Posted tagged ‘Islam’

PLO Thumbs Nose at US, Will Introduce Resolution to ‘End Occupation’

October 17, 2014

PLO ignores US threat of aid cut and within weeks will introduce resolution to ‘end occupation’ in UN Security Council

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Published: October 17th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » PLO Thumbs Nose at US, Will Introduce Resolution to ‘End Occupation’.

 

UN Security Council
UN Security Council
Photo Credit: Wikimedia

 

Despite repeated requests by the U.S. administration to refrain from doing so, the PLO will go forward this month with its threatened introduction of a resolution into the UN Security Council. The resolution will demand the “end of Israeli occupation.”

A draft of the resolution obtained by AFP calls for the “full withdrawal of Israel, the occupying power, from all of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, as rapidly as possible and to be fully completed within a specified timeframe, not to exceed November 2016.”

PLO Secretary General Yasser Abed Rabbo said that despite intense pressure, his organization decided Wednesday, Oct. 15, to push ahead with the UN initiative.

“The political council of the PLO decided during its meeting last night… to go to the UN Security Council with the aim of getting a resolution passed to end the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories… by the end of this month,” Abed Rabbo said at a news conference in Ramallah, according to the Maan Palestinian Arab news site.

The U.S. is fully expected to veto the resolution, but it is worth watching to see if the U.S. will follow through on its threats to cut U.S. aid to the Palestinian Arabs. The U.S. just announced an additional $212 million in aid for Gaza.

Abbas Denies Clairvoyance but Promises No Gaza Violence for 2 Years

October 17, 2014

Abbas promises donors the impossible, as the donors smile and continue pouring in the aid money.

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Published: October 17th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » Abbas Denies Clairvoyance but Promises No Gaza Violence for 2 Years.

 

Acting leader of the PA Mahmoud "I'm no psychic" Abbas.
Acting leader of the PA Mahmoud “I’m no psychic” Abbas.
Photo Credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90

 

Despite humbly admitting to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that he is “not a psychic,” acting Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas told the U.S. diplomat that “during this year and next year there won’t be any type of clashes.”

Abbas gave this astonishing reassurance to Kerry who, along with representatives of other donor nations, had expressed concerns about the ceasefire which ended this summer’s 50 day conflict between the Hamas-led Gaza Strip and Israel.

The concerns were raised in the context of donor aid pledged to rebuild areas of Gaza which suffered serious damage during the conflict.

The pledge made by Abbas was intended to assure the donors that their money would not simply go up in smoke during the next round of fighting triggered by Hamas rockets and terror tunnels into Israel.

“We told them we are responsible for the ceasefire,” Abbas told Arab businessmen at his headquarters in Ramallah, according to the Palestinian Arab Maan news site.

Really? The PA hasn’t even been capable of stopping Gazan violence against PA members, how will they stop Hamas from committing violence towards Israel?

Not only is Abbas promising to stop all violence towards Israel, he’s also promising his careful oversight regarding how and where the billions of dollars of aid money is spent.

“We informed the whole world that the government will take charge of the issue of aid and no one else,” Abbas added, “and it will send them to the correct addresses.”

Next we can expect Abbas to assure the donors that the money spent will be put in the ground and grow new money, which will be tended by tiny green men with radar antennas instead of ears. The donor nations, including the U.S., will dutifully report this back to their nations’ leaders in the hopes of persuading them to provide even more aid money.

Never mind that the Palestinian Authority is even less trustworthy than Hamas when it comes to honesty and financial integrity.

Iran Arms Palestinians for New War with Israel

October 17, 2014

Iran Arms Palestinians for New War with Israel

Ayatollah: ‘Fighting the Zionist regime is a war of destiny

Ali KhameneiAli Khamenei / APBY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0October 16, 2014 4:25 pm

via Iran Arms Palestinians for New War with Israel | Washington Free Beacon.

 


Ali Khamenei / AP

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promised increased support for Palestinian terrorists and urged them to stockpile arms in anticipation of a new war on Israel, according to public comments made Thursday following his meeting with members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terror group.

“Fighting the Zionist regime [Israel] is a war of destiny,” Khamenei said after a meeting with PIJ’s secretary general, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.

Khamenei instructed Palestinians to “intensify their fight against the Israeli regime” and vowed that Iran would continue to arm Palestinian terrorists in both the Gaza Strip and West Bank, according to Fars.

All Palestinian terrorists groups—with Iran’s support—should rearm and prepare for another war with Israel, Khamenei said.

“The resistance movements in Palestine should boost their preparedness day by day and reinforce their power resources inside Gaza,” Khamenei was quoted as saying Thursday, less than two months after Israel launched an intense several week war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

Khamenei maintained that the most recent war with Israel, in which thousands of terror rockets were dropped on the Jewish people, marked the start of the “divine promise” of destroying the Jewish state.

The supreme leader also discussed the importance of arming terrorists in the West Bank, which is controlled by the more moderate Fatah Party.

Iran said in late August, days after the last war officially ended, that Tehran had stepped up arm shipments to the West Bank.

“The enemy should feel the same worries in the West Bank as it does in Gaza,” Khamenei said on Thursday, adding that Tehran will continue its support for the Palestinian “resistance.”

“The Islamic Republic and the Iranian people are proud of your victory and resistance, and hope that the back-to-back triumphs of resistance groups will continue until final victory,” he was quoted as saying.

PIJ Secretary General Ramazan Abdullah thanked Khamenei for Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism against Israel.

“Definitely, the victory was achieved with the assistance of the Islamic Republic,” Abdullah was quoted as saying by Fars following his meeting with Khamenei in Tehran. “Without Iran’s strategic and efficient help, resistance and victory in Gaza would have been impossible.”

Iran’s “arming” of the Palestinian factions in the West Bank has been “strategic and effective,” according to Abdullah, who also noted that Tehran’s support has “re-energized the Palestinian fighters and raised their spirit,” according to Fars.

Additionally, Iran on Thursday sent a plane of what it claimed is humanitarian aid and food to the Palestinians. The aid was said to be delivered via Egypt, according to Fars.

“The society has dispatched aid packages, including tents, blankets, food, and medical products worth $890,000 to Gaza,” the Iranian Red Crescent announced on Thursday.

As the Obama administration contemplates extending nuclear talks with Iran through the November deadline, sources on Capitol Hill are warning that there is no way to stem Iran’s support for terrorism.

The potential extension of talks through November, which already marked the second deadline for progress in the negotiations, has experts and lawmakers worried that the Obama administration will concede to Tehran’s demands that it be permitted to enrich uranium.

“With the Obama administration poised to extend nuclear talks with Tehran once again, it’s business as usual for the Iranian regime, which continues to brazenly fund and incite terrorism across the Middle East,” said one senior congressional aide who works on foreign policy issues. “Almost a year of negotiations has only served to boost Iran’s economy, embolden its leaders, and buy Iran more time to continue its quest for nuclear weapons.

Against The Rule Of Law, Terrorists Still Funded By U.S.

October 16, 2014

Against The Rule Of Law, Terrorists Still Funded

By U.S.AuthorBy Leigh Bravo October 16, 2014

via Against The Rule Of Law, Terrorists Still Funded By U.S..

 

Since 1990, the United States Government has committed $5 billion in bi-lateral assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) who continue to be the largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid.

In 2006, Hamas, a terrorist organization,  participated and won a majority in the Palestinian parliament, and as a result, the Palestinian Authority (PA) formed a coalition government with Hamas.  Mahmoud Abbas claimed the presidency and Ismail Haniya, a member of Hamas, became the prime minister. However, there was fighting between the two factions over a failed deal to share government power, and over 600 Palestinians were killed. As a result, the government coalition split leaving Haniya, (Hamas) in control of the Gaza Strip, and Abbas (PA) the West Bank.

Who is Hamas? They were established in 1987 and their origins begin in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. What do they stand for? In 2006, The New York Times reported on the Hamas Charter which includes, but is not limited to the following items,

  • Hamas’ goal is Jihad and the death of Jews.
  • All Muslims are duty bound to commit jihad against Israel
  • Peace is not an option
  • Women must train their children to become Jihad fighters
  • Hamas cares about human right and religious toleration provided all other religions live in the shadow of Islam.

(Hamas Party Platform)

In 2014, the two groups, again, decided to join forces which resulted in the halting of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Because of the creation of this new coalition government between Hamas and the Palestinians,  Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, responded by saying,

“So instead of moving into peace with Israel, he (Abbas) is moving into peace with Hamas. He has to choose. Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel. You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace; so far he hasn’t done so.”

Should the United States continue its financial support of the Palestinian Authority? More importantly, is it in line with the letter of United States law?

In a report for the Congressional Research Service, prepared by Jim Sanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, there are three U.S. policies that dictate the reason for the financial support to the Palestinians from the United States:

  • Preventing terrorism against Israel from Hamas and other militant organizations.
  • Fostering stability, prosperity and self-governance in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians- including those in the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip- toward peaceful coexistence with Israel and a “two-state solution.”
  • Meeting humanitarian needs

Additionally, the Congressional Research Service states there are restrictions on the United States offering aid to Palestinians, which includes, but it not limited to the following:

  • No aid is permitted for Hamas or Hamas controlled entities.
  • No aid is permitted for a power-sharing PA government that includes Hamas as a member or that results from an agreement over which Hamas exercises “undue influence” unless they have accepted the following 2 principles.  1. recognition of the “Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist” and 2. acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The United States has identified Hamas as a “Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization” in October of 1997.  At the website for the U.S. Department of State, there is a list of the current foreign organizations that have been classified as “terrorists.”  In order for the State Department to classify a group as terrorist, they must meet the Legal Criteria for Designation:

  • It must be a foreign organization
  • It must engage in terrorist activity or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
  • The organization’s terrorist activity must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States.

Congress and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have raised concerns about continued U.S. financial support to the Palestinian Authority.  However, even with the restrictions and definitions required by the rule of law, President Obama has stated that he will continue offering U.S. financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, even though they have formed a coalition government with Hamas, which clearly is in direct conflict with the rule of law. Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made the following statements:

“The administration is not demanding that [Abbas] return to the negotiation table with Israel without preconditions nor that he stops his unilateral statehood scheme at the U.N.”

“If the PA refuses to go back to the negotiation table with Israel and will not recognize a two state solution, why does the United States continue to offer financial aid to the Palestinians/Hamas?”

“The administration also says we need to help rebuild the Palestinian economy at a time when our economy is facing serious challenges and Americans are suffering.”

How much does the United States currently give in financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority?  In 2014, the United States offered approximately $440 million in assistance to the Palestinians and an additional $200 million annually through the U.N Relief and Works Agency, (UNRWA). Congress has raised concerns in regards to the UNRWA noting that funds might be used to support terrorists. UNRWA claims it screens staff and contractors every 6 months for terrorist ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, however, their screening does not include Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist groups in the area.

Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netenyahu spoke out in a speech made to the UN in 2014,

“Last week, many of the countries represented here rightly applauded President Obama for leading the effort to confront ISIS. And yet weeks before, some of these same countries, the same countries that now support confronting ISIS, opposed Israel for confronting Hamas. They evidently don‚Äôt understand that ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree.”

”…… they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever-expanding enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance—Where women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.”

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is deep in negotiations with Iran and their president, Haassan Rouhani,  in assisting in the fight with ISIS. However, what will we need to concede in order to obtain their support, and do we really want to make a deal with the devil?  Iran is a supporter of terrorism and is currently helping Syria’s Assad in the slaughter of rebels, gays, and Christians and has also threatened to wipe Israel and Jews off the map.  Are these really the people we want to climb into bed beside?

President Obama wants to loosen sanctions against Iran in exchange for their promise not to develop Nuclear weapons. A November 24 deadline is looming for Iran and the P5+1 group (U.S. , France, China, Britain, Russia and Germany) to discuss whether Iran will be allowed to continue to enrich uranium in defiance of U.N Security Council resolutions. President Rouhani has said that Iran will not “surrender” on the question of enrichment. In response to Obama, over 30 Republican senators sent a letter to John Kerry, Secretary of State saying,

“We have learned that the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners may now be offering troubling nuclear concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a ‘deal.’ Given that a nuclear Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to the security of the United States, Israel and other allies, we are gravely concerned about the possibility of any new agreement that, in return for further relief of U.S. led international sanctions, would allow Iran to produce explosive nuclear material.”

In August of this year, Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani said,

Iran supports the brave resistance of great and patient Palestinians and Gazan people.” Muslims in Gaza stood firm in the face of blood thirsty Zionists’ bombs and missiles and emerged victorious. Iran always stands by Palestine, Iraq and Syria. The Iranian nation will take the next steps with more power. The world knows that threats and sanctions against this great nation will have no effect.”

In his speech to the UN, Netanyahu further said,

“To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.”

President Obama could learn something from him!!

Guest Column: The Road from Qatar to the Gaza Strip

October 16, 2014

Guest Column: The Road from Qatar to the Gaza Strip, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Reuven Berko, October 15, 2014

1073

Throughout its history, Hamas, like ISIS, has been committed to the concept of the global caliphate, which it plans to help construct by creating its own Islamic emirate on the ruins of the State of Israel.

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

In a recent speech, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor mentioned the central role of Qatar in supporting international terrorist organizations. Money flowing from Qatar to Hamas, for example, paid for the terrorist attack tunnels dug from the Gaza Strip under the security fence into Israeli territory, and for the thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilian targets in both the distant and recent past. In response, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf rushed to Qatar’s defense, claiming it had an important, positive role in finding a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Qatar’s funding for Islamist terrorist organizations all over the world is an open secret known to every global intelligence agency, including the CIA. It was exposed by Wikileaks, which clearly showed that funds from Qatar were transferred to al-Qaida. Qatar also funds the terrorist movements opposing the Assad regime in Syria, such as the Al-Nusra Front, encourages anti-Egyptian terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula and within Egypt itself, and is involved in Islamic terrorism in Africa and other locations. It accompanies its involvement in terrorism targeting Israel and Egypt (through the Muslim Brotherhood) with vicious and inflammatory propaganda on its Al-Jazeera TV channel.

Qatar also spends millions of dollars supporting the Islamic Movement in Israel, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood headed by Sheikh Ra’ed Salah. The Islamic Movement is responsible for ongoing acts of provocation on the Temple Mount and in Judea and Samaria, and incites the entire Islamic world against Israel, claiming that the Jews are trying to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque and replace it with the Jewish Temple. The incitement continued even as the Islamic Movement’s sister movement, Hamas, fired rockets at Jerusalem and endangered both the mosques on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem’s sites sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

As Qatar’s representative, the Islamic Movement, which has not yet been outlawed in Israel, contributed to Hamas what it could during Operation Protective Edge by instigating riots, blocking roads and seeking to foment a third intifada which, according to the plan, would be joined by Israeli Arabs to augment the deaths of thousands of Israelis killed by rockets and the mass murders through the attack tunnels planned for the eve of the Jewish New Year.

In his recent UN speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebutted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ accusations of Israeli “genocide” of the Palestinian people. He reminded his audience of Hamas’ use of Gazan civilians as human shields and of the rockets fired to attack specifically civilian Israeli targets. Unfortunately, he did not mention the Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all the Jews. The fact that Abbas now heads a national consensus government in which Hamas is a full partner commits him to the slaughter of the Jewish people – a true genocide – and it is to the disgrace of the international community that such an individual was permitted to address the UN instead of being tried for war crimes.

In fact, the similarities between Hamas and ISIS are clearly stated in the Hamas charter, which defines Hamas as part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s global Islamic movement. One of its objectives is to fight “infidel Christian imperialism” and its Zionist emissaries in Israel in order to impose the Sharia, Islamic religious law, on the world. According to the charter’s paragraph 7, Hamas’ intention is to slaughter every Jew, as ordered by Muhammad and those who accept his legacy. That is the basis for the threat issued by ISIS “Caliph,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that under his leadership, Islam will “drown America in blood.”

Throughout its history, Hamas, like ISIS, has been committed to the concept of the global caliphate, which it plans to help construct by creating its own Islamic emirate on the ruins of the State of Israel. Since its founding, Hamas has attacked Israel and murdered thousands of its citizens exactly as ISIS has attacked and murdered “infidels.” They share the same slogans, with “There is no god but Allah” and “Allah, Prophet Muhammad” inscribed on their flags and headbands. Hamas terrorists have blown themselves up in Israel’s coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, buses, malls and markets, wherever there are large concentrations of civilians. The way Hamas executed suspected collaborators during the final days of Operation Protective Edge bore the hallmarks of the al-Qaida execution of Daniel Pearl and the ISIS beheading of James Foley and others.

In the decades during which Hamas has carried out a continual series of deadly terrorist attacks against Israel, wearing the same “Allah, Prophet, Muhammad” headbands as ISIS terrorists, the international community rarely voices its support for Israel, or takes into account that by defending itself Israel also defends the West, which has failed to understand that “political Islam” inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood was setting up shop in the free world’s backyard and that the ticking bomb was set to go off sooner than expected. The West has not clearly condemned Qatar for openly supporting Hamas and its terrorist activities against Israel or demanded that it stop.

While Israel responded to Hamas’ rocket attacks on civilian targets to keep thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Israeli civilians from being killed, the international community demanded “proportionality.” That requirement kept Israel from responding as it should have and encouraged Hamas to fire ever more rockets at “military targets” such as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. When Israel built its security fence to keep Hamas suicide bombers from infiltrating into Israeli territory to blow themselves up in crowds of civilians, the international community opposed it, rushed to embrace the Palestinians’ vocabulary of “racism” and “apartheid,” and willingly played into the hands of Hamas and Abbas. This reaction occurred although Israel is the only truly democratic country in the Middle East, where Jews and Arabs can live in peace without “apartheid.”

Today President Obama says he “underestimated” the threat posed by ISIS, while Israel has been warning the world of extremist military Islam for at least a decade, as Netanyahu warned the world of a nuclear Iran in his UN speech.

The international community has been curiously silent about the genuine apartheid in the Arab states neighboring Israel. There, descendants of the original 1948 Palestinian refugees, by now in their fourth generation, still live in refugee camps, do not have citizenship, and are excluded from jobs and social benefits. Israel, however, absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, many of them destitute, who fled Europe and were expelled from the Arab countries when the state was founded, and were given citizenship and enjoy full rights, as do the Arabs who remained in Israel after the War of Independence.

Israel, which has nothing against the Palestinian people, would like to see the Gaza Strip rebuilt for both humanitarian reasons and to give Hamas something to lose. Radical Islamic elements around the globe, however, including Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaida, the Al-Nusra Front and Hizballah, all financed by Qatar, do not want to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved. They all have the same global agenda, based on fueling the conflict to unite Islam around it, under their leadership.

Therefore, Qatar continues to support global Islamic terrorism. On Sept. 13, Qatar paid the Al-Nusra Front a ransom of $20 million to free abducted UN soldiers from Fiji. The world praised Qatar for its philanthropy, but in effect, it was a brilliant act of manipulation and fraud, both filling the Al-Nusra Front’s coffers and representing itself as the Fijians’ savior. Qatar is using the same underhanded trick in the Gaza Strip. After sending Hamas millions of dollars to fund its anti-Israeli terrorist industry, itpledged $1 billion to help rebuild the Gaza Strip during last weekend’s conference in Cairo.

While the world hopes Operation Protective Edge was the last round of Palestinian-Israeli violence, senior Hamas figures reiterate their position of gearing up to fight Israel again. Not one Hamas leader is willing to agree to a full merger with the Palestinian Authority to establish a genuine unified Palestinian leadership. Hamas rejects even the idea of disarming or demilitarization as part of an agreement to rebuild the Gaza Strip and promote the peace process. Unfortunately, no one has suggested it as a pre- condition for any U.S. dollars that will be contributed to the reconstruction of Gaza.

All that is left now is to hope that the billions of dollars poured into the Gaza Strip for its rebuilding will be accompanied by the disarmament of Hamas and the establishment of an honest mechanism for overseeing the money and materials Egypt and Israel allow into the Gaza Strip. It is imperative that they not be diverted to rebuild Hamas’ terrorist infrastructure and tunnels, or to bribe UNRWA officials to look the other way, as has happened so often in the past. There is every indication that only Hamas and Qatar know whether there is anything to justify that hope.

Dr. Reuven Berko has a Ph.D. in Middle East studies, is a commentator on Israeli Arabic TV programs, writes for the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom and is considered one of Israel’s top experts on Arab affairs.

The UN’s terrorism apologists

October 15, 2014

The UN’s terrorism apologists, New York Daily News, October 15, 2014

bayefsky16e-1-webHassan Rouhani of Iran.

It’s a two-step charade. First, since the UN has no definition of terrorism, state sponsors of terrorism happily denounce “terrorism” at the very same time as they promote it. Second, the terrorist funders and weapons suppliers redirect the world’s attention to the supposed “root causes” of terrorism.

On Oct. 7, at the legal committee meeting at UN headquarters, Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon listed “root causes that may lead to radicalism such as . . . poverty, social exclusion and marginalization” along with “Islamophobia.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani played the same card in an address to the General Assembly in September when he whined about “Iranophobia.

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

While we are looking for terrorists sneaking across borders, lurking in mosques and holed up in caves, pro-terrorist ideology is spreading across America and around the globe — disseminated in plain sight from the United Nations, in the heart of New York City.

Over the past week, the UN’s top legal committee — a General Assembly body where all 193 states are represented — met to discuss terrorism. The webcasts are broadcast globally in multiple languages. The documents are translated and disseminated on a mammoth website free of charge.

It’s a two-step charade. First, since the UN has no definition of terrorism, state sponsors of terrorism happily denounce “terrorism” at the very same time as they promote it. Second, the terrorist funders and weapons suppliers redirect the world’s attention to the supposed “root causes” of terrorism.

Conveniently, the catalog of root causes of terrorism dreamed up in these circles never includes religiously driven bigotry doled out by anti-Semites and misogynist, homophobic sociopaths — whose need to torture, rape and kill requires no deep explanation.

A quick moral inversion, and the terrorist becomes the victim.

The UN was full of such dangerous canards last week.

On Oct. 7, at the legal committee meeting at UN headquarters, Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon listed “root causes that may lead to radicalism such as . . . poverty, social exclusion and marginalization” along with “Islamophobia.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani played the same card in an address to the General Assembly in September when he whined about “Iranophobia.”

Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. And to the organization’s great shame, Iran is also the president of the so-called “Non-Aligned Movement” — a group of nations routinely aligned against the West. As such, Iran speaks for 120 UN member states — a majority of the 193 UN countries.

Here’s the Iranian speech to the UN legal beagles that was webcast Oct. 7: “Terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for self-determination and national liberation.”

Here’s state sponsor of terrorism North Korea on the same day: “Domination and interference, poverty and social inequality, and racial or religious discrimination constitute the root cause of terrorism. International efforts to put an end to terrorism should be preceded by removing the root cause of terrorism.”

All 56 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have signed on to the Islamic Convention on Combating International Terrorism, which gives a green light to killing Israelis, Americans and anybody else deemed fair game. The treaty says: “Peoples’ struggle, including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination . . . shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”

Speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Oct. 7, Egypt reiterated this pro-terror exemption clause. Over the course of Oct. 7 and 8, the UN trumpeted support for the Iranian and Organization of Islamic Cooperation call to arms from half of all the speakers.

Compounding the efficacy of this outrage, unfortunately, is the Obama administration. With great fanfare, on Sept. 24,, President Obama chaired a Security Council meeting that unanimously adopted a resolution on foreign terrorist fighters.

But the only reason everybody could agree that “terrorism constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security” was because terrorism was left undefined.

Moreover, the Security Council didn’t just denounce terrorism. It demanded we “address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” Next it insisted we “counter the violent, extremist narrative that can incite terrorist acts.” And then it ordered us to “address the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism.”

In other words, Obama sold us an infinite regression. Because at the UN, the buck never stops with radical Islamists or the governments that support them.

The demise of ‘responsibility to protect’ at the U.N.

October 15, 2014

The demise of ‘responsibility to protect’ at the U.N., Washington Times, Clifford D. May, October 14, 2014

(The UN’s “responsibility to protect” doctrine now applies principally to groups favored by the multicultural international community, such as the “Palestinians” from wicked Israel, disfavored by the international community. Those needing protection from Islamic terror must look elsewhere. But where? The U.S. of Obama?– DM)

UN logoIllustration on the illusion of “Responsibility to Protect” by Linas Garsys

[I]’s ludicrous to propose that the U.N. Security Council — whose permanent members include neo-Soviet Russia and anti-democratic China — should be vested with the authority to pass judgment on the legitimacy of such missions.

While the Islamic State is currently attracting the most attention, it is the Islamic Republic of Iran — which has been using proxies to kill Americans on and off for the past 35 years — that could soon have nuclear weapons as well as missiles to deliver them to targets anywhere in the world. Hezbollah and other terrorist groups offer an alternative means of delivery. Iran’s radical Shia rulers are more sophisticated than the Sunni jihadis displaying disembodied heads on pikes. However, their goals differ little from those of their rivals.

[T]he notion of an international community that can prevent or halt mass atrocities is a chimera.

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

Remember R2P? Not to be confused with R2-D2 (a robotic character in the “Star Wars” movies), “Responsibility to Protect” was an international “norm” proposed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the mass murders in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica a year later. The idea was for the “international community” to assume an obligation to intervene, militarily if necessary, to prevent or halt mass atrocities.

Why has R2P not been invoked to stop the slaughters being carried out in Syria and Iraq? Why isn’t it mentioned in regard to the Syrian-Kurdish city of Kobani, which, as I write this, may soon be overrun by barbarians fighting for what they call the Islamic State?

Here’s the story: In 2009, Mr. Annan’s successor, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, issued a report on “implementing” R2P. The foreign-policy establishment cheered. For example, Louise Arbour, a former U.N. high commissioner for human tights, called R2P “the most important and imaginative doctrine to emerge on the international scene for decades.” Anne-Marie Slaughter, an academic who served under Hillary Clinton at the State Department, went further, hailing R2P as “the most important shift in our conception of sovereignty since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.”

In 2011, President Obama cited R2P as his primary justification for using military force to prevent Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi from attacking the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.

If that was the apogee of R2P, the nadir was not far off. The intervention in Libya has led to chaos and bloodshed with no end in sight. Meanwhile, in Syria, four years ago this spring, Bashar Assad brutally cracked down on peaceful protesters.

Mr. Obama made Mr. Assad’s removal American policy but overruled the recommendation of his national security advisers to assist Syrian nationalist opposition groups. Civil war erupted. Self-proclaimed jihadis from around the world flocked to Syria to fight on behalf of the Sunnis. The opposition was soon dominated by the al Nusra Front, an al Qaeda affiliate, and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), whose leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, broke with al Qaeda and, audaciously, declared himself caliph, or supreme leader.

As for Mr. Assad, he is supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran, deploying both its elite Quds Force (designated in 2007 by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization) and Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based militia loyal to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Russia also backs Mr. Assad, even supplying on-the-ground military intelligence specialists.

With no U.N.-approved R2P effort to rescue the innocent civilians of the region from these brutal forces, the death toll in Syria and Iraq has topped 200,000, and the number of refugees is in the millions.

Failed experiments, like crises, should not go to waste. Among the lessons to be learned from the R2P debacle: First, the notion of an international community that can prevent or halt mass atrocities is a chimera. If such work is going to get done, the United States has to do it, perhaps supported by a coalition of the willing and, with few exceptions, not particularly able. Second, it’s ludicrous to propose that the U.N. Security Council — whose permanent members include neo-Soviet Russia and anti-democratic China — should be vested with the authority to pass judgment on the legitimacy of such missions. Third, American power should be used primarily in pursuit of American interests. Sometimes that will include humanitarian interventions, but that’s a decision for Americans to make.

This, too, should be clear: While the Islamic State is currently attracting the most attention, it is the Islamic Republic of Iran — which has been using proxies to kill Americans on and off for the past 35 years — that could soon have nuclear weapons as well as missiles to deliver them to targets anywhere in the world. Hezbollah and other terrorist groups offer an alternative means of delivery. Iran’s radical Shia rulers are more sophisticated than the Sunni jihadis displaying disembodied heads on pikes. However, their goals differ little from those of their rivals.

In response to this dire and deteriorating situation, Mr. Obama should be instructing his advisers to present him with a range of strategic options. I’d recommend conceptualizing the global conflict not as disconnected “overseas contingency operations,” and not as akin to World War II, but more like the Cold War. That is to say, the United States should plan for a long, low-intensity struggle. In particular, we should support those willing to fight the jihadis who threaten them.

Economic weapons can be powerful if used correctly, which has not been the case in the past. For example, though sanctions brought Iran’s rulers to the negotiating table, premature relief from sanctions pressure has encouraged Iranian intransigence as the talks proceeded.

Also long overdue is a serious war of ideas — it’s insufficient to leave that to Bill Maher and Ben Affleck on HBO. Bottom line: We are not really engaged in a conflict against “violent extremism” or even “terrorism.” What we’re confronting are ideologies derived from fundamentalist readings of Islamic scripture. Proponents of those ideologies stress the supremacy of one religion — much as communists stressed the supremacy of one class, and Nazis of one race. There is no reason to suppose that saying this clearly, rather than obfuscating, will radicalize Muslims not already favorably inclined toward killing infidels.

Our aim should be, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Obama, to “degrade and eventually defeat” jihadism. Nothing is more imperative than preventing Iran’s rulers from taking the next, short steps toward a nuclear-weapons capability that they clearly intend to use to threaten not just their neighbors, but also Americans for decades to come. For an American president, this is where the R2P needs to begin.

 

Not Satire: Kerry: Defaming Islam is as Bad as Rape

October 15, 2014

Kerry: Defaming Islam is as Bad as Rape, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 15, 2014

(Defamation: “the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.” Is Kerry “defaming” Islam with his false statements, or is he getting into the “war on women” by minimizing rape?– DM)

Kerry whispering

[T]he Islamic State is not insulting Islam. Its religious scholars know Islam far better than a scholar of windsurfing like Kerry does. Kerry released a press release in response to an ISIS magazine explaining the Islamic basis for their actions.

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

The Islamic State is Un-Islamic. But so is Islam.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry harshly condemned the treatment of women by the arch-terrorist organized death squad known as ISIS.

Kerry is horrified that ISIS “takes credit for the abduction, enslavement, rape, forced marriage and sale of several thousand Yezidi and other minority women and girls.”

“Just as despicably, ISIL rationalizes its abhorrent treatment of these women and girls by claiming it is somehow sanctioned by religion. Wrong. Dead wrong.”

“ISIL does not represent Islam and Islam does not condone or honor such depravity. In fact, these actions are a reminder that ISIL is an enemy of Islam.”

I don’t really see that ISIS’ supposed defamation of Islam is as bad as rape. Western elites are stuck in permanent hysteria over supposed Islamophobia, but the sale and rape of women and girls is a lot worse than any supposed insult to Islam.

Furthermore the Islamic State is not insulting Islam. Its religious scholars know Islam far better than a scholar of windsurfing like Kerry does. Kerry released a press release in response to an ISIS magazine explaining the Islamic basis for their actions.

If Kerry were really capable of debating the issue, he would have responded with citations from the Koran instead of hot air.

Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, enslaved and raped women. He married and raped a little girl. These facts are not in dispute.

His companions seized and looted property as well as people. Mohammed pocketed a percentage of the things they stole and the people. The women were raped. Sometimes he chose to marry them if they converted to Islam to get some control over the sexual violence that the earliest followers of Islam had subjected them to.

ISIS is pure Islam. It’s naked Islam. It’s Islam as it was practiced by Mohammed and his followers.

“We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’

Bukhari: 1:8:367

When Dihyah protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself, the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.

Ishaq:511

Iranian Speaker: Stop focusing on ‘trivial matters’ like centrifuges

October 15, 2014

Iranian Speaker: Stop focusing on ‘trivial matters’ like centrifuges

US rejects Tehran, Moscow’s suggestion to extend deadline for nuclear talks; ‘There is still time to get this done, if everybody can make the decisions they need to,’ says State Department official.

ReutersLatest Update: 10.15.14, 14:09 / Israel News

via Iranian Speaker: Stop focusing on ‘trivial matters’ like centrifuges – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US nuclear negotiators should stop focusing on Iran’s number of centrifuges and should push for a deal, which could help build confidence between Iran and the coalition of countries fighting against Islamic State militants, a senior Iranian politician said on Wednesday.

“This is something like a trivial matter and we should not bargain over trivial matters,” Iran’s Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, formerly Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, told a news conference in Geneva. “This is not going to be useful, this is not going to solve any real problems.”

The confidence-building Larijani said, could also help in efforts to combat the Islamic State. And while there is no natural, direct link between discussions over Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the struggle against Islamic State fighters, Larijani said, that the discussions “can be linked because there is confidence to be built here.”

‘Deal can still be reached by deadline’

A US State Department official said Wednesday world powers and Iran were not discussing extending the November 24 deadline for reaching an accord over Tehran’s nuclear program, adding there was still time to strike a deal.

However, the State Department official said there were still some significant gaps in negotiating positions on Iran’s uranium enrichment program: “We don’t know if we’ll be able to get to an agreement, we very well may not.”

The official spoke ahead of a meeting on Wednesday between US Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Vienna.

Kerry, Ashton and Zarif in nuclear talks (Photo: Reuters)
Kerry, Ashton and Zarif in nuclear talks (Photo: Reuters)

“We’re not talking about extension or anything like that in the room. We’re talking about getting this done by the 24th (of November),” the US official said.

Iran and the six major powers – the United States, France, Germany, China, Russia and Britain – aim to end a decade-old dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program by a self-imposed November 24 deadline. The talks are centred on curbing Iran’s atomic activities in exchange for a lifting of sanctions hurting its economy.

One of Iran’s chief negotiators, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, last week raised the possibility that the talks could be extended, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday said the deadline date was not “sacred”.

“I’m sure that a compromise is possible,” said Lavrov, during a visit to Paris where he met US Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday.

“I can’t guarantee you that it would be reached by November 24. This date is not sacred,” he told Russian television. “We are striving to reach a result before this date, but I’m sure that the main thing is not artificial schedules but the essence of the agreements. That is the main thing for us.”

But the State Department official said: “There is still time to get this done. There’s enough time to get the technical work done, to get the political agreement … if everybody can make the decisions they need to.”

“We keep chipping away … In places gaps have narrowed, but the Iranians have some fundamental decisions to make.”

Kerry said in Paris on Tuesday he did not believe that reaching a lasting accord within six weeks was out of reach, although he noted that many issues remained to be resolved.

Iran rejects Western allegations that it is seeking nuclear weapons capability, but has refused to halt uranium enrichment, and has been hit with US, EU and UN Security Council sanctions as a result.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the sides “might need more time” to discuss the issues and potential solutions, Iran’s ISNA news agency reported on Wednesday.

“We are reviewing all the possible solutions to end the disputes. The fact that there are eye-catching disputes, does not mean they cannot be resolved,” it quoted Zarif as saying after meeting Ashton in Vienna on Tuesday, where they will hold talks with Kerry on Wednesday.

“We have not reached a common conclusion yet, but I think it can be reached if there is a political will,” he added.

The danger of Obama’s strategy of linking Iran and ISIS for Israel.

October 15, 2014

The danger of Obama’s strategy of linking Iran and ISIS for Israel.AuthorBy Barry Shaw October 14, 2014

via The danger of Obama’s strategy of linking Iran and ISIS for Israel..

 

The danger of Obama's strategy of linking Iran and ISIS for Israel

In fifty days of Gaza conflict, Israel launched 5500 precision air strikes against terror targets. In 70+ days the US launched less than 400 strikes in Iraq and Syria against ISIS. Why?

It’s not lack of planes and fire power. It’s a lack of political will, despite all the rhetoric of having to degrade and defeat the Islamic State rampage and mayhem.

Despite Obama’s late decision to launch air strikes he has only tickled the enemy. He could do more. He won’t. He doesn’t want to. What is the reason for this procrastination?

Part of the reason for Obama’s reticence in attacking ISIS with more force seems to be contained in a think tank policy document he commissioned entitled

The Iran Project. Iran and its Neighbors. Regional Implications for US Policy of a Nuclear Agreement.”

Experts who signed off on this document include Thomas Pickering, Brent Scowcroft, Daniel Kurtzer, Nicholas Platt, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The document mistakenly sees the possibility of using ISIS to drive Iran and Israel closer together in a common cause. This misguided strategic fantasy is described thus, “If ISIS were to continue to progress, Israel and Iran might find themselves with a common enemy.”

The dream of bringing Iran and Israel together seems so devoutly to be wished by the Obama Administration that it surmounts any political reality to facts on the ground.

Could this be the reason that America has not applied the full measure of air power at its disposal in killing and driving back ISIS?

US president is cynically allowing thousands to be slaughtered in front of our eyes for a strategy that will never happen

If it is, it’s dangerous and false thinking. It appears as if the US president is cynically allowing thousands to be slaughtered in front of our eyes for a strategy that will never happen.

Does he, or his experts, really think that Iran and Israel will join his feckless coalition out of joint fear of ISIS? If so, he is dead wrong.

In contrast to President Obama’s recent statements, the document does call ISIS a state of sorts. “ISIS is no longer just aterrorist group but represents a hybrid state/non-state threat.”

The top strategic experts explain themselves thus,“In parts of the territory it now controls, ISIS exercises akind of governance: it collects revenue, executes brutal Islamist law, has apolice force, andcontrols a jihadist conventional army.”

The only force that is bravely standing and confronting ISIS on the ground are the Kurds, and yet Obama is still not arming them directly. He should. Instead, the documents points to the US Administration playing a double game by recruiting not only Iran but also Tehran’s ally Assad to fight against ISIS;

Syrian forces should be urged by Tehran to attack ISIS directly in Syria. Syrian military commanders, security personnel, and top government officials should be motivated to avoid an ISIS victory.”

However you read this, the Administration think tank policy document is calling on the White House to back an Iranian, Assad, even Hezbollah coalition to fight ISIS in Syria.

A nuclear agreement with Iran runs through the document. It is the center piece of a US Middle East policy. At parts it reads like an illusion world of smoke and mirrors. “A nuclear agreement could help the United States and its allies find common ground with Iran for a creative response to ISIS, although the United States must avoid seeming to ally itself with the Shi’a and thereby enhance the appeal of radicals to Sunnis.”

It is hard to comprehend a policy in which the ISIS threat is seemingly put off until after the signing of a nuclear agreement with Iran on the supposition that it will make for closer buddies between the rival states in the region. As if Saudi Arabia and Erdogan would link arms with Ayatollahs and Assad to defeat ISIS. If only! Putting off a strong direct attack on ISIS until after a nuclear deal with Iran is dangerous wishful thinking, not foreign policy.

The mixing of two unrelated issues, a nuclear deal with Iran and the threat of ISIS, leads to a muddling Middle East strategy. The dangers implied here is that it is impossible to defeat ISIS without a nuclear deal, and from that stems the desire to rush through a nuclear deal in order to solve the ISIS issue.

“The degradation and defeat of ISIS presents an opportunity for America to work even-handedly with the nations of the region to achieve a common goal. Cooperation with Iran would thus take place within a larger regional grouping that should include the Gulf States and Turkey in addition to the Government of Iraq.”

The reason this is doomed to failure is in the description of the nuclear deal that the Administration is trying to reach. It talks of “limiting” the Iranian program, “lengthening” the time for Iran to reach nuclear breakout, and “reducing” the risk that Iran “might” acquire nuclear weapons. It does not talk of stopping Iran’s march to a nuclear weapon.

Israel sees ISIS creeping closer to its border. It can visibly see the Al-Nusra terror group on the Golan Heights. ISIS is not far away, and the document states the threat for Israel;

“The ‘Islamic State’ declared an end tothe 1916 British and French-imposed Sykes—Picot borders, and announced that its next goal would be to free Palestine.”

This threat would give Israel a justification to get into the fight. If it did, it is more likely to assist the Kurds than get into bed with Iran, as the document wrongly suggests. Albeit indirectly arming and trained the brave Kurds, before the ISIS threat becomes a face-to-face confrontation for Israel, could become a necessity for Israel.

There is a case to be made for Israel to arm the Kurds, particularly in Iraq. The Kurds are as close to America and sympathetic to Israel’s plight in a radical region. They are more democratically minded than other players in the region. They have proven themselves to be the only courageous fighters on the ground in Iraq.

Israel sees convergence of interests with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt over the growing threat of the ISIS brand of Islamic terror. As happened with its conflict against Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, it is reasonable to assume that these countries will turn a blind eye to Israel arming the Kurds.

Israel looks on the Kurds with great sympathy, but it could do more. Helping them overcome their confrontation with ISIS would be one way for Israel to demonstrate to the world what a small, but courageous and just, coalition can achieve in a regional war against radical Islamic terror.

As the document states, “if allowed to consolidate its control over large parts of Syria and Iraq, ISIS would also represent a terrorist threat to the American homeland.”