge, compounded by the sheer volume of extremists. Dame Stella Rimington, former head of the MI5, estimated in June 2013 that it would take around 50,000 full-time MI5 spies to monitor 2,000 extremists or potential terrorists 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That would be more than 10 times the number of people employed by MI5.

The situation is not much different in many other European countries. In Germany Hans-Georg Maasen, head of Germany’s BfV domestic security agency, claimed that his office was aware of almost 8,000 Islamic radicals in Germany. He said that all of these extremists advocate violence to advance their goals, with some trying to win over migrants, and that his office receives one or two ‘fairly concrete tips’ of planned terrorist activity each week.

Most European countries – such as Germany, Britain, and France – are operating at their highest terror alert ever. The intelligence services are trying to cope with a situation beyond anything one could have imagined a decade ago.

The fight against the terrorist threat is never going to be won, however, only by pouring more financial resources and manpower into the counter-terrorism effort, although that is of course a necessary first step. As long as the political leaders — the governments — of the national security and intelligence services refuse to openly address the threat, without shrouding the issue in politically correct language – as demonstrated by Löfven — they will never be able to reduce it, let alone eliminate it.

Categories: Europe, Human rights, Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamophobia, Muslim assimilation, Security
Tags: Europe, human rights, Islam, Islam and Jews, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamophobia, Muslim assimilation, Security

Comments: 1 Comment

Pope Francis: Countries that take in Refugees Must Change

January 17, 2016

Pope Francis: Countries that take in Refugees Must Change, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, January 17, 2016

Happy immigrants

Some interesting tidbits from Pope Francis’ statement on migrants and refugees. Via Andrew Stuttaford at the National Review.

“Migration movements are now a structural reality, and our primary issue must be to deal with the present emergency phase by providing programmes which address the causes of migration and the changes it entails, including its effect on the makeup of societies and peoples.”

“At this moment in human history, marked by great movements of migration, identity is not a secondary issue. Those who migrate are forced to change some of their most distinctive characteristics and, whether they like or not, even those who welcome them are also forced to change.”

“The presence of migrants and refugees seriously challenges the various societies which accept them. Those societies are faced with new situations which could create serious hardship unless they are suitably motivated, managed and regulated. How can we ensure that integration will become mutual enrichment, open up positive perspectives to communities, and prevent the danger of discrimination, racism, extreme nationalism or xenophobia?”

“Public opinion also needs to be correctly formed, not least to prevent unwarranted fears and speculations detrimental to migrants.”

That last one is obviously the most ominous statement, but there is plenty of language here emphasizing the transformation of host societies. There is a failure to address the threat of migrants. Instead the only recognized threats are those of the host societies who reject migrants. There is also far too much talk about forming opinion, managing and regulating host societies and the need to change.

There is little to no acknowledgement of the inherent religious consequences of huge numbers of Muslims invading and settling in Europe. The words “Islam” and “Muslim” are never even mentioned.

Categories: Europe, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Pope Francis
Tags: Europe, Islam and Jews, Islam and women, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Pope Francis

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives